White Advocate Robert Griffin

From a review at Amazon:

Robert Griffin's Living White offers solid reportage, analysis, and counsel for racially conscious American whites interested in effective thought and action on behalf of their beleaguered kind and country. Griffin, a professor of education at the University of Vermont, is that rarity: a knowledgeable student of contemporary American white nationalism who is an emphatic and empathetic partisan of his people. He is the author of two valuable books on white America's fledgling racial-nationalist movement, The Fame of a Dead Man's Deeds, based on interviews with the late William Pierce and One Sheaf, One Vine, which gives voice to ordinary European-Americans who have embraced racial consciousness in ways currently acceptable for nonwhites and for Jews in this country, but long since taboo for whites.

In Living White, Griffin brings well-honed critical skills to addressing questions of individual demeanor and conduct that the committed very often neglect: the search for self-knowledge, the struggle for personal effectiveness, the resolve to act in the public arena, and the ability to communicate racial concerns to other whites. The score of essays included in Living White encompass the wide range of Griffin's observations of the racial right, observations sharpened by his learning in the psychology of education and by his comparative detachment as a latecomer to white racial politics. The pieces collected here run the gamut from practical advice for activists to meditations on the careers of men as disparate as Stanford University president and eugenics enthusiast David Starr Jordan and American Nazi agitator George Lincoln Rockwell, demolitions of books by academic denigrators of white people, and valuable personal vignettes of his own path to self-fulfillment in service of his people.

Besides being uncommonly objective, Robert Griffin is unusually thoughtful, and much of his thought has been devoted to gaining knowledge of himself. This self-knowledge, and his observation and experience of life, make Griffin a sympathetic listener and a sound adviser on the challenges of living white in today's America. His essay on how to educate one's children to live honorable white lives is notable for his grasp of the essential issues: too many white parents (and not just nationalists) still believe that it suffices to remove their offspring from minority milieus, neglecting the tentacles of the education industry and the entertainment media. He is particularly good on the loss of community and on considerations of how to rebuild it, in writing free of both lamentation and cheery assurance of easy restorations.

In just a few years Robert Griffin has emerged as an author, analyst, and public spokesman for white Americans, despite his very public status in the fishbowl of campus life at a state university. The fact that he has tenure has not preserved him from wounds to the ego and the heart, wounds which he wears openly and bravely. The deafness which afflicted Griffin suddenly after he had completed his second book on white nationalism has been if anything a goad to his work and action: It lead him to write, here, "While--for me--there is still time, in my life, I want, day to day, hour to hour, in my own unique way, to live as an honorable white man," thereby giving body and soul to Friedrich Nietzsche by now hackneyed "What does not destroy me makes me stronger," and reminding that, as George Eliot wrote, "It's never too late to be what you might have been."

Perusing Griffin's web site the synopsis for the essay On the New McCarthyism caught my attention:

The topic here is the current attacks on racially conscious and active white people by those who would marginalize, silence, and punish them for their beliefs, expressions, and actions. I use a memoir on the McCarthy era, as it was called, in the 1940s and ‘50s, written by Walter Bernstein, Inside Out: A Memoir of the Black List, and an encounter I had in late 2006 with the Southern Poverty Law Center to frame an analysis of this phenomenon, drawing parallels between what went on in the McCarthy years, and at other points in history, and what’s going on now. I offer some suggestions on how racially committed white people can deal with attacks against them.

The following exerpts really struck a chord:

Bernstein was a member of the Communist Party. He was also a morally upright person who cared deeply about the welfare of his fellow man and economic and racial justice. But all that was immaterial to his inquisitors. It didn’t matter what he was like. It didn’t matter what his commitments were. And it wasn’t a personal assault on Bernstein, because he was no longer a person: he was type, a concept, he’d been objectified, de-humanized. Bernstein could be fit into a category that had been set up as evil and threatening, Communist, and that made him the enemy and fair game.

Bernstein was like the Jap in World War II. You don’t acknowledge a Jap’s humanity. You don’t bother distinguishing one Jap from another. You don’t try to figure out what a Jap is thinking, or hear him out, or dialogue with him. You certainly don’t care a whit about what happens to a Jap. You kill a Jap, period. You drop firebombs on Jap women and children in Tokyo—after all, they are all Japs, the same ones that attacked our ships in Pearl Harbor, no difference. You drop atomic bombs on civilian populations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki—why not, they are Japs, they deserve to die. Bernstein was a Jap.

I’ll offer some thoughts on how you can get good people to commit or go along with a bad thing and feel good about it: up to persecuting, and even slaughtering, other people they don’t even know. Here’s how you do it:

Control their information, images, and ideas. Make sure they only hear your side of the story.

Couch what you want in the highest sounding language. Tell them its defending freedom, on the side of justice, combating hate, something like that.

Give people language they can use to tell themselves how virtuous they are when they destroy the people you want destroyed or go along with it. People like to think of themselves as a being good, morally upright, having good character, and so on.

De-humanize and objectify the other side. In Germany, Jews were depicted as vermin and as being all alike. Racially conscious whites are all KKK members. Nazis are evil and all the same. “White males” are all privileged, boorish, and oppressive. Keep people from looking at the particulars about individuals and just focusing on the pejorative category you’ve set up. Categories are easier to attack and kill than individual human beings.

Let people know that if they go along with you they will be acknowledged and approved and respected by others and included in the group. And the stick to complement the carrot, point out examples of people who didn’t go along with you—how they were condemned, ignored, disrespected, marginalized, or shunned.

Distribute some tangible perks to people who play ball with you. Thinking your way and doing your bidding is a way to get and keep a job, get a promotion and a raise, get praise and an award, get an article or a book published, a project funded, etc. And alternatively, get across that crossing you is the way to get negated, fired, and your house on the auction block.

And then turn the dogs loose. Even the sweetest of dogs, to continue that metaphor, will go for the throat, and more, they’ll honestly believe in what they are doing. Depending on whether they live in Germany or England, they’ll put Jews on freight trains or incinerate 130,000 civilians in Dresden in a bombing raid.

And notice where it starts: Making sure that only the information, images, and ideas favorable to your side gets to the masses. Controlling what gets published, what films get made and what gets on television, what is lectured and read and said in the classroom, who gets to participate in the public discourse and who gets silenced. Clamping down hard on anybody who doesn’t mirror the current orthodoxy, the current creed. Joseph Goebbels knew all about this, and so do modern thought managers.

Reading Bernstein’s account, I was struck by parallels between what was going on in the 1940s and ‘50s and what’s happening in our time now with the attacks against “hate.” My research and writing on race has brought me into personal contact with this contemporary inquisition. I’ve seen what has happened to people I’ve encountered, and I’ve tasted a bit of it myself. My transgression is that I wrote about white separatists, white advocates, white activists, and yes, white supremacists, without condescendingly smearing them as ignorant, anachronistic, and malevolent racists and bigots. I didn’t do that because it wouldn’t have been truthful to do that.

I care about the wellbeing of all people on this planet, and that includes European heritage people, white people. Most of my writing on race has been reportage and analysis, but increasingly as time has gone on, I have written from a position of white advocacy. I’m an advocate for whites for the same reasons that others support blacks and Hispanics and other groups. I’ve spent my adult life around secondary schools and universities and I’ve seen first hand how young whites are put down in schools. Their ancestors are trashed as oppressors, they are conditioned to feel guilty about their heritage and race, and they are taught to defer to and serve the interests of other races and pay no attention to the welfare of their own people. They are shut up if they express racial pride and commitment, they are beaten back if they even think about forming organizations or engaging in collective action, and they are the victims of racial discrimination in school admittance. If the children of any other racial or ethnic group were treated this way in schools there would be hell to pay.

If I advocated for any other group but whites, using the exact same language and rationale, I’d be applauded and rewarded. I find it fascinating that nobody seems to notice this contradiction. Say you care about white people these days and it’s called hate, and people buy into that.

Here's an unvarnished truth the anti-White "hate speech" goons don't want deracinated Whites to hear:

It is more accurate to call the people and organizations I have studied and written about this past decade as white advocates or white separatists rather than white supremacists. They are concerned about the status and future of white people and their heritage and, many of them, want whites to be able, if they choose, to live among their own and to determine their own destiny. That said, some racially conscious whites do believe that, given their values, the white race has been, and continues to be, more accomplished; superior, if you will. They hold that if you objectively assess the races on the bases of their achievements in philosophy, ethics, the arts, architecture, civilization building, mathematics, science and technology, and business acumen, whites are at the top of the list, or at least compared to blacks and Hispanics. They contend that knowing a community is white allows you to predict that with great deal of certainty that it is clean and orderly and safe, and that its children are cared for and educated well, and that life is liveable there; and that the same cannot be said for a black or Hispanic community. They claim that when there is an infusion of blacks and Hispanics into a white area to the level of a critical mass—say, 30%--you can predict that the area will deteriorate physically, become politically corrupt and more dangerous, that educational standards will become lower, and that it will be an area that decent people will want leave, not enter.

I believe in freedom of conscience. It a free society it should not be a crime or punishable to believe one’s race or religion is superior. Rather than forbid assertions of white superiority, we should allow it to be part of the public discourse. If it is empirically false, that will be demonstrated by counterargument. The truth will set us free, or at least it will set us on the right direction. We need to ground ourselves in reality, whatever that reality is, and even if that reality is unpalatable. To operate on high-sounding but false premises is a ticket to distress and failure.

You might think a diverse, multiracial, multicultural society is demonstrably best, and preferable as a setting in which to live. Others, however, have the right to ask you to provide concrete examples to support your perspective and preference rather than just rhetoric. Other than the fictions on television and in the movies where are these multi-racial, multi-ethnic paradises? In Lebanon? In the old Yugoslavia? In Rwanda and the Sudan? In Chicago and Detroit and Cincinnati and Los Angeles? In London? Paris? Where exactly? And what gives you the right to tell white people who want to live peacefully among their racial kinsman that they can’t do that and they must live your way? Back to human nature, there is a tendency for people to think their way is the best way and the only way, and to force that on other people. I think that is a predilection we all need to overcome in ourselves.

Contrary to the image that has been painted of them, the vast majority of the racially conscious whites do not want to harm blacks and Hispanics or rule them. Rather, they simply want to get away from them. And they are not racists as we usually define that term: they don’t harbor a deep-seated, irrational animosity toward minorities. What is called racism and hate is actually disapproval and disdain. With blacks, white racialists disapprove of, and have contempt for, their illegitimacy rate, their violent crime rate, the way they fail to keep up the areas in which they live, their educational and work performance, their welfare dependency, and their tendency to hold others responsible for their negative conduct and demand double standards and racial preferences. These whites point out that that 90% of interracial crime is black on white, and are enraged that blacks rape 20,000 white women a year (versus a couple hundred the other way around), and are convinced that these realities are suppressed by those who control the information flow in America.

His advice for fellow White advocates:

I’ll end with some suggestions to people who may find themselves a target of the today’s McCarthyites. In particular, I’m speaking to white racially conscious people of whatever stripe: white analyst, white advocate, white activist, white separatist, or white supremacist. I want to underscore that what I offer here is my best thinking, but it could be off the mark. Take it as simply my side of a conversation. With that disclaimer on the record, here’s my advice to those who care about white people and their future in a culture that is committed to shutting you down hard and making you pay.

First of all, cover your ass. They’ll do anything to you they can get away with, and it makes no difference whether you have done anything wrong or not. And you have to assume that you are all alone, that there is nobody covering your back. Somebody might bleat on an Internet discussion list that you got screwed, but that’s about as far as it will go, or at least you better not count on any more support than that. You have a career going and bills to pay and perhaps a wife or husband and children to guide and support and parents to care for, and as far as I’m concerned, those are your first obligations. Until you are sure about what you are going to do and its consequences, don’t create a paper trail that can be used to get you. If you write, use a pseudonym. Keep your name off membership lists. Don’t write anything in an e-mail you wouldn’t mind being a front page story in the newspaper. If you are going for a job or a promotion, tell them what they want to hear. If you are up for tenure as an academic, lay low until that comes through. Stay underground until you are clear you want to go above ground.

Get in the best shape you can. Figure you are in a war. Get battle-ready. Put your mind and body in the best condition possible. If you have some physical or mental issue, habit, addiction, whatever it is, that is getting in your way, get it out of your way, starting now.

Don’t buy what the crap they tell you about yourself. The people doing the talking in this country tell you that being for minorities is good but being for whites is bad, that you are bad, that they are the action and you keep your mouth shut over in the corner, and so on. Constantly tell yourself another, more positive, story.

Find some likeminded people. You aren’t alone. There are people that think as you do, and who will like and encourage you. They may be right around you or they might be on the Internet. You might have to contact them on the sly. Bernstein in his memoir wrote: “When I was with other blacklisted people, I felt what I had felt in the war [WWII], a comradeship based on common purpose. . . . What I felt was unjustified by my social condition. Bitterness and despair were more appropriate. But with these people the scream stayed dormant in my throat. What I felt was a kind of happiness.”

Don’t assume that explaining and placating will do you any good. When they come after you, there is always the tendency to try to talk your way out of it. “See, I’m not really a racist, and actually, some of my best friends . . .” It is temping when they get on your case, or to prevent them from doing it, to suck up to them, come off as a nice guy, a benign guy, a no-threat-to-anybody guy, an I’m-really-on-your-side guy, etc. I suppose those kinds of things can work, but you have to assume that reason and logic and whether you are a good guy doesn’t cut it for anything; no matter what you say, no matter how much tail you kiss, as soon as they can, they’ll slit your throat.

Play to your strengths. And what might they be?

• Legal recourse. People don’t like to get sued. The first person to contact if someone dumps on you for your racial beliefs or actions is an attorney. Don’t say or do anything until you do.
• Use the system. What they want to do is keep it just you and them. They call you into a room, hit you with the charge. You reason and beg (it feels really good to them to have somebody prostrate themselves like you are doing). Then, after waiting you out with a patronizing slight smile on their face, they fire you or whatever it was they had in mind when they called you into the room. Make it about more than you and your oppressor; get it out of that room. Kick it upstairs. Take it to his boss. Invoke the grievance or review system. If you have a union, get it involved. Knowledge is power: know the system, the organizational chart, everything that is written down. Nobody should know more about how the system works than you do.
• Go public. Most often, they want to mess you over without anybody finding out. And most often, you go along with that because you are embarrassed, or you feel helpless, or deep down you think you are as bad as they say you are, or you’re scared, or they’ve promised you a positive recommendation or some extended insurance coverage if you keep things inside. And perhaps it is your interest to go along with playing it that way. All I can offer is my sense that the ones coming at you usually don’t like it when outside people know what they are doing. The thought of what’s happening to you getting on TV and in the newspapers, you trashing them publicly, or it actually happening, is most often a very aversive experience to the ones trying to do you in; and the threat to do that, or the impression that you will do that if they attack you, could get them to back off or cut a favorable deal.
• Counterattack. It’s makes sense when people hit you to defend yourself, but while you are doing that be thinking about how you can attack them and put them on the defensive. Just as it was on the playground when you were a kid, letting the bully know that you aren’t just going to roll up in a ball and take his abuse, and that you are going to do your best to break his nose if he touches you, is a good way to present yourself. And the key is, don’t be kidding; if you can, break his nose. Bernstein, bless him, just took it. At least we can go down swinging.
• Keep in mind where this ends up. At the end of our lives we make a fundamental judgment about ourselves: that we lived an honorable life or we didn’t. An honorable life doesn’t mean we did the right thing every time, but basically we did. Basically we didn’t sell out. Living an honorable life doesn’t mean we were never lived irresponsibly, but basically we lived responsibly. Living an honorable life doesn’t mean we never shortchanged ourselves and other people, but basically we did our best. I think we always have to keep in the back of our minds that there will be a time when there is only the past and what we have done with it; and that what will someday be the past is now and tomorrow and the next day and the next month and the next year. The question today and tomorrow and next month and next year is what is the honorable thing to do? It may take a while to get ourselves to the place where we are doing the honorable thing, but I think if we keep plugging the best we can we have a good shot of someday, down the road, smiling peacefully and saying “Yes.”

I would prefer he write White instead of white, but I'm happy to have found another likeminded person.

Something Unspeakable This Way Comes

Yes, you may be sick of Lawrence Auster. I know I am. I consider here some previous statements which I have only just become aware, and which I find relevant to the critique of his ideas I have already invested quite some effort in. This is also connected to and motivated by the realization I first made and began to explore in September: that it is not possible to forthrightly discuss political correctness, cultural marxism, liberalism, immigration, or White genocide without locking horns with jews. I am still only beginning to absorb the staggering disproportion of their involvement and aggressive and unapologetic pursuit of their own group interests over a very long period of time.

I can see that anyone who comes to such conclusions and speaks out honestly about them is smeared as a lunatic driven to irrational hate by a supposed congenital defect that makes them believe jews are to blame for everything. There is virtually nobody to cite in support who themselves has not already been similarly smeared, even though most do not fit the evil and demented caricature they are slandered with. Thus I continue to focus on and criticize Auster, who has long analyzed and argued against liberalism - an ideology he seems well aware jews helped construct, that most adhere to, and that has empirically served their interests - but when faced with the unpleasant implications of his own arguments would literally rather abandon them than see any responsibility fall on jews.

A few days ago Auster noted a post of his from 14 Nov 2003 where he comments on a quote from Nietzsche's Human, All-Too-Human:

"... [T]he whole problem of the Jews exists only in nation states, for here their energy and higher intelligence, their accumulated capital of spirit and will, gathered from generation to generation through a long schooling in suffering, must become so preponderant as to arouse mass envy and hatred."

