Archive | History RSS feed for this section

Clinton’s 300

BCOfficialPortraitToday’s news went without much notice that Bill Clinton, a former American president who had known opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden before 9/11, admitted to an Australian audience hours before Bin Laden’s 9/11 plot was executed that he rejected the chance to kill the chief jihadist.

With Israel, which has refused to annihilate its enemies since it was created by the United Nations in 1948, being maligned for killing civilians in an unending conflict with Hamas, coordinated movements of illegal aliens into the U.S. and communicably diseased missionaries being returned to the U.S. in the name of family values, the former president’s declaration of self-sacrifice is more evidence of the past as prelude.

To paraphrase Ayn Rand in The Fountainhead, the entire West is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing and, with America on what I personally think is the verge of breakdown, collapse or implosion, there is less time and therefore more urgency and complexity in distinguishing right from wrong as America descends into fascism. For example, there may be a rational case to be made, as Tucker Carlson recently pointed out, that Israel’s incursion is not in its self-interest. Or that illegal aliens should be welcome in the U.S., as Yaron Brook argued against Leonard Peikoff. Or that infected Ebola patients should be admitted to an Atlanta, Georgia hospital. All of that to some degree presupposes a relatively free republic out of imminent danger and I reject those positions. Reasonable people may disagree.

But the case for killing a primitive Islamic chieftain that ordered the 9/11 attack prior to assault is unequivocal and Clinton’s statement (captured in an audio recording, according to Sky News Australia) explicitly confirms – particularly to those waffling conservatives that defend Reagan and Bush presidencies and Democrats who equivocate, too – that the U.S. government chooses to sacrifice its own people, both civilians and military, for the sake of helping others:

I’m just saying, you know, if I were Osama bin Laden … He’s a very smart guy. I spent a lot of time thinking about him. And I nearly got him once. I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan [sic] and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so I didn’t do it.”

In short, President Clinton chose to spare 300 Afghans presumed to be innocent rather than eradicate the Islamic terrorist whose plot to mass murder 3,000 mostly American innocents at the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and at other targets would be executed within hours of his altruistic statement. Here is his morality of self-sacrifice, shared by U.S. leaders then and now, from Reagan who failed to eliminate Islamic terrorism and instead abetted it, and Bush, who squandered the post-9/11 goodwill, to today’s empty president, Barack Obama, who actively seeks to destroy the United States in every meaningful sense and on every level. Remember this and that the American people generally support these views and presidents, too, if and when your flesh is burning from an Islamic terrorist attack or you hear the screaming jet engines or missile, though by then it will be too late.

Clinton, as I wrote in a roundup of DVDs about the 9/11 attack (read my report here), had plenty of opportunities to stop 9/11 before it was activated, including on February 12, 1999, the day that the U.S. Senate voted to acquit Clinton on charges related to the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, when he cancelled a military operation to attack Osama bin Laden because the terrorist was in the company of an Arabian prince whom the Clinton administration wished not to harm. Clinton’s choice came after his administration had asked which bin Laden camp tents were used as mosques, so as not to harm Moslem terrorists in prayer. Bin Laden began planning the 9/11 attack shortly after the aborted mini-strike.

In other words, time and again – and it’s done by conservatives, too – the U.S. government chooses to put the lives of others above the lives of Americans, a distinctly Judeo-Christian ethic (which Israel practices to its own doom, too). America’s enemies, by external or internal attack, demonstrate a faith-based drive to wipe out the West at any cost, destroying that which is most sacred to Americans, whether the tallest buildings, women, children or treasured institutions. This means Americans can count on being sacrificed and destroyed. Note the callous, dismissive, unthinking whimsy with which the former president’s last line before jihadists destroyed the World Trade Center was delivered – “so I didn’t do it” – and know that this casual dismissal of the primacy of a single American’s life applies to you, here and now. This willful disregard for American life is what must be utterly rejected. It must be met with the clear, moral case for egoism and with the conviction that life is, as Rand wrote, the ultimate value. When forced by those who seek to destroy the West to choose between the civilians they place in harm’s way and Americans, America and the West must always and with reverence for life be willing to choose to eliminate that which the enemy holds sacred and do so without a millisecond of doubt.

History shows that Atlanta, Dresden and Hiroshima among other places of mass destruction and enemy civilian loss of life led to periods of great unity, peace and harmony. The Bushes, Clintons and Obamas and their followers who seek to sacrifice Americans, as Clinton essentially chose to do before 9/11, are wrong. The argument for egoism as against altruism tells us why.

TV & DVD Review: ‘Path to Paradise’ (HBO)

PTP poster

Click to Buy

A story very much of its time, with indictments of individual liberty and with apologies for Islam, the made-for-cable Path to Paradise: The Untold Story of the World Trade Center Bombing is a capable account of what led to the February 26, 1993, Islamic terrorist attack on the Twin Towers before Moslem jihadists brought them down and mass murdered 3,000 people eight years later.

What’s unique about this picture, which premiered on premium cable channel Home Box Office (HBO) on June 14, 1997, is that it aired after the first major Islamic terrorist attack on the U.S. mainland though before the worst act of war in U.S. history. Both assaults were initiated by the same idea-driven fundamentalists and against the same primary target that would be forced by faith-based monsters to collapse on September 11, 2001. This provides an interesting window through which to examine HBO’s telefilm as a fact-based TV drama with enough time and distance from both strikes on the two towers.

As with almost every film about Islamic terrorist attacks ever made, Path to Paradise is bad on framing the enemy’s philosophy and better on recreating dramatic tension. Historians can see and judge for themselves, and there is a significant library of movies to study, that movies about acts of war by jihadists diminish the role of jihad – the Islamic faith’s tenet that life is an unending political struggle and one must wage war on the infidel – in direct proportion to the proliferation of the siege. For example, the earliest pictures about attacks on Americans on planes, ships and diplomatic missions explicitly name and identify, and often explore, Islam as the root of radical Moslem motive to strike down the infidel (anyone associated with the West). As recently as 1996, with Stuart Baird’s excellent Executive Decision starring Kurt Russell and Halle Berry, deeply religious Moslems are rightly depicted and named as seeking to destroy the West with catastrophic acts of war.

This is hardly the case anymore, and, as attacks get more catastrophic, references to Islamic terrorism shrink. The worst movies, such as Steven Spielberg’s Munich, imply that these acts of war are justified. Path to Paradise falls somewhere in between, neither ignoring and rationalizing jihad nor properly pegging Islam as the source for the worst modern acts of war. One Islamic character, based on an Egyptian who purportedly tried to warn the U.S. about the parking garage bombing of the Twin Towers, insists that Islam means peace.

Path to Paradise, which co-stars Marcia Gay Harden, is, as its title suggests, focused on what motivates Islamic terrorists to commit mass murder, which they did on that winter morning in lower Manhattan, blowing up a rented van, injuring 1,000 and killing six people. Here, Peter Gallagher (the film’s best asset and in one of the actor’s strongest performances) portrays FBI Special Agent John Anticlev recounting in retrospect how he and NYPD Detective Lou Napoli (Paul Guilfoyle), who were part of a joint task force on counterterrorism in the New York area, tried to catch and stop the Moslem radicals before they struck. After an assassin (Shaun Toub), who follows the commands of a blind jihadist sheik (Andreas Katsulas), murders a rabbi, it’s the good New York cops versus the bad and incompetent cops, who refuse to judge Islamic terrorist videos and writings – one translator dismisses the hateful, anti-American ideas as “Islamic poetry” – and the terrorists only fail to bring down the twin skyscrapers through their own errors. Aided by an Islamic bomber (Art Malik) who sails through U.S. immigration despite being in violation of the law, the terrorists come, go and attack as they please.

This leads the Gallagher character to conclude that freedom of religion is the problem, a barrier to stopping crime and acts of war. But Path to Paradise repeatedly demonstrates and dramatizes to the contrary in spite of itself, showing that a nation up to here in Big Government with layers and layers of controls and bureaucracies is at the mercy of those who follow rules. In an early pre-Mom role, actress Allison Janney appears as a policewoman who properly ridicules the incompetence of the federal government in fighting Islamic terrorism. So much of what’s depicted here, and this telefilm aired years after the 1993 attack, prefigures the government’s total dereliction of providing a national defense.

After the rabbi was gunned down by a jihadist, for instance, a government spokesman rushed to judgment and declared that there was “no indication at all” of a jihadist conspiracy, just like today’s government spokesmen do about Moslem attacks on the U.S. at Fort Hood, Boston and Benghazi. The police statement was made when evidence indicated that the opposite was true.

It’s tragic, too, that Marcia Gay Harden’s FBI agent deadpans to the informant that “the FBI doesn’t get to Libya much,” when he comes clean about the blind sheik’s jihadist plots in Africa (the Obama administration supposedly sent the FBI to Libya to investigate the 9/11/2012 attack on Americans at Benghazi). The reality that the plot to destroy the West and take over the world for barbarism is winning is undeniable as the informant talks about plans to remove Egyptian dictator and U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak. Like so much of what’s depicted in Path to Paradise, that happened months and years ago.

Nothing is so obvious, of course, as one watches this movie, as the fact that the Twin Towers would soon be downed and Islamic law would spread across the globe, gather power and topple country after country from Algeria to Iraq (now emerging as a new caliphate) as forecast by the lone voices against jihad who are deemed too harsh, extreme and pro-Western. Structured like a police procedural, the 90-minute Path to Paradise doesn’t get into the more detailed plot points, including what biological agent may have been prepared for or laced in the 1993 World Trade Center bomb, but it is an excellent example of what powers up the jihad and allows it to spread, fester and annihilate. In fact, unintentionally, the picture’s end credits punctuate the point that appeasement of jihad – the West’s refusal to name, identify and destroy state sponsors of Islamic terrorism – is ending America from within: a disclaimer as the towers still stand while the credits roll reads: “While based upon actual events, this film portrays the actions of a small group of individuals. It does not reflect the beliefs of the majority of Muslims and Arabs.”

How do the 1997 filmmakers know what they claim to know about the beliefs of most Arabs and Moslems? Blank out. Public opinion polls are not cited as evidence, not that polls are permitted in religious dictatorships that dominated the Arab world, then and more so now.

With the Arab world from Africa to Asia disappearing into a barbaric caliphate rising against the West, that statement that most Moslems are peaceful cannot be accepted as true. The towers are destroyed. The Pentagon has been attacked. The rights of the individual are under siege from an omnipotent American state rising in proportion to the rise of jihad and not a single counterrevolution against Islamism has taken root in the Arab world.

Path to Paradise despite the drawbacks provides an account of how the looming empty spaces and spreading darkness came to be.

TV Review: ‘The Disappearance of Glenn Miller’ (PBS)

GMiller (courtesy Wikipedia)An episode about one of World War 2’s biggest mysteries, “The Disappearance of Glenn Miller”, premieres on the PBS series History Detectives Special Investigations next week. I have always wanted to know more about the mystery and the series’ three investigators, who team up to solve each case, Wes Cowan, an independent appraiser and auctioneer, Kaiama Glover, professor at Barnard College, Columbia University and Tukufu Zuberi, a humanities professor at the University of Pennsylvania, sort through three main theories about the big band leader’s unsolved disappearance.

Toward the end of the war, enlisted Army Air Force band leader Miller, a hugely popular jazz musician, songwriter, composer and recording star in a league with the Beatles and Elvis for his time, took off with others on a plane bound for a Christmas concert for Allied troops in liberated Paris. The plane never arrived and was lost somewhere over the English Channel. There are several theories including conspiracy theories. The trio of history detectives briefly set up his background (he is known for his hits “In the Mood”, “Moonlight Serenade”, “Pennsylvania 6-5000″, “Chattanooga Choo Choo”, “A String of Pearls”, “At Last”, “(I’ve Got a Gal In) Kalamazoo”, and “Tuxedo Junction”) and the three theories: a crash, secret spy mission incident and downing by friendly fire.

It is true that a British air force bombing raid may have been in close proximity and the friendly fire theory is both examined and convincingly debunked. Among the finds are rarely heard recordings of Glenn Miller speaking in German for U.S. propaganda against the Nazi Wehrmacht. Actor David Niven comes into the picture, too, as having played an interesting role with Miller in espionage against the fascists in Germany. They were part of an apparent campaign to encourage an internal German resistance through the “swing kids” that worshipped American and Negro music at the time. The swing kids were targeted by Gen. Eisenhower, according to the history detectives, with Glenn Miller’s music. They were branded as “subversive and degenerate” by the Nazis and sent to concentration camps.

Apparently, Glenn Miller was not on the missing plane’s flight manifest, which the hosts explain is why there was a delay in the Army’s announcement, fueling speculation of conspiracies, and the Battle of the Bulge started the day after the plane took off, garnering all the press headlines.

Glenn Miller’s nephew John Miller, who lives in England, appears and each major possibility is fully explored combining known data and new facts and information about weather (it was foggy when the plane took off), aircraft history, charting and locations. Miller, who was preparing for the Christmas day concert for those who’d fought at Normandy on D-Day, hated to fly and reportedly asked after looking into the plane: “Where are the parachutes?” According to what’s reported here, it’s pretty clear that he wasn’t enthusiastic about boarding the doomed flight.The detectives explain and simulate how the plane, flown by a pilot who was not instrument rated, may have flown directly into plunging temperatures in a winter storm without carburetor heaters (they had been recalled and were being directed to big Allied bombers not utility planes like Miller’s). The engine probably froze, possibly followed by a big pop and, it is postulated, the plane apparently nosedived into the English Channel. Army regulations precluded sharing the Army’s theory with the Miller family that he got into a ticking time bomb that had not been cleared for a flight over the English Channel. Neither the plane nor Miller’s body was recovered. He was survived by his wife Helen and their two children. “The Disappearance of Glenn Miller” premieres on Tuesday, July 8, 9pm-10pm ET on PBS.

O.J. Simpson and Murder in Brentwood

bobrentwoodsimpsonmugshotToward the end of the bloodiest century in history, a trial about one of the bloodiest crimes consumed the nation.

The accused murderer, a former professional football player and actor, was a handsome, rich, black celebrity, all of which I think are factors in his getting away with murder. His name, which nearly everyone knows, is less important than the story of his crime and escape from punishment. To me, he ought to be remembered as the Butcher of Brentwood.

He was arrested for lying in wait to murder his pretty white, blonde ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ron Goldman, a handsome waiter at a nearby restaurant where she had dined who was doing her a favor by returning a pair of sunglasses. Most people know the details of the brutal double homicide and the trial that followed, which were covered in the book Outrage by former Los Angeles prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, who had prosecuted hippie mass murderer Charles Manson and obtained the death penalty.

Police detectives, lawyers, judge, jury, witnesses and reporters were mediocre, incompetent, self-centered, racist and, above all, subjective, not objective, about examining the crime. Even on the terms of the trial, as bungled a case as the prosecution made – an observation which Bugliosi rightly pointed out – the jury should have convicted the accused of murder.

Instead, the verdict was Not Guilty.

Why is a matter of speculation. Twenty years later, the guilt of the accused is widely accepted as a fact. It is not controversial. Most think he’s guilty of murder.

One possible explanation – and this is a cultural, not a legal, conjecture – is that blacks on the jury sought to counterbalance decades of real or perceived bias by whites in the judicial system. In a fundamental sense, whites accepted this retributive injustice. The notion that the jury did not understand genetic evidence, such as blood testing and DNA, may be true. But I think that the fix, as the saying goes, may have already been in. The trial took place shortly after the 1992 L.A. riots, a bloodbath and the worst U.S. riot of the century, and the city’s blacks felt wrongly maligned for the riots which many blamed on another controversial racially themed trial’s verdict. The conviction of police officers in that trial over the beating of convicted felon Rodney King was not satisfactory to L.A.’s black community. Letting the accused get away with murder was considered a potential form of payback.

The televised courtroom coverage acquired a frenzied atmosphere. The trial became a spectacle. From the Tonight Show host’s absurdist skits to the media’s sensationalistic approach, both crime and punishment were incessantly trivialized. Americans were gripped by the trial and verdict, though they were not moved to outrage, not really. A few intellectuals, such as Bugliosi, Dominick Dunne and Leonard Peikoff, were outraged and said so. Most people, from the roadside cheering of the accused murderer’s flight from arrest to the ignorant verdict, may have been caught up in the spectacle with no active interest in making a call for justice. After the trial, I participated in candlelight vigils, marches and protests at the Brentwood murder scene. Demonstrators spoke out against wife-beating. The accused had previously and admittedly done that, too. But talk of outrage at the verdict was discouraged.

The trial was fertile ground for collectivist tendencies.

