They say, "go woke, go broke".&nbsp;


	But Woke, in a bit of irony, <a href="https://deadline.com/2022/06/woke-canceled-hulu-after-two-seasons-1235051543/">got canceled</a>. The Hulu TV show that is.

<blockquote>
	
		Woke, the live action-animated comedy inspired by the life of award-winning artist&nbsp;Keith Knight, has been canceled by&nbsp;Hulu&nbsp;after two seasons.
</blockquote>


	Woke was, well, <a href="https://www.distractify.com/p/is-woke-hulu-based-on-a-true-story">woke</a>.

<blockquote>
	
		In the Hulu series&nbsp;Woke,&nbsp;Keef Knight&nbsp;is a black cartoonist who loves attending comic cons and tries his best to return lost wallets. But his world is turned upside down after he has a traumatic encounter with police, who pin him to the ground after they wrongly assume he's a mugger on the loose.

	
		The police eventually let Keef go but they don't apologize for their mistake.
</blockquote>


	Now, following up on the police, Disney (Hulu) canceled him. That follows up on Netflix jettisoning some of its more woke products. Both Netflix and Disney+ have been running into some financial issues with their streaming budgets. And woke virtue signaling may be starting to become too expensive to afford.

'Woke' Gets Cancelled. Literally.

They say, "go woke, go broke".&nbsp;


	But Woke, in a bit of irony, got canceled. The Hulu TV show that is.


	
		Woke, the live action-animated comedy

'Woke' Gets Cancelled. Literally.

California used to attract tourists eager to walk the streets of San Francisco and visit California landmarks and theme parks without stepping in human waste, getting mugged, or caught in the middle of a riot.


	Since that's no longer a great option, California's useless overlords is investing in abortion tourism.

<blockquote>
	
		Governor Gavin Newsom, Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins (D-San Diego) and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood) today issued the following statement after reaching an agreement on the framework for the 2022-23 state budget:

	
		"And in the wake of Friday’s stunning Supreme Court decision, the state is reaffirming its commitment to defending reproductive rights, providing more than $200 million in additional funding for reproductive health care services. The state will also be investing in key programs that help California families, from funding for homeownership programs and billions of dollars in additional ongoing funding for education, to universal preschool, children’s mental health, and free school meals."
</blockquote>


	And if we can't help California's children, we'll kill them instead.


	California's population has dropped for two straight years. The last thing it needs is less people. But it's not as if the Dobbs decision is going to have any impact on the prevalence of Planned Parenthood facilities in the state. So this is more likely a desperate bid for abortion tourism.


	With the fall of Roe v. Wade, states are gearing up to become the 'Nevada' of abortion tourism. And California has a hell of a pitch. Come for Disneyland and Legoland and stay to kill your future children. Remember whatever happens in California stays in a secret government database.

California to Spend $200 Million to Help Fund Abortion Tourism

California used to attract tourists eager to walk the streets of San Francisco and visit California landmarks and theme parks without stepping in human waste,

California to Spend $200 Million to Help Fund Abortion Tourism

Inflation? What inflation. We've got all the cash we can print. And more. Now let's print some and<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/3537495-biden-commits-200-billion-to-global-infrastructure-plan-meant-to-counter-china/"> give it away</a>.

<blockquote>
	
		President&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;on Sunday relaunched a global infrastructure initiative meant to counter China’s growing influence, saying the U.S. would commit $200 billion to the effort in public and private financing to boost projects in developing and middle-income countries. &nbsp;

	
		Describing the globe as at an inflection point, Biden said the initiative by the Group of Seven (G-7) nations would help set the world on a strong path for the future by investing in sustainable projects that are “grounded in our shared values.”&nbsp;
</blockquote>


	Sustainable means worthless green energy garbage that puts money in the hands of politically connected investors.

<blockquote>
	
		In addition to U.S. commitments, Biden said the G-7 countries collectively would aim to mobilize $600 billion for the partnership by 2027. The $200 billion in funding the U.S. is committing over the next five years is a combination of federal financing, grants and private sector investment, according to a White House fact sheet distributed ahead of Biden’s remarks.&nbsp;The plan, called the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, is a rebranding of the “Build Back Better World” initiative that Biden unveiled at last year’s G-7 summit.
</blockquote>


	Because nothing was learned from the miserable failure of Build Back America.


	I'm all for countering China, but how about we do that by doing what the PRC did, build up our own manufacturing so it's globally competitive and take control of our economy, instead of dispensing more foreign aid so a handful of companies get some sort of favorable treatment in the Third World.

<blockquote>
	
		“I want to be clear: This isn’t aid or charity. It’s an investment that will deliver returns for everyone, including the American people and the people of all our nations," Biden said.
</blockquote>


	As usual, "let me by clear" means, "I'm going to lie to you now. The truth is the opposite of what I'm saying.


	Meanwhile, Americans can't afford to buy food and inflation is getting worse by the day.

Biden Announces $200B Plan to Aid Poorer Countries Because America is Made Out of Money

Inflation? What inflation. We've got all the cash we can print. And more. Now let's print some and give it away.


	
		President&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;on Sunday

Biden Announces $200B Plan to Aid Poorer Countries Because America is Made Out of Money

The Abortion Insurrection Leads to Violence From Arizona to Portland

After the Capitol Riot and the abuse of the term "insurrection", conservatives have retaliated by mockingly using the term "insurrection" for everything

The Abortion Insurrection Leads to Violence From Arizona to Portland

Islamic terrorism isn't going away any time soon, but it tends to be more pervasive in Europe.


	And this shooting <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61933817">will obviously</a><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/europe/norway-oslo-gay-bar-shooting-intl-hnk/index.html"> bring back</a> memories of the Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando by an Islamic terrorist.

<blockquote>
	
		Two people died and 21 were wounded early on Saturday in what police called an "act of Islamist terrorism".

	
		The shootings were in and near the London Pub, a popular LGBTQ+ venue, the Herr Nilsen jazz club and another pub.

	
		Norway's prime minister told the BBC the suspect was questioned in May, but was not deemed a threat at the time.
</blockquote>


	So business as usual.

<blockquote>
	
		The suspect, charged with terrorism, is a Norwegian citizen originally from Iran, and was “known to the police,” but has only received “minor convictions” up until now, prosecutor Christian Hatlo told reporters in Oslo Saturday.
</blockquote>


	"Iran" as an origin point sticks out. Shiite terrorism is usually organized under Iran's umbrella and does not involve lone wolf attackers. The country has a Sunni population.&nbsp;


	ISIS has also dissuaded its supporters from hitting gay bars after&nbsp;the Pulse massacre which was misunderstood as an anti-gay attack. ISIS wants the motives to be clear. And the Pulse massacre keeps being misrepresented as an anti-gay attack. That hasn't stopped one or two terror plots from targeting gay targets.


	Alternatively, like the Pulse massacre, it might all just be an unintentional coincidence.

Islamic Terror Attack Hits Norwegian Gay Bar

Islamic terrorism isn't going away any time soon, but it tends to be more pervasive in Europe.


	And this shooting will obviously bring back memories of

Islamic Terror Attack Hits Norwegian Gay Bar

Visit <a href="https://arcdigital.media/">Arcdigital.media</a>.


	Radical professor and activist Angela Davis has enjoyed a resurgent popularity among left-wing activists for the past several years, ever since she was <a href="https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a42337/angela-davis-womens-march-speech-full-transcript/" rel="noopener nofollow">one of the stars</a> of the January 21, 2017 Women’s March. Now, some people in progressive media seem determined to make 2020 the Year of Angela Davis — or perhaps the Year of Angela Davis’s Canonization.


	Now 76, Davis turned into an international celebrity almost overnight half a century ago, after she fled from an arrest warrant on charges of three capital felonies including conspiracy to commit murder and was arrested in October 1970 after two months on the run. The University of California philosophy professor who was also a Communist activist and a member of the Black Panther Party was embraced as a hero by the American and European left. After her acquittal (more on which later), her fame faded, and for years she received only intermittent attention. But now, the remnants of the old left that worshipped her and its successors in today’s “woke” left have again taken up her cause, reviving her status as a role model for young far left radicals — especially for Black Lives Matter activists in the new civil rights movement.


	Last month, The New York Times chose Davis as one of the five people featured in a special issue of its “T” magazine supplement — a section that focuses on fashion, beauty, and lifestyle — dedicated to “The Greats.” (The other four are all artists.) That very choice signals to readers that Davis is a fashion and political icon for our time — we can now call her “the Great Angela Davis”!— and that one will not be reading a serious examination of her life and beliefs but a hagiography.


	And a hagiography it is. The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/19/t-magazine/angela-davis.html" rel="noopener nofollow">profile</a> by Nelson George starts by discussing a mural featuring Davis on a wall in Bedford-Stuyvesant (Brooklyn, New York). Calling her a “symbol of the struggle for Black liberation, anticapitalism, and feminism,” George writes that her expression in the mural is “pensive, intelligent, challenging.” 
	 
	To continue reading this article: <a href="https://arcdigital.media/the-angela-davis-moment-4ac103c3063d">CLICK HERE</a>.

The Angela Davis Moment

Visit Arcdigital.media.


	Radical professor and activist Angela Davis has enjoyed a resurgent popularity among left-wing activists for the past several

<a href="/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/10/lkj.jpg"><img src="/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/10/lkj.jpg" alt="lkj" width="191" height="242" /></a>Reprinted from <a href="http://pjmedia.com/">PJMedia</a>.
Look whose photo graces the campus of UCLA, meant to be an inspiration to incoming students. The woman in the photo is standing above the slogan: “We Question.” On the right-hand side, in small letters, students are informed that they are “the optimists.”
This banner adds to the shadow that today is cast over so many of our major universities.
For those who can’t identify her, the photo depicts Angela Davis, the notorious former Communist Party USA leader who, beginning in the ’60s, molded together black nationalism with Marxism-Leninism. She created a heady brew for recruiting new cadre into the CP and the original Black Panther Party of Huey Newton.
Some optimist! Davis believed in the triumph of Communism.
For her loyalty to the Soviet Union and its foreign policies, in 1972 she was awarded a Lenin Centenary Medal in the Soviet Union, after which she spoke to thousands at an outdoor rally in Moscow. Next, speaking at a factory in Kirov, Davis praised the workers for not using “products of labor [to fuel] the irrational drive for capitalist profits as it is used in our country.”
As she left Moscow and went up the stairs to enter her plane, she yelled out with a clenched fist: “Long live the science of Marxism-Leninism.” There is not an iota of evidence that she questioned anything about the dreary reality in the Soviet Union and their Eastern European client states.
Davis also received the International Lenin Peace Prize — formerly called the Stalin Peace Prize — from the STASI state of East Germany in 1979. She was awarded it for supposedly strengthening “peace among peoples,” but it was actually for her continued fidelity to the Soviet bloc, which to her represented the future of humanity.
Not only did she not “question” authority, Davis openly defended the repressive measures of the Communist states by endorsing their imprisonment of dissident intellectuals. When the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia to crush the movement for “socialism with a human face” that the citizens of the country believed they could pull off without Soviet intervention, Davis strenuously supported the invasion that was forthcoming.
In 1970, she was implicated in a plot to free her imprisoned lover, black revolutionary George Jackson, whose brother took over a Marin County courtroom and took the judge hostage, as well as an assistant DA and two jurors.
After a gun battle, the judge was murdered by a shotgun owned by Davis.
Davis then fled, assumed different aliases, and disguised how she looked. She was brought to trial, and to great amazement of those who believed no black could get a fair trial in the U.S., the jury found her innocent. As it turned out, the jurors were all defenders of Davis. One juror even faced TV news cameras and gave the clenched-fist salute, indicating their lack of objectivity or intent to evaluate the evidence.
After the jury’s acquittal of Davis, Pelikan wrote: “Try to help [the imprisoned Czech dissidents] so they can defend themselves against their accusers as you have been able to do in your country.” His plea fell on deaf ears. She had a close friend, another black female American Communist Party leader, tell the press that Davis believed that the critics of the Czech regime were counter-revolutionaries who were undermining socialism, and therefore were undeserving of support.
Davis’ entire life reveals a woman who, rather than question authority, uses her skills to attack the very democracy she lives in — which allowed her to teach at a university, obtain highly paid speaking engagements, and publish scores of books attacking the American government.
After 9/11, Davis said: “The United States significantly contributed to conditions that led to the violence on September 11.” As for demands that she not be allowed to speak, she said in a campus speech at Keene State College in New Hampshire that she finds it “bizarre, if freedom is being defended, that it is necessary to curtail freedom in order to defend freedom.”
As we have seen, she had a very different view when it came to defending freedom in the so-called “people’s democracies.”
From the ’60s to the present, Angela Davis has been a thoughtless propagandist for every far Left cause one can imagine. How did she ever become a Communist and believe in the Leninist theory of “dialectical materialism” and all of its mumbo-jumbo? The answer comes from the high school which she attended — Elisabeth Irwin H.S., the upper level division of the famed private school the Little Red School House, referred to by its critics with an additional three words: “for little Reds.”
I attended the same high school to which Davis got a scholarship and then moved from her middle-class black home in Birmingham, Alabama, to attend in New York City. There she was taught history by its longstanding history teacher, a man named Harold Kirshner — the very same man who taught me that “dialectical materialism is a science” and that Marxism explained the world. The author of a recent <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Little-Red-Passionate-through-Sixties-ebook/dp/B00B3M3XOE/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1413306346&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=Dina+Hampton" rel="external">book</a> [2] about the high school writes that it was the same Kirshner who “effected a life-altering transformation in Davis” by assigning her the works of Marx and Engels. The effect it had, Davis said, hit her “like a bolt of lightning.” After that she graduated from Kirshner to taking a class from the official CP “historian” Herbert Aptheker at a Communist school he had set up in the city.
One might ask: Why is Davis so important? The answer is that today’s cultural elites, like whoever at UCLA decided to adorn the campus with her photo, treat any rebel — even a dogmatic ideologue like Angela Davis — as a leader from which students can learn valuable lessons. It is these academics who treat her as both a saint and a leader, and who constantly invite her to give major speeches on our campuses which they urge their students to attend.
To herald Angela Davis as a person who questions anything reveals the mindset of our university administrators, and is itself more evidence of the decline of standards at our major colleges and universities. Expect Ms. Davis to be a graduation speaker sometime in UCLA’s future. That is the logical next step in helping Angela Davis lead her march to a communist future via “the long march through the existing institutions.”
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.   
<a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf">Subscribe</a> to Frontpage's TV show, The Glazov Gang, and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang">LIKE</a> it on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang">Facebook.</a>

UCLA’s New Cover Girl

Reprinted from PJMedia.

Look whose photo graces the campus of UCLA, meant to be an inspiration to incoming students. The woman in the photo is standing above

<a href="/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/08/ps.jpg"><img src="/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/08/ps.jpg" alt="ps" width="233" height="155" /></a>Reprinted from <a href="http://pjmedia.com/">PJMedia.com</a>.
The American Left used to be patriotic. In its heyday, Eugene V. Debs never attacked America, and the socialist vision he advocated was in his eyes a way to realize the promise of America. As for the American Communist Party, in reality the tool of Stalin’s USSR, it pretended in the 1940s to be pro-American, and its chairman, Earl Browder, coined the slogan “Communism is 20th century Americanism.” This pretense came to an end during the Cold War, when the Left supported the Soviet bloc and all of its policies, and argued that America was in the process of becoming a nascent fascist state.
The remnants of the ’60s New Left identified with America’s new enemies, especially North Vietnam, Communist Cuba, the PLO, and, in the ’80s, Sandinista Nicaragua. After 9/11, many of its adherents took the position that the United States had the terror attack coming to it, since the perpetrators had taken 3000 lives in protest against America’s imperial ambitions and control.
This led Michael Walzer, the social-democratic intellectual, to pen an<a href="http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Politics/Waltzer.htm"> article</a> called “Can There Be a Decent Left?” Walzer courageously took on many of those on his side of the spectrum, hitting them for accepting the “blame America first” doctrine to explain foreign policy defeats; for not criticizing any peoples or nations in the Third World; for believing in what he called “rag-tag Marxism”; for failing to oppose dangerous jihadists and Islamist states; and for refusing to blame anyone else for the world’s wrong except the United States.
I wonder what Walzer would write today if he examined his article anew. If one looks around at the Left’s response to Hamas’ actions in Gaza and its attacks on Israel, and its view of Islamist fascism in countries like Iran, Syria and among the ISIS forces seeking to take over Iraq, it is clearer than ever that the Left has one function — to support the enemies of democracy. Operating in the United States, Britain and France, the Western Left takes the opportunity to speak freely in the democracies in which they live, to openly support and express their solidarity with democracy’s most fervent enemies.
Some would question why this Left, perhaps numerically small in terms of the entire population of the Western nations, is so important. Aren’t they really marginal? The answer is that in the United States, as well as in Great Britain, the positions of the far left have now become mainstream, and influence those in political power. So it is with the Democratic Party.
On these questions, the answer of the left-liberal wing of the Democratic Party, and the even further far left-wing base, makes the Democrats as an entire group unable to take any steps that endanger their electoral chances, unless the party’s leaders continually kowtow to the leftist base. They fear that if they took tough interventionist positions that would offend them, it might lead the Left to opt out of voting in the coming November elections, as well as not rallying behind whomever the Democrats pick as their candidate for the 2016 presidential race. There are, of course, some exceptions. Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey is one Democrat who has continually called for tough measures against Iran, much to the consternation of others in his own party.
Obama, as the New York Times’ <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/world/middleeast/a-return-to-action.html?ref=todayspaper">Peter Baker</a> explains, has spent his entire time as president doing everything to end any military action by the U.S. in Iraq, not even leaving a residual force that could be used should it become necessary. And yet, the force of events has led him to intervene with air strikes against the ISIS (or ISIL) in the very country he thought he’d never have to use the American military in any capacity. Now he has to contend with the possibility that should ISIS manage to move to take over Irbil and move closer to Baghdad, he very well might have to consider extending the range of his current action.
The left-wing of the Democratic Party is not happy. Baker interviewed Phyllis Bennis, who works at the far-left Institute for Policy Studies (not, as Baker describes it,“a research organization for peace activists”). The NYT does not let its readers know that <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2147">Bennis herself</a> is a person who believes that Israel’s very creation was illegitimate, and who supports “the right of return” and has previously criticized moves taken by Israel against Hamas. As for the IPS, as one can find at <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2147">Discover the Networks</a>, during the Cold War it was a major group disseminating Soviet disinformation and working to push the United States to the far left.
It is not surprising to find that Bennis told Baker that Obama’s action “is a slippery slope if I ever saw one,” and that “whatever else we may have learned from the President’s ‘dumb war,’ it should be entirely clear that we cannot bomb Islamist extremists into submission or disappearance.” Bennis does not suggest what course she thinks the U.S. should take to deal with its dangerous enemies, perhaps because what worries her is not their goals, but America responding to the danger at all.
As for the Left’s position on the fight Israel is waging against Hamas, the Left sides with Hamas and views it as a victim of Israeli aggression and colonialism. One has to merely turn to the <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/180826/israel-must-stop-its-campaign-terror">lead editorial</a> in the current issue of The Nation, titled “Israel Must Stop Its Reign of Terror,” in which Katrina vanden Heuvel and her colleagues explain that it was a “brute incursion by Israel” into Gaza that started the current war and has resulted in a “bloodletting” in which Israel’s bombings “pummeled Gaza into a landscape of human despair.” The editorial accuses Israel of obliterating “entire families of twenty and thirty” and of leveling whole neighborhoods.
The Nation editorial then argues that “a flagrantly asymmetrical conflict between occupier and occupied” has been portrayed “as a fight between equals,” and hence the U.S., “a highly biased superpower,” is trying to pretend it is an honest broker. They even say that the U.S. has “lined up to affirm Israel’s ‘right to self-defense,’” a step they imply is unnecessary for Israel to take. They see some hope that John Kerry and the president have “expressed frustration with Israel’s shattering disregard for Palestinian lives.” They protest that after Kerry turned for help to Hamas’s sponsors, Qatar and Turkey, backing a peace proposal that would have met all of Hamas’ demands,  Israel’s response to Kerry was to not “even contemplate lifting the seven-year siege of Gaza.”
The Nation offers its own proposal for what America should do: demand an “international arms embargo on Israel,” as well as ending “Israel’s collective punishment on Gaza.” They note that these demands are supported by 64 Nobel laureates and “public figures” such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Noam Chomsky as well as “legal experts” Noura Erakat (daughter of the PLO’s lead negotiator) and Peter Weiss, whom you can read about <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2559">here</a>. These measures, they conclude, are a blueprint, “at once necessary and aspirational, to end the crisis.”
That editorial was written before the 72 hour cease-fire was violated by Hamas, before the warfare started up, and before Israel responded with a forceful series of new air strikes in Gaza. The Nation’s first online response to the recent resumption of the Gaza war is an editorial by <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2559">Zoe Carpenter</a>. She accuses the hawks — all the regular suspects — of “angling” to get us into a new war. She predicts they will soon “call for escalating a conflict in the Middle East.” In Iraq, as she sees it, rescuing the Yazidis from the mountain in which they took refuge is simply “a defensive rationale” for military strikes. Humanitarian aid to the suffering Yazidis in her eyes is but “a moral gloss for military action.” Obama’s limited action in Iraq, she fears, will lead to an escalation of the war.
So whether the enemy is Hamas in Gaza or ISIS in Iraq, the Left has one position: The United States must stay out, and stop using its armed forces to advance the hidden agenda of the imperialist United States or the colonialist Israeli regime, which itself is illegitimate. The Left’s voice is that of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Pretending to be anti-fascist, they portray actual contemporary fascists — the Islamists in the Middle East (especially Hamas) — as fighters for liberation against Israel’s oppression. Carpenter worries that Obama’s limited action will have “undesirable, cascading consequences.”
In his <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Antisemitism-American-Left-Stephen-Norwood-ebook/dp/B00D5RJEXE/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1407536429&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=Stephen+H.+Norwood">book</a> Antisemitism and the American Far Left, historian Stephen H. Norwood ends his tome by noting that since the 1960s, the American far left has echoed both extremist Palestinian propaganda as well as the old  Communist anti-Zionist positions of the 1920s and ’30s, demonizing Zionism and “condemning Israel with increasing fervor…and calling for its destruction.” The Left think of themselves as secular democrats, while in reality they work to empower the forces of radical Islam that “would replace Israel with an Arab dictatorship unwilling to extend rights to minorities and women.”
That Left, he acknowledges, has “entered the mainstream.” We have seen it this past week, as CNN adopts the position of the far left. Appearing on the network, <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/08/04/kate-bolduan-acts-dumb">Lee Habeeb </a>boldly pointed out “there is no moral equivalence between those who target civilians and use them as human shields and those who target the evil who do such a thing,” and that CNN has gone beyond that, in effect “becoming a public relations outfit for this evil.” I would also note that the network had hired Michael Oren as an analyst on the Middle East. They soon removed him from that position. When he now appears on CNN, which is not so often, they identify him as Israel’s former ambassador to the United States. In his place, the network has hired the opponent of Israel’s actions, Peter Beinart, the voice of left-leaning Jews who identify with or belong to J-Street.
One CNN reporter, <a href="http://blog.camera.org/archives/2014/07/cnns_martin_savidge_supports_h_1.html">Martin Savidge,</a> even argued that the Hamas tunnels were legitimately used as a weapon of war by Hamas since it used them to hit soldiers, who are “legitimate targets.” He found Hamas’ argument that the tunnels are used to wage war and to not go after civilians “very compelling.” Any media outlet that treats Hamas propaganda as correct, and that views Hamas as an equal power deserving air time with supporters of Israel, or which adopts and echoes its positions,  has adopted the strategy of the Left — that of legitimizing very real and dangerous enemies and portraying them as representatives of the oppressed.
Rest assured that if the administration responds to reality and, let us say, decides to send military arms to the Kurds so they can have the ability to fight ISIS and not be defeated, the Left’s chorus will howl. Already, Obama <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/world/middleeast/us-airstrikes-on-militants-in-iraq.html?hp&amp;action=click&amp;pgtype=Homepage&amp;version=BannerSubHedSumLargeMedia&amp;module=a-lede-package-region&amp;region=lede-package&amp;WT.nav=lede-package">has said</a> that the airstrikes in Iraq are a "long-term”project and could go on for months. How will the Left respond to this news? I think we know the answer. If you don’t, check next week’s issue of The Nation.
Recent polls already have shown that most Democrats have already turned against Israel, and only 31 percent think Israel’s war with Hamas is justified.  Hence the Democrats fear not going along with the Left. Unless they appease the far left in their own ranks, previously mainstream Democrats will fear electoral defeat, and hence many will respond positively to far left appeals and protests. The Left’s marginality will not matter — what they think and call for has entered the mainstream.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.   
<a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf">Subscribe</a> to Frontpage's TV show, The Glazov Gang, and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang">LIKE</a> it on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang">Facebook.</a>

The American Left: Friends of Our Country’s Enemies

Reprinted from PJMedia.com.

