As a long-time advocate for free speech; long involvement with the International Free Press Society; and as you know, an associate of some of the bravest free speech practitioners in the world, I find the Horowitz/Radosh-led attacks on you to be beneath contempt. For them to pretend to be part of a “freedom” movement (maybe excluding speech?) while acting like school yard bullies, is laughable.
I have read your book American Betrayal, cover to cover – and I found myself deeply shaken, somewhat analogous to the day I finished Atlas Shrugged as a young man, the overall feeling one of serious letdown in my history teachers and ‘why have I never heard this before’? Your sources are there for all to see and your chain of events and conclusions follow them scrupulously. Does that mean that every claim you make and question you raise are necessarily accurate descriptions of the causes of the great historical events? Yet, is this question even important in the raging attacks?
I submit that the facts of your book are not relevant to the personal attacks at hand and your attackers are not remotely interested in your evidence nor your conclusions.
You are being attacked for daring to raise unspeakable questions, questions not to be debated even in so-called “scholarly” circles. You have dared to challenge a set of sacred establishment cows – and more salutes to you! Islam calls this blasphemy, speaking unspeakable things about Mohammed. Clearly we are suffering from our own dark-secret blasphemy conditions, just like you outlined in American Betrayal - but at FrontPage Magazine of all places?
David Horowitz, after removing the initial Tapson (positive) review of American Betrayal and replacing it with Radosh’ (negative) review, has seen fit to write to you: "Our decision to remove the review of American Betrayal was not because it offered an incorrect opinion that we wanted to suppress. The review was removed because the reviewer was as incompetent to provide an informed assessment of your book as you were to write it".
When he further suggests, in a later FPM editorial, “Diana should not have written this book”, it becomes clear that his objective is to shut you up, not to argue on any evidence. This resembles an Inquisition hearing in old Spain. Horowitz should apologize.
Curious minds have always made progress possible. Denying inconvenient truths by slandering the messenger is an old Communist practice – I reject, along with many others, Horowitz’s attempts at silencing you.
Feel free to publish as you see fit.
Toronto August 2013