A reply to Mr Auster

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.