Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Friday, October 29, 2010

Murdoch, Phillips, and Auster on What's Best for "The Jews"

The Aim Is to Make Israel a Pariah:
Recently, Rupert Murdoch gave an extraordinary speech at an Anti-Defamation League dinner in which he revealed, yet again, that he is a true and selfless friend of the Jewish people and of Israel.
We live in a world where there is an ongoing war against the Jews. For the first decades after Israel’s founding, this war was conventional in nature. The goal was straightforward: to use military force to overrun Israel. Well before the Berlin Wall came down, that approach had clearly failed.

Then came phase two: terrorism. Terrorists targeted Israelis both home and abroad – from the massacre of Israeli athletes at Munich to the second intifada. The terrorists continue to target Jews across the world. But they have not succeeded in bringing down the Israeli government – and they have not weakened Israeli resolve.

Now the war has entered a new phase. This is the soft war that seeks to isolate Israel by delegitimizing it. The battleground is everywhere: the media … multinational organizations … NGOs. In this war, the aim is to make Israel a pariah.
Tonight I’d like to speak about two things that worry me most. First is the disturbing new home that anti-Semitism has found in polite society – especially in Europe. Second is how violence and extremism are encouraged when the world sees Israel’s greatest ally distancing herself from the Jewish state.

When Americans think of anti-Semitism, we tend to think of the vulgar caricatures and attacks of the first part of the 20th century.

Today it seems that the most virulent strains come from the left. Often this new anti-Semitism dresses itself up as legitimate disagreement with Israel.
Right now we have war. There are many people waging this war. Some blow up cafes. Some fire rockets into civilian areas. Some are pursuing nuclear arms. Some are fighting the soft war, through international boycotts and resolutions condemning Israel. All these people are watching the U.S.-Israeli relationship closely.

In this regard, I was pleased to hear the State Department’s spokesman clarify America’s position yesterday. He said that the United States recognizes “the special nature of the Israeli state. It is a state for the Jewish people.” This is an important message to send to the Middle East. When people see, for example, a Jewish prime minister treated badly by an American president, they see a more isolated Jewish state. That only encourages those who favor the gun over those who favor negotiation.

Ladies and gentlemen, back in 1937, a man named Vladimir Jabotinsky urged Britain to open up an escape route for Jews fleeing Europe. Only a Jewish homeland, he said, could protect European Jews from the coming calamity. In prophetic words, he described the problem this way: “It is not the anti-Semitism of men,” he said. “It is, above all, the anti-Semitism of things, the inherent xenophobia of the body social or the body economic under which we suffer.”

The world of 2010 is not the world of the 1930s. The threats Jews face today are different. But these threats are real. These threats are soaked in an ugly language familiar to anyone old enough to remember World War II. And these threats cannot be addressed until we see them for what they are: part of an ongoing war against the Jews.
Is Rupert Murdoch jewish? Does it matter? As we see here, he's most concerned about the best interests of "the jews". He's pleased that the US government defends the "special nature" of Israelis, never mind that it attacks Whites for wanting anything similar. He sees Israelis and diaspora jews as one cosmic "the jews", and he vividly imagines they need defending from "the inherent xenophobia" of Europeans and a nuclear Iran. He implies that Europeans and Iranians are of a single mind - hell-bent on Israel's destruction.

As an aside, Jabotinsky was a jewish ethno-nationalist. He advocated jewish interests without pretending that they didn't conflict with European interests. The ADL's role has been to convince Americans and Europeans to think of jewish ethno-nationalism as wholesome and normal, while White ethno-nationalism is pathological and evil.

In language that is familiar to anyone who has been exposed in any way to contemporary mainstream Western media, academia, or politics, Murdoch paints jews as the eternally innocent victims of moral and mental defectives "warring" on them. His description of "threats ... soaked in an ugly language familiar to anyone old enough to remember World War II" calls up decades of guilt-tripping and brain-washing. Despite the loud and constant self-pity of wealthy, powerful jews and their wealthy, powerful friends their self-serving manipulations only highlight the anti-White/pro-jewish regime which reigns across the Eurosphere today. Pity for supposedly oppressed "minorities", jews first and foremost, has been used to justify anti-White "civil rights", massive transfers of wealth, and genocidal levels of immigration by hyper-fecund non-Whites. If Whites lend a hand to protect anybody, it should be to protect ourselves.

Zionist jewess Melanie Phillips makes her living lecturing others, primarily via British media, about what they should consider wrong, bad, immoral and insane. Very often her lectures revolve around the interests of "the jews". Phillips referred to Murdoch's speech in an op-ed grandiosely titled The war for civilisation:
Well at least one man gets it.

Rupert Murdoch has made a direct, to-the-point, ambiguity-free speech about the anti-Israel, anti-Jew frenzy now consuming the west.
It is a rebuke to the world on the single most important and defining issue of our time.
Phillips is accustomed to rebuking the world. As an example of "our" time, Phillips cites Adrian Hamilton's Israel has no future as a purely Jewish state criticizing a new Israeli "loyalty oath". Right after telling us how special and important "the jews" and Israel are Phillips insists this oath is really no different than "Britain is British, France French and so on".

Hamilton says nothing about Israel that hasn't been aimed at Whites and our countries a million times before, often by jews, and usually in more strident terms. Ideas like "Britain is British, France French" are viciously attacked, from within, and in such cases the voices of naive literal anti-"racists", like Hamilton, who mistakenly regard jews as equals, are dwarfed and drowned out by the anti-White bigotry flowing from chauvinist jews and jewish organizations who operate under no delusions of equality. There is, to use the terminology of Murdoch and Phillips, a war on Britons. "The jews" are on the other side. Melanie Phillips is with them. When she writes negatively about muslims it's because she thinks they're doing something bad for "the jews". When she denounces those who want Britain to remain British she does so for the same reason.

Just as Murdoch does, Phillips only mentions muslim/arab hostility toward jews in passing. It is plain to see that they both consider the real enemy, the people they are most concerned about waging "war" on "the jews", to be White/European. This is why Murdoch and Phillips both completely ignore anti-White bigotry. To acknowledge it would require an examination of jewish culpability. In their minds "the jews" are above reproach, special people in one special country who are treated especially bad, especially by Whites. As Phillips writes:
Within the west, it is also the ever-more brazenly explicit reason for the campaign of delegitimisation being waged against Israel. Israel is the one and only country in the world whose right to exist is being questioned. And that of course is the point of Hamilton's little tirade.
To make his case that Europeans are waging an ongoing "war" against "the jews" Murdoch cited Karel De Gucht, an EU bureaucrat. Phillips makes her case by citing Hamilton, an opinion shaper like herself, reading his mind and putting words in his mouth to write a little tirade of her own:
So what Hamilton wants is for Israel no longer to be.
Phillips concludes by abruptly broadening her fears and smears, naming the crime and the criminals:
Thus the ‘progressive’ western intelligentsia make themselves potential accomplices to genocide.
Self-styled jewish fifth-columnist Lawrence Auster likes to write scolding letters. He addressed one to Melanie Phillips about her remarks on Murdoch, taking the judeo-centrism to an even more bizarre level. Is cosmic Judeo-centrism good for the Jews? (Auster's emphasis):
Below is an e-mail I sent today to Melanie Phillips, followed by her reply. You will see from her reply why I felt at liberty to post the exchange, which I had no thought of doing when I wrote to her.
I'm sorry to bother you. I know you don't want to hear my thoughts. But I must say this to you and I hope you will give the 90 seconds it will take you to read this e-mail.

When you say of Rupert Murdoch's speech on anti-Semitism that it is "a rebuke to the world on the single most important and defining issue of our time," you are making a big mistake. Is the threat to the Jews a bigger problem than the Islamization of the entire West? When you call anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism the "most important and defining issue of our time," you are coming across like a typically Judeo-centric Jew who thinks that the Jews are the most important thing in the world. Instead of being concerned first and foremost about the West, you are concerned first and foremost about the Jews. And this supports the anti-Semitic view of Jews, that Jews are not at bottom loyal to the West, but only loyal to the Jews.

I have spent a significant part of my time battling against the anti-Semites on the American paleoconservative and white nationalist right. The fuel that drives the anti-Semites is their belief that Jews are not on the side of the West, that Jews are using the West to advance and protect Jewish interests. You seem to have no idea of how the inordinate Judeo-centrism of your statement would make you appear to others.

I respectfully ask you to ask yourself if it's really true that anti-Semitism is the "single most important and defining issue of our time," and whether you are being helpful to the Jews, helpful to Israel, and helpful to the West [Tanstaafl: note the order], when you make the protection of the Jews and Israel the supreme issue of the world.

Lawrence Auster
Melanie Phillips replied:
The war against the Jews is the single biggest and defining issue of our time because (a) it stands at the fulcrum of the west's repudiation of its own culture (b) the animus against the Jews lies at the core of the Islamic threat against the west and (c) if Israel goes down, the west goes down. Your message is typically as ignorant as it is offensive.

What Auster is saying here is, "Hey, it would better advance and protect jewish interests if you would just pretend you cared about the goyim." "No", Phillips responds, "Can't do that." Their disagreement concerns the significance of "the war against 'the jews'", or rather, the significance it should be accorded in public discussions. The "war" itself is taken for granted.

"The war against 'the jews'" and what Auster calls the effort "to advance and protect jewish interests" are of course two sides of the same coin. The latter can be seen as "the war against those 'the jews' accuse of warring against 'the jews'", or more simply, "the war to advance and protect jewish interests".

We're reminded again that muslims play only a supporting role in this "war". Phillips' typically judeo-centric view is that "the Islamic threat against the west" is just one aspect of "animus against 'the jews'". Auster's typically judeo-centric view is that Phillips' public assertion that "the Islamization of the entire West" is most important because it is bad for "the jews" is itself bad for "the jews".

Auster brags of his efforts to war on Whites who refuse jewish dominance and he accuses Phillips of making his self-appointed job harder. In doing so Auster concedes more clearly than ever before a point he has long danced around. He does indeed spend a significant part of his time battling White conservatives and nationalists, and clearly he does so because he favors jews and jewish interests more than anything else. See Lawrence Auster, Champion of "The Jews" for more on this point.

Auster takes for granted, de Gucht-style, that ethnocentrism is typical of jews, though he argues it should be masked to best advance their interests. Auster sees Phillips' approach as too brazen, not wrong. Both cloak their pursuit of what's good for jews inside a putative defense of the West, or as Auster puts it, "using the West to advance and protect jewish interests". Auster differs from Phillips largely in his willingness to cultivate his pose as a champion of the West by grappling with the symptoms of the anti-White regime. He even discusses the jewish role in it, though not to worry, it's only because he thinks it's bad for "the jews".

After Auster shares their private email exchange, a critique of Phillips ensues. Much of it applies just as well to Auster:
Jeff in England writes:

Subject: THE BIG BANG(er)

I had to laugh at your latest attempt to get Melanie to become a serious thinker on the primacy of the Islamic threat (vs. the Jewish persecution issue), let alone any issue.

Melanie is NOT a thinker as such, rather she is a "banger." She simply bangs on (as they say here) with extremely focused robotic-like wordage her limited set of views where Jewish persecution is the permanent never changing number one on her list. The possibility that any issue can threaten the number one status of the Jewish (and Israeli) persecution issue is well beyond her limited intellectual scope.

LA replies:

Jeff's view of Melanie is very like my own. Before I received his e-mail, I had it in my head to write a comment saying that Melanie has a sharp intelligence, but it is one-dimensional. She focuses only on the things she is attacking, and never reflects on her own positions and thought processes. Anything that lies outside her limited world view is simply wrong and therefore ignorant.

However, Jeff's rougher way of putting the same idea makes the point better: she's not a thinker, she's a banger.

You can't help but wonder, how does someone get to her late fifties, a successful writer, and still be so primitive and unthinking in her dealings with people?

LA replies:

However, these reflections on Melanie Phillips's stunning limitations--she's not called "Mad Mel" for nothing--also make her less useful as an example of some typical Jewish attitude. She's too extreme a personality to be typical.
Here begins a repeat of a well-worn Auster pattern. A dollop of heresy about "the jews", in this case their over-the-top judeo-centrism, followed by some talmudic hair-splitting about the meaning of it all, followed inevitably by a shift in focus to some vaguely defined non-jewish scapegoat - "the liberals", "the anti-semites", "the majority", ... Here the pattern unfolds once again when Auster confides his thoughts about "the war against 'the jews'" and who, ultimately, he, Phillips, and Murdoch hold accountable:
LA replies:

. . .

I would say that the war against the Jews is a very grave problem and a threat not only to Jews but to our civilization., But to say that it is at the fulcrum of the West's repudiation of its own culture is going too far. The West's repudiation of its own culture has many motivations and components that have nothing to do with the Jews, and it would be happening even if there were no Jews.
That last sentence is an absurd assertion, and Auster knows it, pointing as he does to an older article where he attacks Pat Buchanan and writes: "If the West abandons Israel to a Second Holocaust at the hands of Islamic extremists, that will be an act of collective moral suicide--the true Death of the West." In other words, "our" "suicide" hinges on "the jews". To make the point Auster invokes the very same decades of jew-favoring guilt-tripping and brain-washing Murdoch invokes, which is exactly what's fueling the "suicide". Hiding in plain sight. "Go ahead", the jewish warrior says, "point out that it isn't suicide, jew-hater."

To drive home that "the jews" are blameless two days later Auster posted a related entry, An interesting view of the Jewish problem:
John Gay writes from Canada:

With respect, it seems to me that both you and Melanie Phillips are missing the point in your aborted exchange about the Jews.

You ask, "Is cosmic Judeo-centrism good for the Jews?" Many Jews certainly don't like being the focus of the inordinate historical attention focused on their small nation, and many have been murdered for it. But this is the fate of being a Jew, a carrier, or sign, of a revelation of great historical significance. A "Jew" is not simply whatever he is, as an actual person in daily life. And if one day the enemies of the Jews succeed in killing off all the Jews, they will still have a need for "Jews" and they will find them under one name or another, within one resentful conspiracy theory or another, because their identities depend, at their very core, on having "Jews" to resent.

In other words, what Melanie P. is talking about, it seems to me, is the anthropological and historical significance of anti-Semitism, something that transcends the actual lives of Jews, their DNA, and mundane or selfish interests. The "cosmic" significance of the Jew is the anthropological revelation that a loving God who wishes to allow humanity to discover the creative, nation-defining, "republican," self-ruling possibilities of covenant must offer the choice first to one particular nation, and not to all humanity at once. Someone has to go first; a universal truth can only be revealed from a particular historical vantage point. But it is just this reality that the anti-Semite resents--that he is second, or third, to "discover" some profound existential truth, such as that one and all are in relationship with the one God of monotheism. The anti-Semite resents the creativity, the "firstness," on which all productive nation building depends (which is not to say that such creativity is necessarily closed to him, but his resentment will often become trapped in a desire for conformity to some already-established relationship to what we signify as sacred or divine, such as the supposedly eternal, and uncreated, cosmically original, Koran).

So, leaving aside the personal animus, I read Melanie's response to you thus:

"The war against the Jews is the single biggest and defining issue of our time because (a) it stands at the fulcrum of the West's repudiation of its own culture."

- Yes, even if all Jews are killed, the war may continue as long as some Western nation takes up the mantle of "Israel." But when no one plays "Israel," the war is truly lost. Again, the war against the Jews is not so much against actual persons, though it certainly threatens first and foremost actual Jews, who are the most obvious "Jews," as it is against what Israel represents in the Western tradition as the first and exemplary nation.
So let's review.

Plutocrat media mogul Rupert Murdoch pays obsequious homage to "the jews" while accepting an award from a very real, very powerful jewish organization dedicated to defending and promoting specifically jewish interests. In doing so Murdoch makes the extraordinary implication that Europeans are waging a "war" against "the jews". Professional jewish bigot Melanie Phillips applauds, clarifies, and extends this idea, asserting that the "war" is essentially the European rejection of the validity of "the jews" as the center, the crux, the "most important" part of "our" culture. Jewish fifth-columnist Lawrence Auster adds White American conservatives and nationalists to the enemies list, but insists that "the jews" have nothing to do with it. The "war" against "the jews" is all about Whites killing ourselves. Whites are so crazy with suicidal "the jew"-hate that we'd mistake eskimos for "the jews" if there weren't any "actual" cosmic "the jews" to pick on.

