The Great Faux-White "Liberal" Babbles Again
In The anti-white left and the non pro-white right Auster once again describes the aggression of "liberals", like David Zirin, who he never identifies as a tribemate.Once again Auster blames the "non pro-white right" "conservatives" for being worst:
The liberal-left's bigoted campaign to delegitimize and dehumanize conservatives is thus total and absolute.And once again Auster absurdly links all of this to his truest love, Israel. In conclusion an Auster commenter identifies the problem as a lack of "white" "tribal loyalty".
But the hell of it doesn't stop there. The worst part is that the conservatives themselves are so much under the thumb of liberal-left premises that they never identify what the left is doing to them, and never attack the left for what it is doing to them.
. . .
But they never identify what the left is really up to, namely removing of any human value from conservatives by painting them as hopelessly sick and immoral racists who deserve to be racially marginalized and turned into a dispossessed minority in their own country. The conservatives don't identify it, because they themselves have no principle by which they can oppose being turned into a dispossessed minority in their own country. And the reason they have no such principle is that they themselves subscribe to the liberal view that any concern by whites about race is disgusting and immoral.
Of course anyone who distinguishes jews from Whites, "left" or "right", is violating Auster's "liberal" view that any concern by Whites about jews is disgusting and immoral. In his view however, jews can be concerned about Whites - that's perfectly normal. In "Larry Auster's lies", for example, Auster explains his motivation for removing any human value from "conservatives" by painting them as hopelessly sick and immoral "racists" against jews:
Here is my motivation: to expose the anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism that currently are harbored at the heart of the paleocon and immigration restrictionist movements, and to get conservatives and immigration restrictions to reject those evils, so that the cause of saving America and the West is not tainted and discredited by them and might actually have a chance of success.By his own words and logic, what Auster is really up to is doing his part in the "liberal-left" anti-White cause he knows so well, campaigning to delegitimize and dehumanize the "racists" who identify jewish aggression against Whites. Auster wants Whites to feel tribal loyalty for jews (we're all just one indivisible "white" tribe, ready to defend Israel) even though jews, far from reciprocating in kind, treat us not just as "others", but as inferiors to be lectured, commanded, and ultimately punished if we disobey them.
Labels: anti-white, lawrence auster, liberalism
posted by Tanstaafl at 6/16/2010 08:22:00 AM
17 Comments:
Hey look, here's another "liberal" who by freaky coincidence just happens to be jewish. And look, he's sneering at all the "Americans" who couldn't care less about the World Cup. The loneliness of the American soccer fan, by Daniel Gross:
Being a soccer fan at World Cup time in America is a little like being Jewish in December in a small town in the Midwest. You sense that something big is going on around you, but you're not really a part of it. And the thing you're celebrating and enjoying is either ignored or misunderstood by your friends, peers, and neighbors. It can be a lonely time. But the World Cup is much bigger than Christmas. After all, only a couple of billion people in the world celebrate Christmas; the World Cup is likely to garner the attention of a much larger audience.
Wow, Gross is alienated by Christmas too. Another freaky coincidence.
I believe it was Lenin who said that the best way to deal with the opposition is to lead it. Jews in the tea-party negate any pro-white initiatve. It was the World Jewish Congress, who in 1933 declared war on any
whites who want a white homeland or take pride in their whiteness.
Hey look, here's another "liberal" who by freaky coincidence just happens to be jewish.
Yeah and how dare you notice!
Why focus 100X more vile on Lawrence Auster, who is 90% right when there are hundreds of evil fucktards out there (Eric Holder, anyone?) who are 100% wrong? I dont' get the obsession.
Yes, Auster is Jewish. Yes, Auster perhaps focuses on Jewish and Israeli issues more than many non-Jews would. Still he is a clear thinker and consistently points out the horrible truth of what is happening in America.
It's worth noting your differences with him, but the obsession makes little sense to me.
Let's not refer to Jews; let's refer to non-gentiles.
OT. It seems that History inevitably repeats itself; same methods, different countries. Dejà vu for Russians and Poles. Has a Protestant country ever expelled non-gentiles?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w151.html
"After all, only a couple of billion people in the world celebrate Christmas"
Hilarious. How many, did we say, celebrate Hanukkah?
Making Larry Auster cry is so cruel. Poor Larry is spending more time responding to what his friends say Mangan is saying about him.
Yes. See Mangan replies to my attack on Alt-Right. Or Mangan says that I do not belong in the United States:
Patrick H. writes:
. . .
This is ugly stuff. I regret having informed you of his attacks, not because I think you've been wounded by them, but because it has exposed just how anti-Semitic Mangan's site is becoming. He's got people like Tanstaafl backing him. He really needs to look at the company he keeps.
. . .
Tovi A. writes:
It's dawned on me that Dennis Mangan has revealed an inconsistency in his thinking. He becomes furious when somebody attacks his AltRight/paleocon milieu, even if he wasn't directly mentioned. And yet, when somebody accuses him of anti-Semitism for tolerating (cultivating?) hordes of anti-Semitic commenters on his own personal blog, he feigns innocence.
LA replies:
In a way, I feel responsible for bringing about the moral and intellectual ruin of Dennis Mangan, since he has made many (or most) of his moves into darkness directly in reaction against me and my criticisms of his positions and of paleocon positions generally. It wasn't my intention that this should happen, but I seem have a knack for bringing out the worst in (some) people.
Among other things, Mangan now has to live with the fact that he is on record stating that the author of The Path to National Suicide does not belong in the United States.
I don't see an inconsistency in Mangan's thinking. But I do see it in Auster. The whole point of these exchanges at Auster's is to paint Mangan, myself, and anyone who associates with either of us as hopelessly sick and immoral "racists". Auster is dissembling when he vaguely identifies the source of this kind of pathologization as "liberal-left premises". It's a jewish tactic. Likewise the guilt-by-association used in conjunction.
Auster's inconsistency is resolved by simply understanding that Auster is a jewish chauvinist more than anything else.
Not to take any credit from Mangan, but I called for Auster to make aliyah in February. We don't need his guilt-shifting path to suicide bullshit.
Tanstaafl,
I don't think Auster's point is at all to demonization YOU, Mangan and the like specifically, rather, you and Mangan, I believe, are all essentially atheists and by necessity Auster's Jewishness MUST BE primary. I don't think Auster sees himself as a Jew primarily, but rather, a God-fearing American. Your attack on his Jewishness only invokes a defense that looks Jewish.
What is happening is that your anti-Supremacy merely has you protesting those attempting to be superior to you including Auster.
I could be wrong about your atheism/anti-Supremacy, but not Mangan's.
If you are anti-Supremacy then you are BOUND to be subordinate.
That I'm not an atheist is I think plain enough in Dawkins and God.
That doesn't mean I can't recognize dissembling of a religious nature.
Who is it you think is supreme, Auster or God? You seem to equate the two.
Note that in 2006 I was under the mistaken impression that "islamofascists" were behind political correctness. According to your hasbara that must be because I felt I was inferior to "islamofascists", at least until I found I was even more inferior to jews. Or something like that.
Tanstaafl,
First, I am a firm believer in Supremacy. Auster is not Supremacy, but my experience is that he is striving towards it.
Perhaps you're not an atheist. I didn't read any declaration that said you believed in Supremacy, though.
But the question that remains is who is a more truthful voice in regards to an American ethno-state, you or Auster?
You seem intent on simply castigating the real or perceived "supremacy" of the Jews.
When do you assert YOUR Supremacy as a real American?
I think Auster does a fine job in this regard. Do you?
who is a more truthful voice in regards to an American ethno-state, you or Auster?
I've written extensively about Auster's problems with truthfullness. See Fruitloopable Presumption, Auster Projecting, Again, Criticized by Auster, The First Law of Jewish Influence, and all the rest.
I provided some recent examples in comments to Mangan's Question Mark and the Austerians:
On 19 June 2010, in A lost soul’s descent into the depths, Auster complains that the problem with evil material reductionist paleocons is tribalist thinking.
On 15 June 2010, in The anti-white left and the non pro-white right, he paints "conservatives" as hopelessly sick and unprincipled non-racists whose problem is a lack of tribalism.
Auster would like Whites to feel tribal enough to stand up and defend ourselves (and jews) from blacks, mestizos, and (most of all) muslims, but not so tribal that we recognize jews as a separate tribe and object to being abused by or manipulated to serve their interests.
He will point out "liberals" painting "conservatives" as "hopelessly sick and immoral racists who deserve to be racially marginalized", when he himself regularly ferrets out "conservatives" to paint as hopelessly sick and immoral racists against jews who deserve to be marginalized.
From the same thread:
In A lost soul’s descent into the depths Auster writes:
I am, as the anti-Semites constantly say about me, a Jewish fifth columnist whose secret mission it is to undermine whites in favor of the Jews.
He has a mealy-mouthed, two-faced way of talking about it, but it is no secret. In "Larry Auster's lies" he described his favor for "the jews" this way:
Here is my motivation: to expose the anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism that currently are harbored at the heart of the paleocon and immigration restrictionist movements, and to get conservatives and immigration restrictions to reject those evils, so that the cause of saving America and the West is not tainted and discredited by them and might actually have a chance of success.
re: auster's problems with truthfulness, i ran into something he wrote not too long ago that i think you'd get a kick out of:
"But isn't this typical liberal reasoning? Everything comes down to the individual. If you find an individual belonging to a questionable group who makes a reasonable, worthwhile contribution to society, you use that to argue that society should drop all its obstacles against the acceptance of that group. But in the case of groups that really should not be normalized in society, the real-world result is, not an increase of reasonable, worthwhile contributions to society from that group, but the increase in the power of that group to undermine the society. The individual with his sacred rights is always the doorway by which an unassimilable group is admitted."
Auster says the darnedest things.
Poor alienated Ashkenazis at Christmas. They want to have their cake (be the chosen people of g-d) and have it too (never be reminded of the differences unless they're happy smiley differences).
The more I think about it, "have my cake and eat it too" seems to underlie the JQ throughout history. Total supremacists.
As for Auster, the more I think about it, the more I'm starting to buy what you're hinting at, that Auster is basically a RINO type who, at bottom, doesn't give a shit about conservatism except as a vehicle to protect his people.
Heh, maybe the best word for us is anti-philo-semites. We should be looking to defeat philo-semites of all stripes. Look how many "pro-Euro" types swarm to defend Auster; our people are pretty thoroughly Judeo-formed.
Post a Comment
<< Home