. He said that in the absence of a detailed political strategy by me to get it passed by the Congress, my plan to protect America from Islamic extremism and terrorism by stopping and reversing Islamic immigration, a proposal which, of course, I have urged in innumerable articles and blog entries over the last three years, is nothing but “angry blather.” In other words, some of my central ideas are, according to Dr. Bostom, mere nonsense driven by emotion. And he said this about a subject, Muslim immigration and the restriction of same, about which he himself has never published a single syllable. (I of course have actively promoted Bostom’s work and ideas for years.) Further, though Dr. Bostom knows I do not correspond with Robert Spencer, because of an outrageous
Spencer had made against me several months ago and his refusal to retract it, he sent Spencer a bcc of his e-mail, and as a result I began to receive a series of unwanted e-mails from Spencer, which are presented below. Because I had told Spencer that I would henceforth reply to any communications from him
, so that others could see the kinds of things he was saying to me and about me, he knows that any e-mails he sends me are likely to be posted at my site. In each of my replies to Bostom I removed Spencer’s name from the To line or cc line, and Bostom would then reply to me with Spencer’s name re-inputted in the cc line. Since posting this entry I have posted another
with my entire exchange with Bostom. Two other highly regarded writers were also included in these exchanges, in which Spencer repeatedly called me dishonest and a liar. Neither Bostom nor the two unnamed recipients objected at any time to Spencer’s characterizations of me.
So that others can share my joy, here, without (for the present) any comment or reply by me, are Spencer’s e-mails sent to me, Bostom, and the two others:
From: Robert Spencer
To: Andrew Bostom ; Lawrence Auster
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:52.a.m.
Subject: Re: What is to be done about Islam
Auster continues to indulge his habit of mischaracterizing my positions. I have never attacked anyone who wants to restrict Muslim immigration—unless of course he counts himself, and my replies to his initial attacks on me. I have not continued replying since it became clear, when he refused to retract clear misstatements about my position on immigration, that he just wasn’t interested in honest dealing on this issue. In reality, I am working on practical ways to implement just the kind of program he outlines below—while he shies bricks at me and falsely claims that I oppose it. You’re right, Andy—he is living in a fantasy world where his proposals will be considered and implemented as such, without ever bothering to enter reality and propose some way to do what I am trying to do—get this done in today’s actual political context.
Finally, Mr. Auster, you don’t have to talk with me, and I don’t really want to talk to you, but your refusing to address me because of one word I used in an email—a word that was entirely justified given your dishonest and misleading characterization of my reply to Gadahn—when you continue to retail falsehoods about me on your website on a regular basis, is the height of self-righteous and hypocritical posturing. [LA notes: Here again is my full account of that controversy, and, as anyone can see who reads what I said and what Spencer said, it is evident that it is Spencer who has persisted in ignoring the substance.]
From: Robert Spencer
To: Andrew Bostom ; Lawrence Auster
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:09.a.m.
Subject: Re: What is to be done about Islam
Indeed. Raising awareness is still the primary job that needs to be done. Auster has called for me to be silenced because that is my primary focus, but I will not keep silent. Political correctness is such a thick fog on the basic point of Islam being a religion of peace that I am not even welcome in National Review because I refuse to tow the party line.
The thing about immigration is that I am following a strategy that I believe is the most likely course to accomplish what Auster wants, while Auster is doing his best to discredit me before I can accomplish anything in this regard. Yet he, as Andy points out, has no program to achieve his goals at all.
From: Robert Spencer
To: Andrew Bostom ; Lawrence Auster
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 1:10.p.m.
Subject: Re: What is to be done about Islam
“…Spencer, who does not share my principles and aims.”
I just affirmed that I did, earlier today, share the principles and aims he outlines here (I am not speaking for anything else he may affirm elsewhere), and am working on practical ways to make them into policy. He responds by ignoring that and affirming the contrary.
Bottom line: Lawrence Auster is, when it comes to my position on immigration, simply not an honest man.
From: Robert Spencer
To: Andrew Bostom ; Lawrence Auster
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:32.p.m.
Subject: Auster: Truth challenged
Speaking of Auster retailing falsehoods about me, he posted this today: “I’ve also criticized Robert Spencer, who is a Catholic and calls himself a conservative, for uncritically embracing and approving this enemy of Christianity, whom he calls his ‘hero.’”
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007249.html
Ironically enough, I posted this about Hirsi Ali earlier today, but why bother with accuracy if you are the great Lawrence Auster?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015147.php
From: Robert Spencer
To: Andrew Bostom ; Lawrence Auster
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:38.p.m.
Subject: Re: I have one last idea Fellas…
Andy, the man tells 2 lies about me in the space of a few hours, one of them publicly. I am not going to just pass it by. Of course I will go back to my work—I wouldn’t have said anything about this man at all if he had not, with only glancing concern for the truth, continued to attack me and publish false statements about my positions.
From: “Robert Spencer”
To: lawrence.auster
Cc: Andrew Bostom
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:48.p.m.
Subject: Saw your update
And thanks. Interesting that you represent my remarks about your original omission as gratuitous and unprovoked. Interesting, but not at all surprising.
From: Robert Spencer
To: Lawrence Auster
Cc: Andrew Bostom
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 4:55.p.m.
Subject: Accuracy
Not only do you decline to tell your readers about how I agreed with your principles, whereupon you turned around and asserted that I disagreed with them, thus leading to the comment from me that you present as gratuitous on your website, but this too is false:
> Spencer seems to be finally waking up to the fact that Ali is not someone to be embraced uncritically, as he did last year when he lauded her as his hero.
That is from this:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007249.html
Compare that to this, which I wrote at Jihad Watch on May 27, 2006:
“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.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011582.php
Obviously comparing her to Stalin is not an “uncritical” embrace.
Why don’t you tell all the facts, instead of retailing falsehoods and then using my responses to allow your acolytes to impugn my character? Your actions are quite unworthy of a man who claims to be above personal attacks. This relentless misrepresentation of my views at your site, as well as your impugning at various times my intelligence, my maturity, and my manhood—is this really the work of a man of integrity as you claim to be?
From: “Robert Spencer
To: Lawrence Auster
Cc: Andrew Bostom
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:55.p.m.
Subject: Substance
That’s integrity for you—publishing my correspondence without what you said for context.
Yet you have never—never—addressed the substantive points I have made, either about your comment about my response to Gadahn, or about how you represent my position on immigration as exactly the opposite of what I have told you it is. It is clear that what you are about is character assassination, not rational discussion.