|
For Richard Hoste and for Timothy McVeigh, death by terrorist mass murder is no different from death by traffic accident
(Note, 4/23: the discussion continues.)
Here is Richard Hoste, of Richard Spencer’s Alternative Right and Peter Brimelow’s Vdare, commenting at VFR in January 2010 (go to the entry to see my reply to him):
About 17,000 Americans are murdered a year. Twice that many die in car accidents. Let’s say 50,000 people a year die in car accidents or the result of crime.
3,000 people died in 9/11.
If we had had a 9/11 every two years, it would cause 1,500 deaths a year. It would still be an insignificant problem compared to street crime and motor accidents.
[Terrorism is] simply not a significant problem, even if you consider a 9/11 or so a year a worst case scenario.
By all means profile and all that, but this should be near the bottom of our list of concerns.
And here is Timothy McVeigh, in a prison interview prior to his execution in 2001, speaking of the meaning of the 168 deaths he caused when he blew up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995:
People die all the time. Not only in airplane crashes but in natural disasters, in drunk driving and in other auto accidents. They’re all unexpected loss.
Here’s the article on McVeigh, in yesterday’s New York Post:
Okla. City bomber’s evil laugh
By LEONARD GREENE
April 20, 2010
Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh can be heard laughing about his infamous place in history and calling the 168 people he killed “collateral damage” on chilling new audiotapes released yesterday on the 15th anniversary of the heinous act.
Sitting in federal prison for what was at the time the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil, McVeigh compared his 1995 bombing to any “natural disaster.”
“People die all the time,” McVeigh said in interviews before he was executed in 2001. “Not only in airplane crashes but in natural disasters, in drunk driving and in other auto accidents. They’re all unexpected loss.”
McVeigh rationalized his attack during 45 hours of interviews he gave to two biographers in 2001. Tapes from the interviews were aired last night during an MSNBC special. “This was something that I saw as a larger good,” McVeigh said matter of factly.
[end of NY Post article]
Not only is the thinking process of some paleocons similar to Timothy McVeigh’s, but some paleocons admire and identify with McVeigh. There was a moderately well known paleocon, an intelligent man who in his day job occupied a responsible position in an esteemed organization, with whom I had occasional e-mail correspondence in the ’90s. After McVeigh’s execution in 2001, this person told me that McVeigh had a died a “Socratic,” “noble” death. I was so shocked and repelled by what he had said, by his approval of the monster McVeigh, that I didn’t write back to him. He didn’t write to me again either. He must have realized from my silence what I thought of his comment.
- end of initial entry -
Hannon writes:
I see your point here, but it is a far jump from thinking a certain way, a twisted way about what is evil or not evil, and committing an act that accords with that thinking. I don’t believe you are suggesting otherwise, but there is a connection between these states, where a mode of thinking is a first step toward behavior in line with that thinking, but the distinction remains.
The introduction of beliefs such as found in Mr. Hoste’s writings may have such an effect that they constitute a realization of evil for others, or acceptance of terrible deeds as normative, that they are in a broader category that encompasses exhortation as well as execution.
LA replies:
I was not intending to suggest in any way that Hoste is himself a potential terrorist. I meant that the thinking of both Hoste and McVeigh eliminates the moral meaning of terrorist mass murder, in order to remove any negative judgment from it. In McVeigh’s case, it was to justify his terrorist act. In Hoste’s case, it is to argue against any attempt by society to defend itself from it.
The America haters of the paleocon right do not want to protect America. They have no reaction against, or they diminish the importance of, or they positively support, terrorist attacks on America. Thus the paleocon I mentioned in the initial entry, who I had thought was a civilized man, expressed admiration for McVeigh, showing that he supported what McVeigh had done. This person had not previously expressed such depraved thoughts, and the moment he did express them I ended any contact with him.
Another example is Kevin MacDonald with whom I had had some contact until a couple of months after the 9/11 attack. As I’ve recounted previously, he told me in an e-mail that he agreed with Osama bin Laden’s statements about America’s deserving the attack and he also said that the Jews of Europe were in part responsible for what Hitler did to them. I never communicated with him one on one again.
Another example is an immigration restrictionist writer I had occasionally corresponded with in the late ’90s. When Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia, who now owns a part of Fox News, after the 9/11 attack made that outrageous offer of $10 million to New York City if in exchange America would contemplate the “root causes” of the attack, and Mayor Giuliani told him to go to hell, this person that I was corresponding with told me he agreed with the prince. That was the end of my correspondence with him.
Another example is Thomas Fleming, whose reaction to the 9/11 attack was to express contempt for Americans for being upset about it.
Thus in the wake of 9/11 various paleocons revealed a darkness in themselves that ended any residual identification I still had with that movement at that point. That darkness became more manifest in the following years.
