Let’s see Amren’s editorial policies in action

Posted by Englander on November 16, 2006, 04:52 PM | #

It is depressing to see racially aware people treating MacDonald in exactly the same way as the people they are practically lining up with to attack MacDonald would treat them.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on November 16, 2006, 07:43 PM | #

Today’s round of comments have gone up, and mine aren’t among them.  I guess they were “too strong” for Amren.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 16, 2006, 07:50 PM | #

Same result as me a while back, Svi, when I posted a comment here that I had submitted to Mr Jobling’s successor, whatever his name is.

Does one draw the conclusion that Amren is slipping into another kind of utility, a lesser one and one directed and constrained by sensibilities not our own?  It looks very much as if that is a judgement that can no longer be avoided.  What a pity.

Posted by rustymason on November 16, 2006, 07:58 PM | #

The closest I can get in my posts is to complain about the MSM and Hollywood and the “elites” in government and academia, in a way suggestive of approbation towards generic liberals.  I must imply that those entities are controlled by greedy White guys and big corporate interests or no go.  It also helps not to mention them all together in the same post, spread ‘em out over several posts.  Even if uninitiated readers could never infer a connection between great power and the Inner Circle, the gatekeepers and donors certainly could smell my drift, and they’re not taking any chances.

Posted by rustymason on November 16, 2006, 08:00 PM | #

whoops: disapprobation, not approbation

Posted by Englander on November 16, 2006, 08:03 PM | #

What worries me is that I had been reading the comments of various amren articles for a while now, and I had assumed that the comments weren’t moderated because some really moronic hateful posts are made which are of no help or use to anybody. Why would they let those through and not the above comments?

Is amren simply trying to avoid the full brunt of organized Jewry? I consider the JQ to be inseparable from the issues amren concerns itself with.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on November 16, 2006, 08:17 PM | #

Englander, I respect Amren’s policy, which seems to be to generally ignore (and censor commentary on) the JQ, pretend jews are white, and reap the benefits of this triangulation (i.e., “if you jews think Amren is bad you’d better examine the alternative”).

Unfortunately, they do a piss-poor job of following this policy by installing philo-Semitic gatekeepers who seem to have trouble with objectivity (separating the man and his arguments)..

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on November 16, 2006, 08:21 PM | #

What really chaps my ass is that they allow loads of philo-Semitic bunk past censors, but not fact-based rebuttals.  Hell, I’m not even allowed to critique a “jewish white guy” on strictly logical grounds, as above.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on November 16, 2006, 08:24 PM | #

I suspect it might be personal because “stronger” stuff has made its way onto the thread.  My occasional fire-and-forget comments about “holy hook-noses,” which are essentially just inside jokes intended for the censors since I know they won’t be posted, might have pissed someone off.

Posted by anothercommenter on November 16, 2006, 08:42 PM | #

Svi,
I think you do not consider where Amren has decided to place itself with regards to attracting readership.  Amren has chosen a particular set of ideas to broadcast.  They don’t have to do the JQ because plenty of other sites on the web do do it.  They want to attract mainstream readers who are not familiar with racial consciousness.  They need to present a rational image to do that.  That said, understanding the JQ is below the surface and not something that someone gets or understands immediately.  If Amren presents the JQ, it might dissuade new readers from reading further.  ((I myself do not read a website further if it says 9/11 is a conspiracy))  Amren doesn’t want to present ideas which at first approach seem implausible—and thus turn off readers.
That said, it is possible to find out about the JQ on Amren.  Stormfront and other sites are frequently mentioned in the comments section.  This very article that Amren posted about KMD gives Amren readers the opportunity to learn about the JQ.  Going forward, every time KMD is censored by the SPLC, I anticipate Amren to post the article. 
Amren sells a book which tactly touches on the JQ.  The book discusses the history of desegregation.  I bought that book and that’s is how I found out about it.
So I think your are being overly hostile to Amren’s policy when there probably is good reasons for it. 
anothercommenter

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on November 16, 2006, 09:13 PM | #

I think you do not consider where Amren has decided to place itself with regards to attracting readership.  Amren has chosen a particular set of ideas to broadcast.  They don’t have to do the JQ because plenty of other sites on the web do do it.

I’ve said much the same myself.  Amren’s position is to be the “gateway drug.”

Where in protecting unawakened white sensibilities does the need to allow philo-Semitic blather become necessary?

Posted by allotmentkeeper on November 16, 2006, 10:04 PM | #

anothercommenter said:

“They don’t have to do the JQ because plenty of other sites on the web do do it.  They want to attract mainstream readers who are not familiar with racial consciousness.  They need to present a rational image to do that.”

This is very important.

Whatever approach road to nationalism or racialism we all took, there had to be an original credible source which went somehow or somewhat against the broader cultural trend (dependent on age - old men excepted ).

I think, therefore, that it’s just as foolish to attack the IHR and David Duke, say, for being over-critical of Jews (who among us has turned as many toward nationalism as either of them?), as it is to attack the BNP or Amren for being under-critical (likewise?).

Different approaches are necessary. Those who would close down certain roads to nationalism/racialism should therefore be careful, indeed, to be sure of their own grounds.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on November 16, 2006, 10:28 PM | #

I think, therefore, that it’s just as foolish to attack the IHR and David Duke, say, for being over-critical of Jews (who among us has turned as many toward nationalism as either of them?), as it is to attack the BNP or Amren for being under-critical (likewise?).

Hear-hear!  I wonder how much of the intramural acrimony (triangulation aside) is spawned by the mainstream’s most effective tactic (ignore thy enemy)?  It’s odd to hear Amreners rant about Nazi this and Nazi that (don’t they know which side they’re on?), and equally odd to hear SFers rant about limp-wristed this and “real” that (likewise).  The former seem to think “respectability” will be theirs on a silver platter if they can just distance themselves from the latter; the latter seem to think WNism-as-subculture is the way it should be (wtf?).

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 17, 2006, 12:46 AM | #

anothercommenter :

If what you say is true, and it may well be, does that mean Amren is abandoning its attempt to embrace Jews as WNs.

The reason for asking is the article posted regarding blacks targeting white tourist in Washington DC.

The fact is that white tourists are being injured and killed by roving black male gangs, who are even showing up in exclusive areas such as Georgetown where some rich reporters live behind iron gates. The Post, however, has a policy of deliberately keeping the public in the dark about the real nature of the problem.

In D.C., it appears, you’re not supposed to talk about the racial aspect of the problem. Black police chief Charles H. Ramsey temporarily reassigned a white police commander who warned residents to be aware of suspicious black people in a section of the city where a white man, a British citizen by the name of Alan Sennit, was murdered by having his throat slit by a group of black male thugs. Ramsey considered his comments racially offensive, even though they were true.

However, it turns out Alan Sennit is not just a white man or even an unfortunate British ‘citizen’. Alan Sennit is a Jew.

WASHINGTON/LONDON (EJP)—- Tributes have been pouring in for a former leader of the British Union of Jewish students who was murdered in Washington, USA, on Saturday night.

Allan Sennit was stabbed to death after being attacked by four men in the Georgetown area of the American capital. Aged just 27, he had begun forging a political career, having already made a name for himself in the UK Jewish community working with a number of influential organisations.

Isn’t such a vicious killing an opportunity to re-inforce Taylor’s common purpose meme?

Posted by Paul of Gaunt on November 17, 2006, 07:34 AM | #

Svyatoslav,

To be fair, Amren did post up a number of excellent, well-reasoned comments by other AR commenters who criticized “White, Jewish and Proud” and that guy Wolfgang Zernik.  One of most perceptive IMHO was by Xenophon: “One of the theses that MacDonald discusses is the penchant of Jews for subjecting non-Jewish peoples among whom Jews live to a regimen of radical critique. However, they do not permit, as some Jews above have demonstrated, the opposite. It is one of the reasons they aggresively take over the media organs in the countries where they have acquired wealth and influence. By claiming such critique represents “anti-semitism” they effectivley stifle any criticism that does not originate among themselves. As noted from the few posts above, their objections prove the point.”

CharlieK’s post after this was excellent, too.

Xenophon’s post was brilliant IMHO, and it captures, I think, the heart of the matter.  Jews see themselves as distinct from the majority culture, which leads a subset of them to attack it vigorously and subtly, infiltrating the media organs that set a society’s culture.  This is one reason why the USA, Canada, Britain and Australia are being torn apart—we’re being flooded with Third World newcomers from the Global South who are competing directly against US and other Whites. 

In the meantime, they push miscegenation (which further weakens our solidarity), while getting the US, Britain and Australia involved in dangerous, bloody and incredibly damaging wars against countries that Israel sees as enemies, such as Baathist Iraq.  The blood of White Gentile Americans is shed on their behalf, with many evangelical Christians—the Dispensationalists, who are obsessed with the Rapture and Greater Israel—functioning as useful idiots for these Jews in this regard.

This IMHO explains a paradox I’ve long been puzzled about.  When Jews get involved in technical fields such as the sciences and medicine, they do incredible things and contribute to a society.  But when they get involved in politics and the media, they perniciously damage a society until it virtually starts to fall apart.  Many Jews I’ve met are annoyed at the creeping cultural Marxism of the US, but the most powerful ones—those with institutional power—tend to be quite in favor of the cultural forces that are destroying the United States.  Unfortunately, the children of those involved in technical fields tend to favor areas like politics and media, so even the initial benefits in technical fields are more than totally undone by the next generation. 

It’s similar to what happened in Bolshevist Russia, where Jews had such political power and promoted policies that were incredibly damaging to White Gentiles, such as the Holodomor in the Ukraine.  The fundamental issue is, Jews in general see themselves as separate from the society around them, when they’re in the Diaspora.  Some do OK with that, but far, far too many—especially in elite circles—take on policies that are increidbly damaging to the host society, as MacDonald candidly notes. 

They, and a number of useful idiot White Gentiles, have basically done in the US and UK already, with Canada and Australia soon to follow.  We’re doomed by our demographics among other things.  All that’s holding us together now is the imperialist pseudo-wealth that puts us at ease.  As soon as there’s an economic downturn in North America, Britain and Australia, it’s gonna make Yugoslavia seem like a bastion of peace in comparison.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on November 17, 2006, 04:12 PM | #

Yes, I suppose it’s personal if stuff like this can make it through:

My, my. Yet another posting that draws venom from Jews who claim to be conservative. The fact that so many Jews who claim to be conservative hate Pat Buchanan for the same reasons and with the same intensity as do cultural Marxists and hate Kevin McDonald for the same reaasons and with the same intensity as cultural Marxists would make any reasonable man wonder deeply about professed conservative Jews.

If professed conservative Jews would spend their time, money and energy exposing and fighting the grotesquely huge number of ultra leftwing Jews, such as those who are the SPLC, then we could trust them. But when they spend their time ordering us to hate Pat Buchanan and not read Kevin McDonald or else we will be damned as ‘anti-Semites,’ then we have little choice but to see ‘conservative’ Jews as little better than obviously Trotskyite Jews, for they prove that they will go bed with cultural Marxist Jews at our conservative European Gentile expense.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on November 17, 2006, 07:09 PM | #

Lawrence Auster is a prime specimen of the ‘conservative’ Jew.

Posted by allotmentkeeper on November 17, 2006, 07:37 PM | #

Matt, Auster is just such a prime specimen, but he is also an articulate and formidable opponent of the ruling liberalism, and of Islam and it’s followers. That many of his criticisms of Islam and Muslims can be made about Judaism and Jews is not a reason to dismiss his value.

Posted by allotmentkeeper on November 17, 2006, 07:41 PM | #

or even its followers…

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on November 19, 2006, 10:26 AM | #

Auster is one of those ‘Judaeo-Christian civilisation’ merchants whose main objective is to pass for white and conservative so he can control the terms of the debate about Whitey’s future. Jewry needs a few on the ‘other’ side of the illusory left/right polarity it faithfully maintains.

Auster’s blog is characterised by extreme anti-immigration rhetoric, although if he were so keen on Christian values one would think he might welcome all those pious Catholic brown Mexicans joining the US party. But the thought that a few anti-Jewish jihadis might sneak in with them is decisive.

Scratch a ‘conservative’ Jew and find a Jew. Dig deeper and it’s Jew all through. Auster’s true colours have been on display recently in his witch-hunting against David Duke, Jared Taylor, Kevin MacDonald,  Paul Craig Roberts and anyone else whom he holds to have committed the cardinal sin of ‘antisemitism’—as if the Christian traditions he professedly espouses could be, at least implicitly, anything else.

He has helped emasculate American Renaissance. MR.com grumbles about that but does not connect the dots. Auster does not accept racial dimensions of heritage; he is a blank-slate ‘culturist’ who thinks anyone except a Muslim or a foreign-born can be a good conservative American if they try really, really hard and dance to Larry’s tune.

For a flavour of the shrieking, finger-pointing rabbinical denouncer behind the normal facade of smooth reasonableness, see this collection (search on ‘David Duke’):

http://www.amnation.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi

Conservatism is about style as much as substance. Why should this ludicrous Morris Dees or Abe Foxman of ‘the Right’, spluttering venom, appoint himself spokesman for millions of Americans? Are they so enfeebled that they need a Larry Auster to do their talking back?

Posted by Andy Wooster on November 19, 2006, 10:40 AM | #

He has helped emasculate American Renaissance. MR.com grumbles about that but does not connect the dots. Auster does not accept racial dimensions of heritage; he is a blank-slate ‘culturist’ who thinks anyone except a Muslim or a foreign-born can be a good conservative American if they try really, really hard and dance to Larry’s tune.

  You could not be more wrong. Auster is a race-realist and he frames his opposition to Hispanic immigration in these terms.  He has also blogged many times on the negro problem. Your comment about “Christian values” requiring him to accept the hordes of nominally-Catholic but civilization destroying brown peasants currently flooding the the US is jaw-droppingly ludicrous. 

  I do agree with you regarding Auster on antisemitism.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on November 19, 2006, 02:27 PM | #

Andy, I don’t see very much specific criticism of Mexican mores or their immigrant numbers at all on Auster’s blog. He mentions them in passing, as a way of getting on to his idee fixe about the far smaller numbers of Muslims seeking to get into the States. He is willing to quote, often at length, other writers on the failings of peons; but his own, Jewish focus is Islamophobic to the nth degree.

The impression Auster leaves is that he has jumped on the anti-Latino-immigration bandwagon to keep Arabs out of the States. Even a rehash of a 1997 pamphlet about the delusion of ‘Hispanic family values’ winds up taking a pop at his real foe:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006103.html

As for his ‘race realism’ in general, it is humdrum and dated. He tries to ‘out’ Steve Sailer as a closet liberal but relies on Sailer’s facts and arguments; he does no thinking of his own on what, by any standards but those of a Jewish obsessive, is a far more serious threat to American social and political cohesion than ‘terror’ or neoconservative intellectual perversions.

For an overview of this looming black demographic menace, Auster always refers readers to a paper he wrote in 1995 about the b/w difference: that’s compatible with AmRen’s Topic #1, but Auster would not dream of lumping his beloved Jews in with those crude, primitive semitic monotheists from the other side of the great Near East divide.

In judging a man’s bona fides, I take account of the amount and quality of attention he pays to subjects and how he assigns his priorities and chooses his illustrations. Auster fails the false-flag test.

“Attacking the insane rightists who side with Muslims against the beseiged and tormented Western nation of Israel, a long article at the British National Party website, written by Lee Barnes, the attorney to BNP’s chairman Nick Griffin, takes Israel’s side 100 percent in its confrontation with Hezbollah. I’ve only skimmed through the article so far, but what a fantastic development this is. On first glance, the article seems the clearest step yet in Griffin’s effort to re-make the BNP into a morally sound voice for a revived British and Western nationalism…”

(Laurence Auster: ‘BNP Comes Out 100 Per Cent for Israel’).

Auster defines Israel, a country of Asiatic Near Eastern semites, as ‘Western’. He equates ‘morally sound’ British nationalism with support for it, a ‘fantastic development’.

This man’s priorities are not ours, for sure.