A good (and true) joke, according to Lawrence Auster:
From a discussion at the blog Half Sigma, where the topic is the irrationality of the Jew-hating and Israel-hating white nationalists. A commenter says:
As I said on the von Brunn thread, the bigger mystery is why they hate the Federal Reserve.
The Fed has nothing directly or indirectly to do with race or genetics. It is a purely economic issue. But von Brunn and the Stormfronters want a gold standard almost as badly as a second Holocaust.
Auster apparently didn’t find the pseudonym of the commenter or the rest of his comment funny. Neither did I, but here it is:
Yes, most Fed board members – including Bernanke and Greenspan – are Jewish; but the Stormfronters think the Jews already control ***Everything***.
If the Jews already control Western civilization from top to bottom then why should the Fed be such a focus of their hatred?
Posted by: The Undiscovered Jew | June 12, 2009 at 02:41 PM
The Undiscovered Jew’s “joke” was made in response to a brief post made by Half Sigma titled Why are white nationalists anti-Israel?:
More accurately they should be called white gentile nationalists, because they don’t want white people who are Jewish in their movement. They would love for all the Jews to leave the United States, but where would the Jews go if not to Israel?
Conversely, if Israel is taken over by Muslims, there would be millions of Jewish refugees, and the bulk of them would probably wind up in the United States. Thus white nationalists seem to be actively working against their goals by being pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel.
The question was merely a rhetorical one, because the answer is that the white gentile nationalists hate the Jews so much that they just want to enjoy seeing Israel overrun by Muslims.
All of this – from Half Sigma’s indignant confusion, to Undiscovered Jew’s sack dance over a strawman, to Auster’s shallow smirking – comes across as puerile, not funny. I don’t presume to speak for James von Brunn or “the Stormfronters” or anyone else who “hates” the Federal Reserve, but it’s easy to demonstrate how self-servingly clueless these three jews are.
Let’s work backwards toward the source, in the order I’ve just introduced Larry and his cousins Moe and Curly.
– – –
Auster frequently provides grist for my mill. Some say too much. His part in this post is small. See Fruitloopable Presumption for more about him.
In the past few months Auster has spent a great deal of effort attacking and denouncing Darwinism. I’m not going to bother picking apart his “logic”, he’s clearly doing it for the same reason he does anything else. He thinks Darwinism is bad for jews, though it isn’t really Darwinism per se that he dislikes, it’s the use of evolution and genetics in understanding the world and how jews stand in it that Auster can’t stand. This he labels “jew-hate”, and there’s nothing he hates more than “jew-haters”. Except maybe “israel-haters”.
Auster’s passionate hatred for hate runs so deep that it wraps around and he actually gets a chuckle from the jokes one jewish Darwinist tells another about those jew-hating israel-haters, AKA “the Stormfronters”. This fills him with such mirth that he left the name and punchline of The Undiscovered Jew undiscovered.
The Undiscovered Jew’s name actually is a bit of a joke – an ironic reference to the jewish tendency to keep their jewish identity and interests from being discovered, except when they find it more convenient to proclaim the significance of their jewishness, which very often coincides with them ridiculing any non-jew who thinks jewishness has significance or is worth discovering.
The contradiction U-Jew sees in “Stormfronter” logic reflects his own witlessness.
The Fed has nothing directly or indirectly to do with race or genetics.
He finds this misunderstanding of “Stormfronter” understanding so critical that he reiterates it:
It is a purely economic issue.
Except it isn’t.
But von Brunn and the Stormfronters want a gold standard almost as badly as a second Holocaust.
Non sequitur. It is curious however that so many of those who think any negative proclamation about “the jews” is ipso facto “irrational” “hate”, but have no problem making truly irrational statements (as Half Sigma and U-Jew do) about the mythically monolithicness of “the Stormfronters”, which for Half Sigma and his commenters is nothing but a euphemism for pro-Whites they deliberately misconstrue instead as “jew-haters” (which they do because they are pro-jew).
Yes, most Fed board members – including Bernanke and Greenspan – are Jewish; but the Stormfronters think the Jews already control ***Everything***.
So here we see that right after denying it U-Jew actually does see “the Stormfronter” point; but what he’s really trying to do is distort it. Better than anyone else jews are acutely aware that they don’t control everything. Many wish they did. The ones most obsessed with control are exactly the ones who are so quick to tick off the various vexing ways jews don’t “control ***Everything***”. Jewish media influence? “Ted Turner isn’t jewish!”
If the Jews already control Western civilization from top to bottom then why should the Fed be such a focus of their hatred?
Here’s a better question. One that isn’t based on a false premise. If “the Stormfronters” are powerless why should they be such a focus of hatred from “anti-liberal” “race-realists” like Auster and Half Sigma? Don’t they have bigger fish to fry?
If U-Jew is in the slightest bit curious what causes anybody to “hate” the Federal Reserve he could begin by watching The Money Masters. This 215 minute documentary-style video reviews financial history, describing in deracinated jew-blind layman’s terms how the modern Western banking system evolved over the last several hundred years, largely through war and intrigue. The distinct impression it leaves is that the banking system is essentially fraudulent, based on the creation of wealth by trickery (AKA fractional reserve banking) and the subversion and subordination of citizens and their governments to plutocrats and their agents (eg. the “international bankers” who own and operate the Fed). All you have to do is add even a dim “race realist” recognition of disproportionate jewish involvement in finance such as U-Jew exhibits and you have the solution to U-Jew’s own very disingenous, very jewish reasoning.
Now on to Half Sigma and his rhetorical question: Why are white nationalists anti-Israel?
More accurately they should be called white gentile nationalists, because they don’t want white people who are Jewish in their movement. They would love for all the Jews to leave the United States, but where would the Jews go if not to Israel?
Once again it’s not possible to ignore the simplistic and unjustified implication that all White nationalists (i.e. Whites who would prefer to live in a White country that defends and pursues White interests) oppose jewish nationalism. The fact is that jewish nationalists have a country they can go to, where jewish interests are openly pursued and non-jews are second class citizens. This is only one of the many inconsistencies that irritate White nationalists. Another fact is that many jews, whether they support jewish nationalism or not, are rabid opponents of Whites pursuing their own interests, never mind nationalism. Any White who begins to experience even the dimmest racial consciousness can’t ignore that jews are their most rabid opponents. Some jews who like the societies Whites build and desperately wish to be seen as “white” (as Half Sigma and Auster do) react to the undeniable reality of jewish aggression against Whites by desperately spinning excuses and rationalizations, in the end absurdly laying all the blame on “the Stormfronters” or “the jew-haters”.
There are myriad organizations dedicated to the defense and pursuit of jewish interests, many of them excluding non-jews, even if only implicitly. If only in response then it is reasonable that Whites, nationalist or otherwise, organize for our own interests and exclude jews. We have and would be more successful at it were it not for the constant, venomous attacks on us by jewish organizations.
Conversely, if Israel is taken over by Muslims, there would be millions of Jewish refugees, and the bulk of them would probably wind up in the United States. Thus white nationalists seem to be actively working against their goals by being pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel.
Yes, no doubt if israel collapses it will all be blamed on “the anti-semites”. And yes, jews are already preparing to evacuate to the US. See for example The Kvetcher’s Jewish Immigration Policy as Worst Case Scenario Appears Ever More Likely, especially the outrageously arrogant comments of blode0322, who in contrast to Half Sigma’s suggested terminology I’d describe as a white non-Gentile nationalist.
Half Sigma concludes:
The question was merely a rhetorical one, because the answer is that the white gentile nationalists hate the Jews so much that they just want to enjoy seeing Israel overrun by Muslims.
Race-realist Half Sigma’s question was rhetorical, and the answer oddly based on the same “hate” rationale that race-denying “liberals” use, because he doesn’t want to face the real answer, which is that jews aren’t White. Unfortunately for Sigma the real answer explains not only the general antipathy self-conscious Whites have for the jewish state of israel, but also for the obvious fear and loathing jews express toward anything White – whether it’s spelling White with a capital W, White nationalism, or even a Whites-only political party that doesn’t exclude them.
Half Sigma, recognizing this threat to his convenient and comfortable hatred of “jew-hate”, followed up later the same day with a lame assertion. In Jews are white he writes:
Judaism is a religion and not a race. Jews can be of any race, even black. If you think that Spaniards are white, then you would also conclude that Sephardic Jews from Spain are white.
Only white nationalists and Stormfront types insist that Ashkenazi Jews aren’t white, and that’s because they hate Jews but love whites, so they need some sort of rationalization for the inconsistency.
A year ago, Steve Sailer posted a 3-D chart showing how Ashkenazi Jews cluster genetically when compared to other ethnicities, and it’s clear from the chart that Jews are similar to Russians and Western Europeans, and quite dissimilar from Middle Eastern ethnicities such as Druze, Samaritans, and Yemenites.
You shouldn’t even need the chart to figure out that Jews are white, because common sense should inform you that you can’t tell the difference between Jews and other Europeans. It’s true that some Jews have a Jewish look about them, but Italians have an Italian look about them, Irish have an Irish look about them, and Poles have a Polish look about them, but those European ethnicities are rarely accused of not being white. No one is better at identifying other Jews than Jews themselves, and Jews usually can’t tell whether or not someone looks Jewish. I remember an organization in the Phoenix area which threw parties for Jewish singles, and they would always ask at the door, “are you Jewish?” The reason they had to ask the question is because they can’t tell by looking. It’s hard to imagine a black organization asking at the door, “are you black?”
I don’t know of any Ashkenazi Jews who consider themselves anything other than white. There are many Jews who, when asked their ethnicity, say that they’re Jewish, but I don’t say that. I tell people I’m half Russian and half Polish. I would encourage more Jews to identify themselves that way.
Jewish political groups aren’t doing anything to defend against the anti-Semitic meme that Jews aren’t white because Jewish groups tend to be very liberal, and liberals think that defending against the accusation that one isn’t white would be admitting that you believe that there’s something wrong with not being white, and it would be racist to think there’s something wrong with not being white. But in my opinion, it’s not racist to point out that some white nationalists are saying stuff about Jews which isn’t true.
Coming from a popular, supposedly intelligent, “race-realist” blogger this confused babble would be perplexing, except that it makes perfect sense and is perfectly consistent once we realize that it’s coming from a jew. Why should Whites not consider jewishness significant? Why should we look the other way while jewish apologists peddle such incoherent nonsense as a cover for jewish attacks on us? What Half Sigma is writing is in fact just another more insidious form of attack. “You can’t call yourself White! You should call yourself “white gentile”, because I as a jew consider myself “white” and I get to order you around because you hate jews!”
Immediately Half Sigma’s own pro-jewish commenters tried to point out his foolishness. Unlike Auster, Half Sigma runs a somewhat open forum, but like Auster he shows the same discomfort with criticism, meticulously inserting his rebuttals right into the first few dissenting commenters comments. Later on The Kvetcher responded with Overreaching on Jewish Whiteness:
Half Sigma starts out with a half-truth, noting, “Judaism is a religion and not a race. Jews can be of any race…” This is, in and of itself, true, of course. Judaism is not based or limited to any race. In fact, there is no explicit term for race in the Torah.
But Jews are, to a large degree, a specific people sharing similar genetic code. The reference to The Jews in our liturgy is filled with the mention of “am Yisroel,” or, “the nation of Israel.” Who comprises “the nation” of Israel? The twelve tribes. The convert is a “stranger.” Not the illegal immigrant — the convert.
Kvetcher points out a graph that better illustrates jewish genetic distinctiveness at Gene Expression: SNPs don’t lie. Another graph is attached to Criticizing Auster. It indicates ashenazi jews are genetically more distinct from Poles than Poles are from Italians or Greeks. I’m a Darwinist in the sense that I think the sociopolitcal distinctions I’ve already made between jews and Whites spring largely from personality differences which spring largely from genetics.
– – –
So what explains jewish “race realist” Half Sigma’s behavior? How can he be so acutely aware of his jewish heritage and yet unaware of its significance? What drives him to caricaturize and hate and wish to exclude “the Stormfronters” in the same way he mistakenly assumes “all” of “them” wish to do to jews? Why does he so desparately argue jews are “white”, while he, like so many other jews, shows such a deep disrespect and disdain for Whites who disagree?
I think the cause is his jewishness. And I think this kind of thing isn’t said more openly and more frequently because the West, or the White Gentile West to put it in terms Half Sigma might better understand, has become thoroughly judaized. After generations of effort by jewish-led intellectual and political movements, and more recently flipping into overdrive with the rise of mass media, and the aid of jewish influence in that media, any criticism of jews, even when they say the most hypocritical and self-serving things, is considered an egregious crime. To even say “you’re only saying this crap because you’re jewish” is considered “irrational” “jew-hate”.
For this reason many jews have become accustomed to facing little or no opposition, which leads them to overreach, becoming more and more overbearing and openly hostile and resentful of Whites, revealing in their continuous and brazen arrogance and hypocrisy that they are not motivated by any principle or reason higher than “what’s good for jews?”
– – –
I’ll conclude with a few miscellaneous related items.
In Just Another Day (Part 2) Prozium points to Half Sigma’s posts as just a small part of another typical day of jewish attacks on Whites. He also links to Ben Cohen at the Huffington Post who, big surprise, dictates MSNBC, Pull the Plug on Pat Buchanan. What is truly amazing is his reason why. It hinges on exactly the kind of pernicious race-based libels against Whites that jews are always so quick to see and denounce in any criticism of themselves:
When you consider the 6 million people the Germans managed to wipe out, there’s not much the Jews couldn’t take from Germany to make things right.
White Europeans committed perhaps the biggest genocide in history when they came to the Americas. The native population was literally wiped off the land to make way for white settlers, and for those who managed to survive, a few crumbs were passed off to them decades later for their troubles.
White people transported millions of African slaves to the United States, subjected them to horrific treatment, murder and cultural annihilation. Blacks have only been treated as equal citizens in America since the 1960’s, and the notion that centuries of enslavement, degradation and economic disenfranchisement could be reversed in a few decades is just laughable.
Every minority in America has suffered at the hands of white people. It is a country founded by white people, built by white people and controlled by white people. To pretend otherwise is akin to holocaust denial. It is a fact.
Here’s a rhetorical question for Half Sigma. Does Ben Cohen consider himself “white”? As I noted in Not the Last Brainwashing it certainly isn’t uncommon for jews to peddle “blood libels” against Whites in the mainstream media. They’re not even aiming at “the Stormfronters”. They hate ordinary unsuspecting just-acting-natural White people.
Attacks like this on Whites by “liberal” jews are commonplace. What causes me to believe the source is more jewish than “liberal” is that even “anti-liberal” jews like Lawrence Auster, pro-West half-jews like Takuan Seiyo, pro-“white” philo-semites like Ian Jobling, and half honest jewish-but-I-wanna-be-white race-realists like Half Sigma won’t face a very simple fact:
The government and the mainstream media are staunchly anti-White, not anti-jewish. In fact an ever growing body of laws explicitly puts jews on a pedestal, whether they attend a synagogue or not. Laws and censorship curtailing “hate speech” are perpetrated and rationalized largely by jews whose first and foremost concern is to protect jews from criticism.
What these “race realist” faux-White dissemblers listed above have in common is their holier-than-thou insistence that they have every right to generalize about and criticize muslims, blacks, “the Stormfronters”, or anybody else they wish, but consider it unacceptable to treat jews in the same way. Rather than openly proclaiming their pro-jewish sentiments, acknowledging and defending their double standards, and/or moving to israel to be with the people they love so much, they instead spend a great deal of effort doing exactly what “liberals” do, pretending to be “white” while directing hate toward anyone who acts White.
Look in the mirror. Do you like what you see. I don’t think so.
There is no double standard in the US. Doesn’t matter what color you are, everyone has an equal chance. Unless of course you are too busy whining about how the world is stacked against you.
I wonder if ‘Jack’ gives the same advice to his own people, or to the many minorities ‘whining about how the world is stacked against’ them.
Somehow I feel sure he doesn’t.
That post from Ben Cohen is the most egregious thing I’ve read lately. The idea of focusing so much hate on someone like Buchanan is apparently to make him represent the outermost fringe of the ‘antisemitic right’, when he is in fact pretty middle-of-the-road. Any of us who are to his right are thus the ‘fringe extremists’ and worthy of only condemnation, not a fair hearing.
Jack apparently blogs at a site called “The Muqata” (slogan: “Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael”). If that weren’t enough, Jack blogs at a website called “The Jewish Connection” (slogan: “Join us on a Journey as We Come Together to Discover the Connection that Every Jew Shares”). But that’s not all. Jack also blogs at Yourish.com, yet another Jewish website.
Let’s see. A clearly race-obsessed Jew takes brief respite from his almost endless blogging about Jewish issues (seriously, do you have a job, Jack?) to attack some European-Americans for the sin of expressing racial consciousness.
While at the same time telling us there’s no double standard.
LMAO.
For the record Jack, I like what I see in the mirror just fine. The real question is how a hypocrite and a bigot like you is able to look in the mirror at all.
I’ve focused on anti-White double standards quite a bit in the past few months. It’s not my fault Jack is ignorant.
Obama Nominates Anti-White Latina for SCOTUS addresses the “wise latina”/”White supremacist” double standard and other special priviledges “people of color” enjoy.
DHS Hypocrites Direct Fear and Hatred Toward Whites describes how the Department of Homeland Security, guided by the SPLC (which even Auster considers a crypto-jewish organization), regards Whites disturbed by abortion, immigration, and financial fraud as “domestic terrorists”. The report did not mention the innumerable violent latino gangs or the fact that many of their members are illegal aliens. But then hardly anybody in government or the media ever does. One man is killed in a pro-jewish shrine however and the media goes on and on about “White supremacism” and “hate” for days.
The Wages of Tantrum notes how beliefs that are pathologized as “racism” for Whites in the West (AKA “White nationalism”) is considered normal mainstream politics in israel, and describes the tactics jews commonly use to deflect criticism of this double standard. It’s no wonder U-Jew amuses Auster. They think very much alike.
Cabal Theories explains why “liberals” don’t condemn JournoList as an expression of “White privilege” for it’s lack of “diversity”. It’s because the preponderance of members are jews, and jews aren’t White.
Here are two essays by other people concerning preferences for “people of color” over Whites:
Insider’s explanation of racial quotas at Naval Academy
Does the U.S. Naval Academy (and Sonya Sotomayor?) Hate Whites?
“There is no double standard in the US. Doesn’t matter what color you are, everyone has an equal chance. Unless of course you are too busy whining about how the world is stacked against you.”
—
Ah, another “Andrei ‘Andrea’ Freiboden” (Freebottom) Zionist provacateur drag queen!
“Obama doesn’t have 43% of his appointees white Protestants, in fact I don’t think even 4% are white Protestants. So you have to ask yourself what’s going on here. How can the founding stock of the country have so completely lost control? They could reasonably regard the Obama administration as kind of an occupation government: a coalition of united minorities that succeeded in uniting the minorities and dividing the majority.”
So no double standard–no matter the color–everyone has an equal chance??
Wow, good thing [sic] ‘we are all [sic] ‘equal’!
[Link to above quote–or ‘Hatefact’]
“Obama doesn’t have 43% of his appointees white Protestants, in fact I don’t think even 4% are white Protestants. So you have to ask yourself what’s going on here. How can the founding stock of the country have so completely lost control? They could reasonably regard the Obama administration as kind of an occupation government: a coalition of united minorities that succeeded in uniting the minorities and dividing the majority.”
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Connelly-Brimelow.html
My thoughts on Ben Cohen’s asininity:
When you consider the 6 million people the Germans managed to wipe out, there’s not much the Jews couldn’t take from Germany to make things right.
Yaaawn. Either you jews counter the evidence presented by Rudolf, et al, or concede the point that it never happened.
Germans owe the jews nothing but scorn for their absolute malignity over the ages. Germans are creative, enterprising, moral people. Jews are famous only for their scams and the troubles they bring to every society.
White Europeans committed perhaps the biggest genocide in history when they came to the Americas. The native population was literally wiped off the land to make way for white settlers, and for those who managed to survive, a few crumbs were passed off to them decades later for their troubles.
Erm, no. Do please check world demographic estimates before spouting such crap. You’ll see that population of total Amerindians is far above the AD 1500 level!
Those “crumbs” by the way are multimillion dollar casino monopolies so cry me a goddamned river, jew.
White people transported millions of African slaves to the United States, subjected them to horrific treatment, murder and cultural annihilation. Blacks have only been treated as equal citizens in America since the 1960’s, and the notion that centuries of enslavement, degradation and economic disenfranchisement could be reversed in a few decades is just laughable.
This one had me convulsing with laughter. “African” and “cultural annihilation” in the same sentence! Btw, “horrific treatment” and “murder” are how Negroes treat all people.
Negro “equality” was conceded after years of brow-beating a generation that had already experienced world war. It would never have happened in a time that whites weren’t exposed to jewish culture war.
Btw, Cohen, care to mention the involvement of your tribe in the Slave Trade? No, I didn’t think so. This is a good example of jews counting as white when they need to and not counting as white when they don’t need to.
Every minority in America has suffered at the hands of white people. It is a country founded by white people, built by white people and controlled by white people. To pretend otherwise is akin to holocaust denial. It is a fact.
Right, and parasitic newcomers and savages who make it unsafe for whites to live do not get to dictate to the majority. I don’t pretend otherwise and I don’t apologize for whites who administer justice to invaders and outsiders who have hostile intent. They’ve only “suffered” because they want the good life at the expense of our own and we don’t have to give it to them.
As for your precious hoax, I deny it with relish and with glee. I’m proud to be white and never have to pretend I’m something I’m not unlike you vampiric jews.
Blacks have only been treated as equal citizens in America since the 1960’s, and the notion that centuries of enslavement, degradation and economic disenfranchisement could be reversed in a few decades is just laughable.
And I’m sure average IQs of 67-85 depending on the country have nothing to do with it? Nor do increased testosterone and an absolutely dead-end social mentality?
Nahh, must be “evil whitey.”
“Germans owe the jews nothing but scorn for their absolute malignity over the ages. Germans are creative, enterprising, moral people. Jews are famous only for their scams and the troubles they bring to every society.”
“…Jews are famous only for their scams and the troubles they bring to every society.”
—
Such as the criminal Versailles ‘Treaty’:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KVHLjnP_UA
*Thank you Krystian for the kind words and sentiments regarding der Deutsche Völker:-)!*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIOPerXwr9M
“the Stormfronters”, which for Half Sigma and his commenters is nothing but a euphemism for pro-Whites they deliberately misconstrue instead as “jew-haters” (which they do because they are pro-jew). — tanstaafl
It’s a fair appraisal, not a deliberate misconstrual. Jobling and Taylor are attacked not for being pro-jew, but for not being anti-semites.
Look, without disagreeing with anything else you’ve said here, go back to, say, 1880 and tell me what Jews could have done any differently. If you can’t, then it’s an open admission that no compromise was ever possible. If so, is “jew-haters” really the misconstrual you think it is?
Jobling and Taylor are attacked not for being pro-jew, but for not being anti-semites.
My criticism of Jobling is that he advertises himself as pro-“white”, and is actually more pro-jew than pro-White. He constructs arguments to help excuse jewish malfeasance and blame Whites. He smears Whites who criticize jewish malfeasance.
I’ve never criticized Taylor. He towers above Jobling in both intellect and integrity, and he doesn’t make crusading against “judeo-obsession” a priority.
Here is an exchange I had with Jobling last November. It includes a succinct request I would direct at any faux-White like Jobling:
If your highest priority is jews and fighting anti-semitism then be forthright about it. Don’t cloak that priority in “white”. Don’t force Whites into a relationship in which our interests are subordinate and then censor us and call us “anti-semites” when we object.
I wrote more about Jobling and Auster on this subject in The Urge to Purge.
I discussed Taylor’s debate with Steve Sailer in Duty Does Not Calculate the Chances of Success.
go back to, say, 1880 and tell me what Jews could have done any differently. If you can’t, then it’s an open admission that no compromise was ever possible. If so, is “jew-haters” really the misconstrual you think it is?
Try rephrasing that in a way that leads me to believe you are concerned in any way whatsoever about “White-haters” – for example those jews who could have done things differently by not pathologizing White racialism/nationalism, not prying open our borders, and not foisting their self-serving anti-White “civil rights” and “hate” laws on us.
In any discussion involving the heavy Jewish role in the American Federal Reserve which is so often denied by liars, just copy/paste the following the comments:
Do you deny that Jews DO NOT control the Federal Reserve? If so, you are either lying or unaware of the FACTS:
Who Controls the Federal Reserve System?
Board of Governors:
Ben S. Bernanke(Jew) – Chairman [Former Chairman = the Jew Alan Greenspan; also MANY other Jewish chairmen during the FED’s history]
Donald L. Kohn(Jew) – Vice Chairman
Kevin M. Warsh(Jew)
Elizabeth A. Duke(White European)
Daniel K. Tarullo(White European)
(Note:Frederic Mishkin [JEW] recently left the Board of Governors)
Federal Reserve District Banks:
Eric S. Rosengren(Jew) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston
William C. Dudley(White European) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Charles I. Plosser(Jew) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
Sandra Pianalto(White European) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland
Jeffrey M. Lacker(Jew) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
Dennis P. Lockhart(White European) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
Charles L. Evans(White European) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
James B. Bullard(Jew) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Gary H. Stern(Jew) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
Thomas M. Hoenig(Jew) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City
Richard W. Fisher(Jew) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
Janet L. Yellen(Jew) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
Of the five (5) members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, three (3) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 60%. Of the twelve (12) Federal Reserve District Bank presidents, eight (8) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 67%. Jews are approximately 2% of the United States population. This means that Jews are over-represented on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors by a factor of 30 times, or 3,000 percent, and over-represented among the presidents of the Federal Reserve District Banks by a factor of 33.5 times, or 3,350 percent.
This extreme numerical over-representation of Jews among the members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Reserve District Bank presidents cannot be explained away as a coincidence or as the result of mere random chance. You must ask yourself how such an incredibly small and extremely unrepresentative minority ethnic group that only represents 2% of the American population could so completely dominate the highest levels of the United States Federal Reserve System.
Also remember that the U.S. Federal Reserve was started in 1913 by the Jewish-German Warburg family, specifically the Jew Paul Warburg.
In a comment to Prozium’s Just Another Day (Part 2) JEWS AREN’T WHITE writes (his emphasis):
From J. Spiro’s recently released biography of Madison Grant:
“Secure in the knowledge that his students were finally accumulating the data he needed to refute biological determinism, Boas now decided to take his arguments to the public. Starting in the mid-1920s, he managed to publish at least one anti-Nordicist book or article a year in the popular press. His basic thesis had not changed since the 1910s, when he had first attacked Madison Grant. But this time he was armed with a mass of ethnographic research showing that environmental factors were at least as important as genes in determining mental and social [cultural] traits. In writings like “The Question of Racial Purity” (1924), “What Is a Race?” (1925), “This Nordic Nonsense” (1925), “Fallacies of Racial Inferiority” (1927), and ANTHROPOLOGY AND MODERN LIFE (1928), Boas accused Madison Grant of being the foremost inciter of racial antagonism in America, and charged him with being “swayed not by scientific arguments but by prejudice.” In a campaign that Lothrop Stoddard dismissed as “the desperate attempt of a Jew to pass himself off as ‘white,’” Boas relentlessly denounced the immigration laws as being unscientific, attacked the army intelligence tests for being culturally biased, provided biological evidence to show that mongrelization did not lead to deterioration, and cited the findings of cultural anthropologists to show that culture, not biology, accounted for the mental (and a good deal of the physical) nature of man.”
– SOURCE = http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1584657154 –
More on the jewish assault on Grant and White racialism in Shocking Old News.
Auster links here from What the anti-Semites believe.
For the Austarded who follow their svengali’s link here, here’s what I believe in my own words:
If your highest priority is jews and fighting anti-semitism then be forthright about it. Don’t cloak that priority in “white”. Don’t force Whites into a relationship in which our interests are subordinate and then censor us and call us “anti-semites” when we object.
Auster isn’t willing or able to engage what I actually write. All he can do is exaggerate, smear, point and sputter. Just like “the liberals” he supposedly opposes.
According to the anti-Semites, everything I’ve written, on whatever subject, is “really” about empowering or defending the Jews and weakening white gentiles.
I pointed out in Fruitloopable Presumption that Auster seems to relish reiterating (with distortion but without denying) criticisms aimed at him for being faux-White. When someone doesn’t respond to his accusations of “anti-semitism” he assumes it means they’re guilty. By his own criteria, and by his tendency to distort what is actually being said, he demonstrates his own guilt and intellectual dishonesty.
I have criticized Auster many times. One of my favorites is Criticizing Auster.
Here, in my own words, is what I think he’s “really” up to:
It is Mr. F. Loop’s preoccupation with israel and “anti-semites” that reveals what he is really up to.
Oh and if you like roast Auster, be sure to read Triangulating From the Right. More on his pro-jew faux-Whiteness there, plus specific issues I’d like to see him address.
Auster is unbelievable. He has the gall to put posts like this: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013488.html
I agree with the sentiment in the post, but I don’t know how Auster can put up posts like this with a straight face. Those “protests” don’t even come close to the Jewish activism and causes that are not simply activities independent of America but are institutionalized in current day American society. And Auster knows this himself.
Of course, if anyone notices this, and is critical of the much more powerful and pernicious Jewish activism that pervades US society, Auster will quickly sputter that one is “irrational”, anti-Semitic, pathological, crazy, etc.
The irony of course is that the “Iranian-American Protest” in Auster’s post is probably composed of a good deal of Jews, who left Iran after the revolution in ’79 and moved into California.
I don’t see any persuasive argument for why Jews should be living alongside Whites. It just leads to conflict. Jews are terrified of life without their host and Larry can’t be honest about this.
More about what Auster wrote:
I wonder how many people understand a remarkable truth we’ve discussed previously (here and here), that the anti-Semites believe, literally, that everything a person of Jewish background does is done for the sake of advancing the power of the Jews over white gentiles; and, further, that the anti-Semites, who write about me often, believe that this general truth about the Jews applies with particular force to myself. According to the anti-Semites, everything I’ve written, on whatever subject, is “really” about empowering or defending the Jews and weakening white gentiles.
. . .
Gintas writes:
That’s where absolute genetic determinism gets you.
That’s where argument by strawman gets you. If the Austards can cite even one thing I wrote that “literally” says what he claims then let them do so. The statement of mine he quoted refers to himself, not “the jews”, and I have never attempted to assert anything about “everything a person of jewish background does”. As I wrote in the essay:
I’m a Darwinist in the sense that I think the sociopolitcal distinctions I’ve already made between jews and Whites spring largely from personality differences which spring largely from genetics.
Clearly Auster’s deep concern for his fellow jews prompts him to behave as he does, repeatedly violating rules and principles he applies to others in an effort to protect jews from criticism, even when it is stated reasonably using facts and lines of arugment he otherwise accepts. I do indeed attribute this concern to his jewishness, for the same reason I wrote the following about Half Sigma:
I think the cause is his jewishness. And I think this kind of thing isn’t said more openly and more frequently because the West, or the White Gentile West to put it in terms Half Sigma might better understand, has become thoroughly judaized. After generations of effort by jewish-led intellectual and political movements, and more recently flipping into overdrive with the rise of mass media, and the aid of jewish influence in that media, any criticism of jews, even when they say the most hypocritical and self-serving things, is considered an egregious crime. To even say “you’re only saying this crap because you’re jewish” is considered “irrational” “jew-hate”.
Auster, as an outspoken pro-jewish ideologue, is an agent of judaization. A self-described “anti-liberal” “traditionalist” of “jewish background” who labels any criticism of jews that doesn’t place their well-being above all other concerns “jew-hate” and calls for it to be pathologized and silenced using the same kind of slander, smears, and plainly dishonest language used by those who consider “islamophobia” and “racism” crimes. His rationale is part and parcel of the same White-is-hate neo-liberal rubric which traces its roots directly back to the emancipation of jews – the archetypical minority Europeans were first pathologized for discriminating against and who still sit at the top of the ever-growing “non-discrimination” pecking order which simultaneously relegates Whites to the bottom.
This disparity, by the way, is a situation most jews are aware of and either support or do not object to. For them objections to White/jew double standards are considered just another symptom of irrational “jew-hate”. Auster’s frequent hyperbole concerning “exterminationist anti-semites” stands in stark contrast to his usual narrative that we’re one big happy “white” family terrorized by “liberals”, blacks, and muslims. There is no contradiction because, as I’ve been saying for some time now, to Larry jews are the most important “whites” of all. That’s why I call him faux-White.
As for Auster’s “remarkable truth”, I wrote about his tendency to project his own predilections onto others in Auster Projecting, Again. Consider the specific example provided by In which circle of hell do the anti-Semites reside? in which he unselfconsciously peddles and projects the “one truth” about which anti-anti-semites like himself obsess (Auster repeats it like a mantra):
Imagine going through life having that one obsessive thought, and believing that this one thought is the truth, the great truth that explains everything, the great truth that will save the world, the great truth that the world is forever suppressing. Having given over their whole being to the idee fixe that the Jews are the source of all evil, the anti-Semites are souls in hell, and, as in Dante’s Hell, they don’t know that they’re in hell, but keep repeating for eternity the same sin that consigned them to hell.
Imagine you’re Larry Auster, going through life forever persecuted by “the anti-semites” who write about you often, and your one obsessive thought is that they’re the source of all evil, driven by one obsessive thought: “jew-hate”. You worry how many people understand this great truth and so you repeat it frequently, linking the “jew-hate” to Darwinism, AKA “absolute genetic determinism”, rather than the malevolent behavior of the many jews you yourself document and occasionally lamely decry (but always with a scoop of hate for the “jew-haters”).
What Auster writes about “the anti-semites” is part smear, part hypocrisy, part strawman, part projection, and pure fruitloopery.
According to Austards if you think personality and character are heritable you’re a Darwinian guilty of “absolute genetic determinism”.
tell me what Jews could have done any differently.
Not been involved in the group that assassinated Alexander III. Not lied about the pogroms per Goldwyn Smith. Russians peasants revolted against the excesses of Jewish money-lenders just as they did in Poland and Spain. Per Israeli anthropologists even the extent of the Cossack revolt was hugely overstated.
What could the Jews in Postville Iowa have done differently? It’s the same old lie. It’s not what we do but who we are.
No Darwin, no Hitler
Auster:”David Klinghoffer at NRO discusses one of the themes of Stein’s film: the profound roots of Hitlerism in Darwinism.”
Klinghoffer:
“The Darwin-Hitler connection is no recent discovery. In her classic 1951 work The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt wrote: “Underlying the Nazis’ belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human being.”
The standard biographies of Hitler almost all point to the influence of Darwinism on their subject. In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock writes: “The basis of Hitler’s political beliefs was a crude Darwinism.” What Hitler found objectionable about Christianity was its rejection of Darwin’s theory: “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.”
John Toland’s Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928: “An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right.”
In his biography, Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris, Ian Kershaw explains that “crude social-Darwinism” gave Hitler “his entire political ‘world-view.’ ” Hitler, like lots of other Europeans and Americans of his day, saw Darwinism as offering a total picture of social reality. This view called “social Darwinism” is a logical extension of Darwinian evolutionary theory and was articulated by Darwin himself.
Q:Do Stein, Klinghoffer, Arendt and Auster suggest a link between Darwinism and David’s sacred war of extermination against the Amalekites? Was David’s belief founded on an underlying, crude, might-makes-right, social Darwinism?
No Darwin, no David?
Auster’s reply:
“Another pathetic anti-Semite loser, unable to grasp any argument, or to rise above yourself and do anything to protect your country from the vast forces that threaten it, because all you can see is the Jews, the Jews, the Jews.
Don’t waste your time writing to me again, because your e-mail won’t get to me. “
AD said: “Look, without disagreeing with anything else you’ve said here, go back to, say, 1880 and tell me what Jews could have done any differently.”
How about assimilate? Quit being an out-group.
Half Sigma is busy trying to argue that Jews are White (White European is what I think he means) precisely because Jews are and have been for a very long time a separate group.
Obviously, then, it’s very likely that such an out-group (any out-group) will have different interests from the main group.
Only white nationalists and Stormfront types insist that Ashkenazi Jews aren’t white, and that’s because they hate Jews but love whites, so they need some sort of rationalization for the inconsistency.
I’ve noticed with much amusement that jews get very offended when accused of not being White. Of course, I’m offended by jews so that makes us even. It’s really too bad that’s the worse that happens is they get offended. Officially, jews are classified as White, but they invented the process that classifies them just as they have invented all the slurs they hurl at Whites who have found them out and work to expose them.
Jews obviously stand apart from whites, except if it’s in their interest to side with Whites. You simply have to ask yourself, if jews were White, why on earth would they promote things that are likely to destroy Whites, their culture, and their societies? And yet jews are extremely busy promoting diversity and multiculturalism on the liberal left, and jews on the liberal right, neocons, are happily sending off US Soldiers, the overwhelming majority of them, White, to fight and die in foreign wars far away from home, mostly for the protection of that little foreign apartheid state that has no relation to America. Why would anybody White do that?
Modern progressive liberalism, originated and driven by jews, promotes ideologies that contradict White traditions and displaces and exterminates whites. It’s quite easy to identify the powerful group of influential people who have the resources to make this destruction of White culture happen, and they are doing so unabashedly, and unfortunately, most Whites, because of a lifetime of MSM indoctrination, haven’t yet awakened to it. Why would whites want to destroy their own culture and lands and have them overrun by third world invaders? So the people who are enabling and manipulating this destruction are White? I hardly think so.
RED said: “Officially, jews are classified as White….”
I think there’s confusion here because too many in this discussion have their terms confounded.
Jews are obviously Caucasian the way Middle Easterners are — as are Europeans. Caucasian and White are often used interchangeably — but when White Nationalists (or whomever’s arguing for White people) talk about ‘White’, they mean Europeans, not *all* Caucasians.
Ashkenazi Jews are obviously part White, i.e. White European, to some degree, but they are also Middle Eastern. They are fully Caucasian, of course — but not fully White (in the sense that White Nationalists use the term).
You’re a fuckin dishonest asshole.
That’s silver’s shtick.
JUN said: Jews are obviously Caucasian the way Middle Easterners are — as are Europeans….
Ashkenazi Jews are obviously part White, i.e. White European, to some degree, but they are also Middle Eastern.
I never mentioned where I thought jews came from or the color of their skin, in determining whether or not jews are White. However, whatever race jews think they are, or we think they are, is not the essence of what I’m saying. My basic premise is if something’s harmful for Whites, jews will take the lead in promoting it.
Whether or not jews have sufficiently different genetics from Whites or not should not be the primary focus. It simply confuses the matter. What it is, for whatever reason, is the mindset most if not all jews act on. I think about their strong ties to other jews around the world and their manipulations to achieve ZOG. Anything that is damaging to Whites, jews will be in the forefront of it.
As we well know, they themselves classify themselves as a minority group, as different from others, and their anti-White activities certainly substantiate that. They are extremely ethnocentric and swarm at the slightest criticism of their “sacred” group. They have deliberately done incalculable damage to Whites as a group. Jews act as a part of that group, Whites, only if it suits their particular purpose. Otherwise, they’re “Jewish”. As far as being white and tending to whites, they are moles, sabateurs, and subversives, who work incessantly against white interests. The bottom line is jews are about race replacement of Whites. Hence, in my opinion, they are not White.
Dennis Mangan is slagging on you, Tanstaafl:
http://mangans.blogspot.com/2009/06/tanstaafls-critique-of-auster.html
RED said: “Whether or not jews have sufficiently different genetics from Whites or not should not be the primary focus. It simply confuses the matter.”
I find it clarifies the matter — enormously.
Everything — all human behaviour — is, after all, biology. Genetic interests and “selfish” genes and all that. Once you know the genetic background of a group of people, you can pretty much work out how well (or not) they will get along with another group and if they will have (or have not) the same interests in society.
Since Ashkenazi Jews are part White (i.e. European) AND part Middle Eastern, there is no way in Hades they will ever have the same interests as Whites who are wholly European. No way. (Unless we are all confronted by men from Mars someday.) The difference is just too great — and the ethnic genetic interests are just going to be too divergent.
~~~~~
“The bottom line is jews are about race replacement of Whites. Hence, in my opinion, they are not White.”
I have to disagree with you on the second part of what you said there. Just because a group is “about race replacement of Whites” does not make them non-White. What if all Blacks were adamantly opposed to the race replacement of Whites — would that make them White?
Not a useful definition I feel.
In Tanstaafl’s Critique of Auster Mangan writes:
It is the contention of Tanstaafl, along with a number of like-minded people, that Auster’s writing in defense of the West and of whites are in reality motivated by the question, “But is it good for the Jews?”
. . .
Tanstaafl’s contention has been summed up by Auster himself, the idea being that what he calls “Darwinian anti-Semites” see Jews as having inborn, selected traits that cause them to be antagonistic toward their “host” society, and that it’s simply impossible, or nearly, for a Jew to be anything other than antagonistic. Hence no matter how staunchly Auster defends whites and the West, he is still advancing the Jewish agenda. I have not seen Tanstaafl or his fellows offer a cogent explanation or defense of this idea, except that, as above, it gets repeated and Auster – and anyone else who doesn’t agree – ridiculed for not seeing the obvious. Sometimes they reference the writings of Kevin MacDonald, and while I believe that MacDonald has some occasional decent insights, his group evolutionary strategy theory isn’t one of them and, in any case, isn’t widely accepted and remains to be shown.
. . .
In short, the charge that Auster says what he does because he’s Jewish is absurd on its face and doesn’t stand a minute’s scrutiny. Even were this notion somehow true – that his real motivation was Jewish ethnic solidarity or the like – the fact that better than 90% of his views coincide with the nationalist right means it hardly even matters. But to those who think like Tanstaafl, something that is “good for the Jews’ is therefore necessarily bad for whites and America.
“Is it good for jews” is a plausible understanding of Auster’s motivations and what he believes motivates jews in general. I arrived at this conclusion empirically and have offered a cogent defense of it, a great deal of which involves quotes and analysis of Auster’s own writing. Among the examples I’ve cited is Why Jews Welcome Muslims and his allocation of time and energy to the topics he discusses, specifically israel and “the anti-semites”. I have also noted that his most dishonest and dehumanizing rhetoric is reserved for people he sees as “jew-haters” and “israel-haters”. I trust his readers can judge the truth of this for themselves.
Why Auster behaves as he does is less important to me than the recognition of how he does in fact behave. Mangan focuses instead on why and finds the explanations, as he understands them, lacking. His main objection being along the lines that it “isn’t widely accepted and remains to be shown”. What he parrots and dismisses as “absurd on its face and doesn’t stand a minute’s scrutiny” is Auster’s own disingenuous view of my arguments. My actual arguments are contained in a series of blog posts, the most relevant here being Criticizing Auster, Fruitloopable Presumption, Triangulating From the Right, and Auster Projecting, Again. My first exchange with him is detailed in Auster and Anti-Anti-Semitism. It was the only time he even tried to address my
points.
From such a powerful intellect I would expect specific criticism of my arguments, as they are my own and do not spring from some mythically monolithic group of “jew haters”. My arguments do not hinge on Darwin, MacDonald, or israel. Yet in response to me Auster has supplied nothing but vague slurs and smears. I can only assume that is all he has.
I have been accused here of providing an inadequate argument that is repetitious. As long as Auster continues to exhibit the behavior for which I have criticized him, which is itself repetitious, I will continue to point it out in support of my arguments. I don’t write for the benefit of those who claim not to be able see what I describe. I address those who are open to argument, who care what is good for Whites, in order to help them recognize that Auster advocates not what is good for Whites, but what is good for jews. That is as plain as I can make it. If Auster has an objection to this, then let him confront it directly. His childish dismissal of me as an “anti-semite” and my criticisms of him as “anti-semitism” only substantiates my position.
