Melting Leftist Arguments on Contact

Pages: 1 2

[Editor’s note: Many thanks to Diversity Lane for the cartoon. Be sure and visit for more great conservative cartoons at Diversitylane.wordpress.com.]

My friend and mentor Dr. Jamie Glazov has a new book out, Showdown with Evil: Our Struggle Against Tyranny and Terror which you can purchase here.

The book is a collection of some of the best of Jamie’s interviews that he’s conducted over the years for FrontPage Magazine. I helped Jamie with the project, writing introductions to each section and conducting the interview which concludes the book. To promote Jamie’s new book, we’re printing that interview here. Enjoy.

David Swindle: Dr. Glazov, let’s discuss the themes of this collection and what conclusions we can reach from them.

First, in several interviews in this work you discuss your background as the son of two prominent Soviet dissidents. Can you tell us a bit about how you became politically aware over the course of your childhood and adolescence? Most young people are blissfully ignorant of political matters and the often disturbing realities of the world. Given your family’s history of fighting tyranny and terror, perhaps you did not have such a luxury?

Glazov: Thanks David. Well I am grateful to God I didn’t have this so-called luxury. To say the least, it would be an understatement to say that I never envied a lot of the people I grew up with in the West who walked around without one idea in their head or any yearning for anything. I remember being around certain friends growing up and they would be sitting around aimlessly and complaining that they were “bored.” I can understand being happy or sad, or being elated or depressed, but I could never understand being bored. My heart and mind has, from the time I was young, been consumed with worrying for the dissidents back in Russia, and in other totalitarian societies. I am not trying to glorify myself; I’m just being honest in that I was perpetually troubled by the suffering inmates of the communist gulag and I yearned for their release and for the punishment and overthrow of their tormentors.

My soul was intertwined with my dad’s and mom’s battle and perpetual concern for the martyrs that fell and the heroes that rose fighting against communist despotism. I was forever perplexed not only at the indifference around me about these matters, but, as I grew older and entered high school and the university, at the actual excuse and support for it. Liberal and leftist friends and acquaintances chastised my parents and me constantly about our inappropriate views and concerns, explaining to us that our focus should not be on communism, that really wasn’t so bad, but on American imperialism, aggression and oppression — supposed realities that, no matter how hard I tried, I could not detect my entire life.

These circumstances in which I grew taught me, on many levels, what life was and gave me a priceless gift: the gift of caring for justice, of caring for something greater than just my own immediate material or physical needs. I am forever grateful to my parents for having given me access to the divine gift of having an inner life and world.

My parents took on one of the most evil regimes in human history, a regime that massacred millions of people and brought misery and destitution to millions of others. Because of this background, I think I have a little inkling of what freedom is and what real oppression is. And so I have developed a reflexive nausea when I am confronted with the smug liberal and leftist, of whom I have met a million, who thinks he knows it all, is better than conservatives, and yet, when it comes down to it, has absolutely no concern for the truth or for the millions of human beings who suffer under the tyrannies that he supports and makes excuses for – and under which he himself would perish.

Swindle: Please tell us a bit about your odyssey through academia. What drove you to pursue scholarly work? What were some of the subjects you studied which influenced you the most? How did your studies affect your political philosophy? What was it like being a son of Soviet dissidents in a leftist academic culture which celebrated the monsters who had brought so much pain to your family?

Glazov: Going to university was just a given thing to do. I come from a family of academics and pursuing knowledge is something that you just love and pursue, there’s not really a question about it. I did my undergrad in history and then went on to do Ph.D. studies in history as well. I did it because I longed for fighting for the truth about communism and for telling the truth about it. I studied the Cold War because America was a divine entity to me and the Soviet Union was, for anyone with eyes to see, a clear evil empire that represented a toxic threat to every single human being, whether they were under its totalitarian grasp or outside of it.

I detested the leftists in academia who not only apologized for the Soviet Union, but cheered for its victory. I observed the glorification of Mao, Che Guevara, Castro, the North Vietnamese and other mass murderers everywhere I went on campus. No academic professor, with an exception or two, had the courage or integrity to put Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago or Armando Valladares’ Against All Hope on their syllabuses, even though the Soviet Union and Cuba played prominent roles in their courses. No professor would dare to accompany his reading list full of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn with a counter-reading from a David Horowitz or Thomas Sowell. You were only allowed to get one side of the story. And if you thought that capitalism was a good thing or that Ronald Reagan was a great president, you would get a bad mark, because it meant you didn’t understand the course and the truth.

It hurt my heart and infuriated my whole being watching these people on campus apologize for evil and heap abuse and slander upon the United States and Israel, the two most beautiful countries in the world that represent and stand up for freedom, justice and equality (well, with the U.S. up until Obama), and are on the frontlines of defending it. In this context, a desire was born in me to expose leftists and their true motives. I wanted to understand and to explain the typical colleague I looked at daily who worshiped societies under which he himself would be exterminated and who heaped criticism at a society that was allowing him every luxury, liberty and material allowance to sit around and think up everything he hated about it.

Swindle: With this background it’s quite obvious how you could connect with David Horowitz and the Freedom Center. Could you discuss how you became FrontPage Magazine‘s managing editor?

Glazov: Well, back in 1997 I had decided to write a script on how to be a good leftist, a satirical kind of thing. I found leftists so pathetic as I was observing them, that I decided to create a comedic how-to-guide. So I was reading a few books to crystallize my ideas and then, before finishing, I got my hands on Radical Son, David Horowitz’s memoir. I was totally overwhelmed by it. It had really grabbed me. I remember I had not been that moved by a book for a very long time — and haven’t been since. I was very sad, I remember, when the book ended. I really didn’t want to move on to anything else, the narrative had such a hold on me. Picking up another book just wouldn’t do, and that really was the situation for awhile. Radical Son enters your consciousness in a way that you really can’t explain unless you read it. It delivers some of the greatest truths about life, the human condition and the Left in the most powerful of ways.

So I decided to write a letter to David and tell him how much his memoir meant to me and how much I respected him. And when I sent him the letter, I decided to include my script with it, which was called “15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist.” I just included it for something to do, not really expecting to hear anything back. But I did leave my phone number along with my address on the bottom of the letter I wrote.

A few weeks later my phone rang. So I picked it up and said “Hello?” And a voice asked: “Is Jamie Glazov there?” And I said, “Speaking.” And the voice said, “Hello Jamie, this is David Horowitz.” To say the least, well, it would be an understatement to say that it was quite a surprise. He thanked me for my letter and also expressed an interest in publishing my satire as a little booklet at his Center. So of course I agreed and it became the Center’s pamphlet. After that, I started submitting to FrontPage Magazine as a regular writer and eventually I became a columnist. One day I got an email from David and it said: “What’s your day job?” And well, it all kind of happened from there. I became an assistant editor and then just kind of moved up I guess. And here I am today. David gave me a great opportunity and it has been an honor and privilege to work with him, the Center, and at FrontPage. I consider him the most important political thinker and activist of our time. He’s a warrior battling on the frontlines. He’s a hero. And I am grateful to fight by his side against the totalitarians of our time and their human-hating ideologies.

Swindle: You edited and wrote a very impressive introduction to Horowitz’s anthology of his writings, Left Illusions. There are few people more familiar with Horowitz’s writings and with Horowitz personally than you. What do you think are some of the intellectual lessons that we can learn from Horowitz’s work? Are there particular Horowitz books that you especially appreciate?

Glazov: Well David comes from within the Belly of the Beast. He was in hell and was able to come out of it and to tell us how the devil thinks and what his strategy is. In essence, David demonstrates how the totalitarianism in communist practice is rooted in the socialist idea itself. He has shown, in the most profound way, how the utopianism of the Left leads to the monstrosities of its earthly incarnations. And he experienced all of this personally in terms of what he witnessed as a child of communists and as a leader of the New Left. He has illuminated the belief system of the believer, which envisions replacing this earth and its human beings with a new earth with perfect human beings. This child-like fantasy, as he has termed it, is the “original sin” of the Left. And it is this fantasy that has led to Stalinism, Maoism and all the other communist totalitarian experiments that have killed more than a hundred million human beings and caused mass suffering for millions of others.

My favorite Horowitz books, the ones that had the deepest impact on me, are Radical Son and The Politics of Bad Faith. Radical Son, as I mentioned earlier, was extremely moving. The memoir goes beyond Whittaker Chambers’ Witness in that it engages in a fearless examination of self, which is almost unprecedented in political memoirs. By going further than any previous narrative in demonstrating how deeply the Marxist fairy tale is entwined with the character and psychology of its believers, David shows how the socialist lie reaches into every corner of its believer’s soul. He makes clear why the break from radicalism can be such a personally devastating decision. And that’s why, as we know and have seen, a leftist can never look back or say “I’m sorry.”

The Politics of Bad Faith builds on this incapacity of the progressive to say “mea culpa” and for leftists to say “nostra culpa.” The book, a collection of essays, is extremely powerful in that it exposes the refusal of radicals to accept the implications of the collapse of Communism for the future of the socialist project. David shows how the Left simply ignored (and ignores) the lessons of communism’s collapse, and has just renamed itself and its agendas. And so leftists just continue with their destructive agendas. This is the politics of bad faith. There is really no literature out there that deals with this phenomenon in the way that David’s does. This remains really the only book written after the fall of the Berlin Wall that systematically confronts the arguments of the Left with the history that refutes them. Not surprisingly, the Left has ignored it. It deals with David’s work the same way that the Soviet regime simply took people out of existence when it rewrote its own history.

Swindle: Let’s now discuss the subject of this volume: the ideas you have encountered and promoted at FrontPage Magazine over the past decade. What has been your understanding, as the editor of the last nine or so years, of the threat posed by tyranny and terror?

Glazov: Well, radical Islam is now the greatest threat the West faces. We are, as Norman Podhoretz has noted, in World War IV. We face totalitarian and religious zealots who seek to establish an Islamic caliphate worldwide. They hate freedom and liberty, and so they hate and need to destroy the United States and Israel the most, since these two nations are the bulwarks and representatives of freedom in the world.

The threat of radical Islam is rooted in the teachings of Islam, which mandate Islamic supremacism and the subjugation of non-Muslims. Unfortunately, the liberal stronghold on our culture does not allow us to confront this truth, and so it remains a serious challenge how we will be able to defeat an enemy that we cannot name.

We now see this tragedy inherent in the Obama administration, headed by leftists, that somehow cannot see the presence of Islamic jihad in the Fort Hood massacre and in Abdulmutullab’s attempt to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253. Nidal Hasan and Abdulmutullab themselves insist that they were inspired by Islam and the teachings of the Koran, but the Obama administration treats them as criminals rather than as war combatants. This is simply suicide, it puts American lives and security at risk. And it is, of course, all part of the workings of the unholy alliance that David Horowitz has delineated. It’s how the Left makes us vulnerable to our totalitarian enemy. Both seek to destroy our society.

Pages: 1 2

  • tim heekin

    I will get this book forthwith. I too was blown away by "Radical Son" and consider it one of my favorite books. I have even re-read the thing which is something I never do (but should) with good books. One, at least this one, can't get everything with a single read but the allure of a "new" book means I never get around to re-reading. "Radical Son" was the exception.

  • RonaldB

    I have a strong anger against the Republican party. I think Jamie is wearing blinders himself by focusing only on the leftist idealogs, and ignoring the lies and self-serving actions of the Republicans, who are every bit as dangerous in our fight with radical Islam.

    In the first place, possibly the most self-damaging aggressive act the US ever took was during the Eisenhower administration, when the CIA totally engineered a coup in Iran, overthrowing the democratically-elected, liberal, leftist prime minister, Mossadegh. The coup installed the tyrannical Shah of Iran, whose vicious corrupt government led directly to the installation of the Iranian Islamic Republic, possibly our worst enemy.

    I will vote for Obama over George Bush shrub any day. Prior to Bush, we had a messy, but workable containment policy for Saddam Hussein. Bush chose to invade Iraq, using flimsy evidence as an excuse. As a result, Iran is now the preeminent power in that area. Through Bush's blundering, we totally wiped out any regional balance of power, and now have an Iraq almost totally dominated by Iranian interests.

    At the same time, Bush basically ignored Afghanistan after ejecting the Taliban, which is where the 9/11 attack was authorized and sanctioned. Bush has left a royal mess for Obama to handle. The attempts by Obama and his staff to clean up the Bush mess are documented in Woodward's book, Obama's Wars.

    It was Bush, not Obama, who characterized Islam as "the religion of peace." I challenge you to show me any policy concerning Islam which Obama undertook that was not a continuation of Bush policy. Bush allowed a planeload of Osama bin Laden's relatives to take off for Saudi Arabia hours after 9/11, after only cursory questioning by the FBI.

    George Bush senior was far wiser than his son. Although he fought a war against Saddam, he recognized the benefits of maintaining a functioning government in Iraq, even if the government was a non-lethal irritant to the US. Under Saddam, the Christi
    ans who are now fleeing Iraq were protected and completely safe. Under Saddam, the Muslims Sunis and Shiites who take so much delight in killing each other were kept firmly underfoot.

    In sum, the Republicans are as dangerous as the Democrats in the fight against an Islamic subversion of our society. The policies of Clinton were far better for the US than the policies of Bush. It's true that Clinton's security laxities cost the US 3,000 casualties. It is also true that Bush's impetuousness to war has cost the US over 4,000 casualties and counting.

    • Gylippus

      I disagree in the following way. When confronting a violent ideology, it is always better to assume an assertive, forward leaning posture than a submissive, apologetic one. We can argue about whether the tactical decisions to invade Iraq or Afghanistan were the right ones, but Bush's basic strategic posture: to take the fight to the enemy is the correct one. This is true for 3 reasons: 1)Radical Islam is the aggressor. 2) The arguments they put forward to justify their aggression are bogus, or at any rate do not justify the mass-murder of innocents, and 3) Islamists not only perceived moderation as weakness (inviting further attacks), they are expert at inducing their victims to adopt a 'moderate' (i.e. submissive) posture.

      I have a lot of problems with Republicans too, and am still far from convinced that they are up to the many difficult tasks that lie ahead. But to claim that they are worse than progressive Dems is, in my view, absurd.

      • RonaldB

        Thank you for your reply, Gylippus.

        Here is why I disagree with your assertion that any aggressive response to the aggressive ideology of Islam is better than none.

        It is logical to assume that one should assess the consequences of one's actions. So, rather than generally asserting it is better to take aggressive actions in the Middle East as a response to 9/11, it is necessary to look at the consequences of our actions.

        The government of Saddam Hussein, odious as it was, was secular. He did not support Islamic terrorists, likely because he could not control them, and their goals were completely different from his. He gave a bit of cursory support to the families of suicide bombers in Israel, probably no more than our allies, the Saudi Arabians.

        Most important, Iraq was the primary counterweight to Iran, which most definitely did and does support violent, aggressive Islamism. Iraq is now riddled with Iranian agents, including the second most powerful politician mullah, al Sadr, who is directly under Iranian control.

        Christians are leaving Iraq in droves, as they see no future in an Iraq dominated by Islamists unwilling or unable to protect them from violent Muslims. In a few years or sooner, Iraq will be another Islamic Republic, completely without balancing forces.

        So, my argument is that strategically, we dealt ourselves a disaster of the first rank by deposing Saddam without considering the consequences.

        As far as your point that Islam is the aggressor, and so our attack is justified. I am viewing the situation solely from the point of view of the interests of the US, not whether a particular action is justified by previous actions. I think by any measure, the US attack on Iraq was a disaster for the US, continues to be, and will likely get worse in the future.

        One real defense against radical Islam is to cut off Muslim immigration. We are still at the point where we can safely cut off further Muslim immigration, and still accord the full rights of citizenship to the Muslims already here. In a few years, this may not be the case, if we allow Jihadists to pour in from countries like Somalia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. Do you see the Republicans talking about a sane immigration policy? Obama is the only one advocating a change, and the Republicans are refusing to speak to him about it. The Republicans have no vision.

        Progressive Democrats can be worked with by a focused and sensible conservative opposition. I see the Republican opposition degenerating into know-nothing obstructionism.

        • Gylippus

          As I said, we can disagree over whether invading Iraq was a correct tactic in the war against radical Islam. But there are a number of problems with your analysis:

          First, I did not say that 'any aggressive response is better than none'. I said that 'an assertive posture was better than a submissive one'. This is a crucial distinction and one often missed by those on the left. Jihadists live by a warrior creed, and this tend to dismiss talk of peace as the mewlings of prey. Actually 'dismiss' is not the right work. They cultivate and embrace such talk from their chosen victims, since it is the familiar, centuries' old sign that their strategy (fear followed by hope) is having its desired effect: to induce a surrender mindset, a crucial step on the road to Dhimmitude.

          (cont'd)

          • Gylippus

            …Showing that you are prepared to fight alters the dynamic. It is kind of like shaking yourself awake before the sleep narcotic fully takes effect. If the threat is localized, a local response may be enough. If is widespread and dispersed, the problem becomes more complicated. This does not mean you nuke the entire Muslim world. Instead a tactical response may be crafted aimed at altering your enemies' risk-gain calculations. A suicidal enemy is an especially problematic. Looked upon in that light, it is possible to view Bush's approach a fairly brilliant one: to apply pressure at a single point in the hopes of triggering a wave of cultural (and thence political) reform in the Arab world. It is a long term strategy (2 generations at least – which is why your timeline for measuring success is too short), but it is better than all out war with the Muslim world, and far better than sending a predator the signal that you are paralyzed. Has Obama's charm offensive won us any respite?

            I agree with you re immigration though.

            PS – Merry Christmas!

          • RonaldB

            Thank you and Merry Christmas and happy holidays to you.

            There is a viable western assertiveness towards Islam. It is called Israel. Israel has been in existence far longer than two generations, and has yet to change any Muslim dynamic. So, the strategy you advocate: planting a boot in their territory and showing you are ready to fight, has not had an effect. Worse, Israel is an example of the benefits and tolerance of western culture. Women are not circumcised, apostates are not killed, liberals, freethinkings, and fundamentalists may say what they wish. The people are prosperous and free. And yet, no Muslim group asks publicly whether they might be better off under a democratic model.

            So, I think your model of Iraq as a long-term showplace of the benefits of western democracy and a sign of the western powers to stand firm is flawed. The soil of Middle-Eastern Islam is simply not fertile for freedom or democracy. We are draining our resources in Iraq, and nobody believes there will be any freedom there when the US troops leave.

            Unfortunately, the model for a successful government in Muslim Middle East is the Saddam Hussein model: an autocratic government using thoroughly disreputable methods to suppress the natural tendencies of the Muslims to kill non-Muslims and each other. The Egyptian, Jordanian, and Algerian governments more or less follow this model.

            We have no chance at all trying to change the hearts and minds of the Middle East through our presence. Read the accounts of the Bush planning, such as it was, for the war. They thought that once they toppled the vicious government of Hussein, the natural inclinations of the people would be to institute a free government. The viciousness of the intra-Muslim feuds took them totally by surprise. There was no planning for it whatsoever.

            I say again: our best strategy is to close our borders to any additional significant Muslim immigration, except for obvious humanitarian cases like reuniting families, and for obvious cases of refugees who truly value freedom. We should maintain relations with, and interest in, the rest of the world, but not fool ourselves that we can affect anything, except through our example, and through our traditional stance of providing a safe haven for truly freedom-loving people, including even Muslims.

          • Gylippus

            Comments system won't allow me to post my reply, even in short segments. Will try again later…

          • Gylippus

            We seem to agree on several points, but there are a few key differences. My view rests on the Huntington-esque premise that we are in the early stages of a civilizational 'clash' that will likely take much of the rest of this century to play out. The lifespan or situational context of the state of Israel is not an adequate measure either therefore.

            Israel is a sovereign state and the response of the Arab world to its creation was instantaneous and near unanimous: war of annihilation…

          • Gylippus

            …It was interpreted by most Muslims as the illicit occupation of Muslim land by a infidel entities: the Jews and the western allies via the UN. Since Islam is at its core a creed of imperial subjugation, it is not surprising that the formation of Israel has triggered such a response. Since then, there has been a rapid sequence of large-scale invasions, as Muslim armies tried to expel the 'occupier'. As each of those failed, the tactic has shifted to terror and siege on the one hand, and a global PR campaign to de-legitimize Israel on the other. Such escalating antagonism does not just fade away, it must play itself out. Thus it is too early to say where it will all end. Will Iran/Hezbollah + Hamas succeed in completely isolating Israel and eroding Israelis will to survive as a nation? I doubt we will live to know the answer…

          • Gylippus

            The Arab response to the US 'occupation' of Iraq was similar in some ways, but the fighting took place within the borders of Iraq and took the shape of an internal power struggle. But I think the source to the clash between individualist, consensual, capitalist and human rights based western civilization and the authoritarian, paternalistic, autocratic and dogmatic Middle-East (of which, as you say, the ongoing Israeli-Arab war is one expression) goes beyond local power struggles. It is the close coupling of a warlike-faith with all forms of secular authority. As our liberal culture spreads, it pushes against the traditions that keep such states stable…

          • Gylippus

            In a way then, the stability you speak of is illusory. Even Sadaam, who was careful to keep religion out of the workings of the Baath party, could not openly challenge the legitimacy of Islam without being labeled an apostate. Our task therefore is to create a space within the Muslim world where it becomes possible to openly challenge Islamic dogma. To trigger a reformation of sorts. That means we have to shatter their autocratic paradigm and then give them the responsibility to replace it with something else. Similar, but more complex and long term to what the US did in Japan. I agree with you that Bush miscalculated in terms of the ease with which that could be accomplished in Iraq. His administration seems to have under-estimated the intensity with which historical enemies in the region would vie for control of the Iraqi oil fields…

          • Gylippus

            This may seem like the stereotypical 'visionary' neo-con nation building and social engineering, but It's not. There are secular forces in the Middle-East. There are pragmatists and free-thinkers who want a Middle-East that is more prosperous and free and just. By removing Saadam from power we accomplished many things: 1) We demonstrated that we have the power and the will to eliminate our enemies on their own territory (Khadafi gave up his covert nuclear program shortly after the capture of Saadam), even when the fighting got ugly and one of our two political parties turned on the war for shameful political gain. 2) We did in fact remove a dangerous threat, that did have connections of convenience to radical Islam, and was in direct breach of terms of surrender. 3) We created a space in the Middle-East for the growth of a more moderate, more secular, more democratic form of government to take root and spread. Will it work? Time will tell. There are many hopeful signs. But I repeat, there are only two other alternatives: All out war with the Muslim world, or Dhimmitude. Jihadists interpret concessions on our part as victories in war. This is the cycle that fuels Jihad.

          • Gylippus

            As far as empowering Iran etc. Yes, such is the shifting front of battle. As we put transformative pressure on the Middle-East, more enemies will emerge, and we will have to address them too one way or another. One of the lessons of the 20th century has been that it is unwise to let fanatical regimes arm themselves to the teeth. Just as the showdown with Soviet Communism lasted 70+ years, the clash with Islam will be a generational one. It will shift from place to place and take different forms. There will be economic, cultural and political battlefronts (such as the Jihadist alliance with the Progressive left). Sadly, we will almost certainly be hit on home turf, and many more of our young men and women will die in faraway places. Our enemy is diffuse, transnational, yet benefits from some of the advantages of national sovereignty. So this is a conflict that will re-shape the global political paradigm before all is said and done (a process which has already begun). It will also change how Americans see their role in the world…

          • Gylippus

            My hope is that it will remain a champion of free-economies and consensual governments. We will have to make up a lot of it as we go along, but I know one thing for sure: the kind of abject submissiveness displayed by Obama followed by 'pragmatic' short-term deal making (from a position of psychological weakness) coupled with reactive tactics is the classic road to Dhimmitude.

            Besides, for reasons that go beyond the scope of this discussion, but which Jamie and others here a Fpmag have outlined, I trust Obama on one thing only: the sell out American / Western interests in favor of autocratic 'global governance'.

      • RonaldB

        Thank you for your reply, Gylippus.

        Here is why I disagree with your assertion that any aggressive response to the aggressive ideology of Islam is better than none.

        It is logical to assume that one should assess the consequences of one's actions. So, rather than generally asserting it is better to take aggressive actions in the Middle East as a response to 9/11, it is necessary to look at the consequences of our actions.

        The government of Saddam Hussein, odious as it was, was secular. He did not support Islamic terrorists, likely because he could not control them, and their goals were completely different from his. He gave a bit of cursory support to the families of suicide bombers in Israel, probably no more than our allies, the Saudi Arabians.

        Most important, Iraq was the primary counterweight to Iran, which most definitely did and does support violent, aggressive Islamism. Iraq is now riddled with Iranian agents, including the second most powerful politician mullah, al Sadr, who is directly under Iranian control.

        Christians are leaving Iraq in droves, as they see no future in an Iraq dominated by Islamists unwilling or unable to protect them from violent Muslims. In a few years or sooner, Iraq will be another Islamic Republic, completely without balancing forces.

        So, my argument is that strategically, we dealt ourselves a disaster of the first rank by deposing Saddam without considering the consequences.

        As far as your point that Islam is the aggressor, and so our attack is justified. I am viewing the situation solely from the point of view of the interests of the US, not whether a particular action is justified by previous actions. I think by any measure, the US attack on Iraq was a disaster for the US, continues to be, and will likely get worse in the future.

        One real defense against radical Islam is to cut off Muslim immigration. We are still at the point where we can safely cut off further Muslim immigration, and still accord the full rights of citizenship to the Muslims already here. In a few years, this may not be the case, if we allow Jihadists to pour in from countries like Somalia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. Do you see the Republicans talking about a sane immigration policy? Obama is the only one advocating a change, and the Republicans are refusing to speak to him about it. The Republicans have no vision.

        Progressive Democrats can be worked with by a focused and sensible conservative opposition. I see the Republican opposition degenerating into know-nothing obstructionism.

        • Gylippus

          Thanks, I'll try to respond in the next couple days…

  • Gylippus

    I too was deeply moved by Politics of Bad Faith. It brought into focus many of the truths (i.e. lies) that I had glimpsed during my years in academia. I couldn't escape the feeling that I was being subjected to a deliberate and coordinated effort to make me stop asking questions, and instead merely echo received truths. That was a warning sign that something was amiss. But for me, it took many years, including the political and cultural responses to 9/11, and a much deeper study of the history of Communism, the totalitarian phenomenon and the continuing evolution of leftist dogma to finally recognize Progressivism for what it is at its roots: a vast power grab wrapped in deception and manipulation.

    I will definetely be checking out Jaimie's new book. Just as David Horowitz's books had a great impact on me, I found Jaimie's first book, United In Hate to be a very moving, passionate and rigorously argued outline of the historical-ideological currents that are merging and colliding around us, and resolving as a civilizational threat.

  • 080

    I think that the alliance between the Left and the Islamists has been amply documented. I say Islamists and not Radical Islamists because I think it's not for me to decide whether or not any particular group of believers inj Allah is radical or not. As for the Left alliance I think we should call it collaboration and those Leftists who enter such an alliance collaborators. We have seen the type before in the 1930s.

  • Jos

    Great interview. I'm hoping the book will be available some time as a digital download?

    I understand what Jamie says about leftist friends and not being approached etc. Sometimes if I listen to what I am saying to people, I can see myself as perhaps they see me and realize that what I am saying could sound kind of crackpot to them. Like everyone else, I want to be liked; sometimes I don't want to speak up, but sometimes I just can't stand by and say nothing – it's like a burning after Truth that can't be extinguished.

    I've read several of Robert Spencer's books, and Joel Rosenberg, Pamela Geller's book, and David Limbaugh – I just wish sometimes that I could recall it all into memory when I need it to explain to someone. Any hints for remembering the main points?

    Thanks again.

  • observer

    Thank you Mr Horowitz for this very informative website.