Lawrence Auster is Finally Dead
I shared my thoughts about Auster's legacy in Auster's Personal Announcement, when he first announced his illness in August 2011, and then again two weeks ago in Assessing Auster. Today one of Auster's "vile sycophants", Laura Wood, announced his death.
LAWRENCE AUSTER: JANUARY 26, 1949 - MARCH 29, 2013:
But the blogging career that stands out on the Internet and in the history of American letters as a tour de force of philosophical and cultural insight is over. Mr. Auster entered a state of sedated and sometimes pained sleep the next day, after a night of agony. He spoke no more than a few words during the next two days and died peacefully this morning after about ten hours of unusually quiet and mostly undisturbed rest.Only extreme incapacitation could have brought that career to a close. For many of us, it was a marvel, a form of essential daily food. No man gave more to his readers. No writer responded more energetically to the people who took in his words and either approved or rejected them. No thinker, except perhaps Plato, jousted more ably with his students or left such an elegant and finished record of philosophical conflict and resolution. He was philosopher, journalist, guru and cultural psychoanalyst in one. And no writer on culture and politics had sounder judgment about the world around us, or more brilliant observations.
The relationship between Mr. Auster and the hundreds of often-anonymous correspondents who wrote to him over the years was like that between a boxing coach and his fighters. He trained his followers in the art of intellectual combat — and the price was a staggering workload as he edited the debates that have appeared here over the years. He paid tireless tribute to the fight for truth. But, as he insisted, he wasn’t a hero. He was just doing what came naturally. He was doing what he had to do.
Sadly, as of today, View from the Right, except for an entry about his funeral and possibly more on his death, will become inactive. He wanted it that way. VFR could not continue beyond Mr. Auster’s death because it is the creation of an utterly unique personality and mind.
The site will, however, remain online permanently, as long as the Internet exists. There are also plans to collect his writings, both those found here and those unpublished, in book form. At the time of his final siege of illness, he was working hard to make that happen.
His work will continue to be read and appreciated. The number of “vile sycophants” will grow. Falsehoods will for many years more be overturned by those who have come in contact, directly or indirectly, with Mr. Auster. I am certain of that.
It means all the more for a friend and supporter like Wood to so clearly note Auster's guru-like, psychoanalyst-like traits, as well as the sycophancy he attracted and cultivated. These are recurring patterns in jewish intellectual movements which Auster's nemesis Kevin MacDonald has identified and discussed.
The "movement" around Auster will dissolve without its Energizer Bunny guru. True to his jewish heritage, Auster was a totalitarian bolshevist control freak. This was evident in the meticulous editing and pasting required to fit each individual comment from private email into the public, micromanaged "debate" on his blog. It was also evident in the way he would regularly inform other bloggers which commenters or topics were anathema.
The essence of Auster's project, his "View from the Right", was to inform others how to see the world, the "right" way to think about it. His two most frequent themes were "anti-semitism" and "liberalism" - with the underlying connection between these, and most of his other topics, being his and his sycophants' overriding concern for the best interests of the jews.
Auster attempted, in a way, to do to White racialism what Norman Podhoretz and his Trotskyite "liberal" jew inner circle did to American conservativism - replacing White priorities with jewish priorities. Auster wanted "whites" to think about race to the extent it entailed criticism of or even separation from muslims, blacks, or mestizos. But at the prospect of Whites regarding jews likewise Auster's usual pretense at principle and reason and decorum suddenly reverted to the unhinged pathologization and demonization so perfectly typical of his tribe.
Today the White race lost a self-professed jewish fifth columnist. Hallelujah!
Labels: lawrence auster
posted by Tanstaafl at 3/29/2013 04:15:00 PM
126 Comments:
Today the White race lost a self-professed jewish fifth columnist. Hallelujah!
Praise be to the Lord!
Take a look at the VFR page with your annoouncement of Mr. Auster’s death and and the note from him below it that is titled “I am still here.”
I take two things from this:
1. Lawrence is still here with us in spirit and his writings
2. Jesus said that he would be with us, even to the end of days.
My God. They've already got him pegged as Jesus. Let the canonisation begin.
A comment at Mangan's:
Word is that Auster had 4 wisdom teeth removed last Tuesday, a tonsillectomy on Wednesday, converted to Catholicism on Thursday, died on Friday.
Cause of death? Bloated ego finally blew a gasket.
It's a Good Friday to die on.
Good-night, sweet prince;
And flights of anti-Semites sing thee to thy rest.
A love song dedication:
Caesar
Love makers tremble with fever
Messengers on top of the hill
Walk, Walk
Messengers tremble with fever
Love makers on top of the hill
Walk, Walk, Walk, Walk
Why must the people cry?
Why must the people cry for me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv_z-bld41w
His last reply to my last email:
As I've stated repeatedly I am not in a physical condition to consider and moderate discussion on new or complex ideas and plans. I'm putting out basic ideas before I die. Others will need to work out the details.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gilbert De Bruycker
To: Lawrence Auster
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 5:14 AM
Subject: creating a white society
Dear Mr. Auster,
You say that "Whitopias, as VDare calls them, are essential to the health of our society and the health of the white race, but they’re not enough. They need to become consciously white communities, and ultimately to grow and coalesce into a nation-wide movement that aims at creating a white society..."
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/024342.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook
---
I agree, but a proper immigration policy will be needed also. Here is a scheme that seems to me to have some merit :
1. Anyone who is already a citizen remains a citizen; anyone who isn't a citizen remains a non-citizen unless one of the following apply to them:
2. The child of a citizen is a citizen.
3. The parent of a citizen is a citizen provided that they are also a resident in the country in question for X number of years.
4. Anyone who becomes a citizen of another country loses his/her citizenship.
5. Children of unknown parentage found in the country are citizens
Of course by strictly applying this idea of "citizenship law," the emergence of a first generation immigrants (a family to be born in a particular country), seems to be impossible, because there must be a first generation of immigrants,'living' in a particular country, who came from abroad - people who were NOT already citizens; people who were NOT children of citizens in the country; people who were NOT parents of a citizen in the country yet!
The issue about the first generation of citizens was noticed by Aristotle in his Politics, where he stated that the general principle of "a citizen is a son of citizens" breaks down at the beginning, since at the foundation of the city, some people are made citizens whose parents were not.
The gist of my idea is that it avoids the creation of a citizen body composed of mutually isolated groups which are detrimental to civic unity. To cite Aristotle once again, a multitude of diverse groups do not at once acquire a common spirit and are the cause of tensions and revolutions.
This scheme aims for the mean between the extremes of (i) isolationism, and (ii) acceptance as citizens with superficial criteria such as the accident of one's birthplace or a bureaucratic procedure of naturalization. Under this scheme, an immigrant group that is really compatible with the citizens of a country will gradually be assimilated by intermarriage, rather than abruptly (and perhaps undeservedly) by bureaucratic fiat.
Sincerely Yours,
Gilbert De Bruycker
Here's a comment I wrote on Whiskey's blog, never to have made its presence known:
I see you’re offering prayers “to” Auster now.
I also note that St Lawrence of New York didn’t pick up on that, and rebuke [you] for it, but rather joined in in praise of himself. A no more fitting tribute to the pride that goes before your coming fall.
I sometimes wonder what could have been Lawrence Auster (as arch-Zionist !), was so fascinated by Jesus Christ?
I cannot entirely rule out the possibility that he was influenced by Ouspensky: an entire chapter of "A New Model of the Universe" was devoted to the study of the New Testament.
And also influenced by Maurice Nicoll, one of the disciples of George Gurdjieff, who wrote "The New Man: An Interpretation of Some Parables and Miracles of Christ"
At the same time, whiteness is not the only criterion for assimilability. People may fall under the category of white, yet still be so different from the host population that their large-scale immigration is not desirable. The Irish are white, there’s no one whiter. But the large scale immigration of the Irish into England about a hundred years ago, with their historical intense resentment of that country, was not good for England.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Kss-8eEko
I only found Tan's blog because of Auster so I have this to thank him for. Being English,I initially saw the problem of western european genocide solely in terms of Muslims. I also used to frequent GOV.
It was Tan that opened my eyes to the real movers and shakers behind the destruction of western civilisation and then I stopped reading Auster and GOV. Thank you Tan.
David Berkowitz was born Richard David Falco on June 1, 1953, to Betty and Tony Falco of Brooklyn, New York.[1] His mother, Betty Broder, grew up in an impoverished Jewish family...
Poor Dennis Mangan, through no fault of his own, finds himself again in the line of fire of the anti-Auster obsessives. A commenter named Pat Hannegan charges that I am a hypocrite because, while attacking Hannegan’s beloved anti-Semitic website, Majority Rights, I recently posted “bigoted” comments by Karen from England and by Howard Sutherland about how the large Irish population in England has had the effect of moving British politics further to the left than might have otherwise been the case. In addition to Mr. Mangan’s comments (as a person or Irish Catholic ancestry he thinks there’s something to Karen’s and Mr. Sutherland’s ideas), I also felt it was worthwhile replying to Hannegan on a couple of points to straighten the record.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012672.html
In a blog entry in which Dennis Mangan defends arch anti-Semite Kevin MacDonald, Chechar (a.k.a. Cesar Tort) comments:
The “big Jew brains” in the counter-jihad, anti-immigration, supposedly pro-West bloggers that would be most interested in refuting KMD are Larry Auster, and Takuan Seiyo who is Jewish on his father side (but it’s apparent that in a conflict of interest he sides [with] Jewish interests).
Thus Chechar, who just a few months ago considered me la crème de la crème and called for a “non-anti-Semitic white nationalism,” and who then suddenly turned around and adopted an anti-Semitic perspective, now describes me as “supposedly pro-West.” What is the source of this accusation? It is the fact that I unreservedly condemn serious anti-Semites. In the minds of the anti-Semitic right, if you condemn anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism, you’re an enemy of the West.
In taking this tack, Chechar is following Mangan’s recent theme. In response to my attack on the anti-Semites and anti-Israelites of the right, Mangan wrote:
Can there be any doubt whatsoever where Auster’s loyalties lie? Yes, I know that questioning loyalties is, by decree of Auster himself, anti-Semitic, but in this case he makes his loyalties crystal clear: Israel is to be favored over the U.S.
He really ought to just get it over with and make aliyah.
Does the fact that Mangan is now saying about me what the most virulent anti-Semites have been saying for years—that I am a Jewish fifth columnist advancing Jewish interests against America and the West—mean that Mangan himself is anti-Semitic? Of course not! Mangan is not an anti-Semite. He is only a host, ally, defender, facilitator, and fellow-traveler of anti-Semites.
Now watch how Mangan splits hairs to deny that his description of me is the same as the anti-Semites’.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFU9HYyMVxQ
I am much whiter than your part-Jew children, given that I am a southron, hillbilly Scots-Irish. Here's a heartfelt fuck you, you pencil-necked son of a bitch! You can't hold a candle to Auster's greatness.
Ha ha, good one. Tanstaafl not only married a member of the world's ugliest tribe, he actually reproduced with it. I guess being surrounded by hideously ugly Semites morning, noon and night is what turned him into a Jew-obsessive one-trick pony.
What will it say on your gravestone, Tan? "Never said or did anything of note except for adding to the world's Jewish population. L'chaim!" A fitting epitaph.
It's classless stupidity like this hateful obituary of Auster that give anti-Semites a bad name. Anti-anti-Semites can point to garbage like this and say "See? Do you see what pathetic losers these people are?"
Needless to say, Auster was a giant in the white preservationist movement while Tan is a cipher at best. No, scratch that. Tan is or might as well be a Hasbara agent, his only purpose being to sow division in the racialist community.
And while virtually the entire racialist community is busy mourning the death of Auster today, who will mourn Tanstaafl when he dies? Only his Jewish relatives.
Auster was an ethnic Jew who did the right thing by renouncing Judaism and converting to Christianity. What more can we ask from the Ashkenazis? Meanwhile, Tanstaafl, by his actions if not his words, is the literal definition of a Jew-lover.
I was stunned to read in Monday’s paper that Roman Polanski, 76 years old, was, with the connivance of U.S. authorities, tricked into being arrested in Switzerland for the 32 year old offense of raping a 13 year old girl, so that he could be returned to the U.S. for trial. Who ever heard of a crime—other than murder—being pursued over so many years? I thought all crimes—other than murder—have a statute of limitations.
This is appalling. What is America now—the Javert Nation?
Anne Applebaum writes about it in the Washington Post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaysTVcounI
I’m sorry to sound so brutal, but there are no innocents in America. This society has normalized the abnormal and the evil. In particular it has normalized, in the all-surrounding mass entertainment media, displays of extremely sensate, grotesque, and perverted violence, and no one in the society publicly opposes it. Therefore the whole society shares the guilt. And children share the guilt by association with their parents and with the whole society.
And children share the guilt by association with their parents and with the whole society.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af275kF9DQM
Look at the photos in the story. The more Michelle tries, the more unnatural and out of place she seems. The more feminine she thinks she’s making herself, the more masculine she becomes. Why can’t she just relax, and stop trying so hard? Well, there’s a very good reason why she can’t relax. She knows she doesn’t belong where she is. She’s a life-long disliker of America who now is in the position of being a symbol of America. She’s a deeply angry and race-conscious black person who now must pretend to be benevolent and represent all of us. She’s a muscle-bound giant who must appear to be the acme of the feminine.
Dylan Daze
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylkOK7IDwNg
I say that the increasingly venomous anti-majoritarian stance of many Jews in recent decades is a function of the fact that the white gentile majority, starting in the Sixties, abandoned its previous role as the leader of American society, and the Jews, just like other minorities, moved into that vacuum and began seeking power over the majority and over America. I argue that if the white gentile majority re-assumed its historic role as leader and adult in our society, and told the Jews in a firm yet civilized way that their anti-majoritarian statements and agenda are totally unaccepable, the Jews, being rational people, would get the message and change their behavior.
Also, though he ridicules the charge, I say that MacDonald is an exterminationist anti-Semite.
At the same time, whiteness is not the only criterion for assimilability. People may fall under the category of white, yet still be so different from the host population that their large-scale immigration is not desirable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfWEPu0w-7w
Good post Tan.
Kevin MacDonald and Dennis Mangan, to name only two, were both defamed by Auster. And yet I can't imagine either of them celebrating his death in print the way this piece does. Perhaps they are both closet Jew (excuse me, jew) lovers.
There is an art to writing an obit or negative commentary on the recently departed. It can be done without coming off as a lout.
It's not enough for Tanstaafl to denigrate Auster. He has to denigrate Laura Wood also.
Laura Wood : A traditional, conservative woman who's doing her best to support traditional women who love family and children -- Family Life being the foundation of a nation ; And all Tanstaafl can say about Laura Wood is that she's a "vile sycophant" -- as if Laura Wood is some kind of Communist out to destroy the USA.
Auster wasn't a fifth columnist. He did the best he could to find some truth in a world of lies.
In some ways he succeeded,in some ways he failed ; As we all do. But, Auster wasn't a fifth columnist.
At any rate, Laura Wood can hardly be labeled a "vile sycopahant" to any kind of fifth columnist. She strives to help traditional,conservative women to keep their families together and strong in a culture that disdains old-fashioned,conservative women who love Family : A mainstream culture that disdains Family.
Not all of us are Hyperborean, Solutrean, Aryan-Avatar Super-Gods from the Valhalla Mountains of Thule Island. Some of us are simply white Caucasians who are trying our best to find some truth in a world of lies -- to find some truth so we can better protect ourselves and our families from a very nihilistic culture.
Laura Wood is doing her part. I give her alot of credit.
All men interested in Family should give their support -- a good word -- to traditional,conservative women who love and cherish Family.
From : Joe
If it came down to choosing between citizenship in a white ethnostate which identified itself as proudly ”Jew-free” in its constitution and a nation that was suicidally multicultural, I would choose the latter.
I remember reading the above statement from Laura Wood and exhaling in admiration at what must surely be Auster's formidable phallic endowment. For without the hypnotic effects of that prodigious totem, she couldn't possibly mean what she just wrote.
A mother...a white mother, would choose suicide and death for her own children rather than merely separate from jews? To the extent my pessimism permits unpleasant surprises, I still consider that sentiment to be one.
There is an art to writing an obit or negative commentary on the recently departed. It can be done without coming off as a lout.
. . .
It's not enough for Tanstaafl to denigrate Auster. He has to denigrate Laura Wood also.
LOL, shame on me! A typical jewish response.
As I noted in the post, Auster identified himself as a "jewish fifth columnist". Wood and his other "vile sycophants" likewise identify themselves as such. They claim their enemies made these labels for them, but they repeat them without objection, like badges of honor.
Ding dong, the dissembling bastard's dead. I hope his vile sycophants are so demoralized about it that they move to Israel.
@ Porter
I didn't know Laura Wood said that. It's very overboard.
Oh well. In the meantime she's giving some support to traditional women who cherish family.
I don't know why she would rather live in a "suicidally multicultural" country than live in a nation without Jews.
I don't know why anyone would rather commit suicide than live without Jews around. Pretty crazy. Whatever the Jews are, they're just not that wonderful.
Maybe Laura Wood goes to a Scofeld bible/Zionist type church. I can only speculate. Yes, it's an "unpleasant suprise".
From : Joe
Joe, I've asked you before not to comment here. This isn't the place for you to dump your recommendations about what other people should read, especially since you obviously don't bother to read or even think about what you write about before you write. Go get your own blog.
The essence of Auster's project, his "View from the Right", was to inform others how to see the world, the "right" way to think about it.
I'm reminded of Michael Kinsley's article during the "financial crisis" of 2008 (an event which has led to a massive increase in jewish wealth over the past 5 years): How to Think about Jewish Bankers. Similar psychology at work too, with Kinsley coming from the left, and Auster from the right: "First and foremost, we must keep the world safe for jewish supremacy!"
Auster attempted, in a way, to do to White racialism what Norman Podhoretz and his Trotskyite "liberal" jew inner circle did to American conservativism - replacing White priorities with jewish priorities.
Precisely. One really needs to visit National Review to get a grasp of this. Four of the dozen or so big headlines -- on Easter weekend, no less -- are: "Obama in Jerusalem: The real breakthrough", "The Jewish State: Obama's groundbreaking use of the term", "Life in the Holy Land", and "Shh Don't Tell anyone: Hamas won", among other jew-flavored discussions, including drivel like "A Convenient Scapegoat: Did the Iraq War muddy up conservatism?" and "At war: Post Iraq-War lessons for the GOP", in addition to three "nuanced" considerations of gay marriage.
Auster was a giant in the white preservationist movement while Tan is a cipher at best.
You have turned on its head, jew-troll. "White preservationism" and "jewish sensitivities" are mutually exclusive. Multiculturalism, the nemesis of White preservationism, is the tribute we subjects of the jewish empire pay to jewish power. As an apologist for the jewish empire, Auster fought for multiculturalism without knowing it.
There is an art to writing an obit or negative commentary on the recently departed. It can be done without coming off as a lout.
Bullshit.
Auster tried to downplay any conflict between jewish interests and White interests (a conflict so obvious that even he wrote thousands of pained words about it). But woe to anyone who disagreed with his conclusions about the magnitude and reconcilability of that conflict (or, worse: had the nerve to want to do something about it!). They immediately became mentally deranged nihilists, bloodthirsty enemies of the Good, fit for the seventh circle of hell. To "de-soul" someone like that is the first step of his bugbear "exterminationism" (the first page of the jewish playbook). Auster deserves contempt.
Other commentary on Auster linking here:
A Good Friday to Die | Riding with the King
Lawrence Auster: January 26, 1949 – March 29, 2013 | American Renaissance
Lawrence Auster has died - The Phora
RIP, Lawrence Auster | Occidental Dissent
There's alot of deluded praise out there and I'm gratified to counter it. The most incisive comment I've seen so far was by "Nobody" at at Mangans:
Before there was Auster, there was nothing. After his going, the viaticum. Living first in silence, no one said anything, nobody...except, Auster.
That has the mark of a skeptic who understood how Auster actively cultivated his own hero worship. Was that you Pat?
Sure was Tan.
Now that I've sobered up, I hope to write a fulsome tribute to Auster. A funeral oration, in fact.
I remember reading the above statement from Laura Wood and exhaling in admiration at what must surely be Auster's formidable phallic endowment
Laura Wood is a prime example of why women should not be allowed to vote.
Not all of us are Hyperborean, Solutrean, Aryan-Avatar Super-Gods from the Valhalla Mountains of Thule Island. Some of us are simply white Caucasians who are trying our best to find some truth in a world of lies
Whites rarely use the term "Caucasian" to describe themselves. This is a term generally used by blacks, Jews and other non-whites. So which non-white group do you belong to?
There is an art to writing an obit or negative commentary on the recently departed. It can be done without coming off as a lout.
So telling the truth about Auster makes someone a lout? Personally, I would rather be a lout than a liar.
"But the blogging career that stands out on the Internet and in the history of American letters "
Alexa says different.
The guy was fringe of the fringe. His influence on the general currents of thought, on the psychosphere, was about equivalent to that of Harold Covington or Michael Vanderboegh. Except that Covington's positions are, by the sheer happenstance of the historical trends and facts of existence that the younger white generations will be facing, likely to become more popular. This blog and its readership are evidence of that. Roissy/Heartiste and that whole (much more popular) corner of the net are also, in their own way. Racism and ethnic separation is on its way back and there will be no way to stop it, and the more Jews try - and they will ALWAYS try, it is in their nature to do so, they can't imagine a non-nomadic existence - the more they're setting themselves up for a failure that will ring down through the ages.
"Falsehoods will for many years more be overturned by those who have come in contact, directly or indirectly, with Mr. Auster. "
Oh, you better believe it, woman.
"Falsehoods will for many years more be overturned by those who have come in contact, directly or indirectly, with Mr. Auster."
Exactly right.
I tried to tell him a few times that VFR wasn't about him, but about the results and the outcome, results and outcome that would be impossible and nonexistent without the interaction of a large number of reasonably smart people (and some not so much ... mais passons la-dessus). I very quickly gave that up, it was evident he literally couldn't conceive of an online discussion on the right where he wasn't important.
When the Bush amnesty was defeated, he congratulated his readers for having played a pivotal part in doing so - clearly believing that VFR and its readership had somehow played a decisive part in the outcome. No other incident better illustrates his divorce from reality.
@anon 12:29
"And yet I can't imagine either of them celebrating his death in print the way this piece does."
Why not?
When an enemy dies, why should that occasion a forgiveness of every single wrong he has ever done? That merely ensures the wrongs will be repeated.
They MUST NOT BE.
Kevin MacDonald and Dennis Mangan, to name only two, were both defamed by Auster. And yet I can't imagine either of them celebrating his death in print the way this piece does. Perhaps they are both closet Jew (excuse me, jew) lovers.
I don't think Mangan's in the closet about it.
"So telling the truth about Auster makes someone a lout? Personally, I would rather be a lout than a liar."
No, telling the truth doesn't, but using the words 'Finally' in the headline and 'Hallelujah!' to end the piece do make one a lout.
"White" Europeans always called themselves "Caucasians". It's the proper and correct term for our white race.
Whites have not called themselves Caucasians since it refers to the people of the Caucasus region. Whites generally refer to themselves as whites - without inverted commas.
No, telling the truth doesn't, but using the words 'Finally' in the headline and 'Hallelujah!' to end the piece do make one a lout.
I don't see why being glad that a Jewish enemy is dead would make one a lout. Do you think that Auster would have been unhappy to see one of his enemies die?
Somewhat OT - Duke's recent open letter to Amren:
http://www.davidduke.com/?p=38955
The key point:
If we truly want an American renaissance, we must understand that the battle is ultimately won or lost on one question:
Will the Jewish tribalist overlords be overthrown?
That is the one question upon which every speech at the conference ultimately will hinge.
Tennessee Scots-Irish boy back to kick your God Damn asses again! You're fucking liars again about Laura Wood, as I know you'd post a link if you had one, you pansey-assed fucking FBI queers! Laura Wood never said that. Your MO is to divide and dissemble and weaken white interests with your irrational attacks on Auster, who served white interests more than you ever shall.
DiverCity:
Please check out the following link:
http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2011/04/a-succinct-and-important-statement/
In my comment above my second instance of the "Falsehoods" quote should have been quoting the following line:
"The "movement" around Auster will dissolve without its Energizer Bunny guru"
Copy/paste user error.
Auster is - er, was (writing that's going to get some getting used to) a leader of nothing. He has^D^D^Dhad one genuine imitator, Mrs. Wood. Compare with ANY other leading proponent of a particular line of thought - MRAs, Game, Three Percenters, Tea Partiers, Axis of Asshole (I miss Rob Smith - I think and thought him wrong on some important things but boy the man was unfailingly polite and genuinely friendly in a way Auster could never fake) - you'll find imitators and disciples crawling out of the woodwork trying to put their own spin and additions and refinements on what they genuinely think is a really cool idea.
Where are Auster's disciples?
In his email. Nowhere else. He went out of his way to set up a situation where the only people who would tolerate him would be those least likely to display a spine on any topic at all. Because when and if anyone did display such a spine in noting disagreement with Mr. Auster, that would mean they're not thinking what he's telling them to think, which makes them an insult to his insufferability.
Derb got it right, back when he wasn't being dishonestly polite to a dying man:
"I am not a fan of Larry's, nor he of me. I think he's an innumerate creeping Jesus with some unpleasant personality issues; he thinks I'm a shallow, frivolous, and godless interloper in the cathedral of conservatism."
using the words 'Finally' in the headline and 'Hallelujah!' to end the piece do make one a lout
I think Pleasureman at MPC is on to something:
His dying reminds me of Hitchens' cancer in that both men felt compelled to do it publicly and to make much of it. I don't know the full details of either's lives, but it seems to me that this was done to fill a personal emptiness. Perhaps it was also to treat the boredom of dying, but then why all the talk about one's impending death?
If the tombstone generator had given me more room I would have used the epitaph I wrote in August 2011:
Here lies Larry Auster, a typical whiny, rude New York City jew who spent his adult life complaining about being criticized while continuously attacking, smearing, denouncing, insulting, ridiculing and otherwise running down other people, and in the process became a guru to a creepy coterie of equally judgmental and fawning hangers-on.
I'm glad I wrote that back then, because I'm sure he read it.
You're fucking liars again about Laura Wood, as I know you'd post a link if you had one
LOL at the Austards - you might try reading the post to find the links in it.
Happy Easter everyone!
The Lord has risen.
http://ozconservative.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/lawrence-auster.html
Daybreaker said...
Lawrence Auster did a lot of good and he will be greatly missed.
SydneyTrads said...
Lawrence Auster’s passing has been a loss to traditionalists across the entire Anglosphere, Australia being no exception. We must not despair, but live up to his standards of excellence in unapologetically critiquing modern liberalism. The task of forming the intellectual bedrock of a genuine traditionalist revival now falls to us. Let us not let him down.
Saturday, 30 March 2013 8:45:00 pm AEDT
More on this later, but for now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JVSyRNtjnpY
Kristor writes:
It may be a while before I can put my thoughts in order so as to write anything that even begins to convey how important Lawrence has been, and wil continue to be, not just in my search for truth, but as a friend. One extremely odd aspect of my relationship with him – and I feel sure this is true for other commenters, too – is how close I felt to him, even though I only spent a few hours with him in person, and after that spoke only a few times on the phone. There was something about the way Lawrence communicated through his writing that made him seem immediately present. I feel now as if I must always have known him.
The other thing I know I shall need to think about further, before I begin to understand it, is how Larry could make me feel great, and greatly honored, *even as he was severely criticising me.* How does that work?
This is how it works, Kristor.
When you watch your kids from the deck, playing in the back yard, you ask yourself "What is their future?"
You laugh with them, cry with them, get angry over homework with them and, hate yourself for doing so.
You remember Auster saying "And children share the guilt by association with their parents and with the whole society." and quietly feel fear for their future.
You read:
The chief executive of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, Vic Alhadeff, said the NSW law was ''completely ineffective in that for all practical purposes it is impossible to prove the elements of the offence in any specific case''.
and the Premier's response, that he's "concerned there have been no successful criminal prosecutions in the history of the NSW laws and that they have fallen out of step with community expectations.
and you really start to fear, feel real fear, for their future.
You calculate all the traditionalist blogs, and how they blame liberalism, all the whiles these Jew names keep popping up. You want to pretend that it is some psychosis, some malady that has gripped our people, but the only people you ever hear about are the Jews, and how much we haven't done for Israel.
You then, in that state of hate and fear, start to set your teeth grinding, and thinking about Auster's last words, bookended damnations of anti-semites as he relays all we already knew about the Jew.
You then start to really, hate. I mean, hate.
I mean, because I love them so much that I fear for their future, and I know who it is who threatens it. Them I hate. And hate.
And then I read another thing from Auster and his acolytes, disparaging me and mine, exhorting them to die for his.
Then I really start to hate.
Which feels Good. And right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MARwF3lOfLI
Since 1989, Resisting Defamation has recognized the fundamental issue of naming & labeling which I see has arisen here. Which brings me to a footnote in the Auster legend.
For awhile he decided that we were goyim and shiksas...that is, he took it upon himself to tell us what our name & label is in the context of his various writings.
Resisting Defamation emailed him several times with polite protests at his claiming the right to name & label us, and he exploded with a kind of rage at our mild remonstrance that we have never seen before or since.
Resisting Defamation knows better than to try to decide for others how they should be named & labeled...each member of each demographic affinity group has the sole right to name & label themselves.
Deciding another group's name & label is not racist, but it is supremacist, and the supremacists in the world can be easily identified by their insistence that they can name & label members of other demographic affinity groups.
Arguing among ourselves about our proper name & label is to be encouraged, however, because it is the ultimate white-centric issue, and can only be argued with the white voice.
But we do hate to be called Cock-Asians.
A very telling quote from one of Tan's links above:
"I urge Jews to drop this irrational and destructive animus against Christianity. But then come along Christians such as George who tell the Jews that, yes, indeed, the Christians will always hate the Jews as the enemies of Christ. And this persuades the Jews that they can never really be safe among Christians, and that the Jews must therefore look out for themselves and never really support Christian society against the Muslims and other external threats. [Dropping this into google translate, jewish-to-english, we get: "If you believe there are fundamental and irreconcilable differences between jews and Whites (and there cannot possibly be such differences, because ... um...), you must keep such thoughts to yourself! Otherwise, jews will be justified in continuing to harm their hosts, er... will be justified in not helping you guys against the real threat, Muslims"] So there is this deadly and suicidal division within the West. [ Deadly and suicidal? Very strong words. Everything must be on the table then to solve this crisis, right? Um ... no, just this] but it requires that many Christians and Jews rise above their current attitudes."
And why should they? I mean, jews, of course. The incentive for Whites to "rise above their current attitudes" is self-evident: otherwise jews, with whom we must share everything, will be justified in harming us. But what's the incentive for jews to rise above their current attitudes? They seem to be doing just fine last I checked. Doesn't hurt that (as after every coup d'etat) they have control of the media. Blatant propaganda like this today in the New York Times, for example, has served a productive purpose for the tribe, has it not?
And why didn't Auster channel all his famous "bravery" tirelessly urging (even in the face of certain failure) powerful and hostile jewish groups to rise above their current attitudes? Why was he reaching out mainly to Whites?
JMR said...
I only found Tan's blog because of Auster so I have this to thank him for. Being English,I initially saw the problem of western european genocide solely in terms of Muslims. I also used to frequent GOV.
It was Tan that opened my eyes to the real movers and shakers behind the destruction of western civilisation and then I stopped reading Auster and GOV. Thank you Tan.
Beautiful.
And a warm welcome JMR, thanks for the uplifting story of how you were led here via Larry Auster and good ole GOV, an experience I and a few others share with you :)
Porter said...
If it came down to choosing between citizenship in a white ethnostate which identified itself as proudly ”Jew-free” in its constitution and a nation that was suicidally multicultural, I would choose the latter.
Good man Porter! I had my fingers ready to tap out the same, for there is really nothing more we need know about Laura Wood than the fact she wrote that garbage above. And then doubled down on it when challenged!
@ Divercity: so, did you get the proof you needed when you read the link 'Average Joe' so kindly provided? Your apology accepted in advance, lol.
Ps: Tan, as always, you 'da man'. Happy Easter to you and all readers/commenters here at the always excellent Age of Treason :)
I am also one who would probably never have noticed this place were it not for Auster.
And I am also one whose opinions on Jewish people as individuals and in general were profoundly influenced by watching Mr. Auster in action. He has that to his credit, in spite of himself.
I went to Laura Wood's site to leave a comment, I'd never even heard of it before and never frequented VFR either. Anyhow her site doesnt allow comments. Quelle surprise.
Mr.Tanstaafl
What is your opinion about Mr.Kersey and SBPDL?
Here from his hero worshipping in regard to Mr.Austers passing:
http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.no/2013/03/rip-lawrence-auster.html
I must admit I have donated money to him,and now I'm not sure if that was a wise choise on my part.
Tan's ending comment, "Today the White race lost a self-professed jewish fifth columnist. Hallelujah!", will be seen by some WNs as in bad taste. That the proper thing would be to remain silent, other than to just note his passing. Something like Steve Sailor's one line posting:
http://isteve.blogspot.jp/2013/03/larry-auster-rip.html
But Tan's point, I believe, is to remind us that we are in a war. A war waged by jews against Whites that has been killing untold numbers of us through jewish destruction of our societies.
Auster, was a member of that tribe and did his best to deflect attention away from his people, as if to say, 'Nothing to see here, folks, move right along!'
He must have known his tribe is a 'hostile elite', yet he mislead, misdirected, Whites away from the root cause, distracting his readers with just the symptoms, such as; blacks, Muslims, liberals, non-White immigration, the homosexualist agenda, the neocon agenda, sexual liberation, and 'the belief that black failure, dysfunction, and violence is due to white racism', etc.
You can see why he was a favorite of the Amren crowd and similar sites that are just content to go no further than those issues. But he was like a doctor listing and lamenting the patient's problems while not telling the patient about the parasite ultimately responsible for his condition.
For me, that makes Auster's positive contributions tainted with a basic dishonesty.
He was willing to call a spade a spade, that is being used to bury us. He just happened to forget to call it a 'made by jews' spade.
Ole Johansen said...
Mr.Tanstaafl
What is your opinion about Mr.Kersey and SBPDL?
Here from his hero worshipping in regard to Mr.Austers passing:
http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.no/2013/03/rip-lawrence-auster.html
4/01/2013 02:23:00 AM
-------------
Ole, Mr.Kersey appears to be in adoration of the Tribe. He writes:
R.I.P Lawrence Auster.
"Heroes die, but they are remembered"-- and the day will come when we have the opportunity to teach children to rejoice in the opportunity they have been regiven, the day when being born white isn't the equivalent of having the Star of David placed upon you in 1938 Germany.
Posted by Stuff Black People Don't Like at 8:06 PM
-------------------
SBPDL specializes in exposing the crimes of blacks while (conveniently?) overlooking the blackest of hands, namely those belonging to jews in their behind the scenes promotion of black criminality through jewish social destruction engineering.
A off topic comment,I know,but how else could I bring this very interesting story to Tanstaafl?
http://newobserveronline.com/two-senior-russian-jewish-senators-resign-over-dual-loyalty-allegations/
Could this have happened in any other,still white majority,country?
Auster was truly vile. Just read his posts on the Amanda Knox case. They are filled with pure venom and hate- he even said that even if she was innocent she "had a quality of depravity" because reporters filmed her kissing her boyfriend after the murders. He also accused her of studying abroad just so she could have sex with Italian men.
Note that while he rushed to condemn Amanda Knox, he leapt to the defense of Roman Polanski...
There is something extremely sick and evil about Auster that becomes apparent when you have read his rants long enough, as seen in the statement quoted in another comment, that all children in America are guilty by association(deserving what punishment for their "guilt" I wonder) with their parents just because there are violent films(which seems to be another obsession of prudish Jewish "conservatives").He also had a totally insane obsession with "gnosticism" blaming it for nearly everything wrong in the world, and did not care that genuine historical gnostic groups such as the Cathars bore no resemblance whatsoever to the "liberalism" he was describing.
And this fool is seen a great seeker of Truth. Insane.
Oh he was alos a fanatical creationist who accused anyone who belived in evolution of being a "liberal" and blamed the Columbine shootings on Darwin. How could anyone take this psychopath seriously?
My favorite Auster post was his spergout over Marine LePen's hair:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/020728.html
He dismissed one of the few effective pro-Native European politicians over one photograph that probably made sense in the context of French culture. (I saw it as a subtle "fuck you" to Muslims.) Surely the anti-semitism of LePen's father had much to do with it, as well as Auster's reluctance to give credit to a woman where it was due. The primary thing though was that he couldn't bear to see evidence that Europe may not be utterly doomed.
The thing that made me finally stop reading Auster's blog was when he proclaimed that science, all science, was evil because by revealing new truths about the universe and discovering new facts, it confused us and made our civilization morally nihilistic. Seriously, I'm not making this up. Reminds me of philo-semite Kathy Shaidle saying "science is bullshit" on her blog simply because some new discoveries about the Triceratops may have indicated it was not a separate species, but only the juvenile form of another dinosaur.
Somehow, though, I'm guessing that, despite science being evil and a cause of our moral decline, Auster didn't forego scientific medical treatment for his cancer.
He also did not discuss how exactly he PAID for those 2+ years of cutting-edge medical treatment. Pancreatic cancer normally kills within weeks.
He had fits over all sorts of photos. The most recent one was over Susan Rice. I am no fan of the woman, but her photo is simply that of an ordinary-looking middle-aged black woman, not unlike a middle school teacher I had (who wasn't a bad teacher, either). Auster decreed that her photo reeked of deliberate and intentional evil all over the place. One would be far more justified in taking Auster's various photos and concluding from the heavy jowls, lines of the mouth, etc, that the subject was a brutal and dissipated thug.
