The Exploitation of Turkish Nationalism in the Armenian-“Azerbaijani” War

The essay below was originally published by World Geostrategic Insights in a slightly different form.

The Exploitation of Turkish Nationalism in the Armenian-“Azerbaijani” War

by David Davidian

As the signal-to-noise ratio decreases in the reporting of events surrounding the September 27 Azerbaijani assault on the Armenian-inhabited region of Nagorno-Karabakh, a much more surreptitious current has received virtually no reporting: Iran. Influential think tanks generate their well-crafted equivocation and prevarication, never really following the evidence, and keeping readers cleverly occupied and furious at claims such as “there have been some reports of Jihadists being recruited by and transported to the region by Turkey,” when it is not only clear they have been recruited, with videos of scores being slaughtered by Armenian forces and transcripts of radio transmissions in Arabic suspiciously ignored.

After last July’s border flare-up, with its display of gross Azerbaijani military incompetence, Turkey proclaimed active support for Azerbaijan. Within days of the flare-up’s subsiding, Turkey began war games in Azerbaijan on Armenia’s borders. Turkey never brought home its advisors, trainers, or equipment. Turkey actively recruited and transported Libyan and Syrian Jihadists over Georgian airspace into Azerbaijan to act as cannon fodder in place of Azerbaijan soldiers. One need only peruse flightradar24’s archives to verify this activity. Turkey’s F-16s and AWACS have participated in fighting Armenians. On September 30, the Turkish military assumed control of Azerbaijan’s Air Force. On October 10, an elite force of some two hundred Turkish soldiers attacked an Armenian town many hours after the recent humanitarian cease-fire was to have commenced. Turkish soldiers are embedded within the Azerbaijani army and its command and control.

Rather than deter Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman designs, some regional and world powers appear to have used his Nazi-like dreams in their own interests. Just as Jihadists that are fighting against Syria’s Bashar al-Assad can be useful idiots in the short-term, Turkey has been directly encouraged twice to increase its recent expansionist actions. The first was when US President Trump gave Erdogan the green light to enter Northern Syria, which is now under Turkish occupation. The second was when US Secretary of State Pompeo described the current Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict as one over real estate, interpreted by the Turks as another green light. Without even mentioning Turkish actions against Armenians, NATO’s official website posted, “Turkey is a valued NATO Ally” in its report on NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s October 5 visit to Turkey. This comes on the heels of Erdogan’s vow, in a July 14 governmental address, “to complete what their ancestors began, this time in the Caucasus,” Erdogan was referring to the 1915 Turkish genocide of the Armenians.

The last time rabid Turkish nationalism was used to such an extent was in the lead-up to and during the First World War and British backing of Arab nationalism to dismantle the Ottoman Caliphate. One outcome of such virulent Turkish nationalism was the genocide of the Armenians, as they were in the way of a Pan-Turkic Empire. Does anybody care if Erdogan proclaims Jerusalem as his city? Apparently not, as Israel tolerates such outbursts along with Turkey’s anti-Semitism.

However, it doesn’t appear that the grand prize is eliminating the Armenians, but rather dragging Iran into a confrontation, probably with Turkey. There have been several reports of Azerbaijani UAVs and shells falling in Iran. Of particular interest is that on October 7, Azerbaijani troops attempted to provoke Armenians into firing into Iran. Many hundreds of Azerbaijani troops purposely placed themselves in a position where Armenian artillery would violate the Iranian frontier. The Azerbaijani soldiers were trapped between Armenian forces and the Iranian border and were decimated by the hundreds. The Armenians urged Iran not to allow Azerbaijan troops to escape into Iran. With northwestern Iran populated with Azerbaijani-speaking Iranians and the Iranian military on high alert along its entire border with Azerbaijan, Iran could be dragged into this conflict. It is no secret that not only has Israel been arming Azerbaijan with well over $5B in high technology weaponry, but Amnesty International said on October 6 that Israeli-made cluster bombs are being used against civilians by Azerbaijan.

Continue reading

Lysenkoisms

“Stick with the science” is the mantra of politicians and public health officials during the COVID-19 era. Our Israeli correspondent MC takes a peek behind the curtain of politicized “science”.

Lysenkoisms

by MC

The problem with propaganda — the idea of lying to the populace — is what happens when the lies are exposed.

This is highly relevant in the current scenario of lockdowns and face masks. See this article. The science raises questions as to the motivation of lockdown authorities, and those authorities have to respond with Lysenkoised ‘science’ in order to defend their actions.

At the behest of Joseph Stalin, Trofim Lysenko used politicised junk ‘science’ to validate lies.

Lysenko forced farmers to plant seeds very close together since, according to his “law of the life of species”, plants from the same “class” never compete with one another. Lysenko played an active role in the famines that killed millions of Soviet people and his practices prolonged and exacerbated the food shortages. The People’s Republic of China under Mao Tse-Tung adopted his methods starting in 1958, with calamitous results, culminating in the Great Chinese Famine of 1959 to 1962, in which some 15 million people died. At least 30 million died of starvation.

Outside the Soviet Union, scientists spoke critically: British biologist S. C. Harland lamented that Lysenko was “completely ignorant of the elementary principles of genetics and plant physiology” (Bertram Wolfe, 2017). Criticism from foreigners did not sit well with Lysenko, who loathed Western “bourgeois” scientists and denounced them as tools of imperialist oppressors. He especially detested the American-born practice of studying fruit flies, the workhorse of modern genetics. He called such geneticists “fly lovers and people haters”.

Unable to silence Western critics, Lysenko tried to eliminate all dissent within the Soviet Union. Scientists who refused to renounce genetics found themselves at the mercy of the secret police. The lucky ones simply got dismissed from their posts and were left destitute. Hundreds if not thousands of others were rounded up and dumped into prisons or psychiatric hospitals. Several were sentenced to death as enemies of the state or starved in their jail cells (most notably the botanist Nikolai Vavilov). Before the 1930s, the Soviet Union had a strong genetics community. Lysenko gutted it, and by some accounts set Russian biology and agronomy back a half-century.

One can immediately see the model here: the mal-educated Lysenko develops an opinion that catches the attention of technically illiterate, but powerful politicians. Lysenko’s opinions are in accord with political (religious) dogma and ambitions, so they MUST be correct.

Rather than validate the opinion using such tools as observation, peer review and the repeatability of experimentation, the ‘science’ becomes ‘settled’ by consensus and opinion rather than open, reviewable research.

Millions starved to death because Lysenko’s erroneous opinions became official state ‘science’.

In Lysenko’s case, the subject matter was the growing problem of falling crop yields due to the inherent problems of collectivisation, which was a mandated (but unproven) ritual belief of religious communism. The communist ‘New Man’ would become a super-farmer if he would just do as the regime demanded.

Lysenkoism is not just limited to agriculture. We can see it working in medicine (face masks, lockdowns and vaccines) and climate change (the great carbon dioxide hoax).

Continue reading

Turkish Aspirations From the Aegean to the Crimea

The waning of European power in the first two decades of the 21st century has emboldened the Turkish government under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose ambition to head a reborn Ottoman Caliphate is unconcealed. Mr. Erdogan evidently has plans to harness the awakened Islamic vigor of the Turkish state to push westward into Europe and northeastward into the Caucasus.

For months Turkey has been exhibiting provocative behavior towards Greece and Cyprus, exploring for mineral wealth inside Cypriot territorial waters, conducting military overflights of Greek airspace, and asserting territorial claims over islands in the Greek archipelago of the eastern Aegean.

Angela Merkel and her pro-Turkish German government have given Greece the cold shoulder on the issue of Turkish belligerence. Since the foreign policy of the European Union is steered mainly by Germany, the collective attitude of the EU towards the plight of the Greeks has remained cool and restrained.

France, however, is another matter entirely. It seems the French government has decided to pursue its interests in the Mediterranean by assisting the Greeks unilaterally. The following excerpts from article in InsideOver, an offshoot of the Italian daily Il Giornale, shed some light on events in the eastern Mediterranean:

The Alleged Rafale Deal: French-Greek Rapprochement in the Troubled Eastern Mediterranean

by Alex Kassidiaris
September 4, 2020

Since late July 2020, we have been witnessing the most severe escalation in Greek-Turkish relations in decades. It seems that both sides are pushing for a definitive solution on the long-term pending issues of the maritime boundaries across Eastern Mediterranean, changing the regional dynamics and prompting new geopolitical alliances to emerge in the region.

French-Greek Political and Security Rapprochement

The current Greek-Turkish crisis has created the appropriate circumstances for a new approach in relations between Athens and Paris.

On the one hand, France is concerned about the rise of Turkey as a considerable power in the Mediterranean region. Ankara is gaining significant momentum in an area that is actually connecting France with Africa, the continent where traditionally vital French interests are at stake. A potential Turkish dominance in the Mediterranean at the expense of Greece, would be catastrophic not only for Athens but also for Paris, since it could possibly disrupt the French maritime routes to Africa.

At the same time the current framework is the perfect chance for President Emmanuel Macron to showcase that France could still be seen as one of the key players within the European Union, a role that has gradually been overshadowed by Berlin, especially in the past decade.

The Greek Perspective

Meanwhile, Greece is actively looking for a reliable partner, a country with substantial international standing and with aligning interests, which could be used as a counterbalance and a deterrence for the Turkish claims in the Mediterranean. The unsympathetic role of Germany in the last months has prompted Greece to turn to France for this sought-after assistance and assurance. Macron in mid-August — at a moment that the Greek-Turkish dispute seemed to be reaching its peak — publicly adopted an unambiguous position in support of Athens. In response the Greek Prime Minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, thanked the French President with a tweet in French, making clear that Athens has a strong ally by its side.

Apart from the close bilateral relations in political and diplomatic level, there have been some critical moves in a military context.

By late August, with the Turkish unauthorized research activity still ongoing in the Greek continental shelf, a joint Cypriot, French and Greek naval exercise took place, in the area of interest. French Minister of the Armed Forces Florence Parly publicized the activity through her Twitter account sending a political message to all the parties involved.

The developments have been even more interesting in the field of armament programs. Following some failed —possibly due to German and US involvement— negotiations in July for a major upgrade of the Greek Navy, Athens and Paris are currently holding fresh talks about the acquisition of a significant number of Rafale jet fighters.

Potential Rafale Acquisition; a Tactical Rather than Strategic Advantage

The Greek Ministry of Defense has been considering over the previous year the purchase of the fifth-generation Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter aircraft. However, the latest developments and the rapprochement with France have put on the table the potential acquisition of 18 fourth-generation (or 4.5 generation) Dassault Rafale.

Continue reading

Russians Help Disinfect Italian Hospital

The following video from RT shows the arrival of a team of Russian technicians to disinfect a hospital in Bergamo, the epicenter of the ChiCom virus outbreak in Northern Italy.

The Russians are using a 70% ethanol solution to do the disinfection. That’s 140 proof. I figure they just diverted a couple of truckloads of vodka from a Moscow distillery, and watered it down a little for medical use.

The clip is in Russian and Italian, but MissPiggy has kindly translated it from the German subtitles. Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

What the U.S. House Impeachment Inquiry Wouldn’t Ask Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch

The issue of the Armenian Genocide has intersected with impeachment politics, due to the involvement of Marie Yovanovitch, who in addition to being the former ambassador to Ukraine is also the former ambassador to Armenia. David Boyajian has the report.

What the U.S. House Impeachment Inquiry Wouldn’t Ask Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch

by David Boyajian

Turkey, the increasingly wayward NATO member, has been making more national and international headlines than usual.

On Oct. 29, for instance, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed (405-11) Resolution 296. It recognized the Armenian, Assyrian, Greek, and other Christian genocides committed by Turkey.

A contentious, widely criticized White House meeting involving President Trump, Turkey’s autocratic President Erdogan, and Republican senators then took place on Nov. 13.

Two days later, Marie L. Yovanovitch, dismissed by President Trump in May of 2019 as U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, testified on national TV before the House Select Committee on Intelligence’s impeachment inquiry. Her dismissal, she alleged, occurred because Trump attorney and confidant Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump Jr., Fox News hosts, and others had been slandering her as disloyal to the president.

There are intriguing links among the House’s Genocide resolution, the Trump-Erdogan-Senators meeting, and Yovanovitch who was Pres. George W. Bush’s (“Bush II”) Ambassador to the Republic of Armenia.

What no Democratic or Republican committee member dared ask Yovanovitch — and what she didn’t wish to discuss — was her apparent 13-year-long failure to criticize the scandalous dismissal and forced early retirement of a fine American diplomat, John Marshall Evans.

Evans was Bush II’s ambassador to Armenia (June 2004 to Sept. 2006). Yovanovitch followed him in that post (Sept. 2008 to June 2011).

Due to senators’ revulsion at Evans’ dismissal, the ambassadorship stood empty for two years.

Armenian-American communities always host U.S. ambassadors to Armenia. In February of 2005, Ambassador Evans told them, “I will today call it the Armenian Genocide” because “it is unbecoming of us as Americans to play word games.”

It was an honest admission of America’s 90-year-long recognition of Turkey’s extermination (1915-23) of 1.5 million Armenian Christians. But the State Department disliked Evans’ use of the word “genocide.” Turkey cried foul too.

At Turkey’s insistence, the State Department tells American diplomats and presidents to avoid the G word (genocide) regarding the Armenian extermination. Such spinelessness, while typical of the State Department’s traditional obsequiousness towards Turkey, is a disgrace.

Yet Ambassador Evans was simply echoing, as but one example, President Reagan’s Proclamation 4838 in 1981 which cited “the genocide of Armenians.”

Regrettably, post-Reagan presidential statements commemorating the Genocide have avoided the G word. They employ euphemisms such as “annihilation,” “forced exile and murder,” “infamous killings,” “terrible massacres,” and “marched to their death.”

Continue reading

If Only

This week’s edition of Dymphna’s Greatest Hits discusses the train of events that led up to the Great War in the summer of 1914. It was originally posted in June of 2005.

If Only

by Dymphna
June 19, 2005

Right Wing Nuthouse recently posted a moving look back at D-Day and the character of the American soldier which allowed us to pull victory out of a brutal and chaotic situation. From the perspective of sixty years, he looks back on that assault as the defining moment for the twentieth century, listing the many disasters which might have followed on the defeat of those soldiers hitting the beach.

In a house filled with amateur historians, the post sparked dinner table conversations that lasted for several days. Finally, the consensus came down to one incident, one date, that changed the course of the 20th century and set into play the events which were to dog the rest of our days, even down to the present.

That moment, of course, is June 28, 1914. The incident is the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to Austro-Hungarian throne, by Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo.

Princip was a member of an anarchist group, the Black Hand. He was one of three assassins (that lovely Arabic word), sent to Sarajevo when it was known the Archduke was to be there, invited to inspect Army maneuvers. All three of these anarchists had tuberculosis and figured they wouldn’t live long. They wanted their short lives to be useful and to that end set out for their date with destiny.

However, the prime minister of Serbia was told about the plot ahead of time and ordered the men arrested. His orders were ignored, and the men arrived in Sarajevo. If only the arrest orders had been carried out.

The first attempt on Franz Ferdinand’s life was a grenade under the Archduke’s car as they drove from the train station to City Hall for the usual reception. However, the driver of the car saw this and managed to speed ahead, avoiding damage. Unfortunately, two people in the car following were seriously injured. Thus, after the reception the Archduke insisted on going to the hospital to see them.

It was decided that the Archduke should be escorted to the hospital on a route that bypassed the city. Unfortunately, no one told his driver. It was only as they were turning into Franz Josef Street that the Army general accompanying them noticed the mistake and had the driver back up. Guess who was at a café on the corner? Gavrilo Princip. Firing from only five feet away, how could he miss? He shot the Archduke in the jugular vein and the Archduke’s beloved wife, Sophie, in the abdomen. As he was struck, Franz Ferdinand begged Sophie to live. “Think of the children,” he implored.

The couple died at the governor’s residence. If only someone had told Franz Urban, the driver of the car, about the change in plans.

The cascade of events following their deaths was like a carefully placed set of dominoes. The players in this deadly game were as follows:

1.   Princip was a Bosnian Serb. It was presumed that the machinations of Serbia were behind the assassination. Thus the demands and ultimata by Austria-Hungary were on Serbia. They sent an “expert” to collect evidence.
2.   Serbia was bound to Russia by alliance and by ethnic ties.
3.   Germany was bound by its alliance with Austria-Hungary.
 

Can you see the clouds gathering here? Can you see the dominoes beginning to tremble?

4.   Austria-Hungary demanded apologies and cessation of anti-Austrian propaganda. They wanted cooperation from Serbia in their investigations. Meanwhile, Serbia stalled. This intestinal fortitude was encouraged by word from St. Petersburg that Russia would back them.
5.   Now come Britain and France. Bound by a mutual alliance with Russia, the Triple Entente, they were obliged to come to Russia’s aid.
6.   So began the mobilization: Britain readied the fleet, France mobilized.
7.   Austria declared war on July 28th. Two days later, Russia mobilized, part of which was deployment on the German border.
8.   The Germans made an ultimatum to Russia: cease and desist.
 

On July 29th, Germany proposed British neutrality. In return, the Germans would not annex Belgium or French territory. If only the British had agreed.

9.   On August 1st, 1914 — less than six weeks after the Archduke’s death — Germany declared war on Russia.
 

And so the dominoes fell. From the invasion of Belgium to the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, the losses were massive:

Continue reading

Cultural Nonsense? A Programmed Denial

Last week I belatedly posted a response by Victor Onrust to an essay by Thai Peter. Below is Peter’s counter-response.

UPDATE: The Catholic Insight article referred to by Peter is here.

Cultural Nonsense? A Programmed Denial

by Peter

That was an interesting response from Victor Onrust. It cuts across something I was working on already concerning Tony Blair and New Labour, but that is for another time. For now, ever since the concept of Cultural Marxism arose, the Left has been unanimous in the vehemence of its denial that it ever existed. At least Victor appears to be prepared to argue the point rather than resort to the usual name-calling and sneering.

There is one point I must refute from the start: I do not see, nor have I ever seen “Cultural Marxism” as a conspiracy theory. It was a conspiracy, pure and simple — a conspiracy to corrupt in order to impose a communist revolution by stealth. That is how I have always seen it, and it is still at work in the here and now. I first came upon the phrase “Cultural Marxism” in Melanie Phillips’ book “Londonistan”, though she attributed it to the work of Antonio Gramsci rather than the Frankfurt School.

Victor states in his opening paragraph “As with most conspiracy ideas, little is said about who the conspirators are.” Not true. The identities of the “conspirators” are well known. Among others, the main players were Georgy Lukacs, Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Leo Lowenthal, Erich Fromm, Max Horkheimer, and Jurgen Habermas — Victor mentions them in his fourth paragraph. As for having a definite plan, that was formulated decades ago and was designed to impose a world-wide Communist revolution by the gradual destruction of Western culture, particularly Judeo-Christianity. It has taken a long time, but it is closer to success today than it has ever been.

Towards the end of 1922, the Comintern (Communist International) began to consider why their 1917 revolution failed to spread into Europe and throughout the West. On Lenin’s initiative, a meeting took place at the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow to “clarify the concept and give concrete effect to a Marxist Cultural Revolution” — presumably as opposed to a proletarian bloody one, which had already failed to take off outside of Russia. Georgy Lukacs was present at the meeting, and I am reminded that, soon after becoming a Communist, sometime in 1917, he wrote, “Who will save us from Western Civilisation?” Maybe he would.

Also at the meeting was one Willi Munzenberg, a German-born Communist propagandist and fundraiser. Munzenberg foresaw a top-down initiative to “mobilise all the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilization stink. Only then, after we have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, will we be able to impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.” It took a lot of time, but that seems to have happened, particularly over the last thirty years or so.

In 1924, after Lenin’s death, Stalin began to view Lukacs and like-minded people as revisionists, so a number of them decamped to Germany, where Lukacs chaired the first meeting of a group of Communist-oriented sociologists, a gathering that was to lead to the foundation of the Frankfurt School. It was from here that the basic principles of Cultural Marxism were formulated. When Hitler’s rise caused the primary members of the group to flee to America, a number of them were put to work by American institutions. For instance, Adorno — an accomplished musician — obtained the post of Head of the Music Section at the Office of Radio Research at the School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. Popularly known as the “Radio Project,” and funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, it examined how the media could affect the population and increase their susceptibility to mass indoctrination and control techniques.

Continue reading

Vladimir Putin: “The Liberal Idea Has Become Obsolete”

There are three topics guaranteed to cause enormous controversy at this site: Jews, abortion, and the Russians. Opinions on those subjects are so strongly and vehemently held that commenters often forget common civility when they hasten to express their two cents’ worth.

It is thus with great trepidation that I post the following interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Before you jump all over me about any lying, brutal, sneaky, conniving, and lethal behavior by Mr. Putin, pay attention to what he says. Read it carefully, and see where you agree or disagree.

All politicians that rise above the county board of supervisors level are dishonest and insincere to varying degrees. No one attains regional political prominence without compromising the truth and his own principles. It’s simply not possible, given the political realities. All major politicians lie and dissemble — some just a little, others a whole lot. There are no exceptions.

So the issue for me isn’t whether Vladimir Putin is sincere in these things he says — it really doesn’t matter. What matters is whether he acts in accordance with what he says. If he does, then the Russian people will be better off than they might be otherwise. I don’t know about the rest of the world — his job is to take care of his own people, so we in the West will just have to keep a close eye on him. Western political leaders need to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves when they deal with the Russians.

And if he doesn’t act in accordance with what he says, then he will be consigned to the ash heap of history, as so many leaders have been before him when they disregarded the needs and aspirations of their own people.

Many thanks to D@rLin|{ for verifying the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

Cyberattack on Iran

President Trump ordered a cyberattack yesterday on Iranian military systems. This is interesting news for three reasons:

1.   It avoids the media frenzy that would have erupted after a missile strike. CNN reporters would have stood next to piles of smoking rubble and interviewed wailing Iranian women about the death of their puir wee bairns. It’s harder to gin up public outrage over the disabling of a puir wee server farm.

In terms of military effectiveness, I don’t know which is preferable, the missile strike or the cyberattack. However, in terms of the Information War — which is largely what this is — the cyberattack is a better move.

2.   This is not the response the military-industrial complex would have preferred. They don’t have much skin in cyberattacks. They want to see expensive physical assets employed so that expensive replacements must be procured by the Pentagon. They want to be able to test their weapons systems under real-life battlefield conditions. This did not meet their needs at all.
3.   A number of years (maybe even more than a decade) ago, it was rumored that the Israelis and the Russians had collaborated to make sure all of Iran’s military computer systems were infected by malware, so that a cyberattack could be launched by either country whenever it became necessary. I don’t remember the source for the story, but it was more credible than DEBKA.

The Russians have been enabling the Iranian nuclear program, which under normal circumstances wouldn’t make any sense, given the proximity of Iran to the southern border of Russia. However, if they’ve ensured that all the Iranian systems are reliably booby-trapped, they can make a lot of money by supplying Iran with technical expertise, and then disable everything if it becomes a threat to them.

Below are excerpts from an article in The Washington Times:

U.S. cyberattack strikes Iran’s military computers

The U.S. launched a sweeping cyberattack against the Iranian military last week in direct response to Iran’s downing of an American surveillance drone, U.S. officials told the Associated Press over the weekend, confirming that President Trump personally approved the retaliatory measures.

The response was aimed at Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a branch of the nation’s military that the White House officially labeled a terrorist organization earlier this year. The cyberattack targeted computer systems that control the Corps’ rocket and missile launchers, administration officials said.

Yahoo News first reported the strike over the weekend.

The cyberattack was presented to the president as one of several options following last week’s incident in which Iran shot down a U.S. drone over the Strait of Hormuz. While no Americans were abroad the aircraft, the shoot-down still added more fuel to growing military tensions between the two sides and brought Mr. Trump to the brink of ordering airstrikes against Iranian targets.

Also, here’s an article about the attack from CBS News, but I haven’t really looked at it yet.

Diana West: “The Victors in America Were the Communists”

In her latest book, The Red Thread: A Search for Ideological Drivers Inside the Anti-Trump Conspiracy, Diana West investigates the Communist influences on various players in the “SpyGate” and “Russian collusion” conspiracies that aimed to take down Donald Trump. The focus on the Red Thread has reopened discussion of the issues discussed in her earlier book, American Betrayal, which caused so much controversy back in 2013 by daring to question the hagiography surrounding Saint FDR.

Concerning the video below, Ms. West says:

There is something so timely about this 2013 interview with Erick Stakelbeck, an excellent interviewer, that I decided to repost it. The topic is my then-new book American Betrayal, but the conversation is all about the introduction of socialism and subversion into the US government, which soon flourished as “the Swamp.”

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for re-uploading this video:

The Entrapment of Heinz-Christian Strache

Until a few days ago Heinz-Christian Strache was the vice chancellor of Austria and the leader of the FPÖ (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs, Austrian Freedom Party). Then a video surfaced that appeared to show him cutting a corrupt deal with a Russian investor. The video was recorded before the last general election, but wasn’t used against Mr. Strache during the campaign. It seems to have been held in escrow until now, just before the European parliamentary elections — in which the FPÖ was expected to do well, making it an important ally for Matteo Salvini, Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen, and the other “populist” parties after the new parliament is seated.

The pretend Russian deal was an obvious set-up. As soon as I read the details, they seemed to point to a deep-state operation masterminded by Sebastian “Boy” Kurz, the leader of the ÖVP (Österreichische Volkspartei, Austrian People’s Party) who went on after the election to become chancellor, heading a government in coalition with the FPÖ. With the help of the German and Austrian intelligence services (and the Russians, of course), it looks like Mr. Kurz had planned in advance to create a reason to jettison Mr. Strache and call an election, after which he would be able to lead the government without the help of the FPÖ. I don’t understand his certainty that he can pull it off; but then, he knows the internal political currents in Austria, and I don’t. I assume he is anticipating a new coalition with the Social Democrats.

The following analysis of the entrapment of Heinz-Christian Strache more or less supports my intuition. It was recorded by Oliver Janich, a German author and journalist.

What’s particularly interesting about this video is Mr. Janich’s revelation that the TV comedian Jan Böhmermann was deeply involved in the entrapment scheme, and was at least a passive collaborator with the intelligence services. Long-time readers will remember that Mr. Böhmermann got himself into a spot of bother three years ago by publicly reciting a vulgar but amusing poem about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

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

Video transcript:

Continue reading

Please Read This Book!

We’ve discussed the importance of American Betrayal here in the past, but JLH sends this reminder for those who have not yet read the book.

Please Read This Book!

by JLH

It’s the new McCarthyism! It’s a return to McCarthy!

I find this annoying but also amusing when I encounter it in the remarks of a left-leaning writer or politician. When I find it in the remarks of one of the many uninformed or oblivious as a parenthetical characterization, I am disappointed that there are so many of them.

