Sunday, August 03, 2008

Lawrence Auster and his ten little niggers

Auster is alienating what could and should be his allies, one by one. Geza comments about it here:

I saw this post by UsorThem and I think it sums up Auster perfectly:
"Mr Auster, I spend considerable time trying to persuade others to come around to your views on Separationism. I was booted from LGF while trying to discuss the need for muslim immigration and deportation because I believe it is the best solution to the global jihad. When I spend time at other anti-jihad websites it includes time spent convincing others to come around to the Separationist viewpoint. Your knack for pissing off almost everyone who means anything in this movement makes that chore much more difficult. But who am I to tell Lawrence Auster to cool his jets.

I see you through your own writings, no one elses. If anyone is being reckless it is you. Do I really need to go thru VFR to count and list the number of persons you have attacked without provocation. You have alienated many good people, who would otherwise be glad to call you an ally, with your writings about their hypocrisies and dishonesty, and cowardliness. That, sir, is foolish and reckless."
How prickly do you have to be to get people who are with you ideologically to turn on you? Don't you also find it ironic how Auster thinks Spencer has enough time to write articles about aspects of the Islam issue that interest Auster, yet Auster doesn't have the time to read UsorThem's serious email or even respond to Zenster's mini-survey? His personal vindictiveness and arrogance is what turns off even his most devoted followers. This is what happened with Vanishing American and John Savage.

Vanishing American's writing style was criticized at VFR and she became upset about it, and in my opinion,a little too upset. Auster clearly knew this but he could not leave it alone, he had to flog the dead horse until he could prove that his readers were right and VA was just being emotional. Likewise, John Savage, who was pretty much a faithful VFR contributor (read his posts before the whole Tanstaafl drama) became frustrated with Auster for not answering him about a question about American blacks. I believe the question was related to Separationism and how Auster favoured Separationism for Muslims but not American blacks. According to Savage, Auster was ignoring his question for a while and he had to keep resubmitting it until he got some type of response. Auster responded by dismissing his question and affirming that he is a "moral racialist", whatever that means. Savage is a smart guy and although I do not agree with him on quite a bit (he is a traditionalist but not of the Austerian variety), but his question deserved a fair hearing and it didn't receive one. However, quite recently, another contributor asked a similar question at VFR (Radical Thoughts on Race) and it received its own thread.

Auster lost two devoted allies because he simply could not drop a tiny controversy nor did he have the manners to respond to a challenging question from a devoted reader. Why did this happen? With Vanishing American, Auster had to prove that he was right no matter how trivial the battle and with John Savage, he found a huge contradiction in Austerian traditionalism which is a big no no. Auster doesn't like being reminded of how undeveloped his traditionalist ideology really is and when someone points it out, he becomes irate and drops the dialogue.
Not only does Auster make sure to burn his bridges completely with every possible pundit with an anti-Jihad stance, such as Melanie Phillips, Horowitz, Spencer, Pipes, Steyn, etc. But Auster has also made sure to alienate his former allies among smaller bloggers: Vanishing American, John Savage, USorThem, David Yerushalmi, and little me of course, etc. It's like in Agatha Christie's famous book Ten Little Niggers; they are disappearing one by one. Surely Auster still has readers left sending him interesting emails. But does he have any blogger left who is still his ally? That is not just a reader applauding him, but an opinion maker forming his own opinions? I cannot think of anyone, can you?

And soon there were none...

[End of post]


Baron Bodissey said...

You are right, as usual.

I love the title. How much more politically incorrect can you get before Antifa hunts you down and kills you?

Fellow Peacekeeper said...

I heartily second the Baron, very un-PC indeed. Remarkably it seems the title was in use until the mid-80's in Britain.

Too bad that Auster can't play nice with the other kids. Some of his stuff is great and with the depth and intensity of this thinking he could have been a real asset. Seems that same obsessive quality carries over though, the guy has trouble playing the ball and not the man.

Incidentally CS, I for one would like to see more of your own writings unrelated to Auster.

Conservative Swede said...


Auster responded by dismissing his question and affirming that he is a "moral racialist", whatever that means.

I found the answer to your question. Auster explains here what it means:

"A moral racialist is one ... who subjects his concern about race to an objective moral standard and rejects immoral racialism."

Truly brilliant :-)

Tory Black Fist said...

A moral racialist is one who grants equal rights to all peoples to discriminate in their own favour in their own homelands.

Auster is an immoral racialist, specifically an anti-gentile, because he permits this for Jews but for no other peoples (Jews must not be discriminated against anywhere).

In this he is typical of our entire western ruling class. Are you guys free of this bias?

Conservative Swede said...

Tory Black Fist,

Even though Auster is twisting things so hard that he gets blue in his face, you guys manage to beat him with at least a horse-length in your twisted spin jobs.

Yours is a completely untrue and unfair description of Auster. Why don't you just get lost! And remember to take off your tin-foil hat before going to bed.

Tory Black Fist said...

Conservative Swede:

The Israelis' right to discriminate against non-Jews has Auster's fullest support; equivalent territories and arrangements set aside for non-Jewish peoples with equal rights to discriminate are verboten.

No twisting, no hats of any description. Merely notice of a racist double standard that almost everyone who backs 'Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state' supports.

I take it this includes you?


Conservative Swede said...

Tory Black Fist,

Sorry, but if I engage in discussion with too many tin-foil hats at the same time, I would look crazy too in the eyes of the bystanders.

Tory Black Fist said...

Objective standards of racism are easily agreed upon.

Why should a 'conservative Swede' not insist on equal rights for his people? Why ever would he think such a position falls in tin-foil hat land? What sickness of the soul?