This is from a Seattle website

Seattlest: Sorry, FDR, But December 7th Probably Lives in Less Infamy Than Your Internment Order
December 7, 2007
The most unfortunate victims of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor–which happened 66 years ago today–were surely the 2,333 military personnel who lost their lives.

FDR called it, “a date which will live in infamy.” Perhaps in 1941, a surprise attack on another country’s military was infamous. But considering that in 1986 the U.S. launched a surprise attack on another country’s civilians, [They mean a raid on Libya ordered by Ronald Reagan]12/7 looks a lot less infamous than the direct domestic aftermath, felt especially keenly here in the Northwest.

Well, no. The Japanese attack and mass murder at Pearl Harbor were a lot worse than the internment of either enemy aliens or their American citizen relatives. The US Government eventually let the all internees go, many of them long before the war with Japan was over, while all the dead at Pearl Harbor remain dead to this day.

And the Empire of Japan was famous for its atrocities–the rape of Nanking, the torture and murder of Allied POWs, the Manila Massacre, all the things that everyone learns about in school–wait, I’m wrong, they don’t learn about it in school. What they learn about, at great length, is the internment. But for the record, Wikipedia finds it necessary to divide the subject of “Japanese War Crimes” under nine headings:

• 3.1 Mass killings
• 3.2 Experiments on humans and biological warfare
• 3.3 Use of chemical weapons
• 3.4 Preventable famine
• 3.5 Torture of POWs
• 3.6 Cannibalism
• 3.7 Forced labour
• 3.8 Comfort women
• 3.9 Looting

Those are just the basics–major atrocities have their own individual pages. Nothing FDR ever did, and he did a lot, (I’m not an FDR fan) equaled the cruelty of the Japanese in World War Two. And if he does live in more infamy than the Empire of Japan, then it’s the fault of multicultural propaganda in the schools.

Inquiring minds want to know, but police can’t say. It’s very rare that they do say. See for example, That San Jose Abductor Was A Guess What. (Hint: The Media Won’t Tell You.)

PC Commissar Professor Eric Muller, [Send him mail]in a moment of holier-than-thou-ness suggests that Michelle Malkin is “warped” for pointing out that Virginia Tech was a gun-free zone with a ban on the means of self-defense.

I would suggest that Muller’s obsession with Malkin is extremely warped.

WorldNetDaily reports that the shooter, said by witnesses to be Asian, may be an immigrant. Perhaps we’ll know tomorrow. In any event, the MSM storyline is usually this–when an immigrant goes on a killing spree with a gun, blame the gun.

WorldNetDaily: Shanghai student eyed in university shooting
Authorities investigating the killing of 32 people at Virginia Tech today, the deadliest shooting rampage in U.S. history, are targeting a Chinese man who arrived in the U.S. last year on a student visa, a source told the Chicago Sun-Times.

Investigators have not linked the 24-year-old to any terrorist group, the paper said.

The man, with a visa issued in Shanghai, arrived Aug. 7 in San Francisco on United Airlines. Three reported bomb threats on the campus last week might have been attempts by him to test the campus’ security response, the source told the Sun-Times.

UPDATE: If you don’t know, the Shanghai student rumor later proved to be false–it was a different Asian immigrant.

From experience in the New York City Playground Wars, I instantly recognized UNC law professor Eric Muller and talk show host Brad Kratz’s type - arrogant, aggressive, domineering, so spoiled that they throw tantrums when checked or criticized…and, well, infantile and stupid. When we exposed this little Carolina Cabal as conspiring to get VDARE.COM off the air this summer, I wasn’t surprised that, instead of owning up to it like men and saying that they genuinely think we’re a “hate site“, they instead squalled that I was lying…and that we WERE TOO a hate site as well!!!

This was childish, of course, because (a) Krantz had already told our publicist that my interview was cut short because he’d gotten a call from a “friend” at UNC law school; (b) Muller, foolishly given the case he subsequently is trying to make, admitted emailing Krantz with scabrous accusations about us. But it was significant because it shows the way the Carolina Cabal, and their ilk, think: everyone lies about politics. Similarly, they notoriously defended Bill Clinton by saying everyone lies about sex.

Speak for yourselves, guys. I guess it’s a cultural thing.

So I’m not surprised to find Muller and Krantz lying further as we pile on the evidence. Two examples:

1) Muller blogs that I cite “a communication that WZTK told him he’d be on from 8:10 to 8:30 a.m., which (at least as I recall from 6 months ago) he was”… i.e I wasn’t cut of the air abruptly.

But in fact anyone who follows the link can see that the email I cited clearly said I’d be on from 8:10 to 9:00 am.

This isn’t even intelligent lying, it’s just compulsive. Has anyone really ever hired this idiot to litigate anything?

2) Several readers have told me that Krantz is claiming he’s invited me back on the show but that I hadn’t replied. I was genuinely puzzled by this, since the only email I’ve gotten from Krantz is the one posted on Muller’s blog. I certainly hadn’t noticed any invitation, but looking at it again I think this is the Krantz passage in question:

Possibly you may wish to come back on with us to apologize (for among other things giving out confidential phone numbers…that’s a cheap tactic of intimidation as I’m sure you know) and correct the record, along with someone like Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center or Eric Muller from UNC himself.

(Tellingly, Muller excised the last 18 words without any indication - probably because the SPLC is a notorious leftist racket…and because Muller himself is afraid to debate me.)

Well. jeez (so to speak). I guess I didn’t think that was an invitation. I thought it was yet another insult. What have I got to apologize for? I’m not trying to abolish the historic American Nation.

Brad Krantz does not want me to appear on his silly show. If he does, he has only to email and suggest a date. Or call - he has my number because I left it on all his (n.b. business) voicemails when I was trying to find out what happened this summer. Maybe he should have had the courtesy to return our calls. Maybe this will be a lesson in his Americanization.

Email Muller. Email Krantz.

And God Bless the wonderful number of you who have done so already.

We shall overcome!

When he was writing What’s Wrong with the World G.K. Chesterton used to amuse himself by telling lady visitors that he had “been been doing ‘What is Wrong’ all this morning.”

This is me writing what think is wrong with me, by the standards of Eric Muller, who has posted the following list of things I wrote that thinks might display “invidious racism and hate” but with no explanation why. Of course, I’m just guessing, because he hasn’t said.

“How are Americans supposed to tell the difference between Meiji and Taisho? … Does that mean that the internment of the Japanese wasn’t so stupid after all?” — National Origins Quotas or Moratorium?

The United States got lucky, partly as a result of the 1924 cutoff–most of the Japanese emigrants came to America before the era of fanatical Japanese militarism–i.e., in the Meiji period, roughly speaking. Immigrants to Brazil, I pointed out, had come later, in the Taisho era, and were much more fanatical. Japanese-Americans were largely very loyal, despite the strains put on them by internment. If they’d been like that Japanese-Brazilians, there would have been trouble.

• Why This Is Invidious–(My guess)

  Americans should know the difference between Meiji and Taisho era Japanee, just like they should be able to tell Sunnis from Shiites from followers of the Seventh Imam, from–aargh. Anyhow, it’s wrong not to know.

  And it’s always wrong to take the American government’s side in defense of internment. It Just Is.

Next one:

“Of course, there is a simple answer to these problems: a National Origins system. Discriminate in favor of immigrants from civilized, culturally compatible countries. Alternatively, don’t have any immigrants at all.” — same article

• Why This Is Invidious–(My guess)

  It’s wrong to say that other countries aren’t civilized or culturally compatible. It’s also wrong to call for an immigration moratorium.

Of course, many countries are uncivilized. And the idea of an immigration moratorium, no immigration at all, is explicitly intended to be color-blind, because the US Government is likely to be unwilling to distinguish between civilized and uncivilized countries.

“Do you realize that if you made all the guns in the U. S. vanish, New Mexico, Texas, and California would vanish the same day? The Mexicans would just come and get them.” — Reconquista, Terrorism, and Gun Control

• Why This Is Invidious–(My guess)

  It’s wrong to suggest that Mexican Government, Mexican Army, and Mexican people want the Southwest.

Perhaps I should have said that Canada will retake Vermont. But Canada doesn’t want Vermont, or even Maine. Mexican irredentism, on the other hand, is a fact of life.

Eric Muller has responded to my post on taking the Korematsu thing out of context, with a post cleverly titled Ful(ford) of It.

James Fulford apparently doesn’t think that his resurrection of the smear of Fred Korematsu ought to count as an instance of “invidious racism and hate” on VDare.com.

I’m puzzled by the word “smear” here, since I can’t think of anything I’ve said that wasn’t true, and as for the famous 1942 headline, “Jap Spy Arrested in San Leandro,” you can’t honestly call that a smear.It was a justifiable error on the part of the newspaper and the authorities. The other part I’m resurrecting is the details of his arrest. Which need resurrecting, in the interests of historical accuracy.

Here’s the statement that Ellen Tauscher, the Congresswoman for San Leandro, issued when she was attending the Presidential Medal Of Freedom ceremony for Korematsu.

During one of the darkest chapters in American history when the U.S. government forced thousands of American citizens into internment camps simply because of their ancestry, Mr. Korematsu had the courage to say no. He was subsequently arrested for demanding no more than what every American citizen is entitled to — his basic human rights.

….

Mr. Korematsu was arrested in 1942 for staying in his own home and refusing to comply with the order that sent more than 120,000 American citizens of Japanese ancestry to internment camps during World War II.
Tauscher to Attend Presidential Medal of Freedom Ceremony at White House for San Leandro Resident

That’s a lot of wrong historical facts to get wrong:

Korematsu didn’t have the courage to say no, he ran and hid.

He wasn’t arrested in his own home, (which was in Oakland) but in San Leandro, where he was hiding.

There weren’t “120,000 American citizens of Japanese ancestry to internment camps “ –of approximately 120, 000 people, (110,000 in internment camps) 38% were not American citizens–they were subjects of the Emperor Of Japan. With whom the United States was at war, remember?

But the main thrust of his post is a laundry list of other quotations from the Complete Works Of James Fulford, with this note:

Fair enough. If you don’t like that one, how do the following quotes from Mr. Fulford suit you?

Most of them suit me fine, because I wrote them. He doesn’t attempt to say what’s wrong with them, either, and the first couple of commenters on his blog seem to think they’re fine, but I’ll have to devote a whole other post to them, above.

Brad Krantz recently opined:

Mr. Brimelow was not CENSORED, in any sense of the word. As a well-educated man, I’m sure you realize that censorship has to do with the First Amendment, which refers to the government preventing speech. As a talk show host on a radio station privately owned, I am under absolutely no obligation to allow anyone I don’t want on my show, nor any ideas if I decide I don’t want them.

Actually, Mr. Krantz appears confused here. First off, not just anyone can get access to the “megaphone” he has in the way of access to radio spectrum. In the process of allocating spectrum, very real decisions about how political discourse will take place are being made. The radio station he works for thus has very real obligations. They don’t “own” the radio spectrum they use, but are granted the use of that spectrum with the expectation they serve the public interest.

The notion of “public interest” is explained here

Federal oversight of all broadcasting has had two general goals: to foster the commercial development of the industry and to ensure that broadcasting serves the educational and informational needs of the American people

Although the present state of talk radio in the US may not reflect this, the responsibilities of folks like Mr. Krantz go much deeper than just keeping the owners of their radio station-and their advertisers- happy. For example, there are real legal issues in how a station can use its influence to support a particular political candidate or ideology.

Personally, I think Peter Brimelow is just too dang “nice” here. He seems to mainly want VDARE.COM to be treated like other news sources of similar editorial stature and quality(and unlike myself has avoided advocating expropriation of concentrations of wealth accumulated with the aid of illegal immigration). I tend to think that the tendency of American media to grossly distort the range of public opinion and debate on issues like immigration is evidence of an enormous need for media reform–and reason for fundamentally changing the way commercial radio and television is regulated. These changes need to significantly increase the entre of the average American to the media –and limit the autonomy of the owners of networks and stations to arbitarily choose programming.

How, this might be done is likely to be complex-but I think a Citizens’ Assembly appointed for the task of starting investigation on how to democratize media access and control would be very worthwhile. I fully expect the owners of the radio station Mr. Krantz works for wouldn’t be entirely happy with the results of such a process–and I expect many VDARE.COM readers would be pleasantly surprised the new management such a process might give folks like Mr. Krantz.

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.

In a characteristically disingenuous, misrepresentation-festooned posting, the Is That Legal ? blog has admitted what Peter Brimelow suspected: that it was the intervention of the blog’s proprietor Eric Muller of UNC Law School that caused Brad Krantz of Burlington N.C’s WZTK-FM to cut short a planned interview and call-in session last June:

…I contacted Brad Krantz, one of the show’s hosts, to ask whether he knew much about Brimelow’s VDARE site and some of its writers. Here’s the text of the email I sent him:

Brad

Read this stuff, and check out some of the linked material…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Brimelow “Brimelow is a paleoconservative and maintains that America’s culture and way of life is threatened by unrestricted immigration from Latin America and the Third World”

It’s all about maintaining white culture.

There’s *lots* more if you dig

–Eric

Muller advances one main reason for this act of repression: he quotes several writers posted on VDARE .COM . That is it. Apparently the fact that he disagrees with them is enough to give him the right to repress their publisher.

The obvious question : if Muller was so offended by Peter Brimelow’s appearance on a local call-in show, why didn’t he pick up the phone and challenge him? Judging from his blog, his immigration views are rather primitive, but no doubt his friend Krantz would have protected “Eric”. Or is that beneath the grandeur of UNC Law Professors – unlike secret phone call assassinations?

Fundamentally, though, there is a serious issue of general principle here. Several hundred years ago, basically in England, the tradition grew up of answering political opponents with argument, rather than by force. That is where the traditions imbued in the American Constitution came from (and also Peter Brimelow, apparently to Muller’s xenophobic annoyance).

Points further east in Europe and beyond retain to this day the view that force is an adequate argument, and repression a perogative of the powerful. Clearly Eric Muller belongs to this tradition, no doubt imported with his forbears. Defending the pre - eminence of the first tradition in America was a central reason for the founding of VDARE .COM.

Tellingly, Muller scatters around his expostulation the familiar smears of “nativist” and “white nationalist”. (Reality check: As Brimelow has pointed out repeatedly, VDARE.COM is not a “white nationalist” site but an immigration reform coalition, including non-whites and purely political nationalists .)

In any case, Muller’s own site is highly judeo-centric and much pre-occuped with scoring debating points against the founding culture. But, of course, different rules apply to Professor Muller and his friends. They are allowed to operate ethnically competitive sites.

However, there is an easy way for Eric Muller to make amends for his squalid and illiberal act of repression. Let him persuade Brad Krantz to host a debate between himself and Peter Brimelow on these issues.

If he dares.

Encourage Muller here and here. Ask Krantz why not? (Krantz chose not to reply to any of Peter Brimelow’s efforts to find out what happened after last June. He may need encouragement.)

The Left’s response to an attack on America by alien enemies was to immediately form a “Society for the Protection of Enemy Aliens.”

“On September 11, the nearest television set at my college was in the video laboratory, and around me there swirled a reassuring bustle of purposeful and competent activity. One faculty colleague worked to hook up the recorder, another crouched and leaned to snap still photos from the television screens. Standing among them, as we watched the World Trade Center topple, I felt a palpable and unanticipated gregariousness, a concord of mood and feeling.

“This sense of commonality barely outlasted the towers themselves. One of my younger colleagues, a woman who keeps an apartment in Brooklyn, turned to me, badly shaken, and said, ?I have to do something about this in my class. I have to show them the video about the Japanese internment camps.”

“So much for collective mood. Why should the murder of thousands of men, women, and children, accomplished in an instant, concern us? Well, it turns out, because it might lead to something really serious, like civil-rights violations. [War comes to Williams, By Michael J. Lewis, Commentary Magazine, November 2001]

That was their first thought; not fighting back, not protecting America, not anything as normal as, say, revenge, but this: protect the enemy aliens.

The mythology attached to the internment of Japanese immigrants and Japanese-Americans is more important in high school history classes than anything like the wartime activities of the Empire of Japan, or the heroism of the Navy and Marine Corps in the Pacific.

I myself had never heard the story of the Niihau Island Incident, discussed in Michelle Malkin’s In Defense of Internment,, when, as Steve Sailer wrote,

…the first two Japanese American citizens to have their loyalty spontaneously tested by a Japanese incursion …flunked. A Japanese pilot returning from shooting up Pearl Harbor crash-landed on Niihau, the privately-owned ranching island that serves as a cultural preserve for Native Hawaiians. The two American-born citizens of Japanese descent on Niihau collaborated with the pilot and briefly took over the island, until a wounded Hawaiian killed the aviator with his bare hands. One of the quislings then shot himself.

All this is news to me, and I’m a conservative. But I was recently gratified to see that Ken Masugi of the Claremont Institute was explaining all this to an Internet audience only two months after the attacks.

Read the whole thing, to see what a sensible policy towards racial profiling and illegal enemy aliens would look like. Here are some of the important quotes from the chat.

David: Without resorting to internment, don’t you think that it would be wise to consider deportation of all illegal aliens, particularly those from Arab and Islamic nations?

KEN MASUGI: Deportation of ANY illegal alien should always be a possibility.

KEN MASUGI:Again, disparate measures, by which I mean legal actions which hit those of Middle Eastern ancestry disproportionately (e.g., being searched at an airport more frequently than others), are to be expected and are wise policy.

KEN MASUGI: I reiterate that there will be disparate, disproportional treatment of persons of Middle East ancestry or dark skin and hair that will inconvenience them and sometimes find them in jail. This is nothing to rejoice about. We need to be concerned about all Americans and all those legally in our country. Criminals should be treated as criminals, and the authorities should not feel shackled by a bad understanding of the relocation/internment. That is my fear this ignorance of the relocation will encourage.

["Current Lessons from the Japanese-American Relocation of WWII" Townhall.com Live Chat, 11/14/01]

You can also read Masugi?s article, Second-Guessing FDR: The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, in which he more or less demolishes Eric Muller’s thesis that the Japanese Americans who, as Masugi puts it ” turned against their country in time of war and resisted the draft “ were the “patriots.”

This is projecting the left-wing values of the Vietnam War era backwards in time.

Remember, in the controversy about where and why to fight wars, that there are not only the people that want the US to fight wars, there’s also the group that wants the US to lose wars.

Oh, and that, of course, comes right up to fight to control the southern border.