Interview on Israel National Radio
Last night I was interviewed by Tamar Yonah on Israel National Radio about my article, “How to Defeat Jihad in America.” Miss Yonah, who from her speech sounds like an American-born Israeli, is well above the average among radio hosts I have dealt with, showing, among other things, an understanding that there is such a thing as traditionalist conservatism as distinct from the usual conservatism, and speaking of it, or so it seemed to me, in positive terms. The interview took place from midnight to 1 a.m. Eastern time, and I had had three hours of sleep the night before, and my performance may reflect those circumstances. The interview will be available at the INR site until June 29. To hear it, go to the linked web page and click on the link for Tamar Yonah’s show for Tuesday, June 22.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 23, 2004 01:06 AM | Send
I’ve just finished listening to Mr. Auster being interviewed on Israel National Radio. I was surprised by the number of callers who agreed with him, so perhaps there is hope!
The host of the program started off calling Mr. Auster “a conservative right winger”, then tempored it later by describing him as “a tradionalist conservative”. She seemed to be holding in some angst and vehemence, but later seemed to agree that “these people (jihadist Muslims) want to kill us” or something similar to that. She started the show describing a caller-friend of hers who had called to say that “her boy had just drowned” and the host asked the audience “to pray for this woman and her drowned boy”. It was definitely a strange way to begin a show on jihad in America—unless of course the boy was killed/drowned by jihadists, which apparently he was not.
I thought it was omniscient that the Australian woman who called in was calling for the closing of all mosques in Australia. That is a view—closing all mosques in America—that I have called for in previous posts at VFR for many months. People want to protect themselves and it is quite obvious that neither the Australian or U.S. governments can do it alone. That brings up arming ourselves, which is another tied in issue. Closing the mosques in the U.S. was not part of what I wrote back Mr. Auster as “addendums” to his 5 points, but it should have been. Removing a temple of worship from people—even citizens—SOUNDS terribly non-American and outrageous. But when these temples are places not of worship but of preaching hatred and the destruction of America and Americans, then they must be shut down. A similar situation recently occurred in Columbus, Ohio where an hate-mongering imam was arrested, his home computer taken by the Feds. I don’t believe the mosquye was shut down, but that would have been something to consider.Posted by: David Levin on June 23, 2004 9:01 PM
As I think I mentioned in my response to Mr. Auster’s FrontpageMag article - which I agreed with for the most part - there is a tremendous danger in granting the government the power to simply shut down a mosque or stripping citizens of their rights as citizens on the basis that such mosques or citizens is preaching hate in the name of religion.
Groups such as the SPLC and the ADL, who already have a dangerous amount of influence within government law enforcement agencies, would gladly use such power to shut down any church who opposed the gay agenda or abortion on the same basis (speading hate). If Mr. Auster lived in the EU or Canada, he would most likely be in jail - accused of the crime of inciting racial hatred - just for writing the fine articles here at VFR. The steps of ending Muslim immigration and deporting many of those already here both legally and illegally, along with a stringent review of any who have been naturalized in the past 15-20 years would go far to help things. More importantly, a well-armed citizenry is still one of the best defenses against terrorist activity. One or two citizens with concealed handguns could have ended the careers of Muhammed and Malvo much faster than an affirmative action microbe like Inspektor Moose.Posted by: Carl on June 23, 2004 9:53 PM
Congratulations to Mr. Auster on this broadcast. It’s encouraging to know that there might be some like-minded folks over there.Posted by: Carl on June 23, 2004 10:00 PM
By “over there” I suppose Carl means Israel. But this radio program is global, as I found out. People listen via the Web from all over and call up. At one point, there was a caller from Australia, and I was thinking, I’m in the U.S., my hostess is in Israel, and the caller is in Australia, and I said, “This is really a global program.”
I appreciate Carl’s concerns about giving government—particularly our present government—such power. But I’m obviously not speaking in terms of the present government and our present politics. For America to adopt the kind of radical program I’m advocating, it would _already_ have to have become a different society, imbued with the traditionalist-based intention of defending its own existence, its traditional culture and morality, and, yes, its liberties. For America to adopt the measures I’m advocating, it would have had to cease being a liberal society in the modern sense of that word.Posted by: Lawrence Auster on June 23, 2004 11:00 PM
BTW, I really like the name “Israel National Radio.” It conveys something warm and human and real. The word “national” speaks to me.Posted by: Lawrence Auster on June 23, 2004 11:02 PM
Carl is absolutely correct, from what I have read about new Canadian (and French) laws on anti-homosexual comments—or I would imagine, just about any kind of commentary made about different ethnic or sexual groups. In France now (See WND lead story tonight), it is punishable (calling a homosexual some derogaroty word) by a $54,000 fine and some serious time in the French hoosegow. Is that Communism or what?
I disagree however with Carl over closing the mosques as thereby giving the Feds reason to similarly shut down/outlaw conservative organizations. I think that is a bit of a farfetched conclusion that this would necessarily follow. Obviously, if we knew that such a thing (the Feds going after conservative groups—shutting them down and arresting their members and leaders), it would be the end of the Republic and time for armed insurrection. I can see things getting close to that way in France. The right in France is obviously powerless or they would be fighting the horrific changes there in the streets.
But, while I disagree with Carl, I am not unsympathetic to his position on this. The “camel’s nose in the tent” concept seems to have played out elsewhere and perhaps we are of slidin down that slippery slope, as well.Posted by: David Levin on June 24, 2004 2:23 AM
Mr. Auster’s post of 11:00 PM has addressed my concerns quite effectively. To quote:
“For America to adopt the kind of radical program Iím advocating, it would _already_ have to have become a different society, embued with the traditionalist-based intention of defending its own existence, its traditional culture and morality, and, yes, its liberties. For America to adopt the measures Iím advocating, it would have had to cease being a liberal society in the modern sense of that word.”
I think that nails it. If a liberal oligarchy is given such unbridled power, the danger is clear. As with the French tranzi regime mentioned by Mr. Levin, they wouldn’t be using such power to go after Muslims - but after what remains of the ‘ancient regime.’ The America of 1904, had it faced a wave of Muslims trying to enter the country, would have been able to keep them out and expel those already here through constitutional means - unbound by the liberals’ perversion of constitutional law..
Things have gone so far in places like France that the time for peaceful political opposition may very well be past. Whether there are any patriots left in France is the real question. If there are, the time is fast approaching when they will have to decide whether to live free or die as slaves.
Microsoft. So overrated and in need of competition. I am furious I can’t play Mr. Auster’s interview, and Microsoft offers no reliable support for its needlessly, overdesigned products. Everyone is forced to buy tons of useless code: no basic, reliable systems supplemented by custom systems for the needful user. Remember the wonderful, basic, old Volkswagon Beetle that never failed?
I know nothing about antitrust law or details about the Microsoft suit, but Microsoft monopoly lost and President Bush just swept aside all the hard work, stress, and dedication of nonpartisan Justice Department attorney-grunts for political reasons. So why should America’s right liberal party, Republican, claim outrage when left liberal judges and other officials sweep away elected propositions such as California’s denial of benefits to illegal immigrants?Posted by: P Murgos on June 24, 2004 9:45 AM
A huge mosque is now going up not five miles from where I live on the north shore of Long Island. I wish I could stop it. Of course, the Sikhs have had a center for their superstitions nearby in Glen Cove for six years or more now, on some dead white American’s former estate. Add those to the hordes of mestizos who throng the streets of every town around here, and we have a nice cross-section of the coming post-America. HRSPosted by: Howard Sutherland on June 24, 2004 5:29 PM
You could always try what some angry Australians did, Howard. Coat the property in pig guts.
I’m not sure who would be more outraged: PETA or the Mohammedans.
Legal Disclaimer: This is a joke, not an incitement to cast swine before the Mohammedans.Posted by: Derek Copold on June 24, 2004 5:39 PM
Outraging Mohammedans and PETA simultaneously would be quite a pleasure! HRSPosted by: Howard Sutherland on June 24, 2004 5:49 PM
That giant baby-blue mosque that went up on I-75 between Toledo and Bowling Green about 30 or so years ago— it was the largest in the Western hemisphere then, though who knows now— was supposedly bought with money from liquor sales in Detroit and Toledo, much of which are made by Lebanese, Mohammedan as well as Christian.Posted by: Reg Cśsar on June 24, 2004 6:25 PM
Of course, when it comes to annoying the PETA crowd, just say that you _are_ a member of PETA - People for Eating Tasty Animals. That usually sends them screaming.Posted by: Carl on June 25, 2004 2:46 AM
Carl’s 12:58 AM post regarding France and “the silencing of dissidence” by Orwellian-like “hate crimes” and “hate speech” laws—passed by idiots in government who were pressured by homosexual and lesbian groups there—is a true but very sad statement on a country I used to love.
I lived in France during the Hungarian crisis in ‘56 and again in ‘64 and while I remember the French not being especially “kind” to Americans in their press in ‘64—before our heavy involvement in Vietnam—my family made many French friends who I am still fond of. Of course, they were all Socialists. I remember my friend Jean told me, “There’s a Communist in every hamlet, every town in France. Their houses are always the nicest ones in town. They live well.” At 14, I wasn’t sure what “a Communist” was, but I didn’t like the way he described them. He saw them as “outsiders” there to corrupt the town/hamlet. My young friend also saw “les Americains” as “cowboys”, shooting from the hip and asking questions later, but I think a lot of it was (and still is) jealousy at what a rich and prosperous country we had become. California wines were becoming very popular here and are by now “legendary”, displacing many French wines on the U.S. market. Wine was their culture, their pride. Our cars were in many ways, superior to what the French were making, although the Japanese were beginning to win that market. That they (the French) then let millions of Arabs from French Morocco and other areas of North Africa and the Middle East emigrate to France and become permanent citizens was certainly no fault of the U.S.! The French did that to their country all by themselves.Posted by: David Levin on June 25, 2004 4:31 AM