A letter to Lawrence

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 15 December 2006 15:42.

The following is a reply by me to Lawrence Auster, part of the on-going debate of Svi’s Inverted World post.

Lawrence,

You are painting yourself into a corner, and it is not one from which a principled argument for the survival of Western Civilisation can be prosecuted.

Let’s clear our lines. You and I would not talk of saving Western Civ if its outlook was not dark and getting darker. On this, then, we can agree. The illness has many symptoms. We don’t need to go into all of these now. Some are of a nature that all genuine Conservatives - and you and I are both Conservatives - will immediately identify. Some are of a nature that Conservatives might, given the current climate, be loathe to do so. But I will come to the imposition of silence last of all.

You and I can also agree that Western Civilisation is the production of Western Man - to be precise, of European Caucasian Man. You and I can agree that a demographic disaster for him, meaning the loss of homeland by race-replacement and deracination, is a civilisational disaster for the West. Again, because we are both Conservatives we can agree that in a general sense the decay of liberalism, which sad condition includes such confections as Reaganite right-liberalism and neoconservatism, describes the possible political, sociological and demographic outcomes of our age. Needless to say, these cannot be Conservative outcomes.

Perhaps, then, we can also agree that the West’s political, cultural and corporate elites are liberalism’s executive officers, and their collective, day-to-day actions steer the West down its course to disaster.

I am confident that you and I can also agree that Jewish-authored liberal philosophies, Jewish political activism, Jewish largesse are highly germaine to that course. (I know you have written critically, and rather refreshingly, of these things.)

That order of play - liberalism <> the liberal elite <> the Jewish engagement - is fair, I think, and should tell you that “you people”, as you name us, possess a proper understanding of the West’s political and cultural woes. The next time you leap to your conclusion and feel the irresistible impulse to shout about how obsessed with Jewry we are, please entertain the smallest of doubts somewhere in your skull that you may, in fact, be wrong. You are wrong now.

Very well, let’s continue. You famously profess your desire to preserve our civilisation. But such preservation has certain unavoidable and, for you, uncomfortable implications. Genetically diverse peoples occupying a single living space do not merely compete as free individuals. They compete as groups, each informed by specific group interests. You acknowledge as much in objecting to mass imigration. Therefore you know that competition for resources, for land and, most of all, for power is an expression of those interests. Life is Manichean, that’s the truth. And I should stress that it is so for evolutionary reasons. Group interests are natural ethnic interests. They are not culturally-imbued, as Frank Salter has shown. They come with the skin we are in.

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.

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”.

And here’s the second seminal question: Can any Jew, a member of the most ethnocentric people on earth, ever deny his own ethnic interests and, for example, promote the European racial solidarity perquisite to saving the West? I will believe it when I see it, and right now I am looking at you, Lawrence - at your many logical inconsistencies.

Now, I would very much like you to prove me wrong on that. You can begin by putting aside the aggressive naming of us. This is what the Jewish enemies of ECs always do when we show signs of reconnecting with our ethnic interests. They silence us with a cold douche of vile words. It’s very ugly. And it’s not remotely in your interests, old man, if you are telling the world the truth on your website every day.

Regards,

Tags: That Question Again

Comments:

Posted by Daveg on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:15 | #

I definitely understand your point, but Lawrence is about as good an advocate as you are going to get on immigration issues.

I really think taking a more conciliatory tone is in order.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 02:06 | #

For pity’s sake, why BOTHER? Has this phoney bewitched you?

Posted by yllica on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 02:13 | #

Auster has the best one-man blog for developing awareness of Islam and Muslims - no question. And his articles at The Social Contract especially, regarding immigration and multiculturalism are very good. He’s got a double-standard when it comes to Jews. I’m shocked!

You recently commented, GW, that Griffin is right to focus on Islam while it plays well with the maninthestreet. Could we see more of it here then? At the moment there’s way too much in the blogs that counts on our understanding and agreeing with the positions expressed.

This applies to the JQ more than any other. For example it’s obvious that Auster’s key arguments about Islam and Muslims are easily switched around to spotlight Jewish attitudes regarding us. Perhaps you should have proven that fact for people passing by before you challenged Auster? It really needs to be done in the same thread - relying on your readership already knowing the truth of what you say makes it very tough to attract people to your viewpoint, and mainly ensures that your efforts are redundant.

Posted by Andy Wooster on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 02:35 | #

I definitely understand your point, but Lawrence is about as good an advocate as you are going to get on immigration issues.

I really think taking a more conciliatory tone is in order.

Why? It’s not like Auster has mainstream acceptance. VDARE and Amren are both better than Auster on immigration AND have higher traffic levels. It’s not as if Auster is our savior, bringing our message to the masses. If Auster stopped blogging because the poisonous sub-humanity at MajorityRights.com wouldn’t leave him alone, nothing would change.

Posted by yllica on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 03:09 | #

Andy: Why?

Because it looks like an internal argument -like so many of the extended comment sections here- when it really isn’t.

You’re supposed to be one of the mainstays here but had to ask why SvyIgor was calling Jews ‘non arabic semites’ after the term had been discussed in other threads - what chance a casual or semi-connected reader?

Too much internal dialogue that doesn’t outreach… and which barely registers on the shield of opponents.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 07:14 | #

Googling http://www.amnation.com/vfr/ islam provides 22,300 hits.

Googling http://www.amnation.com/vfr/ mexico provides 397 hits.

Well done Mr. I, GW.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:02 | #

Matt,

We bother because, as Daveg seems to show, he may bewitch others.

Right now, in supporting TIW, he is participating in the customary, one might say obsessional, Jewish ethnic pursuit of shaping gentile thought to Jewish ethnic ends. I am a KMac man here, and have to conclude that, sadly, Lawrence cannot stop himself.

Certainly, if he understood the Jewish engagement as well as he purports to, and wished to save Western Civilisation as sincerely as he claims, he would be using his undoubted writing and analytical talents to unite EC opinion and split Jewish opinion.

Instead, he responds to my criticism that he wants to split EC opinion by angrily taking me to task over TIW’s official ownership. Whoever pays the bills, TIW is of course owned by a Judeophiliac, and is fully in the ownership of Jewish ethnic interests in the same way that Civil Rights, Hart-Celler or the WoT were/are.

With regard to The (gentile) Realist, personally, I would quite like Ian Jobling to visit this thread and state that it is not him and he is not involved in any way in stabbing Jared Taylor in the back like this. I would quite like Messers Berman and Hart to do likewise and state that they were not involved in any background capacity at TIW, even one-time advisory.

yllica,

Nick Griffin has, as you no doubt know, been heavily criticised for allowing Jews into the BNP. But hard-ball politics are about voter perceptions. They are about necessary compromise, and compromise is always intellectually inhibiting.

We are released from such tethers and can indulge ourselves a little in slightly higher things. So, naturally enough, we endeavor to address politics and The Great Issue at the level of ideas ... not, I hope, dry theoretics but important, living concepts.

IQ-wise, I would guess that the gateway for definitely understanding what we say to one another is 115 to 120. We have at least three regular contributors in the 140 area, and one significantly in advance of that.

You are right that there is, in consequence, a reader-fee to be paid in terms of foundational knowledge. I take your point. I’m not entirely sure how to integrate it into our output.

Posted by Number One Son on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:46 | #

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/12/silicon_valley.php

Well, we certainly do need “hundreds of thosands per year” Asian immigrants, as GNXP advises us.

Posted by bats-man on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:54 | #

You need to do a site specific google to get only the stuff on his site e.g. site:www.amnation.com islam

Doing this (and using similar terms such as “muslim” and “mexican” or ‘hispanic) shows an Auster islam/mexico ratio of about 3-5:1. This seems consistent with my readings of his site. The mexican issue is pretty simple: with the blessing of their governments the little Meztizos are running across the border and we need to stop them or we’ll become another Latin American country. Islam is an ancient religion with over a billion adherents and is a much more complex (and interesing) topic and its possible to write much more without being redundant.

I would say that Auster’s writing more about islam is a function of his Euro-philia (and in particular, his Anglo-philia which I share) not his Israel-philia or his advovcating for his “tribe” and is a reaction to the islamic menance, the thought of the sons of muhammad overrunning Europe and the (unprecedented in all of history) loss that would follow. Having read him a lot, I know he is definitely a lover of Europe in general and England in particular. In fact he writes much more about Europe or even England than about Israel and is pissed at his “fellow tribe member” Steyn’s flippant indifference to the loss of Europe. Someone on the previous thread misstated his religion, he is an Anglican not a Roman Catholic.

Site specific googling of MR with “Jewish” and “Catholic” produces a similar ratio to the Austerian islam/mexico ratio. I find Roman Catholics, as a whole, are more destructive to White interests than Jews are.

Posted by Andy Wooster on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 17:51 | #

Instead, he responds to my criticism that he wants to split EC opinion by angrily taking me to task over TIW’s official ownership.

Anyone who has ever argued with a leftist will recognize this maneuver. Take a long, well-reasoned argument and latch on to one small, utterly irrelevant misstep. Does it matter whether the Inverted World is Jewish-owned or not? I don’t think so. Furthermore, it’s easy to see why one would make that mistake. I’d wager that almost everyone who read IW’s first post assumed he was.

Auster easily could’ve wrote “By the way, the owner of The Inverted World is not Jewish.” He then could’ve moved on to addressing the rest of Guessedworker’s letter. I believe the fact that he did not is telling.

But such preservation has certain unavoidable and, for you, uncomfortable implications. Genetically diverse peoples occupying a single living space do not merely compete as free individuals. They compete as groups, each informed by specific group interests. You acknowledge as much in objecting to mass imigration. Therefore you know that competition for resources, for land and, most of all, for power is an expression of those interests. Life is Manichean, that’s the truth. And I should stress that it is so for evolutionary reasons. Group interests are natural ethnic interests. They are not culturally-imbued, as Frank Salter has shown. They come with the skin we are in.

It’s should be readily apparent to anyone who has read Auster that the preceding is something that he just does not understand, or perhaps refuses to understand. This would explain the hatchet-job he did on MacDonald that Svigor addressed in a previous thread. MacDonald’s entire framework is alien to Auster’s way of thinking. This is the real source of the disconnect between Auster (and perhaps Auster’s supporters as well) on the one hand and MajorityRights.com on the other hand.

Denying EGI (or rather refusing to address the issue) is probably the wisest (though obviously not the most honest) position for Auster.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 22:25 | #

I for one have been banned by LA. He advocates Seperation and disengagement from the Middle East but then adds a caveat to which “That doesn’t mean Israel”.

So, I pointed out the discrepancy. How can we disengage from the Middle East but then still support Israel? We are just back into the thick of things and have not disengaged at all.

LA is a Jew who converted to Christianity. Even then, Jewish converts to Christianity is still fraught with danger, because it is still all about Israel Israel Israel.

I am beginning to see the Inquisition as a good thing now for it went after the conversos-Jewish converts to Christianity. Spengler, a moniker for an Asian Times columnist wrote on the rightness of the Inquisition even though he is either Jewish or a big Christian Zionist. (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FF22Aa01.html)There is a small battle (but I hope it gets bigger) brewing now over Christianity vs Judeo-Christianity.

It has been Jewish preaching on anti-racism and on liberalism that has enervated Western/Indo-European Man. So again, the Jewish influence, even as Christians, is dangerous.

What the Jews don’t realize is that the Holocaust is not so much a product of racism but a spiritual thing and that the curses laid against them in Deuteronomy must come to pass.

As I have said, I have been banned from both LA and Spengler’s boards. These people are in control over us.

And again, there is NO such thing as the “White” race. It is Indo-Europeans—-Not White. White is not a racial category. Language is the Taxonomy of Race NOT color. We are all Indo-Europeans. Stick with that moniker. White is anyway “colorless” and it is a way for the Jew to think and say he is part of the Western World. He is Semitic. Spengler and LA both think that they are White and belong to the White system of things. They change the meaning of words to suit their agenda.

We must declare forcibly that we are Indo-Europeans; don’t use this “White” stuff.

Posted by Andy Wooster on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:28 | #

Auster “responds” again. It’s the same mass of ad hominems and strawmen that typify his treatment of the issue.

He writes:
It’s the standard far-white anti-Semitic message: (1) The real cause of the West’s racial ills is the Jews. (2) The key to saving the West is that the European white majority must get rid of the Jews. (3) Getting rid of the Jews will somehow make the European whites strong and enable them to handle their other race enemies, something they will never be able to do while the Jews are around undermining them. And, finally, (4) if I, as a person of Jewish ancestry, do not agree with propositions 1, 2, and 3, that proves that I am a race enemy of European whites like the rest of the Jews; but if I as a racial Jew agree to the destruction or ejection of the Jews, that shows that I am A-Ok.

The first two things that came to mind after reading this screed:

1. Did he even read the letter? None of his four points are represented in Guessedworker’s letter.

2. Interestingly, he does link to the blog entry. It’s interesting because it should be readily apparent to any of his readers who do follow the link that he badly misrepresents Guessedworker’s arguments.

Regarding Auster’s 4 point misrepresentation of Guessedworker’s letter:

1. Auster writes: “The real cause of the West’s racial ills is the Jews. ” GW *explicitly* rejects this, leading me to believe Auster didn’t even read the letter he links to:That order of play - liberalism <> the liberal elite <> the Jewish engagement - is fair, I think, and should tell you that “you people”, as you name us, possess a proper understanding of the West’s political and cultural woes. The next time you leap to your conclusion and feel the irresistible impulse to shout about how obsessed with Jewry we are, please entertain the smallest of doubts somewhere in your skull that you may, in fact, be wrong. You are wrong now.

2.Auster’s 2nd claim: “The key to saving the West is that the European white majority must get rid of the Jews. ” Nowhere in GW’s letter is this written. This is what is known as a “strawman” argument.

3. ” Getting rid of the Jews will somehow make the European whites strong and enable them to handle their other race enemies, something they will never be able to do while the Jews are around undermining them.” Where in the letter is this stated or implied? Another strawman.

4. “if I, as a person of Jewish ancestry, do not agree with propositions 1, 2, and 3, that proves that I am a race enemy of European whites like the rest of the Jews; but if I as a racial Jew agree to the destruction or ejection of the Jews, that shows that I am A-Ok.” Seeing as how points 1-3 are clearly false, this one must by definition be false as well. Did you actually read the letter, Larry?

Two replies so far by Auster and yet he has not come close to *addressing* (never mind answering) Guessedworker’s actual arguments.

Posted by Andy Wooster on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:30 | #

Sorry, forgot to link: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006940.html

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:48 | #

Thanks Andy. I have posted his response in case anyone wants to comment on it. But you have very adequately exposed its shortcomings.

Svi’s original remark, “tender Jewish parts”, has proven to be deeply true. So have all the comments here on LA’s Islamophobia. It’s hard to know quite how I can address him productively again, since he’s tipped over into another mental universe filed with tribal fears and imaginings.

It’s exactly what one would expect, I suppose, yet almost too neat to be true.

Posted by Gilbert De Bruycker on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:04 | #

“I am looking at you, Lawrence - at your many logical inconsistencies.”

Lawrence Auster is a devout Christian, but has a Jewish background. Christianity is the Jewish captivity of the Gentiles. That men are all of one blood, that blood does not count and shall not be regarded, is the doctrine - a self-protective Jewish fiction - preached to the Gentiles by the Jews after their overthrow as a nation.

That there are no races is their gospel for others. They are themselves among the most clannish peoples. Gentiles are trained, conditioned, to compete with one another in debasing the race as their Judaic-Christian duty.

Valuing human beings by their intrinsic qualities requires discrimination, which is anti-Christian and anti-Semitic. Discriminatory immigration laws are contrary to the spirit of the religion founded by the Jews for the Gentiles.

In 1965, a reformulation of existing immigration laws made possible a sizable increase in the volume of immigration by ending - as required by the Judaic-Christianity spirit - the quota system; it facilitated a dramatic increase in the number of immigrants from Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. In addition, a number of smaller groups have arrived. These include such diverse peoples as Haitians, Dominicans, Jamaicans, Salvadorans, Colombians, and Cambodians.

Restrictions on immigration preserving certain countries mainly for the descendants of Europeans can now not be enacted. More effective than spies and traitors are ways of speaking which accepted as principles render a people powerless to protect themselves!

The differences between Christians and modern liberals are superficial in comparison to their agreements. Modern liberalism is Christianity in secular form and both are Jewish in origin.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:14 | #

Modern liberalism is indeed Marxised liberalism.

Posted by bats-man on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:23 | #

“Indo-European?” I don’t want to be lumped in with southern and eastern Europeans let alone Iranians and Hindus. I feel closer to Finns or Hungarians than to some Indo-Europeans.

“Christianity is the Jewish captivity of the Gentiles. That men are all of one blood, that blood does not count and shall not be regarded, is the doctrine - a self-protective Jewish fiction - preached to the Gentiles by the Jews after their overthrow as a nation.”

Christianity was founded by a small sect of Jews not the hive. I don’t think anti-racism would have resonated with pre-enlightenment Christians (and I’m not sure it resonates with Eastern Christians even today). Christianity doesn’t tear down (necessary) social distinctions such as race, ethnicity, gender (things that give our existance form) but teaches that these worldly distinctions are not ultimate distinctions in holiness, the ability to experience the Kingdom of Heaven, etc. Did Paul tell the various groups he preached the Gospel to that they must racially and culturally amalgamate?

Mr. De Bruycker’s treatment makes 2000 years Christian tradition (and the spiritual core of Western Civilization) and makes it another Jewish conspiracy to undermine whites.

Posted by Gilbert De Bruycker on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:24 | #

At http://www.christianethicstoday.com Rob S,ellers, Connally Chair of Missions (Logsdon School of Theology at Hardin-Simmons University), actually defends multiculturalism! Here are some excerpts from his article:

Racial, religious, or social discrimination is our problem….But intolerance and injustice are our problems. .. Racism is individual prejudice PLUS the power of the system to enforce those prejudices….It is the unique problem of the dominant group, because they are the ones with enough power either to keep others subservient or to grant them freedom and equality. It is therefore our responsibility - those of us who are in the white majority - to take the initiative toward minority groups, because for far too long we have been part of the problem….ALL white people of our society are “racists…. For racism is the condition in and under which we live. It is the structures in which we live and move and have our being… I can change my attitudes. I can be educated out of a mind filled with hate and bigotry. But I cannot stop being a racist. It has nothing to do with how liberal, or radical, or enlightened, or educated, or good I am. Nor does it have to do with how reactionary, conservative, ignorant, or bad I am. It just has to do with being white within these [white] structures (Will D. Campbell, “The World of the Redneck,” in Moral Issues and Christian Response)....

It is useful to us to welcome cultural diversity. We learn from others whose viewpoint differs from our own. Their life experiences, drastically different from our own, enrich us and bring us new insights. Their stories challenge our presuppositions and narrow assumptions. They stretch us and cause us to grow…. We MUST celebrate our distinctions, because our lives will become more beautiful and rich because of this diversity. At one level this sounds self-serving, but the truth is we all will be enriched by a mutual celebration of our differences….

We accept others because it is right. This is the political answer. “Justice for all” is our national heritage. Our founding fathers’ and mothers’ dream was to live in a place where people of religious, cultural, and ethnic differences could coexist and flourish… One whose courageous life was spent calling for all Americans to be given the same opportunity to realize this dream was a Baptist pastor from Alabama named Martin Luther King, Jr.: We are simply seeking to bring into full realization the American dream-a dream yet unfulfilled. A dream of equality of opportunity, of privilege, and property widely distributed; a dream of a land where [people] no longer argue that the color of [one’s] skin determines the content of his character. . . .

King’s message and eventual martyrdom helped to bring about the passage of federal legislation outlawing discrimination against minority groups-first on the basis of race, but later also due to differences of gender, physical or mental well being, or sexual orientation. But again, realistically, ratifying new laws can’t always regulate attitudes or behaviors. Years after the enactment of some of these laws we are still a nation that lives a segregated life. In so many ways, don’t we really still live apart? We may attend school together, work together, and play together. Sadly, however, we are not so much doing these things together as we are simply in the same place doing them separately, but in each other’s presence. (Joseph Barndt, Dismantling Racism: The Continuing Challenge to White America (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1991), 54)....

We MUST guarantee that everyone has equal opportunities for success and happiness, because our nation was founded on the belief that this equality is a basic human right. Yet, there’s a higher motivation for welcoming multiculturalism: we look out for others because to do so is good! This is the moral answer. Morality demands more of us than legality.

But there is a higher reason still for embracing multiculturalism on our campus: we reach out to others because it is compassionate. This is the Christian answer. Tolerance is the secular answer, the philosophical norm. But love is Jesus’ way. And love is more demanding than tolerance. Jesus crossed all kinds of barriers that separated the respectable religious folk of his day from the “riff raff” of Palestinian society. He gathered his disciples from among simple and uneducated Galileans. He related positively to women, ministered to them in ways that were daring, and praised their examples of godly living. He touched the diseased bodies of the infirm to restore both their health and place within the community. He took the side of the poor and the dispossessed. He did battle with spiritual, demonic powers to rescue the helpless and hopeless. He celebrated the innocence of little children. He reached out to social outcasts, Samaritans, and Gentiles. Little wonder that Paul, one who felt accepted by Christ and miraculously called to be his missionary, penned a tribute to Jesus’ risky, inclusive love. Paul wrote: “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all . . . are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). Because of Jesus’ embrace of diverse peoples, in other words, Christians should not practice racial, socioeconomic, or gender discrimination, for all are one in Christ. We can only speculate what other barriers, knocked down by Jesus’ compassion, Paul would articulate were he to write this reminder to believers in today’s divisive world!

We MUST love others here because that’s the godly thing to do, for God is love. That doesn’t mean that we will necessarily appreciate someone’s behavior or choices, even as we love them. It certainly doesn’t mean that we have to condone their actions before we can accept them. That would be conditional love, yet we know that God’s kind of love-the agape we are commanded to practice toward others (John 13:34-35)-is unconditional. Frankly, if Jesus walked the streets and hallways of our campus today, he would meet everywhere people who differ from him-people whose behavior and choices sadden him. How might he respond? What would Jesus do? I believe he wouldn’t demand that we first conform to his standards or look exactly like him so that we might become loveable! He would love us in all our diversity and in spite of our many limitations. He would accept us as we are while encouraging us to become everything we’re intended to be. He would treat us with unconditional, sacrificial, and abundant love-despite our failures and foibles (Romans. 5:8)! - http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/033/In Defense of Multiculturalism By Rob Sellers_033_23_.htm

Posted by Julz Caine on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:12 | #

Your reasoning contains tendencious fallacies dressed in the garb of cool analysis.

If you believe that Western Civilisation is the production of (solely) European Caucasian Man, you either went to a very bad high school or have blocked out historical facts from your consciousness and conscience. Western Civ has a double cradle: Jerusalem and Athens. It goes to before Jerusalem, to Moses and the 10 commandments. More than anything, Western Civ is the spiritual child of a Jewish renegade rabbi and his Jewish apostles. And how do you get to put the caps on the term Western Civilization without reckoning that Spinoza and Wittgenstein, Columbus and Disraeli, Mendelssohn and Mahler, Modigliani and Pissarro, Einstein and von Neumann and von Baeyer and von Mises, Heine and Koestler and Moravia and Proust, Klemperer and Previn and Rubinstein—-on and on by the tens of thousands of Europe’s best and brightest, have all been Jews? And I haven’t even touched on the U.S. yet. Are you very ill, friend? Do know anything at all about the civilization you purport to defend?

Where exactly do you see a connection between the “demographic disaster,” “loss of homeland by race replacement” etc. and Jews? There are 2 million Jews in Europe, in a population of 730 million. There are 5.7 million Jews in the U.S., in a population of 300 million.

I’ll shake hands with you on this: The West’s political, cultural and corporate elites are liberalism’s executive officers, and their collective, day-to-day actions steer the West down its course to disaster. I’ll shake hands with you on Jewish-authored liberal philosophies, Jewish political activism, Jewish largesse being highly germane to that course. But there are many other groups similarly engaged in the destructive endeavor. You can break them down by race (e.g. Far-Eastern Asian-Americans are overwhelmingly and actively liberal; just check the politics in Hawaii and on the Left Coast). You can break them down by religion: mainstream Protestant churches and the Catholic church are activists for some of the worst current plagues of Western civ. You can break them down by profession, singling out lawyers and teachers, for example. Yo seem to be intent on making the Jews the sole scapegoat in your scenario.

If you believe that Jews compete as a group, and have philosophies that are “unidirectional,” and that they seek to displace, dispossess or otherwise undermine the “European Western Man,” you are in the far-out psychopathology world, friend, where dwell the black helicopters, the Elders of Zion, and the Illuminati. And don’t quote Kevin McDonald to me, for he has dwelled in that place since he has taken pen to paper.

Do you know many Jews? Have you had Jewish friends who have opened their hearts to you? Have you read books by Jewish authors; seen films by Jewish filmmakers? I have, and I can tell you this: the (modern day) Jews are their own worst enemy. They follow a utopian, universalist morality—based in the same sources as both Judaism and Christianity but thoroughly secularized now. Since you positioned this as an argument with Auster, in the interest of brevity I’ll focus on just one aspect, the one Auster does best: immigration.

Are you as unable to see as the foolish, self-immolating Jews are what will be the consequences—to Jews and to Israel—of the insane immigration policies that Jews overwhelmingly support? Do you think that the 100 million third-worlders who will have arrived on these shores within the next 25 years, and their 1st generation progeny, give a damn about Jews or Israel, or American Protestantism’s historical proclivity to both? Can’t you see how severely Jewish impact on American politics and culture will be curtailed? The Jews—you’ll agree on this one—are not stupid; they must be very worried, particularly about Israel, yet they follow a political agenda that satisfies what they wrongly consider to be a higher moral imperative.

There are thousands of illlustrations to this self-sacrificing phenomenon; precisely 100% opposite of what you posit. The high taxes that liberals advocate transfer money from Jews to colored minorities and to lower class whites. The radicals and Islamofascists that Jewish lawyers and the Jewish ACLU defend hate Jews more than anybody; and so on.

You seem to entertain no self-doubts even when stating ignorant fatuities of the most obvious kind, e.g.: “Can any Jew, a member of the most ethnocentric people on earth, ever deny his own ethnic interests ...etc.” Do you know anything at all about the Chinese? The Koreans? The Shias? The Sunnis? The Fulani? The Igbo? The Jews, even if they had this strong ethnocentrism you adduce, which they have actuallly lost since the late 19th century, would be far behind the above ethnic and religious groups, and many others.

Speak the truth, man, and learn something before you unravel your grand theories in public. And who are those Slav-despising untermenschen riding on your coattails in the reax section? Get some better company, too.

Yours, in disappointment, .375 Jew

Julz C

Posted by disappointing brute on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:49 | #

Any firm evidence that Columbus was a Jew?

“—-on and on by the tens of thousands of Europe’s best and brightest, have all been Jews?”

They may have been Jews, but they were not “Europe’s.”

“Do you know many Jews? Have you had Jewish friends who have opened their hearts to you?”

Now, that’s certainly a quantitative, rational argument.

“If you believe that Jews compete as a group, and have philosophies that are “unidirectional,” and that they seek to displace, dispossess or otherwise undermine the “European Western Man,” you are in the far-out psychopathology world, friend, where dwell the black helicopters, the Elders of Zion, and the Illuminati.”

No argument, just ad hominem.

“And don’t quote Kevin McDonald to me, for he has dwelled in that place since he has taken pen to paper.”

In other words - “Yes, MacDonald has written 1000+, heavily footnoted, and heavily researched, pages supporting your worldview, but I’ll just dismiss him as crazy in one throw-away sentence, so it all evens out. Let’s move on now, nothing to see here…”

“And who are those Slav-despising untermenschen…”

You refer to what?

“Yours, in disappointment…”

You are disappointed. We are crushed.

Posted by Gilbert De Bruycker on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:09 | #

On his website, http://www.thebirdman.org John ,“Birdman” Bryant has tried to lay out in detail exactly what Jews have been doing to Western civilization.

The Jewish support of liberalism is contrary to the basic principles of Western life. Jewish leaders—the most intelligent men of an outstandingly- intelligent race—know perfectly well the effects of liberalism, and continue to promote it precisely because they approve of its effects. -http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Jews/Jews-JWAG.html

OK, sure, not all Jews are guilty of opposing Western civilization. In fact, most do not do so actively, and probably do not even think of themselves as part of such opposition. But opposition to Western civilization is the effect of their behavior: They vote as liberals, they support liberal organizations (and especially Jewish organizations with liberal agendas), and they think of themselves primarily as Jews(*), rather than as members of the larger society which has granted them the political and social freedom which has allowed them to prosper. - http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Jews/Jews-OpenLetter.html

(*) Recently Michael Medved’s argued that there is “the age-old Jewish refusal to abandon our separate identity, our irreducible distinctiveness through the millennia.” (...) “there’s no choice about the unyielding refusal to assimilate.” (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2006/08/09/why_the_world_hates_the_jews )

‘It is a psychological riddle, decipherable only thus: the Zionists have two minds, which function independently. As Jews, they are committed to the destruction of Western Civilization (...) As custodians of the United States, they must half-heartedly retain at least the technical and political domination of that Civilization even while destroying its soul and meaning.

In a word, they are working simultaneously for and against the Western Civilization. Quite obviously, they are thus doing more damage than conferring benefit….. - http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/Enemy_4.html

Posted by Andy Wooster on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:15 | #

Brute—-
You, sir, are a veritable troll slaying one-man army. I was going to join you in piling on jdog and interracialist in the other thread when I came to ask myself “Why bother?” I realized that my efforts would be superfluous, as you had already dispatched those cretins with aplomb.

yours in admiration,

Wooster

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments