Suicide vs. Competition
In Auster vs. Sailer Dennis Mangan and guests discuss Sailer's view that "WhiterPeople" compete for status and Auster's criticism of that idea.Auster writes (my emphasis):
The West's suicide process could not have happened as a result of just one "bad" element in our society, say, the liberal elites. No, all the leading elements of our society, all the significant factions of the West, including elements normally thought of as very conservative, such as the Catholic Church and evangelicals, have signed on to an idea, the belief in non-discrimination, that spells the doom of the West, since it leads people to support, or to refuse to oppose, policies leading to the Third-Worldization and Islamization of the West.
In today's Britain, as I realized to my shock after the July 2005 bombing, tolerance--unconditioned tolerance--is the guiding principle of society, the touchstone that is constantly appealed to on every issue. It was tolerance that led the British to allow millions of Third-World people including Muslims into Britain, and it was tolerance that has led the Brits to allow the Muslims including terror supporters free rein of their Island, and it's tolerance that keeps the British from reacting against the enemies in their midst. The main reason for the surrender of Britain to Islamization is tolerance.
I did not say that Sailer is a bigot against Jews. I said that he is a bigot against Israel and Jewish neocons.Auster often characterizes challenges to his ideas as attacks, so his hairsplitting about what he thinks does or doesn't constitute anti-jewish racism or what precisely he has said about Buchanan or Sailer is pathetic. The important point is that Auster attacked these men for what he perceives to be their attacks on jewish interests. He uses "anti-semite" and phrases like "bigot against israel" for the same reason that so many of his supposedly non-discriminatory "liberal elites" do. Because they can and do discriminate jews as jews, as they do in unabashedly placing jews as jews on a pedestal above everyone else.
Now, many people today consider someone who is a bigot against Israel to be an anti-Semite by definition. I've argued at length why I think that's incorrect. Namely, anti-Semitism is such a damning word that I don't think a person should be called that unless he has specifically expressed bigotry toward the Jewish people as the Jewish people. For example, though I've condemned Patrick Buchanan for his bigotry against Israel. I've never called him an anti-Semite, for the simple reason that in my view he has never attacked Jews as Jews. Now I think it's entirely possible that in his inner thoughts Buchanan really is driven by an animus against Jews as Jews. But the fact is that he has never expressed such an animus outwardly. He has never attacked Jews as Jews. Never. And I insist that when it comes to such a damning word as anti-Semitism, there must be an actual expression, not a merely likelihood about what a person may be thinking.
In discussing his idea that non-discrimination spells the doom of the West Auster is willing to discriminate Whites, Christians, third worlders, and muslims as Whites, Christians, third worlders, and muslims - and even to attack them. He is not interested in delving into where the multi-culti politically correct "liberalism" pushing "non-discrimination" comes from, how this ideology came to dominate in the West, or whose interests it serves. Good thing. It involves lots of jews.
The "non-discrimination" and "unconditioned tolerance" Auster claims to see is the opposite of reality. Non-discrimination is the sales pitch. It serves to mislead many good-hearted fair-minded people into misunderstanding what is happening. Even in Mangan's thread everyone seems to accept it as the explanation. But as Auster well knows, "liberal" "non-discrimination" never ends up that way. For many liberals, and especially the non-Whites, anti-White and pro-non-White discrimination is what it's all about.
The West's media, academy, and laws are discriminatory. It is easy enough to see. What has changed in the last 150 years and especially over the last 60 is that the discrimination has been inverted. A healthy and normal preference for everything White and Christian has been transformed into a preference for everything non-White and non-Christian. This is so abnormal and unhealthy that in a single human lifetime Whites are being reduced from the dominant majority to a despised minority in every country we previously controlled. The kicker is, according to Auster, that it's all our fault. We're "suiciding" because conservatives "support, or refuse to oppose" their enemies.
Unlike Auster I do not characterize the inversion of discrimination as "suicide". Nor do I pillory those who "refuse to oppose". Nobody wants to lose their job, be shunned by their community, or be sent to prison, but this is what is in store for anyone who opposes anti-White discrimination in any substantial way. Men like Henry Cabot Lodge, Madison Grant, Henry Ford, William Dudley Pelley, Charles Lindbergh, Francis Parker Yockey, Gerald L.K. Smith, and Carleton Putnam (to name just a few) saw where things were heading. They described and opposed this future more clearly than the media permits to be said out loud now that we are here and living with it.
The inversion began in earnest with the emancipation of jews in the wake of the French revolution. This is when the idea that White Christian Europeans shouldn't discriminate themselves from jews took root and when dissent from this position came to be pathologized as "anti-semitism". Thereafter the attack against healthy and normal European racial discrimination was generalized into a pathologization of "racism" and eventually mutated into a variety of "anti-discrimination" movements opposing "sexism", "xenophobism", "homophobism", and "islamophobism". What began as an ostensibly well-intentioned assertion of equality always ended as naked aggression against what Auster euphemizes as "the majority" (White, male, heterosexual Christians) coupled with the defense and celebration of all that is alien and deviant. This phenomena, this racial-culture war, has been fueled financially and intellectually by a preposterous disproportion of jews, to achieve goals that have been in their collective self-interest and against the interests of "the majority".
The reality, contrary to Auster, is that the "unconditioned tolerance" of the "leading elements of our society" defines thoughts like mine as "hate" which is not tolerated at all. Yes, the rationale is claimed to be "non-discrimination". No, that is not the real motivation. This is trivially demonstrated by the behavior of both Auster and "leading elements of our society" in discriminating jews as jews, distinguishing them and exempting them from criticism while at the same time discriminating, criticizing, and even subordinating Whites as Whites in myriad ways.
It seems to me that Auster opposes liberalism because he sees it is driving Whites to extinction, and he judges the continued existence of a generally pro-jew White majority to be in the interest of jews. This explains his race-realist, tribe-denying obtuseness as well as his hypocrisy, smearing, and thought-criminalizing whenever he's challenged on it. In pursuing his interests he feels free to reason about anything, including calling on others to ignore or stifle their own interests, and discriminates anyone he pleases, as demonstrated by his blog full of musings about "the majority" as "the majority", black savages as black savages, and muslims as muslims. He opposes the "Third-Worldization and Islamization of the West". He wants "the majority" to do this and do that, but especially to save ourselves so we can continue to protect jews from blacks and muslims. He calls for pro-Whites like myself who discriminate our interests from those of jews, criticize jews, and oppose the judaization of the West to be shunned and silenced. He does not call for such treatment for even the most anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-Western "liberals".
Even if there is a discussion of a legitimate topic, the low-lifes and anti-Semites will show up and ruin it.Besides imagining himself as the arbiter of legitimacy Auster sounds just like Ian "Urge to Purge" Jobling. Again my reality differs. Just about every news item or blog thread I read is incomplete or dishonest, written and guarded by pro-jews whose goal in life seems to be suppressing any mention of jewish influence, even when that influence is plain to see and the bullying pro-jew bouncers only make it plainer.
The notion that I go around calling people racists is an off-the-wall lie.An off the wall lie? He did this in the very thread in which he denies it. Of course it wouldn't suit Auster's interests to admit that in common "liberal" usage, including his own, "anti-semite" is just a more specific form of the "racist" smear. Thinking about that special phrase and the special damning power Auster is well aware it carries only calls attention to how perfectly acceptable it is to discriminate jews as jews in placing their concerns above everyone else's. Contrasting this with the ineffectiveness and even negative reaction to "anti-White" ("you racist!") is also telling. The prevailing regime is definitely not "non-discrimination", and Auster definitely does not hesitate to smear.
Recognizing that jews and Whites have separate interests and speaking openly about it drives Auster to distraction more than any other subject. It puts the lie to his "non-discrimination" and "suicide" rhetoric and contradicts his pro-"white", pro-Christian, pro-West pose. It reveals him for the pro-jew pro-israel ruthless commissar he is. He cannot tolerate any recognition of the White-jewish fault line, and a discussion of "WhiterPeople" status competition comes dangerously close. Such talk might lead more Whites to recognize the race-based jewish aggression against us. So instead Auster tries to distract and deflect, selling a combination of guilt-tripping, lies, and threats: "Bad majority, so stupid you're suiciding yourself by not discriminating and remaining silent - oh and the low-lifes who discriminate jews and say they have something to do with this must be silenced".
I see through Auster's nonsense, but some of the semi-aware people at Mangan's seem willing to buy it. This includes Mangan himself, who closed his comments with effusive praise for Auster, and Hesperado, who made many incisive points before attributing Auster's belligerence, obfuscation, and logical inconsistencies to his being thick-skulled and thin-skinned. He sure is. The path to suicide-competition enlightenment is to try and understand why.
