Thursday, July 10, 2008

Pamela and Fjordman weigh in on Auster

Pamela Geller posted today and weighs in regarding Auster's tone deaf attacks on Spencer:

Spencer vs Auster: Smoke out the Imposters, I say

The post includes a comment by Fjordman. Read the post, it's very good.

I have also added a comment to it, debunking the idea that Auster is willing to turn every stone. And with a comparison between Lawrence Auster and Charles Johnson. I will have reason to come back to this, because there's quite a lot to be said on that theme.

In the meantime, Auster, after having read my first post, decided to weasel out of his attacks on Spencer. But we have seen him playing these sort of games before, and then soon be back again with his obsessive and deranged attacks on Spencer. So we don't buy that anymore. First he stirs up his readers so they get agitated against Robert Spencer, and then he steps in and plays the role of the Man of Moderation. It's all a theater. He's systematically playing everyone around him.

For an odyssey of Auster's failure to turn every stone, his liberal style dirty tricks, and his Vatican II style Islam apologism, I refer first to the comments I made to my previous article, and then to the articles I wrote about it a year ago:

Jim "D'Souza" Kalb
Islam—perverted parasitical psychopathy
Jim Kalb and Islamic perversion
Lawrence Auster, Kalb and Islam
Geza1 on Kalb and Islam
Answer to Auster's comment
More questions for Lawrence Auster
Auster shuns the idea of Islam as a cult
Like Night and Day
Geza responds to Auster's post
Appreciating Auster while criticizing him

[End of post]


Anonymous said...

The main reason I prefer Auster to Spencer is that Auster gives people permission to be race-realists without trying to shame them, while Spencer, on the topic of race, is closer to Charles Johnson. I read Jihad Watch and value Spencer's contribution, but frankly, he's not my type of person, I don't trust him, because he runs a shop where it's not safe to discuss race. I'm a race realist, even a racist, because I believe those positions are true and honorable. It seems to me that Spencer, even though his comments section appears more "open" than Auster's, actually exerts tight control over people like me, by shaming them into not commenting there at all, unless they are willing to lie about race or not discuss it. So on this one very important topic, Auster is the more relaxed, permissive blogger.

Conservative Swede said...


You can be a race realist here, if you want. I like realism (and I like races too). Geza, who I often publish, is a race realist.

Anyway, regarding your comment. We have to get our priorities right. What do we need to focus on? As in warfare its unwise to wage every battle at the same time, we have to think strategically. That is if we want this movement to have effect.

Auster site is surely good for the feelgood factor; an oasis for lonely and battered souls. But his net contribution to the movement is negative (to say the least). Spencer, on the other hand, has got his heart in the right place and is fully focused. So I have to disagree with you. I trust Spencer, but not Auster.

Conservative Swede said...

I should add that Auster has probably been right more times in the space-time continuum, looking back into the past. But there's no shift in him, and he's unable to change. This is a fatal weakness.

INstead I have learned to trust people such as Baron Bodissey and Robert Spencer. Who surely have had some things wrong in the past, but that are constantly evolving, always open to dialog. The key is in the process. Evolution beats intelligent design.

And given the nature of Auster's (unshiftable) position (as described in my articles), it's easy to project how he's going to be increasingly wrong and insignificant from now on. E.g. Separationism sounds good all while there are no other voices heard. But when you look closer at it, it's not so different from the BNP failure (which I referred to many times in the GoV comments).

You should also remember that Auster is showing all his cards. There's not more to him. The strength of his position is that limited. While most other anti-Jihadists are not showing all their cards (they put good strategy for the movement before their intellectual vanity). But I can tell you that we are many that have a stronger position than Auster. And on this site you find many who say so openly.