Carl Bernstein’s Communist Problem & Mine

David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine, Ramparts. He is the author, with Peter Collier, of three best selling dynastic biographies: The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (1976); The Kennedys: An American Dream (1984); and The Fords: An American Epic (1987). Looking back in anger at their days in the New Left, he and Collier wrote Destructive Generation (1989), a chronicle of their second thoughts about the 60s that has been compared to Whittaker Chambers’ Witness and other classic works documenting a break from totalitarianism. Horowitz examined this subject more closely in Radical Son (1996), a memoir tracing his odyssey from “red-diaper baby” to conservative activist that George Gilder described as “the first great autobiography of his generation.” His latest book is Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan for Defeating the Left (Regnery Publishing).

Twitter: @horowitz39
Facebook: David Horowitz


Pages: 1 2

This is not a book about the Communist Party and its discontents but a lecture on the need to keep the tattered faith at whatever cost to one’s integrity. Rapidly expiring all over the world, this faith, strange to say, is alive and well in literary America. As Al Bernstein — the possessor of a shrewder, stronger intellect than his wayward son-impatiently observes, “the right premise” – the Communist Party’s premise – is “the premise of a lot of recent books about the period.” Thus, the standard academic work on the subject of American universities in the loyalty oath era –No Ivory Tower by Princeton professor Eleanor Schrecker — is written from this neo-Stalinist perspective, as are most other recent studies written by academic leftists about the early Cold War security conflicts.

Even more striking support for Al Bernstein’s perspective is offered by the notices of Loyalties in the most prestigious book reviews in the Sunday New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. In each, Carl had his literary knuckles rapped by leftist reviewers who chided him for not justifying his parents’ Communist politics enough. Thus, Paul Robeson’s neo-Stalinist biographer Professor Martin Duberman complained in The Washington Post’s “Book World:” “In his dedication, Carl Bernstein asserts that he is proud of the choices his parents made. But he never provides enough argued detail about what went into those choices to allow most Americans to join him – as surely they should – in his approbation.” Indeed.

What are the tenets of the neo-Stalinist faith that has so unexpectedly resurfaced in American letters? Basically there are two. The first – that Communists were peace-loving, do-gooding, civil-rights activists and American patriots; the second – that they were the innocent victims of a fascist America. Carl has it down pat: “‘It was a reign of terror.’ I have never heard my father talk like that, have never known him to reach for a cliché. But this was no cliché.” (emphasis in original). Correct: it was not a cliché; it is a lie.

No, Carl, we in America didn’t have a reign of terror, not the way that phrase is understood to apply to the Stalinist world out of which our families both came and where it means blood in the gutters. In America, my mother elected to take an early disability retirement from the New York school system rather than answer questions about her membership in the Party. But with the help of Party friends and liberal sympathizers she immediately went on to other other, better careers, as secretary to the head of the National Lawyers Guild and research librarian for Planned Parenthood. Your father became a small-time entrepreneur and you got a job (through his personal connections) as a reporter at the Washington Star. When, later, you were at the Post and about to help topple a sitting president during the Watergate scandal, you went to managing editor Ben Bradlee to reveal the terrible secret about your parents’ Communist past, and what did he do? Remove you from the case? No, in horrific, anti-Communist, paranoid America, America home of the McCarthy reign of terror, the editor of The Washington Post told you to get on with the story. And what did you learn from that? Exactly nothing.

And that is my final complaint about Loyalties and its pseudo-account of the anti-Communist era. As in all the recent rewrites of this history, whose premise is to keep the faith, the reality of the post-war domestic conflict between Communists and anti-Communists goes unreported. In a fleeting episode in Loyalties, for example, Carl’s friend and former boss Ben Bradlee recalls over dinner that he had always thought of progressives like Carl’s parents (whom personally he did not know) as “awful people.” Even in the jagged structure of this book, the observation is jarring. But even more unnerving is the fact that the famous investigative reporter of Watergate does not pursue the remark to inquire what memories might lie behind it. The same lack of inquisitiveness is seen in his feeble efforts to understand the nature of his parents’ true commitments. He describes his mother, then in her 70s, as a woman who is “very forgiving.” But when she refers to a political adversary of 30 years ago as a “vicious bastard,” her son simply ignores the emotional signal, and misses anything that it might tell us about the polarized psyches and virulent hatreds of progressives like his parents.

Elsewhere, he describes how his grandfather would take him to a Jewish bookstore to buy the Yiddish-language Communist newspaper Freiheit. “Until the day he died in 1967 he had no use for the [non-Communist] Forward – or the [non-Communist] Socialists. ‘Fareters,’ traitors of the cause, he called them, and he didn’t much like having any of them into his house….” This life-long hatred towards non-Communist leftists, coupled with casual vitriolic abuse, was a staple of the personalities of Bernstein’s parents and of the other “victims” of the postwar “purge.” In attempting to explain to Carl, at another point in the text, why Al Bernstein joined the party, family friend – and fellow Communist — Bob Treuhaft observed: “There was a feeling that unless you joined and were with us you were the enemy.” Carl lets this one slip by too.

There were many enemies of progressive activists John L. Lewis, head of the CIO’s United Mine Workers, was once a party ally, but when he refused to go along with the Communist-supported no-strike pledge after the German invasion of Russia, the party attacked him as a “pro-Nazi” who was committing “treason.” The Communists also routinely denounced civil rights leader A. Philip Randolph, the organizer of the war-time March on Washington, as “a fascist helping defeatism,” because Randolph refused to shelve the struggle for civil rights – as the party demanded – in favor of joining the effort to help save the USSR from defeat. So much for the fantasy that Communist Party members were at bottom only unionists and civil-rights activists, or that progressives love peace.

Not only were progressives not libertarians, they were also, despite their pious wails later on, notorious masters of the political blacklist in all the organizations they managed to control. It was partly for these reasons that when the loyalty boards and the congressional committees finally did come to town, there were a lot of people – a lot of liberal people – waiting to settle scores with the Communists. To them, Communists were not the civil-libertarian idealists of Carl Bernstein’s book but political conspirators who had infiltrated and manipulated and taken over their own liberal organizations and subverted them for hidden agendas; who had slandered, libeled, and blacklisted them when they had opposed the party line; who had lied to the public, pretending that they were not Marxists or loyal to Soviet Russia when questions about their political affiliations were asked.

The Communists lied to everyone then, and the new keepers of their faith are still lying today. “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,” Al Bernstein had warned. Look, for a moment, at this logic: To admit that they were Communists is to lend credence to the claims of Joseph McCarthy. Why is this dangerous at so late a date? Is not McCarthy himself the most irretrievable political corpse of the McCarthy era? 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.

It is not fear of smearing “innocents” that haunts the political left when it looks at its disgraceful past; it is something more like the fear that haunted the conscience of deconstructionist scholar Paul De Man: embarrassment over a terrible guilt. “‘Look,’ [Al Bernstein] snapped, ‘you’ve read Lillian Hellman’s book. She skirts these questions [about Communist Party membership] very neatly. She’s too sharp to leave herself open to that kind of embarrassment.’”

As always, Al Bernstein’s old Stalinist politics reveal a sharper judgment than that of his born-again son. Embarrassment is the problem – not a sham reign of terror; it is the shame of possible exposure as having been a loyal supporter of a mass murderer like Stalin for all those years. The struggle now is not over the fact, but what it actually meant to be a Communist then and an apologist for Communists now. Civil rights, trade unionism, human brotherhood, and peace: That’s what we were – they now stubbornly claim as their final fall-back position – that was our cause. Communism? Marxism? Socialism? Those were incidental – irrelevant to who we were and what we did.

Loyalties reveals the secret of how the progressive left aims to be born again – by erasing the embarrassment of its disreputable past; by hiding the shame of having supported Stalin and Mao and Fidel and Ho and all the terrible purges, murders, and other despicable means that finally served no beneficial ends. The ultimate embarrassment is of having been so stubbornly and perversely on the wrong side of history; of having embraced “solutions” that were morally and politically and economically bankrupt in the great struggles of our time. As Joseph Stalin was the first socialist to truly understand, the airbrushing of history is the only sure means to preserve the honor of the left. In this, as no doubt in other things in his undiscovered life, Al Bernstein follows right along the Stalinist path. And his son walks in lockstep behind him, picking up his mess.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

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 http://clarespark.com/2012/07/19/communist-ideas-… 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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBQMB7hEP8E&fe

      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

      Tagalog,

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

      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.

      Kent
      kent@kentclizbe.com

    • 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.

    • http://frontpage.com 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.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      lyndon ladouche speak.

  • KentClizbe

    Falcon,

    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: http://www.willingaccomplices.com

    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.
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0983426406/ref=a

    • 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

        Tagalog,

        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="http://www.kentclizbe.com” target=”_blank”>www.kentclizbe.com

        • tagalog

          Ted Hall, not Ted Gold.

  • KentClizbe

    Tagalog,

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

    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 __kent@kentclizbe.com

  • 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.
    http://www.amazon.com/Marx-Satan-Richard-Wurmbran

  • 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!