Skip to main content

Postmodern Progressive Wokeist FBI Agents


Presidents’ Day this year, February 20, passed uneventfully. There were few violent protests and fewer “repeal history” parades.

George Bernard Shaw, a Fabian socialist whose empathy towards the murderous Joseph Stalin ran fathoms deep, used to say, “Patriotism, if you must, but please – no parades,” knowing all the while that patriotism is a parade. Shaw’s quip is pretty much the anthem of the postmodern progressive woke era now upon us.

Wokeism is, at bottom, an anti-Americanism too prudish and subtle to display itself in parades as a sort of inverse patriotism. Bourgeois sentimentality has never set well with social anarchists. Gratitude is an emotive force that still, beneath the Woke incubus, stirs the hearts of the majority of Americans disposed to celebrate Patriots Day. These are easily dismissed by Wokeists as patriotic – ugh! – yahoos.

Wokeism, if you will, and please -- no patriotism.

Wokeism is not a political credo. It is a political posture, a pose, an attitude very much encouraged by postmodern pedagogues who are always willing to bend the knee to the loudest squeaky campus rebel with a cause.

Wokeism is best understood as a kind of residue of the Silly Sixties put to political use in the present age of leftist intimidation, medical panic, our seamless political campaigning, and a politics in general that has nothing to do with abiding principles, and everything to do with the unchecked ambitions of lusty politicians. It would be a mistake to suppose that such politicians lust after pretty women – though some clumsily do in broom closets. No, the chief political desire of the postmodern progressive politician is power. And, as a famous caricaturist once said of his stingingly satirical portraits of the famous and near famous – “What’s the point in having absolute power, if you are not willing to abuse it?”       

A recent abuse of political power having little or nothing to do with former President Donald Trump – sorry! -- has now lifted its hoary head above a mob of journalists never kindly disposed towards orthodox Catholics.

The Orthodox Catholic as an Enemy of the People

Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the Virgil of John Kennedy’s Camelot, used to say, though not loudly enough to wake the dead, that anti-Catholicism was the oldest virulent prejudice in the United States. It had come over on the Mayflower and flourished during the Revolutionary period among the country’s enlighten founders, until the back of anti-Catholicism was broken by the elevation to the presidency of John Kennedy, a Catholic who promised on the campaign trail that he would never place the dictats of the Pope above the welfare of the United States. Kennedy kept his word, some say, on both points. And he was not above hustling women in broom closets.

Over in England, G. K. Chesterton, a convert to Catholicism and a vigorous defender of the faith, joked that, given the virulent opposition to Catholicism in Great Britain, orthodoxy was becoming almost as delicious as a vice. And when his friend, candidate for Parliament Hilaire Belloc, was called a “papist” by a woman in an audience he was addressing, Belloc reached into his pocket, pulled out a rosary, shook it in the air, and said, “Madam, do you see these beads? I pray on them every evening when I go to bed, and every morning when I wake. And if that offends you, Madame, I pray God He spare me the ignominy of representing you in Parliament.”

It was not a Kennedyesque performance.

And now, here in the land of the First Amendment, what Winston Churchill called, in a different context, “a wolf in wolf’s clothing” is prowling the anti-Catholic precincts. Again and always, Catholics in the United States are being invited to show they are not, unlike Chesterton and Belloc, disposed to defend Orthodoxy.

It is extremely unlikely that any of Connecticut’s heterodox Catholic politicians would dare to put their fingerprints on Orthodoxy.

Better to be prudent than to be seen attending a Latin Mass, prudence being the better part of a disappearing political valor, according to most cowering Catholics.

“The FBI’s Richmond Division,” we are told by Kyle Seraphin, a Former FBI Special Agent and federal whistleblower, “would like to protect Virginians from the threat of ‘white supremacy,’ which it believes has found a home within Catholics who prefer the Latin Mass. An intelligence analyst within the Richmond Field Office of the FBI released in a new finished intelligence product dated January 23, 2023, on Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremists (RMVE) and their interests in ‘Radical-Traditionalist Catholics’ or RTCs. The document assesses with ‘high confidence’ the FBI can mitigate the threat of Radical-Traditionalist Catholics by recruiting sources within the Catholic Church.”

Hey, FBI, when infiltrating and recruiting sources at Latin Masses, you want to be sure to fill your pockets with rosary beads. Latin Mass attendees subject everyone to Orthodox body searches.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Obamagod!

My guess is that Barack Obama is a bit too modest to consider himself a Christ figure , but artist will be artists. And over at “ To Wit ,” a blog run by professional blogger, journalist, radio commentator and ex-Hartford Courant religious writer Colin McEnroe, chocolateers will be chocolateers. Nice to have all this attention paid to Christ so near to Easter.

Did Chris Murphy Engage in Private Diplomacy?

Murphy after Zarif blowup -- Getty Images Connecticut U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, up for reelection this year, had “a secret meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the Munich Security Conference” in February 2020, according to a posting written by Mollie Hemingway , the Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist. Was Murphy commissioned by proper authorities to participate in the meeting, or was he freelancing? If the former, there is no problem. If the latter, Murphy was courting political disaster. “Such a meeting,” Hemingway wrote at the time, “would mean Murphy had done the type of secret coordination with foreign leaders to potentially undermine the U.S. government that he accused Trump officials of doing as they prepared for Trump’s administration. In February 2017, Murphy demanded investigations of National Security Advisor Mike Flynn because he had a phone call with his counterpart-to-be in Russia. “’Any effort to undermine our nation’s foreign policy – e