Diana
West’s seminal and exhaustive exposé of FDR’s betrayal of the U.S. deserves
revisiting and re-reading by anyone who wants to grasp why the U.S. is now
incrementally submitting to and allowing the invasion of this country by
Islam.. This is the original
Rule of
Reason review
, with some minor corrections, from June 8th, 2013.
Where to begin?
In American Betrayal *,
Diana West begins in 1933.

In the name of establishing historical
causo-connections, I
would have begun in 1781, when Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant published his
Critique of Pure
Reason
, a brain-cracking treatise which relied on reality to prove that
reality was unknowable. That is, by reading his book, a real thing in your real
hands, you were expected to agree with Kant that real things were only rough
reflections of entities whose “essences” he claimed existed but were
invisible beyond the evidence of our benighted, warping senses, in some other
realm (theoretically beyond his own). Kant counted on everyone not noticing the
contradiction and not seeing the ease with which his elaborately constructed
mare’s nest could be exploded.
No contemporary, I gather, ever directly
accosted Kant and said, “Herr Professor! If what you say is true, then
this book is just a shadow, and the print in it, and all your words, too! What
could they mean? How could they be true? Are your words noumena, or mere phenomena?”
Are they non-perceptual things, or are they mere sensory data?
In the year of America’s decisive victory
over Britain at Yorktown, the Critique appeared in Europe. When he read
it, a friend of the author wailed and called his colleague “
the smasher of everything.”
But no one ever did confront Kant with
his contradictions, fallacies, and cerebral legerdemain, except for some
Hegelian hair-splitters – such as
Arthur Schopenhauer in 1818 in his own obtuse work after Kant’s death in 1804 –
and the Western world has been hugely
the worse for it.

Kant was an enemy of the
Enlightenment. Diana West, among her other arguments, contends that the
political and intellectual leaders of the West by 1933 had abandoned reason and
all Enlightenment ideas. Nay, with very few exceptions, they became as hostile
to them as Kant ever was.
West begins in 1933. Of what
significance is that year?
Adolph Hitler became Chancellor of
Germany and Reichsstatthalter of Prussia on January 30th, 1933. From
August 1934, he would be Führer of Germany until his suicide in April 1945.
Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt
became the 32nd president of the United States on March 4th,
1933. He would remain in that office until his death in April 1945.
On November 20, 1933, at Roosevelt’s
urging, the U.S. recognized the Soviet Union. West writes:
The
West’s decision to recognize the USSR – and its determination to keep
recognizing it, no matter how much lying and acquiescence to betrayal that
entailed – did more to transform us than any single act before or since. The
profound diplomatic shift – part Faustian bargain, part moral lobotomy – didn’t
just invite the Soviet Union into the community of nations. To make room for
the monster-régime, the United States had to surrender the terra firma of
objective morality and reality-based judgment. No wonder, then, that tens of
thousands of Dreyfus cases in Russia meant nothing to the “conscience of
the civilized world….
Because
the Communist régime was so openly and ideologically dedicated to our
destruction, the act of recognition defied reason and the demands of
self-preservation. Recognition and all that came with it, including alliance,
would soon become the enemy of reason
and self-preservation….
…It
was here that we abandoned the lodestars of good and evil, the clarity of black
and white. Closing our eyes, we dove head first into a weltering morass of
exquisitely enervating and agonizing grays. (pp. 195-196)
In short, the U.S. government had by
1933 lost the capacity for making moral judgments. It cringed like a coward
when asked to make one, and hissed and spat like a rabid animal at the mere
suggestion of it. It still does when the subject of Islam comes up.
Recognition of the Soviet Union not
only granted the murderous Communist dictatorship a moral sanction, it also
opened the gates to the wholesale Soviet infiltration and subversive activities
of its agents, American sympathizers or “fellow travelers,” and
members of the Communist Party USA. The Soviets never honored any of the terms
of that recognition.
The precedent had been set. We can
see the insidious parallels today in our government’s refusal to withdraw moral
sanctions from Islamic régimes and its tolerance of terrorist-founded and
terrorist state-funded organizations like the Council on American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim American Society (MAS) within our own borders.

The schemer behind
the 
FDR throne
Time Magazine,
July 18, 1938

In March 1933, Harry Hopkins, a
veteran of former New York Governor Roosevelt’s welfare programs, on
Roosevelt’s invitation joins the new administration, at first running the
Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), the Civil Works Administration (CWA)
and the Works Progress Administration (WPA). In this pre-war period he also
established the National Youth Administration (NYA) and the Federal One
Programs for artists and writers. 
In May 1940, Roosevelt makes Hopkins
his first counsel in all matters pertaining to Europe and the new war. Hopkins
moves into the Lincoln Bedroom at the White House, his office and residence for
the next three and a half years. Hopkins not only advises Roosevelt on foreign
policy and war issues, but directs Lend-Lease, a program conceived by Armand
Hammer, a notorious Sovietaphile, ostensibly created to aid the British in
their fight against the Nazis, but actually intended to aid Josef Stalin and
the Soviet Union.
Between 1932 and 1933, millions of
Russians starved to death as Stalin’s government confiscated harvests in the
brutal forced collectivization of Russian agriculture. Millions more would
perish over the decade from starvation, from being sent as slaves in the Gulag,
in mass executions, and in political purges.
But 1933, writes West, was a crucial
year in American history. In reprising the statements of historians and
commentators about the wrongness of recognizing the Soviet régime as a
legitimate government, given the known
horrific consequences of forced collectivization, she states:
Dennis
J. Dunn agrees with historian David Mayers, who has argued that the failure of
the U.S. government under Roosevelt to reckon with the profound crime of the
Terror Famine in negotiations over recognition made it – us – “a passive
accomplice to Stalin in the Ukraine.”
I
agree. Which makes 1933 the year of America’s Fall.  (p. 243)
Diana West steps up to lectern and
confronts Professor Kant with some very incisive and inconvenient questions of
her own. Who really won World War II? Was it really America’s “Good
War”? Did the “greatest generation” fight to rid the world of
one toxic dictatorship only to enable another to take its place? How is it that
the only
beneficiary of
that war was the Soviet Union, which acquired an Eastern European empire? Were
Americans conned, scammed, and robbed throughout the government-perpetuated
Depression and then during the war? Who was really establishing American
foreign policy in the 1930’s and 1940’s: Roosevelt, or Stalin through Harry Hopkins,
who had Roosevelt’s ear 24/7, and countless Soviet agents and traitors embedded
in our government dedicated to selling secrets, altruism, self-sacrifice and
welfare statism?
Hopkins, West suggests, was the
Soviets’ most important agent in the U.S. government. Whether or not he was
“recruited” or “co-opted” by the Soviets, or was a
volunteer agent, West was not able to determine with certainty. He is referred
to in Soviet cables as “Agent 19.” The KGB boasted that he was the
Soviet Union’s “most important agent.”
West performs a yeoman’s task and
gets to the “essence” of that whole sorry and tragic period, proving
in her narrative that the reality of our relationship with the Soviets is knowable, and moreover, that its
“essence” was ugly, scary, and shameful.  I would add, pertaining to all the actors in that period
responsible for what West calls the “Big Lie,” criminal and
treasonous.
What precedes and follows West’s
statement is not for the weak of stomach or faint of heart. With a meticulous
and excruciating fealty to the truth, and after exhaustive and often
frustrating research (because many documents that once existed and that were
evidence of the government’s complicity were destroyed or had simply vanished
from government archives), West paints a picture of not only FDR’s complacency
and duplicity towards Soviet totalitarianism, but Harry Hopkins’s contribution
to the fall, as well, in addition to that of a legion of liars, fabricators,
Communist moles, agents, and spies who then populated government positions,
just as an underground state now populates the Trump administration and
influences Trump’s policies.
If you think the Benghazi cover-up
is a classic case of desperate political back-pedaling, official lies and
semi-lies, face-saving, and walking away from reality, that episode is merely a
miniature of the colossal con pulled on the whole country by Roosevelt and his
minions from 1933 onward.
West covers several main subjects,
among them the extent of Soviet espionage against the U.S. and the extent of
Soviet infiltration in our government, an infiltration so common and ubiquitous
in numerous Depression Era and wartime agencies that the government was
literally top-heavy enough to cause the ship-of-state to list ever Leftward.
The government was so saturated with lefties and Communists that they became
the de facto architects of domestic and foreign policies.
West dates the beginning of the end
of a fairly solid and reclaimable constitutional republic – reclaimable from
Wilson’s Progressive precedents of a central bank, the income tax, and becoming
the world’s moral policeman, moves which put the country on the road to
incremental serfdom – from 1933, when the U.S. recognized the U.S.S.R. as
“just another system of government,” not much different from our own.
Roosevelt, West explains, believed
in the “convergence” of our system of government and that of the
Soviets. Aside from buttressing his collectivist programs of the New Deal
welfare state, the “convergence theory” enabled Roosevelt to be
essentially an apolitical pragmatist.
There
was…one point of ideology that Roosevelt does seem to have fervently embraced,
which historian Dennis J. Dunn believes made him an ideologue after all. FDR,
Dunn writes, seized on the theory of “convergence” as it applied to
the United States and the USSR, the idea being that capitalism and Communism
would take on enough characteristics of the other to “converge.”
…As
Dunn explains it, the convergence theory “held that Soviet Russia and the
United States were on convergent paths, where the United States was moving from
laissez-faire capitalism to welfare state socialism and the Soviet Union was
evolving from totalitarianism to social democracy.” (p. 192)
There’s that Hegelian/Marxist
“dialectical” evolutionary force that was somehow ineluctably moving both sides toward
“convergence” so that, to the casual observer, when the melding
occurred, there wouldn’t be a dime’s or kopek’s worth of difference between the
two countries. Human volition and action would have nothing to do with it,
neither in acts of Congress nor in executive branch decrees nor in Supreme
Court decisions. “Convergence theory” assumed the cognitive powers of
a somnambulist. It would “just happen.” Don’t blame us, counter the
advocates of that theory and others. We have nothing to do with it. It’s just
“history.”
It would be unfair to both West and
her book to attempt anything here other than highlighting some of the
revelations she discusses at length throughout American Betrayal. Here are some of them:
Lend-Lease
Much of West’s story focuses on the
organized massive theft and redirection of American war productivity to the
Soviets that occurred under Lend-Lease. But how did it really begin? As noted
above, it was the idea of politically ambidextrous businessman
Armand
Hammer
whose financial and commercial relationship with the
Soviets dated back to 1921. (His father, Dr. Julius Hammer, a socialist and
later a Communist, named him after the Socialist Labor Party of America’s
symbol of an arm and hammer.)

Worried
that a Nazi attack on the Soviet Union would jeopardize his interests in the
Soviet Union (and no one in Washington believed the German-Soviet
non-aggression pact, signed on August 23rd, 1939, would last), he
met with Roosevelt in the White House on November 28th, 1940 and
sold the president and Hopkins on the idea of establishing a government entity
that would be responsible for aiding the British in their war with Germany
(Hopkins later claimed the idea came to him
out of the blue), but would actually help Stalin prepare for the expected
abrogation of the “non-aggression” pact and enable him to withstand
the invasion with American help.

It
should be noted that this “pact” prepared the way for the co-invasion
of Poland by both the Nazis and the Soviets on September 1st, 1939,
the spark that began World War II. Both regarded the pact as a temporary truce
(in Islam, a hudna contrived to buy
time); Stalin wanted to eventually conquer Europe; the Nazis drooled over the
oil fields of Baku and the prospect of endless lebensraum.  Armand Hammer,
who died in 1989, was a walking exemplar of the political
“convergence” subscribed to by Roosevelt, a Republican who
contributed to Richard Nixon’s 1972 presidential campaign, and was a frequent
visitor to the White Houses of Presidents Reagan, Carter, and George H.W. Bush.
He had met and was on friendly terms with every Soviet dictator but Stalin.

Hitler
signed the first operational directive to invade the Soviet Union on December
18th, 1940.

On
March 11, 1941, Congress passed the Lend-Lease bill, and on June 22nd,
Hitler invaded Russia. Roosevelt appointed Hopkins as head of Lend-Lease. (p.135)

West details just how much
Lend-Lease aided the Soviets. When the U.S. finally entered the war on December
7th, 1941, Hopkins and Lend-Lease gave aiding the Soviets the first
priority in planes, tanks, small arms, munitions, Liberty ships, military
machine parts, and other materiel, including food, clothing, medical supplies,
etc. – over the U.S.’s own warfighting
needs
. While Americans had to make do with rationed sugar, butter, meat,
tires and gasoline, the Soviet government received these things free, without
condition, and without interest (on a “loan” which was not expected
to ever be paid back by the Soviets, and never was). The Navy and Army had to
wait until Soviet quotas were filled before being able to take delivery on
their own weaponry and supplies.

Harry
Hopkins
said so, and Roosevelt agreed. West
also investigates the likelihood that Hopkins aided the Soviets in acquiring
not only information regarding the Manhattan Project to produce the first
atomic bomb, but facilitated, through Lend-Lease, the Soviets receiving the
actual physical components, such as cadmium rods and uranium, allowing Soviet
scientists to fashion their own bomb, first tested in 1949. (pp. 122-123)

West writes about the political
power Lend-Lease gave Roosevelt and his “co-president,” Hopkins.
Lend-Lease was
…sold
to the American public as a means to keep the United States out of war in
Europe – as a substitute for U.S.
military involvement, not a means by which to enter the war…The legislation
endowed the president with unprecedented powers to bypass the Senate and other
checks and balances. For example, Lend-Lease allowed FDR to set the terms of
the most massive U.S. expenditures in foreign aid history and their repayment,
or nonrepayment. Who, then, needed a Senate to advise and consent on related
treaties? The State Department, too, took on attributes of a governmental fifth
wheel as Hopkins helmed Lend-Lease and
U.S. foreign policy from the White House. 
(p. 134)
Among other things, Singapore, the
Philippines and Corregidor fell to the Japanese because all the war materiel
that could’ve saved Americans and the British was instead sent to Russia under
Lend-Lease, and FDR and his advisers knew it. Douglas MacArthur had to beg
Washington for planes and naval support and relief, but the Soviets came first.
Roosevelt said, “I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything
else rather than have the Russian front collapse.” (pp. 46-47)

The
Office of War Information (OWI)
West devotes many pages to how the
Office of War Information, staffed and controlled largely by Communist Party
members, contributed to the white-washing of Soviet Russia, to make “Papa
Joe” Stalin and his dictatorship palatable to the American public. Aiding
them in this propaganda and agitprop were the press and broadcast luminaries.
The overall mantra was: Stalin and Russia were the “good guys,” put
upon by the “bad guys,” the Nazis. Stalin and his régime never did a
bad thing, they just had a “different” political system, which
shouldn’t be judged because of the millions it wiped out of existence (those
millions never mentioned). This effort ranged from standard pep-talky
government propaganda to wartime newsreels to Hollywood movies. The standing
orders from the OWI especially were that in no instance was the totalitarian
nature of Soviet Russia ever to be revealed, discussed, or even insinuated.
A book about novelist Ayn Rand’s
testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1947 concerning
the propaganda film
Song of Russia
(1944) is revealing in and of itself. Rand’s testimony was solicited because
she had escaped Soviet Russia in 1926 and had first-hand knowledge of
conditions there. Concerning the lies propagated by the government, one
committee member asked her why she objected to the U.S. allying itself with the
Soviets to defeat Hitler. Rand answered:
That
is not what I said. I was not in a position to make that decision. If I were, I
would tell you what I would do. That is not what we are discussing. We are
discussing the fact that our country was an ally of Russia, and the question
is: what should we tell the American people about it – the truth or a lie? If
we had good reason, if that is what you believe, all right, then why not tell
the truth? Say it is a dictatorship, but we want to be associated with it. Say
it is worthwhile being associated with the devil, as Churchill said, in order
to defeat another evil which is Hitler. There might be some good argument made
for that. But why pretend that Russia was not what it was?**
Why pretend, indeed? Because the
government didn’t want to risk alienating Americans from the war effort. It
wouldn’t be good for “morale.” They might stop buying War Bonds, and
demand an end to rationing. They might object to being in league with a devil
that wanted to collectivize them, too.
Katyn
Forest Massacre
                                                      
After Hitler and Stalin had devoured
Poland in 1939, both went about “cleansing” Poland of its government
and military elements, with the Nazis targeting Polish Jews. We are accustomed
to watching videos of the Polish cavalry facing German tanks, but we are rarely
informed that in the spring of 1940 the Soviets murdered between 15,000 and
22,000 Polish officers and policemen in Katyn Forest to remove any chance of
the Poles resisting the Soviet occupation.
Initial blame was put on the equally
blood-thirsty Nazis, but it was the
Nazis
who discovered
the mass graves after capturing
that region from the Soviets, and who brought in several American and British
POWs to see for themselves (hoping to put a chink in the American-Soviet
alliance), among them Americans Capt. Donald B. Stewart and Lt. Col. John H.
Van Vliet Jr. Stewart later testified before a Congressional committee about
what he saw, and Van Vliet wrote two memos, one of which was put into an
Orwellian memory hole – by Alger Hiss in the State Department.
This information was relayed to
Roosevelt, so he and Hopkins knew about the massacre. They suppressed the
information. The country would not learn about it until 1950, when Stewart
delivered his testimony. Russia would not confess to the massacre until 1990.
Diana West discusses this whole
shameful episode in her ground-breaking book. (pp. 202-218)
The
Nuremberg Trials
Another issue that sent Diana West
off on a wholly justified tear was the hypocrisy of the
Nuremberg
Trials
, two sets of them between November 1945 and October 1946,
with the U.S. conducting separate trials in its occupied zone in Germany. Two
Soviet judges sat in judgment of their fellow killers, the Germans, alongside
their American, British and French colleagues, and one Soviet chief prosecutor
argued that justice be meted out to the Germans in the dock. The presiding
Soviet judge, Major General Iona Nikitchenko, had previously presided over some
of the notorious show trials in the1930’s during the Great Purge.
But all the judges at Nuremberg took
part in a conspiracy of silence about the enormity of guilt shared by Nazi
Germany and the Soviet Union in the way of massacres, purges, beginning WWII by
invading Poland with Germany, and policies of extermination. West noted:
The fact is, not a jot about the
Soviet criminal case came to judgment at Nuremberg – not the NKVD massacre of
some twenty thousand Polish officers known as the Katyn Forest Massacre
(charged to the Germans), not the forced “repatriation” of some two
million Soviet-claimed refugees, which occurred thanks to essential assistance
from British and U.S. troops – our very own war crime – which was still
underway in Germany and elsewhere even as Nuremberg unfolded. (p. 55)
No one was supposed to raise so much
as an eyebrow, if the ghastly details of Nazi depredations described during the
trials seemed to resemble the ghastly details of Soviet depredations. The
Soviets commit such crimes? Perish the thought. And thought did indeed perish.
Stalin’s
insistence on a “second front”
The conduct of the war was more or
less dictated by Stalin and adapted as necessary by Roosevelt and his
Hopkins-picked general military staff, which included Generals Dwight D.
Eisenhower and George C. Marshall. Stalin’s idea was, first, to prolong the war
as long as necessary, in order for the Soviets to better defend itself against
the Nazis; and second, that the British and Americans should open up a
“second front” by invading France. Winston Churchill, increasingly
the odd-man-out in the triumvirate, argued fruitlessly to open up the new front
by invading through the Balkans or through Italy, the better to cut off Soviet
advances into central Europe. Unlike Roosevelt, he had no illusions about
Stalin’s master plan and motives.

A perfectly totalitarian sentiment,
worthy of Hitler and Stalin. 
“Our” youth? Whose youth?

Both Roosevelt and Stalin knew also what
Churchill was certain would happen if the Soviet armies were able to overrun
Eastern Europe and also Germany: those countries would remain under Soviet
rule. Roosevelt, the “great liberator,” was comfortable with the
idea. West writes, quoting
Francis
Cardinal Spellman
‘s recollections from his September
3rd, 1943 meeting with Roosevelt:
“The
European people will simply have to endure the Russian domination in the hope
that in ten or twenty years they will be able to live well with the
Russians,” Spellman recounted FDR saying at this pre-Tehran, pre-Yalta
moment. Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Bessarabia, the eastern half of
Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Croatia, Germany – FDR conceded all to Communist régimes or Soviet
protection! What is most weird and most disturbing about Roosevelt’s obdurate
fatalism is that the entire Red Army at this time was still inside the USSR. (p. 266)
Of course Roosevelt’s
“fatalism” saved him the necessity of making a moral judgment. That
was moral relativism at work, his “convergence” kicking in to relieve
him of all responsibility for the certain misery and deaths that were sure to
follow a Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. Don’t bother me, don’t bother me.
I don’t want to know.

And so Eisenhower became Supreme
Allied Commander and began planning D-Day.
German
overtures to end war in 1943 rejected
Integral to understanding why Stalin
wanted his “second front” is West’s revelations that not only was
there an extensive German underground dedicated to ridding the country of
Hitler and ending the war – an underground the U.S. refused to assist or aid in
any way – but that Roosevelt, beholden to Stalin, rejected several overtures
from high-ranking German officers to kill or incarcerate Hitler, establish a
provisional, non-Nazi government,  and
sue for peace – but on the condition that German forces released from fighting
the British and Americans be free to repel the Red Army from Germany and other
regions then held by the Nazis. The war could have ended in 1943, long before
the costly D-Day invasion through France in June 1944. Had that surrender
happened, D-Day would never have taken place. It wouldn’t have been necessary.
Churchill, sympathetic to the idea,
was helpless. Stalin wanted Germany reduced to rubble.
A
German surrender in 1943 would have been premature for Stalin and spoiled his
plans to conquer as much of Europe as possible without bumping into
Anglo-American forces coming from the west. He insisted on a “second
front” and Roosevelt obliged him, with Churchill’s strategic advice
shunted to the side as irrelevant.  All
the men in the conspiracy to stage a coup
d’état
against Hitler were subsequently executed by Hitler’s henchmen,
including Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, chief of German military intelligence, who
had been aiding British intelligence, and who was baffled by Roosevelt’s
resistance.  (pp. 282-286, pp. 308-309)
The repatriation of Russians and
Europeans to the Soviets by British and American forces, on order from
Washington, was another shameful episode discussed by West, one not known to
very many Americans. Ordering General Patton to stop his pell-mell drive so
that the Red Army could take Berlin is a bit of history that hasn’t been
covered up. There is the issue of tens of thousands of American and British
POWs in German camps being “liberated” by the Red Army and subsequently
incarcerated in Soviet labor camps.
There is one pre-war episode not
mentioned by West but which has always stuck in my mind, one I read about long
ago as a teen and which inaugurated my suspicions that WWII was not entirely
conducted as I’d read in history books. This was story about the
S.S.
St. Louis
, which left Hamburg, Germany in May
1939 with 900 Jewish refugees escaping Nazi persecution. After being turned
away by Cuba, the ship called on Miami, Florida. No one was allowed to enter
the country because of an annual quota on immigrants. After being rebuffed by
the Canadians, as well, the ship sailed to Antwerp, where many of the
passengers were taken in by Britain, Belgium, France, and the Netherlands.

The
elitist in a top hat:
Progressive
President Woodrow Wilson.
Set
the precedent for FDR’s “New Deal”
and
his tonic of moral adventurism

When the Nazis invaded the
Continental countries, there was no escape for the remaining 620 passengers
taken in by those countries. It is estimated that 254 of them died from one
Nazi reason or another.
My point here is that the U.S.’s
ersatz immigrant quota system denied all those passengers a chance to survive
and live. Today, we allow the virtually unlimited immigration of Muslims, and
are contemplating allowing millions of illegal Mexican aliens, under the rubric
of “amnesty,” to remain here to better ensure a Democratic victory in
2016. This is a form of “convergence” not even Roosevelt could have
contemplated or imagined. He opened the gates to one form of enemy; Obama and
his minions continue to open them to another.
Diana West has done this country a
favor by putting between two covers the record of a long, disgraceful period in
American history. She will not receive very many thanks or compliments for
having done so. She is likely to be reviled and smeared, when it is Franklin D.
Roosevelt’s person and record that should be reviled, together with the
Soviets’ top agent, Harry Hopkins. 
Moral and political relativism, she
demonstrated, allowed the U.S. to tolerate the Soviets and their murderous
totalitarian régime in the Red Decade, and then become an “ally” with
it to crush a rival totalitarian régime, that of the Nazis. It inoculated
Roosevelt, a political pragmatist with strong left-wing premises, against
knowledge of the terrible and freedom-destroying nature of Communism, while, au contraire, at the same time allowed
him and his agents to decry the terrible and freedom-destroying nature of
Nazism.
West’s book initially began as an
enquiry into why 9/11 was met with the government’s ambivalence and delusions
about the nature of Islam. Observing the inroads Islam and Sharia law were
making in the U.S.,  she was certain that
Islam was not so much a primitive religion as an all-encompassing totalitarian
ideology, one as committed to conquest and slavery as had been Nazism,
Communism, and Shintoism. If the government had raised the hue and cry about
the evils of Nazism, why not about the evils of Islam? 
Because Roosevelt, Hopkins, and
their allies in the State Department and other government entities practiced
their own brand of uncritical “outreach” to Communism and the Soviet
Union.

Harry
Hopkins and his other
boss:
Josef Stalin

Her search for an answer led her to
discover and uncover, as far as the
surviving records permitted her, all the lies and truths about Roosevelt, Harry
Hopkins, Stalin, Communism, and the real reasons why the U.S. was drawn into a
war whose only real victor was the Soviet Union. No hue and cry was ever raised
by anyone in power about the evils of Communism, she discovered. Why not? And
those few who did raise the hue and cry were mocked, smeared, marginalized,
discredited, ignored, and banished from serious discussion. Why?
What would permit our government,
the leader of the “free world,” to participate in and perpetuate the
suppression of the truth about Communism and the Soviet Union, and to enlarge
the area of the unfree world with an insouciant cry of
C’est la vie?
What would motivate it to con Americans year after year and throughout a
devastating war?
If our national character is defined
as one of incorrigible individualism and freedom from fiat or arbitrary
coercion, what had happened to it?
These were the questions she sought
answers to.
One answer she learned, was that by
1933, our government had indeed reached another kind of
“convergence,” one in which truth and liberty met power-lust at a
vector point and were demolished by a craving for power over men as a means of
having power over reality, and that such power-lust would readily discard all
principles and all commitment to upholding not just the Constitution, but the
value of freedom. West does not go into the history of that growing power,
which can be traced back to certain ideas and actions taken by men in
government in the 19th and early 20th centuries to
implement those ideas, and advocated by numerous groups, the most prominent of
which were the Progressives.
On one hand, the culprits did not
value the truth. On the other, they feared its power and went to extraordinary
lengths to suppress it, erected ideological barricades to block it from public
knowledge, and punished those who spoke the truth or threatened to tell the
truth.
Just as important to read is West’s The
Rebuttal: Defending ‘American Betrayal’ from the Book-Burners
,
in which she answers virtually all
the cowardly smears, mud-slinging, and attempts to discredit her and American
Betrayal, which attempts also sorties in character assassinations.
It’s all here in American Betrayal. Read it at your own
risk. If, by the time you finish it,  you
feel betrayed and duped, given all the lies you have been fed in school and by
politicians over your lifetime, lies and “fake news” which you believed to be ironclad
verities, then you will know that the title of West’s book is appropriate and
supremely justified.
West’s lesson to Americans: Reality can’t be redacted, buried,
fabricated, falsified, or omitted
. Her book is eloquent proof of it.
Rule of Reason 
columns on Diana West’s fight with Davis Horowitz and his company of
Neoconservative mud-slingers:
ü 
*America
Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character
,

by Diana West. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2013.
ü  **Ayn Rand and Song of Russia: Communism
and Anti-Communism in 1940s Hollywood
, by
Robert Mayhew. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, 2005. pp. 188-189.