Campus protests visit by CU prof

denverpost ^ | 1/27/05

[nicollo]

Doubt we'll hear back from our friend... 'Tis beyond lame to say that bringing in Walter Williams or Horowitz is a fair balance to this Churchill fool. There's no relativity in this: what the guy is saying is insane and ought be neither heard nor endorsed by the college.

Hedgie, do you remember the "Dirty Duck" controversy at Hamilton, your freshman year, I think? The campus film society set up to show this mildly pornographic animation about a duck that just wanted to get laid... The womens center, the Rabinowitz types went insane and shut it down. We ran it independently, of course, and, if I recall, they held a protest.

I might point to the hypocrisy of Rabinowitz in silencing a rather horny duck while broadcasting a psychopath. But I won't. Suffice it to say that this guy is sick. Be gone and done with. The College, and eb35 here, ought quit making excuses for him.

[dervish]

"Walter Williams and David Horowitz are just as conservative as Churchill is liberal"

---

That is a tremendously unfair insult to Williams and Horowitz. There is no basis of comparison. Churchill is praising terrorist murderers of civilians. When did either Williams or Horowitz do that?

This is not about a sliding scale of political opinion it is about Churchill praising murderers and saying civilians deserved to die because they were part of global capitalism. How does he know they are part of global capitalism? Because of their presence in the WTC. Tell that to the widow of the waiter/window washer/secretary who died there.

Do you think Williams or Horowitz defend the killing of civilians who are Marxists?

Ridiculous.

[eb35]

I have to agree with Hedgie, Churchill is not the same as Giuliani or Williams. I don’t think I ever claimed they were the same, though. My point before was that even if most colleges are predominantly liberal, at least Hamilton makes an attempt to bring both conservative and liberal speakers to campus. Hedgie is right exclude Horowitz from the list people who Churchill is not like. Giuliani is a fairly moderate conservative and Williams has some very good credentials. Many people consider Horowitz, however, to be nutty and radical, perhaps not as nutty and radical as most of the people on this site agree Churchill is. Horowitz is just on a different end of the spectrum. Williams, while radical too, was able to back up his positions with solid evidence and thoughtful reasoning. As I recall Horowitz was not nearly as graceful in his speech or reasonable in his thinking.

Dervish, Churchill is a radical. Insane? Maybe. I disagree with Churchill’s viewpoint, so does Jessica. Nonetheless, I also disagreed with much of what Williams and Horowitz had to say. I still went to hear them speak when they were on campus. It was very interesting to hear what they believe. I am sure that even though most of the people who are commenting here on FR are conservative they would still not agree with *everything* Williams or Horowitz have to say. By the same token I would guess that even the liberal people at Hamilton do not entirely agree with what Churchill has to say. When Williams came to speak about race many people took his point of view as extreme radical rightwing racism. If it was not for the fact that he is black I think most of the people present would have though he was a propagandist for the KKK. In fact despite his being black many people still thought he was a KKK propagandist (I say that in jest so don’t go after me on that line). Of course that is a misunderstanding of William’s position but if you don’t get to hear these guys speak how can you know what they really believe and what is hype? Am I saying that we misunderstand Churchill? Probably not, but we can’t know for sure unless we let his voice be heard. In academia we all too often judge one’s intelligence by how much they agree with us and I think that way of judging people can be limiting.

Dervish, if you read Churchill’s article and follow up statements you would know what he has to say about the window washers, secretaries, janitors etc. who died in the WTC.
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E2684392,00.html

Dervish, not all of the people who died in the WTC were capitalists and not all liberals are Marxists so it is at least a little out of line for you to ask "Do you think Williams or Horowitz defend the killing of civilians who are Marxists?"

I am not defending Churchill's position. I disagree with it just as much as you do. But if you are going to put in the time and effort to write about him here you should be open to hearing him speak at Hamilton, if for nothing more than to get a chance to formulate stronger arguments against him.

Stultis, I actually think Horowitz came to Hamilton twice, not just once. As far as I remember the College Republican’s brought Horowitz to speak at Hamilton during the 2003-2004 school year. And if the Levitt website is correct the Levitt Center brought him during the 2002-2003 school year also.

[dervish]

Many people consider Horowitz, however, to be nutty and radical, perhaps not as nutty and radical as most of the people on this site agree Churchill is. Horowitz is just on a different end of the spectrum.

There you go again with your absurd equivalency. Horowitz like Churchill? Not in this lifetime. I have read, heard and spoken with Horowitz. He bears not the slightest resemblance in his humanity, moral clarity and decency to Churchill. Please show me where Horowitz shows utter contempt for the lives of civilians or soldiers? Please show me where Horowitz endorses terrorist suiciders as a legitimate means to an end?

Obviously the distorted teaching of a university that would think to bring in a person like Churchill has had its desired effect on you. It’s called values and the far left left theirs at the door. Everything/Everyone is the same right? Don’t judge anybody./sarcasm

Let me clarify one point I made. NO ONE deserved to die on 9/11 except the terrorists. That includes window washers and “corporate tools” like Bond Traders. My point was that to people like Churchill the death of admittedly non-Corporate tools is worth it for the cause anyway. Its all worth it for the cause. Stalin thought so too.

but if you don’t get to hear these guys speak how can you know what they really believe and what is hype? Am I saying that we misunderstand Churchill? Probably not, but we can’t know for sure unless we let his voice be heard.

I heard enough from the man himself to know what he believes – that the innocents of 9/11 had it coming. Why would you need to hear more? Don’t you trust your own morality and logic enough to tell yourself that is wrong? What could anyone say that would make that right? If you don’t have enough inherent morality to know the difference between right and wrong here, you are a prime candidate for Jihad. That's the kind of thinking that let's others tell them what is right and wrong. It is not religion on the left, but nonetheless a totalitarian mind set.

Dervish, not all of the people who died in the WTC were capitalists and not all liberals are Marxists so it is at least a little out of line for you to ask "Do you think Williams or Horowitz defend the killing of civilians who are Marxists?"

Huh??? I was making the point that neither Horowitz nor Williams celebrate the deaths of any civilians no matter what their political beliefs. They also do not equate ordinary people with Eichmann.