Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

A Censorious Debate

In a post at Oz Conservative titled A curious debate, Mark Richardson writes:
Should the liberal state permit the existence of non-liberal communities? There has been a debate amongst academics in recent years on this issue.

One curious feature of this debate is the concept that the liberal academics have of themselves. They usually take themselves to be free, autonomous individuals leading self-directing and self-chosen lives in contrast to the unreflective, non-liberal individuals in traditional communities.
He quotes an academic named Jacob Levy who questions our right to exist.

Seeking to engage in the debate I used a response from Lawrence Auster as a launching point:
Auster writes:

The signs are gathering that the Western societies are heading into an age of civil wars. Not between white and nonwhite, not between Christian and Muslim, but between liberal whites and non-liberal whites. That's shaping up as the major divide of our time.

That's right. Our biggest problem is not muslims. It's the "liberal whites" who prepared the ground and opened the gates, who enabled the muslims and the rest of the non-White world to invade and rape the West. The "liberal whites" are raping it too.

Western societies have been in an age of treason since the French revolution ended and jewish emancipation began. Here was the first ill-fated deployment of liberal egalitarianism - the recognition of jews and Europeans as equals. This egalitarianism led directly to the emancipation of negroes and the emancipation of women. In 1965 egalitarianism became equalitarianism, which produced civil rights and open borders. This mutated into "non-discrimination", an Animal Farm-like regime where some groups are more equal than others. We see it today in the elevation and celebration of homosexuals and illegal aliens. Big Lies abound. They come for the jobs! Diversity is our greatest strength! Islam is a religion of peace! But anyone with eyes can see what's going on. Under the neo-liberal regime all that is deviant, non-White, non-Christian, or non-European is sacrosanct and held in the highest esteem, while all that is traditional, White, Christian, or European is suspect, tainted, held up for scorn and ridicule.

Indeed, the major divide of our time is between neo-liberal "whites" and non-liberal Whites. It's not so much a civil war as it is a race war. On the one side are the bolshevist, totalitarian, anti-liberal, anti-White "liberal whites". The hippies, cosmopolitans, plutocrats and globalists who dominate all sides of politics, finance, media, law, and academia. They're revolutionaries, left and right, whose highest calling is to erase all borders, "mobilize" labor, and "harmonize" the world's laws. They want world government. One system. Death or the gulag for their critics.

In their way are Whites - the ordinary, unassuming natives of Europe and the descendants of European pioneers elsewhere. We occupy the center politically, divided against each other. We are the middle class economically, our resources outmatched by our corporate- and endowment-funded enemies. We share Main Street, family-oriented values. We're skeptical of change and wish to be left alone to live, think, speak and worship in peace. Many of us see what the "liberal whites" have been up to and are aghast, appalled, or apoplectic. Some of us see how the "liberals" have now moved beyond pathologizing and gagging us, that they intend to exterminate us via immigration.

What "liberal white" Jacob Levy wrote is just a couched way of saying what "liberal white" Jeremy Hardy put more explicitly:

On the 9th of September, 2004, the Marxist comedian, Jeremy Hardy, said this on the Radio 4 show Speaks to the Nation:

"In some areas of the country the British National Party has been doing quite well electorally…

The BNP are Nazis...

If you just took everyone from the BNP, and everyone who votes for them, and shot them in the back of the head, there would be a brighter future for us all."

Hardy was not vilified, warned, cautioned or threatened with prosecution for making these remarks.

Or what "liberal white" Susan Sontag (born Rosenblatt) expressed more generally:

Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Balanchine ballets, et al. don't redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history.

Or what "liberal white" Noel Ignatiev put more bluntly:

“Make no mistake about it,” he says,

“we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed--not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.”

"Liberal whites" who think like this have been in control of the West since WWII ended. They've been sending ever louder signals for some time that their "tolerance" for our existence has reached its end. It's high time we recognized the war they've been waging against us and respond.
When I checked back my comment was gone. Mark Richardson explained why:
Taanstafl, I eventually decided to delete your comment, even though there were parts of it written to a high standard.

Your initial description of the political divide was interesting. You wrote that on one side there were:

"The hippies, cosmopolitans, plutocrats and globalists who dominate all sides of politics, finance, media, law, and academia. They're revolutionaries, left and right, whose highest calling is to erase all borders, "mobilize" labor, and "harmonize" the world's laws. They want world government. One system."


"In their way are Whites - the ordinary, unassuming natives of Europe and the descendants of European pioneers elsewhere. We occupy the center politically, divided against each other. We are the middle class economically, our resources outmatched by our corporate- and endowment-funded enemies. We share Main Street, family-oriented values. We're skeptical of change and wish to be left alone to live, think, speak and worship in peace. Many of us see what the "liberal whites" have been up to and are aghast, appalled, or apoplectic."

The problem for me is that you then left this larger view of things for a more reductionist one, by suggesting that it is specifically Jews who control the West and that it is they who are no longer willing to tolerate the existence of Christian whites.

I'm ruling this out of bounds for this site. I'm willing to recognise that Jews have been disproportionately represented in the radical movements. However, when nearly the entire political class shares a liberal orthodoxy, I don't think it's right, or helpful, to blame one group alone.
Auster responded like so:
On another subject, I note that the comment by Tanstaafl that Mr. Richardson has deleted is very mild compared to his usual anti-Semitic outpourings. Tanstaafl has written, "Jews are my enemy," and criticized me for, among other things, not directing "all" my criticisms against Jews. The basic Tanstaafl position (and the Darwinian anti-Semitic position) is that everything that Jews or people of Jewish background do and say (including everything that I have ever written) is directed at undermining white gentiles in the interests of Jewish power. The only good Jew, in the anti-Semites' book, is one who agrees with the anti-Semites' position that I've just summarized.
I am about to post the following. I'm curious to see if it is also considered reductionist, or has some other defect:
Mark, this is your blog and you can delete what you want. If you'd prefer I not post here at all just say the word and I won't.

Thank you for taking the time to explain why you deleted my previous comment. Obviously it will be harder now for others to judge whether your characterization of it is fair. I was actually trying to expand Auster's one-dimensional vague assertion about "civil wars" into a deeper view, rooted in history going back generations, and to provide an interpretation linking many of the themes you discuss in isolation elsewhere in your blog. In that respect what I wrote is a synthesis into a more complex whole, not a reduction into simpler parts.

As for Auster, I trust readers will note his very "liberal" smear tactics. If there's a reductionist view here it is his own - with every problem springing either from "liberals" or "anti-semites". Like "liberal whites" he believes certain people should not be permitted to express our opinions. Like Jacob Levy he's capable of rationalizing all sorts of reasons. Unlike Levy, Auster claims to oppose liberalism, so when he gets censorious there's really only one explanation that makes sense. He resents that I see it and point it out. For example, notice that he's not nearly as willing to shun and silence "liberals" or to delve into their motives as he is with "anti-semites".

Prior to his civil war comment above Auster has been describing our predicament as "suicidal white guilt", as if it is our idea to destroy ourselves, and it sprang from thin air. I consider this an unacceptable libel against my people, offered in bad faith in the interest of protecting his own.

I was trying to contribute to the discussion here and don't wish to derail it. I'll gladly continue to debate any of this at my own blog.
The image above is from The Censorious Race.

Labels: , , , ,



Anonymous Anonymous said...

Posted at OC -

Mark wrote on June 12, 2006:

"I understand perfectly well that Jewish community groups have set themselves against the existence of the white, gentile majority out of perceived ethnic self-interest."

It's unclear how that position differs from this:

"They've been sending ever louder signals for some time that their "tolerance" for our existence has reached its end."

Possibly Mark can offer an explanation.

Desmond Jones

2/17/2009 02:35:00 PM  
Blogger dudhduddhd said...

Also posted at Oz Con:

It's not the tone of them that's the problem, but the disagreement about the effect of blaming Jews for our problems.

Mark, is it acceptable for me to ask whether or not we have a Jewish problem? That is to say, are Jews one of our problems and, if they are, is it acceptable to talk about them as such?

2/17/2009 04:42:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

In Something Unspeakable This Way Comes I quoted Auster from 2003:

In the early 1990s I and a friend shared the thought that in whatever society they entered Jews would automatically rise to the top and so create majority-minority tensions.

Now, according to Nietzsche, which is the most envied and hated of all groups? The Jews. And, as we know, which group is also the most liberal--and famous for its liberal guilt--of all groups? The Jews. The Jews are the most liberal because they are the objects of the most envy.

His answer was: "ANTI-SEMITE!!! An ANTI-SEMITE is calling me an ANTI-SEMITE!!!"

2/17/2009 04:49:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Great loads of gobbledygook. This bit, from the first link, provides a glimpse into Auster's mind:

However, I would say again that instead of accusing liberals of not being true to their principles and therefore of being hypocrites, we should understand that they ARE being true to their principles. Which then requires us to understand what those principles are.

So when Auster whines about others trying to silence him, and then turns around and calls for someone else to be silenced, he's not being a hypocrite. Well of course he is, but what he's telling us is "hypocrisy" is not something a "white liberal", like himself, feels guilty about. As I've written before, Auster is first and foremost pro-jew. That principle explains why it's evil to curtail his speech, and good to silence his critics. Thanks for explaining that Larry.

Jacob Levy has posted on the OC thread. He claims the portion Mark Richardson quoted is not his "voice" - that he actually disagrees with it. Boy that's a relief.

As Mark wrote a bit earlier:

Professor Levy is not amongst the most radical proponents of coercion. I quoted his framing of the debate to show how offensive and how radical the debate itself is, rather than to single out Professor Levy.

Well now that Levy has backed away we sure could use some other examples. Hmmmm. Perhaps one of those three other more radical proponents I noted in the post that got deleted? Maybe Tim Wise? Morris Dees? Abe Foxman? But then we don't want jews to feel singled out. Is there some really radical anti-White non-jew "liberal white" to singl...I mean cite? Somebody with comparable influence, or who said something as extreme as any of those people I've mentioned. It shouldn't be hard when nearly the entire political class shares the "liberal" orthodoxy.

2/17/2009 08:33:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Today I looked at Oz Conservative and found several more comments have been deleted. This includes the one I included at the end of this blog post, which Richardson had let stand and even answered, leaving me with the impression that as long as I did not "blame jews" I could continue to comment; one from Desmond comparing a portion of my comment to one of Richardson's own at; one from DanielJ asking whether jews could be apportioned any blame at all; another from myself responding to Levy saying he was using someone else's voice:

Is anyone else curious which rationalist or rationalists "voice" was being quoted then?

Another from Desmond attributing the voice to Mill. To which I responded:

Let's not get down into the "liberal white" gobbledygook with them. I've got Mill on my shelf and when I want to know what he thought I can read his own words. Mill, Bentham, Montesquieu, Burke, Tocqueville, Acton, Voltaire, Paine, and Kant are all spinning in their graves at this moment watching their ideas and visions twisted into the service of this most illegitimate and illiberal neoliberal regime. Mill struggled against orthdoxy, in the interest of free thought, free conscience, free association, while the "liberal whites" seek to impose a new orthodoxy and squelch all those freedoms.

On Liberty:

The real advantage which truth has, consists in this, that when an opinion is true, it may be extinguished once, twice, or many times, but in the course of ages there will generally be found persons to rediscover it, until some one of its reappearances falls on a time when from favourable circumstances it escapes persecution until it has made such head as to withstand all subsequent attempts to suppress it.

Today all of these comments have disappeared, including Richardson's own where he laid out his constraints on the "debate". He offered the following explanation:

Readers might have noticed that I deleted a number of comments. It was either this or spend time arguing why Jews alone are not to blame for our problems. I don't want to expend my limited time doing so.

I'll just briefly summarise my own position:

Yes, there are Jewish groups and individuals who have acted against the majority whether out of a commitment to liberalism or perceived self-interest.

But there are Muslim groups who do the same.

And significant sections of the Anglican and Catholic churches also campaign for open borders and other liberal causes.

As do countless gentile members of the political class, whether they are teachers, academics, artists, bureaucrats or politicians.

This is the real situation we face and I can only view it as an evasion - an unwillingness to grasp the whole picture - to focus on one particular group.

There is too wide a gap between my own politics and those who don't recognise this larger picture. Any engagement between us won't be productive. Therefore, I won't engage with those holding to an anti-Semitic politics. Please don't waste your time commenting at this site.

If anyone has a copy of the intact thread, please post it here.

Mark Richardson and most of the readers of his thread will probably never read my arguments, and this is clearly how he prefers it to be. For the benefit of myself and everyone else however I will make several points in response.

First, Richardson is entitled to not engage in any argument his wishes to avoid. The failure to answer an argument does not imply argreement with it. The idea that it does is part and parcel of a "liberal white" tactic called guilt-by-association.

Second, Richardson is entitled to delete whichever comments he likes, with or without explanation. He is not entitled to misrepresent their content. This is part of the "liberal white" tactic called smearing.

Third, Richardson makes the bogus argument that because other factors (muslims and Christians) are involved the portion most directly attributable to jews may not be discussed in isolation. In this he and "liberal whites" are grossly inconsistent. They do not feel any need to criticize jews when criticizing muslims or Christians.

Fourth, Richardson asserts a claim to the moral high ground because he imagines he recognizes a "larger picture". I think he is mistaken both in thinking himself more moral and in having a broader view. His morals are based on blurring distinctions, which distributes blame rather than attaching it where it belongs. His broader view is a shallow view that neglects to consider the history of Christians, jews, and muslims, which are both intertwined and independent. It is shallower still in that he focuses on religion and fails to acknowledge secular or racial considerations.

Fifth, I intend the phrase "liberal whites" to be interpreted literally. It is not a code word for "jews". Both Lawrence Auster and Mark Richardson reveal their own biases concerning who is "liberal" when they insist on distorting what I have written and characterizing it as blaming "jews alone" (Richardson) or "everything that jews or people of jewish background do" (Auster). This is a strawman argument.

"Liberal whites" use these same intellectually dishonest tactics to stymie their enemies. Their slogan "no enemies to the left" is understood to grant them immunity to any of these tactics. Richardson claims to be a conservative. So why does he resort to such thoroughly neo-liberal tactics? Conservatives aren't afraid to debate, or to refuse a debate, it is only neo-cons and neo-libs - or what he calls "right liberals" and "left liberals" - who resort to such underhanded trickery while pretending they are are debating or are at least open to do so.

In conclusion, my own beliefs are much closer to what Richardson and Auster have both expressed in quotes provided above. I believe jews, like everyone else, deserve the blame for what they are responsible for. To determine responsibility requires discussion. I have never blamed all jews for anything, much less everything. I have always taken pains to identify specific principles or behavior (like anti-anti-semitism, or neo-liberalism) to which I object, and I name specific people when I am aware who they are.

If Auster or Richardson actually believed similarly, rather than simply saying so, then they would never censor discussion concerning responsibility or blame. By doing so they indicate empirically that their true belief is that jews, individually or collectively, whatever they might actually be responsible for, must not be blamed for anything. That makes them defenders of the regime they purport to oppose, and this makes them worse than enemies who declare their aims openly.

2/19/2009 11:25:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

I posted the following at OC:

I do not lightly violate my now memory-holed promise to not post here if so requested. Your actions today demonstrate not only a willingness to silence opinions with which you disagree but also to distort them. I have been critical of your conduct at my blog. Should you find the time you are welcome to comment at A Censorious Debate.

After reflecting a moment I deleted the comment myself. The way Richardson phrased his last comment is clever. If I continue to comment he can easily portray me as the bad guy for harassing him. But if I don't comment to disagree with him then by his own liberal values I confirm his distorted characterization of my views.

There is no conservative at Oz Conservative. My mistake in thinking there might be.

2/19/2009 12:17:00 PM  
Blogger dudhduddhd said...

How is my asking if I can apportion any blame to the Jews construed as blaming it all on the Jews?

