David Horowitz Taught Conservatives How to Fight

By Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish Blog

 

In the weeks before David Horowitz’s passing, he wrote an article and finished another book. In and out of the hospital, he would call me on the phone to relay another idea for a series or another article about the Left. When we worked together on an article about the leftist fifth column, he was exhausted and I told him we could work on it next week. There would be time. He sighed skeptically, knowing perhaps what we only know now, but also with a note of relief.

I was wrong. He was right.

But of all my mistakes, it was the most understandable. David Horowitz first came down with cancer after 9/11. He wrote about that in ‘The End of Time’. He continued fighting cancer and writing about his experiences facing death in ‘A Point in Time: The Search for Redemption in This Life and the Next‘. He nearly died in 2015 and wrote about that in ‘You’re Going to Be Dead One Day: A Love Story’ and then collected all three together in ‘Mortality and Faith’ in 2019.

David Horowitz fought off cancer for almost a quarter of a century. Even when he went into a coma and the doctors expected him to pass right away, he held on for nearly a week.

The one thing that David would never do is give up.

His superhuman endurance was not physical, it was a matter of conviction. Long after his body had failed, he kept going, writing, thinking, arguing and above all else… fighting.

In his final op-ed, ‘The Biggest Lie of All’, published weeks before his death, David reproved Republicans for underestimating Democrats and the Left. That had been his overriding theme since joining and redefining the conservative movement. “Republicans,” he would tell me over and over again, “don’t understand how to fight.” But that’s no longer entirely true. And much of that is due to him. The passing of David Horowitz is an incalculable loss, but he lived long enough to see the movement he had helped recreate become an actual fighting force.

David Horowitz dismissed the Republican country club circuit for not understanding the enemy. Faced with a movement that seemed clueless about the scope of the Left, he became its ‘Alinsky’, helping spread awareness of ‘Rules for Radicals’ and laying out the tactics and principles for a conservative revolution. Horowitz was dismissive of the think-tanks, many of which later proved to be rotten with Never Trumpers. The Freedom Center, he would say, “is not a think-tank, it’s a battle tank.” David was a great thinker, but he was an even greater warrior.

Horowitz officially made his break when the Reagan Revolution came along because it was his first glimpse of a Republican Party that was willing to fight the Left. David Horowitz was ready for the fight, but too few Republicans were. David Horowitz didn’t just shock liberals when he left their movement, he shocked many Republicans with tactics that they thought were too harsh.

When David Horowitz took the war to college campuses not just with speeches, but by naming and shaming the radical professors and student activists, Republicans feared being accused of McCarthyism. Horowitz, a red-diaper baby, not only dismissed neurotic fears of being called names by leftists, he welcomed the confrontation and was eager to debate them anywhere.

While many Republicans pursued respectability politics and corporate sponsors, Horowitz built the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, and later the David Horowitz Freedom Center, into the epicenter of a new movement that would later evolve into MAGA. But David was MAGA before there was a MAGA and without the movement he helped build, it might never have come into being.

“Since its formation in 1988, the Freedom Center has helped cultivate a generation of political warriors seeking to upend the Washington establishment. These warriors include some of the most powerful and influential figures in the Trump administration,” the Washington Post wrote in 2017 and urged the IRS to investigate the Center. (The resulting investigation aimed at crippling the Center went on for six years. It only finally concluded shortly before David’s death.)

President Trump’s 2024 victory robbed the Freedom Center’s 2024 Restoration Weekend of some key guests, including Vice President J.D. Vance and the attorney general nominee (Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth however drove four hours to be there.) What made the Weekends so special was that they brought together a rising conservative movement. Not the establishment movement, but a movement as revolutionary and pugnacious as Horowitz.

The Post’s accusation that David Horowitz was the secret mastermind behind the Trump administration was wrong. Horowitz was no mastermind, he was a visionary. He didn’t tell politicians what to do, he taught them how to fight. And he told them not to be ashamed of fighting and broke the moral blackmail and suicidal empathy burned into them by the Left.

Before the Republican Party was ready for Trump, David Horowitz had to teach them how to call the Left by its right names. Traitors. Insurrectionists. The Enemy Within. And he taught them to hit as hard as possible. Leftist institutions didn’t need to be debated, but destroyed. This was not an argument to be settled on a CNN panel, but a war that would end in survival or destruction.

The tragedy is not just that he’s gone, but that he’s missing out on seeing his vision come to life.

David Horowitz had called for defunding the universities. Now President Trump is defunding them. After over a generation of fighting the campus wars, David is not here to see federal law enforcement arresting the student activists who threw things at him and threatened his life. Leftists, he argued, were insurrectionists. Now the Trump administration is considering invoking the Insurrection Act. He had called for a working class minority populist conservative coalition.

Now it’s here.

“Why are Republicans so self-destructively polite? Why do they fail to see, or to identify their opponents as the criminals they are?” he demanded. Now the politeness is finally done with.

David Horowitz paved the way for this victory. He held on just long enough to see President Trump’s first 100 days in office. And as a family man frustrated at times by the gaps between the worldview of his children and his own, he lived long enough to see his son support Trump.

David passed away with the fruits of his lifelong work unfolding all around him. The David Horowitz Freedom Center is the battle tank that will carry it forward. His ideas, his fighting spirit and his determination to never give up lives on within us. Like him, we pull no punches, we tell hard truths and we take on the enemy within. David lived long enough to see America win a great victory over the forces that had brought it to the brink of destruction, but he would have been the first to tell us that the war isn’t over and that the real battle is about to begin.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine. Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.  Thank you for reading.

 

David Horowitz R.I.P.

We are very saddened to announce the passing of our Center’s founder – a giant in the conservative liberty movement for over 40 years.

April 30, 2025 by Frontpage Editors @ Front Page Magazine

Editor's Note:  I've not asked for nor have I received permission to publish this announcement, but I think it needs the broadest distribution possible.  If the Frontpage administration objects, I will delete it.   RK

On behalf of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, we are very saddened to announce the passing of the Center’s founder, David Horowitz. After a lengthy battle with cancer, David passed yesterday at the age of 86.

The Freedom Center’s founder and guiding force was a relentless conservative warrior who survived a previous brush with death (chronicled in his book Mortality and Faith), confrontations with the Black Panthers, campus radicals, government investigations, death threats, and hate campaigns, some led by his former friends and allies, without ever considering giving up or letting up. Nothing short of the end that comes for us all could silence his voice. He continued writing, working, and steering the Center to the very last; his final article, “The Biggest Lie of All,” appeared earlier this month.

Although he was a giant in the conservative liberty movement for over 40 years, David was raised a Marxist and was one of the leading intellectuals of the New Left movement at Berkeley in the 1960’s. But David, along with his writing partner and Freedom Center co-founder Peter Collier, eventually had a political epiphany and joined the side of freedom in the early 1980‘s. They committed the second half of their lives and work warning Americans of the dangers of the Progressives whose intellectual roots and totalitarian aims they understood better than many Leftists themselves.

David’s legacy is vast and the number of people that he inspired, mentored, and impacted is incalculable. That we live in a world today where there is a fighting chance of defeating the Leftist utopians who would enslave us is due in no small measure to the rare courage and unflagging passion that exemplified David’s work these past 40 years.

Over the years, David became something of a Saul Alinsky for the conservative movement, shaking a complacent Right out of its sleep and reinventing it as a war machine, laying out the strategies and principles for defeating the Left in too many bestselling books, articles, and pamphlets to count.

David’s message to the conservative movement was that it needed to abandon its habit of embracing noble failure and instead fight to win. Indeed, Donald Trump’s MAGA movement was shaped and guided by David and his disciples like Stephen Miller. And while his passing is an incalculable loss, David lived long enough to see his ideas and tactics become the heart and soul of a new movement to take back America.

David Horowitz, 1939-2025. Requiescat in pace.

How Should We Regard the President’s Treason?

As an unmentionable subject or an existential threat? 

March 7, 2023 by David Horowitz 59 Comments

In the four years of World War II, 300,000 American soldiers lost their lives, or 75,000 per year. In the last four years, the number of Americans poisoned by fentanyl, has approached that number. These poisons, deliberately designed to kill Americans and especially young Americans, are supplied by China and smuggled across our open southern border by Mexican drug cartels. These attacks have taken place without America’s commander-in-chief issuing a single protest or threat against the governments of Mexico and China, even though his primary responsibility is the protection of American lives.

Nor is this the first deadly assault on American citizens by the Chinese Communist Party – or enabling response by the Biden administration. Over one million Americans were killed by the coronavirus, a biological weapon funded by Dr. Anthony Fauci and America’s Centers for Disease Control, and created in a Chinese military lab in Wuhan. 

The Chinese government lied about the contagious and deadly nature of the virus, and permitted millions of Wuhan inhabitants to travel abroad for the Lunar New Year and infect the globe. Immediately after the World Health Organization formally declared the spread a “pandemic,” President Trump barred Chinese travel to America, an act for which he was viciously attacked by the leaders of the Democrat Party including Joe Biden who described Trump’s precautionary travel ban as “hysterical and xenophobic,” “fear mongering” and “racist.”.............To Read More....

My Former Friends Have Joined the Fascists

A personal tale of the divisions of our time. 

Mon May 10, 2021 David Horowitz 14 comments

Trump derangement is a crippling mental disorder. It turns otherwise capable minds into Munchausen fabulators, so detached from reality that it’s hard to know what world they think they’re in. It leads to accusations like this: “[Trump was] AWOL during the country’s greatest health crisis in a century.”

You can say many things about Donald Trump, and many negative things if you wish, but to call a man AWOL who declared a national health emergency the day after the World Health Organization did the same, banned travel from China, which was the viral source, immediately thereafter, withstood Democrat attacks calling him a racist, a xenophobe and hysteric for this life-saving move; to call a man who supplied record numbers of ventilators, masks and other health paraphernalia that the Obama-Biden White House had depleted and never replaced, who held daily public briefings on the virus with the heads of the CDC, and who performed a political miracle in getting vaccines approved and distributed in record time – to call this man AWOL during the pandemic is tantamount to calling the earth flat and the sky purple.

Yet ignoring Trump’s alleged absence during the pandemic, while joining his “cult,” is exactly the accusation leveled at me in a New Republic cover story by Ron Radosh and Sol Stern, who have called their attack, “Our Friend the Trump Propagandist.”............To Read More....

 

In Defense of Diana West

September 13, 2013 By M. Stanton Evans @ CNSNews

(Editor's Note:  How did the federal government become so infested with leftists?  This article clarifies how that happened during the FDR years, and he had to know it!    

I originally posted this in 2013 as a link.  However, given events as they're unfolding, I think it absolutely important to get as much coverage of this as possible, ergo, I've decided to post the entire piece without permission.  

If CNSNews or M. Stanton Evans object I will adjust it back to a linked article. Also, for transparency sake, I took a public position defending Diana West against Radosh and Horowitz during their irrational and illogical attacks against her, online and in my articles.  

If you haven't read American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character or Stalin's Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt's Government, I wholeheartedly recommend you do so. RK)

Out of the public eye and far from the daily headlines, a fierce verbal battle is currently being waged about the course of American policy in the long death struggle with Moscow that we call the Cold War.

At ground zero of this new dispute is author Diana West, whose recent book, American Betrayal (St. Martin's), is a hard- hitting critique of the strategy toward the Soviet Union pursued in the 1940s by President Franklin Roosevelt, his top assistant Harry Hopkins, and various of their colleagues. Ms. West in particular stresses the infiltration of the government of that era by Communists and Soviet agents, linking the presence of these forces to U.S. policies that appeased the Russians or served the interests of the Kremlin.

For making this critique, Ms. West has been bitterly attacked by writers Ronald Radosh and David Horowitz, Roosevelt biographer Conrad Black, and a considerable crew of others. The burden of their complaint is that she is a "conspiracy theorist" and right wing nut whose views are far outside the mainstream of historical writing, and that she should not have presumed to write such a book about these important matters. 

Though the professed stance of her opponents is that of scholarly condescension, the language being used against Ms. West doesn't read like scholarly discourse. She is, we're told, "McCarthy on steroids," "unhinged," a "right-wing loopy," not properly "house trained," "incompetent," purveying "a farrago of lies," and a good deal else of similar nature.  All of which looks more like the politics of personal destruction than debate about serious academic issues.

From my standpoint, however, what is going on here seems to be something more than personal. Having delved into these matters a bit, I think I recognize the process that's in motion:  the circling of rhetorical wagons around a long accepted narrative about the Second World War and the Cold War conflict that followed.

This narrative  sets the limits of permissible comment about American Cold War policy, bounded on the one side by Roosevelt and Hopkins, representing generally speaking  the forces of good (appeasing Moscow, e.g. , only in order to win the war with Hitler), and on the other by Sen. Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin, the supposed epitome of evil.  Between these boundaries, variations are allowed, but woe betide the writer who goes beyond them. Ms. West has transgressed in both directions, sharply criticizing Roosevelt/ Hopkins and speaking kindly of Joe McCarthy.

(Full disclosure: I provided a cover endorsement for Ms. West's book, and wrote a book of my own some years ago examining the myriad cases of McCarthy.  Based on that background, I can testify that conventional views about him are almost totally devoid of merit, based as they are on extensive ignorance of the archival record.)

Especially galling to West's critics is her contention that Washington in the war years was so riddled with Communists and Soviet agents as to be in effect an "occupied" city  -- an image that seems to have sparked the greatest anger and most denunciation of her thesis.

By using the "occupied" image, Ms. West is of course not saying Soviet tanks were patrolling the streets of Washington, or that Red martial law was imposed on its cowering citizens.  What she is arguing instead is that Soviet agents, Communists and fellow travelers held official posts, or served at chokepoints of intelligence data, and from these positions were able to exert pro-Soviet leverage on U.S. and other allied policy.  Though ignored in many conventional histories, the evidence to support this view is overwhelming.

It is for instance abundantly plain, from multiple sources of Cold War intel, that Communist/pro-Soviet penetration of the government under FDR was massive, numbering in the many hundreds.  These pro-Red incursions started in the New Deal era of the 1930s, then accelerated in the war years when the Soviets were our allies and safeguards against Communist infiltration were all but nonexistent. The scope of the problem was expressed as follows in an FBI report  to Director J. Edgar Hoover:

"It has become increasingly clear... that there are a tremendous number of persons employed in the United States government who are Communists and who strive daily to advance the cause of Communism and destroy the foundations of this government. Today nearly every department or agency is infiltrated with them in varying degree.. To aggravate the situation, they appear to have concentrated most heavily in departments which make policy, or carry it into effect..."

Pro-Red penetration was especially heavy in such war-time agencies as the Office of Strategic Services and Office of War Information, which were thrown together in a hurry at the outset of the conflict, with little thought for anti-Communist security vetting.  But the problem was acute also in old-line agencies such as the State and Treasury departments, both of which by war's end were honeycombed with Soviet agents.( Making matters worse, anti-Soviet officials and diplomats were in the meantime being purged from their positions.)

Far from being lowly spear carriers on the fringes,  pro-Soviet operatives in case after case ascended to posts of great power and influence. Among the most famous-though only three of a considerable number-were Alger Hiss at the State Department, Harry D. White at the Treasury and Lauchlin Currie at the White House. All of these, as we now know, were Soviet agents, well positioned to affect the course of American policy in matters of concern to Soviet dictator Stalin.

A prime example of such policy impact occurred during the earliest wartime going, in the prelude to Pearl Harbor. At this time, Soviet agents White and Currie maneuvered  to prevent a truce between the United States and Japan, which might have freed up the Japanese military for an assault on Russia, an attack Stalin was desperate to fend off while he was embroiled in Europe with the Nazis.

In this maneuvering,  White worked with the Soviet intelligence service KGB, and in parallel with the efforts of a  Soviet spy combine in Tokyo, headed by the German Communist Richard Sorge.  The Sorge group sought to persuade the Japanese that there was no percentage in attacking Russia-- that there were much more inviting targets to be found down south in the Pacific. One such target turned out to be the American naval base at Pearl Harbor.

In the State Department, while Alger Hiss would become the most notorious Soviet agent of the war years, he was far from going solo. According to a long concealed but now recovered report compiled by security officers of the State Department, there were at war's end no fewer than 20 identified agents such as Hiss on the payroll, plus 13 identified Communists and 90 other suspects and sympathizers serving with him.

Like the FBI report saying "nearly every department" of the Federal government was infiltrated by Communist apparatchiks, these staggering numbers from the State Department security force look suspiciously like the description of a de facto "occupation" given in Ms. West's supposedly unhinged essay.

At the Treasury, there were at least a dozen Communists and Soviet agents, headed by Harry White, who exerted influence on a host of issues.  In late 1943, to cite a prominent instance, White and his fellow Soviet agent Solomon Adler, Treasury attaché in China, launched a disinformation campaign to discredit our anti-Communist ally Chiang Kai-shek, deny him U.S. assistance, and turn U.S. policy in favor of the Communists under Mao Tse-tung.

This campaign, aided by  Adler's State Department Chungking roommate John Stewart Service and other U.S. diplomats in China, succeeded, with results that we are still living with today.  Meanwhile, an identical propaganda campaign was waged by U.S. and British pro-Red officials to discredit the anti-Communists of the Balkans, in order to deliver control of Yugoslavia to the Communist Tito. This, too, succeeded, resulting in the communization of the country and capture and murder by Tito of his anti-Communist rival, Gen. Draza Mihailovich .

In the  summer of 1944, White and his pro-Moscow Treasury colleagues played a crucial role in devising the so-called "Morgenthau plan" for Germany, which would have converted the country into a purely agrarian nation. They were involved as well in plans to turn two million desperate anti- Soviet refugees over to the Russians, and a slave labor proviso that would  herd millions into the Soviet Gulag.

All these projects would be promoted in the run-up to a 1944 Roosevelt- Churchill summit in Quebec, later becoming American policy in Europe. At an in-house meeting just before the summit, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr. met with a group of his staffers and praised them for the excellent plans they had developed. Of these advisers no fewer than six would later be identified under oath and in secret security data as ideological Communists or Soviet agents. That  amazing line-up of pro-Moscow assets at a single U.S. Treasury meeting would once more seem to justify the "occupied" description.

As to how such improbable things could happen under FDR, a post-script to the above is  suggestive. Though Roosevelt signed off on the Morgenthau plan at Quebec, when he was later challenged on it by War Secretary Henry Stimson, he said he didn't know how he could have done so-that he "had evidently done it without much thought."  As that response implied, the President at this time was failing badly in his powers, and would fail even more dramatically in the months to follow.

Which leads to a provisional wrap-up of this discussion.  The culmination of the policy debacle of the war years occurred in 1945 at Yalta, where the American delegation headed by FDR made innumerable concessions to the Russians: slave labor for the Gulag as post-war "reparations" to the Kremlin , turning anti-Soviet refugees over to Moscow, Soviet control of Manchuria's ports and railways-presaging the Red conquest of China.  A leading member of the American delegation that agreed to all of this was none other than the now famous Soviet  agent, Alger Hiss.

In court histories and Roosevelt biographies, we're told that Hiss at Yalta was no big deal-an insignificant figure without substantive influence on the proceedings.  As the archival records show, this is grossly in error.  In fact, Hiss in the Yalta discussions was a ubiquitous  and highly active presence, dealing as a virtual equal with British foreign secretary Anthony Eden, and speaking out on numerous issues-China prominent among them-voicing the "State Department" or "United States" position in  backstage meetings.

Scanning these records, it's obvious that Hiss was far more conversant with issues and events at Yalta than was his inexperienced nominal chieftain , Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius Jr. (all of two months on the job). As with Joe McCarthy, our historians might be  advised to consult the primary data on such matters, rather than re-cycling Hiss-was-no-problem comment from secondary sources.

Granted, getting at the primary data takes some digging, as many relevant records have been buried, censored or omitted from official archives.  Presidential secrecy orders, disappearing papers, folders missing from the files, two manipulated grand juries (that we know of) used to cover up the extent and nature of the penetration ; all these methods and more were employed in the 1940s to keep the shocking story from Congress and the public.  And, sad to relate, in some considerable measure the cover up continues now, in court histories that neglect  archival data to repeat once more the standard narrative of the war years.

Diana West's important book is a valiant effort to break through this wall of secrecy and selective silence.  Her work in some respects touches on matters beyond my ken-such as Soviet treatment of American POWs-- where I am not competent to judge .  But on issues where our researches coincide-and these are many-I find her knowledgeable and on target, far more so than the conventional histories compared to which she is said to be found wanting . As the above suggests, her notion of wartime Washington as an "occupied" city, and the data that back it up, are especially cogent.

 

Video: Dark Agenda: The War to Destroy Christian America

David Horowitz exposes the Left's war against Christianity -- and against America and its founding principles.
 

May 10, 2019 Frontpagemag.com 

Defender of the Faith

David Horowitz’s new book unveils the war to destroy Christian America -- and its dire implications for our republic.

Bruce Thornton April 26, 2019 Reprinted from American Greatness.

Since World War II, the war against Christianity that began in the Enlightenment has intensified across the globe. Every day, 11 Christians are killed, three-quarters of them in Muslim majority countries. In western European nations, Christians are marginalized, ignored, and mocked even as Muslim sensibilities and illiberal practices are carefully protected.

And in the United States, supposedly one of the most religious of the developed nations, Christians are widely despised in popular and high-brow culture, and demonized by Democratic politicians like Senator Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.), who during a confirmation hearing insulted a Catholic nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals by scolding, “The dogma lives loudly within you,” recycling the old anti-Catholic smear that the nominee would be biased by her faith.

David Horowitz’s new book, Dark Agenda: The War to Destroy Christian America, is a meditation on this disturbing phenomenon and its dire implications for our republic.

Horowitz, a prolific author as well as the founder and namesake of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is the most renowned bête noir of the Left and their progressive offspring. For more than 30 years of speaking, organizing, and writing he has been a scourge of their illiberal ideology and its totalitarian inclinations. An ex-radical leftist and Jewish agnostic, Horowitz defends Christianity because he understands the critical role it has played in the constitutional political order comprising unalienable rights and individual freedom. And as he explains, the serial assaults on Christianity have become a weapon for leftists to discredit all authorities beyond the state that pose a challenge to their bid for power.........To Read More....

The Terrorist Caucus in the House

Ilhan Omar has exposed the greatest liability America faces in the global terror war.

April 22, 2019 David Horowitz 10

Representative Ilhan Omar is a Minnesota Democrat who has been in Congress four months and, courtesy of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, where she has privileged access to classified American secrets. Omar recently caused a stir – one of many that have made her a focus of national attention - by describing the attack on America on 9/11, as an attack on Muslims.

The 9/11 attack - the worst by foreigners on American soil since the British burned the White House in 1814 - was in fact the work of Islamic supremacists engaged in a global jihad or “holy war.” This war had been unilaterally declared on America – “the land of Jews and Crusaders” - by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist army, al-Qaeda three years earlier.

Omar’s reference to the tragedy that befell Americans in September 2001 was revealing in itself. She prefaced it by complaining that Muslims in America were “second class citizens” who were denied the civil liberties afforded to other ethnic and religious groups. This was one of many lies in her brief comments. Then she invoked the massacre of 50 Muslims at worship by a deranged individual in New Zealand, while failing to mention the recent Muslim massacre of Filipino Christians at worship or the hundreds of attacks by Muslims on other religions since the beginning of the year.[1] Then she referred to the 9/11 atrocity not as an “attack” but as a non-descript event whose real significance was that it led to the creation of CAIR – the Council on American Islamic Relations - which presents itself as a Muslim civil liberties organization, and on whose platform she was speaking.................

The ignorance of the Democratic Party leadership and of progressives generally is the greatest liability America faces in the global war that Islamic supremacists have declared on us. What Ilhan Omar has exposed is the extent to which the Islamists and their secular allies have now infiltrated and seduced our major opposition party. This can only have a crippling effect on our efforts to defend ourselves from the greatest threat to our nation since the end of the Cold War.

To Read More....

Reparations Shakedown

Indicting white Americans for "America’s original sin.”

April 8, 2019 David Horowitz 205

In 2008, the election of Barack Obama was universally hailed as an historic breakthrough event - the first African American presidency in American history. Great expectations were raised for what was then billed as the beginning of a new “post-racial era.” A decade later these expectations have not been fulfilled, and – worse – have been frustrated by the spread of “identity politics”...........An early sign of trouble in the new racial paradise was Obama’s designation of Al Sharpton - the nation’s second most notorious racial demagogue - as his “chief adviser” on race...........

It was further reflected in the White House’s embrace of extremist groups like Black Lives Matter and in the not-so-subtle White House covers for violent attacks on local law enforcement...........The reparations demand is pure racism: Recipients will be paid on the basis of their skin color even if, like Kamala Harris, their ancestors were actually slave owners. It will be paid by people who had no historical connection whatsoever to slavery, and it will be paid by the very government that sacrificed 350,000 mainly white (and Christian) lives to abolish slavery and lead the world in doing so.........

The reparations campaign is a campaign to bury the fact that white Americans freed Black slaves who were originally put in chains by Black Africans and Muslims........It is a campaign to make Americans ashamed of their country, so that its enemies can more easily destroy it.............To Read More....

David Horowitz Unveils The Left's Dark Agenda

Freedom Center founder reveals progressives' war to destroy Christian America.

March 22, 2019  Frontpagemag.com 

Readers of my new book “Dark Agenda” might wonder how an agnostic Jew and ex-radical came to write about the war to destroy Christian America. Once I recognized the destructive character of the radical movement I had been part of forty years ago, I began a re-examination of everything I and my comrades had thought about the system we had set out to destroy.

In the course of this inquiry, I had a kind of epiphany. Thinking about the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which even radicals cherished, I realized that these rights were only unalienable because they were given by a Divinity - by God. If they were granted by government, then government could take them away.

It was a simple idea to understand but not so simple to embrace. Even though I was an agnostic, I had to face the fact that without a belief in God, or respect for such a belief, these rights could not exist. Without respect for believers and their belief, without respect for the Christians who created this country, our most cherished rights would have no foundation and could not be defended..................

Roe v. Wade represented a fundamental break from the existing fabric of American life. It was imposed overnight, in every community in the country, and without the consent of the inhabitants of those communities who - according to the Constitution – were supposed to be sovereign.

This tyrannical, fraudulent Supreme Court decision split the nation in two. Its assault on traditional communities led directly to the creation of the religious right. Until Roe, the evangelical community had been wary of political involvements, but this unconstitutional assault on its communities thrust it into politics out of sheer concern for its self-defense...........To Read More....

Destructive Legacy of the Left

Horowitz's magisterial "Black Book of the American Left" reaches its triumphant culmination.

January 11, 2019 Barbara Kay 29

Approaching his 80^th birthday, anti-Marxist crusader David Horowitz is a “lion in winter.” His mental vigor remains undiminished, but one can see that consolidation of his prodigious intellectual legacy – articles, speeches, books, pamphlets, memoirs: the index runs to fifty pages – is his current preoccupation.

Beginning publication in 2013, Horowitz’s massive oeuvre of political writings has been organized into a nine-volume series, The Black Book of the American Left, with each volume focusing on a specific domain of the left’s crusade to “radically transform” a loathed America: the campus, racial relations, popular culture, the gender wars, the progressive-Islamist alliance, and so forth. The final volume of the series was published last year.

Book IX: Ruling Ideas is divided in two. Part Two offers a summary essay of his life and accomplishments by his anti-Marxist comrade-in-arms and editor of Front Page Magazine, Jamie Glazov. Useful in itself, it is not meant to substitute for Horowitz’s 1997 opus, Radical Son, which George Gilder called “the first great autobiography of his generation,” and which other critics rank at the same level for style and substance as Whittaker Chambers’ Witness and Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon...........To Read More....

Dartmouth Nightmare

It’s worse than you might think.
 

November 9, 2018  David Horowitz 

President Philip Hanlon
Dartmouth College
Hanover, New Hampshire
Dear President Hanlon,

On October 23, I spoke at your college. I was invited by members of College Republicans and Students Supporting Israel. They probably wanted to hear what I had to say because I am one of the most prominent conservative intellectuals in America, having published over twenty books, three of which were New York Times best-sellers and one of which was nominated for a National Book Award. The feminist Camille Paglia has said of me: “I respect the astute and rigorously unsentimental David Horowitz as one of America's most original and courageous political analysts…. As a scholar who regularly surveys archival material, I think that, a century from now, cultural historians will find David Horowitz's spiritual and political odyssey paradigmatic for our time.”

Despite my credentials, and even though these conservative students pay the same tuition - $75,000 per year – as your leftwing students, I was forced to raise the money to underwrite my visit and lecture. This was particularly galling to the Dartmouth conservatives who invited me, because the previous spring Dartmouth’s “Office of Pluralism and Leadership” sponsored a visit by notorious anti-Semite and terrorist supporter Linda Sarsour – who has no academic credentials to speak of – underwriting her expenses and paying her a reported $10,000 honorarium for her talk............To Read More.....

Trump’s Character and Trump’s Presidency

A question for Never Trumpers.

August 21, 2018 David Horowitz 25

A few days ago, I had a dust-up on Twitter with National Review’s Jonah Goldberg. Our conflict was about Trump’s fitness to be president, a subject that has been broached millions of times on social media by other internet partisans. Twitchy posted the exchange and promoted it this way: “It’s On! Jonah Goldberg, David Horowitz Duke It Out Over Trump’s Character.” The donnybrook led to 500,000 impressions on my Twitter feed, including legions of anti-Trump zealots eager to demonstrate how creative they could be in devising insults to throw at me for defending Trump:

beyond dumb, in need of psychiatric help, and probably receiving payments through offshore bank accounts.

As it happens, I’ve known Jonah for more than 20 years, admired his wit and insights, promoted his books, and put him on my platforms. I was distressed when he joined the NeverTrump chorus, but never wrote a critical word about him—hoping, I guess, that as Trump systematically undid the damage that the Obama regime had inflicted on the country, Jonah would return to his senses.

Other NeverTrump conservatives, on the other hand, just jumped to the other side. Bill Kristol even went so far as to collude with the Brennan-instigated witch-hunt by spreading talking points from the Steele dossier. It was easy to write these renegades off, though still wondering how they rationalized the betrayal of their lifetime principles, or were able to deny that they were doing so..........To Read More.....

In Defense of Diana West

September 13, 2013 By M. Stanton Evans @ CNSNews

(Editor's Note:  This is how the federal government became so infested with leftists.  In 2013 I posted this piece as a link.  However, given events as they're unfolding, I think it absolutely important to get as much coverage of this as possible, ergo, I've decided to post the entire piece without permission.  If CNSNews or M. Stanton Evans object I will adjust it back to a linked article. Also, for transparency sake, I took a public position defending Diana West during her during the attacks by Radosh and Horowitz.  On line and in my articles.  RK)

Out of the public eye and far from the daily headlines, a fierce verbal battle is currently being waged about the course of American policy in the long death struggle with Moscow that we call the Cold War.

At ground zero of this new dispute is author Diana West, whose recent book, American Betrayal (St. Martin's), is a hard- hitting critique of the strategy toward the Soviet Union pursued in the 1940s by President Franklin Roosevelt, his top assistant Harry Hopkins, and various of their colleagues. Ms. West in particular stresses the infiltration of the government of that era by Communists and Soviet agents, linking the presence of these forces to U.S. policies that appeased the Russians or served the interests of the Kremlin.

For making this critique, Ms. West has been bitterly attacked by writers Ronald Radosh and David Horowitz, Roosevelt biographer Conrad Black, and a considerable crew of others. The burden of their complaint is that she is a "conspiracy theorist" and right wing nut whose views are far outside the mainstream of historical writing, and that she should not have presumed to write such a book about these important matters. 

Though the professed stance of her opponents is that of scholarly condescension, the language being used against Ms. West doesn't read like scholarly discourse. She is, we're told, "McCarthy on steroids," "unhinged," a "right-wing loopy," not properly "house trained," "incompetent," purveying "a farrago of lies," and a good deal else of similar nature.  All of which looks more like the politics of personal destruction than debate about serious academic issues.

From my standpoint, however, what is going on here seems to be something more than personal. Having delved into these matters a bit, I think I recognize the process that's in motion:  the circling of rhetorical wagons around a long accepted narrative about the Second World War and the Cold War conflict that followed.

This narrative  sets the limits of permissible comment about American Cold War policy, bounded on the one side by Roosevelt and Hopkins, representing generally speaking  the forces of good (appeasing Moscow, e.g. , only in order to win the war with Hitler), and on the other by Sen. Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin, the supposed epitome of evil.  Between these boundaries, variations are allowed, but woe betide the writer who goes beyond them. Ms. West has transgressed in both directions, sharply criticizing Roosevelt/ Hopkins and speaking kindly of Joe McCarthy.

(Full disclosure: I provided a cover endorsement for Ms. West's book, and wrote a book of my own some years ago examining the myriad cases of McCarthy.  Based on that background, I can testify that conventional views about him are almost totally devoid of merit, based as they are on extensive ignorance of the archival record.)

Especially galling to West's critics is her contention that Washington in the war years was so riddled with Communists and Soviet agents as to be in effect an "occupied" city  -- an image that seems to have sparked the greatest anger and most denunciation of her thesis.

By using the "occupied" image, Ms. West is of course not saying Soviet tanks were patrolling the streets of Washington, or that Red martial law was imposed on its cowering citizens.  What she is arguing instead is that Soviet agents, Communists and fellow travelers held official posts, or served at chokepoints of intelligence data, and from these positions were able to exert pro-Soviet leverage on U.S. and other allied policy.  Though ignored in many conventional histories, the evidence to support this view is overwhelming.

It is for instance abundantly plain, from multiple sources of Cold War intel, that Communist/pro-Soviet penetration of the government under FDR was massive, numbering in the many hundreds.  These pro-Red incursions started in the New Deal era of the 1930s, then accelerated in the war years when the Soviets were our allies and safeguards against Communist infiltration were all but nonexistent. The scope of the problem was expressed as follows in an FBI report  to Director J. Edgar Hoover:

"It has become increasingly clear... that there are a tremendous number of persons employed in the United States government who are Communists and who strive daily to advance the cause of Communism and destroy the foundations of this government. Today nearly every department or agency is infiltrated with them in varying degree.. To aggravate the situation, they appear to have concentrated most heavily in departments which make policy, or carry it into effect..."

Pro-Red penetration was especially heavy in such war-time agencies as the Office of Strategic Services and Office of War Information, which were thrown together in a hurry at the outset of the conflict, with little thought for anti-Communist security vetting.  But the problem was acute also in old-line agencies such as the State and Treasury departments, both of which by war's end were honeycombed with Soviet agents.( Making matters worse, anti-Soviet officials and diplomats were in the meantime being purged from their positions.)

Far from being lowly spear carriers on the fringes,  pro-Soviet operatives in case after case ascended to posts of great power and influence. Among the most famous-though only three of a considerable number-were Alger Hiss at the State Department, Harry D. White at the Treasury and Lauchlin Currie at the White House. All of these, as we now know, were Soviet agents, well positioned to affect the course of American policy in matters of concern to Soviet dictator Stalin.

A prime example of such policy impact occurred during the earliest wartime going, in the prelude to Pearl Harbor. At this time, Soviet agents White and Currie maneuvered  to prevent a truce between the United States and Japan, which might have freed up the Japanese military for an assault on Russia, an attack Stalin was desperate to fend off while he was embroiled in Europe with the Nazis.

In this maneuvering,  White worked with the Soviet intelligence service KGB, and in parallel with the efforts of a  Soviet spy combine in Tokyo, headed by the German Communist Richard Sorge.  The Sorge group sought to persuade the Japanese that there was no percentage in attacking Russia-- that there were much more inviting targets to be found down south in the Pacific. One such target turned out to be the American naval base at Pearl Harbor.

In the State Department, while Alger Hiss would become the most notorious Soviet agent of the war years, he was far from going solo. According to a long concealed but now recovered report compiled by security officers of the State Department, there were at war's end no fewer than 20 identified agents such as Hiss on the payroll, plus 13 identified Communists and 90 other suspects and sympathizers serving with him.

Like the FBI report saying "nearly every department" of the Federal government was infiltrated by Communist apparatchiks, these staggering numbers from the State Department security force look suspiciously like the description of a de facto "occupation" given in Ms. West's supposedly unhinged essay.

At the Treasury, there were at least a dozen Communists and Soviet agents, headed by Harry White, who exerted influence on a host of issues.  In late 1943, to cite a prominent instance, White and his fellow Soviet agent Solomon Adler, Treasury attaché in China, launched a disinformation campaign to discredit our anti-Communist ally Chiang Kai-shek, deny him U.S. assistance, and turn U.S. policy in favor of the Communists under Mao Tse-tung.

This campaign, aided by  Adler's State Department Chungking roommate John Stewart Service and other U.S. diplomats in China, succeeded, with results that we are still living with today.  Meanwhile, an identical propaganda campaign was waged by U.S. and British pro-Red officials to discredit the anti-Communists of the Balkans, in order to deliver control of Yugoslavia to the Communist Tito. This, too, succeeded, resulting in the communization of the country and capture and murder by Tito of his anti-Communist rival, Gen. Draza Mihailovich .

In the  summer of 1944, White and his pro-Moscow Treasury colleagues played a crucial role in devising the so-called "Morgenthau plan" for Germany, which would have converted the country into a purely agrarian nation. They were involved as well in plans to turn two million desperate anti- Soviet refugees over to the Russians, and a slave labor proviso that would  herd millions into the Soviet Gulag.

All these projects would be promoted in the run-up to a 1944 Roosevelt- Churchill summit in Quebec, later becoming American policy in Europe. At an in-house meeting just before the summit, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr. met with a group of his staffers and praised them for the excellent plans they had developed. Of these advisers no fewer than six would later be identified under oath and in secret security data as ideological Communists or Soviet agents. That  amazing line-up of pro-Moscow assets at a single U.S. Treasury meeting would once more seem to justify the "occupied" description.

As to how such improbable things could happen under FDR, a post-script to the above is  suggestive. Though Roosevelt signed off on the Morgenthau plan at Quebec, when he was later challenged on it by War Secretary Henry Stimson, he said he didn't know how he could have done so-that he "had evidently done it without much thought."  As that response implied, the President at this time was failing badly in his powers, and would fail even more dramatically in the months to follow.

Which leads to a provisional wrap-up of this discussion.  The culmination of the policy debacle of the war years occurred in 1945 at Yalta, where the American delegation headed by FDR made innumerable concessions to the Russians: slave labor for the Gulag as post-war "reparations" to the Kremlin , turning anti-Soviet refugees over to Moscow, Soviet control of Manchuria's ports and railways-presaging the Red conquest of China.  A leading member of the American delegation that agreed to all of this was none other than the now famous Soviet  agent, Alger Hiss.

In court histories and Roosevelt biographies, we're told that Hiss at Yalta was no big deal-an insignificant figure without substantive influence on the proceedings.  As the archival records show, this is grossly in error.  In fact, Hiss in the Yalta discussions was a ubiquitous  and highly active presence, dealing as a virtual equal with British foreign secretary Anthony Eden, and speaking out on numerous issues-China prominent among them-voicing the "State Department" or "United States" position in  backstage meetings.

Scanning these records, it's obvious that Hiss was far more conversant with issues and events at Yalta than was his inexperienced nominal chieftain , Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius Jr. (all of two months on the job). As with Joe McCarthy, our historians might be  advised to consult the primary data on such matters, rather than re-cycling Hiss-was-no-problem comment from secondary sources.

Granted, getting at the primary data takes some digging, as many relevant records have been buried, censored or omitted from official archives.  Presidential secrecy orders, disappearing papers, folders missing from the files, two manipulated grand juries (that we know of) used to cover up the extent and nature of the penetration ; all these methods and more were employed in the 1940s to keep the shocking story from Congress and the public.  And, sad to relate, in some considerable measure the cover up continues now, in court histories that neglect  archival data to repeat once more the standard narrative of the war years.

Diana West's important book is a valiant effort to break through this wall of secrecy and selective silence.  Her work in some respects touches on matters beyond my ken-such as Soviet treatment of American POWs-- where I am not competent to judge .  But on issues where our researches coincide-and these are many-I find her knowledgeable and on target, far more so than the conventional histories compared to which she is said to be found wanting . As the above suggests, her notion of wartime Washington as an "occupied" city, and the data that back it up, are especially cogent.