Editor’s Summary:
On October 23, David Horowitz spoke to a large gathering of Dartmouth students in the Rockefeller students at an event organized by the College Republicans. This event was protested by a large number of students, organized through a variety of leftist student organizations. Some protests that were actualized included doing homework while blasting music from headphones, heckling the nearly octogenarian speaker, and even public displays of erotic affection. In addition to these protests that were seen by many students, including several writers for the Dartmouth Review, we have received a report from sources that infiltrated the leftist protest groups. Through screen shots, copies of documents, and from other people familiar with the protesters’ plans, we have confirmed that these sources are genuine and were party to much of the detailed planning that went into the protests. The report submitted to us contained allegations of wide-reaching protest plans that were not implemented, including but not limited to standing between Horowitz and the crowd while staring emotionlessly into the crowd.
Both the president of Native Americans at Dartmouth (NAD) and supposed Antifa members participated in the planning of these events. Also revealed in the group chat were substantial calls to identity politics that we here at the Dartmouth Review consistently oppose, including preferring non-white representatives to speak to the media, in an attempt to present the protest only in terms of “marginalized groups and their allies.” What follows is the report submitted to us by those sources on the protests. The following represents only the views of its authors.
Introduction:
William F. Buckley Jr. once wrote, “Though liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other points of view.” Never was this fact more evident than when David Horowitz spoke at The College amid protests on October 23. Mr. Horowitz was hosted by the Dartmouth College Republicans and was slated to speak on “Identity Politics and the Totalitarian Threat from the Left.” While the topic of the night’s discussion was undoubtedly provocative, it was no more so than the rest of Mr. Horowitz’s long and illustrious career as a conservative legend.
Born in Queens, New York, David Horowitz was the son of long-standing members of the American Communist Party. He continued to identify as a Marxist intellectual even after his parents left the party following Khrushchev’s “Secret Speech.” As an early adherent of the New Left, Horowitz was friends with Huey Newton, the founder of the Black Panthers, and worked closely with other Leftist groups. His disillusionment with Leftism began after Betty Van Patter, whom Horowitz had recommended Newton hire as a bookkeeper, was found dead, seemingly raped and beaten. Horowitz believed that the Panthers were behind the murder, an allegation later findings would render plausible. As Horowitz moved rightward politically, he drifted away from his liberal former-allies. As the Left’s hatred of him grew, the now-conservative Horowitz’s defense of American ideals became more and more passionate, resulting in his now-infamous reputation as a “conservative provocateur.”
The purpose of this column is not to analyze in great detail every aspect of Horowitz’s talk, but rather to delve into the reaction his very presence evoked from the Dartmouth Left, a group of perennially offended toddlers who seek to erase from existence all that offends their liberal sensitivities. They consist both of those who cared enough to disrupt the lecture and those who thought it fit to justify their reaction, the latter a category which consists of some fifth-column moderates who would only be considered “conservative” by liberal standards.
Some disruptors seemed to be driven largely by their animalistic instincts. For two protesters, these carnal desires were so strong they began necking in spite during Horowitz’s talk. It is a pity that the other “protests” were no better, but at least they did not publicly engage in sexual acts.
The Dartmouth Left embodies a miserable nexus of privilege, entitlement, and victimhood which would come to result in these despicable albeit hilarious responses to Mr. Horowitz’s talk. The protests were both a joy to watch and a watershed moment in the on-going liberal coup of The College.
The Infiltration:
On behalf of our unofficial student organization, The Blackford Cloaks, we snuck into the protesters’ group chat and gathered information on the Dartmouth Left’s clandestine activities. Thankfully, we were never discovered and continued to gather data long throughout the night. We were shocked how far some were willing to go, and even more surprised that some, including some self-described socialists, were willing to engage in meaningful discourse. This conglomerate of “The Left” varied in tactics, erudition, and eloquence. A student, who initially started the chat, soon found himself drowned out by the screeching of reactionary, anti-white troglodytes. The fact that less than a third of the members were potentially male raises eyebrows (we would not want to assume their gender). The chat devolved from initially a place to discuss questions targeted at Horowitz to a hub full of wastrels. Many were hurt by the splash damage as some tried to impose their dominance over others. Some tried to set themselves up as self-proclaimed leaders of the group in order to ban certain types of protest. Whether this constitutes an artificial hierarchy is debatable.
The Forethought:
President and General Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, “Plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.” The relevance of this statement to the protests that occurred against David Horowitz cannot be understated. At the beginning, it seemed that David Horowitz was just another slated speaker in the College Republicans docket. Had a thoughtful few not sent smoke signals to the Dartmouth Left, this event would have probably flown under the radar of most midterm-inundated students, assuming the “identity studies” departments still have midterms. A couple of days before the protest, rumors started circulating of an Islamophobic, racist, sexist, nasty man visiting Dartmouth, with quotes taken out of context to hype people up to protest against him. While it is true that Horowitz can at times be inflammatory, can one really blame a near-octogenarian who grew up during the 60’s, working with—and later against—radical groups that were shamelessly inflammatory and dangerous to America and the West?
Nonetheless, these out of context quotes at first brought up genuine discussion. For example, some claimed that Horowitz, while provocative, still had the right to speak. Others were less than enthusiastic but claimed the best way to show dissent would be to not attend. In the meanwhile, members of the Dartmouth ANTIFA, 4A, and other assorted groups decided to mobilize the Red Guard. Within hours of the College Republicans’ news, a group chat was formed titled, “Horowitz Action.” While initially in the low to high 20s in membership, the group chat soon ballooned to around 80 people. However, let us first discuss the development of the chat, and how it mutated into the debacle that we saw on Wednesday.
There can be no doubt that the end goal of the group chat was to disrupt, protest, or even cancel Horowitz’s talk. Many in the chat expressed their discomfort of College Republican plants in the chat, but those supposed plants were quickly vetted. A student later questioned the College Republicans and one of the supposed plants at the talk. The exact tactics of the protest were discussed in depth, during the day of the protest, with a broad overview given to the protesters in the days leading up to it. Some wanted to have a sit-down, having students do their homework with headphones on. Others wanted students to hold up signs in front of the stage while looking emotionless towards the audience, as if trying to guilt the audience into leaving. A couple of students even wanted to organize a walk-out but made sure to state that it should be obvious that a walk-out was occurring. The extent that a walk-out itself needed to be obvious, was only a sign of the ineptitude of things to come. One of the plans discussed that was actually carried out was a set of flyers to be distributed at the doors of the event. Lastly, the President of Native Americans at Dartmouth, gave a message of hope, support, and much needed ‘self-care’: “Your actions here can have real-world consequences. We don’t say this to deter you, we say this to prepare you. Strategy is all we really have in the fight against fascism. Make every moment count.” If that wasn’t motivating enough, it was signed “-XOXO your local antifas.” The saccharine signature was juxtaposed ironically with the violent, animal-like nature of the Antifa thugs.
One of the main concerns of the chat members were the risks associated for illegal immigrants, DREAMERS, and apparently financial aid students. Another told the chat to “be prepared for Dartmouth Review folks to take pictures/ ID you/ pass on stories to sh*t media sources.” Whether she was referring to CNN or MSNBC remains unclear. A moment of self-awareness was shown by one protester, who claimed, “As a group, we also think that people should be mindful of the fact that the loud disruption is exactly what they are planning for and should expect them to be prepared for that.” This shows some restraint on part of the protesters, which sadly did not carry on to the “protests” that occurred.
Early in the afternoon, Todd Huang ‘19 was added to the Group Chat. Huang, who recently returned from dancing on Dartmouth constructive critic and blogger Joe Asch’s ‘79 grave, would prove to be a toxic addition to an already vapid movement. Soon after the addition of the senior, a purge mysteriously occurred, one that expelled a few members, not all of whom are known to be Conservative plants. Two suspected conservatives were ejected from the group chat, because someone had reason to suspect that there was a “mole.” Oddly enough, this coincided with the departure of one Executive Board member from the College Republicans group chat. A ratiocinative analysis yields the unfortunate conclusion that it is this person is probably the one who snitched on presumed-conservatives. Just prior to the sophomores’ expulsion, some students were discussing the possibility of Republican plants within the chat and the fact that the event was probably bait. To justify their abrasive actions, one student boldly claimed: “it definitely feels like bait. But I’ve decided that I personally do not care if it is bait.”
The Motivation:
We turned over most of the protesters’ plans to the College Republicans, who in turn showed them to Mr. Horowitz and his team. This is public information since Horowitz, as is his signature style, mentioned it at the start of his lecture. The protesters did not care that Horowitz was prepared for their absurd displays of rage, and followed through on whatever parts of their plan the College Republicans had not preemptively thwarted. One group of protesters, wrote an essay outlining the reasons for the protest and standing in solidarity with the groups oppressed by Horowitz’s deadly words, and the protesters had an elaborate plan involving multiple groups of people doing whatever they wished as long as it was consistent with the plan of the leadership, which is ironic given their supposed opposition to fascism.
Their essay begins by warning the reader that “this letter contains information about injustices against marginalized people – particularly Palestinians and individuals of Arab descent – that may be upsetting.” They then proceed to outline in great detail the terrible “injustices” committed by Israel against the self-styled “Palestinians.” We will not deign to respond to their inane babbling on this subject and assume that they are simply unaware of the antisemitism of the “Palestinian” people, something that would have been rectified had they listened to Horowitz’s lecture and its references to Nazi supporting Arabs. Many of the founders of “Palestinian” nationalism fully supported the Third Reich during World War II and to this day, many politicians despise Jews. We will even overlook the comparison of the Jewish State of Israel to the segregationist “Jim Crow” South as the hyperbole of the benighted. What we cannot overlook, however, is the implicit assumption that Israel is like any other State. The case for the existence of Israel has been made by far greater men than us, and we would direct you to Leo Strauss’s 1956 letter to Willmoore Kendall for the conservative case for the Jewish State, centered around the preservation of its Occidental nature.
They then slander the College Republicans as only wanting to “provoke marginalized students,” an accusation that reveals her own inflated sense of self-importance, a characteristic typical of the Dartmouth Left. Operating from this false presumption, they conclude that it is a lose-lose situation, as protesting “only allows people to galvanize deeply prejudiced voters for the upcoming midterm elections,” while on the other hand, they reason, doing nothing “sends the message that we are indifferent to the humanity of Palestinians, Muslims, and every other marginalized group.” They interestingly did not mention white South African farmers nor Uyghurs, who are being put into concentration camps through the use of QR codes, in the communist country of China. Trapped in zugzwang, the protesters chose to play the move that would make them appear noble, or “virtue signaling” as it is now known. The protesters conclude their letter by glorifying communistic principles and standing by various groups of people, as is customary for “In Solidarity” letters. They also describe “The Left” as a “collective of women, people of color, LGBTQIA+, undocumented immigrants, low income individuals, religious minorities, disabled individuals, people with egalitarian political views, and individuals at the intersections of these identities.” Despite the listing of groups that could give “The Great Gathering of the Armies” from The Iliad a run for its money, if this were the case, then “The Left” would win every election in a landslide.
The Strategy:
Taking a leaf out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook, one protester created a Google document accessible to all the protesters to better enable them to organize. Though we have now been denied access to the document, we copied its content and are willing to present it to any and all who wish to see it. The stupidity of some of these plans need to be seen to be believed. The only effective strategy was executed by “Group ½” students who distributed flyers on David Horowitz outside the lecture hall, indicating they would be willing to protest other speakers, demonstrating that their disruption had nothing to do the unique extremity of Horowitz’s views. The flyers contained the same flawed reasoning as the aforementioned letter, along with quotes by Horowitz stripped of context. Group 1 was asked to “put on headphones [and] do homework, while he speaks,” “walk out 10-15 minutes in,” or “move to the front of the room and sit down/meditate/stare into the crowd [without] emotion.” The last of these “tactics” was classified as “high risk,” which illustrates the spinelessness of the protesters.
Group 2 was tasked with making signs for the protesters to hold up during the talk, in defiance of … something. We apologize for being unable to twist our brains to formulate whatever idiotic reason the protesters came up with. Messages displayed included “I.C.E is the Gestapo,” “Trans Rights are Human Rights,” and “Muslims are welcome here.” When the idea for one that said “Palestinian Lives Matters” was floated, one expressed their concern that the sign might be “co-opting BLM … like in a way we dont want to do [sic]” Good people everywhere should be glad that the Dartmouth Left’s virtue signalling, their very reason for life, will result in their perpetual dysfunctionality.
Group 3 was the most reasonable, seeking only to ask difficult questions at the Q&A session at the end of Horowitz’s talk. So it should come as no surprise to hear that there were few people in this category, and many who were only sought to make a mockery of the whole thing. While one sought to ask Horowitz tough questions he would be unable to answer, other protesters sought to ask juvenile questions, giving us an inside view of their childish sense of humor and sophomoric intellect. One of these questions used a real-life example of a U.S citizen with Palestinian grandparents who was apparently detained in the Ben Gurion airport. This would have been a question worthy of being answered by Horowitz. The other eleven questions on the list are presented without comment:
- Why is David Horowitz so ugly?
- Is David Horowitz an extraterrestrial?
- What are your thoughts on pineapple on pizza?
- What is the point of life?
- When are you going to die?
- Why haven’t you died yet?
- Did you marry four times because you are a terrible person and [your wives] hated you, or because you’re an extra terrible person?
- Why do your parents regret raising you?
- Who hurt you?
- Do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
- Have you ever taken it up in the a*s? Don’t be shy.
Conclusion:
Triggered by the beating of Horowitz’s heart, the Dartmouth Left needed everything to go as planned for their “protest” to be impactful. Sadly, as we mentioned, the College Republicans, along with David Horowitz and his team, were aware of the disrupters’ plan and did everything they could to thwart them at every turn. The College Republicans banned backpacks, to ensure that protesters could not sneak contraband in. They forbade signs, since they believed that much of the disrupters’ plans relied on their fancy banners. They were clearly proven correct, since the leftists ignored the policy and snuck them in anyway. Fortunately for Horowitz, The College ensured that nobody was allowed into the hall until fifteen minutes before the lecture, thus making sure that the speaker would not be in any danger.
Mr. Horowitz, however inelegantly, took it upon himself to ridicule the childish students into allowing him to speak interrupted. He called the two protesters who were necking in public, “disgusting,” and said it was “proud stupidity.” As for the protesters in general, he called them “guerrillas,” “idiots, “self-inflicted imbeciles,” and “jacka*ses.”
Should things not change, more and more moderate speakers will get shut down over the next few years. The Horowitz debacle illustrates a few truths. It demonstrates that the Left will disrupt any event they do not like, even if, maybe especially if the speaker was one of their heroes fifty years ago. It shows us that some self-labeled conservatives are willing to betray their principles in order to maintain their political credit among the liberal sheep on campus. And it proves, once and for all, that even at Dartmouth College, often thought to be the most conservative of the Ivy League schools, the administration is willing to kowtow to radical leftists who seek to tear down the institutions The College once held dear.
May God have mercy upon our souls.
Update: This article has been edited to respect privacy.
Be the first to comment on "Protesting Thought: Exposé on Horowitz Protests"