Fruitloopable Presumption
Lawrence Auster's latest fruitloopery - the "rebuttable presumption", a term he introduces in the course of smearing Pat Buchanan:The obvious explanation is animus against Jews. Let's call it a rebuttable presumption. If Buchanan and others want to rebut it, let them do so.Let's call it a new name for a very old, very jewish tactic. The mechanics are simple. They cry "hate", and you waste your time protesting that it's not true. Or not. Either way the subject has been changed, you've been smeared, and anyone who might come to your defense knows they will be treated likewise.
A few days later an acolyte troubled The Fruitloopy One with an impertinent question. Must my analysis of Buchanan be applied to the Jews?
Is it a rebuttable presumption that any organized Jewish attacks on conservative Christian politicians in the West (America, Western Europe) are motivated by an animus against gentiles? I was under the impression that you attributed Jewish animus towards conservative America as being motivated by their utopian liberalism.Note how the power of fruitloopery so effortlessly transforms "organized Jewish attacks on conservative Christian politicians in the West" into "The Jews".
"No, no, no", protests The Fruity One. "The Jews are compleeeeeetely different. It's not at all valid to take a standard or line of reasoning I've concocted for The Someone Elses and apply it to someone else I wasn't thinking of. I used "rebuttable presumption" to defend The Jews. You can't take it and use it against The Jews. That's just not right. But it sure does remind me of the time another person tried to apply my logic about The Blacks and The Muslims to The Jews."
That would be Auster's First Law of Majority/Minority Relations in Liberal Society, whereby The Loopster freely generalizes about groups qua groups:
The more egregiously any non-Western or non-white group behaves, the more evil whites are made to appear for noticing and drawing rational conclusions about that group's bad behavior.Does this not fit Whites whom have noticed and drawn rational conclusions about the jewish group's bad behavior? "Not fair", scolds His Loopiness, "I only intended My Law (it's mine, you can't use it) to apply to the under-achievement and dysfunction of The Blacks and The Muslims, not the border-opening, financial-fraud-creating, minority-under-achievement-and-dysfunction-celebrating, free-speech-snuffing over-achievements of The Jews!"
- - -
In Explaining the anti-Semites' psychology Fructus Maximus Loopus tries to gyrate his way out of answering for his serial intellectual gyrations. He actually places special emphasis on stating, without rebutting, a "rebuttable presumption" he sees aimed at himself:
by the very fact of speaking in defense of white people and white society, what I am really doing is advancing the false and pernicious belief that Jews are on the side of whites. What I am really up to is helping Jews get accepted by whites as part of the white raceHe has pondered this before. If he wants to rebut it, let him do so.
It is Mr. F. Loop's preoccupation with israel and "anti-semites" that reveals what he is really up to. That and his "defense of white people" which includes blaming us for suiciding ourselves, and admonishing us to fix all of the West's problems by reasserting ourselves. * In pursuing their own interests jews have led the pathologization of White racialism for more than a hundred years. They proudly led the long march of the cultural marxists through our institutions, inverting and/or obliterating our societal norms to soothe their undying alienation. But we don't need Abe Foxman or Morris Dees to "defend" us from such truths. Ever-ready friends like the Fruitinator will gladly do it for them. That's how much he cares about us "white people".
Of course, like so many of the other famous white people defenders throughout history - selfless, censorious men like Ian Jobling - Rooty Tooty Fresh n'Fruity permits himself to distinguish between jewish and non-jewish whites. He is first and foremost pro-jew. In his defense of white people however he will not tolerate anyone who would distinguish between jew and non-jew who is first and foremost non-jew.
- - -
So here's another "rebuttable presumption" for Loopenstein. He wrote in 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 mankindI don't belive he actually believes this. Fruitby Doo, if you believe this, then when will you call for the arrest and prosecution of the criminals who are responsible? Not "The Jews" Loopadoop - but those jews responsible for this crime you say you've noticed, along with everyone else who is responsible. No, of course you won't. Your "defense of white people" ends where jewish culpability begins.
* Here's the usual Toucan Sam "defense of white people":
But never forget: blacks keep indulging in such appalling behavior, decade after decade, because white America keeps giving them the moral sanction to do so--because in the 1960s whites out of a misplaced sense of racial guilt gave up their moral legitimacy and their moral leadership in this country. From which it follows that a decent social and racial order can be only restored in America if whites resume their position of leadership."Never forget - Whites are to blame for black behavior." What would we do without such inspired defense? How would we ever set aside our misplaced sense of racial guilt without Austard's guilt-tripping us into it?
Labels: lawrence auster
posted by Tanstaafl at 4/05/2009 12:45:00 PM
28 Comments:
One benefit of Mr. Auster's willingness to kludge up his Law of Majority/Minority Relations in a Liberal Society to make convoluted exceptions for Jews:
The first known proponent of the logically consistent version is Tanstaafl, hence we can christen a new, simpler law:
Tanstaafl's Law of Majority/Minority Relations in a Liberal Society.
Congratulations Tan.
You've built a more fundamental theorem on the interpretations of your Talmudic predecessor.
In Amazing, Prozium wrote:
Check this out. I wonder if Larry will apologize to Tanstaafl now that even he is saying Jews seek to undermine our immigration laws. It looks like it took an argument with Paul Gottfried for him to concede what most of us have always known.
I wrote about Progress for Pesach and Auster's criticism of it in Triangulating From the Right, but wrote some more at Prozium's.
ATBOTL and Scrooby put it well:
“His style of argument has all the hallmarks of a Jew (ie asking for proof the sky is blue).”
That’s exactly the Jewish style of debate when they feel about to be cornered: they start demanding “proof” of the most glaringly obvious facts of reality around us, such as that Negroes commit more violent street crime or the Jews exercise predominant influence over Hollywood and the mainstream media. They’ll deny two-plus-two with a straight face, if they think they have to, to avoid conceding anything in an argument. It’s more than “slipperiness,” it’s just brazen in-your-face mendacity. Then some time later a Jew comes along and writes a column somewhere admitting the truth
This is how Auster reacted when I first asserted that his precious First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society applies to jews. He said, no, it only applies to minorities that are unassimilable and cause problems. I said, duh, that's not hard to see. So he said, you're a horrible anti-semite. And ever since I'm like the boogeyman to him and his groupies.
In the year or so since then I've dug up past statements of Auster's and he's provided even more clear fresh examples that demonstrate he knows jews are unassimilable and cause large problems for "the majority". This post Prozium links is the best example yet. Simply amazing, as he says. In it Auster crosses several lines he has never crossed before (to my knowledge) and joins ideas he usually keeps well apart.
He bluntly criticizes "liberal" jews, as jews, for clamoring insanely for open borders. He does NOT point out that this is not a new phenomena. To do so would validate Kevin MacDonald, whom he detests.
He has called for others to be silenced on other people's forums (for "attacking" him or for "anti-semitism") but he continues to provide a platform for Ken Hechtman, the liberal jew commenter he has said wants to destroy the West. This is his usual double standard. Prozium has noted it before.
His commenter Karen writes "If these organisations continue to undermine immigration law, they should be banned and their leading members deported to Israel" and Auster does not contradict it, insult her, or explode. In response he does however reveal just how useless his "solutions" are:
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.
In other words, "the majority", which jews have been pushing around for a century or more, and especially since the 1960s, is just supposed to "reappear" and without doing anything more severe than scolding we're supposed to stop our children, "the Jews", from "running amok". Note that here, as he often does, Auster forgets the "liberal" qualifier while holding forth on "the Jews".
Mark Jaws calls Auster on the jewish double standard on immigration to the West versus israel. At first Auster doubles down with this ridiculous claim:
The problem with the Jews is not that they push a suicidal policy for the U.S. and a national survival policy for Israel. The problem with the Jews is that they advance a suicidal policy both for the U.S. and for Israel.
But Jaws wouldn't let this absurd equivalence stand. Auster responds by bizarrely blaming paleocons. Then he gets hyper-rational and provides a non-answer built around the "assimilable and non-hostile" line he has often used (as he did with me) to justify discriminating muslims and blacks, but not jews. This in a thread otherwise dedicated to the damage jews are doing to the West. Oooooops.
