|
Unfree Republic
Clem P. writes:
Taki’s Mag posted your blog entry, “David Horowitz praises white America—for turning itself into nonwhite America,” under the title, “In Praise of Anglo-Protestant Suicide.” I posted it at Free Republic and it didn’t last. However it had multiple views before it got pulled. Almost lasted a whole 3-4 minutes. Not that I am at all surprised. They are such deracinated chickens***s.
LA replies:
This is really funny. I did not say anything of my own in my brief comment (210 words long) on the Horowitz passage. I didn’t state my opinion on any racial-cultural issue. All I did was spell out the obvious implications of what Horowitz himself had said.
What then is the problem? It’s that in today’s America, you can only refer to the fact that our policies are turning us into a nonwhite country if you add that this is a good and wonderful thing. If you refer to the same fact neutrally and descriptively, as I did, neither approving it nor disapproving it, that is not allowed.
However, Free Republic’s pulling the post may have had nothing to do with the specific content of the article. FR has a recent policy of not allowing their participants to post anything by me.
Also, the discussion set off at FrontPage Magazine by my response to David Horowitz (it’s the same comment I posted at VFR), which was followed immediately by a commenter saying, “I smell a real racist,” is still going on.
—end of initial entry—
Alex K. writes:
I was wondering how your post here ended up on TakiMag. I certainly have no problem with it, I’m glad to see you get whatever exposure TakiMag provides, but given your comments about the site I was surprised to see it there.
LA replies:
Richard Spencer asked for my permission to post the piece. I told him he doesn’t need my permission—websites post and copy articles from other websites all the time. I do it all the time. If Taki’s or any website wants to copy an article of mine, that’s their choice. All that’s required is that the origin of the article be clearly posted. (Many blogs copy articles from other sites without giving their source or link. I don’t know why they do that, but they do.)
Terry Morris writes:
You wrote:
What then is the problem? It’s that in today’s America, you can only refer to the fact that our policies are turning us into a nonwhite country if you add that this is a good and wonderful thing. If you refer to the same fact neutrally and descriptively, as I did, neither approving it nor disapproving it, that is not allowed.
Well, to be fair, I think the nature of your criticism of Horowitz’s vision of America makes it pretty clear that you disapprove of it. So I’m not sure that your comment is a good example of “neutrality” on the subject being disallowed. But certainly anything short of enthusiastic approval of this position is by no means allowed in liberal dominated America.
LA replies:
Yes, you have a point, in that my tone clearly shows that I’m critical of Horowitz’s implied position that I’m describing. Also, my scare quotes around “right,” as in “the pro-American ‘right,’” show that I’m being critical of Horowitz. So you’re correct that “neutral” was not the correct word for what I’m doing here. At the same time, all I’m really doing is spelling out the logical and real-world consequence of Horowitz’s position in very plain terms. It’s the fact that the reality of this real-world consequence, stated with brutal logic and without softening rhetoric, is negative, that makes my description sound negative. But it remains a description. Thus:
So white European-American culture is good, and the main reason it is good is that it includes non-white and non-Christian cultures. The greatest thing about the white European-American culture, for which whites should feel the most pride, is that it allows itself to be progressively changed into a melange of nonwhite, non-European, non-Christian cultures and peoples. What is best about white America is that it turns itself into its own opposite.
Nowhere do I affirmatively state that it’s bad that America turn itself into a nonwhite country. All I’m saying is that Horowitz says that it’s good that America turns itself into a nonwhite country.
To make my point clearer, let’s say that my language had been less loaded and more neutral than it actually was. Suppose I had said this:
Horowitz praises white America for including more and more nonwhite peoples and cultures in America, which means that he is praising whites for pursuing policies that are progressively turning America into a nonwhite country.
Now that strikes me as a fair and objective characterization both of his explicitly stated position, and of his logically implied position. Yet Free Republic would still undoubtedly spike it, because the phrase, “progressively turning America into a nonwhite country,” though entirely true and factual and representing the real-world consequence of the white policy Horowitz praises, states a reality that is not supposed to be stated without definite signs of approval for this reality.
Another mark against me is that Horowitz never explicitly says that the policy of inclusion he praises is turning America into a nonwhite country, so critics will say that I’m unfairly reading something into Horowitz’s statement that he hasn’t said. Yet to say that it’s one of the greatest things, maybe the greatest thing, about America, that the majority white culture is including nonwhite cultures in America, and to place no limit on this process of inclusion, is clearly and undeniably to lay out a recipe for the transformation of America into a nonwhite country.
But I’m still not out of the woods, because no matter how neutrally and descriptively true my analysis may be, the fact that of all the possible logical implications of Horowitz’s statement that I could have brought out, I chose to bring out that logical implication, proves in and of itself that I am a racist, even though the implication is truly in the statement and I am correct in pointing to it.
Bottom line: there are certain statements that are 100 percent true and correct, but you’re not supposed to say them.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 16, 2009 10:33 PM | Send
|