Taking the controversy over Diana West’s book as his jumping-off point, Takuan Seiyo discusses our occluded history — not to mention our occluded present.
by Takuan Seiyo
On instinctive shooting
One would have to be a pierced slacker or in a sensory deprivation tank to not take notice of the storm that erupted on the Left and the neoconservative semi-Right after the publication of Diana West’s American Betrayal. Citing Ms. West’s own early stock of her detractors’ forays, the most serious was Ronald Radosh’s 7000-word “McCarthy On Steroids” plus follow-up pieces — FrontPage’s own inventory is here — with echoes in Pajamas Media, The American Thinker, National Review and undoubtedly elsewhere, prodigiously.
My own favorite is Mother Jones’s “The Latest One-Upmanship on the Lunatic Right”, parsimonious in that it quotes generously from Andrew Sullivan’s critique of the book and its author. In a country where an Andrew Sullivan gets so much paid column inch space and bandwidth, one is in a Looking Glass world, an upside-down mishmash, so maybe even David Frum will soon inveigh with his conservative opinion in a syndicated column.
Horowitz, Radosh and Black are the only weighty names in the critics’ gallery, though I’ll omit Conrad Black from further consideration. His “Right-wing loopy who has [not been] house-trained” is so embarrassing for a man I came to expect more from that I wish he were back to tending his collections of cars, antiques and (reportedly $9-million-worth of) Franklin Delano Roosevelt memorabilia, instead of voicing strong opinions on the événements du jour.
I have not read American Betrayal, though I will as soon as time allows. I am also not a Sovietologist or specialist in modern American history — but I need not be. Having been born behind the Iron Curtain, I, my people, my family — those remaining by 1941 after Katyn, Kolyma, Kazakhstan, and the rest later, after Majdanek, Janowska and Belzec — have lived and endlessly argued the consequences of the history revisited by Diana West and so eagerly reburied by her detractors. I will, however, mostly stay clear of the fine points argued by both sides in the controversy, noting only that in its broad outline, which I know having read the reviews and the polemics between Diana West and her detractors, and bringing my store of information to bear, I side fully with Ms. West’s contentions even if, as her critics allege, one or another detail she discusses it erroneous.
What Messrs. Radosh, Horowitz et al. are doing is akin to a learned historian of the Spanish monarchy looking at Velazquez’s “Las Meninas” and foaming at the mouth: “What kind of dog is that? No such rough-looking mutts would have been allowed anywhere within the precincts of the Royal Palace! And what’s that coffered door on the back wall! This style had all but disappeared by the time Velazquez arrived in Madrid. What ignorance! What chutzpah! How could this pushy parvenu from Seville have purported to represent faithfully the fauna or the architecture of the Spanish Habsburg Court!”
But this tells more about the critic than the painter, for “Las Meninas” would remain one of the iconic paintings of our civilization even if that dog should have been a Pomeranian and the door should have been inlaid marquetry. In other words, the vehemence of Diana West’s detractors would be grossly out of proportion even if their allegations of error in fact or methodology were correct. Their failure to acknowledge the singular merit and critical timeliness of American Betrayal’s larger theme is highly troubling, in particular because of the urgency of her insight as to the parallel to the current infiltration of Muslims and Islam’s Useful Idiots in the halls of American power.
But the question remains: why the vitriol? Why would a smart, well informed, experienced, effective defender of what’s left of the United States, Clare Lopez, be dismissed from Gatestone Institute after having written a favorable review of Ms. West’s book? Diana West asked the “why” question in the context of quoting this phrase from her book:
“Once we finally incorporate the facts of Soviet-directed penetration of the U.S. government — the Communist-agent-occupation of the U.S. government — which began in earnest in 1933, everything we know about ourselves as a nation will also have to rearrange itself, our history taking on a brand-new pattern of revelation . . .”
Why should critics acknowledged as foes of Communism and, in the case of both FrontPage and Gatestone, also important members in the anti-Islamization coalition, be so disturbed by this “new pattern of revelation”?
