D’Souza’s lies about AR, redux
In a discussion about Dinesh D’Souza’s latest book, Steve Sailer references D’Souza’s simultaneous unattributed indebtedness to and smearing of Jared Taylor in D’Souza’s 1995 book The End of Racism. Jared Taylor has posted a comment at Sailer’s site summarizing the affair and indicating that D’Souza’s falsehoods about Taylor’s 1994 American Renaissance conference were worse than Sailor realizes, including his report that the words “chink” and “nigger” were thrown around at the conference. For those not familiar with the story, here is the letter I wrote to Adam Bellow of The Free Press in August 1995, which, along with similar letters by Jared Taylor and Samuel Francis, and without the involvement of any lawyers on our side, but solely by the force of the truth that we were speaking about D’Souza’s lies, resulted in The Free Press destroying the entire first print run of D’Souza’s book and having him re-write the offending chapter.
Here is an item which I inadvertently left out of my letter to Bellow, and so it regretably remained in the published version of D’Souza’s book. It perfectly captures D’Souza’s strange relationship to truth.
At the conference, speaker Eugene Valberg, an American long resident in Africa, told how when he was staying in a hospital in Africa, the volume of the TV set in his ward would either be unbearably loud, or all the way off, and as soon as it was turned off someone would turn it back up to full volume again. To get around this problem, he would ask people to turn the volume somewhat down, not off. But instead of turning volume somewhat down, they would turn it completely down, and someone else would then immediately turn it all the way back up to the highest volume again. Valberg’s point was that Africans seemed to have no concept of moderation, of gradations between extremes.
And how did D’Souza in his chapter on the AR conference summarize Valberg’s anecdote? He wrote that according to Valberg, “Blacks are absolutely flummoxed by technology including how to turn a TV set on and off.” (p. 390.)
See also my 1996 letter to then National Review editor John O’Sullivan, detailing the damage that D’Souza’s smears had done to the conservative movement.
Sophia A. writes:
It is truly fascinating to read the letters you wrote to National Review, Free Press, etc., on the subject of AmRen, Jared Taylor, and so on.LA replies:
As I have explained before, I have had no personal association with Taylor since 1996, because of his continuing associations with anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers, and neo-Nazis. Ending that relationship, which meant ending my association with an entire circle of people, cost me a lot, but I had to do it. At the same time, as I have said over and over, the core of Taylor’s work, on race, race differences, and diversity, remains valid and important.September 28
John McNeil writes:
Your writings on Jared Taylor’s troubling ties has made me realize the truth and wisdom in your opposition to biological reductionism and tribal morality. Over the course of the last year during which I’ve spent a lot of time trying to interact with white nationalists, paleoconservatives, and “white advocates,” I gradually became more despairing, seeing those who reject anti-Semitism and white supremacism nevertheless embrace anti-Semites and neo-Nazis as kinsmen who are on the same side. This is indicative of the tribal morality that you warn against; that morality is dictated by the interests of the tribe, and anyone for the tribe’s interests is good, and anyone against the tribe in any way is bad and must be destroyed. This is animalistic thinking that stands against the long development of Western morality, largely influenced by Judeo-Christian theology, where there’s a belief in universal right and wrong that supersedes individual or tribal interests. WNs/paleocons argue that such universal morality is responsible for the current propositional nationalism found in the West, which I don’t think is the case. I believe it’s possible to defend the interests of your tribe while adhering to a universal code that restrains my actions and associations. For example, one could argue that genocide is in the interests of my tribe, since eliminating rival tribes would ensure no challenges would arise to threaten my people. And yet I reject such an option because I know it’s evil.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 27, 2010 01:52 PM | Send