SATIRE:David Horowitz Publishes New Book; Hopes Conservatives Don’t Treat Him the Way He and Conservative Establishment Treated Diana West
http://www.liberateliberty.com/2013/11/13/david-horowitz-publishes-new-book-hopes-conservatives-dont-treat-him-way-he-and-conservative-establishment-treated-diana-west/
Noted professional clown and all around jackass David Horowitz has been on a publicity tour for his new book, The Black Book of the American Left. His book discusses, among other things, communist influence and support in America.
I spoke to Horowitz and those praising him, asking how they can justify his new book with a straight face following the vicious and unwarranted attacks he led on Diana West and American Betrayal, a book which exposed communist influence in America.
“I want the American public to wake up to how badly communism has subverted the nation,” Horowitz said to me. “But only if it does so while listening to me. After all, I have approved myself and select cronies as the sole experts on the subject. Diana West never received that approval. Even worse, she had the audacity to publish a book on communist influence in America before me. How do you think it made me feel knowing that The Black Book of the American Leftwould be a mere also-ran next to American Betrayal? So I think any fair-minded person would be able to understand why I did what I did.”
Other notable conservative figures support Horowitz on this.
“It’s just what we needed,” said Rick Moran of American Thinker, taking a break from brainstorming on the next area of conservatism to surrender to the left. “We need brave souls like David who alert us to the dangers that others won’t.”
I asked Moran about West and American Betrayal since American Thinker allowed a writer to slam both her and her book even as it refused to allow her to respond.
“She’s not a brave soul!” Moran quickly replied. “She’s a conspiracy theorist who didn’t bother to get the approval of David Horowitz and Ron Radosh. And that’s inexcusable.
“Furthermore,” Moran added, “I think West actually believes what she writes. She’s not just in it for fame and fortune. If she took a page from David’s book and learned how to attack those who are first to alert society of a disaster so as to discredit them in order to set herself up as a the leading clarion voice later down the road, I might give her more credence. But as it stands, she’s a true believer. She’s not interested in eternally perpetuating the game between left and right. She actually wants one side to win.”
I next sought out Ron Radosh who, along with Conrad Black, fiercely competes with Horowitz for being the biggest lout.
“I don’t have much time to speak with you,” Radosh said to me as we chatted in his study. “I gotta work real hard on finishing my review of Horowitz’s book. I’m currently in the process of making up quotes and other stuff that isn’t in his book to prove how great it is!” he added with wide eyes as he hurriedly sorted through various papers on his desk. “As a professional historian who knows the correct way to interpret history, I know how to review books on history—what is right and what is wrong. This is also what qualifies me to make up things that aren’t in books I review, or make up conversations that never happened. I’m a historian! I’m a historian! I’m a historian!”
I nodded along with him until he finished explaining how being a historian qualifies him as being a historian. Then I pressed him further about this, asking him how he’s qualified to speak on subjects in the past that he would have no qualification speaking on if they were occurring in the present. “Well, that’s the thing about any professional historian,” he explained “We created a professional field where we’ve deemed ourselves ‘experts’ on anything and everything that’s happened in the past—stuff that we would have no business claiming expertise on in the present.
“For instance, I’ve showed what a know-nothing I am on intelligence matters or how espionage is significant,” he added. “But that doesn’t hurt my standing as a professional historian. In other words, I’m still able to pass myself off as an ‘expert’ on intelligence matters if they happen in the past because I’m a professional historian. And that’s what makes being a professional historian such a great job!
“So if I say that David’s book, The Black Book of the American Left, is great and that West’s book, American Betrayal, isn’t—it’s the truth,” Radosh said. “So conservatives had better not treat David the way we treated West!”
(Above: David Horowitz explains how “his pre-eminent position [is] being threatened by” Diana West’s book, American Betrayal.)
The previously mentioned Conrad Black (whom some say is a relative of T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII) was less-than welcoming when I contacted him.
Black had rushed to the defense of Horowitz and Radosh, eager to join them in making a fool of himself. It’s unclear if Black has even read American Betrayal but he’s seen fit to write at least three pieces on how much he hates it.
“Why would I even lower myself by talking to the likes of you?” Black told me when I asked him for comment on Horowitz’s new book. “Besides,” he sniffed, “I have to get back to pining over how great FDR was. He was such a dreamboat with all those federal agencies he created and the way he expanded government into every aspect of our lives. David’s book is undoubtedly spectacular and I’m sure he mentions what a great guy FDR was. I would hope that conservatives would give him the attention and accolades he deserves.”
But while Black wasn’t in the talkative mood his National Review editor, Rich Lowry, was. “We’re all for free speech at NRO,” Lowry explained as we talked in the office of Roger Simon of Politico. “We think it important to allow the free exchange of ideas in a democracy. And no one is better at doing that than David Horowitz. We allowed people to criticize Diana West and American Betrayal at NRO, and we allowed her to respond to those criticisms. So I don’t see why we wouldn’t support David and his new book—something we encourage all conservatives to do.”
However, when asked why he fired John Derbyshire from NRO for writings at a website that wasn’t NRO, or if he would allow someone to write of Obama (or a woman on the left) that he or she, “has occasionally aroused cautious hopefulness that she has been house-trained”, Lowry seemed to have different thoughts on the free exchange of ideas.
“Are you insane?! That’s what’s wrong with the right! That’s why people think we’re racist and misogynistic!” Lowry said as he glanced nervously at Roger Simon. “Those on the right who tolerate people like Derbyshire and racism, and who think it is okay to suggest that a black, Democratic president or woman might have ‘been house-trained’ are why we’re all branded as hating minorities and waging a war on women!”
But that answer spurred more questions. How was it that Lowry could denounce censoring “the n-word” out of certain editions of Huckleberry Finn even as he encourages censoring words and ideas from the right out of concerns for being labeled “racist?” Also, what is “the n-word” since Lowry refused to say what it was even as he argued against censoring it?
“Look. It’s pretty simple,” he answered. “The conservative elite has built an industry on publishing magazines, writing books, running websites, and giving speeches where we warn of the dangers of liberalism and the perils facing our country. But we don’t really believe any of it. So we can complain about PC speech and censorship, but we certainly can’t use any ideas or speech the left deems as offensive. So that’s why I didn’t use ‘the n-word’ and why even now I can’t tell you what it is. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go finish another piece for Mr. Simon,” he said as he got up, slightly bowed to Simon, and then walked out of the office.
I next contacted Jamie Weinstein of The Daily Caller, asking him what he thought of Horowitz’s new book. “It’s an epic dismantling of communism,” Weinstein said. “I didn’t actually read the book but I read that Ron Radosh likes it and that’s good enough for me!”
I asked Weinstein why conservatives should rally to Horowitz and his book when he, Horowitz, and others slammed Diana West. “Look,” he told me. “West is an unsympathetic figure. She stands for conservatism and freedom and that’s just not something the conservative movement can rally around. It’s not like she’s someone like Juan Williams—a liberal who regularly spews venom at conservatives and who generally is an anti-white racist. Now that’s someone all conservatives can get behind and help secure his future!
“Horowitz isn’t exactly like Williams—he’s a little less honest about his true beliefs than Juan—but David is certainly better than West,” Weinstein explained. “So that’s why conservatives should support him and The Black Book of the American Left.”
“I can’t emphasize enough how much of an expert I am on the subject of communism,” Horowitz said as I spoke with him one final time. “I regret that I was a communist when I was a child (and by child, I mean well into adulthood), but my time spent there has given me a perspective that no one else can have.
“While others were out doing stuff like fighting against or suffering under communism and other evil their entire adult lives, I was on the inside with communism, plotting the destruction of America and otherwise tearing away at society. So I’ve been fully justified in attacking and demonizing Diana West—someone who dared side with me in the past,” he continued. “And I’d hope that conservatives would have the good sense in not attacking me—supporting me—because of this.”
I asked him if thought it possible that his communist past was a bad thing in any way. Horowitz said no.
“In fact, some might say if it wasn’t for ‘former communists, retired radical left-wing activists, cringing liberals, and even ex-SDS members’ and other terrorists, we wouldn’t have any legitimate conservative leaders today at all,” Horowitz explained. “I mean, who else would lead the right? Crazy tea party radicals and people who won’t denounce Diana West? Yeah. That would be a great idea,” he scoffed.
And thus ended my interviews with Horowitz and those who support him.
Ultimately, I followed the lead of Clarice Feldman (and others) by not reading The Black Book of the American Left. In fact, I expanded on their lead—I twice didn’t read it. And continuing on following their lead I can firmly say that Horowitz’s The Black Book of the American Left is a horrible book, one that no one should read and that Horowitz had no business writing due to his incompetence and utter buffoonery.
Comments are closed.
