The Miami Sound, Diversity Hitting the Fan

Caught On Tape: Miami Beach Shooting - Memorial Day Weekend 2011

Police, gunmen open fire on South Beach; two officers injured - MiamiHerald.com expands on what's happening in this video.

We could say that diversity, i.e. less White people, isn't "our" strength, it's their strength. But that would be "racist". When the diverse question how much diversity is good for themselves, that's another story.

Gay activist Herb Sosa: South Beach a 'war zone;' demands end to Urban Weekend:

It shows our city as nothing short of a warzone - Filthy streets, a drive by shooting, multiple cars crashed in the process, and total chaos on the streets. This is unacceptable and must be controlled before we totally lose our city, tourism & residents. It is not limited to Ocean Drive or Collins - there isn't a residential street in South Beach not affected by tons of garbage, crime to our vehicles, excessive noise 24 hours a day, and simply a lack of respect for our community, citizens & property. THIS is the image the world see of our "American Riviera".

When did perceived political or social correctness override the safety & well-being of a community? This is not a race, economic or ethnic issue, it is an issue of visitors who have a total lack of respect for our community, its property & citizens. I know hotel rooms are filled, but at what price and for how long?

If Whites were involved in violence of this sort in any significant way the media would no doubt be filled with outraged non-White voices directing fear and loathing at the ugly, stupid, greedy, lazy people involved. Heck, that's how they talk about the Tea Party, even when there is no criminality or violence they can point at.

But in this case, if you hadn't already guessed, the criminality and violence associated with Miami's Urban Weekend is ineffably black. So very circumspect odecay-eakspay is the rule.

Miami Beach Memorial Day parties still polarizing - MiamiHerald.com:

A decade after Internet buzz, radio DJs and word of mouth spawned the first Urban Beach Week — turning a typically busy but low-key holiday weekend into a hip-hop fueled street party that drew an estimated 250,000 people — the annual, unofficial bash still draws mixed reviews.

Hoteliers rejoice at booked rooms, while some restaurateurs and retailers lament that the often-rowdy crowds drive off locals.

Fans and performers say the parties have evolved, attracting older fans and even families. Yet some neighbors gripe about young people drinking and dancing in front of their homes. And then there’s the cost of policing the event, expected to reach roughly $1 million this weekend.

While the event draws a largely black crowd, David Kelsey, president of the South Beach Hotel & Restaurant Association, says friction over the holiday weekend has been less about race than the conflict between the young party crowd and the luxury tourist clientele Miami Beach actively courts.

“There’s still a gulf between the crowd we’re attracting and the crowd we really want to attract and need for future business,” Kelsey said.

Between the fact that the crowd is overwhelmingly black and its behavior is being criticized, you might think it's a slam dunk to paint "racism" as the problem.

As we've been told for decades now, "racism" is a White thing, and there just aren't many Whites involved here, except in running away. The people being imposed upon by diversity are diverse. Thus the story gets the "it's really really complicated" treatment. Like Miami's black/hispanic political squabble, this isn't about race - definitely not - it's about, well, stay tuned they're feverishly working on the narrative that ties it all to "racism".

Carlene Sawyer, former president of the Greater Miami chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said she has seen more mature visitors recently.

“You hear all this rhetoric,” said Sawyer, who as in other years will be on South Beach to monitor the city’s policing of the crowds. “But the people who are coming are buying plane tickets and hotel rooms. And they’re not 18 anymore. They’re 25, 30 and 35 years old.”

Hip hop artists like Ludacris and Busta Rhymes have helped draw crowds typically estimated between 200,000 and 300,000 each year — rivaling even Super Bowl throngs.

“This is the best time of year for us,” said Monika Olimpiew, general manager of SoBe Live, a club that this weekend is featuring acts like rap group Travis Porter and R&B singer Keri Hilson.

People on scooters weave around the Lamborghinis and bass-thumping Cadillacs that crawl down Ocean Drive — which will be closed to traffic this year. The street scene has been good to Prestige Luxury Auto Rentals in Miami, which had rented out 80 percent of its stock by Tuesday, including all its $2,000-a-day Lamborghinis and even pricier Ferraris.

So much for the disingenuous suggestion in the quote above that the conflict is between "the young party crowd" and "the luxury tourist clientele". On Urban Beach Week these groups are one and the same.

Perception of crime and violence has been one of Urban Beach Week’s biggest issues.

Miami Beach Commissioner Ed Tobin said last year he rode with police to see what officers deal with, including gun confiscations — 24 last year, down from a peak of 73 in 2006.

“I would not want anyone that I know, a friend or visitor, to be outside on South Beach after 11 p.m. on this weekend because it is dangerous despite what seemed like thousands of police officers at every corner,” he said.

Perceptions are only taken seriously when they come from non-Whites. Perceptions are only taken as problematic when they reflect badly on non-Whites. In Miami we see both, and therein lies the media's conundrum in covering (literally) what's happening during Urban Beach Week.

For Police Chief Carlos Noriega, dealing with the crowds has been tricky. On one hand, his department has been criticized as being too lax. On the other, they were accused of racial profiling by the ACLU and NAACP in 2006 after arresting more than 1,000 people.

Now, police typically meet with ACLU representatives and the U.S. Department of Justice to go over enforcement plans. Noriega said police now overlook minor offenses and focus more on major crimes and crowd control.

“This is something we’ve become accustomed to,” he said.

Don't worry, the ACLU and NAACP are in control.

We long ago became accustomed to seeing violence in our cities. The same pattern of violent behavior repeats itself whenever and wherever a critical mass of non-Whites collect. Today a related pattern is associated with the critical mass of non-Whites in media and non-White activist organizations. They make excuses and redirect blame to protect the fragile egos of non-Whites. What's good for non-Whites is regarded as an important and interesting debate. The question of what's good for Whites is regarded as a sign of insane evil. In Miami, where so few Whites remain (82.4% diverse and quickly approaching perfection), the question doesn't even come up.

UPDATE 1 Jun 2011: The original video was withdrawn. Replaced it with another version.

Let's Blame the Jew-Haters

Let's blame the Jews, via Pat Condell on Israel, Jew-Hatred, and Islam at Gates of Vienna.

Pat Condell is a counter-jihadist favorite. He's a proud (if unconvincing) anti-"racist". He mercilessly bashes muslims. He gleefully ridicules Christians. And for some strange reason he just loves "the jews".

Condell starts off mocking the strawman that jews "control the world" because their numbers are so small. By the end he is so overcome with enthusiasm for his (adopted?) tribe that he forgets about the numbers and waxes orgasmic about what a substantial force for good they are. He wishes the world really was ruled by "the jews". It's the most creepy display of jew-worship I have seen since, ohhh how many days has it been since Netanyahu got all those standing ovations from Congress?

Condell makes a point about muslims being taught from childhood to hate jews. So what should we make of jews teaching their children and everyone else that their tribe's time amongst Europeans has been one long string of anti-jew oppression and violence? According to the jewish version of history every conflict jews have ever had with Europeans is entirely to blame on evil Europeans blinded by spontaneous jew-hate. It's fair to say that by teaching this kind of one-sided view of history jews are teaching everyone to hate Whites. Maybe Condell's next video will be about this. It could start with a review of the flash mob of journalists, pundits and politicians who suddenly turned into jewish history experts and explained their seething hate to Sarah Palin a few months ago.

I won't be holding my breath. From the way Condell sneers at Europeans it's clear he's already absorbed those lectures and thinks Whites suck. He's concerned about Europe being overrun by muslims because it's bad for jews. I wonder if this is the only motive behind all his anti-islam and anti-Christian tirades. I've never heard him speak so emotionally or favorably about Britons. Is he not capable of loving his own kind? Or is that what he's doing when he gushes in favor of jews?

There are two final points to make about Condell's "control the world" bluster. First, since he likes to go on and on about Islam it would be trivial to mock him in the same terms. What do earnest counter-jihadists think when somebody paints them as morons who say muslims control the world? Second, Condell titles his diatribe "Let's blame the jews", which he means to be taken ironically. He blames the jew-haters. What he's saying, to use his own dishonest way of characterizing such things, is that the jew-haters control the world. What an idiot.

The Demonization of Marine Le Pen

France's National Front: Le Pen, mightier than the sword?, The Economist, 5 May 2011:

UP CLOSE, the most unnerving thing about Marine Le Pen is not her obsession with Islam, her populism or her divisive politics—but the way she oozes charm. With a ready laugh and unaffected manner, this steely politician deflects awkward questions with an easy grace that makes her a rarity in French politics. The newish leader of the far-right National Front is an intriguing study in how to make extremist politics marketable—and in doing so, perhaps to reshape French party politics.

In the short run, Ms Le Pen wants to decontaminate the National Front, stripping it of the skin-headed image it had under her father, Jean-Marie. At the party’s annual May 1st rally, she surrounded herself with fresh-faced young women in jeans and T-shirts. Her father, a former paratrooper, perfected a line in anti-Semitic and xenophobic outrage. She shares much of his programme, such as support for the death penalty and job preference for French nationals. But she has junked the anti-Semitism and neo-Nazi sidekicks in favour of a subtler tone. “When I talk about the immigration problem, I don’t talk out of hate, or xenophobia, or Islamophobia, or fear,” she insists, but pragmatism. “We cannot afford to let everybody in.”

Across Europe, traditional divisions between left and right have blurred, Ms Le Pen argues, giving way to a new fracture between those who believe in globalisation, international governance and open borders, and those who believe in the primacy of the nation. In her eyes President Nicolas Sarkozy and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the IMF and a likely Socialist candidate, are “interchangeable”: standard-bearers for a globalised world view. By contrast, she wants a return to national sovereignty, a withdrawal from the euro (“before it collapses”) and NATO (“submission to America”), the return of border controls and an unapologetic protectionist policy to “re-industrialise France”.

For under scrutiny, many of Ms Le Pen’s ideas, when not toxic, are deeply flawed. France cannot compete with China on cost, she says, so better to put up borders, go for a competitive devaluation and start building factories at home again. She dismisses worries about the colossal cost of protectionism or of debt-servicing with a devalued currency as scaremongering. For now, such details have yet to spoil the seductive simplicity of her message. And this will keep her a highly disruptive figure in the run-up to 2012 and beyond.

Unlike DSK, Marine Le Pen has never been accused of committing a crime, violent or otherwise. However, as made clear by the defamatory, accusatory opinion quoted above - fairly typical of the limited coverage Le Pen receives in English-language media - Le Pen is regarded with a poisonous cynicism, a combination of fear and loathing that would elicit outraged cries and condemnations of "hate" if it were directed at any representative of immigrants or jews. Le Pen, like all European nationalists, is treated to a different standard, worse than any accused rapist. She's undeniably popular with the native French, who for perfectly normal reasons would like to be led by someone, anyone who actually favors them over aliens. Naturally this frightens and disgusts anyone who loves aliens and hates the French.

The double standard was clearly visible amid the empassioned cacaphony following the arrest of DSK. The realization that the scandal would likely improve Le Pen's prospects frightened certain pundits so much that they couldn't help but couple their open-minded reminders that DSK is innocent until proven guilty with cognitive-dissonance-inducing paranoia and hang-wringing over Le Pen. The most egregious examples I've found are Doug Schoen and Anne Applebaum. I don't think it's any coincidence that while neither one is French, both are jews.

UPDATE 20 May 2011: Marine Le Pen becomes Front National leader: A pivotal moment for French politics? - Telegraph, by Anne-Elisabeth Moutet, 16 Jan 2011:

It's a measure of the inroads Marine Le Pen has already made in the French political debate that she now splits opinion among the rarefied world of Parisian intellectuals.

On the one hand, the philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy still thinks she reeks of sulphur: according to him, the youngest daughter of Jean-Marie Le Pen, 82, the longstanding Front National leader, is "even more dangerous than her father".

Yet on the other Elisabeth Lévy, the shrewd editor of Causeur magazine, the French answer to The Spectator, considers not only that Marine Le Pen "says nothing scandalous or morally unacceptable", but also that she might well "be truly breaking away from the old French extreme-Right, to create something new."

It's a measure of just how un-French "French" political debate is that Moutet cites two jews as representative, even though they are members of a powerful, exclusive ethnic group who comprise less than 1% of the overall population.

[Marine's father, Jean-Marie] Le Pen, an orphaned Breton fisherman's son, tried to join the Résistance in 1944, and later fought in Algeria and in the Suez expedition.

But he made his indelible mark in French politics by obsessively picking at the scabs of the country's dark past. He boasted of using torture in Algeria to combat terrorism; called the gas chambers "a point of detail" of the Second World War; used time-and-motion calculations to dispute the number of Auschwitz victims; and described France's German occupiers as "very civilised".

He was several times condemned under French incitement laws - all of which he used to paint himself as a larger-than-life pariah in the too-tame, self-referential world of French politics.

Le Pen is being painted as a pariah here for having the audacity to try to represent his people. Let's be honest. Is there anyone who picks more obsessively at scabs from the past (like Auschwitz) than jews do? Argue with them, like Jean-Marie Le Pen, and you're painted as dangerous. Don't argue, like Marine Le Pen, and you're painted as worse.

At 42, a handsome, single working mother of three, she presents herself as the young, modern face of the Front National, in sharp contrast to her defeated opponent in the Party leadership contest, the 60-year-old academic Bruno Gollnisch, under whose banner the Party's residual hardliners had sought an increasingly exiguous shelter.

In the Gollnisch camp gather the "tradis", the traditionalist Catholics who are horrified by Marine's support of gay rights - short of gay marriage - and refusal to support abolition of the 1975 law permitting abortion. (She says she only wants all provisions of the law strictly applied, so that women are first offered "alternatives" such as pre-natal adoption.)

No-one in France will admit to anti-Semitism, which is actionable by law, but campaign rumours from the Gollnisch camp included descriptions of Marine's entourage as "full of Jews, queers and Arabs".

Actionable by law is an innocuous way of saying that in France you can be persecuted for making elementary observations like the ones I just have. Meanwhile no special laws prevent jews living in France from saying whatever they wish about the French.

It is interesting that two personalities she quoted positively during a half-hour conversation were two Jews: Simone Veil, the former health minister and European Parliament president, who first introduced the abortion bill, and Elisabeth Badinter, the left-wing feminist author.

It is interesting how jews keep coming up in Moutet's piece. Is she jewish? At any rate, the impression Moutet creates is that what's most important about Le Pen is what jews think about her, not what she thinks about anything. And never mind what the French think either.

Top International Banker Arrested

But not for fraud or corruption.

I.M.F. Head Is Arrested and Accused of Sexual Attack - NYTimes.com:

The managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, was taken off an Air France plane at Kennedy International Airport minutes before it was to take off for Paris on Saturday and arrested in connection with the sexual attack of a maid at a Midtown Manhattan hotel, the authorities said.

Mr. Strauss-Kahn, 62, who was widely expected to become the Socialist candidate for the French presidency, was apprehended by detectives of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in the first-class section of the jetliner, and immediately turned over to detectives from the Midtown South Precinct, officials said.

The New York Police Department took Mr. Strauss-Kahn into custody, where he was “being questioned in connection with the sexual assault of a hotel chambermaid earlier this afternoon,” Deputy Commissioner Paul J. Browne, the department’s chief spokesman, said Saturday night. “He is being arrested for a criminal sex act, attempted rape and unlawful imprisonment.”

The link in the text above is to an article from February 18 which provides some background on Strauss-Kahn, painting him as a victim of French nationalists. Strauss-Kahn Has France Talking About a Presidential Run - NYTimes.com:

He has been called a member of “the caviar left,” out of touch with his own more left-leaning party. Some wonder if he might lose in party primaries despite his high poll numbers, which they say are based partly on name recognition and unhappiness with the current choices.

But there have been other, uglier notes in the right’s reaction, circling around the fact that Mr. Strauss-Kahn is Jewish. Christian Jacob, a legislator and farmer, described him as an urban intellectual — a “bobo,” short for “bourgeois-bohemian.” Mr. Jacob said that Mr. Strauss-Kahn did not represent “the image of France, the image of rural France, the image of the France of terroirs and territories.” This notion of rootless cosmopolitanism, of being out of touch with the soil and the mystery of “la France profonde,” is an old trope for foreign and Jewish influence.

Even the president of France’s main Jewish organization, the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France, called Mr. Jacob’s comments “a very great clumsiness.” The group’s leader, Richard Prasquier, said that as a farmer, Mr. Jacob may have “a particular feeling for the soil,” but that it was not “an essential criterion for leading the nation.” He added that he hoped “the political debate will become more elevated.”

Pierre Moscovici, an ally of Mr. Strauss-Kahn, was blunter. “The attack resembles a little the rhetoric of the far right between the two world wars,” Mr. Moscovici said. “There is something unhealthy here,” he said, and while Mr. Jacob “is not a bad guy, I ask him to pull back his statement and change his song.”

On Wednesday, Mr. Jacob denied any anti-Semitic feeling, saying that “as a farmer, I can’t recognize myself or identify with him.”

“He doesn’t incarnate the rural world, that’s all,” he continued. “I reacted with my peasant core, as a farmer.”

Of course Mr. Sarkozy is also seen as an urban figure, a lawyer with no roots in rural France, and, although Roman Catholic, of Jewish ancestry on his mother’s side.

The right’s reaction was perceived as a shot across the bow of Mr. Strauss-Kahn, who has also had a reputation for womanizing, and had to admit to an affair with an economist at the fund, who later left. He was cleared of harassment or abuse of power, but was criticized by the board in 2008 for “a serious error of judgment.”

More sordid details of Strauss-Kahn's present predicament can be found in Top French politician, International Monetary Fund head Dominique Strauss-Kahn held investigation of sodomy charge - NYPOST.com:

The married Strauss-Kahn was in his bathroom, said sources. He emerged naked, grabbed her and "he jumps her," a source said.

Then, Strauss-Kahn allegedly threw the housekeeper on the room’s bed and forced her to perform oral sex on him, said the sources.

The maid managed to break free and ran to a hotel worker to tell what happened, said a source. Soon afterward, Strauss-Kahn got dressed and headed off to Kennedy Airport for his flight to Paris.

When he was approached on the plane by Port Authority cops, he said, "What is this about?" sources said. He was then taken off without handcuffs.

Two law enforcement sources said Strauss-Kahn was trying to flee the US. Police said he left his cellphone and other personal items in the room.

A high-profile jew accused of a sex crime tries to flee to France? I've seen this movie before.

Based on the outrageous defense of Roman Polanski we can expect to see some familiar patterns emerge as this controversy develops:

- The mainstream media and blogosphere will quickly offer a number of op-eds in defense of Strauss-Kahn.

- A few pundits, especially jews, will make the most outrageous arguments, twisting facts and logic to excuse Strauss-Kahn and blame others.

- Strauss-Kahn's jewishness will be part of the defense, insinuations will be made that he is persecuted because he's jewish.

- Few mainstream pundits will openly condemn Strauss-Kahn, but reader responses to the defenders will lean against him, based on the expectation that he be prosecuted like anyone else would.

- As this public opinion becomes obvious and a direct defense of Strauss-Kahn becomes more obviously at odds with it narratives will be offerred which shift blame elsewhere - to the victim, "Puritans", "Americans", or some other scapegoat.

Like Polanski, Strauss-Kahn is rich and famous. Unlike Polanski, Strauss-Kahn wields substantial political power. His friends won't need to petition the government for his release. His friends are the government. Thus he could very well be cleared and released more quickly and with less media fanfare than Polanski was. On the other hand Strauss-Kahn doesn't need to be extradicted. The crime he's accused of is fresh, not decades old. His accuser has not recanted. Yet.

Can he claim diplomatic immunity?

As a last resort, if the accuser can't be discredited or bought off and the government won't just spring him, Strauss-Kahn might indulge the public and the court, get convicted, and then escape justice by absconding to France.

Jewish Politics in Post-White America

"Stick Together"

‘Mensch’ Dan Adler targets minorities with stereotype-laden ad, by Rachel Rose Hartman:

What's the best way to reach out to Asian voters? Tell them you're Jewish so you can relate. Right?

That's the route Democratic candidate Dan Adler took in his most recent ad for California's 36th District special election. In a heavily staged discussion among constituents at a set suggestive of a Korean-owned dry cleaner, the former Disney executive tells a woman behind the counter--who speaks with a heavy Asian accent--that he can relate to her concerns because "my wife is Korean."

"You're Jewish," she replies.

"My family is Jewish."

"We minorities should stick together," she replies. Adler laughs as a young Asian couple looks on--the man's shirt opens to reveal his Chinese script tattoos.

"Dan Adler. Send a mensch to Congress!" a multi-racial crowd shouts at the end, noting the Yiddish word for a person of high character. "What's a mensch?" the woman from the dry cleaner asks the camera.

Adler's faux pas here, according to Hartman, is the use of stereotypes in his explicitly pro-minority, implicitly anti-White campaign commercial. Something tells me this will not upset either Adler's jew or Asian funders and voters, and if any Whites complain they can look forward to being branded and brushed off as "racists".

Adler's message assumes it is right and good that:

1) "minorities" see themselves as natural allies against non-"minorities", ie. Whites.

2) jews identify as "minority", not White.

Your deracinated White friends will not appreciate the use of this video as a teachable moment, but rub their noses in it anyway.

Who's To Blame for Anti-White Governance

Last week a Hamburg judge filed a criminal complaint against German Chancellor Angela Merkel for "endorsing a crime" after she stated she was "glad" that Osama bin Laden was killed by US forces. Self-described jewish fifth columnist Lawrence Auster responded to this report by blaming Germans for all of Europe's ills:

Just think, if the anti-Hitler plotters in 1944 had succeeded in killing him, and if some German leader had expressed his joy, this German judge, if translated back to 1944, would seek to punish him. I guess Germany hasn't changed so much after all, hmm? Pure liberalism, which the Germans in their humorless fanatical thoroughness aspire to as the opposite of Nazi totalitarianism, is another form of totalitarianism. And in the same way, as I have often remarked, the German-championed transnational opposite of the Nazi nationalism which sought to destroy the nations of Europe, is also destroying the nations of Europe. One way or another, whether in their Nazi form or in their hyper-liberal form, the Germans pose a determined threat to the nations and peoples of the West. To paraphrase Churchill's famous remark about the Germans, they need to be kept at our feet, or else they will go for our throat.

I am not being extreme or "anti-German" when I say that. The Germans agree with me. They see themselves as a threat to others. That's why they say that the EU is necessary, to keep them, the ever-threatening Germans, in check. The problem is that the German-led EU which in the German mind is aimed at suppressing the German nation, must suppress all other European nations as well. This is why, just as German nationalism could not be allowed to rule Europe, German anti-nationalism also cannot be allowed to rule Europe. Germany must not rule, period.

Then in Debate on Germany Auster expressed regret that his sweeping condemnation of "the Germans" was not more comprehensive:

My strongly worded entry last week about German hyper-liberalism has set off something of a debate in the blogosphere. At Gates of Vienna, a German writer, Manfred Kleine-Hartlage, replies to me. I haven't yet read his article. But for the moment I want to repeat once again the qualifications I made last week. My statements about Germany were not intended as a comprehensive criticism of Germany and Germans, and if I gave that impression I regret it. My argument related to one, narrowly framed, core issue: that just as the German hyper-nationalism of the past sought to crush the nations of Europe, German hyper-liberalism, which arose as an all-consuming reaction against German hyper-nationalism, also poses a danger to the nations of the West, and therefore it is not desirable for Germany, in its present, hyper-liberal state, to dominate Europe.

Auster's "narrowly framed" problem isn't just with nationalist or anti-nationalist Germans but with "the Germans" in general. He identifies Germans as a biological group having personality traits such as "humorless fanatical thoroughness" and "hyper-liberalism". He sees them posing a danger not only to Europe but "the nations of the West". Thus they must be "kept at our [sic] feet".

In The Real Problem is “Global Governance” Manfred Kleine-Hartlage responds to Auster's outrageous slander, specifically calling attention to Auster's claim that "the Germans" agree with him:

Many Germans say this, because they were told to speak and think such things. They were taught to consider thousand years of German history just as a pre-history of Hitler. They were taught to regard their history as merely a history of crimes. They were taught that they are a danger to others. They were taught that patriotism and “nationalism” are the same thing, and that the latter is the root of all evils in the world. They were taught to hate themselves.

It started with the re-education after 1945, and this re-education is still going on. To poison an entire nation with self-hatred turned out to be a working concept, and this concept, once successfully applied, was generalized to the Western world as a whole, and as the concept of “white guilt” is now undermining our civilization. This is nothing you should blame the Germans for. They were just the guinea pigs.

The million-dollar-question is: Why is this done, and who does so?

Excellent question.

Having dealt with Auster, Kleine-Hartlage follows up by going where Auster never does. He points to the connection between the never-ending Global War on Terror and the never-ending drive for genocidal levels of immigration into all White countries - our hostile international elite:

Yes, Bin Laden was our enemy, but on the list of our enemies he was not number one, and not even number ten. Islam is marching forward in Europe not by terrorism, but by immigration and ethnic struggle, with strong support from the international political elites. It makes no sense to assert a difference between American and European elites, because they all belong to a transatlantic network centered in, but not confined to, America. Within this network, strategies are made compatible with each other, so that there is no such thing as a strictly national policy. There are disagreements on minor questions, but the general direction is towards establishing a global uniform civilization. The EU is part of this process, and an analyst blaming just Germany for that, as Mr. Auster does,

The problem is that the German-led EU which in the German mind is aimed at suppressing the German nation, must suppress all other European nations as well. This is why, just as German nationalism could not be allowed to rule Europe, German anti-nationalism also cannot be allowed to rule Europe. Germany must not rule, period.

proves that his hatred of a particular country is stronger than his analytical capabilities.

Why is the leading power in the “war on terror” at the same time urging France to open herself to Islamic infiltration and secretly fostering this infiltration, as we know by Wikileaks (and there is no reason to assume that the same strategy is not applied to other European countries)? Why is the European power most passionately joining this war — Great Britain — at the same time and with the same passion engaging in self-Islamization? Why are the Anglo-Saxon powers, while at war with more than one Islamic country, urging Europe to enlarge the European Union more and more, predictably with the result that Turkey and North Africa will join the club, thereby opening Europe to a flood of Muslim immigrants?

So instead of "the Germans" Kleine-Hartlage blames "the Anglo-Saxon powers" - the US and Britain. From his afterword:

Mr. Auster’s polemics have shown the gap between Anglo-Saxon and German conservatism. To bridge the gap a little bit, I have started a new blog, German Views, in order to make important articles from the conservative German blogosphere available in English.

The essay is reposted at his new blog, From a German Point of View: a Reply to Lawrence Auster, minus the afterword, but Kleine-Hartlage reiterates his point in a comment:

The problem – and the reason why I started this blog – is the dominance of the Anglo-Saxon narrative on Germany.

Kleine-Hartlage seems unaware that Lawrence Auster is no Anglo-Saxon, that his grandparents were all jewish immigrants to the US. Auster refers to Britain as "the Dead Island", just as he refers to Germany as "that dead land". His affections are for Israel. It may also surprise Kleine-Hartlage to know that the US Ambassador to France, Charles H. Rivkin, whose Wikileaked embassy report he linked, also has Russian jewish roots.

If we wish to talk honestly about who dominates not only the narrative on Germany but who dominates political, social, cultural and historical narratives in general, who is relentlessly encouraging Germans, Anglo-Saxons, and Whites in general to hate ourselves and feel guilty, then we must not neglect to mention the jewish elephant in the room. It is possible to honestly debate how significant jewish influence is. It is not honest to neglect to address that influence entirely.

I presume Kleine-Hartlage knows better than I do how German speech regarding jews is proscribed by law. Perhaps this is why he pins the blame on Anglo-Saxons.

Kleine-Hartlage might be interested to know that Auster's recent ranting about the threat of German "hyper-liberalism" and German "anti-nationalism" is consistent with his usual schtick. He blames "the majority" (Whites) for "liberalism" (anti-Whiteness). He explicitly excuses "the jews".

Just a few years ago Auster was discussing anti-nationalist sentiment in the US. Jews’ idiotic anti-nationalism:

Asked by the General Social Survey if immigration improves America, 52 percent of Protestants, 61 percent of Catholics, and 90 percent of Jews said yes. Matthew Yglesias, a Jew who works for The American Prospect, explains why Jews support immigration so much more than other groups, and Steve Sailer offers effective replies.

One of Yglesias’s points is: “Second, as a historical matter, nationalism has been Bad For The Jews.”

Yglesias is certainly correct that this is the Jewish view of the matter. But how truly idiotic and despicable a view it is. Jews have always lauded America for defeating Hitler. Would America have been able to defeat Hitler if it hadn’t existed as a nation and been a strong nation? Would it have been better for the Jews if Britain had had a weak sense of nationality and compromised with Hitler, instead of, as was the actual case under Churchill, a strong sense of nationality and stood up to him? Would Ann Frank’s family have had to hide in an attic for two years and then been arrested and sent to concentration camps where they died horrible deaths, if the Netherlands, instead of being a weak nation that was easily overrun by the Germans, had been a strong nation that was able to prevent the Germans from conquering the Netherlands and capturing all its Jews?

Also, most Jews are thankful for the fact that America, the strongest nation on earth, stands almost alone against the world-wide movement to destroy Israel. Will a weak and divided America be able to perform that function?

Don't worry, Auster eventually excuses "the jews". Note also that he doesn't argue that jewish anti-nationalism is despicable because it's bad for Whites (American, Briton, or Dutch). He thinks it's despicable because it's bad for "the jews".

The usual judeo-liberal anti-nationalist hate/guilt narrative is that Whites must subordinate our interests to the interests of "minorities", because if we worry about what's best for us then we're guilty of hate. Auster regularly calls attention to this narrative, at least as it pertains to blacks or muslims, but he wishes to preserve the special privileges of "minority" status for "the jews". If we worry about what's best for Whites, and that conflicts with what Auster thinks is best for "the jews", then according to him we're guilty of hate.

I'll conclude here by quoting two jews who, though separated geographically and linguistically, sound remarkably alike. In fact if Lawrence Auster were transported back to 1944 it's not unreasonable to imagine him expressing his thoughts in very similar terms.

Ilya Ehrenburg:

The Germans are not human beings. From now on the word German means to use the most terrible oath. From now on the word German strikes us to the quick. We shall not speak any more. We shall not get excited. We shall kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day ... If you cannot kill your German with a bullet, kill him with your bayonet. If there is calm on your part of the front, or if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German in the meantime. If you leave a German alive, the German will hang a Russian and rape a Russian woman. If you kill one German, kill another -- there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. Do not count days, do not count kilometers. Count only the number of Germans killed by you. Kill the German -- that is your grandmother's request. Kill the German -- that is your child's prayer. Kill the German -- that is your motherland's loud request. Do not miss. Do not let through. Kill.

Theodore Kaufman (in his book, Germany Must Perish!):

Today's war is not a war against Adolf Hitler.

Nor is it a war against the Nazis.

It is a war of peoples against peoples; of civilized peoples envisioning Light, against uncivilized barbarians who cherish Darkness.

Of the peoples of those nations who would surge forward hopefully into a new and better phase of life, pitted against the peoples of a nation who would travel backward enthusiastically into the dark ages. It is a struggle between the German nation and humanity.

Hitler is no more to be blamed for this German war than was the Kaiser for the last one. Nor Bismarck before the Kaiser. These men did not originate or wage Germany's wars against the world. They were merely the mirrors reflecting centuries-old inbred lust of the German nation for conquest and mass murder.

This war is being waged by the German People. It is they who are responsible. It is they who must be made to pay for the war. otherwise, there will always be a German war against the world. And with such a sword forever hanging overhead the civilized nations of the world, no matter how great their hopes, how strenuous their efforts, will never succeed in creating that firm and solid foundation of permanent peace which they must first establish if ever they intend to start the building of a better world.

For not only must their be no more German wars in fact; there must not even remain the slightest possibility of one ever again occurring. A final halt to German aggression, not a temporary cessation, must be the goal of the present struggle.

This does not mean an armed mastery over Germany, or a peace with political or territorial adjustments, or a hope based on a defeated and repentant nation. Such settlements are not sufficiently conclusive guarantees of no more German aggressions.

This time Germany has forced a TOTAL WAR upon the world.

As a result, she must be prepared to pay a TOTAL PENALTY.

And there is one, and only one, such Total Penalty: Germany must perish forever!

In fact -- not in fancy!

Germans are an execrable people! They think and dream of nothing but chicanery. Their great joy consists in fault-finding, shrieking and threats.

Though these men try to conflate their narrow concerns for jews with the interests of others, let us not pretend that what we see and hear are Whites spouting self-hatred.

The Anti-White Standards of Flight

When non-Whites flee it's regarded as normal and natural, to "look for a better life". When Whites flee it's regarded as a pathological condition, either "racism", paranoia, or cowardice.

As an example of the latter, see the book by Kevin M. Kruse, White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism.