:: Monday, November 30, 2015 ::
The Selective Amnesia of Neocons
Posted by Edward Cline at 1:43 PM
One of the
most significant critical phenomena occurring within the last five years was
the persistent and oftimes viciously personal neoconservative (“neocon”) attack
on Diana West’s compelling and thoroughly documented account of how the U.S.
lost World War II because of Soviet infiltration and manipulation of the
Roosevelt administration. These machinations were fiddled not so much by Josef
Stalin, as by his fifth column and domestic politburo of American Stalinists
and an obliging U.S. president, Franklin D. Roosevelt. The book is American
Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character. The U.S.
government then was termite-riddled with Soviet agents and sympathizers (“fellow-travelers”),
much as our government now is termite-riddled with Muslims.
Diana West has performed
yeoman’s work in exposing the Soviet-FDR connection in American
Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character. She has aired
out America’s dirty laundry and hung it out to dry. Neocons and other strange
creatures attacked her for contradicting their over half-century-old meme that
FDR was a blameless dupe of Joseph Stalin and that there were no real Soviet
agents and fellow travelers in FDR’s administration.
Such were the number of
attacks and the personalities making them that she had to write another book to
counter all the lies, misconceptions, academic pufferies, character
assassinations, and misrepresentations about her and American Betrayal in those attacks, in a second book, The
Rebuttal: Defending ‘American Betrayal From the Book Burners. I
followed this ongoing exchange between West and her detractors from Day One….
What is it that a neoconservative wants to “conserve”? A
neocon is someone who is an ex-leftwing “radical” who finally understood the
error of his ways, recanted, and joined the Non-Fight Club.
We're ex-communists and ex-socialists who have seen the light and acknowledge
the horrors visited upon millions of people by those collectivist ideologies in
practice. What, however, are we for?
We're for the status quo! Whatever that is or may be at any given point in
review of the Trumbo movie is fair-to-middling. Not a trace of malice can be
detected in his appraisal of the film or of its subject, Dalton Trumbo, one of
the “Hollywood Ten” who refused to testify before the House Committee on
Un-American Activities in 1947 concerning Communist influences in Hollywood and
the sly boots campaign by many directors, screenwriters, and producers to
indoctrinate Americans from the big screen.
When it was announced two years ago that
Bryan Cranston would play Dalton Trumbo in a new movie about the late
blacklisted Communist screenwriter, I wrote an article
for National Review
that asked a simple question: would the film be honest and portray Trumbo
accurately, or would it perpetuate the myth of innocent and victimized
Indeed, because of this piece, the
producers and/or the publicity people of Bleecker Street Cinema claimed that I
had “trashed the film” in advance and barred me from the screening, thus preventing
me from writing about it for a national publication. One could say that
Bleecker Street Cinema blacklisted me -- but we all know they are against
Now we have the latest incarnation in the
starring Cranston as Trumbo, Louis C.K. as one of the Hollywood Ten, Helen
Mirren as Hedda Hopper, Diane Lane as Trumbo’s wife Cleo, and John Goodman as a
schlock film producer for whom Trumbo wrote lousy films under a pseudonym while
blacklisted. The film is good at recreating Hollywood in that era, but does
exactly as I feared.
The film presents Trumbo as a
hero and martyr for free speech, a principled rich Communist who nevertheless
stands firm, sells his beautiful ranch for a “modest” new house in Los Angeles,
and survives by writing film scripts -- most run of the mill but some major
films (such as the Academy Award-winning Roman Holiday) -- using a
“front” who pretended to be the writer. Trumbo brought in other blacklisted
writers to do likewise, his theory being that if enough films were scripted in
this way, when the truth came out, the blacklist would end. Trumbo was right.
After it was revealed that he would write the movies Exodus and Spartacus,
the blacklist was effectively over. At the same time, Trumbo is shown as having
an extraordinary work ethic -- working day and night to support his family,
while existing on alcohol, nicotine, and amphetamines.
While Trumbo was an
interesting and colorful character, the film gives us the story of the
Communists and the blacklist in the mold of the Ten’s own propaganda book
published after their HUAC appearances. The book is Hollywood
on Trial, which portrayed them as advocates of free speech who were
defending the American Constitution, civil liberties, and American freedom
In both the National Review and PJ Media articles, Radosh reveals some unsavory
details about Trumbo’s character and actions. Read them for yourself. He was a
Stalinist, and then he wasn’t one when the truth came out about Stalin’s
horrendous policies and body count. Then he apparently threw up his hands and
became…a neocon, in every way but name,
in a manner of speaking. Radosh and his colleagues in calumny did not wish to
acknowledge itinerant conversion. Trumbo became a neocon just as the three
former Left Wing individuals and activists had – Radosh, David Horowitz, and Conrad Black – who later
pilloried Diana West for writing an anti-Communist book about the scope of
espionage and manipulation of U.S. policies and strategies during WWII.
Alger HIss, the Rosenbergs
– these were “soft targets” for the neocons. Easy pickings. They can be
condemned or criticized. Radosh even wrote a September 2008 piece for the Los
Angeles Times about how guilty the Rosenbergs were, “Case closed:
The Rosenbergs were Soviet spies.” This was a Johnny-Come-Lately
piece (by thirty years) on which is based Radosh’s claim-to-fame.
question to ask is: If these three were now anti-Communist, as well, why did
they object so much to West’s book? Why did they go to extraordinary lengths to
attempt to refute her thesis that our WWII military strategy was stealthily fine-tuned
to oblige Stalin, with a great assist from a State Department more or less run
by Communists and Communist sympathizers? Why the strenuous denial and
attempted excoriation of West’s thesis, punctuated by adolescent name-calling?
individuals were so confident that West was wrong, and instead had embarked on
a calm and courteous and reasoned refutation of her thesis and the pages of
information she produced to support and validate her conclusions, why then did
they launch a venomous personal campaign to kick her down the stairs? Why was
their response to her book couched more in anger than in sorrow?
Why were they
so determined to extinguish her? Why were they willing to resort to misrepresentations
of her work, to misquoting her, to consecutive, thickly layered,
pseudo-scholarly obfuscations, to smears? Why did they behave as though their
authority was being challenged, jeopardized, and threatened?
If West was so
wrong, why did they feel it absolutely necessary to berate and belittle her now? Bad ideas and hypotheses over time
are outed and refuted by reality and facts. Could they not wait? Or were they
afraid that her thesis was anchored in facts and they didn’t want it to be
communicated to the nation, because that would not reflect well on FDR and how
he conducted the war?
I think that
part of the answer can be found in their adoration and “iconization” of
Roosevelt, a Populist Progressive and champion of the mixed economy – that is,
an economy of some freedom and a lot of government regulation and controls, all
subject to the direction Roosevelt wanted to take it. Rooseveltian policies perhaps
represented to them and may still represent to them the status quo they would
prefer reigned over the country.
It is not the
purpose of this column to revisit all the issues that were the center of the
assault on West; that is impossible, as it would take more than a column. In
fact, another book. Speaking of books, in his entry, “An American Threat,”
Baron Bodissey of Gates of Vienna in November 2013 made this salient
observation about Horowitz and Radosh on the occasion of Horowitz’s appearance
at the Heritage Foundation. It gives us a peek at the motives behind the attack
The video below contains
fourteen minutes of footage excerpted from an hour and a half of live stream
from the Heritage Foundation. Listen closely to the questions directed at the
guest speaker, and his answers. To my mind, the most telling statement by Mr.
Horowitz is this one:
“I see it as a threat to
everything that I’ve done, and that Radosh has done, and that Harvey Klehr and
John Earl Haynes and all of the conservatives who have dredged up the information
from the archives about Communist influence.”
This is the crux of the
matter in a nutshell: Diana West’s book was a personal attack from the
point of view of David Horowitz and his associates. It was not something with
which they could simply disagree, and present reasoned arguments against in
rebuttal. The author had to be “taken down” through personal attacks, snarky
insults, misrepresentations of what she said, denigration of her character, and
anything else that would serve to consign her to academic oblivion.
Notice that David Horowitz
brings up historical events, and then declines to “get into the weeds” when
confronted on what he said by a historian who is an expert on the subject
matter involved (which Mr. Horowitz admits he is not).
This is not about academic
matters. This is not about history. This is a personal conflict initiated by
someone who feels his pre-eminent position being threatened by another writer’s
Why a “take-down” of West
instead of a review of her book?....
The prosaic truth, however,
is that Radosh has done West a real injustice, but American Betrayal
nonetheless has some significant flaws. It’s an important book, as well
as a riveting one, and deserves a close and critical reading.
Frankly, I have read West’s
book twice, and also her book-length The
Rebuttal : Defending American Betrayal
From the Book-Burners. I noticed
no flaws in either work, significant or otherwise, but for the occasional typo
or ill-formatting. But Lipkes must have been shaking his head and felt
compelled to make this observation:
The distinguishing feature of
the controversy was the venom directed at West.
There was also a back-stage
On September 3, an article
appeared on the Gateway Institute site by Senior Fellow Claire Lopez, which
drew on West’s account of the decision to recognize the Soviet Union in
1933. The article was pulled later in the day and the next morning Lopez
was informed that her relationship with Gateway had been terminated. Less
than a month after the Radosh review, Diana West had become radioactive.
What precipitated the ongoing Muslim gang-like beat up of West, in Horowitz’s
own words, was the removal from FrontPage of an article that endorsed American Betrayal, which, in another
salvo launched at West, Horowitz refers to as an “embarrassingly kooky book” (“Diana
West Invents a New Conspiracy
”). In his editorial of August 7, 2013, “Our
Controversy with Diana West
,” Horowitz wrote:
Rather than responding to
Ronald Radosh’s FrontPage
review of American Betrayal, as a reasonable author might, Diana
West has launched a series of personal attacks not only on Radosh but on the
editors of FrontPage, calling us “hypocrites,” “totalitarians,”
“ossified totalitarians,” commissars” and liars (“If
FrontPage Will Lie about This, What Won't They Lie About?”) and claiming we
“suppressed” -- also “purged” – a favorable review of her book because its
opinions were “incorrect,” clearly implying that they were politically
incorrect. She also seems to have inspired a small army to conduct a war on her
behalf in our pages, whose attacks use the same talking points and seek to
defame and discredit us, representing us as renegades who have persecuted her
because of her views. In other words, instead of answering the factual
criticisms that Radosh has made of her book, she prefers to treat his review as
part of a political conspiracy against her work by people who only pretend to
have the views they do. Readers of American Betrayal will find this kind
of paranoid fantasy all too familiar.
I am solely responsible for
the decision to remove the positive review of her book that originally appeared
on FrontPage on which she builds her anti-FrontPage case. Here is what
happened. When the FrontPage review of American Betrayal appeared
I received an email from Ron Radosh whom I have known for more than sixty
years, and whose work as a historian is respected not only by me but by every
conservative academic historian with whom I am familiar….
feelings were hurt. He’s an authority, you see, and I’ve known him for years. Horowitz
to the rescue. But the question here should be: Why remove the “offending”
column that endorsed West’s book? Why not let it stand, and let others read it
and judge for themselves whether or not it speaks to the truth? Horowitz can do
whatever he likes on FrontPage. But the act of removing an editorial with which
he and others might disagree is a telltale sign of what West accused him and
others of: a penchant for censorship (not a strictly appropriate term, since
only governments can censor), or at least for selective “information
management.” It smacks of the New York Times.
and deprecatory response to West’s book, and the nearly visceral resentment
against her campaign to defend herself against her attackers, were so
disproportionate to the subject that it can't be deemed a mere academic
dispute. It was more like a Mafia vendetta, meant to draw blood instead of civilly
addressing a crucial historical issue. It echoes Turkey’s refusal to
acknowledge the Armenian
genocide. “It never happened! It was all the Armenians’ fault!”
The motto of
Horowitz’s FrontPage is “Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to
get out.” The behavior of Diana West’s neocon enemies remains inexplicable. It’s
what you’d expect from The Huffington Post or Salon. It’s abnormal. Perhaps for
these veterans of the Left, old habits die hard. Perhaps something else
screamed to get out, and it did get out to hound West everywhere she turned.
Those old Communist “let’s squelch the opposition” habits can be suppressed for
a time, but flare up in the most unflattering circumstances and at the most
all forgotten why they repudiated Communism, ostensively over the suppression
of freedom of speech and the purging of dissenters from the ranks.
If that is the
case, then we are dealing with a form of selective amnesia.
0 Comments ::
:: Friday, November 27, 2015 ::
Slandering the Prophet
Posted by Edward Cline at 2:30 PM
“The future must not belong
to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who
condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus
Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust
that is denied.” President Barack
Obama before the U.N. General Assembly, September 25, 2012.dep
It seems, to
judge by his record before and after his U.N. address, in this instance that
Obama delivered a verbose, sanctimonious dose of his silver-tongued taqiyya that mentioned desecrated
images of Christ and Holocaust denial just so he couldn’t be accused of bigotry
or favoritism. However, he hasn’t had much to say about the desecration and
destruction of Christian and Jewish edifices and objects by ISIS, or by Islamic
enthusiasts in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Malaysia, and in other culturally
enriched Islamic pestholes.
On the other
hand, it’s fairly well known that Muslims can slander other creeds with legal
and social impunity, and even publicly threaten death and dismemberment of
anyone who slanders Mohammad and Islam or mentions them with a jaundiced eye.
But, how can
you slander an icon, or a cartoon character, a fictional book, movie, or TV
character, or a person who might not
have even existed historically except in the minds of countless “believers”
whose minds anyway are not too firmly anchored to reality? But perhaps it isn’t
the icon of Mohammad that should be slandered, mocked, and defamed, but those
to whom the icon is a reality.
people actually exist. But you can't slander or libel someone whose existence
a), has never been demonstrated except in the dubious assertive texts of an
apocryphal “holy scripture” knocked together by two or three dozen “scholars”
and tongue-in-cheek scribes over a thousand years; and b), whose physical
appearance is unknown, nay, forbidden, under penalty of death. Mohammad left no
dental records for forensics specialists to examine, no DNA samples to put
through comparative analyses, no real surviving artifacts or memorabilia of
things he might have owned or handled. Where’s the spear, the turban, the
sword? His sandals? There’s the Kaaba in Mecca, but that’s been rebuilt a dozen
times. Western and even Persian artists over the centuries have produced an
encyclopedia of depictions of Mohammad’s physical appearance.
Is the Muslim
belief in the holiness of Mohammad and the existence of Allah so tenuous, so
shaky, so precarious that any slander
or libel of them can precipitate a desperate, quivering, emotional outburst of
anger? Are Muslims so addled that questions about Mohammad and Allah threaten
the insular, super-sensitized mindset of the faithful? I have yet to encounter a Christian or a Jew
who blew up at me for the suggestion that God and the Bible or the Torah might
be ripping good fiction but otherwise are age-old figments of the imagination.
Of course, I
could pose the same questions about the Christian and Judaic Jesus, but then
Christians and Jews aren’t threatening to kill me if I don’t convert to their
creeds. I could mock the idea of Moses parting the waters of the Red Sea and
the antecedents of the Shroud of Turin, but I needn’t fear for my life. Jews
and Christians wouldn’t be out to remove me from this mortal coil. They might
not invite me to dinner, or they might curse my name in private, but that would
be the extent of their persecution of me.
adherents to the Islamic creed who behave like raving tyrants and homicidal
maniacs every time someone gives Mohammad a raspberry shower or a scholarly
vetting. And Islam cadged not only Jesus to add to its pantheon of “prophets,”
but other Biblical characters, as well. Finally, Allah was a moon god
appropriated from a pagan creed. Given enough time and a little imagination,
Mohammad and his successors might have chosen Steamboat Willie,
otherwise known as Mickey Mouse, to be their all-merciful and all-powerful
There is absolutely no
question that Allah was worshipped by the pagan Arabs as one of many
polytheistic gods. Allah was worshipped in the Kabah at Mecca before Muhammad
was born. Muhammad merely proclaimed a god the Meccans were already familiar
with. The pagan Arabs never accused Muhammad of preaching a different Allah
than the one they already worshipped.
Many scholars say
"Allah" is derived from a compound Arabic word, AL + ILAH = Allah.
"Ilah" in Arabic is "God" and "Al" in Arabic is a
definite article like our word "the". So from an English equivalent
"Allah" comes from "The + God". Others, like Arthur Jeffery
say, "The common theory is that it is formed from ilah, the common word
for a god, and the article al-; thus al-ilah, the god," becomes Allah, "God."
This theory, however, is untenable. In fact, the name is one of the words
borrowed into the language in pre-Islamic times from Aramaic." (Islam:
Muhammad and His Religion, Arthur Jeffery, 1958, p 85)
It is not related that the
Black Stone was connected with any special god. In the Ka'ba was the statue of
the god Hubal who might be called the god of Mecca and of the Ka'ba. Caetani
gives great prominence to the connection between the Ka'ba and Hubal. Besides
him, however, al-Lat, al-`Uzza, and al-Manat were worshipped and are mentioned
in the Kur'an; Hubal is never mentioned there. What position Allah held beside
these is not exactly known. The Islamic tradition has certainly elevated him at
the expense of other deities. It may be considered certain that the Black Stone
was not the only idol in or at the Ka'ba. The Makam Ibrahim was of course a
sacred stone from very early times. Its name has not been handed down. Beside
it several idols are mentioned, among them the 360 statues. (First
Encyclopedia of Islam, E.J. Brill, 1987, Islam, p. 587-591)
"The verses of the
Qur'an make it clear that the very name Allah existed in the Jahiliyya or
pre-Islamic Arabia. Certain pagan tribes believed in a god whom they called
'Allah' and whom they believed to be the creator of heaven and earth and holder
of the highest rank in the hierarchy of the gods. It is well known that the
Quraish as well as other tribes believed in Allah, whom they designated as the
'Lord of the House' (i.e., of the Ka'ba)...It is therefore clear that the
Qur'anic conception of Allah is not entirely new." (A Guide to the
Contents of the Qur'an, Faruq Sherif, (Reading, 1995), pgs. 21-22., Muslim)
I could also
slander Karl Marx and his “religion” of Communism, and Hitler and Nazism’s
central belief system. Well, okay, the Socialist and Communist might retort,
Socialism and Communism have ruined every nation in which it’s been tried, and
resulted in the impoverishment, starvation, enslavement, and deaths of
millions, but it can work if only we could produce the perfect Socialist or
Communist man in the masses who could make it work. The Nazis had the same
contention. And this explains why state
control over education is so necessary to Socialists and Communists. Children
and adolescents and grown adults must be mentally “conditioned” to labor with
the most altruist spirit to sustain that ideal polity.
of Mohammad and Allah seems to congeal into a pandemic gestalt whenever a Muslim
prays. I mentioned this state of mind in a previous column.
Islam prohibits almost every
pleasure. If a supernatural belief prevents a person from indulging in
pleasures, then this belief also relieves this person of the guilt. And when
the person is relieved of his guilt and shame because of this belief, his
conviction that this belief is ‘genuine’ is consolidated. This re-enforces the
validity of this belief in the person’s mind on a constant basis. He feels
‘pure’, clean about himself as a result, while those who indulge in pleasure,
appear ‘filthy’, dirty to him.
Compounding this phenomenon are the
Islamic prayer gestures. While a Muslim is engaged in pretentious bodily
movements and gestures of the Islamic prayer, his brain is subjected to a
trance like state, which resonates with his desire to believe in a god, thereby
again re-enforcing the notion that this belief is genuine, and is making him a
better human being with each prayer.
A particular part of the human brain
plays a critical role in this phenomenon. This part gives rise to a thirst for
supernatural connection, which is quenched by Islam, and hence manipulates and
motivates the person psychologically toward believing in Islam. This feel-good
factor acts as the psychological impetus behind him being attached to Islam. He
now clings on to Islam, because Islam makes him feel better about himself.
Hence this person is motivated to keep practicing Islam, continue being
delusional and keep following the imaginary Allah. Even kill in his name.
This is the secret behind the success
And this is as
close as any Muslim will ever come to Allah and his right-hand enforcer,
Mohammad: by literally losing his “self” in a trance, by submitting to some
kind of Islamic “rapture,” by suspending his consciousness and his mind. It
matters not if he erases himself privately or in mass arse-liftings on Madison
Avenue or on Fleet Street or on the Avenue
des Champs-Élysées. When he’s in this state, he’s in that gestalt.
What is a gestalt? Merriam-Webster's definition of it is:
1. Psychology : something that is made of many
parts and yet is somehow more than or different from the combination of its
parts; broadly : the general quality or character of something
structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological
phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not
derivable by summation of its parts
E Pluribus Umma. From the many, one. You, Abdul, are nothing. We are all.
How does a Muslim
know Allah exists, that Islam is “true,” and that Mohammad is the “Prophet”? Through
his feelings. Sensory perception plays no role in this “knowledge.”
Mohammad in disguise as Georgetown University
Professor of Islamic Studies, John Esposito
How do you calmly
discuss the delusions of Islam and Marxism with a Muslim and a Marxist without getting
your head chopped off? How do you make any progress in persuading a Muslim and
a Marxist that their ideologies are evil and even self-contradictory?
The Marxists and Islamists
are working in tandem to bring us down. Coughlin goes into detail on that
issue, including how "political correctness" works to undermine the
law of non-contradiction in those who fall prey to it. One section of his video
briefing is titled "Interfaith Dialogue and the War on Reason". As
the Marxists destroy the philosophical basis of the culture and the culture
continues to disintegrate, the Muslims step in to offer an alternative to
"truth" and "order", as the Nazis did in Weimar Republic
Au contraire, Mr. Obama. The future belongs to me and everyone else who
values freedom of thought and of speech. If Muslims and Islam can't take
criticism or mockery or slander, perhaps they should get out of the kitchen.
2 Comments ::