Mark Richardson has chimed in on the Auster/MR debate:
So I doubt there is much that you could say, do or write in defence of the West to change their minds.
This isn’t true. Auster could easily confirm the sincerity of his commitment to Western civilization in various ways. It is his own stated solution that shows otherwise.
1.) Auster supports the transfer of all Palestinians from Israel, whether “good” or “bad,” period. In the VFR entry “Expel the Palestinians,” Auster writes:
“Congratulations for seeing this! I’ve been saying the same at least since October 2000. Even if they ever had a right to a state in Palestine, the Arabs have long since given it up through their own behavior. Transfer is the ONLY measure that offers Israel the hope of long-term survival. Let us hope this idea starts to be discussed seriously in the mainstream.”
2.) In the case of America, Auster has said he doesn’t support the transfer of even the worst, most subversive Jews, who he declares should have the “right to live and prosper in America.” In “The anti-Semites and me,” Auster writes:
“2. Jews who make it clear that their primary identification and loyalty is to Jews or minorities, rather than to America and its historic majority culture, should be told that they have the right to live and prosper in America, but not to speak for America or to have an influential role in its culture and politics.”
Why the double standard? Auster is motivated by what he perceives is “good for the Jews,” not “morality,” “traditional conservatism,” or his ostensible commitment to the preservation of Western civilization. Auster is willing to set his ideology aside and side with the West’s worse enemies out of racial loyalty.
The discussion at VFR proceeds from a sloppy straw man, “their entire thought process is driven and determined by group competition for genetic reproduction,” and concludes in Larry’s self serving grand insight that “truth” is a “meaningless and impossible concept to them.” The point of this little exercise is to dodge the question that is being raised: is Larry Auster motivated by ethnic self interest?
The answer is, yes, he plainly is; ethnic self interest explains why Larry supports the transfer of Palestinians from Israel, but opposes the transfer of radical, anti-white Jews from America. It explains why he consistently comes to drastically different conclusions from other racialists regarding the Jews. He doesn’t apply his own law to the Jews. He jettisons his commitment to Western civilization in support of Jews. He even relapses into textbook liberalism, his own unprincipled exception, in defense of Jews.
Update: Auster supports the transfer of Muslims from America and other Western nations, but not Jews or other racial minorities; another example of how Auster is motivated by purely Jewish considerations.
Prozium,
I think that you’re spot on in your criticism of Auster, with respect to his unprincipled exception for American Jewry’s anti-White contingent. What else could be motivating him except for some kind of ethnic self-interest (perhaps he has close Jewish friends who are virulently anti-Wester)? However, there is something to be said about those of us who oversimply our situation by finding the root of most of our problems in an infinitely malevolent international Jewry.
It was The [European] Enlightenment, after all, which helped trigger European man’s sudden break from his medieval tradition, a change which resulted in the end of medieval (and pre-medieval) consensuses on culture, religion, and political order. Americans have been at the forefront in this experiment of using reason (or ideology) as a source of wisdom and innovation instead of an inherited tradition, which we seem to have been very good at ignoring almost entirely with few exceptions (i.e. Old South). From the standpoint of racialists, the Enlightenment did eventually provide us with the scientific tools necessary to understand racial differences and their significance, but not until the conclusion of WWII at which point a race-denying mindset was already entrenched in America and Soviet Russia. History has been cruel to reveal to many of us the truth behind the precise nature of human races only when we are powerless to do anything with it!
It is worth mentioning that intellectual strands of race-denial existed within colonial America (particularly amongst certain religious leaders), before the arrival of the Jews. In those days, some believed that in order to save the Indians’ souls to Protestant Christianity that the English needed to intermarry with the Indian wholly and quickly. Of course, this kind of radical thinking was always in the minority, though never insubstantial. American attempts to understand their racial experience using hierarchical forms, which invariably placed their own kind at the top, were usually met with challenges from a universalist element within Christianity.
The Jewish contribution to these race-denying intellectual strains within universalist Christianity did, however, tip the balance of power of these arguments within the minds of the American intelligentsia in the runup to WWII. They certainly are responsible for providing the requisite energy needed to organize the all the troublemaking you mentioned.
I mentioned the anti-racist propaganda of the abolitionists in the timeline. The U.S. went into racial decline for a number of reasons. There was no single cause. Jewish influence does stand out though as one of the major reasons.
BTW, I’m adding new entries to the American Racial History Timeline every day now.
Prozium,
“There was no single cause. Jewish influence does stand out though as one of the major reasons.”
Of course.
I wonder, has it always been an indiscriminant economic engine that has provided the justification for bringing negroes and Jews to North America? Profound criticism also has to be reserved for free-market capitalism in this somewhere too.
I’ve seen his posts on the MR thread. It’s hilarious to read he and his commenter’s thoughts on “the anti-Semites.” They sound like leftists or the like, trying to explain the psychological reasons for stating the truth about Jews.
notuswind,
Labor costs have always been the major driver of nonwhite immigration.
I wonder if Larry will explain at his upcoming conference why Western civilization’s worst enemies should be coddled and allowed to prosper in North America.
Here’s an entry on Auster’s blog today: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012290.html
The guy he’s talking about says that Auster is a hard-line rightist on everything past 1960. In all the Jewish media they always portray the post-60s era as so wondeful and the pre-60s era as a terrible place. The reason is simply that that’s when Jewish power starting rising heavily. Even the “traditional conservative” adheres to that historical narrative.
Auster is a “traditional conservative” that opposes segregation.
“I wonder if Larry will explain at his upcoming conference why Western civilization’s worst enemies should be coddled and allowed to prosper in North America.”
You know what scares Jews the most? A simple question:
Would we (in the West) be better off without Jews?
In my experience, questions like that never occur to them. Their essential starting point is almost always: “is it good for the Jews?”
“Would we (in the West) be better off without Jews?” ( — FB)
Yes, because Jews living among Euros always sooner or later seek to annihilate the Euros.
Question: Is this a problem that requires a solution?
Yes, if you’re a Euro and you don’t want to get annihilated. Otherwise it’s not a problem.
Question: What’s the solution to this problem?
My answer: if you don’t want Euros genocided they and Jews have to live apart, in separate countries. If the two groups live in the same country the Jews will eventually try to genocide the Euros every goddamn time.
The fact that the anti-Auster crowd cannot see a difference between a group that, generally, adheres to the norms of civilization, Jews, and a group that cannot, Arabs, is hilarious. Personally, I find the majority of Jews really annoying, but, in the end, they generally abide by the norms that allow for civilization. You cannot say the same for Arabs. The Palestinians are filthy, anti-civilizational scum, and it blows my mind that even one breath is wasted lamenting their condition.
If you want to be taken seriously by hard-core rationalists then don’t throw in your lot with losers like the Palestinians.
Are America’s Jew perpetually on welfare? Do they have Dsimultaneous, multiple sexual liaisons? Are they net tax consumers by many orders of magnitude beyond that of any other group? If white racialists, of which I am not one, would actually focus on hurting the people who directly evince behaviors destructive of civilization, then they might actually do their society’s some good.
Wake up people. Whatever you may say about Jews in Amerca, the Israeli people are civilized, while the Palestinian people are barbaric scum
1.) Do Muslims control Hollywood?
2.) Are Muslims drastically overrepresented in the U.S. news media?
3.) Are Muslims drastically overrepresented in the U.S. entertainment media?
4.) Did Muslims fund and organize the Civil Rights Movement?
5.) Did Muslims undermine the concept of race in the twentieth century?
5.) Are Muslims drastically overrepresented amongst America’s billionaires?
6.) Do Muslims exercise control over U.S. foreign policy?
7.) Are Muslims drastically overrepresented in the U.S. federal government and civil service?
8.) Are Muslims disproportionately overrepresented in radical, subversive, far left social movements?
9.) Are Muslims disproportionately found in the vanguard of radical, subversive movements in other Western countries?
10.) Are Muslims vastly overrepresented in the American financial sector and amongst elite law firms?
Radical Jews are constantly found in the vanguard of movements that seek to undermine the foundation of Western civilization.
Yes, Arabs cannot be found in similar numbers amongst the elites who are rotting our civilization from within.
The Palestinians are guilty of what? Resisting the Jews who evicted them from their homeland?
Most of the world sympathizes with the Palestinians.
1.) “Welfare” accounts for an insignificant proportion of U.S. GDP. Now that I think about it, the Israelis are on welfare courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer, but that isn’t why we find them objectionable.
2.) The underclass has always been sexually promiscuous.
3.) The money we spend for social programs for Hispanics and negroes is merely an annoyance. It is not a threat to our identity, livelihood, or the foundations of our civilization.
We’re not interested in “hurting” Jews. We only want to exclude them.
The Arabs who live in America are law abiding citizens. We don’t have a problem with suicide bombings in the United States.
Asher, who was most influential in prying open the U.S.’s borders to unlimited entry by non-white Third Worlders and most influential today in keeping anyone from closing them again?
And after this group did that to white Americans — genocided them — you expect white Americans to support that group’s nation-state?
Get real.
Visit the link below and look at Auster’s bolded comments. He’s essentially saying that if MacDonald’s thesis is correct, the only “logical outcome” to the JQ is their extermination.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012179.html