Skip to content

From the Pen of David Horowitz: November 11, 2009

November 11, 2009

david_p

We are all familiar with the way the left wages its political wars. If someone happens to disagree with its position on racial issues –if one believes, for example, that government enforced racial preferences are misguided or immoral –the left will denounce that person as a “racist.” In our culture, this is the moral equivalent of a bullet in the head. If the president of Harvard cites scientific data that women have different aptitudes for mathematics (lower) and verbal subjects (higher) than men, the left will denounce him as a “sexist,” another cultural bullet in the head. If a person believes that children should not be instructed about sex in public schools at the kindergarten level, the left will denounce her as a “homophobe” – one more mortal blow.

And, so, if students attempt to discuss the holy war that Muslim fascists have declared against the West, the left can be expected to denounce them as Islamophobes, and bigots too. To make the point, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee will send threatening letters to 100 university presidents across the country urging them to deny a platform to students who are practicing “hate speech.” And liberal TV anchors will defend the witch-hunt.

Here is an excerpt from an exchange that took place between FoxNews Channel anchor Alan Colmes and myself, over my efforts to organize Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week:

Alan Colmes: “The words, the phrase ‘Islamo-fascism’ is hate speech. It equates an entire religion with fascism. That’s what people object to. It conflates the two, and it’s wrong.” In other words, students can’t even hold a discussion about “Islamo-Fascism” because the idea itself is hateful, is forbidden.

This argument clearly doesn’t make sense. Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week is explicitly designed to raise public awareness about the oppression of Muslim women by Islamic radicals who abuse them. How can that be equating all Muslims with oppressors? The term “Islamo-Fascism” was itself coined by moderate Muslims in Algeria who were being slaughtered in the tens of thousands by Islamic radicals bent on jihad. How does using a term invented by Muslims to describe their oppressors equate all Muslims with the fascists?

Vocabulary of War, October 19, 2007

If you have a favorite Horowitz quote you want to highlight for others then please email it to DavidSwindle {@} Gmail.com. Please include:

  1. “Horowitz Quote of the Day” in subject line.
  2. A link to where the quote is from. (No need to include this if it’s from a book.)
  3. Any remarks you’d like published explaining what value you take from it.
  4. Your preferred name and a link to your blog or homepage (if you have one.)
Advertisements
24 Comments
  1. November 11, 2009 1:02 am

    It is no different to the Right being unable to admit that Reagan, was a bit of a war criminal, with his treatment of Latin America.
    I’m on the Left, and I notice that there’s a sect of Islam who want me, and people like me, dead. But, the difference is, I do not blame every Muslim alive for that problem. America doesn’t seem to be able to accept that it (with it’s absolutely ridiculous “they hate our freedom” rhetoric) doesn’t help situations, by waging economic war, supporting evil dictators (Pinochet?) just for the sake of the economic benefit of America. America, whether you like it or not, is also a terrorist State. But you won’t admit that……. because you’re American…… and on the Right…… which means you don’t believe America can ever do anything wrong.

    • Smithwinston permalink
      November 11, 2009 4:21 am

      FUTILEDEMOCRACY

      Well then, that’s your misfortune that you choose to dwell in an nhilistic, anti-principled wastland.

      You don’t believe in America, and you don’t discriminate, and you make it a point to illustrate the failings of this country as a terrorist nation. It sounds a lot like you are the defective product of the sinister left-run, American educational system. Actually, the system considers fools like you not defective at all, but useful in their aspirations to bring down freedom in this country. You are a foot soldier, an agent of chaos, and you are too stupid to realize that.

      Your programmed remarks reflect the mindset of a Major Hasan, minus the non-discrimination part of course, which Hasan’s ideology imposes strict constraints on, as you’ve intimated.

      Your sad display of slogans and simplistic reasoning, affirms that you, and other like minded fellow travelers make the perfect Eloi. Empty, and meaningless, except in their own minds, used like tools, by much greater sinister forces than you can imagine.

      But you do discriminate you see, you make an “unprincipled exception” in this case because the mainstream represents judgment, morals, tradition, loyality.

      You and your comrades call such people “racists”. Major Hasan calls them “infidels”, unless of course they are Moslem, and then only if those Moslems are not too much like you or me (I’m not placing myself in the same category as you, a creation of the left, an Eloi).

      So your non-judgment of your lethal enemy is quite designed to expedite your own well deserved extinction.

    • Brian permalink
      November 11, 2009 4:22 am

      Futile,

      Many of us do acknowledge the dirty deeds the America has done, nor do we shy away from them. To not acknowledge these and accept the fact the the U.S. has a hefty pile of dirty laundry is ignorant at best. Still the fact remains, there is no nation that has not, nor will ever be completely pure. For all have done dirty deeds in the name of self preservation and to have the upper hand.

      Now to address the Islamo-fascism issue. Those that deny such things exist are blind. They view this as a horrid term and misleading. They are wrong. The term literally means Fascism coming from Islam. This does happen. Just as fascim has come and still does from leftists. This doesn’t mean that all followers of Islam are fascists, but this just states the this particular belief fosters it many times. one only needs to look at the Suadis to see a clear picture of this in what is considered to be by many a somewhat “civil” country.

      What is the most horrendous is that people are to afraid to call things what they really are. This unjust and immoral inadequacy is dangerous and harmful to any society. Which in turn, by neglect of the reality, is condoning and fostering the evil.

    • Cynthia Thornburg permalink
      November 11, 2009 6:43 am

      futile? I almost gave you a half a thumb up. You had me until the third sentence. Then you went all schizo. Actually the first sentence made no sense, but it was a gimme for your stance. I expected that. Here’s another (absolutely ridiculous for you) truth you won’t like: They want to kill you. You are the Great Satan, no matter how you try to distinguish yourself from the right. You would do well to watch Mr. Horowitz’s movie, “What Really Happened”.

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      November 11, 2009 6:50 am

      FUTILEDEMOCRACY
      Your tortured logis is futile and yes democracy is futile that is why the founders went to such length to ensure that our nation is not a democracy but a representative republic a nation of laws. While you are so recklessly throwing the word terrorist around you are proving P.T. Barnum was right. I hope you do not live in this terrorist nation as you refer to it. Pathetic

    • Walt permalink
      November 12, 2009 5:53 pm

      Yes, I guess the Marxist guerillas and Sandinista government were just really cool? Ronald Reagan brought about the elimination of such Soviet supported movements. Through Cuba, the Soviet Union tried to take over Central and Latin America during the 80’s and before.Sorry, President Reagan came on to the scene long after 1973, when Pinochet ousted Allende. The only reason that Pinochet came into power was due to Salvador Allende’s efforts to turn Chile into a Marxist state. Also, how does David Horowitz blame every Muslim for Islamic extremism, unless you perhaps think that every Muslim is one perhaps. Also, you need to remember the terms Fascist Italy or NAZI Germany before spouting off on how Islamo-Fascism defames all Muslims. In no way did those terms even imply that all Italians were Fascists or Germans National Socialists, but simply described what regimes were controlling those countries and their ideology.

      You really need to think before you post, and then people will take you seriously. Also, your beloved left will die just as quickly if Islamists take over.

      • Bubba4 permalink
        November 12, 2009 8:02 pm

        He supported the contras with arm sales to Iran….what a guy.

  2. Cas Balicki permalink
    November 11, 2009 4:43 am

    “…[A] bit of a war criminal…”

    Does this not prove David Horowitz’s point? First insult a great president with calumny and slander by claiming the man to be a war criminal, and then move on to an argument that offers no proof that the insult is valid. Why would anyone think that they can get away with such vacuous sophistry? Because, I guess, we are all supposed to know that if Reagan wasn’t a war criminal he ought to have been one based solely on the principle of obiter dictum. Your handle, futiledemocracy, says all we need to know about you. Democracy may be a challenge, democracy may be difficult, but it is never futile.

    Here’s a tip for you, we on the right don’t blame every Muslim for atrocities such as the Fort Hood killings. Your parenthetical clause puts your pompous moralizing on full display when you brand a supposed right cliché as mere rhetoric all the while overlooking the fact that everything you wrote is rhetoric, especially given the dearth of facts in your febrile lucubration. As for your reference to Pinochet, it is only the question mark that saves you from falling into the ranks of the politically illiterate. Pinochet was a Chilean and not a US manifestation of an anti-Communism spawned by that fool Allende. What economic benefit did the US derive from Pinochet? I guess this is where we are all supposed to bow to leftist illogic and agree that US imperialism is what keeps the world from becoming the paradise that it is destined to be under leaders such as Chavez, Castro, and Kim Jung Il. Puhleese!

    As for your comment that America is a “terrorist state” show me one country in world that has freed as many people as America has. Here is a short list for you lest you forget on this very significant day: France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Iraq. This, of course, does not even mention the war material sent to leftist monsters such as Stalin that this evil Communist might aid in the defeat of Germany.

    Purblind leftist like you, futiledemocracy, are just not worth the time it takes to educate you, so I will end here.

    • Smithwinston permalink
      November 11, 2009 5:13 am

      If his link is actually in fact, his weblog, notice the first story. It begins with bashing Columbus.

      Then consider that, if it is him, he hails from England. A nation soon to be absorbed into the Moslem ummah. Hasan mass murdered to advance Islamic supremacy, and this sophmore fights those who fight against tyranny, on both sides of the pond!

      Lawrence Auster calls this dreadful place, “the Dead Isle”, because it has lost the will to defend itself from the multicultural onslaught brought about by zombies like this person.

      Yes, the liberal zombie hordes welcome death, the destroyer of worlds, like what was “Merry Olde England”. They do so because their souls are rotted, and their minds have been twisted to completely support a deceitful creature, “Leftula”, which sucks the life from them like a vampire, and completely controls their thoughts like a paracite from Star Trek.

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      November 11, 2009 6:54 am

      CasMade me want to stand up and cheer.

  3. Michael van der Galien permalink
    November 11, 2009 5:26 am

    The term “Islamo-Fascism” was itself coined by moderate Muslims in Algeria who were being slaughtered in the tens of thousands by Islamic radicals bent on jihad. How does using a term invented by Muslims to describe their oppressors equate all Muslims with the fascists?

    This is very important to point out. Islamo-Fascism isn’t the same as “Islam” as such – it’s the radical or extremist version of Islam people like Osama bin Laden, etc. adhere to. And that kind of Islam and those people can certainly be called “fascists.” That’s exactly what they are. They oppress, kill, plunder. Their way or death. They wish to create a totalitarian society. If that isn’t fascist, I don’t know what is.

    • Smithwinston permalink
      November 11, 2009 5:45 am

      What is “Islam as such”?

      Is it Tours 732 AD? Is it Vienna in 1529 AD and again in 1683 AD? Was it Constantinople in in 1453 AD, or Lepanto in 1571AD? Or is it NYC 2001, Madrid 2004, London, 2005? Is it Ft, Hood, present day?

      Isn’t the essence of this religion enshrined in the Constitution of Saudi Arabia and based on the Koran, and something any nation with a majority of its non-Moslem practioners in danger of living under?

      “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Arab Islamic state with Islam as its religion; God’s Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet, God’s prayers and peace be upon him, are its constitution…”

      http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/sa00000_.html

      It is clear Moslems are not confused about their means to and end. What is the “means”, and to what “end”?

      • jhimmi permalink
        November 11, 2009 8:49 am

        This is a difficult issue. I think it is possible for Islam to become a religion in the modern Western sense, i.e., a personal belief system, but it’s irresponible and dangerous for Americans to stick their heads in the sand and hope it just happens.

        I can see three ways to deal with Islam. The first would probably destroy the country rather quickly: ban the Qur’an and arrest all Muslims. The second would destroy the country more slowly: appease radical Muslims and/or pretend there is no such thing as violent jihad.

        The best solution is to focus very specifically on the beliefs, words, and deeds of Islamists and jihadists that distinguish them from Muslims who do not consider themselves Islamist or jihadist. Freeing Islam from its totalitarian political ideology has to happen. Radical Islamic ideology must be marginalized within the Muslim community.

        It is in this sense that the larger Muslim community is somewhat to blame. Because there is actual scriptural support for much of what these violent jihadists do and say, and probably also because they are afraid, it seems non-Islamist Muslims don’t, or can’t, agressively confront radical ideology with an effective counter argument.

        It seems intuitive to me that religion should promote love and understanding, rather than hate and violence. Non-Muslims are waiting for the Islamic ‘revolution’ that doesn’t just pay lip service to love, peace, understanding, and denouncing jihad, but becomes a viable alternative ideology to traditional jihadist Islam.

        • Smithwinston permalink
          November 11, 2009 9:03 am

          There is only one way to save the West from Islam.

          That is, separatism from, and the creation of, a cordon sanitaire around, the Islamic world. Anything else, is slow Islamization by high Moslem birth rates and immigration.

        • Smithwinston permalink
          November 11, 2009 9:06 am

          There is only one way to save the West from Islam.

          That is, separatism from, and the creation of, a cordon sanitaire around the Islamic world. Anything else is slow Islamization by high Moslem birth rates and immigration.

        • Anthony permalink
          November 11, 2009 6:09 pm

          jhimmi, thoughtful post, but I see a few problems…
          It would appear to us outsiders that Islam is in need of a Reformation movement, similar to that which occurred with Christianity. But we must consider these facts (and my own speculation)…
          * Muslims consider the Koran perfect since every word was extensively cross referenced by numerous scribes. Any questioning of this, as happened some years ago in an Atlantic Monthly article, is considered an attack on their religion. Even though this article showed that some parchments had been bleached and rewritten, there can be no debate.
          * How can you have peaceful relations with a culture that denies your right to exist?
          One Muslim leader from several hundred years ago considered the world to be in two parcels: the world of Islam, with them ruling, of course, and the world of war, where heathens and infidels need to be subjugated or destroyed. From this ignorant American’s point of view, this still seems to be the mindset of many Muslims of radical character.
          * How can there be any sort of |Reformation in the Muslim community when there is such disunity?
          It seems to this unformed observer that it is easy to eliminate a potential rival by simply claiming that he defamed the Prophet. Off with his head!
          How about the newspaper some years ago that reported on a beauty pageant, and said the women were so beautiful, the Prophet Muhammad would have married one of them? Angry Muslims burned the place to the ground!

          It’s very confusing.
          If Western society is so decadent, why do they use western derived technology, especially against us? Stop selling us oil, stop visiting our countries, make your own ‘Islamic Curtain’ and leave us alone, if you hate us so much.

          We’ll survive without you.

          • jhimmi permalink
            November 13, 2009 8:48 am

            I am as aware as anyone the violence and hate that is inherent in Islam. I’m concerned with the reality of the situation and looking for a pragmatic starting point to really address the problem. I think there are alternatives to the two strategies we’ve seen so far: war followed by nation building from Bush, and politically correct appeasement from Clinton and Obama.

            We’re not going to kill all Muslims. To ‘quarantine’ Islam to the existing ‘infected’ regions would require banning Islam and Muslims everywhere else, which isn’t going to happen in the relatively free West anytime soon, or not soon enough to prevent mass bloodshed/civil war.

            Instead of, or in addition to, military actions against those who, by all accounts, actually DO represent ‘true’ historically traditional Islam, I think it would be helpful to really open up the public debate on Islamic theology. How many Muslims don’t really know everything there is to know about Islam, because they’ve been fed a sanitized version? There are lots of questions, even among the ulema, about the validity of various Hadith – a good starting point would be to discard the Hadith. If nothing else, it would reduce the amount of violent, hate filled dogma that needs to be re-interpreted.

            If the Qur’an was understood to be a historical account, rather than eternal instructions for the future, it wouldn’t eliminate its ability to inspire violence, but it would help. Shining a bright light on the ugly, hateful sections of the Qur’an and Hadith that suck in weak minded Muslims couldn’t hurt – it could potentially force billions of people (Muslims included) around the world to the dark underbelly of Islamic theology.

  4. John Davidson permalink
    November 11, 2009 7:05 am

    The easiest way to stop a debate is to utter an obsenity and the liberals use that tactic every time.

  5. SanePerson permalink
    November 11, 2009 8:49 am

    I wonder whether Alan Colmes believes anything he’s saying. He grasps at straws and appears to struggle to find some ground to defend his ridiculous positions. He even looks like he’s suppressing embarrassed laughter at times.

  6. Smithwinston permalink
    November 11, 2009 10:04 am

    Here is a better way of understanding the problem of liberalism from Larry Auster’s website:

    “…Since last week, I’ve been bothered by conservative commentators’ constant use of the kneejerk phrase “political correctness” to describe liberals’ massively dishonest response to the Fort Hood massacre, but had not gotten around to writing about it. However, Sage McLaughlin posted a superb comment at What’s Wrong with the World yesterday that says pretty much what I would have said and more.”

    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014743.html

  7. john permalink
    November 11, 2009 11:09 am

    Futile, what a shallow, stupid argument. You mock the “they hate our freedoms” argument. Islam, the word, means submission. The entire religion is based upon the model of Mohammed, and the generations that followed his life and death developed into a faith which views all non-muslims as infidels, and non-Islamic countries, with our liberal freedoms, are anathema to the jihadis. They do indeed hate the freedom of our women in the west. They hate our free, decadent culture (of course, they like strip clubs before they go to meet their virgins). They hate democracy, which places the rule of laws created by men above any particular religious law. To deny that they hate our freedmos is simply ignorant.

    I wonder about toe-tag liberals, who seem to view Islam as just another religion- heck, they may as well be Methodists. Watch out for those radical chrsitians! Oh, the horror! The intellectual dishonesty on the Left about the Islamic enemy we face is staggering, and now, with all the branches of the government, academia and media echoing the theme that our REACTIONS to ongoing Islamic outrages is the problem, not radical Islam itself, a truly dangerous environment exists. The left and their PC orthodoxy is significantly to blame for the carnage. Of course, they have no shame in placing denial of the Islamic threat as a higher value than defending western values and actual Americans.

    Left: no Islamic terror in America during 7 years of Bush following 9/11. Obama now has this attack on his record in his first year, even as he and his allies refuse to utter the “T word”. Deal with it.

  8. peachey permalink
    November 11, 2009 2:09 pm

    So, John, tell us what is really on your mind. All I can say is ditto. Islam cannot be isolated from the foundations of Koran and hadiths. It is what is it is. There are of course Muslims that choose to ignore much of the content of the Islamic core principles as they are opposed to and appauled by the call to violence and destruction. Unfortunately, to practice true Islam is to accept all of the calls to kill, destroy, enslave,convert or kill all that is not Islamic. This is a difficult walk for many Muslims. Within the Koran it is very clear that all that do not conform to absolute Islam will be treated the same as the non-islamics.They practice what is essentially a quasi-Islam watered down to prayers,holidays and a more socially accepted form of behavior. They are also targets of true practicing Islamists in this country and Europe. Blending into and being assimilated into anything remotely Western is forbidden and violence among Muslims in Europe is commonplace. An approach of either you are in or out leaves many EU Muslims faced with the choice of conforming and becoming radical or the object of hate and violence. It is so frightening that within our society there are those that will side with the brutal dictators and deadly philosophies over the freedom of thought and speech. We live in a time when evil is viewed as good and good is viewed as evil. I fear that those that practice true Islam are a growing threat and have an ever growing influence and power within the US Muslim society. Ft. Hood was just the beginning in light of this administrations refusal to see the danger and call it for what it was. Terrorism.

  9. Walt permalink
    November 12, 2009 5:57 pm

    You may actually want to review the Koran and Hadiths. There is no moderate Islam. Also, this religion has not changed much in 1400 years, so how will you as a despised infidel persuade Muslims to change their sacred texts to more suit your feelings? This is a silly approach.

  10. November 13, 2009 1:05 am

    Futile… – While certain of your individual points are valid, you embrace the sophomoric fallacy of non sequitur when you argue that US opposition to jihad is just one more component of a studied and orchestrated foreign policy dedicated to the suppression of liberty in foreign countries. Like you, I am considerably left of centre (3rd generation), but I must reject your simplistic implication that the United States is the bad guy here.
    You are perfectly correct when you argue that CIA sponsorship of Pinochet’s overthrow of the democratically elected government of Salavador Allende was unconscionable and just plain wrong, as has been US support for so many other cruel Latinamerican dictatorships. Still, democratic countries, like human beings, are seldom right or wrong 100% of the time. Fairness dictates that one must balance the good and the bad when assessing the beliefs and conduct of a given country.
    I’m just old enough to remember Hitler, and I know that without the commitment and sacrifice of the US armed forces you and I would now be living (if, in fact, we were living) under an unimaginable fascist dictatorship. It was the United States, virtually unaided, which stared down the very real soviet nuclear threat. There is no country on earth which is more committed to freedom of speech and of association than the US, to the point that the harangues of those who are bent on destroying democracy itself are tolerated by virtue of the first amendment. No other country has committed so much to humatinarian aid for those of whichever political stripe are devastated by wars or natural disasters. (I’m not an American by the way)
    You state that you “do not blame every muslim alive for that problem.” It is precisely this attitude of the politically correct which menaces our freedom. Mein koranf, unlike the holy scriptures of all other major religions, specifically orders the faithful to subjugate all non-moslems, “apes and pigs,” to the rule of islam; if they resist, they must be enslaved and made to pay “jizya,” or, preferably, killed. The penalty for non-belief in any part of their venemous manifesto is summary execution. You must have noticed that moslems never denounce or inform on the militants within their ranks. If they were so democratic and peace-loving wouldn’t they do so? In even the most oppressive societies, not every last person is a soldier – the profound silence of “mainstream” moslems is deafening, and speaks volumes. When someone identifies himself as a moslem, he is telling us that he supports a world caliphate. Period. If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.

Comments are closed.