Tag Archives: kevin macdonald

Age of Treason Radio

Race and Jews – Part 3

Audio 10 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

kevin_macdonald

This time we’ll contrast William Graham Sumner’s view of ethnocentrism with Kevin MacDonald’s view specifically focused on the jews. Sumner wrote in 1907, when it was still reasonable to imagine that the White man ruled America and Europe, or as Francis Parker Yockey put it, ruled 18/20ths of the world.

Recall Sumner’s definition of ethnocentrism:

15. Ethnocentrism is the technical name for this view of things in which one’s own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it.

Though Sumner saw the significant role jews played in the development of Western folkways and mores, and noted their ethnocentrism, he showed no discernable sign of alarm concerning jewish power.

A hundred years later it is still common, more common, to flatly ignore the jews or even deny that the jews have any power. However, it is more difficult to defend such a position in the face of the jews’ dominance in the realms of finance, media, and politics. Today those who are critical of jewish influence and power are openly punished for doing so.

Kevin MacDonald is a good example. Like Sumner, MacDonald is an academician specializing in social psychology. He has described the jews not only as ethnocentric, but as a hostile elite with a particularist morality, where “good is what is good for the jews”. In fact, MacDonald has noted the unique and extreme qualities of jewish ethnocentrism, often referring to it as hyperethnocentrism.

The abstract for MacDonald’s monograph, Understanding Jewish Influence I: Background Traits for Jewish Activism, begins with this sobering overview of the history of White/jew relations:

Beginning in the ancient world, Jewish populations have repeatedly attained a position of power and influence within Western societies. I will discuss Jewish background traits conducive to influence: ethnocentrism, intelligence and wealth, psychological intensity, aggressiveness, with most of the focus on ethnocentrism. I discuss Jewish ethnocentrism in its historical, anthropological, and evolutionary context and in its relation to three critical psychological processes: moral particularism, self-deception, and the powerful Jewish tendency to coalesce into exclusionary, authoritarian groups under conditions of perceived threat.

Jewish populations have always had enormous effects on the societies in which they reside because of several qualities that are central to Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy: First and foremost, Jews are ethnocentric and able to cooperate in highly organized, cohesive, and effective groups. Also important is high intelligence, including the usefulness of intelligence in attaining wealth, prominence in the media, and eminence in the academic world and the legal profession. I will also discuss two other qualities that have received less attention: psychological intensity and aggressiveness.

The four background traits of ethnocentrism, intelligence, psychological intensity, and aggressiveness result in Jews being able to produce formidable, effective groups—groups able to have powerful, transformative effects on the peoples they live among. In the modern world, these traits influence the academic world and the world of mainstream and elite media, thus amplifying Jewish effectiveness compared with traditional societies. However, Jews have repeatedly become an elite and powerful group in societies in which they reside in sufficient numbers. It is remarkable that Jews, usually as a tiny minority, have been central to a long list of historical events. Jews were much on the mind of the Church Fathers in the fourth century during the formative years of Christian dominance in the West. Indeed, I have proposed that the powerful anti-Jewish attitudes and legislation of the fourth-century Church must be understood as a defensive reaction against Jewish economic power and enslavement of non-Jews.1 Jews who had nominally converted to Christianity but maintained their ethnic ties in marriage and commerce were the focus of the 250-year Inquisition in Spain, Portugal, and the Spanish colonies in the New World. Fundamentally, the Inquisition should be seen as a defensive reaction to the economic and political domination of these “New Christians.”2

Jews have also been central to all the important events of the twentieth century. Jews were a necessary component of the Bolshevik revolution that created the Soviet Union, and they remained an elite group in the Soviet Union until at least the post-World War II era. They were an important focus of National Socialism in Germany, and they have been prime movers of the post-1965 cultural and ethnic revolution in the United States, including the encouragement of massive non-white immigration to countries of European origins.3 In the contemporary world, organized American Jewish lobbying groups and deeply committed Jews in the Bush administration and the media are behind the pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy that is leading to war against virtually the entire Arab world.

How can such a tiny minority have such huge effects on the history of the West? This article is the first of a three-part series on Jewish influence which seeks to answer that question.

The main body of MacDonald’s monograph is in the first section, titled I. Jews are Hyperethnocentric. His review of jewish behavioral traits is in direct comparison to Whites:

Whereas Western societies tend toward individualism, the basic Jewish cultural form is collectivism, in which there is a strong sense of group identity and group boundaries.

Jews are at the extreme of this Middle Eastern tendency toward hypercollectivism and hyperethnocentrism. I give many examples of Jewish hyperethnocentrism in my trilogy on Judaism and have suggested in several places that Jewish hyperethnocentrism is biologically based.

In this monograph MacDonald reiterates many of the themes he has written about elsewhere, including the aforementioned moral particularism of jews. He discusses self-deception, a term and concept I have taken issue with. Jewish deception is especially evident in their crypsis, the claims jews make as to the harmless or insignificant nature of jewish identity which are so often and blatantly belied by their activism.

MacDonald notes the long historical memory of the jews, their “memory of persecution and impending doom”, ostensibly at the hands of Whites. The point of How Anti-Whiteness is at the Heart of Jewish Identity is to see the jewish victimology narrative for the aggressive inversion of reality it is.

MacDonald touches on the uncanny ability jews have to identify each other and identify with each other, to recognize who is “us” and who is “them” – a trait informally known as jewdar.

MacDonald describes the strong identification jews have with Israel and zionism. Referring to an ADL press release responding to the liberalization of Germany’s immigration policies in 1999, MacDonald notes:

The prospective change in the “us versus them” attitude alleged to be characteristic of Germany is applauded, while the “us versus them” attitude characteristic of Israel and Jewish culture throughout history is unmentioned.

Words fail to capture the spectacle of professional jews, acting as spokesmen for the world’s most outstanding practitioners of “us vs them”, lecturing and moralizing us “them” on the evils of thinking in terms of “us vs them”. MacDonald concludes his section on jewish hyperethnocentrism with another attempt:

Jewish ethnocentrism is ultimately simple traditional human ethnocentrism, although it is certainly among the more extreme varieties. But what is so fascinating is the cloak of intellectual support for Jewish ethnocentrism, the complexity and intellectual sophistication of the rationalizations for it—some of which are reviewed in Separation and Its Discontents58 and the rather awesome hypocrisy (or cold-blooded deception) of it, given Jewish opposition to ethnocentrism among Europeans.

The three subsequent sections describe other heritable, i.e. racial, personality traits of jews. An excerpt from II. Jews Are Intelligent (and Wealthy):

Intelligence is also evident in Jewish activism. Jewish activism is like a full court press in basketball: intense pressure from every possible angle. But in addition to the intensity, Jewish efforts are very well organized, well funded, and backed up by sophisticated, scholarly intellectual defenses. A good example is the long and ultimately successful attempt to alter U.S. immigration policy.

The next section is titled III. Jews Are Psychologically Intense. MacDonald describes jews as having higher than average emotional intensity:

In the case of Jews, this affects the tone and intensity of their efforts at activism. Among Jews there is a critical mass that is intensely committed to Jewish causes—a sort of 24/7, “pull out all the stops” commitment that produces instant, massive responses on Jewish issues.

Several examples of such instant, massive responses come to mind.

Judaized Discourse – A Holocaust Over Blood Libel documents such a response to Sarah Palin.

What’s Flipping Yid Lids Today: Tom Perkins on the 1% and Kristallnacht documents another example.

Another more serious and recent example came just a few months ago with the Israeli military bombed Gaza, hitting schools and hospitals. Four Jews, One Opinion on Israel captures a portion of the surreal response, where “liberal” jews got up on their jewsmedia soapboxes to defend Israel, and jews in general, describing themselves as the real victims.

All of the above brings to mind the proverb, “The jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.”

The last section is titled IV. Jews Are Aggressive. One excerpt:

These characteristics have at times been noted by Jews themselves. In a survey commissioned by the American Jewish Committee’s study of the Jews of Baltimore in 1962, “two-thirds of the respondents admitted to believing that other Jews are pushy, hostile, vulgar, materialistic, and the cause of anti-Semitism. And those were only the ones who were willing to admit it.”97

MacDonald’s work, and specifically this monograph on jewish hyperethnocentrism, highlights the racial divide in mentality and the great difficulty Whites face in trying to understand jews, a difficultly the jews themselves mockingly refer to as goyishe kopf.

What we’ve discussed here are really all just various facets of an inborn racial ruthlessness, the stereotypical willingness of jews to say almost anything in defense of jews, or to excuse the harm jews do to others. Anyone who has debated jews is familiar with the lies, illogic, personal insults and other distractions to which they readily resort.

The term ethnocentrism doesn’t really capture this ruthlessness. Hyperethnocentrism is only slightly better. Loxism, or jewism, though relatively uncommon and unknown, are better words because they do capture the unique, incomparable nature of jewish racial ruthlessness. As Alex Linder recently remarked:

Whites assume jews aren’t conspiring, because whites don’t. Jews assume whites are conspiring, because they do. #loxism

Picture source: Is Orange County professor Kevin MacDonald ‘the most dangerous living anti-Semite?, in which the jewish interviewer/author exhibits his entirely jew-centric views and many other of the jewish personality traits MacDonald has described.

Blog

Assessing Auster (with Kevin MacDonald and Carolyn Yeager)

21 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Kevin MacDonald’s assessment of Auster, Lawrence Auster on the Role of Jews in Disestablishing White, Christian America, in a nutshell:

Despite his awareness of the forces that have dispossessed White America, Auster is very concerned to deflect anti-Semitism, even though he understands that anti-Jewish attitudes are completely expectable.

This is true, but too charitable. Auster often writes about “whites”, seemingly sympathetically. His overriding concern, however, is for the jews. Auster has called out jews, but only to deliver a proverbial slap on the wrist. He ultimately excuses jews of any real wrong-doing vis-a-vis Whites. He faults jews mainly for not doing what’s he thinks best for themselves. He accompanies most of these critiques with far more venomous words aimed at White “anti-semites”.

Auster frequently distinguishes jews from Whites, and invariably puts jewish interests first. At the same time he condemns Whites who distinguish Whites from jews, even those who only unconsciously or inadvertently put other interests ahead of those of jews. Auster’s critiques of jews are innoculative. He offers strong-sounding but fundamentally weak arguments that could be made more forcefully, especially if made from the point of view of Whites. His efforts are preemptive and proscriptive, the effect if not intent being to discount and discredit a truly pro-White position. He has regularly incited “the majority” to “assert itself”. Meanwhile he attacks even the most mild-mannered White opposition in which he detects a whiff of “anti-semitism”.

As Auster says about neocon Norman Podhoretz, he “does not regard non-Jewish Americans as his people. In effect, he sees America as ‘one nation, many peoples’—which is, of course, the multiculturalist view of America.”

Auster’s analysis of others can often be mapped onto himself or jews in general. For example, Auster does not regard Whites as his people. In effect, he sees only “whites”, deliberately conflating jews and Whites, similarly to how he says Podhoretz sees “America”. Jewish rhetoric is often aimed at a broader collective, at least until they feel the specific needs of jews are better served by speaking more directly in terms of jews.

As I noted in Auster’s Personal Announcement, he has never forgotten who his people are. The First Law of Jewish Influence demonstrates how shallow his big ideas are and how transparent his dissembling is.

MacDonald contrasts Auster with Alan Dershowitz, noting:

Jews like Dershowitz are completely unable to see the situation from the perspective of those he condemns. Unfortunately, Dershowitz is entirely within the mainstream of Jewish opinion and activism among American Jews and certainly within the organized Jewish community in America.

The key difference is that jews like Auster are able to see the situation from the perspecitve of those they condemn. They may wander farther afield, but they remain part of the jewish whole and play their own part in its fight against “anti-semitism”. Whereas mainstream jews like Dershowitz openly identify themselves as jewish warriors, jews like Auster insinuate themselves among us, dissembling and dissimulating, posturing in ways that fool some Whites, at least for a while.

I’ll be appearing with Kevin MacDonald on Carolyn Yeager’s Saturday Afternoon with Carolyn Yeager tomorrow at 2PM ET to discuss Auster. Join us then.

UPDATE 16 Mar 2013: the White network – MacDonald and Tanstaafl on Auster and Jewish Influence (mp3)

Blog

Criticism of The Culture of Critique

2 Comments

Below are some excerpts from a review by PLEASUREMAN, The Culture of Critique – My Posting Career (original emphasis):

When I started reading Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique, I didn’t quite know what I was getting into. John Derbyshire was warned about people who get “the Jew thing”, and as I mentioned in Who’s Afraid of Kevin MacDonald? his own review of MacDonald’s work more or less pretends that the last 40 years of major Jewish influence on conservative politics never happened. It’s one thing to find this influence an overall positive thing, but to forget to mention that it happened strikes one as careless, especially when reviewing a work that discusses just this influence.

If conservatives are not introspective it follows that they are not closely focused on the permutations of conservatism that go beyond policy debate, including the permutations that lead to conservatism’s dark side. This dark side includes a tendency towards authoritarianism, close-mindedness, and paranoia. Liberalism has its extremism, conservatism has its dark side. It would be naive to fail to acknowledge this dark side when approaching controversial work like MacDonald’s. Unlike Herrnstein and Murray’s The Bell Curve, The Culture of Critique is not anchored in decades of irrefutable science, it is a more at a theory that attempts to explain Jewish dominance in Western academia, politics, and business. Moreover it is a theory tied to an already controversial idea, that ethnic groups can have an unconscious or subconscious group evolutionary strategy which benefits not merely the individual but the group itself. This goes beyond the normal attachment one feels for one’s nationality or ethnicity, and suggests that genetics and culture can interact in such a way that the result is justifiably called an evolutionary strategy.

But more than that, MacDonald’s scholarship is in what contemporary culture defines as forbidden territory. It must stand in the shadow of a malevolent lunatic fringe that has always followed conservative thought–a fringe that finds Jewish (and other) conspiracies everywhere, lives in fear of sinister forces, and rages impotently about everything it sees as a potential threat. There is no way to approach the question of Jewish influence without both conjuring this fringe and finding oneself accused of sympathy with it.

In my view, MacDonald’s incisive work is worth reading whether you are prepared to believe in a group evolutionary strategy or not, whether you believe Jewish influence has been pronounced or not. Even if MacDonald is completely wrong, his approach to groups deserves attention, particularly with regard to the ongoing transformation of American political life from a culture formed and guided by Northern Europeans to one that is approaching complete ethnic pluralism. I think it is likely that Jewish culture, as it has been shaped over the millenia, has worked to reinforce a set of behaviors, beliefs, and strategies with regard to other groups (and particularly with the universalist-minded West), and whether it is driven by evolutionary forces is beside the point–it nevertheless is, and has been strikingly influential upon the events of the 20th century. Indeed, it has changed the course of American history.

My initial goal here is to summarize MacDonald’s arguments and evidence, by chapter. This post is an introduction, and subsequent posts will take the chapters in sequence.

As Henry Ford remarked about Charles Lindbergh, “When Charles comes out here, we only talk about the Jews.” Get ready to talk about the Jews.

MacDonald next mentions Stephen Jay Gould, whose long record of intellectual prevarication on the subject of genetic differences (and human biodiversity in particular) speaks for itself. Gould has been an incredibly important figure in the demonization of psychometrics and his book The Mismeasure of Man is virtually a bible for what one might term the anti-intelligence clergy (intelligence doesn’t exist, cannot be measured, is not variable, etc). According to MacDonald, Gould’s views were influenced by his Jewish-Leftist identity and fear of anti-Semitism.

Gould made exaggerated and provably false claims about the congressional debates of the period. The immigration debate was largely about preserving America’s Nordic-derived identity and culture, and IQ testing did not play a significant role in any part of it. Gould’s response to such criticism was to ignore it, a response that has become a tradition among Gould’s worshipful and ill-informed followers. (Similarly, Gould ignored all modern IQ research on the ludicrous grounds that it was “ephemeral”.) A revised edition of The Mismeasure of Man essentially ignored all critical response to Gould’s book.

Gould further claimed that the 1924 immigration law was in some sense responsible for the deaths of Jews unable to emigrate from German-held territories before World War II, a hyperbolic and frankly hysterical conclusion that has become typical of Jewish anti-intellectualism. This rhetorical behavior is readily found in much Jewish political output, and MacDonald catalogues the varieties of it found in Gould’s work, including use of denigrating labels, oversimplified straw men, gilded writing, and perhaps the most popular technique, claiming moral superiority over one’s debate opponents. Nevertheless, Gould maintains a high level of posthumous prestige.

The Culture of Critique – My Posting Career – Page 2:

A response to The Culture of Critique

I was going to canvass some of the responses to MacDonald’s book, but why not just quote from the SLPC’s considered, measured review:

SPLC:

Kevin MacDonald is the neo-Nazi movement’s favorite academic. A psychology professor at California State University, Long Beach, MacDonald, who also is a board member of the white supremacist Charles Martel Society, published a trilogy that supposedly “proves” that Jews are genetically driven to destroy Western societies. MacDonald also argues that anti-Semitism, far from being an irrational hatred for Jews, is a logical reaction to Jewish success in societies controlled by other ethnic or racial groups. After the publication of a 2007 Intelligence Report exposé detailing MacDonald’s anti-Semitism, his teaching duties were reduced and many of his colleagues publicly condemned his racist research.

This is, as you have seen in my summary of MacDonald’s book, wholly malicious, tendentious, and dishonest. But we expect nothing less from the SPLC, a Jewish dominated organization that carefully manages its Wikipedia page to remove any hint of criticism. The SPLC is fixated on white supremacist groups but has of late broadened its scope to include any right-wing rhetoric that is more arousing than David Brooks after a bong hit. It doesn’t have any serious charter to pursue hatred as such, or else it would have to monitor itself for its flamboyant belligerance and crude bullying and coercion.

It may as well be said that this type of aggressive, moralistic posturing is a signature of Jewish rhetoric. It has such a long tradition that it must be recognized by everyone today as the sort of thing Jews often do–it is a hallmark, for example, of arguments in favor of Israel’s right to do everything, and was used extensively by neocons to justify the Iraq War.

This manner of argument is in keeping with Judaism’s aggressive competitive tendencies, high Jewish IQ, and legalistic morality. I add the last item because legalistic moral systems must of necessity be rigid. They are based on the idea that goodness is not arrived at by communal judgement (favored in altruistic societies), but by command of authority–and here the difference with Christianity could not be more striking. As I have noted in another context, much of the behavior we see today is premised on the notion that what is legally permissable is morally permissable–a statement very pregnant with meaning, and very much an inheritance from Jewish thinking, whether we realize it or not.

And what about The Culture of Critique? MacDonald chose his title well–Jewish culture is very tied up in the idea that argument, even tendentious argument, is good. I am not sure I follow him in his belief that Jewish behavior is an evolutionary adaptation–but let me qualify this. The idea of group evolutionary behavior remains controversial. There is some question as to how it operates through natural selection; I am not expert enough to present either side of this question. But then I suspect that the interaction between culture and natural selection is rather murky and difficult to quantify, much as most mixed nature-nurture traits are.

It is quite possible that characteristic Jewish culture was formed by happenstance–that is, it was shaped by the unique series of events and struggles it found itself in due to its place and time of origin and adjacent cultures. As a firm believer in the role that randomness plays in all life, I am not convinced that an explanation of cultural thinking must be any less arbitrary than this.

This remains an academic question because we can never develop a rigorous and falsifiable theory–we are left to believe what we will. But however it came to be, Jewish culture as it is today is a compelling force that has dramatically changed Western culture.

Perhaps a more interesting line of argument is that Jewish culture is a byproduct of high IQ. The pursuit of pluralism, for example, can be seen as Jewish defensiveness given its competitive nature–but it is also the mark of high IQ novelty seekers. Similarly, many of the ideological movements that MacDonald surveys had little trouble attracting gentiles of a certain type, however dominated their upper ranks may have been by Jews. And by “certain type” I am referring to the cognitive elite–the class of person who is readily won over to abstract theories and is disdainful of traditional practices. That Jews dominate may have less to do with Jewish culture and more to do with Jewish IQ. One omission MacDonald makes is in comparing Jewish achievement and wealth without controlling for IQ.

However this book is an impressive survey of Jewish involvement in the great changes of the 20th century. Wherever one comes down on this subject, it deserves better than the SPLC’s malicious and disingenuous treatment, or the cool oblviousness of most of the rest of Western society. It opens the door to many fascinating questions, not only to Jewish culture but to the whole nature of Western civlization and its potential downfall, to the study of group interaction, to the contrast between impermeable and assimilationist societies. It is a serious and manifestly well-intentioned academic work.

And for that reason, the reception of MacDonald’s work should be considered scandalous. We do not live in a freely thinking society if this careful and conscientious exploration of group behavior is beyond the pale. But then, looking around, one can readily see that we in fact live in a society governed by frivolity, snark, and clownishness–clownishness much like the SPLC’s ridiculous summary of MacDonald’s study of Jewish culture. Such is our intellectual world.

I do not agree with MacDonald that ethnic separatism offers European-derived culture anything more than devolution. I think ethnic separatism within a diverse nation will alter what we think of as Western culture and turn it into something no better than the self-interested ethnic enclaves that have exploited it. Universalism is simply a hallmark of the West; if it loses this trait, it loses itself.

The question of what to do is far too complicated to explore briefly, but a return to assimilationism and a renewal of Western values must be the only plausible course. All of our politics should be subordinate to this issue.

The Culture of Critique – My Posting Career – Page 3:

It’s sometimes used as an excuse that Jews even criticize themselves, without acknowledging that Jewish self-criticism is aimed at increasing cohesion by punishing deviation (such as intermarriage), while Jewish criticism of other cultures is aimed at undermining cohesion. It is silly to equate the two.

Kevin MacDonald:

I do think that the social tensions resulting from this assault on our people and culture will eventually get to the point that there will perforce be an audience for my work. It may seem odd to phrase it this way, but in a real sense all of us writing from a pro-White, pro-European perspective should be desperately trying to break through into the wider culture — to become famous and respected. If it doesn’t happen for any of us, then we have surely lost.

Referring to an interview with Kevin MacDonald by Alex Kurtagic:

http://www.wermodand…0220110000.html

The treatment of MacDonald shows the ugliest side of Jewish culture, particularly because the venue is academia. For me it is a reason I can never feel sympathetic toward Jewish concerns or Jewish claims of injustice; their culture is very hospitable to injustice and quite glibly so.

Blog

The Wages of Tantrum

12 Comments

In The idiocy of Kevin MacDonald Auster takes offense at MacDonald’s statement:

the racial Zionist movement that dominates the politics of Israel today

Auster is so angered by this that he attacks MacDonald personally. The problem, beyond this childish tantrum, is that MacDonald, in terms of Western norms, is entirely correct. Read for example Weston’s analysis in The Israeli Election. Auster, who willfully ignores the disparity between what is considered “racism” in the West and normal in israel, can’t help but list “well-known facts” that indicate only one thing: that racial zionism (Jabotinskyism) does not dominate israel as completely as he would like.

In throwing his tantrum Auster at least brings attention to some excellent writing of MacDonald’s, including his recent post at VDare Memories Of Madison—My Life In The New Left, and his December 2008 TOO essay Ben Stein’s Expelled: Was Darwinism a Necessary Condition for the Holocaust? where he provides some idea how far today’s racial zionism goes beyond what is considered acceptable for today’s White Westerners.

Auster here demonstrates two common tactics of pro-jewish argument: 1) throw nasty, personal insults at someone who says something you don’t like, and 2) answer a complaint about some jewish disparity by claiming jews aren’t powerful enough.

Tactic 2 is related to a tactic even more frequently used in similar circumstances: 3) answer a complaint about some jewish disparity by claiming that the complainer is insanely suggesting jewish power is absolute. In both cases examples are usually offered to demonstrate that jews aren’t doing everything they could to further their own interests, or are doing something that harms themselves.

What these tactics seek to avoid is any acknowledgement that the disparity in question is real, and that that in itself is harm and injustice enough to those of us who aren’t jews.

For other recent examples of these tactics see Melanie Phillips’ Obama prepares to throw Israel to the Wolves, or the comments made by Anonymous to Whose Country is This Anyway?

What makes this phenomena especially annoying is that jews are, as a group, incredibly sensitive to disparities everywhere around them concerning the rights, wealth, and power of everyone, including themselves, at least when they feel victimized. However, when asked to face disparities that reflect negatively on themselves they abruptly become deaf, dumb, blind, and exhibit ZERO intellectual honesty. What’s more, they treat anyone who presses a complaint against them as a mortal enemy. It seems to me a good example of projection.

At this point some philo-semite inevitably shows up to say, “yeah, but that’s perfectly understandable because <insert sob story here>, and after all we’re allies!” To which I say, no. The intellectually and morally bankrupt tactics described above are not only alien and inscrutable to White Western minds. They are indefensible. Two wrongs don’t make a right. These tactics don’t reflect the attitude of an ally. They reflect at best a self-aware and self-absorbed Other, and at worst a mortal enemy. In either case we are not obligated, intellectually or morally, to tolerate these tactics or the people using them.

Blog

Suicide vs. Competition

26 Comments

In Auster vs. Sailer Dennis Mangan and guests discuss Sailer’s view that “WhiterPeople” compete for status and Auster’s criticism of that idea.

Auster writes (my emphasis):

The West’s suicide process could not have happened as a result of just one “bad” element in our society, say, the liberal elites. No, all the leading elements of our society, all the significant factions of the West, including elements normally thought of as very conservative, such as the Catholic Church and evangelicals, have signed on to an idea, the belief in non-discrimination, that spells the doom of the West, since it leads people to support, or to refuse to oppose, policies leading to the Third-Worldization and Islamization of the West.

In today’s Britain, as I realized to my shock after the July 2005 bombing, tolerance–unconditioned tolerance–is the guiding principle of society, the touchstone that is constantly appealed to on every issue. It was tolerance that led the British to allow millions of Third-World people including Muslims into Britain, and it was tolerance that has led the Brits to allow the Muslims including terror supporters free rein of their Island, and it’s tolerance that keeps the British from reacting against the enemies in their midst. The main reason for the surrender of Britain to Islamization is tolerance.

I did not say that Sailer is a bigot against Jews. I said that he is a bigot against Israel and Jewish neocons.

Now, many people today consider someone who is a bigot against Israel to be an anti-Semite by definition. I’ve argued at length why I think that’s incorrect. Namely, anti-Semitism is such a damning word that I don’t think a person should be called that unless he has specifically expressed bigotry toward the Jewish people as the Jewish people. For example, though I’ve condemned Patrick Buchanan for his bigotry against Israel. I’ve never called him an anti-Semite, for the simple reason that in my view he has never attacked Jews as Jews. Now I think it’s entirely possible that in his inner thoughts Buchanan really is driven by an animus against Jews as Jews. But the fact is that he has never expressed such an animus outwardly. He has never attacked Jews as Jews. Never. And I insist that when it comes to such a damning word as anti-Semitism, there must be an actual expression, not a merely likelihood about what a person may be thinking.

Auster often characterizes challenges to his ideas as attacks, so his hairsplitting about what he thinks does or doesn’t constitute anti-jewish racism or what precisely he has said about Buchanan or Sailer is pathetic. The important point is that Auster attacked these men for what he perceives to be their attacks on jewish interests. He uses “anti-semite” and phrases like “bigot against israel” for the same reason that so many of his supposedly non-discriminatory “liberal elites” do. Because they can and do discriminate jews as jews, as they do in unabashedly placing jews as jews on a pedestal above everyone else.

In discussing his idea that non-discrimination spells the doom of the West Auster is willing to discriminate Whites, Christians, third worlders, and muslims as Whites, Christians, third worlders, and muslims – and even to attack them. He is not interested in delving into where the multi-culti politically correct “liberalism” pushing “non-discrimination” comes from, how this ideology came to dominate in the West, or whose interests it serves. Good thing. It involves lots of jews.

The “non-discrimination” and “unconditioned tolerance” Auster claims to see is the opposite of reality. Non-discrimination is the sales pitch. It serves to mislead many good-hearted fair-minded people into misunderstanding what is happening. Even in Mangan’s thread everyone seems to accept it as the explanation. But as Auster well knows, “liberal” “non-discrimination” never ends up that way. For many liberals, and especially the non-Whites, anti-White and pro-non-White discrimination is what it’s all about.

The West’s media, academy, and laws are discriminatory. It is easy enough to see. What has changed in the last 150 years and especially over the last 60 is that the discrimination has been inverted. A healthy and normal preference for everything White and Christian has been transformed into a preference for everything non-White and non-Christian. This is so abnormal and unhealthy that in a single human lifetime Whites are being reduced from the dominant majority to a despised minority in every country we previously controlled. The kicker is, according to Auster, that it’s all our fault. We’re “suiciding” because conservatives “support, or refuse to oppose” their enemies.

Unlike Auster I do not characterize the inversion of discrimination as “suicide”. Nor do I pillory those who “refuse to oppose”. Nobody wants to lose their job, be shunned by their community, or be sent to prison, but this is what is in store for anyone who opposes anti-White discrimination in any substantial way. Men like Henry Cabot Lodge, Madison Grant, Henry Ford, William Dudley Pelley, Charles Lindbergh, Francis Parker Yockey, Gerald L.K. Smith, and Carleton Putnam (to name just a few) saw where things were heading. They described and opposed this future more clearly than the media permits to be said out loud now that we are here and living with it.

The inversion began in earnest with the emancipation of jews in the wake of the French revolution. This is when the idea that White Christian Europeans shouldn’t discriminate themselves from jews took root and when dissent from this position came to be pathologized as “anti-semitism”. Thereafter the attack against healthy and normal European racial discrimination was generalized into a pathologization of “racism” and eventually mutated into a variety of “anti-discrimination” movements opposing “sexism”, “xenophobism”, “homophobism”, and “islamophobism”. What began as an ostensibly well-intentioned assertion of equality always ended as naked aggression against what Auster euphemizes as “the majority” (White, male, heterosexual Christians) coupled with the defense and celebration of all that is alien and deviant. This phenomena, this racial-culture war, has been fueled financially and intellectually by a preposterous disproportion of jews, to achieve goals that have been in their collective self-interest and against the interests of “the majority”.

The reality, contrary to Auster, is that the “unconditioned tolerance” of the “leading elements of our society” defines thoughts like mine as “hate” which is not tolerated at all. Yes, the rationale is claimed to be “non-discrimination”. No, that is not the real motivation. This is trivially demonstrated by the behavior of both Auster and “leading elements of our society” in discriminating jews as jews, distinguishing them and exempting them from criticism while at the same time discriminating, criticizing, and even subordinating Whites as Whites in myriad ways.

It seems to me that Auster opposes liberalism because he sees it is driving Whites to extinction, and he judges the continued existence of a generally pro-jew White majority to be in the interest of jews. This explains his race-realist, tribe-denying obtuseness as well as his hypocrisy, smearing, and thought-criminalizing whenever he’s challenged on it. In pursuing his interests he feels free to reason about anything, including calling on others to ignore or stifle their own interests, and discriminates anyone he pleases, as demonstrated by his blog full of musings about “the majority” as “the majority”, black savages as black savages, and muslims as muslims. He opposes the “Third-Worldization and Islamization of the West”. He wants “the majority” to do this and do that, but especially to save ourselves so we can continue to protect jews from blacks and muslims. He calls for pro-Whites like myself who discriminate our interests from those of jews, criticize jews, and oppose the judaization of the West to be shunned and silenced. He does not call for such treatment for even the most anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-Western “liberals”.

Even if there is a discussion of a legitimate topic, the low-lifes and anti-Semites will show up and ruin it.

Besides imagining himself as the arbiter of legitimacy Auster sounds just like Ian “Urge to Purge” Jobling. Again my reality differs. Just about every news item or blog thread I read is incomplete or dishonest, written and guarded by pro-jews whose goal in life seems to be suppressing any mention of jewish influence, even when that influence is plain to see and the bullying pro-jew bouncers only make it plainer.

The notion that I go around calling people racists is an off-the-wall lie.

An off the wall lie? He did this in the very thread in which he denies it. Of course it wouldn’t suit Auster’s interests to admit that in common “liberal” usage, including his own, “anti-semite” is just a more specific form of the “racist” smear. Thinking about that special phrase and the special damning power Auster is well aware it carries only calls attention to how perfectly acceptable it is to discriminate jews as jews in placing their concerns above everyone else’s. Contrasting this with the ineffectiveness and even negative reaction to “anti-White” (“you racist!”) is also telling. The prevailing regime is definitely not “non-discrimination”, and Auster definitely does not hesitate to smear.

Recognizing that jews and Whites have separate interests and speaking openly about it drives Auster to distraction more than any other subject. It puts the lie to his “non-discrimination” and “suicide” rhetoric and contradicts his pro-“white”, pro-Christian, pro-West pose. It reveals him for the pro-jew pro-israel ruthless commissar he is. He cannot tolerate any recognition of the White-jewish fault line, and a discussion of “WhiterPeople” status competition comes dangerously close. Such talk might lead more Whites to recognize the race-based jewish aggression against us. So instead Auster tries to distract and deflect, selling a combination of guilt-tripping, lies, and threats: “Bad majority, so stupid you’re suiciding yourself by not discriminating and remaining silent – oh and the low-lifes who discriminate jews and say they have something to do with this must be silenced”.

I see through Auster’s nonsense, but some of the semi-aware people at Mangan’s seem willing to buy it. This includes Mangan himself, who closed his comments with effusive praise for Auster, and Hesperado, who made many incisive points before attributing Auster’s belligerence, obfuscation, and logical inconsistencies to his being thick-skulled and thin-skinned. He sure is. The path to suicide-competition enlightenment is to try and understand why.

Original image.

UPDATE 21 Nov 2008: Today in Why I fight (other conservatives) Auster reiterates his belief that “non-discrimination is the crux of liberalism and its destructiveness, and thus opposing non-discrimination is the only effective way to oppose liberalism.” He quotes a reader quoting himself getting “right down into the marrow of the problem” (my emphasis):

But WHY do they want to destroy it? What is BAD about reality that makes them want to destroy it? For my answer I return to the traditionalist analysis that I have advanced in various formulations: the rejection of God, the transcendent, the higher, the notion of an inherent structure in existence. Once the higher or the sense of being part of a larger whole is rejected, then the world is reduced to selves and their desires, with nothing above them, no “holarchy” (to use Arthur Koestler’s term) of which they are a part. Therefore all selves and their respective desires are equal, therefore any distinction between selves is a horrible attack on the worth of the “less equal” or excluded self and must be banned.

However, as I’m thinking about this, I don’t know that the non-discrimination and the destruction can be separated. Since the structure of the world consists of distinct things, each of which has its internal order or structure (even an alternative hair salon has its internal order), to ban discrimination is to destroy each individual thing and its order. Non-discrimination is destruction, perhaps the most efficient and thorough-going destruction ever known to man.

This to the applause of a fastidiously manicured peanut gallery who just love his clarity and directness.

I realize I repeat myself, but doesn’t it get more to the crux and marrow of the WHY of “liberalism” to acknowledge that when Europeans first began to reject God during the Enlightenment that jews were the particular minority group who really got them thinking along the lines that eventually became “anti-racism” and “non-discrimination”, that jews themselves are openly proud to have since done so much in this regard to help other groups benefit as they themselves have, and that jews also happen to be the only particular group that even anti-“liberals” like Auster dictate we absolutely must not discriminate from ourselves?

Doesn’t that question, however distasteful jews and philo-semitic gentiles might find it, get closer to the WHY Auster will only dance around? For a more clear and direct view of “liberalism” I suggest Whites consult Kevin MacDonald. Why We Write would be a good place to start.