As usual, another thought provoking article at GOV:

By submitting to the creed and diktats of racism, we render our community obsolete, and enter into a spiral of increasing submission to an irrelevant abstraction with religious overtones. A free press should be informing us of the subversive nature of the creed of racism. It should be constantly correcting the inconsistent uses of the charge of racism made by religious adherents of the religions of Marxism. An adequate education system would be isolating Marxism because of its historical brutality, instead of evangelizing its gospel of divisiveness and mayhem.

If You Like Your Truth, You Can Keep It

In his latest essay, our Israeli correspondent MC discusses the Judeo-Christian concept of Truth, comparing and contrasting it with the Lie promulgated by Islam and Marxism.

If you like your truth, you can keep it…
by MC

From City Journal:

Madison wrote in 1800 that it is to free speech and a free press, despite all their abuses, that “the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity, over error and oppression.” Only out of freewheeling discussion, the unbridled clash of opinion and assertion—including false, disagreeable, and unpopular opinions, Madison believed no less than Mill—can truth ultimately emerge.

Freedom has three fulcrums of rotation: good government, a free press, and reasonable literacy. If any one of those pivot points breaks down, then the apparatus of freedom begins to crumble.

In this day and age all three are under attack, but the free press node is now dysfunctional. The media are now bound and enslaved to a particular polemic and are incapable of self-correction. The cause lies in the innate polarity imparted by modern (socialist) education.

Most people under fifty have never experienced any meme which does not harp upon the tenets of the cultural Marxist religion. Thus to step out from under the red umbrella of fixed ideas into the hailstorm of free thought is just not a feasible option to most people; it is incomprehensible — and very threatening.

I am a racist. I am a racist because I judge people, not by skin colour, but by their actions, and by the extent to which I feel threatened or comfortable with them. Diversity is truly fascinating as long as my well being is not threatened.

More here.


Societal Fratricide. 

From GOV

What Kind of War is This?

Fjordman and I need assistance from the distributed intelligence of Gates of Vienna readers.

It all started this morning in several different skype conversations. KGS of Tundra Tabloids tipped me to a story about the stealth importation of Third-World immigrants into a small Finnish village. I remarked that it sounded just like the Refugee Resettlement program here in the USA. It’s uncanny the way exactly the same thing is done everywhere, all across the West. Hostile alien groups are being imported en masse, without the knowledge of the citizenry and against their will. As KGS says, “BLAM! …in your face and nothing you can do about it.”

Also in Finland, a leftist professor has demanded that the Finns party — Finland’s immigration-critical party — not be allowed access to public schools. It’s an example of the way the process of demonization is moving ahead in Finland, very much like the trashing of Sverigedemokraterna by the Swedish government and media. The only difference is that the Finns party became much more mainstream than the SD did before the demonization hit.

It’s as if Finland is saying: “We want to be just like Sweden! It worked so well for them, why not for us?”

Meanwhile, Fjordman sent this note, referring to an article (in Swedish) in Fria Tider:

“In the Multicultural Stockholm suburb of Tensta, 20-30 people abused a person they believed to be a policeman. It is very significant that even Jyllands-Posten, Denmark’s largest newspaper, now warns against a possible civil war in Sweden.”

I remarked that it’s not really a civil war. A civil war is an internal war within the same nation and ethnicity. We don’t really have a word for this new kind of war, and we need one. We need a term that could be defined as “a stealth invasion by an enemy, aided by the leadership of the invaded country, with massive infiltration at all levels of society, provoking violent conflict.”

The English Civil War of the 17th century would fit the standard definition of “civil war”. And Fjordman notes: “The Spanish Civil War in the 1930s was a civil war in the more narrow sense, fought for ideological reasons.”

More here.


As a Yankee who abhors the hellish institution of slavery, and who is also is thankful for Lincoln’s final victory over the Southern Confederacy, I have studied that unique part of American history (Shelby Foote’s historical trilogy ‘The Civil War‘ for starters) and immediately grasp what Baron Bodissey is conveying in this wonderful piece.

It’s a well known fact (for students of that time period) that only a percent or two of the population at the time actually owned any slaves, with many having living relatives who once lived as indentured servants (a type of slavery in itself) in payment for travel to the New World. Human history is chock full of misery inflicted upon others.

One thing that can never be condoned as well, is the rewriting of history to fit a certain politically correct narrative. The shelving of the Stars and Bars can be equated with the Leftists’ move to ban the Indian names of American sports teams, which in fact bestow honor and respect to the original natives of the land.

Read the entire piece, it’s both thought provoking and very timely.

The April Rains of History

All the brouhaha about the Confederate flag has prompted me to do something I’ve been meaning to do for years (decades, actually): join the Sons of Confederate Veterans. My great-great-grandfather was a 2nd lieutenant in the 4th Virginia Cavalry, so I definitely qualify for membership. My consanguineous connection to the Recent Unpleasantness is further reinforced by my great-great-granduncle, Brigadier General David Weisiger, who led the charge at the Battle of the Crater* during the siege of Petersburg in 1864.

The current controversy has not altered my longstanding position on the flag. I consider it an honorable symbol of men who deserve our respect for their valor and sacrifice. I would not display it in front of my home or on my car, however, because to do so would be impolite — the flag holds a different symbolic significance for my black neighbors.

What is commonly known as the “Confederate Flag” is actually the battle flag of the Confederacy. In its original form it was square, and bore a legend identifying the unit that carried it. I couldn’t find the flag for the 4th Virginia Cavalry, so I’ve headed this post with one for the 4th Infantry (part of the “Stonewall Brigade”) instead.

My great-great-grandfather fought in Second Manassas (or Second Bull Run, if you’re a Yankee). Officially, he was wounded there, but according to family lore he actually fell off his horse and broke his leg. After the break was set, he was strapped on his horse, which carried him home to his plantation led by his servant — that is, his slave.

Confederate fortifications at Manassas Junction, 1862

The family plantation lay between Richmond and Petersburg. That area experienced an extensive incursion by Union troops near the end of the war, especially after Richmond fell and the siege of Petersburg was broken. Union soldiers arrived at the plantation and informed my great-great-grandfather that they were going to burn down the house and outbuildings. The family was given enough time to rescue some of their belongings, which according to the stories had to be lowered out of the windows.

Needless to say, the family was reduced to near-penury. They moved to Richmond and opened up a boarding house to eke out a living after the war. One of their tenants was a former Confederate officer who had fallen on hard times, like his landlord. When he moved out, he was unable to pay the back rent, so he left his hosts a set of side chairs — clunky old dark wood pieces upholstered in faded red brocade — as part payment. After passing through the hands of another branch of the family for more than a hundred years, those same chairs ended up at Schloss Bodissey. They’re too damaged and disreputable now to be used downstairs, so they’re stacked up here in the eyrie just a few feet away from where I’m typing these words.

Such are the connections between the April rains of 1865 and a steamy August night in 2015.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
NOTE: It’s also a fact that every single African captive sold into slavery by their African owners, were already deemed to be inferior. This is the legacy of slavery throughout history. Whites didn’t invent ”racism”, it was always there, being rife throughout the entire history of Islamic slavery which wealthy Europeans tapped into at a later period.


Paramilitary website, really?

Anyone following the GOV (for years) knows fully well that it’s just website dedicated in the telling of the truth about islam, islamization, multiculturalism, the piece by piece destruction of the nation state and about political correctness that acts as a buffer/straight jacket for any criticism of the political elites’ agenda.

NOTE: The cartoonist, Bosch Fawstin, has a timely observation: The Only reason we’re talking about Islam is because of the daily death & destruction that’s being committed in its name by devout Muslims, yet non-devout Muslims want us to only talk about its non-existent “positive” aspects, so they can feel better about being part of an evil religion.

MPs call for ‘anti-Muslim paramilitary manual’ website to be investigated

Far-right Gates of Vienna website is also promoting upcoming London exhibition of Muhammad cartoons which it is feared is intended to incite Islamist violence

Imran Hussain
Imran Hussain, one of six Labour MPs calling for action to be taken ‘if anyone involved [in the website] is deemed to be promoting terrorism and civil disorder’. Photograph: Christopher Thomond for the Guardian

Jessica Elgot
Monday 27 July 2015 18.46 BST Last modified on Monday 27 July 2015 19.10 BST
A group of MPs have called for an investigation into a far-right website described as a training manual for anti-Muslim paramilitaries – amid fears that an upcoming exhibition of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in London is designed to incite Islamist violence.

The Gates of Vienna website has been heavily promoting the exhibition, which is understood to feature the same drawings shown in Texas in May when two gunmen attempted to storm the event and were killed by police.

It has been organised by the former Ukip parliamentary candidate Anne-Marie Waters and is set to take place at a location in central London on 18 September with tickets priced at £35. Organisers say among those attending will be Geert Wilders, the Dutch rightwing politician who has espoused controversial views on Islam.

In a report on the so-called British counter-jihadist movement, published on Monday, the anti-fascist group Hope Not Hate called for the exhibition to be banned.

Nick Lowles, Hope Not Hate’s chief executive, said: “Our concern is that the event is intended to provoke a reaction from British Muslims. It is not about freedom of speech, it is about incitement. The authorities cannot allow this event to go ahead. Communities shouldn’t rise to their bait, we must stand together as a show of strength.”

Lowles also said he had serious concerns about material published on the Gates of Vienna website. The site – the name of which refers to a 1683 battle between European forces and the Ottoman empire – contains detailed descriptions of how anti-Muslim paramilitary groups could operate during a conflict with European Muslims.

One entry is a fictionalised account of a predicted race war, described as “a hard look at the near future in Britain”, with a section entitled “A guide to amateur bomb-making”. Waters is a contributor to the site and has written a lengthy post about the London exhibition.

Lowles said he believed the site was hosted on British servers. “If a Muslim had a similar website, which includes bomb manuals and details about assassinations and establishing paramilitary groups, then you can be sure action would be taken,” he added.

The Labour MPs Ian Austin, Ruth Smeeth, Imran Hussain, Paula Sherriff, Wes Streeting and John Cryer have written to the director of public prosecutions, Alison Saunders, asking her to consider if the site’s owners are breaching the law.

The letter reads: “It is clear that these are the ideas that inspired Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik and as such it is deeply troubling that they are available to inspire others. We would urge you to investigate the Gates of Vienna website and take appropriate action if anyone involved is deemed to be promoting terrorism and civil disorder.”

More here.

NOTE II: The GOV article mentioned in the Guardian piece fails to mention this portion up at the top of the said article:

This is the third of a five-part series by El Inglés comparing and contrasting the Troubles in Northern Ireland with the coming Muslim Troubles in Britain. Previously: Part One and Part Two.

For those who are new to this series: El Inglés’ analysis is descriptive, not normative. This is not advocacy for what is being described, but rather a hard look at the near future in Britain.

We already see what’s happening in Muslim dominated Malmö, the grenade exploding capital of Sweden, this was just an analytical look at what will bound to happen if the situation in the UK is not reversed.


Excellent reading!

[I first met Geert Wilders in person back in February 2009 at an event hosted by Sen. John Kyl of Arizona (now retired) at the Lyndon B. Johnson Room in the U.S. Capitol. Two years later I encountered him again in Nashville, Tennessee under the auspices of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition.]

A “Press Conference” in Sodom-on-the-Potomac

This one put out by CAIR is a brief but sufficient snip that would serve as a template of Washington press conferences for the Counterjihad.

Congressional Representative Louie Gohmert had issued invitations for the press to interview Mr. Wilders on the day following the Japanese Prime minister’s speech to both chambers of the legislature. In other words, the fanfare was over; always a good chance to have a few more jornolists available to cover an event.

In the days leading up to Mr. Wilders’ visit to the Capitol the press had dutifully carried water published stories of vigorous attempts by both Democrat Muslim members of the House attempting to prevent Mr. Wilders from entering the country at all. These jornolists knew the pro-forma attacks on Wilders’ entry were simply grandstanding for the folks at home — the kind of blather which usually shows up in the local news but is omitted from national events. Yet the “bigots” (as Louie Gohmert calls the MSM press in this video) treated this non-event by the two politicians as if it were real news. As much as we’ve learned about corruption in Washington, all of us know how to decipher what’s happening there. The usual cui bono questions are in play.

More here.


Churchill, Hitler and Islam

If you appreciate this essay by Fjordman, please consider making a donation to him, using the button at the bottom of this post.

The English patriot Paul Weston, chairman of the party Liberty GB, was arrested by the police on April 26 2014 in his native Britain… for the crime of quoting Winston Churchill, Britain’s Prime Minister during the Second World War. Yes, it has come to that.

The passage quoted by Weston was published in 1899. It focuses on Churchill’s negative observations about Islam while serving during the Anglo-Egyptian reconquest of the Sudan. The young man commented on the repressive and warlike nature of Islam and concluded that “ No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”

As the commentator Daniel Hannan noted: You may or may not agree with these comments, which Mr. Weston cited. That does not change the fact that this was a political arrest. A British political candidate running for elections was arrested in mid-speech simply for publicly addressing potential voters by quoting a former Prime Minister.

For this, Paul Weston was arrested and put in a cell for some hours. He was suspected of having committed a “racially aggravated crime under Section 4 of the Public Order Act.” I’m not quite sure what that is, but it sounds very much like something George Orwell might have invented in one of his novels.

Reality has moved beyond parody. Britain, once a champion of political liberty, is no longer a free country. It is now a Monty Python sketch — except it’s not funny — or a banana republic without the bananas.

Sadly, it’s not the only European country that could be classified as such these days. From Hamburg to Helsinki, from Marseille to Stockholm and from Barcelona to Brussels, the natives have to endure seeing their heritage being dismantled and being turned into strangers in their own cities.

In this atmosphere, saying negative things about Christianity is not merely allowed, but in certain quarters actively encouraged. At the same time, saying negative things about Islam may end your career, trigger violent threats and maybe even get you arrested by the police.

The supreme irony in all of this is that if Paul Weston had quoted Adolf Hitler’s favorable views on Islam instead of Winston Churchill’s unfavorable views, he would presumably have encountered no problems. That’s because Hitler’s positive view of Islam is more in line with that of today’s ruling Multiculturalists.

There is a tendency in the mass media to portray opposition to Islamization as something “far-Right,” at the same time as they portray Nazis as far-Right. This is questionable. The political terms “Left” and “Right” date back to a random seating arrangement in France in the late eighteenth century.


Nevertheless, to the extent that you talk about Left vs. Right, you could argue that the national Socialists (Nazis) formed a part of the political Left, just like other Socialist parties and movements. It was Vladimir Lenin and his followers, not Adolf Hitler, who founded the first major totalitarian state of the twentieth century. The Nazis copied tools of propaganda and methods of repression pioneered by the Communists. People are often led to forget that today.

There is arguably a direct line from the revolutionary terror of the Jacobins during the French Revolution to the revolutionary terror of the Bolsheviks during the Russian Revolution, from the political mass murders under Robespierre in the 1790s to the political mass murders under Lenin after 1917. Most (some might even claim all) of the mass-murdering totalitarian movements in the modern world have come from the political Left. It is therefore strange that to be “left-wing” is now seen as something neutral or positive, whereas to be “right-wing” is seen as suspect. Viewed in the light of history, it should be the other way around.

More here.




If the legacy media were in fact, ”honest and decent”, they wouldn’t be the ”legacy media”.


As the GOV correctly points out, the Breivik Letter not only shows the derangement of the man, but it highlights how easy it was for the Butcherer of Utoya to manipulate the MSM, Norwegian law officials and its government, as well as a certain UK researcher (working out of Finland) and a Norwegian writer to parrot his narrative.

This story is a blockbuster, it proves the herd mentality of the MSM and the clapping seals of pseudo academics can be directed any which way if the carrot is sweet enough, meaning, the embers of their political narrative can be easily stoked to prompt a burst of flame to consume the desired target.

 Breivik: “The idea was to manipulate the MSM and others so that they would launch a witch-hunt and send their <<media-rape-squads>> against our opponents. It worked quite well.”

NOTE: Baron Bodissey’s piece is reposted here in part, with the actual letter available in full at GOV.

Breivik’s “Double-Psychology”

Posted on  by Baron Bodissey

Two weeks ago we published a translated article from Expo (the original is here) in which Anders Behring Breivik repudiated all association with the Counterjihad. In a letter sent out to various email outlets, the Butcher of Utøya told the world that his purported admiration for Fjordman, Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or, et al. had just been a ruse on his part, and that his real ideological commitment was to what he calls “ethno-nationalism” or “nordicism”. He had embraced the Counterjihad in order to damage it, and to draw attention away from his allies among white nationalists and neo-Nazis.

Strangely enough, no media outlet except for the far-left Swedish foundation Expo published this portion of Mr. Breivik’s missive. Other sources — reportedly including The Wall Street JournalDie WeltDagbladetABC Nyheter, and Ekstra Bladet — wrote about his claim that he had been tortured in prison. But none of them thought to mention that the killer had said he was just kidding about his ideological alignment with Islam-critics — an undetermined number of whom have been harassed, threatened, fired, defunded, and exiled for “inspiring” the madman’s massacre.

Funny about that.

Expo had only published excerpts from Mr. Breivik’s letter. I was curious to see the entire text, and spent some time searching for it online. The process was made more difficult by the fact that the original letter was said to be in English, but the published excerpts existed only in Swedish translation. Our Scandinavian contacts were all but certain that the full text of the letter had never been published on the Internet.

Thanks to the diligent efforts of one of our Scandinavian readers, I was able to obtain the entire text of the “ideological” portion of Anders Behring Breivik’s letter. The first half of the text — the part that contains his assertions of being tortured in prison — was apparently imaged separately, and the PDF that was sent to us was devoted solely to an explanation of the ethno-nationalist motives for his actions.

Mr. Breivik’s letter was actually written last September, but for unknown reasons was embargoed by the Norwegian prison authorities until earlier this month. Then, when it was finally sent, all media outlets but one chose to bury those portions of the text that would destroy the “narrative” they had so painstakingly crafted over the past two and a half years.

If there were any honesty and decency left among journalists, they would have immediately issued an apology for their previous blindness and stupidity, and a retraction of all the stories in which they had so faithfully promoted a false explanation for the deeds of a mass killer — just as the murderer himself had intended.

But honesty and decency do not have any place in modern journalism. This follow-up on the events of July 22 2011 has been buried, and will never be exhumed, not if the legacy media can help it.

The “ideological” portion of Breivik’s letter was sent to us as a six-page PDF file, the final page of which was blank. The contents were entirely image-based; that is, there was no text that could be copied and extracted. I printed all five pages, scanned them, ran them through OCR software, and corrected all the errors I could find.

The resulting text is reproduced at the end of this post. Our publication of the entire document serves as the due diligence that the MSM entirely neglected to perform: we are providing the public with the raw text, which they may read for themselves.

I expect that we will be accused of aiding a mass killer in his efforts to propagate his unhinged ideas. Yet our readers deserve more credit than that: they are capable of reading and evaluating what Mr. Breivik has to say and making their own informed judgment. They will easily discover that the murderer espouses a fringe ideology, one that is essentially trivial.

Unlike his “manifesto” (which he, interestingly enough, refers to as “the compendium”), the letter seems to be written with a single authorial voice. As I made my way through it, I found myself assessing the ideas — “Hmm, this seems true.” “This is nonsense!” etc. — just as I would with any other writer’s conclusions.

Then I would encounter a sentence like this one:

22/7 was an attempt to force these 20 editors, and their colleagues in the other 12 nordic countries into dialogue with their countrys nordicist-movements (you call them Nazi-movements).

…or this one:

As for my efforts to try to force the editors and ruling politicians in each of the 13 nordic countries into dialogue with the nordicist-movements, I failed miserably, not surprisingly.

… and I would be brought up short, brutally reminded of the nature of the mentality that had written those words.

No one in his right mind believes that the mass-murder of dozens of unarmed teenagers will force newspaper editors to engage in “dialogue”. A person who seriously entertains the idea is deeply, deeply deranged.

Regardless of whatever ideology Mr. Breivik might adhere to, his belief in mass killing as an effective means to achieve dialogue with media moguls is totally disconnected from it. Whether his cause is “racial hygiene”, environmentalism, socialism, or the need for fluoridating the water supply, the means he employed to promote it have nothing to do with it.

It’s easy to see why the MSM wanted to bury this half of the letter. It shows them up as gullible fools who took a shrewd psychopathic killer at his word, and parroted the exact line expected of them. Their case against the Counterjihad as “Breivik’s mentors” has been totally destroyed. As a result, they’re no longer interested in discussing the topic.

The Butcher of Utøya positively gloats over how easy it was to fool them:

When dealing with media psychopaths, a good way to counter their tactics is to use double-psychology, or at least so I thought. The compendium was, among other things, of a calculated and quite cynical <<gateway-design>> (the 2+?+?=6-approach), created to strengthen the ethnocentrist wing in the contra-jihad movement, by pinning the whole thing on the anti-ethnocentrist wing (many of the leaders are pro-multiculti social democrats or liberalists), while at the same time protecting and strengthening the ethnocentrist-factions. The idea was to manipulate the MSM and others so that they would launch a witch-hunt and send their <<media-rape-squads>> against our opponents. It worked quite well.


…The <<hug-your-opponents, kick-the-ones-you-love>>-tactic is one of the oldest in the book. The infiltration of the Freemasons, followed by the publication of the Freemason-pic, was in fact a deliberate and calculated attack against them.

And what about the man who was allegedly Mr. Breivik’s greatest inspiration?

A man who was hounded out of anonymity by the Norwegian media and turned into Public Enemy Number Two? A writer who would have been prosecuted alongside the killer, if certain opinion-writers had their way? An academic who was threatened with death, forced from his job, and driven into exile?

I refer, of course, to Fjordman. Here’s what Anders Behring Breivik had to say about his supposed mentor:

When the norwegian MSM announced that Fjordman was my role model and idol, they couldnt be more wrong.

Furthermore, according to the killer, Fjordman is actually in league with — gasp! — THE JEWS. Mr. Breivik maintains that Fjordman — who, if you believe the Norwegian media, is at least as vicious a Nazi as Heinrich Himmler — actually commands a “Jewish network”:

I know a lot of people will be dissapointed when reading this, but my love for Israel is limited to its future function as a deportation-port for disloyal jews. I am aware of the sad fact that all available statistics confirm that only aprox. three percent of eurojews oppose multiculti (but from an anti-islamist perspective), and that only aprox. 0,2 percent support nordic indigenous rights. I wish it wasnt so… However, there is in fact a strong anti-nordicist/ethnocentrist wing within the counter-jihad movement, represented by Fjordman and his Jewish network, the EDL-leader, the SIOE-leaders, Wilders, Farage etc., but their organisations are so heavily infiltrated by nordicists and ethnocentrists that its hard to say which wing are actually controlling them.


…This makes it even more ironic that many nordicists and ethnocentric nationalists, Stormfront included, still dont know that I systematically used double-psychology in order to protect them, and in an attempt to prevent the multiculti MSM from using their <<I-win-button>>.


…I could have easily avoided excessive pathologisation by keeping the message short and by clinging to the already established ideological cliff of national socialism (its important to remember that this was at a time when all right wing radicals were labeled as nazis), but if they had been allowed to label me as a nazi, the ideological considerations and discussions would be over, and my court-speeches and propaganda performance would never be broadcasted world wide, during the trial. Furthermore, people would not be forced to seek answers in the compendium along the way. Regardless of their efforts, I felt I managed to make the best out of an almost impossible situation, despite of the fact that I made a few mistakes during the process.

The mainstream media have been had.

They were played like a fiddle by Anders Behring Breivik, and now they know it.

That’s why they’re keeping quiet. They’re hoping that this snippet of news can remain their little secret. If they can keep it quiet, they won’t have anything to worry about for twenty years until the killer gets out of prison. But, hey — most of them will be retired and drawing their generous state pensions by then, so what difference does it make?

And Mr. Breivik has plenty of time to change his story again between now and then. It could be that he was secretly a Scientologist all this time. Or a Flat Earth devotee. Or a Truther.

I know people who are taking bets on when he will convert to Islam.

Regardless of what narrative the madman finally settles on, the fact remains that his original story — the one that gullible Norwegian journalists bought hook, line, and sinker — has been revealed as pure hokum.

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

Below is the full text of the “ideological” portion of the letter sent to the media by Anders Behring Breivik. The original image-based PDF of the letter is available for download here.

The original spelling, punctuation, and capitalization have been retained:



Well worth the time to listen to.

Making Sense of EU Politics

Secure Freedom Radio Podcasts |  |

With Ned May, John Dietrich. Diana West guest hosts.

Guest host DIANA WEST, author of “American Betrayal,” begins the show with a monologue that goes deep into the nuances of what it means to lack a winning strategy in Afghanistan.

JOHN DIETRICH highlights some of the most interesting finding of his new book, “The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy.”

NED MAY, co-proprietor of the Gates of Vienna blog, discusses the political climate of the European Union and dissects the key political shifts.

DIANA WEST examines in a final monologue why communism does not have the same negative connotations that Nazism does.

 West [ 10:00 ] Hide Player | Play in Popup | Download (27)
 Dietrich [ 10:00 ] Hide Player | Play in Popup | Download (20)
 May [ 10:00 ] Hide Player | Play in Popup | Download (19)
 West [ 10:00 ] Hide Player | Play in Popup | Download (15)
TAGGED WITH →  •  • 



Perfect storms haven’t single trigger, it’s a cascade of inter-related and independent factors.

Also read (French): Interview with Aymeric Chauprade: The European Union, best friend of the Islamization of Europe?

[In imposing the model of multiculturalism at the expense of assimilation, the European Union appears to be the best ally of Islamization. This is why it is impossible to fight the Islamization of Europe if we do not release it from the European Union.]

The writer in the interview, Aymeric Chauprade, has a crippled understanding of the reasons for the crusades, as well as falling for the meme of justified Muslim anger concerning past ‘injustices’, but he does spot the danger Islam poses to the West, that Islam wants to exact a ‘revenge’. That’s something at least.

Arab winter

 Radicalism in this section is introduced as “the new interpretive model” which for Dr. Raddatz is most immediately linked to the 1974 event when Yasser Arafat was allowed to appear, armed, at the UN. From that point, the “… jihad culture of Islam” became the “new interpretive model” in the West. It is the appearance of this new radicalism, with its anti-Semitism, “coercion”, “threatening behaviour”, relativisation of the “good”, its moral confusion and its central control by the “profiteers” of the model which anticipates Dr. Raddatz’ treatment of the “metaphysics of radicalism” and “radical evil”.

Islamic Seasons and “Democratic” Global Policy: Part II, Section I

Posted on  by Baron Bodissey

Below is the first section of Part II of a four-section essay by Hans-Peter Raddatz about the EU, the Mediterranean Union, the Islamization of the West, and the deliberate engineering of the “Arab Spring” by the global elites to serve their own long-term goals. For the links to Part I, see the archive list at the bottom of this post.

This essay was originally published at Die Neue Ordnung in pdf form, and was kindly translated from the German by Rembrandt Clancy, who has also provided the reader with extensive notes.

Islamic Seasons and “Democratic” Global Policy

Part II, Section I

by Hans-Peter Raddatz

Translator’s Introduction

Dr. Raddatz uses references which may be unfamiliar to some. Therefore there are reference notes. These are of two types: translator’s notes and endnotes:

1) Translator’s Notes: An asterisk (*) following a word or concept in the text indicates the presence of a “Translator’s Note” immediately below. These provide immediate clarification for concepts or expressions which may be unfamiliar to some, or even most readers.
2) Endnotes: Numbers in square brackets following a term or a concept in the text are linked to endnotes for readers who wish more detail rooted in original sources.

In Part I of this paper, translated by JLH, Dr. Raddatz introduced the “constellation of Islamic ‘movements’“, which have been among the crucial “contributors to the seasons of Spring and Summer”. His idea was to prepare the ground for Part II which examines which of the players, including the “Jewish-Christian resistance”,… will have to reckon with a Fall and Winter phase” (cf. Seasons, Part I, Section 2). After the “Arab Spring”, the so-called “path to democracy”, there follows the “Summer of the Islamic democracy” (Seasons, Part I, Section 5), a period of consolidation, an “Islamocentric” transition which ignores “the future for non-Muslims”, and instead of democracy actually introduces dictatorship and coercion (Seasons, Part I, Section 5). These events in the Middle East together with the concurrent trend toward “dhimmitude“ in Europe point to the “coming caliphate” adumbrated by the Union for the Mediterranean(2005), “encompassing all Euro and Islam residents” (cf. Part I, Section 1).

Part II introduces the prospect of “a new dominant culture”, which consists of Western “Left-Right extremes” fused with “Islamic law” (cf. Islamic Seasons, Part I, Section 5). Underlying the transition is deratiocination (Denkschwund): “In our estimation, the root cause of this trend, which can lead to a Western cultural autumn and winter, lies in the fundamental destruction of human reason” (Islamic Seasons, Part I, Section 5Trans. JLH). Based on the “constellation of Islamic movements”, Dr. Raddatz proceeds “in Part II to the Fall and Winter phases, to the metaphysics of radicalisation”, and “radical evil” (cf. Part I, Section 2). Even though the “seasons” have their origin in propaganda, they nevertheless have a certain correspondence to political changes in the Middle East. Dr. Raddatz, however, does not render the “seasons” as precisely delineated categories; for him, they also contain significance on the level of imagery, as a cycle depicting a cultural trajectory from false promise to decline and death.

More here at The Gates of Vienna.



I post the following choice excerpts from Baron Bodissey’s latest on the Andy McCarthy piece at NRO, over the controversy on Diana West’s book American Betrayal.


One can’t help but notice a persistent moral equivalence in Mr. McCarthy’s view of the great “barroom brawl”. We continue to hear about “both sides”, each of which consists of “people I greatly respect”. David Horowitz and Ron Radosh are his “friends”. Diana West is also his “friend”, and he likes her book, despite the fact that it is “controversial”.

If a friend of mine picked up a whiskey bottle and without warning hit another friend of mine over the head with it, I might consider taking that first friend to task. I might advise him that his behavior was morally and ethically wrong. I might even reconsider my friendship with him.

And I most certainly would not ascribe a moral equivalence to the two friends, as if the first one had had the effrontery to assault that whiskey bottle with her head. As if she had snuck up on that innocent, unsuspecting bottle and used her occiput to smash it without warning.

That’s not quite what happened.


In his “take-down” of the book, Ronald Radosh constructed dishonest straw-man arguments, and even answered arguments that Ms. West did not make — putting words into her authorial mouth, and then “refuting” them. Did Mr. McCarthy even read The Rebuttal?

And whom is he quoting when he refers to “closet-Commies.”? Diana West certainly never used such a phrase. Who did?

Most telling of all is the phrase “honest, forceful debate”, to which Messrs. Horowitz and Radosh are alleged to have contributed. If there is one thing that has been lacking in this whole shameful fiasco, it is honesty.

But only on one “side”. Diana West has maintained a steadfast honesty throughout. She has also shown admirable restraint towards those who have hurled insults at her while treating her with such cavalier dishonesty.

It’s sad to see this sort of limp dissimulation coming from a well-known author. One expects better from a man of his skill and intellect.

More here.

Dymphna, the Baron’s better half at the Gates of Vienna, deposited the following comment at an earlier TT post concerning the lack of willingness on behalf of some of Diana’s friends to come and speak in her defense:

That review was strange, but then the whole ugly fight regarding the book was stranger still. The vituperative kneejerk reaction was astoundingly regressive – as though West’s attackers hadn’t left their marxist attack modes behind when they changed sides.

Strange also was the loud silence as “innocent bystanders” decided discretion trumped valor. A literary version of Kitty Genovese’s rape on the streets of NYC so many years ago.

The whole mess has left me homeless from an intellectual-political point of view. Not only the attacks from within the tent, but also people I heretofore admired – Allen West comes to mind – remaining silent in the face of loud lies when the *only* position of integrity would have been to speak up for the colleague they once avowedly admired.

The only thing which seems without smear now is Russell Kirk’s work in the ’50s. The very same work which influenced that whole generation of Buckleyites. Kirk does say that one is not “a” conservative, but that the word should be used as an adjective:

Do the silent ones with their averted faces think their behavior will keep them safe? Eemembering the countless times in modern history when this approach did NOT work – in fact, it could get you killed – one would assume that any rational being could viscerally understand the danger in such a belief. It shakes one’s confidence in “Never Again” because the reality is more akin to “still” and “yet”.

This was a sad, unnecessary business. I still have trouble believing it really happened. A wise man once told me that betrayal is *the* most common of human experiences but that each new one finds us unprepared, blindsided, and leaves us a little more heartbroken. When I asked him how one ever could prepare for betrayal, he said that we couldn’t. The best we could do was a daily reminder to oneself of the ever-present possibility of evil. This response not only allowed him to live with his eyes wide open, but also sensitized him to a visceral experience of gratitude – fragile but still there.

Later I realized he was really telling me that he prayed in the face of evil.



Not a ”ballroom brawl” Mr.McCarthy, but a thuggish sucker punch. 

andy mccarthycsp

Baron Bodissey from Gates of Vienna ‘reviews the review’ by Andy McCarthy and finds his portrayal of Diana and what took place, totally unacceptable. I totally agree. Though McCarthy took the time to give American Betrayal a positive appraisal, he nonetheless tried to straddle the fence, awkwardly I would add, by lowering Diana to being just an equal participant in a dusty, bloody, fratricidal brawl.

This is a gross mischaracterization of what took place.

Defending oneself from a sucker punch, is not the same as two buffoons engaged in all out fisticuffs for a lack of something better else to do in a wharf pub on a Friday night. Diana has responded as any other serious minded writer would have under similar circumstances (when their character is grossly maligned and integrity impugned by people who clearly hadn’t taken the time read the book they were supposedly reviewing).

Diana of course fought back.

Unlike her attackers however, she answered their repeated blows (ad hominem attacks) with the facts of the case and rebuttals to their sophomoric accusations. This is hardly the actions of someone engaged in a ‘verbal street brawl’, but someone who is trying to rise above the din, and offer an intellectual response and defense against opponents ginned up on who knows what.

Thanks to the Baron for putting the pieces of the puzzle into place for the rest of us to understand, a job well done. Andrew McCarthy owes Diana another review, minus the equivocations.

An Addled Barroom Brawler

Posted on  by Baron Bodissey

A long-expected review by Andrew McCarthy of Diana West’s book American Betrayal was published this month in The New Criterion under the title “Red Herrings”. Outside the cohort of specialists in the history of Soviet espionage in the United States, Mr. McCarthy’s piece is the first even tentatively positive review published by a major writer. The reviewer is to be commended for his willingness to resist the overwhelming pressure that has been exerted on other writers not to display any public approval of Diana West’s book.

As mentioned in previous posts, I have not read American Betrayal, and am therefore not qualified to critique its arguments. Since all the uproar began back in August, my focus has been the process of the controversy, rather than the content. The egregiously uncivil ad-hominem attacks aimed at the author were the issue, rather than her conclusions — which may stand or fall on their merits, as with any other book. As a result this essay will focus on how Andrew McCarthy portrays Diana West and her critics, and analyze some of his arguments.

Mr. McCarthy has a number of good things to say about the book, although his review tends to praise it with faint damns. For example, coming from a former Team B-II co-author with Diana West who considers her a friend, his opening paragraph is somewhat perplexing:

Stumbling into a barroom brawl was the last thing I’d intended. Lined up on one side: sculptors of a hagiography that is now conventional wisdom crow about a noble conquest over totalitarian dictators. The other side bellows: “Nonsense! In defeating one monster, your heroes merely helped create another, sullying us with their atrocities and burdening us for decades with a global security nightmare.” The first side spews that its critics are deranged, defamatory conspiracy-mongers. The critics fire back that these “court historians” are in denial; their heroes did not really “win” the war, they just helped a different set of anti-American savages win—in the process striking a deal with the devil that blurred the lines between good and evil, rendering the world more dangerous and our nation more vulnerable.

Whether he realizes it or not, Mr. McCarthy is engaging in a traditional form of journalistic moral equivalence in this passage, something more commonly found on the Left than on the Right. A writer may choose to utilize the technique when, for whatever reason — expedience, fear, a reluctance to anger a powerful antagonist — he wants to create the appearance of engaging an important topic without actually taking a moral stance.

Lined up on one side… The other side bellows… The first side spews… The critics fire back…

Notice that the “other side”, the one he mostly agrees with, “bellows” its responses. Hmm… not what you would expect in a portrayal of his journalistic colleagues and friends.

This is the same rhetorical technique used by MSM journalists when describing Israel vs. Hamas, or the Nigerian government vs. Boko Haram. For example: “Attempts to get both sides to the negotiating table have been fruitless.” This device transforms each “side” into a mirror image of the other, and Side A (the victim) becomes just as responsible for the bloodshed as Side B (the aggressor). It spares the writer from having to say, “Side B is morally wrong. I stand with Side A.”

Note that the controversy over American Betrayal is labeled a “barroom brawl”. By implication Diana West is a barroom brawler — someone who decided to smash an empty whiskey bottle on the bar rail and lay into her fellow drinkers.

I object to this characterization.

More here.



At a time when the worst existential to the West is coming from the Middle East, Gatestone wants to cast its attention elsewhere. What gives, Saudi  Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud has his grubby mitts on yet another US institution?

Gatestone’s “New Direction”

Following the expulsion of Clare Lopez from the Gatestone family for quoting from Diana West’s book American Betrayal, which has been declared anathema in certain circles, the turn has now come to another Senior Fellow, the well-known Turkey expert Robert Ellis.

The following account of what happened was provided by a source close to Mr. Ellis.

A British journalist based in Denmark, Robert Ellis has for a number of years published critical articles on Turkish affairs in the Danish and international press, and in June and July posted five articles on the Gezi Park uprising at the Gatestone Institute’s website. Consequently, in August Robert Ellis’ name had already been added to Gatestone’s list of Distinguished Senior Fellows, as its President, Nina Rosenwald, expressed “total enthusiasm” with Mr. Ellis’s articles.

As a follow-up to the articles, Mr. Ellis suggested that it would be a good idea to go to Turkey and meet with various sources, as this was the only way to gain any insight into current developments. He subsequently received an email from Amy Shargel, Director of the Middle East Forum, informing him that on the recommendation of Nina Rosenwald he had received a grant of $5,000 to cover the cost of the trip.

Mr. Ellis was in Turkey for a week in late August, and upon his return wrote a comprehensive account of the present situation, A Hot Turkish Autumn, which was well-received.

As his expenses only amounted to $2,000, Mr. Ellis returned $3,000 to the Middle East Forum, together with a report and a statement of accounts.

Two more of Mr. Ellis’s articles were also posted in October. Therefore Mr. Ellis was surprised to receive the following email on November 6:

“Dear Robert, So sorry but our lawyers have advised us that we must diversify away from the Middle East. We are unfortunately forced to move in a different direction, and accordingly have to let go some Scholar [sic], of which sadly you are one. Thank you for all your contributions and expertise and wishing you the best of luck. Warmest, Nina.”

More here at GOV:



It’s not any wonder that UK authorities and other international leaders inside and outside the halls of government are jubilant over the news of the EDL’s top guys defecting to the Quilliam Society, not only do they reduce an openly pro-Israel group of its leadership, they get them to align themselves with a de facto faux ‘moderate Muslim’ group hostile to Israel. This is what I think is called a ‘twofer’.

Which would you prefer: W.H. Abdullah Quilliam, or the hard-drinking “street thugs” of the EDL? I know which side I stand on.

Tommy and Kevin EDL

Now on to the GOV’s piece on W.H Abdullah Quilliam:


Our good friend Andrew Bostom has brought to our attention two Sharia-supremacist pronouncements by the British convert to Islam, William “Abdullah” Quilliam, from March and April of 1896. It should be noted that among his other accomplishments, Mr. Quilliam was responsible for the building of the first mosque in Britain.

Dr. Bostom includes this introductory note:

Quilliam protested Britain’s response to the bloody Mahdist jihad in the Sudan, admonishing Muslims (on March 24, 1896; cited here, p. 341) that any support whatsoever of “infidel” British soldiers was “contrary to the Sharia.” A month later (on April 20, 1896; cited here, pp. 173-4) Quilliam made plain his own aggressive, Pan-Islamic Caliphate dreams, denying national boundaries, “Among Muslims none should be known as Turks, Arabs, Kurds, Ajem, Afghans, Indians or English. They are all Muslims,” and proclaiming, “under the standard of the Khalifate [Caliphate], let us unite there, one and all, and at once!”

Below are the full texts and original sources. First, Quilliam on British foreign policy in Sudan:

In the name of God, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful!

Peace be to all True-Believers to whom this shall come!

Know ye, O Muslims, that the British Government has decided to commence military and warlike operations against the Muslims of the Soudan, who have taken up arms to defend their country and their faith. And it is in contemplation to employ Muslim soldiers to fight against these Muslims of the Soudan.

For any True Believer to take up arms and fight against another Muslim is contrary to the Shariat, and against the law of God and his holy prophet.

I warn every True-Believer that if he gives the slightest assistance in this projected expedition against the Muslims of the Soudan, even to the extent of carrying a parcel, or giving a bite of bread to eat or a drink of water to any person taking part in the expedition against these Muslims that he thereby helps the Giaour against the Muslim, and his name will be unworthy to be continued upon the roll of the faithful.

Signed at the Mosque in Liverpool, England, this 10th day of Shawwal, 1313 (which Christians erroneously in their ignorance call the 24th day of March, 1896),

W.H. ABDULLAH QUILLIAM, Sheikh-ul-Islam of the British Isles.

[Source: The Crescent, March 25th 1896, Vol. VII, No. 167, p. 617; original punctuation and spelling retained.]

Secondly, a call for the World Caliphate:

 Read it all here.



Islamophobia gif

Mirrored in full from the Gates of Vienna:

Stalking the Mythical Islamophobe, Part 4

This post is the fourth in a series about the Turkish definition of the word “Islamophobia” presented at the OSCE meeting in Vienna on July 12, 2013. Previously: Part 1Part 2, and Part 3.

An Examination of Terms: 8 Through 13

To recap: this is the definition of Islamophobia provided by Umut Topcuoglu in July 2013. Emphasis has been added to thirteen words or phrases that deserve further attention:

Islamophobia is a contemporary form of racism and xenophobia motivated byunfounded fearmistrust, and hatred of Muslims and Islam. Islamophobia is also manifested through intolerancediscriminationunequal treatment,prejudicestereotypinghostility, and adverse public discourse. Differentiating from classical racism and xenophobia [sic], Islamophobia is mainly based on stigmatization of a religion and its followers, and as such, Islamophobia is an affront to the human rights and dignity of Muslims.

The first seven highlighted terms were discussed in Part 3. The analysis of the final six is below.

8. Prejudice

“Prejudice” is another loaded word that demands extra scrutiny in light of its frequent misuse. We may assume that Mr. Topcuoglu, in formulating his definition of “Islamophobia”, had in mind this definition of prejudice:

Continue Reading &amp;amp;amp;amp;rarr;



Bravo Baron, bravo….

What We Do And Why We Do It

Posted on  by Baron Bodissey

As mentioned here previously, I recently agreed to be interviewed as a part of a British university research project on European populism. After I requested that the researcher define the term “far-right”, he decided to remove it from the question. The removal of the term left no undefined “loaded” words or phrases in the questions, so I began writing my responses.

That was the same day the riots began in Stockholm. A few days later Fusilier Lee Rigby was beheaded on the street in Woolwich. Those two incidents — which obviously bear on the academic research being done into the rise of “Islamophobia” — caused me to postpone further work on the answers until the crisis abated.

I finally finished my replies today, and have sent them off to the researcher. Writing them was a time-consuming task, but an interesting one, given the context: a research project at a major university funded by Multicultural Progressive money and almost certainly intended to arrive at a predetermined Progressive Multicultural conclusion.

There is no way to “win” this encounter with the academic establishment, no matter what I might write. The political-academic game is rigged, and has been for a number of decades. The conclusions in the final report might as well have been written before the questionnaires were sent out. In broad outline, we all know what the report’s authors will say about the dangers of violent “far-right” “xenophobic” “bigoted” “extremists”. We have good reason to expect that this paper will help justify the continuing crackdown on “Islamophobia” and become yet another nail in coffin of our civil liberties.

So why bother answering the questions at all? As I explained in an earlier post, my goal is to force transparency on the process. Policy-makers will eventually see the results of this research, but here at Gates of Vienna they may find a record of how it was done. Here they will see the questions and answers that helped generate the conclusions reached in the research.

More here.



This post is mirrored from the Gates of Vienna.

An Afterword on the Fisking of the ICSR Report

We’ve just completed a four-part analysis of the report by the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence (ICSR) entitled “A Neo-Nationalist Network: The English Defence League and Europe’s Counter-Jihad Movement” [pdf], which attempts to make the case that the EDL and similar organizations exhibit “fascist” or “neo-Nazi” characteristics. (See the bottom of this post for links to all four parts of the ICSR series.)

As Paul Weston pointed out, it seems likely that the ICSR was tasked by its funders with the preparation of the political battlefield for an eventual takedown of the EDL by Prime Minister David Cameron and his “Conservative” government. Yet the ICSR operation is obviously aimed at a larger set of targets than just those in the United Kingdom. Its affiliation with the Swedish Ministry of Defence, the current US secretary of defense, several American universities, Saudi sheikhs, and a think tank in Jordan are indicative of a broad set of goals on the part of the Islamic world and its dhimmi allies in the West. One must presume that this coalition of interests is preparing for a larger crackdown in various countries on both sides of the Atlantic.

And let’s face it — if the Powers That Be decide that any individuals or groups need to be neutralized, then they will be neutralized, very quickly and easily. Laws against “terrorism” that give government agencies almost unlimited power are already on the books in the United States and Europe. The SWAT teams are on call; legions of prosecutors and lawyers stand ready to do whatever it takes to protect citizens from “terrorists” — which in the USA now include patriots and Tea Partiers, and in Europe anyone who actively opposes Islamization and mass immigration.

The political moment is not yet right, however — hence the need for learned and credentialed academics to do “research” and provide reports that prove the need for repressive action against persons and groups that have been pre-determined to be “fascists”, “neo-Nazis”, or otherwise represent proscribed categories that place them beyond the pale of polite Multicultural society.

Notwithstanding its laughable shortcomings, the ICSR report is intended to provide a façade of academic legitimacy for illiberal state action. It creates a minuscule fig leaf in an attempt to cover the grotesque distended genitals of government repression.

The paper produced by the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence is just the latest in a series of sober, scholarly, footnoted academic reports about the dangers of “Islamophobia”, “xenophobia”, “racism”, “intolerance”, and “fascism”. They are issued at regular intervals by various think tanks, NGOs, quasi-government agencies, governments, and supra-national entities such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the United Nations.

Back in February we reported on the machinations of the Alliance of Civilizations, which is an arm of the United Nations and lavishly funded by the OIC. Check the OIC archives for accounts about the AoC’s iron fist in an oh-so-velvet glove. Like the OIC itself, the AoC is taking aim at our freedom of speech by pushing the implementation of Islamic blasphemy laws throughout the West.

The same set of archives provides details on the Istanbul Process, which was cooked up two years ago by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Turkey, and the OIC. Ms. Clinton aimed to keep her Sunni allies sweet by turbo-charging the implementation of UN Resolution 16/18, thereby bringing the outlawing of “blasphemy” that much closer to realization in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe.

Then there’s the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Various Islamic groups under the umbrella of the OIC have set their sights on the co-optation of the OSCE for the purposes of stopping “Islamophobia”. Were it not for the tireless efforts of Counterjihad activists such as Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and Henrik Ræder Clausen, the subtle machinations of Muslims at the OSCE would have caused scarcely a ripple in the awareness of the West.

The learned savants and government functionaries who hold forth in these organizations form the smiley-face peace-loving wing of the Islamization vanguard. They gather for chin-wags and prepare insomnia-curing academic papers, presenting an opposition to “Islamophobia” that no one could object to.

Playing Bad Cop to their Good Cop are all the bully-boy “anti-racist” outfits such as the Antifas and Unite Against Fascism in Europe, and the Occupy movements in the United States and Canada. These groups — largely staffed by young people from the anarchist Left — act as the Brown Shirts for respectable NGOs and socialist political parties. The think tanks prepare serious, learned white papers while the Antifas and UAF throw bricks and bottles at the EDL, the Sweden Democrats, and Pro-NRW.

What the latter have in common with the respectable groups is lavish funding — and often from the same sources. Together they form the face of the counter-Counterjihad.

Such are “anti-fascist” politics as practiced during the twilight of Western Civilization in the early 21st century.

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

Many activists in Counterjihad circles hold that true democracy no longer operates in the nations of the West. Regardless of the opinions of their constituents, virtually all major political parties support globalist policies promoting Multiculturalism, the abolition of state borders, and mass immigration from the Third World, especially from Muslim countries. Left or right; it makes no difference — political parties that cycle through the revolving door of state power are all but indistinguishable from one another on these important issues.

It seems that our countries are now managed as oligarchies by those who hold the levers of power in the existing political structure. However, the class of people who act as oligarchs is a large one, numbering in the hundreds of thousands (or perhaps millions) across the entirety of the West.

And therein lies our hope.

The people at the top of the hierarchy are beyond our reach. Whatever their motives — ideological ambition, lust for power, or simple venality, corruption, and greed — they are far outside our range.

But most of what I call the oligarchs are minor functionaries of various sorts, both inside and outside of government. They are academics, journalists, mid-level administrators, and managers of subsidized enterprises. In other words, they are the people who write reports like the one produced by ICSR, and attend conferences like the one hosted by ICSR. They include people who report on such events, and people who make policy decisions based on the ideas and conclusions contained in the policy papers produced by such events. They are commonly known as the “political class”.

A certain critical mass of oligarchs is necessary before any new policy can gain traction and be implemented by legislators and governments. There have to be enough of them onboard before any political decision that runs contrary to the status quo can imposed, whether through legislation or by administrative fiat.

This is why think tanks produce papers like the ICSR report: to provide a foundation of legitimacy and academic justification for new policies that one or more factions within the political class would like to see enacted. An impressive policy paper with all those footnotes and citations lends gravitas to the ideas it represents.

The paper itself has to meet only a minimal standard of competence, as was amply demonstrated by the ICSR report that the Gates of Vienna team just finished fisking. Lavish funding and years of effort do not necessarily produce a result that holds any real academic merit. A policy paper only has to be good enough — it must look authoritative and definitive. It must be larded with the right kind of academic jargon. It must present conclusions that the political class mostly already accepts, in a fashion that cements those conclusions as Truth. After it is presented and discussed, it may be consigned to a drawer and forgotten, its purpose having been served.

Or such was the case before the Internet. Over the course of the past two decades, everything has changed. People who are smarter and better educated than the drones who write these reports can now access them, take them apart, and critique them publicly in a way that was formerly impossible.

As we have seen, the ICSR report couldn’t stand up to the light of day. The skeleton of facts — which an unpaid independent Counterjihad researcher could have compiled in less than 1% of the time that it took the authors to do the job — has been supplemented with loaded phrases and unjustified conclusions. To make its case, the paper had to assign motives to people that they do not have and put words in their mouths that they do not speak. If the result had been subjected to any real academic rigor, it would have been laughed into the dustbin of history before you could say “Tommy Robinson”.

None of this matters, however, if no one reads the report (or its fisking) outside of the hallowed cloisters of academia and NGO-world. Within those precincts, the matter has already been decided — the paper is not meant to be read; it is just there to provide a citable “authority”. The fact that it consists of tendentious nonsense is neither here nor there.

For this reason, I urge anyone who reads these words to help the viral spread of the fisking of this report and others like it. Not that you need to copy or excerpt our efforts — you can read the report yourself and do your own critique, if you prefer. Any reasonably intelligent person can reduce the paper to rubble with a minimum of effort.

But the more widely such reasoned critiques are spread, the more probable it is that people in the political class will read them and pay attention. Yes, I know that the mind of any individual oligarch is unlikely to be changed. Yet changeable minds do exist within this class — Bjorn Lomborg proved that there are reasonable people among the elite who can be convinced to alter their opinions by real evidence.

Most people who function as lower-level oligarchs are not particularly evil or corrupt. They are ordinary people who hold sinecures. They are time-servers. They go along to get along. They think what everyone else around them thinks.

But minds can be changed, if enough well-reasoned, clear, non-polemical evidence is presented. If we wish to avert increased political repression, we must strive to change them.

Therefore I say unto you: Go forth into the world and fisk!

Previous posts about the ICSR report:


2013 Mar 28 Part 1: Introduction
30 Part 2: The Transatlantic Connection
Apr 2 Part 3: The British Counterjihad Movement
3 Part 4: Academic vs. Academic




Keeping a Close Eye on the Right Wing, Part 2

Posted on  by Baron Bodissey

This is the second installment of a four-part series. Previously: Part 1.

Keeping a Close Eye on the Right Wing
Part 2: The Transatlantic Connection

As mentioned in the introduction to this series, the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence (ICSR) held a conference in London on March 13 to study the “New Far Right” in Europe, with a special focus on the English Defence League. Paul Weston has described the event as preparation of the virtual battlefield in advance of a takedown of the EDL by Prime Minister David Cameron and the British government.

Based on the conference report, “A Neo-Nationalist Network: The English Defence League and Europe’s Counter-Jihad Movement”, the EDL was indeed the major focus of the ICSR event. But was the conference convened to launch the report? Or was the report commissioned in advance to help justify a predetermined conclusion, namely that the EDL needs to be banned?

In either case, the paper fails to provide meaningful documentation of any dangerous tendencies in the English Defence League and its allies. The authors seem to be of two minds, analyzing the EDL using loaded terms, yet providing a great deal of material that is intended to be positive. The result of their efforts is a schizophrenic document

Read it all here.



Wrong side in sight.

Gates of Vienna takes the ICSR to the woodshed, hopefully the experience clears out their cobwebbed perspective.


Keeping a Close Eye on the Right Wing

Many of the surveillance capabilities acquired by our governments over the past dozen or so years were added to their toolboxes to prevent “terrorism”. Needless to say, in order to be fair and inclusive and to avoid “profiling”, our wardens in their digital eyries are required to spend at least as much time and money observing “right-wing extremists” as they do monitoring Muslim mujahideen or radical Greens. Anything less would be evidence of discrimination.

Therefore, if you’re an “Islamophobe”, you may as well get used to being watched. Homeland Security director Janet Napolitano has made it clear that she regards people like you and me as potential terrorists, and the European Union has long considered nationalists and immigration-critics to be de facto enemies of the state. Anders Behring Breivik only served to confirm that position. In the minds of the elites, it has been proved that anybody who opposes Islamization may become dangerously violent at any time, and thus needs to be carefully monitored.

To supplement the state security agencies, numerous quasi- or non-governmental organizations have been set up to keep an eye on “right-wing extremism”, and are often generously funded by the state or its cut-outs. One such group is the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence (ICSR).

According to its website, ICSR was founded in 2008 with the support of five academic institutions: King’s College London; the University of Pennsylvania; the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (Israel); the Jordan Institute of Diplomacy; and Georgetown University. It is also affiliated with the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi and the Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies in Islamabad.

Not a reassuring masthead for those of us who are “Islamophobes”. Herzliya, however, is a decent organization, and over the past five years ICSR has at least tried to take a look at Islamic radicalism. So this is a serious organization, and not just another cardboard cutout erected by the hard Left.

Like virtually all its sister “observatory” organizations, in the wake of Breivik’s massacre ICSR gave priority to investigating nationalism and anti-immigration movements in European, so that the next wave of right-wing terrorism could be detected in advance. To that end ICSR seems to have secured funding, commissioned a couple of investigators (and presumably a staff of researchers to help them), and spent the past eighteen months compiling a report. Then, a couple of weeks ago, it convened a conference to showcase the results.

The conference was not announced publicly beforehand, but at the beginning of this month ICSR sent out the following invitation to a select private list:

What Is the New Far Right?

ICSR Conference and Report Launch

At this major conference, experts, analysts and policymakers from across Europe will discuss the evolving threat from a new breed of far right extremists, the so-called “Counter-Jihad” movement.

More here at Gates of Vienna.



I’ll provide just a snippet, go to the Baron’s for the full exchange. Very enlightening.

What Sources Provide Credible Information?

Posted on  by Baron Bodissey

For the past couple of days I’ve been exchanging emails with a British journalist who made the original contact to request an interview with Fjordman. I explained to him that Fjordman is not giving interviews to the media at present, and in the process expressed my less-than-positive opinion of the legacy media.

We continued to correspond through several more emails. This morning he sent me a reasonable and thoughtful series of questions about what we (“we” meaning Fjordman, myself, and presumably other Counterjihad writers in the alternative media) think of various journalism-related issues.

As sometimes happens with email exchanges, his questions gave me the opportunity to express my opinions about topics that I often don’t have time to write about. His questions (shown in italicized block quotes) and my responses are reproduced below. Some of the discussion refers to what was said in earlier emails, but readers will be able to get the gist from the context.

You ask some interesting questions, so I’ll answer them in detail, seriatim.

By “shared preoccupation” I meant an interest in the role of the mainstream, or legacy, media in radicalising, or providing nurture, or provoking people to extreme acts.

No, this is not a preoccupation of ours. It’s hard to explain to someone who works solely or mostly in the “mainstream” media how things are in the “alternative” media, which is where Fjordman and I do all our writing.

Our view of the legacy media might be summed up this way:

Read it all here.