Posts

The Oldest Hatred Now Fulminates and Flourishes at 1600

In February, not two weeks into the, ahem, presidency of Joe Biden, I described in my article, “Joe’s Jews,” the appointments he made of 11 longtime Jew-haters and Israel-loathers to key positions in his cabinet/regime.

A month later, in my article “More about Joe and the Jews,” I described 12 more Jew-haters and Israel-loathers that Joe appointed to key positions in his cabinet/regime.

There have been many other alarmingly similar appointments since then, making it clear to even the most casual observer that the Biden White House has a particularly hostile––even hateful––attitude toward Jews and their ancient homeland Israel, combined with a perverse infatuation with and allegiance to any group or individual intent on destroying the Jewish state.

There is no doubt that Biden’s presence in the Oval Office has been interpreted by these career haters and organized thugs as an unmistakable nod of approval to continue and even expand on the tsunami of anti-Semitism now sweeping the entire globe––from the contamination of most American colleges and universities to brutal physical assaults of Jews in the streets of New York, Las Vegas, Los Angeles and around the world––a phenomenon writer Victor Rosenthal elaborates upon in chilling detail––to condemnation of Israel by the Irish parliament and other governments to the racist obscenities vomited out routinely by Democrat members of the U.S. Congress.

AND THE BEAT GOES ON

In fact, Joe Biden and his entire coterie/staff/cabinet/appointees of left-wing, blatantly anti-Semitic radicals demonstrate their noxious racism on a daily basis, notwithstanding his boilerplate pronouncements about support for Israel…at the exact same time he embraces, applauds and funds Israel’s mortal enemies. Want proof? Here is the very very short list:

  • Biden appeased and clearly agreed with the growing number of Jew- and Israel-haters in the Democrat Party by sending the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians $167 million dollars––enough to finance the recent war against Israel by Hamas terrorists.

But we really shouldn’t worry. After all, just the other day, Biden told an ABC-TV reporter that Hamas is “just an idea. It’s more of a concept, an a-a-abstract, a, the, you know, the, the, the thing. A sym––a symbol. Hamas is more of the journey, the, the destination. The real Hamas is just the, you know, just the friends we made along the way.”

“So who is launching the rockets then?” asked the interviewer.

“Come on, man!” Biden replied angrily. “Want to arm-wrestle? I took down ole Bucktooth Joe back in my college days. He was one of the best arm-wrestlers east of the Mississippi. And pow! I took him down. Right in the kisser. Let’s go, me and you, right now. Or maybe a push-up contest. You know, the — the thing about the push-ups…”

  • Biden––when it was clear that the aggressors of Hamas were getting trounced by Israel––was sent a letter by no less than 500 of his anti-Israel campaign staffers––begging him to “hold Israel accountable for its actions.” Bad Israel for fighting back!
  • Biden dispatched Michael Ratney to represent the U.S. in Israel––the same guy, according to Joel B. Pollak of Breitbart––whose role in the Obama administration was to interfere in Israel’s 2015 election with the goal of ousting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
  • Biden, instead of allowing Israel to turn Gaza into a demilitarized zone, initiated the ceasefire that Hamas was begging for and demanded that Israel––not the terrorists!––meet three demands:
    • Desist from evicting the Arabs who have been squatting on Jewish property for decades without paying rent,
    • Appease the fanatically militant Arabs who don’t allow Jews to pray at their most sacred site, the Temple Mount,
    • And stop celebrating Jerusalem Flag day which honors the State of Israel. “Imagine if another country demanded we stop celebrating the Fourth of July or Memorial Day!”
  • Biden, like Obama before him, believes in rewarding terrorists, and so has pledged billions––not millions or even multimillions, but billions!––to rebuild the breeding ground of hatred and terrorism known as Gaza. He has also committed $150 million to––as former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley describes it––the systemically corrupt United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) that was suspended under the Trump administration.
  • Biden and Kalamity Harris enthusiastically supported Rev. Raphael Warnock when he ran, victoriously, for the U.S. Senate in Georgia last year, knowing full well of his rabid anti-Semitism and hatred of whites, as spelled out here by journalist and blogger Jeff Dunetz.
  • Biden’s nominee for a top State Department position, according to writer Alana Goodman, “played a key role in assembling a book on the nefarious influence of the ‘Israel lobby’ while working for an organization that promoted claims about Jewish media control and dual loyalty to Israel.”
  • Biden chose attorney Kirsten Clarke as the Assistant Attorney General to lead the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, she whose loathing of Jews and whites is extensively documented by the esteemed Daniel Greenfield, as well as by writer/editor David Rosenberg. Clarke has posited that “the human brain was structured in a way that makes black people superior to white people.”
  • Biden, only a year after being elected, delivered Egyptian disinformation to Israel––to the besieged country’s detriment––ahead of the Yom Kippur War in October 1973, as described by writer David Israel.
  • Biden, just the other day, ordered U.S. Embassies around the world to fly the Black Lives Matter flag to commemorate George Floyd’s murder “on May 25 and beyond.” You remember BLM––the Marxist terrorist group rampaging across the U.S. for the past year and responsible for about $2 billion in property damage, devastating arson, widespread theft, the injuries of more than 240 police officers and destruction of hundreds of police precincts, upward of 30 murders, and the defacement and vandalizing of synagogues, at which they screamed “F… the Jews and Kill the Police.” That BLM! That Joe Biden!
  • Biden’s House Democrats last week rejected–– unanimously––a Republican effort to provide Israel with emergency security funding for its life-saving Iron Dome system. A couple of days earlier, they stopped legislation that would sanction foreign entities doing business with Hamas. Getting the picture?
  • Biden & Co. fully support the World Health Organization, a toxic arm of the United Nations cesspool, which held a meeting the other day to address the global response to the coronavirus pandemic, and predictably––given their entire history of fanatical anti-Semitism––singled out Israel to condemn for violating the rights of the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians, although the charge is objectively untrue and Israel has been at the international forefront of the research and development of anti-Corona vaccines.
  • Biden has brought in Islamic activists––among them Hina Shamsi, who fought on behalf of the Holy Land Foundation, the leaders of which were convicted of providing material support to Hamas—to investigate “extremism” in the U.S. military. In essence, writes Daniel Greenfield, “American military personnel are being put at the mercy of advocates for their worst enemies. To Biden, defending Al Qaeda and Hamas terrorists is the only qualification needed for going after American soldiers.”

OLD WINE, NEW BOTTLE

One thing about Jew-haters and Israel-loathers:  they are remarkably unoriginal. While their reasons for hating Jews may have changed over the centuries, the symptoms of their racism have remained the same:

  • Thinking obsessively about Jews,
  • Fulminating with hatred,
  • Blaming everything wrong in their lives and society on Jews,
  • Joining with other racists to inflict harm,
  • In many cases, devoting their lives to this obsession.

All of it driven by pathological jealousy!

Interestingly, they never seem to wonder why it is that out of eight-billion people in the world––including 2.2-billion Christians, approximately one-billion Protestants, and 1.8-billion Muslims (the majority in 49 countries), they cannot deal with or destroy the 15-million Jews––seven-million in the U.S., seven-million in Israel, and about one million around the world.

It must make them feel immensely stupid or impotent, hence even angrier than their usual fixated state of fury.

But like every liberal, leftist, progressive––whatever they’re calling themselves these days––who thinks that the crashing failures of socialism and communism in world history were a function of bad management and that they will do it better, so the Jew-haters of the world think they will finally get the anti-Semitism thing right and once and for all get rid of the people, and their country, that make them feel so bad and inferior and stupid and impotent every minute of every day and night––including weekends and holidays!

THE FISH STINKS FROM THE HEAD

“The Biden administration has revealed the president’s long-seething hostility toward Israel,” writes former professor of political science Abraham Miller, “going back to his encounter with Israel’s then-prime minister Menachem Begin, in which Biden threatened to cut off aid to Israel.”

As Israelis were crouching in hallways and bomb shelters and Hamas launched death from the skies against them,” Miller writes, “the Biden administration’s representatives in Vienna were negotiating an overture to the disastrous Iran nuclear deal”––Iran being the foremost supplier of arms to Hamas.

Larry Gordon, editor-in-chief of the 5 Towns Jewish Times (Long Island, NY), asks: “Do Jewish Lives Matter?”

“A great deal of the recent debate [about the Hamas-Israel conflict], Gordon writes, revolved around the issue as to whether Israel has the right to defend itself….under what possible circumstances would it be acceptable or okay for Israel not to defend itself?

“Over the last several weeks Jews are being clubbed and beaten at random.” Gordon continues, “but the president so far has not found it within himself––like the Jewish Senate Majority Leader, Chuck Schumer––to stand up and condemn these types of hate crimes. Perhaps they will see themselves as being aligned too much with Jews which may impact on their political standing….what a shameful situation!”

Economist and political commentator Valerie Sobel states that it is “entirely inexplicable how such a large caucus of American Jewry can be so irreparably injured by a presidential tweet on media bias, yet be entirely untouched by the ‘Death to Jews’ chants in the violent, politically underwritten Jew-hatred festivals of their own party and tirelessly anti-Semitic media.

“Impossible to digest how their Jewish offspring, their contaminated social justice warriors, the very grandchildren of Holocaust survivors, are so indoctrinated that they march with Black Lives Matter and the Boycott-Divest-Sanction Jew haters while holding ‘Free Palestine’ signs. And entirely irreconcilable––the supine silence of predominately liberal Jewish Community leaders on the Kristallnacht-style pogroms in L.A., London and New York.

“How can we explain this craven desire to throw ourselves onto the sword in the name of wokeness?” Sobel asks. “Who would applaud this desperation for acceptance into a club of liberal ideals that includes vile Jew-hatred? And why in the world would a political party with such a vast anti-Semitic ledger and clinically Israel-allergic membership be valued at such a premium by Jews themselves?”

Psychiatrist and historian Kenneth Levin also talks about the Congressional enablers of genocidal anti-Semitism. “Hamas is explicit in wanting to kill not only all Israelis but all Jews,” Levin writes….

“The current Administration,” Levin continues, “has stated as one of its essential goals the reassertion of American moral authority in the world…[but] the further, ugly phenomenon of a sizable segment of the Congressional delegation of a major American political party serving as supporters of or apologists for the criminal actions of a genocidal anti-Semitic terrorist group…[is] rather a demonstration of moral bankruptcy.”

Liel Leibovitz, writing in the NY Post , states: “As Jews were being pummeled, punched, spat at, intimidated with explosive devices and singled out for violence and harassment all across America this week, the righteous men and women of the Democratic Party were quick to denounce the twin scourges behind these mini-pogroms: anti-Semitism and—drumroll, please—Islamophobia.

“That’s the thing with morally muddled thinking, “Leibovitz continues. “It’s a simple principle that seems to be completely lost on nearly everyone in today’s Democratic Party. Hopefully, its Jewish voters will wise up before it’s too late.”

Journalist and author John Perazzo, in Israel’s Fake ‘Friend’––an in-depth, comprehensive timeline of Joe Biden’s relentless hostility toward Israel from 1982 to just a few months ago––describes “a long destructive track record of undermining Israeli security.”

“Joe Biden has made a habit of describing himself as a loyal, stalwart friend and ally of Israel,” Perazzo writes….but a careful examination of Biden’s track record reveals his long and extremely troubling history of undermining Israel’s security and public image.”

In his timeline, Perazzo describes eight long years of Biden’s steadfast support of Barack Obama’s deep hostility and sabotage of Israel, which Israeli lawmaker Danny Danon, chairman of Likud’s international outreach branch, said were “catastrophic.”

Writer Andrea Widburg has the last word in Biden’s ignominious role toward Israel: “Biden may say he believes Israel has a right to self-defense,” Widburg writes, “but his actions reveal that his real sympathies lie with the Islamists who seek to destroy Israel and kill every one of her inhabitants. He is an indecent excuse for a human being.”

©Joan Swirsky. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Jews Proudly Leaving the Democrat Party

In an American Thinker column titled Like trapped rats, Democrats and other leftists are starting to get nervous Andrea Widburg reports:

As I began writing tonight, I had a lot of tabs open.  Shall I write about the racist attack The Nation launched against black Trump-supporters?  Or should I write about Nancy Pelosi’s suddenly announcing that Biden shouldn’t demean himself by debating Trump?  And what about the Democrats who are openly admitting that Trump is running the better campaign?  And then there are the Jews proudly leaving the Democrat party — what about them?

As I contemplated three or four separate posts, one for each question, I realized that they are all actually the same post: Democrats are realizing that Biden’s early poll numbers were misleading and that Trump may well win.  Some respond like trapped rats with viciousness or frantic manipulations.  Others are feeling something akin to relief.  No matter the response, they’re recognizing the real possibility that Biden almost certainly won’t make it across the finish line.

Read more.

©All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Five Democrat Mayors in Minnesota Endorse Trump

SOUND FAMILIAR? The Communist Goals as read into the Congressional Record on January 10, 1963

The following was entered into the Congressional record by Albert Sydney Herlong Jr. who was an American politician from Florida who served in the United States House of Representatives from 1949 to 1969 as a member of the Democratic Party.

Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35
Current Communist Goals
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, January 10, 1963

Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.

At Mrs. Nordman’s request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following “Current Communist Goals,” which she identifies as an excerpt from “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen:

CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, and policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, and healthy.”
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.” (Remember these goals were published to expose them in 1958) Coincidence?
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures, which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“] united force [“] to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.

©All rights reserved.

‘He Don’t Speak For Me’: Herschel Walker Criticizes ‘Black Lives Matter’

Former NFL running back and Heisman Trophy winner Herschel Walker ripped the “Black Lives Matter” movement in a video posted to his Twitter feed Friday.

“I was watching some kids, African American and Caucasian kids, play the other day,” Walker said. “I started thinking about their future, and then I was listening to a BLM protester, who’s speaking for the black people, and I said ‘Wait a minute, he don’t speak for me, he don’t speak for a lot of other people that I know.’”

Walker then went on to criticize companies that give money to organizations such as Black Lives Matter.

“Why is these companies giving money to these groups? For what?” Walker said. “Where is my freedom? Where is my freedom that I don’t want to tear down statues. I don’t want to defund the police. I don’t want to riot and tear people’s stores up.”

The former Georgia running back recently said he would “love” to send activists calling to defund the police to countries that don’t have police.

“For all these people who don’t want any police, I’d love to meet with American Airlines, Delta, and Southwest and make a deal to fly them to countries that don’t have police. I want them to be happy!” Walker said at the time.

COLUMN BY

WILLIAM DAVIS

Reporter. Follow William Davis on Twitter

RELATED ARTICLES:

These Companies Support ‘Black Lives Matter,’ But Sent Their Jobs To China

‘We Are Not Going To Rewrite History’: Barcelona Mayor Doesn’t Support Removing City’s Columbus Statue

A Wisconsin Cop Shot An Alleged Knife-Wielding Black Man. His Family Says It Was ‘Because He Was Black’

Couple Faces Assault Charges After Video Of Woman Pointing A Gun At Black Family Goes Viral

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Americanism vs. Communism

America is being ripped apart by two diametrically opposed worldviews – Americanism and communism. These contending forces are locked in a savage death match. They are so incontrovertibly incompatible that they cannot peacefully coexist. At the end of the day, only one flag will wave over the United States. It’s our duty and mission as freemen to determine which side will prevail.

The American Founding Fathers gave the world a Freedom philosophy unique in human history. No other nation enjoys the heritage of Freedom we enjoy. No other country has the same institutions for securing the blessings of Liberty that we have. No other People centered their society upon the idea of protecting God-given rights like our forefathers here in America. Our Republic, with its unparalleled power, wealth, influence, success, and Freedom, was born with this immortal declaration from the pen of Thomas Jefferson:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.”

These simple words declare our People’s commitment to God, to Liberty, and to our mutual Union. Out of their burning desire to secure their God-given rights, our Founding Fathers declared Independence, waged a war against British tyranny, and created the Constitution. However imperfectly we may have implemented these profoundly powerful principles, they have been our guiding light.

After touring the United States nearly a century ago, the famed philosopher G.K. Chesterton made a keen observation:

“The American Constitution . . . is founded on a creed. America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed. That creed is set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence; perhaps the only piece of practical politics that is also theoretical politics and also great literature. It enunciates that all men are equal in their claim to justice, that governments exist to give them that justice, and that their authority is for that reason just. It certainly does condemn anarchism, and it does also by inference condemn atheism, since it clearly names the Creator as the ultimate authority from whom these equal rights are derived” (G.K. Chesterton, What I Saw in America, 7).

Our American Republic is founded on a creed. To be sure, this creed is political, social, and cultural, but it is also highly religious in nature. Thomas Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence in fact did not use the term “unalienable Rights.” Rather, it called our rights “sacred and undeniable.” Life, Liberty, property, individual stewardship, and all the things that make life worth living, are indeed sacred.

Significantly, Americans have traditionally viewed their rights as endowments from Almighty God – not as mere privileges granted by government. Alexander Hamilton, for instance, stated:

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power” (Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, February 23, 1775).

Thomas Jefferson confirmed Hamilton’s position when he wrote:

“The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them” (Thomas Jefferson, A Summary View of the Rights of British America, 1774).

And John Adams expressed the idea this way:

“I say RIGHTS, for such [the People] have, undoubtedly, antecedent to all earthly government, — Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws — Rights, derived from the great Legislator of the universe.” (John Adams, A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law, 1765).

This fervent belief that rights did not come from government, but from God, formed the basis of the American political and cultural system. Biblical principles, including prominent parts of the civil law revealed to Moses, are tightly interwoven into our federal, state, and local structures of law and justice. In his book The Ten Commandments & their Influence on American Law, William J. Federer detailed the ubiquitous blending of politics and religion during colonial times and throughout most of U.S. history. He noted:

“The belief in a monotheistic God is so basic to America that it is almost unnecessary to discuss. We have to look no further than our National Coinage, National Currency, National Motto, National Anthem, Pledge of Allegiance, Inaugural Addresses, State Constitutions, the wall above the chair of the Speaker of the House, National Monuments, National Day of Thanksgiving Proclamations, etc., to see examples” (William J. Federer, The Ten Commandments & their Influence on American Law: A Study in History, 43).

Out of our ancestors’ reverence for their God-given rights grew a movement to codify Liberty in written documents and to restrain the hand of tyranny by a strict and limited national Constitution. The American People knew that they held all political power and that government is their servant. The Declaration of Independence had made that abundantly clear. Moreover, they knew that they were accountable to God, not to the state, and therefore endeavored to remove government from their lives to the fullest extent possible while still maintaining a civil society with enough strength to secure their collective Freedom.

To fulfill these hopes, the finest American minds came together in Philadelphia in 1787. Carefully, they crafted an instrument capable of preventing usurpation by despots, delegating limited power for specific purposes to government, and retaining to the People and the states the lion’s share of social duties and daily governmental functions. The Constitution which they produced contained a short list of powers that would be delegated by the People to the federal government for particular purposes, such as to repel invasion, put down insurrection, maintain state militias, build postal roads, and to coin money. Beyond this, the government could not go.

The Bill of Rights was later added to safeguard specific fundamental rights, such as the rights of self-defense, peaceable assembly, speech, discrimination, privacy, habeas corpus, due process, and religion. The Bill of Rights serves as a list of “thou shalt nots” to government. The right to keep and bear arms for self-defense against criminals and tyrants, for instance, “shall not” be infringed. Our patriot forefathers loved their Liberty too much to leave anything to chance.

The purpose of the Constitution, as stated in the Preamble, is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” It is the Constitution which activated our forefathers’ hopes and dreams. It is this wise document, so beautifully constructed with checks and balances, a brilliant division of powers, and an almost perfectly limited scope of operations when correctly followed, that truly launched the Republic to greatness. James Madison in fact referred to the Constitution as “the cement of the Union” (James Madison, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1809).

Former British Prime Minister William Gladstone famously called the Constitution “the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man” (Thomas W. Hanford, ed., William Ewart Gladstone: Life and Public Services, 323). It was such a brilliant feat because it was created by honorable men who understood that their rights came from their Creator, that government’s duty was to secure those rights, and that the People justly held all political power and were capable of governing themselves.

These were also men who knew that “Freedom hath been hunted around the globe” and that America was to be Liberty’s final “asylum” (Thomas Paine, Common Sense, February 14, 1776). Not only did early Americans see God as their national Benefactor, but they viewed themselves as chosen instruments in His hands to set the ball of Freedom rolling. For instance, President George Washington remarked:

“[T]he preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people” (George Washington, First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789).

In harmony with their convictions, the patriots of 1776 fought zealously for their rights as if on a holy crusade. They revered George Washington and his fellow Founders nearly as highly as prophets. And the Declaration of Independence and Constitution held a place of sanctity akin to scripture in the American mind. Taken altogether, this Freedom philosophy and the sense of prophetic national destiny that emerged in early America has sometimes been termed the “American Gospel.”

When we speak of “Americanism,” therefore, it is this constitutionally-guaranteed Freedom philosophy, undergirded by formal belief in God and a sense of our People’s special destiny, to which we refer. The “American Gospel” is our true heritage. It is our mission as a People to carry forward the sacred fire of Liberty and protect it from the tumultuous torrents of tyranny.

Unfortunately, we have lost touch with our Founding Fathers’ vision for this great Republic. Their vision of an “Empire of liberty” (Thomas Jefferson to George Rogers Clark, December 25, 1780) has not been taught in schools, heralded by the media, celebrated in the movies, or uttered in the halls of government for generations. Parents have failed to convey a proper love of our Republic to their children. And churches, once the guardians of the sacred flame of Freedom, have become mere mouthpieces for the mantra “obey government.”

As a People, we have let the Constitution collect dust while allowing our public servants to glorify themselves at our expense. We’ve sat silently as our political power has been usurped and our precious rights have been trampled. We’ve allowed the memory of our national heroes – men such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Robert E. Lee – to be denigrated and twisted into something horrid and repulsive while anti-American agitators are held up as icons worthy of emulation. We’ve let a rabid minority of activists foist perversions upon us and our children in the form of the LGBT movement, feminism, and so forth.

Our society has been so thoroughly indoctrinated that it recoils at the terms “American exceptionalism” and “Manifest Destiny.” We become offended by those things which make us characteristically American and which made America great. Our language has been hijacked and the free speech of those who defend traditional values is viciously attacked. Our noble history has been transformed into something “oppressive” and “shameful.” Our culture has become corrupted inside and out. Political correctness taints everything.

Who is responsible for this campaign of mass brainwashing and societal transformation – transformation that causes us to turn inward and condemn our history, belittle our ancestors, hate our institutions, and, ultimately, devour ourselves in tribalistic hostility? The origin of the term “brainwashing” points us in the right direction. In his book Brain-Washing in Red China, Edward Hunter explained:

“The plain people of China have coined several revealing colloquialisms for the whole indoctrination process. With their natural facility for succinct, graphic expressions, they have referred to it as “brain washing” and “brain-changing.”

“Brain-washing became the principal activity on the Chinese mainland when the Communists took over. Unrevealed tens of thousands of men, women, and children had their brains washed. They ranged from students to instructors and professors, from army officers and municipal officials to reporters and printers, and from criminals to church deacons. There were no exceptions as to profession or creed. Before anyone could be considered trustworthy, he was subjected to brain washing in order to qualify for a job in the “new democracy.” Only then did the authorities consider that he could be depended upon, as the official expression is worded, to “lean to one side” (Soviet Russia’s) in all matters, and that he would react with instinctive obedience to every call made upon him by the Communist Party through whatever twists, turns, or leaps policy might take, no matter what the sacrifice. He must fight by all possible means and be ready, too, with the right answer for every contradiction and evasion in Party statements. . . .

“. . . Man has learned not only some of the theoretical processes that go on in a man’s head but also how to direct his thoughts, and to do this in a “democratic group discussion,” in a “self-criticism meeting,” on the operating table, or in the hypnotist’s chamber. The whole field of psychology has broadened to embrace everything that influences thought and attitude, from the first crude publicity put out for a movie actress to Ivy Lee and psychological warfare, and the whole wide range of activities that lies within – in effect, our entire field of modem communications media, from public opinion surveys to aptitude testing. . . .

“The politicians of the world have been quick to seize upon these discoveries in the realm of the brain in order to advance their own objectives. Initially, they worked primitively in the field of propaganda. Then the vast possibilities of psychological warfare, what we call a cold war, dawned upon them. Cold war as a term is unfortunate in one respect. It sets up a line between cold and hot war that exists only on the writing table, not on the field of battle. What actually is meant by cold war is warfare with unorthodox weapons, with silent weapons such as a leaflet, a hypnotist’s lulling instructions, or a self-criticism meeting in Red China” (Edward Hunter, Brain-Washing in Red China, 4, 11-12).

Modern brainwashing is communist in origin. While variations of their tactics have been used throughout time, it was the communists who perfected the art, combined it with modern technology, science, and medicine, and employed it on a global scale. In particular, the unholy alliance between Marxism, psychiatry, and the drug industry threatens to upend our civilization and reduce us to bedlam.

This insidious program of mental and moral transformation – our version of Mao’s Cultural Revolution – is not native to our fertile American soil. Rather, it was imported to the United States by Soviet agents, covertly engrafted upon us, and cunningly cultivated. They first brought political correctness, of which the Encyclopaedia Britannica has noted:

“The term [political correctness] first appeared in Marxist-Leninist vocabulary following the Russian Revolution of 1917. At that time it was used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (that is, the party line).”

Brainwashing techniques arrived on our shores soon after political correctness. The purpose of these twin tactics of subversion was and is to convince people to toe the communist line and embrace socialism. Of course, they didn’t refer to it as “the Communist Party line” – they used other terms to disguise their true motives. They preached about “democracy” and “equality,” heaped praise on “diversity,” force fed us the vice of “tolerance” (i.e. toleration of criminality, corruption, and communism), deceptively referred to themselves as “Progressives,” “liberals,” and “social democrats,” and did everything they could to project the failures and abuses that they were guilty of onto America, her People, and her constitutional system, thus inverting reality and confusing our citizenry.

In order to push political correctness and wash Americans’ brains, the social engineers went about convincing us that our history was “shameful,” that our heroes were “villains,” that our principles were “hateful,” that our institutions were “oppressive,” and that our Republic was founded by “bigots.” The current rash of monument-destroying and the ghastly effusion of self-hated and “white guilt” is the long-cultivated fruit of the communist effort to demoralize and indoctrinate our People.

Let’s make something very clear: Communism is not American. It is a hostile, alien ideology that seeks to destroy and then supplant our Amercanist Freedom philosophy. The great statesman J. Reuben Clark, Jr. observed:

“This influence is in leadership largely alien, – in birth, or in tradition, or in training and experience, or possessing alien concepts and alien philosophies. With them are some American-born rebel conspirators. These all form a vast army . . . all ready, able, and willing to take over if their opportunity shall come, or be made” (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., October, 7, 1943).

This alien conspiracy is wholly anti-American. It is a parasitical force sapping the lifeblood of our nation. Its values are the opposite of those codified in the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. Its principles were forcefully rejected by our ancestors. Its aim is to convert the United States of America into the United States of Soviet America. All their study, planning, and work is aimed at transforming us from Freedom to high-tech feudalism.

In a 1951 article, David O. McKay warned of the attempt to use sophisticated, long-range methods to subvert our country. He wrote:

“More destructive to the spreading of Christian principles in the minds, particularly of the youth, than battleships, submarines, or even bombs, is the sowing of false ideals by the enemy. . . .

“Misrepresentation, false propaganda, innuendos soon sprout into poisonous weeds, and before long the people find themselves victims of a pollution that has robbed them of their individual liberty and enslaved them to a group of political gangsters” (David O. McKay, Salt Lake Telegram, April 26, 1951).

For a very long time, our People have been asleep. We were lulled into a hypnotic trance. We’ve been so beguiled that we didn’t listen when Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford, Huey Long, Senator Joseph McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, W. Cleon Skousen, Fred Schwarz, Antony C. Sutton, Robert W. Welch, Jr., Bella Dodd, Whittaker Chambers, Louis Budenz, Yuri Bezmenov, and hosts of others in and out of government, attempted to alert us to the creeping dangers of socialism here in America. We failed to pay attention when the FBI, the U.S. House Un-American Activities Committee, and the Reece and Cox Committees, churned out material exposing the communist conspiracy and its backers on Wall Street, in banking, in academia, in Hollywood, in the news media, and in Washington, D.C.

Perhaps some did listen to the warnings, but never acted on them either out of fear or out of being labeled a “conspiracy theorist” or “intolerant” or one of the other smears the communists love to use. The esteemed Ezra Taft Benson made this relevant observation. He said:

“The communists bring to the nations they infiltrate a message and a philosophy that affects human life in its entirety . . . Communists are willing to be revolutionary; to take a stand for this and against that. They challenge what they do not believe in – customs – practices – ideas – traditions. They believe heatedly in their philosophy.

“But our civilization and our people here in America are seemingly afraid to be revolutionary. We are too “broadminded” to challenge what we do not believe in. We are afraid of being thought intolerant – uncouth – ungentlemanly. We have become lukewarm in our beliefs. . . .

“This is a sad commentary on a civilization which has given to mankind the greatest achievements and progress ever known. But it is even a sadder commentary on those of us who call ourselves Christians, who thus betray the ideals given to us by the Son of God Himself. I ask, are we going to permit atheistic communist masters, fellow travelers and dupes to deceive us any longer?” (Ezra Taft Benson, The Red Carpet: Socialism – the Royal Road to Communism, 53-54)

Though written decades ago, Benson’s question is one we must ask today. We must decide how much longer will we allow ourselves to be deceived, lied to, and abused before we stand up, speak out, and take back our country. Can we afford not to be “revolutionary” in the cause of our Freedom? Is it wrong to be radical for Liberty when the alternative is socialist slavery? Was it wrong when the Sons of Liberty became extremists against British tyranny in 1776?

Americans have generally believed that the threats we face are those hiding in the shimmering sands of Arabia or the sweltering jungles of the Pacific. We don’t like to think that the enemy is here, in our neighborhoods, in our schools, in court houses, in our Congress. Yet, that’s precisely where he is! Over a long period of time, as we’ve sat apathetic and distracted by TV, hedonism, political correctness, party politics, and pride, a ruthless cadre of criminals has helped one another rise to fill key positions in our government, media, justice system, military, medicine, universities, and so forth.

This group of gangsters may be called many names, from the “deep state” to the “swamp” to the “globalists.” I simply call them communists, however, because the thing they share in common, regardless of where you find them, whatever outward differences they may have, and whatever sinister organizations they belong to, is their communist ideology. They are committed to internationalism, one-world government, legalized plunder, centralization and collectivization, economic monopolies, humanism, loose morals, political correctness, and so on. In short, the adherents of this global cabal all support the core planks of The Communist Manifesto.

Some try to draw distinctions between the various isms. In particular, they endeavor to separate socialism and communism. Ezra Taft Benson explained the fallacy in their attempts:

“It is high time that we recognize creeping socialism for what it really is – a Red Carpet providing a royal road to communism. . . .

“This is a most important lesson for all of us to learn, namely, that the communists use the socialists to pave the way for them wherever possible. This is why communists and socialists are often found supporting each other, collaborating together and fighting for the same goals.

“The paramount issue today is freedom against creeping socialism. . . .

“. . . the worst thing that can happen to a socialist is to have himself openly identified with the work of the communists who are generally feared and despised. . . .

“We must ever keep in mind that collectivized socialism is part of the communist strategy. Communism is fundamentally socialism. We will never win our fight against communism by making concessions to socialism. Communism and socialism, closely related, must be defeated on principle” (Ezra Taft Benson, The Red Carpet: Socialism – the Royal Road to Communism, 65, 69, 75).

The blunt reality is that socialism is communism with a smiley face. Karl Marx was instrumental in launching the First International, forerunner of today’s world-wide Socialist International (SI). George Bernard Shaw and the others who created Fabian Socialism, which has utterly devastated our nation, were ardent followers of Marx. Red China openly promotes socialism. Russia, after the fake “fall” of the USSR, proclaimed it was instituting more socialism and getting back to its Leninist roots. And so it goes, with communists invariably supporting socialism, and socialism invariably leading to communism.

When you compare the principles and inevitable outcomes of socialism, communism, social democracy, democratic socialism, Maoism, Marxism-Leninism, or the more vague “statism,” “globalism,” and “collectivism,” you realize that there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between them. They all lead to the destruction of Faith, Families, and Freedom and to the establishment of state domination over human beings. Socialism and communism must be seen as two wings of the same ravenous bird of prey and defeated by any means necessary.

America is long overdue for another great awakening. Thankfully, the blatant attacks on our rights using the Coronavirus sham as a pretext, as well as the violent rioting in our cities with its bestial destruction of our national monuments, has awakened many to the awful situation we find ourselves in. Many more need to awaken, however, if we are to tip the scales back in favor of Freedom.

In order to accomplish this great awakening, one thing we can do is to point the finger of blame in the right direction. No longer should we point to Jihadists in Afghanistan or to vaguely-defined “terrorists” as our primary enemy. Rather, the finger of blame must be pointed inward. And not merely to the Democrats, but to people of any party or persuasion who fail to uphold the Constitution, who excuse and justify the violence on our streets, who promote cultural corrosion, who advocate greater government centralization, who denounce the godly principles America was founded upon, or who promote any form of socialism.

Dr. John Coleman encouraged us to cut out the cancer within our society above and beyond all else. He wrote:

“The greatest danger arises from the mass of traitors in our midst. Our Constitution warns us to be watchful of the enemy within our gates . . . The UNITED STATES is where we MUST begin our fight to turn back the tide threatening to engulf us, and where we must meet, and defeat these internal conspirators” (John Coleman, Conspirators’ Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300, 30).

From Black Lives Matter agitators to Antifa thugs to turncoats on the Supreme Court to LGBT activists to oath-breakers at all levels of government, it’s time to fight the enemy within. We can’t long endure a situation where 97 members of congress belong to the openly Marxist Congressional Progressive Caucus – the largest single faction in the government. We can’t long endure a situation where governors allow communist revolutionaries to take over city buildings, police precincts, and residential areas, declaring them autonomous zones where U.S. law doesn’t apply. We can’t survive if we allow thugs to vandalize and destroy memorials to our fallen soldiers and monuments to our past heroes with impunity. We can’t last when we empty our prisons of hardened criminals while arresting mothers playing in the park with their children or people who rightly refuse to wear a face mask. We can’t endure in an atmosphere where anything you say that doesn’t agree with the communist agenda is labeled “racist” and “hateful” by the media. None of this is sustainable if our goal is to be free.

Until we wake up and realize the stakes of this war we’re engaged in, we don’t have a prayer of winning. Until we point the finger of blame in the right direction and square off against the traitors among us, we will forever lose ground. We would do well to recall words written during the height of the Cold War:

“Let’s get one thing straight at the very beginning. International communism is the self-avowed enemy of every loyal American. It has declared war against us and fully intends to win. The war in which we are engaged is total. Although its main battlefields are psychological, political and economic, it also encompasses revolution, violence, terror and limited military skirmishes. If we should lose this war, the conquering enemy’s wrath against our people and our institutions will result in one of the greatest blood-baths in all history. Call it a “cold war” if it makes you feel better, but our freedom and our very lives are the stakes of this contest” (Ezra Taft Benson, An Enemy Hath Done This, 165).

As precarious as our situation is, we haven’t lost yet. We have a choice. We can choose Americanism with its Freedom philosophy and reliance on God or we can side with communism and its unparalleled system of Satanic oppression. We can uphold the Constitution or we can sustain The Communist Manifesto. We can throw our lot in with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson or we can fly to the standard of Marx and Lenin. There’s no middle ground; neutrality is not an option.

With all her flaws and internal spasms, America is still the greatest nation on earth. We are still the hope of the world. We are the only thing holding back the full tsunami of communistic tyranny from sweeping over the globe. We have the potential to yet realize our forefathers’ vision of America as a shining city on a hill – an asylum for Liberty. I hope and pray that we will do the right thing, utterly purge communism from our society, and reclaim our heritage as Americans.

© 2020 Zack Strong – All Rights Reserved

THE BELIEVER: The ideology behind the lust to tear America down.

To get the whole story on the Left’s destructive and suicidal political odyssey, read Jamie Glazov’s ‘United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror’: CLICK HERE.

EDITORS NOTE: As we witness the Marxist revolution currently transpiring right before our eyes in America, a vital question confronts us: what yearnings lie inside the members of groups such as Black Lives Matter and Antifa — and why do members of the Democrat Party and of the Establishment Media cheer them on? What inspires this violent hatred of America and the ferocious craving to tear it down? These are, without doubt, some of the most pertinent questions of our time. Frontpage Editors have therefore deemed it vital to run, below, an excerpt from Jamie Glazov’s book, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror. The excerpt is the second chapter, titled ‘The Believer’s Diagnosis’; it explores the progressive believer’s secular faith – and unveils his heart of darkness. Don’t miss this essay.


The Believer’s Diagnosis

“Everything that exists deserves to perish.” —Karl Marx, invoking a dictum of Goethe’s devil in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoléon

In the eyes of Joseph E. Davies, who served for several years as American ambassador to the Soviet Union before the Second World War, no human being merited greater respect than Joseph Stalin. The ambassador spent much time reflecting on why he believed the Soviet dictator deserved the world’s—and his own people’s—heartfelt veneration. He finally realized that the answer had always been staring him square in the face: it was that Stalin’s “brown eye is exceedingly wise and gentle. A child would like to sit on his lap and a dog would sidle up to him.”[i] Leading French intellectual Jean-Paul Sartre discovered a similar truth about his own secular deity, Fidel Castro. “Castro,” he noted, “is at the same time the island, the men, the cattle, and the earth. He is the whole island.”[2] Father Daniel Berrigan, meanwhile,  contended that Hanoi’s prime minister Pham Van Dong was an individual “in whom complexity dwells, in whom daily issues of life and death resound; a face of great intelligence, and yet also of great reserves of compassion . . . he had dared to be a humanist in an inhuman time.”[3]

The objects of all this adoration, of course, were despotic mass murderers. One crucial question, therefore, surfaces: what exactly inspires a person, and an entire mass movement, to deify a monstrous tyrant as a father-god who transcends the singular and encompasses, as Sartre put it, all the people and their land? The answer to this question helps illuminate the contemporary Left’s romance with Islamist jihadists, just as it helps crystallize the Left’s alliance with the most vicious totalitarians of the twentieth century.

The believer’s totalitarian journey begins with an acute sense of alienation from his own society—an alienation to which he is, himself, completely blind. In denial about the character flaws that prevent him from bonding with his own people, the believer has convinced himself that there is something profoundly wrong with his society—and that it can be fixed without any negative trade-offs. He fantasizes about building a perfect society where he will, finally, fit in. As Eric Hoffer noted in his classic The True Believer, “people with a sense of fulfillment think it is a good world and would like to conserve it as it is, while the frustrated favor radical change.”[4]

A key ingredient of this paradigm is that the believer has failed to rise to the challenges of secular modernity; he has not established real and lasting interpersonal relationships or internalized any values that help him find meaning in life. Suffering from a spiritual emptiness, of which he himself is not cognizant, the believer forces non-spiritual solutions onto his spiritual problems. He exacerbates this dysfunction by trying to satisfy his every material need, which the great benefits of modernity and capitalism allow—but the more luxuries he manages to acquire, the more desperate he becomes. We saw this with the counterculture leftists of the sixties and seventies, and we see it with the radical leftists of today. Convinced that it is incumbent upon society, and not him, to imbue his life with purpose, the believer becomes indignant; he scapegoats his society—and ends up despising and rejecting it.[5]

Just like religious folk, the believer espouses a faith, but his is a secular one. He too searches for personal redemption—but of an earthly variety. The progressive faith, therefore, is a secular religion. And this is why socialism’s dynamics constitute a mutated carbon copy of Judeo-Christian imagery. Socialism’s secular utopian vision includes a fall from an ideal collective brotherhood, followed by a journey through a valley of oppression and injustice, and then ultimately a road toward redemption.[6]

In rejecting his own society, the believer spurns the values of democracy and individual freedom, which are anathema to him, since he has miserably failed to cope with both the challenges they pose and the possibilities they offer. Tortured by his personal alienation, which is accompanied by feelings of self-loathing, the believer craves a fairy-tale world where no individuality exists, and where human estrangement is thus impossible. The believer fantasizes about how his own individuality and self will be submerged within the collective whole. Hoffer illuminates this yearning, noting that a mass movement

appeals not to those intent on bolstering and advancing a cherished self, but to those who crave to be rid of an unwanted self. A mass movement attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy the desire for self-advancement, but because it can satisfy the passion for self-renunciation. People who see their lives as irremediably spoiled cannot find a worth-while purpose in self-advancement. They look on self-interest as something tainted and evil; something unclean and unlucky. . . . Their innermost craving is for a new life—a rebirth—or, failing this, a chance to acquire new elements of pride, confidence, a sense of purpose and worth by an identification with a holy cause. An active mass movement offers them opportunities for both.[7]

As history has tragically recorded, this “holy cause” follows a road that leads not to an earthly paradise, but rather to an earthly hell in all of its manifestations. The political faith rejects the basic reality of the human condition—that human beings are flawed and driven by self-interest—and rests on the erroneous assumption that humanity is malleable and can be reshaped into a more perfect form. This premise spawned the nightmarish repressions and genocidal campaigns of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and other Communist dictators in the twentieth century. Under their rule, more than a hundred million human beings were sacrificed on the altar where a new man would ostensibly be created.[8]

The believer, of course, is completely uninterested in the terrifying ramifications of his pernicious ideas. Preoccupied only with alleviating his own personal pain, he is indifferent to what effect the totalitarian experiments actually have. That is why the Left never looks back.[9]

It is crucial to emphasize, however, that the believer is indifferent to the consequences of his own ideology only in the sense that he needs to deny them in public. This is because he fears that their exposure will delegitimize his pursuit of his own neurotic urges. The believer therefore consistently denies what is actually happening within the totalisms he worships. Even if it is proven to him that his revolutionary idols perpetrate mass oppression and slaughter, he will take pains not to speak of it. But privately he approves of the carnage; indeed, that is what attracts him in the first place. The believer is well aware that violence is necessary to clear the way for the earthly paradise for which he longs. But he is careful never to acknowledge the actual process of destruction, and to always label it the opposite of what it actually is. Thus, in public, the believer pretends he is attracted to “peace,” “social justice,” and “equality.”

The lust for destruction is at the root of Marxism. In Marx’s apocalyptic mindset, catastrophe gives rise, ultimately, to a new, perfect world. And so it is no surprise that Marx often invoked, as he did in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoléon, a dictum of Goethe’s devil: “Everything that exists deserves to perish.” Marxism, of course, did not disappoint in that part of its promise, earnestly wreaking the mass death and destruction its architect intended.[10] It is this same dreadful formula of thought that led to the Left’s post-9/11 attraction to the ruins of Ground Zero.

While he dreams of destruction, the believer compensates for his lonely madness by telling himself that he is not estranged, but is actually a member of a vast community. The reality, however, is that all of his supposed friendships are with other estranged people, and he establishes no genuine, intimate ties outside the politics of the radical faith. Indeed, believers’ friendships are seldom based on what they might actually like about each other as human beings; they are based only on how their political beliefs conform to one another’sAs Che Guevara, Fidel’s executioner, stated it: “My friends are friends only so long as they think as I do politically.”[11] This is why believers so readily accept the fact that their “friends” may be eliminated for the idea if they are deemed to stand in its way. As we will see in chapter 3, for instance, the American fellow traveler Anna Louise Strong and the Stalinist German writer Bertolt Brecht, two typical believers, were completely undisturbed by the arrests and deaths of their friends in the Stalinist purges.

The political faith, therefore, is not at all a search for the truth. It is a movement. For the believer, consequently, changing his views becomes nearly inconceivable, since doing so means losing his entire community and, therefore, his personal identity: he is by necessity relegated to “non-person” status. Even so, many believers have gathered the courage to abandon the movement. The believers who have walked through this leftist valley of membership death include, in our time, David Horowitz, Ronald Radosh, Eugene Genovese, Phyllis Chesler, and Tammy Bruce.[12]

Horowitz has profoundly described the dark reality of how the ties between progressives include few actual human connections and are formed mostly on commitments to the same political abstractions.[13] He recollects the haunting experience of attending his father’s memorial service, during which not a single “friend” of his father (a Communist) named anything he knew or liked about Phil Horowitz personally:

The memories of the people who had gathered in my mother’s living room were practically the only traces of my father still left on this earth. But when they finally began to speak, what they said was this: Your father was a man who tried his best to make the world a better place. . . And that was all they said. People who had known my father since before I was born, who had been his comrades and intimate friends, could not remember a particular fact about him, could not really remember him. All that was memorable to them in the actual life my father had lived—all that was real—were the elements that conformed to their progressive Idea. My father’s life was invisible to the only people who had ever been close enough to see who he was.[14]

The believer attempts to fill the void left by the lack of real human connection with a supposed love for humanity as a whole. The believer loves people from a distance, though he hates individuals up close and in particular. The human beings he imagines he loves, meanwhile, become part of his fantasy community.

These people whom the believer loves from a distance are always the supposed victims of capitalism and American “imperialism.” He agonizes over their suffering and revels in the moral indignation he feels about it. This dynamic is reinforced by the megalomania and narcissism from which most believers suffer. Convinced that the world revolves around him, the believer clings to the notion that the suffering of capitalism’s supposed victims is somehow his personal business. And to legitimize his identification with them, he envisions himself to be a victim of capitalist oppression as well. Meanwhile, by condemning his own society, he provides himself not only a sense of belonging with the other supposed victims, but also a feeling of moral superiority that helps counteract the humiliation he experiences as a result of his real-life estrangement.

A self-reinforcing circle emerges: the more victimized the believer envisions himself to be, the closer he feels to the supposed victims of capitalism; the more the victims of capitalism suffer, the greater the indignation the believer can feel through his empathy for them. The more victims there are to identify with, the larger the community the believer belongs to. It becomes clear why the existence (real or imagined) of the impoverished and alienated classes under capitalism is so vital for the believer. His entire identity is wrapped up in his vision of their victimization.

Guilt is instrumental in the rotation of this circle. Usually coming from and/or occupying a position of privilege, the believer is guilt-ridden about his material comfort and high social status. Ashamed that he is not a genuine victim, he creates the myth that he is. By making himself a member, in his imagination, of the poor, the oppressed, and the downtrodden, he feels a sense of atonement. He is paying his karmic debt by being a believer.

In this way the believer keeps his delusions secure. Yet because those delusions are founded on the shakiest of ground, the leftist must be extremely rigid in denying basic, common-sense realities (e.g., Communism is evil, al-Qaeda is a terrorist enemy that needs to be fought, and so on). If a leftist were to admit these things, his belief system would collapse entirely.

Thus the desperation with which the believer clings to his belief system becomes understandable. It fuels the rage and fury that is already at the root of his psychological makeup. At this point, another dynamic element enters the circle: the rage that manifests itself in the need to hold onto the belief system meshes with the rage that gave life to the belief system in the first place.

We can now gauge why believers cheered the 9/11 hijackers and intimately identified with them. The act of the hijackers confirmed, in the believers’ minds, the existence of an oppressed class—which legitimized their rage against America. They saw the hijackers as people who not only were performing a noble and necessary duty (i.e., dealing a deadly blow to America), but also were, like them, members of the poor, the oppressed, and the downtrodden classes. Thus the believers lived vicariously through the hijackers’ violent strike against the supposed oppressors.

Meanwhile, the believer is utterly indifferent to the real-life suffering of the actual human beings victimized by the regimes that he glorifies. The victims of adversarial ideologies do not fit into the believer’s agenda, and so they do not matter and are not, ultimately, even human in his eyes.[15] Because they are not human for him, the believer sees them as enemies and, therefore, supports their extermination. Once again, in the mutated Judeo-Christian imagery, blood cleanses the world of its injustices and then redeems it—transforming it into a place where the believer will finally find a comfortable home.

Beneath the believer’s veneration of the despotic enemy lies one of his most powerful yearnings: to submit his whole being to a totalist entity. This psychological dynamic involves negative identification, whereby a person who has failed to identify positively with his own environment subjugates his individuality to a powerful, authoritarian entity, through which he vicariously experiences a feeling of power and purpose. The historian David Potter dissects this phenomenon:

. . . most of us, if not all of us, fulfill ourselves and realize our own identities as persons through our relations with others; we are, in a sense, what our community, or as some sociologists would say, more precisely, what our reference group, recognizes us as being. If it does not recognize us, or if we do not feel that it does, or if we are confused as to what the recognition is, then we become not only lonely, but even lost, and profoundly unsure of our identity. We are driven by this uncertainty into a somewhat obsessive effort to discover our identity and to make certain of it. If this quest proves too long or too difficult, the need for identity becomes psychically very burdensome and the individual may be driven to escape this need by renouncing his own identity and surrendering himself to some seemingly greater cause outside himself.[16]

This surrender to the totality involves the believer’s craving not only to relinquish his individuality to a greater whole but also, ideally, to sacrifice his life for it. Lusting for his own self-extinction, the believer craves martyrdom for the idea. As Hoffer points out, the opportunity to die for the cause gives meaning to the believer’s desire to shed his inner self: “a substitute embraced in moderation cannot supplant and efface the self we want to forget. We cannot be sure that we have something worth living for unless we are ready to die for it.”[17]

Believers’ desire to give up their lives for the cause therefore unsurprisingly pervades the Left’s history. The sixties radicals are typical of this phenomenon. Jerry Rubin’s Do It, for instance, is rife with the veneration of death. At one point, he and a mob of fellow radicals block the path of a police car carrying a Berkeley activist who had violated the university’s rules. Describing what became a thirty-two-hour ordeal, Rubin writes:

As we surrounded the car, we became conscious that we were a new community with the power and love to confront the old institutions. Our strength was our willingness to die together, our unity. . . . Thirty-two hours later, we heard the grim roar of approaching Oakland motorcycle cops behind us. I took a deep breath. “Well, this is as good a place to die as any.”[18]

In another scene described by Rubin, an activist lies face down on a train track in Berkeley to stop a train from taking American GIs to the Oakland Army Terminal. With great awe, Rubin recounts how this person would have died if not for four fellow activists who hauled him off the tracks a second before the train roared through.[19]

The phenomenon of believers’ supporting death cults, and idealizing their own martyrdom, has carried into the era of the terror war. The murder by Iraqi terrorists of American hostage Tom Fox in March 2006 is a perfect example of this phenomenon. Fox was among four members of the leftist group Christian Peacemaker Teams who were kidnapped in Iraq in November 2005. The group consistently speaks of its longing for death in its supposed quest for peace, and it is no coincidence that Fox died at the hands of the terrorists he was supporting.[20] Similarly, the leftists who set out to serve as human shields for Saddam, or the International Solidarity Movement activists who stood in front of Israeli soldiers, were not engaged in anything new, but just continuing a long leftist tradition.

Another element of the believer’s diagnosis is the desperate search for the feeling of power, to help him counteract the powerlessness he feels in his own life. This is connected, in part, to the lessening of authority in Western society, which leads believers to scapegoat their own society and forge alliances with the authority represented by adversarial despotic regimes. This explains, as Potter notes, the progressives’ cult around Mao Tse-tung and “the compulsive expressions of adoration for a Hitler or a Stalin.” He writes,

Negative identification is itself a highly motivated, compensation-seeking form of societal estrangement. Sometimes when identification with a person fails, a great psychological void remains, and to fill this void people incapable of genuine interpersonal relationships will identify with an abstraction. An important historical instance of identification with abstract power has been the zealous support of totalitarian regimes by faceless multitudes of people. The totalitarian display of power for its own sake satisfies the impulse to identify with strength.[21]

In our contemporary terror war, the believer has filled the void left by Communism’s disappearance with radical Islam. Instead of living vicariously through the oppression imposed by the KGB or the Red Guards, the believer now satisfies his yearnings through the violence perpetrated by suicide bombers. There is a balance in this scale. The less brutal an ideology is, the less interest the average believer has in it and the less praise he is inclined to give it. By contrast, when the death cult is in full gear, the believer supports it most strongly. As will be demonstrated in Part II, the fellow travelers always flocked to Communist regimes in largest numbers when the mass murder had reached a peak—Stalin’s terror, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot’s killing fields. And as Part IV will reveal, the Left’s rallying cry for militant Islam is loudest when the terrorists are waging their most ferocious campaigns against innocent civilians.

Rejecting the personal freedom that comes with modernity in a democratic society, the believer yearns for uniformity, stability, and purpose. Indeed, as will be shown in Part II, the fellow travelers who visited Communist countries consistently referred to the “sense of purpose” they imagined they saw on people’s faces—which they somehow never witnessed on faces in their own society. American sociologist Paul Hollander explains how these hallucinations are rooted in a “crisis of meaning”:

. . . the restlessness of estranged intellectuals and the hostility of the adversary culture are in all probability generalized responses to the discontents of life in a thoroughly modernized, wealthy, secular, and individualistic society where making life meaningful requires great ongoing effort and remains a nagging problem—at any rate for those whose attention does not have to be riveted on the necessities of survival.[22]

The believer’s attraction to vicious adversarial cultures is also fed by a simple dynamic: he admires whomever his own society disapproves of and fears. As the enemy of his own society, the adversarial society is also the enemy of all the things the believer claims he hates therein (materialism, racism, sexism, homophobia, poverty, etc.).[23] The historical evidence, however, proves that the believer is not truly concerned with these social ills at all, seeing that these are always far worse in the adversarial societies—and this is especially true of militant Islam.

The believer’s idolization of an alien culture goes back farther, of course, than the twentieth century. Alienated Western intellectuals have always dreamt of a foreign place they imagined as being better and purer than their own society. The idea of the “noble savage” was formulated in the late seventeenth century, but it is most closely associated with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who saw man in the “state of nature” as essentially pure and good—before society corrupted him with greed and private property. The noble savage, in this paradigm, is born free and has not been shackled by the chains of civilization.

Following Rousseau, left-wing Western intellectuals have habitually looked to the Third World for personifications of primeval innocence. To alienated intellectuals of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the noble savage represented everything that Western man was not. And since these intellectuals felt displaced in their own societies, they envisioned the noble savage as a guide who could help them navigate the stormy seas of life toward beachheads of meaning, satisfaction, and happiness. The classic case was Margaret Mead’s 1928 bestseller, Coming of Age in Samoa, which became the Left’s bible.[24] Mead’s fantasies about a guilt-free sexual utopia were typical of the Western intellectual’s dreams about the noble savage.

To be sure, there wasn’t anything actually noble about the savage. And the believers knew that. But that is precisely why they admired him. They desired to harness his savagery in order to destroy all of their own society’s modernity and freedom—as did the 9/11 terrorists who transformed the World Trade Center into Ground Zero.

Thus the savage represented an idealized and mythical purity, but also the potential for destruction, which, as we have seen, the believer imagines to be the only path to renewed purity on earth. This is why Communism and the Third World blurred into each other as objects of affection for believers. As Hollander notes,

Certainly, the appeal China, Cuba, and North Vietnam had to the eyes of many Western intellectuals was part of the more general appeal of the Third World. Underdevelopment in the eyes of such beholders is somewhat like innocence. The underdeveloped is uncorrupted, untouched by the evils of industrialization and urbanization, by the complexities of modern life, the taint of trade, commerce, and industry. Thus, underdevelopment and Third World status are, like childhood, easily associated or confused with freshness, limitless possibilities, and wholesale simplicity.[25]

Therefore, the manner in which Western intellectuals idealized the noble savage serves as a crucial lens through which to observe how the longing for purity and innocence leads the believer to a lust for death. Unable to cope with the confusion, risks, and challenges inherent in individual freedom, the believer dreams of a world where, as a child again, he will be taken care of by a father-god who has everything under control and can make the decisions. The road to this fairy-tale world, in turn, can only be paved with human corpses.

The writings of believers are filled with allusions to the necessity of this violent destruction before the secular utopia can be built. In his introduction to Rubin’s Do It, Black Panther Eldridge Cleaver affirms: “If everybody did exactly what Jerry suggests in this book—if everybody carried out Jerry’s program—there would be immediate peace in the world.” Suffice it to say that Rubin’s “program” consists of chaotic and scattered expressions of rage that have no unifying theme other than the desire to annihilate civil society. This is why Cleaver emphasizes that he can “unite” with Rubin “around hatred of pig judges, around hatred of capitalism, around the total desire to smash what is now the social order in the United States of Amerikaaround the dream of building something new and fresh upon its ruins.”[26] In other words, the “peace” that Cleaver and Rubin long for is the kind of peace that can be built only on Ground Zero.

In their yearning for a new earth, many Western intellectuals were also attracted to Fascism,[27] the ideological cousin of Communism and Islamism. Communism, of course, had a more popular appeal, since it possessed the reputation (albeit totally undeserved) of being on the side of humanity. But many believers could have gone either way. Indeed, many of the modern Left’s ideas are rooted in Fascism, especially in the ideology and practices of Benito Mussolini.[28] And the cult of sadism embodied in Hitler tempted their ideological appetites. Author Paul Berman reflects on Nazism’s glorification of death:

On the topic of death, the Nazis were the purest of the pure, the most aesthetic, the boldest, the greatest of executioners, and yet the greatest and most sublime of death’s victims, too—people who, in Baudelaire’s phrase, knew how to feel the revolution in both ways. Suicide was, after all, the final gesture of the Nazi elite in Berlin. Death, in their eyes, was not just for others, and at the final catastrophe in 1945 the Nazi leaders dutifully converted their safehouses into mini-Auschwitzes of their own.[29]

Because the believer possesses so many of these dysfunctions and adopts so many embarrassing political dispositions to safeguard them, remaining in denial takes on a life-and-death importance. Everything is at stake when a political or social reality is confronted. More than anything, the believer must constantly rationalize the annoying presence of human happiness around him. Common people who are happy with their circumstances, and who do not see themselves as victims, pose a serious threat to the believer’s imagined community membership and thus to his personal identity. In response, the believer must tell himself that these individuals are content with their own society only because they have been brainwashed. In other words, they think they are happy, but in fact they are not. They are ruled by a “false consciousness” that capitalist forces have instilled in them, and they can only be liberated from this mental enslavement by the revolution that the believers have appointed themselves to lead.

For the radical, experiencing joy means succumbing to this false consciousness and becoming distracted from the constant vigilance necessary to launch a revolutionary battle. This is why Lenin refused to listen to music, since, as he explained: “it makes you want to say stupid, nice things and stroke the heads of people who could create such beauty while living in this vile hell.”[30] For Lenin violent revolution was the priority—a priority endangered by the emotions music could induce.

Needing to remain angry and full of gloom no matter how comfortable and joyful life in a free society might truly be, the believer invariably holds his own society to full moral accountability, but never does the same for enemy societies. The clear implication is that his society is actually superior, since it must be held to a higher standard. But the leftist must assiduously deny this implication, lest he be forced to confront the bigotry on which his own belief system is based.

To keep this toxic mindset in place, the believer must convince himself that he knows something that ordinary human beings do not. He is above ordinary human desires and affairs. Thus, as Hollander shows, leftwing intellectuals have perfected the procedure of appointing themselves the moral antennae of the human race.[31] Once again, we come full circle to the dark forces that make the progressive gravitate toward genocide: because believers consider themselves to be higher life forms, their inferiors become not only expendable, but necessary waste. They are nothing more than obstacles to the creation of Ground Zero and the subsequent rebuilding.

This is where the Western Left and militant Islam (like the Western Left and Communism) intersect: human life must be sacrificed for the sake of the idea. Like Islamists, leftists have a Manichean vision that rigidly distinguishes good from evil. They see themselves as personifications of the former and their opponents as personifications of the latter, who must be slated for ruthless elimination.

As Parts III and IV will demonstrate, both Islamists and Western leftists thus see America as the Great Satan. In the American tradition, the sanctity of the individual, his freedom, and his life come before any political institution. Henry David Thoreau wrote at the close of his famous essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience”: “There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived.”[32] In this formula, the sacredness of the individual is the political faith. For the believer and the Islamist, such a formula is anathema. The individual’s right to pursue happiness, enshrined in America’s foundations, interferes with the building of the perfect, unified social order; human joy and cheer are tacit endorsements of the present order that both leftist and Islamist utopians want to destroy.

The puritanical nature of totalist systems (whether Fascist, Communist, or Islamist) is another manifestation of this phenomenon. In Stalinist Russia, sexual pleasure was portrayed as unsocialist and counter-revolutionary.[33] More recent Communist societies have also waged war on sexuality—a war that Islamism wages with similar ferocity. These totalist structures cannot survive in environments filled with self-interested, pleasure-seeking individuals who prioritize devotion to other individual human beings over the collective and the state. Because the believer viscerally hates the notion and reality of personal love and “the couple,” he champions the enforcement of totalitarian puritanism by the regimes he worships.

The famous twentieth-century novels of dystopia, Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We, George Orwell’s 1984, and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, all powerfully depict totalitarian society’s assault on the realm of personal love in its violent attempt to dehumanize human beings and completely subject them to its rule. Yet as these novels demonstrate, no tyranny’s attempt to turn human beings into obedient robots can fully succeed. There is always someone who has doubts, who is uncomfortable, and who questions the secular deity—even though it would be safer for him to conform like everyone else. The desire that thus overcomes the instinct for self-preservation is erotic passion. And that is why love presents such a threat to the totalitarian order: it dares to serve itself. It is a force more powerful than the all-pervading fear that a totalitarian order needs to impose in order to survive.[34] By forbidding private love and affection, social engineers make the road toward earthly redemption much less serpentine.

As Part II will demonstrate, believers have been inspired by this form of tyranny in the Soviet Union, Communist China, and Communist North Vietnam, just as they have turned a blind eye to Castro’s persecution of homosexuals. Believers were especially enthralled with the desexualized dress that the Maoist regime imposed on its citizens. This at once satisfied the believer’s desire for enforced sameness and the imperative of erasing attractions between private citizens.

The Maoists’ unisex clothing finds its parallel in fundamentalist Islam’s mandate for shapeless coverings to be worn by both males and females. The collective “uniform” symbolizes submission to a higher entity and frustrates individual expression, mutual physical attraction, and private connection and affection. Once again, the believer remains not only uncritical, but completely supportive, of this totalitarian puritanism.

This is exactly why, forty years ago, the Weather Underground not only waged war against American society through violence and mayhem, but also waged war on private love within its own ranks. Bill Ayers, one of the leading terrorists in the group, argued in a speech defending the campaign: “Any notion that people can have responsibility for one person, that they can have that ‘out’—we have to destroy that notion in order to build a collective; we have to destroy all ‘outs,’ to destroy the notion that people can lean on one person and not be responsible to the entire collective.”[35] Thus, the Weather Underground destroyed any signs of monogamy within its ranks and forced couples, some of whom had been together for years, to admit their “political error” and split apart. Like their icon Margaret Mead, they fought the notions of romantic love, jealousy, and other “oppressive” manifestations of one-on-one intimacy and commitment. This was followed by forced group sex and “national orgies,” whose main objective was to crush the spirit of individualism.[36] This constituted an eerie replay of the sexual promiscuity that was encouraged (while private love was forbidden) in We1984, and Brave New World.[37]

Valentine’s Day—a day devoted to the love between a man and a woman—is a natural target for both the Left and Islamism. As we shall see in chapter 10, imams around the world thunder against Valentine’s Day every year, and its celebration is outlawed in Islamist states. In the West, feminist leftists especially hate Valentine’s Day. Jane Fonda has led the campaign to transform it into “V-Day” (“Violence against Women Day”)—a day of hate, featuring a mass indictment of men.[38] The objective is clear: to shatter any celebration of the intimacy that a man can hold with a woman, for that bond is inaccessible to the order. This impulse is also manifest when Western believers dedicate themselves to the cause of “transgenderism”—the effort to erase “gender,” which they believe is an oppressive social construct imposed by capitalism.

It becomes clear why totalitarian puritanism has taken on crucial significance in the terror war. As we shall see in more detail in Parts III and IV, Islamism, like its Communist cousin, wages a ferocious war on any kind of private and unregulated love. In the case of Islamism, the reality is epitomized its monstrous structures of gender apartheid and the terror that keeps it in place (from mandatory veiling and forced marriage to female genital mutilation and honor killings). Militant Islam’s ruthless persecution of homosexuality, a mirror image of Castro’s, is part and parcel of this phenomenon. Thus, while posing as the champions of gay rights and women’s rights, believers now ally themselves with the barbaric deniers of these rights.

All these ingredients in the believer’s psyche contribute to the contemporary Left’s romance with militant Islam, just as they engendered the believers’ love affair with Communist regimes throughout the twentieth century. That love affair is exemplified best by the pilgrimages that fellow travelers embarked on, wandering from one brutal despotism to the next. In order to give the context for the story of the Left’s dalliance with Islamism, we must first tell that haunting tale.

Notes:

[1] Joseph E. Davies, Mission to Moscow (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1941), p. 217.

[2] Quoted in Humberto Fontova, Fidel: Hollywood’s Favorite Tyrant (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2005), p. 11.

[3] Daniel Berrigan, Night Flight to Hanoi (New York: Macmillan, 1968), pp. 125 and 130.

[4] Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (New York: Harper and Row, 1951), p. 6.

[5] For a comprehensive analysis of the how the leftist rejects his society for his own failure to find meaning in life, see Paul Hollander’s masterpieces, Political Pilgrims: Travels of Western Intellectuals to the Soviet Union, China, & Cuba 1928–1978 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1981) and Anti-Americanism: Critiques at Home & Abroad, 1965–1990 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).

[6] See David Horowitz’s essay “The Religious Roots of Radicalism” in his book The Politics of Bad Faith, pp. 115–137.

[7] Hoffer, The True Believer, pp. 12–13.

[8] For a succinct compilation of Communism’s crimes and death toll in each country, see Stéphane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Margolin, Sylvain Boulougue, Pascal Fontaine, Rémi Kauffer, Pierre Rigoulet, and Yves Santamaria, The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, trans. Jonathan Murphy and Mark Kramer (Cambridge, Mass., and London: Harvard University Press, 1999).

[9] For an excellent discussion of the Left’s failure to deal with the historical meaning and future implications of Communism’s collapse, see Horowitz, The Politics of Bad Faith.

[10] For one of the best works on how Marx’s dark vision—and the morbid ingredients of his own personal life—laid the foundation for Marxist terror, see the chapter titled “Karl Marx: Howling Gigantic Curses,” in Paul Johnson, Intellectuals (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1988), pp. 52–82.

[11] Quoted in Fontova, Fidel, p. 77.

[12] The writers in The God That Failed—Arthur Koestler, Ignazio Silone, Richard Wright, André Gide, Louis Fischer, and Stephen Spender—represented the first generation that broke with the political faith and were dehumanized by their former comrades. See Richard Crossman, ed., The God That Failed (New York: Harper and Row, 1963). Yet while these individuals broke with Communism, many of them did so by rejecting Stalinism while holding onto a belief in a “democratic socialism.” David Horowitz and others, however, made a complete break with their past. Horowitz gives the most powerful testimony to the ordeal of breaking with the faith in his memoir, Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey (New York: Free Press, 1997).

[13] See the compilation of Horowitz’s best work in David Horowitz, Left Illusions: An Intellectual Odyssey (Dallas: Spence, 2003).

[14] Horowitz, The Politics of Bad Faith, p. 56.

[15] The best works analyzing the Left’s callous indifference to the victims of Communism are Hollander’s Political Pilgrims and Anti-Americanism.

[16] David Potter, History and American Society (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973), p. 307.

[17] Hoffer, The True Believer, p. 16.

[18] Jerry Rubin, Do It: Scenarios of the Revolution (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1970), p. 22.

[19] Ibid., pp. 35–36.

[20] The Christian Peacemaker Teams’ website is www.cpt.org. See chapter 16 for more details.

[21] Potter, History and American Society, p. 381.

[22] Hollander, Anti-Americanism, p. 468.

[23] Hollander, Political Pilgrims, p. 8.

[24] Inspired by her mentor, the leftist utopian Franz Boas, Mead embarked on her 1925–26 voyage to Samoa hungry to find a sexually liberated society where young people didn’t go through the difficult phases of adolescent sexual adjustment characteristic of “repressed” Western youth. She “discovered” everything she sought: Samoans found romantic love silly and were nonchalant about infidelity, divorce, homosexuality, and so on. As common sense suggested and later evidence confirmed, Mead’s “discoveries” were all false. The adolescent girls who were her informants made up the sorts of stories they sensed she wanted to hear. As anthropologist Derek Freeman concluded, Mead’s work represents the worst example of “self-deception in the history of the behavioral sciences.” See Derek Freeman, Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983).

[25] Hollander, Political Pilgrims, p. 23.

[26] Rubin, Do It, pp. 7–8.

[27] Alastair Hamilton, The Appeal of Fascism: A Study of Intellectuals and Fascism, 1919–1945 (London: A. Blond, 1971). See also Richard M. Griffiths, Fellow Travellers of the Right: British Enthusiasts for Nazi Germany, 1933–1939 (London: Constable, 1980).

[28] For an excellent essay on the modern Left’s Fascist origins, see John Ray, “Left-wing Fascism: An Intellectual Disorder,” FrontPageMag.com, October 22, 2002. David Horowitz has shown how Nazi intellectuals, notably Martin Heidegger, have had an immense influence on the Left’s vision. See Horowitz, “The Left after Communism,” in The Politics of Bad Faith, pp. 36–39. See also Robert Conquest’s discussion of how Fascist and Communist totalitarianism blur into one another in The Dragons of Expectation: Reality and Delusion in the Course of History (New York: W. W. Norton, 2005), pp. 11–21.

[29] Paul Berman, Terror and Liberalism (New York: W. W. Norton, 2003), p. 45.

[30] Quoted in Paul Johnson, Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Eighties (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1983), p. 51.

[31] Hollander, Political Pilgrims, pp. 44–45.

[32] Henry David Thoreau, Walden and On the Duty of Civil Disobedience (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1854, 1961 ed). p. 304.

[33] For a succinct discussion of the Soviet anti-sexual revolution, see Ernst Pawel, “Sex under Socialism,” Commentary, September 1965, pp. 90–95.

[34] In Zamyatin’s We, the earliest of these three novels, the despotic regime keeps human beings in line by giving them license for regulated sexual promiscuity, while private love is illegal. The hero breaks the rules with a woman who seduces him—not only into forbidden love but also into a counterrevolutionary struggle. In the end, the totality forces the hero, like the rest of the world’s population, to undergo the Great Operation, which annihilates the part of the brain that gives life to passion and imagination, and therefore spawns the potential for love. In Orwell’s 1984, the main character ends up being tortured and broken at the Ministry of Love for having engaged in the outlawed behavior of unregulated love. In Huxley’s Brave New World, promiscuity is encouraged—everyone has sex with everyone else under regime rules, but no one is allowed to make a deep and independent private connection.

[35] Quoted in Peter Collier and David Horowitz, Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts about the Sixties (New York: Free Press, 1996), pp. 85–86.

[36] Ibid., pp. 86–87.

[37] Horowitz, “The Religious Roots of Radicalism,” pp. 115–137.

[38] David Horowitz, “V-Day, 2001,” in Left Illusions, pp. 315–318.

The Road of Good Intentions and the Vested Interest in Race Consiousness

Jason Riley illustrates that old adage about the pavement on the road to hell in a reportorial account that reads with the ease of a memoir.  This book is something of a compact sequel to many by Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele who have busted destructive liberal myths about race.  In six succinct chapters Riley deals with the issues of politics, culture, crime, labor, education, and affirmative action.  He uses personal anecdotes and research to show how liberal policies have harmed instead of helped blacks.

Unlike Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele, to whom the book is dedicated, Riley had the benefits of growing up after implementation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  Wrong-headed court rulings, legislation, and the encouragement of destructive behavior, however, nullified the benefits that should have accrued for the black community.

Griggs v. Duke Power in 1971 on the “disparate impact” from the employer’s requirement of a high-school diploma and minimal IQ scores is one such ruling.  It replaced equal opportunity with equal results, thus fundamentally taking away the incentives needed for long-term success.

Riley knows from firsthand experience what such misguided policies do.  He grew up in Buffalo in the 1980s.  His parents, although divorced, stayed involved (especially important in the case of his father) and moved from a black inner-city neighborhood to a largely white suburb.  Unfortunately, Riley’s two sisters and best friend succumbed to the culture that is increasingly more difficult to escape.  He did not and went on to join the Wall Street Journal, where he now sits on the editorial board.

The influence of Thomas Sowell’s clear-headed approach is evident in each of the book’s chapters.  In the first one, “Black Man in the White House,” Riley illustrates how political power among black and other ethnic groups (namely, the Irish) has not translated directly into well-being for the group.  Between 1940 and 1960 the black poverty rate fell from 87 percent to 47 percent, but between 1972 and 2011 it declined only from 32 percent to 28 percent and remained three times the white rate.  Demands for political racial power have resulted in gerrymandered black districts that have increased polarization and decreased the well-being of most blacks.  For example, the racial preference programs in hiring and contracting instituted by successive black mayors in Atlanta have not translated into advantages for average blacks and the black underclass.

In chapter two, “Culture Matters,” Riley relates the pressures placed on him while growing up to not “act white,” e.g., to speak ungrammatically and neglect school work.  Added to this is the message of victimization by the NAACP, the National Urban League, and most black politicians.  Such messages lead to an achievement gap between black and white students even in affluent suburbs, like Shaker Heights, near Cleveland, Ohio, as John Ogbu, professor of anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, found in his study, Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement.

The third chapter, “The Enemy Within,” is a devastating critique of black crime, the overwhelming majority of it black-on-black.  Riley speaks from the experience of being stopped by police because of looking like a criminal suspect.  Sadly, given crime statistics, police go on probability, as do black store owners.  Riley connects increasing crime rates–by 139 percent during the 1960s—to the expansion of criminal defendants’ rights: “In the 1950s, when segregation was legal, overt racism was rampant, and black poverty was much higher than today, black crime rates were lower and blacks comprised a smaller percentage of the prison population.”   Riley addresses outrageous claims that equate incarceration to slavery and Jim Crow by “celebrated academics,” such as Michelle Alexander, and asks “is it any great shock that black people without advanced degrees have less sympathy for black thugs?”

In the subsequent chapter, “Mandating Unemployment” Riley connects minimum wage laws to their origins by unions that wanted to exclude black labor and use upward pressure for their own wages.  The unemployment rate for young black men began exceeding that of young white men when the minimum wage law was amended to catch up with inflation in 1950.  There are more statistics: only 5 percent of hourly workers earn minimum wage, and most are 25 or younger and work part-time.  An increase typically benefits not the single mother in the ghetto but the suburban teenager.

In his chapter entitled “Educational Freedom,” Riley lays out how teachers unions act out of self-interest to increase their own numbers, driving up costs of education.  They give vast sums to Democratic candidates in exchange for favors.  In spite of an increase in federal per-pupil spending by an inflation-adjusted 375 percent between 1970 and 2010, the learning gap between black and white students remains what it was in 1970.  Presenting the improved academic performance of some Harlem charter schools as evidence, Riley proposes school choice as a viable solution.

Lastly, the chapter “Affirmative Discriminations” shows how race-based affirmative college admissions harm intended beneficiaries like the black law-school graduates who fail the bar exam at four times the white rate.  Riley quips, “Michigan’s law school likes to tout its diversity, but is it doing black students any favors by admitting them with lower standards and setting them up to fail?” Affirmative action harms the reputation of blacks across the board, as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas found out when employers assumed that he had benefited from preferential treatment.

Some of Riley’s observations will be familiar to readers of Thomas Sowell’s excellent work.  But Riley marshals the evidence into a compact account, told from the perspective of a younger generation.  It’s still not working, is the message.  Will liberals listen?

Yes, if they are willing to give up the benefits that such a focus on race grants them.   Riley writes that “underprivileged blacks” have become “playthings for liberal intellectuals and politicians who care more about clearing their conscience or winning votes than advocating behaviors and attitudes that have allowed other groups to get ahead.”

We know what would happen if they did get ahead, if we did become the post-racial society liberals claim to want.

Many academics, pundits, and civil rights leaders would be out of jobs, and the political left would have to find something else to unite around.

Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed
By Jason Riley
Encounter Books, New York, 2014
HB, 205 pages, US $23.99
ISBN: 978-1-59403-725-2
Reviewed by Mary Grabar | September 4, 2014