Daniel Greenfield / Sultan Knish Articles at DanielGreenfield.org

The Harper's letter protesting cancel culture, while being too afraid to even put the name of the beast on paper, was doomed even before it hit the social media grinder. After over two centuries of liberals being guillotined by leftists, it would be nice if they had learned something. Unfortunately American liberals have learned nothing from France in the 18th century, and Russia in the 20th century, as they set themselves up for a beating in 2020. It doesn’t help that less than half of the Harper’s letter signatories are even liberals. Instead of making a case for liberal values, the letter is reduced to arguing that fellow allies shouldn’t be lynched for questioning dogma or accidentally falling out of step with the movement. That’s not a defense of liberal values, but a plea to Stalin not to shoot quite so many socialists. The Harper’s letter never names the ideas driving cancel culture, such as intersectionality and critical race theory, because its members are eith

The infrastructure of manufactured intelligence has become a truly impressive thing. Today as never before there is an industry dedicated, not to educating people, but to making them feel smart. From paradigm shifting TED talks by thought leaders and documentaries by change agents that promise to transform your view of the world, manufactured intelligence has become its own culture. Manufactured intelligence is the smarmy quality that oozes out of a New York Times column by Thomas Friedman, Maureen Dowd, Frank Bruni and the rest of the gang who tell you nothing meaningful while dazzling you with references to international locations, political events and pop culture, tying together absurdities into one synergistic web of nonsense that feels meaningful. There's a reason that there's a Tom Friedman article generator online. But it could just as easily be a New York Times article generator that sums up the hollowness of the buzzword-fed crowd that is always hungry to reaffirm

It wasn't long after Obama's victory that liberals began trying on patriotism like an old ill-fitting coat, admiring themselves in the mirror, and even denouncing conservatives as unamerican (yes it happened). Caught in the afterglow of their win, basking in the radiance of their man addressing the country, beaming down from the carefully arranged set pieces and choreographed events, guzzling the myth like hopeandchangey brew-- they could almost believe that the great clock of history had wound back to the Kennedy Administration. Before the Vietnam War or the shot in Memphis that killed Martin Luther King. That golden moment between FDR and LBJ, only briefly broken by McCarthyism and Ike, when hating your country hadn't yet become the mandatory liberal position. When it was still possible to look up admiringly at the flag and be a liberal, even if Phil Ochs and the SDS might mock them for it. When America to them was still the hope of the world, not the shame of the world.

Multiculturalism is one of those political words that liberals have successfully added to the day to day lexicon. It's become so that no business or political party can describe itself without employing multicultural language. One of liberalism's major crusades in the last generation has been to incorporate multiculturalism into everything, and make its lack seem like guilt or evidence of a crime. And all this championing of multiculturalism appears to make liberals seem friendly and interested in promoting different cultures. But in fact that's a fraud and a lie. To begin with let's remember that America was always a collection of different cultures. Even in its earliest days, the Scot, the Englishman, the German, the Irishman, the Jew, the Russian, the Dutchman, the Frenchman and many others were part of the stew bubbling in the American kettle. As immigration expanded beyond a few European companies and states, the number of cultures in the mix expanded as well. This

What exactly was the difference between the United States and the USSR? Both were political unions occupying large land masses. Both believed themselves to be unique political experiments which would redefine the nature of human governance around the world. Both even believed that government existed for the benefit of the people. Yet beyond the specifics, there was one fundamental difference between the two. Not simply in how they were governed, but why they were governed. In the United States, government existed through the consent of the governed. Government was simply a mechanism through which the people ruled themselves. In the USSR by contrast, government derived not from the people, but for the people. Not "Of" or "By", just "For". With the typical logic familiar to the nanny state, Communism existed to benefit the people, and so did not require their actual input, only their support. And their support was assumed to be a given, because after all t

Oliver Stone, the American left's answer to Leni Riefenstahl, having drained the swamps of Viet Cong propaganda dry is going to apply his talent for cinematical historical revisionism to WW2 in a Showtime miniseries, "The Secret History of America". Like virtually every piece of left wing historical revisionism, Stone's new miniseries will sweep aside normative history and its villains like Hitler and Stalin, replacing them with the real villain, big business. The left, which has never come up with an original idea since the 19th century, always trots out the same Marxist reinterpretation of history, in which every major event in history, from the Fall of Rome to the Rise of Hitler; comes down to the capitalist imperialists working to suppress the poor. Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, the red bible of the American college leftist, reduces American history to a narrative of the rich (the Founding Fathers) staging the American Revolutio

"That brought us to our essential difference, the difference of the Evolutionary Collectivist and Marxist, the question whether the social revolution is, in its extremity, necessary, whether it is necessary to over throw one economic system completely before the new one can begin. I believe that through a vast sustained educational campaign the existing Capitalist system can be civilised into a Collectivist world system;" H.G. Wells, Russia in the Shadows This quote comes from H. G. Wells' conversation with Vladimir Lenin. Wells was highlighting the difference between Lenin's radical revolutionary program and Wells' own "Open Conspiracy" evolutionary collectivist program. What that means is that Lenin and H. G. Wells didn't disagree on the final destination, a collectivist world system... socialism on a global scale applied to everyone and every single country. What they disagreed on was how to get there. Lenin favored a violent overthrow of t

" On the night of April 24, 2005, Christine Kramer - her body etched head to heel with two dozen stab wounds and almost completely drained of blood - summoned her last measure of strength to lift her thin right arm up off the floor of East 84th Street kitchen. Her right thumb dangling and nearly severed, she pointed at her spouse of 27 years. "He stabbed me in the heart," she murmured to cops. "My husband." Two days before that she had called her mother to tell her that she had given him divorce papers and that he had gone nuts. "She said, 'He's going to kill me, Mom! He's going to kill me! He's going to kill me!' " And he did. Yesterday a jury of twelve people (I hesitate to even describe them as people) set her killer, Benjamin Odierno, a multimillionaire real estate tycoon free. He did a jig outside the courthouse, grinning happily. Then he went off to celebrate with his family and friends at Lusardi's. And he had plenty to