Here I have to reveal my other qualification for entering this debate. For when Messrs. Horowitz and Radosh were still on the barricades of the Proletariat, I was learning both my English and my points of the political compass from the writings of William F. Buckley. And Bill Buckley had started his public career as a pioneer, fearless fighter standing athwart the March of the Left and yelling “Stop,” but would end it peeing habitually from the open door of his moving limo onto downwind traffic. He would pee metaphorically too: onto conservative writers still toiling in the topical fields of reality that he had by then found inconvenient to his social ambitions.
Once upon a time, Buckley wrote copiously and courageously on the subject of Commie infiltration, in defense of Joe McCarthy, in defense of Chamberlain and against Hiss, in scathing rebuttals of the Rosenberg denialists and other red-diaper intellectuals, in praise of various positions of the John Birch Society, and so on. He allowed race-realist and immigration — realist articles in National Review. But slowly, “the Pope of the conservative movement” started turning. First, he turned on the John Birch Society.
In March 2008, Buckley published an article entitled “Goldwater, the John Birch Society, and Me” in Commentary, of all possible venues, the premier organ of Jewish neoconservatism. In it, Buckley described why and how a group of conservative thinkers and machers, including himself, came to ditch the John Birch Society (JBS) in 1962. The trigger was their shared opinion that JBS founder Robert Welch was a man disconnected from reality, having written a book, “The Politician,” alleging that President Eisenhower had been a Communist agent.
National Review would be pivotal in the excommunication of the Birchers, starting with a 5000-word opinion piece Buckley wrote and published a week after that meeting. “The wound we Palm Beach plotters delivered to the John Birch Society proved fatal over time,” gloats Buckley at the end of his Commentary reminiscence.
Robert Welch may have gone overboard in his choice of words, but not in the sense of his allegations. For FDR, Truman and Eisenhower too may have been unwitting Communist tools, but tools they were. That alone, revived and refreshed in Diana West’s book, is a red cape in front of the neocons — and few conservatives remain in America who aren’t — for it’s linked to an old anathema already branded and excommunicated half a century ago.
Moreover, as much as it was clear that Welch had gone hyperbolic in some of his sweeping accusations, his paranoia was justified then and has been vindicated by history since. He was one of the first to attack Fidel Castro and his regime, already in 1959. He was perhaps the first to expose the United Nations for the Third-World run, global socialist government vehicle that it has plainly by now become. He exposed odious conduct by U.S. presidents that looked like they were doing the Soviets’ dirty work. Among others, ‘Welch’s book about Eisenhower and the forces controlling American politics, relays, per the JBS précis, “300 pages and 150 pages of footnotes and documentation, including covering one of Mr. Eisenhower’s most immoral and despicable acts of authorizing ‘Operation Keelhaul’; which used American soldiers to repatriate anti-communist Poles to their certain death or torture.”
Polish history as the insufficiently known, unacknowledged and unwanted depository of much evidence of base, traitorous, Commie-manipulated conduct by the wartime leaders of the United States and Great Britain will feature prominently in this little review, for like Ms. West’s disclosures, it’s another skeleton that people with agendas wish to leave buried. But thus far in my defense of Welch, even neocons would probably not object too much, looking in hindsight. One would have to be brain-dead or snatched by alien spores from space not to notice that the now-thwarted causes Welch advocated already in the 1950s: limited government, individual liberty, the rule of law and restoration of the Republic as envisioned by the Founding Fathers are the causes that the entire conservative movement should have embraced and sustained from the beginning. Instead, they focused only on fighting formal Communism (but not the stealthy one), furthering capitalism, and continuing to play ball on a pitch whose goal posts were being continuously moved leftward without a pip of protest from the away team.
