The Inverted World

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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...’

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.

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.

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.

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).

Svigor---

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

Andy, I prefer poisonous sub-human.

Nothing like non-Arab Semite egalitarianism for ya.

Tikkun Olam!

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.

“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).

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!

“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.

“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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

“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.

“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.

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.

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!

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 )

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?

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.

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.

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.

“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.”

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.

“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.

“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.

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.

MacDonald is not Irish.

Ewps.  Scot then?  My mistake; I tried.

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