| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Paul Weyrich once told me that I should never hesitate to ally with someone with whom I had disagreements on some issues. Allies are hard to come by in any case, and agreement on one issue didn't require agreement on all issues. There are some with whom one should never ally, but they are few. I think it's good advice.
This is important today, as I have called repeatedly for Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and others to unite against the global jihad. This will require working with people with whom one disagrees. This has come up because Lawrence Auster, a conservative writer, has been attacking me on a more or less regular basis lately for defending Hirsi Ali and other sins -- including the contention that I'm a "neoconservative." So I write this not to convince Auster of anything, but to try to clarify these issues for people of good will who may read this.
It isn't important if Auster thinks what I am doing is conservative or neoconservative or liberal or yellow or blue. The jihad targets conservatives and liberals and neocons alike. But he is attempting to portray me as actually opposing the West, and playing into the hands of the jihadists. He says, referring to me and people like me:
He sees himself as a defender of a besieged Judeo-Christian civilization which he hopes to save and restore. These feelings and allegiances make him a conservative; certainly they make him one in his own eyes. But what does this civilization to which Spencer the conservative is devoted consist of? It consists of a “vision of human dignity,” of “principles of the equality of dignity of all people, the freedom of conscience, and the other principles that are derived ultimately from Judaism and Christianity.” These are all liberal principles, as Spencer himself makes clear when he says of them, not that they are Jewish and Christian, but that they are derived from Judaism and Christianity. Liberalism is, of course, the secularized offshoot of Christianity. And it is to this liberal ideal that Spencer has given his heart...
The opposition that he sets up here is absurd. Because I speak of values derived from Judaism and Christianity, therefore I somehow oppose or don't value Judeo-Christian civilization itself? The equality of dignity of all people and the freedom of conscience are affirmed by the Catholic Church at the Second Vatican Council and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as principles derived from the nature of man as created in God's image. These aren't Christian principles, but liberal ones and somehow ultimately anti-Christian ones? I know that strong statements of the freedom of conscience can be found as far back as St. Augustine -- another notorious neo-con, no doubt. And the equality of dignity of all people is as old as Genesis' statement about men and women being created in the image of God. If Auster thinks that defending them is somehow "neoconservative" and "liberal" and opposed to an authentic defense of Judeo-Christian civilization, I would submit that he has a narrow, pinched, idiosyncratic and ahistorical view of that civilization.
His thesis is based on his false statement that I have "often spoken, not in terms of defending the West from Islam, but of defending 'secular values' from Islam." In fact, to support his statements he refers (and can refer) only to one article, in which I used "secularism" to mean "non-establishment." I acknowledged that was imprecise (because "secular values" can be taken to mean the relativist materialism of modern culture, which I do not endorse) when he attacked me on it at the time, and have not repeated it. In contrast, I have referred countless times, as anyone who reads this site can attest, to the need to defend "the West."
But Auster doesn't seem to have much interest in factual accuracy, but rather exhibits a taste for ad hominem smears. Not only does he sling the mud at Hirsi Ali and me, but at Jihad Watch Board member Ibn Warraq. He scores "Ibn Warraq’s aggressive, wise-guy atheism" and says he told Andrew Bostom: “You’ve got to tell Warraq that if he wants the support of conservatives, he can’t go around mocking God and attacking Christianity. His subject is Islam, he should stick to that and not attack religion in general.” He adds: "I said this to him several times, with utmost seriousness. I said Christians can work with secularists, if there is mutual tolerance. The message never got through."
Oh really? I called Andy Bostom myself about this. It's true that Ibn Warraq is an atheist, and that he attacked Christianity in Why I Am Not A Muslim in a way that I thought was gratuitous -- although even there he compares Jesus favorably to Muhammad, as I do in Islam Unveiled and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). And I wouldn't characterize even the material in Why I Am Not A Muslim as an "aggressive, wise-guy" attack. It's a reasoned discussion of historical criticism -- I disagree with it, but that doesn't make it shrill or hysterical. Anyone who knows Ibn Warraq personally knows that he just isn't the "aggressive, wise-guy" type, but is courteous, cultured, erudite, witty, measured, and scholarly.
Anyway, since Why I Am Not A Muslim I have never seen Ibn Warraq speak or write about Christianity; I called to ask Andy if he had, since Auster had ostensibly spoken with him about it. No, Andy said; Why I Am Not A Muslim was written over ten years ago, and Ibn Warraq doesn't speak about Christianity now, and in fact he speaks -- and is well-received by -- Evangelical audiences. (More liberals, no doubt.) What's more, Andy told me that he explained all this to Auster -- but there is no trace of that in Auster's smear of Ibn Warraq.
Anyway, the heart of Auster's pique at me is that he believes that by defending Hirsi Ali, an atheist liberal, I am allying with someone who would destroy what I am ostensibly defending. He calls her "an enemy of our civilization."
I don't believe Hirsi Ali is an "enemy of our civilization." She holds to some positions with which I disagree, but the key difference between her and the Islamic jihadists is that I am confident Hirsi Ali will never try to murder me. We can work out our differences in peace in the public sphere, in rational discourse and debate. It may be that she and I will be in the position of Murray Rothbard and William F. Buckley; Rothbard told Buckley, according to Auster, that although they were allies against Communism, they would be on opposite sides after Communism was defeated. That may be, but at this point I am only concerned with defeating the jihad -- and if that future break with Hirsi Ali or someone else does happen, it will happen within the political arena, and not play out with guns and bombs.
It may be that I will be on opposite sides with many of my present allies if Islamic jihad is defeated and we all survive to work out our disagreements after that. But Auster is picking unnecessary fights with me and with so many other anti-jihadists instead of fighting the mujahedin. In setting himself up as the Grand Inquisitor of the West and its defense, he is actually weakening that defense -- chucking soldiers out of the foxholes instead of letting them fight, at a time when we need every warrior we can get.
I have indeed often spoken about the values that the jihadists threaten today without always hammering home that they are Judeo-Christian -- not because I don't know and value that fact, but because they have now become near-universal outside the Islamic world, and we have a chance to build an international Resistance on their basis. I have often said that we need a broad coalition of Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, and more -- everyone threatened by the jihad -- in order to defeat the jihad. I stand by that statement, because as far as I can tell, no single one of those groups is strong enough to defeat the jihad by itself. And likewise not strong enough to defeat the jihad by itself is the tiny and ever-dwindling number of those whose views are acceptable to a dyspeptic misanthrope like Lawrence Auster.
Posted by Robert at May 19, 2006 6:18 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
bravo Robert....maybe he should read..JUDGE NOT ,that ye be not judged.mat 7:1..as the old testament teachs GOD choses his warriors from among all men.you are an American hero. Please for our sakes fight on!
Posted by: storagemanager![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 19, 2006 9:08 PM
This is important today, as I have called repeatedly for Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and others to unite against the global jihad. This will require working with people with whom one disagrees.
Hugh,
We all know that unity is hard to build so, those with common intent, even with other disagreements, should unite!
That is my two-cents........
Posted by: Alert at May 19, 2006 9:10 PM
We should seek friends where we can find them. As long as their views are not immoral, illegal, or deceptive, we should welcome them with open arms. It is only a conceited child(in mentality)who expects others to agree with him or her in virtually every respect. Sand bars will be washed away in a storm or hurricane, but a continent will endure.
Posted by: Worry at May 19, 2006 9:29 PM
So... he says "Liberalism is, of course, the secularized offshoot of Christianity." Then, is a right-leaning Christian against Christianity, whether he knows it or not?
Now, Auster is a conservative, and apparently all in favor of Judeo-Christian values. What does the above paragraph say about him?
... Actually, rather than waiting for Auster to spontaneously combust while pondering the contradiction he has set up, it appears that, if one takes "liberalism" to be the "secularized offshoot of Christianity," secularism is where his objections lie.
That makes Auster no more helpful than, say, Pat Buchanan.
'Nuff said.
Posted by: Shinoliite at May 19, 2006 9:32 PM
Pat Buchanan.......oh man....dont get me started..lol
at May 19, 2006 9:35 PM
A nit-picker.
A mice-milker. He is trying to put you in a box. To label; & categorize you like a museum piece, Mr. Spencer.
Is he important enough to warrant such a response? I doubt it.
JW/DW are becoming more important. More people take notice all the time. Many who used to scoff at it are now serious readers and BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND! T
hat is already a great achievement.
The fact that 5 years after 9/11 the US-administration, most governments in the EU, the MSM nearly everywhere in the world have done nothing but appease the Mohammedans, deflect away and obfuscate the issues relating to Islam, that and the infiltration of the western world by Mohammedans, that needs to come out in the open, and measures need to be taken to reverse this trend.
For this, we should indeed ally with whoever sees at least this far.
The 'silent majority', (if there is such a thing) once informed about what Islam is really all about, will be horrified and back us. That I don't doubt.
But we have to get there first.
at May 19, 2006 9:40 PM
The problem is multifaceted. There are groups within the wider Christian movement that might prefer the triumph of Islam to the triumph of secularism. Some years ago I read about a US Evangelical apologetics group that traveled to Turkey to participate with Islamists in a conference on the subject of creationism. The Islamists were very happy to receive the aid of this group and after the fact the US group proudly reported to its constituents about the "good work" it had been doing combating secularism and atheism in Turkey. It is possible that they have contributed to the resurgence of Islam in Turkey. Very short-sighted.
And there are people in the US on the Left who regard the US religious right to be a greater menace than the Islamists, since they imagine that the christian religious right might actually gain political control in the US and impose something resemblng sharia while they cannot conceive of Islamists doing that. Again, it seems very short-sighted.
I think that until the threat of resurgent traditional Islam is more widely and clearly recognized on both Left and Right, this kind of cross-purposedness will continue. That is an example of the great value of what Mssrs Spencer and Fitzgerald are doing here.
at May 19, 2006 9:52 PM
You know, maybe these Auster and Esmay characters have blogs and have it in for you but you would never know it from the jihadwatch recent referrers link. It suggests to me that maybe their readership is, er, shall we say, somewhat limited.
Posted by: AnneCrockett at May 19, 2006 9:56 PM
"I have called repeatedly for Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and others to unite against the global jihad."
Yes Robert! so true. Jihad, Da'wa and Dihimmitude are a threat to global cultures other then Islam.
I have written many times to this effect on my few posts to this site.
My words are not as well crafted as many of the gifted writers on this site, but my agreement with their message is the same. We are all in this together and all of us will suffer if sharia flattens the world.
To my fellow American we must put aside our differences with Europe, it is in our common interest to help the Europeans save themselves.
Faced with evil of sharia and Islamic conquest we have no choice if we are to survive.
Posted by: El Cid at May 19, 2006 10:05 PM
We must work together it's true. However, that does not mean that we will discontinue expressing our opinions and vehemently fighting against those battling us, whether Moslem or otherwise.
Mr. Spencer, what about people like these: http://www.godhatesamerica.com and http://www.godhatesfags.com?
I am sure these folks are receptive to our message here. They doubtless don't like Islam. But do you expect me to work with Chrisitianists like them? They call for my death. I call for their incarceration. Would you work with such folks? And while we are discussing it, I'd like to know just how these people differ from the Talibs. Allies?
Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at May 19, 2006 10:15 PM
The more I think about it, the more I wonder whether there may be a problem in gaining the support of Protestant religious conservatives (I'll call them "Evangelicals" for short). This is a not insubstantial proportion of the population (it is, of course, in recent decades a significant portion of the "base" of the Republical party).
The Evangelical political movement has had a rather limited set of agendas. These have focussed around respect for the religious heritage of America and the promotion of what I will call "public righteousness". The principal "pr" concerns have been the restriction of abortion and the avoidance of civil approval of homosexuality. The recent emphasis on protection of marriage is an example of the latter.
The worrisome thing is that this is quite parallel to aspects the Islamist agenda. I am tempted to wonder whether to some extent this may underlie the President's public approbation of Islam as a "great and good religion."
Given that Evangelicals feel increasingly threatened by the secularization of the public sphere in America, I wonder whether it may be that many of them will feel that they "don't have a dog in this fight." That would be unfortunate, since Dhimmi status would be worse than the marginalization that they would experience in a thoroughly secularized US.
Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite
at May 19, 2006 10:18 PM
Kafir,
Why are you sure they're receptive to our message here? Many such groups admire Islam for its alleged strength on moral issues.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 19, 2006 10:18 PM
Dhimmis of the world:
Actually, your analysis is way off the mark. In fact, Protestant Evangelicals have been among the most vocal and energetic foes of the Islamic jihad at a time when other Christian leaders and groups are still playing self-deceiving and self-defeating "dialogue" games.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 19, 2006 10:23 PM
Paul Weyrich's theory is right at very basic psychological level. To be unwilling to politically ally yourself with a person is to put someone beyond the possibility of social discourse and love. We should always be willing to love others.
On the other hand, political maturity means realizing that our permanent ally of years has ceased to make sense and we have to cut ourselves loose and go find other allies. I have experienced this recently. I used to be a leftist Democrat, but I now have many doubts. I no longer see the struggles of leftists as productive. I remain an anti-religious social liberal and an environmentalist, but other than that I have no use for the Democrat Party or the left. I changed my registration today to Republican. The Democratic stance on the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill is just too much for me. The Democratic Senators could not even vote to make English our national language. (The mediocre George W also opposes English as a national language.) This unwillingness to defend American culture mirrors the European politics that have brought to Europe the peril of Islamic immigration.
In becoming Republican, I have accepted that I am allying myself somewhat with Pat Robertson and his followers. That is ok. There has always been an unresolved tension between people like me and Pat Robertson's followers, and I hope that there always be. If people like me are to continue our fight with people like Pat Robertson, we have to defeat a totalitarian cult that would eliminate both of us. I have come to the point where I actually enjoy arguing the Bible with Christians. And this is the key, the Christians are willing to argue back with logic, often faulty logic, but still they attempt logic and not violence. Under Muslim sharia, I would probably be brutally killed for similar activities, but the Christians rejoice that I know their holy book so well. At this point in history, the large bulk of Christians are also willing to treat their enemies with love and not to demonize them. There are, of course, counter-examples: Jerry Falwell circulating propaganda that President Clinton committed murder comes to mind. Still, the exceptions are relatively few. I enjoy reading the National Review in good conscience.
at May 19, 2006 10:24 PM
as a christian who reads the the bible from cover to cover.....and answers only to GOD....i can honesly say most of us are just normal people,who have no secret agendas....we are not green and we dont want to rule the world.the one we are promised is better.you may have this one.lol
Posted by: storagemanager at May 19, 2006 10:27 PM
sorry...one more point...pat robertson does not speak for all christians...another myth...maybe just a nice tip...if people knew as much about REAL christians.....as they do about islam.the myths would stop.
Posted by: storagemanager at May 19, 2006 10:32 PM
Also, I would like to add that as a devout Catholic and conservative, I support Robert's work both on Jihadwatch and his many books.
This an open site whose which has many participants of deep conservative and Christian values, but it is open to reach all who realize the Islamic threat.
Robert's work in my estimation, has deep inspiration in Judeo-Christian belief, yet his appeal, one that I believe in, reaches for common cause for the worlds cultural survival.
We can keep our cherished beliefs and still join with others to fight the Jihad.
Posted by: El Cid at May 19, 2006 10:34 PM
bravo El Cid
Posted by: storagemanager at May 19, 2006 10:40 PM
OT to Kafir Nonbeliever,
"Christianists"-- I like that. Thank you for separating practicing (and more lax) Christians from the nuts out there who claim to be Christians, but are nothing more or less than haters.
I don't know if the word is of your own coinage, but I like it, and I'll remember it!
Now, if someone, ANYONE, can come up with something to call those of us men and women who can no longer be called "feminists" (largely due to Rush Limbaugh's "feminazi" crap, and the bad reputation of a feminist movement that has skidded way off the road) I would certainly be grateful! I'd kinda like to have a place to hang my hat, and it's not with the NOW crowd.
Posted by: Abscedere at May 19, 2006 10:46 PM
The enemy within is also of utmost importance.
Churchill wrote about them in despair in the early thirties something like " it is not the enemy without that cause most concern. it is the enemy within. They are not those who live in modest cottages earning modest wages, but the academics and thinkers who whilst contibuting to our culture take away from our country's will to defend itself"
Things have gotten much worse since.
A new religion has emerged in western civiliasation. It's deity is MAN. or to be more precise Homo Liberalus.
Homo liberalus is the result of two thousand years of moral evolution. Its early disciples are the ninteenth and twentieth philosophers such as nietzche , marx or Sigmund Freud . more like fighting monks than passive philosophers they helped bring about the downfall of Judeo Christianity, which for better or worse had saved mankind during all those years from total self evisceration and moral corruption.
The New disciples reside not in the monastries and churches of christendom but in the ivory towers of academia. from here they have preached a conformism in the acceptance of man made philosophies and moralities as the new gospel.
Those who draw still their morals from religious faith are mere throwbacks to the age of neanderthals.
Those who do not worship at the altar of the new liberalism are the cause of all evil in the world.
We are in their eyes, "proto" liberals wno have not yet embraced their wisdom.
By making Man hinself our new deity, we have enabled the invasion of islam as never before in history. we have also paralysed our will to defend ourselves.
And we have forgotten that all the invasions of islam from Charlemagen to the gates of Vienna were successfully countered because of a firm bedrock of religious faith.
at May 19, 2006 10:49 PM
Hi Robert,
Thanks for the information; I'm glad to hear it. But I'm not saying that there are no Evangelicals who understand the threat --- I am one such myself, though one of no consequence.
My concern is that faced with the option of A) Dhimmi status under a sharia that would accomplish many of the "public righteousness" objectives (legitimate objectives, and ones that I find reasonable) that the Evangelical political movement has been pursuing for decades or B) increasing marginalization in an increasingly secularized polity that disrespects all religion and publicly approves and even subsidizes things that Evangelicals regard as deeply wrong, it may be difficult to get a broad consensus among the Evangelical movement that Islam is all that worse than secularization. To adopt a biblical metaphor, Evangelicals may find themselves faced with the choice of living in Babylon or in a polity that resembles, in the severity of its civil sanctions, the Old Testament Israelitish theocracy. I think that many of them may prefer the theocracy.
I think that sharia would be a lot worse that secularization (and it does seem to me that these are the alternatives, for I do not foresee Christianity reasserting its historic cultural influence in the US in my lifetime), but I wonder whether it will look that way to the majority of the Evangelical movement.
I hope I'm wrong and will rejoice if events prove me to be mistaken about this.
Thanks for your work. I think that you are making a difference.
Sincerely yours,
Sam Conner
at May 19, 2006 10:55 PM
"...I am confident Hirsi Ali will never try to murder me."
The same can be said about Baptists, Catholics, Hindus ,Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Confucianists, Jews, and even Scientologists and on and on and on .... I don't know of a single religion that has murder and mayhem as it's central theme for keeping people in line.
If Mr. Auster's house is ever on fire he better make sure that the firefighter is a good Christian Republican. We don't want no Catholics or Jews rescuing Protestants.
at May 19, 2006 11:04 PM
I should have written: "a single religion other than Mohammedanism."
Posted by: Pelayo at May 19, 2006 11:07 PM
chevalier de st george, I agree very much, religious faith has saved the West in the past. For many a deep religious faith will help.
Posted by: El Cid at May 19, 2006 11:09 PM
"There are two categories of people in the world, those who constantly divide the people of the world into two classes, and those who do not."
Robert Benchley wrote that. I'm with him, I'm definitely on his side. Yes, I agree with Robert Benchley 100%, and I do so 100% of the time. Oops, sorry, I just realized I can't be with him, can't be on his team. You see, if I choose his side (even if in some sense both deeper and higher I am with him, which makes it hard not to be with him even in a shallower and lower sense) then I'd be placing myself in the category of those who do what he does, dividing the people of the world into two classes. And I'm in the category of people who don't want to be on the dividing side of that divide. So I'm not with him, after all, or have decided to think that I think that I can't be, but on the other hand one wants so much to be on Robert Benchley's team. Who wouldn't want to be on a team captained by someone who titled one of his books "David Copperfield, or Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea"?
Roundheads or Cavaliers, Guelfs or Ghibellines, La Montagne ou La Gironde, Bolsheviki ili Mensheviki, los Blancos o los Colorados, Little-Enders or Big-Enders, clerics or anti-clericals, Tories or Whigs, Brobdignagians or Lilliputians, conservatives or liberals, Shakespeareans or Oxfordians, formal or free versifiers, Keats or Shelley, Browning or Tennyson, Dickens or Thackeray, Marie Boroff or Max Beloff, Jean Seznec ou Jean Starobinski, Alexandre Kojeve or Alexandre Koyre, Dos Equis or Kirin, burgundy or bordeaux, beggars or choosers, le cru ou le cuit, Eve or Lilith, Mars or Venus, Scylla or Charybdis, Devil or the Deep Blue Sea, David Copperfield or Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, All or Nothing At All.
Decisions, decisions.
Before making those decisions, a break is called for. Nights in the great outdoors. Plain living and high thinking. A la belle etoile. Lungs full of fresh air. The sound of crickets at night. The chirm of birds in the morning. So it's Tenting Tonight on the Old Camp Ground. But with whom? Pitch a lean-to with the one or possibly two Little-Tenters who completely agree with you, and whom you can stand, even though the Jihadists might come down in the night like a wolf on the fold? Or, instead, help pitch a much larger tent, and share its ample space, its mosquito netting, its sturdy poles, with a dozen or more Big-Tenters? Just now, it might make all kinds of sense, beginning with the common kind, to camp out with those Big-Tenters.
at May 19, 2006 11:11 PM
I have read sentiments similar to Auster's on Paul Belien's Brussels Journal. (At least I think that's where Belien is camping.)
As a (fading) Democrat I would like to make common cause with people like Belien (Auster seems too far out for hope) but Belien too seems to want to roll back the clock to 1788 so that we can bow and scrape before Louis XVI in a pre-enlightenment bliss. Whether he wants allies or he wants to be right (no pun) I am not sure.
As I have grown older, I have found that aggravating as it may be, it is wisest to take one's allies where one finds them -- or else they may be lost entirely, and with them the battle.
Posted by: Raw Data at May 19, 2006 11:15 PM
We can keep our cherished beliefs and still join with others to fight the Jihad.
Posted by: El Cid at May 19, 2006 10:34 PM
I heartily agree El Cid I am a scientist with my own relationship to the more esoteric aspects of existence, but through Robert Spencers tireless work I have come to appreciate the important role that people from all backgrounds can play in combating the global jihad and dawa.
I would also like to add El Cid that you sell your self short when diminishing your written contribution to this site (see your first post). It always makes me happy when I see your handle at the bottom of a post and I have yet to see a post that isn’t thoughtful or accurate.
In addition I would like to say that through discourse with fellow JWers I have had my eyes opened to a number of different view points and opinions. A few years ago I maybe would have cringed at the thought of agreeing with those of a more religious persuasion, but now I find myself enjoying their scriptural input to the threads. (storagemanager and others keep it up).
We are involved in a fight to the death and we need to stand shoulder to shoulder if we are to overcome this beast.
at May 19, 2006 11:18 PM
Islam soured any fondness I used to have for any religion.
I've noticed that muslims love to attack christianity when confronted with the truth about their religion.
Honestly though - how can one hold that the supposed respect for human dignity that is inherent in 'judeo-christianity' has any validity when it is derived from their god?
To debunk the morality of 'judeo-christinaity', muslims need only debunk the god behind it.
Thankfully, humans are endowed with inalienable rights - rights not given to them by any god or ideology or dogma - rights they posses for simply being born.
Muslims cannot argue against the inherent rights of man to be free, to live, and to seek happiness. And it is these rights which they fear the most - not some muddled concept like 'judeo-christianity'.
In fact, they very much see that our judeo-christian society has decayed almost completely, and to them that means we are weak.
Of course it is false - the west is not weak. If a small country like Isreal can defeat several arab armies simultaniously, we are definitely not weak.
We just have to reaffirm our values, stand for them, and not compromise with, or appease, those who threaten our freedom.
at May 19, 2006 11:21 PM
For non Americans out there, please disregard the following:
Raw Data, I too was a Democrat. I am a registered Republican now, but hardly agree with my current party either. On fiscal issues, I am staunchly Rep, so I became a Rep. However, I would like to see the Dems move to where they need to be, but I doubt they will. This party took us to war when we didn't need to go, and now won't take us to war when we need to go (Iran)! It is making me furious. Neither party really delivers at this point.
at May 19, 2006 11:25 PM
Muslims cannot argue against the inherent rights of man to be free, to live, and to seek happiness....
Posted by: Todd at May 19, 2006 11:21 PM
I am not to sure about that Todd they seem to be doing a pretty good job at the moment.
Posted by: km at May 19, 2006 11:26 PM
I'm willing to make common cause with religious people to defeat the jihad.
Not because I believe in god -- but because I believe in freedom of conscience.
at May 19, 2006 11:26 PM
thank you Km, I am grateful that through this site and many others I can stand shoulder to shoulder with fellow brothers at arms.
If we unite we will all survive, and maybe a silver-lining to all this will be a greater understanding of one's self.
Posted by: El Cid at May 19, 2006 11:30 PM
This party took us to war when we didn't need to go, and now won't take us to war when we need to go (Iran)! It is making me furious.
Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at May 19, 2006 11:25 PM
I am not so sure Kafir, I still believe that the territorial advantage we have gained in ME with the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan will stand us in good stead in the comming months.
The war is comming and it will be here soon, to be flanking a potential adversary the way we are with men and equipment already in place is something that shouldnt be overlooked. We just need to be patient. I like you want to get this thing over and done with.
The world needs to take its medicine now before the disease gets worse. What will be an injustice to the world is if GW Bush turns out to be nothing more than a corporate stooge who led the US into Iraq for nothing more than financial kick backs to his Haliburton buddies.
Time will tell.
Posted by: km at May 19, 2006 11:35 PM
To continue my gloomy line of thinking, if one were to poll a large sample of Evangelicals today and ask them what they think the greatest threat facing the American people today is, without prompting them, I think that you would get answers like this:
* the deterioration of morality
* the collapse of the institution of marriage
* the exclusion of God from public discourse and from the schools
and to a lesser extent:
* the overextension of our shrinking military
* deteriorating federal finances
* "terrorism"
I'm glad to know that there are Evangelical leaders in the fight against the global jihad, but from where I sit in the Evangelical "echo chamber", it doesn't appear to me that the jihad is high on the list of concerns of most leaders, though it underlies some of them. Perhaps that will change.
Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite
at May 19, 2006 11:41 PM
Well said km...
I am not sure how it will all unfold but our strategic position is much better than say 1996,1986,1976.
at May 19, 2006 11:43 PM
Dhimmisoftheworld
I assume you mean 'is not high on the list of concerns'.
Posted by: km at May 19, 2006 11:43 PM
A very fine thread indeed. I've been thinking that our problem is mainly in identifying our enemies. It seems that whenever I engage a more liberal person in a discussion about the war on terrorism they immediatly launch into a diatribe about all the ills of the administration, all the mistakes it's made (both real and imagined) and the standard liberal talking points and I at one point interrupt and say "O.K. I agree. The Bush administration is as f?@ed up as a foolball bat." After the smelling salts I continue: "Do you think our disagreements matter to a terrorist?"
The point being that we Americans need to pull together...to put our differences aside to fight the common enemy. Lest he kill us while we quibble.
Yes, I'll admit that our nation has made a few mistakes. (many, many, many mistakes) But having admitting this I certianly don't propose we offer our heads to atone.
I believe that we as Americans have lost the awareness of what a real war is. Few would debate that ending the Nazi regeme was a good thing. And yet we fire-bombed Dresden. Because war is a dirty, inhuman activity. But we did it, and so many other things because the cause was just. And sadly, the end justified the means. Americans should realize that self-preservation is a just cause.
Posted by: jamsler at May 19, 2006 11:51 PM
tgusa
Absolutely, we are in a strategic position that is to be envied. We have subdued Afghanistan, something the USSR was unable to do and no matter how you look at Iraq and how tragic the deaths are that occur in the current campaign. The simple fact of the matter is that in terms of a war the casualties we are sustaining there are minimal.
However like I said earlier if the current administration fails to follow through on the campaign that has been started it will be a bigger tragedy than the appeasement of Hitler when he marched into the Sudetanland.
However I am of the opinion that should the US fail to act, Israel will. This will force the US into the ensuing conflict. But with that caveat in mind I think a conflict initiated by the Israelis will be much worse for world than one initiated by the US.
Posted by: km at May 19, 2006 11:55 PM
jamsler...
we fire-bombed Dresden...
We are not quite there yet.
Keep spreading the word!!!
Soooon...
at May 19, 2006 11:55 PM
Km, yes time will tell, I think that the next year will be critical.
I feel that the pressure worldwide is building and a clash is coming soon.
God help us, and we will really need allies when it does happen.
Posted by: El Cid at May 19, 2006 11:56 PM
Hi km,
Yes, I goofed; thanks.
I think that the jihad is **not** high on the list of their concerns.
I think that one can gauge what the leadership (by "leadership" I mean the public voices that dominate Evangelical discourse, the Dobsons, Colsons, the leaders of the largest churches that have large media ministries) of the Evangelical movement considers to be most important by what they spend their time talking about. And it appears to me that for the great majority of these people, their public "air" time is devoted to two things: mobilizing Evangelicals for evangelistic ministry and mobilizing them to reassert Christian influence in the culture. Both very good things from my perspective.
Recently a bunch of prominent Evangelical leaders got together to issue a statement on global warming, urging that that this be taken more seriously before its consequences are too severe. That too is great.
Will similar coalitions of promiment leaders emerge to call the US government to understand the religious motivations and justifications of our terrorist opponents, or to reconfigure our economy to be less reliant on petroleum, or to stop propping up basket case Islamic economies? Individuals have done so, but I am aware of no emerging consensus that this is a matter of highest concern. When that does happen, if it happens, I will concede that the Evangelical movement is waking up to the threat.
But at present, the jihad is not prominent in their concerns.
That is how it appears to me.
Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite
at May 19, 2006 11:59 PM
The assertion that modern liberalism is a secular version of Christianity is ridiculously false. Christ preached individual enlightenment. Modern liberals are Marxists, pure and simple. They subscribe to the herd mentality, and are ruled by fear.
Posted by: robert108 at May 20, 2006 12:03 AM
Dhimmisoftheworldunite...
Circa 1975...
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,946527,00.html
at May 20, 2006 12:04 AM
"I used to be a leftist Democrat, but I now have many doubts. I no longer see the struggles of leftists as productive. I remain an anti-religious social liberal and an environmentalist, but other than that I have no use for the Democrat Party or the left. I changed my registration today to Republican." Quoted above..
Pediome;
I can relate in many ways. I find myself in the Christians camp, and think we should be good keepers of the earth. I refuse to join a "party", but would vote for those who share a common ideal.
In finding others who share in seeing the threat Islam issues, all should be welcome to assist in the fight.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at May 20, 2006 12:06 AM
Dhimmisoftheworldunite .
I think
* the deterioration of morality
* the collapse of the institution of marriage
* the exclusion of God from public discourse and from the schools
* the overextension of our shrinking military
* deteriorating federal finances
* "terrorism"
I would also add
* immigration
* corruption both personal and institutional
* weakness of the worlds financial system and the consumer 's indebtedness.
are all important to me. They all contribute to the weakness of our civilization to the Islamic assault,
But top on my list is the Jihad, both soft (Da'wa) and hard (terrorism). It is the most important thing right now.
The coming conflict maybe so server that it will ether shake us out of our complacency to survival or destroy the future of our grandchildren.
Time will tell.
Posted by: El Cid at May 20, 2006 12:15 AM
an old country saying...the pot is on boil...and will boil over soon...even if i put my bible aside and use logic i see that...but i have a book that has been right on so far-about everything that has happened.good night.
Posted by: storagemanager at May 20, 2006 12:20 AM
km... You seem to be up on the latest.... Ever heard of Able Danger?
Posted by: tgusa at May 20, 2006 12:25 AM
A final thought before I call it a night.
It appears to me that there is a strand of apocalypticism in a substantial portion the Evangelical movement that regards with a measure of equanimity the deterioration of the situation in the Middle East. Since 1948 and the establishment (or re-establishment) of Israel, there has been a great deal of Evangelical speculation in print and pulpit that the end of this age and the return of Christ may be near. The "Left Behind" book and movie series is a reflection of this. Its popularity may be a measure of the breadth of this opinion within the Evangelical movement.
Not all Evangelicals embrace this view and there are many, particularly in the more Reformed/presbyterian wing of the movement, who vigorously reject it. But it is nonetheless a pretty widespread view.
The point I wish to make is that this view has "policy implications." If you expect to be "raptured" before the final calamity, you may be less concerned with opposing the calamity and more concerned with evangelizing as many people as possible before it happens. If you think that these events presage the return of Christ (in agreement, curiously, with Shiites such as Mr. Ahmedinejad), you may welcome rather than fear them.
I point this out not to criticize christian brothers and sisters who hold these opinions about the meaning of current world events, but to note another reason why it may be difficult to arouse many Evangelicals to concern about and vigorous activity against the jihad.
I hope that I am completely mistaken.
It's late and I must to bed.
I wish all of you well.
Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite at May 20, 2006 12:25 AM
Lawrence Auster says
"Leaving aside quibbles..."
...which is precisely what he doesn't do. I find the contents of his writing on Spencer and Hirsi Ali to be poorly-researched, ill-conceived, and pointless.
Nevertheless, we should not waste too much time on him. As Churchill said (to the effect that) 'If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks, you'll never reach your destination.'
Posted by: Archimedes at May 20, 2006 12:26 AM
But top on my list is the Jihad, both soft (Da'wa) and hard (terrorism). It is the most important thing right now.
El Cid
All too true check out the parallel between todays current events and Nazi Germany I got this link from LGF. Well worth watching.
http://www.archive.org/details/TheNazisStrike
Posted by: km at May 20, 2006 12:27 AM
I'm with you 90% Robert. The problem with your equation is the one element you failed to mention, the multicultural-Left. They are NOT ostensible or even prospective allies in this war for civilization.
The agenda of the multiculturalists is the antithesis of our own, premised on that one outstanding issue, cultural relativism. It is nothing short of a crippling impediment to an honest exposition of Islamic intolerance in our societal discvourse and perhaps our greatest obstacle to a successful defense of the West.
Posted by: Cornelius at May 20, 2006 12:28 AM
Hugh,
it seems that you overlooked a couple in your list, blondes or brunettes and cowboys or indians.
Posted by: Dan at May 20, 2006 12:45 AM
tgusa,
I am aware of Able Danger and I am disgusted by the whole affair. I first heard about on the Savage nation. I try not to think about it too much and just hope those we have elected will do the right thing when push comes to shove. And as far as I am concerned the pushing has already started,
Dhimmisoftheworld.
You have a good night.
Archimedes.
You can always rely on Churchill to keep you moving in the right direction. I am sure Robert doesnt take such attacks too personally. Good to see a post from you by the way I havent seen that many from you recently.
Posted by: km at May 20, 2006 12:54 AM
Dan aka moron...
That would be "on your list".
Blondes,Brunettes,Cowboys and Indians
at May 20, 2006 12:59 AM
Mr. Spencer, Hugh, Rebecca,
Anybody but intolerant religious fanatics bent on dominating the world with their cramped, self-righteous vision of the "divine" is my ally in this battle.
I'll take anyone who fights against the jihadists (who fit the first category, along with some rare cranks in every 'faith', whether "Christian Identity" nutjobs or Aum Shinriki murderers) and I will watch their backs loyally in the global foxhole that Islamic Imperialism has driven us all into.
Only fools argue about immaterial irrelevancies when a horde of homicidal maniacs is bearing down on your position.
They can examine the heads of pins later, once the war is won.
The dancing angels will wait.
Keep your wit and powder dry.
It's the jihad, stupid!
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 20, 2006 1:20 AM
A single dog can not kill a bear, but a pack of dogs can wear the bear down and kill it.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Europe has to face the problem of tens of millions of mos spread across Europe just as America has to face the problem of tens of millions of illegals in America.
If Europe and America do not address the fifth column armies within their borders, it will be virtually impossible to unite and defeat islam except by use of nuclear weapons.
-----------------
Read the following. It is interesting.
http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_04.htm
-----------------
America can defeat islam by use of nuclear weapons and survive a nuclear war, but not as the America that we know today.
World wide war is coming with islam, will the world be ready??? Will the war be nuclear???
It is better to live in a diminished world free than to live in a whole and properous world as a slave under islam.
God bless America and the free nations of the world and give us your strength and might to win this war.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost and the cost will be immense.
at May 20, 2006 1:28 AM
The assertion that modern liberalism is a secular version of Christianity is ridiculously false
Absolutely on the Button Robert!
The loose held moralities of secularist thinking can never replace the deep held faith in morality instilled by religion.
Man has not yet evolved to a state when such transformations can be made.
A devout christian priest is offered money by islamists to promote islamism- does he accept the bribe?
A wordly secular journalist is made the same offer- how does his conscience react to it?
at May 20, 2006 1:34 AM
Chevalier de St George-
A supposed 'Christian' like Bill Clinton or Al Gore is made a big offer to slander the West for petrodollars given by Islamicists who want them to do a "speech" (in Dubai or Riyad). What do they do? (We know the answer already. The checks are in the bank.)
While an agnostic like myself would tell them where to shove each dollar, one by one.
Because they're coming after me long before they're coming for ANY "Person of the Book".
It ain't the "faith" of the person, but the character.
All devout Muslims have "faith" coming out the wazoo.
And I'll take my dogs, who are faithful but know nothing of "gods", over these sanctimonious theocratic beasts who are so monotheistic they'll kill you.
Religions come and go, but good hearts prevail.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 20, 2006 2:54 AM
The question was "Should one ally with those with whom one disagrees?"
And that, of course, depends on what the nature of the disagreement is about. Reading the majority of comments here only confirms the truism of "the blind leading the blind." Mr. Spencer should know better.
Mr. Auster is correct. Mr. Spencer is wrong. I appeal not to anyone's human and therefore frail intellect but instead to a higher Authority. What fellowship hath light with darkness?
Ms. Hirsi Ali is a devout atheist and an abortionist and so is the Evil One. I suppose Mr. Spencer would afford place to him as well.
Posted by: Julia at May 20, 2006 2:55 AM
kmThis party took us to war when we didn't need to go, and now won't take us to war when we need to go (Iran)! It is making me furious. Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at May 19, 2006 11:25 PMI am not so sure Kafir, I still believe that the territorial advantage we have gained in ME with the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan will stand us in good stead in the comming months. Posted by: km
Reading Kafir's entire message, I get the impression that "This party" means the Democrats, the "war that we didn't need to go" was Kosovo, and now won't take us to war against Iran - is again the Democrats. On the last, I don't see either party rooting for war, probably gun shy after the Iraq WMD fiasco.
That's the problem. If one believes that WMD was the reason to take out Saddam, as this administration continously advertized, then the pro-Saddam crowd is right. But if one believes that the reason to take out Saddam was his increasing support for Islamic forces, be it Hamas, or appeal to Islamic fanaticism in Saudi Arabia against US troop presence, or even his potential ties to al Qaeda, then none of the pretexts would have been needed.
I agree with Kafir, and am somewhat surprised that he tends to lean more GOP than Dem, but that's a view most Libertarians would take. I do wish that beyond opposing Gay marriage, the GOP wouldn't take strident anti-Gay stands, like anti-civil-union.
While he is at liberty to advocate athiesm as an alternative to Islam (and religion worldwide), I, despite being practically an agnostic, don't see any precedent of a country with a strong athiestic tradition, holding its own against Islam (or for that matter, any religion). This does not imply that it's impossible; it's just that in the absense of any precedent, it's just not a conclusion one can safely arrive at. Even Communism, which was strictly enforced in the Soviet Union and China, failed to suppress religion, and following the break-up of the USSR, one sees a return to religion in most of the Soviet republics.
The example of the Muslim dominated republics is instructive. First of all, Azerbaijan - Shia but Turkic, leans towards Ankara, while in Tajikistan, Sunni but Farsi, Radio Teheran is their inspiration (how's that for a scary thought?) Then in Uzbegistan, any public display of Islam - including beards - is suppressed, and in Turkmenistan, President Niyazov has been running his own personality cult, a la Kemal Ataturk. Kyrghizstan, the most liberal of these countries, recently overthrew its regime, and it would be interesting to see whether they become more Islamized. Only in Kazakhstan, where Muslims are narrowly a minority (a plurality only if one splits the Russian orthodox and Protestant), does it look like a secular tradition can prevail, since one has competing Kazakh and Russian interests.
The way I tend to see it, atheism (and even more so agnosticism, even though I am mainly a Hindu agnostic) is equivalent to what in Physics would be considered an unstable equilibrium. A stable equilibrium would be a nation/culture that possesses and is fiercely protective of its religious heritage - be it Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Hindu, Buddhist,... heritage: such a nation not only can, but historically has successfully kept Islam out of its culture - be it the French of Charles Martel's era, the Poles at Vienna, the Rajputs against India's Muslim sultans, while former secular communist regimes, like South Yemen, Iraq, became more Islamic as soon as an authoritarian secular regime came down. In fact, if Kemal Ataturk, in addition to replacing Arabic with Roman for Turkey's script, had replaced Islam with Christianity, instead of his own cult, we wouldn't be witnessing the morbid specter of Turkey slowly reverting to Islam.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 20, 2006 3:17 AM
kmThis party took us to war when we didn't need to go, and now won't take us to war when we need to go (Iran)! It is making me furious. Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at May 19, 2006 11:25 PMI am not so sure Kafir, I still believe that the territorial advantage we have gained in ME with the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan will stand us in good stead in the comming months. Posted by: km
Reading Kafir's entire message, I get the impression that "This party" means the Democrats, the "war that we didn't need to go" was Kosovo, and now won't take us to war against Iran - is again the Democrats. On the last, I don't see either party rooting for war, probably gun shy after the Iraq WMD fiasco.
That's the problem. If one believes that WMD was the reason to take out Saddam, as this administration continously advertized, then the pro-Saddam crowd is right. But if one believes that the reason to take out Saddam was his increasing support for Islamic forces, be it Hamas, or appeal to Islamic fanaticism in Saudi Arabia against US troop presence, or even his potential ties to al Qaeda, then none of the pretexts would have been needed.
I agree with Kafir, and am somewhat surprised that he tends to lean more GOP than Dem, but that's a view most Libertarians would take. I do wish that beyond opposing Gay marriage, the GOP wouldn't take strident anti-Gay stands, like anti-civil-union.
While he is at liberty to advocate athiesm as an alternative to Islam (and religion worldwide), I, despite being practically an agnostic, don't see any precedent of a country with a strong athiestic tradition, holding its own against Islam (or for that matter, any religion). This does not imply that it's impossible; it's just that in the absense of any precedent, it's just not a conclusion one can safely arrive at. Even Communism, which was strictly enforced in the Soviet Union and China, failed to suppress religion, and following the break-up of the USSR, one sees a return to religion in most of the Soviet republics.
The example of the Muslim dominated republics is instructive. First of all, Azerbaijan - Shia but Turkic, leans towards Ankara, while in Tajikistan, Sunni but Farsi, Radio Teheran is their inspiration (how's that for a scary thought?) Then in Uzbegistan, any public display of Islam - including beards - is suppressed, and in Turkmenistan, President Niyazov has been running his own personality cult, a la Kemal Ataturk. Kyrghizstan, the most liberal of these countries, recently overthrew its regime, and it would be interesting to see whether they become more Islamized. Only in Kazakhstan, where Muslims are narrowly a minority (a plurality only if one splits the Russian orthodox and Protestant), does it look like a secular tradition can prevail, since one has competing Kazakh and Russian interests.
The way I tend to see it, atheism (and even more so agnosticism, even though I am mainly a Hindu agnostic) is equivalent to what in Physics would be considered an unstable equilibrium. A stable equilibrium would be a nation/culture that possesses and is fiercely protective of its religious heritage - be it Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Hindu, Buddhist,... heritage: such a nation not only can, but historically has successfully kept Islam out of its culture - be it the French of Charles Martel's era, the Poles at Vienna, the Rajputs against India's Muslim sultans, while former secular communist regimes, like South Yemen, Iraq, became more Islamic as soon as an authoritarian secular regime came down. In fact, if Kemal Ataturk, in addition to replacing Arabic with Roman for Turkey's script, had replaced Islam with Christianity, instead of his own cult, we wouldn't be witnessing the morbid specter of Turkey slowly reverting to Islam.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 20, 2006 3:17 AM
Tgura, what was that all about?
