David Horowitz (1)Besprekingen

1/21/23

Quite a detailed account of the family from the early one who came from Ireland, to Joe Kennedy who married Rose Fitzgerald, daughter of another Boston Irish politician, to JFK and Bobby, and Teddy and the others, down to the generation of the 1980s. Despite not getting help from the family directly, the authors did very well. Took a while to read and skimmed the last quarter of it. Extremely interesting if you want to know about them and "Camelot" and the dark side too.

12/14/21

In this eminently readable book, David Horowitz declares that the decades-long, chasm-wide political divide is, at its most basic, a concerted attack on Christians and their values. What, exactly, are the political ideologies? Are they at the essential cause for the decline of the nation?

The author looks at the establishment of the nation, noting that, while the Founding Fathers were careful to establish a nation guaranteeing free religious practice and expression, they also declared, “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” and went on to pen a constitution that embraced the general principles of Christianity. Despite this, over the past decades, polarization, both societal and political, has established a sort of a cultural war pitting the left against the right and sacrificing the Constitution on the altar of special interests and depredatory power.

The strength of the narrative, written by an agnostic with no religious agenda to promote, lies its political analysis and the apparent effort to divide America and rewrite the Constitution. Is “redefining America” creating a concerted attack on Christians or on the values espoused by Christians, the values that formed the framework for the founding of the nation?

An extensive Endnotes section provides chapter-by-chapter references.

There is much here for readers to consider. And, at its heart, this is something for each reader to decide for himself or herself.

Excellent analysis of the Democrat’s treasonous attack on Trump.

Horowitz, David (Joint Author.); Rockefeller family (Subject)

Horowitz is a polemicist, so most people will not enjoy his writing style if they don't already agree with him. Here Horowitz chronicles leftist professors in academe who use their position to indoctrinate students and stifle academic freedom. Leftists may deny that this happens, but it does. The leftward tilt of academia is undeniable. Although most professors are pretty fair and don't use their pulpit to sow chaos and division, some indeed do. And this book chronicles that. The solution, though, is not workable. More laws to try and create some sort of political equity are not the solution. More government never is.

Originally a radical socialist, the current driving force behind the rise of the Hollywood right recounts how he moved from one set of political convictions to another over the course of thirty years, and challenges readers to consider how they came by their own convictions.

The book title is a misnomer as it deals very little with Donald Trump himself and more to do with the Washington establishment and Democrats who follow the Breitbart political observation (actually a mere statement of opinion) that culture is the source of political power.

This book is notable as most of its citations are from the web and only a few from published works. The agenda spoken of in the book title is the conclusion of the book where several things are listed for Trump to do as soon as he takes office. Trump has done some of these, many were either ignored or tried and dropped after failure.

Although Horowitz is correct to say that Trump has the political deck of cards stacked against him and that progressives really do control the democrat party, a party of rank hypocrisy, Horowitz does not really understand the progressive philosophy, if you can call it that. His assessment is more of a disagreement rather than a philosophical destruction of the logical and practical structure of progressivism. Horowitz doesn't know that progressivism is a eclectic conglomeration of existentialism and deconstruction, blended with the ideology of white oppression.

This book was much better than I expected although simplistic as a view of what the future looks like. Horowitz's future of what America can be is merely dismantling what Obama has left behind and challenging the Democrats through not accepting the characterization which Democrats disseminate as Republican policy and ethical positions. Democrat progressivism is the supreme threat to successful transitions of Presidential Terms of Office which is how Horowitz judges our democratic Republic's vitality.

Horowitz is a polemicist, and this book is quite the polemic. He is right that the Left doesn't play fair and wants to radically alter what makes America good, and what makes America America. And the Left would make America not a utopia, but a dystopia. His advice on how to counter the Left is good if you don't get nasty: hit back, don't be timid, call the Democrats out for their bad ideas, their bad ideology, their bad intentions cloaked in good intentions. But, Horowitz's advice could easily be misinterpreted and misused to become just as bad as the Dems. Rude, crude, breaking rules, breaking morals, breaking laws in order to get what you want. It is thus that Horowitz is both good and bad. He is good when he points out Trump doesn't play by the rules laid out by the Democrats for so long, and how Trump reached many average Americans. He's wrong when he excuses some of Trump's failings, moral and rhetorical. Trump's words are muddy and imprecise and could be misconstrued (especially by Leftists and the media) to sound evil and racist and dumb. If Trump had actual brains, he would be able to attack without being misconstrued. (Trump is also immoral and un-Christian, this is a problem for me.) But, remember liberals and the media said Reagan was racist. Bush was racist. W was racist. McCain was racist. Romney was racist. When you "cry racist wolf" for so long, it rings hollow when you get to Trump. When you say Bush is Hitler and then Trump is Hitler, it loses its sting. When you try to construe Romney as a racist, and Trump as one too, it rings hollow. Libs don't get that. But, I digress.

The book is good for a quick thumbnail sketch of liberalism and how it should be combated. It is a good précis of Trump's plans and how he should go about them.

This books title is spot on.....the Big Agenda of this book was to further his agenda. He contradicts himself over and over...he has no facts to substantiate his claims. .....Subtitle witch hunt.

It's rather comical to be reading this now, as things unfold...
Don't waste your time on this...find a more honest, open minded and non partisan author. This is sub par writing.

Articles purporting to show that not all is gold which appears to glitter with the burning light of Marxist righteousness in the oeuvre of Noam Chomsky, hero of the left and once upon a time, well regarded philosopher of language.

DH argues with opinion and amassed evidence,that the ideologues of the left have infiltrated higher education and corrupted freedom of thought in the very institutions which once were considered bastions of intellectual freedom. Today, freedom is only extended to those who conform to the radical left's standards.

DH is a former communist who has traversed the ideological landscape from the left to the conservative right. His analysis and critique of Marxism and radical left-wing thought is all the more telling because of his own experience. Communism is often the aspiration of the young and foolish, while those who are older dread its recurrence.

This is Trump’s agenda for a more conservative America.

I snatched up Big Agenda: President Trump's Plan to Save America by David Horowitz with the hope of learning more about President Trump's goals and methods for mending America. The book contains more than just President Trump's plan and in addition exposes Democratic corruption. My review is pertaining to the book and not my political views.

In general, The book is divided into 3 parts and concludes with the 100 day plan...

Part 1 talks about challenges for President Trump in dealing with the opposition including Republican "Never Trumpers", and the progressive movement. It also talks about race and hate among the Democratic party. I found the description of the Democratic party's "character assassination" to be compelling. Most of what you see and hear in the media portrays President Trump as being the ultimate hateful and racist person. He reminds readers that Democrats and progressives are just as hateful against their political adversaries.

One statement made by Hillary was that Trump was a racist for requesting Obama to produce his birth certificate to prove he was an American citizen. Yet, this was something Hillary herself attempted to expose during the primary fight with Obama in 2008. His writing is very argumentative.

Horowitz also discusses Hillary's actions which were conveniently "overlooked" by so many during the 2016 election. Here is one example of his bold writing:

Hillary Clinton violated the espionage laws; she broke her oaths of office; she lied to congress and the FBI about her illegal server, which exposed classified secrets to America's enemies; she lied to the general public to hide what she did and repeated her lies over the course of a year; she lied about the number of illegal, unsecure handheld devices she used, and she destroyed or "lost" all of them to hide what she had done; she obstructed justice-a felony-by destroying her emails days after Congress had subpoenaed them and warned her not to destroy them; she lied to the American public and the world about the deaths of four American heroes, including an ambassador who was her friend and whose demise came about as a result of circumstances in which she had played a significant role; she lied to the mothers of the dead over their coffins. Yet through all this disgraceful and criminal activity, which would have disqualified anyone else as a presidential candidate, not a single Democratic elected official-not one- said, " This is a bridge too far, I can't go along with her on this." Not one.

This blunt statement above is an example of the way David Horowitz boldly lays it all out on paper. If you're a person who loves a good argument pertaining to claims against President Trump and his character, part 1 may be your reading destination, although part II contains more additional accusations about Democrats including but not limited to Hillary.