The Latest, from Mangan:
I took down my last post. The topic attracts fanatics and I don’t feel like dealing with that anymore. Sorry.
It seems that despite asking for it, Mangan doesn’t really want to hear “Tanstaafl or his fellows offer a cogent explanation or defense of this idea”.
Thanks Axe Head. I’m glad I copied and pasted the bits above. Auster fanatics are invited to voice their opinions here instead.
Scrolling back through Mangan’s earlier posts I find Kanazawa: Asians can’t do science. Apparently discussing asian stereotypes is OK.
I notice The U-Jew comments at Mangan’s. Perhaps he’ll come over and share some more of his “jokes”. He could probably tell some good ones explaining asian influence in the Fed, in the media, and in academia.
“Since Ashkenazi Jews are part White (i.e. European) AND part Middle Eastern, there is no way in Hades they will ever have the same interests as Whites who are wholly European.”
Partially right. “Jews” are part-White AND part-Khazar!
Important distinction.
People *must* re-read the Auster and Anti-Anti-Semitism post that originated at Savage’s. It’s brilliant, original and unassailable. And it has nothing to do with MacDonald or Darwin or anything Mangan writes in his deleted post.
It is so profound that it deserves continual re-reads. Seriously.
You mean Auster and Anti-Anti-Semitism? MacDonald is mentioned but my arguments are clearly focused on Auster using his own positions and terms.
It’s a bit embarassing for me to reread that post, having learned what I have in the year and a half since. But I’m also satisfied to see that my intincts were true, and that I wrote nothing I could not defend even more confidently today.
Auster’s exemption of jews from his Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society (and his assumption that crying “anti-semite!” is enough to justify this exemption) very well demonstrates what I’ve been arguing and finding more examples of ever since.
Does anyone know what happened to John Savage?
Tanstaafl,
I was obviously referring to the general animus against Jobling and Taylor, not your particular take on either. Taylor’s assailed by pro-whites for not being anti-semitic, for ignoring or downplaying jewish anti-whitism, much more than he is for being “pro-jew” (which sometimes seems to mean no more than claiming they have a right to life too — that’s true, not hysterical hyperbole).
Try rephrasing that in a way that leads me to believe you are concerned in any way whatsoever about “White-haters” – for example those jews who could have done things differently by not pathologizing White racialism/nationalism, not prying open our borders, and not foisting their self-serving anti-White “civil rights” and “hate” laws on us.
I’d be happy to comply with your request. But I note that you’ve failed to answer my question. That’s okay, we both know what the answer is. As for demonstrating to you my concern about white-haters, oh please. A racial solution along the lines I advocate would obviously obviate the need for any kind of racial hatred, anti-white, anti-jew, anti-anything.
Danj, I don’t know what set you off this time. A big problem with pro-white activism is that people who formerly never would have thought their musings worthy of an audience (think the hillbilly-banjo-redneck stereotype), on becoming racially conscious, overnight they become fit to put all, even philosophers of the first rank (which I’m not comparing myself to), in their place. If you’ve read “dishonesty” into my post on this thread, well, let’s just say you’re probably not cut out for higher level abstractions. That’s okay, there’s something to be said for clutching guns and bibles.
AD said: “Look, without disagreeing with anything else you’ve said here, go back to, say, 1880 and tell me what Jews could have done any differently.”
How about assimilate? Quit being an out-group. — Jun
But how could they, Jun? Whites say Jews are non-white and incompatible with whites. It’s jews’ racial constitution that is the problem. If they turn pro-white they just make themselves sitting ducks.
Look, I’m not saying whites should accept jews. I’m just saying if you’re going to say they’re non-white and unacceptable, as used to be said, then Boas, Montagu et al are not in the least surprising.
Exactly Daniel. When the Czars attempted assimilation, by giving them land to farm, they would not farm it. Even Solzhenitsyn excuses them. “agriculture is high art, inculcated in generations, and it is futile to settle people on the land against their wishes or without their cooperation.” Resisting assimilation, they turned in disproportionate numbers to subversion.
“…it cannot be doubted that the proportion of Jews in the ranks of Russian revolutionaries significantly exceeded the proportion of Jews in the population at large.“
There is also no evidence that the Czars instigated violence against Jews, because ultimately,such action portended general insurrection. In addition, there is much evidence from a British government study, cited by Goldwin Smith, that the extent of the pogroms were grossly exaggerated by Jews.
Boas was not about being white or not white, it was about keeping the door open for mass Jewish migration from Eastern Europe.
Quotes below are from VDARE.com: 05/01/09 – “Jews Are Disproportionately Involved In Every Kind Of Insanity”—Stephen Steinlight On Immigration And The Jews, where Patrick Cleburne exerpts Luke Ford’s interview with Steinlight. Steinlight is similar to Auster, but more focused on immigration and more forthright about what, how, and why he’s doing what he does.
Like Auster, Steinlight is critical of jews. Like Auster, Steinlight states his positions in terms that instinctively appeal to Whites who think of themselves as patriots, nationalists, or conservatives (and who the regime pathologizes as xenophobes, nativists, and racists):
“I am an American. My first identity is as an American. My primary identity is as an American. My first concern is the well being of my fellow citizens.
“Immigration is a zero-sum game. You have to pick sides. For me, it is simple. I pick first my countrymen. I think that those on the other side don’t care…there is an animus against this country. Their over-sympathizing with Mexicans or Central Americans is an expression of their disdain for America even though that disdain is impacting the least among us.
“God spare us all from tikkun olam Jews. The rural white poor in this country, they despise. They no longer particularly like blacks because their self-loathing love was not requited. Right now they think they can patronize hispanics.
“Jews are disproportionately involved in every kind of insanity.“
Unlike Auster, Steinlight does not aim his message at patriot, nationalist, conservative Whites and then spend a great deal of effort calling for “the jew-haters” among them to be shunned and silenced. Steinlight directs his energy and attention directly and almost entirely at jews in an attempt to change their behavior.
Like Auster, Steinlight is critical of jews because he cares for them. He thinks their support for immigration will ultimately harm them:
“They don’t understand that this country is pretty much the only place we’ve got apart from Israel where we are not tolerated guests in somebody else’s house. Where we are home and we are equal.
“Showing love to this country is appropriate and not doing it is blind ingratitude and incredibly stupid and endangering Jewish interests.“
Of course most Whites don’t have even one country we can call home any more. If we want our homes back we’re going to have to fight for them. Steinlight, in an indirect way, aids that effort. Auster, in a direct way, harms it.
In The Darwinian anti-Semites’ self-contradiction, Auster once again follows his own asinine reasoning right up his own ass.
First he refers to Mangan’s redacted post:
He gave me a heads up about the post and said he was not going to let in the crazies to comment. But apparently the post generated so much e-mail of the Jew-hating variety that Mr. Mangan didn’t want to deal with it and took down the entry. Understandable.
Then he quotes a comment to it by Gintas I frankly found incomprehesible. He however finds it supports his One Truth:
It’s a brilliant critique of the Darwinian anti-Semites. Their position is that the tribal evolutionary-competitive urge in Jews is so powerful that everything a Jew does (or even everything a Christian of Jewish ethnic background does), even if it appears to be pro-white gentile, is “really” directed at destroying white gentiles and elevating the Jews over them. Yet this same group-competitive drive, which is supposed to be universal in humans, and which is so powerful in Jews that it controls and directs all their thoughts and actions, and which is so relentless in Jews that it can’t be stopped short of killing them all or imprisoning them on Madagascar, is so weak in gentile Europeans that they are willingly letting themselves be taken over and destroyed by their age-old tribal enemy.
Like Marxist intellectuals who believe in the historical inevitability of the workers’ revolution, yet scheme and strive to bring it about, the Darwinian anti-Semites believe that murderous group competition is the all determining force of human existence, yet also think that in the case of their own group, white gentles, this instinct of murderous group competition is strangely dormant, and that this strangely dormant all-powerful instinct can be prodded back into operation by their writing lots of blog comments about it. If they really believed in an unstoppable, evolution-determined, tribal drive to subdue and destroy one’s tribal enemies, they would shut up and let the evolutionary process take place.
He’s flailing at a position I have never put forward. The self-contradiction is Auster’s own. His last sentence states it so explicitly that it’s worth repeating:
If they really believed in an unstoppable, evolution-determined, tribal drive to subdue and destroy one’s tribal enemies, they would shut up and let the evolutionary process take place.
This is a classic illustration of how a moron can conclude whatever nonsense he wishes by starting with a false premise.
He attacks Majorityrights, Kevin MacDonald and Darwin but leaves your brilliant demolition of his majority-minority laws without comment. It’s like watching a puppy running around the room pissing on everything it sees.
In Jewish neocons, Islam, and the West Auster writes:
Jews who immediately translate a statement about the need to exclude Muslims into the thought that Jews will be excluded are demonstrating that they do not feel themselves to be part of America. They are saying that they feel as alien to America as Muslims are.
He refers to a story told by his commenter Howard Sutherland which echoes the one he told in Why Jews Welcome Muslims.
So the discovery is not that Jews are excluded, because, in reality, they’re not excluded. The discovery is that many Jews exclude themselves. It is they who do not feel themselves a part of this country (except of course as a democratic project, a place to be successful and have a nice life and so on), and that is why so many Jews consistently take the side of outsiders against America.
Jews have never been publicly challenged on this wrongful and unacceptable attitude. If they were, it would push them to reevaluate and correct their thinking process. And those who were unable to do so, would inevitably start thinking of moving to a country where they did not feel alien, namely Israel. The ones who feel a part of America would stay; the one who do not, would progressively leave.
Jews have never been publicly challenged? What is he smoking?
When I publicly challenged Auster, arguing that his First Law applied best of all to jews, he made a few lame counter-arguments that contradicted what he’s saying now. He then quickly played the “jew-hate” card, calling my argument insane and painted me as a malevolent kook for even thinking it.
That, as I’m now very much more aware, is what happens any time any non-jew publicly challenges any jew on their wrongful and unacceptable attitudes.
So go Auster. Follow your own advice. Correct your thinking process and move to israel already. And do try to talk Melanie Phillips, Daniel Pipes, the SPLC, the ADL, the AJC, and your good friend Ken Hechtman into following you.
leaves your brilliant demolition of his majority-minority laws without comment –
I didn’t demolish his “First Law”, I affirmed it. But in doing so I soured it for him.
In formulating MMRILS he either forgot to consider that it might also apply to jews (best of all in fact), or he just thought the “jew-hate” card (which confirms my argument) would suffice to fend off any such application.
In the months before I challenged him on it he cited his Law on a weekly if not daily basis. That’s how John Savage was able to gather so many variations. Now Auster hardly mentions it. He’d rather forget it than admit it fits jews.
So he’s moved on. Today he’s busy telling “the majority” it’s our fault for never confronting jews about their wrongful and unacceptable attitudes. He could call that his “Second Law” – the wronger any minority behaves the more taboo it is for “the majority” to confront them – but really that’s just a corollary of the “First Law” he doesn’t want to talk about.
Auster and Anti-Anti-Semitism, where I first detail Auster’s First Law (MMRILS) and the exchange with him about it, was followed a month or so later by Something Unspeakable This Way Comes where I supplied several older quotes from Auster, including his own alienated jew story:
Just the other week I was telling a secular, leftist Jew of my acquaintance, a man in his late sixties, about my idea (which I’ve proposed at FrontPage Magazine) 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.
Auster’s response was “an anti-semite is calling me an anti-semite!” He probably called his leftist jew friend (Ken Hechtman? How many leftist jews is Auster aquainted with?) to commiserate.
I think with his poor eyesight he must have read “anti-anti-semite” and thought he was seeing double.
BTW, I mention this jewish tendency to project onto others their own desire to “round up” enemies in the essay after this one: Iran So Far Away.
In a comment to We’re supposed to volunteer while foreigners get real jobs, Mangan writes:
It appears to me that Auster is hated by certain people strictly because he is, by their definition, a Jew. I reach that conclusion because, were he a Christian – oh, wait – were he ethnically Anglo-Saxon or Scandinavian or even a Japanese, those who now hate him, or dislike him if that’s too strong, would be lauding him for his brisk defense of whites and the West. So, I guess that I “attack them” because I find the notion ridiculous that any view Auster or any Jew holds is ipso facto suspect precisely because he or they are Jews. The blogger whom I criticized yesterday took this idea to a logical absurdity when he said that Lawrence Auster’s opposition to Darwinism was rooted in his Jewishness. (This of course is why the ACLU is so busy promoting the teaching of creationism in the public schools.)
I think Auster, and people who for whatever reason like Auster, feel the need to distort my positions because they don’t have an easy answer for what I actually write.
For example I’ve criticized Ian Jobling and Guy White for being faux-White in the same sense as Auster. They present themselves as pro-White, but from what they’ve written it’s clear they place jewish interests above White interests. I have no idea why. Maybe they’re jewish. Maybe they have jewish friends or family members. As far as I know they’re ethnically Anglo-Saxon or Scandinavian or even a Japanese. It doesn’t really matter.
I haven’t written as much about them because they didn’t create Auster’s First Law and exempt jews from it. Auster did.
I think with Auster his motivation is clear. He admits he’s jewish. He’s has many jewish friends. He’s a fanatic supporter of israel. He’s a passionate anti-anti-semite. We’re supposed to ignore all that in an argument about whether he’s more pro-jew than pro-White? As I wrote earlier, forget the why, can we agree that he simply is? Setting aside Christianity and judaism, can we admit that there is an important distinction between jew and White? That our interests do not coincide some significant fraction of the time?
These are basic, elementary points Auster has never squarely faced. He continues to write “pro-white gentile” “white gentile” as if he thinks Whites have no identity apart from jews. Let him complain again about how I won’t capitalize jew so we can again see him make a fool of himself rationalizing his own double standard for “white”.
Dragging the ACLU and creationism into the argument is an attempt to make it absurd. Likewise Auster’s going off on generalizations about “the Darwinian anti-semites”.
Continued…
It’s not so much a matter of “attack” as that I merely found the “anti-Darwinism is good for the Jews” idea so outrageously absurd, the venom reserved for Auster in certain quarters so thick and so undeserved, and, let it be said, that a talented and smart writer like the blogger I criticized has bogged down in the counterproductive superstition of racial anti-Semitism, that I thought it worth writing about. But these things have a way of going on and on, the anti-Semites – a fair description of the phenomenon we’re discussing, even if Tan absurdly objects to its use by Auster to label him – pressing their attack with their idee fixe, that I felt that i just couldn’t deal with it, at least at the time.
If Mangan thinks the idea that “anti-Darwinism is good for the Jews” is absurd it may be because he hasn’t read the “No Darwin, no Hitler” comment above. He maybe hasn’t seen Ben Stein’s recent movie. Some jews think Darwin is dangerous for the same reason racialism is. In other words this point is a big duh, not in the least bit absurd. Anyway I don’t know where he gets the idea every jew is doomed by their genes to oppose Darwin. I certainly didn’t suggest that. I’m sure there are Darwinian jews.
Auster though, is anti-Darwin. He also makes it very clear why. He uses it to explain “anti-semitism”, or at least a large portion of it. His latest variation of his own “idee fixe”, his One Truth (see my earlier comment above), is that “the anti-semites” are Darwin worshippers who believe in “absolute genetic determinism”. If Mangan is looking for something absurd to ridicule, he might try that one on for size. I rest my case that Auster is anti-Darwin because he’s jewish and he thinks Darwinism is bad for jews. His constant use of “Darwinian anti-semite” demonstrates it.
For the record I have never objected, absurdly or not, to Auster calling me an “anti-semite”. In fact early on he wrote that my not doing so confirmed that indeed I must be. That’s what Fruitloopable Presumption is about. I find it amusing that he often writes “the this” and “the that”, especially when he writes about jews and “jew-haters”. This fruitloop who insists that everyone must treat his jews with the utmost respect and never make generalizations about them except in the rare cases only he can judge – what a buffoon. The rest of the time he’s generalizing about anyone he wants, including “the jews”. I don’t generalize nearly as carelessly as he does. He can stuff his smears and his rules.
I do hope Mangan let’s me know if he spots any more absurdities.
In Auster’s Self-Contradiction Prozium critiques Auster’s The Darwinian anti-Semites’ self-contradiction.
In Logical Absurdity Prozium points to the exchange I’m having with Mangan (read it while it lasts).
The Id of the Yid: Our Apoplectic Invaders Considered, at The Occidental Quarterly, reviews John Murray Cuddihy’s The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss, and the Jewish Struggle With Modernity, discussing his view that:
Jewish intellectual movements of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries weren’t quite the marvels of universal application imagined by academia and later by wider society. Rather, they were elaborate coping mechanisms designed to de-racialize the social conflicts between Gentile Europe and newly emancipated Jewry. It was MacDonald who expanded “coping” to “destroying” in the context of Jewish-Gentile relations, but John Murray Cuddihy is to be credited for one of history’s more thoroughgoing, if obscure, exposures of Jewish deception.
AD said: “But how could they [assimilate; quit being an out-group], Jun?”
Out-marry. Quit being Jews, genetically. I think the rate of out-marriage by Jews in the States is something like 50% at the moment — a figure that has many conservative Jews concerned because they, of course, recognise that if this keeps up, eventually there will be no more Jews (or at least not so many).
I know Tan doesn’t want to dwell on the underlying genetics of this all; but ignoring the “extended family” ties of Whites and Jews (and any other group) is not going to help anyone understand what’s going on. There can be no true resolution to any problem unless the *why* is understood.
~~~~~
To respond to Gintas’ criticism which Auster quoted (I quote here Auster’s summary of Gintas’ points):
“Yet this same group-competitive drive, which is supposed to be universal in humans, and which is so powerful in Jews that it controls and directs all their thoughts and actions, and which is so relentless in Jews that it can’t be stopped short of killing them all or imprisoning them on Madagascar, is so weak in gentile Europeans that they are willingly letting themselves be taken over and destroyed by their age-old tribal enemy.”
“Tribal” is the key word here, although Auster fails to recognise it.
The reason that the ‘kin selection’ drive is so weak in Whites is because we have been out-breeding for too long.
Since around (coincidentally) Darwin’s time, Western Europeans have been avoiding inbreeding since we started noticing that too much inbreeding can lead to birth defects, idiocy, etc. And, of course, outbreeding amongst Whites (Italians marrying Polish marrying Irish, etc.) has been very extensive in the U.S. The price we’ve paid for all this outbreeding is the loosening of the bonds within our society (yes, the genetic bonds).
Steve Sailer and Parapundit wrote some time ago about cousin marriage in the Middle East and how detrimental that practice is to the formation of democratic and functioning societies. Basically, the greater the inbreeding, the more “tribal” a society becomes — tribal in that the extended, inbred families (i.e. tribes) spend all their time fighting one another and fighting any and all foreigners (think Afghanistan) and can’t cooperate long enough to function as a nation.
Whites have been doing *exactly* the opposite for at least 150 years. We’ve put all the emphasis on outbreeding. Great for building democratic societies and avoiding birth defects — not so great for social cohesion.
The Jews in Europe, however, have been inbreeding since the day they set foot in Europe. Sure, there has been some amount of outbreeding with Gentiles, but basically they have married within their own group. They’re not as inbred as, say, Saudis, but they are still a “tribe” and a close-knit one and that.
So, Jews have strong feelings of ethnic genetic interests, but Whites not so much since we’ve been out-breeding for several generations now.
“The Jews in Europe, however, have been inbreeding since the day they set foot in Europe. Sure, there has been some amount of outbreeding with Gentiles, but basically they have married within their own group. They’re not as inbred as, say, Saudis, but they are still a “tribe” and a close-knit one and that.”
Don’t think so my friend.
C’mon bro, ‘jews’ lie about EVERYTHING; what would stop them– or their flunkies–from lying about their supposed ethno-tribal ‘unity’.
Even KMac has said that approximately 40% of ‘their’ gene pool is ‘gentile’!
Geesh, after all, even president ‘rahmbo’ emanuel married a ‘shiksa’, as did neo-Kahn-artist david frum-bum.
Look it up.
The discussion continues at Mangan’s. I see no value in making further comments there because:
A) Mangan is not inclined to engage and has said he doesn’t understand what I’m arguing or why.
B) The discussion is taking place in an off-topic thread and relevant comments are likely to be deleted or excluded at any time. Mangan already deleted a thread dedicated to the topic and several of his commenters have called for censorship.
C) From The Undiscovered Jew’s “joke”, to Auster’s reaction to this post, to Mangan’s echoing and expanding on it, to the comments of Subotai, the “argument” has bounced from one straw man fallacy to another and back again.
At least one anonymous commenter there demonstrates that what I’ve written can be comprehended and accurately described:
Tan says that Larry opposes Darwinism because he considers it bad for the Jews. Tan’s underlying premise is that Larry, as a Jew, will be concerned about the impact of things on Jews. This cannot be disproven. It’s an assumption. It might make sense on an a priori basis, there might be other examples that support this assumption. But it’s an assumption.
Tan provides evidence that when Larry rants against Darwinism, it is linked to criticism of ‘Darwinian anti-Semites’. This is evidence that Tan’s assertion is correct. It’s not proof. You can accept his argument or reject it based on the quotes he’s assembled.
That’s enough for me.
Mangan, for his part, went from describing my position as “outrageously absurd” and “counterproductive superstition”, to arguing that other jews support Darwinism, to finally lamely offering that “Auster does not discuss anti-Semitism every time he discusses Darwinism”. From the first it seems he was stuck on what Auster said I said rather than what I actually said. Mangan’s respect for Auster’s opinion is obviously strong. He finds faults in me I think he could more easily find in Auster.
In Auster’s Self-Contradiction Prozium sees conflict in Auster. I don’t. Auster has never once taken the side of Whites over jews. Even when he criticizes jews he often ends up palming the blame off onto Whites (or “the anti-semites”). If Mangan is White and doesn’t yet feel conflicted I’m certain he will some day.
Tan, that was me commenting over at Mangan’s. I wasn’t planning to stick around there, so I didn’t bother signing my comments.
I don’t know Dennis or his blog (this was my first time visiting it), but he’s published everything I wrote. Maybe he’s an anti-anti-Semite, I can’t tell. My guess is that he hasn’t thought much about the JQ and would rather ignore it.
I appreciate the effort Dasein.
Alan Dershowitz’s view of the difference between “observant” and “jewish”:
Although I was an observant Jew during my years at Yale Law School, I was not very Jewish minded. I had no real interest in Israel, in oppressed Jews, in the Holocaust, in anti-Semitism (except as it minimally affected my career choices). It was as if my observance filled my quota of Jewish concern. I was so busy conforming to the ritual that I had no room in my life for more political Jewish issues. As I became somewhat less observant, after leaving Yale, I found myself becoming more Jewishly involved. The same was true for my boyhood friends, who have all become more active in Jewish political and communal affairs even as most have reduced the degree of their ritualistic observance.
Hmm. Is Lawrence Auster one of Dershowitz’s boyhood friends?
Auster grinds on.
A documentary on the fraud of “racism” immediately brings to mind the similar but older fraud of “anti-semitism”. Bodeker could make a video on “anti-semitism” exposing just as many “disconnects” and “double-standards”. But questioning “anti-semitism” is much more problematic than questioning “racism”. For one thing, such a video would likely be banned from YouTube. And Larry Auster wouldn’t describe it in neutral terms, he’d condemn it to hell.
Diana West’s speech in Denmark blames “hate speech” and “hate crimes” laws on islam. Auster doesn’t disagree, pointing for instance to the dozens of “anti-semites” in European prisons for “holocaust denial”, or to Sheppard and Whittle, who it seems don’t rate a mention anywhere in Auster’s passing scene. Instead he writes:
West then says that instead of waging a war against terror or Islamization, we’ve been waging a war against alienating Islam, a war to avoid blaming Islam. And thus we have had ever increasing restrictions on speech about Islam. All that is good, and makes up the main body of the speech. But West, as good as she is, still doesn’t get to the bottom of the issue. Why are we set on not offending Islam? What are the principles that make us believe that we must not offend Islam? West does not say. Better than any other writer in the mainstream media, she knows that Islam is the problem. But she still lacks a theory to explain why Western intellectuals keep covering up this fact. The answer, as I see it, is that both the right-liberal (i.e. “conservative”) belief in a single universal humanity and the left-liberal (i.e. “liberal”) belief in the equality of all cultures means that we must never negatively judge or discriminate against any group.
The answer, as I see it, is something that Auster keeps covering up, which is that jews realize that anyone negatively judging or discriminating against any group leads inexorably back to negatively judging or discriminating against them. They were the first and are still the most protected “minority”.
Warshawsky on Ricci quotes a correspondent:
Now turn to Justice Ginsburg’s dissent (joined by the other three “liberal” justices). The first few paragraphs tell you everything you need to know about the left’s approach to race in this country. First, “the legacy of racial discrimination casts an especially long shadow.” A shadow that, from the left’s perspective, white America never will get out from under. This is Justice Ginsburg’s major premise, and is repeatedly expressed in her opinion. Second, the only appropriate “remedy” for this past discrimination (which, of course, was very real) is racial bean-counting ad infinitum and requiring that the goods of society (here, high-level civil service positions) be doled out according to the demographic makeup of the population.
Half those “liberals” are jews, which explains their anti-White animus, and the other two are self-abnegating retards. But of course distinguishing between Whites and jews would be considered “anti-semitism” by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Auster, and if the government did distinguish, then doling things out “according to the demographic makeup of the population” wouldn’t be very good for jews. This is the main reason it doesn’t happen, even while “liberal” jews completely out of proportion with the demographic makeup of the population promote blacks and latinos replacing Whites.
The Journal and the EU:
In the larger sense, all ideologies that reduce the world to a single principle—whether that principle is individual freedom, or economic freedom, or sexual and expressive freedom, or equality of rights, or equality of wealth, or equality of cultures, or the supremacy of a culture or race, or Darwinian evolution, or material causation, or reason, or utility, or atheism, or God—must end as tyranny.
He forgot to mention the single principle “what’s good for jews”.
Readers of this may be interested in my later post summing up may latest thoughts on Auster’s First Law: The First Law of Jewish Influence.