Stunningly, David Horowitz has decided to stand by his man, Lawrence Auster – the right wing’s leading authority on “black predatory savages.”In response to my open letter, Horowitz has posted the following headline prominently on his FrontPage Magazine homepage: “Correction. Auster’s statistics were wrong, but his point about liberal hypocrisy on race was not.”
Damn.
Mr. Horowitz publishes an article by a man who (by Horowitz’s own estimation) holds “racist and offensive” views. When it turns out that this article (surprise!) grossly overstated the amount of black-on-white rape – and wrongly reported as “virtually zero” the number of white-on-black rapes – Mr. Horowitz doesn’t remove the article from his website.
Instead, he attaches an obfuscating ”Editor’s note” to the top of it:
“Lawrence Auster has posted a correction to this article on the legal lynching of the Duke students, the presumption that white males are rapists and racists and the failure to hold blacks and whites to a single standard. The statistics in his article were incorrect, but the points the article makes about liberal hypocrisy and liberal racism were not. The Huffington Post leftists are in full throat denouncing Auster’s racism but are silent about the racism of Huffington Post and every liberal media vehicle that I am aware of in going along with the Duke atrocity and failng to condemn racists like Sharpton and Jackson because they are black. The correction is printed here: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007759.html”
Further, Horowitz presents on his blog a direct reply to me (which also appears in my comments section). He says I’m on a “witch hunt.” He says I display “an insufferable arrogance and moral blindness when it comes to the issue of race.”
To which I can only roll my neck, raise my index finger in the air, and yell: You don’t know me!
Meanwhile, Lawrence Auster’s most inflammatory textbite – “[E]very day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man” – will continue to gain traction throughout the World Wide Web… even though Auster and his sponsor, David Horowitz, now know it to be utter bullshit.
Good on you, Mr. Horowitz. Good on you.
24 comments:
The best Horowitz can do is the "you also" fallacy. I don't think he had any credibilty to lose.
The black man = rapist slander has historically been the neutron bomb of black-white relations in America. The prelude and justification for scores of anti black atrocities.
Auster has clearly placed himself outside of the Western cultural tradition of reason and moderation. He, and Horowitz by extension have embraced the sort of pre Enlightenment tribalism that made Europe such a wonderful place during the Middle Ages.
The difference between now and Jim Crow is that black Americans are now fully capable of fighting back.
Horowitz is pitiful.
So, his line now is that the 'facts' in the Auster article were false, but the opinions were accurate, so that makes it OK. At this rate we can look forward to a vindication of 'The Protocols of The Elders on Zion' according to the same illogic of damn the facts and talk up the opinions.
And he's still objecting to 'liberal racism' while, consummate hypocrite that he is, promoting Auster's much purer Duke-Klan-Nazi racism. What next, FrontPage on the horrors of miscegenation?
And what kind of 'editor' worthy of the name fails to publish a correction to an article he's responsible for, but directs readers elsewhere to find the same correction via a web-link? How shamelessly impudent for a man like Horowitz to venture to use the word 'standard' at all in light of his own abysmal incompetence as an editor.
I've long considered Hororwitz to be a hypocrite (imagine his response to anyone who was to write about Jews in the same spirit as Auster writes about Blacks - but the fool still rants about supposed constraints imposed by the liberal media in discussing particular ethnic groups: yeah, right) and I've always thought him to be a political fraud ('conservative' my ass) with a shameful past of enabling revolutionists, madmen and murderers: now the label 'racist' completes the triumvirate.
Sir, I think you have done a great service to those of us who have kept a keen eye on DH's fascist Frontpage Mag. As a college student I have watched Horowitz carry on with his campaign for "academic freedom" and his obnoxious assertions that that the academy if filled with leftist. As a college student I can say definitivly that the academy is not at all filled with leftist, if anything its filled with conservatives pretending to be leftist.
With great heartache I have watched university after university fall into his web of lies by adopting his "academic bill of rights", which is nothing more than a manifesto meant to stifle free inguiry and critical analysis on campus.
If you play close attention to his writings you will notice Horowitz has a particular animus against minorities, and blacks in particular. He has persistently attacked minority faculty members who teach in such departments as Afram-Studies, Womens Studies, Chicano-Studies, Gay and Lesbian Studies, and Peace Studies. The merit of these departments may be debatable, however no more so than say Classics, German Studies, or Anthropology. These are departments which thrive on the reproduction of scholarship which trumpets the glory of white-western civilization, and with anthropology, the savagery of the dark barbarians outside of the west.
Horowitz would have us all believe his activism is for the good of society and it has no other aim than to protect poor defenseless college students from the big leftist monster preying on them. Irony of Ironies if we look at who funds frontpage mag we will find out what his real goals are. Horowitiz is in the buisness of putting minorities in their place. He thinks he can do this because of his alleged work in the civil right movement.
I for one applaud you for your work and I hope DH is found out for the fraud he is.
Cheers, Awol. Welcome here, and thanks for commenting.
Mr. Mills,
When you say,
"Meanwhile, Lawrence Auster’s most inflammatory textbite – '[E]very day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man' – will continue to gain traction throughout the World Wide Web… even though Auster and his sponsor, David Horowitz, now know it to be utter bullshit."
What exactly do you mean? The 100 rapes/sexual assaults per day by black men on white women is extrapolated from DOJ figures for the year 2005. Mr. Auster clearly indicated this in the paragraph
preceding the one you quote above.
Remember, you claim to deal in good faith in matters of race. Are you dealing in good faith, Mr. Mills?
Thordaddy, it seems to me that Mr. Mills is dealing with truth and justice alot better than this Auster fellow.
The point of your post seems to be in defense of Auster's rhetoric because he has taken his information from DOJ figures. Yet we find out from Auster's own blog that the information is in fact not firm because "...it's a survey, involving a truly vast number of respondents, 134,000, and it's the most authoritative source of information on crime victimization in the U.S. At the same time, it remains a survey, a projection of figures from a sampling". Therefore, one should not go about claiming somthing like 100 white women are raped or assaulted everyday by black men without properly finding these statistics to be fact.
It doesn't matter that the DOJ posted this data what matters is the integrity of the researcher who interprets and uses this data. It is clear that Mr. Auster simply went searching for sources that would back up what he already believed himself.
Besides these points mentioned above, why must this be a race issue in the first place? Why aren't criminals simply criminals. If white women are raped by white men I suppose this is ok in your book as long as its inter-race rape. Get real, by injecting race into the issue you yourself prove to be obssessed with race.
awol,
You are free to dispute the veracity of extrapolating the figures posted by the DOJ or the DOJ figures itself. As of yet, I have read no one on this blog, including Mr. Mills, that has disputed either the DOJ figures for 2005 or Mr. Auster's extrapolation of those figures.
The fact remains that a small swath of black males raped an extremely large number of white women in 2005. Given the context of the Duke rape hoax, this seems like a story that needs told. Do you disagree?
If we are to believe that Mr. Auster's extrapolation of DOJ figures for 2005 concerning 100+ rapes/sexual assaults of white women by black men is a "racist" deed then what of those rapes and sexual assaults? Are they not an even more heinous example of black racism and white hatred? Or, are you one of those liberals who believe that charges of racism and hatred are only legitimate when the correct ideological distortion is in play?
Thordaddy, Since the data Auster uses is from a survey and not actual hard numbers I stand on my position that the interpretation of the information is bogus and meant to satisfy a particular worldview.
Now, if you are here to prove that interracial rape is proof of black racism and white hatred I would say sir that you are wholly misinformed. A rape is a crime, committed by a rapist, a criminal. You want to call this Auster information proof positive that there is a campaign of race crimes against white women by black men. I beg to differ. What proof have you that these "bogus" numbers point to a race, hate crime as oppossed to ordinary criminal activity? Have these suppossed rapist left some hate related material behind on these women?
This date information is flat out incorrect, but even if it were true how do you call it a race crime instead of crimanl activity in general?
awol,
Then please give us the correct interpretation of these "bogus" DOJ figures?
Secondly, I didn't say this was "proof positive" of black racism or white hatred. I asked if it was evidence of black racism and white hatred? Are you denying any racial motive?
You seem to think that the rest of us will bury our head in the sand and simply dismiss this highly disproportionate amount of black on white rape/sexual assault as nothing but criminal activity with absolutely no underlying racial motive. Only a liberal would inhabit such a world while he/she tries to convince us that mere words are the real evidence of racial animus.
Thordaddy, the correct interpretation of the DOJ data is as follows: It does not represent hard numbers from police reports or satistical evidence from actual events that took place. Thus there is nothing to intepret besides what 134,000 people thought about crime. With such a weighty issue I prefer to have real numbers instead of numbers from some survey or poll.
Feel free to take your head out of the sand. If you want to interpret this shoddy Auster research as hard fact and then call it evidence of black on white racial animus then that is for you to decide.
Let's just say your interpretation doesn't hold water until you produce actual numbers. Its called evidence.
awol says,
Thus there is nothing to intepret besides what 134,000 people thought about crime.
And what did they think? Did they think a lot of black men rape and sexually assault white women?
This was a survey of crime victims, particularly those that had been raped or sexually assaulted in 2005. Again, you can dispute this survey as "bogus," suggest the participants are liars and rail against Mr. Auster's statistical extrapolation, but such a stance is not persuasive.
Why not ask yourself why there are no hard numbers?
And again, are you of the mind that Mr. Auster's mere words are evidence of racism and hatred and the disproportionate amount of black on white rape and sexual assault is evidence of nothing but criminality? So much for liberal nuance.
Dear awol,
Do not continue to engage with thordaddy. His questions are intentionally dishonest. Take the following two questions and note the way that thordaddy attempts to reframe the first question through the second question. The first question is not benign.
"Are they not an even more heinous example of black racism and white hatred?"
"I asked if it was evidence of black racism and white hatred?"
Note that thordaddy did not in the first question merely ask if this was "evidence of black racism and white hatred." Rather he embedded a presupposition. It was a dishonest question.
But the clincher is his assertion of "mere words," this is, I imagine, taken from the "sticks and stones" "school" of "thought." This assumes that these "mere words" do not travel, are not heard and believed and internalized (as speech often is). It is, at best, a naive view of language. At worst it is part and parcel with the tenor of his dishonest questions, it attempts to trivialize racist discourse as "mere words."
Do not waste your time on this "thordaddy."
^ Let's not any of us waste time on Thordaddy. He's not being real. He's here to waste people's time.
Enjoy your blog.
Aww, does this mean I can't point out thordaddy's SPS? Because I was really looking forward to it, being all perverse and stuff :-D
Mr. Mills,
If calling black murderers "the savages" (mere words only hurtful to the perverted psyche of said black murderers) is "racist" then what is the inexplicable amount of black on white rape/sexual assault to be labeled (an action that causes severe physical and mental trauma)?
Awol labels it "criminal." How's that for rendering us a better understanding of the phenomenon?
tyroneslothrop says my questions are "intentionally dishonest." How's that for a pitiful evasion?
And Mr. Mills says I'm "not being real." Huh? That is only comprehensible if one realizes that Mr. Mills doesn't like tough questions.
Thordaddy is still afraid of the boogie man. What a small little world he must occupy.
It's hard for me to place any real trust in figures provided about those convicted of crimes. I mean sure we know what color their skin is, but whether they did the crime or not is another thing.
And while I'm certain that most of the people who are incarcerated probably did commit the crimes they are convicted of there are just as many who do not get convicted.
It seems to me that our justice system functions best for those who have the cash to get good representation and thus keep their butts out of jail.
Years ago I worked for a non-profit organization that provided court ordered drug diversion for first time offenders. Part of my job was to compile all of the statistics to justify grant monies we received to fund this program.
After about 4 months it became very clear to me that money and skin color had a lot to do with whether or not someone got diversion as opposed to jail time. About 75% of the individuals receiving diversion were white, 12% were black, 10% were hispanic and the rest were everyone else.
When it comes to rape there are so many variables that affect arrests and crime reporting - I believe that a lot of white on white rape falls under the category of date rape and does not get reported.
I don't think when we as a society discuss rape it is appropriate to bring race into it when we have no real way to measure the reality of what is happening. All those statistics can accurately report is who ends up incarcerated.
I'm with you all the way on this, Mills, and the biggest issue to me is that of 'good faith'. Auster has said enough offensive bullshit about black people at this point that he simply isn't qualified to interpret data involving race. No one with his record can objectively make conclusions about black people, white people, Hawaiians, Inuits, or the cast of 'Ugly Betty.' If Mel Gibson uncovered some statistics about Jewish-on-Gentile crime, would we all perk up and pay attention? No publication that is genuinely interested in expanding debate and delivering the truth, as opposed to pushing an agenda, would publish Auster. It's as simple as that.
Auster sees American crime statistics and goes straight for race, as if that was the only dimension that matters. As far as I know, it's relatively unquestioned that black people commit a disproportionately high amount of crime in America. That's also true of poor people, and uneducated people, and people in urban areas, and people who grew up with one parent. What about religious affiliations? Are Christians disproportionately raping atheists? What are the numbers on Baptist-on-Lutheran crime over the last 10 years? There is a hell of a lot more going on in any set of data than just the melanin count.
By the way, I *love* the logic of Horowitz. This is the 'but still' defense. You say, "Jewish people kill 10 million gentiles a year, therefore we should begin racially profiling anyone with a yarmulke on. Oh, wait, it turns out they don't actually kill anywhere near that many people. But still. Profiling's a good idea anyway.'
FrontPage is mostly just an ammunition silo for the ultra-partisan Junior Jack Bauers out there anyway. I mean, they're defending an essay that was reprinted by David Duke, for Pete's sake. Talk about good faith...
Wow, Susie... that's pretty deep. Thanks for that insight, drawn from real life. But I want to clarity one thing...
You wrote: "All those statistics can accurately report is who ends up incarcerated."
This particular set of statistics -- from the National Crime Victimization Survey -- does not deal with actual reported crimes, let alone crimes that've been adjudicated. It's a survey of a sampling of Americans, who are basically asked, "Were you the victim of any crimes last year? Tell us all about it."
Theoretically, I suppose, the purpose of such a survey is to show whether arrest rates, incarceration rates, etc., are in accord with amounts of crime that people actually say is happening (in the survey, anyway).
The best the government can do in quantifying crime is to compile statistics, so I've got no problem with that. Got no problem with making public-policy decisions based on such statistics.
But I take your point that the true, objective reality of the amount of crime may be unknowable... and a lot of factors may impinge upon the realiability of any set of stats.
Thanks for the clarification Dave, but this kind of a survey raises my eyebrows.
I guess I should go look at it and see what variables are quantified for statistical reliability. There's an aspect of subjectivity to performing interviews in survey that cannot possibly adjust for the personal filter of each individual who participated.
If the method of measurement is flawed the the results will be flawed.
Do tax payer dollars pay for this kind of survey? Geez.
You're on it, Rottin'... tactically, Horowitz is caught in a trick bag. (And let's never forget that he's first and foremost a polemicist and a professional political combatant.)
Forget what he emailed me in May 2006... Horowitz had been carefully watering down Auster's racial views whenever he wrote about race in FrontPage, so Horowitz has always known that Auster is an extremist.
Now, to shift the focus off his "good faith," he's got to obfuscate, he's got to personally attack... all's fair in a culture war, he's probably thinking...
Mr. Mills,
Are whites and blacks, as a whole and generally speaking, the same or different?
Are you, as a black man, different from or the same as Mr. Auster, the white man?
Post a Comment