What a joke.

It isn't worth it anymore.

2/19/2009 12:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I posted another comment after your 'let's not get down in the mud' posting, agreeing that it's not liberalism that's at issue but a strategy to further ethnic genetic interests; that the whole policy of non-discrimination was a perversion of liberal ideals and solely aimed at furthering a group's interest; that Mark recognised this, but now will not address it.

Of further interest is the shift Mark attempts. In June 2006, he wrote:

"I understand perfectly well that Jewish community groups have set themselves against the existence of the white, gentile majority out of perceived ethnic self-interest."

Now he writes:

"Yes, there are Jewish groups and individuals who have acted against the majority whether out of a commitment to liberalism or perceived self-interest."

The removal of "existence of the white gentile" and "ethnic" is telling. Mark writes as if it's natural there are Muslims in West. It's natural that churches are acting against the existence of whites. It's natural that school teachers are acting against their own ethnic interests. The question he will not entertain is why all these groups are working to further the ethnic interests of one particular group.

Oz is like Canada. The ability to speak freely , unlike the US, is severely restricted and severely punished. If he would just say he is afraid of the repercussions of speaking against power, then it's understandable. However, he insists in denying that which he believed in 2006.

C'est la guerre.

Desmond jones

2/19/2009 01:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Attack Jews' Weakness By Means Of Reason, Rationalized Christianity
(Apollonian, 22 Feb 09)

Good Lord, Mr. "Tanstaafl," but it's my contention we desperately need Jew-Expulsion, period--this, to save our lives, that's all. After all, Jews are Talmudists (see,, and for expo/ref. on Talmud) by definition, hence murderous psychopaths, the Talmud simply a manual for ritualized murder of gentiles--the "ritual" simply the various methods by which Jews lie, conspire, commit their various frauds, scams, etc. For note Jews merely lie to themselves and one another and then to gentiles, all part of their war against the truth and reality.

Only question now is how to do it (Jew-expulsion), and I submit Christianity is the best, easiest way, and we should emulate most successful Jew-expulsion of all time, that of St. Constantine the Great. Hence "liberalism" is justified by reason, strictly understood.

So therefore, we must simply re-define Christianity rationalizing it, and removing the stinking, putrid mysticism which has essentially destroyed it for present purposes.

Thus we invoke over-riding theologic/philosophic theme of Gosp. JOHN: TRUTH vs. Jew lies and conspiracy. And this emphasis upon Gosp. JOHN means drawing distinction with St. Paul, a good guy, but too Jew-oriented, too "faith"-oriented, which "faith" tends to be taken in mystic-type fashion. Also St. Paul emphasized "love," but we must understand it in more limited fashion, subordinate to HONESTY, and in relation with righteous, but rational hatred (aversion).

(a) Thus we must see Christianity as more rationalized aesthetic and dramatization, esp. literature--and more in accord w. Gosp. JOHN, as I note above.

(b) "Faith" is simply LOYALTY in general, and specifically it entails what one is loyal to--truth and honesty, for example. "Faith IS NOT an alternative method to reason.

(c) Revolutionary ETHIC then must be HONESTY, in honor of aforementioned TRUTH, this OVER "love" and esp. against Pelagian hereticalist "good-evil" delusion/fallacy of children.

(d) Finally we should see and treat forthrightly such Christianity as weapon against Jews, absolutely ANTI-SEMITIC (as Gosp. MARK 7:1-13, anti-Talmud). "Think not I came to bring peace; rather, I come to bring a sword" (Gosp. MATT 10:34).

For Jews are the essence of present cultural disease, primary carriers (specifically of subjectivism, foundation for lying techniques), but their immediate weak-point is "Judeo-Christian" (JC--see and for expo/ref.) hereticalists, esp. the leaders, who pretend, for example "Christ was Jew" (hence Talmudist).

CONCLUSION: Thus removal of Jews requires removal of their closest accomplices among gentiles--that's the weak-point to Judeo-conspiracy (see and for expo/ref. on CFR-Bilderberg conspiracy). Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian

2/22/2009 07:37:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home