Original image.
UPDATE 21 Nov 2008: Today in Why I fight (other conservatives) Auster reiterates his belief that "non-discrimination is the crux of liberalism and its destructiveness, and thus opposing non-discrimination is the only effective way to oppose liberalism." He quotes a reader quoting himself getting "right down into the marrow of the problem" (my emphasis):
But WHY do they want to destroy it? What is BAD about reality that makes them want to destroy it? For my answer I return to the traditionalist analysis that I have advanced in various formulations: the rejection of God, the transcendent, the higher, the notion of an inherent structure in existence. Once the higher or the sense of being part of a larger whole is rejected, then the world is reduced to selves and their desires, with nothing above them, no "holarchy" (to use Arthur Koestler's term) of which they are a part. Therefore all selves and their respective desires are equal, therefore any distinction between selves is a horrible attack on the worth of the "less equal" or excluded self and must be banned.This to the applause of a fastidiously manicured peanut gallery who just love his clarity and directness.
However, as I'm thinking about this, I don't know that the non-discrimination and the destruction can be separated. Since the structure of the world consists of distinct things, each of which has its internal order or structure (even an alternative hair salon has its internal order), to ban discrimination is to destroy each individual thing and its order. Non-discrimination is destruction, perhaps the most efficient and thorough-going destruction ever known to man.
I realize I repeat myself, but doesn't it get more to the crux and marrow of the WHY of "liberalism" to acknowledge that when Europeans first began to reject God during the Enlightenment that jews were the particular minority group who really got them thinking along the lines that eventually became "anti-racism" and "non-discrimination", that jews themselves are openly proud to have since done so much in this regard to help other groups benefit as they themselves have, and that jews also happen to be the only particular group that even anti-"liberals" like Auster dictate we absolutely must not discriminate from ourselves?
Doesn't that question, however distasteful jews and philo-semitic gentiles might find it, get closer to the WHY Auster will only dance around? For a more clear and direct view of "liberalism" I suggest Whites consult Kevin MacDonald. Why We Write would be a good place to start.
Labels: dennis mangan, hesperado, kevin macdonald, lawrence auster, liberalism, pat buchanan, steve sailer, suicide meme
posted by Tanstaafl at 11/19/2008 04:52:00 PM
24 Comments:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/011918.html
Every time Tanstaafl is mentioned over at VFR, Auster always introduces him as:
(begin playing evil music)
"the anti-Semite Tanstaafl, who says that Jews are his enemies and that he wants to deport them all from the West;"
(turn off music)
I always get a big chuckle out of this.
Tan,
Thank you for the article and the reading list. Oh, so much to read, so little time. It's nice to have a compatriot such as you digest some of it for us.
I wonder what Auster identifies as, does he consider himself a Jew? A white Christian? What I mean is, what is the perspective that he sees the world from whether consciously or unconsciously.
You made good points here, he's against criticizing Jews as Jews but not other groups. There is clearly elements of Jewish supremacist thinking in his thought-process. (Jewish supremacism exists in it's modern form by placing them at the top of the victimhood-hierarchy.) But at the same point, most of the people in the West today also do this as a "default" way of thinking.
Yes ZOG, it makes me smile. I think of that line from Star Wars, "Whaddaya think you're some kinda Jedi?" Unfortunately Auster's liberal mind-trick does work, even on the majority of discriminating, race-realist, half-conscious conservatives. And the fruitloop knows it.
Rusty, it's my pleasure to do what I can. There is too much for any one man to read or comment on.
inthenorthwest, you might be interested to read Who's on Top?
Prozium, good to see you out and about.
More Auster taffy at Mangans' Obtuse as Auster:
I repeat: though I disagree with and oppose some things about Sailer, I do not regard him as an enemy in any way. I think there is an overemotional, even tribal, element in the paleo right that cannot handle serious intellectual disagreement with its own, and sees it as a personal, even tribal, attack.
Auster denouncing Mangan for permitting someone he has denounced to post a comment in 5..4..3..
Post updated to critique Auster's latest about "non-discrimination".
The problem is that Auster and other so-called conservatives, allowed liberalism to be hijacked. Historically, nationalism grew from the enlightenment. Liberalism and nationalism went hand in hand. Even English nationalism grew from the Tudor reformation. J.S. Mill outlined how freedom will not exist in a multinational/cultural environment. Salter, in On Genetic Interests, calls Mill the first universal nationalist.
Liberalism, even before WWII, meant government protection of the right to discriminate. The real revolution, authored, financed and organised by post war Official Jewry was flipping the traditional rights of freedom of association and speech.
The Jewish-led movement played a decisive role in the winning of anti-discrimination legislation in the 1950s. First, they defined the problem and fashioned the kind of legislated solution they believed could address that problem. Secondly, they generated publicity and put pressure on government, creating an audible constituency demanding protective legislation. Finally, the movement presented protective legislation as respectable, responsible, democratic and Canadian. These were solidly-credentialed organizations, like the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Association for Civil Liberties.
The achievement of the "Protective Shield" marks a significant phase and a major victory in the march toward human rights in Canada. Previously, the role of the state had been to protect the rights of the discriminator: traditional rights like freedom of speech and freedom of association were interpreted to mean the right to declare prejudices openly, to refuse to associate with members of certain groups, including refusing to hire them or to serve them. Courts and governments in Canada were still upholding and enforcing the right to discriminate into the 1950s. (78) It represented a fundamental shift, a reversal, of the traditional notion of citizens' rights to enrol the state as the protector of the right of the victim to freedom from discrimination. It was, in fact, a revolutionary change in the definition of individual freedom.
The equivalent US legislation is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Auster is correct, the issue is racial discrimination, however, its origin is not liberalism as Adam Smith, J.S Mill or Charles Darwin defined it. It was a strategy developed to further the EGI of a particular group. It utilised state intervention to protect an ethnic group from exclusion, a long held principle of liberalism, by the majority. It did so by employing a coterie of other interests (blacks, white ethnics, gays, non-white ethnics, women, etc.) to act as shock troops to advance the process.
Thus Auster's dual theme, the evil of liberalism and evolutionary theory.
Ben Stein's Documentary Expelled
Why is Stein interested in ID? The traditionalist conservative Lawrence Auster enlightens us.
No Darwin, no Hitler
Auster:"David Klinghoffer at NRO discusses one of the themes of Stein’s film: the profound roots of Hitlerism in Darwinism.”
Klinghoffer:
The Darwin-Hitler connection is no recent discovery. In her classic 1951 work The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt wrote: “Underlying the Nazis’ belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human being.”
The standard biographies of Hitler almost all point to the influence of Darwinism on their subject. In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock writes: “The basis of Hitler’s political beliefs was a crude Darwinism.” What Hitler found objectionable about Christianity was its rejection of Darwin’s theory: “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.”
John Toland’s Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928: “An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right.”
In his biography, Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris, Ian Kershaw explains that “crude social-Darwinism” gave Hitler “his entire political ‘world-view.’ ” Hitler, like lots of other Europeans and Americans of his day, saw Darwinism as offering a total picture of social reality. This view called “social Darwinism” is a logical extension of Darwinian evolutionary theory and was articulated by Darwin himself.
In a recent exchange with Auster, the following questions were posed.
Q:Do Stein, Klinghoffer, Arendt and Auster suggest a link between Darwinism and David’s sacred war of extermination against the Amalekites? Was David’s belief founded on an underlying, crude, might-makes-right, social Darwinism?
No Darwin, no David?
Auster’s reply:
"Another pathetic anti-Semite loser, unable to grasp any argument, or to rise above yourself and do anything to protect your country from the vast forces that threaten it, because all you can see is the Jews, the Jews, the Jews.
Don’t waste your time writing to me again, because your e-mail won’t get to me."
"Another pathetic anti-Semite loser, unable to grasp any argument, or to rise above yourself and do anything to protect your country from the vast forces that threaten it, because all you can see is the Jews, the Jews, the Jews."
I've seen Auster use this argument many times against many people. According to Auster, some of us are spending so much time focused on jews that we are not going after the real problem facing the West which according to Auster would be "liberalism."
So that brings up another question.
What is Auster doing to "save the country"?
All of these endless essays on "liberalism" are getting old and are not having much effect to change the minds of these "liberals."
Auster, when are we Whites going to begin to see some results from all your years of debate with your own kind? When are we going to start seeing some results from those thousands of essays on liberalism that have been written in the last decades? When are the jews going to see the error of their ways and stop being hostile to Whites? How many more essays on "liberalism" are going to need to be written to save the West?
