Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Auster and Anti-Anti-Semitism

Lawrence Auster writes more frankly and more cogently than almost anyone else on issues concerning Islam, immigration, and race. As he and almost anyone unlucky enough to be interested in reading this knows, the discussion of such subjects in "polite society" is heavily constrained by political correctness - a hypocritical and stealthily imposed code of conduct propagated by pundits in academia and the media, and unthinkingly adhered to by nearly everyone else. Auster violates PC daily, and he does so by appealing to reason and history. He points out the many threads that connect events to the liberal influences and responses of "polite society". This is why his opinions are valuable. And this is why I am disturbed that he doesn't write more frankly and cogently about another issue related to all these others: Jews.

Until recently I would not have even linked to Auster much less praised him. For most of my life I have been raceless - too busy with my work to notice race, and afraid that someone might call me a racist if I did notice. It took alot for this to change. The LA riots, the OJ trial, 9/11, Iraq, Jena, and insane levels of immigration finally gave me sufficient justification and courage to speak out. Toward the end Lawrence Auster helped. I read and think and write thoughts now that I never would have wanted to be associated with before.

During what in retrospect has been a lifelong awakening I criticized and ridiculed political correctness and the liberal illogic behind it without even understanding their origins, pervasiveness, or monstrous power. It was only in the last few years, and especially the last few months, that I have had the time and motivation to dig deeper.

As I tried to understand Islam I came to see that the prevalent ideas - "religion of peace", "jihad means inner struggle" - rang false, and so I spoke plainly against them and in favor of the truth, smears of Islamophobia or racism be damned.

As I tried to understand immigration I came to see that the prevalent ideas - "family values", "jobs Americans won't do" - rang even more false, and so once again I spoke out, smears of xenophobia or racism be damned.

Now most recently, in spite of my dim wit, the hours of autodidacticism have finally connected these realizations to a long line of related lies: civil rights, multiculturalism, diversity, and above all the smothering, dictatorial political correctness that promotes these false ideals and protects them from criticism. I now see all these things as individual ingredients of a single toxic philosophical cocktail. Auster calls this cocktail "liberalism". He helped me recognize it.

Where I estimate we part company is that I believe whatever else this cocktail is intended to accomplish it will in fact also accomplish White European extinction. I also plainly say that Jews have played and continue to play a major role in causing this to happen, smears of anti-semitism or racism be damned.

I explained how I came to these conclusions in Political Correctness + Multiculturalism + Diversity = White Extinction and Committing PC's Most Mortal Sin. I do not jump to conclusions, nor will I abandon them simply because they violate PC.

Clearly Whites are threatened with extinction. Clearly PC is largely to blame. Clearly Jews are both a proximate cause of PC and one of the minorities PC favors over Whites. No matter how carefully you choose the words, no matter how politely or obliquely you broach the subject, if you are critical of Jews someone somewhere will howl anti-semitism, call you a Nazi, and derail the discussion. This has the curious and surely deliberate effect of creating a big, ugly warning light in everyone's mind. A light that everyone in "polite society" knows you must not even chance triggering for fear you might have all sorts of opprobrium heaped on you - just like the other "Nazis". You should not even speak of this light, or the dehumanizing opprobrium, lest you are prepared to suffer.

This is the same psychological control mechanism that is brought to bear when "racist", "Islamophobe", "xenophobe", and the other smear words of liberalism's "hate speech" crimethink are deployed. There is one difference with "anti-semite": it is the strongest and most hypocritical smear of all. Jews are the longest lasting, most powerful, most cohesive group in human history. Those facts are not unrelated. This historically paranoid group sees and encounters enemies everywhere, but they have in contemporary times convinced even non-Jews to spot and silence their critics. For them to be the only group that has a specially designated and almost religiously observed protection clause (anti-semitism) is perfectly understandable, but the particularity of the "crime" flies in the face of the spirit used to justify defining it as such. The most virulent form of this bigotry (anti-anti-semitism) is self-defeating, if not flatly anti-everybody-else.

My story is similar to a handful of other people who I've since encountered via the internet. I am an ordinary White man who has belatedly recognized extraordinary threats not only to my own existence and the future of my children, but also to my larger extended family, my kinsfolk, who I have until now taken for granted. I am well educated and have been successful professionally. I can think and write moderately well. I use these abilities to seek truth. I try to speak it. I do not seek fame or fortune.

I write under a pseudonym because I can, and because there are many bad people - especially of the kind exalted by PC - who would surely harm myself or my family if they could easily find us. I know enough about the internet and politics and history to realize that I will have no protection in the long term, even if I never write another word. I chose Tanstaafl because I believe what it stands for: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. I value many such aphorisms, but I selected this one because it also has a name-like acronym.

I think that covers the background, from my point of view, for the critique of and exchange with Lawrence Auster that motivates this post. What follows in some places requires more detailed understanding of Auster's positions and terminology. Sorry about that. Most readers who have gotten this far probably know it anyway. I believe this issue is critical. If even those who oppose PC do not think we should be free to speak of any and all topics, from any and all sources, even when threatened with extinction, then what hope do we have?

- - -

A month or so ago with the thoughts described above in mind I commented on a post by John Savage concerning Lawrence Auster's Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society (MMRILS). I asserted that this Law, which I agreed with but had never seen Auster apply to Jews, did in fact apply to Jews. John disagreed and we went back and forth several times arguing the point.

I include that exchange here for archival purposes, as John has now moved to a new site and disabled commenting on the old one (links and italics are in the original):
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
List of Instances of Auster's Laws of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society

Since I love having Lawrence Auster's great discovery at hand -- his Laws (or is there just one stated many different ways?) of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society -- I'm gathering together all the instances here, so I can just cite this post whenever I want to appeal to these laws. I'm still not positive which is the original statement of the law -- this appears to be the oldest post on the topic at VFR, but it gives the impression that the idea was not new even at that time. So I'd appreciate Mr. Auster referring me to the original source in which he first laid out the concept, whether that source is online or not.

* "The worse any designated minority or alien group behaves in a liberal society, the bigger become the lies of Political Correctness in covering up for that group." (source) A "restate[ment]" of the First Law.

* "The more egregiously any non-Western or non-white group behaves, the more evil whites are made to appear for noticing and drawing rational conclusions about that group's bad behavior." (source) Stated as the "First Corollary" to the First Law.

* "Once the equality of all human groups is accepted as a given, any facts that make a minority or foreign group seem worse than the majority native group must be either covered up or blamed on the majority." (source) This may be the original statement of the First Law.

* "The more illegitimate and dangerous you are, the easier it is for you [to immigrate to the West], and the more legitimate and productive you are, the harder it is for you." (source) A "variation" on the First Law.

* "When a society, acting with the purpose of eliminating all historic forms of exclusion and discrimination, including, ultimately, its own historic and ethnocultural identity as a society, admits large numbers of people into it who do not fit into it, either because of lower abilities or incompatible cultural/religious adhesions, the fact that they do not fit, when it is finally recognized, can only be blamed on the society itself. To blame the lack of fit on the newcomers would be to revive the very discrimination that their admission was meant to overcome. As long as the host society accepts the principle of non-discriminatory inclusion as the very basis of its own moral legitimacy, it must keep admitting more and more unassimilables, whose lack of ability to function in or identify with the society becomes more and more troublesome, a problem that, in accord with Auster's First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society, must be blamed more and more on the racism of the society. Thus the more the society undoes itself in the name of indiscriminately including and favoring unassimilably diverse peoples, the more racist and guilty it becomes in its own eyes, leading to more and more minority preferences, speech codes, anti-hate laws, official lies, and the multicultural dismantling of the majority culture." (source) An excellent example of applying the First Law.

* "The WORSE a designated minority group behaves, the MORE we must blame ourselves for it." (source) Perhaps the most succinct statement of the First Law.

* "The more racial problems are created by liberal race policies, the more racist whites are." (source)

* "Given the inverted standards introduced into race relations by the belief in equality, the less deserving a nonwhite actually is, the more deserving he thinks he is." (source) Another "variation" on the First Law.

* Here's the First Law expressed well in its three main variations:
"1. The worse a designated minority or non-Western group behave, the more they are praised and their sins covered up.
2. The worse a designated minority or non-Western group behave, the more racist it becomes to speak the truth about their behavior.
3. The worse a designated minority or non-Western group behave, the more their behavior must be blamed on white racism." (source)

In another post, I'll try to put together some of the instances in which I and others have had occasion to apply Auster's Law(s).

Posted by John Savage at 8:37 AM

Labels: Auster's Laws, Islam, political correctness, race, the Left

13 comments:

Terry Morris said...

John, good idea here.

You've mentioned Auster's law several times that I recall, but I've never had occasion (or, I've never taken the time) to read it. It's probably something that belongs under Select VFR Articles over at Webster's.

I've got to take the time to check out these articles.

-Terry
November 14, 2007 9:40 AM

Lawrence Auster said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
November 14, 2007 12:57 PM

John Savage said...

Mr. Auster,

You’re most welcome, and thank you for stating your one Law in its simplest form. I agree that all the formulations here can be stated as special cases of the one general case you’ve suggested.
November 14, 2007 1:52 PM

John Savage said...

Here's Mr. Auster's revised comment:

Dear Mr. Savage:

Thanks very much for accumulating these quotes. This is helpful. I’ve sometimes wondered myself whether there were several versions of “Auster’s First Law of MMRILS,” or just one Law with many variations. As I look over your collection, it’s clear to me that there is but one Law, and it’s simply this: that the more difficult or dangerous a minority or non-Western group actually is, the more favorably it is treated. This increasingly undeserved favorable treatment of an increasingly troublesome or misbehaving minority or non-Western group can take numerous forms, including celebrating the group, giving the group greater rights and privileges, covering up the group’s crimes and dysfunctions, attacking the group’s critics as racists, and blaming the group’s bad behavior on white racism.

Lawrence Auster
November 14, 2007 2:32 PM

Tanstaafl said...

And the corollary: Jews are the most favorably treated minority of all, therefore they are the most difficult and dangerous.

Or shall we just label such an observation anti-semitic and discard it?
November 14, 2007 11:13 PM

John Savage said...

Tanstaafl, I don't know where you got it in your mind that Jews are the most favorably treated of all. People are pretty much given a pass for their anti-Semitism if they're not white Christians.

I agree with your statement that most Jews seem to agree with the idea of making whites a minority, supposedly to prevent another Auschwitz that way. But I tend to agree with Auster that that's irrational for them because they're importing people who are more anti-Semitic than the original WASPs.
November 15, 2007 8:36 AM

Tanstaafl said...

Nobody gets a "free pass" for anti-semitism, it's the one PC no-no that strictly applies even to those who get a free pass for anything else. It is so potent that it is sometimes brought to bear against those who simply don't support Israel, don't like neocons, or question the Holocaust.

You cannot oppose mass immigration for very long before you are forced to notice the overwhelming support for it coming from some of our most powerful institutions: media, academia, business, and politics. It is more difficult to notice that Jews have a disproportionately large representation in each, and nearly impossible to discuss what that may mean, without being called an anti-semite.

Do Jews overwhelmingly support mass immigration? How is it rational for them to do so? Do they support Israel? Do they know what Israel's immigration policies are?

This is a line of questioning forbidden by PC. To see that it gives Jews an especially favored status all you have to do is substitute "Mexicans" and "Mexico" for "Jews" and "Israel" in the statement above. Both statements violate PC, but which statement is more forbidden that the other?
November 15, 2007 2:18 PM

John Savage said...

Tanstaafl, I fail to see how Jewish liberals are any different from any other liberal. Sure, "anti-Semite" is used against people who are not anti-Semites, but how is that any different from liberals falsely calling, say, Bush a hater of black people?

I would say that the argument about Israel's immigration policy is equally un-PC if you replace "Israel" with any other non-Western country. Liberals will dismiss your concern with Mexico's immigration policy just as readily.

So the only difference I see is that Jews are a powerful minority for their size, whereas other minorities are not as powerful. It isn't a reason to be anti-Semitic, in my view, rather than just anti-liberal.
November 15, 2007 2:54 PM

Tanstaafl said...

You accept MMRILS. You accept that Jews are a minority. Yet you do not accept that MMRILS applies to Jews. You appear to be treating them favorably even while denying that they are favorably treated.

I can make two related points in Auster's terms:

Those who accept MMRILS but deny the favoritism of anti-anti-semitism appear to be making an Unprincipled Exception. (Whose restriction to "liberals" must be loosened in order to apply here.)

Condemnation of anti-semites (by your definition anyone who takes their refinement of anti-liberalism too far and names its components) is an example of Criticizing Those To Your Right. (Which Auster has complained of many times but I cannot find a formal definition of.)
November 15, 2007 3:28 PM

John Savage said...

Tanstaafl, "Criticizing Those To Your Right" is a straw man. Everyone does it. Anyone who defines his position clearly is going to say, "These people are to the Left of me, and these people are to the Right of me. Here's where I am on the spectrum." I doubt you can prove to me that Auster has condemned "criticizing those to one's right". He too has criticized anti-Semites in much harsher terms than have I. For example, he criticized Jared Taylor for refusing to ban anti-Semites from the American Renaissance conferences. You are maintaining that somehow those to my right deserve immunity from criticism, and I maintain that no one deserves immunity from criticism.

Auster has complained of people excluding him from discussions or slandering him because in their minds, he's too far to the Right. I am not doing such a thing. I am not excluding you from the discussion, and I would have thought twice about calling you an anti-Semite had you not called yourself one already.

Regarding Jews, I admit they are treated favorably, though I maintain less favorably than other minorities. (See my post on the Hierarchy of Entitlement, for example.) I agree that this should not happen, and that there are many false accusations of anti-Semitism made (including against me). I agree that false accusations of anti-Semitism should stop. But you still claim I'm showing favoritism toward Jews, I suppose because you believe that Jews belong at the top of my Hierarchy of Entitlement. So in your mind, I'm denying that MMRILS applies to Jews, but I maintain that I'm not.
November 15, 2007 4:00 PM

Tanstaafl said...

Auster says:

However, the issue still comes down to white guilt, since, whether whites consider themselves guilty or consider other whites guilty, white guilt is still what it's all about.

Anti-anti-semitism is one manifestation of white guilt. I assert that it is in fact the most prominent.

To see this all you have to do is review the most notable things Whites are collectively blamed for - the Holocaust, slavery, Manifest Destiny. Of them all which source of guilt is most likely to be accepted even by White conservatives?

I agree with you that no person or group should be above criticism. That's exactly why I bristle at anti-anti-semitism. I see it as an attempt to shut down criticism rather than refute it.

There are several similar slurs - sexism, racism, nativism, fascism - intended to achieve similar purposes. However, the unique power of the very specific slur of anti-semitism is clear if you notice that even many of those who refuse to cower when tagged with any of those other labels will resort to tagging others with the anti-semitism slur.

Since you can say that MMRILS applies to Jews all we would seem to disagree on is how favorable their treatment is. I say it is greatest of all. You claim it is lesser than others.

Your HoE essay doesn't mention Jews. I would appreciate if you could further and more directly support your argument as I have mine. I'm curious to see how your metric of who rapes who works out when applied to a group for which it is not even politically correct to note membership. Or how the hierarchy might shape up if it were based on a metric of say proclivity for financial and political power while enjoying relative immunity from scrutiny.

November 15, 2007 5:28 PM
I cited this discussion in White Nationalism and Anti-Semitism which I wrote a week or so afterward. At that time I was disappointed Auster had not joined the discussion John and I had about his MMRILS, but he was obviously very busy maintaining his blog.

In the post on White Nationalism Auster came up again, both because Mencius Moldbug mentioned him and because by that time I had begun to see a blind spot, even a favoritism for Jews, in both of their writings. So I said so. I stand by my mini-critique of Auster's critique of Pat Buchanan. By that point in time I had not only come to realize just how irrational, unproductive, and thoroughly liberal the anti-anti-semite routine is. I had just noticed one icon of the anti-PC right using it on another. The inconsistency and unfairness of this made me angry.

Also on the White Nationalism post a commenter calling himself Colin Laney described Auster as a Jewish "safety valve for awakening gentiles". Leaving aside whether this is rude or unfair...is it true? Does Auster help White conservatives partially understand and vent their frustrations with the insane consequences of liberalism, neoconservatism, and political correctness while actively discouraging them from assigning any blame to Jews? Nobody but Auster will ever know his intentions for sure, but by reading what Auster writes about Jews and anti-semitism any thinking person can decide for themselves.

I believe Auster is a philo-semite. He favors Jews. On his blog he openly speaks in favor of White interests and against the various forms of liberal insanity that threaten Whites, but to my knowledge (and I admit I have not read everything he has ever written) he has not (except see below) discussed Jewish influence over that insanity and their relative exemption from it. Even when obvious opportunities arise he passes them by. As illustrated by the examples cited below, when the subject comes up outside his tightly-controlled blog he quickly and needlessly resorts to innuendo, distortion, and insults. His logic on the subject is exceedingly thin.

Ultimately my criticism of Auster, and any other pundit, is this: How can you honestly comprehend or describe the structure of power in the liberal dominated West while neglecting to consider and account for, out loud and at length, the disproportionate involvement and influence of Jews? There are many related issues. Why are they taboo? The answer is PC. Why does a thinker who so often decries PC and its defamatory tactics use such tactics himself? I'd like to know.

- - -

On Friday morning I visited Auster's site and among other posts read this one. Then I clicked over to Vanishing American, where I made the following comment on a post titled Tancredo supporters, what now?:
There is something more behind the odd behavior of Gilchrist, Simcox, and Tancredo.

And now Auster is making odd anti-Paul statements. What does he stand for? The only non-liberal, non-neocon left to vote for is Paul. But Auster says Lew Rockwell and Michael Scheuer are "anti-American", therefore don't vote for Paul. Is this about anti-semitism? Is Auster using the same "guilt by association" and "criticism of those to your right" he chafes at so often?
Tanstaafl | Homepage | 12.21.07 - 9:38 am | #
At the time I referred to it Auster's post was much more terse than it is now. It described Lew Rockwell and Michael Scheuer as "anti-American" without saying why, and by association with them was pretty clearly knocking Ron Paul. For the record I don't remember Auster writing "don't vote for Paul" or even that he wouldn't vote for Paul, so I regret and apologize that I distorted it that way.

In reading my comment now I can see it comes across as cynical and accusatory. I suppose it is. Some of the most prominent anti-immigration leaders have suddenly abandoned or shifted their position and weakened the cause. Concurrent with that Lawrence Auster, who saw the immigration problem clearly 17 years ago, snipes at Ron Paul, the one remaining candidate that our rotten rabidly open border media really truly hates. For that fact alone Ron Paul deserves the benefit of the doubt from anyone, like Auster, who supports US sovereignty.

If you're familiar with the idea of Schadenfreude then know that all this - the anti-semitism, the anti-anti-semitism, Auster's criticism of Paul, my criticism of Auster - gives me the opposite feeling.

Ernest and Vanishing American curtly agreed with my comment about Auster, after which Auster posted the following:
There are some dumb, thoughtless comments in this exchange about my statements and intentions. Re Romney, I've been all over the place and have entertained a variety of views. I've also said clearly and repeatedly that I don't think I could vote for anyone who appeared in the Spanish language debate. That would include ALL the GOP candidates except for Tancredo.

Re Paul, I explained why I have not been interested in him, why I personally have tended to tune him out and thus don't know that much about him. That's not the same as an attack or a smear. In fact shortly after that post I posted something by Paul.

As for the accusation by "Tanstaafl" (a moniker I strongly advise he get rid if he wants people to take him seriously), far from accusing Paul of anti-Semitism, I very forcefully defended him from that charge a few months ago and harshly condemned Ramesh Ponnuru and Ryan Sager for making it based on almost non-existent evidence:

http://amnation.com/vfr/archives...ves/ 007852.html
Lawrence Auster | Homepage | 12.22.07 - 6:20 am | #
To which I responded:
Dumb, thoughtless, I should change my moniker? If I weren't so dumb and thoughtless I might be silenced by such empty ad hominem.

The fact is Larry that some of what you say doesn't make sense. You rail day in and day out about "liberalism" and decry the leftist tactics of guilt by association and criticizing those to your right. And then, not only do you occasionally use those tactics yourself, you use the cases where you've previously decried those tactics to defend yourself!

One of these days I'm hoping you'll explain why you think anyone who isn't a philo-semite is perforce an anti-semite who should be shunned. Or perhaps you could cite an essay you've already written that addresses such concerns.

On a related note I'd like to see you square your so-called "First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society" with your exemption of Jews from criticism. But I see now you've answered on the John Savage post where I first raised this question, so I'll make further comments there.
Tanstaafl | Homepage | 12.22.07 - 12:29 pm | #
Auster then responded:
Tanstaafl writes:

"One of these days I'm hoping you'll explain why you think anyone who isn't a philo-semite is perforce an anti-semite who should be shunned. Or perhaps you could cite an essay you've already written that addresses such concerns."

Tanstaafl's comments are so off-base to anyone familiar with my writings that he discredits himself. I've dealt with people like him many times before and they're absolutely predictable. They start off complaining about the terrible unfairness of the anti-semitism charge, an argument that sounds sort-of, kind-of rational, so you can't immediately dismiss them. But if you stay in the discussion with them, they quickly reveal where they're really coming from.

Happily, since T. is not posting at my site, I don't have to deal with him any further. He's all yours, VA.
Lawrence Auster | Homepage | 12.22.07 - 2:52 pm | #
I went to John Savage's MMRILS post and discovered that the discussion had briefly continued weeks ago, weeks after I had given it up for dead:
Lawrence Auster said...

I just came upon this exchange and want to reply to the points made by Tanstaafl (which frankly sounds like a neo-Nazi moniker).

Tanstaafl is just wrong to say that the First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society is about Jews and that I'm covering that up. The First Law is about conspicuously different minorities who are perceived as minorities, and who are perceived as dysfunctional, unassimilable, alien or hostile. Since Jews are not generally seen these ways, except by anti-Semites, the First Law does not apply to Jews, though some aspects of it may apply some of the time.

When I say this, I am not covering up the fact that there is a Jewish problem because that is something I often talk about. But I believe in the need to talk about it rationally. The Jewish problem—not the Jewish problem of the Jew haters, but the real Jewish problem—consists in the fact that Jews are a distinct people who because of their energy and talents tend to become dominant in culturally influential areas of society. This leads to the problem that a small minority group begins to become the definer of cultural standards for the majority. For the most part, this is not due to any Jewish racial agenda or conspiracy, as Kevin McDonald would have it, rather it is just built into the fact of Jewish distinctiveness combined with Jewish talents. But even though the situation is not anyone's fault, it is not a healthy situation. The way the problem can be resolved, as I've said many times, is by the majority recovering and maintaining its majority identity, functions, and authority, and thus requiring minorities to conform to the majority's standards.

It used to be this way in America. A classic example is the Golden Age of Hollywood. The movie industry was largely a Jewish creation, yet the Jews of Hollywood loved the majority culture and elevated its ideals. For example, the beautiful MGM movies of the late '30 and early '40s that were set in England and were imbued with an English atmosphere (so that it's hard to believe the movies were made in Los Angeles), were the brain child of Louis B. Mayer, head of MGM. Contrast that with today, when many of the Jews of Hollywood, such as Steven Spielberg, are self-consciously alienated from the majority culture and seek to tear it down. An example is "Saving Private Ryan," in which the elderly Ryan, re-visiting Normandy in his old age, is bizarrely portrayed as a broken down figure overwhelmed with guilt. That's the way alienated leftist Jews want to portray the Christian majority.

What is the solution? There is no quick solution, but there is a solution. The majority needs to rediscover itself and start acting like the majority again and start setting the standards for America. Once a new elite was in place setting different and better standards than what we have now, the viciously anti-American movies that are now standard fare in Hollywood would cease being made.

In short, the Jewish problem can be solved, and Jews can function, as they have in the past, as a minority that has a certain distinctiveness and yet conforms itself to the standards of the majority culture.

It is not the same with, say, Muslims. Muslims cannot be conformed to our culture. The relationship between Muslims and our culture is of an entirely different order from the relationship between Jews and our culture. Jews are assimilable. Muslims are not. The fact that that a major non-Western group is unassimilable to our culture is not acceptable to the liberal consciousness, which must cover it up. And thus we arrive at the First Law. The First Law applies to dysfunctional and unassimilable groups, it does not apply to functional and assimilable groups.

To try to make the First Law be about Jews—and especially, in Tanstaafl's treatment, be primarily about the Jews—hopelessly confuses the issue. It is but another illustration of how anti-Semites, because they see all issues through the filter of the Jewish issue, cannot see any issue truly. Their lunatic obsesssion with Jews as the source of all evil makes them intellectual cripples who are incapable of defending the civilization they supposedly want to defend.
November 30, 2007 8:25 PM

W.LindsayWheeler said...

I want to support the thesis of tansfaafl and rebute Mr. Austers' assessment that "the Jews are not seen as a minority".

Mr. Auster is right in one aspect, that in PROTESTANT countries, Jews are not seen as a minority or a disruptive minority BUT in CATHOLIC countries, Jews are a disruptive minority. There is a whale of a difference. Protestantism is akin to Judiasm. Protestants, in their 'sola scriptura' mirror Judiastic thinking. So, Protestants view Jews as fellow brothers and not a disruptive minority. Christian Zionism is overwhelmingly, like the British-Israelitism heresy, is purely Protestant.

In Old Catholic Countries, Jews are a disruptive minority and are to be segregated and be restricted in their rights.

In "Auster’s First Law of MMRILS", the practice would be different under what religion.
December 1, 2007 9:40 AM
Only after writing the following did I discover that the original thread was closed. In the end it was the desire to make this response that prompted me to gather all the things above and string them together. I apolgize for any repetition, this is by now getting very long and tiresome, I realize:
Tanstaafl is just wrong to say that the First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society is about Jews and that I'm covering that up.

You misrepresent my position. I did not claim that MMRILS is about Jews, or that you are covering this up. I made the assertion that I believe your MMRILS should apply also to Jews.

The First Law is about conspicuously different minorities who are perceived as minorities, and who are perceived as dysfunctional, unassimilable, alien or hostile. Since Jews are not generally seen these ways, except by anti-Semites, the First Law does not apply to Jews, though some aspects of it may apply some of the time.

By this logic, since any minorities who are perceived as minorities, and who are perceived as dysfunctional, unassimilable, alien or hostile are not generally seen these ways, except by racists, one could say that your First Law doesn't apply at all.

It's your Law. You can define it however you like. I find it a valuable insight that reveals an unpleasant truth. The problem is to assert this truth one must accept that those in denial or who knowingly benefit from ignorance will smear you as a racist. Your original definition:

The worse any designated minority or alien group behaves in a liberal society, the bigger become the lies of Political Correctess in covering up for that group.

didn't hinge at all on "dysfunctional and unassimilable". The variations you've made since show that the idea is somewhat flexible.

As with the "racism" smear, likewise "anti-semitism". Even if perceiving Jews as a dysfunctional, unassimilable, alien or hostile minority earns you the label "anti-semite", so what? That doesn't explain why Jews require special exception from criticism. Is it not an Unprincipled Exception to say that they do? Is it not criticizing someone to your right to insult and dismiss someone as an anti-semite for even making these arguments?

When I say this, I am not covering up the fact that there is a Jewish problem because that is something I often talk about. But I believe in the need to talk about it rationally. The Jewish problem—not the Jewish problem of the Jew haters, but the real Jewish problem—consists in the fact that Jews are a distinct people who because of their energy and talents tend to become dominant in culturally influential areas of society. This leads to the problem that a small minority group begins to become the definer of cultural standards for the majority.

You state the Jewish Question forthrightly here. Thank you. I have been reading your blog on a daily basis for months, and have read many of your older writings there and at other sites. I'm afraid I cannot agree that you talk about this problem much. Not in such frank terms, and certainly not often.

For the most part, this is not due to any Jewish racial agenda or conspiracy, as Kevin McDonald would have it, rather it is just built into the fact of Jewish distinctiveness combined with Jewish talents.

Kevin MacDonald does openly talk and theorize about Jewish influence, its causes and effects. Do you agree that he talks about it rationally? Do you acknowledge that he has been irrationally demonized, especially by Jews and Jewish organizations, as is virtually anyone who criticizes Jews, rationally or not?

The First Law applies to dysfunctional and unassimilable groups, it does not apply to functional and assimilable groups.

To try to make the First Law be about Jews—and especially, in Tanstaafl's treatment, be primarily about the Jews—hopelessly confuses the issue. It is but another illustration of how anti-Semites, because they see all issues through the filter of the Jewish issue, cannot see any issue truly. Their lunatic obsesssion with Jews as the source of all evil makes them intellectual cripples who are incapable of defending the civilization they supposedly want to defend.


I have not proposed that your First Law is "primarily about Jews" and I do not "see all issues through the filter of the Jewish issue". I understand and agree with your Law, and have argued that it applies to Jews just as well as any other minority. Best of all in fact. I provided simple, rational reasons why.

It is your rationale that is confusing. You exclude Jews based on words not present in fact or spirit in many variations of your definition. Your labeling me an "intellectual cripple" is unjustified, as is the assumption that I have a "lunatic obsesssion with Jews as the source of all evil".

Jews played an enormous role in creating the liberalism that poisons our society with its PC lies. They play an ongoing role in perpetuating it. Would you agree that non-Jewish Whites have legitimate reasons to see this as "bad behavior"? Jews have benefited greatly from the protection afforded them and all the other "minorities" by PC. Would you agree that it is reasonable to propose that these observations together conform to the spirit of the two halves of your MMRILS law?

I value the opinions of those, like yourself, who challenge PC. I'm curious why some, like yourself, go to a certain point and stop. You seem intelligent and forthright on so many other issues. Why do you stoop to PC ad hominem when an otherwise rational discussion turns to criticism of Jews? Why do you distort and extremify the positions of those who, like myself, don't give any special dispensation to Jews?

Perhaps you'll write about this. We need more open discussion of this problem that goes beyond calling people names.
Perhaps Auster actually will respond. I invited him to do so on VA's thread.

To clearly see the Jewish problem (also called the Jewish Question) requires that you realize and accept that Whites and Jews are not the same group and their group interests do not entirely coincide. But this is yet another truism that is difficult to calmly discuss in the face of hysterical anti-anti-semitism and totalitarian PC. I do not say that Whites are the master race and Jews are subhuman. I do not say that I want to exterminate Jews. I do not secretly crave such things and I resent anyone who projects their own imagined hatreds into my head.

What I do say is that a person cannot be both Jew and White at the same time. It appears to me that where the interests of Whites and Jews diverge Auster prefers Jewish interests. That's fine. Being an ostensibly White opinion shaper I'd just like him to be more clear on this point. From his swift and negative dismissal of my comments so far it seems in a way that he has.

It hardly matters what I think, but I side with Whites. I do not oppose other groups discussing their interests. I am against Whites being prevented from discussing their interests, for any reason, including when it contradicts Jewish interests. That's my view from the right of Lawrence Auster.

UPDATE, 24 Dec 2007: Auster has responded. Rather than answering my arguments and clarifying the positions of his which I have questioned he continues to focus instead on smearing me personally. Beyond that his response illustrates very clearly the inconsistencies I think most relevant here, and I encourage anyone concerned with White interests to read what he writes.

Auster claims to be concerned with White interests when he in fact pursues Jewish interests. That is now clear to me. To the extent those interests overlap his pretense works, it is where those interests conflict that he is revealed. I've never seen him get so worked up about anti-Whitism. I've never seen him attack with such venom someone he thought was being anti-White. To so self-righteously and summarily dismiss my arguments as anti-semitic, on that basis alone, he must strongly identify as a semite and consider those interests superior to all others. QED.

Speaking of me he says:
He's someone who thinks that if I fail to join him in his anti-Semitism, that shows a troubling inconsistency in my thought.
This is an interesting and by its repeated occurrence I daresay deliberate distortion. I have just reiterated one troubling inconsistency above. It is not about him not being an anti-semite, it has to do with not being open about being a philo-semite.

There is another inconsistency, the contrast in his attitudes about racism and anti-semitism, that a comment from his correspondent Tom M. triggers him to highlight:
Regarding the "I am attacked for not being an anti-Semite" thread, hasn't the term "anti-Semite" become an all-inclusive, imprecisely defined word, used for effect the way "racist" is being used? Whether one has good reasons for making racial distinctions or not, the label "racist" is used to undercut any rational discussion of race. Likewise hasn't the label "anti-Semite" become a description to stop at any cost a rational consideration of the effects of influential Jewish persons and their thought processes on society?
Auster's answer to this is that the only proper path is to very carefully separate what is rational and legitimate criticism from that which is not. He then calls Tom M. an anti-semite for not professing philo-semitism. This is rational? This is legitimate?

I prefer my way. I openly state my loyalties and interests. I openly state who I think operates against my interests. I am not concerned whether people smear me as a racist or an anti-semite. I am not going to waste my time writing "some of my best friends are..." apologia to try and convince anyone that I am neither. I hold no ill will toward anyone due simply to the color of their skin or the genes in their cells. I will however hold them responsible for the thoughts they express, and especially for their actions. I possess the faculties to recognize who operates against me and my kin, for whatever reasons they choose to do so. I will openly call them out, and I will act in self defense. If you consider that a crime then you are certainly an enemy.

You can question whether this position is rational, especially since it may not make good tactical sense. You can question whether it is legitimate, especially since I speak for only one person, myself. You can question anything else about me you dislike. What I suspect Mr Auster dislikes most is that his calling me an anti-semite is not enough to shut me up. My response is: I know what I am, the question is what are you?

UPDATE, 24 Dec 2007 #2: Auster has written some more. No answer to my points. He is more interested in speculating about my pseudonym. Really. He says my thinking works like an anti-semitic computer program.
At the core of the program is the false epiphany: "Now I see it! The Jews are responsible for everything that has gone wrong with the West, the Jews are the enemy, and everyone is covering this up, and I alone have the courage to reveal this truth and call the Jews to account."
So he thinks I'm an automaton. An inferior whose arguments he must exaggerate in order to make them sound unserious. I think this means I will not be getting any substantive answer.

This automaton has read and comprehended enough of Auster's own logic to find what it thinks are some real problems. It has expressed opinions using Auster's own terminology and asked him for clarification. Surely such a lowly automaton could be easily corrected.

Instead Auster supplies yet another lesson in how anti-anti-semitism works. Cry anti-semitism! Treat the person criticizing Jews as if they are insane. A reasonable alternative - that many Jews have acted against White interests, that they have covered it up, and that others have said the same things because those things are objectively true - is apparently too far-fetched to accept.

Here's the program for anti-anti-semitism:
while (detect(criticism_of_jews))
    output("Anti-Semitism!");
In Auster's case it seems to be stuck in what programmers call an infinite loop.

Merry Christmas!

UPDATE, 25 Dec 2007: Auster continues to confirm not only a pro-Jewish bias, but an unwillingness to be forthright about it. He jumps from one conclusion to the next without any self-awareness just how unserious (to use one of his favorite put-downs) he is revealing himself to be. I'm especially touched by the pile-on-the-ignorant-anti-semite comments from his peanut gallery. Honestly I expected either no response, or a terse reasoned response. I did not expect an ongoing babbling meltdown.

A correspondent tried to help him understand where "TANSTAAFL" comes from, something he could have easily discovered if he had googled tanstaafl or followed the link I provided in my original post. Auster knows it now, but in spite of this he says I really selected the name because it "sounds warlike and Germanic". Those weren't my thoughts (I said what I was thinking above) but this does at least explain why he's so obsessed with my pseudonym. If only he would use the energy he spends projecting and speculating futilely about what motivates me, and use it instead to respond to what I've actually written.

He brings up my MMRILS criticism, only to once again dismiss it on the basis that it is anti-semitic. He continues to ignore the rebuttal in this post. He will not admit that Jews are the minority that liberal political correctness protects most of all. Even while his own PC-based anti-anti-semitism demonstrates it. Amazing.

Then he takes my separatist notions and extrapolates what they mean, for Jews. This fellow who presents himself as a White Christian pundit is oddly capable of scanning my posts and focusing like a laser on any statement that contradicts Jewish interests, while missing the things I've said that contradict Latino and Muslim interests and the pro-White basis from which I argue. Frankly I don't need his lectures about why Whites are fleeing California.

I freely admit that in retrospect it took me an embarrassingly long time to realize that Jews lobbied long and hard for non-White immigration, and that it isn't Latinos or Muslims who are wildly overrepresented in the rabidly open borders media, it is Jews. To me this is evidence that these facts are not discussed openly enough. That Auster finds these observations antithetical to Jews means that for him the truth matters less than what he thinks is good for Jews.

UPDATE 24 Jan 2008: The conversation continues here.

Labels: ,

white

112 Comments:

Blogger bolingbroke said...

A good discussion of an issue that's bothered me as well for some time. It is most curious how Auster, who is generally able to deal with an issue in calm and rational terms appears to have a major blind spot when it comes to the Jewish Question. As KMD remarks, it's very difficult to argue with someone who refuses to acknowledge the depth of his ethnic investment in the issue under discussion. When Jews are at issue, or at least when a non-Jew brings up the negative consequences of Jewish behaviour, Auster almost invariably resorts to ad hominem bullying and insults.

A major part of the problem here is the whole history of white nationalism in America. By redefining themselves back in the 17th century as "whites", Anglo-Saxons made a heavy rod for their own back. Not only did they become dependent on the state to preserve their "white skin privileges" vis-a-vis Negroes and Indians, they also opened the door to free-riders from any other ethnic group that could pass as "white." From the Irish, through the Italians, to the Jews the ethnics glommed onto the political/economic/social infrastructure created by Anglo-Saxons to promote their own interests, all the while denigrating Amglo-Saxons and seeking to overturn their hegemony.
Jews, of course, were the most obviously successful group in employing that strategy.

Now that the corporate welfare state has become dysfunctional and hostile to Anglo-Saxon interests, Anglo-Saxons should reject the "white" label and begin to develop institutions that nurture their own ethnocultural identity and protect their own ethnic interests. In other words, Anglo-Saxons should take a leaf out of the Jewish book: the question we should be asking ourselves everyday and every way is simply: Is it good for the Anglo-Saxons? If not, we're agin it! Only then will Jews and other aggrieved minorities be compelled to respect (and fear) us.

12/23/2007 01:46:00 PM  
Blogger bolingbroke said...

A good discussion of an issue that's bothered me as well for some time. It is most curious how Auster, who is generally able to deal with an issue in calm and rational terms appears to have a major blind spot when it comes to the Jewish Question. As KMD remarks, it's very difficult to argue with someone who refuses to acknowledge the depth of his ethnic investment in the issue under discussion. When Jews are at issue, or at least when a non-Jew brings up the negative consequences of Jewish behaviour, Auster almost invariably resorts to ad hominem bullying and insults.

A major part of the problem here is the whole history of white nationalism in America. By redefining themselves back in the 17th century as "whites", Anglo-Saxons made a heavy rod for their own back. Not only did they become dependent on the state to preserve their "white skin privileges" vis-a-vis Negroes and Indians, they also opened the door to free-riders from any other ethnic group that could pass as "white." From the Irish, through the Italians, to the Jews the ethnics glommed onto the political/economic/social infrastructure created by Anglo-Saxons to promote their own interests, all the while denigrating Amglo-Saxons and seeking to overturn their hegemony.
Jews, of course, were the most obviously successful group in employing that strategy.

Now that the corporate welfare state has become dysfunctional and hostile to Anglo-Saxon interests, Anglo-Saxons should reject the "white" label and begin to develop institutions that nurture their own ethnocultural identity and protect their own ethnic interests. In other words, Anglo-Saxons should take a leaf out of the Jewish book: the question we should be asking ourselves everyday and every way is simply: Is it good for the Anglo-Saxons? If not, we're agin it! Only then will Jews and other aggrieved minorities be compelled to respect (and fear) us.

12/23/2007 01:47:00 PM  
Blogger John Savage said...

Tanstaafl, I think you are being very fair here. I myself am losing patience with Auster's refusal to respond to points of view that he perceives as being to the Right of himself. I sent him a comment a few days ago in which I asked why, if blacks were an unassimilable minority, he didn't advocate separating from them. It seems like he has a double standard in which new minorities (Hispanics, Muslims) are intolerable, but the influence of old minorities has to be tolerated, no matter how negative it is. You have suggested a reason why: he fears that Jews wouldn't be tolerated either. So you're right that this is a serious weakness in his thinking. And his arrogance in ridiculing your screen name is telling.

I may post my rejected comment over at VA's forum once I am ready to get back into blogging more often. Nice post!

12/23/2007 05:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Schopenhauer said...

A question: you see Jews or Jewish interests as being inimical to white majority interests, and you insist that this needs discussion, and that there's no underlying hatred of Jews or a wish to do them harm. Now it seems to me that Nazis had a rational (to them) criticism of Jews as a group, yet they manifestly did wish them harm, and succeeded in their wishes. How would you answer someone who pointed out what I just did? In what way is your claim that Jewish interests are fundamentally at odds with majority American interests different from the Nazis' claim that Jewish interests were fundamentally at odds with German interests? I think this goes to the heart of the matter of the charge of anti-semitism.

12/23/2007 05:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

His arrogance in ridiculing your screen name is quite telling indeed. The ironic thing is the method by which he did it: he employed anti-anti-semitism and said TANSTAAFL sounds like a "Neo-Nazi moniker." Classic. Shut off all rational debate by accusing the other side of being a Nazi before you even get to writing. Thus, he behaved in the exact same illogical manner that he ascribes to his liberal enemies. Auster says anti-semites see the world through a one-issue lens. He does the same thing: through the lens of anti-anti-semitism.

12/23/2007 07:44:00 PM  
Anonymous adam said...

Enemies of the white race will welcome bolingbroke's proposal to Balkanize Whites into Anglo-Saxons, Celts, Italians, white Jews, etc., etc. Divide and conquer indeed. There are also cultural differences between Arabs, Persians and Turks, but they form one Muslim umma. If Bolingbroke thinks we can prevail through Balkanizing ourselves, he is one very poor strategist.

12/23/2007 09:12:00 PM  
Anonymous adam said...

This is not the first time that Tanstaafl has assured us that he does not want to exterminate Jews. I'd say that's putting the bar rather low. Tanstaafl, what measures WOULD you consider regarding Jews? You have written that 'not all Jews are our enemies'. Could you please indicate what you see as the identifiers of a non-enemy Jew, and what place such a person might properly occupy in white society? You have also mentioned "questioning the Holocaust". Could you identify to what extent you question it? (e.g., four million vs. six million, or something more fundamental?). Since you have called on Larry Auster to be more frank, it seems only fair to ask the same of you.

12/23/2007 09:17:00 PM  
Blogger bolingbroke said...

Adam suggests that Anglo-Saxons would balkanize the white race by asserting their own ethnocultural identity and pursuing their own interests. Why should it be more or less illegitimate for Anglo-Saxons than for Jews (or Italians, Irish etc) to protect their own distinctive interests and identity. Jews routinely go their own way-to the detriment of other "whites"-when it suits them.

And why not? I think they are often mistaken about where their true, long-term interests lie, but they certainly don't allow Anglo-Saxon feelings or concerns get in their way. But that's their judgement call.

Anglo-Saxons, on the other hand, have been notoriously less ethnocentric than just about any other group. White nationalism was the first form that civic nationalism or the "proposition nation" took in America. It was, in effect, a form of altruism on the part of Anglo-Saxons towards other "white" ethnies. It would be hard to conclude that Anglo-Saxons have reaped much in the way of rewards as a consequence of that self-sacrifice (certainly not in terms of ethnic genetic interests.)

Jews (with some honourable exceptions) have pursued a consistent,long term strategy of undermining Anglo-Saxon Protestant hegemony in American politics and society. I take it that Adam regards that as an acceptable form of balkanization. Apparently, Tanstaafl does not. Nor do I.

Indeed, the problem has developed to the point that the federal state created in their own image by Anglo-Saxons is now an alien force. That situation is due in no small measure to the determined efforts of non-Anglo-Saxon "white" ethnics to capture political power in order to advance their own particular interests. Anglo-Saxons have been the clear losers as a consequence of the free-riding behaviour of Jews, the Irish, Italians, Ukrainians etc. In Canada, the French have developed ethnic free-riding at the expense of Anglo-Saxons into an art form.

It really is time that Anglo-Saxons ceased to believe that cosmopolitan self-sacrifice on their part will ever be reciprocated. Our weakness is in fact one of the most important reasons that whites generally-with the notable exception of Jews- are losing ground to the non-white masses flooding into what Europeans still so quaintly refer to as the "Anglo-Saxon countries."

Anglo-Saxons should strive to become so self-conscious and so effective in asserting their interests in both the public and the corporate sector that everyone else will, once again, secretly wish that they, too, could be Anglo-Saxons.

Anglo-Saxons of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your sense of shame.

12/23/2007 09:57:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

schopenhauer and adam ask a valid question: what do I propose to do about Jews?

To answer in the proper depth requires more thought and words than I want to spend right now. In a word I would prefer separation over the lie we live now. I want all the squabbling racist, ethnic, nationalities other than White Westerners to leave (or be ejected from) the West and live amongst the race, ethnicity, or nation they love so much that they try to bring it with them to the West. I wish to restore the White nations, where Whites rule for the benefit of Whites. Let's start there.

Jews have a nation where Jews rule and Jews can argue with each other about what is best for Jews. Other groups have theirs. Whites used to have the security that comes with national sovereignity too. But then the Jews amongst the Whites helped convince Whites that this security was bad, immoral, unfair. It was not only Jews. A whole rainbow coalition convinced us it was not only White's duty to give up this security, but that Whites must subsidize their own extinction. That's what's going on when taxes are collected from Whites and the money is dispersed to "minorities". That's what's going on when our border is thrown open to an invasion of non-Whites. It makes no sense unless you see it as a way to accelerate the disabling, displacement, and eventual extinction of Whites. Whites and Jews who donate their own efforts to such a cause are evil enough. Those who have made it compulsory for everyone to fund this via government policy should be disclosed, tried, and executed for their treason.

But let's not put the cart before the horse. The first and foremost problem we have to deal with is the subject of this post: disclosure. Whites have a large problem right now because they are thoroughly infiltrated by Jews, a truly separate group which pretends to be exactly like Whites but works towards their own separate interests. This is complicated by the fact that most Whites and many Jews do not even recognize that the two groups are not identical - it is a thoughtcrime forbidden by PC.

In fact everything I've just said is forbidden by PC. White interests are not served by PC. Whites are public enemy #1 according to PC. Whites, to survive, must recognize this and reject PC. They have every right to root out and punish those who promote or defend PC. That's what I'd like to see happen.

12/24/2007 10:25:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

bolingbroke, I sympathize with Anglo-Saxons and other "old stock" Americans. What has been done to you and yours by the "nation of immigrants" rhetoric, both in the former colonies and in your homeland, is truly a crime.

The name Anglo-Saxon however itself reveals a mix of White subraces, so your desire to draw group lines there is somewhat arbitrary. Are you more Angle or Saxon? Or perhaps you have some Norman, Jute, or Danish blood? Today many Whites, including myself, are actually a thorough mix of several European subraces, many with some even more exotic traces as well. What we have in common is our Europeaness. Considering the powerful groups aligned against us, we'd best stand together.

The genetics Europeans share go far beyond the color of our skin. They encode our propensity for civilization, for law and order, for a fairness and creativeness. Other races, including Jews, do not share these qualities in the same proportions. They all have their own strengths and weaknesses, and they should be free to enjoy or suffer them amongst themselves, just as we should.

I find the idea that we can all mix into one coffee-colored kumbaya just as disgusting and impractical as the idea that we should only mate with our own cousins. Somewhere in between in a happy medium. It should include people with white skin free to have their civilization.

12/24/2007 10:56:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

adam, I'll tell you what I think about the Holocaust. I am no specialist on it, and I do not wish to focus my time and effort on it. I find arguing about it distracts from our pressing problems of today, but for those so inclined the freedom to do so should not be denied. It is only because some have been honest and brave enough to do this that I even say what I am about to. So for that I am thankful.

From the revisionist history I've read I think 6 million is an exaggeration. I think the Nazi intent to exterminate Jews has been distorted and misrepresented. The Madagascar Plan is not well known and contradicts popular perception of the Holocaust. I had not heard of this plan until just recently, in a chapter titled The Final Solution in this book, published by Jews. My "education" had previously led me to believe that from 1933 on the whole German people, whipped to a frenzy by a single-minded Hitler, went about busily implementing The Final Solution, which was to exterminate all Jews, from Germany first then Europe and then the world. In addition, even though I was born long after the war, outside Germany, being a non-Jew with white skin made me in part guilty and responsible. It is not permitted to question this. The best one can hope for is to sit in silence and hope to escape punishment. To say otherwise you prove only that you are a modern day Nazi who wants to rekindle The Final Solution.

Today this is the general perception of many Whites. It is wrong. Certainly relative to all the other people who were killed during the war (and in its wake) the singular focus on Jews is odd. The taboo on and even criminalization of questioning the Holocaust is wrong. As part and parcel of PC it should be discredited and rejected.

12/24/2007 11:42:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Thanks John.

If you could I'd appreciate if you'd add a link here from this post so anyone who reads it will also be able to read my rebuttal to Auster. Alternatively you could cut out just the portion of this post that contains my rebuttal and post it as a comment on that thread. Or not. But at any rate thanks for having an open mind.

12/24/2007 11:52:00 AM  
Blogger John Savage said...

I added a link.

I have been writing up a full post on why I'm running out of patience with Auster, but may not post it for a while. I'm not sure I'm up for a major argument right now. I would prefer to just enjoy my Christmas.

Merry Christmas to you too!

12/24/2007 01:09:00 PM  
Anonymous palmer said...

Auster said:
There is no quick solution, but there is a solution. The majority needs to rediscover itself and start acting like the majority again and start setting the standards for America. Once a new elite was in place setting different and better standards than what we have now...

A key question is: Is this possible or likely? How is it to come about? Will the commanding heights of the culture,economy,media,finance etc. be relinquished without substantial conflict?

12/24/2007 01:42:00 PM  
Blogger bolingbroke said...

The name Anglo-Saxon comes from a group of very closely related Germanic tribes which invaded Britain over 1500 years ago. They became a nation when they were converted to a Germanized Christianity by the Church of England. They are therefore a people with a common history, language, and religion.

Anglo-Saxons are in fact a race in Sailer's terms just as much as Jews ie a large, partly inbred, extended family. There has been significant exogamy in the USA and the other former British colonies but by and large Anglo-Saxons remain an identifiable group. Moreover, they have accumulated vast stores of biocultural capital and have innumerable sacred sites to which they can legitimately lay claim. Indeed, there is no group in the USA, the UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand that is better equipped in principle to play, and win, the game of identity politics.

Up to now, however, sticking together with other whites has meant in effect surrending Anglo-Saxon interests and identity to a hybridized and purely abstract "white" identity. That white identity as you acknowledge yourself turns out to rest on nothing more significant than skin colour. As a result, Jews, Arabs, Sicilians and mulatto Negroes can and do pass as whites. It is the identity you have when you're not having an identity. What they call in Australia a Clayton's identity.

White nationalism is a proven dead-end. It's been tried and has failed in the USA and Australia. Ethnically conscious Anglo-Saxons would have more to gain from a strategy aimed at recapturing the Church of England-the Anglican Church-from neo-communist control than through support for any conceivable white nationalist political party. Were the Anglican Church to become, once again, the Church of the Anglo-Saxons, we would begin to rival the Jews in terms of ethno-religious solidarity.

The question then would be: would a cohesive Anglo-Saxon diaspora with an interest in the fate of both the USA and the English homeland by better able to support the interests of all white people. So long as Anglo-Saxons remain a disunited, spiritually bankrupt people white nationalism is a recipe for racial suicide-as the experience of the USA amply demonstrates.

12/24/2007 01:52:00 PM  
Blogger Katrina said...

Sorry to take this conversation down a level but I'm just not as well read as the rest of you. I have a question. Do you differentiate between ethnic jews and people who by their own free will practice Judaism? What about white people who were born into a household that practiced Judaism? What about people who are part jewish?

And..where does religion fit into all of this?

12/24/2007 03:07:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Auster has answered, after a fashion. So I posted an update at the end of the original post.

12/24/2007 03:08:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Thanks John. Merry Christmas to you, and to my other vistors as well.

12/24/2007 03:09:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

palmer, you make a good point. To discuss it productively we must first be able to speak freely, without persecution.

12/24/2007 03:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Adam said...

Bolingbroke says (naively, to my mind) that pan-White solidarity won’t work but that if Anglo-Saxons kick the communists out of the Anglican church they (the Anglo-Saxons) will develop something like Jewish solidarity. He goes on to speculate, for reasons unknown to me, that I want to see Anglo-Saxon Protestant hegemony undermined by Jews. At any rate, now that he has rejected co-operation with Jews, Irish, Italians, Ukrainians and French Canadians – also presumably Spaniards, Poles, Catholic Germans, etc., etc. – he hasn’t got much left with which to confront the umma with. At this rate, his descendants will be answering the call to prayer five times daily – and it won’t be at the Anglican church.

12/24/2007 03:24:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

bolingbroke, again I sympathize. You certainly have a right to seek an England for Englanders, I wish you all well and support that goal.

I disagree however that my Whiteness is a purely abstract identity. Certainly the mestizos who call me a Pilgrim don't think so.

Hybridization does not imply that White nationalism is a proven dead end, it makes it more feasible than ever. We are all threatened. Rather than continuing to see ourselves as separate we can and should unite.

Jews are similarly fractured geographically and genetically as Whites are. Many, especially the most powerful in the West, are not religious. What binds them together most is the notion that they are a group, and that what is good for that group is good for them individually.

If Whites, whether Anglo-Saxon or other hybrids, want to escape extinction I believe we're going to have to think and act as a group.

12/24/2007 03:33:00 PM  
Anonymous adam said...

Well, we’re inching towards clarity. Tanstaafl has indicated that he favors the mass expulsion of Diaspora Jews to Israel and that he believes the Nazis’ intentions towards Jews have been misunderstood, presumably in a way that defames Nazis. Of course, the ‘honest and brave’ Holocaust revisionists praised by Tanstaafl are for the most part neo-Nazis.
He also suggests that he was deliberately misled into thinking that the entire German people were involved in the mass extermination of all Jews beginning in 1933 – a position I’ve never heard maintained by anyone, though Daniel Goldhagen comes close.

The “singular focus” on the killing of Jews from 1941-1945 is in fact easy to explain, since Jews and Gypsies were the only races marked for complete extermination, and frankly, most people know little and care little about the Gypsies. (And yes, there isn’t much of a Gypsy presence in the media). Obviously more non-Jews than Jews died during the war, but there is no evidence that the Nazis ever set out to exterminate the entire Russian people, for example. Perhaps they would have got around to it eventually, had they won.

In any case, it is striking that for someone who is a recent convert from PC-dominated thinking, Tanstaafl has the confidence to defend Nazism and call for Jewish deportations. Auster made a good point when said that, in the circumstances, Tanstaafl might do better to read and reflect more before identifying himself with such views. Frankly, he resembles the sort of person who one day discovers (say) Scientology and decides that it makes sense of everything.

12/24/2007 03:38:00 PM  
Anonymous adam said...

I see that in my post-before-last I failed in my haste to delete one of two 'with's from one sentence. Apologies to the grammar-minded.

12/24/2007 03:45:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

katrina, I have no criticism for Jews, or part-Jews, that spring from any practice of religion or ethnic customs. I don't oppose their acting in their own group interests. What I oppose is them keeping Whites from acting in their own interests. What I oppose is them acting against White interests while pretending they are White.

I oppose anti-anti-semitism, because it is, when directed at Whites, nothing more than pro-Jewish anti-White bigotry.

12/24/2007 03:57:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

adam, rather than psychoanalyzing me, especially since you like Auster seem prone to exaggerate in your extrapolations, perhaps you should stick to telling us what you believe, and where your loyalties lie.

The fact that I have had to overcome a lifetime's worth of brainwashing, and in doing so now have to suffer all sorts of impugnations of my morals does not convince me that I am mistaken. It leads me in exactly the other direction.

12/24/2007 04:06:00 PM  
Anonymous WLindsayWheeler said...

First of all, I don't use the word "white". I use the word European. There are many things that are "white" but not European and that is the Jew. The Jew is an unassimilating minority because they are first of all NOT European but Eastern. Europeans are Japthites and Jews are Semites. Jews are cursed with wandering in our nations. They are to wander and not assimilate.

On another blogger website, Voxday posted on the outing of Dumbledore as gay. But that is not the problem of Harry Potter series of JK Rowling. JK Rowling is a fellow traveller in communism and communism is a creation of the Jewish mindset in its de-racination ideology and its materialism.

The Jew must be segregated from the Christian and the West. We must afford them a place in our societies but must be restricted to a ghetto and be restricted in the jobs they can perform as was the constant teaching and practice of the Orthodox and Catholic Church.

In order to understand that, please see this of "Passion and Potter" by Voxday. When you go, press Ctrl+F, type in 'wheeler' and find all my posts on the subject. This should help you historically to understand the Jewish question and how much Jewish mentality and thinking has infiltrated much of our culture and society.

12/24/2007 06:12:00 PM  
Anonymous adam said...

Since you’ve invited me to state what I believe and where my loyalties lie, here’s a very hasty sketch:

The problem is liberalism. A disproportionate number of Jews are liberals (it hasn’t always been so). Non-Jewish liberals are equally objectionable. The Jewish love affair with liberalism is largely a matter of historical accident (see: Napoleon, the Czars).

You have noted that your own blood is mixed. So’s mine. Jews have lived in Europe since the late classical period. Just as some Jews assimilated, so some non-Jews “married in” before Christianity prohibited this. That’s presumably where I get my fair skin and blue eyes (in childhood I was so blond, my eyebrows were white). On first meeting people generally take me for German or Anglo-Saxon. To hear that I am ‘really’ Asiatic is pretty funny. Naturally, I never hear this from anyone Asiatic.

More to the point, I abhor PC as much as you do, and have disassociated myself from it for much longer than you have. Culturally I identify with pre-Trudeau Canada, where I grew up. That was, in fact, a predominantly Anglo-Saxon society (outside Quebec, of course). In larger terms, I identify with all English-speaking nations and, after that, with Europeans and their descendants as a whole – in short, with whites. I don’t practice Judaism. I don’t speak Hebrew or Yiddish. I have a Scots-Irish wife. I don’t participate in any ‘group evolutionary strategy’ aimed at advancing the interests of Jews at the expense of non-Jews (unless you count my unwillingness to move to Israel as such, but sorry, it’s not my country. I’m staying here, and if you want to get me out, you’ll have to be better armed than I am).

To avoid misunderstanding, I am not suggesting that you make an exception for fair-skinned Jews with non-Jewish spouses. As it happens, none of my Jewish friends, of whatever eye color, are involved in pursuing the ‘group evolutionary strategy’ MacDonald writes about. That’s not to deny that other Jews aren’t involved in such a strategy. Abe Foxman is, to give one of many examples. Of course, Teddy Kennedy is just as destructive. I can come up with a very long list of non-Jewish liberals of his kind. The problem, again, is liberalism.

It also may be worth pointing out that the proportion of liberal Jews is likely to diminish, because their families tend to be small, while non-liberal Orthodox Jews have large families. A hundred or so years from now, the typical North American Jew may look like something out of an old Polish shtetl – the others may be extinct, or nearly so. The Orthodox of course, present other problems of non-assimilability, but they’re like the Amish in being more separationist than subversive.

Your current ideological tack is bringing you support from people like wlindsaywheeler, the poster who wrote above: “Jews are cursed with wandering in our nations. They are to wander and not assimilate”. Do you really enjoy being in this sort of company?

12/24/2007 07:09:00 PM  
Anonymous WLindsayWheeler said...

Adam, in your response, you have not posted your religion. But there are big differences between races and that has to do with SOUL and not physical characteristics!

All history and reality is theological. If you read Deuteronomy Chap. 28, it says the Hebrews will be a blessing and a CURSE. It is right there in black and white. The Curse falls upon the Hebrews, Jews being the last extant tribe, when they stop hearkening to the Word of God. The punishment is to Wander. This is a curse placed upon all Hebrew Souls. Has NOTHING to do with genetics. This curse is Communal. And so the whole Jewish race participates in this curse whether they like it or not! and despite Baptism. The only thing that prevents the curse is the communal repentance and the beginning of the hearkening of the Jews to the Logos of God.

Europeans are a metaphysical people and hence Christianity is a metaphysical religion. The Jews have a difficulty in seeing metaphysically and in obeying the word of God. God is hounding the Jews thru history for their non-compliance to God. Who am I to stand in the way of God? Not I, and so I uphold and I hearken to the Word of God. And so I uphold what God has spoken of concerning the Jews, and if that makes me an anti-semite in your eyes---so be it. But The Word of God Be Done. And I will see it be Done! Let the rest of the Church be pusillanious in this regard---but I will not be. Truth requires courage, manliness. Truth requires facing reality.

God Cursed the Jews for not hearkening to His Word. For that they are to Wander! God has spoken, causa finita.

Lawerence Auster who is a Christianized Jew should recognize this! Mr. Auster supports the State of Israel---but where is that in orthodox, Traditional Christian teaching! The Jews have never been able to obey God. It is time they start. They have NO business being in Palestine! For this stance, Mr. Auster, deletes my emails. I uphold Traditional Christian teaching. Protestants do not.

12/24/2007 08:49:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

There is another update at the end of the original post.

12/24/2007 10:46:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

adam, I think liberalism is a problem, but it is not the only problem.

I do not share WLindsayWheeler's religious fervor, but I do share his respect for logos and truth.

12/24/2007 10:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Enjoy celebrating the birthday of the Jew you worship, you gang of ignorant fuckwits. All you are accomplishing with your pitiful whining is providing ammunition for ADL fundraising drives...so keep up the good work!

12/24/2007 11:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WLindsayWheeler writes: "Mr. Auster supports the State of Israel---but where is that in orthodox, Traditional Christian teaching!"

Come to think of it, vaccination isn't in orthodox Christian teaching either...I guess we'd better not have it.

Tanstaafl praises WLindsayWheeler's respect for truth, but doesn't say which truth. That Jews have no place in Palestine? Transtaafl had just said that Jews have no place anywhere but in Palestine. Putting the two statements together, I think we get a pretty clear picture of Tanstaafl's actual beliefs.

12/24/2007 11:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Having read the post here and Auster's response and reply to the post here, a few points of clarification, which I do not believe are controversial:

1) Regarding Tanstaafl's nickname: I have just bought a nice trade paperback re-issue of "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert A. Heinlein for a friend for an Xmas present. On the back, the blurb reads as follows, from publisher Tom Doherty Associates, New York:

"TANSTAAFL!" [in bold, large font]

This is followed by a quote from Tom Clancy, and three paragraphs of the main idea and impact of the novel. It ends with:

"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!" at the bottom.

In other words, the acronym is well-used, well-known and in wide circulation. Auster's comparison of it to an infamous SS' unit's name in German is a stretch, to say the least.

2) The Auster response and reply do not address the substance of Tanstaafl's remarks.

Agree with Tanstaafl or not, this is a fact.

Now, we all know that Auster is a quarrelsome fellow. He pulls no punches if he disagrees with you and quite likes mixing it up. Witness his recent exchange with NRO's Andy McCarthy, in which McCarthy's substantive and well-thought-out reply was met by Auster with a completely inappropraite "fisking" type response, as if McCarthy were an Ivy League English professor or an ACLU activist.

Yet, here, presented with a post from Tanstaafl, Auster cannot be bothered to respond, and, instead, resorts to insults.

Tanstaafl's case is far from having been made. But if Auster wants to refute it, he's going about it the wrong way.

12/25/2007 12:38:00 AM  
Anonymous desmond jones said...

In which pre-Trudeau Canada was Adam raised. The young PET or the old PET. What does doing away with liberalism mean? The Canadian Jewish Congress and the Jewish Labour Congress was in the forefront of the liberal agenda since the 1930s. Drummond Wren, the Racial Discrimination Act passed in the 40s in Ontario, the child of J.B. Salsberg who eulogised Stalin in the Ontario legislature upon his death; Dresden, whites were forced to serve blacks, and the hate proganda law, pushed by the CJC since first presented in 1953 to the House of Commons. The Cohen Committee led by Max Cohen and Saul Hayes. All these nfringements on Anglo freedoms in Canada, came before Trudeau was elected.

The Nazis are always discussed in a vacuum. There's never any mention of the mass murder by Lenin and Stalin and their Jews. It couldn't be that the Germans were in any way influenced by the stories of the overhelmingly Jewish Cheka crucifying priests on the the doors of their churches in the east.

Sever Plocker
Stalin's Jews

We mustn't forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish.

An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name "Genrikh Yagoda," the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU's deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin's collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system.


Bolingbroke- You are correct, WN or more aptly, white multiculturalism, has led the founding people, Anglos, to the brink of extinction in the US and the Old white Dominions. It matters little whether extinction is brought by mestizo or Slav the end result is still the same. Your problem is Anglo elites are not and probably never have been on your side. From Elizabeth, to Cromwell, Victoria to Disraeli, whether it be slaving, opium or diamonds, Anglo elites worked in concert with Jews to further their own ends. Their view of working class whites was no different than their view of non-whites.

12/25/2007 02:27:00 AM  
Anonymous WLindsayWheeler said...

I would like to answer the question that Jesus is Jew, Yes, the savior had to come from somewhere, but Christianity is a Greek/European religion. Jesus said himself in Matthew that the Faith will be taken away and given to another Nation. Christianity is a New Covenant and that means there is a New Wine skin. The New Wine Skin, that carries the New Wine, i.e. the Gospel, is Platonism/Hellenism.

For the Curse of wandering, see the Neturei Karta

"Among the claims they brought for this argument was a Talmudic discussion about portions in the bible regarding a pact made between God, the Jewish people, and the nations of the world, when the Jews were sent into exile. One provision of the pact was (1) that the Jews would not rebel against the non-Jewish world that gave them sanctuary; a second was (2) that they would not immigrate en masse to the Land of Israel. In return, the legend states, the (3) gentile nations promised not to persecute the Jews too harshly.[4] By rebelling against this pact, they argued, the Jewish People were engaging in open rebellion against God."

To say "where is that in traditional Orthodox Christianity" is foolishness. The Curse and the wandering are in the Hebrew Scriptures. In the Torah. It is right there in Deut. Ch. 28! What is expressed above by the Neturei Karta is common throughout the Jewish Diaspora before WWII. I believe WWII was partially instigated to change the Jewish mindset towards returning.

12/25/2007 08:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Schopenhauer said...

As long as we're smashing idols here, W. Lindsay Wheeler's statements of his beliefs are a load of mystic claptrap, and should be laughed out of court by anyone who takes the dissolution of America seriously. they are about as believable as Nazi racial "science".

12/25/2007 09:11:00 AM  
Anonymous adam said...

To Desmond Jones: Yes, of course there were communists (Jewish and non-Jewish) in Canada before 1968. My point was that the Canada that existed before that date and the Canada that has existed since are quite obviously different. If you want to push that back to 1963, that’s OK with me; I was never a fan of Lester Pearson.

Not being a Libertarian, I can’t get too exercised about Drummond Wren. Funny you mentioned J.B. Salsberg; he was my cousin, and indeed, he was Stalin’s bootlicking tool for over three decades. He didn’t make a single convert among the rest of the family, though. In what way do you think he was worse than his non-Jewish comrade Tim Buck? Trudeau, the great subversive, wasn’t Jewish either, or do you have other information? 

Yes, there were Jewish Chekists, but if you don’t hold the German people collectively responsible for the SS, why hold the Jews collectively responsible for the Chekists? Every group has its criminal element. Sadly for your thesis, neither Lenin nor Stalin were Jewish. As for excusing the SS because of what the Chekists did, that’s like excusing the Chekists because of what the pogromists did. The fact that there are always ‘root causes’ for pathological behaviour doesn’t excuse the behaviour. I don’t excuse either the Chekists or the SS; I loathe them both. You loathe Chekists but make excuses for the SS.

12/25/2007 10:44:00 AM  
Anonymous adam said...

By the way, the judgment in the Drummond Wren case was written by Mr. Justice Mackay, who wasn't Jewish either. (The curious may access the decision at http://faculty.law.ubc.ca/harris/documents/property/Re%20Drummond%20Wren.pdf).

12/25/2007 10:49:00 AM  
Anonymous adam said...

WLindsayWheeler: Obviously Jews and Christians differ on the meaning of Deuteronomy 28. On its face, it speaks of the importance of Jews observing the Old Law ("this book")and pronounces a number of curses (including scabs and fevers, in that charming Old Testament way) on Jews who fail to do so. But if the Old Law was extinguished or superseded following the Resurrection, it's hard to see how Deut. 28 would be of continuing relevance beyond that point. Since I'm not religious, it's all the same to me......!

12/25/2007 10:55:00 AM  
Anonymous adam said...

Anyway, gang, it's been fun, but as arguing with Jew-baiters is one of life's more futile endeavours, I'm outta here. I do hope you get over your, uh, little difficulty.

12/25/2007 11:02:00 AM  
Blogger Flanders Fields said...

Tan, I've just reviewed your post, which seems to be excellently done.
I'll have to spend more time reviewing your material as there seems to be a lot of it.

I will not state any conclusions or opinions at this time, other than to state that you are entirely proper to raise the questions you raise. Anyone who disagrees with your having done that is within the grips of political correctness and need to reexamine themselves if they don't recognize it.

So far as the details and conclusions, I'll comment after I've had the chance to review. Thanks for your initiative in presenting the issues.

12/25/2007 02:09:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Auster's still stuck in his infinite loop. (And I'm the automaton?) See the update.

12/25/2007 02:35:00 PM  
Anonymous WLindsayWheeler said...

Adam said, "it speaks of the importance of Jews observing the Old Law ("this book")and pronounces a number of curses (including scabs and fevers, in that charming Old Testament way) on Jews who fail to do so. But if the Old Law was extinguished or superseded following the Resurrection, it's hard to see how Deut. 28 would be of continuing relevance beyond that point.

No! Adam, the activation of the curse is open-ended. It says "Hearken to the Word of God". There is NO clarifications. The Jews have NO choice in the matter. (And this is what galls the Jews) Their forefathers handed them into covenant which future generations have NO choice in! They are obligated. If God said, Every Jew has to do a handstand in the corner of his room and wiggle his big toe---By God, every Jew would have to do a handstand in the corner of his room and wiggle his big toe.

Now, let's tackle the other problem of Adam, (1) part of Mosaic Law. No, the Curse is NOT part of the Mosaic law. It is part of the Covenant! Before the enaction of Moses said anything! (2) The idea that curses are done away with the ressurection? (Let's use the Socratic principle of consistency) Adam, is the pain of childbearing done away with? NO. That man must struggle for his living? NO. That Jesus took away the curse of Death? Do we still die after the Ressurection? Yes. So NO the immediate results of the curses are NOT militated in this world but in the next!

And this law is "mystic nonsense"? 2000 years of history AD proves you wrong. Second, the dastardly effects of Jewish Bolshevism and Cultural Marxism has been very very destructive on Western Culture! Mystic nonsense---boy for mystic nonsense--it sure has had a lot of consequences in the past, now and will be in the future--guaranteed.

12/26/2007 05:26:00 PM  
Anonymous adam said...

I don't know why WlindsayWheeler is attributing the phrase 'mystic nonsense' to me, since I never said it. Turning back to Deuteronomy 28: the curse, as I'd mentioned, not only includes dispersion throughout the nations of the earth, but also scabs and itching. To my knowledge, even antisemites have never alleged that Jews itch more than non-Jews. If the curse applies because of the Jewish 'failure' to accept Jesus as Messiah, then Jews should presumably be itching like crazy. Since they're not, the curse hasn't come to pass, or it can't mean what WLindsayWheeler says it means. In any case, most people -- Jewish and non-Jewish -- don't take the Bronze Age speculations of desert tribes with the same seriousness as WLindsayWheeler does; certainly Tanstaafl/Schutzstaafl doesn't. Finally, there have been many Christians who broadly accept WLW's interpretation of Deut 28, but who would never dream of using it to lend support to neo-Nazi plans for Jewish expulsion. Hilaire Belloc, for example, would have responded by praying all the harder for the conversion of the Jews -- not by egging Hitler on. WLW needs to examine his conscience.

12/26/2007 08:43:00 PM  
Blogger Howard J. Harrison said...

Well, look, Tanstaafl: many conservative American traditionalists like me will not join you in identifying Jews as cultural foes, but if Auster wants to call you ugly names instead of debating your views, then I don't know who he thinks he is impressing. His adoption against you of the very rhetorical methods of Political Correctness he claims to despise is ironic. Worse, it is pathetic.

You and I cannot make Auster make sense, nor can we prevent him from self-importance. Maybe we just need to ignore him until he settles down.

Howard

12/26/2007 08:54:00 PM  
Anonymous desmond jones said...

My point was that the Canada that existed before that date and the Canada that has existed since are quite obviously different.

The more important question is why. Moreover, it is more evident that the Canada that existed prior to WWII was much different from the post-war Canada.

Regardless of whether you are exercised about Drummond Wren or not it is clearly a significant turning point for the B’nai Brith.

In the legal area, the JPRC took a notable role in the Drummond Wren case, which arose in 1944. Wren represented the left-wing Workers’ Education Association, which had bought a Toronto property and then found that a restrictive covenant, including racial and ethnic discrimination, was attached to the property. Wren went to the JPRC, which agreed to take the case. JPRC lawyers J.M. Bennett, Professor Jacob Finkelman, Bora Laskin, and Charles L. Dubin, joined a larger legal team that argued the case before Justice Keiller Mackay. Justice Mackay’s courageous and creative decision struck down the restrictive covenant and even cited the Atlantic Charter and the United Nations Charter to show that the world and Canada had entered a new human rights era.

Courageous and creative because there was no precedent in law. There is no denying that Mackay was a traitor to his people. That is not the issue. It is recognition of the disproportionate involvement of Jewish interest groups who coordinated a full scale press against the Anglo/Franco host population, on humanitarian grounds, that really served their own ethnic interest.

In addition,

In 1944 the JLC (Jewish Labour Congess) had persuaded the TLC (Toronto & District Labour Council) to set up a permanent National Standing Committee on Racial Discrimination "to promote the unity of Canadians of all racial origins, and to combat and counteract any evidence of racial discrimination in industry in particular and in life in general."26

Himel was another nodal actor in the human rights community. He worked with the Workers’ Education Association and the CJC in the Drummond Wren case against restrictive covenants, served as lobbyist and legal counsel for the Committee for the Repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act...


BB also suggest that theMackay’s decision did play a role when the United States Supreme Court struck down restrictive covenants in Shelley v. Kramer.

The S v K decision allowed blacks to move into white neighborhoods in St. Louis. The result is that St. Louis is now one of the most dangerous cities in the U.S.

In what way do you think he was worse than his non-Jewish comrade Tim Buck?

Again, the issue is not who is worst. Buck was also a traitor to his ethnic group. However, Buck was never elected. He lost to another Jewish socialist Abe Heaps in Winnipeg. It’s the disproportionate number of Jewish interests that utilised the umbrella of communism to further their ethnic interests. Interesting to note that Sam Lipshitz, the UJPO (United Jewish Peoples Organisation) and Salsberg abandoned their commitment to Soviet Communism when they discovered Stalin had purged much of the Jewish leadership after WWII. However, the extermination of 20 million Christians seemed of little relevance to Yossele’s support for Uncle Joe.

Trudeau, the great subversive, wasn’t Jewish either, or do you have other information?

Who said Trudeau was Jewish? When young he ascribed to the French Catholic nationalism of Charles Maurras, who Auster would undoubtedly quantify as an anti-Semite.

Yes, there were Jewish Chekists, but if you don’t hold the German people collectively responsible for the SS, why hold the Jews collectively responsible for the Chekists?

Interestingly enough, the World Jewish Council, backed by the power of the US gov't, do hold Germans collectively responsible. By the year 2020 the payoff will total 100 billion marks. It is based on the premise that the German nation, including even the Germans who grew up since 1945, is collectively guilty of terrible crimes, contrary to the democratic notion of individual responsibility for crime.

Every group has its criminal element.

True, however, it appears not every group is held accountable. The Jewish mass murderer, Lazar Kaganovitch, the Soviet Union's Adolf Eichmann, died in his bed at a ripe old age. The Jewish owned New York Times, continued to print the lies of its Pulitzer prize winning reporter, Walter Durranty.

Sadly for your thesis, neither Lenin nor Stalin were Jewish.

No one said they were Jewish.

As for excusing the SS because of what the Chekists did, that’s like excusing the Chekists because of what the pogromists did.

Alternatively, the pogroms for what the radical Jews of the mid-19th century did. However, no one excused the SS.

The fact that there are always ‘root causes’ for pathological behaviour doesn’t excuse the behaviour. I don’t excuse either the Chekists or the SS; I loathe them both. You loathe Chekists but make excuses for the SS.

No excuses were made for the SS.

The question Auster does not answer is why these Jewish interest groups will, through reason, reject their position of white (especially Anglo) loathing? Despite the fact that 45,000 overwhelmingly Anglo Canucks died fighting the Nazis, Jews view Anglos as little better than Nazi facilitators. Abella and Troper's dissertation, None is Too Many is evident of the unrelenting hatred Jewish groups hold for the native population. The idea that the founding people, in Canada, have a right, like Israel, Japan, China or India, to select who will immigrate to their country is anathema to Jewish interests. The fact that these groups have a right to survive as a unique entity, runs contrary to Jewish ethnic interests, because for many Jews it is still 1939. For them it will probably always be 1939.

12/26/2007 10:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tanstafl, you say want a jew-free white nation. But this is precisely what Jews fear (and have always feared). No wonder no white movement, no matter how ostensibly philo-semitic (see AmRen), has ever gotten much help from them. Aside from this, Jews know they are guilty of exaggerating their WW2 suffering, of covering up their involvement in Communism and their role in non-white immigration. They see little to gain in admitting to any of it.

Auster knows this too. He knows Jews will never become pro-white en masse. His interest is Israel; hence his focus on Islam, hence his focus on "Western Civilization" rather than "race". Sure, he knows Mexicans are degrading American life, but all he'd do there is close the border and toss out the illegals. What he really wants is a re-energized, re-Americanized, deliberalised (but not to the point of antisemitism) America that will take on the entire Islamic world alongside Israel. He's not much more than anti-immigration neocon, basically.

Nevertheless, he's valuable. He knows that a mulatto-ized/mestizo-ized America would (a) have little interest in defending Israel, and indeed would likely be anti-Israel and (b) would be far less capable of doing so than white America even if it wanted to. So Auster feels he has to speak up. And what he does, he does well. But he has no way of artificially containing people's awakening except to play the antisemite card. About time a Jew became a useful idiot, I say.

12/26/2007 11:34:00 PM  
Anonymous adam said...

To Desmond Jones:

1. Mackay certainly weakened property rights, but to call him a 'traitor' is kooky. He wasn't saying 'here's an opportunity to help the Jews get power over Gentiles'; he was saying, essentially, 'here we've just fought a war against the Jew-hating Nazis, and are we going to uphold anti-Jewish covenants in Canadian real estate agreements? Doesn't seem fair!'. In other words, it was his Anglo-Saxon sense of fairness that was disturbed by those covenants. The merits of the decision, again, can be debated, but 'treason'? Give me a break. Further, it really doesn't matter how many Jewish intervenors there were in the case; in the end, an Anglo-Saxon made the decision. So to say 'the Jews caused....' is, again, poor history.

2. Regarding Lenin, etc., my point was, again, that while the Chekists included a large number of Jews, their mission was defined, and their power stemmed from, non-Jews like Lenin and Stalin. So again, holding Jews ultimately responsible for the atrocities of the Soviet state is poor history. I have no objection to holding Jewish Chekists responsible for their crimes; and to really surprise you, I never saw anything objectionable in Hitler's Kommisarbefehl; I'd have been happy to shoot some commissars myself. Are you capable of accepting that?

12/26/2007 11:35:00 PM  
Anonymous adam said...

Further to Desmond Jones:

'Despite the fact that 45,000 overwhelmingly Anglo Canucks died fighting the Nazis, Jews view Anglos as little better than Nazi facilitators'.

I suppose you won't believe me when I say that none of the Jews I know believe this. Abella's book tags him as the Al Sharpton of the Jewish community, in my opinion. Or, more to the point, what you're doing is like quoting Ted Kennedy and saying 'Whites believe....'.

"...for many Jews it is still 1939. For them it will probably always be 1939".

Here, I think, you do hit on something that describes a segment of the Jewish community. Unfortunately, the cult of Holocaust Studies in our universities, Holocaust European tours ("If this is Tuesday, this must be Belsen"), etc. doesn't help. But where you probably see a conspiracy, I see only a syndrome.

12/26/2007 11:49:00 PM  
Anonymous adam said...

Desmond: Oh yes, about Trudeau; same point. Lots of Jewish liberals were involved in the transformation of Canada in 1968 et seq., but none was as influential in this as Trudeau, a Catholic. Similarly, the US immigration 'reforms' of 1965 may have been drafted by Jewish liberals, but it was Teddy Kennedy who pushed the changes through. So we're back where we started; the problem is liberalism, and the most that can be said about Jews is that a high proportion of the secular ones are liberals. (This doesn't generally include the Orthodox, whose numbers are increasing as the number of secular Jews is decreasing). Taansteufel darkly says that 'liberalism is a problem, but not the only problem' -- that is, he has a problem with Jews regardless of whether they're liberal-left or not; a problem with them merely as Jews -- 'der ewige Jude', complete with fangs and horns. Fortunately, most non-Jews in Canada and the US don't agree with him or with you.

12/27/2007 12:01:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Howard J. Harrison and anonymous 11:34PM: as with the Latinos and the Muslims, whether we "American traditionalists" like it or not, a ridiculously disproportionate number of Jews are in positions of power and influence over public opinion and are our cultural foes. The culture war has gone on for decades and the results have been disastrous for American traditions.

For example, today supposed conservatives such as Auster and his exponent here Adam freely use the tactics of leftist PC: character assassination and lies. If they were White they might get as worked up about the ongoing and very real disenfranchisement, displacement, and genocide of Whites. Instead their fevered self-righteousness concerning past and potential future crimes against Jews comes across as self-serving and self-incriminating.

Auster finds it necessary to paint me as a bogeyman. For my part I'm content that in doing so he has clearly revealed who he is and where his highest loyalty lies.

12/27/2007 12:05:00 PM  
Anonymous desmond jones said...

If they were White they might get as worked up about the ongoing and very real disenfranchisement, displacement, and genocide of Whites. Instead their fevered self-righteousness concerning past and potential future crimes against Jews comes across as self-serving and self-incriminating.

This is a very poignant point, and in all this writer has read, it has only been addressed honestly, by a Jew, in a note to Auster.

Paul T. writes:

You (Auster) wrote: “If America had known when admitting Jewish immigrants between 1880 and 1920 that the descendants of those immigrants would oppose America’s right to have any future control over immigration, would America have admitted those immigrants in the first place?”

Beautifully put. My grandparents were Russian and Polish Jews who came here (i.e., to Toronto, Canada) between 1908-1923, and I’ve often found myself asking the same thing. In fact, awkward as this is to confess, I’ve increasingly asked myself whether Jewish immigration was on the whole a good or bad thing for Canada and the U.S., and I am coming around to the view that the negatives have outweighed the positives. Is there really any other way of seeing it? Another question which might appeal to alternate-history buffs is: if we hadn’t been allowed in, would North America be a liberal society today?

LA repies:

Thanks. However, the way I've put it is not that America would have been better off without the 1880-1920 immigration, but that the 1921 and 1924 legislation cutting back the immigration was beneficial. this is a statement that there is such a thing as too many. (I've also said that while I’m happy that my parents were born and that I was born, America did not require our existence; unlike many Jewish open-borders proponents, I don’t act as though America revolves around myself or is defined by Ellis Island.) But for the open-borders Jews, any statement implying that there is any negative (or even less than great) aspect of Jewish immigration is tantamount to saying that they themselves don’t belong here. So there’s just no middle ground with these people. And that fact has really risen to the fore in the last couple of months with the debate on the Senate immigration bill. It turns out, and I gave examples, that many Jews are not just in favor of very large-scale immigration; they’re literally in favor of open borders. Their belief in a generous immigration policy has no internal limiting principle.

Paul T. replies:

I don’t doubt that, but it doesn’t deal with the problem of those who were already here. Folks like my cousin J.B. Salsberg, the only Communist member of the Ontario legislature, elected time and again in the (overwhelmingly Jewish) Spadina riding. As late as 1955 (not a typo) J.B. was openly praising Stalin in his speeches. I was brought up to believe that the mostly genteel anti-Semitism of non-Jews in Toronto was nothing more than pure, spontaneous malice. Some of it undoubtedly was, but I can see the other side of it now.

12/27/2007 05:40:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

DJ & Adam-
"The S v K decision allowed blacks to move into white neighborhoods in St. Louis. The result is that St. Louis is now one of the most dangerous cities in the U.S."

I enjoy the A+B=C simplicity, but the S v K decision may have opened a door, but the 1960's suburban flight is what killed inner cities and inflated crime statistics. Not all flight was white - in St Louis whites AND blacks fled the inner city and settled in the south and north suburbs, respectively. St Louis County enjoys LOW crime rates compared nationally.

As far as war crimes - Germany is paying for nazi war crimes and currently no one is paying for chekist war crimes. It makes a heckuva lot more sense the former USSR (rather than the collective Jewish population) should be on the hook for that beef (good luck collecting those rubles).

Adam - the Auster-esque "Taansteufel" slip is what - supporting your argument?

b-broke - the tracing of ancestry 1500+ years to the pre-invasion days is impressive, but Im pretty skeptical there are that many pure breds in North America. Romans, Normans, Celtic and Viking genetic material (to name a few) is inevitably going to show up. I have an English great-grandmother (unsure of the lineage) do I get an invite or does my Irish-Italian-German genetics keep me out?

WLW - D28 uses "IF" as a determining phrase. I will assume you have concluded the Jews have broken their covenant with the Lord. What can I say, good luck with the Four Horsemen and all that?

Palmer - "The majority needs to rediscover itself ..." Doesn't this just mean those who think like Auster are a minority? The real question is "Will the "white" people that get control have an Auster-esque vision (please fill in blank)or will they have the same "as long as it helps me" attitude the current "white" and "non-white" leadership has?

12/27/2007 06:36:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

Tan -
"I want all the squabbling racist, ethnic, nationalities other than White Westerners to leave (or be ejected from) the West and live amongst the race, ethnicity, or nation they love so much that they try to bring it with them to the West. I wish to restore the White nations, where Whites rule for the benefit of Whites."

Why do your perfectly good anti-illegal immigration, anti-PC and anti-jihadi emit "white power" remarks. We both know there is a high enough density of white scumbags (conservative [enron-esque] and liberal [union strong-arm thugs] alike) to ruin your wet-dream-white-utopia. For every "bridge" incident there's a "Lake Tahoe sucks". Why whites? Why not people with even SS#'s?

Call it as you see it, but be more discriminating of the "new science". Adam's "scientology" remark isnt that far from the target.

12/27/2007 07:11:00 PM  
Anonymous adam said...

Thank you, Desmond, I'm Paul T. (Note the reference to my cousin J.B.). "Adam" is my general-use internet name.

12/27/2007 10:35:00 PM  
Anonymous adam said...

flippity: awwww, don't be upset about "taansteufel" -- just part of the rough-and-tumble of debate.

desmond: in case you're wondering, there's no discrepancy between what I wrote as Paul T. and what I've written here. The high proportion of liberals and leftists among the North American Jewish population raises legitimate questions about whether letting in large numbers of Jews was a good idea. Again, the problem is the liberalism, not some unique form of Jewish evil as taansie clearly implies. At this stage it would be quixotic to expel Jewish liberals from the country when there are far greater numbers of non-Jewish liberals. The solution is to emancipate both Jews and non-Jews from their liberalism. And, as Larry Auster and I have both written, this is not going to happen until the consequences of liberalism are so plainly disastrous that further evasion of the truth is impossible. Hence worse is indeed better. But bad as things are to the prescient, we're still a long way from that tipping point. The nut fringe of Holocaust deniers and unique-Jewish-evil obsessives are so objectionable to the majority of non-Jews as well as Jews that they only serve to reinforce liberalism's hold.

Taans: It's fascinating to see how quickly Auster has gone, in your view, from being an indispensible mentor to Tel Aviv's Satanic puppet. I suggest that this speaks to nothing but the rapidity of your descent into Jew-hatred. Since this occurred recently and so quickly, I'll hold out some hope that it's a passing phase.

12/27/2007 10:49:00 PM  
Blogger bolingbroke said...

Emancipating Jews and "non-Jews" from their "liberalism" is an interesting idea with which to conjure. "Liberalism" in Anglo-Saxon countries is an ideology that clearly serves the ethnic genetic interests of Jews and other non-white racial and religious groups. For Anglo-Saxons it entails the voluntary renunciation of both their Volksgeist and their ethnic genetic interests. For Anglo-Saxons to give up "liberalism" would require the recovery of their ethnocultural identity and a determination to, once again, assert their particular interests in the inter-ethnic struggle for wealth, power, and prestige. They would be well advised to study Jewish group evolutionary strategies to find useful tips on how to advance that project.
Both Auster and Adam want to stigmatise "non-Jews" who identify Jews as their foes. That position is said to be anti-semitic. And yet, the obvious strategy to refute anti-semitism would be to demonstrate that Jews are really friends with whom we can make common cause. Both Auster and Adam are therefore caught in a cleft stick (along with Mondoweiss) because even they have to acknowledge that organized Jewry is in fact hostile (or at best indifferent) to the survival of the white, European majority-much less that of their ancestral enemy the "snobbish" Anglo-Saxons.
Anglo-Saxon liberalism has allowed them to assume the heights of condescion in the past few days by dumping from a great height on Christmas. Christmas is apparently acceptable to Jews only so long as it becomes a secular "X-mas" or as Mondoweiss boasts a "Jewish Christmas." That is Jewish "liberalism" at work courtesy of the Anglo-Saxon elites who surrended their ethnic hegemony without a shot being fired.
Adam and Auster might not find the disappearance of Anglo-Saxon liberalism entirely to their taste.

12/27/2007 11:21:00 PM  
Blogger leadpb said...

The idea that no group should be immune from criticism or inquiry *as a group* is sound and Tanstaafl makes some good points in this regard. Jews do seem to be in a class that enjoys magical protection in the press and often in polite conversation.

The "role" of Jews, at least in the United States, seems to me a synergistic one where their success and ours-- the dominant white majority-- is closely linked and mutually beneficial. (This is aside from politics, which as noted here repeatedly has a devilish liberal core). As Auster points out this stands in radical contrast to relations with Muslims and most other minorities. The followers of Islam are a legitimate target for expulsion-- on a practical level, how many groups can be singled out at once?

The upsetting condition seems to be that the Jews have been and continue to be the agents of destructive societal change, that they have subjected America to a socialist PC agenda (or worse) while we were busy with other things. But no one in these comments has yet offered an estimation of how much responsibility we gentiles owe to this tribulation that has taken place in our own house. Do we bear so little responsibility that we can soberly consider treating Jews as a group that does not belong here? Based on a set of criteria that would somehow exclude other groups, white and otherwise? How many whites have colluded in this nefarious scheme? I would rather have the government use my money inefficiently by cracking down on organized crime and illegal immigrants. Or just about anything else.

If Christians of European descent are our righteous forebears (please, none of that drivel about cleaving off the Italians, Irish, etc.) and we take nearly all of the credit for developing this great country in every imaginable way, then we must also take responsibility for allowing modern liberalism to flourish in our midst. If it can be done, I say it will not be a small number of Jews that helps return us to our sensibilities.

12/28/2007 02:46:00 AM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

Adam - just gives creedence to your support of PC when it suits you.

Conservatives had their shot and look what they did with it. They even got a "four more years free" card with 9/11 and still - what did they do with it?

If you want to take down the liberals, you'd better fix your conservative band wagon first.

12/28/2007 09:41:00 AM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

BTW - Im guilty of PC abuses too.

12/28/2007 09:42:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

flippityflopitty: Why do your perfectly good anti-illegal immigration, anti-PC and anti-jihadi emit "white power" remarks.

Because I can see at the root of all the other problems is the loss of the pride and confidence Whites once had. If we had achieved success without these traits, or if the results of their loss (which we can see empirically all around us today) were not so obviously terrible, then I might agree that we could do without "white power".

The reality is that power comes from acting as a group, in the interests of that group - as La Raza, the Umma, and the Tribe all demonstrate. Blindness to this, like almost any blindness in nature, is a weakness and leads to extinction.

Adam: It's fascinating to see how quickly Auster has gone, in your view, from being an indispensible mentor to Tel Aviv's Satanic puppet. I suggest that this speaks to nothing but the rapidity of your descent into Jew-hatred.

It's fascinating to see how such insightful and intelligent people, judging by your conversation with Auster as Paul T., can become so dishonest and duplicitous when dealing with criticism from outside. You find it convenient to assume I am driven by "Jew-hatred". This permits you to evade the truth. That is your weakness, not mine.

leadpb: But no one in these comments has yet offered an estimation of how much responsibility we gentiles owe to this tribulation that has taken place in our own house.

Read any popular account in "polite society" and you will find more than enough. Under PC Christianity and Whites in general get the blame not only for all the West's problems, but for much of the trouble in the Middle East, and many of the world's ills. Every other group, including Jews, gets a pass. This is doubly wrong because it is based on the idea that Whites have power, which grows less and less plausible every day, and which was only plausible to begin with because it is forbidden to discuss Jewish power. Liberalism and PC have arisen, and accelerate, precisely as Whites lose power and Jews gain it.

Where is the equal opportunity criticism? Where is the affirmative action to reverse this injustice against Whites? Those who argue a society based on more honesty and reality would be worse than the lies and distortion reveal themselves as agents of the current rotten liberal regime.

12/28/2007 10:56:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't look now but Auster has cast the "anti-semites" into the fiery pit of hell:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/
archives/009553.html

"Since I posted my critique of the anti-Semite 'Tanstaafl' the other day, I've been receiving a steady stream of e-mail from anti-Semites, all of them with suspiciously bland and generic names..."

You really struck a nerve with him; I don't remember him devoting two rapid posts to attacking a leftist in some time (and, of course, there was his queer Obama love-fest not long ago).

12/28/2007 12:18:00 PM  
Anonymous skeptical said...

Tanstaafl,

To me, at least, it seems that the "Jewish Question" is less relevant to today's politics than it is to the history books. It is true that Jews came to America from 1880 to 1920 and proceeded to systematically infect our society with leftist thought (culminating in the immigration overhaul triumph of 1965). But what of it?

Probably like you I didn't give the Jews (and their impact on Western society) a second thought until I had already developed pro-White views. Caring about the health, survival, and genetic integrity of my race preceded my awareness of the "Jewish Question".

In other words, we can "name the Jew" all day long but it won't make sense to the mainstream White masses until they first start caring about their own race. That's why I've come around to the opinion that the destructive leftist impact of American Jewry is more a problem we need to overcome (as pro-Whites) than as a rallying point for waking up the general White public.

By the way, you're behavior in this exchange with Auster has been commendable.

12/28/2007 12:44:00 PM  
Blogger Flanders Fields said...

Tan, I have a recent post on sovereignty wherein jewish involvement is discussed in relation to SPP. I do know that groups exist which affect US policy to an utmost degree. The leadership and general membership of the groups is a higher ratio toward jews. The policies they promote seem extremely leftist, but whether it is the jews or the groups themselves is a question I have not resolved. Maybe that's because I have studied the groups from the perspective that they were leftists, and not from the standpoint that they were jewish influenced. I'm too recent in considering that to draw any firm conclusions.

The groups I speak of primarily are the Bilderberg, CFR and RIIA.

One thing I have noticed is the attempt by other bloggers, some supposed conservatives, to engage in politically correct judgements against others who engage in free speech. They always come up with the fire in the crowded theater argument and seem to forget that it is acceptable to shout fire when there is a fire. In the issue you discuss, there is at least a big bonfire.

Keep up your good work. We are all trying to find answers. If we aren't, then what good are we? After forty years of listening to controlled media, it is refreshing to realize that truth will again prevail through our collective disparate, but patriotic voices. America was built on that and will prevail again.

12/28/2007 03:39:00 PM  
Anonymous desmondjones said...

"Again, the problem is the liberalism, not some unique form of Jewish evil as taansie clearly implies."

This is mendacious at best. Clearly as Paul, you proclaim it is the Jewish presence that is problematic, not liberalism.

Paul: "Another question which might appeal to alternate-history buffs is: if we hadn’t been allowed in, would North America be a liberal society today?"

Plainly, there is cause and effect. No Jews no liberalism, is your point. Now as Adam you state the exact opposite. The issue is not the Jewish presence but liberalism.

Why do you continue to mangle the host’s nic, when he is gracious enough to let you post here?

12/28/2007 08:19:00 PM  
Anonymous WLindsayWheeler said...

I see that Lawerence Auster has cast us all into Hell. So since Lawerence Auster professes himself a conservative, what is conservative about "Zionism"? The Neterai Karta quoted previously point to the CONSERVATIVE POSITION held for some 1900 years. The Jews are cursed with wandering---are not to go back. That is the conservative position. Zionism is Progressive! Not Conservative!

So why is Lawerence Auster the Jew attack anybody as an anti-semite when questions Zionism or denounces Zionism? He shows the typical Jewish disease of Hypocrisy. They can't help but be hypocrites. To stand foursquare on the consistent teaching of the Church which is consistent with the Neterai Karta which is the Old Tradition commits one to hell is a bogus lie. Lawerence Auster knows better. And Lawerence Auster is NOT a conservative. Zionism is progressive ideology. Mr. Auster, when has the Jew repented of his crime of deicide? When has the Jew begun to "hearken to the Word of God"? These two things must precede Jewish return. Second, Real Israel is the Kingdom of God in Heaven---not on this Earth. Lawerence Auster is not being true.

It says in Deut. that the Jew will be a blessing---AND a Curse. To recognize the Curse of the Jew--is to be anti-semitic? It is about being wise.

12/28/2007 08:43:00 PM  
Anonymous adam said...

Bolingbroke wrote:

“For Anglo-Saxons to give up "liberalism" would require the recovery of their ethnocultural identity and a determination to, once again, assert their particular interests in the inter-ethnic struggle for wealth, power, and prestige”.

Funny, that’s precisely what Larry Auster and I recommend – ‘that the majority start acting again like a majority’.

12/28/2007 08:47:00 PM  
Anonymous adam said...

WLindsayWheeler wrote:

"So why is Lawerence Auster the Jew attack anybody as an anti-semite when questions Zionism or denounces Zionism? He shows the typical Jewish disease of Hypocrisy".

WLW is a Pharisee. For him, hypocrisy isn't one of the sins common to all men as part of our fallen state -- it's a distinctively Jewish disease. What happened to "Since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," and "There is none that is righteous, no, not one"? What happened to pulling the beam from one's own eye?

WLW, you should seriously consider converting to Christianity.

By the way, I'm still waiting to hear why Jews don't suffer mass itchiness and scabs, if Deut. 28's curse is literally true.

12/28/2007 08:54:00 PM  
Anonymous adam said...

Flippityfloppity wrote: “Adam - just gives credence to your support of PC when it suits you”.

Don’t understand – I don’t support PC in any context. Can you explain?

12/28/2007 09:01:00 PM  
Anonymous adam said...

Tanstaafl:

“I can see at the root of all the other problems is the loss of the pride and confidence Whites once had”.

Which, again, is deplored by Auster and myself. Leadpb recognizes that ultimate responsibility for this is amply shared by non-Jews who either took the liberal shilling or at any rate acquiesced in the liberal takeover.

“It's fascinating to see how such insightful and intelligent people…can become so dishonest and duplicitous when dealing with criticism from outside. You find it convenient to assume I am driven by "Jew-hatred".

We can negotiate a better term if you like. :) “Jew-aversion”? Please note your earlier statement that, after all, you weren’t advocating extermination. If that’s your great concession regarding Jews, “hatred” doesn’t seem far off. If you heard Jews speaking contemptuously of “the goyim”, you’d take it as evidence of Jewish hatred. Why is it different when you sneer at ‘the Tribe’? Criticism I can take; a proposal to relocate me at gunpoint to Israel goes well beyond criticism.

Where am I being duplicitous? My position is pig simple:

(1) Too many Jews are liberals. (Here, indeed, ‘none is too many’!)

(2) For that matter, too many non-Jews are also liberals – not as th result of Jewish necromancy, but by their own choice.

(3) Liberalism is the problem, and it will only be solved when its consequences become too horrible to ignore. Sadly, too many people are still profiting, or think they’re profiting, from liberal hegemony.

(4) A morally scrupulous person distinguishes between liberal and non-liberal Jews instead of making statements on the order of ‘the Jews conspire….”. You formerly wrote that ‘not all Jews are our enemies’ but lately it appears that even that nuance is gone.

(5) To go so rapidly, as you have, from a position of race-blindness on one hand to advocating mass expulsion of Jews on the other, seems unsound. I am not (as you charged) ‘psychoanalyzing’ you when I say that you remind me of people I’ve known who suddenly found The Answer in Scientology or Hare Krishna or whatever. I don’t pretend to know you, I can go only by what you write. Your willingness to entertain dissenting views on this site speaks well for you. I have hope that the fever will pass.

12/28/2007 09:15:00 PM  
Anonymous adam said...

To give WLW his due: he is correct in saying that Zionism is progressive rather than conservative. But one can still think Zionism was a dumb idea while opposing those who would eliminate Israel. At this late date, the Balfour Declaration and the Holocaust and the rest of it are only of secondary interest. The key fact is that you have five million Jews living in Israel, and there's no way of getting them out except perhaps by a nuclear war that would kill them and millions of Arabs as well. Decent people don't see that as a good solution.

12/28/2007 09:29:00 PM  
Blogger bolingbroke said...

I say Anglo-Saxons should recover their ethnocultural identity and re-assert their particular ethnic interests. Adam replies, asserting that that proposition amounts to a restatement of the Adam/Auster position that the "majority" should start acting like a majority. But, of course, Adam has previously been quick to point out that Anglo-Saxons, at least in the USA, are no longer in the majority. This appears to be a deliberate effort to throw dust in the eyes of the opposition.
Let me state the point more explicitly. Jews, Italians, Poles, Quebecois, etc are not Anglo-Saxons. Jews, in particular, are not Anglo-Saxons. Tanstaafl's point is that they aren't even part of the "white" majority. In fact, it is evident that most Jews have cast themselves in the role of foes in relation to Anglo-Saxons. And, it does appear, that Jews are only part of the "whtie majority" when it suits their interests.
Why does Adam insist on dissembling? (That is really just a rhetorical question.)

12/28/2007 11:21:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

skeptical, I agree with you, and thanks.

12/28/2007 11:26:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Flanders Fields, thank you. Your views on Europe and globalism have enlightened me and are much appreciated.

12/28/2007 11:31:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Anonymous 12:18PM, thanks for the link to In which circle of hell do the anti-Semites reside? I knew I hit a nerve when I saw he could not accept and talk to me as a fellow human being.

Besides consigning me to hell in that post Auster provides links to some of his anti-anti-semitism "greatest hits". In Do I have a double standard on Jews and blacks? he says:

As for comparisons between my statements about Jews and my statements about blacks, I think my standard is the same in both cases. What is permissible and necessary is rational criticism; what is not permissible is bigotry, meaning, among other things: the readiness to believe and repeat any negative statement or generalization about a group, regardless of reason and evidence; the unwillingness to say anything positive about members of a group or acknowledge them as fellow human beings; the invocation of contempt and hatred against an entire group; the consigning of an entire group to a non-human status.

The emphasis is mine.

Auster violates his own standard in every way in his behavior toward the group he identifies as anti-semites. What readers are left to wonder is how Auster would react to being called on this. A) Silence. B) Anti-semites are not a "group". C) You're an anti-semite for making the point.

My money's on C.

12/28/2007 11:37:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Adam: Criticism I can take; a proposal to relocate me at gunpoint to Israel goes well beyond criticism.

. . .

You formerly wrote that ‘not all Jews are our enemies’ but lately it appears that even that nuance is gone.

(5) To go so rapidly, as you have, from a position of race-blindness on one hand to advocating mass expulsion of Jews on the other, seems unsound.


You should reread what I actually said. You have been and still are overreacting to your own unsound interpretation.

12/28/2007 11:39:00 PM  
Anonymous adam said...

No, Bolingbroke, I'm not pulling some fast Jew footwork on you. :)The 'majority' I refer to is Canada's historic white majority, which is overwhelmingly English-Scots-Irish. OK? I'm sorry if I wasn't clearer. Italians, Poles, Ukrainians, Germans, European Jews, etc. are all white, whether you like it or not, but are not part of that historic majority. It's typical, though, that you would assume that I was deliberately trying to 'throw sand' into anyone's eyes.

"It is evident that most Jews have cast themselves in the role of foes in relation to Anglo-Saxons". Really? Taken a poll? Or just the word of the high priest Kevin Macdonald?

12/29/2007 12:27:00 AM  
Anonymous adam said...

Tanstaafl wrote: "You should reread what I actually said. You have been and still are overreacting to your own unsound interpretation".

If I'm misinterpreting, it's a simple matter for you to clarify what you meant.

12/29/2007 12:30:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Adam, I don't feel particularly obligated to play the game whereby you make shit up and I waste my time denying it.

12/29/2007 03:06:00 AM  
Blogger bolingbroke said...

Adam, if it is wrong to suggest that Jews have cast themselves in the role of foe towards Anglo-Saxons, why don't you demonstrate your point by providing evidence that Jews are really shown themselves to be the Anglo-Saxons' (or the white man's)friend. After all, given the effort Tanstaafl has put into calling their "white" bona fides into question, the onus of proof is now on you (and Auster.)
All the more so,given your and his behaviour in response to Tanstaafl's post.
It is absolutely clear that neither of you has any interest in working through this issue as a common problem that needs to be resolved before all "whites" can man the barricades together. On the contrary, you just keep on questioning every point that Tanstaafl's supporters make, no matter how obvious.
It appears that your role in this discussion is simply to obfuscate and confuse, hurling back any real or perceived aspersion on Jews made by a non-Jew no matter how reasonable. Your whole approach reeks of mala fides. It seems that you and Auster are entitled to criticize Jewish behaviour on an intramural basis but those outside the tribe are not allowed the same freedom or accorded the same respect-even when they echo many of the points you two have made. Not surprisingly,the result is frustration and anger on the part of ("non-Jewish") people trying to reach a rational understanding of a real problem in inter-ethnic relations.
It's hard to believe that this tactic is really good for the Jews!

12/29/2007 01:05:00 PM  
Blogger bolingbroke said...

Oops, I should have edited that last post. The first sentence should be:

Adam, to demonstrate that it is wrong to suggest that Jews have cast themselves in the role of foe towards Anglo-Saxon (or whites), why don't you simply show us how and why Jews are really the Anglo-Saxons' (or the white man's)friend?

Provide plenty of examples for those of us who can't immediately recall much evidence of Jewish concern for Anglo-Saxon (or white) ethnic interests or the survival of Anglo-Saxon civilization.

12/29/2007 01:17:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

I'll second what bolingbroke just said.

As illustrated in this thread and on the White Nationalism and Anti-Semitism thread even the anti-liberal Jews I've engaged feel perfectly comfortable expressing their pro-Jewish bigotry while hypocritically bristling at the slightest whiff they get of pro-White bigotry. Jews are free to think and speak about what is best for them as a group, sometimes under the pretense they are talking about what's good for "everybody". That lie is revealed when a White recognizes it and says out loud, as I have, that Jews and Whites are not the same, and especially if he asserts the right for Whites to pursue their own interests. Even according to anti-liberal Jews this classifies as the "hate crime" of anti-semitism.

What's very instructive is their ongoing efforts to decode what Whites really want. They seem incapable of believing that I have not been speaking in code, that I have no unspoken agenda. This says something very unbecoming about their own methods and motives.

I see an example in Auster's criticism of Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul. What really seems to irk Auster is that they have the temerity to argue that America's interests are not the same and should not be subordinated to Israel's interests. It isn't fair to say they are anti-Israel. But simply being indifferent to Israel or insufficiently professing philo-semitism (similar to the game Adam wants me to play) is enough for Auster to chide Buchanan and castigate Paul. The more Auster decries the "monomania of anti-semites" the more he reveals his own monomania.

Again I'm embarrassed it took me so long to see this clearly. But I can also see why. Nobody in "polite society talks about the Jewish Question. Even anti-liberals like Auster will not address it squarely. As he is fond of saying, the apparent double-standard is not really. It is a single standard: good is what's good for Jews. Where White interests differ they can piss off. Message received, loud and clear. But only after I realized I had to decode it.

Digging through more of Auster's anti-anti-semitism links I find this in The world-bending pathology of the anti-Semites:

my own position remains that one should not engage with anti-Semites (or with any other irrational or unappeasable party), but look at them, understand what they are, and exclude them.

This is why he acts as if I'm subhuman. Only he and his group are entitled to judge and exclude those they perceive as enemies. Who do I think I am to suggest Whites do anything remotely similar?

12/29/2007 02:55:00 PM  
Blogger Flanders Fields said...

Tan, Maybe your attackers fear that you are effective? They may just be ignorant of the facts themselves. As you state:

" Only he and his group are entitled to judge and exclude those they perceive as enemies. Who do I think I am to suggest Whites do anything remotely similar?


Adam had stated a question to which he might like an answer.


"It is evident that most Jews have cast themselves in the role of foes in relation to Anglo-Saxons". Really? Taken a poll? Or just the word of the high priest Kevin Macdonald?"


The following links are to a speech given by a former Zionist, which should provide him with answers. The first link is to a video and the second to a transcript of the speech of Benjamin Freedman. I suggest listening to the video, at least the first five parts. Read along if you want:


http://youtube.com/watch?v=xINjWnrmbx4&watch_response


After that, I recommend another video (the first five parts give you a very good preview).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBx4Exj91jM&feature=related

--------------------
--------------------

12/29/2007 03:55:00 PM  
Anonymous desmond jones said...

"It is a single standard: good is what's good for Jews."

And this has been apparent for a long, long time. KMac's quote from Scott Leavitt, a 1920s restrictionist is quite enlightening:

Representative Scott Leavitt stated quite bluntly that Jews should respect the desire of other Americans to retain the ethnic status quo:

“The instinct for national and race preservation is not one to be condemned, as has been intimated here. No one should be better able to understand the desire of Americans to keep America American than the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sabath], who is leading the attack on this measure, or the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Dickstein, Mr. Jacobstein, Mr. Celler, and Mr. Perlman. They are of the one great historic people who have maintained the identity of their race throughout the centuries because they believe sincerely that they are a chosen people, with certain ideals to maintain, and knowing that the loss of racial identity means a change of ideals. That fact should make it easy for them and the majority of the most active opponents of this measure in the spoken debate to recognize and sympathize with our viewpoint, which is not so extreme as that of their own race, but only demands that the admixture of other peoples shall be only of such kind and proportions and in such quantities as will not alter racial characteristics more rapidly than there can be assimilation as to ideas of government as well as of blood. [Congressional Record, April 12 1924, 6265-6266]


Of course that was never to be the case. The preservation of America's founding people, (overwhelmingly of Anglo-Saxon origin)was of no interest, and still is not if Steinlight is representative, to Jewish group interests.

How exactly will the white majority reassert itself, as Adam/Auster suggest? Undoubtedly, it will mean quotas, additional taxation, and exclusion from some fields of endeavour. If Jews in the 20s/30s opposed quotas at Harvard (the University of Toronto asked Jewish groups to voluntarily impose quotas) why would they accept them now?

12/29/2007 05:05:00 PM  
Blogger bolingbroke said...

Desmond has put his finger on the sharp end of the problem that the disappearance of "liberalism" among Anglo-Saxons would pose for "anti-liberal" Jews. To raise the spectre of quotas on Jewish admission to Harvard is to imagine the re-emerge of the Anglo-Saxon ethny as a player in the postmodern game of identity politics.

Desmond's dream of affirmative action for Anglo-Saxons at Harvard and U of T is not at all beyon the realm of the politically possible in the not-too-distant future.

Harvard is an Anglo-Saxon sacred site. Or, more precisely, it would become an Anglo-Saxon sacred site if Anglo-Saxons ever recover their ancestral Volksgeist.

Harvard was founded by Puritans who still-if only nominally-considered themselves members of the Church of England. In the eyes of a revived Anglo-Saxon Christianity Harvard, colleges at U of T, along with Oxford, Cambridge and innumerable Anglican churches, cathedrals, schools, hospitals etc. would become constested zones.

Anglo-Saxon could and should demand that participation in the Anglican communion be limited to persons of Anglo-Saxon ancestry. Only Anglo-Saxon Christians could lay claim to ancestral title over Anglo-Saxon sacred sites such as Harvard and....the list is practically endless.

The point really is this: any (stable)polyethnic or multiracial society will develop an ethnic hierarchy. Jews have always known that and have been determined to claw their way to the top. They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in the USA. Anglo-Saxons should now pull their thumb out and recover the ground quisling elites have given away.

Until Anglo-Saxon elites surrended their responsibilities of racial leadership, Anglo-Saxons were at the top of the heap. Jewish hegemony over Harvard was achieved under the cover of a "meritocratic" ideology that Anglo-Saxons waived for other preferred minorities.

Jewish stewardship at Harvard has been a disaster for Anglo-Saxon civilization. It looks like the same result will ensue from Jewish stewardship over the American financial system. Reasserting Anglo-Saxon hegemony over both Harvard and Wall Street will not be readily accepted by liberal Jews. Of that we can be sure!

I wonder: whose side will anti-liberal Jews be on in that inter-ethnic struggle for wealth, power, and prestige?

12/29/2007 07:33:00 PM  
Anonymous adam said...

First things first.

In an apparent fit of pique, taanstaafl accuses me of ‘making shit up’. So let’s look at what he wrote:

“Schopenhauer and adam ask a valid question: what do I propose to do about Jews?...In a word I would prefer separation over the lie we live now…I wish to restore the White nations, where Whites rule for the benefit of Whites. Let's start there. Jews have a nation where Jews rule and Jews can argue with each other about what is best for Jews… Other races, including Jews…all have their own strengths and weaknesses, and they should be free to enjoy or suffer them amongst themselves, just as we should”.

I took this as a call to expel Jews from nations such as Canada and the US. That seems a reasonable reading, in fact it's hard to see what else it could mean. And Taanstaafl adds: "Let's start there".

Another (anonymous) poster, who from his stated views is no philo-Semite, read it the same way I did: “Tanstafl [sic], you say want a jew-free white nation”.
Tanstaafl did not contradict ‘anonymous’. His silence can reasonably be construed as agreement with "anonymous". When WLW chimed in with “the Jew must be segregated from the Christian and the West”, Tanstaafl dissociated himself only from WLW’s "religious fervor", adding "but I do share his respect for logos and truth”.

In the face of all this, Tanstaafl later accused me of ‘overreacting’, and now, going further, he says I ‘make shit up’. He provides no examples.

The only reason I engaged at all with this site was because Taanstaafl, in his initial statements about Larry Auster, seemed a reasonable and truthful person. He and his cheering section (e.g. Bolingbroke) now seem to be more in the Stormfront mold, or clearly headed that way. I predict that the site will attract fewer people like leadpb and more like bolingbroke in the weeks and months to come. In the circumstances, further discussion seems pointless. Doubtless you will take this as a victory, but that’s your affair.

12/30/2007 01:46:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Adam, it is pointless to argue details with you because you have already demonstrated your hostility, not to mention bad faith. You wrote (and Auster published) this whopper early on:

Not that Tanstaafl deserves more attention, but as a matter of interest, he has now come out (in the same thread) in favor of deporting Diaspora Jews to Israel and says that Nazi intentions towards Jews have been misunderstood. So your view of him stands entirely vindicated.

Now you try to use guilt by association to justify your fevered extrapolations of what I've said, just as Auster has.

Nice try though!

12/31/2007 06:50:00 PM  
Anonymous desmond Jones said...

More whoppers:

Paul T. writes:

At the risk of getting way out of my depth:

George wrote: "For Christians, Christ is the basis of existence. The Jews deny Christ. Therefore, the Jews, according to Christianity, deny the basis of existence."

Hmm. I thought that for Christians, God was the basis of existence, and Christ one of the three persons of God. For (believing) Jews God is also the basis of existence, though they only recognize the entity that Christians term God the Father. So the worst that could be said about Jews, from the Christian point of view, is that their view of God is incomplete, not that Jews deny "the basis of existence." (A statement that would be true of atheists only). Make sense?


No.

Matthew 10:33

Jesus said: "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."

12/31/2007 09:16:00 PM  
Blogger John Savage said...

Tanstaafl, here's my take on Auster.

1/02/2008 11:27:00 AM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

"Don’t understand – I don’t support PC in any context. Can you explain?"

Adam - the "rough & tumble" name calling (tansteufel, neo-nazi, anti-semite, jew-baiters) is an attack on the writer(s) for either the sole purpose or an added effect to dismiss what's written. You wave these terms like flags of warning to those who would dare point a finger in opposition to YOUR politically correct line.

Then of course its not "hate a particular race or creed" - it's "hate all liberals - they're to blame."

On the floppity...

"I wish to restore the White nations, where Whites rule for the benefit of Whites."

Adam's "interpretation" is not that far afield. But you've posted a "sticks and stones" message, so why even reflect on that portion of the response? If Adam concludes a "no response" equates to agreement with his point, he's with the kool-aid camp anyway.

1/02/2008 12:43:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

BB-
The Anglican Communion is 77 million strong worldwide of which upwards of 30 million are Church of England & Australia. I was under the impression that no "church" is under the auspices of another (ie, Church of Wales, Church of Ireland, Church of South Africa) so you have your "division" existing. It certainly shouldnt be difficult for "like-minded" Anglicans to form their own church together - look at the SoCal break away dioceses.

Of course there's the follow-up:

Then what?

1/02/2008 01:01:00 PM  
Blogger bolingbroke said...

Then what?
The goal should be simply to make ethnic nepotism as much a religious duty for Anglo-Saxons as it always has been for Jews.

An Anglo-Saxon Church should become the spiritual core of a parallel Anglo-Saxon society which incorporating not just schools, colleges, and hospitals but businesses and a separate legal system based on the Anglo-Saxon traditions of the common law.

For the forseeable future we are stuck in a polyethnic, multiracial society. Any such society is bound to develop an ethnic hierarchy if it is to avoid open conflict. In the coming collapse of the state-market system that has ruled our lives for so long, that truism is even more inescapable.

Anglo-Saxons have a duty to their posterity (and their ancestors) to ensure that they are in a position to assume once again the responsibilities of racial leadership-not just for the sake of our own people but for the benefit of other European ethnies as well. No other ethnic or racial group has the qualifications, the experience or the moral vision to take up the Anglo-Saxon's historic burden.

Anglo-Saxon cosmopolitanism has done no favours either to ourselves or to the other ethnies riding on our coattails. Anglo-Saxon Christianity could reinfuse both the ethnocentrism we require to compete in the process of between-group selection and a sense of duty towards those for whom we act as stewards.

1/02/2008 07:24:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

John Savage, I enjoyed your post. Though Auster considers you human enough to show up and respond I see he doesn't provide you an answer either. In both our cases he is however animated enough to write paragraphs of tedious parsing of anti-semitic sentiment, and to excoriate with extreme prejudice the pure and single-minded evil he claims spawns it.

His bigotry only confirms what he refuses to discuss. Realizing his he doubles down by trying to preempt anyone from drawing that conclusion - you see, this is all a damned-if-you-do damned-if-you-don't tautological snare that reveals the sick thinking of those single-minded anti-semites.

The way his mind works literally takes my breath away.

1/02/2008 08:06:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

bolingbroke, me and mine would be happy to live under old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon hegemony any time.

1/02/2008 08:10:00 PM  
Blogger bolingbroke said...

Tanstaafl, what Auster refuses to acknowledge is that the battle lines in the "Anglo-Saxon countries" is not merely one between rival ideologies ie "traditionalism" vs "liberalism," but is a struggle for hegemony between rival races, religions, and ethnicities. Jewish "liberalism" and Anglo-Saxon "liberalism" have very different sociobiological outcomes: Jewish cultural/financial/legal hegemony thrives, while Anglo-Saxons trudge further along the road to extinction.

For Anglo-Saxons, however, "white nationalism" cannot be part of the solution because it has for far too long been a source of the problem. The basic premise of white nationalism is that all "white" ethnies were created equal. The spectacular rise of the Jews to wealth, prestige, and power put the lie to that foolish conceit.

Indeed, even Negroes-with a little help from their "liberal" friends-have displaced American Anglo-Saxons in terms of raw political muscle. Anglo-Saxons really should stop having sand kicked in their face. Don't be 98 lb weaklings! The fact is that if Anglo-Saxons do not get their act together, there are plenty of other races, religions, and nationalities ready, willing, and able to step into the power vacuum.

The real political choice facing European Americans when it comes to choosing who they want to govern is not between Democrats and Republicans but between a return to "old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon hegemony" as an alternative to the emerging Third World coalition that is the evil spawn of "liberalism" in all its ethnocultural manifestations. For the life of me, I can't see any other real world alternative "group evolutionary strategy." "Whites", as is all too painfully evident, do not constitute a distinct ethnie. Its hard to imagine how they ever could now. The intermarriage among various European ethnies has left in its wake a large hybrid population of "whites" whose main claim to fame is that they are not Hispanics. This is not a recipe for in-group solidarity much less ethnic hegemony.

Auster is plain wrong. What we need is not for "the majority"-an arithmetic abstraction-to reassert its identity. Instead we must get rid of all that "democratic" majoritarian mumbo jumbo. We need to recognize the realities of minority rule. That's what we have now,in fact. We just need a different, and better, minority back in the saddle.

1/02/2008 09:33:00 PM  
Anonymous desmond jones said...

BB:

Your analysis is missing a significant component in understanding why the transition from WASP America to a European America and now to a non-European America, and that is the issue of class.

In Cannadine's Ornamentalism he outlines the Victorian sense of race. For Victorians, race was a description, not so much of colour differences, as of social distinctions,. The English lower classes were, to nineteenth-century eyes, as racially different as were Africans or Asians. A report in the Saturday Review about working class life observed that 'The Bethnal Green poor are a caste apart, a race of whom we know nothing, whose lives are of quite different complexion from ours, persons with whom we have no point of contact.' 'Distinctions and separations, like those of English classes', the Review suggested, 'which always endure, which last from the cradle to the grave, which prevent anything like association or companionship, produce an effect on the lives of the extreme poor, and subject them to isolation, which offer a very fair parallel to the separation of the slaves from the whites.'

In transitioning, high IQ WASPs gradually incorporated high IQ Jews/Europeans into the ruling elite. As MacDonald has written recently, Nevertheless, these individualist elites are paying a heavy price in terms of ethnic kinship. The eclipse of European America will certainly result in huge costs for the European majority, but they will be borne mainly by less intelligent and less conscientious whites. Nevertheless, if the transcendentalists tell us anything, European-American elites have done that before.

More specifically WASP American elites did this previously, encouraging mass immigration in the 19th century, that transfered wealth from the WASP middle/working class to WASP elites. Unlike the Jewish ethny there is no ethnic solidarity among WASPs.

MacDonald again: It is certainly the case that European-American elites are individualistic, but, as noted above, until the rise of the Jewish component of the American elite, there was a sense of noblesse oblige and a connection to the people. That seems to be missing now.

Noblesse oblige? Maybe, maybe not.

1/03/2008 08:25:00 AM  
Blogger bolingbroke said...

Desmond,
There can be no doubt that Anglo-Saxon elites lack a strong sense of ethnic solidarity. But that isn't just a matter of caste feeling among the upper classes. It's also a product of an individualistic Anglo-Saxon culture.

Ever since-at least-the seventeenth century, Anglo-Saxons have believed that people are (and should be) bound together by ties of interest rather than of sentiment or morality. Everyone, elite and non-elite individuals alike, is free to pursue his own advantage. The theology of capitalism taught that the invisible hand of the market would somehow allow the common good to magically emerge from the clash of individual interests.

The Church of England was as much tied to the idea of interest as any other sector of the Anglo-Saxon elite. That was in large part due to the fact that the Church had been reduced to the handmaiden of state interests ever since the Tudor era.

We can agree therefore that Anglo-Saxon elites are devoid of in-group solidarity. We can also agree that this poses a vital threat to the survival of Anglo-Saxons as a group. That is the problem. The question is: What is the solution?

It seems to me that we have to recognize that the problem has a significant spiritual dimension. Religion, especially in its Puritan and low church Anglican forms, was once adaptive for Anglo-Saxons, especially in America. But religion became maladaptive for group interests once it became perverted into the political theology of sovereignty (which spawned the ideology of white nationalism in America) and the closely related theology of capitalism.

Today the state-market system is destroying Anglo-Saxons as a people. Only a postmodern Anglican Reformation can save us now. Anglo-Saxon elites must come to understand that ethnic nepotism is the road to salvation for both themselves and their people. In other words, we need an Anglo-Saxon ethno-theology infused with a clear understanding of the sociobiology of between-group selection.

1/03/2008 01:31:00 PM  
Anonymous desmond jones said...

It's also a product of an individualistic Anglo-Saxon culture.

Bolingbroke:

Agreed, however, the problem is that, IMO, and even folks like Prof. Andrew Fraser, in OZ, suggest that this individualism, this "non-kinship based form of reciprocity" is evolved.

Over time, individualistic social structures encouraged the emergence in England of the common law of property and contract and, later still, the emergence of impersonal corporate forms of business enterprise, all requiring cooperation between strangers. The distinctive culture that emerged from the interaction between the genotype of the English people and their environment can be understood as what Richard Dawkins calls an extended phenotype. [31] Like the spider's web or the beaver's dam, the, extended phenotypes of Western civilization are part of a biocultural feedback loop linking our genes with our environment over countless generations. [32]

Thus you are faced with the same issue that faces liberals, in their attempt to raise black IQ via the adoption of an ideology. It doesn't work.

The ethnic forces that drove restriction in 1924 no longer exist. KKK Protestantism and scientific racism (i.e. Grant & Stoddard) are defunct. Labour, under the leadership of Samuel Gompers (a British Jew) supported restriction for economic reasons. It may be that for middle/low IQ WASPs/Europeans to survive the current onslaught of their treacherous elites they may need to organise along the lines of class, not race. It probably means building alliances with non-whites.

1/03/2008 04:03:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

"That was in large part due to the fact that the Church had been reduced to the handmaiden of state interests ever since the Tudor era."

Church became state long before the Tudor reign. Anglo-Saxons have long divided themselves into subgroups based upon religious beliefs, class, et al. This is not something new.

Regardless of how you slice it up, please leave a spot open for me in the "elite" class.

1/03/2008 04:46:00 PM  
Blogger bolingbroke said...

Anglo-Saxon individualism is certainly an evolved trait. But evolution has not come to an end. Nor is evolution simply a matter of genes. Genes and culture co-evolve. A cultural adaption associated with greater success in the process of between-group competition will favour groups that adopt it as compared to those that don't.

Anglo-Saxons need to develop cultural forms that favour higher levels of in-group solidarity. Class-based alliances of middle- to lower-class Anglo-Saxon individuals with non-whites are not likely to serve that end, if only because non-whites are encouraged by "liberals"-of both the Jewish and the Anglo-Saxon varieties to hate "whites" of any ethnicity. Divide and conquer is an age-old elite strategy. That's why they love Third World immigration in the first place.

Granted,non-elite Anglo-Saxons need to organize themselves in self-defence against their treacherous elites. The best way undertaking the process of Anglo-Saxon ethno-regenesis, however,would be to secede from the state-market system that is killing them.

There are good theological grounds for believing that an Anglo-Saxon Church could and should become the nucleus of a reborn Anglo-Saxon community outside and apart from, and in competition with both the state and the corporate sector.

The theology of incarnation implies that the divine works in and through the world around us. If so, it must follow that the Anglo-Saxon Volksgeist, when organized in an ecclesiastical community, represents an earthly manifestation of the body of Christ.

Such an ethno-theolgy would allow Anglo-Saxons to perceive themselves as a "chosen people" (or self-choosing people, perhaps) much like Jews have done for thousands of years. Only when Anglo-Saxons recover a sense of the divine spark within them will they once again become capable of collective action in defence of their own ethnic interests.

At that point, but not before, it becomes possible to imagine alliances with other ethnies ("white" and "non-white") in opposition to the cosmopolitan, deracinated Anglo-Saxon and Jewish liberals who occupy the commanding heights of the contemporary corporate welfare state.

As Gramsci recognized long ago, the class struggle cannot be won by focusing on the material interests of the exploited classes. The struggle is aimed at achieving spiritual and cultural hegemony. That insight is even more relevant to the inter-ethnic (and in the case of Anglo-Saxons, intra-ethnic) struggle for wealth, prestige, and power.

Jews forged a successful alliance with non-whites to topple the Anglo-Saxons from their hegemonic position. But they could only do so by virtue of an ethno-theology imposing a religious duty to maintain their in-group solidarity. Anglo-Saxons can learn a lot from that Jewish experience.

With an ethno-theology of their own, lower- and middle-class Anglo-Saxons might actually become empowered to shame their elites into a sense of renewed fellowship with their kith and kin.

1/03/2008 05:22:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

So you want A-S to act like that of "jewish behavior"? Form a cultural and religious "group", exclusively A-S; maintain a "minority" status with an affinity to whites where whites would not deem them a threat, thereby allowing them eventual upward mobility and an eventual stake in control of the society.

If you could get "minority" status for A-S, you pose an interesting issue.

1/03/2008 06:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow. Obama won the Iowa Caucus. That doesn't help the White-Nationalist-Anglo-Saxon cause. Hmm. What to do?

1/03/2008 08:05:00 PM  
Blogger bolingbroke said...

Desmond,
One more point re Anglo-Saxon individualism: Individualism did Anglo-Saxons no harm-quite the contrary-so long as they remained in insular isolation or even when they engaged in trade relations with other countries. That reflected the fact that a society based on free contractual exchange between strangers worked only because they trusted each other.

That mutual trust also allowed Anglo-Saxons to cooperate with each other in securing mastery over Indians and Negroes in the New World-groups that were notoriously unable to cooperate with or trust their co-ethnics. Neither Negroes nor Indians were ever integrated into Anglo-Saxon societies.

Even the late 19th century flood of southern and central European immigration dud not destroy Anglo-Saxon hegemony. But once the the old Anglo-Saxon capitalist class was replaced by a managerial-professional elite the attack on Anglo-Saxon hegemony began to build up a head of steam. That attack was spearheaded by highly educated Jews who were quick to recognize the opportunities for upward mobility offered by the industrial system created by Anglo-Saxon capitalists. Industrial capitalism was a dynamic system that quickly fell under the control of a new class of managers, technicians, and financiers.

Based in both the corporate sector and a bloated interventionist state,members of the managerial elite cannot hand on their positions directly to their children, much less their sons. A largely counterfeit "meritocracy" absorbed and then displaced the historic,Anglo-Saxon elite. Elite status came to depend more upon educational credentials than on possession of a pedigree stretching back to the Mayflower.

Influenced by "liberal" theories of social engineering, that managerial-professional elite has spent much of the past century forcing the integration of first Negroes and then the entire Third World upon Anglo-Saxons and other Europeans.

Unfortunately, ordinary Anglo-Saxons-at least those outside the South who still had a fund of experience to call upon-were genetically and culturally predisposed to trust strangers. As a consequence, Jews and other non-white groups armed with a powerful sense of tribal solidarity were ideally placed to rip off naively altruistic Anglo-Saxons.

But where is it written that Anglo-Saxons have to submit passively to such exploitation? Once upon a time, Anglo-Saxons lived on their own, among their own. It could happen again!

It would be a tragedy of major proportions were Anglo-Saxons compelled to sink into the multiracial slough of sullen distrust and mutual indifference that has crippled the development of most non-European societies. Nor do they have to submit to such an ignominious fate.

It is still open to Anglo-Saxons to self-segregate (or, more accurately, to struggle to recover the right to self-segregate) in an autonomous parallel society. The evolved tendency to trust others represents an enormously valuable stock of social capital that ought not to be squandered in the vain hope that Negroes, Third Worlders, and Jews can be brought up to Anglo-Saxon standards.

Anglo-Saxons in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and, of course, the United Kingdom can and should create a globe-girdling archipelago of Anglo-Saxon communities. There they can recover the strength and self-respect necessary to reassert their historic hegemony over the states and societies founded by their ancestors.

1/03/2008 09:47:00 PM  
Anonymous desmond jones said...

Excellent commentary Bollingbroke, however, with all due respect, and in light of the mutual interest we serve, it is in our interest to plod upstream a little.

Neither Negroes nor Indians were ever integrated into Anglo-Saxon societies.

They did attempt to integrate, especially in the less particularistic Cavaliers of Virginia. Examining John Rolfe's consternation over marrying Pocahontas is insightful. If Rolfe were of Puritan stock most likely his sense of community choseness eliminates the potential union. However, in an attempt to better the community, in contrast to the Spanish efforts in the New World, and after she converts to Christianity he takes her as a wife. It also appears that white indentured servants practiced miscegenation with Negro slaves. It appears the threat of miscegenation brought about the anti-miscegenation laws in an effort by the ruling class to lessen the risk of insurrection by binding lower class whites to them by a sense of whiteness. However, in practice, even Southern historian Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, made note of the disdain held by upper and yeoman class whites (and their slaves) for the plight of the low IQ cracker class whites of the Old South.

Even the late 19th century flood of southern and central European immigration did not destroy Anglo-Saxon hegemony.

True, however that simply reaffirms the point that, even as early as the Catholic migration, Irish and German, of 1846-1860, mass immigration was enormously destructive for middle/lower class WASP Americans.

In New York in 1850 an investigation was made of the cellar population by the Chief of Police at the instance of the health officer. The findings were published in the "Tribune" under the title Dens of Death. 4 One in twenty of the population of New York at that time was said to live underground. The census covered 18,456 persons inhabiting 8141 cellars. The average number living permanently in one room among the very poor of the city was six, the maximum number twenty. The average per house was about sixty, and in addition to this permanent population there were large numbers of transients that increased congestion to an incredible extent. The Old Brewery at Five Points had often held as many as three hundred. There were known to have been from two to four families in one room and most of these took in lodgers. 5

In the boarding and lodging cellars were found the lowest standards of living and the most degraded industrial population America had known up to that time. In some of these there were three classes of boarders. The first class paid thirty-seven and one half cents a week for board and lodging, sleeping on straw thrown loose over the floor and eating at what was called the 'first table.' The second class paid eighteen and three fourths cents a week, slept on the bare floor, and ate at the 'second table.' The third class paid nine cents a week, slept on the floor on sufferance, being turned out when second-class lodgers were available, and ate at the 'third table.' These cellars were generally bare of furniture with the exception of one or two benches and a long table. The marketing was done by children who were sent out to beg food, or by professional beggar women with whom the boarding-house keeper made contracts. All the baskets were brought in at a certain hour, the boarders assembled, and the whole mass was thrown upon the table. The first-class boarders had the first picking, the rest took what was left as unceremoniously as could be imagined.

The Society for the Improvement of the Condition of the Poor pointed out in some detail in 1853 that these slums were not unprofitable, that a return of one hundred per cent interest on their value was not at all uncommon. 1

The above is of course only one side -- the worst side -of the picture. Most of the native workers were better housed, but it was this with which they were being brought into competition, and which serves in part to explain their own tendency to lower levels of living. The women factory operatives in Lowell in the corporation houses were better housed and much cleaner, though they too often slept six in a room.


The Industrial Worker, 1840-1860: The Reaction of American Industrial Society to the Advance of the Industrial Revolution

Book by Norman Ware; Houghton Mifflin, 1924.

It was also apparent on a political/business elite level, a propaganda war against lower class WASP Americans was underway.

President Abraham Lincoln, speech on July 10, 1858.

"We are now a mighty nation, we are thirty — or about thirty millions of people, and we own and inhabit about one-fifteenth part of the dry land of the whole earth. We run our memory back over the pages of history for about eighty-two years and we discover that we were then a very small people in point of numbers, vastly inferior to what we are now, with a vastly less extent of country, — with vastly less of everything we deem desirable among men, — we look upon the change as exceedingly advantageous to us and to our prosperity, and we fix upon something that happened away back, as in some way or other being connected with this rise of prosperity. We find a race of men living in that day whom we claim as our fathers and grandfathers; they were iron men, they fought for the principle that they were contending for; and we understood that by what they then did it has followed that the degree of prosperity that we now enjoy has come to us. We hold this annual celebration to remind ourselves of all the good done in this process of time of how it was done and who did it, and how we are historically connected with it; and we go from these meetings in better humor with ourselves — we feel more attached the one to the other, and more firmly bound to the country we inhabit. In every way we are better than men in the age and race, and country in which we live for these celebrations. But after we have done all this we have not yet reached the whole. There is something else connected with it. We have besides these men-descended by blood from our ancestors — among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe — German, Irish, French and Scandinavian — men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,' and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as through they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, (loud and long continued applause) and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world." [Applause.]


The depths of the deceit are grand indeed, Bolingbroke.

1/04/2008 02:13:00 PM  
Blogger bolingbroke said...

Desmond,
Fascinating quotations that serve well to highlight the overstatement in my earlier claim that even the late 19th century southern and central European didn't undermine Anglo-Saxon hegemony. Lincoln's speech illustrates the degree to which by 1858 Anglo-Saxon hegemony had to be couched in the "inclusive" language of the "proposition nation."

Clearly, as I sought to argue, from the beginning of this discussion, "white nationalism" was the first version of American civic nationalism, a slippery slope that led directly to the myth of universal human rights.

At the same time, as Lincoln was speaking, George Fitzhugh was pointing to the plight of both native and immigrant "white" workers as evidence that Negro slavery was a positive good. Lincoln, of course, would not accept a nation half slave and half free. The war he waged to crush Southern independence did incalculable harm to the interests of Anglo-Saxons everywhere.

1/04/2008 05:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Avalanche said...

I haven't waded through the 105 comments yet to see if anyone has pointed this out -- but are you all aware that Auster is a mischling? He may be a Christian by conversion, but he's jewish by RACE -- and so of COURSE he protects his race ahead of the whites he lives amongst!

1/04/2008 08:04:00 PM  
Anonymous desmond jones said...

Fascinating quotations that serve well to highlight the overstatement in my earlier claim that even the late 19th century southern and central European didn't undermine Anglo-Saxon hegemony.

It did not undermine A/S elite hegemony, however, it did pit foreign labour against native labour in a competition that ultimately drove wages to the bottom, as Fitzhugh outlines.

Lincoln's war was not one, as Fitzhugh suggest, to squelch Southern independence, but one to undermine, what Fitzhugh describes as Southern socialism. It's intent was to break the link between capital/property and labour. It's intent was to bring untapped black labour resources into competition with native labour to the benefit of the Northern A/S elite.

1/05/2008 12:21:00 AM  
Blogger Flanders Fields said...

Tan, Of the two videos which I earlier recommended, let me refer you to this one in particular. I stress it because I know how reluctant I am to listen through recommended items and to not find them worth the time invested. I think you will agree that listening to this one is worth the time and the effort. Freedman:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xINjWnrmbx4&watch_response

1/15/2008 03:01:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Thanks Flanders. That series was very informative.

The wiki page on Freedman is interesting, especially the discussion about it. He is apparently so controversial and so close to being flushed down the memory hole that some people apparently disbelieve that he really existed.

1/23/2008 01:26:00 AM  
Blogger Flanders Fields said...

I thought Freedman was interesting, too, Tan. So were your links. It leaves a lot of questions, but gives a of a lot of answers. Some of the latter seem to be backed up by good sources.

There is one aspect which gives me a lot of problems and that being that I'm convinced that a great number of those who consider themselves Jewish and Zionists are convinced that they, too, are being sold out. Evidence seems to support their contentions.

I don't dispute that there is tremendous ownership of press and media, as well as very skewed membership in the major control groups. I believe that it is the control groups which "hold the reins", including international communist movements under various descriptions, names and guises.

The goal is the control of individuals and resources of the world for Corporatists (the corporate leftists and "social" communists who work with them). Both are top heavy with those who describe themselves as Jewish or Zionist. The control organizations are staffed as well with compliant participants from various racial and ethnic backgrounds.

The Corporatists don't favor anyone except themselves. They control the advancement of their ideology by ownership of top levels of society. They do have a "following" (plants) among some blogs which are difficult to identify, some of which place PC while purporting to be conservative.

1/25/2008 02:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Svigor said...

Howdy all. Someone at majorityrights.com linked to this blog so I moseyed over and read a few threads. I liked what I read so I'll probably come back for another visit.

Auster's a joke. The most telling comment about him here was the guy who approved of a Jew finally playing the role of useful idiot.

Indeed. But, I certainly don't begrudge anyone documenting the depths of the joke that is Auster, and his too-Jewish refusal to even pay attention to the criticism makes him even funnier. Let's get as many people pointing and guffawing as possible (and peel them away from Auster's site, so we can tell them even more jokes).

Moving on to more serious matters, Skeptical wrote:

the "Jewish Question" is less relevant to today's politics than it is to the history books.

This runs counter to the evidence. You have quite the row to hoe there.

Probably like you I didn't give the Jews (and their impact on Western society) a second thought until I had already developed pro-White views.

Not like me. I was raised somewhat racially-aware, including Jew-aware (though if my dad had lived to see my ultimate political destination, it'd be me teaching him, and not the other way 'round); one of the biggest motivators (and models) of my racial nationalism is Jewry. In the few moments of doubt I've had over the last 6 or 7 years, it has invariably been the Jewish Question that has led me to grit my teeth and say to myself, "fuck that shit" (sorry, but that's really how the internal dialogue goes).

It is the Jewish Question that leads me to iron-clad faith in my cause on principle, irrespective of my own Ethnic Genetic Interests.

In other words, because of what I know about Jews, I'd be a white racial nationalist even if I wasn't white.

In other words, we can "name the Jew" all day long but it won't make sense to the mainstream White masses until they first start caring about their own race.

I disagree. The JQ has the power to make whites into racially aware whites by dint of a belief in universal justice alone.

That's how we turn the power of our own currently hijacked sense of altruistic punishment back to our own interests.

Why do you guys think Jews fight tooth and nail at the drop of a hat when you touch their tender Jewish parts? Because they know they're fighting for their lives, even if only at the subconscious level. There's nothing "hysterical" about their behavior at all. They know, at whatever level, what will happen to them if the cat gets out of the bag. Start thinking of Jews as criminals bent on keeping their crimes covered up and you'll understand them better almost immediately.

That's why I've come around to the opinion that the destructive leftist impact of American Jewry is more a problem we need to overcome (as pro-Whites) than as a rallying point for waking up the general White public.

Years ago I came to the conclusion that there's no one right way to get this job done. We need a multispectrum attack.

By the way, you're behavior in this exchange with Auster has been commendable.

It's usually this way. The European acts like a gentleman, the Jew acts like a brazen criminal caught in the act, and the heavens don't darken.

1/28/2008 02:31:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Welcome Svigor,

Start thinking of Jews as criminals bent on keeping their crimes covered up and you'll understand them better almost immediately.

I agree that this does explain the behavior of many anti-anti-semites and it is in fact how I make sense of this fellow from Auster's Why Jews Welcome Muslims:

Just the other week I was telling a secular, leftist Jew of my acquaintance, a man in his late sixties, about my idea (which I've proposed at FrontPage Magazine) that the only way to make ourselves safe from the specter of domestic Moslem terrorism is to deport all jihad-supporting Moslems from this country. He replied with emotion that if America deported Moslem fundamentalists, it would immediately start doing the same thing to Jews as well. "It's frightening, it's scary," he said heatedly, as if the Jews were already on the verge of being rounded up. In the eyes of this normally phlegmatic and easy-going man, America is just a shout away from the mass persecution, detention, and even physical expulsion of Jews.

Now observe how Auster spins this:

Given the wildly overwrought suspicions that some Jews harbor about the American Christian majority who are in fact the Jews' best friends in the world, it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews.

"De-Christianized America"? It's Latino Christians flooding in, aided in part by Christians here. There is no de-Christianization going on. It's Whites, Christian or otherwise, whose power mass non-White immigration is meant to attack. "Persecute Jews"? A more apt word would be "prosecute". By his choice of words Auster obscures and deflects the criminality. Wouldn't jews call any attempt to attack their power, as jews, a crime? Why shouldn't Whites do the same?

The anti-anti-semites I've "debated" are otherwise rationale people with an encyclopaedic knowledge of jew-Gentile conflict, yet they tend to apportion collective blame to disparate Gentile cultures sprinkled across time and space (eg. presuming an unjust pogrom or Holocaust can spring from Whites anywhere) even while they judge any criticizing or apportioning of blame to jews collectively as ironclad evidence of the accuser's subhumaness.

I'm tired of the word games and the moral double standards. Fuck that shit describes my sentiments exactly.

2/07/2008 12:01:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home