Lawrence Auster, Champion of "The Jews"
The need for a better word for anti-Semitism. Commissar Auster is searching for a new term because "anti-semite" isn't working as well as he would like. Oh, and it seems the facts aren't good for "the jews" either, so they'll need to be replaced too.
Auster refers, indirectly, to Committing PC's Most Mortal Sin. After three years of presenting facts and naming names I stand by what I've written.
Labels: language, lawrence auster
posted by Tanstaafl at 8/20/2010 01:42:00 PM
35 Comments:
I read what Auster wrote and wanted to throw up.
He is projecting his personal jewey matrix of meaning onto the goyim, and telling them they have to like the taste of it, or else.
Carl Schmitt wrote, "A nation is first conquered when it acquiesces to a foreign vocabulary ..."
If we swallow the label of "anti-semitism" as a signifier of an "objective reality" embedded in the goyim, rather than a mere subjective emotional response of the jew, we have accepted the jew's right to name us.
The jew has no right to name us. His weaponized thought object of "anti-semitism" is foreign and not good for Whites.
If we accept it, under whatever guise, we allow the hostile alien into our reality, and we are conquered.
Gregor
A better word for Auster to use: anti-zionist
The word antisemitism can be interpreted
like that: (antisemit)ism
or like that: anti(semitism)
But I think antizionism is less ambiguous
it can only be: anti(zionism)
Commissar Auster is searching for a new term because "anti-semite" isn't working as well as he would like.
"Counter-Semitism" and "Judeo-criticism" are good substitutes for "anti-Semitism". Somebody tell Larry.
Anti-Semitism, Lawerence Auster, is a proper word for us---not Judeophobic, or Jew Hater.
"Anti-" means "against"! Mr. Auster. Don't you get it? "Anti-Semitism" means, "to not accept Jewish control, suzerainty, influence, in one's culture." Anti-Semites would stop, if the Jews controlled themselves, accepted their place in life---and leave us the ____ alone! Just please leave us alone---
But no, we have Jews on our Supreme court. Now, Mr. Auster, what do "Easterners" (Jews, Semites) have to do with Western Law?
Absolutely Nada, Mr. Auster! Why are the Jews in control of Harvard Law Review?
Jews at Harvard Law Review, Jews on the Supreme Court are about Judiazing Western Culture. It is about Marxizing our culture, our society, to fit them---not us! Don't you get it Mr. Auster?
Furthermore, the State of Israel's existence is NOT an article of the Christian Faith! You obviously think so. You judge fellow Christians upon the fact if they support Israel or not and if they do not---You anathemitize them. Therefore, you break asunder the unity of the Body of Christ for the sake of the Jewish state knowing full well that the Jews are to wander.
How dare you Mr. Auster. You make Zionism into a tenet of the Christian Faith and are Judiazing the Christian Faith.
Even when Jews become Christians---they are still evil. They can not help themselves.
Mr. Auster, if you consider yourself a "traditionalist" how come you DON'T support and uphold the old teaching of the Christian Church about the Jews? Mr. Auster, you are a hypocrite, and a deceiver, an heretic. The Jews are to wander Mr. Auster and the Jews are to be suppressed. That is the Truth.
"Jews are perceived as the enemy" is unsound as part of a definition because of the "the". Not many people perceive one group and one group only as "the" enemy.
If Aaron opens the gate for Tyrone, Hernando, Achmed and Ngo to enter the neighborhood with their friends, and all of them are inclined to intimidate and drive out Whites, then Old Mrs. Peabody now has four direct threats or "enemies", not just one indirect "enemy".
Even if Aaron ceased to see Old Mrs. Peabody as a potential NAZI and ceased to work quietly against her, the people already admitted into her formerly low-threat environment would still be there and she would still be ill-advised to go walking after dark.
- Daybreaker
"Race realist" (Jared Taylor's term for those who recognize that racial differences have important policy implications for Whites) is probably the right label for those who recognize Mrs. Peabody's problem.
Most American Renaissance readers at least would probably "own" that term. I would. I think Jared Taylor is good company to be in.
I can't think of anyone who's serious about racial issues from a pro-White point of view who's rejected the "race realist" label. It should be OK to use it at least provisionally, till people say it doesn't describe them.
- Daybreaker
From Auster's blog: "Have you noticed that not a single anti-Semite ever admits to being an anti-Semite?"
What I have noticed is that Jews rely on magical words to obfuscate a debate. Instead of debating ideas, they debate words. And they don't bother with subtleties. It is similar to the way they choose article headlines:
- So-and-So: hero or zero?
- Should we be afraid of such and such?
- Is So-and-So an antisemite?
Did we have that kind of headlines before the press was taken over by the great Jewish minds?
Auster: "Stop name-calling us," the anti-Jews cry, "and deal with the facts, the facts of Jewish evil that we are trying to bring forth."
That is exactly what Auster should do. He doesn't need to think up a better slur for "anti-Semite" before he starts dealing with the facts. Why the Jewish hostility toward white people? Why the support for race-replacement? How can it be stopped?
""Jews are perceived as the enemy" is unsound as part of a definition because of the "the". Not many people perceive one group and one group only as "the" enemy."
There is an important psychological point here. The average person is never going to believe it is "the jews" as opposed to "jews" in the sense that each and every jew is involved. No human population is ever 100% on anything.
Although i think jews are the primary driving force behind the ongoing and deliberate destruction of western civilization i doubt more than 20% of them are actively engaged in it. A lot of the rest may passively support the vanguard out of paranoia but there will always be some who aren't part of it at all.
I think always remembering that acts as an anchor.
As to jews being "the enemy," obviously life is never as simple as that if you include every little detail but the core problems the west faces imo are political funding, media control and the multicult ideology that came out of cultural marxism. All three lead back to the same people engaging in stealth tribal warfare in the percieved interests of their tribe.
I've noticed that...
Auster's use of "the" is important. He uses it when he's generalizing about three cosmic collectives - "the jews", "the anti-semites", and "the majority". Despite his frequent critiques of other groups, he does not generalize about any of them as frequently or as freely. He rarely writes "the liberals", "the muslims", "the blacks", or "the latinos".
Auster ultimately blames "the anti-semites" or "the majority" for all consequences and causes of any conflict with "the jews". To him "the majority" are a lower form of life, useful mainly for defending "the jews" from "the anti-semites", the lowest form of life. In Auster's mind the conflict between these three cosmic collectives looms larger than anything else, and he projects this view into the minds of "the anti-semites".
Auster poses as a defender of "the majority", though he is mainly motivated by a concern for "the jews". He sees himself as a stealthy agent in the conflict, or as he puts it:
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.
Judging by how he repeats and repeats this point, it is reasonable to conclude that he considers it important.
Auster continues the cosmic struggle in Abandon all hope, ye who enter the ranks of the Jew-haters:
Is a pro-white, non-scary, non-demonic, non-anti-Semitic conservatism possible? ... The downward spiral begins as soon as one starts seeing Jews as a collective adversary.
The obvious conceit being that seeing "the anti-semites" as a collective adversary, or "the jews" as collective victims of that adversary, is "non-scary" and "non-demonic".
Returning to the question of the right-wing anti-Jews, I think it's become so clear that they are off in some mad world of their own, that it's less and less necessary to discuss them. They are too flagrantly loony to be a serious threat that needs to be confronted and refuted. Every time they open their mouths, they discredit themselves. No one else needs to do it for them.
And I must say, blogging is so much more pleasant and interesting when one is not dealing with these people and their pathologies. There are so many better and more fruitful topics to discuss.
And yet Auster always does return to discuss this "mad world". His invective is a textbook example of the characteristically judeo-bolshevist (what he habitually misidentifies as "liberal") tactic of pathologizing The Enemy - "the jew-haters", "the anti-jews", "the anti-semites" - as "scary", "demonic", and "loony".
The title, Abandon all hope, ye who enter the ranks of the Jew-haters, is a reference to Dante's Inferno. It's part and parcel of the pathologization of The Enemy, demonizing "the anti-semites/anti-jews/jew-haters".
It is reminiscent of a previous post titled In which circle of hell do the anti-Semites reside? in which the condemnation is spelled out more completely. Auster literally damns "the anti-semites" to hell. He does not condemn muslims, "liberals", or anyone else in such stark terms.
Toward the end of Abandon all hope, ye who enter the ranks of the Jew-haters:
Mark Jaws writes:
Now, this is a topic which I can sink my teeth into.
First, I would like to ask whether Tanstaafl claims to regard "ALL Jews" as his enemy, or just those Jews who are an active part of the political, media, and academic left. Because if he regards all Jews, to include me, who is the most vociferous anti-Jewish liberal whom I know, as his enemy, then I would say he is "anti-Jew." But what if Tanstaafl were to say, that Jews and semi-Semites such as Mark Jaws are OK, and are not to be regarded as the enemy? Could we then call Tanstaafl an "anti-liberal Jew?"
Second, is someone like me an anti-Jew? I have a grasp of the demographic makeup of the American Left and see Jewish dominance, and therefore hold Jews responsible, more than any other group on a per capital basis, for the societal drift to the left. Or am I an anti-liberal Jew? I also believe that the majority of American Jews are culturally inculcated, and quasi-genetically hardwired, given the 1500 years of persecution in Gentile Europe, to be anti-Christian and anti-conservative, which makes these otherwise brilliant people unreasonable when they enter the political realm.
LA replies:
I don't think your first question is worth pursuing. Haven't you read Tanstaafl? He says the Jews are his enemy. Period. He's never said the problem is just "leftist" Jews.
Auster doesn't quote me because it would contradict his claims. My answer to Jaws' question, which Auster only alludes to, was clearly stated in Committing PC's Most Mortal Sin:
Jews are not the only enemy, and not all Jews are enemies.
Auster has always read this as "Jews are [the] enemy. Period." In doing so he not only reveals himself as an enemy, but also that he's intent on polarization, and willing to lie and exaggerate to manufacture another boogeyman for his cosmic conflict.
As an aside, distinctions like "leftist jews" and "liberal jews" do not address cases like this, this, this, or this. These are non-events in Auster's passing scene. He's a champion of "the jews", not just "the non-liberal jews". His dissembling about "liberalism" and "white suicide" is squid ink for a greater cause.
The Auster-Jaws exchange eventually turns into mutual reassurances that The Enemy does indeed hate half-jews. The bit about Jaws doing "some infiltration into the REAL anti-Jew websites" is precious. Perhaps The Enemy hacked Auster's site to write it. Who else could imagine a jew being so self-conscious, self-pitying, paranoid, and sneaky? Ah, the things "the anti-semites" compel "the jews" to do.
Whites and half-jews tired of the loopy moralizing of Auster and friends are invited to read the opinions expressed by myself and others in A Personal Disclosure.
What I find strange about Lawerence Auster is that he claims to have converted to Christianity yet he spends little time defending Christians and much time defending Jews. Generally when someone converts in either politics or religion that person becomes more protective of their new belief then most who have been born or had the belief for a long time. They made the conscious decision to change their beliefs and so its something they generally are more willing to speak up about and defend.
Yet Lawerence Auster spends much of his time defending Jews even though he is a converted Christian. There are plenty of people on both the right and left who attack Christianity yet Auster rarely responds while on the other hand even a obscure or off hand remark against Jews can almost be guaranteed a response from Auster especially if its from the right.
DJF
Yes, the zeal of the convert is decidedly lacking in Auster.
I should have linked it in the original post, but Auster Projecting, Again thoroughly covers the issues here, and more. I referred there also to In which circle of hell do the anti-Semites reside?:
Auster, who so often indulges in guilt-by-association and calls for anyone he labels anti-semite to be censored, is apparently quite willing to associate with and even to provide a forum for Ken Hechtman. This is likely the "Ken H" who comments in the hell thread linked above. There "Ken H" insults Christians as unthinking "true believers" and compares this caricature to Auster's caricature of anti-semites. This really disturbed Auster. Not because it was an insult to Christians, but because he didn't want his condemnation of anti-semites to be diminished in any way. "Ken H" agrees that "[a]nti-Semites are certainly outside the pale of normal civil discourse" after which Auster has nothing to say about his slur against Christians.
That was written about 18 months ago, before I had noticed the significance of the "the" in Auster's writing.
Judging by the lack of "the Christians" in Auster's writing, his regard for Christians and Christianity just doesn't stack up to "the jews" or "the anti-semites/"the majority".
Concerning the Mark Jaws questions I quoted above:
Second, is someone like me an anti-Jew? I have a grasp of the demographic makeup of the American Left and see Jewish dominance, and therefore hold Jews responsible, more than any other group on a per capital basis, for the societal drift to the left. Or am I an anti-liberal Jew? I also believe that the majority of American Jews are culturally inculcated, and quasi-genetically hardwired, given the 1500 years of persecution in Gentile Europe, to be anti-Christian and anti-conservative, which makes these otherwise brilliant people unreasonable when they enter the political realm.
Jaws' first question, "whether Tanstaafl claims to regard "ALL Jews" as his enemy", Auster said wasn't worth pursuing. He then proceeded to pursue it and ignored Jaws' second question, which is something Auster has often hyperbolized and vociferously denounced as Darwinian anti-semitism:
the belief that Darwinian evolution has created the Jews as a people genetically determined to subvert and destroy white gentile societies wherever they encounter them
and Neo-Darwinian/Neo-Nazi Synthesis:
a combination of Darwinism, anti-Semitism, atheism, and a kind of brutal, extreme tribalism
Yet here Auster allows Jaws' "biological determinist anti-semitism" go unanswered.
Contrast this with Auster's hysterical reaction to Serge Trifkovic's view of the history of White/jewish relations:
What is utterly shocking and appalling is Serge Trifkovic's statement. He has never been visibly an anti-Semite. But in his contribution to the symposium, he engages in a demonization of the Jewish people that goes beyond Kevin MacDonald, if that is possible. He portrays the Jews as quite simply the cause of everything bad. He describes the Jewish people as coextensive with the principle of evil and the various harms caused by leftism. The Jews are the enemy, period.
(Auster is shocked and appalled, just as he was with the arrest of Roman Polanski.)
Jaws telegraphs that he is biologically a half-jew who strongly identifies as jewish, and that his quasi-Darwinian "anti-semitism" is motivated by the best interests of jews. Auster copies and pastes this with no comment. Trifkovic provides a view of "anti-semitism" more sympathetic to Whites than jews, identifying judaism as a racial survival strategy. Auster goes bananas.
Auster's "jewish background" explains the many reactions like this that have no other plausible explanation. Of course Auster says that such criticism of him is really an affront to "the jews":
the anti-Semites believe, literally, that everything a person of Jewish background does is done for the sake of advancing the power of the Jews over white gentiles
Once again note the mantra-like non-denial of the "fifth-columnist" meme.
Most jews would probably call Mark Jaws a "self-hating jew". For all the time and energy Auster puts into exploring "anti-semitism" he doesn't write much about this "self-hating" variety. I think that's probably because it hits too close to home. Auster has undoubtedly been attacked by self-righteous jews who see his "separationism", racialism, and sympathetic-sounding rhetoric concerning "the white race" as potentially bad for "the jews". He sees no point in addressing such charges because he knows in his mind he's a champion for "the jews". Besides that, focusing on how concerned he and "the jews" are about what's good for "the jews" would only validate The Enemy, "the anti-semites".
I await with bated breath Auster's forthcoming "anti-semitism" debate, wherein he will explain how Serge Trifkovic is the worst person (for "the jews") since Hitler. So far the dog seems to have eaten this self-assigned homework.
Richard Spencer says that the neocons are causing greater harm to America than would the mass occupation of the U.S. by Mexican immigrants. Auster is scandalized by the "depraved" idea that Paul Craig Roberts and Richard Spencer judge "the neocons" (which Austers recognizes as code for "the jews") to be a bigger threat than mass immigration:
as the Alt Rightists have made undeniably clear over the last several months, the enemy at whom their animus is aimed is the Jews. They hate the Jews more than they love America.
More "the" business: "the neocons", a subset of "the jews", and "the Alt Rightists", a subset of "the anti-semites".
My reaction is, so what? Different people have different priorities. Roberts and Spencer seem aware that jews, be it "the neocons" or Auster, distinguish themselves by their skill and willingness to express their priorities as universal moral imperatives for everyone else. As Auster has made undeniably clear over the last several years, the enemy at whom his animus is aimed is "the anti-semites" who, among other things, recognize facts like this. Auster's attempt to guilt-trip and pathologize "the Alt Rightists" for the sort of "depraved" judging and prioritizing he himself indulges in makes sense in only one light - he sees jewish interests as trumping everything else. He hates "the anti-semites" because he loves "the jews". He hates "the anti-semites" more than he loves "the white race", or America, or the West, or anything else.
DJF, good point about Auster not defending Christianity. Cambria Will Not Yield he ain't.
Another odd thing is that he has bitter feuds with bloggers who are explicitly Christian. Christians are not supposed to battle each other publicly, but to air their disputes one-to-one or privately. If one Christian has a problem with his 'brother' or sister that is to be dealt with in a certain way, not by going on the attack in front of the world.
Patrick Grimm has a good posting addressing the issue. I don't include his listing of what the US State Department considers to be "anti-semitism" in the excerpt, but it should be viewed.
"As one can see, all “anti-Semitism” heretofore described--Semite being a curious name for a group of Ashkenazi Jews who largely have neither Semitic features or a connection to biblical Israel--[5] is only verbal or written criticism that would fall under protected political speech if directed against most other identifiable groups, races or religious affiliations, Jews placing themselves into all three of these categories by their own writings and statements, though they have had some internecine squabbles about what constitutes a Jew. [6]
On the flip side, Jewish extremists have for many decades pursued an unrelenting and un-ironical (in their own eyes) campaign of hatred and defamation against Christians, white Christians in particular, and have thundered forth with academic treatises, literary works, films, documentaries and websites [7] demonizing any and all things European and white. Yet despite this reality, Jewish interests and Jewish agendas must be protected by GOVERNMENT FIAT and shielded from critical eyes and critical words, come what may, while open season is declared by these same leading tribalist acolytes on all things Christian and European. These particular Jews have tipped their many grasping hands again and again, and their purposes are more than clear to all but the grossly uninformed and obtuse, but damned be the brave soul who mentions those intentions aloud.
What are the actual intentions of Jewish supremacism and the State Department’s Jewish-instigated witch hunt for politically incorrect pariahs and blasphemers? It’s quite simple really. These ethnic supremacists want a dishonest and expurgated portrait of their very nature, their place and their corrosive role upon this planet. The acidic historical nature of Jewish machinations, Judaism and the state of Israel must be abridged, every dot and tittle of truth and genuine history blotted out. They want all the offensive tendrils and hangers-on of their true selves to be clipped away before these protuberances are spotted, discovered and (YHWH forbid!) talked about."
http://patrickgrimm.typepad.com/zionist-watch/2008/05/the-jewish-durga-and-the-goyim-kleptocracy.html
I personally like the next quote:
"There are three kinds of people who are not anti-semetic.
1) Those who do not care.
2) Those who do not know.
3) Those who are jewish.
- zergkiller"
Commenting on News From the West
http://newsfromthewest.blogspot.com/2007/05/radical-homosexual-movement-is-run-by.html?zx=f3a379323360e65b
Flanders
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sorry for the multiple postings, Tan. Blogger commenting kept indicating that they had not posted. Let's try another on a related subject.
"The word "racist" has for a long time been the single most effective fear-word in the leftist and neoconservative arsenal. For decades, they have successfully used it in the political arena to slander traditionalists, shut down debate, and leave opponents running for cover. In the social arena, they have caused even more damage by using it to brainwash impressionable children and young college students, and to teach people to hate their nation, their cultural traditions, and worst of all, themselves.
What surprisingly remains almost totally undiscussed, even on the hard core traditionalist Right, is the word's origin. Did it come from a liberal sociologist? A 60's Marxist college professor? Perhaps a politician in the Democratic Party? No. It turns out that the word was invented by none other than one of the principal architects of the 74-year Soviet nightmare, the founder and first leader of the infamous Red Army, Leon Trotsky."
"Racist" -- A Word Invented by USSR's
Leon Trotsky" - by Dustin Stanley
http://newrightamerica.blogspot.com/2010/01/racist-word-invented-by-ussrs-leon.html
Author Stanley goes on to explain that it is from a passage in Leon Trotsky's work of 1930, the Latin transliteration of "racistov", which is the first time in more modern history that the word is used.
He goes on to explain what Leon Trotsky's was purpose in inventing this word. You will need to go to the article to understand that more fully. The below gives some idea about how it was used at the time.
"The reality of the word's origin is indeed quite a far cry from the left-liberal version of the story: that the word was coined in bona fides to identify people who were just plain bigoted against certain racial groups, and as a rallying cry for good liberals to protect the racial minorities from the bigots. On the contrary, the actual concept behind the word (even though he hadn't invented it quite yet) -- that ethnocentric "backwardness" must take a back seat to "enlightened" internationalism -- was often used by Army-Navy Commissar Trotsky as a rallying cry for good Red Army communists to embark upon murderous rampages against peoples who resisted having their traditional way of life paved over and replaced with an alien system".
Flanders
"Once again note the mantra-like non-denial of the "fifth-columnist" meme."
Why do they do this, Tan?
Why is it Jewish arguers enjoy so much stating the plain truth in a mocking tone?
Is it, are they taunting us, saying, "Ha ha, I can say it and you can't"?
Or are they deliberatly triggering the psychological self-preservation instinct of humans to join a bully to avoid, themselves, becoming a victim? If so, do they do this just for the fun of it or because they don't want bystanders to either sympathize with the mock-ee or look too closely at the plain truth?
Or, are they secretly begging us non-Jews to see the truth and save them from themselves?
DJF said: "What I find strange about Lawerence Auster is that he claims to have converted to Christianity yet he spends little time defending Christians and much time defending Jews. Generally when someone converts in either politics or religion that person becomes more protective of their new belief then most who have been born or had the belief for a long time."
Well, that's because Judaism and Christianity are two different things -- Judaism is a biological population (an ethny) while Christianity is a religion. You can't convert from one to another (unless there's some new, high-tech genetic therapy out there I don't know about).
You can convert from one religion to another, or one ideology to another, but you just can't convert from one ethny to another -- and it doesn't make any sense to say that you can convert from an ethny to a religion or ideology. They're not like groups.
TANSTAAFL -- Your comment at 8/24/2010 04:50:00 PM is so excellently written that it should be a blog post!
"my attention was initially focused on (...) "liberals" (...) then muslims and their jihad (...) then immigration (...) and finally "the jews"
Just another anonymous: "are they secretly begging us non-Jews to see the truth and save them from themselves?"
I always saw immigration and leftism as a calamity. I learned about the crucial Jewish role in the last few years thanks to the internet. American blogs sympathetic to the neocons inadvertently helped me go a little faster. They liked to paint themselves as anti-leftist and anti-muslim, but I later realized that they were pro-immigration. They were gloating over immigrant rioting in France in 2005, and they lamented France's "surge in anti-semitism", as if the hostility did not come from Arab immigrants.
In the USA and other countries, the Jews have done a good job of expelling the paleocons from the media. But the neocon thing was too much. It made the Jews more visible. A Jew can be mistaken for a treacherous liberal, but it's harder for him to pass as a real conservative.
I think Auster hurts himself by writing so many duplicitous articles about "antisemitism". But it's a good thing for us.
Why do they do this, Tan?
See Jews Mocking the Tribe? Edmund Connelly wonders about the motives behind a related phenomena, jews joking about their power. He touches on the same motives you mention. I see some truth in them all.
It is trite and obvious perhaps, but I think that whether it's dressed up as a big joke (ala SNL or the Onion) or painted as a moral outrage (ala Auster), the main motive is to stymie and stigmatize any serious review or critique of jewish influence and malfeasance. Ridicule/provoke/tease/mock the goyische kopfs at the same time? But of course. If you read Auster closely, especially the parts I've highlighted, his low regard for "the majority" shines through.
Who Thinks Thinking is Unthinkable and Why concerns James Howard Kunstler. Kunstler's writing drips with contempt for Whites, AKA "the yeast people" and "cornpone Nazis", while he frets what they might do to "the jews" and brown-skinned people.
Flanders,
The OED has ‘racist’ being used as a noun in 1926 in Britain and in 1927 in the USA, and the French ‘raciste’ in 1924. The earliest example they’ve found of ‘racism’ in English is in the Christian Science Monitor in 1932:
It is altogether inaccurate to suggest that Europe is being indoctrinated with Fascism or Racism.
but given the use of ‘racist’ in the twenties, I wonder if ‘racism’ wasn’t probably also in use before 1930? In any case, Trotskyites did popularise its use and their aim, then as now, was to suppress and stigmatise national feeling, and Trotsky may well have created the term.
***
Tan, brilliant work in this thread. Scalpel sharp and crystal clear. I almost feel sorry for Auster.
More on The Origins of "Racism", by Sam Francis.
Z.O.G. made the following comment at TOO regarding Magnus Hirschfeld, the jewish sexologist:
Let’s not forget that Jews created the modern “homosexual rights” movement in America. Additionally, the first “homosexual rights” advocate was the Jew-German doctor Magnus Hirschfeld, who also invented the word “racism”, and fled Germany when the National Socialists came to power. One of the famous newsreels of a Nazi book burning is actually a video of Nazi party members burning Hirschfeld’s library.
Or as Auster would put it:
The anti-Semites claim the Jews created races and homosexuality and every other ill in the world in order to undermine the white race. Period."
Let's look at Lawrence Auster from this point of view.
Jewish characteristics are merely statistical, so there is no reason why he would have to have them all, but in fact he seems to. Besides the four traits I mentioned, he is playing to Jewish stereotypes in a bunch of other ways, not all morally neutral or good. For example, the Jews are a contentious people, and Lawrence Auster is hyper-contentious. I've known many Jews who are less quarrelsome than Lawrence Auster, more reluctant to injure other people's reputations, more reluctant to twist facts and strain a point to "win" an argument, and so on. Even by Jewish standards, Lawrence Auster is an outlier, more Jewish than the Jews.
He's also hyper-ethnocentric, twice. Compared to the pathologically low level of ethnocentricity now typical of American Whites, he's extremely ethnocentric, in their favor. And compared to the extremely high level of ethnocentricity typical of Jews, he's also unusually ethnocentric, in their favor.
When neither of the ethnies he is attached to really likes some competing group, like African-Americans, he can be so harsh he makes me flinch.
When the interests of the ethnies he is attached to conflict ... the strong force overcomes the weak force.
- Daybreaker
A Dual-Seedline Christian Identity 'take' on events of the past week within the White Nationalist [bowel] Movement by an Aryan Nations activist of over 16 years experience.
TONIGHT AT 11PM EASTERN
http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/75473
And notice that Lawerence Auster does not take us on. No mention of by Auster of any the commentators here.
I wonder why? Why don't you Lawerence Auster take me on? Why don't you? Where are you Lawerence Auster? So full of yourself? Did I speak the truth Lawerence Auster, or do you? Why don't you bring up my comments? Is Zionism to be an article of the Christian Faith? Is it? Is not tradition, Christian political Tradition, to suppress the Jews? An you call yourself a "traditionalist"? Where are you Mr. Auster? My comments too tough for you to handle? d
Post a Comment
<< Home