The First Law of Jewish Influence

As many regular visitors here probably know, Lawrence Auster has been writing for years about an idea he calls “The First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society”. The essence of it is that “liberalism” dictates that “minorities” who behave worst must be treated best by “the majority”. It’s a valuable insight, but I use sneer-quotes where Auster’s terminology obscures reality. The law is more precisely stated in less euphemistic terms. Neo-liberalism dictates that non-Whites or non-Christians who behave worst must be treated best by White Christians. Jews behave the worst and must be treated the best.

This explains how news and opinion are reported by the media, how subjects are taught in academia, and how policy is formed by the government. Day in and day out they tell us that Whites are monsters and jews are saints.

When I first pointed out that Auster’s law applies to jews he responded first by making an attempt, lame beyond belief, to explain why it shouldn’t, can’t, doesn’t, and musn’t. Then he shifted the argument to what a bad person I was, based in part on my pseudonym. No shit. He eventually settled, and remains settled to this day, on the logically unassailable position that only a “serious anti-semite” would think negatively of jews, therefore such thoughts should be ignored.

That summarizes the exchange until now. I refer those who want more detail to Auster and Anti-Anti-Semitism, which contains my initial challenge and his response. Criticizing Auster reviews the argument eight months later. Other comments regarding Auster are here.

What prompts me to write today is that a few days ago Chechar posted “Auster’s Law and Corollary”. I left a comment there with the two links above and some short comments.

A few days later Auster linked Chechar in The more the Other threatens us , the more we accommodate ourselves to him, yet another pithy formulation of his law that fits jews. Auster no doubt thinks it is a safe statement to make. In his mind anyone who says they feel threatened by jews is declaring themselves a threat to jews, and this in no way represents any special accomodation whatsoever.

Don Marco Jawsario and Hesperado left comments on Chechar’s post arguing against Auster’s law applying to jews. It seems they are unaware of or don’t care what has already been written, but I made some brief responses.

It’s important to know where these commenters are coming from, as Auster is fond of saying. Don Marco Jawsario appears to be Auster’s frequent correspondent Mark Jaws, AKA Marco Jawsario, who is jewish (“in the Army I was usually the only Jew in my regiment”). I have previously written about Hesperado in Hesperation. He has made it clear that he thinks “support for Judaism and the Jews is a non-negotiable virtue”.

Auster obviously formulated his law with muslims and blacks in mind, not jews. He and his supporters want to exclude muslims and blacks (and “anti-semites”) from “our” society, but not jews. They’d like to roust “the majority” to do the heavy lifting, and they point to just the portion of the anti-White system they want us to dismantle. It’s a gambit. They know “the majority” might notice that a particular minority has long been dictating the terms for their own benefit. (After all, here I am saying it.) So for appearences they try to keep their version of the law jew-safe by adding subtle qualifications only indirectly exempting jews. “Oh, misbehavior doesn’t include things like fraud, opening the borders, hate speech laws, bribery, organ trafficing – misbehavior means violence!” Of course when this doesn’t fly it’s right back to the same old story. Blame “anti-semitism”. Jews are exempt and only jew-haters/conspiracy theorists/bad stupid evil subhumans think otherwise.

The question is, why should Whites heed this jew-serving double-talk? The law itself explains this aspect of “majority-minority relations” perfectly. In fact it fits better when they make their excuses and sling their insults than it would if they didn’t. We can pretend the law doesn’t apply to jews, and came from who knows where. Or we can say it does apply to jews, serves their interests, and has been promulgated by them for that very reason.

At the root of this double-talk is Auster’s dissembling. “The majority” is White, and we are quickly being reduced to a minority, not by “liberalism” but by anti-White/pro-jew neo-liberalism. We can argue about whether “the majority” means White Christian, but Christian is an increasingly imperfect proxy for White. Non-White Christians don’t get shit on by neo-liberalism. Non-Christian Whites do. Whites are distinct from “whites”, which is Auster’s term for an amalgam of Whites and jews inseparable except when jews see fit to distinguish themselves for special treatment. The regime is not anti-“white”, it is anti-White. If what is being done to Whites were being done to jews, even as part of an anti-“white” regime, they would call it genocide, and people who tried to paint it as “suicide” would be accused of aiding and abetting that genocide. Auster may get warmer at times, but I don’t believe he will ever come clean about these crucial distinctions. He’s more concerned with the consequences for jews than anything else.

When Auster discusses Whites (euphemized as “the majority”, or “white gentiles”, or “white Christians”) it is only to blame us. He does not blame jews. For example, in Black racial preferences at Annapolis; and a conversation with Paul Gottfried about white guilt,, Jews, and Protestants, Auster writes (my emphasis):

What distinguishes Jewish liberalism from Protestant liberalism is the following: Jewish liberals see white Christians as guilty. The Jews feel OK about themselves, they think the white gentile majority is the problem.

By contrast, white Protestant liberals feel guilty about themselves. This leaves them without a confident group selfhood. They believe only in equality, only in their own guilt for somehow standing in the way of equality. It is this lack of collective and even individual selfhood, this inner nothingness, this willingness to be destroyed, that makes the white Protestants the true liberals.

The Jews, whose collective and individual psyche is not guilty under liberalism (since in the liberal world view Jews are victims and the champions of victims), have psychological power and self-confidence and thus are not true liberals.

Here Auster reveals that when he blames “liberalism” daily for the West’s various ills he’s really blaming White Christians. What do these Protestants feel so guilty about? Has nobody ever pointed out to them that guilt-free White-blaming jews love to conflate misguided liberal equalitarianism with consciously anti-White anti-Christian neo-liberalism?

Auster says jews know what’s going on and think the white gentile majority is the problem. It certainly describes his own view. It explains his regular commands for “the majority” to “reassert itself” by throwing off just those parts of neo-liberalism he doesn’t like. He regularly asserts that “we” are “suiciding” ourselves, as if jews are standing idly by in some ghetto watching instead of actively leading, funding, and participating in the destruction of White society while doing their utmost to protect jews.

The fact that some weak-minded Whites have been convinced to blame themselves and protect jews does not absolve the jews who are involved. What justifies treating jews as a group is how they leap as a group to the defense of the jews who are complicit. Auster got my attention because he’s one of the handful of jews who comments on these things. Even he ultimately sides with the misbehaving jews.

C’est la guerre.

27 thoughts on “The First Law of Jewish Influence”

  1. What amazes me is the confidence in which Auster keeps declaring his law. He is not the least bit concerned that he will have to defend it. Auster knows that every time him or one of his sycophants recite this law as brilliant, Tanstaafl or someone else is going to show up and include Jews. Yet, this doesn’t bother him.

    It shows that he is totally confident that those who protest this law as incomplete will fall before the great charge of being a “serious anti-Semite” and he will not have to explain anything any further.

    However, what he and his sycophants don’t understand is what morons they look like every time they do this. They would be better off (as Jews) to just silently pack this law away and forget they ever mentioned it.

    But I guess their anti-Semitism charge has it all covered right?

  2. Multas gratias, optime. You have done excellent work using Larry’s law on Larry. Just wondering, Have you tried applying it to other Tribal members who use the mimicry strategy?

    — Rusty

  3. Just to let you know that I’m one of the people you peeled off VFR (I actually left long ago), precisely because of the glaring contradictions, the thin-skinnedness, the humorlessness and above all the Cassandra-like melodrama of his pronouncements. Although his blog is sometimes informative the breaking point came for me when he and one of his jewish readers excused Bernie Madoff by saying he was really performing an act of Jewish Compassion (rachmones?), without a hint of a laugh track. What I think we real whites have to be aware of as the movement gains strength (and it is) is that jews will at some point realize the game is up and will try to convince us they were with us all along. Auster calls out a jew every so often to make it seem he is fair. It’s irrelevant anyway as I think he is losing audience. I will read your blog from now on.

  4. Rusty, I wrote the following in response to Hesperado at Chechar’s:

    Since my initial disagreement with Auster I have populated my website with evidence, much of which was reported in mainstream sources, documenting the misbehavior of various jews and jewish organizations. Were it not for the fear of being pathologized as “outlandish” and “unsavory” I think any normal member of “the majority” would consider the behavior of this “minority” wrong, not my view of it.

    Let me add that there are literally thousands of mainstream media/blogging jews following Auster’s general modus operandi: actively blaming Whites as a group (euphemized as “Main Street”, “Red state voters”, “flyover country”, “the middle/working class”, Christians, “rednecks”, “hillbillies”, “teabaggers”, etc) while dismissing, discouraging, and pathologizing criticism of jewish misbehavers (including themselves).

    Auster is not the only one using the mimicry strategy, talking about “our” best interests while advocating primarily jewish interests, he’s just uniquely blatant about it. The “counterjihad” movement is hopelessly misled by proponents (eg. Daniel Pipes, Pamela Geller, Diana West, Debbie Schlussel, Melanie Phillips, Takuan Seiyo) who are very clear about wanting to keep the West safe for jews but say if you want to keep it safe for Whites you’re a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

    Kunstler is similar to Auster. Both are doomsayers critiquing “our” society. They completely disagree on what the doom is, but both blame Whites as a group and defend jews as a group.

  5. Welcome Ralph. Several people have told a similar story. There are probably dozens more. Every member of the soon-to-be-minority majority who stops putting the interests of jews above their own is a step in the right direction.

  6. Thank you, Tan.

    But one thing about the soon-to-be-minority majority. I think we are already a minority, at least in the U.S. The number of new couples which are mixed is extremely high here in “conservative” TX and OK, approaching 40 or 50% in Houston from my observations, and zooming up in places such as Lawton, Dallas, OKC, and Tulsa. Whites who have non-white spouses and non-white children will never have white interests and therefore must be counted as non-white. We must begin digesting this.

    — Rusty

  7. The “majority”/”minority” terminology is dishonest for a plethora of reasons.

    – The counters have an agenda, they exaggerate White numbers and underestimate others. “12 million”, enough said.

    – Immigration and differential birth rates produce a demographic trend such that, no matter where we’re at now, the balance will be worse tomorrow.

    – Whites have long been in the minority globally, and our slice is shrinking fast as the population of the non-White world continues to explode. Twenty-five years after Live Aid the number of hungry, impoverished Ethiopians has doubled, not even counting the “refugees” (fleeing themselves) relocated to White countries. It’s a similar story with Haiti.

    – Whites have long been in the minority in places even within the US. Today non-Whites are “the majority” in most cities and soon will be in several of the biggest states. Birth of a Nation is about how southron Whites suffered under and ultimately came to terms with a hostile black majority. Today we are all worse off than even outnumbered southerners were, because even where we’re still in the majority a “people of color”-supremacist mentality prevails in government.

    – Our system of government is plutocracy cloaking itself in democracy. The issues and candidates are carefully filtered by the media. The vote is usually determined by who spends the most on marketing. In the end the hapless voter has nothing but pro-immigration, pro-banker, pro-globalist, “people of color”-supremacist Israel-firsters to choose from.

    – Last but not least, the regime shits on Whites because we’re White, not because we’re “the majority”. When I left Escondido the school district was 70-80% mestizo. The policy there is that mestizos are given preference to send their kids to the school of their choice, because they’re a “minority”.

    Auster is aware of all this. It is exactly because he is a minority diaspora jew that he sees politics in his host through a “majority”/”minority” lens. He doesn’t view israeli politics this way. In that case he loudly and clearly faults “the minority” for trying to destroy “the majority”. He considers the one-state solution equivalent to “the instant extinction of Israel” and unequivocally condemns anyone who proposes it, especially non-jews like Pat Buchanan, as if they consciously have exactly this purpose in mind.

  8. Even if Auster did it unwittingly, his law covers that old no-such-thing-as-jewish-influence and more. How he summed up it up to John Savage, just before I pooped in his punchbowl, bears repeating:

    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.

  9. Kevin MacDonald: Jews and Other Minorities quotes Ann Schaffer, director of the American Jewish Committee’s Belfer Center for American Pluralism:

    The jewish community has always worked on the premise that as a minority, our security, our strength, our well being in American is interdependent with those of other minorities. This is a jewish issue. It’s very much a jewish issue.

  10. Good point about minority/majority and percentages.

    Im trying to come up with a saying to encapsulate this. Multiracial/cultural society is a process not an event. A film not a snapshot.

    The powers that be are very keen to use the snapshot, what does it matter if immigration this year was only equivalent to 0.5% of overall population, thats such a small number why worry. The point they want to avoid is that if it was 0.5% last year and the year before, what does that mean mathematically? And what does it mean when those 0.5%s start having children, mostly with each other? They dont want to know and anyway only a racist would care.

  11. “Mark Jaws” says white men are a bunch of weak incompetents while a black, Filipina, and Jewess are “leading the charge in defending the West against Islam.” Being anti-Islam is all that matters to Jews like “Mark Jaws,” so no wonder he is pleased about the rainbow coalition of the “anti-jihad” movement.

    I’m sure if white men started to truly stand up for their people and interests, “Mark Jaws” would immediately start attacking them as “anti-Semites.” No doubt Auster would as well, even though he is constantly excoriating “the majority” for not “defending Western civilization” (which to Auster means defending Jewish interests).

    A couple of months ago “Don Marco Edmundo Jawsario” denigrated “Northestern [sic] European blondes” and said, “Italians and Slavs are the most ardent defenders of Western Civilization.”

    This “Mark Jaws” clown is clearly hostile to the white American majority and only cares about being “pro-Western civilization” in order get make the West safe for Jews.

    “Mark Jaws,” who now deems himself to be the arbiter of “defending Western civilization,” cast his first vote in 1973 for a candidate of the Socialist Labor Party! (The Socialist Labor Party is a Marxist/Syndicalist party.) “Mark Jaws” said, “As a Jew, you have sympathy for, and work to further the interests of blacks and Hispanics because the same people who hate non-whites, also tend to hate Jews.”

    The chutzpah of a Jewish former radical leftist to lecture whites as “Mark Jaws” does is astounding.

  12. Also, Auster and his sycophants are going into rapture over comments by Allen West on Islam. Jew Mike Berman, who was present at the conference, says he and the other attendees started “cheering wildly” immediately afterward.

    Allen West is a negro “conservative” who posted an unhinged rant (as James Edwards called it in this post about the conservative reaction to Harry Reid) during the frenzy over Harry Reid using the word “negro” and demanded that Reid resign.

    This is the sort of person Lawrence Auster, Mike Berman, Mark Jaws, and company see as a great “defender of Western civilization.”

  13. Auster always finds a way to carefully qualify his criticism and excuse jews, and excoriates anyone who doesn’t. In Allen West on Islam we see Auster has a completely different attitude about the proper way to talk about muslims and islam:

    Allen West is a candidate for Congress in Florida who speaks the plain truth about Muslims and Islam—not Islamism, not Islamofascism, not Islamic fundamentalism, not militant Islam, not Islamic extremism, not Muslims who have an inferiority complex because they’ve been left behind by the West, not Muslims who are upset by U.S. support for Israel, not Muslims who are outraged at American imperialism, not Muslims who are violent because they are oppressed by Muslim despots and long for American-style democracy, not Muslims who are backward and tribalistic because they are the product of cousin marriage, not Muslims who are alienated by secular Western society, not Muslims whom we have failed to try hard enough to assimilate, not Muslims who become terrorists because Westerners demand that Muslims be moderate, not Muslims who have fallen under the influence of radical preachers, not Muslims who commit mass murder because their fellow U.S. Army officers harassed them, not Muslims who are sexually frustrated … but the truth about Muslims and Islam, the “theo-political belief system that has been doing this since 622 A.D.—1388 years.”

  14. But wait a minute. The jewish golden age was in muslim-occupied Spain. It ended when native Spaniards finally pushed out the muslims and their jewish sympathizers, collaborators, and insincere converts to Christianity. “When the news of expulsion reached the Ottoman Empire, the Sultan (Emperor) Beyazit II issued a decree to welcome the Jews“:

    Since 1492, through five centuries, the Ottoman sultans and the modern day Turkish Republic, welcomed the Jews and offered them a safe haven from persecution in the European countries. The Ottoman Empire at its zenith became one the largest empires in World History covering most of Mediterranean basin region extending from North Africa to Eastern Europe. It has been suggested that one of the characteristics that extended the domination of the Ottoman Empire was its allowance of religious freedom for the different nationalities and minorities under its rule. While many European nations expelled, persecuted or tried to convert the Jews under their dominion, the Turkish people of the Ottoman Empire, remained as an outstanding example of tolerance of different nationalities with different religions.

    The presentation above sometimes sounds unusual to strangers who may have heard Turkey only in the context of conquests of the Ottoman Empire.

    This view sounds strange because it is sympathetic to the muslim Ottomans, jews, and minorities – not Europeans. The Ottoman Empire was born in the snuffing out of Christian Constantinople and what tatters remained of Greco-Roman culture and tradition. No doubt this occurred with more than a little intrigue involving the ever-present, ever-helpful jewish aides-de-camp on both sides of the transition. It’s difficult to get to the plain truth, as jewish “activist-historians” have been busily scrubbing history for so long. We do know however that for the next several hundred years the Ottomans proceeded to invade and enslave the southeastern quarter of Europe, forever changing the fortunes of all Europe for the worse. The multi-racial, multi-cultural chaos the Ottomans and their “tolerance” injected still simmers in the Balkans, sparking WWI and fueling ethnic reprisals to the present day.

    By Auster’s standards this illustrious (and by no means complete) history makes jews – not jews in al Andalusia, not jews who advised the sultan, not jews who converted to islam, not jews who think of the good old days with their muslim buddies as a golden age, not “liberal” jews, not zionist jews, not diaspora jews, not jews who blame everything on “the anti-semites” … it makes jews accessories to what Auster and friends blame muslims alone for.

    What I gather from this 1388 year history is that jews have been active and involved throughout, advising just as Auster does, “hey, let’s you and him fight”.

  15. In Fox News contra Pamela Geller and anti-jihad meeting, Auster writes:

    Liberalism is aimed at paralyzing and silencing white men. It doesn’t paralyze and silence blacks, Filipinas, and yentas, at least not as much or in the same way.

    There he goes again, conflating liberalism, created by White men obsessed with free speech, with it’s opposite, neo-liberalism, created by jews to paralyze and silence Whites.

    He goes on to tell a sad story about how he was smeared and marginalized by Geller and Robert Spencer, who failed to appreciate his “legitimate criticism” of Spencer’s positions and inconsistencies. But that’s ok, “we’re all on the same side in this”. That would be the side “defending the West against Islam”. Kosher “whites” shouldn’t worry about all that smearing, marginalizing, paralyzing, and silencing. Auster only aims that stuff at Whites who won’t constrain their attention to islam.

  16. Auster writes:

    Black’s a Nazi type, right? He’s a supporter of the exterminationist anti-Semite William Pierce. And Taylor is pals with him.

    And I’m expressing solidarity with Taylor over his conference being canceled?

    This is neo-liberal guilt by association.

    Taylor is pro-White. He doesn’t criticize jews. He has never smeared or marginalized Auster. But Auster puts jewish interests above everything else, so while the yenta who smears and marginalizes him gets a “we’re all on the same side in this”, for Taylor it’s:

    While he himself is not a Nazi or an anti-Semite, his willing association with Nazis and serious anti-Semites makes me sick.

    Make aliyah Larry. We’ll all feel better.

  17. “The goal of “diversity” is 0% White.”

    That’s powerful and true. The assault on everything white will not stop once whites become a minority. It will increase.

  18. Exposing the “counterjihad” movement needs to be a higher priority. Essentially, these people are trying to do the same thing in Europe that Rush Limbaugh/Fox News type conservatism does here. It’s worrying that they are having a lot of success in duping whites to support the Zionist agenda.

    I would suggest that “cultural Marxism” be used as the term for the current hegemonic anti-white ideology. “Neo-liberalism” generally refers to the move towards free markets, “privatization” and globalism since the 1980’s.

  19. Tanstaafl: I am doing a serious reading of your blogsite for the first time. Thanks for this article. Could you e-mail me or alternatively post here your e-mail? Thank you.

Comments are closed.