Blame the WASPs

At VFR, Lawrence Auster opines that WASP timidity, an unwillingness to “make a fuss” about things, was responsible for the Immigration Act of 1965. He goes on to conclude that the fight to preserve America requires “white ethnics” who “don’t have the fatal upper-class WASP inhibition.”

Howard Sutherland notes in passing the major objection to this observation: historically speaking, elite WASPs have vigorously excluded nonwhites from America, which is why the United States was almost 90% white in the 1960s. Somehow though this attitude mysteriously changed between the Great Depression and the Civil Rights Movement.

Absent from the discussion at VFR is any mention of Emanuel Celler, a Jew, and his decades long crusade to subvert America’s immigration laws. Celler and a handful of other Jews in Congress were the most vigorous opponents of the Immigration Act of 1924. Celler himself was the co-sponser of the Immigration Act of 1965. What’s more, it was precisely the rise to power of “white ethnics” in the Democratic Party, starting in 1928 with the nomination of the Catholic Al Smith and culminating in the election of the Irish Catholic John F. Kennedy, which led to the eclipse of America’s traditional WASP elite and the recasting of America as a “nation of immigrants” in the 1950s. The phrase itself is the title of an essay that JFK penned for the Anti-Defamation League.

About Hunter Wallace 12123 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

11 Comments

  1. Auster is a hypocrite who has no problem grouping and criticizing WASP as WASPs, even though such reasoning is what he considers the worst kind of thought-crime when it is applied to jews.

    He reveals here his unprincipled and duplicitous mind, yet again, by so freely and casually blaming WASPs for their own displacement and dispossession, even as he denies and decries attribution of blame for this to the jews who have so obviously and effectively orchestrated it, and who so obviously and effectively empowered and enriched themselves in the process.

    Besides that, Auster can’t even be consistent in describing what he desires. He condemns WASPs for not making more of a fuss. But whenever anyone makes a fuss about jewish aggression, on immigration or any other front, an army of unprincipled duplicitous jewish advocates, Auster included, attack and make an even larger fuss in the form of slander and smears and calls for censorship and punishment. Auster’s infinitely weasly mind describes the situation like so: “what cowardly weaklings ‘the majority’ is, they are to blame for not defending themselves from the aggression of jews – who of course bear no responsibility for either perpetrating or stopping this aggression, which by the way only an evil and genocidal anti-semite robot could even think of attributing to jews”.

  2. Auster is a hypocrite who has no problem grouping and criticizing WASP as WASPs, even though such reasoning is what he considers the worst kind of thought-crime when it is applied to jews.

    It’s not just WASPs; Auster has no problem painting any non-Jewish group with broad brush strokes. Compare any of his writings about black crime or Muslims to his writings about Jews and the double standard is glaringly obvious.

    Auster’s infinitely weasly mind describes the situation like so: “what cowardly weaklings ‘the majority’ is, they are to blame for not defending themselves from the aggression of jews – who of course bear no responsibility for either perpetrating or stopping this aggression, which by the way only an evil and genocidal anti-semite robot could even think of attributing to jews”.

    Perfect encapsulation. Auster seems to spend almost no time (or perhaps none at all) attempting to change the anti-white positions of organized Jewry. In so far as he addresses the problem at all, it’s up to the majority to “re-assert” itself and thus keep the Jews in line, in the way a dam keeps a river in line.

  3. Auster blaming WASPs for not making more fuss doesn’t square at all with the popular kvetching of jews which paints the WASP elite as notorious xenophobic racists who mercilessly discriminated against and excluded jews from social and business circles of power.

    On the other hand, if you realize that Europeans were essentially undone the moment jews were “emancipated” – ie. free to pursue their own ethnocentrism while everyone drops theirs and pretends jews are assimilated and “just like us” – then the displacement, dispossession, and even the disrespect aimed at WASPs by jews is perfectly understandable. WASPs did defend themselves, but jews ultimately subdued them. What is happening today with our borders, our culture, our foreign policy, the distorted way history is told, and the distorted way current events are reported today all reflects this.

    Auster, like virtually every jew, is well aware of this. Indeed he is keenly sensitive to the role played by jews, today and stretching back into history (and which is not limited to Europe, by the way). That is why he and other anti-anti-semitic warriors are so intolerant of any criticism of jews. He realizes that any indictment, once begun, can easily grow very lengthy.

  4. Here Auster provides a list and ridicules the “conservative” thought-leaders Obama met for dinner at George Will’s house:

    Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Larry Kudlow, David Brooks, Rich Lowry, Peggy Noonan, Michael Barone, and Paul Gigot.

    I count 4 out of 10 participants as jews. Not sure how many are Anglo-Saxons. Perhaps Auster could help count.

  5. He was ridiculing a photograph of Paul Craig Roberts this morning. The other day he called Pakistanis “ragheads” in an entry about Prince Harry. This is after complaining about the comment section at Majority Rights.

  6. Auster often focuses on style/form/appearance over substance. In this post one of his own meticulously filtered commenters can’t help but say as much after Auster barfs up one ad hominem after another in an attempt to deflect attention from Moldbug’s quite accurate observation that Auster is at heart a “liberal”.

  7. Ultimately, isn’t this just two Jews promoting differing strategies for inclusion. MM embracing Prussian militarism but eschewing Hitler is like the pro-National Socialist Jabotinskyites embracing philo-Semitic fascism but rejecting Hitler. Bismarck was Judeo-inclusive, Hitler was not.

  8. The bolshevist has “fixed” his post. He cropped out the badmouthing of WASPs and any mention of fuss, changing the tone and title of his post 180 degrees without any mention of his previous position.

Comments are closed.