Old Wine in New bottles: Fletcher Prouty's New Critics recycle the Past

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Sandy I remember in the previous incarnation of this thread, you thought anti semitism was some prejudice of Jewish "incompetence."

 I don't think so, Kirk. I'm the one who said right on this forum that American Jews have done exceptionally well. (To which Jonathan Cohen seemed to take exception.) And I've said more than once that I'll bet that anti-Semitic people are that way because they are jealous of Jews.

So you're thinking of the wrong person.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Suppose the guy running it is a Jewish Sgt.

Uh huh, why mention "Jewish" at all?

 

Because the Jews (Israelis) are the enemy of the Saudis! You still don't get it.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

 

Kirk,

This talk of antisemitism is clouding your mind. I am going to describe the exact same letter-writing  incident, with the exception of swapping the enemies, to see if you come up with the same conclusion. I'll bet you don't.

Please now, just forget the antisemitism for this experiment.

Beginning of Experiment

Suppose the Regan Administration was selling an AWACS system to the Israeli government.

Fletcher Prouty writes a letter to his friend explaining how AWACS works and how complicated it is. He's not sure it's a good thing, with the computer in California controlling what the F-16 fighters are firing on in the middle east.

Prouty then writes this:

But what about that computer in California? Suppose the guy running it is a Muslim Sgt.? Warfare has become so very complex the whole thing does not make sense anymore. One good bomb fired at that computer [site in California] could put all U.S. fighter planes [owned by Israel] out of action against hitting a one of them [their targets].

End of Experiment

Kirk, don't you see that Prouty -- in wondering what could go wrong with complicated AWACS -- is merely considering the possibility of the computer operator being sympathetic to the cause of Arabs?

In this case, would you conclude that Prouty is anti-Muslim?

No, of course not.... that would be silly.

BTW, did you notice for my experimental case I had to use "Muslim," because Muslims are the enemies of the Jews. Similarly, in the non-experimental case, Prouty had to use "Jewish," because Jews are the enemies of the Saudis. We have to do that to get the point across.

 

[Jeff Carter]

3 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I went to your footnote when I first read it. And it opened to a 35 page document I don't have time to read.

It's very unclear. Certainly there was no specific dialog there attributed to Prouty. What point are you making? Can you give me  a specific page you want to direct me to? Are you making Sandy's point?

Sandy is correct. The “Jewish Sgt” discussion is about the complicated logistics of the AWACS system, and not a racialist formula for military deployments as you seem to have interpreted.

The 35-page document that you don’t have time to read is a historical discussion of the AWACS controversy, written by researchers from an Israeli think tank, which confirms the uncontroversial prominence of ethnic or racial identity during the debate in 1981.  Therefore reference to such at the time, as in Prouty's letter, was not automatically evidence of extremist viewpoints, as is assumed by contemporary critics (who are Fred Litwin - who first advanced this notion - and parroted by Michael Griffith on this Forum).

 

3 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

As I've already said, you can just say.

"Ok he's not perfect, but his politics and apparent prejudices are another matter entirely. We believe him as a very credible witness."

But “his politics and apparent prejudices”, as argued in 1991 and again today, are used precisely to deny his credibility. As I have said previously, I had reason to work intensively with Prouty’s archives over the past few years, and the notion he was right wing or held extremist racialist views is assuredly not supported at all by his collected essays and interviews. Therefore accepting this notion, as you suggest, would be performing a disservice to the documented record and an accurate understanding of his work.

Edited September 2, 2023 by Jeff Carter

[Matthew Koch]

I think we should compare L. Fletcher Prouty to Michael Collins Piper, someone who is Anti Semitic.

Notice how different their opinion on the case are?