rationalpassion (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} rationalpassion) wrote,@ 2009-05-27 18:52:00 |
|
On Lawrence Auster
I present here two quotes from Lawrence Auster. One shows how an actual racist--as opposed to a "racist" as defined by the left, namely: anyone who disagrees with "affirmative action," "hate crimes" laws, and anti-discrimination laws in particular or with left-wing views on race in general--deals with Sotomayor's nomination. The other states Auster's view of Objectivism. Having presented these quotes, I'm finished with Auster. I may continue to read him, but mentioning him at all on this blog is too much of a sanction of him, even if it's only to denounce him in the strongest possible terms.
In a thread on the Sotomayor nomination, Auster wrote:
"Yes, this country was formed by whites--specifically Anglo-Saxon Protestant men. And they formed, over generations, an impersonal, non-tribal justice system under which people of all backgrounds would be treated equally under the law. But the fact that the law is procedurally neutral and race-blind, doesn't mean that the conditions that allow for such a system to exist are race blind. Change America into a brown and black country, and that new population will not only not have much regard for that impersonal, non-tribal system of justice, because they themselves are tribal, but they will seek to overthrow that system of justice, along with all other historical aspects of America, because they were made by whites whom the nonwhites are now replacing. From which it follows that to maintain its universalist and impersonal system of justice, America must remain a particularist, predominantly white country."
Auster is usually less explicit in his racism than he is here. His argument seems to be: to keep our neutral and race-blind system of justice, we must keep out "brown and black" people who are by their very nature "tribal" and undoubtedly "will seek to overthrow that system of justice." In short, to maintain a race-blind system, we must have few, if any, non-whites around. Wow. Just...wow.
A few days earlier, in a thread on "tyrannical atheism," Auster wrote:
"I just realized: of all the ideologies in existence, Randianism is the purest opposite of traditionalism. The key idea of traditionaism is the recognition of the larger 'orders' of which we are a part and which formed us, the natural order, the social order, and the transcendent order. Traditionalism--obviously in my treatment of it--is not against the principle of individuality, it upholds and defends it. Our individual consciousness/selfhood is both part of the larger reality in which we live and the means through which we experience and participate in it. The Randians explicitly reject any notion of a larger natural, social, or spiritual reality and say that the individual--unadorned Randian man, without a God, without a religion, without a society, without a civilizational tradition, without a family, without a culture, without a race--is the ONLY reality, and that any assertion of or defense of any larger reality of which we are a part is as evil as Communism. Randianism is thus the most explicit, thoroughgoing attack on the order of existence, and the diametrical opposite of traditionalism."
While I object to the use of the term "Randianism" in place of "Objectivism," I totally agree with Auster's basic point: on a fundamental level, despite our few, superficial agreements--Auster also opposes Sotomayor's nomination--his philosophy is the purest opposite of mine.
I present here two quotes from Lawrence Auster. One shows how an actual racist--as opposed to a "racist" as defined by the left, namely: anyone who disagrees with "affirmative action," "hate crimes" laws, and anti-discrimination laws in particular or with left-wing views on race in general--deals with Sotomayor's nomination. The other states Auster's view of Objectivism. Having presented these quotes, I'm finished with Auster. I may continue to read him, but mentioning him at all on this blog is too much of a sanction of him, even if it's only to denounce him in the strongest possible terms.
In a thread on the Sotomayor nomination, Auster wrote:
"Yes, this country was formed by whites--specifically Anglo-Saxon Protestant men. And they formed, over generations, an impersonal, non-tribal justice system under which people of all backgrounds would be treated equally under the law. But the fact that the law is procedurally neutral and race-blind, doesn't mean that the conditions that allow for such a system to exist are race blind. Change America into a brown and black country, and that new population will not only not have much regard for that impersonal, non-tribal system of justice, because they themselves are tribal, but they will seek to overthrow that system of justice, along with all other historical aspects of America, because they were made by whites whom the nonwhites are now replacing. From which it follows that to maintain its universalist and impersonal system of justice, America must remain a particularist, predominantly white country."
Auster is usually less explicit in his racism than he is here. His argument seems to be: to keep our neutral and race-blind system of justice, we must keep out "brown and black" people who are by their very nature "tribal" and undoubtedly "will seek to overthrow that system of justice." In short, to maintain a race-blind system, we must have few, if any, non-whites around. Wow. Just...wow.
A few days earlier, in a thread on "tyrannical atheism," Auster wrote:
"I just realized: of all the ideologies in existence, Randianism is the purest opposite of traditionalism. The key idea of traditionaism is the recognition of the larger 'orders' of which we are a part and which formed us, the natural order, the social order, and the transcendent order. Traditionalism--obviously in my treatment of it--is not against the principle of individuality, it upholds and defends it. Our individual consciousness/selfhood is both part of the larger reality in which we live and the means through which we experience and participate in it. The Randians explicitly reject any notion of a larger natural, social, or spiritual reality and say that the individual--unadorned Randian man, without a God, without a religion, without a society, without a civilizational tradition, without a family, without a culture, without a race--is the ONLY reality, and that any assertion of or defense of any larger reality of which we are a part is as evil as Communism. Randianism is thus the most explicit, thoroughgoing attack on the order of existence, and the diametrical opposite of traditionalism."
While I object to the use of the term "Randianism" in place of "Objectivism," I totally agree with Auster's basic point: on a fundamental level, despite our few, superficial agreements--Auster also opposes Sotomayor's nomination--his philosophy is the purest opposite of mine.
