Carl Bernstein’s Communist Problem & Mine

Pages: 1 2

The article below appeared in the July 1989 Issue of Commentary.

Note: A number of books have appeared recently, including most notably Paul Kengor’s book The Communist, which are about Barack Obama’s Communist mentor, and also the progressive communist milieu that our 44th president grew up in, along with his closest advisers David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett — a community to which he remains loyal today. I thought it might be useful to those first being introduced to what I like to call the “neo-communist left” to read a piece I wrote a few years ago about Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein and his Communist father, and about my own experience in the Communist left as well. It is particularly the disloyalty and fundamental dishonesty of these people, these Communist progressives which I think should most interest readers in the context of the political and economic crises we are facing today. – David Horowitz.  


Carl Bernstein’s Communist Problem & Mine

More than a decade ago, when I was in my late 30s and living in California, I was visited by an elderly woman named Ann Colloms, the mother of my best childhood friend. Like my own parents and, indeed, all the adults I knew in the years when I was growing up, Ann had been a member of the Communist Party. She had come to discuss an incident that occurred when she was in the Party and that still troubled her now nearly 20 years later. Although I still considered myself part of the left at that time, I had already developed some publicly expressed doubts about the radical heritage we all had shared, and it was for this reason that Ann now sought me out: to confess her complicity in a crime committed when she was a Communist long ago.

Ann and my parents belonged to a colony of Jewish Communists who, in the early Forties, had settled in a 10-block neighborhood of working-class Catholics in Sunnyside, Queens. The members of this colony lived two lives. Outwardly they were middle class: scrupulous in their respect for the mores of the community and unfailing in their obedience to its civil laws. They always identified themselves publicly as “progressives,” espousing views that were liberal and democratic. They thought of themselves (and were perceived by others) as “socially conscious” and “idealistic” and were active in trade unions and civil-rights groups and in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

The picture is consistent with that myth now struggling to be born in our literary culture that these people were small “c” communists whose belief in democratic values outweighed their commitment to big “C” Communism. But this is a myth, with malevolent implications. In fact, the members of this colony like Ann and my parents also inhabited another, secret world as soldiers in the Third International founded by Lenin. In their eyes, a sixth of humanity had entered an entirely new stage of history in Soviet Russia in 1917, a triumphant humanity that would be extended all over the world by the actions of the vanguard they had joined. The world of liberal and progressive politics may have been the world in which outsiders saw them, but their secret membership in this revolutionary army was the world that really mattered to Ann and my parents and to all their political friends. It was the world that gave real significance and meaning to what otherwise were modest and rather ordinary lives.

In their own minds, Ann and my parents were secret agents. When they joined the Communist Party, they had even been given secret names for the time when their true objective would require them to abandon the facade of their liberal politics and go underground to take the lead in the revolutionary struggle. (My mother’s secret name was “Anne Powers,” which always struck me as terribly WASPY.) All their legitimate political activities were merely preparations or fronts for the real tasks of their political commitment, which they could discuss only with other secret agents like themselves. Their activities in the democratic organizations they entered and controlled and in the liberal campaigns they promoted were all part of their secret service. Their real purpose in pursuing them was not to advance liberal or democratic values but to serve the interests of the Soviet state – because in their minds the Soviet Union was the place where the future had already begun. For those in the Party, the revolutionary role was not the kitsch fantasy it seems in retrospect, but something that was very real and ultimately sinister. The story that Ann told me was proof enough.

No more than five feet tall in her stocking feet, Ann had been a high-school teacher of foreign languages. Her only flirtation with a reality beyond the prudent bounds of her middle-class existence was, in fact, her membership in the Communist Party. But even her Party life – despite its little Bolshevik rituals and conspiratorial overtones – was organized around activities that were quite unextraordinary: raising funds for the volunteers for loyalist Spain, marching for civil rights, and playing the part of a loyal cadre in the New York City Teacher’s Union, which the Party controlled. But on one occasion Ann was chosen for a task that was not like the others, one that would burden her with guilt for the rest of her life.

In 1940, the Party selected Ann, then a new mother, for a special mission. The nature of the mission required that its purpose not be revealed, even to her, and that its details be concealed even from her Party comrades. In any other area of Ann’s life, the suggestions of illegality and the dangers inherent in such a proposal would have provoked intolerable anxieties and suspicions in a person of her middle-class temperament and sheltered experience. But it was the Party that had made the request. And because it was the Party, the same elements had an opposite effect. The fear that was present only emphasized the importance of the cause that beckoned. The prospect of danger only heightened the honor of receiving a call from the vanguard Party. She understood instinctively that it was the very insignificance of her life up to that moment — its unobtrusiveness — that suited her suitable for the task she was being called perform. It was the Party that spoke, but it was History that called, and she answered.

Ann agreed to undertake the mission. She left her infant son with her husband in New York and took a plane to Mexico. There she delivered a sealed envelope to a contact the Party had designated. After making the delivery, she flew back to New York and resumed the life she had lived before. It was as simple as that. Yet it was not simple at all. As Ann soon discovered, she had become a small but decisive link in the chain by which Joseph Stalin reached out from Moscow to Cayocoan, Mexico, to put an ice pick in Leon Trotsky’s head.

One of the most disturbing elements in Ann’s story lay in the fact that she had waited so long to tell it, and then only to me, privately. It had been 20 years after Khrushchev’s Report exposing to the Party faithful the crimes that Stalin had committed. It was at that time that she and my parents had left the Communist Party. Twenty years later she had come to me to tell her story and relieve her guilt. But neither she nor my parents had ever thought to tell me this or similar stories to warn me of the minefields I might encounter when, as a young man, I started on my own career in the left. Nor had they ever told their stories publicly; nor would they approve of me doing so now. The attitude of Ann and my parents towards historical truth was a telling one. Like thousands of others, they had left the Party, but they could not leave the faith.

Al Bernstein, the father of Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein, had been a member of the Communist Party and a secret agent in the same way that Ann and my parents were secret agents. Like them, Al Bernstein is one of those progressives who left the Party but could never leave its political faith. When Carl Bernstein approached his father about a book he intended to write on “the witch-hunts leading up to the McCarthy era,” Al Bernstein stonewalled him, refusing to be interviewed, even though it was his own son. He did not approve his son’s proposed quest for the truth about his Communist past. He did not want his son to discover the truth about his experience in the Communist Party or about the Party’s role in American life. He did not want him to write about it. To even ask the questions his son was asking, indicated that his political attitude was incorrect: “I think your focus on the Party is cockeyed. You’re up the wrong tree. The right tree is what people did…. I worry about your premise. The right premise, the premise of a lot of recent books about the period, is that people were persecuted because of what they did, not because of their affiliation. Because once you admit affiliation you get into all that Stalinist crap.” (emphasis in the original)

Not to accept the “right” premise was more than politically incorrect; it was dangerous: “The premise people eventually accepted after the McCarthy period was that the victims weren’t Communists. If you’re going to write a book that says McCarthy was right, that a lot of us were Communists, you’re going to write a dangerous book…. You’re going to prove McCarthy right, because all he was saying was that the system was loaded with Communists. And he was right.”

In Al Bernstein’s view, even though McCarthy was right about the presence of Communists posing as liberals in the political woodwork, and even though virtually all of McCarthy’s targets were Communists, the fact that they were Communists (who lied about being Communists) had nothing to do with their being singled out: “Was I ‘oppressed’ because I was a Communist?… No. It was incidental. I was ‘oppressed’ because of what I did, because I was affiliated with a left-wing union.”

We should not be misled by the fatuousness of this catechism. The sacrament the father rams down the throat of the son is brutal as well as tasteless. In point of fact, Al Bernstein was a Communist; he was not merely “affiliated with” the United Public Workers of America; he was a leader of the union. The United Public Workers of America was not merely a “left-wing union” but a union under Communist Party control. And the fact that it was a union under Communist control – despite Al Bernstein’s protestations – made it a different order of union entirely than other unions that were not Communist-controlled.

The difference was manifested most dramatically in the Cold War year 1948, which began with the Communist coup in Czechoslovakia. Coming 20 years after Munich, this event sent shock waves through the capitals of the West. In an effort to halt the march of Soviet power, the Truman administration announced it was launching the Marshall Plan – an economic-aid program to revive the war-shattered economies of Western Europe and to shore up its democracies against their own Communist threats. While most American unions supported the Marshall Plan as an economic boon for their members and a necessary defense measure for the West, Al Bernstein’s union did not. Along with all the other Communist-controlled unions in America, Al Bernstein’s United Public Workers attacked the Marshall Plan as a Cold War plot and launched an all-out campaign against it. On the political front, Al Bernstein and his comrades bolted the Democratic Party and organized the Progressive Party candidacy of Henry Wallace in the hope of unseating Truman and ending his anti-Communist program. Their actions were in fact a Soviet-orchestrated plot to sabotage the defense of Europe against Soviet aggression.

Most unions were not agents of the Soviet Union like Al Bernstein’s was. In response to their sedition, Al Bernstein’s union and other Communist-controlled unions were purged from the CIO. They were purged not by McCarthy or by Harry Truman and his Loyalty Board but by patriotic unionists like Philip Murray and Walter Reuther, who were liberal socialists who would not go along with the Communist betrayal of their country and their union members in the service of the Soviet Union. Phillip Murray, who is cited in passing in Carl Bernstein’s Loyalties for his principled opposition to the Loyalty Boards, also told the CIO convention in 1948 that he opposed the Communists “because they have subverted every decent movement into which they have infiltrated themselves in the course of their unholy career.”

At 70-plus years of age, more than three decades after Senator McCarthy’s death, Al Bernstein is still actively practicing his old Stalinist deceits, still taking the Fifth Amendment towards any inquiry, however innocent, into his commitments and beliefs, still hiding his Communist agendas behind a liberal facade. And not only to the world at large but to his own pathetically inquisitive son. To be called a witch-hunter by your father, while only trying, however ineffectually, to sort out the Oedipal tangle must be a daunting experience.

Carl, whose memoir is utterly innocent of the vast literature on American Communism (which refutes virtually every page of this little book he took eleven years to write), measures the dimensions of his filial love in a passage that occurs a little less than halfway through the text: “Many years later,…[I] realized that it is my father for whom I write, whose judgment I most respect, whose approval I still seek.” Loyalties is little more than a unilateral withdrawal from the Oedipal struggle.

In the end, it is the sheer desperation of this filial hunger that overwhelms the text Carl Bernstein intended to write and that explains the deficiencies of the preposterous book he has had the bad judgment to publish as Loyalties (even the title – originally Disloyal – has been changed to fit the fashions of the paternal party line). He resists his father’s “correct premise,” manfully at the outset. But by the final chapters of Loyalties he has capitulated and even joined up. Al Bernstein’s Communist Party loyalties didn’t matter (either to him or to those who pursued him), Carl avows. He and all the other agents of the Communist cause were targeted solely for their activities on behalf of trade unionism and civil rights, and the internal security program of the Truman administration “really was a war against liberals.”

Pages: 1 2

  • Pacifist1

    Fascinating….and today liberals are to afraid to even call themselves liberal…I knew it from day one… that is why I never changed my politics to progressive from liberal pacifist… because of fear….I had read the works of liberals that had been kind of born into the Marxists; but they clearly publicly renounced it to defect to the liberals.

    So, all I had to do was read, or listen to someone that claimed to be a liberal,or progressive Democrat, to conclude it was a all a strategic front to undermine liberal causes like civil rights, and even anti- war movements they claimed to organize.

    Interesting times we live in.

  • clarespark

    I know many red-diaper babies, and many of them rose to heights in the academy. They were never advertised as communists, but as progressives. David H's article is a reminder of their cultural power, a subject that is not always explored in political history as taught by much-respected academics and other teachers. Their ideology is insidious. See… for a summary of some of the ideas they promulgate. "Communist Ideas Go Mainstream."

    • ★FALCON★

      Here is part one of three. You can grab the rest. This will be the most important video you will watch this year. Filmed in the early eighties.

      Ex-KGB Officer Yuri Bezmenov – Propaganda and Mind Control

      Bezmenov directed and created the Communist lie – admits it's all a lie – and Obama and his crew of derelicts are true believers.

    • Pacifist1

      My Jewish side of the family came over from Russia around (1906?)…I did some research into that side of the family at the Jewish Historical Society of Rhode Island; and it was fascinating to say the least, because I'm looking at all this from a objective perspective because I am half Jewish, and would only visit
      my father during the summers in Florida.

      He was a quiet type sort of like Bernstein's father…so much to the point where most of my time… I can remember as being happy… was time spent with other millionaires that came from Chicago,and made millions in Miami, who were relatives of a former husband of my fathers new wife…they to were Jewish.

      I'm wondering why some of my relatives married into people that were on the boards of banks, in what could be a House of Rothschild bank (First National Bank) and, if, some of their wealth came from Russia, or they earned it in the United States?

      Are the archives open to the general public in Russia?…if not do you know anyone that knows someone, where I could get access?

      I'm a liberal pacifist, so I have no fears about jumping into this, because if the facts show that I could end up writing a about some conspiracy that could ,in theory, even involve Nixon…. I don't believe in the theory about All the Presidents Men.

    • Pacifist1

      One of my relatives name was (Boresky?)… but, I can't recall the exact spelling, is there any way to research the archives in Russia to see, if they are in turn related to Moisei Uritsky ( Boretsky?) from Russia?

      I would travel to Russia next week for a vacation, if I could get access to the Nixon archives, and the American banker records from 1850 to present.

  • Anthony

    I would like to know if Mr. Horowitz can answer a question that came to me after reading this article.

    What exactly is the end game of Communism? We have seen country after country and people en masse enslaved and murdered throughout the history of Communism to be sure. Yet, nothing discredits it unto its complete destruction as was the case with Nationsl Socialism, which strangely enough, viewed Communism as a deadly threat, and made an enemy of it. Hitler said that Bolschevicism and Capitalism united to destroy his Reich.

    My question is, what would the full realization of the Communist ideology look like? Died it look like Stalin’s USSR? Does it look like Pol-Pot’s Killing Fields? Is their objective something more unimaginable than that?

    • Looking4Sanity

      You've answered your own question, it would seem. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot epitomize the final stages of Communism. The fatal flaw in Communism is the total disregard for the Nature of Man's Creation. We are ALL constructed with an inherent longing for freedom because it is a birthright woven into our very DNA. Under Communism, anyone unable or unwilling to deny the very Nature of their existence (for "the good of the State") MUST be eliminated.

    • mlcblog

      Here's my reply.

      Evil. Pure evil. Plain and simple. A blood lust as exhibited in the communist leaders who have come to power who have killed thousands of people on a daily basis, a denial of any deity and especially in the free spirit within people which allows them to express beauty, love, progress in their lives, things like that. It is chronicled in history.

      Pol Pot's fields are but one example of the malevolence. I don't know quite how to fit Hitler in here except to note that he was filled with evil, too.

    • Steeloak

      I would suggest you read "The Road to Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek. In the book Hayek explains that it is precisely because the state plans everything in these systems that decisions are made which must be forced on the population, as not everyone will agree with the government's decisions. The process of making the population obey unpopular decisions often requires that violence be used. Evil men like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez, Mao and others rise to the top in such systems because they have no aversion to employing violence to enforce their will. It is also why the "Good Man" argument often raised by apologists for totalitarianism is false.

      • Steeloak

        The "Good Man" argument being that communism only failed in countries where bad men corrupted it and if only the right sort of "Good Man" could lead it, communism would be the perfect system. The fallacy, as pointed out by Hayek, is that the very nature of the system prevents all but evil men from rising to power in it.

    • geopeyton

      The end game is always a totalitarian state, where they are in charge (and both parts are equally vital to them).

  • RobertPinkerton

    Upper-case "C" Communism was equivalent to the State Religion of the national enemy.

    • Looking4Sanity

      And now it's the official religion of the Democrat Party.

  • tagalog

    The story of Soviet Communism and its effects on American Communism and the American system in general is a story that, in its broad and overall sense, remains untold. The old-time Communists are fading or gone, and the chance to get what stories they would tell, and to investigate the archives for documentation, are fading badly. This story should be told. David Horowitz, Peter Collier, Allen Weinstein, are among the fine writers who could research the history and distill it down.

    I hope that the entire story, or as much of it as can be winkled out, will soon be told. I don't care much for Joe McCarthy, but I'd like to see the evidence in print, in one place and complete, that he was in fact right that there were Soviet Communists and American Communists loyal to the USSR in our government and institutions, even if McCarthy's behavior helped cover the Communist influence up because of his clownishness. I'd LOVE to see an overall treatment of the influence of Soviet Communists on the Roosevelt and Truman administrations, and what they were able to do in America during the 1920s and early 1930s.

    I got a great kick out of Al Bernstein telling his son that American Communists were persecuted for their political persuasion, not because of what they did and not to ask the questions that he was asking in order to get entangled in "that Stalinist crap." That, in a nutshell, is the essence of that 1920s to 1950s Soviet historical determinism. Imagine how Al Bernstein would have responded if somebody started defending capitalism using that kind of argument! Those American Commies of that time were interesting people whose ability to delude themselves for the sake of a proven bankrupt doctrine is worth investigating in an overall, historical sense.

    Please, some good historian, do it. It needs to be done now.

    • KentClizbe


      It's been done. See my book, Willing Accomplices: How KGB covert influence agents created Political Correctness

      The key to doing the study right was for it to be done by a historian who understands espionage. For what Horowitz describes here (Anne living a quiet life under cover, and then delivering an envelope to Mexico) is espionage.

      Willing Accomplices examined the roots of Political Correctness, beginning in the 1920s.

      PC-Progressivism was created in an attempt to destroy America's exceptionalism. The KGB carried out Lenin's ideas. Lenin's friend, Willi Muenzenberg, was the genius who designed the covert influence messages. He gathered a cadre who implemented his ideas.

      (see below)

    • KentClizbe

      While they believed that America would fall quickly, they did not plan on Stalin's purges. The murder of all the covert influence case officers by Stalin resulted in loss of continued management of the op. However, the the message of the operation was so seductive: "America is a racist, sexist, xenophobic, imperialist, capitalist hell-hole. And it must be changed. And we are all superior humans because we know this." that it took on a life of its own.

      Muenzenberg's disciples and Willing Accomplices in the destruction of the country, carried on without the KGB operatives. Their positions in the media, Hollywood and academia/education allowed the message to seep into the culture. It spread, pushed underground during the McCarthy era, and only emerged as full-blown anti-normal-American PC-Progressivism in the 80s.

      Let me know if you'd like a review copy.


    • Looking4Sanity

      You "don't care much for Joe McCarthy" because you've spent your entire life being spoon fed lies by the very Communists we've been discussing…apparently to the point that you've begun to believe it. The man was a true American Patriot whose own country crapped on him.

      • tagalog

        No, I don't care much for Joe McCarthy because he was a buffoon of a politician who had a piece of the truth, then allowed the Communists to cover it up by attacking him credibly for his buffoonery. He had qualities other than his patriotism, for example his quality of self-promotion (starting with "Tail Gunner Joe") at all costs that caused him to use the anti-Communist platform in a way that backfired on the truth. He also had a way of greasing his way through ignorance of the facts by telling obvious lies about numbers. The fact that he also was a drunk didn't do him any good, either. President Eisenhower didn't say about him, "How stupid can you get" for no reason, you know. Roy Cohn and Robert Kennedy both worked for him, which says volumes.

        • Looking4Sanity

          That's the Commie spin on it to be sure. U.S. Grant also liked his drink, and he's on our currency…so that attempt at character assassination falls short with me.Regardless of how you represent him, the plain fact was that he warned us all of the danger and people chose to ignore it. He is not to blame for that, as much as you'd like to believe he is.

          • tagalog

            If you think your take on McCarthy is correct, prove it. I gave my reasons, surely it isn't asking too much to ask you to do the same.

            I don't think there any Commies, or any lefties for that matter, who think Bobby Kennedy being on your legal team is a disability.

            There are many conservative historians who do not advocate rehabilitating McCarthy's well-deserved reputation. They also think he was a buffoon, and continue to do so, despite the vindication of his findings regarding the Communist influence in the America of the first half of the 20th century, in the post-Venona years. I agree with those conservatives.

          • Looking4Sanity

            Your take on McCarthy leaves me doubting you could even identify a conservative if you met one. And you had my “reasons” in my original post. Don't act like they weren't there.

          • tagalog

            Your reasons are that I have been spoon-fed the lefty take on Joe McCarthy. Is that what you really want to stand for your "reasoned" stance? Really?

            I'm sorry, other than a claim that he was a patriot (I'm certainly willing to agree with that), I don't see you citing any other reasons why McCarthy wasn't a buffoon. Maybe I'm missing something. Please enlighten me.

          • ConcernedAmerican

            So what is your opinion of Edward R. Murrow? Of John Wayne?

          • tagalog

            John Wayne? A patriot, who, unlike numerous other actors of similar levels of celebrity who joined the armed forces in World War II, chose to continue his work in films outside the service, despite the example of his friend John Ford. But a patriot nevertheless. I don't know much about him as a private person, but he never struck me as a fool. I never think of him since he died; he was an actor, one who established a film persona that was effective for him and which resonated with his audience, including me.

            Edward R. Murrow? I don't really have much of an opinion. Primarily, I think of him as a typical CBS lefty newsie, so I don't agree with him politically, to the extent that I understand his politics; a slight improvement over the actors who deliver the news on TV today. He had the guts to broadcast to the U.S. from London during the bombings of London during the Blitz, so he earned his right to free speech and his ideas the hard way. As far as Joe McCarthy is concerned, Murrow made considerable hay out of twisting McCarthy's nose. Unforturnately, McCarthy asked for it.

          • ConcernedAmerican

            Who are these "conservative historians" that think McCarthy was a buffoon? Name two of them, please.

          • tagalog

            Here are the names of three: William Bennett (yes, THAT William Bennett), Fritz Fischer, professor of history, U. of Northern Colorado, and Ronald Kessler, author of Secrets of the FBI, Moscow Station: How the KGB Penetrated the American Embassy, The President's Secret Service, and others.

    • mlcblog

      You write well, Tag. Maybe take some classes and do it yourself.

  • theleastthreat

    I remember from my days a Marxist, as the line from the article states …: “There was a feeling that unless you joined and were with us you were the enemy.” rang very true for me. I regarded leftists and progressives and even radicals were nothing more than fools. I never considered them as allies.
    As for Marxism, I don't see that it has any mystique. It controls all commerce and industry. It also controls labor, which makes it more than just a monopoly. The fact that it goes on from there to control the legislative bodies, and thus control all lawmaking, and controls the judicial system, and the military, and all the other organs of state security, makes it into an absolute monopoly. This is the worst system of government ever devised by mankind, by far. It has no pro-human element. It is utterly brankrupt of meaningful values.
    Furthermore, to be a supporter of such a system which has murdered tens and tens …of millions of people, one would have to be an absolute fool or an absolute monster. To use another form of the word one more time, Mr Horowitz is absolutely right. —- from a former Marxist.

  • Indioviejo

    Marxist just as Islamist are faith based cadre, and in that respect know no boundaries to what they are willing to do in the name of their God; Marx or Allah. Therefore it is easy to transgress against any loyalty, law, moral code, or ethical value in the name of their God. The cause trumps everything, including monstrous behaviour considered genocide coming from any other.

  • Schlomotion

    As Kubla Kraus sang, there's the rub. In 1989, the Soviet Union was in its final stages of collapse. There were lots of out of work Communists in the United States running infoshops but no longer a stipend from the USSR. The tide of money and political support receded, leaving these creatures to dry out in the sand. They had to turn elsewhere to remain "secret agents of a radical (Jewish) heritage." Some of them ran far right, but on an inch-long yardstick that has Lenin on the left and Anatoly Sharansky on the right. In order to distinguish themselves as "right wingers" they had to embrace the Vietnam hawks' Dolchstoßlegende and start outing their fellows (to whom they probably owed money), and also "exposing," really framing ALL Progressives for being being the same as they: former Communists from Communist Jewish families.

    This is marketing, and it doesn't really work. It's like "former" gay people trying to "out" people who are not gay but like interior design. This political field that Mr. Horowitz works in is really a flatland that he is trying to imbue with a topography. Mr. Horowitz cannot really elevate himself against Carl Bernstein by attacking his father. Carl Bernstein has actual meritorious contributions to civilization, such as helping to depose Richard Nixon. That is on a grander scale than providing legal monies to Matt Drudge, or propping up a bunch of failed writers as fellowship journalists and political intelligence experts. I know as much even with my tiny state college degree and minuscule publications.

    Yes. Joseph McCarthy was right twice a day. However, on all sides of the Red Scare there were villains. The 1989 piece for Commentary even tries to make you feel bad for Trotsky. Who has not imagined jamming that ice pick into Trotsky's head? Mr. Horowitz duplicitously tries to tear your heartstrings over poor Ann Colloms, and poor Trotsky, and then drizzle that venom over the non-Communist, non-Jewish Progressives and also the Jewish ones who Un-Bellyfeel Israel. This is all decked in the trappings of an Apollo Creed exhibition garb complete with fanny dancing in red white and blue boxers. Mark Levin is the same. This is Americanism reduced to cheap fast food and fries.

    Not everyone buys it. I am a Progressive. I support a homeland for the Jews in Israel. I disdain Mr. Horowitz's craven embrace of the Red Scares retooled for the persecution of Muslims and the mythology that Jews are oppressed in the 21st Century. That cravenness has led him to smear also musicians, writers, thinkers and personalities while cultivating their opposites to do Kulturkampf here. The Communists were villains. The HUAC panel were also villains. Now, the Israel-Firsters let out this massive smokescreen by accusing Americans left and right of being former Communists who now support multiculturalism and submission to Islam. Really, almost every article is some kind of Roy Cohn hatchet job on a celebrity du jour. My favorite to laugh at are these ones supporting other wingnut latter-day McCarthyite Senators in their crusades for big oil and against purported Islamic Brotherhood bribe-acceptors in Congress. Surely the Islamic Brotherhood bribes Congressmen. That is what Congressmen do. They collect bribes. They also collect bribes from Exxon and from AIPAC. Real Progressives want to see this process destroyed. That is another reason, Mr. Horowitz, with his Restoration Weekend bribefest, hates Progressives. They would put him out of a job posturing and pandering, accusing other people of being his former self.

    • tagalog

      Without Progressives, we righties would have a slightly more difficult time overcoming the Stupid Party claim. I say, "Thank God for progressives. Where would we be in the culture wars without them?"

    • Ghostwriter

      So says the Jew hating Schlockmotion.

    • richard sherman

      mohammad had 900 unarmed Jewss decapitated at Quarazah. Muslims revere everything Muhammad did — which means they revere Quarazah. Case closed!

    • Sage on the Stage

      You do NOT "support a homeland for the Jews in Israel." That is the basic definition of a Zionist; and YOU are not a Zionist; however, you are great when it comes to shooting messengers and avoiding the main issues of the article.


      lyndon ladouche speak.

  • KentClizbe


    Bezmenov likely had some KGB affiliation, but he did not "direct and create" the KGB's covert influence operation.

    Every KGB case officer was required, as part of their activities, conceive of and propose covert influence operations. The goal of these ops was to destroy the Main Adversary, America.

    But after Willi Muenzenberg's demise, the KGB's ham-handed ops and operators (as reflected by Bezmenov) were relatively ineffectual.

    For a full description of the evolution of the KGB's covert actions, including their covert influence operations that created Political Correctness and Obama, see Willing Accomplices:

    Bezmenov, like all KGB officers, did not know or understand the history of his own organization's operations. All KGB case officers believe that their operations are the beginning and end of the story. He did not know the history of success of his predecessors.

    • tagalog

      Well, Whittaker Chambers, Elizabeth Bentley, Igor Grouzenko, and that guy who wrote I Chose Freedom, I forget his name, Walter Krivitsky, and several others didn't do the KGB and the GRU much good, either.

      I've always wondered, what did Rudolph Abel reveal upon questioning?

      Of course, on the other hand, there's the discovery of Ted Gold long after the fact.

      • KentClizbe


        The defectors helped to provide raw evidence of the KGB's espionage ops, and leads to their co-conspirators. What no one has ever sytematically analyzed or explained previously is the covert influence operations.

        Muenzenberg's operations were specifically carried out to infiltrate our transmission belts of culture–the media, academia/education, and Hollywood.

        While historians have found some indications of Muenzenberg's ops, they did not know what they were looking at. Stephen Koch did the best work of all, including interviewing Muenzenberg's 90 year old widow. She proudly told himher husband's exact influence payload, and described how they carried it out. But Koch did not understand espionage, and neither the depth nor the power of the op. He called it "Seduction of the Intellectuals." Unfortunately, it was much, much deeper than that.

        <a href="” target=”_blank”>

        • tagalog

          Ted Hall, not Ted Gold.

  • KentClizbe


    It's been done. See my book, Willing Accomplices: How KGB covert influence agents created Political Correctness

    The key to doing the study right was for it to be done by a historian who understands espionage. For what Horowitz describes here (Anne living a quiet life under cover, and then delivering an envelope to Mexico) is espionage. Willing Accomplices examined the roots of Political Correctness, beginning in the 1920s.

    (see below)

    • mlcblog

      Tag is right. We need more books like this.

  • KentClizbe

    PC-Progressivism was created in an attempt to destroy America's exceptionalism. The KGB carried out Lenin's ideas. Lenin's friend, Willi Muenzenberg, was the genius who designed the covert influence messages. He gathered a cadre who implemented his ideas. While they believed that America would fall quickly, they did not plan on Stalin's purges. The murder of all the covert influence case officers by Stalin resulted in loss of continued management of the op. However, the the message of the operation was so seductive: "America is a racist, sexist, xenophobic, imperialist, capitalist hell-hole. And it must be changed. And we are all superior humans because we know this." that it took on a life of its own. ____Muenzenberg's disciples and Willing Accomplices in the destruction of the country, carried on without the KGB operatives. Their positions in the media, Hollywood and academia/education allowed the message to seep into the culture. It spread, pushed underground during the McCarthy era, and only emerged as full-blown anti-normal-American PC-Progressivism in the 80s. Let me know if you'd like a review copy. ____Kent

  • Looking4Sanity

    Commies and Muslims…Satan's happy little minions. Morally bankrupt flotsam cluttering up the planet.

  • geopeyton

    "It is dangerous to progressives to admit the truth not because it will bring persecution but because it will remove the final veil that allows a progressive life to appear to be more than simple service to the totalitarian cause."

    Sheer brilliance, thanks for sharing the article, Mr. Horowitz.

    "And what did you learn from that? Exactly nothing."

    This could and should be the epitaph on every true believers' headstone.

  • Ps2

    What is the end game?

    Consider this dedication:

    Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.

    Saul Alinsky

    Also, the book MARX and SATAN by Richard Wurmbrand has much to reveal.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    So where are we today after almost a century of death and destruction in wars that gave us
    the mass grave so abundant in innocent blood. I remember my family moving to Sunnyside
    Queens from Greenpoint Brooklyn around "48 and then on to Cambria Hgts in fall of "49.
    One of the constant themes of conversation at home was Communism and it's growing
    threat. I remember how name change was a camoflauge for all Communists to dodge
    detection and claim innocence. The upshot of my youth was to be prepared to go to war
    against Communism and I was sure for me would be in Korea and not Vietnam, possibly the
    devils afterthought. Today all of the evil players are in their lairs spinning new webs,
    changing names and assuming the vestiges of Islam. I wonder if anyone will ever really
    learn that the only system that works to allow freedom for man is Capatalism and
    as Milton Friedman and his wife Rose espoused who were staunch supporters of
    individual freedom. Their works should be mandatory reading in every school in the World.
    I consider the Friedmans giants in human intellect and achievement………………..William

    • mlcblog

      I so agree. Individual freedom is the prize and that which they cannot understand and want to destroy.

      p.s. Some of us say Free Enterprise because capitalism is a word that was coined by Karl Marx so he could diddle with people's heads re. Socialism, Communism, Capitalism. Oops. I forgot fascism.

  • PistolPierre

    David Horowitz is my political hero. Thank you for this magnificent piece. It should be taught to schoolchildren!