Tag Archives: liberalism

Blog

Who’s on Top?

94 Comments

John Savage wrote an interesting post titled The Leftist Social Pyramid. It was not my intent but in commenting there I upset him, and he closed the thread to further comment. He may withdraw the post, which is his perogative, but I hope he doesn’t. It begins like so:

This week, commenter Mark P. at VFR predicts a coming factionalization of the Left. This goes back to the question I keep asking: Why is the Left so monolithic, in the sense that we rarely hear of fights over whether one or another thing is a proper leftist principle? Whatever difficulties there have been in making the decisions, they seem to have been out of the public spotlight, and discontent among the losers seems to have done little damage to the overall movement.

I suggested last fall that there is a Hierarchy of Entitlement on the Left. To recap, non-Western immigrant groups seem to be at the top. The toleration of violence and even ethnic cleansing by these groups against native-born blacks demonstrates that these groups stand above blacks. The attempt to prosecute disabled whites for racist “hate speech” demonstrates that nonwhites still stand above the disabled, and the toleration of nonwhite violence against homosexuals demonstrates that nonwhites stand above homosexuals. The toleration of nonwhite rape of white women demonstrates that white women are considerably lower than any nonwhites, while white heterosexual men are at the very bottom.

My emphasis.

At my prompting we exchanged a few comments concerning where jews fit in this hierarchy. I argued they’re on the top. John discussed it, but I think he would really have preferred to leave them unmentioned. It’s a common problem. It supports the point I was trying to make. Of all the elephants in the room the jewish elephant is the one everyone seems most eager to ignore. Thus when someone will not ignore it it’s easy to paint them as abnormal, just as John eventually did to me.

Whether or not jews are on top, they certainly are one of the most prominent, powerful victim groups in the “Leftist Social Pyramid”. Opinion on anti-semitism is more monolithic than any other social or political principle in the West. It transcends left and right.

The principle of anti-semitism is this: no matter the merits of what you say, if it is critical of jews then you are insane. It doesn’t matter whether you are ancient egyptian, contemporary korean, amerindian, leftist former president (Jimmy Carter), or rightist former presidential candidate (Pat Buchanan).

In a presentation titled For Fear of The Jews Joe Sobran said:

What, exactly, is “anti-Semitism”? One standard dictionary definition is “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group.” How this applies to me has never been explained. My “hostility” toward Israel is a desire not for war, but for neutrality — out of a sense of betrayal, waste, and shame. Our venal politicians have aligned us with a foreign country that behaves dishonorably. Most alleged “anti-Semites” would wince if Jews anywhere were treated as Israel treats its Arab subjects. Moreover, Israel has repeatedly betrayed its only benefactor, the United States. I have already alluded to the place Dante reserves for those who betray their benefactors.

These are obvious moral facts. Yet it’s not only politicians who are afraid to point them out; so are most journalists — the people who are supposed to be independent enough to say the things politicians can’t afford to say. In my thirty years in journalism, nothing has amazed me more than the prevalent fear in the profession of offending Jews, especially Zionist Jews.

Emphasis mine.

I’m sorry if making this point upsets jews, or John Savage, or anyone else. I raise it because it’s important. Not many people will discuss it calmly. John’s accusation that I’m “unreasonable” and “see jews everywhere” is itself unreasonable – it imagines only two extremes: either jews are not worthy of mention, or they control everything. That’s a false dichotomy. I reject it.

Blog

Anti-Racism and its Genocidal Fanatics

28 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another such mechanism is called symbolic racism:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The blogger, a black woman, then writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I recognized several recurring themes. One was:

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

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

Another theme was typified by:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . .

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

. . .

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

. . .

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

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

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

. . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blog

Caveat Sucker

12 Comments

Progressivism (aka liberalism) is the revolutionary impulse to make the world safe for globalism.

The leadership of both parties, Bush, all the current candidates, and most major Western political, media, business, academic, and religious leaders openly subscribe to this impulse.

With words they pretend to be universalists but with their actions they reveal themselves as self-righteous and greedy individualists. They speak endlessly of equality but they treat everyone but themselves as lesser beings to be managed like so many domesticated animals.

These leaders suffer no hindrance in their quest for one-world utopia. The globe will wear their yoke, and like it. Your nation, culture, wealth, health, and family are all forfeit. You are free, except to oppose them. You may migrate – by all means! – but mind the wars, the gangs, the crime, the toxic waste.

Welcome to hell. Our ideologies and party affiliations and consumer baubles and blogs are distractions from this reality.

Have a nice day.

Blog

Irony Thy Name is Auster

6 Comments

Lawrence Auster, in a post inaptly titled Are racial differences in IQ explained by cultural stereotypes?, writes:

Has anyone noticed the irony that most of the people who argue that there are no inherent differences in intelligence between the races are left-wing Jews, who use their high intelligence to argue that everyone has the same intelligence?

R. Davis writes:

The fact that left-wing Jews “use their high intelligence to argue that everyone has the same intelligence” raises two questions: 1. Are they doing so simply for cultural/political reasons, i.e., to subvert the majority non-Jewish culture by undermining its ethnic-racial foundations, while subtly affirming a Jewish intellectual superiority? or 2. Does their superior intelligence afford them insights the rest of us aren’t capable of? Given their own ethnic/racial makeup, they would seem to be the best refutation of their own thesis, but perhaps at that intellectual elevation the forest is a bit far off.

This question does touch on a facet of racialist politics (highlighted by the Wright affair) that no one dares discuss–namely, if in fact intellectual differences do exist between blacks and whites/Asians, whether genetically or culturally induced (what does it matter?), why should those at the low end of the bell curve be granted almost exclusive control over the national dialogue on race or on any other issue? Look where that is taking us. Rev. Wright is not an iconoclast. The majority of blacks believe the US government is using AIDS genocidally against them. Our schools dumb down deliberately to accommodate racial differences (which dare not be mentioned). On the other hand, those at the high end of the intellectual spectrum have done much to mire us in this racial quagmire. How does one make sense of this?

LA replies:

There’s truth to this. The people at the high end ally with the people at the low end to destroy the vast silent majority in the middle–the actual society.

What I’ve just described (and this goes beyond the question of the specifically Jewish role, though it includes it) in fact represents the essential structure of liberalism as it actually operates in society. Liberalism requires three groups in order to function. First, there is the liberal elite itself, the people who make liberalism happen. They demonstrate liberalism by preaching and practicing non-discrimination toward the Other, the minority, the less capable. Second, there are the Other and the less capable, upon whom the liberal elite practices its liberal virtue of non-discrimination. Without the Other, toward whom one practices non-discrimination, liberalism would die. Therefore liberalism requires an ever-renewed population of non-assimilated and unassimilable people. But a third group is also needed for liberalism to function, and that is the vast unenlightened majority whose backward morality is needed as a foil against which the elite demonstrates its morality and establishes its legitimacy and right to rule.

James M. writes from England:

During the Watson controversy a high-IQ British Jew called Steven Rose tried to peddle the “all equal” line at the Guardian, attacking the “long-exploded racist claim that “Africans” are inherently less intelligent than “us”‘.

Well yes Larry, since you asked, some people have noticed. A hardy few, like Luke O’Farrell, have written more coherently than you have concerning both the who and why:

The late Stephen Jay Gould was a Marxist who labored long and hard to deny the truth about race and IQ. The living Steven Rose, Richard Lewontin and Leon Kamin continue his work. The paradox is that the leading race-deniers prove the importance of race, because they all belong to that tiny minority known as Jews. So did Marx, Freud and Boas. Jews are very good at duping and deceiving, at creating seductive ideologies to fool naïve whites into acting against their own interests. Jews fool and rule; whites swallow and follow. And there are genetic reasons for this. Tiny differences in DNA don’t account just for a highly significant Jewish advantage in verbal IQ, but also for a highly significant Jewish advantage in arrogance, ethnocentrism and disregard for objective truth. Jews preach equality and universalism while ruthlessly pursuing their own advantage and enrichment. That’s how they’ve come to dominate white societies and that’s why they’ve led the race-denial crusade.

Gould insisted that human equality was a “contingent fact of history”. It could have been different, inequality could have evolved instead in a hundred different ways, but somehow that just didn’t happen. And reader, I confess it: I was one of Gould’s gullible goyim. He and his Mismeasure of Man (1981) took me in for a time and I remember with shame how I once argued that even if blacks were less intelligent than whites for genetic reasons, we shouldn’t say so, because that kind of thinking was dangerous. You see, if we admit that race exists, we may end up in Auschwitz. I didn’t think back then that if we deny that race exists, we may end up in the Gulag. Nor did I think about other consequences of race denial: for example, its use to justify mass immigration, which has flooded white homelands with non-whites from a rich variety of violent and corrupt Third World nations. And surprise, surprise, they’ve brought their violence and corruption with them.

Race denial has also justified the steady loss of freedom in white homelands. Express the wrong opinions about race in the UK or Europe and you’re in for a dawn raid from the thought police. And how Jews like Abraham Foxman would love the same thing to start happening in the US! Free speech was born in white societies and is dying with those societies, as Jews re-create the Marxist police states they feel safest in. If we let a paranoid, self-obsessed minority continue to write our laws and buy our politicians, we’ll soon see that the Berlin Wall didn’t fall to let freedom into the East, but to let tyranny into the West.

To write such things you have to be hardy because you will inevitably be swarmed by anti-anti-semites who will deny there is any merit whatsoever to anything you say. They will consign you to hell, ridicule you as a mindless robot, question your sanity, misrepresent your position, then call for you to be fired from your job, banned from the web, and shunned by anyone who doesn’t want to be similarly abused.

It is possible to elicit this kind of belligerent treatment by simply noting how typical it is, as Auster’s hostile reactions to his correspondents George R. and Tom M. illustrate.

I’ve thought and written more than a little about Auster. It started with an assertion about his oft-repeated and ever-mutating Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society, which he once succinctly stated as:

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

What I asserted is that this law of liberalism obviously applies to jews. PC protects them above all others.

Silly me. Auster set aside his anti-liberalism and dismissed my assertion as anti-semitic. When I fleshed out the argument he whined I was attacking him for not being an anti-semite. When I quoted him he claimed I was calling him a lousy anti-semite hypocrite.

Auster’s intellectual dishonesty runs deep. He is incapable of confronting what I actually say, which is this: He is an anti-anti-semite, i.e. a bigoted pro-jewish racist. He is a hypocrite because he regularly exhibits all the irrational symptoms he sees and self-righteously denounces in others. He is not pro-White, as he at times may appear, he simply believes Whites are better for jews than the invading immigrants favored by most other jews. Jews, in the mind of an anti-anti-semite like Auster, are entitled to special treatment. To criticize jews you must, like him, have their best interests foremost in mind. Otherwise you are a special type of racist, worthy of a special label. This magic label makes you subhuman, eligible for all the dehumanization he assumes you wish on jews. Jews who openly denigrate Whites are also special. Auster does not demonize them or call for them to be shunned.

Someone who reasons this way should be able to see that someone else might instead have the best interests of Whites foremost in their mind. But Auster repeatedly and ever-so-intelligently demonstrates he is incapable of doing so:

Lately more and more commenters have been capitalizing the words white and black, e.g., “White people,” “Black people,” which I have changed to lower case prior to posting. It has never been standard usage to capitalize these adjectives when they are used to denote race, and it is not VFR’s usage. While race matters, to make it matter so much that we capitalize the mere names of colors is to take race consciousness too far. I ask commenters to conform their spelling to standard English usage. Thank you.

All kinds of racists do this, to magnify their own group and dehumanize the group they hate. For example, many white nationalists capitalize “white,” a color which should not be capitalized, and put “Jew,” a proper name which should be capitalized, in lower case.

White, when used to identify a group of people, is not a color or an adjective. It is a proper noun. Thus I capitalize White. I no longer capitalize jew specifically to draw attention to the inconsistent norm that Auster so staunchly supports. His reason is so clouded that this simple rationale of reversal does not compute. For him “jew” is a sure sign of racist anti-semitic dehumanization, but “white” is a completely innocent convention.

So now Auster wonders if he is the first to notice that “left-wing jews” ally with “non-assimilated and unassimilable people” against the “vast unenlightened majority”. If he were to state his position in less weaselly language from a pro-White point of view he might find himself saying something anti-semitic. He might admit his MMRILS applies to jews. That would be ironic, but we can be sure it won’t happen. Auster does not have the best interests of Whites foremost in his mind. If he did he wouldn’t pretend we are a vast majority, and he wouldn’t so quickly and hypocritically dehumanize the few who seek unblinkered enlightenment.

UPDATE 31 Mar 2008: More snippets from Auster’s post:

Mark Jaws writes:

Of course, I, the quintessentially politically astute New York Jew (albeit with Slavic blood to taint my Yiddish pedigree), long ago noticed it was primarily left-wing Jews such as Jay Gould, who were the most ardent opponents to Shockley, Jensen, Herrnstein and Murray. I attributed it in part to Jews having been the main victims of the Nazi eugenics movement, so even though these smart Jews probably knew deep down inside that there were IQ differences, it would be best to nullify and pervert the movement which they perceived to be Nazi-like.

Whatever good the name calling and lies has done for jews it has only come at the expense of Whites. Auster does not point this out because he is not pro-White.

Bert R. writes:

The comments of yourself and others here regarding Jewish intellectuals remind me of Kevin MacDonald’s. Is there now a broader range of agreement between you both than before? I ask as I recall that you wrote a somewhat critical article or comment about him some time ago.

LA replies:

Comments like this make me want to throw up my hands.

Kevin MacDonald’s central idea is that the Jewish people are driven by an instinct created by Darwinian evolution to destroy European peoples. He is the most influential anti-Semitic thinker and inspirer of exterminationist anti-Semites of our time. I wonder on what basis you would construct a similarity between my ideas and his based on what was said in this thread.

See my article where I lay out the differences between what MacDonald says about the Jews and what I say.

Inspirer of exterminationists? Such deranged hyperbole is the hallmark of anti-anti-semitism.

I wrote a little about this in White Self-Determination and Totalitarian Liberals.

It isn’t difficult to differentiate the two men.

MacDonald is a scholar who focuses on analyzing the conflicts between White and jewish interests, a subject Auster only occasionally touches. MacDonald writes in plain language remarkable for its contrast with the obfuscatory postmodern academic norm. Auster prefers misleading euphemisms like “the majority” and “liberals”. MacDonald is more circumspect and consistent than Auster, who constantly and explicitly advises “the majority” what they must do, who they must keep out or deport, and who the anti-semites are that must be slandered and ostracized in order to appease the “liberals” he is supposedly resisting.

In short MacDonald is pro-White and Auster is pro-jew. Perhaps Auster can only throw up his hands because he cannot imagine simply telling the truth.

Blog

Fuck Your Progressive Globalism

21 Comments

Mansizedtarget made the following comment to my previous post:

It seems to me the most coherent and viable identity that exists in a real way and is a means of resisting globalization, homogenization, and all the other evils of today is the nation.

I had been thinking likewise, and his statement triggered me to write what follows. None of it is particularly original or insightful, but it represents a synthesis of facts and opinions I’ve absorbed, much of it over the past year, some of which I have not previously expressed.

– – –

I paid a visit to Edmond Oklahoma last August, scouting places to resettle outside Aztlan. I remain deeply affected by the experience. In Edmund there are Whites doing all the jobs we’re continually lectured Whites don’t want to do. Edmond is a glimpse back in time to what Escondido California was like 20 years ago. What it could have remained. Clean, peaceful, prosperous, uncrowded. White America.

I knew even before the trip that “diversity” is a lie. California is not heading for “diversity”. It’s heading for pure latino. Oklahoma is not yet nearly as “vibrant”. Which is to say it has less crime, less violence, and less people claiming special priviledges based on their non-whiteness. Alas, even Edmond shows signs of disease. In another decade latino, asian, and black gangs will be running amok and the Whites there will be looking for somewhere else to live.

After that trip a stunningly simple truth dawned on me: There is no racism when everyone is the same race.

It is an inversion of reality now typical of our sick society that this reality, writ large as nationalism, is seen as ignorant or defensive or reactionary and thus negative. The reality is that nations arise spontaneously from clusters of organically homogeneous people, and further, that such homogeneity is required for a nation’s long-term stability and survival. A nation overwhelmed by aliens ceases to be a nation.

This has been known in the civilized world for at least 2700 years, when the Assyrians erased Israel and Babylon absorbed Judea and the jews became a wandering, nationless people. Our mendacious internationalist rulers know this nation-dissolving tactic just as well today. They are the reactionaries struggling desperately against human nature. They are the aggressors hammering uniquely shaped people into their one-size-fits-all worldview. They have corroded White minds with propaganda and miseducation, poking and prodding and delegitimatizing our normal proclivities toward nationalism, to convince us that our borders are mere lines on a map, arbitrary and immoral. They have mesmerized and beguiled us with financial and legal hocus pocus, and this has caused us to lower our defenses.

The progressives pine for one world because they think it will end war. The globalists pine for it because they think it will increase profit. Both goals are false.

Brutal gangs wage a constant undeclared war whose intensity grows precisely as our non-white population grows. Open borders are destroying our nation’s cohesion, our sense of common cause, our respect for government and its laws. The crowding is overwhelming our infrastructure, the poverty overwhelming our wealth. We face increasingly unsafe, unhealthy living conditions, with less of our energy going to industry and more focused on security and escapism. We live in a post-civilizational society where distrust, decay, perversion, corruption, crime, and terror are accepted as normal.

“Diversity” and “multiculturalism” are euphemisms, cover for the pseudo-homogenizing forces of a consciously engineered attack on organic White homogeniety. Any natural sense of White common cause is denigrated and supplanted by dictatorial, nonsensical, one-way “tolerance”. In contrast to a healthy and heart-felt fellowship that bubbles from the bottom up, “diversity” and “multiculturalism” are imposed from the top down. It is an attempt to accomplish by trickery and fiat the kind of forced mixing that occurs when a people are invaded, conquered, and colonized. This is decidedly unnatural and wrong.

“Anti-racism” is in reality anti-Whitism. The non-white immigration invasion will ultimately destroy virtually every predominantly White nation. Rather than serving as a beacon to the world, demonstrating how a nation can effectively and responsibly care for its own people, the US has instead become a bloated and putrefying Frankenstein monster, flocked to by scavengers, its wealth and possessions carved up and auctioned off by profiteers who will fly off to another victim when their host finally falls apart.

Nothing lasts forever, but the actual hows and whys of our nation’s demise are no accident of history. It should have been different. There were plenty of people who warned this was coming and stood against it. They were pushed aside, denounced as nativists, xenophobes, bigots, racists, White supremacists, neo-nazis and anti-semites. For the past sixty years the ruling class has distanced themselves from any such taint, ridiculing and ostracizing anyone impertinent enough to freely say what their eyes and ears and brains clearly perceive. Today it is “politically incorrect” not only to speak such thoughts, but to even think them.

The responsibility for our predicament lies entirely with the willfully blind progressives and globalists whose utopian univeralist one-world policies have prevailed. They had control. They deserve all the blame.

Only when enough people reject the lies and see through the utopian one-world promises to the false and cadaverous reality underneath can we begin to build new societies and renew our civilization. This will only happen in places where the people associate as they choose, and where they enforce rules to keep out the shit-stirring ideologues and treacherous profiteers.

Today our one-world politicians promise everyone the moon. They have proven capable only of dispossessing Whites to buy favor with everyone else. In a true nation the politicians represent a cohesive people and can thus speak frankly about their common problems. Only under such circumstances is there a chance that what politicians propose will be honest and fair. If you’re hoping for change it isn’t going to come from either progressivist Obama or globalist McCain. Both roads lead to the same non-nation we’ve been heading toward for sixty years.