Chicago, hotbed of dangerous professors
In his latest book, The Professors, 101 of the most dangerous academics in America, David Horowitz lists the professors he believes are criticizing and undermining American values, virtues and interests and acting as apologists for discredited political systems and their controversial leaders.
Chicago is one of the hotbeds of dangerous professors on Horowitz’s list. Chicago, including Northwestern University in Evanston, is second only to New York City. One of these is Peter Kirstein, a professor of history at St. Xavier College. St. Xavier was founded over 150 years ago and sits nestled in what appears to be a gerrymandered alcove on the southwest side of Chicago. The college has about 6,000 students and nearly 400 professors.
Conceivably, a person could live all his life in Chicago and never hear of St. Xavier. If the college enjoyed anonymity, that all ended when Professor Kirstein bluntly refused an invitation from a student at the Air Force Academy to speak at a conference there. Kirstein’s e-mail rejection was passed around the military networks. Finally, it came to the attention of some self-appointed censors who decided Kirstein had taken his First Amendment rights to free speech too far. These busybodies put pressure on the college administration to punish the wayward professor. The administration finally bowed to the intense pressure and temporarily suspended Kirstein.
Kirstein never let the bureaucracy, religious fanatics, freedom-haters or anyone else temper his high virtues and values. He continued to speak out and became a determined critic of Bush Administration’s criminal actions.
After the publication of Horowitz’s book, St. Xavier decided to hold a debate on issues raised about Kirstein, Horowitz agreed. Undoubtedly he believed the small religious college would be a friendly environment for him, and Kirstein an easy opponent.
The debate took place on March 29, 2006 at the college before an overflow audience. The debate was divided into two segments. First was the issue of U.S. foreign policy and its numerous elective wars and meddling in the affairs of other nations. The second part concerned the role of university professors and what Horowitz believes is a deliberate politicization by teachers like Kirstein who introduce opinions and discussions that are not directly germane to their teaching subject. Horowitz believes impressionable students are too susceptible to indoctrination by the personal biases of the professors.
In his book, Horowitz claimed Kirstein accused the U.S. of employing the tactic of killing babies. Horowitz did not deny that the U.S. uses the tactic, but implied that it was a Kirstein invention, which should bring into question his suitability to teach. In fact, the U.S. does employ that tactic. Whether it was cavalry soldiers on the frontier bayoneting a pregnant Indian woman in the belly, World War II airmen incinerating tens of thousands of Japanese babies at Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons of mass destruction, or soldiers and marines killing the babies of Filipino and Vietnamese freedom fighters to demoralize them and lure them out of their jungle hiding places, killing babies has been a common U.S. military tactic throughout its history.
Horowitz was very concerned that professors could make negative impressions on their students with their “blame America first” rhetoric. He didn’t have the same concern for those young people who could be scarred for life by the example set by George W. Bush and those surrounding him. Horowitz wasn’t concerned that Bush, a semi-literate, failed businessman whose brain had been pickled in booze and cooked on drugs, could become president of the U.S. because of his superb lying ability. Horowitz saw no negative example when Bush led the nation into a baseless, senseless war of aggression and corrupted foreign leaders and U.S. professionals into lying to justify and further his criminal acts and goals. It didn’t bother Horowitz that the U.S. government had murdered needlessly tens of thousands of innocent Arabs. Horowitz only cared that some professor might introduce students to ideas that conflicted with the jingoistic teachings in primary and secondary schools and the self-censored propaganda spewed by the mainstream media.
Horowitz’s moral code appears to be “might makes right.” He used arguments that were debunked long ago. He still claims the U.S. needed to punish Saddam Hussein because he treacherously invaded Kuwait in 1990. He didn’t mention, or doesn’t know, that George H. W. Bush gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait.
Horowitz agrees with George Bush that 9/11 was the day that changed the world. It was so treacherous that the trappings of civilization could be discarded. Torture, prison gulags, suspension of habeas corpus all now were justified. Put into perspective, that’s a little exaggerated. The U.S. has perpetrated the equivalent of one 9/11 attack every week, on average, since the end of World War II. The only difference this time was that the victimizer became the victim.
The debate was the epitome of American society at large. Horowitz’s delivery was geared to a juvenile Fox News level audience employing innuendo and an ad hominem appeal to base emotions. Kirstein’s delivery was to a sophisticated audience. One audience member commented that Kirstein’s presentation was so “erudite.”
This leads us to the core of the debate. Most of society lives in a mythical world. Most Americans believe they live in a democracy and are the most noble people that ever inhabited the earth. Like children who want to believe there is a Santa Claus and Easter Bunny, most Americans also want to believe fantasies. Horowitz and his friends, like philosophers dating back to Plato, believe the masses must be controlled by lies and myths. Otherwise, their powerful animal instincts take control and the world degenerates into disorder, lawlessness and chaos. These lies and fairy tales are noble, they believe, because they contribute to social order, which benefits the rulers as well as the masses themselves.
Kirstein seems to believe people are naturally good, i.e. mature human beings, and can be civilized through reason, intellectual development and the removal of conflicting political, social and economic relations. Horowitz attacks such ideas as “social engineering.” Horowitz, who admits he was a communist in his youth, believes the experiences in the Soviet Union, China, and numerous other nations proved the communist theory was doomed to failure. People are animals and always will be animals.
The neo-conservatives bet that the average American is at a three-year-old mental, moral and maturity level. Based on that bet, they were able to carry out a coup and take control of the U.S. Then they were able to subvert the Constitution.
George W. Bush, a Horowitz idol, taps into those atavistic animal instincts when it suits his primitive purposes. Years before the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, conservatives planned to take control of the world. To launch their Fourth Reich ideas, they needed “a new Pearl Harbor.” Such an attack would arouse animal fear instincts that would override human reason and morality. The first natural reaction to fear is to form into a herd, stampede and trample any laws underfoot.
Fortuitously, all those things happened on a sunny morning in New York and Washington D.C, just seven months and 22 days after George Bush became president.
The events surrounding 9/11 and its aftermath give tremendous credibility to the theories of David Horowitz and his conservative and neo-conservative friends. The burden of proof regarding human nature rests with Peter Kirstein and “The Professors.”
On the other hand, just because social engineering failed in the Soviet Union is not conclusive proof of conservative theories. The Soviet Union was not the ideal place for such ideas to be nurtured. The capitalists feared those ideas so much that they were willing to do anything to nip them in the bud, and did. The Vietnam experience was proof that Americans can be the most savage beasts the world has ever known. The U.S. used the most hideous weapons and tactics known to mankind. No civilized nation could have done what the U.S. did in Vietnam.
Horowitz believes the actions in Vietnam and Iraq were for the good in the long term, even though both were hunch Wars perpetrated by mental and moral degenerates named George. The first was George Kennan. The second was George Bush. They were only two of a long string of wars based on the hunches of unqualified, sociopathic leaders.
Kirsten and the professors may be hoping for an ideal world that is incompatible with human nature. Maybe the only thing between the professors and the ideal world is semi-evolved people like Horowitz and Bush. Life on earth could rest in the balance.
However, it was Horowitz who found himself in a hostile audience. During the question and answer period, nearly every question was addressed to Horowitz and challenged his positions. Horowitz became irritated and was on the verge of hysteria when the moderator stepped in and ended the debate.
Chicago is one of the hotbeds of dangerous professors on Horowitz’s list. Chicago, including Northwestern University in Evanston, is second only to New York City. One of these is Peter Kirstein, a professor of history at St. Xavier College. St. Xavier was founded over 150 years ago and sits nestled in what appears to be a gerrymandered alcove on the southwest side of Chicago. The college has about 6,000 students and nearly 400 professors.
Conceivably, a person could live all his life in Chicago and never hear of St. Xavier. If the college enjoyed anonymity, that all ended when Professor Kirstein bluntly refused an invitation from a student at the Air Force Academy to speak at a conference there. Kirstein’s e-mail rejection was passed around the military networks. Finally, it came to the attention of some self-appointed censors who decided Kirstein had taken his First Amendment rights to free speech too far. These busybodies put pressure on the college administration to punish the wayward professor. The administration finally bowed to the intense pressure and temporarily suspended Kirstein.
Kirstein never let the bureaucracy, religious fanatics, freedom-haters or anyone else temper his high virtues and values. He continued to speak out and became a determined critic of Bush Administration’s criminal actions.
After the publication of Horowitz’s book, St. Xavier decided to hold a debate on issues raised about Kirstein, Horowitz agreed. Undoubtedly he believed the small religious college would be a friendly environment for him, and Kirstein an easy opponent.
The debate took place on March 29, 2006 at the college before an overflow audience. The debate was divided into two segments. First was the issue of U.S. foreign policy and its numerous elective wars and meddling in the affairs of other nations. The second part concerned the role of university professors and what Horowitz believes is a deliberate politicization by teachers like Kirstein who introduce opinions and discussions that are not directly germane to their teaching subject. Horowitz believes impressionable students are too susceptible to indoctrination by the personal biases of the professors.
In his book, Horowitz claimed Kirstein accused the U.S. of employing the tactic of killing babies. Horowitz did not deny that the U.S. uses the tactic, but implied that it was a Kirstein invention, which should bring into question his suitability to teach. In fact, the U.S. does employ that tactic. Whether it was cavalry soldiers on the frontier bayoneting a pregnant Indian woman in the belly, World War II airmen incinerating tens of thousands of Japanese babies at Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons of mass destruction, or soldiers and marines killing the babies of Filipino and Vietnamese freedom fighters to demoralize them and lure them out of their jungle hiding places, killing babies has been a common U.S. military tactic throughout its history.
Horowitz was very concerned that professors could make negative impressions on their students with their “blame America first” rhetoric. He didn’t have the same concern for those young people who could be scarred for life by the example set by George W. Bush and those surrounding him. Horowitz wasn’t concerned that Bush, a semi-literate, failed businessman whose brain had been pickled in booze and cooked on drugs, could become president of the U.S. because of his superb lying ability. Horowitz saw no negative example when Bush led the nation into a baseless, senseless war of aggression and corrupted foreign leaders and U.S. professionals into lying to justify and further his criminal acts and goals. It didn’t bother Horowitz that the U.S. government had murdered needlessly tens of thousands of innocent Arabs. Horowitz only cared that some professor might introduce students to ideas that conflicted with the jingoistic teachings in primary and secondary schools and the self-censored propaganda spewed by the mainstream media.
Horowitz’s moral code appears to be “might makes right.” He used arguments that were debunked long ago. He still claims the U.S. needed to punish Saddam Hussein because he treacherously invaded Kuwait in 1990. He didn’t mention, or doesn’t know, that George H. W. Bush gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait.
Horowitz agrees with George Bush that 9/11 was the day that changed the world. It was so treacherous that the trappings of civilization could be discarded. Torture, prison gulags, suspension of habeas corpus all now were justified. Put into perspective, that’s a little exaggerated. The U.S. has perpetrated the equivalent of one 9/11 attack every week, on average, since the end of World War II. The only difference this time was that the victimizer became the victim.
The debate was the epitome of American society at large. Horowitz’s delivery was geared to a juvenile Fox News level audience employing innuendo and an ad hominem appeal to base emotions. Kirstein’s delivery was to a sophisticated audience. One audience member commented that Kirstein’s presentation was so “erudite.”
This leads us to the core of the debate. Most of society lives in a mythical world. Most Americans believe they live in a democracy and are the most noble people that ever inhabited the earth. Like children who want to believe there is a Santa Claus and Easter Bunny, most Americans also want to believe fantasies. Horowitz and his friends, like philosophers dating back to Plato, believe the masses must be controlled by lies and myths. Otherwise, their powerful animal instincts take control and the world degenerates into disorder, lawlessness and chaos. These lies and fairy tales are noble, they believe, because they contribute to social order, which benefits the rulers as well as the masses themselves.
Kirstein seems to believe people are naturally good, i.e. mature human beings, and can be civilized through reason, intellectual development and the removal of conflicting political, social and economic relations. Horowitz attacks such ideas as “social engineering.” Horowitz, who admits he was a communist in his youth, believes the experiences in the Soviet Union, China, and numerous other nations proved the communist theory was doomed to failure. People are animals and always will be animals.
The neo-conservatives bet that the average American is at a three-year-old mental, moral and maturity level. Based on that bet, they were able to carry out a coup and take control of the U.S. Then they were able to subvert the Constitution.
George W. Bush, a Horowitz idol, taps into those atavistic animal instincts when it suits his primitive purposes. Years before the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, conservatives planned to take control of the world. To launch their Fourth Reich ideas, they needed “a new Pearl Harbor.” Such an attack would arouse animal fear instincts that would override human reason and morality. The first natural reaction to fear is to form into a herd, stampede and trample any laws underfoot.
Fortuitously, all those things happened on a sunny morning in New York and Washington D.C, just seven months and 22 days after George Bush became president.
The events surrounding 9/11 and its aftermath give tremendous credibility to the theories of David Horowitz and his conservative and neo-conservative friends. The burden of proof regarding human nature rests with Peter Kirstein and “The Professors.”
On the other hand, just because social engineering failed in the Soviet Union is not conclusive proof of conservative theories. The Soviet Union was not the ideal place for such ideas to be nurtured. The capitalists feared those ideas so much that they were willing to do anything to nip them in the bud, and did. The Vietnam experience was proof that Americans can be the most savage beasts the world has ever known. The U.S. used the most hideous weapons and tactics known to mankind. No civilized nation could have done what the U.S. did in Vietnam.
Horowitz believes the actions in Vietnam and Iraq were for the good in the long term, even though both were hunch Wars perpetrated by mental and moral degenerates named George. The first was George Kennan. The second was George Bush. They were only two of a long string of wars based on the hunches of unqualified, sociopathic leaders.
Kirsten and the professors may be hoping for an ideal world that is incompatible with human nature. Maybe the only thing between the professors and the ideal world is semi-evolved people like Horowitz and Bush. Life on earth could rest in the balance.
However, it was Horowitz who found himself in a hostile audience. During the question and answer period, nearly every question was addressed to Horowitz and challenged his positions. Horowitz became irritated and was on the verge of hysteria when the moderator stepped in and ended the debate.
posted by Unknown at 7:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home