Lawrence Auster, self-styled advocate of the “white” West, writes and blogs regularly about the West’s troubles. At first I found his analysis refreshing. Then I found it confusing. Now I see him as an obstacle. A false friend. A poseur.
Auster regularly exhorts Whites to reassert themselves, to call their enemies and problems by their proper names. But then he just as regularly peevishly denounces Whites who assert themselves in the wrong way or use inappropriate words.
Three months ago Auster was explaining why we shouldn’t capitalize White:
Lately more and more commenters have been capitalizing the words white and black, e.g., “White people,” “Black people,” which I have changed to lower case prior to posting. It has never been standard usage to capitalize these adjectives when they are used to denote race, and it is not VFR’s usage. While race matters, to make it matter so much that we capitalize the mere names of colors is to take race consciousness too far. I ask commenters to conform their spelling to standard English usage. Thank you.
Oh, I see. That must be why standard usage is to write “hard-working Latino”, “hard-working African-American”, and “hard-working white”. Because white is just a color. Just an adjective. That makes sense.
No it doesn’t. The standard usage is inconsistent. I assert that it’s wrong.
In the same post Auster explained why he thinks some words are capitalized and others are not:
All kinds of racists do this, to magnify their own group and dehumanize the group they hate. For example, many white nationalists capitalize “white,” a color which should not be capitalized, and put “Jew,” a proper name which should be capitalized, in lower case.
More transparent rot. If Auster were as concerned about Whites as he is about jews he’d insist on the same standards, regardless of conventions. He wouldn’t insult Whites by pretending the word is an adjective, and he’d argue that “white” is dehumanizing instead of making excuses for it.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but the way I capitalize words has nothing to do with hate. It has everything to do with consciousness. I am conscious of the anti-White convention. I consciously reject it. To drive home the point I invert it.
There are more symptoms of Auster’s sorta, kinda, half-hearted pro-“white” pose.
Just a few days ago, Auster asked, Why are white Westerners describing themselves as “indigenous” peoples?:
I protest the recent and expanding use of “indigenous” to describe white Western majority peoples, as Rick Darby used it innocently and in passing in another thread. Yes, in the simplest sense “indigenous” means “originating where it is found,” and therefore could, I suppose, be used to describe the British, since the white British population goes back to the Neolithic. But the word would not apply to white Americans, the earliest ancestors of whom came to this continent 400 years ago.
But there is a larger problem with “indigenous.” It doesn’t just mean native to a location. It also implies people in their original, undeveloped state. Traditionally, we never thought of a people in a developed society, with complex institutions and a national state, as “indigenous,” even if their ancestors had lived in that land for 10,000 years.
Further, indigenous is typically used by outside people who are studying or protecting some tribal group.
For majority whites to call themselves “indigenous” is exactly like whites asking for their “rights” under multiculturalism. It is an admission of surrender to multiculturalism, whites’ transformation of themselves into just another minority group needing protection, rather than being and asserting themselves as the leading and dominant people of our respective countries.
Western peoples thus gratuitously diminish and weaken themselves by referring to themselves as indigenous. As a self-description of white Westerners it is incorrect, unnecessary, demoralizing, and defeatist.
Then, notwithstanding his rationale for “white”, Auster writes:
The Brits seem to go out of their way to make themselves into nothing. They now even spell the the word “west,” as in “western civilization,” in lower case. They’re so wimpy they won’t even capitalize the name of their own civilization. Next they’ll be spelling Britain as “britain.”
He goes on to quote a Mr. Carpenter who tells us “That is pathetic”, “Quite disgraceful”, and “Very sad”. Auster says we must not call ourselves “indigenous” and we must write “West”, otherwise we are wimps. But we must write “Jew” and we must write “white”, otherwise we are haters.
Scolding. Lecturing. Constraining. Upbraiding. Insulting. Talk about demoralizing. We should assert ourselves as the dominant people of our respective countries, but by using the wrong words we gratuitously diminish ourselves. Please sir, if it’s not too much trouble sir, how and when may we “whites” assert ourselves?
Piffle. Why do “whites” write “west”? Come now Auster. Use your own logic. It’s nothing but a mere direction. Right?
And why are White Westerners describing themselves as “indigenous”? This also isn’t a difficult question to answer. But Auster and his philo-semitic peanut gallery don’t want an answer. They are only interested in heaping shame and insults on “whites”. The behavior of these hecklers hints at the problem. They aren’t White. They want “whites” to do what they see as good and necessary to help jews, but they attack uppity Whites who think or act in their own interests.
The short answer these Austerites don’t want to face is that Whites no longer dominate their respective countries. Beyond broad swipes at vague “liberals” the Austerites also don’t want to discuss why.
Whites used to dominate not only their own countries, but most of the globe. Nowadays we’re indoctrinated that this was a monstrous crime. We’re reminded in many ways on a daily basis that everybody and anybody is more important than Whites now, and jews are on top. How did this happen? Well, in large part because Whites relinquished control. We’ve been badgered, harangued, brow-beaten, and guilt-tripped for generations, first by humanists and abolitionists, then increasingly by resentful, self-interested, culturally and economically revolutionary jews. Many Whites were convinced that giving away power and opening the borders was the right and noble thing to do. So now today we are inundated and assaulted by a broad coalition of resentful self-interested “minorities”.
I have referred to myself as indigenous several times in the past few years. I will do so again. The reason why is not difficult to explain. But I’m not surprised Lawrence Auster pretends it is a mystery.
Under the increasingly pro-jew, anti-White politically correct regime it has become the norm to extend preferential status to “indigenous” people. Like most everything in this upside-down regime the preference is selective and applies only to non-whites. Of course this violates the holy PC tenet of non-discrimination and reveals PC’s equalitarian claptrap for the steaming pile of manure it is. Just as in Animal Farm – where all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
The word indigenous has a common, biological sense. It means native, and that’s precisely what any decent dictionary says. The meaning that liberals prefer is deliberately contorted to serve their politics. For them indigenous means non-white native. How absurd it seems for anti-liberal Auster to accept and defend this definition. Unless we remember his philo-semitic imperative. Yes, Auster wants Whites to assert ourselves. Somebody has to do something about the muslims and blacks he’s freaked out about. He just doesn’t want us showing anywhere near the same consciousness for ourselves and our interests as jews do. Let’s avoid the whole native-alien can of worms. Somebody might make an argument that serial immigrant jews don’t want to hear.
But why should Whites avoid it? Let’s speak some truth to power. Immigrant invaders are the precious darlings of our academia, media, religious, business, and political leaders. Our institutions and lands are ever more thoroughly infiltrated by hostile aliens and their advocates. Sometimes it seems all we Whites have left is principled whining. That and an inexorable leftward slide is certainly all our sold-out mainstream conservatives offer. How depressing and defeatist it is to acknowledge this reality. Shame on me.
So a few uppity Whites reject the liberal definition and refer to ourselves as indigenous. Some, like me, may even intend it as a finger in our enemy’s eye. A White calling himself indigenous under the PC regime is like a cow calling himself a pig in Animal Farm. It’s a sure fire way to piss off the pigs. It’s also a perfectly apt and legitimate way to distinguish ourselves from the “undocumented migrants” that progressivists and globalists, neocons and neolibs, are all so fond of.
No, we’re not going to save the West with words. But neither is this why we’re losing it.
At Rick Darby’s Reflecting Light commenter Greg, referring to Auster’s protest against the use of indigenous, writes:
We are in a pickle, us Brits certainly. Sadly, our simplest road to freedom is blocked by some of those who say they are our friend.
The only absolutely non-negotiable policy uniting all ‘acceptable’ parties is support for Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. And all that we require not to go the way of the Garamantians is for our people to decide they are due equal consideration from their government in this respect as are the Jewish people.
But there’s anti-semitism you see, while there isn’t, for some reason, any anti-gentilism. And this double-standard includes people like Laurence Auster, who would quickly disavow the BNP if it were to propose that we Brits had (by necessity) equal grounds to consider ourselves as distinct from Jews as Jews do from us.
This heading us off at the pass-to-freedom, is also, I think, why he opposes the word “indigenous” applied to Europeans.
Greg makes a valid point, and I agree wholeheartedly. Auster, naturally, can muster only insults and evasion:
How pathetic is Greg in his miscomprehension.
The BNP has a history as a seriously anti-Semitic organization that totally marginalized it. BNP’s own leader—on HIS initiative, not MINE—has led a serious intellectual effort over the last several years to reject that anti-Semitic past. I have consistently praised him for that effort. Sounds like Greg ought to complaining about Nick Griffin, not about me.
Second, the fact that Greg thinks my criticism of the word “indigenous” is aimed at WEAKENING the British people, rather than at STRENGTHENING them by getting them to drop a self-description that makes them sound like the equivalent of a third-world people, shows him as so stupid that he’s not deserving of being treated with minimal respect.
Auster’s criticism of words is beside the point. The point is Auster is a half-hearted part-time supporter of “whites”, but an ardent and unwavering supporter of jews. As Greg said, the problem is that Whites and Christians do not have “equal grounds to consider ourselves as distinct from Jews as Jews do from us”. To my knowledge Auster has never addressed this point, even though he constantly urges “whites” to assert ourselves and often argues that “we” can draw distinctions from muslims, blacks, and latinos. Faced with a White who wishes to distinguish themselves from jews he either ignores the point or devolves into a gibbering anti-anti-semitic robot.
But anti-semitism is the grandaddy of all the isms that have been used to deconstruct the West. Racism, sexism, homophobism, xenophobism, and islamophobism all derive from the same mindset: pathologization of the familiar and normal, glorification of the alien and abnormal. The most sacred principle is non-discrimination. The highest goal, diversity. None of it is honest. It all serves as cover for attacking anything European, anything Christian, and anything White. Anti-liberal Auster knows this well. He regularly echoes this view. Minus anti-semitism. When faced with criticism of jews Auster simply cannot help himself. Both his anti-liberalism and his intellect evaporate. What remains is primitive emotion and paranoia, which he then projects onto his stupid, evil, psychologically deficient enemies. There’s a name for jews who like to tell Whites how stupid and evil and psychologically deficient they are. Auster calls them liberals. They are, in his opinion, indistinguishable from non-jewish liberals and, by the way, it’s stupid and evil to try and tell the two apart.
When Auster criticizes liberal jews it is usually because he thinks they’re harming jews. Just in case anyone thinks he’s being anti-semitic he’ll point out how stupid and evil Whites are who think these jews also harming Whites:
The only group more out of touch with reality than liberal Jews are the white nationalist anti-Semites, who, following the theories of Kevin MacDonald, believe that the Jews are compelled by Darwinian evolutionary forces to destroy white gentile societies so as to advance their own power. These anti-Semitic idiots haven’t noticed that something like half the Jews of Israel (not to mention most Jews in the U.S.) support policies leading to the destruction of the Jewish state. How does THAT fit into the MacDonald thesis of merciless Jewish evolutionary competition against non-Jews?
There is a veritable army of jews in and out of Western universities who dedicate their lives to critcizing Whites and arguing about what’s good for jews. In comparison there are only a handful of Whites criticizing jews or discussing what’s good for Whites. And they are constantly harrassed for it.
Lawrence Auster, erstwhile defender of the “white” West and encourager of “white” assertiveness has a problem with liberal jews. Not to worry. It’s nothing that smearing assertive White nationalists and one of the few assertive White academics can’t fix!
Here’s a brain bender for you Larry. How does the extreme liberalism of the jewish state or its eventual destruction due to that, do anything but support the thesis that jewish “liberals” are also harming the West? How are MacDonald’s theories concerning how millenia of diaspora shaped jewish group evolutionary strategies invalidated by the failure of the six-decade old jewish state?
Why shouldn’t X’s discuss and debate the value of their relationship with Y’s? Why is this unspeakably stupid and evil only when X is White and Y is jew? Auster and his choir are worried about the violent jew-hating muslims flooding the West. They’re worried about the violent jew-hating blacks already in Crown Heights. They feel free to discuss what they’d like to do and why. As Rachel S. describes:
At that point our side would need unapologetic, respected voices as reinforcements to keep our burgeoning movement from being killed. Where are those voices? Where is the media to disseminate them in the same volume? We need slogans and imagery as well; built on a foundation philosophy, culture, arts; this movement will take decades to get going if it is to be done correctly. Each aspect of the fight could use a separate organization that was tied to the whole. We need the thinkers, the people who help them do the administrative work, the go-betweens who translate the ideas into graspable concepts for those “average” people who sense there is something wrong with America, but will be turned off by anything that seems extreme. AND we need to think about how any growing racial consciousness by whites will be seized upon by the neo-Nazi movement, and how we would nullify that “guilt by association” effect that would occur when the uninformed see an out of context media clip of David Duke championing this-and-that law as a victory for his side. I am reminded of an article you linked to awhile back about the need for a new conservative apologetics.
Got that? They need us “average” people, but they don’t want us “seized upon” by “neo-Nazis”. Oh and by the way, we need to do something about that guilt by association effect. You know, that nasty liberal tactic where, for instance, you call anyone who doesn’t put jews on a pedestal a “neo-Nazi”.
Auster dubs his choir’s plan An incrementalist strategy, which to me seems sickeningly similar to the cultural marxist “long march through the institutions”. There seems to be no appreciation for what we have already lost, or that it cannot be restored by destroying what destroyed it. Mark Jaws (who is jewish) writes:
Those of us over 50 can remember when whites could talk openly about black crime and other assorted social pathologies associated with blacks. However, by 1975 Stalinist-type PC thought control made such discourse taboo. If we are to alter the unacceptable status quo, we must adopt the tactics and strategy used by our adversaries which brought us to this sorry state of affairs.
When we study the incremental approach used by civil rights activists we see an effective method that applied pressure on the white Southern power structure one obstacle at a time. In the early 1950s the civil rights movement focused on overturning school segregation. As soon as Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education was settled in 1954, attention was drawn to the Montgomery bus boycott in early 1955, and only the boycott. There were no accompanying demands for affirmative action or for banning the Confederate flag. But when the white power structure gave way on one issue, the civil rights movement quickly moved to the next target of opportunity, and so on.
We must adopt a similar strategy if we are to dismantle the liberal PC multicultural stranglehold on our culture. First, we must concentrate on toppling the weakest tower of this complex by breaking the long-imposed silence on black-on-white crime. We can do this with a tide of letters to our newspapers and to our politicians, and, more importantly, with calls to radio talk shows. By such a show of concentrated, unapologetic force we can bring black-on-white crime out in the open and put blacks on the defensive, especially given the candidacy and likely election of Barak Obama, which I believe is a gift from heaven. If Barak and Michelle Obama can sit their butts in a racist church for 20 years, then how can it be racist if we talk about black-on-white crime? If Barak and Michelle had no problem with black liberation theology which calls for “the destruction of the white enemy,” then why can’t we talk about white victims of black crime? If Michelle can claim her husband “as a black man is in danger just by going to the gas station,” then why can’t we talk about white men in comparable–and real–danger, and from whom? If Michelle and Barak want an open and frank discussion on race, then let’s give it to them–but from a direction which they do not expect and cannot deal with.
The first step we must take in restoring white racial consciousness is to assert our right OPENLY to discuss our concern, dismay and outrage at the staggering amount of black-on- white crime the past 40 years. We must make it acceptable for whites to engage in such discourse, period. No need to use disparaging racist talk or hyperbole. Just stick to the facts–and we have plenty at our disposal in “The Color of Crime” and other government statistics.
No.
The first step is for self-righteous jews to step off their pedestal. Show Whites the respect you demand for jews. Stop pathologizing us. Stop smearing us. Stop insulting us. Stop blaming all the West’s ills on us and stop downplaying jewish control and responsibility.
For Austerites all of the above applies, only moreso. We don’t need another long march of destruction. And we don’t need “friends” obsessed with manipulating us. You make distinctions – stop telling Whites we cannot. You say you like Whites – act like it. Treat us as equals. You can start by capitalizing White.
UPDATE 9 Aug 2008: On 19 July Auster provided a non-answer to this post titled Am I an orthographical fifth columnist?, though he doesn’t quote me or link here. He asserts that “[c]apitalization is governed by the nature of the word, not by a political or racial agenda”.
Today, in An Orwellian spelling change, Auster shows: A) that he recognizes “the makers of these rules–liberals all” have an agenda, and B) that his own agenda can motivate him to defy those rules on occasion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Great post, Tanstaafl!
I’ve quoted from it in a discussion thread over at Kinism.net, hope that is all right by you.
http://tinyurl.com/66r44j
God bless,
Laurel
Quite right. Thanks Laurel.
Thanks!
I just sent Auster the below comment:
Re. your post “Why are white Westerners describing themselves as ‘indigenous’ peoples” — I just checked my Oxford English dictionary and here are the definitions for indigenous that I found there:
1. Born or produced in a particular land or region; (esp. of flora and fauna) native or belonging naturally to (a region, a soil, etc.), not introduced. 2. Of, pertaining to, or concerned with the native inhabitants of a region.
Egs.: 1) RIDER HAGGARD The indigenous flora and fauna of Kukuanaland. C. STEAD He could tell the indigenous Malays from the new imports from India. C. FRANCIS My … garden turned out to have only four plants which are indigenous to Britain. 2) H. READ Objects made by uncultured peoples in accordance with a native and indigenous tradition. N. CHOMSKY What is remarkable about the Indochina war is the inability of the American invaders to establish indigenous governments that can rule effectively.
Some may have used the word with the connotation you suggest — having to do with a people in their “original, undeveloped state” — but this is clearly an incorrect usage of the word. “Primitive” would be the word they ought to have used.
I have described the Irish as the indigenous people of Ireland because, at least according to standard British English, we are:
Ireland and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Approx. 90% of Irish men have pre-Ice Age Y chromosome / should therefore be protected as an indigenous people
I actually just looked up the word ‘White’ in my Oxford-English dictionary (The New Shorter Oxford-English dictionary, 1993) and found that capitalising White when referring to Whites is, in fact, grammatically correct (so Auster’s argument is not valid). I’ve typed the definition exactly as written in the dictionary — the capitalisations are in the OED:
White man: a man belonging to a light-skinned people, a White (the White man’s burden, the supposed task of Whites to civilize Blacks; the White man’s grave, equatorial W. Africa considered as being particularly unhealthy for Whites).
More power to you and Ireland Hibernia Girl.
I don’t think we can expect a response from Auster. Excluding spittle.
Tan,
I think this following article may apply exactly on the issue you present. I’ll let you read those sections dealing with that and decide for yourself. The article was written by a Jewish director of Deir Yassin Remembered (The link is within the article, and the article link is below). I have some comments that you may want to read at the end, before going to read the full article.
I’ll excerpt from a couple of sections, first from:
Jews, Judaism and Zionism:
“Jewish identity, connecting Jews to other Jews, comes from deep within Jewish history. This is a shared history, both real and imagined, in that it is both literal and theological. Many Jews in the west share a real history of living together as a distinct people in Eastern, Central and then Western Europe and America. Others share a real history of settlement in Spain followed by expulsion and then settlement all over the world, particularly in Arab and Islamic lands. But this may not be what binds all Jews, because for all Jews it is not a real, but maybe a theological, history that is shared. Most Palestinians today probably have more Hebrew blood in their little fingers then most western Jews have in their whole bodies. And yet, the story of the Exodus from Egypt is as real to many of them, and most importantly was as real to them when they were children, as if they, along with all Jews, had stood with Moses at the foot of Mount Sinai.
And histories like that don’t stop at the present. Even for secular Jews, though unacknowledged and even unrealized, there is a sense, not only of a shared history, but also of a shared destiny. Central to Jewish identity both religious and non-religious is the sense of mission centered on exile and return. How else to explain the extraordinary devotion of so many Jews, religious and secular, to the “return” to a land with which, in real terms, they have very little connection at all?
For many Jews, this history confers a ‘specialness’. This is not unique to Jews – after all, who in their heart of hearts does not feel a little bit special? But for Jews this specialness is at the centre of their self-identification….(SKIP)
—
At the heart of this Jewish specialness is Jewish suffering and victimhood. Like the shared history itself, this suffering may, but need not, correspond to reality. Jews have certainly suffered but their suffering remains unexamined and unexplained.”
———
The following is from the section, Jewish Suffering:
“That Jews have suffered is undeniable, but Jewish suffering is claimed to have been so enduring, so intense and so particular that it is to be treated differently from other sufferings. The issue is complex and cannot be fully debated or decided here but the following points may stimulate thought and discussion. SKIP
—
But none of this is the point. Whether those who question the Holocaust narrative are revisionist scholars striving to find the truth and shamelessly persecuted for opposing a powerful faction, or whether they are crazy Jew-haters denying a tragedy and defaming its victims, the fact is that one may question the Armenian genocide, one may freely discuss the Slave Trade, one can say that the murder of millions of Ibos, Kampucheans and Rwandans never took place and that the moon is but a piece of green cheese floating in space, but one may not question the Jewish Holocaust. Why? Because, like the rest of the Jewish history of suffering, the Holocaust underpins the narrative of Jewish innocence which is used to bewilder and befuddle any attempt to see and to comprehend Jewish power and responsibility in Israel/Palestine and elsewhere in the world.”
————-
My comments may not on the issue you present, Tan, but I think they are important to consider as the article is read.
One thing not brought out clearly by the article is the fact that the “shared experiences” of Jews apply not only to many American Jews (or to the Jewish-Americans or the Zionists), but to Jews around the globe. In fact, I beleive that there is a more or less unified Jewish community in EVERY country. They are bound together in many ways which are different from the national communities they inhabit and they can bring tremendous power to bear on issues in a multinational way.
I don’t think White Europeans can even begin to have such influence, even if they were to decide to band together on common issues.
A transnational force of activists who work for common causes have a power which assists those “independent”, nationalist, or internationalist Jews. These transnational community activists act as a supplement for the power of those Jewish communities that exist in each country.
It could be said that these Jewish communities are a truly diverse (ethnically, nationally, religiously and morally) community, as among themselves. With more or less common languages, customs and business practices, and shared religious heritage, most of the community members have at least some solidarity to Jewish communities elsewhere as well as to their own.
The financial power, which is mentioned in an understated way within the article, is another binding element which reinforces the Jewish power within each nation. That power is truly a multinational and transnational financial power. The multinational financial and corporate power is an assistence to individual community members, and to networks supporting Jewish issues, around the world.
We know of instances where American foreign policies have been affected, if not fully decided, by the efforts of certain combinations of those Jewish interest groups, and their more or less allied community, operating “alone” (but always seeming to have the overwhelming favoritism of the press and the media). Especially when combined with leadership from those financiers within the community the effect is often overwhelming, in getting issues or legislation passed, in comparison to the effect had by the rest of divided Americans.
The lobbying power of all those groups and individuals is well-known, and they are known to often successfully “buy their way” with our political leaders and social leaders, (even those who are not Jewish and even when the policies being pushed do not favor American or Western vital interests). The above seems to be the case not only in France, Britain and the US, but in many countries.
Why do they insist upon a diversity for all of the rest of the world when their only real diversity is among themselves? Would it have anything to do with diluting everyone else’s power while they are undisturbed when they continue to increase theirs?
——-
The title is, “Jewish Power”. The link is:
http://www.righteousjews.org/article10.html
—-
Jewish identity, connecting Jews to other Jews, comes from deep within Jewish history.
One of many expressions for this principle is ahavat yisrael – love of fellow jews.
Interesting link Flanders. I liked this:
So these secular Jews often end up being just another round of Michael Neuman’s “veritable shell game” of Jewish identity. “Look! We’re a religion! No! a race! No! a cultural entity! Sorry–a religion!” Because this is the key to maintaining Jewish power – if it’s indefinable, it’s invisible. Like a Stealth Bomber (you can’t see it on your radar but you sure know when you’ve been hit) Jewish power, with its blurred outlines and changing forms, becomes invisible. And if you can’t see it you can’t fight it.
And this one:
For so long now Jews have told the world that black is white and not only that, but also if anyone should dare to deny that black is white they will be denounced as anti-Semites with all the attendant penalties. We are held in a moral and intellectual lock, the intention of which has been to silence all criticism of Israeli and Jewish power. In saying the unsayable we may set ourselves and others free. And think how it will feel the next time you are called an anti-Semite to say “Well, I don’t know about that, but I do have some very strong but legitimate criticisms to make of Jews and the way they are behaving….and I intend to speak out”?
Auster’s hypocrisy really is world class.
In Charles Johnson, drawing on left-wing websites, again smears Vlaams Belang he writes:
Having seen Charles Johnson in action so many times against supposed “Euro-fascists,” particularly the Flemish anti-Islamization party Vlaams Belang, we know his method very well: If you actually want to do something to protect the West from the spreading power of Islam, and not just absurdly complain about “Islamism,” AND if you supposedly have some “link” to extremists, fascists, or Nazis, no matter how tenuous or non-existent the link may be, then you yourself are an extremist, fascist, or Nazi and are to be expelled from decent society
Then down the page he says:
The fact remains, however, that David Duke is uniquely poisonous, and a political party such as VB, which is in such a vulnerable position, under constant accusations of fascism that threaten its existence as a party, must not tolerate any support for him in its ranks, even by a single, local official.
What a buffoon. Auster pretends he thinks PC, character assassination, and guilt-by-association are wrong. Then he turns around and uses those tactics on David Duke.
And what is this nonsense about “uniquely poisonous”? As far as Auster is concerned, me and every other person he’s ever condemned as an anti-semite are just as poisonous. Oh I get it. By “uniquely” he refers to the fact that it is only jews who may use whatever tactics they wish against their critics.
Latte Island writes:
Tanstaafl objects to Auster’s objection to capitalizing “White.” They’re both wrong. The reason “white” and “black” are usually spelled in lower case is, they’re common nouns, not proper nouns. “Jewish” is a proper noun, as is “Asian.” White and black are common nouns.
White, referring to a group of people, is not a common noun. It is a proper noun because it refers to “a specific person, place, or thing”.
This is really simple. The unselfconscious arrogance of jews who claim a proper noun for themselves but deny it to Whites is amazing.
However, people should spell any way they like, especially on the internet. Certain activists capitalize black and white. I think blacks started writing it as Black. It always looked illiterate and pretentious. Now white nationalists write White. I know what they mean, though…it’s a political position.
On top of White being a proper noun, yes of course people can spell it how they like. And let’s say you’re someone, like Auster, who constantly exhorts Whites to assert themselves. Who constantly ridicules “whites” for not asserting themselves. Then one might expect that even though you yourself might be somewhat limp-wristed about using W yourself you certainly wouldn’t go to the trouble of criticizing others who do so, no?
I myself, being white and Jewish, think of myself as a lower case white person. I don’t know that a Jew can be White. I’d like to align myself with white nationalists, but I’ve read enough on the internet to know that most of those people don’t want me around. And that’s their right.
I myself, being White and not having an alternate group with which to identify and look to for support, think that as long as you consider yourself a “Jew” and consider it “illiterate and pretentious” to write White then, no, you will not find yourself welcome amongst Whites.
Damn straight it’s my right. On top of that I don’t write White and jew and expect jews to accept me as one of their own. In fact even when I used to write “white” and “Jew” and praised israel jews still didn’t accept me as one of their own.
Latte is a jew who says he sympathizes. Yet he still can’t think of non-jewish “whites” as equals.
This is the problem Greg put his finger on by writing “equal grounds to consider ourselves as distinct from Jews as Jews do from us”.
Tan, A little historical perspective (I think you will want to read the whole article):
“Wars can’t be fought without spondulics. Someone must put up the cash, or be willing to put up the cash, or the kings, diplomatists and statesmen must know where the cash is, whether it comes forth willingly or has to be conscripted. If the bankers of a nation — any nation! — don’t want an offensive war, or if they’re convinced that war means loss to their coffers, make no mistake about it, they’re in a position to stop it before it’s even talked about. If you think I’m talking through my hat in this, or want to advance the argument that “it doesn’t cost anything to kill a man,” I respectfully refer you to any good history of the House of Rothschild.
I haven’t seen any history of the House of Rothschild yet that hasn’t contained gloating statements concerning the numbers of times since the beginning of the 19th century that rulers have approached the House of Rothschild for cash for wars. If the Rothschilds decided that the wars looked profitable to themselves, they arranged for the payments and the wars came pronto! If the Rothschilds decided there wouldn’t be a whole lot gained, financially, or the risks were too great, or they didn’t happen to have the mazuma on the nail at the moment, the rulers went away with a polite turn-down. And there was no conflict!
From the very beginning of the history of the House of Rothschild — founded on the cash which George III paid the German Landgrave for the “loan” of the Hessian soldiers that composed the bulk of the “British” forces in our American Revolution — that particular Yiddisher financial family has been bankers to the political and military potentates of Europe. At least Central Europe!
The Rothschilds, of course, are mainly German Jews. Such German Jews, together with Polish Jews and Russian Jews, we call Ashkenazim.
Ashkenazic Jews, in other words, are the Jews of Germany, Poland, and Russia — with a strong strain of Oriental blood from the Genghis Kahn infusion. When they combine their Hebrew with the German, Polish, or Russian tongues, they get a polyglot language that is popularly called “Yiddish.” So it’s entirely proper to refer to these oriental Jews as “Yiddishers.”…
But we shouldn’t gallop away with the idea that the Yiddisher Rothschilds compose the only mob of Jews overseas that’s got money — big money! There are two or three other Jewish fortunes overseas, of which you don’t hear so much.
There’s the money of the Samuel family that controls the Dutch Shell Oil Company — in fact, most of the British oil interests in the Levant. There is the money of the Sassoon clan that controls the vast Indian and Chinese dope trade. There is the Mond fortune, the Isaacs fortune, Lord Reading’s — and finally the Montagu fortune, Montagu Norman being head of the Bank of England itself.
I heard a British intelligence officer remark once in a casual conversation that the fortune of the Samuel family — headed up by the “Right Honorable” Herbert Samuel, made a Viscount, if you please, last year! — was greater than Morgan’s, greater than Rockefeller’s, greater than Ford’s.
These five great families of so-called English Jews — English only because they have resided in Great Britain for generations and intermarried with impoverished English aristocrats — aren’t Ashkenazim. In other words, they haven’t got the Oriental, Russian, German, or Polish strain in ’em.
No! All these families, whose vast wealth absolutely dominates the Bank of England, are more accurately classed as Sephardim. They’re so-called white Jews — or Jews who a couple of hundred years ago started to interbreed with the more Aryan races of Spain, Italy, Portugal, and France. Finally when they got across to England, they became English jews — as we know ’em. Their Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, French and English bloods predominate over their Jewish blood. This gives them the notion that they are very high-class indeed. The big hooked nose which the Ashkenazic Jew acquired from the Assyrian — “schnozzle” if you please! — is missing in the Sephardic Jew. Physically, excepting a certain rubbery cunning about the expression of the eyes, he’s come to appear like a Spaniard, an Italian, a Portuguese, a Frenchman, or an Englishman.
Such persons as Disraeli in yesterday’s generation, or Barney Baruch, George Arliss, Sam Insull, or even Franklin D. Roosevelt — whose true ancestral name has come to light under the investigations of the Carnegie Foundation as Rossocampo-Rosenvelt — are outstanding specimens of the Sephardic Jew.
There is furthermore this difference between the Ashkenazic Jew and the Sephardic Jew:
The Ashkenazic Jew holds in the main that world Jewry is a race — a political race, so to speak. The Sephardic Jew holds in the main that world Jewry is a religious denomination.
Both of these claims are capital expediencies when Jews as Jews are having the squeeze put on them for predatory tactics against Gentiles —
The Ashkenazim shriek “Racial persecution!” The Sephardim screech “Religious intolerance!” Both of these about cover the situation….
Now, broadly speaking, here’s the way we can boil down the money-banker situation as it existed on the Continent prior to 1914….”.
“DUPES OF JUDAH – A CHALLENGE TO THE AMERICAN LEGION”
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/dupes%20of%20judah.htm
Gottfried gets a similar treatment at MR: who’s left?
link
Flanders, strong stuff.
I know quite a bit about WWII, yet I had never heard of Pelley or the Silver Legion until my recent trip to Appalachia. It included a swing through their former HQ in Asheville, NC, and even there I only heard about the Silvershirts in vague terms with scary overtones.
Apparently nobody needs to discuss what exactly such men stood for or against. The SPLC and friends call them haters and that’s all you need to know.
I’m glad to read Pelley’s own words and decide for myself what to think of him. I think he makes alot of sense.
It’s sobering to realize that in spite of Pelley’s popularity he and his words have been so effectively flushed down the memory hole. We face an enemy that has only grown stronger since 1938.
To be fair, shouldn’t you be capitalizing “Jews” as you would “Italians,” “Buddhists” or “Libertarians?”
– PA
My curiosity was piqued by your mention of Pelley and the silver legion, for like you, I had never heard of either before. I found this interesting, short, biography on his life, and it exposes the power the Jews wielded was substantial even in the 30s and 40s to silence, imprison, and relegate to obscurity even someone as well known as a Pelley.
http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/william_dudley_pelley.htm
http://www.gnosticliberationfront.
com/william_dudley_pelley.htm
This comment has been removed by the author.
Another link you will be interested in viewing, Tan.
http://www.white-history.com/index.htm
March of the Titans – A History of the White Race
That was a good link, Red, and the story interesting. I backtracked through the bottom link and came to this site which you might also want to check (the first is one of the linked articles and the second is the list):
http://www.geocities.com/integral_tradition/mota.html
Mota’s Ashes: Requiem for a Legionary
By Mike Rienzi
http://www.geocities.com/integral_tradition/people.html
To be fair, shouldn’t you be capitalizing “Jews” as you would “Italians,” “Buddhists” or “Libertarians?”
There are actually quite a few words I refuse to capitalize based on a principle I’ve explained several times now. It’s interesting that you are only concerned about “jew”.
You wouldn’t happen to be one of those people who, while trying “to be fair”, can imagine all sorts of excuses why we should NOT write White, would you?
More sites along the thought lines of Pelley, but with documentary items and from a Catholic perspective on the first one:
The Secret Force
http://holywar.org/txt/secret_force.html
http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue18/bronne18.htm
“American” names involved:
http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/bolshies.html
Thanks for that Pelley link Red.
Although the leader of a mass-movement that commanded headlines throughout the decade of the 1930s, his name is totally unknown today, except to a handful of researchers. Outside of infrequent, fleeting references to him in a few histories of the Depression Era, there are no books about his dramatic life; not even any newspaper or magazine articles. His photograph cannot be found outside the pages of The New Order, nor any photographs of his tens of thousands of followers, even though both his image and theirs dominated newsreels and publications of the time. His speeches are unobtainable even though they were heard by millions, sometimes over national-wide radio broadcasts. He attracted the friendship of legendary heroes like Charles Lindbergh and the hatred of legendary scoundrels like Franklin Roosevelt. Sinclair Lewis wrote a full length novel, It Can’t Happen Here, based on his life. Along with the works of Theodore Dreiser, H.L. Mencken, F. Scott Fitzgerald and other luminaries of the 1920s, his books entered college curricula in the forefront of modern American literature. Yet, no college course in Great Books today features any of his titles. He was one of the most important creators of the silent film, the author of such classic screen plays as The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Despite the man’s undeniable impact on his times, his name has been thoroughly expunged from contemporary history, his books (worse than banned or burned) unpublished, his political achievements consigned to oblivion.
You wouldn’t happen to be one of those people who, while trying “to be fair”, can imagine all sorts of excuses why we should NOT write White, would you?
Easy, Tan. I’m a ‘friendly.’
I haven’t seen your explanations for writing “jew” in lower case. It just strikes me as petulant and grammatically incorrect.
And since “White” is a signifier for a specific people, I do beliveve it should be capitalized, unlike, say, “readheaded,” “tall” or “diabetic.”
By writing “jew” I don’t mean to be any more or less petulant than when someone writes “white”.
The grammatically “correct” convention is inconsistent and unfair. It seems such a minor point really, but to see how people react when the unfairness is inverted provides a window into their soul.
The following site has some interesting comments, most are on pages 2 & 3. Here is only one in regard to communism and new world order, although there seems to be an ongoing campaign to diminish it’s credibility:
“The Jewish people as a whole will be its own Messiah. It will attain world dominion by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy, and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this “new world order” the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The Governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property, and everywhere to make use of the resources of the state. Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have all the property of the whole world in their hands.”
Baruch Levy, Letter to Karl Marx, `La Revue de Paris’, p. 574, June 1, 1928
http://wake-up-america.net/hidden_nation.htm
More quotations (and more material at the site), including the below, are at:
http://www.libreopinion.com/members/standarteslc/jewishquestion02.html
“Anti-Semitism is nothing but the antagonistic attitude produced in the non-Jew by the Jewish group. The Jewish group has thrived on oppression and on the antagonism it has forever met in the world.”
ALBERT EINSTEIN Physicist (Collier’s Magazine, November 26, 1938)
“And since “White” is a signifier for a specific people, I do beliveve it should be capitalized, unlike, say, “readheaded,” “tall” or “diabetic.”
WE prefer “Ginger” and we capitalize the “G”.
Ironic, Pelley was investigated and called to testify before the Dies Committee (House Un-American Activities Committee)along with the communists (alleged and actual) he despised.
Einstein was no dope.
More Pelley:
http://www.come-and-hear.com/supplement/pelley.html
Okay, I read the Pelley links. What’s your take on his characterization of WWI as a conflict betweem the Sephardim and Ashkenaim?
Ben, I couldn’t locate the reference in the Pelley links. Can you be more specific?
I wonder if you are not thinking about Benjamin Freedman?
Videos of Freedman’s speech are here:
http://youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B2EBBA8B916CF77D
A transcript of the speech is here:
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm
{The answer to the question you ask is almost halfway down PAST the following portion, where he states:}
“Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you you don’t know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren’t permitted to know it.
Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Other ‘s knew it. Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there.
I was ‘confidential man’ to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the Finance Committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson’s brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and also indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement.”
Pelley links from the discussion above:
WILLIAM DUDLEY PELLEY – Father of American Racial Mysticism (Original source)
DUPES OF JUDAH – A CHALLENGE TO THE AMERICAN LEGION (Original source)
Pelley’s sephardim/ashkenazim explanation of WWI is in the second American Legion link. I hadn’t heard that twist before.
The “feud” Pelley describes is best understood within the broader view of jewish history. That is, as part of the never-ending disagreement between jews as to what is good for jews.
Yes sephardim and ashkenazim are in conflict, much as sunni and shia are. But in either case the internecine conflict evaporates when outsiders make their necks available – for sucking or chopping.
Benjamin Freedman fits this understanding.
Freedman critcized the ashkenazim because he didn’t think they were “true” jews (racially) and zionists because he didn’t think what they were doing was good for jews.
I haven’t checked this site out, so I’m not sure whether it is kept current, but you may want to check it further.
http://www.realjewnews.com/
Fact or fiction, I doubt Hollywood will ever make a movie about how Jews Blackmailed Wilson Into WW I.
President Wilson informed Untermeyer that he did not have the $40,000 to pay his blackmailer. Untermeyer then volunteered to give Wilson’s former sweetheart the $40,000 out of his own pocket – but on one condition: that President Wilson promise to appoint to the first vacancy on the United States Supreme Court, the Zionist and Talmudic Jew, Louis Dembitz Brandeis.
Tan,
“I am going to use a word, you hear the word, you read the word, and you use the word, Jew, as though it is something that could be weighed and felt, has a background. I’m going to use that word, although I never use it in my own personal affairs or in my private life. Now, I want to explain that Dr. Samuel Johnson wrote the first English Dictionary in 1797. That’s only a few years from 1800, which isn’t so very long ago! It consists of two thick volumes. And it has possibly every word that was then used in the English language. I have shown that to many important people in all walks of life, and they were amazed, because when I told them what I am going to tell you now, they didn’t believe me. So I acquired these two books – cost a little money. They’re first editions, rare!
In that book, in those two volumes, the first English dictionary ever published by Dr. Samuel Johnson, (about whom, many of you know) the word Jew, does not appear! The word, Jew, does not appear! That word was coined, forced on you, stuffed down your throats by control of all the media by the people who are interested in leading you to slaughter.”
Benjamin Freedman – Introduced by Colonel Curtis B. Dall, President F. D. Roosevelt’s son-in-law.
(1974)
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/benfree.htm
———-
Another article requiring a little more time (but well worth taking the time to do so):
Freedom….”when we come into our kingdom, [we} shall have to erase this word from the lexicon of life as implying a principle of brute force….”.
—
“The conspiracy for world dominion through a world slave state exists and cannot at this stage be abruptly checked or broken off; of the momentum which it has acquired it now must go on to fulfillment or failure. Either will be destructive for a time, and hard for those of the time in which the denouement comes.”
Review of a book by Doug Reed
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/protocols.htm
—
FDR Associates until and during WWII:
http://wsi.matriots.com/FDRcabal.html
Regarding the socio-economic revolutionary forces driving the world to ruin Doug Reed makes much sense:
The arguments advanced were bogus; they were that the Protocols closely resembled several earlier publications and thus were “plagiaries” or “forgeries”, whereas what this in truth showed was the obvious thing: that they were part of the continuing literature of the conspiracy. They might equally well be the product of non-Jewish or of anti-Jewish revolutionaries, and that is of secondary importance. What they proved is that the organization first revealed by Weishaupt’s documents was in existence 120 years later, and was still using the methods and pursuing the aim then exposed; and when they were published in English the Bolshevik revolution had given the proof.
. . .
Comparative study of the Protocols and of the Weishaupt papers leads to the strong deduction that both derive from a common and much older source. They cannot have been the product of any one man or one group of men in the period when they were published; the “uncanny knowledge” displayed in them obviously rests on the cumulative experience of eras. In particular, this applies (in Weishaupt’s papers and the Protocols alike) to the knowledge of human weaknesses, which are singled out with analytical exactitude, the method of exploiting each of them being described with disdainful glee.
Odd, isn’t it, that in the increasingly libertine West one of the remaining and increasingly forbidden acts is to read something which so accurately explains contemporary progressivist-globalist geopolitics:
. . . We have set one against another this personal and national reckonings of the peoples, religious and race hatreds, which we have fostered into a huge growth in the course of the past twenty centuries. [past 2,000 years] This is the reason why there is not one State which would anywhere receive support if it were to raise its arm, for every one of them, must bear in mind that any agreement against us would be unprofitable to itself.
We are too strong, there is no evading our power. The nations cannot come to even an inconsiderable private agreement without our secretly having a hand in it . . .
In order to put public opinion into our hands we must bring it into a state of bewilderment by giving expression from all sides to so many contradictory opinions and for such length of time as will suffice to make the peoples lose their heads in the labrynth and come to see that the best thing is to have no opinion of any kind in matters political; which it is not given to the public to understand, because they are understood only by him who guides the public. This is the first secret.
Talking about Blacks vs. Whites, Auster says:
Jefferson was right that blacks would never forget slavery. There can never be peace and comity between the two peoples. That’s an illusion. Whites must be realistic about blacks and not buy into their complaints and demands or think that there’s anything they can do that will remove blacks’ hostility against whites and America.
Hmm…
That’s funny …. I recall Auster calling you out on your purposeful lower case “jew” spelling:
“By the way, Tanstaafl, unable to resist for a second showing us where he’s really coming from, consistently spells the word “Jews” as “jews,” lower case.”
Followed by some anti-semite, philo-nazi assertions in the comments sections of his blog.
Obviously Auster has a superior opinion on how we apply Capitalization Rules in the English language.
Simply googling the “rules”:
“Common nouns may be capitalized when used as names for the entire class of such things, e.g. what a piece of work is Man.”
[or how about “Whites” and “Blacks”]
And of course used for simple emphasis is a no-no in Auster’s superior world of english grammar.
Note that Auster likes to tack on “people”, going so far as to claim that I write “White people” when I do no such thing.
When White is used as a proper noun there’s no need to append “people”. I presume Auster insists on doing so to bolster his claim that “white” is just an adjective. Of course the same is true for jewish, latino, black, or asian if you insist on adding “people”, but Auster doesn’t really care about the rules. He’d like to make this all about my refusal to capitalize jew, not his refusal to even admit there’s an inconsistency in not capitalizing White.
He’s playing the anti-semite card. It’s an infantile non-defense.
a scum bag jew infiltrator concerned primarily with his own aggrandizement and personal accumulation of wealth just like most “movement” types.
I am the ‘anonymous’ in this thread who doesn’t sign PA.
Auster is a scum bag only to the degree that most Whites are – who accept or promote special advantages for non-Whites. Because it’s most Whites, and because the morality needs be every which way equal, I don’t call Auster a scum bag. I call him anti-non-Jew and racist.
About his ‘accumulation of wealth’ strategy, unless he’s been paid to divert right-tending Whites I don’t see where his pay-off comes from. And he’s not a part of any White ‘movement’.
… Which is to say, Jew infiltrator might be quite enough of a description, and enough an explanation of his positions.
Now, now … Auster IS an episcopalian. So I guess he can’t shed his liberal affiliations despite his contrary rhetoric.
In the link provided above by Anonymous, Auster writes:
The people who really want honest dialog on race–or, rather, honest speech about race, since a two-way honest dialog with blacks/liberals is not possible–are our side, the anti-liberal, race-realist, traditionalist side.
This is a perfect example of Auster’s dishonesty.
His “side” is pro-jew above all, though he doesn’t even mention it. He demonstrates this priority by the way he attacks with liberal hate-ideology language and tactics any anti-liberal race-realist who really wants an honest discussion of race that includes the traditionalist point of view that Whites are distinct from jews.
Rene Guenon described the people misled by poseurs like Auster when he wrote:
In short, the ” traditionalist ” is and can be no more than a mere ” seeker”, and that is why he is always in danger of going astray, not being in possession of the principles which alone could provide him with infallible guidance; and his danger is all the greater because he will find in his path, like so many ambushes, all the false ideas set on foot by the power of illusion which has a capital interest in preventing him from reaching the true goal of his search.
honest discussion of race that includes the traditionalist point of view that Whites are distinct from jews
This, and only this, can explain the numerous ‘unprincipled exceptions’ within Auster’s racial and political views.
Auster’s very good arguments about the Muslim threat to his Judeo-Christian West can be transferred almost entirely to the question of the Jewish threat to the White West. I think that’s why other Jewish critics of Islam like Melanie Phillips hold back and criticize him as too extreme.
One of his fans, Erich, writes him:
Nevertheless, blacks do not enjoy, and have never enjoyed, an overall ideology such as Muslims enjoy in Islam by which to try to undermine and menace us. Such an overall ideology cannot merely be artificially manufactured; it has to grow organically, as Islam did, over centuries. And it must be rooted in psychologically motivating (albeit pneumopathological) spirituality. If blacks had this, things would be considerably bleaker by now for whites. At best, they cultivate a kind of amorphous, relatively incoherent and decentralized Intifada against whites.
How long can it be before Erich moves beyond Auster’s Limit, and sees the obvious?
(And, of course, Erich may discover that what racial ideology Blacks do have was substanially provided for them by Jews, and think about _why_.)
That Christianity is the only faith of the “big three” that does not countanance falsehood in the service of faith explains a lot. Consider this and see if it might be a help in sorting the wolves from the sheep.
A properly brainwashed Christian thinks he is telling and defending “the truth”. In this case their “truth” of recieved falsehood is defended in a dogmatic fashion. Liars of other faiths are just liars. This is why they shift from point to point and slogan to slogan with ease.
Auster’s very good arguments about the Muslim threat to his Judeo-Christian West can be transferred almost entirely to the question of the Jewish threat to the White West.
I agree. Coupled with his almost daily critiques of blacks (reflecting the recent rise in black-jewish tension over Obama and Crown Heights) it’s obvious that Auster is able to draw significant distinctions of both a racial and religious nature.
I think that’s why other Jewish critics of Islam like Melanie Phillips hold back and criticize him as too extreme.
Yes. That’s why jews generally deny race and have been so instrumental in the construction of the ideology of hate, the core value of which is the pathologization of making distinctions (AKA anti-discrimination).
This is also why Auster so often qualifies his distinctions as being based on violence and physical harm. He knows that jews are seen, in the US at least, as being non-violent.
What Auster will not admit is that the generally non-violent political and cultural assault so prominently spearheaded by jews (the 60s freakout, civil rights, open borders) has been harmful to Whites directly, besides also indirectly making possible the violent harm done by blacks and immigrant invaders. Auster prefers to confine his discussion to these indirect symptoms and the subset of causes which he feels comfortable attributing mostly to non-jews.
Funny moment on the radio a day or so ago: Michael Savage (an Auster-like jew) is interviewing a pundit about islam and the pundit points out how incompatible muslims are with the West because they deny that Christ was God’s son. I had to chuckle knowing what it must have taken for Savage to bite his tongue. If the pundit had even entertained the idea that jews are incompatible in a similar way no doubt Savage would have screamed “ANTI-SEMITE!” and hung up the phone post haste.
Yuck DJ. Too much info.
Besides Auster, Gottfried, and Savage here’s another “conservative” jew who can’t stand Whites: Debbie Schlussel. In this thread her smug pro-jew anti-White bigotry is on display. She writes:
Hannity welcomed yet another fellow brownshirt–anti-Semite Pat Buchanan, and congratulated Buchanan on the success of his new book, “Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War,” which essentially argues that we should have let more Jews cook and be transformed into lampshades, that we made a mistake fighting the Nazis in World War II. I guess he forgot that we won.
Note the leftist guilt-by-association. Even a philo-semitic israel-supporting anti-jihadi watered-down White like Hannity becomes “yet another fellow brownshirt” simply for interviewing not-quite-as-watered-down White Buchanan.
An insolent White signing as John Harper responds to Schlussel:
I think WWII was stupid. If it could’ve been avoided, we wouldn’t have lost MILLIONS of the best the White race had to offer. We should have listened to George Washington and stayed out of unecessary entaglements. We’re continuing the stupidy today, by remaining in NATO, and drowning in debt to pay for Europe’s defense.
[JH: WHAT?! YOU’RE AS RACIST AS BUCHANAN. PLENTY OF BLACK MEN FOUGHT IN WORLD WAR II. ONE MORE RACIST COMMENT LIKE THIS AND I WILL BAN YOU. I THINK I’VE ALREADY BANNED YOU A FEW TIMES UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES, BUT YOU KEEP RETURNING. DS]
Posted by: John Harper [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 21, 2008 09:24 PM
Racist! I’ll ban you!
To Schlussel a White who sees WWII primarily for what it meant to Whites is a “RACIST” because he didn’t mention blacks. For her of course it’s perfectly normal to see WWII as all about jews, to the extent that anyone who laments the disaster for Whites must ipso facto be a jew-hater.
There’s hardly a better example of the conflict between White and jewish interests than WWII. Sixty years later jews dictate the facts and Whites get smeared or go to jail if they disagree.
Buchanan, Harper, myself and alot of other Whites haven’t forgotten that “we” won the war. We just have a different understanding of who “we” is. In retrospect it’s certainly reasonable to argue that Whites lost. Yockey saw it clearly in 1948. One sure sign today is the way Whites are disenfranchised, disrespected, and displaced in our own homelands.
Later in the thread a few other dissident White voices also respond to Schlussel and make some good points. In response they too get nothing but antipathy and ad hominem. It’s the jewish-White dialog in a nutshell.
At the link provided by Anonymous above someone tries to get beyond Auster’s black-muslim sideshow:
James W. writes:
Too many here are blinded by these clear and immediate dangers to see the true source of dysfunction: the Caucasian liberal-fascist.
They have been the major source of unhappiness in culture and politics, as well as a cause of war and revolution, for well over two hundred years. Burke, Tocqueville, and the Founders wrote about them relentlessly, because they rightly feared their guile and determination. Adams and Burke foresaw what terror would unfold in the French Revolution.
Remove in your own mind every last non-Caucasian person and influence from the continent of Europe. If you could in the first place prevent the liberal disease from re-importing these same things once again–which they would do immediately–you would see with greater clarity that they need no proxy to self-destruct. Before it was this, it was self destruction through the Caucasian creation of socialism-communism. Now it is multi-faceted.
The keenest sorrow is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities, so said Sophocles. How long it is before we recognize our part in a problem determines how long it is to begin finding a solution. We haven’t even started yet.
Caucasian liberal-fascists? You mean the people who call you a racist-nativist-xenophobe-neonazi if you don’t share their rootless cosmopolitan values?
LA replies:
Discussions of the race problem always end up with someone saying that the real problem is the left, which has unleashed the race problem. Yes, of course. But the race problem has in fact been unleashed, and we have to deal with it. Saying that we must also deal with the left tells us nothing about what we must do about the race problem, once the left has been dealt with.
As I’ve said to people like Melanie Phillips and Mark Steyn, “You say that we are having these problems with Islam because PC has silenced us. Fine. So please tell me, once we’ve gotten rid of PC, what do you propose doing about Islam?” They never have an answer.
This is indeed where “discussions of the race problem always end”, at least in Auster’s echo chamber.
PC is part and parcel of the non-violent political and cultural assault I mentioned earlier. The assault is ongoing.
What I propose to do about it is call it what it is (an assault prominently spearheaded by jews) and oppose it as best I can. My enemy isn’t “Caucasian liberal-facism” – it is an unholy alliance of unscrupulous gulag-pining anti-White control freaks and unscrupulous materialistic money-power addicts. These are the socio-economic revolutionaries who call anyone who opposes them a hater.
LA writes – “Discussions of the race problem always end up with someone saying that the real problem is the left, which has unleashed the race problem. Yes, of course.”
That’s rich. If we could only go in the way-back machine to 1959 and keep those lefties from pushing the race issue the USA would be nothing but peaches and cream. We could then hop on back to the 1890-1920 period and undermine the evil progressives push for women’s suffrage. After that, all that remains is a quick jaunt into the 1850’s to crush the evil leftist movement, avert the civil war and uphold the constitutionally guarranteed right of slavery.
Damn leftists.
Damn leftists funded by capitalists.
Fantasizing about stepping into a wayback machine to thwart your enemies is just one half-step above ignoring them.
And, yes, I realize blogging about them is only one half-step above that.
Tan, How quickly do you think White liberalism would collapse if it did not have the Tribe’s leadership?
Or its funding? Or its media amplifier?
Without the jewish contribution classic liberalism never would have morphed into neo-liberalism. Likewise with neo-conservativism. If that contribution were removed, or even if its breadth and depth were simply exposed, the influence of neo-liberalism in politics would shrivel immediately.
We would, for example, then have a choice of candidates to vote for who had various plans for stopping and expelling the invasion and prosecuting the bubble fraud, rather than having to choose between who will best defend israel or who will make citizens out of the invaders fastest.
Tan, How quickly do you think White liberalism would collapse if it did not have the Tribe’s leadership?
Six months?
In a vacuum, maybe. In reality some other group or individuals would fill the void. The only difference would be the missing teflon shield. How difficult would it be to manufacture a similar anti-hate shield?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Well let’s see.
Say you’re an eskimo. First you wait for a devastating world-wide war in which tens of millions of Whites die, but just make sure it’s one that’s triggered by the totally demented desire of a White country to free itself of completely imaginary eskimo influence in finance, law, media, and academia. Have some previously apolitical and pacifist eskimos design secret weapons to help defeat the anti-eskimos. With the war won you and your eskimo brethren then spend the next few decades convincing Whites (using your completely imaginary control of finance, law, media, and academia) that the most important thing about the war was how many eskimos were killed. Give the war a catchy new name – the Holofrost might work. Then, once again using your completely imaginary influence, arrange for “hate” laws to be passed forbidding anyone from denying the Holofrost or saying mean things about eskimos.
It’s so simple, if eskimos can do it any minority can!
If the vanguard of Liberalism were removed and effectively neutralized, so as not to cause new trouble, we would still have the leadership of the Church and the inertia of the new communists, the ones born from what ConSwede says is the result of Christian ethics without Christian belief. How long before that ran out, and would it run down peacefully? I don’t see why it couldn’t be redirected back into something healthy within one or two generations (I think the current generations are lost). But into what? What god(s) would we worship then?
Auster cannot agree to using the word “indigenous” to refer to White people — esp. White Europeans — because that would highlight the fact that Jews are not indigenous to Europe.
– Jun
More on Auster’s fruitloopiness here.
At what point do you declare “indigenous”? The native americans are theoretically not indigenous. Does that mean only blacks are indigenous to Africa since theoretically homo sapiens migrated from Africa. How many generations of whites are required prior to declaring “we’re indigenous”.
Damn silly.
flippityfloppity: At what point do you declare “indigenous”? The native americans are theoretically not indigenous.
I would say that ‘whoever got there first’ is the indigenous group. So, Native Americans=indigenous, White Europeans in America — not indigenous (sorry).
But, all White Europeans are obviously indigenous to Europe. Jews are not — they came later. Neither are Gypsies.
The thing is, the defense of one’s hard-won territory (the U.S., for instance) does not have to be argued on the basis of being indigenous. There’s no “right” to have such-and-such a territory just ’cause one got there first.
Fight for it or lose it. That’s the name of the game.
– Jun
A people is indigenous to the place where it became a people.
I agree with your sentiments Jun. But I also agree with Anon’s definition. American Whites, a people of mixed European ethny, fused and became a people in North America.
Post updated with links and comments on two Auster posts concerning capitalization. One was referenced and discussed above already, the other he posted today.