Robert Sussman’s “Tainted Sources”

James Fulford, VDARE, October 19, 2014

Professor Robert W. Sussman (email him) of Washington University in St. Louis recently published an attack on Jared Taylor in Salon.com: America’s virulent racists: The sick ideas and perverted “science” of the American Renaissance Foundation. [October 11, 2014]

Unlike everything published on VDARE.com, and for that matter in American Renaissance, this attack contained no links and no footnotes.

If I say someone said something, I say where they said it and provide both a link and a citation. Leftists apparently don’t feel the need to bother.

This made it somewhat difficult for American Renaissance Editor Jared Taylor to reply to Sussman’s attack, as he can only say he didn’t say the things he’s accused of saying. Nevertheless, he was easily able to show that Sussman’s piece was riddled with factual errors. See: Harvard University Press Defames American Renaissance, Amren.com, October 16, 2014.

The reason Taylor’s headline mentions Harvard University Press rather than Salon.com is that Sussman’s crazy piece is excerpted from his book The Myth of Race, published by that venerable, respectable, and now very Leftist press.

The Myth of Race is already published in hard copy, although it hasn’t been released as an e-book. It is, however, in Google Books. Using the “search inside” feature, I see that it does have the critical apparatus of footnotes you’d expect from a scholarly book. This allows us to prove Sussman’s horrifying sloppiness because we can compare what he said to what he’s quoting from.

There’s a lot of horrifying sloppiness. But there’s a limit to how much time Sussman is worth.

For example, however, this is from Sussman’s Salon piece:

To the foundation, [JF: i.e. the American Renaissance magazine] race is an essential ingredient for citizenship. “Blacks and Third World immigrants did not really belong in the United States and certainly could not be ‘real’ Americans.”

That bit inside the quotation marks was utterly mystifying to Jared Taylor. He wrote: “Prof. Sussman offers this sentence as a quotation from AR . . . This sentence has never appeared in AR.”

The answer: this picture of the inside of Sussman’s book shows the footnote, which looks like this:

Footnote

For the benefit of those who can’t see the graphic, the reference is “(Taylor 1992a, quoted in Tucker 2002, 182).”

“Taylor 1992a” in Sussman’s bibliography is Jared Taylor’s great book Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America. “Tucker 2002” turns out to be an awful book called The Funding of Scientific Racism |Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund, by William H. Tucker, University of Illinois Press, 2002. (Reviewed by Kevin Lamb in The Occidental Quarterly here.) Tucker [Email him] is a professor at Rutgers-Camden who specializes in this kind of witch-hunting.

You can read Tucker’s book online, via Archive.org. In chapter 4, we see this:

The basis for citizenship, AR regularly lectured, was not “the American democratic faith,” nor “the ideal of America as a country where advancement is open to anyone,” nor “allegiance to an idea that all people everywhere must be free”; race was the essential ingredient of citizenship. Blacks and Third World immigrants did not really belong in the United States and certainly could not be “real” Americans.

The footnote looks like this:

J. Taylor, “To Each His Own,” (review of The Disuniting of America by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.), American Renaissance 3 (April 1992): 11; L. Auster, “Multiculturalism and the War against White America,” American Renaissance 5 (August 1994): 4; “George Bush on America,” American Renaissance 2 (September 1991): 9. [All links added by me.]

In the links above, Tucker is quoting accurately. But the part about “certainly could not be ‘real’ Americans” is Tucker’s conclusion: the phrase “real Americans” does not appear in any of the quotes.

So at least two things are wrong with Sussman’s quote and footnote:

1)      Taylor didn’t say what Sussman claims, Tucker said it.

2)      Tucker wasn’t quoting from Taylor 1992a (Paved) at that point, he was reading and citing actual issues of American Renaissance. (I will have something critical to say about Tucker in moment, but he’s clearly better at this “scholarship” thing than Sussman).

Now remember what all this shows about Sussman [Email him] as an “anti-racist” researcher:

  • All issues of American Renaissance are online for free.
  • “Taylor 1992a” can be bought from Amazon or viewed free online. (A copyright violation–no link–but, given his record, that wouldn’t worry Sussman.)
  • All speeches at the various American Renaissance conferences can be viewed at RenAudVis.com for a nominal fee (which would come out of Washington University’s budget) or are posted free on YouTube.com.

Sussman hasn’t done any of that. He’s copying from “Tucker 2002.” And he’s getting it wrong.

Another example: Tucker wrote that psychometrician Arthur Jensen judged “at least one quarter of all blacks ‘mentally retarded’ and ‘not really educable,’ ” [emphasis added] and footnotes it to “A Conversation with Arthur Jensen (Part II)” American Renaissance 3 (September 1992).

Here’s what Sussman converts this into in Salon:

Here are just a few examples, as pointed out by Tucker. [JF: This is the first mention in the Salon excerpt of Tucker.] Arthur Jensen in an AR “conversation” stated that the country’s attempt to build a multiracial nation “is doomed to failure.” He also claimed that at least one-quarter of all blacks are “mentally retarded” and “not really educatable.”[Emphasis added]

There’s really no such word as educatable, and if Sussman were a psychologist rather than an anthropologist, he’d know that. Also note the scare quotes around “conversation”, although it’s the title of an interview in a magazine.

This slip over educable/educatable is significant: it shows that Sussman was copy-typing from a dead-tree 2002 book.

This, of course, is why Sussman’s examples of “hate” are so old. Thus Jared Taylor writes:

Sussman makes much of a poll of AR readers, helpfully adding that the poll was taken ‘before Obama’s presidency.’ Indeed, it was taken 17 years ago and consisted of 391 people.

This passage occurs in Salon and on page 276 of Sussman’s bookNote the similarities between this and the passage below from Tucker’s 2002 book:

AR’s list [sic, it’s actually a survey] of some of its subscribers provides insight into the historical underpinnings and views of the American Renaissance Foundation. [JF: Remember, these are the views of a self-selected group of subscribers–391 people, none of whom was a writer for Amren.com.] Included on its list of “Americans Who Have Advanced White Interests” are Jared Taylor; David Duke; Robert E. Lee; Arthur Jensen; William Shockley; Wilmot Robertson, who viewed Hitler as defender of the white race; Revilo P. Oliver, who argued that Hitler should be recognized as “a semi-divine figure;” William Pierce, founder of the Nazi group National Alliance; George Wallace, past governor of Alabama; Madison Grant; and Theodore Bilbo. In a survey of subscribers, Adolf Hitler ranked first (by a large margin) among “Foreigners Who Have Advanced White Interests.” Hitler also ranked as first among “Foreigners Who Have Damaged White Interests,” probably because his policies were a public relations disaster for the racist and anti-Semitic causes. [At this point in the book, but not in the Salon extract, Sussman cites “(Tucker 2002)”]. Among the list of “Americans Who Have Damaged White Interests” is every U.S. president since 1932 except Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. The first four people on this list are Lyndon Johnson, Franklin Roosevelt, William Clinton, and Abraham Lincoln (the list was compiled before Obama’s presidency).

Now, this is from Tucker’s 2002 book:

According to AR’s own survey of its subscribers, Jared Taylor himself ranked first on the list of “Americans Who Have Advanced White Interests,” but also among the top fifteen “helpful to our cause” were David Duke, Wilmot Robertson, Nathan B. Forrest, the Confederate general who became the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, Robert E. Lee, Arthur Jensen, William Shockley, and William Pierce, founder of the Nazi group National Alliance and author of The Turner Diaries, the fictional blueprint for race war used as a model by the neo-Nazi group The Order, which murdered Denver talk show host Alan Berg in 1984. Further down the list were George Wallace, Madison Grant, Carleton Putnam, Ed Fields, Pearson’s old friend from the National States Rights Party, and the Colonel’s old ally, Theodore Bilbo. [JF: This is reference to Col. Wickliffe Draper, founder of the Pioneer Fund, the focus of Tucker’s book, and some more inside-baseball stuff that Sussman left out.] By a large margin Adolf Hitler ranked first among “Foreigners Who Have Advanced White Interests” (although he also ranked first, just ahead of Karl Marx, among “Foreigners Who Have Damaged White Interests,” no doubt because he has been such a public relations disaster for racists and anti-Semites). With the exception of Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan, every president since 1932 was named among the “Americans Who Have Damaged White Interests,” the first four persons on the list being Lyndon Johnson, Franklin Roosevelt, William Clinton, and Abraham Lincoln.

You can see a slight rearrangement of words, but it’s surely enough of a rip-off to raise both academic plagiarism and copyright questions.

The Leftist New York Review of Books notoriously attacked Charles Murray in an article headlined The Tainted Sources of ‘The Bell Curve’ “ [By Charles Lane, December 1, 1994]. It contained a lot of Sussman/Tucker style stuff about the 1937 founding of the Pioneer Fund, and hatred of the journal Mankind Quarterly. Lane wrote:

No fewer than seventeen researchers cited in the bibliography of The Bell Curve have contributed to Mankind Quarterly, a notorious journal of ‘racial history’ founded, and funded, by men who believe in the genetic superiority of the white race.

Charles Murray replied in The Bell Curve” and Its Critics [Commentary, May 1995]:

. . . The Bell Curve draws its evidence from more than 1,000 sources. . . . [A]mong the scholars in Lane’s short list are some of the most respected psychologists of our time, and that the “tainted sources” consist overwhelmingly of articles that were published in respected and refereed journals.

But this “anti-racist” witch-hunting from Tucker and Sussman is nothing but tainted sources. The method used by Tucker, and purloined by Sussman, is a combination of what I’ve called “Ransom Note Racism” (out-of-context snippets, sometimes single words, frequently unsourced) “guilt by association”, (whether actually associated or not) and something very like the parlor game of Telephone, in which smears are repeated from ear to ear until they become nonsensical/ super-smears.

An example of this “Telephone” Effect: in 2000, journalist Jonathan Tilove covered the American Renaissance conference for Newhouse News service. Taylor answered a questioner who asked: “How, then, have whites lost ground?” Tilove reported:

It is a puzzle that Taylor said confounds him. He ran through the various theories, all of which he considers inadequate. Maybe it was the terrible white fratricide of two world wars, or the universalist message of Christianity. Maybe it is the Jews, he said, to a small burst of applause.

White Nationalists Seek Respectability in Meeting of ‘Uptown Bad Guys’, April 5, 2000

Two years later, in 2002, Tucker, who wasn’t at the conference and apparently didn’t view the video, wrote this in Chapter 4 of Funding Hate:

There was no doubt that AR was a gathering point for many neo-Nazis. A journalist at the 2000 conference reported that when Taylor, speculating aloud on the reasons whites had lost so much ground during the last century, suggested that “maybe it is the Jews,” there was a “burst of applause.”

The word “small” has vanished, and so has Taylor’s context. But give Tucker credit, he did provide a footnote:

. . . Taylor is quoted in J. Tilove, “White Nationalists Seek Respectability in Meeting of ‘Uptown Bad Guys,’” Newhouse News Service, at http://www.amren.com.newhous.htm.

Fourteen years later in Salon, however, Robert Sussman reduced the story to:

At the 2000 AR conference, Taylor was greeted with a burst of applause when he speculated that whites may have lost so much ground in the last century because of Jews.

It’s the game of Telephone–with not much in the way of footnotes.

In fact, what Taylor actually said, in response to question on why whites are in such bad shape, was even more judicious than Tilove could convey in his brief summary. Taylor noted that he found all theories inadequate, and went on: “Then, of course, there are some people in this room who would argue that Jews have been a decisive or important factor in trying to denature the racial or national consciousness of people–” and it’s at that point that there’s a smattering of applause from what I’d guess was the 7-12 people in the audience who would argue that.

I know that, because unlike all these professors I actually watched the video [Jared Taylor — “Prospects for the New Century” (American Renaissance Conference, 2000)]. It’s available from RenAudVis.com for $2.99. If you do the same thing, the colloquy starts at 49:30 on a one hour speech.

But all of this means apparently nothing to the hate haters of Salon, who have issued no corrections as yet. (Email Salon’s editor here. Comment on Sussman’s article here.)

Perhaps Harvard University Press will have higher standards.

Email William Sisler, the Director of Harvard University Press, and ask him if it does.

______________________________

Robert Sussman’s “Tainted Sources” Continued: Plagiarizing Brian Tashman

Washington University anthropology Professor Robert Sussman’s attack on Jared Taylor, deconstructed by me in today’s Robert Sussman’s “Tainted Sources”–Playing The Telephone Game Against AMERICAN RENAISSANCE’s Jared Taylor, is part of his larger attack on the “anti-immigrant” movement–Kirkus Reviews said of his book that “Today, since racism is politically incorrect, Sussman maintains, supporters have migrated en masse to the anti-immigration movement . . .”

So VDARE.com gets a brief mention in his book The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea, page 299, part of an attack on Robert Vandervoort of ProEnglish for associating with us, or on Kris Kobach for associating with him, or on either of them for associating with groups founded by revered grassroots activist Dr. John Tanton. It’s a reference to Peter Brimelow’s much-discussed 2012 speech at CPAC (see Brimelow At CPAC: Al SHARPTON Is Complaining About “Hate”?)

