Modern day Hitler-Stalin Pact
By Carol Devine-Molin
web posted June 13, 2005
Acclaimed conservative author David Horowitz continues to dazzle us with his writings. As one of the founders of the New Left movement in the 1960s, Horowitz is eminently qualified to explore the collaboration that exists between Islamo-fascists and Leftists. For political neophytes, these significant connections might be a shocking revelation. But, for history buffs, foreign policy wonks, and political enthusiasts, the current circumstances come as no surprise.
Before the downfall of the Soviet Union, communists were the leading sponsors of terrorism in the twentieth century. In his 1978 book entitled, International Terrorism: The Communist Connection, author Stefan Possony established himself as a trailblazer when he proffered his well researched thesis regarding Soviet-supported terrorist networks throughout the globe. When it came to international terrorism, the communists had their fingers in everything. Little has changed. The Soviet Union is gone but the political dynamic is still the same. To this day, the Left – also referred to as neo-communism, socialism and an "anti-American cult" by David Horowitz – continues to aid and abet radical Islamists. As noted by Horowitz, "The continuity between the generations of the communist and neo-communist Left is, in fact, seamless."
In his 2004 book, Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left, Horowitz explains all the whys and wherefores of the links between these two movements. Let's start with key concepts held by the political Left: There's constant use of buzzwords such as "anti-globalization" and "social justice". As to the former, globalization is a code word for international capitalism. Therefore, anti-globalization is anti-capitalism, which of course is pivotal to the communist mindset. As to the latter, social justice is predicated upon an egalitarian future "in which racism, sexism, and corporate dominance no longer exist." The emphasis is on some utopian, highly idealized future to be brought about by a Leftist revolution.
Horowitz avers, "It is this abstraction, this ‘monde ideal' that accounts for the otherwise incomprehensible fact that, for communists, ‘the future is more real than the present'. The belief in this (future) reality is the reason radicals discount the freedoms and the benefits of the actual world they live in. Their eyes are fixed on the revolutionary future that is perfect and just." This is very strange thinking, indeed. Moreover, "because America is an unjust society, all its wars are also unjust by virtue of that fact alone." Hence, we have a virulent anti-war Left that's never going to approve of any American-led war, even if it's essentially a righteous war to liberate the Iraqi people from tyranny, enforce UN resolutions, stabilize a region, and oust a dictator that was clearly funding and harboring terrorists. Unfortunately, the anti-war movement, led and run by Leftists, holds ample sway with the Democrat Party. And, of course, this will continue to impact the war on terror.
Horowitz notes that, "In its inception, Islamic radicalism was hostile to Communism and to its western sources, but in the 1950s it began assimilating ideological influences with anti-American and anti-Western agendas." The author also states, "The goals of radical jihad are purification and social justice, both of which are to be achieved through the institution of Islamic law in the states conquered by Islamic arms. The tactic of suicidal terror viewed as redemptive martyrdom fuses the political and religious dimensions of the cause." In contrast, the Bush administration and its supporters believe that democratization of the Middle East and concomitant free markets will provide Muslims with greater opportunities and improvement in their overall quality of life. And the majority of Iraqis are clearly on the same wavelength and conducive to the Bush plan. From all that can be garnered, most Iraqis want to partake of their newly emerging democracy, and see the insurgency and suicide bombings come to an end.
What primary agenda do Leftists and Islamo-fascists share in common? Both groups are passionate enemies of America and Israel. And both utilize strong rhetoric and systematic demonization against these nations (i.e. Great Satan and Little Satan). Horowitz further states: "The September (2002) anti-war demonstrations were organized by International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) as an expression of solidarity with the Palestinian terror campaign. They were coupled with a call issued by Arab radicals and European Leftists for ‘International Days of Protest Against Occupation and Empire from Palestine to Iraq to the Philippines to Cuba and Everywhere'. Al-Qaeda was not a target of the demonstrations. The protestors' twin enemies were Israel and the United States." And given their extensive organizational titles, it's evident that the Left is absolutely mesmerized by their own BS verbiage. It's all about "process" and troublemaking for these vapid Leftists, rather than accomplishing a positive agenda.
That being said, the Left is constantly carping about so-called American "militarism" and "imperialism". The neo-commies resent the fact that America is determined to protect itself and the West from the crazed worldwide web of terror. And the Left has the audacity to continually bash America as "empire". Yeah, America is some empire. Our soldiers lay down their lives to liberate the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan, and we're spending beaucoup bucks in the process. I'm not making light of it, it has to be done. But if America is truly an empire bent on exploiting other nations, than it's the stupidest empire that the Good Lord ever created.
Let's be accurate about this: The US military is engaging our enemies – the jihadis and those that aid and abet them – since they've made it quite clear that they're hell-bent on killing us. US strategy is to bring the war to our enemies rather than fight them on the streets in our home towns. Clearly, it's a matter of national security. And overthrowing rogue regimes that are in league with terrorists will not only bolster the safety of the West, but facilitate the process of democratization in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. In order to properly tackle Islamo-fascism, it's not enough to kill off as many terrorists and insurgents as possible. We're also obliged to create a dynamic climate of freedom, hope and opportunity in the Islamic world, which will help thwart the cycle of violence and recruitment of terrorists. When people have optimism and real economic opportunities in the way of jobs, they're not going to be particularly susceptible to recruitment by thugs.
Noam Chomsky is a salient figure among the radical Left that spouts hate. According to Horowitz, "The destructive antipathy of radicals like Chomsky toward the existing social order in the West is, as noted, a form of political nihilism. Revolution is a two-sided enterprise. In order to create the revolutionary future, it is necessary first to mobilize massive hatred against the existing world in order to destroy it. Political nihilism is the half of the revolutionary project that has remained intact after the collapse of the Soviet bloc. If no practical model of revolutionary future exists – and none is possible – then revolution is destructive and nothing else."
That's certainly consonant with the negativity of the Left that's usually "against" rather than "for". Horowitz states: "But unlike communists, contemporary Leftists are not committed to even a rudimentary blueprint that they share in common as to what such an order might entail." Oh, is that why Congressional Democrats can't seem to present any real ideas or solutions, or articulate any substantive vision for the future? All they can do is rip and criticize the Republicans. 
Carol Devine-Molin is a regular contributor to several online magazines.
 Printer friendly version |
|