The criminal justice system has disproportionately convicted blacks and Los Angeles Police have a track record of institutionalized prejudice against blacks, so when the issue of white detective Mark Fuhrman using a racist term for blacks was raised during the trial, it infused other, unrelated injustice into the proceedings. Ultimately, I think the prospect of letting one of America’s most successful high profile blacks go free for murder may have been too tempting for the mostly black jury. Racism, an offshoot of collectivism, festers in people that to varying degrees choose to be irrational, regardless of blood. Being black does not mean one cannot also be racist. Add racial, cultural and economic stereotypes and tensions and the childishly coded dismissal of facts in evidence in the legal hustler’s line that “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit” and the jury’s verdict came through as a willful redress for past grievances which everyone seemed more or less resigned to accept. There was no white backlash. There were no riots. There were no race wars. There was celebration among blacks.

In a sense, black militants had won. They had triumphed without even having to bother making explicit what idea drove the unjust verdict and the celebrations that followed: that one’s identity is based on race. If the thesis of black power was invoked – I think it was and has, in the 20 years since, been accepted as dogma – the civil rights movement’s vision of judging a person as an individual, not based on one’s race, had been discredited if not defeated. Not long after the verdict, Americans would elect a biracial president whose wedding was officiated by an advocate of black liberation theology. But accepted, too, on an underlying level was the idea that the ends justify the means; that rendering an unjust verdict in the name of past wrongs is OK and in any case the show must go on. Indeed, the race-themed spectacle did go on, and the culture is crawling with Kardashians and those with whom they multiply such as the hip hop artist known for verbally assaulting a white artist for defeating a black artist at an awards ceremony.

Life, too, goes on, but not for those who were murdered. In the 20 years since the injustice was delivered, the exonerated lost the civil court battle brought by the murdered Ron Goldman’s father, real-life avenger Fred Goldman. The one I call the butcher of Brentwood, a phrase which is earned with one look at the crime scene photographs, is in jail for other crimes. His 1994 lawyers scattered like cockroaches into other lines of work or they passed away, with not a single practicing attorney, whether Legal Zoom founder Robert Shapiro or Israel defender Alan Dershowitz, acknowledging let alone admitting or atoning for complicity in the bloodied butcher getting away with murder. Vigilantism at the expense of justice did not result in progress for blacks. Whatever cultural impact of O.J. Simpson, his foremost legacy is the death of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson and Americans resigning themselves to going along with injustice as they have gone along with every other injustice since 1994. Then and 20 years later, the facts show that Orenthal James Simpson ended two lives in an act of pure evil. That he got away with murder is beyond dispute. That the injustice is so blithely mocked and maligned (yet accepted) taints the nation and foreshadows its decline.

New Title, Art for Peikoff’s First Book

TCOHGOn November 25, Penguin gives a new title, cover art (pictured here) and author’s preface to Leonard Peikoff’s brilliant first book, The Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America.

The book, The Cause of Hitler’s Germany, is an exhaustive philosophical study of what caused Nazi Germany. As the publisher’s new promotional material promises, Dr. Peikoff examines self-sacrifice, Oriental mysticism, racial “truth,” the public good and doing one’s duty—seductive catchphrases that circulated in Weimar Germanyand he demonstrates how unreason and collectivism led a seemingly civilized society to become Nazi Germany. Peikoff, who grew up in western Canada, lives in southern California and teaches a writing course in which I am enrolled, worked closely with Ayn Rand for 30 years. The preeminent Rand scholar and estate heir taught philosophy at Hunter College and New York University. Here, he offers a breathtaking comparative study and analysis of the rise of fascism in the United States. This was the first book by an Objectivist author other than Rand that I read and I found it utterly absorbing, like taking an intellectual odyssey in a style distinctly different from Rand’s non-fiction in the form of a cogent and captivating lesson in the modern history of philosophy culminating in the Nazi atrocities while ingeniously integrating what the author warns is the impending meltdown of the New Left. I was fascinated to learn that most Germans possessed, read and accepted Hitler’s Mein Kampf and to see how the ideas of Schopenhauer, Hegel and Kant continue to spread and influence the world around me. Philosopher and podcaster Peikoff, who was Ayn Rand’s long-time associate, has written two other books, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand and The DIM Hypothesis: Why the Lights of the West Are Going Out.

This volume includes the original introduction by Rand, who endorsed The Cause of Hitler’s Germany as “[a] truly revolutionary idea…. Clear, tight, disciplined, beautifully structured, and brilliantly reasoned.”