Criticizing Auster

Lawrence Auster writes in Responding to criticisms of VFR and myself:

Among the reality-turned-on-its head lies that are repeatedly told about me are the charges that I only allow people who agree with me to post comments at VFR; that I am unable to reply to criticisms and refuse to do so; and that I exclude commenters who question me and my ideas.

My criticism is that Auster filters the comments he posts at VFR and sometimes distorts the arguments of those he argues with. His ability to distort is greatly aided by his willingness to filter.

Among the 20-odd links he provides as examples of his forthrightness in facing critics is a response to one of my criticisms of him that I was not previously aware of:

Does the First Law of Majority-Minority Relations apply to the Jews? [The anti-Semite Tanstaafl (before I realized how serious an anti-Semite he was), asked me at another blog why I don’t apply the First Law to the Jews, and I reply.]

This item is a good example of Auster’s willingness to filter and distort. His example does not quote the criticism it answers and does not link the discussion which spawned it.

Unfortunately for him about a month after he wrote this I described the same argument as part of a more general critique titled Auster and Anti-Anti-Semitism. It contained Auster’s original explanation of why his “First Law” (of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society, AKA MMRILS) does not apply to jews. The differences are highlighted below:

I just came upon this exchange and want to reply to the points made by Tanstaafl (which frankly sounds like a neo-Nazi moniker, but which, I’m informed, is an acronym for the libertarian slogan “There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.”).

Tanstaafl is just wrong to say that the First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society is about Jews and that I’m covering that up. The First Law is about conspicuously different minorities who are perceived as minorities, and who are perceived as dysfunctional, unassimilable, alien or hostile. Since Jews are not generally seen these ways, except by anti-Semites, the First Law does not apply to Jews, though some aspects of it may apply some of the time.

When I say this, I am not covering up denying the fact that there is a Jewish problem because, since that is something I often talk about. But I believe in the need to talk about it rationally. The Jewish problem—not the Jewish problem of the Jew haters, but the real Jewish problem—consists in the fact that Jews are a distinct people who because of their energy and talents tend to become dominant in culturally influential areas of society. This leads to the problem that a small minority group begins to become the definer of cultural standards for the majority. For the most part, this is not due to any Jewish racial agenda or conspiracy, as Kevin McDonald MacDonald would have it, rather it is just built into the fact of Jewish distinctiveness combined with Jewish talents. But even though the situation is not anyone’s fault, it is not a healthy situation. The way the problem can be resolved, as I’ve said many times, is by the majority recovering and maintaining its majority identity, functions, and authority, and thus requiring minorities to conform to the majority’s standards.

It used to be this way in America. A classic example is the Golden Age of Hollywood. The movie industry was largely a Jewish creation, yet the Jews of Hollywood loved the majority culture and elevated its ideals. For example, the beautiful MGM movies of the late ’30 and early ’40s that were set in England and were imbued with an English atmosphere (so that it’s hard to believe the movies were made in Los Angeles), were the brain child of Louis B. Mayer, head of MGM. Contrast that with today, when many of the Jews of Hollywood, such as Steven Spielberg, are self-consciously alienated from the majority culture and seek to tear it down. An example is “Saving Private Ryan,” in which the elderly Ryan, re-visiting Normandy in his old age, is bizarrely portrayed as a broken down figure overwhelmed with guilt. That’s the way alienated leftist Jews want to portray the Christian majority.

What is the solution? There is no quick solution, but there is a solution. The majority needs to rediscover itself and start acting like the majority again and start setting the standards for America. Once a new elite was in place setting different and better standards than what from those we have now, the viciously anti-American movies that are now standard fare in Hollywood would cease being made. Jews who persisted in alienation toward or simply a lack of identification with the majority culture would still be able to express themselves in a minority cultural setting, but their minority views would not be considered legitimate or authoritative for the society as a whole. The basic principle is that people who do not identity with a society do not have the right to speak for that society. I am not talking about legal restrictions, but about the restrictions that a healthy majority culture would naturally impose.

In short, the Jewish problem can be solved, and Jews can function, as they have in the past, as a minority that has a certain distinctiveness and yet conforms itself to the standards and allegiances of the majority culture.

It is not the same with, say, Muslims. Muslims cannot be conformed to our culture. The relationship between Muslims and our culture is of an entirely different order from the relationship between Jews and our culture. Jews are assimilable. Muslims are not only not assimilable, but are commanded by their god to subject our society to Islamic law. The fact that that a major non-Western group is unassimilable intrinsically incompatable with and dangerous to our culture is not acceptable to cannot be acknowledged by the liberal consciousness, which must cover it up. And thus we arrive at the First Law because it would disprove the liberal belief in the equality and fundamental sameness of all human beings. Therefore the liberals must conceal the truth about Islam–the more unassimilable and hostile Muslims are, the more they must be praised and celebrated. We saw this happen immediately after the 9/11 attack, when, even as Muslims all over the world were cheering the wound inflicted by devout Muslim jihadists on our country, Muslims began to receive vastly more bouquets from our government than they ever had before. It was a perfect example of the First Law in action. The First Law applies to dysfunctional and unassimilable groups, it does not apply to functional and assimilable groups.

Far from being dysfunctional outsiders whose failures must be covered up, Jews are successful insiders. However, as indicated above, this does not mean that the Jews, with their distinctiveness, their activism, and their frequent leftism, do not represent a challenge to our culture. They do. And it goes without saying that this fact is denied by the liberal culture, since liberalism must deny any group differences that matter (not to mention that there is a particular need to defend the Jews from anti-Semitism). So there is inevitably some overlap here with the First Law. But because the Jews are highly successful and productive insiders rather than obviously incompetent or incompatible outsiders, the socialistic dynamic conveyed by the First Law–the more alien a group is, the more it is celebrated, the more undeserving a group is, the more it is given–does not apply to them.

To Thus to try to make the First Law be about the Jews—and especially, in Tanstaafl’s treatment, be primarily about the Jews—would hopelessly confuses the issue and ruin the First Law as an analytical tool. It is but another illustration of how anti-Semites, because they see all issues through the filter of the Jewish issue, cannot see any issue truly. Their lunatic obsesssion obsession with Jews as the source of all evil makes them intellectual cripples who are incapable of defending the civilization they supposedly want to defend.

The red and overstruck text was included in what Auster originally posted at John Savage’s blog (which is no longer available). The green text was added in the “revised and expanded version” Auster posted to his own blog on the same day.

For an intellectual who so often picks apart the arguments of others Auster exhibits a curious inability to squarely face my argument here. Contrast either version of what he wrote above with the text below that he was responding to. Savage’s post was an attempt to collect Auster’s various slightly different statements of MMRILS. Auster wrote (his emphasis):

As I look over your collection, it’s clear to me that there is but one Law, and it’s simply this: that the more difficult or dangerous a minority or non-Western group actually is, the more favorably it is treated. This increasingly undeserved favorable treatment of an increasingly troublesome or misbehaving minority or non-Western group can take numerous forms, including celebrating the group, giving the group greater rights and privileges, covering up the group’s crimes and dysfunctions, attacking the group’s critics as racists, and blaming the group’s bad behavior on white racism.

To which I first responded:

And the corollary: Jews are the most favorably treated minority of all, therefore they are the most difficult and dangerous.

Or shall we just label such an observation anti-semitic and discard it?

After that John Savage disagreed that jews are most favored, and I provided some arguments to support my claim. I think it’s fair to say that weeks later when Auster finally offered the dual-response above both versions were dishonest. Allow me now to summarize his rambling non-answer and editorialize with some helpful remarks.

Auster’s not covering anything up (especially not that I never claimed he was). MMRILS does not apply to jews because only anti-semites would say it does (however it does apply to all other unassimilable, alien, hostile minorities). There is sorta kinda a jewish problem but it’s not what irrational jew haters think it is (remember, this is not a cover up). It’s just that jews are really energetic and talented and they just tend to dominate the culture (ie. the most favored minority thing just happened). If only “the majority” would regrow their backbone jews would stop dominating (and would stop prosecuting jew haters). Jewish movie moguls used to love “the majority” but nowadays they don’t (sounds hostile to me, and what about the jewish media influence beyond Hollywood?). Muslims are different (for example they don’t control the West’s media). They are protected because liberals like to cover things up (unlike Auster). The First Law is about overtly aggressive groups like muslims, it is not about covertly aggressive groups like jews (and remember, we’re not covering anything up). To make this argument that my First Law applies to jews you must be a lunatic intellectual cripple (and probably not a jew).

