The “obsession” continues

Bruce B., whose excellent comment in my defense I posted the other day, attempted to post another comment at Jihad Watch replying point by point to Robert Spencer’s fascinatingly clueless remarks about my views on race and to Spencer’s own (for want of a better word) neoconservative view of America, but the thread was closed, so Bruce sent the comment to me. Here it is. I thank Bruce for his explication of my ideas. (Anyone who is tired of the Spencer-Auster “clash” doesn’t have to read this.)

Mr. Spencer,

In the interests of full disclosure I am a reader of Lawrence Auster’s writings and slanted towards his general way of thinking.

In your recent exchange with Mr. Auster you clearly felt he misrepresented your views and positions. I think he saw in your words a liberal/leftist vision of our civilization. I think he assumed that this liberal/leftish vision coupled with your embrace of a Leftist as “one of the heroes of our age” betrayed your liberal thought processes. Since I am not inside your head and haven’t read much of what you have written, I am somewhat agnostic as to the validity of his initial analysis insofar as it is based on the limited writings he referenced. I also told Mr. Auster that I felt there was an “outing of a closet neo-con quality” in his initial writing. He responded that he thought he had been objective in his writing but that his labeling of you did come across as aggressive.

But, in the ensuing exchange, I think you showed that you are, at best, an incomplete conservative. I think the exchange scratched the surface of why post-1960’s conservatism has largely been a failure. To be fair, I realize that, as a writer, you are a “Jihad Specialist” and so your writings are not necessarily intended to be a comprehensive vision of conservatism.

I also realize that it is easy for me to take a person’s “weeks-old words” and dissect them out of context. But I could not post at your sight because you shut down the comments thread after you got the last words in.

Please accept my humble criticisms of your words from the exchange. I have quoted them selectively to highlight what I see as flaws in your conservatism (and for brevity) not as personal attacks or to “dissect and prove you wrong.” They are obviously pulled out of the context of the discussion thread, but I didn’t try to selectively misrepresent your views. Obviously, since I just quoted you below, I am defending Auster’s ideas and assertions.

“The equality of dignity of all people and the freedom of conscience are affirmed by the Catholic Church at the Second Vatican Council and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as principles derived from the nature of man as created in God’s image. … And the equality of dignity of all people is as old as Genesis’ statement about men and women being created in the image of God. I know that strong statements of the freedom of conscience can be found as far back as St. Augustine—another notorious neo-con, no doubt.”

For a Traditional Christian, the Vatican II is hardly a good source for a non-liberal definition of “equality of dignity of all people” and “the freedom of conscience.” Let’s not forget that Vatican II led to the Church’s open borders philosophy. The Jews of the Torah didn’t seem to share your understanding of “equality of dignity of all people” derived from Genesis. Presumably, Augustine’s statements refer to the bible verses that counsel that it is futile to try to control the thoughts of others. In the modern West, “freedom of conscience” is more often used to describe enlightenment or post-enlightenment (J.S. Mill type) principles.

“Your idea that upholding the equality of rights and dignity of all people leads inevitably to relativism and unrestricted immigration is not logically supportable. The equality of rights and dignity of all people is a Jewish and Christian idea based on Genesis, and was upheld by the West long before the days of relativism and the immigration free-for-all.”

Language like “equality of rights and dignity of all people” is language often employed by the left. Without proper limitations and qualifications these types of phrases take on ever progressive and more substantive forms, demanding more and more of a “leveling of nations” which, in particular, is always aimed at the West. Indeed, in its modern usage, it has a connotation little different from “social justice” another favorite phrase of the left. You offered no qualifications, limitations, or even a precise definition of this phrase. Is it supposed to be clear from the context within which you initially used it what it means or what its limitations are ? Fine, maybe you were referring to Sharia Law. Still, to define our civilization in terms of these types of phrases is both reductionist and liberal. Our real civilization is based on more than this. This language sounds too much like emotion-invoking liberal/leftist language. Indeed, I just noticed that you added “rights” to the initial phrase “equality of dignity.” See, your words are already taking on a more progressive meaning and drifting to the left. This is what “paleo-conservatives” refer to as “reduction or deference to abstractions.” It is one of the chief weapons the left employs to crush the particularity of our civilization.

“If the racist nonsense you quote is really what he said and what he believes, I have been wasting my time far more than I already suspected”.

(The discussion was not originally a discussion about race but at this point it became one).

So you didn’t actually call Auster a racist. You just referred to his writings (quoted accurately although not fully by UBM) as racist nonsense. So you implied Auster is a racist (after all only a racist would write “racist nonsense”). I don’t think this thought process is much of a stretch on my part.

“For pete’s sake. All right. I’ll spell it out: I am not for Jackson/Farrakhanian race baiting. I am not for special treatment to be given to any group over another. That said, I find general expressions of the superiority or inferiority of one race or another abhorrent, and in violation of the Judeo-Christian principle of human beings being made in God’s image, a principle to which I subscribe. But if Lawrence Auster’s defense of Western civilization involves separation of the races and subscribing to the view that “blacks are in fact less endowed with the qualities that make civilization possible, particularly Western civilization,” then call me a neocon.”

There is more substance and significance to U.S. (or Western) racial issues than just Jackson/Farrakhanian race baiting and affirmative action. Our failure to think precisely about racial issues and our failure to appreciate their significance are closely related to our vulnerability to Jihad then (I think you realize this).

“I find general expressions of the superiority or inferiority of one race or another abhorrent, and in violation of the Judeo-Christian principle of human beings being made in God’s image.” I’ve never seen Auster argue for the superiority for inferiority of races based on intrinsic worth or spiritual equality or moral equivalency. Auster’s argument has always been that there are empirical inequalities that are probabilistic in nature and that they are large enough to have socially and politically significant outcomes. And these arguments are supported by the findings of large numbers of cognitive scientists at many top Western universities. As for his “civilizational qualities” argument, that argument, too, addresses empirical equality, albeit, in a manner that is hard to quantify.

“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.”

1. “I find general expressions of the superiority or inferiority of one race or another abhorrent, and in violation of the Judeo-Christian principle of human beings being made in God’s image”

2. “obviously he is correct that “the belief that all races are the same in their abilities and aspirations” is absurd.”

Compare and contrast.

I guess the 2nd comment wasn’t general enough to violate Judeo-Christian principle or specific enough to qualify as “racist nonsense.”

I’ll address the “whiteness of the West” and “race is THE controlling issue” comments below.

“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.” (Underlined parts Bruce’s emphasis.).

There you go again reducing the undiscussables to Jackson/Farrakhan racist agitation. At least you see them as a threat that can “overwhelm this equanimity altogether.”

What shared sense of values? Judeo-Christian values ? Liberty ? Equality ? Fraternity ? When was “reasonable equanimity” possible ? Pre-1960’s ? Do you mean shared interests ? Ever since Blacks received legal and political equality they have, as a group, pursued black empowerment . Blacks are responsible for Jackson/Farrakhan racist agitation every bit as much as whites are responsible for Howard Dean, George Bush, and Rush Limbaugh. Actually, more so because blacks are much more politically monolithic.

“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.”

The West is more than Judeo-Christian and “equality of human dignity.” A very narrow minded view of the West.

“I recently had an unpleasant exchange with a commentator who believes we must fight to uphold the “whiteness of the West.” I believe that idea is as repugnant as the one proffered by Al-Ghurabaa … We are not fighting for white supremacism and we are not fighting for debauchery. ….. Among those values that are challenged by jihadists today are the equality of dignity of all people, the freedom of conscience (and thought, and inquiry), the nobility of artistic expression (including music and the representation of the human form), and the freedom, which is based on the Judeo-Christian idea of the dignity of the human person, to change religions or profess no religion.”

OK. Now I’ll address “whiteness of the west.” Auster has always promoted the idea of maintaining the traditional majority demography of the west as a majority. So what ? You makes this sound like a Nazi-like call for “racial purity” (see quote below). You imply it is white supremacism. Huh !? My Grandparents and Great-Grandparents would have found Auster’s ideas to be completely compatible with their own beliefs. So I guess they (or at least their beliefs) were repugnant. I dare say the “Greatest Generation” probably held “repugnant” beliefs. I wonder if your ancestors had “repugnant” ideas. I would remind you that people further to the left of you would refer to your beliefs about the religion of the “Other” as “repugnant.”

Freedom of conscience is synonymous with freedom of thought. Actually, the Jihadists are less of a threat to freedom of thought than PC is. Sharia is a threat to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, no doubt. But the Sharia law can’t control your thoughts. PC is designed to shame, to humiliate, to create a uniformity of public thought, to marginalize unorthodox thought. Using words like “repugnant” to describe ideas that were once called “common sense” works well in this respect.

“The principles I enumerated, particularly equality of dignity, and others are espoused by great thinkers of the Western tradition throughout history – as I have explained before, and he has ignored.”

You gave one specific example, Augustine and “freedom of conscience.” There may be many more, but it would be nice to see others examples of great thinkers of the West using your phrases. And, in any event, I think modern understandings of these terms would not be entirely congruent with the understandings of the great thinkers of Western tradition. I would like for you to recognize the danger in throwing around those terms without precise definitions, or qualifications and in defining our civilization with those terms.

“You and Mr. Auster evidently have not noticed that there are black Americans, and have been for hundreds of years. What is your cut-off point for racial and ethnic purity in North America? …. For Auster to prescribe a white U.S. as the remedy for modern racial politics is to adopt a parched and impoverished view of Western civilization. … But that civilization is not entirely white, and never has been. Would Auster prefer John Walker Lindh and Ibrahim Hooper, both certifiably white, to Ward Connerly and I. M. Pei? ….. Our civilization is Jewish and Christian, and on that basis is worth defending.”

This is really deceptive. I have never seen Auster advocate “racial purity.” This would require genocide or ethnic cleansing. Again, Auster advocates maintaining the traditional majority demography of the west as a majority. He does advocate completely excluding Muslims though not through genocide or ethnic cleansing. “Would Auster prefer John Walker Lindh and Ibrahim Hooper, both certifiably white, to Ward Connerly and I. M. Pei? …..” You have no problem noticing the strong correlation between Jihad and ancestry in this recent post: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011735.php. Our civilization is more than just Jewish and Christian. Talk about simplistic and reductionist.

“But it is a long way from there to the simplistic, dangerously misleading, and, yes, repugnant Austerian notion of defending the “whiteness of the West” as such.”

Inaccurate characterization of Auster’s ideas. He is not that reductionist. Mr. Auster’s use of the term white may make him seem more bio-reductionist than he is. In fact, I have seen him reject the Bio-reductionist point of view. But he does not back down from using the phase “white” not because he is a “racist” but because he is not a “race-nihilist.”

By the way, we can thank Ted Kennedy’s attack on the “whiteness of the West” for September 11.

“I have pointed out again and again that the equality of dignity of all people, which he thinks is some multiculturalist effluvium, is a Judeo-Christian principle as old as Genesis and has nothing necessarily to do with multiculturalism, relativism, and unrestricted immigration at all.”

Does the bible say “the equality of dignity of all people”? Historically, have most Jews and Christians believed that “the equality of dignity of all people” is a correlative of man made in God’s image? You don’t even want to know what nefarious things the left would do with the phrase “equality of rights and dignity of all people.”

“SF says above: “Auster argues that race makes up PART of that framework. He is not a racial ideologue who reduces everything to race.”

Auster says: “…race is THE controlling issue in the civilizational crisis.”
Compare and contrast.
I have pointed out several times the inadequacy of this formulation: very simply, white people can just as easily be jihadists as brown ones.”

The statement “…race is THE controlling issue in the civilizational crisis.” is not race reductionism of the type Spencer attributes to Auster. Auster means that the “race taboo” has destroyed our ability to speak and even think in rational ways with respect to issues of national and even civilizational importance. No other “PC-adverse” topic such as gender, religion, language, etc. even comes close in this regard. Again, I point to your “Broad Strata of Society” post : http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011735.php.

“He has a letter up now suggesting that if I believe blacks have a place in America, I must be a relativist multiculturalist.”

I didn’t see this. Maybe you could point me to Auster’s advocacy of ethnic cleansing of blacks.

“Nor are my “exceptions” any more unprincipled than that of FDR and Churchill when they allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler. Anyone who characterized them at the time as endorsing everything Stalin said and did would have been more than a little unfair, don’t you think?”

Some people maintain that the outcome of that war was deeply ambiguous. Yes, we defeated that little vegan sociopath, but we also helped empower an, arguably, equally monstrous regime. Hitler was more of an immediate threat to Western Europe so I guess we defeated the greater of the two evils. But our exception was unprincipled. Historians are best qualified to debate how unprincipled. But in that case, we weren’t allying with an “enemy inside the gate”, one that weakens our civilization’s defenses. And we don’t refer to Stalin as heroic (admittedly Ali is no Stalin).

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 15, 2006 12:56 AM | Send