Vintage Conservative

Unlike wine, which does get better with age, when you start fermenting in the juices of a traditional conservative like Lawrence Auster, everything goes rancid. He has attacked all the usual suspects: illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, Muslims, women, blacks, liberals, and anyone with critical thinking skills. Just your everyday, typical misfit who has surrendered his reasoning to paranoia and hallucinations of racial and gender supremacy.

Those type of guys are a dime a dozen in the fever swamps. What is special about Auster is his ability to be offended that people would try to make him a social leper for espousing his policies of Neanderthal intolerance. He sincerely feels that he is a civilized person, just trying to save Western society from its disastrous course.

He reminds me of those insurance commercials where the caveman is shocked, nay outraged, that modern people ridicule him for being ‘simple’. His recent dust-up with Mary Jackson over at NER has shown how pitifully inept he is. Mary is a conservative who is on Auster’s side when it comes to immigration policies, but she at least defends one basic notion of modern democracy. Auster gets all huffy and indignant that she would poke fun at his fear and loathing of women.

Whenever given sufficient time to proclaim himself a victim of the PC thought police, Auster reiterates his sad, oh so sad, story of betrayal at the hands of Horowitz. He probably sobs himself to sleep every night thinking about the injustice of it all. It was so traumatic for his fragile, delicate ego you see. He is such a major drama queen, too bad that Horowitz just isn’t that into him.

In order to provide a welcome distraction from his troubles, he should renovate his blog with a more honest and accurate name. Personally, I am fond of “A Whiter Shade of Stale“. Any reader suggestions are welcome in comments. Thanks.

Explore posts in the same categories: General

12 Comments on “Vintage Conservative”

  1. Howard Beale Says:

    Your style of writing with regard to Auster, is that of a very, very bitter, and jealous man. You obviously both loathe, and study him quite carefully as well.

    Yet your pompous tone is emotional, broadly sweeping and polished, yet ignorant. More importantly, you omit any substantive aspects of his reasoning. This is evidence of your bias.

    His arguments about race and intelligence, race and crime, the de-Europeanization of America, the dangers of Islam here on our shores, and so forth, are factually indisputable. Don’t you see the evidence of your own eyes? Ever had to press 1 for English?

    The spin-meister, nihilists, who hate his keen intellect for detecting the lies that propel Western Civilization into the abyss, are pretty much represented by empty word smiths and intellectually dishonest, pseudo-conservatives like yourself.

    I venture to say, that you are stunted in your intellectual growth, blinded to reality by the acceptance of false doctrines which defines you. But you sound well pleased with yourself. After all, isn’t that all that matters, in the wacky world of multicultural western thought, that you “feel” the pain of all humanity? That is what elevates you in your mind above the realists like Auster, your deep convictions which generate warm and fuzzy feelings, numbing your higher functions of reason and enabling the legitimating of insanity.

    Some truths are too painful to behold, wouldn’t you agree?

    Du hast meine mitgefhul.

  2. S. Ryza Says:

    I am quite impressed with your integrity in posting such a stinging indictment of your words. However, I am sorry to tell you that Mr. Beale has ‘told it like it is’.

  3. Stoilov Says:

    A+ for ad hominem!

  4. You underestimate Lawrence Auster. Someone reading your post would think that by visiting View from the Right they were going to arrive at a crude, unthinking site. They would be surprised to find that the focus is on searching through political positions on both the left and right. It is Auster’s skill and sharpness in doing this (with some striking originality of thought) which has brought him his audience.

  5. Cindy Lee Says:

    Your sneering article accomplishes nothing other than to reveal your own fear of Auster’s realism and rational arguments. It’s time to quit pretending the butt-naked emperor of political correctness and liberalism is wearing beautiful clothes and get real, even when getting real means acknowledging some unpleasant truths. As Auster has stated, it’s nobody’s fault that certain things are the way they are, so why should a person be excoriated for being a realist? The Serenity Prayer was never more applicable.

  6. Mary Jackson Says:

    I think Auster’s views on Islam are quite right. But when it comes to women he hasn’t a clue.

  7. Mark Jaworowski Says:

    Auster is brilliant. Politically correct cowardly ostriches could learn a few things reading his website. Why don’t you refute what he says point by point rather than engage in the childish remarks? You don’t because you cannot.

  8. Mary Jackson Says:

    Why didn’t Auster refute what Caroline Flint was saying about unemployment statistics?

    Because he was too busy ogling her bosom.

  9. Laura Wood Says:

    Mary Jackson continues to misrepresent and cheapen Auster’s views. In his lucid defense of traditional morality, Auster has shown more concern for women than thousands of sneering elitists who think greedy narcissism a becoming feminine trait. If Ms. Jackson stepped into the real world for a moment, she might find many ordinary people find it hard to look up to a public official who bares her chest even slightly. Does Jackson honestly think she is defending women in general by trivializing such behavior? Is this really what women fought for?

  10. Alan Andrews Says:

    “Because he was too busy ogling her bosom.”

    Come on, now. I’m fairly certain Mr. Auster could ogle her bosom AND pay attention to what she was saying. He’s a very sharp guy.

    Pretty women do have a cross to bear, though, I agree.

  11. malaproprose Says:

    Shame on me for demonstrating bias! Because there is no way that Auster has shown bias in any of his arguments. Whites really are superior to every other race, except for the Asians of course. Please, show some smidgeon of consistency. Besides the old linked Wolcott article, I had no inclination or desire to learn more about Auster until this past week, when his spat with Mary carried over to a blog I visit. That is what precipitated this little harangue.

    This is decidedly a D minus blog, so good grades are always appreciated.

    When someone writes as much as Lawrence, it is inevitable that he will explore a lot of different positions. What grates on me like fingernails across a chalkboard is his reliance upon bad faith. It is just assumed that all the groups Auster targets are innately inferior or victim of a sinister ideology that makes them ripe for being scapegoats. I simply extend that same assumption to Auster, why should he be excluded?

    My article was based on a profound distaste for Auster’s fear mongering. If he wants to talk about a real culture war, he should stop sniveling when people make fun of him.

  12. Eric Wilds Says:

    Lawrence Auster is really just a Neocon who likes to play up the race and gender card to make himself appear original. He has a few, simple ideas. All Islam is bad and is a mortal threat to the West. This is obviously false. The war in Iraq was a really good idea. This is also obviously false.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: