Mills’s letter to Horowitz

(Note: since this entry was posted yesterday, May 11, I’ve continued to add new material to it, both in the initial entry and in comments. I’ve had no time to respond in detail to Mills’s letter as a whole.)

David Mills, the Undercover Black Man, has posted online his May 2006 letter to David Horowitz in which he quoted extensively from and commented on my writings on race and race-related issues. It was to this letter that Horowitz replied, “I think it’s a persuasive argument for not running Auster unless he publicly repudiates these positions which are racist and offensive.” But of course Horowitz, America’s number one crusader against political correctness and leftist political assassination, did not inform me of the letter or of his changed views of me, even as he proceeded to close me out of FrontPage Magazine—closed me out, that is, until last week when, as he put it, he “forgot” his decision to banish me and published my article on interracial rape, which in turn led Mills to publish Horowitz’s May 2006 letter calling my positions racist. (For the original facts on this story, see the blog entry, “Horowitz expels me from FrontPage.”

From a quick perusal of my quotes in the letter I can say that there’s nothing surprising here, nothing “coming out of the dark,” nothing I did not carefully consider when I published it, nothing that is not consistent with the political and cultural philosophy I have been developing for years, nothing that I do not stand behind now, including the more subjective observations in my article on race and intelligence which, as I said in the opening paragraph of that article, were written in an exploratory spirit. The material is all readily available at VFR, much of it has been linked and quoted by me from time to time, some of it is permanently linked on VFR’s main page. Mills takes some statements out of context to give them a meaning they did not have in the original, particularly certain quotes from my 2003 article (originally drafted in 1995), “My views on race and intelligence,” an article that is carefully written and needs to be read in its entirety, not in snatches. Of course Horowitz, who has told Mills that he has “never” read my website (though he published about 35 articles by me between 2002 and 2006), has not read the full article, only Mills’s cunningly arranged quotations from it. Mills also says that I have used the word “savages” for all blacks, a disgusting lie. Every time I have used the word “savages,” it was in relation to persons who have exhibited savage behavior. Only a low character assassin would say that my use of the word “savages” refers to all blacks.

Mills’s selection from my writings is 3,500 words long. Which of the quotes contained therein made Horowitz decide to banish me? We do not know, and, further, we are not likely to know. Notwithstanding the fact that Horowitz owes me (as he owed me a year ago) an explanation of what positions of mine he regards as “racist and offensive” and why he regards them so, it is unlikely that he will come forward with such a statement, since, as I wrote yesterday,

that would mean opening up a public debate with me on the fundamental questions on which I am always challenging liberalism and “conservatism.” He knows that if he wrote that this or that position of mine was racist, i.e., morally wrong, I would be able to explain cogently why it is not morally wrong. For him to allow a debate with me would mean treating my non-liberal ideas as the equals of his ideas, whereas his driving desire here … is to expel those ideas from his world..

* * *

In addition to his accurate—if sometimes mischievous and out of context—quotes of my writings, much worse is Mills’ attempt to link me with people I despise and have nothing to do with. Moreover, he asserts these “links” on the basis of my own statements condemning those people in the strongest terms. Thus Mills tries to link me with David Duke—and what’s his evidence? That I denounced Duke as a Nazi-like anti-Semite, while not denouncing other things about Duke. Thus Mills tries to link me with the late William Pierce, because I wrote that prior to realizing that Pierce was an exterminationist anti-Semite, I had found some of his Internet talks interesting. By Mills’s reasoning, if you don’t realize that a villain is a villain the very first instant you read anything by him, you’re in league with that villain. But by Mills’s standard, I myself would be in league with Mills, which is hardly the case, is it?

Mills also tries to link me with American Renaissance, when I’ve had nothing to do with American Renaissance since 1995. He also doesn’t mention that in the controversy concerning the outbreak of anti-Semitism at the 2006 AR conference, an issue covered in greater depth at this website than anywhere else, I was Jared Taylor’s strongest critic on the right. (And, by the way, David Horowitz was aware of my denunciations of Taylor over Taylor’s leadership of that conference, because I discussed it with him.)

In short, Mills’s letter reveals him as an obvious character assassin. Yet David Horowitz—the nonpareil “political warrior” of the right!—not only replied to this leftist character assassin, but he said to him, in writing, that my positions are “racist,” thus handing the character assassin his best weapon to use against me. I wonder if Horowitz is capable of realizing what he’s done and feeling any embarrassment, let alone any remorse, over it.

* * *

Note (5/12/07 3 p.m.): There is so much in David Mills’s letter about me that it will take some time to digest it all and respond to it properly. But here’s something I just noticed. Mills did not, as I write above, merely quote me accurately but frequently out of context. He lied. He told Horowitz that I copied the British National Party platform from; that among the planks was a call to “irradicate” Britain’s ethnic minorities by paying them to resettle voluntarily in their native and ancestral lands, and that I then said, speaking of the platform, “I like the whole thing.” Mills makes much of my approval of the word “irradicate” and says this makes me an extremist.

When I read this, it seemed very unlikely to me that I approved of the word “irradicate,” so I just went to my article that Mills mentioned. The word “irradicate” does not appear in it. The selected parts of the BNP platform that I quoted and approved include a call for “a massively-funded and permanent programme, using and doubling Britain’s current foreign aid budget … to reduce, by voluntary resettlement to their lands of ethnic origin, the proportion of ethnic minorities living in Britain.”

I stand by that. Given the mortal threat that Britain faces from its growing Muslim population, much of which is openly jihadist, pro-sharia, and hostile to Britain and the West, is there any other humane solution? I challenge David Horowitz, David Mills, and any other liberal or conservative to tell me what can rescue the West from the contined and increasing pressure of domestic Islamization, other than removing significant parts of the Western Muslim populations. In fact, David Horowitz in 2004 published my article, “How to Defeat Jihad in America,” in which I laid out a step by step plan to initiate a net out-migration of Muslims so as, over time, to reduce the U.S. Muslim population to a fraction of what it now is. Is Horowitz going to call me a racist for an article that he himself published?

Whoops, Horowitz has already done that, hasn’t he, since my main article that Mills attacked in his letter, “The Evolution of One Person’s View of Racial Differences in Intelligence,” is posted at Horowitz’s own Discover the Network website and apparently has been posted there for years.

Meanwhile, the article on the BNP from which I originally copied the platform has changed, and can’t be used as a reference for this issue.

It is staggering that David Horowitz, instead of reading my original articles that Mills was quoting out of context and lying about, swallowed Mills’s indictment whole.

- end of initial entry -

LA writes:

In my article on race and intelligence, which is the source of most of my passages that Mills quotes, I carefully distinguish between objective data about black intelligence and my subjective impressions of black “mental styles.” I said that as I was telling of the evolution of my views on black intelligence, the account would not be complete without discussing the change in my subjective views of the subject, along with my growing understanding of the IQ issue and its meaning. At the same time, I bracketed the “subjective” section of the article, specifically telling the reader that in this section I’m discussing my subjective views.

What David Mills has done over and over, most recently in this post, is take the “subjective” part of my article, and portrayed it as though it were the whole article, falsely making it appear that my larger conclusions about black civilizational abilities stem solely from my subjective intuitions rather than from well-established facts about black intellectual abilities.

To give a further idea of Mills’s reliability as a commentator, he declares that my article proves me “insane.”

Josh writes:

After reading Mills’ letter to Horowitz concerning your views, it can be summarized as such: blacks as a whole are different from whites as a whole. In essence, Mr. Mills’ stance is that blacks and whites, as a whole, are simply the same. He simply takes the modern liberal stance, nothing more and nothing less and asserts your view of intrinsic differences between blacks and whites as “racism.” Yet, this little thing called reality inconveniently interjects because at its core, Mr. Mills is proving just how different blacks and whites really are by highlighting fundamental differences in thinking about serious issues. Mr. Mills, as a black man, is fervently trying to make the case that he is very much different from Mr. Auster, the white man. In fact, his entire blog is a testament to how different blacks and whites are once liberalism is factored out of the equation.

LA replies:

Mills’s arguments doesn’t tell anything about blacks because (1) non-blacks might use the same arguments as he, and (2) he is barely black.

Hey, taking off on the name of Ilana Mercer’s weblog, “Barely a Blog,” maybe Mills should change his moniker from “Undercover Black Man” to “Barely a Black.”

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 11, 2007 01:56 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):