August 2, 2021

The Threat is no Longer the Russians But Our Own Hypocritical Establishment on the Left

One thing is clear – regardless what the left-wing media would have you believe, the threat is no longer the Russians but our own hypocritical establishment on the Left — beginning with the media and Hollywood, and ending with academia and the liberal establishment.

We hear much about Vladimir Putin’s alleged influence on the 2016 elections, offered with so little in the way of proof that this must be considered fake news. In fact, we hear much more negative things about Russia because the liberal establishment, which still can’t accept the results of this election, have decided they will do anything to delegitimize and derail the Trump presidency.

And they are getting more and more desperate as prosperity, optimism and confidence return – reflected not only in the stock markets’ historic climb but in the turning of the wheels of the American economy. Their polls have been exposed as fake, their hit jobs are regarded as partisan attacks, and the notion that better times are ahead seems to be supported by the eye test – all of which means we’re coming to the end of the days when they can use alleged Russian interference in the election as a diversionary weapon.

That leaves the left with no choice but to go all in on Russia now. They didn’t have a lot negative to say about the Soviet Union back when it was earning the nickname Ronald Reagan gave it – the Evil Empire. But they’re about to make up for lost time now.

The left had little to say when the Soviets had 30,000 intercontinental ballistic and other strategic long-range nuclear missiles aimed at the West and the United States. When Russian and American advisors squared off in proxy wars in Vietnam, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan, the left was rarely on the American side.

Hollywood rarely made movies that depicted the struggle for freedom against communist tyranny. The Russians had pledged to overthrow capitalism and freedom, to bury us on the ash heap of history and to make Communism the centerpiece of world affairs.

But with rare exceptions, some going back to the silent film era, Hollywood never seemed to be able to bring itself to make films that cast America in a positive light. There was John Wayne’s “The Green Berets,” Ronald Reagan with a few pro-American films and later, films such as Rambo and First Blood, that bucked the trend. And James Bond provided a gentle reminder that we were involved in a Cold War.

But when it comes to calling out our enemies and promoting war and violence, Hollywood reminded us repeatedly of the evil deeds of the Nazis and German people, yet never seemed to find time to call out the Russian communists. When it came to the Soviets, the silent patriotism of Hollywood was deafening – and still is.

Beyond Hollywood, America’s history professors speak of the Soviet Union with the respect one would expect in describing an actually democratic country. It treats Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov and others with respect and even admiration.

When Andropov, a former head of the KGB, took over in 1982, the American media was filled with stories – misinformation from the agency, no doubt – about his love of gypsy and jazz music, how he “relaxed with American novels,” spoke English and was a “witty conversationalist.”

This for a man who was the most ruthless of all the Kremlin villains – a man who had participated in crushing the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and ordered incalculable acts of KGB repression, including the attempted assassination of Pope Saint John Paul II.

None of this should come as a surprise since, during the FDR and Truman administrations, the U.S. government was heavily infiltrated by communists and fellow travelers, who not only influenced but altered American policy in favor of the Soviets.

Communist front organizations, such as the Lawyer’s Guild, the World Peace Council, the Institute of Pacific Relations, etc., also infiltrated Hollywood, the peace movement and academia as they sought to subvert freedom and the American way of life.

Had the Marxist theoretician, Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), been alive in the 1970s, he would have been well pleased with what Russians had accomplished in terms of infiltrating and weakening the United States. But when those subversive organizations were outed later, there was no media outrage, only excuses if not outright sympathy.

For example, as early as the case of the Amerasia magazine scandal in the 1940s, the media defended the Soviet front organization and its agent, the U.S. diplomat John Stewart Service. This despite the fact that Service was a fellow traveler and associate of communist traitor Solomon Adler. Both he and Adler helped Mao Zedong in his takeover of China in 1949.

Mainstream media pushed the possible innocence of Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs, even though there was no doubt about their guilt. They were not loyal citizens working for legitimate organizations; they were working to advance Soviet interests.

Academe, represented by students and professors and led by left-wing radicals, danced to the tune of the Soviet KGB and the Kremlin, rioted, rallied, and chanted “Better Red than Dead.” The MSM covered their rallies sympathetically, pontificated against supposed Western provocations and crowed about Soviet “peaceful” intentions.

But now that Russia has a democratic form of government, Putin, autocratic as he might tend to be, is still the duly elected president of that largest country in the world and quite popular with the Russian people.

Yet he continues to be treated by the press and even some media-pandering Republican politicians, such as John McCain, R, Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R, S.C., as a sworn enemy of the United States. They treat him with less respect than they did Stalin, Brezhnev or Andropov. Say what you will about Putin, he certainly is not deserving of less respect than any of those three.

They’ve even conscripted the intelligence agencies, bulging with personnel left over from Obama’s progressive administration, to join in the media battle against President Trump. Russia didn’t even seriously pretend to have a democratic government before, and the left took its side against America’s; now that it does, the left considers it an enemy.

Our intelligence agencies know, or should know, where the threat lies. They knew when it was Soviet Russia employing subversion and espionage not just to influence our way of life, but to end our freedom, eradicate our traditions and extinguish our liberty.

They funded organizations, such as the Communist Party USA, precisely so they could train traitors, agents of influence and fellow travelers. That they would go along with this assault on Trump is a dangerous development not only to our stability but to our ability to operate as a constitutional, civilian-led democracy.

Why did they change their tune?

For that matter, why did the liberal establishment? It went from basically keeping quiet if not outright downplaying the threat the Soviets posed to the American way of life to opposing Russia every day in every way.

We can only conclude, given the long record and the left’s howling about foreign interference at a point where Russia is actually working with us on the Islamic State, Middle Eastern terror and other subjects, that the brouhaha is not serious. Rather, it is nothing more than sanctimonious presumption holier-than-though attitude at best or, more likely, plain hypocrisy resulting from blind political partisanship.

So, we have no satisfactory proof of a Trump-Russia alliance to steal the election. But if we did, who would be to blame? It should be the negative and partisan American mainstream media.

If reporters worked instead of awaiting spoon-fed stories from the Clinton campaign, they might have legally obtained and published information on this that Americans might find credible. If they had pursued the “investigative journalism” they always seem to find the moxie to do when Republicans are in office, they might have information Americans would find useful. In conclusion, no satisfactory proof has been offered for the alleged Russian influence in the election helping Trump win the U.S. presidency.

But Hillary Clinton was teed up to save the day, and that meant circling the wagons regardless of the implications for domestic policy, national security or the rule of law. The play now is to sink Trump by any means necessary – and if that means starting another Cold War with Russia, so be it. They are more threatening to our way of life than Putin, the Russians or any number of other threats.

But as to the question of guilt, it is not illegal to report on classified information, only to reveal it. And if that which is revealed helps voters understand their government, is that a bad thing? And if it is not a bad thing and the info came from the Russians, do they deserve our praise? Or our thanks even for educating us and assisting in our own democracy?

It depends, of course, on who is asking…and when.

Source: Accuracy in Media