But when I find it in the remarks of Republican members of Congress, or even in an essay in that most effective and informed conservative blog Breitbart, I vacillate between fury and the despair Kierkegaard referred to as “the sickness unto death.” How can it be that informed conservatives and constitutionalists are unaware of the serial vindication of Senator Joseph McCarthy — “Tailgunner Joe,” the presumptive creator of the “Red Scare”? And the REALITY of what he was uncovering when he was smeared and forced into a corner… the most memorable moment of which may have come in the Army-McCarthy hearings, when the army’s attorney Joseph Welch, reproached McCarthy for offering the information that a young man in Welch’s firm’s employ belonged to a suspect organization: “Have you no sense of decency, sir?” This cry of apparent outrage in defense of a member of his own team has become a shibboleth of McCarthy foes ever since, used as though it applied to everything he had done.

How can anyone not know of the work of the distinguished academic, M. Stanton Evans: Stalin’s Secret Agents and Blacklisted by History; or of Vladimir Bukovsky, author of To Build a Castle and co-founder of the Soviet dissident movement, and others. And if they were in fact ignorant of these and other figures who have offered a different perspective, how can they not know of Diana West’s 2013 book: American Betrayal: The Secret Assault On Our Nation’s Character.

Well, of course, it may be that “right-thinking” bookstore owners and librarians do not consider it fit for public display. The profit motive still works, though, as I found out when I ordered it through my local (need I say left-leaning, virtue-signaling) bookstore and, after reading it, donated it to my (ditto) library, because I knew they would not refuse a donation. For heaven’s sake, go find it in a public library, locate it on Amazon, just look it up online. But do not delay in finding and reading this meticulously annotated and devastating analysis of the McCarthy era, of the FDR administration, of everything you have not been told by all those who have an interest in keeping you ignorant and encouraging you to continue saying “McCarthyism” when you should be saying “socialism,” “elitism,” or “just plain damned ignorance.” So no one can say to you, “Have you no intelligence?”

Continue reading

Of Brainwashing and Bathwater

MC weighs in on all the latest trendy socialist initiatives that plague the 21st-century body politic in the West.

Of Brainwashing and Bathwater

by MC

The idea of child abuse is defined by a Christian doctrine based upon the words of Yahushua (Jesus), “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” It goes on to explain that those who meddle with these children of the kingdom will suffer a fate so bad that they should drown themselves.

It is quite graphic and it is inbuilt into the Christian culture.

So, if we step outside the Christian culture we need to beware, for many a baby is thrown out when we vote for either Islam or humanism.

In the period following the Russian revolution in 1917 we have some graphic accounts of child abuse. Maxim Gorky (or maybe Orlando Figes quoting Gorky) describes starving little girls lifting up their skirts and exposing themselves in the hope of attracting the attention of someone who could give them a crust of bread in return for favours. These children were just the useless human rubble left in the street after the purging of the class enemy. They were “useless eaters”, as Adolf called them in his identical revolution two decades later.

The various socialist revolutions discarded (or worse) many children, for Karl Marx wrote no scriptures specifically about protecting children.

I have never understood Ali Bakr (the first Caliph after the prophet) giving his six year old daughter to a man he must have known to be a sexual predator, but then there is no protection for children in Islam either.

When we step away from Judeo-Christianity we leave behind some very profound doctrines.

The French revolution started as a revolt against the abuses of the Aristocracy and Church leaders who had abandoned their calling at the behest of those same Aristos, for they believed that the ten commandments no longer applied to those of the ‘important’ bloodlines; they were only for the peasants.

In the power vacuum that followed the storming of the Bastille, a series of new political religions based upon humanism and the goddess of reason took hold, so the tumbrels rumbled, the drums rolled — as did the heads of the many of the innocent — and children starved.

The Ten Commandments and other Judeo-Christian principles establish a framework that has worked and has produced a working environment which, although not perfect, has created a peak of civilization, and it is only in a civilized state that child abuse can even be defined.

But socialists, of course, think they can do better, and that by demolishing the house built on rock, they can replace it with something more fair and more equal but built on the sands of toleration and moral relativity. And that this time it will not fail like on every other occasion man has experimented with self-godship.

What they cannot seem to understand is that it was Judeo-Christianity that was the real healing and beneficial revolution, and that it is their new socialism that is the same old, same old cruelty and abuse.

Continue reading