Triangulating From the Right
During this past month has Lawrence Auster has expressed a considerable shift in rhetoric, fundamentally altering his depiction of "liberalism" by adopting, without explanation, ideas he had previously ignored, dismissed, or denounced.
In First thoughts on the PWC conference, posted on 8 Feb 2009, we see Auster was giving speeches "meticulously describing" non-discrimination and writing about "suicidal white guilt that results from ignorance of race differences".
In What is good discrimination?, posted on 24 Feb 2009, Auster wrote:
Here are three more major related pieces he has yet to cough up:
In First thoughts on the PWC conference, posted on 8 Feb 2009, we see Auster was giving speeches "meticulously describing" non-discrimination and writing about "suicidal white guilt that results from ignorance of race differences".
In What is good discrimination?, posted on 24 Feb 2009, Auster wrote:
We need to distinguish between necessary/proper/good discrimination and unnecessary/improper/bad discrimination. This is something that liberalism never does, because liberalism considers all discrimination to be bad; moreover, it considers every type of discrimination to be equally bad.At Oz Conservative, around 17 Feb 2009, something had changed. Suddenly Sailer's "competition between whiter people", which Auster had previously judged useless, was transformed into war and became his own idea. 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.Next he transformed "suicidal white guilt" into "murder". In The cause of the white race will not go away, posted on 5 Mar 2009, Auster wrote:
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 mankindToday, 10 Mar 2009, Auster posts The supposedly race-blind liberal media defines a "true American", finally realizing (or finally admitting) that non-discrimination isn't at all what "liberalism" is about. He writes:
Liberalism is not about making race unimportant. Liberalism is about elevating nonwhites, particularly blacks, over whites, and about turning whites into non-persons. Liberalism is pure racism under the guise of anti-racism. What "anti-racism" really means is simply anti-whiteness.It is extraordinary watching Auster break so much new ground so quickly. Where on earth is he getting these insane ideas?
Here are three more major related pieces he has yet to cough up:
- Note that "liberalism" does not turn jews into non-persons. Quite the contrary, both jews and "liberalism" sees jews as non-White and elevates them over everyone else, including blacks.
- Note that "liberalism" has become more anti-White at the same time and in the same proportion as jewish influence over Western sociopolitical thought has increased.
- Note that even in his own shifty estimation all of the above is "anti-semitism", move to israel to find himself and repent his sins, blog exclusively in hebrew from this point on, and never again try to command "the majority" (to which he is alien) what to say or do.
Labels: anti-white, lawrence auster, suicide meme
21 Comments:
Were you drunk when you wrote this? it makes no sense and is filled with typos.
Thanks Larry!
No, not Larry, and your answer doesn't make your post any more intelligible.
I suspect PEBMAC. And I'm sure that rhymes with some German word or another.
Why do you get such a thrill out of going after Auster? I mean, he's just a blogger, so what if he's duplicitous or whatever it is you think he is. Since you're a committed anti-semite, why not pick on Bernanke or Sam Zell, the impact factor would be a lot higher. Of course, they'd ignore you.
You have a general problem with comprehension then, don't you?
When I start taking advice from enemies I'll be sure to do exactly what you suggest.
Bernanke or Sam Zell don't pretend to be on our side.
Note that even in his own shifty estimation all of the above is "anti-semitism", move to israel to find himself and repent his sins, blog exclusively in hebrew from this point on, and never again try to command "the majority" (to which he is alien) what to say or do.
That didn't make much sense.
"Bernanke or Sam Zell don't pretend to be on our side."
Sure they do. But what is it about Auster exactly, other than ethnic Jewishness, that you dislike? I mean, suppose he is "pretending" to be on our side. What does he say that would be any different if he were "really" on our side? As far as I can see, nothing. You believe that Jewish influence is the deep source of our problems, Auster doesn't so he doesn't say that. So I guess you believe that Auster's analyses fail to get at the root, that they only describe symptoms. I fail to see how that makes him an enemy; if anything, that should help people to see your allegedly greater truth.
"You have a general problem with comprehension then, don't you?
When I start taking advice from enemies I'll be sure to do exactly what you suggest."
Nice comeback, with answers like that, you guys will always lose. If you think "enemies" are those who fail to see your deeper truth, then you'll do nothing but make enemies. And what is it that I've failed to comprehend?
That didn't make much sense.
The paragraph you cite alludes to Auster's I am attacked for not being an anti-Semite (which I linked) and is a restatement of a comment I made at Mangan's in November:
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.
It addresses what Auster wrote at Oz Conservative, which I discussed in A Censorious Debate (also linked in the essay):
On another subject, I note that the comment by Tanstaafl that Mr. Richardson has deleted is very mild compared to his usual anti-Semitic outpourings. Tanstaafl has written, "Jews are my enemy," and criticized me for, among other things, not directing "all" my criticisms against Jews. The basic Tanstaafl position (and the Darwinian anti-Semitic position) is that everything that Jews or people of Jewish background do and say (including everything that I have ever written) is directed at undermining white gentiles in the interests of Jewish power. The only good Jew, in the anti-Semites' book, is one who agrees with the anti-Semites' position that I've just summarized.
The overall purpose of the essay is to illustrate Auster's essential mercurial fruitloopiness, talking as he does out of both sides of his mouth about what is or isn't acceptable to say about jews. It is also to reiterate what I desire of him, and why, since he is so wont to distort that.
But what is it about Auster exactly, other than ethnic Jewishness, that you dislike?
You mean other than his disingenuousness, dissimulation, duplicity, double standards, and hypocrisy? There's more, but I think those are my most significant dislikes. Google "age of treason auster" for details. To the extent these behaviors I dislike are an expression of Auster's ethnic jewishness I suppose I don't like that either.
you guys will always lose. If you think "enemies" are those who fail to see your deeper truth, then you'll do nothing but make enemies. And what is it that I've failed to comprehend?
You said you didn't understand what I was saying three times. Auster goes out of his way to distort and defame me. I know I'm not drunk or writing unclearly, and I don't believe you or Auster really have any problem comprehending. The explanation for your behavior is that you recognize that our interests are in conflict, and rather than dealing forthrightly with this conflict, as any friend or potential ally would, you choose instead to put the blame for it and the burden of relieving it entirely on me and mine. Thus we are enemies. It is more your fault than it is mine. I was an unassuming, unaware, and totally pliant philo-semite until I realized this "deeper truth".
You question why I focus on Auster because you say there are better things I might be doing, but you yourself spend time here. Why is that?
I would wager that the anonymous interloper is Mangan, Oz or someone who posts regularly at one of their sites.
Sounds like their language.
The overall purpose of the essay is to illustrate Auster's essential mercurial fruitloopiness, talking as he does out of both sides of his mouth about what is or isn't acceptable to say about jews. It is also to reiterate what I desire of him, and why, since he is so wont to distort that.
Yes, I understand all that. The paragraph I quoted just didn't make grammatical sense. Read it again. If you still think it makes grammatical sense you and I differ irreconcilably on the rules of English grammar. If you'd replace the first comma with a period and begin what follows after it with "I just wish he'd..." it'd make sense.
(I'm not the other anon -- drunk/zell/bernanke etc.)
If you'd replace the first comma with a period and begin what follows after it with "I just wish he'd..." it'd make sense. `
Apologies for my ungrammatical style. The bullet list begins with "Here are three more major related pieces he has yet to cough up", in other words I intended each bullet item to be understood as beginning "I just wish he'd...".
I would like Auster to acknowledge his fruitloopiness on "anti-semitism". I know it won't happen, but I can still call for it.
Consider the lengthy, painstakingly qualified comments concerning "secular liberal judaism" in National coalition of Jewish organizations demands end of immigration law enforcement, complete with hand-wringing about helping "the anti-semites", and the proposed "solution" being the desire for someone else to make polite requests that "secular liberal judaism" please stop.
Contrast this with The West versus the West, posted by Auster just 90 minutes later. Here's the whole thing:
In yet another step by the Catholic Church to facilitate the spread of Islam in the West, the Vatican newspaper Osservatore Romano has expressed support for the use of sharia finance rules. The story is at The Brussels Journal.
Haven't I said that much of organized Christianity as it now exists is an enemy of Western civilization? Only a revolution, only a total reversal in the current direction of the West, can save us.
The only qualification here is "much". No hemming and hawing. No concerns about what ammunition he might be providing "the anti-Christians". And no pussy-footing about the solution.
Who's more pathetic - the schizophrenic svengali producing these "ideas", or the sycophants lapping them up day after day?
Notice also that Auster's "secular liberal judaism" doesn't cover the lubavitchers third-worlding Postville or the neocons manipulating US foreign policy. How does he explain these jews acting as jews, whose primary identification is with a distinct minority group? He doesn't. They're not part of his "passing scene".
Interesting though that Hechtman does 'explain these jews acting as jews', and Larry let's it stand uncontested.
These groups spend two percent of their time opposing discrimination in America and 98 percent of their time defending it in Israel. In a perfect world, they'd oppose both. They'd campaign for open borders here and one-state-solution over there. In your perfect world, they'd probably do something else. That's OK. But I think we agree they deserve to be called out on the double standard.
Look, I attended a Zionist madrassa for 12 years when I was a kid. I know more than I care to about how these people think. To them, Israel is their home. Israel is their only home. The U.S. or Canada is just where they keep their stuff and that only so long as the goyim allow it. They want influence here. They want to tilt North American politics in favor of Israel and the local Jewish community (in that order). But they're not invested here. They keep a packed suitcase next to the door and an open-ended one-way plane ticket in their wallets.
The question of course is why? Why bother to live amongst those who you consider inferior, despicable and dangerous?
Bloom does his best to be fair to the Hasidim as he explores their hermetically sealed world. He notes his relief at the familiar speech rhythms, the questions upon questions. He accepts an invitation for a Shabbat stay with a Hasidic family, revels in the food, and prays with his hosts on command. But finally, Bloom is a liberal, not a fundamentalist: He's repelled by their intolerance, their insularity, their open delight in cheating "the goyim," and their manipulative arguments. He quotes one Hasid as saying proudly: "I am a racist... . Why haven't the Jews been extinguished after scores of attempts throughout history? That we are still here defies logic. There is only one answer. We are better and smarter. That's why!"
It appears "their open delight in cheating "the goyim," is so great and such a visceral ecstasy is gained from their (the goyims) destruction, that they are willing to risk all to revel in it. Is there other evidence in nature of 'delight' gained from such a malicious desire to destroy? In time of war, possibly? Even then the hatred of a sworn enemy fades over time, the schadenfreude felt by the enemy's decline subsides. However, this is not the case for the Postville Lubavitcher.
I was being sarcastic when I summed up Auster's "solution" like so:
"The majority" must treat his favorite harmful minority as if they were our own petulant children - who we may not in any way sanction or punish, but may only lecture and scold.
Now I see he really does think that way:
Karen writes from England:
It is clear that these Jewish organizations have an agenda against the WASP founding culture and peoples of America and an intent to subvert that culture by encouraging lawlessness. If these organisations continue to undermine immigration law, they should be banned and their leading members deported to Israel (unlike China, Israel cannot refuse to take them). They can then enjoy their open borders one world ideology there and share it with the Palestinians and other Arabs.
LA replies:
When an organized group expresses a persistent, unmitigated hostility to the basic institutions and culture of a country, at the very least the agenda of that group needs to be identified and exposed. This is not now the case. As things are now, these liberal Jewish organizations feel free to say whatever they like. If they were brought under public censure (which, again, has never been done), the entire dynamic would shift, and they would alter their behavior. This can only happen through people standing up for America's majority culture and saying that attacks on our basic institutions will not be tolerated.
Some people think that when I say, "these things will not be tolerated," that's a threat of violence. I don't mean it in that way at all. I mean strong disapproval and indignant condemnation of these Jewish organizations for their anti-American agenda. The Jews (and other minorities) are like adolsscents running amuck, without a parent--the majority culture--to control them. If the parent reappeared on the scene and acted like a parent, the whole situation would change.
I strongly disapprove and indignantly condemn Auster's limp-wristed answer to this persistent, unmitigated hostility. It's "the greatest crime in the history of mankind". "The majority" didn't lose interest and walk away - we're being poisoned, suffocated, and guilt-tripped to death. If you want us to "reappear" Auster, then STFU and get out of our way.
I'm mothaf#$k!ng Auster!
I am the one man majority!
I AM.
With apologies to Helen Reddy:
I am Auster, hear me roar
In numbers too small to ignore
And I know too much to do shit but pretend
'cause I've said it all ten times
I am down on all their crimes
But no one else is gonna dis my jews, the end
CHORUS
Oh yes I seem wise
But it's wisdom built on shiite
Yes, I say I'm white
And look how much I write
If I have to, I can say anything
I am wrong (wrong)
I am irascible (irascible)
I am Auuuuster
If Tan is an anti-semite, what does that make Auster - an anti-secular-liberal-semite?
Nothing like qualifiers for shields.
"Some" [FILL IN BLANK HERE] make me friggin' sick. Whoopee! No more racism charges.
Post a Comment
<< Home