Hugh was simply throwing out some famous and historical clashes, like the Yankees and the Red Sox, Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner. If you thought my attempt at a witticism didn't cut it, fine, but if you're ready to toss of an insult for an irrelevancy.........
at May 20, 2006 3:29 AM
The problem with the Christian disapproval of secularism is that it is framed as though the comparison were between two entities of the same order: but they are not even as different as apples and oranges: it's more like Christianity is apples and secularism is the fruit section of the supermarket, or the supermarket itself, or the entire infrastructure of transportation, building construction, plumbing, employment, union rules, and laws surrounding the apples being offered for selection.
I.e., secularism has evolved as the overarching sociopolitical structure in which freedom of religion (among all the other freedoms) finds its security. There are unavoidable prices to pay for this freedom and security: the social and political landscape perforce becomes -- as much as possible -- free from specific religious regulations, and therefore religious people (of whatever stripe) find themselves discomfitted by the relative absence of religiousity in the larger body politic. With all the secularization that occurs, and it is an evolving, increasing process (America in 2006 is far more secular than it was in 1956, in turn far more secular than it was in 1856, etc.), there is yet an amorphous "civil religion" between the lines, behind the spirit of many of our civil laws, directly or indirectly derived from our Judaeo-Christian heritage (as well as from more diffuse religiousity emanating out of classical Rome and Greece -- Cicero, who influenced our Founding Fathers, was not a Christian, but was hardly an atheist).
The bottom line: secularism as an overarching paradigm is here to stay, and here to continue evolving. Christians have been taught a difficult lesson over the past 300 years (accelerating with each passing generation): they had to dismantle their theocracy, one brick at a time. This is a lesson that can lead them back to the original humility that made them great and superior to Muslims. In a secular system based on human rights as is the modern West, Christians remain free, respected, secure and equal in rights -- a constant cultural reservoir maintaining a belief-system always open to invite the atheists and agnostics around them to come on in and consider the Gospel.
(I do have caveats about that "respected" part: the cavalier and insouciant ridicule of Christianity by popular secular culture is not a pretty pill to swallow, I imagine, but that's unfortunately part of the excesses that can accompany an overall context of freedoms.)
at May 20, 2006 4:12 AM
Hugh said
Or, instead, help pitch a much larger tent, and share its ample space, its mosquito netting, its sturdy poles, with a dozen or more Big-Tenters? Just now, it might make all kinds of sense, beginning with the common kind, to camp out with those Big-Tenters.
Now there's an idealism that I haven't heard for several decades. Imagine that, sharing a tent with people that you might disagree with on some or another subject. Imagine accepting the validity of an opinion with which one wholeheartedly disagrees. What was that antiquated phrase, "Quot homines tot sententiae"?
Are there any Big-Tenter manufacturers left? I thought they either converted to Single-Tenters or closed up shop years ago.
Personally, I'll be tenting with the SO and two mini-special_guests at jihadless Lake Tahoe. Hope all you JW/DW posters can save the world without me, for a week anyways.
Posted by: special_guest at May 20, 2006 4:16 AM
“The problem is multifaceted. There are groups within the wider Christian movement that might prefer the triumph of Islam to the triumph of secularism.”
Thank you, D-e. I would also include other religious groups, not only Christian.
Many times on this site I have pointed out that our fight against Islam from any religious position is doomed. To me it is like someone with only one eye is making a joke about someone who has only one arm.
There is also a problem for a Christian to criticize someone who is not, but also a man of faith. Most religious people instinctively feel that there is a line and beyond that line there is a hidden danger to the ones faith.
There is a lot in common between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. That is why we see representative of all three religions meeting and discussing different topics of faith. Rabbis are the only Israeli citizens invited to Muslim countries. Priests of different Christian denominations are going back and forth to meet their Muslim colleges. Muslims do view Jews and Christians differently from Buddhists, Hindus and others the like.
All that makes our fight with Islam far more difficult. It does not matter what some of us call Islam (cult, political movement and so on), IT IS A RELIGION!
I am an Atheist, but I will not criticize Islam from that position. We all entitled to our own views. It is just too often that the people on this site get even abusive, though the object of such abuse is also anti-Islamic.
If we want to pull in the same direction, we have to abandon things like “my religion is better then yours”, quotations from The Bible with implications that it is the only word of truth and call Islam a cult and Allah a moon god.
And for my Jewish friends – Israel has an historical and moral right to exist. It does not need anything more to justify her existence. Come to me with that and I give you all support I can.
I have relatives and friends, who are Christians of different denominations, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists. Muslims – none and I intend to keep it this way. Yet, I strongly oppose anyone who calls for indiscriminate killing of Muslims. In the same time watching a documentary about Beslan, I could not feel anything but contempt for the men, crying about their lost children.
Mr. Spencer,
Some of your short strokes like “Babelish…” tell us even more about what kind of intellectual capacity you posses. Thank you, sir.
An enemy of my enemy – is my friend, but not all of my friends I would take to a fight.
at May 20, 2006 5:26 AM
dhimmisoftheworld wrote:The "Left Behind" book and movie series is a reflection of this.....i wish that book had never been written or t.v.pasters who want to sell you books about how to pray for money....makes christians look foolish or crazy...but that is greed...and greed has nothing to do with GOD.the danger in the left behind book is that now people look to europe for some kind of slick anti-christ.when islam is the enemy and has been all along.thank you...two cents from the christian nutjob.
Posted by: storagemanager at May 20, 2006 7:48 AM
Politics --- not partisan politics, but real politics--- has complexity. It has economic theory, various historical ideologies, culture, ethnicity & race, social theory, religion & morality, approaches on how to govern, behavioral theory, environmentalism, you name it.
Politics is not so much a specific set of beliefs, but an amalgamation of several subsets of beliefs packaged into an intellectual or electoral presentation.
So, with all these complex belief systems running around, everybody is able to disagree with everybody all the time. Except with one belief system: Islam. That one is monolithic, remorseless, unforgiving, fearless, and above all relentless.
While so many writers like Auster fiddle, civilization burns. That’s hardly conservative as I understand the ideology. Idiot.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 20, 2006 9:37 AM
This is a fine speech, Robert. I just hope you remain a tolerant, secular gentleman after the Jihad is defeated ... if it ever is. I notice that the Greek Orthodox Chruch isn't to0 keen on the pagan revival in Greece:
Long live Zeus of the might thunderbolt and Athena of the grey eyes!
Posted by: Benjamin at May 20, 2006 10:53 AM
I think that this thread has illustrated that there is an enormous diversity of opinion even among people who mostly "see together" with regard to the fact that traditional Islam is a menace. People hailing from different philosophical or religious perspectives have different senses of what a "good" society would look like, and for that reason different grounds for being alarmed by the resurgence of Islam. And some participants have mutually incompatible senses of what a "good" society would look like and so regard each other with a measure of suspicion or even hostility.
Thus, a post above rejects alliance with Hirsi Ali because her social liberalism includes a permissive attitude toward abortion, which many forum participants (myself included) consider to be indistinguishable from murder, a grievous evil. Another post expresses (what appears to me to be) unwillingness to stand with opponents of Islam who have their own, though different, vision of a theocratic society, and for understandable reasons. A few posts back suggests that anti-Islam cannot be soundly grounded in any religious position --- that approach devolves to an argument about whose revelation is more authoritative and whose vision of theocracy preferable, longstanding disagreements which are unlikely to be resolved in our lifetimes. Even closer is a post that expresses hope that after the jihad is defeated (if that is to be), that the christians will not take the place of the Islamists.
The different points of view have different reasons for fearing and opposing Islamic resurgence.
* libertarians don't want theocracy of any flavor, and so don't want Islam
* Christians from the Eastern churches have experienced or witnessed Dhimmitude and don't want more of that.
* Jews, whether religious or secular, may face extermination if Islam triumphs
* North American Evangelicals, for whom a prime agenda is fulfillment of the Evangelistic Mandate of Jesus (the "great commission" of Matthew 28), may feel secure in their own persons and churches for the forseeable future, but the progress of Islam threatens to shut down the mission enterprise and to destroy Evangelical communions already established in regions immediately threatened by the growth of Islam.
Doubtless there are other points of view; I haven't mentioned a stereotypical Western Catholic position as I'm not sure what that would be.
Can these disparate perspectives work together? Robert and Hugh are appealing for that.
Robert and Hugh have been thinking and writing strategically for years, aiming to raise general awareness of the threat of Islam resurgent. Perhaps it is time to begin particularizing the arguments to individual subgroups: "Why Evangelicals should take the Islamist threat seriously", "Why Islam is the greatest threat to the multicultural Left" and so on. Each of these topics merits a book-length treatment. Are there experts out there who understand these constituencies well and who also appreciate the threat and who would be willing to do this?
A final question, which I think Robert and Hugh consider best left off the table in view of the present emergency, but which is clearly in plain sight in much of the preceding, is "can we agree on what a 'post-Jihad' world ought to be?" An early post suggested the rubric "freedom of conscience." I suspect that this question will not go away. And perhaps it is worth keeping in sight and grappling with, in a spirit of patience and humility.
Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite
at May 20, 2006 12:23 PM
e pluribus unum
at May 20, 2006 9:52 PM
The assertion that modern liberalism is a secular version of Christianity is ridiculously false. Christ preached individual enlightenment. Modern liberals are Marxists, pure and simple. They subscribe to the herd mentality, and are ruled by fear. Posted by: robert108
Pure unadulterated bullmanure Robert, spoken by an ignoramus out of pure brainwash and propaganda.
And even if true, we should be wooing Marxists, as the anti Jihad needs every soldier and ally it can muster.
My personal history. I voted for Nixon against JFK, considered JFK a commie and my last vote cast was in '64 for Goldwater, despite that I poured all of my disposable income into the campaign of Ronald Reagan, only to discover I had been betrayed and misled, as Republicans and conservatives have been misled and betrayed today. I no longer vote, (not even third party) as there is no one who has my trust or confidence.
And today I consider myself a liberal, even somewhat (not totally) leftist, but still and anti Marxist, in fact the Socialist International heralds some of the big names of "conservativism" and capitalism, like Tony Blair, Dubya's partner in crime.
But talking of Marxism. The Phrase "From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" was coined by Louis le Blanc, not Marx, and it is a paraphrase of Jesus. And No I am not a communist, too damn selfish and cynical about humanity to be one.
Communism in the Bible
Matt 19:21: 'Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.'
Acts 2:44-45
All the believers together had everything in common; they sold their possessions and their goods, and distributed among all in accordance with each one's need
Acts 4:32-35
The Believers Share Their Possessions
32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
Acts 5:1-11
Ananias and Sapphira
And by the way Cornelus not all of the Left is muticulturalist, however bear in mind that political correctness and multicultural acceptance has been to the advantage of Jews and preceding European immigrants. Eastern Europeans, Jews, Irish, Italians, Swedes, etc have all benefitted from multiculturalism,
I guess you never heard of the Know Nothings or the Nativist movements of the 19th and early 20th Century.
It was Multiculturalism that enabled at least some of my great grandparents to enter and assimiliate they were German Jews.
Sadly De Chevalier, Cornelius and Robert108 are so eat up with their own ape of Islam ideations of self righteous purity, that they and those like them will eventually result in the victory of Islam, simply because their rigid self righteous and intransigent attitudes turn off any and all erstwhile allies.. in fact I am an ally that really does get down in the mud fighting Jihad and Dhimmi's, and De Chevalier, Cornelius and Robert108 turn me off.
Go ahead pretend you are a Knights Templar, remember what happened to them at the Horns of Hattin and on Friday 13, October 1307.
Posted by: Nariz at May 21, 2006 12:43 AM
I do not know if this will be read. Why do we have so many names ? 'Liberals', and 'Leftists'. I can be anything, but it should be practical, pragmatic, and ,of course, human. I assume by 'leftists' we mean communists. Well, one only has to see that this system has failed utterly. If God wanted all men to be equal, there would be perfect births all around. No stillborn babies. (Commies, please substitute 'Nature' in place of 'God'. Even you cannot deny Mother Nature). So, we are down to individualism. I know that to respect creations, and creation can be anything from a poem to the mighty pyramids or a medical system, anything that works, is basic common sense. THAT is what we all need. Just a dose of basic common sense. I need not be a Christian to appreciate the tranquillity in St. John's Church near my home. I can just go there and sit in the quiet. And it makes me feel good. The good Father sometimes invites me for tea, and we often have discussions. And I need not worship Ra, the Sun God. But I can look in wonder and marvel at the creation of His followers, the mighty pyramids. And I might detest being fat, but I can respect the Sumo fighter for being what he is, a follower of an ancient system that creates fighters. I think abortion is murder, but I know if pregnancy endangers the mother's life, I will not think so. I do not like gays, for I think that they are violating the very fundamentals of Nature. But, that does not mean that I go around shooting gays. I know that Nature does not make all alike, maybe the gays have something that is not part of the general make up of us humans. So I bear with them. And I request them to bear with me. I do not know what label or category I fall under. I personally like to think it as an ordinary human being.
at May 21, 2006 5:31 AM
As someone who reads Auster daily and has linked to his articles and posts here on a number of occasions, I have to say that I was mightily disappointed to see him attack Mr Spencer as he did. It especially struck me as absurd for him to call Spencer a neocon given Spencer's position all along that we cannot possibly democratize the Muslim world. I'm afraid that Spencer's characterization of Auster as a "misanthrope" has some validity. Other words that come to mind are crotchety and curmudeonly. Whether or not Auster recognizes Spencer or Hirsi Ali or Ibn Warraq as allies in his own fight, however, I will continue to think of Auster as one of strongest anti-jihadist voices out there. Only when I link to his stuff in the future, there will be just a tiny bit of personal distaste in my mouth.
Posted by: Caroline at May 21, 2006 9:55 AM
Nariz formerly known as Giaour
Has not, Mr Spencer asked you on more than one occasion to take your lame anti-Christian “moral equivalent” arguments else where?
Is it your “high moral standards” that keep you coming back, or lack thereof?
As much as you like to pretend, we Christians are not “self righteous”, we are saved by Grace through faith, so that NO MAN can boost.
Me giving of my things to others is not “self-righteous”, it is unselfishness, the complete opposite of what you suggest.
Here is an example of what a “self-righteous” Christians sings
Who is this King of Glory that persues me with his love
And haunts me with each hearing of His softly spoken words
My conscience, a reminder of forgiveness that I need
Who is this King of Glory who offers it to me
at May 21, 2006 1:08 PM
I find it interesting that several days after attacking Mr Spencer as a neocon and a liberal, Auster has this post elucidating several of the key themes which comprise his view of liberalism:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005696.html
"Modern liberalism is based on the assumption that “we” are invulnerable, that nothing that we do for the Other can ever cause any existential threat to ourselves. Therefore we can just keep giving and accommodating and celebrating and diversifying and nonjudgmentalizing and tolerating and including and surrendering forever.
Now, where does the idea, that there will always be enough, come from? It comes from the same liberal assumption that gives rise to the idea that the Other’s inferiority is our fault.
Liberalism says that all people are naturally equal. If some other group is not actually equal to us or assimilable with to our society, it must be because of some artificial thing that is being done to it by us, namely discrimination. The greater and the more intractable the differences between us and the Other, the greater the liberal guilt (or, in the case of the liberal elites, the greater the guilt the elites seek to load on other whites and white society generally—but either way guilt is the issue). So we are obligated to do everything for the Other (or, if we are liberal elites, we make other whites do everything for the Other).
But just as our guilt can never be assuaged, our superiority can never be ended. The quasi-religious liberal belief in equality leads to the quasi-religious liberal belief in our own guilt. But in order for us to remain guilty, we must be so far above the Other that we are in effect untouchable and invulnerable. Without the belief in our superiority and invulnerability, we could not maintain the belief in our own guilt. Thus we assume that we can always keep giving away our goods to the Other and trashing our own society for the sake of the Other, and that this can go on forever."
One of the things I admire most about Auster is his efforts to get at the psychological issues that underly the west's suicide. He is extremely insightful on this score as well as being utterly and completely non-PC in his exploration of them, taking on every taboo subject.
But I have never seen Spencer endorse any of the bolded ideas above - quite the opposite in fact. In fact he has made it abundantly clear in post after post that the threat is real (we are NOT invulnerable), that we have everything to lose, that we CAN lose, that the global jihad is NOT OUR FAULT (i.e. no appeal to the usual liberal "root causes"), that we need to end the jizya (stop giving) and on and on. As to the neocon charge, again,it seems to me that one of the essences of neoconservatism is the idea that all peoples in the world are the same and basically desire the same things that we do, which leads to the neocon foreign policy idea that we can impose liberal democracy on the Muslim world, an idea which Spencer has spent years trying to disabuse us of.
So I really don't understand the charges he is making. If Spencer is standing up for liberal ideas then they appear to be what we normally think of us "classical liberal" ideas, which are central to the the west's identity and not the kind of "modern liberal" ideas that I think Auster is quite right in addressing as lying at the core of the west's suicide. I have seen him go after others as well in this way (Michelle Malkin on immigration e.g.). If his intention is to force people to hone their analyses and their language, then fine, but it strikes me that he could go about it all in a much less confrontational way by pointing out similarities first and then working into the differences that he sees as critical. Because if he does nothing but alienate potential allies it will only be more difficult to get his voice heard and I do think that would be a real shame.
Posted by: Caroline at May 21, 2006 2:34 PM
Why do we have so many names ? 'Liberals', and 'Leftists'.Arjun
This took me a while to figure out, but 'Liberal' in the US means someone to the left-of-center, and is the equivalent of Social Democrats in Europe, Socialists (not Communists) in India or other Left leaning non-Communist parties one may see elsewhere. In the US, Conservatives are those who are individualistic on business issues (taxes, government regulation, property rights, et al) and some personal issues, such as support for gun ownership rights, school choice, and tend to be pro-religious on social issues, such as abortion, gay marriage/civil unions, euthanesia... Liberals tend to be opposite these issues, while on social issues, they tend to be more individualistic. If you were interpreting the term "Liberal" as one who is, well, tolerant, supports individual rights across the board, opposes government or societal pressures over individuals, the term that applies here in the US is "Libertarian". Here, the Libertarian views are usually far to the right of Conservatives, but depending on whether one puts more value on economic or social liberty, one is likely to see such people support either Republicans or Democrats - I suspect the GOP has the edge when it comes to their support.
As for Communists, calling any American, even a Left wing wacko like Chomsky a Communist is likely to get one accused of McCarthyism. Usually, the term used to describe such people is Leftists. Unlike certain politicians in Calcutta, they don't swear by Marx or Trotsky, but looking at the contents of their statements, one wouldn't know the difference. Also, the Green Party, which one would think of as environmentalist, is a de facto Communist Party - one of thier leading goals is to take the top 100 corporations in the US and make them public interest collectives.
Hope this clears things up.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 21, 2006 6:04 PM
Infidel Pride,
Thanks, friend.
at May 22, 2006 3:00 AM
I just came upon Robert Spencer's week-old reply to my recent criticisms of him over his extravagant support for Hirsi Ali and for what I call his neoconservatism. While I don’t have time to reply in detail, I am struck by one thing. After quoting some of my criticisms of him and Hirsi Ali and Ibn Warraq, Spencer characterizes my statements as “ad hominem smears. Not only does he sling the mud at Hirsi Ali and me, but at Jihad Watch Board member Ibn Warraq.” Then he refers again to “Auster’s smear of Ibn Warraq.” He concludes his article by describing me as a “dyspeptic misanthrope.” The commenters here at Jihad Watch all seem to agree with him. I have nary a defender in the bunch. One says I am as bad as Patrick Buchanan.
I invite Spencer's readers to read my writings about Spencer and the others, several of which are linked at the link below, and compare them to the personal tone Spencer used about me, and then ask themselves who is smearing whom. I acknowledge that I used strong denunciatory language about Ali, since I have described her as an enemy of our civilization; if Spencer wants to call that a smear, that is his right. I don’t know what I said that could be called a smear of himself or Warraq. And, by the way, despite my criticisms of Spencer, I praise him and quote him approvingly from time to time, which he never does to me. Yet he and his readers, who would expel me, accuse me of expelling people. So, again, who is being narrow-minded here?
Also, Spencer conveniently does not mention the objective basis for my saying that Ali is an enemy of our civilization: the fact that Ali has advocated the outlawing of Christian and conservative political parties in Europe, that she regards serious conservatives and immigration restrictionists as the equivalent of Nazis, and that she along with Warraq signed a manifesto against “theocracy,” i.e. against Christianity as much as against Islam. Except for her stand against Islam (she focuses mainly on the inequality of women under Islam), Ali seems a typical modern leftist. Since when do conservatives not regard leftism as a threat to civilization?
Links to several of my articles on Spencer and Ali can be found here:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005745.html
at May 27, 2006 1:52 PM
I stand by every word, Larry.
In fact, since then I have read more of your views. Your idea that upholding the equality of rights and dignity of all people leads inevitably to relativism and unrestricted immigration is not logically supportable. The equality of rights and dignity of all people is a Jewish and Christian idea based on Genesis, and was upheld by the West long before the days of relativism and the immigration free-for-all.
Your characterization of my work is deeply unfair and inaccurate, ignoring and denying the many, many times I have spoken in this way (to take just one ready example):
"All this indicates that 'Islamophobia' is virtually useless as an analytical tool. To adopt it would be to allow oneself to submit to the most virulent form of theological equivalence, and to affirm, against all the evidence, that every religious tradition is equally capable of inspiring violence. It would be to deny the very sensible observation of the eminent atheist (and, late in life, theist, but not Christian) philosopher Antony Flew (thanks to Daniel): 'Jesus is an enormously attractive charismatic figure, which the Prophet of Islam most emphatically is not.' To recognize this is not base theological one-upmanship, but a step toward the recovery of realism in the analysis of Islamic jihad, and of a sense that in Western civilization there is something worth defending."
That's from here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005950.php
You have identified me with "neoconservatives," which you clearly see as more of a threat to Western civilization than the mujahedin. Compared to that, I'd rather be called a dyspeptic misanthrope.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 27, 2006 2:01 PM
By the way, you misrepresented both Ibn Warraq's work and your exchange with Bostom about it.
That's a smear.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 27, 2006 2:03 PM
On further thought, I would have to say that Spencer's article, as well as many of the comments that have been posted here in support of it, prove my point about Spencer's fundamental liberalism. Spencer and his commenters regard me, a traditionalist conservative, as someone to be shunned, while they welcome and champion Ali, a secularist leftist enemy of Christianity and conservatism.
Posted by: Lawrence Auster at May 27, 2006 2:13 PM
I don't dislike you because you're a traditionalist conservative. And I have never "shunned you" or denounced you on the website; meanwhile your denunciations of me continue to increase in number and shrillness. I dislike you because you excommunicate anyone who isn't a traditionalist conservative from the ranks of the defenders of Western civilization. In so doing, you further weaken what you profess to love and defend.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 27, 2006 2:21 PM
Mr. Spencer's confusions are flagrantly on display. He says right out that he dislikes me, then he signs his note, "Cordially." I ask Mr. Spencer that if he is to be so uncivil as to say publicly that he dislikes me, that he would not also pretend that he is being cordial toward me.
On the substance, while I would not use Mr. Spencer's word "excommunicate," what he is accusing me of is indeed what I think is necessary and what much of my writing is devoted to. A core concern of mine is that much of what is called conservatism today is a form of liberalism. If conservatism means anything, it means devotion to a concrete society and people; today's "conservatism" is all about abstract universal ideas and America's mission to carry them to the whole world, by exporting democracy to the Third-World, and by importing unassimilable Third-World peoples into America. (And many conservatives who oppose illegal immigraton have absolutely no problem with the legal mass Third-World immigration that is de-Westernizing the West before our eyes.) The key to understanding this modern conservatism or neoconservatism is that it seems to be conservative, because it speaks fondly of America and Western civilization, but its substance is largely liberal. The result is that many self-described conservatives today think they're engaged in a grand war to defend America and the West, when in fact they subscribe to liberal beliefs that spell the doom of America and the West.
For those readers of Jihad Watch who are interested in thinking, and not merely in siding with Mr. Spencer against that awful Auster person, here are two articles where I develop this view:
Immigration and multiculturalism: Why are the conservatives silent?
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/000637.html
Is the Pope a neocon?
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/003116.html
at May 27, 2006 2:47 PM
Larry,
Your repeated insistence that I have no "devotion to a concrete society and people" is unwarranted by any fair-minded look at my writings. It is also unfair, unnecessary, and divisive.
Nor have you responded to the evidence I presented that you misrepresented not only me, but Ibn Warraq and Andy Bostom.
You have attacked me repeatedly and unfairly, and then huff self-righteously about my "shunning" you.
You do as you wish, but don't expect me to respect you after you do it. Yes, I do dislike you -- although I doubt my dislike of you could possibly reach the intensity of your dislike of me. But I subscribe to a religion that enjoins kindness toward those whom one dislikes. I am but an imperfect follower of that religion, but I nevertheless will do my best and sign off again:
Cordially,
Robert Spencer
at May 27, 2006 2:59 PM
Mr. Spencer misunderstands. I was explaining the general principles of my criticism of modern conservatism. I was not thinking about him when I wrote that, but trying to explain my underlying ideas. Also, as shocking as this may be to him, Mr. Spencer is not mentioned once in the two articles of mine that I linked.
Also, I want to clarify that my criticisms of this liberal modern conservatism is not personal. It's not about drawing lines against people, its about drawing lines against ideas. In my view a genuine conservatism or traditionalism will only be possible when people come to recognize the false forms of conservatism and reject them. This is a major theme of my writing. To get angry at me for making this argument would be like getting angry at a conservative for criticizing Democrats.
As for Mr. Spencer's simultaneous denial that he's personally attacking me, and his gratuitous re-affirmation that he dislikes me and disrespect me, well, I will leave the reader to make up his own mind about the state of Mr. Spencer's mind. I also ask that readers compare the language I've used about Mr. Spencer, with the language he's used about me.
Posted by: Lawrence Auster at May 27, 2006 3:31 PM
Larry,
Keep it up, and you're going to take First Prize for Disingenuousness away from the Islamic apologists.
Sure, you don't mention me in the two articles linked. But you do, in the most grossly inaccurate and unfair ways, at these places:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005689.html
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005670.html
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005658.html
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005640.html
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005639.html
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005608.html
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005352.html
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005260.html
Compare that with the many times I have mentioned you at Jihad Watch before this post. Exactly zero times (and I remember that the one time I did post about you approvingly, you asked me to remove the post because you didn't like how I had edited it). [CORRECTION: Since I wrote this, Auster has shown me one time that I did mention him at Jihad Watch -- I had forgotten this.]
And now it is I who am "shunning" you? No, sir. I never said you couldn't be my ally. It is you who have said that about me, and many times now.
You want to claim this isn't personal, and that it's about ideas? Very well, sir. Then come to grips with the fact that the procrustean bed in which you insist on forcing my work is lopping off important elements of it. Admit that you are misrepresenting me (as well as Ibn Warraq). Why you insist on claiming something that is not true -- that I am not interested in defending Western civilization, but only secular liberalism -- is beyond me. But I am not going to let you get away with doing it and then pretending self-righteously that you have not attacked me.
I repeat: the way you have defined "neoconservative" makes it much worse than "dyspeptic misanthrope" -- a characterization I stand by.
As for your insistence that dislike and good wishes cannot coexist, and that only a "confused" mind would think they could, I suggest you acquaint yourself with a bit of Western civilization and read Matthew 5:44.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 27, 2006 3:54 PM
I thank Mr. Spencer for linking my articles, several of which I had already linked. A reader perusing these articles will see that they consist of intellectual commentary and criticism, and contain no personal attacks on Mr. Spencer, and in fact they include complimentary remarks about him along with the criticisms. (In some of these articles he is mentioned only in passing.)
One can only conclude that Mr. Spencer regards any criticism of himself, even criticism done in a thoughtful spirit, as a personal attack justifying his personal counterattack on the critic.
Posted by: Lawrence Auster at May 27, 2006 4:34 PM
Larry,
Again you make an assertion about me without any evidence.
I have given you evidence that your characterization of my work is false. I could give you much more.
Here, for instance, is a passage from my book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)":
It’s time to say, “enough,” and teach our children to take pride in their own heritage. To know that they have a culture and a history of which they can and should be grateful; that they are not the children and grandchildren of oppressors and villains; and that their homes and families are worth defending against those who want to take them away, and are willing to kill to do so.Call it a Crusade.
But you persist in insisting that underneath it all, secretly, I'm a secular liberal. Well, sir, that is a smear, not "criticism done in a thoughtful spirit." But what can I say in the face of it? That I'm not a secular liberal and believe in Western civilization? If I say it, you won't believe it anyway, because you apparently think you understand my work better than I do.
This isn't personal at all. I don't care what you think of me, sir. This is about your trying to divide the anti-jihad opposition. I, for one, think that such an effort is counterproductive, and plays into the hands of the jihadists. But then again, you think that as a secular liberal I'm on their side anyway, so we're even on that score.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 27, 2006 4:40 PM
Anyway, Larry, I have to give you credit for chutzpah. You make false statements about my work and beliefs, and about those of Ibn Warraq. You breezily ignore my responses showing your assertions to be false, repeat and reinforce your original false charges, and then claim that I am descending to personal attacks while you are taking the high road.
You could give the folks at Al-Jazeerah.Info lessons.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 27, 2006 4:56 PM
I haven't responded to Mr. Spencer's repeated accusations that I am dishonest; since there is no basis for the charge I wouldn't know where to start. However, I don't want to make it seem that I have not made tough criticisms of Mr. Spencer. Here's the strongest thing I can find offhand that I said about him in the articles he and I linked:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005640.html
Spencer has the typically skewed neocon view of the world that doesn’t uphold our country and civilization but only opposes some ideological enemy. And therefore any supposed enemy of that ideological enemy, even if she is an enemy of our civilization as well, is Spencer’s friend and hero. It also helps if this hero is nonwhite and non-Western, since the highest object of neoconservatism is not to conserve our civilization but to affirm the liberal belief in the universal equality and inclusion of all people.
That's a statement I will stand by. It starts from my analysis of neoconservatism, which I have developed in many articles and blog entries over the years, and applies that analysis to the case of Mr. Spencer's all-out support for the anti-Christian leftist Hirsi Ali.
If my criticisms of what I refer to as Mr. Spencer's neoconservatism are personal attacks, then virtually everything I've ever written criticizing liberalism, leftism, neoconservatism, mainstream conservatism, paleoconservatism, Nazism, neo-Nazism, anti-Semitism, feminism, Islam, homosexual rights, socialism, nihilism, statism, the European Union, Third-World immigration, multiculturalism, and race preferences are, in one way or another, personal attacks.
Posted by: Lawrence Auster at May 27, 2006 5:08 PM
Todd,
In referring to liberalism as secularized Christianity, Auster means they are both stories of salvation, one spiritual and one secular (world-immanent), and both deriving their consequential meanings from action/event in history (also a Jewish idea).
Liberalism, unlike Christianity, believes man can save himself, now, in this world, and has the power to take control of his destiny and establish paradise on Earth (if only all the government regulations are properly modulated, or if we are all properly liberated from our sexual constraints, or if the proper party is elected next time, etc.).
In the beginnings of Liberalism, Enlightenment thinkers believed that human reason provided the horsepower and principle of intelligibility by which to master and control the world, so that salvation could managed and distributed to all. This delusion has of course been diluted somewhate by subsequent events, but the main propulsion of liberalism -- world-immanent salvation -- still remains. Liberals and Leftists disagree about the means and the timing, and even about what this world-immanent paradise will look like, but they are in agreement about the basic project.
This is Auster's meaning.
Posted by: MD at May 27, 2006 5:26 PM
Larry:
You say: "Spencer has the typically skewed neocon view of the world that doesn’t uphold our country and civilization but only opposes some ideological enemy."
That is a false statement.
Whether it comes from ignorance of my work or dishonesty about it, I do not know.
But it is nevertheless false. And it is disingenuous of you to continue to insist that it is true while ignoring my evidence to the contrary.
Criticize neoconservatism and the other items on your laundry list all you want. That doesn't concern me. But when you apply it to me, it does. And you have. I have explained why I have supported Hirsi Ali; you have ignored my explanation. I have explained, with examples, why I am not what you say I am. You have ignored all that too.
Then you have the brazen, untrammelled gall to claim that it is I who am personally attacking you, and that you are not indulging in personal attacks, but arguing substantively.
Well, sir, I am calling you out. The evidence is plain for everyone to see. You have not responded to my explanations; you have not responded about Ibn Warraq; you have in fact not acknowledged any of my substantive points.
It is you who started this conflict, and it is you who perpetuate it.
The fact that you persist in repeating these false charges, and in ignoring evidence I have brought forth, both in my main post and in my comments here now, that they are false, attests abundantly to the truth of everything I have said here about what you are doing.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 27, 2006 5:29 PM
Since Mr. Spencer persists in calling me dishonest and saying I'm avoiding the argument, I must reply.
I am not familiar with everything Mr. Spencer has written. I have been responding to the issues I have been responding to. The whole point of my article, "Robert Spencer is a neoconservative," is that the essence of neoconservatism is that it seems to uphold our civilization, and so it seems conservative, but that it defines our civilization in liberal terms, so it's really liberal. I never said that this involved any deliberate obfuscation; I said that most neoconservatives sincerely regard themselves as conservatives. Therefore a couple of quotes of Mr. Spencer's calling for the defense of our civilization do not refute my argument. One needs to look more closely at what is being said. (Again, I recommend my article "Is the Pope a neocon" for a fuller development of this idea.)
I don't think I've ignored Mr. Spencer's explanation of why he supports Hirsi Ali. I appreciate the fact that she is, or at least that he sees her as, a brave and effective anti-jihadist spokesman and that he supports her for that reason. There's no mystery there. But that consideration does not meet my objection. Clearly we have a different view of this.
By the way, I am not saying Ali should be shunned. I am urging people to look at her more critically and not think that just because a person is a critic of Islam, that she is necessarily on our side. This is a very old problem. For example, Tony Blair is a cultural leftist who is ruining Britain, who once said that his aim was to "sweep away all those forces of conservatism," i.e., to wipe out what remains of Britain's historic culture. But because he supported the U.S. in the Iraq war American conservatives uncritically embraced him. This was a grave error. One could appreciate Blair's support for the U.S. in the Iraq war, without embracing him and, implicitly, what he stands for. Just because a person is an enemy of our enemy, doesn't mean that he is our friend.
Notice that Mr. Spencer has yet to respond to the fact that Ali has expressed her desire to outlaw conservative and Christian parties in Europe, including the Vlaams Belang (sp?), the largest party in Belgium. I respectfully suggest that a person who takes such a view is not merely “disagreeing” with conservatism, but is an enemy of conservatism. And therefore the burden of proof is on Mr. Spencer to justify his all-out support for Ali.
As for Ibn Warraq, here once again is my comment about him that Mr. Spencer quoted in his opening post above and that he considers a "smear":
For there to be an alliance, there has got to be a measure of mutual respect. I told Andy Bostom in the fall of ‘04 that his friend Ibn Warraq’s aggressive, wise-guy atheism was a real turnoff. I said, “You’ve got to tell Warraq that if he wants the support of conservatives, he can’t go around mocking God and attacking Christianity. His subject is Islam, he should stick to that and not attack religion in general.” I said this to him several times, with utmost seriousness. I said Christians can work with secularists, if there is mutual tolerance.
Is it really so objectionable to speak of Warraq's "aggressive, wise-guy atheism"? That's exactly the way he comes across in his book, Why I am not a Muslim, and he does so quite deliberately. If my description of him is a smear, then virtually any strong and direct criticism of a writer is a smear.
Posted by: Lawrence Auster at May 27, 2006 6:15 PM
Larry,
Thanks, at last, for some substance, however thin.
I did in fact address Hirsi Ali's views -- when I said in the original post that we could work out our differences in the public sphere peacefully (which cannot be said about the jihadists). And that it could be that, like Rothbard and Buckley, we will end up on opposing sides after the resolution of this conflict, if that resolution comes.
You may disagree with my judgment on these things, but to claim on that basis that I do not value Western civilization is unwarranted, unfair, and needlessly divisive of the anti-jihad resistance -- but of course I see that that is not your highest priority in any case. Well, it is my highest priority, for all your wondrous arguments about the evils of neoconservativism won't matter a whit when we are both dhimmis, working as street sweepers to scratch together enough money to pay the jizya.
(Yes, that is a rhetorical excess.)
As for Ibn Warraq, I addressed Why I Am Not A Muslim, and his posture since he wrote it, also in the original post.
As for your contention that I don't really mean what I say, or what you think I should mean, when I talk about defending Western culture, it is again belied by material in my original post, showing that the particulars of my defense are not -- as you claim -- actually anti-Western elements of liberalism, but are core elements of the Judeo-Christian tradition as such. But here again, you ignore all that.
So now you have tried to give the appearance of substantive replies to my points, while actually not addressing any of the actual points I have made.
Bravo on your continued journey on the High Road.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 27, 2006 6:29 PM
One thing's for sure. No one would ever accuse Robert Spencer of traveling the high road. As a reader of Mr. Spencer's said to him today in an e-mail that he sent me as well:
Dear Mr. Spencer:Regarding your non-ad hominem criticism of the “dyspeptic misanthrope,” Lawrence Auster, can I conclude that, as I am not an unborn child, and not a mentally incapacitated patient (like Terri Schiavo), that I can therefore live amicably with both secularists and Mohammedans?
As for the substance of my argument, it's there for all to see. On departing, here's the question with which I would leave Mr. Spencer and his readers: When Mr. Spencer says that Islam threatens the West, does he mean that it threatens the West as a concrete society and civilization, or does he mean that it threatens the West's liberal tolerance?
Paul Cella, a thoughtful writer who frequently publishes at Tech Central Station, put it this way at VFR:
Your description of Robert Spencer as a neoconservative, as far as I can tell, is sadly apt.... He seems, on your showing, to argue from principles derived from J.S. Mill’s notion of the “open society,” where all expression is to be tolerated; and thus his criterion for judging jihad is not its wickedness (which wickedness he does not deny, but even wicked ideas, under this doctrine, must be protected) but its intolerance. Like Ali, Spencer opposes Islam not primarily because it is a hostile force, motivated by a horrible and evil heresy (though again, I don’t doubt that he recognizes its evil) to destroy or subjugate us, but because it is ineradicably illiberal.Posted by: Lawrence Auster
at May 27, 2006 6:46 PM
Larry, let's step back a moment.
You accuse me of allying with an enemy of Western civilization, and in fact being a liberal who has no interest in preserving or defending that civilization as such -- and you do it in blithe defiance of evidence I produce to the effect that I do not hold such views.
I call you a "dyspeptic misanthrope."
And then you say it is I who am not taking the high road.
As I said before, you get the award for chutzpah.
The problem is the same with the messages above. The first attempts to skewer me for "non-ad hominem criticism of the 'dyspeptic misanthrope.'" But in fact this betrays ignorance of what argumentum ad hominem really is. If I had posted, "Auster is wrong because he is a dyspeptic misanthrope," that would be an ad hominem attack -- solely based on an attack on you personally. But in fact I made a number of substantive points against your arguments -- points which both the emailer and you proceeded to ignore (you, repeatedly). To call you a name doesn't mean those points suddenly vanish and all that is left is an ad hominem. You have called me far worse by labeling me a neoconservative, and then you pretend that this is not a smear or a personal attack, despite its howling inaccuracy in light of what I have actually written.
As for Cella, it is likewise false and inaccurate to claim that "Spencer opposes Islam not primarily because it is a hostile force, motivated by a horrible and evil heresy (though again, I don’t doubt that he recognizes its evil) to destroy or subjugate us, but because it is ineradicably illiberal."
I doubt either you or Cella have actually read my books. I am not asking you to do so, but it would be kind of you and Cella, way up there on the High Road, to abstain from attacks on me that are not based on what I actually say or believe.
Supporting Hirsi Ali does not make me a neocon, or someone who does not value Judeo-Christian civilization. What we have here is a difference on a judgment -- whether or not to support Hirsi Ali -- that you have blown up, without any warrant, into a number of inaccurate conclusions about my beliefs and core assumptions.
If you can live with that, have fun. But as I said before, don't expect me to respect you or your vaunted reputation for "intellectual honesty."
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 27, 2006 6:58 PM
The Saudis are licking their fangs.
Posted by: jsla at May 27, 2006 7:23 PM
(but I do like a good kerfuffle...)
Posted by: jsla at May 27, 2006 7:24 PM
JSLA:
Re the Saudis: precisely.
Precisely why what Auster is doing is unconscionable and self-defeating.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 27, 2006 7:26 PM
Above, Mr. Spencer quoted this passage from his book:
It’s time to say, “enough,” and teach our children to take pride in their own heritage. To know that they have a culture and a history of which they can and should be grateful; that they are not the children and grandchildren of oppressors and villains; and that their homes and families are worth defending against those who want to take them away, and are willing to kill to do so.Call it a Crusade.
I grant that this quote is much better than some other things Mr. Spencer has said, as he seems to be speaking of our civilization as a substantive historical heritage, and not just as liberal ideas of tolerance, universal equality, and so on. However, what the substantive content of that heritage is to him one cannot be sure. It could, in fact, still be liberalism. For example, he says that Western people's “homes and families” are worth defending. He doesn't say their "nations" are worth defending. Further, even if his meaning here is genuinely traditionalist, it is not, to say the least, a note he has struck often in his online writings, the overall drift of which is more the liberal note, such as his comment the other week that I quoted in my article:
I will keep fighting, not to defend The DaVinci Code or other symptoms of the West’s suicidal corruption, but to stand for the principles of the equality of dignity of all people...
I repeat that it is phrases like "the equality of dignity of all people" that got us into this mess, by telling us that our highest value is the universal equality of all mankind, which leads inevitably to the imperatives of non-discrimination, open borders (including open borders to Muslims), and one-worldism. As I've explained many times, I am not rejecting all liberal values. I am saying that if the West is to survive, the modern liberal belief in equality and tolerance as the guiding value of society must be rejected. If liberalism is not to be destructive, it must be part of a cultural and moral order that is not itself liberal. Until I see some recognition on Mr. Spencer's part of the danger of defining society primarily in liberal terms, I will continue to think of him as a neoconservative.
I would like to end on the hopeful note that perhaps Mr. Spencer is himself starting to evolve toward a more traditionalist view of our civilization, as he comes to recognize the shallowness and inadequacy of the liberal/neoconservative view. But—my bottom line—his calling an anti-Christian leftist his “hero” puts that hope in doubt, as does his attempt to silence my criticisms by saying that they help the jihadists.
Posted by: Lawrence Auster at May 27, 2006 7:52 PM
Larry,
Calm down. No one is trying to silence you. You have had an ample platform on this thread, which actually is only inadvertently open today. I usually close them after a week. But when I discovered the error, I did not close the thread, but rather let you speak to your heart's content.
You have charged that I am playing into the hands of the jihadists. I have responded by saying that what you are doing plays into their hands more than what I am doing. To respond thus is not to silence you, sir. It is, in fact, doing nothing more than what you yourself have done.
Your explanation of my quote above is as reductionist, and unfair, as your other exegeses of my work. You take one remark, misinterpret it, and then apply your misinterpretation to everything I say and do thereafter. Thanks, Mr. High Road.
In fact, I strenuously reject your contention that "it is phrases like 'the equality of dignity of all people' that got us into this mess, by telling us that our highest value is the universal equality of all mankind, which leads inevitably to the imperatives of non-discrimination, open borders (including open borders to Muslims), and one-worldism." There is nothing in that phrase that leads to such things. In fact, as I have pointed out (and as you have ignored), it is rooted in the Judeo-Christian idea of man being created in the image of God, which comes from the Book of Genesis. I doubt that Moses or Joshua or David or Solomon or Jesus Christ or St. Paul or St. John Chrysostom or St. Gregory Palamas or St. Thomas Aquinas or anyone else in the Judeo-Christian tradition ever realized that by affirming that man was made in God's image, he was thereby affirming open borders and one-worldism.
In fact, I have written and spoken many times about the need to restore sanity to immigration policy. You will never be able to find, even if you read all my books and articles, any affirmation of one-worldism and open borders. That is why your "neoconservative" charge is a calumny.
I am not evolving, thanks. My positions on this have been clear for years, and haven't changed. It is you who have misrepesented them, and are now beginning to backtrack, and covering for it by claiming that I'm evolving.
Well, have your fun, and I'll have mine: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a hero of Western civilization. You want to make that out to mean that I don't value Western civilization? Go ahead -- but remember, Larry, they love you for your "intellectual honesty."
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 27, 2006 8:08 PM
"I repeat that it is phrases like "the equality of dignity of all people" that got us into this mess, by telling us that our highest value is the universal equality of all mankind, which leads inevitably to the imperatives of non-discrimination, open borders (including open borders to Muslims), and one-worldism."
I am sorry but even I, a very young man and no philosopher, can see that the quoted sentence is absolute nonsense. Believing in "the equality of dignity of all people" does not inevitably lead to anything at all. What leads to the ills that Mr. Auster lists in the quote is the inability of people to value themselves as they do others, to value their culture as they do others, to know their culture as they do others, to value their country as they do others; and the reason for this lack of valuing is lack of education. The deliberate destruction (and, yes, I believe it to be deliberate) of the education systems and curricula in the West by craven politicians who seek only votes and re-election is to blame. It is uncontrolled, unfettered democracy and its lack of a moral centre and the lack or morals in our politicians that is to blame for the ills that Mr. Auster identifies: it is not the core Christian belief of respect and dignity for all humans.
What is more, and on a personal level, when I, a gay individual, read phrases such as "...the modern liberal belief in equality and tolerance as the guiding value of society must be rejected" I just want to run away and hide. A phrase like that can be used to justify so much hideous evil - and has been so used in the recent past and is being used like that today.
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 27, 2006 8:13 PM
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
---
Mr. Auster -- may I presume that you oppose the above statements from the US Declaration of Independence based on your statement:
"I repeat that it is phrases like "the equality of dignity of all people" that got us into this mess, by telling us that our highest value is the universal equality of all mankind..."
?
---
Until reading your words, I had always thought that the "liberalism" which conservatives opposed was actually more aptly described as progressivism, collecitivism, or socialism. And that "liberalism" was once referred to as being the adherence to western and enlightenment values such as inherent dignity and rights of all mankind, freedom of conscience, property rights, etc. And that conservatism in the US sense meant adherence to these values and a desire to protect the civilization which nurtured them.
Posted by: Hyman Roth at May 27, 2006 9:54 PM
I see that Hyman Roth always takes care of his partners.
Thomas Jefferson, that insufferable neocon!
Thanks, Hyman.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 27, 2006 9:58 PM
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
To be fair, that was a statement made of British colonists of other British colonists, not of overall humanity, and certainly not of the islamic world infiltrating our society today.
I categorically reject the assertion that all men are created equal. If all men were created equal, all societies and cultures would be equal, since a society is nothing more than the product of its people. Some societies go to the moon as the pinnacle of their achievements, while other societies sit in their own disheveled squalor and build mosques and throw stones.
Liberal views are only virtuous if they are applied to other equally civilized people who share the same views. To apply such views to all people is a gargantuan mistake. And the jihadists are using our own liberal constitution against us.
Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 27, 2006 10:29 PM
SomethingAboutIslam:
You say: "If all men were created equal, all societies and cultures would be equal..."
This doesn't follow. All men may be created equal in dignity, without being equal in ability.
And just because the runners start from the line at the same time doesn't mean they finish together too.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 27, 2006 10:35 PM
Jefferson was actually a liberal neocon jesuit zionist trotskyite.
Until he happened upon a Watchtower magazine.
at May 27, 2006 10:37 PM
Greetings, Mr. Spencer,
I've read with interest your exchange with Lawrence Auster, who is a strange duck indeed. For someone driven by the belief that Western civilization and the white race itself are facing extinction (“There is now a conscious world movement to destroy the white race…”), Mr. Auster sure finds plenty of time to pick fights with his political bedfellows.
You're not alone. Larry Auster has written off Pat Buchanan as an anti-Semite, he dismisses Mark Steyn as having “the intellectual substance of a mosquito,” he criticizes Daniel Pipes for his “delusive hopes” of a moderate Islam, and lately he has gone after Michelle Malkin for not speaking out against legal non-white immigration.
I am not qualified to psychoanalyze Mr. Auster. But it's clear to anyone who spends time reading him that Lawrence Auster wishes to be taken oh-so-seriously as an intellectual, that he covets a larger readership than that of your average fringe pamphleteer or self-promoting blogger, that he wishes he had the kind of influence on mainstream political discourse that you and Buchanan and Steyn and Pipes and Malkin do. Maybe by engaging in public disputes with you guys, he gets some of your legitimacy by osmosis?
The irony is that Mr. Auster's political views are so extreme, they don't warrant being taken seriously by you or anybody else except his fellow fringe-dwellers. Here's Auster's answer to the Islamic threat, as posted in January of this year on Ilana Mercer's blog: “If we understood the truth that Islam is fundamentally antipathetic to our civilization and freedom and has no place in our society, I think it would be reasonable for us to outlaw the Muslim religion and outlaw the preaching of Islam.”
How this could possibly conform to the First Amendment, Mr. Auster doesn't explain. (Though he does declare: “I do not… support all free speech as a matter of principle. A society that makes the liberal values of freedom and tolerance its highest values has already signed its own death warrant…”) If Larry Auster doesn't believe in the Bill of Rights, then what kind of defender of the West is he?
A year ago, on his blog, he wrote: “The liberal equality of individuals under the law… must not be America's primary value. … If our nation is to survive, it must have ideals and goals higher than the liberal project of treating all people equally…”
And Mr. Auster hasn't been shy about imagining the real-world implications of his theoretical stand. In a 1994 speech before a white-nationalist audience at the American Renaissance conference, Mr. Auster stated that there are “only two sane options for black-white relations in this country”; either black Americans give up any claim to group entitlements and “accept a society where white Western standards of law, behavior and intellectual life are dominant,” or else, “to avoid race warfare, there must be peaceful separation between the races.”
Mr. Spencer, does this sound like somebody with whom you (or anyone else) can rationally discuss what's best for America?
Posted by: undercover black man at May 27, 2006 10:53 PM
Undercover Black Man:
Many thanks. Shocking indeed. I had no idea of this aspect of Auster's thought. If the racist nonsense you quote is really what he said and what he believes, I have been wasting my time far more than I already suspected.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 27, 2006 11:00 PM
Equal in dignity is not really a valid concept. Equal is a term that we use with 'values'. Equal foces, equal volumes, equal distances, etc.. What liberalism implies is that all men are equal in value. This is what I see as sophistry more so today than could have been imagined in the 1700s in America.
The running metaphor, there is no finish line. If all runners were equal they would always be neck and neck. The fact that one runner out paces the other one means that those two runners were not equal to begin with.
Should the US constitution be amended to reflect reality instead of the utopian humanistic world view that it has been assigned today? I think it should be scraped. I think the constitution has outlived its purpose. But then again, I am not big on constitutions so maybe I am biased.
Liberal democracy is a great system but only if it governs other rational thinking people who all have the same values. Theres that word again. But in a world system, with people from other ideological backgrounds, liberal democracy is a dangerous thing as the mechanisms of natural selection take over and hand the power to those that are most aggressive about taking it - which would naturally be our enemies. A trojan horse so to speak.
Posted by: somethingaboutislam
at May 27, 2006 11:00 PM
Greetings, Mr. Spencer,
Indeed, Lawrence Auster said all that and then some. For a full dose of his peculiar brand of rational discourse, you should read the essay he posted on his blog on January 10, 2003, titled “Racial Differences in Intelligence: The Evolution of One Person’s Views.” It’s available on his View From the Right archives. (The essay was also published in the Occidental Quarterly, an unabashedly racialist journal.)
In this essay, Mr. Auster goes beyond a discussion of IQ (which at least can be objectively measured) to describe black people’s profoundly different nature *as beings*.
“Following the arguments and actions of black leaders, and listening to black callers on talk radio, led me over several years to an increasingly bleak view of black thinking styles,” Mr. Auster writes. “I started to have the sense that blacks are more ‘non-objective,’ they understand things in a much more personal, subjective way than whites. They seem to have much less interest in knowledge or beauty for its own sake.”
The ramifications of this for white society are self-evident; “it means that blacks are in fact less endowed with the qualities that make civilization possible, particularly Western civilization.”
Mr. Auster goes on to discuss the “moral passivity of blacks,” their “demonstrably lesser orientation toward the common political good and a moral and stable social order.” All these deficiencies are, in his words, “inherent” and “intrinsic” in blacks as a race. And “so long as the truth of racial differences is not recognized, whites will always end up being blamed… for a black inferiority that is not whites’ fault.”
As somewhat of a Negro myself, I suppose I should take comfort in something else Mr. Auster wrote on his blog (Feburary 6, 2004); he disavows any intent to injure or oppress non-whites, because his belief in God leads him to accept even an “inferior” person as “our fellow human being.” For that, he has my heartfelt gratitude.
at May 27, 2006 11:52 PM
"Thomas Jefferson, that insufferable neocon!"
Auster is a brilliant critic of "modern" liberalism, in all its guises, including "neoconservatism", and the ways in which it contributes to the suicide of the west. But what isn't clear to me, especially from this back and forth with Spencer, is whether he makes a distinction between "classical" liberalism (our heritage from the Enlightenment) and "modern" liberalism - that animal which he has hunted so brilliantly. I would ask him directly, but he doesn't take open comments on his blog.
Posted by: Caroline at May 28, 2006 12:06 AM
"I categorically reject the assertion that all men are created equal."
--somethingaboutislam
=================
And you carry a scale and a notepad to record the value of each (hu)man as they are created?
Please list their values--just upload a spreadsheet with "Name", "Place of Birth", "Date of Birth", "Ethnicity of Parent(s)", and "Value" for each.
If the list is too large to upload to this site (probably a few gigabytes), please let me know so that I can arrange for enough storage space for you to do the data transfer.
If you have other columns you tracked, then please let me know--I'm interested in all of the data that you've collected.
at May 28, 2006 2:10 AM
Undercover Black Man, great thanks for for uncovering Auster Power's racial biases. You are our white night! Um, whatever.
Robert, this was not a waste of time. This was a great lesson in real life and you defended yourself and your peers marvelously.
Thank you all.
Let's all go out for virtial beers and cocktails to celebrate.
Posted by: Shy Guy at May 28, 2006 2:20 AM
And now that we know Lawrence Auster has criticized blacks we can all be intolerant of his views from now on and block them out of our minds with good conscience. Thank you black man for that wonderful smearjob.
Posted by: MDCLXVI at May 28, 2006 3:08 AM
Caroline said
Auster is a brilliant critic of "modern" liberalism, in all its guises, including "neoconservatism"
You're trying to foist neo-cons George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, Bill Bennett, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, etc. off on Democrats and liberals? Can't blame you for trying, but no thanks, we don't want them. I can't think of a group of people other than the Islamic jihadists with beliefs and values further from my own.
Posted by: special_guest at May 28, 2006 3:36 AM
And now that we know Lawrence Auster has criticized blacks we can all be intolerant of his views from now on and block them out of our minds with good conscience. Thank you black man for that wonderful smearjob.
Posted by: MDCLXVI [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 28, 2006 03:08 AM
============
It has been axiomatic for at least 200 years that all humans are created equally regardless of genetic makeup.
As for critics of this view, it is not only their essense which is not tolerable.
at May 28, 2006 3:48 AM
MDCLXVI (1666), how is providing a link to an article doing a smear job? Let me guess, the article was taken out of context?
Lawrence Auster is who he is, he would not back down from his statements on racial intelligence or the permissibility of rape in some circumstances or the evilness of homosexuality. No-one is blocking him from your mind; feel free to read his blogs to your heart's content. But I for one am more interested in the writings of Robert, Hugh, and Rebecca. To each his/her own. And for the record, I don't know what their political leanings are, and don't really care. Their writings on jihad are all that matter.
Posted by: special_guest at May 28, 2006 4:03 AM
neo-cons George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, Bill Bennett, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, etc.
Contrary to your assertion, Perle is a registered Democrat. As for the rest of the list, the only only I ever heard referred to in connexion with neoconservatism was Wolfowitz.
What this statement does is show how "neoconservative" has become a boo-word. The term has lost its meaning and become entangled with leftist conspiracy theories about the war.
Names such as Gertrude Himmelfarb and Irving Kristol would make more sense here, if your wish is to point to the origins of this movement. This political tendency was originally cpncerned with domestic politics and orginated among former liberals who had the the perception that it was necessary to "repossess the European cultural inheritance, and to reaffirm for a secular community the moral values of the Judaeo-Christian tradition". (IOW, bare-bones liberalism was, they felt, not enough.)
More here:
http://www.profam.org/Special/thc_scruton_0405s.htm
I would say that it important in both domestic and foreign policy to note that these are neo-conservatives not conservatives: hence they are lacking in caution; they are still haven't a full understanding of the importance of culture (and of just how long it takes to grow one); and they are given to sweeping "Rationalist" plans.
You get a more conservative view of things from Wittegnstein, who said that trying to repair broken institutions in civil society with state power would be like trying to repair a spider's web with your bare hands.
Therefore, it would be not unreasonable to conclude that these ex-liberals never fully made the break and that their ideas are a form of "liberalism".
But do put the blame on Bush for listening to "neoconservatives" insofar as he might have ... although, I'm sure he listened to many other people - Chalabi, for example. (And he had a family score to settle.) In any case, are we sure it wasn't necessary to go into Iraq, even if the political reconstruction was an over-ambitious idea? It now seems to be immovable orthodoxy that there were no WMDs, but it is said that Russian Spetsnatz moved a lot of materiel from Iraq to Syria (and see here). Likewise, everyone seems convinced that Saddam was not helping terrorists despite captured documents that detail collaboration (Saddam's Terror Training Camps
Posted by: Yojimbo at May 28, 2006 4:26 AM
I was enjoying very much this provocative discussion between 2 of my favorite writers.
Until it was decided to end all debate and score a cheap victory by stooping to one of the lowest forms of "discourse" plaguing the West -- crying "racism".
Not your finest moment, Robert.
Posted by: Zeno at May 28, 2006 6:35 AM
Zeno,
For pete's sake. All right. I'll spell it out: I am not for Jackson/Farrakhanian race baiting. I am not for special treatment to be given to any group over another.
That said, I find general expressions of the superiority or inferiority of one race or another abhorrent, and in violation of the Judeo-Christian principle of human beings being made in God's image, a principle to which I subscribe.
America has deep racial problems. But if Lawrence Auster's defense of Western civilization involves separation of the races and subscribing to the view that “blacks are in fact less endowed with the qualities that make civilization possible, particularly Western civilization,” then call me a neocon. Include me out.
And read Thomas Sowell.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 28, 2006 6:46 AM
And you carry a scale and a notepad to record the value of each (hu)man as they are created?
I don't need a scale. Just look at the differences between societies or between two people with identical upbringing. That tells you that not all men are created equal.
What the constitution said was that all mean in America are to be treated as having equal worth, until they prove otherwise.
Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 28, 2006 6:57 AM
That said, I find general expressions of the superiority or inferiority of one race or another abhorrent, and in violation of the Judeo-Christian principle of human beings being made in God's image, a principle to which I subscribe.
You are to be commended for having such lofty principles. But that is not an argument. So if that is where the debate ends, then we know that islam as a religion of peace must also be true.
Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 28, 2006 7:10 AM
Somethingaboutislam:
Right: equality before the law. Which Sharia denies.
I didn't end the debate. In fact, I prolonged it.
As for equality: obviously people are not equal in accomplishment or ability. But that is not the same thing as affirming that they should be treated as equal before the law, or are equal in dignity.
And I don't have the slightest idea how you get that my affirmation of the equality of dignity of all people, as based on my religion, means that Islam is a religion of peace, which is manifestly false.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 28, 2006 8:17 AM
Thank to Mr. Spencer for so spectacularly proving my point for me, which he had denied at such length. He's a liberal, even a knee-jerk liberal--politically correct from his head to his toes. The moment he hears a couple of quotes and paraphrases of my writings that go beyond liberal correctness on race, and without his even having read the articles from which the quotes come, he cries "racist" and expels me from the company of decent people who belong in a discussion. The whole lengthy discussion we had yesterday, all the arguments I had made on the serious issues that are before us, it's all now worthless in Spencer's eyes, simply because in other articles, completely unrelated to the Islam issue, I had said that there are racial differences in intelligence.
Mr. Spencer is evidently that type of liberal who is non-liberal on one particular issue, in this case Islam. Because he's non-liberal on that one issue, liberals regard him as a right-wing conservative and hate him for it, and he regards himself as a right-wing conservative. But in fact, on all other issues apart from Islam, Spencer is simply an unreconstructed liberal, who, moreover is evidently quite unfamiliar with the range of non-liberal issues that thoughtful conservatives have been dealing with for years.
I concluded at the end of my article, "The Evolution of One Person's Views on Racial Differences in Intelligence," that there are "intrinsic racial differences in civilizational abilities." Indeed, the fact that there are very significant differences between blacks and whites in intelligence, and that the mightiest efforts by society have not been able to raise the abilities of blacks to the level of whites, is very well known and has been discussed for many years by respectable conservatives magazines and even by the New York Times. Liberals bend themselves out of shape trying to explain the huge gap between average black and white abilities that can't be ended by any means. Since, the liberals believe, all people are equal in their inborn abilities, if blacks' actual abilities are far behind those of whites, it must be due to something that whites are doing to blacks, in other words, white racism. This explanation takes on more and more inventive forms. For example, since overt racial discrimination is gone, the racial difference in abilities must be due to "cultural stereotypes" that whites are somehow imposing on blacks and that make blacks perform poorly.
The only way to break through this false indictment of whites for something that whites have no control over, is to speak the truth, which is that the racial differences in intelligence are largely innate. Of course, cultural factors are also involved in this and so there is some room for improvement which should be pursued. The illusion is in thinking that the racial gap can be completely closed.
In the most recent major treatment of the problem, No Excuses, Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom document at length the fact that black high school seniors are on average almost three years behind whites in reading abilities, and that this remains the case despite all ameliorative efforts. Neocon columnists wrote that the Thernstroms had said that this huge gap in abilities had been "closed," creating the impression that the gap was being eliminated. In fact, what they had documented was that a four year deficit in black reading abilities had been closed by one-third, meaning that blacks were still almost three years behind whites in reading scores. Yet various neoconservative columnists rushed into print celebrating that the gap had been "closed." Yes, it had been "closed," from a vast four year gap to a still huge 2 and 2/3 year gap. The search for racial equality of abilities between blacks and whites is like the search for moderate Islam; despite the inability of society to reach the promised land, liberals can't give up the search.
Of course the one factor that liberals such as the Thernstroms dismiss out of hand (though they don't say why), the only factor that can explain these very large and persisting differences in intellectual ability, is that they are inherent. Some conservatives will entertain it. All I did was state the truth of the matter in plain language. For this, Spencer calls me racist.
He writes:
... I find general expressions of the superiority or inferiority of one race or another abhorrent, and in violation of the Judeo-Christian principle of human beings being made in God's image, a principle to which I subscribe.
I have never written that any group is "superior" or "inferior" to another group as human beings. I have said that there are intrinsic racial differences in civilizational abilities between blacks and whites. That statement is either true or false. Spcncer's statement that the very idea that there may be such differences is abhorrent, proves that he is not just a neoconservative or a right-liberal, who believes in equality under the law for everyone, but that he is a left-liberal, who insists that all people are substantively equal in their capacities as well as in their rights. And that belief inevitably leads to socialism, or in the case of race preferences, to racial socialism.
On the issue of racial separation that I was quoted on, I said in a rhetorical passage that if blacks continue to insist on racial group privileges, thus attacking the very core of the American system, then that suggests that blacks' and whites' political views are so different that they cannot go on living under the same political system without the inevitable destruction of that system. Neoconservatives (and Spencer now admits that he is one) have made individual rights as opposed to group rights the very centerpiece of their vision of America. What then do we do with a group that rejects individual rights and demands group equality of outcome? The underlying substantive point in my rhetorical passage is that if people reject the fundamental basis of our system, then they need to have their own system, built on principles that they prefer, and not to live among us and destroy our system. I say the same thing about Muslims, and Spencer agrees with me there. Is Spencer a racist because he thinks a large population of sharia-supporting Muslims will threaten our political system? No. Why then am I a racist for saying that a vast population of group-privilege-supporting blacks threaten our political system?
Again, what is most instructive in following the comments of Mr. Spencer and his regular readers, is that they are simply liberals who are anti-Islam. Being anti-Islam is the one big exception they make to their own liberalism. On all other issues, they are simply liberals.
For anyone who is interested, here is my article on racial differences in intelligence, which has been posted on the main page of my website for the last three years:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001132.html
Posted by: Lawrence Auster at May 28, 2006 11:21 AM
Yojimbo said
What this statement does is show how "neoconservative" has become a boo-word.
I agree with that. It used to be a self-administered badge of honor. Now it has become perjorative, an empty epithet, a meaningless insult, like "liberal".
Posted by: special_guest at May 28, 2006 12:31 PM
Auster: "Again, what is most instructive in following the comments of Mr. Spencer and his regular readers, is that they are simply liberals who are anti-Islam. Being anti-Islam is the one big exception they make to their own liberalism. On all other issues, they are simply liberals."
Let's say this is true. What is the relevance of such a point when what we're dealing with here is fighting Islam? Personally, I find your views about racial differences irrelevant to the issue of jihad and I would not dismiss your views about Islam on that basis. In fact, I have stated several times that I think yours is one of the most invaluable anti-jihadist voices out there.
But what I would like to really understand are the grounds on which you dismiss Spencer as a liberal and neocon - where the resistance to jihad is concerned. Because that is the issue isn't it? (it is to me at least, not having much personal interest in seeing mud slung for the hell of it).
In a previous post up the thread (May 21, 2:34 pm), I quoted from a post of yours about the nature of "modern liberalism". Spencer fits none of it. Nor does he fit the label of neocon, on the grounds that he doesn't believe we can export democracy to the Muslim world because all people are not fundamentally the same nor do they want the same things (obviously its not my intention to speak for Spencer here and how he thinks of himself. I have no idea and am just stating an observation).
But even if Spencer were a "modern" liberal on the issue of black-white race relations in America - how does that spill over into the charge that he is a "modern" liberal where the fight against Islam is concerned? And if you were to acknowledge that he is not "modern" liberal on that score, but say a "classic" liberal - what is your beef with classic liberalism? Our western heritage from the enlightenment?
And how would being a liberal on one issue nullify being a conservative on another issue anyway? Does being a liberal on one issue mean that it is impossible to mount a strong conservative defense on another unrelated issue? And if that is the assumption, then I would need to be shown HOW that is the case.
I do wish you would clarify your views on the distinction between "modern" and "classic" liberalism, if you see one. On the other hand, since I rudely called you crotchety, I have no expectation of a response. On the other hand, I think you should know that you are wrong in assuming that you have no defenders here (as you posted on your blog). I don't like to see people I think highly of needlessly attacked. But that doesn't mean that I am not a defender of yours - because I am. Your blog is the second one I read daily after this one. And I have posted links to your articles and blog here many a time. So yes, I am in fact one of your defenders.
at May 28, 2006 1:02 PM
I don't know how anyone, Auster or other posters, can talk with such authority about what Robert's political beliefs are. Is he liberal? Is he conservative? Is he neoconservative? I don't know, and I don't know how anyone else here knows. I was gone last week, so maybe I missed Robert's postings on states rights, or fiscal responsibility, or race relations, or national security, or abortion, or gay marriage.
Robert says that Qur'anic verses so-and-so promote violence, and Auster replies that Robert is only a modern liberal. If I have any interest in Auster's writings, it is only in discussing the relation between the Qur'an and Islamic violence, which he did in the article that Caroline provided, and it was a well-written article by the way.
Posted by: special_guest at May 28, 2006 1:56 PM
As I understand Lawrence Auster, his struggle is to save Western civilization - which means defending it from all of its enemies.
Seemingly, all commentators here have correctly identified Islam as a mortal threat. However, in order to better grasp where Auster is coming from, we should ask ourselves the following question: Why is it that Western civilization has grown so weak and fragile that the Islamic ideology is now in a position to destroy us?
Modern liberalism and the loss of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is part of the answer - consequently we must fight against those who work for more liberalism and less Christianity.
Posted by: hindestad at May 28, 2006 2:43 PM
Larry:
You seem to have missed my stating that obviously there are differences among people in terms of accomplishment and ability.
I state that in black and white above.
I just don't think that should translate to treating races differently before the law.
Nor do I believe that those differences of accomplishment and ability break down easily along racial lines.
For you to pounce on this and act as if I accept liberal race-baiting dogma is false and, frankly, contemptible. It seems as if you are looking for anything you can to hang me with.
Well, hang away, Larry. Call me a liberal, call me a neocon, call me a godless commie, call me whatever you want. (But stop lying and saying I "admitted" to being any such thing, please.)
I am going to go back to trying to awaken the West to the magnitude of the threat we face, and I'm going to do it no matter how you try to demonize me. I'm going to do it, in other words, in spite of your divisive, suicidal sniping at me and other people on our side.
How you deal with how you persist in misrepresenting my positions is a matter for your own conscience. But I am going to deal with you no more.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 28, 2006 3:17 PM
"Racist," like "islamophobe," is a word used solely for the purpose of preventing perception, and murdering thought.
Posted by: Shrewsbury at May 28, 2006 4:00 PM
I have been involved in many lively and contentious online discussions over the last few years, but I must say that I have never seen a person lie as fragrantly as Robert Spencer, who repeatedly combines aggressive personal attacks with the denial that he's engaging in an attack. That Spencer is a respected intellectual and writer makes his lies even more shocking.
Previously he said:
If the racist nonsense you quote is really what [Auster] said and what he believes, I have been wasting my time far more than I already suspected.But now, in response to my explanation of my views and my attack on his PC attempt to discredit me, he claims, utterly incoherently:
You seem to have missed my stating that obviously there are differences among people in terms of accomplishment and ability.I state that in black and white above.
I just don't think that should translate to treating races differently before the law.
Nor do I believe that those differences of accomplishment and ability break down easily along racial lines.
For you to pounce on this and act as if I accept liberal race-baiting dogma is false and, frankly, contemptible. It seems as if you are looking for anything you can to hang me with.
Amazing. On the basis of a couple of quotes and paraphrases from articles he hasn't read, he dismisses me as a "racist" not worth talking to, even about subjects having nothing to do with race. But when I defend myself, he immediately turns around and proclaims that I'm contemptible for saying that he's engaging in liberal racism-baiting, which in fact is what he just did. It takes a special kind of personality not only to call someone racist, but then to deny that he has done so, so as to render the other person unable to defend himself from the charge.
Also, he says there are natural differences between people as individuals, but he denies that there are or can be racial differences. But of course that's exactly what I said about him: that he dogmatically denies that there can be racial differences in ability that will have socially significant results, and, further, that he considers anyone who thinks otherwise to be a racist.
He also says that he doesn't think that race differences (which he denies exist) should "translate to treating races differently before the law." But I never said they should, so why does he bring the matter up? He's not calling me a racist because I said that people should be treated differently before the law, which I never said. He's calling me a racist because (1) I said that there are intrinsic racial differences in intelligence, and (2) I said that blacks' insistence that they receive special group favors under the law is incompatible with our political system. I favor a single standard, based in Western culture. But if there is to be a single standard and a single system based on it, then obviously people who advocate an incompatible system (e.g. systematized race preferences for racial minorities, or sharia for Muslims) are not compatible with our society and must be resisted.
Finally (this is apart from my discussion with Spencer), on the subject of race preferences, I wrote a lengthy critique of the disastrous Grutter v. Bollinger decision, which for the first time found a justification for race preferences in the U.S. Constitution (while the neoconservatives—who had previously said that the fight against race preferences was the very heart of the meaning of America—went completely silent on the issue and surrendered). See my article:
Grutter—A Revolutionary Decision That Must Not Stand
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17921
at May 28, 2006 4:32 PM
Shrewsbury:
Nonsense. I take it you have never heard of apartheid, Nazi Germany, or Jim Crow.
Anyway, as I pointed out above, Auster is completely misrepresenting my positions, even more flagrantly than he was already.
A commenter, "Judith," says this at his blog: ""One last thought, I also published an article recently on Mosque-building in France. Mosques are being built, re-built, and planned every day everywhere, at taxpayers’ expense. If this happens in the US, would Robert Spencer regard it as part of the jihad he wants to defeat? Or would he consider it as a normal consequence of the equality of all beliefs?"
Auster only publishes comments after he vets them. That means he approved this as a reasonable assessment of my views.
Is research somehow foreign to him?
Let him prove that I believe all beliefs are equal. Let him produce one thing I have written that says that. In fact, I have written reams to the contrary.
He is invited to search Dhimmi Watch and Jihad Watch to see what I have said about mosques in the US and Europe.
He persists in constructing a straw-man Spencer that he then knocks down. This race business is just the most egregious example, as I explained above: I support equality of all before the law, and he has taken that to mean that I oppose all of Western civilization. This liberal Spencer of his imagining has increasingly less to do with what I actually believe and say, and he is increasingly exposed as just the antithesis of someone who is intellectually honest.
Does he not feel a duty to be accurate?
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 28, 2006 4:33 PM
Larry,
I won't call you a liar, but I do recommend that you enroll in a basic reading comprehension course.
It is breathtaking that you would take me to task for criticizing you for a "couple of quotes and paraphrases from articles he hasn't read," when you clearly haven't read my work and are embarked on a full bore campaign to represent my views as other than what they are.
The supposed contradiction you point out here conveniently leaves out the fact that you "defended yourself" after my initial brief post by making charges against me even more outlandish than the ones you made previously, even more patently false compared to my actual positions. But in my response, I did not say that I didn't call you a racist, as you now claim -- and call me a liar on that basis.
I repeat: do you feel no obligation whatsoever to be accurate?
I said the quotes adduced were racist. I believe they are. You think that makes me a liberal, ipso facto. I think that makes you a very poor thinker (as well as a poor reader), as per my post above, explaining that I believe in equality before the law, and equality of dignity, but not in the equality of all beliefs or the equality of all people in ability. Yet you charge that I believe both. Bring your evidence, sir.
But you can't, because there is none. When I first responded to your attacks, I thought at least some interest in representing your opponent fairly and accurately. I was wrong.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 28, 2006 4:47 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)