Vetting Our Elite Masters (3)


Dr. Neil Ferguson and Mrs. Antonia Staats.  Two elites at the pinnacle of power living in the depths of intellectual and moral impoverishment.

Dr. Neil Ferguson (2)

In a stunning, unexpected development, we find that Dr. Neil (Icarus) Ferguson has been unmasked as a pathetic hypocrite and intellectual poseur.  While it’s a difficult task to properly plumb the depths of this man’s depraved dishonesty, there are a few correspondents who are giving it a good try, such as Toby Young of the Spectator USA.

I originally had Neil Ferguson down as a kind of Henry Kissinger figure. The professor of mathematical biology at Imperial College London seemed to have bewitched successive prime ministers, blinding them with his brilliance. Whenever a health emergency broke out, whether it was mad cow disease or avian flu, there he was, PowerPoint in hand, telling the leaders of the United Kingdom what to do. And they invariably fell into line. In 2001, after the outbreak of foot and mouth, his team at Imperial advised Tony Blair’s government to adopt a strategy of pre-emptive culling, leading to the slaughter of more than six million animals. Gordon Brown consulted him about swine flu in 2009 and two months ago Boris Johnson was persuaded to put the country under lockdown after the 51-year-old boffin bamboozled him with one of his computer models.

But it turns out to be less a case of Dr Strangelove than Carry On Doctor. On Tuesday night, we discovered that the furrowed-browed scientist, who has been at the Prime Minister’s side throughout this crisis, is in fact Austin Powers in a lab coat. He’s been having an affair with a 38-year-old married woman who travels regularly across the capital from her home in south London to spend time with him. This revelation, which has to be the scoop of the year, was brought to us by the Telegraph and is the epitome of what newspapers call a ‘marmalade dropper’ — a story so astonishing it causes the typical reader to drop his toast mid-mouthful.

A good deal of the coverage has focused on Ferguson’s hypocrisy. After all, this is the man who has told 66 million Britons they must remain in their homes to protect the NHS and save lives. Under the draconian new rules imposed by the Coronavirus Act, we’re allowed to venture out only if we have a ‘reasonable excuse’ such as a medical emergency, daily exercise, essential food shopping or certain types of work. Hard to imagine an extra-marital affair falling under one of those headings. How can Professor Lockdown encourage the authorities to enforce these rules when he’s flagrantly breaking them himself?

And, John Daniel Davidson of The Federalist adds important detail to this appalling picture.

“On at least two occasions, Antonia Staats, 38, traveled across London from her home in the south of the capital to spend time with the government scientist, nicknamed Professor Lockdown,” reported the Telegraph.

Staats, we later learn, lives with her husband and two children in a £1.9 million home in south London. She’s a “left-wing campaigner” who is reportedly in an open marriage. According to the Telegraph, “She has told friends about her relationship with Prof Ferguson, but does not believe their actions to be hypocritical because she considers the households to be one.”

Ah yes, the old our-households-are-one-because-I’m-in-an-open-marriage argument. Never mind that a week before Ferguson and Staats’ first meeting, Britain’s Health Secretary had said even couples not living together must stay apart during the lockdown.

Wow, now that is indeed elite behavior!  But who is the Mrs. Antonia Staats?  The Power Line Blog answers this very question.

She is identified as a “senior campaigner at,” much of whose work appears to be dedicated to climate change activism.

Finally, in an exception that proves the rule, the dear Dr. (Western Civilization Destructor) Ferguson has received a small measure of accountability for his hypocrisy and incompetence, as described in The Guardian.

Prof Neil Ferguson, the epidemiologist whose modelling helped shape Britain’s coronavirus lockdown strategy, has quit as a government adviser after flouting the rules by receiving visits from his lover at his home.

Ferguson runs the group of scientists at Imperial College London whose projections helped persuade ministers of the need to impose stringent physical distancing rules, or risk the NHS being overwhelmed.

In a statement on Tuesday, he said he was resigning his post on the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), over an “error of judgment”.

Although we can never know, it takes but a small effort to imagine these two elite do-gooders cackling together over their virtuous fraud by which Western Civilization has been shut down thus saving us from climate change!

