BUY THE BOOK AT AMAZON!
"This explosive book is a long-needed answer to court histories that continue to obscure key facts about our backstage war with Moscow. Must-reading for serious students of security issues and Cold War deceptions, both foreign and domestic."
-- M. Stanton Evans, author of Stalin's Secret Agents and Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies
"[West] only claims `to connect the dots,' which is a very modest description of the huge and brilliant work she has obviously done. ... It is not simply a good book about history. It is one of those books which makes history."
-- Vladimir Bukovsky, author of To Build a Castle and co-founder of the Soviet dissident movement, and Pavel Stroilov, author of Behind the Desert Storm.
"Every once in a while, something happens that turns a whole structure of preconceived ideas upside down, shattering tales and narratives long taken for granted, destroying prejudice, clearing space for new understanding to grow. Diana West's latest book, American Betrayal, is such an event."
-- Henrik Raeder Clausen, Europe News
"No book has ever frightened me as much as American Betrayal. ... It all adds up to a story so disturbing that it has changed my attitude to almost everything I think about how the world actually is."
-- Steven Kates, Quadrant
“What Diana West has done is to dynamite her way through several miles of bedrock. On the other side of the tunnel there is a vista of a new past. Of course folks are baffled. Few people have the capacity to take this in. Her book is among the most well documented I have ever read. It is written in an unusual style viewed from the perspective of the historian—but it probably couldn’t have been done any other way.”
-- Lars Hedegaard, historian, editor, Dispatch International
"Diana West's new book rewrites WWII and Cold War history not by disclosing secrets, but by illuminating facts that have been hidden in plain sight for decades. Furthermore, she integrates intelligence and political history in ways never done before."
-- Jeffrey Norwitz, former professor of counterterrorism, Naval War College
Do not be dissuaded by the controversy that has erupted around this book which, if you insist on complete accuracy, would be characterized as a disinformation campaign.
-- Jed Babbin, The American Spectator
Enlightening. I give American Betrayal five stars only because it is not possible to give it six."
-- John Dietrich, formerly of the Defense Intelligence Agency and author of The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy.
"Diana West masterfully reminds us of what history is for: to suggest action for the present. She paints for us the broad picture of our own long record of failing to recognize bullies and villains. She shows how American denial today reflects a pattern that held strongly in the period of the Soviet Union. She is the Michelangelo of Denial.”
-- Amity Shlaes, author of Coolidge and The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression
If you're looking for something to read, this is the most dazzling, mind-warping book I have read in a long time. It has been criticized by the folks at Front Page, but they don't quite get what Ms. West has set out to do and accomplished. I have a whole library of books on communism, but -- "Witness" excepted -- this may be the best.
-- Jack Cashill, author of Deconstructing Obama: The Lives, Loves and Letters of America's First Postmodern President and First Strike: TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America
American Betrayal is a monumental achievement. Brilliant and important.
-- Monica Crowley, Fox News analyst, radio host and author of What the Bleep Just Happened: The Happy Warriors Guide to the Great American Comeback
"If you haven't read Diana West's "American Betrayal" yet, you're missing out on a terrific, real-life thriller."
-- Brad Thor, author of the New York Times bestsellers Hidden Order, Black List and The Last Patriot.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010 4:17 AM
The argument over whether to admit Turkey to the European Union seems eternal, at least among EU elites. Among the peoples of of Europe, when give the rare chance to make their will known at the ballot box -- increasingly window-dressing as far as the soft totalitarians of the EU are concerned -- there is little argument. There is bona fide consensus: NO to Turkey becoming a part of Europe. Why? For one thing, because it is not.
Tell that to British Prime Minister David Cameron, currently in Ankara selling the inclusiveness-for-Turkey-line (something the US has quite meddlesomely clamored for), pushing Tukish membership in the EU as an antidote to -- updated -- as the Telegraph put it, "anti-Muslim prejudice." Such prejudice is typically portrayed as being based in a senseless bias rather than in a historically grounded, contemporarily confirmed fear for the obliteration of bedrock Western values and principles.
As I noted back in 2005, the inclusion of Turkey is a political move with more than political consequences: Demographically alone, it promises to apply, or, rather, accelerate the finishing touches on the Islamization of Europe:
If approved, Turkey, second in EU population only to Germany, would bring its tens of millions of Muslims into largely post-Christian, secular European society; with them comes a weighty Islamic influence on European affairs that would boost the transition, as [then London mayor Ken] Livingstone might say, of Europe to a multicultural, multiracial and — more pertinent — Islamized continent of Eurabia.
Not that this salient point is ever raised. "Europe can either decide to become a global actor or it can fence itself off as a Christian club," Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said, flipping the issue on its head before the EU voted to open membership talks with Turkey. In light of the EU's deliberate omission of "God" or "Christianity" in its 439-page constitution, this was a fairly obnoxious comment. Besides, Turkey has long "fenced itself off" into such Islamic "clubs" as the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. The latter is an Islamic version of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights; it elevates sharia (Islamic law) over universal human rights, and declares the Muslim community's role is to "guide" humanity. Which is more than just clubby.
But there was another implication to the Turkish leader's words: that Western identity is merely a tribal expression of petty insularity. Free will, free conscience — the evolution of individual liberty — is the gift of Judeo-Christian civilization, and it is one that Islam has never accepted. Tragically, it is one that Westerners may be throwing away. Britain's [then-]foreign minister, Jack Straw, was equally dismissive of Europe's "so-called Christian heritage," while Britain's Lord Patten, a former EU official, pegged opposition to Turkish membership to "relics of Christianity,"a rather nasty way to belittle natural concern over a proposed event one European minister has compared to the fall of the Berlin Wall. "To define Europe today as though it were an introverted, cohesive, medieval Christian community is, I think, terrible," said Lord Patten. Maybe he means that to define Europe as European is terrible.
The trend continues.
From a report on Cameron's speech in today's Telegraph:
Addressing the EU membership which Britain has supported for years along with nations including Italy and Spain, but which has stalled amid opposition from Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, he [Cameron] will tell the Turks: "I will remain your strongest possible advocate for EU membership and for greater influence at the top table of European diplomacy.
"Together, I want us to pave the road from Ankara to Brussels."
Mr Cameron will attack: "those who wilfully misunderstand Islam" and who "see no difference between real Islam and the distorted version of the extremists."
How impolitic if not downright rude of British PM Cameron! Doesn't he realize that his host Turkish PM Erdogan has specifically and repeatedly expressed his furor over those who would dare make distinctions between "moderate" and "extremist" Islam? To wit: "These descriptions are very ugly," Erdogan said in 2007. "It is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam, and that's it." Erdogan has also bluntly rejected descriptions of Turkey itself as an example of "moderate Islam," saying in April 2009: "It is unacceptable for us to agree with such a definition. Turkey has never been a country to represent such a concept. Moreover, Islam cannot be classified as moderate or not."
Blunder on. Back to today's Telegraph:
[Cameron] will also criticise those who view international relations as "polarised" or a clash between eastern and western civilisations. Nations who want to keep Turkey out of the EU for protectionist reasons will also come under attack.
Mr Cameron will say it makes him "angry that your progress towards EU membership can be frustrated in the way it has been."
"I believe it's just wrong to say Turkey can guard the camp but not be allowed to sit inside the tent," he will add, criticising those who suggest that the country should pick between the east and the west, saying Turkey was stronger because it had chosen both.
Anyone who thinks Turkey has chosen "both" is closing his eyes. Anyone who believes a country can choose "both" is blind.