From the link you posted, I don't think Auster is a "white supremacist," as you labeled him. He's against affirmative action. But I am not about to defend Auster's comments on race because I haven't read enough of them to know where he stands. But people get fired for a variety of reasons. David Horowitz fired Alex Knepper for criticizing Ann Coulter who was herself fired from National Review Online.
Auster criticizes the Roman Catholic church, and thus he brings the wrath of Rome and its apologists down on his head.
Discuss the comments I posted by Auster. Stick to the topic and try not to make it personal.
8. So far, I’ve been speaking of intelligence as something that can be measured scientifically by a number. But in recent years I’ve also come to believe there are differences in black and white styles of thinking. Race differences are not limited to numerical differences on a single scale like IQ (which itself is an aggregate of several different abilities). Race differences also take in different types of mentality, which we can see more readily by commonsense observation than by scientific tests.
Personal observation is of course subjective and may be erroneous and unfair. Nonetheless, it is a necessary part of understanding the world in which we live. Further, I am attempting to describe the whole journey of my change of attitude regarding race, a journey that has included (possibly unfair) generalizations from personal experience as well as the cognition of more objective facts. In the next few paragraphs, therefore, I will state my subjective impressions and conclusions as such, without claiming objective validity for them and without attempting to document or prove them beyond telling the experiences that led to them.
Following the arguments and actions of black leaders, listening to black callers on talk radio, led me over several years to an increasingly bleak view of black thinking styles. For one thing, it seemed to me that many blacks have a marked tendency to pick up some slogan and then just use it without much logical connection to the subject at hand. I also became increasingly aware of the "hustle," the way many blacks at all levels—from street people and politicians to celebrated "intellectuals" like Cornel West—did not use ideas as ideas, but as a hustle, as a way of manipulating people’s feelings. Suggestibility and the substitution of rhetoric for reason are general human weaknesses, but it seemed to me that these failings were noticeably more pronounced among blacks. Of course there are many blacks who are rational and logical and intellectually competent. But the proponderance of irrationality among the black population is hard to ignore.
9. I was also impressed by Gedalia Braun’s fascinating manuscript, Racism, Guilt and Self-Deceit, based on his many years of close personal observation of blacks in Africa, an excellent review of which appeared in American Renaissance in 1993.
According to Braun, African blacks have a wholly different kind of mentality from whites. He pointed to Africans’ inability to understand cause-and-effect relationships, as seen in the magical mode of thinking observed among Pacific Islanders and known as the "cargo cult" syndrome, and which Braun also saw evidenced among black Africans. For example, as Braun described it, Africans seem to see Western development aid as a magical process that will automatically make all the appurtenances of a modern society appear. This way of thinking leads African blacks to see whites as magical beings who could, if they wanted, do everything for blacks. To the extent that this attitude carries over to blacks outside of Africa, it would explain their belief in (white) government as the answer to all their needs, and their growing rage at whites for not giving blacks the vast range of goodies that blacks believe is within whites’ (magical) power to give.
Another of Braun’s provocative observations was that African blacks (at least those who have not come under the influence of Western liberalism) have no hang-ups about the notion that whites are smarter. In fact, they take it for granted and, he pointed out, are eager to talk about the subject with him because it’s so rare for them to find a white who will speak honestly about race. They prefer such honesty to the racial guilt, the pious lies about equality, and the hypocrisy that they normally get from whites. These observations suggest that white liberal attitudes have done more to harm race relations than any other factor.
Those are just a few paragraphs from one page. Pretty ugly, in my opinion. The source you gave, Auster, is DEFINITELY impeachable, and has no business being used here, in my opinion. I leave it up to the RM to decide.
Further, no one is trying to silence anyone. Surely there is a better source for the ideas you are trying to put forth.
Your comment, that "Auster criticizes the Roman Catholic church, and thus he brings the wrath of Rome and its apologists down on his head," is rather humorous. What wrath?
Finally, your commands that I "Discuss the comments I posted by Auster. Stick to the topic and try not to make it personal," are also humorous. Considering your tagline, I'm sure no explanation is required.
It seems that until lies are banned on the religion forum there will be no hope of silencing the anti-Catholics.