Hesperation
Over the last two weeks or so I've spent quite some time at Hesperado. The blogger there, Erich, is an anti-jihadi who came to my attention via Auster's whining. Erich criticizes Auster using methods similar to my own - paying close attention to his arguments and finding fault with his logic - and has also noticed how poorly Auster responds to criticism.In my exchanges with Erich there is nothing terribly interesting or new to regulars here. Early on he informed me of his belief that:
support for Judaism and the Jews is a non-negotiable virtueand I spent several thousand keystrokes arguing that if he could set this belief aside he might better understand "PC MC" - his shorthand for politically correct multiculturalism.
My comments started in A thick skull and a thin skin and continued in Addendum to the Prospectus: A mechanism for appropriate ostracism.
Despite these efforts Erich appears unmoved. He has however allowed me to make my argument and has even responded with some substance. This is of course far more than I would get in any forum controlled by commissars Auster or Jobling and their Urge to Purge.
Labels: hesperado, lawrence auster
posted by Tanstaafl at 12/09/2008 10:55:00 PM
24 Comments:
Please move on from debating this issue - no matter your beliefs, it is hard to see it as anything but a low-level priority.
Tan,
What do you think about Michael Hoffman's approach, as found in his book, Judaism Discovered? Although I haven't read the entire book, it seems a logical and effective strategy, especially for Christians.
Thanks for your work cracking Mr. Auster for us, it's a big help. If nothing else it confirms what many of us had felt or understood but never had the time or energy to investigate further or document.
Vale,
Rusty
Auster comes up so often because he's placed himself at the crux of the subjects that concern me. My discussion with Erich and other anti-jihadis is motivated by a desire to alert Whites to how their deracinated survival instincts are being channeled by zionists, neocons, and people like Auster to serve self-interested jews.
Whites have no hope of resolving our priorities - high or low - as long as we remain ignorant of how we are manipulated and why. As I've argued at Hesperado, stopping immigration is more important than fighting jihadis. Deracinated philo-semitic anti-jihadis will not permit themselves to recognize that in a sane West, one not so disproportionately influenced by White-hating xenophilic materialist cosmopolitan jews, immigration would have been recognized as a threat and shut down long ago. If the West were not already so thoroughly judaized there would be little or no chance we would be watching the West become islamized, latinized, or coffee-colored.
In such a world I would be happy to blog about global warming or saving the whales. As it is I blogged in partial ignorance for two years, whining about the hypocrisy of moonbat liberals, blood thirsty jihadis, and invading latinos before I realized that behind it all - disguised by a blind and near unanimous adherence to a code of deference that Erich so unselfconsciously regurgitates - was a deeper truth.
Until I feel that truth is widely understood, or until I become aware of an even deeper truth, I don't plan to write about much else.
tan, any ideas on how the current economic situation will play out?
Great visual Rusty, especially the way in moves progressively right. If you centred it, it could be a Christmas tree.
Year two of no trees at Sea-Tac.
There will be no more Christmas trees at Sea-Tac Airport this season after the Port of Seattle received a complaint about them.
For more than 25 years, the airport has celebrated the holidays with Christmas trees over its entrances. But now the trees that decorated the entrances to Sea-Tac can only be found down back hallways out of the public's view, after the Port of Seattle ordered all 15 trees removed.
Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky asked the Port of Seattle to include a menorah among the holiday decorations beginning in mid-October.
Auster on Bogomilsky
Bogomilsky retreats ... but so does the airport
Paul K. writes:
As of this morning Bogomilsky has withdrawn his threat of a suit and the trees have been restored to their position in the Seattle Airport.
�We are not going to be the instrument by which the port holds Christmas hostage,� Bogomilsky�s lawyer, Harvey Grad said.... The rabbi had received �all kinds of calls and emails,� many of them �odious,� Grad said, adding he was �trying to figure out how this is consistent with the spirit of Christmas.�
Having graciously postponed litigation until next year, Bogomilsky wants to reclaim his position as victim in this incident, struggling to understand how the anger he stirred up is �consistent with the spirit of Christmas.� Wouldn�t it be more appropriate for him to figure out how his actions have been consistent with the principles of Judaism?
By the way, however irked I may be by Bogomilsky�s behavior, I note that at no time does he threaten violence, a ground rule for civilized discourse we can no longer take for granted.
LA writes:
I�m trying to figure out why this incident has worked out so differently from so many other similar incidents. For example, few years ago, a Muslim group demanded representation for its holiday in Grand Central Terminal during Christmas season, and the Terminal authorities just got rid of all the Christmas things, just as the airport did in this case. But that did not lead to a public outcry and a reversal, as has happened here.
LA continues:
Port spokesman Bob Parker said: �We look forward to sitting down after the first of the year with not only Rabbi Bogomilsky but others as well, and finding ways to make sure there�s an appropriate winter holiday representation for all faiths. We want to find out a way to celebrate the winter holidays that is sensitive to all faiths.�
So, the airport will end up yielding to every group.
Off topic. I have another Lawerence Auster type---Takuan Seiyo over at Brusells Journal which is supposed to be the "conservative voice" of Europe. Takuan Seiyo just announced he is part Jew and then goes and attempts to say what Conservativism means---Supporting the Jew. Jews and Europeans are to work together. He is a fan of Lawerence Auster. They have since deleted my comments. Of course, he attacks "White Supremacy" and when I counter his stupid arguments--he deletes them.
The Jews control every aspect of our lives and discourse. They set the parameters, they get to tell us how to think.
Check out these two posts:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3684
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3688
He is a Lawerence Auster Wannabe/clone. You can also add Spengler an Asian Times Columnist that Philip Weiss outed as Jew as well.
You might as well put Takuan Seiyo on your radar because a lot of people are following him.
WLW,
Your comment is very much on topic.
Seiyo's pro-West manifesto is like Jobling's pro-"white" manifesto in that both purport to support the interests of Whites or the West, distinguishing us from muslims and black, and blaming them for harming us. Somewhere in the middle of their message they nod to the harm done by jews only to quickly minimize it and dictate a sort of Philo-Semitic Prime Directive in the spirit of Erich's "support for Judaism and the Jews is a non-negotiable virtue".
As with Auster I get the distinct impression these fellows all care first and foremost for jews, and only secondarily and in service of that primary goal do they feel compelled to make their noises in defense of Whites or the West.
They also all share the popular and simplistic liberal view of jew-critics as ignorant, insane, jew-haters. Because that is the only reason they can imagine anyone would go beyond the limits of critique they judge to be justified.
Their criticisms of jews amount to lip service, offered only because outright denial would be ridiculous. The limits of their criticisms differ but their conclusions are the same: Whites may not exclude jews, and "we" must exclude "anti-semites".
These self-anointed saviors proscribe what we may do in our own defense. They are incapable of objectively evaluating our attackers. They harm us by insisting we may not distinguish ourselves from some, and they smear and seek to exclude those who do distinguish.
Hypocrites and false friends such as this are the ones who deserve to be excluded.
I was also about to post about Takuan Seiyo, as our Polish friend likes to call himself.
You can see quite clearly, especially in the second article, that any criticism of Jews is grudgingly given, while Whites and the West are eagerly put in their place at every opportunity.
Although he doesn't seem to express the same "I support Whites because Whites support Jews" thought that Auster does, he does try to get Whites to refuse to extend ethnic solidarity to other Whites that are not pro-Jew. Two sides of the same coin I guess.
Even though I would prefer to hear you talk about a variety of issues, I realise that this is important.
You can see through his writing that if he were to become influential in the White movement, then from that point onward the moment would be moving in circles, and we will be no better off than we are now.
I've updated my links to note Spengler=Goldman.
Sailer takes Weiss to task for the outing, and in the process admits he knew who Spengler was more than two years ago:
I pointed out on my blog two years ago that Spengler was an old Larouchie because that fact provides some perspective for his readers.
And as an anonymous commenter immediately notes:
But that's precisely the least relevant kind of perspective. Almost a diversion.
Weiss at the end of his post writes:
I may be wrong. If I am, I urge Goldman to get in touch with me. My readers know I am happy to correct my mistakes.
But I don't think I am wrong. And Goldman's deceptions get at one of my main problems with Zionism. Fearful of abandonment, it has marketed itself to non-Jewish westerners again and again in unstraightforward ways. Zionism--always in America's best interest! Zionism--an essential part of Catholic teaching! When actually if you go to AIPAC, you find that the passion for Zionism is pretty straightforward: a lot of (generally older) Jews care very deeply about Zionism for very Jewish reasons, having to do with anti-Semitism, assimilation, and religious election. These issues have bedeviled our foreign policy. The least the fanatics could do for us is to be straightforward about where they're coming from.
This tendency toward deception is perhaps most obvious in neocon zionist jews, but the fearful and self-interested motivations Weiss cites are not limited to neocons. Nor is the deception.
For every false-friend neocon there are several neolib anti-White "anti-racist" jews, critical of israel, who guilt-trip Whites who reject the coffee-colored demise anti-racists have planned for us, and who simultaneously defend jews as a distinct and favored breed now and forevermore.
Called on their hypocrisy and inconsistencies the consistent answer from both neocons and neolibs is: "you're an anti-semite".
The fundamental problem is not zionism. The fundamental problem is that jews and their philo-semitic allies, regardless of their ideological differences, share a tendency to attack Whites for expressing thoughts and behavior they consider normal and defend for jews. The deception they share and promote, with very few exceptions, is that this is not happening.
The internet-world's most astute analyst of European-Jewish rrelations, wintermute (more recently colin laney) outed Mr Goldman over a year ago at majorityrights.com.
Fjordman is another false friend.
In an essay titled On Deconstructing the Majority: Nothing To Do With Islam? Really? he writes:
Thomas Hylland Eriksen, professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo, heads a multi-million project sponsored by the state trying to envision how the new Multicultural society will work. He is a career Multiculturalist and intellectual celebrity in his country, a frequent contributor to the public debate and lives, according to himself, in a boring, white monocultural part of the city, insulated from the effects of cultural diversity.
This just after quoting Eriksen's genocidal anti-Whitism:
He says point blank that in his view the most important thing to do right now is to "deconstruct the majority [population] so thoroughly that it can never be called the majority again." End of quote. And this is the agenda of the Multiculturalists in all Western nations.
Fjordman is right to call attention to Eriksen's animus, but he misattributes its source. I repeat myself by pointing this out again, but the origins and the driving force behind this idea of "deconstructing the majority" most definitely has more to do with jews than it does with muslims. The anti-racism/PC/MC project began as an effort to protect jews. It began long before deference was extended to any other "minority". As the West becomes more islamified jews will adapt, as they have before, or will move on to greener non-Western pastures, such as india or china.
As with the other defenders of the West mentioned above Fjordman seems disturbed by the islamization of the West mostly because he fears the negative impact on jews. These advocates openly identify the mechanisms and consequences of the ongoing deconstruction, but they grant immunity to its disproportionately jewish proponents while dishonestly laying all the blame on Whites, muslims, and other minorities. They condemn those who identify and oppose the jewish nature of the deconstruction with a ferocity they do not apply to the deconstructors - smearing and calling for critics of jews to be shunned and silenced, but not doing anything similar to those who are guilt-tripping Whites and otherwise deconstructing our civilization from positions of power on the inside.
Fjordman prefaces his pro-West manifesto with this variation of the Philo-Semitic Prime Directive:
Those who republish my book should support the defense of Western civilization - and the defense of Israel as well. In my experience, those who disapprove of Israel's right to exist are either anti-Semites or suffer from very poor judgment.
My family and I are no more obligated to fund or die for israel or jews in general than we are to fund or die for any other group who antagonizes us. I am not ignorant or driven by jew-hatred. I have simply come to recognize and hate the unselfconscious ease with which so many pro-jewish pundits make mendacious attempts to manipulate myself and others into believing so.
Excellent MR.com thread, thanks.
The Revolutionary Jew and His Impact on World History
by E. Michael Jones
Furthermore, Libertarianism is a Jewish ideology. Two of its three founders are Jewish; i.e. Von Mises and Murray Rothbard. Libertarianism is the political ideology for capitalism. Capitalism engenders individualism. It deracinates, de-religiousizes people. It makes man centered on materialism but mostly creates "individuals". Libertarianism is the fruit of the Enlightenment which teach that man is just an individual. Libertarianism fundamental principle is individualism. The Jews would just love a whole bunch of men acting like selfish individuals---they are easier to prey on and rule. Libertarianism is very dangerous.
Individualism is an extended phenotype of the English people. Protection of property and contract law allowed a 'society of strangers' to develop a nationalist persona far ahead of other European people.
"In most countries, in most eras, you needed to belong to an extended family "mafia" for protection.
The English were perhaps the first to break out of this rut. Fraser notes:
"Over time, individualistic social structures encouraged the emergence in England of the common law of property and contract and, later still, the emergence of impersonal corporate forms of business enterprise, all requiring cooperation between strangers…"
Some of the cultural attributes that emerged in Northwestern Europe that made individualistic polities possible include, include, according to Fraser:
"Only a people such as the English, characterized by the ‘non-kinship based forms of reciprocity’ associated with Protestant Christianity, monogamy and companionate marriage, nuclear families, a marked de-emphasis on extended kinship relations, and a strong tendency towards individualism could possibly succeed in creating such a 'society of strangers.’"
Why it lay open to assault by organised Jewry and other special interest groups, especially in the Western world outside the US, is because it wasn't constituted. Even in the US Constitution freedom of association, the right to exclude was not formalised.
Te Michael Jones article shows, beyond the negative impact of Jewish tax farming, is the Polish Catholic aristocracy cared little for its people. Their desire to exploit serfdom is more disturbing because of the genetic relationship between ruler and ruled.
Informative comments. Thank you all.
Their desire to exploit serfdom is more disturbing because of the genetic relationship between ruler and ruled.
As it is with our traitorous technocrats today. The corrective is to recall and restore the traditional penalty for treason.
WLW,
You forgot Rand and Popper. The only libertarian big-hitter who was not Jewish was Hayek, and he spent his entire life around Jews - hated conservatism too.
My discussion with Erich and other anti-jihadis is motivated by a desire to alert Whites to how their deracinated survival instincts are being channeled by zionists, neocons, and people like Auster to serve self-interested jews.
Of possible interest: http://www.preservingwesternciv.com/index.html
A conference organized by Michael Hart. Auster is speaking there.
For the sake of accuracy, you can blame Henry Hazlitt as much as anyone for the founding of the modern American libertarian movement (ignoring Faure and Propotkin's versions).
It was Hazlitt who got Ms.Rosenbaum interested in the free market, and she then began to promote Hazlitt's and von Mises's ideas.
Not that I don't concur on the general theme.
An interesting quote from the "anti-racist" Rosenbaum:
Ayn Rand on Israel (Ford Hall Forum lecture, 1974)
Q: What should the United Sates do about the [1973] Arab-Israeli War?
AR: Give all the help possible to Israel. Consider what is at stake. It is not the moral duty of any country to send men to die helping another country. The help Israel needs is technology and military weapons—and they need them desperately. Why should we help Israel? Israel is fighting not just the Arabs but Soviet Russia, who is sending the Arabs armaments. Russia is after control of the Mediterranean and oil.
Further, why are the Arabs against Israel? (This is the main reason I support Israel.) The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are. Israel is a mixed economy inclined toward socialism. But when it comes to the power of the mind—the development of industry in that wasted desert continent—versus savages who don't want to use their minds, then if one cares about the future of civilization, don't wait for the government to do something. Give whatever you can. This is the first time I've contributed to a public cause: helping Israel in an emergency.
***
I used to hear that "modern" is a code word for Marxism. If modern is a code word for Marxism, and Marxism is Jewish---then Modern is a code word for things Jewish.
Yes, "modern" is a code word for "Jewish". I believe that's the standard line in Ivy League history courses, such as my class with Prof. Gluck featuring "The Politics of Cultural Despair" by Fritz Stern:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Stern
The focus of much of Stern's work is attempting to track the development of the rise of National Socialism in Germany and its characteristics. Stern has traced the origins of Nazism back to the 19th century völkische movement. In Stern's opinion, the virulently anti-Semitic völkische movement was the result of the "politics of cultural despair" experienced by German intellectuals who were unable to come to grips with modernity.
...they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent.
It's the classic excuse. They hate us for what we are, not what we do.
"When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are."
Perhaps Alisa Rosenbaum should have explained why the U.S. should help Israel after the Lavon affair and USS Liberty. To help the uncivilzed sheiks or our Israeli "allies" who have shown that they welcome the opportunity to plot treachery against us, hmmm?
Yes, "modern" is a code word for "Jewish". I believe that's the standard line in Ivy League history courses, such as my class with Prof. Gluck featuring "The Politics of Cultural Despair" by Fritz Stern:
Yuri Slezkine says the same thing in "The Jewish Century" in quite the gloating manner.
Post a Comment
<< Home