Tag Archives: censorship

Blog

Planet of the Michelle Obama Defenders

14 Comments

Google apologizes for results of ‘Michelle Obama’ image search – CNN.com:

For most of the past week, when someone typed “Michelle Obama” in the popular search engine Google, one of the first images that came up was a picture of the American first lady altered to resemble a monkey.

On Wednesday morning, the racially offensive image appeared to have been removed from any Google Image searches for “Michelle Obama.”

Google officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

Google faced a firestorm of criticism over the episode. First, it banned the Web site that posted the photo, saying it could spread a malware virus. Then, when the image appeared on another Web site, Google let the photo stand. When a Google image search brought up the photo, an apologetic Google ad occasionally appeared above it.

The Michelle Obama ape photo can be found at FlyStyleLife » WTF IS THIS? MICHELLE OBAMA AS AN APE HUH?

Google: An explanation of our search results:

Sometimes Google search results from the Internet can include disturbing content, even from innocuous queries. We assure you that the views expressed by such sites are not in any way endorsed by Google.

Search engines are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the Internet. A site’s ranking in Google’s search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page’s relevance to a given query.

The beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google, as well as the opinions of the general public, do not determine or impact our search results. Individual citizens and public interest groups do periodically urge us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Although Google reserves the right to address such requests individually, Google views the integrity of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the page.

We apologize if you’ve had an upsetting experience using Google. We hope you understand our position regarding offensive results.

Sincerely,
The Google Team

Insincerely, actually. In truth, hit rank for almost every search engine, and certainly for google, is based almost entirely on the popularity of the hit, which in most cases reflects its popularity with the general public. Google is lying to the public even while apologizing to the hypersensitive people offended by popular opinion.

Google returns lots of insulting, defamatory search results. See for example (with SafeSearch off):

george bush
laura bush
bush twins
michele bachmann
ann coulter
glenn beck

Why does google protect Michelle Obama from ridicule? Who else does it protect? Hypersensitive people offended by impious use of the word jew, of course.

Blog

Iran So Far Away

11 Comments

The recent turmoil in Iran and our regime’s reaction to it are of interest even to those of us who aren’t much concerned which hostile alien runs a country full of hostile aliens on the other side of the planet.

For example, contrast the media’s intense interest in iran with it’s interest in the ongoing violence right next door. The Los Angeles Times has written about Mexico’s Drug War, as have others. From their own occasional reports the situation is so out of control they can hardly ignore it. “Mexico Under Siege – The drug war at our doorstep”, “It’s a war. – Mexican President Felipe Calderon”, writes the LAT. Yet despite the occasional splash of recognition nothing much else happens.

When will the regime show some sustained concern, and when will someone in the media ask Obama “what took you so long” to address the war next door, across a border you don’t want to defend?

The answer is never. Or at least not until the regime is toppled.

Violent immigrant aliens, economic crisis, and an outbreak of disease all cause the regime to leap to the defense of the aliens. Meanwhile they officially recognize native Whites as their most feared enemy, even acknowledging that we’re displeased by and reacting to their own behavior. What’s lacking is a broader recognition of the strength and nature of this assault on Whites.

Much of the attention the media has directed toward iran has the curious effect of revealing their double standards on political rights and censorship. In iran we’re told the “cracking down” on people trying to express themselves is a hallmark of totalitarianism and thuggery. Meanwhile at home in the West the same media plays an instrumental role in demonizing “racism” and “hate“.

Attempted Iran media clampdown meets Internet age contains a typical example of the media’s attitude toward iran:

CNN turned in part to the social-networking sites, broadcasting images posted on Facebook and Twitter, and explaining on-air that it was using “creativity” to cover a big event under government restrictions.

“We cannot verify readily some of this material that we’re going to show you,” correspondent David Mattingly warned viewers. Much of the material on Twitter is posted anonymously.

CNN spokeswoman Bridget Leininger said that adding context and explaining issues was necessary when reporting with such online sources. “We are committed to making the most information available in a tough news environment, while being totally transparent with the audience,” she said.

Yes indeed they are committed to using “creativity” to get the word out about the events in an alien country. At home however they demonstrate a decided lack of interest in the squashing of White political free expression. The case of Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle for instance. The Mail’s Race-hate Britons return to UK for sentencing is fairly typical of the sparse, unsympathetic coverage:

Two Britons who fled to the United States after they were accused of waging a campaign of hate against Jews and other minority groups appeared in front of a British court today after they were returned to the UK.

Simon Sheppard, 52, and Stephen Whittle, 42, were convicted of a number of race-hate crimes at Leeds Crown Court following two lengthy trials, the last of which finished in January.

The investigation into the men began when a complaint about a leaflet called ‘Tales of the Holohoax’ was reported to the police in 2004 after it was pushed through the door of a Synagogue in Blackpool.

Here we see evidence, and only after the outcome of the case has been locked down tight, of the single standard behind what only seems to be a double standard. They sing the praises of free expression so that someone, anyone, replaces Mr. Wipe Israel Off the Map, while mostly burying their own disgust with the free expression of Sheppard and Whittle. Whether with iran or the persecution of our own free speaking heretics, the regime is concerned primarily about what’s best for jews. It’s a rhetorical question, but Whose Country Is This Anyway?

Here’s another example of the government and its media being on the same page:

In what appeared to be a coordinated exchange, President Obama called on the Huffington Post’s Nico Pitney near the start of his press conference and requested a question directly about Iran.

“Nico, I know you and all across the Internet, we’ve been seeing a lot of reports coming out of Iran,” Obama said, addressing Pitney. “I know there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?”

Pitney, as if ignoring what Obama had just said, said: “I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian.”

He then noted that the site had solicited questions from people in the country “who were still courageous enough to be communicating online.”

Iranian aliens are able to ask questions of the US president. Iranian aliens are “courageous” to communicate online.

Reporters typically don’t coordinate their questions for the president before press conferences, so it seemed odd that Obama might have an idea what the question would be. Also, it was a departure from White House protocol by calling on The Huffington Post second, in between the AP and Reuters.

The media, the government, and jewish activists (specifically the SPLC) have most assuredly coordinated their own anti-White activities here at home.

Bonnie Erbe, a media heavyweight who just happens to be jewish, responded to an attack in which a single non-jew was killed by calling for the government to Round Up Hate-Promoters Now, Before Any More Holocaust Museum Attacks:

If yesterday’s Holocaust Museum slaying of security guard and national hero Stephen Tyrone Johns is not a clarion call for banning hate speech, I don’t know what is. Playwright Janet Langhart Cohen appeared on CNN yesterday right after the shooting, as she wrote a play that was supposed to have been debuted at the Holocaust Museum last night. Her play is about Emmett Till, whose lynching helped launch the Civil Rights Movement, and Ann Frank, whose diary told the story of Holocaust victims in hiding in the Netherlands during World War II.

She said something must be done about ridding the Internet and the public dialogue of hate speech. I agree.

The regime wants the internet open to iranian aliens (at least for now), and closed to “hate speakers”. In fact silencing “hate” isn’t enough. They want to “Round Up Hate-Promoters Now”. Erbe’s hysterical attitude reveals her own hate. The dishonest and hypocritical language of “hate” provides a politically correct way for jews to openly do themselves, from positions of power, what they constantly accuse powerless “haters” of wanting to do to them. They project their own thoughts onto others and then cry “hate!” It’s disgusting as well as hateful.

Blog

A Censorious Debate

6 Comments

In a post at Oz Conservative titled A curious debate, Mark Richardson writes:

Should the liberal state permit the existence of non-liberal communities? There has been a debate amongst academics in recent years on this issue.

One curious feature of this debate is the concept that the liberal academics have of themselves. They usually take themselves to be free, autonomous individuals leading self-directing and self-chosen lives in contrast to the unreflective, non-liberal individuals in traditional communities.

He quotes an academic named Jacob Levy who questions our right to exist.

Seeking to engage in the debate I used a response from Lawrence Auster as a launching point:

Auster writes:

The signs are gathering that the Western societies are heading into an age of civil wars. Not between white and nonwhite, not between Christian and Muslim, but between liberal whites and non-liberal whites. That’s shaping up as the major divide of our time.

That’s right. Our biggest problem is not muslims. It’s the “liberal whites” who prepared the ground and opened the gates, who enabled the muslims and the rest of the non-White world to invade and rape the West. The “liberal whites” are raping it too.

Western societies have been in an age of treason since the French revolution ended and jewish emancipation began. Here was the first ill-fated deployment of liberal egalitarianism – the recognition of jews and Europeans as equals. This egalitarianism led directly to the emancipation of negroes and the emancipation of women. In 1965 egalitarianism became equalitarianism, which produced civil rights and open borders. This mutated into “non-discrimination”, an Animal Farm-like regime where some groups are more equal than others. We see it today in the elevation and celebration of homosexuals and illegal aliens. Big Lies abound. They come for the jobs! Diversity is our greatest strength! Islam is a religion of peace! But anyone with eyes can see what’s going on. Under the neo-liberal regime all that is deviant, non-White, non-Christian, or non-European is sacrosanct and held in the highest esteem, while all that is traditional, White, Christian, or European is suspect, tainted, held up for scorn and ridicule.

Indeed, the major divide of our time is between neo-liberal “whites” and non-liberal Whites. It’s not so much a civil war as it is a race war. On the one side are the bolshevist, totalitarian, anti-liberal, anti-White “liberal whites”. The hippies, cosmopolitans, plutocrats and globalists who dominate all sides of politics, finance, media, law, and academia. They’re revolutionaries, left and right, whose highest calling is to erase all borders, “mobilize” labor, and “harmonize” the world’s laws. They want world government. One system. Death or the gulag for their critics.

In their way are Whites – the ordinary, unassuming natives of Europe and the descendants of European pioneers elsewhere. We occupy the center politically, divided against each other. We are the middle class economically, our resources outmatched by our corporate- and endowment-funded enemies. We share Main Street, family-oriented values. We’re skeptical of change and wish to be left alone to live, think, speak and worship in peace. Many of us see what the “liberal whites” have been up to and are aghast, appalled, or apoplectic. Some of us see how the “liberals” have now moved beyond pathologizing and gagging us, that they intend to exterminate us via immigration.

What “liberal white” Jacob Levy wrote is just a couched way of saying what “liberal white” Jeremy Hardy put more explicitly:

On the 9th of September, 2004, the Marxist comedian, Jeremy Hardy, said this on the Radio 4 show Speaks to the Nation:

“In some areas of the country the British National Party has been doing quite well electorally…

The BNP are Nazis…

If you just took everyone from the BNP, and everyone who votes for them, and shot them in the back of the head, there would be a brighter future for us all.”

Hardy was not vilified, warned, cautioned or threatened with prosecution for making these remarks.

Or what “liberal white” Susan Sontag (born Rosenblatt) expressed more generally:

Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Balanchine ballets, et al. don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history.

Or what “liberal white” Noel Ignatiev put more bluntly:

“Make no mistake about it,” he says,

“we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed–not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.”

“Liberal whites” who think like this have been in control of the West since WWII ended. They’ve been sending ever louder signals for some time that their “tolerance” for our existence has reached its end. It’s high time we recognized the war they’ve been waging against us and respond.

When I checked back my comment was gone. Mark Richardson explained why:

Taanstafl, I eventually decided to delete your comment, even though there were parts of it written to a high standard.

Your initial description of the political divide was interesting. You wrote that on one side there were:

“The hippies, cosmopolitans, plutocrats and globalists who dominate all sides of politics, finance, media, law, and academia. They’re revolutionaries, left and right, whose highest calling is to erase all borders, “mobilize” labor, and “harmonize” the world’s laws. They want world government. One system.”

But:

“In their way are Whites – the ordinary, unassuming natives of Europe and the descendants of European pioneers elsewhere. We occupy the center politically, divided against each other. We are the middle class economically, our resources outmatched by our corporate- and endowment-funded enemies. We share Main Street, family-oriented values. We’re skeptical of change and wish to be left alone to live, think, speak and worship in peace. Many of us see what the “liberal whites” have been up to and are aghast, appalled, or apoplectic.”

The problem for me is that you then left this larger view of things for a more reductionist one, by suggesting that it is specifically Jews who control the West and that it is they who are no longer willing to tolerate the existence of Christian whites.

I’m ruling this out of bounds for this site. I’m willing to recognise that Jews have been disproportionately represented in the radical movements. However, when nearly the entire political class shares a liberal orthodoxy, I don’t think it’s right, or helpful, to blame one group alone.

Auster responded like so:

On another subject, I note that the comment by Tanstaafl that Mr. Richardson has deleted is very mild compared to his usual anti-Semitic outpourings. Tanstaafl has written, “Jews are my enemy,” and criticized me for, among other things, not directing “all” my criticisms against Jews. The basic Tanstaafl position (and the Darwinian anti-Semitic position) is that everything that Jews or people of Jewish background do and say (including everything that I have ever written) is directed at undermining white gentiles in the interests of Jewish power. The only good Jew, in the anti-Semites’ book, is one who agrees with the anti-Semites’ position that I’ve just summarized.

I am about to post the following. I’m curious to see if it is also considered reductionist, or has some other defect:

Mark, this is your blog and you can delete what you want. If you’d prefer I not post here at all just say the word and I won’t.

Thank you for taking the time to explain why you deleted my previous comment. Obviously it will be harder now for others to judge whether your characterization of it is fair. I was actually trying to expand Auster’s one-dimensional vague assertion about “civil wars” into a deeper view, rooted in history going back generations, and to provide an interpretation linking many of the themes you discuss in isolation elsewhere in your blog. In that respect what I wrote is a synthesis into a more complex whole, not a reduction into simpler parts.

As for Auster, I trust readers will note his very “liberal” smear tactics. If there’s a reductionist view here it is his own – with every problem springing either from “liberals” or “anti-semites”. Like “liberal whites” he believes certain people should not be permitted to express our opinions. Like Jacob Levy he’s capable of rationalizing all sorts of reasons. Unlike Levy, Auster claims to oppose liberalism, so when he gets censorious there’s really only one explanation that makes sense. He resents that I see it and point it out. For example, notice that he’s not nearly as willing to shun and silence “liberals” or to delve into their motives as he is with “anti-semites”.

Prior to his civil war comment above Auster has been describing our predicament as “suicidal white guilt”, as if it is our idea to destroy ourselves, and it sprang from thin air. I consider this an unacceptable libel against my people, offered in bad faith in the interest of protecting his own.

I was trying to contribute to the discussion here and don’t wish to derail it. I’ll gladly continue to debate any of this at my own blog.

The image above is from The Censorious Race.

Blog

The Urge to Purge

34 Comments

There is a blog dedicated to documenting Charles Johnson’s purge of commenters at Little Green Footballs.

The post titled Levi from Queens and the Great Discarded Lizard Chainsaw Massacre of 2008 – Case Study #24 – LGF BANNED AND BLOCKED concerns the banning of several “racists” and “fascists” who dared to speak in favor of “race realists” Lawrence Auster and Ian Jobling.

I left a comment that compared Charles to Auster, noting that they disagree on ethnic European nationalism, but agree on jewish nationalism (it’s good), muslim nationalism (it’s bad), and silencing anyone who vexes them.

Then Ian Jobling dropped by. He linked an ostensibly pro-“white” manifesto in which he writes:

Carrying on the dismal tradition of American white supremacism, most pro-whites today believe our current racial dispossession is due to Jewish influence on the West, if not actual Jewish conspiracies against whites. However, these tired lies conceal the real dynamics of white dispossession, which has been inflicted by white Gentiles on themselves. While it is true that Jews have been inclined towards highly liberal—that is, leukophobic—beliefs, nevertheless more than 90 percent of white racial liberals are Gentiles. Moreover, that Jewish leukophobia could thrive in America suggests that it was a mere extension of something in our national character. For these reasons, the pro-white movement repudiates anti-Semitism and will resolutely oppose the obsession with Jews that poisons and discredits our cause.

Jobling unequivocally blames Whites and absolves jews for any animosity between us. His is a pro-jewish manifesto cloaking itself in “white”. It is cut from the same cloth as Auster’s blame-for-the-“majority” protection-for-the-“minority” double-talk:

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.

With “allies” like Jobling and Auster Whites don’t need enemies.

UPDATE 24 Oct 2008: Thanks to Guessedworker I see Jobling has answered, after a fashion. In Anti-Semites Stink Up Another Discussion Thread he writes:

I left a comment linking to my blog post on the incident and explaining why I’m not a fascist, hoping I might get a decent discussion of race realism going with the moderates who traffic the site. However, it was not to be: I was immediately set upon by a couple of professional anti-Semites named tanstaafl, who runs the blog Age of Treason, and Greg Polden.

Jobling either doesn’t care or is counting on the LGF BANNED thread disappearing, because anyone who’s interested can read for themselves who said what and who set upon who.

Jobling adds very little to what’s already been said. All he presents here is essentially point-and-sputter. He seems to be hoping LGF BANNED will delete the offending thread now that he has declared it “stinked up”. His modus operandus is just like Auster’s. What a coincidence.

I will continue to purge my comment queue of all dire ruminations sent in by tanstaafl and his like.

The urge to purge is strong in this one. I consider myself forewarned and thus will only waste time responding here.

The most substantial thing he wrote was in a comment:

Tanstaafl is referring to the fact that moderates like Johnson support Israel, but neither Islamic fundamentalism nor white nationalism. Since all that tanstaafl can see in politics is conflicts between different ethnic interests, or nationalisms, Johnson’s attitude seems completely nonsensical to him and can only be explained as a result of Jewish brainwashing.

However, once you go outside this absurdly narrow view of human motivations and realize that people’s political views are motivated by many different factors, then Johnson’s views make sense, even if you think they are mistaken. What matters most to moderates like Johnson is democratic, Western values. Since they think Israel exemplifies these values, they are pro-Israel. Since they think neither Islamic fundamentalism nor white nationalism are democratic ideologies, moderates are against them. Nationalism really has nothing to do with this preference; values explain them.

Bottom line: A person’s political outlook is rooted in many different factors, such as political ideology, ethnicity, class, and so forth. If you take a simplistic view of human motivations, the world makes no sense to you and leads you to make an ass of yourself in public.

I’m glad to see I got my point across. Yes, I think ethnic/racial interests are important. More important than class or political ideology. Jews are a perfect example. Despite their class, politics, country of residence, or how much Jobling denies being able to notice – jews just can’t seem to set aside their ethnocentrism.

I am simplistic. I say flat out that I’m pro-White. Jobling and Auster are more complicated, but in a deceptive way. They present themselves as pro-“white”, as “race realists”. But they refuse to distinguish between Whites and jews. And they attack Whites who do distinguish, but not jews.

Going on about “democratic, Western values” while calling for political opponents to be silenced is a good way to make an ass of yourself. If Johnson and Jobling think the jewish ethnostate represents “democratic, Western values” then why do they oppose White ethnostates? If jews do not differ from Whites “in any important respect” then I should be able to move to israel and collect welfare, right? What’s that? My mother has to be jewish? I don’t object. But to demonstrate his consistent values Charles Johnson should either denounce zionists as racists, or he should support White ethno-nationalism like he supports zionism. The latter is especially sensible if he cares for “the West”.

I’ve been deleting a lot of pro-MacDonald comments because their authors show no sign of having read the Lieberman article and are thus incapable of expressing an informed opinion. Anti-Semites show their typical dogmatism by leaping to the defense of MacDonald before they even know what the argument against him is.

Jobling seem to realize at some level that the urge to purge is not right. Thus he tries to transfer responsibility for the problem to those expressing the opinions he wishes to suppress. He makes repeated appeals to psychology…say doctor, heal thyself.

I didn’t mention MacDonald until Jobling did. I agree with and respect much of what MacDonald has written, but what I think and write doesn’t hinge on the truth or falseness of MacDonald’s positions.

Yes, trying to convince the Age of Treason types to take a reasonable view of this issue is like trying to teach a monkey table manners. All you’ll get for your pains is faeces thrown at you.

I’ve taken pains to understand Jobling’s arguments and to use his own logic and phraseology in answering and critcizing him. He can call that feces if he likes.

Blog

Criticized by Auster

8 Comments

This is a continuation of Criticizing Auster. Previously the focus was on how Auster filters and distorts criticism against him. This addresses some of the vitriol Auster has aimed at me.

On 16 August, responding to one of his paranoid correspondents who was complaining about another, Auster tacks this complaint on the end of his criticism of Sailer mentioned in the previous post:

If you read various right-wing websites, and I’m not talking about explicitly white-nationalist sites, but sites that might be called generically paleocon, you will regularly see this kind of thing. And notice that even Gates of Vienna allowed the anti-Semite (“Jews are my enemy”) Tanstaafl to make anti-Semitic attacks on me.

This is a good example of Auster failing to cite what he distorts. I described the Gates of Vienna thread to which he refers in What We Cannot Do.

The administrators and many of the commenters at GoV are openly philo-semitic. But that’s not good enough. Auster expects them to exclude from posting anyone he denounces. For the moment the exchange he characterizes as “anti-semitic attacks” remains intact at What We Can Do. The relevant portions are reproduced here.

Tanstaafl said…

It’s easy to get Auster to make his own “vermin analogies”. All you have to do is examine liberalism a little more deeply than he does.

How did the suicidal dogma of non-discrimination become the ruling value of society after WWII? Where did what Erich calls “the politically correct multi-culturalist (PC MC) paradigm” come from? What does it have to do with cultural marxism? What does that have to do with marxism? How did neo-liberals convince Westerners that the most heinous sins imaginable are racism, sexism, homophobism, and islamophobism? How did they convince us that the older, more traditional sins of materialism, promiscuity, and fraud (among many others) are now values to be celebrated?

More important: why?

Isn’t it odd that in our own homelands the White Christian Western man is the fattest, most politically correct target? Is it because we’re so powerful that we just don’t care, or because we don’t have the power to stop it?

The West’s weakness doesn’t come from neo-liberalism alone. Neo-conservativism also harms us. Neo-cons think it proper to squander the lives of our predominantly White Christian military men by sending them to every corner of the world to keep it safe for plutocracy and to prevent a second holocaust. Not necessarily in that order. Meanwhile they smear as xenophobes any Westerners who want our own streets and borders policed.

The threat is not only from islam. The West has been invaded by the third world. Our neo-lib and neo-con leaders argue and point fingers. They disagree about who to bomb next. But they agree on the third world invasion of the West. They all welcome it, and they side with the invaders. To stop the invasion we Westerners must first and foremost remove from power and prosecute those who have betrayed us. That done we can address our external threats. Otherwise the West will decompose. Either path will be bloody.

Lawrence Auster said…

Tanstaafl writes:

“To stop the [Third World invasion of the West] we Westerners must first and foremost remove from power and prosecute those who have betrayed us. That done we can address our external threats. Otherwise the West will decompose. Either path will be bloody.”

Just so that people can understand where Tanstaafl is coming from, with his calls for the “bloody” prosecution of internal enemies, he wrote a few months ago at his Age of Treason website:

“Jews are not the only enemy, and not all Jews are enemies. I’m not going to sugar coat what I have to say any more than that…. I’m not being coy. I’ve just realized and said flat out Jews are my enemy.”

I commented on the above and had more quotes from Tanstaafl in my article, “I am attacked for not being an anti-Semite.”

The “enemy” statement Auster loves to quote appears in Committing PC’s Most Mortal Sin. It explains exactly where I’m coming from. Many of the neocon Whites at GoV might also come to understand this if and when they ever question the philo-semitic/anti-White double standard that permeates our society and is found even amongst anti-jihadis, traditionalists, and conservatives who purport to defend the West.

I responded to Auster’s insinuations:

Tanstaafl said…

By all means, anyone concerned about the survival of the West who wonders why philo-semitism is good and required but philo-Whitism is seen as silly or racist should look into where I’m coming from and why. In particular you should research and try to understand for yourself the answers to the questions I posed above.

I am pro-White. Auster calls himself an anti-liberal, a traditionalist, but I argue he is, above all other concerns, pro-jew. My criticism of him is not that he doesn’t share my values. My criticism is how he disguises his values and where they conflict with mine. It is most obvious in his fathomless hypocrisy concerning liberalism.

If you suspect that political correctness and multi-culturalism has something to do with the West’s problems you might want to understand where Auster is coming from. You might want to question, as I do, why one half of the West’s jewish/White alliance is considered above reproach while the other half is politically incorrect to defend.

Auster was also criticized for other reasons by other commenters. He quickly retreated to the safety of his tightly-controlled echo chamber and began complaining about GoV – mainly on the grounds that comments he considered lies and attacks on him were not deleted.

In a GoV thread responding to these criticisms, You’re a Bunch of Complete Cranks, I wrote:

Tanstaafl said…

Auster writes:

(There were also anti-Semitic comments about me from another member of the group, the anti-Semite Tanstaafl, though I’ve just read those comments for the first time during my re-reading.)

I wrote that Auster is first and foremost pro-jew. I provided links in support of that claim. The audacity of me.

Auster’s response is exactly analogous to calling a person an islamophobe (ie. they have a mental problem) for recognizing those who are pro-muslim.

Racism, sexism, homophobism, and islamophobism follow logically from the same basis as anti-semitism, which predates them all. Pathologizing the natural need to distinguish between self and other has spawned an entire hate ideology.

Non-jewish White Western men are the most politically correct group to distinguish and attack. How did this happen? Why? Whatever muslims are doing to the West, they didn’t create the PC that provided them access and continues to protect them.

In following other links from this GoV thread I found Auster’s The GoV campaign of personal destruction continues, where he once again fails to cite what he distorts:

A reader writes:

There is not much I can add in your support that others have not already said. But I have removed Gates of Vienna from my blogroll. I am sad to feel the need to do so, because the site started well, has published worthwhile stuff, and I expect it will continue to from time to time. But this latest flap has convinced me it has attracted too many flaming nutters to be good for the anti-Islamist cause. GoV isn’t as depraved as LGF, but appears like it might be headed that way.

As for Tanstaafl, who is now a regular commenter at GoV, today out of curiosity I went to see his blog Age of Treason. Tanstaafl is back to bashing you, as you undoubtedly know. I skimmed a few of his recent postings. The man is truly demented. He’s perhaps been driven around the bend by political correctness and anti-white racism, but for heaven’s sake, we can’t let our opponents ruin our minds. To have any chance of eventually prevailing, we’ve got to keep a sense of proportion and self-discipline.

But Tanstaafl is mild compared to many of his commenters; I felt ill reading them. Possibly I have been naive; I honestly thought old-fashioned anti-Semitic, worldwide-Jewish-conspiracy crackpots were out of business. They are probably less numerous and outspoken than they used to be, but Tanstaafl sure knows how to draw them out of hiding.

It’s discouraging that there are people who are ostensibly on my side of the political spectrum that I want to dissociate myself from, but it can’t be helped.

Hang in there.

LA replies:

“They are probably less numerous and outspoken than they used to be,”

To the contrary, serious anti-Semites are more numerous and outspoken than they used to be. I didn’t even think there was any serious anti-Semitism in this country to speak of until around 1999-2000, when I started becoming aware of it; then, after the 9/11 attack, it really took off.

In any case, the anti-Semite Tanstaafl is now an accepted member of GoV’s Auster anti-fan club. I’ve become GoV’s Goldstein, the source of all evils. Tanstaafl has made openly anti-Semitic statements at GoV, including calling for the “bloody … prosecution” of America’s internal enemies, which elsewhere he makes plain are the Jews. No one there has objected. He has also, at GoV, attacked me as a person of Jewish background. Then when called an anti-Semite (by me), he lies and says he’s only concerned about people who are more “pro-jew” than they are pro-white.

So I am “demented” and many of my commenters are worse. This is just a small sample of how a “campaign of personal destruction” is waged. Ironically, Auster and his friends do this, and excuse themselves for doing so, because they assume this is what I’m doing to him and the jewish people he values and defends more than anything else.

Auster’s words above, presented alongside the words to which he is responding and with links to the original context, demonstrates exactly what I have claimed: that he is first and foremost pro-jew. This priority determines how he interprets criticism. It provides the basis for his own criticism of others. Nothing else matters as much. Not truth, not free expression, not “the majority” (his euphemism for Whites) or their interests.

Accompanying this bias are a paranoia and intellectual dishonesty that run so deep that they enable him to imagine and attribute to me thoughts I do not hold and have never expressed. His emotion so overwhelms his reason that he resorts to the very dishonesty and smearing tactics he decries. His constant complaints about being attacked and his egotistic “source of all evils” rhetoric are pathetic.

Among the many snide little smears that can be found amongst the results returned by that google link was this little brain fart in “Conservatives” who embrace moral liberationism:

Terry Morris writes:

” … the anti-Semite Tanstaafl (who has written, “I’ve just realized and said flat out Jews are my enemy,” and who has become an accepted, chummy member of the GoV discussions, where he has pursued his argument that my real aim is to achieve Jewish ascendancy over the white race),…”

Wait!, is Tanstaafl right? Is your real aim to achieve Jewish ascendancy over the white race, over me, a member of the white race???

Only a vile Auster sycophant cannot see it, right?

Unbelievable!

In the West jews have already achieved ascendancy. In politics and the media the interests of jews trump all others. They certainly trump the interests of Whites. That is why it is de rigueur for our presidential candidates to visit the wailing wall and pledge to protect the people of israel and its border, even as they support open borders and the influx of hostile and disproportionately non-white immigrants to the West. That is why our disproportionately White soldiers are sent overseas to keep the world safe for disproportionately jewish plutocrats. That is why the media is full of anti-Christian and anti-White sentiment and at the same time obsessed with ferreting out anti-semitism.

Auster and most of his sycophants certainly can see this philo-semitic/anti-White double standard clearly enough. They just don’t want to discuss it. They prefer instead to mock and blow whatever smoke they can, hoping that smears and insults and shunning will accomplish what they cannot accomplish in direct confrontation with those who would discuss such things.

LA replies:

If you click on the linked word “accepted,” above, you’ll see where Conservative Swede apologizes to Tanstaafl for having called him a nutcase. The reason Swede called him a nutcase was to dissociate himself from Tanstaafl, since I had humorously joined them together when I pointed out the ironic contrasts between their respective cases against me.

I wrote:

Conservative Swede claims that I’m a phony defender of the West, because I really just care about asserting traditionalist Christianity and putting down secular liberalism.

Meanwhile, the anti-Semite Tanstaafl claims that I’m a phony defender of the West, because I really just care about defending the Jews and putting down whites.

To which Swede replied:

As usually instead of engaging in discussion you lower yourself into attacking the character of your interlocutors. The fact that an anti-Semitic nutcase appeared in this thread does not make my argument less valid.

A little later Swede felt he had been unfair to Tanstaafl and wrote:

I would also like to say that I’m sorry for having referred to Tanstaafl above as a “nutcase.” That was unfair and uncalled for, the unfortunate result of hasty writing.

Swede doesn’t apologize for having called Tanstaafl “anti-Semitic,” but he does very politely apologize to him, thus showing that he considers him a welcome participant in the discussion.

Note also Swede’s classic, off-the-planet mischaracterization of what I said about him. I summed up his argument against me in this way: “that I’m a phony defender of the West, because I really just care about asserting traditionalist Christianity and putting down secular liberalism.” Yet Swede describes this accurate and objective summary of his own argument as “attacking the character of your interlocutors.”

And that catches in a nutshell the level of the GoV anti-Auster lynch mob. I make logical, legitimate statements (in this case merely describing my opponent’s position), and in return they say that I’m attacking their character, smearing them, and so on.

And that catches in a nutshell the level of Auster’s hypocrisy. To use his own standard… at GoV I merely described his position as pro-jew, provided examples and argument to back that assertion up, and he responded by attacking my character, smearing me, and so on.

Before and since he has also made all manner of absurd misrepresentations – that I accuse him of not being an anti-semite or being a fifth columnist, and here of being a phony defender of the West and putting down Whites. At least he finally mentioned and got one criticism partly right: that he “really just care(s) about defending the Jews”. By the hyperbole in which he wraps it however he seems to be denying it is true.

Auster’s “lynch mob” discussion continues with comments from someone who claims to have read the GoV “thread that degenerated into base anti-Semitism” and the “kooky fools over at Age of Treason” and how this shows “how large elements of the conservative movement have acquiesced to liberalism”. For all of Age of Treason’s flaws I don’t regret not having someone that weak-minded comment here. I also don’t envy Auster’s ignoble task of managing a growing blacklist and meticulously editing and posting comments that so blatantly regurgitate his own propaganda. But it does seem to satisfy him.