One year ago, conservative activist David Horowitz (pictured) seemed convinced that an occasional contributor to his FrontPage Magazine website – Lawrence Auster – trafficked in “racist” ideas. And he seemed to cast Auster out.
I take credit for that.
I had sent Horowitz and Jamie Glazov (FrontPage’s managing editor) an 11-page letter detailing Auster’s views on race, as expressed on Auster’s blog. (For example, his description of black people collectively as “the savages.”)
Concerning my letter, Horowitz emailed Glazov and myself on May 14, 2006. He wrote: “I think it’s a persuasive argument for not running Auster unless he publicly repudiates these positions which are racist and offensive.”
Sure enough, Auster’s essays didn’t appear in FrontPage Magazine after that.
Yes, Lawrence Auster is back at FrontPage, alerting Horowitz’s readership to an epidemic of black-on-white rape.
Pulling from U.S. Justice Department data, Auster makes the following declaration in boldface type: “[E]very day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man.”
Auster slams the media for ignoring “the fact that white women in this country are being targeted by black rapists.”
(Auster seems unconcerned about the 136 white women per day raped or sexually assaulted by men classified as white. Just as he’s not losing any sleep over the 100 black women a day raped or sexually assaulted by black men, according to the same statistics.)
Lawrence Auster’s thesis – pegged to the Duke lacrosse-team fiasco – concerns “the truth of interracial rape in the United States.” White-on-black rape is a rarity; black-on-white rape happens every day.
Fair enough. The disproportion of black violent crime is a problem confronting all Americans. I think it needs to be talked about.
But Auster doesn’t deal in good faith. David Horowitz knows that Auster doesn’t deal in good faith. Because Lawrence Auster’s record of bigoted horseshit reaches back to the mid ’90s.
I introduced you guys to Auster’s brand of political commentary two weeks ago, after the Virginia Tech massacre. Now let me take you deeper.
His assessment of “black inferiority” was spelled out in an essay originally written in 1995 but published in 2003 in The Occidental Quarterly, a racialist journal. (The essay is archived on Auster’s blog.)
Convinced of “an inherent, dangerous weakness in black ways of thought,” Auster argued that blacks are profoundly different from white people. To wit:
“Through numerous experiences and observations, I started to have the sense that blacks are more ‘non-objective,’ they understand things in a much more personal, subjective way than whites. They seem to have much less interest in knowledge or beauty for its own sake.”
Which means that “blacks are in fact less endowed with the qualities that make civilization possible,” Auster wrote, “particularly Western civilization.”
Auster went on to discuss the “moral passivity of blacks,” their “demonstrably lesser orientation toward the common political good and a moral and stable social order.”
Granting that “there are many decent, upright black people,” Auster asserted: “The personal decency of individual blacks does not translate into the ability to resist public evil, the aspiration to enforce social order. Those things require a degree of moral will, intelligence, and organizing energy that blacks, collectively, do not possess.”
These deficiencies are, in Lawrence Auster’s words, “inherent” and “intrinsic” in the black race. And “so long as the truth of racial differences is not recognized, whites will always end up being blamed… for a black inferiority that is not whites’ fault.”
He also had something interesting to say about David Duke in an August 2003 comment on his blog. “I had some respect for David Duke, prior to reading ‘My Awakening’ [Duke’s 1998 autobiography]; namely I felt his standing up in an activist fashion for European-American rights was a righteous thing to do, even though I knew he was a sleaze,” Auster wrote.
“But in that book he reveals himself as basically a Nazi. After he published the book, he got even more obsessed and made the Jews the focus of everything.”
Get that? David Duke is probably the most publicized white bigot of the last quarter-century. And Lawrence Auster isn’t embarrassed to say he respected Duke’s racial activism… until it targeted the Jews!
This is some of what I included in my May 2006 letter to David Horowitz. Horowitz replied this afternoon to an email from me; apparently my 2006 letter had “slipped my mind.”
Hey, it happens.
My thing is this: FrontPage Magazine has a sizeable audience – on the order of 400,000 unique visitors per month. Many more, I’m sure, than read Auster’s blog.
Horowitz can publish whomever he wants to on his website. But for a guy who resents being called a bigot himself, Horowitz should be more careful about the company he keeps.
Racialicious In Chicago: A C2E2 Preview
2 days ago