The Top Books for Understanding the Left

I'll add one excellent book to understanding:

Slouching Towards Gomorrah : Modern Liberalism And American Decline / Robert H. Bork.

It was written in 1996, but is succinct and relates a great historical perspective to "progressives" and liberals.

The Necronomicon of Abdul Alhazred.

Boy, you got that one right.

I just finished “I Can’t Believe I’m Sitting Next to a Republican” by Harry Stein. Insightful, cathartic, depressing and hilarious. I enjoyed it very much.

The Gulag Archipelago

The Black Book of Communism

I just finished “I Can’t Believe I’m Sitting Next to a Republican” by Harry Stein. Insightful, cathartic, depressing and hilarious. I enjoyed it very much.

Hey fullchroma - See what Obama Reads

The name of the book Obama is reading is called "The Post-American World" written by Obama's fellow Muslim Fareed Zakaria.

Fareed Zakaria

One commentator has said this about the book:

"The author is one of the legion of foreigners who have come to the US for various reasons since WWII (George Soros comes to mind) and are working to move the US into globalism and their concept of a one world order. Having gained that intelligence, there was no reason to subject myself further to propaganda of this type."

FAREED ZAKARIA, APPEASER AND MUSLIM APOLOGIST from an earlier post by Lawrence Auster

If Fareed Zakaria could ever have been thought of as a conservative or a neoconservative (perhaps because he was once associated with the National Interest), those days are long past. His July 10th article for the leftist publication Newsweek, where he is the international editor, is must reading, a stunning example of how the mainstream media seeks to manipulate Americans into a supine posture toward Islam and Islamic terrorists.

To begin with, Zakaria excitedly claims that, unlike after the 9/11 attack, Muslims after the London attack are strongly condemning terrorism. Yet he gives virtually no quotes to back up this statement. He even says, without a single quote in support, that hard-line Muslim terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah have condemned the attack. Further, the quotes that he does provide employ the classic Muslim weasel language. For example, he says that Sheik Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi rejected "the argument that this attack could be justified as an attempt to force Britain out of Iraq. 'This is illogical and cannot be the motive for killing innocent civilians,' he said." But as anyone who didn't land on planet earth yesterday knows, "innocent" doesn't mean the same thing to Muslims that it means to the rest of us. When Muslims say that "innocent" people shouldn't be murdered, they're speaking of people who have not offended Islam, i.e. Muslims and dhimmis and people living in countries such as France which have "understandings" with Islam. Second, Tantawi does not even denounce the killings of innocents. He says that forcing the British out of Iraq cannot be a justifiable motive for killing innocent civilians. The plain implication is that there are justifiable motives for murdering innocent civilians. In presenting such weasel language as though it were legitimate, Zakaria, who is no fool, becomes an accomplice in the age-old Muslim tactic of lying to outsiders.

But then, after all his re-assuring folderol about how Muslims are forthrightly condemning terrorism and how great this is, Zakaria says, "There should be much, much greater condemnation from mainstream Islam." Excuse me, but if there has to be "much, much greater" condemnation than there now is, then obviously the amount of condemnation supposedly occurring now is not remotely sufficient, is it? So why does Fareed act as if it's such a great breakthrough? Clearly this is not a truth-seeking writer but a spinmeister for Islam.

But it gets worse. Zakaria tells us that President Bush has been missing the boat in the war on terror because he hasn't focused on what victory in the war would really mean. After a lot of hemming and hawing, Fareed tells us what he means by victory: (1) being able to prevent the worst terrorist attacks (i.e., preventing a 9/11, but not a 7/07); and (2) improving our response capabilities to terrorist attacks after they occur (a favorite campaign plank of John Kerry's, by the way). Thus Zakaria wants us not only to accept domestic suicide bombings as a regular, unavoidable fact of existence, but to see their regular occurence (in the absence of a 9/11 scale attack) as a sign that we have "won" the war on terror. Meanwhile, naturally, he suggests doing absolutely nothing about the vast Muslim populations within the West and the ongoing mass immigration of Muslims into the West. In fact, in an article for Newsweek following the rejection of the EU constitution by France and Netherlands, he urged an increase of Muslim immigration into Europe, plus the accession of the entire population of Turkey:

[W]hat Europe desperately needs is more of all the trends that are producing populist paranoia. It needs ... more young immigrants to sustain its social market and a more strategic relationship with the Muslim world, which would be dramatically enhanced by Turkish membership in the EU. Of course, Europe already has a disastrously close strategic relationship with the Muslim world, involving, on the European side, total European support for the Palestinian cause, unstinting European hostility to Israel, and the redefinition of European identity as equal parts European and Islamic, an arrangement Bat Ye'or has called "Eurabia," and Zakaria wants this "strategic relationship," which in fact represents the dhimmitude of the entire European continent, to get even stronger than it now is.

In sum, Fareed Zakaria, once a member of the neocon camp and now a star of the liberal mainstream media, is an apologist for Islam and for Muslim extremists (assuming there is any difference between the two), as well as an advocate for the demographic and cultural Islamization of Europe. These things should never be forgotten.

I’ve seen that. This county’s been infiltrated. Big time. No doubt. Straight up.

To understand what liberalism is, you have to understand what it is not. Read HOW CAPITALISM SAVED AMERICA by Thomas DiLorenzo.

I totally agree with you!

The Tyranny of Liberalism. James Kalb. I needed to read it twice.

LOL! How True!

thanks, I needed that laugh break.

Darkness at Noon by Koestler