Now this is amazing as a very early, remarkably incisive expression of the Jewish problem. Think of it--this was written in the 1870s, 20 years before Theodore Hertzl's blinding revelation that the Jews could never be safe as a minority in Europe and needed their own country. (In the early 1990s I and a friend shared the thought that in whatever society they entered Jews would automatically rise to the top and so create majority-minority tensions. This was a new and disturbing idea to me at the time. Little did I know that Nietzsche had said exactly the same thing 120 years earlier.)

But the passage is also amazing in the context of the Jack Wheeler article I posted yesterday. Wheeler argues that liberal guilt is aimed at neutralizing the envy being directed at the liberal from those at the bottom. Now, according to Nietzsche, which is the most envied and hated of all groups? The Jews. And, as we know, which group is also the most liberal--and famous for its liberal guilt--of all groups? The Jews. The Jews are the most liberal because they are the objects of the most envy.

Auster then links to a post from 12 Nov 2003 where he writes:

Susie is correct about Nietzsche's idea that the slave mentality or _ressentiment_ against the strong originated largely among the Jews, and about his view that this same mentality was expanded through its embodiment in Christianity to the detriment of the world. (However, it's important to point out that Nietzsche's hatred, especially in his almost insane late book The Anti-Christ, was directed against Christianity, not against the Jews; Nietzsche was never an anti-Semite.) She's also correct to point out the connection between the slave mentality and modern liberalism; and also that Jewish neoconservatives differ from liberal Jews in being determinedly pro-American.

However, this doesn't mean that the neoconservatives are free from all forms of that resentment. In my view, the Jewish neoconservatives advance an _ideological_ vision of America, and oppose any notion of a _substantive_ American nation, precisely because they fear that they would not be seen as 100 percent full citizens in it. To this degree, they are still functioning as a self-conscious minority trying to weaken an "oppressive" majority. And the majority, by yielding to the minority's demands, does indeed weaken itself and even puts itself on the path to extinction.

My solution to this dilemma is that the majority must re-discover itself _as_ the majority, and see the minority _as_ the minority. This doesn't mean exclusion, persecution, or loss of rights of the minority. But it does mean that the minority, insofar as it is a minority, should not be able to speak authoritatively for the society as a whole. That indeed is the state we're in now, with advanced liberalism and multiculturalism, in which the minorities express themselves as groups and are given importance as groups, while the members of the majority only express themselves as individuals. An ordered state of society is one in which the majority is the majority, and the minorities are minorities.

Wheeler link and emphasis added.

Let's review. In Nov 2007 Auster summed up his Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society like so: "the more difficult or dangerous a minority or non-Western group actually is, the more favorably it is treated". I noted a corollary: that jews are the most favorably treated minority of all, therefore they are the most difficult and dangerous. Auster rejected this because jews are not "perceived as dysfunctional, unassimilable, alien or hostile", except by anti-semites. I then pointed out that even his ad hoc qualifications are arguably satisfied, and that his anti-semitism trump card does nothing but lend credence to my point. Auster responded by making insinuations about my pseudonym, complaining about my blog's color and typeface, and exploring the various ways in which I have sinned against jews - for instance by being indifferent to being labeled an anti-semite.

Far from being indifferent I recognize the hostility and hypocrisy behind that label and the distraction and intimidation it is intended to produce. I condemn and reject it all. I understand and accept Auster's affinity for jews, and thus I understand his anti-anti-semitic bigotry. What I don't understand, and can't abide, is his inconsistency and hypocrisy.

As the blockquotes above show, in 2003 Auster expressed thoughts similar to my own. Consider for example his analysis of the fears motivating jewish neoconservatives. He knows the root of those fears is not their neoconservatism, it is their self-discriminating jewish identity and their self-serving liberal values. The quotes above imply that this "self-conscious minority" helped put "the majority" "on the path to extinction". So as I read it, Auster makes the argument that jews by their own volition have been both unassimilable and hostile to "the majority".

The tact Auster has consistently taken, and the out he would probably take here, is to place all blame and responsibility on "the majority". As he literally phrases it "the majority" weakened "itself", put "itself" on the path to extinction, and the cure is to re-discover "itself". This thinking is of course just as simplistic and one-sided as he imagines everyone he calls an anti-semite is guilty of, except in the opposite direction. His own standard, expressed for instance here, is that it is an error to make judgments about jews as jews. This for some reason does not keep him from asserting "that in whatever society they entered Jews would automatically rise to the top", nor does it keep him from passing judgments on "the majority" as "the majority".

Beside revealing a fallacious double standard, Auster's advice for "the majority" is both dubious and disingenuous. When individuals in "the majority" notice that jews express collective interests, interests which are more cohesive and identifiable and monolithically pursued (eg. civil rights, open borders) than those of "the majority", and point out that such interests harm "the majority", Auster is just as quick as anyone to denounce and call for the offender to be excluded from any further discussion. His proscription of anyone who opposes jews (most of whom are liberal) undermines his prescription that "the majority" should oppose liberals (many of whom are jews). The assertiveness he recommends has already failed, and it was defeated by generations of the kind of divide-and-conquer ostracization he supports.

It's easy to imagine the reverse - a world in which liberal jews or other minorities are denounced and excluded. Liberal jews and their comrades in "the majority" are for all practical purposes driven by just such an imaginative reversal. They constantly breathe life into this fear with their movies, reporting, scholarship, and politics, and insist that everyone else be animated by it too. Their fear of potential repression by "the majority" is used to justify pushing "the majority" toward extinction. If you reject their utopian vision because you can see that it is in fact producing chaos and dystopia, well then you are obviously a neo-nazi who validates all their fears. It is sheer tautological madness.

Smears and inversion are the hallmarks of liberalism. They are the key tools with which liberals have rendered "the majority" powerless and are actively reducing it to a minority. Not one in a hundred people know that this is happening or why. That is not an excuse Lawrence Auster can hide behind. He sees. He knows. And yet he dissimulates.

A quote left on my previous post by Desmond Jones:

‘The Jews,’ he says, ‘will be compelled by anti-Semitism to destroy among all peoples the idea of a fatherland.’ Or, I secretly thought to myself, to create a fatherland of their own."—Theodor Herzl, English translation by H. Zohn, R. Patai, Editor, The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, Volume 1, Herzl Press, New York, (1960), p. 196.

Kevin MacDonald quotes Earl Raab:

The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We [i.e., Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible— and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.

Auster:

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. 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.

The deeper I dig the awfuller the truth gets.

UPDATE 24 Jan 2008: Auster replies:

Another person on the warpath against me today is the anti-Semite "Tanstaafl." He has found and quotes at length various statements of mine about the Jews, including my 2004 FrontPage Magazine article, "Why Jews Welcome Moslems," and concludes that I'm an anti-Semite just like him, and therefore I'm a lousy hypocrite for condemning him and refusing to have anything to do with him. It is the case that anti-Semites, whose intellects are pathologically distorted, are unable to see any distinction between rational criticism of Jews and their own dehumanization of Jews. By the way, Tanstaafl, unable to resist for a second showing us where he's really coming from, consistently spells the word "Jews" as "jews," lower case.

My real conclusion is that Auster is the opposite of an anti-semite - he is an anti-anti-semite, i.e. a jewish bigot. He is indeed a hypocrite, which he illustrates here once again. His intellect is "pathologically distorted" and "unable to see any distinction between rational criticism of Jews and their own dehumanization of Jews". My point in this post, and the previous one concerning him, is that he has all the intellectual ability required to engage my arguments, which are after all based on his own words and lines of reasoning. Yet he refuses to do so, apparently because he reserves a higher pedestal for jews, a pedestal from which they can slander and dehumanize and ostracize anyone they choose to label "anti-Semite".

To Auster's credit, and despite his deliberate distortions of my thoughts and desires, he does provide links here. Thus his readers can judge for themselves who is rational. I have no hope or desire to change the anti-anti-semites (like Auster, or my commenter Adam, who corresponds with Auster as Paul T.), my hope is that his non-jewish readers, unaware they are being assimilated, will become more aware of the inversion and inherent bigotry contained in the anti-semite slur. I hope they think of this every time Auster uses it, and every time he quotes his Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society. A law from which he exempts the powerful jewish minority based on the circular (and self-nullifying) logic that to argue they have been unassimilable or hostile to "the majority" is forbidden.

UPDATE 6 Mar 2008: Added missing link to Auster's 12 Nov 2003 comment above.

White Self-Determination and Totalitarian Liberals

John Savage at Brave New World Watch recently started a series of interesting threads. The Cases That Judge Auster Won’t Hear was related to my last post, Auster and Anti-Anti-Semitism. Auster commented on John's post and also linked to it from Savage Discovers White Nationalism, where he provides 1, 2, 3, 4 windows into his thinking about what he calls "the Jewish issue".

Auster's persecution complex is palpable and I daresay hypocritical considering the thoughtless smears he directs toward anyone he deems anti-semitic. The hyperbole he has thrown at me, and now John, and those 4 windows do a decent job of illustrating just that. But this post is not about Auster, or anti-anti-semitism, except to the extent that these things relate to and interfere with White self-determination.

I have gone digging in the weeks since I wrote White Nationalism and Anti-Semitism in an attempt to figure out just what White nationalism means, what jews have to do with it, and why so many jews oppose it. I have come across many interesting sources, some of which I added to the links on the right side of this page. Many of these sources discuss White self-determination and speak frankly about "the Jewish issue" without advocating bellicosity toward jews. I find three particularly informative and insightful.

The first source, Yggdrasil's Library, consists primarily of essays written and posted to the alt.politics.nationalism.white newsgroup in the mid-to-late 1990s. I don't agree with some of what Yggdrasil writes, and I haven't read everything. In places it is dated, and in others prescient. To get a flavor of his thinking I refer you to:

• What is a Race?
• Exploitation
• Race Bias #41 - "What do They Know?"
• Why White Nationalism?
• The Sigmund Freud Card
• Culture Wars #1 - Talking in "Code"

The second source is Robert Whitaker, who actively blogs today. From what I've read his thinking is focused not so much on White nationalism as it is on driving home the premise for it. This is summed up in Bob's Mantra:

"Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries."

"The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them."

"Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites."

"What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?"

"How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?"

"And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?"

"But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews."

"They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white."

"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."

Here Bob explains why he repeats this mantra. Here are his thoughts on jews.

The third source is Kevin MacDonald, an evolutionary psychologist and author whose interest to me stems from his analysis of jewish culture and thinking, and how they influence Whites. I have not yet read any of his books. What I have read at MacDonald's blog and a few papers is somewhat technical, but his assertions are supported by facts and well-reasoned arguments. Even so he is vilified by anti-anti-semites. For a mild example consider Auster's Is my criticism of Jewish attitudes the same as Kevin MacDonald’s?

Auster writes:

He says that the Jewish people as Jewish people pursue a conscious agenda aimed at destroying European civilization.

His correspondent Paul Gottfried writes:

What MacDonald does is assume that nasty anti-Christian behavior engaged in by some Jews is something far more profitable than it is.

Auster's accusation projects onto MacDonald the kind of bad faith Auster imagines MacDonald projects onto jews. In other words Auster dislikes MacDonald because he thinks MacDonald dislikes jews. (Which is the same reason he dislikes me.) The point of this is...what exactly? MacDonald may or may not dislike jews. Auster may hate MacDonald, or Whites in general. Does that change the objective truth of their statements? Does that mean the rest of us should be forbidden from hearing any of their statements? I don't think so.

For what it's worth I don't get the impression MacDonald dislikes jews any more than Auster dislikes Whites. In what I've read MacDonald often repeats his belief that jewish group behavior involves large amounts of self-deception. He doesn't believe they have a conscious agenda other than "good is what's good for jews". MacDonald argues from an evolutionary standpoint, which does a better job of explaining the revolutionary tendencies of individual jews than anything I've read by Auster. And speaking of evolution, Gottfried neglects to consider that profit, in evolutionary terms, is measured in survival. Group survival isn't necessarily profitable to the individual worker ants, and it doesn't have to look profitable to them either.

- - -

It is in light of all of the above that I am prompted to write in response to John Savage's thread and its unusual but welcome discussion of White interests vis-a-vis jews. I had already posted some comments there when Must Speak Anonymously wrote:

My beef with Auster is that he’s always saying we can have a particular culture. That culture must involve some hierarchy and inequality. That religion is an essential part of culture, and the content of the Islamic religion is why the Islamic world is illiberal, nondemocratic, and also Anti-Christian and Anti-Western. In other words, culture is more than laws and procedures but also songs, values, folkways, and a sense of kinship. But here in the West that culture must embrace two diametrically opposed religious communities, the content of Judaism, the social tendencies of Jews (particularly nonreligious Jews), the vanguard aspect of Jews with respect to liberalism and a decline in white (Christian) solidarity, and the ways that the Jewish religion and Jews themselves have always been in conflict with Christian and even non-Christian societies is declared beyond the pale, something that cannot be discussed by serious people.

Now I don’t favor some of the more extreme measures counseled here. I don’t quite know what I favor. But I do think these topics should be criticized and discussed by serious people, but they’re not. Instead, we’re subject to a drumbeat, particularly in public schools and universities, about the evil of the West, traditional masculinity, Christianity, etc. Anti-semitism, like racism, is invoked by Jews and their lackeys to stop honest criticism, as if the choice is Treblinka or silence.

In short, our entire culture is under assault, Jews have spear-headed this line of criticism because they carried with them the elitism and anti-authority bent from Russia, and we’re all supposed to pretend this new consensus is the fault of “liberalism” or “modernism” as if it had no authors.

Auster plays a typical game of double standards. He wants us to make sensible generalizations about blacks and Muslims. But he wants us to judge every Jew as an individual, a special case, as anything but the member of a vast group with very different ideas about what America and the West is and should be about. He really thinks all of his critics are too stupid to see this game of double standards. For instnace, on blacks, plenty of people at Amren use the word “nigger,” especially in informal conversations. I don’t usually talk this way, but I don’t run away in horror. But if anyone says something far more mild about Jews, Auster demands Jared Taylor calls in the Thought Police.

He’s ethnically loyal to his parents and family. This is normal enough and even forgivable. But that family is part of a bigger family, and that bigger family everywhere it goes is troublesome, involved with changing values, and generally hated after a time.

I agree. Until and unless anyone, "serious" or not, is free to openly identify and analyze problems it's difficult to agree upon sensible solutions. There are people who want to discuss White interests but are actively discouraged from doing so. This is a problem. Anti-anti-semitism, and anti-racism, and PC in general cause this problem by stifling discussion. PC is the first problem that has to be solved in order to then freely discuss and solve any of the other problems PC masks.

After Must Speak Anonymously made the comment above the discussion turned to assimilation, in particular about whether American jews had assimilated, why not, and how to force them to do so. This is based on a premise I find flawed.

Assimilation should be voluntary. I don't wish assimilation forced on anyone. I resent that it is being forced upon my family. We don't want to live in a Latin American shithole, but it is being forced on us. We don't want our lives controlled by a government that has failed in its most basic function, national defense, and has morphed into a "proposition nation" where the proposition is compulsory subsidization of global corporations and invading aliens. I don't want the sweat of my brow seized and used to fund schools that indoctrinate their students that non-Whites, feminism, homosexuality, and abortion are inherently good - and Whites are inherently bad.

These are things many Whites consider wrong, and as I have only slowly and recently come to realize, many jews consider them right. Anyone who wishes can freely discuss how inherently nativist or xenophobic or racist or prone to pogroms or just downright stupid Whites are, but nobody in "polite society" is free to make similar generalizations so flatly critical of non-Whites, including jews. In our ultra-tolerant liberal society such criticism is not tolerated, whether it's true or not. This is a double standard. It is wrong. It must end.

One unmentionable truth is that Whites are not in a position to assimilate anyone else because Whites are in fact the ones being assimilated. We are immersed in the culture of progressive-globalist universalism. It is a culture of lies and contradictions where all men are created equal, but non-Whites are more equal and jews are the most equal of all. Shit is art. Perversion is glorified. Materialism rules. The Holy Global Economy is god. Wrong is right and right is wrong. PC egalitarians inform us that the White race is a mere social construct, even while Whites are openly and consciously blamed, disenfranchised, and displaced. The obvious end, if not the intent, is liquidation. To top it off none of this may be discussed in our craven "polite society" because to do so is "politically incorrect". To those who point out that Whites are complicit in this, well yes I agree many are. There were jews complicit in the Holocaust too. We have a word for such behavior. The word is not "excuse". The word is "treason".

I favor separatism. People who don't want to assimilate or even associate with others, for any reason whatsoever, should not be forced to. I find it disturbing that so many jews infer White separatism as "deport all Diaspora jews to Israel", or worse. Why, if jews have Zion, can they not understand or tolerate the notion of a White Albion? White self-determination, whether separatism or nationalism, is about what's good for Whites, just as Zionism is about what's good for jews. The enemies of Whites will concede only the latter point, or neither, and none of them will squarely face the inconsistency.

Many people have felt compelled to uproot and flee the unhealthy consequences of the "diversity" that totalitarian liberals, including a preponderance of jews, have seen fit to force on us. I advocate a nation where force is used toward a different goal: protecting Whites. I see many practical problems with creating and maintaining such a nation, but I do not accept that it is immoral or impermissible to discuss the exclusion of anyone, for any reason, whether it's jews, latinos, muslims, blacks, asians, lepers, eskimos, or totalitarian liberals. I would move to such a nation immediately, no matter where or how small, and would have much less cause to complain. I would happily pay my taxes and urge my progeny to serve in the government and the military, all things which I will not do under the current anti-White regime.