Polanskization
The overwhelming instinctive revulsion amongst Whites created by the spectacle of a judaized transnational cosmopolitan elite rushing to hysterically defend the undefendable actions of a depraved tribemate.Labels: jewish influence, language, media, roman polanski
posted by Tanstaafl at 10/01/2009 11:52:00 AM
10 Comments:
I still can't believe Auster's defense.
As much as I expect to him to fall on the wrong side of most issues, this one is ans should be unforgivable even for his sycophants.
As the Jews said of Jesus, what more evidence do we need?
Really outstanding coverage of the whole Polanski thing, Tan.
According to Auster's apologists he has retracted his position (which he hasn't).
So contrite is Auster that he's now harassing a columnist from Newsmax for not reporting as Auster demands he should.
Obviously the ramifications of the article are too much for Auster to bear so he initiates his usual smear campaign with a massive opening salvo of 100 questions to be answered immediately or judgement will be passed, and the reporter handed over to Auster's correspondents for sentencing.
And your right Daniel. It is amazing to see how this Polanski/Auster affair has sorted the wheat from the chaff. Bloggers who I had respected for their independent minds and learning have fallen into lock step in defence of the undefendable.
Great work Tanstaafl.
Henry Burke
I don't believe, as some suggest, the only thing that motivates Auster is some concern for Jews to the exclusion of all else. I think, like many of us, he has various overlapping identities or "hats," i.e., American, Christian, Jewish heritage, male, New Yorker, educated, westerner, etc. So I think he really is a traditionalist conservative and really does agree with us that liberalism is an evil, destructive force, immigration is out of control, etc.
I think, though, like all of us, he has a certain fellow feeling with his ethnic group. This is a natural, forgivable human bias. By way of analogy, I am defensive of my country, my church, and my people. I acknowledge this. I am not insulted if it's offered as a possible explanation for my interests or possible blind spots. I try to be fair, but I know I am fundamentally a partisan for me and mine. With them, I am more-than-fair; I am induldgent. Of course, I see no need to defend rapists whether they are Catholic priests or Americans or whatever, but that's because I have ethical no-go-areas in my world that no one can cross or they, in essence, forfeit my loyalties.
What is annoying with Auster, though, is his denial of reality, his casting of aspersions and misrepresentation of critics. I hate to have my intelligence insulted; I experienced this kin dof nonsesnse repeatedly among guys like him in college and law school.
Most of all, Auster simply defies belief when he denies his feelings about Polanski as a "persecuted Jew" or a "great Jewish artist" or however he views him did not function to distract or blind Auster from his ordinary hatred of violent criminals. If this were not the case, he might have said something more restrained, such as, "I'm puzzled by this prosecution after all these years," or, "like the prosecutions of ancient Ukrainian Concentration Camp guards, perhaps this is not the best use of prosecutorial resources." But that's not what he said. He was "appalled," it was a "vendetta," and it was "sick." And now, for pointing out this contradiction, I'm "nuts" apparently.
Auster wants to generalize about every group under the sun, sometimes to a degree that I consider unfair and uncharitable. For example, while I acknowledge there are many poorly behaved blacks, I also recognize they're my countrymen and I want to see them succeed; I don't think he does. He's full of venom not just at blacks but about natural allies like Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Steve Sailer, or John Derbyshire. He's just a mean-spirited fucked up guy.
But when it comes to Jews the chains of causation and the obvious biases are totally ignored. For Auster, Americans just "decided to feel guilty about race relations" at a certain point, and the folks who convinced them of this--or at least a group over-represented in those doing the convincing then and to this day in the media and universities--are treated as deracinated liberals without a place of birth, a religion, an ethnicity, and a sense of group identity. It's a joke. To point out the obvious: not all Jews are bad or liberal or anti-American, but Jews are significantly over-represented in all these groups.
The same standards of generalization should apply across the board; little children understand this as a basic principle of fairness, but Auster thinks he'll teach us otherwise.
Auster is insulting me repeatedly and untruthfully, but I'm happy to say a great many people (including many with whom I disagree on many issues) who know me as good humored, fair, humble, intellectually curious and rigorous are calling him out as a consumate bullshit artist and fraud.
I used to be in the camp that argued that the Jews were basically pro-American but voted Democrat because that's what most people do who are mostly rich.
Not anymore. It is painfully obvious that the Jews of influence, both on the right and left, supported Polanski while the Left, in general did not. Except for Michael Seitzman and one other Jewish lady on the Huffington Post, every Jewish pundit or celebrity I've heard has supported him. This is a clear-cut case of "my tribe first, morality second."
Now, we're all being spun up into a war with Iran for....Israel. I don't want to see Israel "wiped off the map" by Islamic nutjobs, but I'm an American. When Roger L. Simon remarked that "we have bigger fish to fry," who was the "we" he was talking about? I'm sickkkkk of hearing about Israel - sick.of.it. I believe the Jews are entitled to their own state and the Palestinians are pathological terroristic liars, but, like I said, this is the United Freaking States, not Israel. Why are we hearing about Israel all.the.time?
Israel has a powerful military and can handle itself. If they don't have the will to defend themselves on the Iran issue, why should we?
I'm tired of being expected not to pay attention to blatant Jewish ethnocentrism.
PRCaldude:
Does that stand for Public Relations California dude?
Or Protestant Reformed Church, Alabama Dude?
Or something else entirely?
dj,
People's Republic of California?
People's Republic of California?
Yep.
Mark IJsseldijk,
For a person who expresses such a clear understanding of the situation you have a dangerously intemperate way of expressing yourself.
You're welcome to do so on your own blog.
Apologies commenters,
I'm going to filter all comments for a while.
For a person who expresses such a clear understanding of the situation you have a dangerously intemperate way of expressing yourself.
Fiery, perhaps. Intemperate, I shouldn't think so. Oh well, my apologies for whatever it was irked you.
Post a Comment
<< Home