Are Women The Privileged Sex?

The Privileged Sex

In my days as an undergraduate, I submitted myself to medical experiments for money. That was a low point, but there were no substantial risks. Being part of a treatment group, I occasionally stayed overnight with other members in accommodation close to a laboratory. One thing I observed in this group was that there were no females. There was not one in the group of about 20 people I stayed with. I never saw any around the facilities, apart from staff. When I put this to a researcher, I was informed that the use of women in clinical trials is discouraged, and has been for decades. The impetus for this was the Thalidomide scandal in the late 1950’s, when pregnant women in a clinical drug trial ended up giving birth to children with fin-like arms or legs. Non-approved drugs and treatments can harm males as well, but that doesn’t seem to matter as much.

Visiting Dublin’s woefully-named Mountjoy Prison as a law student, I could not help get taken aback by the radically different conditions male and female prisoners have to endure. The men of Mountjoy are confined to an actual prison.  Its a bad prison at that, one of the last in Europe where they still practice slopping out. The women, on the other hand, live in self-contained apartments superior to what many people live in at university.

Thus, women get the benefit of medicine once its safety has been verified using male guinea pigs. Much like how they benefit from the safety that requires the sacrifice of men and boys in combat. Much like how they benefit from welfare programs penned by mostly male legislators, or easier justice dished out by mostly male jurists. Examples of female privilege are abundant, now and throughout history. Why the notion that women have a tougher time of it than men has so thrived in face of these facts is quite the mystery.

Its a problem that’s recently been tackled by my one of my favorite historians, and my favorite military theorist, Israel’s Martin Van Creveld. Van Creveld’s The Privileged Sex has just been published in English, being previously only available in German. His is a thesis well worth reading.

Van Creveld contends that for every disadvantage women have endured, whether man-made or as a result of biology, they enjoy a privilege that that is equally or more important to their lives. These range from being spared the obligation to fight in wartime, to the hardest of labors in general. Too many female writers, inclined to see oppression in all places and times, ever mention these privileges (guilty males, even less so). Our perceptions of gender relations have also been skewed by popular stories concerning the alleged historical exploitation and oppression of women. Many of these are without foundation, and if seriously scrutinized turn out to be invented for political-ideological reasons. Feminists have, for instance, portrayed societies that permitted a man to have more than one wife as sexist, with a view of women as being like cattle. Yet in many places this arrangement was simply a way of looking after widows. It was the best possible way of looking out for their welfare at a time when unattached women would have had a difficult time even surviving. They claim women were persecuted in Nazi Germany, yet German women were more likely than men to vote for Hitler. Another example is the portrayal of witch-hunts as part of the general oppression of women. Yet how could these have been anti-woman, when in some countries just as many or more men were executed for witchcraft? In nearly all places men accused of witchcraft were more likely to be executed or face stiffer penalties than their female peers. Not to mention that it was overwhelmingly women accusing other women of being witches, and prosecutions for witchcraft often reached their height under female rulers like Catherina De Medici, Mary Queen of Scots, and ‘Good Queen Bess’ herself. Indeed, some authorities, like James VI of Scotland, had to abolish the general commission against witchcraft because it had become a mere vehicle to settle scores among mostly female rivals.

Similarly, we are told that women do not thrive in the fields of science and engineering because males have kept them out of these vocations. But not even Stalin was able to force females to study technical subjects. Today, officialdom is most satisfied that girls vastly outnumber boys in our medical schools. Yet very few have addressed the disastrous consequences of this. After their expensive training, in most places covered or heavily subsidized by the taxpayer, only a tiny percentage of female graduates remain full-time doctors. They largely avoid the most stressful work in hospitals. A huge proportion quickly leave the profession entirely. In Ireland, only 10% of female GPs intend to pursue full-time practice in the long-term. Some, like the journalist Kevin Myers, have estimated the figure at even less than that, remarking that this is “not a health system; it is a first day on the Somme”. Thus, we in the developed world have to make up the difference by importing doctors from poor countries that need them most.

Discourse on domestic violence is similarly dominated by a presumption that men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators. For a long time, studies have been casting doubt on this perception. Erin Pizzey, the founder of the UK charity today known as Refuge, has been subjected to death threats and boycotts because of her claims that most domestic violence is reciprocal, and that women are equally as capable of violence as men. Reciprocal violence is indeed the most common pattern, and a study of 55,000 US military personnel found that women are just as likely to physically assault their partners. We also know from the US Dept. of Justice’s Survey of State Prison Inmates that women are 24% more likely to kill their children than men, and 32% more likely to kill relatives, children included.

So why does the myth of the oppressed female continue?

Fans of Richard Dawkins might say it is the result of a mental gene, or meme, that predisposes people to believe in certain things. It does seem that we have a natural distaste for seeing women harmed or treated harshly. You are 200 times more likely to see a man die on screen than a woman. It is telling that Hector says to his wife in The Iliad that men would rather die than watch women dying. Its one of the reasons that even in Israel, where women are conscripted, very few serve in combat units and they are exempt from reserve duty. Van Creveld says that in his decades of teaching at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, not one female student has ever had to miss one of his classes for this obligation that affects many of the young men. Its hard to quantify all the ways women are treated gently and paternalistically in the sphere of law and order. When police respond to an incident, women are much more likely to get off with a warning than men. This applies to every single category of offence, and is even true when factors like prior arrest records are controlled for. In Britain, women are six times as likely to be acquitted of manslaughter, and have an easier time convincing juries that they acted under provocation in cases of murder. Their charms work on male cops, jurors, and judges as much as female ones. This happened even to female Nazis on trial for their roles in the euthanasia program.

The love does not appear to be reciprocal, if only from the amount of fictional works by female authors imagining a future utopia without men, from Mary Bradley’s 1890 novel Mizora to more recent works like Joanna Russ’s The Female Man (1975) or Dorris Lessing’s The Cleft (2008). Are there any males fantasizing of a world without women? Nonsense. We like them too much.

The Complaining Sex

This brings us to something in the nature of women. Of course, feminism as an ideology should never be synonymous with being female. But there are forms of feminism that give political expression to something almost inherent in the gender. Women are the complaining sex; they seek attention and often seethe with a mysterious resentment. Freud might have put this resentment down to penis envy. Coupled with male deference, we have a prescription for disaster. Now, not all women possess the traits just described. History is replete with examples of women with nothing but contempt for those living on the privileges of their gender. The first known female commander, Queen Artemisia of Caria, Van Creveld tells us, told Xerxes that Greeks were as superior to Persians as men are to women. Queen Elizabeth I was fond of cracking what would be called today misogynist jokes.

Yet the grievances of woman appear to be as endless as they often are baseless. In the medical sphere, Florence Nightingale was perceptive enough to admit in Cassandra that many female patients are merely seeking attention. Patterns of suicide (a supreme form of complaint) in the sexes are a good indicator. Men are significantly more likely to kill themselves than women. But worldwide, women are four times as likely to attempt suicide. Perhaps they are remarkably incompetent. Perhaps they are practising the fine art of appearing vulnerable.

Is feminism related to this dynamic? Just as female patients, such as Freud’s Dora, have based their lives around imagined illnesses and relished the attention, so others find a purpose in grievances, real or imagined.

Some insight may come from the anorgasmic woman, or female frigidity. This has caused no end of anguish in men, who are expected to bear the blame. Yet frigidity is quite a often a ruse; a way to lash out at a male partner. Simone de Beauvoir was quite candid about the subject, finding the courage to address it after being ‘cured’ of her frigidity by the American writer Nelson Algreen. What de Beauvoir writes in The Second Sex on the subject of frigidity could well describe the mindset of the extreme feminist. Replace the word ‘frigidity’ with ‘feminism’ and you get the point:

Resentment is the most common cause of feminine frigidity; in bed the woman punishes the man for all the wrongs she feels she has endured, by offering him an insulting coldness. There is often an aggressive inferiority complex apparent in her attitudes… She is thus revenged at once upon him and upon herself if he has humiliated her by neglect, if he has made her jealous, if he was slow in declaring her intentions, if he took her as a mistress while she wanted marriage. The grievance can flare up suddenly and set off this reaction even in a liaison that began happily… Frigidity… would appear to be a punishment that woman imposes as much upon herself as upon her partner; wounded in her vanity, she feels resentment against him and against herself, and she denies herself the pleasure.

I will end with another quote, from Van Creveld himself, in the final chapter of The Privileged Sex: “It would be nice… if from time to time, amid the torrents of invective feminists spew at us, we occasionally heard a pleasant female voice saying “thank you, Mate”.”

With that, I and most men would be quite content to be guinea pigs and beasts of burden for the privileged sex.

See Also: Women in Combat


The President and the Pakistani: The Reality

The President and the Pakistani, currently running at the Waterloo East Theater claims to be based on:

The incredible chapter in the life of Barack Obama, when he lived in a crime-ridden and violent neighbourhood with an illegal Pakistani immigrant, this is a gripping play about a night when a hunt for the truth exposes the lies we want to believe in.

Barack Obama did indeed share a sixth floor walk-up in Harlem with a Pakistani by the name of Sohale Siddiqi in the early eighties. The play portrays the idealistic Obama struggling to pay the rent in a filthy apartment surrounded by criminals and bums. The setting of the play may be accurate, but the story is not.

First off, Barack is referred to as ‘Barry’, the given name Obama used for most of his life up to his undergraduate years at Occidental College in California. Obama later transferred to Columbia, always intending to move into nearby Harlem. Thus, he would likely have gone by ‘Barack’ during his time in New York. Going to Harlem with an illegal Pakistani immigrant was a politically-motivated gesture to demonstrate where his loyalties lay. Adopting the name ‘Barack’ was a similar gesture. As I have written before, Obama has had a life-long obsession with being ‘black enough’ to be the black leader he wanted to be.  Obama admits that he “ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself with whites”. Thus, he ended up manufacturing an identity and personal narrative. He insisted that people at Occidental call him ‘Barack’, as he recounts in a typical conversation on page 104 of Dreams from my Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance:

“Barack’s my given name. My father’s name. He was a Kenyan”.

“Does it mean something?”

“It means ‘Blessed’. In Arabic. My grandfather was  a Muslim”.

This was all true, but Obama had been using the name ‘Barry’ up to this point. The change was for a reason:

[C]onfusion made me question my own racial credentials… To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets [page 100].

On page 105 he admits:

What I needed was a community, I realized, a community that cut deeper than the common despair that black friends and I shared when reading the latest crime statistics, or the high fives I might exchange on a basketball court. A place where I could put down stakes and test my commitments.

So he moves to Harlem. This was a carefully considered choice. ‘The President and the Pakistani’ doesn’t make that clear. Obama didn’t need to live in a dump with low-lives. He could afford better. He found the illegal immigrant Siddiqi through wealthy Pakistani colleagues at Occidental: Imad Hussein, Mohamed Hasan Chandoo, and Wahid Hamid. Obama would visit Pakistan himself, staying at the grand estate of Muhammad Mian Soomro, who in 2007 became Pakistan’s caretaker Prime Minister.

It wasn’t allegiance to Islam that led Obama to do all this. It was an expression of racial and Third World solidarity. Siddiqi was secular, as well as a heavy drinker and drug abuser.  Obama had expressed pride in his grandfather’s conversion to Islam, purely because he felt it was evidence he was anti-white. Obama had a long interest in Nation of Islam, and his links to them and other anti-white black nationalist movements are shockingly extensive. His image of Islam as anti-European skewed his perception of his grandfather. He notoriously claimed he took part in the Mau Mau uprising and was tortured by the British. In fact, his third wife, whom Obama calls Granny, would tell Obama that his grandfather very willingly served the British and admired their ways. Plus, he only converted to Islam because he found Christianity too soft and feminine.

‘The President and the Pakistani’ begins by portraying Obama and his new friend as a comic bromance getting up to all sorts of wacky antics. It ends with Obama making a commitment to straighten up and act serious after his Pakistani friend’s dog is stabbed by drug dealers. He complains about the cocaine all over the table after he’s invited some friends over for an anti-apartheid meeting. These particular details may or may not be true. We do know, however, that Obama did swear off drugs in this period. He also started jogging. He developed the habits typical of Reagan era yuppies trying to grow up, even briefly contemplating a career in the private sector. He admits in his own account that Siddiqi said he was “becoming a bore”.

‘The’President and the Pakistani’ has proved to be a hit. But don’t believe will give you the real Obama. If it did, no theater would have it.

Barack Obama and Sohale Siqqiqi in 1981

Terrorism, Jew-Hatred and Lies: The Soviet Contribution to the Middle East

“This book, I am proud to say, proceeds from grand theft aggravated by high treason”.

So begins Pavel Stroilov in Behind the Desert Storm, one of the most important and informative books I have read in a long time, and one that could change many a reader’s understanding of the Middle East.

Stroilov is a Russian dissident researcher and historian, who smuggled a vast secret archive of 50,000 documents from the Soviet era out of Russia. In the dying days of the Soviet Union, it was Mikhail Gorbachev who illegally took these documents from the Kremlin, keeping them within the Gorbachev Foundation where Stroilov was employed. A furious Putin administration learned of their existence in 2003 and forced Gorbachev to bury them. Yet Stroilov had managed, with modest manipulations in the Foundations computer system, to turn his very limited access to the documents into an unlimited one shortly before. He now lives in London, working to make what he discovered public.

The documents revealed in this book paint Soviet expansionism as the root of most of the strife in the Middle East. The most interesting ones cover the covert Soviet war against Israel, the Soviet-Egyptian relationship and how it worked to spread socialist revolutions throughout the region, the struggle for Iran and the Persian Gulf as well as the duplicitous dealings of the First Gulf War.

Firstly, the Soviets did not have much success in the grand prize of the region – the Persian Gulf. The Western powers relied on it heavily for their energy needs, and the British demonstrated how committed they were to keeping it in the Western camp when they sent troops into Kuwait in 1961 to defend it from the Iraqi leader Abd al-Karim Qasim. After this, the Soviets “postponed the conquest of the Gulf… although some of them were sorely disappointed with that decision.”


They did much better in Egypt, which with the Soviet-friendly Nasser became the bridgehead of Soviet expansion in the Middle East.  In the 1950s and 1960s, the pro-Western regimes in Syria, Tunisia, Iraq, Algeria, Yemen, and Libya were, like Egypt itself, overthrown in Soviet and Egyptian backed coups. Save for a few pro-Western oases such as Israel or the Gulf monarchies, the Middle East was dyed Red.

The Soviet empire has collapsed, but what Stroilov calls the “Red Arab” regimes survived, like so many minefields of past wars that nobody bothered to clear. The Soviet client states were socialist regimes, and sooner or later socialism exhausts economies and the patience of the populations who dwell in them. Stroilov argues that the mines have finally exploded in the recent unrest across the Middle East, dubbed either the Arab Spring or the Islamist Winter depending on your point of view. Stroilov may be stretching his analysis, but it is interesting that it is the more socialist, secular and formerly Pan-Arabist states like Libya that have seen successful coups and the most internal strife. The more traditional monarchies have fared much better.

Even Mubarak, who cemented Egypt’s peace with the West, is revealed to be a true Soviet at heart. His secret conversations with Gorbachev revealed in this book make fantastic reading. Mubarak envisaged a day when the Soviet and Egyptian economies would recover from the malaise they faced at the time, and once again stand against America, capitalism and Israel. He appears to have genuinely felt communism could be rescued. However, he expressed his relief that most of Egypt’s agricultural land was still privately owned, because Khrushchev, in strictest secrecy, advised Nasser in 1964 not to implement collective farming. Mubarak openly admitted he backed the coalition against Saddam Hussein in the Gulf Crisis because he wished to ensure the continued flow of American aid, and hoped to get tens of billions of Egyptian government debt written off (which indeed happened). Mubarak informed Gorbachev that Egyptian government debt amounted to “50 billion dollars… But we can always negotiate on the debts and get postponement of payments again and again. Nowadays, almost nobody repays debts”.

Later at the same meeting, Mubarak said: “I would like to tell you that we continue military cooperation with the USA. They give us $1,3 bn. aid. We still cannot do without it: we need spare parts for military equipment, and so on. But time will come when things turn in different direction. I am telling this to you absolutely frankly”.


Some of the most unsettling revelations in this book are centered around the operation codenamed “SIG”, for Sionistskiye Gosudarstva, or “Zionist Governments”. States Stroilov:

Though not as good as the Gulf oil fields, Israel would also be a big prize. It was the only democracy in the region, the strongest military power in the pro-Western camp and, indeed, the bridgehead of the Western world. Even more importantly, the very process of crusading (or jihadding) against Israel offered fantastic political opportunities. A besieged Israel effectively meant millions of Jewish hostages in the hands of the comrades, and the threat of genocide could intimidate the West into making great concessions in the Gulf or elsewhere. On the other hand, by making the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the central problem of the Middle East, the Soviets could exploit Arab nationalism, anti-Semitism, and even Islamic religious feelings to mobilize support for their policies. Indeed, under the banner of Arab solidarity, the socialist influence in the region grew far beyond the socialist regimes and parties.

General Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest ranking defector from the Soviet Bloc, recalls a conversation he had in 1972, as the head of Romania’s intelligence service, with the KGB chairman Yuri Andropov:

We needed to instill a Nazi-style hatred for the Jews throughout the Islamic world… No one within the American/Zionist sphere of influence should any longer feel safe…

According to Andropov, the Islamic world was a waiting petri dish in which we could nurture a virulent strain of hatred, grown from the bacterium of Marxist-Leninist thought. Islamic anti-Semitism ran deep. The Muslims had a taste for nationalism, jingoism, and victimology. Their illiterate, oppressed mobs could be whipped up to a fever pitch… We had only to keep repeating our themes – that the United States and Israel were “fascist, imperial-Zionist countries” bankrolled by rich Jews… whose aim was to subordinate the entire Islamic world…

In the mid 1970s, the KGB ordered my service, the DIE – along with other East European sister services – to scour the country for trusted Party activists belonging to various Islamic ethnic groups, train them in disinformation and terrorist operations, and infiltrate them into the countries of our “sphere of influence”… According to a rough estimate received from Moscow, by 1978 the whole Soviet-bloc intelligence community had sent some 4,000 such agents of influence into the Islamic world.

In the mid 1970s we also started showering the Islamic world with an Arabic translation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a tsarist Russian forgery that had been used by Hitler as the foundation for his anti-Semitic philosophy. We also disseminated a KGB-fabricated “documentary” paper in Arabic alleging that Israel and its main supporter, the United States, were Zionist countries dedicated to converting the Islamic world into a Jewish colony.

With the defeat of the Soviet-backed Egyptians and Syrians in the Six Day War, the Soviets realised a change of tactics was required in their war on Israel. Gen. Alexander Sakharovsky, head of the KGB’s intelligence arm, told his intelligence colleagues that “[W]hen nuclear arms have made military force obsolete, terrorism should become our main weapon.”

Sakharovsky even boasted that airplane hijackings were his own invention. Stroilov reveals that “his personal office decoration at KGB headquarters was a large world map, covered with countless red flags, each pinned by Sakharovsky to mark a successful hijacking”. Though the PLO itself united dozens of terrorist organizations, the supreme headquarters of the whole network was, of course, the Kremlin, and Stroilov claims “the evidence accumulated at this point leaves no doubt that the whole system was invented by Moscow as a weapon against the West, and the PLO was a jewel in their crown”. In the KGB, the PLO was known under the codename “Karusel”, or “merry-go-round” in Russian.

Andropov, 1982

On Zionism, the Soviets practiced what they preached. It was a non-approved aspect of Jewish identity, like the Jewish religion, and was thus suppressed. In the USSR, Hebrew was banned. In fact, they even attempted to ban the traditional Yiddish alphabet based on Hebrew. Prominent Jews were forced to sign their names to articles denouncing Zionism, including the legendary ballerina Maya Plisetstkaya, who was threatened with losing her touring privileges. Soviet anti-Zionist propaganda spread to Communist movements all over the world, and its effects still linger on.


Enter the Ayatollahs, and here again conventional views of the Middle East are demolished. Stroilov argues that the 1979 revolution was a carefully prepared Communist revolution that went awry and got hijacked by Shiite fanatics. After the Second World War, Soviet forces withdrew from Iran under Western pressure, but left behind an espionage network bigger than any other in the world. The standard ratio of KGB residencies (stations) was one per country. In Iran, the Soviets had nearly forty residencies and sub-residencies. They worked for the next 33 years against the Shah. The KGB trained numerous agents from the Soviet republics of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan who could pass as members of Iran’s ethnic groups and help set up KGB residencies on Iranian territory. Both the KGB and the Iranian Communist Party made failed attempts on the Shah’s life.

The man in charge of the Tehran KGB residency, the secret army of phony Iranians, and financing the Communist Party was Najor Vladimir Kuzichkin. He worked out of the Soviet Embassy. In July of 1978, Yuri Andropov gave personal instructions to KGB operatives in Tehran to step up their campaign. The banned Communist Party resumed its operations through various proxies and fronts, very much in the style of communist movements. In September, as the protests in Iran escalated into riots, British Prime Minister James Callaghan told his Cabinet that “we must continue to support the Shah against the mad mullahs and the Soviet agents who are opposing him”. Tony Benn, then Energy Secretary, noted in his diaries that the American and British establishments were fully behind the Shah, and “the primary reason” was “to keep the Russians out of Iran”.

Vladimir Kuzichkin

What Callaghan did not tell the Cabinet was that Vladimir Kuzichkin, the most important KGB spymaster in Iran, was secretly working for MI6. All the information about the KGBs network in Iran, the activities of the underground Communist Party, the Soviets posing as Iranians – was leaked to the British. The British shared this with SAVAK, but by then it was too late. The mad mullahs eventually captured SAVAK’s records, and the Soviets lost everything overnight. Every last Soviet agent was rounded up, and the communists went to the gallows, not into government.

A humorous incident is worth recounting here. When Ayatollah Khomenei heard the news about Gorbachev being  a great reformer, he dispatched another ayatollah to deliver a handwritten letter to him. The exact content of the letter is unknown, “but the whole Politburo is on record laughing their heads off when reading it” says Stroilov. Transcripts of later meetings of the Politburo indicate the Iranians urged Gorbachev to convert to Islam.


Stroilov wishes to destroy the standard narrative of the First Gulf War, which involves the Soviet Union and the United States putting their differences aside and engaging in historic cooperation to stop the menace Saddam Hussein in Kuwait, ushering in a new era global harmony and a New World Order. The real story is that Gorbachev and others, such as Mitterand in France and Mubarak in Egypt, only went into the anti-Saddam coalition to prevent the US from actually overthrowing the Baathists. The Soviets envisaged that the new American eagerness for coalitions and international institutions would lead to stronger world government more in line with the communist agenda. Gorbachev discussed this quite frankly with the leadership of the Italian communists:

A. Okketto: The UN shall become an instrument of the world government.

A. Rubbi: Berlinguer spoke about the world government as early as at the 15th Congress of the ICP.

A. Okketto: At that time, many in the audience smiled at this.

M. S. Gorbachev: We also have many people smiling at this. Maybe, indeed, it is worth thinking about arranging for the communists, social democrats and someone else to work out an agreed constructive proposal. It should be not propaganda, but a real policy.

A Okketto:  [Willie] Brandt wants to involve representatives of parties, statesmen and other major figures in this work, to discuss the problems during seminars and conferences.

M. S. Gorbachev: Let us arrange all this, and also consult Brandt and others.

At another meeting:

A. Oketto: We highly appreciate the Soviet Union’s role in this conflict. Your actions in the UN have been a real masterpiece of diplomacy. If the Soviet Union condemned the US action in the first place, it would not have so many trump cards to restrain the aggressiveness of the US now…

M. S. Gorbachev: For the first time, we formed a united front in the United Nations. This is a great achievement. Now everything is being done under the UN auspices. This was achieved not without our influence, and the US duly appreciate that. This enables us to restrain them from unilateral action.

Part of Gorbachev’s agenda to protect Saddam Hussein and build a New World Order was to put Israel back at the forefront of world attention even at the height of the crisis over Kuwait. The Soviets drew up a peace plan on October 8th, 1990, to present to Hussein promising to do exactly that. In exchange for a withdrawal from Kuwait, the Soviets promised an international conference on the Middle East, with the aim of destroying Israel. As a gesture of goodwill, the Soviets and their comrade, Yasser Arafat, colluded to make an international drama out of an incident at the Temple Mount that month when the Israelis shot 21 Arab rioters. Delegates from several nations at the UN called upon the members to act as decisively over the issue of Israel and Palestine as Iraq and Kuwait. While anyone can see that numerous regimes have repeatedly waved sticks at Israel in order to distract other countries and even their own populations from their own internal problems, it is still fascinating to see actual concrete plans laid down about this.  We know for certain thanks to research like Stroilov’s that whenever the UN is having  a field day bashing Israel, its almost certainly a coordinated distraction from something else.

Despite his hatred for Israel, by the way, Gorbachev had no problem asking the Israelis in Septmeber of 1990 for billions of dollars in aid. He effectively used Soviet Jewry, eager to flee to Israel, as a ransom. Neither did he have any problem restoring relations with those reactionary royals in Saudi Arabia after the Americans had coaxed them into giving the Soviets four billion dollars in development assistance.

Peace in the Holy Land and the Middle East is still elusive. After reading this book, all I can say is thank God one of the main barriers to it – the Soviet Union – has left us.

Behind the Desert Storm: A Secret Archive Stolen From the Kremlin that Sheds New Light on the Arab Revolutions in the Middle East [Paperback] [Kindle]

Azaria Chamberlain, The Cult of Sentimentality, and Racial Politics: Rants and Recommendations for This Week

So, Azaria Chamberlain was killed by a dingo after all. Nice work, Australians: all it took was three decades and years from an innocent mother’s life.

I’ve only recently become familiar with this case as it features prominently in Theodore Dalrymple’s powerful little volume Spoilt Rotten! The Toxic Cult of Sentimentality; a copy of which I received as a birthday present back in February.

Linda Chamberlain, mother of Azaria and two other children, was on an outing in the Australian outback in 1980 when her daughter disappeared. She went to the police and suggested her infant might have been taken by a dingo. Simply because she maintained a cool, unemotional demeanor before the police and the public she was deemed suspect. On flimsy and circumstantial evidence and some dodgy forensics, she was charged with murder and sentenced to life in prison. Linda Chamberlain served four years before the evidence was discredited and the case remained unsolved until this very week. Had Linda cried for the cameras in 1980, the poor woman would likely never have had to undergo the ordeal the Australian police and public made for her.

In his book, Dalrymple deems sentimentality “the progenitor, the godparent, the midwife of brutality”; which has become a serious danger to sensible policy-making, as well as a corruption of human relations. It analyses similar cases where the media and the mob interpreted the lack of emotion from a parent after the murder or disappearance of their children as evidence of guilt, such as in the disgraceful treatment of the McCanns and Joanne Lees (another Austrialian bungle). He also includes the outcry over the lack of emotion shown by the Queen after the death of Princess Diana, contending that “the tabloid newspapers carried out what can only be called a campaign of bullying against the sovereign” and that this was simply “bullying rather than expressing any genuine grief”. Dalrymple links the toxic cult of sentimentality with everything from the decline of British schooling to the Make Poverty History idiocy. Its a great work that slaughters many a sacred cow.

Read the saga of Linda Chamberlain, then read Dalrymple’s book, and prepare to get angry.

On another note, I’ve been reading the more recently released Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department by the inspiring J. Christian Adams. Adams is a former Department of Justice Attorney who resigned in disgust after witnessing firsthand the crooked, racially-motivated decisions of the Obama/Holder regime. Fascinating revelations in the book include how Eric Holder has prevented the prosecution of black mobs in Philadelphia – who have been intimidating and assaulting white voters at voting booths – while he has tried at the same time to instill fear into black communities by claiming his opponents are trying to block their access to the polls.  This is extremely disturbing stuff, and Adams is putting the names and incriminating statements of many officials in the Department out there for us all to see. The fact that nobody is suing him is a surefire indicator that the book is all truth. These scandals are part of a broader Democratic Party strategy to create a sense of siege among American blacks, while portraying themselves as their protectors. The Obama regime has helped to ferment what is nothing less than a censored race war, and the lid can’t be held down forever.

Read this book, and prepare to get even angrier.

Lincoln’s Marxists

Was Abraham Lincoln a Marxist?

No. No he wasn’t.

Yet Marx certainly adored Lincoln, and there was an abnormally high Marxist presence around Lincoln, the Republican Party and the Union Army. These shocking facts are recounted in a fascinating new book, Lincoln’s Marxists, by Al Benson and Walter Donald Kennedy. Neither writer was very familiar to me prior to reading this, though I remember an appearance by Kennedy on Bill Maher’s Politically Incorrect some time ago.

The book has two main thrusts:

1. An examination of the socialist/communist support for Lincoln, his war against the South and the reasons for this support.

2. Exploring the role played by socialist/Marxist veterans of the 1848 revolutions in Europe in the founding of the Republican Party, supporting Fremont and Lincoln, and the War Between the States itself.

Socialist and Communist Support for Lincoln and the War

The fact that Marx was vigorously supportive of the Union is not a new revelation. I’ve mentioned this before. The reason is simple. Marx sought the creation of a single, powerful and indivisible state to replace the multiple sovereign states that existed in Germany, the United States and elsewhere as a preliminary for the Communist revolution. As he wrote to his colleague Joseph Weydemeyer in the London Communist League (a future brigadier general in the Union Army!) about the situation in Germany in 1853:

“The preliminaries of the proletarian revolution, the measures that prepare the battleground and clear the way for us, such as a single and indivisible republic, etc., things that we had to champion against the people whose natural, normal job it should have been to achieve or, at least, to demand them – all that is now convenu [taken for granted]”.

What is amazing in Marx’s writings on the War Between the States is his sheer ignorance of the situation. He frequently makes major mistakes in some of the most basic facts, claiming “the South embraces more than three-quarters of the territory hitherto comprised by the Union”. He writes easily spotted falsehoods about the Confederate Constitution, the Confederate war effort and American history in general. I couldn’t help being reminded of the communist propaganda and hyperbole directed against their current obsession, Israel, today. But that’s for another post.

Interestingly, Marx was hired by in the 1850’s to write for the New York Tribune by its managing editor Charles A. Dana. Dana had become a personal friend of Marx and Engels while reporting on Europe in 1848. Dana was an associate of the famous socialist and abolitionist Horace Greeley, and was sympathetic to many communist movements. He later became assistant secretary of war under Lincoln, the first communist, or at least communist sympathiser, to hold such a position.

Communism and socialism (the terms were more interchangeable in the 19th Century) had a significant presence in the United States in the antebellum years. Numerous attempts at Utopian communistic communities sprang up, almost entirely in the North. These ranged from the religious-based, such as the Shakers and the Oneida Community, to more secular Owenite and Fourierist communal systems. These always failed, and within a short period (though the Shakers might have lasted much longer if they hadn’t banned marriage and sex). The ideologues within tended to be fanatically anti-Southern. The famous Brook Farm produced two notable officers to the Union Army: General Francis Channing Barlow and Colonel George Duncan Wells. Ralph Waldo Emerson, a well-known member of the Transcendental Club/Brook Farm group once stated: “If it cost ten years, and ten to recover the general prosperity, the destruction of the South is worth so much”.

The reasons for this hostility were complex, and probably best illustrated by the economist and polymath Murray Rothbard in his fantastic talk on Just War:

“The North, in particular the North’s driving force, the “Yankees” – that ethnocultural group who either lived in New England or migrated from there to upstate New York, northern and eastern Ohio, northern Indiana, and northern Illinois – had been swept by a new form of Protestantism. This was a fanatical and emotional neo-Puritanism driven by a fervent “postmillenialism” which held that as a precondition for the Second Advent of Jesus Christ, man must set up a thousand-year Kingdom of God on Earth.

The Kingdom is to be a perfect society. In order to be perfect, of course, this Kingdom must be free of sin; sin, therefore, must be stamped out, and as quickly as possible. Moreover, if you didn’t try your darndest to stamp out sin by force you yourself would not be saved. It was very clear to these neo-Puritans that in order to stamp out sin, government, in the service of the saints, is the essential coercive instrument to perform this purgative task. As historians have summed up the views of all the most prominent of these millennialists, “government is God’s major instrument of salvation”…

…If anti-slavery, prohibitionism, and anti-Catholicism were grounded in fanatical post-millennial Protestantism, the paternalistic big government required for this social program on the state and local levels led logically to a big government paternalism in national economic affairs. Whereas the Democratic Party in the 19th century was known as the “party of personal liberty,” of states’ rights, of minimal government, of free markets and free trade, the Republican Party was known as the “party of great moral ideas,” which amounted to the stamping-out of sin. On the economic level, the Republicans adopted the Whig program of statism and big government: protective tariffs, subsidies to big business, strong central government, large-scale public works, and cheap credit spurred by government.

The Northern war against slavery partook of fanatical millennialist fervor, of a cheerful willingness to uproot institutions, to commit mayhem and mass murder, to plunder and loot and destroy, all in the name of high moral principle and the birth of a perfect world. The Yankee fanatics were veritable Patersonian humanitarians with the guillotine: the Anabaptists, the Jacobins, the Bolsheviks of their era. This fanatical spirit of Northern aggression for an allegedly redeeming cause is summed up in the pseudo-Biblical and truly blasphemous verses of that quintessential Yankee Julia Ward Howe, in her so-called “Battle Hymn of the Republic”.”

The Impact of 1848

And now we come to the refugees of 1848. In the left-wing historian Theodore Draper’s book, The Roots of American Communism, the first Marxist socialists in the United States are said to be the exiled revolutionaries who arrived in the wake of the famous failed revolts of that year. When these radical socialists settled in America, they quickly resumed their old habits. Though their numbers were not large, historians such as Arnold Whitridge have written that “the influence of these few thousand refugees was out of all proportion to their numbers”. They would see the newly-founded Republican Party and the war against the South as a continuation of their revolution. Many became prominent in the German language press, founding or editing newspapers to recruit Germans to their cause. These men contrasted greatly with the peaceful and pious farmers that were the older generation of Germans.

The socialists championed Lincoln as a working class hero, despite the fact he was a wealthy corporate lawyer, and were just as enthusiastic for John Fremont’s campaign in 1856. They had reason to admire the Republican Party. After all, Republican Senator John Sherman (brother of General Sherman) had stated the United States should “nationalize as much as possible [and thereby] make men love their country before their states”. During the War Between the States, it was Gen. Fremont’s camp that became a magnet for the radical socialists. Indeed, his chief of staff was a former Hungarian socialist revolutionary, Alexander Asboth.

Other notable ‘Forty-Eighters’ in the Union Army include General August Willich, Louis Blenker, Gen. Weydemeyer (mentioned earlier) and Franz Sigel.

Karl Marx described his friend Willich as a “communist with a heart”. He was a member of the Central Committe of the Communist League and referred to as the “Reddest of the Red”. Willich gave a speech in 1859 urging Northeners to “whet their sabers with the blood” of Southerners.

Brigadier General Louis Blenker has the distinction of creating a new word that came into common usage during the war. This Forty-Eighter, due to having inadequate supplies from Union command, led his 10,000 man division to forage and loot from all over Virginia in the spring of 1862. The term “Blenkered” was applied to the unfortunate souls who had been victims of his German-American troops. Blenker became notorious for allegations of corruption in his camp and the lavish lifestyle he lived during the war (off the back of many stolen goods, of course).

Gen. Joseph Weydemeyer was a close friend of Karl Marx, and a fellow member of the London Communist League. Marx assisted Wedemeyer in meeting Charles A. Dana, the communist sympathiser and future assistant secretary of war in Abraham Lincoln’s administration. Dana assisted him in producing various communist journals in the United States, as well as the first American edition of the Communist Manifesto. Weydemeyer was active in the Republican Party as well as both the Fremont and Lincoln Presidential campaigns.

Franz Sigel had led a failed socialist uprising in Baden, Germany in 1848. His career in the Union Army was mixed. He is probably most known for the rout he took at the Battle of New Market. There, teenage cadets of the Virginia Military Institute (the oldest being barely 19) led a fateful charge that broke the Union line.

Gen. Carl Shurz (pictured above) was an active participant in the unsuccessful socialist revolution of 1848 in Germany. Like thousands of others he sought asylum in America. Shurz obtained the rank of Major General in the Union Army. After the war, he served a s a Senator from Missouri and Secretary of the Interior in the Hayes administration. He became notorious for his treatment and neglect of the Indians in the Reservations system (which he helped fashion into effective Gulags). A Native American delegation were once so impressed by the size of his eyes and named him Mah-hah-Ich-hon, meaning ‘Big Eyes’. They wondered how a man with such large eyes was unable to see the needs of their people. His wife pioneered the kindergarten system.

I have focused mostly on the Forty-Eighters of German extraction, perhaps unfairly. Hungary produced many of note, and one of the most interesting might just be Albin Francisco Schoepf. Schoepf was appointed to the rank of Brigadier General at the beginning of the war with the assistance of contacts in the War Department. Wounded at the Battle of Perryville, Kentucky, in 1862, he resigned his command yet surfaced six months later as the commander of Fort Delaware. Fort Delaware was one of the worst POW camps of the conflict. As one historian put it: “Schoepf allowed his subordinates unrestrained control inside the compound, and it eventually evolved into the most brutal POW institution in America”. Torture such as ‘thumb-hangings’ were a daily occurrence, and beatings were inflicted on prisoners to compel them into forced labour.

So, these were the men who came to shoot at the grandsons of Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry to teach them how to be good Americans.


Commenator William Grigg said it best: “Lincoln’s war didn’t preserve or restore the Union; it destroyed it and supplanted it with a new polity based on radically different premises. Just as Marxists of his era gravitated naturally toward Lincoln and vibrated like tuning forks when he spoke the language of raw power and ruthless centralization, Marxist academicians of our era understand the true nature of what Lincoln accomplished”.

The Forty-Eighters did not dominate Lincoln’s Party, but they were a very strong element within it. They recognized that  the Union cause was a step in their desired direction. Now its time for our generation to see that too. Which is why a book like Lincoln’s Marxists is so important.

Lincoln’s Marxists [Hardcover] [Kindle Edition]

Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colors

The environmentalist Patrick Moore was one of the founders of Greenpeace in 1971. He left the organisation in disgust fifteen years later, which he described in the Wall Street Journal:

“At first, many of the causes we championed, such as opposition to nuclear testing and protection of whales, stemmed from our scientific knowledge of nuclear physics and marine biology. But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986”.

The final insult for Moore was when some colleagues in Greenpeace decided it would be a good move to try banning chlorine. This is an absurdity twice over. How can you ban a naturally occurring element, much less one that has led to great advances in public health and the virtual eradication of cholera in the developed world?

Greenpeace have denied trying this, yet the conduct of the Green Movement, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union, tells me who is speaking the truth. James Delingpole, one of the heroes of the Climategate scandal, is one of the few writers in Britain with the courage to expose the “Watermelons”: those who are Green on the outside, yet Red on the inside; the people trying to wreak havoc on our prosperity and and take away vital freedoms in order to fulfill a misanthropic vision strongly linked to Communism.

This leaflet from Friends of the Earth, which Delingpole tells us he keeps on his desk, is telling:

Oil companies. Supermarkets. Petro-chemical firms. Airlines. Globally they spend millions of pounds undermining environmental policy.

Big business spends serious money on advertising and PR telling us that they are doing their bit for the environment. But away from the public eye they’re spending millions holding back environmental progress.

Airlines are spending millions to persuade governments to expand airports. Petro-chemical companies are blocking environmentally friendly measures because of the cost to them. Oil companies are funding “independent think-tanks”, designed to to undermine serious climate change research. And they are doing it all for one thing: Profit.

To any readers who believe profit is evil, I pity you. James Delingpole’s triumph of a book is not designed to enlighten you in this regard. What it can tell you is that the claims made about big business funding climate change and Green skepticism are laughably bogus when you look at the bigger funding picture. The US federal government alone spends 3,500 times the funds trying to prove the existence of Anthropocentric Global Warming (AGW) than anything offered to the skeptics. Its difficult to keep track of the vast and labyrinthine funding to the AGW Industry, which is a truly massive complex involving government departments, quangos, corporations, pressure groups, universities and the UN among others. Dr. Richard North at the EU Referendum blog calculated that the EU has spent well over $100 billion on climate funding since 1989. This is five times the cost of the Manhattan project.

Here just a few examples of taxpayer and even Big Oil money wetting the beaks in the AGW Industry:

– $4 billion allocated by the US federal government for climate research in 2011.

– £650 million paid by the EU for research and development in the same field between 1994 and 1998.

– $100 million donated by ExxonMobil (!) to Stanford University’s Global Climate and Energy Project (no doubt for the purposes of reputation building).

– £13.7 million received in grants by the disgraceful Phil Jones at the infamous Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

– £6 million paid by the British government in October 2009 for an ad campaign promoting man-made global warming.

– A$13.9 million paid by the Australian government for an ad campaign on climate change.

I could go on all day, but its all too depressing. Obama’s 2009 stimulus package included $50 billion in handouts to ‘green’ corporations. The result was a whole bunch of Solyndras.

Now, you may ask about all those scientists who are all aboard the AGW expressway. Well, scientists are susceptible to corruption, idiocy and left-wing misanthropic agendas as much as the next person. The leaked Climategate e-mails prove that. There one can see, at the world’s foremost center of climate change research: manipulation of evidence, private doubts among the researchers about whether the world is really heating up, attempts to cover up the truth about the Medieval Warm Period (WMP), a period of global warming between 950 to 1250 CE (check the Domesday book, many crops were growing then in England that can’t grow now due to cooler temperatures), attempts to squeeze intellectual opponents out of the peer-review process and even fantasies about killing and maiming scientists who disagree with their agenda. Among other things.

Its also wise to get acquainted with something called ‘Post Normal Science’. Normal Science is what the average person believes what science is and ought to be about: empricism, impartiality, honesty and so on. Post Normal Science was defined by the US academics Jerome Ravetz (associated with the Communist Party) and Silvio Funtowicz. In a 1993 treatise called “Science for the Post Normal Age” they claim:

“… a new type of science – ‘post normal’ – is emerging…in contrast to traditional problem-solving strategies, including core science, applied science, and professional consultancy… Post-normal science can provide a path to the democratization of science, and also a response to the current tendencies to post-modernity”.

At its heart, Post Normal Science is about subverting traditional science for to achieve desirable leftist political ends. The nonsensical language of Ravetz and Funtowicz is in the fine tradition of Derrida, Edward Said, Chomsky and the post-modernists. Anyone who opposes them is usually labelled a ‘reactionary’ in the pockets of Big Business. Post Normal Science holds sway over large swathes of academia and the scientific community. It has destroyed scientific integrity and made the AGW scare possible. Its long been realized that the Green pundits have always been more  about politics than science. A good example is Alexander Cockburn, who tellingly went from attacking Gorbachev – for selling out Brezhnev – to penning environmentalist tracts when he knew the Soviet Union was a goner. To Cockburn’s credit, he was questioning a lot of environmentalist dogma in his twilight years.  Unfortunately today, we can’t even trust the scientific community itself.

The consequences of not fighting this are too great to be ignored, even if you will be subjected to the abuse deserved by us ‘deniers’. Delingpole provides Denmark as an example of Green policy disaster. The Danish government’s commitment to Green values has given Denmark the world’s highest density of wind towers, which have blighted much of the landscape. Yet the Danes pay the highest energy prices in Europe (and four times the US average). The wind farms only survive on a 257 million euro annual subsidy. Half of the Danish household electricity cost is tax. Denmark then ends up exporting 50 percent of its wind power to Sweden and Norway, because wind power cannot be turned on and off according to need. Yet the poor Danes happen to be charged for the use of their neighbors’ hydroelectric power, which can be turned on and off. Has any good come from this policy? How much has Denmark cut from its carbon emissions, for instance? The answer is 0.3% between 1990 and 2007. Wind farms need a conventional power source to back them up, so they end up saving virtually nothing in terms of CO2 emissions.

Britain is not immune from the madness. The Climate Change Act of 2008 aims to cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. The Department of Energy admits this will cost the taxpayer £18 billion per year for the next forty years. All this to stop a threat that is probably as imaginary as the vision of the Carthaginian priest Tertullian in the year 210:

Our teeming population is the strongest evidence our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly support us from its natural elements. Our wants grow more and more keen and our complaints more bitter in all mouths, while nature fails in affording us our usual sustenance. In every deed, pestilence and famine and wars have to be regarded as a remedy for nations as the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race.

From Tertullian to Malthus to Friends of the Earth, the misanthropic Green vision has always been with us. I am reminded of the words of H.L. Mencken when he said: “the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”.

Climate change, overpopulation and ManBearPig are hobgoblins. Nothing more. And remember, Greenies, capitalism and economic growth happen to be the greenest policies around:

Not to mention the Kindle, CDs and the floppy disc

Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colors [Kindle Edition]

What I Saw In ‘The Iron Lady’

I’m shamefully ignorant in regards to British politics. Wasn’t Margaret Thatcher some free-market fundamentalist, an adherent of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek? Now that sounds like my kind of lady.

Yet a quick internet search reveals state spending increased annually under her reign. Mrs. Thatcher merely slowed the rate of growth of the state. Still, fair play to her for delivering some notable liberal reforms. If no mine or factory should ever closed on economic grounds, as the socialists say, then it follows that they must have been screaming in favor of  those bank bailouts. They weren’t? Oh, politics is a confusing game.

Was Thatcher a war criminal? She got compared to some nasty characters after the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano.  I fail to see the issue here: the Belgrano was an Argentine warship, sunk in a war with Argentina. The fact it was outside some ‘exclusion zone’  has no bearing whatsoever. Historically exclusion zones exist for the benefit of neutral vessels. Both sides were perfectly aware the Belgrano was fair game. End of that non-controversy.

I don’t like politicians all that much, no more than I like their animal kingdom equivalent, the leech. Politicians are just leeches that ask to be loved. Few exceptions to my leech theory exist in the 20th century. Bibi Netanyahu I certainly have a soft-spot for, as well as Augusto Pinochet (hah! I said it you Castro-loving cunts!). Then there is Thatcher, a charming lady who screwed us less than the rest.

Confident I would not be viewing a glorification of a war criminal or a nasty leech, off I went to see a film about Thatcher.

The Iron Lady wouldn’t sway my opinions in any direction regarding, well, the Iron Lady. Amazingly, its creators managed to make a biopic of the Baroness that glosses over political matters, reducing the big dramas to speedy montages. It seems insane, but partly through the film I realized it must have been written by a woman or women. Women are relationship beings, not terribly interested in politics. A woman’s biopic of a towering political figure such as The Iron Lady focuses on a happy marriage and a tearful widowhood, and other chick-flick fare. Thatcher’s arrival in Parliament in this film felt like watching that girl from Legally Blonde entering Harvard. My guess not long into the film proved to be correct, of course. The Iron Lady was written by a certain Abi Morgan and directed by Phyllida Lloyd. Neither name rang a bell, but then again I am not interested in art by women, for women (whether they intend it to be or not).

Meryl Streep pulls off a fantastic Thatcher, capturing her voice and mannerisms without descending into a caricature. Well, you would expect no less from America’s most accomplished actress. Some have complained about Thatcher’s dementia being exaggerated in the film, particularly Tories that know her. The dementia scenes are touching and will no doubt draw sympathy from anyone with a heart not made of socialism. I don’t know about her mental condition, but I recall seeing Thatcher knocking back gin in the Goring Hotel several years back. I felt an air of loneliness about her, and my eyes started welling up. Now that’s never happened to me before.

That Hoover Film

I am of two minds on J. Edgar Hoover. As  a libertarian, I cannot help being repelled by his role in the expansion of the surveillance state and his often illegal methods of getting what he wanted. However, the part of me that looks for Reds under the bed (or Al Guardian) every night gives the man some nudging respect. A man devoted to his country’s safety above all else, and much like Joe McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover exercised the vigilance against communist infiltration of the western institutions that American Presidents often did not. For instance, when the American hero Whittaker Chambers furnished a list of communists in the government, which included some of Roosevelt’s closest aides, FDR himself decided to do nothing. When Hoover informed Roosevelt that the Soviets were running espionage operations out of their embassy in Washington, Roosevelt warned the Soviets that they were being bugged. Is it any wonder Hoover felt the need to go behind the higher authorities to get his vital work done?

There are legitimate arguments to wield against against Hoover the man and Hoover the director of the FBI. For instance, Hoover buried reports of Communist infiltration of the black Civil Rights Movement, and the communist connections to “Dr.” Martin Luther King. However, allegations of cross-dressing and closeted homosexuality are simply nasty fabrications that distract from the real issues. That is why I am angry Clint Eastwood decided to include this tired nonsense into his new biopic film ‘J. Edgar’ and I recommend people simply avoid it. This is coming from someone who has seen the film and happens to like Eastwood’s work. Let me be clear: the rumors about Hoover’s sexual practices are not only baseless, but part of an attempt at character assassination initiated by very, very dark forces, that went viral thanks to a rotten, unscrupulous left. The allegations originate from the ridiculous account of a certain Susan Rosenstiel, a convicted criminal who had previously served time for perjury. Rosenstiel claimed to have seen Hoover at homosexual orgies in a New York hotel, and wearing women’s underwear to boot. Why this woman was present at male homosexual orgies is anyone’s guess. These claims were never substantiated, but the famous Mitrokhin Archive, brought to the West by a KGB defector, indicated that the Soviets worked hard to spread the lies about their bitter opponent. Any person of sound character capable of doing a moment of sound research would quickly realize what a sinister scam this all was. What is worse is that American liberals, those who purport to be tolerant of homosexuality and proud of it, have been so willing to use fabricated and no doubt hurtful stories about a man’s sexuality to undermine and ridicule him. Aren’t these people the least bit ashamed, or able to detect some hypocrisy in their behavior? For shame, the American left.

For shame, Mr. Eastwood.

Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa

No White Male Appointments For The Rest Of The Fiscal Year – Memo from Human Resources Dept. of Eskom, supplier of most of South Africa’s electricity.

There is a very interesting moment in journalist Kevin Richburg’s “Out of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa“. Richburg, who was was the Washington Post’s African bureau chief from 1991 to 1994, filed a report from the scene of a tribal-motivated killing. It was shortly before South Africa’s fist democratic elections, and the Xhosa and Zulu were embroiled in pre-election violence and intimidation. Twelve people had been shot to death. Richburg had described Africa as a continent where “black bodies are stacked up like firewood”. This was a small massacre, and a non-story by African standards, he thought. So imagine his surprise when “the police, mostly officious looking white officers with ruddy complexions –  came and did what you might expect police to do in any Midwestern American city where crime has occurred. They cordoned off the area with police tape. They marked the spots on the ground where the victims had fallen”. A full investigation was promised to the press.

Such a civilised routine was utterly out of place on the continent where blood can flow like water, where massacres go undocumented, and where charging a man with murder is like “handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500”. The quaint practices of Afrikaner rule were shocking to western liberals like Richburg. He had taken for granted that the apartheid regime was an evil like no other. The civilised norms of Apartheid South Africa are still out of place on the African continent. Most unfortunately, these practices are now out of place in the South Africa of the ANC. The quality of the South African Police Service, SAPS, has so declined that serious crimes, even murders, are often not responded to for days, or not at all. The ANC has faced up to the serious law-enforcement challenges in their country by disbanding the elite, highly-regarded anti-corruption squad known as ‘the Scorpions’, to spare itself hearing some uncomfortable truths.

Ilana Mercer’s most recent book could be described as a tidal wave of uncomfortable truths for comfortable planners and pundits in the developed world, a place South Africa was once a part of. Mercer, the daughter of anti-apartheid activist Rabbi Ben Isaacson, seems to slaughter every sacred cow of discourse on South Africa. She’s blunt in informing the reader that during the decades of apartheid, a few hundred Africans perished due to police brutality. The ‘freedom fighters’ during apartheid ‘necklaced’ over four hundred innocent civilians, and murdered many more, often singling out Zulus. More people are murdered in one week under the ANC’s watch than died under the detention of the Afrikaner government over the course of roughly four decades. The infamous Sharpeville massacre was indeed an awful event, where panic-stricken policemen shot and killed 69 black demonstrators. Yet in democratic South Africa, that is often the daily quota of carnage. Under apartheid, the annual number of murders on average reached 7,036. Under the ANC, its gone up to 24,206. Its hardly surprising that there has arisen a kind of apartheid nostalgia, even among many blacks in South Africa. Having a democratic and egalitarian constitution doesn’t seem like such a fantastic result of years of struggle if you can’t go to work safely, unemployment is twice as high as it used to be, and your life expectancy has gone down by several years.

A truly wonderful aspect of the book is Ilana’s sympathetic history of the Afrikaner people and her respect for their social habits and devout religious outlook, despite being an irreligious woman herself. It makes one want to proclaim: “Ik ben een Afrikaander”! when you read of the heroic exploits of the voortrekkers, those Afrikaners who left the British controlled territory by the coast and sought freedom in what would become Natal, Transvaal and the Orange Free State. The parallels between these people and the American colonists are striking. The poor Afrikaners! They never did gain the status of Designated Victim Group.  Afrikaners are a minority that happens to have led an early anti-colonial struggle against the British Empire while being imprisoned en masse in concentration camps. We’ve all seen the pictures of the emaciated Afrikaner victims from that time, and we all know what it brings to mind. Its truly a tragedy that the Afrikaners are vilified purely for living in Africa, which they have inhabited for as long as British stock has been in North America. In fact, the Bantu people, who include Mandela’s tribe, the Xhosa, migrated southwards from outside today’s South Africa around the same time as the Trekboers were journeying inland from the coast, including the eleven-year old Paul Kruger. Its funny to think Eugene Terre’blanche’s ancestors were probably in South Africa before Nelson Mandela’s.

Ah, that sainted shyster Nelson Mandela, the man with more dubious humanitarian awards than Bono can ever hope for (including Qaddafi’s human rights prize). Alright, I’ll say it: its a good thing he was imprisoned for so long. If Mandela  and his ilk had come to power in the 1960s and implemented their full-blown socialist program, Zimbabwe today might look enviable from the other side. Interestingly, the moonbat Naomi Klein has criticised the ANC for softening the program they had in the ’60s. I hate the ANC with a passion, but Ilana Mercer was amazingly able to make me even angrier at them. Not only is crime, unemployment and corruption far worse than pre-1994, the place isn’t even much of a democracy as we like to think of the concept here. The ANC runs South Africa like its a one-party state. Demographics dictate it will never lose power to its tokenistic opposition. The ANC political machine makes Tammany Hall look like kindergarten. Since 1994, over 95% of people vote along racial lines. This is not much of an improvement over apartheid, which I can assure you I believe is a rotten system. Now what we have is tyranny of the majority, rather than a minority. In most ways, the former is worse.

Mercer’s book is billed as a warning to America, a warning against the kind of wealth redistribution along racial lines that has so spectacularly damaged South Africa. I believe she is being over-alarmist in her comparisons, given how different the American demographic situation is to South Africa. Yet her warnings on politically-dictated egalitarianism in American institutions ring true, especially in light of Professor Steven Farron’s hard-hitting work exposing the disaster of affirmative action in the United States. Mass power failures are now a common occurrence in South Africa, something unheard of under Afrikaner rule. While the New York Times will claim “the country’s power company [Eskom] unfathomably ran out of electricity and rationed supply”, its very clear what’s really going on if you care little for political correctness: skilled engineers have been purged due to the Black Economic Empowerment. If Eskom wants to purchase coal, it has to procure it from black sources if even remotely possible. South Africa has recently become a net importer of food for the first time. While land redistribution has not been as severe as in Zimbabwe, Boer farmers are highly vulnerable in the face of squatters who have the affections of the black authorities. Not to mention the fact they are being murdered at genocide levels: around 10% of their numbers have been slain, often in brutal farm attacks that involve torture and rape. Boers are being murdered at four times the rate of the rest of the population (South Africa’s Indian community also suffers disproportionately). The ANC is punishing the Boers further, by stepping up the rate of farm redistribution. Their quota for 2014 is highly ambitious, despite the fact some in the ANC admit over 90% of legally plundered white farmland is now unproductive. Lets not make the same mistakes South Africa did, even if on a much smaller scale. A small upside, should such policies continue, is that the ANC may end up with a country and reputation so broken that they just might earn the pariah status of Robert Mugabe and his Zanu PF. It took a long time for the West to wake up to what was going on in Zimbabwe. Mugabe’s slaughter of 20,000 people of a rival tribe during the early years of his rule in the 1980s was completely ignored. Indeed, he had resolute defenders in the Western left up until very recently. Yet I shudder to think what fate could befall the remaining Afrikaners should they be bled of their resources until they are beyond use to the regime.

Ilana Mercer faced rejection from all major publishers. Its not surprising that a book against majoritarianism faced such hostility. In many ways, the book is about the failure of democracy, an makes an ideal follow-up case study to Hans Herman Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed. I don’t think I can praise a book higher than that. I can only imagine the difficulty of Ilana’s task. Recently I approached an employee in the South African embassy here in London. I asked him about the farm murders, the corruption, the crime. He replied that “there are people in the media and the universities” that “handle those matters” for them. In other words, they have the Guardians of Acceptable Opinion to suppress debate on the ‘Rainbow Nation’ (which is now less diverse than it was under apartheid). Mercer notes that anti-racism think-tanks, such as the South African Institute of Race Relations, engage in serial abuse of statistics to serve the interests of the ANC, particularly by refusing to accurately report the appalling level of sectarian murders of whites and Indians in the country. Their estimates of the number of the number of murdered white farmers is one-third of what other sources report. Until 2010, SAIRR refused to acknowledge the slayings were part of anything but normal criminal banditry, as opposed to being racially motivated. The media and academia forgot all about South Africa after Mandela came to power. Its time for debate, after which I hope most will acknowledge that South Africa is not a positive example for the rest of the world.

I would like to finish with a little note the publisher included at the beginning of Into the Cannibal’s Pot:

This is a book about ideas and ideology. When losing an intellectual argument, there are despicable people who point an accusing finger and shout racism. In our dark times where mob rule and collectivist ideas resonate with so many, this appalling strategy can be very effective.

To those who support colorblind civil discourse, rule of law, equality of opportunity, freedom, the golden rule (do unto others as you wish them to do unto you) liberty, freedom of expression and religion and private property rights… regardless of skin color or ethnic background (black, red, white, yellow, brown, green or violet) we extend the hand of friendship

To those who support all forms of thuggery – including totalitarianism, collectivism, fascism, extremist fundamentalism, unequal treatment under law, income redistribution, nanny state government programs and the soft bigotry of low expectations – your skin color and ethnicity are irrelevant… and your ideas belong in the dustbin of history.

Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa [Hardback] [Kindle Edition]

Finally, an Intelligent Critique of Neo-Conservativism

In the Introduction toNeoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, C. Bradley Thompson and Yaron Brook declare:

”Let us be clear: We do not treat neoconservatism as a conspiracy or a cabal (readers of this book will find no flowcharts starting at some office at the University of Chicago, moving through apartments in New York City, and ending in some dark bunker in the White House), but rather as an imporatant intellectual and political movement that deserves to be taken seriously”.

C. Bradley Thompson

This book keeps its promises. Thompson and Brook absolutely deserve to be commended for what they have done here. We have seen far too much in the way of trashy literature claiming to ‘expose’ the neoconservative movement. ‘Neocon’, unfortunately, has become an overused, misunderstood term tossed around as an insult by the clueless left, who have little idea what it actually means. Most often, it is just used as a label for American right-wingers in general. This is particularly true in sources like the Irish Times, Ireland’s left-leaning (and frightfully low-quality) newspaper of record. Mark Humphrys offers an excellent example, noted by Richard Waghorne, in three typical references to ‘neocons’ in one short period in The Irish Times in 2005, by Fintan O’Toole, Anthony Glavin and Eddie Holt – who showed no sign of ever actually understanding what neocons are. To them its just a synonym for evil in general, as well as nasty right-wingers like Pat Robertson (who could never in fact be called a neocon). Most disturbing, however, is the level of anti-Semitism that has sneaked into the discussion, with far-left magazines like Adbusters actually putting stars next to the names of Jews on a list of known neoconservatives. Few incidents exposed the moral decline and intellectual bankruptcy of today’s left-wing, if it ever held any moral high ground and intellectual quality in the first place. Such nonsense obfuscates the real issues, and scares sensible people away from honestly grappling with neoconservatism.

Yaron Brook

Thompson is a former neoconservative sympathizer who drifted towards the libertarian side of the philosophical spectrum, while Brook, whom I have seen a couple of times on his UK visits, is executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and a prominent Objectivist spokesperson. Theirs is a look at neoconservatism from the party of freedom, the Jeffersonian tradition of American politics, and the devotees of limited government and liberty in the personal and economic sphere. Their book demonstrates the vast intellectual superiority of the classical liberal tradition, when viewed in light of the left’s wide-eyed attempts at attacking neocons, who are a lot closer to them than they would care to imagine. The reader will not get so much as a hint of trendy cultural relativism or anti-Semitism that pervades similar work.

The title is an interesting play on Irving Kristol’s famous essay ‘Socialism: An Obituary for an Idea’. Socialism, of course, was not dead then and it certainly isn’t now. The essay was acknowledgement of socialism’s terminal illness, even as it still wreaks havoc. The authors place neoconservatism in the same situation: completely bankrupt and often repudiated, but still troublesome. Yet that is not the book’s focus. The first chapters establish that neoconservatism is a genuine theory of domestic and foreign policy, which many have claimed is not so, before delving into what makes a neoconservative. Most of the work explores the philosophic roots of neoconservatism, focusing especially on Plato and Leo Strauss, but dealing also at Machiavelli and Heidegger, amongst others. The final chapters take a detailed look at the neoconservative agenda for today.

The main aim of the book is to demonstrate the neoconservatism is not as much in ‘the American grain’ (to use the words of Irving Kristol) as it likes to describe itself. It is an adoration of state power that is supposedly needed to perfect men. The authors make the convincing point that neoconservatives are in fact distrustful of human liberty, and this is the root of their support for their idea of a ‘conservative welfare state’ and benevolent hegemony abroad. I’m not an expert on literature or the Great Books of Western Civilisation, and I don’t have much more to say on this, other than it may make for heavy reading at times. Yet it is invaluable for concerned thinkers who will learn to see why the libertarian movement never signed on to the neoconservative agenda in either domestic or foreign policy.