Thursday, May 10, 2007

An open letter to David Horowitz

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

DAVID MILLS to Jamie Glazov, FrontPage Magazine (05/03/07):

Mr. Glazov,

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 Mills

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:


David Mills


Roberto Rivera said...

Nicely done and more than fair. I hope that I am not being too cynical when I add "good luck waiting for that to happen." Whatever his intentions and views, Horowitz's approach can be characterize as a right-wing version of epater les bourgeois .

The transgressive nature of what he and people like him have to say is the message. The actual content, and any truth and/or facticity contained therein, is secondary.

Roberto Rivera said...

If you will permit me a second comment: I recently read "Buried in the Bitter Waters: The Hidden History of Racial Cleansing in America" by Elliot Jaspin. In it, Jaspin chronicles an all-too-common occurrence between 1880 and 1920: a white woman would claim to have been sexually assaulted by a black man. The townsfolk would organize a lynch mob and after they were done lynching some black man, they would drive all the blacks in the town, and even the county, away.

What made this bit of apple-pie ethnic cleansing even more outrageous was that quite a few times there had been no sexual assault and, even more often, the man lynched was not the rapist, alleged or otherwise.

It's against this history that Auster's "analysis" and Horowitz's publication of them must be seen. Accusations of rape and other violations of white women have been used to justify group "punishment" of blacks (and other minorities) throughout American history. Horowitz cannot not know this and, yet, he persists in his course of action whose most likely end is not enhanced public safety but the further demonization of an entire class of people.

ItAintEazy said...

Hey, look at me! I can be a paranoid racist too!

Now, ahem:

What kind of world are we living in if we can't even send our own children to school without them being raped and molested by white savages? The very fact that the white devils would prey upon our children and refuse to report on it is indicative of the imminent danger we face from the blue-eyed blah blah blah, etc, etc, wah, wah wah. . .

And if any of you take offense at what I wrote above, I'll just deny whatever it is you said and accuse you of calling me a "nazi" and having double standards for not denouncing David Duke on a regular basis.

James said...

Hey Roberto Rivera, what exactly does "all-too-common" represent? Any statistics?

Michael Oliver said...

You are still proud of the 36/8 juxtaposition? When you modify that number to account for the far different population levels of said groups in the United States, it is even more shocking. Your glee at disproving his numbers fail to disprove his main point, which is the truth about just who is committing the most crime in this country, and the bias the media shows in reporting that crime.

david horowitz said...

I was unaware of the posts to Auster's site (which I have never read) and have made the correction. I have posted the correction at the top of Auster's article in the Frontpage archive. I have also noted your silence throughout this episode regarding the substance of the piece. Like all leftists you don't want to argue the issue. You prefer to conduct a witch-hunt. Like all leftists you have an insufferable arrogance and moral blindness when it comes to the issue of race. Right now America's anointed "civil rights" leader is a rank racist and convicted liar who has incited the lynching of 8 individuals, seven of them Hispanic and black. Where is your outrage over this?

Roberto Rivera said...

According to James Loewen in "Sundown Towns" and Jaspin, "all-too-common" may amount to hundreds of instances. Their books not only set out the numbers but their research methodology, as well.

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with David H but with rancor and venom.
You're total disgrace and anything you write demonstrates all the objectivity of Al Sharpton on a bad hair day.

LeaNder said...

D.H: " ... Right now America's anointed "civil rights" leader is a rank racist and convicted liar who has incited the lynching of 8 individuals, seven of them Hispanic and black. Where is your outrage over this?"

Hmmm???? **Anonymous**: Does that mean the above mentioned "anointed leader" is Al Sharpton?

I'd be really pleased if this **David Horowitz** or anyone else for that matter could enlighten me concerning the facts/and or rumors (?) he alludes to above. I am not an expert in US popular culture but a very curious Kraut.

Undercover Black Man said...

Mr. Horowitz, thank you for the comment.

But I must disagree with your characterization of me as silent on Auster's supposed "main point" concerning the disproportion of black violent crime and the mainstream media's avoidance of the subject.

As I wrote in an email to you, and as I've written on this blog: "I believe the disproportion of black violent crime in America must be addressed forthrightly by blacks and whites, by liberals and conservatives and moderates."

And I would add: "by the media."

There is no truth which I fear.

Canards are a different matter. And you are fully responsible for this budding canard of 100-white-women-a-day-raped-by-blacks, because you are the one who accepted Larry Auster's foul little seed, watered it, then put it in the sunshine.

Your "correction" falls far short of remedying the damage done.

VictorK said...

Horowitz's breathtaking impudence is on a par with his obtuseness re the matters in question.

Auster and David Duke are comparable precisely because both are unabashed racists: the one loathes Blacks and the other is a thorough-going anti-semite. It's as simple as that. Horowitz is the King of Ludicrous if he really can't see the similarity of these peas-in-a-pod. But this is mere obfuscation on the part of a man who is too small and vain to admit to having made a mistake in: a. publishing Auster at all; b. publishing a racist; and c. publishing falsehoods and misrepresentations. Did this clown flunk editors' school?

He describes your analysis of Auster's article as ridiculous, but, top 100 rated 'public intellectual' that he is, does not offer a single point to support that absurd mischaracterisation (he evidently has as much of a head for figures as the numerically-challenged Auster).

And talk about non-sequiturs! I thought the point of Auster's article was to make SPECIFIC claims - since exposed as false - about Black-White rape: now, according to Horowitz, it was really about Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton etc (and am I the only one to have come away with the impression that Auster's statistics, even as corrected, indicate that Black women are disproportionately the victim of rape? As a racist that wouldn't matter in the slightest to Auster. How interesting, though, that is seems not to be of any importance to Horowitz either). Horowitz's affected raving about 'Jesse Sharpton' (forgive my shorthand)is, I think, what fallacists call a red herring. Horowitz's poor-to-non-existent editorial judgement led to the publication of a misleading article by a known racist, and no amount of graceless huffing and puffing by him now can change that central fact.

And where does Horowitz, a former extreme leftist, get off attacking liberals, i.e. people who have at least never been as naive, foolish, dangerous, inane, simple-minded, fashionable, and superficial in their political views as HE once was (and he didn't even have adolescence as an excuse when he was spewing nutty ultra-left bromides). In reading his overly-defensive hot air the words 'beam', 'eye', 'mote' and 'cast out' come to mind.

It's an unfailing sign of vanity to mistake criticism of the kind you - David M. - made as malicious personal attacks; and it is vanity of the most diseased kind in Horowitz to wail about how you are wickedly assaulting him when your criticisms have in fact been directed against the racist that Horowitz has been happy to enable.

The only criticism - or 'malicious attack' if you will - I have to make of you David (M.), is in your describing Horowitz as a 'conservative standard bearer.' Eh? What! The genuine conservatives can be found at places like Chronicles and the American Conservative, and normally have little truck with the likes of Horowitz; FrontPage is an interesting organ of NEO-conservatism, viz the political niche that has been opportunistically and strategically occupied by supposedly reformed Marxists, Socialists, Social Democrats and others of the (ex-?)Leftist tribe. Horowitz, like all of his kind, doesn't have a conservative bone in his body, as his zeal for revolutionising the Middle East demonstrates (and as a neo-con he should be a little more careful about supposed ethnic taboos constraining American intellectual discourse...).

And this creature has the effrontery to condemn you as an arrogant leftist! Horowitz, the prince of hypocrites, really puts the CON into neo-con!

And in passing: so, according to Horowitz, America has an anointed civil rights leader? I must have missed the ceremony; or is this just more bullsh*t from the neo-con artist in chief?

Undercover Black Man said...

Beautifully said, VictorK. Thanks for having my back.

My problem, I suppose, was in assuming that Mr. Horowitz is some manner of "journalist" when in fact he's a polemicist... and proud to be so.

And if I didn't slice fine enough the distinction between a "conservative" and a "neo-conservative," well... I'll take my lumps for that.

Thank you again for taking the time to comment so thoughtfully.

Thordaddy said...

Mr. Mills,

You're not going to convince too many traditional-minded folks that you deal in good faith in matters of race when a laughably perverse post like this appear on your blog.

James C. Collier said...

For every Lawrence Auster there are 10 like him plotting and executing their fiendish plans to get rich, be it through slavery, sweatshops, immigration, or other forms of exploitation, and at the expense of EVERYBODY, especially their white brethren. I agree that diversity invites conflict, but you can believe some rich white guys are selling 'short' (betting things will get worse) and making a financial killing, all the while.

Undercover Black Man said...

Mr. Horowitz: One more thing. If the substance of Auster's piece was actually the "lynching" of the Duke lacrosse players and the liberal double standard, as you claim in your editor's note... then why is the piece titled "The Truth of Interracial Rape in the United States"?

Don't you see how that headline might lead readers to believe that the substance of the piece was... interracial rape in the United States?

Anonymous said...

Black good, white bad. Liberal good, conservative bad.

Anonymous said...

Who, other than the racist and/or the liberal, cares about race? Who, other than the racist and/or the liberal, hustles racism?

Andrew said...

Why did the chicken cross the road?

Undercover Black Man said...

^ To keep from getting raped by black dudes.

Undercover Black Man said...

Or would this have been funnier: "To keep from getting raped by crows"?

Ehh... I'll stick with my original...

Anonymous said...

UBM, Why don't you or Horowitz disclose the letter you sent that got Auster fired? Let him answer point by point.

Undercover Black Man said...

^ If Larry asks me for it, I'll be glad to send it to him.

Chris Womak said...

David Horowitz And The
Mechanics Of The Zionist
Exploitation Of Blacks
By Curt Maynard

I recently read David Horowitz's autobiography Radical Son. Horowitz was a well- known Marxist journalist in the 1970s supposedly transformed into a less well-known modern day neo-conservative converso. He once wrote for the Ramparts, a liberal Marxist rag that touted every single degenerate cause in the late sixties and early seventies, actively supported the Black Panther Party, and rubbed shoulders with the likes of Huey Newton, Elaine Brown, Angela Davis, Jerry Rubin, Tom Hayden, Jane Fonda and Abby Hoffman. Horowitz's Radical Son is really nothing more than the author's weak attempt to explain how it is that he so easily converted to neo-conservatism from a radical 1970s Jewish liberal. The book is little more than liberal propaganda of the crudest nature from beginning to end. According to Horowitz he finally "saw the light," he came to see that Marxist groups like the Black Panthers weren't ideologically motivated at all, that they were instead composed of "thugs," and that they used the cause to forward their own agendas, mostly of a self absorbed criminal nature. For most people the idea that the Panther's were a criminal organization isn't anything new, but Horowitz wants the reader to sympathize with him, so he reinvents the Panther's just as he did in the seventies in an effort to confuse the simpleminded reader. This is an interesting process and extremely difficult to identify unless one is familiar with kosher revisionism.

First off Horowitz wants the reader to believe that the he, David Horowitz was never motivated by anything except the most altruistic and benevolent of causes ­ Marxism ­ true Marxism, brotherhood, equality and tolerance and all that rhetoric. Unfortunately, according to Horowitz, he was stymied at every opportunity by less ideologically motivated sell-outs who took advantage of Horowitz's devotion to the cause and naivety. Horowitz is tricky though ­ he does this in such a way as not to expose himself for what he really was, a fanatical anti-Gentile Jew that exploited the Black Panther's to advance Jewish interests ­ Zionist interests for those still not inclined to see that Zionism is nothing more than Jewry's latest "ism."

He wants the reader to believe that he admired Huey Newton, the one time leader of the Black Panthers, who was gunned down on an Oakland street corner in the late eighties; the result of a bad drug deal. Horowitz wants the reader to believe that Newton guided and/or mentored Horowitz rather than the other way around. He does this by constantly inserting insinuations in the text that suggest he felt ecstatic every time Newton treated him as an equal and/or accepted some of his advice. He gives himself away though by telling the reader that it was he that raised considerable sums of money for the Panthers from his wealthy Jewish friends. In fact, Radical Son names so many Jews within its pages that it reads like the guest list at a New York City Bar Mitzvah. Horowitz exposes other interesting facts about Huey Newton that suggest Newton was "bought and paid for," in a sense, by divulging the fact that another extremely wealthy and well connected Jew by the name of Burt Schneider financed Newton's lavish lifestyle, which included paying for Newton's drug habit, which was quite considerable if Horowitz is to be believed, as well as a house in an upper scale neighborhood.

In one exchange between Newton and Horowitz, the author suggests that he felt morally obligated to correct an erroneous belief that had developed in the Panther party; yep, you guessed it, anti-Semitism. According to Horowitz, some Panther's had come to accept this racist idea because of Stokely Carmichael and his less than revolutionary belief that Jews within the movement were acting as a Fifth Column and weren't particularly interested in the black cause; sound familiar? Of course Horowitz carefully sets up his narrative in such a way that the naïve reader will reject the possibility that what Carmichael believed might have had some basis in reality; Horowitz does this by admission and denial ­ a common tactic employed in kosher revisionism. According to Horowitz, after a time he felt honored to be thought of as an equal by Newton and for that reason he was "emboldened," to speak his mind:

"Talking to Huey as a kind of equal. emboldened me to raise yet another difficult issue. A strain of anti-Semitism had developed in the Party during the years he [Newton] was in prison. Of course, the Panthers were not alone among black radicals in their attacks on Jews. In 1966, Stokely Carmichael and the leaders of the SNCC had expelled whites from the civil rights organization, accusing them of being a fifth column inside the movement. Since Jews were a near majority of the whites in these organizations, and had played a strategic role in organizing and funding the struggle, it was clear to everyone that they were the primary target of the assault. This was underscored by the support that Carmichael and the black left gave to the Arab states during their 1967 attack on Israel.[1]"

In the above paragraph Horowitz absolutely reveals himself to be the liar he is, but it goes unnoticed by the vast majority of readers because most people aren't aware of the fact that Israel preemptively attacked the Arab states on June 5, 1967, not the other way around. This is what I would refer to as "kosher revisionism," and it is quite common in the world today, as a matter a fact, it's the norm. Historical revisionism has developed a bad name primarily because kosher revisionism rules the airwaves, radio and television; ethnic Jews have a near monopoly on the media in all its forms, and for that reason, lies like Horowitz's go unnoticed by most people. Horowitz predictably sets up his "admission," i.e. that Jews were disproportionately represented in the black civil rights movement by first prostrating himself in such a way as to fool the reader into believing that he, Horowitz, was only able to influence Newton, because Newton, the black man in the relationship, felt that Horowitz was an equal. Many people will laugh at the very idea that a Jew would consider any black to be an equal ­ as a rule, Jews loathe blacks more than they do whites, but they find that exploiting blacks is advantageous to the advancement of their agenda, and it is for this reason, and no other, that they associate with blacks.

Many blacks know this; perhaps that is why the unapologetic and openly pro-white Larry Darby polled as many black votes as he did in the recent June 5, 2006 democratic primary election for Alabama Attorney General; because he is vociferously critical of organized Jewry. An excellent book on the reality of the Jewish/Black relationship is The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, put out by the Nation of Islam, a group Horowitz absolutely despises as shown by the fact that he allegedly considered the Nation to be more violent than the Black Panther's, a total joke really, and one that no knowledgeable person could possibly accept. Horowitz again "creates," this impossibility by revealing that he promised a property owner that a building the owner was to sell to the Black Panther's wouldn't be used by any violent black groups like the "Nation of Islam."[2]

In this case, Horowitz kosher revisionism borders on the absurd, yet most readers won't pick it up, again because the predominantly Jewish media has so effectively smeared the Nation of Islam, that most Americans know very little about them, other than they are supposedly anti-Semitic and violent. The truth is that the Nation understands the nature of the Zionist and hasn't shied away from talking about them, or documenting factual stories that relate the actual relationship that Jews have with blacks; which is now and has always been exploitative. In this vein, Horowitz again attempts to create a sympathetic response from the reader by alluding to the idea that he, and Jews in general, were actually the ones that had been exploited by the Panthers. He again divulges important admissions in respect to Jews and the civil rights movement, and then denies that these Jews were motivated by anything but altruism ­ and again he endeavors to reinforce his earlier lie at the expense of the Arabs:

"I began to review events of the past to which I had paid little attention before, like the expulsion of the Jews from the civil rights movement in 1966. Jews had funded the movement, devised its legal strategies, and provided support for its efforts in the media and in the universities ­ and wherever else they had power. More than half the freedom riders who had gone to the southern states were Jews, although Jews constituted only 3% of the population. It was an unprecedented show of solidarity from one people to another. Jews had put their resources and lives on the line to support the black struggle for civil rights, and indeed two of their sons ­ Schwerner and Goodman ­ had been murdered for their efforts. But even while these tragic events were still fresh, the black leaders of the movement had unceremoniously expelled the Jews from their ranks. When Israel was attacked in 1967 by a coalition of Arab states calling for its annihilation, the same black leaders threw their support to the Arab aggressors, denouncing Zionism as racism.[3]"

Here again Horowitz reveals what a propagandist he is, as mentioned previously the Israeli's preemptively attacked the Arab states in 1967, not the other way around, thus in no sense could the Arabs be considered "aggressors." Once again Horowitz admits to the fact that Jews were disproportionately represented in the black civil rights movement, a fact that many liberal college professors are still afraid to acknowledge to this day. Earlier Horowitz attempted to convince the reader that he felt honored to be thought of as an equal by Huey Newton, but in the above paragraph he reveals something he had carefully hidden up to this point in his biography and that is the fact that Jews single handedly funded the black civil rights movement, that they essentially developed all its strategies and that they utilized their media to advance its causes, ideas that organized Jewry has collectively denied for more than forty years. Now I ask the reader - does this sound like a relationship founded on the concept of equality?

The truth is Horowitz was never a Marxist, a socialist or otherwise, except in name, and only where it might have been beneficial to Jewish Supremacism, Horowitz clearly reveals this when he classifies Natan Sharansky as a persecuted Russian dissident,[4] rather than what Sharansky really is, a fanatical Zionist, hater of Gentiles, purveyor of holocaust lies, and Israeli Cultural Minister. No doubt Horowitz's attempts to delude certain Panther's in the 1970s wasn't entirely successful, that is why he focused on the corrupt drug addict Huey Newton, who he knew was weak and would be willing to compromise in all the necessary ways.

One last telling example of Horowitz's Zionist, rather than socialist leanings, is his insistence that Huey allow him to write a "position paper," for the Black Panther party on the Arab/Israeli relationship, which only reinforces the fact that Horowitz, even in the early 1970s, was focused on issues that were good for Jews, rather than what would advance the allegedly revolutionary plans of the Black Panthers and the so called Black civil-rights movement. Horowitz wasn't stupid however, he knew he had to dress up his propaganda in such a way as not to give away what his intentions really were, so he employed his considerable writing skills and inserted the following rhetoric in the paper:

"Though the ultimate survival of Jews and Palestinians, as of all peoples, depends on the revolutionary overthrow world imperialism and Capitalism[5]"

Although in the 1970s this wasn't a strange position for a supposed liberal and revolutionary to take, it is ironic that today Horowitz is a vociferous defender of both, at least when it concerns the racist state of Israel and its imperialist expansionism. In the end, Horowitz's relationship with Huey Newton was based upon mutual need, Newton was never ideologically motivated, he was a violent pimp that bathed in the persona of a revolutionary and Horowitz was a Zionist propagandist that played the role of a concerned Jewish liberal, and who required a front man and found it in Huey Newton.

Undercover Black Man said...

For 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.”

Now this blog can get return to the fun stuff.

Anonymous said...

I was previously unaware of Mr Mills. Why does he call himself 'undercover BLACK man' when he is plainly some variety of mischling, mulatto, half-caste or mongrel? Are financial benefits and other forms of racial favouritism the reason for this pose? He is no 'blacker' than Halle Berry.

Undercover Black Man said...

My "black man" hustle makes it easier for me to score with white chicks.

dez said...

Wow, Chris. Totally tl;dr there.

Fred said...

To even suggest that white are as violent and dangerous as blacks is ridiculous. I live in Detroit. To go into a black neighborhood is putting your life and property at risk. These people consider armed robbery to be a "trade". There is no excuse for the savagery of blacks. Black males are 6% of the national population and they are responsible for half of the violent crime. They are a failed race. I moved to an area that is 97% white. Last year, there were a total of 23 crimes in my town of 1500. All of them were teenage vandalism like smashing mail boxes, etc. There is no violence or real crime because there are no blacks here. If Blacks come to this town, I will move again. I am a businessman and landlord. I have never and will never rent to or hire a negro. Why should I? If they don't do their job or pay their rent and I try to get rid of them, I'll be branded a racist and probably have Al Sharpton camped out on my lawn. Whites owe you nothing. Blacks have a constant sense of entitlement. I say you can have your "reparations" when you reimburse the nation for all of the property damage, increased insurance premiums, medical bills and economic blight that yor failed race has left in its wake. If negroes live a miserable, third world existence...they deserve it. Every neighborhood they move into becomes a ghetto in short order. Don't blame the white man for your inability to fit into a civilized society. Look at what happened to Detroit, South Africa, Rhodesia, New Orleans....Negroes wreck everything they come in contact with. Your "culture" consists of rape, robbery, murder, malt liquor, 9mm's, killing cops and that ugly "music" called hip hop. You can have the inner city. I'll be in the suburbs raising my family in a safe negro-free environment. You are all ammoral savages.

Anonymous said...

What the hell is wrong with you? You delete comments that prove beyond doubt that what you wrote is wrong, and then you close the comments? That means that you KNOW you are wrong and you have no other recourse except CENSORSHIP. Liar. Loser.

You are WRONG that the stats came from some Auster dude. They came DIRECTLY from the USDOJ:

From the US Department of Justice:

Go to the "Victims and Offenders" and download the pdf document for 2005. Then go to table 42. It PLAINLY states:

"Type of crime and race of victim" for "Rape/sexual assault" : White only - Number of single-offender victimizations - 111,490- Percieved Race of Offender - Black - 33.6%."

33.6% of 111,490 is 37,460.

Here are the numbers for black victims of rape and sexual assault:

"Type of crime and race of victim for "Rape/sexual assault" : Black only - Number of single-offender victimizations - 36,620- Percieved Race of Offender - White - 0.0% *."

and if you follow the little asterix to the bottom of the page for the footnote, it says very clearly:

"Estimate is based on about 10 or fewer sample cases."

So there you go, plain as day. According to the US Department of Justice, in the year 2005 alone black men raped at least 37,460 white women, and in the same year white men raped less than ten black women.

Therefore, statistically, over 100 white women are being raped every day by black men.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, look at the top of the page you keep quoting. It's a survey -- the "National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)," which takes a representative sample and extrapolates. Please look up the definition of the word survey. It is *not* a categorization of every crime that happened in the country in 2005, based on police reports or some other record.

The numbers you are quoting are not saying that no white guys raped black women. It's saying that IN THAT SURVEY, there weren't enough white-on-black rapes to make a useful analysis.

I know that statistics are hard to wrap one's brain around, which is why you keep getting your conclusions wrong. Maybe this will help you, from a smarter person than I:

"It's not quite accurate to say that "there were zero white-on-black rapes in the U.S. in 2005," although the number is surely very small. The survey is just that, a survey and not a census. The numbers in Table 42 are therefore estimates, not actual counts. If you read the survey methodology starting on page 130 you will see that 38,600 households were surveyed covering a total of 67,000 people. If you look at the footnotes for Table 42 you will see that there were 10 or fewer white-on-black rapes in the sample, not the entire country. Their methodology does not give a reliable estimate for white-on-black rapes, so they put 0 percent with a footnote. The reason they can't get a reliable estimate is the number in the sample is too small, so a change say one might lead to a large change in the percentage."

Again, I have to note your obsession with the race of rapists, anonymous. I think one thing that is surely not in question is that 99.999999 percent of rapists are men. Perhaps men in general are the animals, not "just" black men...