I believe that the herem (haram in Arabic) imposed on the John Birch Society by the “conservative movement” to this day may be due to its five decades of still-continuing rejection and opposition to two sacred American totems: “Civil Rights” and “Immigration.” That these two totems and other lesser ones are the work of a secondary infection of the polity by Communist agents either professional or instinctively sympathetic — what I call yin or estrogen-driven — is a separate subject that cannot be treated here. But by 2013, when “Civil Rights” have for decades morphed into Equal Outcomes despoliation and hateful truculence, and “Immigration” has morphed into a disjoining compound injected by the tens of millions of units into the arthritic joints of a hobbled nation, these should not be controversial issues any more.
But still they are, and they are neocon anathema.
I don’t have a ready definition of neoconservatism myself, but like Potter Stewart with pornography, I know it when I see it. It’s not even useful to distinguish between “conservative” and “neoconservative” anymore, for the latter has subsumed the former, including the Republican Party. And it’s clear that the institutions and individuals on the Right who are attacking American Betrayal exhibit a particularly “conservative” set of values, proclivities and practices, the derision quote marks warranted by some idiosyncrasies that have nothing to do with genuine conservatism. In Samuel Francis’s words, “Despite their dislike of the New Left, their anti-communism, and their concern about destructive cultural and moral trends, the neo-conservatives for the most part never quite managed to break completely with many of the underlying liberal assumptions.” Paul Gottfried, a prolific historian of conservatism and a fierce critic of conservatism-light has characterized this syndrome as “sentimentally drawn to the left despite conservative positions on many policy issues.”
Gottfried attributes this ambivalence to the cultural differences between the neoconservatives and the old right. In his words, “Both groups come largely from self-contained cultures that once confronted each other across an abyss of mutual suspicion: the one, Eastern urban-Jewish and the other, American heartland-Protestant.”
To list the sieve layers in my own filter wherein “conservatives” with derision quotes are identified:
- Support for “social justice” and the welfare state.
- Fondness for Woodrow Wilson and FDR.
- Support for immigration in all its forms
- Extreme sensitivity to “racism” and omerta with respect to race and gender group genetic differences.
- Unequivocal advocacy of democracy and of interventionist foreign policy to enforce it, particularly in the Middle East.
- Fondness for abstract universalist principles (James Burnham referred to the latter as compassion, kindliness, love and brotherhood instead of what a true conservative ought to advocate: civic virtues).
- Scorched-earth tactics against conservative ideological opponents such as Paul Gottfried, Pat Buchanan, Samuel Francis, John Birch Society etc. And now Diana West, though she was not aware that in the eyes of “conservatives” she had just written herself into that camp.
And two characteristics that, sadly, both sides involved in the American Betrayal brouhaha, including this reviewer, share:
- Awareness of and activism against Islamization.
- Strong support for Israel.
Let it be said that the presence of the last two items in the neoconservative agenda and their conspicuous lack in the paleoconservative one is, in my eyes, a credit to the former and a black eye to the latter. Still, even with the black eye, that visage looks truer to me.
American Betrayal revolves around a John-Birchey “extreme-right” theme. And JBS is not only tainted by some unfortunate choices of words and tackling of tribal taboos; it’s also uncool. Bob Dylan wrote a song mocking it. Norman Lear made a film mocking it. Stanley Kubrick mocked it in Dr. Strangelove. In other words, the liberals who dictate the terms of the discourse don’t like it.
Ms. West had ventured into taboo territory. She had to be shot down. Before her, Lawrence Auster had been. His supremely reasoned and reasonable arguments against racial preferences, about black criminality and white cowardice, about the crippling dysfunctions planted intentionally through Third World immigration got him banished from FrontPageMagazine’s pages, for “racism.” Before Auster it was Gottfried who had been picked, frozen, personalized and polarized — by the entire “conservative” establishment.
William Buckley himself went down this path much beyond his vendetta against the Birchers. He transformed into a neocon during the Reagan years, for that’s where the power, money and perks lay. Soon purges started at National Review, with the firing of all writers and editors who’d taken “controversial” positions with regard to “sensitive” subjects. John O’Sullivan, Rick Brookhiser, Peter Brimelow and others were let go.
An instinctive “off with her head” is what I think the neoconservative reaction has been with respect to Ms. West’s book, too. But let’s look at the substance of the criticism, not just its springboard.
What we know we know and what we don’t know but need not prove
The gist of the critiques is that Diana’s West’s book is too much: an overreach mixing personal bias with incorrectly interpreted facts, as allege none too politely Messrs. Radosh et al. To this is added a self-serving contempt of the “expert,” e.g. Radosh is a “professional” historian with a PhD, and West is not, and Horowitz cited that expertise as his main reason for siding with its position.
Having completed the coursework for a PhD in a pre-Affirmative Action top shelf American university, and a Masters at another, I have come by my contempt for such contempt the hard way. Tocqueville had a couple of years of college and some law courses as his preparation for writing “Democracy in America.” Patrick Leigh Fermor — the most erudite travel writer and history savant who has ever put pen to paper — had only had a high school education, albeit in the days when high schools were for real. Epictetus earned his diplomas in philosophy from his slave insignia and crippled leg.
Even if some details of West’s vast painting of Communist infiltration of Washington’s power structure could stand correction, the tableau is not, cannot be, vast enough. For instance, a big part of the Radosh critique evolves around the assertion that FDR’s closest and most trusted advisor Harry Hopkins was not a Soviet agent like Diana West alleges; someone else was. He cites sources I am not familiar with, and so does she. I cannot decide who is right — but it matters so very little. What matters is that Hopkins might as well have been a KGB agent for all the stupendous commie-friendly damage he has wrought. And Ms. West amply and irrefutably makes that case, whatever formal label might apply.
If that is not shocking enough, warranting a moment of national silence and reflection even if Hopkins did not carry a KGB identity card, our survival instincts have been dulled. On purpose?
Professor Radosh’s objections remind me of the PC contortions in the U.S. and Great Britain to avoid “labeling” Muslim terrorists as Muslim terrorists. Apparently, one must have a rag wrapped around one’s head and a discful of emails from Bin Laden to be considered as a Muslim terrorist. If you wear a United States Army officer’s uniform and murder 13 American soldiers and wound 30 while screaming Allahu Akbar, that is only “workplace violence.”
But it’s Islam itself where the terrorism lies, with or without Al Qaeda. Just as nihilism, subversion and destruction lie in Marx/Engels/Lenin & Co, per se, with or without the KGB. And so Ms. West was on the correct track when having noticed the number of Muslims in high public positions swaying American policy, she had a déjà vu concerning the high number of Communists in earlier administrations.
It’s the extent of Communist infiltration that matters, not the exact relationship between the infiltrators and the ideology and organizations on behalf of which they were infiltrating. The scorn wrapped in defining Diana West as McCarthyist is risible when we now know that Communist infiltration was as wide and deep then as McCarthy alleged, and not as narrow as his Useful Idiot detractors have claimed ever since. Moreover, this infiltration remains all-important and destiny-shaping now, though mutated like a smart flu virus into Cultural Marxism riding piggyback on submerged Leninism.
But let’s revisit briefly the vast picture of the World War II Alliance, to understand why as detailed and scathing an expose as American Betrayal is, it’s not enough and cannot be, for no one book could contain all the horror, and minds would reel from contemplating the abyss then, just as they should reel when contemplating the abyss-in-progress now.
Class, raise your hands: how many have heard the name Władysław Sikorski? Poland had a quarter million men fighting in the Allied forces, often with great distinction (e.g. Squadron 303, Monte Casino, Narvik etc.). General Sikorski was their Supreme Commander and Prime Minister of the Polish Government in Exile, headquartered in London. He died on July 4, 1943, when the Liberator plane carrying him, his daughter and his staff plunged into the Mediterranean right after taking off from the British airfield in Gibraltar. A British Court of Inquiry decreed three days later that jammed elevator controls caused the crash but it was impossible to establish how this jamming occurred — except that it certainly was no sabotage (this and the reference are cited in Wikipedia’s entry on Sikorski, but I relied on Polish sources).
“Impossible to determine” yet possible enough to determine that there was no sabotage? In contrast, the unofficial and non-British explanations of Sikorski’s death differ only with respect to who ordered the hit and exactly how it was executed. Perhaps the most credible theory is that Sikorski’s plane was sabotaged by the KGB with full knowledge or at least a wink and a nod of the highest echelons of British government, perhaps even Churchill himself. The more radical version of this scenario has been presented in Rolf Hochhuth’s 1967 play “Soldaten.” He based it on personal revelations from Jane Ledig-Rowohlt, the wife of his publisher, who had worked during the war in the British Secret Service and knew Churchill personally.
Now what would Messrs. Radosh et al. comment if I wrote a book alleging based on such anecdotal and additional circumstantial evidence that Winston Churchill was complicit in the murder of General Sikorski? Maybe this would have been an irresponsible allegation, tarnishing the reputation of an otherwise great man, as great as they come. But a critique based solely on vituperation with regard to a perhaps-erroneous assertion of Churchill’s involvement would have been a great disservice to the broader truth, and a gross impediment to our understanding of those times and their implications for us who live now.
First, even if Churchill had no knowledge of the hit on Sikorski, he appeased Stalin constantly, ignobly and unnecessarily — though less so than Roosevelt did. He went as far as impeding the release of information about the Soviet massacre in Katyn: “We shall certainly rigorously oppose any “investigation” by the International Red Cross or any other body in any territory under German authority,” he wrote in a telegram to Uncle Joe.
Second, just as America was riddled at the top with Communist agents both official and spontaneously sympathizing, so was Great Britain — and that’s the more important truth. There is little doubt that Great Britain’s wartime decisions too were formed partly by such agents of Communist influence.
What we know about Sikorski’s last day is that when his Liberator was about to take off from Gibraltar en route to London, NKVD/KGB asset Kim Philby, OBE [sic!], had been Chief of the Iberia subsection of the British MI6 for two years already. Which means that this Cambridge lowlife, incidentally son of an upper class British convert to Islam and, true to type for a diehard commie, a vocal supporter of the Islamic cause in the Arab-Israeli conflicts, was in charge of all British counterintelligence operation in Gibraltar too, including the security of the airport. And on July 4, 1943, the plane of the Soviet Ambassador to Great Britain, Ivan Maisky, was at the Gibraltar Airport, parked rather close to Sikorski’s Liberator, with KGB operatives on board. Maisky had just been recalled to Moscow for a consultation with Uncle Joe concerning major trouble that had erupted between Sikorski’s government and the Soviets. Philby was in Gibraltar too).
Just two months before Sikorski’s all-but-certain assassination, the Germans announced the discovery of 20,000 bodies (21,768 eventually) of Polish officers and inconvenient intelligentsia murdered by the Soviets and buried in Katyn Forest. The Soviets denied this but Sikorski rejected the denial and demanded an international investigation. The Soviets then accused the Polish government-in-exile of cooperating with Nazi Germany and broke off diplomatic relations.
Sikorski had become a major burr under the saddle on which rode the troika of Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, for he had begun opposing such an alliance with the mega-murdering psychopath from Georgia. As to what the first two intended relative to Poland for the sake of appeasing Stalin may be inferred from their failure to invite a representative of the Polish government to the Teheran Conference. There, merely five months after Sikorski’s murder, Poland was preliminarily cast loose and abandoned to Uncle Joe’s tender ministrations. The two leaders of the free world also agreed that the Polish Government in Exile was not representing Poland anymore but a puppet Communist government would be set up in that country instead. The betrayal was formalized at the February 1945 Yalta Conference, again, without Polish participation.
We have here a murder motive nonpareil. To the question of cui bono, one can answer that World Communism and the USSR would benefit, and so would the Alliance per its two Western leaders who were so innocent of street smarts that they were unable to realize the Soviets needed them far more than they needed the Soviets, and who were being played by Stalin as if they were rubes from the provinces standing before a practiced con man in a downtown dive. But where were their advisors?
To the singular opportunity on July 4, 1943 — and Sikorski’s planes had experienced three “malfunctions” in the preceding 12 months — we can now add a powerful motive. Although not proven, speculation that KGB agents in coordination with Philby and Maisky sabotaged Sikorski’s plane is not only possible but warranted.
The main issue is not whether orders to wipe out Sikorski had been given in London or Moscow. The issue is, first, that the British government has obstructed the possibility of finding that out by sealing its relevant records as a “military secret” until 2050 — why, one wonders. The second issue is whether it has been fully disclosed to what extent the administrations of both FDR and Churchill were shot through with KGB operatives and “mere” Soviet sympathizers acting as trusted advisors and double-agent executors of their respective countries’ war efforts.
Diana West has now treated the Roosevelt-Truman-Eisenhower case comprehensively. The British case still begs re-examination, for the “Cambridge Five” were surely neither just in Cambridge nor just five.
Two of Diana West’s most irritating (to her critics) assertions in American Betrayal is that the Allies were swayed by Soviet agents not to pursue early peace overtures from Germany, and to land in Normandy rather than in Italy. She describes this as “the most serious indictment of the US Communist movement for having spawned the traitors, fellow travelers and dupes who worked inside the federal government to advance Stalin’s interests.”
I will not quote from Professor Radosh’s critique of these points, as West already does so in her rebuttal, showing that he criticized mostly what she had not written. But I happened upon a chance confluence that supports Diana West’s thesis. Reading up on Ivan Maisky, the very Soviet ambassador in London whose co-presence with Philby and Sikorski in Gibraltar on July 4, 1943 is so hard to brush off, I had to circumvent his memoir, not being able to judge without much further study what was truthful and what was a whitewash. However, the Wikipedia entry on Ivan Maisky includes the following paragraph, supported by bibliographical references:
“During these years in London, he reassured Joseph Stalin that Britain had no interest in signing a separate peace with Germany while pressuring Britain to open a “second front” against the Germans in northern France.  He maintained close contact with Winston Churchill and Anthony Eden and personally visited the Foreign Office every day to get the latest news. [*]
Is it not clearer now that the invasion of the continent through France rather than Italy, and the rejection of peace overtures from Germany were done for the sake of Soviet interests and in an implicit surrender of Eastern Europe to Stalin?
Ms. West summarized the saboteurs’ work and the damage it has wrought in these words:
“They appear to have successfully thwarted multiple attempts by anti-Nazi, anti-Communist Germans to gain US assistance that might have helped them overthrow Hitler, surrender German armies to US and British forces in exchange for unspecified assistance in keeping the Red Army out of eastern and central Europe — a mission we spent the next four decades fighting to achieve from beleaguered bases in Western Europe. This might have brought World War II to a close much earlier than 1945. In other words, there was a chance not taken due to Communist penetration of the policy-making chain in Washington and London that might have saved millions, even tens of millions of lives. It is the story of these German Underground efforts that I discuss in Chapter 10, and the obstacles they faced in both Washington and London, where pro-Soviet influence — and Soviet influence operators and agents — were able to keep these anti-Nazi, anti-Communists at bay.”
West explains, correctly, as anyone who lived in an Iron Curtain Soviet satellite country knows, that Stalin’s goal was to take Europe. I have to modify that, for this had been the original Soviet goal since the days when Stalin was still a semi-anonymous commie commissar. The Bolsheviks had already attempted to conquer Europe once when they attacked the newly independent Polish Republic in 1919 -1921. Their plan was to flatten Poland and push on to Germany and beyond.
After a series of bloody battles, the decisive one was fought in August 13-25, 1920 in the environs of Warsaw. The Polish Army beat back the Soviets, and from then on the tide would turn against the invaders. The implications of the Polish victory for all of Europe was such that the British diplomat Edgar Vincent D’Abernon wrote a book with the title The eighteenth decisive battle of the world: Warsaw, 1920.
In his September 22, 1920 speech at the IX Conference of the Russian Communist Party, Lenin stated that “the centre of world imperialism’s entire system lies very close to [Warsaw].” By attacking it, though unsuccessfully, the USSR had been able to roil the working classes of Germany and Britain, he said, and had “a powerful effect on the revolutionary movement in Europe.” Lenin boasted that the attack on Poland was particularly successful in Great Britain, where it raised the proletariat to “an unprecedented level, to an absolutely new stage in the revolution.”
Lenin concluded with the words, “If we close our ranks and bend every effort, we shall win the victory.” Indeed, the ranks would be closed, the ears of Roosevelt and Churchill would be bent accordingly, and the Soviets won the victory — in 1943. Is this not just one of the issues wrathful avengers of “the truth” should chew on in quiet contemplation instead of excoriating Diana West on account that it was not Bupkin who said something to Zupkin but Zupkin who said it to Bupkin?
As I put the finishing touches on this on Sept 11, we, the happy few, celebrate the 330th anniversary of the Battle of Vienna. By the way, here is a subject for a great PhD dissertation in Education, Sociology, Contemporary History or Islamic Studies: Are high schools in the West (i.e. anywhere from Germany going west all the way to New Zealand) still teaching about Vienna 1683, and if so, what is it they are teaching? Hypothesis to be disproved: they are not teaching it, those that do teach it do so from the Turks’ point of view, and this tendency has a statistically significant correlation with each country’s weighted quotient of officially sanctioned Cultural Marxism.
Now, what do you think the chances are that such a dissertation would be approved, even if pared down to a more manageable single country, say Germany, or even a single zone in that country, say Lower Saxony? Academia is the very hatchery of Cultural Marxism; its desire to allow a critical investigation of its main raison d’être is very small.
By the way, since the term “Cultural Marxism” is flung about prodigiously, anchoring it to a definition is useful. As good as any is this one in David Horowitz’s invaluable DiscovertheNetworks guide to the Political Left. Which brings me to the sad issue of David Horowitz’s infantry and PJ Media’s dragoons and Gatestone Institute’s artillery firing on their own troops on the Anti-Islamization front. Particularly Horowitz, as so much of what he does is so good and important.
It’s another battle involving the Austrians and the Turks that’s relevant here: the Battle of Karansebes, whose 225th anniversary will be on September 17.
The instigator was Austria’s Emperor Joseph II (the full list of his domains and titles is too long). Joseph II — Mozart’s patron and Marie Antoinette’s brother — was a decent but not very bright man who hatched various liberty-promoting ideas but lacked the competence to implement them. Among those was his initiative to rid the Balkans of the cruel Turk occupier.
Joseph II personally led a large imperial army deep into Turkish-occupied territory, even though he had no knowledge of the military craft and had no bench of competent generals. The full tale of woes is too long for our purpose here, but let it suffice that when Joseph II finally parked his quarter-million troops and a corresponding number of horses and artillery pieces, to prepare for an engagement, it was in a swampy area by the Danube River near the town of Karansebes (present day Romania) that he parked them. Again, we shall skip the intervening troubles such as (by some reckoning) over 150,000 soldiers falling ill with malaria and dysentery, overstretched supply lines and so on.
On the fateful day, a scout unit of the Austrian hussars crossed the river to look for signs of an incoming Turkish army. They found no Turks but did find Gypsies who had schnapps for sale. The opportunity was too good to pass up.
When an infantry unit showed up much later looking for the hussars, they found their comrades drunk and happy. Naturally, the foot soldiers wanted some of the good stuff too. The problem was that by then the schnapps was running low. Arguments broke out that soon evolved into a shooting skirmish. It was pitch dark, with perhaps a Gypsy bonfire for illumination.
Then some foot soldier had the clever idea to shout “The Turks!” “The Turks!” so that the other guys would flee and he and his buddies would enjoy the remaining schnapps all to themselves. Unfortunately, a general panic ensued.
Austrian officers seeing this started shouting “Halt,” Halt,” but this was a truly multicultural army, and units of Hungarians, Slavs and Italians didn’t know German very well. So the soldiers thought they were hearing “Allah!” “Allah!” and rode and ran harder back toward the main camp. By then, the camp was waking to thundering hooves, shots, screams of “Allah” and “The Turks are coming!” The encamped units started firing on their own who were trying to re-enter the camp. Then the horses and cattle got so frightened they smashed their enclosures and fled by the tens of thousands, augmenting the aural impression of a large number of Allah’s cavalry attacking.
General pandemonium ensued. What was supposed to be a battle of the Austrians against the Turks, ended up with the Austrian Army fighting itself and retreating from a foe that wasn’t there. When the Turks arrived two days later, they found 10,000 dead and wounded Austrian soldiers amidst the smoldering ruins of what had been the Great Austrian Imperial Army’s camp.
Somewhere between the map coordinates of FrontPage Magazine, National Review Online, PJ Media, American Thinker, formally neoconservative magazines who may chime in on this (e.g. Commentary, The Weekly Standard) Gatestone Institute, the Republican National Committee et al. there lies the Karansebes encampment. Drunk with the schnapps of power, they see imaginary foes, retreat where they should regroup and attack, and when they attack, it’s their own they attack.
The GOP by now rides to battle under a standard with a caption it’s not even bright enough to read: “Republicans. They thirst for death.” The others do good work in the narrow areas they picked for their activism but act as though theirs were the only sectors under assault. They fire on soldiers on their own side who defend different sectors of the perimeter. Unfortunately, critical sectors through which the Turks are already pouring in, such as Open Borders, Immigration, “Civil Rights,” “White Privilege,” White Cowardice, Affirmative Action, United Nations and more.
Diana West is one more of the ablest soldiers shot by her own. There will be more. Until it may dawn on someone that the Turks are, in fact, coming. They are here.
|1.||The JBS is still at it, e.g. here.|
|2.||See, inter alia:
|3.||Samuel Francis, “Neocon Invasion,” The New American, August 5, 1996|
|4.||Paul Gottfried, “On Neoconservatism”, Modern Age, Winter 1983. Neoconservatism is by now no longer a primarily Jewish phenomenon but practically the only form of conservatism still abroad and allowed to show up in America.|
|5.||I know that this point is covered in American Betrayal.|
|6.||These are by no means uncontested statements. For instance, Maisky in his memoirs (Memoirs of a Soviet Ambassador, The War: 1939-43) states that his plane took off from Gibraltar on July 4th at noon; Sikorski’s took off at 11 PM. This author is unaware of any books published by British authors that presents any but the official version of the events, but contrary references in the Polish language are innumerable: books, articles, documentary and feature films, as Sikorski’s murder was one of the most tragic events in Polish history. Skirting the more arcane theories, I relied mainly on Gibraltar ’43, one of the three books by the Polish historian Tadeusz Kisielewski dealing with this topic. The Polish Wikipedia entry entitled “Aviation catastrophe in Gibraltar, July 4, 1943” presents a version of events fairly close to mine here, with a bibliography.|
|7.||Such an assertion was made in detail in Gregory Douglas’s Gestapo Chief: The 1948 Interrogation of Heinrich Muller, Vol. 3: From Secret U. S. Intelligence Files. It is based on Kim Philby’s alleged personal account to Gestapo Chief Heinrich Müller and on other Müller materials from the late 1940s and 50s. However, outside of that book, no recognized, credible source has confirmed that the Gestapo chief was seen, let alone alive, after his 1945 disappearance; until one does, a question mark must hang over this source.|
|8.||The French Sovietologist and specialist in USSR-Poland relations Alexandra Viatteau also supports (in her books and here) the “Philby done it” theory but asserts that the operation was conceived and executed solely by Moscow.
Takuan Seiyo is a European-born American writer living in exile in Japan. For his previous essays, see the Takuan Seiyo Archives.
Previous posts about the controversy over American Betrayal by Diana West: