Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Two "Conservative" Jews, Same "Liberal" Dissembling

In The Myth of "Judeo-Christian Values", Paul Gottfried writes:
Although I agree with Larry [Auster] about the need for a moratorium on immigration, particularly from Latin America, and although I share his view that decadent, childless Europeans are committing physical and demographic suicide by repopulating their countries with lower-class Muslims, who often incline toward Islamic Fundamentalism, I strongly dissent from his unqualified generalizations about adherents of Islam.
I am not suiciding myself and I don't know anyone who is. What Gottfried misidentifies as "suicide by repopulating their countries" is actually genocide by immigration. It is being imposed on lots of people I do know who don't want it by a class who most certainly do not see themselves as "us" or these countries as "ours". It is rationalized and excused by a number of specious arguments, the most effective of which is that any substantive resistance to this supposed "suicide" makes you a horrible, immoral, ignorant person - a "racist" or "nazi". You're a mortal threat to the interests of "minorities".

Jews, of course, are the prototypical threatened minority, with a mind boggling disproportion of wealth and over-representation in Western media and politics. That's why anyone who stands against this so-called "suicide" is called a "nazi" - whether or not they have any knowledge of "nazi" history or jewish power. Whites may be ignorant of our interests, but jews are not ignorant of theirs, and they don't hesitate to use their power to viciously attack anyone they perceive as an enemy.

Neither Gottfried nor Auster are powerful, in part because they oppose immigration. Despite their differences on muslims both feel free to make unqualified negative generalizations about Whites. Both scapegoat us for "suiciding" ourselves. Both talk about and even criticize jews, but ultimately excuse them and blame Whites instead.
Larry might wish that Jews thought differently about Christian believers since he himself is one, but alas most of them don't. Jewish organizations here and in Europe view Christians as people whose exaggerated guilt over the Holocaust can be channeled into support for the Israeli government. Prominent Jewish groups, such as the World Jewish Congress, the Canadian Jewish Congress, and the Anti-Defamation League, show nothing but indifference or hostility to the continued existence of Christian institutions in what used to be Christian countries.
This isn't about religion. Christianity here is nothing but a proxy for Whiteness, and Gottfried and Auster both know it.

Those same prominent jewish groups joined with muslims and the Catholic Church, the media, and the EU ruling caste to condemn a popular, secular Swiss vote banning minarets. Led by jewish example and jewish rhetoric they all take the slightest indication that the Swiss want Switzerland to remain Swiss as a sign of "nazism", which they see as a mortal threat. Never mind the mortal threat to the Swiss. In this and dozens of recent examples across the West, opposition to genocidal levels of immigration is more and more explicitly described as bad for jews and the alien migrants they identify and sympathize with. The rationale is that such opposition threatens them with genocide.

The impact of this inversion of reality isn't anti-Christian, it's anti-White. Even when White opposition to immigration is deracinated and expressed in terms of law, economics, or culture the genocidal immigrationists shamelessly inject their own ethnic and racial interests into the debate while accusing the White opposition of disguising "racist" motives.

I'm not as familiar with Gottfried, but I know Auster follows European politics almost as closely as he follows domestic American politics. His main concern isn't religion. It's "anti-semitism". If he gets the slightest whiff that a person or organization opposes jewish interests, explicitly or not, it doesn't matter whether they are good Christians, dislike muslims, or agree with him on every other point of his pro-jewish worldview.
There might well be problems with the liberal ideas that Jews have supported until now, but it is simply wrong to pretend that Jewish liberals act from liberal motives that have nothing to do with their Jewish fears and hostilities. I've never met a Jewish liberal whose leftist politics was not in some way connected to his self-identity as a Jew.
Auster only poses as an anti-"liberal" "conservative". His preoccupation is with defending jewish interests. His opposition to immigration into the West is based primarily on it being bad for jews. His dissembling about "liberalism" and "judeo-Christian" heritage is only part of his deliberate and more general conflation of White and jewish interests. Gottfried likewise but less blatantly poses as a "conservative" against "liberalism". Together he and his friend Auster demonstrate that self-identity as a jew is not only connected to "liberals" and leftist politics.

I'll conclude with an exchange in June 2009 between these two hyper-conscious jews about how jews are innocent and Whites (disingenously euphemized first as "Protestants", then as "Christians", and finally as the "white gentile majority") are to blame, excerpted from Black racial preferences at Annapolis; and a conversation with Paul Gottfried about white guilt,, Jews, and Protestants (Auster's emphasis):
LA replies:

Let me see if I can reconcile these statements.

You seem to be saying that the egalitarian fiction (the races are equal in capacities, so blacks' backwardness must be due to white racism) is the source of white guilt, but that the energy pushing this guilt and never giving it a rest is the projection of Christian spiritual guilt onto secular racial guilt about nonwhites.

Is that an accurate summary of what you're saying?

However, this leads me to another point, I think I have just finally understood something you've been saying to me for a number of years. You have often told me that Protestant liberals are worse than Jewish liberals, and I never quite understood what you meant by this. But now I think maybe I see it.

What distinguishes Jewish liberalism from Protestant liberalism is the following.

Jewish liberals see white Christians as guilty. The Jews feel ok about themselves, they think the white gentile majority is the problem.

By contrast, white Protestant liberals feel guilty about themselves. This leaves them without a confident group selfhood. They believe only in equality, only in their own guilt for somehow standing in the way of equality. It is this lack of collective and even individual selfhood, this inner nothingness, this willingness to be destroyed, that makes the white Protestants the true liberals. The Jews, whose collective and individual psyche is not guilty under liberalism (since in the liberal world view Jews are victims and the champions of victims), have psychological power and self-confidence and thus are not true liberals.

A true liberal is a person who is willing to accept his group's extinction. Protestants are willing to accept their group's extinction. Jews are not. Therefore Protestants are closer to the true liberal essence than the Jews are.

Is this what you've been saying?

Paul Gottfried replies:

You've summed up my views on the differences between Jewish and Christian liberals with more succinctness that I've been able to apply to the problem. And your conclusion is spot on. True liberals, who incarnate the Freudian death wish, yearn for the extinction of their ancestral group.
Jews, including "conservatives" like Auster and Gottfried, feel ok about themselves, they think Whites are the problem.

UPDATE 16 April 2010: Alt-Right's ongoing construction of a fictional Auster is Auster's lame reply to "ignorant and off-base statements about me". He complains that:
Every time an article about me appears at Richard Spencer's website Alternative Right, which is not an infrequent event, it attributes to me, without evidence, without any quotations from my writings, views that I do not have and that I have never stated and that frequently are the opposite of my actual views. There have been so many such false attributions, particularly in Richard Spencer's long article, "Austercized" (which I only gave a careful reading recently, after Spencer's podcast interview of me), and in Richard Hoste's blog entries about me, and it would take so much work and time to reply to them all, and there are so many more pressing and more interesting things to write about, that I've put off replying to them so far, though I will try to get around to it.

The latest Auster-critical fantasy fest (or, rather, "Larry"-critical fantasy fest, since the writers at Alt Right do not refer to me by my last name, but as "Larry") is a 1,600 word article posted yesterday by Paul Gottfried which, without a single quotation of me, attributes to me numerous views that I do not have and have never stated.
Of course whenever I write about Larry I quote him extensively. My frequent critiques of him have been rooted entirely in his views and his arguments. It has never stopped him from writing any number of ignorant and off-base statements about me.

Focusing finally on Gottfried, Auster writes:
Beyond his wild mischaracterizations of my views, of which I've only touched the surface, is a much more consequential matter. Gottfried's main point in this vile and incoherent article is to drive a wedge between Jews and Christians, to make Christians feel that Jews are a greater threat to the West than Muslims are.
The quotes Auster provides and his statement of his "real" views do not demonstrate any "wild mischaracterizations" made by Gottfried. And Auster provides no quotes in support of his own wild mischaracterization of Gottfried's main point, which Gottfried put right in his title: The Myth of "Judeo-Christian Values". Gottfried is accusing Larry of mischaracterizing the history of European/jewish relations. The only real flaw with that criticism is that Gottfried neglects to add that many other jews and zionist Christians join Larry in that mythologizing. "Judeo-Christian" rhetoric is the norm, not the exception, and in fact the only politically correct, mainstream, "liberal" view of "judeo-Christian" history is one in which jews have always been the completely innocent victims of undeserved persecution, repeatedly perpetrated by envious, irrational, and ignorant Europeans.

As usual Auster doesn't address the criticism that's actually aimed at him. Instead he complains hypocritically about "personal attacks" and "reckless indifference to factual truth" and changes the subject. And of course the subject that he really wants to talk about is the threat to jews posed by Gottfried's blunt words concerning their dim views of "Christians", ie. Europeans.

I'm disgusted by the dissembling coming from both of these jewish "conservative" poseurs, but I'm happy to see so many in the Alternative Right commentariat aren't fooled.

Labels: , , ,

white

70 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent analysis, as usual.

4/15/2010 03:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Rollory said...

"blame whites"

Whites are not blame-free and it does no good to pretend otherwise, no matter how desperately you want to. This situation would not exist if our grandparents had raised their kids to respect and appreciate their culture and nations and of the need to exert violence at times to defend them, nor if our parents had had the sense to not decide that everything they were was worthless and everything they weren't was good. Saying they got brainwashed into it is evading the fundamental responsibility: they were the ones that, in the final analysis, made the decisions, chose who to support, voted for politicians, and fear to admit they were wrong.

Everything was in our hands and we THREW IT AWAY. That is something only whites could have done.

This is a weakness, and the fundamental problem. If it did not exist, or if it was properly countered, it would not matter who or what tried to parasite off of anything. It is our problem, and it needs fixing before anything else.

Self-criticism is a characteristic of whites. It has been turned into a weakness. It needs to be turned back into a source of strength.

4/15/2010 06:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As I have said time and again, if you are a White, and you feel guilt over being White, Intelligent, good-looking, altruistic, etc.

- in short, SUPERIOR to those who are NOT White... I grant you absolution from your 'sin' of racism.

Ego te absolvo.

Go, and don't consider your race a sin any more.

Because it isn't. You've been confusing another's envy of your being, for guilt. You've done nothing wrong. (but say 5 Hail Marys- it never hurts!)

- Fr. John
www.thewhitechrist.wordpress.com

4/15/2010 08:14:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Whites are not blame-free and it does no good to pretend otherwise, no matter how desperately you want to.

Nice try Rollory.

I have never argued and do not pretend that Whites are free of blame. I note here two prominent jewish poseurs who do a great deal of verbal dancing around but ultimately find jews blame-free. Like you they blame Whites for destroying ourselves.

Everything was in our hands and we THREW IT AWAY. That is something only whites could have done.

This is a weakness, and the fundamental problem. If it did not exist, or if it was properly countered, it would not matter who or what tried to parasite off of anything. It is our problem, and it needs fixing before anything else.

Self-criticism is a characteristic of whites. It has been turned into a weakness. It needs to be turned back into a source of strength.


Turned into a weakness by whom? Who opposes us turning it back? Auster harps on White weaknesses just as you do, misrepresenting our genocide as suicide. Then he shrieks about "anti-semitism" whenever anyone has anything negative to say about jews.

Our weakness has been in accepting jews as us, even while a critical mass of them have always refused to reciprocate. Judging by the words of Auster and Gottfried, two of the few, supposedly anti-"liberal" jews, it is our mistake going foward to fail to accept that jews as a group will not reciprocate. They can at best be expected to continue dissembling and dissimulating, lying to us and browbeating us in the service of their own group's interests.

Throughout history many White men have realized this and resisted accordingly. They did not surrender or throw anything away. They were either successful and for a time helped preserve their nations, or they were put down and silenced by force. Either way, those who are remembered at all in today's one-sided, judaized revisionist history are remembered as "anti-semitic" villains. Everything is not in White hands, and hasn't been at least as far back as the emancipation of jews. Power, and thus responsibility, is increasingly in jewish hands. Their influence in Western politics, finance, education, and media - and their swift punishment of any criticism of this - is blatant. Blaming Whites, as you do, makes you an apologist for genocide.

4/16/2010 12:08:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

I've updated the original post to add some comments about Auster's reply to Gottfried.

4/16/2010 12:13:00 AM  
Blogger Buff said...

Has anyone read Martin Luther's On The Jews and Their Lies?

The culprit is always the jew.

4/16/2010 05:01:00 PM  
Blogger Chechar said...

Today I removed VFR from my blog list because of this Auster article.

4/16/2010 05:50:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

In Alternative Right's anti-Semitic agenda Auster writes:

And I should add that there is another effect of Spencer's inclusion of anti-Semitism. Even for those readers who are not anti-Jewish, not anti-Israel, and have no particular interest in those issues, but care about the other subjects that Alt-Right treats, the result of publishing articles by MacDonald and other Judeo-obsessives is to normalize anti-Semitism, to make it an accepted part of the conservative coalition, so that anti-Semitism cannot be opposed. To oppose it, is to "divide the conservative ranks." By this device, anti-Semitism becomes the norm, and opposition to anti-Semitism becomes the problem.

Auster is paranoid. He projects the machinations of his own jewish mind onto Spencer. He has no standing to pathologize anyone else for being "judeo-obsessive" when so much of his own effort is spent obsessing over what is or isn't good for jews.

4/16/2010 07:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Eileen said...

What I said over @ AltRight in response to Gottfried's column:

"Ashkenazi Jews are more related genetically speaking to other peoples in the Middle East than to the European populations amongst whom they reside.

"It's not strange, then, that they should favor Islam over Christianity -- and that Islam and Judasim should resemble each other more than Christianity and Judaism -- since the Muslims of the Middle East and Ashkenazi Jews are more like each other in nature than Ashkenazis and Europeans, culture (including religious beliefs) being a product of our natures of course."

4/17/2010 09:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

Auster in the comments to his article regarding the Alternative Right writes:

"In order to harm Israel, the Israel haters of the right trash the very principle of majority self-preservation which they supposedly support in the case of America. They demonize Israel as racist, imperialistic, oppressive, as a criminal state, as a uniquely evil country, for (supposedly) doing the very things to its unassimilable and hostile minority that the Israel-haters want America to do to its unassimilable and hostile minorities."

I'm sure Auster is smart enough to realize that White Nationalists (well, at least me) would like to hold the well-being of Israel hostage to bring pressure to bear on Jews so Jews will stop, uh, attempting to exterminate us. I think Auster is afraid that any deal done between the Jews and WNs would result in the Jews being thrown under the bus once Jews were no longer needed by WNs. That would definitely be my preference (to throw the Jews under the bus).

4/17/2010 12:19:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

The same day Auster dehumanizes "the israel haters", he also posts ANC Youth League leader openly calls for murdering whites, wherein he copies and pastes anti-jihad jewess Pamela Geller dehumanizing Boer nationalists:

the noxious and hateful neo-Nazi Afrikaner Resistance Movement

She apparently sees them as "israel haters". She goes on to describe the genocide of Whites who aren't noxious, hateful, racist monsters:

The American media says little or nothing about the genocide in South Africa because it's black against white, so it's politically incorrect to notice. The mainstream media portrays all white South Africans as racist monsters like Eugene Terreblanche. This is simply not true. And remember: A key step on the road to genocide is to dehumanize the intended victims.

What is happening in South Africa against the white population is a crime against humanity. Savage. And no one will speak of it. The leftist media (all big media) and the international community (notoriously left-leaning) ignores it entirely. Their silence is affirmation; it sanctions the evil. Most decent people are perplexed by the uneven humanity and inhumanity of our leftist moral "superiors." I am not. They unremittingly vilify the Jewish people and Israel, the most benevolent government and army in the Middle East, but pay scant attention to jihad and the Islamic culture of honor killings, clitorectomies, child slavery, forced marriage, child marriage, etc. Why?


What is she smoking?

The media gives special attention to any crime in which jews are victims. The story mentioned in this comment is typical. At the same time they regularly downplay crimes against Whites. When there is an attack on jews in israel it makes the headlines in the US. When there's ethnic cleansing and genocide in Zimbabwe and South Africa the US media ignores it. They celebrate open borders, genocidal levels of immigration, the reduction of the White majority to a minority, and unremittingly vilify the Tea Partiers. Why? Because the media is full of "leftist" jews who really don't like White people, and the few Whites in the media who don't agree know that any sympathetic reporting on Whites will get them branded as a "noxious and hateful neo-Nazi" and put a "politically incorrect" crimp in their career.

Like Auster, Geller is obsessed with jewish interests. She inserts a reality-inverting rant about israel into a story about genocide in South Africa while pretending she can't see the influence of her tribemates in media.

4/18/2010 12:47:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is she smoking?


What is she smoking, part II:

http://bigjournalism.com/pgeller/2010/03/25/barack-hussein-obama-iis-war-against-israel/

The six million looked like you, laughed like you, denied like you. The six million loved their country — some were war heroes for Germany in World War I. They too thought the fringe would stay relegated to the margins of society.

The six million are cold in their graves, weeping for what awaits you.

The only difference between American Jews of the 2000s and the European Jews of the 1930s is Israel. This is what separates you from the dehumanization, the oven, the end.


That's a fantastic, mind-bending level of paranoia. Imagine what her reaction would be if Obama had actually been more than mildly critical of Israel and didn't have a Jew who volunteered for the Israeli Army (but not the American Army!) as his Chief of Staff.

Auster in the comments to his article regarding the Alternative Right writes:

Funny how Auster himself highlights the massive double-standard that MacDonald is pointing to, though of course Auster only sees the anti-semitic aspect of it and not the anti-white aspect as practiced by every single Zionist Jew.

4/18/2010 07:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Richard Hoste asked if Auster will call for separation from Judaism like he calls for separation from Islam. Auster just responded by calling Hoste an "anti-Semite." Auster also suggests that Hoste and Richard Spencer are Jewish agents provocateurs who are trying to discredit "anti-Semitism" and "put the final nail in the coffin of the anti-Semitic right." He says Hoste is "stupid" and "discredits anti-Semitism," calls Kevin MacDonald a "vile Jew-hater," calls Alternative Right an "anti-Semitic right-wing website," and says it is no more absurd to think Spencer is a Jewish agent provocateur than to think that Spencer actually believes "the pathologically stupid and evil anti-Semitism he publishes."

4/19/2010 08:55:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Two "Conservative" Jews, Same "Liberal" Dissembling | The Occidental Quarterly.

4/19/2010 03:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Auster is continuing his attack on Hoste, Spencer, and Peter Brimelow. Auster calls Hoste "stupid" again and says "anti-Semitism ... makes people stupid [and] has the practical effect of lowering a person's IQ by one standard deviation." Auster also attacks Brimelow for publishing articles by Hoste and says "Brimelow cares more about publishing Israel-haters and anti-Semites than he does about defending America from Third-World immigration."

4/19/2010 06:14:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

I sometimes wonder if Auster isn't writing some of what he attributes to random correspondents. Whether he is or not he allows them say it - or rather, he reads, approves of, edits, copies, and pastes it - so therefore he's as much responsible for their libels and slanders as for the ones he publishes under his own name.

I reread a bit I wrote about Auster's behavior and methods a little over a year ago in Auster Projecting, Again. My opinion hasn't changed. Auster constantly tells others who they shouldn't associate with because his keen sense of what's good for jews is offended, but he continues to solicit and publish the comments of Ken Hechtman, a fellow jew whose "ideas are simply a formula to destroy everything that we are, and should be identified as such" in Auster's estimation.

Does Auster treat Hechtman differently than Hoste, Spencer, Brimelow, Roberts, or MacDonald (as well as Buchanan, Sailer, Taki, or Derbyshire) because Hechtman is a jew and the others are not? I think so. He provides no reason to believe otherwise. He has identified many destructive "liberal" jews, including Hechtman, but he has never condemned them with the same bile he uses on "conservative" colleagues he perceives to be opposed to jewish interests.

4/19/2010 07:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A similar opinion about an Australian "journalist" is expressed at M4 Monologue. Do you ever wonder why jews are so quick to demand documentation when documentation is generally available only from jewish vendors?

"If Bolt was a US political pundit he would be regarded as a neoconservative. Even his professional life (working twice as a Labour staffer) has followed a similar arc to the US neocons, many who started out as leftists. The ‘Godfather’ of neoconservatism Irving Kristol described a neoconservative as ‘a liberal (leftist) mugged by reality’.

His unquestioning support of Israel is one key marker of where he lies on the political landscape. Another would be his belief in US foreign policy interventions and Australia’s involvement. He tends to view them as being a moral imperative rather than a case of Australia supporting an ally (or realpolitik). Switching from left to right is quite easy for these types because all they do is develop more hawkish views on foreign policy. Socially they’re still on the left."

http://m4monologue.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/bolt-is-a-neocon/#comments

Flanders

4/19/2010 09:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Auster just posted a comment that implies Vdare's recent money issues are because of divine retribution by "the God of Israel" for Vdare publishing articles by Paul Craig Roberts and Alternative Right publishing articles by Richard Hoste and Kevin MacDonald. Auster's worshipful sycophant also suggests Auster himself has summoned the wrath of God against Vdare! ("Also, you may be more powerful than you think (spiritually)! Part of the timing is the repeated attacks on you, and your pointing out those very anti-Semitic articles.")

4/19/2010 09:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Millirone said...

Here is my guess on Austers logic.

Hechtman = Good guy who thinks the destruction of the White west is good for jews.

WN, HBD, and paleos = They do not include jews in their plans and also see them as a hindrance to those very plans. Therefore they are not thinking solely what is good for jews.

Conclusion = Hechtman is a man Auster can show respect to because his main interest is jews. However, because we oppose jews, we are dark souls who need to be totally opposed and destroyed and completely eliminated from society through any means necessary.

In the end, Auster is just another jew, no different than Frank Rich and his buddy Ken Hechtman. I don't give a shit how much Christian rhetoric he sends out. He is jew first. Period, end of story. He will defend our enemies simply because they are jews.

4/19/2010 09:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Millirone said...

Auster's worshipful sycophant also suggests Auster himself has summoned the wrath of God against Vdare!

Auster is getting worse. His blog is becoming cult-like. I think the growing anti-Jewish sentiment is really beginning to cause him to lose it.

4/19/2010 09:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Auster breathlessly reports that one of his correspondents with "inside connections" has new information on "the Paleocon anti-Semitic Complex." "Michael S." says "Brimelow truly believes in anti-Semitism" and reports that Peter Brimelow, Richard Spencer, and Richard Hoste are all members of "the anti-Semitic Charles Martel Society" and attended an event at which Kevin MacDonald was given an award. "Michael S." also reports that Brimelow might "bring Hoste or even Jared Taylor" (gasp) on as an advisor. "Michael S." describes himself as "a Jew who cares about the immigration restrictionist movement" and says he is "very worried."

4/20/2010 11:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Northwest Reader said...

Auster sounds more insane each day. The "Paleocon anti-Semitic Complex?" He increasingly reads as someone here has described him, an isolated ideologue with his echo chamber.

4/21/2010 06:42:00 AM  
Blogger Chechar said...

Like another Euro-American Jew who in the Brussels Journal introduces himself as protector of white interests (see e.g. my blog’s entry), as a typical Jew Auster is only being loyal to his ethnic group: something that involves a little of what MacDonald calls ethnocentric self-deception.

If white Americans, who have been notorious for lack of feelings of ethnic cohesion, had the same ethnic loyalty as the Jews with themselves, the JP would be solved in a couple of years. No kidding.

Auster probably fears that, after a long ethnic-consciousness hibernation, whites are finally showing the first signs for a waking up, at least in the internet. Like other Jews, this is what he fears the most...

4/21/2010 08:28:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Auster has now overruled George Washington. He says Washington's advice about neutrality and not participating in quarrels between other nations "does not apply to the Islamic world," and Washington's Farewell Address "does not apply to our current situation vis a vis Israel and Islam."

Simply breathtaking. Someone whose ancestors did not come to my country until the late 19th or early 20th century is lecturing us on the correct (i.e. pro-Jewish) interpretation of George Washington's Farewell Address.

4/21/2010 12:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Svigor said...

Most of Tan's stuff, I could've written myself if I was more diligent. :)

Auster is intellectual pond scum. He has to be, to join the ranks of philo-Semitic "paleocons." He's right in line with Jobling, "John PM," "White, Jewish, and Proud," "Undiscovered Jew," etc. Notice how these types always stick to their warm, urine-tainted kiddie pools? The open, uncensored places like this are their Kryptonite.

Alternative Right's anti-Semitic agenda

Any Euro isn't working up or on an "anti-Semitic agenda" is either a useful idiot or a traitor.

Auster is paranoid. He projects the machinations of his own jewish mind onto Spencer. He has no standing to pathologize anyone else for being "judeo-obsessive" when so much of his own effort is spent obsessing over what is or isn't good for jews.

Bingo. Anyone who misses that the hordes of non-Gentiles who descend upon any criticism of same with "obsessed paranoids" on their lips is missing a lot.

Cap'n:

I'm sure Auster is smart enough to realize that White Nationalists (well, at least me) would like to hold the well-being of Israel hostage to bring pressure to bear on Jews so Jews will stop, uh, attempting to exterminate us.

I'm starting to feel superfluous here. :)

4/21/2010 08:34:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

In The connections between Richard Hoste and Richard Spencer, and between Richard Hoste and Peter Brimelow Auster describes a conspiracy theory reflecting his own obsession:

Some of the members of the complex are merely anti-neocon. Some are anti-Israel. Some are outright anti-Semitic. What do these three views have in common? Opposition to people and entities that are identifiably Jewish. While not all members of the complex are anti-Semitic, opposition to Jews, and thus, ultimately, anti-Semitism, is the cement that holds the various parts of the complex together, and is even its ruling principle. This is shown by group's tacit hierarchical order, in which the members of the complex who are anti-Semitic are never criticized by other members for their anti-Semitism, while the members of the complex who are not anti-Semitic tacitly accept the anti-Semitism of their colleagues and don't complain about it, or at least they don't seriously do so. In many cases the non-anti-Semites defend their anti-Semitic confreres from the charge of being anti-Semitic. It would appear then that a minimal requirement for membership in the complex is, in descending order of activism, at least one of the following: (a) active defense of anti-Semitic members from the charge of anti-Semitism; (b) deference to anti-Semitic members and their anti-Semitism; or (c) silent non-criticism of anti-Semitic members and their anti-Semitism. While active support for, or at least silent non-criticism of, anti-Semitic members is a required condition of membership in the complex, criticism of members' anti-Semitism is prohibited, and marks an individual as a non-member of the complex.

Anti-Semitism is thus the organizing idea of the Paleocon anti-Semitic Complex, affecting and controlling even those members who are not themselves anti-Semitic.

A reader writes:

One fact that your current theory-of-Brimelow may have difficulty with is his long-term, close collaboration with Ed Rubinstein. If Peter is actually anti-Semitic, would he really have the ongoing relationship with Rubinstein?

There are other Jewish writers at the site: Marcus Epstein [nominal--Japanese-born mother, American Jewish father], Ilana Mercer, Nicholas Stix. And perhaps I've forgotten some.

LA replies:

It's not a matter of how one feels about individuals. A person may like Jews, or certain Jews, as individuals, but still have a problem with
Jews as a people, or with Israel as a country, or even with the idea of Jewishness.

That last bit is the opposite of what Auster says about islam and muslims. He argues it is good and right to have a problem with muslims as a people and the threat posed by the ideas of islam.

As neither a jew nor a muslim I see the threat both of these groups pose to me and mine. Auster simply wants his own "minority" to maintain its monopoly over us.

4/21/2010 09:09:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Auster continues:

A reader writes from Europe:

Looking through history, we see no society that has successfully hosted a politically-active Jewish population without collapsing.

LA replies:

People who feel the way this reader feels ought to form anti-Semitic organizations and take a stand and fight for their anti-Semitic view in the political marketplace and see how they do with it. They should NOT mix up their anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism with, e.g., the movement to stop Third -World immigration, because when they do that, the anti-Jewish issue takes over and the immigration restrictionist movement is corrupted, distracted, and damaged. But one of the absolutely predictable marks of anti-Semites is that they cannot treat their concern about the Jews as one issue among others and put it in any rational perspective. It must be THE issue. Anti-Semitism is a pathology which ruins everything it touches, and will destroy any good cause by being associated with it.


What Larry calls "anti-semitism" is any recognition of the plain fact that the anti-White regime is funded and manned by so many eager jews. Even the "conservative" jews, who pretend to be on our side, like Larry, in the end prove themselves more concerned to keep any recognition of the jewish nature of our jewish opposition pathologized and silenced.

In Separationism, restated, in late 2008, Auster wrote:

This is the song that the Koran has sung to the souls of Muslims for 1,400 years and sings to them still. This call is for them the most sacred, the most holy, the most beautiful. So it doesn't matter if they seem assimilated into the modern world--it doesn't matter if they are clean-cut, well-educated, athletic, and with charming personalities. As long as they are Muslims, their souls are liable to thrill to that song.

And that is why the only way the non-Muslim countries can make themselves safe from jihadism is by excluding Muslims and quarantining them in their own lands. If non-Muslim humanity is to be safe and free, Muslim humanity must be permanently separated from the rest of mankind and be deprived of any means of having any effect on the rest of us. There is no other way.


If a White suggests that Europeans separate from jews as well as muslims - well then Larry goes bananas. Why in the world does the thought of us awful "anti-semites" separating from jews drive Larry "separatism" Auster crazy? It's as if he fears his tribe cannot survive without us.

4/21/2010 09:11:00 PM  
Blogger Chechar said...

@ “Notice how these types always stick to their warm, urine-tainted kiddie pools? The open, uncensored places like this are their Kryptonite.”

IIRC, in Brussels Journal Taksei deleted some critical comments about the Jews in one of the earlier threads of his (pointless) From Meccania to Atlantis. The guy is BJ’s Auster. In Gates of Vienna, GoV commenters have simply shunned Tan’s most recent posts. Even Fjordman is afraid of Tan’s Kryptonite and ultimately sticking to warm pools (long essays on the history of the beer, astronomical ET studies, the violin, etc.) instead of approaching the real thing.

Mixing metaphors: I am starting to realize that becoming aware of the JP is the true litmus paper to know who is unplugged from the Matrix. Be prepared to meet lots of Smiths once welcomed to the real world.

4/21/2010 10:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People who feel the way this reader feels ought to form anti-Semitic organizations and take a stand and fight for their anti-Semitic view in the political marketplace and see how they do with it. They should NOT mix up their anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism with, e.g., the movement to stop Third -World immigration, because when they do that, the anti-Jewish issue takes over and the immigration restrictionist movement is corrupted, distracted, and damaged. But one of the absolutely predictable marks of anti-Semites is that they cannot treat their concern about the Jews as one issue among others and put it in any rational perspective. It must be THE issue. Anti-Semitism is a pathology which ruins everything it touches, and will destroy any good cause by being associated with it.

More evidence that Auster is the real judeo-obsessive. Only someone that is himself obsessed with anti-semitism could possibly contend that anti-semitism is THE issue at Vdare. It's a rather diverse big-tent website. Only a couple of the writers/bloggers ever mention the jewish problem, and it's hardly the only thing they write about.

4/21/2010 11:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Auster says "the thinking process of [Richard Hoste and some paleocons is] similar to Timothy McVeigh's."

4/22/2010 12:59:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Captainchaos, I deleted your comments because it seems to me that certain portions violated the Blogger: Content Policy. If I don't remove such comments then they could be used to justify my entire blog being removed by Blogger.

4/22/2010 06:52:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"V." admits "it is very easy to make observations that at least at first glance appear to support a MacDonaldesque worldview," and he tells his hero Auster that this is the reason "why your analysis of the issue is very important."

4/22/2010 08:27:00 AM  
Blogger Chechar said...

Tan,

I liked what the Capt said about Fj.

The same host hosts my blog. If our host’s policies oblige us to remove such comments, wouldn’t it be wise to move to an independent web site (and say everything we want there)? I already have an independent site and could change the dominion name if necessary. We cannot self-restrain ourselves because of rules we didn’t create. Time to say good-by to our parents’ home.

Capt,

Remember that “lightening on the night” posts of yours in my blog? I am sorry but those days, when Taksei started to make a fuss of it, I did remove a couple of them out of fear of Blogger repercussions. If I manage to move the entire blog format to an independent website, you will be welcomed to post there whatever you want.

BTW, I’d love to see your comments about Fj that Mangan failed to post (either here or in one of my blog’s threads).

4/22/2010 08:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

I think it was Wintermute who first made the observation (as far as I know) that the Jews ALWAYS fumble the ball before they can get it past the goal line. The trick is to put the Jedi mind fuck on them. Which is what I try to do.

Apologies for endangering your blogs, gentlemen.

And congrats on your awaken, Chechar.

4/22/2010 10:56:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

If I were starting over I would not use Blogger, and I have thought about moving off it.

4/22/2010 11:59:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

"the thinking process of [Richard Hoste and some paleocons is] similar to Timothy McVeigh's."

That thinking process is identical to Mark Potok and the other anti-White jews at the SPLC.

4/22/2010 01:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

An opinion by Edmund Connelly involving similar issues is posted at this link.

http://www.truthinourtime.com/2010/04/faux-conservative-jews.html

faux-conservative-jews.html

"...the largely Jewish elite in America attempts to appease and distract Whites from successfully pursuing their best interests by co-opting a genuine White movement. Someone like Rush Limbaugh perfectly fits the bill. He’ll hit many of the crucial issues that Whites embrace, but he will never get close to the core of the problem: Jews fomenting these anti-White movements.The result is that Jews are prominent only on the left, but also on the (faux) conservative Right".

"I’ve been studying these Jewish faux-conservatives for some time now and am impressed with the way the mainstream media accepts them as authoritative, all the while going through the motions of labeling them as dangerous because of their “extreme” conservative views. In fact, however, they are all part of the game — members of the inner circle. And they can get away with far more than their Gentile counterparts. Now comes a conundrum,...: the case of one Andrew Breitbart, Internet phenomonon, and socially constructed Jew"

Flanders

4/22/2010 07:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Last month in one of his posts attacking Alternative Right, Auster called The Occidental Quarterly "an anti-Semitic publication" and denounced TOQ for having a post by "the anti-Semite Tanstaafl" on its site.

4/22/2010 07:57:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Hunter Wallace on Auster vs. Hoste.

Mangan and friends are beginning to see Auster for what he is. Auster attacks me again. A handful of israel-firsters (probably all of whom are jews) side with Auster. What a surprise.

4/22/2010 09:25:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

In Richard Spencer's neo-pagan, anti-Christian readers, Auster writes:

I would add that The Occidental Quarterly, of which Greg Johnson, Ph.D., is the editor, is an anti-Semitic publication. Its online edition currently has an article by the anti-Semite Tanstaafl in which every reference to the Jews is spelled lower case, as "jew" or "jewish." Here is an anti-Semitism so crude and all-encompassing that even through the spelling of words it expresses its intention to denigrate and dehumanize the Jews.

This explains why Auster insists on writing "white". And his anti-Whitism is so crude and all-encompassing that he insists on changing any White his correspondents write into "white".

I discussed this in We're White, We're Indigenous, Get Used to It. Auster produced a non-answer titled Am I an orthographical fifth columnist? that didn't link what he was not answering.

When "the jews" regularly capitalize White perhaps I'll reconsider capitalizing jew.

4/22/2010 09:48:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

In The meaning of MacDonald's statement about Israel Larry demonstrates some truly awesome jewish super-powers - mind-reading and hyperbole.

4/22/2010 10:15:00 PM  
Blogger Chechar said...

What Auster has just written about MacDonald is the craziest, stupidest, meanest, most dishonest and paranoid Auster statement I have read to date. I am quite sure of it because Kevin’s The Culture of Critique has reached me by Amazon mail a few days ago and it strikes me as one of the sanest works I have ever read.

4/23/2010 12:02:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Most of all Auster's behavior reflects desperation. He's not worried about exterminationists. He's worried about protecting jews.

You couldn't take a more mild-mannered, matter-of-fact approach than MacDonald does in detailing and trying to explain the aggression jews have aimed at Whites for centuries. If this makes MacDonald an exterminationist then it is just as valid to see the veritable army of anti-Whites in academia and media, including every single jewish one, as exterminationists. The imbalance in numbers and influence is mind boggling.

If it is exterminationist to point out that Israel does not have the same open borders and does not discriminate against "the majority" as is imposed in the rest of the West then surely every person responsible for imposing these conditions elsewhere is an exterminationist.

Anyone who has a problem with exterminationists can find thousands of them openly promoting and defending genocidal levels of immigration and anti-White discrimination in editorials and court rooms across the West. Auster knows exactly who they are. He's simply more concerned with preventing a hypothetical extermination of them than he is with stopping the actual extermination they're perpetrating.

Based on his own standards and the denigrating and dehumanizing manner in which Auster speaks of "anti-semites" it is reasonable to interpret his intentions as exterminationist.

4/23/2010 08:02:00 AM  
Anonymous Millirone said...

Tanstaafl said:

Most of all Auster's behavior reflects desperation.

I agree and nothing demonstrates this better than one of his latests entrys.

Auster writes:

Ferdinand Bardamu at the blog In Mala Fide is a Game proponent who normally can’t stand me, but he has a far lower opinion of Alternative Right’s blog editor Richard Hoste, and he’s far more familiar with Hoste’s writings than I am. His article includes some quotations from VFR’s recent discussions about Hoste, but goes well beyond them. Bardamu has written not only a devastating expose of Hoste in particular, but a powerful and stirring refutation of paleocon anti-Semitism in general.

(Note: Bardamu occasionally uses mildly profane language.)


Normally Auster would not even blink at a character like Bardamu (other than to correctly call him a degenerate) but because he is attacking Hoste and MacDonald, Auster speaks of him in glowing terms.

Auster states that Bardamu's childish rant against Hoste and White nationalism is a "powerful and stirring refutation of paleocon anti-Semitism in general"

Desperation? You bet.

4/23/2010 10:19:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Auster loves to attack "the majority" in the United States and blame them for what is happening. Curiously, though, he is much more lenient on Israelis for what he considers their errors, excusing them by saying "The world's unrelenting hatred has worn them down." "Gary W.," however, cannot tolerate even the slightest criticism of Israelis or comments about Israelis which are anything but glowing, and he tells Auster to stop being so hard on them, saying "I would urge you to cut the Israelis a little slack."

4/24/2010 10:40:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Auster just excused the lies he posted over the last few days by saying that it was his commenters, not him, who said it. Auster attacks Richard Spencer for publishing "Kevin MacDonald, who, like Hitler, seems to want the Jews to disappear from the earth," and he says "Spencer's supposed indictment of me is almost on a Richard Hoste level of stupidity."

4/24/2010 10:43:00 AM  
Blogger Chechar said...

In OD I posted this today:

@ “You’re inside a mighty fortress... Outside you’re surrounded by one hundred thousand screaming maniacs who want to kill you. But you have food enough to last for years, and the fortress is so well-built that you can easily repel an army of a million screaming maniacs” —Svigor

The best way to visualize it is the hordes of [Muslim] orcs outside LOTR’s Helm's Deep.

@ “You’ve gotta be really lacking in judgment... or a faux-WN to think Muslims are a bigger problem than non-Gentiles. —Svigor

Again, the best way to visualize the internal enemy is to remember the grip that Gríma (Wormtongue) had on the king Théoden of Rohan before Gandalf the White broke the spell.

Is the clever and highly influential non-Gentile Wormtongue, who told the dark wizard where was located the weak spot in Helm's Deep, a bigger problem than the primitive orcs?

I think so. Those who lobbied to open the US immigration gates are indeed more noxious than the Muslims who crashed the planes.

There’s no question about it: population replacement of Elfs by orcs is infinitely worse than 9/11. This is precisely my reading of Auster’s First Law: a law that crucifies his discoverer’s rhetoric on anti-Semitism.

4/24/2010 10:54:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Kevin MacDonald: Lawrence Auster Gets Unhinged « The Occidental Observer Blog.

4/24/2010 12:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sage McLaughlin says you're "a fool" and "stupid" if you're not a rabid Israel-firster.

Sage McLaughlin also seems to think Europe and the United States were primitive and undeveloped up until 1948, after which Israeli brilliance led us out of the darkness.

Sage McLaughlin writes:

Secondly, people who describe the annihilation of Israel as a mere "unfortunate" event that they would of course regret, but in which we have no direct stake, is simply ignorant of what Israel is. Israel is not Tibet, for heaven's sake. The Jews of the Levant are not Falun Gong. Do these people not realize the importance of Israeli scientists in the fields of medicine, energy, military research, aeronautics, and on and on? Do they have so little imaginations as to be incapable of seeing how the world will change forever when Jewish brilliance is erased from the intellectual store of mankind? Are they not aware of the necessity of a Jewish homeland for defending that unending font of achievement? Do they not know how directly their lives are impacted every day by the explosion of productive intelligence unleashed by the formation of an ethnic Jewish state?


Sage McLaughlin says he "was born to a Jewish mother and an Irish Catholic father." Gee, I wonder why he puts the interests of Jews and Israelis ahead of those of White Americans.

4/24/2010 01:24:00 PM  
Blogger Chechar said...

@ “Gee, I wonder why he puts the interests of Jews and Israelis ahead of those of White Americans”

Everything has to do with what Colin Ross calls “the problem of attachment to the perpetrator”. Sage’s attachment figure must have been his mother, not the father. This is heavy psych stuff and I won’t dare to explain it here (although this principle is the bedrock of my online book).

4/24/2010 02:12:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Do these people not realize the importance of Israeli scientists in the fields of medicine, energy, military research, aeronautics, and on and on? Do they have so little imaginations as to be incapable of seeing how the world will change forever when Jewish brilliance is erased from the intellectual store of mankind? Are they not aware of the necessity of a Jewish homeland for defending that unending font of achievement? Do they not know how directly their lives are impacted every day by the explosion of productive intelligence unleashed by the formation of an ethnic Jewish state?

What I know is that the usual jewish line is that everyone is equal, there is no such thing as race, and jews can't possibly be responsible for anything because they are so few. I'm also aware that every now and again that pretense is set aside and we're told how superior and indispensible they are.

4/24/2010 03:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am aware of the necessity of White homelands for defending this font of achievement. And I am aware how lives are impacted every day by the explosion of productive intelligence unleashed by the formation and success of White ethnic states that are being eroded radically and deliberately.

- Daybreaker

4/24/2010 03:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another great reply from Kevin MacDonald to a viciously provocative attack.

Calm, mild, factual, scholarly in the best sense, sound in reasoning and never or hardly ever profane ... Kevin is a gem.

- Daybreaker

4/24/2010 05:34:00 PM  
Blogger Chechar said...

@ “Calm, mild, factual, scholarly in the best sense, sound in reasoning and never or hardly ever profane...”

What strikes me is that both Auster and Taksei resorted to insults to KMD without even bothering to read him first! They resort to lifting an enormous smokescreen of name-calling to hide they have little if anything to say.

4/24/2010 06:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is a big payoff if they can bait Kevin MacDonald into something they can quote to persuade people that his books would not be worth reading.

I think Kevin MacDonald knows this and he is not falling for it.

- Daybreaker

4/24/2010 06:49:00 PM  
OpenID m4monologue said...

Can someone tell Auster that his lack of sincerity is showing as "the English Defense League protesters..carrying an Israeli flag along with an old English flag with the St. George’s cross." aren't carrying an "old English flag" but THE English flag.

You'd think that such a great proponent of all things West, especially England and Britain, would know what THE English flag looked like. He must think that the new flag of England is the Union Jack. The EDL would be chuffed I'm sure to know that their biggest Jewish fan doesn't even recognise their own country's flag.

The fella can't write a simple update without beclowning himself.

Pat Hannagan

5/05/2010 05:49:00 AM  
OpenID m4monologue said...

Unless by "old" he means the flag looks a bit tattered round the edges and he's taken a sample piece of fabric for carbon dating tests.

Pat Hannagan

5/05/2010 05:58:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Auster tries to ridicule Spencer and MacDonald for failing his pro-jew litmus test, but of course if the EDL wasn't obsequious to jewish interests and waving Israeli flags Auster would be sensing "jew-hate" and have nothing but negative things to say about them.

Healthy nationalists don't wave alien flags. That's my litmus test.

5/05/2010 07:22:00 AM  
Blogger Chechar said...

@ "Healthy nationalists don't wave alien flags. That's my litmus test."

Very true. And now we can imagine what to think of another Spencer, Robert Spencer waving the Israeli flag in his anti-jihad street demonstrations on American soil.

BTW guys: I am republishing MacDonald's preface to his most important book here.

5/05/2010 07:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tanstaafl said: "Healthy nationalists don't wave alien flags. That's my litmus test."

What if the flag is not waved but kept indoors in a unique place of honor? (link)

- Daybreaker

5/05/2010 08:06:00 AM  
Blogger Armance said...

Healthy nationalists don't wave alien flags. That's my litmus test.

Indeed. One of the things (perhaps the first) that I find unbelievably moronic, false and idiotic in the counter-jihad movement (anyway, the first that woke me up about the true fake nature of this ideological confusion) is the habit to wave Israeli flags at every anti-Muslim demonstration. Really, in any counter-jihad demonstration one can see much more Israeli flags than the national symbols of the host, native, natural countries.

I mean, what is the point to wave Jewish flags in London, Amsterdam and Munich? Is this a statement that British, Dutch or German flags are not dignified enough to be shown in public? Is this a declaration that we are too ashamed of our ol' European nationalism and patriotism that in order to be accepted we are supposed to show the national symbol of some tiny country in the Middle East?

What is the explanation of the counter-jihad movement for such stupidity and humiliation? Do they find it normal?

5/05/2010 09:27:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

I mean, what is the point to wave Jewish flags in London, Amsterdam and Munich?

Of course the point of waving any flag is to symbolize who and what you hold in esteem. In waving Israeli flags, or putting them on your desk, or website, you're sending a clear message that your loyalties and priorities lie with Israel and thus by proxy with jews. Sometimes waving alien flags is motivated by expediency, such as when latinos hide their native flags and wave American flags instead. Who knows, perhaps the EDL is just faking their esteem for jews. If so, we can expect Auster to find out and report it, and then he'll likely stop supporting or condemn them, doing what he finds fault in others for maybe doing, as usual.

Counter-jihadists wave Israeli flags, and consider themselves brave, noble counter-jihadists rather than craven, ignorant nationalists, because they are either jews, or have expediently subordinated their own ethnic interests to jews. This is largely due to external forces, such as the fact that it is perfectly politically correct to be pro-jew, and perfectly politically incorrect to be pro-White (or Euro-nationalist). If this weren't the case many if not most non-jew counter-jihadists would be thinking about what's good for Whites rather than what's good for jews.

5/05/2010 12:00:00 PM  
Blogger Chechar said...

If this is so (and remember Fjordman’s recent Brussels Journal essay telling us that the rational thing to do is to support Israel), counter-jihadists—however brilliant—are part of the problem of Western demise, not part of the solution.

5/05/2010 12:28:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

counter-jihadists—however brilliant—are part of the problem of Western demise, not part of the solution

Only as long as they remain ignorant of, or consciously subordinate their own White interests. I came to racialism and White nationalism through counter-jihadism. Look
ing back I can hardly accept that I was so blind for so long.

For European counter-jihadists (like Fjordman) opposition to muslim immigration is less politically incorrect, and more or less a proxy for opposition to non-White immigration. I'm under the impression the nature of the immigration problem in Norway and Europe in general is primarily Islamic. For whatever reason Fjordman seems not aware of or not willing to distinguish the more varied but primarily mestizo nature of mass immigration to the US.

American counter-jihadists have less of an excuse for a single-minded focus on muslims. I think it's mainly because more than a few are literal anti-racists.

In either case White counter-jihadists are instinctively (biologically) aware that something is wrong and are motivated (biologically) to do something. As counter-jihadists they can take comfort in not being motivated by "racism", seeing themselves instead as being only nobly and rationally opposed to a religious/ideological/political system. (That same comfort also attracts Whites to other "racism"-free ideologies, like marxism, libertarianism, or conservativism.) Over time however being surrounded by so many hyper-sensitive hyper-ethnocentric hyper-jew counter-jihadists spouting the most illiberal and immoderate things about muslims can't help but get you thinking heretical thoughts about jewish tribalism and your own ethnic interests.

Fjordman has been expressing such heretical thoughts (mainly in comments at Mangans) while his polemics in favor of jews/Israel and against islam (mainly in essays at BJ and GoV) grows more forced. So far he has kept the former compartmentalized from the latter. At some point soon he will find it necessary to reconcile the two.

5/05/2010 02:43:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Students Kicked Off Campus for Wearing American Flag Tees - NBCBAYAREA- msnbc.com:

"I think it's absolutely ridiculous," Julie Fagerstrom, Maciel's mom, said. "All they were doing was displaying their patriotic nature. They're expressing their individuality."

But to many Mexican-American students at Live Oak, this was a big deal. They say they were offended by the five boys and others for wearing American colors on a Mexican holiday.

"I think they should apologize cause it is a Mexican Heritage Day," Annicia Nunez, a Live Oak High student, said. "We don't deserve to be get disrespected like that. We wouldn't do that on Fourth of July."


Now Peaches Geldof wears 'racist' Confederate flag to Hollywood party | Mail Online:

She risked accusations of insensitivity by wearing a T-shirt bearing the Confederate flag.

The southern flag is considered by many to be an overt symbol of racism because of its links to slavery, and its use is banned in many schools.

5/06/2010 08:18:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't agree with ridiculing MacDonald or Spencer, or with blaming the mass of Whites for what's been imposed on them top-down and treacherously, but I'll defend the waving of the Israeli flag and the use of the word "old" before the English flag.

First, when people are waving flags, that sometimes signals defiance and pride. When they want to use a foreign flag for that purpose, the problem may be more with the state than the individual. When the state no longer supports the assertion of its nationals' interests, the flag undermines the defiance of those who wave it. I think that's why Tea Party protesters are waving flags other than the stars and stripes, and also why this protester waved flags that advertised more specific ethnic interests.

And "old" English flag could be just a slightly awkward way of saying "familiar" English flag. "Good old" English flag would have been better.

- Daybreaker

5/07/2010 12:10:00 AM  
Anonymous Armor said...

"I'm under the impression the nature of the immigration problem in Norway and Europe in general is primarily Islamic."

I know only about France, but I suppose most people in Europe don't care about Islam. If they get mugged by Muslims, it won't be in the name of Islam. The word counter-jihad makes me think of Melanie Phillips (England) and Geert Wilders (Netherlands). French Jews don't use that word.

In the French media, the debate used to be about the "Islamic veil" and the "Islamic headscarf", especially at school. Now it is about the burka. The government has prepared a law bill to have it banned. There is a lively debate in the media about the burka, but no debate over immigrant crime and the race-replacement issue, even though the government organized a phony public debate about French identity, a few months ago. The debate over the burka is a good way to cloud the immigration issue. Next to race-replacement, the burka is a trifling matter, but a burka ban may improve Sarkozy's image. Under Chirac and Sarkozy, the police have been given instructions to avoid trouble and confrontation with young non-whites. That policy isn't about to change. But Sarko will look stronger if he bans the burka.

Also, the burka ban will symbolize the official policy of encouraging immigrants to assimilate into the French culture. Mass immigration makes white people anxious, but they are not allowed to speak up. They must rely on the phony advocates of French society who are provided by government and the media. Our phony advocates take the "defense" of white people by insisting that immigrants must be better "integrated" into French society. In a normal world, white people would riot until the immigrants were deported. But in today's world, they just find the courage to complain that "immigrants make no effort to integrate". It's an absurd complaint. We would be better off if every Arab immigrant, male or female, was forced to wear a burka, speak Arabic, and say his prayers 5 times a day.

5/28/2010 10:38:00 AM  
Anonymous Armor said...

Europe's problem is the population replacement. Islam is not a problem. On the contrary, it may help maintain separate communities, and maybe slow down the race-mixing. Many immigrants turn to Islam as a way to maintain their identity. I doubt they will be able to stick for very long to their religion, but it would be a good thing for Europeans, in my opinion.

Jewish activists may worry that Islam constitutes an obstacle to race-mixing. Even so, Jews and leftists are the main promoters of Muslim activism. Politically, I don't think that Muslim immigrants would be very active on their own.

I read the following comment to an article written by Fjordman in 2006: "The insanity of European political correctness is that it demands self-imposed restrictions that are not required of anybody in the immigrants countries of origin, it panders to the most extreme end of the radical fringe." One example of this is when a swimming pool sets apart two hours every week for Muslims. It is unlikely that many Muslims are asking for that kind of privilege. The problem comes from the extreme left in the European administration. It has to do with militant "anti-racism", which is largely a Jewish thing.

I think Jewish activists dislike Christianity more than Islam. There has been an anti-Christian tradition in France since the 1789 revolution, under the pretense of defending church and state separation. In 1789, they tried to replace religion with State worship, with heavy use of words like: citizen, republic, laicity... Jews are now recycling that ideology. In the past, many anti-Christians were people who had received an overdose of Christianity in their childhood. Jews obviously have other motivations. Maybe it is a part of their world view. Jewish television rejects any idea of transcendence and tends to encourage consumerism. As part of the anti-Christian propaganda, there have been many accusations against the Popes and a lot of reporting about pedophiles in the clergy. The media would never dream of attacking Islam (or Judaism!) in that way.

So far, the Muslim or Arab presence in the French media amounts to nothing. The media is heavily Jewish and favors more immigration. Most Jewish activists are still very much in favor of suing French nationalists. Even so, Jews are present in the anti-immigration movement. I get most of my information from a French anti-immigration website where the harshest disparaging of Arabs is made by Jewish commenters who do the typical Jewish dissembling and refuse to acknowledge any special Jewish responsibility in the immigration disaster. In the media, the only people allowed to speak against immigration are Jews. There are mainly two of them: Eric Zemmour, and Alain Finkielkraut (who used to be a pro-immigration activist but later changed his mind).

5/28/2010 10:44:00 AM  
Anonymous Armor said...

In France, there is a problem with halal meat. Because it is complicated for meat packers to separate each product into two different lines : halal and not halal, they sell halal meat even to non Muslims and it isn't mentioned on the label. We also buy halal meat (beef, mutton, chicken, rabbit...) in foreign countries and sell it to non suspecting non-Muslim customers. The only solution for moral Europeans is to buy pork only.

What halal and kosher mean is that the animals are bled to death without any form of stunning. I think the practice should be strictly forbidden in the West, as it is in New-Zealand.

Muslim associations want a system to be put in place so they can be sure that meat sold as halal is really halal. At the same time, since Western governments refuse to forbid Muslim and Jewish practices, many Europeans want a system to be put in place so they can be sure that they won't eat the meat of animals killed in the Muslim/Jewish way. But there is Jewish resistance :

The Jewish Chronicle

Interfaith support for opposition to food labelling
By Robyn Rosen, July 15, 2010

Muslim leaders have joined the concern expressed over new EU regulations which mean kosher and halal meat will be labelled “meat from slaughter without stunning”.

The European Parliament voted in favour of the amendment to the provision of food information to consumers last month, just two weeks after New Zealand banned the kosher slaughter of animals.

The decision, which only applies to food killed by religious slaughter, was widely condemned by the Jewish community with Henry Grunwald, chairman of Shechita UK, calling it “discriminatory”,

Now, in a joint statement, the rabbis and imams advisory group of the Chief Rabbi’s Office , and the inter-faith organisation, Faith Matters, said: “We support the concept of fair and universal labeling but believe that such an amendment is naked discrimination.

“It singles out religious communities who have been extremely careful to undertake humane food preparation for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.”

7/18/2010 04:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

Paul Gottfried's latest piece is a considerable improvement.

7/24/2011 04:32:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home