Stalking the Invisible Man

Almost a year ago, Gates of Vienna joined the controversy over Diana West’s book American Betrayal. The fight had already been raging for several weeks, but I had been reluctant to join the fray, because Ms. West’s topic — the Communist influence on the American political establishment in 1930s and ’40s — was off our mission statement, even though both Dymphna and I found it fascinating. Moreover, the fight was turning out to be an ugly one, and not something that one would want to be involved in without a good reason.

A good reason eventually appeared: Diana West was unable to find a venue that would accept an article answering some of the heated charges aimed at her by her critics. So we hosted her essay here, and continued to follow the course of events through the fall and winter as further doors slammed in her face and more and more prominent writers called her nasty names or deprecated her abilities as a researcher.

It quickly became evident that something more than scholarly disagreement was behind the virulence of all the attacks on her. From the moment her critics began panning the book, they employed less-than-scholarly terms to express their opinions. They referred variously to “West’s fictions”, her “unhinged theories”, her “dangerous one dimensional thinking”, and her “truculent recklessness”. They called her “a right-wing loopy” who had not yet been “house-trained”. She was a “very angry, very self-centered and very reckless partisan” who “organized a kook army” against her critics. She and her defenders were engaged in “unutterable myth-making and jejune dementedness, as they hurl the vitriol of the silly and the deranged”. Most tellingly, “she should not have written this book, which betrays a conspiratorial mindset”, was “a preposterous book”, a “paranoid fantasy”, “conspiracy mongering”, and a “farrago of lies”. (See “An Addled Barroom Brawler”, our post from last December, for the authors of the all those insults and epithets, and the links to where they were published.)

The attacks on American Betrayal continued into the winter. Then, in the new year, the sound and fury faded away, and all the hoopla seemed to be over. However, as I mentioned the other day, the arbiters of the “accepted history” seemed to be dissatisfied with the take-down of Diana West, so they commissioned a 12,000-word rehash of all the arguments. It was published several weeks ago at American Thinker.

What prompted this new wave of Westophobia? Are her book sales still running too high? Are there too many five-star ratings of the book at Amazon? Are positive reviews still being posted on a lot of websites?

Whatever the reason, it’s clear that those who want to suppress American Betrayal have mobilized their forces again. A year after the initial fight, someone in allegedly conservative circles has decided to spend the money to add more concrete to the containment facility surrounding Diana West. This operation is not like a rant posted on an obscure blog — the editors of these venues are on salary, and the free-lancers who pen the screeds expect to be paid. In other words, somebody who has money wants Diana West to lie back down and stay dead.

And the campaign involves more than just the publication of hit-pieces against American Betrayal. Over the past year almost all major conservative venues have been closed to any significant supportive articles about the book. Now the author herself is unable to respond to a 12,000-word error-ridden critique of her work without having her response edited by those who published the piece against her. The cordon sanitaire around American Betrayal is all but complete. One or two more loads of transit mix, and they’ll be done.

If Gates of Vienna becomes the most prominent outlet that allows Diana West and her supporters to respond to her critics, you’ll know for certain that something is seriously amiss in the “conservative” movement.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

There is absolutely no doubt that some person or group is behind the push to encase American Betrayal in concrete so that none of its dangerous “McCarthyite” radiation can escape. In the past I’ve referred to this mysterious and well-funded entity as Planet X, a large body that is invisible to the unaided eye, whose existence may be deduced only through its gravitational effects on other bodies.

The other night, when Dymphna and I were discussing this whole sordid business, another metaphor emerged. I said: “What got Diana in trouble is that she threw a bucket of paint over the Invisible Man.”

And indeed she did. Now he’s out there in the darkness frenziedly dousing himself with paint-remover in an attempt to erase his suddenly visible outline. But what was he doing there in the first place, crashing around in the undergrowth frightening the animals?

Continue reading

Two Minutes Hate Against Bild

Yesterday afternoon we published a translation of an opinion piece by Nicolaus Fest from the German newspaper Bild. Mr. Fest put into writing his doubleplus ungood thoughts about Islam, and now he’s in big trouble: his own editor has repudiated him, and politicians have called for the paper to apologize to German Muslims.

My goodness! Based on the aversive reaction, you’d think he was Diana West writing about Harry Hopkins and FDR!

Below are excerpts from a Breitbart article about the brouhaha:

Germany’s Biggest Paper under Fire for Attacking Islam

Germany’s biggest newspaper was forced into a climb down after it criticised Islam’s “criminality,” “murderous contempt” and “honour killings.”

“I don’t believe in God, but at the same time Christianity, Judaism or Buddhism don’t bother me. Only Islam bothers me more and more,” wrote Nicolaus Fest, vice editor-in-chief of the Bild am Sonntag newspaper in an opinion piece published on Sunday, according to The Local.

“I’m bothered by the considerably disproportionate criminality of youths from Muslim backgrounds. I’m bothered by Islam’s murderous contempt for women and homosexuals. I’m bothered by forced marriages, ‘justices of the peace,’ ‘honour killings,’” he wrote.

These cultural manifestations were making Islam “a barrier to integration.”

He also called for more deliberate policies when dealing with claims for asylum and visa applications to Germany. According to RT.com, Fest concluded by saying: “I don’t need any imported racism and I don’t need anything else Islam stands for.”

The opinion piece attracted thousands of angry online comments and criticism from German politicians who called the article “racist.” Politicians such as the Green party’s Volker Beck demanded an apology from the newspaper to German Muslims, who currently make up 4.3 million (over five per cent) of the country’s population.

Continue reading

The Consequences of Departing from the “Accepted History”

A year ago, in July and August of 2013, we were in the early stages of the controversy over Diana West’s book American Betrayal. Ms. West was being subjected by a series of vitriolic attacks by Ronald Radosh, David Horowitz, Conrad Black, and other major luminaries. She had few prominent defenders, and most of those who spoke positively about her book did so after a significant delay, and then even hedged their mild support with caveats and criticisms.

The “Barroom Brawl” continued for another four or five months, and then died out last winter.

Or did it?

Three weeks ago a writer named Jeff Lipkes published a 12,000-word three-part account of the controversy over American Betrayal at American Thinker (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3; Diana West’s email exchange with the editor is here). Mr. Lipkes’ work was yet another attempt by the neoconservative elite to cement Ms. West’s position as a “conspiracist” and “right-wing loopy” from the point of view of the bien-pensants of the “conservative” establishment.

After Part 3 was published, Diana West submitted a letter of response. The editor of American Thinker, J.R. Dunn, insisted that her letter had to meet his requirements in order to be published at AT, and that she must accept his editorial revisions if she wanted it to appear. This was an unusual — if not unprecedented — set of restrictions imposed upon an author who wanted to publish a response to a piece that had attacked her.

J.R. Nyquist has written an extensive account of the American Thinker episode, and I have excerpted major portions of it below. But before we get to that, I’d like readers to think about the larger implications of the ongoing efforts to suppress and discredit Diana West.

Here we are, more than a year after Ronald Radosh and David Horowitz began their campaign to “take down” the book that “should not have been written”. Dozens and dozens of reviews, articles and opinion pieces have been written attacking American Betrayal, many of them by people who have never read the book. Diana West has been shut out of most publications, unable to defend herself in a major venue against the manifold falsehoods, misrepresentations, and name-calling directed at her.

But that’s not enough. One year later, a representative of the establishment’s point of view was assigned the job of writing 12,000 words against her, and she was denied the opportunity to publish an unedited response in the same outlet.

That’s some planet, that Planet X.

What is it about American Betrayal that warrants such an extended and determined effort to suppress it?

Below are excerpts from what J.R. Nyquist has to say on the topic in the second part of “Further Reflections on Diana West’s Critics” :

In the controversy over American Betrayal I am remiss in one respect. I never wrote a proper review of the book. Instead I wrote two versions of a review, and both were rejected by editors. For this I am grateful because in truth I had not invested the time required to properly do the job. I did not fully appreciate the impact of the campaign against American Betrayal, or how effective that campaign had been. For those who have not read the book, it is about the Communist infiltration of the U.S. Government, and the influencing of U.S. policy during the critical years of World War II and its aftermath. The facts reviewed in the book are not entirely new. What was original was the way in which these facts were presented; that is, in order that we might see the big picture with greater clarity. This is Diana West’s special achievement.

This is a book with far-reaching implications. These implications, of course, have yet to be mapped out. For example, we must assume that Soviet agents were not only at work in Washington during World War II. They were also at work in Chungking, Tokyo, Berlin, London and Paris. If the U.S. Government had Communist moles, every other government probably had them. As if to prove my point, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Louis Kilzer wrote a book titled Hitler’s Traitor : Martin Bormann and the Defeat of the Reich (which alleges that Bormann was Stalin’s agent). Here we discover that it wasn’t just a case of Harry Hopkins manipulating Roosevelt. Hitler was manipulated by Bormann, and probably by others we’ll never know about. Many books remain to be written; for example, regarding how Churchill was manipulated, and also de Gaulle. Consider a 1997 article titled How a Soviet mole united Tito and Churchill. Consider, as well, the situation of Charles de Gaulle, as described in the Encyclopedia of Cold War Espionage, Spies, and Secret Operations: “In the late 1950s, and especially since the defection of Anatoli Golitsyn in 1961, strong suspicion surrounded the SDECE of harboring Soviet moles who were close to President Charles de Gaulle after he returned to power in 1958.”

Then there was the Tokyo spy ring, of course. Within that organization, Soviet spy Richard Sorge was credited with saving the Soviet Union in 1941. At the Spy Museum website we read, “The spies [of the Tokyo ring] pursued relationships with senior Japanese politicians, garnering information about Japanese foreign policy.” But as we know, Soviet spies do not merely garner information. Their primary work must have been to influence Japanese policy — as Moscow’s moles in Washington worked to influence American policy. Why did Tokyo fail to make peace with China and solidify a friendship with the United States? It is not an idle question when so many leading Japanese politicians thought the proper strategic direction for Japan was against the Soviet Union. In reminding us that Soviet agents are not merely spies, Mrs. West has laid bare the tragedy of a war that need not have been so costly. And this is why she has been so savagely attacked. This is why her work is called into question.

Everyone knows the role that Hitler and the Japanese militarists played in bringing about World War II. What about the role of Stalin and his agents? With the exception of Viktor Suvorov’s The Chief Culprit and Icebreaker, no major study has appeared exploring the extent to which Moscow may have connived at the crises of 1938 and 1939. On the other hand, we do have John Koster’s Operation Snow, which shows how Soviet spies succeeded in pushing Japan and the United States closer to war in 1941. Is it thinkable? Certainly, it takes us beyond the “accepted history.” But is the idea so implausible that future authors must be struck from civilized discourse as “conspiracy theorists”? Or are such ruminations consistent with what we know about Soviet active measures (i.e., disinformation). Ask yourself the question: Why is someone attacked, going on a year, for discussing the strategic implications of Soviet penetration of the Roosevelt administration? Unless Moscow is recycling Russia’s old strategies from World War II, with an eye to a repeat performance, why would anyone care?

When the second version of my review of Mrs. West’s book was rejected by a reputable conservative publisher, I assumed it was due to the inadequacy of my own writing, so I asked the publisher for a chance to rewrite the review, and give it a more scholarly tone. The publisher was extremely kind, and wrote a reply which was nonetheless troubling. He wrote to dissuade me from any such attempt. He admitted that America was penetrated by the Soviets during World War II. But writing about this went against “accepted history.” In this matter, Mrs. West should not have been so bold. “That our policy-making apparatus was compromised is also clear,” he explained. But “this is so jarring to the lay reader that” the thesis requires a substantial backing up. I was astonished at this. What about Mrs. West’s 900 plus endnotes? Well, it seems that endnotes don’t count if a journalist compiles them. What I want to know is, when and how did we end up in a Kafka novel? Oh yes, we live in a strange world indeed; for if I say the sky is blue, it can only be credited if I am a meteorologist! If “accepted history” is made of such stuff, then “accepted history” is for dolts. This also explains why Radosh’s unscholarly, error-filled, screeds against Mrs. West receive a pass and are given credibility; that is, because he is a historian.

I had assumed that conservatives and anti-Communists would instinctively rally to American Betrayal. In large degree, this did not happen. We see, above, why it did not happen. Of course, a few great names rose to Mrs. West’s defense — like Vladimir Bukovsky and Stanton Evans. We know that both are courageous men. It would’ve been out of character if they had not defended her. Sad to say, this fortitude did not rub off on the “larger” conservative “movement.” It speaks ill of conservatism overall that Radosh’s self-discrediting attacks on Mrs. West were not dismissed out of hand. Instead, these attacks were taken as a warning, translated as follows: “Shut up or we’ll drag your name through the mud too.” And so we find that American conservatives are easily intimidated. Against all reason, Radosh’s bungling attacks on American Betrayal sent a chill through the “movement.” The implication, of course, is that the conservative movement is worthless.

As the publisher had written to me, “I believe Diana is substantially right….” But that does not matter. Someone else now dictates whether a conservative rejects or accepts a book review. What we believe, what is substantially right, must be left to someone with “an authoritative voice.” And how does the would-be ventriloquist of conservatism acquire this mythical status? Of course, no conservative possesses such a voice, so that the problem of departing from “accepted history”becomes insurmountable. We must stay with the Office of War Information, and praise our wartime alliance with Stalin. And we must wait for a ventriloquist from God-knows-where to tell us what nonsense is to follow the current nonsense.

But shouldn’t the decisive point have been that Mrs. West is “substantially right”? And therefore, how are we served by an “accepted history” that is substantially wrong? Shouldn’t this “history” be overthrown? And, further, how did we get saddled with such a history?

Or maybe we should ask how we got saddled with such “conservatives”?

Continue reading

Envy: To Love Death More than Life

This may be Bill Whittle’s finest summation yet. He certainly covers the themes that have been at the center of many private meditations, prayers and ponderings for those familiar with the Jewish scriptural references Mr. Whittle highlights. Thousands of years later and the same old argument continues:

Mr. Whittle names chapter and verse, or rather, he names one of them. The Scriptures limn the many fractures of the human heart, the myriad ways we fail ourselves and each other:

Genesis 26

Now there was a famine in the land, besides the previous famine that had occurred in the days of Abraham. So Isaac went to Gerar, to Abimelech king of the Philistines.

The LORD appeared to him and said, “Do not go down to Egypt; stay in the land of which I shall tell you. “Sojourn in this land and I will be with you and bless you, for to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I swore to your father Abraham. “I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; 5because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”

So Isaac lived in Gerar. …

Now Isaac sowed in that land and reaped in the same year a hundredfold. And the LORD blessed him, and the man became rich, and continued to grow richer until he became very wealthy; for he had possessions of flocks and herds and a great household, so that the Philistines envied him.

Now all the wells which his father’s servants had dug in the days of Abraham his father, the Philistines stopped up by filling them with earth. Then Abimelech said to Isaac, “Go away from us, for you are too powerful for us.” And Isaac departed from there and camped in the valley of Gerar, and settled there.

Quarrel over the Wells

Then Isaac dug again the wells of water which had been dug in the days of his father Abraham, for the Philistines had stopped them up after the death of Abraham; and he gave them the same names which his father had given them.

But when Isaac’s servants dug in the valley and found there a well of flowing water, the herdsmen of Gerar quarreled with the herdsmen of Isaac, saying, “The water is ours!” So he named the well Esek, because they contended with him.

Then they dug another well, and they quarreled over it too, so he named it Sitnah.

He moved away from there and dug another well, and they did not quarrel over it; so he named it Rehoboth, for he said, “At last the LORD has made room for us, and we will be fruitful in the land.”

But he not only points out the sad and tedious repetitions — the Philistines filling in the wells three thousand years ago vs. the Palestinians’ deliberate destruction of the tremendous wealth handed to them in the form of those greenhouses — he goes further to ask American Jews why they voted in, why they support a man so dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Now, with the stunning news of the multitude of tunnels dug from Gaza into Israel, the hinge of history has closed another door. Slammed it quite loudly.

Those tunnels were — are, but shortly will be were — changing the rules of this elaborate game the world has played at Israel’s expense. Who donated the dollars (actually, mostly euros) that made the tunnels possible? Who sold Hamas the concrete? Who helped them engineer and build those tunnels? They did it themselves you say? You live in a dream world.

This a culture created to play the role of underdog. Their job is to exist and to suffer and to make demands. Suffering, the right kind of suffering, bestows the right of entitlement, the right to stand eternally with one’s hand out, demanding more.

The PoorPalis can’t design tunnels; they don’t build bridges; they have no desire, nor the memory of any such desire, to see the embodiment of Beauty or Truth or Goodness. Music to soothe and restore? Art to change perceptions? Research to satisfy curiosity (however momentarily)? Such concepts are now beyond a people raised from infancy to hate a group of people they don’t know beyond the cartoon primers they read in school. This is not the hatred of close encounters, it is the deep, abiding misery that arrives on the tails of an inbred sense of entitlement with no hope of fulfillment. Not ever. Normal human desire to achieve has been replaced by an evil simulacrum of a deeply perverted need to destroy.

Continue reading

What is Racism?

If you appreciate this essay by Fjordman, please consider making a donation to him, using the button at the bottom of this post.

What is Racism?
by Fjordman

We hear a great deal about the evils of “racism” in the mass media. But what exactly is “racism,” anyway?

If the word means “to harbor prejudice against people with a different skin color and ethnic background”, then it is documented that Europeans, especially those from northwestern Europe, are among the least racist peoples on the surface of this planet. People coming from other parts of the world, for instance from Asia or Africa, tend on average to be more prejudiced against individuals from a different ethnic background. This further implies that mass immigration from Asia or Africa to the Western world increases the amount of racism in our societies, since Europeans are being displaced by more prejudiced newcomers.

If “racism” is used to indicate that you believe that some cultures are better than others, then this is simply common sense. A brutal, violent clan culture with endemic corruption generates a different society from a culture with high levels of trust and low levels of corruption, where citizens try to settle their differences in peaceful ways. Different cultures produce different societies, and some societies yield better results than others. This is an empirical fact that is easily documented.

If “racism” is intended to mean a belief there could be genetic differences between different human beings which affect not just how they look, but also how they think and behave, then things become more sensitive.

However, the progress in our understanding of human genetics is now very rapid. Evidence is accumulating indicating that human evolution has continued until the present day. According to some studies, it has even accelerated into historical times. Evidence further indicates that genetics influences how people behave. For instance, studies of identical twins indicate that they often hold similar political views. The implications of these studies is that people who are genetically similar also tend to think and act in similar ways.

If we expand this same principle from individuals to ethnic groups, we might theoretically face the possibility that a group of somewhat genetically related people displays related world views and behaviors, partly for biological reasons. Another way of saying the same thing is that perhaps culture has a genetic component. Please note that I say a component, not that everything in a culture is 100% genetic. Ideas clearly matter. This is, for instance, why some white converts to Islam seem to develop a sudden urge to blow things up shortly after converting.

Continue reading

Poland, RIP

Takuan Seiyo just sent this, which he says was relayed by an Irish-American friend and patriot who until now had drawn some comfort in the relative immunity of Poland and its neighbors to PC/MC:

From that website:

You should know that hate crimes are prosecuted ex officio in Poland. It means that, in the event where the Police or prosecutor’s office learn about such a crime (from you, the media, or a witness’s account), these institutions are obligated to take actions irrespective of a victim’s initiative.

Burka Don’t You Come Around Here Anymore

A couple of years ago a group of doughty Australians (who have more, ahem, manly generative equipment — the women included — than most other Westerners) donned burkas and did a walkabout on the streets of Sydney to make a point.

As you can see from the videos below, these ladies and gents faced “discrimination” whilst in their culturally enriched garb. But it wasn’t the standard kind of WAYCISM that the mainstream media would have you expect — it was the anger of “Australian” youths that these pale-skinned interlopers should be wearing garments reserved for their own chattel womenfolk.

Sydney banks made amends for such maltreatment by allowing the Burka Boys unfettered entry to their premises — which they most assuredly would not have allowed to anyone wearing a ski mask or a visored motorcycle helmet:

These Australian videos came to mind a couple of days ago when a freelance British journalist and producer emailed me about a documentary she intends to produce for the BBC in which young men put on burkas to test the reaction of passersby when they go out on the street.

As it turns out, Vlad Tepes also received a copy of the same email. Now, I hadn’t expected that BBC documentary would have the same “Islamophobic” intentions as those bag-headed Australians. However, I hadn’t thought out the full ramifications of the Beeb’s scam like Vlad has. Below is a cross-post of what he had to say.

The BBC plans to run another burka scam.
By Eeyore for Vlad

To be perfectly fair it is quite possible that Kate Mead, the freelance journalist who is doing this piece for the BBC, may well be sincere and may well not understand this the same way. Its also possible that she is not setting up her social experiment the way I suspect she is. But as pretty much all the other similar articles I have read are designed to deliver the same results I figure it is probably safe to at least speculate that this BBC repetition of it will likely be set up the same, will yield the same results and for the same reasons.

Below, the contents of an email forwarded to me by someone who received it directly from Ms. Mead.

Subject: Documentary

Dear Sir or Madam

I came across your blog while researching for information about a documentary I am developing for BBC Three and I wonder whether you can help. We are in the second stage of our development for this one-off programme which will look at the Burka and whether it should be banned in the UK.

We are currently looking for young men (18-35) to take part in this project who have strong views either in favour of a ban or opposing it. The idea is that they will journey around the country speaking to various women about their experiences – positive and negative – and work with a Muslim social worker who encourages men to experiment with the experience by wearing a Burka themselves for a few days. It is meant to be an accessible look at the issue of Burkas in the UK for a young audience and we hope that our contributors will go on a journey of discovery that might change or intensify their feelings.

As we are looking for potential contributors throughout the UK, we would be really keen to hear from anyone articulate, passionate about the subject and willing to explore the issue directly. I thought that one or several of your writers might be interested in this and would welcome hearing from them. Please do forward my details and invite them to get in touch. I would be most grateful for any help you can give.

We are currently doing screen tests to take back to the channel ahead of commission. This would take about half an hour and we can travel to where they live or pay expenses.

I hope to hear from you soon and thanks in advance.

Kind regards


Kate Mead
(Contact info redacted)

The first problem of course is that it is a setup for tyranny either way. The question is not whether or not to ban a style of clothing. One does not guarantee personal freedom by draconian laws on women’s fashion, even if this is more than just matter of women’s fashion. The solution to the burka problem is giving back people the freedom to discriminate for their own interests and for society to discriminate based on what is in the public interest.

This translates to private store owners having the right to refuse admission to people who are wearing a disguise whether that disguise is a Nixon mask, a pig’s head or a burka and in the public sector, to refuse admittance to people wearing a disguise in public transport, in public buildings and so on. This is more than reasonable, it is actually necessary. While this looks like a nudge nudge style banning of the burka it is not. If women want to wear fundamentalist islamic garb good. Then let them. That way we can know who they are, as the degree of threat they represent to liberal democracy is directly proportional to the degree of religiosity they display. But wearing a disguise in public should be illegal and in many cases already is, and exceptions are made for muslims. So once again, the real solution is not a new law, but to stop making exceptions for the existing ones. Just try and walk into a bank with a motorcycle helmet and a tinted visor and see how long you stay in line.

Now on to what I suspect is a public sympathy scam for the BBC:

Continue reading

The Mark of the Totalitarian

Our Canadian correspondent Rembrandt Clancy has translated an opinion piece from the Austrian daily Die Presse about the use of the term “populism” to discredit and demonize certain political opinions:

Populism: Pure Hatred in Place of Factual Arguments

The time has come to dispose of the term populism; it is not suitable for serious political and social dialogue.

By Andreas Kirschhofer-Bozenhardt

(Die Presse Print Edition, 1 July 2014)

The results of an Imas poll taken twelve years ago, in June of 2002, showed that 42 percent of Austrians were unable to explain the meaning of the term populism. 36 percent had a vague idea about it and only 16 percent were able to make something of the word. The population has likely learned their lesson by now: populism is that which does not suit the self-righteous champions of political correctness when a reasonable counterargument fails them.

Political ideologues have long been inventive in verbal battle against their adversaries. Above all leftist demagogues have developed a rich fantasy for it. Revolutionary enforcers originally spoke of class enemies or bourgeois exploiters. In more recent times new inflammatory words have come into vogue and it is with these that the religious warriors to the left of centre brand everyone who lingers to the right of it.

Small-calibre word projectiles presently in use are: “neo-feudal”, “economic liberal”, “neo-liberal”, “capitalistic” and “conservative”. Included with the larger ammunition are among other things, “nationalistic”, or word coinages such as “flat-earther” [ewig Gestrige, lit.: one who is eternally of yesterday]. The superlative form which leads to complete political damnation begins with the verdict ‘populism’, mostly used in combination with ‘right-wing radical’ or ‘extreme right’. In the application of this pivotal word, it is only very seldom that the eye drifts from right to left.

The Appeal to Public Opinion

The term populism is used above all against people with a sense of attachment to their homeland, or against those who disapprove of equating homosexual partnerships with traditional marriage, against sceptics of a motley multicultural society, against defenders of their own culture and traditions, against proponents of a rigorous stance against criminals, against defenders of Christian faith; and not least, against critics of the maldevelopments in the EU. However, EU-supporters who oppose the transfer of wealth from northern Europe to southern Europe and the rehabilitation of the indebted countries at the expense of their own wealth must also expect to be classified among the populists.

Continue reading

There Is No Fun In Leftism

Ayatollah Khomeini famously remarked, “There is no fun in Islam.” The same might be said of German Progressives in the Kreuzberg district of Berlin, who self-righteously forbade any World Cup celebrations involving — yuck! — German national symbols.

JLH has translated an article about the phenomenon, and includes this note:

The author’s attitude toward people who play down nationalism reminds me of what is happening here in the USA, but most forcibly of Tommy Robinson, whose great crime was organizing a group defamed as “soccer hooligans” into an instrument of national pride and the drive for freedom — and had to be punished for it.

The translated article from B.Z.:

Celebrating Soccer is Forbidden in Kreuzberg

The national colors and anthems are forbidden in a bar. Typical for the leftist feeling of superiority, thinks Gunnar Schupelius.

July 14, 2014
by Gunnar Schupelius

Excuse the lack of definition — I took this photo on the way by, with my iPhone [Photo of the blackboard mentioned in the next sentence].

I was standing in front of a bar in Kreuzberg and looking at the board that normally displayed the specialties of the day. Instead of names of dishes, I read the following advice for the guests who were expected to come and watch soccer. It said: “And, as always, no anthems, no banners, no horn-tooting, no silly hats.”

I asked the waiter what that meant. Answer: “We watch soccer because we are interested in the sport and not some stupid nationalist feelings!” Aha, now I got it. I asked if the customers saw it that way too. “Naturally,” he said, “but the board is a reminder, in case anyone forgets.”

I would have loved to ask about the consequences of the instructions on the board. Am I allowed to celebrate German triumphs in this bar, or must I compensate by also cheering goals for the other team? Does the waiter keep watch, to make sure I don’t cheer too much for German goals? Will I be ejected if I forget myself before the game and hum the national anthem?

I try to imagine how the politically correct people in this bar celebrated the World Cup: objectively, judicially, quietly. And they felt good about it — on top of the world. They felt that they were something better — above all the other Berlin soccer fans. Because, right here in Kreuzberg, they had overcome nationalism.

The pride and arrogance that cry out from the soccer rules of that bar remind me of the stickers leftist activists put on the cars of soccer fans. They tear up the black-red-gold banners on the cars and replace them with: “It does no matter what motivated you to use this banner — it always produces nationalism.”

Waving the national flag or singing the national anthem are treated like a crime on the Left.

Continue reading

Muslim Immigrants and Their Suicidal Prey

The following essay from Cherson and Molschky has been cross-posted here at the recommendation of our British correspondent JP.

Muslim Immigrants and Their Suicidal Prey

by Y.K. Cherson

How do former empires get colonized by their own colonies? It defies all logic, yet somehow, this is what has come to be in Europe. In the midst of a full-blown conquista, after what began as a simple plan to bring over some cheap labor to do the work the natives couldn’t be bothered with, Europe is aiding and abetting in its own demise. Muslim immigration has become a Muslim takeover.

A few years ago, Victor Volsky compared the situation to that of the mammoth wasp and its prey. Why such an analogy? Well, a mammoth wasp ensures the survival of its children using a rhinoceros beetle like canned meat. The wasp finds the larva of the beetle that will act as a storehouse for it. With one strike in the nerve center, the mammoth wasp paralyzes the beetle and lays one egg in its outer skin.

Immediately after getting out of the egg, the wasp’s larva starts to use its sharp jaws, eating through the first layer of the beetle’s outer skin before getting to the inner organs and devouring them until the entire stock of food is eaten.

The consumption of the helpless host goes in a strict sequence: first the baby wasp eats the least important organs, like muscles, blood, fat… and only then does the nervous system follow. It means that the paralyzed victim stays alive until the last moment. In this blood-chilling way the growing larva of the mammoth wasp has fresh food during the entire period of its growth.

Europe is certainly feeding its own parasite, first by inviting the parasite to begin with, along with all its friends and relatives. Then by allowing it to thrive in its own community with its own set of rules, never monitored, and even given a stack of beetles in the form of welfare benefits, it has actually become a protected species with political correctness at the helm, directing all critics to the land “hate speech” where “racists” and “fascists” go- to the land of ruined careers and destroyed reputations. Thus, the natives who complain about getting devoured are penalized, while the parasite lives happily on.

The parasite has rights after all. The right to set up shop in our world, feed on us, hate us and consume us, and anyone who doesn’t like it is a parasite-phobe. This is where political correctness has taken us.

Muslims claim more and more privileges, hysterically demanding “to defend” them from “Islamophobia”, “racism” and “discrimination”, operating these terrible words like a thief uses a lock-pick. And yet, in most cases when Islamophobia is reported, it was a crime perpetrated by a Muslim himself or a few insults thrown around on social media. If that is a “hate crime”, Muslims are far more versed in that type of crime than anyone else.

In fact, their own hate crimes go far deeper. After perpetrating a horrific terrorist attack, for example, in the 7/7 London bombings, injuring hundreds and killing 52, shortly before the anniversary this year, they urinated on and defaced the memorial with graffiti. And to show how incredibly “assimilated” they are, they are falling all over themselves to become jihadists in Syria, hoping to return to Europe to demonstrate what they’ve learned amongst their peers.

But no one is allowed to utter a word of discontent. Political correctness again.

Continue reading

Stephen Coughlin Talks to Michael Coren About the Vatican

Major Stephen Coughlin appeared on Michael Coren’s SUN TV program the other night to talk about the little-noticed Islamic prayer recited in the Vatican. As reported here extensively, on June 8, 2015 — Pentecost Sunday — a Sunni imam was among the honored guests invited to offer prayers in the Vatican garden as part of a special ecumenical ceremony promoting peace. The imam went off-script, however, and included in his peroration a verse from the Koran calling on Allah to grant victory over the infidels.

Maj. Coughlin discussed that dismaying event, as well as related issues about the differences between Pope Francis and his predecessor, and the various ways that the Muslim Brotherhood is slowly but surely subverting Western governments, religious bodies, and cultural institutions:

Previous posts about Imamgate — The Arabic prayer at the Vatican, June 8 2014:

2014   Jun   11   The Vatican and Islamic Prayer
        12   Taqiyya, Vatican-Style
        12   What Did the Imam Really Say at the Vatican?
        13   Who Edited the Tape?
        14   Multiculturalism in Religious Garb
        15   Make us Victorious Over the Tribe of Unbelievers
        24   “A Complete Collapse of Reason”
        27   The Vatican Falls for the ‘Interfaith’ Scam
 

Hat tip: Vlad Tepes.

Getting to Know Your Inner Racist

JLH has translated an article about a particularly pernicious form of “diversity training” being practiced in Germany. Interestingly enough, the sessions shown in the ZDF TV documentary can be traced back to an American model from the 1960s.

The translated article from Junge Freiheit:

Getting to Know Your Inner Racist

by Ronald Glaser

The new racist mania is called “anti-racism”. On Thursday, ZDF-neo viewers can discover what bizarre fruits are produced by the fixation of do-gooders on questions of racism. At that time, the “something-to-do-with-social” theoreticians Juliane Degner and Mark Schrödter, with moderator Amiaz Habtu, intend to drag the “racist in us” into the light of day. The central figure of the TV documentary is Jürgen Schlicher, an unsympatico “diversity management trainer.” His credo is, “Thank heavens it is no longer the case that everyone with a good job in Germany has a German name.”

Moderator Habtu leaves no doubt about where this is headed. At the very beginning, he cites a study to the effect that one-quarter of Germans are xenophobic. “Racism in everyday life is quite subtle, and yet apparent,” And does not support this absurd theory with a single fact.

“Anti-racism training” like this is based on the ideas of the American teacher, feminist and lesbian activist, Jane Eliot. In the 1960s, she developed this experiment, which has since then become a classic of diversity education and conditioned ensuing generations of American children in political correctness.

The Politically Correct Dogmas of a Pseudo-Scientist

Schlicher was Eliot’s student. For his “workshop,” ZDF hired 39 participants, screened by eye color — blue-eyed over here; brown-eyed over there. The blue-eyed are bullied; the brown-eyed are favored. This is supposed to uncover the so-called mechanisms of discrimination. That is, drive out racism with racism.

The participants do not understand the psycho-terror and react with irritation. Apparently because all of them are thinking of the fee they are being paid, none of them stands up against Schlicher’s harsh comments. This, of course, is instantaneous proof for the two social consultants that witnesses do not turn against discrimination because of group dynamics.

Continue reading

Partnering for Islam in Tennessee

The following post is combined from the three most recent newsletters (#128-#130) of the Tennessee Council for Political Justice.

Newsletter #128 — Partnering For Islam in Tennessee

TN Senate Candidate Mwafaq Aljabbary (aka Mwafaq Mohammed) Wants Islamic Charter School

If elected, TN Senate District 21 candidate Mwafaq Aljabbary/Mohammed would fit right in with the Republican goal of more publicly funded charter schools. In fact, he tried to help start one himself.


Left to right: Joshua Rawlings, Mwafaq Aljabbary or Mohammed, TN Governor Bill Haslam

In 2013, the Nolensville Academy for Math and Science had their application denied by Metro Nashville schools for the fourth time. Ismail Fidan is the lead applicant; Aljabbary/Mohammed is listed as a board member.

The Nolensville Academy’s “Letter of Intent” states that the majority of the students it planned to serve are from “minority-immigrant groups living in and around the Nolensville area.” It seems counter-intuitive to segregate “minority-immigrant” groups from the opportunity to integrate and assimilate in the more inclusive Metro Nashville school population. (read more about the proposed school here and here.)

Community agitators from Aljabbary/Mohammed’s mosque like Remziya Suleyman and AMAC members, (American Muslim Advisory Council), go to great lengths to keep Muslim youth separated from the mainstream American student experience. Muslim-centric “alternative proms,” high school Muslim Student Associations and Muslim scholastic competitions, are just what Muhammed prescribed:

“The Holy Qur’an declares that a believer should never prefer a non-Muslim over a Muslim. If a person did so, then they would put themselves in danger of rejecting their Imam. The Blessed Prophet once remarked that, “Whoever spends forty days with a people becomes like them.” Therefore we must realize that it is better to be with those who believe as we do.”

(p.365, “What Islam Is All About” — textbook used in Knoxville’s Annoor Academy private Islamic school).

Suleyman describes this self-imposed separation as “otherness” and insists that it is a result of discrimination by racists and Islamophobes rather than a reflection of Quranic doctrine.

Aljabbary/Mohammed supports a publicly-funded Islamic school. Is this how we should spend our tax dollars?

Newsletter #129 — Partnering for Islam

Why Nashville Kurds and Turks Find Common Ground

One would imagine that for Nolensville Academy’s Kurdish Muslim board members, Mohammed Kokoy, Ahmad Brifkani and Mwafaq Mohammed (aka, Aljabbary/Mohammed), the alliance with Gulen followers is acceptable and reflective of what is happening in their homeland.

Continue reading