Grandma Ain’t No Spook

We’ve all heard about Heather, who has two mommies. And I assume Ingrid has something similar in Sweden. But Asli — who is also “Swedish”, in the Modern Multicultural Mode — has four mommies. And also, as it happens, a grandma in a bag.

FouseSquawk, who translated the following article about these wonderful new culture-enriching developments, has this to say by way of introduction:

Here’s another good one from Fria Tider. I actually heard about it the other day while talking to a friend in Sweden.

Grandpa Has Four Wives

That’s the title of a new children’s book that is just hitting the shelves in Sweden. It is bilingual, Swedish and Somali, and targeted at a children’s audience between three and six years old. The writer is Oscar Trimbel. He is also the author of another new children’s book entitled (in Swedish) Grandma Is No Ghost (referring to her burka). The stories concern Somali-Swedish children meeting their Somali grandparents for the first time, and the cultural differences they see. There is quite a stir over the release of these books. The latter book is being criticized because many feel it is promoting polygamy among Swedish children who read the book.

By chance I was speaking over the phone with an acquaintance in Sweden who picked up a copy of the book at the Gothenburg book fair (second largest in the world). He said he actually met and spoke with the author, Trimbel, who told him the book was meant as a way to help Somali kids integrate into Sweden.

The translated article:

Three-year-olds learn about Islam

CULTURE NEWS. Two new children’s books have just been released in Sweden which include, among other things, polygamy and Muslim Somali culture. They are called “Grandfather has four wives” and “Grandmother is no ghost” and are aimed at very young children.

According to Social News , the association Somali Nordic Culture is selling the new children’s books at the Book Fair in Gothenburg.

The books are written by the author Oscar Trimbel.

“Grandmother is no ghost” is about Omar greeting his grandmother, who comes from Somalia.

Grandmother wears a full-covering dress but is no ghost.

“When it’s Halloween, Omar dresses like ghosts like any other child. He wants grandma to come along because it’s gonna be nasty,” the book is blurbed on Adlibris website.

The second children’s book, “Grandfather has four wives”, deals with polygamy. The front is adorned by a Muslim bearded man with his four wives in the background.

It tells about Asli who has never been to Somalia, “but now she will finally go there with her dad, to meet grandfather and all her grandmothers,” so says Adlibris.com.

Continue reading

Fahrenheit 451, Version 2.0

Mein Kampf is the notorious autobiography written in the 1920s by Adolf Hitler, in which the future Führer laid out his plans for a revived Reich and the expansion of the German Volk into new territories in the East.

Last year the Bavarian government’s copyright for the book expired, and it became legally possible to print and distribute it again in Germany (as I understand it, it has never been illegal to possess or sell the original edition of the book, provided it is not used to promote right-extremist views).

However, it’s not legal for government employees to read it, not in public. That’s what an unfortunate public employee in Berlin discovered when he pulled out a copy of Mein Kampf to read in the break room. Now he’s out of a job.

Many thanks to Nash Montana for translating this article from B.Z.:

Mein Kampf in the break room: Job termination legal

An employee of the municipal public order office read Mein Kampf during in the break room and his job was terminated. Now, the labor court has ruled the judgment legal.

A uniformed employee represents the country and cannot show Nazi symbols: Because he took out of his backpack a copy of Hitler’s Mein Kampf with a swastika on the cover, a long-term employee of the municipal public order office has been terminated from his job.

The labor court in Berlin-Brandenburg rejected his appeal. He felt he was fired unfairly: Martin B. (39) has been employed since 2008 in the public order office in Berlin (€3,000 per month). As such, he wears a uniform for the Reinickendorf district. For €3,000 gross income per month he went after parking violators and dog owners.

In the break room he took out the book with the swastika

August 11, 2016. In the station’s break room, Martin B. grabs a book from his backpack. It’s the propaganda work Mein Kampf, author: Adolf Hitler. Original edition, swastika on the cover. “From the flea market,” he said. “Can’t read that here,” the shift superintendent intervenes. After twenty minutes of back and forth, he puts the book away again.

Continue reading

A Crazy Old Uncle Escapes the Attic…

I thought I’d have the task of writing yet another defense of American Betrayal and its author, Diana West. Fortunately for me, Diana wrote her own material on this latest attack; I’m simply going to mirror it here since she’s the expert on that nightmare, though the Baron is a pretty close second.

They both worked so hard to beat back the smears, lies, and defamations. The cacophony descended into attacks on her character, just as though we were in a Soviet Communism reality. That’s what happens when your opponents come from the American Communist Party (CPUSA) milieu, even though they claim to have bleached out their spots. The Horowitz strategy vis-à-vis Diana West’s exposure of the USSR’s tunneling through America’s highest levels of government under FDR is akin to the campaign(s) and reign of Obama. Same tactics and strategy.

We never did figure out precisely who was the Big Goombah behind the whole onslaught… that failed blitzkrieg was the strangest thing I’d ever witnessed. The attacks on her book were from the Right, that is, from Conservatism, Inc. But as it was to turn out, this ugly episode was a prodromal event which would play out in full when Trump ran for President. Then they came out of the woodwork like termites.

The archives for Gates of Vienna’s Defense of Diana West are here. Be sure to read “Planet X” — you may want to present your own ideas in the comments as to what entity might have driven this concerted smear. Many of her attackers admitted they’d not read her book and didn’t intend to do so; as though they were leftists, those folk were content to pile on, proving the temptation toward tyranny lurks on both sides of the political divide. There will always be those willing to play kiss-the-derriere if the payoff is big enough.

Below is Diana’s posting on the latest resurrection of this old battle. [My comments are italicized, in square brackets. —D] Please go to her website to get the links, since I’ve omitted them here, except for the first one to the relevant section of her own archives.

What started this strange little eruption was an essay by Daniel Greenfield at Front Page. Greenfield, in his job as a Front Page writer, was tasked with serving notice about Ron Radosh’s self-excommunication from the Right due to his NeverTrump convictions. Radosh’s departure from the Right, returning to his leftist den after so many years of trying to carve himself into a conservative, showed how thin his new “conservative” veneer was. In the end, he is little more than the radical wolf he always was.

