Just in case my comment at Mangan’s does not make it past moderation I’ll also post it here:

There is a very simple explanation for almost everything said so far.

Auster is a bigot. He is first and foremost pro-jew. In several posts at my blog, Age of Treason, I have argued this point in great detail and provided many examples, including his treatment of Sailer. Suffice it to say here that Auster’s anti-liberalism, his “white” sympathies, his traditionalism, his separationism, and his rationalism all go out the window when the subject is criticism of jews.

The “deadly polarization between liberalism on one side and anti-Semitism on the other” that Auster decries is created largely by anti-anti-semites like Auster. Asked to cite criticism of jews he finds acceptable all he provides are his own back-handed compliments. Compare to his his caricatures and condemnation of other critics. There is a dearth of criticism of jews because every time anyone argues jews are responsible for X% of anything anti-anti-semites immediately start reading the critic’s mind and throwing smears that what he really means is 100% of everything because he is “obviously” driven by insane jew-hatred.

And if you don’t see that, Auster and the anti-anti-semites say, then you must hate jews too. We have laws against that. We can fire you, shun you, exclude you. It’s all very polarizing.

What’s also disturbing is Auster’s disingenuousness. He is not responding to any commenter when he places thoughts in Sailer’s head. He simply doing the same thing he does with most others he smears when he perceives criticism of jews that isn’t based on their best interests.

Again it is not difficult to explain the thoughts Auster imagines in others and why he imagines them. Given his racialism it isn’t even surprising that he does so. What confounds Whites so is the low trickery and hypocrisy he resorts to to deny and disguise this bias. For all his intellect he can’t seem to understand that many of us value honesty and square-dealing even above the interests of our own kind.

Check out the discussion of the Auster v. Sailer beef at D. Mangan’s blog. Auster has and will continue to overplay the “anti-semite” card when dealing with patriotic Whites. And even the thickest Whites are beginning to pay notice to the annoying regularity of his plopping the “judenhass” joker into any discussion not to his liking.

Either Ignatiev attacks Auster’s “whites” (Whites plus jews) or he attacks Whites alone, distinguishing them from jews. In either case Ignatiev does so with explicitly genocidal language from a position of power within academia. But Auster doesn’t care nearly as much about a genocidal anti-White like Ignatiev and doesn’t condemn him as he does marginal anonymous “masked poltroon” bloggers like myself. Here he treats MR and Guessedworker similarly.

According to Auster drawing distinctions between “whites” and either blacks or muslims is sane and acceptable. He imagines he is the first to have this idea and calls it separationism. At the same time he attacks and condemns in Ignatiev-lite language anyone who draws distinctions between White and jew, or those who (like Paul and Buchanan) see the US and israel as separate countries with independent interests.

Auster’s behavior isn’t random, and it isn’t inscrutable. It reflects the fact that he is first and foremost pro-jew. More important, he is not forthright about it. He criticizes “liberalism” because he thinks it is bad for jews, but does not condemn “liberals” because too many of them are jews. He distinguishes jews from Whites. He criticizes “anti-semitism” (with smears and distortions such as “all that the Jew-haters can think about is the Jews. The Jews are the cause of it all”) and so easily and frequently condemns “anti-semites” because he projects his own obsession onto them.