Another Auster gem...
No Darwin, no Hitler
"Given my pre-occupation with it, I’m trying not to wear readers out by posting too much on Darwinism, but the subject is in the air, with Ben Stein’s documentary defending intelligent design coming out this weekend. David Klinghoffer at NRO discusses one of the themes of Stein’s film: the profound roots of Hitlerism in Darwinism. The connection is seen in Darwin’s statement in The Descent of Man: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.”
3. jews are obsessed with what is good for everyone else - by also ensuring it is compatible with what is best for jews.
He was a cult-style wannabe leader who wanted to tell people what to think and what they weren't allowed to talk (or think) about.
He would be viciously insulting on the flimsiest of pretexts, while declaring the slightest hint that he himself was not a perfectly objective thinker to be unacceptably insulting and beyond the pale.
He was a monumental hypocrite.
His personality flaws contributed SIGNIFICANTLY to his unmitigated failure to influence or advance every single "conservative" cause he espoused.
He was in the wrong, he demonstrably KNEW he was in the wrong, and he never stopped.
I could probably go on at some length if I sat down and thought about it, but those are a few of the things that spring to mind.
Larry was a story teller, like his brother.
Larry's narrative concerned "liberalism", his idee fixe. He wrote extensively, attributing everything that is wrong with the world to "liberalism". Though he was usually vague about what "liberalism" was exactly, he laid the blame for it on Whites, who in his opinion should be doing a better job of keeping the world safe for the jews.
"Larry was a story teller, like his brother."
I believe they were cousins, not brothers.
Lozza as a storyteller is an apt description.
It struck me a few years ago that he reminds me of Lieutenant Thomas Keefer, from the novel The Caine Mutiny.
Here's a wikipedia description:
Communications officer Lieutenant Thomas Keefer, an intellectual former magazine writer and budding novelist who has chafed under Queeg's authority, and initially portrayed as a sympathetic, if not heroic character, plants the suggestion that Queeg might be mentally ill in the mind of the Caine's executive officer, Lieutenant Stephen Maryk, "diagnosing" Queeg as a paranoid. He also steers Maryk to "section 184" of the Navy Regulations, according to which a subordinate can relieve a commanding officer for mental illness in extraordinary circumstances.
In this analogy, Queeg is your typical, good service, non-braggart steward of our civilisation. The typical White man. Keefer is your typical Jew, conniving to undermine this stewardship, out of hubris and grievance.
Keefer achieves his goals by manipulating Maryk into deposing Captain Queeg. But, at the crunch moment of mutiny, Keefer backs out, the gutless manipulator that he is.
Later, after Queeg has been broken not only at sea, but now in court, they all get together to celebrate.
Again from wikipedia:
At a party celebrating both the acquittal and Keefer's success at selling his novel to a publisher, Greenwald shows up intoxicated, and accuses Keefer of being a coward. He tells the gathering that he feels ashamed of having destroyed Queeg on the stand, because Queeg did the necessary duty of guarding America in the peacetime Navy, which people like Keefer (and by implication, Willie), saw as beneath them. Greenwald further points out that without the protection of people like Queeg, Greenwald's mother could have been "melted down into a bar of soap," which is what he says is happening to the Jews under Hitler's reign in Europe. Greenwald tells the gathering that he had to "torpedo Queeg" because "the wrong man was on trial"—that it was Keefer, not Maryk, who was "the true author of 'The Caine Mutiny.'" Greenwald throws a glass of "yellow wine in Keefer's face", thereby bringing the term "Old Yellowstain" full circle back to the novelist.
Forget the jew soap bit (although it's a good note for how far that notorious scam reached into the psyche of Americans), the analogy is pretty much Auster.
He never got his full comeuppance though, unfortunately. In fact, I think Auster had the last laugh on his disciples by finally telling them the truth about the Jews, and, at the same time, bookending the whole exposure in damnations of "anti-Semites". His version of, "here be dragons".
Basically, the Trad Cons etc all got Keefered by Old Yellowstain, and they are still none the wiser.
Actually, the Keefer thing is even more apt in that the jew author Wouk, rather than depicting a kike in the role of Keefer, uses an Irish surname for the underminer.
Note also the "righteous jew" Greenwald is also a lawyer.
We must secure the existence of VFR Archives and a future for Sovereign Israel.
Allah wills it.
His cousin, correct:
David Mills sent an e-mail to say "I finally confirmed through Lawrence Auster himself that, indeed, he is Paul Auster's younger cousin. (Lawrence's father, Irving Auster, was the second-youngest of Anna Auster's five children. Paul's father, Samuel, was the youngest.) Again, Lawrence and Paul attended the same high school, two years apart. They also attended the same university."
Basically, the Trad Cons etc all got Keefered by Old Yellowstain, and they are still none the wiser.
Yes, pithy. I've gathered links to a half dozen glowing obits. Rather than waste any more time on that I'll simply note the common theme: The more loudly they proclaim Auster's heroism the more vague their explanation why.
In particular, none mention his motivation, his undying concern for the jews, which he made especially clear in Jews--The Archetypal Multiculturalists.
Why do they avoid this? Some seem to have been bamboozled and believe he actually cared about Americans, Christians, the "white" race, or anything else beside the jews. The rest are happy to aid and abet Auster's project by painting his talmudic hair-splitting as "clear", "intellectual", etc.
I think they're simply scared. Scared of the truth, of naming their enemies, even declaring they have enemies who do have a tribe, and a face.
It's easier to call it something like "liberalism". That way you can talk as if you are facing it, without actually doing the hard yards of staring it down, actually doing something about it.
They were warned constantly by Auster of the evils, and associated damnation, of anti-Semitism constantly. It left them paralysed with fear. Knowing the truth but unable to do anything about it.
A good example of Auster Keefering* a subject is his post, "The vexed question of what is the white race; and, Have the Irish been good for America?"
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/023480.html
1) Select an email from petitioner and post it, as their question, not his.
2) Declaim about it, dance with it, ponder it, maybe even mention the Jews about it (pertinent to the emailer's query), and then throw out a leading diversion to another ethnicity. In this case, the Irish.
3) A series of supplicants make abusive and derogatory comments about the diversion group (here, the Irish), all of which Auster willingly posts. Note, he never did the same with regard those who would write nothing like as scathing about the Jews. Those people's emails were strangled at birth.
4) Feign indifference, "I take no personal position on this issue", and then urge on more attacks, "But I just want to point out..."
That's Auster's career pretty much in a nutshell.
Prime directive: protect Jews from anyone doing anything about the truth of the Jews.
Tactic: Create diversions, and then, in that time honoured Jewish method, urge on "Let's you and him have a fight!"
*I think Wouking (as in Herman Wouk) is more accurate. Wouk himself is using this very device throughout the novel. All the protagonists are being manipulated into doing the Jew's bidding, at Wouk's hand.
In the end, the "righteous Jew" is forced into hurting these Whites for their own good. Greenwald "had to "torpedo Queeg". He had to. The Goy forced him into it. And, the ultimate objective? Save Jews from being turned into soap.
Auster also called it "gnosticism",a lunatic obsession of his. Just read his posts on the subject to see how crazy he really was. Its much easier to blame the Albigensians for everything isn't it?
That's another major trait of Auster's, Calufrax, the damnation's of others as gnostic, when he was the gnostic par excellence!
It's something I've been meaning to write about for some time, but, basically, the way he constantly used the wording "no one ever says xyz, except for me". Or "nobody ever pointed out, except for me...", or "no one is doing anything about xyz, except for me", is a the definitional example of gnosticism.
For if "no one" ever did anything, then there are no exceptions, not even him.
Furthermore, plenty of people, history is replete with them, said all the things he said, and more, and far better than he ever did.
David Stove termed this the "Ishmael effect":
The claimed ability of some philosophical theory to escape from the fate to which it condemns all other discourse. The effect was named by the modern 20th-century Australian philosopher D. C. Stove after Ishmael's epilogue to Moby Dick: ‘and I only am escaped alone to tell thee’. This is something it must have been impossible for him to do, given the tale he tells.
‘It is (absolutely) true that truth is relative’; ‘we ought to think that there is no such thing as thought’; and ‘the one immorality is to believe in morality’, would be examples of doctrines that require the effect.
In that essay Stove discusses "veil" theories, being, like Auster's in general, that things exist beyond the veil, that no one has ever seen nor can understand, except for the person imparting the theory (Auster), which is impossible, given what they just said.
Auster was a gnostic, in practice and in thought.
One final word (I don't want to come across as spamming), Auster posted on 7th March, 2013:
A female reader writes:
I feel saddened by your condition. If you pull through, I would like to request that you find a young late ’20s/early ’30s Russian Jewish woman or an Israeli Jewish woman, marry her, and procreate with her at least two children (they can be twins). Hopefully one of them will be a boy. Regards.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/024322.html
At this time, Auster was already a supposed Anglican, and was now preparing to become a Catholic.
Yet this one just flew right by, with not a word from Auster, nor his "Catholic" fans in rebuke.
As a matter of fact, Auster positively considered the idea, and only rejected it on the grounds that it was impossible given his condition.
So, right to the last, despite his so called conversion (I doubt it very much - but I cannot know the ultimate end), here was Auster promoting the religion and race of the Jews.
And not a peep from his "Catholic" fan club, especially that dimwitted housewife and her home he roosted in.
no one ever says xyz, except for me
This was one of the ways he shamelessly cultivated his hero worship, regularly making self-aggrandizing claims in a meticulously managed echo chamber. He was a legend not only in his own mind, but in the minds of most everyone who made it past his copy and paste.
At times Auster didn't say xyz, even when he did. I recall, for example, his part in The Outrageous Defense of Roman Polanski. Among other things, at some point he silently changed the title of his article from "America's vendetta against Roman Polanski" to "The arrest of Roman Polanski". That outburst and his dishonest way of dealing with his shocked sychophants is perhaps the finest example of Auster's "traditionalist" charade colliding with reality.
Agreed.
Though the way he expressed himself was gnostic, I got the impression it was born of pure narcissism.
The way he transmitted his "humility" to his readers, forever promoting how stoicialy he was bearing up was merely further evidence of the narcissist he was.
Just like the current antipope and the way he promotes himself as "humble".
Bit like the joke about the Jew who wanted a reputation for generosity, but wasn't prepared to pay for it.
That post re Polanski was one of the most egregious examples of his mendacity. He feigned a retreat but, all the reasons he cited for the "fiasco", him not knowing this or that, were already cited in his opening citation of Anne Applebaum.
He was a manifest liar, and when the evidence was given to his fans, they ran.
Auster revered Eric Voegelin, another epic-level falsifier of reality. Voegelin was the source of most of Auster's stupid ideas about "gnosticism". Voegelin claimed that gnosticism was responsible for Marxism. Yet I seem to recall that Marx's family tree did not include any Cathars, Ophites, Manicheans or Mandeans, but had connections to another faith..Hmm... can't quite remember what it was...
Yes, those evil Gnostics, they're the ones responsible for Communism, Freudianisim, Boasian anthropology, Deconstruction, the Frankfurt school, and massive levels of non-white immigration. I guess all the Cathars weren't wiped out in the Middle Ages! I mean someone else couldn't posssibly be responsible for all those things could they?
Tanstaafl, I know I mentioned it before, but please compare Auster's treatment of Polanski to his treatment of Amanda Knox. Auster said that even if Knox was innocent, she still had "a quality of depravity" but never said anything similar about Polanski even after he was forced to admit he was guilty. This also illustrates something else I've perceived about Auster- his Semitic hatred for free, beautiful European women. To Auster, Knox is "depraved" just because she publicly kissed her boyfriend. Just like Marine Le Pen is "decadent" because she has long, beautiful flowing hair.
He lived a jew. He died a jew.
Once upon a time in Whitopia, a Protestant family moved into a Catholic suburb. They were friendly and kind enough, and generally got along well with their new neighbors. The children built snowmen together outside, and once the weather broke, the Protestants took their turns contributing to the neighborhood cookouts.
But there was a problem. With the Easter season looming, the fish-eating Catholics were sick with jealousy as the new family grilled their juicy steaks every Friday evening. The mouth-watering aroma wafted over the picket fences and into papist nostrils. This was a pea under the mattress stack. It was time to have a talk.
The Catholics convinced their Protestant newcomers to attend Sunday mass. After much sincere proselytizing, the priest was summoned to administer a conversion. Their foreheads were sprinkled with holy water. "You were born a Protestant, you were raised a Protestant, you are now a Catholic!" bellowed the cleric. The congregation was all smiles as the assimilation was completed.
Friday evening came again, and all at once, goosebumps prickled up on the shoulders of every card-carrying Catholic in the vicinity as they inhaled the delectable essence of choice beef cuts drifting from the backyard of the converts. Yanking open their screen doors, onlookers clamored outside to see with their own eyes the proof of those pesky Protestants' failure to reform. They were just in time to witness the father saying grace in front of his succulent roast.
As he trickled a bit of jus over the tender slabs of red meat, the 'Catholic' man declared, "You were born a cow, you were raised a cow, you are now a fish!"
Ain't that the truth, CamBro.
Not to go too OT, but here's what all good Whites should do. Divert the subject, and drive home the point:
From Tim Blair's blog, a notorious Murdochian ADL suckholer (probably a jew, and may as well be), me as "Frank Truth":
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/stinky_broke_and_mad/
And one to listen to as you read, and hopefully add your comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj7oo_iLp9Q
Phall, I don't get it.
Auster was as much of a White Catholic as a cow is a fish. His cheerleaders can pretend all they want if it placates their nerves. To the naked eye, it's absurd.
Amongst Whites, Auster will always stand as a "fish out of water".
A female reader writes:
I feel saddened by your condition. If you pull through, I would like to request that you find a young late ’20s/early ’30s Russian Jewish woman or an Israeli Jewish woman, marry her, and procreate with her at least two children (they can be twins). Hopefully one of them will be a boy. Regards.
Auster never took her advice but Talmudstaafl did, hahaha.
Pat - good call on The Caine Mutiny. I watched it a few years ago as I was 'waking up' and saw the jewish malice in it for the first time.
"Voegelin claimed that gnosticism was responsible for Marxism. Yet I seem to recall that Marx's family tree did not include any Cathars, Ophites, Manicheans or Mandeans, but had connections to another faith..Hmm... can't quite remember what it was..."
Probably the spawn of those dirty Irish!
"Auster never took her advice but Talmudstaafl did, hahaha."
L'chaim! LOL.
But really, Tanstaafl is a great writer and he puts out quality work. As good as anything in the mainstream. It's one of the few sites I bother reading anymore. I wouldn't have known about the ascension of St. Auster if Tan hadn't posted this.
Lastly, it's pretty amazing the old guy lived two or three years after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Everyone else I've heard of has died within six months. Like cockroaches, these yids!
Got a bit carried away last night, sorry about that.
Feel free, as ever, to delete any of my ramblings Tan.
OT, Peter Hitchen's outing of himself as being a hater of White Britons has been doing the rounds.
It's interesting to note that one of his greatest concerns about the new multiracial Britain is that large swathes of it are "anti-Semitic".
But I recall ten years ago, in a Muslim bookshop in the backstreets of Burnley, seeing on open display a modern edition of Henry Ford's revolting anti-Jewish diatribe The International Jew, long ago disowned by Ford himself.
It is unthinkable that any mainstream shop in any High Street could sell this toxic tripe.
Auster didn't think much of Peter Hitchens, and makes several good points in this rebuttal of Hitchens.
However, in all this discussion of Hitchens and the Leftist hatred of all things White, it needs be pointed out that what drives people is not first and foremost an ideology, eg. liberalism or absolute autonomy, but ethnic attachments.
It's all well and good to discuss the political theory behind social policy and the unfolding of events, as in why Enoch Powell failed*, but, what is more pertinent is that the actual people driving the policy.
It's not *all* the Jews fault, but a large part of it most certainly is.
It is only when you name those who are promoting these nation wrecking policies and delve into their ethnic and religious backgrounds, exposing them, that you can get to the heart of the problem.
And this is what we are all told *not* to do. This is actually being enforced by laws promoted by Jewish lobby groups, as in the case cited above of "The chief executive of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, Vic Alhadeff" urging the premier of NSW to change racial vilification laws so that more prosecutions can be brought about. The goal here is to stop people from truthfully noting the ethnic allegiances of those who are promoting our destruction.
This is the major fault of those so called traditional conservatives who support Auster. Auster successfully roped off discussion of Jewish undermining of our nations, and these trad cons pretended, and still pretend, that they are going to get to the solution of our destruction by writing post after post about "liberals" or "radical autonomy", or the collapse of Christian standards etc etc.
None of that ultimately matters. Not if we want to win.
What matters is to name the enemy. Until White people do that they are just pissing into the wind.
Hitchens is a scumbag every bit as much as Auster was. They both have their higher calling to their own people.
We need to be every bit as much in love with our people as they are theirs. Isn't it about time the trad cons and all those other alt-right types started to name the Jew?
You cannot be a conservative if you aren't about conserving a *people*.
It is the people, first and foremost, that one should be conserving. From that all else follows.
So, if you want to rabbit on about "anti-semitism" this, poor powerless jew that, and you aren't a jew, then what the hell is it that you are conserving?!
From wikipedia:
Hitchens was raised nominally Christian, and went to Christian boarding schools but from an early age declined to participate in communal prayers. Later in life, Hitchens discovered that he was of Jewish descent on his mother's side.
According to Hitchens, when his brother Peter took his fiancée to meet their maternal grandmother, who was then in her 90s, she said of his fiancée, "She's Jewish, isn't she?" and then announced: "Well, I've got something to tell you. So are you."
Hitchens found out that his maternal grandmother, Dorothy née Levin, was Jewish (Dorothy's father and maternal grandfather had both been born Jewish, and Dorothy's maternal grandmother – Hitchens' matrilineal great-great-grandmother – was a convert to Judaism). Hitchens' maternal grandfather converted to Judaism before marrying Dorothy Levin. Hitchens' Jewish-born ancestors were immigrants from Eastern Europe (including Poland).
In an article in The Guardian on 14 April 2002, Hitchens stated that he could be considered Jewish because Jewish descent is traditionally traced matrilineally.
And we are supposed to believe that Peter Hitchens' hatred of White Britain stemmed from him being a "Revolutionary Marxist".
It's clear that what drove his hatred of White Britain was the exact same thing that made him a Revolutionary Marxist - he's yet another God damned Jew.
It's clear that what drove his hatred of White Britain was the exact same thing that made him a Revolutionary Marxist - he's yet another God damned Jew.
My understanding is that the Hitchens brothers didnt find out their mum had jewish ancestry (she wasnt ethnically 100% jewish either)until well into adulthood, they were already political before, both Trots. On Wiki it says they didnt know until their maternal grandmother stated it in her 90s.
Chris clearly became the more blatantly pro-jewish brother as time wore on.
