Friday, October 09, 2009

A flabbergasting asseveration by Lawrence Auster









About Obamas election victory, Auster wrote:

Yes he got a pass on various issues because of his race. But that is not the key thing. He won the nomination and won the presidency because HE WON VOTES. He wasnt even played up that much before Iowa. Hillary was overwhelmingly the favorite, and Obama was considered to have little or no chance. He became the favorite as a result of his big upset victory in the Iowa caucuses, not because some bureaucratic entity gave him higher grades because hes black. To apply an AA [Affirmative Action] analysis to a popularly elected politician is just mistaken.

From one of the most energetic and astute analysts of the problem of the race issue, this asseveration flabbergasts in its naively simple-minded summation.

Auster simplistically rejects the proposition that Obama won because of his race by contrasting it with the stupefyingly circular assertion that he won because he won votes (and adds extra weight to this blunt circularity by putting its punchline in all caps). In fact, Obama won those votes because of reverse racism, plain and simple. The vast majority of whites who voted for Obamaand had they not done so he would not have wonwere doing so because they were righting the wrong of which they have been ashamed for decades: the wrong, of course, of racist America, which must be purged not only of its shameful legacy in the past, but of the eternally perduring crypto-racism that continues to undermine any progress America might superficially show into the ongoing present. The election of Obama was one major way for all these millions of whites to assuage their eternal shame and guiltalbeit, being eternal, even having championed the first black American President will not actually absolve them of their inner torment. For, after all, it is of the evil nature of whites to be essentially, ontologically racist. One would have thought Auster would know this. In fact, one knows that Auster knows thisand thus his asseveration flabbergasts. Auster knows that nothing will serve to cure this eternal shame and guilt in the minds of these millions of white Americans deformed by PC MC (what Auster with less precision terms liberalism), short of the soteriological self-sacrifice of self-extinction. And yet, somehow Auster cant connect two logically proximate dots to see that along the road to that salvation, these millions of whites will do their utmost to right the wrong of their white culture and their white nature: And helping Obama win was one crucial and happy day in that never-ending eschatological project of cultural self-extinction.

Obamas charisma and perceived political talents were just icing-on-the-cake justifications for that main irrational rationalerather slender straws desperately grasped at, in fact, as to many analysts, those justifications were rather decidedly precarious, given the thin ground of his political experience and substance, not to mention his dangerously radical Leftist associations and expressions over the years. Indeed, the darker, uglier side of radical Leftism in Obamas personal, social and political past and present should have been massively contra-indicative for a nomination, not to mention an election victory. The very fact that this darker, uglier side was ignored by those millions of white Americans reveals that the factors of Obamas charisma and political talent were obviously not primary in motivating them in their irrational fervor and support for him.

But
in his ass-backward asseveration, Auster turns this assessmentwhich flows logically from everything else Auster has written on the problem of raceon its head.

For more on this, see my previous essay, Why Obama won: nine reasons, where I argue that, among the many factors involved, the number one reason why he won the election was white guilt over racism.

2 comments:

Mannning said...

My opinion also.

Ed said...

I was looking over your proposal to deport all Muslims and quarantine them in their own lands on a stretch of the globe from Morocco to Indonesia.

One question I have about your proposal would be about how one would legally determine who is a Muslim. What about those who pretend to be non-Muslims? How would we contain the risk of prosecuting and deporting authentic non-Muslims on the basis of allegations they are secretly Muslims? Would jury trials decide whether a particular defendant who claims he is not a Muslim is in fact a Muslim to be deported? Presumably some non-Muslims would mistakenly be convicted of being Muslims and would be deported. Would we have problems distinguishing between someone who agrees with some tenets of the Qur'an, and someone who is a Muslim? Would people be compelled, by the threat of deportation, to publicly affirm their profound disagreement with Islam, even if they know nothing about it? Would some sort of McCarthyism become a problem? How would we avoid a policing of thoughts for anything "Islamic" as defined by the government? How, without risk of creating our own totalitarianism, would we have a government definition of "Muslim," and deportation as a punishment for being a Muslim? Would we ban the Qur'an?

I am not asking all this rhetorically, as if I think it obvious there is no good answer to all my questions. I am not leveling an indictment at you. These are actually intended as questions.

Maybe one could find some legally clear and simple way to deal with these questions. Perhaps laws that accept at face value claims to be a non-Muslim, and only prosecute someone who publicly affirms he is Muslim, or tells others he is secretly a Muslim, or goes to an underground mosque regularly and participates in Islamic worship there. But mere ownership or study of the Qur'an would not be grounds for prosecution, and anyone who claims he is not a Muslim could not be prosecuted for being one, unless a high bar of evidence standards could be met to prove that he is secretly an adherent of the Qur'an and Muhammad in a traditional sense.

Hmmmm. Don't know if any of that would remove the danger of building our own totalitarian government monitoring thought.

And what about any splinter Islamic sects that might arise and publicly disavow any union of religion and state, and clearly reject sharia law? Would they be in danger of deporation, too?

What about Muslims who claim to reject Islam and want to leave the quarantine area -- would we be able to take them in as refugees?