Guerrilla History - Histories of Resistance in LA from 60’s to Today w/ Gerald Horne

Episode Date: July 4, 2025

In this episode, we present a crossover of Guerrilla History and the Adnan Husain Show.  Here, Dr. Gerald Horne joins Adnan and Henry to discuss his recent book, Armed Struggle?: Panthers and Communists, black Nationalists and Liberals in Southern California, Through the Sixties and Seventies. As ever, Professor Horne connects the histories of organizing and resistance against racial capitalism to the contemporary situation, including the LA uprisings against ICE raids and developments against neocolonialism and imperialism in West Asia. A wide-ranging conversation with the inimitable Dr. Horne ranged across the histories of class politics, struggles against racism, and geopolitics to consider the prospects for resistance locally and internationally in contemporary movements for justice. Gerald Horne is the John J. and Rebecca Moores Chair of History and African American Studies at the University of Houston.  His research interests are unbelievably varied, encompassing biographies of W.E.B. Du Bois and Paul Robeson, to The Haitian Revolution, to Hollywood in the '30s-'50s, to Jazz and Justice.  Be sure to check out his bibliography, you're certain to find something that interests you! Help support the show by signing up to our patreon, where you also will get bonus content: https://www.patreon.com/guerrillahistory  We also have a (free!) newsletter you can sign up for, and please note that Guerrilla History now is uploading on YouTube as well, so do us a favor, subscribe to the show and share some links from there so we can get helped out in the algorithms!! *As mentioned, you will be able to find Tsars and Commissars: From Rus to Modern Russia soon on YouTube.

You don't remember den, Ben, boo? No! The same thing happened in Algeria, in Africa. They didn't have anything but a rank. The French had all these highly mechanized instruments of warfare, but they put some guerrilla action on. Hello, and welcome. Welcome to Gorilla History, the podcast that acts as a reconnaissance report of global proletarian history and aims to use the lessons of history to analyze the present.

I'm one of your co-hosts, Henry Huckmacki, joined as usual by my co-host, Professor Adnan Hussein, who not only is a historian and the director of the School of Religion at Queen's University in Ontario, Canada, but is also a host of the show, the Adnan Hussein show, which this episode is a collaborative episode with. Hello, Adnan. How are you doing today? I'm doing great, Henry. It's wonderful to be with you and to share video on my new platform. So welcome as well to you. Yeah, absolutely. This is my debut on the Adnan Hussein show. I'm very excited for this because not only do I get to spend some more time with you, Adnan, but we also have a terrific guest lined up for this collaborative episode. But before I introduce the guest and the topic for the discussion, I want to remind the listeners that they can help support guerrilla history and allow us to continue making episodes like this by going to patreon.com forward slash guerrilla history. That's

G-U-E-R-R-I-L-A history. Please note that guerrilla history is also now on YouTube. Unlike the Adnan Hussein show, you don't have to see us, but we just have audio with a really cool animation made by a Marxist Vietnamese artist who she really did a great job with the animation. But in any case, you can find guerrilla history on YouTube as well now. We have very few subscribers at this point because our subscribers are sent to the podcast. But you, listeners, be sure to tell your friends, family, and comrades to subscribe to guerrilla history on YouTube because we really could use some boosting on the algorithm there.

You can also keep up to date with everything that guerrilla history is doing by following us on social media on Twitter at gorilla underscore pod, Instagram, gorilla underscore history. and we have our free Substack newsletter, which will deliver right to your email inbox, gorillahistory.substack.com. And again, gorilla is spelled with two R's in all of those cases. Well, Adnan, we have Professor Gerald Horn on the show.

Once again, Professor Horn is one of our most common guests. I believe that this is about the fifth time that he's been on the show. And we're going to be discussing a couple of things. His book Armed Struggle and also connections between what he analyzes in that book with what is going on in L.A. now and across the country with regard to the anti-ice riots and uprisings. Salam, hello, bonjour, welcome. We are with Professor Gerald Horn, who should be well known to all of our listeners and viewers as one of the most important contemporary. historians, particularly for those who are interested in the significance of history to our contemporary struggles for liberation. It's wonderful to be with him here. Welcome, Dr. Horn. Thank you for inviting me. Well, and Henry, since this is a co-Garilla history, Adnan Hussein

show, it's great to have you with us as well. Welcome, Henry. Yeah, it's always a pleasure to see you, on. I know this is my first time on your show's platform, but this is also a Gurla History episode. So not that far out of the norm. Absolutely. Well, we should get right into it. What we wanted to do

was talk a little bit about some of the recent events that have been taking place in response to the egregious, aggressive ice raids that have been taking place around the country. And we thought it would be

really appropriate to talk to you, Dr. Horn, precisely because you've written recently, well, you've written extensively on the history of Los Angeles and American history as a whole, but recently you wrote a book called Armed Struggle, which was, that was the beginning of the title, Armed Struggle, and it was about various intersections of radical history and politics in the 60s and 70s. And it seemed that given the responses that many people made to these raids by ice that a couple of weeks ago broke out in Los Angeles, it would be worth talking with you about how you situate these contemporary events in light of that history and legacy of radical

activity in Los Angeles? Well, it depends upon your starting point. I could actually start this discussion by talking about the founding of the United States in the late 18th century, this rebellion against British rule, which is incorporated in a number of books I've written, including the counter-revolution of 1776, slave resistance in the origin of the United States of America. And there is a discernible trend in historiography, particularly I must say by black historians, to revisit 1776 and look upon it not as a great leap forward for humanity, but a great leap forward for slave owners, a great leap forward for white supremacy,

a greatly forward for indigenous dispossession, for example. And given that unfortunate and tragic history, perhaps we should not be taken aback by the unfortunate and tragic events that are unfolding in the streets of Los Angeles as we speak. That is to say, you're referring to these breakups of families. You have folks, particularly of Mexican origin, who are being detained, oftentimes at their workplaces, believe it or not, and then sent to various so-called black sites.

There is the spectacle of parents leaving home in the morning, dropping their children off at school, and then not returning home. And there are seven and eight-year-old children left to fend for themselves. This is the kind of heartlessness and cruelty that is now infecting the United States for America. But once again, given the tragic and unfortunate history of the United States, only naive should be taken aback by this turn of events. Obviously, this is a direct response to the November 2024 election of Donald J. Trump, the felon, now occupying the White House. But once again, it would be a mistake to reduce what is unfolding United States to the misdeeds and mishaps of one person.

I'm always struck by the fact that when there are analyses of U.S. politics, there's not a class analysis that is to say oftentimes there's reference, for example, to the Zionist billionaires who are influencing the policies of the White House, particularly with regards to the crisis between Israel and Iran. But there seems to be a reluctance to admit the obvious, which is that Mr. Trump and this right-wing regime have a base in the Euro-American working class, a middle class. It would be simplistic and reductionist to suggest that in a country of 340 million, that only the 1% helped to explain the rise of, of Mr. Trump. That's bad math, if not bad political analysis. And all of that brings us back to the book that is a major topic of our discussion today. That is to say, armed struggle, panthers and communists, black nationals and liberals in Southern California through the 60s and 70s. And that title in many ways encompasses what I write about. That is to say, To telescope the thesis, the book deals with the rise of the Communist Party in Southern California in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s.

And then after the conclusion of the anti-fascist war in 1945, you have the reaction of the right wing, incorporated under the term McCarthyism, the Red Scare, the purging. of the left, particularly in key Southern California industries such as Hollywood, the film industry, where the left and radicalism had established a foothold. And in that context, you see that the Communist Party, as noted, had accumulated some significance, but with the battering of the left, particularly with regard, not only to Hollywood, but with regard to the dock workers, you had Harry Bridges, who was accused of being a communist, well-born and Melbourne, Australia, led the San Francisco General Strike of 1934, but was repeatedly assaulted with claims that he was a communist, attempts

to deport him. The union was weakened. And in the context of the weakening of the union movement, you see the contrasting trend, which is the United States under pressure because of the apartheid policies and finding it difficult to win hearts and minds in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, decide to embark on an agonizing and reluctant to treat from the more egregious aspects of U.S. apartheid. And so on the one hand, you have a weakening of the working class movement as concessions are made to the anti-racist movement. And that particular contradiction, in some ways, it reminds me of U.S. policy, for example, in Guatemala and in Latin America generally, where the policy, as was stated, was beans and rifles, frioles and fusiles. That is to say, either if you don't take the beans, you'll be subject to the rifles.

And that was, in a nutshell, the policy of the U.S. ruling class in the 50s and 60s. But at last, what happens is that in that context, you have the rise of the Black Panther Party, which in some ways is a halfway house between the struggle for socialism and the struggle for black nationalism. It's trying to bridge those two theaters, so this way. speak. Of course, it was born in California, born in Oakland, California, just north of Los Angeles. But it was subject to fierce and savage repression, including assassinations, including imprisonment. In fact, there's Panthers who are imprisoned today as a result of these illegitimate claims of the 1960s and 1970s. And so the Panthers tried to be internationalists. In fact, I start the book with Panther leaders in Algeria, where they established a foreign legation, meeting with diplomats from then socialist Czechoslovakia, seeking to gain arms for the struggle here at home.

But alas, because of, I would say, ideological weaknesses, savage repression. and the like, the Panthers did not necessarily survive the 1970s, and in a sense, you can draw a straight line from the savage repression of the left in the 60s and 70s to the savagery unfolding on the streets of Los Angeles today as we speak. yeah i'd like to come in for just a second here and one of the things that i've noticed quite a bit is that there is a in some ways a difference between what we see in the 60s and 70s which you analyze in your book and what has recently been happening in l.A. today with these anti-ice riots and one of the differences that i see and and will be interesting to discuss is the fact that In the 1960s and in the 1970s, both of the major political parties were extremely opposed to those radical movements like the Panthers, like the communists, and both were extremely savage in the repression of them. At the current moment, there is a slight difference, which is that the opposition party, that is the one that is not in control of the government,

is much more likely to co-opt these more radical movements. So that's not to say that these anti-ice protests and movements that are happening in L.A. and across the country today are as ideologically coherent or as pointedly radical as the Panthers were and as the Communist Party was and is, but there is a much more radical movement than the two mainstream parties represent. Of course, they're radical on the right, both of them, but radical to the left. But what we see is that when one of the parties is not in a position of power, they are much more willing and frequently do try to co-opt those movements, to hitch themselves to the movement that in many ways comes about organically on the ground as a result of actions that the government is taking.

And so at the present moment with the Trump administration being the one, who are carrying out these extreme measures against undocumented immigrants to the United States, against minority groups and oppressed people across the country of all class, race, religious stripes. The Democrats at this moment, because they are in a position where they can claim that they don't have the power to actually change it themselves, are much more willing, at least members of the party, maybe not the elite of the party, but members of the party are much more willing to hitch themselves to those movements on the ground today than what we would have seen in the 1960s and 70s. How do you see that?

Do you agree with my view of that, or do you have alternative analysis of those movements? Well, there's something to what you say. part of the problem today is that as Stephen Miller, the chief hate monger and the White House, who is the evil genius behind these raids, as he was scanning the figures comparing deportations during the previous Biden administration with that of the current Trump administration, he felt that his administration's Trump regime was not measuring up. That is to say that not only Biden could have been called deporter-in-chief,

his predecessor, Democratic Party president, his predecessor of Barack Obama, was actually called the porter-in-chief. And so there is something to say about this idea that when the Democrats don't have power, they can be more full-throated in terms of their denunciation of what's going on. But then when they seize the reins of power, they oftentimes act in lockstep with the right wing. And I think that that has something. Go ahead. And just to add on, you know, you mentioned Obama being titled the Deporter in Chief.

This is one of the things that I wanted to raise in my question. So I'm glad that you brought it up because I forgot to is that many who follow American politics will remember that during the last campaign cycle and during the first campaign cycle. when Trump was running for president, he would frequently bring up the fact that Obama was the deporter-in-chief, which is another point that, you know, I would point to to say that when the political party is in opposition to the governing apparatus, then they will point out these things.

And again, in some ways, hitch themselves to various movements. Now, with Trump, it was a little bit harder to hitch himself to any sort of organic movement on the ground for immigrant rights. or anything like that. But he did frequently call Obama the deporter in chief. And Obama being a Democrat in office, as the deporter in chief, was an exemplar of the fact that the Democrats, when they have power, do much the same.

It's really only when they're in opposition that they take these, quote-unquote, principled stands in connection with movements on the street. Sorry for that interruption, but I did forget to throw that in. Well, once again, I would, not ascribe these weaknesses to the personalities involved. I think there's something more structural involved. And I say that because it's not just Obama, it's not just Biden. I mean, look at Jimmy Carter. When he died recently at the age of 100, as I recall, he was seen as something of a secular saint. He, of course, wrote books, castigating what was called a

partayed in historic Palestine, for example. He campaigned against the guinea worm and raised money, poured into Africa to try to eradicate that pestilence. But when he was in power between 1976 and 1980, he helped to establish a foreign policy template that is bedeviling the United States to this very day. I'm talking about his national security advisor, the Polish Americans, Big Neff Brzynski, a ferocious coal warrior, ferocious anti-communist, who boasted about supporting religious zealots, not least in Afghanistan, which not only contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union, but then backfired spectacularly on September 11, 2001, when these erstwhile allies were accused credibly of attacking New York and Washington. But he felt it was all worth it. And he was

never reigned in by Jimmy Carter. So I would like to reiterate the point that I was making a moment of two ago. You have a structural political problem in the United States of America. That is to say it got off the ground as a settler colonial regime. And I'm out here in Victoria, British Columbia, as we speak. And what's interesting is contrasting Canada with the United States. Now, when you do this, the left-wing U.S. Patriots begin to think that, oh, you're in the tank for Canada now. How can you say anything? They don't understand the concept of relativity, for example.

They don't understand, for example, that there might be differences between the regime in Stockholm, Sweden, and the cowboy capitalism in Washington, D.C., for example. And so in Canada, the original play in this part of North America was extractive colonialism, fur, timber, et cetera. But at a certain point, there was a goal rush, and Yankee settlers flowed across the border, and therein you had the establishment and the entrenchment of settler colonialism. Under extractive colonialism, the founding father of British Columbia was a man of African descent. After settler colonialism, he had to go. And in fact, in the state of Washington, just across the border, the opposition to Canadian policies, particularly the Kueba Kwa policy, of intermarriage with indigenous women. That was part of the whole extractive colonial model. that was bad in the state of Washington.

That was seen as incompatible with settler colonialism because they thought that the Native American women would be spies for the Native American groupings, for example. And so what I'm trying to say is that under settler colonialism, as it has obtained in the United States of America, you have the co-opening of many settler working class element to cite another example.

from Native American history under Andrew Jackson, the president 200 years ago, an exemplar from Mr. Trump, by the way, you had the Indian Removal Act. You had Cherokees in the southeast quadrant of North America who became Christians. They became slave owners. They developed newspapers. They became sedentary agriculturalists. They still had to go. They were ousted. And Europeans, just off the boat, were oftentimes moving into their mansions and taking ownership of their enslaved Africans that they had to leave behind when they were ousted at 2,000 miles westward to what was called an Indian territory, now the state of Oklahoma. And so what I find, which is quite remarkable in the United States of America, he is an abysmal ignorance about the history of this country. You have people parachuting into 2025, making analyses about the working class, for example, middle class, without any foreknowledge of this pre-existing history, without any knowledge of settler revolts, for example, in Rhodesia in 1965, leading into formation of Zimbabwe by 1980, where the European settlers said that they were walking the footsteps of 1776, no foreknowledge of settler revolts in Algeria. for example, that did not forestall Algerian independence by the early 1960s.

