[lit-ideas] Re: A Genuinely Useful Thought
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 12:52:33 -0800
Simon:
I checked my notes and discovered that I read Horowitz' Unholy Alliance,
Radical Islam and the American Left back in January of 2005. There was
considerable controversy here on Lit-Ideas as I recall. Friends (I assume
they are friends) of yours cried "foul," "witch-hunt," "suppression of
free-speech," and probably some other cries that I've forgotten.
You placed a different emphasis on my statement about Horowitz' career than
I intended. I admit to the ambiguity and can see how you could interpret it
as you did, but I didn't intend for Horowitz to be the focus of that
sentence. I intended that the inference to be drawn was that there were so
many Leftists colluding with so many Radical Islamists that someone was able
to make a career out of exposing them. So many are being exposed that a
"cottage industry" (to use a favorite expression of a former Lit-Ideas
member) can be said to have arisen with that purpose in mind. I believe
Ward Churchill was one of Horowitz' early projects. I don't recall whether
he was the prime exposer of Churchill or if he just added fuel to the fire.
Leftists responded by saying that Ward's freedom of speech was being
infringed, but those interested in curtailing his activities denied that.
He could have as much freedom of speech as he liked. He just couldn't use
it to indoctrinate students in government funded universities. Records of
his anti-American class lectures were recorded and used as evidence against
him. It turned out that he had other problems. There was something
relating to his academic background, but I can't recall the details.
Perhaps it was that he didn't have the degree that his position normally
called for. But there was also the fact that he claimed to be an Indian and
speak for American Indians. It turns out that there is no evidence that he
is an Indian. The several members of tribe he claimed to be from admitted
that they knew him. They said he started showing up at their political
meetings, but he wasn't related to anyone they knew. I listened to
Churchill at some length on CSpan. He spoke to this and said the Indians
were so mistreated that they didn't have the chance to keep good records.
So who were his critics to say whether or not he was an Indian? He ought to
know whether he was one.
As an aside, I had some experiences along those lines. I grew up hearing
that I was 1/16th Indian. When I went into the Marine Corps they put "blood
type B" on my dog-tags. Later I learned that blood type is prominent in
American Indians and relates well to Asians on the other side of the land
bridge that once existed between Siberia and Alaska. What better evidence
could I have than that? But many years later one of my daughters became a
Mormon and interested in genealogy. She had a vested interest in being able
to prove that we had some Indian ancestry. If she could prove it, that
would enable her kids to go to college on the government. But she couldn't
prove it and she tried long and hard. She ended up thinking it wasn't true.
Later still I went in for some sort of routine test that they subject old
people to and I noticed on some form that they said my blood type was
something other than B.
"Hey, you've made a mistake. My blood type is B. It was written right
there on my dog-tags. I remember that vividly."
"I'm sorry sir, but there could not have been a mistake."
Since that time I've been checked again with the same result and they remain
convinced that I'm not blood type B. Ah well, I had a good time as a kid
playing the Indian when we played "cowboys and Indians." I suppose no harm
was done. Thankfully, the Marine Corps never had to give me a transfusion.
Back to the collusion between Leftists and Radical Islam: Yes, Horowitz has
a lot of evidence to show this collusion. They attend each others meetings.
They contribute to each others causes. They often took a united stand
against or for one thing and another. Their slogans, chief assertions,
favorite expressions coincided as they jointly opposed America and supported
America's enemies in various ways. Another of Horowitz' projects was a
University professor from Florida who at least lost his job and may have
ended up in jail. I can't recall the details but it may have been that he
was the front for some radical Islamic organization that was on some
government list. I knew someone who attended his college. She hadn't taken
any classes from him, but he was the talk (if not the scandal) of the
campus.
I haven't kept up with Horowitz' activities. One Leftist or Radical
Islamist sounds pretty much like another. I was outraged for awhile against
Churchill but my outrage-meter dropped lower and lower as time went on. I
have the impression that there are fewer of these guys having there own way
than before Horowitz began his efforts; so I'll settle for that and focus on
other matters.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Simon Ward
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 11:21 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: A Genuinely Useful Thought
"Simon says [an alliance between the left and Radical Islam] is a pipe
dream, but David Horowitz has made a career out of exposing Leftists who
ally themselves with Radical Islam. You perhaps missed all the discussion
about his book Unholy Alliance, Radical Islam and the American Left."
Dutifully, I did a search on my Lit-Ideas posts (only back to January 2006
I'm afraid), and the most I could find on Horowitz' book were nine posts,
the majority of which were referring back to a mention by Lawrence at the
end of one paragraph. So in my case, yes perhaps I did miss this discussion.
Given that and assuming that this is a subject that still interests
Lawrence, I wonder whether he'd be so kind as to summarise the evidence for
an alliance between the Left and Radical Islam. And by evidence, I'm not
thinking of a coincidence of opposition to the Bush Administration, but an
actual link between the two groups that demonstrates active collusion.
The fact that David Horowitz has made a career out of 'exposing leftists who
ally themselves with Radical Islam' is no proof that such an alliance
exists, merely that there is a market for such assertions.
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 8:48 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: A Genuinely Useful Thought
Well, you've repeated a number of your ideas -- all of which I've countered
with arguments based upon evidence -- none of which you have replied to, but
I see that when the mood is upon you, you can trot them out and take them
once around the track while wearing a new fedora. Then of course there is
the inevitable personal attack in lieu of argument or counter argument - the
sort of thing judy says doesn't go on. I wondered if you Lefties would hold
off making it sound like Judy was right about all these attacks, but not so.
Was it the scorpion who couldn't resist stinging the fox swimming it across
the river or the snake? I can't recall.
Let me remind you that one series of arguments I developed at great length
was to counter your interpretation of Fukuyama. I reread Fukuyama to see if
perchance I had forgotten something, but I hadn't. I produced quotes and
analyses from Fukuyama to show that you had misunderstood him. You replied
to none of those notes. You would do well to strike this one from your list
- just in case anyone else bothers to read Fukuyama
Well, we could have a duel to see who understands Iraq the best. We can
make it a verbal duel. But then I tried to have several of those in the
past but those attempts were always responded to by the Judy-denied insults.
I stated that I wasn't able to see the video because I had just switched to
Vista and couldn't get it. You must have missed that. I've since added a
flash add-on and could probably get it now, but I have been busy elsewhere.
And as I said it doesn't interest me; so I haven't bothered.
And no I don't think anyone needs to support me. What I do think is that
Americans need to favor the defense of their nation. They need to support
efforts to oppose our enemies. Leftists aren't very good at those things.
They want to say America is just as bad if not worse than our enemies. As
often as not they jump in and lambaste America as soon as someone voices
opposition to Militant Islam. Simon says this is a pipe dream, but David
Horowitz has made a career out of exposing Leftists who ally themselves with
Radical Islam. You perhaps missed all the discussion about his book Unholy
Alliance, Radical Islam and the American Left.
And where did you get your final complaint? You think I "constantly call
for perpetual war against everyone who is different. Kill. Kill. Kill." Do
you really think that? Then you missed out on Fukuyama who advocates the
peaceful expansion of Liberal Democracy. He says it is going to happen
whether we will or no. You forgot that I hoped Fukuyama was right but
feared that Huntington might be. You forgot the discussions of Thomas
Barnett's The Pentagon's New Map, War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century.
I don't believe in perpetual war. I don't think that is going to happen.
Not even Huntington says that. He sees war along the Civilizational "fault
lines." Barnett in building upon Fukuyama believes that we should encourage
what he calls the "non-Integrating Gap" nations to become integrated and
join what he calls the "Functioning Core," and he doesn't propose doing this
with military means. We will fight only when necessary and then only
against Failed or Rogue nations that endanger the "Functioning Core."
These three approaches to the future are the only ones I have considered
seriously in recent months and none of them go "kill. Kill. Kill."
You and Irene do manage to repeat your Leftist Mantra, but you don't develop
foundations for your assertions. Sometimes you post articles. Yes I know
that, but your articles do not provide conclusive proof for your positions.
At best you could with humility claim there is a plausible case for some of
them. I might not agree with that, but I might not take issue. But you
come on much too strong. With little or no evidence you speak as though you
have the absolute truth and that anyone who doesn't accept what you say is a
fool or worse. Your performances in light of the dearth of evidence
supporting your claims are not very impressive - at least not to me. Irene
probably likes them, though.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andreas Ramos
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 11:09 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: A Genuinely Useful Thought
From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> No point in going too deeply into this. I have expressed my disgust,
> irritation, and annoyance over Leftist who can't argue.
Lawrence, the problem is you.
- You don't understand what you read. You misunderstood Fukuyama. You don't
realize that
Huntington's "clash of civilizations" is a useless idea.
- You don't understand what is going on in Iraq (you think it is about
"terrorists").
- You see a video of Saddam's hanging and you misunderstand the situation.
- You think anyone who doesn't support you is a "Leftist" (which is utterly
meaningless in
this discussion because Iraq is about geopolitics, not economics).
- And you constantly call for perpetual war against everyone who is
different. Kill. Kill.
Kill.
Am I missing any more items?
yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
