Now, I don't agree with Hoste's statement, nor do I generally agree with a lot of the anti-Israel opinion I see on various right-wing sites. (Doesn't mean that we should be giving Israel billions of dollars a year, or fighting proxy wars for it.) However, it's absurd to condemn an entire publication, especially one that is all of two days old, because you read something on it that you disagree with. Debate is supposed to occur, or so I thought. Auster shows here that he's no different from neocons, who make support of Israel the litmus test for being a good American and good conservative.
But Auster is being, as usual, extremely picky about what he's willing to support. His stands remind me of the joke about Switzerland: everything not forbidden is mandatory. With Auster, everything that doesn't measure up to his exacting standards is to be condemned. He condemns neocons, paleocons, libertarians, liberals, atheists, game advocates - what's left? Only Austerism. Everything else reeks of gnosticism, nihilism, and evil. Or if it doesn't, it simply is not serious.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Dennis Mangan on Larry Auster: