Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam And The American Left

Although the Communist System has proven itself to be a disastrous system in practice, the idealism that gave rise to that system is still alive and well, in the U.S. and around the world. In addition, this movement has allied itself with Islamic fanatics as both groups want to destroy Israel and America and the democratic, capitalist system. Dozens upon dozens of organizations have formed, organizations with innocent sounding names, to recruit members to help them achieve this agenda. These groups such as the Coalition for World Peace and The Coalition for Peace and Justice, have used Americans' natural good will and loving spirit to deceive them into supporting their agendas. Most of these new recruits are young, impressionable students, who are neither aware of the group's underlying agenda (which is to spread totalitarian Socialism throughout the world) or their roots in Communists organizations of the past. How the radical Left has rationalized their support for the Islamic Terrorists is astonishing and is just one compelling reason to read David Horowitz' book, Unholy Alliance. Unholy Alliance documents, with historical records, the radical left movement in America and around the world since the end of the Second World War, but focuses primarily on the past 20 years. This is the most important book I have read in the last year and demands the attention of every American who believes in democracy and the capitalist system-a system that has provided more personal liberty and more prosperity to more people than any other system in the history of man. Democrats, in particular, must read this book to see how the radical left has hijacked their party and how they are working to undermine America in every way they can. Find out how they use the environmental movement, the peace movement and the anti-globalization movement to accomplish their goals. Please, I urge you, read Unholy Alliance!

Unholy Alliance by David Horowitz Professor Todd Gitlin was one of the speakers at the Columbia teach-in against the war in Iraq. A former president of Students for a Democratic Society. Gitlin is a typical veteran of the New Left. In the 1960s, Gitlin was a self-declared “anti-anti-Communist,” choosing not to support the West in its Cold War against the Communist states. According to Gitlin, Vietnam was something like an American original sin. Gitlin summarizes in these words: “For a large bloc of Americans, my age and younger, too young to remember WW2---the generation for whom ‘the war’ meant Vietnam and possibly always would, to the end of our days---the case against patriotism was not an abstraction. Gerda Lerner was in her thirties when the New Left was launched in the wake of Khrushchev’s report on the crimes of Stalin in 1956. She was young enough to join its political generation and became one of its mentors, as the sixties radicals shook off the burdens of their Stalinist past and went back on the attack. Her easy assimilation to its attitudes and doctrines reflected its continuities with the Communist past. By the end of the sixties, the New Left was recognized by its opposition to the anti-Communist Cold War and its Marxist analyses of American society. Like there Communist predecessors, New Leftists viewed America as an imperialist state, the guardian of global system that plundered the poor. Their politics was distinguished by its warm embrace of the Stalinist regimes in Cuba and North Vietnam, and for the Soviet bloc. In 1960, Maurice Zeitlin was a Berkley Marxist and a founding editor of Root and Branch, One of the three radical journals that helped to launch the new radical movement. With fellow editor Robert Scheer (later a columnist at the Los Angeles Times and a prominent opponent of the war in Iraq) , Zeitlin wrote one of the first books hailing the triumph of the Communist revolution in Castro’s Cuba. Zeitlin became a professor of sociology at UCLA, specializing in Chile and writing about “dominant classes”. In 1997, he spoke at a UCLA symposium on twentieth-century utopias, where he returned to the subject of Che Guevara. Zeitlin used the occasion of the UCLA seminar to declare his continuing faith in the Communist cause for which Guevara had died. Leslie Cagan who was to emerge in the anti-Iraq protests as the primary leader of the “moderate” peace coalition. Cagan was selected to head the Coalition United for Peace and Justice by a group of left-wing activists meeting under the auspices of People for the American Way. According to the participants themselves, the organization was created as a public relations effort to deflect criticism that the peace movement was run by the hard-line Communists of International ANSWER, self-styled “Bolsheviks” aligned with North Korea, who had organized all of the national demonstrations to that point. Leslie Cagan was a sixties radical who became an activist in the Communist movement in college, breaking American laws to travel to the Communist World Youth Festival in Bulgaria in 1968. The following year she joined the First Venceremos Brigade, a project of Cuban intelligence that recruited American leftist to help with the sugarcane harvest. Cagan was a leader in other institutions of the Left, including the extreme-left Pacifica radio network, and was an organizer of demonstrations for a nuclear freeze and for solidarity with Communists in Central America in the 1980s and against the Gulf War in 1991. Noam Chomsky is a cult figure among contemporary radicals and their leading intellectual figure. A New Yorker profile has identified him improbably as “one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century,” while the left-wing English Guardian refers to him as the “conscience of a nation.” No other individual had done more to shape the anti-American passions of a generation. When Chomsky speaks on university campuses, which he does frequently, he draws ten times the audiences that other intellectuals and legitimate scholars normally do. Chomsky claims to be an anarchist, which frees him from the burden of having to defend any real-world implementation of his ideas. He defends Marxist dictatorships in Nicaragua, Cuba, Vietnam and other third world countries—like Iraq—when they are engaged in conflicts with the United States. A few more Radicals, Communist, Socialists and organizations that support them. Howard Zinn-historian Norman Mailer-author James Weinstein- author—Says socialist should work within the Democratic Party Paul Berman-author Palestine Liberation Organization NAACP American Civil Liberties Union Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund National Lawyers Guild ( an old Communist front) Ford Foundation SEIU AFSCME World Social Forum Ramsey Clark “Not in Our Name”- A front created by Revolutionary Communist Party, a Marxist-Leninist sect aligned with Communist

This book is a tour de force. Written shortly after the inauguration of the Iraq war, it helps to explain to the American mainstream something that is difficult for us to understand -- the psychology of the far Left. To the outsider, it seems those who opposed the Iraq war seemed to do so because of a lack of UN authority, or out of concern for international public opinion. Certainly some opposed for these reasons. However, for those who fuel the far Left, something quite different was at work -- a psychology which fundamentally opposes America as it currently exists. As a former hard leftist himself, Horowitz knows the key players and their key ideas, including where they fall apart. This book, then, is not a "Communist under every rock" kind of a book; it's a dissection of the pathos of the Left. After exposing the fundamental reasons behind Leftist thinking and its historical foundations, Horowitz describes a psychological connection between the Left and Islam. Once he does this, everything comes into focus. Even close observers are bound for some "ah ha" moments with this book. The approach is so much more valuable than a pure polemic because it allows one to "step inside" the mind of the Left, yet do so critically. Once we understand that, for them, America is the greatest of all evils for precisely the reasons that the average American is grateful to live here, it suddenly makes sense why the Left is attracted to our enemies whoever they may be. Once we understand that, to them, "patriotism" is fidelity to an idealized America that is quite the opposite of the one that now exists, we can harmonize their seeming hatred for patriotism and what America stands for. Perhaps the most relevant and helpful insight to me was that to the Left, America's great sin is not its supposed historical atrocities -- it is our inequality of wealth (both within our nation and in comparison to other nations). This is the key that turns the lock, and sadly connects all too well with statements made this current political season.

This is the third of Horowitz's books that I've read (in a row.) I can't agree with all his points,but his thesis is right on (to use the parlance of my formative years in the '60's.) Like Mr. Horowitz,I lived through the turbulent but exhilirating '60's as a leftist without questioning it to any extent. Forcing myself to reexamine my beliefs in the succeeding years was painful-as it was for him. He was,however,far closer to actual events than I was as an undergraduate (& graduate) college student. I haven't done a 180 degree shift as he has,but that's just an admission,not a criticism. That said,I found his explanation for the seemingly inexplicable phenomena of America's political left to embrace radical Islam enlightening. The fall of international communism has left it rudderless-Islam is the new guru. I find this enraging in a way that I never did the left's bed sharing with communism. As a country we were never attacked as with 9/11. For this reason,I find the left's uncritical defense of the Islamic enemy infurating. Mr. Horowitz's simple but accurate observation is totally correct. For such people,their own country has become the enemy. I look foreward to reading & reviewing more of Mr Horowitz's book.

I had long wondered why people on the Left had the propensity to speak more positively about people who would slit their throats than they do about their own country, which affords them more freedom and opportunity than anywhere else. David Horowitz has answered that question thoroughly and convincingly in his Unholy Alliance. Where I felt bewildered and confused, I now feel crystal clear. Unholy Alliance is such a great book. It begins with the leftist movements at the beginning of the 20th Century, and works its way up to the present day, exploring the anti-American attitude of these movements in detail. Horowitz shows that the enemies of the US back then are largely the same group today, operating under the same misperceptions, making the same mistakes, and pursuing the same impossible utopia. Individual chapters are included on the Patriot Act (I was persuaded that it is a GOOD thing); the democratic flip-flop on Iraq once G.W. Bush implemented what they agreed with Clinton needed to be done; the driving components of the current anti-war movement; as well as chapters on individual personalities who are major spokespeople of the Left. Horowitz covers a lot of ground, and he covers it concisely and clearly. Unholy Alliance is richly informative without ever being boring or plodding. This book is so illuminating that I simply cannot do justice to it here. I love people who reason so clearly that they help me get my own reasoning clear. Horowitz is just that type of person! In the terrain of mindless clichés (no-blood-for-oil, etc.), he is a breath of real fresh air.

This book opened my eyes to the depth of hatred the political Left has for America. Before reading this book, I couldn't understand how the very people that supposedly champion women's and LGBT's rights, could embrace and form alliances with radical Islam. (Islam oppresses women and in some Islamic states kills homosexuals.) The author lays it all out in detail, most often in the leftist's/Islamist's own words, with references. I couldn't put this book down, it is well written and engaging. There is so much to absorb, I'll need to read it again. I have post-it notes, and highlights throughout. When I saw it was published in 2004, I was apprehensive regarding it's relevance to today. The information it presents is as relevant today as it was then, and should be read and absorbed by anyone who wants to stand against the evil that is assaulting America today. I bought a second one after reading it to give to a friend.

This is an excellent book, fully documented and brilliant in its analysis of the motivation behind the left's embrace of Islam and defense of terrorists. I have observed the links but didn't understand why, but Horotwitz, an old hard core commie knows the minds and strategies of the left inside and out and has exposed them completely and with great clarity in simple to understand terms. I live in Flagstaff, Arizona, where a local newspaper is completely controlled by a hard-left editor and publisher. The editor prints hundreds of Bush hating, propagandistic letters every month, but absolutely censors any letters by moderates or conservatives and will not print any of them. When I wrote a letter informing the community about Horowitz book, it was rejected and I was told by the editor that Horowitz was not a journalist, was a provocateur and propagandist and that was why the letter was rejected. This book absolutely terrifies the radical left because its true and it exposes them to complete transparency. Read it and join the fight to reclaim our country from these traitors and to assist in fighting the Islamofascists.

Imagine two societies. In the first everyone is assumed to be patriotic no matter what they say or do. In the second, people are considered patriotic only if their actions and words give some reason to justify that conclusion. In the first society, important incentives and disincentives are missing, and the discourse is far more likely to degenerate, because there is no price to be paid for attacking one's own country. In the second, people have an incentive to keep their actions and comments within bounds: being taken seriously requires it. We live in the first type of society. David Horowitz lays out in Unholy Alliance how the left in America has worked against our nation's interests, and yet is taken seriously and honored as patriotic, something they have not earned. If we want to fix what's wrong with American politics and discourse, we must return to a time when legitimacy had to be earned. This book is an important step in that direction.

Horowitz tells it like it is from an insider's view and exposes a lot of important information that very few are aware of.

One of the mysteries of life is the alliance between Islamist extremists and leftists such as Trotskyist revolutionaries. According to their dogmas they are violently opposed to each other, but everywhere such extremists are to be found giving each other mutual support. This is disguised by the tactic of adopting organisation names which obscure their origins and instead invoke some universal good. For example they will claim to be Anti-War (who isn't?) whilst in reality supporting the most brutal war-makers around. Whatever the answer, understanding this 'Unholy Alliance' will shed light on what truly motivates these extremists. Horowitz's book does not do too much to explore the causes of this bizarre phenomenon but it does a fantastic job of documenting it and will be an eye-opener to almost everyone who reads it, even if already rather well-informed. In my opinion it would be foolish to be active in politics these days without a good understanding of the topic Horowitz covers. I recommend this book most highly.

Another eye opener !

I ordered this book because I had hoped to garner some further information about cause and effect of unrest. However, Horowitz devotes more time to bitching about other authors and seems determined to 'assassinate' Noam Chomsky. The general trend of the offering is from a very biased right wing point of view presumably directed by AIPAC. Not the standard one expects from " New York Times' best seller.

Maybe a bit bigoted.