Ruth King Examines David Horowitz’s and Ron Radosh’s Attack On Diana West’s Reputation

American Betrayal CoverI’m awaiting the arrival of my copy of Diana West’s new Book American Betrayal: The Secret Assault On Our Nation’s Character.  I’ve not commented on the work itself because I have yet to read it.  I have, however, followed Diana’s literary work for years.  I read and reviewed her first book, The Death of the Grownup: How America’s Arrested Development is Bringing Down Western Civilization. 

As a retired law enforcement officer of twenty-plus years experience, followed by nearly two years as an investigator with the Colorado State Public Defender’s Office, detailed criminal investigations accounted for ten years of my career in the field.  I investigated crimes for lawyers working on both sides of American courtrooms, including murders, sexual assaults, robberies, burglaries and white collar crimes.

From the first column I encountered by chance many years ago, shortly after the 9/11/01 attacks, I found Diana West to be meticulous and accurate in her fact-gathering methods.  She would have been a marvelous detective.  She is ethical and microscopically true to the smallest details in her presentation of evidence.

Come now neo-conservatives David Horowitz of and Ronald Radosh, both former revolutionary communists.  Their anti-American activities in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s were dedicated to the implementation of Karl Marx’s manifesto. Their support for that ideology endorsed Nikita Khruschev’s continuation of Josef Stalin’s gulags in the USSR.  They provided de facto abetment for a regime responsible for the suffering and deaths of countless victims of Communist repression. 

So, Horowitz and Radosh recanted their revolutionary ideas and recited their mea culpa.  They switched sides.  They made their fortunes writing books for patriotic American conservative interests.  I’m not impressed with their sincerity, especially in light of the recent events.  The two former Marxists, hiding behind their neo-con credentials, have launched a relentless attack on Diana West’s book in a manner that can only be seen as carefully designed to ridicule, marginalize and destroy her literary credentials.  This is not scholarly debate.  It’s annihilation and character assassination.  Why would they do this?

Over at, Ruth King presents her hypothesis on why Horowitz and Radosh decided to start this malicious campaign, which to all appearances is designed to demolish West’s reputation as a scholar and author.  I recommend that you take the time to read Ruth’s opinion and make your decision:

As soon as I’ve read American Betrayal, I’ll render my opinion on its value.

With thanks to Andrew Bostom for his time and advice.

About John L. Work

John Lloyd Work has taken the detective thriller genre and woven an occasional political thread throughout his books, morphing what was once considered an arena reserved for pure fiction into believable, terrifying, futuristic, true-to-life “faction”. He traveled the uniformed patrolman’s path, answering brutal domestic violence calls, high speed chases, homicides, suicides, armed robberies, breaking up bar fights, and the accompanying sporadic unpredictable moments of terror - which eventually come to all police officers, sometimes when least expected. He gradually absorbed the hard fact that the greatest danger a cop faces comes in the form of day-to-day encounters with emotionally disturbed, highly intoxicated people. Those experiences can wear a cop down, grinding on his own emotions and psyche. Prolonged exposure to the worst of people and people at their worst can soon make him believe that the world is a sewer. That police officer’s reality is a common thread throughout Work’s crime fiction books. Following his graduation from high school, Work studied music and became a professional performer, conductor and teacher. Life made a sudden, unexpected turn when, one afternoon in 1976, his cousin, who eventually became the Chief of the Ontario, California, Police Department, talked him into riding along during a patrol shift. The musician was hooked into becoming a police officer. After working for two years as a reserve officer in Southern California and in Boulder, Colorado, he joined the Longmont, Colorado Police Department. Work served there for seven years, investigating crimes as a patrolman, detective and patrol sergeant. In 1989 he joined the Adams County, Colorado Sheriff’s Office, where he soon learned that locking a criminal up inside a jail or prison does not put him out of business. As a sheriff’s detective he investigated hundreds of crimes, including eleven contract murder conspiracies which originated “inside the walls”. While serving on the Adams County North Metro Gang Task Force and as a member of the Colorado Security Threat Intelligence Network Group (STING), Work designed a seminar on how a criminal’s mind formulates his victim selection strategy. Over a period of six years he taught that class in sheriff’s academies and colleges throughout Colorado. He saw the world of crime both inside the walls and out on the streets. His final experiences in the criminal law field were with the Colorado State Public Defender’s Office, where for nearly two years he investigated felonies from the defense side of the Courtroom. Twenty-two years of observing human nature at its worst, combined with watching some profound changes in America’s culture and political institutions, provided plenty of material for his first three books. A self-published author, he just finished writing his tenth thriller.
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Ruth King Examines David Horowitz’s and Ron Radosh’s Attack On Diana West’s Reputation

  1. Caroline beckenhaupt says:

    Thank you, John for this thoughtful post. I think Miss King is onto something.

  2. jim moran says:

    After reading some of the excerpts from West’s book I would have to agree that it should be criticized and marginalized. The chapter on the Philippines is a barking mad stew of conspiracy theories. Read the excerpt for yourself; do you see any problems? Come back and tell me why you like it.

    • John L. Work says:

      If you haven’t read the entire book, not just a few excerpts, you’re not qualified to render an opinion. That’s why I haven’t opined on the book. I’m waiting for my copy, so that I can read it in its entirety. A juror cannot render a just verdict based on a few excerpts of the evidence. And your “barking mad stew of conspiracy theories” rhetoric rings like that of political leftists. I don’t call names. I deal in fact. You can read my review at Amazon and I’ll post it here, after I write it.

      Disagreement with conclusions drawn from any body of evidentiary material is natural and to be expected among various readers. Some juries end up unable to reach unanimous verdicts.


  3. jim moran says:

    A juror certainly can render a verdict based on just a few excerpts of the evidence. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt and one strong piece of evidence can be enough to cross that threshold. You were in LE and know that is true.

    I certainly can render an opinion on an excerpt and extrapolate from that to what the value of the book will be. I won’t be reading West’s book because of the poor quality of the history contained in the excerpts. The idea that the Russians caused the Japanese to attack the US is not supported by history and to be frank appalling stupid.

    While I’m happy to hear you don’t call names I do note you have already taken a position with out having read the book. You are also ready to assume that I am of the left. The “barking mad stew of conspiracy theories” is roughly comparable to tin foil hat wearing or batsh*t crazy. Terms the right throws at the left with the same frequency as the right applies it to the left.

    • John L. Work says:

      With all due respect, I strongly disagree with you. A judge instructs the jury not to discuss a case or to deliberate to reach a verdict until all of the evidnce has been presented at trial. What you’ve suggested is that one could walk into the middle of a trial, see and hear a small part of the evidence presented by one side or the other, and render a fair verdict. Were I the accused I would not want that person voting guilt or innocence on my jury.

      My position you noted was not on the book, because I had’t read it, but rather on Diana West’s reputation, based upon a compendium of her work over the past ten years. I’ve now read the book at issue, in its entirety, and I reviewed the book.

      On what page did Ms. West claim that the Russians “caused” the Japanese to attack the United States? I don’t recall reading such a claim.

      So, are you a political leftist? I’m a political conservative. And I don’t mean a Republican. I’m not a Republican. And I don’t throw terms about like you’ve presented here. Since you refuse to read the book and look at the body of documentary evidence West presented in support of her case, we’re realy wasting each other’s time with this. Best regards, JW

  4. Glenn Howard says:

    I find Ms. King’s explanation psychologically unconvincing. I think that a fear on the part of former communists of being called to account for the harm they did when they were current communists is more likely to engender defensive excuses than an indefensible Leninist ad hominem campaign of personal destruction. A more powerful motive must be sought, I think.

    The best I can come up with is that the impetus does not come from a bad conscience about the past on the part of Horowitz and Radosh. Rather, it comes from the perception by current communist conspirators that America Betrayed may cause sunlight to be focused on present-day covert Communists before their campaign to dominate the United States by maintaining control over the Democratic Party and eliminating the Republican party as an electoral alternative is complete.

    If that is what’s going on here, then either Horowitz and Radosh are deep-cover agents of influence whose conversions were never sincere or their former comrades have something on them which they don’t dare let be exposed. The former seems unlikely because Horowitz and Radosh have done so much against the hard left in recent years, it seems more than a mere cover-story sacrifice bunt would justify. The blackmail scenario appears more likely. Of course this is all speculation and not nearly so satisfying or reliable as an explanation based on actual evidence.

    • John L. Work says:

      Thank you, Glenn, for you thoughtful analysis and for reading my blog post. It’s possible we’ll never know the real reasons for what Mr. Horowitz and Mr. Radosh have done. Ms. West’s rebuttal is published and will stand the test of history in defense against the assault on her book, her credibility and her character. Best wishes, JW

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s