On his blog Mr Auster had this to say in reply to my post calling him out as a Neocon. '"...he's [Auster] fooling America into an effort to stop the Islamization of the West that he says is for the sake of saving the West from Islam but that is really only for Israel's sake'".
First, Mr Auster's premise is entirely wrong, but since he is a strident propagandist I suppose it doesn't bother him, and that's that there is no ubiquitous "Islamization" of the West. In parts of western Europe that is a growing Muslim presence due to ridiculously lax immigration laws, but there is no "Islamization" here in the United States. We are facing a similar and much more serious problem from Hispanic immigrants, but it's nonsensical to argue that the entire West is under some ominous Islamic threat.
But this does raise an interesting question. Why does Lawrence Auster say the entire West faces the threat of Islamization, when it is restricted to countries in western Europe? Why not argue that the West faces threat of Hispanization? That's because Mr Auster wants to turn Muslims into the number one enemy, even in the United States, although they are a tiny fraction of the population and exercise virtually no political power. This is the same sort of tactic the mainstream media uses when it touts stories involving a white criminal mudering a black victim but blackout the story if the colors are reversed.
Also, Mr Auster is being disingenuous in suggesting that he simply opposes the "Islamization" of the West. He actually favored the Bush Administration's war in Iraq that has cost the country billions of dollars, killed thousands of innocent people, turned Iraq into a refugee crisis so that now we must accept Iraqis as a humanitarian gesture of goodwill. Let's not forget that Lawrence Auster used his website to promote paranoid Neocon conspiracies involving Saddam Hussein threatening the world with nuclear weapons and derided the "paleocons" as America haters for opposing the war. Before the war began, Mr Auster said he had no doubt that Bush was "on the right track."
Even though he now pretends to be a critic of the war, what's it worth really? All the Neocons -- Frum, Perle, Ledeen -- are now critics of the war and just accuse Bush of bungling the operation. However, if Lawrence Auster is now against the war, where's his mea culpa? Why has he not apologized to the "paleocons" for calling them all sorts of terrible names? Besides the true mark of wisdom is making the right decision when it matters. What difference does it make if he now opposes the war? He was wrong when it mattered. The Paleocons were right when it mattered.
Nothing more needs to be said.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Lawrence Auster and the Quest for the Holy Sharia
Lawrence Auster likes to play up his image as an honest and fearless critic of Islam. He dares to speak the truth when everyone else settles for euphemisms, qualifiers, and the other comforts of Political Correctness. He will not tolerate the politeness of a Daniel Pipes -- or a Dinesh D'souza -- who distinguishes between "radical" and "moderate" Islam. There is only one Islam -- neither radical nor moderate -- that ceaselessly wages jihad, kills the unbelievers, and will not stop until it subjugates the entire world.
This belief of Mr Auster's -- whether it's propaganda or paranoia -- serves the interests of Israel. If all Muslims are really a terrible human scourge then Israel will always be on the side of the angels when it slaughters Palestianians and if Islam is portrayed as a great threat to the West then West must ally with Israel in opposing Islam.
Though we can argue over the significance of threat that Islam poses -- and we will address this in another post -- the facts as Mr Auster presents are simply not there. He likes to argue that he sees Islam "as it is," and not "as it should be." But he doesn't see Islam "as it is," but how we wants to see it i.e. as a Neocon who wants to wage war against Muslims and protect the state of Israel.
Let's look at specific case that Mr Auster makes against Islam: "It is the rule of Sharia, the imposition of the Islamic law over each society and ultimately over the whole earth. Sharia is the true end of Islam, Sharia is practically indentical with Islam..."
But how accurate is this really? Lawrence Auster is simply reducing the history of Islam, the beliefs and actions of every single Muslim in the world -- all 1.5 billion of them -- to a few passages in the Quran. Every waking moment of every Muslim's life is dominated by only two thoughts: killing the infidels and then imposing the Sharia on them. So where can we find this fabled Sharia?
Let's look at a few facts. The most populated Muslim nations are Indonesia (over 200 million), Pakistan (167 million), Bangladesh (132 million), Egypt (70 million), Turkey (70 million), Nigeria (64 million), Iran (64 million), Algeria (32 million) , Morocco (32 million) , Afghanistan (31 million), and Saudi Arabia (26 million). Now how many of these countries actually codify the Sharia into their formal articles of government? Indonesia, Bangladesh, Nigeria and Turkey are secular. Egypt does recognize Islam as the state religion but still permits some freedom of religious expression. Afghanistan is now nominally secular but has been embroiled in tribal wars since the end of the Soviet occupation in 1989. Iran is run by religious clerics -- and in that sense is an Islamic theocracy -- but does allow other religious traditions. Saudi Arabia probably enforces the strictlest interpretation of Islamic law, but this is actually an exception in the Muslim world and not the norm. Of course the political life in these countries is often quite primitive and at the local level and in rural parts of the country Sharia is more commonly practiced, but this only reinforces the fact that Islam really isn't much of a threat: If Muslims cannot even codify the Sharia when they are almost 100% percent of the population should we really regard the Sharia as a concern when Muslims are less than 2% of the U.S. population?
If anything these facts illustrate that Muslims are disorganized, tribal, and blunderingly inefficient when it comes to running political affairs. The Islamic world, while diverse, is backward, stagnant, and pitiful when compared to the nations of the west.
In future posts we will look more closely at the claim that Islam is a threat and though this is true to a very limited extent, Mr Auster's case against Islam is pure fantasy. Relax. The Sharia isn't coming to a town near you.
This belief of Mr Auster's -- whether it's propaganda or paranoia -- serves the interests of Israel. If all Muslims are really a terrible human scourge then Israel will always be on the side of the angels when it slaughters Palestianians and if Islam is portrayed as a great threat to the West then West must ally with Israel in opposing Islam.
Though we can argue over the significance of threat that Islam poses -- and we will address this in another post -- the facts as Mr Auster presents are simply not there. He likes to argue that he sees Islam "as it is," and not "as it should be." But he doesn't see Islam "as it is," but how we wants to see it i.e. as a Neocon who wants to wage war against Muslims and protect the state of Israel.
Let's look at specific case that Mr Auster makes against Islam: "It is the rule of Sharia, the imposition of the Islamic law over each society and ultimately over the whole earth. Sharia is the true end of Islam, Sharia is practically indentical with Islam..."
But how accurate is this really? Lawrence Auster is simply reducing the history of Islam, the beliefs and actions of every single Muslim in the world -- all 1.5 billion of them -- to a few passages in the Quran. Every waking moment of every Muslim's life is dominated by only two thoughts: killing the infidels and then imposing the Sharia on them. So where can we find this fabled Sharia?
Let's look at a few facts. The most populated Muslim nations are Indonesia (over 200 million), Pakistan (167 million), Bangladesh (132 million), Egypt (70 million), Turkey (70 million), Nigeria (64 million), Iran (64 million), Algeria (32 million) , Morocco (32 million) , Afghanistan (31 million), and Saudi Arabia (26 million). Now how many of these countries actually codify the Sharia into their formal articles of government? Indonesia, Bangladesh, Nigeria and Turkey are secular. Egypt does recognize Islam as the state religion but still permits some freedom of religious expression. Afghanistan is now nominally secular but has been embroiled in tribal wars since the end of the Soviet occupation in 1989. Iran is run by religious clerics -- and in that sense is an Islamic theocracy -- but does allow other religious traditions. Saudi Arabia probably enforces the strictlest interpretation of Islamic law, but this is actually an exception in the Muslim world and not the norm. Of course the political life in these countries is often quite primitive and at the local level and in rural parts of the country Sharia is more commonly practiced, but this only reinforces the fact that Islam really isn't much of a threat: If Muslims cannot even codify the Sharia when they are almost 100% percent of the population should we really regard the Sharia as a concern when Muslims are less than 2% of the U.S. population?
If anything these facts illustrate that Muslims are disorganized, tribal, and blunderingly inefficient when it comes to running political affairs. The Islamic world, while diverse, is backward, stagnant, and pitiful when compared to the nations of the west.
In future posts we will look more closely at the claim that Islam is a threat and though this is true to a very limited extent, Mr Auster's case against Islam is pure fantasy. Relax. The Sharia isn't coming to a town near you.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Lawrence Auster: Super Neocon
I don't intend to use this site to comment on Lawrence Auster's general worldview or political associations, but rather to provide a detailed rebuttal of his more asine and far flung ideas. As I mentioned in my previous post, Lawrence Auster calls himself a "traditionalist," but this really means very little. In reality, Lawrence Auster is a Neocon and while not all Neocons are identical his ideas about the world and his interests clearly place him in the Neocon camp. However, before we continue to elaborate on this idea, I think it's important to insert some background information on why Mr Auster considers himself to be a "tradionalist."
It all began in 2002 when the Bush Administration began its propaganda campaign to convince Americans, and the rest of the world, on the dire need to invade Iraq. The Neocons came to the forefront of political discourse at this time because they were seen -- rightly -- as the intellectual force spearheading the drive to invade Iraq. The reasons at the time were mostly about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the threat they posed to the United States. Also, there were subtle suggestions that Iraq may have had a role in the 9/11 terror attacks. But we all know this story.
However, a more neglected story was the extent to which the Iraq war divided the conservative movement. While most self-identified conservatives did support the Iraq war this itself is not very meaningful because average 'Joe Conservative' always roots for the Republicans. At the more intellectual level, though, there was a serious break in conservative ranks; ranks that were solid and unified during the Clinton years. As the war brought the term Neocon into the spotlight it also brought the term paleo conservative, not into the spotlight, but at least out of the warehouse of the Unknown Political Lexicon. Though much more could be said about this, for our purposes it is enough to know that Lawrence Auster sided with the Neocons, celebrated the Iraq war , spread the propaganda about Saddam Hussein threatening the world with a nuclear weapon, and was a stalwart defender of President Bush. This alone surely qualifies him as a Neocon although now he never mentions the fact that he supported the war, and tries to blame the Neocon's idealistic project for building a democracy in Iraq as the problem rather than the war itself.
So why is Lawrence Auster a Neocon? As unpleasant as this may sound, a Neocon is first and foremost a supporter of Israel but also, secondarily, one who wishes to create a climate of permanent hostility between the West and Islam. We know that Lawrence Auster is Jewish, but not all Jews are Neocons, but nevertheless we can surely say that, like feminism, Neoconism is a Jewish movement in the sense that it seeks to promote singularly Jewish interests. So we shouldn't let Lawrence Auster get away with labeling himself a "tradionalist." He invented this label to dissociate himself from the paleo-conservatives, primarily Buchanan, who were against the war, but also the mainstream Neocon movement since it supports or at least is rather silent about immigration.
Since Lawrence Auster regards Islam as a threat to Israel he has fabricated a largely fictious monster, which most call "radical" Islam, but he simply labels as Islam. There is no moderate Islam. It's all radical, and by radical Mr Auster means of the same type that perpetrated the 911 terror attacks. The slaughter of three thousand innocents is the norm for Islam. All else is wishful thinking.
In the coming posts we will explain why Lawrence Auster's view of Islam isn't accurate or even rational, but largely a fantasy that tries to lure the entire West in the pursuit of serving the interests of Israel. Above all else, this disqualifies Mr Auster from the ranks of conservative or even an American, because in reality he is a dangerous propagandist whose only concern is to foment more war.
It all began in 2002 when the Bush Administration began its propaganda campaign to convince Americans, and the rest of the world, on the dire need to invade Iraq. The Neocons came to the forefront of political discourse at this time because they were seen -- rightly -- as the intellectual force spearheading the drive to invade Iraq. The reasons at the time were mostly about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the threat they posed to the United States. Also, there were subtle suggestions that Iraq may have had a role in the 9/11 terror attacks. But we all know this story.
However, a more neglected story was the extent to which the Iraq war divided the conservative movement. While most self-identified conservatives did support the Iraq war this itself is not very meaningful because average 'Joe Conservative' always roots for the Republicans. At the more intellectual level, though, there was a serious break in conservative ranks; ranks that were solid and unified during the Clinton years. As the war brought the term Neocon into the spotlight it also brought the term paleo conservative, not into the spotlight, but at least out of the warehouse of the Unknown Political Lexicon. Though much more could be said about this, for our purposes it is enough to know that Lawrence Auster sided with the Neocons, celebrated the Iraq war , spread the propaganda about Saddam Hussein threatening the world with a nuclear weapon, and was a stalwart defender of President Bush. This alone surely qualifies him as a Neocon although now he never mentions the fact that he supported the war, and tries to blame the Neocon's idealistic project for building a democracy in Iraq as the problem rather than the war itself.
So why is Lawrence Auster a Neocon? As unpleasant as this may sound, a Neocon is first and foremost a supporter of Israel but also, secondarily, one who wishes to create a climate of permanent hostility between the West and Islam. We know that Lawrence Auster is Jewish, but not all Jews are Neocons, but nevertheless we can surely say that, like feminism, Neoconism is a Jewish movement in the sense that it seeks to promote singularly Jewish interests. So we shouldn't let Lawrence Auster get away with labeling himself a "tradionalist." He invented this label to dissociate himself from the paleo-conservatives, primarily Buchanan, who were against the war, but also the mainstream Neocon movement since it supports or at least is rather silent about immigration.
Since Lawrence Auster regards Islam as a threat to Israel he has fabricated a largely fictious monster, which most call "radical" Islam, but he simply labels as Islam. There is no moderate Islam. It's all radical, and by radical Mr Auster means of the same type that perpetrated the 911 terror attacks. The slaughter of three thousand innocents is the norm for Islam. All else is wishful thinking.
In the coming posts we will explain why Lawrence Auster's view of Islam isn't accurate or even rational, but largely a fantasy that tries to lure the entire West in the pursuit of serving the interests of Israel. Above all else, this disqualifies Mr Auster from the ranks of conservative or even an American, because in reality he is a dangerous propagandist whose only concern is to foment more war.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Opening Salvo
Greetings all,
Lawrence Auster is a little known blogger on the internet who likes to write controversially about liberalism, Darwinism, and Islam. He fancies himself a "traditionalist," and is an even handed critic of both Republicans and Democrats. Though he is not well-known, a little pamphlet he wrote more than 10 years ago, The Path to National Suicide, earned him a small following on the populist right and, at the time, he strongly identified with Pat Buchanan's worldview. He continues to be an implacable critic of America's open immigration policy and has even dared to journey into the hinterlands of the race and IQ debate. Mr Auster pulls no punches on the question: whites and blacks have different IQs, the differences are inherited, and have serious consequences for the social fabric of the country.
I do not intend to provide an in depth analysis of Mr Auster's worldview but the essence can be summed up briefly: Liberalism is an acidic ideology that seeks to dissolve all the cohesive traditions that have bound us together as a people, or better, a civilization. The family is under assault from feminists and the radical homosexual lobby that continues to petition for same sex marriage. Religion is feeling the heat of science as Darwinism, Biblical criticism, archaeology etc. cast doubt on almost all religious claims. Finally, America's European heritage is rapidly declining as immigrants from the third world re-populate traditionally white societies. Underlying all this is liberalism, a worldview that elevates non-discrimination to the highest value and prevents western nations from making the necessary decisions needed to preserve their societies. Of course Mr Auster is always quite vague about where liberalism came from, why people continue to believe in it, and whether or not it actually serves anyone's interests.
We will have more to say about Lawrence Auster later and why his ideas are fundamentally dishonest and why he cannot in any sense be a conservative or "traditonalist."
Stay tuned...
Lawrence Auster is a little known blogger on the internet who likes to write controversially about liberalism, Darwinism, and Islam. He fancies himself a "traditionalist," and is an even handed critic of both Republicans and Democrats. Though he is not well-known, a little pamphlet he wrote more than 10 years ago, The Path to National Suicide, earned him a small following on the populist right and, at the time, he strongly identified with Pat Buchanan's worldview. He continues to be an implacable critic of America's open immigration policy and has even dared to journey into the hinterlands of the race and IQ debate. Mr Auster pulls no punches on the question: whites and blacks have different IQs, the differences are inherited, and have serious consequences for the social fabric of the country.
I do not intend to provide an in depth analysis of Mr Auster's worldview but the essence can be summed up briefly: Liberalism is an acidic ideology that seeks to dissolve all the cohesive traditions that have bound us together as a people, or better, a civilization. The family is under assault from feminists and the radical homosexual lobby that continues to petition for same sex marriage. Religion is feeling the heat of science as Darwinism, Biblical criticism, archaeology etc. cast doubt on almost all religious claims. Finally, America's European heritage is rapidly declining as immigrants from the third world re-populate traditionally white societies. Underlying all this is liberalism, a worldview that elevates non-discrimination to the highest value and prevents western nations from making the necessary decisions needed to preserve their societies. Of course Mr Auster is always quite vague about where liberalism came from, why people continue to believe in it, and whether or not it actually serves anyone's interests.
We will have more to say about Lawrence Auster later and why his ideas are fundamentally dishonest and why he cannot in any sense be a conservative or "traditonalist."
Stay tuned...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)