My Weblog

December 14, 2006

Allende: The Untold Story

Filed under: Historie, Left, Media — limewoody @ 5:36 pm

To read the mainstream media lately you’d think Augusto Pinochet’s villainous henchmen, while twirling their pointy black moustaches and snickering maliciously, overthrew a Chilean “President” (Salvador Allende) somewhere on the order of Jimmy Carter. Then they lined up 3000 harmless sociology professors and innocent leftist parliamentarians and shot them, for the sheer heck of it.

The real story, as you might imagine, is a tad more complicated—despite the media/academia Black Legend regarding Chile.

Upon Stalin’s death in 1953, Chilean Communists held a “Homage to Stalin” in Santiago’s Baquedano theatre where Salvador Allende could hardly contain himself: “Stalin was a banner of creativity, of humanism and an edifying picture of peace and heroism!” he gushed while choking back the tears. “Everything he did, he did in service of the people. Our father Stalin has died but in remembering his example our affection for him will cause our arms to grow strong towards building a grand tomorrow– to insure a future in memory of his grand example!” *

After assuming power in 1970 (with roughly the same percentage of votes that Hitler garnered in Germany in 1933), the Allende regime’s true colors soon manifested. In January 1971, Allende’s minister Carlos Altamirano boasted: “We’re following the example of the Cuban Revolution and counting on the support of her militant internationalism….represented by Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. Armed conflict in continental terms remains as relevant today as ever!”

“Hear me loud and clear!” Salvador Allende himself boasted the following month. “We will employ revolutionary violence!”

This was more than an idle boast by Allende. Among the myriad unreported aspects of the Chilean coup were the dozens of “guerrilla” schools being set up throughout Chile by Soviet bloc agents shortly before that coup. Marxist death squads were also roaming Chile, murdering “bourgeois elements” with impunity or with the tacit support of the regime. When Salvador Allende visited Moscow in December 1972, his longest meetings was with Boris Ponomariev, the Kremlin’s head of “Irregular Warfare” for the Western Hemisphere.

By 1973, 60 percent of Chile’s arable land had been confiscated by the government, often with the aid of these death squads. Rolando Matus and Jacinto Huilipan were among the many farmers who protested Allende’s “Agrarian Reform” and wound up kidnapped and murdered.   

“In the final analysis only armed conflict will decide who is the victor!” added Allende’s governmental ally, Oscar Guillermo Garreton. “Without the complete destruction of the bourgeois character of the state we cannot march on the path of Socialism! The class struggle always entails armed conflict. Understand me, the global strategy is always accomplished through arms!”

Allende’s deputy Economic Minister, Sergio Ramos, didn’t mince words either: “It’s evident,” he proclaimed in mid-1973, “that the transition to socialism will first require a dictatorship of the proletariat.” “We have no choice,” declared Chilean Communist Volodia Teitelboim, “but to act with resolution and a civil war is not a careful affair. It draws targets on both the political and the apolitical.” His Communist comrade Luis Corvolan followed up with: “We have never considered the path of the Chilean Revolution to be exclusively an electoral one.”

By the time of Pinochet’s coup an estimated 31,000 Cuban, Soviet Bloc and Communist operatives infested Chile, including Castro’s top terrorist spymasters, Antonio De La Guardia and his (nominal) boss Manuel “Barbarroja” Pineiro.  Among the hundreds of Soviet personnel were KGB luminaries, Viktor Efremov, Vasili Stepanov and Nikolai Kotchanov.

The Chilean military had kept scrupulously to their barracks through several leftist — Democratic Socialist — regimes. But they recognized Allende’s regime as a completely different animal. Pinochet himself, while serving as an instructor at Chile’s military academy, had specialized in “geopolitics.” What Brezhnev, Castro and their Chilean proxies had lined up for his nation must have struck him as obvious. In light of the proceedings in Poland’s Katyn Forest in 1940 and those in Cuba’s La Cabana prison in 1959, the prospects for the Chilean military must have struck him as equally obvious.

While conservative pundits have been lauding post-Allende Chile’s free-market economic reforms and what in time became a scrupulously democratic government and the freest, most prosperous economy in Latin America, there’s been much hand-wringing by these same pundits about the brutal advance work that made it all possible.

From a cushy media pulpit in 2006, this is all too easy. But in September of 1973 Pinochet’s men weren’t out to score debating points on some fatuous think-thank panel or to win applause on some asinine chat show. They knew their nation was looking up the locked and loaded muzzle of a Stalinist takeover. So they marched into the Chilean OK Corral loaded for (Soviet) Bear. That they managed the messy business with just 3,000 dead, including all collateral damage, will amaze anyone fully informed of what they went up against.

In 1973, Chilean Communists and their Soviet and Castroite proxies were no more inclined to surrender power than Iraqi Baathists are today. The cost of persuading them to do so, as we learn daily in the news, can be onerous–collateral damage and all.

It is comforting to believe that placing daisies into the muzzles of the arms that the Soviets and Castro were pouring into Chile at the time would have persuaded Chile’s Marxist death squads and the tens of thousands of foreign communists and terrorists to take up Swedish Socialism and hold hands in a circle while chanting the Beatles’ “All You Need is Love.”  But 20th Centruy history teaches that Communists are extremely jealous of their power and privilege and extremely pitiless against those who would challenge it, or even question it. The millions who wound up in mass graves and Gulags offer stark and ready proof.

From Pilsudski’s victory over Communists in Poland to Horthy’s in Hungary to Franco’s in Spain, history also teaches that when Communists get even a small taste of their own medicine their moaning and whinning and sniveling becomes a worldwide cause celebre. The current anti-Pinochet media orgy shows that nothing has changed.  

*(All above quotes and incidents are fully documented in La Agresion Del Oso; Intervencion Sovietica y Cubana en Chile  by Gonzalo Rojas Sanches, a Fullbright Scholar and visiting professor at Notre Dame who heads the History Department at Chile’s Catholic University.)


December 4, 2006

Left Loonie Royal

Filed under: Frankrig, Left — limewoody @ 10:49 pm

Ségolène Royal, the French presidential candidate, was embroiled in a damaging row on a visit to the Middle East yesterday after appearing to condone a Hezbollah MP who denounced US “insanity” and compared Israel to the Nazis.Ms Royal, the first woman with a realistic chance of winning the French presidency, was struggling to extricate herself from the controversy sparked by a meeting in Beirut with MPs, including Ali Ammar of Hezbollah.

In a 20-minute tirade Mr Ammar attacked “unlimited American insanity” for sending troops into Afghanistan and Iraq. He then said that Israeli “Nazism” was no better than Hitler’s Third Reich.

Ms Royal, who is on her first overseas trip since winning the Socialist Party primary, replied: “Thank you for being so frank. I agree with a lot of the things you have said, notably your analysis of the US.”

Her remark provoked a furore in France, where Philippe Douste-Blazy, the Foreign Minister, said that she had a simplistic vision of the Middle East. François Goulard, the Research Minister, said: “Ségolène Royal obviously doesn’t know what she’s talking about.”

Ms Royal was trying to limit the damage last night. She said that her interpreter had failed to translate Mr Ammar’s comparison between Israel and the Nazis. If he had, she would have walked out, she said.

Ms Royal went on to claim that she had not meant to attack Americans in general for insanity but only the Bush Administration over the war in Iraq.,,3-2485815,00.html

December 1, 2006

Islam’s approach to homosexuality is another area that the left ignores in deference to multiculturalism. (Think of Bay Area liberals who voice outrage at the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, but are silent about the Shariah policy on homosexuals — 100 lashes or death.) Ditto the status of women. Yusuf Qaradawi described gay people as “perverts” who should be “punished,” in an interview with Al Jazeera last week.

Filed under: Islam, Left, Multi Kulti — limewoody @ 10:53 am


November 24, 2006

The Liberal Media Tells It as It Is….

Filed under: Humour, Images/Foto, Left — limewoody @ 11:35 pm


Thanks to Snaphanen

November 23, 2006

For his (?) part, Venezuelan Ambassador in Damascus, Mrs.(?) Deya’a al-Andari underlined that victory of the resistance in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq is a victory forVenezuela and for all liberal men in the world, pointing out to Syria’s leadership and people role in achieving this victory.

Filed under: Global Jihad, Islam, Left, Terror — limewoody @ 4:42 pm

Damascus, (SANA-Syrian news agency)-Responsible of International Relations
in Hizbullah Party Nawaf al-Mosawi has stressed that the Lebanese national
resistance will not allow America’s tools in the region to end the
resistance.” We are proud of our relations with Syria that is standing by the
resistance and Lebanese people during the latest Israeli hostile aggression,
” Mosawi said yesterday in an address word at Basel Al-Assad University City
in Victory Festival.

For his part, Venezuelan Ambassador in Damascus, Mrs. Deya’a al-Andari
underlined that victory of the resistance in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq is
a victory forVenezuela and for all liberal men in the world, pointing out to
Syria’s leadership and people role in achieving this victory.

For his part, Iranian First Charg d’ affairs in Damascus Mr. Rokn Abadi
highly evaluated Syria’s leadership and people for their efforts during the
Israeli aggression on Lebanon by offering all support and aid to Lebanon.

The festival attended by Regional Leadership member, Head of Regional
People’s Organizations Office Mrs. Shahnaz Fakhoush and several of Syrian
students and Hizbollah students studying in Syria.

Allah’s England?

Filed under: Global Jihad, Left, Mellemøsten, Terror — limewoody @ 2:19 pm

The oldest Jewish cemetery in England is in Mile End, in the heart of the East End of London. It was created exactly 350 years ago on the orders of the Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell, who, overruling his own council, officially readmitted Jews to England for the first time since their expulsion in 1290. I came across it recently while visiting Queen Mary University, where I had once taught history, to give a public lecture.

The disused cemetery is now marooned on the Queen Mary campus, which is itself an island in the East End, an area long since abandoned by Jews and now populated mainly by Muslims. With its graves dating back to the 1660’s, Mile End is thus a reminder both of the continuity of Jewish life in Britain and of its precariousness. And the reminder is timely, for today the atmosphere in England has become less hospitable for Jews than at any time since Sir Oswald Mosley’s Blackshirts marched through the East End in the 1930’s.

You do not have to go far from Queen Mary University to discover one reason why Jews—and not only Jews—are feeling insecure. Less than a mile away stands the East London Mosque, whose chairman, Muhammad Abdul Bari, is also secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain. This makes him, in effect, the chief spokesman for British Muslims. On the eve of the fifth anniversary of 9/11, Bari told the Sunday Telegraph:

Some police officers and sections of the media are demonizing Muslims, treating them as if they’re all terrorists—and that encourages other people to do the same. If that demonization continues, then Britain will have to deal with 2 million Muslim terrorists—700,000 of them in London.

In fact, far from demonizing Muslims, the police have gone to inordinate lengths to accommodate their sensitivities. Scotland Yard now consults self-appointed community leaders like Bari before mounting anti-terrorist operations in “Muslim areas”—thereby risking the possibility that secret information might leak out and compromise public safety. Since the London bombings of July 7, 2005, which killed 53 people, the police have been obliged to keep thousands of Muslims under surveillance while investigating up to a hundred separate conspiracies to commit terror. But rather than expressing shame that such unprecedented measures have been necessary, “moderate” Muslim leaders like Muhammad Abdul Bari have responded with thinly veiled blackmail. As often as not, British support for Israel is invoked as high on the list of Muslim grievances. The message is simple: unless Britain withdraws that support, every Muslim will become a potential suicide bomber.

Such implicit threats have had their effect on the non-Muslim majority. At a dinner after my lecture, a professor remarked, as if it were a generally accepted platitude: “Of course, the only terrorist state in the Middle East is Israel.” Nobody contradicted him. The delegitimization of Israel in the British academic world has become one aspect of a new and more powerful wave of outright anti-Semitism, a phenomenon that has been greatly accelerated by the response to last summer’s war in Lebanon.

In some ways, the new anti-Semitism is much like the old. Consider Jenny Tonge, a legislator from the Liberal Democratic party who gained notoriety two years ago by empathizing publicly with Islamist suicide bombers. She thereby distinguished herself even among the ranks of her fellow Liberal Democrats, who have seized on resentments against Israel and the U.S. with all the zeal of a third party struggling to get noticed in a two-party system. Removed from her party post, though by no means disgraced, she was subsequently honored with a peerage. This summer’s war in Lebanon enabled her to go a crucial step beyond extolling suicide bombers by attacking not only Israel but Jews in general. “The pro-Israel lobby has got its grips on the Western world,” she said in a speech at a party conference in September. Pausing for effect, she added: “its financial grips.” Another pause. “I think they’ve probably got a certain grip on our party.”

The background to this heavy hint about undue Zionist influence on party politics was a scandal involving not the Liberal Democrats but Labor. In particular it was an allusion to Michael Levy, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s special envoy to the Middle East and until recently the Labor party’s chief fund-raiser. In July, during the course of a police investigation into possible corruption, Lord Levy was briefly arrested. (It is unclear whether he will actually be charged with any crime.) The fact that he is Jewish is, of course, irrelevant to the case—but not to Jenny Tonge’s inflammatory insinuation that Jewish money is corrupting British politics. Even so, she got away with it.

A second example comes from the other side of the political spectrum. Sir Peter Tapsell, a senior Conservative member of parliament, claimed at the height of the Lebanon crisis that Blair was colluding with President Bush “in giving Israel the go-ahead” to commit “a war crime gravely reminiscent of the Nazi atrocity on the Jewish quarter of Warsaw.” This obscene equation, another staple of the anti-Semites, was uttered during a televised debate on the floor of the House of Commons. Yet Tapsell, too, got away with it, including in the conservative press; following his lead, the Telegraph published a cartoon depicting two scenes of devastation, one labeled “Warsaw 1943” and the other “Tyre 2006.”

Not only do the Tapsells and Tonges go unreprimanded these days, they are admired and imitated. The loathing of Israel, once confined to oppositional groups, has penetrated to the very core of the British establishment. At the height of the Lebanon war, two peers of the realm reportedly came to blows within the hallowed precincts of the House of Lords. Apparently, Lord Janner, a prominent spokesman for Jewish causes, said something about Israel’s right to self-defense that so enraged the octogenarian Field Marshal Lord Bramall that he was moved to assault his seventy-eight-year-old interlocutor. One might have supposed that, like misogyny, anti-Semitism had ceased to be a characteristic vice of the English upper class; this incident suggests that it is back with a vengeance.

Of course, such things are not unique to England. If, according to opinion polls, two-thirds of Britons thought Israel had reacted “disproportionately” to Hizballah’s provocation in July, the same consensus was reflected straight across the continent, fostered and abetted by media coverage of the conflict. Europe’s synthetic anger at Israel, skillfully manipulated by Hizballah, appears to meet some deep-seated need to blame the Jews for Muslim rage against the West. Just as slurring Israel by identifying it with the Nazis has become commonplace, so has questioning Israel’s very right to exist.

One of the most infamous expressions of this new and unfettered brand of European anti-Semitism emerged this summer in Norway, where Jostein Gaarder, the author of Sophie’s World, an international best-seller introducing children to philosophy, joined forces with Hamas, Hizballah, and Ahmadinejad’s Iran by calling for the extinction of the Jewish state. In an open letter published in Aftenposten, Norway’s leading newspaper, Gaarder reached back into history to claim that “the first Zionist terrorists started operating in the time of Jesus.” He concluded his screed with a prophecy:

The state of Israel in its current form is history. . . . But fear not! The time of trouble shall soon be over. The state of Israel has seen its Soweto. We are now at the watershed. There is no turning back. The state of Israel has raped the recognition of the world and shall have no peace until it lays down its arms.

At an earlier stage in Norway’s history, the great Nobel laureate Knut Hamsun (1859-1952) had been similarly tainted by anti-Semitism and, in his case, pro-Nazism. After the war, Hamsun was punished despite his advanced years. In the present age, no one in the Norwegian government bestirred himself to utter a single word of criticism against the country’s most celebrated writer. But soon after Gaarder’s diatribe appeared in print, as if on cue, a plot was uncovered to destroy the Israeli and American embassies in Oslo.

Britain, then, is hardly alone. Still, the degree to which anti-Semitism has seeped back into “one of the least anti-Semitic countries in the world” (in the words of Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks) is both startling and appalling. With the Lebanon war, it was as if a psychological dam had burst. The seepage suddenly became a flood.

The dimensions of the flood were measured in an official report issued in August by an all-party parliamentary committee on anti-Semitism, none of whose members was Jewish. A growing “anti-Semitic discourse,” as the committee circumspectly phrased it, was creating “an atmosphere where Jews have become more anxious and more vulnerable to abuse and attack than at any other time for a generation or longer.”

That is true enough, as is the fact, similarly noted by the report, that the “discourse” in question is as much a feature of the Left as of the far Right. Nevertheless, the report’s authors go out of their way to exonerate those on the Left who “perhaps do not even realize that the language and imagery they have used has resonances of a long tradition of anti-Jewish discourse and stereotypes.” Even if this were the case, which is highly doubtful, it would hardly diminish the impact of the constant repetition of anti-Semitic tropes and iconography in the left-wing media, from a cover story in the New Statesman titled “Kosher Conspiracy” and illustrated by a Star of David piercing a Union Jack to the Guardian’s cartoon image of an Israeli fist with Star of David brass knuckles smashing the face of a Lebanese child.

But that is not the only or the most blatant dodge of which the authors of the report were guilty. Among Muslims, they write, only “a minority . . . of extremists” are guilty of anti-Semitic speech. In plain fact, anti-Semitism is a fixture of even the most mainstream Muslim organizations. Here and elsewhere, and most especially in its failure to nail the lie that Israel’s existence or behavior is at the root of the problem, the report rationalizes Muslim anger and contributes to the most damaging libel of all: that Jews are to blame for the hatred of which they are the victims.

Finally, the report is stuck in an outdated notion of prejudice—namely, that it is to be understood as a product of racism, preferably of the neo-Nazi variety. This is what allows the authors to overlook the influence of religion (i.e., Islam) and understate the influence of culture (especially of the left-wing variety) in fomenting the violent attitudes and behavior they abhor. According to the Community Security Trust, which monitors physical and verbal attacks on Jewish targets, there was an unprecedented rise in anti-Semitic incidents during the Lebanon conflict, with over 90, three times the monthly average, clocked in July alone. Even more sinister than the attacks themselves, many of which were clearly linked to hostile reporting about Israel, were the profiles of those responsible. Muslims, not surprisingly, were “overrepresented.” But so too were middle-class, educated whites, and women as well as men.

British Jews, themselves overwhelmingly middle-class and educated, are thus faced with a nightmarish choice: to repudiate Israel or to lose their liberal credentials—if not, indeed, their British credentials. The perverted reasoning goes like this: since Israel is at fault for inciting Islamist terrorism in England, those who refuse to dissociate themselves from Israel are acting against the British national interest. This argument can be conveniently adapted to suit leftists or rightists, internationalists or isolationists, the prejudices of the ignorant or the convictions of the sophisticated.

There is also, to be sure, an element of plain old-fashioned fear behind much of the new anti-Semitism. Just what the British are afraid of became obvious when an al-Qaeda conspiracy to destroy up to five transatlantic airliners was foiled early in August, just as the Lebanon war was ending. Two things magnified the impact of the revelation: the spectacular scale of the plot itself—fully comparable to 9/11—and the fact that the two dozen suspects who were arrested were British. Briefly and frighteningly, the focus of the global war on terror shifted from the faraway battlegrounds of Baghdad to the leafy suburbs of London. The Home Secretary, John Reid, was compelled to impose crippling security measures on all British terminals; at Heathrow, the world’s busiest airport, the clampdown triggered alarm and disruption on a huge scale.

Although the plot had nothing to do with the war in Lebanon—the police had been watching the suspects for many months—the occasion was seized upon and exploited to shift the blame once again onto Israel and the West, especially in the form of the U.S.- and UK-led war on terrorism. Two days after the airport-security alert, an open letter to Tony Blair from a broad coalition of Muslim politicians and organizations appeared in full-page newspaper advertisements. Under the heading, “Protect Civilians Wherever They Are,” the letter slyly equated victims of Islamist terrorism in the West with Lebanese or Palestinian casualties in the conflict with Israel. It was, according to the signers, “the debacle of Iraq and now the failure to do more to secure an immediate end to [Israeli] attacks on civilians in the Middle East” that was putting “civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad.” Blair was thus duly warned that he had better “change our foreign policy to show the world that we value the lives of civilians wherever they live and whatever their religion.”

This brings us to the link between the new anti-Semitism and the latest developments in British party politics. Even before the disclosure of the bomb plot, it was becoming clear that the relentlessly hostile portrayal of Israel in the media was undermining Tony Blair’s status. In an atmosphere in which demonstrators in Trafalgar Square were proclaiming “We Are All Hizballah Now,” sticking up for Israel’s right to self-defense was made to seem tantamount to condoning the massacre of innocents.

In July, with the prime minister on an extended trip to the United States, several of his own cabinet ministers took the opportunity to distance themselves from his stance on the Lebanon war by denouncing Israel’s actions as—that word, again—“disproportionate.” Speaking before a Muslim audience, Jack Straw, Blair’s former foreign secretary and Labor’s floor leader in the House of Commons, attacked both Israel and indirectly Blair himself for “destabilizing the already fragile Lebanese nation.” In the United States, Blair was privately adjured by his ambassador and by the current foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, to abandon his support of President Bush’s view that Israel must be allowed to defeat the Hizballah terrorists. Capitulating at last, Blair insisted while in Los Angeles that he understood Muslims who “see only the bombs and the brutality of war, and sent from Israel,” and called on the West to “bend every sinew of our will to making peace between Israel and Palestine.”

But these rhetorical concessions were not enough to win the forgiveness of his party. By the time a ceasefire was brokered in Lebanon, leaving Israel frustrated and Hizballah largely intact, most of Blair’s cabinet had concluded that his support for Israel and George Bush—both integral to his neoconservative convictions—had become an electoral liability in a Britain where the Muslim vote might well swing the next general election. And so the stage was set for a very British coup. In the dog days of August, a plot was hatched to force Blair out in favor of his old rival, Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown. After two weeks of frenzied maneuvering, and facing the prospect of open revolt, Blair finally gave way, announcing that the party’s conference in September would be his last.

The British establishment had suffered a collective nervous breakdown. Unnerved by the threat of internal as well as external terrorism, chafing under the yoke of a strong leader who had forced it to leave its European comfort zone and face up to the clash of civilizations, it panicked. Only a year after Blair had overcome the nation’s doubts about the invasion of Iraq to gain an unprecedented third term for Labor, he was being forced into a humiliating exit. Thus did the response to Israel’s war with Hizballah become the catalyst for the most shameful betrayal of a prime minister since the ouster of Margaret Thatcher by her own party in 1990.

The Left, of course, exulted. So, undoubtedly, did Europe’s Islamists. Having by their violent actions dispatched Prime Minister José María Aznar of Spain, and then Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, they were soon to be rid of a far more formidable enemy: Tony Blair.

But where in all this were the British Conservatives? For a while, it appeared that the chief beneficiary of the Blair putsch would be not his putative successor Gordon Brown, who emerged rather soiled in the eyes of the public, but David Cameron, the leader of the opposition. By far the most inexperienced person to lead the Conservative party in the three centuries of its history, Cameron had never held ministerial office, and had yet to make a single speech about foreign policy. The revolt against Blair thus gave him a unique opportunity to take possession of the legacy of Churchill and Thatcher: patriotic and democratic, cosmopolitan and conservative, pro-Atlanticist, pro-Zionist, pro-active in the struggle against totalitarian creeds.

Cameron chose the anniversary of 9/11 to deliver his first major foreign-policy address. But instead of demonstrating that he was big enough to fill Tony Blair’s shoes, he joined those criticizing Blair for aligning England too closely with the United States, and devoted the intellectual core of his speech to an emphatic rejection both of the Bush doctrine and of neoconservatism. Calling for “humility and patience” in dealing with the Muslim world, Cameron blamed Bush and Blair for having “fanned the flames of anti-Americanism, both here in Britain and around the world.” The terrorists, he stipulated, were “driven by a wholly incorrect interpretation—an extreme distortion—of the Islamic faith”; but their “deformed vision” was nevertheless “part of a wider picture that includes the perception by many Muslims that Islam is under attack . . . and the belief that the West deliberately fails to resolve issues of crucial concern to Muslims, like Palestine.”

The Muslim “beliefs” and “perceptions” cited by Cameron are monstrous lies. But no matter: unlike Tony Blair, who had been “slavish” toward the United States, he for his part pledged to show “sensitivity” toward Islamic nations. Above all, he said, the West must demonstrate its “humility and patience” toward Islam by dissociating itself from Israel’s behavior in Lebanon. About the existential threat to Israel from its neighbors, about the wave of anti-Semitism that has gripped the Islamic world and is infecting his own country, Cameron spoke not a word; nor did he give any hint of sharing Blair’s conviction that Israel’s war on terror was the West’s war, too. Instead, the Tory leader came close to suggesting that the West had picked the wrong side in the Middle East conflict.

One need not look far for explanations of the new Conservative policy toward Islam and Israel. Among its other purposes, Cameron’s speech was aimed as a pitch to Muslim voters, some of whom certainly took notice. “The Tories are reaching out to us and we must reach out to them,” commented the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK, a radical Islamist organization that supports jihad and is implacably hostile not only to Israel but to Jews (a/k/a “the Zionist community”).

Others, admittedly, were less impressed. At a cocktail party on the evening of September 11, I encountered the writer and Middle East expert David Pryce-Jones, who, having read reports of Cameron’s speech, told me he had decided to quit the Conservative party. George Osborne, Cameron’s second-in-command, happened to be standing nearby, so I introduced him to Pryce-Jones, who gave the politician a piece of his mind. In a long and heated discussion, Osborne defended the party leader’s speech on political grounds by stating that Lebanon had been the last straw for the British public, which simply would no longer support Blair’s foreign policy. He also believed that most Americans felt the same way, and had by now abandoned Bush-style neoconservatism. Osborne paid no attention to Pryce-Jones’s reasoned objections. Instead, an account of the exchange, hostile to Pryce-Jones, was planted in a gossip column. Cameron and his circle do not take kindly to criticism.

When, last March, I wrote with modest hopefulness in these pages about “Britain’s neoconservative moment,” I could not have foreseen this latest turn of events. What will it mean for the Atlantic alliance if the British people in general and the Labor party in particular have indeed given up on the war against terrorism, and if the Tories mean to exploit their new political opportunity by appeasing Islamic radicalism?

Two recent incidents suggest at least the possibility that the situation is not quite hopeless, and that reality may yet break in. The first was Pope Benedict XVI’s brief critique of the doctrine of jihad, a critique whose validity was immediately confirmed by the hysteria and violence it evoked in the Muslim world. Leaving aside the question of what exactly Benedict meant by quoting the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus on Muhammad’s “evil and inhuman . . . command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,” his words put European Christians on the spot.

For too long, such Christians have passed by on the other side as their own co-religionists have been persecuted in Muslim lands. They have hidden behind the pretense that, in David Cameron’s words, Islamist terrorism is “a wholly incorrect interpretation—an extreme distortion—of the Islamic faith.” No doubt the Muslim demonstrators outside Westminster Cathedral who demanded the Pope’s execution, and who held up banners proclaiming “Islam will conquer Rome,” were indeed extremists. But they were also one end of a continuum of intolerance that embraces much of Islam. The number of Catholics suffering persecution in Muslim countries has been estimated at more than 100 million. By speaking out, the Pope ran the risk of making their situation even worse. But now that he has spoken out, European Christians in general and Catholics in particular have a duty to decide where they stand on freedom of speech and religion.

It was very striking that public opinion in Britain overwhelmingly supported the Pope, even though no politician defended him. The former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, praised the “extraordinarily effective and lucid thesis” of Benedict’s lecture and called on Muslims to address Islam’s association with violence “as a matter of great urgency.” It was not Islamophobia in the West, Carey said, but rather the Muslim world’s “deep-seated Westophobia” that made the confrontation between the two civilizations “potentially cataclysmic.” True, the rest of the Anglican and Catholic hierarchies preferred to behave as if the Pontiff had apologized and moved on. But Benedict’s words have clearly had a historical and spiritual resonance that will outlast transient political discourse.

The second incident took place not far from the Jewish cemetery at Mile End with which I began. In mid-September, soon after Blair set a date for his departure, Home Secretary John Reid came to the East End to talk to a Muslim audience. His message was an unpalatable one: your sons and daughters, he said, are in danger of being “groomed” to become suicide bombers. If you are worried about this, tell the police.

One member of the audience, a Jamaican convert to Islam who calls himself Abu Izzadeen, interrupted the minister: “How dare you come to a Muslim area?” Impressed by the highly articulate Abu Izzadeen, the BBC promptly invited him to appear on its flagship Today program. Millions listened as he denounced Reid as a “murderer” and Blair as “an enemy to Muslims and an enemy to Allah.” Dismissing democracy and free speech, Abu Izzadeen declared that Britain “doesn’t belong to you, or to the Queen, or to the government, but to Allah. He has put us on earth to implement shari’a law.”

The BBC’s toughest interviewer, John Humph-reys, was speechless. So were many others—but with rage. Opinion polls showed that Reid, already a hero for his role in uncovering the transatlantic bomb plot and Blair’s most loyal lieutenant, was suddenly the most popular candidate to succeed him. Like Nicolas Sarkozy, his counterpart in France, Reid is seen as tough on terror and tough on the causes of terror. If, faced with the terrifying prospect represented by the likes of Abu Izzadeen, the British are perhaps not so sure that Cameron-style “humility” is quite what they want, that is good news.

Indeed, Abu Izzadeen’s attempt to claim the East End as an exclusively “Muslim area” may not be mere fantasy. In 2012, the East End will host the Olympics. Waiting to be built, in a spot adjacent to the Olympic village, is the largest place of worship in Europe: the London Markaz, part of a vast complex projected to cost £100 million, most of it coming from Saudi Arabia. The organizational backer for this project is Tablighi Jamaat, a Muslim missionary group that the FBI has labeled a recruiting ground for al Qaeda.

London, with over 1,000 mosques, is already Europe’s unofficial Muslim capital. Its status will be enhanced immeasurably by the Markaz, whose size—it is projected to hold 70,000 worshippers—will dwarf St. Paul’s Cathedral and Westminster Abbey. To contemplate the building of so potent a symbol of Islamic triumphalism over Europe’s Christian heritage is all but incredible.

Will it happen? Britain today is a nation torn between defiance and appeasement, led by a political elite that with few exceptions seems to be intimidated by Islam and reluctant to address—when it is not complicit in—anti-Semitism. The British people are not lost to the West, but the battle to preserve liberty in their country is only just beginning. Which makes it all the more fitting that the immediate battleground should be the East End, the place where so much began in the days when Cromwell’s Latin secretary, John Milton, was writing Areopagitica, his great defense of free speech, and when Menasseh ben Israel was pleading successfully for Jews to be treated with toleration.

Unlike too many other Jewish graveyards in Europe, Mile End has not been desecrated. Not yet.

November 22, 2006


Filed under: Historie, Left, Terror — limewoody @ 8:20 am


For the Victims of the Holodomor 1932-1933 [Induced Starvation,

Filed under: Historie, Left — limewoody @ 8:15 am

More here:

By Roman Serbyn, Professor Emeritus
Universite du Quebec a Montreal, Canada

Action Ukraine Report (AUR), #791, Article 1
Kyiv, Ukraine, Sunday, November 19, 2006

During the 70 years of communist rule in Ukraine, this Soviet republic
suffered a number of severe famines, the most destructive of which was
the terrible Holodomor of 1932-1933.

The term “holodomor” was coined from the Ukrainian noun “holod” (hunger,
starvation, famine) and verb “moryty” (to cause to be wasted, to kill).

Since it is now known that all the famines were preventable, many Ukrainians
apply the term to the other Ukrainian famines as well.

Recent studies, based on documentation released since the fall of communism
and the breakup of the Soviet Union show clearly, that throughout the whole
period, the Ukrainian Soviet Republic produced enough foodstuffs to be able
to feed all of its inhabitants.

The famines were the result of Moscow’s diverting of Ukrainian resources to
purposes other than the satisfaction of Ukrainian population’s hunger.

FAMINE OF 1921-1923
The first widespread famine began in the summer of 1921 and lasted for two
years. It affected the grain rich southern half of the republic, where two
consecutive years of drought completely destroyed the harvest.

Approximately one million people died, mostly in the villages but the urban
centres were also affected.

Had Ukraine been truly an independent country with a government which
put the vital interests of the Ukrainian population at the centre of its
preoccupations, this famine could have been avoided.

Ukraine had not yet been completely despoiled by the German occupation of
1918, or by the part of the Russian civil war fought on Ukrainian soil, or
by the White and the Red Russian wars of reconquest of the Ukrainian “bread
basket”. The harvest in the northern half of the republic were adequate and
even in the southern part there were still some, if insufficient, reserves.

An truly independent Ukrainian government would have arranged to have
foodstuffs transferred from the north to the south, and no human lives
needed to have been lost.

But Kharkiv, now the capital of an officially sovereign and independent
Ukrainian SSR was in fact an administrative centre taking direct orders from
Moscow. And Moscow had other priorities than to safeguard the lives of
rebellious Ukrainians.

Drought had also devastated the Volga valley and the Northern Caucasus
regions in the RSFSR and affected several times more people than in
Ukraine. Famine casualties there were also much higher than in Ukraine.

Moscow decided to come to the rescue of the starving population of the
RSFSR. All taxation in the famine regions were suspended while they were
twinned with regions that had a regular harvest, and the latter were ordered
to provide famine relief.

At the same time, Moscow ignored the famine in Ukraine and ordered the
Ukrainian republic, designated as a single unit, to help the starving
population along the Volga . Moscow also appealed to the West for foreign
aid for Russia, keeping silent about the famine in Ukraine.

In fact, when in November 1921, a fact-finding mission of the American
Relief Administration enquired about conditions in Ukraine, it was told by
Moscow that there is no reason to go to Ukraine because that Republic was
providing famine relief to Russia.

What the Russian authorities failed to mention was that Ukraine was doing
this at Moscow’s orders and at the expense of it’s own population’s
starvation and death.

Ukraine was eventually opened to famine relief, due to the perseverance of
the ARA-JDC effort to bring aid to the starving Jewish population of
southern Ukraine.

Since the 1921-1923 famine was a regional scourge, decimating the urban as
well as the rural dwellers, the Jewish population of southern Ukraine also
suffered greatly and alarmed their relatives and friends in Western Europe
and North America. The American Joint Distribution Committee was already
a participant in the ARA relief effort in the RSFSR.

Together with the ARA it prevailed upon Moscow to allow a fact-finding
mission to go to Ukraine and eventually American aid, paid for the most part
by the JDC, was allowed to come to Ukraine. ARA soup kitchens were opened
in Ukraine in April 1922, eight months after their appearance in Russia.

Other charitable organizations were also allowed to set up famine relief in
Ukraine in 1922. In October 1922, the Kremlin declared the famine vanquished
and Moscow began exporting grain from Odessa, to the disgust of
international charitable organizations, which continued to provide famine
relief for another year.

The great famine of 1932-1933 differed from the one in 1921-23 in which
there were important adverse climatic conditions, the harvests in 1932-1933
were adequate.

All serious scholars agree that in spite of the upheavals due to
dekulakization and collectivization, and even grain export, there was enough
cereal grain reserves to feed all the population of the Soviet Union.

The 1930s famine also differed in that its target was the whole rural
population of Ukraine, while the urban centres received survival rations.
The people who died from starvation in the urban centres were mostly
peasants who had come to seek food.

Unlike the 1921-23 famine, the 1932-33 catastrophe affected primarily
Ukraine and the Kuban’ region of Northern Caucasus, while the food
shortages in the regions of the RSFSR contiguous to Ukraine were much
less severe.

As a result of the famine the Ukrainian SSR lost, according to various
estimates, from four to ten million people, overwhelmingly ethnic
Ukrainians, since they made up 90 % of the republic’s agriculturalists.

Perhaps as many as one million farmers died in the RSFSR, but we do
not have a clear idea of their ethnic composition.

One of the most heavily devastated areas was the Northern Caucasus
Territory, where 2/3 of the population of the Kuban region was Ukrainian;
other affected regions were inhabited by Germans, Tatars and other ethnic

The great famine came in the wake of the so-called Stalin’s revolution from
above. Having outmaneuvered his competitors for Lenin’s mantle, Stalin
could finally undertake the transformation of the backward Soviet empire
into a modern industrial and military superpower.

Most of the capital for this endeavor would have to come from agriculture,
which would also have to sustain the growing industrial population with

Tsarist agriculture had shown Stalin that the best providers of marketable
grain were the large estates of rich landowners, while the more recent
Bolshevik experience taught him that door to door confiscation of peasants
produce was a very inefficient method of procurement.

Since most of the arable land was now in the hands of the middle and poor
peasants, most of the food produce was now consumed by the farmers and
little was left for the State procurement.

Collectivization would recreate large agricultural exploitations over which
the State would have a direct control and could squeeze out of them as much
as it wished. Collectivization would also correspond to Marxist ideology and
the satisfy the Party’s quest for better control over the peasant

Stalin and the party hierarchy was well aware that collectivization would be
strongly opposed by the peasantry, especially in Ukraine, the Kuban, and
other regions that did not have the Russian tradition of peasant obshchina
(sort of commune).

They also knew that forceful imposition of collectivization would have very
disruptive consequences for Soviet agriculture and that total production
would undoubtedly decline.

Finally, Stalin and his henchmen could not fail to realize that in Ukraine,
the opposition to the destruction of the peasants’ traditional way of life
would assume national overtones.

In fact, recent documents such as Stalin’s correspondence with Kaganovich
and Stalin-inspired decisions of the Politburo reveal that the “peasant”
and “national” questions became intertwined in Kremlin’s policies during the
early 1930s.

Collectivization was adopted as part of the first Five Year Plan in December
1927 but was not strongly implemented until 1929. In December of that year,
the Politburo ordered the dekulakization of the villages.

Kulaks were rich peasants or those deemed to have a kulak mentality.
Theoretically numbering about 5 % of the peasant population they were
divided into three categories and dealt with accordingly.

The first category, the richest and most ferocious adversaries of the State,
were exiled into special settlements outside Ukraine, after some of the
heads of families were executed.

The second category was exiled to other regions of Ukraine and third
category was allowed to stay in the same village. In both cases they were
prevented from joining collective farms and were allotted poorer lands for
their own use.

In this way several hundred thousand of Ukraine’s most dynamic and
productive agriculturalists were destroyed or marginalized from the
Ukrainian society.

The property confiscated from the “kulaks” was turned over to the
collective farms in order to draw to them the poor peasants.

Dekoulakization thus fulfilled several goals for the regime: it brought
class struggle into the village, it provided property for the new collective
farms, it provided cheap labor in remote desolate regions of Russia, and
it removed the natural leaders of the Ukrainian peasant opposition.

Dekulakization weakened but did not prevent active peasant opposition to
collectivization. This opposition manifested itself in various ways, from
armed resistance to the so-called “babs’ki bunty” (women’s revolts).

Dekulakization was over by 1931, and most of Ukrainian peasants had been
forced to join the kolkhozes by the fall of 1932 when the great famine
began. Throughout the dekulakization, collectivization and the famine
itself, USSR exported huge quantities of grain: 1930 – 5.8 million tons;
1931 – 4.7 m.t.; 1932 – 1.6 m.t.; 1933 – 2.1 m.t.

One million tons was sufficient to feed five million people for one year. It
should also be noted that even with the exports, the State’s grain reserves
never dipped below 1.5 m.t., i.e., enough to save the starving population
from untimely suffering and death.

The first wave of induced famine hit Ukraine in the winter-spring 1932 when
half a million died; the second wave commenced in the fall of that year and
peaked sometime in the early spring days of 1933.

The direct cause of famine were high procurement quotas which most of the
kolkhozes and remaining individual peasants were unable to meet and which
Stalin refused to lower to a manageable level.

Stalin knew very well the situation in Ukrainian villages. He was
continually informed by his envoys to Ukraine Molotov, Kaganovich, Kosior
and Postyshev. He received complaints and requests for lowering of
procurement quotas from the Ukrainian leaders Petrovsky, Chubar, Terekhov.

The OGPU sent periodic reports showing the catastrophic situation in the
Ukrainian villages. Stalin’s response was always the same: there is grain in
Ukraine, saboteurs are hiding it, the grain must be found and the saboteurs
be punished.

During the worst months of the famine, party faithfuls, helped by workers
sent to Ukraine from Russian industrial centres and by local peasant
activists went from house to house, seeking hidden grain and other
foodstuffs, confiscating the last pieces of edibles from the peasant tables.

Kolkhozes and individual farmers were put on “balck boards” (black lists),
forbidden to buy the basic necessities of life: matches, kerosene, and other
manufactured goods.

Two documents which have recently come to light reveal that Stalin’s
extermination policy was directed specifically against the Ukrainian people.

On 14 December 1932 a joint resolution of the Central Committee of the
Communist Party and the Council of Peoples Commissars of the USSR
condemned the process of Ukrainization which had been carried out in
Ukraine and Northern Caucasus (especially Kuban) for the problems in
State procurement in these regions.

Ukrainization had allowed, according to the document, Petliurites, Ukrainian
bourgeois nationalists to infiltrate local administrations, educational
establishments and the mass media outlets, create counterrevolutionary cells
and pursue a policy of sabotage and destabilization.

The solution ordered by the Party/State hierarchy was put Ukrainization in
Ukraine on its original track: to integrate the Ukrainian people into the
Soviet system. Petliurites and Ukrainian bourgeois nationalist were to be
removed from Soviet institutions in Ukraine and punished.

The punishment of the 8 million Ukrainians in the RSFSR amounted to
complete annihilation of their ethnic identity: Ukrainian bourgeois
nationalists were to be removed from all public institutions in RSFSR,
the Russian language was to replace Ukrainian in all sectors of social life
where Ukrainian was used: local administration, newspapers and journals.

All Ukrainian schools were to be Russified. In addition, the inhabitants of
many of the Ukrainian stanytsias, settled by descendants of the Ukrainian
Zaporozhian cossacks were to be deported to the north and resettled with
loyal Russian peasants from infertile lands.

The second document, which shows Stalin’s intent to exterminate a part of
the Ukrainian nation, is his directive cosigned by Molotov, and sent on 22
January 1933 to the republican authorities in Ukraine and Belarus, and five
Russian regional administrations along the Ukrainian borders.

The order blames the OGPU for allowing the previous year peasants from
Ukraine and the Kuban to go north, allegedly in search of food, but in fact
to spread propaganda against the kolkhoz system. These Petliurites and
agents of Pilsudski must not be allowed to do the same this year.

A mass movement has already started once more in Ukraine and the Kuban,
and it must be nipped in the bud. The addressed authorities must warn their
peasants against leaving their villages and take all the necessary means to
prevent a peasant exodus. The Railways are forbidden to sell tickets to
peasants in those regions.

The OGPU is ordered to arrest all peasants who do not heed the warning
and try to cross the Ukrainian border. As a result of this directive, in the
ensuing six weeks, the OGPU arrested some 220,000 people, sent about
190,000 back to their starving villages and dealt otherwise with the rest.

These two documents provide convincing evidence that the Stalin-made famine
of 1932-1933 meets the requirements of genocide as defined by the United
Nations Convention on the Prevention of Genocide, adopted by the General
Assembly on 9 December 1948.

The crucial element of the definition, the question of intent to destroy in
whole or in part, is demonstrated by Stalin’s decision to close internal
Soviet borders thus isolating peasants of Ukraine and the Kuban to prevent
them from seeking refuge in the more benign conditions of Russia and

The second element of the definition, that the target group be identified as
national or ethnic is also met. The segregated peasants made up a national
group (in the civic sense of the term) as citizens of Ukraine, while at the
same time 90 % of them were ethnic Ukrainians.

Some three quarters of the Kuban peasants and Cossacks were of Ukrainian
ethnic background and thus compose an ethnic group. The nexus between
the two targeted groups was their Ukrainianness.

The third famine began in the fall of 1946 and reached its peak in the
spring of 1947. The main causes of the famine were similar to those of the
previous famines: exorbitant procurement quotas for grain and other
agricultural produce, which drained the country side of vital resources, and
Stalin’s unwillingness to aid the starving population in those regions that
suffered from drought and a poor harvests.

During the famine period, the Soviet Union shipped cereals to its new
satellites: Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Hungary and Czechoslovakia and
even Finland and France. Some 2.5 m.t. of grain was exported.

The famine touched particularly the newly annexed Izmailivs’ka and
Chernivets’ka oblasts, where collectivization of agriculture had dire
consequences for the agrarian population. Other regions of Central and
Eastern Ukraine were also affected by food shortages.

To escape the famine, peasants fled to Western Ukraine, where the climatic
conditions had been more benign and the harvest more plentiful. To prevent
this peasant movement, the authorities posted guards along the main routes
to turn the refugees back.

In Western Ukraine, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and
the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) tried to impede the export of Ukrainian
grain to the West. Soviet authorities provided famine relief only to those
who worked in the fields, where soup kitchens were set up during working

In all, about one million Ukrainians, mostly peasants, perished from
starvation during the famine of 1946-1947.

In conclusion, all three famines, 1921-1923, 1932-1933, and
1946-1947 were the result of Moscow’s deliberate diverting of
Ukrainian resources to purposes other than the satisfaction of
Ukrainian population’s hunger.


November 16, 2006

Gearing up for the War

Filed under: Global Jihad, Historie, Islam, Left, Media, Migration, Multi Kulti, Terror, Western civilisation — limewoody @ 7:55 am

global pot

November 13, 2006

Prepare for a new Kampuchea…..Made in Leftville, Mediaocre and Stupidistan…

Filed under: Islam, Left, Media, Terror, USA — limewoody @ 8:12 am

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Democrats, who won control of the U.S. Congress, said on Sunday they will push for a phased withdrawal of American troops from Iraq to begin in four to six months, but the White House cautioned against fixing timetables.

“First order of business is to change the direction of Iraq policy,” said Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who is expected to be chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee in the new Congress.


Older Posts »

Create a free website or blog at