The American Left used to be patriotic. In its heyday, Eugene V. Debs never attacked America, and the socialist vision he

<a href="/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/07/fs.jpg"><img src="/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/07/fs.jpg" alt="Mississippi Summer Project Workers Link Arms" width="294" height="194" /></a>Reprinted from <a href="http://pjmedia.com/">PJMedia.com</a>.
This month marks the 50th anniversary of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Summer">Freedom Summer</a> of 1964: 1000-plus white volunteers went South to Mississippi to help local African-American citizens register to vote, a right they had largely been prevented from executing since the post-Civil War era of Reconstruction. PBS recently aired a major <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/freedomsummer/">documentary</a> on the effort; the summer indeed is worthy of remembrance.
There is, however, one major myth about Freedom Summer that has stuck and which has been repeated many times. The myth comes from two quarters: the American left, and the proponents of Black Nationalism that emerged soon after the Freedom Summer, promulgated by the late Stokely Carmichael (who later changed his name to Kwame Ture) who first developed the rallying cry of “Black Power.”
This past Sunday, the New York Times allowed its op-ed pages to be taken over by one of these mythmakers: Professor Peniel E. Joseph, who leads a “Center for the Study of Race and Democracy” at Tufts University and who authored a recent biography of the black radical leader titled <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Stokely-Life-Peniel-E-Joseph/dp/0465013635/ref=la_B001IR1PZI_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1404139726&amp;sr=1-1">Stokely: A Life</a>. According to Dr. Joseph, the fracturing of the civil rights movement after Freedom Summer took place because the white liberals in the Movement eventually sold the blacks out by refusing to confront “racism on a national scale.”
They did this by supposedly hampering black activists from creating a non-segregated independent party that could gain recognition and replace the all-white Democratic Party Mississippi delegation at the coming Democratic National Convention. That group, The Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP), was led by former sharecropper and local black activist Fannie Lou Hamer, who — in a dramatic TV appearance before the Democratic Convention’s Credentials Committee — told her own story of deprivation and suffering that black people like herself were experiencing in the deep South in that time.
As Joseph and others argue, white liberals — led by Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota — thwarted the MDFP’s demands, proposing a compromise that did not entail disqualifying the all-white Democratic Party delegation from Mississippi, and instead offering them only two at-large convention seats. The MDFP rejected this offer, despite it having been accepted by Martin Luther King, Jr., Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee’s counsel and civil rights activist Joe Rauh, civil rights leader and organizer of The March on Washington Bayard Rustin, and UAW chief Walter Reuther. The consequences, writes Joseph, were that Black civil rights activists led by SNNC’s Stokley Carmichael soured on white liberals and turned against interracial political alliances.
In a short time, whites were pushed out of what had been the interracial SNNC. Instead, Carmichael and his followers adopted the position of creating a new black power movement that sought black freedom through all-black political parties, and by resorting to a strategy associated later with the Nation of Islam’s (NOA) New York City leader Malcolm X, who called for obtaining freedom “by any means necessary.”
They rejected Martin Luther King Jr.’s strategy of adherence to both interracial coalitions and non-violence, and their action marked the start of a new black radicalism, epitomized by both the NOA and the all-black revolutionary group founded in San Francisco, the Black Panther Party (BPP) led by Huey Newton, Bobby Seale, and Eldridge Cleaver.
That, to Professor Joseph, is “Freedom Summer’s most enduring legacy.” It is obvious that Professor Joseph believes that is a good thing.
Professor Joseph ignores the horrendous legacy of black radicalism, that of the birth of identification by the black leftists and black nationalists with the worst repressive Marxist and theocratic third-world regimes — Carmichael, for example, loved both Qaddafi’s Libya and Fidel Castro’s Cuba. He also ignores the thuggery and murderous activity of the BPP, and the anti-Americanism of Malcolm X that he persisted in holding even after he left the NOA and stopped viewing white people as “white devils.”
But it is Professor Joseph’s claim that white liberals sold out the blacks at the 1964 Democratic Convention held in Atlantic City, New Jersey that is especially mistaken.
The details are complex, but those interested can find it in the chapter “Atlantic City, 1964” in my book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Divided-They-Fell-Ronald-Radosh/dp/0684863626/ref=sr_1_1_title_1_pap?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1404143097&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=Divided+They+Fell%3A+The+Demise+of+the+Democratic+Party">Divided They Fell: The Demise of the Democratic Party, 1964-1996</a>. The reality was that the compromise included the pledge that all future Democratic conventions could not include segregated delegations from any state. It was obviously a win, so much so that even SNNC’s most revered leader, Bob Moses, first accepted the compromise until radical elements in his group threatened his leadership position. James Forman, an SNCC leader who was said to be a secret member of the American Communist Party, said that “idealistic reformers” had no choice but to become “full-time revolutionaries.”
These moderates wanted a unity of whites and blacks on behalf of a national momentum to gain blacks the right to vote in Mississippi, including federal registrars sent to Mississippi to enforce the civil rights of black voters and passage of a national Voting Rights Act by Congress. Black nationalists like Carmichael and James Forman claimed they alone “stood with the people” and those of the lowest economic classes, who wanted a real social revolution. The two men fired Joe Rauh as their counsel, and took on lawyers from a Communist front group: The National Lawyers Guild.
Rauh believed that it was “immoral to take help from Communists,” and said that the compromise was rejected because of “Communist influence … evident at the convention in Atlantic City.”
When Peniel Joseph argues that the black movement was betrayed, he is echoing the position taken by the black radicals in 1964. Dr. Joseph argues that “the white version of Freedom Summer — local and aminority politics mediated through major political parties — was inadequate.” He, and the radicals in 1964, were wrong. The compromise solution would have worked, and its acceptance by the black mainstream and moderates indicated they understood that the all-white Democratic Party of the Solid South was essentially over.
By the publicity afforded the MFDP, Joe Rauh wrote to a friend, the black movement along with white trade unions and black churches had achieved a success “far beyond anything that could have been anticipated a month or two earlier.” As Rauh and others said, their coalition with white liberals led to passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 and the decision of the Democratic Party that all-white delegations would no longer be tolerated at Democratic conventions. In attaining this, the rights of Southern blacks in Mississippi had received new legitimacy.
Rejecting the view that Freedom Summer had reached its major goals, the black Left argued that they could not “rely on their so-called allies,” and hence the entire American system had to be brought down, not just segregation. Carmichael created a new all-black party in Lowndes County in Mississippi, named the Lowndes County Freedom Organization, whose ballot symbol was the Black Panther. In the local elections, the ticket was rejected by the black population in Mississippi, who had decided the hope for change lay in the national Democratic party purging its racists, and not in the radical MFDP. In taking this route, it should be noted that today Mississippi now has more black representatives than any state in America.
The radical path of which Prof. Peniel Joseph writes “50 years later remains Freedom Summer’s most enduring legacy” was wrong, and his conclusion reflects only his personal left-wing proclivities.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.   
<a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf">Subscribe</a> to Frontpage's TV show, The Glazov Gang, and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang">LIKE</a> it on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang">Facebook.</a>

Freedom Summer: The Leftist/Black Nationalist Myth of Its Legacy

Reprinted from PJMedia.com.

This month marks the 50th anniversary of the Freedom Summer of 1964: 1000-plus white volunteers went South to Mississippi to help

<a href="/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/06/m19-haym-harp-480.jpg"><img src="/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/06/m19-haym-harp-480.jpg" alt="m19-haym-harp-480" width="320" height="221" /></a>Originally published by <a href="http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2014/06/23/how-the-american-left-distorts-history-in-an-attempt-to-find-past-heroes-and-create-a-new-generation-of-activists/">PJ Media</a>. 
The American Left has been expert in indoctrinating a new generation with false history. We have seen this with Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick’s Showtime TV series on the Cold War, and especially with the writings and pseudo-history of the late Howard Zinn. While conservatives — with some laudable exceptions — concentrate largely on policy issues, the left knows that it is not sufficient to work only for its own political agenda. The left realizes it needs to capture the realm of culture, which includes the portrayal of the American past.
The left believes that if the American past is to be accurately understood, its citizens must be educated to understand that their country was always the real oppressor of both its own citizens and the world community. Then, the evil of virtually all administrations will be seen not as an aberration, but as the result one should expect.
In order to understand this, it is necessary for the left to create myths. It does not matter if they have already been challenged and accurately discredited. They merely repeat them as fact.
In the past two weeks, a few examples have surfaced that illustrate how this is done.
1. How American Communists see the Haymarket bombings
The first example concerns what took place as part of the convention of the American Communist Party recently held in Chicago. As reported in the<a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-06-14/news/ct-communist-party-convention-met-20140615_1_communists-chicago-convention-95th-anniversary"> Chicago Tribune</a> by reporter Ron Grossman, a man named Tim Yeager took the comrades on a history tour of Chicago. Yeager is described as juggling three jobs — “United Auto Workers union organizer, Communist official, and Episcopal priest” (consider for yourselves what that reveals). The article tells us what Yeager presented to  his CP group on a tour of labor-related sites in Chicago:
<blockquote>Friday morning, Yeager led a bus tour of some party history. The first stop was at the Haymarket statue on Desplaines Street just north of Randolph Street, where in 1886 a bomb thrown during a labor rally killed seven police officers and at least one civilian.
Known radicals, some not even present at the rally, were rounded up, speedily convicted and hanged. Several were buried at Waldheim Cemetery in Forest Park, making it a pilgrimage site for labor activists and the second stop on Friday’s tour. The Haymarket affair made Chicago the natural site for the Communist Party’s founding convention in 1919.
Yeager noted that the Chicago establishment leaders who called for swift punishment of the Haymarket martyrs were “the 1 percenters of that day” — the favored few who enjoyed immense riches while the majority toiled for crumbs.</blockquote>
In the CP’s version of events, the radicals at Haymarket were framed for what was clearly a police provocation, an excuse to arrest and condemn the radicals for their protest of bad working conditions. As <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/338656/what-happened-haymarket">John J. Miller</a> explained last year in National Review, labor historian Timothy Messer-Kruse has written a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Trial-Haymarket-Anarchists-Terrorism-Justice/dp/0230120776/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1403367043&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=Timothy+Messer-Kruse">book</a> that demolishes the myth and tells the truth: the trial was not a travesty of justice, as the left has always argued, but a real anarchist conspiracy meant to create an insurrection starting with attacks on the police.
The prosecution proved its case, and was able through solid evidence to show that the anarchists were responsible for the throwing of the bomb that led to the death of the police officers. It was not “one of the great miscarriages of justice,” as one mainstream textbook tells its readers.
Messer-Kruse is an honest historian who personally is a social-democrat. “I drunk the Kook-Aid,” he told Miller, but he now puts accurate history in front of ideology. It is more than likely, he says,  that the seven dead policemen were not killed by the bomb, but shot in cold blood by the anarchists present at the rally. It was, as I put it in my own <a href="http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2013/01/28/haymarket-another-leftist-historical-myth-gets-destroyed/?singlepage=true">PJM column</a>, the destruction of “another historical myth.”
The people Comrade Tim Yeager took on his tour, or the many thousands who read Howard Zinn’s falsehoods, believe the frame-up myth. And if they come across anyone who disputes it, they respond by attacking the person as a turncoat and a traitor, and by repeating the myth to their own students, over and over. The myth cannot be allowed to be exposed, or the result will be a possible rethinking of everything they have learned from the falsifiers of history
2. The Rosenberg Case
The second long-standing myth is that of the trial for conspiracy to commit espionage of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. Suffice it to say, the Rosenbergs were indeed Soviet agents, seeking to provide Stalin’s U.S.S.R. with whatever military and industrial secrets the ring could gather to hand over to the Soviet totalitarian state. When I first wrote about this in the 1983 <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Rosenberg-File-Second-Edition/dp/0300072058/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1403368124&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=Ronald+Radosh+and+Joyce+Milton">book</a> Joyce Milton and I co-authored, we were lonely voices intent on telling the true story. By now our conclusions have been widely accepted, and in America, only a dwindling group of old Communists and fellow-travelers believe in their innocence.
This, however, is not the case, evidently, with the French.
On the 61st anniversary of their execution, June 19 of this year, <a href="http://www.lepoint.fr/c-est-arrive-aujourd-hui/19-juin-1953-un-couple-de-cocos-grille-sur-la-chaise-apres-un-proces-truque-les-epoux-rosenberg-19-06-2012-1475063_494.php">Le Point</a> ran a piece informing its readers that the “conviction of the Rosenbergs is the result of a huge paranoia that grips an entire nation.” It is a result of “fantastic Red-baiting” that existed throughout the United States. The trial was nothing but “a mock trial.” They note that “many organizations worldwide are calling today for review of the Rosenberg case.”
That falsehood is meant to create the impression that they will not be hoodwinked, and that despite everything known about the case, the left knows the “truth” that they were innocent. And readers of Howard Zinn’s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-Present-ebook/dp/B00338QF46/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1403535235&amp;sr=1-2&amp;keywords=a+peoples+history+of+the+united+states+by+howard+zinn">A People’s History of the United States</a>, revised way after the truth of their guilt was known, will find a section of his book on the Rosenberg case where he predictably uses old discredited material to “prove” that they were framed (pp.432-435).
3. The Spanish Civil War
For decades, the left wing in America has spread the myth about the Spanish Republic’s fight against fascism that started in 1936, and the decision of heroic volunteers to fight on its behalf. Especially singled out are the Americans who went to volunteer in that fight, who belonged to what they called the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, which was actually a small battalion, the size of which they exaggerated purposefully in order to make themselves appear as more important than they actually were.
The old pro-Communists have their own falsified history to explain that event. That too has been long discredited, especially by the historian Stanley Payne, in books such as his recent <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Spanish-Civil-Cambridge-Essential-Histories/dp/0521174708/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1403536424&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=Stanley+Payne">The Spanish Civil War</a> and in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Comrades-Commissars-Lincoln-Battalion-Spanish/dp/0271029102/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1403552274&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=Cecil+Eby">The Spanish Civil War, the Soviet Union, and Communism. </a>   
The truth about the Lincoln Battalion can be found in Cecil Eby’s important yet neglected book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Comrades-Commissars-Lincoln-Battalion-Spanish/dp/0271029102/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1403553132&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=Cecil+Eby">Comrades and Commissars: The Lincoln Battalion in the Spanish Civil War</a>. The role played by the Soviet Union in Spain can be understood in the book Mary Habeck and I wrote, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Spain-Betrayed-Soviet-Spanish-Communism/dp/0300089813/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1403553174&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=Spain+Betrayed">Spain Betrayed: The Soviet Union in the Spanish Civil War</a>. Reviewing it for The Weekly Standard, Stephen Schwartz wrote: “It will effect a complete overturn in historical perceptions of the twentieth-century Left.”
No matter. The left continues to teach its false history to a new generation. In the past two weeks, an article by William Loren Katz appeared on the website of the<a href="https://zinnedproject.org/2014/06/the-forgotten-fight-against-fascism/"> Zinn Education Project</a>, which is devoted to spreading the word of the most popular leftist defiler of the truth, the late Howard Zinn. His column also appeared on the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-zinn-education-project/the-forgotten-fight-again_b_5483988.html">Huffington Post</a> and other websites. According to Katz, the volunteers had one mission:
<blockquote>By November the volunteer rush became a torrent: An estimated 40,000 men and women from 53 nations left home to defend the Republic. For the only time in history, a volunteer force of men and women from all over the world came together to fight for an ideal: democracy. The volunteers brought a message that ordinary people could resist fascist militarism
…
In the United States some 2,800 young men and women of different races and backgrounds formed the “Abraham Lincoln Brigade.” Seamen and students, farmers and professors, they hoped that their bravery could turn the tide, or at last alert the world to the fascist drive for world domination. Most made their way to Spain illegally as “tourists” visiting France.</blockquote>
The truth: what they were joining was a Comintern army, put together by the NKVD’s international apparatus and the Communist International, and controlled and run by Stalin.
Rather than the mythical “good war” depicted by Katz and the propagandists, it was put together to help Spain fall under Soviet control, and to put into power a regime that would be the model for the post-World War II “people’s democracies” and that would be given limited military aid until such time as Britain and France might change their policy and unite with the Soviets in a new world alliance.
You will not find anywhere in Katz’s article — which continually heralds the volunteers’ anti-fascism — that during the Nazi-Soviet Pact, their Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade adopted the slogan “The Yanks are Not Coming!” Or that its leaders gave speeches condemning the warmongering of Franklin Roosevelt and the British, and depicted Nazi Germany as a benign power that was not a threat to the Western nations. Of course, their anti-fascism returned as soon as Germany invaded the Soviet Union, and Stalin again demanded an overnight change in the party line.
The left continues to present its ideologically determined view of the past as a tool to inspire today’s naïve and uneducated young activists, many of them taught these falsehoods by leftist professors at major universities. Their project is to mine history for heroes and martyrs, even if the heroes they praise turn out to be not heroes at all, and their martyrs actually guilty. Those of us who respect the truth have an obligation not to leave history to them.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>. 
<a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank">Subscribe</a> to Frontpage's TV show, The Glazov Gang, and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank">LIKE</a> it on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank">Facebook.</a>

How the American Left Distorts History in an Attempt to Find Past Heroes and Create a New Generation of Activists

Originally published by PJ Media. 
The American Left has been expert in indoctrinating a new generation with false history. We have seen this with Oliver Stone

<a href="/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/04/anti-splc.jpg"><img alt="anti-splc" src="/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/04/anti-splc.jpg" width="257" height="196" /></a>Visit <a href="http://pjmedia.com">PJMedia</a>.
The <a href="http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2014/04/14/who-inspired-the-nazi-klan-leaders-actions-in-kansas-the-answer-here/">column</a> I wrote last week, it turns out, has created somewhat of a storm. This is due to one thing only: <a href="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/04/14/coverage_of_the_school_knife_attack_and_kansas_shooting_by_a_democrat_anti_semite_klansman_neo_nazi">Rush Limbaugh</a> read it aloud on his radio program. (Start reading in the middle from where it says “BREAK TRANSCRIPT.”) That one decision by Rush led all of our mutual enemies to go viral, sending numerous Tweets and Facebook posts attacking Rush and me for supposedly arguing that the anti-Semitic neo-Nazi Glenn Miller acted because of Max Blumenthal.
Of course, as I wrote last week in an addendum, this was not the point I was making. I wrote the following, and repeat it once again:
<blockquote> Joan Walsh of Salon has tweeted my column, saying that a two year old blog post by the killer does not show that Blumenthal inspired his actions. What it does show, I argue, is how Blumenthal and his ilk have the same perspective on Israel and the Jews as does this neo-Nazi. Yes, he did not need Max Blumenthal’s book to get him to engage in murder against Jews, only classic antisemitism. My point is simple: It is revealing how the work of this would-be leftist is endorsed by a Nazi sympathizer, who sees things in the same way as Blumenthal. As <a href="http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2014/04/antisemite-max-blumenthal-incites-murder-of-three">Dan Pipes</a> asks, how will The Nation folks respond to this?</blockquote>
Now, an even more important attack has been made on Rush, David Horowitz and me, and it comes from that so-called civil-rights organization, the Southern Poverty Law Center. It appears in a report from what the SPLC calls its “Intelligence Project,” and is in their publication called HATEWATCH: Keeping an Eye on the Radical Right. Its headline proclaims: “<a href="http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2014/04/20/the-splcs-attack-on-rush-limbaugh-david-horowitz-and-me/Limbaugh,%20Right-Wing%20Pundits%20Try%20to%20Blame%20Max%20Blumenthal%20for%20Kansas%20Rampage.">Limbaugh, Right-Wing Pundits Try to Blame Max Blumenthal for Kansas Rampage.</a>”
To continue reading this article, click <a href="http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2014/04/20/the-splcs-attack-on-rush-limbaugh-david-horowitz-and-me/">here</a>.

The SPLC’s Attack on Rush Limbaugh, David Horowitz, and Me

Visit PJMedia.

The column I wrote last week, it turns out, has created somewhat of a storm. This is due to one thing only: Rush Limbaugh read it aloud on his

<a href="/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/02/judis1.jpg"><img alt="judis" src="/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/02/judis1.jpg" width="233" height="350" /></a>Reprinted from<a href="http://www.jpost.com/"> jpost.com</a>.
The publication of John B. Judis’ new book, Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict, must be viewed within the context of the new worldwide effort to question the legitimacy of Israel. It is a counterpart to the 2008 book by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, and perhaps not accidentally shares the same publisher, Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
It also appears at the same time that the left-wing Nation Books published the virulently anti-Israel screed by journalist Max Blumenthal, a man who compares Israel to Nazi Germany. Despite its extremist views and ultra-polemical tone, Blumenthal presented his book in Washington, DC, to the center/liberal think tank the New America Foundation, and received endorsements from prominent journalists Peter Bergen and James Fallows. One should not doubt that similar US institutions will sponsor and give their endorsement to the politically connected Judis, who is a senior editor of the once pro-Israel publication, The New Republic.
Unlike these two other books, Judis offers the pretense that he writes as a historian, and not as a contemporary journalist. The reality is that he uses history to bolster his belief that US foreign policy in the Middle East should now tilt toward the Arabs and Palestinians rather than Israel. After all, he claims in a New Republic essay summarizing the book’s thesis, Israel itself was created “against the opposition of its neighbors” and always had to play a “destabilizing” role in the region, and hence is a “threat to America’s standing in the region.”
Not Iran, that Judis writes is a serious negotiating partner for the United States, nor Syria, or any other Arab state – but only Israel, an ally of the United States surrounded by enemies, stands alone for Judis as a threat.
The truth is that John Judis is anything but a historian. Those of us who labor in that profession – as does this writer – seek to explore the past in order to unearth the truth, and to understand what happened within the context of the period. That is not what Judis does in his book. Rather, Judis is an example of the kind of “historian” who uses history to “prove” a preconceived viewpoint.
Indeed, toward the end of his book, he makes it clear his purpose in writing it is to help create a new American foreign policy, one that will not be beholden to that supposedly all-powerful Zionist lobby in the United States, AIPAC. “If America has tilted in the past toward Zionism and Israel,” he writes, “it is now time to redress that moral balance.”
Judis’ argument is hardly original. He has resurrected the old Arab and anti-Israel narrative from various sources, and dipped into Zionist history to prove his thesis that Zionism’s very goal was to “screw the Arabs,” as he so crudely puts it. Indeed, throughout the book, Judis argues that Zionism’s very purpose was not to find a homeland for Europe’s oppressed Jews, but that it was created with the intention of building a “settler-colonialist” movement whose aim was “to conquer and not merely live in Palestine.” This old paradigm, which has been used by Arab opponents of Israel for generations, is, as Leon Wieseltier, Judis’ colleague at the New Republic writes, “the foul fiction of delegitimation, the old vocabulary of anti-Israel propaganda.”
In his recent review of the book in The Wall Street Journal, Jordan Chandler Hirsch points out that Judis “equates Europe’s mightiest powers with its greatest victims, the Jews – a stateless people seeking refuge in their ancient home by legitimately purchasing and cultivating land.”
Moreover, Judis displays a double standard. Most often, Judis treats Arab actions such as the massacre of Jews at Hebron in 1929, or the invasion by five Arab nations of the new Jewish State of Israel in 1948, as a justified Arab response to Jewish provocation.
Even the Balfour Declaration of 1917 is called by Judis “an attempt by the Jews to screw the Arabs out of a country” that he writes “should have been theirs.”
The second half of Judis’ book is devoted to his thesis that the reason President Harry S. Truman recognized Israel is not because of Truman’s Christian Zionism – which he disputes – or his belief that the Yishuv had a legitimate claim to the land, but because of the overwhelming power and pressure of the American Zionist lobby. As Judis sees it, Hirsch writes, Truman’s deliberations are turned “into a simplistic tale of Jewish bullying.”
His villain is the Zionist rabbi in the United States, Abba Hillel Silver, “who tried to use the Jewish vote and Jewish contributions” against any Democrat who did not support the creation of the State of Israel.
Judis overlooks the fact that at the time the majority of Americans in general and American Jews in particular supported the creation of Israel. Lobbying by the American public, a normal role in a democracy, is transformed by Judis into a sinister Zionist attempt to produce results not in the American national interest.
Those who are rightfully worried that a new campaign is emerging to get Americans to question whether it is right for the American people to give their support to Israel – something that polls show is still an overwhelming sentiment – should be concerned about the new spate of anti-Israel books and arguments. Among this group, John Judis’ Genesis is perhaps one of the most insidious and dishonest.
 The author, Adjunct Fellow at The Hudson Institute and columnist for PJ Media, is co-author with Allis Radosh of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Safe-Haven-Truman-Founding-Israel/dp/0060594640">A Safe Haven: Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel</a>, which won the Gold Award of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in 2009.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.

How Writers Question the Legitimacy of Israel

Reprinted from jpost.com.

The publication of John B. Judis’ new book, Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict, must be

<a href="/sites/default/files/uploads/2013/12/MaxBlumenthal.jpg"><img alt="MaxBlumenthal" src="/sites/default/files/uploads/2013/12/MaxBlumenthal.jpg" width="263" height="175" /></a>Reprinted from <a href="http://pjmedia.com">PJMedia.com</a>.
Last week, <a href="http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2013/11/25/the-new-america-foundation-disgraces-itself-and-spreads-anti-israel-hatred/">I wrote about</a> the New America Foundation’s sponsorship of Max Blumenthal’s vicious screed against Israel. Now that the event is over, <a href="http://pjmedia.com/http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/afraid-of-free-speech-on-many-fronts-pen-google-china-goliath/282105/">James Fallows</a> has taken to the web pages of The Atlantic to praise the reprehensible bigot and ignoramus Blumenthal, whose book he describes as “ a particular kind of exposé-minded, documentary-broadside journalism whose place we generally recognize and respect.” Fallows also adds that “items like this one in Commentary had said that New America should not provide a platform for what it claimed was destroy-Israel hate speech. Some members of the board got personal email pitches to the same effect.”
The column in <a href="http://pjmedia.com/http://www.commentarymagazine.com/topic/max-blumenthal/">Commentary </a>by Jonathan S. Tobin appeared after mine on these pages, and Tobin credits my column in alerting him to Blumenthal’s appearance. As for the personal e-mails, I addressed one of them to a Board member whom I am in touch with, as did other individuals whom I told about the scheduled event. One person I know wrote to Ann-Marie Slaughter, who did not respond to the e-mail he sent.
Now, Fallows charges us with censorship, and with trying to stand against free speech. Tobin accurately calls Blumenthal’s book one with a “complete lack of intellectual merit or integrity.” So when Fallows says everyone respects and recognizes his courageous journalism, he is speaking only for himself.
Sadly, his blog indicates that the campaign for delegitimizing of Israel is succeeding among liberal sectors of our intellectual class, who are now welcoming as good journalism the worst kind of gutter tripe, that even The Nation magazine’s <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/176691/i-hate-israel-handbook#">Eric Alterman</a> has shown is so poor that in a blog he wrote that it could have  been published by “The Friends of Hamas Book Club,” if such a group existed. Evidently Mr. Alterman, himself a man of the far Left, does not realize how far in the cesspool his liberal and leftist colleagues have fallen.
As for censorship, and calls that the NAF Board should have considered not sponsoring a talk about his book, this is hardly an assault on free speech. There are scores of serious critical books about Israel that are worth having a dialogue with authors about. This is not one of them. That a book exists- and there are hundreds they could have chosen from- does not mean that such a book should receive the imprimatur of the New America Foundation
By Fallows’ own admission, what Blumenthal does is find anti-democratic extremists in Israel. He then paints a picture showing his readers that their existence reveals the true Israel—a bigoted, anti-democratic state content to oppress all whom stand in the way of keeping it a Jewish state. With his one-sided attack, Blumenthal hopes to sway the American public against the United States keeping Israel as an ally.
Blumenthal has a right to his views. He found a publisher, and they are giving him quite a tour and send-off. To urge a distinguished liberal think-tank to reconsider being one of the venues for his views is hardly a clarion call to suppress speech. It is simply an attempt to suggest to the Board and leaders of NAF to question whether they really believe liberalism in America means supporting a speaker whose book has been praised by none other than David Duke.
Let us then ask, since David Duke is one of Mr. Blumenthal’s fans, and is happy that what he has been saying for years is now being said by Max Blumenthal, whether if the same book had come out by Duke, whether or not the NAF Board would ask him to speak, and whether Peter Bergen would be the willing chair of the event? Would James Fallows take to the pages of The Atlantic to praise Duke’s courage and integrity, and condemn anyone who suggested that the NAF not use its facilities and its reputation as an endorsement of David Duke’s book? I think we all know the answer. And since there is little difference in what Duke says about Israel than Max Blumenthal says, it is perfectly reasonable to try and let the Board of NAF know why so many of us are disheartened at their decision to hold this talk, and to add to the growing animus against Israel by our intellectual liberal class.
Already, sensible liberals show that they understand how dangerous it is for them to be taking this path. <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/08/Dershowitz-Warns-Clintons-Blumenthal-s-a-Problem-for-2016">Alan Dershowitz</a> told Breitbart News that “Max Blumenthal is well outside the acceptable range of rhetoric about Israel. His constant comparisons between Nazi Germany and the Jewish state establish him as an extremist bigot whose greatest appeal is to anti-Semites and others who apply a double standard to the Jewish state.” Dershowitz has it right. No “decent person,” he continued to say, “should ever support the views expressed by Max Blumenthal.”
Dershowitz’s comments came after it was revealed in <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/clinton-adviser-sid-blumenthals-new-cause-his-sons-anti-isra">Buzzfeed</a> by reporter Rosie Gray that Max Blumenthal’s father, journalist Sidney Blumenthal, is going to bat for his son’s book in a big way. The problem is that Sidney Blumenthal may still be on the Clinton’s payroll, and is listed in The Atlantic as an advisor to the Clinton Foundation. Dershowitz is obviously concerned that should Hillary Clinton decide to run, her association with Sidney Blumenthal could hurt her campaign, unless she dissociates herself with his defense of Max’s book.
I have a simple response to James Fallows and Peter Bergen. Shame on both of you, for trying to make Max Blumenthal into a respectful journalist. By doing so, you harm your own integrity and reputation. As for myself, I would rather be called a censor and an opponent of free speech by James Fallows than be seen as lending credibility to a cheap extremist like Max Blumenthal.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.

The Liberal Supporters of Max Blumenthal and the Campaign to Delegitimize Israel

Reprinted from PJMedia.com.

Last week, I wrote about the New America Foundation’s sponsorship of Max Blumenthal’s vicious screed against Israel. Now that the

<a href="/sites/default/files/uploads/2013/10/rl.jpg"><img alt="rl" src="/sites/default/files/uploads/2013/10/rl.jpg" width="304" height="280" /></a>
To order David Evanier's Red Love on Kindle, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Red-Love-ebook/dp/B00F2ONHBI/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1381772335&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=red+love+by+david+evanier">click here</a>.
David Evanier, Red Love, 
 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1991), 340 pp. 
New edition published as <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Red-Love-ebook/dp/B00F2ONHBI/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1381772335&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=red+love+by+david+evanier">an E-Book</a> by The David Horowitz Freedom Center, 2013
There are times when if you want to know about an era, you should turn to great literature. There are many books written about the Old Left, and about the Cold War espionage case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Rosenberg-File-Second-Edition/dp/0300072058">including one</a> of which I am co-author. But few give readers a sense of what the era of the Rosenberg’s espionage activity and the life of their comrades in the American Communist Party were really like, as does this novel by David Evanier.
Written as an account of the effort to write a book about the Rosenbergs by a fictional author named Gerald Lerner, a stand-in for Evanier himself, we learn from the very first page that Evanier will be anything but respectful to the doomed spying couple.  Named Dolly and Solly Rubell in the book (but clearly Ethel and Julius),  Evanier gives us his perspective in the name of Lerner:
<blockquote>“I have f--ked the Rubells in this book. I have f--ked this gentle, peace-loving couple. And I feel very much better.”</blockquote>
And indeed he does, and so will the reader. For the Rubells are not the tortured innocent victims of McCarthyism so familiar to readers of the other novels about the Rosenbergs, or to those who were foolish enough to see Tony Kushner’s play Angels in America, in which the late Rosenberg prosecutor and McCarthy associate Roy Cohn is showing dancing over the characters of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg in a gleeful macabre scene.
As one character puts it at the start of a chapter, “Whatever they did, they didn’t do it.” So make no mistake. The Rubells are guilty of what they were charged with; they are Soviet agents who continually rationalize their fealty to the Soviet Union of Joe Stalin with gross apologetics.  As one Party activist says in the novel,
<blockquote>“Move the clock back to the 1940s, when Stalin, the little father, the model for progressive humanity, the feeder of the hungry….What if he and the Rubell couple is allowed the opportunity to help Stalin achieve his goals? What could they be guilty of?”</blockquote>
We know that the real Rosenbergs wrote Party manufactured letters to their children from prison -- widely distributed as propaganda for their cause. And so do the Rubells. As Solly writes in one letter meant to be given to his children after he is executed,
<blockquote>“Up to the very last minute liars have tried to convince Mommy and me that the Soviet Union is a bad place. But we know it is tops.”</blockquote>
If you think the real Rosenbergs would never have penned anything so stupid to their sons from the death house, think again: the real letters are much, much worse, and Evanier manages to parody their style and their mundane writing brilliantly.
Fortunately, Evanier’s writing is anything but mundane. It is, in fact, dazzling. He can take you from broad parody and satire, often hilarious---and within a few pages move to a dark and powerful chapter that gives readers the essence of what it was like to suffer in the Soviet Gulag. Readers are introduced to a fictional character named Antonio Carelli, son of an Italian immigrant to the United States, who followed his father’s path and became an organizer for the Young Communist League in Buffalo, and who left with his father for the Soviet Union when he was arrested and deported after a short prison sentence for radical activity in Youngstown, Ohio.
Arriving in their beloved Soviet Union, he and his son are arrested as dangerous foreigners and sent to the Gulag. Basing his portrayal of life there on the literature of Solzhenitsyn, Evanier lets us feel the deep despair of life in hell. Mixing truth with fantasy, Carelli is placed by Evanier in the same camp when the American dupes including Vice-President Henry A. Wallace and the Asian expert and Johns Hopkins professor, Owen Lattimore, arrive in the Kolyma region in 1944. They were actually there on a trip in which Wallace described the camp as a beautiful place inhabited by happy, prosperous prisoners. What he saw, of course, were NKVD agents acting their parts, which successfully fooled the gullible American visitors.  Watching the charade and a chorus of actual prisoners perform, one of the group -- this time a fictional lawyer -- says,
<blockquote>“So much caring! We Americans have so much to learn from them. I’m so ashamed of our superficial values, on things, on getting ahead and competing with the next guy. It makes me want to vomit all over again!”</blockquote>
Carelli, we learn, was eventually freed in the period of the “thaw,” and before being rearrested, manages to leave and returns to the Buffalo he was born in. There he looks up old comrades, whom he was anxious to relate his experiences and tell them about their wasted lives in the movement. Most do not want to see him and do not return his calls. Finally, he meets an old comrade named Charlie Rosenbaum, who tells him “there is no more dream, because we found out about the Soviet Union.” But in a moment, he proudly tells him how his granddaughter has found a new dream -- Castro’s Cuba -- where she is cutting sugar cane with the Venceremos Brigades. “Perhaps there they’ll make the dream come true,” he tells Carelli. And soon we see how the Left perpetuates itself into the true believers of the young generation, who do not even realize that they are repeating the same foolish journey of their parents and grandparents.
And so in the granddaughter, we get the hint of the birth of the New Left, drawn to Cuba as her ancestors were drawn to Stalin’s paradise. The girl, named Prim Rosenbaum, offers her poetry on how great Communist Cuba is. “We prayed in the sun in front of the healthiest cows I’d ever seen.” Would someone say anything like this? I know from my own experience how true his parody is. In my trip to  Cuba with erstwhile Castroites in 1975, one member of our group, learning that the showplace psychiatric facility regularly lobotomized their patients, exclaimed: “We have to understand the difference between Communist lobotomies and capitalist lobotomies.”
And then there is that wonderful parody of Communist left-speak.  Speaking about his wife, Solly Rubell writes that Dolly “is the most beautiful person I have ever met…She has such revolutionary anger; she never deviates from it. She referred to Eisenhower the other day as a ‘guttersnipe in striped pants.’ And ‘a privileged fascist dog.’…she talks that way to me. I have learned so much from her integrity.”
At another time, Solly Rubell says that not only has “the U.S.S.R. had improved the lot of the underdog,” it actually put an end to “most death as we know it.” Another character named Strugin -- someone modeled on the CP’s late top ideologue and would-be historian, Herbert Aptheker, tells the narrator Lerner that in the Soviet Union, his thin hair would grow back “as a matter of course.” The real Herbert Aptheker, when a friend asked him to explain why anti-Semitism was so prevalent in the Soviet Union, responded: “There is no anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. It is forbidden by Stalin’s Constitution.” Evanier knows the kind of apologia for terror that the American Reds regularly engaged in; he simply takes it one notch further by making it so ridiculous, that even an honest commie would realize that his own statements are just as foolish.
The Rosenberg case itself is actually a metaphor for the entire folly of the American Communists and their fellow-traveling brethren. The Rosenbergs are simply one of their numbers who took the extra step of service to Stalin---espionage on his terror state’s behalf. All good Reds, if asked, would have done the very same. They all believed that the Soviet Union was the future of humanity, the good regime towards which all progressives had to aspire to build an adjunct here in the United States.  They all thought that what we now know was built on terror and murder, was the only truly good society in the world- anything but a hoax. If challenged about the reality which many did know about, Stalin’s defenders would simply reply that it was capitalist propaganda, and if proven to be true, they would say it was the fault of necessary steps that had to be taken to protect it against the attempts of the U.S. to overthrow socialism.
As one character puts it, “there is only one Soviet Union in the world.” And those who viewed it as paradise, had but one job: to protect it, defend it, and serve its leader --Joseph Stalin. David Greenglass, Ethel’s brother who turned state’s witness and was imprisoned for fifteen years once put it to me, “We were soldiers for Stalin.” And in war, everything is fair. The horrible U.S. capitalist system was so evil, we are told, that not only did it pollute the atmosphere, but it was “turning innocent children into Zionists.” God forbid. In Stalin’s U.S.S.R., Zionists were hunted down and condemned as “rootless cosmopolitans,” dealt with by a bullet to the back of the head, or as was the fate of the Yiddish poet murdered by Stalin in his last years, victim of a supposed car crash, but actually an NKVD murder orchestrated to look like an accident.
The other great leftist cause of the 1930s is also not forgotten by Evanier, and that of course, is the Spanish Civil War, and the myth that only the Communists in the US and world-wide fought to give the democratic regime aid when threatened by Franco and the forces of fascism, all in the name of anti-fascism. We meet a character named Sam Kuznekow, modeled on the very real late veteran of the Abraham Lincoln Battalion, Robert Gladnick, a man I had got to know at the beginning of my own re-examination of the war, and with whom I exchanged a lengthy correspondence.
We learn the harsh reality of how the inexperienced soldiers were used as shock troops for Stalin’s Comintern army, left to die on the fields of Spain with no place to hide from the onslaught of the Franco army’s fusillade. As Kuznekow says to a Russian commander who sends the men out to their certain death, “This is a slaughter that no army would permit and I don’t want any part of it.” The response from the Commissar: “Soldiers must learn how to die!” Sentenced to death for their rebellious stance, the doomed men are told: “You will all be sentenced to death. And I want you to know this is nothing personal. This will be an objective trial. In fact, I can personally assure you that the balance of your subscriptions to the Daily Worker …will be transferred to your families in the States.” Sensing the dark mood in the killing chamber, the Soviet Commissar says: “Listen, this is a revolutionary necessity.”
The real Kuznekow, Bob Gladnick, learned the bitter truth and devoted himself to letting others know the real Soviet agenda in Spain -- that of turning the leftist Republic if they only could, to what would have been the first “People’s Democracy” in the world -- precisely the type of regimes the Soviets created in Eastern Europe after the end of World War II. Needless to say, he and the few others like him were savagely attacked by his former comrades as traitors and informers, cast into oblivion for their decision to tell the world the harsh truth.
The cause and movement for the Rosenbergs was merely one more attempt of the comrades in the United States to use their plight to gain support for Stalin’s goals during the Cold War. And in the case of the doomed couple, they were only all too willing to go to their deaths and play the part expected of them. Unlike their counterparts in Moscow’s many purge trials, they did not have to be tortured and fed a script to read in the courtroom. They lied on Stalin’s behalf all on their own, and were even willing to make their own children orphans and themselves as martyrs.
For years, the American left glamorized and memorialized them, even as today they declare others as guilty as the Rosenbergs to be innocent and victims of American imperialism.  Knowing this all to be false, David Evanier has brilliantly satirized the world of the gullible who made up the ranks of the Communists, and the belief of all their allies who believed that no nation was more at fault for the world’s sins than their own homeland, the United States of America.
I have always argued had the real Rosenbergs not been executed, the world would not have had the chance to condemn the U.S. for execution of a mother who left their children orphans. Even J. Edgar Hoover petitioned the White House not to have her put to death. Moreover, after the Khrushchev Report in 1956 and the beginning of acknowledgement of Stalin’s crimes, as well as the attempt of Stalin to destroy the entire Soviet Jewish community in the so-called “Doctor’s Plot,” the chance would have taken place that even the Rosenbergs would have had regrets about their wasted lives, and would have confessed and made public their disillusionment.
In the novel, Evanier has Dolly Rubell say that once the Eastern European regimes abandoned socialism, “on that day the Rubells will say they’re guilty!” That day might have occurred, and a real confession by the Rosenbergs, had they remained alive, would have completely destroyed the entire edifice of the mythical world of American Communism.
So read David Evanier’s Red Love, and painlessly learn about the lives and the tragedy of those who wasted their time on this earth in life dedicated to doing their part to help one of the last Century’s most tyrannical and murderous regimes.
Ronald Radosh is an Adjunct Fellow at The Hudson Institute, a columnist for PJ Media, and co-author of The Rosenberg File.
To order David Evanier's Red Love on Kindle, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Red-Love-ebook/dp/B00F2ONHBI/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1381772335&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=red+love+by+david+evanier">click here</a>.

Red Love

To order David Evanier's Red Love on Kindle, click here.

David Evanier, Red Love,
 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1991), 340 pp. 
New edition published

<a href="/sites/default/files/uploads/2013/10/dh-speaking.jpg"><img alt="dh-speaking" src="/sites/default/files/uploads/2013/10/dh-speaking.jpg" width="315" height="209" /></a>Visit <a href="http://pjmedia.com/">PJMedia</a>.
You may not know the name Ralph Miliband, but by now, the late Marxist professor is a household name in the UK. He was the father of the Labor Party’s leader and possible future PM, Ed Miliband. When the conservative Daily Mail ran a story about the father’s influence on his son, the controversy began.
It started with an Oct.1 story by <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2435751/Red-Eds-pledge-bring-socialism-homage-Marxist-father-Ralph-Miliband-says-GEOFFREY-LEVY.html">Geoffrey Levy</a>, in which the journalist wrote that young Ed wants nothing less than to fulfill his father’s dreams, and return England from the legacy left by Margaret  Thatcher to a new 21st Century socialism. “Ed is now determined to bring about that vision,” Levy writes. “How proud Ralph would have been to hear him responding the other day to a man in the street who asked when he was ‘going to bring back socialism’ with the words: ‘That’s what we are doing, sir.’"
<div id="inlineAdvertisement"> Ed Miliband’s father, the story continues, was a full-throated Marxist, committed to nationalization and harsh socialist policies. Levy paints the senior Miliband as a man who hated the country he adopted as his own when he sought refuge from Nazi Germany, a man who was critical of the Soviet Union but still believed it was socialist, and who thought Gorbachev had successfully “democratized” Soviet society. Nothing had changed in his belief system, he wrote, since the time when as a young man, he made the pilgrimage to Karl Marx’s grave in 1940, when he wrote that “I remember standing in front of the grave, fist clenched, and swearing my own private oath that I would be faithful to the workers’ cause’”. Now Miliband is buried in a grave 12 short yards from Marx’s grave, and his tombstone bares the inscription “Writer Teacher Socialist.” He had dedicated his life, he wrote near the end of his life, to realizing the socialist dream, and preparing the ground for “such an alternative.” With Ed as Prime Minister, Levy concludes, “perhaps that ground is indeed now being prepared.”</div>
That one article began the fierce war of words. <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/ed-miliband-embroiled-in-war-of-words-with-daily-mail-after-labour-leader-accuses-newspaper-of-smearing-his-late-father-8849455.html">Ed Miliband</a> told the press that he found the story “appalling,” and “responded by accusing the paper of peddling “a lie” and trying to ‘besmirch and undermine’ his dead father for political ends.” He wrote: “Fierce debate about politics does not justify character assassination of my father, questioning the patriotism of a man who risked his life for our country in the Second World War or publishing a picture of his gravestone with a tasteless pun about him being a ‘grave socialist’”.
To continue reading this article, <a href="http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2013/10/12/how-david-horowitz-revealed-the-truth-about-ralph-milibands-legacy-what-it-should-teach-the-british-left/">click here</a>.

How David Horowitz Revealed the Truth about Ralph Miliband’s Legacy

Visit PJMedia.

You may not know the name Ralph Miliband, but by now, the late Marxist professor is a household name in the UK. He was the father of the Labor

<a href="/sites/default/files/uploads/2013/09/sl.jpg"><img alt="sl" src="/sites/default/files/uploads/2013/09/sl.jpg" width="315" height="209" /></a>Visit <a href="http://pjmedia.com/">PJMedia.com</a><a href="http://pjmedia.com/">.</a>
Last Monday, Stalinist-Castroite filmmaker Saul Landau died at his home in Alameda, California. His death inspired major obituaries in our country’s leading mainstream newspapers, including the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/activist-and-filmmaker-saul-landau-dies-at-77/2013/09/10/43578542-1729-11e3-804b-d3a1a3a18f2c_story.html">Washington Post</a>, the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-fidel-filmmaker-saul-landau-dies-20130910,0,1953654,full.story">Los Angeles Times</a>, and, as expected, the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/arts/saul-landau-maker-of-films-with-leftist-edge-dies-at-77.html?ref=obituaries">New York Times</a>. If there is one thing you can count on old media for, it is that they will run laudatory tributes whenever a member in good standing of the far Left passes.
I wouldn’t be surprised if during the Academy Awards, when his photo is flashed and his name mentioned in the tribute to those who left the film colony in the past year, there is loud applause and the usual suspects stand in respect. After all, his current project was a film praising the convicted Cuban spies — the so-called Cuban Five — which he was filming with Danny Glover.
It is remarkable how Landau’s politics are described in the obits.
The headline of the NYT obit read: “Saul Landau, Maker of Films with a Leftist Edge, Dies at 77.” I love that term, “leftist edge.” It implies he was an objective observer of the subjects he filmed, but put a slightly leftist tint on them. As writer Douglas Martin put it, Landau “aspired to marshal art and literature to illuminate social and political problems.”
To continue reading this article, <a href="http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2013/09/13/how-the-death-of-saul-landau-a-supporter-of-repressive-communist-regimes-is-celebrated-by-the-major-u-s-newspapers/">click here</a>.

Laudatory Tributes for Saul Landau

Visit PJMedia.com.

Last Monday, Stalinist-Castroite filmmaker Saul Landau died at his home in Alameda, California. His death inspired major obituaries in our

<a href="/sites/default/files/uploads/2013/08/Picture-3.jpg" width="280" height="226"></a>On her own <a href="http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2610/If-Frontpage-Lies-about-This-Theyll-Lie-about-Anything-Pt-2.aspx">website</a>, amidst yet more personal smears and snide comments, Diana West offers a couple of responses to my critique of her book. After clearing her throat with the comment that my review was “7,000 words of misrepresenting, twisting, and omitting…passed off as a ‘review,’” she adds that it was also “a series of flattened, screaming, straw-man arguments that fail in terms of the most basic intellectual honesty to convey any reality-based synopsis of the evidence assembled inside the pages of my book.”
Then she proceeds to reassert her discredited claim, made on numerous occasions throughout her book, that Harry Hopkins was a Soviet agent, specifically the “Agent 19” referred to in the Venona decrypts. Since I refuted this in my review, she adds yet another claim: “I could burn the Venona document Radosh singlemindedly and dishonestly focuses on to the exclusion of other evidence and still make the same case against Hopkins.”
Here West simply skips over the fact that my review also points out that the Vassiliev notebooks, which she also alleges substantiate her conclusion about Hopkins, on the contrary make clear in scores of different entries that Agent 19 was not Hopkins but actually State Department official Laurence Duggan. Talk about dishonesty! It is not as though this claim is unimportant. It makes a big difference whether Hopkins was a sucker for Soviet propaganda or actually working for Soviet intelligence. Those who don’t understand this distinction will think highly of Diana West and her unreliable book. Not surprisingly she also fails to address the fact, raised in my review, that Eduard Mark, a third main source she draws on for the erroneous claim about Hopkins, eventually conceded that he was wrong after being confronted by the evidence that West ignores.
Later next week, Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes will deal with her fourth source for the claim, a KGB agent named Iskhak Akhermov, as well as other aspects of her book.
Now for her second and last point:
<blockquote>I will not, however, take responsibility for Radosh fabrications he attributes to me. I don’t yet know how many there are in this ridiculously long review, but here is something Radosh hits me for that isn't in my book:
<blockquote>Instead of weighing these fears, West turns to another anecdote telling how George Elsey found confidential files in the Map Room that showed FDR naively thinking he could trust Stalin, and instructed Hopkins to tell Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov that FDR was in favor of a Second Front in 1942. She believes that this was a smoking gun proving that FDR was “making common cause with the NKVD.”</blockquote>
This "anecdote" Radosh says I supposedly ‘turn to’ is not in my book! When I first read it, the story wasn't familiar to me, so I scanned the book, also performed a search of the electronic version, and couldn't find it. I do find one reference to Elsey, circa 1948, regarding the Whittaker Chambers case.</blockquote>
Maybe she couldn’t find the anecdote. But it is there in three different places where she writes how FDR told Hopkins to go into Molotov’s bedroom while he was staying in the White House so that he could meet with the President, and at that meeting, Hopkins told Molotov that FDR was in favor of a Second Front. They can be found on p. 129, p. 268 and p. 296. She missed them because of a trivial error I did make which was to associate the anecdote she took from her source, Laurence Rees’ <a href="http://www.amazon.com/World-War-Behind-Closed-Doors/dp/B005M50F26/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1376007883&amp;sr=1-5&amp;keywords=laurence+rees">WW II Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West</a>, with the anecdote about Elsey’s find, which is in another part of Rees’ book. West may not have mentioned Elsey’s role in her own text, but it is the anecdote itself about the Second Front that is the crux of this matter and she does refer to it on three occasions. So much for her evidence that my review is “ a series of flattened, screaming, straw-man arguments.”
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.

Diana West’s Attempt to Respond

On her own website, amidst yet more personal smears and snide comments, Diana West offers a couple of responses to my critique of her book. After clearing her

<a href="/sites/default/files/uploads/2013/08/west_diana.jpg"><img alt="west_diana" src="/sites/default/files/uploads/2013/08/west_diana.jpg" width="249" height="277" /></a>Reprinted from <a href="http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2013/08/07/why-i-wrote-a-take-down-of-diana-wests-awful-book/">PJ Media</a>. 
Yesterday, my review of Diana West’s new book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008BU71BM/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=B008BU71BM&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=pjmedia-20">American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character</a>, was <a href="/2013/ronald-radosh/mccarthy-on-steroids/">posted at FrontPageMagazine</a>, the website of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. I urge PJM readers to go and read it, and to consider the arguments I make about why I find her book to be a betrayal, but not the kind she charges existed in our past. Indeed, what I argue in the review is that her book is actually a betrayal of serious and honest history, an ideologically bound argument that ignores real evidence, distorts our past, and creates a mythical counter-narrative to understanding decisions made during WWII.
Here is my concluding paragraph:
<blockquote>Conspiratorial theories of history are easy to create once you are prepared to ignore the realities on the ground, or regard those who do take them into account as part of the conspiracy too. This is the path that Diana West has taken in her misconceived and misleading book. Why did the U.S. and Britain not prevent the totalitarian USSR from taking over Eastern Europe after it had defeated the totalitarian Nazis?  It had nothing to do with the Rubik’s Cube of diplomatic and military considerations, a calculus that had to take into account the willingness of the American and British publics to continue to sacrifice and their soldiers to die.  No, it was a conspiracy so immense, as West’s hero Joe McCarthy might have said, that it allowed Western policy to be dictated by a shadow army of Soviet agents. It is unfortunate that a number of conservatives who should know better have fallen for West’s fictions.  It is even more depressing that her book perpetuates the dangerous one dimensional thinking of the Wisconsin Senator and his allies in the John Birch Society which have allowed anti anti-communism to have a field day in our intellectual culture.</blockquote>
What I want to discuss is why I took upon myself the job of writing a lengthy and detailed critique of West’s book.
First, as a historian and a conservative, I believe that my responsibility is to the truth. I cannot countenance conspiracy theories, whether they come from those on the Left or those on the Right. On these pages and elsewhere, I have regularly written about the corruption of history by writers such as Howard Zinn, and the team of Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick. I have also written a great deal about Soviet espionage, the influence of Communism on American life, and the fallacies of anti anti-Communism.
When self-proclaimed conservatives echo the methodology and conspiratorial type thinking of those on the Left, because they consider themselves conservatives means that those of us who want a responsible, sane conservative movement, and a vibrant conservative intellectual culture, have the responsibility to speak out and to criticize, no matter what source it comes from.
An analogy can be made with the dilemma William F. Buckley Jr. faced when, in 1962, he decided to take on first Robert Welch, the head of the John Birch Society, and later the Society itself. At the New Republic last year, <a href="http://www.newrepublic.com/node/102241/print">Geoffrey Kabaservice</a> wrote the following:
<blockquote>Having spent the better part of a decade doing research in Buckley’s archives, I can attest that it was no easy matter for Buckley to take on Welch and his Society. Many of the financial backers and readers of Buckley’s National Review magazine admired Welch and his organization; Buckley’s own mother was a Bircher. His editorial colleagues warned that criticizing Welch risked splitting the conservative movement. Buckley’s position as movement leader would be jeopardized by the liberal plaudits that predictably would follow his editorial condemnation of the Birchers; as Buckley put it privately, “I wish to hell I could attack them without pleasing people I can’t stand to please.”
Nonetheless, in February 1962 National Review ran a six-page editorial against Welch, arguing that he was damaging the anti-Communist cause by “distorting reality” and failing to distinguish between an “active pro-Communist” and an “ineffectually anti-Communist liberal.” It would be several years before Buckley excommunicated all Birchers from the conservative movement, but his editorial emphasized that “There are bounds to the dictum, Anyone on the right is my ally.”</blockquote>
Two years later, Buckley finally wrote his famous editorial condemning the Society. The conspiracy theories of the Society, Buckley wrote, made conservatism seem “ridiculous and pathological,” allowing liberals to portray conservatives as extremists. Conservatism, he wrote, had to expand “by bringing into our ranks those people who are, at the moment, on our immediate left…If they think they are being asked to join a movement whose leadership believes the drivel of Robert Welch, they will pass by crackpot alley, and will not pause until they feel the embrace of those way over on the other side, the Liberals.”
As his biographer <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743217977/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0743217977&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=pjmedia-20">John B. Judis</a> wrote in 2001, Buckley and National Review,“drew the line when the John Birch Society and its founder, Robert Welch, began to maintain that the American government itself was being run by Communists rather than liberals. Such a position not only ran directly counter to that of National Review; it also threatened to cast the Right into what [James] Burnham called ‘crackpot alley.’” As readers of Diana West’s book know, she argues that during World War II and the early Cold War, the American government was “occupied” and run by Stalin’s secret police, through its agents who controlled the White House. This is, indeed, thinking that echoes Robert Welch.
Of course, Buckley was talking about a movement, and not about a book. But the analogy holds. Diana West’s thought pattern indeed bears a strong resemblance to that of the Birch Society and Robert Welch. As Buckley himself wrote in <a href="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/goldwater-the-john-birch-society-and-me/">Commentary</a> in March of 2008, Birch thinking went like this:
<blockquote>The fallacy is the assumption that you can infer subjective intention from objective consequence; we lost China to the Communists; therefore the President of the United States and the Secretary of State wished China to go to the Communists.</blockquote>
Readers of Diana West’s tome will no doubt quickly see the similarity in what Buckley attacked as the method of the conspiratorial mind. West believes that since Eastern Europe was lost to the West and conquered by Stalin, it meant that the American and British leaders, including FDR and Winston Churchill, were presiding over an “occupied” and controlled government. As I write in my review, West thinks that “The Roosevelt administration [was] penetrated, fooled, subverted, in effect hijacked by Soviet agents… and engaged in a ‘sell-out’ to Stalin” that “conspirators of silence on the Left…would bury for as long as possible, desperately throwing mud over it and anyone who wanted the sun to shine in.” According to West, it was only because Washington was “Communist-occupied” that the United States aligned itself with the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany and, later, that the President allowed Stalin to gain Eastern Europe.
The other question I wondered about is why so many conservatives, who I believe should really know better, have responded so favorably to her book. I think the answer is that they are fed up with the leftist narrative that there was no threat from Communism in any way; that the 50s were a period of witch-hunts against non-existent enemies; and that, therefore, anyone who realizes this was not an accurate picture of that era must be correct in their analysis about what happened.
As I believe I show in my review, West takes this understanding one step further — to argue that not only was Communism an actual threat, and not only had Communists infiltrated the government during the New Deal, but that they actually controlled and ran the White House and made the major foreign policy decisions. She also castigates all of those, including me, who have written for decades about Soviet espionage and Communism. While she acknowledges at times that scholars like me, Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes, Alexander Vassiliev and Allen Weinstein have done a yeoman’s job of revealing the extent of Soviet espionage, she condemns all of us for not accepting her judgment and conclusion that American policy was made for the benefit of the Soviet Union, and that the spies literally ran both the American and British governments.
She knocks down straw men continually. For example, on the question of espionage, she argues that all of us view Soviet espionage as a matter of personal conscience and “not as an issue of national security.” This is preposterous, and I point specifically to article Steve Usdin and I co-authored  in 2011 that appeared in <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/sobell-confession_554817.html">The Weekly Standard</a>, in which among other things we specifically reveal what real damage the Rosenberg spy ring did to our national security, above and beyond trying to obtain material pertaining to the atomic bomb. Telling the truth, however, would interfere with her narrative in which she is continually trying to show that, in essence, even those who have exposed the extent of Soviet espionage are part of the great conspiracy to cover up the truth.
I end by asking readers to carefully read my review, and to reconsider jumping on the Diana West bandwagon. To continue to give her very bad book credibility will only work to harm the integrity and reputation of conservative intellectuals. After all, it has been decades since William F. Buckley Jr. acted courageously to push the Birchers out of the movement he was building. Do we really want to welcome their successors into it now, after so many lessons have been learned?
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.

Diana West Down Crackpot Alley

Reprinted from PJ Media. 

Yesterday, my review of Diana West’s new book, American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character, was posted at

