Thursday, March 19, 2020

March 19, 2020

MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey

More on COVID-19…from Peter Hitchens and Pat Buchanan
Friends,
If you watch any network television (other than movie channels) or tune into the Internet or Facebook or Twitter, then you have been deluged by news of the Coronavirus-19 [COVID-19], with widely diverging stories and reports. In one brief twenty minute period yesterday I heard one “expert” declaim that the United States was headed for the worst crisis, health-wise, since the Spanish flu that killed nearly 700,000 Americans in 1918, while another “expert” averred that we should pass the real crisis point, the expansion point, by mid-April and get better after that.

After a half hour of this madness, I switched to the Sirius classical music channel: better to have the inspiring—and comforting—sounds of Johannes Brahms and Sir Edgar Elgar, than the constant deluge of hysteria, parading as “facts.”

Don’t get me wrong: this COVID-19 epidemic is a real crisis undoubtedly; it has serious ramifications not only in and on this nation’s health and health response, but perhaps even more dramatically, in our economy. And proactive and swift action at every level is dictated and necessary. That much, yes, and all Americans simply must collaborate in this national effort.

But, as in most major crises—recall 9/11, swine flu—oftentimes it is not the appropriate measures and sound advice that are seized upon, but a resulting public panic, the fear, and—shall we call it what it is—a type of madness that is even more worrying.

Fueled by all sorts of radically divergent (but imperious) pronouncements, I can imagine a housewife sitting at home with her three noisy out-of-school underage children viewing these reports and literally being overwhelmed by anxiety and worry: one more furtive trip to Harris Teeter or Food Lion to search the shelves for toilet tissue! And what if hubby gets laid off, if only temporarily; how does the mortgage get paid?

These are, it is true, very legitimate questions, and they severely affect millions of Americans. They must be addressed, and hopefully the president in his various initiatives will do just that.  Unfortunately, we have reached the point where events have progressed too far, the fear aggravated too much, and thus, while this public frenzy did not have to happen, could have been avoided, it’s now with us and seems to affect nearly everyone. In other words: the horse is already out of the barn.

If we stand back and take a longer view (which may only happen after this epidemic passes), this public panic—this madness—is a major argument against the effects of the kind of consumerist, media-addicted culture that engulfs us. In our society, prudence and rationality are in short supply, as anyone who has made that last trip to Food Lion already knows. Just like in the worst ravages of influenza, simple proactive measures and responsibility have been needed, not hysteria. But we have now probably gone beyond that point, and the more drastic initiatives talked about by the president seem imminent.
That doesn’t alter our current situation, but, let me ask, when this epidemic subsides and there is some recovery, will we engage in a serious examination—of the nature and resources of our health sector (e.g, why do we depend almost totally on China and other countries for our antibiotics?), of our economy and its dependency on a dangerous globalism, of the absolute need to enforce border and immigration restrictions, and perhaps most elusively, of the—I would say—largely deleterious role of our media in all this?

No easy answers, but these are examinations that demand consideration. Alas, given the nature of our decadent and corrupt democracy, although needed, I have to wonder if we will learn any lessons.
*************
Two short essays today. The first is by conservative English contrarian, Peter Hitchens, who writes for the [London UK] Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday. His acerbic comments may irritate some, but he also raises some provocative points that deserve airing.  The second essay is a very recent column by Pat Buchanan, basically stating that the worldwide COVID-19 epidemic, with the resulting actions by various nations may be a real setback for globalism.

PETER HITCHENS: Yes, coronavirus poses a risk - but our response to it is not intelligent or useful. Britain is infected... by a bad case of madness


14 March 2020 11:00 PM


This is Peter Hitchens’s Mail on Sunday column
We have gone quite mad. I know that many people are thinking this, but dare not say so.  I will be accused of all kinds of terrible things for taking this view – but that is another aspect of how crazy things are.
Yes, coronavirus poses a risk. No, our response to it is not intelligent or useful. In fact, I think it is increasingly damaging and will soon become more so.
The key word here is proportion. There is nothing wrong with simple, practical precautions. 
I have for many years believed that door handles pose one of the greatest threats to health, and try never to touch them with the naked hand. I was taught from my earliest years to wash my hands before eating.
I am a health faddist. I work at a standing desk. For many years I have walked and bicycled wherever I can. I often take the stairs rather than the lift. I can’t understand how anyone in my generation or younger can smoke, given what we know about it. 
I regard sugar as a delicious poison to be avoided as much as possible. I drink little. I get up early and go to bed early. I believe cars are heart-attack machines, noisy, smelly, ugly devices, which depreciate in the gutter while they are not stopping us from exercising and wrecking our lower backs. Yet our country is so badly planned that few families can manage without them nowadays.
For these reasons, I reckon that my risk from coronavirus is quite small. If I catch it, and I quite possibly will, I doubt it will trouble me all that much. 
The truth is, people with what are called ‘underlying conditions’, many of which follow decades without exercise, are in danger not just from coronavirus but from almost everything. If the Government is so worried about them, why has it followed transport and housing policies that have made it hard and dangerous to walk or bicycle, and so devastated the health of the people? 
I must ask them: are you really worried about our health, or are you just afraid of being blamed for a small number of the deaths that your policies are causing?  And are you just anxious to try to demonstrate how good you are? In such matters, we fuss where we do not need to, and do nothing where urgent action is required.
If a train crashed tomorrow and ten people died, it would be huge headlines for days, even though railways are, in fact, extremely safe. An inquiry would be held.  But each year more than 1,700 people die in road crashes, and another 25,000 are seriously injured, and it barely registers, because their lives are ended or ruined in ones and twos.
Governments distil fear into power. In a way, they are right to do so. We fear foreign invasion. The State builds a navy to protect us. We fear crime and disorder. 
The State hires police and builds prisons. But they have become less and less good at these basic tasks, and perhaps they now seek other fields, where they can show how much we need them. 
I have serious doubts about whether our Government has any idea how to slow the spread of this virus. I suspect it quietly reached these shores long before anyone noticed.
But I am quite sure that many of the current panic measures do far more harm than good. They create the idea that we are in the midst of a terrifying plague that will kill us all, when the truth – though disturbing – is far less frightening.
Their worst effect is to savage the economy by scaring people away from normal activities. 
I went to the cinema last Sunday evening and there were six people in the theatre for what ought to be a successful film.  A florist known to me has just lost hundreds of pounds in business from cancelled events this weekend. 
We have all seen the staggering, tottering behaviour of the stock markets, possibly triggered and certainly worsened by virus frenzy.
No doubt it will soon become impossible, under some frantic Emergency Powers Regime, to make this point. I’ll be accused of giving aid and comfort to the virus, or of spreading Alarm and Despondency. 
But before the roadblocks go up, and you need a pass to go to work, I thought I’d say it anyway. 

In the Pandemic, It's Every Nation for Itself
By Patrick J. Buchanan   Tuesday - March 17, 2020


"The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our life-time," said Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey to a friend on the eve of Britain's entry into the First World War. Observing from afar as the coronavirus pandemic ravages the Old Continent, Grey's words return to mind. And as the Great War changed Europe forever, the COVID-19 pandemic seems to be changing the way European peoples see each other.

"All for one and one for all!" These were the words by which "The Three Musketeers" of Alexandre Dumas lived their lives.

This was the ideal upon which the EU and NATO were built. An attack against one is an attack against all. The Schengen Agreement by which citizens of Europe are as free to travel through the countries of their continent as Americans are to travel from Maryland to Virginia is rooted in that ideal.

Yet, suddenly, all that seems to belong to yesterday.

How the EU's nation-states are reacting to the coronavirus crisis brings to mind another phrase, a French phrase, "Sauve qui peut," a rough translation of which is, "Every man for himself."

The New York Times has written of the new reality. In Sunday's top story, "Europe Locks Up and Faces Crisis as Virus Spread," the Times wrote:

"While some European leaders, like President Emmanuel Macron of France, have called for intensifying cooperation across nations, others are trying to close their countries off.  From Denmark to Slovakia, governments went into aggressive virus-fighting mode with border closings."

Describing a host of countries heeding the call of tribalism and nationalism, the Times laments Monday:

"Today, Europeans are... erecting borders between countries, inside their cities and neighborhoods, around their homes — to protect themselves from their neighbors, even from their own grandchildren. Confronting a virus that knows no borders, this modern Europe without borders is building them everywhere."

In a few days, the Europe of open borders has become history.

"As the pandemic spreads from Italy to Spain, France, Germany," reports the Times, "there is a growing sense of the need for harsh, even authoritarian methods, many of them taken from China.

"Europe has been terrified by Italy. Suddenly, many of the continent's countries are trying to lock down, to protect themselves and their citizens. The idea of European solidarity, and of a borderless Europe where citizens are free to travel and work, seems very far away."

Italy, hardest-hit country after China, is on lockdown. Germany is closing its borders with Austria, Denmark, France, Luxembourg and Switzerland. The Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia have announced they will close borders to all foreigners. President Donald Trump has expanded his travel ban on Europe to include two of America's oldest friends, Britain and Ireland.

Slovenia has closed its border with Italy. Norway is on lockdown. International travelers who arrive in Norway risk a mandatory 14-day quarantine, regardless of their health.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has announced that Canada is barring entry to all travelers who are not citizens or permanent residents. The only exceptions are air crews, diplomats, and, "at this time," U.S. citizens.

What we are witnessing is the clash of the claims of human nature and of ideology. Through history, most men have put attachments of family, tribe, faith, country, race and nation above the claims of liberal ideology.

But while all citizens may have the same God-given right to life and constitutional right to "equal protection of the laws," all people do not have equal rights to our affections or concerns.

For most men, the claims of the heart are superior to those of the mind. Foreign folks do not have the same claims upon us as our own. In a crisis, people put families, friends and country first.

In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson declares that, "all men are created equal." Yet, what truly seems to enrage him and to justify the rebellion against George III are the crimes the king had committed and that he had been "deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity."

The king had violated the claims of our common blood while we Americans had not been "wanting in attentions to our British brethren."

Closing borders is a grievous offense against liberalism that is supposedly rooted in the sin of xenophobia. But what governments in Europe are saying by closing their borders, what Americans are saying by banning travel from Europe, is that while all men may be created equal, we will always put our own people first, ahead of the rest.

When a crisis comes, be it a war in which the survival of the nation is at stake or an epidemic where the health and survival of our people is at stake, we take care of our own first.

This is human nature. This is the way the world works.

Sunday, March 15, 2020

March 15, 2020

MY CORNER  by Boyd Cathey

CORONAVIRUS-19 – What Is Really Going On?

Friends,
Saturday early afternoon is my regular grocery shopping time: almost every Saturday I dedicate an hour or two to stocking up for the following week. I’ve been going to my local (Wendell NC) Food Lion now for twenty-seven years. The staff there is friendly and helpful, and most of them know me by my first name. And I almost always find what I am looking for.

Yesterday I went for my usual visit, and the place was like a war zone: long lines, frantic women loaded down with toilet tissue (which was almost all gone from the shelves), hand sanitizer sold out, bread and soup in very short supply, and even store-bought water running low. As one store assistant—a long-time friend—told me: “This is worse than Hurricane Matthew or Fran, or maybe the last Winter blizzard we had!”

Such shortages don’t affect me, since I live by myself (except for my handsome Cocker Spaniel), and I always keep a stock of necessary items on hand. (I learned that lesson back during the ravages of Hurricane Fran in 1996 when I was without power for eleven days!) But the extreme panic struck me.

And I thought to myself: the role of the media in generating this is very significant.

Now I am not an assiduous viewer of network television—I much prefer, if I watch the Boob Tube at all, to catch an entertaining old oater (say, with Randolph Scott or Audie Murphy) on Encore Westerns or a timeless classic on TCM. But I have noticed, that as much as the media profess to present the “facts,” their lurid presentations of the ravages of this latest Coronavirus (COVID-19) and its effects have only heightened the edginess and fears of an unwary and spooked public.

Nationally, to take only an example, just this morning the inveterate anti-Trumper, Chris Wallace, interviewed on Fox both Dr. Anthony Fauci of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. And Wallace tried every way he could to get them both to admit that the very fate of the nation was at stake, that we were headed for the direst of dire events—a terrifying recession, if not worse, and that President Trump had been “too slow” and confused in reacting. Their responses to an insistent Wallace were largely reassuring to anyone watching…but Chris seemed not at all deterred.

Worse still has been much of the local media. A regional television station in this area—NBC-affiliate WRAL—loudly proclaims that its only desire is to give viewers factual information, yet its coverage, replete with rumors and selected horror stories, has been nothing less than scandalous and hysterical.

One doctor the station located predicted millions would become sick, but failed to note that many millions get the flu each year as well. And thousands die from the flu annually. The death rate from COVID-19 (which is a variant strain similar to the flu) is between 1% and 2% in the United States, and the great majority of those, according to the CDC, are the elderly with existent serious health issues, again similar to the effects of influenza.

There is, of course, a definite political twist to all this. Take for example the early reaction of leading Democrats and in particular of Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, who have criticized the president for “lack of action.” Given President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency this week and additional proactive measures by the administration and by Congress, some of this talk may lessen (but don’t bet on it). Recall the phrase of Mayor Rahm Emmanuel: “Never let a crisis go to waste [politically].” Expect to see the Democratic candidates and most especially the Internet and Twitter-world continue to ramp up and hype ignorantly this “crisis” and continue to “shout fire! fire!” and pretend that we are all contained in a crowded movie theater with the doors locked.

It has become one more stone to throw at the president. The Russia Hoax, the Kavanaugh caper, Michael Cohen, the Ukraine quid pro quo—they have all been trotted out to bring him down, and like darts which failed to strike the dart board, they’ve come up short. For far too many frenzied anti- and Never Trumpers, this COVID-19 situation presents one more opportunity to strike at the heart of the hated Donald.

And, if you can stomach it, take a peek at the coverage on MSNBC or CNN, and there, voila!, you will learn that to attribute this latest coronavirus to Chinese ineptitude is “racist,” to call it “Chinese Coronavirus” is another example of “Western white supremacy.” Maybe it has been in fact a plot hatched by some reactionary old white men huddled in the basement of the White House, intent on devastating brown and black peoples across the globe? Think I’m kidding? At this point and in this perfervid intellectual climate, I wouldn’t gainsay it.

After all is said and done, it comes down to these questions: what is the actual situation in the United States, what should I (and my family) do to avoid infection (practical steps), and what are the symptoms of COVID-19. And overall how should we react, prudently and rationally…and not like a heard of Gadarene swine plunging off the cliff into the Sea of Galilee.

The surest and most accurate source of up-to-date information is the Federal government’s own special Coronvirus-19 Web site, which offers essential details.

As Dr. Fauci and the CDC have stated, the symptoms of COVID-19 are characterized by a very high fever, a deeply-based cough, a noticeable shortness of breath, persistent pain in the chest, and in more serious cases possible mental disorientation.  In fact, these symptoms are similar to those of aggravated influenza or pneumonia, and the need to treat them medically is very much like the treatment of those illnesses: strong antibiotics, constant hydration, and self-isolation until those conditions go away—with a visit to one’s doctor or an emergency room only in extreme cases.

And, just like the flu—and clearly evident in the presently-counted cases—for most people exposed and the great majority contracting the infection the illness will not be life-threatening at all. Again, those most at risk—just like with influenza and pneumonia strains—will be the elderly with persistent health and immunity issues. Like with the flu most contracting COVID-19 who act reasonably and prudently (and without the frenzy I witnessed at Food Lion yesterday!) will fully recover.

Certainly, there are simple measures to avert infection and they should include frequent handwashing with anti-bacterial products, avoiding close or intimate contact with those with evident coughing and sneezing problems (and if you yourself are beset with persistent deep coughing, high fever and sneezing, cover up and depending on the severity, contact your physician).

Unfortunately the panic continues. The stock market has taken a hit; the airlines and travel businesses have seen a precipitous decline in business; many schools have let out, and with underage children at home, two-working-parent households are in a quandary. Perhaps millions will suffer economically in the short term. The president has taken bold action, and we shall see what effect the concerted actions—most likely over-actions—of government have.


In the meantime, the grocery store shelves—the Walmart specials—the CVS displays remain cleaned out. Toilet tissue is nowhere to be had. In such cases, alas, my best advice to you is to invest in one of those foreign-style bidets, or barring that, if you can find some old Sears and Roebuck catalogs still around….snatch them up!

Thursday, March 12, 2020


March 12, 2020

MY CORNER by Boyd

Russia Now Proclaims a "Belief in God to be Fundamental," while the US Embraces Paganism