Probably triggered by this commenter John D. writes "it seems to me that secular liberal Jews are much more dangerous than those who follow Islam--because they are stealth". (As I asserted when I had my dustup with him over MMRILS.) Again Auster does not insult him, or explode, but he does try to deny the point. Lamely. He claims muslims have "no choice" but "to subjugate and destroy non-Muslims", but the problem with jews is they have simply never been told by "the majority" not to try and destroy America. In this response Auster also defines himself, obliquely, as a non-jew.
Unaddressed in Auster's post is the damage non-"liberal" jews have done. Madoff, for example, is the tip of an iceberg of financial fraud absolutely stuffed with "capitalist" jews. Auster doesn't delve into finance for the same reason he doesn't delve into cultural marxism. Too many jews doing too many nasty things for him to explain away. And as the Freeman affair demonstrates, US foreign policy is dominated by the Israel Lobby, a bipartisan shadow government filled with all sorts of jews arguing about what is best for israel. The "conservative" jews dominate here. Auster did not mention this because in other posts he has made clear that he also is a hyper-zionist who sees nothing wrong with jews manipulating the US to do whatever is necessary for the good of israel. He justifies it by imagining we are a single common entity, just as he imagines jews and Whites are. Except of course when jews and israel get special treatment - like protection from "anti-semitism".
Bottom line: anyone looking for truth from Auster is going to find a whole lot of other nonsense mixed in. Apologia for jews, blame and libels for "the majority", and rampant double standards concerning minorities and the harm they cause. I visit for what he links. His logic, such as it is, and even his criticism of jews, is based entirely on what is good for jews. As far as he's concerned "the majority" is permanently and completely obligated to protect and serve them - no matter what they do.
Dear Tan,
I admire your endurance in fighting the Larry Auster desease. Do you have any insights on "Guywhite"?
Interesting that you mention that teacher.paris. I had just found guywhite's blog a few days ago and had been reading it. He wouldn't accept any of my comments, which were both about Jews. He seems to be of the conservative-Amren-philosemite type. Obsessed with IQ, can't understand the Jewish issue, oh-so moderate etc.
Do you have any insights on "Guywhite"?
My impression of him is similar to Auster and Jobling - a self-proclaimed "white" advocate whose highest priority is to serve and protect jews. I was not impressed by his response to your post at MR, An Open Letter to “guywhite”.
Guy exerts himself to excuse jews while censuring Whites who are critical of them. He will not blame jews as a group, but is willing to blame Whites. Consider for example Why Whites Are Destroying Themselves. If Guy could bring himself to say "ourselves" he might see the suicide meme for the libel it is. Besides that he discusses only the whats and hows, not the whys. In this Guy is like Auster. They write lots about the mechanics of liberalism and "white suicide", not so much about motive, opportunity, or cui bono.
In Our Problems and Solutions Guy writes:
Bill Buckley and other conservatives “cleansed” their movement
How fitting that Guy envisions Jobling as the new Buckley. Jobling is absolutely obsessed with cleansing "The Judeo-obsessives". If Whites have a suicidal tendency it is surely expressed in this urge to purge our staunchest defenders.
Buckley purged conservativism of "anti-semites" in the 50s, and in the 60s segregation was replaced by civil rights and affirmative action. The borders were thrown open. The WASPs were routed. The cultural marxists celebrated with a decade-long freak-out. Blacks rioted and took over the inner cities. Whites sensed a horrible transition had occurred, and now we can see clearly that it had. Jews were ecstatic, and today by an 80-20 ratio they think the non-White future looks brighter than ever. Actually, most of the 20% who voted for McCain are neocons who co-opted Buckley's cleansed conservativism, and they seem just as eager to drown Whites in non-White immigrants as the 80% who voted for Obama.
So what problem did Buckley's purge solve? Are the products of this purge supposed to make us philo-semites, or is the threat of being cleansed supposed to accomplish that?
In the MR thread ATBOTL wrote the following to Guy:
The most important thing for you to understand is that we need to advocate for our interests. We need to do this in every case, and not worry so much about absolute truths and universal principals. The Jews have an expression: “Is it good for the Jews?” They ask this first, then they craft justifications for what is good for the Jews in whatever social/political/ideological/religious/economic framework they are operating in. For every group other than white people, self interest trumps everything else. The reason we are in the bad situation that we are in now is because we have strayed from this way of thinking about things. If white societies are going to survive this century, we must adopt the Jewish way of thinking about what is good and bad.
Any White who is truly pro-White wouldn't need to be told this. The difference between what ATBOTL wrote and the way Auster, Jobling, and Guy White act is obvious. It is the difference between "is it good for jews" and "is it good for Whites". Austard's unrebutted rebuttable presumption seems to fit:
what they are really doing is advancing the false and pernicious belief that Jews are on the side of whites. What they are really up to is helping Jews get accepted by whites as part of the white race
Auster does this because he is jewish. To him Whites serve a useful purpose. We make nice, friendly societies that jews thrive in. I've not analyzed Jobling or Guy White in the same depth, but Guy seems to believe that the good outweighs the bad. In this he conforms to the political correctness he supposedly distains, such that he minimizes jewish bad behavior while accepting at face value the philo-semitic narrative concerning White bad behavior.
The pro-jew narrative is captured well in another quote from faux-white Auster, which he tacked on the end of National coalition of Jewish organizations demands end of immigration law enforcement:
It is often said that Jews are the canary in the coal mine, meaning that when a society's basic morality begins to break down, Jews are the first group that is targeted.
But there is another and opposite sense in which Jews serve as society's early warning system. When Jews begin openly and audaciously to attack the majority culture of a white gentile majority society, that is a sign that the majority culture is tottering and that it must restore itself or die.
What masterful spin. Jews openly and audaciously attack, but "the majority" is magically responsible. Jews the eternal victims. Whites their eternal victimizer/servants. Sick. Neither Jobling or Guy White have to my knowledge said anything as demented, but they certainly seem to accept the same pro-jew/anti-White premises.
It is simple.
Jews are never, never, never collectively guilty in the eyes of the anti-anti's while White's are.
Tan, you need to formulate this into a "law."
This comment has been removed by the author.
I wish the owner of this site would do a post on Auster's exaggerations. He calls the MR site "an extermination site". MR (Majority Rights) does not nor will ever advocate extermination of the Jews. Most members, I believe, favor either total expulsion or suppression, or a combination of both but not extermination.
What Auster is doing is lying. What he is doing is exaggerating which is a lie. Truth lies in the Golden Mean, The faithful representation of reality. Truth lies between falsehood and exaggeration; falsehood being the absence, (the deficiency of truth) and exaggeration, (the excess or smears). What Auster, who claims to be a Christian, is doing is forbidden by the Ten Commandments. He can't help himself since Jesus said, "You are liars". They can't help but lie. Auster is Lying. He is smearing and exaggerating which is forbidden. He is not right, professing to be a Christian and engaging in exaggeration. Shame on him.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Response sent from new account Daniel.
He calls the MR site "an extermination site".
Yes, this hysterical hyperbole is especially notable considering how often he pats himself on the back for his very careful choice of words. He doesn't label the jewish groups supporting open borders exterminationist. He doesn't label Ken Hechtman, his liberal jew commenter he has said wants to destroy the West, an exterminationist.
He's indulging in exactly the sort of behavior toward "The Anti-semites" that he accuses them of. In his mind "The Anti-semites" form a monolithic group representing a single-minded cosmic evil. He dehumanizes them collectively, and projects onto them his own exterminationist motives.
He is conscious that he is smearing. As he admits in Buchanan and the Jews: a clarification:
I've said that he is among those who are "Jew-haters, as they are attacking Israel solely because of its Jewishness." But again we do not know for a fact that Israel's Jewishness is the reason Buchanan attacks Israel.
As I've pointed out, Auster loves to talk about the whats and hows of "liberalism", but not so much the whys. Here's a good example: Why whites are blamed for nonwhite crime. Notice that he puts the "why" right in the title, then proceeds to write about everything except why. This is typical of all his First Law bloviations. All what, no why. It's just "liberal" miasma (as Fred Scrooby puts it). At least he's finally acknowledged there's a difference between the classic liberalism of the Founders and the thoroughly bolshevist belief system of the anti-White open borders neoliberals. I wouldn't expect him to put quite so bluntly however. It gets too close to why.
Though Auster claims "liberalism" is the problem and "liberals" are the enemy (when he's not focused on "anti-semitism" and "The Anti-semites"), he has never explained why "racism" and "anti-semitism" can land a man in prison, but not criticizing "liberals". To my knowledge he's never called any liberal, neo or otherwise, an exterminationist, no matter how anti-White they are. In those cases he's just as likely to blame the victim. For instance, calling Britain "The Dead Island", and similar misplaced taunts, when obviously the problems afflicting the West spring from a judaized, neoliberalized leadership who are, more than anything else, bound and determined to demonstrate that they are not "anti-semitic" or "racist", so much so that they actively suppress the desires and interests of their natives. This is arguably exterminationism, stealthily enacted using the power of the state. But Austard never calls it such.
Auster is pro-jew and faux-White. His consistent use of hyperbole in defense of jews and condescension in "defense" of Whites demonstrates this. He is the only one who can rebut it, by giving a non-pro-jew-faux-White explanation.
Great comments, Tanstaafl. A lot of these types are very annoying to me, like GW, Auster, Jobling. All they do is describe the situation, but never explain why it exists, as you said. I was reading the archives of GW and felt very annoyed at his refusal to ever ask why we live in such an anti-white society. But gee, he can sure explain how anti-white it is. They're like someone that's been locked in a cage that refuses to ask why they are in the cage or how to get out of it, instead they just carry on about the fact that they are indeed locked in a cage.
If the Y-lovers are so sure they've all the answers, why cannot their arguments win an unfixed (i.e., uncensored) fight?
The debate between us and Y is a non-starter because we Euros are "truth-seekers" (part of the reason we play fair) and Y are "truth-makers" (part of the reason they play dirty). Our exchanges will always end up "lost in translation" because the Y cannot think like us and we cannot think like them. We expect the truth from them, they expect to tell us what the truth is.
Obviously, there's no way in hell pro-Whites will concede the points of the Y. And the Y will never magically become truthful. The time for talking with our adversaries is long past...
Read Auster's A Real Islam Policy for a Real America while substituting "jew" for "muslim" and "neoliberalism" for "islam/sharia".
The reason most jews don't speak as Auster does, and would denounce him if they were aware of him, is that they realize such frank criticism of "liberalism" (which is actually neoliberalism) and its principle of "non-discrimination" (which is actually anti-White discrimination) leads directly back to themselves and the preferences and protection it conferred upon them long before the West was threatened by mass immigration. If we can view the muslims among us collectively as an alien and hostile self-identifying and self-interested group, then why not jews? Would we even be suffering this invasion of hostile aliens (many of whom are not muslim) if Western institutions had not decades earlier, before National Socialism and WWII but especially after, been seized and perverted by cultural marxists, led primarily by jews harboring deep resentments towards Whites and our culture? Jewish resentment toward Whites continues even to this day, with many more of them welcoming and enabling the aliens than those like Auster who consider them a threat.
Subsequent to jewish emancipation and further emboldened as a result of WWII it is self-serving jews who have set the tone and shaped the neoliberal cultural marxist ideology that glorifies and celebrates "people of color", their non-Western religions, and their non-Western cultures, while simultaneously regarding anything White with caustic scorn and ridicule if not open disgust. Many non-Whites, many newly arrived, have joined them for obvious self-serving reasons. Many Whites have joined them too, the longer-term self-destructive effects downplayed and offset by short-term rewards and a deliberately inculcated but misplaced sense of responsibility and guilt. This is what ills the West. It is not "suicide" - it is murder. It is carried out by stealth and lies, including the lame and mendacious suggestion that what's happening is voluntary when it is obviously forced upon us from above and so many of us vehemently oppose it.
Denial of the ethnic war waged against us and the ineffectiveness with which we've countered it have bred contempt for our naivete and weakness, not respect for our nobility and objectivity. We Whites must reject and reverse this poisonous neoliberalism root and branch if we are to have a chance of surviving and thriving. Rejecting it is easy enough if we begin by recognizing the lies it is based on: "equality", which presumes group differences are produced entirely by White "racism"; "non-discrimination", codified as preferences for "people of color"; and "anti-racism", which often manifests as anti-White hate. Reversing the consequences of neoliberalism will be more difficult, but Auster has provided a workable outline. We need only apply his prescription more broadly to all who pose an existential threat to us, whether hostile aliens or those who welcome them. If he'd like to call this "exterminationist" then he can consider the same smear attached to himself, and answered the same way he would answer it. He may consider an extra "go fuck yourself" from me included free of charge.
apollonian, why don't you take your stupid post's back to Hal Turners site, or has he blocked you as well?
Pay Apo no mind. He's been asked not to post here. Anything he posts will be deleted.
The one thing that is transparent is that Auster is seeing that his tribe is being exposed.
I have been reading view from the right for quite some time now and I have noticed that over the past 6 months, Auster has been like a laser "refuting" anti-Semites. He spends a lot more time on this now then he does going after "liberals."
This is especially true since Obama has been elected. During the Bush years his focus was constantly on neo-cons and "liberals." Now that they for the most part are out of power and the marxist jews are back in action again, his new daily target are the anti-Semites.
The question is why?
The reason is because the truth about the jews is gaining traction. Yes it has a long way to go but jews like Auster see it clearly.
His latest articles on Mark Weber for example. He sees division in the "holocaust denial" movement and reports on it. Why? Why report on these "less then human" individuals?
Well, I think the real reason is because he is starting to see a shift away from the traditional irrelevant white nationalist model (the one that actually helps the jews) into a more intelligent and thinking crowd such as Tanstaafl.
Of course as always, Auster sees Islam as the main culprit of the rising anti-semitism. I would say 9/11 and this financial crisis are the mains culprits and a lot of white men are wanting answers. Answers that men like Auster cannot provide.
Once they have the answers, they want to talk about solutions. It has to be scary for jews, especially the ones who are more on the conservative side to see what is happening, knowing that what we are saying is true but having to defend their evil tribe. They look like jackasses and their arguments can be easily destroyed simply because they are lying.
The "Cozars" wouldn't happen to be related to "the Fed", would they?
The "Cozars" wouldn't happen to be related to "the Fed", would they?
Apologies. I did not mean to sound like Apollonian. But now that you mention it, yes Cozars have plenty to do with the Fed. And every other damned thing.
As for "Cozars", it is another spelling of "Khazar."
U shouldn't tell people what to do, dumbass, thus giving us opportunity to spitting straight back into ur dumb face--unless u can enforce it--which is what u're going to have to do--why not just do that first? I'll gladly step on ur face too, don't doubt. Honest elections and death to the Fed. ApollonianSpeak of the devil, eh Tanstaafl?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGJUdwSiPVA&feature=PlayList&p=BCE6F746DE47C3C0&index=13
Israel's president speaks
Auster has a whole bunch of new stuff up on the Jewish issue. He's now trying to argue that racially conscious whites shouldn't hold it against Israel that American Jews hate us and are trying to destroy our nation.
Does anyone know how to contact Auster? The email he has on his site doesn't work.
In Homeland Security Department goes Adorno the Big Banana notes the DHS report "in which traditional Americans, white men in particular, are portrayed as repressive, cold-hearted, inhuman Nazis".
He doesn't mention that the report is informed by anti-anti-semites as repressive as himself, and fails to link to his own ongoing discussion in What should be the paleocons' stand toward Israel? in which he portrays White men like Buchanan, Taki, Fleming, and Sobran as cold-hearted, inhuman Nazis.
The view from the right (ie. Austard and sycophants) is summed up very well by something F. Loop copies and pastes from William A.:
I'm afraid that the bottom line is that many if not most of the paleoconservatives in the USA are anti-Semites (i.e. Jew-haters). That's really all there is to it. When you show them that their position vis a vis the State of Israel is inconsistent with their paleoconservative nationalism, or that they conflate the worldwide Jewish diaspora with the State of Israel, or that they hold the State of Israel to an imaginary standard of purity, you're just going to get the same booshwa back. Because the bottom line is, they are allergic to Jews, period, and their views on the State of Israel are NOT inconsistent with their underlying anti-Semitism. And as is so often the case, their anti-Semitism trumps everything else in their ideology.
Several jew-obsessed commenters chime in to second this idea that it is jew-obsession that motivates "the anti-semites", AKA "the paleocons". That's really all there is to it. Period.
Here "the paleocons" is used as a pejorative. It seems to mean any pro- or crypto-White who opposes the zionist hypocrites who direct our people and resources to benefit israel. In Fruit of the Loom's mind this equates to attacking, delegitimizing, and demonizing israel. "The paleocons" also includes any White who thinks diaspora jewish support for israel has something to do with israel. This, His Loopiness lectures in grave tones, is the terrible sin of "conflating American jews with israel".
The cherry on top (or at the end) of this morality-hinges-on-support-for-israel thread comes when the Candied Cherry is faced directly with a "rebuttable presumption" (from Paul S.) concerning whether his loyalties lie more with israel than America. Loopty-Doopty not only refuses to rebut it - he considers it an insult. He copies and pastes Adela G. to call it anti-semitism.
Got that? If you question whether someone who poses as pro-"white" and is absolutely obsessed with israel, jews, and anti-semitism actually shares your interests - then you're a jew hater.
So Larry wants us to support the state of Israel because of something totally un-Burkean like ideology.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Ideologically driven behavior - especially behavior that isn't in the best interest of one's extended family - is profoundly unconservative.
We are rooted in the tradition of our people and our race over here on the right Larry, not some ridiculous abstraction about "democracy."
re: Auster's Islam speech
I've been saying for years that the Islam issue is a red herring and that Auster's overriding obsession with it is telling.
If Auster and co. achieved victory tomorrow and his desired reforms were enacted, would we be any better off? I'd argue that we wouldn't. So Muslim immigration into the United States (which is fairly small in number already) would be curtailed, but the rest of our immigration policy would be unchanged. We would still have 2 million or so non-whites flooding into the country each year, it's just that these non-whites would be Christians or atheists or Hindus. That's some great reward. What's the point in working towards a goal whose achievement gets you nothing?
The critics of Islam tend to be either white liberals or Jews. The liberals are concerned that Muslims aren't sufficiently liberal enough to fit within our multicultural, race-blind societies. The Jews' concern is essentially the same, though obviously more focused on anti-semitism. These Jewish critics of Islam obviously want mass non-white immigration to continue, they just want to vet these immigrants to make sure they're more Jew-friendly than Muslims tend to be.
Focusing on anything other than race is a waste of time and energy.
I realized something important in this article I had never previously realized. Auster's defense of the West suffers from the same alienation, condescension, and lack of fellow feeling that he accuses other paleoconservatives of. I share his criticism of a certain nihilist kind of paleocon; but Auster has the same disease. There is a bit too much, "look at these stupid people, these OTHER people" in his tone. It's not the tone of a man upset and worried and angry that a small clique is ruining his country and all too many of the rest are following them to their doom. It's the tone of a man who is the center of his own moral universe, the one person who can see clearly in a world of stupid, self-destructive, unwise, and nasty . . . goyim.
The alienated, condescending tone has its roots in jewishness rather than paleo-ness.
Auster shares this trait with other full-time iconoclastic jewish critics, like Dmitry Orlov and James Kunstler. They came up in the comments to Faux-White.
Just as I initially misunderstood Auster's critique of "liberalism", I think Prozium misunderstood Kunstler's critique of suburbia. Kunstler just doesn't like White people. He can hardly disguise his disgust for how we live, especially our log-cabin-in-the-woods instinct. As you say, it's as if he's thinking, "look at these stupid people, these OTHER people".
Once you see through one of these poseurs it's much easier to see through others.
Post a Comment
<< Home