Tag Archives: lawrence auster

Blog

Who’s To Blame for Anti-White Governance

41 Comments

Last week a Hamburg judge filed a criminal complaint against German Chancellor Angela Merkel for “endorsing a crime” after she stated she was “glad” that Osama bin Laden was killed by US forces. Self-described jewish fifth columnist Lawrence Auster responded to this report by blaming Germans for all of Europe’s ills:

Just think, if the anti-Hitler plotters in 1944 had succeeded in killing him, and if some German leader had expressed his joy, this German judge, if translated back to 1944, would seek to punish him. I guess Germany hasn’t changed so much after all, hmm? Pure liberalism, which the Germans in their humorless fanatical thoroughness aspire to as the opposite of Nazi totalitarianism, is another form of totalitarianism. And in the same way, as I have often remarked, the German-championed transnational opposite of the Nazi nationalism which sought to destroy the nations of Europe, is also destroying the nations of Europe. One way or another, whether in their Nazi form or in their hyper-liberal form, the Germans pose a determined threat to the nations and peoples of the West. To paraphrase Churchill’s famous remark about the Germans, they need to be kept at our feet, or else they will go for our throat.

I am not being extreme or “anti-German” when I say that. The Germans agree with me. They see themselves as a threat to others. That’s why they say that the EU is necessary, to keep them, the ever-threatening Germans, in check. The problem is that the German-led EU which in the German mind is aimed at suppressing the German nation, must suppress all other European nations as well. This is why, just as German nationalism could not be allowed to rule Europe, German anti-nationalism also cannot be allowed to rule Europe. Germany must not rule, period.

Then in Debate on Germany Auster expressed regret that his sweeping condemnation of “the Germans” was not more comprehensive:

My strongly worded entry last week about German hyper-liberalism has set off something of a debate in the blogosphere. At Gates of Vienna, a German writer, Manfred Kleine-Hartlage, replies to me. I haven’t yet read his article. But for the moment I want to repeat once again the qualifications I made last week. My statements about Germany were not intended as a comprehensive criticism of Germany and Germans, and if I gave that impression I regret it. My argument related to one, narrowly framed, core issue: that just as the German hyper-nationalism of the past sought to crush the nations of Europe, German hyper-liberalism, which arose as an all-consuming reaction against German hyper-nationalism, also poses a danger to the nations of the West, and therefore it is not desirable for Germany, in its present, hyper-liberal state, to dominate Europe.

Auster’s “narrowly framed” problem isn’t just with nationalist or anti-nationalist Germans but with “the Germans” in general. He identifies Germans as a biological group having personality traits such as “humorless fanatical thoroughness” and “hyper-liberalism”. He sees them posing a danger not only to Europe but “the nations of the West”. Thus they must be “kept at our [sic] feet”.

In The Real Problem is “Global Governance” Manfred Kleine-Hartlage responds to Auster’s outrageous slander, specifically calling attention to Auster’s claim that “the Germans” agree with him:

Many Germans say this, because they were told to speak and think such things. They were taught to consider thousand years of German history just as a pre-history of Hitler. They were taught to regard their history as merely a history of crimes. They were taught that they are a danger to others. They were taught that patriotism and “nationalism” are the same thing, and that the latter is the root of all evils in the world. They were taught to hate themselves.

It started with the re-education after 1945, and this re-education is still going on. To poison an entire nation with self-hatred turned out to be a working concept, and this concept, once successfully applied, was generalized to the Western world as a whole, and as the concept of “white guilt” is now undermining our civilization. This is nothing you should blame the Germans for. They were just the guinea pigs.

The million-dollar-question is: Why is this done, and who does so?

Excellent question.

Having dealt with Auster, Kleine-Hartlage follows up by going where Auster never does. He points to the connection between the never-ending Global War on Terror and the never-ending drive for genocidal levels of immigration into all White countries – our hostile international elite:

Yes, Bin Laden was our enemy, but on the list of our enemies he was not number one, and not even number ten. Islam is marching forward in Europe not by terrorism, but by immigration and ethnic struggle, with strong support from the international political elites. It makes no sense to assert a difference between American and European elites, because they all belong to a transatlantic network centered in, but not confined to, America. Within this network, strategies are made compatible with each other, so that there is no such thing as a strictly national policy. There are disagreements on minor questions, but the general direction is towards establishing a global uniform civilization. The EU is part of this process, and an analyst blaming just Germany for that, as Mr. Auster does,

The problem is that the German-led EU which in the German mind is aimed at suppressing the German nation, must suppress all other European nations as well. This is why, just as German nationalism could not be allowed to rule Europe, German anti-nationalism also cannot be allowed to rule Europe. Germany must not rule, period.

proves that his hatred of a particular country is stronger than his analytical capabilities.

Why is the leading power in the “war on terror” at the same time urging France to open herself to Islamic infiltration and secretly fostering this infiltration, as we know by Wikileaks (and there is no reason to assume that the same strategy is not applied to other European countries)? Why is the European power most passionately joining this war — Great Britain — at the same time and with the same passion engaging in self-Islamization? Why are the Anglo-Saxon powers, while at war with more than one Islamic country, urging Europe to enlarge the European Union more and more, predictably with the result that Turkey and North Africa will join the club, thereby opening Europe to a flood of Muslim immigrants?

So instead of “the Germans” Kleine-Hartlage blames “the Anglo-Saxon powers” – the US and Britain. From his afterword:

Mr. Auster’s polemics have shown the gap between Anglo-Saxon and German conservatism. To bridge the gap a little bit, I have started a new blog, German Views, in order to make important articles from the conservative German blogosphere available in English.

The essay is reposted at his new blog, From a German Point of View: a Reply to Lawrence Auster, minus the afterword, but Kleine-Hartlage reiterates his point in a comment:

The problem – and the reason why I started this blog – is the dominance of the Anglo-Saxon narrative on Germany.

Kleine-Hartlage seems unaware that Lawrence Auster is no Anglo-Saxon, that his grandparents were all jewish immigrants to the US. Auster refers to Britain as “the Dead Island”, just as he refers to Germany as “that dead land”. His affections are for Israel. It may also surprise Kleine-Hartlage to know that the US Ambassador to France, Charles H. Rivkin, whose Wikileaked embassy report he linked, also has Russian jewish roots.

If we wish to talk honestly about who dominates not only the narrative on Germany but who dominates political, social, cultural and historical narratives in general, who is relentlessly encouraging Germans, Anglo-Saxons, and Whites in general to hate ourselves and feel guilty, then we must not neglect to mention the jewish elephant in the room. It is possible to honestly debate how significant jewish influence is. It is not honest to neglect to address that influence entirely.

I presume Kleine-Hartlage knows better than I do how German speech regarding jews is proscribed by law. Perhaps this is why he pins the blame on Anglo-Saxons.

Kleine-Hartlage might be interested to know that Auster’s recent ranting about the threat of German “hyper-liberalism” and German “anti-nationalism” is consistent with his usual schtick. He blames “the majority” (Whites) for “liberalism” (anti-Whiteness). He explicitly excuses “the jews”.

Just a few years ago Auster was discussing anti-nationalist sentiment in the US. Jews’ idiotic anti-nationalism:

Asked by the General Social Survey if immigration improves America, 52 percent of Protestants, 61 percent of Catholics, and 90 percent of Jews said yes. Matthew Yglesias, a Jew who works for The American Prospect, explains why Jews support immigration so much more than other groups, and Steve Sailer offers effective replies.

One of Yglesias’s points is: “Second, as a historical matter, nationalism has been Bad For The Jews.”

Yglesias is certainly correct that this is the Jewish view of the matter. But how truly idiotic and despicable a view it is. Jews have always lauded America for defeating Hitler. Would America have been able to defeat Hitler if it hadn’t existed as a nation and been a strong nation? Would it have been better for the Jews if Britain had had a weak sense of nationality and compromised with Hitler, instead of, as was the actual case under Churchill, a strong sense of nationality and stood up to him? Would Ann Frank’s family have had to hide in an attic for two years and then been arrested and sent to concentration camps where they died horrible deaths, if the Netherlands, instead of being a weak nation that was easily overrun by the Germans, had been a strong nation that was able to prevent the Germans from conquering the Netherlands and capturing all its Jews?

Also, most Jews are thankful for the fact that America, the strongest nation on earth, stands almost alone against the world-wide movement to destroy Israel. Will a weak and divided America be able to perform that function?

Don’t worry, Auster eventually excuses “the jews”. Note also that he doesn’t argue that jewish anti-nationalism is despicable because it’s bad for Whites (American, Briton, or Dutch). He thinks it’s despicable because it’s bad for “the jews”.

The usual judeo-liberal anti-nationalist hate/guilt narrative is that Whites must subordinate our interests to the interests of “minorities”, because if we worry about what’s best for us then we’re guilty of hate. Auster regularly calls attention to this narrative, at least as it pertains to blacks or muslims, but he wishes to preserve the special privileges of “minority” status for “the jews”. If we worry about what’s best for Whites, and that conflicts with what Auster thinks is best for “the jews”, then according to him we’re guilty of hate.

I’ll conclude here by quoting two jews who, though separated geographically and linguistically, sound remarkably alike. In fact if Lawrence Auster were transported back to 1944 it’s not unreasonable to imagine him expressing his thoughts in very similar terms.

Ilya Ehrenburg:

The Germans are not human beings. From now on the word German means to use the most terrible oath. From now on the word German strikes us to the quick. We shall not speak any more. We shall not get excited. We shall kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day … If you cannot kill your German with a bullet, kill him with your bayonet. If there is calm on your part of the front, or if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German in the meantime. If you leave a German alive, the German will hang a Russian and rape a Russian woman. If you kill one German, kill another — there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. Do not count days, do not count kilometers. Count only the number of Germans killed by you. Kill the German — that is your grandmother’s request. Kill the German — that is your child’s prayer. Kill the German — that is your motherland’s loud request. Do not miss. Do not let through. Kill.

Theodore Kaufman (in his book, Germany Must Perish!):

Today’s war is not a war against Adolf Hitler.

Nor is it a war against the Nazis.

It is a war of peoples against peoples; of civilized peoples envisioning Light, against uncivilized barbarians who cherish Darkness.

Of the peoples of those nations who would surge forward hopefully into a new and better phase of life, pitted against the peoples of a nation who would travel backward enthusiastically into the dark ages. It is a struggle between the German nation and humanity.

Hitler is no more to be blamed for this German war than was the Kaiser for the last one. Nor Bismarck before the Kaiser. These men did not originate or wage Germany’s wars against the world. They were merely the mirrors reflecting centuries-old inbred lust of the German nation for conquest and mass murder.

This war is being waged by the German People. It is they who are responsible. It is they who must be made to pay for the war. otherwise, there will always be a German war against the world. And with such a sword forever hanging overhead the civilized nations of the world, no matter how great their hopes, how strenuous their efforts, will never succeed in creating that firm and solid foundation of permanent peace which they must first establish if ever they intend to start the building of a better world.

For not only must their be no more German wars in fact; there must not even remain the slightest possibility of one ever again occurring. A final halt to German aggression, not a temporary cessation, must be the goal of the present struggle.

This does not mean an armed mastery over Germany, or a peace with political or territorial adjustments, or a hope based on a defeated and repentant nation. Such settlements are not sufficiently conclusive guarantees of no more German aggressions.

This time Germany has forced a TOTAL WAR upon the world.

As a result, she must be prepared to pay a TOTAL PENALTY.

And there is one, and only one, such Total Penalty: Germany must perish forever!

In fact — not in fancy!

Germans are an execrable people! They think and dream of nothing but chicanery. Their great joy consists in fault-finding, shrieking and threats.

Though these men try to conflate their narrow concerns for jews with the interests of others, let us not pretend that what we see and hear are Whites spouting self-hatred.

Blog

What Laura Wood Thinks

157 Comments

Two sensible questions may come to mind as you contemplate wading through the following text: Who is Laura Wood and why should I care what she thinks?

Beyond the blog posts linked below I don’t know who Laura Wood is or why she thinks what she thinks. I understand that Wood and Lawrence Auster regard each other highly. I suspect that, as with Auster, Wood’s readers include more than a few Whites who are more or less displeased with the anti-White regime but have yet to understand it in such terms.

Like Auster, Wood is a social critic who strikes a faux-White pose. Like Auster, Wood hosts earnest-sounding, carefully managed discussions of “liberalism”. Jews are mentioned in these discussions, but only to ultimately minimize their role and excuse them. The most serious condemnations are directed at Whites.

A few days ago Wood made a series of blog posts along these lines. She began the first post, titled Rejecting the “White Nationalist” Label, by quoting Lawrence Auster:

White nationalists are material-racial reductionists who, like Nazis, treat race as the single all-determining factor of human existence, so that human beings are in effect automata controlled by their race. I treat race as one very important determining factor in human existence, along with many other factors. And I am not a material reductionist. Material/racial factors can be the controlling factors; for example, if you change a formerly all-white city into a half black city, certain effects will inevitably ensue. At the same time, material/racial factors are not the only factors, especially at the individual level. But the material/racial force of sheer numbers will overwhelm any individual exceptions.

Auster regards his most hated enemies as automata controlled by a spontaneous hate for jews and projects his own materialist, racialist, reductionist thinking onto them. He started off by commenting on the “asians in the library” controversy, quickly shifted into a critique of White nationalism, and then broadened the bashing to Whites in general, blaming us for imposing genocidal open borders and diversity on ourselves (his emphasis):

Once a white country through its immigration policy makes itself conspicuously nonwhite, the former, white identity of the country is seen as something wicked and disgusting, and the former white majority is seen as racist, particularly by members of that former majority. The very act of the country becoming conspicuously nonwhite and diverse results in the psychological imperative that everything must conform to the new, diverse identity of the country. If diversity is what we are and is good, then whiteness is bad. Thus any remnant, and any remaining expression, of the former white majority is seen as suspect and threatening. That’s one of the ways in which mass nonwhite immigration is the path to national suicide. It turns the white population against itself.

Auster’s analysis conveniently overlooks jewish culpability in opening the borders, changing the identity of the country, and making White identity something wicked and disgusting. Auster is aware of this jewish culpability. Roughly two years ago he wrote in response to a correspondent Boris S. in The BNP versus the rulers of the Dead Island:

You write:

“On the other hand, one may claim that Jewish leftists are seeking to harm non-Jews in order to advance an ethnocentric agenda. [This] view is anti-Semitic and false…”

But there’s much evidence that it is true. Numerous Jewish spokesman have said, not just in recent times, but in past decades, that America’s white Anglo-Saxon Christian majority is oppressive to Jews and other minorities, and even that it poses a potential threat of much worse oppression, and that the only way for the Jews to be safe in America is to reduce the percentage and power of the white Christian majority by means of diverse immigration. To seek to turn the historic non-Jewish white Christian majority of this country into a minority, out of the conviction that that majority is oppressive and malign, is certainly to seek to harm non-Jews.

In his current critique Auster also neglects to mention the jewish origins of the “diversity” template “minorities” use – loudly pathologizing and demonizing the White enemy for being insensitive to non-White interests. Auster attributes this template to “liberalism”, and for it he blames Whites alone:

This radically changed national consciousness inaugurates the three character liberal “script” I’ve often spoken of. The first character in the script is the liberal white, who embodies the non-discriminatory virtue of the liberal regime. The second character is any white who is seen as non-liberal or merely insufficiently liberal. He represents the principle of evil which must be suppressed. The third character is the nonwhite Other, who is not a moral actor in the script but only a sacred object. His role is to be either “included” by the good, liberal white or “excluded” by the bad, non-liberal white. The moral conflict in the story is not between the whites and the nonwhite, it’s between the “good,” non-discriminatory white and the “evil,” discriminatory white, fighting over how to treat the nonwhite Other.

As is often the case Auster’s critique of “liberalism” sheds much light on his own motives and methods. In this case he starts by declaring White nationalists bad because they wish to exclude the jewish Other, and then later in the same conversation reveals that some part of his brain understands this behavior of his is a “script” which “liberal whites” act out.

In a comment at Laura Wood’s blog Auster makes the jewish terms of his “liberal white script” objection to White nationalists more plain:

While I never described myself as one, I didn’t mind it when others called me one. But in more recent years I became aware that literally every blogger who identifies as a white nationalist is (a) a material racial reductionist who thinks that race determines everything; and (b) a serious anti-Semite or a fellow traveler with serious anti-Semites.

Setting aside the initial strawman portion, Wood emphatically agrees with Auster about the portion putting jewish interests first:

If it came down to choosing between citizenship in a white ethnostate which identified itself as proudly ”Jew-free” in its constitution and a nation that was suicidally multicultural, I would choose the latter.

When it comes down to choosing, Auster and Wood choose to oppose the rest of us who want a choice.

Like Auster, Wood laboriously selects and publishes only the comments she wishes to appear. After she truncated and mischaracterized my first comment at her blog (see the comments here) we had a brief exchange via email in which she confided that: “the reason why I dropped your comment was that we do not have enough in common”. Fair enough. It’s also fair then to say that the remarks Wood does publish do have enough in common with her thinking.

Wood continues her moderated discussion in The Problem with White Nationalism, cont., beginning with a lengthy comment from Boris S. (who may very well be the same person Auster responded to on his own blog two years ago):

The essential difference between the so-called “white nationalist” tribalism and the organization of Jews, which the “white nationalists” seek to emulate, is that the Jews point to a common four-thousand-year-old religion, with a shared culture, historical memory, and transcendental hopes. The “white nationalists,” on the other hand, want to impose a totally new tribal organization, invented out of thin air, on a group that has never constituted–that is, never saw itself as–a single nation, people, or tribe. “Whites” are not, and never have been, a people, in the sense that one speaks of the “Jewish people.”

Furthermore, no matter how much “white nationalists” deny their ideological affinity with Hitlerian National Socialism, the latter remains the only movement to have tried to reorganize the European nations into a single race-tribe, itself differentiated according to an internal racial hierarchy. The crippling blow to Western civilization, that may yet turn out to be a deathblow, which has been wrought by Nazism, does not seem to give much pause to the soi-disant “white nationalists” who claim to “defend Western civilization.” One would like to know what that oft-invoked “Western civilization” means to such people. Does it refer to the individual freedoms granted by the Western democracies? Does it mean Western music, art, literature? The Western philosophical tradition? The Christian religion? One suspects it is merely a suitably noble-sounding call to arms, perhaps to be replaced by some other catch-phrase when its use has run out. To this, “white nationalists” would protest that, unlike Nazism, their movement does not promote violence and war. This objection cannot be taken seriously for two reasons. First, because the movement seeks to overturn the present political and social order, it is by nature revolutionary, and, like all revolutionary movements, it will one day face the necessity of the use of violence if it seriously hopes to achieve its goals. Second, because Western societies are not “racially homogenous” according to the understanding of the “white nationalists” themselves, their desired order will inevitably create classes of “racial aliens” who would resent their sudden status as outsiders and would have to be dealt with somehow. It is amusing to note that many “white nationalists” deny the revolutionary nature of their movement as they try to claim what they take to be the “prestigious” mantle of “true conservatism” or “reaction.”

These are some of the nasty consequences of the “white nationalist” program. It is important to add that the ideology does not withstand theoretical criticism, because many of its claims about human history and human societies are basically incorrect. Racial tribalism as a mode of thought is alien to Western tradition, and has become widespread only in the late 19th century, when it could be based upon Darwinism and its naturalistic (or “zoological”) view of man, and when masses of men disoriented by the fall of the feudal order and the havoc of industrial capitalism sought a new identity to give them meaning and a sense of belonging. It is true that the demographic changes now sweeping the Western world are in part made possible by what could be called “anti-racism” or “reverse racism,” an essentially revolutionary attitude that denies to those nation-states it sees as “white” any right to defense against “non-white” invaders (and is also responsible for affirmative action). This attitude, which does not rise to the level of ideology (with the possible exception of a few revolutionary socialist groups that have attempted to articulate it), is a diseased reaction to the likewise diseased fit of racism which took hold of the West approximately from 1880 to 1950. But the demographic changes are also made possible by the shrinking of the world due to modern technology, and receive their impetus from technological and economic forces. In other words, what the racialists see as the preserved “racial purity” of Europe until the second half of the 20th century, is not the result of a nonexistent tradition of racial tribalism, but simply the expected absence of rapid change in the pre-industrial era. This brings us to another problem with the “white nationalist” ideology: what today we would call “ethnic mixing” has happened continuously for millennia between peoples who lived within accessible geographic distances. Thus, unless we deny the common origin of mankind (at which point we could no longer claim scientific backing or any connection with Western tradition) we cannot treat “the white race” as an objectively fixed entity.

The only good thing that can be said of “white nationalism” is that it gives comfort to some individuals who, in having been deprived of any adequate outlet for their creative energies and a stable community, have been among the unfortunate victims of modernity. But apart from the theoretical problems and the necessary violence and immorality that would flow from any attempt to implement “white nationalism” in America, the ideology, in its obsession with race and its beside-the-point pursuit of scientific justification, seems to have no answer to the problems any serious political thinker today would have to deal with, including the overwhelming role of technological and economic forces in constraining the freedom of modern man, the prevailing antihumanist ethos of Enlightened or bourgeois utilitarianism which holds human beings to be valuable only insofar as they happen to be “useful” (however this is to be defined, whether by the state or the “free market”), the related contempt for philosophy, religion, and contemplation, or the superficial scientism and “secular humanism” (a sort of cheap tribalism from which “white nationalism” differs only in the scope of the designated tribe) that dominate respectable discourse. Considering either the silence or the incredible shallowness of “white nationalism” on such matters, the movement seems to be rather one more symptom of the pathology.

As with Auster and Wood, Boris’ argument is based on a personal conviction that White nationalism is bad for jews. As I tried to point out in the comment Wood truncated, this argument is beside the point. Whites are distinct from jews. White nationalism is premised on what is good for Whites, not what is good for jews. Auster and Wood both dodge this argument by treating jews and Whites as one inseparable “white”, and do so even as they distinguish jews for special treatment.

Unlike Auster and Wood Boris doesn’t pretend to sympathize with Whites. He doesn’t pretend Whites and jews are one inseparable “white”. He belittles White attempts to organize politically to debate and pursue our interests, and does so specifically in contrast with jews.

Wood published Boris’s boorish comment and followed it with another:

Robert Gray writes:

It’s ironic that the Jew-mongers would describe Auster as a “Jewish fifth columnist” when they themselves drive white Americans away from the cause with their incessant talk of Jews and Jewish influence. The typical white nationalist site, in its content, comments, and links, repels whites because we are not utterly obsessed with Jews and have no sympathy with neo-Nazism, Fascism, and Holocaust denial. I’ve tried to reason with those afflicted with Jew-mania, but reason and logic have no effect. They cannot see the damage they do. Indeed, I don’t think they care. For their concern is proving that Jews are evil, rather than securing the interests of white people.

Auster describes himself a jewish fifth columnist, and Gray’s demonizing of “jew-mongers” “afflicted with jew-mania” echoes Auster’s “liberal white script”. It is a blunt attempt to pathologize Whites who identify jewish sources of anti-White hostility. Gray’s 17-point position statement, offered as advocacy of ostensibly “white ethnic interests”, comprises four points distinguishing and advocating anti-“nazi”/jewish ethnic interests:

12. Nazi Germany was not good for the white race. It made war on European states and killed millions of white people. To claim that Hitler or the Nazis were “pro-white” is utterly absurd.

13. In World War II, the Nazi leadership deliberately attempted to kill all the Jews in Europe. They did this by the use of shootings, confinement, forced labor, random murder, death camps, and gas chambers. The number of Jews killed by the Nazis was on the order of millions. Had Nazi Germany won the war, they would probably have succeeded in killing all the Jews in the world.

14. White ethno-states should be democratic and libertarian. They should not be fascist or totalitarian states as, for example, Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

15. Jews are not the root of all evil. Jews do not force white people to act against their own self-interests. Whites undermine their ethnic interests of their own free will. In general, we should avoid talking about Jews and Jewish influence. Ultimately, it is counter-productive. And in any case, we should not advocate for the harm of Jews or the destruction of Israel.

Later in the exchange Wood permits Van Wijk to play down the danger posed by jews to Whites while playing up the danger posed by Whites who don’t:

It is no secret that the majority of American Jews are leftists; so are a great many whites. Since leftist Jews are in most cases racially and culturally white, and since they are too few and pacifistic to pose a physical threat, they can be lumped in with white leftists as a whole and dealt with in the same manner. The problem with the Jew-haters is that they tend to ignore or play down the danger posed by demonstrably violent peoples. Solve the problem of Jewish influence, they say, and all other problems will solve themselves. Every time I’ve asked a Jew-hater what to do about Mestizos or Muslims, the response has been that they can be dealt with “in a straightforward manner.” No one but the Jews are on the Jew-hater’s radar, and Jews are (naturally) responsible for most of the evil in the world. For this reason, the proper response to the likes of Cesar “Himmler is my friend” Tort is to delete his emails and otherwise ignore him. Since Jewish influence looms large in the mind of the Jew-hater and can never be resolved while there is a single Jew in the land, to engage them is to be drawn into what Mark Richardson calls an “intellectual cul-de-sac.”

Wood’s campaign against Whites who distinguish ourselves from jews continues in The Jew-Hater’s Radar, where she takes special note of Van Wijk’s comment and permits Auster to perfect the last sentence:

Since in the minds of the Jew-haters the Jews are the ultimate cause of all the evils facing society, and since, therefore, none of those evils can be solved or even dealt with while there is a single Jew in the land, to engage the Jew-haters is to be drawn into what Mark Richardson calls an “intellectual cul-de-sac.”

Auster, Wood, Boris, Van Wijk, Gray and others who think and speak as they do, like Mark Richardson, make sweeping negative pronouncements about Whites just as easily as they do about “jew-haters”. Behind their double-talk about “whites” and “liberalism” is an underlying hyper-awareness of jewish interests and a primal, uncompromising drive to defend them.

Amidst the other posts linked above Wood also wrote A Recommendation Retracted:

EARLIER THIS week, I recommended a new website Faith and Heritage. I regret my hasty enthusiasm for a new venture. Disappointingly, Faith and Heritage is beset with the same viral tendency that afflicts many sites that defend white heritage: anti-Semitism.

The passage Wood objected to was contained in a review of The Social Network from a Christian point of view:

Lacking the Christian sense of fair play and good sportsmanship (that even nominal, cultural Christians like the Winklevoss still largely possess, and reinforced through athletics), nursing resentments against our culture and people, the temptation to cheat is almost impossible for them to overcome. The lesson for Christians is simple: avoid dealings with Jews, for they are too risky.

Wood demonstrates here her willingness to condemn even a nominally White spiritual defense as pathological. Her “script”, as Auster so helpfully described it, is that Whites (in this case Christians) who exclude the jewish Other are “bad”.

Blog

Murdoch, Phillips, and Auster on What’s Best for “The Jews”

18 Comments

The Aim Is to Make Israel a Pariah:

Recently, Rupert Murdoch gave an extraordinary speech at an Anti-Defamation League dinner in which he revealed, yet again, that he is a true and selfless friend of the Jewish people and of Israel.

We live in a world where there is an ongoing war against the Jews. For the first decades after Israel’s founding, this war was conventional in nature. The goal was straightforward: to use military force to overrun Israel. Well before the Berlin Wall came down, that approach had clearly failed.

Then came phase two: terrorism. Terrorists targeted Israelis both home and abroad – from the massacre of Israeli athletes at Munich to the second intifada. The terrorists continue to target Jews across the world. But they have not succeeded in bringing down the Israeli government – and they have not weakened Israeli resolve.

Now the war has entered a new phase. This is the soft war that seeks to isolate Israel by delegitimizing it. The battleground is everywhere: the media … multinational organizations … NGOs. In this war, the aim is to make Israel a pariah.

Tonight I’d like to speak about two things that worry me most. First is the disturbing new home that anti-Semitism has found in polite society – especially in Europe. Second is how violence and extremism are encouraged when the world sees Israel’s greatest ally distancing herself from the Jewish state.

When Americans think of anti-Semitism, we tend to think of the vulgar caricatures and attacks of the first part of the 20th century.

Today it seems that the most virulent strains come from the left. Often this new anti-Semitism dresses itself up as legitimate disagreement with Israel.

Right now we have war. There are many people waging this war. Some blow up cafes. Some fire rockets into civilian areas. Some are pursuing nuclear arms. Some are fighting the soft war, through international boycotts and resolutions condemning Israel. All these people are watching the U.S.-Israeli relationship closely.

In this regard, I was pleased to hear the State Department’s spokesman clarify America’s position yesterday. He said that the United States recognizes “the special nature of the Israeli state. It is a state for the Jewish people.” This is an important message to send to the Middle East. When people see, for example, a Jewish prime minister treated badly by an American president, they see a more isolated Jewish state. That only encourages those who favor the gun over those who favor negotiation.

Ladies and gentlemen, back in 1937, a man named Vladimir Jabotinsky urged Britain to open up an escape route for Jews fleeing Europe. Only a Jewish homeland, he said, could protect European Jews from the coming calamity. In prophetic words, he described the problem this way: “It is not the anti-Semitism of men,” he said. “It is, above all, the anti-Semitism of things, the inherent xenophobia of the body social or the body economic under which we suffer.”

The world of 2010 is not the world of the 1930s. The threats Jews face today are different. But these threats are real. These threats are soaked in an ugly language familiar to anyone old enough to remember World War II. And these threats cannot be addressed until we see them for what they are: part of an ongoing war against the Jews.

Is Rupert Murdoch jewish? Does it matter? As we see here, he’s most concerned about the best interests of “the jews”. He’s pleased that the US government defends the “special nature” of Israelis, never mind that it attacks Whites for wanting anything similar. He sees Israelis and diaspora jews as one cosmic “the jews”, and he vividly imagines they need defending from “the inherent xenophobia” of Europeans and a nuclear Iran. He implies that Europeans and Iranians are of a single mind – hell-bent on Israel’s destruction.

As an aside, Jabotinsky was a jewish ethno-nationalist. He advocated jewish interests without pretending that they didn’t conflict with European interests. The ADL’s role has been to convince Americans and Europeans to think of jewish ethno-nationalism as wholesome and normal, while White ethno-nationalism is pathological and evil.

In language that is familiar to anyone who has been exposed in any way to contemporary mainstream Western media, academia, or politics, Murdoch paints jews as the eternally innocent victims of moral and mental defectives “warring” on them. His description of “threats … soaked in an ugly language familiar to anyone old enough to remember World War II” calls up decades of guilt-tripping and brain-washing. Despite the loud and constant self-pity of wealthy, powerful jews and their wealthy, powerful friends their self-serving manipulations only highlight the anti-White/pro-jewish regime which reigns across the Eurosphere today. Pity for supposedly oppressed “minorities”, jews first and foremost, has been used to justify anti-White “civil rights”, massive transfers of wealth, and genocidal levels of immigration by hyper-fecund non-Whites. If Whites lend a hand to protect anybody, it should be to protect ourselves.

Zionist jewess Melanie Phillips makes her living lecturing others, primarily via British media, about what they should consider wrong, bad, immoral and insane. Very often her lectures revolve around the interests of “the jews”. Phillips referred to Murdoch’s speech in an op-ed grandiosely titled The war for civilisation:

Well at least one man gets it.

Rupert Murdoch has made a direct, to-the-point, ambiguity-free speech about the anti-Israel, anti-Jew frenzy now consuming the west.

It is a rebuke to the world on the single most important and defining issue of our time.

Phillips is accustomed to rebuking the world. As an example of “our” time, Phillips cites Adrian Hamilton’s Israel has no future as a purely Jewish state criticizing a new Israeli “loyalty oath”. Right after telling us how special and important “the jews” and Israel are Phillips insists this oath is really no different than “Britain is British, France French and so on”.

Hamilton says nothing about Israel that hasn’t been aimed at Whites and our countries a million times before, often by jews, and usually in more strident terms. Ideas like “Britain is British, France French” are viciously attacked, from within, and in such cases the voices of naive literal anti-“racists”, like Hamilton, who mistakenly regard jews as equals, are dwarfed and drowned out by the anti-White bigotry flowing from chauvinist jews and jewish organizations who operate under no delusions of equality. There is, to use the terminology of Murdoch and Phillips, a war on Britons. “The jews” are on the other side. Melanie Phillips is with them. When she writes negatively about muslims it’s because she thinks they’re doing something bad for “the jews”. When she denounces those who want Britain to remain British she does so for the same reason.

Just as Murdoch does, Phillips only mentions muslim/arab hostility toward jews in passing. It is plain to see that they both consider the real enemy, the people they are most concerned about waging “war” on “the jews”, to be White/European. This is why Murdoch and Phillips both completely ignore anti-White bigotry. To acknowledge it would require an examination of jewish culpability. In their minds “the jews” are above reproach, special people in one special country who are treated especially bad, especially by Whites. As Phillips writes:

Within the west, it is also the ever-more brazenly explicit reason for the campaign of delegitimisation being waged against Israel. Israel is the one and only country in the world whose right to exist is being questioned. And that of course is the point of Hamilton’s little tirade.

To make his case that Europeans are waging an ongoing “war” against “the jews” Murdoch cited Karel De Gucht, an EU bureaucrat. Phillips makes her case by citing Hamilton, an opinion shaper like herself, reading his mind and putting words in his mouth to write a little tirade of her own:

So what Hamilton wants is for Israel no longer to be.

Phillips concludes by abruptly broadening her fears and smears, naming the crime and the criminals:

Thus the ‘progressive’ western intelligentsia make themselves potential accomplices to genocide.

Self-styled jewish fifth-columnist Lawrence Auster likes to write scolding letters. He addressed one to Melanie Phillips about her remarks on Murdoch, taking the judeo-centrism to an even more bizarre level. Is cosmic Judeo-centrism good for the Jews? (Auster’s emphasis):

Below is an e-mail I sent today to Melanie Phillips, followed by her reply. You will see from her reply why I felt at liberty to post the exchange, which I had no thought of doing when I wrote to her.

I’m sorry to bother you. I know you don’t want to hear my thoughts. But I must say this to you and I hope you will give the 90 seconds it will take you to read this e-mail.

When you say of Rupert Murdoch’s speech on anti-Semitism that it is “a rebuke to the world on the single most important and defining issue of our time,” you are making a big mistake. Is the threat to the Jews a bigger problem than the Islamization of the entire West? When you call anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism the “most important and defining issue of our time,” you are coming across like a typically Judeo-centric Jew who thinks that the Jews are the most important thing in the world. Instead of being concerned first and foremost about the West, you are concerned first and foremost about the Jews. And this supports the anti-Semitic view of Jews, that Jews are not at bottom loyal to the West, but only loyal to the Jews.

I have spent a significant part of my time battling against the anti-Semites on the American paleoconservative and white nationalist right. The fuel that drives the anti-Semites is their belief that Jews are not on the side of the West, that Jews are using the West to advance and protect Jewish interests. You seem to have no idea of how the inordinate Judeo-centrism of your statement would make you appear to others.

I respectfully ask you to ask yourself if it’s really true that anti-Semitism is the “single most important and defining issue of our time,” and whether you are being helpful to the Jews, helpful to Israel, and helpful to the West [Tanstaafl: note the order], when you make the protection of the Jews and Israel the supreme issue of the world.

Lawrence Auster

Melanie Phillips replied:

The war against the Jews is the single biggest and defining issue of our time because (a) it stands at the fulcrum of the west’s repudiation of its own culture (b) the animus against the Jews lies at the core of the Islamic threat against the west and (c) if Israel goes down, the west goes down. Your message is typically as ignorant as it is offensive.

Melanie

What Auster is saying here is, “Hey, it would better advance and protect jewish interests if you would just pretend you cared about the goyim.” “No”, Phillips responds, “Can’t do that.” Their disagreement concerns the significance of “the war against ‘the jews'”, or rather, the significance it should be accorded in public discussions. The “war” itself is taken for granted.

“The war against ‘the jews'” and what Auster calls the effort “to advance and protect jewish interests” are of course two sides of the same coin. The latter can be seen as “the war against those ‘the jews’ accuse of warring against ‘the jews'”, or more simply, “the war to advance and protect jewish interests”.

We’re reminded again that muslims play only a supporting role in this “war”. Phillips’ typically judeo-centric view is that “the Islamic threat against the west” is just one aspect of “animus against ‘the jews'”. Auster’s typically judeo-centric view is that Phillips’ public assertion that “the Islamization of the entire West” is most important because it is bad for “the jews” is itself bad for “the jews”.

Auster brags of his efforts to war on Whites who refuse jewish dominance and he accuses Phillips of making his self-appointed job harder. In doing so Auster concedes more clearly than ever before a point he has long danced around. He does indeed spend a significant part of his time battling White conservatives and nationalists, and clearly he does so because he favors jews and jewish interests more than anything else. See Lawrence Auster, Champion of “The Jews” for more on this point.

Auster takes for granted, de Gucht-style, that ethnocentrism is typical of jews, though he argues it should be masked to best advance their interests. Auster sees Phillips’ approach as too brazen, not wrong. Both cloak their pursuit of what’s good for jews inside a putative defense of the West, or as Auster puts it, “using the West to advance and protect jewish interests”. Auster differs from Phillips largely in his willingness to cultivate his pose as a champion of the West by grappling with the symptoms of the anti-White regime. He even discusses the jewish role in it, though not to worry, it’s only because he thinks it’s bad for “the jews”.

After Auster shares their private email exchange, a critique of Phillips ensues. Much of it applies just as well to Auster:

Jeff in England writes:

Subject: THE BIG BANG(er)

I had to laugh at your latest attempt to get Melanie to become a serious thinker on the primacy of the Islamic threat (vs. the Jewish persecution issue), let alone any issue.

Melanie is NOT a thinker as such, rather she is a “banger.” She simply bangs on (as they say here) with extremely focused robotic-like wordage her limited set of views where Jewish persecution is the permanent never changing number one on her list. The possibility that any issue can threaten the number one status of the Jewish (and Israeli) persecution issue is well beyond her limited intellectual scope.

LA replies:

Jeff’s view of Melanie is very like my own. Before I received his e-mail, I had it in my head to write a comment saying that Melanie has a sharp intelligence, but it is one-dimensional. She focuses only on the things she is attacking, and never reflects on her own positions and thought processes. Anything that lies outside her limited world view is simply wrong and therefore ignorant.

However, Jeff’s rougher way of putting the same idea makes the point better: she’s not a thinker, she’s a banger.

You can’t help but wonder, how does someone get to her late fifties, a successful writer, and still be so primitive and unthinking in her dealings with people?

LA replies:

However, these reflections on Melanie Phillips’s stunning limitations–she’s not called “Mad Mel” for nothing–also make her less useful as an example of some typical Jewish attitude. She’s too extreme a personality to be typical.

Here begins a repeat of a well-worn Auster pattern. A dollop of heresy about “the jews”, in this case their over-the-top judeo-centrism, followed by some talmudic hair-splitting about the meaning of it all, followed inevitably by a shift in focus to some vaguely defined non-jewish scapegoat – “the liberals”, “the anti-semites”, “the majority”, … Here the pattern unfolds once again when Auster confides his thoughts about “the war against ‘the jews'” and who, ultimately, he, Phillips, and Murdoch hold accountable:

LA replies:

. . .

I would say that the war against the Jews is a very grave problem and a threat not only to Jews but to our civilization., But to say that it is at the fulcrum of the West’s repudiation of its own culture is going too far. The West’s repudiation of its own culture has many motivations and components that have nothing to do with the Jews, and it would be happening even if there were no Jews.

That last sentence is an absurd assertion, and Auster knows it, pointing as he does to an older article where he attacks Pat Buchanan and writes: “If the West abandons Israel to a Second Holocaust at the hands of Islamic extremists, that will be an act of collective moral suicide–the true Death of the West.” In other words, “our” “suicide” hinges on “the jews”. To make the point Auster invokes the very same decades of jew-favoring guilt-tripping and brain-washing Murdoch invokes, which is exactly what’s fueling the “suicide”. Hiding in plain sight. “Go ahead”, the jewish warrior says, “point out that it isn’t suicide, jew-hater.”

To drive home that “the jews” are blameless two days later Auster posted a related entry, An interesting view of the Jewish problem:

John Gay writes from Canada:

With respect, it seems to me that both you and Melanie Phillips are missing the point in your aborted exchange about the Jews.

You ask, “Is cosmic Judeo-centrism good for the Jews?” Many Jews certainly don’t like being the focus of the inordinate historical attention focused on their small nation, and many have been murdered for it. But this is the fate of being a Jew, a carrier, or sign, of a revelation of great historical significance. A “Jew” is not simply whatever he is, as an actual person in daily life. And if one day the enemies of the Jews succeed in killing off all the Jews, they will still have a need for “Jews” and they will find them under one name or another, within one resentful conspiracy theory or another, because their identities depend, at their very core, on having “Jews” to resent.

In other words, what Melanie P. is talking about, it seems to me, is the anthropological and historical significance of anti-Semitism, something that transcends the actual lives of Jews, their DNA, and mundane or selfish interests. The “cosmic” significance of the Jew is the anthropological revelation that a loving God who wishes to allow humanity to discover the creative, nation-defining, “republican,” self-ruling possibilities of covenant must offer the choice first to one particular nation, and not to all humanity at once. Someone has to go first; a universal truth can only be revealed from a particular historical vantage point. But it is just this reality that the anti-Semite resents–that he is second, or third, to “discover” some profound existential truth, such as that one and all are in relationship with the one God of monotheism. The anti-Semite resents the creativity, the “firstness,” on which all productive nation building depends (which is not to say that such creativity is necessarily closed to him, but his resentment will often become trapped in a desire for conformity to some already-established relationship to what we signify as sacred or divine, such as the supposedly eternal, and uncreated, cosmically original, Koran).

So, leaving aside the personal animus, I read Melanie’s response to you thus:

“The war against the Jews is the single biggest and defining issue of our time because (a) it stands at the fulcrum of the West’s repudiation of its own culture.”

– Yes, even if all Jews are killed, the war may continue as long as some Western nation takes up the mantle of “Israel.” But when no one plays “Israel,” the war is truly lost. Again, the war against the Jews is not so much against actual persons, though it certainly threatens first and foremost actual Jews, who are the most obvious “Jews,” as it is against what Israel represents in the Western tradition as the first and exemplary nation.

So let’s review.

Plutocrat media mogul Rupert Murdoch pays obsequious homage to “the jews” while accepting an award from a very real, very powerful jewish organization dedicated to defending and promoting specifically jewish interests. In doing so Murdoch makes the extraordinary implication that Europeans are waging a “war” against “the jews”. Professional jewish bigot Melanie Phillips applauds, clarifies, and extends this idea, asserting that the “war” is essentially the European rejection of the validity of “the jews” as the center, the crux, the “most important” part of “our” culture. Jewish fifth-columnist Lawrence Auster adds White American conservatives and nationalists to the enemies list, but insists that “the jews” have nothing to do with it. The “war” against “the jews” is all about Whites killing ourselves. Whites are so crazy with suicidal “the jew”-hate that we’d mistake eskimos for “the jews” if there weren’t any “actual” cosmic “the jews” to pick on.

One thing that’s clear from all this double-talk is that the very people most obsessed with the interests of “the jews” will not acknowledge that anyone else has any interests. In their minds “the jews” are most important. They aren’t shy about letting everyone know this, or lecturing everyone that we too must at least behave as if we accept it. They fret and exaggerate and generalize. They feel free to babble on about a “war” against “the jews” waged by Whites, and when they really work themselves into a froth it’s the whole world against “the jews”. It’s a dishonest way of excusing the arrogance and aggression directed in the opposite direction. To listen to “the jews” it’s all about what’s good for “us” and “our” interests, at least until the mask comes off and all that nonsense gets overridden by whatever they think is good for “the jews”. Any concern for interests explicitly or even implicitly distinct from “the jews” causes an allergic reaction in “the jews”. The reaction is so universal, so strong, that it grips even those who usually present themselves as defenders of abstract White collectives, whether it’s Britain, America, the West, or “our civilization”. With their own judeo-centric moralizing however these poseurs consistently demonstrate that their very highest loyalty is to the collective they call “the jews”.

For more about Auster on “the jews” see Two “Conservative” Jews, Same “Liberal” Dissembling, The First Law of Jewish Influence, Triangulating From the Right, and Suicide vs. Competition.

Blog

Lawrence Auster, Champion of “The Jews”

41 Comments

The need for a better word for anti-Semitism. Commissar Auster is searching for a new term because “anti-semite” isn’t working as well as he would like. Oh, and it seems the facts aren’t good for “the jews” either, so they’ll need to be replaced too.

Auster refers, indirectly, to Committing PC’s Most Mortal Sin. After three years of presenting facts and naming names I stand by what I’ve written.

Blog

Javerting Attention

12 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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