Buchanan (and Libertarians?) Sides with "Deadly Serious Religion"

Islam, Media

At View from the Right, Lawrence Auster observes that “Patrick Buchanan comes out 100 percent against the European papers that published the cartoons of Muhammad, seeing the act as an anti-religious provocation by secular modernists.” Auster notes that Buchanan’s piece was published by “the anarchist libertarian website lewrockwell.com.”

This is not to say that the website endorses Buchanan’s view, but it’s important to note that lewrockwell.com is highly selective about content, usually posting perspectives—and people—that comport with its mission. “Patrick J. Buchanan on tweaking the Muslims” is how the column was billed on the site, clearly saddling the “tweakers” with the blame.

Libertarians are supposed to be committed to absolute freedom of speech on private property: newspapers. In fact, some libertarians will even defend speech that incites murder, which is a far more congruent position than countenancing the aggressive, murderous, uncivilized assailants of innocent Danes.

Auster, who obviously doesn’t expect much from libertarians, told me he thinks the incongruity is a further example of a phenomenon he’s long noted on the activist Left: “the various left factions—feminists, blacks, labor, homosexualists—will quickly give up their supposed ideals for some other, overriding purpose that they all have in common. What is that overriding purpose? The destruction of the West. Once people are motivated primarily by resentment and hate, all the positions are only taken because they advance that agenda of resentment.”

If this is true, it must be occurring on a subconscious, cock-a-snook-at-the-Empire level, since libertarians who find Buchanan’s piece valid can’t have thought through what the West’s dhimitude would mean to their endeavor. (Do libertarian homosexuals for Islam believe they’ll be spared a stoning?) Yet Auster has a point: these particular libertarians do invariably come out on the side of the Noble Savage, however savage his actions. Since condemning the invasion of Iraq doesn’t preclude castigating Muslim reaction to the cartoons, I’m not sure how to explain their unvarying, single-minded commitment to The Barbarians.

Buchanan (and Libertarians?) Sides with “Deadly Serious Religion”

Islam, Media

At View from the Right, Lawrence Auster observes that “Patrick Buchanan comes out 100 percent against the European papers that published the cartoons of Muhammad, seeing the act as an anti-religious provocation by secular modernists.” Auster notes that Buchanan’s piece was published by “the anarchist libertarian website lewrockwell.com.”

This is not to say that the website endorses Buchanan’s view, but it’s important to note that lewrockwell.com is highly selective about content, usually posting perspectives—and people—that comport with its mission. “Patrick J. Buchanan on tweaking the Muslims” is how the column was billed on the site, clearly saddling the “tweakers” with the blame.

Libertarians are supposed to be committed to absolute freedom of speech on private property: newspapers. In fact, some libertarians will even defend speech that incites murder, which is a far more congruent position than countenancing the aggressive, murderous, uncivilized assailants of innocent Danes.

Auster, who obviously doesn’t expect much from libertarians, told me he thinks the incongruity is a further example of a phenomenon he’s long noted on the activist Left: “the various left factions—feminists, blacks, labor, homosexualists—will quickly give up their supposed ideals for some other, overriding purpose that they all have in common. What is that overriding purpose? The destruction of the West. Once people are motivated primarily by resentment and hate, all the positions are only taken because they advance that agenda of resentment.”

If this is true, it must be occurring on a subconscious, cock-a-snook-at-the-Empire level, since libertarians who find Buchanan’s piece valid can’t have thought through what the West’s dhimitude would mean to their endeavor. (Do libertarian homosexuals for Islam believe they’ll be spared a stoning?) Yet Auster has a point: these particular libertarians do invariably come out on the side of the Noble Savage, however savage his actions. Since condemning the invasion of Iraq doesn’t preclude castigating Muslim reaction to the cartoons, I’m not sure how to explain their unvarying, single-minded commitment to The Barbarians.

Updated: Manners As Virtue

Ethics, Etiquette, Media, Morality, Pop-Culture

George Will once wrote that “manners are the practice of a virtue. The virtue is called civility, a word related—as a foundation is related to a house—to the word civilization.”

Will’s column, “Manners and virtue in a modern world, suggests that the ability to be courteous, kind, and mindful of etiquette in dealing with others is a reflection of something far more meaningful: one’s mettle.

Maybe this is why, other than hate mail, I respond to all letters I receive—to each and every one. Due to time constraints, my replies are laconic. But if someone bothers to read and comment on what I have to say, then it’s only decent to acknowledge the gesture. I haven’t always been firm in this resolve, but I try my best. If colleagues write, I always reply, whether I like them and their stuff or not.

Most pundits, however, don’t reply to their mail. That smacks of hubris and pride, almost always unwarranted. The younger sorts are plain punks. Since most are so uninspiring and mediocre, one wonders what they’re playing at, and why they’re not more modest.

Golda Meir’s zinger, “Don’t be so humble, you’re not that great,” is a relic from a time when false humility was at least still practiced. We’ll have to settle for something less clever. Can’t be bothered to answer your mail? “Don’t be so arrogant, you suck.”

P.S. The very popular and busy Dr. Daniel Pipes is polite. If you write to him, he’ll find the time to answer your questions. If I think of anyone else who rates a mention, I’ll update the post.

P.P.S. Pipes, ever the gentleman, sent this note: “What a nice refuge from the usual vulgarity! I completely agree with you that correspondents deserve a reply, even if a short one. And the quote from Golda Meir is beautifully apt.”

Update: I promised above to remind myself, as a “refuge from the usual vulgarity,” to use Dr. Pipes’s words, of the fine—and refined—individuals I do encounter along the way. Television ensures that the brainless, loud, airheads, whose intellectual output is as significant as a foghorn’s, loom large. They should not. So here’s a low-key shout-out to the brilliant and nice people I’ve had the pleasure to e-meet since I penned this post: Robert Spencer, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades),” Andrew Bostom, author of the Legacy of Jihad, and historian Bat Y’eor of the Eurabia fame. And yes, on the entertainment side, the irrepressible Michael Musto of the Village Voice. Nice people all.

How Sexist Are Libertarian Men?

Feminism, IlanaMercer.com

…These puritans are in the habit of deploying the photos on IlanaMercer.com to shame its proprietor. To wit: “Mercer puts up the images; she’s asking for it.” To these solemn commissars, an aesthetic display of the female form signifies that a woman is begging for belittlement. … The austere, Soviet-like stance vis-a -vis the female figure and its commercialization is the trademark of feminists and socialists. They oppose what they term the “objectification” of women, but also object to anything that’s fun, free, appealing, and lucrative. In their prissy, sexual rebukes to me, these phony progressives and pseudo-capitalists have sided with backward elements.

The column, How Sexist Are Libertarian Men?, addresses my travails with libertarian men over the years, and is on the Free-Market News Network. Libertarians, the forum is yours to comment (without demeaning the host, naturally).