The Violence We Don’t See

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


Untitled2Lashawn Marten was playing chess when he announced, “I hate white people.” Then he began hitting random white people who were walking by. By the time he was done, several were wounded and one lay dead.

I have walked by countless times and seen the chess players sitting near the overhang of the Union Square subway entrance; mostly black men daring white passerby into a money game. At the fountain to the left, Moonies squat on a blanket and sing their sonorous chants. To the right, the remnants of Occupy Wall Street set up tables to collect money and dispense buttons.

In warmer weather, break dancers perform on the stairs and office workers sit beneath the statue of George Washington expelling the British and eat lunch. Elderly Puerto Rican men push makeshift wooden carts piled with unlabeled bottles of homebrewed soda pop.

Jeffrey Babbitt, the man Lashawn beat to death, looks familiar to me because he has that type of New York face that you pass on the street. You see it worn by plumbers and high school teachers. It’s the badge of the vanishing New York City working class.

No conclusions will be drawn from the murder. Lashawn Marten was obviously mentally ill. And if his mental illness took the form of violent racism toward white people, that is an incidental fact. The murder is an incident. The details are incidental. No conclusions will be drawn from what happened between the chess tables.

Incidents take place all around us, but patterns have to be articulated. The incident is insignificant. It’s the pattern that counts.

The incident is something we have to learn to get over so we can get back to shopping in downtown Manhattan or walking through Union Square. The pattern is a social problem that we must dedicate ourselves to fighting. The incident isn’t supposed to define our lives. The pattern is.

The murder of Chris Lane was an incident. The murder of Jeffrey Babbitt was an incident.

The Boston Marathon bombing was an incident. So was the Fort Hood Massacre. So was 9/11. No conclusions can be drawn from them and no pattern can be used to tie them together. They are to be processed separately and discarded as having no further meaning than the private pain of their victims.

The media is not that concerned with suppressing incidents. It is concerned with suppressing pattern awareness. No one can deny that the occasional racial murder takes place and that the perpetrators look like Obama’s sons. And no one can deny that Muslims sometimes set off bombs or fly planes into buildings. They deny only that these incidents form a pattern.

Every Muslim terrorist attack is met with media chatter about an Islamophobic backlash. The backlash never materializes, but it doesn’t need to. The mere repetition of it does the trick and sets the pattern. It tells readers that the attack is the incident, but the backlash is the pattern.

The attack is only an incident and not characteristic of Muslims while the backlash is a pattern and characteristic of our bigotry and intolerance.

White racism is a pattern. Black racism is an incident. Racism is characteristic of white people, but not of black people. The crowds passing through Union Square are subdivided into the oppressors and the oppressed. Their lives are color coded for morality and justice. Jeffrey Babbitt, who dreamed of being a motorman, loved comics and took care of his elderly mother, was an oppressor. His death is an incident that in no way detracts from the pervasive pattern of white racism.

Jeffrey Babbitt was an oppressor and Lashawn Marten was one of the oppressed. This social dynamic was imposed on them at birth. The occasional death of an oppressor in no way alters the fixed pattern of the oppressors and the oppressed.

The pattern of American intolerance is likewise unmoved by September 11 or by two Chechens who set off a bomb near an 8-year-old. The blood and ashes of 3,000 dead is nothing but a stain on the liberal pattern. More people die of cancer or in car accidents, the liberal can always answer. Numbers alone do not make a pattern. And if the pattern is not recognized, then it does not exist.

We live in this world of unreal patterns and real lives where inexplicable things happen all the time.

Overhead, I see two beams of pale light piercing the sky and reflecting at an angle. The towers of light remind us of an incident. Not a pattern. After over a decade of war, no one in authority will admit what we are fighting or why. All that ash and rubble, the twisted steel and the falling bodies, are not part of a pattern. But when a Muslim cabbie is stabbed by a drunk, that is a pattern.

Most of us see the real patterns, even if only hazily, like the beams of light cutting across the sky. And we see that the unreal patterns, the obsessions with Muslim backlashes and the martyrdom of Trayvon Martin, are unreal things. Not true patterns, but false patterns that reflect at an angle from the true light.

We do not speak of these true patterns. But we know them. They stir in us when the right moment appears. They keep us alive.

Millions walk through life with this double vision, the lenses of their minds blurring the real and the unreal, paying lip service to the grave threat that someone will spray paint a mosque while nervously studying the Muslim sitting in the seat in front of them or voting for Obama but moving out to the suburbs.

Patterns are power. The pattern-makers and pattern-dealers derive theirs from being able to dictate the problem and the solution. They are determined to understand things for us so that we will see the same patterns that they do. They know all too well that if we stop seeing their patterns, their cause and their power will die.

For now it is men like Jeffrey Babbitt or the spectators in the Boston Marathon and the soldiers at Fort Hood who die. They die caught in an invisible pattern that they cannot see.

We live in a world of phony patterns, of global environmental apocalypses made to order, of shadows and illusions, of phantom fears, panics and doubts. But even in the liberal world of ghosts and shadows, where rogue air conditioners and cow flatulence are a greater threat to the planet than the nuclear bomb, where Lashawn Marten was oppressed by the unconscious white privilege of Jeffrey Babbitt who died for what he did not even know he had and where Muslim terrorism is a phantom fear of bigots, these true patterns intrude.

Terrible acts of violence momentarily tear apart the illusory false patterns with blood and fire and reveal the terrible truth.

On September 11, thousands of New Yorkers standing at Union Square looked downtown to see a plume of smoke rising over Broadway. I was one of them. Some fell to making anti-war posters on the spot. Others enlisted in a long war. On another distant September, some New Yorkers came to the defense of a 62-year-old man being beaten to death for the color of his skin. Others walked on to the farmers’ market, bought their organic peaches while the liberal memes in their heads told them to see no evil.

Our lives are sharpest and clearest when we see the pattern. In moments of revelation, the comforting illusions are torn away and the true pattern of our world stands revealed.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • oif2009

    It sounds like he went into a self pity meltdown after losing a game of chess against someone who was unfairly born with 5 times his IQ. Maybe he should try checkers in the future? Its a much simpler game and a typical inner city cockroach with a 29 IQ can learn how to play it just fine.
    Every time I read about another attack I find myself wondering why any ethnic community tolerates their racist violence anymore. Asians are targeted, Indian immigrants are targeted, Hispanics are targeted, and whites are targeted. Why aren’t we all admitting that the problem exists and that black people are 99.999999% of the perps? Why aren’t we jumping in and helping a victim out when we see it occurring nearby? Something tells me that these cockroaches wouldn’t touch a yellow, white, olive, etc… if they thought the whole rainbow around them might decide to gang up on them and beat them until they turn into lifeless red stains on the sidewalk.

    • Guest

      “Marten, who is apparently homeless, was watching people play chess in the park and reportedly complained that nobody wanted to play chess with him prior to the attack, according to 1010 WINS’ Carol D’Auria.”
      He’ll have plenty of time to play checkers where he’s headed.

    • bluffcreek1967

      Part of the problem is that whites have been so duped by multiculturalism that they’re afraid to express any racial solidarity out of fear that it might be seen as ‘racist.’ Sooner or later, whites will wake up and remove the politically-correct blinders and see the world as it truly is.

      http://www.ambrosekane.com

    • Smoking Hamster

      It is because they are NOT 99.999999% of perps. Same thing with Muslims. Most are not violent but there is an extremely significant and large minority amounting to millions of Muslims globally that do believe literally in the Quran and its vile teachings to kill and subjugate the kaffir.

      Most Muslims are not terrorists but the most deadly terrorists are Muslim. Most Blacks are not criminal but far too many criminals are black.

      • Moa

        > “Most Muslims are not terrorists but the most deadly terrorists are Muslim. ”

        You are missing the “pattern” though. Muslims are people, good and bad like any other group of our primate species.

        What is 100% terrorist/jihadi/evil ALL.THE.TIME is their totalitarian political ideology of Islam. That means the MINOs (Muslims in Name Only) won’t hurt you, and the pious Muslim jihadis will. Worse, given the Qur’an and hadiths and time to study them the MINOs can spontaneously turn into jihadis. The MINOs are only harmless because they don’t actually understand their own ideology (most have never read the Qur’an, as it is supposed to be read in Arabic ; just like a huge number of self-professed Christians around the globe don’t actually read the Bible).

        So, while you are right that most of what are called “Cultural Muslims” do not harm anyone you must understand that they are technically apostates for not conducting the jihad they are commanded they *must* conduct – and all are in danger of becoming jihadis if they ever start reading their scriptures for real.

        Your statement didn’t indicate you understood this critical distinction. Muslims (people) may be good or bad – Islam (the ideology) is *always* evil when practiced as Mohammed intended.

        • Smoking Hamster

          No, I realize that. I think Islam as Mohammed practiced it (which is the only kind that matters) is one of the most oppressive and evil systems devised. It is right up there with Communism and Fascism in my mind as the most destructive systems known.

          I object to the all terrorists are Muslims or all criminals are Black simply because it is simply not true.

          My favorite verse in the Quran is 9:29. It gets straight to the point as to what Islam is about. That is a great litmus test to see if a Muslim is extremist or not.

          Good summary.

          • Moa

            > “No, I realize that. I think Islam as Mohammed practiced it (which is the
            only kind that matters) is one of the most oppressive and evil systems
            devised. It is right up there with Communism and Fascism in my mind as
            the most destructive systems known.”

            Oh cool. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of that. Helps to be precise as if you leave any wiggle room then the apologists will try and use it.

            With regard to Communism, Fascism and Islam I tend to think of them as similar by using the following terms:

            Soviet Socialism, National Socialism and Religious Socialism.

            Now, I live in a somewhat socialist state (New Zealand). A little bit of socialism is good for the poor. However, it is important that socialist ideals be imported into a capitalist system. You simply cannot have socialists in the “driving seat” because they grow the State (which is always at the expense of individual liberty).

            So, while I make it clear that Socialist systems are bad – I’m not rapid enough to be opposed to some collective community care.

            > “I object to the all terrorists are Muslims or all criminals are Black simply because it is simply not true.”

            True. I agree with you completely.

            A better term than “terrorist” is “jihadi”. It is completely true that all jihadis are Muslim. It is true that *most* terrorists are jihadis.

            The other reason why “jihadi” is a better term that terrorist is because “jihad” takes many forms. From the rampant rape jihad in Scandanavia, to financial support of insurgents to bombings and beheadings, to conversions and forced conversions and to ‘stealth jihad’ of cultural change. Of all the aspect of jihad it is the cultural change that is most destructive to the West (as in, cannot criticize Islam or associate it with terrorism and this is now enforced as official policy in government circles by the Obama Administration; increasingly special concessions for Muslims only [special work breaks to pray, special gym times for gender segregation, etc]).

            > “My favorite verse in the Quran is 9:29. It gets straight to the point as to what Islam is about. That is a great litmus test to see if a Muslim is extremist or not.”

            Yes. I find that 9:5 , 9:29 and hadith Sahih Muslim 6985 (mandating genocide for all Jews, not just the Zionists) are handy verses to quote. It is very good you know these.

            > “Good summary.”

            Thank you. Shoulder to shoulder we’ll tell the truth about the greatest threat to liberty and Enlightenment Civilization to date. Fortunately, exposing the truth and constantly illuminating the hypocrisy of Muslims is all that is required to convince many (show the “pattern”) and roll back the tide. Please keep up your excellent work :)

      • ziggy zoggy

        Even non violent islamopithecines want Islam to be supreme. They are ALL jihadis. And how do you know most Blacks aren’t criminal? What proportion have criminal records and what proportion haven’t been convicted for their crimes?

        • Smoking Hamster

          I don’t like reading people based on their skin color. I am not going to judge all blacks based on the violent actions of a minority. I am not a collectivist and racism is one of the worst form forms of collectivism. “And how do you know most Blacks aren’t criminal?” Innocent until proven guilty. You must show me that the majority of blacks have committed crimes.

          Look Islam is a violent and extremist religion. I criticize Islam all the time. If you are a Muslim and you believe in those teachings I will criticize your beliefs. I will not assume that all Muslims are extremists though. Wanting your religion to be supreme is NOT the same thing as fighting and killing people to make it supreme.

          “Don’t judge the Muslims that you know by Islam and don’t judge Islam by the Muslims that you know. ”

          http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Statement-on-Muslims.htm

          • ziggy zoggy

            Who said anything about judging people on their race? And who said the majority of Blacks have committed crimes? I asked you how you know the majority of Blacks aren’t criminals because I don’t think you have any idea what proportion of Blacks are prone to criminality.

            Having a supremacist attitude toward all other religions and people is as extreme as it gets, short of murder – which is the next step. Every islamopithecine is a ticking tome bomb and potential terrorist. Any islamopithecine who aids, cheerleads, excuses or ignores terrorism for jihad is guilty of extremism. Not only that, but any islamopithecine who doesn’t actively oppose it is guilty. And that’s just it. Islam doesn’t allow dissent. Any islamopithecine who does so is a heretic and is supposed to be executed under Islamic “law.” There are no innocent islamopithecines. Islam is worse than crack or meth. It can turn anybody into an animal.

  • truebearing

    Great post, Daniel!

    Imposing patterns is an insidious expertise of the Left. Their skill at lying has left many people completely incapable of discernment or moral clarity. This manipulation of perception has proven to suppress even the survival instinct in many people, and it all starts with the linguistic tyranny of Political Correctness. For example, the word “discrimination” has been given an entirely new connotation by Political Correctness. Now it means racial bigotry to most people, whereas it used to mean making necessary distinctions. It used to be part of the process of determining the truth about something, now it is a component in the pattern of lies.

    These patterns form a matrix of false values and lies, imposed through the government, media, school system, colleges, and entertainment industry. It prevents individuals from taking action, or groups from forming to oppose the tyranny. If those who are the targets of control try to rise up, the High Priests of Patterns are employed to demean, divide, or destroy them. The reaction of The Collective to Sarah Palin or the Tea Party being perfect examples.They keep whites paralyzed by guilt, divided, and incapable of defending themselves from black violence. if someone suggests unifying to fight the pattern, the charges of racism fly like shrapnel….even from some supposed conservatives.

    By writing this excellent article, Daniel Greefield has disturbed the pattern and violated the lawful limit on truth. Truth is dangerous, and somehow he must be punished, especially if his popularity grows. Truth is the intended casualty of Political Correctness, but along with courage, it’s greatest enemy. The patterns that instill the fears that prevent us from taking action are woven from lies — the Alinsky pattern — so the only solution is more courage and louder truth.

    • truebearing

      A corollary to the previous observations on the tyranny of patterns is that the Muslims are using the same neural pathway established by Political Correctness to invade our minds and our culture. The same mechanisms that suspend our survival instincts are being employed by the Islamists. The coining of the term “Islamophobe” being the most obvious example. Any sane person should be afraid of Islam, but because of the false, but widely accepted, PC “moral” values attached to the suffix “phobe,” many Americans now live in fear of having a legitimate fear of malignant groups or movements. False fear is cancelling the benefit of self-preserving fear.

      • Texas Patriot

        Exactly. And that’s why this is such a great article. If you can outlaw a “thought” (i.e. Islam is a totalitarian ideology), you can forget about any hope of recognizing it for what it is and defending against it.

  • Gid

    When we talk of “incidents” vs “patterns”, we get into other issues, such as human perception and categorization.
    Also, I’ve been told I’m mentally ill, because I have experienced several incidents that I stubbornly see as part of a pattern. But whether I am or not, it seems that many just don’t see the world as it is – at least in the media, and in the half of the country that re-elected Barack Obama.

  • Texas Patriot

    The only reason David Horowitz, the son of Communists and the self-avowed founder of the New Left in the 1960s, can get away with a vicious campaign of lies, personal attacks, and character assassination reminescent of the worst abuses of Bolshevism and Stalinism against a conservative writer who seeks to expose the extent of Soviet and Communist infiltration and influence in the United States of America is the liberal indoctrination pattern that it is better to attack those who seek to expose the influence of Communists and Communist ideology than it is to attack the subtle and destructive effects of the ideology and those who practice the ideology.

    As Daniel Greenfield rightly suggests, the same pattern exists to justify vicious attacks against those who seek to expose the subtle and destructive influence of Islamists and Islamic ideology in the United States of America. In other words, we’ve reached the absurd point where attacking people who seek to expose totalitarians and the subtle and destructive influence of totalitarian ideologies is fine, but attacking totalitarians and the totalitarian ideologies they represent is forbidden.

    Perhaps we should change the inscription on the Statue of Liberty to “Give me your tired, your poor, and your persecuted totalitarians and their totally false and discredited totalitarian ideologies.”

    • RCraigen

      I return daily to FrontPageMagazine for one reason and one reason only: to scan an apology to Diana West. I was naive enough to expect that now that her rebuttal is fully published and there has been ample time to cross-check all her sources. Perhaps I needn’t have wasted my time. But I keep hoping.

      • truebearing

        Get over your cultish obsession with all things Diana West. There is a big world out there with lots of problems…problems frequently caused by rigid dogmatists. We don’t need anymore people who jump on a bandwagon just because they managed to read a book.
        Stop hijacking the thread. If you can’t respond to the topic because of your inability to stop obsessing about something that ultimately isn’t any of your concern, then seek professional help.

        • Texas Patriot

          Normally I have a pretty high regard for your opinion. But I am surprised that you can’t see that the merciless and unwarranted THRASHING that Horowitz and Radosh gave given Diana West and her book is PRECISELY how the Leftists have always SILENCED points of view they don’t regard as politically expedient.

          Although Horowitz and Radosh may have parted company with the Leftists and Communists that they associated with in their youth, it is obvious that they have not forgotten the Bolshevist and Stalinist techniques for suppressing ideas they don’t like.

          It’s not that Diana West’s book is so great. That may or may not be the case. The point is that Horowitz and Radosh have given us a very valuable glimpse of the TECHNIQUES used by Neo-Communists, Neo-Leftists, and Neo-Conservatives in order to SHUT PEOPLE UP. Think about it. If you can shut people up, you can control the narrative whether you have truth on your side or not, and that is now totalitarians have always won the all-important cultural debate.

          Pay very careful attention to what I’m saying, then reread Daniel’s excellent article. It will probably begin to make more sense to you.

          • Smoking Hamster

            David Horowitz has spent countless hours writing and exposing Communists.

            David is not trying to shut anyone up. He offered West an opportunity to respond. She rejected it. The Westites who want apologies for disagreeing with any part of her thesis and who call scholarly dissent book-burning are attempting to stifle debate.

          • Texas Patriot

            Hamster, you’re free to think whatever you want. That’s the whole idea. But my advice to you with Horowitz and Radosh is simply this. Don’t drink the cool-aid.

          • RCraigen

            I wasn’t going to digify TB’s swipe with a response but I have to say, well put, TP. This is very much about the tactics used to manipulate the “narrative”, and Dan’s article nails the point very well. I characterize the Radosh piece and its spinoffs as “gatekeeping”. It has seriously demoralized me to see conservative icons like Horowitz and Black pile on. However, today Frank Gaffney’s Center For Security Policy has just awarded Ms West the Mightier Pen Award for her writing in this book and her prior work. For TB’s information, I have not read West’s book (yet). My responses here are based entirely on what I see going on in what Radosh and Horowitz have written and the derivative pieces they have spawned, held up against what West has written and said in public in her own defence. It was not a book I was planning to buy. Now I’m planning to give a few away at Christmas.

          • truebearing

            You’re trying to silence both Horowitz and Radosh with your intolerance to dissent. How are you not a hypocrite? You are inadvertently making an argument for suppression of dissent, even though you claim to oppose it.
            For your information, I haven’t read her book either, but am basing my comments on the inability of her supporters to see their hypocrisy in decrying suppression of dissent, while condemning the dissent of Horowitz and Radosh.
            Not only that, but you are equating strong opinion with oppression, which is ridiculous. You have your right to strongly condemn anything you want, and you have, but no one to my knowledge is calling you a “bookburner” or a “totalitarian.” Furhtermore, you want to control the tone of dissent, which is far more manipulative of ‘the narrative” than simple disagreement.
            I apologize for being a bit caustic in my first response, but this thread isn’t about Diana West, and frankly, her outrage is a spec of dust in the hurricane of problems this nation is facing. She has recourse, and they are facts. If she can refute her critics with facts, more power to her. If not, she should admit it. The end.

          • RCraigen

            “She has recourse, and they are called facts”. Precisely, TB. But your apparent belief that she has not done so only demonstrates that you have not read her thorough three-part line-by-line response to the charges in Radosh’s rambling “critique” full of factual and historical errors. Set aside a couple of hours and read these before embarrassing yourself any further.

            How in G-d’s name is vigorous engagement trying to “shut someone up”? I don’t so characterize Radosh/Horowitz on this basis and it makes even less sense for you to throw it in the other direction. Here’s what trying to shut a fellow conservative up looks like.

            Horowitz is editor of FPM, which for many years was considered one of the pillars of conservative discourse. He has a great deal of authority in the conservative community by virtue of this position. He has a responsibility to conduct disagreements with other conservatives in an appropriate spirit. People in conservative circles are aghast at his rhetoric and handling of this affair. it is one thing to have a civil disagreement with fellow conservatives over an academic matter, privately or on the public stage, and I am fully in favour of either. But the level of rhetoric coming from his pen on this matter is out of bounds, and cannot be described as “civil”.

          • ziggy zoggy

            RCraven, everybody is sick of listening to you Westrolls whine. You drove away what few commentators there were on the thread that was supposed to end the one sided feud from your idol, and now you’re wasting people’s time here. I read West’s 3 part excuse and I think I lost brain cells for having done it. It would be safer to huff paint and watch MSNBC than read more of her strident accusations and cheap sophistry. She had a chance to rebut her book review here but chose to attack the FPM writers personally instead – from the safety of another website. She is a hypocrite and a fraud. So are all you sycophantic Westrolls. Stick to the subject of this thread and stop pissing everybody off with your distractions.

            Nice to see I got under your thin skin, though. I hope you remember me every time you try to disrupt a thread with pettifoggery and insults. Guys like you can dish it out but you can’t take it. Punk.

          • RCraigen

            Currently the only reason I’m revisiting this thread is to see if Mr. Horowitz is going to chime in again with his earlier revealing statement, “Thank you Ziggy Zoggy”. Keep it up Zig, your words speak volumes about you.

          • truebearing

            Don’t you have anything more meaningful to accomplish?
            BTW, this isn’t the Diana West thread. Maybe Frontpage should provide you a map.

          • truebearing

            You purposely ignored my comments on your hypocrisy, not surprisingly. Instead, you went righ back to your repetitive blather about the wrongs you perceive over West’s negative review. You’re the one who should be embarrassed…if only you were smart enough to understand why.
            How is a book review trying to shut anyone up? That is utterly moronic. Are you so deluded that you think all reviews have to be positive? Are you operating under some theory of intellectual entitlement, where anyone who writes a book must have unamimous praise? What planet have you been wandering around on, lo these many confused years?
            If you have a problem with ZiggyZoggy, tell him. Don’t try to enlist me in your peer censorship scheme. Grow a pair and take him on…if you think you can.

          • truebearing

            My belief that she has not done so is based on what I have read of her “rebuttal.” Your blithering is essentially useless, since you take no meaningful stand.

          • ziggy zoggy

            truebearing, you’ve done a good job trying to get through to these Westrolls but you’re wasting your time. Even after all you wrote, they are dead set on making us all bow to the altar of West and her vanity – including the owner of this site. She is a lousy writer and a bitch to boot, but these fanatics are fixated on her for some reason. If you mean it when you say the end, they’ll eventually STFU. I’m sure you’re as sick and tired as I am of their obnoxious demands and petty evasions.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Give a few of West’s books away for Christmas? I guess you can’t afford to give toilet paper. Better hurry. That book is bargain bin and return to publisher only.

          • truebearing

            I understand what you are saying perfectly well, but I don’t see it the way you do. There are legitimate reasons for disputing West, including free speech. Horowitz offered her an opportunity to dispute Radosh, which she foolishly declined, and then engaged in an over the top, hysterical demonization of Horowitz and Radosh that makes their criticisim of her work pale in comparison — calling them “totalitarians, book burners, etc? Come on. That is absurd.
            Maybe Radosh was too harsh. Maybe West and her accolytes are too thin-skinned, but to conclude that a heated disagreement over a book review is tantamount to Bolshevik tactics is hyperbolic. If Horowitz had actively tried to censor her book by getting every outlet to rip it to shreds, or get distribution channels to drop it, I’d say you have a case. Strong criticism is hardly censorship.

          • Texas Patriot

            We’re not talking about censorship or strong criticism here. We’re talking about intentionally unfair criticism and demonizing someone and their work as “loopy” and “crackpot”, when in fact the work has been highly praised by serious scholars.

          • truebearing

            Opinion is not equal to oppression. You’re going too far.
            The ONLY way for West to effectively vindicate herself is to factually refute all criticism from Radosh, Horowitz, and the other critics of her book, and there are others. Calling them names and getting hysterical doesn’t accomplish anything. She is writing in a historical genre, so facts are king.

          • truebearing

            You really like Greenfield’s piece, justifiably. So do I. Why then would Horowitz hire Greenfield and make him the top contributor to Frontpage if Greenfield is exposing what Horowitz is secretly up to? Why would Horowitx continually publish the best writers available in the battle against the Left and Islam if he was sympathetic, or worse, still working with the Left? That makes no sense, whatsoever.
            Not liking someone’s book, right or wrong, is not censorship. Frontpage is not the state. It doesn’t control the media or the marketplace.

          • Texas Patriot

            My honest opinion is that Horowitz would like to be an All-American Conservative but he doesn’t know how. All he knows is the slash and burn tactics that he learned growing up with Communists and Leftists.

            The truth is that Conservatism is about building people up, not tearing people down. Conservatives win by having a better plan than the other guy, more enthusiasm than the other guy, a willingness to work harder than the other guy, and a plan that raises the bar for everybody. If Horowitz could ever become that kind of Conservative, he could be a great asset to the conservative cause. Otherwise, I see him as an historical anomaly that will soon pass away with all the other political dinosaurs of the last fifty years.

            I agree, though, that his website is great. Daniel Greenfield and Raymond Ibrahim are two of the best political commentators in the world today. Is Horowitz too old (and too angry) to shed the baggage of his past and climb the last few steps to the top of the mountain where he will be able to look out and see the future of a Great American Renaissance? Time will tell.

          • truebearing

            You have a right to your opinion, but your theory is rather narrow and so is your definition of what a good conservative must look like.
            Maybe you shouldn’t be so certain when you are simply speculating on Horowitz’s motives, after all, there are many possibilities you have apparently ruled out without any evidence, other than that noisy, but minor, conflict with West. One event is hardly a pattern.
            Is Horowitz too angry? Too angry for what? Don’t expect me to criticize anyone for being “too angry.” I’m furious over what is going on in this country, and the world.
            Can’t you even consider the possibility that Horowitz has altruistic motives for fighting political evil for decades? He’s certainly bright enough to have chosen another path that would have perhaps made him wealthier, or at least included less stress and personal risk. His body of work speaks for itself, and my read on Horowitz is that he doesn’t particulary seek the limelight, but instead, results.
            No, I think you unfairly malign Mr. Horowitz because of suspicions raised by his disagreement with someone you happen to agree with wholeheartedly. You also have a recurring theme in your comments where you question his loyalties and motives — that he can’t be a pure conservative having once been a Leftist. I don’t buy that, for reasons already stated in other replies, and more. Generally speaking, those who quit something end up hating it more than those who never did it. No one hates cigarettes like an ex-smoker.
            Lastly, I’d like to point out that Reagan was Left before he was Right. He is the icon of modern conservatism. It is as wrong to deny the legitimacy of a person’s political enlightenment as it is their economic or social mobility. THAT is a conservative value.

          • Texas Patriot

            “Is Horowitz too angry? Too angry for what? Don’t expect me to criticize anyone for being “too angry.” I’m furious over what is going on in this country, and the world.”

            It is entirely possible that he is too angry to move beyond the failures of the past to a positive vision and plan for the future.

            “Can’t you even consider the possibility that Horowitz has altruistic motives for fighting political evil for decades?”

            I don’t doubt his motives. I doubt his tactics.

            “No, I think you unfairly malign Mr. Horowitz because of suspicions raised by his disagreement with someone you happen to agree with wholeheartedly.”

            I don’t agree with her wholeheartedly, because I haven’t read her book. I agree wholeheartedly with her overall that Communists infiltrated and influenced our government in the 1930s in the same way that Islamists have infiltrated and are influencing our government today. What I disagree with “wholeheartedly” is the utterly vicious way that Messrs. Horowitz and Radosh attacked her personally and professionally. There is nothing about that that is not counterproductive, and they should apologize.

            “You also have a recurring theme in your comments where you question his loyalties and motives — that he can’t be a pure conservative having once been a Leftist.”

            You’re reading something into my comments that is not there. Even in my most recent comment I speculate that it is possible, even now, for Mr. Horowitz to move beyond the angry and hate-filled tactics of his past toward a positive and enthusiastic vision for the future. As I stated, whether that will happen remains to be seen.

            “Generally speaking, those who quit something end up hating it more than those who never did it. No one hates cigarettes like an ex-smoker.”

            I don’t doubt that Mr. Horowitz hates the Communist and Leftist politics of his youth. What I doubt is that he understands what it means to be a Conservative. Here’s a hint. It’s much more than hating Communist and Leftist politics.

            “Lastly, I’d like to point out that Reagan was Left before he was Right. He is the icon of modern conservatism.”

            It’s impossible not to like and admire Ronald Reagan. It’s also impossible to ignore the fact that he was one of the biggest deficit spenders in American history. From my standpoint, the icon of modern conservatism is Barry Goldwater, otherwise known as “Mr. Conservative”, and if you want to understand how an Authentic American Conservative thinks, read his book, “The Conscience of a Conservative”, and read about the kind of man he was. You won’t be sorry. Very likable, very fun-loving guy. Not a mean bone in his body. Great Senator. Great American. Great Republican. We haven’t had anyone like him since.

            “It is as wrong to deny the legitimacy of a person’s political enlightenment as it is their economic or social mobility. THAT is a conservative value.”

            The legitimacy of enlightenment is to be found not in words but deeds, and the jury is still out on Mr. Horowitz.

          • truebearing

            “It is entirely possible that he is too angry to move beyond the failures and frustrations of the past into a positive and enthusiastic vision and action plan for the future.”
            Sounds like a Progressive.

            Thinking, including interpretation, analysis, deduction, induction, synthesis, etc. is not done with ideology. Those who substitute ideology for rational thinking are ultimately all the same. Consequence is the only thing one needs to understand in making decisions. Ideology can’t calculate consequences, it can only rigidly predict them, assuming rigid adherence to dogma.

            You adhere far too rigidly to dogma.

            I question your logic, and tactics. You limit the possibilities so that your dogma can win.

            If you are going to waste your energy on relatively trivial things like a negative book review, what good are you in the fight against statism?

            How do you ascertain that someone’s tactics, as you describe them, are “hate-filled?” Yet another non sequitur conclusion, and hauntingly reminiscent of Leftist propaganda.

            You are a rigid ideologue — well meaning, I’m sure — but a rigid ideologue, nonetheless. Your analysis of the difference between Reagan and Goldwater is a classic example. Reagan was elected as the president of the United States, twice. Goldwater lost. That means Goldwater was never forced to compromise on ideological principles in order to accomodate the exigencies of presidential decisions. You live in an ideological fog, where all problems can be solved by a one-size-fits-all, handy-dandy ideology. That is frankly delusional. Life doesn’t work that way, especially at the presidential level. The art of compromise is essential in a country that protects broad freedoms. There are many ideological viewpoints in America, and they don’t all agree with you. The only way to rule as a president, while satisfying your ideological obession, is to rule as a dictator. That, of course, would contradict your ideology, wouldn’t it?

            One’s political enlightenment is not determined by one person’s opinion of a book review, especially when that person hasn’t read the book that was reviewed. I believe that is called checkmate.

          • Texas Patriot

            TB: “Sounds like a Progressive. Thinking, including interpretation, analysis, deduction, induction, synthesis, etc. is not done with ideology. Those who substitute ideology for rational thinking are ultimately all the same. Consequence is the only thing one needs to understand in making decisions. Ideology can’t calculate consequences, it can only rigidly predict them, assuming rigid adherence to dogma. You adhere far too rigidly to dogma. I question your logic, and tactics. You limit the possibilities so that your dogma can win. If you are going to waste your energy on relatively trivial things like a negative book review, what good are you in the fight against statism?”

            Wake up. Take off your blinders. You’ve been seduced by THE BIGGEST LIE OF ALL: PROGRESS AS A NATION IS NOT CONSERVATIVE. The essential argument of Communism and Islamism is that Capitalism is “bad”, because nations must grow, i.e. consume more resources, dominate more markets, etc. etc. etc. at the expense of other nations. In the Communist and Islamist way of thinking, national identity must give way to the collective good of humanity. Unfortunately, it’s all completely false. As Adam Smith understood very well, it is the WEALTH OF NATIONS that counts and that nations must necessarily grow poor or wealthy as a TEAM. Building up TEAM AMERICA to compete and win in the highly competitive global marketplace of the 21st Century is the ONLY truly conservative value that matters. The idea that “progress” bad or that “statism” is bad are both corollaries of the Big Lie of Communism and Islamism referred to above. The truth is that Amiercans will win together or lose together as a team, and that is the only Authentic American Conservative value that matters.

            TB: “How do you ascertain that someone’s tactics, as you describe them, are “hate-filled?” Yet another non sequitur conclusion, and hauntingly reminiscent of Leftist propaganda.”

            You should be able to figure that out for yourself. Once again, the object of all Bolshevik and Communist ideology was to convince Americans that they should feel guilty that they even exist at all. The truth is that America is the LAST BEST HOPE FOR HUMANITY.

            TB: “You are a rigid ideologue — well meaning, I’m sure — but a rigid ideologue, nonetheless. Your analysis of the difference between Reagan and Goldwater is a classic example. Reagan was elected as the president of the United States, twice. Goldwater lost. That means Goldwater was never forced to compromise on ideological principles in order to accomodate the exigencies of presidential decisions. You live in an ideological fog, where all problems can be solved by a one-size-fits-all, handy-dandy ideology. That is frankly delusional.’

            As alluded to above, Conservatism is not about ideology at all. Conservatism is pragmatic and asks only one question: What works? And the only question conservatives need to be asking themselves at this point in time is what is it going to take to turn the American nation around so that we can compete successfully against other nations in the highly competitive global economic wars of the 21st Century.

            TB: “Life doesn’t work that way, especially at the presidential level. The art of compromise is essential in a country that protects broad freedoms. There are many ideological viewpoints in America, and they don’t all agree with you. The only way to rule as a president, while satisfying your ideological obession, is to rule as a dictator. That, of course, would contradict your ideology, wouldn’t it?”

            Compromise is always the path to mediocrity, and is always the death of competitiveness and winning. Any politician who is willing to compromise America’s ability to compete and win in the global economic battles of the 21st Century is no conservative.

            TB: “One’s political enlightenment is not determined by one person’s opinion of a book review, especially when that person hasn’t read the book that was reviewed. I believe that is called checkmate.”

            The test of enlightenment for any Conservative is whether he or she is able to recognize, reject, and ultimately leave behind all of the Big Lies of Communism and Islamism referred to above. In the Authentically American Conservative scheme of things, nothing is more important that INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, and the ultimate value for the individual is HELPING THE TEAM WIN.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Quit trying to hijack these threads with your Westroll bull$hit. Nobody cares about your idol’s crappy book.

          • ziggy zoggy

            And your obnoxious Westrolling is exactly how the left distracts commentators from the subject of a thread. Get over your unhealthy fixation and stop wasting everybody else’s time.

      • ziggy zoggy

        That’s a lousy reason to read a website – and futile. Go back to Worst’s website and wallow in your conspiracy theories. You Westrolls bore the $hit out of everybody else here.

    • gid

      I think the issue is simply, should David Horowitz publish a article that reads history differently than he does? If he feels the logic that leads to the conclusions is faulty, and that the conclusions are faulty, and that the article leads readers away from the truth, rather than toward it, is he under an obligation to publish it anyway? The argument is not whether there were Communists and pro-Soviets in the US government, we know there were. There were traitors too. But Diana West does not stop there.
      Another thing, the comment I’m replying to does not belong with this article. This article is on Patterns vs Incidents. Diana sees a pattern that David Horowitz strongly disbelieves in, but that is not enough reason to post whatever is bugging you at the moment to a thread on a totally different topic. I have a pattern too that I am tempted to post anywhere and everywhere, but I generally refrain. (My pattern is that there is a vigilante mafia in the US that uses drugs on people – drugs that affect their behavior in embarrassing ways, their health in terrible ways etc). If true, that is vitally important, but I don’t blast the internet with it. (come to think of it, I just broke my rule).

    • mikeman

      Are you for real Texas? What kind of off the subject rant is this?

      If you’re this disconnected from the subject, you don’t have to make up another one just to get your 2 cents in.

      • Texas Patriot

        Reread the article. It’s about liberal indoctrination patterns that permit certain kinds of criticism and forbid others.

    • Smoking Hamster

      Goodness, you Westites are worse than the NRO commenters griping about the firing of John Derbyshire.

      • Texas Patriot

        I’m not a “Westite”. I haven’t read her book. I don’t read her columns. And I only rarely visit her website. What I am is someone who absolutely HATES the Bolshevist and Stalinist tactics of smearing political opponents with lies, distortions, half-truths, unwarranted personal attacks and character assassination; and from my perspective, that is precisely what Daniel Greenfield is talking about in this article.

        • Smoking Hamster

          Diana West reminds me a lot of Debbie Schlussel. Disagree with her on any issue and you are a non person. She attacked Glenn Beck as anti-Semitic and Steven Crowder for his blaming Detroit’s problems on Unions.

          They nitpick and judge your intentions and read everything into statements and take hyper literalistic interpretations of words even as they sloppily use words. For example, Diana West attacks Ron Radosh for saying that she calls the US an occupied country when she says that it was a de-facto occupation.

        • ziggy zoggy

          No, you are a “Westroll.” it’s obvious who you think the Bolshevik and Stalinist is. you have it backwards. you Westrolls are the ones trying to force others to accept your opinions and so is West. Horowitz was honest about your little jihad and gave West the chance to rebut it but she snubbed him started an ad hominem campaign instead. Read this article again. It has nothing to do with the monomania of you Westrolls and your idol. Stop trying to twist into something it isn’t.

          • Texas Patriot

            Way to go, Ziggy. It’s clear that you’ve been studying your Communist “Attack Dog” Handbook. Please tell us, in what chapter do they talk about how to mug someone and then pretend you’re the victim? It works for everyone else, why shouldn’t it work for Radosh and Horowitz? Unfortunately, no one is fooled. Everyone knows that Radosh and Horowitz started the attacks, and now they’re complaining that Diana West is defending herself and making them look bad. Awwwww. Isn’t that sad.

      • ziggy zoggy

        Except that John Derbyshire is an excellent writer.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Do you Westrolls have to ruin every thread with your stupid whining and accusations? Give it a rest.

  • WhiteRob

    Black people are mean. Beware

  • sandhillguy

    Excellent.

    “Christ! What are patterns for?” – Amy Lowell

  • bluffcreek1967

    Geez, this ‘diversity’ thing that was imposed on the West has really worked out well, hasn’t it? How utterly foolish of us to have imagined that flooding our white, western nations with non-white, non-assimilating third-world people with different cultures, values, religious and political views would somehow be a good thing!? “Diversity is our strength” we were told. No, Diversity is our weakness and ultimate destruction!

    “What Mexicans Bring,” http://www.ambrosekane.com

  • P_Ang

    Yeah, he’s just a poor mental patient killing whitey. Nothing to see here. I’m sure he’s “learn his lesson.” I see him smiling happily in every picture. Smiling after beating a man to death. Smiling while being arrested. Smiling in the police car. Poor mental patient, all smiles because life is so miserable for him he had to slaughter and attack a mentally handicapped man walking by and the people who tried to help.

  • DonGoe

    His metal illness is being LIBERAL.

  • gritosdelcongo

    Daniel, interesting perspective and well executed. I’m surprised no one at Ft. Hood was not more suspicious of Major Hassan dressed as he was. I’ve wondered why no one monitored him closely. Perhaps as you say it was the failure to see the pattern.

    • b_marco

      Failure to see patterns is distinct from failure to acknowledge patterns. It’s fear not ignorance.

      Nidal Hasan was the perpetrator, but political correctness was his enabler, every step of the way. Major Hasan couldn’t have been more straightforward about who and what he was. An army psychiatrist, he put “SoA” – ie, “Soldier of Allah” – on his business card. At the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, he was reprimanded for trying to persuade patients to convert to Islam, and fellow pupils objected to his constant “anti-American propaganda”. But, as the Associated Press reported, “a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint.”

      http://www.steynonline.com/5763/still-nothing-to-see-here

  • defcon 4

    I used to know an Eritrean Christian guy (he was getting his masters in EE). Aside from the horror stories he told me about islam in Africa, he once said about African-Americans, don’t confuse their culture w/mine.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Yep. American Blacks tend to be trash compared to non-islamopithecine African Blacks.

  • Ian

    KILL THE NIGGERS,MUSLIMS AND JEWS!

  • bob e

    great essay..prose, elegant & airy..found in the highest cirus clouds..and the low boundaries of outer space…

  • pherenes

    Remember that Joshua Chellew was murdered in a hate crime attack in Cobb County Georgia. No comment from DOJ.

  • Reverend Bacon

    Excellent essay. To paraphrase Mies Van der Rohe, “God is in the Patterns.” I thought the tone was perfect; not heavy-handed, very difficult to disagree with. Your “true patterns” are like Kipling’s Gods of the Copybook Headings, and your “phony patterns” like his Gods of the Marketplace.
    “As I go through my incarnations in every age and race,
    I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Marketplace.
    Peering through reverent fingers, I watch them flourish, and fall;
    But the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

    “With the hopes that our world was built on, they were utterly out of touch;
    They denied that the moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
    They denied that wishes were horses, they denied that pigs had wings;
    So we worshipped the Gods of the Market, who promised these wonderful things.”
    I hope that your essay touches at least a handful of the phony-pattern devotees, and they toss off the yoke of absurdity. I will send this to several of them, many of whom I happen to be related.

  • ziggy zoggy

    Dude, did you write that when you were drunk? Not bad, but you sure seem drunk.