Greetings, Mr. Horowitz.
As you didn’t respond to my last email (May 4), I presume I am no longer a welcome correspondent. Still, I hope these words reach you.
You are to be commended for expelling Lawrence Auster from FrontPage Magazine. But that only begins to address the damage done by your publishing his article, “The Truth of Interracial Rape in the United States,” last Thursday.
Perhaps you’re unaware that Mr. Auster, on his blog, has acknowledged that he misread the Justice Department data at issue. He has acknowledged misstating their meaning in FrontPage.
Yet “The Truth of Interracial Rape” remains on your site, with every flaw in tact. It remains there even as Auster’s grossly distorted numbers – 100 white women a day sexually attacked by blacks; virtually zero black women sexually attacked by whites – echo across the Internet.
That 100/zero dichotomy is really taking hold out there in certain quarters. Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance website linked to your Auster article with this teaser line: “Every day, more than 100 white women are sexually attacked by black men.” (May 3)
David Duke reproduced the FrontPage piece in full on his homepage, adding his own iteration of Auster’s punch line: “[M]ore than 100 White women [are] raped by Blacks every day. In contrast, the government figures show that there are almost no rapes by White men against Black women!” (May 4)
Conservative blogger Melissa Clouthier took Auster’s conclusions to heart, writing: “I just read this FrontPage article pointing out the actual statistics of white on black rape. What are the chances that a black woman must fear for her personal safety in the company of a white man? She’s pretty safe--like she has nearly a zero chance of being raped.” (May 7)
A contributor to Yahoo! Answers enlightened his readers thusly: “What you may not know… is that when it comes to interracial rape, the real story is that virtually no whites rape black (statistically speaking) and that blacks on average rape about 100 white women a day. Shocker!” (May 6)
And neo-Nazi Alex Linder (Vanguard Network News) broke it down as only he can: “Over 100 White women are raped by niggers daily – and no one in the media will cover it.” (May 9)
Meanwhile, anyone reading Lawrence Auster’s blog will have seen one of Auster’s own readers debunk the 100/zero dichotomy.
This reader – “Ken H.” – crunched the crime victimization stats over a 10-year period (figures that were readily available to Auster). Going by his analysis, the interracial rape dichotomy is more like 36/8. That is, 36 white women a day sexually attacked by blacks; 8 black women a day sexually attacked by whites.
Ken H. stated it this way:
“[W]e can estimate that each year, for every 100,000 white females, about 25 are raped by black men; for every 100,000 black females, about 16 are raped by white men.”
I don’t know how to un-ring a bell, Mr. Horowitz. But you must un-ring this one… before the “100 white women every day” meme grows into a canard and ultimately into a full-blown Big Lie.
I urge you to take three remedial steps:
1) REMOVE Auster’s article from the FrontPage Magazine website;
2) Post a RETRACTION disavowing Auster’s incendiary claims of 100 white women a day raped by blacks and zero black women raped by whites;
3) APOLOGIZE for publishing those unfounded claims, and EXPLAIN to your readers how you allowed it to happen. Because this affair has put your editorial judgment into question.
If you thought Lawrence Auster could be unbiased on the subject of interracial rape, you apparently didn’t read his January 13, 2007, blog post titled ”Atrocity in Knoxville.” That was about the carjacking and murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, and the rape and torture of Miss Christian, by “two black predatory savages.”
Bemoaning that white Southerners’ “liberal guilt” over past racial discrimination has rendered their young women “naive and innocent and helpless before black savagery,” Auster wrote:
“For decades, black murderers and rapists have been committing violent crimes against whites that in numbers and in pure savagery are orders of magnitude beyond anything that whites ever did or remotely imagined doing to blacks in the 1950s. Yet, far from taking measures to stop this racial phenomenon of black predation of whites, white society doesn’t even recognize its existence.” [Italics from the original.]
Well, Lawrence Auster did his part to fix that, didn’t he? And you gave him the platform, Mr. Horowitz. You lent him your credibility. And you should’ve known better.
I include below our complete correspondence of the past week… in case any of it has “slipped your mind.”
DAVID MILLS to Jamie Glazov, FrontPage Magazine (05/03/07):
A year ago I sent you and Mr. Horowitz an 11-page letter describing Lawrence Auster’s anti-black animus... from his use of the word ”savages” to describe the entire race, to his fondness for David Duke before Duke went all Jew-crazy.
I seem to recall that Mr. Horowitz was persuaded by my survey of Auster’s written record that FrontPage Magazine should not welcome Mr. Auster into its house unless he repudiates his past bigoted declamations. Has Auster done so? No? Then why are you treating him like a straight-dealer on race?
Why would you let Lawrence Auster, of all people -- with his paper trail, a paper trail that you know about -- be FrontPage’s point man on the subject of black-on-white rape?
This reeks of bad faith, and I now regret having contributed money to your enterprise. Please remove me from your postal mailing list. …
DAVID HOROWITZ to David Mills (05/03/07):
This is my responsibility. Actually, the whole episode unaccountably slipped my mind. One article does not make him a point man. Do you have any objection to the article itself? In any case, now you have reminded me, and that will make a difference.
DAVID MILLS to David Horowitz (05/03/07):
Greetings, Mr. Horowitz. Thanks for your response.
I must inform you that, before hearing from you, I submitted a post today to the Huffington Post, where I’ve contributed a handful of pieces in the past.
You ask: “Do you have any objection to the article itself?”
My objection is that Lawrence Auster doesn’t write in good faith about race.
I believe the disproportion of black violent crime in America must be addressed forthrightly by blacks and whites, by liberals and conservatives and moderates. But it ought to be addressed in good faith on all sides. I assume you believe the same, and that you therefore wouldn’t have published an identically worded essay had it been written by David Duke.
For Auster to highlight the 100 white women a day raped or sexually assaulted by black men, without highlighting the 136 white women a day raped or sexually assualted by men classified as white, or the 100 black women a day raped or sexually assaulted by blacks, and to then proclaim that “white women in this country are being targeted by black rapists”... that flunks the smell test.
Especially because Auster is proudly on record as arguing that black people as a class are intrinsically, inherently ill-suited for a place in white society... that blacks collectively lack the “moral will, intelligence, and organizing energy” required to meet the white standard for civilization.
It’s one thing for Auster to express such views on his own blog. The First Amendment gives him the right to do that, and then some. But when you provide him a megaphone, while you otherwise decry race-baiting, then it becomes about you and your standards for moral legitimacy.
DAVID HOROWITZ to David Mills (05/03/07):
And what about posting on a site -- Huffington Post -- that refers to people like me as “Nazis”? The difference of course is that you’re a nobody so nobody’s going to attack you maliciously as you apparently have chosen to attack me. The idea that Auster is comparable to Duke is ludicrous. Your “analysis” of his article is equally ridiculous. His point was the hypocrisy of people like you in having double standards when it comes to black racists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, black and liberal lynch mobs like the Duke crew or the editors of Huffington Post, and, well, people like Lawrence Auster.
DAVID MILLS to David Horowitz (05/04/07):
I did not attack you maliciously or personally. I called you to account for your decision -- as a media professional and a conservative standardbearer -- to showcase the racial commentary of a man you yourself acknowledged, in May 2006, as holding “racist and offensive” views.
You wrote: “The idea that Auster is comparable to [David] Duke is ludicrous.”
Really? It’s so ludicrous that David Duke has reprinted Auster’s FrontPage piece in full on his own website: