Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Auster Projecting, Again

In an entry titled Why do the anti-Semites always deny their own openly stated positions? Lawrence Auster writes (his emphasis):
Wheeler thus exhibits the classic dishonesty of the anti-Israelites which I've discussed many times. They ceaselessly grumble about the fact that they are called anti-Semites and excluded from discussion forums because they "don't subscribe" to Israel, or because they "don't genuflect" to Israel, or because they "don't jump on the Zionist bandwagon," and other similar phrases, as though anyone were asking them to subscribe or genuflect or jump on a bandwagon! These people never have the simple honesty and manhood to say something like, "Auster excluded me because I said that of all the nations on earth Israel alone is cursed and deserves to be the target of terrorism forever."

Why do the anti-Semites, who make such a deal about their own courage, nobility, and honesty in the face of a hostile and hypocritical society, always try to conceal their actual beliefs and the actual reasons that other people reject them? Why do they keep telling such transparent lies? Why don't they take proud responsibility for their avowed principles that get them excluded? Why do they declare a war of perpetual terrorism against Jews, and then claim to have been treated unfairly when Jews simply refuse to talk to them?

In other words, apart from their sick and evil beliefs about the Jews, what is wrong with these people?
We begin by observing that in this post, as he so often does, Auster is projecting his own guilty mind onto others. It is Auster himself who does a daily dance of pretense. He has provided more than enough evidence (which I have pointed out before and will cite and add to below) that he is not clearly and openly expressing his true motives or priorities. He never has the simple honesty and manhood to say something like, "I called for these people to be excluded because my highest priority is to do what I think is good for jews". He's always grumbling that others should take responsibility for their avowed principles even while he distorts what those principles are and regularly violates his own.

For one thing, note how illogical and sloppy Auster's argument above is. Auster leaps from criticizing Wheeler, to all anti-israelites, to all anti-semites. He takes a single brief comment of Wheeler's, the general sentiment of which Wheeler has openly expressed on several occasions in several forms and forums, searches out the longer more specific exchange with himself to which Wheeler referred, interprets the differences between the two as a sign of maliciousness, absurdly asserts that Wheeler is trying to mislead others about what he really believes, and then extends this smear to a broad, amorphous group of other people, claiming that it exemplifies their "sick and evil" beliefs. Auster's thinking here is not only irrational. It is based on precisely the kind of leaps of logic and idiotic generalizations he himself decries when he thinks such tactics are being used against jews.

Auster often misrepresents his own previously stated positions. Here he implies that he believes the only punishment for those he labels "anti-semite" is and should be that jews simply not talk to them. The fact is that he has provided a vast corpus detailing how he really feels about and wants done to anyone "to his right" on jews or israel. In reading this corpus it is clear he hates "anti-semites" and "anti-israelites" with a passion deeper, more emphatically expressed, and less convincingly justified than he puts into anything else he writes about.

Consider the specific example provided by In which circle of hell do the anti-Semites reside? in which he unselfconsciously peddles and projects the "one truth" about which anti-anti-semites like himself obsess (Auster repeats it like a mantra):
Imagine going through life having that one obsessive thought, and believing that this one thought is the truth, the great truth that explains everything, the great truth that will save the world, the great truth that the world is forever suppressing. Having given over their whole being to the idee fixe that the Jews are the source of all evil, the anti-Semites are souls in hell, and, as in Dante's Hell, they don't know that they're in hell, but keep repeating for eternity the same sin that consigned them to hell.
Auster, who so often indulges in guilt-by-association and calls for anyone he labels anti-semite to be censored, is apparently quite willing to associate with and even to provide a forum for Ken Hechtman. This is likely the "Ken H" who comments in the hell thread linked above. There "Ken H" insults Christians as unthinking "true believers" and compares this caricature to Auster's caricature of anti-semites. This really disturbed Auster. Not because it was an insult to Christians, but because he didn't want his condemnation of anti-semites to be diminished in any way. "Ken H" agrees that "[a]nti-Semites are certainly outside the pale of normal civil discourse" after which Auster has nothing to say about his slur against Christians.

Months later Auster focused directly on Ken Hechtman. From Hechtman's thoughts alone Auster's readers judged him to be a liberal jew. Concerning Hechtman and his thoughts Auster wrote:
You're beyond the left. You're off in some fantasy land of your own.
. . .
his agenda is not to preserve our existing society, but to advance Muslim power and influence in Canada and America as step toward building One World
. . .
It may seem, as I said earlier, that Ken Hechtman's views are so extreme that they cannot be seen as representative of even the usual (i.e. the radical) pro-large-scale immigration, pro-open-borders position, such as that of the people who supported the Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
. . .
You want to destroy Canada, the U.S. and Europe. You want to destroy everything the West and the Western peoples have been.
. . .
KH's ideas are simply a formula to destroy everything that we are, and should be identified as such.
. . .
These leftists live in an unreal world and are hyper-alienated from anyone who doesn't share their unreality.
After all that Auster didn't dehumanize Hechtman or other hyper-alienated pro-open-borders leftists who want to destroy the West by saying they are sick, evil, or have consigned themselves to hell. He never called for any of them, or Hechtman himself, to be censored. Instead he wrote:
I hope Mr. Hechtman doesn't feel he's being ganged up on here
Ever since this exchange Mr. Hechtman has been an occasional guest of Mr. Auster's. Auster meticulously copies and pastes Hechtman's comments onto his blog just like any other he hand selects for inclusion. Without any mention of his hyper-alienation and anti-West sentiments. Why is that?

Here's another example. In Anti-Semites: the evil and stupid party Auster writes:
The central assertion of the anti-Semites who have been posting at the American Renaissance website for the last week is that "Zionist Jews" (as distinct from non-Zionist Jews) are the main threat to Western culture. This idea is so moronic that anyone who says it should be excluded from a discussion forum on that basis alone.
By the way, one of the absolute proofs that someone is an anti-Semite is that he describes anti-Semites as people who are merely "asking questions" about the Jews, or who are merely "criticizing" Jews, and therefore it's terribly unfair to call them anti-Semites. This is the parody of rationality I've often mentioned. When I talk about the difference between rational criticism of Jews and anti-Semitism, I'm talking about something real. When the anti-Semites try to do the same thing, they are merely playing their endless game of trying to get themselves legitimized.
Now sit back for a moment and try to imagine the frustration of these anti-Semites. They are in possession of the one truth that explains all the ills of the world (the Jews are doing it) and that would cure all the ills of the world (kill all Jews in the world), but no one will listen to them! Instead, they are despised, called names, excluded, utterly shunned. Which only proves to them that the Jews are not only destroying the world, but are successfully repressing the only people who can save the world. Which shows how demonically evil and powerful the Jews really are.
According to certain Eastern teachings, the souls of persons who have died suddenly, "before their time," remain in this world, not knowing that they have died, and so continually seeking the satisfaction of the same desires that they had in life. But they cannot satisfy these desires because they no longer have physical bodies with which to pursue and experience them. The anti-Semites are like that. They have ceased to live as human beings, and all they have left is the single obsessive desire, never satisfied, to get themselves recognized by normal people as legitimate participants in the discussion, and to have the chance--at last!--to prove that the Jews really are the source of all the ills of the West.
There he goes again dehumanizing "anti-semites".

Against all reason let's take Auster's description of the explicitly constrained criticism of jews at AR at face value. How then is the idea that zionism is the main threat to Western culture "moronic"? How can anyone decide what threatens them, or how much, unless all sides of the argument can be openly and fully voiced? Nobody can come to an informed view if discussion is declared "moronic" and forbidden. His correspondents have called Auster's attention to Whiteness Studies, but he has never called that moronic, nor has he called for its proponents to be excluded from anything.

Auster discusses threats. He even criticizes jews. In How Jews can end the fatal contradiction between supporting Israel and supporting Muslim immigration into the West he acknowledges that zionist jews do pose a threat:
If you address your questions to pro-Israel Jewish neocons and liberals, you will not get an answer. They will go into a fog-like state or change the subject. They cannot acknowledge that through the non-discriminatory immigration policy that they support like a religion, indeed, that they support as the very definition of Jewishness, America has brought the Jews' mortal enemies into this country.
This is all about the threat jews pose to themselves. Auster cares a great deal about muslim immigration, because they are the mortal enemies of jews. As always his criticism of jews is based on what he believes is good for jews. It is not based on what is good for Whites or the West in general, but it's easy to see from his words how someone might think so. It certainly isn't difficult to believe that the immigration jews "support like a religion" is more of a threat to Whites. The non-muslim aliens flooding into the West are just as effectively genociding indigenous Whites as the muslim immigrants are.

It is self-serving and arrogant beyond words that in Auster's view the more anyone he labels an "anti-semite" struggles to reject censorship and make rational arguments, the more they only prove themselves irrational and worthy of silencing. His logic is circular. His arguments are made in bad faith. His ridicule and scorn boomerangs back on himself.

It is indeed frustrating witnessing Auster so casually project his twisted mentality onto myself and others. The man who simplistically and disingenuously blames virtually every ill on "liberals" and "liberalism" (when he's not blaming "anti-semites") imagines his cartoonish "anti-semites" are stupid and evil because he thinks they believe themselves to be "in possession of the one truth that explains all the ills of the world (the Jews are doing it) and that would cure all the ills of the world (kill all Jews in the world)". In none of the posts I have read has he quoted anyone professing anything close to this, much less claiming that these twin beliefs are their "one truth".

I call Auster and those who behave as he does anti-anti-semites because they concern themselves so strongly with defining, ferreting out, and attacking anti-semites. For them anti-semitism is not only the extreme claim that jews are the cause of all the problems in the world or that one wishes to kill them. For some anti-anti-semites it is the belief that jews deserve any portion of blame at all. Or any criticism of jews not made in their best interests. The simple act of discriminating Whites from jews or reversing the liberal norms of capitalizing proper nouns can be grounds enough for condemnation.

Labeling someone an anti-semite justifies all further demeaning, dehumanizing, and demonizing of them, and the explicit purpose is to discredit and silence them. Anti-anti-semites do not argue that jews alone should not talk to "the anti-semites", as Auster claims, they call on anyone who wouldn't like to suffer the same treatment as them to treat them just as anti-anti-semites do. To the chagrin of anti-anti-semites this doesn't always happen, but surely they desire it and try hard to make it so.

This "one truth" mantra is one of a handful of pat formulas Auster and other anti-anti-semites use to caricaturize anyone who criticizes jews or israel. They treat even the mildest critcism as a foot in the door, the camel's nose in the tent as their semitic cousins might say, and assume the source is a single-minded focus on jews. This is a reflection of their own views. They know everything bad that happens to jews is preceeded by criticism of jews. They know everyone knows this is true. Therefore anyone who criticizes jews must want bad things to happen to jews. In every conflict between jews and non-jews these jew-obsessed minds (those of anti-anti-semites that is) place the blame entirely on the non-jews. They claim jews are forever the blameless victims and non-jews are forever the evil victimizers, filled with a hate for jews which springs from nowhere. It afflicts all non-jews (and a few "self-hating" jews) like some cosmic constant across time and space. In their view it is not being attacked, ridiculed, silenced, and then accused of being a hate-addled and insane aggressor that drives non-jews mad with righteous indignation. It is because the non-jews are simply morally and mentally flawed to begin with, prone to scapegoating jews for being successful, envious of jewish superiority.

Or at least that's how many anti-anti-semites rationalize their bigotry.

Most jews believe it's wrong to make generalizations about groups. Most are also perfectly comfortable generalizing about the anti-semitism of anti-semites. Some jews even believe that philo-semites are anti-semites who like jews. Talk about one truth.

What demonstrates to me how "powerful the jews really are" is how they have imparted their one-sided views on anti-semitism to Whites. That and their overrepresentation in media, academia, politics, law, and finance, and how effectively and consistently they have used their wealth and positions of authority and control to squelch any criticism of themselves or their power. Many use their verbal dexterity first to deny, then to make blatantly disingenuous arguments about their small absolute numbers, or cite their positive contributions, as a group, knowing full well that the point is their disproportion, as a group, in key positions and the deleterious effect this has empirically had on "the majority" (ie. Whites) for whom most also know full well they harbor animosity. If and when these ploys and pretenses fail, and sometimes before, more than enough jews are willing to punish the critic, or call for others to punish them, using the economic, political, and legal power they claim not to have.

A few days ago, in The anti-Semites and me, Auster criticized Majority Rights. He deems the discussions there unfairly hostile to jews and especially himself:
Overall it is the usual whacked-out anti-Semitic take on me that is seen in those quarters, namely that my real purpose is not to defend the white race and its civilization, the very existence of which is threatened by the West's continuing openness to mass non-Western immigration, but to undermine the white race in order to protect and empower the Jews. According to the anti-Semites, my entire work--everything I've written about immigration, race, culture, liberalism, and neoconservatism--has been motivated by, and is a cover for, my concern for the Jews. From the anti-Semitic perspective, it couldn't be otherwise. Since I am of Jewish origin, everything I do must be determined by, and focused on advancing, the Jewish agenda.
Auster is concerned with protecting jews. He demonstrates it every time he takes time away from his criticizing of liberals, muslims, and blacks to condemn as "sick and evil" a subset of non-liberal Whites who largely agree with him on immigration, muslims, and blacks. He criticizes them all for the same reason: a perceived threat to jews. This priority overrides any defense he makes of Whites or our civilization. For example, he correctly identifies mass non-Western immigration as an existential threat to the West, but as noted above he does so primarily because he believes it is a threat to jews. When an argument is made that immigration and the many other ways in which jewish efforts to do what they believe to be good for themselves or "minorities" in general (eg. economic and cultural Marxism, Freudian psychoanalysis, Boasian anthropology, feminism, civil rights, anti-White anti-racism) have undermined and harmed the West in general, and specifically Whites, Auster declares such thoughts "moronic", "stupid", "sick", or "evil". He refuses to acknowledge the common roots of these jewish-led movements, the common anti-White anti-WASP anti-Christian and anti-Western motives driving them. Instead he attempts to pathologize and silence any such criticism, not because it is mistaken, but because it could harm jews.

Clearly if someone calls himself an X it is perfectly normal for him to also claim to be and act as if he is pro-X. I am White. I am explicitly pro-White. I think and say and do what I do because I am pro-White, not because I hate jews or any other group of non-Whites. I criticize them to the extent I perceive them to have harmed or are harming the interests of myself and my extended family. I understand and respect those who are openly pro-jewish or pro-israel.

Auster however is a charlatan. A poseur. A dissimulator. He acts superficially as if he is pro-Christian, pro-White, and pro-American, but he focuses much more time and energy seeking out and attacking anti-jewish or anti-israel sentiments than he spends seeking out and fighting anti-Christian, anti-White, or anti-American sentiments. He conflates the interests of jews with "whites" and America. He refuses to distinguish these interests and he attacks those who do.

I don't think any regular writer here or at MR believes Auster is trying to "undermine the White race". Such can only be a deliberate error coming from someone who so often preens about how carefully he parses others' thoughts and phrases his own. Why does Auster distort the true criticism? Why is he unable to state it accurately much less answer it, even when he points right at it?

Prozium has made the criticism clearly enough. He notes how and why Auster dodges it.

Auster is more pro-jew than he is pro-White. I've said this before and Auster's predictable response was to call it an "anti-semitic attack". He got angry at Gates of Vienna for not censoring me when he said they should.

Auster is pro-"white", subject to constant caveats and reservations. He views jews and Whites as one inseparable "white", except of course when he's expressing his concerns for the wholly separate and special interests of jews. He scoffs at the suggestion he is duplicitous, even as he constantly projects his own deceit and ill-will onto others. When my writing first came to his attention he responded with I am attacked for not being an anti-Semite, a title which misrepresented my criticism of him in a way that actually reflected his pro-jewish priority:
Now, a person who is not an anti-Semite and who disapproves of anti-Semitism would want to explain clearly that he is not an anti-Semite. A person who declares that he's indifferent to whether people call him an anti-Semite is announcing either that he is an anti-Semite, or that he has no problem with anti-Semitism.
Auster thinks I should be concerned about the smears he and others direct at me. He deliberately mistakes my clearly stated distain for indifference and assumes his misinterpretation substantiates his smears.

I reject Auster's tautological idiocy, but since it's his I certainly think it's fair enough to apply it to himself. Therefore his scoffing should be interpreted as an announcement that his real purpose is not to defend the white race and its civilization but to undermine it. That everything he's written about is a cover for his concern for jews. If he had a problem with this understanding he would have said as much rather than just repeating it with such indifference.

His post Should Auster be ostracized? contains a similar announcement. Here he reproduces part of a comment I wrote at Hesperado (the [sic] business reflects, once again, his priority in opposing even the slightest slight he perceives as anti-jewish):
I would prefer Auster aim all his criticism and advice at the jewish [sic] community he obviously cares so much for, and stop issuing commands and attacking "the majority" that he obviously values only to the extent we serve jewish [sic] interests.
Once again this was aimed directly at Auster but he referred to it as "anti-semitism". He then took "both Hesperado and Mangan to task for allowing a loony anti-Semite to post at their sites" (just as he did at GoV). Rather than claiming he does this because he hates Whites I think it's because he loves jews. It's simply ironic that he left off the first and especially relevant half of my comment, the whole of which was made in response to an Auster fan:
Lawrence Auster is a shining example of an astute mind, one unencumbered by the malaise of political correctness. His contribution to traditional conservative values, and conservatism in general, is invaluable, in my estimation.

Oh yes, I particularly cherish the traditional conservative value of denouncing people as anti-semites and insisting they be shunned and censored.

I would prefer Auster aim all his criticism and advice at the jewish community he obviously cares so much for, and stop issuing commands and attacking "the majority" that he obviously values only to the extent we serve jewish interests.
Auster did not explain clearly that he objects to my description of his motivations. Thus he announces his agreement.

In Reply to Gottfried Auster plays the innocent victim, complaining a fellow jew is attacking him, and resorting to a series of dishonest rationalizations that provide a window into his mind (his emphasis):
According to Gottfried, I am such a monster that I call people anti-Semites, the most damaging thing you can say about someone, simply for disagreeing with me. In reality, I call people anti-Semites who express and invoke hatred against the Jewish people, who with an evil indifference to truth demonize Jews as Jews, who see Jews as the enemy of mankind, who see the Jews as the source of all ills. In fact, I'm so precise in my use of the word anti-Semitic that I don't even describe outright enemies of Israel as anti-Semitic, unless there is specific proof of the latter. For example, as I've explained many times, though Patrick Buchanan is an inveterate bigot against Israel, I've never called him anti-Semitic, because he has never attacked Jews as Jews. Similarly, prior to today, I didn't call Taki anti-Semitic, I called him an Israel-hater, which he undeniably is. But today I called him an anti-Semite, when he turned Bernard Madoff into a symbol of Jewish perfidy and wrote:
Israel can now safely be called the Bernie Madoff of countries, at it has lied to the world about its intentions, stolen Palestinian lands continuously since 1948, and managed to do all this with American tax payer's money. Every American taxpayer, starting with George W. Bush, has Palestinian blood on their hands thanks to the butchers that run Israel.
Nobody called Auster a monster. And of course he doesn't call people anti-semites simply for disagreeing with him. He generally reserves that label for those who disagree with him about jews. He acknowledges the power of the label, "the most damaging thing you can say about someone", preens again about how precisely he chooses his words, then very precisely dances around the fact that he does apply the label to people, like myself, who do not fit the criteria for anti-semitism that he so precisely states here.

Auster plays even more precise word games with people like Buchanan. In Are neoconservatives "Trotskyites"? Auster writes (my emphasis):
In my view, anti-Semitism must involve an attack on Jews as Jews, or an invocation of hostility against Jews as Jews. Buchanan, as I've said before, is self-evidently an anti-Israel bigot. He always puts Israel and Israeli self-defense in the worst light, wants to see Israel destroyed, and takes the side of terrorists. His motives for this may well be an animosity against Jews; I personally believe that he probably does have such an animosity and such a motive.
How magnanimous of Auster. He didn't once call Buchanan an "anti-semite". He doesn't do it again in Buchanan's White Whale, an article Auster filled with all sorts of mind-reading tricks. Criticizing Buchanan for "protesting too much" against anti-semitism, for hating israel, and worst of all, turning "anti-Semitism into a matter of opinion". (That must be why there so many standards! It's all Pat Buchanan's fault.)

Auster's treatment of Steve Sailer is another example of bizarre denial. Auster regularly pats himself on the back for not calling Sailer an anti-semite. Sure he assumes Sailer is revealing a secret desire to see israel destroyed whenever he makes flippant baseball analogies, just like I do by spelling israel with a small i. I wrote a bit about this in Suicide vs. Competition. Here's how Auster explains himself:
I did not say that Sailer is a bigot against Jews. I said that he is a bigot against Israel and Jewish neocons.

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.
Auster thinks anti-semitism is a matter of opinion. In his expert opinion neither Buchanan nor Sailer is an anti-semite. Buchanan hates jews because he said - er, well, he didn't actually say anything of the sort, but Auster claims he thinks it. What Buchanan did say - er, well, he didn't say this either, but Auster claims he thinks this too - is that anti-semitism is a matter of opinion. What Buchanan actually did complain about is how critics of israel are often smeared as anti-semites. Obviously this is the kind of delusion only an israel-hating imagination could conceive.

Clear as mud, isn't it? How could anybody believe Auster is a hypocrite who changes his positions and isn't being honest about his priorities? I mean, sure, here's yet another example, this one highlighting Auster's smearing of WASPs and then editing it out.

I could go on and on, but this post is already too long.

Labels: , , , , ,



Blogger Tanstaafl said...

On the Auster thread that got me started, Why do the anti-Semites always deny their own openly stated positions?, commenter Bill Carpenter writes:

Great article. I suspect the basic dishonesty of victimary self-pity is behind the anti-Semites' dishonesty. Because one is mistreated, one may lie freely. There is also an element of competitive envy of other victims, especially Jews and blacks. There was an outstanding episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm that captured competitive victimary envy: two characters arguing back and forth, I'm the survivor! No, I'm the survivor!

I missed this choice example of projection! They can't be talking about me, because I don't feel sorry for myself and I do my darnedest to write exactly what I'm thinking, as true as I'm able, despite the knowledge that it causes great angst in some people, especially anti-anti-semites. Actually, if you substitute "anti-anti-semites'" for "anti-Semites'" in Bill's comment, it makes much more sense. Heck, it then becomes just one of those stereotypes about jews that's politically incorrect to utter because it's so true. That survivor routine is a jewish thing. Trying to pin "competitive victimary envy" on Whites - priceless.

1/18/2009 09:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The day Auster comes out and says he is all about what is good for jews will be the first time in a long time that Auster will have been honest with himself.

I think you and prozium really have your finger on what Auster is all about. Keep up the good work.

Btw curb your enthusiam is a jew left wing show on HBO. Doesn't suprise me that Austers "traditionalist" readers watch that degenerate left wing show. Once a jew always a jew. Just like when Auster went on and on about Mel Gibson making a "anti-semitic" remark but had nothing to say about one of his kind Sandra Bernhardt attacking Whites, Chistians, and Palin while his fellow brethern (probably a few VFR commenters) sat lauphing in the audience.

1/18/2009 09:49:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Another quick point. Auster reveals his conflicted standards in the very title of his post, finding fault with anti-semites for simultaneously denying and openly stating their positions. Auster's example doesn't fit. Wheeler wasn't denying anything. You might say he summarized what he previously said, in doing so he certainly used different words. His essential point didn't change. Obviously any way of phrasing Wheeler's view causes an equally hostile response from Auster. It is that hostility that fuels Auster's launch into fulsome little turgid screeds about "anti-israelites" and "anti-semites". I detected no intent to deceive from Wheeler. Who was he supposed to be trying to deceive, the philo-semites at MR who somehow missed all his other comments openly stating his position?

What Wheeler did provide was a very true description of Auster's launch button:

All things are driven down to only ONE Criteria----Are you a Zionist. That is what Auster is all about. To make sure the stupid goyim European cattle sheeples adhere to Zionist propaganda.


The denial here springs entirely from Auster's own duplicitous mind.

1/18/2009 10:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Came across this site from a comment posted on a discussion board. I don't know too much about Auster but he comes off as typically Jewish in his protestations: accusing the "anti-semites" of doing what he and other Jews constantly do. Their media power lets them get away with it for now. The Jews feel that Whites are the problem, their competition, and once removed from the earth, all will be well for Jewish rule. That's no joke, that's what they believe, and that's what they're trying to do.

Dr. Kevin MacDonald believes that Jews are self-deceptive to a far higher degree than other groups. I believe this, as some of the gymnastics they go through to rationalize their skullduggery is almost funny to see. But a great many of them are fully conscious of what is going on, what they are doing. Auster is no doubt in the latter group. He's probably a paid shill for some "higher" Jewish authority trying to keep the gullible goyim in check.

1/18/2009 10:16:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...


Excellent point about Gibson vs. Bernhardt. In a way I hope Auster never does come clean. He's such a rich source of judeocentric hypocrisy. Auster has placed himself squarely atop the White-jewish fault line, instead of clearly to one side like most other anti-anti-semites. His attempts to rationalize away this fault line are becoming ever more deranged. He acknowledges the fault line's existence but doesn't like anyone exploring its nature. He's always putting his pro-jewish spin on what comes out of it: "yes jews favor non-discrimination and immigration, but muslim immigration is bad for jews!" or "the majority should reassert itself - but hey, not like that!"

In his own special way Auster provides a constant source of deprogramming grist useful for Whites (like myself) recovering from deracination and philo-semitism.

Anti Zionist,

the gymnastics they go through to rationalize their skullduggery is almost funny to see

True. I'd say pathetic or disgusting rather than almost funny, because the consequences of their rationalizations are definitely harmful to Whites.

1/18/2009 11:06:00 AM  
Blogger bongoparty5 said...

A great point you made here is that if you're anti-Jewish or not towing the line on "acceptable" beliefs about God's holy race, then you're totally beyond the pale. But you can be, like his fellow Jew Ken Hechtman, a raving genocidal anti-white. Auster will surely condemn such beliefs, anti-whiteness, but he'll argue with them and allow them to respond to his posts for years.

1/18/2009 03:31:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

I can hardly wait to see Auster's gymnastics in rationalizing playing host to Hechtman.

1/18/2009 06:14:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

What you say is based on a deeper understanding of Christianity and its history than I possess, and it comes from a completely different angle than my criticisms.

I'm trying hard to see how you're denying your position at the same time you're so openly stating it. I sure hope Auster will come by and help. He's dedicated quite some effort to criticizing Buchanan. Maybe he could say a word or two about that.

1/18/2009 08:26:00 PM  
Blogger FeminizedWesternMale said...

You demonstrate your lack of qualifications to use psychological terms. However, my point is that you don't even slightly care, and thus give a rich irony to using the term "projection."

Do you also have your own definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy and will you continue to spin on your anti-anti-anti-semitic hamster-wheel?

I wish I could give you an antidote for the poison that causes your anti-Austerism, as we could use your contributions.

Or were you planning on going down as the fiercest critic of Auster (could there be anything more obscure)?

Even if you weren't wrong, you should still shake this for your own health, my friend.

1/18/2009 10:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Auster said:

Now, a person who is not an anti-Semite and who disapproves of anti-Semitism would want to explain clearly that he is not an anti-Semite. A person who declares that he's indifferent to whether people call him an anti-Semite is announcing either that he is an anti-Semite, or that he has no problem with anti-Semitism.

Then jews should have to explain clearly that that they are not anti-white. If they are indifferent to whether people call them anti-white they are announcing that either they are anti-white or that they have no problem with anti-whitism.

Which is, fine, actually: it's called indifference. Personally, I'm indifferent to Israel. I couldn't care less what becomes of that country, whether it is destroyed or whether it survives. I'm certainly not about to go fighting to destroy it any more than I'm inclined to spend money and make enemies supporting it.

I wonder how many people feel the same way. I wonder if Auster can get any of this through his lying skull.

Of course, I can feel for Auster. The hunter has become the hunted. He was only too happy for Jews, eastern Europeans, Sicilians, Greeks, Lebanese to about displacing whites (white whites). Now that his group is feeling the pinch, now that the new newcomers aren't at all fitting it, he's up in arms. But historical truth and racial reality prevent him from being completely honest, so he's doing his best to finesse it all. Of course, that can only leave him proposing solutions which are simply not solutions.

As for W. Lindsay Wheeler, that religious horseshit is best advertisment for atheism there is (and I say that as a considerably spiritual 'deist' type).

1/19/2009 04:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you for taking the time to post this. I'm sure all who have noticed Larry's double-standard appreciate your time and attention to the matter.

1/19/2009 07:22:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Touche feminizedwesternmale. I recognize and acknowledge the truth and good faith in your criticism of me. Mostly. Others have made similar criticisms so I will answer at length.

I am not a professional psychologist. I don't understand what rich irony you see in my understanding and use of psychology. Would you elaborate?

Is the problem that so much of psychology was constructed out of Freud's understanding of his own mind and otherwise biased largely toward the particular neuroses afflicting his fellow jews and their deep-seated hostility to the gentile society around them? Is it the anti-anti-semitic prediliction for attacks based on psychology? Am I being a hypocrite to use this device myself? Is this part of my hamster-wheeling?

Perhaps you are a pro and object to a clumsy layman's use of your terms, because to you they mean something very specific. If so, sorry, but I find their general sense too useful to abandon in my attempts to describe the reality I perceive. My understanding and application of projection is common. For example, any one of these descriptions more or less fits my interpretation of Auster and anti-anti-semitic behavior in general:

Common definitions

* "Projection is the opposite defense mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have."
* "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."
* "Attributing one's own undesirable traits to other people or agencies."
* "The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest."
* "People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others."
* "An individual who possesses malicious characteristics, but who is unwilling to perceive himself as an antagonist, convinces himself that his opponent feels and would act the same way."

This outline describes the Freudian/jewish variety of projection, in which one attributes one's own mainly unconscious or undesirable characteristics to others, and contrasts it with the more general flavor, which concerns making any assumptions, good or bad, about the perceptions of others based on your own. As it turns out, the author of this opinion, Simon Sheppard, has been persecuted and imprisoned, in part for criticizing jews. Just another turn of the hamster-wheel I suppose.

Maybe you think Auster is (unwittingly?) laying a subtle trap:

Projection identification is a common psychological defense exhibited in adversarial situations. The defense occurs when a person projects out their own anger, or fear of anger from others, onto others, with the unconscious desire that the other will attack them. This attack is then held as the proof that it is the other person who is angry.

I've heard this before. The anti-anti-semites whip up anti-semites in order to discredit them and galvanize jews. That's a reasonable point. It doesn't mean to me however that jews and anti-anti-semites should be immune to the criticism they deserve.

Maybe I'm guilty of counter-projection:

When addressing psychological trauma the defense mechanism is sometimes counter-projection, including an obsession to continue and remain in a recurring trauma-causing situation and the compulsive obsession with the perceived perpetrator of the trauma or its projection.

Jung writes that "All projections provoke counter-projection when the object is unconscious of the quality projected upon it by the subject."

The concept was anticipated by Friedrich Nietzsche:

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."

Perhaps this is what you meant by saying I'm poisoned and calling me anti-anti-anti-semitic. I appreciate the jibes, but I prefer pro-White. It more accurately reflects my motivation. Maybe I should always or more often write pro-jew instead of anti-anti-semite. Or maybe your whole point is that I focus on jews too much. That's rather difficult not to do once you realize they are the primary source of hostility to anything and everything pro-White.

I don't think I'm obsessed or becoming a monster. The source of the anger and criticism I direct toward Auster, and jews generally, is based on my perception of their responsibility for inflicting harm, individually and as a group, on me and my group. I give them credit as doing so at least in part inadvertently, as a consequence of doing what they believe to be in their own best self interests. I have never characterized them collectively as monsters, consigned them to hell, or used any other language as extreme or dehumanizing as Auster or his fellow anti-anti-semites have toward myself. I can also see that this lopsidedness, this lack of reciprocity, is typical of the relationship between pro-jews and pro-Whites.

The more Auster hears this kind of reasonable and rational critique the more it drives him to bizarre, indefensible responses that further reveal the aggression and hypocrisy of himself and, to the extent they also indulge in it, jews in general. Thus the more I'm led to believe I've touched on something significant here. Something that will help my own kind by revealing something that is otherwise obscure to them. Something that agitates and aggravates our enemies. If this does the same to you, and you think we have common cause, then explain to me how and why.

In whatever way you think I'm lacking I don't think it's because I'm unconscious of what motivates me to think and behave as I do. In my own biased opinion I've put more effort into understanding what it is that upsets me and what causes those feelings than is typical within my immediate social circle. I'm open to hear anything you think I'm missing. Also, I'd ask you to be more specific about what you think I should be doing instead of what I am.

1/19/2009 10:40:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Anonymous 1/19/2009 04:05:00 AM,

As for W. Lindsay Wheeler, that religious horseshit is best advertisment for atheism there is (and I say that as a considerably spiritual 'deist' type).

I don't agree, but I presume Wheeler can answer this criticism more adeptly than me.

Beyond the discomfort and derangement it causes in Auster what I find interesting about the Auster-Wheeler exchange is the point Wheeler makes about tradition. Christians and jews have been openly hostile toward each other for a long time and for good reason. "Horseshit" is a good description of the apocryphal post-emancipation notion of a judeo-Christian alliance stretching back into the mists of Western history.

Here's Auster's view of that judeo-Christian alliance, complete with premptory smears of MacDonald. Note how Auster distorts judeo-Christian history by omitting so much of what is critical to jews, which just happens to be exactly what MacDonald calls to our attention. Auster makes no mention of ghettos, shtetls, the Pale, pogroms, expulsions, or inquisitions - even though these things are central to the particularist "judeo" psyche. For many jews these things shape their view of "the judeo-Christian West". They think and talk and write about them constantly. Most Whites, on the other hand, are oblivious to these things, and the fact that jews are so concerned about them. Why does Auster not illuminate us, especially when he has been explicitly asked and is ostensibly in the process of doing so?

Auster also makes no mention of the post-emancipation jewish-led intellectual movements - Marxism, Freudianism, Boasianism, feminism, critical theory - that sprang largely from the smoldering resentments jews had toward "the majority". Auster should want to mention this, because he's constantly blaming the West's ills on "liberalism", and he's so interested in telling "the majority" what they should do to oppose "liberalism". If that's what he wants wouldn't it be a good idea to help others understand what neoliberalism is, how it differs from the classical liberalism of say Mill? What are the origins of the orwellian neoliberal notion of minority-friendly White-hostile non-discrimination? Which minority's interests has non-discrimination served first and best? I'm interested in what "haters" (racists, homophobes, islamophobes, and anti-semites) have in common. I'm interested why anti-semites are considered worst of all. Isn't Auster?

I'm being facetious of course. My understanding of Auster's behavior is as you describe:

Now that his group is feeling the pinch, now that the new newcomers aren't at all fitting it, he's up in arms. But historical truth and racial reality prevent him from being completely honest, so he's doing his best to finesse it all. Of course, that can only leave him proposing solutions which are simply not solutions.

1/19/2009 12:18:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Thank you Rusty. I hope what I write helps others come to understand as I have.

1/19/2009 12:26:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

I know Auster has said some pretty harsh things about muslims. However I've not come across any anti-arab statements. Can you point out a few?

1/19/2009 11:02:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

I've made several comments critical of Auster at MR: Preserving the gentile’s civilisation. No, make that the gringo’s.

1/20/2009 08:52:00 AM  
Blogger FeminizedWesternMale said...


Rereading my reply, and then your thoughtful one to me, I owe you an apology. You clearly do your grunt work, and I was a bit half-cocked with you (and at your own site!).

I have my own beefs with Auster, and have problems with many Talmudics. Nevertheless, I don't think we'll see eye-to-eye about Jews and their overall role.

As a whole, I believe Auster, even if it were just the breadth of topics that he brings to his site, in balance, is a net plus for our side. I believe he is prescient in his choice of who will be seen as just (about 85% of the time) when God sorts this all out. As a Christian, with an eye to eternity, this has tremendous value.

I would bring to your attention that both you an Auster share an inability to recognize the value in a party who largely agrees with you in heart or brain, and if our time ever came to move from word to deed, would become a natural allies. Auster is the worst offender, holed up in Manhattan, snobby and prickly.

My complaint with you is that you spend so much time and talent criticizing Auster.

Anyway, thanks for being the "bigger man" in this exchange.

FYI, I am a physician, but this role is of lower priority than Christian, followed by husband/family/heritage (for the record).

1/20/2009 10:20:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...


No apology needed, and no hard feelings.

I was not being rhetorical when I asked what you think I should be doing rather than criticizing Auster.

As for Auster's value, that is exactly what I'm discussing at MR with a fellow who agrees with you. In a nutshell, he and his website would be more of a net plus and I would not waste another moment on him if he would stop blaming "the majority", stop telling "the majority" what to do, and stop attacking anyone who discriminates Whites and our interests from jews and theirs.

1/20/2009 01:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I consider the anti-muslim remarks of Auster to be anti-arab as well. Many Jews themselves equate their religion with their nationality. Same could go for the Arabs. I don't think you can separate Arabia from Islam, just like you can't separate a Jew from Judiasm. One forms the other.

Race does form religion. That is why Christianity is specifically an Indo-European religion.

As regards to feminizedwesternmale's request to lay off the Auster, I think we should disregard. Auster is a danger. Notice that Auster is setting up another organization counter to American Renaissance. Notice who is heading the "Preserving Western Civilization" conference------Michael H. Hart, if you look up his Wikipedia entry tells you that he criticized David Duke for his "anti-judenism".

Auster is about setting up another supposedly "pro-European" organization that will be pro-Zionist. Us Westerners that fight against the Judiazing of Western Culture will be censored and denied a voice, entry, and participation in this organization of Auster and company. It is all about marrying Zionism with Western Culture.

This should be fought strenously. Auster really is a judas goat. That is why Auster chose a Protestant form of Christianity and not the apostolic form---for Protestantism is Judiazed Christianity.

Auster is evil in this regard, 80% smell like roses but it is the lowly 10% that ruins his work, for all of it is about Israel, Israel, Israel. People need to be warned about Auster, Takuan Seiyo at Brussels Journal, and other semites and philosemites.

1/20/2009 03:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My teacher in Christianity was Fr. Boniface Lukxys. He constantly pointed out the Georges Dumezil's sociological fact of Indo-Europeans--that of Trifunctionality in the formation and creation of Christianity.

The principle is "Culture defines Politics". At the basis of Culture is Race. "Culture also forms Religion". That means race. At the time of Jesus Christ, the whole Mediterranean was Hellenized. The Jews, the Romans, the Egyptians were Hellenized. Christianity grew in a Hellenized environment. Christianity is a Greek/European religion.

This I learned a long time ago. Now, I find that Hitler also recognized this. In a link in the comment section of "Preserving the gentile civilization", a commentator posted a link to a talk by Hitler with Eckart. In it Hitler confirms my thesis:

""Anyone, however, who has become acquainted with it has found out that what the Jews call their religion coincides exactly with their character.""

and I think he is quoting Dotsivesky when he says:

""Yes, indeed, and what a religion!" he said scornfully. "It is the character of a people which determines the nature of their religion, not the other way around.""

Christianity is certainly NOT a Jewish religion. Never was. Christianity is a Greek/European religion.

So when Auster preaches anti-Islamism, he is also preaching Anti-Arabism.

1/21/2009 08:10:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

More Hechtman yesterday, gloating about Obama's vision that "the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve".

That really, really makes Larry angry.

So Obama's inauguration is a great day for you leftists who seek to destroy the nations of the West.

Oh boy, here it comes. He's going to call Hechtman sick and evil, refuse to speak with him, and call for others to do the same!!!

I hope that some day you will get, not what you want, but what you deserve.

Oh well. Maybe next time.

1/22/2009 04:49:00 PM  
Blogger dudhduddhd said...

Have you considered doing something like this perhaps?

1/22/2009 05:04:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Dutch Court orders prosecution of Wilders for incitement to hatred, and Auster wants us to know how much he opposes this travesty (i.e. only partly):

As I've said before, so long as Europe's totalitarian "anti-hate" laws remain in effect, any movement to stop the Islamization of Europe will be strangled in the cradle, because, under those laws, which make it a criminal offense to "incite hatred or discrimination" against a group, any truthful, critical statement about Islam is a crime. Therefore a top priority of the anti-jihad movement must be the repeal of the hate-speech laws.

Yes, lets work to repeal those totalitarian "anti-hate" laws. But not just so we can speak the truth about muslims. Let's not forget that these totalitarian "anti-hate" laws were crafted for the benefit of jews. Forbidding speech you don't like is a totalitarian, bolshevist, neoliberal, jewish value. Thus the islamization of Europe is happening and movements to stop it will be "strangled in the cradle" because Europe was first judaized. Let's stop that too.

Here in the US that same judaized mentality threatens to gut our First Amendment rights. Let's stop that too.

Auster neglects to mention these things, perhaps because he considers truthful, critical statements about jews to be sick and evil, if not criminal.

Auster has never mentioned the persecution of Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle, even though he often focuses on stories out of Britain and, like Wilders, Sheppard and Whittle oppose the islamization of Europe and have run afoul of totalitarian anti-hate laws. Perhaps it's because:

“The vast majority of the material in this case concerned Jewish people, but there was also material relating to black, Asian and non-white people generally, all described in derogatory terms using offensive language.

What sort of offensive words can get a man imprisoned in the land of Mill? Maybe what Whittle wrote in Leech Speech - How Jews Lock Jaws with Race Laws has something to do with it:

When goys who grovel to Jews are rewarded and goys who stand up to them are punished, it sends a clear and simple message about Jewish power to millions of other goys: “Obey us and you’ll do well; criticize us and you’ll do badly.” So what could be more logical for white individuals than to obey Jews or shut up? And what could be more lethal for the white race than to obey Jews or shut up? Simon Sheppard and I haven’t shut up, which is why we’re being put on trial for our speech-crimes. And no doubt many people, Jews amongst them, will fiercely disagree with what we say but just as fiercely support our right to say it. I don’t say their support for free speech will be insincere, but one good test of sincerity is whether your support for a cause costs you anything or puts you at any risk. It’s not yet illegal in Britain to speak up for someone who “incites racial hatred” and you can make yourself look like a good libertarian or Voltairean liberal by doing so. In other words, you gain with little or no pain. The speech-criminal, on the other hand, pains with little or no gain.

Never mind fiercely - don't look to Auster to even tentatively support anyone's right to criticize jews. Not even anti-jihadis. He'll call for you to be silenced even when and where totalitarian anti-hate laws don't exist yet.

1/22/2009 06:24:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

More power to you danielj. I know I could fill a blog by pulling down Auster's pants every day. I agree with feminizedwesternmale that I do too much of it already.

1/22/2009 06:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Haha, I love these posts. I used to think Auster was the ultimate pro-white guy, and reading your posts on this subject, and then re-reading Auster, has made me rethink that. I now realize that he is just trying to lay a foundation for whites and Jews to defend the West so that Jews can be safe. He's telling his fellow tribesmen to jump in the "whites are actually not that bad, we can use them for our ends if we manage things right" pool. Come on in Herb! You too Ethel, the temperature is just right!

1/22/2009 07:53:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Jim, you just made my day.

1/22/2009 08:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you, I'll be here all week. I am sorry if, in mentioning that, I inadvertently forced your readers to picture ol' Larry in a speedo. I can just see him wearing one at a Palm Beach country club pool while preaching to his flock. ("The anti-Semites are so twisted, evil, and obsessed they don't understand that Bernie Madoff acted as a LIBERAL . . . ")

More seriously, one of the things that make Auster's ulterior motives tough to discern is his overall personality, which is, ahem, a tad unfriendly at times. When he launches into one of his patented rants, it's often hard to tell if he's being animated by pro-Jew sentiment or if he just woke up on the wrong side of the bed that day. I honestly go back and forth on that, depending on the case.

Although I like to poke fun at the guy, and I know his motive and ours do not match, I will give him some credit. His pamphlet on Immigration and National Suicide is an excellent "eye-opener" for the brainwashed. After that, one is ready to move on to the Vdare/Amren stage, and perhaps beyond.

P.S. As you've probably seen, MR has a post up about Reich's comments.

1/23/2009 06:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you notice that at Chronicles website and Taki website, the Jewish question keeps on popping up? Everybody thinks that the Jewish question was solved with the creation of the Jewish State. If it was---why is there still talk of the Jews? The Jews are like an albatross hanging around our necks. And because these two supposedly "conservative websites" (Takimag and Chronicles) can't address the issue with Truth and manliness because of FFTJ, it continues.

Rev. Denis Fahey wrote a book called "The Rulers of Russia" first printed in March 1938. He writes: "That State must not be Palestine, for the Jewish claim to Palestine is implicitly a denial that they have disobeyed God and missed their vocation by the rejection of the True Supernatural Messias." (pg 81) The Jews are to wander and they have to wander in our countries.

On another note, notice how Auster and company first ban us and then disregard us. That is called "Dynamic Silence". That is a term coined and a methodology all originating with a Jew.

See, what Auster is teaching and all Jews teach is that criticizing the Jews or not being pro-Israeli is the Highest Moral Law of the World. This trumps the Ten Commandments and this trumps Jesus two commandments! Do Jews censor abortionists? NO. Do Jews censor heretics? NO. Do Jews censor murders? NO. But say Israel is illegitimate and they censor you and disregard you and refuse to talk to you.

What this says is that "anti-judenism" and anti-zionism is such an evil that it trumps all else. Did the Church Fathers teach this? Is anti-judenism and anti-Zionism evils that the Early Church railed against? NO. Did Jesus teach this? NO. But for Auster and company, anti-judenism and anti-zionism are the Highest, most valued Moral Law of the World because the most opprobrium is reserved for only anti-judens and anti-zionists.

See, the Jews are strictly materialists. But notice Auster doesn't ask---What is the Will of God? That is not important---it was never important for the Jew. What is important is "What is good for the Jew"---that is the only thing. That is the center of the world---"What is good for the Jew".

The Will of God is expressly laid out in Deut. Chapter 28. Did Auster ever post that? No. Will Auster post that? And will Auster obey the Will of God?

Probably not for the Jew thinks he is god.

1/26/2009 06:18:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...


Auster does exhibit some symptoms of messiah complex. Like the cult-like way his readers treat him, how he treats them, and his pose as a savior of the West. He even projects this self-image onto "anti-semites" who, according to him, are as obsessed with jews as he is and are frustrated because no one will listen to them.

I had not heard of "dynamic silence" before, but I can say that how you describe it is not what frustrates me. I couldn't care less if jews disregard me or refuse to talk to me. That's Auster's distorted description of reality. What jews actually do is force everyone to disregard and refuse to talk to anyone who offends them, not only by attacking the offendee, but also anyone who will not disregard or refuse to talk to the offendee. First they attack with verbal brow-beating, then with economic sanctions such as boycotts, and then, if they can, with "anti-hate" laws which they create for just this purpose. Nowadays they even brow-beat popes into submission, no need to appeal to sanctions or the law, jewish "anger" "fury" and "outrage" are enough. The more accurate description of their tactics would be "forced silence". Come to think of it we already have a perfectly good word for it - "censorship". Of course jews know censorship is a decidedly non-Western tradition and that most Westerners hate it - so they invent reality-inverting, orwellian terms to disguise their selfish alien behavior.

Jews have in words and deed long incited race-based anti-White hatred. Now that they've finally displaced from leadership anyone who is explicitly pro-White and our countries are consequently flooding with non-Whites they pass laws to punish anyone for criticizing them, for example, by pointing out what they have done. Jews with power behave very much like the nazi boogeymen they love to hate.

Here are a few things I've read recently that seem relevant to this discussion.

Kevin MacDonald's Chapter 3 of Separation and Its Discontents: Reactive Anti-Semitism in the Late Roman Empire. The facts are very much at odds with Auster's amnesiac vision of a judeo-Christian West. It explains why Auster so passionately demonizes MacDonald and doesn't want anyone to read what he writes.

James Edwards on Jews attacking free speech in Australia and Susanne Winter convicted of anti-Muslim speech in Austria. Pro-Western traditionalist poseur Auster will never mention much less advocate free speech for Ernst Zundel, Richard Williamson, Simon Sheppard, or Stephen Whittle. For the same reason he supports freedom of speech to criticism islam. He is pro-jew.

Here's a review of The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State by Benjamin Ginsberg, in which dynamic silence is mentioned:

In contemporary America, an individual risks being labeled a "conspiracy nut" if he claims that Jewish groups secretly conspire to deprive their enemies of access to the mass media. Ginsberg easily discredits this canard: "[T]he American Jewish Committee developed a strategy called ‘dynamic silence’ to combat the activities of [anti-Semitic, anti-war] Gerald K. Smith. Working together, officials of the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, and the ADL would approach the publishers of major newspapers and owners of radio stations in cities where Smith had scheduled appearances to ask that Smith be given no coverage whatsoever, If newspapers and radio stations failed to cooperate on a voluntary basis, Jewish organizations were usually able to secure their compliance by threatening boycotts by Jewish advertisers. This strategy of dynamic silence was extremely effective in suppressing Smith and other right-wing anti-Semites [p.124]."

In 1959 Smith wrote THIS IS CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM. What Smith describes is more truly pro-Western and traditionalist than anything Auster spouts. Auster has brazenly hijacked these labels in much the same way bolshevik zionist jews hijacked conservativism. Smith's words shouldn't be flushed down the memory hole. Thanks to the internet they haven't, yet. But that's why jewish "anti-hate" laws are so important. Even if jews succeed in exempting criticism of islam, which they probably will, they will never exempt Smith or anything like the traditional pro-Western thoughts he expressed.

1/28/2009 10:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for the links and the response. I wrote an online encyclopaedic article on dynamic silence

Let me ask Auster something. Mr. Auster, is the presence and operation of Dynamic Silence by the Jews against European people supposed to tell us that the Jew and the European have common cause? Does the European go around mess with Jewish culture? So why does the Jew mess with European culture? If the Jews entail and use Dynamic Silence, that means that the Jew control us. And I am not supposed to be offended by this back room dealing?

Mr. Auster do you really mean to tell me that I am not to be irritated by the underhanded sneaky back room thuggery by organized Jewry to manipulate information? And so we are supposed to have common cause?

I don't think so Mr. Auster. And the Jews are pro-Western?

1/28/2009 04:32:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

"...then with economic sanctions such as boycotts,.."

As importantly - withhold political contributions, influence-peddling, lobbying, etc. It takes a multi-pronged attack to undermine the Constitution - but ultimately legislation has to be written and the judiciary has to uphold it.

That piece I sent you on corporate multi-culturalism/anti-racism (anti-white) training is part of the foundation.

1/29/2009 08:44:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Auster indulges in "dynamic silence", AKA censorship, thus demonstrating his support for it. He cannot admit that it is one of the ways "the majority" he's always blaming and commanding is harmed by "the minority" he favors. If he were to do so then his argument that his "First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society" doesn't apply to jews would be revealed for the ridiculous "unprincipled exception" it is.

What most frustrates Auster is not anti-Westernism, anti-Whitism, anti-Christianism, or open borders. It is any opinion he deems harmful to jews, and what's worse, not being able to silence such opinions. In Vdare continues to publish vile anti-Israel propaganda Auster smears Vdare, whose immigration restriction cause he claims to share, because they publish Paul Craig Roberts, whose "insufficient love of israel" makes Auster seethe. He distorts what Roberts actually says while simultaneously providing his own one-sided pro-israel view. He concludes with a judeo-centric appeal for shame and censorship:

I and others have many times called on Vdare to stop publishing Roberts's disgusting articles, articles that lead people to hate a small Western country surrounded by Muslims who seek her destruction, articles that feed the anti-Semitism that is spreading in our society (indeed, Roberts's line about Israelis killing whomever they want whenever they want has been widely quoted at anti-Semitic websites). Vdare's editor has repeatedly refused, offering the lamest excuses. Shame on Vdare for disseminating Roberts's repulsive propaganda, worthy of the lowest precincts of the left and of the anti-Semitic right. Shame on Vdare for associating the immigration restriction movement, on which the survival of America and the West depends, with this vile Israel-hater, this "conservative" ally and promoter of Muslim terrorists.

Shame? If this "Christian" "traditionalist" ally and promoter of censorship actually cared as much or more about immigration restriction as he does about israel he could just as easily cry shame and worse at the more numerous, higher profile, and disproportionately jewish co-ethnics who write vile, disgusting articles that lead people to hate anyone associated with the immigration restriction movement. There is no need to exaggerate their anti-White sentiments, yet Auster rarely mentions them, and when he does he never uses such extreme language to describe them and never calls for them to be censored.

In support of his lame attack on Roberts Auster cites Brimelow's inability to criticize Roberts, cont. where he complains of "complete absence of any actual criticism by Brimelow of Roberts's clinically insane columns". Right in the middle of decrying this "inability" and "complete absence" Auster quotes Brimelow criticizing Roberts for not writing more about immigration. Who is he calling insane?

When Auster writes about jews who are harming Whites, Christians, immigration restrictionists or the West he shows the same bias. Consider Abe Foxman for example. In Jewish organizations are determined to foment anti-Semitism-and they are really getting into it the basis for Auster's criticism is the fear that the ADL and Foxman are generating anti-semitism. In It's time to stop the anti-Christian bigotry of the Jewish left he flips Foxman's words around to produce something Gerald K. Smith might have written. Nothing "vile and disgusting" here however. Auster doesn't use such strong words on jews, no matter how anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-West, or pro-open borders they are. In Madoff, the financial serial killer the language and sentiments come close, but once again, the source of the animus is the belief that Madoff harmed jews.

Unlike so much of what Auster writes about "anti-semites" and "israel-haters" I don't have to distort what Auster is thinking or put words in his mouth. On close analysis, quoting him verbatim, it's clear what his priorities are, and what's more, that he takes pains to obscure those priorities. After all, if he were more honest it would be much harder for him to tell "the majority" what we must do to better serve "the minority" who is so very busy harming us.

1/29/2009 10:31:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

I'm sorry I missed this bit where Auster projects some more, this time seeing his own jewish tribal traits in paleocons, muslims, and liberals:

It is further evidence of the relativistic, tribalistic mindset of the paleocon right that I have been writing about for years. The paleocons don't believe there are things that are intrinsically right and wrong. The paleocons are a group which has its own ways and habits, its likes and dislikes, its mutual loyalties among the group members, and its shared hatreds of certain other groups. If there is someone who is a friend or a member of the group, nothing he does can be seen as wrong. Just as, for Muslims, no Muslim can do wrong. Just as, for liberals, no liberal can do wrong. All these groups are tribes, having no belief in a standard of truth or rightness that exists outside the group itself.

Priceless. For years Auster's been criticizing the limp-wristed tribalism of paleocons, even as he partakes in a high octane version of his own, demonizing critics of jews or israel as sick, evil, vile, etc. An awkstruck commenter writes the following ironically accurate assessment, which Auster can't help but copy and paste:

Your commentary, and particularly that insightful second-to-last paragraph, has cut through all the rhetorical misdirection, obfuscation and moral relativist fog surrounding the issue and gotten straight to the heart of the matter. That's the problem, all right.

Yes, right after we cut through all Auster's crap, his point about tribalistic mindset goes straight to the heart.

1/29/2009 11:11:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Yes, I interpret Reich similarly.

The whole system is rotten. The economy is a pyramid scheme with jews concentrated at the top. Reich doesn't see anything fundamentally wrong with this - only that it's become a bit too obvious lately. It's getting harder to dismiss the chumps' complaints as "old anti-semitic canards" and "conspiracy theories", and easier for the chumps to see jewish victimology as the inversion of reality it is.

2/06/2009 12:26:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bruce Graeme said...
"Labeling someone an anti-semite justifies all further demeaning, dehumanizing, and demonizing of them, and the explicit purpose is to discredit and silence them."
Here is a recent example of this:
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
January 30, 2009 4:45 AM
Lawrence Auster said...

This has been a useful discussion so far. Now Bruce Graeme, who is both a virulent hater of Christianity and an outspoken anti-Semite, has entered the discussion, attacking me as a Jew. Also, since I am both a Jew by background and a Christian by religion, Graeme has a double hatred for me. If this site allows anti-Semites to engage in anti-Semitic attacks on other commenters, it ceases to be usable for civilized discussion. I will be interested to see how Mark Wethman, the host, deals with an anti-Semitic commenter.

January 30, 2009 7:03 AM

2/06/2009 06:44:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Gah! Auster vs TGGP. The two least intellectually honest personalities I've encountered in the past two years.

I usually don't read TGGP's comments at UR or Sailer. He only seems interested in derailing threads, going off on nonsensical tangents, bringing up the most inane BS. I'm surprised he didn't mention Bryan Caplan. He almost always finds a way. Arguing with Auster TGGP is uncharacteristically lucid, at least at first.

It was worth reading if only to see such a flagrant example of Auster's trademark hypocrisy:

And people accuse me of being a tyrant who wants to shut up everyone who disagrees with my ideas!

Then 12 hours later he tells the blog host to shut up Graeme. LOL!

I'd like to read what Graeme wrote in that deleted post.

I also wish I knew more about psychology. There has got to be a clinical name for the way Auster consistently distorts his description of what people accuse him of, as he does again here. He certainly does want to shut up everyone who disagrees with him... about jews. He says it regularly. What's more, he never calls for anyone to be silenced for any other reason.

I've mentioned his friend Ken Hechtman for example. In Auster's own estimation Hechtman wants to "destroy Canada, the U.S. and destroy everything the West and the Western peoples have been". Yet Auster, with his own hands, continues to copy and paste into his blog little bits of Hechtman's wisdom on all sorts of subjects, giving him a platform.

Auster seems to recognize the inconsistency at some level. Lately he attaches little disclaimers when he posts something from Hechtman - calling him things like "VFR's Canadian leftist reader".

This week Auster's at a conference to share his ideas about how to save the West. I've got an idea. If he's willing to call for other people to shun and silence critics of jews then surely he should be able to do his own shunning and silencing of people who want to destroy the West. He could start with Hechtman. Imagine if Auster and his fellow jews at the conference could find it within themselves to call for everyone to shun and silence Abe Foxman, Morris Dees, the New York Times, Noel Ignatiev, Tim Wise, and the thousands of other jews who are doing more than Hechtman to destroy the West.

It will never happen. Auster, for one, has shown himself to be far more committed to stopping the critics of jews who are helping destroy the West than he is to stopping those jews.

2/09/2009 12:45:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

In First thoughts on the PWC conference Auster writes:

what had motivated Michael Hart to organize the conference in the first place was the desire to discuss the threats to Western civilization without having to deal with Israel-haters, anti-Semites, and Nazi types


Mr. Hart conceived the idea of bringing together speakers to address the related but distinct topics of immigration, Islam, and the suicidal white guilt that results from ignorance of race differences, at a meeting of Western patriots that would be welcoming to Jews and not welcoming to Jew haters.

How refreshing to hear him state this pro-jew priority explicitly. Just one problem. He doesn't recognize it as such. He follows the statements above by immediately denying what they mean:

But, as I said, despite the profound concern over anti-Semitism that had led to the conference, Jewish-related topics were not heard. Why? For the simple reason that the organizers and participants were focused, just as the conference title indicated, on the preservation of Western civilization. Their intention was not to explore specifically Jewish concerns or advance specifically Jewish interests, but to air the vital topics of immigration, Islam, and race differences in a civilized environment free of the vile poison of Israel hatred and anti-Semitism which so much of the paleocon and race-realist right tolerates, welcomes, and embraces.

No anti-Semites. Just right.

Amazing. The whole conference was a "jewish-related topic". The cornerstone was to exclude anybody who would mention the jewish role in opening our borders and keeping them open, which has unleashed a flood of aliens into the West - not just muslims, or the pivotal jewish role in denying race differences (starting with Franz Boas and continuing with Ashley Montagu and Stephen J. Gould) and pathologizing White racialism (ADL, ACLU, SPLC). So of course the jews there could breath easy. They were free to focus on muslim immigration - "no more israel-hating anti-semites!" - and to brainstorm who and what to blame besides jews. That's how they concoct anti-White blame-the-victim pablum like: "suicidal white guilt that results from ignorance of race differences".

If you don't know or won't talk about anti-racist jews like Boas, Montagu or Gould, and notorius White-hating jews like Noel Ignatiev, Tim Wise, or Susan Sontag, then you might imagine "white guilt" arises spontaneously, from within Whites ourselves, and thus describe the impulse as suicidal. However, when the phenomena is seen for the externally-originated assault it is - by recognizing that it springs from a cadre of intellectuals who do not see themselves as White, whose ethnic group harbors long-term grievances against Whites - then it is more apt to blame these intellectuals, and to describe the impulse as genocidal.

Whites are not ignorant of race differences. We are punished for noticing them by jews and philo-semites, just as we are punished for noticing the differences between Whites and jews. It is all for the same reason. It transforms the crime of genocide into the non-crime of suicide. If ignorance plays a role, it is ignorance of the source and nature of these dishonest tactics. That ignorance also springs from jews who, like Auster, and despite their knowledge of these things prefer to silence anyone who criticizes jews rather than blame the criminal jews for their crimes. In doing this they aid and abet the criminals and join their fate to them.

Commenter John D. writes:

One topic that was missing from the other speeches was a concise definition of liberalism and how it seeks the destruction of particularity and the order of nature itself. While it is greatly beneficial to discuss the problems that the liberal paradigm has created, I think that it is essential to first define liberalism's destructive non-discriminatory principle. You meticulously provided that description at the outset of your speech. Then, having described the tendency of people to be silent on, or even their refusal to think in terms of, the issue of halting Muslim immigration as being "something that makes people uncomfortable", you defined our dilemma exactly. You next noted that the dilemma suggests the solution by stating that the "unthinkable must become thinkable" and the "unsayable must become sayable" in order to replace liberalism as the leading belief in society. In achieving this goal, you stated that we must attack the validity of the liberal dogma and replace it with the traditional ideas and those realities which they encompass.

What Auster calls "liberalism" (which is really neo-liberalism, for the same reason conservativism which places jewish interests first is called neo-conservativism) is not based on a principle of non-discrimination. That may be the words they use, but they are used in an orwellian, inverted sense. Neo-liberalism makes no attempt to destroy the particularity of jews or any other "people of color". It only does that to Whites. It is more accurate to call it anti-White discrimination, because that's what it is. Auster's "liberals" have absolutely no problem discriminating Whites from jews. Whites are the ignorant congenital racists who won't vote for Obama and call him Magic Negro. Jews are the enlightened perpetual victims of discrimination, proud to have voted 4-1 for Obama, and actually think he is a Magic Negro. Are Whites making this liberal narrative up, or jews?

Auster's fixation on muslim immigration is telling, as is his double standard on what is thinkable and sayable. I think he should put all his energy into dictating to his beloved jews what is unthinkable and unsayable. They don't have any trouble speaking their minds. He's actually aiming his rhetoric largely at the gelded philo-semites, hoping to get them to speak out against "muslim immigration" once he's got their thoughts straight about "liberals" and "suicidal white guilt".

Never mind all the ladeeenyos, hindoos, and chinamen. Only "anti-semites" are worried about them.

2/09/2009 05:33:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

In The SPLC's latest Auster demonstrates a familiar pattern. In writing disapprovingly about fellow jews (even when he will not identify them as such) he feels compelled to soften the blow by writing something even more disapproving about "anti-semites":

Just as I do not like writing about serious anti-Semites, because they are so low and disgusting that even talking about them tends to leave a stink on oneself, I do not like writing about the ultra left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center for the same reason. But sometimes it's necessary. The SPLC has a new report out, authored by my Stalinist pen pal, Heidi ("Beria") Beirich, entitled "The Nativist Lobby." It focuses on the SPLC's favorite bogeyman, John Tanton, whom it laughingly describes as a figure who has "for decades been at the heart of the white nationalist scene," and as the "puppeteer" of American nativism. If there were a Protocols of the Elders of White America, Tanton would be the Elder in Chief.

He doesn't like writing about "anti-semites"? If there's some other subject he touches on as frequently it certainly isn't "ultra left-wing" organizations like the SPLC, ADL, ACLU, or New York Times. And when he writes about "anti-semites" he never laughs:

However, I must say that in this entry I am treating the report much more serously than when I read the introduction earlier today. Then, I just laughed and laughed at the sheer absurdity and audacity of it, at the relentless brainlessness with which it automatically affixes the words "nativist hate" to every organization it discusses.

Yes Larry. It's just as relentlessly brainless as your use of "anti-semite". It's a propaganda technique jews in particular are fond of.

2/09/2009 06:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

[Auster]has provided a vast corpus detailing how he really feels about and wants done to anyone "to his right" on jews or israel.
Auster is apparently sick in the same bed as the "liberals [who] only see evil to their right." -

2/10/2009 12:54:00 AM  
Blogger Second Class American said...

Auster has really ramped up his attack on Darwinism in recent days. In doing so, he seems to be motivated in very large part by very Jewish concerns.

See this post:

The post is about how David Attenborough blames the Bible, and in particular the book of Genesis, for giving people an excuse to wreak havoc on the environment.

Auster's response?

And notice who, according to Attenborough, is ultimately at fault for the ruin of life on earth: the Jews.

(emphasis his)

Notice that no mention of the Jews was made by Attenborough or anyone else before Auster brought them up. This is the first time I think I've ever seen a broad criticism of the Bible equated with anti-semitism.

Here's more. Darwin responsible for Hitler:

Auster also sees Kevin MacDonald's writings as having their basis in evolutionary theory, which surely adds to his motivation in attacking it.

2/14/2009 03:37:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

The article Weston refers to: Attenborough blames the Bible for environmental devastation and says Darwinism is the cure.

Allow me to drive the point of my post here home by paraphrasing The Great Projector himself:

Imagine going through life having that one obsessive thought, and believing that this one thought is the truth, the great truth that explains everything, the great truth that will save the world, the great truth that the world is forever suppressing. Having given over their whole being to the idee fixe that the anti-semites are the source of all evil, the jews are souls in hell, and, as in Dante's Hell, they don't know that they're in hell, but keep repeating for eternity the same sin that consigned them to hell.

And look, there's Ken Hechtman, "VFR's Canadian lelftist reader", gloating about the triumph of "dirty hippies" like himself.

The "dirty hippies" are in hell but they think it's paradise. They imagine everyone is happy with the anything-goes (except "anti-hippytism") regime and we're all "dirty hippies" now because their "hippy-controlled" false opposition party nominated Sarah Palin, who most of them detest.

2/15/2009 09:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Get Real said...

What do you all think about that blogger "Guy 'White"?

Not nearly as shrill as Auster, but seems to be REALLY hung up on the "JQ"--completely in their favor!

5/03/2009 12:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Shalmaneser said...

In writing disapprovingly about fellow jews (even when he will not identify them as such) he feels compelled to soften the blow by writing something even more disapproving about "anti-semites"-Tanstaafl

Gottfried does the same thing - criticize jews but follow up with a harsher critique of white gentiles. Funny, isn't it, that Sailer, whom you recently criticized (rightly so), is good friends with Gottfried.

5/03/2009 07:19:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home