It's so easy to prompt Auster to describe himself. When he waxes emotional he projects profusely, losing all sense of self-awareness:
Another pathetic anti-anti-semite loser, unable to grasp any argument, or to rise above himself - but willing to do or say anything to protect his people from the vast forces he sees threatening them, because all he cares about is the jews, the jews, the jews.
Clearly most jews feel motivated to deny the significance of biological or cultural differences, taking their denial to the most absurd levels, because ultimately they realize that such ideas undermine the "non-discrimination" their ancestors helped constuct and because they know they need it to protect them as they operate so conspicuously aggressively and successfully as a minority within a larger society.
I write "non-discrimination" in quotes because it is a euphemism that does not accurately describe the literal policy. It is of course taken literally by deracinated Whites, but "non-discrimination" in practice results in the inversion or, as Desmond's Protective Shield quote above notes, the reversal of the previous discrimination favoring "the majority".
Auster differs from most jews in that he judges the extension of "non-discrimination" to blacks and muslims has exposed jews to threats from these groups. To counter these threats he urges "the majority" to oppose "non-discrimination", absurdly blaming us for having neutered ourselves and forbidding us to question the primacy of jews at the very root of the "non-discrimination" we're supposed to oppose. Auster's audacity is so great and he judges jewish influence so powerful now that he presents "the majority" with this blatant contradiction and expects us to swallow it. Why shouldn't he? As he knows most of "the majority" has already accepted the primacy of jews and everyone else over ourselves. Why shouldn't we rescind the "everyone else" part if the First and Only Absolutely Undiscriminable Ones wish it to be so? Many in "the "majority" are only partially neutered and our resentment of "non-discrimination" can be channeled. We see this manifested in anti-jihadi philo-semite gentiles who believe "support for Judaism and the Jews is a non-negotiable virtue", as Hesperado's Erich so bluntly phrased it.
Judging from this past election, for most jews their fear of racially semi-conscious Whites still overrides their fear of blacks or muslim immigrants. They see no need for Auster's gambit. Yet. Judging from Auster's large and very jewish readership a certain number, certainly more than Jobling has been able to attract, do consider Auster a prophet.
ZOG Nation,
Note how Auster chides his own tribe members, usually without identifying them as such, and usually with nothing more serious than ridicule. With non-jewish "liberals" he is only somewhat less polite. With "the majority" he get downright abusive and defamatory. Those of us who reject his jewish "non-discrimination" principle drive him completely bonkers and with us he is completely intolerant.
This is the opposite of how someone who defines liberalism as "non-discrimination" and professes to be an anti-liberal should be expected to behave. It is best explained by the assumption that Auster is actually first and foremost pro-jew. He is not seeking results for our benefit. He does what he does for their benefit.
Part of the "protective shield" erected to defend against discrimination by the Wasp majority was the formation of human rights commissions. The initial work was guided, organised and financed by the Jewish Labour Committee.
In its original form, the creation of the Human Rights Advisory Committee on Human Relations was a product of the Jewish Labour Committee. Sid Blum, Director of the JLC, sent his most effective employee, Alan Borovoy, to Halifax in 1962 to work with the labour federation and other community groups to see if there was anything they could do to help the black population of Africville.
...Borovoy mobilized a group of activists to agitate for the rights of blacks in Africville who eventually took the name of the Halifax Advisory Committee on Human Relations.
For the next ten years, the Halifax group would function in much the same capacity as the Ontario Labour Committee for Human Rights and receive funding from the JLC;...
The "shield" was eventually extended across Canada, serving to right the wrongs of majority discriminatory behaviour.
As the Mayor of Dresden argued, "[t]his is a democratic country.... You can’t force anyone to serve Negroes."
"Hate speech" was added to the list because everyone understood free speech led to the Jewish holocaust.
However, a strange thing happened on the way to the commissions,
"In the entire history of section 13, (the hate speech clause) stretching back to 1977, not one single Jew, Muslim or gay has been taken before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal by the CHRC.
Not one.
100% of the CHRC's targets have been white, Christian or conservative."
It's known as the Jewish Exemption.
"Note how Auster chides his own tribe members, usually without identifying them as such, and usually with nothing more serious than ridicule. "
Yeah, I've noticed that a lot of the time he mentions some gonzo-liberal they've got names like liebowitz, cohen, goldman. And he never mentions that their Jewishness may have something to do with it. The guy he always mentions and talks to named Ken Hechtman is a flaming liberal and Jewish.(there's a wikipedia on him, pretty sure he's the one it's talking about)
Very informative links Desmond, thanks much. Too bad Auster isn't more like Levant.
inthenorthwest, I contrasted how Auster treats Hechtman vis-a-vis Sailer, Buchanan, and others representing a spectrum of advocacy of White interests in the latter half of Criticizing Auster.
Auster's behavior has a clear pattern. He condemns non-jews if he believes they in any way threaten the interests of jews, no matter how strong their support for Whites, Christians, or the West. He does not condemn jews, no matter how harmful they are to Whites, Christians, or the West.
I would say Auster is not fore-most "pro-jew" but instead excludes them from the equation and protects them (and/or himself) from scrutiny. He adheres labels to everything anti-Auster, and throws out associations to liberals, paleo-liberals, conservatives, etc. like the words have any meaning whatsoever.
As accented by DJ's posts "liberalism" (aka universalism) has been corrupted and co-opted by promotion of minority racism instead of "aracialism" or anti-racism which is the "claim" the legislation is said to promote. Equally conservatism has been placed on its head.
I am curious how Auster would respond to a "some" blacks, "some" whites, "some" jews response. Does the pretext insulate you from Auster's infamous anti-semite label?
No, it doesn't.
Someone who protects group X is by definition pro-group-X.
i should have emphasized "foremost". Auster is "foremost" pro-Auster and doesnt give a damn about alternative opinion despite being "open" to discussion.
I also find his hypocrisy entertaining. Isnt it funny how far flung "liberal" Jews promote the invasion of Europe by "conservative" muslims, and Auster will decry every "liberal" by race, creed or national origin except Jews - theyre just "liberals"?
Philip Weiss writes:
Former Congresswoman Holtzman spoke in the morning inside the Synagogue's Beir Chapel. At first I thought we were in for the good old time persecution. She talked about the czar in Russia and her grandfather, she talked about sponsoring legislation to get Nazis when she got into congress. But then came Iraq, and out of nowhere she seized the bull by the horns. "Jews played a critical role in bringing the war about." She spoke of "top level" administration officials and members of Congress. And: “Why was the only country in the world that would welcome George Bush Israel?”
There was none of the Jeffrey Goldberg prevarication we usually get, that these Jews just happened to be there. No: They had acted as Jews, and they had made a terrible mistake, Holtzman said, of allowing the ends to justify the means. They thought, “Is this good for the Jews, is this good for Israel …. Is this good for me?" Instead of thinking, "What is the good for society?... What is the good for democracy?" [...]
During the Q-and-A a tall lean Europeanish guy of 55 asked MJ Rosenberg a scary question. He said, What happens when Americans who have lost blood and treasure in Iraq discover "that Jews pushed America into a war” for Israel’s benefit. The Elizabeth Holtzman point.
This was the most upsetting question asked in the conference in the 5 hours I was there. It is the question that has been knocking at the door of the Jewish world since 2002.
To his overwhelming credit, Rosenberg answered honestly and calmly.
“I’m 61. I’ve never experienced anti-Semitism. There is very little anti-Semitism in this country.”
For some strange reason the question evoked images of Conrad's Lord Jim and how he dealt with the harm brought to his adopted people by fellow whites whom he trusted as essentially good but misguided. His error of judgment cost the lives of many Patusans.
"It was beginning to grow dark. Torches twinkled here and there. Those they met seemed awestruck, and stood aside hastily to let Jim pass. The wailing of women came from above. The courtyard was full of armed Bugis with their followers, and of Patusan people.
"I do not know what this gathering really meant. Were these preparations for war, or for vengeance, or to repulse a threatened invasion? Many days elapsed before the people had ceased to look out, quaking, for the return of the white men with long beards and in rags, whose exact relation to their own white man they could never understand. Even for those simple minds poor Jim remains under a cloud.
" Doramin alone, immense and desolate, sat in his armchair with the pair of flintlock pistols on his knees, faced by an armed throng. When Jim appeared, at somebody's exclamation all the heads turned round together, and then the mass opened right and left, and he walked up a lane of averted glances. Whispers followed him; murmurs: 'He has worked all the evil.' 'He hath a charm.' . . . He heard them -- perhaps!
"When he came up into the light of torches the wailing of the women ceased suddenly. Doramin did not lift his head, and Jim stood silent before him for a time. Then he looked to the left, and moved in that direction with measured steps. Dain Waris's mother crouched at the head of the body, and the grey dishevelled hair concealed her face. Jim came up slowly, looked at his dead friend, lifting the sheet, then dropped it without a word. Slowly he walked back.
" 'He came! He came!' was running from lip to lip, making a murmur to which he moved. 'He hath taken it upon his own head,' a voice said aloud. He heard this and turned to the crowd. 'Yes. Upon my head.' A few people recoiled. Jim waited awhile before Doramin, and then said gently. 'I am come in sorrow.' He waited again. 'I am come ready and unarmed,' he repeated.
"The unwieldy old man, lowering his big forehead like an ox under a yoke, made an effort to rise, clutching at the flintlock pistols on his knees. From his throat came gurgling, choking, inhuman sounds, and his two attendants helped him from behind. People remarked that the ring which he had dropped on his lap fell and rolled against the foot of the white man, and that poor Jim glanced down at the talisman that had opened for him the door of fame, love, and success within the wall of forests fringed. with white foam, within the coast that under the western sun looks like the very stronghold of the night. Doramin, struggling to keep his feet, made with his two supporters a swaying, tottering group; his little eyes stared with an expression of mad pain, of rage, with a ferocious glitter, which the bystanders noticed; and then, while Jim stood stiffened and with bared head in the light of torches, looking him straight in the face, he clung heavily with his left arm round the neck of a bowed youth, and lifting deliberately his right, shot his son's friend through the chest.
"The crowd, which had fallen apart behind Jim as soon as Doramin had raised his hand, rushed tumultuously forward after the shot. They say that the white man sent right and left at all those faces a proud and unflinching glance. Then with his hand over his lips he fell forward dead.
Yuk.
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/malcolm_gladwells_top_50_philo.php
The Original Post is excellent expose of Auster and anti-discrimination. The anti-discrimination agenda is of the Jews. They hated being discriminated against--and they are the author of "Tolerance". It is throughout Freemasonry; one of the biggest tenets of Freemasonry. Freemasonry itself instigated by Jews.
It is funny that Auster does not point this out. Auster himself is a shield for Jews. He steers the people reading his blog from truly seeing the truth. He steers them in other directions. He is not a conservative.
If he truly believed his own words, he would counsel that the Jews be discriminated in this country; forbidden to hold government jobs that form the political agenda. Jews should be barred from Hollywood or any Western type of media. Jews are barred from law schools and from lawyer and judge positions. Jews are to be repressed.
More "suicide" pablum from Auster in The white status competition theory of white suicide.
Now he's added a new whopper: "anti-racism" = "white surrender".
It's a good thing Auster has figured out we Whites are doing this all to ourselves. Otherwise we might waste our time looking for other reasons.
Sailer's White status competition, mired as it is in simplistic reductionism, tells us nothing. "NOTHING"!
Auster's "liberalism", AKA "non-discrimination", only appears reductionist. It isn't really. Everyone's a liberal and this explains everything. That's not simple, it's ridiculous.
Auster keeps writing and writing but he never justifies calling the "liberal" anti-White pro-jew double standard "suicide". Nor does he explain how this double standard exists under a regime supposedly based on "non-discrimination".
The problem is Auster can't square the circle because liberalism and discrimination did walk hand in hand as late as 1950.
Thus, when a Jew, Bernard Wolf, acquired a property in 1948 at Beach O'Pines, a Lake Huron summer resort covered by a 1933 covenant, his attorney was optimistic about asking in advance for a ruling from the courts that the covenant would not apply as a result of DRUMMOND WREN. (191-192; 206) [2] Such a ruling was not forthcoming. The Beach o' Pines Association tried to forestall legal action by acquiring the property at a profit from Wolf, who refused. When Wolf's attorney brought the covenant to the court for a ruling, the Association actively engaged in the attempt to uphold the covenant. The court proved sympathetic to their claims.
"Before Justice Schroeder of the Ontario High Court, Mr. Morden argued that over the years since it had been formed in 1935, the Beach O' Pines Protective Association had nurtured a congenial summer community among its members. It had paved and maintained the roads, provided police and fire protection, and undertaken substantial general improvement to the property, to the effect that the Beach had become a desirable location whose value would be diminished by any change to its character. This positive development had occurred under the protective shield of the restrictions contained in the covenant, which each owner had been aware of at time of purchase. Very few changes in ownership had taken place, so that it was a compatible and intimate group of citizens who in 1948 sought to maintain their enjoyment and the value of their property." (207)
In June, 1948 -- one month after the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled against the enforcement of racial restrictive covenants in Shelley v. Kraemer -- the Ontario High Court upheld the covenant on all counts. The ruling held that the precedent of DRUMMOND WREN did not apply as only resort property and not a permanent residence was at stake; that there was enough certainty about the meaning of a Jew to undermine the concern about "uncertainty"; and freedom of alienation was not wholly circumscribed (non-Jews could acquire it) and thus was not affected enough to sue.
Encouraged by the Canadian Jewish Congress, Wolf filed an appeal of the case with the Ontario Court of Appeal in late June 1948, and was heard in January 1949. The proceedings were similar to those that had occurred at the lower court: the judges displayed support for the Association. The Chief Justice of the court wrote of the covenant that
'The purpose of clause (f) here in question is obviously to assure, in some degree, that the residents are of a class who will get along well together. To magnify this innocent and modest effort to establish and maintain a place suitable for a pleasant summer residence into an enterprise that offends against some public policy, requires a stronger imagination than I possess...There is nothing criminal or immoral involved; the public interest is in no way concerned." (216-217)
He, like the judges in the lower court, asserted that laws would not change the relationships of individuals, and that natural evolution has to do this.
Public reaction to the Appeals Court decision was strong. Rabbi Abraham Feinberg of the Canadian Jewish Congress issued the statement:
"Canadian democracy may never grow beyond a collection of isolated racial units, roped off from one another by a legalized iron curtain of snobbery and barred from the mutual acquaintance and understanding which alone can develop internal unity." (218)
The Association for Civil Liberties also issued a critical statement, and both national labor organizations attacked the judgment. (218) A poll on the willingness of Canadians to sign a covenant showed 19 percent of Canadians willing to sign, 13 percent undecided and 68 percent not willing to sign. Newspapers such as THE HAMILTON NEWS and the TORONTO STAR editorialized against the judgment. However, the GLOBE and MAIL endorsed the decision, in part citing the argument that legislation cannot counter prejudice effectively.
In June, 1949, the Canadian Jewish Congress decided to appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court.(219)[3] Walker describes how the atmosphere in the Supreme Court was very different from those in the lower courts.
"...when [Morden] suggested that his clients' property would depreciate in value if Jews were allowed, Justice Ivan Rand interjected that if Albert Einstein and Arthur Rubinstein purchased cottages there the property values would increase, and the Association 'should be honoured to have them as neighbours.'" (229)
He also cited the retort of Justice Rand that
'freedom of association on a voluntary basis is one thing but it is quite a different thing to say that the law should protect an inclination to disassociate." (229)
Ultimately, it was the question about what would happen if a Gentile man bought the cottage, married a Jew, and then died that the Association's counsel found itself unable to answer. (229)
On 20 November, 1950 the positive judgment in favor of the appellants appeared, on the narrower grounds argued -- that because of the application of the covenants to the users or purchasers of the land, and not the land itself, it was not considered to "run with the land" -- that is, the covenant would only apply to the two parties involved in the initial agreement. Secondly, the judges accepted the argument of "uncertainty" -- that defining the affected class such as Jews was too difficult to retain their exclusion in public orders. (229-230)
The legacy of Noble and Wolf v. Alley was ambiguous, as the court refrained from ruling that racial restrictive covenants were against public policy, which would have sent the message out that other types of discrimination were also unconstitutional. The court's failure to do so did result in later decisions that public policy could *not* be drawn on to litigate against discriminatory behavior. (235-245) In spite of this, no covenant was enforced after Noble & Wolf vs. Alley, and thus it was successful in putting an end to the use of covenants in Canada. (234)
Wendy Plotkin
University of Illinois at Chicago
Department of History
It took a little longer than expected, but today Commissar Auster quotes a comment I posted at Mangan's and then denounces Mangan and Erich for permitting me to comment.
For anyone who may be wondering, the Commissar's use of "[sic]" reflects our differences concerning capitalization.
Post a Comment
<< Home