Larry Auster
at the right of
Geert Wilders
Bold-typed, black headings are mine; the rest is part of an article by Lawrence Auster originally published in View From the Right:
The First Law
The worse any designated minority or alien group behaves in a liberal society, the bigger become the lies of Political Correctness in covering up for that group. Thus, instead of the revelation over the last 14 months [after 9/11] of Islam’s dangerous and savage character leading (as would happen in a rational world) to a major discrediting of Muslims, or at least to a more sceptical attitude toward them, it has led to their being more favored, more coddled and more protected from criticism than ever before. They now get a whole new level of solicitous, sycophantic treatment, ranging from PBS “histories” of Islam that are more full of uncritical celebration of their subject than a tourist travelogue, to the media’s constant attacks on the rest of us for indulging in an anti-Muslim backlash which has somehow never occurred.
Corollary
That last point leads us to the first corollary of Auster’s First Law of Majority/Minority Relations in Liberal Society: The more egregiously any non-Western or non-white group behaves, the more evil WHITES are made to appear for noticing and drawing rational conclusions about that group’s bad behavior.
Conclusion
The First Law and its corollary are intrinsic to liberalism. Once the equality of all human groups is accepted as a given, any facts that make a minority or foreign group seem worse than the majority native group must be either covered up or blamed on the majority.
- end of Auster’s text -
Wow! What strikes me the most about these discoveries is the absolute intelligence of the discoverer. Readers of this blog and my posts elsewhere in the blogosphere may have noticed that I link over and over again Auster’s non-discrimination Principle as a must-reading to understand what’s happening in a mad world run by the liberals’ “Thou Shalt Not Discriminate” principle. Well, as Auster says, The First Law and its Corollary are intrinsic to the principle of non-discrimination: the equality of all human groups accepted as a given. It’s impossible to properly understand why the West has gradually become psycho since I was born without a good grasp of Auster’s Principle, Law and Corollary.
The Principle helps us to understand how society is committing suicide with massive immigration (Thou Shalt Not Discriminate against “race”), feminism run-amok (so-called women’s “rights”) and sexual “preferences” (homosexual marriage), etc.
The First Law, the logical deduction from the Principle, explains why after 9/11 George W. Bush visited mosques and even allowed more Arabs in American airplane schools! As counter-jihadists have already noted, both republicans and democrats are fools. Both fail to see what the revival of Islam really means—not “Islamists”, “radical Muslims” or “militant Muslims” but Islam pure and simple. Europeans are equally mad. For example, right after the murder of Theo van Gogh by a Muslim the Queen of the Netherlands visited an Imam. These acts of statesmen’s psychosis are pristine illustrations of Auster’s First Law of Majority/Minority Relations: “The worse any designated minority or alien group behaves in a liberal society, the bigger become the lies of political correctness in covering up for that group”.
Now let’s think about the Corollary: “The more egregiously any non-Western or non-white group behaves, the more evil whites are made to appear for noticing and drawing rational conclusions about that group’s bad behavior”. The Corollary explains beautifully what is happening in Western Europe and Canada with the proliferation of so-called hate-speech laws, like the new Orwellian laws in Western Europe (cf., e.g., the notorious trial against Geert Wilders and the harassment of German immigration critic Thilo Sarrazin until he quit his job at Bundesbank).
I cannot emphasize strongly enough how wise it is to digest and even memorize these Auster principles. I understand them as the basic tools of the socio-political dissident not only to comprehend the ideology of our mad society, but also how to approach our enemies. Together, these three principles are very powerful intellectual weapons.
P.S. of 9 September 2010:
Tanstaafl has argued that Auster’s First Law applies to the Jews as well (see also below).
20 comments:
I was similarly impressed by Auster's First Law. Then I realized it applied to jews. Auster didn't like that idea at all, and all his intelligence melted away when he tried to address it.
Auster and Anti-Anti-Semitism records my initial challenge and his response.
Criticizing Auster reviews the issue some eight months later, after I had gathered quite a bit more evidence and confidence in my position.
Auster's Law holds, even if in a way its author doesn't like. His inability to acknowledge this and his decision to instead treat me like some kind of monster does nothing but help prove my point. This quote, taken from the second link above, was Auster's position before my challenge (his emphasis):
As I look over your collection, it’s clear to me that there is but one Law, and it’s simply this: that the more difficult or dangerous a minority or non-Western group actually is, the more favorably it is treated. This increasingly undeserved favorable treatment of an increasingly troublesome or misbehaving minority or non-Western group can take numerous forms, including celebrating the group, giving the group greater rights and privileges, covering up the group’s crimes and dysfunctions, attacking the group’s critics as racists, and blaming the group’s bad behavior on white racism.
My observation that this law applies best of all to jews caused Auster to attack me. Since then I have learned of and written about many jewish crimes and dysfunctions, and noted the favorable treatment of this troublesome and misbehaving minority.
Auster himself has occasionally commented on jewish misbehavior. Given the topics he writes about it can hardly be avoided. He simply cannot abide the implications of his own law. He obviously values the law and uses it to support his argument for what he calls separationism. But the last thing he wants is for Whites to separate ourselves from jews. In his mind to even suggest this constitutes that most special form of racism against the most favored minority of all.
Hi T.
Along with the commenters' posts, your December 2007 article “Auster and anti-Semitism” has over 30,000 words (plus some interesting linked articles).
Auster himself has a whole section about you in VFR (with yesterday as the most recent Tanstaafl article). Reading both sides would mean days of reading...
But yes: his Law and Corollary are indeed a great abstract discovery. My dream is that after The Crash people will mention it frequently in the printed media.
Didn't Auster post a reply here? What happened to it?
I wanted to read his perspective.
That was an entertaining exchange.
No: he didn’t post anything. He did send me an e-mail and allowed me to publish it here. But then we thought that it could incite angry replies and we decided to remove it. I can re-add it if you wish but it makes me feel a little nervous. I dislike flame-wars and don’t like to be dragged into such a thing. But I still can repost it...
Just posting the link to what Auster wrote outlining his views on why his rule about minorities didn't apply to Jews would be fine - that's what I didn't have time to check.
I don't see what harm can come of further discussion here as long as you can control it if it turns into a flame war.
I found the debate interesting and would be happy to read more of their exchanges here.
I disagree with Tanstaafl. Auster has levied some very hard hitting criticisms against Jews. He acknowledges the role liberal Jews are playing in dismantling our civilization, but simply states that Jews are not intrinsically anti-white or anti-Western, but rather history has helped to create the liberal Jew.
OK Russel: this is the article that Auster linked at the end of his e-mail:
"Does the First Law of Majority-Minority Relations apply to the Jews?"
As for Tanstaafl's assertion that Jews are the primary beneficiaries of "Auster's First Law", I think Tanstaafl is ignoring trends as well as behavioral data.
On trends, it might be arguable that at one time, Jews were an important beneficiary of deference to minorities -- in the 40s and 50s, with an obvious referencing pivot being the Holocaust and the highly reasonable attitude radiating out from that, the "Never Again" attitude, enshrined not only in sociocultural opinions and psychological feelings, but also institutionally in politics and laws (particularly throughout Europe).
However, by the 60s and 70s, a new group had replaced the Jews for the spotlight: blacks. And blacks rioting in various cities certainly helped along the process. Indeed, this brings up the second problem with Tanstaafl's assertion that Jews are the primary beneficiaries of "Auster's First Law" -- in order to be applicable, Jews would have to be behaving in negative ways that form half of the mechanism of Auster's First Law. Of course, people like Tanstaafl believe that Jews are behaving in such negative ways -- indeed, in evil Macchiavellian ways calculated to control the world for evil ends -- but evidence for this outlandish charge is conspiracy-theorist and has an unsavory provenance (e.g., The Protocols of the Elders of Zion). With blacks, however, for example, we do see Auster's mechanism at work: the more that blacks behave belligerently and/or savagely, the more that whites go into denial about it, for that negative data about blacks, if allowed into the mind in a rational way, would trigger negative feelings against blacks, and then perhaps negative actions, policies or laws. And it is these latter negativities which the PC MC (a term I prefer to Auster's wildly labile "liberal") must forever try to suppress, not only in society but in his own mind as well.
Now, that said, there is another field of data Tanstaafl is failing to integrate -- the massive field of data that shows that in the past decade after 911, Muslims have supplanted the black for the spotlight of being the #1 Most Privileged Minority in the world.
However, while Auster's Laws are great for descriptive purposes, they do not explain why or how one minority (Muslims) is able to elbow out another minority (blacks) -- let alone all other minorities on the planet. And the answer to that is relatively simple, and perhaps this can be appended to Auster's Laws as yet another corollary:
When a minority perpetrates and threatens to perpetrate more violence than other minorities; and when furthermore that minority is perceived to be able to deliver on those threats of violence more effectively than any other minorities -- then that most violent minority wins the privileged spot of becoming #1.
Obviously, no other minority on Earth comes even close to qualifying for this ranking that Muslims have come to enjoy, now that they are seriously reviving their ancient imperative to terrorize non-Muslims in preparation for a renewal of the conquest of the world which they had to put on hold for the past 300-odd years due in great part to the astronomic superiority of the West combined with the West having maintained its rationality until only the past 50 years, during which time a suicidal PC MC has become dominant and mainstream.
Hesperado, "liberal" may be labile, but at least I know what it means, unlike "MC".
Danebo and Hesperado,
I lived most of last year in Spain and like in America “liberal” has two different meanings there. I find it handy however to use “liberal” the way the VFR blogsite uses it, as explained in the very article that backs up this one.
Russel writes:
Just posting the link to what Auster wrote outlining his views on why his rule about minorities didn't apply to Jews would be fine
Regular Auster readers shouldn't have a problem reading the several thousand words I've already linked, especially since much of it was written by Auster. The second link above, Criticizing Auster, provides (and contrasts) two versions of Auster's initial argument. He apparently wrote both on the same day, and I have contrasted and critiqued both. Together with the other link I have gathered everything Auster had to say on the subject, much of it written before he was challenged and could change his defition to exclude jews.
Don Marco Jawsario writes:
Jews are not intrinsically anti-white or anti-Western, but rather history has helped to create the liberal Jew
Sure let's talk history. The jewish golden age, according to jews, was in muslim-occupied Spain. Europeans and jews have traditionally viewed jews as outsiders, an alien minority living amongst the native majority. Even after their emancipation this view persisted. Jews today regularly complain bitterly about how they were excluded from Ivy League universities and country clubs two generations ago. There is no better support for the majority view of jews as a serial misbehaving minority than the long list of European states from which jews have been expelled.
Jews don't need to be "intrisically anti-White or anti-Western" for Auster's law to apply today. The law predicts that the apologia for them and attacks on their critics flow according to the degree to which they are hostile to the majority. The entire idea of punishing the majority to protect a minority traces ba
ck to jewish emancipation.
Hesperado writes:
in order to be applicable, Jews would have to be behaving in negative ways that form half of the mechanism of Auster's First Law
Yes.
Hesperado continues:
Of course, people like Tanstaafl believe that Jews are behaving in such negative ways
Attacking me, personally, for noticing the misbehavior of this very special minority validates the law.
Hesperado continues:
-- indeed, in evil Macchiavellian ways calculated to control the world for evil ends -- but evidence for this outlandish charge is conspiracy-theorist and has an unsavory provenance (e.g., The Protocols of the Elders of Zion).
Since my initial disagreement with Auster I have populated my website with evidence, much of which was reported in mainstream sources, documenting the misbehavior of various jews and jewish organizations. Were it not for the fear of being pathologized as "outlandish" and "unsavory" I think any normal member of "the majority" would consider the behavior of this "minority" wrong, not my view of it.
As for conspiracy, I find it safe to say that jews openly organize more effectively than any other minority to pursue their collective interests.
One way that anti-Semites identify themselves graphically is their failure to capitalize the proper noun Jew.
Lawrence Auster has done an outstanding job of identifying the rhetorical devices of anti-Semites, and has shown how their initially reasonable-seeming arguments lead, inevitably, to the intellectual rathole of anti-Semitism.
He posted an entry with links to some germane articles, along with a link to Tanstaafl's revelation that his wife is ethnically half-Jewish, here.
Anyone who reads Auster without the burden of anti-Semitic blinders can see that Auster criticizes Jews, and even, on occasion, criticizes them as Jews--but only when it is warranted. Compare this to Tanstaafl's comment where he say "Jews are my enemy."
This comment consists mainly of verifiable statements: either someone wrote it, or he didn't. Watch Tanstaafl revlie me for my "ad hominem" attack on him--based on my quoting what he himself has written.
KumamotoJoe, I don't fail to capitalize jew, it's entirely on purpose. Auster already made a stink about it, and I answered him in We're White, We're Indigenous, Get Used to It.
I think I do a decent job addressing and dismantling Auster's arguments. In response he's provided many variations on what you've just written. "The intellectual rathole of anti-Semitism". "The burden of anti-Semitic blinders". He can't write Tanstaafl without tacking "serious anti-semite" on. You and he are obviously worried somebody might read what I have to say without semitic blinders on.
Auster criticizes Jews, and even, on occasion, criticizes them as Jews--but only when it is warranted.
Who decides when it is warranted? You? Auster? Jews delight in criticizing Whites whenever they like, however they like. I don't need anyone's permission to think and write whatever pleases me, though I'm aware several popular and well-funded jewish organizations are working on fixing that.
By the way, as long as we're linking posts about my wife (was that a rhetorical device, an intellectual rathole, or ad hominem?) a link readers here might find even more relevant is The First Law of Jewish Influence.
For those who have difficulties to read Tanstaafl’s article with a black background, the same article is now available in TOQ Online.
Chechar, Mark Jaws, KumamotoJoe, and others, this thread is as good evidence as anything that it is pointless to try to debate or dialogue with anti-Semites. You simply have to shun and exclude them. I know it's tempting to reply to them, because if you do shun and exclude them they start crowing about how this vindicates them and proves that no one can answer their rock-solid arguments, and further, allows them to argue that the only reason their anti-Jew arguments can't gain any traction is that they're systematically censored. But the only alternative is to allow them to hijack every discussion into an anti-Jew-fest. Anti-Semites are like zombies: a formerly rational, reasonable person, whom it was once possible to dialogue and debate with, gets bitten and turns into a zombie, and from that point on all he can do is stagger along, arms outstreched, moaning "brains, brains, brains" (or "Jews, Jews, Jews" as the case may be.) The rational mind you once knew is gone and ain't coming back. There's no point in arguing with the zombie anymore; all you can do is get as far away from him as possible.
Neither attacking nor accepting Jews has made any difference to the success of pro-White endeavors.
I'm well aware that most jews are disgusted by the suggestion that anyone's interests but their own matter, but I think Hermes did a great job of driving that point home.
Post a Comment