Posted under Foreign affairs & Terrorism
Larry Auster is a serious thinker on the Right (on-line anyway), with one little fetish, which I suppose anyone is entitled too.
Writing on Benghazigate, Mr. Auster suggests the important article from Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Barry Rubin for understanding the situation, and concludes his post with this paragraph from Rubin’s article which outlines 101 Blowback, which note, Mr. Auster does not characterize as anti-American:
…As the Libyan government’s patron, Americans will become the target of revolutionary Islamists who blame the United States for their rulers and understandably believe that attacking America is a necessary part of overthrowing them. That, of course, is why the U.S. ambassador was murdered.
Nate Weinstein on 25 Oct 2012 at 2:12 am #
Oh come, enough with the conspiracy theories. Everyone knows that ambassador was murdered because the terrorists hate our freedom. The only way we can avoid future attacks like this one is to get some boots on the ground over there and teach them freedom and democracy.
Meissner on 26 Oct 2012 at 4:26 am #
Who is Larry Auster and what is his one little fetish? This article confuses me.
Walter on 26 Oct 2012 at 12:02 pm #
“Who is Larry Auster and what is his one little fetish?”
See: http://www.vdare.com/posts/auster-on-bloomberg-and-the-insane-fears-of-jewish-narcissists
See the very last sentence in above link.
JDP on 27 Oct 2012 at 8:38 am #
^there’s a minor difference between criticizing liberal Jewish attitudes and an author who essentially thinks Jews are biologically programmed to undermine Western society.
just a small difference
also this “Weinstein” fellow is hil-lar-i-ous
JDP on 27 Oct 2012 at 8:44 am #
the problem is, the paleosphere is correct in pointing out false PC beliefs, but then adopts a “no enemies on the right” mentality where ANYTHING un-PC, even if it’s flatly wrong, is to be defended so you’re not on the side of liberalism/the conservative establishment. like this Kevin MacDonald person referenced in the link above for example. i understand the impulse. but if you can’t see how work like his essentially amounts to giving “respectability” to hardcore anti-Semitism I dunno what to tell you. I believe Derbyshire even wrote an article arguing that — was he brainwashed into doing so by our PC overlords?
C Bowen (Hawthorne) on 27 Oct 2012 at 6:16 pm #
JDP;
Your comments are criticism of strategy and tactics. Most of us are simply comfortable practicing the Anglo-Saxon tradition of free speech, free inquiry, and free political speech.
I am not smart enough or educated enough to say, for example, Kevin McDonald is “flatly wrong.” I’ll ask, what sort of credentials do you have to say that? Do mean you don’t want it to be right? I might sympathize with that, but that really isn’t the point.
Anyway, its a feature not a bug, in my opinion.
Re: Weinstein
He is great though he reminds me how much time I wasted on my early internet years doing “serious debate” when satire was the right weapon.
JDP on 30 Oct 2012 at 6:59 am #
Well no I don’t have the “credentials” that MacDonald has. I also don’t have the credentials that a lot of lefty jargon experts have but I can still criticize their ideas can’t I?
I don’t like MacDonald because it’s a way of shifting blame from liberalism as a whole, onto a small conspiracy imposed on us. It’s certainly true Jews are overall more liberal than most of the population and have been for some time. The idea that they were solely responsible for every development that he doesn’t like in the Western world though, is nonsense.
and it’s one thing to say there’s been influential Jewish leftists over time, it’s another to adopt a determinist, amoral view (and a textbook anti-Semitic one — people can argue it’s justified anti-Semitism but that’s what it is) that they’re simply biologically designed to undermine white society. It reminds me of Steve Sailer’s “status theory” explanation of things. Yes there is certainly an element of that in everyone (not just liberals’) opinions, but a good amount of people genuinely believe certain ideas. Why not just debate them on the merits.
anyway, that’s all kind of besides the point. Regardless of what you think of this guy, casting a wide net where criticizing Jewish liberals = his theories, like Brimelow does in the link above, is silly, and symptomatic of treating every “un-PC” thought as equally valid. And ideas like his are part of the reason paleos aren’t really treated seriously in mainstream political discourse.
C Bowen (Hawthorne) on 30 Oct 2012 at 9:53 pm #
You are a bit all over the board, JDP.
As I understand your points, you don’t like Kevin McDonald’s conclusion, but have retreated from he is “flatly wrong” and are now using a strictly you don’t like his conclusion and further, you don’t like “no enemies to the right” as a tactical position, but don’t offer an alternative. So all you have done is share your opinion on the Internet, anonymously at that. As you note, this is your right, but yours is more a consumer opinion…and everyone has one of those.
The credentials point is a red herring. I am not schooled and ill-read on socio-biology, if some blog content. I did read Greg Cochran’s book, “The 10,000 Year Explosion” but that is about it on the subject. If you are well read on the subject and wish to offer a source, by all means do so.
Larry Auster, to get back on topic, has a long habit of putting down paleo’s in extreme terms, from Ron Paul to Pat Buchanan (personal political heroes of mine–guys I root for). But he doesn’t hesitate to elevate certain points so long as they are put forward by certain people.
Many of us have observed this, so here on this site, I thought to get a chuckle.