One thing that's clear from all this double-talk is that the very people most obsessed with the interests of "the jews" will not acknowledge that anyone else has any interests. In their minds "the jews" are most important. They aren't shy about letting everyone know this, or lecturing everyone that we too must at least behave as if we accept it. They fret and exaggerate and generalize. They feel free to babble on about a "war" against "the jews" waged by Whites, and when they really work themselves into a froth it's the whole world against "the jews". It's a dishonest way of excusing the arrogance and aggression directed in the opposite direction. To listen to "the jews" it's all about what's good for "us" and "our" interests, at least until the mask comes off and all that nonsense gets overridden by whatever they think is good for "the jews". Any concern for interests explicitly or even implicitly distinct from "the jews" causes an allergic reaction in "the jews". The reaction is so universal, so strong, that it grips even those who usually present themselves as defenders of abstract White collectives, whether it's Britain, America, the West, or "our civilization". With their own judeo-centric moralizing however these poseurs consistently demonstrate that their very highest loyalty is to the collective they call "the jews".

For more about Auster on "the jews" see Two "Conservative" Jews, Same "Liberal" Dissembling, The First Law of Jewish Influence, Triangulating From the Right, and Suicide vs. Competition.

Labels: , , ,



Anonymous Sheila said...

Good post, Tanstaafl. You're correct; Auster constantly positions himself as a champion of the West, but his interpretation of a thriving, European West absolutely requires an equally thriving Israel. He simply assumes that the U.S. cannot be successful, indeed cannot even lay claim to its American constitutional heritage, without the survival of a Jewish homeland. Thus his argument that he is not putting Jewish interests before American ones; to him (as to Phillips)they are and must be one and the same.

A commenter who frequently posts at many other mainstream conservative sites, one "AdinaF in Israel," often fulminates about Obama and how Jews in Israel are under no illusions about him, as opposed to liberal American Jews (of course, she holds dual citizenship and will vote this coming election). Her primary concern, of course, is not whether Obama is good for America, but that he's bad for the Jews and Israel. In a comment yesterday at neocon "The American Thinker," about the first London borough to be thoroughly Islamic, she scorned Britain as dead and added that she couldn't care less, because the Brits had always been "antisemitic and anti-Zionist." Again, not a word about how English pioneers founded America, how English law and English concepts of rights and the beginnings of religious freedom took root here, merely a nasty trashing of the nation that gave us Shakespeare and Milton and Churchill as being unworthy of her care, because it didn't consider her people's concerns primary to its own existence.

Yesterday at that same site, James Lewis wrote a post wondering why Jews always voted for their "enemies." There was a surprising honesty among the responses, and the editors actually allowed a number of comments which would normally be cut as "antisemitic." There was also the full complement of Jewish commenters, adding the usual pabulum about the Jews history of "oppression" and the like to explain why Jews voted for the Kenyan in numbers second only to blacks. Not once, however, did any of them think to mention that their primary allegiance ought to be to America. All of them cited, as a main part of their disillusionment in the black messiah, that he didn't really care about Israel. Again - just as with Auster - the assumption that unquestioning support for Israel equals American patriotism. One wonders if Truman would have been in quite such a hurry to recognize Israel as legitimate if he knew that it would become the third rail of American politics. Of course, whenever one questions Jews' loyalties in view of their primary allegiance to Israel and their own interests first, one is an "evil hater" and dismissed by Auster and his ilk. Just as the Jews have managed to transform our heritage to "Judeo-Christian," they continue to assume comfortably that Israel, a socialist theocracy, is as primary to the historical West as America itself. Hubris, anyone? (Sorry to go on so long, but I'm so sick with loathing of this strain of thought, and there are so few websites where I can actually post about this without being banned.)

10/29/2010 03:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Wandrin said...

"We live in a world where there is an ongoing war against the Jews."

Their whole way of being is based on inculcating paranoia - part of which is constantly telling themselves a completely bogus version of history where jews never do anything wrong and are always the innocent victims.