[Diana West begins by pointing to one of her collections from the past —D]

Desk Drawer 5: David Horowitz Has Another American Betrayal Meltdown

Desk Drawer 4 is here.

[That drawer #4 is chockablock full of David Horowitz’ lies and half-truths. Reminds one of Obama that way. —D]

Got an email the other night from a pal.

It was slugged: “Dear God in heaven, they’re doing a re-enactment of the American Betrayal attacks.”

Oh no, not again …

Turns out “they” are merely David Horowitz, who, some oldtimers will recall, led a disinformation campaign against American Betrayal from his Frontpage website. It began publicly with a “take-down” called “McCarthy on Steroids” by Ron Radosh in August of 2013, which appeared in the same week as a five-part—series based on American Betrayal ran at Breitbart News. The Horowitz-led disinformation campaign ended continues to this day.

[As all Americans, and many of our European readers know, the mention of “McCarthy” is supposed to serve as a signal that one’s opponent is deranged. Much of the material McCarthy uncovered about the American Communist Party — Radosh & Horowitz were members in their youth — turned out to be true. Unfortunately, he hit at those far more powerful than he, so McC had to be destroyed. In today’s political climate, as soon as someone says McCarthy’s name, you know they’re on paper-thin moral ice. That was true with the rabid Radosh’s attack against Diana West —D]

That first payload of disinformation was originally debunked at Breitbart News in three parts, which is also available as a book and Kindle here.

Four years later, however, the attacks are in miniature — a tiny fight Horowitz picked with a few readers in the comment section of a rather curious piece by Daniel Greenfield. The piece, which appears to ex-communicate Radosh from all things Horowitz, seems to be about the “ancient slur” of “McCarthyism” as it is now, evidently, being used by Radosh against “a growing list of conservatives from David Horowitz to Stephen Bannon to Rich Higgins to Stephen Miller to a fellow named Daniel Greenfield.”

Readers may be forgiven for assuming, logically, that Frontpage might also be taking Radosh to task for such “ancient slurs” against me and my work. As a great admirer of the late, great Joseph McCarthy, I, of course, take such “slurs” as supreme compliments, but still: lies and ad hominem attacks? Not so much.

Greenfield opens his McCarthyism/Radosh piece thus:

“McCarthyism accusations are the last refuge of old Commies. As a dog returns to its vomit, old lefties reach for the security blanket of that ancient slur which is used to tar anyone who questions the left.”

Mixed metaphors aside, the sick canine Frontpage has in mind is Ron Radosh, which might seem to be something, if you excuse the neo-Red “running dog of imperialism” prose. Alas, †he rest of the piece mainly bemoans and pities the “old Commie,” never again achieving that same dog-vomit piquancy. I suspect that’s because the whole thing is not particularly serious.

Still, some readers interpreted the article as a rationale for, or even possible stirrings of, a Horowitz Mea Culpa for Yours Truly. While that’s all very kind of them, and I do greatly appreciate their comments about my book, this is not in the cards of the kind of game Horowitz is playing.

Anyway, the whole affair, apparently calculated to smoke-signal some meaningful public rupture between faux populists (Horowitz) and herd-riding NeverTrumpers (Radosh) — perhaps as a way to atone for Horowitz having failed utterly for a year to help Bannon out with Radosh’s damaging, year-long “Leninist” attack when it might have mattered — completely backfired.

He just couldn’t help himself.

Behold.

NB: For reader convenience, I will mark the three statements David Horowitz makes that are probably or actually true (for more info, see, for example, The Rebuttal: Defending ‘American Betrayal’ from the Book-Burners).

Texas Patriot wrote: “… When is David Horowitz going to reach out and mend the fences with Diana West?…”

Horowitz : You’re forgetting. I offered her all the space in Frontpage she might need to reply to Radosh’s review and she denounced me as a “book burner”. Your appeal if it’s sincere needs to be made to this disturbed woman. I never intended Radosh’s review or my decision to remove Tapson’s review to start a war. [1: Probably true, especially since they lost.]

DonnieZen wrote: Unfortunately David Horowitz followed [Radosh], saying Diana’s book was “sloppy journalism”, even though the book contains 900 footnotes. What’s up with these Marxist converts?

Horowitz: Footnotes yes. Good judgment no. Read her chapter claiming that D-Day was a Soviet plot, which makes Eisenhower and the American general staff Communist dupes.

GingerLi wrote: There was nothing ‘sloppy’ about Diana’s book, and I was disappointed in Horowitz’s denigration of it. One thing it did: it spurred my interest in the subject so much so that its truth for me was more than confirmed. It’s a terrible accusation to make that traitors were actually running our government during WWII but one can’t escape that conclusion when allied countries and millions of people were sold out wholesale to Stalin’s communism to preserve the narrow political fortunes of high sounding windbags: FDR and Churchill. …

Horowitz: What West ignores is that by making Stalin an ally, we saved millions of American lives. Literally. You make not like this pact with the Devil but it doesn’t mean that the US gov’t was run by Soviet agents, which is what West claims.

DonnieZen wrote: Conrad Black also leveled charges at Diana because of “American Betrayal”. That’s hardly a surprise as Black is the Official Bowdlerizer of the FDR Myth. …

Continue reading

The Red Cliffs of Zerhoun, by Matthew Bracken — A Commentary, Part 2

Below is the second half of Seneca III’s introductory commentary to The Red Cliffs of Zerhoun by Matthew Bracken. Part 1 of this essay is here.

The Red Cliffs of Zerhoun, by Mathew Bracken — A Commentary

by Seneca III

Part II — As it may become

As the rhythms of the seasons change, so also do the rhythms of human affairs. When culturally homogenous societies are destabilised by invasive parasites and predators, those societies swiftly atrophy and inevitably disappear into an encroaching darkness, where dawn remains but a hope beyond an unseen horizon, where the night people are well about and yet to be put to the sword. There is found the formative crucible within which men and women, bound by strength and tradition, gather together and stand firm against the onset of barbarism.

But this response can only happen when free men and women first look around them at their children and their children’s children, contemplate what such a future may hold for them and theirs, and then, lastly, inwardly ask of themselves: “What am I doing? Why is this happening? Where have I gone wrong?” Thus, in the face of this observed reality, the whole rotten-to-the-core 21st-century global elite’s collective power grab may be peeled back layer by layer. Once full understanding and the fear induced by a realisation of impending tyranny or extinction have together overcome the false doctrines endlessly iterated by the deconstructionists, it is then, and only then, that mass counter-movements can arise, reset the course of their lives and determine their own destiny according to their needs and desires.

Indeed, as the comforting smoke and mirrors of affluence and its transient spawn indulgence dissipate, a primeval survival reflex kicks in which in turn forces a huge sea-change in the status quo. History teaches us that over the course of the gestative years preceding such upheavals the final objectives of the deconstructionists that are being implemented by their Executives, Judiciaries and the apocryphal incubi and succubi of Academia gradually become exposed for what they are. When this burgeoning awareness takes root in the minds of a significant percentage of the demographic these once fragmented masses begin to coalesce, organise, cooperate on a broad, often transnational scale and find a central defining ethos and leadership with a common purpose derived from the indigenous peoples, by those peoples and for those peoples.

Furthermore, history teaches us that in addition to mental battles, physical battles must also be fought, often at great cost over extended periods of time. We are now simply in a new phase of a very old war. We would be foolish to ignore what can be learned from earlier battles fought, won and sometimes lost by our ancestors at places such as Covadonga (718), Valencia (1094), Tours (1356), Granada (1492), Rhodes (1522), Mohács (1526), Djerba (1560), Malta (1565), Lepanto (1571) and, in 1683, at the Gates of Vienna.

There, courage, sacrifice and the utmost ruthlessness were the defining characteristics of Western resistance. For our coming battles, as did our forebears, we will need to cultivate not just those personal qualities but also find leadership of the likes of Pelagius of Asturias, Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar, Charles Martel, Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, Phillipe Villiers De L’Isle Adam, Jean Parisot de Valette, Don John of Austria and John III Sobieski. However, we in Europe have left it far too late to fight at our gates; the enemy is among us in significant numbers, well-entrenched, supported and nourished by fifth columnists from within our own ranks. Only Guerre à Outrance on our part can now save us from the ultimate objective of the Globalist Cartel — the reduction of all free peoples to the level of the lowest common denominator by means of the foot soldiers of the Caliphate, followed by our subjugation to the whims and edicts of draconian dictatorship. The EU project, although now stalled in the late stages of embryo, is a prime example of this process, as were the years of the Obama interregnum in the USA.

Continue reading

“The Red Cliffs of Zerhoun”: Q & A with Matt Bracken

As we mentioned last week, Matt Bracken has just published a new novel, The Red Cliffs of Zerhoun. The following interview with Mr. Bracken about the book was published earlier today at Western Rifle Shooters.

The Red Cliffs of Zerhoun: a historical novel set in the future

Q and A with author Matt Bracken

WRSA: What does the title of your new novel refer to?

Red sandstone cliffs are common to the coastal region of Morocco I’m writing about, and they feature in the story. All the Dan Kilmer novels are going to contain a geographical feature in their titles. So far I’ve used up “Cay” and “Cliffs”, so I don’t anticipate running out soon.

WRSA: I couldn’t find Cape Zerhoun or Port Zerhoun on any maps of Morocco.

It’s a composite of a few different locations, but is largely based on the historical pirate port of Salé from the corsair era but relocated a bit to the south. The name Zerhoun is taken from a holy mountain in Morocco which is a national pilgrimage site. I sprinkled some other non-random names into the novel, for example, anyone who considers secret dungeon complexes to be implausible in the modern era might want to look up Tazmamart, Morocco.

WRSA: “The Red Cliffs of Zerhoun” seems to run deeper than the typical post-SHTF dystopian action novel. There is actual character development, for example, which is rarely seen in the genre.

Thanks for noticing. Actually, the entire novel is an allegory for the defense of Western Civilization and European Christianity in the face of the one-two punch coming from today’s cultural-Marxist ruling elites and the always eager Islamic invaders. Three times in European history the continent was nearly overrun by Muslim armies, and three times the invasion was just barely turned back: at Tours, Lepanto and Vienna. Today, the situation is even more dire, because cultural-Marxist Quisling traitors have managed to switch off Europe’s natural defenses and open the gates to invasion, and have even permitted Islamic jihad beachheads to be established in every European city. I’m not optimistic about the eventual outcome of the coming European civil war, but I’m not ready to give up, which is why I wrote this novel. It’s my best shot in the counter-jihad.

In terms of the allegory, the nearly seventy girls kidnapped from a religious boarding academy in Ireland are a microcosm for the future of Western Civilization and European Christianity. Will what is left of European manhood rise to the challenge and send out a desperate rescue mission to bring the stolen girls home, or just shrug at the hopeless situation, and write them off? When you consider that Egypt, Syria, Turkey and many other nations were once staunchly Christian, I’ll admit the future does not look bright for Europe, given today’s circumstances. But I’m not a defeatist, and that’s why I wrote The Red Cliffs of Zerhoun.

In addition, I wrote it to remind British men of their nearly-forgotten military heritage, which is still kept alive in units like the Special Air Service. British men stood tall and faced down the Nazis when it looked like Britain would have to go it alone, even to fighting on the beaches, in the words of Winston Churchill. I hope some of that martial spirit is left in Britain. If not, eventual defeat and submission to Islam is inevitable.

WRSA: What’s the point of having the British SAS and the Irish Republican Army cooperating on the mission? That seems pretty far-fetched, even for a Matt Bracken novel.

Continue reading

Insh’allah: A Peek Into Germany’s Future

David Berger is a conservative German theologian who owns and operates the website Philosophia Perennis. The following guest-essay from his site was written by Barbara Köster, an author and scholar of Islam.

Many thanks to Nash Montana for the translation:

Insh’allah: Things that we will see very concretely in our future

[Photo description: Not just dog owners and homosexuals will be surprised, but women too will have to get used to changes]

Everyone speaks of Islamization. There is no daily news in which sooner or later Islam will not be mentioned. You think that is the high point of it all? Think again. Here you will read what will very concretely arrive in the future: From your dog to your wine reserves, all the way to your gay neighbor!

A guest entry by Barbara Köster

One word for you, Dear readers, in case that you don’t see a larger problem about Islam. I want to try and show you, which possibilities are becoming reality and what you are supporting if you support those that accept Islamization and even purposefully bring it here. You will have to decide if this is how you want to live.

To all house and apartment owners and renters:

You own your property unrightfully. Rightfully it belongs to Muslims. This also goes for all the things you own which you have looked at as your own property until now. For the practical transference of your alleged property to the true owners, time is merely not quite ripe yet.

To all single women:

You should get married as fast as possible, or you will have to move in with your parents, uncles or siblings. A woman living alone is a prostitute. Landlords are told not to let such women rent any apartments. Mixed communities of men and women that aren’t related to each other are also not possible in Islamic culture. Here, as well, sodomy is presumed.

To all single males:

You will also want to marry as quickly as possible. Unmarried men are not supposed to be visible in Islamic society. Marriage is a quasi-religious duty.

To all homosexuals:

You should know. For you, the death penalty is in store.

To all married people:

Marriage according to Islamic law is only between a man and a woman, wherein a man may have up to four wives. The principle of Islamic marriage is usufruct. The man acquires the right to use the sexual organs of his wife (wives). The concept of marital rape does therefore not exist. For the husbands only the picture of the prophet Mohammed stands: they represent the prophet to their wives. This is all about the power of order. For the wife, the example of Mohammed is not applicable, but the example of his wives is. It is about submission and obedience. The man-wife relationship is about super- and subordination. Family relations comes before marital relations. In Islam, the word family does not pertain just to the small, isolated nuclear family, which is seen as Western decadence, but the large extended family. While the family as a social entity is untouchable in Islam, the couple’s relationship in Islamic marriage is always vulnerable through the easiness with which men can enforce a divorce, through the use of masked prostitution such as the “temporary marriage”, or through the permission to take concubines.

To all fathers:

Childhood in Islamic culture is not valued. Children do not have rights; they are part of the general property. To set their own well-being behind one’s own, even to play with a child on a regular basis, garners you just as little respect as there is towards the child. Respect is given only to the father, and you have to work for it. You can command your children at your own discretion; the child has to follow you blindly, similar to the way it has to listen blindly to god. Children have to listen to all their elders and stronger ones. Even a grown man remains his father’s son and can only gain independent authority through his dominion over women and children.

To all mothers:

Continue reading

Mika Waltari’s “Dark Angel” (1952) — A Novel for Our Time

Thomas Bertonneau’s latest essay is a review of a book that was published more than sixty years ago and is not available in digital form.

Mika Waltari’s Dark Angel (1952) — A Novel for Our Time

by Thomas F. Bertonneau

Introduction. The name of the Finnish novelist Mika Waltari (1908 — 1979) reached the peak of its currency in the mid-1950s when many of his titles had transcended the isolation of their original language to come into print in English, French, German, Italian, and Swedish. One of these, The Egyptian (1945) had reached the big screen in 1954 in a lavish Hollywood production directed by Michael Curtiz, with a cast that included Edmund Purdom, Victor Mature, and Jean Simmons. Curtiz’s film adhered closely to Waltari’s story, which concerns the attempted religious reforms of the pharaoh Akenaten, which Waltari, the son of a Lutheran minister and a serious student both of theology and philosophy, regarded as an early instance of ideology. Basing his fiction on the best information available at the time, Waltari strove to show how, despite the sincere intention of the reformer, the reforms themselves so contradicted Egyptian tradition that they devastated the society. The novel operates intellectually at a high level. So does Curtiz’s cinematic version, which likely explains its poor box-office on release. The Hollywood connection nevertheless boosted Waltari’s foreign-language sales and meant that his books would remain in print into the 1960s. Today Waltari’s authorship is largely forgotten, along with those of his Scandinavian contemporaries such as Lars Gyllensten, Martin A. Hansen, Pär Lagerkvist, Harry Martinson, Tarje Vesaas, and Sigrid Undset. Anyone who has seen the film Barabbas (1961) with Anthony Quinn in the title role has, however, had contact with Lagerkvist, on whose novel director Richard Fleischer drew.

All of those writers might justly be characterized as Christian Existentialists, heavily influenced by Søren Kierkegaard, who saw their century, the Twentieth, as an era of extreme crisis at its basis spiritual, and who saw the ideologies — the rampant political cults — of their day as heretical false creeds that fomented zealous conflict. It is unsurprising that such a conviction should have taken hold in Scandinavia. Two of the Scandinavian nations, Denmark and Norway, had endured conquest and occupation by Germany in World War II. Sweden avoided that fate, but as Undset wrote in her account of escaping the German invasion of Norway, most Swedes expected disaster to strike at any time from 1940 until the end of hostilities, either from the Germans or from the Russians — or possibly from both, with the nation becoming a battleground. In Finland, which had only won its independence in 1918, first by rejecting Russian rule and then by defeating a Communist insurrection within its own borders, the sense of acute crisis realized itself in the Soviet attack in the winter of 1939-40, during which Waltari worked in Helsinki in the Finnish Government’s Information Bureau, and again in the subsequent Continuation War of 1941 through 1944. These events are the immediate background to Waltari’s composition of The Egyptian, and they are by no means irrelevant to Dark Angel, published seven years later.

I. Dark Angel is somewhat less ambitious philosophically than The Egyptian, but it is perhaps more relevant to the present moment in 2017 than its precursor-novel in Waltari’s oeuvre, concerning as it does the Fall of Constantinople, and with it the remnant of Eastern Christendom, to Sultan Mehmed II’s Ottoman Turkish Jihad in the summer of the year 1453. In Waltari’s novel, incidentally, Mehmed is called Mohammed after the Arabic pattern of his Turkified name. In Dark Angel, as in The Egyptian, Waltari makes use of allegory. The shrunken, dispirited Greek-speaking Christian empire of the East, as it confronts the seemingly inexorable westward encroachment of militant Islam, stands in for the postwar West, as it confronts a militant, expansionist Communist empire stretching from Moscow to Peking and beyond. The enemy without — Islam or Communism — fosters enemies within: Fellow travelers who despise their nation and its ways and pessimists who have given up hope to await the end in moods of hedonism and cynicism. Nevertheless, neither Dark Angel nor The Egyptian can be reduced to allegory. Dark Angel in particular commemorates one of those epochal events in Western history, and particularly in the history of the West’s 1400-year hostile entanglement with militant Islam, that has vanished down the memory hole, and whose re-conjuration political correctness resists.

As in The Egyptian, again in Dark Angel, Waltari heightens the immediacy of his storytelling through the use of the grammatical first person and through the repletion of the background with carefully researched historical detail. The Egyptian presents itself as the memoir, written in old age, of the physician Sinuhe, whose profession brings him into contact with Akenaten, and who therefore witnesses the events of Akenaten’s regime from close at hand. Dark Angel purports to be the diary of the mysterious Jean-Ange, Giovanni Angelo, John Angelos, or Ioannis Angelos, an apparent soldier of fortune of Greek ancestry who shows up in Constantinople a few weeks before the onset of the fateful siege. Like Sinuhe in The Egyptian, Angelos corresponds to the typical protagonist of the mid-Twentieth Century Existentialist novel: He is the deracinated man, part cynic, part skeptic, who has felt the tug of a redemptory Tradition and has resolved to root himself again, to the extent possible, in what he can identify as his ancestral ilk. His actions are by way of paying off a belatedly recognized debt; and they seek to affirm a patrimony as well as a more general cultural and religious kinship. Angelos functions additionally as a living Rorschach image for other characters, who, recognizing him as somehow familiar and rather haunting, project on him their own otherwise hidden thoughts and traits. An angel is a messenger — and in the stranger’s presence people experience the compulsion to deliver up their own messages, as though in confession, whether they mean to or not.

In Angelos, Waltari has conjured a pure fiction, but he draws most of his characters from the historical annals. One might read John Runciman’s classic study of The Fall of Constantinople (1965) alongside Dark Angel and encounter the same tragic personae. In Waltari’s novel, for example, Emperor Constantine XI Palaeologus is a character; so too is the Megadux or Admiral of the Fleet Lukas Notaras, with his daughter, the beautiful Anna, and his two sons. The ex-Keeper-of-the-Seal George Scholarius, now referring to himself as the monk Gennadius, takes a role in the tangled plot. The Genoese strategist Giovanni Longo Giustiniani, who brings his mercenary army to participate in the city’s defense, befriends Angelos, who becomes his lieutenant. On the Muslim side Waltari gives his readers Sultan Mohammed, in whose retinue Angelos has previously served, such that both the Greeks and Latins of Constantinople plausibly mistrust him. A minor character on the Constantinopolitan side, the German engineer John Grant, represents an emergent scientific and technical worldview that sees itself as entirely extra-moral. Waltari knows the layout of the Fifteenth-Century imperial capitol the way he knows the back of his hand. Runciman’s Fall with its maps makes itself useful as a Baedeker to the novel. It helps to know where the Blachernae Palace stands in relation to the Romanos Gate and other topographical details.

Waltari, establishing an atmosphere of tenseness from the beginning, makes it clear that Western — that is to say, Catholic-Orthodox — doctrinal factionalism contributed mightily to making the Byzantine rump-empire vulnerable to Ottoman aggression, despite the city’s formidable walls. So too did the cowardice of key parties among the Greeks and the Latins. The Palaeologus dynasty had in fact seen the writing on the wall since the reign of Manuel II, Constantine’s father. During his emperorship, Manuel undertook a grand tour of Europe as far as the court of Henry IV of England seeking European support for Eastern Christendom. Manuel also sent an ecclesiastical delegation to Ferrara in Italy to negotiate with Rome concerning doctrinal differences; after a few months the so-called Council moved to Florence, but it was disorganized in both places. As Runciman writes, “the detailed story of the Council makes arid reading,” but the conclusion, pressed for by Manuel’s eldest son John (who would reign as John VIII) against his father’s wishes, was a declaration of union that the ordinary constituents of Orthodoxy regarded as a betrayal. Nevertheless, in the hope that it would facilitate direct aid from the Catholic West should a crisis come, Constantine, on succeeding John, publicly upheld the declaration and permitted the filioque of the Latin Mass to be uttered during the liturgy in Hagia Sophia.

Dark Angel begins just as one such liturgy ends. In the characteristic Byzantine manner, participants in the Mass leave the church in strict hierarchical order. Standing outside Hagia Sophia, Angelos sees Constantine and his retinue emerge. He remarks of Notaras that “his glance was keen and scornful, but in his features I read the melancholy common to all members of ancient Greek families.” Angelos knows Notaras to be an opponent of union. He supposes that the Megadux, although obliged to attend the service, was “agitated and wrathful, as if unable to endure the deadly shame that had fallen on his Church and his people.” As the palace guard brings forward the retinue’s horses, Angelos hears shouts from the crowd: “Down with unlawful interpolations” and “down with papal rule.” Breaking away from the emperor, Notaras addresses the crowd. “Better the Turkish turban,” he shouts, “than the Papal miter!” The crowd repeats the slogan. Angelos compares the sentiment to the one voiced by another crowd centuries before: “Release unto us Barabbas!” Later, the crowd shouts after Constantine, “Apostata, Apostata!” Angelos, who attended the discussions in Florence fourteen years earlier, senses the spreading dementia in the city and knows that it spells doom.

Continue reading

A Quick Look at Leftist Looney-Tunes vs Facts

Perhaps the Wicked Witches of the Left prune up and die when confronted with reality. The one you see here, complaining about the education “cuts” looks as though that is her imminent fate.

By the way, all that federal money poured into poverty areas for basic literacy? Ain’t worth a devil’s dime. Several of our schools in this county and a number of those in surrounding areas have failed yet again to pass the SOLs – basic Standards of Learning tests for their grades. The teachers are forced to “teach to the SOLs”.

These kids don’t have books in their homes – but they have whatever the latest game technology there is. They zone out through these boring “lessons”.

A hint to educators: build games that actually have learning content in them. That’s what the Baron did for our son, using a primitive Atari…or was it a Tandon? Whatever, the fB loved “Big Math”. I think there were explosions for the right answers. [Those noises had stopped by the time he was learning Statistics, though].

Education needs to move into the 20th century, and soon. Or even better, back to the 19th. Sadly, those who elect to “major” in elementary education in college are among the bottom scorers when it comes to their own university testing. Their SATs are low.

Jack Vance Versus the Social Justice Warriors

“Intelligence” demands the most strict of definitions, since the word is easily and often abused. Intelligence rates the quality of Gaean man’s competence at altering the environment to suit his convenience, or, more generally, the solution of problems. The corollaries to the idea are several. Among them: In the absence of problems, intelligence cannot be measured. A creature with a large, complicated brain is not necessarily intelligent. Raw abstract intelligence is a meaningless concept. Secondly, intelligence is a quality peculiar to Gaean man. Certain alien races use different mechanisms and processes optimally to rearrange their environment. These attributes occasionally resemble human intelligence, and, on the basis of results achieved, the effective organs seem to serve analogous purposes. These similitudes almost always are deceptive and of superficial application.

— from Life, Volume II, by Unspiek, Baron Bodissey (as quoted by Jack Vance in The Book of Dreams)

Long-time readers and/or science fiction aficionados know that my nom de plume is that of a fictional character from books written by the late Jack Vance. But Unspiek, Baron Bodissey is actually at one remove from a fictional character — he is a literary figure whose observations on politics and sociology are excerpted in chapter headings and footnotes or quoted by fictional characters in the works of Jack Vance. The illustrious Baron never actually appears in any of the books — he is simply a cited authority.

It appears that among our readership there is at least one blogger who is also a Jack Vance fan. His name is Rex May (no known relation), and his blog is called Ex-Army — Libertarian Nationalist.

Jack Vance didn’t focus on politics all that much in his novels, but when he did, it was apparent that he was a traditional conservative à la Russell Kirk. His sardonic take on the socialist planet featured in Wyst: Alastor 1716 — whose particular brand of socialism was known by its adherents as “egalism” — leaves the reader in no doubt about his opinions on collectivists. Unfortunately for conservative-minded Jack Vance fans, the culture surrounding science fiction and fantasy (which are now lumped together under politically correct handle “speculative fiction”, if I’m not mistaken) is dominated by Social Justice Warriors nowadays. That’s why I mostly stay away from the fan forums — the milieu has become dismayingly politicized.

I knew when we started Gates of Vienna that my cognomen would evoke grievous distress in most SF fans. And you can imagine how much that bothered me…

Last month I wrote a meditation about the form of logic used in Islamic theology and jurisprudence. Contrary to popular misconception, Islam is not at all irrational. Islamic logic is simply very, very different from what we are used to in the West. From its inception, Islam had no use for Aristotle or Plato, and since then its intellectual path has diverged widely from our own. It applies its logical processes to a set of axioms that would appear alien to anyone brought up on the Greeks, the Romans, Aquinas, and the European Enlightenment.

Ex-Army read my essay and blogged on it in a post entitled “Jack Vance, Baron Bodissey, Gates of Vienna, and SJWs Everywhere” . He opens his piece with an emblematic Vancian epigram: “It is useless, after all, to complain against inexorable reality.”

I’ll let him take it from there:

In my opinion, Jack Vance is one of the greatest writers of his era. I’ve done several posts on him and his works, and you can find them by entering Jack Vance in “search this blog” at the top of the sidebar there on the right.

[quote from GoV shown in graphic form] If we want to defeat this enemy, it is imperative that we understand him. And he does not think the way we do. Muslim thought processes are different, especially in societies that have been Islamic for many generations. But they are neither insane nor illogical, they are simply alien.

Well, to continue this story, I sent a link to my last post plus the quibcag* to a discussion board devoted to Jack Vance [link]. I would have expected a board of Vance fans to be a little more sophisticated than most, but, alas, one commenter pounced on the quibcag and said something sarcastic about me “hating Muslims.” Interesting, no? The quote takes pains not to judge the intrinsic nature of Muslims or Islam, but rather to stress that they are different from us. And when you read the blog post that goes with it, you’ll find no more “hate” there, but just the undeniable assertion that Islam is based on assumptions that we do not accept, and that therefore it is not compatible with the West. But I was accused of “hate” anyway. What’s a SJW doing on a Jack Vance discussion board. But that’s a bit unfair. He may not be a SJW at all, but is simply reacting in a way he’s been taught. Any criticism of the flavor of the month — in this case Muslims/Islam — is to be denounced as some kind of “hate.” It’s an impulse that goes, as they say, to the spine and back rather than to the brain.

But it gets better. On the same board, discussing Vance’s The Gray Prince, a member comments:

Continue reading

After Things Fell Apart

A while back a reader named pistache tipped us to a newly-released French book entitled Guerilla:

It’s a novel by the journalist Laurent Obertone, set in a not too distant future, where an attack on a cop degenerates into massive riots by the ‘suburbs youths’. Coupled with a terror attack, it brings about the collapse of the French state in the matter of a few days.

This prophetic novel suffers from a near-total media blackout, and is ‘hidden’ in some stores, but has still managed to become a best seller (in the top three in many stores, #1 in all categories for a couple of days this week [first week of October 2016] on amazon.fr).

Ava Lon acquired the book, read it, and wrote the following review. As far as I know, Guerilla is not yet available in English. However, readers who understand French may want to take a look:

Guerilla — Le jour où tout s’embrasa
by Laurent Obertone
Publisher: French and European Publications Inc (September 22, 2016)
ISBN-13: 979-1091447492
ASIN: B01E88BT36

The French author Laurent Obertone recently published a book entitled Guerrilla. It is set in Paris in a near — perhaps very near — future. For those who read Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints, the story will sound familiar: France has been invaded by a hostile culture and lives in a permanent state of emergency. When it looks like it cannot get any worse, it does.

As long as there are still civilized things such as electricity, running water and gas stations, the nation is able to carry on. There is, however, that tipping point, where the hostile invaders — who don’t appreciate food, water and energy resources, but take them for granted — decide that the time has come to fulfill their religious mission and destroy the host for good.

Like any other parasite, they don’t anticipate their own demise after they get rid of those who have fed them. They seem unable to conceptualize anything extending beyond the current day, even though they talk about some glorious future in a utopian Caliphate. So it seems they have spent the last twenty years rioting, breeding children, making demands, destroying property, harassing women and cashing welfare checks.

Today some of them have decided: This is the day we take over; or, for some of them, the day of meeting their Maker — or so they think — and the promised 72 virgins. It is not a coordinated effort; just as on many previous occasions, the ‘no-go zones’ get upset about something meaningless, which allows them to burn some cars and break some shop windows . This time, however, the president himself goes to talk to them and as he approaches the crowd, not sensing the danger — or maybe in his condescending arrogance he fails to appreciate the volatility of the situation — he is “swallowed” and killed by the mob.

This is the tipping point. The last thing they “respected” or for which they would expect punishment or retaliation. So they stand there for a couple of seconds, and when no such reprisal occurs, they know France is theirs.

Continue reading

Ex-Muslim: “For me Islam is Islamist in Its Essence”

Majid Oukacha is an apostate from Islam who was born in France of North African ancestry. He has written a book in which he performs a critical analysis of Islam, and particularly of its core texts, the Koran and the Sunna.

The following video is an interview with Mr. Oukacha by Gilbert Collard on TV Libertés. It was recorded last spring, the day after the terrorist attacks in Brussels.

Many thanks to Ava Lon for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Transcript:

Continue reading

The New Politics: Whither Hence?

The Baron’s previous post about the phenomenon known as — Hallelujah! — President Trump was right on target. And his use of Trump in a digitally altered American twenty-dollar bill is probably something “Old Hickory” would have approved, as he would definitely approve of this replacement, almost two hundred years and thirty-eight successors later.

The Baron’s wonderful photoshop was far more resonant than he realized, though I’ll admit I’ve been saying from the beginning, with each new Trump tale, “See? It’s Jackson all over again!” The parallels are many and some are almost uncanny. But accompanying the similarities is the deep irony of Jackson’s ability to take his enemies’ barbs and transform them for his own use. Thus, when journalists of the day called the General (his preferred title, rather than “Mr. President”) a “jackass”, he took their ugly portrayal of him and transformed it into the Democrat donkey of a new political party (just in case you’ve ever wondered “why the donkey?”, that’s why).

Despite the B’s claim to my expertise on our seventh president, I only know what I’ve come across over the years when pursuing other subjects. If you want another parallel between Jackson and Trump, there is the sad but inevitable tale of Jackson’s removal of Native American tribes from prime eastern land to the arid West. The well-documented Trail of Tears, in which a quarter of the Indians died, was a draconian solution to the long, unremitting conflicts between Europeans and the indigenous peoples of the continent. Those “conflicts” were bloody and brutal on both sides.

The tribal peoples were never going to be “assimilated” on a large enough scale to assure peaceful coexistence. Though many individual native Americans could and did disappear into American pioneer life, most didn’t. The deep differences between tribal customs and European laws about property rights were enough to estrange the two groups. As it stood in Jackson’s time (i.e., the beginning of modern life) the tribal vs. village conflict continued to pose a high risk to European settlements. What we would call terrorism today existed all along the bloody Indian/Settlers’ borders. That Jackson chose to cut the Gordian knot by direct action was a characterological trait in evidence very early in life: as a boy his face was sliced by a British officer when Jackson refused to polish the man’s boots. Even at the age of six or seven, Jackson had strong beliefs he didn’t hesitate to voice, no matter the cost.

Jackson was hated by the elites of his time (including and maybe especially the illustrious Adams family) but their concerted efforts to defeat him failed repeatedly. He was impetuous, replacing members of his cabinet if they defied his orders. He was autocratic but loved and was loved by the common men who voted him into office. Twice.

Jackson got rid of the Bank of America and diminished the elites who ran it for their own profit. He was the only president whose administration left the country free of all debt.

Thus, when Sean Hannity interviewed Donald Trump this week and mentioned Andrew Jackson, Trump responded by pointing to Jackson’s portrait, which now hangs in the Oval Office. Trump is a businessman and a leader, but obviously he listens; people told him of his (political) resemblance to Jackson, and he took it to heart. I hope he finds the time to read The Birth of the Modern: World Society, 1815-1830.

The British historian Paul Johnson opens his thousand-page tour de force with a compelling portrait of Jackson, the epitome of a modern leader. Citizens of the Anglosphere, now threatened by widespread ignorance and deliberate divisions, would do well to see how a similar time traversed a period of great change and movement.

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

But I really came here to talk about a speech given by Bill Whittle, the indefatigable Tea Party libertarian who has worked tirelessly to find ways to turn the tide of a hundred years of Progressive waves. They wash ceaselessly over our culture, undermining efforts to create an informed citizenry.

This speech appears to have been given on November 10th, two days following Trump’s victory. I knew he had spoken at the Restoration Weekend, a David Horowitz endeavor, but combing You Tube for Mr. Whittle’s part seemed futile. Sometimes these big, pricey conventions embargo their speakers until well past the date of the event. Thus, the publication date on You Tube by this particular channel was well after the speech itself. But no matter; it’s still as fresh as the day he spoke and his words are well worth your time — if for no other reason than to figure out for yourself how you might be part of the change he envisions. As long as you have life and breath…

A note on visuals: it’s annoying to have so many people walking in front of the camera during this speech. If you find the bobble heads distracting, you might try my final resort, i.e., listening to his talk instead of watching it. There aren’t any power point presentations or illustrations you need to see so not viewing it won’t get in the way of understanding what he has to say.

A note on content: After he finishes his rousing introduction (this was November 10th, after all), the meat of Mr. Whittle’s speech — and it is definitely red meat for those of us who have waited so long for substance — consists of five points where we can make a difference. Five points that are either changing now or must change if we are to create lasting change.

The video is below the jump. The introduction is inspirational and highly recommended. Mr. Whittle’s speechifying has improved remarkably over the years and this video is proof that practice does make perfect. He speaks with verve, humor, and heart. Great heart.

Continue reading

A Review of Guillaume Faye’s “Understanding Islam”

Long-time readers will remember Seneca III’s reviews of Guillaume Faye’s books (see Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). The essay below by Thomas Bertonneau is a review for Gates of Vienna of Mr. Faye’s latest book.

Guillaume Faye’s Understanding Islam, A Review

by Thomas F. Bertonneau

Guillaume Faye’s Understanding Islam (Arktos 2016) will exercise a compelling power over many readers who, committing themselves to encompassing it, will plough through its nearly three hundred pages in a single sitting. Immensely insightful and quotable, Faye’s book will inform public debate about the place of Islam, if any, in the West, and it will influence the character of Western policy towards the Muslim world; other writers will cite it, and it bids fair to become a standard guide and reference for its topic. Understanding Islam ought to be made mandatory reading for State Department functionaries under the incoming Donald Trump administration — so effective is Faye’s prose in bulldozing through the utopian fantasies and politically correct clichés that encrust Western perception and comprehension of the Mohammedan cult. Best of all would be that Mr. Trump familiarized himself with Faye’s exposition, so as to clarify his good instincts and resolve him to swift action in defense of the North American chapter of Western civilization, as he assumes the presidential office. But that would undoubtedly be asking for too much.

In addition to explaining the desert cult in plain language to his readers, Faye relentlessly exposes Western liberal and multicultural collaboration with Islam, in both the ideological and practical-political domains. Finally, Understanding Islam realistically assesses the strengths and weaknesses of both the West and Dar al Islam in the present state of their fateful clash.

Faye takes as an important recurrent theme in his suite of chapters (six of them — plus a “conclusion”) what one might call the phenomenology of Islam; or, as best it can be reconstructed, Islam as understood from the inside out. From among the ways in which Islam so strongly differs from most if not all other religions, Faye singles out its relentless suppression of subjectivity, hence also of individuality and therefore any possibility of comprehending anything outside itself. Faye brings to bear on Islam the description of a “locked religion” rooted in the believer’s ceaseless incantatory repetition of scriptural formulas whose guiding rule prohibits their interpretation. Repeat, repeat — only repeat. Because Islam emerged in the cultural matrix of a largely oral society, that of the desert-wandering Bedouin of the Arabian Peninsula, its scriptural status requires a descriptive qualification. The Muslim has historically and typically encountered the Koran — the supposed revelation of Allah to Mohammed via the medium of the Archangel Gabriel — in the form of recitation, which he then laboriously memorizes. In certain cases, outside the domain of the Arabic language, the Muslim never even understands the verses that he commits to heart, phoneme by phoneme, but learns of their content through instruction in a local vulgate. Although the literacy of the Muslim world has increased through the centuries, the habit and mentality of oral transmission by rote and repetition still inform the mental cast of that world. This fact has important phenomenological consequences.

Faye writes in Chapter I of Understanding Islam that, in the first place, Islam’s sacred book the Koran corresponds in its disorganization and randomness to no logical or even chronological order. The Koran thus stands in stark contrast to the exposition of Platonic theology in Plato’s Timaeus, the story of the Hebrews in the Old Testament, or the story of Christ in the New Testament. The Koran’s illogicality and arbitrariness reveal, however, the book’s essential character and purpose: To impose on the captive mind a set of dogmatic and totalizing demands that obliterate any nascent sense of individuality or selfhood. While Muslims declare the Koran a perfect text, they nevertheless require a large number of supplementary rules for explaining away its irresolvable contradictoriness. Faye offers as a primary example “the notion of ‘abrogating’ and ‘abrogated’ Suras.” Chronologically later verses of the Koran abrogate or nullify chronologically earlier verses, but difficulties beset the judgment of which verse abrogates another and which stands abrogated, because the Suras obey no consistent temporal precedence. Moreover, the applicability of any Sura is situational. “Depending on the circumstances,” Faye writes, “some Suras apply whereas others do not,” a fact that in his observation “is completely incompatible with the supposed divine and absolute nature” of Islam’s holy book.

In Faye’s view, no active or independent mind could come to terms rationally with the Koran. Rather, acceptance of the Koran by a rational person would require his relinquishment of rationality; the Koran indeed functions as a bludgeon for the suppression of rationality in its nascent state before it can consolidate itself as one of the foundations of genuine subjectivity.

The Koran in Faye’s characterization “targets uneducated and semi-educated populations,” over whom, because it “provides solutions to everything,” it exercises “great appeal.” In a remarkable phrase, Faye describes Koranic instruction as “the ingurgitation of dogmas, rules, rigid prohibitions and mental associations that extirpate every principle of free inquiry… and permeate the mind with the idea that Islam is a revealed and indisputable truth that must be embraced by all of mankind and whose destiny is to dominate the whole planet.” In suppressing rationality and subjectivity, Koranic instruction simultaneously assimilates the pupil to the view of himself as the bearer of a doctrine whose success Allah himself has foreordained. As he submits to Islam, the Muslim nourishes himself on a heady sense of rising in moral stature above the benighted portion of humanity, the Dar al Harb.

Continue reading

The Phenomenon of Peter Thiel’s Political Alignment

One of our commenters, DeriKuk, left a link to a clip of Peter Thiel’s speech to the National Press Club. To say the applause was lukewarm is putting it politely. Those inside-the-bubble people in Washington didn’t like, still don’t like, his firm support of Trump. Given his credentials as a gay Silicon Valley billionaire, coming out for Trump was a much bigger deal than his public outing as a gay man. Thus on several levels, Mr. Thiel is the ultimate outlier when it comes to Trump supporters.

The speech was given a week or so before the election. Listening to him speak in this clip, you’d think Trump had already been elected. Remember back then when all the ‘smart’ money was on Hillary?

Obviously, not all of the smart money was put on Hillary. Among other surprises, this endorsement by Mr Thiel was/is a biggie. He’s now a Trump advisor, which is extremely fortunate since Trump makes no bones about his techno-illiteracy. It’s a skill he needs in his staff, though. The ethos of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs is rarefied. While Trump is obviously quite smart, he’s a bricks-and-mortar kind of guy. Too bad; Trump possesses a rapid learning curve for things that draw his attention. Being less a technophobe would widen his horizons.

Meanwhile Thiel has moved from being a cool gay Silicon Valley billionaire to being a demonized billionaire in the Trump camp. He probably doesn’t lose any sleep over the ignorance of those who impugn his motives and intelligence for coming out in favor of Trump. Some of the weirder parts of the West Coast bubble have suggested that Thiel’s “gay tag” be removed since he’s a traitor. The rigid herd mentality on the left is something to behold.

Thiel, like Trump, is fairly agnostic when it comes to politics. He appears to be mostly a politically conservative libertarian; they can be difficult to pigeonhole. The left/right, red/blue alignments have been overturned with this American election.
Continue reading