RUTHFULLY YOURS

One of the biggest questions about fighting terrorism is whether we intend to fight it on the military level or on the ideological level.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

Wars have ideological components. Propaganda likely predated the written word. Undermining an enemy’s morale can be a very effective means of turning the tide of battle. But in warfare, the ideology is there to further military aims, while in an ideological war the military is a tool for achieving ideological victories over the enemy.

It’s a fundamental distinction that cuts deep into the question of what we are doing in places like Afghanistan and what we hope to accomplish there.

The dichotomy between words and bullets could occasionally be somewhat ambiguous during the Bush Administration, but there was a general understanding that we were on a mission to kill terrorists and their allies. If by killing them, we could discredit their ideology and dissuade fellow terrorists from following in their footsteps, so much the better.

The Obama Administration has shifted the primacy of the conflict to the ideological sphere. Like the rest of the left, it would rather fight ideological wars, which are its strength, than military conflicts, which aren’t.

The left believes it understands ideas, but is much weaker when it comes to military affairs. Even Stalin did his best to avoid an open conflict with Hitler. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union remained afraid of superior Western firepower and technology and pulled back from any test of American determination that risked breaking out into open warfare.

Florida Professor Gives ‘Civilization Jihad’ Lecture, Despite Attempts by Hamas-Backed CAIR to Shut it Down Florida Professor Gives ‘Civilization Jihad’ Lecture, Despite Attempts by Hamas-Backed CAIR to Shut it Down: A University of Central Florida professor spoke before a full audience Tuesday night and warned that there is a “civilization jihad” being waged by Islamic […]

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/an-unambiguous-example-of-harry-hopkinss-pro-soviet-perfidy-revealed

Diana West’s American Betrayal enumerates an impressive litany of FDR “co-President” Harry Hopkins’s pro-Soviet activities. Here is a partial listing: his excessive largesse toward the USSR via Lend-Lease, which he oversaw, even to the point, arguably, of sacrificing American and British military needs; his relentless dedication to Stalin’s “Second Front” demands, opposing at least equally viable military alternatives less “advantageous” to Soviet expansionist designs in Eastern Europe, as originally laid out in the secret August, 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany; his dismissal of the 1940 Soviet Katyn massacres of 22,000 Polish civilians, soldiers, and officers; his labeling of Soviet defector to the U.S., Victor Kravchenko (author of the memoir, “I Chose Freedom”), a “deserter,” while pressing FDR to deport Kravchenko back to the USSR, where he faced certain execution; and, according to one very credible American witness, his apparent role in the facilitation of uranium shipments to the Soviets-after such shipments were embargoed.

This incomplete litany far transcends the controversy over whether Hopkins was Soviet “agent 19”-a case made, separately, by intelligence historians Eduard Mark, and Herbert Romerstein, but contended by the intelligence historian team of Haynes and Klehr.

Perhaps the most compelling evidence West presents of Hopkins’ traitorous perfidy is conveyed by reproducing a personal and confidential letter FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover wrote to Hopkins and FDR (dated May 7, 1943), and chronicling what followed via revelations from a KGB archive. But what is of equal importance, in terms of West’s discussions of the glaring omissions in our historical understanding is a striking example of how established academics-in this instance, Christopher Andrew, insert their own a priori judgments in attempting to exculpate Hopkins of having consciously abetted Soviet anti-US espionage. More remarkable is Andrew’s omission of objective evidence-the direct contents of Hoover’s letter to Hopkins-making explicit what Hopkins had been told about Soviet “embassy member” Zarubin/Zubilin, i.e., that he was a Comintern agent.

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/08/15/a-soldiers-story As told to our correspondent, George H. Wittman Usually there are only twelve men in a patrol. It depends. When possible, there are three more. These extra guys are what the Army calls “redundant.” I don’t think it’s the correct word in ordinary English, but in Army lingo it means that the jobs these […]

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/08/15/scarlett-ohara-runs-for-presid “Anyone who says racial discrimination is no longer a problem in American elections must not be paying attention.” — Hillary Clinton to the American Bar Association “Hillary cannot have black women’s allegiance for free. Black women will not be relegated to the status of supportive Mammy, easing the way for privileged white women to enter […]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/355812/coming-hillarycult-charles-c-w-cooke Dispiriting as it is to admit for those of us who like our republics modest and our republicans unassuming, we are living through one of those bothersome periods in American history in which cults of personality are all the rage. Cory Booker’s victory on Tuesday evening was as inevitable as will be his coronation […]

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2013/08/14/lars-hedegaard-on-american-betrayal-by-diana-west-her-book-is-among-the-most-well-documented-i-have-ever-read/

Lars Hedegaard on “American Betrayal” by Diana West: “Her book is among the most well-documented I have ever read.”

Historian and journalist Lars Hedegaard, who has—wait for it—actually read Diana West’s “American Betrayal [1],” made these very insightful comments on the book:

What Diana West has done is to dynamite her way through several miles of bedrock. On the other side of the tunnel there is a vista of a new past. Of course folks are baffled. Few people have the capacity to take this in. Her book is among the most well documented I have ever read. It is written in an unusual style viewed from the perspective of the historian—but it probably couldn’t have been done any other way.

Hedegaard, a former Marxist, who left the movement just over thirty years ago, was one of the editors of the Fundamental historie series of books–world history from a Marxist perspective, in 4 volumes. He also edited a volume of the Hvem Hvad Hvor (“Who What Where”) yearbook in the 1980s. At present, he edits the online and print editions of the newspaper Dispatch International.

Lars Hedegaard’s major writings of late, which have focused on Islam, include the following books and articles:

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4049/polly_toynbee_s_bbc Test of maturity: If Polly Toynbee says something is good do you automatically, and therefore, assume that it is bad? Perhaps that’s too taxing for the depths of mid-Summer. But one suspects that most of us see the temptations while fighting hard not to succumb to them. Fight all you like. When it comes […]

http://pjmedia.com/blog/will-republicans-blow-their-senate-chances-one-more-time/?print=1 In 2010, the  most favorable environment for Republicans since the 1994 midterms, the GOP picked up 63 seats to take control of the House of Representatives. Nationally, the GOP won the House vote by 7%, after losing by 11% two years earlier.  Republicans also gained six Senate seats that  November, and they won a […]

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/the-dark-world-of-vladimir-putin-on-the-glazov-gang/

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Igor Melcuk, a Professor Emeritus of Linguistics at the University of Montreal and Member of the Royal Society of Canada. A scientist and “reluctant” Soviet dissident, he left the Soviet Union in 1977 after being expelled from the Institute of Linguistics of the Academy of Sciences because he defended Andrei Sakharov​ in a letter published in The New York Times​.

Prof. Melcuk joined the Gang to discuss The Obama-Morsi Deal? The discussion took place in Part II (beginning at the 7:00 mark) and focused on the reports in the Arabic media that the U.S. president made a secret agreement with the Brotherhood on the Sinai. [See also Daniel Greenfield’s report on how Muslim Brotherhood Leader’s Son Claims MB is Blackmailing Obama with “Evidence That Could Put Him in Prison”] The segment also dealt with The Goals of Obama and The Dark World of Vladimir Putin.