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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs close a follower of Auster's as I'm sure you are, Mr. (Or is it Ms.? I honestly mean no offense, but I don't know what gender "Janua" is.) Coeli, I assume you've read his many articles laying out what neoconservativism is (or, if you prefer, what he considers neoconservativism to be), and explaining why he is clearly not a neoconservative. Yet you curiously never reference his many articles on the topic.
ReplyDeleteFurther, while you assert that he is a neoconservative, you don't a) define what "neoconservative" is, b) overtly explain why his well-documented definition of "neoconservative" is faulty (a claim you implicitly make by calling him a neoconservative when he has explicitly and repeatedly renounced neoconservatism), or c) explain why he fits your (missing) definition.
As far as I can tell, you consider a neoconservative to generally (not always) be a Jewish conservative with negative views of Islam. I assume that someone with as strong opinions as you seem to have has obviously thought out what as important a term as "neoconservative" means, however, and that you've only given us a glimpse of your definition. If you'd give us a better idea, I'd appreciate it.
Note: In my first comment, I inaccurately stated that Auster was against the Iraq War. In fact, he reluctantly supported it -- for the, as it turned out, false claims about Iraq's WMDs -- but not for spreading democracy. So I deleted my original comment, replacing it with this one (which lacks the inaccurate statement).
Great! I appreciate your joining the great conversation. We need more thoughtful thinkers and writers. I do hope you take the time to dissect his arguments and respond to them here on your website. I will keep looking over here to see if it develops into something worth reading with a significant client base.
ReplyDeleteI do hope that this website isn't going to be another of the flash-in-the-pan diatribes that gets dropped when the author gets bored or realizes the huge management and intellectual burden that maintaining a website imposes.
Don't lose heart. Keep commenting and writing. Address Auster's and others' arguments carefully and thoughtfully and I will be back.
Good luck!