Part II outlines the agenda. The need to stop the progressive movement, repair Obamacare, issues with the environmental movement, and radical Islam to name a few. Part II also discusses more controversial Democratic corruption.

Part III includes strategies for change and leads into the conclusion that addresses Trump's battle plan and the first 100 days in office. If you just wanted to see the specific goals of Trump in early presidency, you could easily just skip to the conclusion and presumably be satisfied.

I personally liked the book because of the way Horowitz writes. It's easy to understand and isn't overly pompous as you might expect it to be. His writing to me is bold, powerful, insightful and convincing. I'm glad I read it and I'm looking forward to reading more works from this author.

Now, we can discern as the next four years unfold...

4****

Already out of date, this is the author’s version of how Trump will make America great again by putting forth an agenda that will overturn much of what transpired during the Obama years. The author rails against progressive reforms, Obama and the Clintons, as well as numerous other “enemies” of true conservatism. He speaks highly of Trump as if he is a supporter of those philosophies as opposed to just being a reality TV personality with no political experience. It is obvious that this book was written before Trump took office. It would be interesting to see how the author feels now that Trump’s campaign is being accused of things far worse than anything Clinton did and how little Trump has accomplished in his first 100 days. Trump certainly has fallen far short of the promises made at Gettysburg, despite having a Republican Congress to enact whatever legislation that party supports. One had only to look at the healthcare fiasco. Despite having seven years to come up with a plan, the Republicans found themselves unable to come up with one that the public truly supports as of this date. This book is a simple, quick read with no real new information but lots of one-sided views.

This is a quick read. Horowitz paints a devastating, but accurate picture of the progressive agenda and the ultimate goal of the Democrats who are now led by extreme leftists who disavow capitalism, like Obama, Sanders, Warren and Clinton, by race baiters like Waters and Cummings, and I believe by corrupt talking heads like Maddow, Sharpton, and Brzezinski. He details the destructive results of their policies and condemns the tools that they use to acquire their power, in any way they can.
He presents not only the agenda he has designed for the Republicans during the Trump Administration, to take back America and return it to its rightful place of respect in the world, but he lays out the corrupt agenda of the liberals, including their corrupt behavior. He clearly defines the criminality of Hillary Clinton, so long ignored by the Justice Department and what has become a corrupt media that is inspired by their own opinions rather than by what is news and, obviously, the truth. He alludes to the existence of collusion between the Executive branch of Obama, and the Departments of Justice and the IRS. Horowitz has very accurately identified all of the current problems facing the newly elected President who has been called many heinous names, even as he is accused of being the name caller.
He places a great deal of blame for the Democrats’ move to the extreme left on the policies and philosophy of Saul Alinsky, a community organizer like Barack Obama, who wrote a book called “Rules for Radicals”, and George Soros, a wealthy civil activist who has sought, for years, to influence American politics to move to the extreme left using non-profit organizations like his moveon.org. Former President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton view those men as their mentors. Alinsky’s polices encourage the demonizing of anyone that disagrees with their agenda, and it seems to be working for the progressives as evidenced by their angry protests and rallies against the President and his followers.
He accurately identifies the problems of the Republican Party and their lack of a common purpose, a common stand on issues which is the lifeline and lifeblood of the Democrats. They are unified, right or wrong because they believe that the ends justify any means, while the Republicans do not. They will follow their platform like lemmings and not break ranks. Hillary Clinton said that when “they go low, we go high”, but that is an oxymoron in her playbook and in the policies of her followers who march in lockstep with her.
Even when the GOP controls all of the branches of government they cannot seem to come together, as the donkeys can, and remain loyal to their party, they cannot, even though they know that the Progressives want to place the power in their own hands so they can rule and will do anything they can to disrupt the current government and are able to disrupt it in their weakness because they remain united as the Republicans divide into disparate groups fighting each other instead of promoting the policies they ran on and promoting the ultimate goal of greater justice and freedom for all Americans as they make America great again. They are, once again, snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory and helping the Progressives accomplish their goal of regaining power and continuing to bring America to its knees, in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Is there any way to defeat the far left that lies while they are actually lying themselves, cheats while they cheat openly, name call while accusing others of name calling, calling others sexist while covering up sexual deviants within their own ranks, screaming racism as they only give lip service to the needs of those less fortunate, as they feather their own nests, as they deny the history of their own party which was and still is, steeped in racism and sexism?
Horowitz suggests that the “deplorable right” examine and concentrate on, the big picture and go fearlessly into the fray to combat the goals of the hypocritical left, but he has not presented any viable way for them to do it. History has proven that they will seek their own level, and that level has not been a very high bar in the past. They are too conciliatory and afraid of ramifications, afraid of losing their jobs, and so they fail in the performance of their duties. Let’s hope that they will suddenly decide not to go “gently into that good night”, to coin a phrase, for it will surely be the death knell of the party.

Essays of a reformed liberal. Very good.

A gifted writer who has experienced the left and the right of the American political world. Faked left went right. Brilliant deconstruction of the usual and still predominating leftist American dogma. Freedom versus necesssity. The actual heart of the leftist position, as played out in
Oakland and Moscow and Beijing - sounds good - dreadful, damaging, and murderous in application (Black Panthers, Weathermen, Bolsheviks, Mao's Red Guard - soul brothers, baby.) Some of his points and contentions.

The left is a religious movement.

Leftist air of superiority - in academia and politics - despite the complete and utter collapse of every major socialist/communist country and enterprise ever attempted.

The Black Panthers were a criminal gang that preyed upon the ghetto. Huey Newton was a murderer.

The attempt to transform natural inequalities into social equality only leads to greater and more brutal inequality; similarly, the attempt to transform individual diversity into social unity results inevitably in a totalitarian state.

Socialism makes men poor beyond their wildest dreams.

Every leftist revolution begins with a rape of the present and continues as a cannibalization of the past. Every leftist government is a colonizer of its own country. Such politically cannibalistic countries are doomed to failure as they consume more wealth than they produce.

Conservative is an attitude rooted in the past instead of, as with liberals, hopeful expectations about the future and desired outcomes ("a better world").

Leftist ideology is committed to an imagined future - attacking that desired future provokes a moral response as opposed to an empirical response - "Are you for or against the equality of human beings"? To deny liberal ideology shows an unwillingness to embrace a liberated future and shows, they assert, a desire to will the imperfections and injustices of the past on the present order. This is why liberals instinctively hostile to the conservative view point.

Liberals have transformed the idea of America from a covenant to secure liberties to a claim for entitlements. They have expanded the powers of the state and constricted the realm of freedom. They have eroded the private economy and stifled individual initiative. By race based legislation and the concept of group rights they have subverted the neutrality of the law and the very idea of a national identity. Conservatives are now the conunterculture. "The terror of ordinary existence".

Tom Hayden. Absolute traitor to our country. Used Vietnam as background for his war against the US government - once the NVA prevailed - he ignored the millions butchered by his beloved communists - it wasn't useful to him any longer. See, his propaganda film "Introduction to the Enemy".

The left never really cared about the Vietnamese and the Cambodians. When the USA went home they did not protest about the slaughter of millions by their erstwhile buddies, the NVA/Khmer Rouge.

Stoic realism is what being a conservative is about. Accept the limits that life places on human hope.

The left is an obstinate, compulsive, destructive belief in the fantasy of change and in the hope of human redemption.

The greatest and most pernicious human folly is to attempt to stifle the truth in the name of hope.

We are born and we die. If there is no God to rescue us, we are nothing.

A long detailed but interesting chronology of this well known family.

The authors outline people and events that occurred during the 60's that led to radicalism and extreme leftist agendas. Previously very liberal, the authors now take a new look at the 60's, and what they find in the mirror isn't pretty.

While many powerful events happened including the Civil Rights movement and the march from Selma to Montgomery, some groups such as the Weatherman, were consistently doomed to implode, with various splinter groups trying to hold it together unsuccessfully. Martin Luther King died an unhappy man in some respects, he became severely depressed when he saw that Malcolm X was taking the original non-violent focus and pushing to the exact extreme, with the agenda of violence to accomplish justice.

The first chapter is an eye opening statement regarding the 60's liberalism and it's personal effect on Fay Stener. A radical attorney, she represented hardened serial criminals originally believing they were oppressed by a repressed government. Representing radical Black Panther founder Huey Newton, she visited him often in jail and spent countless hours, given at no cost to Newton. She was quite surprised when after all her efforts, seeing him at a local function, he did not acknowledge her. Meeting George Jackson when he was 28, he already had spent ten years in jail. She was immediately seduced and had a sexual relationship with him. Clouding boundaries, she was not able to see that eventually of all those she represented, only one turned himself around, and it wasn't George Jackson.

Stener died by suicide after she was gunned down by a member of his group who demanded she write that she had betrayed George Jackson. Paralyzed and unable to perform even menial tasks, she took her own life.

Focusing primarily on radical destruction of the 60's including Chicago burnings and a generation of peace, love and tranquility that did not quite work out the way they planned it to, the author talks of selfishness, self aggrandizement and people who tried to do what they thought was good for society, only to watch their movements become dust in the wind, the kind of dust similar to the great dust bowl that hit the midwest United States, scorching and burning all in it's path.

I was only eight years old in 1960 and hailed from a very small blue-collar town. My focus during the 60's was on the music. Still too small to realize the impact to the assignations of Martin Luther King, John and Robert Kennedy, as I grew older, I embraced the music and the bell bottom hip hugging pants of the late 60's early 70's. I too was self absorbed.

While the author makes good points, I still came away believing that what occurred in the 60's was a direct implication of what occurred in a cookie cutter 1950's where all women and men had to be the same. The 60's brought about the fact that I now can obtain a credit card and hold a job without guilt of not being a stay at home mom.

The title lets the reader know where the author stands, I simply wish there would have been a more rounded approach.

David Horowitz is a fairly well-known commentator and activist on the Right. What many folks under the age of 50 may not realize is that he was one of the most influential and outspoken members of the radical Left in the 60s. Many of his writings were used as "textbooks" for many radicals of the time.

This book explores his life - starting with his parents - Jewish immigrants who were active members of the Communist movement of the 30s, 40s, and 50s. Immersed from childhood in a world including some of the foremost communist/progressive activists of the time, Horowitz grew up a committed radical.

However, as the 60s progressed, he became more and more uncomfortable with groups such as SDS, the Weathermen, and especially the murderous Black Panthers. He eventually leaves and becomes an outcast among his former friends and colleagues.

Anyone, liberal or conservative, who is interested in the history of politics in the US should read this book. You may not reach the same conclusions Horowitz did, but he provides a fascinating glimpse into the 50s and particularly the 60s and some of the periods most famous people.

On a personal level, I found the book interesting because I too had a "conversion" of sorts in my life - not on the level of Horowitz - but similar in small ways. Once an ARDENT liberal, I noticed that less and less of what my liberal co-horts had to say and believed matched up with what I see as reality. I became much more conservative as I entered my late 30s and remain so (to some extent - labels are ridiculously limiting) to this day.

Aside from politics, what really appealed to me in this biography was his personal story. His relationships with family and friends over time are often described quite movingly and gave me occasion to reflect on the relationships I have in my own life (especially since I JUST turned 45).

According to his mother, Henry Ford was a "born mechanic." His father, brothers, and sisters were less charitable, for Henry would have every clock or toy with a wind-up mechanism in pieces, which he would then attempt to reassemble. He was an inveterate experimenter. Once, dissatisfied with his father's explanation of what would happen if he plugged up the hole on the teakettle when boiling water, Henry did so. The kettle blew up spewing boiling water and shrapnel into his cheek.

Peter Collier and David Horowitz retell these and other stories in The Fords: An American Epic. I had heard Collier interviewed about his new family history of the Roosevelts on Brian Lamb's Booknotes. I was intrigued so I ordered all of Collier's previous histories.

Ford was constantly tinkering with cars, and it is ironic that he made his name racing cars that broke all the existing speed records, though driving them scared him to death, convincing him, perhaps, that small, reliable, efficient, and safe cars were what he wanted to build. He was also a visionary who realized the enormous effect a cheap vehicle would have on the society. "The proper system, as I have it in mind, is to get the car to the people... just as one pin is like another pin when it comes from the pin factory."

Ford was not the inventor of the assembly line. It was actually the conception of several others, but he was the first to realize its potential. More significant was his early attitude toward his employees. Much to the consternation of his competitors, he doubled his workers' salaries at a time of labor unrest. The idea was not his, but that of James Couzens, his business manager. Ford had to be persuaded as to the amount ($2.50 to $5.00), but immediately Ford realized its benefits, for it turned his workers into immediate allies and part of the middle class, making them able to buy his product, which kept dropping in price. The reaction was mixed among the business community. The Wall Street Journal, in a classic statement of rapacity disguised as religion, editorialized that Ford's raises were "blatantly immoral, a misapplication of Biblical principles in a field where 'they don't belong."'

Another Ford innovation was his Sociological Department. Ford believed that he could renovate humans. He would hire ex-cons and other social misfits, believing that a good job could resurrect any soul. His "social workers" would visit the homes of his workers to paternalistically verify they were using their money wisely, investing, saving, educating themselves, and becoming better citizens. "I do not believe in charity, but! do believe in the regenerating power of work in men's lives."

The Ford family story reflects some of the benefits of a single-owner business: better focus, ability to plow more money into the company. That single-minded focus can also become an albatross, and so it was in Henry Ford's case. He refused to see the changes in American culture that no longer regarded the car as a mechanism to get from one place to another - a role the Model T fulfilled very nicely - but as emblems of status and comfort. Henry's son Edsel saw these changes, and as president of the company, tried to implement some of them, but a power struggle (not much of a struggle really with Henry holding all the cards) resulted. Henry fired Edsel's allies, and the result was bad feeling (and loss of market share to General Motors) that injured the company and family for years.

Ford had accomplished something no other major industrialist had he gained complete control over his company. He should have been on top of the world, but his sunny optimism disappeared following a libel suit he brought against Robert McCormick's Chicago Tribune. McCormick hadn't liked Ford's forays into peace activism - McCormick has been described as the greatest mind of the fourteenth century. During the trial, Ford was humiliated by the Tribune's attorneys who ridiculed his homespun manners. Ford never forgave the legal profession after that experience, and he withdrew even more from the public eye, now despising notoriety he had previously relished.

His myth continued to swell. "Henry Ford had become a representative American. He was a man of limited formal education, yet he had inspired something like mass hypnosis in the American heartland. lie stood for the populist values that grassroots Americans believed in, values which were increasingly under assault in the modern world."

The collapse of the Edsel is told in humorous detail. The Ford brothers were barely speaking to one another by that time, yet pictures were taken by the image-makers, showing them smiling and ostensibly happy. Another public relations wizard purchased 5,000 handcrafted fireworks from Japan that exploded and released a nine-foot scale model that floated to earth on a parachute. Evidently the front grill was considered by some critics to resemble female genitalia, so there were the inevitable jokes about the tail-fin bedecked Cadillac backing into an Edsel and producing an Edsellac.

The internal machinations, the battle between Henry Ford (the grandson) and Lee Iaccoca are spectacular, each building a power-base, with Iacocca, in particular, doing anything to wrest control of the company away from the Ford family. It is sad, however, to read of such flagrant disrespect for customers and the company's long-term future, while preserving and building one's own empire. Given the implosion of General Motors, one has to wonder how much worse they are than Ford.

Peter Collier and David Horowitz were comrades of the New Left--former radicals who over time moved to the right. This was written during the time they had absorbed some of the lessons of the sixties, but hadn't become active in trying to undo the damage. That is to say, I think they were by this time neither people trying to burnish the Kennedy image nor people who were trying to tear them down. I think this is a thoughtful, readable portrait of a family that doesn't pull its punches, but still manages to show empathy for their subject and evidently well-researched--they spent years researching this and interviewing members of the family and those involved with them. And it's engaging from beginning to end covering three generations from Joe Senior to his grandchildren up to the 1980s. All of which makes for a good biography.