David Horowitz -- Unpublished column on Bill White (with commentary from Bill) Commentary -- [ One of our readers wrote David Horowitz and asked how he responds to our article on the businessmen who own him and his role as CIA lackey in Nicaragua. David Horowitz sent him an unpublished column that he had written in response to that article, and decided not to run. Here is Horowitz's unpublished column, for your approval ...
You'll note the typical Marxoid-Jewish tactics -- insult your opponent, misrepresent his arguments, and then assert your position without evidence -- much like Stephen Schwartz.
Though everyone knows this already, "libertarian socialist" is a term that came out of the second international to distinguish follower of Bakunin from followers of Marx. The term later changed into "anarchist". Rand stole the term "libertarian" in the 1960s, and changed it to fit her peculiar nihilistic ideology. A libertarian socialist is someone who believes in the radical decentralization of government and the economy.
I am libertarian and socialist and am not a left-winger. I in fact hate left-wingers, because I used to be one, and know what scum they are. I'm also not a right winger. If you don't know it yet, left and right wing in modern America are more like football teams than real ideological camps. I join the "left" wing team and root for them, you join the "right" wing team and root for them, but just like every football is playing the same game, so are both of us -- it is another manifestation of the society of the Spectacle. Of course, I reject both wings as Semitic and nihilistic anti-cultural nonsense that are both propelling the destruction that is the modern world, and step outside both with a neither left-nor-right doctrine. I am anti-capitalist and anti-communist, because capitalism and communism are the same system. I am anti-neo-con and anti-neo-liberal the same way someone who is anti-communist is anti-trotskyite and anti-Stalinist, or someone who is anti-Christian is anti-Catholic and anti-Baptist. I don't exist within the framework of the ruling class debate, which is why Horowitz can't answer me.
Horowitz starts by dedicating a paragraph to calling me names while challenging whether or not Noam Chomsky was telling the truth when he said he didn't read Horowitz -- something totally irrelvant to the point of the article. He might as well challenge whether or not it was appropriate of me to steal a line from Wheezer when I said pulling David Horowitz unwraps a sweater of corruption. Even if it was (or ever if I included it for mischeivous fun like I included that line from X-Clan in the Sobran article), it doesn't address any point I made at all, or alter the substance of the article one bit.
He then asserts that the Bradley Foundation is not funded by corporate dollars, which is not true, and then distracts the issue by attacking a bunch of leftists that are just as corrupt as he is, which have nothing to do with me, and which I spit on just the same as he pretends to (the difference being he needs them to spit on to justify his existence, whereas I spit on them only when they do something to draw my attention away from important things).
He then goes on to admit the substance of the article -- that he is funded by big business interests that dominate the CIA (Bradley, Olin, Scaife) -- while asserting that his politics are radical, which they are not. Horowitz' politics are boring and pretty mainstream, which is why the businessmen use him. Horowitz is about as "edgy" and independent as MTV -- he talks about how edgy he is, and the other Jews portray him as edgy, but he is just crap like everyone else.
He then says he never had any dealings with the CIA but that he went to Latin America at the request of a CIA agent, on behalf of a CIA front. Yeah, right.
His next argument is that he's not a neo-conservative, he just got all his ideas from them. I think somewhere in there he also said he's not a Zionist, just a racial nationalist who defends Israel. All I can say to that is that liars say they are not liars, but that doesn't make it so.
(And I do know that after a letter from me was published on his site, and someone in Israel passed it around there saying I was a black militant, his readers bombarded me for like three days with emails saying I was a "nigger", an "ape", and a "raper of white women" just like the Palestinians. Now you tell me what segment of the population he appeals to -- Jewish, Zionist, neo-conservatives.)
Well, I leave it up to you guys to read this, but if any of you seriously believe that David Horowitz is not a CIA-funded neo-conservative Zionist after seeing this "defense", you're hopeless.
And of course he knows that, which is why he never published it.
[This is untitled, so the title is a creation of Bill White]
Bill White Is An Asshole
By David Horowitz, FrontPageMag.com
All over the Internet, leftist character assassins busy themselves with attacks on the enormously diverse coalition of non-leftists who are valiantly attempting to defend this country against domestic totalitarians operating under the addictive spell of radicals from Mussolini to Marx. A poster to my letters column In Your Face, has asked me to reply to a particularly noxious form of this verbal terrorism by a deranged fellow who describes himself as a “libertarian socialist” – showing that he does not understand what either term means. This individual writes for Pravda (not joking here) and has shown himself to be a raving anti-Semite on numerous occasions. I don’t particularly like giving attention to someone who breathes only to get attention, but I’ll make an exception here, since I have decided to answer the person who sent me this (a fact that does not reflect well on his own judgment). The smears against Cato, Reason and other libertarian organizations are particularly disgusting, reflecting the writer’s panic to escape from the very term he misappropriates to describe his own views.
To begin with the first charge, I have already shown in a previous Notepad that Chomsky was a liar in saying he didn't read me (he actually quotes me in his book on Knowledge and Power). Chomsky also lies when he says I was a Stalinist in the 60s, as the public record (I wrote books and articles) will show. I am not a Zionist (that was the punch-line of the piece I wrote on the Middle East conflict), but Bill White who wrote this screed is an anti-Semite and a political lunatic incapable of telling the truth.
I have no corporate funding, and thus there are no “businessmen” behind me, let alone businessmen who have bought and paid for me. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence understands that businessmen are risk averse and pour millions into the campaigns of shakedown artists like Jesse Jackson and environmental radicals as payoff money, but almost nothing into the campaigns of conservatives who defend them. It is the left (and the far left) that is funded by Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie. Thus the open borders campaign is spear-headed by the communist National Lawyers Guild and the organizations whose agendas it shapes -- e.g.,, MALDEF and the National Center for Immigration Reform – which are almost entirely creatures of the Ford Foundation and corporate America. MALDEF has received over $30,000,000 from the Ford Foundation alone and hundreds of thousands from big corporations and has no popular base.
I am not "bought and paid for" by anyone as my unorthodox positions (e.g., on gays, on abortion, on Hollywood) should demonstrate. Two thirds of the income of the Center comes from 40,000 individual donors. I am proud to be associated with foundations like Olin, Scaife and Bradely which have never asked me to support anything nor demanded that I support anything, who have funded scholarships and scholarship programs for poor black and Hispanic children denied an opportunity for an education by the political left and the Democratic Party, and who have been in the forefront of America's efforts to defend itself against its totalitarian enemies. On the other hand, two-thirds of all the monies I have received have come from individuals, whose politics are unknown to me except that they support what I do. Anyone familiar with my work knows that I am often far out front on issues (my reparations campaign would be a good example), or virtually alone on issues (my book Hating Whitey really has no parallels). None of the three corporate entities pushes such controversial positions, nor have I ever consulted with them or had any communication with them about whether I should take a particular position or not.
I never in my life had any dealings with the CIA, let alone went on a “mission for the CIA,” but I plead guilty to going at the request of the Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America to Nicaragua to speak out against a pro-Soviet Marxist dictatorship.
Like much of what he has to say, the author's remarks about the relationship between the CIA and the USIA are idiotic, but I will take this opportunity to state that the CIA was on the side of freedom in the Cold War, a refreshing posture compared to the anti-Semitic author of this conspiratorial McCarthyite rant who evidently was on the side of the Communists, i.e., the totalitarian --evil -- empire.
I am not now and have never been a “neo-conservative,” a term that refers to a previous generation of Scoop Jackson Democrats (I was never even a Democrat). I have no desire to dissociate myself from the extraordinary contribution made by Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and others identified with this term, but the only label I have identified myself with aside from conservatism is “second thoughts.”