Almost a month after he wrote this drivel I came upon it at Savage’s and wrote Auster and Anti-Anti-Semitism, to document and continue the debate.

Shortly afterward Auster responded with I am attacked for not being an anti-Semite. He does not link back to Does the First Law of Majority-Minority Relations apply to the Jews? though he does mention how and why he answered:

The question Tanstaafl had posed to me about the First Law was a serious and legitimate one, and when I came upon the discussion at Savage’s site, I answered it seriously. At the same time, I saw that Tanstaafl was an anti-Semite, and I indicated as such. Not that it took any great insight. Someone who calls Jews “the most dangerous” minority has already made himself pretty clear.

Auster isn’t being clear at all. Is the question a serious and legitimate one, or is it not worth answering because he perceives some moral failing in the asker?

He also isn’t fair. “Dangerous” is his own word, and it comes from applying his own Law. Neither one of his non-answers to that point are serious. They amount to deflection. He transforms a point about his own logic using his own words into insinuations about me personally. Auster’s first non-answer certainly sounded like he agreed jews were a minority hostile to the majority before his non-sequitur that this is invalid because it is anti-semitism. Auster’s second non-answer left out the majority-minority relations entirely. In both cases the focus ended up solely on the person questioning him. It included the application of delightful names like “neo-nazi”, “jew hater”, “intellectual cripple”, “lower lifeform”. And of course any objection to such empty ad hominem could only be considered “whining”.

Perhaps Auster didn’t provide a link to his first non-answer because he didn’t want to call attention to his own confused rationale, or for anyone to notice its subtle differences from the one I quoted. Or maybe he’s just forgetful.

It appeared to me from the first that Auster’s fixation on my pseudonym was odd. It seemed he was trying to avoid discussing the corollary I proposed to his First Law. That was before I even knew he had discussed it. Now in retrospect I can see Auster was either pretending he didn’t know what TANSTAAFL stood for when he wrote his second non-answer, or he went to the trouble to go back and modify his first non-answer so he wouldn’t look too paranoid.

– – –

John Savage and I disagreed again more recently about the most favored status of jews. I wrote about it in Who’s on Top? I always knew the ADL considered such talk, true or not, to be a sure sign of irrational jew hatred – now I also understand that even “radical” “anti-liberal” “traditionalists” like Auster feel the same way.

Here are some previous criticisms of Auster that may interest visitors:

What We Cannot Do. Wherein Auster tells the anti-jihadis at Gates of Vienna what not to say, who not to associate with, etc.

We’re White, We’re Indigenous, Get Used to It. Auster provided a non-answer titled Am I an orthographical fifth columnist? that didn’t link what he was not answering.

Irony Thy Name is Auster. Luke O’Farrell is in jail for his anti-jewish opinions. This is certainly not evidence of any privileged jewish status. Hollywood will make a movie about Sheppard and Whittle just as soon as “the majority” convinces the media to conform to Western standards and report the story. Auster will discuss it some day too. The world is just so full of Austerian irony he can’t possibly comment on all of it.

UPDATE 4 Aug 2008: The example cited above of how Auster responds to criticism by smearing his critic goes a bit deeper than I realized. It contains a link to a restatement of his First Law from 2002 where he provides his own corollary:

That last point leads us to the first corrolary of Auster’s First Law of Majority/Minority Relations in Liberal Society: The more egregiously any non-Western or non-white group behaves, the more evil whites are made to appear for noticing and drawing rational conclusions about that group’s bad behavior.

Emphasis added.

Auster has not only provided a Law that serves as a useful tool for analyzing liberalism. By going beyond a rational argument or even flat denial that jews are a hostile minority and claiming instead that the person who poses such a thesis is evil Auster has done quite the opposite of hopelessly confusing the issue or ruining his tool’s value. He has demonstrated its power. Thank you Mr. Auster.

UPDATE 9 Aug 2008: More criticism of Auster, triggered by his attack on Vanishing American, can be found in the thread following this post from February 2008.

This portion with specific examples is worth reiterating here:

Auster is an anti-anti-semite, someone whose pro-jewish bias goes beyond mere philo-semitism to aggressive bigotry. I hesitated to claim so, even after I first recognized something was not right, because I had not connected enough dots. I have since. Consider the following points:

He smears Ron Paul (who opposes the Israel Lobby and neocons) as “anti-American”, supposedly for criticizing US foreign policy and associating with the wrong people.

He smears Kevin MacDonald (who opposes the Israel Lobby and neocons) claiming he “hates Israel and sees it as the source of all problems in the world, along with Jewry generally” (a telltale exaggeration made by anti-anti-semites) ostensibly because MacDonald reasons about “jews qua jews”.

He smears Pat Buchanan (who opposes the Israel Lobby and neocons) as an anti-semite, ironically for “protesting too much” the smears of anti-anti-semites.

He notes approvingly the recommendation to “vote for the crook” rather than the pro-White pro-Christian David Duke (who opposes the Israel Lobby and neocons) “because it’s important”. Important why exactly? Oh right, because Duke criticizes jewish supremacism, though Auster is not forthright enough to mention that.

Meanwhile when Auster criticizes anti-White anti-Christian jews he euphemizes them as “liberals” and their policies as “liberalism”. Rarely does he note they are jews and he never dehumanizes them or calls for them to be ostracized as he regularly does with anyone he labels anti-semitic.

The man is driven by “what’s good for jews”. I don’t have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is the fact that he is dishonest about it. He denies it, disguises it, and overtly bases his arguments on “what’s good for Christians” or “what’s good for the majority”. What is clear on scrutiny is that the former priority always trumps either of the latter. I am sensitive to this and resent it not because I am anti-jew, but because I am pro-White.

UPDATE 11 August 2008: What do liberals want? provides an excellent example of Auster’s treatment of Ken Hechtman, an anti-White anti-Christian his own readers presume is a jew:

You’re beyond the left. You’re off in some fantasy land of your own.

his agenda is not to preserve our existing society, but to advance Muslim power and influence in Canada and America as step toward building One World

It may seem, as I said earlier, that Ken Hechtman’s views are so extreme that they cannot be seen as representative of even the usual (i.e. the radical) pro-large-scale immigration, pro-open-borders position, such as that of the people who supported the Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

You want to destroy Canada, the U.S. and Europe. You want to destroy everything the West and the Western peoples have been.

KH’s ideas are simply a formula to destroy everything that we are, and should be identified as such.

These leftists live in an unreal world and are hyper-alienated from anyone who doesn’t share their unreality.

Auster does not call Hechtman evil, accuse him of being driven by hatred, or claim he is insane. He does not smear him and does not recommend he be shunned or silenced. Instead he says:

I hope Mr. Hechtman doesn’t feel he’s being ganged up on here

Perhaps this is because Auster and Hechtman agree on what’s most important: anti-semitism. See In which circle of hell do the anti-Semites reside? from December 2007 where Auster claims anti-semites say “Jews are indeed the source of all evil and must be destroyed” and have “given over their whole being to the idee fixe that the Jews are the source of all evil” to which “Ken H.” (Hechtman?) responds by comparing anti-semites to Christians and other “true believers”. Auster is disturbed because this seems “an attempt by you to relativize anti-Semitism”. Once satisfied they are in agreement about “the monomania of the anti-semites” Auster never questions “Ken H.”‘s distain for Christians.

Auster describes anti-semites as

obsessively telling everyone they encounter that one small population group of human beings is the source of all evil in the world and must be eliminated

The ironic thing about this statement is how perfectly it describes himself and his anti-anti-semitic obsession with “anti-semites”. He meets no other enemy with as much fury, disgust, strident language, and moral indignation.

UPDATE 16 August 2008: Auster’s exchange with Hechtman continues on 13 August with Auster identifying the core crime:

What Mr. Hechtman seeks is to exclude from the political universe the very possibility of a country controlling it borders. He said that it is “no business” of the government of a country to say who enters that country. Meaning that in his view one of the very powers that defines a country as a country does not exist. That is not just a particular policy or law he is proposing. It is an all-controlling meta-principle. It is, in effect, a global constitution, which he, as global legislator, would impose on humanity if he could.

The all-controlling meta-principle Mr. Auster would impose on humanity if he could is to exclude from the political universe the very possibility of Whites pursuing their own interests independent of the interests of jews. He conflates these interests and attacks anyone who suggests they are distinct.

In addition to the several examples cited in the 9 August update above Auster has just provided another. In The bad demographic news–and an unrelated discussion of Steve Sailer he attacks Sailer for the sin of insufficient love of israel:

Sailer is not merely indifferent to Israel, and therefore indifferent to the possibility of its destruction. His professed indifference to Israel’s destruction is the way he expresses his profound hostility to Israel.

Read Sailer’s The Iranian War Machine first so you can truely appreciate Auster’s profoundly hostile (and paranoid) interpretation.

Sailer’s supposed indifference to israel’s destruction turns out to be criticism of “the apparent run-up to a war with Iran” in which “foreign policy commentary appears to be largely the obsession of men with the irrational team-loving emotional instincts of baseball fans”. In fleshing out this analogy he says the media’s “Iranian fear-mongering” is “as if bored New York sportswriters, following, say, a collapse by the large market Boston Red Sox, got into a frenzy over the long term threat to Yankee dominance posed by the small-market Kansas City Royals”, and makes the point that “it wouldn’t happen on the sports pages, because baseball fans know the numbers and the pundits would get laughed at by their own readers”.

Auster thinks countries should be able to control their own borders, but not their foreign policy. His all-controlling meta-principle drives him to condemn any discussion which does not give priority above all else to whatever he imagines the interests of israel to be. Not even liberal open borders fanatics, who according to Auster “want to destroy everything the West and the Western peoples have been”, are treated to the kind of personal invective he aims at Sailer. He believes Sailer is “a bigot against Israel” and thus it follows naturally from Auster’s own pro-israel bigotry that Sailer is “a human being devoid of moral sense, devoid of soul”.

In contrast Auster is very concerned to express that his much milder treatment of jewish liberal Hechtman is not in any way intended to be dehumanizing. That is clearly something he reserves for those who may otherwise consider themselves political or philosophical allies but who fail his pro-jewish litmus test.

UPDATE 19 August 2008: Continued at Criticized by Auster.

24 thoughts on “Criticizing Auster”

  1. Woe-is-me Larry doesn’t like his critics:

    Also, I want to repeat what you said about blogs with open commenting: “Any masked poltroon can walk in and say any fool thing.”

    Yes, and notice that all the people savaging me at GoV hide behind made-up names, every one of them; “Baron Bodissey,” “Conservative Swede,” “Awake,” “Tanstaafl,” and so on. So there’s a mob of people concealing their names, all ganged up on a person who uses his real name.

    In a world run by Auster and friends we would simply be prohibited from and punished for expressing opinions that vex them, regardless of what names we use. As we are already well on the way to such a state I find it prudent to remain anonymous. If I were a poltroon I wouldn’t write at all.

  2. This is a pathetic attempt by an anti-White charlatan to lure people out of anonymity so that they meet with personal ruin. He knows full and well that to express truthful (that is, “anti-semitic”)opinions in this day and age, particularly in the cancer-infested West, is financial suicide.

  3. In my case I would agree. Auster’s problem with the others, who are philo-semites as far as I can tell, is that they have had the temerity to express ideas contrary to his own in ways with which he disagrees.

    To be sure he is also upset that they have permitted my statements at GoV to stand uncensored and uncondemned. Don’t they understand that he has called me an anti-semite and therefore they are obligated to shun me?

    I think this is the point that really burns Auster, but for the moment he is unwilling to push it. As much as he huffs and puffs about his honor, he knows directing traffic my way won’t help it.

  4. Auster: “Hi is this the ADL? Can I speak to Mr. Foxman? I need to report a hate crime. Yes, I have identified a known anti-semite by the name of Bob Jones. Yeah, hahah, he fell for me calling him out…I have the name of his blog, his address…..

    Thank you Mr. Auster, our team of lawya’s is right on it!

  5. Jews were far more openly involved in radical movements (Communist Party USA)in the early twentieth century than they are today. They didn’t as openly debase Gentile culture during that time period because they were intimidated that doing so might provoke an anti-Semitic backlash. Auster would never admit though that anti-Semitism is a rational and necessary response to the Jewish Question.

  6. Glad to see you out and about Prozium. I agree.

    When I first wrote about this last December Auster’s reaction surprised and puzzled me. That was because I thought his top priority was “the majority”. I see more clearly now that Auster values “the majority” only so far as it may serve as a faithful golem for the jewish minority he favors above all. Thus he rationalizes how we are obligated to protect israel, confront black and immigrant savagery, and deport muslims – but we may not criticize even the self-consciously alienated jews who harm us, we may not use the same rationalizations he applies to blacks or muslims.

    We can of course criticize jews, but if you do you must be prepared to be assaulted with absurd and hysterical slurs against your mental and moral fiber. Auster insists the criticism must be rational, but even the coldly factual and scholarly researched efforts of Kevin MacDonald, extensively quoting jewish sources, does not satisfy him. To my knowledge no criticism of jews meets Auster’s standards, except his own non-criticisms that they just naturally bubble to the top because they are superior, and how it’s all “the majority’s” fault anyway.

  7. Greetings, Tanstaafl, oh warlike German anti-Semite. Good column. And I second that it is good to see Prozium about. Wait, Prozium . . . sounds like a warlike German anti-Semite to me!

    What I like about Auster’s defense is that he says Jews are insiders and assimilable, and thus whites don’t apply the First Law to them because whites don’t recognize them as minorities. But a great many JEWS do see themselves as alien and unassimilable, and since they craft the culture to a large extent, it is no wonder why they are treated with kid gloves. Whether Joe Six Pack recgonizes them as aliens or not is a moot point.

  8. Being rational to that bunch over at VFR is kissing jews ass first before you mention a negative. You must before beginning a criticism say how you hate David Duke and despise Stormfront. You must denounce all white nationalism as well. Then you can proceed to make your point. So if you are willing to discuss jews by playing by Auster’s rules, then yes you are rational and you may discuss jews. Otherwise, he will go right into jew mode and begin acting like his pc brethern.

    It’s disgraceful.

    As you mentioned, he is only interested in using whites to protect jews. That’s why he sports a boner on threads such as the one at GoV. Nothing gets Auster more excited then seeing a bunch of philo-semites discussing how they are going to destroy Islam.

  9. Jim Jones said many jews do not see themselves as assimilated in America.

    Very true. You do not need to look any further then going straight to the horse’s mouth

    This young Jewish writer in the article states for all Americans to see what her mommy and daddy taught her..

    “America is where we live now, but it isn’t our home. We know that we can all be complete as a nation once we come together in Israel.”

    If you read the article notice her paranoia. Still in high school, living in one the most philo-semitic nations on planet Earth and yet she is filled with fear that Hitler is around the corner. As she ages, she will join in on the undermining of this nation to ease her paranoia and to make her feel safe. These are the people Auster calls assimilated and white.

  10. Good link zog nation.

    I looked out the window to Avenue J. Almost every store is owned by a Jew. We have a variety of restaurants, bakeries, clothing and Jewish book stores.

    . . .

    Every time I look around Brooklyn, I ask myself how is this possible? How can almost every house on this block be a Jewish home? How is it possible that on Saturday the busiest block in the neighborhood is empty of cars? How can there be so many parking spaces available on Saturday? We are such a big part of the city, there is an entire Jewish world right here in Brooklyn.

    . . .

    I live on East 10th and Avenue M. I’m surrounded by Judaism. Almost every person living on my block is frum. The children playing on the street all wear kipot and the girls are dressed modestly. My family has a variety of about 20 kosher restaurants located a block away. I think about how lucky I am to have everything so convenient for me.

    No hint of liberal guilt at the lack of diversity. No self-flagellation over “jewish privilege”. This young girl’s victimology can only be the result of indoctrination. Whereas most White kids are bombarded from birth with messages that they are evil racists, too many jewish kids are taught to hate and fear and attack evil racists.

    Auster is well aware of this paranoid, alienated attitude and the passive-aggressive behavior it can motivate:

    Just the other week I was telling a secular, leftist Jew of my acquaintance, a man in his late sixties, about my idea that the only way to make ourselves safe from the specter of domestic Moslem terrorism is to deport all jihad-supporting Moslems from this country. He replied with emotion that if America deported Moslem fundamentalists, it would immediately start doing the same thing to Jews as well. “It’s frightening, it’s scary,” he said heatedly, as if the Jews were already on the verge of being rounded up. In the eyes of this normally phlegmatic and easy-going man, America is just a shout away from the mass persecution, detention, and even physical expulsion of Jews. Given the wildly overwrought suspicions that some Jews harbor about the American Christian majority who are in fact the Jews’ best friends in the world, it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews.

    My emphasis.

  11. In every Auster thread I read now the difference in priorities and values is clear to me now like it never was before. I can only hope other non-jewish “whites” come to the same understanding.

  12. I don’t think Mr. Auster will note this speech.
    German Patriot Defence Lawyer Sylvia Stolz was sentenced to 3 and-a-half years in prison and disbarred for 5 years.
    Below Sylvia’s comments to the court.

    She says the Court is perverting and repressing the truth with the cudgel of “Holocaust,” making a mockery of justice. Her trial has made clear the criminal absurdity of prosecuting “Holocaust Denial.” How can one deny something that never existed? She says these entire proceedings began as a show trial in a kangaroo court and never progressed beyond that point. The main proceedings were projected with smoke and mirrors and the official fairy tale of “Holocaust” was enforced by undisguised force. She observes that the political intent of the Court is the ultimate eradication of the German Nation and its replacement by a mongrelized and deculturated population of mindless consumers.

    Sylvia says she is confident that she has succeeded in exposing this Court to the whole world as an agent that is hostile to the German Nation. By openly and flagrantly violating the law, this Court flees before the truth. Incessantly, like turning a prayer wheel, it has rejected her every evidentiary motion with the cynical pretext of “abuse of courtprocedure.” ….. She has hope and faith that the German Nation will someday bring this treacherous Court to justice.

    Sylvia describes how the Defense was forced to accept the contents of the indictment, and this caused the Court’s desired verdict to be the inevitable consequence. In the absence of material evidence, the Court relied on its infantile rulings that “Abuse of Procedure = Criminal Act.” Thanks to this judicial sleight of hand, there was no assumption of innocence and the Court did not have to prove guilt.

    Sylvia asks: to what is Grossmann referring when he mentions “domestic and foreign” court verdicts? Could he be referring to the Nuremberg show trials? The Allied Military Tribunal was nothing but a postwar Talmudic Inquisition conducted by Germany’s enemies. It featured witnesses with “built-in credibility” and Jewish testimony that could never be questioned or authenticated.

    She asks: what would people like Grossmann do without the official obligatory fairy tale of “Holocaust?” Her trial has again demonstrated that world political powers are players in the “Holocaust” game (or “Holocaust Industry” as Prof. Norman Finkelstein calls it, he should know, since both of his parents were interned at Auschwitz during the War.) This explains why objective historical research is still suppressed, sixty-three years after the end of the War. As an example of ongoing intellectual repression in Germany Sylvia refers to the “Hermann Case” in which a popular commentator was fired for referring to such positive aspects of National Socialism as its family policy and the construction of Autobahns.

    Sylvia demonstrates that the Court’s procedural system is very, very simple. It consists of disallowing all evidentiary motions as “abuse of Court procedure,” which is a criminal act. She says that the District Attorney’s closing tirade was beneath all legal criticism, nothing but purest slander and abuse…..Then Sylvia shows how powerful interests profit greatly by inculcating a negative self-image into German society, with their incessant propaganda and brainwashing. If Germans were as evil as Grossmann depicts them, they would long ago have skinned him alive.

    She points out that under the present Talmudic Inquisition, anyone who calls attention to the destructive nature of Judaism can be punished. Glenz tells the Court Reporter to write that remark down as well. Sylvia observes that today, no one is allowed to say anything the least bit derogatory about Jews, and yet the necessary first step toward changing and improving conditions in Germany is recognizing the cause of our malaise. She says that Horst Mahler’s writings provide the proof for this, and she will stand by this assertion. Glenz orders the Reporter: “Put that in too!”

    Sylvia continues and remarks that Germany now stands under the yoke of world Judaism. Glenz threatens: “We are going to cut off your final address if…” But Sylvia ignores him and says that following World War II, the real criminals took over the world. Glenz growls “I’m warning you!” but Sylvia again urges the public to consider the causes of Germany’s plight and continue gathering and considering the material evidence. She tells the Court that National Socialism is not dead, regardless of how much Grossmann and his ilk wish it were dead. She says that National Socialism represents what is good and enduring in the German spirit. Idealism and patriotism are rigidly suppressed at this time but they cannot be suppressed forever.

    Turning toward Grossmann and the Court, she asks:

    “Is he German? Or is he perhaps related to that Moshe Grossmann who for four years following the end of World War II continued torturing and murdering German slaves in the East, as the Jewish author John Sack reports in his book An Eye for an Eye?”

    Then she turns to the Bench and asks:

    “What about you — are you Germans?” “German” stands for honor and steadfastness! Think of Deutsche Treue! Nobody can call what is going on in this court as “honorable.” In this court, the only “justice” is inspired by the Talmud!”

    Sylvia expresses her faith that history will take its inevitable course and “the truth will win out.” She says that since the trial began she has been prepared for her preordained conviction — she told them at the beginning that she knew her verdict was handed down, even before her indictment. To the Bench she says

    “And you, my high-and-mighty judges, will never again experience inner peace… Your depiction of National Socialism as a criminal system will see to that. You are willing accomplices to the brainwashing and degradation of the German people…. Adolf Hitler accurately recognized the Jewish problem, the malevolent power of the Jews in certain respects… Yes, I share the values of National Socialism!”

    Sylvia replies,

    “If my actions bring a little more light into this dark hour for Germany, then I will gladly go to prison! It does not bother me that I am officially ridiculed and insulted by this despicable court and atrocious government… My high and mighty judges, you are convicting yourselves, not me.”


  13. It’s easy for Auster to boast about what a badass he is for publishing under his true name. Well Larry, we can’t all wait for Aunt Rachel and Uncle Reuben to croak and leave us millions, thereby insulating us from the financial effects of being ostracized for being pro-white.

    Tanstaafl, you and anyone else interested should go to and try to dig up a thread by one “Yehuda Abraham” from a while back (very much a tongue in cheek handle). He had gathered Holocaust survivor tales right out of the horse’s mouth and posted them, in all their absurdity. I am not a Holocaust skeptic, although I do not put any stock in the 6 million figure (so maybe I am one after all). That said, some doubt began to creep into my mind when I saw all the BS tales of “survivors” that Yehuda had gathered (e.g., floating 900 miles down a river in the middle of winter to escape from Nazi’s). Even better, Yehuda had a great sense of humor, and he had quite a few people rolling on the ground with laughter.

  14. Post updated to highlight the difference between Auster’s attitude toward a jew diametrically opposed to him on every issue except anti-semitism, and his attitude toward anti-semites.


    As I was reading this (and the whole piece, reproduced below, is worth reading), the thought struck me: could we imagine a straightforward article like this on minority crime rates in the British press–or indeed in the news media of any western European country or Canada? Can we imagine a British “conservative” columnist stating the British equivalent of “Blacks and Hispanics make up more than 98 percent of all shooting perps”? The answer is no. Even the “conservatives” in these countries are so apologetic for being alive, so fearful and shamefaced about going anywhere near negative facts about nonwhites, that they would be unable to state these truths in the simple forthright way that Mac Donald has done here.

Comments are closed.