Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Irony Thy Name is Auster

Lawrence Auster, in a post inaptly titled Are racial differences in IQ explained by cultural stereotypes?, writes:
Has anyone noticed the irony that most of the people who argue that there are no inherent differences in intelligence between the races are left-wing Jews, who use their high intelligence to argue that everyone has the same intelligence?
R. Davis writes:

The fact that left-wing Jews "use their high intelligence to argue that everyone has the same intelligence" raises two questions: 1. Are they doing so simply for cultural/political reasons, i.e., to subvert the majority non-Jewish culture by undermining its ethnic-racial foundations, while subtly affirming a Jewish intellectual superiority? or 2. Does their superior intelligence afford them insights the rest of us aren't capable of? Given their own ethnic/racial makeup, they would seem to be the best refutation of their own thesis, but perhaps at that intellectual elevation the forest is a bit far off.

This question does touch on a facet of racialist politics (highlighted by the Wright affair) that no one dares discuss--namely, if in fact intellectual differences do exist between blacks and whites/Asians, whether genetically or culturally induced (what does it matter?), why should those at the low end of the bell curve be granted almost exclusive control over the national dialogue on race or on any other issue? Look where that is taking us. Rev. Wright is not an iconoclast. The majority of blacks believe the US government is using AIDS genocidally against them. Our schools dumb down deliberately to accommodate racial differences (which dare not be mentioned). On the other hand, those at the high end of the intellectual spectrum have done much to mire us in this racial quagmire. How does one make sense of this?

LA replies:

There's truth to this. The people at the high end ally with the people at the low end to destroy the vast silent majority in the middle--the actual society.

What I've just described (and this goes beyond the question of the specifically Jewish role, though it includes it) in fact represents the essential structure of liberalism as it actually operates in society. Liberalism requires three groups in order to function. First, there is the liberal elite itself, the people who make liberalism happen. They demonstrate liberalism by preaching and practicing non-discrimination toward the Other, the minority, the less capable. Second, there are the Other and the less capable, upon whom the liberal elite practices its liberal virtue of non-discrimination. Without the Other, toward whom one practices non-discrimination, liberalism would die. Therefore liberalism requires an ever-renewed population of non-assimilated and unassimilable people. But a third group is also needed for liberalism to function, and that is the vast unenlightened majority whose backward morality is needed as a foil against which the elite demonstrates its morality and establishes its legitimacy and right to rule.
James M. writes from England:

During the Watson controversy a high-IQ British Jew called Steven Rose tried to peddle the "all equal" line at the Guardian, attacking the "long-exploded racist claim that "Africans" are inherently less intelligent than "us"'.
Well yes Larry, since you asked, some people have noticed. A hardy few, like Luke O'Farrell, have written more coherently than you have concerning both the who and why:
The late Stephen Jay Gould was a Marxist who labored long and hard to deny the truth about race and IQ. The living Steven Rose, Richard Lewontin and Leon Kamin continue his work. The paradox is that the leading race-deniers prove the importance of race, because they all belong to that tiny minority known as Jews. So did Marx, Freud and Boas. Jews are very good at duping and deceiving, at creating seductive ideologies to fool naïve whites into acting against their own interests. Jews fool and rule; whites swallow and follow. And there are genetic reasons for this. Tiny differences in DNA don’t account just for a highly significant Jewish advantage in verbal IQ, but also for a highly significant Jewish advantage in arrogance, ethnocentrism and disregard for objective truth. Jews preach equality and universalism while ruthlessly pursuing their own advantage and enrichment. That’s how they’ve come to dominate white societies and that’s why they’ve led the race-denial crusade.
Gould insisted that human equality was a “contingent fact of history”. It could have been different, inequality could have evolved instead in a hundred different ways, but somehow that just didn’t happen. And reader, I confess it: I was one of Gould’s gullible goyim. He and his Mismeasure of Man (1981) took me in for a time and I remember with shame how I once argued that even if blacks were less intelligent than whites for genetic reasons, we shouldn’t say so, because that kind of thinking was dangerous. You see, if we admit that race exists, we may end up in Auschwitz. I didn’t think back then that if we deny that race exists, we may end up in the Gulag. Nor did I think about other consequences of race denial: for example, its use to justify mass immigration, which has flooded white homelands with non-whites from a rich variety of violent and corrupt Third World nations. And surprise, surprise, they’ve brought their violence and corruption with them.

Race denial has also justified the steady loss of freedom in white homelands. Express the wrong opinions about race in the UK or Europe and you’re in for a dawn raid from the thought police. And how Jews like Abraham Foxman would love the same thing to start happening in the US! Free speech was born in white societies and is dying with those societies, as Jews re-create the Marxist police states they feel safest in. If we let a paranoid, self-obsessed minority continue to write our laws and buy our politicians, we’ll soon see that the Berlin Wall didn’t fall to let freedom into the East, but to let tyranny into the West.
To write such things you have to be hardy because you will inevitably be swarmed by anti-anti-semites who will deny there is any merit whatsoever to anything you say. They will consign you to hell, ridicule you as a mindless robot, question your sanity, misrepresent your position, then call for you to be fired from your job, banned from the web, and shunned by anyone who doesn't want to be similarly abused.

It is possible to elicit this kind of belligerent treatment by simply noting how typical it is, as Auster's hostile reactions to his correspondents George R. and Tom M. illustrate.

I've thought and written more than a little about Auster. It started with an assertion about his oft-repeated and ever-mutating Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society, which he once succinctly stated as:
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.
What I asserted is that this law of liberalism obviously applies to jews. PC protects them above all others.

Silly me. Auster set aside his anti-liberalism and dismissed my assertion as anti-semitic. When I fleshed out the argument he whined I was attacking him for not being an anti-semite. When I quoted him he claimed I was calling him a lousy anti-semite hypocrite.

Auster's intellectual dishonesty runs deep. He is incapable of confronting what I actually say, which is this: He is an anti-anti-semite, i.e. a bigoted pro-jewish racist. He is a hypocrite because he regularly exhibits all the irrational symptoms he sees and self-righteously denounces in others. He is not pro-White, as he at times may appear, he simply believes Whites are better for jews than the invading immigrants favored by most other jews. Jews, in the mind of an anti-anti-semite like Auster, are entitled to special treatment. To criticize jews you must, like him, have their best interests foremost in mind. Otherwise you are a special type of racist, worthy of a special label. This magic label makes you subhuman, eligible for all the dehumanization he assumes you wish on jews. Jews who openly denigrate Whites are also special. Auster does not demonize them or call for them to be shunned.

Someone who reasons this way should be able to see that someone else might instead have the best interests of Whites foremost in their mind. But Auster repeatedly and ever-so-intelligently demonstrates he is incapable of doing so:
Lately more and more commenters have been capitalizing the words white and black, e.g., "White people," "Black people," which I have changed to lower case prior to posting. It has never been standard usage to capitalize these adjectives when they are used to denote race, and it is not VFR's usage. While race matters, to make it matter so much that we capitalize the mere names of colors is to take race consciousness too far. I ask commenters to conform their spelling to standard English usage. Thank you.
All kinds of racists do this, to magnify their own group and dehumanize the group they hate. For example, many white nationalists capitalize "white," a color which should not be capitalized, and put "Jew," a proper name which should be capitalized, in lower case.
White, when used to identify a group of people, is not a color or an adjective. It is a proper noun. Thus I capitalize White. I no longer capitalize jew specifically to draw attention to the inconsistent norm that Auster so staunchly supports. His reason is so clouded that this simple rationale of reversal does not compute. For him "jew" is a sure sign of racist anti-semitic dehumanization, but "white" is a completely innocent convention.

So now Auster wonders if he is the first to notice that "left-wing jews" ally with "non-assimilated and unassimilable people" against the "vast unenlightened majority". If he were to state his position in less weaselly language from a pro-White point of view he might find himself saying something anti-semitic. He might admit his MMRILS applies to jews. That would be ironic, but we can be sure it won't happen. Auster does not have the best interests of Whites foremost in his mind. If he did he wouldn't pretend we are a vast majority, and he wouldn't so quickly and hypocritically dehumanize the few who seek unblinkered enlightenment.

UPDATE 31 Mar 2008: More snippets from Auster's post:
Mark Jaws writes:

Of course, I, the quintessentially politically astute New York Jew (albeit with Slavic blood to taint my Yiddish pedigree), long ago noticed it was primarily left-wing Jews such as Jay Gould, who were the most ardent opponents to Shockley, Jensen, Herrnstein and Murray. I attributed it in part to Jews having been the main victims of the Nazi eugenics movement, so even though these smart Jews probably knew deep down inside that there were IQ differences, it would be best to nullify and pervert the movement which they perceived to be Nazi-like.
Whatever good the name calling and lies has done for jews it has only come at the expense of Whites. Auster does not point this out because he is not pro-White.
Bert R. writes:

The comments of yourself and others here regarding Jewish intellectuals remind me of Kevin MacDonald's. Is there now a broader range of agreement between you both than before? I ask as I recall that you wrote a somewhat critical article or comment about him some time ago.

LA replies:

Comments like this make me want to throw up my hands.

Kevin MacDonald's central idea is that the Jewish people are driven by an instinct created by Darwinian evolution to destroy European peoples. He is the most influential anti-Semitic thinker and inspirer of exterminationist anti-Semites of our time. I wonder on what basis you would construct a similarity between my ideas and his based on what was said in this thread.

See my article where I lay out the differences between what MacDonald says about the Jews and what I say.
Inspirer of exterminationists? Such deranged hyperbole is the hallmark of anti-anti-semitism.

I wrote a little about this in White Self-Determination and Totalitarian Liberals.

It isn't difficult to differentiate the two men.

MacDonald is a scholar who focuses on analyzing the conflicts between White and jewish interests, a subject Auster only occasionally touches. MacDonald writes in plain language remarkable for its contrast with the obfuscatory postmodern academic norm. Auster prefers misleading euphemisms like "the majority" and "liberals". MacDonald is more circumspect and consistent than Auster, who constantly and explicitly advises "the majority" what they must do, who they must keep out or deport, and who the anti-semites are that must be slandered and ostracized in order to appease the "liberals" he is supposedly resisting.

In short MacDonald is pro-White and Auster is pro-jew. Perhaps Auster can only throw up his hands because he cannot imagine simply telling the truth.

Labels: , , , ,



Anonymous Anonymous said...

Provocative post. But I think you should conform to standard English usage! Capitalize Caucasian and Negro, but not black and white. Really. Veering off into funny punctuation and spelling detracts and distracts.

3/31/2008 07:56:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

"Standard English usage" is exactly that. It is not law, and it changes.

When I write White I am referring to something that is syntactically equivalent and as semantically significant as either Caucasian or Negro - or Jew for that matter.

If you're interested in not veering off into oddity then you should support a standard that either capitalizes all such labels, or none.

3/31/2008 11:36:00 AM  
Blogger danielj said...

Jew means religion when it is conveinent or race when it is otherwise.

Ironic it most certainly is that the most semantic race in the world gets offended at our word games.

It only bothers them because White means descendant of European Christendom which is exclusive.

3/31/2008 01:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A very helpful post, thank you. I had noticed the same things about Auster's arguments but did not take the time to pull his comments together into one piece. Kevin MacDonald's works are great, every White person should buy several copies and give them to their friends and relations.

4/01/2008 05:40:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

danielj said...
"It only bothers them because White means descendant of European Christendom which is exclusive."

No offence danielj but Christianity is the total opposite of "exclusive".

Anyone who wishes to become a Christian can convert.

That option is not available in Judaism.

4/01/2008 03:37:00 PM  
Blogger danielj said...

You can not "convert" to European Christendom and one can not convert from jew into Gentile.

I fail to understand your critique.

4/01/2008 07:09:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

You can convert, as Anonymous says. The more important question is whether it is possible to alter how your mind works and where your loyalties lie, which is danielj 's point I think.

Auster, being a jewish-born convert to Christianity, is a perfect illustration of the conflict.

4/02/2008 10:34:00 AM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

Battle lines along ancestry ...

4/02/2008 05:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Leo Gorcey said...

Tanstaafl said...
"Auster, being a jewish-born convert to Christianity, is a perfect illustration of the conflict."

Wasn't Karl Marx's jewish father a "convert" to Christianity?

Yuk yuk yuk.

4/03/2008 04:03:00 PM  
Blogger danielj said...

One can accept the premises of Christianity and become an Arab Christian or a jewish Christian, but one can not ever "become" (convert to) an Italian, Englishmen, Pole, Russian, Nigerian, European, African, Chinamen etc.

The more important question is whether it is possible to alter how your mind works and where your loyalties lie, which is danielj 's point I think.

Good question indeed.

Auster doesn't seem to have a speck of loyalty to jewish-Christians which should be where his primary loyalties lie according to his religion and genes.

He does, however, have loyalty in abundance toward Israeli expansion and their continued domination of the Middle East by American proxy.

jews always wage war by proxy.

- The real First Law of Majority Minority Relations

Auster, being a jewish-born convert to Christianity, is a perfect illustration of the conflict.

He is incapable of thinking of the West as anything other than an abstraction. He thinks we on the right care if Israel gets swallowed up by angry Arabs. It would be a small price to pay to save the "West" he loves so dearly.

It is a breath of fresh air to see tanstaafl take a real in-the-flesh trip out to the country to understand his people (warts and all) and recognize family as family.

Auster on the other hand has some loyalty to classical music, Spinoza, Leibniz, Newton and tid bits of English history but not to any specific peoples.

He isn't pro-White, just anti-Muslim. (Wage war by proxy)

He is a collector of factoids.

4/04/2008 09:16:00 AM  
Blogger danielj said...

Another ironic post from Auster's site from An exchange with Paul Gott. in the comments section.

I've taken the liberty of changing the term 'Moslem' into the term 'jew' and adapting the sentence where necessary.

N. writes:

Lawrence Auster appears to be laboring under the fallacy of composition.

He writes: "I have known many jews, particularly moderate jews from Boston, who did not seem at all to be subversive."

I see this quite often in debates over jews. "Well, I know a jew and he has never been involved in destroying Western Civilization!" is one actual rejoinder I received. It reminds me of the liberals of the 1970s who pointed to the nice Communists they knew as proof that Communism was not a dangerous ideology. The notion that the property of "niceness" in a subset of people could be generalized to all people in a set seems to be a common fallacy.

There seems to be a genuine inability on the part of some people to pull themselves away from particular cases and focus on the general, or abstract, situation. Thus we are constantly being bogged down in these "I know a nice jew, therefore judaism cannot be a dangerous ideology" kind of non-arguments, in response to factual and calm observations about jews, judaism, and its history. So far, the only thing that one can do is to persevere in presenting the facts in as calm a way as possible, persisting in presenting reality.

Finally, the use of the term "subversive" by Auster is IMO quite revealing. It suggests strongly that he only believes that jews who are actively attempting to attack or subvert Western civilization are a threat. The reality, that jews who are living a peaceful but Shabbat-centered life are just as dangerous to Western civilization as the Alan Dershowitz/Abe Foxman types, simply seems to be something Auster cannot grasp. He just doesn't seem to be able to look at the big picture.

4/06/2008 02:33:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

danielj, I do that kind of remapping in my head with much of what I read, and almost everything I write. It is a hypocrisy check, and Auster fails almost daily.

Two nitpicks with your comment: it was Gottfried who used the word subversive, and you remapped one of Auster's commenters rather than Auster himself. It is still relevant however, because Auster selects what makes it onto his pages and makes it clear when he disagrees, which he didn't here.

Auster himself says several things which when remapped appropriately and spoken by someone else would tranform him into an anti-anti-semitic fruitloop. Here's the most glaring:

I do not harbor, and, to my knowledge, I have not expressed such feelings toward Muslims. What I have attempted to convey over and over again is the FACT of what Islam is and has always been: a tyrannical system mandated by God to subdue all mankind to that system and crush everything that is non-Islamic; a program of sacralized hate and war directed against all non-believers. This has nothing to do with what I feel; it has to do with what Islam is. Innumerable observers over the centuries, both Islamic and non-Islamic, have made the same observations. And it is these unchangeable facts about Islam that lead me to the concluson that we must prevent the world of Islam from having any presence in or influence on our world. I am no more "anti-Islamic" than all of Christendom was for a thousand years, when it defended itself from Islam, until modern liberalism came along, and the West stopped defending itself from Islam.

Gottfried also says something revealing to Auster which he does not feel compelled to make a fuss over:

My not being as adamant as you are has nothing to do with disliking neocons, who usually appear to be less anti-Muslim than anti-Christian, if by Christian one includes traditional European Christians. In fact I recall being told by a multitude of Orthodox rabbis that "Muslims are like us but Christians are idolators."

It is not generally known by non-jews that jews knowledgeable of their history see their period living under Islam, helping the Muslims administer their empire, as a "Golden Age" for their tribe. Conversely they view their time amongst Europeans as a string of pogroms mindlessly inflicted on them by ignorant and ingrateful barbarians.

It is also not well known that both jews and muslims feel fated to control the world. Auster, either foolishly or disingenuously, likes to distinguish jews from other "minorities" harming Whites with the qualifier "unassimilable". As in muslims are "unassimilable". He would like Whites to believe that jews have assimilated, which is only half true.

A large part of the reason Western leadership worships globalism and cosmopolitanism and open borders and financial fraud and anti-Whitism is because they have assimilated jewish values. The Western plutocratic leadership's drive to dominate the world economically is just as wrong, just as evil as islam's attempt to do so spritually. Both are ruthless. Both are our enemy.

Auster would call this realization "anti-semitic" and probably "anti-American", never seeing the irony in his defending what he claims to oppose, condemning the criticism his own arguments confirm.

4/06/2008 11:49:00 AM  
Blogger danielj said...

I do that kind of remapping in my head with much of what I read, and almost everything I write. It is a hypocrisy check, and Auster fails almost daily.

It is also the mark of genius in my opinion, that is, the ability to synthesize and incorporate a wide array of facts and philosophy into one's worldview.

Two nitpicks with your comment: it was Gottfried who used the word subversive, and you remapped one of Auster's commenters rather than Auster himself. It is still relevant however, because Auster selects what makes it onto his pages and makes it clear when he disagrees, which he didn't here.

I did indeed remap one of the comments and not the post itself. But, as you say, everything on the page is "approved" by Auster in some fashion.

Gottfried's revelation is indeed stated without any hint that he understands the significance of it and is accepted by Auster equally uncritically.

Nevertheless, I do not mourn the loss of Auster as some lost ally since there are many of us out here equally intelligent and ambitious.

4/06/2008 12:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I haven't really read too much of Auster, preferring Jim Kalb for saying similar things about liberalism without the tiresome focus on Islam (made more tiresome because most of what Auster says about Muslims/ Islam seems applicable to Jews/ Judaism), but I have followed yours, VA's and John Savage's exchanges with him, and see I was right not to trust him.

He's involved in a small spat here which confirms my growing conviction about 'Jewish partners' in our struggle: they do not see themselves as us, or even as a people deserving the same rights as them, they merely see us as their best vehicle for advantage.

7/03/2008 05:53:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home