View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by Bernard Chapin |
August 10th, 2006
In The Shadow Party, David Horowitz and Richard Poe document the unwritten partnership between George Soros — whom the authors dub the Lenin of the Shadow Party — and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party
by David Horowitz & Richard Poe
Nelson Current (August 2006)
Hdbk., 304 pgs
ISBN: 1595550445
To condemn as false the entirety of the Left’s attacks on their opponents, the past, our culture, and capitalism is to somewhat overstate the case as, amid the sweltering cauldron of fabrication which so often is their argumentation, a few gray areas exist wherein the rhetoric is more true than false. Perhaps the best example of one such area is in the conservative habit of refuting their claims while denying that we think they’re unpatriotic. The fact is, nearly all of us realize they are unpatriotic because they hate their homeland and cheer for it to fail in every endeavor. That we systematically deny this understanding is due to varying reasons. In the case of this reviewer, it stems from a libertarian aversion to censorship, which is a topic which must come up after labeling certain positions as sedition. Therefore, to preserve the marketplace of ideas for everyone (or what political correctness has left us of this marketplace), it is often best not to call a traitor a traitor.
Eminent conservative theorist David Horowitz and co-author Richard Poe have no such qualms about stating the obvious, and aggressively do so in their recent release, The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party. The text examines the relationship between a queen, a queenmaker, and a legion of fanatical pages and squires. For those readers familiar with his oeuvre, they will undoubtedly agree that Horowitz delivers here his usual survey of history, biography, and political commentary along with the type of powerful analysis rarely offered by his peers.
Their subject is both grim and all-encompassing. The book’s central theme is that an unwritten partnership exists between George Soros — whom the authors dub the Lenin of the Shadow Party — and Hillary Rodham Clinton. The two of them are the heroes and apex, the Cesare Borgia’s if you will, of those elites who foment revolution from above while the grassroots radicals they finance destabilize the nation from below. Their goal is to bring about an “orderly revolution” through which Mrs. Clinton, their Trojan Horse, will be legally elected and bring about a severe deconstruction and reconstruction of the nation. They believe that what cannot be accomplished by her hand will be enacted by the courts who began treating the Constitution as a fuzzy concept decades ago.
George “Lenin” Soros is an uber-tycoon and legend of the financial world who, unfortunately for us all, turned his attention to politics in later life. His views were formed and inspired by his former teacher Karl Popper, whose notion of an “Open Society” remains on his lips today, and is the name he chose for his foremost institute and foundation. The Open Society is essentially one wherein none of the leaders believe in eternal truths and where the politicians and populace do not regard themselves as being superior to the citizens of any other nation. That the United States is no such place quickly became apparent to him; yet, regrettably, that no other country on the planet fulfills these utopian criteria has never become apparent. It did to Popper, though, who stated that his optimism about the world soared after every visit to our shores, and even once claimed that a particular visit relieved him of depression. This eventuality makes no difference to Soros, who despises George W. Bush and has made pronouncements equating him with Nazis. Soros, despite his affection for the Clintons, has dedicated his fortune to stopping those who believe in our goodness and transcendence. More than anything, he craves a way to “puncture the bubble of American supremacy.”
Why would a billionaire tycoon be so hateful towards a nation which generously granted him citizenship? Well, it seems that for Soros the personal really is political, and a large section of The Shadow Party is devoted to uncovering the exact workings of his personality. This is actually a much easier task than one would expect, as his psyche is comically transparent. Soros was born a Hungarian Jew who escaped Auschwitz during the Second World War by posing as the god-child of a government official. From there the story turned horrific, as it was this particular official’s task to confiscate property from the — soon-to-be dead — Jews. Young Soros duly accompanied his protector on his rounds while doing side work running deportation messages for the Nazi-installed Judenrat. His bosses there existed to smooth over many of the difficulties among the Jewish population which inevitably arose as they were methodically robbed, beaten, sealed in ghettos, and earmarked for extinction. Their work was invaluable to men like Adolf Eichmann, as they removed many of the obstacles which could have delayed the factory-style exterminations that he coordinated.
According to Soros, the experience left him with the will to survive, but, to the rest of us, it is very clear that it left him with an eternal case of guilt. His need to placate this guilt is probably the reason why he so longs to become “the conscious of the world,” — and yes, it is humorous that he actually walks around using such language for self-description — which goes to show that comprehending the motives of others is not always that difficult an undertaking.
Soros uses his money to fuel his megalomania and has created mischief all over the world. Whenever Soros chooses, his immense fortune can be pointed like a siege engine in the direction of whatever front radicals are in most need of reducing. The Open Society is so vague an apprehension that it can simultaneously be violated by our nation, along with murderous regimes like Slobodon Milosevic’s in Serbia. Vanity seems to have something to do with Soros’s actions as President Clinton, who lavished attention and power upon him, was deemed a great leader while President Bush, who has ignored him, is considered the bane of civilization.
The one shortcoming of this book is that it is far more about George Soros and the radicals of the sixties than it is about Hillary Clinton. Those looking for her biography are advised to search elsewhere, but the authors do demonstrate that Hillary’s political machine (“Hillaryland”) has been forged partly by the funds of Soros and is in harmony with his aspirations. Her unofficial think tank, The Center for American Progress, may be run by John Podesta, but Horowitz and Poe believe that the junior senator from New York is the one who makes all of its real decisions.
In Hillary Clinton, the radicals have the candidate they always wanted. She has hidden her far left inclinations well since first being elected in 2000. Her think tank exists to rebuke her critics, and also to have operatives in place to quickly morph into an administration should she win in 2008. Soros has had many successes over the years, and placing her in the Oval Office would even outshine his victory with the McCain-Feingold Act.
Although, from what we know about Hillary Clinton, it is unlikely that she would ever consent to be the pawn of anyone, but, in this case, she shares the same ideology as the behemoth who champions her. It is greatly hoped that an electoral victory in 2008 will not result in her playing Stalin to the Shadow Party’s Lenin on a gargantuan stage known as the world.
The Shadow Party is available on Amazon.com.
veritaseducation@gmail.com
Visit their website at: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22chapin%27s+inferno%22&search_type=
Responses to "Blueprint for Democrats: Deceive and Conquer"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
It's amazing to me how what mainstream moderates promote as new has been around for 10+ years or more among those charter members of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Good article. Hillary will be in a heap of heck before announcing in February, I assure you. Also, I'll be on vacation until early September. All you Patriots keep the Reds and Jihadists at bay. In the spirit of George MCarthur, "I Shall Return.." God Bless You and keep you….Pax Christe!
Comment by Joseph | August 10, 2006
I despise elitism in whatever form it takes, and that includes liberal AND conservative elitism. The general argurment used against liberals - that they hate America and want it to fail, can be applied equally to conservatives. What conservatives are really saying is … if you disagree with US - then you hate America. I don't believe the majority of Americans, and that includes liberals and conservatives, want our nation to fail. I'm a liberal. I live here, I work here, I'm raising my kids here. WHY would I want our country to fail? So, I'll say it again … I don't care if it's a liberal idea or a conservative idea. If it's going to work for EVERYONE, then let's do it. If cutting taxes is going to benefit everyone, then let's cut them more. But also bare in mind that it costs money to pay for roads and bridges as well as aircraft carriers and missiles. If raising taxes is going to benefit everyone, then I have no problem with that either. As a liberal, I want what's best for our country. I expect the politicians to debate the issues openly and honestly. I don't care who's sleeping with who. And I don't care what somebody said 25 years ago. Only in politics is it a mortal sin to admit you were wrong and change your mind. The America public can only be fooled for so long.
Comment by John Ross | August 12, 2006
I am in the process of reading The Shadow Party and am finding it incredibly fascinating. The truth is that I never knew very much about Soros (I.e. Gyorgy Schwartz). After 9-11, when ordinary citizens where putting all the money they had in the stock market to buoy it up after the attack, Soros was cutthroat and like a financial pirate made money on the backs and blood of victims after 9-11. He helped break the bank of England in order to make money. He was a robber barren in Russia and helped to ruin the good will the United States would have had with this fragile new democracy. Soros had incredible power and used it ruthlessly during the Clinton administration. Why does Soros hate Bush? Because Bush gets in the way of Soros’ all encompassing power grab. He slowly paid for complete control over the democratic party. He is one of the most destructive forces operating in the political and financial world today with a deep seeded hatred of America and Israel and an unquenchable desire for power. He is working tirelessly to make money on the backs of the desperate and needy. Ah, that loving liberal spirit of kindness. This book is really powerful and everyone should read it to get a better picture of the “new” democrat party. He is seeking the destruction of the U.S. as we know it. They believe in the “open” society, which has no values or judgments on anyone else. No religion, no loyalty, just an empty soulless society ready for the taking by a big and all encompassing government aching to regulate every aspect of a populaces life. Meet the new face of the democrat party.
To John R. I would say that you do not know who your party is anymore. Just because you do not seek the destruction of the United States does not mean that the new and emerging leaders within the party do not. I strongly recommend you read this book and gain a better understanding of who you are in bed with. If you are an honest man, you will need to reevaluate where you have aligned yourself politically. I would not dispute that there are good liberal citizens who care just as much for America as I do. However, you do NOT run the party. You need to do your homework. Sorry!
Comment by Max | August 13, 2006
I'm not in bed with anybody, Max. My liberalism is not in lockstep with either the Liberal Party or the Democratic Party. Problem today is there's so much information out there, so many books and articles, it's difficult to know what to believe. I'll trust history and what I experience myself before I trust what somebody has written or says - be it left or right. I'll trust hard facts over gossip and wishful thinking. Deep inside, most of us are liberals. We care about our neighbors, we're a giving people, we all believe in freedom and fairness, we'd like to live in a safer, more secure world. Being a "bleeding heart" (Conservatives are so into labels!) and offering a helping hand to someone in need isn't just the liberal thing to do, it's the human thing to do, and the right thing to do. George Soros doesn't represent me or my values. Neither does Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John McCain or George W. Bush. I think we attach ourselves to political parties (and particular books or people) more out of emotion, rather than honest thoughtful analysis. Each political party operates within a preconceived framework. Most individuals live in well established comfort zones. When something comes along that fits the mold, be it book or person - we act as if we've finally found "the answer." All you have to do is read this book, elect this person, go to church on Sunday and become a republican! I don't know who I'll support in 2008. I'd like a president who represents ALL the American people, the powerful AND the powerless, a president who can rise above money and politics, a president who can TRULY lead our nation to a higher level, lead the world by example. Wishful thinking?
Comment by John Ross | August 14, 2006
Yes, Max- that is wishful thinking of the highest order. I do NOT vote for a person I vote for an ideology that I believe in. Parties are supposed to represent differing ideologies regarding how they would approach and solve problems within the nation. Therefore, it is absolutely reasonable to vote party ticket John. It is nonsense to vote for single individuals who fall on either side because then you simply create gridlock and frustration in trying to get things solved. People complain about the inaction of congress but yet that is what one could expect when you have two groups with opposing ideology. Nothing will get done or issues will be railroaded through and you create division and resentment. Yes, your simple-minded plea sounds so good but it is the plea of the uninformed. As to the book "The Shadow Party”, it is based on facts which you can check if your paranoia is peaking. Books are tools in which to disperse facts and knowledge…not always manufactured lies with a maudlin sentimentality. I am not sure where you get your hard facts and history. The truth is- everything is susceptible to bias and you need to read more in order to make an educated decision about what the truth is rather than to just implement a boycott of reading! I know its hard work but that how it needs to be. Also, your comment "conservatives are so into labels" is also s label John. Hello!!! Break out the smelling salts- wakey wakey.
Comment by Max | August 14, 2006
Do I think that Liberals hate America? Well not really….But there is a hate for Bush that is so great every thing that the man does is another chance for another political cheap shot, and thats more important than to do the right thing for America to most Liberals….I cannot speak for you John, but your leaders do…so cant you blame the Rightwingers for feeling that way??? Have you even heard what some of these wacko's are sayingf on your behalf?? If so do your agree?? I belive that most of that left just vote and take no time to study their leaders from what I have seen is that that most of the leftist are not well informed and take all the fabricated storys floating around as fact….and when you point out a REAL fact they wont want to hear it because it does not fit into their puzzle that have put together. Now this can be said somewhat about the right sometimes but far more true fot the left. Would you like some examples of what these fools such as Kennedy,Dean,Kerry,Murtha and the all mightly Lamont are saying? Now Lamont beat Liberman 52% to 48% that leads me to have a little bit of faith in almost half of them…Oh and I c antwaitto see all those fools "flip flop" on there politics after Liberman creams lamont in the REAL election. And they see that they threw away one of the only sain person in there party….in my opinon that only shot they had to win in 2008……Please respond if you would like to question my logic. Thanks = )-'
Comment by Ricky Lennon | August 15, 2006
Max - Reading is certainly an important way to obtain knowledge relevant to making an informed decision. It's just that there's so much information available, much of it conflicting. This is equally true of all the media. Show me a good book and I'll show you a good book that refutes it. What is a person supposed to believe? That's when you have to draw upon other resources; history, personal experience, intuition, gut instinct and your own ability to add and subtract. Sometimes that's all the difference between accepting one side's position and the other's. When the Bush administration began to publicly talk about invading Iraq as a response to 9/11, my first thought was … "What?" Nothing I read or heard suggested a connection between Iraq and 9/11. We had a no fly zone in the north and south, 24/7 visual and "infrared" satellite surveillance, as well as ongoing covert intelligence operations. In Dick Cheney's own words - pre 9/11, "Saddam is contained." My gut instinct was telling me "something's fishy." Still, I gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. But I never fully accepted the alleged WMD threat. Turns out - that was right.
I have little faith in the current administration or any of the major political parties, and that includes the democrats. However, I do prefer candidates who lean toward the left. It's the lesser evil. I speak from personal experience. My politics are no different than my day to day life, and really no different than my religion. I try to set a good example for my kids, my co-workers and my friends. I try to be fair, objective, and willing to offer a helping hand with no strings attached. I work hard and I play hard. It's been a very rewarding life. But I'm not so comfortable and naive as to believe there are just good people in the world. I'm well aware of the threat posed by Iran, North Korea and quasi-state terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. When President Bush called this war "a different kind of war," I agreed. But then he led us to war and we engaged that war in the same kind of way we fight every war. So, what's different other than a policy of preemption and inadequate planning for the aftermath? As conservative columnist and former presidential candidate, Pat Buchanan suggested, every American should read bin-Laden's fatwa. It threatened us all. Listening to the president, I have to wonder if HE's read it? Not that it should be taken verbatim. But it does offer interesting insights. I'm a frequent visitor to Pat Buchanan's website. I have tremendous respect for his point of view, particularly in foreign affairs.
I also have tremendous respect for Colin Powell. If he decided to run for president, I would support him, even though he's republican. So, NO Max - I'm not in bed with anybody. And I do my homework everyday. I think conservatives have been very good at framing (in their terms) the issues that concern us all today. That has been the key to their success. The title of the article from which these comments have resulted is considerably more applicable to conservatives and republicans than it is to liberals or democrats. Although, "divide and conquer" would be more accurate.
Comment by John Ross | August 15, 2006
With the growing number of independent voters in the country, I'd say a lot of us are fed up with the two major political parties. Each side claims to be better informed. Each side presents the facts with its own bias. Along with money, this, unfortunately is the nature of politics. We choose our leaders based on their ability to play the game rather than on their ability to serve. Our country was founded by liberal men who held some very mighty liberal principles. The Declaration of Indepence is not a conservative document, nor is the Constitution. Democracy itself is a liberal concept. I lean toward the left because I have chosen to follow the path of the Founders. Lincoln may have been the first republican but he was no conservative. I consider myself independent because I don't feel that any political party truly represents me. I'm utterly disappointed by much of what I hear from the democrats. And I'm disgusted by the deception, the conceit, the smirks and the condescension of the republican party and its current leadership; particularly Bush, Cheney, Frist and Hastert. (Not all republicans are guitly of such things!) I'm tired of the character assassinations that attempt to make war heros into traitors and try to turn strong but compassionate men into fools. Such are the tactics employed by weak and fearful men, the kind of men who desperately cling to power no matter the cost. Little wonder so many good citizens and potentially great leaders want nothing to do with it.
Comment by John Ross | August 15, 2006
Oh brother! Honestly John, I don't know where to start. First, you have a tendency to project things onto "conservatives" that are really more descript of you. For example, you lament the "character assassinations” conducted by republicans just as you finished a tirade stating among other things "I’m disgusted by the deception, the conceit, the smirks and the condescension of the republican party and its current leadership; particularly Bush, Cheney, Frist and Hastert" uh John, that would be you assassinating the character of RNC leadership by calling them condescending, deceptive, and conceited.
Also, regarding your comment about us reading bin-Laden's Fatwa- what was your point. Not sure what exactly you were going for here?
Also, we are a republic not a democracy. An avid supporter of Buchanan should have know that (i.e. his book A Republic Not an Empire).
Also, your comment about how republicans always frame things in their terms– I must tell you your argument about the early presidents being liberal and not conservative is wacky framing John. First, there were neither dems nor republicans. The issues they believed in fall in both current democrat and republican principles and the debate can be argued either way— DEPENDING ON HOW YOU FRAME IT.
Comment by Max | August 15, 2006
Max, have you been hiding your head in the sand over the past 6 years? Condescending, deceptive and conceited accurately describe the character of those men, especially Bush and Cheney. I would have included DeLay in the bunch but thank God he's outta there, and I hope for good. It's hardly an assassination of character! The conduct of the Iraq War, for example - the hubris, the disregard and outright disdain for conflicting intelligence as well as anyone who did not support their case for war, and the "Bring 'em on" braggadocio hasn't only disgusted me. Almost two-thirds of the country feels the same way. Yeah - both sides are guilty of character assassination but I think the republican party takes the cake. If you want specific examples I can provide them, but I think you already know what I'm talking about .
As for reading bin-Laden's fatwa - my point is we all have a tendency to expose ourselves to information we already agree with. It reinforces our beliefs rather than challenge them. I think the president may have been guilty of this in the build up to war. I also wanted to make the point that we shouldn't ignore the enemy's perspective. NOT that we would ever agree with it, but simply to learn from it. Among my friends are both liberals and conservatives, as well as some who couldn't care less about politics and events in the world. Upon mentioning having read the above, only my conservative friends were shocked and angered enough to ask, "Why in God's name would anyone want to read that?" I responded, "Why would you be so narrow-minded not to? What are you afraid of?"
And Max, of course I know there were neither republicans nor democrats in the early days of this nation. However, if you take the time to look up the definition of the word "liberal," I think you'll find that it accurately applies to those documents and the character of the men who penned them.
Comment by John Ross | August 16, 2006
Oh … and Max, one more point. I'm well aware of Buchanan's book, "A Republic - Not an Empire." I have not read it. It's true - we're a republic, BUT we're also a democracy; a democratic republic. I'm more concerned about the "Not an Empire" part. There are some currently in power who seem to think we are.
Comment by John Ross | August 16, 2006
Max, nice try no cigar
First, the term liberalism is unsettled. It has different meanings in various contexts. Beginning from the word's Latin root, liberalis, its meanings converge upon freedom, but whereas that freedom formerly implied political liberty, i.e., universal individual rights (political and economic) and limited governmental power, (i.e. republican principles JOHN) it now tends to indicate progressivism, meaning rationalist goals pursued by an in intrusive state!!! The founders and their “liberalism” as you see it were actually republican ideals. Ouch for you.
Second, your statement about stating that we are a democratic republic…The U.S. was founded upon the principles of a Constitutional Republic. As the constitution states we are guaranteed a republican form of government. The nation is NOT a democracy or a democratic republic! I wish your fellow democrats knew that because it could have saved the country from a lot of embarrassment and money after the Bush vs Gore election. It seemed that many democrats were unaware of this fact!
As for your constant and unwarranted attacks on republican leaders- That is your OPINION John. Not facts. know that it is hard for you to separate those things but just because you say it or want it to be so- it don't make it so! For every example you give for republicans assassinating character. There are at least twice as many examples for democrats and media doing that to republicans.
"Republicans are called racist!", "Sexist!", "Homophobic!", "fascist", "stupid", "angry" and "self-righteous" among a million other things. Victims of these epithets go on and on (Linda Tripp, Ken Starr, Henry Hyde, Bob Barr, Jerry Falwell, Colin Powell (called Uncle Tom by DNC campaign manager), J.C. Watts, Clarence Thomas, Newt Gingrich, all republicans were apparently responsible for Matthew Shepard's death, Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, Dick Armey, the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, the Concerned Women for America, Shelby Steele, Pat Robertson, Ronald Reagan, Katherine Harris, Robert Bork, the candidate short list for the Supreme Court, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Nixon, and Oliver North just to name a few. So John, please spare me you violin music.
Comment by Max | August 16, 2006
Wow! I guess everything I learned in school is indeed wrong. It really does depend on what the definition of "is" is! So, what are we trying to do in Iraq? Create a republic or a democracy? Well, we could end up with a theocracy! As I wrote earlier, each side is guilty of the same crude politics. What I'd really like to see is a series of debates that deal ONLY with issues that affect us all. No name calling. No dirt. Just the facts please. Maybe Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter vs. Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton? Or perhaps a rematch between Al Gore and President Bush? See, the American public never gets the benefit of that sort of contest. I completely confident that with all the cards on the table, this country would be left of center and more united politically.
Comment by John Ross | August 16, 2006
Hi John,
Well, I will give you credit that you are certainly a spitfire and stick to your guns and you know what- I really admire that. I think we both genuinely care about the country and simply disagree with how to go about creating a better and safer world. Regarding your statement about what the American people really want is an honest debate— that sounds great and that certainly is what I want and it is what most conservatives I know want. I have to say that I am so tired of the arguments calling republicans fascists and comparing Bush to Hitler or calling republicans mean spirited and uncaring. All I have ever wanted was an honest debate without the threat of being called racist or homophobic etc. However, I am afraid that I think many people do not want that. I look at universities shouting down many conservative spokespeople and I must say I doubt that an honest debate is what people really want. To me it seems that many individuals prefer sound bites, verbal jabs, and attack ads. Parties run them b/c they work. Candidates use sound bites because they work. I suspect that most people do not really care about many of the issues that are so critical in today’s world and that makes me so sad but I am still hopeful that this may change. I think John that you and I will just have to agree to disagree. I may not agree with a lot that you say or believe in but I certainly afford you the space and right to say it and I certainly feel better knowing how others who have a different viewpoint think and feel about situations. As to your comment, “I am completely confident that with all the cards on the table, this country would be left of center and more united politically” I would say that I am completely confident that with all the cards on the table, this country would be right of center and more united politically. We will just have to agree to disagree.
Comment by Max | August 16, 2006