<img title="kim sung" src="/sites/default/files/uploads/2013/03/kim-sung.jpg" alt="" width="259" height="194" />Reprinted from <a href="http://pjmedia.com/">PJMedia</a>.
The DPRK is beautiful, Clean, honest, free, and totally revolutionary. It is a new civilization called Socialism. … A new potent force is beginning to emerge in the Third World — The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea under the leadership of Comrade Kim Il-Sung [who is] refocusing the perspective of the Revolutionary Peoples of the Whole World who are not already liberated, powerful and secure. This is a historic development and the revolutionary peoples … must take heed of it.  
– Eldridge Cleaver diary entry, 1970.
When North Korea was still being led by its original founder, Kim Il-Sung, the visitors from the United States to the horrendous Communist regime were not the likes of Dennis Rodman. Today, the founder’s grandson, Kim Jong-Un,  has inherited the mantle of leadership, thereby carrying on the dynasty that rules in the name of Marxism-Leninism, as modified by the founder’s philosophy of juche, or self-reliance, autonomy, and independence.
How far the North Korean Communists have fallen. Back in the day of the old fellow-travelers’ tours to the various communist paradises, the regimes had their praises sung by the likes of the African-American baritone Paul Robeson, who regularly went to the USSR and told the world how great Comrade Stalin was and how the Soviet Union had the only real democracy on Earth. At least Robeson was an All-American football quarterback and the most well-known black American actor and singer in the 1930s and 40s. He also received a law <a id="_GPLITA_3" title="Click to Continue &gt; by Text-Enhance" href="http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2013/03/07/when-the-new-left-shilled-for-north-korea-an-unknown-story/?singlepage=true#">degree at</a> Columbia University. That a man so intelligent could function as a dupe for Stalin was far more worrisome than seeing Rodman do the same today. No one would call Rodman intelligent. He is both a useful idiot as well as a real one; Robeson only filled the first category.
<a href="/2013/bruce-bawer/seven-ways-of-looking-at-dennis-rodman/">Bruce Bawer</a> hits it squarely on the head when he notes that Rodman gives an impression of “utter foolishness and ignorance,” so much so that Bawer wonders if he ever has read any book at all. Bawer also points out that the attention given his view of North Korea is an indication of how the modern cult of celebrity “has taken root even in the presidential palace in Pyongyang.” And how many of our fellow countrymen might be influenced by the hosannas to both the late Hugo Chavez and the soon to be late Fidel Castro by showbiz stars like Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Tim Robbins, Harry Belafonte, and of course, Oliver Stone. The list goes on.
So let us turn to the reign of the founder of the hermit kingdom, Kim Il-Sung, who one thinks would never have welcomed Dennis Rodman to his lair. That Rodman is welcome there today is the result of Kim wanting a good <a id="_GPLITA_2" title="Click to Continue &gt; by Text-Enhance" href="http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2013/03/07/when-the-new-left-shilled-for-north-korea-an-unknown-story/?singlepage=true#">education</a> for his children and grandchildren, with the result that the current ruler learned to love basketball and Rodman while a student in one of the most elite schools in Switzerland. When a Red ruler sends his kids for a good education out of the homeland, one never knows what might be the result.
We now know, thanks to the enterprising <a id="_GPLITA_1" title="Click to Continue &gt; by Text-Enhance" href="http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2013/03/07/when-the-new-left-shilled-for-north-korea-an-unknown-story/?singlepage=true#">scholarship</a> of a young M.A. student at The College at Brockport, Benjamin R. Young, about the hitherto unknown ties of the American New Left with Kim Il-Sung’s North Korea, which it seems these major New Left activists hoped to have replace both the Soviet Union and Communist China as the model for socialism in their own day and age.
Now, Young’s <a href="http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/north-korea-and-the-american-radical-left">findings and documents</a> are online for all to see at the website of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and its division, the Cold War International History Project.
<a href="http://www.nknews.org/2012/12/the-black-panther-north-korean-juche-fetish/">Young writes:</a>
<blockquote>From the autumn of 1969 to the winter of 1971, the Panthers identified Kim Il Sung’s Juche Idea, rather than the teachings of Mao Zedong, as the most effective <a id="_GPLITA_0" title="Click to Continue &gt; by Text-Enhance" href="http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2013/03/07/when-the-new-left-shilled-for-north-korea-an-unknown-story/?singlepage=true#">application</a> of Marxism-Leninism. The Panthers utilized the slipperiness of Juche as a way to evade the Chinese and Soviet lines of Marxism-Leninism — much in the same way, some argue, the North Koreans used Juche.</blockquote>
So infatuated was Eldridge Cleaver, the Black Panther Party’s minister of information, that he sent his wife Kathleen to North Korea when she was pregnant so that she could receive “the proper rest and medical care necessary at the time.” She gave birth to their daughter on July 31, 1970, in Pyongyang, which fortunately means that she can never be president of the United States. They named the baby Juju Younghi, to make her name sound Korean. Later, Cleaver claimed that in North Korea she got “the most excellent and thorough medical attention in my life,” as well as “the most pleasant and comfortable living conditions for myself and my family.”
And you thought Cuba was the favorite place for health care among New Leftists — I anxiously await a Michael Moore film about how wonderful North Korea is.
The delusionary view of North Korea was also stated by Panther leader Elaine Brown, who wrote that North Korean farmers “live at a much higher standard than the average person in the United States who would be involved in farming work, or even a worker.” The average North Korean had good health care, medical facilities, a housing and clothing allotment, and free education through college.
As for South Korea, the Panthers called it an oppressive puppet regime of the United States, led by a “running dog of U.S. imperialism” in a country in which the people lived in poverty and near starvation. “In North Korea,” she wrote, “ … the people are getting everything they need, while … in the South, people who speak the same language are starving.”
I was not unaware of the fascination of the New Left with North Korea. Those of you who have read my memoir, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Commies-Journey-Through-Left-Leftover/dp/189355452X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1362599022&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=Ronald+Radosh%2C+%22Commies%22">Commies, A Journey Through the Old Left, the New Left and the Leftover Left</a>, might recall a few pages on the left-wing journalist Robert Scheer, who now edits his own webzine (<a href="http://www.truthdig.com/">Truthdig.com</a>).
In the summer of 1970 on a trip to San Francisco, I went to see Scheer, who was then living in the Red Family Commune and working at its kindergarten: the Blue Fairyland. During the visit, I taped Scheer for a weekly radio program that my friend Louis Menashe and I had on New York’s WBAI, the flagship station of the leftist and counter-culture Pacifica radio network. I wanted to talk to him about the state of the Left, the nature of the radical movement, and his work in journalism.
All Scheer agreed to talk about, however, was his recent visit to North Korea, and his view of its leader, Kim-Il Sung.
For two hours, Scheer regaled me about the nature of the paradise North Korea had created under the great Kim, and how juche was the ideology necessary for the building of socialism. He had successfully one-upped his other American comrades, who were still touting Fidel Castro and Cuba as the homeland for revolution.
Much to my surprise, though, I did learn from the newly released documents just how much Scheer was involved with North Korea.
Living in California, Scheer — like other New Leftists in the Bay Area — was drawn to the communist Black Panther Party and its volatile leader, the late Eldridge Cleaver. The movement’s newspaper, The Black Panther, always portrayed North Korea as an “earthly paradise,” and viewed it as the first nation “to bring the U.S. imperialists trembling to their knees.” They were the very first group, as Benjamin Young points out, to make a formal connection with North Korea — called the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).
When Eldridge Cleaver was facing arrest, he eventually fled to the isolated communist state and was given sanctuary there by Kim Il-Sung.
Scheer visited Cleaver in North Korea, and in a documentary film about Cleaver, is shown talking to the Black Panther Party leader about the paradise they were privileged to be in. In 1970, Cleaver <a href="http://digitalarchive.org/document/114496">invited Scheer</a> to an “anti-imperialist” conference for journalists to be held in Pyongyang. Writing to the DPRK authorities, Cleaver told them: “I regard him as a Comrade.” He continued: “It would be advantageous to the struggle against fascism and imperialism, particularly U.S. imperialism, for him to visit … and to write about what he sees and learns and thinks.”
To put it bluntly, Cleaver told Kim Il-Sung’s cadre that Scheer could be depended upon to say how wonderful North Korea was, and to spread their propaganda line once he returned home. My interview with Scheer — which even the left-wing Pacifica network thought too strange and sectarian to broadcast — proved that Cleaver’s promise was fulfilled.
Cleaver informed the DPRK leaders that Scheer “is a very influential voice for the New Left Movement inside the U.S.,” whose “writings are widely known and read inside the U.S. and in England and Europe.” Here, he stressed Scheer’s previous writings after his return from South Vietnam in 1965 and 1966. He was, he noted, “selected as the spokesman for the anti-war forces in California” and was running for Congress in a “Progressive campaign.”
There was one problem Cleaver felt he had to note: Scheer was then not opposed to Israel. He hoped, however, that he would be capable of “articulating a Progressive political position on the question of Palestine.”
To the Bay Area left, North Korea was more of a model for the revolution they sought and for the path to destroying the American imperialist hegemon than Soviet Russia or Mao’s China. Using the papers of Eldridge Cleaver, which include memos, letters, and diaries, the fascination of Cleaver and his followers with Kim Il-Sung’s regime can be fleshed out as never before. The regime, Cleaver wrote after going to North Korea in 1969 and 1970, was “a beacon in the vanguard of the struggling masses of the world.”
Cleaver hoped to adopt Kim’s theory of juche as a tool for the revolution he hoped to lead in the United States. He <a href="http://digitalarchive.org/document/114575">wrote:</a>
<blockquote>The revolutionary forces inside the United States must be supported by the revolutionary peoples of the whole world because the people outside of the United States will slice the tentacles of the hideous octopus of U.S. oppression. The revolutionaries inside the United States will cut out its imperialist heart and give the decisive death blow to U.S. fascism and imperialism. … Comrade Kim Il Sung is the most relevant strategist in the struggle against U.S. fascism and imperialism in the world today and he has put the correct tactical line for the universal destruction of fascism and imperialism in our time.</blockquote>
While the people in North Korea are suffering under the greatest hardship, and are near starvation — which today is well-known — Cleaver <a href="http://digitalarchive.org/document/114579">believed</a> that the people “have no worries about food, clothing, lodging, education, medicine” and work to their “heart’s content leading a happy life.”
To herald North Korea to the wider public, Cleaver sponsored two different conferences for journalists. In the <a href="http://digitalarchive.org/document/114579">call</a> to one of them, the sponsors who would attend included a writer for the major American radical magazine Ramparts, of which Scheer had been an editor; two members of the radical film collective Newsreel (including one woman who was a classmate of mine at the left-wing high school I attended in New York City); and Elaine Brown of the Black Panther Party.
The documents make clear that the American New Left — like its predecessors in the old Communist Party, U.S.A. — were not indigenous American radicals seeking to build their own movement in response to the needs of the American people, which is what they claimed at the time. Rather, they too were seeking the leadership and inspiration from foreign revolutionary leaders whose forces had already taken control of other nations, and had begun to create totalitarian monstrosities that often exceeded that created in Russia by Lenin, Stalin, and their successors.
Like the radicals of yesteryear, the New Left issued false positive reports about the nature of life in the revolutionary country of North Korea, using their own outlets to spread the propaganda of Kim Il-Sung’s Communist country. And the North Koreans not only got the New Left to spread their propaganda abroad, it is suspected that they sought, as Young’s article suggests, “to reach, develop, penetrate, and influence dissident groups in the United States” by placing agents in the U.S. and Canada who used phony South Korean and Japanese identities.
In addition, reading through Eldridge Cleaver’s fascinating notes and diary entries, one has new evidence about how his time in North Korea effectively, if we can use a 1950s term, brainwashed him. Cleaver came to believe that Kim Il-Sung was the leader of the world revolution and that the New Left had to take orders from him. There are many entries about how Comrade Kim taught him to pick up the gun against oppressors, and fight to the end until victory. One fascinating diary entry from 1969 starts with a discussion of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg:
<blockquote>Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were executed for giving Soviet Union atomic bomb secrets of imperialist U.S.A. In the name of the blood of the Rosenbergs, in the name of the blood of the Vietnamese people, in the name of humanity, I demand that the Soviet Union use its hydrogen bombs to force the United States out of Vietnam. Now is the time, while the American people are sick and tired of the War. If Stalin were in control of the Soviet Union he would do it. If there were Marxist-Leninists in the Soviet Union they would do it.</blockquote>
The H-bombs, he added, belonged not to the U.S. but “to the International Proletariat.”
In an official statement addressed to “Esteemed Mr. Eldridge Cleaver and Madame” and “Esteemed Mr. Robert Scheer,” an unnamed North Korean official — most likely Kim Il-Sung himself — wrote to his “Comrades,” greeting the “Anti-Imperialist Delegation of the American People.” The statement thanked them for their solidarity “in the struggle against U.S. imperialism, the common enemy.” The American system, it continued, was “headed by war-maniac Nixon” and was “running amuck to find a way out of their acute crisis” by waging a war “for aggression and war externally,” and carrying out “plunder and repression of the people internally.”
It ended with a toast “to the health of Eldridge Cleaver and his wife” and “to the health of Mr. Robert Scheer.”
No wonder they received such a toast. Cleaver and Scheer came back filled with enthusiasm, and dedicated to spreading North Korea propaganda back home in the United States. As a lengthy statement says, perhaps written by either of the two:
<blockquote>It will be with the greatest joy that we will tell the American people of the glorious victories of your socialist revolution, of the miraculous economic construction that has built a paradise … In the capitalist United States, technology is highly advanced, but serves only to exploit and murder people … But in [North] Korea we have seen and felt how socialist technology works for the liberation of people.</blockquote>
The statement ends quoting the “brilliant, iron-willed commander, Marshal Kim Il Sung,” who told them that his country was not afraid of war, should the imperialists unleash it against them.
Today, the New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/world/asia/north-korea-warns-of-pre-emptive-nuclear-attack.html?hp&amp;_r=0">reports</a> that Korean officials have said:
<blockquote>Now that the U.S. is set to light a fuse for a nuclear war, the revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK will exercise the right to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to destroy the strongholds of the aggressors and to defend the supreme interests of the country.</blockquote>
With Kim Jong-Un threatening a nuclear attack against the United States if the new UN sanctions against North Korea are put into effect, and with his announcement that his regime will abrogate the 1953 truce with South Korea, the grandson is following in his ancestor’s footsteps.
What new-generation Robert Scheer and Eldridge Cleaver will follow their example and organize a new trip to defend the socialist paradise against American imperialism?
Will Michael Moore rush to North Korea to make a new film telling the truth about their wonderful medical care?
Or will even Dennis Rodman prove he knows how to read, look over Eldridge Cleaver’s diary entries and letters, and realize he is providing the evil regime with a post-modern version of Cleaver’s earlier homage?
What really would be wonderful: if, at Truthdig.com Mr. Scheer would own up to his embarrassing past and apologize publicly for his foolish early years of revolutionary bravado. I look forward to such an article.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.

When the New Left Shilled for North Korea

Reprinted from PJMedia.

The DPRK is beautiful, Clean, honest, free, and totally revolutionary. It is a new civilization called Socialism. … A new potent force

<a href="/sites/default/files/uploads/2011/02/rosen.jpg"><img title="rosen" src="/sites/default/files/uploads/2011/02/rosen.jpg" alt="" width="369" height="336" /></a>
Visit <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/">Pajamas Media</a>
First, a note about <a href="http://hnn.us/articles/125432.html">Staughton Lynd</a> for younger readers. In the late 1960’s and early 70’s, Lynd was somewhat of a household name. Life magazine, then the nation’s leading popular newsweekly, had a cover photo of Lynd and the radical activist Dave Dellinger being pelted with fake blood and eggs on its cover; along with Tom Hayden and the Communist Party historian Herbert Aptheker, Lynd took a trip to Vietnam in 1965-66, from which they returned extolling the virtues of Vietnamese Communism and urging U.S. unilateral withdrawal from the war. Lynd at the time was a Professor of History at Yale University. His activism and his trip to Hanoi led the university to not renew his teaching contract, and he was fired.  (Were he in a similar position today, he would be immediately offered a  Distinguished Professorship at scores of American universities.) Lynd was so popular among the Left, that when Lyndon B. Johnson was President, Students for Democratic Society offered a button, proclaiming “Lynd not Lyndon.”
Eventually Lynd decided to leave history and to become a full-time activist, first as a community organizer and later as a labor lawyer in the union town of Youngstown Ohio, where he practices law today. This does not stop him, at times, from returning to historical inquiry. His own field of expertise was in events of the 18th and 19th Century. But now, he was evidently compelled to write about something of which he knows next to nothing—the favorite topic of return for American leftists, the Rosenberg case.
In the current issue of the decades old Marxist magazine Monthly Review, founded in 1949 by Leo Huberman and Paul M. Sweezy, Lynd has an <a href="http://www.monthlyreview.org/110201lynd.php">article</a> titled “Is There Anything More to Say About the Rosenberg Case?” I have read his article, and my comments on it will follow. But I would answer the question he raises in the title with a firm NO, since his own piece adds nothing of substance to understanding the real issues in the case.  What Lynd does do, however, is reveal something   that is of great importance to understanding the mindset of the Left in America—which is certainly not the intent he had in writing about the case.
So let me now turn to Lynd’s argument. First, Lynd’s bias is revealed immediately in what he cites as sources for his discussion. He is impressed with the book by the late Walter Schneir, Final Verdict:What Really Happened in the Rosenberg Case, which I have reviewed <a href="https://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/final-verdict-by-walter-schneir/">here</a> and <a href="http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&amp;id=7563">here,</a> and which Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes discussed <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/black-and-white-and-red-all-over_518386.html">here</a>. Lynd believes the new conspiracy theory developed by Schneir in his book, but while he cites the old book by Klehr and Haynes on Venona, he seems not to be aware of their most recent book.  In Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America, which appeared in 2009 and came out in a paper edition last year-they present new material about the Rosenberg case. Had Lynd read this book, it would have harmed his own argument in favor of the Schneir’s book. Since it is very easy for him to find out about its publication, one must assume that Lynd is a very sloppy historian.
To continue reading this article, <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2011/02/18/the-left-and-the-rosenberg-case-historian-staughton-lynd-inadvertently-reveals-their-real-concern/">click here.</a>

The Left and the Rosenberg Case

Visit Pajamas Media

First, a note about Staughton Lynd for younger readers. In the late 1960’s and early 70’s, Lynd was somewhat of a household name. Life

Frontpage Mag

ron radosh

The Angela Davis Moment

UCLA’s New Cover Girl

The American Left: Friends of Our Country’s Enemies

Freedom Summer: The Leftist/Black Nationalist Myth of Its Legacy

How the American Left Distorts History in an Attempt to Find Past Heroes and Create a New Generation of Activists

The SPLC’s Attack on Rush Limbaugh, David Horowitz, and Me

How Writers Question the Legitimacy of Israel

The Liberal Supporters of Max Blumenthal and the Campaign to Delegitimize Israel

Red Love

How David Horowitz Revealed the Truth about Ralph Miliband’s Legacy

Laudatory Tributes for Saul Landau

Diana West’s Attempt to Respond

Diana West Down Crackpot Alley

When the New Left Shilled for North Korea

The Left and the Rosenberg Case

FPM Series

Disloyal Military

Progressive Fascists

Racist Mayors

The Point

'Woke' Gets Cancelled. Literally.

California to Spend $200 Million to Help Fund Abortion Tourism

Biden Announces $200B Plan to Aid Poorer Countries Because America is Made Out of Money

The Abortion Insurrection Leads to Violence From Arizona to Portland

Islamic Terror Attack Hits Norwegian Gay Bar

Events