| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Lawrence Auster has just noticed my post about his attacks on me and the false charges they're based on. In case anyone is interested, he and I are mud wrestling in the comments field there.
It seems I am a "neocon," and I don't value Western civilization, and I don't even know it. I guess that as long as I am involved in things without even knowing it myself, in that case I must also be a Jesuit temporal coadjutor and a Sephardic Jew.
But Larry, God bless him, is sticking to the high road.
UPDATE: Auster is, quite simply, misrepresenting my positions and beliefs, and persisting to do so after I explained them. He has abundantly established that he was not worth all this time.
FINAL THOUGHTS: Auster continues to insist I am a "liberal," which to him is worse than a "mujahid," although his only evidence for this is that I don't hesitate to ally with Hirsi Ali. Auster evidently believes that to ally with someone means to agree with them on all points. Churchill might have found that amusing as he sat next to Stalin at those Big Three meetings.
In any case, he claims that I have failed to grasp his distinction between not valuing the West and valuing the West only for liberal reasons. This is in fact a distinction without a difference, for he considers the liberals worse enemies of the West than the jihadists.
Unfortunately, it is he who has glossed over key distinctions and jumped to innumerable erroneous conclusions, and he who gave the discussion a nasty personal cast by presuming to speak of my motives and values, of which he actually knows nothing.
In fact, I value the Judeo-Christian West, the culture and the people -- which is what he accuses me of not doing. Anyone who reads what I write knows this. He has not read the chapter of my book Onward Muslim Soldiers in which I take real liberals to task for their short-sighted hatred of America and the West and willingness to side with the mujahedin, or the passages in my books Islam Unveiled and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam which warn that we will never prevail in this struggle unless we recover a sense of pride in who we are and who our forefathers were. But he doesn't know that material exists.
But I will still ally with people on the Left against the mujahedin, for if the mujahedin prevail, Larry and I will not be free to have these delightful exchanges.
His imperviousness to the facts is clearest in our last exchange, in which he claimed that I denied calling him a racist. In fact, I never called him a racist in the first place. I said the statements that a commenter had posted were racist, and expressed no certainty that Auster had actually made them. The second, supposedly self-contradictory message from me denied none of this.
What he says about me as a liberal is not true, and is contradicted by my writings, in which I repeatedly call on the West to recover its own spiritual and cultural resources. But Auster acknowledges that he hasn't read what I have actually written. That makes him particularly irresponsible in launching this attack.
Finally, he says I am "not a thinker," although here again this is based only upon what he assumes I believe and say, not what I actually believe and say. Very well. If a "thinker" is one who launches a sustained smear attack based on an erroneous and baseless judgment of what someone else actually says and believes, sweeping aside all evidence presented to the contrary, then I would prefer not to be one.
Anyway, I am aware that nobody in this world cares this much about Lawrence Auster and Robert Spencer to read all this. But in any case it is here now, on the record, for anyone of good will who comes across his attacks and would like to see the other side, and for anyone who wonders where I actually stand on alliances with those I may oppose on other issues, or on the enduring value of Western civilization and the importance of defending it. All those who are quick to praise Auster for his "intellectual honesty" should ask him for actual material from my writings that establishes that I have no regard for Western civilization except insofar as it preserves and allows for relativism and multiculturalism. And then be prepared for a long wait.
Posted by Robert at May 27, 2006 7:00 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Hi Robert,
I think that, to some extent, the unwanted attention you have been attracting is a by-product of the success of your endeavour. If no-one were attending to your work, you would probably be ignored.
Let's hope that Mr. Auster and others who don't like your views or who are unhappy with the company that you are willing keep while the jihad remains undefeated will invest some of their efforts into preserving their liberty to disagree with both the Islamists and with you. Perhaps some of them are doing that. It does seem strange that they regard you as so problematic in the context of the larger emergency.
Again, I thank you for your work.
Sincerely yours,
Sam Conner
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 27, 2006 7:46 PM
The "Babylonian Messenger" was attacked for bringing the lord of the city bad news.
Islamic Imperialism is the bad news.
Not the fingers pointing at it.
As the clever old zen guys warned:
"Don't mistake the finger for the moon it indicates."
If Islam rules, all culture is doomed. Nothing but the robotic repetitions of the 7th century dogmas of the pedophile "prophet" will be left.
Why are these characters, like Auster, Esmay, et al, arguing with someone who wants to rouse the sleepwalkers as they near the abyss of Islam?
Where are the churches of North Africa (home of St. Augustine), or Turkey (St. Paul's stomping grounds), or Arabia (where gnostics once held sway)?
Did they move because they took advantage of rising property values?
Or are their fanes rubble under a thousand triumphant mosques?
Fighting in the foxholes is folly.
These guys need to focus, focus, focus.
As the T-shirt says:
"It's the jihad, stupid!"
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 27, 2006 8:07 PM
Robert a "dyspeptic misanthrope"?
Hardly. Robert is a preeminent pedagogical pimp, yo. A towering titan in theological turpitude, certainly.
Posted by: Beagle at May 27, 2006 8:50 PM
Beagle,
There has been some mix-up.
He is the dyspeptic misanthrope. I am the neocon who collaborates with enemies of Western civilization.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 27, 2006 8:53 PM
*comes in*
*looks around*
....how did I end up at Democratic Underground?
Posted by: Gary at May 27, 2006 9:01 PM
Gary,
My apologies. The man attacked me, repeatedly. Some people asked me to respond. So I did. That was over a week ago. Then he responded today, and I got tied up with him.
I really should have spent the day on something more productive.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 27, 2006 9:07 PM
Lawrence Auster wrote:
[N]eoconservatism is one of the greatest dangers of our age, because it allows untold thousands of self-described conservatives to think that they are engaged in a great battle against liberalism and other forces of darkness, when in fact they are themselves liberals. When push comes to shove, as in the confrontation with expansionist Islam, these pseudo-conservatives, instead of defending our concrete civilization and peoplehood from the Muslims, all too often defend abstract liberal values such as secularism, pluralism, and inclusion, which ultimately has the effect of giving the Muslims more power over us.
No, defending secularism, pluralism, and inclusion, ultimately will have the effect of defeating, or at the least, de-fanging Islam.
Larry doesn't seem to understand that what tempered radical Christianity is what will ultimately temper radical Islam: post-Enlightenment secularism. When Islamists have lost all/most of the arguments, and when they start changing their doctrine accordingly, then we'll see the beginnings of a true Islamic Reformation.
This is a difficult battle because most of the usual champions of egalitarianism and secularism are busy indulging their addiction to pathalogical amounts of diversity and anti-Americanism. However, like most addictions it won't last forever. Eventually academics and civil rights activists will join the good fight.
Posted by: deesine at May 27, 2006 9:12 PM
Mr. Spencer,
I enjoy reading your work and have learned from your insights and research.
Thank you for taking the time to answer Lawrence. While I'm sure it's a tiring and taxing experience, it serves to paint a picture of a misguided attack and its fallacious vector.
In net parlance, u pwnd that fool.
Posted by: deesine at May 27, 2006 9:22 PM
Mr. Auster-
No one hates "secularism" and "liberalism" more than Islam.
So, perhaps you're in the wrong camp.
Ayatollah Auster has a nice ring to it.
As an agnostic, no one is hated more by Islam than myself.
Not even "atheists", who ironically agree to the same epistemological ground rules as "theists".
While one who accepts the self-limiting fallibility of human intelligence for such profound pronouncements about the Ineffable eludes the headlock of either Absolute Yes or No. Both of which grant far too much power to our puny mental abilities as mortal, limited creatures.
I deny the Muslims' human-all-too-human minds the ability to wrap up the infinite and eternal riddle of Creation with a puny yawn of dogma.
Any dogma.
Even yours.
But, for all that, I'll still fight to the death to save even your life from theocratic maniacs.
Or is that too "liberal"?
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 27, 2006 9:37 PM
Radical Christianity?
Posted by: hasan salami at May 27, 2006 9:43 PM
Radical Christianity?The Inquisitions. Need more? Posted by: deesine
at May 27, 2006 9:49 PM
Mr. Auster,
Why are you bothering to even get into a debate with Mr. Robert Spencer? It is the Saturday of a three-and-half days extended holiday, Memorial Day, people who are Americans and post are away or are having a good time into other fun things while honoring those who gaved the greatest gift of laying down their lives. Those folks have down that so that wonderful websites like this could become a reality. Get a real life Mr. Auster, please, thank you.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 27, 2006 9:51 PM
bigcatgirl-
On this Memorial weekend, let's all recall what Patton said of those who won our freedom:
"Do not mourn that such men died, but thank God that they lived."
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 27, 2006 10:02 PM
THE FINAL
INSPECTION
The Marine stood and faced God,
Which must always come to pass.
He hoped his shoes were shining,
Just as brightly as his brass.
"Step forward now, Marine,
How shall I deal with you?
Have you always turned the other cheek?
To My Church have you been true?"
The soldier squared his shoulders and said,
"No, Lord, I guess I ain't.
Because those of us who carry guns,
Can't always be a saint.
I've had to work most Sundays,
And at times my talk was tough.
And sometimes I've been violent,
Because the world is awfully rough.
But, I never took a penny,
That wasn't mine to keep...
Though I worked a lot of overtime,
When the bills got just too steep.
And I never passed a cry for help,
Though at times I shook with fear.
And sometimes, God, forgive me,
I've wept unmanly tears.
I know I don't deserve a place,
Among the people here.
They never wanted me around,
Except to calm their fears.
If you've a place for me here, Lord,
It needn't be so grand.
I never expected or had too much,
But if you don't, I'll understand.
There was a silence all around the throne,
Where the saints had often trod.
As the Marine waited quietly,
For the judgment of his God.
"Step forward now, you Marine,
You've borne your burdens well.
Walk peacefully on Heaven's streets,
You've done your time in Hell."
~Author Unknown~
at May 27, 2006 10:03 PM
Hi profitsbeard,
Mr. Auster is no friend of Islam. He has a piece at Frontpage that is a skeptical of Islam and the elusive "moderate Islam" as you could ask for.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16798
His argument with Robert has to do, as far as I can tell without reading deeper into it, with Mr. Auster's deep skepticism of political positions that are not closely aligned with his own, which is "traditionalist conservative." He is thus highly skeptical of Hirsi Ali's other positions (aside from her stance on Islam), which he regards [perhaps rightly, I'm not well enough informed about her to tell] as incompatible with historic Western civilization.
The thing that I find sorrowful about this is the name-calling and consequent hostility between people who I think are basically on the same side. Auster called Robert, in effect, a closet liberal. Robert called Auster a "dyspeptic misanthrope."
I think both are mistaken. Robert doesn't wear his faith on his sleeve but, it seems to me, for tactical reasons seeks to enlist the help of people who in a more "normal" time might be on opposite sides of the table (a less momentous table). If Islam triumphs, there will be no opportunities to argue about the extent to which Biblical morality should be reflected in laws. So I don't agree with Auster's assessment of Robert's (as it seems to me) tactical stance.
But I don't think "dyspeptic misanthrope" is a completely fair characterization, though I can understand how one could take that view. I have scanned through some of Auster's recent posts and he does seem to me angry and more of a divider than a uniter. But it also seems to me that he thinks and writes clearly.
Two names called, two intelligent, energetic and valuable people angry at each other. Such is
the West in our day.
Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite
at May 27, 2006 10:04 PM
"Larry doesn't seem to understand that what tempered radical Christianity is what will ultimately temper radical Islam: post-Enlightenment secularism."
If by "ultimately" you mean after another thousand years filled with --
intolerant Sharia laws,
internecine slaughters between Shia and Sunnis,
inhumane corporal punishments of fellow Muslims,
de facto enslavement (sexual and otherwise) of non-Muslim servants,
actual slavery of black Africans,
Jihads hot (Sudan) and lukewarm (Nigeria, Indonesia) against non-Muslim peoples,
honor-killings,
gang-rapes of Muslim and non-Muslim women in Europe and elsewhere,
anti-Semitic attacks throughout Europe and elsewhere,
riots, lynchings, arson,
beheadings,
group orgies of violence with dismemberment of dying and dead bodies and dancing and praising God while doing so,
mass-murders of children,
and
terrorist attacks (both formal commando operations as well as relatively spontaneous "vigilante" violence like the Beltway snipers, the Muslim student who tried to kill Americans with his SUV, etc.),
coupled with repeated denials by most Muslims of any connection of Islam to all of the above, unwillingness to try to reform Islam on the basis that Islam has an obvious sickness, and continual dissembling and lying to non-Muslims about the problems of Islam
-- during which time Muslims will increasingly try to conquer the world to bring it back to the pre-Enlightenment 7th century (and if they don't succeed due to our stupidity will cause untold mayhem and misery before we finally will have to adopt a no-nonsense approach to put a definitive stop to that metastatic cancer called a religion), then I think you're at least half right: "radical" Islam will "ultimately" be tempered.
Posted by: Television at May 27, 2006 10:07 PM
Dhimmisoftheworldunite...
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/b/h/bhymnotr.htm
http://www.instantknowledgenews.com/marine.htm
at May 27, 2006 10:13 PM
profitsbeard,
As a daugther of a former member of the US Coast Guards who served during WW II on the USS Ambrose, and who lived to see 75 and passed on in early May of 1999, I want to say thank-you for making my holiday weekend. God Bless.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 27, 2006 10:19 PM
My apologies Dhimmisoftheworldunite,
This last was directed at patriot4...
at May 27, 2006 10:34 PM
Hi tgusa,
No need to apologize. I'm partial to the Army, myself, but I did like those links!
Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite at May 27, 2006 10:45 PM
Dhimmisoftheworldunite...
I know how you feel. All my relatives were Army. I broke the mold and have paid for it. Oh well
at May 27, 2006 10:50 PM
patriot4 that poem was very emotional for me. my niece's fiance is heading for Afganistan in a few weeks. he is only twenty five, and will be there for six months. l met him last week for the first time on my trek north, and know Canada is sending their finest to war. My niece's father, my older brother, has the lastest book of Robert and know he is well versed with it. l am sorry this might be off topic but after reading that poem, it just really came home. thank you again for posting it.
Posted by: Lulu at May 27, 2006 11:11 PM
Lulu,
Our thoughts, prayers and hopes go with him.
at May 27, 2006 11:20 PM
it is a poem i send to a marine's mom on his birhday,day he died.I lived close to where he was from,and went to his funeral.Almost 2 years later,my girlfrind got pregnant,we were thinking of names.So i chose the name of the marine who gave his life for us.Evan James was his name,died march 25th 2003,drowned crossing the sadam cannal,he turned back when he noticed a fellow marine strugleing.
Here is the other poem,that i send his mom,to let her no that i am thinking about her loss,and that i am thankfull for men like her son.
Previous | Next | Back to Messages
DeleteReplyForwardSpamMove...
Printable View This message is not flagged. [ Flag Message - Mark as Unread ]
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 10:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: "roger" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by yahoo.com. Learn more
To: "Roger Gillhespy"
Tears For Your Fallen
Just the thought of what
you went through
and the lasting memory
of the loss of your loved one,
who died serving
our great country
and fellow Americans
grips this parent's heart,
so very much that
words fail to capture
what truly yours must feel.
I see the little one
with those innocent bright eyes
and toothless happy grins
giving those adoring big hugs
out of pure, unconditional love...
even now as an adult.
Misty eyes, followed by the tears,
cannot be hidden,
knowing a parent's blind love
of their child can only be expressed
in memories past,
looking upwards Above in prayer,
sharing words with loved ones and friends,
and somber visits to the grave.
And while there will always be
that tremendous pride
in valiantly being there
for country, fellow citizens, and you...
nothing can ever replace
seeing your little one grown,
walking through the door
and giving you
a happy, loving smile
and a big ole hug.
By David G. Bancroft
at May 27, 2006 11:31 PM
tgusa,
thanx for the links,liked them very much
at May 27, 2006 11:33 PM
Never Forget...
http://www.company71.org/wtc.htm
Happy Memorial Day to all Westerners.
at May 27, 2006 11:54 PM
You too,this is a VERY good video to watch this holiday weekend.
http://www.nmam.org/wesupportu.htm
Posted by: patriot4 at May 28, 2006 12:10 AM
P.S also would be great video to send to freinds and familly.Everybody should see it.
Posted by: patriot4 at May 28, 2006 12:19 AM
Everybody...
Pass it on.
at May 28, 2006 12:22 AM
1861, This hymn was born during the American civil war, when Howe visited a Union Army camp on the Potomac River near Washington, D. C.?
She knew all this in 1861?
What tremendous insight!
at May 28, 2006 12:47 AM
Thank-you, Patriot4, for the The Final Inspection. This is the second time this year that I have seen that. Back in January our Vicar quoted it when our local congregation was giving thanks for the American assistance, so willingly given, in WWII. At the time we were re-dedicating the memorial to our American friends which stands in our village church's small acre (God's acre, as we English call it). It brought a tear to my eye then, but tonight it reduced me to tears - probably, simply, because I never expected to encounter the verse again, and, least of all places, here, but, equally likely, because it must speak to all true-born Englishmen as it must do to all patriotic Americans.
Trite it may seem, and, indeed, be, but it encapsulates an emotion that no true lover of freedom could fail to appreciate. I, who am too young to have ever served, support SSAFA and I hope that you all support whatever veterans organisation exists in your neck of the woods.
Please, please, remember that thousands of men and women are going to come home from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan in deep need of our support and care. We may disagree with the politics which sent them there, but we must support them in every way possible when they ask for, or simply need, our help.
