Big Duplicity
I'd like to shine a light on Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood.Hollywood’s Second Class Jewish Chicks & “Two Lovers”
Hollywood’s Second Class Jewish Chicks & “Two Lovers”Schlussel is an ugly/annoying jewish chick who cares deeply for the welfare of jews, so deeply that she dares to blame Hollywood jews for the promulgation of destructive values and negative stereotypes. Sad that she still wants you to think muslims, Nazis, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion have anything to do with what she's complaining about. Her concern for purity and continuity is common amongst jews, as is the pretense that the basis for this concern is religious rather than genetic.
by Debbie Schlussel
Why is it that on the silver screen, the Jewish chick is always the undesirable one, the safe choice, the ugly/annoying one? Even women who are Jewish (or half) in real life play the “desirable gentile goddess” while the Jewish woman character is the second fiddle. It might have something to do with the self-hatred of many male Jews in Hollywood for whom the Jewish woman is exactly that stereotype; besides, many of them need to justify marrying outside of the faith. Or maybe it’s just the self-hatred.
I ask this because in “Two Lovers,” which hit nationwide release this week, Joaquin Phoenix plays a Jewish guy whose parents want him to date (and marry) the beautiful Jewish daughter (Vinessa Shaw), of the couple who are buying their business. But, instead, he prefers the hot blonde gentile woman (played by the half-Jewish Gwyneth Paltrow) who doesn’t want him. The Jewish woman as the safe, not-as-sexy-or-hot choice is nothing new in Hollywood. We’ve seen it in sooo many TV shows and flicks, like the 1972 incarnation of “The Heartbreak Kid” in whichElliott GouldCharles Grodin dumps the homely Jewish stereotype-ette for the hot (at that time) Cybill Shepherd.
Read my review of “Two Lovers” and note that this stereotype can also work if you reverse the roles of each sex. For example, in the far superior and much warmer “Crossing Delancey” (1988), Amy Irving (who was not Jewish, but reportedly converted to marry Steven Spielberg) plays a Jewish woman who was in love with the male version of the Gwyneth Paltrow character, an author who didn’t really love her back. At the urging of her grandmother, she dates (and falls in love with) the more nebbishe/geeky Peter Riegert.
“Delancey” was 21 years ago and I thought we’d advanced. But apparently, the same Jewish liberals who are embarrassed about the first of those two adjectives are still running the show. They just don’t like themselves any more. Plus, they’re still trying to get away from their mothers, apparently.
There are plenty of beautiful Jewish women (some even blonde) in Hollywood, including my cousin, actress Amelia Kingston (real name: Shannon Schlussel). Sad that Hollywood still wants you to think they’re the ugly, annoying caricatures in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
More sad that the ones doing the caricaturing are neither Muslims nor Nazis, but my own fellow co-religionists.
Note: This post has been updated. Both Vinessa Shaw and Joaquin Phoenix were incorrectly identified as not being Jewish. We regret the error and thank the readers who pointed this out.
Of course when a White who cares deeply for the welfare of Whites dares to blame jews anywhere for anything we're accused of being delerious with jew-hate. It's almost as bad if we express even the slightest concern about marriage outside of "the faith", or object to Hollywood jews casting annoying "half-faith" or outright alien chicks as our desirable goddess ideal.
The comments from Schlussel's readers are mildly interesting. As usual we non-jews are to blame. America is suffused with a "nordic" female standard of beauty and we are simply not jewish enough to understand the romantic sub-genre in which jewish producers, directors, and actors change their surnames to better lust after hot button-nosed Aryan babes. What's worse, in spite of unwritten rules to the contrary, "they" keep recycling the same handful of White Anglo-Saxons to play jews!
As eager as Schlussel is to discriminate jews from non-jews she makes mistakes and underestimates jewish influence. Perhaps only someone delerious with hate could say that it might be because:
Hollywood is chock full of Jewish celebrities, although some fly under the radar more than others. For every proud and outspoken Jewish star like Adam Sandler or Jon Stewart, there's someone that you might not realize is Jewish, like Rachel Bilson or Harrison Ford.Or Vinessa Shaw. Or Joaquin Phoenix. Schlussel should check with the Jewish United Fund before she complains about the black muslim actor that self-hating jews miscast as a jewish action hero in Tropic Thunder.
James Edwards takes issue with Rush Limbaugh's early praise for Breitbart and Big Hollywood:
No, it’s how conservatives are going to spin their wheels and do absolutely nothing about the problem. Breitbart’s site isn’t “crucial” to changing the Hollywood culture. It’s the exact opposite. Worse than being irrelevant, it’s going to enable the people who run Hollywood and the news media to keep doing what they’ve been doing for decades - destroying our culture.Well, to be fair, at least Schlussel notices that Hollywood jews are motivated by hate and are harming someone. However, the larger BH deception remains - there is no About page that explains their cause, but plainly they are concerned more about what's good for jews than Hollywood or whoever else Hollywood might be harming. That would certainly seem to be the point of Confessions of a Recovering Anti-Semite (my emphasis):
Note to Limbaugh: “Liberals” don’t run Hollywood. Jews run Hollywood, and Jews are to culture what Muslims are to tall buildings. Jews promote conservatism and traditional moral values the same way Muslims promote wearing bikinis. Of course, Limbaugh knows this. So does Breitbart, and everyone writing for his site. So does just about every right wing or conservative commentator and writer. They all know it, which is why they never, ever discuss it. Does anyone doubt for a minute that if were Muslims putting out all this filth Limbaugh and Breitbart and everyone else would pretend not to notice?
But despite my aversion to them, and the harsh judgments I kept strictly to myself, I was jealous of Jews. I had been for a long time. Like Italians, Jews had all the attributes WASPs seemed to lack - namely passion, determination, and a fierce self-respect. They knew when to get mad, and they had no problem raising their voices - even yelling - when necessary.The BH distain for WASPs appears just as poisonous as Hollywood's. Though it is more clumsily disguised by BH than "anti-liberal" jew Lawrence Auster, the common ulterior purpose is to recruit Whites to serve jewish interests.
They didn’t care what other people thought. Good behavior wasn’t the point. Anger and indignation were healthy emotions to express, to act on - the motivators for justice. And nobody recognizes injustice better than a Jew.
By comparison, the WASPs I knew were obliging doormats with no convictions about anything except pleasing the right people. Reformed people pleasers know what a dead end that is; ultimately, you please no one, least of all yourself. People who have been beaten understand this. That’s why they fight.
I spent most of my life in a people-pleasing coma. But since the attacks of 9/11, unWASPy waves of outrage wash over me more and more everyday. I have found my inner Jew. Meanwhile, the self-hatred that fueled my former mousy modesty seems to have caught on - and spread across an entire nation like some enervating cultural contagion.
Today, like it or not, we are all Jews. If you live in Israel, Great Britain or America, you are a Jew. If you are black, white, Latino, Asian, gay, straight, bi, questioning, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, married, single, divorced, male, female, rich, poor, young, old, if you love cats, dogs, monkeys, pigs, Britney Spears, Amy Winehouse or opera - you are a Jew.
Because without our even realizing it, right beneath our very feet, the playing field has been leveled. At long last, we really are all equal. (Hear that, Human Rights Campaign?) We’re as equal as expendable, interchangeable, nothing-special, mass targets can be.
The horrors of Auschwitz, Dachau and Bergen-Belsen didn’t die with Hitler; they’ve gone global in a new kind of war that’s largely subliminal, psychological. And we’re nodding off fast when we should be popping No-Doz.
Islamic supremacists, who daily beat the drum for their imperialistic vision of a Jew-free, Great Satan-free world, have passion to spare. They are fired up, and united by the ferocious clarity of their convictions - just the way it once seemed to me the Jews were.
I am not a jew. I see duplicity and disrespect directed toward myself and my people from a broad range of jews. Under no circumstances will I serve them.
Labels: debbie schlussel, james edwards, lawrence auster, media
posted by Tanstaafl at 3/03/2009 08:34:00 PM
31 Comments:
Like Italians, Jews had all the attributes WASPs seemed to lack - namely passion, determination, and a fierce self-respect. They knew when to get mad, and they had no problem raising their voices - even yelling - when necessary.
Sorry, tan, I can't see anything to disagree with here. When non-Whites see they have been slighted, they make it plain, via body language, vocal register, etc., that they will tolerate nothing less than remorse from the offending party.
In constrast, Whites argue everything to do with their rights and their existence as if it's a math problem - and do so ineffectually, I might add. Among whites who know they exist, that is. Where's the outrage?
The outrage is isolated, internalized, and frustrated. It's nearly impossible for a product of white cultural "niceness" to reclaim righteous indignation and the relentlessness that comes with it. That's going to cause a lot of problems for us, So to that extent, I agree with the fellow who recovered his 'inner jew'.
Whites are deficient unto defective on this point. Except - in my experience - when they are defending some 'thought' tribe they belong to. Christians can be quite ferocious in defending the inerrancy of the Bible - no matter how ludicrous the contradiction involved. Catholics are similarly vicious about defending total innocence of the hierarchy in just about everything it has ever done.
Look at the long post I made recently on MR about "the holocaust". Someone just had to jump up and say something about the poor, maligned Dominicans, who, he said, were really quite progressive and kind.
I chose not to reprint extensive materials on how the Dominicans had created the witch craze, authored the Malleus Maleficarum, and sowed hysteria everywhere with such fury that they often had to override local ecclesiastical power and even local populations in order to bag their quote of women to torture for all those sexual adventures with Satan.
I didn't respond - not out of niceness, but because if I responded to every beast at Guessedworker's menagerie, I would be online 24 hours a day and quite insane. However, I thought it was very important that this poster, who had never expressed any strong views on the survival of our race, or against the people and forces working against that survival, or even responding to the topic of the thread, namely the holocaust, because the good name of the Dominicans meant more to him than the good name of his people.
As for 'Americans' defending 'America' or the version of events of WWII they've been tought, that inner fire and toughness and unreasoning hatred and imperviousness to reason is quite intact. The Patriotard, antiracist though he is, can draw on quite a bit of inner strength in public discourse.
This isn't a new problem. The protestant culture of 'niceness' is examined in detail in John Murray Cuddihy's No Offense: Civil Religion and Protestant Taste.
http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1979/v36-1-bookreview13.htm
Within the last decade, "civil religion" has had almost as many definitions as interpreters. John Murray Cuddihy, Associate Professor of Sociology at Hunter College, defines it as the "religion of civility": a tolerant, generalized "niceness" that sprang in this country from unitarianized Calvinism and has been widely institutionalized in our culture. Civil religion is the taste of inoffensiveness. It is symbolized by what Philip Rieff called the "smile of sociability," which has nothing to do with fraternity and everything to do with surface politeness and the unremitting demand for reciprocity. Standing on the principle of toleration embedded in the First Amendment and drawing sustenance from the modern process of "structural differentiation" (which reduces religion to a merely private aspect of the total social system), the religion of civility tames the religious traditions. It blunts the sharp, intolerant, offensive edges of Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism by turning them into three equally religious ways of maintaining civil "taste." Inoffensive civility makes it inappropriate for Jews publicly to proclaim their chosenness, for Catholics to confess aloud that "outside the Church there is no salvation," for Protestants to argue for the uniqueness of Christological revelation. "Good taste" allows such intolerant convictions to be held, if at all, in secret.
Cuddihy claims that twentieth-century liberal theologians have provided the legitimation for the effects worked on religions by civil taste. Reinhold Niebuhr is singled out as a Protestant legitimator. Eager to give "no offense" to his circle of Jewish and agnostic friends, Niebuhr called for Christians to end their attempts to convert Jews. Niebuhr held that because Christianity can only appear to Jews as oppressor, and because Christianity and Judaism have the same theological center, Jews should be encouraged to find God within their own heritage. Niebuhr thereby seriously compromised the uniqueness of Christianity's truth claim and grounded his tolerance on a henotheism.
In Is Majority Rights cleaning up its act? Auster points here and writes:
Now, looking at this impersonally, and whatever your ideology may be, isn't it comforting to know that searching intellects like Tanstaafl devote their lives to maintaining a constant alert for fifth columnists among us, and are not fooled by the ever-more diabolical duplicity of these enemies?
To which Gintas responds:
To pull out my own conspiracy theory, Majority Rights is possibly orchestrated by Leftists (I could play with irony and say Leftist Jews, wouldn't that be a hoot!) to divert bright, energetic young men down into a rathole.
Auster and his pack of penpal hyenas, whatever their ideology may be, are once again projecting - their searching intellects imagine the "fifth columnist" "anti-semites" they are on constant google alert for are secretly manipulated by their diabolic archenemy: the "liberals". The irony is that we all appear to agree that first and foremost among these "liberals" are jews, though not all of us agree it is a hoot.
Citing at The Fundamental Flaws of the Holocaust Cult MR.com Auster writes:
But the funny thing is, why should the MR-ites doubt the historical truth of the Nazi war against the Jews? The MR-ites believe that all Jews are determined by evolution to be the mortal enemy of white gentiles. Literally whatever a Jew may be doing, what he is really doing is obeying the Jewish evolutionary imperative to undermine and destroy white gentiles. Any white gentile who recognizes the unregenerately malign character of the Jews--and surely Hitler recognized it, as well as writing a book about it and publicly promising to eliminate the Jews--has only one logical option: to eliminate the Jews. It it weren't so grotesque, the denial by the exterminationist anti-Semites at Majority Rights that the exterminationist anti-Semite Adolf Hitler sought to exterminate the Jews would be hilarious.
Auster, as usual, misrepresents whatever loose consensus might exist at MR.com, which if I may project my own biases, seems to be that the "jewish evolutionary imperative", if there is one, is for jews to do whatever they sense best for themselves collectively, no matter who might be destroyed in the process. It seems to me the most parsimonious explanation for the ethics espoused and behavior exhibited not only by "leftist" anti-White jews, but by "conservative" jewish bigots like Auster and Schlussel as well. Yes jews are famous for their disagreements as to exactly what their collective is and what's best for it, just as they are near unanimous on their deep distain for any signs of resistance from the others they may be harming, either individually or collectively.
Here for instance we see pro-"white" poseur Auster once again blithely attacking pro-Whites searching out truth, debating and providing conflicting arguments for our varied positions, revealing himself yet again as an intellectual poseur so blinded by his own bigotry that he cannot conceive of his despised targets as anything but an undifferentiated mass of "exterminationists".
What is grotesque is Auster's denial that it is Whites, not jews, who are at this moment targeted for extermination, and it is jews, not Whites, who provide the most effective and monolithic support for this crime. What's worse, he does this from a well-informed position, and in brief moments of candor demonstrates his understanding of this reality. Unfortunately, even a cursory comparison of his reaction to the marginalized opinions of "anti-semites" and our utter powerlessness to effect whatever crimes he imagines we desire to commit with his reaction to the pervasive control and very real crimes perpetrated by his other supposed enemies, the "liberals", puts the lie to his self-proclaimed truth-seeking and his pose as a defender of "our" common interests. Auster's true and overriding pro-jewish priority is continually reflected in his words and behavior. His mendacity is relected in his alternation between flippant and hostile responses to any analysis of that behavior.
Auster is welcome to libel his own people for suiciding themselves. He is not welcome to libel mine for this or anything else. The Whites who lend a hand to the destruction of their own kind are traitors, motivated in large part by the social, academic, political, and economic rewards flowing from a power structure that is no longer dominated by us and in which our influence is waning. In constrast, jewish influence is waxing. I have made these criticisms clear many times now and all Auster has ever done is variously sputter and laugh at his own distortions of it. I'm not surprised. He is one of the most duplicitous minds I have ever had the displeasure of engaging.
Judeo-Conspirators Must Be Attacked At Base: Especially False Moralist Pretext For Subjectivism
(Apollonian, 5 Mar 09)
Regarding MajorityRights.com, I rec'd the following note fm the dear "GuessedWorker" for 11 Feb 09 blog, "An Open Letter...":
Posted by Guessedworker on February 11, 2009, 05:59 PM | #
"apollonian, please post elsewhere. You are increasing the understanding of nobody. You are a burden on us. You do not respect private property, which this is. You are not welcome. Go, please."
Thus I note "GuessedWorker" is quite presumptuous, to say the least, pretending to speaking for others regarding value of my exposition for "understanding."
It should be obvious, and indeed, I made it explicit as possible, several times, in my brief career there (at MajorityRights), that "GuessedWorker" is interested primarily in one thing, that being impressing everyone else upon his MORALISM--hence Pelagian hereticalism as it is and would be understood to Christians, the obvious fundamental error being that of hubristic, perfectly FREE human will by which one "chooses" "good" over "evil."
So the pt. is simply that "GuessedWorker" is mere RIVAL SUBJECTIVIST to Jews (who are far more organized), for which subjectivism in guise of moralism "GuessedWorker" (GW) works and fights. GW obviously did not appreciate my rejection of subjectivism which is always, ultimately, introduced, rationalized, and justified by means of moralism and Pelagianist "good-evil" fallacy/delusion/heresy.
So, good comrade "Tanstaafl," I hope u can see GW and MajorityRights.com is actually AN ALLY WITH JEWS--against that essential objectivistic white, Western, and Christian civilization--in favor of subjectivism and specifically then, moralism, vehicle thereof.
GW then merely wants to impose a different STYLE of fascism, which fascist regime then simply PAVES THE WAY for Jews to return, as they're most efficient at such fascism, Jews most proficient collectivists, fascism ALWAYS justified on basis of moralism, moralism ALWAYS the only basic justification and purpose of fascism.
Note then Jew-expulsion is only possible by means of thorough-going Christian culture most solidly founded in rationalism, hence objectivity, hence the total rejection of any and all subjectivism, hence moralism, hence Pelagianism. "Good-evil" is only ultimately meaningful for dogs and small children.
Thus one observes the sheer pusillanimity of fascists like the fatuous GW who simply insists "good-evil" just is, and that's all there is to it; GW says so. And thus punks like GW literally PAVE WAY for Jews, providing premises for Jew disease to set-in within the large culture, regardless of whatever mere details of criticism GW may have of Jews.
Hence the pt. is Jew parasite disease-of-opportunity must be fought at the foundations, depriving Jew parasite for any possible predicate by which Jew parasite can feed, work, and flourish.
CONCLUSION: Thus, once again, the Jew parasite and conspiracy (see TheNewAmerican.com and AugustReview.com for expo/ref. on CFR-Bilderberg conspiracy) must be attacked at its WEAK-POINT, the nexus of Jew parasites with their close associates--moralists (esp. Pelagianists) like GW, not to mention the less pretentious "Judeo-Christian" (JC--see Whtt.org and TruthTellers.org for expo/ref.) hereticalists who imagine Christ was a "Jew" (Talmudist). Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
"A huge amount of female journalism consists of demands that society must be reorganized so that the author is considered more sexually attractive."
- Steve Sailer
more strangeness from Auster: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012647.html
"The cause of the white race will not go away."
He usually speaks of whites at a distance, like "the white race," and so on. Rarely does he say "our race," as he does here when using "we." Does he really think he's white like us? After reading much of the Auster-crit here and reading his blog, I've come to the conclusion that he's just nuts. You might say that he only does it because he sees it helping Jews, which is probably true at some level, but there's more going on there.
I want to know if he is engaged in gainful employ in any labors outside of bitching about Tanstaafl and us nasty anti-semites and hyper-sensitive overreacting to us not capitalizing 'jew.'
From The cause of the white race will not go away:
when I consider today's systematic campaign, organized and backed by all the ruling powers of society, to put down, demonize, disempower, and marginalize the white race, I think it is shaping up as the greatest crime in the history of mankind
He may be trying to deflect my criticism above concerning his grotesque denial of this crime and his pose as a defender of "our" common interests. And the ongoing debate he's having with himself (as his bigoted alter-ego "Boris") in The BNP versus the rulers of the Dead Island, contains yet another brief moment of candor:
"On the other hand, one may claim that Jewish leftists are seeking to harm non-Jews in order to advance an ethnocentric agenda. [This] view is anti-Semitic and false..."
But there's much evidence that it is true. Numerous Jewish spokesman have said, not just in recent times, but in past decades, that America's white Anglo-Saxon Christian majority is oppressive to Jews and other minorities, and even that it poses a potential threat of much worse oppression, and that the only way for the Jews to be safe in America is to reduce the percentage and power of the white Christian majority by means of diverse immigration. To seek to turn the historic non-Jewish white Christian majority of this country into a minority, out of the conviction that that majority is oppressive and malign, is certainly to seek to harm non-Jews.
Some three weeks ago Auster was touting his anti-anti-semitic bona fides and among other things describing how by pointing out his previous brief moments of candor I was effectively calling him an anti-semite. In other words he was thinking then just like the "Boris" he's lecturing today.
I've cited Auster's Why Jews Welcome Muslims many times, because buried inside it is the same understanding he finally makes plain above.
As I explain in Criticizing Auster, what got him upset at me was my putting together this understanding with his own "First Law" of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society, the essense of which is:
the more difficult or dangerous a minority or non-Western group actually is, the more favorably it is treated
He made two objections: 1) his law simply doesn't apply to jews, and 2) only an anti-semite would think it does. At that point I realized I was arguing with a knave. Since then the evidence for that understanding has only gotten stronger. He is changing. He's made his pro-jewish priorities steadily plainer while ramping up his pro-"white" rhetoric. It isn't an improvement.
Apollonian,
I hope u can see GW and MajorityRights.com is actually AN ALLY WITH JEWS--against that essential objectivistic white, Western, and Christian civilization--in favor of subjectivism and specifically then, moralism, vehicle thereof.
Sorry, I don't. Perhaps you're using senses of objective and subjective I'm not familiar with. Feel free to elaborate.
Objective Vs. Subjective: Dramatic/Philosophic Antitheses Of Gospel Of JOHN
(Apollonian, 5 Mar 09)
Jews are masters of subjectivity, foundation of, pretext for their lies, objectivity necessary criterion of Christian TRUTH, if truth is to have any meaning. These are basic anti-theses, for example, to Gosp. JOHN. I'll post another essay on subj. presently, w. ur indulgence.
So idea is moralist, hence subjectivist "GuessedWorker" (MajorityRights.com) is EFFECTIVE ally with subjectivist-Pharisaist Jews (pardon the redundancy), despite the nit-picking criticisms GW may have regarding Jews. GW essentially agrees w. Jews for moralist excuse for subjectivist destruction of Western objectivity, reality.
For there is no "good-evil," hence real Pharisaist moralism in objectivistic, hence determinist universe, no perfectly free, God-like, human will. Real, true ethics then is mere logic btwn ends and means. GW is simply modern version of old Pelagian hereticalist.
CONCLUSION: Jews aren't "evil"--just insane. Seems reasonable theses to me. Objectivity is same as that of Aristotle. Subjectivism then would be similar to Plato or esp. Kant. Honest elections snd death to the Fed. Apollonian
Christian-Inspired Plan For Revolution Against Judeo-Conspiracy
(Apollonian, 5 Mar 09)
This cartoon (see TomorrowInVinland.blogspot.com, "Hate Crime...," 5 Mar 09) is absolutely most brilliant depiction and presentation of basic, root Jew premise of reality: SUBJECTIVISM--hey, anything goes--whatever. White, Western, Christian premise of civilization, science, reason, and logic is Aristotelian objectivity, necessary criterion for Christian TRUTH.
Unfortunately the problem (Jews and accomplices) is now NO LAUGHING MATTER, as US economy is DELIBERATELY being driven into the proverbial "ground," and over the proverbial "cliff."
We've got to do something effective--the shooting war will begin soon enough, but still there's some time for us to GET OUT AND PREACH--going up to people and engaging them most directly, and preaching, and trying to talk to them--and SUCCEEDING in doing so.
Ck technique of the good pastor Carlson at Whtt.org for pointers as to how to agitate and inform Christians at their churches on Sundays.
Thus "preaching" in this context means merely speaking most purposefully--"taking charge," so to speak--leading the discussion(s).
So here's plan: (1) first we need analysis of situation/problem, which is, basically, criminal Judeo-conspiracy (see TheNewAmerican.com and AugustReview.com for expo/ref. on CFR-Bilderberg conspiracy) with death-grip on US economy by means of COUNTERFEIT fraud/mechanism/operation--see RealityZone.com for expo/ref. on US Federal Reserve Bank (Fed).
(2) Necessary Jew-Expulsion will DE-CAPITATE this gross criminal conspiracy, allowing rest of conspirators to be mopped up at relative leisure.
(3) Hence Jew-expulsion requires a rationalist-style Christian revival--in order to attack at WEAK-POINT of Judeo-conspirators, which weak-point is, specifically, nexus with "Judeo-Christian" (JC--Whtt.org and TruthTellers.org for expo/ref.) hereticalists who think, for example, Christ was "Jew" (hence Talmudist).
Incredibly, observe JCs are a bunch of horribly duped, so-called "Christians"--who worship and abet Jews and Judeo-conspirators as they mass-murder the world, no less than recently at Gaza, Palestine.
(4) For Christ was actually foremost anti-semite (anti-Talmud), as Gosp. MARK 7:1-13. Thus by means of TRUE Christianity we "free" the poor mentally hostage JCs, for one instance, but there are others too, esp. "moralists," many of whom are actually atheistically-styled.
(5) We then proceed upon a virtual Christian revolution, for further example, as we understand Christianity in general as aesthetic dramatization of lonely battle of TRUTH vs. conspiratorial Jew lies (as Gosp. JOHN 8:32, 14:6, and 18:37).
Thus Christianity is actually DEFENCE of human reason--contrary, in all possible irony, to what so many believe and are taught.
(6) "Faith," for further example, has become unfortunate buzz-word used so often to work against reason, logic, and science. But truth is simply "faith," in general, is properly mere synonym for LOYALTY--not anti-reason. And specific "faith" is what one is loyal to. Thus "faith" must be understood to be most perfectly in accord and consistent with human reason.
(7) Revolutionary Christian ethic is HONESTY, consistent with TRUTH--above "faith" or "love" or child's "good-evil" (which "good-evil" fallacy/delusion is actually Pelagian heresy). Thus righteous "hatred" takes its proper place with "love," as appropriate to war situation, necessary to liberating Jew-expulsion.
CONCLUSION: (8) Thus it's critical to get out to preaching immediately--there's no time to lose: WE DESPERATELY, URGENTLY NEED JEW-EXPULSION, and the necessary vehicle and means of this Jew-expulsion is Christian aesthetic. "Think not I came to bring peace; rather I come to bring a sword (Gosp. MATT 10:34). Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
File Reply to Randall Parker under B, for Boris:
As Randall Parker well knows, and as I stated clearly at the time in the extended exchange at his blog (here), the reason I stopped commenting at his blog was that every time I commented there I became the object of personal attacks. The last time was an anti-Semitic attack. After I said that the case against Lewis Libby was an outrage and that he should be pardoned, a commenter wrote:
"Auster is a jew [sic], of course he thinks Libby is innocent. Bush, on the other hand, is just doing what his masters tell him to."
Mr. Parker then politely explained to the commenter why his reasoning was faulty, but Parker did not object to the commenter's anti-Semitism. He didn't say that he wouldn't allow commenters to refer to other commenters at his site as "jews." To refer to a person a "jew," lower case, is to dehumanize that person. Parker had no problem with that.
I never called on Parker to delete commenters. I objected to the fact that he didn't tell the anti-Semitic commenter that anti-Semitic statements, particularly about other commenters at Parker's own blog, were not welcome.
But how does Parker describe the situation? That "Auster stopped commenting on my blog because I didn't delete commenters who weren't polite to him."
I'm sickened that Randall Parker, who used to respect me and frequently quoted me, would so misrepresent what happened, and in a way that amounts to a smear, portraying me as a tyrant who demands that commenters should be excluded and their comments deleted merely for not being "polite" to me.
He never called on Parker to delete comments, he just objected to posts he found offensive not being deleted. How does Auster describe the difference? A sickening misrepresentation amounting to a smear. Someone identified Auster as a jew. Then Parker failed to do whatever Auster expected him to. Then Parker "misrepresented" what happened. The horror.
Where would anyone ever get the idea Auster is a tyrant who tries to silence his opponents? Besides the example he's just provided, perhaps it came from The GoV campaign of personal destruction continues ("I was addressing the host of that site questioning why certain types of comments were being allowed there"), or from Further thoughts on the GoV thread ("The underlying problem is, how does one deal with people who are without intellectual conscience, who allow themselves to say anything, and who in some instances have malign intentions, yet who are accepted members of a discussion group in which one is participating?"), or from Should Auster be ostracized? ("I do take both Hesperado and Mangan to task for allowing a loony anti-Semite to post at their site").
These are a few examples from the past year that I witnessed first hand - surely there are more.
Auster regularly indulges in smears and misrepresentations from the safety of his closed blog, No wonder whenever he ventures out onto an open forum he's confronted with hostility. No wonder he so often ends up back in his sanctuary moaning to his sycophants about how those mean people were "grossly misrepresenting almost everything I said and basically trying to destroy me in other people's eyes". It would seem easier to accomplish such a feat when everything goes through one keyboard, like at Auster's blog, and not as easy when people are able to interact freely without being edited or censored.
Apollonian,
I agree with your distinction between objectivity and subjectivity, as well as your preference for the one over the other. I have argued with enough jews (eg. anti-anti-semites like Auster) who are willing to say almost anything, including the exact opposite of what they were just saying, in the defense of their people. It is one of their defining characteristics and stands in distinct contrast to the fair-mindedness Whites exhibit to a fault. You may disagree with any distinction, but I do distinguish duplicitous (or subjective) people from those who at least make an honest attempt to be forthright (or objective).
In my estimation Guessedworker and most of the other contributors at MR.com attempt to be forthright. Given what I have witnessed I do not believe GW is an enemy of mine, nor that he is helping my enemies, consciously or otherwise, jewish or otherwise.
I had to look up pelagian heresy, so my understanding of it may not be complete. If the dividing line between you and your enemies is free will vs. original sin them I'm afraid I may be on the wrong side of you, or at least not willing to divide my world by that measure. That may make me as much of an enemy to you as GW is. I consider enemies those who I believe (by objectivist means) to be aggressing against myself and those who share my interests. My metric is self-other. There are several dividing lines. My measure is more tribal than ideological, but it is a combination of these factors. I wish first to separate, ideologically at least, physically if possible, from those who aggress against me. That accomplished I'm willing to argue politics and philosophy forthrightly with those who share my interests. I have never believed that genetic others are enemies by that measure alone. I do not exclude genetic others as potential allies. I believe this despite (and to a certain extent due to) the deliberate attempts by enemies (Auster for example) to derail discourse and polarize the beliefs of myself and others.
How "Free" Is Human Will?
(Apollonian, 6 Mar 09)
Fair enough, brother Tanstaafl, at least u're honest.
But consider the consequences of the PERFECTLY "free," hence God-like human will--doesn't that verge upon very same HUBRIS of Jews? Thanks for ur comments. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
Regarding the discussion about Randall Parker, How about Austers misrepresentation of Tanstaafl suggesting his online handle was made to sound very German (aka: Nazi) proving he was an anti-semite.
Then come to find out it is short for There aint no such thing as a free lunch. Man did Auster come off like a complete douchebag on that one. I'm still lauphing at his paranoid stupidity.
Which, after all, is a term computer programmers use often.
There really is no other word to sum up the essence of Auster except douchebag.
"America's white Anglo-Saxon Christian majority is oppressive to Jews and other minorities, and even that it poses a potential threat of much worse oppression, and that the only way for the Jews to be safe in America is to reduce the percentage and power of the white Christian majority by means of diverse immigration."
---
Yes, Jews are antagonistic toward Whites and actively seek their dispossession. From a recent communique of the Israeli government: "Enhanced ties between Jewish communities and the Hispanic and Afro-American communities in the US" - http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2009/Cabinet-commmunique-22-Feb-2009.htm
Apollonian,
But consider the consequences of the PERFECTLY "free," hence God-like human will--doesn't that verge upon very same HUBRIS of Jews?
Absolute freedom is absolutely destructive. We don't even have absolute freedom - just the wrong kinds of freedom, and not enough of the right kinds - and yet our civilization is undone.
There really is no other word to sum up the essence of Auster except douchebag.
For me his essense is fruitloop. A very nasty fruitloop.
More from The cause of the white race will not go away:
Alex K. writes:
Adjusting the phrasing "greatest tragedy in the history...", you said: "I think it is shaping up as the greatest crime in the history of mankind." I've often thought that what is happening is not so much the suicide of the West but the murder of it. It's just that the victim isn't fighting back.
I guess the "killer," the ruling powers, is largely committing suicide too. But the death of the suicide bomber is less important than the death of his victim.
This in response to Auster writing:
when I consider today's systematic campaign, organized and backed by all the ruling powers of society, to put down, demonize, disempower, and marginalize the white race, I think it is shaping up as the greatest crime in the history of mankind
OK. Let's try not to be reductionist. Let's put this together with a few other things. A few weeks ago Auster wrote:
The signs are gathering that the Western societies are heading into an age of civil wars. Not between white and nonwhite, not between Christian and Muslim, but between liberal whites and non-liberal whites. That's shaping up as the major divide of our time.
I've already pointed out (notwithstanding the efforts of a bolshevist comrade of Auster's) that this was a step away from the "suicidal white guilt" libel he had been promulgating for months. I also wrote that it is not so much a civil war as it is a race war. The criminals demonize, disempower, and marginalize the White race on a distinctly racial basis. And they do so while explicitly defending jews. From Office To Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism:
The Office of the Special Envoy To Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism (SEAS) advocates U.S. policy on anti-Semitism both in the U.S. and internationally. Anti-Semitism is discrimination against or hatred toward Jews [see full definition]. SEAS develops and implements policies and projects to support efforts to combat anti-Semitism.
SEAS was established by the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004, and is a part of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL). DRL produces the State Department's annual reports on Human Rights Practices and International Religious Freedom, and SEAS provides input on anti-Semitism for these reports.
Led by the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, Gregg Rickman, DRL/SEAS welcomes information on anti-Semitic incidents, including personal and property attacks; government policies, including judicial/prosecutorial decisions and educational programs on the issue; and press and mass media reports.
If Auster disagrees with any of this he has not said so. In The BNP versus the rulers of the Dead Island he also acknowledges that:
Numerous Jewish spokesman have said, not just in recent times, but in past decades, that America's white Anglo-Saxon Christian majority is oppressive to Jews and other minorities, and even that it poses a potential threat of much worse oppression, and that the only way for the Jews to be safe in America is to reduce the percentage and power of the white Christian majority by means of diverse immigration. To seek to turn the historic non-Jewish white Christian majority of this country into a minority, out of the conviction that that majority is oppressive and malign, is certainly to seek to harm non-Jews.
When I have made similar statements, in isolation or synthesized, Auster has repeatedly exerted himself to discredit and/or silence me ("jews are my enemy" plus "hang the traitors" tells you where Tanstaafl is "really" coming from). He's fully capable of twisting facts to synthesize a campaign of personal destruction. Can he exert himself to synthesize facts that elucidate "the greatest crime in the history of mankind"?
First Auster should admit that he was wrong to blame the victim by portraying the crime as "suicide". Instead he seems poised to claim jews are inseparable members of "the white race" that he knows so many jews have done so much to "murder". I predict Auster will argue that jews are also victims of this crime despite the explicit protections offered jews by the criminals in media, politics and law, and their wildly disproportionate representation among those criminals. He will not reverse his irrational claims that anyone who would discriminate Whites from jews is a "serious anti-semite", no better and likely worse than our criminal rulers. He will continue to do this in spite of his regular denouncements of "liberal non-discrimination", which he pretends is taken literally by the criminals rather than acknowledging that it is empirically anti-White pro-"minority" (including jews) discrimination.
No doubt Auster will continue to demonstrate that his first priority is to protect jews regardless of the harm his apologetics cause Whites.
Auster's fruitloopery on the "real" meaning of Tanstaafl is classic jewish pseudo-psychology, commonly triggered by any effective criticism of them individually or their co-ethnics. Ever since witnessing this firsthand I have only been able to imagine such people dressed in a rainbow-colored chicken suit, flapping their arms furiously and squawking NAZI! ANTI-SEMITE! EXTERMINATIONIST! The experience completely innoculated me to their hysteria, and it now fascinates and revulses me whenever I see them express it.
For example, when Auster claims a criticism of him personally that includes the word jew is a dehumanizing "anti-semitic" attack. The only reason I would get upset if somebody identified me as White online is if I was pretending to be something else. He's either upset about that, or he's trying to discourage Whites from seeing jews as jews - even though when they demand to been seen as jews they think it's just as "anti-semitic" not to.
The assumptions built into the phrase "anti-semitism" makes it pretty difficult for them to pretend we're inseparable. But that doesn't stop Auster from doing so.
"Absolute freedom is absolutely destructive. We don't even have absolute freedom - just the wrong kinds of freedom, and not enough of the right kinds - and yet our civilization is undone." -Tanstaafl, 3/06/2009 01:56:00 PM
* * * * *
Freedom Of Will Idea Integral To Culture, Necessary Activity
(Apollonian, 6 Mar 09)
Well okay, but the pt. then is if u agree there's no perfectly free human will, then there's no "good-evil," the foundation to Pelagianism.
What happens happens because it had to happen that way, according to necessity and cause-effect, there being no possibility of "willing" successfully to do differently.
"Good-evil" fallacy/delusion is heretical as it presumes perfectly free will. "Good-evil" fallacy/delusion is the very conceit to the moralism of "GuessedWorker" (GW) at MajorityRights.com by which he imagines he puffs himself and justifies his fascist actions.
Thus GW shares that fatuous free will presumption with subjectivists and Jews, such free will delusion the foundation of fascism and hereticalism which go together.
And my large thesis then is as things are determined according to such absolute necessity and cause-effect, thus they're CYCLIC according "Decline of the West," by Oswald Spengler.
Jews then are foremost subjectivists, narcissists, fascists, Pharisaics, etc., and they wax, cyclically again, as excess over-populated gentiles suffer hubris of free-will delusion, thus Pelagianist moralism of such as Immanuel Kant and J.J. Rousseau for the latest CYCLE of Western "decline."
Thus Jews are a parasite disease-of-opportunity, socio-biologically (see KevinMacDonald.net), who dominate CYCLICALLY, again, as hubristic, over-populated gentiles suffer such subjectivistic moralism, stupid, hubristic, utterly corrupt gentiles over-indulging in that INDIVIDUALISM which allows Jew predators to ISOLATE such gentiles so effectively as we see to our horror, etc.
So anyway, we gentiles, in order to recover our culture, must cease with the hubris, thus the Pelagianism and hereticalism. Hence we gentiles must regain that HONESTY, foremost ethical virtue--not "good-evil"--in accord with fullest, thorough-going OBJECTIVITY, etc.
CONCLUSION: Hence again, we must emphasize Christian anti-semitism, all in accord w. that fundamental objectivity, as I've noted. And we must most urgently and actively go out and PREACH this Christian rationalism, etc., to save our very lives. Such then is necessary cultural program, most appropriate to the present historical cyclic phase. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thus GW shares that fatuous free will presumption with subjectivists
GW is a materialist and therefore he doesn't believe in free will at all. He believes everything is biologically determined.
"GW is a materialist and therefore he doesn't believe in free will at all. He believes everything is biologically determined." -danielj, 3/06/2009 05:58:00 PM
* * * * *
Moralist "Good-Evil" Incompatible With Determinism
(Apollonian, 7 Mar 09)
Dan, the pt. is "GuessedWorker" at MajorityRights.com is most extreme vociferous, emphatic, in-ur-face MORALIST, who insists upon moralism, who stresses moralism much as he possibly can and talks about it every chance he gets--this moralism of GW is absolutely undeniable, indisputable. Indeed, Moralism is what he's all about, above and beyond anything else, including "majority rights."
There's no question in my mind GW is absolutely psychotic, without slightest doubt, so there's a switch in premises for his logic somewhere, surely.
CONCLUSION: But pt., again, is GW is (a) moralist who pretends to "good-evil," Pelagian hereticalism, hence (b) the same gross subjectivism of Jews. Thus GW is effective ally of Jews, pushing same premise Jews push. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
Weston,
Exactly.
Auster, and anti-anti-semites in general, act as sheepherders. Their duty, or at least the role they empirically play, is to seek out and smother anyone exhibiting any awareness or resistance to jewish malfeasance, including the sheepherding. The AASes are the jewish warrior caste - eg. Foxman, Dees, Dershowitz - though even the average jew is better prepared for ethnic warfare than the warrior caste of other ethnies, especially Whites. Auster is worse than any AAS who is openly jewish and pro-jew. He takes offense at being called a jew or pro-jew, and pretends to be on our side by advocating "our" interests, even touching occasionally on jewish malfeasance. He describes himself as a fifth-columnist without denying it. We should apply his own paranoid logic to himself:
a person who is not a fifth-columnist and who disapproves of treachery would want to explain clearly that he is not a fifth-columnist. A person who declares that he's indifferent to whether people accuse him of mendacity and dissimulation, which he interprets as "I'm a fifth columnist", is announcing that he is indeed a fifth-columnist.
I can only hope that any White who has read some of the many examples I've highlighted realizes just how dedicated Auster is to queering any effective action to stop jewish malfeasance, or even to plumb it's depths more than he does. He delves daily into the hows and whats of "liberalism" but he's hostile to examining the whys, eg. Sailer's "competition amongst whiter people", because the why reflects very poorly on jews, how they view the rest of us, and how their animosity might spawn murderous intentions, not at all suicidal. When he talks about "non-discrimination" he doesn't mention that only deracinated Whites actually interpret that principle literally, and are only dimly aware that what the "liberal" rulers are imposing has gone far beyond "equality" and is today in practice anti-White discrimination. They also don't realize how they are deliberately misled by a media, government, and academy dominated by hostile non-Whites and traitorous Whites who know full well what's going on. Not many White liberal rulers seem genuinely suicidal. Most are just willing to sell out, or at least not get penalized by speaking out.
Auster will touch on these things sometimes, but only to crap on it all as fruitless. For him it's far more important to dwell on the daily drumbeat of symptoms, and thus to obfuscate causes and spread the guilt around. Everyone is "liberal". Pay no attention to what's behind the "liberal" curtain.
Auster claims repeatedly to be the voice of reason on "anti-semitism" but even more often goes out of his way to polarize and extremify any critic who does not clearly telegraph that their intention in discussing jews is to advance their best interests. Negative critics are pulled from the herd and painted black. Anyone who so much as speaks with that sheep thereafter is similarly painted. It would be one thing if this sheepherding process were honestly described by their side as separatism. It could even be acknowledged as mutual and pursued amicably. But that's not what jews in diaspora want. They want to live among us pursuing their happiness unmolested, no matter what unhappiness it causes us. What's especially insidious is how Auster and friends portray their sheepherding as being in "our" interests. Thus the snide comments from them about those silly "anti-semites" obsessed with jews when the "real" problem "we" have to face is X, Y, or Z. Oddly the "real" problems never stop them from obsessing over the "anti-semites" who are not in any way responsible for the "real" problems and are, by any objective measure, less powerful than anyone (including jews) who is responsible for X, Y, and Z. "Don't complain to me about X, Y, or Z - just look at all this ANTI-SEMITISM!!!" That's where they're coming from.
I intend "hang the traitors" to apply to all the progressivist-globalist kingpins aiding and abeting mass immigration. When Auster talks about "the greatest crime in the history of mankind" he knows many jews are implicated. Yet he seems intent that they not pay for their crime, and that the price not spill over onto other less kingpinish jews. So much so that he tries to obfuscate and excuse any jewish involvement, to the absurd point of suggesting that "we" are to blame for "suiciding". If fact he goes further - implying that the cause is "white guilt". Yes, I understand perfectly well how "liberals", especially jewish liberals, libel all Whites with Manifest Destiny, black slavery, and a long history of jewish pogroms. Since when have jews felt guilty about any of those things?
Sorry Auster. The "systematic campaign, organized and backed by all the ruling powers of society, to put down, demonize, disempower, and marginalize the white race" is not "suicide". The specific protections the "ruling powers" offer jews implies "the white race" does not include jews. Whites, to the extent we are aware of this crime, oppose it. Jews, along with every other "minority", tend instead to advocate and celebrate the anti-White regime. Those who recognize the crime should agree it must be stopped and that the "ruling powers" should be brought to justice. After that we can tackle mutual separation, which to me means respecting the will of those who wish to separate from those who prefer to mix. The sheepherders can live amongst their own or with the mixers, if they'll have them.
From a Rachel Weisz interview:
"Hollywood's run by Jews. I was advised by an American agent when I was about 19 to change my surname. And I said "Why? Jews run Hollywood." He said "Exactly." He had a theory that all the executives think acting's a job for shiksas. ...In some way acting is prostitution, and Hollywood Jews don't want their own women to participate. Also, there's an element of Portnoy's Complaint - they all fancy Aryan blondes."
For example, when Auster claims a criticism of him personally that includes the word jew is a dehumanizing "anti-semitic" attack.
The tendency to hurl "jew" as an accusation cannot be denied. As an accusation, it reduces a person to no more than a jew, ie no more than whatever the accuser's conception of what a jew is -- typically something like a hook-nosed, lying, cheating shylock, money-hoarding, power-grabbing race-replacement bot. I'm sympathetic to the view that we're all biological units and as such our biological constitution is our most important aspect, but it's never the totality of who we are, and accusations which implicitly insist that we are can rightly be called "dehumanizing."
I'm sympathetic to the view that we're all biological units and as such our biological constitution is our most important aspect, but it's never the totality of who we are, and accusations which implicitly insist that we are can rightly be called "dehumanizing."
If one is an atheistic materialist, than biology is indeed the totality of our being and exercising of the will is an illusion.
You have to dehumanize the other when you are engaged in a kulturkampf. Liberals do it, conservatives do it, Israeli settlers do it and we racialists would be right to do it.
Do you feel the same stings of conscience when you refer to someone as a nigger?
Every single time I have said or written "jew" it has been to identify the group or an individual acting in the interests of that group. That's how I interpret the word when it's used by others, including Auster's "attacker". If we're not to use the word jews themselves use, then what word should we use?
On the other hand...
The tendency to hurl "anti-semite" as an accusation cannot be denied. As an accusation, it reduces a person to no more than an anti-semite, ie no more than whatever the accuser's conception of what an anti-semite is -- typically something like a blonde-haired, blue-eyed, stupid, evil, looney, jew-hating bot.
You, for example, tried to dehumanize me by writing:
Tan, you've become a shell of a man. You'll dispute it, but I dare say it'd be almost impossible for a casual reader of this site to see anything but a man now delirious with jew-hatred, certainly soaking in it. Because of course by this stage jews have become guilty of no more than breathing -- and they're only breathing that way, instead of this way because, you guessed it, they're jews.
You attribute your own cynical thoughts to others.
There is no moral or semantic equivalence here. "Jew" is descriptive, "anti-semite" is definitive.
Colin, I'm touched by your condescension, but I still see no reason to believe anti-Dominican Protestant propaganda. ;)
I must say though, I sympathize with your unwillingness to press the issue further. If I attempted to correct every anti-Catholic accusation I came across on the internet I'd quickly wear myself out too.
Post a Comment
<< Home