Friends,
Over the past six years I have written several essays and in-depth articles about Russia, about its president Vladimir Putin, and about the incredibly long-lived charade—the Russia Hoax—which has been foisted off on the American public, including on millions of those who call themselves “conservatives” and support Donald Trump.
It’s a constant narrative that we are spoon fed nightly, and not just by the Mainstream Media (e.g., CNN, NBC, The New York Times, etc.), but vociferously by most pundits on Fox (with the exception of Tucker Carlson) and by much of the establishment “conservative” print media.
As I have noted and attempted to dissect, it is almost as if the fall of Soviet Communism in August 1991 never took place and the old Soviet Union somehow continued to exist and threaten our very lives and future with
“mutually-assured-destruction” (remember that term from our Cold War vocabulary?).
Despite the nugatory results of the heavily Democratically-weighted Mueller Commission and the continued hysterical sqwawks of Congressmen Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler—what does it tell us about our American political system that such men get elected?-- the success of that template in our popular culture is clearly evident.
But more than this resilient deep-seated impression, there is something far more sinister afoot.
The late Senator John McCain—notoriously—and  Senators Lindsey Graham and Ben Sasse, James Kirchick, Jonah Goldberg, and other Neoconservatives—those who form the veritable “conservative establishment” in our day—have attacked and criticized Russia and its president for “violations of human rights,” for discrimination against lesbians and homosexuals, for imposing a “religious orthodoxy” on Russia, and for “not being democratic” enough. 
In other words, those Russkies should be more like us and our model democracy, right?
That is, a system here in the United States where elections are bought and sold by major corporate and international billionaires, a system where George Soros can pour in millions of dollars to a targeted local race and convince (via ads and TV) voters to elect his chosen candidate (e.g., in Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc.), a system where the liberal-dominated courts refuse to countenance even the most minor voter ID conditions, a system where two giant incestuous power groups (Democrats and Republicans) literally control the real choices we have…that model democracy.
We officiously want the Russians to install that? We demand—in the name of “democracy” and “human rights”—that our corrupt model be their model. And in so demanding we follow along exactly the pathway of the George Soros’s of this world and the other anxious globalists for whom any real sign of independence, of attachment to national and native traditions, of true religious belief, and of adherence to moral law is anathema and verboten in the New World Order.
There is a reason why the Neoconservative/Conservative “establishment” and the Progressivists are joined at the hip when it comes to post-Communist Russia: and it is that what has occurred and is occurring there is an embarrassment and a reminder of what we once aspired to—a reminder of what Western Christian civilization once held to be fundamental—a reminder of what our historic culture was actually based on and in. What Russia has been doing and achieving cannot be allowed to stand, and certainly it cannot be described in any fair or faithful manner by Mainstream Media, lest the veil and scales on our eyes by removed.
For Russia has become, ironically, a veritable “sign of contradiction,” a sign that should shame us and shame this American nation, the proclaimed “home of freedom and liberty” founded on immutable principles based in a belief in God and His Providence…and look what has happened to us now.
I pass on two short items: first, a short abbreviated item on new constitutional changes in Russia—where on “conservative media” [sic!] have you heard these mentioned? Maybe those “conservative pundits” don’t want you to know…
Second, I offer another of my essays that appeared on LewRockwell.com, “They’re Coming to Get You! Build that Bomb Shelter Now!”

Russia passes Constitutional Reform

Mar 11th 2020 5:13AM
MOSCOW (AP) — The Russian parliament approved a sweeping constitutional reform in the third and final reading Wednesday, a move that will allow President Vladimir Putin to stay in power for another 12 years after his current term ends in 2024. [….]
The constitutional reform passed by the Duma on Wednesday would allow Putin to run for presidency two more times after 2024. Ahead of the national vote, it will be reviewed by Russia's Constitutional Court.
The changes redistribute the executive powers of the Russian government in Moscow and further strengthen the power of the presidency, while also banning same-sex marriage, prohibiting public homosexual displays, insisting on traditional religious instruction in Russian schools and armed forces, and listing “a belief in God” as one of Russia's fundamental values.
LewRockwell.com anti-state•anti-war•pro-market

They’re Coming to Get You! Build that Bomb Shelter NOW!

By Boyd D. Cathey
My Corner  February 24, 2020

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?
**********

Reprinted with the author’s permission.

Sunday, March 8, 2020

March 8, 2020

MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey

Karl MARX’s Influence on Abraham LINCOLN


Friends,
These columns don’t often cite The Washington Post; however, last summer I ran across an article that I saved for future reference and use. And today I will reproduce it.
For the past century and more there has been lively discussion—and debate—over Abraham Lincoln, his life, his views, and the legacy of his presidency left to us. Writers as diverse as historian David Donald, black writer Lerone Bennett, and Professor Thomas di Lorenzo (in two significant books), have attempted to dissect Lincoln’s life and the revolutionary “new” America he gave birth to. Most recently those Neoconservatives—those “establishment” conservatives whose “conservatism” is actually rooted in a variant of Marxism—have claimed Father Abe for their own, denouncing any and all traditional conservatives or Southern writers who might criticize him or dissent from their virtual canonization of the rail-splitter.
Only consider the watershed “case” of the late Dr. Mel Bradford, the distinguished Southern scholar and writer, who was considered back in 1981 by President Reagan as his appointee to head the National Endowment for the Humanities. Backed by Senators Jesse Helms and John East of North Carolina, and by Democrat Senator Howell Heflin of Alabama, Bradford was viciously attacked by Neocon journalist George Will and other Neocon publicists such as Bill Kristol. In the end Reagan appointed Neocon-favored Democrat William Bennett.
Bradford’s major “crime”?  He had engaged in a long-running, scholarly debate with Dr. Harry Jaffa (Claremont College, California), very critical of Lincoln’s deleterious influence on America. (There is an excellent and full discussion of this extremely significant episode by Scott Trask and Paul Gottfried in the February 2020 issue of CHRONICLES magazine. I highly recommend subscribing to this journal which is by far the best print magazine of opinion, history and culture published in the United States.)
Like Martin Luther King Jr., Lincoln has been boosted to ethereal heights in American history and politics. Despite the ongoing discussion, his virtual triumph as a demi-god and the Founder of a New America who actually implemented the promises of the Declaration of Independence, demonstrate the triumph of one of the most fraudulent and perverse charades in our history.
The article first published in the Post last year raises important questions, but unfortunately those questions will not be seriously considered by Neocon ideologues like historically-challenged Dinesh D’Souza or Ben Shapiro or Jonah Goldberg, who remain mired in what is essentially a Leftwing bog contaminated at its very base by a whole series of progressivist positions and assumptions about civil rights and globalism....

You know who was into Karl Marx? No, not AOC. Abraham Lincoln.


The two men were friendly and influenced each other

July 27, 2019 at 7:00 AM EDT
It was December 1861, a Tuesday at noon, when President Abraham Lincoln sent his first annual message ⁠ — what later became the State of the Union ⁠— to the House and Senate. By the next day, all 7,000 words of the manuscript were published in newspapers across the country, including the Confederate South. This was Lincoln’s first chance to speak to the nation at length since his inaugural address. He railed against the “disloyal citizens” rebelling against the Union, touted the strength of the Army and Navy, and updated Congress on the budget.

For his eloquent closer, he chose not a soliloquy on unity or freedom but an 800-word meditation on what the Chicago Tribune subtitled “Capital Versus Labor:” “Labor is prior to and independent of capital,” the country’s 16th president said. “Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”

If you think that sounds like something Karl Marx would write, well, that might be because Lincoln was regularly reading Karl Marx.

President Trump has added a new arrow in his quiver of attacks as of late, charging that a vote for “any Democrat” in the next election “is a vote for the rise of radical socialism” and that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and other congresswomen of color are “a bunch of communists.” Yet the first Republican president, for whom Trump has expressed admiration, was surrounded by socialists and looked to them for counsel.

Of course, Lincoln was not a socialist, nor communist nor Marxist, just as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) aren’t. (Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) identify as “democratic socialists.”) But Lincoln and Marx ⁠— born only nine years apart ⁠— were contemporaries. They had many mutual friends, read each other’s work and, in 1865, exchanged letters.

When Lincoln served his sole term in Congress in the late 1840s, the young lawyer from Illinois became close friends with Horace Greeley, a fellow Whig who served briefly alongside him. Greeley was better known as the founder of the New York Tribune, the newspaper largely responsible for transmitting the ideals and ideas that formed the Republican Party in 1854.

And what were those ideals and ideas? They were anti-slavery, pro-worker and sometimes overtly socialist, according to John Nichols, author of the book “The ‘S’ Word: A Short History of an American Tradition … Socialism.” The New York Tribune championed the redistribution of land in the American West to the poor and the emancipation of slaves.
“Greeley welcomed the disapproval of those who championed free markets over the interests of the working class, a class he recognized as including both the oppressed slaves of the south and the degraded industrial laborers of the north,” Nichols writes.

Across the Atlantic, another man linked the fates of enslaved and wage workers: Marx. Upon publishing “The Communist Manifesto” with Friedrich Engels in 1848, the German philosopher sought refuge in London after a failed uprising in what was then the German Confederation. Hundreds of thousands of German radicals immigrated to the United States in this same period, filling industrial jobs in the North and joining anti-slavery groups. Marx had once considered “going West” himself, to Texas, according to historian Robin Blackburn in his book “An Unfinished Revolution: Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln.”

Marx was intensely interested in the plight of American slaves. In January 1860, he told Engels that the two biggest things happening in the world were “on the one hand the movement of the slaves in America started by the death of John Brown, and on the other the movement of the serfs in Russia.”

He equated Southern slaveholders with European aristocrats, Blackburn writes, and thought ending chattel slavery “would not destroy capitalism, but it would create conditions far more favorable to organizing and elevating labor, whether white or black.”
Marx was also friends with Charles A. Dana, an American socialist fluent in German who was the managing editor of the New York Tribune. In 1852, Dana hired Marx to be the newspaper’s British correspondent.

Over the next decade, Marx wrote nearly 500 articles for the paper. Many of his contributions became unsigned columns appearing on the front page as the publication’s official position. Marx later “borrowed liberally” from his New York Tribune writings for his book “Capital,” according to Nichols.

Like a lot of nascent Republicans, Lincoln was an “avid reader” of the Tribune. It’s nearly guaranteed that, in the 1850s, Lincoln was regularly reading Marx.

In 1860, two major factors helped to propel Lincoln — a one-term congressman and country lawyer most known for losing a Senate campaign — to the Republican nomination for the presidency. First, the support of former German revolutionaries who had become key players in the Republican Party; and second, the support of the party’s newspaper, the Tribune.

Once Lincoln took office, his alliance with socialists didn’t stop. Dana left the Tribune to become Lincoln’s eyes and ears in the War Department, following along with troop movements and telling Lincoln what he thought of his generals. A soldier working in the telegraph office later wrote that “Lincoln waited eagerly” for “Dana’s long d[i]spatches.”
And Greeley continued to urge Lincoln to take a harder line against slavery, to make the Civil War not just about preserving the union but about abolition. Marx did the same in the pages of the Tribune.

In 1863, they got what they wanted when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
In January 1865, Marx wrote to Lincoln on behalf of the International Workingmen’s Association, a group for socialists, communists, anarchists and trade unions, to “congratulate the American people upon your reelection.”

He said “an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders” had defiled the republic and that “the workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working class.”

A few weeks later, a reply came via Charles Francis Adams — son of former president John Quincy Adams, grandson of former president John Adams and U.S. ambassador to Britain under Lincoln.

He told Marx that Lincoln had received his message, and it was “accepted by him with a sincere and anxious desire that he may be able to prove himself not unworthy of the confidence which has been recently extended to him by his fellow citizens and by so many of the friends of humanity and progress throughout the world.” Notably, Adams indicated Lincoln considered Marx and company “friends.”

He went on to say that the Union “derive[s] new encouragement to persevere from the testimony of the workingmen of Europe.”

Both letters ran in newspapers across Britain and the United States. Marx was delighted, telling Engels it created “such a sensation” that the “bourgeoisie” in private clubs were “shaking their heads at it.”

Lincoln also met with the New York chapter of the Workingmen’s Association, telling its members in 1864: “The strongest bond of human sympathy, outside of the family relation, should be one uniting all working people, of all nations, and tongues, and kindreds.” Which is perhaps a more eloquent rendering of Marx’s famous rallying cry: “Workers of the world unite!”

Lincoln never took up the mantle of socialism. He believed in the system of wage labor even as he proposed reforms to it; Marx rejected it as another form of slavery. But Lincoln certainly viewed socialists as allies, and Nichols writes, “It is indisputable that the Republican Party had at its founding a red streak.”

Though this fact may be little known now, it hasn’t been a secret to other figures in American history. When the socialist orator and frequent presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs made a campaign stop in Springfield, Ill., in 1908, he told the crowd, “The Republican Party was once red. Lincoln was a revolutionary.”

It was also noted by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. In February 1968, at a celebration of the life of W.E.B. Du Bois at Carnegie Hall, King brought up that the co-founder of the NAACP became a communist in his later years. “It is worth noting,” King said, “that Abraham Lincoln warmly welcomed the support of Karl Marx during the Civil War and corresponded with him freely. … Our irrational obsessive anti-communism has led us into too many quagmires to be retained as if it were a mode of scientific thinking.”



Monday, March 2, 2020

March 2, 2020

MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey

More on “The Radical Revolution in Virginia”…and North Carolina


Friends,
Back on February 3 I offered an essay on the “Revolution in Virginia… Foretaste of What is to Come for us All.” That essay was edited a bit and picked and published by Dr. Clyde Wilson’s web site, Reckonin.com, and I pass it along to you today. Given what has happened in the once-traditional “Old Dominion State,” and is now occurring in states like North Carolina and Georgia—with the infusion of millions of Leftwing dollars (via George Soros, Mike Bloomberg, etc.) into state politics, and the organization of revolutionary cells and pressure groups (not to mention the nearly complete domination of the media by extreme Leftist opinion-makers)—citizens in Red states need to know about—let’s call it what it is—the “subversion” by dedicated and well-financed radicals to seize power in those states.

I hope to be treating this topic in the future as well.

RECKONIN'

Revolution in Virginia


By Boyd D. Cathey     2/22/2020

My friend Al Benson has recently authored a series of short but critical essays chronicling what has happened and is happening in the Old Dominion State after the radicalized “woke” social justice warriors—flush with campaign cash from George Soros and Michael Bloomberg—now have taken control of that state’s government. Several columns have addressed the incremental attempts by the new Democratically-dominated Virginia House of Deputies and Senate to place onerous restrictions on gun ownership—attempts which produced a major opposition rally of more than 22,000 citizens against those actions on January 20.

One of his columns, 
“The French Revolution Comes To The Old Dominion” (February 2, 2020), compares what is happening there to the French Revolution and the revolutionaries who instigated it. Opposition to their designs and actions was swept away by violence and the guillotine.  “By the time the Illuminists got through with their reign of terror in France, the country was ready for a Napoleon and it got one…. [Governor] Red Ralph Northam and his socialist cohorts in Richmond want to give the Old Dominion an encore.”

Despite the groundswell of rejection, the Virginia legislature is proceeding with an agenda which not only encompasses the first steps in what may prove to be comprehensive gun control, but also a panoply of progressivist measures that range from releasing violent criminals from prison (just as 
New York state has done, with very bad consequences), to essentially abortion on demand, to placing restrictions on free speech (or, euphemistically, “banning hate speech,” as they call it). And there is more assuredly which will come.

If this sounds like something imported from California, you would be correct. As Benson details, not only Bloomberg and Soros, but California leftist hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer has pumped millions into Virginia politics, even as far back as 2017 (
“Red Ralph? Then There Are the Gun Nuts,” January 10, 2020). Steyer, of course, is running for president, a long-shot in the upcoming Democratic primaries. An elitist, archetypical Deep State corporate capitalist insider, Steyer has been using his hedge fund lucre to propagate his vision of a utopian socialist America—and the Old Dominion State is just his latest target.

But among other targets—traditionally “red” states and constituencies—Virginia is not alone. Arizona, Texas, Colorado, and, yes, North Carolina all figure in this effort by Leftist billionaires at employing millions of dollars (ill-gotten or otherwise) to sway an unobservant and pliant electorate. Such is, to paraphrase the brilliant essayist Henry Adams a later-day scion of the Adams family, “the degradation of democratic dogma,” the final absurdity of “democracy” reduced to its ultimate lowest common denominator. Or, as Southern Regionalist writer Donald Davidson described it: “Democracy, a fuddled wench/Is bought from tousled bed to bed./Bass voices in white vests defile/The echoes of great voices dead.” (Davidson, “The Tall Men”)

Consider North Carolina: Already initiatives are underway to do in the Tar Heel State what is occurring in neighboring Virginia.  Benson recounts (
“The Sleeping Giant Is Waking Up In North Carolina,” January 13, 2020) that gun-rights activists have begun to recognize this and organize in some counties and municipalities.

Also, in recent months, several progressivist counties in the state (i.e., Mecklenburg, Wake, Buncombe, Orange, Durham, and Forsyth) have 
declared themselves to be “sanctuary counties” when it comes to ICE enforcement, and several Democratic sheriffs (notably in Wake and Mecklenburg counties) refuse to recognize Federal illegal immigration detainers.

And just within the past week Judicial Watch
 documented that “the Guilford and Mecklenburg county boards of elections are in violation of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)”: both counties—both of which are liberal bastions—have far more registered voters than voting-age citizens:

As of January 4, Mecklenburg County had 736,168 voter registrations while Guilford had 358,960. The problem is that the 
Census Bureau estimates that Mecklenburg County only has about 693,740 voting-age citizens while Guilford County only has about 371,190. In other words, Mecklenburg County has more registered voters than they have voting-age citizens and Guilford County has an improbably high voter registration rate of 97 percent.

North Carolina’s General Assembly currently has a Republican majority in both the House of Representatives and Senate, but repeated activist court decisions regarding voter ID and redistricting, not just on the congressional level but also for state legislative seats, in all likelihood put that in jeopardy in the November 2020 elections. (See, Ray Nothstine, “Judicial activism strikes again over voter ID law, NC Capitol Connection, January 2020, vol. 12, no. 1).

The import of all this clearly is that the frenzied left continues its unceasing and vigorous efforts to use and mold “democracy” and the democratic system in ways that, in effect, destroy it…or demonstrate what in its American manifestation it has in reality become. For the full, desired “democracy” of our social justice warriors is incompatible with true liberty, and as Russell Kirk writes in The Conservative Mind, leads to dictatorship.

Al Benson’s description, “The French Revolution Comes To The Old Dominion”--and to the rest of America--is entirely apposite.

      The Real Meaning of July 4th and the Heresy of Lincolnian Interpretation                                                          ...