Friday, May 02, 2014

The Cure for the Communist Cold

http://bucksandcorn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Cold-War_The-Spy-who-came-in-from-the-Cold.jpg

It's interesting, and perhaps noteworthy, that the only analysis to cut to the heart of the whole Diana West/David Horowitz Imbroglio over her book American Betrayal has come this late in the game, months after, it seems, the dust has settled and the smoke cleared.

West published on her blog this recent analysis by J.R. Nyquist which, aside from its many tangentially astute observations, also adverts to what I consider to be the very crux of the whole problem: namely, that the nature of the reactions by Horowitz and his hatchet man Ronald Radosh (along with at least one or more of a motley slew of others in their train) presents a mendacious sophistry of such a degree that the reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that they cannot be merely sincerely deluded, severely stupid, nor clinically brain-damaged; and that therefore the only explanation is that they are still Communists -- or, more precisely, that they are Stealth Communists (almost a redundancy, one might say).  Not figuratively, but literally.

Nobody among the few who have weighed in with their critical faculties on this matter in or out of the Blogosphere have had the guts to say this straight out (except for me; but Blogospherically speaking, I'm just a peon on the fringes, so I don't count).  I don't expect Diana West herself to say this, of course; good Lord, she's done enough in writing the book in the first place, and then going to the trouble in her subsequent Rebuttal of painstakingly teasing out and holding under a lucid microscope all the torturous sophistry of Messrs. Horowitz & Radosh et al.

Also, it's unclear whether she or any of the painfully few who have defended her are merely being gingerly about this, or whether they sincerely believe that Horowitz et al., are merely deluded or rude.  If it's the latter, then they are strangely neglecting a key aspect of the whole puzzle:  the nature, as I said above, of the reactions by Horowitz et al. which reveals a mendacious sophistry of such a degree that it cannot be explained except as a willful, conscious, deliberate "policy" as J.R. Nyquist puts it -- or as a tactic in a war of ideas that makes sense only in the context of a Stealth Communism.  This neglect would become so strange in Diana West, since she has analyzed that mendaciously sophistical nature so extensively, that it must reasonably be rejected as an explanation -- and we are left with the only explanation, that she is being cautiously gingerly, which is her right (though others do not enjoy her unique exemption and have been therefore derelict in their duty to call a spade a spade).  (The first two paragraphs of a more recent and fascinatingly detailed -- and damning -- entry by Diana West reiterate this gingerly disinclination on her part to speculate, much less to call a spade a worker's spade.)

J.R. Nyquist gives one particular example of this mendacious sophistry employed by Horowitz and Radosh -- one example out of dozens which could be cited (which can be found in West's Rebuttal).  It's worth quoting his analysis of this one example at length:

... let me provide an example of rhetorical trickery from Radosh’s take-down piece, where he alleges that West used a bogus anecdote concerning George Elsey who “found confidential files in the [White House] Map Room that showed FDR naively thinking he could trust Stalin….” Radosh wrote, “[West] believes that this was a smoking gun proving that FDR was ‘making common cause with the NKVD.’” Radosh then proceeded to correct West’s alleged mischaracterization of FDR. In doing this, he supposedly exposed West’s scholarly incompetence, which he claimed to be “groundless or worse.” 
 
West challenged this allegation, saying that the George Elsey anecdote “wasn’t in my book.” To double check, West performed a search of an electronic version of her text, and couldn’t find the anecdote anywhere (see If FrontPage Lies about This, They’ll Lie about Anything). Brazenly offering a counter-challenge, Radosh responded in a FrontPage piece titled Diana West’s Attempt to Respond.  “Maybe she couldn’t find the anecdote,” he blustered. “But it is there in three different places where she writes how FDR told Hopkins to go into Molotov’s bedroom while he was staying in the White House so that he could meet with the President….”  Radosh then proceeded to list three pages – p. 129, p. 268 and p. 296. But then Radosh made a bizarre and confusing admission: “She [West] missed [the three pages cited] because of a trivial error [I made] which was to associate the anecdote … with the anecdote about [Elsey].”

So Radosh, having made a mistake about the Elsey anecdote, amplified his charge to include three pages. So I opened West’s book to page 129 and found no mention of Molotov’s bedroom. I next turned to page 268 and, again, there is nothing. Next I turned to page 296 and, once again, cannot find the alleged scholarly blunder. As West herself explained, “The anecdote [about George Elsey or Molotov’s bedroom] is not in my book – not once, not three times.” And I will testify to the reader, at this juncture, that Radosh’s unscholarly pratfalls occur and reoccur throughout. Study the texts and you will see what Radosh has done, and what Mr. Horowitz has endorsed. The whole affair, in fact, discredits West’s attackers, whose malicious bungling is as disgraceful as it is contemptible. The whole affair also discredits those “brave” scholars and editors who, fearing the mark of Caine which Mrs. West has been branded with, now steer clear of her book, refusing to take sides on what turns out to be a pivotal controversy.

Notwithstanding Nyquist's acute perspicacity of the shenanigans of Horowitz & Co., and notwithstanding how close he gets to exposing them, he seems to hedge his bets curiously whenever he zeroes in on naming their crime.  He will say, as I noted above, that what they have done to Diana West amounts to an "obvious policy", not merely "a lapse".  However, his conclusion we must draw from this, he says, is that "they belong to the Left".  After all he has done to palpate their disease in this long analysis, this is the worst he can say about them.  Why can't he say what I can say -- that Horowitz, Radosh, et al. are in fact Stealth Communists, actively pursuing sabotage now?

We do not have apodictic proof of this conclusion of course; but after the mountain of meticulous data and dots sifted through by Diana West in her Rebuttal, and after such sterling analyses as this one by Nyquist, and previous ones by M. Stanton Evans and Vladimir Bukovsky, it is the only reasonable inference to make, and the burden of proof for an objection to this should be on those who would demur.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

What sort of sabotage exactly? By what means and and with what objectives in sight? Can you refer to specific instances in David Horowitz writing, lectures and polemics exemplifying that "sabotage"?

Hesperado said...

Anonymous,

The specific instances are present in his various essays and responses he wrote concerning the Diana West book, and in the essays by his colleague Ronald Radosh (another "ex"-Stalinist) whom he wholeheartedly endorsed. As J.R. Nyquist analyzed in the essay I discussed above, Horowitz and Radosh enacted and purveyed a complex tissue of obfuscation amounting to a mountain of factoids that centrally involved so many outrageously obvious misrepresentations of West's arguments and text, this itself becomes a tactic by which to muddy the waters of the entire discussion surrounding her book, causing most relatively decent and intelligent spectators and analysts who don't take the trouble to go through that mountain to draw conclusions that are blatantly inaccurate and ungenerous to West's work. West at least produced a documentation of that in her "Rebuttal". So the answer to your question is in that Rebuttal -- but it takes reading the whole thing carefully to see the sabotage Horowitz and Radosh were trying to perpetrate.

Egghead said...

I agree Hesp, but I build on that idea to make the most unpalatable and unpopular connection of all that religious and/or racial Jews have a near-total destructive love affair with Socialism/Communism/Marxism - which Jews are willing to violently implement in Western countries using imported Muslims as their proxy brown shirt armies. I see the current military action in Ukraine as the start of a serious attempt to reclaim leadership of Russia via WWIII.

As far as sabotage, it does indeed appear that religious and/or racial Jews know well the benefit of financing ALL forms of media - including alternative media - to tightly control the narrative and strictly limit the mere asking - let alone honest answering - of pertinent questions as to any potential Jewish role in a cross-generational genocide of white Christians by using world wars to cull white Christian men and women.

Egghead

Anonymous said...

Hesperado,
I didn't answer my question at all. Both Radosh and Horowitz may, or maybe not, be perverting West's text and arguments, but to call them saboteurs, or stealth communists would be to dismiss the entire body of their work, which is explicitly anti-communist and pro-American. Nyquist, Evans and Bukovsky although strongly critical of Horowitz and Radosh don't suggest in the slightest their being stealth communists engaging in the a communist sabotage. What stops them do you think?

Otherwise I see mr. Egghead was quick to integrate your allegation in his antisemitic rant. For someone like you, who can detect communist agenda in Horowitz writings it should be very easy to spot crude and stupid antisemitism in Egghead's comment.

Anonymous said...



OOps! The first sentence of my comment above should be:

You didn't answer my question at all. Both Radosh and Horowitz may, or may not, be...

Hesperado said...

Well, "stealth" wouldn't be very stealthy if it wasn't hiding.

I wrote at length about that in another essay back in October of last years:

Stealth Communism

http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2013/10/stealth-communism.html

First couple of paragraphs:

Aside from the usual sense of this term, Stealth Communism -- espionage during the Cold War, and Socialism (a kind of "Communism Lite" or the Communist version of a "Moderate Islam") -- there could well be a type which, as far as I know, has not been analyzed much (let alone investigated): the deeper infiltration behind enemy lines by pretending to be anti-Communist.

Being a deeper cover, of course, necessitates more pretense, more deceit. And being pseudo-anti-Communist, it would necessitate, as well, throwing bones to the genuine anti-Communists, in order to win their approval and earn one's anti-Communist bonafides.

The whole essay should be read to begin to do the argument justice.

Anonymous said...

"Being a deeper cover, of course, necessitates more pretense, more deceit. And being pseudo-anti-Communist, it would necessitate, as well, throwing bones to the genuine anti-Communists, in order to win their approval and earn one's anti-Communist bonafides."

In other words you know that Horowitz/Radosh are communists and what the rest of us see in their writings as anti-Communist, pro-American, stance only testifies to their cunning cleverness.
A perfectly unfalsifiable argument. Who can beat it?
You win!

Hesperado said...

I didn't say I "know" it. Any demurrer on this apparently hasn't really read and digested the mountain of data meticulously organized and analyzed by Diana West in her Rebuttal, importantly supplemented by numerous other articles she has written on this.

J.R. Nyquist said...


Actually, to say something indirectly -- in a way that makes it plainly obvious -- is better than saying it directly. It persuades the reader without making a crude accusation.

Syed Kazim Ali said...

Latest All Hot Current Affairs, Bollywood News updates, funny and lol pictures
HotCurrentAffairs