Posted under Israel & Political Philosophy
Lawrence Auster has responded to Paul Gottfried and my earlier post.
First of all, when I suggested that Lawrence Auster has “substantial problems” I was not referring to him personally. I meant his rather eclectic school of thought. Austerism is almost a philosophy unto itself. I assumed it was clear I was referring to his beliefs because I mentioned Lincoln, nationalism, neo-Confederates, and paleoconservatism in the two sentences that directly followed.
Now I admittedly did make a personal criticism of how he deals with people who see things differently because I think it is pertinent. It is not a coincidence that he has both alienated and publicly distanced himself from so many partial allies and by doing so has walled himself into almost a philosophy of one. He reminds me of the Randian Objectivists with their need to publicly disavow and sever ties. (Asking that the link to his site be removed from TakiMag is a perfect example.) Austerism as an eclectic system that few can entirely embrace is, I believe, partially the result of Auster the person.
He says that his detractors attack him personally and refuse to deal with his arguments. Clearly this is one of those “eye of the beholder” things. I think the truth is exactly the opposite. Auster often refuses to deal with his opponents. I presented what I thought was a rather coherent argument on the problems with Lincoln, and he responded by saying something along the lines of “I don’t talk to neo-Confederates. Be done with you.”
I believe unbeknownst to Auster, we had another interaction. I sent him an e-mail under a different name because I knew he wasn’t talking to “Red Phillips” and it quickly degenerated in much the same way after a brief exchange. Essentially, “I’m right, you are wrong, and I chose to no longer discuss this with you.”
Everyone who knows me knows I am not a prickly guy. If anything I am a “pathological” conciliator, often arguing for the various factions within paleodom to get along. Desiring to work together when possible with other factions that are partial allies. For example, look at my exchange with “The Northern Agrarian” when he endorsed Nader. I argued that we have to live with the conspiracy theorists among us. This is par for the course with me. So why did my two exchanges with Auster go down hill so quickly? Was it because I was being unreasonable? Of course, I’m sure Auster thinks they went down hill because I was wrong for refusing to agree with him.
To RonL whose comment appears on the Auster post, Conservative Times generally practices a policy of not censoring posts. I think it is unfortunate that the first Auster post degenerated into attacking Jews (and Christianity). I happen to agree with Auster that obsessing about Jews tends to seriously distort the reality of the obsessed. I just believe I have a different standard for determining when I see a problem. As I said, I think Auster’s detector is overly sensitive.
OK, enough with the personal stuff. Auster says people don’t respond to his criticisms substantively. Well I’m composing a post on the Israel Gaza issue at hand. I hope Auster will grapple with it.