I like Lawrence Auster, and I think Fjordman does a great job of explaining Auster's worth to the blogosphere. He writes:
In this respect, Lawrence Auster is very different. Whereas LGF is a link blog which produces virtually no ideas of its own, Auster debates ideas. He questions every assumption of the ruling ideologies, and he does so under his own name, which takes guts to do. He deserves credit for that. The problem with the Western world today, and the reason why we have an Islamic threat in the first place, is too much ideological censorship and conformism. In such a situation, I can definitely see the value in having a website such as Auster's, which is contrarian as a matter of principle and leaves no ideological stone unturned.However, Auster often attacks prominent conservatives that I like, including Robert Spencer, Mark Steyn and Jonah Goldberg. I am of the opinion that these attacks are borne of professional jealousy, an emotion most unworthy of someone of Auster's talent.
In my post of June 13, I defended Lawrence Auster from Charles Johnson's silly claim that Auster is a fascist. I wrote:
I don't always agree with Lawrence Auster; I think he is unnecessarily antagonistic towards some conservatives I really like, like Jonah Goldberg and Mark Steyn. Larry and I have had our arguments. But Larry is no fascist or Neo-Nazi or racist. He is a traditional conservative and one of the best critical thinkers I know. He routinely defends Israel.Nevertheless, Pamela Geller is right in pointing out Auster's unwarranted antagonism towards Spencer. Lawrence Auster would be more effective by building alliances with other conservatives rather than attacking them. (It's okay to disagree and hold them accountable.) But by continually attacking them, he only shoots himself in the foot.
No comments:
Post a Comment