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.

- end of initial entry -

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.

I have some serious issues with Taylor. No, that’s mealymouthed. I can’t stand with him because while I don’t think he’s an anti-Semite, I think that his support shades inevitably into the thug white nationalist crowd. That said, the “Taylor problem” is that he tells the truth. Whether you like his support or not, he tells the truth.

During the mid to late ’90s, when you wrote those letters, the respectable conservative crowd was indeed in the process of expelling anyone who wrote openly about racial differences in behavior and cognition. You beseeched them to be honest about this but they wouldn’t or couldn’t. And still can’t.

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.

And of course, most WNs wouldn’t agree with that either. Most aren’t 100 percent tribal moralists. Hunter Wallace’s opposition to Alex Linder was indicative that many still draw a moral line that they will not cross, in Wallace’s case, murdering Jewish children. And yet that line keeps getting pushed back. Richard Spencer seems to have a bigger problem with “Zionists” than with Hitler fetishists on his site; Eugene Girin to date is the only editor to speak out against the insane Nazis who plague that website and detract from the greater message. Jared Taylor, despite his own personal opposition to anti-Semitism and neo-Nazism, continues to associate with people who are anti-Semitic / neo-Nazi, sending a message that these people aren’t evil, they are on the same side as us, and that we need to set aside our own moral standards in order to fight the bigger problem. While I can recognize the appeal of such logic, and, indeed, I dwelled in that thinking briefly since it didn’t seem like every anti-Semite was a reincarnation of Himmler, at the same time, I firmly believe that no pro-white movement will succeed if it continues to indulge in tribal morality. From a practical standpoint, most whites are still influenced by Judeo-Christian morality, regardless of their relationship with God, and will not stomach the company that Jared Taylor keeps. This will hold Taylor back, who has the potential to cause so much good in the world.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 27, 2010 01:52 PM | Send