Tag Archives: genocide

Blog

Genocidal Immigrationists

9 Comments

Or immigration genocidalists. Either phrase captures the meaning of the point I’m going to make here.

Several items in the news recently provide strong indications that our hostile, illegitimate rulers are preparing to once again foist amnesty and more aliens upon us. Whether they succeed or not hardly matters in the long term. The West is already brimming with aliens. Many are illegal and most are producing babies at a faster rate than the natives. Even so, legitimizing those aliens and inviting more is one of the highest priorities of our ruling class. After being rebuffed in their last treacherous attempt in the US in 2007 the housing bubble burst. Obviously then, at least to bubblists, a big part of getting the Holy Global Economy back on track is to jack up the already unprecedented migration of human herds to ever more unprecedented levels.

I wrote about one of the signs of this preparation in my last post, Now the NYT Wants to Talk About Immigration. Below are several more.

– – –

In October 2008 the Sunday Express article titled Secret plot to let 50million African workers into EU revealed:

A controversial taxpayer-funded “job centre” opened in Mali this week is just the first step towards promoting “free movement of people in Africa and the EU”.

Brussels economists claim Britain and other EU states will “need” 56 million immigrant workers between them by 2050 to make up for the “demographic decline” due to falling birth rates and rising death rates across Europe. 

The report, by the EU statistical agency Eurostat, warns that vast numbers of migrants could be needed to meet the shortfall in two years if Europe is to have a hope of funding the pension and health needs of its growing elderly population.

It states: “Countries with low fertility rates could require a significant number of immigrants over the coming dec­ades if they want to maintain the existing number of people of working age. 

“Having sufficient people of working age is vital for the economy and for tax revenue.” 

The report, by French MEP Francoise Castex, calls for immigrants to be given legal rights and access to social welfare provision such as benefits. 

Ms Castex said: “It is urgent that member states have a calm approach to immigration. To say ‘yes’, we need immigration … it is not a new development, we must accept it.”

No. We do not need immigration, we know this treachery is not new, and no we don’t have to accept it. And by “we” I mean as in “We the People”, as opposed to the royal “we” bureaucratic servants of the plutocrats are wont to use.

The proposals include the creation of a “blue card” system, based on the American green card, that provides full working and welfare rights.

Blue card holders would be entitled to move freely across the EU, setting up home in any of the 27 member states.

This is how a bait-and-switch works. First they create the EU, telling everyone what an advantage it will be for Europeans to visit each other. Then they make Africa part of the EU. Et voila, métissage EU-wide! Instead of co-opting the elected leaders of 27 countries all the immigrationists had to do was co-opt one. They may be genocidal, but they’re not stupid.

The proposals – part of the Africa-EU Partnership signed in Portugal last December – also warns of the negative effects of mass immigration and calls for “better integration of African migrants”.

It calls too for a compassionate approach to the eight million illegal immigrants already living in the EU.

It states: “Irregular migrants must not be treated like criminals. Many risk their lives seeking freedom or the means of subsistence in Europe. As long as the EU has a higher standard of living than those countries to its south and east, the temptation to come will exist – especially if there are jobs to be had.”

Eight million invaders and umpteen million guest aliens isn’t genocidal enough for the immigrationists.

If our leaders were not hostile toward us then this concern they constantly express for the well-being of “migrants”, “irregular” and otherwise, would instead be directed at least once in a while toward the natives. In the past this “there are jobs to be had” line was a dishonest way of saying “there are wages to be lowered”. Today, with jobs evaporating, it’s a dishonest way of saying “jobs, schmobs, all we care about is getting more africans into Europe”.

The declaration calls on the EU to assist African governments to set up migration information centres “to better manage labour mobility bet­ween Africa and the EU”.

One of the “negative effects of mass immigration” is that it lowers the quality of living of the natives and depresses their rate of reproduction. In consciously pursuing a policy that assists non-European “migration” and “labour mobility” the EU is perpetrating genocide on Europe’s native people.

– – –

Today in Tom Friedman disses Mexicans Steve Sailer links Friedman’s The Open-Door Bailout:

“All you need to do is grant visas to two million Indians, Chinese and Koreans,” said Shekhar Gupta, editor of The Indian Express newspaper. “We will buy up all the subprime homes. We will work 18 hours a day to pay for them. We will immediately improve your savings rate — no Indian bank today has more than 2 percent nonperforming loans because not paying your mortgage is considered shameful here. And we will start new companies to create our own jobs and jobs for more Americans.”

While his tongue was slightly in cheek, Gupta and many other Indian business people I spoke to this week were trying to make a point that sometimes non-Americans can make best: “Dear America, please remember how you got to be the wealthiest country in history. It wasn’t through protectionism, or state-owned banks or fearing free trade. No, the formula was very simple: build this really flexible, really open economy, tolerate creative destruction so dead capital is quickly redeployed to better ideas and companies, pour into it the most diverse, smart and energetic immigrants from every corner of the world and then stir and repeat, stir and repeat, stir and repeat, stir and repeat.”

How very slick of him to attribute the idea, and the backlash, to Gupta. Note however that Friedman quotes his own imagination in the second paragraph. The hooey about creative destruction and dead capital might smell less fragrant if it weren’t being spouted in the wake of a trillion dollar save-the-financiers bailout, a trillion dollar printing frenzy by the Fed, and a multi-trillion dollar save-the-financiers stimulation. And that’s in just the last six months. Imagine what kind of wage-slave-funded prizes the coming months hold for our wealthiest risk-takers.

In truth what fuels the “open economy”, and what the financiers really want, is much closer to what Gupta describes. Billions of little worker bees, working their little hearts out for the profit of rootless cosmopolitan bankers who have no scruples whatsoever about saying whatever they have to to keep the whole rotten scheme rolling. Gupta isn’t trying to sell his idea to the American public. He’s selling it to our hostile rulers. Through propaganda like Friedman’s (stir and repeat) nearly everyone is convinced that America is a big multicult corporation, and “wealth” is the only measure of what is good and right.

Friedman goes on to complain about restrictions on using bailout money to hire H-1B visa holders:

In an age when attracting the first-round intellectual draft choices from around the world is the most important competitive advantage a knowledge economy can have, why would we add barriers against such brainpower — anywhere? That’s called “Old Europe.” That’s spelled: S-T-U-P-I-D.

There’s a part of “Old Europe” these immigrationists seem very eager to reproduce across the entire West. It’s spelled: B-A-L-K-A-N-S.

The fantasy Friedman has for America already exists in San Diego. As recently as 25 years ago San Diego and it’s suburbs were populated mostly by conservative Whites with small town values. The blacks and latinos lived in enclaves. Today it’s one giant sprawl. The Whites who remain are mostly liberals who live in gated enclaves. The older communities have fractured and shrank faster than new ones could be built. Whites have been fleeing this dystopia for years but with the bubble bursting and a bankrupt government in denial the trend will accelerate. Replacing us is a tossed salad of aliens flowing in from every corner of the planet who want their piece of America.

The latinos dominate numerically, and once they’re legalized they’ll dominate politically too, as they already do in Lost Angeles. Lunch time at the food court in Sorrento Valley (home of Qualcomm and other high-tech employers) is a thoroughly multicult experience. A glimpse of what Friedman desires. It consists of predominantly latino food servers and custodians, supervised predominantly by middle easterners, serving a wide variety of foreign cuisine to a geeky clientele whose racial ratio is roughly 7-3-2-1 indians/pakis-“white”-chinese-other. By my inexpert eye a large fraction of the “whites” are related to Friedman.

“If you do this [H-1B hiring restriction], it will be one of the best things for India and one of the worst for Americans, [because] Indians will be forced to innovate at home,” said Subhash B. Dhar, a member of the executive council that runs Infosys, the well-known Indian technology company that sends Indian workers to the U.S. to support a wide range of firms. “We protected our jobs for many years and look where it got us. Do you know that for an Indian company, it is still easier to do business with a company in the U.S. than it is to do business today with another Indian state?”

Each Indian state tries to protect its little economy with its own rules. America should not be trying to copy that. “Your attitude,” said Dhar, should be “ ‘whoever can make us competitive and dominant, let’s bring them in.’ ”

This indian technocrat wants us to think he wants us to do something bad for his relatives. Hire them. Keep them from enriching india. Uh huh. Right. Remember this pitch isn’t aimed at the typical American, it’s aimed at our treacherous ruling class. “If you don’t hire us we’re going to compete with you!” That isn’t a threat, it’s a lame attempt to take American jobs without competing and to move into our nice society without having to create one of their own. They have the internet in india. They can do these “knowledge economy” jobs there. The cost of living is much cheaper. But who could blame them for not wanting to live in Mumbai? Of course they want to live in the kind of society Whites produce. Everyone does. They prove it every time they scream in our faces over the prospect that we might keep them out. The big problem for all of us is that wherever enough mexicans, indians, or chinese collect you get mexico, india, or china. Where they mix you get something like San Diego circa 2009. The weather is nice, but it’s not America.

Message to Tom Friedman, the NYT, and all the rest of you genocidal freaks: It doesn’t matter to me whether you think importing latinos, indians, chinese, or koreans is “profitable”. It’s destroying my society. I’d rather be poor, unemployed, and starving – and keep my society.

One last thing. Notice how Friedman appeals to “competitive advantage” and Dhar appeals to “competitive and dominant”. It echoes the “competition” rhetoric Obama occasionally used on the campaign trail. The weird thing about these globalists is they never explain who “us” is or who “we” are competing against. In fact most of the time they’re saying competition is a bad thing, “we” are all the same, and “we” don’t need borders.

– – –

The last item is Progress by Pesach:

Progress by Pesach is endorsed nationally by American Jewish Committee (AJC), Anti-Defamation League (ADL), B’nai B’rith International, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA), Jewish Reconstructionist Federation (JRF), National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW), The Rabbinical Assembly, Union for Reform Judaism, and Uri l’Tzedek: The Orthodox Social Justice Movement . Progress by Pesach is endorsed locally by Am Kolel Jewish Renewal Center (Rockville/Beallsville, MD), Jewish Community Action (St. Paul, MN), Jewish Community Relations Council of Southern Arizona (Tucson, AZ), Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington (Rockville, MD), Jewish Council on Urban Affairs (Chicago, IL), Jews for Racial and Economic Justice (New York, NY), Jews United for Justice (Washington, DC), MIKLAT! A Jewish Response to Displacement (Milwaukee, WI), and the Progressive Jewish Alliance (Los Angeles, CA).

Progress by Pesach is the national Jewish campaign to encourage the new administration and congress to choose humanitarian immigration reform over the failed policy of exclusively relying on raids and enforcement tactics as a means of controlling immigration.

Passover is a time when we celebrate our freedom from bondage and remember when we were strangers in a strange land. Connecting our history to the struggles of immigrants today is the inspiration behind Progress by Pesach.

From Patrick Cleburne comes The Kvetcher: Who the hell do these Jews think they are?

Kvetcher’s post is titled Jewish Far-Leftist Boasts Goal of ‘Progress By Pesach’ is to Thwart the Will of the Majority Population! He writes:

I would love to declare that people like Rosenthal do not represent the mainstream Jewish organizations. But how can I reasonably claim that? Look at their “partners” list. These aren’t only radical and consistently shrill organizations…there are also mainstream Jewish organization that have signed on as well.

Who the hell do these Jews think they are?

Cleburne writes:

The Kvetcher’s Blog is inwardly directed to the Jewish community. In that respect, it could be very valuable. I appeal to VDARE.com’s unjewish friends not to intervene. The Kvetcher has his hands more than full.

No intervention here. I’d just like to echo Kvetcher’s question. I’ll take it one step farther and say I’d really like to live in an ethnostate with a big concrete wall around it. And I’d like it by Easter. Got that Obama? Short of that I’d like to encourage these oh-so-self-righteous Pesachers to choose to progress themselves over to israel and take up their important humanitarian immigration reform work there. After all, israel is a nation of immigrants. They should be looking for whoever can make them competitive and dominant. Stir and repeat, stir and repeat.

– – –

The comment I left on Sailer’s post regarding Friedman reads:

Being a world-class progressivist-globalist economist is simple. There’s only one principle to remember. It holds under all circumstances – boom, crash, or in between.

“We need more immigrants.”

Of course we need more immigrants like we need more gangs, more shortages, more diseases, more crowding, more deficits, more taxes, more slums, more distrust, and more violence.

We need immigrants like we need more houses and less farmland, woods, marsh, and wildlife. The rationale, such as it is, was described by Sailer in The circular logic of the bubble economy, 2002-2007:

Hire illegal aliens to build new houses in the exurbs for people wanting to get their kids out of school districts overwhelmed by the children of illegal aliens.

Except the circular logic didn’t stop in 2007 and it isn’t restricted to illegals. It transcends bubbles. It transcends parties. It’s hard to imagine anything that would stop it – unless enough people recognize it for what it is: a crime of monstrous proportions.

It’s difficult for that to happen because the media aids and abets the crime by downplaying its importance and pathologizing the opposition.

The crime is a pyramid scheme motivated in part by greed and in part by malice. Those who believe in limitless growth, regardless of the costs, are frauds. Those who believe in limitless immigration, regardless of the consequences and over the objections of the natives it is displacing and dispossessing, are genocidal maniacs.

Blog

How Does Racism Harm Whites

22 Comments

I encountered this question several days ago on a blog called Resist racism:

I asked this question once in a seminar full of white people. Got no answers. Have you got one?

I read the responses and noticed that none addressed what seemed to me the most obvious answer. So I left the following comment:

How does “racism” harm Whites? Isn’t it obvious? It’s a weapon specifically crafted and primarily used against Whites! You didn’t get an answer at your seminar because most Whites fear that saying as much will cost them their employment and/or social standing. To be White and to complain about racism only gets you accused of racism. Duh. Was it a “diversity” seminar? Double duh.

The idea of racism, especially the version promoted by “anti-racists”, is actually anti-Whitism, as this blog and so many of the comments here confirm. The obvious harm to Whites is that the oh so politically correct scapegoating and verbal hatred eventually seeps into some of the weaker minds, creating a depraved and dehumanized image of Whites that justifies outright discrimination and assault.

Consider item 4 in Kim’s comment above from October 29, 2007 at 1:14 pm. What makes a 12-year-old attack a stranger just because they are of another race? Race-based hatred placed in their head by their parents, teachers, and role models. Where is the hate coming from today? It’s coming from anti-racists in the blogosphere, in politics, the media, and in academia, and it’s directed entirely at Whites.

“Racism” has been used to silence and shame and disarm Whites in their own homelands. Homelands that, because Whites are now defenseless, have been thoroughly colonized by non-whites. Non-whites who detest Whites. And of course the reeeaaal reason for immigration is because Whites are just lazy and greedy and want to exploit the immigrants. In other words the immigration that’s costing Whites their jobs and raising their taxes is really just another good reason to blame and hate Whites!

Whites are lectured by anti-racists that their forefathers’ treatment of non-whites was wrong. Then we are told by anti-racists that we deserve similar mistreatment, today, by virtue of the fact that we had the wrong colored forefathers. Any objection is called “racist” – and is further proof of “privilege” that is taken to justify the harm being done to us. What people do not resent aliens moving into and disrupting their communities, telling them what they can say and do, telling them their race is evil, and especially so if they speak against aliens? If that’s a crime then every race on the planet is guilty of it.

But anti-racists say only Whites can be “racist”, which we are told every day is the most evil thing a person can be. We are told Whites are so thoroughly “racist” that many are not even aware of it! By simply socializing with other Whites or complaining about race-based mistreatment Whites simply demonstrate their guilt. The only out is to renounce Whites and join non-whites in attacking Whites who will not do so – just as the pathetic self-hating whites here are doing.

As with my sortie against the reality-based totalitarians at Pandagon, described in Anti-Racism and its Genocidal Fanatics, I posted on topic and crapped squarely on the fundaments of Resist racism’s unreality-based fundamentalism. Then I watched and waited for a response. Nobody wrote but some days later my comment just disappeared. I noticed yesterday and reposted it. It’s gone again.

One of the many commenters on the original post is Tim Wise:

Wise is the author of White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son, and Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White. A collection of his essays, Speaking Treason Fluently: Anti-Racist Reflections From an Angry White Male, will be published in the fall of 2008. He has contributed chapters or essays to twenty books, and is one of several persons featured in White Men Challenging Racism: Thirty-Five Personal Stories, from Duke University Press. He received the 2001 British Diversity Award for best feature essay on race issues, and his writings have appeared in dozens of popular, professional and scholarly journals. Wise has also been a featured guest on hundreds of radio and television programs worldwide.

So here we have an archetypical anti-Whitist – an “anti-racist” whose income and acclaim derive from his tireless efforts to validate and channel resentment and hatred toward Whites. A race “scholar” whose peculiar scholarship is scapegoating Whites. Precisely the kind of anti-White anti-racist I was referring to in my comment.

It may be useful to know that Wise is jewish, not White. And like other prominent anti-White jews he seems to thrive on confusion and hypocrisy. For example consider what he writes at Resist racism:

Though it is certainly true that racism’s impact on whites is far less than that on people of color, there are several serious injuries to whites (call it “collateral damage” for lack of a better phrase) that come from white supremacy and privilege. The ones already mentioned are good ones, but here are some more:

1. Racism and white privilege/supremacy have served to trick working class white folks (the majority) into believing their interests were racial rather than economic/social, etc. The whole history of whiteness as a concept was created to divide and conquer class-based coalitions of Europeans and Africans in the colonies of what became the U.S. Instead of providing decent jobs, land and working conditions, the elite extended skin privilege to euros, no matter how poor, so as to get them on the “white” team. After these benefits were created (the right to own a little property, to serve on slave patrols, etc), rebellions diminished greatly. The divide and conquer worked. In the civil war, this same race privilege and identification with the elite on the part of working class and piss-poor whites led them to go off and fight to maintain rich folks’ property interests in slaves. Ironic, since the slave system actually undermined the wage base of working class whites (think about it, if I have to charge you a dollar a day to work on your plantation but you can get someone who is enslaved to do it for free, guess who gets the gig?). Then in the early days of the union movement, white labor leaders elevated whiteness above class interests by barring folks of color from their unions (supposedly to maintain the “professionalism” of the working class). This meant their unions were smaller, weaker and less militant, to the detriment of working people everywhere. So, historically, white privilege and racism against people of color has created an alternative form of property for whites (whiteness) which may pay psychological dividends, to be sure, and material ones too in a relative sense, vis a vis people of color, but which comes at the direct expense of their overall well being.

2. Racism and white privilege/supremacy generates a mindset of entitlement among those in the dominant group. This entitlement mentality can prove dangerous, whenever the expectations of a member of the group are frustrated. Principally this is because such persons develop very weak coping skills as a result of never having to overcome the obstacles that oppressed folks deal with every day and MUST conquer in order to survive. SO, as a result, it is the privileged (the beneficiaries of racism, and also, it should be pointed out, the class system) who are ill-prepared for setback: the loss of a job, stocks taking a nose-dive (who were the folks jumping out the windows in the great depression–not poor folks and folks of color, but rich whites who couldn’t handle being broke!) Likewise, if you look at the various personal pathologies that tend to be disproportionate in the white community (and upper middle class for that matter) they are interesting in that they all are about control–controlling one’s anxiety, emotional pain, or controlling and dominating others–like suicide, substance abuse, eating disorders, self-injury/mutilation, serial killing and mass murder (as opposed to just regular one-on-one homicide), sexual sadism killings, etc. Now, think about it, which group would be most likely to manifest a control pathology: the group that had never been in control, or the ones who always had been, and had long felt entitled to be, but who then had their expectations frustrated and snapped. Think Columbine (and the vast majority of the mass murder school shootings, for that matter–Va Tech was an exception to the rule on these things).

3. Not knowing how the world works is dangerous. White privilege and racism allow the dominant group to live in a bubble of unreality. Most days that’s no big deal I suppose. But every now and then reality intrudes on you and if you haven’t been expecting it, the trauma is magnified. So, when 9/11 happened, millions of whites were running around saying “why do they hate us?” because whites have never had to see our nation the way others do–we’ve been able to live in la-la land. But folks of color didn’t say this, because those without privilege HAVE to know what others think about them. Not to do so is to be in perpetual danger. So whites flipped out, and by virtue of being unprepared, pushed for a policy response (war) that folks of color were HIGHLY skeptical of from the beginning. But whites, enthralled by our sense of righteousness (itself a manifestation of privilege), pushed forward, convinced that the war in Iraq would go swimmingly. How’s that working out?

In other words, racism and privilege generate mentalities and policies that are dysfunctional, even deadly for whites as with folks of color. Folks of color are the first victims, to be sure, and the worst. But as someone else said, what goes around…

There is more I could say here, but these are a few of the key points I try to make when speaking about these issues, and in the re-write to my book White Like Me.

Wise says “white privilege” and “racism” are why non-whites hate us, and that White cluelessness about this is just one more way we demonstrate how racist and evil we are. The argument is circular, but I take Wise at his word. His hostility toward Whites comes through clearly.

Read his comment above again but now try to imagine he’s casting similar aspersions on a group other than Whites. Try to imagine him for instance criticizing jewish privilege – the privilege to criticize everybody else, as harshly as you please, coupled with the magical power to deflect any criticism of yourself by calling it irrational anti-semitism – that special form of racism only a special race can suffer. You know, a real privilege, codified in various forms throughout the West.

We don’t have to imagine how Wise would answer this. He already has. In PARANOID PREJUDICE: Debunking the ‘Jewish Conspiracy’ Wise not only dismisses concerns about wealthy, influential, and privileged jews – he thinks blaming jews is just another way “whites” express hate:

That’s when my Internet penpals turn to the real source of their hatred and offer up what they consider the ultimate refutation of anything I have previously written: Namely, I am a Jew (usually a “dirty” one at that, they being quick with the adjectives), and this explains my desire, as they put it to “destroy the white race.”

To this way of thinking (and I use “thinking” with caution here), Jews seek to destroy white unity via multiculturalism, immigration and affirmative action, so as to weaken the resistance of the white majority, thereby increasing our own power.

Although most Jews in America are from Europe, we do not qualify as white in this view, but rather as the ultimate social, cultural, and even genetic threat to white survival.

We are, in other words, viewed as a biological pollutant in the body politic.

“Destroy the white race” is how Noel Ignatiev describes his goal, using much the same “privilege” and “racism” rhetoric as Tim Wise. The idea of racism was derived from the idea of anti-semitism. Magnus Hirshfeld was among the first to popularize it. All three men share these ideas, and an animosity toward Whites. Whether or not they are “dirty” isn’t important. That they are White-hating jews is. The White-hating part being self-evident, the jew part being not-so-evident but greatly helping to explain the former.

To the classic anti-anti-semitic way of thinking (and I use “thinking” with caution here), Whites who criticize jews who harm Whites are a special and completely irrational type of racist called an “anti-semite”. In bigoted anti-anti-semitic minds there are no valid reasons to criticize jews whatsoever. But they feel free to criticize “whites” all day long. In fact, since “white” is just a social construct, and more than that, a monstrous social construct responsible for all the ills of the Western world and beyond, you can imagine all sorts of dastardly motives that make “whites” tick. You can blame today’s “whites” for the evil deeds of any “white” in recorded history. Read some Ignatiev or Wise. This is what they do.

Accuse Whites of imaginary “privileges” and your opinions will appear in dozens of popular, professional and scholarly journals. You’ll also be a featured guest on hundreds of radio and television programs worldwide. Accuse jews of blowing the holocaust out of proportion, or having wildly disproportionate representation and influence in finance, media, politics – or leading destructive ideologies – and well that’s just crazy talk, paranoid prejudice. At least that’s how privilege expert Wise sees it.

The belief that the Holocaust of European Jewry never happened, for example, which would have been considered prima facie evidence of cerebral damage just a few decades ago, is now widespread throughout parts of Europe. Likewise, beliefs that Jews control the media and U.S. economy are increasingly heard on the Internet and elsewhere.

So let us now dispense with the nonsense about Jewish power. The idea that we run everything as evidenced by our “overrepresentation” in media and finance is nothing short of insane, even based on the “evidence” for such a claim marshaled by those who believe it.

The same faculties the anti-racist Wise uses to concoct bogus reasons to blame Whites for harming everyone, including themselves, the anti-anti-semite Wise uses to concoct bogus reasons to excuse jews. There’s no contradiction. These are two sides of the same coin polluting the body politic: Whites can do no right, jews can do no wrong.

– – –

How does “racism” harm Whites? It’s a weapon non-whites, and especially jews, have used for decades. It’s being used to justify our genocide, it will eventually cause our genocide, and then it will be used to excuse those responsible for our genocide.

Blog

Anti-Racism and its Genocidal Fanatics

28 Comments

Today I have some lengthy comments about a disturbing phenomena in the reality-based community:

Reality-based community is a popular term among liberal political commentators in the United States. In the fall of 2004, the phrase “proud member of the reality-based community,” was first used to suggest the commentator’s opinions are based more on observation than faith, assumption, or ideology and that others who disagree are unrealistic. The term has been defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from [their] judicious study of discernible reality.” Some commentators have gone as far as to suggest that there is an overarching conflict in society between the reality-based community and the “faith-based community” as a whole. It can be seen as an example of political framing.

In my previous post I noted a particularly egregious example of naked anti-Whitism that occurred in prime time on national cable television. I looked for and easily found several “reality-based” web sites that also considered this event notable. They also saw it as an opportunity to vent some anti-White hate. In the days afterward I went over to comment.

The title of the Drum post was David Gergen Speaks Truth – Denounce Racist Vote. Karoli, the blogger there, is a woman who is convinced of three things: racism is bad, Whites whose vote is affected by race are racists, and non-whites who behave likewise are not. This is anti-Whitism, of course, and several visitors besides myself tried to talk some sense into her. Throughout the exchange she was civil but unmoved. In the end she acknowledged that she didn’t have a problem with black votes being based on race, and cited historic White oppression of blacks as the reason. She then closed the thread.

I have two points I would have posted in response. First, I reject this race-based guilt. What happened in generations past between other people is not my fault nor my responsibility to set right. I care more about injustices taking place in the here and now. Second, it is absurd to expect that any people should not speak or vote or act in what they perceive to be their best interests, nor that they band together by whatever criteria they choose, whether genetic (eg. by race) or memetic (eg. by ideology).

Since coming to this understanding of race and politics I do not begrudge non-whites for planning and acting cohesively to further the interests of their groups, and thereby themselves. I consider the fact that they do so perfectly normal human behavior with a precedent that stretches back to the beginnings of history and probably beyond.

What is indefensible from this racial-political point of view is that a particular group, my group, should be singled out and held to a different standard. This is exactly what the “frame” known as anti-racism does to Whites.

Anti-racism is based on the idea that “racism” is bad. “Racism”, however, means different things to different people. Here’s what Sam Francis had to say about the origins of the word racism.

I believe these roots of the word racism are unknown to most. It is also generally not considered polite to point out that prior to the 1930s the notion that the human species was divided along racial lines was not controversial. Throughout history races most often lived separately (which is how they developed in the first place) and this was considered a good thing because often when races came together there was strife. I believe people back then recognized significant differences between the races, and they attributed the strife to these differences.

Today the thinking has changed radically. It is now generally considered wrong and hateful to speak of race in such terms. If you do so then you are considered to be the cause of racial strife. We must disown or bury any such things great men of the past may have said. See here how the text of the Immigration Act of 1790 is piled under pages of superfluous information about Ellis Island, the Statue of Liberty, Emma Lazarus, and a summary of the entire history of immigration. All the way at the end is the actual text, which begins:

Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104) (Excerpts) That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof. . .

Such thoughts, even in historic documents, even when expressed without malice, are today considered “racism”. Someone who thinks such thoughts is called a “racist” – a stereotype that implies they are psychologically infirm, intellectually deficient, intolerantly bigoted, and prone to violence. The word racist is almost always intended and taken as a slur, and it is very often used deliberately, to put it in the terms of the reality-based community, as a means of dehumanizing anyone so smeared.

As destructive as they know the label is, some apply it with great abandon. Anti-racists who wouldn’t dream of calling someone lazy or weak or a whore (that might hurt their self-esteem!) will, just like that, call someone a racist. Nobody wants to be called a racist. We all realize how poorly racists are treated. And yet so many anti-racists are on hair trigger, ready to use the word on anyone they think is saying or thinking incorrectly.

It would be bad enough if this pathologizing of speech and thought were codified and applied equally to all who spoke in certain ways about race. But it isn’t. Whites and non-whites are subject to different sets of constantly changing unwritten rules. Over time it is becoming ever more acceptable for non-whites to criticize Whites, and ever less acceptable for Whites to criticize non-whites. Many anti-racists today unabashedly defend the idea that only Whites can be racists. In fact the anti-racism “frame” now includes the view that Whites are inherently racist. That’s why when racial friction or differences arise Whites are the ones who so often get the blame.

The anti-racist frame-builders give their White blame mechanisms different names. One of them is called institutional racism:

Institutional racism (or structural racism or systemic racism) refers to a form of racism which occurs specifically in institutions such as public bodies, corporations, and universities. The term was coined by black nationalist, pan-Africanist and honorary prime minister of the Black Panther Party, Stokely Carmichael.

It seems anti-racists do not think pan-Africanism or black nationalism are racist. Yet these ideologies are overtly concerned with the benefit of a particular race, certainly more overtly than any public body, corporation, or university I’m aware of. Except maybe Howard University and McDonalds. Can an anti-racist please point me to a “white university”, or special corporate websites celebrating Whites?

Another such mechanism is called symbolic racism:

Symbolic racism means believing that African American poverty and other problems are largely the result of lack of ambition and effort, rather than white racism and discrimination. Who holds symbolically racist beliefs? A relatively large portion of white voters in general and white working-class voters in particular. . .

So? CNN pundits and liberal bloggers think White poverty and other problems are largely the result of ignorance. They think Whites, or “rednecks” according to David Gergen, don’t vote for Obama because they’re “under-educated”. Alan Abramowitz says White voters are “symbolic racists” because they think more highly of blacks than media pundits like himself think of Whites. After all, the polls show Whites blame black problems on lack of ambition and effort. Ignorance was probably considered too rude to either provide in the poll or select. Could Abramowitz supply the results of black polling? I’m curious what blacks believe causes White success. Do they think it’s racism? Given the constant White = racist barrage from the media doesn’t everybody think that?

I’d like to take the opportunity here to point out how odd it is that mainstream writers like Abramowitz make a point of capitalizing words like Latino, Asian, Jew, or African American, but never white. After all, it’s just a skin color, right? Perhaps you noticed I do the opposite. Now you know why.

This survey of anti-racist anti-Whitism could go on for quite a while, but I’ll stop here with White privilege:

White privilege is a sociological concept which describes advantages enjoyed by white persons beyond what is commonly experienced by the non-white people in those same social spaces (nation, community, workplace, etc.). It differs from racism or prejudice in that a person benefiting from white privilege does not necessarily hold racist beliefs or prejudices themselves. Often, the person benefiting is unaware of his or her privilege.

Here we see some naked “framing” – the deliberate construction of a concept that makes no effort to hide the anti-White agenda. The idea here is that even Whites who do nothing overt that might conceivably be called racism are still racists if they socialize primarily with Whites. If this is a priviledge then it is a common privilege easily found amongst any race. To single out and demonize Whites for such behaviour is not “fighting racism”. It is a racially motivated attack against Whites.

At a blog called WhitePrivilege, whose slogan is “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity”, there is a five-year-old exchange between the blogger and a pro-White using the pseudonym Rurik. Rurik does a wonderful job trying to reason with the anti-White blogger, who for his part appears willfully blind to his anti-Whitism. The exchange contains many of the classic arguments on both sides. At the end a self-righteous jew appears, but not to say “hey, as a jew, I know a bit about defamation, and what this White fellow says is right, you are defaming Whites, it’s dangerous and you should stop it”. Instead he says:

To “Rurik” (who refrains from using his name for fear of being spotted by anyone as a racist and anti-Semite),

The more I read the back-and-forth banter between you and Mr. Clark, the more horrified I am with the idea of people like you exist in my country, doing frightening things such as voting or breeding.

In other words this proud jew favors race-based disenfranchisement and sterilization – for Whites! Following this, presumably to justify his anti-White sentiments (just like Karoli) follow dozens of lines of kvetching about past persecution of jews and blacks.

If race is a social construct as the anti-racists say, then how is it that my Whiteness, and that alone, makes me responsible for enslaving blacks, genociding indians, and gassing jews? If we take anti-racists at their word then clearly they are constructing these responsibilities.

Hopefully I’ve made a convincing case that many anti-racists are not at all concerned about stopping injustices that one race may inflict on another. More than anything else they seem intent on race-based payback against Whites. The common premise behind all of their poisonous ideas is that Whites are the source of all problems, past and present. Their intent is quite literally genocidal.

If on the other hand after reading all this what you think really motivates me is a secret desire to genocide all non-whites, or even some of them, then I want you to know, that I know, that it is because you are anti-White. You are a racist, and you should promptly go and do to yourself what you so often and openly wish upon racists.

I’ve rambled on far too long already, but I did want to say some things about Pandagon.

The CNN-related post I originally cited, Clinton wins Kentucky, race chasm proven again, was already stale by the time I went over to comment and I ended up picking a fight in another post.

The Kentucky post contained some real anti-racist gems that are worth commenting on in light of what I’ve said above. Citing another liberal blogger’s idea that he calls the Race Chasm:

It is in the chasm where Clinton has consistently defeated Obama. These are geographically diverse states from Ohio to Oklahoma to Massachusetts where racial politics is very much a part of the political culture, but where the black vote is too small to offset a white vote racially motivated by the Clinton campaign’s coded messages and tactics.

The black vote is not presumed to be racially motivated, but the White vote is. White candidates communicate in coded messages (the reality-based community calls them “dog whistles”), but black candidates presumably do not.

The blogger, a black woman, then writes:

I wonder if an intelligent discussion can now be had about the reality of prejudice versus affinity voting. When the MSM continually frames this chasm as a problem for Obama — it is a problem for all of us as a society. To have a whole demo of voters so poisoned by their own racism to vote for someone white simply to avoid casting a ballot for a person of color is sad. To then be willing to stay home in November or worse, vote for John McCain, who clearly doesn’t represent working class interests, is tragic.

Needless to say that’s the polar opposite of what I’ve called affinity voting — blacks voting for Obama in large numbers. Many are voting for him because he represents ideals and policies they agree with; that he’s the first credible, positive black candidate for president is a huge historical bonus.

Is it possible to have an intelligent conversation with someone who says my race voting 70-30 is “prejudice” and her race voting 90-10 is “affinity”? What would we talk about, reparations for slavery?

Here again is the anti-White premise of anti-racists laid bare. I have an alternate explanation for the CNN pundits and Pandagon. I say Whites are affinity voting and blacks are prejudiced. Working class Whites are especially wise and discerning compared to fat and lazy wealthy Whites, at least when it comes to voting their best interests. The working class was obviously paying close attention to Rev. Wright and the “bitter” flaps. They know that Black Liberation Theology is not good for Whites. Blacks, on the other hand, generally don’t care what a White candidate says or does if there’s a black candidate to vote for. Obama should reject those racist votes.

There. How’s that? Can I get a seat on CNN?

I wish I had commented on that post at the time but as it happened I found a more recent post, an equally fat target titled Defending science: What works and what’s already working. The exchange was lively.

The blogger, Amanda Marcotte, proposed that the “avid defenders of the importance of accepting reality” in the “reality-based community” should reject “the right wing frame” and defend science from the “lies trotted out about “Intelligent Design”” and “that Stephen Jay Gould is the model for how to do this”. She concluded by saying “”Intelligent Design” is an attack on science”. (Her emphasis.)

I began by ridiculing this combination of ideas. I pointed out the incompatibility between framing and reality, that Gould was a human genetic difference denier, that E.O. Wilson or James Watson are better model defenders of science, that ID was not useless or even harmful but instead spurs scientists to do more science where there are gaps. I also asserted that the perception of the ID challenge as an attack is an natural case of projection by cultural marxists. Scientists, and intellects in general, consider defending their ideas routine.

The response was slow in coming. Seventeen posts later Ellid finally piped up to tell me he didn’t like E.O. Wilson because “his sociobiology theories are little more than a convenient excuse to justify sexism and racism on the grounds of genetic determinism”. Never mind all that world’s leading authority on ant stuff. Ellid also didn’t like Watson because he “denigrated and belittled the work of Rosalyn Yalow”. It was the only halfway-intelligent response I got.

Soon after that the goon squad, who I quickly recognized as “the resident Goulds”, started telling me: you don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re a white nationalist, a racist wingnut, etc. Rather than addressing my points, which though irreverently posed were directly on topic, these troglodytes made some of the dumbest leaps of logic I’ve ever seen. The tactics I have seen, many times, and they have nothing to do with how ideas are defended. The exchange really doesn’t classify as an argument or even two-way communication. It was more like a constant stream of verbal abuse, most of it directed at me.

I recognized several recurring themes. One was:

It’s not that I don’t like white people in general, it’s that I don’t like white people like you. I realize that you’re way too self-absorbed to understand the difference, but there you go.

Most of the goons made sure to emphasize how “white” they were before saying similarly nasty things. I think I understand this all very well. When you say things like this it means you like deracinated white people, and you hate race-conscious Whites. It is anti-White anti-racism. A jew who hates jews is called a self-hating jew. A white who hates Whites is called an anti-racist.

Another theme was typified by:

Tanstaafl, one small criticism. You’re racism isn’t quite blatant enough. In the future, you should just go ahead an advocate killing everyone not just like you. You know, like your German friends did.

The ironic thing about this, and it was echoed more than once in various forms, is that the assumption seems to be that me, an anonymous small time blogger, might be construed as advocating genocide, and that this threat was considered serious enough to treat me as if they thought I should be killed because I wasn’t just like them.

One especially tolerant liberal hinted at this desire by quoting Frank Zappa:

If your children ever find out how lame you really are, they’ll murder you in your sleep.

I made the case above, and I have said it before on this blog, that what drives me to write and think as I do is my concern that Whites are threatened with extermination. This threat comes in large part from the virulent anti-White rhetoric of anti-racists. They are the ones whose poisonous ideas are taught in universities, printed in books and newspapers, and tossed off without a thought on the pages of popular liberal blogs that pretend to be moral authorities.

I’ll end here with a quote from Science and ideology by Edward O. Wilson. I tried posting this at Pandagon several times but it never went through. Too bad. I suspect none of those gibbering Gould-lovers will come here to see how a real scientist defends science.

The future, if we are to have one, is increasingly to be in the hands of the scientifically literate, those who at least know what it is all about. There can be no multicultural solution to the genetics of cystic fibrosis; the ozone hole cannot be deconstructed; there is nothing whatsoever relativistic or culturally contextual about the dopamine transporter molecules whose blockage by cocaine gives a rush of euphoria, the kind that leads the constructivist to doubt the objectivity of science.

. . .

Which brings me to anti-science. I know less about postmodernism than most of you here, but let me give you my impression of how it relates to science. Postmodernist critics present a Disney World representation of science, a fantasy of what science is, and how scientists work, and why they work, a distortion embellished variously by obsolete theories of psychoanalysis and the battle cries of political ideology. Within the academy, it seems to me that postmodernism and the divisive forms of multiculturalism are substantially a revolt of the proletariat, wherein second-rate scholarship is parlayed into tenured professorships and book contracts–not by quality, not by originality, but by claims of entitlement of race, gender, and moralistic ideologies. But as I will show in a moment, some of it runs deeper, to turn the minds of even a few otherwise respected scientists.

. . .

The sociobiology episode was one of the most conspicuous in the history of political correctness in academic life in the dark time before the expression, p.c., was coined and before the National Association of Scholars or any other form of organized resistance arose to blunt its excesses.

. . .

The radical activists, however, went ballistic on this issue. Shortly after the publication of Sociobiology, Richard Lewontin organized fifteen scientists, teachers, and students in the Boston area as the Sociobiology Study Group, which then affiliated with Science for the People. The latter, larger aggregate of radical activists was begun in the 1960s to expose the misdeeds of scientists and technologists, including especially thinking considered to be politically dangerous. It was and remains nation wide, although greatly attenuated in its tone and influence.

What was correct political thinking? That has been made clear by Lewontin during the debate and afterward. “There is nothing in Marx, Lenin, or Mao,” he wrote with his fellow Marxist Richard Levins, “that is or can be in contradiction with a particular set of phenomena in the objective world.” True science, in other words, must be defined intrinsically to be forever separate from political thought. Ideology can then be constructed as a mental process insulated from science.

In formulating sociobiology, I wanted to move evolutionary biology into every potentially congenial subject, including human behavior and even political behavior, roughshod if need be and as quickly as possible. Lewontin obviously did not.

. . .

Now I can come to the essence of the radical science movement. As loopy as it all may seem today, and especially after the collapse of world socialism, the argument has to be taken seriously, since it has been accepted to varying degrees by a few influential scientists, including Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Levins, and Ruth Hubbard, who are highly regarded in the public eye as scientists, even as they continue to promote a Marxian view.

Here then is the argument in its raw form: only an anti-reductionist, non-bourgeois science can help humanity attain the highest goal, which is a socialist world. In the 1984 book Not in Our Genes, Lewontin, Steven Rose, and Leon Kamin, all worthies of radical science philosophy, explained their purpose as follows:

We share a commitment to the prospect of the creation of a more socially just–a socialist–society. And we recognize that a critical science is an integral part of the struggle to create that society, just as we also believe that the social function of much of today’s science is to hinder the creation of that society by acting to preserve the interests of the dominant class, gender, and race. This belief–in the possibility of a critical and liberatory science–is why we have each in our separate ways and to varying degrees been involved in the development of what has become known over the 1970s and 1980s, in the United States and Britain, as the radical science movement.

Read the whole thing. Wilson’s plain English and guilelessness is a refreshing contrast to the turd-flingers that rule the roost at Pandagon.

Lewontin, Gould, and their marxist fellow travelers were more interested in promoting their “frame” than in promoting science. Their agenda, just as it is for the “reality-based community”, is not based on the non-existence or non-importance of class, gender, and race – it is based on a hyper-awareness and presumed hyper-importance of these “social constructs”. Moreover, they call for explicit attack on what they perceive to be the “dominant” class, gender, or race.

The reality is that “reality-based community” are today’s budding totalitarians and the “dominant” Anglo-Saxon, male, Whites are their neo-jews. Why? Because they hate us. (For hating them, for hating them, … as Owl said before his head exploded.)

That last paragraph refers to the retribution mindset most anti-racists seem locked in. They have trouble imagining a world where people simply live and let live. In fact Owl, one of the “resident Goulds”, thought he had reached a deep truth when he wrote:

In this view, anti-racism really is anti-Whitism, because they think racism is right.

Actually, in my view anti-racism is really anti-Whitism because it is. I’ve provided argument and evidence to support this assertion, and it matters not one bit who or what I am.

(The image is taken from an ad banner at Pandagon. It reflects their nihilism perfectly.)

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.