February 22, 2020
MY CORNER by Boyd
Cathey
They’re Coming to
Get You! Build that Bomb Shelter NOW!
Friends,
Right
after the installment of MY
CORNER of February 14 appeared, it was picked up and published
nationally by LewRockwell.com. It was almost as if some well-placed Intel
spook had met with me at “Rick’s Café Americain” (remember the film “Casablanca”?)
and secretly revealed what was going to happen. The “Russia Hoax” was going to
be fully reborn (in fact, as I wrote, it had never gone away). Like Dr.
Frankenstein’s monster it emerged again from our corrupted and corrupt
Intelligence agencies (those government apparatchiks who are beginning to make
Inspector Clouseau look like a genius) and the bowels of the frenetically
ideological New York Times (and those
poisoned zombie-brains in Congress, e.g. Adam Schiff). The Mueller Commission,
try as it did, couldn’t find anything substantive because there isn’t and
wasn’t anything there, save for the putrid defecation of three years of
strenuous Deep State “investigation.” But with the crop of Establishment
Democrat candidates for president looking increasingly like a lesser version
the Keystone Kops, something—anything—had to be found, some additional
obstacle, some roadblock to stop “the Donald,” and much more dangerously, the
counter-revolution that he has (at times, quite unwittingly) unleashed.
How
better to do this than have the president’s own Director of National
Intelligence, along with his Deep State ideological “Intel savants” (a true
oxymoron!), brief Schiff and top Democrats, and without the president even
knowing it! Ha! Talk about your own team
sabotaging you—anyone remember those words of Julius Caesar: “Et tu, Brute?” And you also, Brutus? But
it doesn’t take a Shakespeare play to instruct us on what is going on. As I
have repeated too many times to count, President Trump’s major problem is that
he has surrounded himself with Neoconservative and Deep State minions who
diametrically oppose his announced agenda, and they have done everything
possible—with some real success, especially in foreign affairs—to stymy and
obstruct it.
Those
once highly regarded agencies—the FBI, the CIA, the NSA—haven’t gotten much
right since they officiously proclaimed from on high their dogmatic, infallible
judgment about “weapons of mass destruction” hiding in Saddam Hussein’s outdoor
outhouse. Their active immersion in the government-engineered plot to bring
down a president—the Steele Dossier, the inveigling of General Flynn, Roger
Stone, George Papadopoulos, etc., their use of British “intelligence” (the
Brits stopped having “intelligence” after Enoch Powell’s warnings about
unlimited immigration were ignored)—has revealed for anyone with eyes to see
the fact that, at least in the upper echelons, those agencies form an integral
part, an active arm of the managerial state apparatus that seeks to strangle
any real dissent or opposition to its
New World Order designs.
Even
so-called “conservatives”—the Neoconservatives, whom I often criticize—accept
the Russia boogeyman narrative. But it’s not so much Trump who is the target,
it seems, but in their version the Russkies are just warmed-over Communists who
want to “destroy our democracy.” The Cold War, in their pygmy-sized brains,
continues unabated, and even the vaunted Rush Limbaugh has very real difficulty
distinguishing the Communist Soviet Union and post-1991 Russia. Flying in the
face of subsequent history and fact, he uses the terms interchangeably: true,
palpable historical ignorance on parade. For him and the zealous Neocon
interventionists it is still October 1962 and we are still mired in the Cuban
Missile Crisis, although now it has been miraculously transposed over to
Ukraine. Just ask John Bolton (or the late, unlamented John McCain).
The other
night I made myself listen to “Special Report with Bret Baier,” where the Fox
News “All Stars” held forth, fully accepting the Hoax—yes, of course, they
solemnly declared, the Russians are messing with and meddling in our 2020
election cycle, just like in 2016. The
Intel folks—whose probity and diligence cannot be doubted!—say so. And Chris
Wallace (who is by no means a “conservative” of any flavor) pronounced to Ed
Henry on another segment that very simply “we must take these active threats
very, very seriously. The Russians are AGAIN manipulating our elections.”
Got that?
I almost
regretted not signing up with that contractor who offered to build me a bomb
shelter in my ample back yard. For only $125,000 he could construct for me an
underground bunker that would withstand those incoming Russian MiGs….
Suddenly,
I was put in mind of that satirical film from 1964, Dr. Strangelove. And I wondered if, echoing Peter Sellers in that
scintillating cinema, the likes of Bolton, Bill Kristol, Max Boot, and those
agents of Russophobia who now surround the president and have turned our Intel
agencies and Congress into little more than a herd of docile bovines (with the
connivance of all our television
networks), we would finally see and experience the “Doomsday Weapon” (as in the
final scene of the film).
Although
from somewhat different perspectives and viewpoints, Establishment Conservatism
(i.e, the Neocons) and the Left have made post-Communist Russia their target.
Yet, the major threat by far—very far—is what the actually Communist Chinese
are doing and have done. Adam Schiff doesn’t talk about that, and neither do
most politicians or major American big name capitalists, because the Chinese
Reds already own and dominate so much of this country’s infrastructure and
business.
And the
fact—still mostly hidden from most Americans—that post-1991 Russia has actually
turned towards its traditional religious faith and conservative (especially
moral) traditions doesn’t go over well with the transgender-pushing, pro-same
sex marriage establishment which dominates both political parties, both
Leftwing AND Conservative, here in the United States. Recall John McCain
bitterly criticizing Vladimir Putin for his “persecution” and suppression of
lesbians (i.e., “Pussy Riot”) and same sex supporters in Mother Russia?
This is
what Mainstream Conservatism has become: a sordid and decrepit second cousin of
the rapidly advancing Leftist juggernaut. And, once again, I quote Robert Lewis
Dabney’s apposite words:
This is a party which never conserves
anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the
progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of
growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted
novelty of yesterday is to-day one of the accepted principles of conservatism;
it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which
will to-morrow be forced upon its timidity, and will be succeeded by some third
revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn.
American conservatism is merely the shadow
that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains
behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This
pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it he salted? Its
impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the
conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to
risk nothing serious, for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being
guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always—when about to enter a protest—very
blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its ‘bark is
worse than its bite,’ and that it only means to save its manners by enacting
its decent rôle of resistance.
The only practical purpose which it now
subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep
it ‘in wind,’ and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to
whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women's suffrage shall have become an
accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and
thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar
weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it
will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution
requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with
great dignity, its final position.
As we
hurdle on to diabolical moral degradation in America, each step worse than the
last, even though our masters tell us not to worry and just accept it, our
supposed opponents in Moscow, Kazan and Novgorod recover and celebrate their
Christian and moral beliefs and inheritance.
What irony!
Is this not a full exemplification of Gilbert and Sullivan’s image of "topsy-turvy"?
And for
the American traditionalist, for the orthodox Christian, to quote Patrick
Buchanan: “On
whose side is God NOW on?
**********
I pass on the LewRockwell.com
issue from February 17:
By Boyd D. Cathey My
Corner
February 17, 2020
Although the farcical Mueller Commission is now ended and even
the results it came up with, practically speaking, effectively exonerated the
president, to listen to various members of the media, including many Fox
pundits, most Democrats and many Republicans, it was if there was no
“investigation” at all. The same “Russia Hoax” narrative continues: just listen
to Representative Adam Schiff spiel on for a while. For such national
personalities nothing has really changed.
This template, despite what we now know and always have known,
continues frenetically and unabated before our eyes. It’s why Roger Stone faces
prison time, essentially because he was convicted for lying about non-existent
Russian subversion in America elections.
“Russia is bad,” we are told, and its president, Vladimir Putin,
is really, really bad. Why, he may be as bad as, let’s see, maybe those old
Commies prior to 1991, or maybe he IS a Commie? Certainly, say Fox interviewees
like Representatives Dan Crenshaw and Adan Kinzinger, or Neoconservative
publicists such as Jonah Goldberg. Communism, it seems, still rampages and
“Russia is still our Number One Enemy” (remember Mitt Romney saying that?).
friend
Dr. Paul Gottfried just recently sent me a news article; it concerns something
President Vladimir Putin recently said and was quoted by Reuters news service (February 13),
specifically, that in no uncertain terms he totally ruled out homosexual
marriage in Russia. In reference to discussions over modifications to the
Russian constitution he declared: “As far as ‘parent number 1’ and ‘parent
number 2’ goes, I’ve already spoken publicly about this and I’ll repeat it
again: as long as I’m president this will not happen. There will be dad and
mum.”
Indeed, back in December, addressing a meeting in the Kremlin
Putin forcefully reaffirmed his nation’s commitment to traditional
matrimony:
President Vladimir Putin remarked at a recent Kremlin meeting
that some countries are replacing the word “mother” out of concerns for
political correctness, something he hoped ‘would never happen in Russia’. Putin
was referring to a law passed in France earlier this year which mandates that
schools refrain from using ‘father’ and ‘mother’ and instead use ‘parent 1’ and
‘parent 2’. According to government MP Valérie Petit, the change was necessary
because using ‘father’ and ‘mother’ is “old fashioned” and doesn’t meet the
needs of “social equality.” Don’t expect to see Russia following suit.
During a meeting of the Council for Interethnic Relations, a
Kremlin advisory group, Putin told delegates, “You said the word mother ‘can’t be
replaced.’ It turns out, perhaps, it can; in some countries, they now have
‘parent number one’ and ‘parent number two.’ I hope we will
never have that (in Russia). I will do everything to stop it.”
Back in June, Vladimir Putin commented on a similar topic,
asserting that liberalism was in its death throws thanks to forced
multiculturalism. “The ruling elites have broken away from the
people,” Putin told the Financial Times, adding that
the “so-called liberal idea has outlived its purpose.”
This is not new; Putin’s statements and vision for Russia are
not secret. Yet, to listen to the American media, very little of what he has
said and very little of the legislative action of the Russian Duma (parliament)
is reported by the American press. Or, if it is reported, it is done
in such a way as to portray the Russian president and his country in an
extremely negative and hostile light. Russia, it is repeated daily, is
“authoritarian,” anti-democratic, does not respect human rights and persecutes
minorities (e.g., homosexuals, lesbians, etc.); it is aggressive and has
“invaded” its neighbors (e.g., Ukraine, Georgia). And Putin is a “KGB thug” who
“wants to restore the Soviet Union” (cf., Representative Kinzinger).
Over the past six or so years I have written extensively about
this narrative. Very simply it is the iron-cage ideological framework that now
dominates both Democratic and Republican parties, with a few exceptions. There
are voices raised in objection to it: Professors Stephen Cohen (Princeton
University) and Paul Robinson (University of Ottawa), and Tucker Carlson on his
nightly television program (with guests like former colonel and consultant
Douglas MacGregor), and maybe Senator Rand Paul in Congress. But those voices
are few in the spectrum of political opinion here in the United States.
The major media, including to a large extent Fox, simply avoid
actually quoting Putin, and every action taken in Russia is a perceived threat
to America, or to “the sanctity of our democratic elections.”
When was the last time, for instance, that you heard a major
American news outlet actually cite something Putin said, a speech, an official
statement of Russian policy? Just to take one example—there are many—back on
September 20, 2013 he spoke to the annual International Valdai Forum. Here
is just a portion of that speech, made before a gathering of representatives
from around the world:
“…We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are
actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute
the basis of Western civilisation. They are denying moral principles and all
traditional identities: national, cultural, religious and even sexual. They are
implementing policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships,
belief in God with the belief in Satan.
“The excesses of political correctness have reached the point
where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose
aim is to promote paedophilia. People in many European countries are
embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are
abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as
is their moral foundation. And people are aggressively trying to export this
model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to
degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral
crisis.
“What else but the loss of the ability to self-reproduce could
act as the greatest testimony of the moral crisis facing a human society? Today
almost all developed nations are no longer able to reproduce themselves, even
with the help of migration. Without the values embedded
in Christianity and other world religions, without the standards of morality
that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human
dignity. We consider it natural and right to defend these values.
One must respect every minority’s right to be different, but the rights of the
majority must not be put into question.”
I have cited these remarks previously; they are not unique. For
Putin has been saying the same thing for years—and enacting legislation
mirroring what he says that also reflects the desires and aspirations of the
great majority of Russia’s citizenry.
Back a little over five years ago I authored a longish
researched essay on Vladimir Putin and what has been and is going on in Russia
since the fall of Communism in the fall of 1991. Although the essay could use
some updating, the essential information I provide remains accurate and, I
believe, useful.
I am passing it along today:
