Monday, July 27, 2015
An interesting symposium from 2007. Jamie Glazov, the counter-jihad journalist from Frontpage Magazine, interviews (occasionally intruding his anxiously asymptotic thoughts) Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, and Robert Tefft.
For the seasoned counter-jihad reader, it's nothing terribly new or surprising, but I found it mildly stimulating to see Tefft's comparative rigor as a refreshing contrast to the varying degrees of asymptotic, nougaty squishiness from the other three -- where Daniel Pipes is reliably the worst; Jamie Glazov flounders about in his anxiety to protect Muslims from our anti-Islam opprobrium; and Robert Spencer as always in such discussions deftly navigates the (ultimately incoherent) fencepost in between.
Beyond that, it's at times engrossing to see three intelligent students of the problem of Islam weigh in on matters revolving around the crux of the matter: whether Islam itself is the problem, and whether Muslims are, qua enablers of Islam, to be included in that problem.
Readers of my blog of course know where I stand (yes, Islam itself, Islam, the whole Islam, and nothing but Islam, the whole Kitman and Kaboodle, is the problem; and yes, all Muslims, in a wondrous diversity of styles & flavors, enable that problem). I wouldn't be recommending this symposium if it hadn't been for the participation of Tefft. Though he's far from perfect, he's better than the other three, and at key points in the conversation, he helps to try to steer the conversation away from the undertow of the asymptotic deep end (ever perilously contiguous with the darker waters of PC MC) toward which his colleagues seem more naturally disposed to drift.
Friday, July 24, 2015
To supplement my older essay Hitler and Islam, I here provide some key quotes from Adolf Hitler drawn from the Table Talks (see links for each quote which all lead to the same book, each with different pagination, of course):
"Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers -- already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity! -- then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so." -- Adolf Hitler, Table Talks (p. 504).
"I can imagine people being enthusiastic about the paradise of Mahomet [Mohammed], but as for the insipid paradise of the Christians!" -- Adolf Hitler, Table Talks – (p. 111).
“...Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery." -- Adolf Hitler, Table Talks, -- (p. 111).
"Observe... that... the Mussulman [Muslim] was promised a paradise peopled with houris [virgins], where wine flowed in streams -- a real earthly paradise. The Christians, on the other hand, declare themselves satisfied if after their death they are allowed to sing Hallelujahs!" -- Adolf Hitler, Table Talks – (p. 48).
“The fact that the Japanese have attained their political philosophy, which is one of the essential reasons for their successes, is due to their having been saved in time from the views of Christianity. Just as in Islam, there is no kind of terrorism in the Japanese State religion, but, on the contrary, a promise of happiness. This terrorism in religion is the product, to put it briefly, of a Jewish dogma, which Christianity has universalized and whose effect is to sow trouble and confusion in men’s minds.” Adolf Hitler, Table Talks (p. 297).
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
No, my title isn't referring to a new interstate. Come to think of it, in a way it is, insofar as the international superhighway of the Internet is and will be paving the way for the slow but sure process of Western Awakening to the problem of Islam.
Broadly speaking, as we look ahead into the first few decades of this 21st century, we see that eventually the rubber will meet the road, as (pardon my mix of metaphor) this train wreck of a disaster unfolds. I say eventually because the mountains of data about Islam and Muslims, and the oceans of dots that scream for connection, all indicate that there is a global revival of Islam afoot, and Muslims are going to get horribly worse in behavior as they push the envelope of that revival in the decades ahead.
In a way, most of the reason why this will be a horrible train wreck of a disaster is because of the achingly slow pace of the West's Awakening in the face of this Islamic revival, whereby the West continues to add insult to injury by actively promoting its Denial as some kind of righteous wisdom.
Because Muslims will most assuredly get worse and worse (we can count on it), the West will eventually wake up and deal rationally with the problem. The question is not Whether, but When. As sure as one can be that Muslims will get worse, so too is it reasonable to predict that the West will not wake up until it is almost too late, and only after several million of us will have been mass-murdered in various ways, through various terror attacks perpetrated by Muslims in the West, with several million more injured and/or writhing in the agonies of the fallout of biological or chemical toxins or radiation disease.
As sure as the predicted behaviors of chemicals when we combine them, we can predict that Muslims will get horribly worse, Western PC MCs will resist rational self-defense for as long as humanly possible, and finally, when it's almost too late, the latter will react and respond, appropriately.
Part of this process involves my title: I-15. Standing for “Islam-15″, of course. To discuss the problem of Islam, naturally.
The West as a whole needs to—will (eventually)—set up a multi-national conference on the Problem of Islam.
Perhaps modeled after the “G8″ summits that have been held annually—the “Group of Eight” (used to be 5), “which brought together the heads of the richest industrialized countries: France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada starting in 1976″ which beginning in 1997, also included Russia, to discuss matters of geopolitical/economic moment. Call the new formation ɪ-15, to include France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark, Scandinavia, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel, Russia, and Eastern Europe nations (as a bloc).
This should be the first step to take. But of course, there are steps that must be taken before this first step, only because the West with regard to this problem has been running on fumes, for every step forward taking two steps back.
Step -1: Prior to Step 1, the Counter-Jihad needs to wake up its own West so that its own West realizes it has to take Step 1...
And before that can happen, we need a step yet before that…
Step -2: Prior to Step Negative 1, the Counter-Jihad needs to get its shit together.
I.e., the Counter-Jihad needs to realize that the most important activity it can engage in involves information & communication in the context of a War of Ideas.
And for this to work, it needs to produce a definitive, digitalized Anti-Islam Manual (which would also be an Anti-PC MC Manual). And by “definitive” I mean that it would be so complete and useful, it would render all other information—that vast profusion of Too Much Information out there that causes the eyes to glaze over—obsolete.
Speaking of eyes glazing over, the nature of the problem is sufficiently complex that it has forced me to articulate a post so long, with so many moving parts, I fear it loses the attention span of most readers...
Now, when I said at the beginning that the most likely prediction of the future sees the West waking up almost too late, after millions of us have been mass-murdered by Muslims, I wasn't then subsequently in my essay equating that eventual awakening with the “I-15” of my title. That subsidiary process represents only one of the penultimate chain of events in a long, drawn-out, clunky devolution groping for a clearer, surer handle on the ongoing catastrophe.
Monday, July 20, 2015
Friday, July 17, 2015
I've added another smiling face to my "Smiling Faces" gallery of photos of various Muslims who look nice and friendly and oh so assimilated -- and therefore beyond our suspicion on pain of charges of "bigotry" and "hate" and "racism" and "Islamophobia". This latest addition is hot off the presses -- Muhammad Youssef Abdulaziz, the nice friendly, devoutly religious Muslim (therefore to be "respected") who yesterday went on a jihad rampage, killing four Marines in Tennessee, and wounding three others (a Navy petty officer, a Chattanooga police officer, and a Marine recruiter). No doubt, as I have argued before, he wanted to kill more, and would have killed more if he hadn't been gunned down (finally, too late, because of Bill Clinton's law making certain classes of military installations "gun-free zones"). UPDATE: The Navy petty officer who initially was wounded and in serious condition, has since died of his wounds.
Check out the link above to see more.
Saturday, July 11, 2015
This is no Aesop's fable; it is Grimmer fare, and no fairy tale, this Fractured Fact (nor a straw man that has broken the camel's back)...
Stephen Coughlin, at the conclusion of his 10-part video presentation, the "Red Pill Briefings" -- during which he expatiates upon Catastrophic Failure, his Yellow-Pages-sized study of the American government's myopia to the problem of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration -- alights upon an interesting digression with a metaphor about the spider and the starfish. Here, the West is the spider, and Islam is the starfish. The reader will see where he's going with this by the end of the following transcript.
Although Coughlin is not the most polished speaker, he has a personable manner and one can tell he is brimming over with relevant information from years of experience and in-depth investigation. One can almost see him stumbling along finding the right words because his mind is just too full of vital things that need to be said at any given moment, yet he can't cram them all into a relatively brief presentation. Nevertheless, if one sits back and relaxes, and pays attention, one will learn a lot to interest, inform, and infuriate.
Here follows the transcript of a portion of the Q&A:
How many times -- is it the first 400 times that you got fooled by this? Where a group decides to break off from al-Nusra, or ISIS, because they want to be "moderate". You decide to train them and give them equipment because -- now they're "moderate"! All of a sudden they quit, and -- how could it happen...!? They all quit that group and went back to ISIS! You see: Is this the 50th time this has happened... AGAIN...!? It's like... so the question becomes... they... I think you [an audience member] hit ir right: They are able to form relationships and alliances, and flip, in a way that I think is completely coherent for them.... When I say it's coherent for them, I totally acknowledge, I can track them flipping, I can predict them flipping, [but] I don't ever quite get that they flip like this! Because, from a Western point of view, if I'm an ally of you [points to his left], I'm stabbing YOU [points to his right] in the back! And it just seems that they... flow in a different way. Has anyone here been to Cairo? Okay. You as a Westerner could never survive driving on those roads. The way they drive is total chaos! But they never get in an accident! They don't!
[From the audience: "How do they do it?"] Well, that's an interesting question; but my point is, you have to get over the fact that you may never understand that ... you can measure that they flip, but you might never understand why... that's why it's a different culture. By the way, I'm not making a judgement on that... I remember being in Cairo, watching the traffic go by, and if this were here, there'd be ten accidents in five minutes! And they don't even touch each other! How does that happen? Three lanes in a row, ten cars...
I think there are all sorts of groups in the Islamic world, some of them brothers, some not, and they go back and forth. A book that was popular a couple of years ago was The Spider and the Starfish, and the point of the book... in the Western understanding, you have the head department, you have bureaus [radiating out], you have things [further out] -- and everything works on a line and block chart. And so, you would say, "If the head of the Brotherhood is here, he must have this person here, and have that person there..." [person in audience: "This is not the case in the Arab world..."] It's not the case in the Arab world. We are "spiders", they're starfish. Each element does its thing and has its mission, but if you cut one of the pieces of the starfish off, it'll go and become a starfish... and it's ... the world's most perfect distributed information culture. So that what you have in Islam is... if everybody stopped believing, once somebody starts reading Islamic law as it's actually designed, it can rebuild itself; it just can restructure itself.
I'm a science fiction fan -- even bad science fiction. So I used to watch a TV show called Stargate; did anyone ever watch that show? Well, I can't use the metaphor... but they had these transformers, and no matter how you could break them down, they could re-form into what they are.... Muslim may be completely imperfect, and any group of them may have an imperfect understanding of Islam. But Islamic law is crystal-clear -- so much so that if you ... destroy it... they work so hard to keep you from reading Islamic law, and tell you there are many interpretations. Now, on one level, that is not untrue, but on another level it is absolutely clear! So I'm saying that the Muslim Brotherhood has an absolutely clear command of control, and they have total authority where they act. Now, there may be groups out there that affiliate, and are a part, but I would say in the U.S., they're offering ... you have to know what the central core is -- and it's not a person. Even though I would tell you... Qaradawi is the leader today; if you killed him, there are any number of people that would replace him, and never miss a beat. [from audience: "But in the end, they do work together for a common goal, and that's to conquer us, I'm convinced of that..."] But I think it's also true that the minute we're gone, you're going to have... them fight with the Left, but before you have that, you'll have Wahhabis fight with the Brotherhood -- and the Brotherhood represents you know, close to a billion Muslims, and the Wahhabis represent close to a hundred million...
Monday, July 06, 2015
The Better Cop has been developed to improve upon the Good Cop in the Good Cop/Bad Cop ploy.
In terms of the Stealth Jihad, the "Good Mo" (Good Cop) pretends that Islam is all sugar & spice and everything nice, and that, as a Good Muslim supporting that fantasy Islam, he or she represents the norm which has nothing to do with the Tiny Minority of Extremists -- the "Bad Mos" (Bad Cops).
Just as in the Good Cop/Bad Cop game, where the two cops are working in collusion but pretending not to, the violent & hateful Muslims wreak their havoc or spout their hateful rhetoric, while the Moderate Muslims step forward to assure the anxious Infidel that most Muslims are not extremists.
As Muslims have been spiralling out of control in the nearly 15 years derailing from September 11, 2001, this game has shown slight signs here and there of straining credibility. Hence the increased need to trot out a new and improved Good Cop: the Better Cop -- a Muslim who feels our pain, doncha know, and goes further in applying the blade of criticism for deeper cuts into the problem of Islam, knowing that the TMOE meme (Tiny Minority of Extremists) is beginning to wear thin by now (at least on the edges of the Mainstream).
It's still the same game -- but it's played to a specific audience: the warier members of the Counter-Jihad. It's a way of infiltrating the Counter-Jihad. Zuhdi Jasser and Maajid Nawaz are perhaps the most famous of this type (the former apparently fooling Frank Gaffney, the latter fooling Sam Harris).
Over the past couple of years, I have noticed this type pop up more and more; but, unfortunately, other than an occasional essay, I haven't kept close tabs on them enough to formulate an analysis. There was, for example, a Muslima named "Eilnyah" who wrote an open letter to the Great Defender of Muslims, Ben Affleck, in which she expressed the desire of herself and "those of us" for "reform" of the Unreformable Islam, and claimed that "[m]ost Muslims choose to interpret scripture in a peaceful way..." Then there was Hamel Abdel-Samad, who wrote an open letter in Germany sort of addressed to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in which he sounds many unusual, seemingly refreshing notes sure to seduce the more suspicious among us -- such as "Whoever lives here [i.e., Germany] must take on German values!" and expressing his change of mind over years to learn to appreciate satire and humor as a way of challenging his Islamic rigidity. And more, which one will glean from his letter. Sounds great, doesn't it? Only problem, he's still a Muslim, and as such he reveres Allah, Muhammad, the Koran, and Islam. For more specifics, see my comment about him.
Hopefully, I will try to do some more concerted analyis of various representatives of this subtype in ensuing months, and will record my efforts in subsequent essays.
Today's essay features just one of many -- both the Better Cop and the gull who seems fooled by them: Anooshe Mushtaq, a Muslima who writes commentary for various publications about the problem of Islam, and whose pics show a nice, personably secularized persona. About her, Counter-Jihad analyst Mark Durie writes:
...it is a hopeful sign that some Muslims, such as Anooshe Mushtaq, have been willing to explore the Islamic character of the Islamic State...
And what does Anooshe say? After a few paragraphs of the obligatory Better Cop rhetoric that apparently soothes the likes of Mark Durie as sweet taqiyya in his ears, about how dire the problem of extremism is in the Muslim world and how it finds receptive resonance among religious Muslims, she makes sure to assure the reader that:
The vast majority of Muslims, nationally and internationally, don’t support terrorist organisations or their extreme views.
Then she follows that with the requisite equivalency-cum-tu-quoque spasm:
However, there are people in all religions who take it further than others. Radicalisation is not a new trend. With or without the internet, it has been present in all religions throughout history.
Once she has made sure to establish the Affleck Doctrine (that "the vast majority of Muslims just wanna have a sandwich"), she's back to acknowledging the metastasizing, systemic problem, nevertheless, of extremism pullulating out of the Muslim world and spilling over into our world:
...we first need to understand why some Muslims are more susceptible to radicalisation, which seems to be spreading like a plague.
Sure, Mark Durie is ostensibly correct that Anooshe directly alludes to the Religion factor (i.e., the Islam factor) in explaining the appeal of ISIS to Muslims. That's certainly an improvement on the explanations that ignore the solidly and richly Islamic character of the ISIS ideology. However, true to the Better Cop tactic, she's only doing that to suck the Counter-Jihad Kafir in, while with the other side of her mouth she's ready to contextualize that Religion as extremist; thus:
Islamic State follows the Wahhabi sect of Islam... an ultra-orthodox sect that insists on a literal interpretation of the Koran and a literal implementation of its teachings... Strict Wahhabis believe all those who don’t practise their form of Islam are infidels and enemies.
Notice the sleight-of-hand there, implying that what Wahhabis are doing is not normative Islam, and thus distinguishing it from what inspires the "vast majority of Muslims". Her way of explaining why this non-normative, unrepresentative "sect" of Islam is having so much broad appeal among Muslims, and why this appeal is growing by leaps and bounds, thus has to unfold into tortured rhetoric and logic -- essentially disentangling (or, rather, entangling) two convoluted entrails intertwined with each other: one putatively benign, the other a growing global cancer.
Even granted the best case scenario, her thesis begs the question why such a horridlyy thorny problem is happening at all. The logic she (and all the TMOE Memers) assiduously avoids is that the "plague" spewing out of the Muslim world leads to the reasonable inference that there is something horribly wrong with the swamp whence it originates. From there, a more informed investigation and appraisal of the history of Islam confirms that the source (mainstream Islam) is the reason for the outbursts and bouts (ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, Al Nusra, Sudan, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Taliban, etc. ad Islamonauseam) which we keep seeing boiling over from the global cauldron of the Muslim world undergoing a global revival.
Saturday, June 20, 2015
Just about one year ago, on the fly and off the cuff, I published a series of photographs of Muslims who look nice and friendly because they are smiling (and therefore demonstrating that they are harmless if not even hopefully "reformist" -- so goes the logic of the PC MC mainstream and its decaffeinated cousins in the Counter-Jihad, the asymptotic Softies). Every one of the smiling Muslims I featured on that gallery are also direct or indirect enablers of jihad terrorism.
Over subsequent months, I keep running across more such photographic evidence of the Stealth Jihad, and I have tried to add to the gallery accordingly. My latest addition comes from a Jihad Watch story this week, which the reader will see when he scrolls down to the last photograph. The link is here:
Thursday, June 18, 2015
A somewhat regular Jihad Watch reader recently, with a typically asymptotic anxiety lurking between the lines (an anxiety further tempered by their modern Christian evangelism), posed the following rhetorical question:
So if there are no moderate Muslims, why do some Muslims apostasize when they finally read the Koran?
Then went on to add:
Yes, some moderate Muslims become more radical over time. But other moderate Muslims eventually apostasize…
Two problems here, closely related to each other, which indicate that this typical asymptotic is not keeping two important distinctions in mind. The two distinctions are:
1) There’s a difference between saying “all Muslims are dangerous” meaning it literally, and meaning it practically, insofar as we reasonably conclude that other factors (including our safety needs, and our knowledge of taqiyya) prevent us from being able to discern the difference between the harmless Muslim and the dangerous Muslim.
Which leads me to the second distinction:
2) The micro scale and the macro scale.
When I say these other factors prevent us from being able to tell the difference, I mean on the macro scale.
The macro scale is the broad, complex, diverse, and often confusing scale of large numbers of people in society – further multiplied into different societies, different cultures, different nations – all in our modern times inter-penetrating in a thousand different ways. Western nations, Western societies are not small villages – they are massive countries, with massive cities, and given their relative freedoms, a constant influx of people traveling, criss-crossing, emigrating, immigrating, etc. With the disastrous invitation of millions of Muslims over the past few decades (only escalating after 911, because of our insane multi-culturalism), coupled with the problem of terrorism emanating out of the Islam of these Muslims, this problem of the complexity of modern society becomes so big and complicated that in the coming decades the danger of terrorism – again, factoring in the other factors — will render it recklessly irresponsible for us to continue to treat Muslims with the benefit of the doubt and not rather treat them all under equal suspicion.
The micro scale is when one individual, or a tight-knit small group of individuals who know each other, have one-on-one interactions with one Muslim. one at a time. On this micro scale, the well-intentioned non-Muslim Westerner can think and feel that here, they are actually making a connection and this Muslim really seems to be a decent person, capable of change. This may or may not be true. I certainly don’t rule out that various individuals (including myself) may be able to discern such a potentially moderate Muslim in such circumstances. However, I’m certainly not going to let the word of someone else vouch for, and vet, any Muslim in the context where a terror attack could happen -- or in the broader context of fostering an attitude in our society where we continue to embrace the influx of mass numbers of Muslims into our society by expanding the good feelings we may feel about the smattering few individual Muslims we may have had nice interactions with. Even if I myself were to experience those good feelings with a smattering few individual Muslims, I wouldn’t be so reckless as to ignore my civic duty and concern for my fellow citizens, friends and family and presume to foster such an attitude that tends to reinforce the disastrous trust of Muslim on the macro scale.
And if a person doesn’t think the problems and factors of the macro scale are that bad, such that we must reasonably conclude that they trump the micro scale, then they just haven’t been reading Jihad Watch carefully enough over the years.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Consider Exhibit A:
Maj. Gen. Michael K. Nagata, Commander of US Special Operations Forces in the Middle East -- on record uttering the following Klueless Klaptrap:
“ISIS Ideology is a conundrum”
“We do not understand the movement”
“We have not defeated the idea. We do not even understand the idea.”
And, naturally, the Mainstream vaunts this Keystone Komander, General Nagata, as a robust leader:
Meet the Shadow Warrior Leading the Fight against the Islamic State
More like shadow-boxing against the imaginary silhouettes of "radicalized Islamist jihadist extremists"...
Monday, June 15, 2015
As many readers may know, Diana West has encountered a few snags since publishing her last book, American Betrayal, a little over two years ago (May of 2013; it seems like a decade ago!) -- a book that according to her began to germinate in her mind as a study probing the problem of undue Muslim Brotherhood influence in Washington. As her research unfolded, she began noticing threads that resembled those of a whole other tapestry of subversion and sedition in our nation's history -- the era of Communist sabotage. She followed those threads conscientiously and like a true historian and scholar, went where the data led her with an open mind.
As readers also know (or should know), her book quickly became a phenomenon unto itself, and the imbroglio about the book became, in some senses, a problem almost as disturbing, and certainly as quizzical, as the much broader and deeper subject the book itself treated (viz., the era of Communist sabotage against America).
In a nutshell (and boy has it been chock full o' nuts!), the imbroglio, hoopla & brouhaha surrounding this weirdly sideways tangent her book triggered turned out to be the exceeding oddity of various anti-Communist conservatives attacking her for diligently recounting the history of a remarkable penetration into American government of Communist saboteurs and fellow-traveling enablers. These various conservatives wouldn't have minded if Diana had kept to the standard script of the "palace history" -- i.e., if she had described that Communist infiltration in relatively modest terms. Her mortal sin was to bring together a wealth of primary and secondary sources indicating much more infiltration than the standard histories have been conveying all these decades -- infiltration so extensive and penetrating, including subversive influence on major American and Allied policy decisions before, during, and after WW2 -- that it sullied the record of F.D.R. and Truman, and many others in their orbit.
At any rate, I didn't mean to be trying to recount the whole sordid mess these past two years have wrought -- a mess that Diana West herself and a precious circle of stellar friends (e.g., M. Stanton Evans and Soviet dissidents Bukovsky and Stroilov) have been scrupulously and meticulously cleaning up ever since.
A helpful page assembled at Gates of Vienna lists all the articles relating to this protracted train wreck -- at least up to early April of this year. There occurred two other episodes since that time, recounted by Diana West on her site. Every one of them shames the aforementioned conservatives who attacked Diana West, and exonerates her. All together, they convey a problem of such proportions it cannot be explained in any conventional manner. The tangled skein of disinformation and ostensible lies from West's opposition cannot reasonably be explained by stupidity, brain damage, or un-ideological motives such as intellectual competitiveness.
Nor -- and here's the bizarre part -- can it be explained as the result of Leftist propaganda; since the perpetrators have all been conservatives! (The only way to explain this oddity would be to try to argue that these conservatives in question were opposing what they saw in West's book was a reckless tendency toward conspiracy theory (which has been the tack most often taken by David Horowitz). But this explanation has two problems: it doesn't explain why these conservative critics time and time again ignored data, misconstrued West's words, and otherwise generated a jungle of ad hominems, goalpost-moving, straw men, and red herrings -- all meticulously documented by West's detailed and numerous responses to them. And, it fails to go beyond unfounded assertion and slander by implication, in the face of Diana West's impeccable scholarly comportment, never coming off like a conspiracy theorist, while within that temperament of integrity having the perfect right to raise the host of legitimate, and legitimately disturbing, questions which she does raise -- questions which scream to be asked, given the mountain of dismaying dots & data she uncovered and scrupulously footnoted.)
One of the juiciest and gutsiest tongue-lashings I have yet seen in this regard was published the other day by Diana West on her site -- a letter to the Editor of National Review, upbraiding that vaunted institution with a searing dressing down, which I reproduce here for the reader's delight (and dismay):
From: Howard Glickstein
Date: June 5, 2015 at 1:09:48 PM HST
Subject: Diana West, American Betrayal and your destruction of your credibility and integrity
I value National Review for Andrew McCarthy, Victor Davis Hanson and many other authors. That is why it is so dismaying and disheartening to have followed the consistently dishonest treatment NR has given to Diana West's book, even now, two years later.
Disagreement is one thing. Misrepresentation is quite another. I have been a litigator for 36 years (AV peer rated). I have read the evidence: the book, all the pieces in NR, and Ms. West's replies, including the ones you wouldn't publish or buried.
You have knowingly and repeatedly published as facts demonstrable falsehoods that any fact checking intern would catch.
This is not a close call. Dozens of lies are not an accident.
NR's conduct is unforgivable.
To see your publication become an exemplar of the Big Lie dishonors William F. Buckley's accomplishments, integrity and memory.
I expected more from Rich Lowry.
This doesn't pass the smell test. It reeks.
The inescapable question: since you're lying about this, what else are you lying to me about?
Attorney at Law
● ● ● ● ●
Further Reading (as if the reader needs more!):
A Google page listing most of my previous essays surrounding this conservative rabbit hole worthy of the canniest and most cunning Alinskyites.