Some Insight From Someone Who Understands What Is Behind The Unrest

David Horowitz is what is called a ‘red-diaper’ baby. His parents were admitted communists who taught in the New York City schools. He was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine, Ramparts. In the 1990’s, after an incident during which he learned the true character of the Black Panthers, David Horowitz began moving toward more conservative thought. His story is told in his book Radical Son. Because of his involvement in leftist political causes as a young man, he understands how the political left works. Today he posted an article about the events in Charlottesville at Newsmax.

Here are a few of his observations from the article:

The tragedy in Charlottesville, Virginia, could have been an occasion to stop and consider how the tolerance for politically correct violence and politically correct hatred is leading the nation toward civil war.

Instead, the media and the political left have turned this incident into the biggest fake news story of the summer, transforming its real lessons into a morality play that justifies war against the political right, and against white people generally.

The organizers of the “Unite the Right” demonstration in Charlottesville were repellent racists.

But they came to defend a historic monument honoring a complex man and cause, and not to attack it or, presumably, anyone else.

They applied for a permit and were denied. They re-applied successfully in a petition supported by the local ACLU.

If they had come to precipitate violence, why would they have gone to the tedious trouble of applying for a permit?

Not unlike the Nazis who marched in Skokie, Illinois, years ago, they had the right to march. No one had to agree with them, but had they been left alone, they probably would not have even made the news.

The article further notes:

What “Unite the Right” actually demonstrated was that the assortment of neo-Nazis, pro-Confederates, and assorted yahoos gathered under the banner of the “Alt-Right” is actually a negligible group.

This supposed national show of strength actually attracted all of 500 people.

Compare that to the tens of the thousands who can readily be marshaled by two violent groups of the left — Black Lives Matter and Antifa — and you get an idea of how marginal “white supremacists” are to America‘s political and cultural life.

Yet “white supremacy” and its evils became the centerpiece of all the fake news reporting on the event, including all the ludicrous attacks on the president for not condemning enough a bogeyman the whole nation condemns, and that no one but a risible fringe supports.

Talk about virtue signaling!

Omitted from the media coverage were the other forces at work in precipitating the battle of Emancipation Park, specifically Black Lives Matter and Antifa, two violent left-wing groups with racial agendas who came to squelch the demonstration in defense of the monument.

Unlike the Unite the Right demonstrators, the leftist groups did not apply for permits, which would have been denied since there was another demonstration scheduled for that park on that day.

One major conclusion reached in the article:

Once the two sides had gathered in the same place, the violence was totally predictable.

Two parties, two culpabilities; but except for the initial statement of President Donald Trump, condemning both sides, only one party has been held accountable, and that happens to be the one that was in the park legally.

What is taking place in the media accounts and political commentaries on this event is an effort by the left to turn the mayhem in Charlottesville into a template for their war against a mythical enemy — “white supremacy” — which is really a war on white people generally.

The ideology that drives the left and divides our country is “identity politics” — the idea that the world consists of two groups — “people of color” who are guiltless and oppressed, and white people who are guilty and oppressors.

This is the real race war.

The media is playing a major role in tearing America apart. I can’t help but wonder if they will like the results if they are successful in separating us into warring groups and stealing our history and identity as Americans.

Who Is Antifa?

One way to subvert a political movement is to plant radical people in it to make the entire group look bad. This happens in political campaigns all the time when candidates are forced to return a donation from a fringe group they may have been unaware of or a candidate is invited to give a speech somewhere that turns out to be a questionable set-up. The alt-right is a name the media has associated with racism, hatred, and general radicalism. If you carefully watch the way the media uses the term, you can see an attempt to expand the term alt-right to anyone who opposes the liberal agenda of the media. The media would like to convince you that believing good things about America and its future is unacceptable, racist, and radical. Meanwhile, a group called antifa pretty much gets a pass on anything they do.

Who is antifa? Antifa was started after World War II in Germany to counter the fascism that Hitler had brought to the country.

A website called jacobinmag describes the roots of antifa as follows:

Yet despite its failure to stop Hitler in 1933 and veritable dismantling in subsequent years, Germany’s socialist labor movement and its decidedly progressive traditions outlived Hitler in the factories of its industrial cities, and began gathering up the fragments as soon as open political activity became possible.

These groups, oftentimes launched from the aforementioned housing estates, were generally called “Antifaschistische Ausschüsse,” “Antifaschistische Kommittees,” or the now famous “Antifaschistische Aktion” – “Antifa” for short. They drew on the slogans and orientation of the prewar united front strategy, adopting the word “Antifa” from a last-ditch attempt to establish a cross-party alliance between Communist and Social Democratic workers in 1932. The alliance’s iconic logo, devised by Association of Revolutionary Visual Artists members Max Keilson and Max Gebhard, has been since become one of the Left’s most well-known symbols.

Essentially antifa is a communist group.

The article goes on to discuss how antifa should “fight a resurgent far right in the Trump era.” Obviously I disagree with that statement. There is nothing ‘far right’ about wanting to preserve America‘s history. There is nothing ‘far right’ about wanting to preserve the values of our Founding Fathers. I don’t believe that America is destined to become a communist country despite the efforts of groups like antifa. However, if we don’t get back to teaching our children the heritage of America and the extraordinary character and wisdom of our Founding Fathers, we could be in danger of losing the freedoms so many Americans have fought and died for.

Not every American in Charlottesville protesting the removal of historic statues was a racist, neo-nazi, etc. I am sure there were some people there who simply objected to the removal and eventual rewriting of American history. Those people had a permit to allow them to march. Antifa did not. Violence is unacceptable, but protest marches are legal. Who brought the violence? The violent incident caused by a neo-nazi has been widely reported. Has anyone reported the violence on the part of antifa?

The news media has taken sides against political conservatism (and American history). They did that a long time ago. The reporting on Antifa and the trouble they have caused in recent years (Berkley, Charlottseville, various G20 summits, etc.) has been limited and will probably continue to be so. The reporting on any extremes on the political right has been put on the front pages above the fold. Americans need to understand that they are being played.

 

We Need To Ask What Has Changed

There is a lot of talk on the news yesterday and today about the tragedy in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Saturday. But I think there are a few things that are being left out of the discussion. The first is the right of Americans to hold differing views, even if some of us regard those views as despicable or unacceptable. The First Amendment gives us the right to be offensive. The First Amendment does not give anyone the right to violence.

In 1977, the leader of the Nazi Party in America announced that he was organizing a march on Skokie, Illinois, home of many Jewish people and many holocaust survivors. Horrendous idea, but legal. At first the city tried to block the march, but eventually the courts said that the march could go forward because of the First Amendment. As awful as this was, it was allowed under the First Amendment. The First Amendment allows free speech–it does not encourage the censorship of certain speech, even though that speech may be unacceptable to many of us.

According to a Jewish Telegraphic Agency article from 2013, this is what happened the day the march actually occurred:

The NSPA (Nationalist Socialist Party of America) march was held on June 25, 1978, though the march never materialized. About 20 or so  Nazis congregated for only ten minutes, and throngs of Jewish and other groups drowning out their voices. Jewish organizations planned counter marches not only in Skokie, but in New York City and other places.

Meir Kahane also held a rally in 1977, after the initial cancellation but prior to the court rulings permitting it to go ahead. Kahane urged a crowd estimated at 400 to “kill Nazis now” and to arm themselves, exhorting them: “Every Jew a .22.”

President Carter also issued a statement: “I must respect the decision of the Supreme Court allowing this group (the Nazis) to express their views, even when those views are despicable and ugly as they are in this case. But if such views must be expressed, I am pleased they will not go unanswered. That is why I want to voice my complete solidarity with those citizens of Skokie and Chicago who will gather Sunday in a peaceful demonstration of their abhorrence of Nazism.”

Why was the city of Skokie able to avoid the type of violence we saw in Charlottesville? Was it simply a matter of numbers? Another thing to keep in mind was that not all the people demonstrating in Charlottesville were racists, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, etc. I am sure there were people who were there simply to protest the tearing down of national monuments and the erasing and rewriting of our history.

There was also a very interesting post at The Gateway Pundit yesterday which included the following:

FOX News reporter Doug McKelway attended the violent protests Saturday in Charlottesville, Virginia.

…This was after violent Antifa terrorists launched an attack on the white supremacists.

Doug McKelway: We are now beginning to hear criticism bubble up on all sides of this event about the initial slow response by the police. When I got out of my car yesterday in Charlottesville about 10:30 in the morning you knew this was a bad scene and bad things were going to be happening because people were congregating at Lee Park and Emancipation Park wearing helmets, body armor, carrying big heavy sticks. Nobody was intent on peace here from either side. People were intent on causing havoc and causing damage. And even as wounded were being brought out of the park police were sitting idly by. I was standing off a cordoned off area where the police had set up as a staging area, the state police, and they said you can come in here this is a safe area. But when the tear gas started to fly, thrown by protesters, the police themselves began to evacuate then. I asked the guy who was in charge, “Where you going?” He said, “We’re leaving. It’s too dangerous.” They had a chance to nip this thing in the bud and they chose not to.

We had riots in Baltimore when the police stood down. We had riots in Berkley when the police stood down. What is going on here?

 

How Far Does Free Speech Go?

I will admit that free speech is not always comfortable. We have allowed Nazis to hold parades in America under the banner of free speech, and I am sure that everyone has groups they disagree with that hold parades or protest various things. That is their right. Or so we thought.

CBN News is reporting today that a federal appeals court has ruled against a group of Christian evangelists who were forced to leave an Arab-American street festival in Dearborn, Michigan, in 2012.

The article reports:

Festival-goers threw rocks and water bottles at members of the Bible Believers group when they denounced Islam and called Mohammed a false prophet.

In response, Wayne County authorities threatened to ticket the Christian group if they did not leave.

On Wednesday, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals backed county authorities, ruling 2-1 that police were only trying to keep public order.

The article included part of the judges’ ruling:

“The video from the 2012 festival demonstrates that (evangelists’) speech and conduct intended to incite the crowd to turn violent. … Although robustly guarded by the First Amendment, religious conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society,” the three-judge panel wrote in its ruling.

Think about that for a minute. The judge was judging the intent of the evangelists–not the actions of the crowd. I thought when you threw a bottle at someone, you were responsible for throwing the bottle–I didn’t realize that the person you were throwing the bottle at was responsible for making you mad.

The dissenting judge had an opinion more in line with the First Amendment:

“The First Amendment protects plaintiffs’ speech, however bilious it was,” Judge Eric Clay wrote in his 11-page dissent. “The majority … provides a blueprint for the next police force that wants to silence speech without having to go through the burdensome process of law enforcement. I expect we will see this case again.”

Again, the evangelists were simply speaking–they were not rioting or destroying property. It was their speech that was stopped–not the actions of the violent crowd. We have forgotten who we are.

Irony At Its Best

On July 1, the U.K. Telegraph posted the story of Hessy Taft, the baby the Nazis used in their propaganda to epitomize the perfect Aryan child. What the Nazis did not know was that Hessy was Jewish. Ms. Taft is now Professor Taft and teaches chemistry in New York.

The article explains what happened:

In 1935, with the city rife with anti-semitic attacks, Pauline Levinsons took her six-month-old daughter Hessy to a well-known Berlin photographer to have her baby photograph taken.

A few months later, she was horrified to find her daughter’s picture on the front cover of Sonne ins Hause, a major Nazi family magazine.

Terrified the family would be exposed as Jews, she rushed to the photographer, Hans Ballin. He told her he knew the family was Jewish, and had deliberately submitted the photograph to a contest to find the most beautiful Aryan baby.

“I wanted to make the Nazis ridiculous,” the photographer told her.

He succeeded: the picture won the contest, and was believed to have been chosen personally by the Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels.

…Her photograph appeared on widely available Nazi postcards, where she was recognised by an aunt in distant Memel, now part of Lithuania. But the Nazis never discovered Prof Taft’s true identity.

Mrs. Taft recently submitted her photograph to Yad Vashem.

From A Friend On Facebook

This story is from a website called truthseekerdaily.com. It is what happened when the children Sir Nicholas Winton had saved from the Nazi death camps in Czechoslovakia had a chance many years later to pay tribute to Sir Winton. Sir Nicholas Winton rescued approximately 669 children.

This is the YouTube video:

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Post From The Gates Of Vienna Website

Yesterday was the 75th anniversary of Kristallnacht. The following commentary was taken from the Gates of Vienna website. I am not going to comment on it, it speaks for itself:

What made the Nazi Holocaust possible? Gun control

The Night of the Broken Glass, the Nazi pogrom against Germany’s Jews [occurred] on Nov. 9-10, 1938. Historians have documented most everything about it except what made it so easy to attack the defenseless Jews without fear of resistance. Their guns were registered and thus easily confiscated.

To illustrate, turn the clock back further and focus on just one victim, a renowned German athlete.

Alfred Flatow won first place in gymnastics at the 1896 Olympics. In 1932, he dutifully registered three handguns, as required by a decree of the liberal Weimar Republic. The decree also provided that in times of unrest, the guns could be confiscated. The government gullibly neglected to consider that only law-abiding citizens would register, while political extremists and criminals would not. However, it did warn that the gun-registration records must be carefully stored so they would not fall into the hands of extremists.

The ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power just a year later, in 1933. The Nazis immediately used the firearms-registration records to identify, disarm and attack “enemies of the state,” a euphemism for Social Democrats and other political opponents of all types. Police conducted search-and-seizure operations for guns and “subversive” literature in Jewish communities and working-class neighborhoods.

Jews were increasingly deprived of more and more rights of citizenship in the coming years. The Gestapo cautioned the police that it would endanger public safety to issue gun permits to Jews. Hitler faked a show of tolerance for the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, but Flatow refused to attend the reunion there of former champions. He was Jewish and would not endorse the farce.

By fall of 1938, the Nazis were ratcheting up measures to expropriate the assets of Jews. To ensure that they had no means of resistance, the Jews were ordered to surrender their firearms.

Flatow walked into a Berlin police station to comply with the command and was arrested on the spot, as were other Jews standing in line. The arrest report confirmed that his pistols were duly registered…

…which was obviously how the police knew he had them. While no law prohibited a Jew from owning guns, the report recited the Nazi mantra: “Jews in possession of weapons are a danger to the German people.” Despite his compliance, Flatow was turned over to the Gestapo.

This scenario took place all over Germany — firearms were confiscated from all Jews registered as gun owners. As this was occurring, a wholly irrelevant event provided just the excuse needed to launch a violent attack on the Jewish community: A Polish teenager who was Jewish shot a German diplomat in Paris. The stage was set to instigate Kristallnacht, a carefully orchestrated Nazi onslaught against the entire Jewish community in Germany that horrified the world and even the German public.

Kristallnacht has been called “the day the Holocaust began.” Flatow’s footsteps can be followed to see why. He would be required to wear the Star of David. In 1942, he was deported to the Theresienstadt concentration camp, where he starved to death.

One wonders what thoughts may have occurred to Flatow in his last days. Perhaps memories of the Olympics and of a better Germany flashed before his eyes. Did he have second thoughts about whether he should have registered his guns in 1932? …

Enhanced by Zemanta

Social Media And The Holocaust

The Blaze posted a story today about an Israeli-based social media genealogy company that is using the Internet to help match property stolen by the Nazis to heirs of the victims. A website called My Heritage founded by Gilad Japhet lets people build their family trees on line. The names on that website are being matched up with the names of businesses and properties seized by the Nazis during the reign of Adolph Hitler so that restitution can be made to survivors and heirs.

The article reports:

“We are only just seeing the huge impact that social media will have on Holocaust history,” said Robert-Jan Smits, the director-general of the European Union’s commission for research and design. “We are moving from dusty archives to digitized databases.”

One of the driving forces behind the new push has been Gilad Japhet, CEO and founder of Israel-based MyHeritage, a social media website with about 70 million registered users worldwide that lets individuals build their own family trees online.

A few months back, Japhet read a report about the Claims Conference’s list of over 40,000 buildings, stores and factories that could not be matched with their original owners. Japhet matched some names on the list to the millions of names that users had posted on MyHeritage’s family trees online.

This is fantastic. The article explains:

Japhet put together a team of five employees and had them write a computer program that automatically matches the names on the Claims Conference’s list with those on the virtual family trees. So far, they have been able to match about 150 names on the list with names on the family trees. They expect to continue working on this project for several more months.

Nothing can make up for the suffering the Jews went through under Adolph Hitler, but it is wonderful to know that members of families who lost everything will be compensated.

Enhanced by Zemanta