Blog

Samuel Francis

50 Comments

Sam Francis died in 2005. From a memoriam on vdare.com:

With the end of the Cold War, he emerged as a type of white nationalist, defending the interests of the community upon which the historic United States was, as a matter of fact, built. This position, of course, is as legitimate as Black nationalism, Hispanic nationalism, or Zionism. It is, indeed, the inevitable result of multiculturalism that is being imported through public policy.

Although VDARE.COM is not a white nationalist site, we regarded him as an important part of the VDARE.COM coalition. And we will miss him very badly.

The Establishment, left and right, wasn’t ready to listen to Sam. The logic of their own policies, however, means that eventually they will be forced to.

It was only some 18 months ago, but the very first bit of Francis’ writing I encountered, Poll Exposes Elite-Public Clash On Immigration, had a profound effect on my understanding of the immigration invasion. After a lifetime spent marinating only in the sanitized worldviews of “polite society” I found Francis’ explanation of the gap between the elites and the public on immigration both more shocking and yet more sensible than anything I had ever read. Referring to this poll he wrote:

Probably nothing in public life in recent years shows so clearly the vast differences between how elites and the public at large view mass immigration. It goes far to explain why nothing is ever done to control immigration: The people with power and influence don’t regard immigration as a threat.

And indeed, why should they? The main problems that mass immigration brings are not those of terrorism but rather crime, job loss, educational chaos, cultural erosion and language barriers. Those are problems that middle class or working class people have to face every day, not those of the ruling class.

Elites, simply because they can afford to isolate themselves from the impact of these kinds of threats, don’t feel them and don’t see them even when they look at them. They can move to high-security, crime-free neighborhoods and dump their kids in well-protected private schools.

To them, the main impact of mass immigration is that it creates lots of cute little ethnic restaurants and cute little ethnic nannies that allow the up-scale young parents of the ruling class to dine regularly on Nepalese and Ethiopian cuisine.

As for the ethics of mass immigration, the ruling class has long since convinced itself that "we’re a nation of immigrants," "the first universal nation," a "proposition country" or a "credal society" that has a duty to let in anyone who wants to come here, and that anyone who opposes mass immigration is a bigot, a nativist, a xenophobe.

The elite has managed to coin an entire vocabulary to demonize and discredit anyone who disagrees with its preferences and interests on immigration.

The poll shows that there is a vast gulf between the elite and the public at large on immigration, but more than anything it also shows that if the American majority that favors reducing mass immigration because they see it as a "critical threat" to themselves and their nation really wants to meet that threat, then they must first remove from power the entire class of "leaders" who are unable to perceive the dangers of immigration even when its dangerous consequences literally blow them out of their own skyscrapers.

One of Francis’ most important observations was to recognize our society’s ongoing slide into anarcho-tyranny:

. . . a combination of anarchy (in which legitimate government functions—like spying on the bad guys or punishing real criminals—are not performed) and tyranny (in which government performs illegitimate functions—like spying on the good guys or criminalizing innocent conduct like gun ownership and political dissent).

The result of anarcho-tyranny is that government swells in power, criminals are not controlled, and law-abiding citizens wind up being repressed by the state and attacked by thugs.

Ten days ago Jared Taylor’s Introduction to Sam Francis’s Essential Writings on Race was, for me, a timely reminder and review of Francis’ thoughts. From the links in Taylor’s article I’ve exerpted two that seemed particularly insightful.

From Why Race Matters – The assault on our race and culture must be met in explicitly racial terms, American Renaisance, September 1994:

We see the transfer of power in almost every dimension of public and private life. Thus far, the transfer is more cultural than it is political or economic; it is clear in the rise of multiculturalism, Afro-centrism, and the other anti-white cults and movements in university curricula, and in the penetration of even daily private life by the anti-white ethic and behavior these cults impose. It is clear in the ever-quickening war against the traditional symbols of the old civilization and the elevation of the symbols of the new peoples who aim at their displacement.

It is routine also to display almost all criminals — rapists, murderers, robbers — as whites, though the statistical truth, of course, is that violent crime in the United States is largely the work of non-whites. A few years ago, political scientist Robert Lichter showed in a study that while during the last 30 years, whites were arrested for 40 percent of the murders committed in the United States, on television whites committed 90 percent of the murders.

The erasure and displacement of official cultural symbols and the similar process in elite-produced, mass-consumed popular culture represents the expropriation of cultural norms, the standards by which public and private behavior is legitimized or condemned and a culture defined. While the traditional norms that are being attacked and discarded were almost never explicitly racial, the new norms that are being constructed and imposed are, and they are not only explicitly racial but also explicitly and vociferously anti-white.

This is a calculated tactic aimed at seizing cultural legitimacy and cultural hegemony and ultimately coercive political power on behalf of non-whites at the expense of whites. At the most extreme, the anti-white racialist movement resembles the ideology of German National Socialism. It offers a conspiratorial interpretation of history in which whites are systematically demonized as the enemies of the black race, and a myth of black racial solidarity and supremacy. “Afro-racism” is the ideological and political apparatus by which an explicit race war is prepared against the white race and its civilization, not as part of “rage” nor as a response to “injustice” and “neglect” but, like any war, as part of a concerted strategy to acquire power. It is not confined to blacks but extends also to other non-whites who care to sign up.

Yet the war against the white race and its civilization is not new. It is part of a world-historical movement that began in the late 19th century, perhaps not coincidentally, around the time of the battle of the Little Big Horn, and which the American racialist writer Lothrop Stoddard called, in the frank language of the 1920s, “The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy” and which Oswald Spengler a few years later called the “Coloured World Revolution.”

The fraudulence of the liberalism espoused by the leaders of the racial revolution was clear to Spengler himself. “The hare,” he wrote in his last book, The Hour of Decision, “may perhaps deceive the fox, but human beings can not deceive each other. The coloured man sees through the white man when he talks about “humanity’ and everlasting peace. He scents the other’s unfitness and lack of will to defend himself… The coloured races are not pacifists. They do not cling to a life whose length is its sole value. They take up the sword when we lay it down. Once they feared the white man; now they despise him.”

What is happening in our interesting times, then, to summarize briefly, is this. A concerted and long-term attack against the civilization of white, European and North American man has been launched, and the attack is not confined to the political, social and cultural institutions that characterize the civilization but extends also to the race that created the civilization and continues to carry and transmit it today. The war against white civilization sometimes (indeed often) invokes liberal ideals as its justification and as its goal, but the likely reality is that the victory of the racial revolution will end merely in the domination or destruction of the white race and its civilization by the non-white peoples — if only for demographic reasons due to non-white immigration and the decline of white birth rates.

In the universalist world-view, there is neither history nor race nor even species, neither specific cultures nor particular peoples nor meaningful boundaries. Therefore there are no concrete duties to race, nation, community, family, friend or neighbor and indeed no distinctions to be drawn between neighbor and stranger, friend and foe, mine and thine, us and them.

In the happyland of universalism, we owe as much to the children of Somalia — indeed, more — than we do to the hapless citizens of Los Angeles, and Marines who could not have been sent from Camp Pendleton to Los Angeles during the riots of 1992 and who are not ordered to prevent violation of the Mexican border adjacent to their own installation in southern California are speedily dispatched to Somalia. Even to invoke “our” identity, our interests, our aspirations is to invite accusations of all the “isms” and “phobias” that are deployed to prevent further discussions and to paralyze the formation or the retention of a common consciousness that might at some point swell up into actual resistance to our dispossession. The principal white response to the incipient race war thus far, manifested in neo-conservative critiques of “Political Correctness” and multiculturalism, is merely to regurgitate the formulas of universalism, to invoke the spirit of Martin Luther King, and to repeat the universalist ideals of equality, integration, and assimilation. The characteristic defense of Western civilization by most conservatives today is merely a variation of the liberal universalism that the enemies of the West and whites also invoke. It is to argue that non-whites and non-Westerners ought to value modern Western civilization as in their own best interests. It is to emphasize the liberal “progress” of the modern West through the abolition of slavery, the emancipation of non-whites, the retreat from imperialism, the achievement of higher living standards and political equality, etc.

Instead of invoking a suicidal liberalism and regurgitating the very universalism that has subverted our identity and our sense of solidarity, what we as whites must do is reassert our identity and our solidarity, and we must do so in explicitly racial terms through the articulation of a racial consciousness as whites. The reassertion of our solidarity must be expressed in racial terms for two major reasons. In the first place, the attack upon us defines itself in racial terms and seeks through the delegitimization of race for whites and the legitimization of race for non-whites the dispersion and destruction of the foundations of our solidarity while at the same time consolidating non-white cohesiveness against whites.

Secondly, we need to assert a specifically racial identity because race is real — biological forces, including those that determine race, are important for social, cultural, and historical events. I do not suggest that race as a biological reality is by itself sufficient to explain the civilization of European man — if race were sufficient, there would be no problem — but race is necessary for it, and it is likely that biological science in the near future will show even more clearly how necessary racial, biological, and genetic explanations are to understanding social and historical events more fully.

In 1994 Sam Francis already saw clearly the anti-White regime – that the many slights putative conservatives have alternatively fought, ridiculed, and averted their eyes from are in fact just pieces of an agenda they dare not see as a whole. For recognizing and writing about the racial dimensions of this assault Sam Francis was banished from “polite society”.

In An Infantile Disorder, Chronicles, February 1998 he argued for unity in facing the threat, and to set aside distractions such as neo-confederate secession:

But even if secession were possible, it would be a bad idea. Today, the main political line of division in the United States is not between the regions of North and South (insofar as such regions can still be said to exist) but between elite and nonelite. As I have tried to make plain in columns in this magazine and many other places for the last 15 years, the elite, based in Washington, New York, and a few large metropolises, allies with the underclass against Middle Americans, who pay the taxes, do the work, fight the wars, suffer the crime, and endure their own political and cultiara1 dispossession at the hands of the elite and its underclass vanguard. Today, the greatest immediate danger to Middle America and the European-American civilization to which it is heir lies in the importation of a new underclass from the Third World through mass immigration. The danger is in part economic, in part political, and in part cultural, but it is also in part racial, pure and simple. The leaders of the alien underclass, as well as those of the older black underclass, invoke race in explicit terms, and they leave no doubt that their main enemy is the white man and his institutions and patterns of belief.

The only prospect of resisting the domination of the ruling class and its antiwhite and anti-Western allies in the underclass is through Middle American solidarity, a solidarity that must transcend the differentiations of region, class, religion, party, and ideology. White Southerners are a vital part of the Middle American core, as are their Northern counterparts, and neither is the enemy of the other. Both regional sections of Middle America face the same threats, experience much the same problems, and ought to be joined in the same political-cultural movement to meet the threat together.

These are observations I find extremely useful as I struggle to understand the West’s revolutionary transformation. Francis recognized that race matters. In such a world my kith and kin would be wise to realize: White matters.

UPDATE 13 Feb 2008: From Steve Sailer’s review of Francis’ book Race and the American Prospect:

In the Victorian era, the Great Taboo was sex. Today, whatever the label we attach to our own age, the Great Taboo is race. The Victorians virtually denied that sex existed. Today, race is confidently said to be "merely a social construct," a product of the imagination, and of none too healthy imaginations at that, rather than a reality of nature.

Sailer, like my commenter Flippityflopitty, is not hostile to White consciousness, but is certainly pessimistic about White nationalism and separatism. In their stead Sailer advocates citizenism, which he describes as being based on the belief that:

Americans should be biased in favor of the welfare of our current fellow citizens over that of the six billion foreigners.

This was the rationale for US immigration policy until 1965. Forty years of influx have pushed the population from 200M to over 300M, growth of more than 50%, most of it non-white and upwards of 10% of it illegal.

Unfortunately, citizenism will not keep the US from becoming a banana republic shithole. In fact, as the invasion continues citizenism, or at least the deracinated sentiments that label aptly describes, has actually lent the transformation credibility. The legal immigration and many amnesties since 1965 have introduced more anti-White citizens.

Just like those who only oppose illegal immigration, citizenists play right into the hands of the open border advocates who have shown great skill in subverting and twisting our laws to their desires. The US senate, for example, brazenly tried to elect a new citizenry last May. They continue to work on behalf of their prospective zitizens by amending all and sundry legislation with bits of stealth amnesty. By hook or by crook they will eventually legitimize the invasion. They will do so by declaring the invaders legal. President Obama will almost certainly do even more for the invaders than Bush has. We will find that the constitution’s “separation of powers” has an entirely different meaning when liberal judges are asked to interpret a liberal president’s executive orders. If they are even asked.

The dispossession of Whites has so far been accomplished by double-talk and trickery, without plebiscite, without legitimacy. It is becoming a fait accompli, trumping the too-little too-late fearful indignation of deracinated White citizenists. They think White consciousness is folly, doomed to failure. Well what then of their own deracinated, citizenist arguments? Have they not failed? From this point on aren’t they likely only to serve the invasion status quo?

Francis’ insight is that other groups do not hesitate to advocate policies they believe to be in their own interests, despite the ill consequences for Whites. Whites must recognize this hostility and counter it directly with their own race-conscious advocacy. Duty does not calculate the chances of success. Right and wrong are not determined by the laws of usurpers. The legacy of slavery and forty years of non-white immigration are clear: race trumps citizenism.

Blog

White Advocate Robert Griffin

6 Comments

From a review at Amazon:

Robert Griffin’s Living White offers solid reportage, analysis, and counsel for racially conscious American whites interested in effective thought and action on behalf of their beleaguered kind and country. Griffin, a professor of education at the University of Vermont, is that rarity: a knowledgeable student of contemporary American white nationalism who is an emphatic and empathetic partisan of his people. He is the author of two valuable books on white America’s fledgling racial-nationalist movement, The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds, based on interviews with the late William Pierce and One Sheaf, One Vine, which gives voice to ordinary European-Americans who have embraced racial consciousness in ways currently acceptable for nonwhites and for Jews in this country, but long since taboo for whites.

In Living White, Griffin brings well-honed critical skills to addressing questions of individual demeanor and conduct that the committed very often neglect: the search for self-knowledge, the struggle for personal effectiveness, the resolve to act in the public arena, and the ability to communicate racial concerns to other whites. The score of essays included in Living White encompass the wide range of Griffin’s observations of the racial right, observations sharpened by his learning in the psychology of education and by his comparative detachment as a latecomer to white racial politics. The pieces collected here run the gamut from practical advice for activists to meditations on the careers of men as disparate as Stanford University president and eugenics enthusiast David Starr Jordan and American Nazi agitator George Lincoln Rockwell, demolitions of books by academic denigrators of white people, and valuable personal vignettes of his own path to self-fulfillment in service of his people.

Besides being uncommonly objective, Robert Griffin is unusually thoughtful, and much of his thought has been devoted to gaining knowledge of himself. This self-knowledge, and his observation and experience of life, make Griffin a sympathetic listener and a sound adviser on the challenges of living white in today’s America. His essay on how to educate one’s children to live honorable white lives is notable for his grasp of the essential issues: too many white parents (and not just nationalists) still believe that it suffices to remove their offspring from minority milieus, neglecting the tentacles of the education industry and the entertainment media. He is particularly good on the loss of community and on considerations of how to rebuild it, in writing free of both lamentation and cheery assurance of easy restorations.

In just a few years Robert Griffin has emerged as an author, analyst, and public spokesman for white Americans, despite his very public status in the fishbowl of campus life at a state university. The fact that he has tenure has not preserved him from wounds to the ego and the heart, wounds which he wears openly and bravely. The deafness which afflicted Griffin suddenly after he had completed his second book on white nationalism has been if anything a goad to his work and action: It lead him to write, here, “While–for me–there is still time, in my life, I want, day to day, hour to hour, in my own unique way, to live as an honorable white man,” thereby giving body and soul to Friedrich Nietzsche by now hackneyed “What does not destroy me makes me stronger,” and reminding that, as George Eliot wrote, “It’s never too late to be what you might have been.”

Perusing Griffin’s web site the synopsis for the essay On the New McCarthyism caught my attention:

The topic here is the current attacks on racially conscious and active white people by those who would marginalize, silence, and punish them for their beliefs, expressions, and actions. I use a memoir on the McCarthy era, as it was called, in the 1940s and ‘50s, written by Walter Bernstein, Inside Out: A Memoir of the Black List, and an encounter I had in late 2006 with the Southern Poverty Law Center to frame an analysis of this phenomenon, drawing parallels between what went on in the McCarthy years, and at other points in history, and what’s going on now. I offer some suggestions on how racially committed white people can deal with attacks against them.

The following exerpts really struck a chord:

Bernstein was a member of the Communist Party. He was also a morally upright person who cared deeply about the welfare of his fellow man and economic and racial justice. But all that was immaterial to his inquisitors. It didn’t matter what he was like. It didn’t matter what his commitments were. And it wasn’t a personal assault on Bernstein, because he was no longer a person: he was type, a concept, he’d been objectified, de-humanized. Bernstein could be fit into a category that had been set up as evil and threatening, Communist, and that made him the enemy and fair game.

Bernstein was like the Jap in World War II. You don’t acknowledge a Jap’s humanity. You don’t bother distinguishing one Jap from another. You don’t try to figure out what a Jap is thinking, or hear him out, or dialogue with him. You certainly don’t care a whit about what happens to a Jap. You kill a Jap, period. You drop firebombs on Jap women and children in Tokyo—after all, they are all Japs, the same ones that attacked our ships in Pearl Harbor, no difference. You drop atomic bombs on civilian populations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki—why not, they are Japs, they deserve to die. Bernstein was a Jap.

I’ll offer some thoughts on how you can get good people to commit or go along with a bad thing and feel good about it: up to persecuting, and even slaughtering, other people they don’t even know. Here’s how you do it:

Control their information, images, and ideas. Make sure they only hear your side of the story.

Couch what you want in the highest sounding language. Tell them its defending freedom, on the side of justice, combating hate, something like that.

Give people language they can use to tell themselves how virtuous they are when they destroy the people you want destroyed or go along with it. People like to think of themselves as a being good, morally upright, having good character, and so on.

De-humanize and objectify the other side. In Germany, Jews were depicted as vermin and as being all alike. Racially conscious whites are all KKK members. Nazis are evil and all the same. “White males” are all privileged, boorish, and oppressive. Keep people from looking at the particulars about individuals and just focusing on the pejorative category you’ve set up. Categories are easier to attack and kill than individual human beings.

Let people know that if they go along with you they will be acknowledged and approved and respected by others and included in the group. And the stick to complement the carrot, point out examples of people who didn’t go along with you—how they were condemned, ignored, disrespected, marginalized, or shunned.

Distribute some tangible perks to people who play ball with you. Thinking your way and doing your bidding is a way to get and keep a job, get a promotion and a raise, get praise and an award, get an article or a book published, a project funded, etc. And alternatively, get across that crossing you is the way to get negated, fired, and your house on the auction block.

And then turn the dogs loose. Even the sweetest of dogs, to continue that metaphor, will go for the throat, and more, they’ll honestly believe in what they are doing. Depending on whether they live in Germany or England, they’ll put Jews on freight trains or incinerate 130,000 civilians in Dresden in a bombing raid.

And notice where it starts: Making sure that only the information, images, and ideas favorable to your side gets to the masses. Controlling what gets published, what films get made and what gets on television, what is lectured and read and said in the classroom, who gets to participate in the public discourse and who gets silenced. Clamping down hard on anybody who doesn’t mirror the current orthodoxy, the current creed. Joseph Goebbels knew all about this, and so do modern thought managers.

Reading Bernstein’s account, I was struck by parallels between what was going on in the 1940s and ‘50s and what’s happening in our time now with the attacks against “hate.” My research and writing on race has brought me into personal contact with this contemporary inquisition. I’ve seen what has happened to people I’ve encountered, and I’ve tasted a bit of it myself. My transgression is that I wrote about white separatists, white advocates, white activists, and yes, white supremacists, without condescendingly smearing them as ignorant, anachronistic, and malevolent racists and bigots. I didn’t do that because it wouldn’t have been truthful to do that.

I care about the wellbeing of all people on this planet, and that includes European heritage people, white people. Most of my writing on race has been reportage and analysis, but increasingly as time has gone on, I have written from a position of white advocacy. I’m an advocate for whites for the same reasons that others support blacks and Hispanics and other groups. I’ve spent my adult life around secondary schools and universities and I’ve seen first hand how young whites are put down in schools. Their ancestors are trashed as oppressors, they are conditioned to feel guilty about their heritage and race, and they are taught to defer to and serve the interests of other races and pay no attention to the welfare of their own people. They are shut up if they express racial pride and commitment, they are beaten back if they even think about forming organizations or engaging in collective action, and they are the victims of racial discrimination in school admittance. If the children of any other racial or ethnic group were treated this way in schools there would be hell to pay.

If I advocated for any other group but whites, using the exact same language and rationale, I’d be applauded and rewarded. I find it fascinating that nobody seems to notice this contradiction. Say you care about white people these days and it’s called hate, and people buy into that.

Here’s an unvarnished truth the anti-White “hate speech” goons don’t want deracinated Whites to hear:

It is more accurate to call the people and organizations I have studied and written about this past decade as white advocates or white separatists rather than white supremacists. They are concerned about the status and future of white people and their heritage and, many of them, want whites to be able, if they choose, to live among their own and to determine their own destiny. That said, some racially conscious whites do believe that, given their values, the white race has been, and continues to be, more accomplished; superior, if you will. They hold that if you objectively assess the races on the bases of their achievements in philosophy, ethics, the arts, architecture, civilization building, mathematics, science and technology, and business acumen, whites are at the top of the list, or at least compared to blacks and Hispanics. They contend that knowing a community is white allows you to predict that with great deal of certainty that it is clean and orderly and safe, and that its children are cared for and educated well, and that life is liveable there; and that the same cannot be said for a black or Hispanic community. They claim that when there is an infusion of blacks and Hispanics into a white area to the level of a critical mass—say, 30%–you can predict that the area will deteriorate physically, become politically corrupt and more dangerous, that educational standards will become lower, and that it will be an area that decent people will want leave, not enter.

I believe in freedom of conscience. It a free society it should not be a crime or punishable to believe one’s race or religion is superior. Rather than forbid assertions of white superiority, we should allow it to be part of the public discourse. If it is empirically false, that will be demonstrated by counterargument. The truth will set us free, or at least it will set us on the right direction. We need to ground ourselves in reality, whatever that reality is, and even if that reality is unpalatable. To operate on high-sounding but false premises is a ticket to distress and failure.

You might think a diverse, multiracial, multicultural society is demonstrably best, and preferable as a setting in which to live. Others, however, have the right to ask you to provide concrete examples to support your perspective and preference rather than just rhetoric. Other than the fictions on television and in the movies where are these multi-racial, multi-ethnic paradises? In Lebanon? In the old Yugoslavia? In Rwanda and the Sudan? In Chicago and Detroit and Cincinnati and Los Angeles? In London? Paris? Where exactly? And what gives you the right to tell white people who want to live peacefully among their racial kinsman that they can’t do that and they must live your way? Back to human nature, there is a tendency for people to think their way is the best way and the only way, and to force that on other people. I think that is a predilection we all need to overcome in ourselves.

Contrary to the image that has been painted of them, the vast majority of the racially conscious whites do not want to harm blacks and Hispanics or rule them. Rather, they simply want to get away from them. And they are not racists as we usually define that term: they don’t harbor a deep-seated, irrational animosity toward minorities. What is called racism and hate is actually disapproval and disdain. With blacks, white racialists disapprove of, and have contempt for, their illegitimacy rate, their violent crime rate, the way they fail to keep up the areas in which they live, their educational and work performance, their welfare dependency, and their tendency to hold others responsible for their negative conduct and demand double standards and racial preferences. These whites point out that that 90% of interracial crime is black on white, and are enraged that blacks rape 20,000 white women a year (versus a couple hundred the other way around), and are convinced that these realities are suppressed by those who control the information flow in America.

His advice for fellow White advocates:

I’ll end with some suggestions to people who may find themselves a target of the today’s McCarthyites. In particular, I’m speaking to white racially conscious people of whatever stripe: white analyst, white advocate, white activist, white separatist, or white supremacist. I want to underscore that what I offer here is my best thinking, but it could be off the mark. Take it as simply my side of a conversation. With that disclaimer on the record, here’s my advice to those who care about white people and their future in a culture that is committed to shutting you down hard and making you pay.

First of all, cover your ass. They’ll do anything to you they can get away with, and it makes no difference whether you have done anything wrong or not. And you have to assume that you are all alone, that there is nobody covering your back. Somebody might bleat on an Internet discussion list that you got screwed, but that’s about as far as it will go, or at least you better not count on any more support than that. You have a career going and bills to pay and perhaps a wife or husband and children to guide and support and parents to care for, and as far as I’m concerned, those are your first obligations. Until you are sure about what you are going to do and its consequences, don’t create a paper trail that can be used to get you. If you write, use a pseudonym. Keep your name off membership lists. Don’t write anything in an e-mail you wouldn’t mind being a front page story in the newspaper. If you are going for a job or a promotion, tell them what they want to hear. If you are up for tenure as an academic, lay low until that comes through. Stay underground until you are clear you want to go above ground.

Get in the best shape you can. Figure you are in a war. Get battle-ready. Put your mind and body in the best condition possible. If you have some physical or mental issue, habit, addiction, whatever it is, that is getting in your way, get it out of your way, starting now.

Don’t buy what the crap they tell you about yourself. The people doing the talking in this country tell you that being for minorities is good but being for whites is bad, that you are bad, that they are the action and you keep your mouth shut over in the corner, and so on. Constantly tell yourself another, more positive, story.

Find some likeminded people. You aren’t alone. There are people that think as you do, and who will like and encourage you. They may be right around you or they might be on the Internet. You might have to contact them on the sly. Bernstein in his memoir wrote: “When I was with other blacklisted people, I felt what I had felt in the war [WWII], a comradeship based on common purpose. . . . What I felt was unjustified by my social condition. Bitterness and despair were more appropriate. But with these people the scream stayed dormant in my throat. What I felt was a kind of happiness.”

Don’t assume that explaining and placating will do you any good. When they come after you, there is always the tendency to try to talk your way out of it. “See, I’m not really a racist, and actually, some of my best friends . . .” It is temping when they get on your case, or to prevent them from doing it, to suck up to them, come off as a nice guy, a benign guy, a no-threat-to-anybody guy, an I’m-really-on-your-side guy, etc. I suppose those kinds of things can work, but you have to assume that reason and logic and whether you are a good guy doesn’t cut it for anything; no matter what you say, no matter how much tail you kiss, as soon as they can, they’ll slit your throat.

Play to your strengths. And what might they be?

  • Legal recourse. People don’t like to get sued. The first person to contact if someone dumps on you for your racial beliefs or actions is an attorney. Don’t say or do anything until you do.
  • Use the system. What they want to do is keep it just you and them. They call you into a room, hit you with the charge. You reason and beg (it feels really good to them to have somebody prostrate themselves like you are doing). Then, after waiting you out with a patronizing slight smile on their face, they fire you or whatever it was they had in mind when they called you into the room. Make it about more than you and your oppressor; get it out of that room. Kick it upstairs. Take it to his boss. Invoke the grievance or review system. If you have a union, get it involved. Knowledge is power: know the system, the organizational chart, everything that is written down. Nobody should know more about how the system works than you do.
  • Go public. Most often, they want to mess you over without anybody finding out. And most often, you go along with that because you are embarrassed, or you feel helpless, or deep down you think you are as bad as they say you are, or you’re scared, or they’ve promised you a positive recommendation or some extended insurance coverage if you keep things inside. And perhaps it is your interest to go along with playing it that way. All I can offer is my sense that the ones coming at you usually don’t like it when outside people know what they are doing. The thought of what’s happening to you getting on TV and in the newspapers, you trashing them publicly, or it actually happening, is most often a very aversive experience to the ones trying to do you in; and the threat to do that, or the impression that you will do that if they attack you, could get them to back off or cut a favorable deal.
  • Counterattack. It’s makes sense when people hit you to defend yourself, but while you are doing that be thinking about how you can attack them and put them on the defensive. Just as it was on the playground when you were a kid, letting the bully know that you aren’t just going to roll up in a ball and take his abuse, and that you are going to do your best to break his nose if he touches you, is a good way to present yourself. And the key is, don’t be kidding; if you can, break his nose. Bernstein, bless him, just took it. At least we can go down swinging.
  • Keep in mind where this ends up. At the end of our lives we make a fundamental judgment about ourselves: that we lived an honorable life or we didn’t. An honorable life doesn’t mean we did the right thing every time, but basically we did. Basically we didn’t sell out. Living an honorable life doesn’t mean we were never lived irresponsibly, but basically we lived responsibly. Living an honorable life doesn’t mean we never shortchanged ourselves and other people, but basically we did our best. I think we always have to keep in the back of our minds that there will be a time when there is only the past and what we have done with it; and that what will someday be the past is now and tomorrow and the next day and the next month and the next year. The question today and tomorrow and next month and next year is what is the honorable thing to do? It may take a while to get ourselves to the place where we are doing the honorable thing, but I think if we keep plugging the best we can we have a good shot of someday, down the road, smiling peacefully and saying “Yes.”

I would prefer he write White instead of white, but I’m happy to have found another likeminded person.

Blog

Something Unspeakable This Way Comes

76 Comments


Yes, you may be sick of Lawrence Auster. I know I am. I consider here some previous statements which I have only just become aware, and which I find relevant to the critique of his ideas I have already invested quite some effort in. This is also connected to and motivated by the realization I first made and began to explore in September: that it is not possible to forthrightly discuss political correctness, cultural marxism, liberalism, immigration, or White genocide without locking horns with jews. I am still only beginning to absorb the staggering disproportion of their involvement and aggressive and unapologetic pursuit of their own group interests over a very long period of time.

I can see that anyone who comes to such conclusions and speaks out honestly about them is smeared as a lunatic driven to irrational hate by a supposed congenital defect that makes them believe jews are to blame for everything. There is virtually nobody to cite in support who themselves has not already been similarly smeared, even though most do not fit the evil and demented caricature they are slandered with. Thus I continue to focus on and criticize Auster, who has long analyzed and argued against liberalism – an ideology he seems well aware jews helped construct, that most adhere to, and that has empirically served their interests – but when faced with the unpleasant implications of his own arguments would literally rather abandon them than see any responsibility fall on jews.

A few days ago Auster noted a post of his from 14 Nov 2003 where he comments on a quote from Nietzsche’s Human, All-Too-Human:

“… [T]he whole problem of the Jews exists only in nation states, for here their energy and higher intelligence, their accumulated capital of spirit and will, gathered from generation to generation through a long schooling in suffering, must become so preponderant as to arouse mass envy and hatred.”

Now this is amazing as a very early, remarkably incisive expression of the Jewish problem. Think of it–this was written in the 1870s, 20 years before Theodore Hertzl’s blinding revelation that the Jews could never be safe as a minority in Europe and needed their own country. (In the early 1990s I and a friend shared the thought that in whatever society they entered Jews would automatically rise to the top and so create majority-minority tensions. This was a new and disturbing idea to me at the time. Little did I know that Nietzsche had said exactly the same thing 120 years earlier.)

But the passage is also amazing in the context of the Jack Wheeler article I posted yesterday. Wheeler argues that liberal guilt is aimed at neutralizing the envy being directed at the liberal from those at the bottom. Now, according to Nietzsche, which is the most envied and hated of all groups? The Jews. And, as we know, which group is also the most liberal–and famous for its liberal guilt–of all groups? The Jews. The Jews are the most liberal because they are the objects of the most envy.

Auster then links to a post from 12 Nov 2003 where he writes:

Susie is correct about Nietzsche’s idea that the slave mentality or _ressentiment_ against the strong originated largely among the Jews, and about his view that this same mentality was expanded through its embodiment in Christianity to the detriment of the world. (However, it’s important to point out that Nietzsche’s hatred, especially in his almost insane late book The Anti-Christ, was directed against Christianity, not against the Jews; Nietzsche was never an anti-Semite.) She’s also correct to point out the connection between the slave mentality and modern liberalism; and also that Jewish neoconservatives differ from liberal Jews in being determinedly pro-American.

However, this doesn’t mean that the neoconservatives are free from all forms of that resentment. In my view, the Jewish neoconservatives advance an _ideological_ vision of America, and oppose any notion of a _substantive_ American nation, precisely because they fear that they would not be seen as 100 percent full citizens in it. To this degree, they are still functioning as a self-conscious minority trying to weaken an “oppressive” majority. And the majority, by yielding to the minority’s demands, does indeed weaken itself and even puts itself on the path to extinction.

My solution to this dilemma is that the majority must re-discover itself _as_ the majority, and see the minority _as_ the minority. This doesn’t mean exclusion, persecution, or loss of rights of the minority. But it does mean that the minority, insofar as it is a minority, should not be able to speak authoritatively for the society as a whole. That indeed is the state we’re in now, with advanced liberalism and multiculturalism, in which the minorities express themselves as groups and are given importance as groups, while the members of the majority only express themselves as individuals. An ordered state of society is one in which the majority is the majority, and the minorities are minorities.

Wheeler link and emphasis added.

Let’s review. In Nov 2007 Auster summed up his Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society like so: “the more difficult or dangerous a minority or non-Western group actually is, the more favorably it is treated”. I noted a corollary: that jews are the most favorably treated minority of all, therefore they are the most difficult and dangerous. Auster rejected this because jews are not “perceived as dysfunctional, unassimilable, alien or hostile”, except by anti-semites. I then pointed out that even his ad hoc qualifications are arguably satisfied, and that his anti-semitism trump card does nothing but lend credence to my point. Auster responded by making insinuations about my pseudonym, complaining about my blog’s color and typeface, and exploring the various ways in which I have sinned against jews – for instance by being indifferent to being labeled an anti-semite.

Far from being indifferent I recognize the hostility and hypocrisy behind that label and the distraction and intimidation it is intended to produce. I condemn and reject it all. I understand and accept Auster’s affinity for jews, and thus I understand his anti-anti-semitic bigotry. What I don’t understand, and can’t abide, is his inconsistency and hypocrisy.

As the blockquotes above show, in 2003 Auster expressed thoughts similar to my own. Consider for example his analysis of the fears motivating jewish neoconservatives. He knows the root of those fears is not their neoconservatism, it is their self-discriminating jewish identity and their self-serving liberal values. The quotes above imply that this “self-conscious minority” helped put “the majority” “on the path to extinction”. So as I read it, Auster makes the argument that jews by their own volition have been both unassimilable and hostile to “the majority”.

The tact Auster has consistently taken, and the out he would probably take here, is to place all blame and responsibility on “the majority”. As he literally phrases it “the majority” weakened “itself”, put “itself” on the path to extinction, and the cure is to re-discover “itself”. This thinking is of course just as simplistic and one-sided as he imagines everyone he calls an anti-semite is guilty of, except in the opposite direction. His own standard, expressed for instance here, is that it is an error to make judgments about jews as jews. This for some reason does not keep him from asserting “that in whatever society they entered Jews would automatically rise to the top”, nor does it keep him from passing judgments on “the majority” as “the majority”.

Beside revealing a fallacious double standard, Auster’s advice for “the majority” is both dubious and disingenuous. When individuals in “the majority” notice that jews express collective interests, interests which are more cohesive and identifiable and monolithically pursued (eg. civil rights, open borders) than those of “the majority”, and point out that such interests harm “the majority”, Auster is just as quick as anyone to denounce and call for the offender to be excluded from any further discussion. His proscription of anyone who opposes jews (most of whom are liberal) undermines his prescription that “the majority” should oppose liberals (many of whom are jews). The assertiveness he recommends has already failed, and it was defeated by generations of the kind of divide-and-conquer ostracization he supports.

It’s easy to imagine the reverse – a world in which liberal jews or other minorities are denounced and excluded. Liberal jews and their comrades in “the majority” are for all practical purposes driven by just such an imaginative reversal. They constantly breathe life into this fear with their movies, reporting, scholarship, and politics, and insist that everyone else be animated by it too. Their fear of potential repression by “the majority” is used to justify pushing “the majority” toward extinction. If you reject their utopian vision because you can see that it is in fact producing chaos and dystopia, well then you are obviously a neo-nazi who validates all their fears. It is sheer tautological madness.

Smears and inversion are the hallmarks of liberalism. They are the key tools with which liberals have rendered “the majority” powerless and are actively reducing it to a minority. Not one in a hundred people know that this is happening or why. That is not an excuse Lawrence Auster can hide behind. He sees. He knows. And yet he dissimulates.

A quote left on my previous post by Desmond Jones:

‘The Jews,’ he says, ‘will be compelled by anti-Semitism to destroy among all peoples the idea of a fatherland.’ Or, I secretly thought to myself, to create a fatherland of their own.”—Theodor Herzl, English translation by H. Zohn, R. Patai, Editor, The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, Volume 1, Herzl Press, New York, (1960), p. 196.

Kevin MacDonald quotes Earl Raab:

The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We [i.e., Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible— and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.

Auster:

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. In the eyes of this normally phlegmatic and easy-going man, America is just a shout away from the mass persecution, detention, and even physical expulsion of Jews. Given the wildly overwrought suspicions that some Jews harbor about the American Christian majority who are in fact the Jews’ best friends in the world, it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews.

The deeper I dig the awfuller the truth gets.

UPDATE 24 Jan 2008: Auster replies:

Another person on the warpath against me today is the anti-Semite “Tanstaafl.” He has found and quotes at length various statements of mine about the Jews, including my 2004 FrontPage Magazine article, “Why Jews Welcome Moslems,” and concludes that I’m an anti-Semite just like him, and therefore I’m a lousy hypocrite for condemning him and refusing to have anything to do with him. It is the case that anti-Semites, whose intellects are pathologically distorted, are unable to see any distinction between rational criticism of Jews and their own dehumanization of Jews. By the way, Tanstaafl, unable to resist for a second showing us where he’s really coming from, consistently spells the word “Jews” as “jews,” lower case.

My real conclusion is that Auster is the opposite of an anti-semite – he is an anti-anti-semite, i.e. a jewish bigot. He is indeed a hypocrite, which he illustrates here once again. His intellect is “pathologically distorted” and “unable to see any distinction between rational criticism of Jews and their own dehumanization of Jews”. My point in this post, and the previous one concerning him, is that he has all the intellectual ability required to engage my arguments, which are after all based on his own words and lines of reasoning. Yet he refuses to do so, apparently because he reserves a higher pedestal for jews, a pedestal from which they can slander and dehumanize and ostracize anyone they choose to label “anti-Semite”.

To Auster’s credit, and despite his deliberate distortions of my thoughts and desires, he does provide links here. Thus his readers can judge for themselves who is rational. I have no hope or desire to change the anti-anti-semites (like Auster, or my commenter Adam, who corresponds with Auster as Paul T.), my hope is that his non-jewish readers, unaware they are being assimilated, will become more aware of the inversion and inherent bigotry contained in the anti-semite slur. I hope they think of this every time Auster uses it, and every time he quotes his Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society. A law from which he exempts the powerful jewish minority based on the circular (and self-nullifying) logic that to argue they have been unassimilable or hostile to “the majority” is forbidden.

UPDATE 6 Mar 2008: Added missing link to Auster’s 12 Nov 2003 comment above.

Blog

White Self-Determination and Totalitarian Liberals

69 Comments

John Savage at Brave New World Watch recently started a series of interesting threads. The Cases That Judge Auster Won’t Hear was related to my last post, Auster and Anti-Anti-Semitism. Auster commented on John’s post and also linked to it from Savage Discovers White Nationalism, where he provides 1, 2, 3, 4 windows into his thinking about what he calls “the Jewish issue”.

Auster’s persecution complex is palpable and I daresay hypocritical considering the thoughtless smears he directs toward anyone he deems anti-semitic. The hyperbole he has thrown at me, and now John, and those 4 windows do a decent job of illustrating just that. But this post is not about Auster, or anti-anti-semitism, except to the extent that these things relate to and interfere with White self-determination.

I have gone digging in the weeks since I wrote White Nationalism and Anti-Semitism in an attempt to figure out just what White nationalism means, what jews have to do with it, and why so many jews oppose it. I have come across many interesting sources, some of which I added to the links on the right side of this page. Many of these sources discuss White self-determination and speak frankly about “the Jewish issue” without advocating bellicosity toward jews. I find three particularly informative and insightful.

The first source, Yggdrasil’s Library, consists primarily of essays written and posted to the alt.politics.nationalism.white newsgroup in the mid-to-late 1990s. I don’t agree with some of what Yggdrasil writes, and I haven’t read everything. In places it is dated, and in others prescient. To get a flavor of his thinking I refer you to:

The second source is Robert Whitaker, who actively blogs today. From what I’ve read his thinking is focused not so much on White nationalism as it is on driving home the premise for it. This is summed up in Bob’s Mantra:

“Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.”

“The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”

“Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.”

“What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?”

“How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”

“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?”

“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”

“They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.”

“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”

Here Bob explains why he repeats this mantra. Here are his thoughts on jews.

The third source is Kevin MacDonald, an evolutionary psychologist and author whose interest to me stems from his analysis of jewish culture and thinking, and how they influence Whites. I have not yet read any of his books. What I have read at MacDonald’s blog and a few papers is somewhat technical, but his assertions are supported by facts and well-reasoned arguments. Even so he is vilified by anti-anti-semites. For a mild example consider Auster’s Is my criticism of Jewish attitudes the same as Kevin MacDonald’s?

Auster writes:

He says that the Jewish people as Jewish people pursue a conscious agenda aimed at destroying European civilization.

His correspondent Paul Gottfried writes:

What MacDonald does is assume that nasty anti-Christian behavior engaged in by some Jews is something far more profitable than it is.

Auster’s accusation projects onto MacDonald the kind of bad faith Auster imagines MacDonald projects onto jews. In other words Auster dislikes MacDonald because he thinks MacDonald dislikes jews. (Which is the same reason he dislikes me.) The point of this is…what exactly? MacDonald may or may not dislike jews. Auster may hate MacDonald, or Whites in general. Does that change the objective truth of their statements? Does that mean the rest of us should be forbidden from hearing any of their statements? I don’t think so.

For what it’s worth I don’t get the impression MacDonald dislikes jews any more than Auster dislikes Whites. In what I’ve read MacDonald often repeats his belief that jewish group behavior involves large amounts of self-deception. He doesn’t believe they have a conscious agenda other than “good is what’s good for jews”. MacDonald argues from an evolutionary standpoint, which does a better job of explaining the revolutionary tendencies of individual jews than anything I’ve read by Auster. And speaking of evolution, Gottfried neglects to consider that profit, in evolutionary terms, is measured in survival. Group survival isn’t necessarily profitable to the individual worker ants, and it doesn’t have to look profitable to them either.

– – –

It is in light of all of the above that I am prompted to write in response to John Savage’s thread and its unusual but welcome discussion of White interests vis-a-vis jews. I had already posted some comments there when Must Speak Anonymously wrote:

My beef with Auster is that he’s always saying we can have a particular culture. That culture must involve some hierarchy and inequality. That religion is an essential part of culture, and the content of the Islamic religion is why the Islamic world is illiberal, nondemocratic, and also Anti-Christian and Anti-Western. In other words, culture is more than laws and procedures but also songs, values, folkways, and a sense of kinship. But here in the West that culture must embrace two diametrically opposed religious communities, the content of Judaism, the social tendencies of Jews (particularly nonreligious Jews), the vanguard aspect of Jews with respect to liberalism and a decline in white (Christian) solidarity, and the ways that the Jewish religion and Jews themselves have always been in conflict with Christian and even non-Christian societies is declared beyond the pale, something that cannot be discussed by serious people.

Now I don’t favor some of the more extreme measures counseled here. I don’t quite know what I favor. But I do think these topics should be criticized and discussed by serious people, but they’re not. Instead, we’re subject to a drumbeat, particularly in public schools and universities, about the evil of the West, traditional masculinity, Christianity, etc. Anti-semitism, like racism, is invoked by Jews and their lackeys to stop honest criticism, as if the choice is Treblinka or silence.

In short, our entire culture is under assault, Jews have spear-headed this line of criticism because they carried with them the elitism and anti-authority bent from Russia, and we’re all supposed to pretend this new consensus is the fault of “liberalism” or “modernism” as if it had no authors.

Auster plays a typical game of double standards. He wants us to make sensible generalizations about blacks and Muslims. But he wants us to judge every Jew as an individual, a special case, as anything but the member of a vast group with very different ideas about what America and the West is and should be about. He really thinks all of his critics are too stupid to see this game of double standards. For instnace, on blacks, plenty of people at Amren use the word “nigger,” especially in informal conversations. I don’t usually talk this way, but I don’t run away in horror. But if anyone says something far more mild about Jews, Auster demands Jared Taylor calls in the Thought Police.

He’s ethnically loyal to his parents and family. This is normal enough and even forgivable. But that family is part of a bigger family, and that bigger family everywhere it goes is troublesome, involved with changing values, and generally hated after a time.

I agree. Until and unless anyone, “serious” or not, is free to openly identify and analyze problems it’s difficult to agree upon sensible solutions. There are people who want to discuss White interests but are actively discouraged from doing so. This is a problem. Anti-anti-semitism, and anti-racism, and PC in general cause this problem by stifling discussion. PC is the first problem that has to be solved in order to then freely discuss and solve any of the other problems PC masks.

After Must Speak Anonymously made the comment above the discussion turned to assimilation, in particular about whether American jews had assimilated, why not, and how to force them to do so. This is based on a premise I find flawed.

Assimilation should be voluntary. I don’t wish assimilation forced on anyone. I resent that it is being forced upon my family. We don’t want to live in a Latin American shithole, but it is being forced on us. We don’t want our lives controlled by a government that has failed in its most basic function, national defense, and has morphed into a “proposition nation” where the proposition is compulsory subsidization of global corporations and invading aliens. I don’t want the sweat of my brow seized and used to fund schools that indoctrinate their students that non-Whites, feminism, homosexuality, and abortion are inherently good – and Whites are inherently bad.

These are things many Whites consider wrong, and as I have only slowly and recently come to realize, many jews consider them right. Anyone who wishes can freely discuss how inherently nativist or xenophobic or racist or prone to pogroms or just downright stupid Whites are, but nobody in “polite society” is free to make similar generalizations so flatly critical of non-Whites, including jews. In our ultra-tolerant liberal society such criticism is not tolerated, whether it’s true or not. This is a double standard. It is wrong. It must end.

One unmentionable truth is that Whites are not in a position to assimilate anyone else because Whites are in fact the ones being assimilated. We are immersed in the culture of progressive-globalist universalism. It is a culture of lies and contradictions where all men are created equal, but non-Whites are more equal and jews are the most equal of all. Shit is art. Perversion is glorified. Materialism rules. The Holy Global Economy is god. Wrong is right and right is wrong. PC egalitarians inform us that the White race is a mere social construct, even while Whites are openly and consciously blamed, disenfranchised, and displaced. The obvious end, if not the intent, is liquidation. To top it off none of this may be discussed in our craven “polite society” because to do so is “politically incorrect”. To those who point out that Whites are complicit in this, well yes I agree many are. There were jews complicit in the Holocaust too. We have a word for such behavior. The word is not “excuse”. The word is “treason”.

I favor separatism. People who don’t want to assimilate or even associate with others, for any reason whatsoever, should not be forced to. I find it disturbing that so many jews infer White separatism as “deport all Diaspora jews to Israel”, or worse. Why, if jews have Zion, can they not understand or tolerate the notion of a White Albion? White self-determination, whether separatism or nationalism, is about what’s good for Whites, just as Zionism is about what’s good for jews. The enemies of Whites will concede only the latter point, or neither, and none of them will squarely face the inconsistency.

Many people have felt compelled to uproot and flee the unhealthy consequences of the “diversity” that totalitarian liberals, including a preponderance of jews, have seen fit to force on us. I advocate a nation where force is used toward a different goal: protecting Whites. I see many practical problems with creating and maintaining such a nation, but I do not accept that it is immoral or impermissible to discuss the exclusion of anyone, for any reason, whether it’s jews, latinos, muslims, blacks, asians, lepers, eskimos, or totalitarian liberals. I would move to such a nation immediately, no matter where or how small, and would have much less cause to complain. I would happily pay my taxes and urge my progeny to serve in the government and the military, all things which I will not do under the current anti-White regime.

Blog

Auster and Anti-Anti-Semitism

112 Comments

Lawrence Auster writes more frankly and more cogently than almost anyone else on issues concerning Islam, immigration, and race. As he and almost anyone unlucky enough to be interested in reading this knows, the discussion of such subjects in “polite society” is heavily constrained by political correctness – a hypocritical and stealthily imposed code of conduct propagated by pundits in academia and the media, and unthinkingly adhered to by nearly everyone else. Auster violates PC daily, and he does so by appealing to reason and history. He points out the many threads that connect events to the liberal influences and responses of “polite society”. This is why his opinions are valuable. And this is why I am disturbed that he doesn’t write more frankly and cogently about another issue related to all these others: Jews.

Until recently I would not have even linked to Auster much less praised him. For most of my life I have been raceless – too busy with my work to notice race, and afraid that someone might call me a racist if I did notice. It took alot for this to change. The LA riots, the OJ trial, 9/11, Iraq, Jena, and insane levels of immigration finally gave me sufficient justification and courage to speak out. Toward the end Lawrence Auster helped. I read and think and write thoughts now that I never would have wanted to be associated with before.

During what in retrospect has been a lifelong awakening I criticized and ridiculed political correctness and the liberal illogic behind it without even understanding their origins, pervasiveness, or monstrous power. It was only in the last few years, and especially the last few months, that I have had the time and motivation to dig deeper.

As I tried to understand Islam I came to see that the prevalent ideas – “religion of peace”, “jihad means inner struggle” – rang false, and so I spoke plainly against them and in favor of the truth, smears of Islamophobia or racism be damned.

As I tried to understand immigration I came to see that the prevalent ideas – “family values”, “jobs Americans won’t do” – rang even more false, and so once again I spoke out, smears of xenophobia or racism be damned.

Now most recently, in spite of my dim wit, the hours of autodidacticism have finally connected these realizations to a long line of related lies: civil rights, multiculturalism, diversity, and above all the smothering, dictatorial political correctness that promotes these false ideals and protects them from criticism. I now see all these things as individual ingredients of a single toxic philosophical cocktail. Auster calls this cocktail “liberalism”. He helped me recognize it.

Where I estimate we part company is that I believe whatever else this cocktail is intended to accomplish it will in fact also accomplish White European extinction. I also plainly say that Jews have played and continue to play a major role in causing this to happen, smears of anti-semitism or racism be damned.

I explained how I came to these conclusions in Political Correctness + Multiculturalism + Diversity = White Extinction and Committing PC’s Most Mortal Sin. I do not jump to conclusions, nor will I abandon them simply because they violate PC.

Clearly Whites are threatened with extinction. Clearly PC is largely to blame. Clearly Jews are both a proximate cause of PC and one of the minorities PC favors over Whites. No matter how carefully you choose the words, no matter how politely or obliquely you broach the subject, if you are critical of Jews someone somewhere will howl anti-semitism, call you a Nazi, and derail the discussion. This has the curious and surely deliberate effect of creating a big, ugly warning light in everyone’s mind. A light that everyone in “polite society” knows you must not even chance triggering for fear you might have all sorts of opprobrium heaped on you – just like the other “Nazis”. You should not even speak of this light, or the dehumanizing opprobrium, lest you are prepared to suffer.

This is the same psychological control mechanism that is brought to bear when “racist”, “Islamophobe”, “xenophobe”, and the other smear words of liberalism’s “hate speech” crimethink are deployed. There is one difference with “anti-semite”: it is the strongest and most hypocritical smear of all. Jews are the longest lasting, most powerful, most cohesive group in human history. Those facts are not unrelated. This historically paranoid group sees and encounters enemies everywhere, but they have in contemporary times convinced even non-Jews to spot and silence their critics. For them to be the only group that has a specially designated and almost religiously observed protection clause (anti-semitism) is perfectly understandable, but the particularity of the “crime” flies in the face of the spirit used to justify defining it as such. The most virulent form of this bigotry (anti-anti-semitism) is self-defeating, if not flatly anti-everybody-else.

My story is similar to a handful of other people who I’ve since encountered via the internet. I am an ordinary White man who has belatedly recognized extraordinary threats not only to my own existence and the future of my children, but also to my larger extended family, my kinsfolk, who I have until now taken for granted. I am well educated and have been successful professionally. I can think and write moderately well. I use these abilities to seek truth. I try to speak it. I do not seek fame or fortune.

I write under a pseudonym because I can, and because there are many bad people – especially of the kind exalted by PC – who would surely harm myself or my family if they could easily find us. I know enough about the internet and politics and history to realize that I will have no protection in the long term, even if I never write another word. I chose Tanstaafl because I believe what it stands for: There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. I value many such aphorisms, but I selected this one because it also has a name-like acronym.

I think that covers the background, from my point of view, for the critique of and exchange with Lawrence Auster that motivates this post. What follows in some places requires more detailed understanding of Auster’s positions and terminology. Sorry about that. Most readers who have gotten this far probably know it anyway. I believe this issue is critical. If even those who oppose PC do not think we should be free to speak of any and all topics, from any and all sources, even when threatened with extinction, then what hope do we have?

– – –

A month or so ago with the thoughts described above in mind I commented on a post by John Savage concerning Lawrence Auster’s Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society (MMRILS). I asserted that this Law, which I agreed with but had never seen Auster apply to Jews, did in fact apply to Jews. John disagreed and we went back and forth several times arguing the point.

I include that exchange here for archival purposes, as John has now moved to a new site and disabled commenting on the old one (links and italics are in the original):

Wednesday, November 14, 2007
List of Instances of Auster’s Laws of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society

Since I love having Lawrence Auster’s great discovery at hand — his Laws (or is there just one stated many different ways?) of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society — I’m gathering together all the instances here, so I can just cite this post whenever I want to appeal to these laws. I’m still not positive which is the original statement of the law — this appears to be the oldest post on the topic at VFR, but it gives the impression that the idea was not new even at that time. So I’d appreciate Mr. Auster referring me to the original source in which he first laid out the concept, whether that source is online or not.

* “The worse any designated minority or alien group behaves in a liberal society, the bigger become the lies of Political Correctness in covering up for that group.” (source) A “restate[ment]” of the First Law.

* “The more egregiously any non-Western or non-white group behaves, the more evil whites are made to appear for noticing and drawing rational conclusions about that group’s bad behavior.” (source) Stated as the “First Corollary” to the First Law.

* “Once the equality of all human groups is accepted as a given, any facts that make a minority or foreign group seem worse than the majority native group must be either covered up or blamed on the majority.” (source) This may be the original statement of the First Law.

* “The more illegitimate and dangerous you are, the easier it is for you [to immigrate to the West], and the more legitimate and productive you are, the harder it is for you.” (source) A “variation” on the First Law.

* “When a society, acting with the purpose of eliminating all historic forms of exclusion and discrimination, including, ultimately, its own historic and ethnocultural identity as a society, admits large numbers of people into it who do not fit into it, either because of lower abilities or incompatible cultural/religious adhesions, the fact that they do not fit, when it is finally recognized, can only be blamed on the society itself. To blame the lack of fit on the newcomers would be to revive the very discrimination that their admission was meant to overcome. As long as the host society accepts the principle of non-discriminatory inclusion as the very basis of its own moral legitimacy, it must keep admitting more and more unassimilables, whose lack of ability to function in or identify with the society becomes more and more troublesome, a problem that, in accord with Auster’s First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society, must be blamed more and more on the racism of the society. Thus the more the society undoes itself in the name of indiscriminately including and favoring unassimilably diverse peoples, the more racist and guilty it becomes in its own eyes, leading to more and more minority preferences, speech codes, anti-hate laws, official lies, and the multicultural dismantling of the majority culture.” (source) An excellent example of applying the First Law.

* “The WORSE a designated minority group behaves, the MORE we must blame ourselves for it.” (source) Perhaps the most succinct statement of the First Law.

* “The more racial problems are created by liberal race policies, the more racist whites are.” (source)

* “Given the inverted standards introduced into race relations by the belief in equality, the less deserving a nonwhite actually is, the more deserving he thinks he is.” (source) Another “variation” on the First Law.

* Here’s the First Law expressed well in its three main variations:
“1. The worse a designated minority or non-Western group behave, the more they are praised and their sins covered up.
2. The worse a designated minority or non-Western group behave, the more racist it becomes to speak the truth about their behavior.
3. The worse a designated minority or non-Western group behave, the more their behavior must be blamed on white racism.” (source)

In another post, I’ll try to put together some of the instances in which I and others have had occasion to apply Auster’s Law(s).

Posted by John Savage at 8:37 AM

Labels: Auster’s Laws, Islam, political correctness, race, the Left

13 comments:

Terry Morris said…

John, good idea here.

You’ve mentioned Auster’s law several times that I recall, but I’ve never had occasion (or, I’ve never taken the time) to read it. It’s probably something that belongs under Select VFR Articles over at Webster’s.

I’ve got to take the time to check out these articles.

-Terry
November 14, 2007 9:40 AM

Lawrence Auster said…
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
November 14, 2007 12:57 PM

John Savage said…

Mr. Auster,

You’re most welcome, and thank you for stating your one Law in its simplest form. I agree that all the formulations here can be stated as special cases of the one general case you’ve suggested.
November 14, 2007 1:52 PM

John Savage said…

Here’s Mr. Auster’s revised comment:

Dear Mr. Savage:

Thanks very much for accumulating these quotes. This is helpful. I’ve sometimes wondered myself whether there were several versions of “Auster’s First Law of MMRILS,” or just one Law with many variations. 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.

Lawrence Auster
November 14, 2007 2:32 PM

Tanstaafl said…

And the corollary: Jews are the most favorably treated minority of all, therefore they are the most difficult and dangerous.

Or shall we just label such an observation anti-semitic and discard it?
November 14, 2007 11:13 PM

John Savage said…

Tanstaafl, I don’t know where you got it in your mind that Jews are the most favorably treated of all. People are pretty much given a pass for their anti-Semitism if they’re not white Christians.

I agree with your statement that most Jews seem to agree with the idea of making whites a minority, supposedly to prevent another Auschwitz that way. But I tend to agree with Auster that that’s irrational for them because they’re importing people who are more anti-Semitic than the original WASPs.
November 15, 2007 8:36 AM

Tanstaafl said…

Nobody gets a “free pass” for anti-semitism, it’s the one PC no-no that strictly applies even to those who get a free pass for anything else. It is so potent that it is sometimes brought to bear against those who simply don’t support Israel, don’t like neocons, or question the Holocaust.

You cannot oppose mass immigration for very long before you are forced to notice the overwhelming support for it coming from some of our most powerful institutions: media, academia, business, and politics. It is more difficult to notice that Jews have a disproportionately large representation in each, and nearly impossible to discuss what that may mean, without being called an anti-semite.

Do Jews overwhelmingly support mass immigration? How is it rational for them to do so? Do they support Israel? Do they know what Israel’s immigration policies are?

This is a line of questioning forbidden by PC. To see that it gives Jews an especially favored status all you have to do is substitute “Mexicans” and “Mexico” for “Jews” and “Israel” in the statement above. Both statements violate PC, but which statement is more forbidden that the other?
November 15, 2007 2:18 PM

John Savage said…

Tanstaafl, I fail to see how Jewish liberals are any different from any other liberal. Sure, “anti-Semite” is used against people who are not anti-Semites, but how is that any different from liberals falsely calling, say, Bush a hater of black people?

I would say that the argument about Israel’s immigration policy is equally un-PC if you replace “Israel” with any other non-Western country. Liberals will dismiss your concern with Mexico’s immigration policy just as readily.

So the only difference I see is that Jews are a powerful minority for their size, whereas other minorities are not as powerful. It isn’t a reason to be anti-Semitic, in my view, rather than just anti-liberal.
November 15, 2007 2:54 PM

Tanstaafl said…

You accept MMRILS. You accept that Jews are a minority. Yet you do not accept that MMRILS applies to Jews. You appear to be treating them favorably even while denying that they are favorably treated.

I can make two related points in Auster’s terms:

Those who accept MMRILS but deny the favoritism of anti-anti-semitism appear to be making an Unprincipled Exception. (Whose restriction to “liberals” must be loosened in order to apply here.)

Condemnation of anti-semites (by your definition anyone who takes their refinement of anti-liberalism too far and names its components) is an example of Criticizing Those To Your Right. (Which Auster has complained of many times but I cannot find a formal definition of.)
November 15, 2007 3:28 PM

John Savage said…

Tanstaafl, “Criticizing Those To Your Right” is a straw man. Everyone does it. Anyone who defines his position clearly is going to say, “These people are to the Left of me, and these people are to the Right of me. Here’s where I am on the spectrum.” I doubt you can prove to me that Auster has condemned “criticizing those to one’s right”. He too has criticized anti-Semites in much harsher terms than have I. For example, he criticized Jared Taylor for refusing to ban anti-Semites from the American Renaissance conferences. You are maintaining that somehow those to my right deserve immunity from criticism, and I maintain that no one deserves immunity from criticism.

Auster has complained of people excluding him from discussions or slandering him because in their minds, he’s too far to the Right. I am not doing such a thing. I am not excluding you from the discussion, and I would have thought twice about calling you an anti-Semite had you not called yourself one already.

Regarding Jews, I admit they are treated favorably, though I maintain less favorably than other minorities. (See my post on the Hierarchy of Entitlement, for example.) I agree that this should not happen, and that there are many false accusations of anti-Semitism made (including against me). I agree that false accusations of anti-Semitism should stop. But you still claim I’m showing favoritism toward Jews, I suppose because you believe that Jews belong at the top of my Hierarchy of Entitlement. So in your mind, I’m denying that MMRILS applies to Jews, but I maintain that I’m not.
November 15, 2007 4:00 PM

Tanstaafl said…

Auster says:

However, the issue still comes down to white guilt, since, whether whites consider themselves guilty or consider other whites guilty, white guilt is still what it’s all about.

Anti-anti-semitism is one manifestation of white guilt. I assert that it is in fact the most prominent.

To see this all you have to do is review the most notable things Whites are collectively blamed for – the Holocaust, slavery, Manifest Destiny. Of them all which source of guilt is most likely to be accepted even by White conservatives?

I agree with you that no person or group should be above criticism. That’s exactly why I bristle at anti-anti-semitism. I see it as an attempt to shut down criticism rather than refute it.

There are several similar slurs – sexism, racism, nativism, fascism – intended to achieve similar purposes. However, the unique power of the very specific slur of anti-semitism is clear if you notice that even many of those who refuse to cower when tagged with any of those other labels will resort to tagging others with the anti-semitism slur.

Since you can say that MMRILS applies to Jews all we would seem to disagree on is how favorable their treatment is. I say it is greatest of all. You claim it is lesser than others.

Your HoE essay doesn’t mention Jews. I would appreciate if you could further and more directly support your argument as I have mine. I’m curious to see how your metric of who rapes who works out when applied to a group for which it is not even politically correct to note membership. Or how the hierarchy might shape up if it were based on a metric of say proclivity for financial and political power while enjoying relative immunity from scrutiny.

November 15, 2007 5:28 PM

I cited this discussion in White Nationalism and Anti-Semitism which I wrote a week or so afterward. At that time I was disappointed Auster had not joined the discussion John and I had about his MMRILS, but he was obviously very busy maintaining his blog.

In the post on White Nationalism Auster came up again, both because Mencius Moldbug mentioned him and because by that time I had begun to see a blind spot, even a favoritism for Jews, in both of their writings. So I said so. I stand by my mini-critique of Auster’s critique of Pat Buchanan. By that point in time I had not only come to realize just how irrational, unproductive, and thoroughly liberal the anti-anti-semite routine is. I had just noticed one icon of the anti-PC right using it on another. The inconsistency and unfairness of this made me angry.

Also on the White Nationalism post a commenter calling himself Colin Laney described Auster as a Jewish “safety valve for awakening gentiles”. Leaving aside whether this is rude or unfair…is it true? Does Auster help White conservatives partially understand and vent their frustrations with the insane consequences of liberalism, neoconservatism, and political correctness while actively discouraging them from assigning any blame to Jews? Nobody but Auster will ever know his intentions for sure, but by reading what Auster writes about Jews and anti-semitism any thinking person can decide for themselves.

I believe Auster is a philo-semite. He favors Jews. On his blog he openly speaks in favor of White interests and against the various forms of liberal insanity that threaten Whites, but to my knowledge (and I admit I have not read everything he has ever written) he has not (except see below) discussed Jewish influence over that insanity and their relative exemption from it. Even when obvious opportunities arise he passes them by. As illustrated by the examples cited below, when the subject comes up outside his tightly-controlled blog he quickly and needlessly resorts to innuendo, distortion, and insults. His logic on the subject is exceedingly thin.

Ultimately my criticism of Auster, and any other pundit, is this: How can you honestly comprehend or describe the structure of power in the liberal dominated West while neglecting to consider and account for, out loud and at length, the disproportionate involvement and influence of Jews? There are many related issues. Why are they taboo? The answer is PC. Why does a thinker who so often decries PC and its defamatory tactics use such tactics himself? I’d like to know.

– – –

On Friday morning I visited Auster’s site and among other posts read this one. Then I clicked over to Vanishing American, where I made the following comment on a post titled Tancredo supporters, what now?:

There is something more behind the odd behavior of Gilchrist, Simcox, and Tancredo.

And now Auster is making odd anti-Paul statements. What does he stand for? The only non-liberal, non-neocon left to vote for is Paul. But Auster says Lew Rockwell and Michael Scheuer are “anti-American”, therefore don’t vote for Paul. Is this about anti-semitism? Is Auster using the same “guilt by association” and “criticism of those to your right” he chafes at so often?
Tanstaafl | Homepage | 12.21.07 – 9:38 am | #

At the time I referred to it Auster’s post was much more terse than it is now. It described Lew Rockwell and Michael Scheuer as “anti-American” without saying why, and by association with them was pretty clearly knocking Ron Paul. For the record I don’t remember Auster writing “don’t vote for Paul” or even that he wouldn’t vote for Paul, so I regret and apologize that I distorted it that way.

In reading my comment now I can see it comes across as cynical and accusatory. I suppose it is. Some of the most prominent anti-immigration leaders have suddenly abandoned or shifted their position and weakened the cause. Concurrent with that Lawrence Auster, who saw the immigration problem clearly 17 years ago, snipes at Ron Paul, the one remaining candidate that our rotten rabidly open border media really truly hates. For that fact alone Ron Paul deserves the benefit of the doubt from anyone, like Auster, who supports US sovereignty.

If you’re familiar with the idea of Schadenfreude then know that all this – the anti-semitism, the anti-anti-semitism, Auster’s criticism of Paul, my criticism of Auster – gives me the opposite feeling.

Ernest and Vanishing American curtly agreed with my comment about Auster, after which Auster posted the following:

There are some dumb, thoughtless comments in this exchange about my statements and intentions. Re Romney, I’ve been all over the place and have entertained a variety of views. I’ve also said clearly and repeatedly that I don’t think I could vote for anyone who appeared in the Spanish language debate. That would include ALL the GOP candidates except for Tancredo.

Re Paul, I explained why I have not been interested in him, why I personally have tended to tune him out and thus don’t know that much about him. That’s not the same as an attack or a smear. In fact shortly after that post I posted something by Paul.

As for the accusation by “Tanstaafl” (a moniker I strongly advise he get rid if he wants people to take him seriously), far from accusing Paul of anti-Semitism, I very forcefully defended him from that charge a few months ago and harshly condemned Ramesh Ponnuru and Ryan Sager for making it based on almost non-existent evidence:

http://amnation.com/vfr/archives…ves/ 007852.html
Lawrence Auster | Homepage | 12.22.07 – 6:20 am | #

To which I responded:

Dumb, thoughtless, I should change my moniker? If I weren’t so dumb and thoughtless I might be silenced by such empty ad hominem.

The fact is Larry that some of what you say doesn’t make sense. You rail day in and day out about “liberalism” and decry the leftist tactics of guilt by association and criticizing those to your right. And then, not only do you occasionally use those tactics yourself, you use the cases where you’ve previously decried those tactics to defend yourself!

One of these days I’m hoping you’ll explain why you think anyone who isn’t a philo-semite is perforce an anti-semite who should be shunned. Or perhaps you could cite an essay you’ve already written that addresses such concerns.

On a related note I’d like to see you square your so-called “First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society” with your exemption of Jews from criticism. But I see now you’ve answered on the John Savage post where I first raised this question, so I’ll make further comments there.
Tanstaafl | Homepage | 12.22.07 – 12:29 pm | #

Auster then responded:

Tanstaafl writes:

“One of these days I’m hoping you’ll explain why you think anyone who isn’t a philo-semite is perforce an anti-semite who should be shunned. Or perhaps you could cite an essay you’ve already written that addresses such concerns.”

Tanstaafl’s comments are so off-base to anyone familiar with my writings that he discredits himself. I’ve dealt with people like him many times before and they’re absolutely predictable. They start off complaining about the terrible unfairness of the anti-semitism charge, an argument that sounds sort-of, kind-of rational, so you can’t immediately dismiss them. But if you stay in the discussion with them, they quickly reveal where they’re really coming from.

Happily, since T. is not posting at my site, I don’t have to deal with him any further. He’s all yours, VA.
Lawrence Auster | Homepage | 12.22.07 – 2:52 pm | #

I went to John Savage’s MMRILS post and discovered that the discussion had briefly continued weeks ago, weeks after I had given it up for dead:

Lawrence Auster said…

I just came upon this exchange and want to reply to the points made by Tanstaafl (which frankly sounds like a neo-Nazi moniker).

Tanstaafl is just wrong to say that the First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society is about Jews and that I’m covering that up. The First Law is about conspicuously different minorities who are perceived as minorities, and who are perceived as dysfunctional, unassimilable, alien or hostile. Since Jews are not generally seen these ways, except by anti-Semites, the First Law does not apply to Jews, though some aspects of it may apply some of the time.

When I say this, I am not covering up the fact that there is a Jewish problem because that is something I often talk about. But I believe in the need to talk about it rationally. The Jewish problem—not the Jewish problem of the Jew haters, but the real Jewish problem—consists in the fact that Jews are a distinct people who because of their energy and talents tend to become dominant in culturally influential areas of society. This leads to the problem that a small minority group begins to become the definer of cultural standards for the majority. For the most part, this is not due to any Jewish racial agenda or conspiracy, as Kevin McDonald would have it, rather it is just built into the fact of Jewish distinctiveness combined with Jewish talents. But even though the situation is not anyone’s fault, it is not a healthy situation. The way the problem can be resolved, as I’ve said many times, is by the majority recovering and maintaining its majority identity, functions, and authority, and thus requiring minorities to conform to the majority’s standards.

It used to be this way in America. A classic example is the Golden Age of Hollywood. The movie industry was largely a Jewish creation, yet the Jews of Hollywood loved the majority culture and elevated its ideals. For example, the beautiful MGM movies of the late ’30 and early ’40s that were set in England and were imbued with an English atmosphere (so that it’s hard to believe the movies were made in Los Angeles), were the brain child of Louis B. Mayer, head of MGM. Contrast that with today, when many of the Jews of Hollywood, such as Steven Spielberg, are self-consciously alienated from the majority culture and seek to tear it down. An example is “Saving Private Ryan,” in which the elderly Ryan, re-visiting Normandy in his old age, is bizarrely portrayed as a broken down figure overwhelmed with guilt. That’s the way alienated leftist Jews want to portray the Christian majority.

What is the solution? There is no quick solution, but there is a solution. The majority needs to rediscover itself and start acting like the majority again and start setting the standards for America. Once a new elite was in place setting different and better standards than what we have now, the viciously anti-American movies that are now standard fare in Hollywood would cease being made.

In short, the Jewish problem can be solved, and Jews can function, as they have in the past, as a minority that has a certain distinctiveness and yet conforms itself to the standards of the majority culture.

It is not the same with, say, Muslims. Muslims cannot be conformed to our culture. The relationship between Muslims and our culture is of an entirely different order from the relationship between Jews and our culture. Jews are assimilable. Muslims are not. The fact that that a major non-Western group is unassimilable to our culture is not acceptable to the liberal consciousness, which must cover it up. And thus we arrive at the First Law. The First Law applies to dysfunctional and unassimilable groups, it does not apply to functional and assimilable groups.

To try to make the First Law be about Jews—and especially, in Tanstaafl’s treatment, be primarily about the Jews—hopelessly confuses the issue. It is but another illustration of how anti-Semites, because they see all issues through the filter of the Jewish issue, cannot see any issue truly. Their lunatic obsesssion with Jews as the source of all evil makes them intellectual cripples who are incapable of defending the civilization they supposedly want to defend.
November 30, 2007 8:25 PM

W.LindsayWheeler said…

I want to support the thesis of tansfaafl and rebute Mr. Austers’ assessment that “the Jews are not seen as a minority”.

Mr. Auster is right in one aspect, that in PROTESTANT countries, Jews are not seen as a minority or a disruptive minority BUT in CATHOLIC countries, Jews are a disruptive minority. There is a whale of a difference. Protestantism is akin to Judiasm. Protestants, in their ‘sola scriptura’ mirror Judiastic thinking. So, Protestants view Jews as fellow brothers and not a disruptive minority. Christian Zionism is overwhelmingly, like the British-Israelitism heresy, is purely Protestant.

In Old Catholic Countries, Jews are a disruptive minority and are to be segregated and be restricted in their rights.

In “Auster’s First Law of MMRILS”, the practice would be different under what religion.
December 1, 2007 9:40 AM

Only after writing the following did I discover that the original thread was closed. In the end it was the desire to make this response that prompted me to gather all the things above and string them together. I apolgize for any repetition, this is by now getting very long and tiresome, I realize:

Tanstaafl is just wrong to say that the First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society is about Jews and that I’m covering that up.

You misrepresent my position. I did not claim that MMRILS is about Jews, or that you are covering this up. I made the assertion that I believe your MMRILS should apply also to Jews.

The First Law is about conspicuously different minorities who are perceived as minorities, and who are perceived as dysfunctional, unassimilable, alien or hostile. Since Jews are not generally seen these ways, except by anti-Semites, the First Law does not apply to Jews, though some aspects of it may apply some of the time.

By this logic, since any minorities who are perceived as minorities, and who are perceived as dysfunctional, unassimilable, alien or hostile are not generally seen these ways, except by racists, one could say that your First Law doesn’t apply at all.

It’s your Law. You can define it however you like. I find it a valuable insight that reveals an unpleasant truth. The problem is to assert this truth one must accept that those in denial or who knowingly benefit from ignorance will smear you as a racist. Your original definition:

The worse any designated minority or alien group behaves in a liberal society, the bigger become the lies of Political Correctess in covering up for that group.

didn’t hinge at all on “dysfunctional and unassimilable”. The variations you’ve made since show that the idea is somewhat flexible.

As with the “racism” smear, likewise “anti-semitism”. Even if perceiving Jews as a dysfunctional, unassimilable, alien or hostile minority earns you the label “anti-semite”, so what? That doesn’t explain why Jews require special exception from criticism. Is it not an Unprincipled Exception to say that they do? Is it not criticizing someone to your right to insult and dismiss someone as an anti-semite for even making these arguments?

When I say this, I am not covering up the fact that there is a Jewish problem because that is something I often talk about. But I believe in the need to talk about it rationally. The Jewish problem—not the Jewish problem of the Jew haters, but the real Jewish problem—consists in the fact that Jews are a distinct people who because of their energy and talents tend to become dominant in culturally influential areas of society. This leads to the problem that a small minority group begins to become the definer of cultural standards for the majority.

You state the Jewish Question forthrightly here. Thank you. I have been reading your blog on a daily basis for months, and have read many of your older writings there and at other sites. I’m afraid I cannot agree that you talk about this problem much. Not in such frank terms, and certainly not often.

For the most part, this is not due to any Jewish racial agenda or conspiracy, as Kevin McDonald would have it, rather it is just built into the fact of Jewish distinctiveness combined with Jewish talents.

Kevin MacDonald does openly talk and theorize about Jewish influence, its causes and effects. Do you agree that he talks about it rationally? Do you acknowledge that he has been irrationally demonized, especially by Jews and Jewish organizations, as is virtually anyone who criticizes Jews, rationally or not?

The First Law applies to dysfunctional and unassimilable groups, it does not apply to functional and assimilable groups.

To try to make the First Law be about Jews—and especially, in Tanstaafl’s treatment, be primarily about the Jews—hopelessly confuses the issue. It is but another illustration of how anti-Semites, because they see all issues through the filter of the Jewish issue, cannot see any issue truly. Their lunatic obsesssion with Jews as the source of all evil makes them intellectual cripples who are incapable of defending the civilization they supposedly want to defend.

I have not proposed that your First Law is “primarily about Jews” and I do not “see all issues through the filter of the Jewish issue”. I understand and agree with your Law, and have argued that it applies to Jews just as well as any other minority. Best of all in fact. I provided simple, rational reasons why.

It is your rationale that is confusing. You exclude Jews based on words not present in fact or spirit in many variations of your definition. Your labeling me an “intellectual cripple” is unjustified, as is the assumption that I have a “lunatic obsesssion with Jews as the source of all evil”.

Jews played an enormous role in creating the liberalism that poisons our society with its PC lies. They play an ongoing role in perpetuating it. Would you agree that non-Jewish Whites have legitimate reasons to see this as “bad behavior”? Jews have benefited greatly from the protection afforded them and all the other “minorities” by PC. Would you agree that it is reasonable to propose that these observations together conform to the spirit of the two halves of your MMRILS law?

I value the opinions of those, like yourself, who challenge PC. I’m curious why some, like yourself, go to a certain point and stop. You seem intelligent and forthright on so many other issues. Why do you stoop to PC ad hominem when an otherwise rational discussion turns to criticism of Jews? Why do you distort and extremify the positions of those who, like myself, don’t give any special dispensation to Jews?

Perhaps you’ll write about this. We need more open discussion of this problem that goes beyond calling people names.

Perhaps Auster actually will respond. I invited him to do so on VA’s thread.

To clearly see the Jewish problem (also called the Jewish Question) requires that you realize and accept that Whites and Jews are not the same group and their group interests do not entirely coincide. But this is yet another truism that is difficult to calmly discuss in the face of hysterical anti-anti-semitism and totalitarian PC. I do not say that Whites are the master race and Jews are subhuman. I do not say that I want to exterminate Jews. I do not secretly crave such things and I resent anyone who projects their own imagined hatreds into my head.

What I do say is that a person cannot be both Jew and White at the same time. It appears to me that where the interests of Whites and Jews diverge Auster prefers Jewish interests. That’s fine. Being an ostensibly White opinion shaper I’d just like him to be more clear on this point. From his swift and negative dismissal of my comments so far it seems in a way that he has.

It hardly matters what I think, but I side with Whites. I do not oppose other groups discussing their interests. I am against Whites being prevented from discussing their interests, for any reason, including when it contradicts Jewish interests. That’s my view from the right of Lawrence Auster.

UPDATE, 24 Dec 2007: Auster has responded. Rather than answering my arguments and clarifying the positions of his which I have questioned he continues to focus instead on smearing me personally. Beyond that his response illustrates very clearly the inconsistencies I think most relevant here, and I encourage anyone concerned with White interests to read what he writes.

Auster claims to be concerned with White interests when he in fact pursues Jewish interests. That is now clear to me. To the extent those interests overlap his pretense works, it is where those interests conflict that he is revealed. I’ve never seen him get so worked up about anti-Whitism. I’ve never seen him attack with such venom someone he thought was being anti-White. To so self-righteously and summarily dismiss my arguments as anti-semitic, on that basis alone, he must strongly identify as a semite and consider those interests superior to all others. QED.

Speaking of me he says:

He’s someone who thinks that if I fail to join him in his anti-Semitism, that shows a troubling inconsistency in my thought.

This is an interesting and by its repeated occurrence I daresay deliberate distortion. I have just reiterated one troubling inconsistency above. It is not about him not being an anti-semite, it has to do with not being open about being a philo-semite.

There is another inconsistency, the contrast in his attitudes about racism and anti-semitism, that a comment from his correspondent Tom M. triggers him to highlight:

Regarding the “I am attacked for not being an anti-Semite” thread, hasn’t the term “anti-Semite” become an all-inclusive, imprecisely defined word, used for effect the way “racist” is being used? Whether one has good reasons for making racial distinctions or not, the label “racist” is used to undercut any rational discussion of race. Likewise hasn’t the label “anti-Semite” become a description to stop at any cost a rational consideration of the effects of influential Jewish persons and their thought processes on society?

Auster’s answer to this is that the only proper path is to very carefully separate what is rational and legitimate criticism from that which is not. He then calls Tom M. an anti-semite for not professing philo-semitism. This is rational? This is legitimate?

I prefer my way. I openly state my loyalties and interests. I openly state who I think operates against my interests. I am not concerned whether people smear me as a racist or an anti-semite. I am not going to waste my time writing “some of my best friends are…” apologia to try and convince anyone that I am neither. I hold no ill will toward anyone due simply to the color of their skin or the genes in their cells. I will however hold them responsible for the thoughts they express, and especially for their actions. I possess the faculties to recognize who operates against me and my kin, for whatever reasons they choose to do so. I will openly call them out, and I will act in self defense. If you consider that a crime then you are certainly an enemy.

You can question whether this position is rational, especially since it may not make good tactical sense. You can question whether it is legitimate, especially since I speak for only one person, myself. You can question anything else about me you dislike. What I suspect Mr Auster dislikes most is that his calling me an anti-semite is not enough to shut me up. My response is: I know what I am, the question is what are you?

UPDATE, 24 Dec 2007 #2: Auster has written some more. No answer to my points. He is more interested in speculating about my pseudonym. Really. He says my thinking works like an anti-semitic computer program.

At the core of the program is the false epiphany: “Now I see it! The Jews are responsible for everything that has gone wrong with the West, the Jews are the enemy, and everyone is covering this up, and I alone have the courage to reveal this truth and call the Jews to account.”

So he thinks I’m an automaton. An inferior whose arguments he must exaggerate in order to make them sound unserious. I think this means I will not be getting any substantive answer.

This automaton has read and comprehended enough of Auster’s own logic to find what it thinks are some real problems. It has expressed opinions using Auster’s own terminology and asked him for clarification. Surely such a lowly automaton could be easily corrected.

Instead Auster supplies yet another lesson in how anti-anti-semitism works. Cry anti-semitism! Treat the person criticizing Jews as if they are insane. A reasonable alternative – that many Jews have acted against White interests, that they have covered it up, and that others have said the same things because those things are objectively true – is apparently too far-fetched to accept.

Here’s the program for anti-anti-semitism:

while (detect(criticism_of_jews))
    output("Anti-Semitism!");

In Auster’s case it seems to be stuck in what programmers call an infinite loop.

Merry Christmas!

UPDATE, 25 Dec 2007: Auster continues to confirm not only a pro-Jewish bias, but an unwillingness to be forthright about it. He jumps from one conclusion to the next without any self-awareness just how unserious (to use one of his favorite put-downs) he is revealing himself to be. I’m especially touched by the pile-on-the-ignorant-anti-semite comments from his peanut gallery. Honestly I expected either no response, or a terse reasoned response. I did not expect an ongoing babbling meltdown.

A correspondent tried to help him understand where “TANSTAAFL” comes from, something he could have easily discovered if he had googled tanstaafl or followed the link I provided in my original post. Auster knows it now, but in spite of this he says I really selected the name because it “sounds warlike and Germanic”. Those weren’t my thoughts (I said what I was thinking above) but this does at least explain why he’s so obsessed with my pseudonym. If only he would use the energy he spends projecting and speculating futilely about what motivates me, and use it instead to respond to what I’ve actually written.

He brings up my MMRILS criticism, only to once again dismiss it on the basis that it is anti-semitic. He continues to ignore the rebuttal in this post. He will not admit that Jews are the minority that liberal political correctness protects most of all. Even while his own PC-based anti-anti-semitism demonstrates it. Amazing.

Then he takes my separatist notions and extrapolates what they mean, for Jews. This fellow who presents himself as a White Christian pundit is oddly capable of scanning my posts and focusing like a laser on any statement that contradicts Jewish interests, while missing the things I’ve said that contradict Latino and Muslim interests and the pro-White basis from which I argue. Frankly I don’t need his lectures about why Whites are fleeing California.

I freely admit that in retrospect it took me an embarrassingly long time to realize that Jews lobbied long and hard for non-White immigration, and that it isn’t Latinos or Muslims who are wildly overrepresented in the rabidly open borders media, it is Jews. To me this is evidence that these facts are not discussed openly enough. That Auster finds these observations antithetical to Jews means that for him the truth matters less than what he thinks is good for Jews.

UPDATE 24 Jan 2008: The conversation continues here.

Politics + Technology = Nonsense at the Speed of Light