Horowitz Touches Down

Written by

After the hubbub in Atlanta, David Horowitz got a relatively relaxing reception at his alma mater. 


Perhaps the most remarkable thing about David Horowitz’ visit this afternoon was the lack of remarkable happenings: he came, gave a predictable speech, took questions from a well-behaved audience, and left. The room was about half full–most of those who care were at the Anti-Bigotry panel going on concurrently one floor up. A good number of those present were administrators, press, and security guards. Maybe a little disappointing to Horowitz and the College Republicans, who now have no excuse to send out a tragic press release (yes that’s a picture of Chris Kulawik; Bwog was shooed away from taking pictures as the presentation began).

Speaking in front of a screen showing the hunched, shrouded figure of a woman being shot, Horowitz began defensively, decrying the reception he’s received here and at other universities, and the atmosphere that oppresses conservatives on college campuses nationwide. “Nooses have been put figuratively on the doors of the Republicans, and over my head,” he said (a remark lambasted by Leftist blogger Josh Marshall himself).

He then embarked on an explication of the term Islamo-fascism, which he says was coined by Algerian Muslims, and that he originally heard from the prolific contrarian Christopher Hitchens (read Hitchens’ own defense of the term here). He sees Islamo-fascism in the deeds of the Saudi government (an “evil state”), the goose-stepping gait of the Iranian National Guard (an “homage to Hitlerism”), the philosophy of Hassan Al-Banna (“a follower of Hitler”), and a litany of offenses by rulers of Islamic regimes.

Throughout the lecture, he wondered incredulously at the idea that anyone (like the authors of this petition) could oppose the idea of Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, much less call him the names—racist, bigot, fascist—being thrown out on the Sundial only an hour before. “Calling someone a racist is the verbal equivalent of a bullet,” he charged.

This led to a discussion of Horowitz’ true bread and butter—the alarming ideological uniformity of university faculty. He said he was never challenged in his beliefs when he attended Columbia in the 50s, while he was still a Marxist. Now, he intoned, Columbia’s faculty is so rigidly liberal that questions of Islamic oppression of women would never be discussed in the classroom.

“If you’re liberal, you are never challenged in your beliefs. It’s a bad education,” he said. “There is no professor on this campus who is willing to take the risk of being called those names. You can’t discuss this question at Columbia, and that should horrify you.”

audienceThe speech then ranged into other topics, from where the responsibility for the Iraq war lies (Jimmy Carter, the Democrats, and the “world-saving environmental crew” who oppose nuclear power in the US) to the “left-leaning Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee” and Al Gore (who “made a movie about himself”) to the “treasonous” New York Times, which “destroyed national security information in the middle of a war.”  You could see Horowitz valiantly curtailing his pre-written diatribes about every subject that came up, as the hour and a half ticked to a close.

Takeaway points: If they have a chance, the Islamo-Fascists will “kill you all.” The Left is in league with the Islamo-Fascists. Your professors are too cowardly to talk about it. And while there may be good muslims out there, they don’t seem to be supporting his crusade.

Horowitz said that he met a few “nice” members of the Muslim Students Association at other schools. He told one girl that, if she denounced Hamas, that they could be friends.

She didn’t.



  1. a student  

    That photo of the woman is horrifying.

  2. Mockney Biatch


    I'm glad this week made all of us "aware" of this. Because of course, we've never heard anything about it in the past six or do years.

  3. pictures?

    "Bwog was shooed away from taking pictures as the presentation began"

    Lots of people were able to take pictures at the event. The only person I saw who was "shooed" away was the woman who went into the aisle to take pictures and was asked to take take them from her seat. You make it sound like taking pictures was not allowed.

  4. Good  

    Glad to hear he sounded more retarded than Ahmadinejad.

  5. ugh  

    It's pretty sick that your first paragraph makes it seem like the College Republicans wanted a disaster so they could get media attention. Ever think that maybe those kids are sick of having things go on at their events and having to have almost as much security as an airport at them?

    • and then bwog

      is somehow surprised that the republicans don't trust them one bit. I'm sure they just want students accosting them and ruining any event that they try to sponsor--because they already have so much vocal support on campus outside of the rare conservative they bring in (whose automatically deemed as divisive and not conducive to a healthy debate).

      Why don't you just get it over with and have the political bwoggers leave and get their internships with tpm or ezra klein or the huff post already. Your biased junk belongs there---bwog has to get back to its old stuff when it wasnt so concerned about the political.

    • Actually  

      Kulawik would LOVE another Minutemen. It gives him Fox News air-time and so much Republican-love. Remember after the minutemen, when Bill O'Reilly asked him if he felt safe on campus, and he said something like "I used to have faith in my colleagues, but now I don't know any more". The kid is a fucking stooge and a sell-out, and would love this shit to blow up. Horowitz, Ashcroft, Gilchrist - why not invite intelligent Republicans (yes, there are a few) to campus rather than the hate-mongering ones? Nope.

      • good point  

        and I basically think that's why we got somebody polarizing and predictable like Horowitz, but not somebody more rational like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Another Minutemen would make the Republicans here look really good. Granted, I think they do a really good job with their events and their flyering has been so clever this year, but they get shitloads of publicity when liberals here act up.

        • How dare they?

          Yes. Shame on the Republicans for inviting figures that people on campus don't like! How dare they be so provocative? How dare they, god forbid, incite debate?
          You see, we (columbia students, faculty, admins) don't invite polarizing figures. We don't ever dare offend religious minorities. Why, just last month, our school, by good grace, invited the wonderful Mr. Ahmadinejad. Now there's a man whose presence we can tolerate! Too bad prezbo was so rude. (I'm starting to think he's a warmongering fascist, btw). And, just last spring, the Muslim Students Association had the good grace and tact to invite the illustrious Dr. Norman Finkelstein to come. Another figure with whom we could have a meaningful discussion.

          • Do you  

            not realize that Ahmedinejad was protested? Do you think that he was welcomed with open arms? The difference is, he's the leader of a country in this world, while Horowitz is just some crazy dude.

          • way to  

            miss my point. The Republicans would've convinced a lot of people that Islamofascism exists and is dangerous had Ayaan Hirsi Ali showed up. People just have a knee-jerk reaction to Horowitz. That's why lefties on this campus post flyers that say that 900k blacks are in jail and this is proof that america is fascist...not proof that say, 900k blacks are criminals. Blacks are never violent.

          • anonymous

            The "knee-jerk reaction" is really just a tactic to avoid discussion. Making outrageous claims often and loudly and ignoring criticism is an easy way to shut down thinking.

            The problem isn't that the 'wrong' speakers are being invited - it's that there are people on this campus who are hellbent on preventing meaningful discourse.

  6. too bad  

    this was a poorly written entry. if it weren't, then i'd almost care that's it's disgustingly biased.

    • what's wrong  

      with Bwog being biased? It never claimed not to be. Just like with a University, people present their views, and your welcome to disagree, but sometimes reason and empirical evidence point strongly in one directions, and people like Horowitz complain because they don't like that. That's like rejecting evolution cause you don't want to think we're monkeys.

      • anonymous

        What's wrong with Bwog being biased is the same thing that's wrong with Fox News being biased. Most people only pay attention if they already agree with it, and they come out dumber for it.

      • Ah....

        really clear reasoning process. It's amusing to hear how obviously correct you believe all of your opinions and worldviews to be, especially given how eminently mistaken you are about radical Islam. Anyway, don't get me wrong. I certainly believe in evolution, and I will argue with anyone who says we're not descended from monkeys. In fact, we've got some right here at Columbia that bear a strong likeness to rational, fully-evolved human beings, except for their deficient reasoning capability. Monkey see, monkey do.

  7. quotes by

    the dems panelists

    Jeffrey Feldman demonizing republicans the same way he claims horowitz demonizes islam:

    What we face as we look to the America of 2008, 2012, and 2016, in other words, are vast sections of the country held in place by social bonds forged out of anti-Democratic notions such as: violent threats are the best response to dissent.

    Acknowledging and refusing to accept this growing problem from this point forward will be, in many ways, far more important than the outcome of any election in the near or distant future.

    Either we as a country come together and stop right-wing media from continuing to be the source of violent rhetoric, violent listeners and violent viewers, or America stands to lose far more than a war."

    Prof. Gil Anidjar demonizing Christian Europe:

    ""without this enemy par excellance that is Islam, Europe, Christian Europe, would not exist or would no longer exist."

    Amanda Terkel tried to characterize recent judicial nominee leslie southwick by claiming he condoned racist comments made by one worker to another in Richmond v. Mississippi Department of Human Services.

    The actual response "Southwick’s court was reviewing the decision of a state administrative agency that the white worker’s use of the racial epithet did not justify termination of her employment. The narrow, and highly deferential, legal question before the court was whether, under its “limited scope of review,” there was substantial evidence in the record to support the agency’s decision. The majority concluded there was, and, on review, the state supreme court majority agreed with Southwick’s court that termination was not an appropriate remedy. Further, the opinion that Southwick joined, far from condoning the racial slur, expressly stated that the “unwarranted use by a state employee of any inflammatory or derogatory term when referring to or directly addressing a co-worker is an action that cannot be justified by any argument.” So much for an “anti-black” decision. "

    Terkel also tried the same thing with a purportedly anti-gay custody case where the gay mother in question who was battling for custody rights actually lost due to the fact her financial situation was barely enough to pay for more than car payments and on top of that the case was a review of a lower court ruling which had already took into account a number of concerns

    Terkel's hatred of anything right of center however allows her to proceed in such smear jobs

    So its pretty laughable that the dems set up a panel purportedly to argue against hate when 3 of its 4 members harbor so much hate for groups they disagree with. This of course ignores the fact that one only needs to look at the dem blog to find countless statements which demonize republicans.

  8. one last thing

    contrast spec's far superior article http://columbiaspectator.com/node/27743

  9. hmm?  

    I'm sorry, what panel did you go to? None of the panelists said any of the things you're attributing to them.
    The exception is Professor Andijar, who did quote a lecture from the 1800s to prove that this demonization of Islam has been happening for a much longer period of time than just this one week.

    Is anyone else sick of the college republicans so obviously posting bwog columns against other groups? Who else would be so pissed?

  10. werd  

    since when are democrats not allowed to criticize republicans? looks like the panel succeeded in hurting their ickle feelings...

  11. At the Dems' panel  

    What panel did you go to? These quotes from the Dems' panel are completely false. Now you're just making shit up.

  12. i guess  

    it's ok to demonize republicans like horowitz...because they're demons....

    • demons

      Yeah, that's right. David Horowitz and his ilk are demons. Came here a few days too early (they were in town for Halloween, you see, but they couldn't get any hotel reservations for Oct. 31st). How dare they demonize those "terrorists" though?

  13. ...

    It is a sign that you are nothing more than a propogandist when you need props like that picture to make your point.

    The picture says: look at these barbarians we are fighting.

    How about a picture of a man carrying the dead body of a Palestinian boy killed by an Israeli bomb in the Gaza Strip in July 2006:


    I don't intend this to be an anti-israeli post. I just would like to point out that brutality is not monopolized by a single side.

    This is the real world. Not a disney movie where there is a strict biforcation between "good" and "evil." There is a little bit of both on all sides.

  14. not to mention  

    the main picture the republicans were using to advertise- the one with the woman being buried- is from a dutch MOVIE. It is not a real picture, and that woman is probably still making films.
    Silly silly spreaders of hate...


  15. Anonymous  

    Horowitz said he was never challenged when he attended Columbia as a Marxist. He then went on to say that liberals here get a bad education because we are not challenged. Does this mean that Horowitz got a bad education (using his own logic) and, if so, why should we listen to him?

  16. in any case  

    I'm glad this didn't turn into another embarassment for Columbia. Kudos to those who went and didn't make asses of themselves. To those who dislike Horowitz--you did the right thing by flyering and holding mini protests but not rushing the stage.

    And #17, good point hahaha

  17. yeah  

    i'm so glad the place was only half full and nobody freaked. the only way this would have turned out better is if even less people showed up. let's stop publicizing this shit and move on.

  18. further  

    I used that same photograph in a presentation on the Taliban freshman year of hs. People freaked out.

  19. joe columbian

    Yeah, we're all for free speech.

  20. Maybe  

    Horowitz missed the memo that Marxism and liberalism are two different systems of thought. A liberal would have his views challenged by a Marxist professorship and vice versa.

    Also possible that he means the ideological allegiance of the faculty has switched, but he speaks like he's conflating the terms.

  21. exactly  

    as the president of a country, it's not up to us to legitimize ahmadinejad. but horowitz can be ignored and thereby marginalized.

    It's not that we dont like Horowitz, it's that he hates us. Dear Republicans, please bring thought provoking speakers to campus, just not hate mongering ones.
    You know what would be thought provoking? A CR speaker whose presence on campus would not give kulawik a spot on fox the next day.
    Now there's a thought.

    • horowitz  

      kinda was ignored! the audience was only half full, right? that's a statement in and of itself.

      horowitz isn't necessarily a hate mongerer, he just likes pissing people off. and it's really easy to piss off lefties. a good example of hate mongerers: westboro baptist church. if the repubs ever invite them, well, you've got an argument.

  22. Aha

    Well, last year, they invited Walid Shoebat, a former Palestinian terrorist turned anti-terrorist advocate to speak, along with a former Lebanese terrorist and a former member of the Hitler youth. A bwog correspondent peremptorily deemed Shoebat "more wacko than Gilchrist" - a baseless claim of course. Here's a student response that I think you might find interesting:

    "Atleast Finkelstein is a professor with a PhD from Princeton, a book published by University of California press, and a presentation that claims to be based on research and academic work and not emperical evidence.

    Shoebat's claim to being an expert is his own perspective. He's a dude who tells it like he sees it, which is also what Gilchrist was. Santorum is different, like Ashcroft, he carries credentials."

    A large number of people here simply don't want debate.

  23. moreover...

    Oh. And by the way, Ashcroft's credentials didn't prevent a large number of people from declaring that his presence on campus was an intolerable disgrace.

  24. Furthermore,

    Ahmadinejad was protested (although not by the College Democrats, if I recall correctly...). But his presence here was almost universally praised.

  25. lol  

    lol o no bwog was biased against horowitz END OF THE FUCKING WORLD. go make some friends, nerds

  26. College Dem  

    We did, in fact, participate in the Ahmadinejad speakout. Our members were also intimately involved with the planning of both the speakout and the public viewing of the speech.

  27. invisible_hand

    re: horowitz' idiotic comment about not discussing the phenomenon of religious violence, i am currently IN a class called (wait for it) religion, gender and violence. in it, we most definitely do discuss the state of women in fundamentalist religion, but both in islam and in christianity. we also critique the ways in which people have taken to discussing the state of women in the middle east, people much like horowitz. these people use the bodies and lives of these women as pawns in their political games.

  28. invisible_hand

    also, the audience was "tame" because the only questions the fucking republicans let through were ones kulawik thoroughly vetted himself. they didn't allow any free q's from the audience. clearly, this was a not a discussion of a higher critical order.

    • history_repeated  

      The questions asked to Ahamidenjad were also censored. People need to start looking on both sides of the issue. You can't say your side can do something but the other side doesn't have the same right. Get over FOX being conservative. If you want liberal media there are plenty of choices and you don't hear conservative making an issue over that.

  29. CCer

    umm, you "don't hear conservative(s) making an issue over" the supposedly liberal media? you didn't really mean that, did you? the post we're discussing says that horowitz called the times "treasonous" during his talk, to talk just one of countless examples.

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.