The reasons for growing anti-Israeli sentiment in Europe is

a) Muslim immigration.
b) Anti ethno-nationalist brainwashing in the dominant culture.

Both of which are primarily the result of jewish ethnic activism.

Not only will they not accept that *their* war on white people is the primary cause for their current problems but they use the growing anti-Israeli sentiment *they* created as fuel for even more anti-white hatred.

They're insane.

10/29/2010 05:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There was this film some years ago "You don't mess with the Zohan", a typically jewish comedy starring Adam Sandler as an Israeli super-commando who is fed up with war and comes to America to become a hairdresser.
The film is interesting for its implications: Palestinians, and Arabs in general, are depicted relatively badly compared to Israelis. BUT, not nearly as bad as guessed it, Whites! The real villain in the story is a waspy business magnate who owns most of the area where arab and israeli-jewish neighborhoods are located, and wants to turn it into some kind of theme park. And in order to achieve this he uses ...(correct) other whites who are explicitly presented as naive, racist, bigoted etc. hillbillies.
In the end, arabs and jews, despite their differences, come together (!) to fight off those nasty whites who try to harass them - and live happily ever after.

Apparently this typifies the "liberal" jewish take on the issue: there may be conflicts in Palestine with the Arabs, and of course they will take Israel's side any time it is needed. But they're not the real enemy, after all they are semites too.
The real threat is here in the US and it is the evil white 'racists', so arabs and jews who live here should leave behind Middle East conflicts and unite against their common enemy.

10/30/2010 09:39:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tanstaafl, I don't have the strong stomach to read the likes of Auster, Heer, and Phillips and appreciate that you do. Thanks.

It's getting almost comical, they haven't stopped crying about the Holocaust (TM) and are already crying about Holocaust II.

10/30/2010 11:24:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous's comment at 9:39pm rightly points out that Jewish-Mohammedan hostility in the twentieth century rises from the creation of the State of Israel in Palestine, not an eternal long-standing antipathy. True, the prophet Mohammed once spurned by the Jews of Arabia ordered their persecution (as well as that of the native Pagans and Christians), but afterwards the Jews of the Christian Byzantine Empire and Visigothic Spain eagerly assisted the invasion and progress of the Mohammedan conquerors. In fact, in every instance of a Barbarian Mohammedan nation or empire holding sway over Europeans, the local Jews have zealously worked in support of the foreign invader.

The gigantic gold statue at Rhodes - the Colossus - was bought and salvaged by Jewish merchants after the plunder of the island by the Saracens in the 7th century, the Jews of Spain in the 8th century betrayed the Romano-Visigoth natives to the Saracens and like in the European territories of the Ottomans, behaved as Vichy-like collaborationists with the foreign overlords. The Hebrew-Saracen hosility of our times in a mere, brief tiff between lovers, in time they will become reconciled and turn their conjoint ire against the goi kaffirs of fair Europe.

10/30/2010 01:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

a typically jewish comedy starring Adam Sandler

See also the Wedding Singer. A seemingly sweet film where Sandler wins the heart of Drew Barrymore.

And who is the bad guy, the one he wins her away from?

The shallow rapacious white Wall Streeter.

How like life that is! The unwordly sensitive jew at odds with the cynical, worldy, materialistic WASP.

10/30/2010 04:04:00 PM  
Anonymous eh said... consuming the west.

One needn't read more to see that the woman is nutso. So steeped in her own paranoid, ethnocentric fog she can no longer discern reality.

11/01/2010 06:12:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

In Talking with Jews (or not), written in Feb 2009 by Kevin MacDonald, he discusses the ADL and Jabotinskyists, and quotes a blog post by Karin Friedemann, an ethnically Jewish anti-Zionist, that seems to have since disappeared from the web:

American Jews are actually being trained since childhood to interact with non-Jews in a deceitful and arrogant manner, in coordination with each other, to emotionally destroy Gentiles and Israel critics in addition to wrecking their careers and interfering with their social relationships. This is actually deliberate, wicked, planned behavior motivated by a narcissistic self-righteous fury….

The problem is that Gentiles are taught through emotional pressure and violence via the media and the school system to be very sensitive to Jewish suffering so when a Zionist becomes outraged at them for challenging their world view, the Gentile really has to fight against his own inner self in a huge battle against his "inner Jew" making him feel inadequate and intimidated. But the Jew doesn’t care how much he or she hurts others. Jews only care about what's good for the Jews. …

I once reduced a 50 year old man to hysterical sobbing tears because I told him gently and lovingly that Jews were not that unique. I just told him the Jews, like everyone else, have had good times and bad times. Times when they were slaughtered and other times when they slaughtered others. Just like everyone else. Guess what he did next. He emotionally abused me in an insulting way and then cut off all further communication. Jewish behavior is so predictable that it's truly scary. …

If you mention cutting off the money or if you mention the possible compromise of living with Palestinians as equals in one state they become very angry and start using bullying tactics, unless they have some reason to fear you, in which case they shun you and complain about you to the authorities, try to get you arrested or try and destroy your career or social status through character assassination. …

Zionists all believe in the myth of "1000 years of Jewish suffering" and feel that the world owes them compensation for their ancestors' "unique" suffering. It's a criminally insane viewpoint. They cope with the contradictions between their belief that they are the good guys and what Jews are actually doing to their neighbors, both in the Middle East and in the US, by developing mental health issues. Most Zionists are functional schizophrenics.

11/01/2010 03:41:00 PM  
Anonymous CompassionateFascist said...

Neither Ms. Phillips nor Jews in general are "crazy". In the short to medium-term, their sharp-elbowed, arrogant racial-nationalist chutzpah -while attempting to stifle white racial advocacy - has been a successful strategy, resulting in vast wealth and power. And if, in the longer run it gets them "persecuted" by "anti-semites", this they take as proof of Choosenness. If we intend to survive, we must help the Jews feel ever more intensely Chosen.

11/01/2010 11:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Wandrin said...

"Neither Ms. Phillips nor Jews in general are "crazy"."

It's not crazy in one sense because it works. Even the fact that their strategy always creates a backlash *works* if the over-riding aim is to never assimilate.

However i think it is crazy. It seems to me what they've done over the last 2000 years is create a culture of deliberately ingrained paranoia that forces them to act a certain way.

It's a craziness that works but personally i'd never want to live that way even if it was a good strategy in the short term.

11/02/2010 12:38:00 AM  
Blogger Robert said...

Sometimes I think Lary Auster would like to be sane.

Off topic:

My newest website. It is about a personal nightmare.

11/02/2010 11:47:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tim Wise on the 2010 midterm elections. His jewish fangs on full display.

11/03/2010 08:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Classic Auster:

He takes seriously jew Ken Hechtman's bs, but the commenter who slightly implies that jews have a role in the repeal of DADT? Auster flips out.

12/19/2010 02:42:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Andrew Lundsford writes:

Is it significant that you never mention who is leading the repeal of DADT? Joseph Lieberman ... He appears in every picture, audio clip and video segment leading the charge (here, here, and here).

He has worked tirelessly for this legislation.

Or am I being anti-Semitic here?

LA replies:

You're a flagrant anti-Semite. You ask insinuatingly, "Is it significant" that I never mention Lieberman, implying (1) that I knew that Lieberman was leading the charge on the homosexualization of the military (which, in fact, I didn't know), and, (2) that I was deliberately concealing Lieberman's role, because Lieberman is a Jew, and I go out of my way to defend Jews who are doing bad things.

In reality, I haven't followed the inside politics of the repeal at all, who's pushing it, and so on.

You're also an anti-Semite because, at the moment of this disaster for our country, a disaster that has been pushed by the entire left for the last twenty years, all you can think is that "the Jews did it ... and that Jew Auster is covering up that the Jews did it." So you're not only an anti-Semite, you're stupid. But that's a redundant statement, since anti-Semitism lowers a person's IQ by at least one standard deviation.

Typical jewish behavior. Notice something rotten a jew is doing, point it out, and the next thing you know you're an enemy of "the jews", and "stupid" to boot.

12/19/2010 09:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Laff! You can always depend on Auster getting bent out of shape when it comes to "anti-Semitism."

Good job Lundsford, you called him out and he couldnt resist!

12/20/2010 02:02:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home