Containment and revolution

 

Unless you know it already, you never guess at whose website this absurd little article appeared. Yes, that would be Frontpage magazine, connected to the - wait for it - David Horowitz Freedom Center. 

Hmmm...

It certainly sounds as if Frontpage supports Trump´s detente with Russia. I don´t know, I assumed Horowitz (who is still the president of the center named after him) was some kind of hardline Cold Warrior crusader?!

Trump once again deserves the Nobel Peace Prize 

The Grey Eminence

Hmmm...

I always assumed it was Steven Bannon who was the eminence gris of the Trump Administration. Or at least of its shadowy "gris" faction. But are we to believe this article, the real grey eminence is...David Horowitz! I haven´t read the entire article myself yet, but it seems interesting, so here you go!

The Man Who Made Stephen Miller

You don´t say

An entertaining article written in Cold War style about Karen Bass, who is supposedly on Biden´s VP short list. The hit piece is to a large extent based on an interview with David Horowitz! 

Karen Bass´s long march from Communist fringe to Biden´s VP short list

Eat the rich

“Occupy Unmasked” is a documentary featuring Andrew Breitbart and David Horowitz. It's directed by Stephen Bannon, the same Bannon who took over Breitbart News after Andrew Breitbart's death and is now a presidential advisor.

The documentary is run-of-the-mill pro-capitalist, pro-banker, pro-war, at least implicitly pro-globalization, while also being anti-union, anti-Obama and, surprise, anti-socialist. Breitbart had connections with the Tea Party movement, but “Occupy Unmasked” sounds more Neo-Con or “Con in general” than specifically conservative-libertarian-isolationist. Perhaps it's a deliberate move to get a wider audience? The main theses of the film is that Occupy Wall Street and the wider Occupy movement weren't spontaneous and that they were dominated by anarchist and Communist groups which really want a violent revolution in the United States. However, there is also another more conspiratorial theme running through the documentary. While Occupy are a bunch of unreliable reds, they are apparently also a front for the Obama administration, which uses the movement to deflect attention from the Tea Party, the real opposition, and from the administration's own problems (deficits, etc).

Personally, I wasn't particularly shocked by “Occupy Unmasked”. Of course it wasn't spontaneous. Neither was the Tea Party, so what's your point? Of course most activists were leftists of various stripes. Like most such movements, there were moderate and militant factions, with Team Breitbart-Horowitz concentrating on the latter. Except sometimes, when they smear union leaders such as Jimmy Hoffa Jr (sic) as some kind of unpatriotic pinkos! A more interesting fact emerging from the documentary is that the media establishment and sections of the political ditto *did* express strong sympathies for the Occupy movement. “Occupy Unmasked” claims that this proves the liberal establishment were behind the protests. A more sober interpretation is that they tried to co-opt it, the usual Democratic strategy towards protests of this sort.

It's interesting to reflect on the trajectory of the radical anti-capitalist left. During the 1990's, large segments of the left were anti-globalist. Most of the right was associated with globalization. One of the few exceptions, Pat Buchanan, actually expressed some sympathy for the “battle of Seattle” in 1999. Today, by contrast, the left has been obviously co-opted by the DNC and the globalists. The “revolutionary” left is simply the unruly tail of the neo-liberal/left-liberal globalist coalition. Meanwhile, the alliances have changed. Steve Bannon now works for Donald Trump, who won the presidential elections thanks to the “deplorable” White working class vote. And guess who says he wants to work with Trump? None other than Jimmy Hoffa Jr, the supposed bête noire of the unionista underworld! Clearly, somebody somewhere decided to change tactics. It's also interesting that none other than basic bitch Cold Warrior Horowitz have jumped unto the Trump Train, presumably hoping that the new POTUS will finally decide to nuke 'Nam or whoever is the godless enemy this week.

On the one hand, this means that “Occupy Unmasked” feels very anachronistic. On the other hand, however, it also (ironically) means that the documentary was prescient on one point: yes, the left really does work with the Democrats. However, it's not an alliance against “capitalism”. Rather, it's an alliance with its globalist sector against the nationalists and populists!

Perhaps Darth Bannon should make a new documentary…

Come on, they're all in on it

A review of "Obama and Islam" by Robert Spencer and David Horowitz 

Under Ronald Reagan (a Republican), the United States armed and abetted the Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan, including one Osama bin-Laden, who were seen as “freedom fighters” against godless Communism. And yes, it all started already under Democrat Jimmy Carter.

The United States always had good relations with Saudi Arabia and (often) with Pakistan. Once again, it was a broad bipartisan consensus. The Bush clan had particularly close relations with the Saudis. Today, both the Obama administration and “critics” like John McCain (a Republican) support the rebels in Libya and Syria, many of whom are Muslim fundamentalists.

As for Obama's policy of “tolerance” towards the Muslim Brotherhood, the Conservative government of Britain (a close U.S. ally under both Democratic and Republican administrations) is doing pretty much the same thing.

Yet, none of this is mentioned in this little pamphlet by Robert Spencer (co-attributed to David Horowitz). Let's see. Both Spencer and Horowitz are Republicans…? Bingo! This pamphlet is nothing more than an extended election pitch in favour of “the other guy”, complete with the usual attacks against “the left” and even a few nods to the Birthers (Spencer claims that Obama may have been a Muslim in his youth).

Perhaps a more in-depth analysis of the US-Islamist partnership would hit too close to home…

Wanted: A leftist campaign against Islamism

No relation 

"Muslim Hate Groups on Campus" is a short pamphlet also available free on the web. It details the origins and activities of two anti-Zionist/anti-Jewish groups active on U.S. campuses, the Muslim Student Association (MSA) and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).

The author easily proves that the MSA is really a front for the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood. It supports Hamas, Hizbollah and even Palestinian Islamic Jihad. While neither MSA nor the Brotherhood has formal ties with Al-Qaeda (an even more extreme organization), a whole roster of former MSA activists later joined Osama Bin Laden's terrorist networks. MSA's strategy is to deny all connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and put itself forward as the legitimate voice of all Muslim students on campus, even entering into "dialogue" with Jewish organizations. By contrast, the SJP is more militant and action-oriented. Nominally a secular organization, the SJP was founded by a member of - guess what - the Muslim Brotherhood. Interestingly, the SJP also regroups the International Socialist Organization, the former American co-thinkers of the British Socialist Workers' Party! Some things really are the same the world over...

The author of this exposé of Islamist front groups is affiliated with the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the pamphlet is promoted by Robert Spencer's website Jihad Watch. This would make it very right wing by my definitions (I tend more towards the left). Still, I found "Muslim Hate Groups on Campus" interesting, despite the provocative title. A provocative question would be why no leftist version of this pamphlet exists? By Muslim fundamentalist standards, secular leftists aren't even "protected peoples of the book", but outright infidels to be killed! It's also a fact that both Republican and Democratic administrations have used Muslim fundamentalists to do their dirty work in the Middle East, North Africa and elsewhere. There is a progressive case against so-called Islamism.

Frankenstein's brotherhood comes home to roost

Credit: Ali Mansuri 

"Muslim Brotherhood in America" is a short pamphlet by Robert Spencer, summarizing his case against this particular fundamentalist organization, known in Arabic as Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimun. Spencer (perhaps rightly - I haven't double-checked) argues that the Brotherhood controls between 40% and 80% of all mosques in the United States, and that many "moderate" or "legitimate" Muslim organizations are really Brotherhood fronts, most notably the civil right group CAIR. The Muslim Brotherhood is at least indirectly linked to terrorism, since the Palestinian organization (and governing party in Gaza), Hamas, describes itself as a Brotherhood branch. Spencer argues that the rabbit hole goes even deeper, and that ties also exist between Ikhwan front groups and Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad or Al-Qaeda.

What I lack in Spencer's material is context. During the Cold War, conservative Muslim fundamentalism of this kind was a "CIA asset" in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and even a "Mossad asset" on the West Bank. Spencer *does* call for new and unusual alliances against the spread of Muslim fundamentalism, by which he presumably means Russia and its allies, but his pamphlets are published by the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Horowitz, of course, was a staunch supporter of the U.S. during the Cold War and hence have no particular right to complain about Muslim extremists eating his candy!

Until recently, Horowitz still called for intervention in Syria, while Spencer (at least tacitly) opposes it. It seems Dave has gotten cold feet lately, realizing that arming "moderate" Islamists in Syria (presumably the very same Muslim Brotherhood) against ISIS might not be such a good idea, but it sure sounds as an "conversion under the hangman's noose". I get the impression that both men, but Horowitz in particular (I'm not sure about Spencer's earlier positions), are desperately fighting a Frankenstein's monster which their own favoured party in Washington (the Reagan-Bush Republicans, who else?) were largely responsible for creating in the first place...

I suppose the change of scenery is that a weakened America (headed by a Democratic president) have become an Ikhwan asset, rather than the Ikhwan being under "our" control. Hence the belated wrath of some people...

Spencer's material could be interesting as a "teaser trailer", but I would advice readers to double-check his claims and, more importantly still, learn more about the context á la Realpolitik that made these extremist brotherhoods and movements strong in the first place...

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone

Posted in 2014. Today, the political line up probably looks a bit different! 

"The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration" is a short pamphlet exposing real or percieved Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) operators in the upper echelons of the U.S. administration. The foremost is supposedly Huma Abedin, a long-time aide to Hillary Clinton. As far as I understand, no direct evidence exists to link Abedin to the Ikhwan, and the claim is widely regarded as a crazy conspiracy theory. Note, by the way, that Abedin, a supposed Muslim fundamentalist, is married to a Jew, something prohibited by traditional Islam!

But sure, I don't doubt that the Muslim Brotherhood has supporters with access to high-ranking U.S. establishment figures. Of course they do. The United States and other Western governments have long supported the "moderate", conservative wing of Muslim fundamentalism as an antidote to Soviet Communism, secular Arab nationalism and openly radical Muslim fundamentalism á la Iran. The U.S.-Saudi alliance is an obvious example. American support for Zia ul-Haq's Pakistan and the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan (including one Osama bin-Laden) are others. When the Arab Spring strengthened the Muslim Brotherhood and similar groups across the Middle East, the United States swiftly decided to support the Ikhwan in both Egypt and Syria. Note also the stealth "Islamization" (fundamentalization) of NATO member Turkey.

Hillary Clinton's pro-Ikhwan actions are simply the most recent expressions of a long-standing U.S. policy, not the direct result of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration and subterfuge. This would be true even if Abedin turns out to be a deep undercover Ikhwan mole (which I strongly doubt). This context is always lacking in publications associated with David Horowitz' "Freedom Center", no doubt because Horowitz really supports the Republican wing of the U.S. political establishment, who are just as implicated as everyone else. It seems that the Huma Abedin allegations are the conservative version of the popular liberal urban legend that Bush II and Wolfowitz started the Iraqi war due to inspiration from one Leo Strauss...

For a sarcastic commentary on the entire fracas, see "Bachmann: Muslim Brotherhood secret agent?" by Juan Cole, available on the web. While I wouldn't agree with Cole on everything (I mean, the guy claims that the Ikhwan isn't a terrorist organization!), his article does show that Mideast politics are, ahem, pretty complicated...

Let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone!

Don´t worry, this product has been vetted by the White House

Originally posted in 2012, this was a "review" of the "Free Syria" flag actually sold by Amazon, the notorious U.S. vendor. 

This is the flag of the "Free Syrian Army", which fights to overthrow the current Syrian regime of Bashar Assad. While Assad's Baath Party has a philosophy somewhere in between Stalinism and fascism, are the rebels really any better?

Are we to believe media reports, the CIA has sent personnel to the Turkish-Syrian border to vet the rebels who are receiving money and arms from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In this manner, the USA makes sure that all arms and cash go to respectable liberal democrats with an impeccable human rights record, while al-Qaeda and other murky forces receive nothing at all.

Gee, that's reassuring. Especially given the fact that the "liberal democrats" are a front for the Muslim Brotherhood...

I'm being sarcastic.

Still, I suppose it's a good thing that Madame Clinton has sent some top notch intelligence experts to make sure that only "our" fundamentalists get the arms. I mean, they were quite useful against the Commies in Afghanistan, weren't they? Besides, these loyal and grateful mujahedeen fighters never bite the hand that feeds them, right? Just look at Osama bin-Laden...

Or am I out on some kind of limb here?

PS. Mitt and David Horowitz have exactly the same foreign policy as Ms. Clinton. Just so you know. :-(

Entertaining propaganda

David Horowitz used to be a "loony lefty". Despite being White and Jewish, he belonged to the Black Panther Party during their *worst* phase, when the Panthers had degenerated and become a racketeering crime gang (they even murdered their own party treasurer, another White person, when she uncovered some illegal drug dealings).

Horowitz, to his credit, left the Panthers after this. Less creditably, he then joined forces with the loony right!

"Unholy alliance" is ostensibly a book about how the American left supports Muslim fundamentalism and opposes Israel. An interesting subject, to be sure. I'm one of those rare leftists loony enough to *support* Israel's right to exist and *oppose* Muslim fundamentalism. Horowitz, however, never really delivers. His book turns out to be a truly demented screed of Cold War propaganda, delivered decades too late. Indeed, the author is so bad at spinning lies and distortions, that the book actually becomes entertaining. Well, at least up to a point. Two-thirds through, I decided not to finish it...

It's a well-known fact, that the United States supported a whole string of right-wing dictatorships during the Cold War. Sometimes, the US even supported Communist regimes or movements, provided these were anti-Soviet. China under Hua Guofeng or the Khmer Rouge (!) after their fall from power comes to mind. Nor were all members of NATO democratic. Both Greece and Turkey were military dictatorships for a period, but neither was excluded from NATO. It's obvious that whatever the "Cold" War might have been, it certainly wasn't a conflict between "democracy" and "Communist totalitarianism".

How does Horowitz attempt to prove the opposite? He claims that the Korean War was a conflict between democracy and dictatorship. But at the time, *both* South Korea and North Korea were dictatorships. So how could the war be a struggle for democracy? Well, says our author, South Korea *did* become democratic 35 years later! Therefore, the Korean War was about democracy...

I'm not kidding. He actually says this.

Many other arguments in the book have an equally surreal quality. The United States, we learn, overthrew Ferdinand Marcos, the dictator of the Philippines. What took them so long? And what about the People's Power movement? Weren't they at least peripherally involved? The author also hotly denies that the United States supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. "We didn't support Saddam. We just sent him weapons". I suppose this is the loony right-wing version of Trotskyist "military but not political support"!

David H. also denies the genocide of the American Indians. Why, he opines, there are *more* Indians alive today than at the time of the conquista, so how can there have been a genocide? Well, David, aren't there more Jews alive today than at the time of World War Two? Perhaps the Holocaust didn't happen either. Or maybe it just wasn't a "genocide". Besides, the argument about more Indians presumably refers to the entire American continent. In the United States, the Indians are obviously outnumbered by Whites (and maybe even Jews).

And so it goes on, page after page. There is something anachronistic about a book that still today (long after the fall of the Berlin Wall) fights the propaganda battles of the Cold War. I suppose that's why the rest of the book plays the anti-Muslim card. During the Cold War, after all, Usama bin-Laden and other Muslim fundamentalists were "our" allies.

But of course, you will never learn about *that* unholy alliance from a book by David Horowitz.