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

The French Government: Crooks, Christianophobes, and Sons of Whores

The Algerian-French auto pundit Aldo Sterone — who found it too hot to sit in his car while recording this video — returns with a discussion of current events in Syria and Iraq, the presence of terrorists from Boko Haram in France, and the failings of François Hollande’s socialist government.

Many thanks to Oz-Rita for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Transcript:

Continue reading

An Atheist’s Antipathy Towards Islam

Many thanks to JLH for translating this brief piece from Bild:

Islam as a Hindrance to Integration

by Nicolaus Fest
July 27, 2014

I am an atheist who is sympathetic to religion. I do not believe in any god, but Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism do not disturb me.

Only Islam bothers me, more and more. I am disturbed by the highly disproportionate criminality of young people of Muslim heritage. I am bothered by the [literally and figuratively] killing contempt for women and homosexuals.

I am disturbed by forced marriages, “peace [sharia] judges,” and “honor killings.”

And I am disturbed more than even semi-civilized words can convey by anti-Semitic pogroms.

So I ask myself: Is religion a hindrance to integration? My impression — not always. But in the case of Islam, it probably is. We should take that into account, when considering asylum and immigration.

I can do without imported racism, and, as to what else Islam stands for, I can do without that too.

For a complete listing of previous enrichment news, see The Cultural Enrichment Archives.

“Jews to the Gas!”

JLH has translated an opinion piece from the Austrian media about the pro-Palestinian anti-Semitic wave currently sweeping across Europe. The translator includes this note:

Die Presse always did have the class writers. But in this age of fawning on the authorities, it is bracing to encounter a journalist of the old school who does not hesitate to tell it like it is.

I suspect Christian Ortner believed in the principles of the EU as they were originally presented and resents the distortions they have undergone. As they say, a cynic is an idealist who has been mugged by reality. His irony is vicious, and well-deserved. Vienna continues its tradition of brilliant, against-the-grain writers.

The translated op-ed from Die Presse:

That Could Have Almost Become a “European Kristallnacht”

Anti-Semitic mobs are venting their rage in Europe’s big cities, and that is less of a concern for so-called Peace Project Europe than the light bulb question.

by Christian Ortner

The few, old denture-clacking Nazis still alive must have experienced a kind of spiritual revival of the Nuremberg Rallies* in recent days, when they rolled up to the TV in their wheelchairs to watch the news. Because there, in the great cities of Europe — Berlin, Paris and London — anti-Semitic mobs were moving through the streets as if it were 1938, attacking local Jews and Israeli tourists, trying to destroy synagogues and going after Jewish businesses. “Jew, Jew, cowardly swine/Come on out fight alone!” the thugs chanted, under the eyes of German police who not only made no move against them. but even loaned the rioters a megaphone, and immediately an Islamic Berlin hate preacher segued into calling for Jews to be killed: “Jews to the gas!” In Salzburg’s Bischofshofen, anti-Semitic hooligans actually attacked Israeli soccer players. The fact that in recent months 700 French Jews have emigrated to the rocket-plagued south of Israel testifies just how protected Jews feel in Europe in the early 21st century. It is highly probable that, without massive police presence, there would have been burning synagogues, smashed windows in Jewish businesses and a few lynched Jews in the EU last week. That week, Europe was not very far from an EU-wide Nazi pogrom night 2.0 — a kind of domestic market for anti-Semitism, so to speak.

One or the other of the surviving NS veterans, in a transport of joy, must have thought: “Oh, that I have been privileged to see this!”

The reactions of full-time wreath-layers and other tourists at the Wailing Wall to the activities of this mob in European cities were instructive. The proponents of the “European Peace Project” in Brussels — ordinarily concerned about every light bulb on the territory of the EU — witnessed the milieu-appropriate expressions of displeasure by the anti-Semitic rabble without turning a hair. This is surprising, on the one hand, because setting fire to a synagogue creates even more climate-damaging carbon dioxide than a forbidden light bulb. On the other hand, it is understandable, since Professional Europeans are presently fully and competitively occupied in insinuating themselves into the highly remunerated top jobs in Brussels, so they won’t just be hanging around the Côte on vacation (as they presently are), where a person — even a Jew — is safe, at least if you can afford a room in the Eden Roc in Antibes. And because “Peace Project Europe” is a recent recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, the thus honored EU grandees need not worry too much about the Jews of Europe being left in peace. You can’t worry about everything. Worrying about the EU as a reformatory for its inmates is enough.

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.

“Anchor Babies”, German-Style

We’re used to the phenomenon of “anchor babies” here in the USA, where any expectant mother who can get into the country in time to give birth will have an American citizen for a son or daughter.

But a similar problem now exists in Germany and Austria. If unaccompanied minors get into the country, they can stay, and later bring in their parents for “family reunification”. Those kids tug at the heartstrings — they can’t be thrown out, now, can they?

Och, the puir wee bairns!

How do you say that in German?

Many thanks to JLH for this translation from Zuerst:

“Anchor” Children Become a Problem

Flood of Underage Foreigners Increases

July 19, 2014

BERLIN: A problem is making the rounds: “anchor children” — that is, unaccompanied, underage refugees brought in by people smugglers. After receiving their residence permits, they send for their parents, siblings and other relatives. Their number in Germany is on the rise.

This phenomenon is not confined to Europe, but also exists in the USA. Bypassing Congress in 2012, President Barack Obama defanged the immigration law. From that time on, young immigrants in the USA would not be sent back. Obama mandated that immigrants arriving as children or youths may no longer be deported. Furthermore, they have the right to apply for a job.

The fact cannot be argued away that Obama’s and his administration’s controversial immigration policy has been bearing fruit for a long time, in the form of increasing numbers of illegal border crossings by South- and Central Americans. Last year, new negative records were reached in connection with the problem of the “anchor children.” According to Homeland Security, over 52,000 underage immigrants without parents had been picked up along the Mexican border since October. The children and young people come mostly from Central American and are fleeing poverty or violence.

Homeland Security, which is responsible for protecting the border, has no estimate of unreported cases, and it could be in the tens of thousands, not counting the number of dead and kidnapped.

The “anchor children” who have come to Germany have no settled residence status. They are hoping for a residence permission which will allow their parents, siblings and other relatives to come to Germany without problems. Only a few of these anchor children apply for asylum. There were 2,096 unaccompanied refugee minors in 2012 — three times as many as in 2008. There are no nationwide figures for how many unaccompanied refugee minors are living in Germany now.

Since 2005, youth offices have been obligated to take children and young people into care, if they are in Germany unaccompanied. Most of the support is supplied by branches of Child and Youth Welfare.

In 2012 in Austria, a total of 1,631 unaccompanied children were apprehended by the Ministry of the Interior.

“It’s More Than Worry: It’s Fear”

Sarcelles is a culturally enriched suburb north of Paris. Last weekend, especially on Sunday, Sarcelles was catapulted into the headlines by pro-Palestinian demonstrations that metamorphosed into anti-Jewish riots targeting a synagogue and Jewish businesses. The smoldering shop fronts and smashed display windows were reminiscent of Kristallnacht in 1938, only this time the perpetrators were not blond blue-eyed Europeans wearing uniforms, but culture-enrichers wearing sweatshirts, sneakers, and baseball caps — “youths” exemplifying France’s rich rainbow tapestry of vibrant diversity.

Many thanks to Oz-Rita for translating this French news report, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling. Translator’s note: “Be aware that Chanel 2 — French State TV, probably the French equivalent of the BBC — are dhimmi and Islamophile, so it must be really getting bad over there if even they come out on the side of the Jews.”

Below are excerpts from several news articles about last weekend’s violence in Sarcelles. First, from The Local (hat tip Fjordman):

Pro-Palestinian rally near Paris ends in violence

A Pro-Palestinian demo ended in violence in a Paris suburb on Sunday, just a day after a similar rally to denounce Israel’s attack on Gaza in the centre of the French capital, also descended into a riot as protesters clash with police.

A rally in the Paris suburb town of Sarcelles that had also initially been banned ended in chaos as several cars were burnt or vandalised, shops were looted and young protesters lit firecrackers and smoke bombs.

Early Sunday evening, tensions were still high in the town, with riot police blocking access to the local synagogue, where a group of young vigilantes stood armed with clubs and iron bars — one of them flying an Israeli flag.

The violence echoed similar scenes at a banned pro-Palestinian rally in the cente of Paris on Saturday afternoon.

As the evening wore on in Sarcelles, looters then began raiding shops, wrecking a funeral home and destroying its front window as several protesters shouted: “F*** Israel!”.

Others raided a drugstore which caught fire. Young girls grabbed baby milk inside.

“We’re going to get the cash register,” one person shouted, his voice drowned by the noise of a police helicopter overhead and the alarm of a nearby pizzeria.

Security forces then fired rubber bullets in the direction of the looters as police helicopters buzzed overhead.

At least 13 rioters had been arrested by the early evening, and four policemen had been hospitalised with several others injured. There were also reports of journalists being attacked by the rioters.

Le Figaro newspaper also reported that a molotov cocktail had been thrown at a synagogue in the area, which was being garded by police. The makeshift incendiary device exploded next to the building but did not set it alight, the newspaper reported.

“The atmosphere is very tense, we are waiting for reinforcements from the gendarmes,” one police officer told Le Figaro.

[…]

Organisers have defiantly called for another rally in the French capital on Saturday, starting at 1300 GMT in the central Republic Square.

The Israeli offensive has stoked passions in France, which has the largest Muslim population in western Europe as well as a 500,000-strong Jewish community.

From Al Bawaba (hat tip JP):

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

Two Norwegian Terrorists Named Anders

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

It has been three years since Anders Behring Breivik killed 77 people with his July 22 2011 terror attacks in Norway. There have been several articles and stories mentioning me in the Norwegian media the last couple of weeks. This may well happen every July for years to come, with predictable regularity. It’s a bit like strawberry season.

