David Horowitz on Chaplin and Kazan (long)

George, I noticed you posted this passage without comment. You don't believe it, do you?

If so... why?

If not, why let it stand uncontested?

I believe that Horowitz was speaking hypothetically, i.e. giving a reason that *some* people *might* have had to protest at the Oscars when Chaplin received his Special Oscar in 1972.

Can we also assume his 'reasons' given for those who protested Kazan were of the same caliber? Or is this a good hint about the real difference between the two situations; Kazan actually *did* things which people find objectionable, whereas Chaplin was falsely *accused* of things which were 'hypothetical' at best?

Thanks for pointing that out, George.

You obviously missed the point of the article, which is standard for you, ''berg.'

Not at all. Phenomenologically, it was virtually identical to all the other revisionist 'history' you've been peddling since I've been here. From any other non-metaphysical perspective, it is as factually bankrupt as the rest. The entire straw man side of the argument is, per your own admission, completely hypothetical. *Anyone* can construct a contrasting position that 'looks' good, as long as the presentation of the other side's position isn't bound by an obligation to accuracy.