Note: Peter is married to someone called Eve Ross Make what you will of that, apparently the daughter of left wing journalist David Ross. Cant confirm any more about her, no pics I can find.
Chris was married to Carol Blue - no comment necessary! Just check her photos if you're in any doubt.
Oops, just seen Pat was quoting Wiki there about granny. Sorry for the duplication.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/apr/14/politics
...the discovery of his Jewishness when he was 38. It happened when his brother Peter took his new bride to meet their maternal grandmother, Dodo, who was then in her nineties, and Dodo said, 'She's Jewish, isn't she?' and then announced: 'Well, I've got something to tell you. So are you.' She said that her real surname was Levin, not Lynn, and that her ancestors were Blumenthals from Poland.
Christopher was thrilled when Peter told him. By then he was living in Washington and most of his friends were Jewish. Moreover, he felt that he had somehow known all along. He remembers an odd dream in which he was on the deck of a ship and a group of men approached him and said they needed a 10th man to make up a minyan (Jewish prayer group) and he calmly strolled across the deck and joined them. He insists that he is Jewish - because Jewish descent goes through the mother - though Peter Hitchens, who has traced the family tree, says they are only one 32nd Jewish.
Peter Hitchens married a Jew, and presumably his children have grown up Jewish. Chris maintained he himself was a Jew.
So it's one big Jew family.
Peter's father in law, David Ross was a communist.
He moved to Paris where he joined the Continental Daily Mail, and where he met Tamara Halperin, a beautiful young Swiss radical and daughter of the distinguished anti-Nazi journalist Sep Halperin.
They married in London in 1951,...
So, here we have this half arsed kike, married into Jewish radicalism now confessing that he hated White Britons, and his major beef now with multiracialism/culturalism is that it is anti-Semitic and too many White Europeans are now migrating to the UK.
Peter Hitchens, btw, describes himself as Burkean conservative.
He probably despises liberalism now and opposes radical autonomy.
Good grief.
Larry's narrative concerned "liberalism", his idee fixe. He wrote extensively, attributing everything that is wrong with the world to "liberalism". Though he was usually vague about what "liberalism" was exactly, he laid the blame for it on Whites, who in his opinion should be doing a better job of keeping the world safe for the jews.
That basically describes all "paleocons", "traditional conservatives", and "alt-righters".
Basically, the Trad Cons etc all got Keefered by Old Yellowstain, and they are still none the wiser.
Yes, pithy. I've gathered links to a half dozen glowing obits. Rather than waste any more time on that I'll simply note the common theme: The more loudly they proclaim Auster's heroism the more vague their explanation why.
People write glowing obits for Auster for one reason only: they basically hold the same ideas. I don't think Auster really "fooled" anyone.
In the beginning he fooled me. I followed his blog and that of GOV for about two years.
It seems amazing now that until a relatively few years ago I was sympathetic to jews and israel. I had swallowed the jewish narrative hook, line and sinker.
It was Tan that opened my eyes. Since then I have never looked back. I think that certain people search for the truth however hard and uncomfortable.The people that remained followers of Auster prefer their blindness.
Recently,I have been trying to warn friends and family about the impending economic collapse. I am amazed at their refusal to entertain the idea that their world is unsustainable. I am reminded of Christ when he accuses people of having eyes but cannot see and ears but cannot hear. Wilful blindness and deafness seems to be a human carachteristic.
To be fair to Auster, whose views on Jews or Antisemitism are not above reproach, DID contribute a lot in exposing various ills (say immigration and liberalism).
His theories too, even though they could be criticized for being preferential to Jews, can be, in principle, generalized.
For example: Separationism is his solution for Islam, but can be extended towards others, including Jews.
So, however much hypocritical one might think he was, he did propose workable ideas. It is just that he DID NOT want to apply them on Jews.
So while his feet are held to fire, a fair evaluation must NOT be denied to him, and his ideas as well.
It seems that if one could take his ideas, generalize them (that is remove unprincipled exceptions for Jews) and apply them, they would yield great effect.
We need to be every bit as much in love with our people as they are theirs.
This is number one. Without this, without Love for our people, without Love for each other, we will never fight with the passion and perseverance required to win.
This blog, maybe more than most, has given me that. I feel I could write a book on this subject alone somedays, it has had such an impact on me.
Ps: Great comments Pat!
"My understanding is that the Hitchens brothers didnt find out their mum had jewish ancestry"
That wouldn't necessarily matter. The ethnic difference was probably part of what made them feel "other" and that feeling of otherness led to their hostility to the host population.
Hitchens basically does what Auster did. He rails against the consequences of what Jews have done to attract dissenters and then deflects them from the real problem which is the Jewish obsession with destroying the ethnic and cultural cohesion of the host population to make Jews "safe" leading to the destruction of the host and the Jews wandering off to find another victim.
The Auster Narrative for people that dared to disagree with him:
"I've posted our exchange with my revised and expanded reply.
"Clearly, you have some world view, a complex, highly worked out world view, and because I don't share it, or haven't gone into it, that, to you, makes me intellectually dishonest. This is not a basis for any possible discussion between us.
"... you should not have written to me in the manner in which you wrote to me.
"Please re-send with normal punctuation, normal quotation marks. I can't work with upside down quotation marks. Thank you.
"I'm not into you or your point of view. Haven't you noticed that I don't post any of your comments? So why keep sending them to me? You should comment at a blog which is in sympathy with your views. There are many such blogs.
"What kind of disturbed individual keeps writing to a person who is not interested in what he has to say and doesn't read it? You need a psychiatrist, not a blogger."
From letters sent by him to me. (in timely order)
No, no, no, Mr. Fink. Auster was a seeker of truth, wherever he might find it. We know this because he said so himself. Auster also was very open to criticism. We know this because he said so himself.
Peter Hitchens seems quintessentially British to me. His admission that he had it in for the native British population, at one time, is surprising. You very well could be on to the reason why.
Hell hath no fury like a jew scorned.
Which, come to think of it, pretty much sums it up. The jewish mentality is basically the female one (sorry ladies). The theatrics, the hysteria, the solipsism - it's all there. The reason it is so disgusting, to men and women alike, is because you see men essentially behaving like women.
Auster described himself as a "jewish fifth columnist". Celebrating an enemy's demise is good and just and sane and right. I hope you Austards have all had, and continue to have, an extremely difficult time dealing with it.
What Thomas Fink, and anonymous@10:48 am said.
Celebrating an enemy's demise is good and just and sane and right. I hope you Austards have all had, and continue to have, an extremely difficult time dealing with it.
This reminds me, in a roundabout way, of a criticism directed at you in the past. That being your support of America's reaction to 9/11 you now regret, or see in a new light, and that if you were wrong then, what makes you think you are right now.
The same could be said of your reaction to Breivik, in which I think this criticism arose due to the fact that the majority of those killed by Breivik were White. Further, that there was some anti-Israel protest going on at the time, or prior, by the party of those killed.
The contention of the criticism being that, if you were so wrong in the past, what makes you think you are right now?
The argument is easily dismissed in that one may be 100% correct in the past, but that doesn't entail that one will be 100% correct in the present, nor the future.
Then again, in matters practical, I always abide by Damon Runyon's aphorism: "The race doesn't always go to the swift or the battle to the strong, but that is the way to bet."
That is, when betting on an outcome, one would be best guided by form in the matter. Past performance most usually will indicate future performance. Inhibiting and unknown factors aside, for the moment.
On that point, say, for argument, that Tan was wrong in hindsight in both matters with regard his reactions. The one thing that remains constant was the guiding instinct of those reactions.
In both matters it is apparent to me that what guided Tan was love of nation, love of family. Given the "facts" of those situations as presented by those we have come to trust, Tan's instincts were born of love. That remains constant. It is predictive of present and future performance.
The same lesson can be applied to the life of Auster, as presented at his blog and writings, that the one guiding instinct in his life was the preservation of the Jews.
Even in matters of grave import such as one's faith in God, Auster was always instinctively aware of the need to protect his Jewish family.
Continued:
Take three examples of his criticism of Vatican II:
A Vatican conference denies the legitimacy of Israel"
Was Vatican II the arch-liberal event of the 20th century?
Vatican II and the Church’s more tolerant attitude toward Jews
Auster had some thought provoking, and correct, criticisms of Vatican II, but his instincts ultimately perverted the message for White people, and would be Catholics.
As follows:
However, the one part of the report that is, sadly, believable, is that which concerns the Archibishop’s denial of God’s dispensation to the Jews. Historically, the Church held that the Christian dispensation entirely replaced the Jewish dispensation, thus denying the Jews as Jews any role in the world, though, as I understand it, that belief was modified or dropped by Vatican II and the document Nostra Aetate with its statement of tolerance of the Jews. It remains the case, however, that many traditional Catholics still deny the Jewish dispensation. For them, the Jews as Jews have no place in God’s plan—a belief that puts such Catholics in line with the Muslim view of the Jews. By contrast, for most Protestants, and especially Protestant dispensationalists, the Jewish people, the first recipients of God’s revelation, still have a role in unfolding divine history.
Thus the basis for Auster's affirmed Anglicanism.
It’s been said at VFR by people who had personal experience of the times that Catholic attitudes toward Jews notably improved following Vatican II, so I’m not sure that Peter O is right on dismissing Vatican II’s contribution in that area.
The "goodness" of Vatican II, in an otherwise dark episode.
LA to JF:
It goes without saying that my criticisms of Vatican II have nothing to do with the Jewish issue.
...
...I’m against ecumenism, the notion that all religions share a common truth and ought to get together on the basis of what they have in common, which ends by eliminating what is distinctive about each faith. However, it’s not necessary to be an ecumenist to remove the Church’s collective indictment of the Jews, or to recognize that the Jews have their own dispensation from God that ought to be respected or at least left alone.
Ecumenism is false, except with regard the Jews.
Now, no sensible person would dispute that Auster had a great intellect, that is not in dispute. What needs to be drawn to the "traditional conservative's" attention is the fact that Auster's guiding instinct on all matters of race and ethnicity was his love of, and desire to preserve, the Jews; his family.
I haven't come to merely dance on Auster's grave, though I do, nor to bury him. I come to bury *you*.
You "traditional conservative" snakes. You nest of vipers at the "Orthosphere". You traitorous cowards of the Alt-Right. All you faux conservatives who conserve no White man but the empty bones of your family's past glory in his buildings, his politics and his cultural practice. What good will it achieve should you restore our civilisation when no one ours remain to live in it?!
It's you I want to bury.
So that me and mine can live. Oh that you could have one bit of Auster's love for his Jews, in you, for your own family.
An intellect is a great thing, a necessary thing for any people to have in her leaders but what is more important is instinctive love for his family. Without it the intellect can do the greatest damage, outsmarting himself into everyone's ruin. Stupid people make dumb mistakes, but the intelligent can really fuck things up. So when you've got the leaders of your own nations, your own extended family, insticntively in service with their great inttelects to another people who are implaccable enemies of our own, you are in for lies, deceit and disaster.
We may not have all the facts, we rely on the facts from our leaders. The very same leaders who perverted our instinctive reactions in 9/11, and most matters throughout the 20th century into fratricide and war. Ou instincts remain the same. Now knowing as we do, that these leaders have no love for us, in fact like Peter Hitchens, hate.
So, yeah, we dance on Auster's grave. Because you, like him, argue us into our own grave, for the Jews' gain.
Hoowee, sorry for the long comment. Done now :-)
Thanks, as always Mary, for your kind words.
Gotta say the whole thread has some great comments by those who aren't bluffed by the charlatans of the Auster brigade.
I think it's really funny how some of the obits on Auster call him "prickly" and "irascible" as if he were some sort of lovable curmudgeon, when he was much,much nastier than that. Just look at his vilification of Peter Brimelow, Dennis Mangan, Kevin McDonald and Amanda Knox. But as nasty as Auster was, his groupies are even worse.
And yet, Calufrax, Peter Brimelow went to Auster's funeral service, hosts odes to Auster at Vdare, his own staff as well attended the funeral.
As Mangan once quoted Hillel the Elder:
If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
"nest of vipers at the "Orthosphere""
I have agree and amplify on this, from my own perspective.
1) Bonald, who on his blog decided to "investigate" in a fair and impartial manner the global warming contoversy. His method was to print, practically word-for-word, the warmists' claims, and then with no further ado to conclude on that basis that obviously they were correct and that was the end of it. He was given plenty of leads in his comment threads on arguments and evidence that put the standard warmist claims in a questionable light; I was one of the ones doing so. He paid absolutely no attention to any of that.
2) Proph, who decrees that usury is bad, because he says so, and that it shall be abolished, because because, and furthermore that if this has the side effect of mass impoverishment he's ok with that. The value of time is pointed out to him and ignored; the tendency of people to want to materially better their situation equally so.
3) Kristor, who is precisely the sort of man who gets a nuclear divorce bomb dropped on his head out of nowhere, while in the meantime condescendingly lecturing other men about their failures. Also, one of the purest of Auster sycophants.
There may be others posting there but those are the ones I recognize. These aren't thinkers. They don't even know what thinking is.
'Auster described himself as a "jewish fifth columnist".'
Perhaps I just missed it; where did he describe himself that way? In your links, he attributes that thought to others on the paleo/anti-Semitic, etc., right.
Perhaps you did, Anonymous.
What we'd all like to know is what's your dog in the fight?
Noting how Auster hand selected his commenters on which he'd pontificate, yet here you are, without honour anonymously demanding answers, of us.
How about you state your case for yourself and Auster, while you're at it?
I don't know what I did to merit having my name invoked or cursed here on this thread, but I will take it as a compliment, considering the source.
I suppose I could also look at it as Auster taking one last posthumous shot at me (via one of his groupies) here. Which would be in character.
Now, I've refrained from 'dancing' on anyone's grave or even from leaving a comment at all up till now, but the 'Guru of Gotham' was a profoundly ungentlemanly man (for a self-professed upholder of ''tradition'').
Like guru, like disciple.
VA
@Pat H.
I thought you had some good posts above in this thread but your one @ 10:12 is confusing to me.
Tan wrote something quite specific: that Auster stated X, but the links provided don't seem to support that assertion. Hence, my last post. I don't see honor figuring into it all.
There may be a time when truth doesn't matter at all and it is just my race right or wrong, but I don't think that is so for me typing in this forum thread.
I will say that I think I agree with you completely about how Auster handled comments at his site. I didn't like it at all even before I became Jew-wise.
Anonymous, fair enough.
I was overly defensive.
Perhaps I just missed it; where did he describe himself that way? In your links, he attributes that thought to others on the paleo/anti-Semitic, etc., right.
What you missed, because it's not there, is Auster actually quoting anyone who literally calls him a "jewish fifth columnist".
As I recall, "fifth columnist" was one of his pet terms and he used it in a variety of situations. I think it was at some point in the year or so after hearing my initial critique of his "First Law" that he decided to sum up my criticism as implying he was a "jewish fifth columnist". It was his choice of words, not mine. I can't even be certain it was my criticism that triggered this because, as I said, as far as I know he never directly quoted or linked anyone actually saying it.
I thought it an odd bit of hyperbole at first. But he kept repeating it, never denying it. In Fruitloopable Presumption I noted an ethical standard he called "the rebuttable presumption". In his mind if he accused someone of being an "anti-semite" and they didn't rebut it, then his presumption of their guilt was as good as verified. A few months before that, in Auster Projecting, Again, I had already noted that it didn't matter to Auster even if "anti-semites" did rebut accusations.
In the years since I've been describing him as a "self-described jewish fifth columnist" many times. He never attempted to rebut the point and just kept right on describing himself that way. Some of his sycophants seem to care about it, now, but he never did.
Well said VA, and good to see you. My apologies. I let comments like that through despite the insults and vulgarity because they demonstrate the true and full measure of Auster's fans. If they had anything of more substance to say they could say it. Evidently they don't.
"it didn't matter to Auster even if "anti-semites" did rebut accusations"
There were a multitude of cases where people would present him with an argument as simple as 1+1=2 and he would simply ignore it. Even going so far as to publish whatever it was they'd said to him and then ignore it.
The Higgs boson fit where he directly quoted one of the scientists involved and concluded that obviously she was saying the literal opposite of what her words actually meant was one such.
He never got called on this behavior in any meaningful fashion. He never repented of it.
Actually, I should add that part of why he never got called on it (in the sense of people with whom he regularly interacted forcing him to admit the dishonesty, not just criticism like on here that he'd ignore) is because anybody who DID try to tell him such a thing would be informed that they were being unacceptably rude and engaging in personal attacks and were no longer welcome to communicate blah blah blah.
But remember, he was open to criticism, because he said so.
Re: Dr_Demento
I'm trying to wrap my head around the extremely pervy "Hentai Underground" blog and being an Auster supporter.
We need to be every bit as much in love with our people as they are theirs.
This is number one. Without this, without Love for our people, without Love for each other, we will never fight with the passion and perseverance required to win.
Bravo. The truth of this observation is what makes all the attacks on Tan's family ironic -- only unconditional love in the face of personal dissonance means anything. Compare to Auster's (or Seiyo's, or any neocon's) hollow and contingent concern for "whites."
I suppose I could also look at it as Auster taking one last posthumous shot at me (via one of his groupies) here. Which would be in character.
I recall Auster's "ungentlemanly" behavior towards VA -- that was around the time of my switch from Auster skepticism to pure disdain -- especially disgusting in contrast to his even-handed dealings with the worthless snake Pamela Geller. I also remember when VA took her site private to get away from his bullying he quipped that she really was a Vanishing American. And who said he didn't have a sense of humor!
I have to say it feels good not to have to check up on his site anymore, the way you keep an eye on the rodents chewing on wires in your basement.
"Auster identified himself as a 'jewish fifth columnist'"
Are you serious? In the post you're referring to he is very obviously just reporting what other people have said about him. It's also pretty obvious that he regards the accusation as preposterous, and is certainly not treating it as "a badge of honour".
Unlike Auster I link and quote what I discuss, so readers can judge for themselves if my discussion is honest.
As far as I can tell, only Auster ever used the term "jewish fifth columnist" to describe himself. I note that like him you don't link or quote what "other people have said about him" to support your assertion otherwise. If you can link and quote him even once explicitly rebutting the label then you should do so.
P.S. Thanks for brightening my day by reminding me he's dead.
Today is a good day, because Larry Auster is still dead.
'I am a southron, hillbilly Scots-Irish.'
No you're not. What you are is a moron, not a southron. The whole 'scotch-irish' bullshit was invented to write the English out of the historical narrative. The Northern Irish plantations from King James to Cromwell and beyond were overwhelmingly English [Lowland 'Scotland' was populated and run by the English from the 7th century, which is why names in that area and indeed in Northern Ireland sound so curiously, er, English - because that's what they are]. England, and to a lesser extent Scotland, built the South. The Irish stayed farther north. Problem is both Scots and Irish have a capacity for self=promotion and lies rivalled only by the Jews. How ironic is that?
Mrs. Wood is now observing the first anniversary of Auster's death.
Post a Comment
<< Home