The agenda of deliberate destruction

Editor’s note: WND asked Nicholas Butterfield to interview best-selling author Jamie Glazov about his latest book, “United in Hate.”

Question: In your book, you outline the Left’s various love affairs with despotic
leaders throughout history, from Stalin and Mao, to Nasrallah and
Ahmadinejad. Will the cycle break under President Obama, who holds the
respect of the radical Left, yet selected a strong war cabinet?

Answer: The signs now indicate that the cycle will by no means be broken. One only
has to look at the choices being made in foreign policy to get a feel of
what the Obama administration has in its heart. It’s clearly going out of
its way to make sure that our adversaries will be able to hurt us. Obama has
announced the closure of Guantanamo and the closing of all overseas CIA
interrogation centers. The information and intelligence that was gathered
through these vehicles prevented myriad strikes against the United States.
Now our hands will be tied and our eyes blindfolded while jihadis plan to
attack our soil not just 9/11 style, but with WMDs. It’s not a good picture.
This is all not to mention where the hardcore terrorist inmates in
Guantanamo will go.

Why would an American government indulge in this kind of thing in a time of
war? The Obama administration also intends to provide approximately $900
million to Hamas. Why? Why are we giving money to Nazis whose hands are
drenched in blood and whose sole purpose is to annihilate Israel and kill
Jews?

Now Obama intends to make Chas Freeman, of all people, the chairman of the
National Intelligence Council. Let’s just say that Freeman will exercise a
huge influence on shaping U.S. policy. And who is Freeman? He’s a former
U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia. His views? He thinks that the Tiananmen
Square massacre was a great thing, that Israel is the victim of terrorism
because it brings it on itself, and that America needs to do soul- searching
about what it did to anger the 9/11 terrorists.

This is only a drop in the bucket in terms of the direction the Obama
administration is heading. And one can just imagine the love affairs with
despots that will develop on various levels throughout this administration.

Q: The self-reinforcing cycle you detail in your book – that the more victimized
the “believer” envisions himself to be, the closer he feels to the supposed
victims of capitalism – seems hopeless. Is there a way to rehabilitate
“believers”?

A: Rehabilitation is possible but extremely difficult because a believer has to
give up his entire identity if he is to accept the truth. Rehabilitation,
therefore, is only really possible if the believer himself wants to change,
just as a drug addict or alcoholic can only start recovering if they
themselves truly want to.

In almost all cases, there has to be a huge amount of personal pain to
ultimately force the believer to break through his delusions. In David
Horowitz’s case, for instance, the Black Panthers killed his friend, Betty
Van Patter, and he could not, in good conscience, just forget about her – as
the rest of his Leftist community did. David could not sacrifice a life on
the altar of leftist ideals, as the Left has perfected in doing. Because of
his conscience, David had to undergo the excruciating experience of giving
up his Leftist identity and community in order to see the Black Panthers for
who they were and the cause of the Left for what it was. Phyllis Chesler had
to be literally imprisoned by her Arab husband in Afghanistan in order to
break through her utopian leftist vision and romanticization of adversary
cultures.

Q: The Liberal Left is endlessly pessimistic when it comes to conservative
ideals, yet you show that time and time again they have been willing to be
deceived during their various visits to Cuba, China, Russia, etc. What
explains this apparent contradiction?

A: The believer lives in a state of self-deception and so he also wants to be
deceived. Leftists have an extremely difficult relationship with reality,
because reality, on every level, contradicts every tenet of the political
faith. Conservative ideals, meanwhile, are based on reality. So the [Leftist] believer
must create a fantasy world for himself and is extremely grateful to the
monsters that he worships when they feed him the lies and false imagery he
needs to sustain his vision. The Leftist is pessimistic when it comes to
conservative ideals because he cannot accept them, not because he knows or
believes that they are false or unworkable. He has to reject them in order
to keep his false self alive.

Q: How come the Liberal Left always seems to get off the hook so easy?
Endorsing Stalin, Mao, Castro, and every evil dictator in modern history
isn’t the best track record.

A: The Left controls the boundaries of our discourse, so it is able to hide its
past and the truth very easily. Because it controls the cultural dialogue,
it can move its own crimes into historical invisibility.

For instance, racial hatred is inexcusable in our society because the Left
permits it to be. That’s because the Left uses its stance against racism as
a weapon to wage war against its own society. Racism is, of course, bad, and
that goes without saying; the point here is that the Left doesn’t really
care about racism. If it did, then it would be outraged at and outspoken
about how Muslim Arabs, for instance, still practice slavery in Africa,
enslaving black Africans because they find them to be inferior.

Racial hatred [is unacceptable.] Meanwhile,
class hatred is completely tolerated within our society. Even though it has
caused more deaths in the 20th century than racial hatred, there is no
movement against it and it is not demonized. So Stalin and Mao together
might have killed 100 million people because of class hatred, but because
class hatred is the oxygen which sustains the Left, those crimes need to be
covered up with historical amnesia. For they bring light to the fact that
the ideas underlying those massacres might have to be rethought.

The Left gets off the hook, therefore, because it controls the language and
therefore the values of society and culture.

Q: How long before the extremist Left finds a new despotic leader to fall in
love with?

A: It will not be long before new despots will emerge and new romances on the
Left will begin. But there are love affairs starting up constantly. Today,
for instance, we see many on the American Left idolizing Hugo Chavez. Just
look at Sean Penn’s relationship with Chavez. Believers constantly have to
worship adversarial authoritarian figures as a way to feel powerful and, of
course, to disappear within a totalitarian whole, so they can shed
themselves of their own individuality, which they despise.

Q: I find it extremely ironic how adamant the “believers” are in looking for
the truth and for bettering the human race, but how intellectually dishonest
they seem. Are they really that delusional, or is their supposed concern
actually insincere?

A: Their agenda is deliberately destructive. Look at Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda.
As leaders of the anti-war movement during Vietnam, these two individuals
know that the fall of Saigon was very much their doing. The North Vietnamese
have themselves thanked the anti-war movement for making the takeover of
South Vietnam possible. The fall of South Vietnam led to a blood bath in
Southeast Asia. In other words, Fonda and Hayden both know that they are
complicit in the massacres that the communists perpetrated in South Vietnam,
Laos and Cambodia, when those countries fell to communism. So, a generation
later, knowing what the American withdrawal from Vietnam led to, both Hayden
and Fonda were again pushing for an American withdrawal, this time from
Iraq. They knew well what the consequences would be if America had lost and
the jihadis had won in Iraq. The surge saved Iraqis from a monstrous Islamic
caliphate and cemented the foundation for democracy and a civil society. It
avoided a Khmer-Rouge style bloodbath. It scored a victory for U.S.
interests and democracy everywhere. No wonder the Left opposed the surge so
furiously and hates its success so much.

Q: You reveal how misogynistic the Islamic culture can be. How can the
trademark “believer,” who ostensibly would be an adamant voice for women’s
rights, really support Islamofascist regimes?

A: The key is that the believer pretends that he is for social justice and
women’s rights and gay rights etc., but in fact he doesn’t care about any of
these things. They are just weapons for him to wage war on his own society.
If “women’s rights” is an issue that he can use to bash capitalism and
democracy then he will do it, but if the issue is honor killings and female
genital mutilation, then he has to ignore it. It makes the believer have to
face the possibility that his society is actually a good one and that
adversarial cultures and societies are bad. So, when it comes to Islam, he
has to drop his interest in women’s rights. Because destroying his own
society is the priority, he must constantly portray it as evil. The evil
committed by enemies therefore has to be ignored. And if it means ignoring
millions of women who are barbarically oppressed by Islamic gender
apartheid, then that is the way it has to be.

If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Jamie Glazov, e-mail publicist Sandy Frazier.

Get a copy of “United in Hate” by Jamie Glazov now!