And so I think that unless until we gain a more granular understanding of how we got to this point, as opposed to implanting recipes based upon other nations that are not settler regimes, for example, such as regimes in Western Europe, for example, or not settler regimes to the same extent, we're going to be missing the boat. And there's no accident that the late Secretary of State of Madeline Albright, the last book she published was called Fascism a Warning,

because that's basically what we're up against right now. And if fascism does arrive, I dare say that it will have a kind of mass base. Just like in the 19th century, there was a mass base for indigenous dispossession. To a certain degree, there was a mass base for enslavement of Africans, for example, which brings us to the other point, which is that oftentimes to move the needle in the United States, you need external pressure. Haitian Revolution, for example, ignites a general crisis of the entire slave system that can only be resolved with this collapse. The Bolshevik Revolution unleashes forces that, as noted, impact the United States of America.

And I think that those who are concerned about U.S. depredations worldwide would be well advised to develop what we developed in the United States in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. That is to say, a mass anti-apartheid movement. You need a mass global movement targeting U.S. imperialism. And I would like to think that in Canada, where I'm now speaking, where you're the elbows up movement, for example, where Prime Minister Carney has complained that U.S. imperialism is monetizing its hegemony, he says. Although he says that its heyday is long past, okay, fair enough. He's sounding like me.

But I would like to think that as a result, that Ottawa will move towards tightening relations with Cuba, for example, and move off of some of its other retrograde foreign policy positions. I'm afraid to say I don't see the evidence of that yet, but let us hope that the momentum of events pushes Canada in that direction. and, of course, pushes its developing allies in Western Europe in that direction, particularly France. Before the G7 meeting in Alberta, just a few days ago, President Macron showed up in Greenland in order to buck up the Danes in terms of their colonial claims to that vast island. And occasionally, there has been a conflict between France, United States. But if we're serious about saving the planet from extinction, we have to move from occasional opposition to consistent and structured opposition. Yeah, I think that's a very good

point that also the history that you tell us in this book, Armed Struggle, about the 60s and 70s, about Panthers, communists, black nationalists, and liberals, that's an important resonant discussion in terms of the kinds of organizations that were created, that were proving more effective. And I think that's something that when Henry was talking about the difference, when he was speaking about the Democratic Party's position, one of the other differences, of course, is that there haven't been as many of those organized structures for resistance within United States, a lot of these uprisings that we've seen responding to the brutality of these ice raids. that are really Gestapo-like, you know, I mean, they come in masked, they're not wearing, you know, the typical emblems of constituted and legitimate police authority by the state, you know, I mean, these are trying to get us used to the idea, you know, that there could be gangs, popular sorts of movements, the street thugs, you know, that could be the auxiliaries to state power.

which is one of the things that was so significant about, say, Nazi Europe and fascist movements in Europe is that the organized right didn't need to only have constituted official state power. They had thugs in the streets that were accomplishing some of the same kind of goals on behalf of the state. And we're getting used to the idea by having these ice raids look very much like thugs that could just be vigilantes from the community, for all you know, that that seems like a dangerous kind of move. And in terms of that mass popular base that you were talking about, that has to be situated in settler colonial history and the kind of racism that's important in settler colonialism is I've noticed that so many on social media, for example, so many of the videos that are posted about decrying what's happening or trying to show to the world

the terrible brutality of these ICE agents. And you look at the comments. The comments are filled with people saying, that's what we voted for. This is great. This is what we want. Finally, we're getting, you know, kind of a government that is doing what we've wanted. And so that's very evident that there is a kind of mass base for this. So the question I wanted to ask was that relationship you just brought up, which is that internal fascism and the external pressure. And you talked about that there needs to be organized internationalist resistance, really, to U.S. hegemonian empire. What I'm wondering is if you see some interaction also taking place

between the way in which there is support for U.S. wars abroad and increasing fascism within, even though there is this kind of division between Maga World itself, right? There's been some concerns expressed about the United States getting into open war against Iran. Of course, it's been enabling and providing all kinds of surveillance support, political support, coordination, supplies, and for knowledge, but to actually openly get U.S. troops involved in confronting the Iranian military. This is something that some on MAGA are raising as a problem. And I wonder how you see that, because somebody like Marjorie Taylor Green,

congressional representative who is a flamboyant and kind of charismatic symbolic figure in one wing of MAGA, has expressed, reluctance to get involved in of one of these foreign wars, but part of the rationale is because we have so much work at home to do, you know, so it's not exactly anti-imperialist, it's more regional concentration. We have work to do at home to get rid of, you know, racial, you know, groups, the immigrants, you know, all the kinds of diverse groups that they see as undermining the kind of purity of, you know, the American, the American settler colonial identity. And so I just wondered what you thought about in this particular moment and in comparison with

that previous history when the Black Panthers did forge, you know, relations with anti-colonial and anti-racist struggles abroad with Cuba, with. with Algeria and how there was a kind of moment of international solidarity in resistance. It's also, however, paralleled by a kind of complexity about how U.S. Empire is working and the relationship to those policies internally. I'm just wondering how you see that kind of framework and that set of relationships, how they're operating today. Well, certainly what the Panthers sought to do with internationalizing the struggle needs to be duplicated and replicated today.

That is to say, establishing the aforementioned legation in Algiers, frequent delegations to what is now the Republic of the Congo, once known as the People's Republic of the Congo, across the Congo River from the larger Congo, speaking of Congo Brazzaville, for example. sending delegations to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, sending delegations to North Vietnam at the height of the U.S. aggression against Vietnam with panther leaders stirring up sedition, particularly amongst black troops. In fact, one of the major reasons why the United States had to pull out of Vietnam was that the military was cracking internally because of the fact that black soldiers in particular were, engaged in a process that led ultimately to an expansion of the vocabulary. It was called fracking. That is to say, they were attacking their officers, rolling hand grenades into the pups of the sergeants and the lieutenants and the captains, for example. So we have that history that took place during the lifetime of many of us, many of us, and of course we all know that it was subjected to repression, but it can rise again.

Now, with regard to the tensions and conflicts within the MAGA base, I think they need to be taken seriously. And I think that as we speak, it may be a restraining factor in terms of more overt intervention of U.S. imperialism against Iran, for example. But this silver lining is accompanied by a cloud. What I mean by that is that there is a trend in the MAGA base that says you need to focus like a laser beam on China. that in other words Marjorie Taylor Green Tucker Carlson Steve Bannon

they're not necessarily doves they're more like crackpot strategists and recall that when Mr. Trump was interviewed during the presidential race of 2004 and when he said one of his major objectives was to disunite Russia and China

China. And that has been termed a so-called reverse Kissinger maneuver. Recall that it was 50 years ago or so that Nixon Kitzinger made an entente with China on an anti-Soviet basis, which contributed mightily to the collapse of the Soviet Union by 1991. And so now the play is to win over Russia. And that helps to explain some of the overtures, apparent overtures, I should say, that Mr. Trump has made to Moscow. And so, unlike some of the bourgeois analysts, we should not be necessarily seduced by the alleged peacemongering coming out of the Maga base, because it has a malignant intention, ultimately. Once again, I must reiterate because it is of paramount importance that we really need to develop it. a global movement to corral U.S. imperialism because looking historically, when we forced U.S. imperialism away from slavery, for example, took a global movement. I mean, unfortunately, rather than just sharing gloom and doom, you know, I spend a good deal of my time in British Columbia reading about

the depredations afflicted by settlers upon the indigenous population. I mean, I can't tell you the number of times I've stumbled across the phrase war of extermination, which is basically

what took place. And then, of course, I look at the contemporary response to Gaza. Now, certainly, there's little to celebrate with regard. regard to 50,000 plus deaths, but at the same time, it's apparent that there is a global

movement now that acts as a sort of break against the more bloodthirsty of settlers and historic Palestine. And so that gives me, looking historically, a bit of optimism because one of the problems the Native Americans had in this part of North America, which is why. so many of them were exterminated, was that the global movement was not very strong, shall we say. And that's, even that is an overstatement. You know, you, Professor Horn always like to look historically and connect these historical moments with other things that we see in the present, which is very much what we try to do with guerrilla history as well.

And I would like to try to do that with this next question. In your book, Armed Struggle, one of the chapters is Free Angela. And today we just had another moment of, I guess, celebration in some ways of Mahmoud Khalil being released as his case proceeds after, I think, 104 days in detention. Now, a couple of points before I turn it over to you, Professor, you know, in that previous answer and in Adon's question, you're talking about some of these seeming divides within the Maga movement. You know, these divides really are isolated points in terms of tactics rather than overall ideological structure. So it's not as if any of the MAGA players are going to be more favorable to Iran relative to Israel. It's simply a matter of tactics. in the same way that when it comes to talking about Palestine and in Gaza, these various wings of the MAGA movement were very much in lockstep because the tactical calculus for all of them essentially ended up being the same thing regardless of their otherwise tactical differences within this ideological continuity between these wings.

And so that's why when we have people like Mahmoud Khalil who are detained unlawfully, we don't have mega politicians coming out and saying, well, you know, maybe this is a bit of an overstep. Because, of course, the mega movement is entirely in favor of Israel. They're anti-Muslim, they're anti-Arab, they're anti-Palestinian. They're also very opposed to any sort of campus radical. which is why even when they are outside of positions of power, you constantly hear this refrain that it is the liberal university

or the universities are radicalizing children. They often will point to it as bastions of communism. And those of us who went through the American academic system will know that that is a far cry from the truth. We wish it was the case, but certainly is not. So that is to say that the mega movement has this ideological continuity, but these tactical differences, and it's important that we think about these divides being only in terms of arguments about tactics and not about overall ideological structure.

But also, as you said, Professor Horn, there are these differences and in some cases similarities in terms of the global pressure on various events that are happening. So when we are talking about the Panthers in the 60s and 70s, of course, there was support for the Panthers from the Socialist bloc, but it wasn't the vast majority of the global population standing in solidarity with the Panthers against American capitalist imperialism, racial capitalist imperialism. It was pretty much isolated to the socialist bloc that were supporting them. When talking about Palestine today, we are at a point where, of course, we have the depraved Western Europeans who still, despite their calls that Israel is overstepping, still fully support Israel. I mean, when we have this blatant aggression by Israel against Iran, unjustified blatant aggression, we still have France, the UK, standing Germany, standing in lockstep with the United States, Trump's United States, whom supposedly all of these leaders don't like, they stand in lockstep, they come out at

the same time that the United States does and says, Israel has the right to defend itself. Well, I'm sorry, that was a blatant act of aggression. There was no defense to be found there. The vast majority of the global population today stands with that being. said, there was just a big meeting in St. Petersburg in the last two days, the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. Of course, I bring this up because I live in Russia. So, you know, that's on my radar, where we have representatives from countries all around the world, including basically all of the most populous countries in the world outside of the United States. Standing in lockstep and saying this was an unjustified, blatant act of aggression,

Iran has the right to maintain and pursue peaceful nuclear energy programs within its country. You have France, England, Germany, coming out and saying, there can be no enrichment in Iran. We stand with Israel despite this. But as I said, despite those exceptions in Western Europe and in the United States, the vast majority of the world's population at this point is coalesced around standing with Palestine. Of course, it's more rhetorical than actual materially. I know Adnan and I have talked many times about how when we look at China and their statements

versus what actually happens, there is quite a disconnect there. And also with Iran, we have all of these countries saying we, support Iran's right to nuclear energy in the country, but we don't actually see much happening there materially to prevent this ongoing aggression against Iran by Israel. So that is to say, and I'm sorry if that this was a very long preamble to the question, Professor, I got a bit carried away here. That is to say that we can look historically and look at these moments where we have members who are of a movement that are determined. and a movement then coalesces around trying to free this person.

Chapter 15 of your book, Free Angela, and with, again, today's news that Mahmoud Khalil is finally being released after 104 days of detention. I'm wondering if you can talk a little bit about these two moments of history, the similarities and differences with regard to international solidarity. political currents that are going on, and then also differences. Well, first of all, with regard to that chapter, Freangela, who refers to Angela Davis still in the land of the living, who could have been subject to capital punishment

because of allegations that she was involved in an action at a courthouse north of San Francisco, California, wherein Jonathan Jackson, the younger brother of her comrade, George Jackson, who was in prison, was shot down as he was seeking to engage in an action that ultimately could have led to the freedom of his older brother, George Jackson. There took an international movement to free Angela. I think one of the points that I'm making that book is that the Angela Davis campaign was closely tied to the U.S. Communist Party, which in turn was tied to the Soviet Communist Party, the Cuban Communist Party, Western European Communists, Asian communists, African Communists, etc. the black Angela was part of the Black Panther movement

but oftentimes by the time that the repression was a high tide against the Black Panthers there were certain ideological rifts between the Panthers and their communist counterparts which then hampered

the ability to forge that kind of global movement on behalf of Panther qua Panther of political prisoners. And today, with regard to those who have been detained at campuses, Khalil, for example, the young woman of Turkish descent, who we have on videotape being detained by the U.S. authorities on the streets of a Boston suburb, for example. The list and supposedly the trigger was her writing at a school newspaper, a country, a

column that was sympathetic to the Palestinians. This has led to what is ultimately going to be a profound and significant backfire with regard to U.S. imperialism seeking to ban foreign students from the United States, particularly to Chinese students. And this is a sort of self-suffication by U.S. imperialism. But we also need to look at other factors as well. That is to say, look at Germany, for example, a leading capitalist country, perhaps in the top five in terms of GDP, but it's an occupied country. There are thousands of U.S. soldiers in Germany circumscribing the sovereignty of that country, and therefore, we should not necessarily be surprised by the fact that Mr. Trump routinely insults the Western European country.

Just the other day, he was asked about their meeting in Geneva with the Iranian foreign minister. He waved it away and dismissed it as a waste of time, which actually had a point, in a sense, because obviously the Western Europeans, they can't deliver the United States of America, and they'll fall into lockstep with whatever U.S. imperialism seeks to do. So in a sense, he was right. But on the other hand, if I'm a German patriot, I would hope that you're quite disturbed by this sort of insult, this routine insult. Now, of course, going back to the days of Angela, for example, there, that is to say, the campaign to free Angela Davis, at that time, you had Germany that was split. There was a German Democratic Republic, socialist East Germany, and then there was capitalist West Germany, capitalist West Berlin.

We know that the GDR was a major backer and supporter, not all of the Angela Davis campaign. Of course, she spoke German, which was quite helpful in terms of her campaign. But the GDR was also quite helpful to the African National Congress of South Africa, hunting a lot of their publications, for example. So that is a significant difference because now you have a consolidated Germany, which is firmly in the imperialist camp as opposed to a divided Germany, which was the case up until 1990, 1991. And then that brings me to some of the ideological weaknesses of liberalism in the United States today.

If you look on the website of the New York Times as we speak, you'll find a startling story from the University of Florida, the law school, where a self-described white, white nationalists wrote an award-winning academic paper, basically calling for ethnic cleansing. People like me should be swept out of the United States. Plus, he's anti-Jewish as well, which I think is one of the reasons why the article was getting so much attention because part of the historic compromise of settler colonialism in the United States was they distinguish themselves from the European countries by embracing the Jewish

minority. But of course, it's at something to do with the fact, as I point out in this book, Armed Struggle, that if you look at some of the early settlers, for example, in San Diego, they happen to be Jewish, but they were good Indian fighters, for example. And so the contradiction is that the law school dean says that, uh, We are in favor of viewpoint neutrality. You can say whatever you want, but we're not going to comment. Now, I'm not sure if that's going to wash, given this character's anti-Jewish fervor and given the strength of Zionism within the U.S. ruling class.

But on the other hand, it bespeaks the weakness of liberalism in this country, the ideological weaknesses of liberalism, how they're contorting themselves mightily in order to rationalize and justify the rise of fascist trends, which once again speaks to the point that I must reiterate, which is that we need help in the United States of America. We've historically needed help in the United States of America. And I'm confident that we will receive that help from our friends and comrades. as an international community. I just wanted to come in briefly on this question of the anti-Semitic views of this

right-wing writer and just note that I think you're right that that will expose various problems given the pro-Israel tenor of our, you know, or loyalties of the political class in the United States. But just to point out that I think in some ways, anti-Semitism and Zionism are quite compatible. And of course, there is a right-wing politics that is very pro-Zionist, but anti-Jews. You know, they just want them out of here. They should be sent over there. That was, of course, even the theological orientation originally of Christian Zionism was the idea, well, they should all be in-gathering there, and that'll bring on the, you know, the rapture

and the Second Coming and so on. So there was a theological basis for it, but there's also a secular, political, racist basis for it. So it'll be interesting to see certainly how that plays out because there are some deeper complexities to that in the right-wing imagination. But I did, you know, want to come back to the subject of the book and this relationship between what's been happening recently and movements and episodes and events that you discussed in this wonderful and very thorough book that brings so many threads and different kinds of political movements together in conversation. which is to think about the obvious analogy,

and we haven't talked at all about it in those terms, that maybe you might want to, is just, of course, the 1965 watts, you know, so-called riots, uprisings, that were also, again, very spontaneous responses to conditions and situations, but because there were also larger structures of organized communities,

communist parties, labor politics, you know, the Black Panthers, you know, maybe had a different tenor to some of these anti-ice uprisings, but I do see that there is some galvanizing of popular left movements that want to carry on organizing, having protests against these ice raids. And I'm just wondering if you see any hope in these going forward, are they congealing into some kind of more profound or enduring sort of politics of resistance? And I wonder if maybe the fact that they're following on a kind of youth mobilization around Palestine that also brings in U.S. foreign policy and that we are in this moment of perhaps rising anti-war organizing against the wide.

of the conflict to include possible U.S. direct confrontation with Iran. If maybe those are productive sorts of forces for the kinds of politics, you've just been recommending that we have to see a kind of international kind of solidarity and movement against U.S. empire and hegemony. So I just wanted to give you an opportunity to kind of reflect on the history from the Watts' rising, you know, uprisings to, you know, you know, in what direction the politics now today you see happening? Well, one advantage today that is frequently lost sight of is that at the same time, you have this fierce repression

of those of Mexican ancestry in particular in Southern California. You have folks in the MAGA base who are counseling military attacks, on Mexico, because from their point of view, what they say is that the so-called drug cartels south of the border in Mexico or a clear and present danger to the security of the United States because supposedly they're exporting drugs to the United States, the so-called phenotal crisis. Actually, they've also used the phenotile crisis to go after China as well. And just as the U.S. pressure on Canada, I'll just loose talk about making Canada the 51st state, for example, annexing Canada, or to use Mr. Trump's phrase using, quote, economic force, unquote, to lead to an incorporation of Canada, has shaken up Canadian politics. it helps to explain why the conservatives, the Tories, did not prevail in the election a few weeks ago.

And likewise, I would like to think that President Chambon, Mexico City, who also appeared at the G7 meeting in Alberta, is preparing for this fraught moment that has been promised in terms of military attacks on her country. President Shane Baum and the Morena Party, including her predecessor Omblo, they've developed very close relations with the People's Republic of China, for example. And that opens the door to substantial external pressure on the United States, because President Shanebaum, and actually more so, Mexican civil society, has been outraged by, what has taken place, targeting people of Mexican ancestry, particularly I bring up law, although obviously the settlers, as the Native Americans can tell you, they look at treaties, like some people look at toilet paper and Kleenex. But having said that, as a result of the U.S. War of Aggression against Mexico, concluding in 1848, which led to the seizure of California,

now the richest, the most popular state in the United States of America, there was a treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgold that said that there would not be discrimination against people of Mexican ancestry left behind on this side of the border. But, of course, that has been ignored. But in any case, that is an advantage in 2025 that we did not necessarily have in 1965. because despite the outreach of the Black Panthers and other black militants,

there wasn't this sort of organic connection. Certainly there wasn't a connection next door, like you have Mexico right next door to the United States of America. The socialist camp was thousands of miles away. Africa was thousands of miles away. Cuba was closer, but then it was subjected to an economic black country. and as a result that hampered and hindered the ability to develop international alliances, not to mention the fact that the Red Scare of McCarthyism had handicapped the ideological advance

amongst popular movements, and to a certain degree we're still suffering as a result of the regression, the ideological regression, that was birthed. during the Red Scare of McCarthy-Eyperia. So in terms of notes of optimism, I think that we must keep a close and careful eye on the reaction of the government in Mexico City with regard to these savage and ferocious raids or people of Mexican ancestry in particular

because that bespeaks the sort of external pressure that we need so desperately if we are to avoid the ravages of fascism. Well, Professor Horn, I know that we had you for about an hour, and our time is just about up, but I want to just mention two quick things through the listeners in closing about things that are upcoming on guerrilla history, one of which will be featuring you, which is why I'm making sure to mention it now. So you mentioned in your previous answer, Professor Horn, about how laws and and treaties are written by the settlers

and they're only really abided to as long as the settlers and the imperialists decide that that international law or that treaty is applicable and beneficial to them. Listeners of guerrilla history will be happy to hear that in the next

week we'll be interviewing Professor Nina Farnia about lawfare and basically that exact topic. So listeners, if you're listening to the Adnan Hussein show and aren't subscribed to guerrilla history, make sure to subscribe to guerrilla history because that episode will be out in a couple of weeks' time. But then also, I know that many of the listeners will be familiar that we're running our series

African Revolutions and Decolonization on guerrilla history. And we have an upcoming episode that Professor Horn will be on, which is being facilitated by my dear friend, Tony Ballas, who I'm sure many of the listeners will know and is a frequent collaborator of yours, Professor Horne. We're going to be talking about soundtrack to a coup d'etat in that episode. And that also will be happening in the relatively near future. I know we're just hammering out the specific dates for that conversation now. So listeners, again, if you haven't subscribed to guerrilla history, make sure to do that.

And also listen to the series that we're running African revolutions and decolonization. I'm sure that you'll learn a lot in that series. But on that, I want to make sure that I thank you, Professor Horn, for your time today. Adnan, I'm sure that you also would like to thank you. Absolutely. Thanks so much for joining us and discussing the resonances between this history that you studied very thoroughly and contemporary politics and geopolitics as well. Very helpful. So thank you again so much for your time, Professor Horn. Yes. And hope I see you soon. Yeah, send me the link once it goes up. Absolutely. All right. Goodbye. Take care. So that was a really terrific conversation with Professor Gerald Horn. His

work is invaluable. I know Adnan mentioned at the top of the conversation that he's one of the most important historians. I always call him the most important living American historian, which I hope makes him blush slightly, but I am being quite sincere when I say that. So be sure to check out Professor Horne's work. Like I said, in the intro, we've had Professor Horn on guerrilla history four or five times at this point. So you can find some of those past interviews in the affiliated works by going in the guerrilla history feed. And I know that we'll have them again on guerrilla history soon. So I'm looking forward to that.

But Adnan, at this point, can you tell the listeners how they can find you and the Adnan Hussein show if they happen to be listening to this on guerrilla history but aren't subscribed to your show? Absolutely. You can find me on Twitter X at Adnan A. Hussein, H-U-S-A-I-N. And yes, if you're listening to Guerrilla History on audio, but you would like to subscribe to an exciting YouTube channel, you can actually see Henry and I in this episode,

and me typically on YouTube at Adnan Hussein show on YouTube. And, you know, video is expensive, and so we do have to ask you to not only like, share, and subscribe. But if you can, support the channel so that we can continue putting together excellent content. And you can support us by going to patreon.com slash Adnan H-N-H-N-A-N-H-U-S-A-I-N. We really appreciate it. Absolutely.

As for me, listeners, you can find me on Twitter at H-U-C-1-N-N-N-N-5. I'm not on there very much these days, not only because I don't have the time for it, but also it's very hard to use Twitter these days, not only because Twitter is blocked in Russia, but we also are having internet and cell service shutdowns whenever there is a drone threat right now. So that's always fun. But you can still follow me.

I do appreciate it. As for guerrilla history, you can follow guerrilla history on YouTube. You can follow guerrilla history on podcast platforms. You can help support the show. Patreon.com forward slash guerrilla history and follow the show on various other media platforms. I will also just mention that I have a separate show starting up soon. Tsars and Commissars from Rostamad in Russia.

I already have some episodes ready to upload on YouTube, but YouTube is being mean to me because they have also blocked Russia. so I have to try to find ways of making it work for me and as of yet have failed on that front. But be aware that SARS and Commissars is a 25-part series on Russian history pre-state foundation all the way to today. And as soon as I get this darn YouTube channel for SARS-and-Comis to work, you will be able to start listening to the episodes there

because they are ready. So on that note, Ben, listeners, and until next time, Solidarity. Thank you.