In Support of Fred Fleitz and the Real Target (Frank Gaffney)

Written by Diana West at her blog on June 3, 2018:

 

To understand the campaign of slander and smear against Fred Fleitz, late of the Center for Security Policy, now chief of staff in the National Security Council under John Bolton, it is important to understand that in the concentric circles that array themselves around Washingon’s power centers there are to be found National Security Hawks and National Security Subversives. Until November 8, 2016, the National Security Subversives ranged closest to and inside the hubs of power; after November 8, 2016, National Security Hawks began to trickle into that most powerful hub, the Trump White House.

This terrifies the Subversives. To understand why, let me explain why I call them “Subversives.” It is because their policies, their programs, are subversive of the Constitution of the United States; the sovereignty of the United States; which naturally means the continued existence of the United States as a nation-state with controlled borders (including an immigration policy designed to improve the nation-state), overriding interests, and a dedication to the primacy of its own citiizens. Hewing to Marx, not our Founding Fathers, Foreign Policy Subversives are best understood as globalists who see the United States as an integral and also subordinate part of an international political system to be run, not governed, by elites like themselves. In their eyes, We, the People, are just subjects, not citizens, members of contending “identity”-groups to which they will redistriibute benefits, or not.

Quite unexpectedly, the Trump Counter-Revolution of 2016 gave the National Security Hawks in Washington new hope. By “National Security Hawks,” I don’t mean to specify “neocons” or interventionists, which is how we have come to understand this term. Indeed, most neocons and interventionists have worked hand in glove with National Security Subversives. In the context of the campaign of slander and smear against Fred Fleitz, I am thinking of National Security Hawks as those who hold a variety of opposing, even clashing, foreign policy viewpoints; however, as a group, loosely confederated or not, we all seek to defend and protect America first.

Yes, it’s the old struggle — patriots vs. globalists, nation-staters vs. Marxists, anti-communists vs. communists — over our nation’s character. Will our nation re-discover itself as a republic under the US Constitution after all (the National Security Subversive nightmare) or will it further integrate (disappear) into the socialist suprastate run, not governed, by unaccountable legions of  bureacrats guided by global, not national, interests?

As vanquished as the globalists believed the nation-staters to be — I think they forgot about us after winning the ideological war in the Cold War at home  — they were pitched into disarray as this struggle entered a new phase in 2016.

Their tactics to regroup unmask them as Subversives as much as anything else. That is, these are not regular, old “liberals” putting forth their competing set of ideas to win elections next time. As Subversives, President Trump’s main opposition sows chaos, disrupts, “resists,” and tries to sabotage the president and harm those associated with him: Witness the ruinous, punitive campaigns of personal and financial destruction masquerading as a legal process operated by the Special Counsel and glossed by his Special Media. They attempt to commandeer the “information battlespace,” not debate in the public square, with a form of propaganda the historical record shows us originated in the Kremlin to be disseminated by Marxist agents. I refer especially to the communist practice of branding all anti-communists, especially the patriot who loves his country, as “fascists” and “Nazis.” Just check back issues of Pravda and the Daily Worker. Or check the Washington Monthly.

Which takes us to the campaign against Fred Fleitz. As soon as Fleitz’s new job was announced, the story went out that an “anti-Muslim” “Islamophobe” “conspiracy theorist” was going to work in the White House. But maybe nearly 17 years after 9/11, this tired invective just wasn’t bad enough anymore. Or maybe it was just time to hit new gutter-levels of calumny. Whatever the cause, in the pages of the Washington Monthly, in a hit and run piece of claptrap by Martin Longman with a headline on top, the anti-Fleitz campaign went full “Neo-Nazi”: “Bolton Taps Neo-Nazi as National Security Council Chief of Staff.” To put a point on the mainstreaming of such a spurious attack, Google, meanwhile, was simultaneously defining the ideology of the California Republican Party first as “Nazism.”

This is information-warfare against conservatives going nuclear.

Moments ago, the Washington Monthly changed its egregious headline as noted in the correction pasted at the top of this post — six days after the piece appeared. Better late than never is the adage, however, numerous follow-up pieces have appeared in the interim, referencing and knocking down the smear, which tell us the damage was done. (Example: “Fred Fleitz Is Not a Neo-Nazi” by Rich Lowry.) The lasting harm, I suspect, is to the Washington Monthly. Note that the text of Longman’s piece is unchanged and its central spurious claim — that “there are links between the Center for Security Policy and neo-Nazi origanizations in Europe” — is, if anything, underscored by the “correction.” What a disgrace.

Then again, the Washington Monthly is just a tiny publication. Still, it lays claim to the beating heart of mainstream liberal journalism and letters, as the magazine’s roster of contributing editors shows.

Are they all satisfied now that their publication’s Pravda-style headline is just a Wayback.org memory? Or will any of them do the right thing and apologize to Fred Fleitz for this unjustified, injurious blow struck by the journal that their own reputations anchor?

In the article that counts for Martin Longman’s admittedly dodgy research (“I cannot endorse everything” but …), I, too, am slimed (along with Frank Gaffney and other leading lights such as Geert Wilders, Lars Hedegaard, Rachel Ehrendfeld, David Yerushalmi, and more) as a racist, and, referencing the disinformation campaign against American Betrayal launched by David Horowitz and Ron Radosh, I am also tagged “`McCarthy’s heiress’ for selling `yellow journalism conspiracies’ about the secret Soviet occupation of America.” (NB: Being named “McCarthy’s heiress” is a great honor, and I humbly accept; however, Horowitz and Radosh meant it to do as much harm as possible.)

Here is the main and unchanged thrust of Longman’s scurrilous attack:

To get a sense of what it means that Fred Fleitz has been chosen as the National Security Council’s chief of staff, you need to understand both the role of Frank Gaffney and his Center for Security Policy in the international neo-Nazi movement and the way that movement is seamlessly connected to and promoted by Vladimir Putin.

“…the role of Frank Gaffney and his Center for Security Policy in the international neo-Nazi movement”

I have to say I’ve never read anything more insane in my life.

Longman has a caveat:

While I cannot endorse everything Mr. Ahmed alleges and recommend double checking his sources and how he treats them, I do think his A Fourth Reich is rising across Europe — with ties to Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin is an excellent place to start your journey. It connects a lot of dots that need connecting, and it contains a lot of documentation that you can assess for yourself.

In other words, “It’s trash, but I like trash.” As for providing “a lot of documentation that you can assess for yourself,” “Mr. Ahmed” somehow forgot to include a link to my column “whose views on black people,” Ahmed wrote, “`gave new meaning to the word racism’” (here’s the link).

In short, Longman’s nasty little item is no better than bathroom grafitti; however, it should not to be quickly dismissed. In its crude slashings there are indicators of a strategy that has been coming into focus, a strategy to engineer and/or use the Russian beguilement and/or infiltration of elements of the European right as a mechanism to “dirty-up” the genuinely patriotic people and parties coalescing around nation-state and sovereignty issues in the wider West. Such attempted inroads are openly attributed to the Kremlin. It seems unlikely that it is just a coincidence that we have been seeing similar patterns in the revelations around the Great “Russian” Frame-Up of the Trump campaign — a process of beguilement and/or infiltration of the Trump campaign to “dirty-up” members with Russian connections, too. Perhaps one day we will be able to attribute this similar operation to the Kremlin, also.

Not Longman. He’s off again, puring hot tar on anti-communists such as Gaffney (and me, I can assume) by aligning them with “Putin’s foreign policy objectives.”

But it’s the way this movement has melded with Putin’s foreign policy objectives that is most urgent, and it’s admittedly confusing because Gaffney built his reputation in the 1980s as an anti-Soviet, anti-Russia hawk. Even today, he is not known for speaking favorably of Russia or Vladimir Putin, which is why it’s essential to explore the absolute confluence of interests that have developed between Gaffney’s promotion of the European far right and Putin’s promotion of the same neo-Nazi parties and politicians.

More slander and disinformation about Frank Gaffney, a courageous patriot whose fidelity to this nation is unparalleled. If Putin is engaging in a “scissors strategy” — the traditional Kremlin m.o. of infiltrating both sides (or more) in a conflict — Gaffney’s so-called “promotion of the European far right” has nothing, nada, zero to do with any neo-Nazi parties or politicians. On the contrary, his “promotion” constitutes a principled and robust defense of free speech in Europe and the US against the incursions of both Islamic and Marxist censorship into Western society.

Not that Longman dares explain or even understands such things. By his own admission, he is irresponsible (and so is Washington Monthly) for promoting a source (“Mr. Ahmed”) he does not trust; also for substituting his own vicious biases for journalistic judgement, without concern for, or, worse, relishing the consequences to Fred Fleitz and anyone else associated with CSP and its mission to support free speech against sharia speech codes, and to alert Americans to the dangers to free speech that accompany Islam wherever it establishes its totalitarian legal, political and individual control-system known as sharia.

Longman says he’s confused.

If so, I bet whoever put him up to this piece is not.

***

Diana West gave an interview with Stefan Molyneux on June 4, 2018:

***

Also with Vlad Tepes May 24, 2018:

Pay for Play: Where did DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson Get Five Hundred Grand to Donate to the DNC?

dhs-secretary-jeh-johnson-1

A career civil servant with that kind of money ought to be surprising, especially in lieu [light] of his subsequent outreach efforts to proven Muslim Brotherhood outfits.

CounterJihad, Sept. 15, 2016:

UPDATE:  During the years when Republicans controlled the levers of power, Johnson worked for a law firm that represented the Guantanamo Bay detainees — very vigorously.  Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison attorneys went so far as to smuggle in materials to the detainees.  “If I’d gotten caught passing war news to detainees,” one former DOD official said, “my security clearance would have been pulled.”

This week has seen the release of many incriminating documents from the Democratic National Convention (DNC), via Wikileaks’ so-called “Guccifer 2.0.”  The authenticity of these documents is in some question, as they passed through the hands of an outfit which has alleged Russian ties.  Hackers are in the business of violating people’s expectations of privacy in unethical ways, and the interests of foreign powers are not necessarily aligned with the interests of the United States.  We cannot be sure that the hackers are ethical enough to pass the documents on unaltered, in other words, nor that the release of the documents is not chiefly aimed at some hostile foreign nation’s ends.  Thus, we have to analyze all of these documents with some care.

By the same token, however, it is worth analyzing these documents with that care.  America was founded with a system of checks and balances intended to prevent one branch of government from becoming too powerful.  That was true both within the Federal government, where the three branches are balanced against each other, and between the Federal government and the states.  Those systems of checks and balances have become increasingly compromised by unethical behavior within the Federal government, such as the IRS scandal.  It has been further compromised by the increased centralization of power that has tipped the balance away from the states and toward the central, Federal, government.  We are less likely to see our own system performing adequately to check centralized power, and thus might consider external checks such as that provided by a foreign power with opposing interests to our administration’s.

Likewise, credibility is the currency of “special war” — including information warfare of the type the Russians are using here.  If their outlets are not credible, they will be less effective.  We must always check to see whether they are trying to slip one past us, of course.  On the other hand, they have an interest in providing damaging information that is accurate and that will be found credible on investigation.  We can’t skip the investigation, but there is a prima facie reason to take the charges seriously pending an investigation.

In terms of the Counterjihad movement, the corruption of the American administration creates several problems.  If high posts are for sale, they might not be occupied by the best people.  Worse, though, they might be bought by the wrong people.  The sale of high offices allows a means of influence on our government that is not accountable to the people, especially given that it was handled secretly — and by a political party, not a formal branch of government.

For example, consider the case of Department of Homeland Security czar Jeh Johnson.  Johnson is a career public servant.  Yet he was able to come up with over half a million dollars in cash to donate to the DNC — and then “feigned disbelief” when he got the job of leading the Homeland Security agency.

How has he used this post?  Oddly enough, we were just talking about that the other day.  Johnson decided to appear at the conference of a known Muslim Brotherhood front organization, while “fully aware” of its terrorist ties.

As CJ first reported Sunday, ISNA had been considered off-limits to such high-level appearances since the U.S. Justice Department in 2008 designated the group as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist financing case in U.S. history and a front organization for the radical Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood.

Johnson’s spokesman Neema Hakim told CJ that, despite ISNA’s terrorist ties and radical background, Johnson agreed to appear at the event because he considered it an “opportunity” to conduct outreach with the American Muslim community.

“DHS and the secretary are fully aware of past evidence and allegations concerning ISNA and carefully considered them before accepting ISNA’s invitation,” Hakim said.

While there, he shared a stage with a Holocaust denier and a known leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Nor was this the only occasion on which he has made moves amenable to the Brotherhood. In June, he testified before Congress admitting that his agency had scrubbed references to Islam from counter-terror materials that they produced.  He claimed to have “no idea” how that happened.

Earlier in June, Johnson downplayed the role of a radical Islamist community in the Pulse nightclub shootings.  He said that shooter Omar Mateen “was ‘self-radicalized’ without any religious, ideological or operational support from friends, family or others in the Muslim community.”  Yet it turned out that Mateen had ties to a known radical imam, one who had served as a bodyguard for the “blind sheikh” who carried out the first World Trade Center attacks.  Perhaps it was worth considering that Mateen might have targeted the gay nightclub in part because of the harsh language his mentor used towards “f****ts” in America, and Islam’s duty towards them?

To be clear, we at CounterJihad have no idea where Jeh Johnson got all that money.  We have no evidence establishing a causal relationship between the inexplicably large donation from a career public servant and his subsequent support of Brotherhood outlets, or the Brotherhood’s agenda.  We cannot even be certain that the documents establishing the donation are themselves fully genuine.  We have to be suspicious of them at first face, given that they passed through the hands of pro-Russian actors.

Nevertheless, we do have questions.  Those questions seem like important questions to us.  We would like answers.  And in a free society, for now, we still have the right to ask those questions and to demand some answers.

Mahmoud Abbas and Other Soviet Ghosts

abbas-e1443718953139

Front Page Magazine, by Caroline Glick, Sept. 9, 2016:

Channel 1’s report Wednesday that in 1983, current Palestinian Authority Chairman and PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas served as a KGB agent is hardly the story of the year, but it does remind us of certain half-forgotten facts about the Cold War that are becoming ever more relevant today.

The PLO’s close and servile relationship with the KGB was first exposed in a systematic way in 1987, with the publication of Red Horizons: Chronicles of a Communist Spy Chief, the exposé of Soviet and Romanian Cold War operations written by former Romanian intelligence chief Lt.-Gen. Ion Pacepa. Pacepa, who defected to the US in 1978 after serving as the head of the DIE – Romania’s KGB – was the highest ranking intelligence officer from the Soviet bloc to ever defect.

In his book, Pacepa revealed that “the PLO was dreamt up by the KGB.”

Pacepa explained how Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, at the direction of Moscow, convinced Yasser Arafat to employ political warfare, centered on phony protestations that he had abandoned terrorism, to weaken the West’s resolve to defend itself and to cause Israel to doubt its own legitimacy.

Wednesday’s Channel 1 report on Abbas was based on new revelations from the Mitrokhin Archive. Vasili Mitrokhin was a senior archivist in the KGB who surreptitiously copied KGB documents for many years and hid his copies in his home. In 1991 Mitrokhin defected to Britain and took his archive of 25,000 copies of documents with him.

In 2004, the second volume of his edited archive was published. The volume, titled, The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World, focused on the KGB’s efforts to use the Third World as a strategic weapon in its battle against the West. The volume devotes two chapters to the KGB’s campaign against Israel.

Mitrokhin revealed that for the KGB, Israel was a target of subversion second only in importance to the US. The KGB fielded multiple political agents on the Israeli Left and multiple Palestinian agents in the PLO’s terrorist nexus.

According to the Channel 1 report, Abbas began his official service for the KGB in 1983.

In truth his KGB ties were already longstanding by 1983.

In 1982 Abbas received a doctorate from the Patrice Lumumba University – or KGB U – in Moscow. According to KGB defectors, 90 percent of the university’s faculty and staff received their paychecks from the KGB. Its purpose was to train KGB agents from the developing world, including terrorists. Abbas’s fellow alumni included master terrorist Carlos the Jackal and future Iranian dictator Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Abbas received a doctorate for a thesis denying the Holocaust. That is, he used the cover of academia to vilify the Jewish state and deny Jewish history and suffering – a practice that has been his stock in trade in trade ever since.

Rather than devote his energies to murdering Israelis, along the lines of the subversive program Ceausescu presented to Arafat, Abbas’s main focus was the subversion of the European and the Israeli Left.

Until the mid-1970s, Arab terrorists were unable to make inroads in Israel because there were no significant political forces in Israeli society that questioned the justice and morality of the state or saw the PLO as anything other than a terrorist organization bent on the annihilation of Israel and the massacre of its citizens.

The situation changed with the rise of the Likud and the Right to power in 1977. As the Likud supplanted Labor as the largest party in Israel, the far Left became more susceptible to subversion.

Abbas focused his efforts on developing ties to the Israeli far Left. His efforts culminated in the 1993 Oslo peace deal which Abbas negotiated with Israeli leftist activists affiliated with then-foreign minister Shimon Peres through his deputy Yossi Beilin.

The PLO’s success in convincing the Rabin- Peres government that it had abandoned its goal of annihilating Israel came two years after the demise of the Soviet Union. In other words, the KGB’s campaign of anti-Western subversion outlived the Soviet Union.

Indeed it carries on with ever greater force and consequence. Today, the subversive campaigns that first bore fruits in the Vietnam War have brought about a situation where increasingly, Western elites cannot accept the basic morality of their societies.

Read more

***

History of the Soviet-Islam Connection

4261455653Listen to Frank Gaffny interview with Trevor Loudon at Center for Security Policy

TREVOR LOUDON, a New Zealand political activist, speaker, and author of “The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists, and Progressives in the US Congress”:

PART ONE:

  • The Soviet science of subversion from WWII to today
  • How agents of influence destroyed the Australian/New Zealand/United States military alliance
  • Was the European Peace Movement merely an instrument to destroy NATO during the Cold War?
  • Tracing the current Administration’s three greatest achievements back to the Communist Party USA, courtesy of Frank Marshall Davis

PART TWO:

  • The American Civil Liberties Union’s origins as the security apparatus of communist America
  • Using constitutional projections to empower enemies of the United States
  • The Council for a Livable World’s promotion of U.S. disarmament
  • The rise of George Soros and how the Center for American Progress continues to disseminate socialist ideals

PART THREE:

  • Is George Soros supporting radical attacks on the U.S. justice and economic system?
  • Threats from Islamists and their links to communism, as seen in the Palestinian Intifada Movement
  • Vladimir Putin’s anti-western propaganda now integrating radical Islam
  • Evidence that Pres. Obama has a foot in both the Islamist and Marxist camps

PART FOUR:

  • Is the U.S. internal security apparatus being destroyed from within?
  • Purging of anti-Islamist material from American military and law enforcement training manuals
  • Controversy over Rep. André Carson’s appointment to the U.S. House Select Committee on Intelligence

Some Issues with “Counter Terrorism – The Right Approach and Solutions”

20101101_TalibanTerroristFamily Security Matters , by JANET LEVY:

(See Alan Kornman’s article here.)

Three important points need to be emphasized here:
1)  It is accurate that Carter was naive about Khoumeni’s goals as a religion leader.  However, the fact that the Shah refused to give Carter’s cronies some contracts in Iran was a significant part of the equation.
2)  The Russian position vis a vis Islam is nuanced and not a clear case of doing what is necessary to fight terrorism.  Former KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhensky maintains that the Russians privilege Muslim citizens in the service of regaining territory that was part of the former Soviet Union.  See his white paper:  Made in Moscow Terrorism:  The Hidden Hand of the KGB.  – Click Here
3) It is very important to distinguish between terrorist groups as, at times, it is expedient to forge a temporary alliance with one side over the other.  Such is the case with the current relationship between Saudi Arabia and Israel to fight the soon-to-be-nuclear Shias in Iran.  In 2012, the Saudis abandoned the Muslim Brotherhood after a six decade relationship.  When the Brotherhood took control of Egypt with the election of Morsi, the Kingdom switched its allegiance to the Egyptian military.  Essentially, the Saudis broke with the MB to protect their domestic grip on power
Also see:

Obama quotes Alinsky in speech to young Israelis


rulesby
 AARON KLEIN:

JERUSALEM – In his address in Jerusalem today, President Obama channeled Saul Alinsky, citing the radical community organizer’s defining mantra as he urged young Israelis to “create change” to nudge their leadership to act.

Obama told a crowd of college students at Jerusalem’s main convention center that Israel “has the wisdom to see the world as it is, but also the courage to see the world as it should be.”

One of Alinsky’s major themes was working with the world as it “is” to turn it into the world as “it should be.”

In his defining work, “Rules for Radicals,” which he dedicated to “the first rebel,” Lucifer, Alinsky used those words to lay out his main agenda. He asserted radical change must be brought about by working within a system instead of attacking it from the outside.

“It is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system,” wrote Alinsky.

Obama related his Alinsky quote to a suggestion that “peace” begins with the people and not just the leadership – a statement some may relate to community organizing.

He further suggested Israelis do an end-run around the country’s leadership and “create the change that you want to see.”

************************

Horowitz writes in his 2009 pamphlet “Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution. The Alinsky Model”: “The strategy of working within the system until you can accumulate enough power to destroy it was what ’60s radicals called ‘boring from within.’ … Like termites, they set about to eat away at the foundations of the building in expectation that one day they could cause it to collapse.”

Read more at WND

 

Video: Stephen Coughlin exposes the Saul Alinsky underpinnings of Interfaith Outreach

Robert Spencer interviews Stephen Coughlin on the subversive nature of the Interfaith Movement which is making use of Saul Alinsky tactics.

“One of the things Alinsky’s goal was to do is to take terms, sacred terms, sacred ideas, patriotic and religious, and redefine them without telling people …”

 

577106_406984566035385_1091298055_nStephen Coughlin is a senior fellow at the Center For Security Policy. An attorney, decorated intelligence officer and noted specialist on Islamic law, ideology and related strategic information programs, Mr. Coughlin integrates experience in international law, intelligence, strategic communications and high-level project management in both the national defense and private sectors to develop unique perspectives, assessments and training packages relating to the intersection of national security and law. Often cited as the Pentagon’s leading expert on Islamic law, Coughlin is in demand as a lecturer at leading Defense training institutions, including the Naval War College, Marine Corps HQ-Quantico, and at Staff, Command and Division levels, as well as for the FBI and other agencies and private sector groups.  A Major in the United States Army (res.), assigned to USCENTCOM, with a military intelligence specialty, Coughlin has served in a strategic communications role in CENTCOM-Doha. U.S. assignments have included attachment to the Pentagon’s National Military Joint Intelligence Center, the National Security Council’s Interagency Perception Management Threat Panel, and culminating in his assignment to the intelligence staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Coughlin’s private sector career has focused on international law, competitive intelligence and the development and provision of open source, classified and proprietary commercial data and information products and programs at leading publishing houses such as Lexis-Nexis/Reed Elsevier and West Group/WestLaw.