Category Archives: Diana West

Diana West review of Mr. Jones

Posted on by — 8 Comments ↓

Diana West is a proper expert on the history of Communism. Especially Soviet and American.

Please read her thread on Twitter and spread it. People need to understand how Netflix distorted history for a narrative.

Diana West and Katie Hopkins at CPAC 2018

Posted on by — 3 Comments ↓

Dear readers;

There is a powerful lot of interesting and important news links in today’s Reader’s Links post. Please dive in if you have a few minutes. Far more than I have had time to post today, but much deserving of being featured.

Here are two videos from CSP’s event at CPAC that are worth watching. Diana West, and Katie Hopkins, both of whom are worthy of the time.

 

 

The Totalitarian Impulse

Posted on by — 2 Comments ↓

The latest article on the highly unusual events that have followed the publication of Diana West’s book from Front Page to Gatestone. Please click here to read the whole article on one page.

Eeyore

 

As mentioned here Tuesday night, an article by Clare Lopez was published earlier that day at the Gatestone Institute’s website and then immediately removed. Since Ms. Lopez had referred favorably in her article to Diana West’s book American Betrayal, and since Ms. West recently had anathema pronounced against her for that same book, it seemed that there might be a connection between the two events.

And indeed there was. Our suspicions were correct.

I just received this information from a source close to Clare Lopez:

In late August 2013, Clare Lopez, then a Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute, submitted an article for publication at the Gatestone Institute’s website. It was entitled “Recognizing the Wrong People”, and drew on the U.S. government’s 1933 formal diplomatic recognition of the USSR as described in Diana West’s book American Betrayal to form an analogy with the U.S.’s present day recognition and/or support of other fundamentally-anti-American entities, such as the AQ/MB-dominated rebel and opposition forces in places like Egypt, Libya, and Syria.

As with all of Ms. Lopez’ previous articles, this one was well-received by Gatestone’s editor, Nina Rosenwald, who praised it as “so far-sighted.” The article was duly published the morning of Tuesday 3 September 2013 at Gatestone and was sent out to an email list of subscribers. Sometime shortly after that, however, it was pulled from the website, with no notice or explanation.

Word spread quickly as regular Gatestone readers realized something odd had happened.

Click to continue:

Two items on the current race to ending individual right to expression and religion in the USA and the world.

Posted on by — 4 Comments ↓

Diana West wrote this article on what seems to be the US administrations galloping implementation of sharia norms and the rapid destruction of US constitutional ones.

As I often say to myself when thinking about these subjects, ‘Rome wasn’t built in a day. But it was burned down in one’

By coincidence, I happened to have been pointed to the OIC chair’s recent interview on Al Jazeera TV published yesterday and noticed that while he is a very smooth talker, his arguments are rather full of misdirection, lies and logical fallacies, which of course they would have to be in order to achieve the intellectual slight of hand that the OIC is working towards, namely the replacement of actual individual rights to freedom of conscience and expression with medieval blasphemy laws.

Dealing with them all would make a video that would rival The Lord of the Rings so I just chose to address a few of the less obvious ones.

The whole interview is here:

Diana West and Andrew Bostom on the NY Times hit piece on Lars Hedigaard

Posted on by — 3 Comments ↓

Diana West excerpt:

The NYT on the Would-Be, Might-Have-Been Assassination of Lars Hedegaard

Feb 28

Written by: Diana West
Thursday, February 28, 2013 4:12 AM 

The New York Times weighs in today (like a ton of bricks) on the attempted assassination of Lars Hedegaard, editor of Dispatch International.

“Danish Critic of Islam Attacked, and Muslims Defend His Right to Speak” (with links from the NYT original)

By Andrew Higgins (photo above):

COPENHAGEN — When a would-be assassin disguised as a postman shot at — and just missed — the head of Lars Hedegaard, an anti-Islam polemicist and former newspaper editor, this month, a cloud of suspicion immediately fell on Denmark’s Muslim minority.

This isn’t a newspaper lede, it’s a framework of Leftist attitude through which the pre-enlightened Timesreader is to view the event.

As such, it’s worth a closer look. Note how the emotional seesaw touches down, first, at the head of Lars Hedegaard — “just missed” by  a “would-be” (hapless) assassin– before lifting again as if burnt by the heat emanating from the “anti-Islam polemicist” (bad) and “former newspaper editor” (what good is he now?). It falls again through a troubling “cloud of suspicion” (cliche evokes *prejudice*) to land, thud, at “Denmark’s Muslim minority.”

Excerpt from Andrew Bostom:

Times Demonizes Hedegaard, Lionizes Danish Muslim Instigator of Murderous Cartoon Riots

February 28th, 2013 (6 hours ago) by Andrew Bostom |

walter_duranty-2

Reporting “worthy” of this man, Walter Duranty

Andrew Higgins’ “inspirational” muse must be the ignoble New York Times reporter Walter Duranty, who deliberately concealed Stalin’s campaign of mass starvation and murder (or “dekulakization”) of 14.5 million in the Ukraine, from 1930-1937 (see Robert Conquest’s magisterial Harvest of Sorrow, pp. 299-307). This travesty was compounded when Duranty was awarded a 1932 Pulitzer prize for his despicably whitewashed, agitprop “reporting”.

Eight decades later, ostensibly reporting on the recent failed assassination attempt against Danish journalist and historian Lars Hedegaard for the New York Times (or more appositely, the New Duranty Times, since the “paper of record” has never denounced Duranty’s illegitimate receipt of the Pulitzer), Higgins demonizes Hedegaard as a purveyor of “ anti-Muslim bile and conspiracy-laden forecasts,” while lionizing Copenhagen’s Islamic Society, in particular, its current leader, Imran Shah.

Please click headlines for whole articles

Money, Money, Money

Posted on by — 1 Comment ↓

H/T Fjordman

Diana West: 

Monday, February 18, 2013 10:46 AM”>Feb 18

Written by: Diana West
Monday, February 18, 2013 10:46 AM

Board meeting of Al Maktoun, a UAE charity. Are they writing checks for laptops for “needy” Americans?

—

Yesterday, I tweeted, and somehow contemptuously, that London’s mayor was seeking money for a new airport from Qatar, Dubai and Kuwait.

Today, the Wash Post reports on the extensive charity the UAE is lavishing on “needy” American communities.

I feel ill. Emiratis are the people who were falconing with bin Laden in Afghanistan when the US didn’t strike OBL pre-9/11; these are the people whom we successfully rejected over the UAE’s proposed Dubai Port’s purchase of US ports. Now, they just buy their way in all over America with laptops, soccer fields and hospital beds.

That’s because no one has the Yankee pride to turn down the blood money and get along without it.  After all, UAE is not only a dictatorship where liberty doesn’t exist, its many millionaires bankroll jihad violence and aggression against the US and our allies. Or as a State Department cable released by Wikileaks puts it: “UAE-based donors have provided financial support to a variety of terrorist groups, including al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups, including Hamas.”

Now they “provide financial support” for poor pitiful Americans.

From the piece we learn:

Today, the nearly 2,200 high school students in Joplin [MO] each have their own UAE-funded MacBook laptop, which they use to absorb lessons, perform homework and take tests. Across the city, the UAE is spending $5 million to build a neonatal intensive-care unit at Mercy Hospital, which also was ripped apart by the tornado. …

Click to continue:

Joe McCarthy was right all along

Posted on by — 3 Comments ↓

I once heard a quote about Ol’ Joe which was something like, “He was not the most intelligent, but he wasn’t wrong”.

Published 01/24/2013

WASHINGTON, D.C. Most Europeans are unlikely to be familiar with the facts behind the American term “McCarthyism.” They probably know it describes something very bad in American politics – the “Communist witch hunts” of more than half a century ago. They may also know that simply uttering the term, like casting a spell, stops all debate cold by associating someone with the eponymous Joseph McCarthy. As the story goes, he was himself very bad. After all, he conducted those long ago “Communist witch hunts,“ ruining his name in perpetuity. This probably exhausts general knowledge.
But here’s a secret: Most Americans know little more than this same familiar but completely false narrative. In recent years, stunning revelations from archives in Washington and Moscow have confirmed that McCarthy’s investigations – and those conducted by other officials before and after – netted not innocent and imaginary “witches,” but secret cadres of hardened Communist agents determined to bring down the American republic.

Click to continue:

Diana West: Toward a Conservative Foreign Policy

Posted on by — 3 Comments ↓

 

Diana West.Net

 

Written by: Diana West
Monday, January 21, 2013 4:37 AM 

Below is the text of a speech I presented to the Maryland Conservative Action Network, January 12, 2013, in Annapolis. It was published yesterday at The American Thinker.

What might a “conservative” foreign policy look like?

In the post-9/11 era, it’s fair to say we have mainly followed a “neoconservative” foreign policy. This policy has been based on the rock-solid belief that there exist universal values that all peoples everywhere share and indeed yearn for if they don’t already enjoy them. Our neoconservative foreign policy, then – our war-fighting policy, too – has been a matter of spreading such universal values.

This has been a disaster. Think of nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan — policies predicated on this denial of the existence of cultural difference. Certainly in this decade since 9/11 we should have learned that cultures, the West and Islam, namely, are different and that such universalism is a fantasy. The West enshrines the liberty of the individual, while Islam, like other totalitarian systems, enforces a collective will. Still, to this day, we don’t permit this simple reality to be discussed let alone reflected in any meaningful policy way.

 

Click to continue:

 

Wil Benghazi Lies Determine Election? Not If MSM Have Their Way!

Posted on by — 2 Comments ↓

Diana West:

Washington, DC — Two weeks ago, I reported here that the Obama administration had dug itself into a minefield of lies about the Benghazi terrorist attack that the president would have to cross to get to Election Day. Whether he will do so unscathed remains unclear, but if Barack Obama is re-elected president on November 6, it will be for one reason only. It will be because the US media threw themselves on every Benghazi bombshell that threatened the president, shutting down democracy in the process.

Not all of the media, of course. Fox News, WND.com, Daily Beast, Reuters, CNN, CBS and others have reported most of the key facts now available. These include, first, the revelation that intelligence immediately indicated the US consulate in Benghazi was destroyed in a planned terrorist attack, not as the result of a “spontaneous” protest triggered by a Youtube video. The latter scenario, however, is the demonstrable lie the Obama administration, including President Obama, repeatedly told for weeks. Later, the State Department established the fact that no “protest” at all occurred before the attack. The Obama administration explanation for these and other discrepancies? “Bad intelligence” or “fog of war.” The major media largely agree, no questions asked. Literally.

This past week, a new set of factors emerged darkly underscoring the appearance of a White House cover-up. These include the publication of the email bulletins that alerted the highest administration officials that the US consulate in Benghazi was under terrorist attack. These emails began arriving in Washington within the first hour of what would stretch into an eight-hour battle. We also learned that the Americans under rocket and mortar fire in Libya repeatedly called for military support; that military support was within two hours’ flying time; and that no help was ever deployed. Four Americans, including the US Ambassador, were killed in the attack that left many others wounded.

Click to continue: