The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Blaming the Right Culprits


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. It
was similar to watching Cyrano
de Bergerac
take on a hundred cutthroat swordsmen. I can hear her muttering
now, about the caliber of her attackers: “I have been robbed. There are no
hundred here!”
There
were only poseurs, fakers, pseudo-historians and envious fop-doodles lined up
against West. They had a vested interest in silencing her. They attempted to
wear her down. Still wish she would go away. She handily demolished them all.
But,
what’s a conservative? I’ve never actually received a straight, unambiguous
answer to that question from a conservative. What is it that a conservative wishes
to “conserve”? Family values? Traditions? The Christian ethos? The welfare
state? Our mixed economy of some freedoms and lots of controls? All I can think
of is that the most honest answer is: The Status Quo. An un-rocked and leaky boat.
Just leave us alone, don’t bother us with principles or really getting our
hackles up over Democratic skullduggery. We’re too busy enjoying our perks, in
the Senate and in the House.
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.
And
now they have another reason to hate West. In her latest column, “Who Is To
Blame?” she asks the question: If President Barack Obama is so nihilistic a
“leader,” dedicated to destroying this country and abetting the sinking of the
West in the face of the Islamic onslaught on civilization, who enabled him?
Must we always groan and cuss and go red in the face every time we read of his
latest depredations, such as the Iran nuclear deal and other
“suicide-by-design” policies?
It’s
easy to inveigh against Obama. He’s such a natural target. Who’s to blame for
his being in the seat of power to do whatever he wishes?
Who
helped to put him in power?
Why,
it was the Republicans. The GOP. Surprised?
When
I was a teenager, I thought GOP meant “government opposition party.” I know now
it means “Grand Old Party.” But is it so “grand”? It’s old, it’s decrepit, it creeps
around leaning on the walker of pragmatism, uses a hearing aid called “me
too-ism,” and takes the Valium of disengagement to counter any clash with
Constitutional issues. Perish the thought that the GOP would have anything to
do with private ad hoc groups that
expect a Republican to take up sword and shield and wage war on this country’s
enemies, internal and external, domestic and foreign. Far be it from most
Republicans to demand that Obama adhere to his oath of office. Far be it from most
Republicans to even acknowledge the malodorous nature and character of Obama’s
regime. Or of Bill Clinton’s.  or Jimmy
Carter’s.. Or of Eisenhower’s.  Or of FDR’s.
Or
of either of the Bushes’.  Recall that
one ad featuring former president George W. Bush: “Miss me?” Well,
no, I don’t. We shouldn’t.
West
writes:
At
this perhaps precious moment, then, it is important not to waste the
opportunity to assess blame (and, best case scenario, regroup) in yet another
aerobic exercise of venting at the Left (self-congratulation). Especially not
when we — our side, not the Left — are to blame.
I
refer to … everything.
That’s
right. Whatever it is, it’s not really Obama’s fault, the DNC’s fault, Al
Sharpton’s fault, even (gasp) the media’s fault, etc. Not entirely, to be sure.
After all, like Tiggers, Obamas do what Obamas do best. The DNC, Sharpton, the
media do what they do best. The Right Wing, however, fails to do what it should
do best — fails to behave according the principles that define it.
  
West
goes on to cite instances of how the Republicans have repeatedly fallen down on
the job of truly taking Obama to task, such as impeaching him for, among other
things, overstepping his executive power in everything he has ever touched. Better
yet, she cites the pragmatism of Republican policies when dealing with
political figures, such as both Clintons – Hill and Bill, as West refers to
them – who have not been called onto the carpet of justice in any serious way
for decades. The Republicans would rather just look the other way from the
facts of their multiple offenses, crimes, and major, jail-able misdemeanors.
What about stepping back
a little and asking how it could be that Hillary, with the foreign donors to
Clinton Inc. well known in 2009 as giant conflicts of interest (at
least), was confirmed as SecState in the first place? The Senate voted to
confirm her, 94-2 (GOP Sens. Demint and Vitter were the “no” votes).
That leaves a lot of responsibility for Clinton Inc./State conflicts of
interest/corruption to go around, and very particularly on the Republican side
of the aisle….
We can continue this
exercise. For the Clintons’ post-impeachment “second” act, we
owe everything to the Republican Establishment’s Establishment Bush family
— H.W., W. and Barbara, too. It was the Bush family, after all, that lifted
Bill from his political nadir where he belonged, joining “charitable”
forces, inviting him to Kennebunkport. Remember “the Three Amigos”?
The Bushes took Bill in like
the second president-son I hope they never have. They made appearances with
this sexual predator/probable rapist at their sides — he, who traded away US
military secrets to Red China for campaign contributions (for which he also
should have been impeached and convicted), he who discussed US troop movements
in the Oval Office, one hand presumably on the phone, the other on his intern
… .
Hands
up! Don’t blame! shout the Republicans. We aren’t responsible for the actions
of this kid in the Oval Office, he’s wild and unpredictable and kind of
endearing. Besides, he’s black, and if we really tried to clap cuffs on him,
there’d be holy hell to pay. West writes:
Step back a little. Who
cleared the way for Obama to the presidency in the first place? In GOP silence
on the matter of Obama’s identity docs, in the party’s failure first to seek to
settle the matter in the US Senate (where Sen. John McCain, another responsible
party, was asked to document his “natural born” eligibility but not
Sen. Barack Obama), at the RNC, in the Electoral College, in the House, Senate
and elsewhere since, in conservative media silence all along (and worse,
derision and enforcement of silence) is death — the death of the Republic.
Remember, Obamas do what
Obamas do best. That is, what should we expect of someone mentored by arch
Communist Frank Marshall Davis? What should we expect of lock-step Democrats
who, mafia-omerta-style, always keep mum to gain power?
But law and order Republicans?
Officials who swear to defend the Constitution? Pundits who echo the
same? The all-but-certain crime of the centuries — the extremely
strong appearance of identity fraud in the Oval Office — has been enabled
first and foremost by Americans on the right side of the political spectrum who
failed to require or conduct a most basic investigation of Obama’s papers….
Seven years later, the fact
that Obama and the Left Wing are still in control — no checks, no balances,
ever — has everything to do with the abandonment of defining principle of the
Right Wing. Indeed, GOP responsibility and support for the wreckage
solidifies every day that goes by without GOP-controlled Congress drawing up
articles of impeachment.
Diana
West’s assessment of the Republican Party’s role as an opposition force against
Obama is that it isn’t an opposition force. The Republicans are just along for
the ride.
Before
moving on (No Open Society pun intended) to Phyllis Chesler’s Middle East Forum (and
Breitbart)
article on the PEN award to Charlie Hebdo and the cop-out dissenters who
sniffed their noses at the awardees, let’s define our terms here.
There
are two species of evil: the evil that is a predator, and the evil that is
empowered by cowardice, compromise, and silence of its alleged opponents. The
predator is just fundamentally driven by the desire to loot, kill, to maim, to
destroy. Those who murder, rape, maim and destroy out of some psychotic need
will always be around. This will serve as a handy moniker for ISIS or the Islam
State. And the Taliban. And Al-Qaeda, And other Islamic gangs. But, these
particular manifestations of evil needn’t be around. They can be wiped out.
Exterminated. Napalmed. Sent packing to their 72 virgins (or raisins, and maybe
a glass of Poland Spring water).
Such
large-scale evil is fundamentally impotent. It can borrow its power to destroy
and kill only if the compromisers, cowards, naysayers, and Let’s-Make-A-Deal,
“there’s no need to go to extremes” amoral pragmatists let it commit mayhem. This
policy allowed the Soviet Union to survive for half a century. It allowed Mao
to conquer China. It has allowed the West to become in thrall to religious
totalitarian regimes like Saudi Arabia and Iran. It has allowed ISIS to run
riot in the Middle East.
Who
doesn’t blink an eye at this devastation? Well, of course George W. Bush and
Barack Obama don’t. But neither do their alleged critics in the GOP. They let
it happen. They encourage it by their silence. They are partners with the
enablers. They are the enablers.
Revisiting
Obama’s and Bush’s and Carter’s and the Clintons’ Catalogues of Crimes over and
over again tends to dull one’s sense of outrage. West is saying: Let’s turn our
outrage on the Republicans, our so-called defenders.
Phyllis
Chesler’s “145 American
Writers Think Honoring Charlie Hebdo is ‘Islamophobic’
” takes those 145
writers to task in the Middle East Form 
(and under a different title on Breitbart).
Chesler is the author of numerous
books
on censorship and related subjects.
On April 26, 2015, six PEN
“table hosts,” all highly regarded writers, publicly
protested
PEN’s decision to give an award for “Freedom of Expression
Courage” to these courageous survivors. This award, to be given on May 3rd,
is separate from the literary prizes.
By April 30th, the
six (Peter Carey, Teju Cole, Rachel Kushner, Michael Ondaatje, Francine Prose,
and Taiye Selasi) were joined by one
hundred and thirty nine authors
who signed a petition of protest. In
all, this represents only 4% of their membership.
Intercept
has the full
list of the 139
authors who joined the original six “dissenters.” I don’t
know who most of these people are. I recognize only a few of their names. One
supposes they’ve all written books. I know that Russell Banks, for example, is
a hack novelist and short story writer who’s spent a lot of time in writers’
colonies. Francine Prose? Until now, I’d never head of her.  The “disassociators” – I looked up some of
their literary credits, all yawners – are mostly dreggish idlers at the
keyboard with little else to communicate but their ennui and boredom and overall displeasure with the world. They are
true, bottom-of-the-barrel scriveners and tyros who presumably comprise the
literary establishment.
Chesler
wrote:
Salman Rushdie, a writer who
knows what it is to pay the price for having criticized Islam and is also a
former President of PEN had this to say: They are “six
authors in search of character
.” He is right. They do not know how to stand
up to the false charge of “Islamophobia.”
Thus, one hundred and forty
five authors have decided to shame PEN—publicly, and at the last minute—in
order to make an “anti-Islamophobic” political statement which renders every
critic of Islamic gender and religious apartheid, and every critic of Islamic
terrorism, that much more vulnerable.
I’ll
say right up front that I’m an Islamophobe. I fear Islam. I also fear
rattlesnakes, typhoid, food poisoning, and other life-threatening things. But
Islam is special. It is of human manufacture and it is, according to its sacred
texts, especially the Koran, a
predator. It is an ideology programmed by its premises to conquer or to kill.
It is anti-mind, anti-life, anti-values. That most Muslims aren’t active
predators like ISIS, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, and other such gangs,
is irrelevant. Your average Friday-go-to-mosque Muslim is already dead –
upstairs. He of the head-banging ritual is prohibited from thinking and questioning.
And I think most Muslims are comfortable with that condition.
But
one doesn’t expect that of Western writers and of the Western intelligentsia. Those
two groups are already “conquered.” So is the Western news media.
Chesler
gives us an example of our intelligentsia’s deconstruction of a simple issue:
One of the six protesting
table hosts, novelist Francine Prose, has written in The
Guardian
:
The ‘narrative’ of the Charlie
Hebdo
murders—white Europeans killed in their offices by Muslim
extremists—is one that feeds neatly into the cultural prejudices that have
allowed our government to make so many disastrous mistakes in the Middle East.
The First Amendment guarantees the right of the Neo-Nazis to march in Skokie,
Illinois but we don’t give them an award.
Leave
it to a Marxist to bring up race and even insinuate that dead horse, European
colonialism. And, of course, the Muslims who massacre anyone are “extremists,”
even though they quote chapter and verse from the Koran in their tweets and hashtags and emails. The Nazis who ran
the concentration and extermination camps were “extremists,” if we go by Prose’s
measure. The other Nazis? They were all-right guys and snappy dressers who
wanted to do good for their country. They’re blameless.
There’s
such an intellectual and moral disconnect here that it can’t be grasped except
by sending a probe to the Kuiper Belt that encircles the solar system.
The
thousands of members of PEN comprise the American and Western literary
establishment. It is distinctly of a leftist persuasion. The “professional” membership list is exhaustive.
Scanning the dozen pages of the membership, I recognize just a handful of
names. I quit the Mystery Writers of America because of its internal politics.
I let my membership in the Author’s Guild lapse because it was of no help or
assistance in my fight against a publisher that bilked me out of royalties and
committed other contract-violating actions; all it could do was commiserate. I
have no interest in joining PEN, no matter how benign its intentions of
furthering freedom of expression. Here is one reason why, and Phyllis Chesler
provides it in her column. I don’t think a writer who produced plotted,
non-Marxist, non-deconstructed novels would be welcome or would find much
company in it.
Chesler
included this illuminating and instructive note:
PEN is one of the two major
American groups which represent authors; The Author’s Guild is the other group.
PEN is funded by many including
Amazon.com; The Ford Foundation; Hachette Book Groups; The Mellon Foundation;
The Kaplen Foundation; The Lannan Foundation; the National Endowment for the
Arts; and Soros’s Open Society Institute. This documents that PEN is a
mainstream powerhouse, and what they do matters.
Any
literary or artistic group that takes money from the government is immoral or
morally rudderless.  Worse, any literary
or artistic group that takes money from George Soros is damned a priori. Barack Obama, our saboteur
extraordinary, was backed to the hilt by Soros from the very beginning.  Soros’ Open Society Institute is in PEN’s top
four contributor brackets. See PEN’s
funding
link for the Brunswick stew of corporate and foundation “angels.”
What
Soros has always had in mind as an “open society” would be, in practice, a “closed”
society – a society gagged and fettered by “authorities” in and out of government,
a “society” much like our literary establishment today. Only much worse, because
it would have government clout to enforce the status quo.
Todd
Gitlin at Tablet also published a critique of the PEN imbroglio, “PC
Thought-Bots Embarrass Themselves with PEN Boycott
,” wrote:
PEN, the organization of
writers, decided to give a Toni and James C. Goodale Freedom of Expression
Courage award to Charlie Hebdo—that is, to those of its staff who were
not massacred by the Islamist Kouachi brothers on Jan. 7. So, of course hell
broke loose.
But these days, darts are
flying. A
letter of dissociation
signed by a good
number
 of well-known writers, including Russell Banks, Peter Carey,
Teju Cole, Deborah Eisenberg, Lorrie Moore, Joyce Carol Oates, Michael
Ondaatje, Francine Prose, and Wallace Shawn, declares that there is a critical
difference between staunchly supporting expression that violates the
acceptable, and enthusiastically rewarding such expression.
In the aftermath of the attacks, Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons were
characterized as satire and “equal opportunity offense,” and the magazine seems
to be entirely sincere in its anarchic expressions of disdain toward organized
religion. But in an unequal society, equal opportunity offense does not have an
equal effect….
To the section of the
French population that is already marginalized, embattled, and victimized, a
population that is shaped by the legacy of France’s various colonial
enterprises, and that contains a large percentage of devout Muslims, Charlie
Hebdo’s cartoons of the Prophet must be seen as being intended to cause further
humiliation and suffering.
One wonders how the
signatories know that the Mohammad cartoons are “intended to cause further
humiliation and suffering.” Intended? Might they not be intended,
rather, to challenge an interpretation of Islam that bans depictions of the
Prophet, and thereby to offer Muslims (or anyone else) an opportunity to
rethink what their faith requires of them?
Wallace
Shawn? Who’s he? You
mean you don’t remember his stellar performance in that memorable yak-fest. My Dinner with Andre?
Or anything else he’s credited with doing?
PEN,
however, is akin to pole dancers whose reward for its members’ literary
performance is to allow all kinds of lascivious creatures to stick money into
their thongs.
So,
who is Francine Prose,
anyway? Her novels, every one of them, is Marxist-Feminist-Deconstructionist
rubbish, all published by major mainstream publishers (Athenaeum, G.P. Putnam’s
Sons, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, HarperCollins, Pantheon, St. Martin’s Press).
Unfortunately,
Charlie
Hebdo will no longer publish
caricatures of Mohammad. Perhaps PEN will
award it a White Feather recognition for submitting to Islam.
Cartoonist Luz, who drew
Charlie Hebdo’s front cover picture of Mohammed following the massacre of the satirical
weekly’s editorial team by jihadists in January, has told a French magazine he
will no longer draw the prophet. “I will no longer draw the figure of
Mohammed. It no longer interests me,” he told Les Inrockuptibles magazine
in an interview published on Wednesday. “I’m not going to spend my life
drawing (cartoons of Mohammed).”
“The terrorists did not
win,” Luz told Les Inrockuptibles. “They will have won if the whole of
France continues to be scared,” he added, accusing the far-right National
Front of trying to stir up fear in the wake of the attacks.
Well,
yes M. Luz, the terrorists won. They’d much rather you focus your satirical attention
on those in France who object to the country being taken over by those nearly five
million
marginalized, embattled, and
victimized” Muslims. Never mind the Muslim crime gangs, the numerous “no-go” Muslim
enclaves throughout France, the Muslim assaults on Jews, Muslim rapes of non-Muslim
Frenchwomen, being a Muslim on French welfare, and the annual car-burnings by Muslims.
None of that has anything to do with Islam or Mohammad.
So, on one hand we have
neocons attacking Diana West for telling the truth about our best and brightest
traitors and their Republican enablers. On the other hand, we have not a few
dozen American PEN writers who’d rather not congratulate Charlie Hebdo for “offending
Muslim sensibilities.”
The squawking you hear is
coming from the chicken coop of American culture.

Previous

In Praise of Satire

Next

Nullified Barbarisms

1 Comment

  1. Blogger

    I've just downloaded iStripper, and now I can watch the best virtual strippers on my taskbar.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén