(chuckles)
Check this out. I wonder if Larry will apologize to Tanstaafl now that even he is saying Jews seek to undermine our immigration laws. It looks like it took an argument with Paul Gottfried for him to concede what most of us have always known.
Auster has been saying the same thing about liberal Jews for years. You must be new to his blog. Auster’s valid criticisms of liberal Jews are not equivalent Tanstaafl’s antisemitism, nor to the facts mentioned by Auster validate the latter’s opinions.
No, I have been browsing VFR for a long time now. Auster has always complained about “liberals,” not Jews. He has attacked all sorts of people as “anti-Semites” for “criticizing Jews as Jews.” In this post, Auster himself claims that “Jews as Jews” have launched a national crusade to undermine our immigration laws.
Why do the Jews as Jews want to flood America and Europe with a tsunami of Third World immigration? Aren’t they just fowling their own nest? Why don’t the Muslims, who can’t stand the culture Jews have delivered to them on a silver platter, have enough sense to go after their enemies one at a time? This terrorist mayhem outside Palestine is really counterproductive. Why aren’t they knocking off celebrities, financiers, politicians, professors, publishers, media moguls, philanthropists and schmaltzy klezmer bands one Jew at a time like the Mossad? I don’t get it.
“In this post, Auster himself claims that “Jews as Jews” have launched a national crusade to undermine our immigration laws.”
Auster says that liberal Jews are doing a disservice to the Jewish community, as well as the nation at large, when they pursue the liberal agenda “as Jews” rather than as liberals. In this he is entirely correct. You must draw a distinction between legitimate criticism and Tanstaafl’s crude demonization of the Jews.
Auster is basically agreeing with Tanstaafl that Jews are motivated by Jewish reasons in seeking to undermine our immigration laws.
Previously, he has claimed that Jews are only motivated by ideology and that evil MR genetic determinists were in error for ascribing ethnic motivations to them.
Tanstaafl basically says that all liberal Jews are motivated by ‘ethnic genetic interests’ rather than liberalism ideology itself. What Auster says is this: Among liberal Jews, there are those who are motivated by what they perceive to be their ethnic interests, and there are those who are genuinely motivated by liberal ideology. Those who are mainly motivated by ethnic concerns are doing a disservice to the Jewish community as a whole by lending credence, at least superficially, to antisemitic ideology; but he does not extend the same criticism to those liberal Jews genuinely motivated by liberal thought. That’s one of the main distinctions between Tanstaafl’s antisemitism and Auster legitimate criticisms of liberal Jewry.
Good article: “Why the West is Supreme” – http://euronews.us/?p=1131
Allen Tingle: “Among liberal Jews, there are those who are motivated by what they perceive to be their ethnic interests,”
You must mean cynical Jews that put on a facade of liberalism to further their perceived ethnic interests. It is their hypocrisy that rankles: They exhort race-replacement immigration and anti-racism for White countries but homogeneity and apartheid for Israel.
“…and there are those who are genuinely motivated by liberal ideology.”
Now how many “liberal” Jews do you honestly think support amalgamating the Palestinian Territories and Israel and holding open elections, mmm? Give me a break.
“Now how many “liberal” Jews do you honestly think support amalgamating the Palestinian Territories and Israel and holding open elections, mmm? Give me a break.”
The majority, in my experience.
Allen, it doesn’t matter what Jews are motivated by just like it doesn’t matter whether black criminals are motivated solely by anti-white animus or simple greed and lust. Knowing someone is a Jew enables one to make fairly accurate predictions about the political views they have. They voted overwhelmingly for Obama and they are therefore a net negative for the white majority and should be analyzed and treated the same way the black minority is.
Allen Tingle, what Jewish Israel supporter has endorsed open-borders immigration for Israel?
I’m not talking about Jews who oppose the existence of Israel, so don’t cite them. Cite ones who support Israel, like Abe Foxman. You won’t be able to, because there are none. Yet 99.9999999999999% of such Israel-supporting Jews fanatically insist on open borders for the U.S. and for every Eurosphere country on the planet. I’m talking about ones like Foxman, David Frum, Max Boot, and the list is infinite.
Don’t cite Professor Chomsky, for example, or Professor Finkelstein, and so on. They’re not the ones anyone’s talking about.
“The majority, in my experience.”
You must travel in some strange circles, because according to a recent ADL survey 63% of Jewish respondents support the creation of an “independent Palestinian state,” not amalgamation of the existing Palestinian Territories and Israel. We can safely assume a goodly percentage of the other respondents support the status quo leaving a small, or “liberal” if you like, fraction of the American Jewish community that does not at least support racial separatism for Jews in their homeland.
There is the hypocrisy I pointed to.
http://www.adl.org/Israel/us_attitudes_2009/5.asp
The vast majority of liberal Jews support the suicidal peace process in Israel. At the same time, they advance a suicidal border policy for the US. Although I denounce the liberal Jews in both instances, I see nothing necessarily hypocritical in this.
And as Auster pointed out, open borders for Israel means open borders for individuals actively seeking to mass murder Jews and destroy Israel. Open borders for the U.S., though dangerous, does not have quite the same immediate implications. It’s a difference of degree. I can therefore see why a liberal Jew may offer different recommendations for both situations, though I disagree with him.
By the way, if you can show me an example of an individual Jew who simultaneously advocates open borders for the US and national chauvinism for Israel, I’d like to see it. Provide quotations.
“Allen, it doesn’t matter what Jews are motivated by.”
Then by your own admission, the idea that they liberal Jews are motivated by their ‘ethnic interests’, that they are pursuing an ethnic agenda at the expense of gentiles, does not matter.
“The vast majority of liberal Jews support the suicidal peace process in Israel.”
What would not be a “suicidal peace process”? Expulsion of all Arabs from Israel proper? Followed by expulsion of all Arabs from the Palestinian Territories?
It is often said that were it not for the protection of the West, er, I mean Whitey, that Arabs would exterminate the Jews. How can we be so certain that were it not for the watchful eye of the bleeding-heart West that Jews would not exterminate millions of Arabs?
“At the same time, they advance a suicidal border policy for the US.”
Because they believe a multiracial society is a safer environment for Jews. Safer for Whites? They could care less. Whites in America are dramatically, statistically more likely to face depredations committed against them by non-Whites than Jews in Israel are to face like from Palestinians, even granted the current “suicidal” process underway.
“And as Auster pointed out, open borders for Israel means open borders for individuals actively seeking to mass murder Jews and destroy Israel.”
Mass murder or a death by a thousand cuts, it is all the same in the end.
“Open borders for the U.S., though dangerous, does not have quite the same immediate implications.”
Check back when our numbers have dwindled to less than a hundred million and we have four hundred million non-Whites piled on top of us. In South Africa, Chinese are currently, officially classified as non-White and therefore exempt from the full brunt of the Black Economic Empowerment scheme – READ THE WRITING ON THE WALL.
Jews, btw, enjoy a similar protected status in SA as they do in Western countries. Why should we presume this will not continue once the White West is permanently buried? Jews are already preparing, at the level of policy, for the eclipse of the West in which they will forge ties with non-White powers on the rise.
What are we to make of that?
“By the way, if you can show me an example of an individual Jew who simultaneously advocates open borders for the US and national chauvinism for Israel, I’d like to see it.”
See Alan Dershowitz. A Jewish atheist who is against inter-marriage, so we can safely assume it is not about the religious aspect; it is about racial preservation. He debated Chomsky on C-SPAN a few years ago, the thrust of which was support for the present Israeli depredations against the Palestinians. Find it yourself.
“Then by your own admission, the idea that they liberal Jews are motivated by their ‘ethnic interests’, that they are pursuing an ethnic agenda at the expense of gentiles, does not matter.”
Then why are are concerned with “antisemitism”, Allen?
Your entire response takes for granted the assertions for which I am asking for evidence. You don’t justify your assertion that liberal Jews are motivated primarily by ethnocentric considerations – you take it for granted, then build a whole argument on that assumption. You take it for granted that Israel is a chauvinistic state that oppresses the Palestinians, then ask rhetorical questions with this assumption in mind. Finally, you didn’t substantively answer my argument that open borders for Israel has different immediate implications from open borders for America, and liberal Jews may therefore offer different, and superficially hypocritical, recommendations for the two cases. The murders and robberies committed by blacks, though undesirable, are not analogous to the Muslims’ territorial ambitions against Israel.
“You take it for granted that Israel is a chauvinistic state that oppresses the Palestinians, then ask rhetorical questions with this assumption in mind.”
Israel has laws which forbid the marriage of Jews and a non-Jews, anti-miscegenation laws by any other name.
Israel drops white phosphorus on defenseless Palestinians in the territory of that alien people Israelis hold sway over.
Israelis settle the already cramped Palestinians’ land with their own people.
What_more_do_you_want?
“Finally, you didn’t substantively answer my argument that open borders for Israel has different immediate implications from open borders for America, and liberal Jews may therefore offer different, and superficially hypocritical, recommendations for the two cases.”
The Israeli cabinet and Organized Jewry are preparing for the diminution of the West with forging new ties with rising non-White powers. Do you honestly believe the demographic transition which Jews have spearheaded has nothing to do with these calculations?
It is a solution to a problem for which Jews are largely the cause. Once they have sunk our boat they will jump ship to the next. The hypocrisy is MANIFEST.
I did address your point, recall: “Mass murder or a death by a thousand cuts, it is all the same in the end.”
“The murders and robberies committed by blacks, though undesirable, are not analogous to the Muslims’ territorial ambitions against Israel.”
Apparently you are ignorant of the mestizo Reconquista and the expansionist thrust of Islam in Europe; how quaint.
Now, I have a question for you: Given that Whites don’t need Jews in the way that Jews need Whites, what do Whites have to gain, and why is it in the interests of Whites, to tolerate such disloyalty from Jews?
Provide proof that Jews are not more trouble than they are worth.
Auster has always said stuff like this. He just doesn’t think it’s okay for anyone else to say it. Or at least he always finds problems with the way other people say it. Auster seems most upset by criticism of Israel and criticism of Jews as a biological entity. It’s understandable why he would feel that way being a racial Jew who has converted to Christianity. He doesn’t want to be excluded. I don’t think Auster’s pro-white and pro-Western beliefs are insincere, at least on the conscious level.
The is no comparison between how liberal Jews see Israel and how whites are expected to see their own countries. Almost all Jews accept Israel as a Jewish state and wish it to remain so. White liberals don’t believe their country belongs to anyone and believe that wishing a white country to remain white is evil.
Israel attacks legitimate military targets. Israel issues warnings to civilians prior to military attacks, urging them to evacuate the area in which it is intending to strike against terrorist strongholds. She never targets civilians.
Moreover, the Israeli government has publicised photographic and video evidence of Hezbollah’s human shield tactics (see here for further details: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2006/Operation+Change+of+Direction+Video+Clips.htm)
For the record, under international law, white phosphorus is permitted.
“Israelis settle the already cramped Palestinians’ land with their own people.”
But the land belongs to Israel.
“The Israeli cabinet and Organized Jewry are preparing for the diminution of the West with forging new ties with rising non-White powers”
You don’t even bother to corroborate the above assertion – you simply take it for granted, then build a whole argument on that presupposition.
“Apparently you are ignorant of the mestizo Reconquista and the expansionist thrust of Islam in Europe.”
Not at all. It’s a matter of degree. Israel is already in the situation that the West may face in the near future. I can understand why a person might offer very different recommendations for immigration policy in America and Israel respectively, and I don’t see it as necessarily hypocritical, though I see it as very mistaken. The fact of the matter is, Israel is already in the midst of the same sort of conflict that you foresee between Westerners, on the one hand, and Muslims or Hispanics on the other. You can fault liberal Jews for their lack of foresight but, unless you have extraordinary evidence to the contrary, you cannot fault them for pursuing an ethnic agenda at the expense of non-Jews by advocating one thing for Israel and the opposite for America. (By the way, you still haven’t given us an example, with quotations, of a prominent Jew doing any such thing.)
“show me an example of an individual Jew who simultaneously advocates open borders for the US and national chauvinism for Israel” ( — Allen Tingle)
With few exceptions, 1) no Jew the public ever hears about wants race-replacement immigration for Israel and 2) all Jews the public ever hears about want it for the U.S.
There, I’ve given you the rule; if you require specific names you can furnish them yourself.
“open borders for Israel means open borders for individuals actively seeking to mass murder Jews and destroy Israel.” ( — Allen Tingle)
It doesn’t. Israel could open its borders to huge race-replacing influxes of all kinds of folk with absolutely no desire whatsoever to “mass murder Jews” or “destroy Israel.” It could open its borders to race-replacement volumes of non-Jewish Euro-race peoples, non-Moslem Chinamen, Koreans, Mongolians, various kinds of Siberian peoples who aren’t Moslem, non-Moslem Filipinos, Hindus from the non-Moslem Indian Subcontinent (there are a billion of them just waiting to come to Israel, folk with nothing whatsoever against Jews who’d come flooding into Israel at the drop of a hat), Burmese, non-Moslem Thais, non-Moslem African Negroes (there’s almost a whole continent-full), African pygmies, African Bushmen/Hottentots, Mexicans, Portuguese-speaking Brazilian mulattoes, and other Latin Americans (again, a whole continent-full), Cambodians, Hmong from Laos, Vietnamese, Cubans, Samoans, Tongans, Fijians and other Pacific Islanders, Papua-New-Guineans, Australian Aborigines, and so on. Why don’t diaspora Jews support Israel opening its borders to all these kinds of people? Every single one of these groups are ones U.S. Jews think are pefectly fine to come flooding into the U.S. in race-replacement volumes. It’s not true that all people want to destroy Jews and Israel: none of the above peoples knows or cares anything about Jews or Israel. They just want to get the hell out of where they are and into someplace better. All of them would jump at the chance to immigrate to Israel, since it would afford them a better life. Jewry worldwide has plenty of opportunity to promote nation-destroying race-replacing genocidal immigration into Israel by folk such as any or all of the above who do not hate Jews or pose any threat of mass murder of Jews or violent destruction of Israel. Yes, such immigration would destroy Israel but not for political reasons or by means of suicide bombers but for demographic reasons, exactly as the excessive incompatible immigration which the Jews promote for the Eurosphere promises to destroy Eurosphere countries. Why do hypocritical, genocidal Jews promote genocidal immigration for the U.S. and the Eurosphere but not for their own country? Answer: They do it because 1) they hate Eurochristians and want them extinguished, and 2) they do not hate Israel or Jews, or want either extinguished.
Simple.
“Every single one of these groups are ones U.S. Jews think are pefectly fine to come flooding into the U.S. in race-replacement volumes.” ( — my comment above)
It’s not just that Jews think these races are perfectly fine to come flooding into the U.S. in race-replacement volumes, it’s that they, the Jews, are the most aggressive group pushing such immigration and they throw conniption fits, tantrums, get totally hysterical, if anyone so much as questions it. Try merely questioning it and instantly the name-calling starts, the $PLC and the ADL open a dossier on the person daring to question it, he’s lucky the Jews don’t get him fired from his job behind his back, picket his home, threaten his wife and kids, and destroy his life. They don’t just think it’s OK for race-replacement immigration to destroy the U.S. demographically, they insist on it, they actively and aggressively force it with all the means at their disposal, and they are monolithic in this regard: there aren’t any who don’t take this stance, apart from ones so few they can literally be counted on the fingers of two hands.
I’m talking about Jews the public gets to see. I’m not talking about results of opinion polls taken among ordinary private Jews out there in the country. No public Jew and no public Jewish organization takes a different stance on race-replacement immigration than the one I’ve stated.
Don’t cite Lawrence Auster, Professor Paul Nachman, Professor Paul Gottfried, the Jewish woman in England who belongs to the BNP, Rabbi Schiller, or Ilana Mercer. I’ve already agreed there are a microscopic number of Jews who question race-replacement immigration into the Eurosphere countries. Those aren’t representative of Jewry.
Part of the reason Jews say race-replacement immigration MUST take place in the U.S. and elsewhere in the Eurosphere is whites must show they are not racist, and they must show it by (among other ways) welcoming replacement volumes of completely incompatible races into their country. David Frum is a typical example of this but virtually all Jews all across the political spectrum from “right” to “left” agree with it: “left-wing” Jews agree with it, Jewish neocons agree with it and not just agree but agree with the most intense emotionalism imaginable. They’re absolutely fanatical about it, they’re lunatics about it.
Why don’t Jews and Israelis “have to show they are not racist” in this way? How come Israel doesn’t get this sort of wildly incompatible immigration forced on it by Jewry?
What’s going on is Jews are trying to genocide Euros. Period. End of story. Sorry if the truth hurts but let’s at least get it out in the open.
Anyone who doesn’t see that is feebleminded or a liar.
No Euro-race people should support Israel until Jewry agrees to call off the Jewish crazies, the foaming-at-the-mouth Jewish psychos, the criminally insane Jewish genocidalists like Abe Foxman, Bernie Farber, David Frum, Max Boot, and the rest (all twenty million of them), and an accord is reached with Jewry on a halt to and total reversal of race-replacement of the Eurosphere with full restoration of the demographic conditions that obtained in these lands in the years no later then the mid-1960s.
Until Jewry agrees to that, Israel should be no concern of ours whatsoever. It should be thrown to the wolves. The Eurosphere is being wiped out by the Jews first and foremost, and Euros are supposed to be concerned lest Israel get wiped out? I don’t think so.
“with full restoration of the demographic conditions that obtained in these lands in the years no later then the mid-1960s.”
Let’s make that the mid-1890s.
Allen, why are you here? You are obviously a highly ethnocentric Jew and ethnocentric Jewish supremacists like your self are not and cannot be part of the pro-white movement. Why don’t you do yourself, us and the country you love a favor and move there. We really don’t want people like you living in white countries. Seriously. People like you have been a problem for us white people for over a thousands years. Way before blacks, Mexicans or even Muslims, our ancestors were having a problem with your ancestors coming into our societies and trying to take over. Go away. Go back to south west Asia. You are not welcome here.
“I can understand why a person might offer very different recommendations for immigration policy in America and Israel respectively, and I don’t see it as necessarily hypocritical, though I see it as very mistaken.”
So far I have granted, for the sake of argument, your premise that Palestinian “terrorism” is exterminationist in its ultimate intent; without having been furnished with definitive proof. I happen to agree with your premise, but it could certainly be argued that the thrust of Palestinian opposition to Jewish control is merely a liberation struggle akin to that of the IRA in Northern Ireland. In the case of the IRA, I doubt their intent, upon gaining power, is to ethnically cleanse or exterminate Irish Protestants, given Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants are closely related peoples, as is the case with Jews and Palestinians (all Semites).
But here is the rub: Jews always claim for themselves an assiduous awareness of History the ‘knowledge’ of which they use as justification for whatever the exigencies of the moment demand, hypocrisies, “superficial” or not, be damned; “antisemitism” you know. Yet, there is seemingly no will, or is it no moral fiber, to sniff out the self-causes of anti-Semitism in History that lead them, it is claimed, to have to play the knave to prevent being the injured .
That is not a sustainable course of action, I hope you realize.
“You are obviously a highly ethnocentric Jew ”
Incorrect. I am actually a New Zealander of British descent.
Also an extended phenotype.
Rainbow Showers of Tolerance Tingles to Allen Tingle!
from Charliqua X. Shabazz Elijah Jefferson Krafft
Pride Warden
Seattle TGBMFJFT
[Transgendered Black Muslims for a Jew Free Tibet]
Try being your own phenotype for a change, Allen, instead of an extended one — you might like it.
You do know that white New Zealanders are being systematically race-replaced as we speak, don’t you? You’d never know it, for all the concern you display.
(By the way, I’m a big fan of Hayley Westenra’s.) (Not to mention of the superhuman New Zealand effort that was the masterful creation of the three Lord of the Rings films. Congrats, Kiwis, on a job well done!)
I’d also like more New Zealand lamb and mutton to be allowed into this country (the States): finding good lamb and mutton here is like pulling teeth and when finally found is more expensive than lobster. I’m furious that the powers that be won’t let more of your product in.
I don’t believe that anyone who isn’t a Jew would spend so much effort arguing in favor of Jews and Israel on an obscure blog. His style of argument has all the hallmarks of a Jew(ie asking for proof the sky is blue). Even if Allen isn’t a Jew, he has no place being anywhere near the pro-white movement as his loyalty is not with white people.
ATBOTL makes a persuasive case, including the part about Allen Tingle’s style of arguing:
“His style of argument has all the hallmarks of a Jew (ie asking for proof the sky is blue).”
That’s exactly the Jewish style of debate when they feel about to be cornered: they start demanding “proof” of the most glaringly obvious facts of reality around us, such as that Negroes commit more violent street crime or the Jews exercise predominant influence over Hollywood and the mainstream media. They’ll deny two-plus-two with a straight face, if they think they have to, to avoid conceding anything in an argument. It’s more than “slipperiness,” it’s just brazen in-your-face mendacity. Then some time later a Jew comes along and writes a column somewhere admitting the truth, saying, “OK, yeah, we control Hollywood, the Jews control it — it’s true. And what of it? What’s wrong with it if we do? Are we supposed to apologize for it? It’s a damn good thing we do control it too, otherwise Hollywood would be out of business because the goys don’t know the first thing about movie-making.” And then the Jews are willing to admit they control it because a Jew has put a Jewish seal of approval on it.
All the stuff the Jews deny in public they are fully aware of in private and discuss over the dinner table with family and friends. Yes there are some Jewish radicals who genuinely refuse to acknowledge things like the truth about Negroes and race, for example, even in private, but by and large the Jews know perfectly what’s up with all of that stuff — all of it. But they play dumb in public because admitting it in public will do the opposite of serving their interests, as they see things.
So yes (getting back to the main point), it’s possible Mr. Tingle was being less than honest in denying being Jewish.
The flaw in Auster’s reasoning is in describing non-discrimination as liberalism. It’s not. Liberalism, at least classical liberalism, is racist, discriminatory and ethnocentric. Mill believed free institutions cannot exist in a multi-ethnic nation. Non-discrimination is an ethnic survival strategy. It advocates a protective shield established through state coercion, like Title VII of the Civil Rights legislation, to disable the discriminatory nature of liberalism. Tan more appropriately dubs it neo-liberalism.
For instance, Auster writes,
“It is often said that Jews are the canary in the coal mine, meaning that when a society’s basic morality begins to break down, Jews are the first group that is targeted.
But there is another and opposite sense in which Jews serve as society’s early warning system. When Jews begin openly and audaciously to attack the majority culture of a white gentile majority society, that is a sign that the majority culture is tottering and that it must restore itself or die.”
However, he does not address the root cause of the moral breakdown of a white gentile majority society. Use the example of the mainstreaming of homosexuality. For Auster it’s a breakdown in the society’s moral compass and is attributed to “liberalism”. Gayness is simply a healthy, happy, alternative lifestyle. However, if its development is examined this positioned is not something that simply evolved under the auspice of “liberalism”. It’s been orchestrated by state coercion. Time and again the charge for state intervention to protect “vulnerable minorities” is organised, financed and led by organised Jewry. ‘When Jews begin openly and audaciously to attack the majority culture of a white gentile majority society,’ it is evidence that the covert Jewish strategy, i.e. an ethnic based non-discriminatory strategy masquerading as the pursuit of “human rights”, was successful.
Desmond is exactly correct. The “liberalism” we are talking about isn’t liberalism but Jewish tribal nationalism. It’s the campaign mounted by Jews aimed at weakening and finally overthrowing the hegemony of a group alien to Jews (namely Euros) whom the Jews don’t want to feel subservient to (and whom they are also jealous of, among other things). When Jews push homosexualism it’s not because they like homosexualism, it’s because they see in homosexualism an ally, a useful tool, for the breaking down of a Euro society whose hegemony over them they dislike and reject. They don’t want to feel subservient to Euros in a Euro society, they don’t want to feel second-class, or excluded from the mainstream. So they break the society down in order not to feel that way. (They’re also jealous of and a little fearful of Euros, which are additional reasons for breaking down Euro society, and finally there’s also pure and simply ethnic dislike, ethnic “prejudice”: they just don’t like Euros or Christians.) It’s the same with all the rest of the “liberal” agenda, to the extent the Jews push it behind the scenes. They’re using it as a club to bludgeon their enemy (Euros) with. Yes there are confused Jews who try to take liberalism seriously and attempt to apply it consistently — Eric Alterman for example, of The Nation, or Prof. Norman Finkelstein. When the left does this — applies “liberalism” to Jews and Israel, instead of exclusively to Euro society, the Jews call them “anti-Semites,” revealing that the whole Jewish-backed charade was strictly for export only, export to the goy socieities, and never meant to apply to the Jews themselves though they backed it to the hilt. They backed it because they were fighting a war, a Jewish tribal war against Euros, and it was a weapon in that war.
Regarding Razib Khan’s post here
http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/article/post-racial_race_men/
someone needs to point out to him this:
http://www.vdare.com/rushton/070926_indians.htm
ATBOTL and Scrooby put it well:
“His style of argument has all the hallmarks of a Jew (ie asking for proof the sky is blue).”
That’s exactly the Jewish style of debate when they feel about to be cornered: they start demanding “proof” of the most glaringly obvious facts of reality around us, such as that Negroes commit more violent street crime or the Jews exercise predominant influence over Hollywood and the mainstream media. They’ll deny two-plus-two with a straight face, if they think they have to, to avoid conceding anything in an argument. It’s more than “slipperiness,” it’s just brazen in-your-face mendacity. Then some time later a Jew comes along and writes a column somewhere admitting the truth
This is how Auster reacted when I first asserted that his precious First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society applies to jews. He said, no, it only applies to minorities that are unassimilable and cause problems. I said, duh, that’s not hard to see. So he said, you’re a horrible anti-semite. And ever since I’m like the boogeyman to him and his groupies.
In the year or so since then I’ve dug up past statements of Auster’s and he’s provided even more clear fresh examples that demonstrate he knows jews are unassimilable and cause large problems for “the majority”. This post Prozium links is the best example yet. Simply amazing, as he says. In it Auster crosses several lines he has never crossed before (to my knowledge) and joins ideas he usually keeps well apart.
He bluntly criticizes “liberal” jews, as jews, for clamoring insanely for open borders. He does NOT point out that this is not a new phenomena. To do so would validate Kevin MacDonald, whom he detests.
He has called for others to be silenced on other people’s forums (for “attacking” him or for “anti-semitism”) but he continues to provide a platform for Ken Hechtman, the liberal jew commenter he has said wants to destroy the West. This is his usual double standard. Prozium has noted it before.
His commenter Karen writes “If these organisations continue to undermine immigration law, they should be banned and their leading members deported to Israel” and Auster does not contradict it, insult her, or explode. In response he does however reveal just how useless his “solutions” are:
Some people think that when I say, “these things will not be tolerated,” that’s a threat of violence. I don’t mean it in that way at all. I mean strong disapproval and indignant condemnation of these Jewish organizations for their anti-American agenda. The Jews (and other minorities) are like adolsscents running amuck, without a parent–the majority culture–to control them. If the parent reappeared on the scene and acted like a parent, the whole situation would change.
In other words, “the majority”, which jews have been pushing around for a century or more, and especially since the 1960s, is just supposed to “reappear” and without doing anything more severe than scolding we’re supposed to stop our children, “the Jews”, from “running amok”. Note that here, as he often does, Auster forgets the “liberal” qualifier while holding forth on “the Jews”.
Mark Jaws calls Auster on the jewish double standard on immigration to the West versus israel. At first Auster doubles down with this ridiculous claim:
The problem with the Jews is not that they push a suicidal policy for the U.S. and a national survival policy for Israel. The problem with the Jews is that they advance a suicidal policy both for the U.S. and for Israel.
But Jaws wouldn’t let this absurd equivalence stand. Auster responds by bizarrely blaming paleocons. Then he gets hyper-rational and provides a non-answer built around the “assimilable and non-hostile” line he has often used (as he did with me) to justify discriminating muslims and blacks, but not jews. This in a thread otherwise dedicated to the damage jews are doing to the West. Oooooops.
Probably triggered by this commenter John D. writes “it seems to me that secular liberal Jews are much more dangerous than those who follow Islam–because they are stealth”. (As I asserted when I had my dustup with him over MMRILS.) Again Auster does not insult him, or explode, but he does try to deny the point. Lamely. He claims muslims have “no choice” but “to subjugate and destroy non-Muslims”, but the problem with jews is they have simply never been told by “the majority” not to try and destroy America. In this response Auster also defines himself, obliquely, as a non-jew.
Unaddressed in Auster’s post is the damage non-“liberal” jews have done. Madoff, for example, is the tip of an iceberg of financial fraud absolutely stuffed with “capitalist” jews. Auster doesn’t delve into finance for the same reason he doesn’t delve into cultural marxism. Too many jews doing too many nasty things for him to explain away. And as the Freeman affair demonstrates, US foreign policy is dominated by the Israel Lobby, a bipartisan shadow government filled with all sorts of jews arguing about what is best for israel. The “conservative” jews dominate here. Auster did not mention this because in other posts he has made clear that he also is a hyper-zionist who sees nothing wrong with jews manipulating the US to do whatever is necessary for the good of israel. He justifies it by imagining we are a single common entity, just as he imagines jews and Whites are. Except of course when jews and israel get special treatment – like protection from “anti-semitism”.
Bottom line: anyone looking for truth from Auster is going to find a whole lot of other nonsense mixed in. Apologia for jews, blame and libels for “the majority”, and rampant double standards concerning minorities and the harm they cause. I visit for what he links. His logic, such as it is, and even his criticism of jews, is based entirely on what is good for jews. As far as he’s concerned “the majority” is permanently and completely obligated to protect and serve them – no matter what they do.
Auster is making progress towards the truth.
What’s going on with him is an example of why Jews try to shut down debate about themselves. They know that in open debate, their arguments will be destroyed.
The author of this post claims that the places and neighborhoods where Whites are the majority (especially all-White suburbs) are “racist” – http://cerebralcommerce.blogspot.com/2009/03/racializing-space-other-side-of.html
Whites cannot even live in a safe, clean, all-White neighborhood anymore with being accused of being a racist!
Just to give you all a sense of the type of people race realists and White nationalists are up against…the person who wrote the following nonsense has an MA from Harvard: http://cerebralcommerce.blogspot.com/2009/02/moratorium-on-c-word.html
It’s very literate, clear, and intelligent nonsense, but it’s still nonsense.
I’d get a kick out of some of the people here going to this person’s blog and obliterating their weak and pathetic arguments.