Here’s Eric Muller’s James Fulford quote demonstrating the invidious racism and hate on VDARE.com, from his post attacking VDARE.com generally:

[Fred] Korematsu was just a fugitive, but is it any wonder that when he was arrested across the bay, the headline read Jap Spy Arrested in San Leandro? (James Fulford)

The context is that Korematsu’s behavior was extremely suspicious–although the “only a fugitive” part refers to the fact that the his behavior was morally no worse than draft-dodging. Here’s the paragraph and four bullet points that went before the money quote.

I was also surprised to see that Korematsu, rather than engaging in civil disobedience on principle, like Thoreau, or Gandhi, had done the following:

• He had plastic surgery, to make himself look less Japanese.
• He crudely altered his draft card, to give himself a new name: Clyde Sarah.
• He claimed to be Las Vegas born Spanish-Hawaiian, a claim that was exposed when he couldn’t speak Spanish.
• He fled his San Francisco residence with his girlfriend.

Frankly, short of carrying a silenced Nambu pistol and cyanide pill, it’s hard to see what he could have done to make himself more suspicious. That’s the context–that and the fact that this is the kind of history that you don’t hear about.

The expression “Jap Spy” is the wartime headline writer’s, of course, and was quoted by Korematsu himself in a San Francisco Chronicle article attacking In Defense Of Internment; the article [Do we really need to relearn the lessons of Japanese American internment?, September 16, 2004] makes no mention of plastic surgery, phony ID, or a false name.

I’m not, in fact, sure why Muller thinks this is racist at all. It seems to be just a hysterical reaction to the word “Jap” appearing in print, or it may be that he’s just overreacting, as he has done in the past, to any defense of internment.

Law Professor Eric Muller writes:

VDare.com is a site devoted to a particular approach to immigration reform — an approach that would disfavor immigration from certain nations (where skins are brown) and favor it from others (where skins are white). If this sounds familiar to you, it should: it’s just another tired recycling of the nativism that has dogged American history nearly from the start.

It’s all about maintaining white culture.

Now, my own writings here on VDARE.COM simply aren’t about either of these things. Maybe Muller hasn’t read my writings or his analytical abilities are so limited he is incapable of comprehending them.

However, neither is that an accurate characterization of the writings of VDARE.COM writer Michelle Malkin with whom Muller has carried on a substantial feud and made rather strange accusations towards. He lacks the excuse of ignorance in the case of Ms. Malkin’s writings because of the depth of his feud with her. There is a basic logical fallacy here. Even if some VDARE.COM contributors like the late Sam Francis and Jared Taylor are “all about maintaining white culture”, not all of us necessarily are.

In my own writings, I have, for example, suggested serious consideration an auction of available visas and estimated a current market rate of over $100,000 per visa. If such measures were enacted, I would expect that immigration from wealthy non-white countries like Japan would increase compared to its present level.

If Muller wants to make a case that “It’s all about maintaining white culture” he needs to do something more than point to a couple of Wikipedia articles. I’m assuming “It” here refers to Vdare.com–since it would be grammatically incorrect to refer to Sailer and Brimelow that way (and although law professors may be capable of extreme delusion and self-serving logical errors, they generally get grammar drilled into them over time).

I had never heard of Muller before the latest round of controversy. His particular hysteria–and tendency towards selective poor reading comprehension–does seem superficially similar to that of Morris Dees who is linked rather strongly with catering to a wealthy constituency.

The UNC law school needs to be aware though–they are hopefully trying to be more than fund raising scam. The tactic of making a provocative accusation with a poorly thought out case behind it may work well for raising large sums of money. It doesn’t necessarily earn your institution a lot of respect over time.