An article you only need to read if you aren’t the slightest bit interested in reading what it says. From Diana West: Is it a surprise to find a Stalin apologist at the center of the Steele dossier scandal? This gets to the very core:
I asked a retired (Cold War vintage), extremely experienced intelligence professional what he thought of the news of the day (which is still the news of the day): that the Russians “hacked” the DNC, and therefore “hacked” the election. He replied that the Russians were more than good enough to mask any such activity if they wanted to; further, they were more than good enough not to mask such activity if they wanted to.
Russian collusion in American elections runs through ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the NYT and Washington Post. False flag ops to their very core. Willing stooges on behalf of the enemies of Western civilisation. Seriously, is there anyone more objectively on the side of Russian interests than Rachel Maddow? So let me quote from the end of the article:
Isn’t it at least conceivable that the Putin-wants-Trump line contradicts sensible Kremlin strategy? To me, Putin-wants-Trump (who wants next-generation nuclear anything he can get) sounds like a classic Moscow influence operation, another iteration of “fake newski” to manipulate the ignorant West. From Lenin is a capitalist, to “Uncle Joe” supports religious freedom, to Andropov likes jazz, to Putin (ruthlessness incarnate) is a devout Christian: We fall for it every single time.
If I am correct, where does that leave this Russian-American disinformation campaign, paid for by the DNC/Clinton campaign, assisted in still-mysterious ways by Stalin apologist Ohr, now developing the rigor mortis of Washington conventional wisdom? Four legs good; two legs bad. Putin loves Trump, Putin hates Hillary — and here’s the “dossier” to prove it and “collusion,” too.
Which is worse: to be a traitor or stupid and ignorant? Morally the answer is obvious, but in practical terms, it doesn’t mean a thing?
You cannot, of course, find a copy of Joe McCarthy’s speeches in any context other than negative, except perhaps here or in the writings of Diana West and M. Stanton Evans. Other than a few additions just to bring things up to the moment, these are McCarthy’s own words, even truer and more terrifying today than when they were first stated because the enemy is now almost entirely within the gates.
Speech of Joseph McCarthy, Wheeling, West Virginia, February 9, 1950
Ladies and gentlemen, tonight as we celebrate the
one hundred forty-firsttwo hundred and ninth birthday of one of the greatest men in American history, I would like to be able to talk about what a glorious day today is in the history of the world. As we celebrate the birth of this man who with his whole heart and soul hated war, I would like to be able to speak of peace in our time—of war being outlawed—and of world-wide disarmament. These would be truly appropriate things to be able to mention as we celebrate the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.
Five years after a world war has been won, men’s hearts should anticipate a long peace—and men’s minds should be free from the heavy weight that comes with war. But this is not such a period—for this is not a period of peace. This is a time of “the cold war.” This is a time when all the world is split into
twothree, perhaps four, vast, increasingly hostile armed camps — a time of a great armament race.
Today we can almost physically hear the mutterings and rumblings of an invigorated god of war. You can see it, feel it, and hear it all the way from the Indochina hills, from the shores of
FormosaTaiwan, right over into the very heart of Europe itself.
The one encouraging thing is that the “mad moment” has not yet arrived for the firing of the gun or the exploding of the bomb which will set civilization about the final task of destroying itself. There is still a hope for peace if we finally decide that no longer can we safely blind our eyes and close our ears to those facts which are shaping up more and more clearly . . . and that is that we are now engaged in a show-down fight . . . not the usual war between nations for land areas or other material gains, but a war between
twodiametrically opposed ideologies.
The great difference between our western Christian world
the atheistic Communist worldand those who are our enemies is not political, gentlemen, it is moral. For instance, the Marxian idea of confiscating the land and factories and running the entire economy as a single enterprise is momentous. Likewise, Lenin’s invention of the one-party police state as a way to make Marx’s idea work is hardly less momentous.
Stalin’s resolute putting across of these two ideas, of course, did much to divide the world. With only these differences, however, the east and the west could most certainly still live in peace.
The real, basic difference, however, lies in the religion of immoralism . . . invented by Marx, preached feverishly by Lenin, and carried to unimaginable extremes by Stalin. This religion of immoralism, if the Red half of the world triumphs — and well it may, gentlemen — this religion of immoralism will more deeply wound and damage mankind than any conceivable economic or political system.
Karl Marx dismissed God as a hoax, and Lenin and Stalin have added in clear-cut, unmistakable language their resolve that no nation, no people who believe in a god, can exist side by side with their communistic state.
Karl Marx, for example, expelled people from his Communist Party for mentioning such things as love, justice, humanity or morality. He called this “soulful ravings” and “sloppy sentimentality.” . . .
Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity. The modern champions of communism have selected this as the time, and ladies and gentlemen, the chips are down—they are truly down.
Lest there be any doubt that the time has been chosen, let us go directly to the leader of communism today—Joseph Stalin. Here is what he said—not back in 1928, not before the war, not during the war — but 2 years after the last war was ended: “To think that the Communist revolution can be carried out peacefully, within the framework of a Christian democracy, means one has either gone out of one’s mind and lost all normal understanding, or has grossly and openly repudiated the Communist revolution.” . . .
Ladies and gentlemen, can there be anyone tonight who is so blind as to say that the war is not on? Can there by anyone who fails to realize that the Communist world has said the time is now? . . . that this is the time for the show-down between the democratic Christian world and the communistic atheistic [and anti-Christian] world?
Unless we face this fact, we shall pay the price that must be paid by those who wait too long.
As one of our outstanding historical figures once said, “When a great democracy is destroyed, it will not be from enemies from without, but rather because of enemies from within.” . . .
The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because our
onlypowerful potential enemy hasenemies have sent men to invade our shores . . . but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have been treated so well by this Nation. It has not been the less fortunate, or members of minority groups who have been traitorous to this Nation, but rather those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest Nation on earth has had to offer . . . the finest homes, the finest college education and the finest jobs in government we can give.
This is glaringly true in the State Department [along with, today, the FBI, and Department of Justice and who knows where else?]. There the bright young men who are born with silver spoons in their mouths are the ones who have been most traitorous. . . .
I have here in my hand a list of 205 . . . a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department. . . .
As you know, very recently the Secretary of State proclaimed his loyalty to a man guilty of what has always been considered as the most abominable of all crimes — being a traitor to the people who gave him a position of great trust — high treason. . . .
He has lighted the spark which is resulting in a moral uprising and will end only when the whole sorry mess of twisted, warped thinkers are swept from the national scene so that we may have a new birth of honesty and decency in government.
Two days later, McCarthy spoke again. It is impossible to adjust the words because the rot has been so deep and the anti-freedom party has grown so large. You will see the point unless it is your desire not to.
Joseph McCarthy, addressing President Harry Truman, February 11, 1950
In the Lincoln Day speech at Wheeling Thursday night I stated that the State Department harbors a nest of Communists and Communist sympathizers who are helping to shape our foreign policy. I further stated that I have in my possession the names of 57 Communists who are in the State Department at present. A State Department spokesman promptly denied this, claiming that there is not a single Communist in the Department. You can convince yourself of the falsity of the State Department claim very easily. You will recall that you personally appointed a board to screen State Department employees for the purpose of weeding out fellow travelers—men whom the board considered dangerous to the security of this Nation. Your board did a painstaking job, and named hundreds which had been listed as dangerous to the security of the Nation, because of communistic connections.
While the records are not available to me, I know absolutely of one group of approximately 300 certified to the Secretary for discharge because of communism. He actually only discharged approximately 80. I understand that this was done after lengthy consultation with the now-convicted traitor, Alger Hiss. I would suggest, therefore, Mr. President, that you simply pick up your phone and ask Mr. Acheson how many of those whom your board had labeled as dangerous Communists he failed to discharge. The day the House Un-American Activities Committee exposed Alger Hiss as an important link in an international Communist spy ring you signed an order forbidding the State Department’s giving any information in regard to the disloyalty or the communistic connections of anyone in that Department to the Congress.
Despite this State Department black-out, we have been able to compile a list of 57 Communists in the State Department. This list is available to you but you can get a much longer list by ordering Secretary Acheson to give you a list of those whom your own board listed as being disloyal and who are still working in the State Department. I believe the following is the minimum which can be expected of you in this case.
1. That you demand that Acheson give you and the proper congressional committee the names and a complete report on all of those who were placed in the Department by Alger Hiss, and all of those still working in the State Department who were listed by your board as bad security risks because of their communistic connections.
2. That you promptly revoke the order in which you provided under no circumstances could a congressional committee obtain any information or help in exposing Communists.
Failure on your part will label the Democratic Party of being the bedfellow of international communism. Certainly this label is not deserved by the hundreds of thousands of loyal American Democrats throughout the Nation, and by the sizable number of able loyal Democrats in both the Senate and the House.
That was then. Today it is a conspiracy so vast it is almost impossible to fathom its extent. The Democratic Party, the Greens, the left in general, the media, the “entertainment” industry, the academic world and even big business who are, as ever, too short-sighted to understand a thing other than the bottom line, are now almost beyond reach. Other than the American president, who is there in a position of authority and power who can be the counterweight to the fantastic array of enemies our freedoms and our way of life now face?
From its very title – The post–WWII presidents made mistakes, but they were not pro-Soviet – I knew the article was about Diana West. And I also knew that its author, Ron Capshaw, despite what he says, has never read the book. Because whatever else West did or did not say, she never accused any American president of being pro-Soviet. And she most assuredly did not say it about FDR.
But what she did say was that Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt’s closest advisor, the man who constructed and oversaw the lend-lease program, almost certainly was. It’s a big difference, and if he had read the book he would have known this perfectly well.
But someone among the editorial staff at National Review must know, so the question really is why this latest shaft at West was let go.
If he or Radosh would like to deal with the accusations against Harry Hopkins and the mass of evidence West brings up, then get on with it. In the meantime, I do not believe they have read this book, or if they have, they must be the two persons least capable of reading for meaning I have ever come across in my life.
The bigger question that remains is why National Review will not let this issue go.
If ever there was a book designed to make you appreciate how little one even knows of the times in which they live, it was Diana West’s epic American Betrayal. And in spite of the efforts to kill this book by people on what you would normally think of as on the conservative side of politics – the left has never had to lift so much as a finger to do the dirty work – it continues to make its way in the world. West has now put up a post of further reflections on her own book as she prepares the audio tape version: Rereading American Betrayal: Why Did Uncle Sam Keep Soviet Secret Agents a Secret?
The book is about the Roosevelt White House, but it is also about our own times right now. Maybe fifty years from now, if we are still as free then as we are today, some future Diana West may write the actual story of who Obama really is and what he was up to. In the meantime, you should read the book. There is nothing its equal anywhere in our political literature. But the real reason to read the book is so you can then follow the argument about the forces that have tried to destroy this book’s credibility on our side of the fence. When you have finally come to terms with all of that, you can wonder about what those political forces there are and where we are being led.
Suppose Diana West had written the worst book ever on Roosevelt, Stalin and the Cold War. She hasn’t – she’s crafted one of the best books on this issue ever written – but suppose she had written one of the worst. Suppose the facts didn’t stack up. Suppose there were large gaps in her logic and in the analysis. Suppose it was a pot boiler badly crafted and convincing to no one. Suppose she had done that.
Well so what if she had. Throw it out there for others to deal with. Let it be refuted by those on the left if they have the nerve and the knowledge to do it. Let them unpick her errors and mistakes. Let them take the time and the trouble. If she can establish a case, even on really flimsy grounds, that Roosevelt’s White House was riddled with Soviet agents and that America’s strategy during World War II was shaped in major ways to suit the Soviet Union and Stalin, well, where’s the problem with that? It is an idea worth pursuing and even if the evidence had been thin, it’s not for people on our side to knock it over. There is nothing to be gained by doing the left’s work for them. Put it out and let it be debated.
And the fact is that there is no value whatsoever on the conservative side of politics for anyone on the right to attack West’s book, whether it is good, bad or mediocre. This is politics at its most dangerous, not some useless academic tearoom debate. This really matters if we are to understand the world we live in. Who cares whether there are some obscure errors in what she wrote that no one can see unless they have spent thirty years in an archive. How moronic and politically stupid do you have to be to challenge such a book, even if it is badly done. Whose interests are being served, and exactly why are they being served by seeking some pristine purity and perfection that no one else has ever achieved or could be expected to.
If people are such idiots that they actually think that the interests of the conservative side of politics are served by ridiculously high standards of scholarship that no one can meet, then they should get out of the political arena and sit in their archive and stay in the tearoom because they are useless to any kind of political debate.
The only interests that are served in attacking Diana West’s book are the interests of the left. No other. If that is not 100% obvious then these people are political fools of the highest order. And if they do understand that, who are they really and where are we then?
M. Stanton Evans introduces Diana West winning the 2013 Mightier Pen Award.
And this is Diana’s speech.
As I have already discussed in an earlier post, there is a ferocious debate going on in the US at the moment over the book written by the American journalist, Diana West. The book is titled, American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character and to give you its essence, is about how communist infiltration of the Roosevelt administration ultimately meant that America’s war aims during World War II were, for all practical purposes, determined in Moscow. But what is most peculiar about the book is that it has created such a major and intense schism on the right between those who agree with her and those who think everything she wrote is delusional.
To give you some idea of the nature of this debate, there has been a furious correspondence at The New Criterion following its publication in December of a review of the book. The editor has now published a defence, not so much of West herself, but of the importance of maintaining an open mind. His editorial is titled, Premature historical closure: Why it’s important to continue debating the historical record, in which he refuses to take sides. The correspondence that follows the editorial, which is different from the correspondence found in the magazine itself, is generally quite dismayed at this evenhanded approach since if you are the type of person who subscribes to The New Criterion you are not apt to find it all that farfetched to hear that Roosevelt’s White House was riddled with communists or that it made a difference in how the war was fought.
As it happens, I read the book myself before it had become quite as controversial as it now has and wrote a review of it that has just been published in the January-February issue of Quadrant. At the start of the review, I write what I feel even more to be the case now that I have witnessed this continuous harassment of West by others who one would have thought would be on her side, our side.
No book has ever frightened me as much as American Betrayal. The only thing wrong with reading it is that you find yourself so surrounded by impossible odds that it seems there is no way you can go that isn’t in the wrong direction. Trying to fix things is as bad as just leaving them alone. But because the story the book tells is so incredible, you realise just how unbelievable her thesis would be unless you had read the book yourself.
And while the issue is narrowly about Soviet infiltration of the American foreign policy apparatus, the book has much wider implications that not only matter in the present but will remain a concern as far into the future as one might try to look. As I say in the review, I don’t wish to tell you what the book is about since it is the breadth and detail that matter. It is over 400 pages long with every fact footnoted and referenced. By the time you are finished, you will know why I have titled the article, “America, the Big Dumb Ox”. And if you read the book, you will also see what makes me so fearful about the future of the Western world.
Diana West has posted my Quadrant review of her book at her blog, The Death of the Adult. The picture is from her blog and shows an ox attacked by wolves, the very image of its title, “America, a Big Dumb Ox”. This is her intro, the rest is what I wrote:
An interesting new review of American Betrayal from the January 2014 issue of the Australian journal Quadrant, edited by Keith Windshuttle.
She has highlighted various parts of the review so you can see what she thinks are particularly relevant. But why this book has caused the commotion that it has I have no answer to.
Conrad Black accuses Andy McCarthy of creating schisms on the right in endorsing Diana West’s American Betrayal. This is his article from National Review:
This is not a return to Diana West’s book. However, Andy McCarthy, a man for whom I have very great respect and whom I like very much, has written a review of it in The New Criterion that, because of its revisionist presentation of a number of historical events, is among the most discouraging political documents I have read in many years. Mr. McCarthy, a former prosecutor and distinguished and perceptive writer of the sensible Right, has frequently inspired me by his writing, and when I met him, at a difficult time in my own former travails, by his conversation also. I confidently turned to his review of Ms. West’s America Betrayed, which readers of this column will find it hard to forget after the robust knockabout the book received here and in her reply to me. The rigor of the review and its application to the book are matters I will address in a letter to The New Criterion, which the editor of that publication graciously invited, as I am mentioned, quite unexceptionably, in the review.
What seriously depresses me are three positions taken in the review. First is Andy McCarthy’s view that the scandalous, cowardly refusal of the mainstream elite of American culture and politics to recognize that America’s Islamist enemies are enemies can be traced to Soviet infiltration of the U.S. government in World War II. It is a fact that alarms and disgusts all of us in this debate, including Ms. West and her more vocal (than I am) critics, but I do not agree about the source of the problem. Second is Andy’s qualified accommodation, as worthy of reasonable consideration, of the claims by Ms. West that Lend-Lease was at least in significant part a mistaken reinforcement of Stalinist totalitarianism to the ultimate detriment of the West; that the Normandy invasion served Stalin’s purposes and enhanced his penetration of Western Europe; that Franklin D. Roosevelt was more or less ambivalent about the comparative virtues of Stalinist Communism and Western democracy (though he acknowledges that FDR disapproved of the barbarism of Stalin’s rule); that the Yalta agreement “gave” Stalin half of Europe; and that the Roosevelt and Truman administrations were so significantly influenced in a pro-Soviet direction by Soviet agents and such arch-sympathizers that the distinction between an agent and a sympathizer was academic in the United States. And third, I am distressed by Andy McCarthy’s partial defense of Joseph R. McCarthy and his conclusion that the smear of McCarthy enabled Communism and anti-American reflexes to flourish in the United States through all the intervening years and are responsible for the inadequate general response to the Islamist threat that, I repeat, all the participants in this very heated and prolonged exchange revile in almost equally emphatic strictures.
The unanimity on this last point underlines the source of my concern. A relatively united Right, which included Diana West and other participants in this discussion, exercised a great influence in assisting President Reagan and his followers and collaborators in mobilizing opinion to support his arms buildup, his development of anti-missile defenses, his stiffening of the backbone of the Western alliance, and the consensus he helped create for a rollback of the Soviet intrusions in Central America, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the imposition of martial law in Poland. That unity of the influential Right was vitally important to the course corrections that lifted the United States and the West out of the inanities and shabby compromises of the Carter era, and led the world to the collapse of the Soviet Union and of international Communism, and to the triumph of democracy and market economics in most of the world. The New Criterion itself played an important and distinguished role in the intellectual phase of that struggle. Diana West, Andy McCarthy, and most of those who have supported and opposed Ms. West in this controversy all played their parts, and there is credit for all of them in the result: the greatest and most bloodless strategic victory in the history of the nation-state.
A schism as profound as this controversy has now become will splinter the Right and render it incapable of united action, and perpetuate the precise condition that Andy decries and mistakenly lays at the door of Soviet wartime infiltration, both directly and through sympathizers. The process of fragmenting the Right, in this now notorious instance, began with Ms. West’s frequently, though not entirely, outrageous book, but for a writer of the stature of Andy McCarthy to take the positions mentioned above, and for The New Criterion to lend the exposition of those opinions the mantle of its earned prestige, is, and to say the least, very worrisome.
OK, I give up. Where’s the schism? Who is more in the tradition of Ronald Reagan, Conrad Black or Diana West? Reagan was demonised on the left as much as McCarthy ever was. For a variety of reasons it was not made to stick, but it wasn’t for want of trying. If I am not prepared to sell out one of the most relentless fighters on behalf of freedom I do not think of myself as anything other than acting in step with the values of a free world. No one in politics gets it right every time. No one can see the future perfectly. No one has absolutely pure and unblemished motives in everything they do. But if we are to walk away from McCarthy and his aims who then should be the person in the 1950s we should look to as the example of how these issues could be fought out? No one’s name comes to mind because no one else seemed willing to take these issues on and was capable of highlighting them in the same way.
If some of us over here prefer to honour McCarthy rather than revile him, so what? I can work perfectly well with people of a similar persuasion to myself who hold different views about McCarthy’s approach to dealing with our deadliest enemies. If it’s tactics and strategy you are worried about, then say so and this can be discussed. But it looks like a different agenda in play, one that is hard to fathom but seems to suggest that McCarthy was actually wrong in what he said, not in what he did. Since every single person he named in the 1950s has since that time been demonstrated to be an actual communist, communist sympathiser and useful idiot, nothing of what he did strikes me as wrongheaded and against my interests.
McCarthy’s only piece of bad luck was to have arrived on the scene at the same time as television. He seems strange to us today in those grainy black and white takes, but these are the takes made by his enemies in the media. We have our own battles today against a different kind of tyranny. I only wish we had a McCarthy right now who could show the same kind of leadership today that he did then.