Javerting Attention

Mangan’s The One-Man NAACP of the Right links Pat Hannagan’s Purging the Faux White Right. Mangan and Hannagan dismantle Lawrence Auster’s latest attempt to pathologize “the anti-semites” who see jewish ethnocentrism in the defense of Polanski and attack on Gibson.

What makes Auster notable is that he’s the tip of a little jewish iceberg of Polanski defenders, sticking out more than others due to his usual pose as an traditionalist anti-“liberal” convert to Christianity. The clear jewish pattern emerges from the long list of people quoted in my series of posts concerning Polanski. In a nutshell, Polanski is a jewish OJ. His plight neatly polarized jews, who tend to view him as a victim, wronged and hunted by a cruel, puritanical system, and everybody else, including Whites, who tend to see him as a celebrity pervert who has long escaped justice.

When Polanski was first arrested, the immediate, morally outraged reaction from a number of jews with various social and political orientations was generally sympathetic to Polanski, and in some cases, like Auster’s, they went so far as to condemn broad swathes of people misperceived as Polanski’s “persecutors”. From the comments their own reader’s considered this behavior shocking – probably because they generally did not see the ethnocentric connection. It is fair to presume that the early defenders did not coordinate their arguments, though they nonetheless shared a number of transparently bogus excuses, and conveniently overlooked or minimized the most damning facts. More than a few made an issue of Polanski’s status as a special kind of jew – a “holocaust survivor”. Applebaum called it a “mitigating circumstance”. Many used language indicating a deeply emotional state of mind – even those, like Auster, who claimed to have never met Polanski. Patrick Goldstein was as eagerly defensive as Applebaum and Auster, and also alluded to Javert. Bruce Crumley, at Time, went beyond Javert, invoking Dreyfus, the poster child of jewish persecution. See my original posts for many more examples.

After the nature of this initial defense and the reader backlash started to gel, many jews either shut up, moderated their defense, said something vaguely disapproving about Polanski, or tried to divert attention and blame elsewhere – to the Swiss, the French, the British, Puritanism (a swipe at “WASPs”), America, Hollywood, “liberals”, “the Glenn Becks” (a swipe at Tea Party Whites). First and last come “the anti-semites” – the eternal scapegoats for jewish misbehavior. Evidently, broadly bad-mouthing these groups of people is ok in the “Javert Nation“.

Mel Gibson, on the other hand, gets drunk, is alleged to beat his mistress, and says a few politically incorrect things about jews and niggers. For that Gibson must be shunned and his career must be over, because, after all, the blacks who run Hollywood say so.

What explains this behavior if not jewish ethnocentrism? From their terms and themes it’s perfectly reasonable, obvious really, that what the Polanski apologists and obscurantists share is a view of jews, collectively and individually, as blameless victims. Even the ones who happen to be absconding pedophile rapists, like Roman Polanski. Recognizing this fact is “anti-semitic”, just like the Tea Party is “racist”, and wanting a government that isn’t biased against Whites and doesn’t impose genocidal levels of immigration is “hate”. These are terms of abuse. The purpose is to pathologize, intimidate, and manipulate. They are fighting words used by arrogant and dishonest enemies whose chutzpah knows no bounds.

12 thoughts on “Javerting Attention”

  1. OT but pertinent in a general sense – INCOG Man is down, with this message:

    This blog has been archived or suspended for a violation of our Terms of Service.

    Real f’n nice.

  2. You got it in one. Sheer mind boggling stuff how Gibson’s alleged crimes, and non crimes (racial slurs), must result in his destruction yet a convicted pedophile who escapes from the law – don’t go there you anti-semites.

    Throw enough of this mud at the wall and some of it will stick in the public’s mind.

    Good stuff Tan. Precise, researched and well argued as per usual.



  3. But Auster’s defense of Polanski was fleeting, and he reversed himself within hours of posting after learning more about the case. You studiously refuse to acknowledge this.

  4. I think what you said is true, unfortunately, and you supported it well. Thank you again for your good work, Tanstaafl.

    Thank you also Pat for your contribution.

    This isn’t just throwing mud at a wall. This is the necessary work of documenting the unhappy truth.

    – Daybreaker

  5. Tan, You might want to examine the arguments being used by the flock of jews (some who pretend that they are not) who descended on a posting about the Epstein dismissal. One jew, calling himself, “The White Rapper”, had this to say.

    “I happen to be Jewish, so whoever wrote this can Fuck Off with the Antisemetic Tone. If the “chosen people” phrase has you feeling like your only worth the scum on the side of your toilet bowl, then stop crying and try goin out and becoming successful yourself, Faggot. The pedophile billionaire is an Individual, just like the thousands and thousands of DEVIL Priests that have raped not only chldren but happiness from everyone in the World and created most all wars and are trying to create the ‘False Armageddon’. My point is, all Peds should get from 10 years to life or execution; whether or not they are Jewish, Christian, Catholic or Muslim.”


    The excuses run by these “impartial” commenters set a new range of justification and diversion from the jewish issue.


  6. What we’ll probably never know, with Epstein or with Polanski, is: were the victims of these Jewish pedophile sex predators gentiles?

    The answer is likely “yes” and a wise assumption that it was probably “yes” might have figure into the ethnic reactions of their defenders. But that is pure speculation, till we have the facts.

    Likely we never will have them, because news organizations would consider it unacceptable to gather this information let alone disseminate it. It’s part of the story, but not part of any story the mainstream media would be willing to tell.

    History, as a compilation of written records, will in this as in all previous Jewish ages provide a Jewish perspective on every arguably Jew-hating act, speech and purported thought. As for any facts or acts that might have created hostile rumors, anti-Jewish sentiments and real conflicts – well that would be pure speculation in the absence of documentation. And if there is anything written, the Jewish version is likely to be quite different and show Jews only as innocent victims.

    They say history is written by the winners. In fact it is written by the literate, as a minimum qualification.

    I don’t even want to imagine what Jewish relations with illiterate neighbors and with slaves have been like through the ages. Maybe when they knew that non-Jews in their hands would never have a voice Jews have always been extraordinarily benevolent.

    – Daybreaker

  7. btw, I didn’t mean that what we are flinging is mud. “Throw enough mud at a wall and some of it will stick” is an expression that my frustrated History teacher used to say two thirds of the way through his lessons, no doubt feeling despondent as a result of our doltish stares.

    Daybreaker, your comments are always impressive. And I mean that sincerely. You should get a blog or join one to spread the word.

    Pat Hannagan

  8. Pat Hannagan, I’m impressed by your blogging, your spirit of helpfulness and the high average quality of the comments you contribute to others’ blogs, so I’m considering your advice seriously.

    It would be very hard to come up the standard that Tanstaafl is setting. But if none of us said anything unless we believed that we were the ones best qualified to say it, not much would ever be written in favor of healthy White families, White civilization and legitimate White interests.

    – Daybreaker

Comments are closed.