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 28, 2006 12:49 AM
Dhimmisoftheworldunite: "I have scanned through some of Auster's recent posts and he does seem to me angry and more of a divider than a uniter. But it also seems to me that he thinks and writes clearly.
Two names called, two intelligent, energetic and valuable people angry at each other. Such is
the West in our day. "
Yup. I think you sum it up pretty well. I think Auster is crotchety (I presume that's more mild than "misanthrope" in the insult department, although I could be wrong on that. But lots of old people are crotchety (heh - that was supposed to be funny to all you old people out there:-)).
But I still think Auster is one of the best anti-jihadist voices in the blogosphere and personally, I found this exchange a bit upsetting (isn't it funny how emotionally involved we can actually get in the blogosphere!). But that's because, as you imply - this is really completely unnecessary. And I don't blame Spencer for it. I blame Auster. Auster is clearly the one who went on the attack and Spencer is the one defending himself and his defense on this score strikes me as more important and warranted than say, bothering to respond to Dean Esmay.
Also - you are right on target to link to Auster's terrific 2-part article at frontpagemag - "The Search for Moderate Islam":
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16798
In short, the guy's on our side, and this whole brouhaha (yes- started by him) is a crying shame.
Posted by: Caroline at May 28, 2006 1:02 AM
Necessitasnonhabetlegem, wrote...Please, please, remember that thousands of men and women are going to come home from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan…
I remember the runup to the 1st war against saddam. The word was 100,000 body bags had been ordered by the Pentagon. Being a much younger man than I am now and having just left the Military and started a family I was to say very concerned. Well we all know the History now but it seems like we keep prolonging the inevitable. If we keep going at this rate we may use up those 1000,000 bags yet. Let’s hope we get serious before it is to that point. Agreed?
at May 28, 2006 1:04 AM
tgusa,
Agreed, oh so very much agreed.
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 28, 2006 1:08 AM
Caroline (and others),
It strikes me that Mr. Auster simply wants to be the biggest fish in the pool. He simply can't bear it that Mr. Spencer may have a larger following than he does. It is simple Western academic jealousy. For all that he protests that he supports the cause, basically he's in it for self-aggrandisement - he wants, as they say, to be more Catholic than the Pope - and to be recognised as such.
He strikes me, from everything of his that I have read, as being a racist, fascist homophobe who wishes that women be kept barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. Self-serving fellow travellers like this we can do without.
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 28, 2006 1:17 AM
Thanks Patriot4 -- I can never begin to express how grateful I am to all the brave hearts who made our freedoms possible. I am humbled.
Posted by: jsla at May 28, 2006 1:24 AM
Aaargh, its 6:30am here in the UK. I'm going to have to go now because I promised to sing with the tenors at sung Matins in an hours time and it's going to take me half-an-hour to get there and I promised the Choirmaster that I would be there in time for warm-up.
Love you all. Have a good Sunday. Light the barbie and have a tinnie (can of beer, for all you US folks) for me, too.
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at May 28, 2006 1:24 AM
Mr. Spencer,
"A man must know his destiny… if he does not recognize it, then he is lost. By this I mean, once, twice, or at the very most, three times, fate will reach out and tap a man on the shoulder… if he has the imagination, he will turn around and fate will point out to him what fork in the road he should take, if he has the guts, he will take it." Gen. G.S. Patton USA
With "you" it only took the once.
at May 28, 2006 1:33 AM
Glad ya liked the poems.Its the time to remember our hero's.Because of them,today is a good day...Were are alive and free because of them.
Posted by: patriot4 at May 28, 2006 1:51 AM
profitsbeard wrote...
Any dogma.
Even yours.
But, for all that, I'll still fight to the death to save even your life from theocratic maniacs.
Or is that too "liberal"?
Actually the word is Herocic...
Consider me humbled and proud to be allowed into the circle of victory here at this site. Whith so many others here deserve thank that it would took
me 2 lives and I still would omit someone to my shame. So Thank You All and next year lets get together.I will bet we have 3 times the Registerd Users as of now.
at May 28, 2006 2:28 AM
deesine said
In net parlance, u pwnd that fool.
What a waste of precious time and energy. Any time spent rolling in the mud with Dean Esmay or Lawrence Auster is time wasted. It is time that could have been spent focused on the danger of jihad. Pwning is from the realm of video games, which is where it should stay.
I don't envy Robert; as his renown grows, there will be more and more personal attacks and mischaracterizations to respond to. To ignore them is to give them an air of substance. But to spend hours in back-and-forth exchanges with someone like Esmay or Auster just misdirects energy from where it would be more productive (if not fighting the jihad, then at least enjoying a beautiful summer day).
Let Robert's writing speak for itself, and let Auster's writing speak for itself (thanks, Undercover Black Man).
Posted by: special_guest at May 28, 2006 3:07 AM
tgusa.
I clicked on your links and when I read the Marines hymn, I got chills. We used to sing this in school. I liked it then and I like it now. What has happened to our country that patriotism isn't taught to our children anymore? It's a disaster waiting to happen.
at May 28, 2006 5:05 AM
Robert~ I was joking. Sorry about that.
Posted by: Gary at May 28, 2006 8:23 AM
Thanks for the poems and links, you guys! I had no idea that the Battle Hymn of the Republic had so many verses! Nor the Marine Corps Hymn, for that matter. I've only ever heard the first verse of each.
The 9/11 montage was heartwrenching.
God bless you all, especially all the men and women out there who have ever worn an American uniform.
God bless you, and I thank you.
Cindy
Posted by: Abscedere at May 28, 2006 11:19 AM
patriot4,
Tx for that very nice poem. Am printing it.
at May 28, 2006 12:12 PM
And for the second one too. You getting us emotional.
Posted by: arjun.sevak at May 28, 2006 12:18 PM
"Larry doesn't seem to understand that what tempered radical Christianity is what will ultimately temper radical Islam: post-Enlightenment secularism."
This is a moral-equivalency statement. It assumes that Islam/Christianity both are on a level playing field. Not the case. Take more than 5 minutes to study history please. Islam historically being the aggressor, the rest of the world historically defending.
P.S. Nothing "tempered" Christianity, it policed itself over time. Unlike Islam.
at May 28, 2006 12:50 PM
special_guest
"Any time spent rolling in the mud with Dean Esmay or Lawrence Auster is time wasted."
Let me disagree. I don't know about the Auster fella, but Esmay tipifies ways of thinking that are common in the population at large, folks with enough indoctrination from their days in middle and high school to be able--and feeling justified in doing so--to deny the obvious.
I wish I could teach again. I would make Robert's reasoning and art of the argument the focus of my syllabus. I know Socrates is looking down on him with benevolence, if not delight, for delight would be too impassioned.
at May 28, 2006 12:57 PM
watcher,
Patriotism is still being taught as it always has.
In the homes and neighborhoods. Passed down from generation to generation. The enemy dresses up like suicide bombers in jungle garb and parade around the streets all puffy. We on the other hand play war around our neighborhoods dressed in jeans and t-shirts, not one wanting to make an early exit from the competition. Who would you put your money on?
at May 28, 2006 1:23 PM
I apologize beforehand for partially double posting -- somehow I thought I was in this thread when I generated a rather lengthy post to respond to the topic at hand -- I am excerpting that post ( and eliminating the portions which are OT for this thread -- again -- sorry for the double posting...)
Some thoughts on this magnificent Sunday:
As for the dust-up between Larry Auster and Robert Spencer, I think it's both wrong and right. I think Mr. Auster has engaged in a disengenuous game with Robert Spencer -- he has not been fair. I think he doesn't recognize the decision made by the owner of this site to resist wandering into the various mine fields and cul-de-sacs, those exploitable schisms which exist in our society and which reasonably enter into any discussion about Islam in the West.
I think Mr. Spencer knows that the instant the topic turns to, say, Christianity vs Islam, or post-modern Marxist Deconstructionism and the Leftist Elite and their role in whitewashing Islam and defaming the West, or the secular religion that states 'all religions are the same and inherently bad and therefore all of them most go', or the anti-Corporate anti-capitalist arguments that would have us believe WE caused 9/11 by omission or comission -- the moment the discussion turns to these and other underlying themes (both the valid and the invalid or insane) -- then vast swaths of otherwise united anti-Jihadi constituents become alienated and polarized. The fight stops being about the insult and menace of Islam, or the gaining momentum of the Muslim assault on our way of life -- it becomes an exploration of causality, and the proportioning of blame. Such issues are inevitably divisive. But isn't it also true that such issues are necessary to discuss in a Democracy?
We must proceed responsibly then so that we don't all hang separately as they appear to be doing in Europe these days. How then to proceed? It seems to be of paramount importance.
I have often said that UBL's attack on 9/11 cleaved a diamond. We are the diamond -- and the natural faultlines and schisms he brilliantly exploited have shattered our fantasies of unity -- we must admit this truth. Without minimizing his evil deed, that devout Muslim bastard destroyed far more on that day than planes buildings and souls. He effectively shattered the calm of the West -- ripped from our minds that delicate mental state which allowed opposites to exist in a kind of detante -- he has impeded us in ways we are still discovering -- and this -- more than anything else -- this fact that a fucking hate filled caveman was able to hit us so hard, and WORSE -- we never saw it coming -- This I can never forgive.
It's the Jihad, stupid!
Perhaps we can no longer avoid the sorting out 9/11 precipitated. We must make sure, however, that 9/11 doesn't turn into a referendum on the West rather than a referendum on Islam. After all, Muslims are the ones who embrace hatred for their religion. Muslims are the ones who have always planned for our death, and who celebrate our deaths when they come.
If you are religious, then I would suggest that it's no sin to wish for the destruction of such an enemy. If you are not, then I would suggest that it's no crime against the laws of man to staunchly defend yourself against the encroachments of hatred and totalitarianism. And in those two statements, all of it is summed up. So choose your poison: The laws of God and the laws of Man -- both have been breached and threatened by the pollution of Islam. Islam is our mortal enemy. Those who embrace it are our mortal foes. Those who dismiss it away or misrepresent its most fundamental tenets are traitors.
Great epochs have beginnings and endings. We are in the midst of the greatest epoch of all -- and it is ours to lose or win.
Posted by: jsla at May 28, 2006 1:29 PM
jsla - permit me to take one moment to say a heartfelt "Welcome Back!" I really really missed you.:-)
special_guest: "What a waste of precious time and energy. Any time spent rolling in the mud with Dean Esmay or Lawrence Auster is time wasted"
I guess I have to grudgingly agree with ovidius about the good reasons to respond to Esmay - because of the "typical" mindset he represents. But IMO the reasons to respond to Auster are on a different level altogether. Esmay doesn't have a clue. Auster clearly does. Its apples and oranges. I am far more interested in a debate between Auster and Spencer because I think it has more potential to substantively advance the terms of the debate and to clarify more latent issues undergirding an effective resistance to the jihad.
Posted by: Caroline at May 28, 2006 1:52 PM
jsla-
Mr. Auster is fighting in the foxhole.
In real warfare he would get an entrenching tool whacked over the back of his head until he calmed down.
Such disturbances only attacts enemy fire.
The time to fight over religio-philosophical minutae is AFTER the battle is won, not when the enemy is marching toward you in growing strength.
I never heard of him before, but his insights and language seem shaded with the same vein of intolerance as Islam, whether he is an "anti-jihadist", or not, as some note.
Once we return the cult of the pedophile to oblivion, Mr. Auster can be argued with by those who enjoy such things. (How many pinheads can dance on an angel, etc.)
A thoughtful Memorial Day to all.
Off to relish hard-won Liberty.
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."
-Abe Lincoln
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 28, 2006 1:53 PM
PB: "The time to fight over religio-philosophical minutae is AFTER the battle is won, not when the enemy is marching toward you in growing strength."
Except that this is a battle with an incredibly strong 5th column within - who have opened wide the gates to the west for the Trojan Horse to roll right on in.
Understanding why and how that has happened comprises the substance of half of Auster's posts. I'm afraid it can't simply be dismissed as "religio-philosophical minutae".
Posted by: Caroline at May 28, 2006 2:22 PM
But unfortunately for the enlightened West, war is waged as much on the battlefield of war as it is on the battlefield of ideas. In the main, the vast majority agreed to fight in WW2 -- so we WON. In the main, the vast majority disagreed to fight in Vietnam, so we LOST.
Leaving all the false analogies about Iraq and Vietnam aside -- it looks to me like the vast majority in the 'enlightened' West still doesn't even recognize there's a monster in our midst feeding on our body politic. (sorry for the mixed metaphor, but the image of the green beast of Islam slavering over our shinbone while tossing a degloved finger aside was too good to pass up...)
So IMHO we haven't begun to fight -- we haven't even agreed to fight - and we haven't yet agreed there's an enemy. This period is pre-fight. While we warn the bells -- there is still much work to do to develop the vocabulary of this war -- Where's Churchill when you need him?
Terms like "Nazi" made it simple for everyone to understand. I find that the discussions about Hadiths and Suras and the Koran, and hudnas and taquiya and kaffr and najis and hallal and fatwa all to be impenetrable for the average citizen.
We will eventually perish, or realize that the willingness to reduce your enemies to a hatable destroyable unit is essential for victory. The Muslims have never forgotten this FACT, and in part, this explains why they continue to 'win'. Leave aside the wasteland they create in every quarter they infest. We have lost our connection with this FACT. In later days we rue those labels we utilized to help us win: "Evil Huns", "Krauts", "Nazis", "Yellow Japs" . Of course it's ugly. Of course there's something extremely ugle about it. But placing such things in perspective -- how terrible are such labels for persons endeavoring to enslave the world? They are criminals of the highest order. As are today's Muslims.
So I'd argue that we're far from being ready to fight this enemy -- let alone fight him with the intention of WINNING. What would that mean? I believe we must crush the ideology of Islam so mercilessly and relentlessly that it remains shattered for all eternity. We did this effectively for those Supremacist German Nazis. We did it for those Supremacists Japanese Nazis. Now it's time to do it to the Supremacist Muslims.
Some may not like these truisms -- but you've got to first know your enemy, and then hate your enemy in order to defeat your enemy. In these post modern times -- when so many have been taught that war is always to be avoided at ALL COSTS (J.Chirac: "To me, war always means failure..."), when we have so relentlessly invested in the idea that it's always wrong to label and reduce a group to an epithet -- despite what our hearts know as human beings about the seething forces which inhabit our souls -- or maybe because of it -- we are, as yet unwilling and unprepared to fight.
Rather than embarking on a sloppy misadventure doomed to failure -- and I, as a supporter of the war in Iraq am beginning to accept the unwinability of that particular endeavor -- rather than going off half cocked -- would prefer that we continue to use our brilliant minds and imaginations, and our nearly unlimited wealth and resources to figure out a game plan. Even the most ardent anti-Jihadist or anti-Islam advocate hasn't put forward any plan yet which constitutes a winning strategy. What would it look like? Don't know -- still working on it.
I don't deny that we sometimes must start fighting before we know how we're going to win. I'd suggest that's exactly what we've been doing since September 12, 2001. But whether it's 1933, 1938, or 1941, or whether those analogies completely fail to capture the contours of this fight and this dilemma (I think they largely miss the mark) we are still working on the preliminaries. I think that in and of itself illustrates how much more momentous and difficult this particular challenge is for the non-Muslim world. This is a new threat which is an old threat. Yet the old ways we fought and fended off this threat have been summarily rejected or forgotten. No more "Crusades" apparently. No more willingness to firebomb entire cities until our mortal foe capitulates. At least not yet. But it will come. They will make the first move -- and 9/11 was only a harbinger. But the day will come when we all decide that 'something' must be done about Islam. Until then -- we talk and fight amongst ourselves -- some of us hoping to come up with a defense -- some of us foolishly abetting our mortal foe -- all of us hoping we have the time to come up with a plan to save ourselves from annihilation.
Posted by: jsla at May 28, 2006 2:31 PM
And "HEY!" Caroline ! It's good to be back -- I had to take a break for myriad reasons. Know what I mean? I've peeked in periodically -- comforted knowing that the sphere is ever expanding -- the lightbulbs are starting to go off over all the heads -- the rust is sloughing off the gears -- the great work of Mr. Spencer continues.
Slowly, slowly -- WE ARE WAKING UP. Islam beware! You have no idea what you've unleashed in your unmitigated arrogance.
Posted by: jsla at May 28, 2006 2:44 PM
jsla - I'm relieved to know it wasn't something I said then. :-)
Actually, I'd like to stop reading here and posting for awhile but I'm afraid that if I do, the world will come to an end. Surely, there must be a medication for this condition.:-)
Posted by: Caroline at May 28, 2006 3:21 PM
In the brief exposure to Larry Auster's ideas as presented in this thread and glancing at some of the links provided, it seems that Auster is focused on criticizing the underlying metaphysics of humanistic philosophy in general including its various schismatic forms -- and due to this focus, he makes some erudite observations of which I find myself in sympathy on some points.
My exposure to reading Robert Spencer's ideas over the past several years has led me to conclude that Robert is very well informed on a wide variety of topics, and he has a specific mission of dealing with the metaphysics of Islam. Indeed, due to Robert's Eastern Mediterranean heritage, he (along with others such as Bat Ye'or) are experientially capable of staring Islam in its face and boldly deconstructing it -- a maneuver that has eluded many of the West's brightest minds who are rather intent on describing Islam differently than its texts, adherents, and results plainly spell out.
Thus, this debate is based in two separate areas of metaphysical import. Robert, as the deconstructor of Islam sees the obvious Eurabian progression of subtle dhimmitude that has led to the demonization of Hirsi Ali and correctly decries it.
Larry, as a deconstructor of humanism, sees less value in Robert's expose than in his own value of importance -- i.e. never defending a humanist -- and considers criticism of Robert's position more important than the breakdown of European civilization (which I'm quite sure Larry could make a spellbinding argument is due to humanism).
It's a matter of which hill are you willing to die on?
I am unsure what Larry is defending, though perhaps more reading of his material would lead to the conclusion that he is defending American exceptionalism as the most important concept.
I am quite convinced by Robert and others that defending Western Civilization against the perpetual Jihad is very important.
From my exposure to Robert's books and posts here at JW, I must say that I cannot side with Larry's criticisms that Robert is not a conservative. Though Robert does not spend a lot of time addressing issues outside of Islam, I do recall a number of articles in FrontPage where Robert takes Postmodernism to task on a number of levels.
It would seem that in order to fit into Larry's camp of humanist philosophical sympathy, one should be in sympathy with Postmodernist values -- which, for instance, he rightly points out is evident when one holds an open-borders position regarding immigration. Given Robert's criticisms of European immigration policies and the lack of protection of the Mexican border from the infiltration of al Qaeda operatives, for instance, I cannot say that Robert would fall into this particular category.
Defending a woman like Hirsi Ali (or even Arundahti Roy for that matter) from Dhimmi-perpetrated political attack or death threats from zealous Jihadists does not qualify in my book as an egregious error -- no matter what one upholds as metaphysically important.
Posted by: ted at May 28, 2006 5:08 PM
Caroline-
The "religious minutae" I was mainly referring to is Mr. Auster's nonsensical castigation of Hirsi Ali as a "liberal" "atheist", etc. and his generally cramped viewpoint that comes through in his arguments with Mr. Spencer.
As noted, I've never heard of the guy Auster before and know only what has come through on JW, but he seems like someone who starts yelling about the tightness of his helmet when he should be quietly cleaning his rifle.
The Trojan jackasses like Ward Churchill, ad nauseam, are perhaps what he mistakes someone as heroic and pro-Western as Ms. Ali for?
Jesus, whom Auster appears in favor of, noted: "Love the sinner", but Mr. A. appears more intoxicated with "hating the sin".
I'll take one Hirsi Ali, who has put her life on the line for the freedoms of our Civilization, over a herd of Austers who bluster and hair-split but appear otherwise obliviously insulated from the death-threats of the jihadists.
The "fifth column" will vanish like mold under sunlight when the Koran is better known by the p.c.-blinded populace. And it shall be.
I'm spreading the understanding (of its dogmatic intolerance through factual statements culled from the Muslim texts) in my area.
We all need to do the same.
Whether posting stickers in bathroom stalls or bus stop walls with Qur'an quotes about the Islamically-approved devaluation of women, Jews and Christians, or by citing the violence that spills out of suras like 9:29-30, etc. in any appropriate conversation ("Did you hear about those Islamic nutjobs in Iraq shooting tennis players for wearing shorts?!").
Let the Koran speak!
(God help them when they reach the Hadiths.)
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 28, 2006 5:25 PM
Checking on the link above to discover Mr. Auster's "racial" views coming into the mix.
I guess he's too "conservative" to grasp that all genetic information gathered so far shows that we are all traceable back to primordial white Africans (see: the soles of black Africans' feet and insides of their mouths to determine the original skin color of hominid primates as they lost body hair due to climate, etc.), and that the root species dispersed from the Dark Continent about 500,000 years ago to Europe and Asia (or did the world really begin in 4004 B.C. as Bishop Wilberforce determined from Biblical geneologies?)
Citing mythical "races" that are "different" in "intelligence" undercuts Auster's general intellectual fundamentals. If you can't get basic human biology right (there are no "races", only minor sub-sets, "breeds", of the one "race"), what else is spinning askew in that "neo-con"-loathing noggin?
He sounds more and more like a kid with a toy that he can't put down.
The "Beat The Liberal Doll". It's fun, it's easy, it's simple!
But it's also bogus.
Without "humanism" and "liberalism" we would have no rigorous sciences (bad sanitation and micro-organisms recognized as the vector of disease instead of 'spells'), no freedom of thought (it would still be 'blasphemy' to ask: was the Four Gospel "synoptic" canon narrowed down to fit an artificial construct based on the pagan "Four Corners of the Earth"/"Four Elements"/"Four Humours", etc. symbolism?) and no Western Civilization to speak of (but would be likely going to watch a modern day Giordano Bruno being burned for his "secular" beliefs about the size of the Universe or the possibility of life on other worlds).
Nit-picking about nonsensical "racial" ideas, worrying the bone of "neo-con", etc. when the Rome of our Culture is burning -under the fiery onslaught of Islamic Imperialism- seems a tad cranky, irrelevant and short-sighted.
It's the jihad, stupid!
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 28, 2006 6:01 PM
jsla, profitsbeard
so true, so just.
I'm increasingly unwilling to get into debates about the cause/causes of this manifestation of evil that is Islam, especially since the idea or the underlying assumption is always that we, collectively as people of the West, Christians and Jews, have caused it, and thus we deserve it.
What matters now is how best to fight Islam.
It helps me to reduce the argument to the "point of view" of my innocent animals/companions, who'd be the first to be blown to the smithereens in the mushroom cloud even though they've never held slaves, to my knowledge, their feral ancestors didn't either, and their only sins have been eating too much and throwing up afterwards, and lusting after other furry and feathered and winged critters.
Anyway, thanks for a wonderful Sunday, what with your posts, and the apparent U-Haul fever everywhere in the neighborhood, and the tiny plump juneberries in the trees on my street, much better than grocery store blueberries! Try them if you find them.
Happy Memorial Day everybody! I'm going to do my little pilgrimage to the Viet Memorial tomorrow. There are those in Eastern Europe who think that was a "sacred war."
at May 28, 2006 6:37 PM
Caroline said
this is a battle with an incredibly strong 5th column within - who have opened wide the gates to the west for the Trojan Horse to roll right on in.
Could not agree with you more. Except that Auster would then name this 5th column: "liberals". And if any treasonous traitor had the temerity to point out that the current White House is Republican, the House of Representatives is Republican majority, the Senate is Republican majority, and we see the kinds of actions coming out that we do, then the claim becomes that the Bush Administration is made up of "liberals".
Yes, the things Carter has said about Islam were reprehensible. He is the poster child for Islamostupid liberals. Yes, almost all liberals have got Islam wrong. BUT, almost all conservatives have also got Islam wrong as well. Might I nominate Grover Norquist as the poster child for Islamostupid conservatives?
I know you admire both writers (Spencer and Auster), and if they would both debate the finer points of how to fight the jihad, that might be interesting. But to see Robert described as a "liberal" as an epithet doesn't do much for me; first of all, there's a 50/50 chance it's not true, second of all, it is completely irrelevant in relation to jihad.
Posted by: special_guest at May 28, 2006 6:38 PM
retail, are you happy with Robert Spencer's answers to your question? I'm not, since I share your question.
Spencer and Hugh may sometimes act like they don't need us commenters at their website, but we obviously help with our numbers, with our collective support, and with our (for the most part) mature and insightful posts.
Our time is worth money too. We obviously think Robert is doing wonderful and important work here. Our presence here helps Robert. We would appreciate a little responsive input when we have sincere questions.
I think if at least two posters have sincere, serious questions about Robert's philosophy, he should answer them in a substantive way.
Here's the question again for Robert Spencer, in two prongs:
1) Does Robert Spencer unequivocally condemn German Nazism?
2) If yes, why does he not unequivocally condemn Islam? What is the difference?
Nota bene: An institution, group, or individual does not have to be perfectly lily-white to be condemned: all an institution, group, or individual has to do to be condemned is to support one sufficiently unethical proposition (as with my former hypothetical Elk's Club that has one rule to rape and murder little girls, juxtaposed with 1000 nice rules to help people: would Spencer spent one second being gingerly about condemning such a group? How is Islam different?). Islam (as did German Nazism before it) supports at least one sufficiently unethical proposition, if not several. The fact that Islam also supports a few innocuous or tangentially beneficent propositions is irrelevant to its condemnability. Or does Robert Spencer think that an institution, group, or individual must be 100% evil before it can be condemned? This is absurd. We could never condemn anything if that were the ground rules. We could not condemn German Nazism under those ground rules.
I would very much appreciate seeing an argument from Robert Spencer that defends his apparent position that refuses to condemn Islam.
Posted by: Television at May 28, 2006 6:40 PM
ovidius_naso-
My first ripe strawberry is fattening and reddening in the kitchen garden out my back door.
Ready to fire up the grill.
And have a haram glass of Fume Blanc as the turkey burgers sizzle.
Best to All!
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."
-Thomas Jefferson.
(Even to Larry Auster... an entente cordiale under after Memorial Day.)
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 28, 2006 6:49 PM
Television -- you're starting to remind me of someone else... Are you hiding a secret identity behind your secret identity?
Posted by: jsla at May 28, 2006 6:51 PM
TV:
I will not be maneuvered into making a statement that would be simplistic and misleading.
Islam is more multifaceted than Nazism, and involves many beliefs, some good, some bad. You are comparing a huge 1400-year-old tradition over many nations with 12 years of Germany. If you met a Nazi in 1938, you would know what he thinks. But the fact is that when you meet a Muslim today you can have no certainty about what he thinks or knows.
This does not mean that I think there is some sect of Islam that teaches indefinite peaceful coexistence as equals with non-Muslims; there isn't. But Islam has meant many things to many people at different times. There are Muslims that know nothing of what I am saying here. This is a fact that must be reckoned with.
To condemn it outright as such would also be too easily misunderstood in many ways. It would drive away people who would otherwise be our allies -- and I am not in the business of doing that. In this fight we need all the help we can get. It would also be seen as genocidal, and would thus be counterproductive to the anti-jihad effort.
So I will not be maneuvered into doing it. I have been quite specific about core elements of Islam that are evil and must be resisted by every decent human being. I have been quite specific about the circumstances under which Muslims should be allowed into Western countries in a sane society. If that is not enough for you, so be it.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 28, 2006 7:00 PM
Exchange with Report:
"Larry doesn't seem to understand that what tempered radical Christianity is what will ultimately temper radical Islam: post-Enlightenment secularism."This is a moral-equivalency statement.
No, it's a religious-equivalency statement, and your word selection sort of proves the first have of it.
It assumes that Islam/Christianity both are on a level playing field.
My argument is the West versus Islam, not Christianity versus Islam. So, yes, they are on the same playing field: the human mind. Is the mind predisposed towards one or the other?
Take more than 5 minutes to study history please.You're welcome.
Islam historically being the aggressor, the rest of the world historically defending.This really gets into a kind of 'who started the fight first' line. Irrelevant, not every victim of Christian totalitarianism has been a Muslim, not even most of them. Seems like you're unwilling to acknowledge the sins of Christianity.
Once upon a time, a decent percentage of people would have grabbed their axe after being told that God wanted to destroy the sinful People of Otherland. Now days, a call to arms needs to have a little more substance. That substance comes from the Enlightenment.
Sectarian Christian pressure will not stop violent Muslims, most importantly because Christianity has no direct arm of force, it's been abrogated and relinquished to secular host states. While Christ just might be the spiritual force behind Islam's defeat/reform, that force will be manifested through a modern/secular army and mindset.
It's the Jihad Stupid! (with Profitsbeard)
Posted by: deesine at May 28, 2006 7:22 PM
An old article by Auster. Worth a read.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13532
profitsbeard~
this is the first time EVER I have not been in complete agreement with your views
at May 28, 2006 10:10 PM
Robert,
Thanks for responding; it helps clarify your position for me. I still disagree. (If you wish to know why, please read further.)
I disagree that age and complexity lets a culture off the hook of being condemned when that culture contains sufficiently bad elements to warrant condemnation; nor do I agree that the mere co-existence of good factors amid the sufficiently bad factors work to effectively dilute those bad factors; nor do I agree that the mere presence of innumerable members of that culture who are, by default or accident or the pressures of human psychology, ignorant of, or myopic about, or passively avoiding the bad elements of their own culture helps to let that culture off the hook of being condemned.
Finally, I don't think condemning Islam is equivalent to condoning genocide of all Muslims: Condemning Islam can simply be a statement of intolerance for a belief-system that contains certain elements so bad, no amount of co-existing good elements, and no amount of peripheral "richness", can save it. This intolerance need not be expressed in genocide; it can be expressed in any number of reasonable measures of self-defense and inoculation from the pernicious aspects of Islam. Condemning Islam can simply be an appeal to Muslims to leave their fanatically intolerant, divisive and dangerous belief-system and join the human race as partners -- and to stop being co-dependent enablers (as Dr. Phil would say) not of merely an alcoholic bozo who slaps around his wife but of (as you well know) globally active megalomaniac psychotics who wish to mass-murder and subjugate millions of people in the name of an inhumane system in preparation for an absurd afterlife.
While I find your argument for avoiding burning bridges and not alienating anyone who might help in the anti-jihad movement the most persuasive, I also think your position can contribute to the kind of general confusion that enables the perpetuation of the aura of a halo around Islam. That said, your position in this regard remains sufficiently obscure as to leave your critics and opponents witless about it -- and sufficiently recessive as to leave me ultimately unconcerned, considering the more valuable features of your work.
Posted by: Television at May 28, 2006 11:05 PM
As an admirer of both Spencer and Auster, I didn't get a lot out of this exchange. Both were far too unwilling to give any ground, so that neither did a very good job of exploring the terrain on which he proudly stood. It wasn't really an exchange, more of a pissing contest. No neutral visitor would be much impressed by it. In this internet age, you guys are daily putting out the stuff; it's very admirable and very impressive, but it seems you are always on edge. This is unsatisfactory, for you need at times time to step back to renew yours perspectives and learn to dance out of your familiar rhetorics. Neither fighter scored a lot of points in my book, though I would concede points to both of them if they had done a better job of developing the possibilities inherent in their positions.
Here's hoping the two of you won't carry the grudge for more than a week or so, and that if chance permits, you can help each other in future. The difference between you can indeed be made into something intellectually grand, but on the level of pragmatic truth the grand intellectual truth does not justify a refusal to advance the common cause.
Posted by: humanfolly at May 28, 2006 11:31 PM
borg-
We may disagree on the weapon, but not the target.
As noted, I have never heard of Mr. Auster, but his tone is preachy, and his point obtuse, considering the stakes involved, at least as represented in this debate.
If he is an ally, then he needs to focus.
Nattering over who has the "biggest anti-jihad argument" is irrelevent.
He seems to like to natter.
I prefer to concentrate, not on the people on my side who may not "dress" the way I find philosophically pleasing, but on derailing and defeating the Juggernaut of Islamic Imperialism.
It ain't the time for wrestling in the trenches.
Mr. Auster may think he is a sumo, but what we need are those who understand judo.
at May 28, 2006 11:48 PM
TYPO-
"irrelevant" above.
Borg-
I read the Auster link you supplied.
More needs to be done to educate the Koran-unknowing populace before such "wild-sounding" "radical" solutions as Mr.s A.'s about "deporting Muslims" galore, would even be taken seriously by the sentimental American public. Now, it would come across as "intolerant" and "wild-eyed" to most.
Not that I disagree with it, at all.
But, to get there, you have to show people the Koranic blueprint of Islam's intentions for chaining us all inside a global "holy" gulag before they could even grasp why such a "draconian" measure as the deportations of thousands of "poor Muslims"- might be even considered "sane".
We are fighting against the common ignorance of people about intolerant Mohammedanism. To leap ahead of the educational battle to the harsh conclusion (expelling thousands) short-circuits the sympathy you first need to build up before progessing to hard answers required for the mortal threat we face.
It is a tactical error on Auster's part.
It may be pleasing to say it in a comment section such as this, but for a "spokesperson" who wants to have some societal influence, you do have to woo before you can propose.
The right answer, prematurely given, is rendered "incorrect" as far as the naive listeners are concerned. It is mistake, psychologically. Which is essential for this fight. (Psyops demands finesse.)
People need to build up to this conclusion, themselves, through growing intelligence. If you spring it on them, full-blown- like Athena fully-armed from the head of Zeus- you'll just scare their indecisive p.c. asses away.
Mr. Spencer is doing the vital groundwork of enlightening more and more to the bloodthirsty and contemptuous tenets of Islam.
Sadly, we are still at that stage, in the dreaming West, where you have to speak softly (but keep the big stick handy).
I still don't understand the point of his "disagreement" with Robert. Not considering the stakes for our Civilization.
His alienating of allies won't do anything but cheer the jihadis.
He needs to clean the scope on his weapon and stop spitting on the glasses of his brother in arms.
"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors first go to war and then seek to win."
-Sun Tzu "The Art of War"
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 29, 2006 12:32 AM
For the first time since my arrival on JW, I am confused. Mr. Robert Spencer and Television have me confused. Taking printouts of their posts and studying them for a while would seem to be the obvious solution. So, here we go.
Posted by: arjun.sevak at May 29, 2006 1:53 AM
arjun.sevak, their cryptic postings are a continuance of a conversation from previous threads. You'll have to go back through the archives of the past week or so to find it, if you wish.
Basically, TV wants RS to condemn Islam outright, while RS continues to claim that Islam has non-violent components.
Actually, I think they both have made good arguments, and it is one of the more interesting subthreads of late.
Posted by: special_guest at May 29, 2006 2:55 AM
In FINAL THOUGHTS, Robert said
But I will still ally with people on the Left against the mujahedin, for if the mujahedin prevail, Larry and I will not be free to have these delightful exchanges.
If Auster is somehow put in charge of the anti-Jihad resistance, we are doomed. No offense, his writings on the non-existence of a moderate Islam are good. But his temperament is not that of a leader, or of a coalition builder.
And on another topic, Robert has finally clarified that he is not a liberal. Sorry to hear that, but it really makes no difference in the current struggle. The anti-Jihad is the most inclusive movement in the history of the world; if you're not a devout Muslim, you're in. Like it or not.
Posted by: special_guest at May 29, 2006 3:15 AM
special guest & arjun, "Basically, TV wants RS to condemn Islam outright, while RS continues to claim that Islam has non-violent components."
Actually, I agree with RS that Islam has many non-violent and innocuous and even a few relatively good components. I also agree with RS that Islam is more historically "venerable" than, say, German Nazism, and also has a more complex, rich and colorful "tapestry" than, say, German Nazism. I also agree with RS that Islam has many members who are not bad (of course, we can't really be sure who they are -- but that's another story). I just don't agree that the presence of all these factors makes the bad components of Islam any less horrible and evil. In fact, those good/innocuous factors as a package provide the best cover for a belief-system that is no better than German Nazism, and which deserves to be condemned with as much alacrity as RS would condemn German Nazism.
arjun, the poster named "neverpayretail" seems to share my views on this point, and he's also had some interchange with RS on this and a couple of other recent threads.
Posted by: Television at May 29, 2006 3:40 AM
TV:
You say: "I just don't agree that the presence of all these factors makes the bad components of Islam any less horrible and evil."
Sir, I never asserted the contrary to this.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 29, 2006 5:25 AM
To All Who Post Who Are Veterians Of America's Millitary Services,
On this Memorial Day holiday, I want to express two simple words : Thank - You.
God Bless Our Living And Decesed Service People/Veterians.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 29, 2006 6:19 AM
Television,
I am following yours and neverpayretail's arguments with Mr. Spencer. It is a highly technical point. I think TV, in our hearts, we all know the answer.
at May 29, 2006 12:21 PM
Robert,
[You quoting me:] You say: "I just don't agree that the presence of all these factors makes the bad components of Islam any less horrible and evil."
[You responded] Sir, I never asserted the contrary to this.
With all due respect, you are with your response above quibbling and unfairly zeroing in and capitalizing on a focus that happened to be delimited through mere locution that has an obvious wider context in the larger discussion in which I, retail and yourself (and a couple of others) have been engaging. You know the above statement of mine derives its sense only from the crucial point of these last few posts by retail and myself: namely, not that Islam has horrible and evil components (we all agree about that), but that:
Islam should be condemned
1) because of its horrible and evil components,
2) because its evil and horrible components are sufficiently horrible and evil (if "horrible and evil" are not already by definition sufficient to condemn the belief-system that undergirds them) and
3) because its horrible and evil components are central & vital, not peripheral or accidental or obsolescent:
under these conditions, no amount of auxiliary good components, no amount of peripheral "richness", no amount of historical venerability, no amount of cultural complexity, no amount of apparently unhorrible and un-evil members ought to detract from the ethical condemnation of that belief-system.
PS: even the "goodness" of Islamic dental hygiene is an enabling part of the evil, insofar as it is one part (among thousands of similar parts) of the obsessive-compulsive totalitarianism of every aspect of life by which the minds and behaviors of Muslims tend to be regimented and demented unto jihad.
Posted by: Television at May 29, 2006 2:29 PM
Understanding why and how that has happened comprises the substance of half of Auster's posts. I'm afraid it can't simply be dismissed as "religio-philosophical minutae".
Posted by: Caroline at May 28, 2006 02:22 PM
You are so very right about that, Caroline! Conservatives are constantly accused of being unable to discern the grey areas between black and white, or lacking the cognitive resources to perceive the subtle nuances that so immensely influence important issues. Of course, those claims are utter nonsense as this argument proves. We are not all Conservatives here, but many are.
The whys and wherefores are crucial to fighting the demonic Islamic enemy. The twisted thinking that dominates the left is as deadly and threatening as Islam itself. I like Lawrence Auster. He is somewhat strident on certain issues but I agree with him most of the time. He is fighting this war alongside the rest of us, he simply delves into the intricate cause and effect issues in greater depth. I do not understand his comments about Mr. Spencer, which I will attribute to a dearth of accurate information on Mr. Spencer's invaluable work and contributions to fighting the global jihad and saving the West from Islam. Perhaps he was a bit too impulsive and jumped to erroneous conclusions, which I'm sure won't make Mr. Spencer feel any better.
Mr. Auster and Mr. Spencer are both valuable assets to our collective cause, so I hope their differences can be reconciled.
at May 29, 2006 5:36 PM
Television,
When I was a student, I sometimes used to make truth tables. It is a part of boolean algebra and discreet mathematics. I sometimes used to make truth tables about situations and whenever I had to make a decision. By reducing the output to 0 and 1, black or white, yes or no did get me out of several situations. It also gave me a reputation of ruthlessness, of a calculating machine. I earned my family's irk when I made them move from our old home to a new one. I loved my old home. But a saudi funded mosque went up there and they were constantly hollering their propagands. I think I made the right decision. Even though my family was initially unhappy at moving, now they are settled. I never told them the reason, but I know my old home area is going to be a hotbed of riots. Point I want to make is, can you deal with this problem by making truth tables ? By reducing the situation to binary, you will always get the right result, but believe me, you will be called ruthless, and so you will be, for the decision is made by the truth table, and you are merely the follower of the truth.
at May 30, 2006 5:03 AM
Robert Spencer and Lawrence Auster: two good men (albeit with two healthy egos), both doing necessary work though of different kinds. Spencer is focusing entirely on Jihad (a good way to fight a war). Auster is engaged in working out the substance of a traditionalist conservatism purged of all traces of liberalism (and he's virtually the only one doing it, unless you count Thomas Fleming of Chronicles magazine, who could give Lawrence lessons in curmudgeonliness). This is the point at which Pat O'Brien or Spencer Tracy would step in and say "All right, boys, you've had a good scrap; now shake hands!".
Posted by: crowbone at May 30, 2006 9:19 AM
Defenders of Western civilization may be pleased to know that this is St. Joan of Arc's feast day. I think I'll have some quiche Lorraine to celebrate. Cheers!
Posted by: crowbone at May 30, 2006 9:21 AM
Lawrence Auster has characterized what I wrote here as an "insulting and demeaning personal attack."
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005759.html
I do not believe that to be the case, and I don't think any fair-minded reader would either.
Speaking of insulting and demeaning personal attacks, Mr. Auster bombarbed me with emails yesterday, at a time in which I had many better things to tend to. In those emails he characterized me as "nuts," said that I displayed "idiocy and immaturity," and am a "major league jerk," and a "hopeless jerk," and "small," and "dishonest," and have treated him as a "virtual non-person," and am "a collossal [sic] jerk," and am out of my "effing gourd." He also presented as evidence of my liberalism the fact the 22 years ago I stood next to Jimmy Carter in a photo.
This from a man who claims to abhor and eschew personal attacks.
Meanwhile, he continues to misconstrue what I am saying. He claims here
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005758.html
that I am waffling about Muslim immigration in the West. He does this by taking a narrow recommendation about immediate policy changes that should be implemented as a full and complete statement of what American immigration policy should be, which my statement was not and was not intended to be. This is the kind of thing he has done all along: draw unwarranted conclusions, and then, insisting on their correctness, hang me with them -- and then claim the moral high ground.
Well, I am not buying it. Nor will I have any further truck with Mr. Auster, who in his zeal to discredit me has lost all sense of proportion (the first two posts at his website today are about me -- there ain't no way I am that important) and of the genuine foe who actually threatens all that he holds dear far more than I ever could.
Robert Spencer
Posted by: jihadwatch at May 30, 2006 10:20 AM
Relapsed Catholic summed up Auster best:
"And, heck, what about Auster? Like seemingly all paleos, he is blazingly, infuriatingly articulate, nigh on fearless, correct about so very, very much -- and dislikes pretty much everybody, especially if they are "mainstream" conservatives with higher public profiles than his own"
http://relapsedcatholic.blogspot.com/2006/05/hirsi-ali-conservatives-hero-wants-to.html
at May 30, 2006 12:33 PM
It is easy for me to choose sides in this debate. For Lawrence Auster, "race is the controlling issue in the civilizational crisis." For Robert Spencer, Islamic teaching, tradition and action on a world-wide jihad is the dominant crisis of our times.
The jihadis are putting aside these divisions in their ranks. They make no distinction between infidels of different races. Given the opportunity, they will kill, convert or subjugate us all.
While there are significant differences in racial culture and ability, the civilization threat from these differences is a longer-term struggle than the immediate and growing threat from Islam. Those of us committed to opposing the jihad can and should work across racial, religious and ideological lines to conquer this vile and murderous cult.
Posted by: teachingmyown at May 30, 2006 3:05 PM
It sounds like someone is losing his gourd. There is no callling for the language Mr. Spencer alleges is in the emails. But how many emails did Auster "bombard" Spencer with? Two? Three? or is he really going off the deep end? It is a little hard to grasp who is carrying the grudge too far. Spencer, above, in his latest comment, links to the latest post of AUster's in which AUster writes as if he is responding to Spencers's latest comment here. It is impossible to grasp from the posts who started this latest round.
I hate the juvenile tone, and am not inclined to comment further. But lest Auster does come here, let me just say Larry, you do have a point on Spencer that white guilt is the essential problem in the west - it is the reason for so much of the dhimmitude out there, and for some of the Jihadist thinking when it blends with western leftism - and it has to be better addressed if we are to protect ourselves against the Jihad (the key point missed by teachingmyown). But, having said that, I think your attacks on "neoconservatism" required a caricatured understanding of neoconservatism at its best - it's always easy to attack bits and pieces and lesser thinkers - and your alternative, "traditionalism", is hardly a well-developed alternative vision of how things could be in future. Furthermore, as we move beyond white guilt and rediscover some kind of racial pride without going to the extremes of racism, we will not be served by some of your theories on the essence of race which are simplistic and designed for emotive sounding off.
Posted by: humanfolly at May 30, 2006 3:32 PM
Humanfolly:
You are absolutely correct about white guilt.
How many emails? Eighteen.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 30, 2006 3:36 PM
After reading through much of the quarrel, here's what I have interpreted:
Coming from someone who's siding with Larry Auster, it seems like Robert has absorbed himself so much in the Jihadist issue that he's willing to accomplish his goal through any means necessary--even through recklessly arbitrary means, such as allying himself with dangerous secularists, or any other group that's hostile to our beliefs.
Please understand that I didn't say that as personal attack, but as an observation.
Here's analogy that's similar to Robert and his alliance with secularists: The Allies teaming up with the Communists, who were dangerously hostile to Democracy, to fight Hitler.
Mr. Spencer, can I have your input, please?
Posted by: James_Harrison at May 30, 2006 4:22 PM
As a regular reader of Jihad watch, I am extremely disappointed in Spencer and his inability to have a rational discussion about the future of Western civilization, his right liberalism, and the best ways to truly defeat Islamic progression.
It seems he wishes to takes sides with the likes of Hirsi Ali rather then the "right wing". I guess he finds her a more useful ally because she's not "extreme" and "racist". That's if you think wanting to destroy Christian thought isn't extreme.
It seems Mr. Auster is right. Spencer's use of the term racism has really brought forth everything Mr. Auster have been saying about him. It confirms that he really does speak and think in Liberal terms
at May 30, 2006 4:41 PM
Robert,
Well, if he sent you eighteen emails yesterday, I would have to conclude he has a touch of mental illness, which can happen to the best of us - speaking from experience - unless of course you replied to many of them and kept things going.
Posted by: humanfolly at May 30, 2006 4:45 PM
special_guest wrote:
"Actually, I think they both have made good arguments, and it is one of the more interesting subthreads of late."Agreed. Beneath all the "did not! -- did so!" there were ideas of profound import addressed in that exchange, surprising things surfaced, and I've been thinking about it for days.
All in all a very worthwhile exchange.
Posted by: Zeno at May 30, 2006 4:48 PM
Mr. Harrison:
Thanks for your note.
I do indeed believe that the jihad threatens our survival as a civilization. All of us, Left and Right, white and black, liberal and conservative, stand to be subjugated.
I do believe, and have stated many times, that we need to join together against this threat. Obviously I wouldn't characterize this as defeating the jihad through "recklessly arbitrary means, such as allying...with dangerous secularists," although I do accept your analogy of the allies with the Communists. In fact, I made the same analogy above: "Auster evidently believes that to ally with someone means to agree with them on all points. Churchill might have found that amusing as he sat next to Stalin at those Big Three meetings."
Also, Auster's personal behavior made it impossible to have a rational discussion about race -- he wasn't conducting a dialogue, but a prosecution. Nevertheless, I agree with him on many aspects of this issue, although not all. He says, "race is THE controlling issue in the civilizational crisis." I don't agree with that at all. In his affirming the "whiteness of the West," would he have no objection to Ibrahim Hooper continuing his activities toward the establishment of the U.S. as a Sharia state, since Hooper is white and not an immigrant?
That said, however, obviously he is correct that "the belief that all races are the same in their abilities and aspirations" is absurd. That is, he is correct insofar as "race" is a useful concept in classifying people at all, but it is in any case absurd to assume that any two groups of human beings of any kind are identical in their abilities and aspirations.
And Auster is also certainly correct that "white European guilt over colonialism" and "the liberal animus against whites" are "the driving forces in the suicide/destruction of the West. And the greatest of these driving forces and ideas is the conviction that any frank criticism of these forces and ideas is racist."
However, I think that aside from racist agitation of the Jackson/Farrakhan type, exploited for their own reasons by white politicians, which has a long history in American politics, it has been generally established in America that people of different races can get along in reasonable equanimity if they share roughly the same values and ideals. Of course, I am aware that that same racist agitation threatens now more than ever to overwhelm this equanimity altogether. But in any case, this brings me back to thinking that the root problem is ideological -- we have lost the shared sense of values that at one time made that reasonable equanimity possible, just as we have lost against the jihadists any sense of our identity, and pride in who we are in the West. I think this ideological attack, of which the racial components Auster has identified are only a part, is the root of the problem of Western weakness, not race as such.
And I do not subscribe in any way to the "whiteness of the West," in Auster's phrase. The Judeo-Christian West? Certainly. The West that upholds the equality of human dignity? Yes -- and I continue to maintain, pace Auster, that that idea is a Judeo-Christian one that is considerably older than the age of multiculturalist relativism and open borders, and that one may hold it without falling into that relativism -- as Christian Europe did for many centuries.
But on that I suspect that Mr. Auster and I have a real substantive disagreement. It would have been interesting to discuss it with him, and I would have been happy to do so, had it been possible.
In any case, thank you again for your message.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 30, 2006 4:51 PM
Humanfolly:
Of course I replied to them. And I shouldn't have, because I had a great deal of work to do. But in any case I did not mean to imply that he sent me 18 gratuitous emails, and I apologize if I gave you that impression.
At a certain point I asked him to stop writing, a request he did not honor. At another point I apologized for my rhetorical excesses in his direction -- I know I can be overly sarcastic. He ignored the apology. I did not reply to his last three emails, and thank God, they stopped coming.
I hold no animus toward Mr. Auster. I am puzzled by his zeal to characterize my work in broad terms when he admits that he hasn't read it. But that is his affair.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 30, 2006 4:55 PM
Ben,
In fact I believe that the terms "conservative" and "liberal" are not much use today. In the face of the Islamic jihad that threatens all of us it is time to develop some new ways to meet this challenge.
But in any case, the "best ways to truly defeat Islamic progression" is something that preoccupies me every day, and I would be happy at any time to have a rational discussion about it with any rational and fair-minded interlocutor.
You are incorrect that I wish to take sides "with the likes of Hirsi Ali rather then the 'right wing.'" I suppose it depends on what you mean by "right wing," but in fact the great majority of my associations in this work have been with people and groups considered "right wing" -- Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation, Encounter Books, Regnery Publishing, and more. I do not believe that the evidence Mr. Auster has adduced establishes your contention that Hirsi Ali wants "to destroy Christian thought." In any case, I will ally with anyone -- Right, Left, Center -- who will join the fight against the jihad. This does not mean that I have given up my own beliefs and principles. But I do believe that we can work out our differences peacefully later, if we survive this threat. If.
Anyway, as far as "racism" goes, you might find interesting what I wrote above to Mr. Harrison. I am not particularly concerned if it is "conservative" or "liberal." Whatever the label, any idea that I subscribe to relativist multiculturalism is false, and that falsehood, as I tried to explain to Mr. Auster, would have been abundantly established by even a cursory look at my writings, which he has not read.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 30, 2006 5:03 PM
Auster continues his obsessive posting about me. I was under the impression that there were greater evils in the world, but apparently not. Now he has fastened on a phrase I wrote above here:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005768.html
Here is the phrase to which he objects: "In fact I believe that the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' are not much use today. In the face of the Islamic jihad that threatens all of us it is time to develop some new ways to meet this challenge."
He says that this is a clear sign that I am a liberal, and one who has had an "unexamined" political life.
Here again he does what he has done all along: fashions a tendentious reading of a statement of mine, then builds conclusion after conclusion on it which have increasingly less to do with what I say and believe.
Apparently he knows little of the history of the term "conservative," and of the scant importance of such labels, particularly today. Edmund Burke would not likely have termed himself a "conservative," and F. A. Hayek himself once declared flatly: "I am not a c
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)