The Inverted World

Posted by Andy Wooster on December 14, 2006, 01:20 AM | #

Auster is generally pretty decent, though his obsession with Muslims is over the top in my opinion.  When he begins to talk about Jews, however, it’s readily apparent that the quality of his arguments drop considerably.  His argument re: MacDonald is a joke, as Svigor illustrates nicely. 

Svigor: Why the “non-Arab Semites”? I understand the desire to differentiate between semitic peoples, but why not just use “Jew”? Non-Arab Semite seems unnecessarily long to me, like using “African-American” in lieu of “black”.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 14, 2006, 01:24 AM | #

Just a local experiment, Andy.  Think “non-Hispanic white.”

Posted by Andy Wooster on December 14, 2006, 01:34 AM | #

Okay, I see what you’re getting at.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 14, 2006, 01:38 AM | #

Well, I sent Auster a head’s up email, along with the link to this post:

I see we’re all talking about one another!  *

“I think that the Realist will need to realize that in order to have a useful discussion about anti-Semitism, he will need to exclude anti-Semites.”

Isn’t that a comfy little position?  You get to define those you can’t answer as beyond the pale and pretend you have the moral high ground at the same time.

It’s funny how your intellectual rigor is inversely related to the subject’s distance from your tender Jewish parts.

* currently at the top of Auster’s blog:

At The Inverted World, the inevitable word

Gintas writes:

Oy vey, already the commenting on the “Why I started this Website” article at the new website The Inverted World [discussed here] has degenerated, and I had nothing to do with it. Guess what the main bone being gnawed is? Just guess.

He needs to disable comments and do what you do.

LA replies:

Yes, there is an irony that in starting a website specifically advancing non-anti-Semitic race realism, and attacking Jared Taylor in his inaugural article, the Realist is inviting anti-Semites to respond, thus keeping his website in the milieu from which he wants to escape. My own policy, both with and without the comments feature activated, is not to allow serious anti-Semites to post. I think that the Realist will need to realize that in order to have a useful discussion about anti-Semitism, he will need to exclude anti-Semites.

Well see how comfy Auster chooses to be.

Posted by Englander on December 14, 2006, 02:22 AM | #

It’s funny how your intellectual rigor is inversely related to the subject’s distance from your tender Jewish parts.

That line rang like the dinner bell. When philosemites and Jews who are race-realists turn their attentions to their own group it is like somebody dials down their IQ one SD.

Posted by Bo Sears on December 14, 2006, 03:23 AM | #

The most interesting thing to us anti-defamationites in the first of the three Auster pieces linked to above, and to a lesser degree the last two, is Auster’s eager willingness to demonstrate a supremacist claim to have the right to name us, as for example, WASP and gentile.

These are both deliberate slur words. Both are names imposed by people who are not European Americans on European Americans. Imposing them as Auster does is based on his supremacist feelings toward European Americans...on what else can he base his claim to have the right to give us a name?

Both slurs tell us we are a group made up of clones of each other, no differences or variations...literally a racist claim on his part.

I erred in thinking Auster had ceased to claim the right to name us. I guess the leopard can’t change his spots.

The White Abe Foxman

Posted by Matra on December 14, 2006, 05:10 AM | #

If Inverted World can convince more Jews that it is not in their interests to push for the destruction of Europeans or if it can help radicalise more mainstream conservatives about race then there’s no problem. But if the opening essay is anything to go by it may just be an attempt to destroy Amren due to Taylor’s unwillingness to allow The Realist’s friends to dictate the future direction of Amren and WNism. That letter they sent to Taylor was not constructive criticism but a threat.

I only visit Amren.com occasionally but I can see that it is quite moderate on the JQ. It allows posters to mention the Jewish role without letting those obsessed with the holocaust etc., to derail every thread. That’s a good balance for a publication focused on race rather than WW2. I see nothing at Amren that a pro-WN Jew should be offended by - unless not being allowed to run it is what they mean by offensive!

Auster is generally pretty decent, though his obsession with Muslims is over the top in my opinion.  When he begins to talk about Jews, however, it’s readily apparent that the quality of his arguments drop considerably.

Yes, and he spends a lot more time on Israel than he does on South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Kosovo despite the more serious plight white Christians in these places face compared to the ME’s superpower Israel.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on December 14, 2006, 12:25 PM | #

Auster’s witch-hunting vis a vis American Renaissance (and Taylor’s crumbling in the face of the shame-on-you spiel) tell us all we need to know about friend Larry… and most of what we need to know about friend Jared, malheureusement.

Nobody as het up about the almost non-existent American Muslim Arab population as Auster is could possibly be a true conservative. He’s just a new sub-sub-species of jacobinesque fanatic, a mirror image of the neocons he professes to despise (while treating allegiance to Israel as the litmus test of kosher ‘Judaeo-Christianity’).

Enough, already. Who needs him?

Posted by Andy on December 14, 2006, 03:01 PM | #

Nobody as het up about the almost non-existent American Muslim Arab population as Auster is could possibly be a true conservative.

It’s hard to get a reliable estimate of the numbers of American Muslims (various sources place the number anywhere between 1 and 6 million), but I believe there are somewhere between 5 and 25 times as many Mexicans in the US as there are Arab Muslims. From reading Auster’s weblog, one would get the impression that the numbers are precisely the opposite. 

A few months ago a reader called him out on his Muslim obsession vis a vis his relative silence regarding Hispanic immigration. After this, he wrote about American immigration issues for a while.  It was generally pretty solid stuff, too.  But Auster couldn’t stay away from his favorite subject for long.  Within a weeks he was back to “all Islam, all of the time”. 

Well see how comfy Auster chooses to be.

He won’t come.  He’s discussed MajorityRights.com on his blog before, essentially stating that these people are evil, stupid, and best ignored. 

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005471.html

The money quote:
“While I appreciate the people in the discussion who argued against the anti-Semites, my own position remains that one should not engage with anti-Semites (or with any other irrational or unappeasable party), but look at them, understand what they are, and exclude them. In short, I don’t believe in “peace processes.”’

Posted by Andy Wooster on December 14, 2006, 03:03 PM | #

Sentence in 2nd paragraph should read “Within a *few* weeks he was back”.

Posted by monstrously disfigured brute on December 14, 2006, 03:23 PM | #

Essentially, Auster’s approach to “anti-Semitism” is the same as GNXP’s toward white nationalism: that the topic can be discussed only by not allowing followers of the specific “ism” to reply to the strawman arguments, lies, factual errors, gross disortions and gaping logical flaws in the “arguments.”

That wouldn’t be so bad if those blogs didn’t “pride” themselves on their “forthright honesty” and their “ability to win arguments.”

Posted by Englander on December 14, 2006, 03:28 PM | #

How does a person take the rational step into realising that it is OK to criticize groups for their influence or actions, and then take a position that Jews are exempt from this kind of scrutiny? It just doesn’t compute.

Posted by lowbrow vulgar ugly brute on December 14, 2006, 03:30 PM | #

being promoted at GNXP:

http://www.mavinfoundation.org/about/index.html

Not directly relevant to this thread, but who can pass up the chance to expose GNXP?

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on December 14, 2006, 04:06 PM | #

Andy- right on the money. Auster uses ‘immigration’ in general as his calling card to the ‘right’ (loosely defined) in America-- that majority of the thinking minority which realises that uncontrolled influxes of browns are deadly, no matter how ‘Judaeo-Christian’ their culture.

But the Mexican Indian or half-breed is a Roman Catholic and Larry is a Catholic convert, so he can’t be too nasty about them, and anyhow he wouldn’t want to be. Deploring immigration in general is his reason to harp on about Muslims-- although many are blacks whose families have lived in the USA for a lot longer than most of Larry’s tribe.

The more you read Auster’s blog and note his significant silences, the more you understand what a phoney he is. It’s all ‘I’m one of you, really! I wanna be in your gang! Can I be? Great! Now listen up, I’m the gang boss now-- this is what we’re gonna do and not do, and if you diss me I’ll have my guys kick you out...’

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 14, 2006, 06:06 PM | #

Is GnXp promoting that now, Lowbrow?  (I never go there, so am not up on the latest on them — I don’t happen to like genocide-of-Euros advocates but hey, maybe that’s just me ...) They must go starry-eyed over Alon Ziv’s book then.  Of course since David B. over there denies the existence of races you have to wonder what the word miscegenation could conceivably mean to him but it’s best not to take reason, logic, scientific knowledge, common decency or common sense too far when dealing with a crowd like that, I guess ...

Posted by Andy Wooster on December 14, 2006, 07:28 PM | #

The latest gem from Auster:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006916.html

I honestly don’t know whether to address Auster’s rant or to just laugh at him and move on.

In reference to Svyatoslav Igorevich’s e-mail to him:

A creature writes

That’s only the beginning, but it tells you all you need to know about what follows. 

The mind boggles.

Posted by Andy Wooster on December 14, 2006, 07:50 PM | #

Auster is obviously not going to visit this post, as he has already made plain his belief that we are all sub-human trash. 

But if Auster were capable of slowing his heart palpitations down to a normal level and wiping away the frothing spit from his mouth that must invariably develop at the mere thought of anti-Semitism, I’d like to hear a few clarifications regarding his positions. Perhaps the Realist, who does not seem nearly as hysterical as Larry, could help out here. 

It would appear that Auster does not recognize that varying degrees of anti-Semitism are possible.  He seems to equate even the mildest investigation of the Jewish Question with desiring the extermination of his entire race.  What is the rationale behind this position? Auster claims to be a racialist himself. Would he claim that opposing non-white immigration to the United States is morally equivalent to going on killing spree that targets only blacks and Hispanics?

If the two actions are not the same, why is anti-Semitism any different? Why does even the *mildest* display of anti-Semitism automatically make one a “sub-human”? 

Auster may have already answered this next one on his weblog. What grounds does he give for separating non-Arab Semites from Arab Semites? Why is one group part of the “West” and the other not?

Posted by Rnl on December 14, 2006, 07:58 PM | #

Matt O’Halloran wrote:

But the Mexican Indian or half-breed is a Roman Catholic and Larry is a Catholic convert, so he can’t be too nasty about them, and anyhow he wouldn’t want to be. Deploring immigration in general is his reason to harp on about Muslims-- although many are blacks whose families have lived in the USA for a lot longer than most of Larry’s tribe.

The preceding is complete nonsense from start to finish. Auster has been warning about non-White immigration for two decades. He wrote about Third World immigration well before the influx of Muslims into the West became a significant political issue. He would be opposed to non-White immigration into the United States even if there were not a single Muslim among the brown invaders. His position on that subject has nothing to do his Jewish ancestry.

Auster is often obnoxious, and he is especially obnoxious (and even dishonest) on the subject of anti-Semitism. But we shouldn’t misrepresent his views.

Posted by grunting brute on December 14, 2006, 08:01 PM | #

The irony is that Auster thinks that guys like him are studying the anti-Semites, who “prove what they are” by their behavior, and who must then be isolated.

It doesn’t seem to cross his mind that his own hysterical behavior with respect to the JQ exposes is own hyper-ethnic-self-interest and delegitimizes any claim he has to reasonable objectivity in this matter.

And that others are studying him.

Auster and “The Realist” do not want to address the substance of the anti-Semitic commentary, because they are unable to do so.  They then reject dialogue on “moral” grounds, ironically mirroring the left-wing “anti-racists” that they themselves decry.

After all, everything that Auster has said about “anti-Semites” (eg. “creature”, “sub-humanity") the left would say about him, because of his “racism.”

Is it really all self-delusion and self-deception?

Posted by Larry A. Brute on December 14, 2006, 08:29 PM | #

A while back an associate sent a lengthy email to Auster in reply to Auster’s assertion that ‘anti-Semites’ were illogical, hypocritical, and insane because they were against the Jewish nationalist state of Israel (hypocrisy) and being against Israel was illogical because Jews could live there, away from the anti-Semites, and insane because the anti-Semites just wanted all Jews destroyed.

I’m paraphrasing the usual Austerian ranting.

The response emphasized that, no, the people Auster calls “anti-Semites” do NOT want to destroy anyone, and that, indeed, as his buddy Gottfried (himself Jewish) has pointed out, the real hypocrisy is with Jewish nationalists who oppose white gentile nationalism (a very frequent event).  Thus, opposition to Israel is in a sense opposition to Jewish hypocrisy about nationalism and, if this hypocrisy were to end, white nationalists really could care less about Palestinians and would, at worst, be neutral, and, at best, in principle, even support the idea of a Jewish homeland and Jewish nationalism.

The response also stated that not all Jews were in fact living in Israel and that some of the “anti-Semites” were miffed that neo-conservatives like Feith, Perle, and Wolfowitz were, in their opinion, promoting policy initiatives for Israeli interests.  Whether that opinion is right or wrong need not concern us, but the point is that’s what the “anti-Semites” believe, and if they believe that, then opposition to Israeli policies may not be “illogical.” Further, support for Israel may increase if guys like Feith, Perle, and Wolfowitz would actually live there, rather than here.

There was more, but you get the point - this was an attempt at non-hateful dialogue - even linking to Gottfried’s VDARE essays.

Auster’s reaction?  He picked at some inconsequential statement in the first sentence of the email, and essentially said that since the first sentence was, in his opinion, stupid, he wasn’t going to bother reading the rest of it.

How convenient!

Then he has the chutzpah to continue claiming that “anti-Semites” are illogical and cannot answer his points.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 14, 2006, 09:53 PM | #

Essentially, Auster’s approach to “anti-Semitism” is the same as GNXP’s toward white nationalism: that the topic can be discussed only by not allowing followers of the specific “ism” to reply to the strawman arguments, lies, factual errors, gross disortions and gaping logical flaws in the “arguments.”

That wouldn’t be so bad if those blogs didn’t “pride” themselves on their “forthright honesty” and their “ability to win arguments.”

Yes.  I guess someone should name an axiom after this (what am I thinking?  Of course someone already has!), the fact that so many popular ideologies simply ban as taboo arguments they can’t answer.

It’s sort of the measure of ideological viability, isn’t it?  The ability to defend (or rather an ideology’s potential to be defended) against all comers?

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 14, 2006, 11:10 PM | #

I should add that one or another of the links to Auster on this page (I forget if it was mine or a commenter’s) leads to a rather jarring fact about Auster - his naivete concerning his tribe.  There’s a conversation between Auster and a reader where Auster makes plain that he had a very different upbringing than many non-Arab Semites, that he was far more assimilated than many.

Has he even read MacDonald’s trilogy?  I doubt it.

It surprises me, how little (in certain contexts, particularly critical ones) some non-Arab Semites know about their own tribe, relative to the dreaded “ANTI-SEMITES.”

Ah, now I remember, it was a commenter’s link, to Auster’s correspondence concerning that Rudd fellow (the Weatherman).

Posted by Pobble-Face on December 14, 2006, 11:36 PM | #

Here is an interesting link to an article describing the career of Max Lerner:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard68.html

I haven’t checked the accuracy of this article, but if everything contained in it is true, Max Lerner would be a prime example of a .... umm… person.. , who was successfully able to morph into a supporter of (almost?) every single variant of leftist ideology throughout his life, beginning as a Communist-Stalinist and ending as a Neoconservative.

Posted by Andy Wooster on December 14, 2006, 11:54 PM | #

Svigor---

What about signing your posts as “creature” from now on?  ; )

Posted by Rnl on December 14, 2006, 11:55 PM | #

Andy Wooster wrote:

he has already made plain his belief that we are all sub-human trash.

“The scum of the earth,” to be precise.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 15, 2006, 12:00 AM | #

Andy, I prefer poisonous sub-human.

Nothing like non-Arab Semite egalitarianism for ya.

Tikkun Olam!

Posted by Guessedworker on December 15, 2006, 01:04 AM | #

I’ve just sent the following mail to Lawrence Auster.  Let us see whether I am one of those awful anti-semites with whom no engagement is possible.

Lawrence,

As you may know I am the owner of majorityrights.com.  I am saddened that you have chosen to smear an article on my blog about the anti-Taylor site “The Inverted World”.  Smearing is an immoral game, and in resorting to it you have fallen well below the studied principle that generally garlands this site.

Likewise, the insult you employed in place of Svigor’s name was quite unnecessary.  What are your readers to make of you next time you declare your rejection of those naming strategies employed so freely against white-Americans by Jewish culture warriors?

Look, I can accept that Svigor’s usage might have raised your hackles.  But there was nothing to stop you occupying the high-ground, waving the annoyance aside and engaging with him.  MR is broad-based, and you have friends as well as enemies among its commentariat.  This is, after all, politics.

Had you engaged, I would have told you that TIW looks very like a crude attempt to delegitimise Jared Taylor, consign moderate WN to the fringe and declare the morrow for an acceptably Judeophiliac WN.  White Zionists perhaps, to match the lemming faithful of the Christian variety.

But this, one would think, interesting debate you passed up in favour of the usual cheap word-trick.  It’s very dissapointing.  I hope some, at least, of your readers will see through your words to the moral vacuity within.

GW

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 15, 2006, 01:23 AM | #

Look, I can accept that Svigor’s usage might have raised your hackles.

Indeed, it’s the easiest thing to do in the world; just treat non-Arab Semites like you would anyone else.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on December 15, 2006, 11:33 AM | #

RNL wrote: “He [Auster] wrote about Third World immigration well before the influx of Muslims into the West became a significant political issue.”

But he doesn’t go in so hard against the Mexes these days, does he? Having previously established his credentials as a theoretical limited-immigration voice, he now feels free (with only occasional sideswipes at the inrushing hordes from across the Rio Grande) to bore on about the “threat” that obsessively concerns him: anti-semites, prisoners of that cruel, mysterious, irrational prejudice that knows no bounds of colour or history. The USA is possibly the least anti-Jewish large polity ever, but indulgence and enrichment can never go far enough for insatiable Chosenites.

Since the Iraq War began, more than 20,000 Americans have been murdered by illegal immigrants, mainly Mexes, compared with 3,000 casualties in Iraq. But Auster keeps wittering on about Arab-American Muslims as if they were capable of toppling the republic all by themselves-- when he isn’t witch-hunting among Christian white “sub-humans” who dare to criticise “a person of Jewish ancestry” (!).

He says that Inverted World was begun as a reaction to the dreadful antisemitism of AR. That’s funny, I thought Auster had cleansed those stables. Evidently Jared Taylor didn’t bow the knee low enough. Again one wonders: what will ever be enough for Jews in full cry?

I should think by now most MR.com contributors have got Larry’s number even if RNL hasn’t. But as Svyastoslav says, why bend yourself out of shape defending smooth-tongued semite scribblers? Why do we need any of them?

Posted by bats-man on December 15, 2006, 12:23 PM | #

“It’s funny how your intellectual rigor is inversely related to the subject’s distance from your tender Jewish parts.”
This was personal and nasty (not to mention just plain creepy) and probably set Auster off. Did the author think that Auster would respond well to “your tender Jewish parts?” There are some smart fellows at this blog who are capable of reasonable discourse at a high level with some interesting insights. But there is a frequently coarse, base quality to the discussions here. Foul-language mudwrestling, ugly, emotive phrases (could someone explain why JRichards, in the middle of a scientific, scholarly sounding book review, spins off into a paragraph where he refers to a mixed-race celebrity baby as a “retarded looking mulatto?"-it was bizzarely inconsistent just from a prose-style point of view.) You guys are quite capable of intelligent, objective language.

“After all, everything that Auster has said about “anti-Semites” (eg. “creature”, “sub-humanity") the left would say about him, because of his “racism.”
I’ve seen guys on this blog call people to the right of them “trolls” when they showed up on the comment threads. Everyone decides who they will and won’t hang out with.

“Nobody as het up about the almost non-existent American Muslim Arab population as Auster is could possibly be a true conservative.”

Auster is a focused on western civilization, not just the U.S. Muslims are the immediate threat to Europe and, if they manage to possess Europe, may be the long term threat to the U.S. I don’t see this as a function of his “Jewishness.”

“as his buddy Gottfried (himself Jewish) has pointed out”
Do you know that they are “buddies?” I’ve only seen Gottfried write in to VFR a few times and they’ve clearly had differing points of view. This sentence was probably just intended to make Auster & Gottfried seem like part of the “Tribe.”

“He seems to equate even the mildest investigation of the Jewish Question with desiring the extermination of his entire race.” not true. Do a search at VFR. Also, I’ve written him about Jewish influence (without talking about his tender Jewish parts) and he’s responded reasonably and frankly 9and critically of Jews I might add).

“he had a very different upbringing than many non-Arab Semites, that he was far more assimilated than many.”
How are most Jews in America brought up? My Jewish buddy in high school played dungeons & dragons with us, went to the same movies, dated (or tried as we all did) the same girls, had a Christmas tree, etc. In other words, he was a suburban, middle-class white nerd like us. Is this unusual among Jews?

Auster’s writings on anti-semitism aren’t very frequent (unless you consider his writings on Islam to be covertly about anti-semitism - and I don’t).

