I have long noticed this particular inconsistency, but it wasn't until the other day when I saw two articles by him juxtaposed next to each other that it hit me rather vividly.
Here's the inconsistency in a nutshell:
1) Auster frequently takes Robert Spencer to task for elucidating how dangerous Islam is but then leaving in suspense any suggestions of what measures could be taken by our society to counter that danger in ways rationally proportional to that danger as elucidated. Thus, one of the two articles Auster published the other day rehashed precisely this argument.
And yet,
2) with regard to the problem of blacks in American society, Auster frequently does pretty much exactly what he is criticizing Spencer for doing: i.e., Auster elucidates the problem (involving both amassment of data about black sociopathology and violence, as well as analytical extrapolations therefrom), often in ways that leave the reader quite wound up and alarmed about the problem, and yet as far as I have ever seen, he never offers the kinds of specific concrete proposals on what our society can do about this problem so elucidated that he expects from Spencer in the context of the problem of Islam. And that's exactly what he did in the second of the two articles that happened to be juxtaposed.
When Auster does gravitate toward the vicinity of addressing concrete policy in this regard, it has struck me as insufficiently proportional to the nature of the problem as he has elucidated it. I see little difference, for example, between Auster's vague suggestions in the direction of segregation without any concrete proposals on how exactly we would force blacks to remove themselves from white society (for it would be ludicrous to think American blacks would do so willingly in numbers sufficient for solving the problem), on the one hand, and on the other hand, Spencer's similarly vague and limp-wristed suggestions about "curbing Muslim immigration" and "surveilling radical extremist mosques", etc.
If any readers can persuasively disabuse me of my perception here, I'm all ears.
2 comments:
Continuing to follow Google results on "Lawrence Auster" tonight, just to see what others are saying, and came across this old post. Your misunderstanding is two-fold:
1) Auster will post many times on a subject, with solutions offered occasionally but not in every single post on the subject.
2) Auster's has mentioned many times that the primary solution to black on white violence is to awaken whites to the problem, so that their ordinary daily activities are affected, e.g. avoid suspicious-looking blacks, even if that violates the liberal dogmas about appearing to discriminate; understanding that almost any minor confrontation with a black is a potential major blow-up due to the black feeling "disrespected" and so on.
A pretty large amount of black on white violence occurs in a social context of white naivete. Major legal solutions such as forced segregation are hardly the scope of the solution.
Clark,
The problem with Auster is his inconsistency on this issue, compared with his cogent frustration about the anti-Islam movement: He rightly castigates most in the anti-Islam movement for complaining about Islam, but not offering any concrete pragmatic solutions to the problem. With the problem of blacks (which he depicts as a problem of great proportions, demanding solution), Auster does exactly what he castigates those in the anti-Islam movement of doing about Muslims: He complains a lot, he describes the problem -- but he comes up with no pragmatic solutions.
The logical conclusion of the dimensions of the Black Problem as he himself depicts it (I think he exaggerates those dimensions to some extent) must lead far beyond merely whites "avoiding blacks on the street" -- that's absurd. It would logically lead at the very least to re-introducing segregation, and/or repatriation back to Africa. Both, of course, being as unthinkable as mining the Moon for green cheese.
Post a Comment