|
In 2007, Randall Parker allowed a commenter to call for my murder
(Note: After being informed about this entry, Randall Parker removed the comment from his site. He indicated to a correspondent that he was aware of the comment but hadn’t regarded it as objectionable. See discussion about this below.)
M. Jose writes:
Your recent post on Randall Parker and why you stopped commenting on Parapundit reminded me of an even better example of the attacks on you by commenters at that site. Certainly “Auster is a jew, of course he thinks Libby is innocent” is terrible to say, but it is a compliment compared to this comment by RKU:
Perhaps I’m mistaken, but isn’t our good friend Larry Auster exactly one of those shrieking, cowardly little Israel-Firsters who actually got us into the crazy Iraq War, and hence killed Col. Bacevich’s only son?
Seems to me that a pretty good therapy for Bacevich’s grief might be for him to take out his old service revolver and put two quick ones into Auster’s head.
I really do believe that the sooner all the Larry Austers are put safely six-feet-under, the sooner America will get some nice peace and quiet.
Posted by: RKU on July 1, 2007 11:29 AM
It is Parker’s site, so while others might have just decided to ignore RKU, Parker really did have some duty to refute it. Better yet, that comment ought to have been deleted.
If you want a good example of why you would feel uncomfortable at Parker’s site, I think that a direct statement that you ought to be killed for your opinions is probably the strongest example you could give.
LA replies:
In fact I had participated in that thread (which was going on a day or two before the other thread that led me to depart from Parapundit), but there are no comments by me after RKU’s comment, so I assume I didn’t revisit the thread and that’s why I never saw RKU’s comment until now.
I’m shocked. Parker, as I’ve said, frequently quoted me at his site, agreed with my views on what to do about Islam and on other issues. In the initial entry in the thread in question, he quoted approvingly my criticisms of Andrew Bacevich’s insane call for millions of Iraqis to be given asylum in the U.S. But this same Parker saw no reason to delete a comment calling for my murder and for the murder of “all the Larry Austers,” meaning presumably all Jews. An alternative meaning of “all the Larry Austers” might be all people who supported the invasion of Iraq, but since that was a majority of the U.S. population, that wouldn’t make sense. So, by “all the Larry Austers,” RKU meant all Jews.
Parker himself comes across as a reasonable person. He doesn’t make hateful statements himself. But evidently he is so much a part of the Jew-hating, paleocon environment that he sees nothing objectionable about a comment calling for me and “all the Larry Austers” to be murdered. Parker’s position is apparently something like this: “If Auster has good ideas, I will quote them and give him due credit for them; good ideas are always welcome. But if someone says that Auster ought to be murdered, and that all Jews ought to be murdered along with him, I have no problem with that.”
* * *
LA writes:
A reader suggested that Parker had left the comment in place, simply because he had not seen it. I replied that it was highly unlikely that Parker had not seen a comment at his own blog, since he probably receives a copy of each comment when it is posted, and also this particular thread did not have that many comments in it. I suggested to the reader that he send the link to this entry to Parker, with the thought that at least that way we would know that he had seen the comment.
The reader then sent me two further e-mails.
The first:
Parker says he takes a laissez-faire attitude towards comments on his weblog—he leaves up the comments of violence-advocating jihadists in order to show how real their threat is, for example. So, I don’t think he’s inclined to remove it.
The second:
Actually, he did agree to remove it.
I went to Parker’s site and saw that the comment was no longer there. From the reader’s description of Parker’s first response, it would appear that Parker left the comment in place not because he hadn’t seen it but because he believes in leaving murder threats posted at his site.
I wrote back to the reader:
Did he indicate he hadn’t been aware of it before?
The reader replied:
He’d known it was there and forgotten about it; given that he runs an unmoderated comment system and allows jihadists and so forth to post their views, it didn’t seem a big deal to him, just another example of vitriolic hyperbole.
So Parker has given two alternative explanations for leaving the comment at his site. The first, implied explanation is that he sees it as part of his mission to show how real is the threat of murder against one of his own commenters and the threat of exterminationist anti-Semitism, a subject that to my knowledge he’s never shown any interest in before; and the other explanation is that comments advocating that one of his commenters be shot in the head and that all Jews be killed in order for America to “get some nice peace and quiet” are no big deal to him.
Here again is the comment that Parker says he thought was no big deal:
Perhaps I’m mistaken, but isn’t our good friend Larry Auster exactly one of those shrieking, cowardly little Israel-Firsters who actually got us into the crazy Iraq War, and hence killed Col. Bacevich’s only son?
Seems to me that a pretty good therapy for Bacevich’s grief might be for him to take out his old service revolver and put two quick ones into Auster’s head.
I really do believe that the sooner all the Larry Austers are put safely six-feet-under, the sooner America will get some nice peace and quiet.
Posted by: RKU at July 1, 2007 11:29 AM
Try to imagine the mentality of a person who was aware of such a comment at his site and had no problem with its being there, until, a year and a half after it was posted, he learned that another site was drawing attention to the fact that he had no problem with such a comment being posted at his site.
I saved the entry before Parker changed it, and here it is, as it stood between July 4, 2007 and March 8, 2009.
- end of initial entry -
March 9
A reader writes:
If I were you I would report these postings to the FBI and state at VFR you are doing so. So Parker will see it. He won’t like a visit from the FBI.
You also could sue him and the posters (whose names you could obtain from him in legal action)
The Web at its worst.
Sage McLaughlin writes:
In your most recent thread you deduce that, “Parker saw no reason to delete a comment calling for my murder and for the murder of ‘all the Larry Austers,’ meaning presumably all Jews. An alternative meaning of ‘all the Larry Austers’ might be all people who supported the invasion of Iraq, but since that was a majority of the U.S. population, that wouldn’t make sense. So, by ‘all the Larry Austers,’ RKU meant all Jews.”
Actually, I don’t think it follows that this commenter was calling for the extermination of American Jews. It seems to me that a reasonable interpretation of what this person meant by “all the Larry Austers” might simply be those intellectuals, pundits, and so on that the paleo-right generally denounces as “chicken hawks.” He wouldn’t have to have meant all supporters of the Iraq war. The narrative in those circles basically runs that people like you are always hoodwinking the unsuspecting American public into supporting Israeli interests over our own.
That’s what he means by America finally having peace—freed from all the little “Larry Austers” (and John Podhoretzes, and Victor Davis Hansons…) Americans can finally tend to their own interests. Now granted, even limiting his murderous impulses to the neocon and pro-Israel vanguard would still suggest a whole lot of dead bodies. But I don’t think it’s probably the case that Parker looked at that comment and thought to himself that this guy was advocating genocide against the Jews, and didn’t bat an eye. At least, that isn’t how I read it, and I do think alternative meanings are possible.
My point isn’t to defend the commenter, who obviously is a crank and worse. It’s more to defend Parker from the suggestion that—at least in this case—he thought nothing of opening his blog to anti-Semitic genocidal fantasies.
Bill Carpenter writes:
Quite shocking. It’s hard to believe he would let himself be associated with the publication of such a comment in any way.
Roland D. writes:
I think Parker is a thoughtful man, and I think he writes interesting things. I don’t think he’s an anti-Semite, and the way I interpreted the egregious RKU’s remark was not as anti-Semitism, but rather hostility towards those perceived to put the interests of the State of Israel (a political entity, not a racial or religious entity) ahead of those of the United States. I believe that RKU was (unjustly) accusing you of this, and that his disgusting and cowardly incitement to murder has nothing to do with perceptions of race or religion….
LA replies:
Parker hasn’t made anti-Semitic comments himself, but he posts anti-Semitic comments, he sees nothing objectionable about anti-Semitic comments, and he makes lying excuses for anti-Semites. Which means he’s in the same camp with anti-Semites.
As I explained in my earlier entry on him, this comment was posted at his site in July 2007:
“Auster is a jew [sic], of course he thinks Libby is innocent.”
In his February 2009 comment at Secular Right, Parker characterized that comment as “commenters who weren’t polite to [Auster].”
Whether or not Parker is an anti-Semite, this is standard anti-Semitic behavior. Anti-Semites describe out and out anti-Semitism as mere “criticism,” or, in this case, as mere “impoliteness.”
And by the way, I also distinguish between anti-Semitism and rational, legitimate criticism of Jews. People are free to argue that my distinction is false and that I am using the distinction to cover up my anti-Semitism. The proof is in the evidence.
Roland writes:
“Auster is a jew [sic], of course he thinks Libby is innocent.”
I certainly wouldn’t allow this sort of nonsense on a weblog I operated, that goes without saying. I think Libby was innocent, too, and I’m not Jewish; I consider it reprehensible that President Bush failed to pardon Libby.
However, Parker apparently has an open-comments policy, and doesn’t see fit to police what’s posted on his site. Although I think this is somewhat irresponsible, he’s free to do as he pleases. I’ve not seen or heard him say anything anti-Semitic himself, and without proof positive, I simply can’t brand someone as an anti-Semite (or anti- anything-else, for that matter).
Believe me, I do know bigotry when I see it—I experienced it from so- called “Native Hawaiians” when I lived in Hawaii, and I experience anti-Western (and, oddly enough, pro-Western) bigotry every day, living and working here in Asia. I know what it feels like—and I just don’t get that from Parker.
It’s possible to disagree with people without believing that they’re demonizing you, you know?
I don’t detect a single iota of bigotry in Parker. And I believe that perhaps you might wish to consider giving the man the benefit of the doubt; in the scheme of things, he’s on the right side, and he does good work.
LA replies:
You write:
“I’ve not seen or heard him say anything anti-Semitic himself, and without proof positive, I simply can’t brand someone as an anti-Semite (or anti- anything-else, for that matter).”
Your view is reasonable, i.e., that someone should not be called anti-Semitic unless he himself makes anti-Semitic statements. That’s my own position. What I said to you was my personal view of what motivates him. I personally believe it’s likely that he is motivated by anti-Semitism. But I state that only a personal view. I do not know that as a fact.
I am not calling Parker anti-Semitic. What I am saying and will say is that he has no problem with anti-Semitism, that he excuses it, and that he allowed what arguably appeared to be a call for all Jews to be murdered to be posted at his site. So he’s somewhat like Jared Taylor, someone who himself does not engage in anti-Semitic behavior, but who also has no problem with anti-Semitic behavior and denies the existence of anti-Semitism when it’s in front of his face (i.e., Parker’s description of the statement, “Auster is a jew [sic], of course he thinks Libby is innocent,” as mere “impoliteness”). In short, he is a non-judgmental fellow-traveler of anti-Semites.
You write:
“However, Parker apparently has an open-comments policy, and doesn’t see fit to police what’s posted on his site.”
As I explained at Secular Right, notwithstanding Parker’s dishonest comment there, I never asked him to delete anything. You only have to go to the original thread at Parapundit to check this for yourself. I did express at Parapundit my dismay that he expressed no objection to the anti-Semitic comment AS an anti-Semitic comment. And now, 19 months later, how does he characterize that anti-Semitic comment? As some generic “impoliteness” toward me which I, like a tyrant, was demanding be deleted. So in July 2007, he ignored and did not object to the anti-Semitic nature of the comment about me, and in February 2009, he actively concealed the anti-Semitic nature of that comment, describing it as mere impoliteness and saying that I was demanding that the comment be removed.
Further, at the same moment that he was failing to object to an anti-Semitic comment about me at his site, in another thread, he allowed someone to post a comment advocating that I be murdered.
LA continues:
You write:
“And I believe that perhaps you might wish to consider giving the man the benefit of the doubt; in the scheme of things, he’s on the right side, and he does good work.”
Let’s say I give him the benefit of the doubt and drop the question of his ignoring and then dishonestly concealing the anti-Semitic nature of a comment about me at his site. Should I also give him the benefit of the doubt for knowingly allowing a comment to be published at his site saying it would be a good thing for me to be shot in the head?
Roland replies:
He didn’t instigate the comment; he failed to elide it. The fact that he fails to elide hostile and threatening comments directed towards himself, towards others, towards Western society in general means that he’s not singled you out for especial neglect. He simply has a different view of the responsibility of a weblog owner than you or I have with regards to his comments policy. I do not think you are being fair to him when you accuse him of dishonestly concealing anything, either; after all, the comments are there for all to see, and from which to draw their own inferences.
So, yes, I think you should give him the benefit of the doubt—he’s not singled you out, he’s treated you the same as everyone else with regards to the comments policy, and has not himself said or written anything one can reasonably view as anti-Semitic. He is an American, he’s shown himself to be fully aware of the danger militant Islam poses to the West, and yet he allows the jihadists to post anti- American sentiments on his weblog, apparently to illustrate how vicious they really are; yet I think one could hardly accuse him of anti-Americanism, either.
What I do wish is that you would speak with one another and compose your quarrel, such as it is. Far too much energy is expended in internecine fighting on the right in general, whereas the leftists, with all their own factionalism to contend with, seem to be much more cohesive (i.e., “No enemies to the Left”).
LA replies:
I don’t know what you mean by “elide” the homicidal statement about me. He knowingly allowed to be published a comment saying it would be a fine thing for Larry Auster to be murdered by two quick shots in the head. Are you aware that he’s previously allowed to be posted at his site similar homicidal threats against individuals?
Also, if, as you say, he doesn’t regard such statements as objectionable, because he allows such statements against himself, against others, against Western civilization, then why did he finally delete the comment last night? It was because, once the comment was exposed to the light of day, he knew he couldn’t plausibly defend it.
You write:
“I do not think you are being fair to him when you accuse him of dishonestly concealing anything, either; after all, the comments are there for all to see, and from which to draw their own inferences.”
My phrase “dishonest concealment” pertained to his comment at Secular Right, which I’ve discussed here. Pace your defense of him, his comment at Secular Right did not include any link to the thread at Parapundit to which he was referring. Therefore the truth of what he was saying at Secular Right could not be verified by the ordinary reader. Instead, completely gratuitously (since the subject of my departure from Parapundit had never been discussed by me, except of course in the original Parapundit thread in July 2007), Parker told two and out-and-out untruths, one, that the comment I had objected to at his site was mere “impoliteness,” rather than a blatantly anti-Semitic attack, and two, that I had demanded that the comment be deleted, when in fact what I had protested was his failure to condemn the anti-Semitic comment, not his failure to delete it. Finally, the sum total of those two untrue statements was to portray me as a tyrant who goes around demanding that people delete merely impolite statements about me, and who then withdraws in a huff when my demands aren’t met.
So, “dishonest concealment” was a polite euphemism. What Parker really did in his comment at Secular Right was tell a triple lie.
Finally, I notice that, even though my question to you exclusively concerned the homicidal statement, not the anti-Semitic statement, most of your comment deals with the latter. I can’t help but feel that you yourself recognize that the former is indefensible.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 08, 2009 09:36 PM | Send
|