Name this singer, win a prize.

With so many new eyes checking me out this week, it’s time for another contest. Here’s how it works: you click here, listen to the streaming mp3, and tell me who that singer is.

The first person to put the singer’s name in the comments section will win a prize. That prize is a copy of “Hating Whitey: and other progressive causes,” a 1999 book by big-shot neocon David Horowitz.

A view of America’s racial landscape from his unique lapsed-leftist perspective, “Hating Whitey” contains harsh words for Toni Morrison, Cornel West, Charles Rangel and other enemies of the state… including Camille Cosby!

And, oh… what’s this? On page 44 of “Hating Whitey,” Horowitz proclaims: “In 1994, there were twenty thousand rapes of white women by black men, but only one hundred rapes of black women by white men.”

Uhhh… really?

Horowitz vaguely cites “Justice Department statistics,” but he provides no footnotes. Nary a clue as to where those numbers came from exactly.

They sure do smell like bullshit, don’t they?

Let’s call up the 1994 version of the Justice Department’s National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Click on chapter three, “Victims and Offenders.” Here we go…

The NCVS estimates that 313,000 white women were raped or sexually assaulted in 1994. In how many cases was the attacker perceived to be black? Around 31,600. That’s 10 percent of the total (for you Auster fans who need help with mathematics).

The NCVS also estimates that 53,700 black women were raped or sexually assaulted that year. In how many cases was the attacker perceived to be white? Around 5,400. That is also 10 percent.

Now, the NCVS points out that the white-on-black estimate is unreliable because of the small sampling. But however unreliable that 5,400 figure may be… Horowitz’s claim of “only 100” white-on-black rapes is insanely wrong.

Of course, the striking thing about the 1994 data is that the supposed “phenomenon” of black men “targeting” white women for rape – which Horowitz’s boy Lawrence Auster is still trying to sell – dissolves away into dust. Going by the ’94 numbers, the rates of “interracial rape” cut the same both ways; 10 percent of white victims attacked by blacks, 10 percent of black victims attacked by whites.

I guess it’s no surprise that Horowitz published Auster’s gross misinterpretation of government rape statistics 10 days ago. Horowitz has a history of doing the same thing. Under his own name.

Anyway… have fun with the contest, y’all!

UPDATE (05/13/07): Well, this one was over in a heartbeat. Steven Rubio correctly identified the singer as English folk revivalist Shirley Collins. (Well done, mate.)

The song – a good ol’ fashioned Caucasian “murder ballad” – is called “Murder of Maria Marten.” Collins is backed by the Albion Country Band. (Gotta love that hurdy-gurdy solo!) The tune appeared on her 1971 album “No Roses,” which is available for download at iTunes.

Now, somebody tell me why in hell white folks wrote so many songs about death and murder. I would hate to rush to any untoward conclusions.

FYI, to hear an old-school version of this traditional tale, sung a cappella by one Freda Palmer, click here. Maddie Southorn also recorded a sprightly, contemporary arrangement; it’s here.

David Horowitz’s Negro problem

For someone who wants the world to believe he’s not an anti-black bigot, David Horowitz sure does some dumb shit.

I’m not talking about his decision to publish Lawrence Auster’s wildly distorted wannabe-exposé of the “phenomenon” of black rapists targeting white women. (“The Truth of Interracial Rape in the United States” – grabby title!)

Don’t get me wrong, that was mighty dumb. Especially since Horowitz had agreed with me a year ago (by email) that Mr. Auster held some “racist and offensive” positions and should no longer contribute to Horowitz’s website, FrontPage Magazine.

I’m not even talking about Horowitz’s decision yesterday to keep that interracial rape article on FrontPage – even after Auster publicly acknowledged he had misread the crime statistics. (That bonehead play resulted in this ridiculous and foul assertion: “There are virtually zero rapes of black women by white men in the United States.” On second look, it might be more like 3,000 per year.)

What I’m talking about is this here.

Unbeknown to me, Horowitz all along has been hosting, on another of his right-wing websites (DiscoverTheNetworks.org), an essay by Lawrence Auster which displays the fullness of his animus toward black people.

Titled “The Evolution of One Person’s Views on Racial Differences in Intelligence” – and proudly archived on Auster’s blog – this disquisition on inherent “black inferiority” pulls no punches:

“Following the arguments and actions of black leaders, listening to black callers on talk radio, led me over several years to an increasingly bleak view of black thinking styles. … [I] became increasingly aware of the ‘hustle,’ the way many blacks at all levels… did not use ideas as ideas, but as a hustle, as a way of manipulating people’s feelings.”

(Auster is confused. That’s not the “Hustle”; that’s the “Bus Stop.”)

“… the preponderance of irrationality among the black population is hard to ignore.”

“… I started to have the sense that blacks are more ‘non-objective,’ they understand things in a much more personal, subjective way than whites. They seem to have much less interest in knowledge or beauty for its own sake.”

“… it means that blacks are in fact less endowed with the qualities that make civilization possible, particularly Western civilization.”

On and on it goes like that. Mr. Auster believes that the impulse toward social order and the means to suppress crime “require a degree of moral will, intelligence, and organizing energy that blacks, collectively, do not possess.”

These deficiencies are, according to Auster, “inherent” and “intrinsic” in the black race. “[S]o long as the truth of racial differences is not recognized, whites will always end up being blamed… for a black inferiority that is not whites’ fault.”

Ironically, I quoted from this essay at length in my May 2006 letter to David Horowitz – the letter that led Horowitz to agree that Auster trafficked in “racist” ideas. (I have uploaded the complete text of that letter, by the way; it is here.)

So why does Auster’s slag heap of insults, conjectures and neurotic projection reside under the banner of David Horowitz’s DiscoverTheNetworks – a “database” pledged to “maintaining the highest possible standard for the accuracy of [its] information”?

Well, Lawrence Auster has written around 35 articles for Horowitz over the years; Mr. Horowitz must believe that Auster is a man worth listening to… even on the subject of intrinsic black inferiority.

Here I was, thinking he published that black-on-white rape article by mistake. Apparently Horowitz is quite happy to provide a platform for Larry Auster’s pungent social criticism on the World Wide Web.

I was a fool to think he could be shamed into doing anything.

P.S.: Re-reading my 2006 letter to Horowitz, I wondered what set of life experiences had brought Larry Auster to his grim assessment of the Negro people. Had he been a street cop in Harlem? A school teacher in the South Bronx?

Turns out, he’d watched an ABC News special.

I’ll let him explain it, the way he did in his essay on black intelligence:

“What really convinced me of an inherent, dangerous weakness in black ways of thought… was their widespread belief in Afrocentrism and the notion that whites were committing ‘genocide’ against blacks.

“In September 1989, ABC News did a program on the condition of blacks in America, followed by a special edition of ‘Nightline’ with a panel consisting of several of ABC’s black correspondents and other noted blacks. With the exception of Professor Shelby Steele, these accomplished, successful blacks all endorsed the notion of a white conspiracy to commit ‘genocide’ against blacks.

“The discovery that it was not just ignorant street people, but successful, articulate black professionals who believed these insane and wicked conspiracy theories, made a devastating impression on me. Indeed, with the exception of the 1992 Los Angeles riots, I was more traumatized by this program than by any other public event in recent history. It shook my former belief that blacks and whites could more or less get along in the same society.

“(I wrote an article about this program, saying the same things I’ve said in the present paragraph, which New York Newsday rejected because, as the editor put it, it showed an ‘odd lack of compassion.’)”

Lordy. At least one editor somewhere, at some time, had the good sense not to egg on Lawrence Auster – a nutty extremist who deserves to be on the outermost fringes of our civil discourse.

(For a better look at the above page capture from DiscoverTheNetworks – especially in case Horowitz pulls the essay down and tries to deny it was ever there – just double-click it.)

Horowitz replies

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.

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.”

Sincerely,

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.

Regards,

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:

http://www.davidduke.com/general/the-truth-of-interracial-rape-in-
the-united-states_2111.html

Regards,

David Mills

Horowitz banishes Auster (and calls me a ‘prick’)

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.

Auster gets a megaphone from David Horowitz

One year ago, conservative activist David Horowitz (pictured) seemed convinced that an occasional contributor to his FrontPage Magazine website – Lawrence Auster – trafficked in “racist” ideas. And he seemed to cast Auster out.

I take credit for that.

I had sent Horowitz and Jamie Glazov (FrontPage’s managing editor) an 11-page letter detailing Auster’s views on race, as expressed on Auster’s blog. (For example, his description of black people collectively as “the savages.”)

Concerning my letter, Horowitz emailed Glazov and myself on May 14, 2006. He wrote: “I think it’s a persuasive argument for not running Auster unless he publicly repudiates these positions which are racist and offensive.”

Sure enough, Auster’s essays didn’t appear in FrontPage Magazine after that.

Until today.

Yes, Lawrence Auster is back at FrontPage, alerting Horowitz’s readership to an epidemic of black-on-white rape.

Pulling from U.S. Justice Department data, Auster makes the following declaration in boldface type: “[E]very day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man.”

Auster slams the media for ignoring “the fact that white women in this country are being targeted by black rapists.”

(Auster seems unconcerned about the 136 white women per day raped or sexually assaulted by men classified as white. Just as he’s not losing any sleep over the 100 black women a day raped or sexually assaulted by black men, according to the same statistics.)

Lawrence Auster’s thesis – pegged to the Duke lacrosse-team fiasco – concerns “the truth of interracial rape in the United States.” White-on-black rape is a rarity; black-on-white rape happens every day.

Fair enough. The disproportion of black violent crime is a problem confronting all Americans. I think it needs to be talked about.

But Auster doesn’t deal in good faith. David Horowitz knows that Auster doesn’t deal in good faith. Because Lawrence Auster’s record of bigoted horseshit reaches back to the mid ’90s.

I introduced you guys to Auster’s brand of political commentary two weeks ago, after the Virginia Tech massacre. Now let me take you deeper.

His assessment of “black inferiority” was spelled out in an essay originally written in 1995 but published in 2003 in The Occidental Quarterly, a racialist journal. (The essay is archived on Auster’s blog.)

Convinced of “an inherent, dangerous weakness in black ways of thought,” Auster argued that blacks are profoundly different from white people. To wit:

“Through numerous experiences and observations, I started to have the sense that blacks are more ‘non-objective,’ they understand things in a much more personal, subjective way than whites. They seem to have much less interest in knowledge or beauty for its own sake.”

Which means that “blacks are in fact less endowed with the qualities that make civilization possible,” Auster wrote, “particularly Western civilization.”

Auster went on to discuss the “moral passivity of blacks,” their “demonstrably lesser orientation toward the common political good and a moral and stable social order.”

Granting that “there are many decent, upright black people,” Auster asserted: “The personal decency of individual blacks does not translate into the ability to resist public evil, the aspiration to enforce social order. Those things require a degree of moral will, intelligence, and organizing energy that blacks, collectively, do not possess.”

These deficiencies are, in Lawrence Auster’s words, “inherent” and “intrinsic” in the black race. And “so long as the truth of racial differences is not recognized, whites will always end up being blamed… for a black inferiority that is not whites’ fault.”

He also had something interesting to say about David Duke in an August 2003 comment on his blog. “I had some respect for David Duke, prior to reading ‘My Awakening’ [Duke’s 1998 autobiography]; namely I felt his standing up in an activist fashion for European-American rights was a righteous thing to do, even though I knew he was a sleaze,” Auster wrote.

“But in that book he reveals himself as basically a Nazi. After he published the book, he got even more obsessed and made the Jews the focus of everything.”

Get that? David Duke is probably the most publicized white bigot of the last quarter-century. And Lawrence Auster isn’t embarrassed to say he respected Duke’s racial activism… until it targeted the Jews!

This is some of what I included in my May 2006 letter to David Horowitz. Horowitz replied this afternoon to an email from me; apparently my 2006 letter had “slipped my mind.”

Hey, it happens.

My thing is this: FrontPage Magazine has a sizeable audience – on the order of 400,000 unique visitors per month. Many more, I’m sure, than read Auster’s blog.

Horowitz can publish whomever he wants to on his website. But for a guy who resents being called a bigot himself, Horowitz should be more careful about the company he keeps.