Sunday, September 15, 2019

American Betrayal

FINALLY -- IN AUDIOBOOK!

ALSO AVAILABLE IN PAPERBACK

"This explosive book is a long-needed answer to court histories that continue to obscure key facts about our backstage war with Moscow. Must-reading for serious students of security issues and Cold War deceptions, both foreign and domestic."

-- M. Stanton Evans, author of Stalin's Secret Agents and Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies

"It is not simply a good book about history. It is one of those books which makes history. ... "

-- Vladimir Bukovsky, author of To Build a Castle and co-founder of the Soviet dissident movement, and Pavel Stroilov, author of Behind the Desert Storm.

"Diana West wrote a brilliant book called American Betrayal, which I recommend to everybody ... It is a seminal work that will grow in importance." 

-- Newt Gingrich, former House Speaker, Fox News contributor

"A brilliantly researched and argued book."

-- Edward Jay Epstein, author of Deception: The Invisible War between the KGB and the CIA, The Annals 0f Unsolved Crime 

"American Betrayal is absolutely required reading. Essential. You're sleepwalking without it."

-- Chris Farrell, director of investigations research, Judicial Watch

“What Diana West has done is to dynamite her way through several miles of bedrock. On the other side of the tunnel there is a vista of a new past. Of course folks are baffled. Few people have the capacity to take this in. Her book is among the most well documented I have ever read. It is written in an unusual style viewed from the perspective of the historian—but it probably couldn’t have been done any other way.”

-- Lars Hedegaard, historian, journalist, founder, Danish Free Press Society

"This is a must read for any serious student of history and anyone working to understand the Marxist counter-state in America."

-- John Guandolo, president, Understanding the Threat, former FBI special agent 

"I've been, quite frankly, mesmerized by Diana West and her new book American Betrayal. If you get it (a) you won't put it down, and (b) you'll be flipping back to the notes section because every paragraph your hair's going to be on fire."  

-- Stephen K. Bannon, Breitbart News Radio

"Every once in a while, something happens that turns a whole structure of preconceived ideas upside down, shattering tales and narratives long taken for granted, destroying prejudice, clearing space for new understanding to grow. Diana West's latest book, American Betrayal, is such an event."

 -- Henrik Raeder Clausen, Europe News

"I have read it, and agree wholeheartedly."

-- Angelo Codevilla, Professor Emeritus of International Relations at Boston Unversity, and fellow of the Claremont Institute. 

No book has ever frightened me as much as American Betrayal. ... [West] patiently builds a story outlining a network of subversion so bizarrely immense that to write it down will seem too fantastic to anyone without the book’s detailed breadth and depth. It all adds up to a story so disturbing that it has changed my attitude to almost everything I think about how the world actually is. ... By the time you put the book down, you have a very different view of America’s war aims and strategies. The core question is, did the USA follow a strategy that served its own best interests, or Stalin’s? And it’s not that it was Stalin’s that is so compelling, since you knew that had to be the answer, but the evidence in detail that West provides that makes this a book you cannot ignore. 

-- Steven Kates, RMIT (Australia) Associate Professor of Economics, Quadrant

Her task is ambitious; her sweep of crucial but too-little-known facts of history is impressive; and her arguments are eloquent and witty. ... American Betrayal is one of those books that will change the way many of us see the world.

-- Susan Freis Falknor, Blue Ridge Forum

"Diana West's new book rewrites WWII and Cold War history not by disclosing secrets, but by illuminating facts that have been hidden in plain sight for decades. Furthermore, she integrates intelligence and political history in ways never done before."

-- Jeffrey Norwitz, former professor of counterterrorism, Naval War College

Although I know [Christopher] Andrew well, and have met [Oleg] Gordievsky twice, I now doubt their characterization of Hopkins -- also embraced by Radosh and the scholarly community. I now support West's conclusions after rereading KGB: The Inside Story account 23 years later [relevant passages cited in American Betrayal]. It does not ring true that Hopkins was an innocent dupe dedicated solely to defeating the Nazis. Hopkins comes over in history as crafty, secretive and no one's fool, hardly the personality traits of a naïve fellow traveler. And his fingerprints are on the large majority of pro-Soviet policies implemented by the Roosevelt administration. West deserves respect for cutting through the dross that obscures the evidence about Hopkins, and for screaming from the rooftops that the U.S. was the victim of a successful Soviet intelligence operation.

-- Bernie Reeves, founder of The Raleigh Spy Conference, American Thinker

Diana West’s American Betrayal — a remarkable, novel-like work of sorely needed historical re-analysis — is punctuated by the Cassandra-like quality of “multi-temporal” awareness. ... But West, although passionate and direct, is able to convey her profoundly disturbing, multi-temporal narrative with cool brilliance, conjoining meticulous research, innovative assessment, evocative prose, and wit.

-- Andrew G. Bostom, PJ Media

Do not be dissuaded by the controversy that has erupted around this book which, if you insist on complete accuracy, would be characterized as a disinformation campaign.

-- Jed Babbin, The American Spectator

[American Betrayal is] the most important anti-Communist book of our time ... a book that can open people's eyes to the historical roots of our present malaise ... full of insights, factual corroboration, and psychological nuance. 

-- J.R. Nyquist, author, Origins of the Fourth World War 

The polemics against your Betrayal have a familiar smell: The masters of the guild get angry when someone less worthy than they are ventures into the orchard in which only they are privileged to harvest. The harvest the outsider brought in, they ritually burn.

-- Hans Jansen, former professor of Islamic Thought, University of Utrecht 

West's lesson to Americans: Reality can't be redacted, buried, fabricated, falsified, or omitted. Her book is eloquent proof of it.

-- Edward Cline, Family Security Matters

In American Betrayal, Ms. West's well-established reputation for attacking "sacred cows" remains intact. The resulting beneficiaries are the readers, especially those who can deal with the truth.

-- Wes Vernon, Renew America

After reading American Betrayal and much of the vituperation generated by neoconservative "consensus" historians, I conclude that we cannot ignore what West has demonstrated through evidence and cogent argument.

-- John Dale Dunn, M.D., J.D., Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

Enlightening. I give American Betrayal five stars only because it is not possible to give it six.

-- John Dietrich, formerly of the Defense Intelligence Agency and author of The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy.

If you're looking for something to read, this is the most dazzling, mind-warping book I have read in a long time. It has been criticized by the folks at Front Page, but they don't quite get what Ms. West has set out to do and accomplished. I have a whole library of books on communism, but -- "Witness" excepted -- this may be the best.

-- Jack Cashill, author of Deconstructing Obama: The Lives, Loves and Letters of America's First Postmodern President and First Strike: TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America

View Blog
Minimize
Jul 25

Written by: Diana West
Monday, July 25, 2016 6:26 AM 

Think the Soviets were the only ones to invert reality?

---

"The Post-Constitutional Election, Part 24," is here. 

The world has left merely-bonkers behind when Clinton, Inc., the most corrupt, corruptible and corrupted political duo in modern history, is held up as the nation's bulwark against the Russian Bear; when Donald Trump, the man who seeks to save US sovereignty, the military, the 2nd Amendment and to stop Muslim immigration is smeared as "a Russian stooge." 

Welcome to the Democrats' last stand.

It really is desperation-time for the Left (which includes much of the Right) when the only way to spin the most recent Wikileaks' email dump showing unabashed MSM-DNC collusion to rig the presidential nomination for Hillary Clinton is to try to ignore the systemic corruption the leak reveals, and instead blast the leak itself as a Russian hack that is evidence that Donald Trump is "Putin's candidate."

But let's imagine that this Wikileak gusher is proven to be a Russian hack. How can any self-respecting intelligence student not at least consider whether Putin is in fact throwing a lifeline of an issue -- Trump as "Russian stooge" -- to his own ever-pliable but catastrophically damaged candidate, Crooked Hillary?

All leaks aside, however, it is a fact that it was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who gave her required approval to the sale of a Canadian company holding 20 percent of U.S. uranium stocks to Putin's Russia -- after nine members of the company's board kicked $145 million into the Clinton Foundation. (Thank you, Peter Schweizer.) That's not "promoting Putin's polices," as the rap on Trump goes; that's executing them.

What Russian strongman could possibly want a President of the United States more pliable, or, as Barack Obama, mentored and advised by a troika of Communist progeny himself, might say, more "flexible" than that? 

Only by omitting such a "link" between Clinton and Putin's Russia (and $145 million for the Clinton Foundation) can the media-political complex possibly paint Hillary as some kind of latter-day J. Edgar Hoover, anti-Communist firebrand -- and never, ever the Alinskyite candidate. So omit it they do. 

Here's their storyline:

Supposedly, because of Trump's (failed) attempts to do business in Russia; supposedly, because, as described, for example, by Anne Applebaum, among Trump's advisers are 1) Carter Page, who, she writes, has "long-standing connections to Russian companies, including Gazprom, and has supported the Russian invasion of Ukraine"; and 2) campaign manager Paul Manafort, who "worked for many years in Ukraine on behalf of Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian president ousted in 2014," Donald Trump is "finally" America's honest-to-goodness "Manchurian candidate." 

Applebaum writes: "But now it is 2016, truth is stranger than fiction, and we finally have a presidential candidate, Donald Trump, with direct and indirect links to a foreign dictator, Vladimir Putin, whose policies he promotes."

"Finally"? This presumes US presidential candidates and, by extenstion, their administrations, have had no such "links" before. This is like saying FDR didn't have Harry Hopkins et al (to the max); as if FDR's Veep and 1948 presidential candidate Henry Wallace didn't have at least two top Soviet spies in waiting to fill top cabinet posts (FDR alumni Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White); as if Harry Truman, with full knowledge from the FBI, didn't appoint Soviet agent White to head the IMF; as if Robert Kennedy didn't have an ongoing "back-channel" relationship with Soviet agent Georgi Bolshakov; as if Bill Clinton didn't mysteriously vacation in Brezhnev's Moscow in December 1969 and Prague less than a year after Soviet tanks crushed Prague Spring; as if Obama wasn't mentored and guided by a troika of Soviet-linked Communist progeny, and more.  

Like Hillary, of course, all of these presidents/candidates were internationalist/globalists, however, so I guess their "links," "direct" or "indirect," just don't count.  

To internationlists/globalists, Trump's nation-centric program summed up as "America First" is the abyss. It spells "retreat" from global interests and multi-national organizations (more abyss). Their own notions of American interests are collectively, yea, utopianly and even zealously conceived, something a la George W. Bush's. The anti-democratic European Union is their idea of an ally, not the sovereign states attempting to be reborn from it. They seem never to be happier than when some "US-led NATO" action is underway, attempting to create global/U.S.-led utopia, the one that always fails to take root while killing tens of thousands of people along the way. It is this worldview that has in recent years led to thousands of American troops losing their lives and their limbs deep in the Islamic world, but, hey, anything for utopia. 

Such is the establishment perspective. It is so wide-lens, so fixed, it can neither focus nor reflect on any more "normal" U.S. foreign policy, one that identifies and sets American priorites.

But there is an even more profound disconnect on view here. Let's say there are among Trump's advisers pro-Russians; even agents of influence seeking to penetrate his circle. In fact, so we should say so. We should assume Russian assets are hard at work trying to penetrate the Trump campaign and the Clinton campaign and the Obama White House, and every other center of U.S. power, every single institution, from government to universities, from The Nation to Frontpage Magazine, from the DNC to the RNC, from the White House to the Congress to Wall Street and beyond.

That's the way Soviets/Russians/Marxists/Alinskyites/Socialists work, and always have, at least since the 1917 Russian Revolution, and particularly following FDR's cataclysmic decision to nomalize the mass-murdering Bolshevik regime by bestowing diplomatic recognition to Stalin's dictatorship on November 16, 1933.

This cleared the field for an intelligence army of covert Soviet agents and ideological Communists to occupy Washington and related institutions, beginning with the Soviet-spy-riddled Roosevelt White House.

That's ancient history? How about that FBI sting operation that rounded up a network of ten Russian illegals in 2010, as Bill Gertz reported, "after the group came close to placing an agent near a Cabinet official in the Obama administration." What do you know -- U.S. officials, Gertz reported, identified that official as our current presumptive Democratic nominee, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Links to Putin, anyone?

Just remember also that the Bill Clinton adminstration was absolutely criss-crossed by "direct and indirect links" to foreign dictators. Remember "Chinagate," whereby the Red Chinese military injected cash into Clinton-Gore campaign coffers, and US military technology went to Red China? Remember Hillary's "White House coffees," and that day Johnny Chung arrived with $50K in cash? (See: Year of the Rat: How Bill Clinton and Al Gore Compromised U.S. Security for Chinese Cash

As for Russia, remember also that Russian intelligence regarded Bill Clinton's deputy secretary of state, Strobe Talbott, as a "special unofficial contact." This was the stunning scoop of author Pete Earley, who broke the Talbott story in his 2009 book Comrade J, an important book about post-Soviet Russian espionage against the United States. 

Russian intelligence, Earley explains, uses this label "to identify highly placed sources of information -- people whose information could be trusted. It was usually only reserved for extremely top officials like Fidel Castro's brother, who is now running Cuba." Strobe, Raul -- that's special, all right.

A "special unofficial contact" is not (necessarily) a spy, but someone so close to the Russians that they are subject to manipulation, as thought to be Talbott's case. As Earley relates, during a Russian security investigation, the FBI went to then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and asked her please not to discuss the investigation with Talbott lest he spill the beans.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton corresponded with Talbott from 2010-2013 via her notorious private email. These 30 emails are manly warm little notes about Cuba, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and the like, often to arrange telephone chats. 

A final thought. If the media-political complex is so keen now on establishing who is a "Russian stooge" and who is not, let's go back to the original Russian stooge, FDR, and re-examine the whole sorry American record. Maybe this time around we can actually get answers to some of the perplexing national security questions. These would include one that remains quite relevant today: What was Bill Clinton actually doing in 1969 on that late-December junket to Brezhnev's Moscow? Who paid for it? And why did he stop off to stay with Czech Cmmunist elites in Prague, little more than one year after 2000 tanks and Soviet and Eastern Bloc armies invaded Czechoslovakia to crush "Prague Spring"?

You never know, but there might be some interesting "links" there.

 

  

 

 

Tags:

Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use
Copyright 2012 by Diana West