Auster’s Self-Contradiction

Lawrence Auster (Jew) is once again fretting about, what else … “anti-Semitism.” This time his complaint is that Tanstaafl and other vicious “Darwinian anti-Semites” refuse to hang on his every word and take each of his utterances at face value. Instead, these malicious bloggers and commentators continue to assign insidious motives to his selfless crusade to save Western civilization.

Auster is always at his best when he is testifying against himself. For years now, Larry has insisted that destructive Jewish behavior in the West is motivated by the same suicidal embrace of liberalism that plagues white gentiles. In a recent exchange with Paul Gottfried (Jew) though, Auster drew a clear and useful distinction between Jewish and Protestant liberalism. In fact, he goes on to say that Jews are not really liberals at all.

What distinguishes Jewish liberalism from Protestant liberalism is the following.

Jewish liberals see white Christians as guilty. The Jews feel ok about themselves, they think the white gentile majority is the problem.

By contrast, white Protestant liberals feel guilty about themselves. This leaves them without a confident group selfhood. They believe only in equality, only in their own guilt for somehow standing in the way of equality. It is this lack of collective and even individual selfhood, this inner nothingness, this willingness to be destroyed, that makes the white Protestants the true liberals. The Jews, whose collective and individual psyche is not guilty under liberalism (since in the liberal world view Jews are victims and the champions of victims), have psychological power and self-confidence and thus are not true liberals.

A true liberal is a person who is willing to accept his group’s extinction. Protestants are willing to accept their group’s extinction. Jews are not. Therefore Protestants are closer to the true liberal essence than the Jews are.

This is a very good analysis. It raises many questions. If Jews are not true liberals (having failed the litmus test of wishing dissolution upon their ancestral group), then what are they? If Jewish liberalism is insincere, then why are Jews so committed to pushing liberalism in the West?

The answer, of course, is that Jews are a self-interested ethnic group who cynically promote liberalism (and communism, neoconservatism, postmodernism, libertarianism, feminism, anarchism, etc.) to weaken other groups while empowering and enriching themselves. Similarly, Auster’s role as a Jewish activist on the “far right” seems to be to “fight anti-Semitism” and “advance the cause of Israel.”

As for Gintas’ “brilliant critique of the Darwinian anti-Semites,” it is nothing of the sort. The phenomena of parasitism is ubiquitous in nature. Parasites can modify the behavior of their hosts, induce non-adaptive behavior in their hosts, reduce the fitness of their hosts in all sorts of ways. A good example of this is the lancet fluke which commandeers the brains of ants and gets them to commit suicide by climbing up blades of grass where they can be eaten by cows or sheep. No benefit accrues to the ants from this. It goes exclusively to the lancet flukes and their progeny.

Auster himself has acknowledged the problem :

When Americans opened the Golden Door to millions of Jewish immigrants (from several of whom I myself am descended) in the late 19th century, if they had known that many of the grandchildren of those immigrants would be a bunch of permanent cultural subversives against this country, would they have let them in?

 
… but his concern is not the “bunch of permanent cultural subversives” (the parasites) nesting in this country. Rather, in his eyes the menace is the “anti-Semites” (the host) who would react by excluding them.

This duplicity crops up time and again in Auster’s writings. He complains endlessly about the ideal of non-discrimination, but he doesn’t advocate getting rid of the civil rights laws. He exorciates liberalism, but would retain liberal democracy as America’s form of government. He writes about black-on-white crime, but supports integration of which it is a product. He attacks multiculturalism, but would not force minorities to assimilate.

There is some nagging concern always at the back of his mind. It runs through the entire gamut of his writing. It causes him to qualify his position on countless issues. Tellingly, it does not seem to be shared by other racialists, which suggests it is some unique quality about Auster.

Auster’s self-contradiction is his own Jewishness. He can’t fully embrace white racialism because of his Jewish heritage. He can’t break completely with liberalism out of fear of what would happen to the Jews. At the same time, he can’t fully embrace his Jewishness because of his ideological commitment to racialism and conservatism.

In the end, Auster sounds like neither a Jew or a racialist. His own self-contradiction (his identity crisis) makes him a poor advocate for both sides.

About Hunter Wallace 12341 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

17 Comments

  1. Is Auster this important? Maybe to someone who’s been mapping the outside-the-mainstream right for over a decade, since Auster carries some weight here. Since I’m a relatively latecomer to all of this I simply looked at Auster’s site, saw how unstable it was, and moved on.

    You might have a different take on this, but I don’t view the parasitism you describe as something directly premeditated, in the fashion of an explicit task to be undertaken. Instead it’s more likely to express itself obliquely and indirectly, since its motivations are even more pre-rational than taken-for-granted premises of behavior. Rarely are they even faced, by Jews or their counterparts, in order to be considered.

    This is not to excuse. It is to suggest, probably in the fashion of someone like Kevin MacDonald, that the source of Jewish parasitism must be relocated to someplace genetic in order to be seriously explained.

    I should style this more as a musing reflection than a categorical statement, though, since that’s mostly what it is.

  2. Auster plays an important role as a dissembler. His entire project is aimed at making white racialism “good for the Jews” by ridding it of anti-Semitism. He is a pioneer in this field right now. That could always change as America becomes more racially diverse.

    Anyone can see what a Jewish “Brain Trust” did for “conservatism.” We can’t afford to repeat that experience with White Nationalism. I consider it important to respond to his attacks because he is good at fooling so many well intentioned people.

    The bottom line is that when the chips are down he sides with his nationwrecking co-ethnics. Auster is not one of us.

  3. Here’s the core of Auster’s argument. Take it as you will:

    “[WNs] believe that murderous group competition is the all determining force of human existence, yet also think that in the case of their own group, white gentles, this instinct of murderous group competition is strangely dormant… If they really believed in an unstoppable, evolution-determined, tribal drive to subdue and destroy one’s tribal enemies, they would shut up and let the evolutionary process take place.”

  4. Prozium, why are you giving Jewish infiltrators into the pro-white movement like Auster the benefit of a platform? By talking about these vermin, you are increasing the traffic to their website. I say we should adopt a ‘no platform’ policy towards these scum.

  5. “I consider it important to respond to his attacks because he is good at fooling so many well intentioned people.”

    Don’t forget to include in this category that supplicating slickster “Guy’ ‘White”.

  6. Auster writes:

    If they really believed in an unstoppable, evolution-determined, tribal drive to subdue and destroy one’s tribal enemies, they would shut up and let the evolutionary process take place.

    But in Jewish neocons, Islam, and the West he writes:

    Jews have never been publicly challenged on this wrongful and unacceptable attitude.

    Which is it? Never challenged, or the challengers should shut up?

    What a fruitloop. He can’t keep his dictates straight from one post to the next.

  7. “[WNs] believe that murderous group competition is the all determining force of human existence, yet also think that in the case of their own group, white gentles, this instinct of murderous group competition is strangely dormant… If they really believed in an unstoppable, evolution-determined, tribal drive to subdue and destroy one’s tribal enemies, they would shut up and let the evolutionary process take place.”

    Well, if I may paraphrase Kevin MacDonald, it is not that whites have no capacity for murderousness, it is that whites are
    1. highly individualistic, thus disinclined to cooperate with other whites;
    2. highly addicted to altruistic punishment against perceived evil;
    3. inclined to moral universalism rather than particularism.

    Adding up those two characteristics, it is not that whites are uncompetitive – it is that collectivistic tribes with moral particularism tend to be highly competitive.

    However – I would like to note that the Chinese races (China in fact has several Mongoloid races, but commonly pretends to be inhabited by a single “Han” race) have been noted by Americans for scrupulous honesty.

    If I may be permitted a self-link, consider the three images at:
    http://rulebyproxy.mblog.my/2009/06/26/three-images-of-ethnic-stereotyping/

    The American writer claimed: “Anyone who has business dealings with all classes and races will tell you that, as a race, John Chinaman is the most honest person you are likely to deal with.”

    Unfortunately I don’t know the date of publication, but I believe it was the 1920s or 1930s.

    By contrast, Kevin MacDonald writes about Chinese diaspora behavior in a slightly less flattering vein. If the Chinese tendency to corrupt local governments (such as that of Thailand) is taken into account, John Chinaman is not as honest as a morally universalist God would like him to be.

    Indeed, MacDonald’s description of Chinese cultural passivity could be interpreted as a lack of true patriotism and willpower:
    “The following passage, also quoted above, describing the po-litical attitudes of the Overseas Chinese in Thailand could never have applied to Jews in Western societies since the Enlighten-ment: “But few seem to know or indeed to care about the restric-tions on citizenship, nationality rights, and political activities in general, nor are these restrictions given much publicity in the Chinese press. This merely points up the fact, recognized by all observers, that the overseas Chinese are primarily concerned with making a living, or amassing a fortune, and thus take only a passive interest in the formal political life of the country in which they live” (Coughlin 1960, 169).”

  8. Jews have been called out on their bad behavior by numerous public figures on countless occasions. And their response? Every single time they reacted with hysterical cries of “anti-Semitism” and they usually succeeded in silencing or destroying the careers of their critics.

    Auster isn’t a fool. He knows exactly how the Jews would react if they were ever criticized by the majority in the mildest tone. He keeps peddling this non-solution though because his primary motivation is “what is good for the Jews,” not “what is good for the white gentile majority.”

  9. One of Auster’s most recent posts is line with this post: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013525.html

    He quotes from and refers to the blogger “Accidental Dissent.” No doubt Auster wants to steer readers to the more palatable (to him and his fellow Jews) nationalism of someone like “Accidental Dissent.” I imagine he reads a few other racialist/ethno/nationalist blogs, yet refrains from pointing readers to or otherwise supporting those that are more critical of Jews. He will only bring them up to launch vitriolic attacks against them for their criticism of Jews.

    Reading Auster on and off for years now, and as your post and quotes therein demonstrate, one does get the sense that Auster is cognizant of the Jewish problem, and is conflicted.

  10. I also get the idea that Auster is conflicted about these issues. He has essentially stated the same things that the “anti-semites” have, while making hair splitting distinctions between “anti-semitism” and his own nearly identical views about Jewish influence on Western society.

    It’s important that we engage people like Auster if we don’t want our efforts to be co-opted by hostile Jews like what happened to conservatism.

  11. Alfred,

    You might have a different take on this, but I don’t view the parasitism you describe as something directly premeditated, in the fashion of an explicit task to be undertaken. Instead it’s more likely to express itself obliquely and indirectly, since its motivations are even more pre-rational than taken-for-granted premises of behavior. Rarely are they even faced, by Jews or their counterparts, in order to be considered.

    There are two strains: one is unconscious, the other conscious.

    ATBOTL,

    I also get the idea that Auster is conflicted about these issues.

    Gee, conflicted, what a shocker.

    Being conflicted is normal and human. Screaming nutzoids, on the other hand, I guess they’re more sure prone to single-mindedness.

    Campbell,

    He quotes from and refers to the blogger “Accidental Dissent.” No doubt Auster wants to steer readers to the more palatable (to him and his fellow Jews) nationalism of someone like “Accidental Dissent.”,

    I don’t how “palatable” he’d find me if he knew I was a holocaust/wwii rev. I haven’t read his reference to me, and I probably won’t for a few days, because I find his nitpicking as infuriating as I find the racial loathing that emanates from your quarters (it’s racial loathing and it’s disgusting, meaning 95% of you are disgusting, but that’s tolerable because “movement” types like yourselves are not essential). But the essence (and ultimate result) of my position is certainly palatable; I like to think it’s palatable to all — to racists, to conservatives, to liberals, to racial minorities, all. If you’re after more than this, well, that counts as rankest hatred in my book, but logic would dictate that you agree to battle it out later.

  12. And I find your moral pontification, intellectual dishonesty cloaked as intellectualism, and constant disruption/provocation to be quite infuriating myself, Silverfish.

  13. Well one can certainly relate to Austers conflictedness. Being a neo-con (which I was in my younger years) is just to many mental hoops to go through…

    – Yes it is ok for Jews to have their own ethno-state, but not for White to have one.

    – In the end it is ok for colored folks to have their racialist organizations (NAACP, La Raza…) after they have been scolded for not ‘assimilating, but the gravest evil on the face of the earth is Whites attempting to have similar organizations.

    – Those wetbacks wading across the rio grande really are holding aloft copies of Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead over their heads as they bring their ‘family values’ to a ‘Once White’ Nation.

    In the end it is just a whole lot easier (ironicly) and more consistent to be a Racialist/ White Nationalist. Sure putting up with a Jew shouting in your face might not be ones idea of easier, but it is just to much mental work to go through all those dang hoops.

  14. Lawrence Auster’s small-minded narrow mentality, his dogmatism and bigotry impacts negatively on the wellfounded criticism of Islam and multiculturalism by outstanding thinkers in the field! He is incapable of rational thought.

Comments are closed.