Book Burning

They're burning the books. They're not doing it with bonfires this time - but that only makes it worse because in the past the crackling flames and the stench of smoke at least warned us what was happening. And we saw it as well - pictures of jack-boots tossing in Thomas Mann, Kierkegard, Hermann Hesse, etc. as they sang the "Horst Wessel". I mean, there was proof, sight, sound, smell, etc., that the books were disappearing.

But this time we hear nothing. Worse, this time we haven't even been allowed to see the books first before they're tossed in the flames. In the past, when they burned 'Buddenbrooks' or 'Magic Mountain' by Thomas Mann or 'All Quiet on the Western Front' by Erich Marie Remarque - we at least had the chance to first hold them in our hands, smell the leather binding, turn the pages with our fingers, so that even as their physical being was incinerated in flames, their memory still remained in our hearts and minds.

But not these new books. There's no memory of them because they've never lived.

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_3_conservative_books.html

This is City Journal's warning of those 'ghost' books. Books which have never been allowed to be published. Why? Well, Harry Stein's excellent (and chilling) article on 'The Future of Conservative Books' explains it all. Instead of jack boots and Goebbels, it's now the leftists doing the filthy job. And they're so damned efficient at it. Stein chills you with endless examples of how the publishing world ruthlessly, remorsely refuses to print books by conservatives. And even those that it does print are done so with violent animosity, ruthless stonewalling. "The Bell Curve", "Closing of the American Mind", "The Way Things Ought To Be", etc., had to axe their way through the rock solid wall of resistence by the publishing houses. Bernard Goldberg's 'Bias' was turned down by EVERY major publishing house. And here's the chilling fact - every single one of the publishers admitted it was beautifully written, knew it would top the best seller lists, etc. But they all flatly refused to publish it. Why? Because in the publishing world, ideology is more important than profitability. As Stein explains it:

"...the New York publishing world clearly remains a liberal stronghold, uncomprehending of, when not outright hostile to, conservative ideas—and authors. Mainstream media outlets that conventional publishers rely on to tout books have just as little enthusiasm for conservative titles."

This is how the jack boots treat those books we conservatives desperately want to read. And how do the same boots treat us when we are forced to read books we don't want to? Well, read the book "Stalin's Vanishing Commissars' for a scary clue. And then read this link below:

http://www.bucksright.com/amazon-deleting-negative-pelosi-book-reviews-en-masse-304

It seems that last week Drudge carried a headline that Pelosi's book had tanked at Amazon. When I curiously logged on to Amazon to check it out, I found that of 165 ratings, 161 were the lowest - one star. Even people who 'admired' Nancy said the book was garbage.

But where where are those negative ratings today - those comments by conservative readers? Well, read this chilling excerpt:

"Users on the Amazon customer discussion board for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s failed book Know Your Power are reporting that Amazon is censoring negative reviews of the book through mass deletion.

A user posted a screen shot image from yesterday showing a one-star rating for the book based on 139 customer reviews. Today, the book is shown to have a two-star rating based on 42 reviews. 97 seemingly negative reviews have been thrown down the memory hole. Some users are reporting having seen a greater disparity in the number of reviews over time, with up to 200 reviews reported to have gone missing."

Yes, the books are burning, people. But this time it's silent.

Like an oven.

Carolyn

Free Speech GO TO Hell Thank you Saudis

This is a disturbing article in the publishing world. Books that are critical of Islam are destroyed based on libel laws in different countries

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/libel-suit-leads-to-destruction-of-
books/59706/ Libel Suit Leads to Destruction of Books
By GARY SHAPIRO,
Staff Reporter of the Sun | August 2, 2007

Cambridge University Press has agreed to destroy all unsold copies of a 2006 book by two American authors, "Alms for Jihad," following a libel action brought against it in England, the latest development in
what critics say is an effort by Saudis to quash discussion of their alleged role in aiding terrorism.

In a letter of apology to a wealthy Saudi businessman, Sheikh Khalid
Bin Mahfouz, Cambridge University Press acknowledged that allegations
made in the book about his family, businesses, and charities
were "entirely and manifestly false." The publisher wrote, "Please
accept our sincere apologies for the distress and embarrassment this
has caused."

The press also published a separate apology on its web site
(http://www.cambridge.org/about/apology.htm), and wrote that it would
pay substantial damages and contribute to legal costs. A press
release by Sheikh Mahfouz's London-based law firm, Kendall Freeman,
said Cambridge University Press was also writing to over 200
libraries around the world asking them to withdraw the book from
shelves. The total press run was about 1,500 copies.

The director of the Middle East Forum, Daniel Pipes, noting that
Sheikh Mahfouz has been successful in as many as four prior lawsuits
against authors, said that Cambridge University Press's apology
had "ominous implications" into researching the financing of
terrorism.

A professor at Emory University, who won a libel suit in Britain
brought against her and Penguin, Deborah Lipstadt, likewise told The
New York Sun that this action by Cambridge University Press was
a "frightening development." She said that it seemed to her that the
Saudis were "systematically, case by case, book by book" challenging
anything critical of them or anything that linked them to terrorism.
She said that she could not think of any publisher that would now
accept a manuscript critical of the Saudis. "This affects not only
authors but readers," she said, adding that "ideas are being chased
out of the marketplace."

The director of the New York-based American Center for Democracy,
Rachel Ehrenfeld, said that Cambridge University Press "capitulated"
and "didn't even try to fight." Sheikh Mahfouz sued her for her 2003
book "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed — and How to Stop It."
Rather than contesting the case in Britain, Ms. Ehrenfeld has taken
to the American courts. In June, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled unanimously in her favor, finding that if an American
writer is sued for libel in a foreign court, that person can appeal
to an American court to request that a British decision not be
enforceable here.

Libel law in England is more advantageous to the litigant than is
American law, which has stronger First Amendment protections.

One co-author of "Alms for Jihad," Robert Collins, who is a professor
emeritus of history at the University of California, Santa Barbara,
told the Sun that he could not comment until he heard from Cambridge
University Press. The other co-author, a former a former State
Department employee and intelligence analyst, J. Millard Burr, told
the Sun that their book mentioned Sheikh Mahfouz 13 times, and in no
place had they labeled him a terrorist. He said that within a week of
Cambridge University receiving a letter charging defamation, he and
his co-author prepared and sent supporting documents to Cambridge
University Press. The authors were not themselves named parties in
the suit.

In the apology letter, which is dated July 30, the intellectual
property director at Cambridge University Press, Kevin Taylor wrote
to Sheikh Mahfouz saying the co-authors relied on a so-called "Golden
Chain" document that "has been long discredited as a reliable
source." Mr. Burr told the Sun he disagreed that such document has
been discredited, and said the document was used in a trial in
Chicago.

The U.S. office of Cambridge University Press was unable to respond
by press time.

But the Chronicle of Higher Education yesterday quoted Mr. Taylor
saying "these were very serious charges" and there had already been
at least two other British High Court rulings supporting Sheikh
Mahfouz's position on such matters.

Another similar case in America involves KinderUSA, a charity that is
suing Yale University Press, charging that a book published last year
by Michael Levitt called "Hamas: Politics, Charity and Terrorism in
the Service of Jihad" (2006) linked the non-profit to support of
terrorism.

Mr. Burr said of his co-authored book now, "Buy it, if you can find
one," since it was now a collector's item.

The press release from Sheikh Mahfouz's law firm said he would donate
the money from the settlement to the United Nations Children's Fund.
Forbes magazine lists the sheikh's fortune at $3.1 billion, much of
which derives from a sale of National Commercial Bank to the Saudi
government in 2002.


I say Skeikh Mahfouz YOU GO TO HELL!