The Savage silence of the lambs, Part 2

And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

~ Matthew 13:57

Hoover Institution fellow Robert Conquest, in a fascinating article, "Inside Stalin's Darkroom," detailed the extent of communist tyranny of the Soviet Union under Stalin, whereby people who fell out of Stalin's capricious favor could literally be "disappeared" from life, as well as from history. Mr. Conquest writes:

Two groups of people were removed from the visual record. Members of the first group had their revolutionary pasts destroyed (and were murdered) but were remade in Soviet history as terrorist agents of Hitler. Members of the second group simply disappeared and were not heard of again.

Regarding the Stalinist tactics used in the May 5 blacklisting of Michael Savage by the United Kingdom in collusion with America and the Obama administration, must we add a third category of the disappeared – those unmentioned souls who are left alive but are treated as though they were dead?

TRENDING: Father of the year Hunter Biden must now give Burisma financials to court

It is the Savage silence of the lambs.

In an earlier article titled, "The Savage Silence of the Lambs," I compared the Machiavellian and unjust blacklisting of Savage by our strongest ally, England, to the movie "Silence of the Lambs." Here is Part 2 of that offering. As a reference, I quote in part from my original article of May 20:

In the 1991 movie "Silence of the Lambs," based on a novel by Thomas Harris, Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), a brilliant but evil psychiatrist, begins a game of quid pro quo with Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster), a young FBI trainee seeking the advice of the imprisoned Lecter on capturing a serial murder with the alias, "Buffalo Bill." In one telling scene, Starling tells of how she was orphaned, relocated to an uncle's farm, discovered the horror of the lambs going to the slaughterhouse and unsuccessfully tried to save one of the little lambs.

That horrific, indelible scene that haunted her all those years was the lambs' seeming indifference and silence in the face of utter slaughter.

Do you hear that sound, America? It is the tormenting sound of crickets chirping. It is the sound of Prometheus groaning in utter agony as his liver is daily eaten by a giant eagle commanded by Zeus. … It is the sound of the Savage silence of the lambs.

Why, after two weeks since the release of a major profile of Michael Savage by the venerable liberal magazine The New Yorker, has not one TV network, not one major newspaper, not one conservative, libertarian or independent think tank, not one liberal or conservative talk show host invited Michael on their show to interview him regarding this unique and monumental achievement?

It is the Savage silence of the lambs.

New Yorker magazine writer Kelefa Sanneh did an excellent job in profiling my friend and intellectual mentor, Michael Savage, not because he was complimentary or unduly fawning of his subject, but because he was fair, honest and introspective in his psychological treatment of this authentic American conservative intellectual. Kelefa effectively moved himself out of the way and allowed the reader to use his own intelligence to understand Dr. Michael Savage, the man.

Regarding the Michael Savage affair, I would like to echo the comments by Jeff Kuhner who frequently hosts "The Savage Nation" in Michael's absence, particularly his revelatory monologue on Aug. 5. Jeff eloquently voiced the passions and frustrations of Michael and "The Savage Nation" audience, pointing out that normally when someone is profiled in the revered New Yorker magazine, they are granted instant celebrity status and given entree to all of the major network news, cable, newspapers and radio media.

The doctor is in and the diagnosis is clear. Don't miss Michael Savage's "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"

Note: Past New Yorker profiles are a virtual Who's Who of literature, intellectualism, society and culture: Ernest Hemingway, John Updyke, Truman Capote, Rachael Carson, Martha Nussbaum, Vaclav Havel, Barack and Michelle Obama, and the iconic profiles of President George W. Bush by the curmudgeon Seymour Hersh.

In other words, everyone knows that a profile in the New Yorker is usually a career maker, not a career breaker. However, with the conservative nationalist Michael Savage, all one has heard over the past two weeks since the publication of his New Yorker magazine profile was the deafening Savage silence of the lambs.

The aspect of the Michael Savage affair I find most paradoxical is watching how these normally talkative media demigods daily rail against Democrats and "the liberal media" (who utterly hate them), yet are all so very silent regarding their fellow conservative presenter, Michael Savage. It makes no logical sense to me.

Another example of the Stalinist blacklisting tactics by Sir Winston Churchill's once Great Britain and America can be found in Glen Owen's article on the Michael Savage affair published in the London Daily Mail:

• One message, sent by an unidentified Home Office official on Nov. 27 last year, said that "with Weiner [Savage], I can understand that disclosure of the decision would help provide a balance of types of exclusion cases."
• The documents include a draft recommendation, marked "Restricted," saying: "We will want to ensure that the names disclosed reflect the broad range of cases and are not all Islamic extremists."
• A further email confirmed the decision was approved at the highest level of Government, saying: "HO [Home Office] intend to include Weiner in their quarterly stats. ... Both the FS [foreign secretary] and PM [prime minister] are firmly behind listing and naming such people."
• One civil servant, again unnamed, counseled caution, saying: "I think we could be accused of duplicity in naming him" – without explaining why – and even added that "the fact that he is homophobic does help."
• "We will want to ensure that the names disclosed reflect the broad range of cases and are not all Islamic extremists. Otherwise the exercise could play into the hands of radicals who allege falsely that the unacceptable behaviours policy is targeted specially at the Muslim community."

On the other hand, Michael has repeatedly said on air, "This story is bigger than me, bigger than any single individual or cause." Yet when emails expressing anti-Semitism and evil intent like: "... the Home Office chose him to balance the list of Muslim extremists because he is Jewish, are slanderously and libelously leveled against Michael's reputation without just cause, what can any man do but zealously seek to redeem his name?

Where is the Nobel Prize laureate and Holocaust activist Elie Wiesel? Why the silence from the Anti-defamation League, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, The America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), American Jewish Committee, B'nai B'rith International, Rabbinical Council of America, Zionist Organizations of America, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs? Will the nation of Israel lift a finger to help a fellow Jew who is suffering national and international condemnation without just cause?

It is the Savage silence of the lambs.

These people, organizations and nations don't seem to understand that speaking up for the cause of Michael Savage will help themselves and their causes infinitely more.

It is self-evident from the information now available though legal discovery and the yeoman efforts of Savage's legal teams in America and England that the administration of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and America's Obama administration, both working in collusion with each other, singled out and remade Michael Savage as a terrorist agent who should be banned from Britain for "fostering extremism and hatred." Michael isn't fostering extremism and hatred; he is a singular champion of liberty and a tireless advocate of defending America's borders, language and culture.

In conclusion, compare the Michael Savage affair to Josef Stalin's redacting of history. Look at the pictures above: If Stalin's own personal assassin and chief of his notorious secret police, the NKVD, wasn't safe from Stalin's "purges," what makes the GOP, the RNC, conservative radio hosts, National Review, the Weekly Standard, Fox News and the rest of the state-controlled media think they will be safe from President Obama's fascist and censorship tactics? Surely these people and organizations must know they will be next.

What, therefore, is the response from all the champions defending freedom of speech and freedom of expression regarding the case of Michael Savage, this modern-day Alfred Dreyfus affair?

… All I can hear is the hypocritical, unconsoling Savage silence of the lambs!