Decoding Progressivism (14)

COVID-19 Hysteria Edition


Gov. Pritzker’s “plan” to reopen Illinois.  Not dissimilar to “Our Vision for Health, Safety, Virtue, and Eternal Peace

Governor Pritzker of Illinois is only one of a cadre of Progressive governors whose apparently irrational and destructive policies are driving their states into wreck and ruin.  We on the receiving end of these policies can be forgiven for wondering just what could motivate these leaders to behave in this manner.  Particularly when their public explanations for what are without doubt their selected policy choices make no sense.


Vetting our Elite Masters (1)


From Wikipedia: In Greek mythology, Icarus attempts to escape from Crete by means of wings that his father constructed from feathers and wax. Icarus’ father warns him first of complacency and then of hubris, asking that he fly neither too low nor too high, so the sea’s dampness would not clog his wings nor the sun’s heat melt them. Icarus ignored his father’s instructions not to fly too close to the sun; when the wax in his wings melted he tumbled out of the sky and fell into the sea where he drowned.


One of the things that has gone horribly wrong in the West over the past fifty years is the establishment of an elite class of “experts” who have become untethered from any sort of accountability.  These “experts” originate predominantly from out prestige educational institutions, accumulating impressive strings of degrees.  They often spent most if not all of their careers working in government agencies, academic institutes, non-profit organizations, multi-national corporations or professional associations.  Thus they tend to be insulated from the accountability caused by the necessity of delivering practical, useful results.

Thus their value is not bound up in actually being proved correct in their predictions and prescriptions.  Rather it is found in their attainment of social prestige, institutional power and shameless pretense.  The foundation for this type of faux “expertise” is an overbearing, entitled sense of hubris.

This elite class really believes that they are morally, intellectually and ideologically superior to we “commoners” who must be herded by their betters into doing the “right thing.”  This sense of limitless hubris leads our “experts” to imagine that they know things that they demonstrably don’t.  That is, rather than limiting their self-confident pronouncements to areas in which they may have a legitimate claim to some expertise, they expound on areas in which they are utterly ignorant.  The assumption appears to be that, since they have acknowledged expertise in some narrow area, that narrow ground of superiority can be limitlessly expanded to include any area that they choose to address.

That same hubris renders these people immune from honest self appraisal or acknowledgement of past mistakes.  No, since their value resides in their status as “experts” they must always be found to be correct.  And the other “experts” whom occupy similar positions of prestige and power are often happy to assist.  After all these superior beings might lose power if the “commoners” were ever allowed to vet their performance.

Looking back on my work here it’s clear that I’ve been, in effect, vetting our elite masters from day one.  For example, my discussion of the PCUSA leadership included criticism of their theological work, exposure of  their heresy (including Gnosticism  and atheism) and apostasy, as well as their scandalous political actions on immigration and Marxism.  In these and many more posts and book I have made the case that our PCUSA elite leadership are theological frauds and moral failures.

I’ve also been vetting our political leaders and institutions.  For example, the Republican Party (including George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney), Donald Trump, the Democrat Party/Progressive Left, the Democrat Presidential Candidates (2016 and 2020) Barack Obama and the Never Trumpers, among many others.  Of course, I have primarily focused on the Progressive Movement, eventually resulting in a book on this topic.  I have concluded that the contemporary Progressive Movement is centered on a proto-totalitarians ideology that seeks to destroy the United States as a Constitutional Republic.

My position is that a deep and dangerous chasm has opened between our elite leadership, be they Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Progressive, Corporate or NGO, and the citizens whom they claim to lead.  But at least these people have been those who actually are in legitimate positions of leadership (regardless if they are abusing or misusing their power).

My purpose in this series is to focus on another class of leaders, that being the unelected, usually anonymous class of “experts” who claim special intellectual and moral positions from which to guide public policy.  In the current COVID-19 situation these “experts” have been granted the power to direct the futures of nations all in the name of fighting a specific virus.  Do they really possess the breadth and depth of knowledge necessary to the task?  Has their track record built the confidence necessary to entrust them with this responsibility?  Are they really the moral, disinterested people whom they claim to be as they decide our fates?  These and other questions must be addressed.

Failure of the Conservative Imagination (1)


As any reader of this blog knows I’m appalled by and critical of the Progressive movement in all of its forms.  However, as a believing Reformed Christian I also am convinced that neither I nor those who theologically / politically agree with me occupy a position of arbitrary moral superiority.  If we do in some respects live by higher moral standards then it is only by the sanctifying power of God that is completely unearned by any inherent merit.  Therefore, it is only right and proper that we should inquire into the guilt that we bear for the wreckage of our civilization.

Guilt can take many forms and occurs at many levels.  The fact that we admit guilt for a tragic situation need not diminish that of others.  But we who consider ourselves to be “conservatives,” “traditionalists” and the “orthodox” have certainly contributed to the civilizational wreckage which is becoming obvious to all but the purposefully blind.

There are many dimensions that could be addressed, from our acceptance of prosperity built on ever accumulating debt to creeping acceptance of ideas that have undermined our morals.  But the dimension that has recently bubbled to the surface is the lack of imagination that has enabled us to accept a false facade of consensus behind which lies true intentions.

To become specific, we conservatives have for far too long insisted on pretending that our disagreements with the Progressive movement centered on the means to achieve commonly shared ends (e.g., the reduction of poverty).  We also assumed that there was a shared devotion to the Constitutional framework undergirding our nation’s political and civil life.  Of course there are many people who consider themselves to be Progressive for whom these assumptions remain valid.  However, this fact doesn’t mean that the elite power brokers of the Progressive movement share this mindset.  It can simply mean that their deception encompasses a larger cohort than non-Progressives.

But with the COVID-19 crisis the Progressive elite’s masks have been completely (by themselves!) removed.  Take for example:Screen Shot 2020-04-22 at 5.53.41 AM

I could go on, but the point is made.  That being the Progressive Left is using this crisis to seize the power over U.S. citizens that had previously been out of reach.  Their behavior seems irrational because it is destroying the very economy that funds all of their beloved government programs.  But that may be a small price to pay for the destruction of the independent people and businesses who stand in the way of full Progressive political victory.

If we want to save our Constitutional Republic then we must abandon the fantasy that the elite Progressive Left shares any of our goals or values.  Yes, they remain our fellow citizens.  But they are “fellows” who are seeking the utter destruction of our nation so that it can be “rebuilt” as Socialist and totalitarian.  We should try to convince Progressives of good intentions that this would be a disaster for their humane goals.  We must defeat the Progressive Left politically so that this current power grab is only a temporary blip on this nation’s life of liberty and human hope.

Are We in a State of Hysteria Over COVID-19? (1)

Screen Shot 2020-03-28 at 4.18.06 AM

The Undebatable About the Undeniable

We have not entered into the COVID-19 situation undefiled by our past submissions to the “right-think” inquisitors.  We know that from somewhere far above and unseeable has emerged the set of “correct answers” to which we all are expected to bow.  They have isolated a single dimension of the good and turned it into a unique and unassailable token of virtue.  Anyone who dares to ask difficult questions or to propose an alternate solution can only be motivated by evil motives.

If you limit your resources to the Mainstream Media or the statements of politicians and bureaucrats then these “correct answers” seem obvious.  No decent person can possibly object.  We find this token of virtue explicitly defined in the recent statement by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (emphasis added):

“I want to be able to say to the people of New York — I did everything we could do,” Cuomo said. “And if everything we do saves just one life, I’ll be happy.”

Do you imagine that this was a unique statement of virtuous idiocy by the Governor of our fourth most populous state and the center of our financial industry?  Not by a long shot.  For example, “There is no price too high to save a life,” says New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy.  No price too high?  What if the “price” paid drives millions into poverty and despair?  Nope, not too high by the leaders of what is now approaching a nation of virtue grasping, hysteria driven recluses.

I implore you to think carefully about these statements.  By voicing these supposedly virtuous ideas the good Governors imply that saving “just one life” from COVID-19 would justify policies that could cause many more deaths and untold human misery.  But, you see, those deaths and that misery occur outside of the narrow window of moral sight allowed by the “correct answer” proto-totalitarians.  Thus we can all skip down the garden path singing of our own indisputable virtue without fear of contradiction.

But the real world cares nothing about our fantasies of virtue.  The reality of consequences absolutely independent of our intentions will inexorably come to pass, for example:

  • The ruination of a young generation’s hope for financial independence, personal responsibility and initiative due to an economic depression, possibly resulting in embrace of Socialism with it sure death and destruction;
  • The increase in suicide, addiction and depression brought on by loss of job, business or retirement savings;
  • The increase in divorce caused by the stress of all the above, resulting in many more broken homes and damaged children;
  • Reduced national resources to deal with issues of all kinds, from public health to national security to economic independence, resulting in significant increases in death and suffering.

The good news is that, here in the United States, there are many brave souls who are willing to publicly question the received wisdom and propose alternate solutions.  This blessing is due to the more robust protection of free speech created by our First Amendment.  But this freedom is under continuing, vicious attack.  Were we to become passive in its defense we could well end up in a situation described for the United Kingdom as it deals with the COVID-19 crisis (emphasis added).

In an emergency, freedom of speech doesn’t stop being important. It becomes more important. The vast majority of people accept there will be restrictions on their everyday freedoms in the next few months.   …   But even in a moment like this there should be not a single restriction on freedom of speech. The right to dissent from the middle-class apocalypticism enveloping the Covid-19 crisis is the most important liberty right now.

And it’s a liberty under threat. The speed and intensity with which questioning extreme responses to Covid-19 has become tantamount to a speechcrime is alarming.   …

How swiftly we become McCarthyites. How naturally intolerance comes to that section of society that thinks it knows best.   …

The right to question this is essential, for two reasons. First, because we should never feel comfortable with restrictions on freedom. Even if we accept them as short-term measures in a mass act of social solidarity to protect life, they should still make us bristle and balk and constantly ask questions: ‘Why is this necessary? When will it end? When will the Coronavirus Bill be repealed?’

And the second reason freedom of speech becomes even more important in a crisis is because of one of the key things that freedom of speech does – it encourages intellectual humility. Freedom of speech is the means through which all of us entertain the possibility that we are wrong. The great service of freedom of speech is that it helps us question ourselves. The unfettered existence of all kinds of interesting, challenging, strange and offensive views is the great and essential guard against our own tendencies to dogma. It invites rethinking, re-evaluation. It gives us that great liberty: the liberty to change our minds.

We must not ignore this warning from our cross-Atlantic cousins.  They are farther down the road to depression and tyranny, but we are on the same road just a few steps back.

The Purpose of Relentless Hysteria (1)


Looking back on this blog’s content one obvious theme is the seemingly purposeful deployment of hysteria to advance social-political goals.  I suppose it’s natural for this theme to rise up into view given the current situation with the COVID-19 pandemic.  While I may cover this particular contemporary issue in detail later, the following excerpt provides a good summary of our current situation.

While we should be concerned and diligent, the situation has dramatically elevated to a mob-like fear spreading faster than COVID-19 itself. When 13% of Americans believe they are currently infected with COVID-19 (mathematically impossible), full-on panic is blocking our ability to think clearly and determine how to deploy our resources to stop this virus.

don-t-keep-calm-the-end-is-nearCertainly the “climate change” community has sought to induce a sense of hysterical doom in the general public for the past 50 years at least.  Although I’ve blogged extensively on this issue, recent explicit statements by this community’s designated leaders have confirmed my point.

‘The planet is burning’, they lie, in relation to climate change, … ‘I want you to panic’, instructs the newest mouthpiece of green apocalypticism, Greta Thunberg

Screen Shot 2019-12-18 at 7.37.37 AM

Progressive hysteria

However the most posts by far have been devoted to the elite Progressive freak-out caused by the election of Donald trump to the Presidency.  In fact, so numerous and wide ranging were these posts that I organized them into my latest eBook, titled The Progressive Riot.  What but hysteria does the cover to this book seek to convey?

But this hysteria isn’t randomly deployed.  No, it has a definite purpose in pursuit of a specific goal, that being to convince the American public that they allowed a man of ultimate evil to attain the highest office in the nation.  It is this sin from which they must repent by throwing him out of office or the beatings will continue.

Perhaps the best summary of my thoughts can be found in a post titled Progressive Insanity (2).

What we are witnessing is a collective nervous breakdown by a group that viewed themselves as the perfect-righteous; confronting the cataclysmic reality that over sixty-million citizens disagreed enough to elect their polar opposite to the Presidency.  In fact, enough citizens in states that had for decades voted reliably for the “righteous” politicians turned traitor to righteousness and voted for an “unrighteous bigot.”  This outcome has launched the elite perfect-righteous into a state of mind-shattering cognitive dissonance from which escape will be at the very least painful and difficult.

What has emerged is a group of people who occupy powerful positions in our nation whose personalities have disintegrated and been reconstituted as seemingly undifferentiated components of a massive social justice mob.  They will believe anything, say anything and do anything, in collectivist unison, to destroy the source of this atrocity committed against their sense of perfect-righteousness.

I contend that there is a consistent purpose to all of these examples (and so many more) of hysteria-mongering.  It is this thesis that I will explore in the following posts.

Christian Charity, Mission and Compassion Reconsidered (5)


This figure shows the utter failure of public education in large U.S. cities.  Note that the displayed percentages are of students who are not proficient in reading.

What Should be Done?

I certainly don’t expect Progressive individuals and organizations to embrace conservative ideas for welfare reform.  However, even this position doesn’t preclude the finding of common ground.  For example, the Progressive community could say something like this:

“While we believe that conservative ideas on welfare reform are fundamentally flawed, we yet agree that the current set of welfare policies has not achieved their intended results.  In fact, on numerous key measures of well-being the beneficiaries of welfare have significantly digressed over the past decades.  Therefore, we will support an open discussion on what has gone wrong and why.  From there we will support an open debate on the reforms necessary to correct past mistakes and increase the likelihood of future success.”

The tragic truth is that virtually no one finds this imagined statement by our Progressive elites to be in the slightest credible.  This is because their power rests on the false assumption of their intellectual and moral superiority. Thus they cannot survive if they ever admit to have been wrong.  Not surprisingly then, what we have observed is retreat into reactionary positions from which any criticism of the Welfare State or proposal for welfare/education reform is viciously attacked.  When “welfare reform” was passed in the 1990s the Progressive community pulled out all the stops to retard and ultimately reverse this initiative.  The Progressive community continues to be opposed to “school choice” even though a majority of disadvantaged parents support it.

In the 1960s and 70s Mainline denominational leadership tied itself to the secular Progressive movement as the vehicle for positive social change.  We can legitimately debate the wisdom of this decision within context of what was known at that time.  However, from the 1980s on it has become progressively more clear that the Great Society and associated policies have had the opposite effect of those claimed to be intended by their supporters.

We Mainline Christians must seriously ask ourselves what we really are accomplishing by our continuing support of these destructive social policies.  If we want an endless supply of people in poor and oppressed communities as recipients of our charity then by all means continue on.  In that direction lies the continued affirmation of a godless elite class who value us only to the extent that we slavishly uphold their power and follow their political line.  In that case Jesus’ words should burn in our souls.

1“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

2“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.”

Matthew 6:1, 2 (NIV)

If we want to actually improve the lives of the people trapped in these communities then we must open our hearts and minds to the concept of reforms that challenge the current Progressive orthodoxy.  In that direction lies suffering, as we will be subjected to the full force of hatred that holds current policies in place.  We will be called terrible names.  Our motives will be attacked.  Our Christian faith will be denigrated.  Everything will be done that can be to make the world consider us pariahs.  But if we reject their power to destroy we may actually through God’s grace find new paths that lead towards renewal and hope.

18“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. 21But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. 22If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23Whoever hates me hates my Father also. 24If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. 25But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: ‘They hated me without a cause.’

26“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. 27And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning.

John 15:18-27 (ESV)


Occasional Confirmations (6)

Screen Shot 2020-01-16 at 6.58.45 AM

Yes, Lenninthinkers

In my most recent book I open with a Preface that discusses the quintessential difference between how the contemporary political administrations reacted to the election of Presidents Obama and Trump.  This discussion is intended to raise the question of why in President Obama’s case the peaceful transfer of power occurred but for President Trump we have (and continue to) experienced resistance that appears to sometimes rise to the level of sedition.  This resistance is not limited to the rank and file citizenry but rather runs to the very top of the Democrat Party’s elected officials and Obama appointed leadership of our federal Justice, Intelligence, Revenue and State Department.  It also includes virtually all of our “mainstream media,” and academic institutions, among others.

In this book (and this blog) I have pointed out that, observing their behavior, one could reasonably posit that they are motivated by a Marxist ideological foundation.  While I do include some information beyond behavioral observations, this idea is presented as theoretical.

It turns out that a serious investigative reporter and author has dug deep into the available information concerning the ideological influences and beliefs of this clique of elite Progressive leaders.  What Diana West found is truly stunning.  In her new book, The Red Thread she reports on:

leninthinkersThe first investigation into why a ring of senior Washington officials went rogue to derail the election and the presidency of Donald Trump. There was nothing normal about the 2016 presidential election, not when senior U.S. officials were turning the surveillance powers of the federal government—designed to stop terrorist attacks—against the Republican presidential team. These were the ruthless tactics of a Soviet-style police state, not a democratic republic. The Red Thread asks the simple question: Why? What is it that motivated these anti-Trump conspirators from inside and around the Obama administration and Clinton networks to depart so drastically from “politics as usual” to participate in a seditious effort to overturn an election?

The Amazon book summary then goes on to identify this question’s answer.

Finding clues in an array of sources, Diana West uses her trademark investigative skills, honed in her dazzling work, American Betrayal, to construct a fascinating series of ideological profiles of well-known but little understood anti-Trump actors, from James Comey to Christopher Steele to Nellie Ohr, and the rest of the Fusion GPS team; from John Brennan to the numerous Clintonistas still patrolling the Washington Swamp after all these years, and more. Once, we knew these officials by august titles and reputation; after The Red Thread, readers will recognize their multi-generational and inter-connecting communist and socialist pedigrees, and see them for what they really are: foot-soldiers of the Left, deployed to take down America’s first “America First” and most anti-Communist president. If we just give it a pull, the “red thread” is very long and very deep.

A very good hour-long interview of West about this book can be found at this link.

Obviously one book doesn’t necessarily confirm my Lenenthink theory.  However, the fact that serious people are discovering compelling supporting evidence, and other serious people are taking this hypothesis seriously is a confirmation worth noting.

This development also provides confirmation of my position that our current crisis is existential for our Constitutional Republic as opposed to just another run of the mill political controversy.

Yes,Openly Bloodyminded Progressives

Some of you who manage to read my posts to the end may have noticed a recent reference to approval of death threats to Senator Susan Collins after her Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation vote.

Progressives may disagree with Collins’ vote, but their descent into open justification of death threats afterwards shows how thin is the line between farce and wickedness.


The original tweet and even more troubling “explanation” tweet.

You may also recall a series of posts discussing the “bloody-mindedness” of many Progressive elites.

Well, it turns out that a Democrat candidate for the Senate seat currently occupied by Susan Collins, Bre Kidman, has chosen the guillotine as her campaign symbol.  Candidate Kidman was quoted in explanation: “The guillotine is an image which calls to mind what people have done for revolution before” … “If we can find a better path to revolution than that we owe it to ourselves and our country.”  This begs the question of what happens if, in this Democrat’s mind, we can’t find a “better path?”  Her answer to this question is even more troubling than her original tweet (see figure).

It turns out that it isn’t only Democrat Senate candidates who are fondly thinking about the guillotine.  A paid Bernie Sanders campaign worker was caught on video discussing use of this device come the revolution.

Mr. Weissgerber added, “I’m telling you. Guillotine the rich.”

The Sanders campaign has refused to comment on this and another paid worker who envisions American gulags to reeducate Trump voters after a Sanders victory.  The kindest interpretation is that the Sanders campaign isn’t concerned about bloodthirsty rhetoric by its paid workers.

I suppose some could respond that this is just another right winger spreading propaganda.  If so, consider the recent comments by Chris Matthews, an elite Progressive in good standing about Sanders’ ideology.

“I have my own views of the word socialist and I’ll be glad to share them with you in private and they go back to the early 1950s,” he told a post-debate analysis panel.

“I have an attitude about them. I remember the Cold War. I have an attitude toward [Fidel] Castro,” he added. “I believe if Castro and the reds had won the Cold War there would have been executions in Central Park and I might have been one of the ones getting executed. And certain other people would be there cheering.”   …

“I don’t know who Bernie supports over these years, I don’t know what he means by socialism. One week it’s Denmark. We’re gonna be like Denmark,” Matthews continued, mocking Sanders’ deep Brooklyn accent. “Well, what does he think of Castro? That’s a great question. What did you think of Fidelissmo?”

It should deeply trouble Progressive Democrats that this bloody-minded rhetoric pervades their movement, including a candidate for the Senate.  But it doesn’t appear to in the slightest.  At some point we non-elite commoners are entitled to draw conclusions about the moral standing of our elite “betters.”

Screen Shot 2019-12-18 at 7.37.37 AM