Masters of Deceit

            IM:  Gentlemen, I am reading J. Edgar Hoover’s 1958 book, Masters of Deceit.

Old Gadfly:  I have read it.  What impresses you about it?

   

IM:  It was published nearly 60 years ago by a man who ran the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for 48 years.  Despite attempts to discredit him, he had the most access to criminal and subversive activities going on in America than any other American.  And, while he had tremendous “dirt” on many Americans, sometimes used for political reasons, the book he wrote was not an attempt to assassinate political opponents.  The book presented a case to expose the comprehensive and insidious threat of socialism (and the Communist Party) in America.

 

AM:  During our time of service in the military, Gadfly and I were mostly focused on the external Communist Party threat, mostly from the Soviet Union and China.

Old Gadfly:  I think I know where you are taking us.

IM:  We are witnessing the masters of deceit in full bloom.

AM:  The left is seething at the realization that the working class voted for a capitalist.

IM:  Yes, the left had two candidates, both socialist in their orientation.  Bernie represented the more benevolent Trotskyite version.  Many of Bernie’s followers voted for Trump because he was a non-establishment choice (similar to the anti-czar sentiment of the Bolsheviks).

AM:  It would be difficult to associate Hillary with Stalin.

Old Gadfly:  Think again.  The once upon a time credible bellwether news source, the New York Times, is behaving like Pravda, the Communist Party newspaper.  According to Hoover, “Pravda, the Party newspaper urged drastic measures” (p. 30).  Look at how the New York Times is leading the charge to challenge the Trump election.  Despite the actual damaging content of Wikileaks, allegations are being made that Russia tampered with the elections.  The New York Times leads this charge with the other mainstream media networks following suit.  There is no interest in the veracity and significant implications of the Wikileaks content.  Thus, the “masters of deception” are shifting the focus to “fake news.”

IM:  To demonstrate the brutality of these masters of deception, a close friend of mine did a little research.  Here is what he found.  On July 11, 2016, Seth Conrad Rich, a young Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer, who worked as a voter expansion data director, was found dead with two bullets to the back of the head.  A report of this event was made by a local news network, but was suppressed by other news networks.  The first release from WikiLeaks was July 26, 2016.  At the time WikiLeaks’ owner, Julian Assange, “told NBC News on Monday that ‘there is no proof whatsoever’ that his organization got almost 20,000 hacked Democratic National Committee emails from Russian intelligence —adding it's what's in the emails that's important, not who hacked them.”  But, we are being deluged by the mainstream media that Russia tampered with the election.  If the Director of National Intelligence Clapper supports this narrative without conclusive evidence, then he is demonstrating how easy it is to politicize intelligence.  It is quite disturbing to learn:  “Devin Nunes on Wednesday blasted as ‘unacceptable’ the refusal of the FBI, CIA and National Intelligence directors to brief his panel on the Russian cyber attacks that occurred during the presidential campaign.”  If there is evidence (as opposed to mere allegations) of a Russian attack, then share it with the Congressional oversight committee.  But then again, that might prematurely halt the frenzied news cycle.  It needs to stay at the forefront of narratives until December 18, when Electoral College delegates officially cast their votes.

AM:  Incidentally, recall that at a Congressional hearing, Director Clapper was asked, “Does the National Security Agency spy on Americans?”  He responded, “Not wittingly.”  More important, here is an exclusive report, published yesterday on December 14, 2016, of an individual directly involved with the handoff of DNC emails for Wikileaks publication.  What is not included in the report is the identification of the DNC whistleblower involved—was it Seth Conrad Rich?  This report was from a British publication.  Where is the American interest?

IM:   Let’s summarize.  We have actual evidence of Democrat wrong doing (deception, collusion, and so forth) via Wikileaks.  Assange claims the data came from sources other than Russia.  Then, we have the left, with its minions of politicians, Hollywood dupes, and media mimickers alleging Russia tampered with an election that turned out differently from what they wanted engaged in wolf pack behavior to undermine the Trump election.  Isn’t it a pathetic act of desperation to assault our Electoral College delegates with pleas not to vote for Trump?

Old Gadfly:  Your observations make sense.  But, the even more sinister dynamic is that the left is demonstrating how prescient (and we discussed this in our Why the Protests discussion) Khrushchev was when he prophesied in 1957 (the year before Hoover published Masters of Deceit):

“. . . I can prophesy that your grandchildren in America will live under socialism.  And please do not be afraid of that.  Your grandchildren will not understand how their grandparents did not understand the progressive nature of a socialist society.”

The socialistic left, disguised in progressive clothing, is far from moderating its ideology following this election.  How dare the working class vote for a capitalist—didn’t they get the memo—workers unite?  So, the tactics will continue, and the fight for the American idea (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) must continue as well.