The Collier-Horowitz team have done at least three of these dynasty biographies, this one being their first. The biggest problem they have had in their project of writing on the Rockefellers, Fords and Kennedys is that they are often dependent on a few sources, especially when researching contemporary family goings-on. Maybe because it was their first stab at the dynasty biography, the problem is most acute with the Rockefellers. The founder of the dynasty, John D. Senior, is given less space than John D. Junior, almost as if Collier-Horowitz is saying "Senior has been done by others; let's nail down the more obscure Junior." And they do fill in the details of Junior's life rather well. The professional lives of the third generation, the five brothers, are rather well done but the personal lives are almost ignored. This is a failing because the reader can not understand why the fourth generation of Rockefellers have, for the most part, happily rejected their family unless you know why the five brothers were such abject failures as fathers. The fourth generation comes off, with only a couple of exceptions, as spoiled, childish brats filled with loathing of all things Rockefeller. David Rockefeller's children especially seem to despise their father, family and country. Abbie Rockefeller is particularly odious. Laura Rockefeller explains her own generation succinctly when she says, "the cousins are used to spending and donating money but not producing." The moral decay and personal supineness of the vast majority of the fourth generation is striking. It is also interesting is that the first Rockefellers were very religious people while the younger Rockefellers have turned their backs on religion. The Rockefeller trusts may keep the Rockefeller family going financially for several generations to come but as an important, vibrant family, the Rockefellers are a family in collapse.

This writing would make an excellent history book about one of the biggest families in Corporate America. This book details the building of the massive Rockefeller fortune through the exploits of the senior Rockefeller. His battles with rivals within the oil industry are also well documented. His son also has a prominent place in this book as well. His donations to charity and the development of several foundations are well covered. The third generation Rockefellers and their accomplishments are well described in this book. All in all this was an outstanding book about a prominent American family. Read it, you will not be dissapointed.

Not only a thought-provoking argument against reparations, but an alarming chronicle of the dire state of free speech on American college campuses. Concerning the issue of reparations, Horowitz dispassionately dissects the issue from a variety of angles, applying principles of fairness, casuistry, and appeals to common good. I found his arguments clear and compelling, and the supporting material provided some interesting historical and economic discussion of slavery. Most importantly, I understood his motivations to be based not on hate, but on true compassion and a desire for what is best for all Americans and for black Americans in particular. The real story of this book is not reparations, however, but the reactions to the publication of (and attempts to publish) his opinion in a variety of American college campus newspapers. The responses ranged from irrational, highly-charged emotional outbursts to outright censorship and suppression. His well-documented account paints an alarming picture of the stranglehold of "politically correct" ideology in our universities, and the seeming lost art of rational debate (as opposed to ad hominem attacks and binary categorizations) in our culture today.

David Horowitz has written a book of concentrated common sense on the latest campus cause celebre, "reparations for slavery." What this represents is not compensation for slavery, since all the slaves are dead, but a massive transfer of wealth from people who never owned slaves to people who never were slaves. It makes no sense except to further the leftist agenda of defining society as a collection of villains and victims.

Horowitz attempted to buy ads in various campus newspapers opposing reparations for slavery. Later, he spoke on the subject in various campus forums. He was shouted down, insulted, threatened, and required bodyguards to protect him from radical students while merely exercising his right to free speech -- not hate speech, not racially divisive speech, not incendiary speech, but reasoned and factual discourse. What have our universites become?

Horowitz's book filled me with dread and alarm, to realize that so many of our universities are in the hands of a radical political elite where racial diversity is praised while diversity of opinion, ideology and thought are all but banned. Indeed, in one of the universities where Horowitz's ad opposing reparations was published, radical students simply stole all the student newspapers so no one could read it. Many of these student radicals seem to be ideological bullies who refuse honest debate. They censor and slander the opposition, shout down conservative speakers in campus forums, bully campus newspaper editors and monopolize all poltical discussion.

If you are a university student, you should read this book. Whatever political issue you encounter in college, it likely will be neither balanced nor fair, given the current intellectual climate. You owe it to yourself to be fully informed on this most controversial issue.

Uncivil Wars chronicles David Horowitz's attempt to initiate a dialogue on reparations for slavery at American colleges. Horowitz brilliantly exposes the vicious, ideological intolerance within American Universities, which threatens the very integrity of education. In addition, Horowitz challenges the reparations argument and exposes the radical agenda of the pro-reparations movement.
Following the placement of an anti-reparations ad by Horowitz in a dozen University newspapers, students and faculty erupted in cries of racism and attempted to censor the newspapers. Horowitz portrays the campus leftists as ignorant, hateful and comparable to totalitarians. At Brown University, for instance, students stole every edition of the Brown Daily Herald to prevent distribution of the ad. None of the students, however, directly addressed Horowitz's arguments, which were both logical and thorough. Horowitz's premise was that the reparations movement is a product of historical revisionism by radical leftists. Such misrepresentations of history include the notion that America has never confronted the issue of slavery due to the fact that the Civil War was about economics and that Abraham Lincoln was a racist. Among other things Horowitz suggests that reparations will isolate blacks from the rest of America and create a damaging sense of victim hood. Yet the students at Brown and other schools where the ad appeared, blindly condemned Horowitz as a racist using tactics not seen since the McCarthy era. Nevertheless, Horowitz's stance of reparations is widely held by most Americans as evident by recent polls. The Universities represent the fringe of the political left and in the name of inclusiveness, campus administrators have created an environment of intolerance. As vital as these institutions are to our democracy, they are themselves undemocratic. Horowitz points to the fact that on many college campuses Republicans are less visible than Marxists, greens and other contingencies of the far left. This does not reflect the nation wide reality that America is almost evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats.
Uncivil Wars is an excellent read and highly informative. For one not familiar with University life, Uncivil Wars provides a shocking insider's view of our nation's most prestigious institutions. Horowitz presents logical and intelligent arguments that transcend party affiliation. Horowitz rips apart the reparation argument with undeniable truths that expose the reparation supporters as far-left radicals. This fascinating journey through American history and the insolated world of America's universities should not be missed.

Former radicals Horowitz and Collier expose the Left again. This collection of vignettes from campuses (and other areas) across the nation are quite humorous -- and at the same time scary. McCarthyism alive and well? Sure is -- at your local university.

Have kids about to enter college? Read this first, and then examine what classes your child takes along with his/her reading materials and syllabi.

Oh, and make sure to read the letters section at the end of the book, especially those from university professors. These guys and gals are supposed to be the epitomy of "tolerant?"

This collection of materials (mostly essays, but also some parodies and, delightfully, readers' letters) from Heterodoxy is horrifying and invigorating. "These people are crazy," I kept telling myself as I read the book. "They need to be institutionalized."

But they're not crazy. They're mobilized, they're motivated, and they're out to get you. Okay, maybe not YOU, specifically...not yet. The essays in this collection reveal leftist individuals and organizations at work, putting their agenda -- the consolidation of their own power by the destruction of existing American institutions -- into action.

The title is mystifying. Many of the essays contained in this volume relate to American universities (one of the first redoubts to be siezed by the Raving Left). Others, though, deal with issues and incidents as diverse as fascist feminism's assault on the US military and a social workers' crusade against the "patriarchal" family.

Still, give it to your college-bound friend or relative. Think of it as inoculation.

American Universities, Islands of Oppression in a Sea of Freedom.

And daily the size of that sea is shrinking. We scratch our heads and wonder what is eating away at the America we once knew. This is a good place to start answering that question.

David Horowitz is now known for his scathing attacks on Leftists and Liberals. This was not always so, as Horowitz was once a rabid Communist and agitator. He wrote the screed "Students" that became a handbook for Leftist activists who tore this country down in the 1960's. Horowitz eventually discovered sanity and became fairly conservative in his outlook. This book, his autobiography, shows this evolution as it occurred against the backdrop of his childhood, political activities in the 60's, and his work with the Black Panther Party.

Horowitz spends much time showing how his childhood led him into the Communist folds. Both of his parents were Communists of the card carrying type. They quickly indoctrinated young David into their evil ways. Horowitz even attended a school for children of Marxists! Horowitz shows how disillusionment began to set in even at this young age. The murderous regime of Stalin and the subsequent repudiation by Khrushchev seriously undermined American Marxism, as did the McCarthy hearings of the 1950's. But Horowitz also shows how the very system that his parents hated eventually helped them gain redress for being cast out of their jobs due to their Communist sympathies. His parents never seemed to realize that the system and country that they hated paid their salaries and provided their comforts.

The best part of the book is when Horowitz goes off to college and hooks up with those wacky New Left Commies. Horowitz quickly makes friends with characters such as Bob Scheer, who later ran the magazine Ramparts, and who was a lover of such diverse Communist statesmen as Kim Il Sung of North Korea and Chairman Mao of the murderous Chinese Communist Party. We also get a look at Tom Hayden, Jane Fonda's hubby and a sort of agent provocateur of the Chicago riots at the Democratic National Convention in 1968. Horowitz took part in demonstrations, but his main role was one of ideologue. He wrote the tracts that moved 'em out into the streets. In other words, Horowitz showed people where the bricks were located, and which ones to pick up and throw.

We quickly find our man Horowitz at Ramparts, the aforementioned journal run by Mr. Scheer. Ramparts was a slick, glossy Communist magazine that ran stories on such all-American kids as the Black Panther Party. Horowitz acted as book reviewer and watched the hijinks unfold. It was interesting to note that one of the people who wrote articles for the magazine was none other then Brit Hume, who can be seen working the political beat on the FOX news cable channel. Who knew Hume was a closet Communist? This might be a bit of a let down for some of the reviewers here at Amazon.com who say that Fox is a Republican-slanted news outlet. But this is how the book is. Horowitz names names.

Eventually, with the end of the Vietnam connflict, most of the New Left movement faded into obscurity, but the individuals involved held on to their belief systems. In the 1970's, Horowitz began his affliation with the Black Panther's. A group of murderous thugs who ran drug and prostitution rings while paying lip service to Marxist rhetoric, the Panthers, under the aegis of Huey Newton, quickly suckered white leftists into supporting their mumbo-jumbo. The Left saw Newton and the Panthers as a militant vanguard that would throw out the old system and usher in a Marxist America. Horowitz was one of these suckers. He helped them raise funds for a school and provided moral support and advice to Newton. He even supplied labor for the group. One of these people was Betty Van Patter, a white woman who went to work balancing the books for the Panthers. She must have seen something she shouldn't have, though, because the Panthers caved her skull in and tossed her into the ocean. Horowitz was devastated and this event led him on his long journey away from the Left and into the Right.

Throughout the book Horowitz examines his family relations and marriages. He writes about his father, who was a distant man that rarely gave David the support he so craved. His mother was a strong woman who ran the household and provided support to David when he needed it. His marriage to first wife Elissa is examined in great detail. They eventually divorced when Horowitz cheated on her with other women.

This book is great when it exposes the New Left for what it really is; a shallow, dangerous force that has done more to tear this country apart then any other force in history. Some of the personal reflections are pretty good, too. There are troubling passages, though. When David first sees Elissa, he talks about how she had magnificent breasts, and he describes how he wanted to rub his face in them. This statement is pretty jarring and really doesn't belong in this book, in my opinion. Still, the book is not bad. It also has a happy ending, with a Commie rejecting the error of his ways and coming back to sanity. A Hallmark movie of the week if I ever saw one! Give it a shot.

"Radical Son" is one of the most important books written in this decade. The author's parents were life-long Communists and he was a New Leftist/Socialist for the first 40 years of his life. Slowly he was forced to admit to himself the nihilism of socialism. The murder of a friend by the Blank Panthers crystallized his thinking. If only this book could be read by high school students and again when they attend college, there might be some hope of ending the untrue and dangerous myths of socialism perpetuated by left-wing politicians, the mainstream media and college elites. Horowitz states, "It was what I thought was the humanity of the Marxist idea that made me what I was then; it is the inhumanity of what I have seen to be the Marxist reality that has made me what I am now. . . . The lesson I had learned from my pain turned out to be modest and simple: the best intentions can lead to the worst deeds. I had believed in the Left because of the good it had promised; I had learned to judge it by the evil it had done." Please do yourself and this nation a favor and read this book. It is only through education that the evils of communism and socialism can be exposed for what they really are.

David Horowitz has written a book that will be cited and remembered for many years to come. His journey from Communist Children's Camp to a successful career in new left journalism to a prominent role as a conservative strategist is fascinating. More importantly, he puts the entire radical movement of the sixties into perspective by pointing out that ending the draft sucked the life out of the revolution. What appeared to be high-minded idealism turned out to be mainly fear of getting shot in a jungle war.

"Radical Son" isn't in a league with "Witness" by Whittaker Chambers as a great political life story, but it approaches it. Not only do we get the benefit of Horowitz's unique experience as a top player on both sides of the political fence, we also get to learn from his family life, which is instructive. Pick it up and trade the illusions for the reality.

I saw David Horowitz on a television program decided to get the book. Well, I got the book and it's a stunning expose of the forces that are deliberately tearing our country apart and imparting a message of hate toward not only fellow Americans, but toward the very core ideas and principles of our country. In some ways, this book should be called "Hating America". It's writers like the author who continue the color blind and equal society envisioned by Martin Luther King, Jr. I suspect the author will be demonized in the same way as the early civil rights workers, but I hope he can endure and keep telling the truth.

Maybe that's what they should have titled this book. Horowitz hits it square on. Using logic, personal experience, and numerous real world examples that everyone can see, Horowitz systematically examines not only racial issues, but also various other sacred cows of the Leftists.

Make no mistake about it this is one of the most cogent investigations of the real agenda of the Leftists in this country today. (Leftist is the term Horowitz repeatedly uses to define the self proclaimed liberal establishment in this country. He even goes into detail concerning why the label liberal is a total misnomer.)

If you've ever wondered, "How can I convince my left-leaning friend that the misplace moral authority he thinks he has is utterly without foundation?" You need to read this book. When you get through telling him about it he'll realize that in fact they should all be ashamed of themselves.

And if you are one of those people who believe in the "socially progressive" cause. Do the rest of us a favor and read this book.

This is a sophisticated and shrewd analysis of the hypocrisy of contemporary civil rights leaders and of the American Left in general. If the totalitarianism of the politically correct Liberal culture can be defeated, it will be done because of brilliant works such as this. This collection of essays will undoubtedly serve as the staging ground for the culture war debate of the 21st century. Horowitz is at his best when he demythologizes the pompous and deceptive lies of the Liberal establishment. He reveals, in the most profound manner, how something has gone perniciously wrong in the way that social discourse, especially on the issue of race, is now conducted in the American political arena. The author achieves this in a provocative and original manner. As always, of course, Horowitz will have his detractors. But calling Horowitz names and engaging in character assassination -- as the criticisms of his work always do - will unfortunately only scratch the surface of the complexity of history. And it is that complexity that Horowitz approaches with a cunning and astute scholarly disposition. He crystallizes for us the reverse racism that is molded by many Black civil rights leaders and demonstrates how this ideology betrays the color-blind society envisioned by Martin Luther King. Horowitz goes on to do much more, as the essays in this volume reach far and wide. One particularly valuable piece is long overdue: Horowitz slices apart the specious nonsense of "cultural theorist" Bell Hooks, whose work has distinguished itself as the most supercilious asininity that has ever posed as intellectual "deconstruction" of democratic-capitalist society. By so successfully exposing the self-hatred that masquerades as social criticism in Hook's work, Horowitz isolates the root of the pathology in the Leftwing mindset: the ultimate alienation from, and hatred of, life and self. Overall, this volume of essays blends into a wonderful masterpiece. David Horowitz deserves much praise for this priceless and important work, as well as for the intellectual clarity, personal integrity, and intestinal fortitude that it took to write it.

In How to Beat the Democrats and Other Subversive Ideas, Horowitz uses ruthless intellect to demolish the foundations upon which the new Left has tried to rebuild itself following the collapse of communism across the world.

After reading this book you have to ask how Bill Clinton and Tony Blair can sleep at night.

Used as a campaign blueprint, How to Beat the Democrats offers conservatives the tools to take on the Left in electoral combat which have been sadly lacking over the last decade.

David Horowitz is the Noam Chomsky of Conservatism -- yet Horowitz actually knows what he's talking about. A former 60's radical, Horowitz knows firsthand the motivations and mentality of the Left and exposes the hypocrisy and underlying Socialist/Marxist philosophy that drives the Democratic Party and Liberals in power today.

The book is mostly an expose of the failures of the Democratic Party that have caused more harm than good to the nation, but mostly to the very people Democrats claim to fight for: the poor and minorities. Horowitz goes a step further, though, and documents the ways that Republicans have and are trying to level the playing field between rich and poor and eliminate discrimination in matters of education, jobs, Social Security, etc.

Horowitz's call to arms for Republicans is simply the acknowledgement that Republicans have a tendancy to use gentleman's tactics when it comes to political warfare; something Democrats have never restrained themselves to. Horowitz challenges Republicans to fight back with the issues, arguing that confronting accusations with solid facts is key.

It's unfortunate that this book is titled "How to Beat the Democrats", because it will most likely turn a lot politically-moderate readers away before they even crack the cover. This is a book that every voter should read, whether Republican or Democrat, and draw one's own conclusions from the facts Horowitz provides to support his claims.

How To Beat The Democrats: And Other Subversive Ideas by political strategist and commentator David Horowitz is a biting, determined, severe, and unquestionably partisan political manifesto. Sharply blaming Democrats and the political left for "undermining America's security" and contributing to a climate that allowed the September 11 attacks, How To Beat The Democrats pulls neither punches nor opinions. The majority of this politically conservative book consists of harsh attacks upon the left for being "unrepentant" in its too-light treatment of accused and convicted criminals, too-lax defense policy, too-much spending, and worse. While How To Beat The Democrats presents numerous strongly worded arguments, with plenty of anecdotal illustration, it is emphatically not a "how-to" book that teaches the reader tips and techniques for winning elections against Democratic opponents. Rather, How To Beat The Democrats is a book of ideas, powerful and unrestrained. Though Horowitz's specific political assertions may be challenged and countered by opposing political views, his emotional honesty in speaking so unambiguously is beyond dispute and really quite refreshing.

In the past, I tacitly believed many of these myths. If you
believe any of these statements, then you must read this book:
- Guns increase violent crime
- Pulling a gun on a criminal endangers you more than the criminal
- Guns pose a special threat to kids
- The 2nd Amendment applies only to miliamen
- The 2nd Amendment is obsolete
- We should treat guns as cars, requiring licenses
- "Reasonable" gun control is not a threat
The author writes in an easy-reading style, working in statistics
as well as many anecdotes. If you haven't thought deeply
about these issues and your opinion has been shaped by the
mainstream media, then you MUST read this. Everybody
else should read it anyway -- no matter which side of the fence
you are on.

Poe's work is so important because it gives the other, and more importantly the correct, side of the crime and gun control debate. The media has lost all pretense of objectivity and just presenting the facts. Instead they have become the biggest proponents of gun control.

Lacking the depth of analysis of John Lott's fabulous book, "More Guns, Less Crime," Poe's book still fills an important void in the logical argument that needs to be presented.

This is a book every freedom-loving person, and especially woman, in America should read. If you are already a believer in the Second Amendment, this book will give you added ammunition (forgive the pun) in your ability to convince opponents of the errors in their thinking. If you are anti-gun, this book will shatter your preconceived notions and the illogic of the fireams prohibitionists' claims.

The seven myths that are continually and emotionally espoused, but rationally and logically exposed as totally false by Poe, are:

Myth 1: Guns Increase Violent Crime
Myth 2: Pulling a Gun on a Criminal Endangers You More Than the Criminal
Myth 3: Guns Pose a Special Threat to Children
Myth 4: The Second Amendment Applies Only to Militiamen
Myth 5: The Second Amendment Is an Obsolete Relic of the Frontier Era
Myth 6: We Should Treat Guns the Same Way We Treat Cars, Requiring Licenses for All Users
Myth 7: Reasonable Gun-Control Measures Are No Threat to Law-Abiding Gun Owners

As a firearm owner and supporter of the right of self-protection, I thought that I was familiar with most of the information on liberty and guns. Thankfully, this book proved me wrong.

Mr. Poe includes so much new and astounding information, I had to stop reading on several occasions and ask myself if the stories were true. Of course, statistics and news items were supported with references that the interested reader could use as a starting point for further research. Even if you are familiar with the history of the Swiss militia or with comments made by prominent anti-self-defense hypocrites, this book explores stories and angles untouched by the mainstream media.

Additionally, the epilogue ("The End of Manhood") provides the author's insight on the left's attempt to eradicate masculinity from American culture.

I am going to buy additional copies of this book and send them to my misguided, gun control supporting friends. I know that if I still believed as they do, this book would force me to question my life philosophy.

Modern American politics is a kind warfare without guns. In The Art Of Political War And Other Radical Pursuits, the once radical activist David Horowitz examines how Bill Clinton's generation of "centrist democrats" mastered the art of politics and successfully challenged their conservative opposition through the decade of the 90s. Horowitz surveys the six principles of politics that the left understands and conservatives do not. He then warns against the essentially liberal inclusion to supervise the lives of a dependent citizenry. The Art Of Political War is informative, candid, challenging, insightful, occasionally iconoclastic, and always highly recommended reading for students of the American political system in general, and the past decade of conservative political frustration in particular.

Horowitz has captured in this book what many thoughtful Republicans and observers around the country have attempted to convey for years: Republicans do not communicate their message in a manner that endears them to large blocs of the voting populace, and they do not make their opponents the enemy of those same voting blocs - a practice leftists have perfected over the years. That practice is called The Art of Political War.

Horowitz is a concise and relentless thinker, creating hard realities in this book that even the most self-acquitting Republican politico would be hard-pressed to ignore. He makes succinct that Republicans have failed to position themselves on the side of women, minorities and the poor, and as a result have been easily painted as intolerant, mean-spirited and hateful. Electoral results from 1996 and 1998 bear him out on this, and it is clear from this year's Bush effort that some in the GOP are taking heed of his counsel - with the Bush emphasis on the state of education a primary example. Horowitz argues forcefully and thoughtfully that the failure of the US education system can be laid squarely at the feet of the Democratic Party, who have controlled the school boards and city councils of every major city for the last 60 years. He contends that because Democrats are so beholden to the teachers' unions, they will rip away the bottom rungs from poor and minority children in exchange for hordes of campaign cash from the fastest-growing and most undeserving union in the country: the white-collar government worker. He could not be more correct, and the teachers' unions could not be more shameful.

I saw on an ad recently where Horowitz' book has been endorsed by Karl Rove, chief strategist to the Bush campaign, as "the perfect guide to winning on the political battlefield by an experienced warrior." Every Republican interested in changing the culture of the party and winning elections should take note, buy this book and read it cover to cover.

This book touches on a new topic - political warfare, the marketing of ideology and how the leftists are winning at it. Horowitz offers some answers why the leftists and liberals are so good at it... the media certainly helps... I'd say scare tactics is #1... Horowitz hints that the right needs to shift back to its old platform of economic independence, personal responsibility and limited government - and work at getting its message across.

However, this book leaves you wanting for answers on what the right could do to reverse the trends. Horowitz is probably gearing up for another book. It seems the Machiavellian tactics that Republicans in general have taken is to be all things to all people... Their liberal-conservatives, or "compassionate conservatives" and tolerant of a lukewarm regulatory and welfare state. Historically, they don't win by being liberals.

In Destructive Generation, Peter Collier and David Horowitz put together an account of 60s radicalism that acts as an excellent antidote to the songs of U2 or Howard Zinn's chic People's History of the United States. The book goes a long way toward discrediting the fantasy of the 60s as a time of idealism and harmless rebellion, and resurrects the nearly forgotten "dark side" of the 60s.

At times, the book reads almost like a latter-day version of Dostoevsky's classic, the Devils. Like the Devils, the radicals portrayed in Destructive Generation -- notably Huey Newton, Bernadine Dohrn, Billy Ayers and Tom Hayden -- seem to behave the way they do not because they believe in revolution, but because they hate the system and they seem to be fascinated by nihilism and violence. The chapters on the Panthers and the Weatherman are the most instructive, while Horowitz's "letter to a political friend" is the most moving part of the book. If you are looking for the antithesis to Noam Chomsky, you will find it here.

The only drawback to the book is the way in which it uses sources. Footnotes are sparse, and paraphrases are often vague. Because of this, the book reads like one long editorial, rather than a work of history. One hopes that Collier and Horowitz will return to this work and create a second edition, with better notation.

As far as I know, this is a unique book. It is an important document for those who want to understand the politics of the Sixties and what has happened since. It is also an antidote to the romanticized versions of the period that are all too common in books, movies, and personal storytelling.

At its best, when the authors provide reportage on the events of the period--and keep their commentary to a minimum--it is a devastating indictment of the nihilism and recklessness of some of the leading actors. The chapters on the Black Panthers and Weatherman are particularly strong.

In the later chapters, the sweeping statements about "the Left" become too broad and tend to condemn too many for too much. Not everyone who protested the Vietnam War was a Stalinist or endorsed terrorism. And not everyone who views the period differently than the authors is motivated by dishonesty and moral cowardice.

To the authors' credit, they include a telling annecdote: t! ! hey confront the writer Susan Sontag at a book festival, and finally, she refuses to talk to them any further, expressing frustration with their "Manichaean" view of politics. A fair-minded reader can appreciate Sontag's comment, even agree with it, without dismissing the book.

By the time they wrote this book in the late 1980s, Collier and Horowitz had a lot to get off their chests: "second thoughts" about their radicalism in the Sixties, disgust with the refusal of former comrades to critically examine their own political involvements, and a need to settle scores with those who had shunned them since they broke ranks with their radical friends.

That striving for vindication, and the need to be listened to, has an obsessive quality that comes through in this book. Many readers will not be persuaded to embrace conservative Republican politics, as Horowitz (at least) has done. (I, for one, see more shades of gray than do these authors.) Nonetheless, t! ! his book is one that anyone who cares about the subject sho! uld read before drawing conclusions about the Sixties.

This book is exceptional and unique, in that it does honestly look back at the furthest fringe of the '60s left wing, even at the writers' own expense. "Destructive Generation" is strongest when it sticks with the facts: The Black Panthers, The Weather Underground, Berkeley. It gets a little shaky when it veers into sweeping statements for an entire movement (yes, I'm sure that there were many agents for Moscow in the hierarchy, but many at the base of the pyramid truly believed in what they were doing ... particularly if it was stopping an illegal war in Indochina). The information on 1980s Central America is chilling and worth the price of admission. No matter what your political beliefs may be, though, it is well worth reading, and will definitely not leave you quickly.

I came across Jamie Glazov's booklet almost by accident, through a friend of mine from College. Reading Glazov's work was a total joy and I found that he was able to articulate much of the frustration I have felt in my dealings with the radical left. Glazov uses humour as a most effective means of expressing his argument with the left. My only criticism is that, at times, it seems as though Glazov is unable to control his apparent hatred for these people and, consequently his satire becomes almost too vicious. On the whole, however, 15 Tips on how to be a Good Leftist is a gem and deserves much more attention that it has hitherto received.

As a person who prided herself on her progressive and liberal beliefs for most of her life, I must say that it hurt me to read this book. It is funny and completely true what the author is satirizing. Funny, I guess, at the expense of people like me who actually entertained beliefs for a long period of my life that I never really examined or thought through. The book hurt in that the author shows that, when you really think about it, the socialist idea is absolutely ludicrous and, worse still, part of a profound sickness. It is a sickness of the soul. Now that I really think about it, I can't think of one of my former Leftist friends that was actually well-adjusted in society. Every single one of them had some kind of a really serious problem. But we never talked about our problems. It was always about something larger. Something larger had to be fixed and then we would be okay. 15 Tips cuts to this main point in a very painful manner -- for me and for my memories. And apart from all the humour in the book, I was left not laughing but squirming, at the realization that the people he was ridiculing was actually people like me, who literally spent years of their life believing and saying all of the things that he ridicules. Sitting here now, I think of all my friends, all of the people that I associated with in this calling. I remember, with tremendous discomfort, all of our conversations, all of our certainty about how wrong things were, and about how right they could be if only this and only that. 15 Tips slices with no mercy. How much mercy, I guess, can there be? I abandoned "the cause" years back, as I gradually began to see some of the irrationality in the whole enterprise. To be truthful, I ended up with almost no friends in the real world. The joke about me was that I was the "lecturer", the one that was always teaching other people. One day I realized I didn't want to be that anymore. When I really thought about it, that's a pretty sad way to go out in life, always teaching other people, and in an unsolicated situation. But I became more apathetic and indifferent, rather than anti-Left. To become anti-Left would have forced me to re-question things that are better left unquestioned. Great. So here's 15 Tips. How great to be the target of ridicule that makes total sense, and to know that you were that. I hope something good will come from my experience. But it takes awhile to reinvent yourself, after having committed years of conversations to useless ventures and ideas. More seriously, these were ideas that actually hurt people. Perhaps that is why the Marxist idea works to erase the idea of conscience and ethics, which I at one time thought was a great thing. How many nights of my life I remember sitting somewhere, drinking some kind of politically correct wine, and saying, arrogantly, that there was no such thing as right or wrong. How proud I was at that time of that view. And yet, almost everything I talked about was based on the asumption that so much was right, and so much was wrong. But yes, erasing ethics was my goal. Perhaps that makes it easier when it comes time to do what the idea demands. Perhaps it made it easier for me to live with myself. Because now I know that I was ashamed. I was ashamed about a lot in my own life. I didn't know it at the time. I just knew that without conscience, there would be no shame, and Marxism offered to erase conscience. Now I know why I was against conscience. Now I know why I was attracted to the Marxist idea. If you don't like seeing the darkness in yourself, then emerge yourself into complete and utter darkness. At least then you do not need to contrast darkness with light, because there will be no light. Make your crime your culture, and then erase the meaning of crime. I don't really know what more to say. 15 Tips is important. For me, it's just a really sad and painful experience to have read this thing. I wish I could rationalize it, but at this stage it's hard. Five years ago I would have just called this guy every name in the book, convincing myself that that would somehow delegitimize what he was saying. But things don't work like that. Sometimes I think not too much works. I never thought I would actually say this, but the only thing that really works is maybe to humble yourself. How unfamiliar to me. And yet, it brings so much peace, and more wisdom than I ever received from all of those courses I took in Women's studies, anthropology, gender studies, etc etc. Those memories make me want to cleanse myself. I feel something dirty. I touched something profoundly dark and foul. I have left it behind me. Silence, I think, will be refuge, atleast for awhile......

I wasn't really going to comment on 15 Tips until I checked out the reviews. Sarah Fredrickson from Detroit wrote a negative review on April 15, 1999. As a person who was once on the Left and now considers himself on the center, I would say that it is the mentality of people like Fredrickson that made me abandon the Leftist cause. I was very embarassed reading Fredrickson's review. This is obviously a very troubled individual. She says Glazov should be "silenced" because he is an "enemy" and a "danger". Her main argument is that she was very "offended". I mean, for God's sakes, if this is the only argument the Left can come up with against Glazov's piece than it is really a sad statement for the position socialism is in. I personally do not agree with everything in the 15 Tips, and I sense the author is some kind of a Reaganite. At the same time, I am not sure I have an answer to Glazov and I will wait till I do. Meanwhile, I strongly suggest to Ms. Fredrickson that she abandon her cause for awhile and take a look in the mirror. She's got "loser" written all over her forehead. Her "review" is an embarassment to the Left. I am begging anyone on the Left, if you have any hope left, answer a book like 15 Tips with something profound, not with ignorant statements, insults, and complaints about your emotional pain after reading the book. If you want me to come back to the Left, state your case, not the biography of your emotional instability, intellectual bankruptcy, and political intolerance.