In an essay published at the website of the state broadcaster NRK, three professional “anti-racists” asked for more money from the government to combat Islamophobia and other alleged right-wing extremism that can fuel terrorism.

If you read their essay closely, it names one, and only one, person as representing these supposedly evil forces: myself. So what they are really arguing is that more than three years after Breivik’s attacks, Norway must spend more tax money on combating me, personally. Apparently the public funding that many professional activists have today is inadequate for that purpose. They must regard me as some kind of Godzilla — or Fjordzilla.

The three individuals who authored this essay — Rune Berglund Steen, Shoaib Sultan and Ervin Kohn — were all associated with the state-sponsored Norwegian Centre against Racism. Its leader Berglund Steen has previously suggested that I want to more or less single-handedly start a world war. He didn’t specify exactly how I would be in a position to do so, even if I wanted to.

Shoaib Sultan, a Muslim activist of Pakistani origins, works for the Centre as an advisor on so-called Islamophobia and right-wing extremism. The labor unions (LO), which have intimate ties to the Labour Party, from 2012 onward sponsored this work against Islamophobia with hundreds of thousands of kroner every year.

Sultan is a previous leader of the Islamic Council of Norway. In 2006, during the height of the international Mohammed Cartoons crisis, he published a newspaper essay in Aftenposten claiming that the cartoons had “hurt” him and other Muslims, and that freedom of speech should not be absolute. Shoaib Sultan suggested that Norway should study suggestions made by Abid Q. Raja, a lawyer and politician of Pakistani Muslim background, to strengthen laws against blasphemy so that Muslims would not have their feelings hurt again.

Continue reading

Ben-Gurion Airport is in a War Zone

There will be no letter from Sderot today by our Israeli correspondent MC. He says he has been losing too much sleep writing all those updates from the border with Gaza.

In the meantime, the continuous rain of rockets from Gaza has impacted international air travel to Ben-Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv. Here’s what The New York Times reported a little while ago:

F.A.A. Bans U.S. Airline Flights to Tel Aviv for 24 Hours

Major American airlines stopped flying to Israel on Tuesday after a rocket fell near Ben-Gurion International Airport outside Tel Aviv, and the Federal Aviation Administration told the carriers not to fly to Tel Aviv for 24 hours.

All three United States carriers with service to Israel — Delta Air Lines, United Airlines and US Airways — said they had temporarily suspended their flights. The move highlighted the impact of the conflict in Gaza on the Israeli economy at the height of the summer tourism season.

It also came at a time when airlines around the globe appeared to be much more sensitive about the risks of flying over conflict areas, following the downing of a Malaysia Airlines jetliner over eastern Ukraine last week.

For the moment, European airlines are still operating their flights. British Airways, for instance, said it “continues to operate as normal” and is monitoring the situation closely.

However, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff reports that Lufthansa has also banned flights to Ben-Gurion.

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

Good Riddance!

Geert Wilders and other Dutch politicians are opposed to any efforts to keep “Dutch” mujahideen from traveling to Syria and Iraq to wage jihad. They’d be glad to see them go — provided that the Dutch government never, ever permits them to return to the Netherlands.

Many thanks to JLH for translating this piece from Politically Incorrect:

Geert Wilders: How We Can Help Our “Migrant Holy Warriors” and Ourselves as Well

Whether they are Hamas, Fatah, Al Qaida, Boko Haram. ISIS, Hizb ut-Tahir, Salafists or other, they are all part of the Islamic ummah, just as the Islamic organizations in Europe belong to the ummah. With every terror attack and death, the jihad activists confirm what they told us in the devastating attacks in Madrid in 2004: “You love life; we love death.” And the local representatives of Islam, in their mosques sponsored and ratified by dhimmi politicians, clergy and media, have not denied that, and they do not demonstrate against Islamic terror. They can’t — it is in accordance with the Koran. So how would it be possible to find agreement with these “wandering holy warriors,” or even find some way of mutually helping each other?

(by Alster)

Almost all the countries or Europe are discussing how to deal with the danger from radicalized Muslims returning from Syria and Iraq. At the same time, according to the chief of state security with the Braunschweig criminal police, Klaus Buhlmann, thirty persons from the region of Braunschweig/Wolfsburg alone are sitting, waiting on packed luggage.

How many are there altogether in Europe? 400 to 500 fighters from Great Britain alone have been taken on by ISIS. Germany shares the problem with other European countries such as Denmark, Sweden, Great Britain and Ireland, Belgium, France, Spain and the Netherlands.

Now, a video from Aleppo, Syria has turned up in Holland, in which a couple of jihadists from the Netherlands offer a solution. They say it would be better to make it possible for those eager for war to go to jihad. Take their passports from them, as they themselves wish it: “Oh Aqsa, we are on our way! The monotheistic revolution has begun!”

Continue reading