re: "Shadow of the Past"

Richard Fernandez (the blogger-formerly-known-as-Wretchard) at Belmont Club connected Andrew Breitbart's last video with a narrative undercurrent.

Money quote(s):

"The period concerned is not just Barack Obama’s college days, but more generically what happened after 1968. That’s what Breitbart really seems to want to talk about, what he means when talks about “vetting”.

In that period, if we’re to believe people like David Horowitz, a prominent radical from the New Left, what called itself the Peace Movement was actually a totalitarian conspiracy with possible links to foreign intelligence agencies, which eventually set out to control the Democratic Party, if it has not already."

Silly conspiracy theory, right?

("The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.")

"(I)t’s the stuff of conspiracy theories all right, equal in scope if not greater than those of the Kennedy assassination, which argue that to truly understand things one has to go back to 1968 and what followed. Because that’s when it all began.

What began, you might ask? Well it. And the indication of its subterranean existence is the narrative. One measure of how famous narrative has become, even when it does not supposedly exist is when it becomes a staple of detective fiction."

Wretchard proceeded to reference Stephen Hunter's latest Bobby Lee Swagger novel, I, Sniper, with some juicy popular culture.

His conclusion included the following:

"The narrative is all powerful. And to understand where the narrative comes from, Hunter argued one needed to go back to 1968 and follow the links to that era, the Silver Pony Tails and their Soviet contacts. In some sense, Breitbart was claiming in his last video that here was a rock that was at least worth looking under."

3/3

re: "Shadow of the Past"

Richard Fernandez at Belmont Club reminded us where the "Democratic" left actually came from.

Money quote(s):

"Breitbart’s video, recorded shortly before his death, is literally a voice from the beyond the grave about the past. The period concerned is not just Barack Obama’s college days, but more generically what happened after 1968. That’s what Breitbart really seems to want to talk about, what he means when talks about “vetting”.

In that period, if we’re to believe people like David Horowitz, a prominent radical from the New Left, what called itself the Peace Movement was actually a totalitarian conspiracy with possible links to foreign intelligence agencies, which eventually set out to control the Democratic Party, if it has not already."

Pres. Obama was in barely in elementary school in 1968; whether that was in Hawaii or Indonesia or on Triton (Neptune's seventh, and largest, moon) is irrelevent to this discussion.

"Well we all ‘know’, or so we read, that David Horowitz is just a looney old renegade who’s got an axe to grind against his old pals. None of that directly argues what he’s saying isn’t true."

Given the historical truths about things like McCarthyism (he was right), Alger Hiss (guilty), the Rosenbergs (guilty), &tc., allegations about HOIS sponsorship in the "Peace Movement" aren't exactly made of moonbeams and spidersilk.

"(I)t’s the stuff of conspiracy theories all right, equal in scope if not greater than those of the Kennedy assassination, which argue that to truly understand things one has to go back to 1968 and what followed. Because that’s when it all began."

3/3

re: "The Other Don't Ask Don't Tell"

Charlie at Undiplomatic ("dedicated to covering the intersection of diplomacy, global issues, U.S. politics, and pop-culture") addresses the issue of same-sex partners in the Foreign Service.

Money quote(s):

"(F)oreign service officers who were member of Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies, who were fighting to get recognition for same sex spouses.

Although benefits were a big part of what they were fighting for, an equally important issue was how their spouses were treated overseas. The reality is that unlike a number of European countries, American gay and lesbian spouses do not enjoy the same status overseas as their heterosexual colleagues. That means, among other things, that they do not have the rights, privileges, and protection that other spouses do."

"(W)hen I was in the Clinton Administration, gay spouses did not have even the most basic rights and privileges. To its credit, the Bush Administration changed some of the rules — permitting partners/spouses to attend security and other introductory seminars — but not much more."

"It’s not as discriminatory as what happens in the military: gays and lesbians no longer are drummed out of the foreign service as a result of their sexual orientation. But they are asked to pretend that they are not second-class citizens."

"(S)ome folks at State may nervous about “granting” full rights and privileges to same sex spouses because they’re afraid of how some countries — particularly the Vatican, most African states, and Muslim-majority states — may react. You could call it the Anglican church precedent: rock the boat and you create problems. That’s a fallacy, of course — it hasn’t been the case for other countries that have given same-sex spouses full rights and benefits — and it’s allowing diplomacy to mask discrimination."

I used to see this as a reasonable enough objection to recognizing same-sex partners in the diplomatic context; that it would alienate some of our host countries. But I've come to realize that there are so many things about our culture and lifestyle that such countries will find objectionable that it essentially constitutes a form of Dhimmitude, of civilizational surrender, to let that be a factor.

"I’ll never forget a meeting I had during my time at State when a foreign service officer told how diplomatic security gave him a choice: forget about a foreign service career or out himself to his parents, who did not know he was gay. Another was actually outed to his parents by diplomatic security."

From a counterintelligence standpoint, the issue above isn't that an FSO is gay (at least not any more), but rather that what he or she was concealing from their parents made them vulnerable to blackmail or extortion by hostile intelligence services.

You always have to remember the four motivations for treason: Money, Ideology, Compromise, Ego.

_____
Note: This is not to suggest that gays or lesbians are more or less likely to commit treason. Among Americans, money tended to be the most common motive during the Cold War, although some Cold War traitors were homosexuals. (Don't believe me? Do your own homework.)