Support from Amazon: In defense of David Horowitz, public intellectual
The enjoyment of the publication of a new David Horowitz book would not be complete without the attendant sharp-knived warfare conducted on the Amazon review pages. The pattern of the stars tends to resemble an inversion of the standard bell curve: either five stars, or one, with not much in between: Some gave all, but all gave some…thanks to Amazon’s mandatory one-star minimum. While modesty prohibits me from including myself in any such praise, one can scarcely help but notice that the five-star reviews tend to be much better written, more often than not by those who have actually read the book, and are more articulate and lucid. This as opposed to the one-stars which tend to claim – often incoherently – that the book lacks factual support or logical consistency, very often without bothering to support those claims. (For space considerations, I would like to make a few comments here, and I will have more notes on this book posted on my new Anti-Chomsky blog, currently under construction.)
The Anti-Horowitzers tend to dismiss the author as an anti-intellectual fascist crank, which he most certainly is not; but even if he were, you’d have to give him even more credit for his obvious effectiveness. The much-derided Anti-Chomsky Reader was published a year and a half ago, to the same sort of gleeful derision that we see here; published only six months after Professor Chomsky – one of the 101 – was enjoying a renascence of his sordid career, the Reader unleashed a blizzard of written attacks from a number of sources – sources who were blinded not in the slightest by Chomsky’s "brilliance" – to the extent that Chomsky’s reputation can now fairly be described as "but a shadow of (its) former self".
Of course, the publication by a non-academic of The Professors raises the subtextual question: What does it mean to be an intellectual? There are two tests that one might apply in order to answer this question. The first test is to discover how a Chomsky (or a Horowitz) approaches the assertion of truth. To Chomsky, truth is whatever Chomsky says it is. Horowitz would answer: That’s what we’re trying to find out.
The second test has to do with the most important indicator of intellectual integrity: the willingness to correct the record, and to retract. One of the one-star reviewers noted that Horowitz was "forced to retract" certain claims. "Forced?" Forced by what – a reassessment of the facts and his own good conscience? Hallelujah! That makes him a rarity, doesn’t it? In fact, I can attest to that: When the Anti-Chomsky Reader came out, someone did bring to the fore a factual error – a very minor point, but an error nonetheless – and Horowitz ran a very extensive and very public retraction of the error on his website.
Compare that to Chomsky’s propensities, which include, when presented with an error or contradiction of his own: denying that he made the statement, claiming that he was misunderstood, ignoring the charge, or using any of a variety of mechanisms in order to mislead. Interestingly, Chomsky will go after someone who so much as appears to quote him out of context, as he did last year in the case of the Guardian article, even if the miscontextualization was trivial. Chomsky doesn’t retract his own errors, which are plentiful and egregious, but if he ever does, I hope someone will notify me immediately, as I will take it as a sign that the Rapture has arrived and I don’t want to miss my flight
12 Comments:
What the hell IS this? No author or source is identified, and the truly bizarre shift between first and third person narrative confuses things even more. Its only when things drift aimless toward a largely irrelevant anti-Chomsky rant that we suspect the Great and Powerful Horowitz himself might have had some input here, but who knows?
What the hell - its not like the guy is trying to influence education or anything... oh, wait, damn, geeeez...
The Left and their apologists have always proclaimed themselves to be "intellectuals". Yet whenever someone like Horowitz challenges any of their perspectives, their perspectives become "perspectives" in the fact they respond as if they were only around five-years-old or 12-years-old.
Yet Horowitz and anyone who supports him is labeled "anti-intellectual" when you get responses from that? What the hell is up with that?
Congratulations! This site has created a shillery boom by exploding through the shill barrier. I can't believe someone took the trouble to create a site devoted to selling D. Ho's book. My guess is sales are kind of slow, and the standard ploy of ginned-up controversy isn't working its magic. Ethically, the site designer should have included an "Advertisement" warning somewhere.
Mr. Ho' may not be the most fastidious fact checker in the world, but as a carnival barker, he's second to none.
Oh boy. More personal attacks on David Horowitz. I guess it's quite okay for Lefties like these to drive down the ratings of his latest book by posting "reviews" even though they totally 10000 percent dismiss the book and of course not reading it entirely on top of that.
And people say Horowitz is "anti-intellectual" when people like this get away with this type of attitude when their "perspectives" are challenged.
If its obvious that the reader has not read the book. Just click "Report as inappropriate"
But even if one were to do that. You know how Lefties can come in the numbers and start posting more of these "reviews". My suggestion is to not review something you haven't read and don't buy it.
If no one can do that, they only prove the author's point.
Well, you deride the apparent lack of intelligence of the review-submitters, but then claim that one can be "10000 percent" dismissive of the book. I would imagine that it is pretty obvious that one cannot be more than 100 percent in favor of something...might I suggest that you restrain your own hyperbole in the same manner in which you request others?
Once more, the Left and their apologists attempt to label themselves as "intellectuals" and go against anyone who challenges their views.
Thanks for pointing our your elitist arrogance. I also do believe that anyone who is a member of Amazon.com and submits these childish "reviews" should be given a firm warning from Amazon.con that they are abusing the rights of other Amazon.com members to enjoy a product.
Suddenly it is elitist arrogance to know that one cannot have more than 100 percent of something? I thought it was common knowlege.
You and your ELITIST mathematical calculations! David Horowitz is a billion percent right. Your assertion that per cent refers to out of 100 is just another sign of liberal elitism when it comes to math. You should understand there are 2 sides. One believes percentages are measurements based on the 100 theorem. You are trying to stifle dissent by not recognizing the 1000 out of 100 theorem advocated by conservatives. Same thing with evolution. For Shame!
You police the Amazon 'reviewers'!?!? What a joke you are!
Horowitz's Anti-Chomsky Reader was, hopefully, intended as a joke. Horowitz failed to refute a single argument Chomsky made-he only responds to Chomsky statements recorded in Uncle Sam's Diaries-this is not where Chomsky makes his arguments-his books are where you go if you want to see Chomsky provide evidence and sources and elaborate his thesis, and develop his arguments further, but Horowitz can't answer the facts so he descends to immature smears.And responding to Uncle Sma's Diaries.
All Horoitz's arguments have been demolished and discredited long ago, because they are recycled versions of old smears that have already been answered in full.
For instnace he calls Chomsky a "spokesperson" for the Talibna, when Chomsky criticised the Taliban in print since the 80's and throguhout the 90's when the US was still supporting and funding the Taliban under Clinton.
Calling anyone who criticises US policy a "spokesperson" for enemies of the US is the same as calling anyone who criticises Israeli atrocities a "spokesperson" for Hamas. Or an anto-semite etc etc. It's boring and tedious anti-intellectual nonsense put out by those who can't handle a debate.
Horowitz then says Chomsky has a "cult" following-but since Chomsky never asked anyone to worship him, rather, that was their choice this is not a legitimate argument against Chomsky.
Horowitz points out Chomsky has some unsavoury fans of his work-but thats like criticising Freud by saying Stalin used to read Freud so therefore Freud is a Marxist etc. Its nonsense.
The fact some anti-American types exploit Chomsky's work to further their own ends doesnt discredit Chomsky's work-something is either factually accurate or its not. You cant attack an intellect solely on the basis of the views of some of his/her following.
Pro-Israel writers like Alan Dershowitz have a large following among rather unsavoury racist settler-fanatics and fundamentalist Zionists. That doesnt make Dershowitz a fundamnetalist Zionist settler-fanatic or discredit his work. It merely means some people twist what he says to support their agenda.
Horowitz accuses Chomsky of being a Soviet-supporter, yet I have a copy of a letter Chomsky co-wrote to political prisoners of the Soviet regime giving them support in their struggle against communist oppression-and Chomsky's books were burned in Soviet Russia as a result of this. So Horowitz is a liar.
He also accuses Chomsky of being "anti-American" the same old silly smear that Stalin used to say any Russian who criticised the actions of his regime abroad, were "anti-Russian" or "national traitors". So Horowitz finds himslelf in good company with that pathetic smear.
Horowitz is attacking a straw man in most of his anti-Chomsky arguments, he wastes wordspace answering arguments Chomsky has never made. For instance he works hard to demonstrste there is no "moral equvalence2 between the attack on the Al-Shifa plant in Sudan and 9/11. But Chomsky never said there was.
He said that the Al-Shifa attack was a crime and that the death toll that resulted from it was at least comparable to 9/11. Horowitz only answer to this is to point out the plant was attacked at night so as to ensure no plant workers were killed.
But if, by this, Horowitz means to tell us it was not a crime or that the US did not deliberately kill anyone in the Al-Shifa attack he is lying.Because the US administration were warned in advance that attacking the plant would leave Sudan without the necesssary medicine to combat the humanitarian crisis at the time. And the US did not even bother to request inspections at the plant to see if it was producing checmicals as they (wrongly) suggested, before proceeding to launch an attack on sovereign Sudanese territory. For evidence of this crime VChristopher Hitchens brilliant series of articles at the time and in No One Left To Lie to, should be consulted.
Horowitz fails to respond to any of Chomsky's important arguments. For instance his claim that the US toppled democratic governments in Greece. This has been proven.
Or Chomsky's evidence that the US supported and trained Latin American terorrist militias at the School of the Americas. This has been proved beyond doubt.
Or that the US co-operated in torturing policial dissidents in Latin America. Proved beyond doubt.
And that the US supported rogue regimes against democratic movements in Central America and Latin America. Again, proved beyond doubt.
Horowitz cannott ake on a single one of these arguments because he would lose, the facts are against him.
Instead he chooses to descend to pathetic jibes that Chomsky is "anti-semitic" , "anti-amnerican" a "cult figure" a "pathologocal hatred" of America etc.
For the record Chomsky has spoken many times of his love of America and its unique freedoms which he calls "unparalleled" anywhere else in the world. To croiticise sthe actions of a goverment is not to criticise its people and its culture.
But only a fraud like Horowitz would need such an elementary truth explained to him.
Horowitz is a liar and a fraud of the worst order. I can't believe anyone intelligent, cannot see through his rehashed, unconvinving ,intellectually fraudulent so-called "arguments" in two seconds.
Post a Comment
<< Home