From Google Books:

Besides this session, Vandervoort also hosted the panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference entitled “The Failure of Multiculturalism: How the Pursuit of Diversity Is Weakening the American Identity.” Peter Brimelow, founder and head of the White nationalist website VDARE, participated in this panel. Brimelow reflected during the panel that after “Obama’s racial-socialist coup,” he feared that the United States was doomed to face a “minority occupation government.” He called on the Republican Party to focus on becoming the party of white voters by attacking “ethnic lobbies,” affirmative action, bilingual education, and “taxpayer subsidies to illegal aliens.” Earlier in the session, Vandervoort delivered a rambling presentation from Serge Trifkovic (a conservative commentator who was unable to attend the conference). This paper focused on how the “cult of non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual victimhood” and “multiculturalist indoctrination” was ruining the West and predicted that “the native Western majorities will melt away.” [Emphasis added]

There’s no footnote that I can see. It might be on page 300, not visible in Google Books.

“Rambling” was the key word for me–since I didn’t believe Sussman had watched the Trifkovic presentation, this would be someone else’s opinion he was cribbing. So a search for “rambling,” “Trifkovic” and “Brimelow” brings us to a piece by familiar VDARE.com critic Brian Tashman of RightWingWatch. Links in original:

Today at the Conservative Political Action Conference, the group ProEnglish organized the panel, “The Failure of Multiculturalism: How the pursuit of diversity is weakening the American identity,” and host Robert Vandervoort thanked CPAC for hosting the panel despite the work of “leftist thugs” who are trying to “shut down freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.” Vandervoort is a former leader of the White Nationalist group Chicagoland Friends of the American Renaissance, a racist magazine published by fellow White Nationalist Jared Taylor. Presumably, Vandervoort was referring to the efforts of the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights, which issued an alert on his background, and People For the American Way, which called on Republican leaders attending CPAC to denounce another panelist, Peter Brimelow, founder and head of the White Nationalist hate website VDARE.

In 2009, Brimelow reflected on CPAC after “Obama’s racial-socialist coup” and expressed his fear that the U.S. is doomed to face a “minority occupation government.” He called on the Republican Party to start focusing on becoming the party of white voters by attacking “ethnic lobbies,” affirmative action, bilingual education and “taxpayer subsidies to illegal aliens.”

Prior to Brimelow’s talk, Vandervoort delivered a rambling speech from Serge Trifkovic (who wasn’t able to attend) that focused on how the “cult of non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual victimhood” and “multiculturalist indoctrination” is ruining the West. “The native Western majorities will melt away,” Trifkovic’s speech concluded, “Europeans and our trans-Atlantic cousins are literally endangered species. The facilitators of our destruction must be neutralized if we are to survive.”

Steve King and White Nationalist CPAC Panel Warn that America’s Greatest Threat is its Diversityrightwingwatch.org, Submitted by Brian Tashman on Thursday, 2/9/2012

Also, while there might be footnotes, by the academic standards that even first year students at Washington University of St. Louis (where Sussman works) are supposed to follow, there should be a lot more quotation marks around not only what Peter Brimelow was reported to have said, but what Tashman wrote. From Undergraduate Student Academic Integrity Policy | Washington University in St. Louis:

1. Plagiarism

Plagiarism consists of taking someone else’s ideas, words, or other types of work product and presenting them as one’s own. To avoid plagiarism, students are expected to be attentive to proper methods of documentation and acknowledgement. To avoid even the suspicion of plagiarism, a student must always:

  • Enclose every quotation in quotation marks, and acknowledge its source.
  • Cite the source of every summary, paraphrase, abstraction or adaptation of material originally prepared by another person, and any factual data that is not considered common knowledge. Include the name of author, title of work, publication information, and page reference.
  • Acknowledge material obtained from lectures, interviews, or other oral communication by citing the source (name of the speaker, the occasion, the place, and the date).
  • Cite material from the internet as if it were from a traditionally published source. Follow the citation style or requirements of the instructor for whom the work is produced.

So the done thing is to say “What Brian Tashman characterized as a ‘rambling presentation’ from Serge Trifkovic.” (I have no idea if it actually rambled–Tashman may have not been paying attention.) However, the name Tashman doesn’t appear in Sussman’s book when I search for it.

Moreover, as I pointed out about Sussman’s ripoff of William Tucker’s 2002 book, Sussman is stealing, but he’s getting it wrong. This is yet another example of Sussman playing what I called the “Telephone Game,” whereby Leftist True Believers endlessly repeat each other’s smears, improving them in the process.

Thus, Sussman, above, says

Brimelow reflected during the panel that after “Obama’s racial-socialist coup,” he feared that the United States was doomed to face a “minority occupation government.” (Emphasis added)

However, Tashman, above, says

In 2009, Brimelow reflected on CPAC after “Obama’s racial-socialist coup” and expressed his fear that the U.S. is doomed to face a “minority occupation government.” (Emphasis added).

Brimelow’s actual 2012 speech was, as Tashman, who attended it, wrote, about the public choice consequences of institutional bilingualism: “Canadian Bilingualism & Multiculturalism as it Relates to America” – sort of a non-racially inflammatory subject.

I am somewhat handicapped by not being able to buy an e-book and read the whole thing.

Why hasn’t Sussman published it as an e-book? Is he afraid someone would check it on anti-plagiarism site Turnitin.com?

Email him and ask.

Also Email William Sisler, the Director of Harvard University Press.

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • As a former academic I know how much time and effort James Fulford spent putting this piece together. A university prof would spend months on a piece like this. The speed with which Mr. Fulford was able to respond is truly impressive.

    Since I hate lying lefties, like Sussman, I’m going to follow up and click on some links and send a few emails. I encourage everyone to do the same.

    • TruthBeTold

      A liberal drive by.

      The facts are irrelevant to these people. What matters is that the lies are now spreading on the net and nobody will bother to fact check.

      • anony

        Exactly. “By any means necessary” is their motto. They will say anything to advance their narrative. They have no association with facts unless those facts fit their narrative.

  • John

    My comments on Sussman the first time he was mentioned on this site were modded out. But I’ll say it again here in a different way. It would seem, from reading the above, that one can tell when Sussman is lying; his lips are moving. The same can be said of his coreligionists as well.

    • Jacobite2

      From the context, I can make a good guess about your comment. I don’t know about amren, but I’ve gone 0 for 8 in NRO. My conclusion: anyone who ‘deletes’ comments similar to yours is part of the problem, regardless of what positions he takes on any/all other issues. Please read: “The Culture of Critique” by Kevin McDonald. It is irrefutable on the facts.

      • John

        “I don’t know about amren,”….. This may help. The website’s editor is Henry Wolff. In his response to an email I sent complaining about an innocuous statement of mine being deleted and my inability to locate the websites’ “posting policies”, he stated the following “We don’t have strict commenting guidelines, but we do prefer our comments to remain relatively on topic.” So the moderators can arbitrarily delete posts as the fancy seizes them. I’m well familiar with Dr. McDonald’s works and visit his Occidental Observer website daily. I push the envelope wherever and whenever I can because as you said, “anyone who ‘deletes’ comments similar to yours is part of the problem, regardless of what positions he takes on any/all other issues.” One can’t fight an enemy until they recognize them for what they are.

        • Jacobite2

          Mark Levin is the only talk-show guy I’ve heard openly admit this, but he cuts off callers who even point in the direction of addressing the core problems we’re facing in Cultural Marxism. He says the Left can then attribute callers’ calls to him. Gramsci was so much superior as a thinker to Marx, that I’m amazed that he’s so little known. Anyhow, I’m sure these talkers, and maybe even website honchos, not only delete words that they find objectionable, but even words that the thought-police might possibly declare hate-speech and hold the site responsible for allowing. This is self-censorship-once-removed, and it’s not the mark of a free society. Gramsci’s genius was in making opposition to Cultural Marxism, not just illegal, but rude. Man is a social animal. Those people in any society who are willing to flout society’s customs and mores are already Leftists — good members are loathe to violate their social etiquette. Normal humans also instinctively punish violations of societal rules. Once the Left controls social life, this places normal people in the position of punishing ‘violations’ by others with whom most of them personally agree. Social animals aren’t programmed to slavishly adhere to every rule, but they will follow society’s rules generally. The returns from Russia aren’t in yet, but it isn’t clear that a society totally dominated by Leftism can ever recover. Leftism’s purpose is to destroy existing society, and in the USSR they might have done so. American society is being destroyed from within by the usual suspects, but they have added a twist this time — demographic strangulation. Societal/cultural damage might or might not be reversible, but submersion in a sea of third-world non-whites would require serious “ethnic cleansing”, which is normal, even basic, social-animal behavior. Of course, we know that normal, basic behaviors are what Leftism is about doing away with.

          • John

            Interesting little essay. Gramsci may have been the superior thinker but both he and Marx were peddling the same poisonous snake oil, requiring political and economic upheaval to achieve its objective. Too overlooked is the much more insidious but equally destructive school of Cultural Marxism, more commonly known as “political correctness” nowadays. What isn’t know is that the concepts of Cultural Marxism were developed out of the work of members of the Frankfurt School, a German Marxist think tank established in Germany in 1923. They “fled”, as so many of their ilk are fond of doing, to the US when the National Socialists came to power in 1933. Shorly after this relocation, they became affiliated with Columbia University and set out to corrupt the minds of the young and mostly gentile university population to their way of thinking. The rest, as they say, is history. As with political Marxism, the majority of the movers and shakers of Cultural Marxism were of the same religious persuasion. For a tongue in cheek look at these folks “overwhelming contributions” to our society, a little video over at YouTube does a great job of spelling it all out. Just go there and do a search for the title “Thanks Jews (Public Service Announcement)”. Funny stuff but very anti semenite.

          • Jacobite2

            Back on Paul Weyrich’s(?) cable-channel, they ran a series of discussions on the Frankfurt School and its’ wide-spread corruption of higher education in the US. That was the first I’d ever heard of them, although I did read some book by Erich Fromm in college (to prove the point). To me, the salient point about Marx and Gramsci is that both were aliens in their societies. Marx, a Jew in Germany, and Gramsci, some kind of Albanian in Italy. They happened to be pushing the same Leftist ideology, but the point with Leftism is always that it results in the destruction of society — I believe the ‘utopia’ is irrelevant. The French Revo was the first successful leftist movement, and every one since has aimed at societal destruction. The 1848 uprisings, the post-WW I coups (esp Russia and Weimar Germany), Spain in 1935-6, China, Cambodia, etc., all attempted to dis-integrate the existing societies. Now, who wants to destroy society? No normal human does, as Homo sapiens is a social animal. No non-member of a society wants it to continue, as outsiders are shunned and discriminated against. So, aliens and abnormal members desire the society that ‘opresses’ them to wither and die. Look at the constituents of the Leftist Dems in the USA. America is a WASP society — started that way and continues. Who wants that to disappear? Aliens: Jews, blacks, Asians, Amerinds, Pacific Islanders, etc. Who else? Abnormal Americans who will not, or cannot, conform to their society’s norms: sexual perverts, criminals, atheists, the deformed and handicapped, the mentally-ill, and the just-plain-*ssholes. It’s no coincidence that atheist Madellaine(?) Murray-O’Hare couldn’t hold a job because she was so obnoxious that no one could stand to be around her. So, put them all together they spell D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T. This being said, the one and only issue facing Americans today is open, non-white immigration. Once Euro-Americans become a demographic minority, the USA will become a multi-racial, multi-societal mega-Balkans. The largest society will still be American, but we will be a voting minority (not good in a democracy), and the dominant society will be the people with all their “overwhelming contributions”. You know, I’ve often wondered what difference it made that “contributions” be made in the US? Couldn’t the polio vaccine have been created in Israel?

          • John

            Interesting observations. I agree with most of what you state except the following.. “America is a WASP society — started that way and continues.” That may have been true up until WWII but since then, the you know whos have gradually supplanted us by stealth and their infamous cronyism. For example, the Ivy League universities, once a bastion of WASP education and participation, now have a minority of white Christian students. I believe it may be Harvard where Jews are over represented by approximately 1500%. This statistic didn’t come about because they “so smart” and/or such wonderful scholars. If most of the admissions to these institutions were based on merit alone, their representation as a % of the student body would reflect their representation in the population as a whole, at best. That’s been quoted at 2% although I think that number is and has been false for years and is probably a lot higher than one would believe…..

          • John

            Maybe the graph will upload this time….

          • Jacobite2

            So many disagreements are really just about definitions. I reserve the term ‘America’ for American society — NW European Christian, with other Euros as assimilated. The original 13 Colonies covered most everything — NE as Dissenting Protestants, New Sweden as Lutheran, the Middle Colonies as mixed Protestant, Maryland as Catholic, and the South as Anglican/Episcopalian. The WASP domination ended after WW II, but the society remains the same, as it will until it disappears. Every society is composed of a group of individuals sharing a common origin (genes), religion, language, culture, etc. One is born into one society and never enters another. Destruction of the society is possible though. This ‘dead-end’ situation explains the violence of the Left. As long as their society remains, they are excluded from it. Social animals don’t accept this.
            The average US black has an IQ of 85. Whites about 101. South Asians 105. Eastern European J*ws 117. You might have noticed a common thread in European history — J*ws show up, begin taking over key segments of the society and politics, natives get fed up, and TCB. The crucial change (as you know from McDonald’s CofC) this time is to arrange for the displacement of the US’s American majority by non-white third-world aliens. This removes the problem of possible American reaction. Don’t try to out-think them — it’s a waste of time. History provides the answer.

        • Julius Caesar

          Nearly every comment of mine relating to a certain group of people is deleted on here. I asked the mod if the irony of censoring my comment was lost on him, only to have him delete that comment. I guess that answered my question.

  • Extropico

    Since affirmative action is implemented based on racial categories, Mr. Sussman has efficaciously and haplessly argued that such affirmative action shouldn’t exist.

    As some diseases only occur in certain racial groupings, Sussman no doubt contends those scientific groupings magically are irrelevant. Such dishonesty may get Mr. Sussman a sinecure in St. Louis, but his malice towards facts won’t advance science or humanity.

  • anony

    There should be no surprise here; we should expect no less from an ideologically-driven so-called academic. Sussman is nothing but a lying lick-spital.

    • Raydonn

      There are other, more fitting terms for he and his………….

  • Earl P. Holt III

    The lies of the Jewish communists are half-way around the world before the Truth can get its boots on…

    • newscomments70

      Online, I confront them with facts. They never respond. They only hurl child insults and run away.

      • Earl P. Holt III

        Their Marxist Utopia is crumbling before their eyes, but it only doubles their resolve to enslave the rest of us who are not losers, pathological liars and proponents of The Ideology of Envy…

        • newscomments70

          I just saw some foreign liberal online who believes that all conservatives should hang from ropes…along with several other disgusting comments. They make my blood boil. At this point, we respect the law and do whatever we can to avoid prison. When that boundary dissappears, I can’t wait for our collective retalliation. I want that more than sex.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            I hope he is at the lead when they come for ME…!

          • newscomments70

            I won’t graphically describe my angry thoughts, but yes, most of us feel the same.

  • Usually Much Calmer

    I believe I can credit this story to popular economist Tim Harford: Map makers in England deliberately add errors in their printed street guides to guard against liability of copyright cases from the government which has mapped the country so thoroughly.

    I do not think plagiarism accusations are warranted as Fulford lays out.

    In the first example, you have a bare bones logography (‘this is what happened’): AR did a poll, possible responses were a set, here are some of the elements. There is no way any 2 simple statements of that ‘what happened’ will not be very similar.

    The second example, the comparison of the passage from the Sussman book and the passage from the Brian Tashman piece, are not very similar. ‘Rambling’ is not so rare a descriptor. The rest of the ‘similarities’ are the actual details.

    The Slate excerpt that was posted last week is an embarrassment on its own. There is no need to devise faults for a work that has not one merit and is discomforting to people of sense and integrity to behold. I’m not a VDARE reader for many reasons, but I don’t think this piece reflects well on the realist camp, if there even is such a thing.

    • How do you account for the derivation of lie about JT’s 2000 AR Conference speech Jewish reference at the end of the Fulford essay except by excessive utilization of the secondary source?

      • Usually Much Calmer

        The charge is that ‘burst’/=’smattering’.

        To me burst describes the rate of onset of the applause and smattering means few people applauded. No inconsistency there.

        You are free to dissect Sussman’s work with gusto, Patrick. I don’t think I will.

  • journey

    Our guests have long ago used blacks as buffers against them. This has been shown to be very effective. Reminder to peoples like Tucker and Sussman (their critical thinking skills have turned to mush): A democracy cannot survive without a critical mass of intelligent informed people who value self responsibility and reliance. Citizenship (the benefits) means nothing living in a cesspool.

  • Stan D Mute

    As I commented in the original piece here on this topic by Mr Taylor, I am a big fan of the idea of libel litigation over this. Not so much because I believe Mr Taylor will prevail, although of course I hope he will, but because we need all the publicity we can get for a rational and reasonable perspective such as AmRen and Mr Taylor provides. Right now, white Americans are awakening at a furious pace. The alien invasion, Barakabama’s plan to legalize 34 million invaders, the ebola invasion, and increasing black mob violence are all causing rational whites to feel nervous regardless of their stance on “racism.” So anything that gets Mr Taylor into the news cycle, interviewed on TV, quoted in the print press, is all good for us.

    Another commenter here said something to the effect he doesn’t like VDare. I’d only ask if he prefers Salon or the NYT. At this point, we cannot afford to pick nits. Well, perhaps we can afford to pick one nit: the anti-Semites need to shut the hell up. The simple fact is that you are NOT going to convince Suzy Homemaker that her OB/GYN, Dr Goldberg, who has three lovely children in Ivy League colleges and detected Suzy’s ovarian cancer early enough for her to survive, that he (Dr Goldberg) is any kind of problem in America. Jews are model citizens in every way. Meanwhile we are being invaded by Third World people rooted firmly in pre-modernity. These invaders have no literacy and speak languages known only to obscure anthropologists in universities. And tomorrow they show up in Suzy Homemaker’s kids’ classrooms. The vast majority of white people *get* this and they *get* black crime and they *get* ebola. So let’s put aside the issues that don’t have almost universal agreement and actually WIN a battle for a change.

    • journey

      FYI: most people are already aware about Jews and their role in society especially in the financial world and open borders (destruction of Western societies). So what is your point?

  • LHathaway

    “Then, of course, there are some people in this room who would argue that Jews have been a decisive or important factor in trying to denature the racial or national consciousness of people–”

    Why not start off with that? It’s isn’t till word 2,000 in the article that it comes to a real point on the libel/fraud issue

  • disqus_Xz3UA6obwj

    Sussman has clearly overcompensated with his irrational emotional attack on Jared Taylor. Overcompensation is a symptom of doubt. Deep down Sussman knows his egalitarian ideology has about as much going for it as the Adam and Eve nonsense and this makes him very angry.

    • propagandaoftruth

      Yup, sloppy. He reads like a frothy mouthed blogger or commenter.

      the root of his angst, I suppose, is the threat to his livelihood and pseudo-science – anthropology.

      Anthropology is based on Boasian assumptions of 100% nurture/0% nature explanations of all human group phenomena. The introduction of even 10% nature throws all the arrogant, bubble-think “equations” out the window, since inborn propensities are never to be considered when trying to explain…

      Anything. Nazis!

  • I’m afraid that I am far too cynical these days, because my outlook on all this is that facts do not really matter that much, because we are not operating with opponents who care for facts, nor a populace that is open to them. It all about emotion nowadays, it seems.

    It is the same with the smears and labels. Jared has spent 20 or more years bashing the drum for white interests and avoided any “Jew talk” or hard “National Socialism” links like the plague, preferring to concentrate on education rates, crimes, economics and other things.

    It has been an important service, one that will have no doubt brought many over to our side of the fence and I certainly have nothing other than praise and admiration for the wonderful work and dedication of Mr Taylor.

    However, regardless of facts, regardless of being careful, he still gets seen and described as some bigoted Jew hating white supremacist that supports bumping off or pushing out all other races (or whatever else they conjure up as their stereotype image of our concerns and points).

    We are not dealing with rational people, or rational minds. No matter what we do or say, it will always seem to come out to the same “conclusions” and “ties”….

    I hope this book writer gets thrown in the gutter for his nasty work and Jared would perhaps be right to try and clear his name and prove his virtues as being righteous – but for the opposition, all they care about is maintaining the ‘nasty image’ around all forms of white interests, whether true or false.

    If that means pumping out lies, smears, labels, then that’s what they will do. They have the ear and the power of the media, so they can control what messages people hear and what is revealed about the nature of this book, or not.

    Perhaps a robust challenge will start to change this…. but I am not sure what kind of long lasting result would be.

  • Conrad

    Those that say that there is no such thing as race are denying that God created mankind. They are part of the NWO which is Luciferian in nature. They believe that Lucifer is the god that we should worship. So naturally they are liars.

    “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” Jn. 8:44

  • silviosilver

    The most egregious case of Taylor’s statements being taken out of context was when he appeared on Donahue. Taylor had compared the “ugly American” stereotype of Americans traveling overseas and being expected to be spoken to in English and served American food to “ugly Guatemalans” who come to America not as mere travelers but to settle permanently and demand to be spoken to in Spanish and served their own foods etc. The Donahue show totally dropped the context of comparisons with “ugly Americans” and simply fixated on Taylor’s use of “ugly Guatemalans” to describe Guatemalans coming to America. Unfortunately, Taylor couldn’t remember having written those passages so he was made to look like quite the hateful bigot. Truth and fairness is the last thing anti-white a–holes care about.