Who Are Our Adversaries?

bbReprinted from NRO Online.

[To order The Black Book of the American Left: Volume 2 — The Progressives, click here.

We encourage our readers to visit our new website –  BlackBookOfTheAmericanLeft.com – which features David Horowitz’s introductions to Volumes 1 and 2 of this 10-volume series, along with their tables of contents, reviews and interviews with the author.]

I have just published the second in a projected ten-volume series of my collected writings called The Black Book of the American Left. The title pays homage to The Black Book of Communism, a celebrated European text documenting the crimes of the 20th century’s most notorious progressive experiment. While the original Black Book was a one-volume affair, the literary project I have undertaken is so large as to make it unique in today’s publishing world. Outside the category of literary fiction, so far as I can tell there are no ten-volume series by living authors.

So what prompted me to undertake so unwieldy an enterprise, which involves editing a million and a half words and arranging them into themed volumes? The seemingly obvious answer — one my adversaries will certainly seize on — is writer’s vanity. Who would not want to see his words in print and between hard covers? The more the better. But if you take a moment to think about it, this is not an unambiguous advantage and therefore does not provide so obvious an answer.

Over the course of a lengthy career I have written roughly 20 full-length books, six or seven of which I consider my best work and the writing I would like others to know me by. But already the 20 volumes threaten to bury some of the better writing I have done and create problems for readers who are seeking to acquaint themselves with my ideas. Where to begin? What to leave out? And given that this is the case, why add ten more volumes, containing a million and a half words, and risk having potential readers throw up their hands and say, “This is too much for me to sort out.” So the question better asked is this: What would The Black Book of the American Left contain that would significantly add to the work I had already done? What would prompt others to read it, and justify the two years of labor that went into the making of it?

The answer is in the nature of its contents and — equally important — in concerns I have had about the way conservatives have understood the phenomenon it describes. Five years into the Obama administration, most conservatives have little idea of the depth of its malignancy, or the fact that it is the product of decades of development that has transformed the Democratic party and created, as is rapidly becoming apparent, not only America’s nightmare but the world’s as well.

A good place to begin this explanation is by reporting that some readers have remarked critically on the fact that the articles in these volumes, which span some 30 years, have already appeared in print and can be located by a diligent web search. Why then bother arranging them in a new subject order and collecting them in themed volumes with titles like My Life & Times, Progressives, The Great Betrayal (Iraq), Culture Wars, Progressive Racism, and The Left in the Universities?

The answer is that these are not articles written on random subjects that happened to catch my fancy. Nor were they written as intellectual exercises that set out to explore various aspects of current issues. They are dispatches from a war zone, written to identify the nature, agendas, and long-term goals of a political movement of historic proportions that is also global in scope. Written in the heat of battle, they are here arranged in chronological order as the events took place, in order to provide a running account of the war itself.

The nature of these conflicts as part of an ongoing war was, in my view, scarcely recognized by conservatives at the time, and has still not fully sunk in. Conservatives have rarely approached the individual conflicts with the seriousness they deserve, describing their adversaries as “liberals” — as if they subscribed to the principles of Lockean individualism, tolerance, and political compromise. Only with the advent of the Obama administration have some conservatives begun to connect the dots of origins and outcomes and to grasp the real nature of the national transformation that their adversaries intend.

It is for this conservative audience — a constituency on whom the American future depends — that I undertook to put together The Black Book of the American Left. It is first of all a narrative map of the battles fought over the last 40 years and — it must be said – lost, almost every one. The Black Book contains a record as complete as any likely to be written of the struggle to resist a Communist-inspired Left that was not defeated in the Cold War but took advantage of the Soviet defeat to enter the American mainstream and conquer it, until today its members occupy the White House.

It is an often overlooked but immensely significant fact that during the Cold War the vast majority of American progressives supported the Communist enemy, working as apologists, appeasers, and enablers for a global movement openly dedicated to the destruction of their country. At the time, the progressive movement was much smaller than it is now and was opposed by mainstream Democrats whom progressives referred to derisively as “Cold War Liberals.” In 1968, progressive activists staged a riot at the Democratic Party convention. The riot was overtly designed to destroy the electoral chances of Hubert Humphrey, regarded as the Cold War Liberal in Chief because of his support for the Vietnam War.

The Progressive Party, was formed in 1948 to challenge the cold war liberalism of Harry Truman and was in fact controlled by the Communist Party. The so-called New Left that emerged in the Sixties did not represent a clean break with communism and was not, in fact, a “new” left but a continuation of the old. It developed a modernized, deceptive political rhetoric — calling itself “populist” and even “liberal” — but it was mobilized behind the same malicious anti-individualist, anti-capitalist, and anti-American agendas as the Communist movement from which it sprang.

After the convention riot of 1968, this neo-Communist Left marched off the streets and into the Democratic party, and over the next decades took commanding positions in the party’s congressional apparatus, and eventually its national leadership. As it acquired power, it gradually shifted its self- identification from “liberal” to the bolder “progressive,” a designation shared by most leaders of the Democratic Party today. The betrayal of the Vietnamese by the “Watergate” Democrats, the appeasement of Latin American Communists (now firmly entrenched throughout the hemisphere and allied with our enemy Iran), the betrayal of the Iraqis and the sabotage of the war on terror, the traducing of the civil-rights movement and its transformation into a mob led by the racial extortionists Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (the latter now the president’s chief adviser on race), the subversion of the modern research university and the conversion of its liberal-arts divisions into doctrinal institutes for training American youth in the radical party line known as political correctness, the rise of a campus fascism aligned with Islamic Jew haters and genocidal terrorists, the political undermining of the public-health system during the AIDS epidemic which led to half a million avoidable deaths — all these were crucial battles lost during the 40 years that preceded the White House reign of Barack Obama. All are documented in the pages of these volumes in week-by-week accounts of the arguments and conflicts that accompanied them.

The narrative of these developments is the substance of The Black Book of the American Left. Its fruit is an understanding that the movement now in motion to dismantle the American system, and bring this country to its knees, is no overnight phenomenon and is not the result of misguided idealisms or misunderstandings that can be easily repaired. The adversary cannot be dissuaded, because what drives him is a religious mission on which his identity and quest for a meaningful life depend. He can be stopped only by a political counterforce that is determined and organized, and — most importantly — that understands the gravity of the threat it faces.

How far are conservatives from understanding the gravity of the situation they are in? This question was brought home to me the other day as I watched Senator Tom Coburn, easily one of the most decent men in Washington, being interrogated by an unusually frustrated Brian Lamb about his friendship with Barack Obama. That Senator Coburn, a staunch conservative, would relate to the president on a personal level despite their political differences did not bother me. What bothered me was how profoundly the senator misread Obama, how he failed to understand the malice behind either his mendacity or his systematic efforts to dismantle America’s constitutional system and disarm us before our enemies. “He has good intentions,” Coburn assured the exasperated Lamb.

In this exchange, Senator Coburn was the picture of American innocence, unable to connect the contempt Obama has shown for the American people and their civil order with his readiness to betray America’s troops in the field and its interests abroad, with his embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood and appeasement of Iranian Hitlerites, with his supine posture toward Russian aggression in the heart of Europe. Conservatives’ conflict with Obama is not about different understandings of the facts among colleagues guided by good intentions.

I wanted to ask Coburn whether he thinks the sadistic murderer Fidel Castro, who has turned his nation into an island prison, is also possessed of good intentions and human graces. The director Steven Spielberg, himself a good man, called the eight hours he spent with Castro “the greatest day of my life.” Does this flapdoodle have any real-world significance when it comes to dealing with the radical Left? Unless they are Islamic fanatics, the zealots of the Left do not usually come at you as fire-breathing demons. They come to help. Do you think for a moment that Castro could carry on those nine-hour speeches about Cuba’s glorious socialist achievements if he did not at least half-believe his own fantasies? Obama and Castro are socialist missionaries. For that very reason, the evil they do far exceeds anything achievable by tinhorn tyrants. They are advocates of a cause that turns a blind eye toward the millions of corpses and the wrecked continents of the recent past while attacking the democratic foundations of what remains of a free-market, free-world community of nations, beginning with Israel and the United States. That is their evil and their crime: their will to do it all over again, as if the human calamities they inspired never took place.

The Black Book of the American Left is a look into the psyche of these missionaries through the battles they have waged over the last 40 years — battles that have brought them into the command structures of the American leviathan. It provides a picture of how they think and it analyzes the why; it draws aside the veil of “good intentions” to reveal the malice underneath. That is its utility, and the main reason I am putting these volumes together. But it would not be candid of me if I did not mention another. By way of explication, I will quote from the general introduction to the work:

It is almost a certainty that no other “book” will be written like this one, since it can only have been the work of someone born into the Left and condemned Ahab-like to pursue it in an attempt to comprehend it. Yet it is not simply a project of monomania, as my adversaries will suggest, but of discovery — an attempt not only to understand a movement but to explore its roots in individual lives, including my own. While I hope this book may be useful to those fighting to defend individual freedom and free markets, I do not deceive myself into believing that I have finally set the harpoon into the leviathan, a feat that is ultimately not possible. Progressivism is fundamentally a religious faith, which meets the same eternal human needs as traditional faiths, and for that reason will be with us always. In the last analysis, the progressive faith is a Gnosticism that can only be held at bay but never finally beaten back to earth.

*

Don’t miss David Horowitz discussing The Black Book of the American Left in The Glazov Gang’s two-part video series below:

Part I:

Part II:

Subscribe to The Glazov Gang and LIKE it on Facebook.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • KatharineMChapman

    That is its utility, and the main reason I am putting these volumes together. But it would not be candid of me if I did not mention another. By way of explication, I will quote from the general introduction to the work: http://sn.im/28ux95m

  • cxt

    Where Coburn makes his mistake is that one can be a decent person an STILL do extremely harmful things.
    Either through negligence, stupidity, mistaken perceptions, twisted worldview, lack of experience, poor reasoning.
    They can also do great harm through being self-absorbed, arrogant and inflexible—their very perception of being “better” and “smarter” than everyone else generally leads to epic failures which often harm everyone around them.
    And great harm can be done from outright malice.
    As such I would argue that ones “intentions” are largely irrelevant……what one does and the results are of far greater importance.
    And that is how they should be judged.

    • Bonnie Loranger

      You are totally right. Lots of Nazis were for example very good family man but they adhered to an evil ideology and therefore committed great crimes against other human beings,

  • Alexander Scheiner, Israel

    Israel has adversaries from within: the leftist, secular-jewish NGOs, supporting the Palestinian-arab cause. These are, the Btselem, RHR, JVJP.CH, the NIF and Breaking the Silence. All of them must be outlawed.
    rememberamalek.blogspot

    • Wakeupcall

      The Kenites thoroughly infiltrated Judah and the Levites long before Jesus was born. They are the ones who had Rome crucify Jesus as they had completely taken over as the priest’s of the tribe of Levites, and at this time there was not one Levitical priest left. You do know who the Kenites are descendants of, don’t you? Satan through Cain, and to this day many still claim to be Israeli yet they are not.

      • pslinger
        • Wakeupcall

          Try reading John 8 the whole book. Pay special attention to verses 37 and 38 then 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

          Jesus is telling the scribes as priests (priests in the temple) who are not Levites but Kenites the children of Satan through Cain. They had worked their way over the years from helping and keeping the Levitical priests books to replacing the Levitical priests and taking over their duties. At the time of the death of Jesus there were no Livitical priests in the temple.

  • http://www.clarespark.com/ Clare Spark

    I mostly agree with DH’s periodization. The original Progressives were anticommunist, as I demonstrated here: http://clarespark.com/2012/05/15/progressive-uplift-vs-new-left-nihilism/. “Progressive uplift vs. New Left nihilism”–but I would give more weight to the red diaper babies of the Popular Front generation that started in 1935. It didn’t take much to push these pinks/New Dealers into full blown Reds. Vietnam, civil rights, and feminism all contributed to the transformation into anti-Americanism.

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      Clare, this is why David calls the original Progressives “liberals”. They have been supplanted by the Progressives, and control almost all of the mechanisms of power in America, today. I could have lived under a “President Humphrey” and believed that there was a true American in the White House. We can’t believe that, anymore.

      Carter started the trend. Bill Clinton … whom I know … has a shady and shadowy past including a six-month stay in Stockholm, followed by a trip to the Soviet Union. Except for the words he uses, Obama doesn’t make much of an attempt to hide who and what he is (and his administration just as well be the Central Soviet).

      I agree with what you said about the red diaper babies.

      • Erudite Mavin

        Didn’t Clinton also visit a friend in the then Czechoslovakia and was in anti war demonstrations in London

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          Yes, and the anti-war demonstrations were in a foreign country while he was supposed to be on a Fulbright Scholarship to Oxford.

  • Douglas Mayfield

    “What bothered me was how profoundly the senator misread Obama, how he failed to understand the malice behind either his mendacity or his systematic efforts to dismantle America’s constitutional system and disarm us before our enemies. “He has good intentions,” Coburn assured the exasperated Lamb.”
    I cannot know for certain but I strongly suspect that what Senator Coburn meant was that Obama wants to help people and Coburn agrees with that.
    Many conservatives also want to help people. The problem arises in not distinguishing between voluntary charity and ‘charity at gun point’ practiced by the dealers in socialist poison, the Democrats.
    To be charitable, first you earn the money and then, having taken that crucial, and difficult, first step, you choose to use what you have earned to help people. The Democrats embrace ‘charity’ paid for by someone else’s hard earned money grabbed at gun point.
    What Obama and the Democrats are doing is dishonest, hence the constant stream of lies and nonsense from the administration, and immoral, and so to be profoundly condemned on a moral basis.
    Socialism, government enforced ‘charity’, is not charity at all. It’s raw tyranny disguised with a ‘good excuse’.

  • Burlington

    I plead with many to take 15 min. and watch a 1984 video interview of Yuri Bezmenov, a KGB defector, who was a prophet. He laid out the strategy and tactics the commies were using successfully and they pulled it off!

    Search–Yuri Bezmenov ans Daily motion

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      I’ve seen the video, before, and Bezmenov was indeed a prophet.

    • liz

      Thanks – wow. When he said they look not for the idealists, but for “the kind of people who can look you in the eye with an angelic expression on their face and lie to you” – bet you can guess who I thought of!
      Right – our Liar in Chief, of course.

      • Burlington

        Liz,
        Amazing isn’t it! The Cloward-Piven financial collapse is right around the corner. too.

        • liz

          Yep, definitely going according to plan.

  • liz

    Mr. Horowitz, thank you for the tremendous contributions of all your writings.
    Reading “Radical Son” helped to clarify so much that I had lived through but not really understood.
    It is a sad commentary that, after over 50 years of this insidious, parasitic attack by the left, conservatives still do not grasp the enormity of it. It is inexcusable at this point in history that men like Tom Coburn, decent though he may be, still delude themselves about any leftists “good intentions”.

    • kikorikid

      DH is simply trying to awaken a giant with the Truth.
      Thanks ,David, Your narrative reads crystal clear
      to me. My eyes feed on your writings because, we,
      recognize a stench in the air. You have done a true
      Masters work in telling your story and its correlation
      with the current body-politic. We can only repay
      your efforts by excersizing that old saw,”Patriotic Duty”.
      I fear a great fascist maliciousness overwhelming
      the Country. Your writings have explained who
      will do it, if allowed.

  • Sonnys_Mom

    “In a time of universal deceit, I read David Horowitz just to stay sane!”
    –Sonny’s Mom, recovering New Leftist

  • http://www.chapter19.us/ Kevin Groenhagen

    I have been a fan of Mr. Horowitz’s since “Destructive Generation.” What he writes about the neo-communists taking over the Democratic Party is absolutely true. In fact, Michael Harrington, who was with the Socialist Party actually became a delegate to the Democratic National Committee in 1974. He also chaired the Democratic Socialists of America until his death in 1989 and worked to build a “socialist coalition” that organized within the Democratic Party. I have written a little book about this coalition, which can be downloaded for free at http://www.chapter19.us.

  • Michael Hiteshew

    There’s a lot to be said for being succinct. 20 volumes sounds like vanity. Pare it to one. Two if you must. Writing is much more effective when it’s well thought out, well written, and well edited. Get to the point. Make it clear. Away with the rest.

  • Ralph

    Hillary and President Obama are both influenced by Saul Alinsky for sure.

    Hillary did her college thesis on Saul Alinsky’s writings. Obama writes about him in his books:

    Saul Alinsky died June 12, 1972 but his writings influenced those in political control of our
    nation today.

    Died: June 12, 1972, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
    Education: University of Chicago
    Spouse: Irene Alinsky

    Books: Rules for Radicals, Reveille for Radicals.

    Anyone out there think that this stuff isn’t happening today in the U.S. ?

    All eight rules are currently in play How to create a social state by Saul Alinsky:

    There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social
    state.

    The first is the most important:

    1) Healthcare- Control healthcare and you control the people.

    2) Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

    3) Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.

    4) Gun Control- Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are
    able to create a police state.

    5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).

    6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in
    school.

    7) Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools.

    8) Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

    Does any of this sound like what is happening to the United States?

    Alinsky merely simplified Vladimir Lenin’s original scheme for world conquest by communism, under Russian rule. Stalin described his converts as “Useful Idiots.” The Useful Idiots have destroyed every nation in which they have seized power and control. It is presently happening at an alarming rate in the U.S.

    “It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.”