Skip to content

From the Pen of David Horowitz: November 23, 2009

November 23, 2009


In retrospect, the anti-war movement to oppose American policy in Iraq had actually been launched on an international scale within weeks of the attack on 9/11, long before the lead-up to the Iraq war itself. This anti-war movement was a product of the same forces and organizations that had assembled to riot against the World Trade Organization in Seattle and against the World Bank in Prague and to promote the anti-capitalist agendas of the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre. It was spurred not so much by the actual events – either the attacks of 9/11 or the war against Saddam Hussein, as by the opportunities these events afforded to a radical movement whose permanent agenda was opposition to America and its perceived global “domination.”

This agenda was summarized by the leading intellectual of the movement, Noam Chomsky, in a book titled, Hegemony or Survival. The title was itself a calculated echo of Rosa Luxemburg’s apocalyptic claim that the world faced a choice between “socialism or barbarism,” which had been issued almost a century earlier. Chomsky’s book was an attempt to make the identical case in contemporary terms.

America’s pre-eminent global position, Chomsky argued, is a threat to world survival. This was because America supported a doctrine of aggressive war, wanted to extrude weapons into space, had obstructed the international control of weapons of mass destruction and undermined the Kyoto protocol, which was the “world’s” effort to protect itself from extinction through global warming.

Against this “nightmare” future, Chomsky went on, a world “rights” movement had arisen. “The solidarity movements that developed in mainstream America in the 1980s, concerning Central America in particular, broke new ground in the history of imperialism; never before had substantial numbers of people from the imperial society gone to live with the victims of vicious attack to help them and offer them some measure of protection. The international solidarity organizations that evolved from these roots now function very effectively in many parts of the world,…”

What Chomsky was describing in these passages was a 21st Century version of the “international civil war” between capitalists and socialists that Marx and Lenin had proclaimed in an earlier epoch: “One can discern two trajectories in current history: one aiming toward hegemony, acting rationally within a lunatic doctrinal framework as it threatens survival; the other dedicated to the belief that ‘another world is possible,’ in the words that animate the World Social Forum,..” This was the real vision that inspired the anti-war movement that developed between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq.

Unholy Alliance

If you have a favorite Horowitz quote you want to highlight for others then please email it to DavidSwindle {@} Please include:

  1. “Horowitz Quote of the Day” in subject line.
  2. A link to where the quote is from. (No need to include this if it’s from a book.)
  3. Any remarks you’d like published explaining what value you take from it.
  4. Your preferred name and a link to your blog or homepage (if you have one.)
  1. Carterthewriter permalink
    November 23, 2009 6:49 am

    All these movements have one thing in common: the prefix, “Anti”.

    • themadjewess permalink
      November 23, 2009 6:55 am

      Yeah, like the Christian ANTI Christ… muaahhhh haha

  2. therealend permalink
    November 23, 2009 6:57 am

    And these are the people we want to like us for some reason?

  3. jjay permalink
    November 23, 2009 7:00 am

    Thanks for bringing this background back to light. It always helps to look from different perspectives at how things might have come to be. Distortion is the black hole we all have to be aware of and cautious to accept as gospel. The for instance here, is your inability to accept or refusal to acknowledge the progression of ideas and development of cause or purpose in ways that show learning and how intelligence advances in human growth.

    To blithely state that a text one hundred years old is merely the same repeated by Chomsky is an error in observation and acceptance that knowledge increases and builds with age and experience. America has not solved the world’s issues with its wars against evil; our throwing of our young into worthless battles which create more enemies than before each start; its incomprehensibly expensive purchases of weaponry; massive sales of those destructive forces to nations around the world to use on each other and back again on our own military and other efforts around the world. We have in this sense not progressed as humans should in learning that war does not solve issues, only delays them for another day and another generation.

    That is the legacy we must understand is self defeating and should never be one that we gift our children, grandchildren or others. We must find better ways. We must recognize that there are better ways already in existence in other cultures. We are not the only culture with answers. There are others which have been in existence much longer, have been at the process of living together much longer and have come to realizations on how to do this thing we call living much more effectively and peacefully. It is up to us as a world power to be dealt with, to deal with our own power in new and more useful ways that benefit more of this world than the American pocketbook.

