The Tarantoad Beneath The Harrow
By Peter Brimelow
Also see:
10/11/02 - Malkin’s Invasion: The Review
10/12/02 - Stomping The Tarantoad (Again)
[Vdare.com
note:
Kipling fans will recognize the literary reference
in the title, those who don’t can read the original poem
here:
The
toad beneath the harrow knows
Exactly where each tooth-point goes.
The butterfly upon the road
Preaches contentment to that toad.]
Like all
immigration enthusiasts, the Wall Street Journal
Editorial Page’s Best Of The Web online columnist James
Taranto (click
here for a picture - steel yourself), just can’t
take criticism. Witness his violent
reaction to my mention of him in my review of
Michelle Malkin’s new book
Invasion in the first issue of The American
Conservative magazine. Taranto huffed:
'Fair and Judicious'
"Our points will be fair and judicious."--Scott
McConnell, an editor of The American Conservative
magazine, which made its debut yesterday, quoted in the
Washington Times
"Resendiz liked to fracture his women victims' skulls
and rape them as they died. Their terrible deaths are on
James Taranto's head--and on the heads of every single
immigration enthusiast who has minimized this mortal
threat to America."--British immigrant Peter Brimelow in
The American Conservative's debut issue (not
available online)
Interestingly, the
item of ours to
which Brimelow is responding concerned a piece that
appeared on the nativist Web site VDare.com--which is
registered in Brimelow's name--in
which one James Fulford argued that "Arabs," by which he
meant Arab-Americans, should not be permitted to serve
on President Bush's Secret Service detail. Brimelow
poses as an advocate of sensible immigration reform, and
who could be against that? He does not help his case by
publishing articles baldly advocating employment
discrimination against Americans on the basis of
ethnicity.
(Best of The Web, September 26, 2002)
There are number of interesting
facets to this immigration enthusiast gem.
[1] Taranto feels no need to
refute, much less explain, my point. Which was this: in
a brilliant tour de force, Michelle shows in
Invasion that the illegal alien serial killer
Angel Resendiz was able to continue his
murderous career – at least 12 Americans dead – only
because he was able to cross the border repeatedly and
because the INS and law enforcement authorities
repeatedly
released him. This is exactly the sort of border
control failure that immigration enthusiasts have
repeatedly dismissed and derided. Even after 9/11,
Taranto was still at it, insisting perversely that “it's
preposterous on its face to suggest that Mexican
gardeners are a national-security threat.”
So let me make my point fairly and
judiciously clear, in case James Taranto still doesn’t
get it. Ideas have consequences. Editorials have
effects. Those deaths are his fault, and the fault of
his fanatical immigration-enthusiast employer. Those
women’s dying curses will drag the whole gang of them to
hell.
[2] Still, Taranto does say that “Brimelow
poses as an advocate of sensible immigration reform, and
who could be against that?”
Who? The
Wall Street Journal Edit Page, that’s who. What sensible (or
other) immigration reform has it ever advocated?
The fact
that Taranto feels obliged to make this rhetorical
concession shows that immigration enthusiasts are under
pressure - as they have not been since the mid-1990s.
Good.
[3]
Instead of defending himself against my charge, Taranto
simply repeats an earlier attack on us:
one
James Fulford argued that "Arabs," by which he meant
Arab-Americans, should not be permitted to serve on
President Bush's Secret Service detail…[VDARE.COM
publishes] articles baldly advocating employment
discrimination against Americans on the basis of
ethnicity.”
The
amazing thing about this is that readers can perfectly
easily
check for themselves and see that what one James
Fulford said (once) was that this hysteria against
racial profiling has gone too far. That’s simply not at
all the same as “articles” advocating discrimination
against Americans (Click
here for one James Fulford’s reply to Taranto). But
my long study of the multiple Tarantos - they’re a
common political type - has caused me to conclude that
they are driven by a peculiar emotional agenda to which
facts and argument are irrelevant. Whipping themselves
up into a frenzy by deliberately distorting their
critics’ case is a key part of their modus operandi.
[4]
Taranto did not feel obliged to follow blog etiquette
and link to The American Conservative (you can
subscribe by clicking
here ) or to VDARE.COM (no subscription necessary!!).
Note, however, that he did manage to find and to link to
VDARE.COM’s webhost, apparently because (very much to my
surprise) it had posted my address and phone number.
Herein
lies a tale. James Taranto was once a colleague of my
wife’s at the Manhattan Institute. We know him socially.
He is perfectly well aware that I work at home, that she
is gravely ill with
metastatic breast cancer, that we have
small children. Yet, in this most bitter of
controversies, he went out of his way to make it
possible for opponents to locate us.
Even
warring Mafia Dons respected each other’s homes. Of
course, Taranto has written that he is, despite his
name, not Italian but Levantine.
I do not
propose to follow Taranto’s example.
VDARE.COM readers should not contact the James Taranto
whose Manhattan address and phone number can be found in
the
New York White Pages. Nor should they send
abusive email to
james.taranto@wsj.com,
james.taranto@dowjones.com, or
taranto@panix.com
or even complain to the Chairman of Dow Jones (who is
also Publisher of the Wall Street Journal) at
peter.kann@dowjones.com
concerning the unchivalrous behavior of his employee.
October 01, 2002 |