Posted by Kulturkampf on December 15, 2006, 01:07 PM | #

I’ve come to Auster’s defence before, on the grounds that he’s an outstanding critic of liberalism, and a powerful voice for white preservation.  I stand by those points, but absolutely agree that he needs to take a serious look at his priorities as an American where Mexican and Muslim immigration are concerned.  The best thing is for friendly critics to keep reminding him where the major demographic threat to the US is coming from.  Nevertheless, his writings on the Muslim presence in Europe are very much welcome. 

His attitude towards any criticisms of Jewish activism is plainly biased, but he’s still made some frank criticisms of such behaviour on occasion, which is more than can be said of other conservative writers of that ethnic persuasion. 

For all his faults, though, Auster’s contributions massively outshine the sniping of a contrarian like WJ Philips (or whatever the real name behind all those aliases may be), who always seems to be performing a hatchet job on someone – including Jared Taylor and GW.

Posted by Alex Zeka on December 15, 2006, 01:59 PM | #

A while back, Auster chose to delight us with his thoughts on the Merchant of Venice. You see, the play was, wait for it, Anti-Semitic, as it depicted an obviously Jewish villain.

All of a sudden, all that talk of the need to put objective reality ahead of ‘disadvantaged’ group self-esteem massaging went puff. Where such Jewish characters prevalent at the time and place that Shakspeare was depicting? Not interested.

Yet, surely any villain has to be of some ethnicity. Auster can’t be claiming that it’s wrong to ever show any Jew in a bad light. As such, his complaint seems to be that the villain is of an ethnicity commonly associated with the particular activities this evil-doer indulges in. In other words, Auster is accusing the Bard of bering an anti-semite for showing reality accurately. This from the man who likes to go on about his rationality! Oy vey!

Posted by VanSpeyk on December 15, 2006, 02:05 PM | #

I find this all extremely worriying. If we don’t watch out we may be witnessing another subversion of an essentially pro-White ideology (like the Conservatism of men like Kirk et al). I really hope Taylor is following this all and draws the correct lesson, namely that it is nothing less than prudent to exclude Jews - any Jew - from leadership positions in pro-White ethinc activism. It could be that this would be ‘going to far’ but, I say, better safe than sorry. When we are dealing with such an important issue as the future of Whites in North America it is better to make a Type II error than a Type I.

Posted by Lurker (Mk II) on December 15, 2006, 03:34 PM | #

“American” Jews have got their own country now, paid for with Christ knows how many billions of US dollars. Let them go there and stop bugging and bamboozling Americans.

Posted by Søren Renner on December 15, 2006, 04:10 PM | #

“[T]here is a frequently coarse, base quality to the discussions here.”

Bats-man has made my day brighter. Someone does understand my writing!

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 15, 2006, 08:18 PM | #

“It’s funny how your intellectual rigor is inversely related to the subject’s distance from your tender Jewish parts.”
This was personal and nasty (not to mention just plain creepy) and probably set Auster off.

Is this your way of saying the truth hurts?  Your creepy meter seems a bit too sensitive...may need to calibrate it.  I haven’t read enough of Auster’s writing to know just how accurate my math is, but I do know that what I’ve read from him on “anti-Semitism” is generally absurd, and what I’ve read from him on other matters is not.

Did I say absurd?  That doesn’t quite do it.  No, on non-Arab Semites, Auster is positively anti-west.  How else do you describe the general pattern, especially his “cast anti-Semites into the outer darkness: ignore, smear, but never engage”?

Seems you’re worrying over motes when there are beams about.

Posted by bats-man on December 16, 2006, 03:35 AM | #

“Is this your way of saying the truth hurts?” I think you overestimate how “tender” he is. “Set off” was probably the wrong phrase. In fact, people here keep describing his reaction as “hysterical” when it’s nothing of the sort. He has mostly ignored you which seems to bother you.

“It’s funny how your intellectual rigor is inversely related to the subject’s distance from your tender Jewish parts."....."Note I’ve made no personal insult toward Auster.”
No doubt that the email was personal. I guess “insult” is in the eye of the beholder.

It was a Mick, not a Jew who dealt this country its death blow. Ted was far more destructive than a thousand Abe Foxmans could ever be. Of course, some will say the Juden, not Guinness, had control of his mind.

It seems to me the Celts have a group animus toward us Anglo-Saxons. I used to see this as a (ultimately,self-destructive ) overreaction to English and American-WASP persecution of the Irish, but I think this was leftist-guilt baloney. I think their hostility (which culminated in the ultimate betrayal of the American Nation by the Celtic flagship family) can best be understood as socio-biological in nature, and, thus, innate. And besides, those Irish nuns were stone-cold witches.

The problem with “blame the Jew” is that it keeps us from looking within ourselves.  What the hell is wrong with us if such a small minority can cause us to commit suicide? How many articles do you write about the effects of liberal Christianity or the Enlightenment (undoubtedly both Jewish inventions) on White racial interests? I’d say infinitely fewer than you write about the “JQ.” Fewer than Auster writes about Mexicans or the plight of white South Africans.

Posted by ben tillman on December 16, 2006, 05:22 AM | #

The problem with “blame the Jew” is that it keeps us from looking within ourselves.

No, it doesn’t—or, more precisely, it didn’t.  In fact, we have *already* looked within ourself (not “ourselves"), and we know what makes us susceptible to Jewish influence.

Posted by yllica on December 16, 2006, 06:04 AM | #

Quote: Anything by ‘Ben Tillman’

I recognised the value of your posts at MR long before you revealed the backlog at other good sites in another name by reference to Ygg’s approach to Jews.

Please post more often BT.

This plea goes out to John S. Bolton too. His commentary drew many people to this blog. His absence is a sad loss.

Posted by ben tillman on December 16, 2006, 03:40 PM | #

Thank you, and what has become of John?  His formulation of the Left as seeking “freedom for aggression” is apt.

Posted by Andy Wooster on December 16, 2006, 04:13 PM | #

In fact, people here keep describing his reaction as “hysterical” when it’s nothing of the sort.

What of the “creature” and the “poisonous sub-human” epithets? Does a rational, level-headed person post another’s e-mail under the heading “A creature writes”?  There was a considerable amount of venom in Auster’s reply, whether you categorize it as “hysteria” or not.  I’ve been in many heated disputes but I have never once insinuated or even believed that my opposition was somehow less than human.  Let’s face it. I was being kind in labeling Auster “hysterical”. Hysteria suggests a temporary condition, a passing fit of emotion.  It’s either that or a much deeper pathology. 

It was a Mick, not a Jew who dealt this country its death blow. Ted was far more destructive than a thousand Abe Foxmans could ever be. Of course, some will say the Juden, not Guinness, had control of his mind.

The problem with “blame the Jew” is that it keeps us from looking within ourselves.  What the hell is wrong with us if such a small minority can cause us to commit suicide? How many articles do you write about the effects of liberal Christianity or the Enlightenment (undoubtedly both Jewish inventions) on White racial interests? I’d say infinitely fewer than you write about the “JQ.” Fewer than Auster writes about Mexicans or the plight of white South Africans.

This is some extremely sloppy argumentation. 

I’m certainly not under the impression that all of our problems are Jew related.  This does not, however, mean that any discussion of Jewish malfeasance irrelevant.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 16, 2006, 04:27 PM | #

bats-man,

Teddy serves not Catholicism but the liberal elites.  You must look at elite loyalties differently from how you look at the rest of Mankind’s.  The elites serve their own dominant interest, and the modern (in America, mostly WASP) elite is anti-family, anti-nation and anti-us for practical, non-ideological, non-philosophical reasons.

Jews have congruent interests with the elite, and are Janissaries in the culture war against us.  That’s the nature of the relationship.

Our great purpose is truly threefold: to replace liberalism as the over-arching zeitgeist, to remove its elites, to re-unite our people in awareness of one another and thereby in benign indifference to the eternal voice at our shoulder.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 16, 2006, 04:39 PM | #

I would add, as ben tillman well knows, that we too have been overly chary of the JQ in the past.  In fact, we still pay a price in terms of good writers who won’t join us because of our (actually very mild) utterances on it.  So I well understand your views.  In the end realism cuts both ways.  One has to be aware of the sign of the devil hung about the head of anyone who speaks.  But one has to be aware of the nonsense it makes of our positions if we do not speak.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 16, 2006, 05:49 PM | #

I think you overestimate how “tender” he is. “Set off” was probably the wrong phrase. In fact, people here keep describing his reaction as “hysterical” when it’s nothing of the sort. He has mostly ignored you which seems to bother you.

The bait stays on the hook, because it doesn’t interest me.  The fact is we and I have quite a bit to say on the JQ that must frighten Auster, so he resorts to the leftist playbook.

No doubt that the email was personal. I guess “insult” is in the eye of the beholder.

Haha.  So, where’s the personal insult?  In the observation that Auster has “tender jewish parts”?  Or, in the observation of the relationship between them and the rigor of his arguments?  Truth is it was simply a bit of bait.  Maybe it worked, but not towards disproving the thesis, obviously.

It was a Mick, not a Jew who dealt this country its death blow. Ted was far more destructive than a thousand Abe Foxmans could ever be. Of course, some will say the Juden, not Guinness, had control of his mind.

Good non-sequitur.  Notice two things: I don’t spare the Mick, and criticizing him is an order of magnitude safer than criticizing the non-Arab Semite.

It seems to me the Celts have a group animus toward us Anglo-Saxons. I used to see this as a (ultimately,self-destructive ) overreaction to English and American-WASP persecution of the Irish, but I think this was leftist-guilt baloney. I think their hostility (which culminated in the ultimate betrayal of the American Nation by the Celtic flagship family) can best be understood as socio-biological in nature, and, thus, innate. And besides, those Irish nuns were stone-cold witches.

I think Ben Tillman has put us on the proper track vis-a-vis the Irish; they’re off the scale on the trust-o-meter, the diametric opposite of the non-Arab Semite, and I don’t believe in coincidence much more than GW does.

The problem with “blame the Jew” is that it keeps us from looking within ourselves.  What the hell is wrong with us if such a small minority can cause us to commit suicide? How many articles do you write about the effects of liberal Christianity or the Enlightenment (undoubtedly both Jewish inventions) on White racial interests? I’d say infinitely fewer than you write about the “JQ.” Fewer than Auster writes about Mexicans or the plight of white South Africans.

The problem with “forget the jew” is that it’s hard to spin a suicide-seduction narrative without the seducer.

I see liberal Christianity as a red herring; it’s a horse-cart thing for me.  I don’t write much in the way of articles to begin with; I’m pretty terse. I post a link a quote and a blurb generally.  I don’t write much about the Enlightenment because I could add nothing one couldn’t get from Western Civ 101.  More to the point, both are abstracts.  Abstracts are tools, not wielders.  I believe history is written by living groups, not ethereal abstracts.

I don’t “blame the Jew."* I believe non-Arab Semites are only a part of the picture, that the real threat now is globalism and unfettered capitalism.  But, I do notice that none of the other things I “blame” causes any hand-wringing.  I believe where there’s smoke there’s fire.  Amren writes about Mexicans.  Auster writes about Muslims.  I write about non-Arab Semites.  You get skittish about me.

*Believe or not, I firmly occupy a middle ground; I argue with the Austers on one side, and the “jooz are ebil” crowd on the other.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 16, 2006, 05:52 PM | #

I don’t spare the Mick

Speaking of which, the recent KMac flap has reminded me that in my criticism of the Mick, I’ve never mentioned that one of the most important works of interest to WNs (in a good way, obviously) was penned by one.

Posted by Matra on December 16, 2006, 06:19 PM | #

It seems to me the Celts have a group animus toward us Anglo-Saxons. I used to see this as a (ultimately,self-destructive ) overreaction to English and American-WASP persecution of the Irish, but I think this was leftist-guilt baloney

Do Celts from North Carolina or Maryland’s Eastern Shore have it in for Anglo-Saxons? Of course not. It is only Irish Catholic Celts who have worked hard to undermine American WASPs (apologies to Bo). The Kennedys always hated WASP America. They and their ethnic group are as much to blame for the 1965 immigration act as the Jews. (I don’t think KMac even uses the word Kennedy in his 60 pages on Jewish efforts to shape US immigration even though that wretched family were far more important and typical of their ethnic group than, say, Senator McCarren).

In Canada Ukrainians, Italians, the French and various other white minorities all worked against the interests of the WASP majority. The Irish Catholics played a similar role in the US. Yet on these boards some have lauded the Polish invasion of the UK. In Canada anti-communist conservative Catholic Poles voted as a block for the Liberals despite their leftist social values and the fact that their leader in the 70s was practically a Soviet sympathiser. Multiculturalism - ie., sticking it to the majority - trumped everything else. If the Canadian example is anything to go by the Poles in Britain will work with non-whites against the British people.

Identifiable minorities almost always stick together and work against the majority’s interests even when those minorities have little love for one another. WNists seem naive in their willingness to embrace all other whites. The Inverted World’s philo-semitism is regrettable but it is no worse than a WNism that blames everything on Jews and refuses to recognise the damage done by white minorities.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 16, 2006, 07:22 PM | #

Matra, all that makes perfect sense to me.  Do you have any posts here about it?  If so, link them here if you would.  If not, would you consider writing some?

I totally agree with the idea that minorities will tend to work against the native host.

Posted by wjg on December 16, 2006, 08:11 PM | #

“They and their ethnic group are as much to blame for the 1965 immigration act as the Jews.”

C’mon Matra, that is nonsense.  Did the Irish control/dominate Academia, Hollywood, and the News Media and have the power to effect that (the 1965 Act) outcome, even if they had wanted to?  No, not even close.  Yes there are inter-European squabbles.  Always have been always will be (until we are gone) but who is the one who has exacerbated ALL these tensions?  Poles and Irish are not our strategic enemies.  They are cousins we occasionally feud with.  It’s not that the Kennedy’s (since WWII) aren’t traitors - they are - but no less so than the Bush’s.  Our traitorous elite need to be taken to account but let’s not start or continue the fraternal squabbles that have led to our current state.

And no not “everything” is Jewry’s fault but no other group comes even close.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 16, 2006, 08:35 PM | #

And yes, sorry, I didn’t mean to agree with what wjg just outlined.

And no not “everything” is Jewry’s fault but no other group comes even close.

I think it’s pretty safe to agree with that.

Here’s a piece by Kevin MacDonald addressing some of the points brought up by Auster’s correspondents:

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/RubinRev.htm

There’s some really good reading there.

Posted by bats-man on December 16, 2006, 08:54 PM | #

“I’m certainly not under the impression that all of our problems are Jew related.”
You guys say this and essentially say that you just want to be free to criticize the Jew (and you should be allowed to, there’s plenty of valid criticism that can be made) the way others criticize Mexicans, Muslims, etc. But I read people on these comment threads who make all, I repeat, all encompassing statements about Jews and their universal desire to eliminate Whites and guess what? No one here criticizes or corrects them. Maybe this is why Auster reacted to representatives of this site the way he did.
GW,
You wrote: “Teddy serves not Catholicism but the liberal elites.  You must look at elite loyalties differently from how you look at the rest of Mankind’s.”
Why doesn’t this apply to Jews as well? Why shouldn’t I see destructive Jewish leftism as an elite phenomenon (the Marxist Jewish biolgists, the Jewish media elite and their peddling of anti-white propoganda, etc.) and as having little to do with the average Saul, Herschel, and Shlomo on the street and their “biological” drive to undermine whites?

Also the Jews are doing a lousy job of preserving Abraham’s genes intact, and, thus, preserving their “ethnic genetic interests” because they are rapidly marrying non-jews (many of the jews I knew growing up, male and female, married non-jewish whites and one I know of married a Puerto-Rican). In fact, some of their children are not Jews because they don’t have Jewish mothers.

Posted by Drunken McIrish on December 16, 2006, 10:09 PM | #

Any reason why “mick” is an acceptable term here?  Would slurs against Jews be tolerated at TIW?

And, isn’t it obvious that the attacks against TIW have attracted attention of certain types who have an interest in the direction this thread has taken?

“Also the Jews are doing a lousy job of preserving Abraham’s genes intact, and, thus, preserving their “ethnic genetic interests” because they are rapidly marrying non-jews (many of the jews I knew growing up, male and female, married non-jewish whites and one I know of married a Puerto-Rican). In fact, some of their children are not Jews because they don’t have Jewish mothers.”

It has already been shown on this blog that Jewish intermarriage is about two-fold less than the rates of equivalently-sized white gentile groups (GW or JR, link please).  Your personal anecdotes of “I knew a Jew who...” does not constitute evidence of a lack of preserving “Abraham’s genes.”

“Speaking of which, the recent KMac flap has reminded me that in my criticism of the Mick, I’ve never mentioned that one of the most important works of interest to WNs (in a good way, obviously) was penned by one”

And who may that be?  MacDonald is not Irish.  Someone else?

“Our traitorous elite need to be taken to account but let’s not start or continue the fraternal squabbles that have led to our current state. “

wjg seems to be the only one here who understands what has happened here, and why.  Perhaps he is a saddened veteran of the Amren yahoo discussion list?  That was an experience that would provide immunization.

Posted by wjg on December 16, 2006, 11:34 PM | #

DM,

I’m not familiar with that Yahoo group but I am a former (though infrequent at that) Amren poster.  I got so fed up with their jew-worshipping censorship that I don’t even visit there any more.  Saying that Jews are one among many problems we face is fair enough but they (at least Mr. Jobling) protected the reputation of the Chosen Ones as if scripted by Rabbi’s Foxman and Dees themselves.  I commend the WNists who are still plugging away but Mr. Taylor has opted to play Bill Buckley rather than Sam Francis.  It’s our loss for he had much potential.  He might yet awaken ala Cranmer.

Posted by Matra on December 17, 2006, 12:20 AM | #

C’mon Matra, that is nonsense.  Did the Irish control/dominate Academia, Hollywood, and the News Media and have the power to effect that (the 1965 Act) outcome, even if they had wanted to?

An Irish president and attorney-general got the ball rolling.  I’d say those are powerful positions. They’d wanted immigration reform since the 50s but were unable to do much about it. Some times elections matter. When RFK became a senator (he wasn’t A-G when Hart-Cellar was signed) he and Teddy put immigration at the top of their agenda. They saw the 1965 Act as a tribute to their brother. LBJ could hardly have vetoed that. And how did JFK get elected anyway? Catholics voted overwhelmingly for one of their own. Jews voted for him too (93%) but Catholics were a much greater proportion of the population. Jews couldn’t get the job done on their own they needed people to put reformers in office. Weren’t politicians who were elected from Catholic areas more likely to vote for Hart-Cellar?  Then there was Pius XII’s ‘Exsul familia’ which began the Church’s war against borders. It wasn’t Italians and Croatians who dominated the American Church but the Irish. Many Catholic organisations opposed the Johnson-Reed act of 1921 but the Church itself didn’t throw its weight behind them. That all changed in the 60s.

I’m not sure how one can quantify Jews versus Irish Catholics. The Kennedys were more important to Hart-Cellar than Jewish Hollywood. Not sure about the news media and academia though. Without both Jews and the Irish (and the wider Catholic community) Hart-Cellar wouldn’t have happened as there was no desire to change immigration laws among the rest of the population.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 17, 2006, 12:57 AM | #

Bats-man (replying to me): You wrote: “Teddy serves not Catholicism but the liberal elites.  You must look at elite loyalties differently from how you look at the rest of Mankind’s.”

Why doesn’t this apply to Jews as well? Why shouldn’t I see destructive Jewish leftism as an elite phenomenon (the Marxist Jewish biolgists, the Jewish media elite and their peddling of anti-white propoganda, etc.) and as having little to do with the average Saul, Herschel, and Shlomo on the street and their “biological” drive to undermine whites?

Jewish leftism, Marxist pseudo-science and the rest fall in the category of Jewish ethnic struggle.  It is precisely for Saul, Herschel and Schlomo and their children and their children’s children that these behavours are prosecuted.

The relationship with the elite is something different, more complex and more interesting.  Begin with the rather large question: why are our elites all across the West trying their damnedest to eliminate their own peoples, from whom they themselves sprang?  Why, for pete’s sake?  What’s the pay-off?

Well, there are as many pay-offs as their are categories of traitorous elite.  For example, a Fortune 500 employer in a global market is interested in the bottom line.  Nothing else.  Not love of country or loyalty to kin.  Just profit.

How do these people get to think this way? They are not born into it. We are not discussing dynasties here - though there are some Yale types, of course.  No, of the maybe twenty thousand people of the Western elites they nearly all start out in life just like you and me.  Hell, we have a proto-member of the banking elite writing for us (or we will once again when he hands over the reins of his bank’s Shanghai operation in a year or so).  Excepting Phil, these guys are just enculturated into it ... very often with no over-arching idea of the wider purpose.  Company boardrooms are witness to only a small part of the game.  How to cut Labour costs.  How to suck at the government teat.  How to talk to and influence government policy for the good of the business ...

These people are managers, essentially.  They are not necessarily business-owners.  They are of a class that has no personal investment in the future. The old elites, whom they replaced, relied upon inheritance to pass on their wealth and power, and had a natural connectivity to their ancestors, their progeny, to tradition and nation.  The managers just have themselves to cater for.

How, when the night is long and dark and the moon is shining through the bedroom curtains, they answer themselves on the question of treachery I cannot say.  Probably, they never think to ask.  Their fellow directors are deracinated beings anyway.  Many don’t even work in their own countries, but somewhere eight miles high over the water, outbound from Paris or Tokyo.  And, you know ... profit, profit, profit

For sure, somewhere at the top end of the scale one starts to find people who see the whole picture ... much, much more than us.  Here, a degree of deliberation - really strategising more than anything else - enters into the process of global (and therefore necessarily loose) resource and people management.  I would not care to attach the label of conspiracy to it.  Rather, they plan on a broadbrush basis in absolute accordance with their shared interests ... essentially a managerial interest in stabilising their purchase on power and wealth.

There are Jews involved at this rarified level as at every other level.  But they are a very small proportion of the whole.  Nonetheless, the characteristic wants of a liberal-parented elite and its interest in short-termism and, of course, in destruction of potential threats - ie, from a rising popular nationalism - are consonant with the traditional methods of Jewish ethnic struggle.  They are not the same.  But Jewish interests do advance elite interests.

That’s enough words for one comment.  You get the picture!

Posted by Al Ross on December 17, 2006, 01:32 AM | #

It certainly is ‘An Inverted World’ in the UK where a Jewish population of 350000 can (using ‘Lord’ Levy’s tribally time-honoured tactics) cram 41 of their malodorous racial cognates into the House of Lords.

Naturally, the celebration of this outrage isnt for UK consumption lest it frightens the ovine goyim. In the Israeli press, however, joy is unconfined.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/785642.html

Posted by Steven Palese on December 17, 2006, 05:19 AM | #

bats-man, “Of course, some will say the Juden, not Guinness, had control of his mind.”

The legislative history of the 1965 Immigration Act and the lobbying groups that agitated for it (for half a century) are a matter of documentary record. Start with this paper by Prof. Kevin MacDonald:

Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review

As soon as you spot an allegation of “mind control” or anything of that nature, let us know.

If you are genuinely clueless, here is a recommended reading list:

Kevin MacDonald

The Culture of Critique
Background traits for Jewish activism
Zionism and the Internal Dynamics of Judaism
Neoconservativism as a Jewish Movement
Thinking about Neoconservatism
Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review
What Makes Western Culture Unique?
Stalin’s Willing Executioners?
Immigration and the Unmentionable Question of Ethnic Interests
Was the 1924 Immigration Cut-off ‘Racist’?
Can the Jewish Model Help the West Survive?

“The problem with “blame the Jew” is that it keeps us from looking within ourselves.  What the hell is wrong with us if such a small minority can cause us to commit suicide?”

An enemy within the gates is 100 times more dangerous than one without. There are 16.4 million non-Arab Semites worldwide (allegedly). Multiply their anti-white activists by 100 and that’s the force they represent in marching troops equivalent. Of course, since this power is based on deception, it can evaporate very rapidly. That’s why historically the tide turns very suddenly on your Semitic friends.

“But I read people on these comment threads who make all, I repeat, all encompassing statements about Jews and their universal desire to eliminate Whites and guess what? No one here criticizes or corrects them.”

Is there any particular reason you can’t refute them yourself?

“[white traitors as elite phenomenon] Why doesn’t this apply to Jews as well?”

It is specifically non-Arab Semitic organizations, such as the ADL, that lead the neo-McCarthyite persecutions against whites who express or defend white group interests. Not white elite organizations. In fact, the people subject to these persecutions ARE the white elites. Nobody cares when Joe the gas station attendant offends non-Arab Semites, it’s the Mel Gibsons that are subject to blacklists, coordinated intimidation and economic strangulation of dissidents. See the Walt - Mearsheimer report on the Israel Lobby for details regarding non-Arab Semitic persecution methodology.

An example:

“Regan’s fate was sealed when the Washington Post published his observation, from an interview at the conference, that “you can see European Christian Americans are an endangered species.” Though there was nothing explicitly “anti-Semitic” in Regan’s comment, the Anti-Defamation League, America’s most feared and effective thought police, promptly attacked his reputation and his livelihood. In a letter to Regan’s superior, the ADL’s regional director for New York decreed: “Those kinds of comments are absolutely inappropriate for a public official to make,” and Regan was promptly out of a job.”
(http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol6no1/61-EditorsNote.pdf )

Posted by The Realist on December 17, 2006, 05:44 AM | #

Svigor’s article and most of the comments that follow it are a fine example of the low standards of commentary that prevail among anti-Semites. First, Auster is plainly right when he says MacDonald portrays Jews as having a “primal group-animus” against whites that is not reformable by rational argument. Of course, MacDonald is too smart to say this outright, but, in Culture of Critique, he gives example after example of Jewish hostility to Gentile culture, without ever suggesting that Jews could be reasoned out of their antipathy. The clear implication of MacDonald’s one-sided portrait is that Jews are irredeemably hostile to whites.

Although I am not a Jew, I know many Jews who are fervent race realists. And these people tell me they get a fair hearing from their Jewish friends, who might one day come around. And it isn’t just that they believe in racial differences, but they have an all-around pro-white, pro-Christian attitude: they support limitations of non-white immigration and Nativity scenes in the town square, for example. Spend some time at the Jewish Task Force website if you don’t believe me:

http://www.jtf.org/

If Jews are as monolithically hostile to whites as MacDonald suggests, how would such people be possible?

Auster is also plainly right that MacDonald portrays Jews as the sole source of the West’s problems. He never suggests that there might have been anything about Gentile culture, with the exception of its insufficient resistance to Jewish ideas, that caused immigration liberalization and multiculturalism.

Furthermore, many of the comments suggest that Auster and I are unwilling to admit the possibility that Jews have ethnic interests whose expression has been harmful to white societies. However, my whole point in making that post on Stormfront was to show that that is not my view. If you bothered to go to the link to Auster’s article “Why Jews Welcome Muslims,” you would see that what he’s saying there is that Jews’ sense of their own ethnic interests results in harm to America. And then you have the gall to say that he’s setting up a straw man!

You have a sure way of innoculating yourselves against any kind of criticism: anyone who criticizes you or any of your heroes is just “kissing Jewish ass.” Anything that contradicts your cardboard stereotypes of Jews, you just interpret as a further refinement of Jewish evil. And thus you go on riding your hobby-horse year after year.

Posted by Matra on December 17, 2006, 07:02 AM | #

Steven Palese:

The legislative history of the 1965 Immigration Act and the lobbying groups that agitated for it (for half a century) are a matter of documentary record. Start with this paper by Prof. Kevin MacDonald:

Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review

Didn’t I just refer to this report? Sixty pages on how the Jews shaped US immigration without a single reference to the Kennedys. I could swear I just mentioned this a couple of posts ago. Then again if I were an Irish Catholic with a guilty conscience I too would be keen to blame everything on the Jews.

Of course, some will say the Juden, not Guinness, had control of his mind.

Just so you know Arthur Guinness came from a Protestant family. (Protestant Celts in America are generally anti-immigrant unlike Ted Kennedy’s tribe).  Even the author of Cathleen Ní Houlihan was a Prod. Apparently the locals just weren’t up to the task of developing their own culture. I guess that’s why in Northern Ireland they’re always demanding positive discrimination/affirmative action quotas.

The Realist:

The clear implication of MacDonald’s one-sided portrait is that Jews are irredeemably hostile to whites.

I’m glad you, unlike Lawrence Auster, are willing to respond to us at MR.

If any nation on earth deserved the thanks and gratitude of the Jewish people it would surely be the USA. Yet how have the vast majority of Jews responded to the generosity shown by Americans? TV series like All in the Family portraying white Protestant Americans as bigoted morons. Freedom riders like Joe Lieberman going down south to free the black man from evil white racism. Opposition to immigration control - just this past week Jewish groups such as the ADL, the American Jewish Congress, the Progressive Jewish Alliance, and the SoCal ACLU (filled with Jews) joined with Latino groups to convince the LA City Council to support a resolution on behalf of illegal alien invaders. American Southerners, many of whom actually support Israel, being sneered at in Sasha Baron Cohen’s recent Borat film. Suing city councils to take down Christmas trees.

When can American patriots expect some reciprocity from the Jews? Given that the relationship between white Americans and Jews seems to be completely one way shouldn’t the onus be on Jews to show whites that they can indeed be trusted within WNism rather than whites walking on eggshells not to offend hostile Jews?

Posted by Rnl on December 17, 2006, 07:33 AM | #

The Realist wrote:

many of the comments suggest that Auster and I are unwilling to admit the possibility that Jews have ethnic interests whose expression has been harmful to white societies.

To your credit, you state that fact clearly in your essay: “it is certainly true that Jews have traditionally been very active in liberal causes and have indeed done a great deal to demonize white racial consciousness.” Those are, however, reasonable grounds for anti-Semitism. Euro-Americans have done nothing to merit Jewish hostility, yet we have received an abundance of it. Resentment of Jewish group behavior is a natural response to the provocations you properly acknowledge.

“It was not my parents’ idealism that elicited fear and provoked hostility from the goyim. It was their hostility toward the goyim, and indeed everything the goyim held dear, that incited the hostility back” (David Horowitz).

You continue: “… these people did not trade in well-founded criticism; rather, they were conspiracy theorists whose minds twisted everything they disliked about the present and past into evidence for Jewish evil.” That is not a fair assessment. No doubt there are some anti-Semites who believe that Jews control the weather and that Mossad agents destroyed the World Trade Center. But most of the WN complaints about Jews are rational and firmly grounded in evidence.

I’ll repost my collection of Austerian anti-Semitica from an earlier thread:

***

The fact remains, however, that the Jewish people, far out of proportion with any other ethnic group, keep producing a fantastic number of leftists, whether they are “Jewish” or not. Any gentile country with a significant Jewish population needs to consider honestly this Jewish tendency and find responsible ways of restraining it.  Ignoring it will only allow it to become more and more destructive (just as the Jewish left is destructive of Israel itself), leading ultimately to the growth of serious anti-Semitism on the part of the majority population.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005425.html

***

Something is _happening_ in the Jewish (or the leftist Jewish) community, a new level of aggression against the majority culture is coming out.  I add that this is not different in kind from the aggression of leftists generally.

[...]

The fact remains, as I said recently, that the Jewish people keep producing a fantastic number of “non-Jewish” Jewish leftists whose shenanigans justify anti-Semitism.

[...]

If people calling themselves Jews, and accepted by the world as Jews, say that “as Jews” they believe in X, Y, or Z, then that effectively becomes a representation of the Jewish people before the world. That is political reality. If religious Jews feel that the first group of Jews are not legitimate Jews, then they must wage political war against them and deny their right to represent themselves before the world as Jews. As long as they fail to do that, the world will be justified as taking leftist Jewish statements such as “Our Jewish soul hinges on open borders,” as at least _an_ expression of the Jewish people.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005482.html

***

As I wrote in my article, “Why Jews Welcome Moslems,” Jewish organizations and a significant number of American Jews are passionately devoted to the cause of large-scale Third-World immigration and the resulting ongoing disappearance of America’s historic cultural and national identity, the ultimate effect of which will be to transform America truly and completely into what so many Jews have always wanted it to be: a majority-less collection of unrelated peoples forever divorced from its actual history as a nation and held together by nothing but an abstract belief in democracy and a desire for the good life.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005391.html

***

The self-protective instinct to divide and weaken a potentially oppressive majority population may have served Jews well at certain times and places in the past when they truly were threatened. Under current circumstances - in America, the most philo-Semitic nation in the history of the world - it [is] both morally wrong and suicidal. Not only are the open-borders Jews urging policies harmful to America’s majority population, but, by doing so, they are surely triggering previously non-existent anti-Jewish feelings among them. The tragedy is that once a collective thought pattern gets deeply ingrained, as is the Jews’ historically understandable fear of gentiles, it takes on a life of its own and becomes immune to evidence and reason.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13894

***

I’ve recently noted the increasingly strident advocacy of open borders by American Jews writing _as_ Jews, in which they speak of open borders for Third-Worlders as a requirement of their Jewish soul, as the “Jewish American civil religion,” and as “the very heart, for Jews, of what it means to be an American,” while they add that they support this position because “as a historical matter, nationalism has been Bad For The Jews.” Unabashed hostility toward the American nation and its majority culture, expressed by Jews purporting to speak _as_ Jews and _for_ Jews, has reached such a point that a Jewish college student, speaking as a Jew, feels free to write in the student newspaper of Northwestern University that he _hates_ Christianity....

A few years ago, Rabbi Daniel Lapin was the pre-eminent American Jewish leader trying to warn his fellow Jews against behaviors that seemed designed to produce anti-Semitism.  I don’t know if his efforts had any success at the time, but they certainly need renewal and reinforcement now.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005482.html

Posted by ben tillman on December 17, 2006, 07:34 AM | #

Svigor’s article and most of the comments that follow it are a fine example of the low standards of commentary that prevail among anti-Semites. First, Auster is plainly right when he says MacDonald portrays Jews as having a “primal group-animus” against whites that is not reformable by rational argument.

And MacDonald’s implication is “plainly right”.  Jews and gentiles differ genetically.  Therefore—tautologically—the interests of Jews and gentiles can never coincide unless “vertical transmission” is achieved.

Posted by Rnl on December 17, 2006, 07:48 AM | #

bats-man wrote:

How are most Jews in America brought up? My Jewish buddy in high school played dungeons & dragons with us, went to the same movies, dated (or tried as we all did) the same girls, had a Christmas tree, etc. In other words, he was a suburban, middle-class white nerd like us. Is this unusual among Jews?

It’s unusual among the Jews who staff Jewish organizations. It’s unusual among the Jews who dominate our media. It’s even unusual among the Jews who dominate the pornography industry.

We are under no obligation to demonstrate that all Jews are hostile and unassimilable. We look at the effect of the group on the Euro-American whole. If the effect is bad, and if the group shows no signs of improving its behavior, then we are entitled to draw our own conclusions from our own perspective. Auster himself has rightly drawn the conclusion that Muslims are incompatible with the West. The underlying principle is the same in both cases.

The best argument philo-Semitic WNs could make would be based on practical political considerations. Anti-Semitism frightens most mainstream Whites. Because it does, most prominent nationalist leaders avoid it. Taylor wants to gather respectable Whites in a room to discuss racial matters, and he has concluded that JQ discussions make that difficult. Griffin wants mainstream Britons to vote for his party, so he dumps anti-Semitism. Fortuyn was a supporter of Israel, as is Le Pen (much anti-FN Jewish hysteria notwithstanding). Even the NPD cultivates some Jewish support. And of course Vlaams Belang, perhaps the most successful of them all, opposes anti-Semitism and forms alliances with religious Jews. If we assume, as I do, that all the various leaders involved in these decisions are sincere in their professed nationalist beliefs, then a philo-Semite, pointing to the behavior of respected leaders involved in real-world politics, could plausibly argue that anti-Semitism is an obstacle to mainstream support that must be removed.

What is especially outrageous about Jewish attacks on Jared Taylor is that he has done all that they could reasonably expect him to do, incurring some hostility from other racialists as a result. Taylor shut down the first AmRen listserv in the late 1990s to placate his Jewish and philo-Semitic supporters. The list’s subsequent incarnation, after a brief flirtation with free-speech, eventually prohibited anti-Semitism about three years ago. Today his moderators often censor JQ comments on the AmRen board, causing much irritation, as everyone here knows. Taylor encourages Jewish participation in American Renaissance events, and his official position is that Jews are White.

There is nothing more that he could do, other than pretending that Jewish hostility to the historic American nation is a deranged anti-Semitic fantasy. He won’t do that, and he won’t pretend either that support for Israel benefits the United States, because he knows it doesn’t. In other words, he won’t become a liar.

Yet lying on JQ issues is what Berman et al are apparently demanding.

Posted by ben tillman on December 17, 2006, 07:51 AM | #

Also the Jews are doing a lousy job of preserving Abraham’s genes intact, and, thus, preserving their “ethnic genetic interests” because they are rapidly marrying non-jews (many of the jews I knew growing up, male and female, married non-jewish whites and one I know of married a Puerto-Rican).

What a tiresome canard!

The figures for Jewish intermarriage in the U.S. are (1) grossly exaggerated and (2) immaterial.

The intermarriage figure is probably in the range of 15-25% in the U.S., but the figure is of no consequence.  The Jews have a territory—a habitat—in which the intermarriage rate is effectively zero.  The intermarriage rate could go to 100% in the US and UK, and the Jewish community would do just fine, thank you.

Moreover, intermarriage builds bridges to the gentile community and plants secret sayanim like Gen. Wesley Clark among us.  Not to mention that the halfsies tend to form their own little circles in the penumbra of the Jewish community.

Posted by ben tillman on December 17, 2006, 08:06 AM | #

Also the Jews are doing a lousy job of preserving Abraham’s genes intact, and, thus, preserving their “ethnic genetic interests” because they are rapidly marrying non-jews (many of the jews I knew growing up, male and female, married non-jewish whites and one I know of married a Puerto-Rican).

Are you kidding?  You’re basing your conclusions on anecdotal evidence, but you don’t have any anecdotal evidence because you don’t know any Jews????

I work with 5 people in my office, and one is a half-Jew from Puerto Rico.  You’re not going to get anywhere by relating anecdotes we’ve already encountered.

Posted by ben tillman on December 17, 2006, 08:28 AM | #

If Jews are as monolithically hostile to whites as MacDonald suggests, how would such people be possible?

He suggests nothing of the sort.  The thesis is that Jews constitute a “group”, i.e., an organization—indeed, as David Sloan Wilson would say, an organism.  Jews need not agree with (or even be aware of) what the group is doing to further the group’s interests.

Posted by ben tillman on December 17, 2006, 08:55 AM | #

Anything that contradicts your cardboard stereotypes of Jews....

This proves you haven’t read MacDonald, which means you haven’t made much of an effort to determine whether your prejudices reflect reality.

“Stereotypes” are not part of the discussion.  The point is that being a Jew means being a member of a community that survives within other communities by maximizing cohesion within the Jewish community while minimizing the cohesion of the host community.  Jews are always outnumbered, which means that they’ll always lose if they have to fight all of the host community at the same time.  So they foster division within the host community.

This ain’t rocket science. 

In fact, it’s so simple to understand that the only effective “counter-argument” is censorship and the construction of taboos.

Posted by ben tillman on December 17, 2006, 09:14 AM | #

“Jews have congruent interests with the elite....”

Yes, at least in the short run.  And this is the vector of transmission of Jewish influence into our communities. 

For example, from Benzion Netanyahu [father of the former Israeli prime minister], The Origins of the Inquisition in 15th-Century Spain, p.959 (New York:  Random House, 1995):

“It was primarily because of the functions of the Jews as the king’s revenue gatherers in the urban areas that the cities saw the Jews as the monarch’s agents, who treated them as objects of massive exploitation.  By serving as they did the interests of the kings, the Jews seemed to be working against the interests of the cities; and thus we touch again on the phenomenon we have referred to:  the fundamental
conflict between the kings and their people—a conflict not limited to financial matters, but one that embraced all spheres of government that had a bearing on the people’s life.  It was in part thanks to this conflict of interest that the Jews could survive the harsh climate of the Middle Ages, and it is hard to believe they did not discern it when they came to resettle in Christian Europe.  Indeed, their requests, since the days of the Carolingians, for assurances of protection before they settled in a place show (a) that they realized that the kings’ positions on many issues differed from those of the common people and (b) that the kings were prepared, for the sake of their interests, to make common cause with the ‘alien’ Jews against the clear wishes of their Christian subjects.  In a sense, therefore, the Jews’ agreements with the kings in the Middle Ages resembled the understandings they had reached with foreign conquerors in the ancient world.”

Posted by ben tillman on December 17, 2006, 09:25 AM | #

“Speaking of which, the recent KMac flap has reminded me that in my criticism of the Mick, I’ve never mentioned that one of the most important works of interest to WNs (in a good way, obviously) was penned by one”

And who may that be?  MacDonald is not Irish.  Someone else?

John Murray Cuddihy?

Posted by ben tillman on December 17, 2006, 09:40 AM | #

The relationship with the elite is something different, more complex and more interesting.  Begin with the rather large question: why are our elites all across the West trying their damnedest to eliminate their own peoples, from whom they themselves sprang?  Why, for pete’s sake?  What’s the pay-off?

What you are describing is known as selling one’s soul to the devil.  Our elite are susceptible to seduction.  The payoff is transitory pleasure.  The price is an evolutionary dead end.

Posted by bats-man on December 17, 2006, 11:08 AM | #

Actually I was referring to Teddy’s drunkenness (Guinness beer). Brilliant!

Posted by bats-man on December 17, 2006, 12:44 PM | #

“But I read people on these comment threads who make all, I repeat, all encompassing statements about Jews and their universal desire to eliminate Whites and guess what? No one here criticizes or corrects them."--me
“Is there any particular reason you can’t refute them yourself?” --Steven

When people write that ALL Jews want the extermination of the White Race, the falseness of their arguement should be self-evident (just as false as empirically false as a statement like “all blacks have low-IQs"). “All” is a pretty strong word.

“We are under no obligation to demonstrate that all Jews are hostile and unassimilable.”

Since people at this site are allowed to (uncorrected) write “ALL” then the burden of proof should be on you to demonstrate it. “All Jews” is not far from Nazism (at least in its implications) especially when coupled with talk of the elimination of the white race. If I believed this, I would be tempted to go buy a brown shirt.

“Moreover, intermarriage builds bridges to the gentile community and plants secret sayanim like Gen. Wesley Clark among us.” Careful. When you say “secret” you start sounding like a conspiracy theorist. Is Judaic hositility a conspiracy with “secret” plants or a unconcious sociobiological drive like others are suggesting?

“Jews need not agree with (or even be aware of) what the group is doing to further the group’s interests” Yet they’re aware enough to procreate with gentiles to produce “secret” plants?

If your mother is a Jew, then, by definition, you are a Jew. This is the definition of Jewish as understood by the Jews themselves, no? I have known enough Jews for a reasonable sample size (including one at work who is planting secret sayanim within the southeast asian population - his socio-biological mechanism must be as defective as with the Jew I know of who is planting sayanim among Puerto Ricans).

Mr. Tillman seems to be suggesting that despite the out-breeding, there’s some core of pure Jews that is maintained. It would seem to me that the implications of Jewish miscegenation are either:
1. The Jews ancient socio-biological mechanism (which has served them so well for so long) has recently mutated and is defective.
2. The mechanism is wired to achieve a perfect balance (which must certainly change over time and circumstances)between out-breeding to plant secret sayanim which futher group interests, and keeping it sufficiently in the family.

Posted by bats-man on December 17, 2006, 02:18 PM | #

GW,

What Jewish interests are congruent with the elite’s desire to race-replace Western Whites?

1. Certainly not the demographic displacement of Whites by Jews. They’re not going to be a majority in any Western nation and they aren’t making many babies.
2. Money, influence, and power? They already have that, right?
3. Their “interest” in living as an ethnic minority among Muslims in Europe?
4. Their “interest” in displacing the most philo-semetic (i.e. American whites) people in the world, who, by the admission of the people at this site, have been good to them.

Their ancient socio-biological group-calculus seems defective to me. How did it get them this far?

Posted by Drunken McIrish on December 17, 2006, 03:11 PM | #

“What Jewish interests are congruent with the elite’s desire to race-replace Western Whites?”

They have an interest in not being the only identifiable minority in an otherwise (relatively) homogenous white gentile society, and they certaintly don’t think it in their interests to be such a minority when the white majority has a healthy sense of ethnicity and nationalism:

“The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to ethnic bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible....” -
Earl Raab of Brandeis University’s Institute of Jewish Advocacy

Is that perhaps the reason why certain “pro-white Jews” also seem to support diversity?

The problem is that Jews seem to be following a non-territorial ethnic group strategy - by definition a minority strategy - and, also by definition, that leads to conflicts of interests with the majority group.

“When people write that ALL Jews want the extermination of the White Race...”

who has written that here, other than you, of course?

“ have known enough Jews for a reasonable sample size (including one at work who is planting secret sayanim within the southeast asian population - his socio-biological mechanism must be as defective as with the Jew I know of who is planting sayanim among Puerto Ricans).”

So far, a sample size of two.

Posted by Drunken Mick on December 17, 2006, 03:23 PM | #

“It would seem to me that the implications of Jewish miscegenation are either..”

Or, that there is a continuum of ethnocentricity within the Jewish population as there is within others, that the Jewish median level of ethnocentrism is higher than that of white gentiles, and that, opportunity existing in an open society, the least ethnocentric fraction of the Jewish population will outmarry.

The resultant hybrids - whether or not their mothers are Jewish and hence they are “officially” Jewish - will likely have sympathy for Jewish causes; further, their gentile relatives would be more likely to be philosemitic than those without part-Jewish relations.

There need not be a “conspiracy” in order for Jews to benefit from a limited amount of outmarriage, as long as the core remains intact.

Note that some prominent Jews, like Elliot Abrams, is leading the fight against outmarriage, and there is no certainty that current trends (which are both inflated compared to reality and less than that in other groups) will continue or increase over time.

Posted by Steven Palese on December 17, 2006, 06:25 PM | #

Matra, “Didn’t I just refer to this report? Sixty pages on how the Jews shaped US immigration without a single reference to the Kennedys. I could swear I just mentioned this a couple of posts ago. Then again if I were an Irish Catholic with a guilty conscience I too would be keen to blame everything on the Jews.”

Congresscritters are intimidated into anti-white pro-semitic bigotry by the non-Arab Semitic Lobby, not by their Catholic background:

“I can tell you from personal experience that, at least in the Congress, the support Israel has in that body is based completely on political fear--fear of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done. I can also tell you that very few members of Congress--at least when I served there--have any affection for Israel or for its Lobby. What they have is contempt, but it is silenced by fear of being found out exactly how they feel. I’ve heard too many cloakroom conversations in which members of the Senate will voice their bitter feelings about how they’re pushed around by the Lobby to think otherwise. In private one hears the dislike of Israel and the tactics of the Lobby, but not one of them is willing to risk the Lobby’s animosity by making their feelings public.”
("Former Senator James Abourezk on Chomsky and the Israel Lobby in the US”, Al-Jazeerah, December 5, 2006.)

Kevin MacDonald doesn’t write about Congressional waterboys because they’re not the ones calling the shots. He isn’t Irish and he doesn’t “blame everything on the Jews”. I don’t expect a study of medieval politics to “blame everything on the minority aristocrats”, but I do expect it to acknowledge that they called the shots. And I certainly don’t expect it to dwell on the backgrounds of the dastardly servants who carried their water.

[U.S. President Richard] Nixon cites Paul Keyes, a political conservative who is executive producer of the NBC hit, “Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In,” as telling him that “11 of the 12 writers are Jews.” “That right?” says Billy Graham, America’s best known preacher of the time, prompting Nixon to claim that Life magazine, Newsweek, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and others, are “totally dominated by Jews.” Nixon says network TV anchors Howard K. Smith, David Brinkley and Walter Cronkite “front men who may not be of that persuasion,” but that their writers are “95 percent Jews.”

“This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain,” the nation’s best-known preacher declares “You believe that?” Nixon says. “Yes, sir,” Graham says. “Oh, boy,” replies Nixon. “So do I. I can’t ever say that but I believe it.” Nixon-Graham tapes - 1972. (http://www.counterpunch.org/alexgraham.htm )

When a group can intimidate Congress and sitting Presidents into behaving like frightened children, they have political power. Having political power means being held accountable, also known as “being blamed”. Accountability doesn’t extend to “everything”, for example, it doesn’t cover premature hairloss or erectile disfunction. However, it does extend to the misuse of political power, particularly when the misuse advances anti-white pro-semitic bigotry.

Posted by Rnl on December 17, 2006, 06:38 PM | #

bats-man wrote:

When people write that ALL Jews want the extermination of the White Race, the falseness of their arguement should be self-evident (just as false as empirically false as a statement like “all blacks have low-IQs"). “All” is a pretty strong word.

You’re quite right. That’s why _all_ rational people are reluctant to use it when describing human groups. That’s why _no_ rational person ever says that “all blacks have low-IQs.” Some Blacks are very intelligent. All of us know that. But our recognition of that undeniable fact doesn’t prevent us from pointing out that Blacks are on average less intelligent than Whites. It doesn’t prevent us either from pointing out that the fact of lower average Black intelligence has important social consequences, most of them bad.

If anyone here or elsewhere has ever written that “ALL Jews want the extermination of the White Race,” then we can _all_ formally and sincerely affirm that they don’t. The statement is obviously false. Monolithic Jewish hostility to their host population has never been part of any sensible argument.

It has, however, played a prominent role in philo-Semitic responses to WN criticism of Jews. It is a strawman, hauled out regularly to misrepresent the other side.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 17, 2006, 06:50 PM | #

MacDonald is not Irish.

Ewps.  Scot then?  My mistake; I tried.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 17, 2006, 06:54 PM | #

bats-man,

No one is remotely convinced that you are here in good faith.  For you own reasons, you will refute, refute, refute regardless of what we say rather than because of it.  You are the idealogue and the apologist for hate.

However, in answer to your extremely weak questions ... have you not read this article:-

as crazy as it may sound, there is something that many American Jews fear in their heart of hearts even more than they fear Moslem anti-Semitism, and that is white Christian anti-Semitism.

... Jews’ risible obsession with non-existent evangelical Protestant anti-Semites, combined with their obliviousness to actual mass murdering Islamist anti-Semites (whom, moreover, the Jews’ favored immigration policies have allowed into this country) is an amazing phenomenon that we should not dismiss as simply a bizarre ethnic idiosyncrasy. It expresses, rather, a central preoccupation of a significant number of Jews, namely their corrosive apprehension of what they think the goyim might one day do to them—a fear they entertain despite the fact that, apart from some social exclusions and other ethnic prejudices that existed up to the end of World War II, Jews have never faced serious anti-Semitism from the white Christian majority in this country.

Read the whole piece.  It’s by Lawrence Auster.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 17, 2006, 07:41 PM | #

Svigor’s article and most of the comments that follow it are a fine example of the low standards of commentary that prevail among anti-Semites.

What is an anti-Semite?  It seems my definition (one hostile to non-Arab Semites per se) isn’t good enough for philo-Semites.  So, maybe you can set me straight.  While you’re at it maybe you can explain your “low standards” comment and how it applies to what I’ve written.

First, Auster is plainly right when he says MacDonald portrays Jews as having a “primal group-animus” against whites that is not reformable by rational argument. Of course, MacDonald is too smart to say this outright, but, in Culture of Critique, he gives example after example of Jewish hostility to Gentile culture, without ever suggesting that Jews could be reasoned out of their antipathy. The clear implication of MacDonald’s one-sided portrait is that Jews are irredeemably hostile to whites.

Is this your idea of logic?  He also says (more than once, IIRC) that humans are flexible strategizers.  Oops, there goes your thesis!

I just love the “one-sided portrait” thing.  It’s good stuff.  Please, do tell us the other side of the portrait.  Show us all the non-Arab Semite movements that run counter to those MacDonald presents.

Although I am not a Jew, I know many Jews who are fervent race realists. And these people tell me they get a fair hearing from their Jewish friends, who might one day come around. And it isn’t just that they believe in racial differences, but they have an all-around pro-white, pro-Christian attitude: they support limitations of non-white immigration and Nativity scenes in the town square, for example. Spend some time at the Jewish Task Force website if you don’t believe me:

http://www.jtf.org/

If Jews are as monolithically hostile to whites as MacDonald suggests, how would such people be possible?

He suggests no such thing (and neither do I).  In fact, he explicitly rejects your straw man (again more than once IIRC), and so do I.

Auster is also plainly right that MacDonald portrays Jews as the sole source of the West’s problems. He never suggests that there might have been anything about Gentile culture, with the exception of its insufficient resistance to Jewish ideas, that caused immigration liberalization and multiculturalism.

MacDonald’s book isn’t about immigration liberalization and multiculturalism and their overall causes.  Why is this so difficult to understand?  His book is about Judaism as an evolutionary strategy.  That said, he does make the necessary-if-not-sufficient argument so there goes that assertion.

Furthermore, many of the comments suggest that Auster and I are unwilling to admit the possibility that Jews have ethnic interests whose expression has been harmful to white societies. However, my whole point in making that post on Stormfront was to show that that is not my view. If you bothered to go to the link to Auster’s article “Why Jews Welcome Muslims,” you would see that what he’s saying there is that Jews’ sense of their own ethnic interests results in harm to America. And then you have the gall to say that he‘s setting up a straw man!

I’ve read that article, more than once.  What straw man are you referring to?  I enumerated many of Auster’s, but IIRC yours isn’t among them.

You have a sure way of innoculating yourselves against any kind of criticism: anyone who criticizes you or any of your heroes is just “kissing Jewish ass.” Anything that contradicts your cardboard stereotypes of Jews, you just interpret as a further refinement of Jewish evil. And thus you go on riding your hobby-horse year after year.

I don’t wish to innoculate myself against criticism.  I welcome it.  When it’s valid, and I cannot answer it, I generally say so, occasional omissions aside.

Where are my cardboard stereotypes of non-Arab Semites?  Point them out please.

Rnl:

There is nothing more that he could do, other than pretending that Jewish hostility to the historic American nation is a deranged anti-Semitic fantasy. He won’t do that, and he won’t pretend either that support for Israel benefits the United States, because he knows it doesn’t. In other words, he won’t become a liar.

Yet lying on JQ issues is what Berman et al are apparently demanding.

Not only that, but he basically had no criticism of non-Arab Semites and still wound up an anti-Semite according to Auster.  Hence my hypothesis that ass-kissing is required, and my suspicion that kosherness is required too.

Bats-man:

When people write that ALL Jews want the extermination of the White Race, the falseness of their arguement should be self-evident (just as false as empirically false as a statement like “all blacks have low-IQs"). “All” is a pretty strong word.

As you say, they’re self-evidently false.  Why does this get YOU off the hook, but not us?  I regularly argue with these nimrods at Stormfront.  It’s about as fun as cleaning a toilet.  No, I prefer cleaning toilets.  I come here to get a bit of intelligent conversation with people who are smarter and more knowledgeable than me, not continue the school-marm routine.

Which is fortunate, because assertions like the one you mention are rare as hen’s teeth here.  Maybe you could compile all the instances?  Have fun looking for those three comments in hundreds of threads.

Since people at this site are allowed to (uncorrected) write “ALL” then the burden of proof should be on you to demonstrate it. “All Jews” is not far from Nazism (at least in its implications) especially when coupled with talk of the elimination of the white race. If I believed this, I would be tempted to go buy a brown shirt.

You’re all over the place.  One second you don’t need to refute them because their error is “self-evident,” the next we not only have to correct them, but support the error when we don’t correct them?  WTF?

Could Realist or anyone give answering my question in the last paragraph of the blog entry a go?

Posted by Steven Palese on December 17, 2006, 07:48 PM | #

bats-man: “But I read people on these comment threads who make all, I repeat, all encompassing statements about Jews and their universal desire to eliminate Whites and guess what? No one here criticizes or corrects them."--me
me: “Is there any particular reason you can’t refute them yourself?” --Steven
bats-man again: “When people write that ALL Jews want the extermination of the White Race, the falseness of their arguement should be self-evident (just as false as empirically false as a statement like “all blacks have low-IQs"). “All” is a pretty strong word.”

Yes, I agree that generalizations can be absurd.

My point was that if you see such absurdities, there’s nothing preventing you from refuting them. (We’re obviously talking commenters here as I’ve never seen anything like that from the bloggers.) When you open your windows to fresh air, you might get a fly as well. So what? No need to forfeit fresh air, just swat the fly! You’d be surprised at how well a free speech blog can self regulate.

Anyway, you’re obviously trying to make sense out of the huge fuss this issue creates in pro-white circles. This is good timing as I have prepared a quick introduction from a pro-white perspective. When I was writing it, I was thinking about people like you: Pro-white yet confused regarding non-Arab Semites.

Here it is, please read it and attack every flaw you see. I’ll be publishing it on several websites during the first week of 2007, so there’s still time for editing. The harder you hit this, the better.

The Racism and Anti-Semitism Word Games
By Steven Palese
5-1-07

When whites engage in favoritism toward other whites (and therefore discrimination against non-whites), it’s called racism. When other groups engage in favoritism, it’s called ethnic solidarity. When whites object to Jewish favoritism, it’s called anti-semitism. When you buy into these word games, it’s called being a useful idiot.

THE DUAL PERSECUTION STRATEGY

When Michael Eisner was appointed CEO of Disney, one of the five mega-media conglomerates (Disney has many media assets besides Mickey Mouse, such as CBS), within months he purged most whites from upper management and replaced them with fellow Jews. Had any victim objected to such Jewish favoritism, they would have been subject to neo-McCarthyite persecution for “anti-semitism”. These persecutions are led by Jewish organizations (such as the ADL) and consist of blacklists, coordinated intimidation and economic strangulation of dissidents. See the Walt-Mearsheimer report on the Israel Lobby for details regarding Neo-McCarthyite persecution methodology.

Michael Medved boasted: “The famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-semitic attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most powerful positions.”
("Jews Run Hollywood. So What?,” Moment magazine, August 1996.)

The policy: When whites object to Jewish favoritism they face neo-McCarthyite persecution for “anti-semitism”.

Reverse the scenario. Suppose whites took over Disney, purged most Jews from upper management and replaced them with fellow whites. Would such an attempt by whites to compete on equal terms be tolerated?

When Michael Regan, an Assistant District Attorney expressed concern for white group interests, the mildest form of pro-white favoritism, he was immediately subject to neo-McCarthyite persecution for “racism”. As with “anti-semitism” witch hunts, these are led by Jewish organizations and involve neo-McCarthyite persecution methodology.

“Regan’s fate was sealed when the Washington Post published his observation, from an interview at the conference, that “you can see European Christian Americans are an endangered species.” Though there was nothing explicitly “anti-Semitic” in Regan’s comment, the Anti-Defamation League, America’s most feared and effective thought police, promptly attacked his reputation and his livelihood. In a letter to Regan’s superior, the ADL’s regional director for New York decreed: “Those kinds of comments are absolutely inappropriate for a public official to make,” and Regan was promptly out of a job.”
(http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol6no1/61-EditorsNote.pdf )

The policy: When whites engage in favoritism they face neo-McCarthyite persecution for “racism”.

This policy of persecuting whites who object to favoritism by others and persecuting whites who engage in it themselves is called the Dual Persecution Strategy. The “favoritism for them, persecution for us” double standard creates a systemic competitive imbalance designed to prevent whites from competing on equal terms.

ETHNIC CLOSED SHOPS

An uneven playing field makes it easy for ethnic closed shops to squeeze whites out of any field. The long term consequence is what we see happening in the vital organs of society, such as media:

“Four of the largest five entertainment giants are now run or owned by Jews. Murdoch’s News Corp (at number four) is the only gentile holdout—however Rupert is as pro-Israel as any Jew, probably more so.”
(Los Angeles Jewish Times, ‘Yes, Virginia, Jews Do Control the Media,’ Oct. 29-Nov. 11, 1999 p. 14)

“Time-Warner, Disney, Viacom-CBS, News Corporation and Universal rule the entertainment world in a way that the old Hollywood studio chiefs only dreamed of. And, after all the deals and buyouts, four of the five are run by Jews. We’re back to where we started, bigger than ever.”
(Jewish Week, 9-17-99, 12)

“The greatest concentration of Jews, however, is at the producer level—and it is the producers who decide which stories will go on the air, and how long, and in what order, they will run. In 1982, before a shift in assignments, the executive producers of all three evening newscasts were Jews, as were the executive producers of CBS’s 60 Minutes and ABC’s 20/20. And Jews are almost equally prominent at the ‘senior producer’ and ‘broadcast producer’ levels as well as in senior management. When Reuven Frank stepped down as president of NBC News in 1984, for example, he was replaced by Laurence Grossman, who left the presidency of PBS to take the position.”
(Charles Silberman, A Certain People. American Jews and Their Lives Today, Summit Books, 1985, p. 154)

If you buy into “racism” or “anti-semitism” word games, you’re consenting to the Dual Persecution Strategy. In doing so, you’re supporting an uneven playing field designed to dispossess whites and empower Jews and therefore, by extension, empower the Jewish lobby’s agenda. This includes advancing Zionism (Middle East wars), racial engineering (immigration, diversity and multiculturalism) and censorship (political correctness and “hate” speech laws). This agenda is set by an interlocking network of over 300 national Jewish organizations and 4000 foundations with a combined annual budget of $6 billion. (http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-Preface.html ).

INTIMIDATION OF POLITICIANS AND MEDIA

The political process is also affected. James Abourezk, former US Senator from South Dakota, clearly describes how the “anti-semitism” side of the Dual Persecution Strategy keeps the US Congress in line:

“I can tell you from personal experience that, at least in the Congress, the support Israel has in that body is based completely on political fear--fear of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done. I can also tell you that very few members of Congress--at least when I served there--have any affection for Israel or for its Lobby. What they have is contempt, but it is silenced by fear of being found out exactly how they feel. I’ve heard too many cloakroom conversations in which members of the Senate will voice their bitter feelings about how they’re pushed around by the Lobby to think otherwise. In private one hears the dislike of Israel and the tactics of the Lobby, but not one of them is willing to risk the Lobby’s animosity by making their feelings public.”
("Former Senator James Abourezk on Chomsky and the Israel Lobby in the US”, Al-Jazeerah, December 5, 2006.)

James Abourzek also makes clear that the “anti-semitism” side of the Dual Persecution Strategy is what holds those elements of the media not controlled through ownership or staffing in check:

“Secondly, the Lobby is quite clear in its efforts to suppress any congressional dissent from the policy of complete support for Israel which might hurt annual appropriations. Even one voice is attacked, as I was, on grounds that if Congress is completely silent on the issue, the press will have no one to quote, which effectively silences the press as well. Any journalists or editors who step out of line are quickly brought under control by well organized economic pressure against the newspaper caught sinning.”
("Former Senator James Abourezk on Chomsky and the Israel Lobby in the US”, Al-Jazeerah, December 5, 2006.)

If you buy into “racism” or “anti-semitism” word games, you’re consenting to the Dual Persecution Strategy. In doing so, you’re supporting the Jewish lobby’s coordinated intimidation of politicians and media and therefore, by extension, you’re supporting the Jewish lobby’s agenda. This includes advancing Zionism, racial engineering and censorship.

COLLABORATORS AND USEFUL IDIOTS

Collaborators typically get a pay off for selling out. In apartheid South Africa, blacks who were against black group interests and favored white group interests (uncle Toms) were allowed into the black elite. In Judeo-America, whites who are against white group interests and favor minority group interests (collaborators) get to stay in the white elite. White elites who violate this adapted “Code of the Uncle Tom” are chased out by the Dual Persecution Strategy.

Immigration is an issue that illustrates these contrasting white and minority group interests and the anomalous behavior of white elites. Majority opinion has been against immigration, legal or illegal, since polling began. (http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/publicoparchive.html ). Yet, decade after decade, immigration continues. What is blocking the democratic process?

A recent opinion poll shows that while almost 80% of the public is against mass immigration and 60% consider it a critical threat, only 14% of the opinion elite (members of Congress, the administration, leaders of church groups, business executives, union leaders, journalists, academics, and heads of major interest groups) share the public’s concern. (http://www.vdare.com/roberts/immigrationdictatorship.htm ).

Although collaborators are a minority, they are part of the elite. As opinion polls show, they are not powerful enough to convince the majority that racial engineering (immigration, diversity and multiculturalism) is good. But, being part of the elite, they are powerful enough to block the democratic process and force racial engineering on the public against its will.

Although collaborators agree that an African who wants to become a minority in his own country is either an “uncle Tom” or clinically insane, they themselves are not insane and do not consider themselves such. The vast majority collaborates out of fear of the Dual Persecution Strategy or out of career opportunism, not because they actually believe in Zionism, racial engineering or censorship.

In summary, if you buy into “racism” or “anti-semitism” word games, you’re supporting Zionism, racial engineering and censorship. If you’re white and not part of the opinion elite, you’re collaborating for nothing.

A useful idiot is someone who sells out for free.

Public domain. Distribute freely.

Posted by Lurker on December 17, 2006, 07:50 PM | #

Ive been pre-empted! MacDonald is certainly a Scottish name (as is Kevin I believe).

Posted by Andy Wooster on December 17, 2006, 08:34 PM | #

A small error in your article, Steven. Disney owns ABC, not CBS.

Posted by Steven Palese on December 17, 2006, 08:52 PM | #

Andy, “A small error in your article, Steven. Disney owns ABC, not CBS.”

Thanks Andy, great catch. That’s one embarassment I’ll be spared

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 17, 2006, 08:58 PM | #

Again, Steven, that’s a very good piece.

Posted by Bo Sears on December 17, 2006, 10:08 PM | #

A huge flaw is the use of the phrase “Neo-McCarthyite persecution methodology” which relies on the use of US Senator Joseph McCarthy’s name, highly demonized as it is, to label the kinds of persecution carried out by a highly organized minority group against European Americans in their ones and twos, knocking them back as they appear.

Senator McCarthy deserves better from this web site. As one who was alive and listening at the time of his very serious work, the idea of using him as a symbol of what was done to him is astounding. As time goes on, there has been not one reversal of any of the judgments he made (except in the choice of aides).

His enemies have been reduced to attacking him for his manners and speech patterns, and have long since ceased referring to him, except as a physiological or neurological twitch, in the way this site is referring to him. Oh, a Frank Rich or an Alan Dershowitz may toss McCarthy’s name around in this fashion, but it would be appalling to see any site appealing to majority rights by using his name in this fashion.

There is something peculiarly monstrous in using McCarthy’s name as a label for the treatment he received.

Posted by Al Ross on December 17, 2006, 10:17 PM | #

Lurker, Kevin is an Irish name.

With regard to Jewish attitudes towards the goyim, there are many of the Chosen whose animus towards their White hosts, as gauged by their support of anti-national elements, is so obvious as to be almost palpable. The remainder doubtless share that feeling but conceal their dislike with a mask of indifference.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 17, 2006, 10:50 PM | #

Bo has a point; maybe commie/gulag themes and imagery would serve best.

Posted by Al Ross on December 17, 2006, 11:04 PM | #

With the benefit of perfect hindsight we can observe that, in fact, McCarthy, whose disgraceful betrayal was a major Jewish victory, understated the Communist infiltration scenario.

Posted by Bo Sears on December 17, 2006, 11:20 PM | #

The real way an organized minority group scores points is by scanning the horizon for a newly awakened person and beating them up right away. I’ve seen that several times when European American or Caucasian or White high school clubs are started or when local householders discover they pay an unannounced tax on groceries. The first few people to speak up are beaten down. It’s much like the whack-a-mole carnival game to bash the newly awakened.

The white American peoples have nothing remotely approaching the highly organized nature of the opponents of McCarthy. McCarthy, almost alone, took on a huge threat and dealt it some blows from which it has not quite recovered. The organized minority people playing whack-a-mole takes on newly awaked people in their ones and twos and smears them into silence.

So a big difference is this: McCarthy attacked a deeply entrenched organization of traitors. The organized minority of which we speak takes on individuals as they arise and whacks them.

Posted by bats-man on December 18, 2006, 03:56 AM | #

GW,
“No one is remotely convinced?” Do you think I’m trying to convince you of my good faith?. What do you mean by good faith, “Agree with you?” I’m the only one arguing the counter-point (other than the Realist). If I weren’t asking “weak” questions your commentors would just be heaping it on and congratulating each other on how right they are.  I think my questions are reasonable.

Apologist for hate? Huh? Because I’m not a “Kevin-Mac man” like you I’m an apologist for hate?

“It’s by Lawrence Auster.” GASP! Did he really write THAT!

I’ve read that piece and have written to him about the destructive influence of leftist Jews. He was very frank about the “JQ” as you like to call it.

I don’t know why you quote that piece. It just underscores his (and I agree with him, this is where we differ fundamentally GW) belief that modern Jewish leftism is a DEFECTIVE and IRRATIONAL reaction, not an ancient sociobiological strategy.

Someone here described Kevin Mac’s thesis as Jews as a collective “organism.” This makes them sound like an insect hive. “Please pass the RAID.” Or like the Borg from Star Trek. Someone also said that this organism “plants secret sayanim” of course, unconciously.

Obviously this isn’t what Auster’s saying in that essay GW quotes.

I don’t like the “genes made ‘em do it” at the individual level. I think it’s really problematic when applied to complex cultures with complex histories.

Posted by Steven Palese on December 18, 2006, 04:44 AM | #

Bo,

You raise a very good point. Rest assured that I know exactly who Sen. McCarthy was, what was done to him and by who. However, I disagree that using his name as a weapon to attack his slanderers and their institutional descendants constitutes disparagment of his memory or misuse of his name. Let me explain:

First, in the interest of full disclosure, I admit to having two practical reasons for using the term.

1. As a practical matter, I need to tie the word “persecution” to non-violent, non-state action. If you ask PC stalinoids whether getting people fired amounts to “persecution”, they will deny deny deny deny. Ask them whether getting people fired is neo-McCarthyite persecution and there’s no debate. Like it or not, the concept and method of non-violent, non-state persecution has entered the english language under the term McCarthyism.

2. Again, as a practical matter, I need solid documentation implicating Jewish organizations to this methodology of persecution. I also need solid documentation to explain its mechanics in detail. The Walt-Mearsheimer report was a godsend in this respect - there’s nothing else even close. As it happens, the term the report uses is “neo-McCarthyite persecution”. In fact, that’s where I first encountered it. 

Second, having disclosed my practical reasons, let me explain why I disagree that using his name to attack his slanderers represents further defamation against his memory or misuse of his name.

The real story behind the Sen. McCarthy saga was that he - and anti-Communists in general - were the ones who got selectively persecuted by McCarthyism. In other words, we’ve been led to believe the exact opposite of what actually happened. The Communist non-Arab Semites projected their worst paranoias onto him because they expected him to do to them what they themselves did to others. From the grip of paranoid delusion they exposed their methods to public view, quantified them and labelled them. They then proceeded to teach the entire world that this behavior of theirs is absolutely despicable. Truly, as Napoleon said, “one should never interrupt an enemy in the process of making a mistake.” So in being defeated in his pursuit of Communist cells and in failing to interrupt their lectures on non-Arab Semitic persecution methodology, Sen. McCarthy may actually have won something else. Though it’s up to us to cash it in for him.

But there is a second, far bigger story that followed the McCarthy saga. After McCarthy was taken out, the persecution networks developed and grew. What followed was far far worse than what happened to him: the rise of the neo-religion of political correctness and the mass neo-McCarthyite persecutions of hundreds of thousands of heretical journalists, editors, academics, teachers, preachers, union leaders, cops, politicians, bureaucrats etc. So far, their abuse has been almost invisible. Even hardcore anti-PC sites do not refer to them as victims of “persecution”, at most they’re seen as victims of “anti-racism hysteria” or “political correctness gone mad”. But now things have changed, now their abuse has a recognized name with impeccable academic origins.

The big change was the Walt-Mearsheimer report. In a flash of genius the authors detached the word from its anti-Communist cachet and made it generic by adding the prefix “neo-”. Thus, in trying to describe the Israel Lobby’s behavior, they accidentally connected the word to its real non-Arab Semitic origin. Pure genius, if accidental. Their impressive academic authority is now inadvertently backing a word that describes in the strongest terms the abuse the hundreds of thousands of people have suffered under political correctness - this is something new. Further, the report, besides describing the technique in detail, anchors the word to non-Arab Semitic organizations - this is new too. 

The fact is, when they projected their paranoias onto McCarthy they made a big mistake. They dropped the protocols on the floor again and gave us another formidable weapon: The word that quantifies and describes their behavior. Sure, it took its time gestating, but that just means the dolts pre-marketed for us. And into a world-wide brand name, no less. Yesterday, when Prof. Lynn was being persecuted out of Leeds University, our grievance was Free Speech! Free Academic Inqury! Today, we have the word to finally state our REAL grievance: No More Neo-McCarthyite Persecutions! There’s simply no comparison between yesterday and today. Our ability to articulate our grievances has multiplied.

It is therefore not counter-intuitive to use Sen. McCarthy’s name to rehabilitate him (as well as the silent hundreds of thousands victimized by the neo-religion of political correctness). Not when you recognize the awesome power his slanderers have recklessly poured into it. In fact, insofar as his ongoing slander is directly related to his slanderers remaining in power, his name simply cannot be cleared without serious political changes - which, as it happens, is what the name-weapon he left us with is for. If we use it, and if we succeed, the old battle axe will achieve victory posthumously. The last word will be his, not his slanderers.

In summary, I am using Sen. McCarthy’s name in a bona fide manner and not for narrow pro-white propagandistic purposes. In fact, I personally believe we honor him by printing his name on the sledgehammer we hit his slanderers with. Every time I write his name down I know it makes the slanderers wince and regret their ever touching him.

You said you knew Sen. McCarthy. Do you know any of his relatives? If you do, let me make clear that if they feel there is anything improper in my approach, I’m willing to call them to discuss it. If they remain unconvinced notwithstanding the points raised above, I will certainly stop using it. However, I doubt the relatives who care about his name would oppose this. Surely they realize that if the term “neo-McCarthyite persecution” becomes widespread, it’s game over for the slanderers and his name would clear automatically from there. The term itself may change to mean he was one of the first American martyrs of the technique, not the perpetrator. It’s not a big leap. In my mind, it already has that meaning.

Posted by Steven Palese on December 18, 2006, 05:22 AM | #

Bo, “So a big difference is this: McCarthy attacked a deeply entrenched organization of traitors. The organized minority of which we speak takes on individuals as they arise and whacks them.”

You hit the nail on the head. The real story is an almost complete inversion of the one we’ve been fed, i.e. that a giant government appartus was descending on a few tiny isolated helpless innocent commies. In actual fact, the media and Congress screamed their lungs raw trying to discredit him and his isolated committee - and they succeeded. So well that not a single person actually lost their jobs as consequence of his investigations. Not one.

“It’s much like the whack-a-mole carnival game to bash the newly awakened.”

Your “whack-a-mole carnival game” illustration is a very vivid way of getting the point across, I’ll use it. I keep telling pro-whites that when non-Arab Semites insist that the real interpretation for tob shebbe goyim harog is “suppress the leadership” and NOT the literal “kill the best gentiles”, they are being honest!! They really are. In trying to shed the “kill” accusation, they are revealing a fundamental aspect of their strategy.

Anyway, this is an important point - I completely missed it. It’s part of the neo-McCarthyite persecution strategy yet not described in the Walt-Mearsheimer report. I will have to remember to plug this hole manually when describing the technique.

Posted by Rnl on December 18, 2006, 06:33 AM | #

Read the whole piece. It’s by Lawrence Auster.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13894

The article makes a revealing appeal to Jews.

Most Jews and all major Jewish organizations favor flooding America with non-Whites. Auster knows he cannot persuade Jews to abandon their support for Third World immigration by arguing that it injures the White majority and fragments the American nation. From a Jewish perspective those are the _good_ effects of open-borders immigration. Most of his intended audience want those good effects to continue. He has to tell them something bad.

Since there is no point attempting to persuade American Jews that they should feel loyalty to the Euro-American nation, even though it has treated them well, in his appeal to Jews Auster focuses on the dangers they face from one special category of immigrant. Muslim anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism threaten Jews and endanger American support for Israel. If Jews want to prevent the arrival of more Muslim anti-Semites, they will have to give up on their old program of racial balkanization and White dispossession. Auster knows the choice will be painful. To protect themselves they will have to abandon a cherished strategy that injures us. They will also have to convince themselves that Muslims are more dangerous to them than we are, which is evidently far from obvious among many Jews.

Importing Muslims is a really bad idea. Importing Nigerians and Mexicans are really bad ideas too. But only the first of these really bad ideas is capable of disturbing most of our Jewish fellow citizens.

***

Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?
http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no1/jf-steinlight.html

Stephen Steinlight - Prophet Without Honor?
http://www.vdare.com/misc/white_without_honor.htm

Says Stephen Steinlight: “Not all identity politics are created equal.”

No doubt that’s what most Jews secretly believe, but it’s good to see the premise out in the open. It justifies racially self-interested agitation by Jews in the cause of “good” identity politics - principally their own, of course - as well as perennial Jewish campaigns against “bad” identity politics, expressed in such “racist” relics as cohesive nation-states, common cultures, secure borders, etc.

So without too much exaggeration you could say that Steinlight has summarized the Jewish Problem in a mere seven words.

Posted by Rnl on December 18, 2006, 06:36 AM | #

bats-man wrote:

Someone here described Kevin Mac’s thesis as Jews as a collective “organism.” This makes them sound like an insect hive.

I think you’re right. “Organism” is best treated as a descriptive metaphor, and not a very good metaphor. We are, as you say, dealing with a culture and its history.

This culture’s history, however, favors our side of the argument, not yours.

Posted by bats-man on December 18, 2006, 01:09 PM | #

Mr. Igorevich and Mr. Palese both seem to indicate that the “ALL JEWS” thing is something that I’ve seen in a few places here and by commentors not authors, etc. I’m not going to use my $9.95 dial-up to sift through mountains of threads (you guys can google just as well as I can). Rest assured that regular (not fly-by) contributors to this site make ALL encompassing statements about Jews (manifested in various forms such as ALL jews want race-replacement of whites or jews COMPLETELY control the government or media, or Judaism as a unconcious anti white “strategy” i.e. the “organisms” with “secret plants” that can’t help it - which I think is a form of the ALL mentality). I think they should be corrected or admonished by the authors such as Mr. Igorevich (who, after all, spends time and effort slaying neo-Nazis over at Stormfront). Yes, I do think it is incumbent upon the author (especially at a “free speech” site arguing a difficult topic) to make reasonable corrections or counter-arguments to extreme statements.

You won’t like this but the continuing existance of people who literally think Hitler had good ideas that need to be re-instated (namely hunting down and exterminating Jews both inside and outside the Lebenstraum) means that the “JQ” has to be argued reasonably carefully. This doesn’t mean Jews get a “get out of jail free” card or should be allowed to play the Holocaust card while ignoring what the Communists did or that witch hunts should be tolerated. But you should give your site a safe seperation distance from hard-core anti-semites by avoiding the ALL mentality (in its various forms).

Posted by bats-man on December 18, 2006, 01:17 PM | #

“This culture’s history, however, favors our side of the argument, not yours.”
Depends upon what your argument is. If it’s the socio-biological strategy theory with its “the Jews can’t help it” implications then I don’t agree.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on December 18, 2006, 02:57 PM | #

I’m not going to use my $9.95 dial-up to sift through mountains of threads (you guys can google just as well as I can). Rest assured that regular (not fly-by) contributors to this site make ALL encompassing statements about Jews

No, I’m not going to ‘rest assured’ on your unsubstantiated say-so. Do the research and furnish the proof, or stop smearing.

Posted by ben tillman on December 18, 2006, 04:01 PM | #

Rest assured that regular (not fly-by) contributors to this site make ALL encompassing statements about Jews (manifested in various forms such as ALL jews want race-replacement of whites or jews COMPLETELY control the government or media, or Judaism as a unconcious anti white “strategy” i.e. the “organisms” with “secret plants” that can’t help it - which I think is a form of the ALL mentality).

I’m not sure you read as precisely as you should:

All Jews are members of an organization (the Jewish community) that implements policies that, if unchecked, will result in the genocide of whites.  Some Jews are unaware of, or even disagree with, these policies.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 18, 2006, 09:21 PM | #

All Jews are members of an organization (the Jewish community) that implements policies that, if unchecked, will result in the genocide of whites.  Some Jews are unaware of, or even disagree with, these policies.

This is essentially correct, rule-proving exceptions aside.  (relevant digression: it is accurate to say blacks are not as smart as whites, and not really necessary - to reasonable folks - to constantly reference the obvious caveats about means and bell curves, but when the subject is non-Arab Semites it seems reason is in short supply).

I’ll dredge up Hartung for the nteenth time:
http://members.aol.com/toexist/Shiksa11.html

In-groups sandwich an outline for animosity, an organizing principle for prejudice, between layers of social support. Whether Christian or Muslim or Jewish, every extremist is supported by a small number of less extreme admirers and each of those supporters is buoyed, in turn, by a larger group of sympathizers. These connections are continuous right down to the bottom of the pyramid, where vaguely symapthetic in-group members are offended by the very extremists who would have no base, and no basis, without them.

It is that vague sympathy which needs to be examined.

Posted by Steven Palese on December 18, 2006, 10:08 PM | #

Exactly.

It is the Abe Foxmans (pyramid top) that subject whites who express or defend their group interests to neo-McCarthyite persecution:

“Regan’s fate was sealed when the Washington Post published his observation, from an interview at the conference, that “you can see European Christian Americans are an endangered species.” Though there was nothing explicitly “anti-Semitic” in Regan’s comment, the Anti-Defamation League, America’s most feared and effective thought police, promptly attacked his reputation and his livelihood. In a letter to Regan’s superior, the ADL’s regional director for New York decreed: “Those kinds of comments are absolutely inappropriate for a public official to make,” and Regan was promptly out of a job.”
(http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol6no1/61-EditorsNote.pdf )

Should you react, it is the Lawrence Austers (pyramid base) who then leap to their defense.

It’s that simple really. Israel Shamir compares it to a B2 Stealth Bomber. You see the attack, but when you turn your AA flak guns to counter-attack.. you can’t! Lawrence Auster has switched the radar off because he says that seeing the bomber is anti-semitic! He then marches us out to listen to him explain that although bombs are falling all around us, it is anti-semitic to suggest that there are bombers in the sky.

There is only one question to determine the bona fides of Lawrence Austers and pro-semitic bigots in general:

Do you approve or disapprove of Jewish organizations subjecting whites to neo-McCarthyite persecution for expressing their group interests?

That’s it.

Posted by Rnl on December 18, 2006, 11:12 PM | #

bats-man wrote:

But you should give your site a safe seperation distance from hard-core anti-semites by avoiding the ALL mentality (in its various forms).

Muslims are hostile to Western civilization. They belong to an alien culture. Importing Muslims increases the risk of domestic Muslim terrorism. Therefore immigration from Islamic countries should be ended.

Do you have any objection to the preceding sentences? I suspect not. We understand, surely, that not all Muslims are hostile to Western civilization. Some Muslims have made valuable contributions to Western nations, and we acknowledge that most Muslims are not terrorists.

Those qualifications are implicit in the statements; they are understood by everyone who recognizes, as you pointed out earlier, that _all_ is a strong word. The qualifications are understood by even the strongest opponents of Islam. Perhaps there are some exceptions. There may be a dozen or so anti-Muslims somewhere who believe that every single Muslim hates Western civilization. But we are not addressing them.

Since I am hostile to Islam and opposed to Muslim immigration, I’m not likely to spend much effort documenting Muslim contributions to the West. That’s the job of my local CAIR spokesman. His job is to minimize Islam’s bad qualities and emphasize its good qualities. Our job, if we are concerned about the survival of the West, is the opposite, because we know that Muslim immigration is a terrible disaster.

There is nothing wrong with SF and AmRen running regular news-reports detailing Black criminality. No one - i.e. almost no one - draws the conclusion that all Blacks are criminals.

There is similarly nothing wrong with negative generalizations about Jews, as long as they are accurate. As a group Jews have defined themselves in opposition to us. They have positioned themselves as our opponents; they (i.e. a very large number of them) have done so in the near total absence of provocation on our part. The United States is, as Auster rightly wrote, the most philo-Semitic nation in world history. Our reward for our philo-Semitism has been much Jewish aggression. We are entitled to respond to that unprovoked aggression and to draw our own conclusions from our own perspective.

Posted by Steven Palese on December 18, 2006, 11:36 PM | #

“Mr. Igorevich and Mr. Palese both seem to indicate that the “ALL JEWS” thing is something that I’ve seen in a few places here and by commentors not authors, etc. ... Rest assured that regular (not fly-by) contributors to this site make ALL encompassing statements about Jews (manifested in various forms such as ALL jews want race-replacement of whites or jews COMPLETELY control the government or media,”

I agree that it is inaccurate to say that “jews COMPLETELY control the government or media”.

Government: US Congress - House of Representatives

As we saw with the Lebanon resolution, where the US House of Representatives voted 410-8 to support Israel, there are eight dissidents in the House. I can’t understand how anyone can honestly say that the Jewish Lobby “COMPLETELY controls” the House when 2% of its members are clearly not controlled. It’s ludicrous. At best you could say the Jewish Lobbies control 98% of the House. However, that’s far from COMPLETE control.

Government: US Congress - Senate

Jeffrey Goldberg of the New Yorker explains the absence of COMPLETE control in the US Senate:

“aipac’s leaders can be immoderately frank about the group’s influence. At dinner that night with Steven Rosen, I mentioned a controversy that had enveloped aipac in 1992. David Steiner, a New Jersey real-estate developer who was then serving as aipac’s president, was caught on tape boasting that he had “cut a deal” with the Administration of George H. W. Bush to provide more aid to Israel. Steiner also said that he was “negotiating” with the incoming Clinton Administration over the appointment of a pro-Israel Secretary of State. “We have a dozen people in his”—Clinton’s—“headquarters . . . and they are all going to get big jobs,” Steiner said. Soon after the tape’s existence was disclosed, Steiner resigned his post. I asked Rosen if aipac suffered a loss of influence after the Steiner affair. A half smile appeared on his face, and he pushed a napkin across the table. “You see this napkin?” he said. “In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.”
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050704fa_fact

So AIPAC can get 70 Senators to sign onto a blank check in 24 hours? Ok but what about the remaining 30 Senators? They clearly aren’t controlled so saying the Senate is under COMPLETE control is also ludicrous.

Government: US Presidency

The Nixon-Graham tapes reveal a hidden power capable of intimidating sitting presidents into behaving like frightened children:

[U.S. President Richard] Nixon cites Paul Keyes, a political conservative who is executive producer of the NBC hit, “Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In,” as telling him that “11 of the 12 writers are Jews.” “That right?” says Billy Graham, America’s best known preacher of the time, prompting Nixon to claim that Life magazine, Newsweek, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and others, are “totally dominated by Jews.” Nixon says network TV anchors Howard K. Smith, David Brinkley and Walter Cronkite “front men who may not be of that persuasion,” but that their writers are “95 percent Jews.”

“This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain,” the nation’s best-known preacher declares “You believe that?” Nixon says. “Yes, sir,” Graham says. “Oh, boy,” replies Nixon. “So do I. I can’t ever say that but I believe it.” Nixon-Graham tapes - 1972. (http://www.counterpunch.org/alexgraham.htm ).

Again, the fact that Nixon could find the time to complain says it all: it’s not 100% control. Someone controlled 100% doesn’t complain. As usual, no COMPLETE control.

Media:

“Four of the largest five entertainment giants are now run or owned by Jews. Murdoch’s News Corp (at number four) is the only gentile holdout—however Rupert is as pro-Israel as any Jew, probably more so.”
(Los Angeles Jewish Times, ‘Yes, Virginia, Jews Do Control the Media,’ Oct. 29-Nov. 11, 1999 p. 14)

Again, no COMPLETE control here either. It has been scientifically established that 4/5 is not 100%. Don’t blame me, blame mathematicians.

So yes, as you can see the facts clearly demonstrate that there is no COMPLETE control of either government or media. I agree with that.

It’s the need to censor those who make these mistakes that I don’t understand. Can’t you just copy/paste a few quotes like I just did and show them that they’re wrong? In doing so you’d teach them to say “control 98% of the House” or “control 70 Senators” etc. instead of making wild generalizations. The problem would then auto-correct itself.

All it takes is a small effort by commenters like you.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 19, 2006, 12:38 AM | #

Lol, funny stuff (and true) Steven.

I have a question for Auster & co., one I doubt will get a straight answer.

Do we (EuroChristians, whites, whatever) have the right to form societies that exclude non-Arab Semites (inter alia)?

One ubiquitous assumption I perceive to be underpinning Auster & co.’s comments is that we do not.* Is that perception accurate?

* (and I see huge hostility toward any expressed desire to do so)

Posted by bats-man on December 19, 2006, 01:37 PM | #

“Do we have the right to form societies that exclude non-Arab Semites?”

It’s kind of a theoetical question since we don’t just form societies as casually as we do clubs. Societies involve territory and demographics. The theoretical answer is yes, we have a right to form societies composed of “us” and to define “us” as restrictively as we please.

In practice, were not forming societies from the ground up right now but working with what we have. If it can be established beyond doubt that we cannot live together without destructive Jewish leftism, then my answer to your question “yes.” However, I’m not convinced that we cannot live together with Jews as a visible minority in our midst. Jews represent a small group demographically. A self confident white majority needs to b__ch slap (figuratively speaking) the Abe Foxmans back into reality (I say that as a person who sees dishonest Abe’s actions as the rantings of a nutcase and not as a warrior for a sociobiologically driven organism).

I believe Jews can exist AS Jews and as members of Western Civilization without being destructive, and indeed, as disproportionately constructive members of our societies. WE need to act like it’s OUR countries and remind them of our generosity in letting THEM join.

We also have a right to form a society without blacks, latinos, muslims, etc. particuarly if they want to whine constantly and behave aggressively toward us despite our generosity to them (American blacks are lucky their ancestors were enslaved, they’d be living in mud huts and brushing flys off their eyelids like in the Sally Struthers commericals if Kunta Kinte hadn’t been kidnapped).

But we can’t just form socieities the way we form clubs. How can we exclude these people who are already among us without ethnic cleansing? Move to Montana and secede?

My answer to your (theoretical) question is yes. We have a right to live with who we want to live with. I don’t know how we form such a society, though.  Also, our relationship to jews is different. They aren’t threatening to swamp us demographically. There’s no reason why we couldn’t assert ourselves no matter how many tv stations and newspapers they own.

Posted by bats-man on December 19, 2006, 01:57 PM | #

Also, I’m confused about your email to Auster. You wrote: “I see we’re all talking about one another!” but its not clear to me he was talking about you or your one post I saw on IW. It seems like you might have presumptuously injected yourself into a debate that wasn’t about you.  It’s not clear to me that you approached Auster in good faith.
(I may be missing something. If so, please correct).

My impression is AmRen was more on his mind. In particular, he was bothered by the fact that Taylor let in a bunch of folks who clapped and cheered when a speaker said Israel would not exist in 100 years. Those people don’t just want jews out of their societies.

Posted by bats-man on December 19, 2006, 02:41 PM | #

Mr. Palese,

Given that 1. Israel was warring with a Muslim terrorist organization (regardless of how you feel about the rightness of Israel) and 2. the degree of conciousness of Muslim terrorism in the minds of the American public, its hard to calculate the extent to which the Israeli lobby influenced congress (specifically, how many voted for moral reasons vs how many voted because of Jewish intimidation or control of congress). It’s hard for me to imagine very many Congressman not supporting Israel over Hezbollah.

But, lets assume that you’re right. “Supporting Israel” is only one small part of Congress’ actions. By saying things like Jews control all or 90%, or whatever, of Congress or the White House, you leave the impression that Jews exert their total or NEAR-TOTAL influence over everything not just issues involving Israel.

In fact, its often the implications of people’s arguments that are too strong for my stomach. To show “good faith” to Mr. O’Halloran, I did a google on “anti-semitism” and “all jews.” Here’s a nice example of the ALL JEWS mentality:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/not_all_majority_rights_advocates_are_antisemites/

“ALL JEWS” comments are followed by a listing of a few promient white-interested Jews but one is still left with the impression that the average “Saul, Herschel, and Shlomo” on the street lusts for the destruction of the white race.

I’m not denying the destructiveness of the Jewish left (or for that matter the jewish neocons, although I have been left with the impression that there are also post-vatican 2 Catholics among the founding neocons). I’m not arguing that nothing needs to be done. I’m merely arguing that a difficult topic needs to be approached reasonably carefully.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 19, 2006, 08:13 PM | #

“Do we have the right to form societies that exclude non-Arab Semites?”

It’s kind of a theoetical question since we don’t just form societies as casually as we do clubs. Societies involve territory and demographics. The theoretical answer is yes, we have a right to form societies composed of “us” and to define “us” as restrictively as we please.

In practice, were not forming societies from the ground up right now but working with what we have. If it can be established beyond doubt that we cannot live together without destructive Jewish leftism, then my answer to your question “yes.” However, I’m not convinced that we cannot live together with Jews as a visible minority in our midst. Jews represent a small group demographically. A self confident white majority needs to b__ch slap (figuratively speaking) the Abe Foxmans back into reality (I say that as a person who sees dishonest Abe’s actions as the rantings of a nutcase and not as a warrior for a sociobiologically driven organism).

The question does not require two paragraphs of hemming and hawing and qualifications to answer.  It requires a yes or a no.  I take your answer as no, because you qualify it with nonsense about justification, but later you seem to give an unqualified yes; maybe you could clarify?

But we can’t just form socieities the way we form clubs. How can we exclude these people who are already among us without ethnic cleansing? Move to Montana and secede?

Eminent Domain.  More to the point, the right to form organizations and the right to form societies and the right to form states all flow from the same general right, the collective right to free association.  The arguments for defending the creation and maintenance of exclusive organizations, societies, and states are essentially the same.  Non-Arab Semites will squeal when they’re excluded from any of these.

My answer to your (theoretical) question is yes. We have a right to live with who we want to live with. I don’t know how we form such a society, though.  Also, our relationship to jews is different. They aren’t threatening to swamp us demographically. There’s no reason why we couldn’t assert ourselves no matter how many tv stations and newspapers they own.

I just wanted to see your reaction. 

Also, I’m confused about your email to Auster. You wrote: “I see we’re all talking about one another!” but its not clear to me he was talking about you or your one post I saw on IW. It seems like you might have presumptuously injected yourself into a debate that wasn’t about you.  It’s not clear to me that you approached Auster in good faith.
(I may be missing something. If so, please correct).

IIRC, I was referring to the fact that Realist was talking about “anti-Semites,” and we were talking about Realist and Auster, and I went to Auster’s site for his email and saw he was talking about “anti-Semites"…

I hope this clarifies my good faith vis-a-vis this triviality.

My impression is AmRen was more on his mind. In particular, he was bothered by the fact that Taylor let in a bunch of folks who clapped and cheered when a speaker said Israel would not exist in 100 years. Those people don’t just want jews out of their societies.

I don’t even necessarily want that.  Yes, I believe that Europeans will ultimately be best served in states for themselves (I wish I could say the same for NAS, but I think at this point they’ve more-or-less permanently adapted to needing an “other” around to maintain their cohesion), not non-Arab Semites, but for that to happen will require a change in consciousness among Euros that will mostly obviate this need.  A frank assessment of non-Arab Semitry will have to enter the mass consciousness, and if that happens non-Arab Semitic power within that consciousness will be destroyed.  Their reputation will be irrevocably mauled, and they’ll become personas non gratas.  Their entire power base is built on deception (as per Mossad’s motto), and without its foundation of mass ignorance it will collapse.

You mention ethnic cleansing.  There are many ways to skin a cat.  All that’s really required is the will to get the job done, and it can easily be done without unseemly violence or force.  All that is needed is a bit of touch on the equilibrium - make a pasture greener, and the cows will graze there.  Tax laws, for example, would probably suffice for successful minorities; welfare laws might do for the unsuccessful ones.  This is a big part of why I’m not only in favor of ethnostates, but also the continued existence of multiracial ones; I want someplace around to attract all these people (not to mention control groups so we can see who can get more done).

Posted by bats-brute on December 19, 2006, 08:48 PM | #

bats-man, haven’t you considered the possibility that at least part of the anti-Israel sentiment at the AR meeting was triggered by the sort of hypocrisy that Gottfried, himself Jewish and a supporter of Israel discusses here:

http://www.vdare.com/gottfried/zionists.htm

And this goes beyond just Israel, I remember a TOQ article on Steinlight, the Jewish professor who is questioning immigration because of its threat to American Jewry, and his attitude that Jews have the right to engage in identity politics, but not white gentiles.

So, the rage over the hypocrisy and the dual morality finds an outlet in Israel, something Jews care passionately about. 

Contrary to what The Realist and Lawrence Auster may think, it is not “insanity” or “genocidal hate.” It may not even be emotionally irrational, if white nationalists use Israel as a bargaining chip to attempt a change in Jewish behavior to the west (I talk hypothetically, since WNs have zero leverage to influence Jewish behavior in a generalized sense).

If you want to look carefully at issues, the consider the reasons why Israel is hated by many AR attendees.

Further, you need to take a close look at the “mickey o’brute” post in the “View from the couch” thread, which was partially addressed to you (and Realist and Auster).

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 19, 2006, 09:29 PM | #

Yes, I criticize Israel, but far from wanting her destroyed, I want her continued existence and health.

Auster can rant about how I want Israel destroyed, and non-Arab Semites killed, all he wants.  All he does is embarrass himself.  The truth is I support Israel because:

1) her destruction would be a blow to WNism in three obvious senses:
a) we’d lose the sole extant proof that ethnostates are doable
b) so-called “anti-racists” would have an answer to my “why does Israel get a pass?” question.
c) it would mean more non-Arab Semites in the west.
2) this support can be predicated on reciprocity; as brute notes we have no leverage, but in the meantime it’s one hell of a rhetorical weapon (it’s hardly possible to overemphasize this point, how Israel makes a bald-faced lie out of the entire western zeitgeist, and bald-faced liars out of non-Arab Semitry).
3) it gives non-Arab Semites a place to go besides amongst us.

If anything, I love Israel, gangster-state warts and all.

Posted by Steven Palese on December 20, 2006, 01:50 AM | #

bats-man,

“I believe Jews can exist AS Jews and as members of Western Civilization without being destructive, and indeed, as disproportionately constructive members of our societies. WE need to act like it’s OUR countries and remind them of our generosity in letting THEM join.”

Their numbers are so small that if we break down their tri-millenial cultural barrier to assimilation, we destroy them as an autonomous civilization (including the Israeli ones as they cannot survive without diaspora support). We would wipe them out in two, maybe three generations of interbreeding.

However, if you think you can break their barrier adorno-style, I have news for you - it’s way harder than you think. Here is a glimpse of what this cultural barrier reef is and how it forms:

TAL had a segment where listeners could call and leave messages about their camp experience as children. One woman called and told her story about attending a left-wing Zionist camp in Wisconsin. One night in the dining hall a rock came through the window and landed in her soup. A note tied to the rock said “no Jews in Wisconsin!” The counselors and campers started blackening their faces and posting sentries around the camp. One night they were in the hall when suddenly a cross was set ablaze on the campground. Men dressed in white hoods came out of the woods and made the campers come outside. They told the campers they shouldn’t try to contact the authorities because they were the authorities in this neck of the woods. Again they said they didn’t want Jews in Wisconsin and when one of the counselors spoke up and said, “I’m an American, you can’t treat me this way,” he was taken away by one of the hooded men. Over and over the counselors spoke up and each on was taken away. The woman telling the story said she was afraid to stay behind so she said, “I’m an American…” and she was taken by the arm and walked down to the lake. On the way the hooded person called her by her name and said, “Why can’t you keep your mouth shut…” It was a counselor/adult involved with the camp. They were trying to teach the kids a “lesson.” http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/ethno.htm

Now just imagine what white society would be like if we sent our kids to summer camps where they are subjected to controlled trauma in order to induce artificial paranoia of black gangbangers. What would that generation grow up into and how would they relate to blacks? But wait! Before you envision burning crosses on every street corner, let’s suppose these whites were a 2% minority in a black country. What would they be like and how would they relate to blacks in this second scenario? That’s the question. Answer it and you’ll understand non-Arab Semitic culture.

I’ll add Israel Shamir’s thoughts on the subject:

In 1991, when Iraqi Scuds landed in Israel, and the gas warfare alarm sounded, a dozen Israelis suffocated in their gas masks and died. There was no poisonous gas outside, just the fresh and fragrant air of the Judean hills, but they would not breathe it. They thought they would die the moment they took their masks off. Instead, they suffocated in their masks. This is the paradigm of modern Jewish existence in the shadow of fear.

[...]

Yossi Klein Halevi, an Israeli-American journalist, wrote about his childhood: “We lived on the border of Borough Park. Beyond our Brooklyn enclave,.. were Italians, Puerto Ricans, and Scandinavians. They evoked no curiosity in us, only fear. We saw them all as members of the same ethnic group: Jew-haters. Goyim we called them, a Hebrew word that literally means ‘the nations’ but that we understood to mean the enemy. We lived in a sealed Jewish world.... had it been possible, we would have surrounded Borough park with a moat..... Borough Park’s interests were limited to its own borders, and leapt over the Christian neighborhoods to embrace other Jewish enclaves - as if the only civilized parts of the world were Jewish, the rest being inhabited by rabid creatures capable at any moment of unprovoked violence. ‘The world’ existed only insofar as it affected Jews. The Jews and ‘the world’ could never coexist; at best we would endure each other from a distance. Some of our religious laws seemed meant not to bring us closer to God but to separate us from the goyim, and I accepted that estrangement as self-evident».

Keep in mind, he was writing of modern New York with its large Jewish population, not of some medieval town. It is not strange that Halevi, brainwashed in his youth, became an activist of the goy-hating Nazi group, Meyer Kahane’s Jewish Defence League. He moved on, but even now, this correspondent for the New Republic in Israel supports settlers, who behave “as if the only civilized parts of Palestine were Jewish, the rest being inhabited by rabid creatures capable at any moment of unprovoked violence”. A few generations ago, all the Jews lived in such enclaves, subservient to the Jewish elite of wealth and learning. The rule of the elite was based on patronage and on our fathers’ fear of anti-Semitism. The Jewish aristocracy has adapted to new conditions and continues to reinforce this fear in order to control us.

The ‘mutual support’ of the Jewish community is immoral. If an Irishman or an Italian steals, he goes to jail, and his parish priest might send him a Christmas pie. If an influential Jew steals, be it Vladimir Gusinsky or Mark Rich, the Jewish community demands his impunity. If the Jewish state commits war crimes, the Jewish community supports it without reservations. This is abnormal behaviour for an ethnic community, a shameful remnant of our habit of dealing with the outside world as if we were members of a medieval guild. http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Third_Dove.htm

Ok now that you can see their cultural underpinnings more clearly, I hope your assessment of them as “members of Western Civilization without being destructive” flexes to accomodate the new information.

As to the second issue, in order to “remind them” that we’re the hosts and they’re the guests, we need to first and foremost get them to dissolve their neo-McCarthyite persecution networks (which I’ve already covered in previous posts on this thread), or at least promise not to use them ever again against whites who express or defend white group interests even when these conflict with theirs. In other words, fair play & competition on equal terms from now on.

Now, honestly, you really think they’ll consent to the drop in power, status, money and privilege that would come from having to compete on an even playing field? How? Not spontaneously that’s for sure; no group in history has ever done so without a fight. So if you’re serious, you’re advocating a fight. In this case, how far are you from our position?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 20, 2006, 01:53 AM | #

Bats-man, was it posts of mine you were questioning in referring here to the other comments thread for which you give the URL?  If so my reply to you is yes, we’re justified in speaking loosely of “all” of a particular ethnicity if from everything we see around us something like 99.99999999999999999999999 percent of them consistently support a policy and 0.000000000000000000000001 percent don’t.  Those are roughly the proportions for the case in question — give or take a few dodecadrillionths of a dodecadrillionth of a percent either way, I admit ...  Do you have any questions for me?

Posted by Steven Palese on December 20, 2006, 02:10 AM | #

bats-man,

“My answer to your (theoretical) question is yes. We have a right to live with who we want to live with. I don’t know how we form such a society, though.”

How do we form such a society? What a silly question! The answer is obvious - we look to Africa for guidance and inspiration! What else?

Specifically, we look at market-based repatriation schemes for whites. Whites, after all weren’t wanted by the majority of the black population, so why are they there and how can blacks get rid of them? Kind of the same question we’re asking isn’t it?

Rhodesia, as Viewed From Kenya
Dec. 10, 1976 Wall Street Journal P14 C4

“The settler whites who took Kenyan citizenship are aware that their numbers are aging, and dwindling. “There are opportunities for older men here,” says Mr. Tayleur, who has become office manager for the area’s biggest law firm, “but this is no place for a young white African male.”

A prime reason for that is Kenyanization, the pressure to turn over jobs held by whites to trained Africans. The older men, who have specialties, find niches to fill. Not so for many just out of college. Mr. Tayleur notes another social fact: There seem to be few “lower class” whites living here; all the jobs they might take are held by blacks.

Kenyanization’s Goals

The government’s Kenyanization Bureau scrutinizes each white-held job yearly, and requires the employer to justify keeping it in white hands rather than turning it over to a black understudy. Also, the yearly fee for most “expatriate” work permits has been raised to about $1,000 a year from the previous $50, says Mr. Wood. ”

Our subordinate relationship to the dominant group
“Also, our relationship to jews is different. They aren’t threatening to swamp us demographically. There’s no reason why we couldn’t assert ourselves no matter how many tv stations and newspapers they own.”

There is a reason we cannot assert ourselves: Their neo-McCarthyite persecution networks. These are aimed at the elites. If a member of the elite asserts himself/herself it’s bye bye job & influence. They can then assert themselves all they like. Too bad nobody gives a damn what Joe the gas station attendant thinks. It’s only the elites that count and they’re all scared shitless.

That’s why white elites have a 100% coherent position regarding whites asserting white group interests - no sir, 100% of us are 100% against sir! Kind of like asking intellectuals under communism whether they agreed with capitalism - no sir, 100% of us are 100% against sir! And exactly like asking black uncle Toms (coconuts) in apartheid SA what they thought of blacks asserting black group interests - no sir, 100% of us are 100% against sir! See the pattern? 100% indicates coercion, not choice.

The social norms of supremacism & the linguistic whips that enforce them
Another point. In order to remain stable, racial supremacist systems demonize rebellious members of the subordinate group. In the above contrast, the whites who assert white group interests are commonly called racists, which means “stay in your place white boy” whereas blacks who assert black group interests were commonly called niggers, which meant “stay in your place black boy”. You really think we can develop a supremacist relationship with non-Arab Semites wherein we call them kikes all day but their mere utterance of the dreaded “R” word gets them blackballed? That would be hilarious: “Oh my god this is outrageous! Did you hear this kike say “racist”!? I heard that you kike!! I have witnesses!! You said “racist” you kike!! Go back to Communist Russia you kike!! I lost family in the Bolshevik genocide because of kikes like you!! You’ve reopened the wounds you kike!!” - I’d pay big bucks to see that, wouldn’t you? (And of course if I’m paying money I expect the non-Arab Semitic actor to flap around on the floor squealing for mercy & doing all the other things they make us do, like sensitivity training, psychiatric counseling etc etc.)

Intimidation is the key - control via ownership, staffing or funding is secondary
“By saying things like Jews control all or 90%, or whatever, of Congress or the White House, you leave the impression that Jews exert their total or NEAR-TOTAL influence over everything not just issues involving Israel.”

As you’ll notice from the The Racism and Anti-Semitism Word Games proto-article I posted earlier, the source of non-Arab Semitic power are the neo-McCarthyite persecution networks. It does not say the source is control of either the media or government, or even that they are controlled. What it says is that these networks INTIMIDATE the government and media. This is a much more accurate way of describing the phenomenon; it’s also far more aggressive and forceful. Control can be legitimate, intimidation never. What I listed in terms of congressional, senatorial, presidential and media “control” are the fruits, the practical expression of the intimidation. They’re what the shakedowns yield.

I’m not playing semantics. That’s a very important distinction. Someone who thinks it’s all about media control - intended as ownership or staffing - instead of persection and intimidation is dead wrong and going down the wrong path. Look at this example:

They want to “win the war of ideas on its merits”? Tell that to Jean Ryan, former managing editor of the Oneida (NY) Daily Dispatch, and city editor Dale Seth (a 15-year veteran of the paper), who were both fired when a delegation of Israel Firsters approached the editor and then the owner demanding the paper retract an allegedly “anti-Semitic” post-9/11 editorial written by Seth. Seth’s crime was to recall the terrorist origins of the Jewish state – as if no one had ever heard of the Irgun and the Stern Gang, both of which waged war on the Arab civilian population – and without which the state of Israel would never have come into existence. http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j122801.html

Control is exerted by the neo-McCarthyite persecution networks always, ownership or staffing sometimes. So even if, in your dreams, you were to extend the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to cover ethnic media cartels - you’d achieve.. exactly nothing. All your new non-semitic media companies would be treated like the Oneida Daily Dispatch: “What!? Someone stepped out of line!? Bring me their head!! And their editor’s too!!” And every reporter within 1000 miles would hear the message loud and clear: Thou shalt not raise thy doggie leg near the Holy Menorah. Thus, you’d be back to square one. Makes no difference who the owner is because they ALL fear neo-McCarthyite economic strangulation of dissidents (advertising boycotts).

Finally, your last point, “influence over everything not just issues involving Israel”.  Again check the proto-article and you’ll notice I isolate their policy influence to three areas: Israel (Zionism), racial engineering (immigration, multiculturalism and diversity), and censorship (political correctness and hate speech legislation). These are also the three areas their own orgnizations keep stressing. The whole push to get hate speech legislation on the books, for example, has been driven by the ADL.

Long live Israel & may the native Semites have a few rights too
“Taylor let in a bunch of folks who clapped and cheered when a speaker said Israel would not exist in 100 years. Those people don’t just want jews out of their societies.”

Yeah that’s a problem. Too many pro-whites want revenge. They believe that since non-Arab Semites destroyed their homelands with racial engineering, it’s time to feed them the same medicine. This is totally emotional and therefore totally irrational. If Israel goes down, the resident non-Arab Semites are NOT going to be “driven into the sea”, they’ll be driven HERE!!! We already have 6 million of them and we’re hoping to double that!? Talk about completely losing your mind.

The proper approach is to use Israel and anti-zionism as a device to open minds to the reality of non-Arab Semitic power here in the US (or UK), to break their we-are-innocent-blushing-virgins spell and to throw them on the defensive with proxy attacks from multiple directions. After all, it’s almost all proxy from them - they never do frontal attacks along the white-semite axis so why should we? Is it some kind of braindead concept of “Aryan honor” or something? Dammit! When you fight outside the extended family (race), you fight DIRTY! That’s rule of multicultural survival #1. Honor is for losers. Literally.

Having said this, short term tactical convenience cannot override long term strategy: Israel must stay. So go ahead and push the Palestine button - but not too hard.

Finally, a riddle & a turn toward pro-white basics
OK I hope you found these answers satisfactory. Please check out the proto-article I posted for you earlier. I’m still hoping you subjected it to extreme critique.

Now, onto generic pro-white matters (no Semites). I came up with a neat riddle this morning. I’m still test driving it so I’d appreciate it if you tried answering it:

“All white haters agree that it’s ok for whites to become minorities in their own countries. All white haters also agree that a Japanese person who wants to become a minority in his own country is either a traitor or clinically insane. Therefore, what is a white hater?”

(Feel free to use it on your site if you want - all my stuff is public domain)

Posted by Steven Palese on December 20, 2006, 02:29 AM | #

Bats-man,

Finally, let me make a point regarding generalizations. We whites have been brainwashed by the media and educational establishment into believing ALL whites are responsible for slavery, hence affirmative racism etc. We’ve also been brainwashed into believing ALL Germans are responsible for the holocaust (not to mention all other whites for not hurrying the rescue even faster), hence today’s German taxpayer is paying Israel reparations. We’ve also been brainwashed into believing that our heritage is the product of dead white males, that’s a generalization too. And I could continue all night.

You won’t notice much of a concern from pro-whites regarding these anti-white generalizations because, quite frankly, our plate is full enough with serious grievances. Anti-white generalizations are just too far down the list for them to be mentioned much. This is a problem area we’re neglecting and one I think you can help with.

Since you’re pro-white and clearly specialized in the field, why don’t you become our point man in the fight against anti-white generalizations? Later, when we’ve made some headway and whites begin to see that our right not to be generalized against is being respected too, I guarantee that everyone will become far far more amenable toward the issue of generalizations directed at non-Arab Semites.

Posted by bats-man on December 20, 2006, 12:48 PM | #

Mr. Igorevich,

My answer to your question was overly long so I’ll reanswer and say “yes.” Example: I deeply resent the fact that I can’t decide who I do and don’t want to rent my house to. People have a right to associate with who they want, I’ve never questioned this. However, it does require substantial justification if you are going to use coersion (which as you noted, doesn’t have to involve violence) to re-enginner demographics, which involves expelling (even if slowly and non-violently) some people.  So you may take this as too qualified to be a “yes.”

I’m not sure the origins of this thread are trivial. I think he was writing about people (his focus on AmRen has been on the people who cheer on Israel’s death) who are hard-core antisemites, you showed up and said “we’re talking about each other”, finished your email with “your tender Jewish parts” and you now think he’s engaged in suppression of valid debate. If he thought you were there in good faith, I don’t believe he’d back down from a debate (I don’t think he’d back down from a debate with anyone). I like his writing, but one thing he’s not is tender. He is a decent man who believes in something beyond himself and ourselves, but doesn’t back down from reality and what’s needed to save our civilization (you’ll disagree with this last point). In contrast, this site seems to be a WN mirror-image of GNXP. Why would you want your site to be like GC and Razib’s ?

Also, I think I have noted examples of stuff at this site that borders on hard-core antisemitism. Jews as a collective organism that sends out secret plants, Jews completely control congress, white house (to be fair, not Mr Palese’s words), etc. I think it is incumbent upon you to provide corrections or admonitions when this happens at your site (or, alternatively, not to be surprised or offended when he percieves this site to be antisemitic and won’t engage you). Of course, his thinking is conditioned by the fact that he is of Jewish ancestry. If you told him this (some have) he’d say “duh.”

I have two questions for you. Do you acknowlege the existence of those on the far right who literally don’t want Jews to exist in this world? If so, don’t you think that it is incumbent upon WNs to maintain a safe seperation distance from them?

Posted by bats-man on December 20, 2006, 12:50 PM | #

Re-reading it, yes I guess it was primarily your comments.  Some comments (with one question nested in there for you).

WRT Jews you are speaking primarily of the Jewish leadership.  I have argued elsewhere that blacks bear considerable responsibility for their mainstream leaders (e.g. Sharpton, Farrakhan, Jackson) because they are the representatives of the average black. So the same, logically, should hold true for Jews and I don’t absolve them of responsibility for Foxman, et al.  But you imply that the average Saul, Hershel, and Sholomo on the street lusts for the death of the white race. You note that a majority (and maybe a vast majority although not as many Jews vote democratic as blacks do, not that republicans are very useful either) of Jews support policies that will lead to the displacement or marginalization of whites in their own countries. But what makes you think that the average Saul, Hershel, and Sholomo are aware of the implications of these policies? After all, whites don’t seem to be aware of the implications of these policies. People will quote polls showing majority white support of border control, but as Guessed Worker recently pointed out, most regular whites oppose ILLEGALS but support non-white LEGALS and are still are in love with the nation of immigrants myth and it’s implications for displacing whites.

Posted by bats-man on December 20, 2006, 12:58 PM | #

The above post was for Mr. Scrooby. Forgot to address it to him.

Mr. Palese,

I don’t have a website and (as Mr. Igorevich undoubted noticed) am a reader not a writer. I’m not specialized, I just read and respond as best I can (and usually I read and don’t comment at all - here or elsewhere).

“Therefore, what is a white hater?” A hypocrite.

“Ok now that you can see their cultural underpinnings more clearly” Yes. That’s one of my points. Their (irrational I think) behavior is cultural and best seen in light of their history as a. monotheists among pagans b. diaspora population among Christians c. demonized population nearly wiped out by the Nazis.  What Israel Shamir describes is an irrational and unwarranted fear (indeed, near paranoia) not a collectivist sociobiological drive. Recognizing this doesn’t require us to put up with ADL style witch hunts or bow to the holocaust card.

“So if you’re serious, you’re advocating a fight. In this case, how far are you from our position?”
Somewhere I think I used the (figurative) phrase “slap” the Abe Foxmans back into reality. So I’m not advocating a Mr. Roger’s style approach. Unlike a liberal white, I think most adversaries (and Foxman is definitely an adversary) respond to “sweetness” (weakness) with aggressiveness, contempt, etc. It doesn’t make them see the light, it empowers them.

Posted by ben tillman on December 20, 2006, 02:29 PM | #

I have argued elsewhere that blacks bear considerable responsibility for their mainstream leaders (e.g. Sharpton, Farrakhan, Jackson) because they are the representatives of the average black.

But that’s not true.  They present themselves—and the media present them—as representatives of the average black, but they are not in any meaningful sense.  Are they chosen by an organized black community?  The black population is even more disorganized than the white.

Posted by ben tillman on December 20, 2006, 02:34 PM | #

You note that a majority (and maybe a vast majority although not as many Jews vote democratic as blacks do, not that republicans are very useful either) of Jews support policies that will lead to the displacement or marginalization of whites in their own countries. But what makes you think that the average Saul, Hershel, and Sholomo are aware of the implications of these policies?

Whether they are aware of the implications of the policies is irrelevant—as is speaking of “a majority of Jews” or specific Jews.  What is relevant is the activity of the organized Jewish community.

The organized Jewish community is the agent whose actions we evaluate and respond to.

Posted by bats-man on December 20, 2006, 03:25 PM | #

Sorry. I didn’t write that very well. What I meant was blacks must accept some level of responsibility for the actions of those men because they are representatives from the black community whether or not they are typical. Ditto Jews.

But if Tom, Dick, and Harry are oblivious to the implications of current policies why shouldn’t I assume that Saul, Herschel and Sholomo are too? “All Jews lust for this” isn’t just responding to the organized Jewish leadership.

Posted by wjg on December 20, 2006, 03:31 PM | #

“Whether they are aware of the implications of the policies is irrelevant—as is speaking of “a majority of Jews” or specific Jews.  What is relevant is the activity of the organized Jewish community.”

But Mr. Tillman don’t you know that this rule of racial realism is never applied to the chosen ones?  They must be evaluated person by person.  To hold them to the same rules as everyone else is hate.  Wasn’t 6,000,000 enough?  That fine patriot Jared Taylor knows this rule as does the Realist and VDare and Mr. Auster and…

We should bow down before Abe Foxman and praise him for even being allowed to take our next breath.  Dogs can only hope for crumbs from the dinner table not to actually sit at it.  That is the reality of the Realist and we should get used to it.

Unless..., unless, we want to live as free Men of the West.  Nah.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 20, 2006, 08:32 PM | #

Mr. Igorevich,

My answer to your question was overly long so I’ll reanswer and say “yes.” Example: I deeply resent the fact that I can’t decide who I do and don’t want to rent my house to. People have a right to associate with who they want, I’ve never questioned this.

Okay - btw I know you never questioned this, but it’s nice to have things out in the open.  Now, don’t you think it obvious that in a pluralistic society the tendency will axiomatically be towards the erosion of these rights, and that tendency will correlate with “diversity”?

However, it does require substantial justification if you are going to use coersion (which as you noted, doesn’t have to involve violence) to re-enginner demographics, which involves expelling (even if slowly and non-violently) some people.  So you may take this as too qualified to be a “yes.”

Doesn’t the above axiom qualify as substantial?  Don’t you think MR’s argument in general far exceeds “substantial”?  Btw, I wasn’t talking about expulsion, I was talking about making the grass brown enough for people to want to move.

I don’t agree that the right itself requires substantial justification, and I don’t think you do either.  I do think getting people to exercise these rights requires that, and I suspect you’d agree to this distinction.  I think where we disagree is whether the criterion has been met.  I also suspect that you’ll come around eventually (if my assumption as to your interests is accurate)

I’m not sure the origins of this thread are trivial. I think he was writing about people (his focus on AmRen has been on the people who cheer on Israel’s death) who are hard-core antisemites, you showed up and said “we’re talking about each other”, finished your email with “your tender Jewish parts” and you now think he’s engaged in suppression of valid debate.

I don’t think he’s interested in valid debate.

If he thought you were there in good faith, I don’t believe he’d back down from a debate (I don’t think he’d back down from a debate with anyone).

He already has, in spades.  Do you think I’m arguing in good faith?  If so, why have you been able to determine that, but Auster has not?

I like his writing, but one thing he’s not is tender. He is a decent man who believes in something beyond himself and ourselves, but doesn’t back down from reality and what’s needed to save our civilization (you’ll disagree with this last point). In contrast, this site seems to be a WN mirror-image of GNXP. Why would you want your site to be like GC and Razib’s ?

In what ways is this site like GNXP?

Also, I think I have noted examples of stuff at this site that borders on hard-core antisemitism. Jews as a collective organism that sends out secret plants, Jews completely control congress, white house (to be fair, not Mr Palese’s words), etc. I think it is incumbent upon you to provide corrections or admonitions when this happens at your site (or, alternatively, not to be surprised or offended when he percieves this site to be antisemitic and won’t engage you). Of course, his thinking is conditioned by the fact that he is of Jewish ancestry. If you told him this (some have) he’d say “duh.”

The error is your assertion that Auster is justified in not engaging “anti-Semites,” beyond the justification anyone has in refusing to engage anyone.  Auster doesn’t want to engage us, fine, but his supposed cloak of moral superiority for doing so is transparent.  He’s pretending avoiding engaging us is moral, and that engaging us would be immoral.  He’s embarrassing himself.

You also have examples from that idiot interracialist, and the other johnny-latelies, of a quite different set of objectionable posts.  I haven’t gotten around to refuting their idiocy, either, and I probably never will.  Doesn’t mean I agree with those turds, does it?

A final note on the subject - as KMac so rightly points out (and a MRnik - Ben Tillman? - has properly named for me), type I errors are far less dangerous than type II errors in identifying threats.  Type I errors - “oops!  Sorry pal, thought you were trying to kill me, no harm, no foul, here, I’ll put my knife away.” Type II errors - no quote...you’re dying in the gutter and don’t get to say anything.

See my point?  Those who exaggerate the non-Arab Semite threat are guilty of exaggerating a threat.  Those who deny it (who outnumber the former by how many orders of magnitude?) are guilty of being useful idiots, Uncle Toms, boobs in service of their enemies against their own kind.  I know which error I’d rather make, if I had to choose…

I have two questions for you. Do you acknowlege the existence of those on the far right who literally don’t want Jews to exist in this world?

Of course!

If so, don’t you think that it is incumbent upon WNs to maintain a safe seperation distance from them?

For example, if you mean staying away from boards frequented by such people, then no.  Why should I hide from them?

If you mean staying out of organizations frequented by them, then no.  Again, why let them dictate?

If you mean staying out of organizations which invite such people, or which have similar statements of purpose, then yes.

If you mean following up every idiotic comment by these people, in real life or cyberspace, with repudiations, then no.  Why should I let cranks, or paid agents provocatuer, dictate my life?  I make my positions on such matters plain and I refuse to let them (or Auster and his straw men) dictate my actions and positions, or spend my life mouthing caveats.

Incidentally, it just struck me oddly, how you seem to gloss over Auster and his inexcusable hordes of straw men.  Don’t they elicit any opprobrium from you?  You’re all for ritualistic announcements of such opprobrium, so by all means speak up (and forgive me if you’ve already done so and I don’t recall).

Posted by J.P. on December 20, 2006, 09:38 PM | #

I’m not sure the origins of this thread are trivial. I think he was writing about people (his focus on AmRen has been on the people who cheer on Israel’s death) who are hard-core antisemites, you showed up and said “we’re talking about each other”, finished your email with “your tender Jewish parts” and you now think he’s engaged in suppression of valid debate.

I don’t think he’s interested in valid debate.

I think it’s clear that he isn’t. I am the reader “JM” that Auster quoted in the “anti-Semite issues me a challenge” post. If you go back and read that post, I think you’ll agree that this e-mail was about as friendly and polite as a letter of disagreement can be. Auster claimed my reading of Guessedworker was too “superficial” because I failed to see the aggressive anti-Semitism that Auster thought was manifest in GW’s letter to him. 
After seeing Auster’s response to my initial e-mail, I sent him a follow up. Again, I think you’ll agree that I was exceedingly polite.  Auster didn’t post my response (or even reply to me at all) so I’ll post it here. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Auster,

I appreciate your response to my e-mail. 

I may have been incorrect in assuming that you were misrepresenting Guessedworker’s position.  Perhaps you merely misunderstand it.  The paragraphs you quote do not say what you claim they do.  You write that I “ignore his later paragraphs that make the Jews the whole problem—Jews, the authors of liberalism, Jews, the ethnic group that is at war with European Caucasians, Jews, the group that must be dispensed with for European Caucasians to survive.”

I examined the paragraph you quoted. Guessedworker wrote:

Notwithstanding all the familiar hogwash fed daily to European Caucasians to negate our instincts and make us blind to one another we, too, are possessed of natural ethnic interests. And so are Jews, and those unidirectional Jewish-authored liberal philosophies, Jewish political activism and Jewish largesse that I mentioned are transparent expressions of that. One can see straight away from their divergent purpose that there is an unfathomably deep conflict with EC interests here. It is a conflict that Jewry has been winning hands down since the end of WW2, and that is not without the most profound consequences for the fate of the European world. 


He doesn’t claim that Jews “authored liberalism”, merely that they have authored some liberal philosophies, a claim which should be uncontroversial.  He mentions this in claiming that these liberal philosophies have served perceived Jewish self-interest.  I fail to see a meaningful difference between this claim and your claim that “Given the wildly overwrought suspicions that some Jews harbor about the American Christian majority who are in fact the Jews’ best friends in the world, it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews.” You describe this phenomenon as “The self-protective instinct to divide and weaken a potentially oppressive majority population”.  He then states that this “instinct to divide and weaken”, as you label it, runs counter to white interests.  I don’t think that this claim should be controversial either. 

The second paragraph you quoted:

Now we arrive at the first of two vital questions, Lawrence. Can the creator peoples of Western Civ be pulled out of their liberal delusions sufficiently to save themselves and the Civ while their natural ethnic interests are denied them? Your whole worldview argues a “Yes” to that question because you can’t quite bring yourself to resolve that conflict of interests in our favour. That’s why I say you are painting yourself into a corner. Because, of course, the correct answer is “No.”


Here is the way I interpret this paragraph.  Whites have ethnic interests, just as Jews do.  To save Western Civilization from liberalism, it will take whites acting in much the same manner as your Jewish leftist friend, who looked at third-world immigration through the lens of “Is it good for my co-ethnics and I?” This is what I presume Guessedworker to mean in asking “Can the creator peoples of Western Civ be pulled out of their liberal delusions sufficiently to save themselves and the Civ while their natural ethnic interests are denied them?” He seems to believe that the west cannot be saved any other way. 
Whatever the merits of this position, it should be clear by now that your original interpretation of it was wrong.  He’s not claiming that Jews are the entire problem, or even the main problem.  Furthermore, he doesn’t claim or imply that Jews must be removed from the West for the West to survive.  Your claim that Guessedworker contends that Jews are “at war with European Caucasians” is hardly a fair one.  I would hardly say that a “conflict of interests” (as he describes it) constitutes a war.  The crux of his argument is merely that the conflict of interests between Jews of the “divide and weaken” persuasion on the one hand and those who would defend our civilization on the other hand must be resolved in favor of the latter. 

I apologize for the great length of this e-mail. 

Best regards,

J.P.

What excuse will you (bats-man) make for Auster’s failure to respond to me?

Posted by bats-man on December 20, 2006, 10:47 PM | #

“if my assumption as to your interests is accurate”
I am not Jewish (neither is anyone in my family) if that’s what you’re getting at. I’m not arguing from an ethnic bias.

Type I errors can be very serious errors (your pulling a knife on someone metaphor). Also, you seem to see this as black and white: either Jews are a civilzationally lethal threat or they are not. Isn’t reality more complicated than this?

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 20, 2006, 11:13 PM | #

I am not Jewish (neither is anyone in my family) if that’s what you’re getting at. I’m not arguing from an ethnic bias.

No, I’m assuming you’re European racially, and consider yourself such.

Type I errors can be very serious errors (your pulling a knife on someone metaphor).

The point stands - in dealing with threats, type I errors are far better than type II errors.  Specifically, exaggerating the threat posed by non-Arab Semites is far more adaptive (ceteris paribus) than failing to recgonize it as a threat at all.

Also, you seem to see this as black and white

What, whether non-Arab Semitry is enemy or friend to us?  Yes, of course it’s black and white.  They’re enemy.  They have control of this situation, not I.

either Jews are a civilzationally lethal threat or they are not. Isn’t reality more complicated than this?

Compound question (fallacy).  Whether NA Semitry is a threat (or enemy) or not is one question (and the answer is black and white, not because of the nature of the question but because of the nature of the answer), how big a threat is another (there is far more room for disagreement on this question IMO).

Posted by Guessedworker on December 21, 2006, 09:53 AM | #

JP/JM,

I am much indebted for your “honest broker” approach to Mr Auster.  Your reading of that mail of mine was completely accurate.  I did not write it to praise him, of course.  In my thinking-thug way I was attempting to put his ethnic back up against the wall ... to force him to confront his own hypocrisy.  He writes prettily enough on all the issues in which we are interested bar one ... the vital one that alone would raise our eyes from the bare ground at our feet.  He cannot grant us our own ethnic interests because he requires that we pursue the interests of his people.

His best rejoinder to this little challenge, as he called it, was just wild shouts and arm-waving.  We know this response well.  It is pure, uncomplicated racism.

I hope the episode has been noted by his non-Jewish readers.  They belong with us, and if they find us today perhaps too strong in our advocacy they are very welcome to air that view (as bats-man has), and to lend their talents to the getting of a better understanding.

Posted by bats-man on December 21, 2006, 02:00 PM | #

Mr. Igorevich,

“They’re enemy.”

You played your hand here. Let’s go back to the beginning of the post. You accused him of “smearing” and labeling you “anti-semite.” Is one who considers Jews “enemies” not an anti-semite by definition? Of course he isn’t going to be amiable towards or even engage someone who considers him the “enemy” (as opposed to someone just disagreeing with him).

“Auster is a hypocrite; he doesn’t really allow Europeans to criticize non-Arab Semite behavior, he just wants to be on record as doing so.”
You want to be able to criticize Jewish behavior, presumably either in an email exchange and/or on his blog and his not giving your ideas a hearing exposes him a “hypocrite.” But since you consider Jews the enemy why would you expect him to give you a hearing? Does he not engage Euros who criticize Jews or does he not engage Euros who consider Jews to be the enemy?

He does not see Jews and Euros as enemies with irreconcilable competing interests . I think this means that his view and your view are mutually exclusive and there’s little to gain from “ecumenical” dialogue. I don’t think this makes him a hypocrite.

J.P./J.M.,
In your initial letter you wrote to you wrote “I also believe that you are in the right on this particular debate.”
So why haven’t you been arguing any of the points that I have over here at MR? Why has your only post been a post that is harmonious with the view of the MR editors? It would seem that your letter to him (however “polite") was disingenuous and two-faced.

Would you care to argue your point about his being “in the right over here?”

Posted by bats-brute on December 21, 2006, 02:13 PM | #

“He does not see Jews and Euros as enemies with irreconcilable competing interests .”

Do you?

Any reason you ignore my request to look at the mickey o’brute comment in the “on the couch” thread, which was partially addressed to you?

And, what do you make of The Realist stating that he will delete certain comments by Svigor, concerning European history, because such comments are “insane?”

Further, what does anyone here make of “Arcane”, that enemy of white nationalism, defending The Realist’s agenda, in the context of a pro-Jewish form of pro-white racialism?

But, the key point: mickey o’brute.

Posted by bats-man on December 21, 2006, 02:52 PM | #

“Do you?” No. I guess that makes me a “philo-semite.”

I did see your post asking me to look at your earlier post on Salter and group types. I just haven’t had time. I’ll try to make that my next priority. I also haven’t tried to critique Mr. Palese’s article. I’m not avoiding or being rude though I don’t know how well I can respond to the work of someone (Salter) whom I haven’t read.

I know very little of the Realist. I know Auster’s writing much better. I’m also don’t have knowledge of who’s who in these circles (i.e. comments about commenters and Editors at AmRen, or the Realist might be this or that person, etc.  so forgive if I don’t get these references).

Not to make excuses but I have an unstable computer and dreadful dial-up and having a heck of a time even trying to get my brief posts up. I’ll try to answer you re your post.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 21, 2006, 03:32 PM | #

brute,

Pretty much all the friends of TIW seem to be people who reach first for the Nazi epithet.  They are either too lazy, too stupid, too malignant or too ethnically competitive to employ proper argumentation.

My clear impression so far is that TIW will be without heft and may even do the movement a favour by draining off and maginalising harmful influences.

The Realist seems rather pleased that Jared Taylor has decided to link to him.  If Taylor is thinking like me he has figured that a way home has to be provided for WNs who, suddenly surrounded by Judeophilia in concentrate form, want to get back to the real thing

Posted by extreme right brute on December 21, 2006, 04:02 PM | #

GW, of interest:
http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2006/12/neo-nazis-are-most-hated-group-in-world.html

Now, I’m sure that most would consider this blog “far right”, and from a certain perspective, I guess it is.

It certainly is not a “neo Nazi” blog, although, once again, if the ADL or The Realist decided to label it as such, I’m sure that the common coach potato would agree.

If “neo nazi/extreme right” really is, in practical terms, “shorthand” for “pro-white”, we begin to see the enormity of the problem and the power of the establishment propaganda machine.

Think about it.  People holding a particular political opinion, and one which, in practical terms, can be consistent with a “live and let live” attitude toward racial co-existence in separate ethnostates, are “hated” more than criminals, who may kill for profit or “fun.”

The world certainly is inverted.  If we agree with the Realist and say the world is inverted, then what do we make of the top and bottom of the “most hated group” list?

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 21, 2006, 05:54 PM | #

Mr. Igorevich,

“They’re enemy.”

You played your hand here. Let’s go back to the beginning of the post. You accused him of “smearing” and labeling you “anti-semite.” Is one who considers Jews “enemies” not an anti-semite by definition? Of course he isn’t going to be amiable towards or even engage someone who considers him the “enemy” (as opposed to someone just disagreeing with him).

“Svi“‘s quicker you know.  It’s just a pseudonym.

I figured I should’ve said “its enemy” but it sounded awkward so I didn’t.  I was talking about non-Arab Semites as a group.  The Hartung quote again:

http://members.aol.com/toexist/Shiksa11.html

In-groups sandwich an outline for animosity, an organizing principle for prejudice, between layers of social support. Whether Christian or Muslim or Jewish, every extremist is supported by a small number of less extreme admirers and each of those supporters is buoyed, in turn, by a larger group of sympathizers. These connections are continuous right down to the bottom of the pyramid, where vaguely symapthetic in-group members are offended by the very extremists who would have no base, and no basis, without them.

It is that vague sympathy which needs to be examined.

Again, it’s not about non-Arab Semites per se.  If someone is a non-Arab Semite and works against this group (a.k.a. “organized jewry,” etc.), I respect that and I acknowledge it; there is no stigma attached to him as a non-Arab Semite per se.  Similarly, if I meet some random non-Arab Semite on the street, I don’t assume he’s an enemy (though I do acknowledge the overwhelming likelihood that he falls somewhere on Hartung’s scale).

The trouble with the “anti-Semite” label is it pretends to absolve non-Arab Semites of responsibility for their behavior; “anti-Semites will hate us no matter what we do; their animus is pre-existing and about them, not us; they hate us first and find reasons later.”

That is the reverse of the truth - who chooses the world’s most gifted and cohesive group as enemy without cause?  I don’t have much choice if the Mafia decides to mark me for death.  I didn’t make them enemy, and I don’t much see the point of quibbling over whether I’m anti-Mafia
or whether all of the Don’s employees hate my guts, or like their jobs, or will end up doing me in.

No, if non-Arab Semites woke up tomorrow doing the opposite of what they’ve been doing to Europeans for the last century and more, my ideas about them most certainly would not remain unchanged.  They’d reverse too, in the relevant ways.  I’d jump for joy to learn that non-Arab Semitry had suddenly, miraculously ceased hostilities and reciprocated Euro acknowledgement of the right to secure their future and maintain ethnostates.  Who could ask for a stronger ally?

“Auster is a hypocrite; he doesn’t really allow Europeans to criticize non-Arab Semite behavior, he just wants to be on record as doing so.”
You want to be able to criticize Jewish behavior, presumably either in an email exchange and/or on his blog and his not giving your ideas a hearing exposes him a “hypocrite.” But since you consider Jews the enemy why would you expect him to give you a hearing? Does he not engage Euros who criticize Jews or does he not engage Euros who consider Jews to be the enemy?

Hopefully I’ve cleared this up by now?

Posted by Guessedworker on December 21, 2006, 06:02 PM | #

Fashion, brute.  Fashion.

A point I repeatedy make is that Man is highly suggestible.  His opinions and his loyalies can easily be owned, and normally are.

To begin to be free, he first has to realise his condition.  This is hard when his identity is built around upper-cortex story-telling.  However, way down in the machinery there is kinship ... there are ethnic genetic interests (which - you never know - we might occasionally need to, I admit, bowdlerise as natural ethnic or just ethnic interests) ... there are evolved behavioural patterns.  These things tug away at his consciousness all day because they belong to Nature.  So the message of “far right” racial survivalists is not without resonance inside Joe’s skull, and it isn’t a straight battle between our little voices and the power and grandeur of the world at large.

Come what may, we have to stand up and outlast Gargantulus.  We have to be there when he falls, which he will.

Posted by ben tillman on December 27, 2006, 04:19 PM | #

But since you consider Jews the enemy why would you expect him to give you a hearing?

He’s a convert.  He’s not supposed to be Jewish.

Posted by JB on January 02, 2007, 04:36 AM | #

Svigor:

The truth is I support Israel because:(...)

good points. Tell that to the next pro-Israel Freepette you meet.

“So we should support Israel ...but not imitate Israel ??

Can you explain why ?”

you should make a thread on the blog with that post

Posted by JB on January 02, 2007, 04:46 AM | #

bats-man:

The problem with “blame the Jew” is that it keeps us from looking within ourselves.  What the hell is wrong with us if such a small minority can cause us to commit suicide?

that small minority has a reality filter known as the news media and a propaganda machine known as Hollywood. That’s where the real problem is.

in this ADV broadcast William Pierce explains what is wrong with the media and the consequences of the censorship of news that doesn’t fit the agenda. Everybody should listen to it or read it :

http://www.natall.com/internet-radio/ts/020202.mp3

http://www.natall.com/free-speech/fs0203a.html

Why did the media bosses decide to make an enormous hullabaloo--a real media circus --out of the first Jasper killing and to ignore the second one? Obviously because of the one significant difference in the two cases: in the first case the killers were White, and the victim was Black; and in the second case the killers were Black, and the victim was White.

in 1997 Steve Grossman went from being head of the Israeli lobby AIPAC to being head of the Democratic Party. And I bet you didn’t know that just like 99 % of the american population.

Grossman did this without anyone in the media asking “hey wait, why is the head of a foreign lobby now the head of the Democratic Party ? there’s something wrong here”. None of the RihGT WiNg blowhards made a bid deal out of this.

are you beginning to understand the power of the media ?

Posted by JB on January 02, 2007, 04:50 AM | #

Jobling/Realist:

If you bothered to go to the link to Auster’s article “Why Jews Welcome Muslims,” you would see that what he’s saying there is that Jews’ sense of their own ethnic interests results in harm to America. And then you have the gall to say that he‘s setting up a straw man!

well dduuuuhhhh, that’s also what we are saying. 

Take Auster’s articles in which he says jews are doing bad things, see quotes here:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_inverted_world/#c36814

change “Larry Auster” for “Kevin MacDonald” or “William Sean MacGregor” or “Gregory MacWallace” and you’ll have Auster calling him a vile antisemite.

BBoooorrrrrrrrrriiiiinnnggggg

Auster wants to be free to criticize jews but he doesn’t want the goyim to do the same.

Yawn. Next.

Posted by JB on January 02, 2007, 05:04 AM | #

We should be doing more productive things than annoy Larry Auster or Ian Jobling.

How about creating a ‘Activism’ section ? Debating and talking among ourselves is alright but we have to expand and bring more of our people to the cause.

How about making a movie reviews section ? It would probably bring more traffic to the site

Is there anything we can do to help you get that radio/podcasting station done ? Will Steven Palese be a regular ?

Posted by Lurker on January 02, 2007, 05:41 AM | #

Its been said before - do movie reviews on imdb dot com and vote for those you approve of. Reviews that more people ‘find useful’ in imdb parlance get pushed up the ranks, just like on Amazon (who own im db). They could be cross posted here too. If we knew they were there (on im db) we could then vote for them if we felt like it.

Posted by J.P. on January 02, 2007, 07:27 PM | #

“Would you care to argue your point about his being “in the right over here?””

You’ve picked out an entirely irrelevant aspect of my e-mails to Auster and responded to that in lieu of addressing any of my actual arguments.  How very Austerian of you. 

I’ll admit it. I was lying to Auster when I said I supported his position.  Does that make anything I wrote to Auster any less true? Does that make Auster’s failure to address these points (and your failure as well) any less damning? I attempted to disagree with Auster in as friendly a manner as is possible, in the hope of eliciting an actual response from him.  I think it’s pretty clear that he does not give anyone that he considers to be an “anti-Semite” anything remotely resembling a fair hearing.

I was genuinely curious as to how Auster came up with such a wildly incorrect interpretation of a straightforward letter.  When it comes to “anti-Semitism”, Auster seems to be guilty of the same sort of gnostic conspiracy-mongering he accuses “anti-Semites” of.  No matter how much an “anti-Semite” denies that he wants to kill all Jews, no matter how many times he argues that Jews aren’t the only, or even the primary source of the West’s ills, Auster claims his *true* beliefs are something else entirely. 

“You want to be able to criticize Jewish behavior, presumably either in an email exchange and/or on his blog and his not giving your ideas a hearing exposes him a “hypocrite.” But since you consider Jews the enemy why would you expect him to give you a hearing? Does he not engage Euros who criticize Jews or does he not engage Euros who consider Jews to be the enemy?

He does not see Jews and Euros as enemies with irreconcilable competing interests . I think this means that his view and your view are mutually exclusive and there’s little to gain from “ecumenical” dialoge. I don’t think this makes him a hypocrite.”

It’s not simply a matter of being given a fair hearing on Auster’s blog.  It’s the fact that Auster smears all white criticism of Jews as “anti-Semitism”, a crime that makes one a “poisonous sub-human”.  Anti-Semitism is irrational *and* evil, and automatically invalidates all other positions that the anti-Semite holds.  This is not an exaggeration of Auster’s stated beliefs on the matter. 

Do you agree with Auster’s reading of Guessedworker’s letter?

Posted by Guessedworker on January 02, 2007, 10:21 PM | #

JB,

I mailed Steven recently and didn’t get a reply.  Spam filter, maybe.  Anyhow, I will mail him again.  I am about to put up a post covering Lurker’s and your suggestions.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 02, 2007, 10:56 PM | #

Steven Palese’s posts at MR.com include copious amounts of some of the best commentary I’ve seen anywhere.  He’s got an extremely good grasp of what’s going on and communicates his perceptions to others with such sparkling clarity.  I’ve learned a lot from his posts.  I count myself among his very appreciative fans.

Posted by bats-man on January 06, 2007, 12:52 PM | #

“Do you agree with Auster’s reading of Guessedworker’s letter?”
I think GW’s letter (and worldview) is Jew-hostile at a fundamental level. I’ll refrain from using the phrase “anti-semitic” because it’s been abused so much by Foxman types and it’s hard to say what it means anymore. Yes, GW’s letter is ambiguous. He names Jews as third on the list (which still gives them a very prominent place on the list of the West’s ills) which indicates that they are not the ONLY problem.  On the other hand, he writes: “there is an UNFATHOMABLY DEEP (MY EMPHASIS) conflict with EC interests here.” It seems that he has concluded before any debate has even occurred, that there are irreconcilable, conflicting genetic differences at work here. This and GW’s admission that “I’m a K-Mac man” indicate an anti-Jewish worldview and there’s nothing to be gained by ecumenical dialogue.
The notion that Jews have to be expelled or removed or murdered is implicit in this worldview. So, yes, you can argue that when he drags this out he’s dragging out (especially when he writes “murder") an emotive “strawman.”
I do think that there is a terminal case of “Jew on the brain” here at MR. Look at J.B.’s post right after the LA posts about the name Muhammad vs George in the U.K. (LA also posted a piece on this news item). The very title of the entry is Jew-hostile and reinforces Auster’s position that this weblog is antisemitic. Are Jews 3rd on J.B.’s list? His entry doesn’t indicate so.
GW wrote: “you can’t quite bring yourself to resolve that conflict of interests in our favour”
Again, in his worldview, he doesn’t have to chose either/or because those interests aren’t as incongruent as you would have us believe.