The more I think about it, “have my cake and eat it too” seems to underlie the JQ throughout history. Total supremacists.

As for Auster, the more I think about it, the more I’m starting to buy what you’re hinting at, that Auster is basically a RINO type who, at bottom, doesn’t give a shit about conservatism except as a vehicle to protect his people.

Heh, maybe the best word for us is anti-philo-semites. We should be looking to defeat philo-semites of all stripes. Look how many “pro-Euro” types swarm to defend Auster; our people are pretty thoroughly Judeo-formed.

“But isn’t this typical liberal reasoning? Everything comes down to the individual. If you find an individual belonging to a questionable group who makes a reasonable, worthwhile contribution to society, you use that to argue that society should drop all its obstacles against the acceptance of that group. But in the case of groups that really should not be normalized in society, the real-world result is, not an increase of reasonable, worthwhile contributions to society from that group, but the increase in the power of that group to undermine the society. The individual with his sacred rights is always the doorway by which an unassimilable group is admitted.”

I’ve written extensively about Auster’s problems with truthfullness. See Fruitloopable Presumption, Auster Projecting, Again, Criticized by Auster, The First Law of Jewish Influence, and all the rest.

I provided some recent examples in comments to Mangan’s Question Mark and the Austerians:

On 19 June 2010, in A lost soul’s descent into the depths, Auster complains that the problem with evil material reductionist paleocons is tribalist thinking.

On 15 June 2010, in The anti-white left and the non pro-white right, he paints “conservatives” as hopelessly sick and unprincipled non-racists whose problem is a lack of tribalism.

Auster would like Whites to feel tribal enough to stand up and defend ourselves (and jews) from blacks, mestizos, and (most of all) muslims, but not so tribal that we recognize jews as a separate tribe and object to being abused by or manipulated to serve their interests.

He will point out “liberals” painting “conservatives” as “hopelessly sick and immoral racists who deserve to be racially marginalized”, when he himself regularly ferrets out “conservatives” to paint as hopelessly sick and immoral racists against jews who deserve to be marginalized.

From the same thread:

In A lost soul’s descent into the depths Auster writes:

I am, as the anti-Semites constantly say about me, a Jewish fifth columnist whose secret mission it is to undermine whites in favor of the Jews.

He has a mealy-mouthed, two-faced way of talking about it, but it is no secret. In “Larry Auster’s lies” he described his favor for “the jews” this way:

Here is my motivation: to expose the anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism that currently are harbored at the heart of the paleocon and immigration restrictionist movements, and to get conservatives and immigration restrictions to reject those evils, so that the cause of saving America and the West is not tainted and discredited by them and might actually have a chance of success.

First, I am a firm believer in Supremacy. Auster is not Supremacy, but my experience is that he is striving towards it.

Perhaps you’re not an atheist. I didn’t read any declaration that said you believed in Supremacy, though.

But the question that remains is who is a more truthful voice in regards to an American ethno-state, you or Auster?

You seem intent on simply castigating the real or perceived “supremacy” of the Jews.

When do you assert YOUR Supremacy as a real American?

I think Auster does a fine job in this regard. Do you?