Horowitz published my article that he attacked as “racist and offensive”
The main quotes in David Mills’s May 2006 letter to David Horowitz proving my “racism” came from my 2003 article at VFR, “The Evolution of One Person’s Views on Racial Differences in Intelligence,” from a manuscript I drafted in 1995. Therefore when Horowitz told Mills that he was persuaded that I had “racist and offensive” positions and that he would therefore not publish me any more, he was most likely referring to my positions in that article.
It has just come to my attention that this same supposedly racist article, with its offensive views that render a person unfit to be published by David Horowitz, is published by none other than David Horowitz, at his Discover the Network website. The whole article is there, lifted from VFR and reproduced in DTN’s own format, even its conclusion, where I write that “there are intrinsic racial differences in civilizational abilities.”
There is no acknowledgment of the source of the article and no hyperlink to the original article.
Curiously, Horowitz has published other articles of mine at Discover the Network, and he paid me nicely for them. My article on race and intelligence is a substantial piece: 5,800 words long. He never told me he was publishing it and never paid me for it.
It’s quite a remarkable finesse, if I do say so myself: the man banishes me from his website for writing an article that he himself has published without my knowledge and not paid me for!
So here’s what David Horowitz needs to do to get right with God and man: (1) retract his wrongful statement calling my positions racist; (2) apologize for having given the leftist hit artist David Mills a weapon with which to harm me; and (3) pay me for my article on racial differences in intelligence.
Note: In case Horowitz takes down the article from the DTN website, I have already saved it on my computer to prove that it was there.
Conservative Swede writes:
Oops! The plot thickens. You’ve got a full hand, and Horowitz looks utterly weak and confused. I almost feel sorry for him.LA writes:
Three and a half hours after this blog entry was posted, David Mills at his blog posted the same information about the DTN article, though without informing his readers that he had learned about it from VFR.(Note: I’ve double-posted the following comment, here.)
In my article on race and intelligence, 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.Larry G. writes:
I reread your article on racial differences in intelligence, having read it a year or so ago. I found it to be thoughtful, measured and factual. There is nothing that I would conceivably consider “racist,” unless facts themselves are now considered racist. There is an overtone of sadness in the article, and the message, “I wish this wasn’t the case but this is where all the evidence is pointing, and now that I know the facts they explain a lot.”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 11, 2007 06:25 PM | Send