F-Troop Magazine’s Conservative Betrayal
In the ongoing brouhaha surrounding FPM’s removal of a positive review of Diana West’s new book, American Betrayal, the Tundra Tabloids has been forwarded the comment by Diana’s brother Jed, that was twice removed by the editorial commissars at FPM.
Also read: An Unambiguous Example of Harry Hopkins’s Pro-Soviet Perfidy, Revealed (Andy Bostom)
Perhaps the most compelling evidence West presents of Hopkins’ traitorous perfidy is conveyed by reproducing a personal and confidential letter FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover wrote to Hopkins and FDR (dated May 7, 1943), and chronicling what followed via revelations from a KGB archive. But what is of equal importance, in terms of West’s discussions of the glaring omissions in our historical understanding is a striking example of how established academics—in this instance, Christopher Andrew, insert their own a priori judgments in attempting to exculpate Hopkins of having consciously abetted Soviet anti-US espionage.
This is Jed West’s comment which was deleted from Frontpage twice:
The obsessive smear campaign FrontPage Magazine is waging against my sister Diana West, and her book American Betrayal, reveals much more about the publisher David Horowitz and his reviewer Ron Rodash than it does about the subject of their over-the-top campaign to “take down” Diana West.
It is hard for a rational person to understand the depth of Horowitz’s malevolence towards the book and its author. He has devoted his magazine to a “takedown” of my sister.
Five of the twenty-five articles featured on Friday’s FrontPage homepage are vicious, error and omission-filled hit pieces dedicated to attacking my sister and her book. And Frontpage promises more to come. Five isn’t enough? More Diana West hit pieces commissioned by Frontpage? This against a political landscape which FrontPage claims to cover that is littered with monumental civilization-changing stories; Iran’s nukes, Obamacare, IRS, NSA, Amnesty, etc. But for Horowitz, the most important thing in the world is dishonestly attacking Diana West. Think of that. Twenty percent of his site is devoted to hitting this book and its author.
What is this meltdown really about? Who knows? But it is certainly dishonest, hypocritical and shows Horowitz and Radosh to be totalitarians who shade the truth to cover their tracks.
It is dishonest because of the actions Horowitz took and the statements he made and didn’t make regarding the removal of the initial rave review by FrontPage staffer Mark Tapso.
Tapson’s review disappeared less than 24 hours after Horowitz published it. There was no comment or acknowledgement from the publishers that they had done so. The Tapson review cannot even be found on their site archives. What supposed proponent of free speech does this?
Frontpage neglected to mention the first positive review in the initial Radosh hit piece. It has been mentioned subsequently (but it is not available on the site) when called out on this omission by Diana West.
This is totalitarian behavior. Normal publishers who feel so strongly that their original review got it wrong simply publish a subsequent review that they endorse. They don’t disappear the first review and publish a second lengthy hit piece without even acknowledging their own initial review. It’s astonishingly stupid and smacks of Soviet-style censorship.
After several attempts at getting an explanation for why Tapson’s review had disappeared, Horowitz finally responded in the author’s email with the following “reasonable” explanation:
Dear Diana, 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. David [Horowitz]
(It’s interesting that Horowitz blames his employee Tapson for being “incompetent” as if Tapson just placed the review on the site without editorial input and approval. I guess Horowitz didn’t know the review was “incompetent” either until Radosh told him. But that’s a story we’ll never know.)
This insulting email is worth noting because it illustrates more Horowitz dishonesty. In one of the five hit pieces run so far, Horowitz chides my sister in a most avuncular fashion. He starts out his Editorial “Our Controversy With Diana West” with this beauty,
“Rather than responding to Ronald Radosh’s Frontpage review of American Betrayal, as a reasonable author might,.”
Huh? This from a guy who in previous personal email said she was “incompetent” to write her book. More duplicity. He presents himself as so civilized, so calm. But he’s actually being dishonest in not acknowledging that he had already insulted the author. That he had removed her initial positive review. No one with any self-respect is going to respond “as a reasonable author might” on the site of someone who has personally called her “incompetent.” But Horowitz doesn’t mention that backstory. Just that she is not reasonable for not playing in his sandbox.
He then goes on to scold her about her calling Radosh and him names,
“hypocrites,” “totalitarians,” “ossified totalitarians,” commissars” and liars (“If Frontpage Will Lie about This, What Won’t They Lie About?”) and claiming we “suppressed” — also “purged”
All the names are accurate and yes, the first review was “purged.” It was deleted without mention and it is not available in his site archives. What else do you call that?
It is also dishonest because Radosh’s reviews are full of inaccuracies, shading of fact, manufacturing of facts and errors (Diana is writing a point-by-point take down of the Radosh garbage so I won’t attempt it. However, please note that she has been favorably reviewed by historians of far greater stature than Radosh including Amity Shlaes and M. Stanton Evans).
Why, a rationale person might ask, is Frontpage having a meltdown about Diana West and her book? Who knows? Although one possible answer is that Diana West called the FrontPage people out for dishonesty when they initially buried their first review and exposed them for what they are.
So blinded with rage at his being exposed, Horowitz devotes his site to a hysterical and prolonged attack on an author of a history he disagrees with. In the not-so-long run, Horowitz’s reputation will be sullied.