    Thanks again for this challenge of thought and may we all have something positive to give in response.
    All the best to all of us.

    • Walt permalink
      November 23, 2009 8:22 pm

      Your response really does fall into old 60’s cliches. Thank you for the time warped perspective. Also, Noam Chomsky readily, in his works, credits his predecessors. Marxists do have an intellectual heritage to fall back on. Rosa Luxembourg, Antonio Gramsci, and others are still looked to for guidance and inspiration by the left. There seldom are truly new political ideas in the world, but more often than not old ones recast for a new era.

  4. Sashland permalink
    November 23, 2009 11:08 am

    Chomsky may indeed be the conceptual mid-wife, but the methods and actors also reveal a largely unknown story.

    ANSWER , the organization behind the anti-war protests and propaganda, is a revealing mix of brown, red, green and green (national socialists, communists, radical islam, and radical environmentalists).

    Sadamm was the brown and likely the source of funding for the ANSWER campaign {where do you think they managed to come up with so much money so quickly?}. I had hoped that some enterprising investigative journalist would uncover the evidence showing the link, but I’m not sure that the hate-Bush-more-than-life crowd would have even cared. Ramsey Clark was acting as an unregistered foreign agent. Has he been invited to the White House yet? He should be indicted, not invited.

  5. D. Blakeley permalink
    November 23, 2009 11:23 am

    This also points up why Barack Obama is in such a conundrum over Afghanistan. It’s not that his base is a bunch of liberal Senator buffoons who see all foreign policy decisions in terms of troop levels. Rather, it’s that Obama’s real “base” is fundamentally anti-American. That is, it desires the defeat of America. Obama’s base is the “real deal”-the radicals from the late sixties and early seventies (Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright) who never intellectually grew up, and still drink the Chomsky Kool-aid. With a base like this, it will be difficult for Obama to do anything at all overseas to advance America’s interests. In fact, he will need to betray America and, especially, her military, in order to keep faith with his base. And he will have to figure out a way to fool the rest of the country into not seeing him do it.

  6. Truthteller permalink
    November 23, 2009 12:59 pm

    What exactly does David mean when he says the anti-war movement began long before the buildup to the Iraq war? Seems to me we just had revelations that the UK was already (illegally) guaranteeing support for Bush far earlier than Tony Blair claimed.

    • Carterthewriter permalink
      November 23, 2009 1:08 pm

      I believe he is referring to the Viet Nam fiasco which brought forth many groups that found a cause that allowed them to exist without working for a living.

    • Walt permalink
      November 23, 2009 8:28 pm

      You might actually try reading the posted article before commenting. Mr. Horowitz was noting the recent history of the anti-war left as stated by Noam Chomsky himself. The left will use wars to further its agenda, but onlyspecific ones that suit its purposes.

  7. Mary Schultz permalink
    November 23, 2009 5:18 pm

    I just finally discovered this website after hearing David’s brilliant analysis on the Beck show today. Being raised in a family of hard-core democrats and growing up in Chicago, I saw the rise of the likes of Jesse Jackson, Saul Alinsky and Hillary. A true conservative at heart, I was relieved to hear David say today what I know to be true: to win, we are going to have to fight them on their turf- using their tactics. So when are we going to get organized like “they” are, and begin our campaign? Boycotting businesses, networks, and employers who support liberals? We must organize, boycott, harass, sue; form groups parallel to the ACLU and such and launch our own unstoppable, unbearable, harrassment machine that will beat them relentlessly. Thank you, David. We must unite, organize and fight radicalism!

    • Marylou permalink
      November 23, 2009 10:46 pm

      Welcome, Mary Schultz! I find it truly exciting to be part of this true grass roots uprising. I totally feel you with your message today.

    • Carterthewriter permalink
      November 24, 2009 10:11 am


      You may notice that occasionally a die-hard radical invades this commentary, but their comments come from dead material.

  8. Marylou permalink
    November 24, 2009 9:59 am

    Thank you for documenting this. I knew it was the same old playbook somehow.

Comments are closed.