A New Generation of Useful Idiots

Diana West was one of the featured speakers today at the National Security Action Summit II (NSASII), hosted by Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy and co-sponsored by EMPAct America and the Breitbart News Network.

In her talk, Ms. West draws parallels between the infiltration of the federal government by Communists seventy years ago, and the ongoing infiltration of our government by the Muslim Brotherhood in the 21st century. “New skin for the old ceremony,” to borrow a trope from Leonard Cohen.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

9 thoughts on “A New Generation of Useful Idiots

  1. Neatly expressed. A couple of minor dissentions; McCarthy expended much energy on creative people who were exercising their right to free speech, rather than the real enemies in positions of power and influence in government and the military. Also socialised medicine is not “communism” if most citizens favour it, which is the case throughout almost the entire “civilised” world except the US- not a great example of American “exceptionalism”, IMHO.

    • ‘Also socialised medicine is not “communism” if most citizens favour it,…’

      Socialized medicine though is a result of governments drifting left of center and into Socialist policies which have been generally enacted without the people’s mandate. The average citizen today may ‘favor’ socialized medicine, but I would suggest that would be so, simply because many have not experienced any other system. Government should never involve itself in anything other than governing, because government cannot run institutions, such as Public Hospitals that used to be run as businesses in the sense that the administrator of the hospital had to keep the doors open while balancing the economic books and treating the patients.

      From my own recollections, the system worked and no one went untreated even if they couldn’t pay.

      Public hospitals just 30 years ago were better run, better staffed and provided better service than the same hospital that now has government bureaucracy running them. In nearly every example of government run hospital care, in this country at least, they are over crowded, under staffed, lack bed numbers but still provide reasonable care that is rapidly becoming so expensive that ‘local’ hospitals have been shut down, in many locations, in favor of one massive centralized dysfunctional giant of a hospital that now many try to avoid going to because of its dysfunctional service.

      For example; Ambulances have been known to wait for up to four hours at the Emergency Department entrance so that a bed can be made available for their seriously ill patient.

      You are right when you say that ‘socialized medicine’ is not communism, but the hospital system has become almost a mirror to what the Communists used to run within their health systems.

      • Nemesis, if policies on health care in the UK have been pursued without the people’s mandate, why would both Milliband (Labour) and Cameron (Conservative), at their recent party conferences, have been at such pains to assure us that the National Health Service is not under threat, lest they lose the election next May?

        Government monopolies can be bureaucratic and inefficient. Still, as someone whose instincts are liberal (in the European, not the pejorative American sense) rather than socialist, I do believe in free healthcare (and education), and indeed affordable housing and public transport, as social goods. Farming such services, which are largely natural monopolies, out to the private sector, may result in improved efficiencies through competition, but this is negated by the need to generate profit for the shareholders.

        • You are playing tug-of-war with yourself.
          Having it both ways is a very Liberal ideology, nonetheless wholly ineffective.
          Hence the failure of all previous civilizations that were thrust into the “all for free” mentality for which there are never enough taxes to be collected to effectively stave off revolt.

        • Mark, nothing in this life is ‘free’ because at some point along the line of the ‘free’ anything someone has to pay for it to be ‘free’.

          As far as ‘free’ medicine goes, you and I the taxpayer are the contributors to the ever burdensome Health Care system.

          Your government, as have those of all Western countries – and please note; I will from now on never refer to any Western country as a nation, because we are all just countries full of cultural tribes that has almost guaranteed the extinction of the nation state – are now Socialist governments (even your Tory Party leans left into socialism) intent on implementing more and more socialist policy until whatever we have left as individual liberty will be entirely extinguished under totalitarian rule.

          That is the natural regression of the Democratic system of government when the voters realize that they can vote for the money from the Treasury and all those ‘free’ things that government puts up to the voter for re-election purposes.

          At some point in the whole charade that now passes for good government, the system will collapse in upon itself, and that is when the real fun begins.

          But for now, our governments continue to practice unabated the very systems that will eventually bankrupt each country regardless of which ‘side’ of politics is at the helm.

  2. I was amazed recently when I found this convenient Gates of Vienna page showing all the articles on the Diana West Incident collected together — amazed at the number, some 60 articles all told. Even more amazingly, I think I read them all as they came out.


    It wasn’t much of a chore to do so, as I found fascinating how otherwise intelligent conservatives who are anti-Islam (Horowitz, Radosh, et al.) could transmogrify so strangely into Leftists. Additionally, I found it enormously entertaining to read Diana West’s meticulously skillful responses and rebuttals, as well as those of her rare supporters. That long saga as it unfolded was like a protracted train wreck in slow-mo, and I was often spellbound by the spectacle of those aforementioned Conservative Converts showing, apparently, their true colors.

    After the dust has settled these many months later, it is clear that Messrs. Horowitz & Radosh (and their more or less passive supporters and enablers) still owe us what Lucy always eventually did for Desi (at least after he glowered at her with his fists on his Cuban hips). Absent that ‘Splainin’, we are perfectly justified in assuming the worst, and darkest, about those two principles (Dave and Ron, not Lucy and Desi — for Desi, unlike Dave and Ron, actually did (deeper than lip service) utterly leave behind and utterly renounce & repudiate a Communist regime…).

  3. Frank Gaffney is a man of principle.

    He and his foundation, Center for Security Policy, were among the very few individuals/organizations that spoke out publicly in favor of her book, the much maligned history of what really happened, as opposed to what the strictures of the ‘consensus narrative’ tell us about U.S. domestic and foreign policy (not to mention America’s actual behavior) during the mid-20th century.

    American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character
    will stand long after the cover-ups have withered and the dissemblers have passed on to their reward.

    In the midst of those ceaseless attacks against her work last year, CSP honored Diana West with its annual “Mightier Pen” award. The event came at a time when she was under fire from many on the right for her courage and integrity in daring to speak the truth during this long Twilight of Lies.

    In his introduction to Diana’s brief speech, Mr Gaffeny mentioned Ms. West’s syndicated column from last week:


    For logic-minded Americans still genuinely puzzled as to how it could be that our presidents and secretaries of state and generals and pundits keep hammering home the big lie that Islam has nothing to do with jihad, that the religion of conquest is a “religion of peace,” I have a special warning. Such widespread, politics- and mass-media-driven brainwashing is nothing new.

    Just as today’s opinion-makers seek to divorce Islam from its impact — for example, brutal conquest, forced conversion, religiously sanctioned sex slavery, beheadings — past opinion-makers worked equally hard to divorce communism from its impact — for example, brutal conquest, forced collectivization, concentration camps (Gulags), mass murder.


    The more I continue to learn about the extensive penetration by Stalin’s secret agents into the federal government over the two decades that FDR and then Harry Truman held the Oval Office, the clearer it is that the American ship of state had too many hands loyal to the USSR pushing at the rudder, influencing, to varying degrees, the direction of U.S. policy and strategy, even if not especially during World War II.

    Such is the once-hidden history that comes into closer focus since the U.S. and Russian governments released some subset of their vast secret archives — intelligence documents, FBI files and the like. Reigning “court historians” keep looking the other way, hoping Americans never notice the big picture: that FDR presided over the biggest national security disaster in U.S. history, the massive infiltration of the U.S. government by agents of a foreign power.

    Ken Burns’ new PBS documentary, “The Roosevelts,” typifies this blackout. For example, take the series’ treatment of the Yalta Conference, the final meeting of the so-called Big Three wartime leaders. Old news footage shows the conference table, from Stalin to FDR to Churchill. The camera also shows a man who sure looks like Soviet military intelligence agent and U.S. State Department official Alger Hiss. Next to him is top White House aide and, according to some experts, Soviet agent or asset Harry Hopkins. Both men are seated behind the dupe-ish secretary of state Edward Stettinius.

    Does Burns inform viewers of the identities of these notorious figures seemingly “boring from within” before the viewer’s eyes? Does he note the existence of scholarship confirming covert agent Hiss’ outspoken role at the conference, and evidence that he may have exerted influence over deliberations on China policy, war reparations including German slave labor, and other vital issues in the USSR’s favor? Is there any mention of the troubling questions about Hopkins’ single-mindedly pro-Soviet stance that caused George C. Marshall to describe “Hopkins’ job with the president” as being “to represent the Russian interests”?

    Silence. Or rather, Burnsian chatter about the big secret of Yalta being FDR’s grave health — something obvious to anyone who looked at him. The series’ ultimate mission is accomplished, however. A re-gilded FDR is burnished to a starry sheen, blinding a worshipful audience.

    Diana West could have kept quiet. She could’ve written a historical account of those years that was in alignment with the Narrative of Lies we’re all taught in government schools. It sure would’ve been easier to go with the flow than it has been to stand athwart The Lie, demanding truth for a change.

    She’s right: history narratives like the one Ken Burns told will blind us to the point that we won’t recognize truth anymore.

    Truth is too scary, too alarming for regular folks to be permitted to see. So the history architects continue to build risible “domestic workplace violence” walls around the ugly reality of Islam’s ‘random’ beheadings. Nothing to see here…especially if you’re blind.

  4. I recently found an old paperback book written by J. Edgar Hoover about the Communist threat in America, written in the 1940s. Very well written, smart, reasonable, levelheaded. The only fault of the book is that he hadn’t yet the hind(fore)sight of the 50s and 60s and beyond.

Comments are closed.