Holy smokes… my first blog war just got good!Several hours ago, Lawrence Auster put up a post on his blog titled: “Horowitz Expels Me from FrontPage.”
As Auster tells the story, he cc’d David Horowitz earlier today in an email correspondence unrelated to the whole black-on-white rape thing. Horowitz responded with this:
“Are you unaware that you have been attacked – and I through you – on Huffington Post?”
(I submitted a version of yesterday’s post to HuffPo, where I have contributed a handful of pieces since December. Click here if you want to see it.)
Auster continues: “… I figured it was probably David Mills, the Undercover Black Man, who I knew from Google listings had been attacking me lately, though I had not actually read any of it.”
(That figures. Who am I to be paid attention to? Just an ign’ant cullud boy, envious of his big white brainpan.)
Anyways, Auster proceeded to read my HuffPo piece. And he was shocked to learn that in May 2006 Horowitz sent me an email concurring with me that Auster held “positions which are racist and offensive.” (Horowitz’s words.)
“Until my piece at [FrontPage Magazine] this week on interracial rape,” Auster writes, “I had sent Horowitz several article submissions and article ideas over the last year, mostly dealing with the Islam issue… and they had all been rejected; I simply figured the pieces were not right for FP. Now it turned out that something else was going on.”
So Auster emailed Horowitz, asking if it was true that he’d emailed me in May 2006. Horowitz answered with one word:
“Yes.”
Auster emailed him back: “Doesn’t this require more explanation from you? … You never told me you weren’t going to publish me unless I repudiated certain statements. … You told David Mills, a complete stranger, that you weren’t going to publish me any more, but you didn’t tell me.”
Horowitz shot back: “Lawrence you’re a big pain in the ass. One article from you takes more time and energy than 50 articles from 50 writers and gets me attacked and now is getting me the third degree from you. We have had many arguments over your racial attitudes as you know. I don’t think you’re the kind of racist this prick Mills describes you as –”
(Hold on… I’m the prick??)
“… But I do think you have made statements that are racist. I have a million enemies out there and I don’t need attacks waiting to happen by publishing your stuff. I published this piece because I forgot my exchange with Mills last year…. I forgot I guess also how difficult you are to work with. I’d like to see you defend yourself against the charges Mills is making rather than attacking me.”
(Oh, snap!)
Auster, of course, took issue with Horowitz calling him a “big pain in the ass.” So Auster emailed him back, saying, in part:
“Is this really the way you want to address me? Is this the way you want to address this issue?”
Finally, Horowitz replied with this:
“I want you to go away Lawrence. You have caused me more trouble than I care to think about and the fact that you’re piling on me while I’m getting letters from my children asking me why I published a racist, and while I’m waiting to see this spread across the Internet, is more than I can handle right now.”
(By the way, it says much about Auster as a human being – not to mention as a right-wing tactician – that he would so blithely put Horowitz’s private emails up on the Internet. But then, when Larry Auster gets to taking shit personal, he’ll spray friendly fire at an ideological comrade in a heartbeat. I believe I’ve mentioned his legendary pissing contests with Robert Spencer.)
Anyways, Auster, as is his style, had to have the last word. So he emailed Horowitz back to say, “Your behavior is shameful. You, the great crusader against campus PC, have just behaved in the most outrageously PC manner I’ve ever seen in my life.”
Auster wraps up this evening’s blog post with an appeal to his readers’ sympathy:
“Horowitz is upset – with me – that David Mills is attacking him. But if Horowitz had been honest and forthright with me last May and told me that he didn’t want to publish me anymore, then he certainly would not have forgotten about his intention not to publish me; in any case, I would not have continued sending articles to him, so there would have been no occasion for him to have published me.”
Which is the most logical thing Lawrence Auster has written all week.
Still, Horowitz’s banishment of Auster isn’t about knuckling under to PC. It’s about Horowitz’s own objection to Auster’s “racial attitudes” (which, apparently, he didn’t need me to delineate in a letter; he’s heard it from Auster himself).
So, though David Horowitz considers me a “prick,” I salute him for doing the right thing.
Haha good job UBM.
ReplyDeleteI love the pic you posted! Thumbs up to you, ya big prick! :-D
ReplyDeleteUBM,
ReplyDeleteFirst, it comes as a surprise that you aren't actually an undercover black man. Nonetheless, it seems quite deceptive to assert that Mr. Auster referred to blacks as "the savages." Here is the entire quote and one can clearly see that you have distorted the reality of what was said.
Mr. Auster says,
"Mr. A. is entirely correct. The racial murders of whites by blacks in Western cities are, indeed, to be blamed on white society—not, however, the fictional, racist, conservative white society that oppresses blacks, but the actual, 'compassionate,' liberal white society that unleashed the savages on us and took away our ability to defend ourselves." (my emphasis)
Clearly, Mr. Auster wasn't referring to blacks in general, but black murderers that preyed upon white Westerners. You may quibble with this description and it may upset your sensitivity towards murderers, but you need to clarify the distortion and the insistence that it represents a "racist" stance.
First of all, Thordaddy, don’t get it twisted: I am black. N-E-G-R-O. Both my parents were Negroes. All my aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, etc., are black people with skin tones ranging from milky pink to chocolatey brown.
ReplyDeleteYeah, if you look back three generations and beyond, you’ll find a Pamunkey Indian here and a white landowner who “got freaky on the sneaky” over there... and who-knows-what else. But being as we’re talking about 19th-Century Virginia, for fuck’s sake, both sides of my family were classified (and self-identified) as “colored,” and they had to choose their bus seats accordingly.
But I ain’t mad at you, Thordaddy. Happens all the time. (That’s what make me Undercover. Get it?) Shit, I even had to correct the dude at the (black) funeral home when he was filling out the death certificate on my mom. “Uhhh… she’s black.”
(That was comical, actually. Brotherman just wasn’t getting it. When I told him my mother would be buried in Lincoln Cemetery, he said, “Oh, Fort Lincoln [the white cemetery]?” “No, motherfucker, Lincoln Memorial Cemetery [the black one].”)
Now, as for your defense of Auster’s use of the word “savages”… nice try. But here’s the proper context:
A commenter on Auster’s blog had railed against the white elites – “the businessmen, politicians and academics” – who imperiled white civilization by allowing blacks into it. The commenter wrote: “God damn them for opening up the cages of the ape houses of the world and then pointing at us shrieking ‘Racist!’ whenever we flinched at what tumbled out of them.”
Auster, not blinking at the poetic description of black folks as apes, indeed replied that this commenter “is entirely correct.” Now read closely, again, Auster’s serpentine sentence as you’ve transcribed it… minus your wayward boldfacing.
He starts by mentioning the “racial murders of whites by blacks”... but the purpose of the sentence is to assign blame for it. It’s to be blamed on white society – not the so-called racist white society “that oppresses blacks” (blacks collectively, not black murderers), but the “liberal white society that unleashed the savages on us” (again, blacks collectively). That is how that sentence tracks.
Plus, the whole statement is meant to iterate the commenter’s “entirely correct” point about those liberal white elites who’d opened up the cages of the ape houses of the world. And iterate it it did.
UBM,
ReplyDeleteWell, you are indeed the undercover black man!
But alas, you claim that Mr. Auster's labelling of black murderers as "the savages" is a "racist" statement. Please do explain the "racist" element in the exchange on the part of Mr. Auster? His agreement, as you have stated, was with the idea that liberals have unleashed this black criminal element on its own society and not necessary with the characterization that African criminals are "apes."
Again, I think it is imperative that those who throw around labels like "racist" are required to explain their position and not just assert it.
What is "racist" about referring to black murderers who target white victims as "the savages?"
UBM, I guess that being so U, you have been privy to many an upsetting conversation while Undercover in the white milieu. I'm amazed that you are as calm as you are. I'm white, but my kids are mostly not {in the traditional US sense} and the comments I have to hear that I take personally, as I do identify with my family of course, burn me so bad I can't think. My policy is to just leave the scene, as talking to the bozos seems to do no good. And of course right after the talking comes the assault thing, and then the arrest thing and then the jail thing. I'm part Irish, know what I mean?
ReplyDeleteBut at least here in Puerto Rico the graveyards are not segregated.
Man, the race stupidity is just so tedious.
Racists have it so hard. Now they have to worry about black people who aren't sufficiently dark-skinned for them to recognize and condemn on sight. You could at least slather on some Man Tan so they can hide their women whenever you come down the street with your savage, rapin' intentions.
ReplyDeleteOh, and regarding the picture of David Duke you posted. At what point will all the plastic surgery he's had cause his face to fall off?
It'd be a shame to lose all that shiny pink skin...
Doug: Giving Thordaddy his due, I'm sure if he saw me in person he would at least suspect that I was mestizo or something. Maybe even a Sephardic Jew. (Talk about "undercover," those people, man, the Jews... they're all over the place, looking all different kinds of ways. How the heck is a white man supposed to tell?)
ReplyDeleteAs for Duke's face work, I've seen it in person. All I can say is, the surgeons put together something easier to look at than what sprang naturally out of Dr. Duke's European gene pool.
Yeah, dougfp has a good point. Get some more UV and Vitamin D, UBM. I might add that you , UBM, have definitely arrived in Blogworld now that Wolcott has seen fit to study and report on your missives frequently. I discovered you through the JW nexus and I also found that other blog UBM, the famous troublemaker Steve {you mean Steve's Black?} Gilliard through JW's instructions. In fact at the moment, you are having to do double duty since The Steve is somewhat out of commission. I'm happy to see that you are tilting at some of the same windmills he usually rams up against.
ReplyDeleteRC, thanks for the comment. You wrote: "I guess that being so U, you have been privy to many an upsetting conversation while Undercover in the white milieu."
ReplyDeleteFewer than you'd think. A lot fewer.
White people are basically good-hearted.
Would you care to share a specific example of overheard horseshit you've had to deal with?
UBM,
ReplyDeleteLiving in San Diego, I would guess that you were hispanic/latino/mexican if such guesswork was even required. I'm not sure how this faulty assumption, given your look, makes one "racist" as some commentators have suggested? But, you again skip the critical question?
What is "racist" about calling black murderers "the savages?"
It seems you will avoid the question because as a stand alone quote is says nothing about one's "racism" or lack thereof?
^ No, Thordaddy, I'm ignoring the question because this is my house and I'll do what I want to, in my own time. Plus, I'm not quite convinced you're not a troll, just here to waste my time.
ReplyDeleteBy I do have more to say about Auster's use of the word "savages."
I'll get around to saying it after I have a shower and a bite to eat.
Mr. Mills,
ReplyDeleteYou are free to do as you like on your blog and I take no offense at your insistence to do so.
OTOH, you have made certain serious assertions that you don't seem willing to substantiate and as such calls into question your credibility. Your credibility is important, no?
Thordaddy, I wasn't specifically calling you a racist, though some of your comments do make me wonder, i.e., your need for UBM to call black murderers "savages". As opposed to say, calling ALL murderers and rapists savages, regardless of their race. Any particular reason you need to single out African-Americans?
ReplyDeleteOh, and I'm a card-carrying Liberal. But I can't recall when exactly we "unleashed" the "black criminal element" onto society. Maybe I missed that meeting.
Do you actually dispute the figures published by Auster of Bm on WF rape?
ReplyDeleteThis a factual matter.
Would you care to share a specific example of overheard horseshit you've had to deal with?
ReplyDeleteYou're not addressing this to me, but I hope you don't mind if I interject a story.
I've mentioned before that I'm half-Mexican, half-Italian (but look neither). Once in high school, I was hanging out with a group that included friends and people I'd only met that night (they were all white) waiting for "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" to start. Some vatos passed us to get to their seats. One of the new people made a rude remark about the theater "letting all these wetbacks in." I calmly let her know I was Mexican and she said, "Oh, I didn't mean Mexicans like you!" I responded, "Did you mean Mexicans like my dark-skinned cousins in East L.A.?" and she basically fell all over herself apologizing while my friends urged me to accept because they could tell I was *pissed*. I wish that were an isolated incident, but alas, no (things were especially bad when I lived behind the Orange Curtain--so many closet racists make OC their home!).
RC, what's wrong with The Steve? I hope he's okay!
ReplyDeletedougfp,
ReplyDeleteI'm sure a lot of things people say make you wonder, but that is far short of drawing conclusions as to whether that particular person is a "racist."
You seem to be missing the point of the debate though? Mr. Mills claimed that Mr. Auster was a "racist" because he referred to blacks as "the savages." First, Mr. Auster wasn't referring to blacks, but black murderers as "the savages." To this I ask, what is "racist" about that statement...? Nothing apparently, because you suggest that all murderers are worthy of the label.
But to your specific question, the debate wasn't about all murderers and rapists, rather, it was about particular murderers of African descent and so the label was specific to them in the particular debate.
Again I ask, what was "racist" about the statement?
I can relate a story from just this past week. My Hispanic father was born in Equador and my Scotch-Irish mother in the Ozarks. Which somehow made me into the balding, fairly normal-looking white guy I am today. While sitting in a Florida doctor's waiting room on Monday, I overhead some guy going on and on about "all those Hispanics who can't speak English." The couple across from him were vigorously agreeing, the woman in a thick, German accent.
ReplyDeleteI was dying to get up and tell the woman how annoying I find German-Americans who, after thirty years in the country still talk like they just got off the boat from Dusseldorf.
But my mother was there, so I let it pass.
Thank you UBM. Great to have discovered your blog.
ReplyDeleteIt is not racist to lament that many hispanics can't speak english. It pisses me off that many hispanics don't speak english too. If hundreds of thousands of germans were immigrating yearly and many were not speaking english, I'd bitch about them too. But that is not what is happening. I will bitch about the world I live in, not bitch about some imaginary world. Hispanics are immigrating en masse, so they will be under the microscope, since they will have an outsized impact on our future, your knee-jerk race card be damned. Also, not speaking english is not equivalent to speaking english with an accent. For starters, americans can actually communicate with people who speak with an accent, thus that is 10 times more commendable.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt should be shocking that any presumably informed person takes the SPLC seriously. But then the US is a country where Al Sharpton is a powerful public figure.
ReplyDeleteThe SPLC is a neo-McCarthyite outfit that trades continually in smear and guilt-by-association. Its sleaziness has been exposed time and time again by writers from across the political spectrum: from Marxist Alexander Cockburn to numerous conservatives and libertarians. Some examples below:
here
here
here
here
here
That's more like it, Wily Marmot. Welcome, and thanks for putting some information on the table.
ReplyDeleteTo Dez,
ReplyDeleteTHE Steve Gilliard is completely out of commission and has been for three months now due to extreme health problems and has been all of that time in the ICU and in extensive surgery. His site, The News Blog, is being carried by The Jen and many of the reading and commenting stalwarts such as Lower Manhattan.
Check the site and the archives for updates on the health and eventual return of SG. And send him some get well vibes.
Aww, c'mon UBM, you about as black as my [nonexistent] sainted Irish aunt. Having rich folks, joining Jack and Jill and Boule, and having your One Drop do not make you a black man.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, bruthaman, what are you complaining about? You got the best of BOTH worlds: white skin privilege AND affirmative action!
You house slaves gonna have to do something more than wrap yourself in kinte cloth to fool us field niggas.
Yeah, I bet the white folks love your token-ass self. You about as black and threatening as a Korean bodega owner.
^ I'm about 97 percent sure that "Oleta" is a white troll, putting his minor book-knowledge of Negro intraracial class divisions to work in order to waste my time.
ReplyDeleteFor one thing, real black people aren't familiar with the phrase "sainted Irish aunt."
For another thing, real black people know how to spell "kente cloth."
Halfway-decent attempt, though.
My troll-dar is sharp, people!
ReplyDeleteI’ve figured out who this fucknuts “Oleta” is, masquerading pathetically as a black woman (bad grammar and all) to try to hurt my feelings, rather than step into my house like a man and say what’s on his mind (like these other blue-eyed devils have done since Auster’s shit hit Horowitz’s fan).
This dickless miracle also had a comment published tonight on Lawrence Auster’s blog; there he wrote under the name “Laurium.” (“Oleta” was probably the name of that fine, coffee-colored sistah back in college who wouldn’t give him any. Wouldn’t even let him bust a nut in her dirty-clothes hamper.)
Anyway, so Laurium presents himself on Auster’s blog as a white dude with an Ivy League law degree. Yet, with all that going for him, he has become instantly and ravenously fascinated with me, with my looks, my personal history, my career, and the inner workings of my mind.
Puzzlingly, rather than work through these feelings with a therapist, Laurium seems to think it’ll make him look cool if he shit-talks me.
Here’s some of what he wrote tonight on Auster’s blog:
“Look, take it easy on David Mills, he is a classic case. His whole life he has benefitted from white skin privilege, gotten affimative action and gotten grief from real black folks, folks who know personally how hard life is for a black person and know he isn't black either.”
First paragraph gives it away. The juxtaposition of “white skin privilege” and “affirmative action.”
“Look at his picture and ask yourself this: Has any white woman ever gotten off an elevator when he got on? Nope. … Has any employer given him that shocked look when he showed up at an interview and told him ‘the position is filled’? Nope. Has any state trooper spotted him on the freeway and pulled him over for ‘Driving While Black’? Nope. But SAYING he is black has been very, very good for David. I have no doubt white colleges offered him tons of money to attend as the perfect black candidate.”
I guess this is why so few bloggers put pictures of themselves online, huh? Oh well. Continue, Laurium.
“He really has suffered no racial disadvantage his entire life. Indeed, being ‘black’ has made him much better off than plain old white. Think about it. A man with his verbal facility would be above average as a white guy. But as a black guy he is in the top 1%, the perfect diversity choice. And with his chubby white accountant face, he is about as physically intimidating as Beaver Cleaver.”
More echoes of “Oleta”… the bit with “You about as black and threatening as a Korean bodega owner.” Which didn’t make sense for a black woman to say in the first place.
Click over to Auster’s spot if you want to read the rest of Laurium’s evening’s labors.
Some of you are living in denial when it comes to Auster's racism, which is a chronic feature of his blog.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who wrote about Jews as insultingly as Auster writes about Blacks would be recognised for the half-insane bigot that he was - and David Horowitz would certainly not have forgotten never again to publish such an anti-semitic crazyman. But Horowitz has lacked good political judgement all his adult life, given that he was once an extreme leftist and ran with the Panthers, or his more recent folly in cosying up to the Trotskyist Atheist Radical aka Christopher Hitchens - so, no change there.
I was interested in David's observation about the obsession of one particular troll with his (David's) personal history, and how instead of working through his issues with therapy the troll instead chose to unload at Auster's blog. Surely a case of birds of a feather engaging in a folie a deux? This inappropriate interest in the intimate details of the lives of one's critics is classic Auster, and a mental infection that anyone who spends too much time on his website would appear be at risk of picking up.
Auster has recently been obsessing about John Derbyshire's inter-racial marriage (after Derbyshire had cruelly bitch-slapped the belligerent, but strangely fragile, Auster into tears). Most readers of Auster's blog will be familiar with his longstanding obsession with Mark Steyn, extending to such details of Steyn's personal life as his faith, his sexuality, whether he is really an ethnic Jew, etc. Outside of cyberspace this kind of thing, taken together with Auster's habit of repeatedly sending accusatory - but unrequited - emails to Steyn, would fall under the head of stalking, and there are embarrassingly homoerotic overtones in Auster's interest in Steyn. Auster is the only person who seems not to be aware of this, with that now legendary unperceptiveness that reached its nadir with his 'discovery' that the American Renaissance view of race was very attractive to anti-semites (who'da thunk it, huh?!). I suspect that there is a link between this and Auster's recent obsession with Black rape, but am not sufficiently twisted to quite put my finger on it.
One strange, mixed up guy.
Keep up the good work... though I can't believe you gave "Oleta" a "Halfway-decent attempt, though." C'mon - that was as transparent and lame as the comments you so easily dissected in his post on Auster's site.
ReplyDeleteYou know clowns like him, and Thordaddy are nothing more than desperate attention/validation trolls... though, sometimes they are pretty funny as they contort to distort, as it were.
Rock on my man, rock on.
the Trotskyist Atheist Radical aka Christopher Hitchens
ReplyDeleteI usually refer to him as "that stinkin' drunk." Yours is much more poetic :-)
RC, thanks for the update on Steve. Haven't talked to him in a long time, so I didn't realize he'd gotten ill again. I'll make sure to send lots of good vibes for The Sheriff!
Rainlion: Thanks for the good words. And yeah, I'll be honest and say "Oleta" had me going for about two minutes. I didn't immediately see it as flamebait from a white-boy-in-disguise.
ReplyDeleteVictorK: Glad to have you here. The personality quirk of Auster's that I find most amusing is his impulse to flame-war with fellow conservatives. He is a divider, not a uniter.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLet's see if I can finally do this right...
ReplyDeleteRainlion, you also gotta give a troll credit for throwing "Boule" in there. How many white people have the slightest idea what the Boule is?
Laurium gave it his very best effort.
(Click here to find out what the Boule is.)
hey dave -- great shout to you in james walcott's piece in vanity fair about this whole rondelay -- you're burning up the blogoshpere!
ReplyDeleteFor all concerned, I have posted the complete text of my May 2006 letter to David Horowitz regarding Lawrence Auster’s oft-expressed racial animus. It is here, on my newly launched “text annex.”
ReplyDeleteNow this blog can get return to the fun stuff.