LA adds:
I left out of the above list of terrorism minimizers Patrick Buchanan, who in an incredible article said that America didn’t need to worry about mass terrorist attacks on U.S. cities,since, after all, much of Germany was destroyed during World War II and Germany had come back within a few years. I discussed that Buchanan column in an article at FrontPage Magazine, “Buchanan’s White Whale.”
Patrick H. writes:
And just to extend the math of Richard Hoste to its logical endpoint: only four planes were hijacked by terrorists on 9/11, which is peanuts compared to the number of aircraft that take off and land every day in the U.S. alone!
And just as clearly, if we had done nothing at all about this minor terrorist problem, there would have been (based on Hoste’s statement that a 9/11 attack once a year would be ok), no more than four hijackings a year since then! It would just, you know, average out! No increase in terrorist activity based on our shoulder-shrugging Hostean non-response! No sir! Eight and half years have passed since 9/11, so that means there would have been only 34 hijackings since then! And only 25,500 deaths! Why that’s nothing at all! Only a little more than one year of homicides! In eight-and-a-half years! C’mon, people, do the math!
Sigh. And of course it does not seem to have occurred to Hoste that had the attacks succeeded according to plan, far more than 3,000 would have died in each equivalent of the 9/11 attack, probably tens of thousands, as well as many hundreds or thousands on Capitol Hill (no jokes about silver linings from me here). Clearly, Hoste is very stupid indeed, and also completely bat-you-know-what bonkers. Spencer is diminished for publishing him.
April 22
S.L.T. writes:
You write that “In Hoste’s case, it is to argue against any attempt by society to defend itself from (terrorism).” Isn’t it more likely that he was arguing against what he perceives to be overreaction, against the idea that we can no longer afford the Rule of Law (the “the Constitution is not a suicide pact” mindset) in the face of the terrorist threat, or against the idea that the terrorist threat is so profound we must conquer vast swaths of the Earth to defend ourselves from it? Does it not seem more likely that he was attempting to put 9/11 in some perspective, perhaps to counter those who insist that every year is 1939 and every threat we face Nazi-esque?
You also write that “the paleocon I mentioned in the initial entry, who I had thought was a civilized man, expressed admiration for McVeigh, showing that he supported what McVeigh had done”. From your account, it seems the paleo with whom you corresponded expressed admiration for how McVeigh *died* rather than for what he’d done. Or was there more to the correspondence that led you to your interpretation? And is it your contention that to hold the opinion that anti-American Islamic terrorism is in part a response to U.S. government foreign policy in the Middle East over the last half-dozen decades is to be an “America hater”?
LA replies:
On your first point, Hoste’s concern included both our counterattacks against Islamic countries AND our anti-terror measures at home. On the first factor, I dealt with that in my original response to Hoste in January, which is linked at the beginning of this entry. There, I speak of the perverse thinking which, because it doesn’t like the result of the 9/11 attack (our invasion and occupation of Afghanistan), tries to minimize the importance of the attack itself.
On your second point, it was obvious that my interlocutor’s expression of admiration for how McVeigh had died—i.e., that McVeigh had remained officially silent and had not explained his act of mass murder and had refused to communicate with the society against which he had committed such a terrible crime—was also intended as an expression of approval of the crime itself and of the man who had committed it.
April 22, 11 p.m.
D. in Seattle writes:
S.L.T. wrote:
And is it your contention that to hold the opinion that anti-American Islamic terrorism is in part a response to U.S. government foreign policy in the Middle East over the last half-dozen decades is to be an “America hater”?
Not to pick on S.L.T. in particular, many others have expressed this or similar opinions any time Middle East is discussed. The essence of the proposition is that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East causes Islamic terrorism. The flip side of this proposition, which is not often mentioned, is: what kind of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East would stop Islamic terrorism? If one thinks that a simple cessation of support for Israel would do it, I think they are grossly mistaken. I believe that a simple U.S. neutrality in world affairs would not dramatically affect Islamic terrorism, based on the fact that, for Muslims, if you’re not with them you’re against them. Only a complete agreement with the tenets of Islam, which is a submission to Islam, would stop Islamic terrorism. Many commenters either don’t realize this or don’t want to realize it since it would clash with their liberal world view that we all want the same in life and are equally capable of obtaining it. But they should ask themselves: are they ready to submit to Islam in order to stop Islamic terrorism? Even if most Muslims were to be expelled from the non-Muslim societies, that would still not stop Islamic terrorism, only reduce it significantly.
Second topic, support for Israel: Dennis Mangan has a new post titled “Why we should support Israel—or not”, and in it he discusses your “support for Israel equates litmus test” position but spins it to mean that support for Israel’s right to exist is the same as financial support for Israel, which is worth several billion dollars annually. There are only a few comments as I write this, and nobody has called him on it yet, but it’s absurd to equate moral support with financial support. Regarding financial support for Israel, it’s a fair topic for discussion. Israel is a relatively wealthy country, roughly comparable in population and GDP to Denmark, Czech Republic, Portugal or Slovakia. Whatever funds U.S. gives to Israel annually, Israel can manage to live without, since it’s at most a couple percent of their GDP (which is about $200 billion, according to CIA World Factbook). Most Israelis care about their survival, and I agree with your recent posting that Israel most likely would be better off without U.S. help since it would be a lot more free to set its foreign and defense policies on its own terms, which would in turn far outweigh any loss of funding from discontinued U.S. financial support. So if U.S. were to stop all financial aid to foreign countries, or even just to Israel, fine; but let’s not confuse moral support for someone’s right to exist and defend himself with payments.
Third topic, character of the state of Israel: you refer in “Why should we care about Israel?” to Kevin MacDonald’s characterization of Israel as ” … an apartheid state dominated by the most extreme religious and ethnocentric factions of the Jewish community … an aggressive, racialist ethno-state … ” To MacDonald’s point (and many others express similar opinions), so what? Why should a traditionalist conservative disagree with an apartheid state, separating incompatible populations? Or with a state that is a racialist ethno-state, aggressive when defending itself? Those are perfectly defensible conservative positions. South Africa was a functional state when it was apartheid, and now that it’s integrated it’s becoming a basket case. Korea and Japan are racialist ethno-states, which is why it’s very difficult to immigrate there. It seems to me that many critics of Israel on the right fault it for the policies that they would, secretly or openly, like to see implemented in the U.S. That is hypocrisy; if they think those policies would be good for the preservation of White race and Western culture here, how could they fault Israelis for pursuing those policies?
P.S. Sorry for a long post, but to me these are just various aspects of the same topic, which is Israel. And I haven’t even touched on what the U.S. should do with the Islamic world in general.
LA replies:
MacDonald describes Israel as “an apartheid state dominated by the most extreme religious and ethnocentric factions of the Jewish community … an aggressive, racialist ethno-state … ”
But of course Israel is not an apartheid state, and is not a racialist state. It is a hyper-liberal state. It is so liberal it allows its mortal enemies to be members of its parliament. It is so liberal that it subsidizes its mortal enemies and allows them to function within its border and broadcast daily television programs demonizing the Jews and calling for jihad against them. It is so liberal it allowed Hamas to bombard Israel with rockets from Gaza for three years before finally taking military action to stop it. It is so liberal that no political party in Israel can call for the transfer of the Palestinians, because such a position would be declared a hate crime by Israel’s Supreme Court and result in the shutting down of that party.
By “apartheid,” MacDonald evidently means the fence Israel finally put up in recent years to prevent Palestinian terroristss from freely crossing the green line into Israel proper, and the various checkpoints which subject Palestinian workers to security before they enter Israel proper. These exist to prevent Muslims from carrying suicide bombs into Israel. Yet MacDonald equates this vital, unavoidable act of self defense with a term, “apartheid,” intended to cast Israel in the eyes of the modern world as a totally illegimimate oppressor state. And on what basis? Because Israel defends the lives of its citizens from enemies intending to mass murder them.
This evil statement—this statement which portrays the Jews as illegitimate oppressors for protecting themselves from violent death at the hands of terrorists—marks Kevin MacDonald as an exterminationist anti-Semite, whose aim is to persuade the world to deny Jews the right to exist—the right to exist in the West, the right to exist in Israel, the right to exist anywhere. Richard Spencer’s publishing of MacDonald’s article marks him as the facilitator of an exterminationist anti-Semite. And if Peter Brimelow attended a dinner honoring MacDonald, then he is the supporter of an exterminationist anti-Semite.
April 23, 12:31 a.m.
Murray Love writes:
Richard Hoste argues:
About 17,000 Americans are murdered a year. Twice that many die in car accidents. Let’s say 50,000 people a year die in car accidents or the result of crime.
3,000 people died in 9/11.
If we had had a 9/11 every two years, it would cause 1,500 deaths a year. It would still be an insignificant problem compared to street crime and motor accidents.
I have been awed by the stupidity of this argument going on nine years now. Why does Hoste stop at declaring terrorism insignificant? This is a wholly arbitrary threshold (it could be called the first-trimester theory of justice!). If there are twice as many road-accident fatalities as murders in the United States (and the ratio is surely much higher in Canada, where I live); surely by the terms of Hoste’s own argument, we should lose interest in investigation and prosecution of homicides (and rapes, and assault, etc.). Then, if we manage to find a larger killer than traffic accidents (heart disease, maybe?), we could lose interest in traffic accidents. And so on. After all, 34,000 traffic-accident fatalities is only about 0.01% of the US population! Why should we waste time worrying about it?
Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 21, 2010 07:19 PM | Send
|