Less than a month ago I still believed that Kevin MacDonald was wrong and Larry Auster right on the Jewish Question, also known as the Jewish Problem (JP). Although I am barely beginning to read on this subject, I would like to say something about a few comments by Auster and an Auster reader of his blog. Trying to distance himself from MacDonald, Auster wrote (my retort appears indented):
1. I’m speaking of an understandable fear, based on history, that leads some Jews to act in an irrational way today. MacDonald is speaking of a socio-biologically determined group strategy of the Jewish people qua the Jewish people to take advantage of gentiles and undermine their culture wherever they find them.
What I have gathered from Eileen’s comments in this blog is that all cohesive ethnic groups, not only Jews, do it (by the way, the Jewish Problem arises from the higher IQ of Jews which translates in that they become dominant in the West).2. I’m speaking of something that would be reformable through reasoned confrontation. MacDonald is speaking of a primal group animus, driving the Jews to destroy Christians.
Ibidem. All cohesive ethnic groups (not only Jews) compete for the same territory.3. It is evident to anyone reading me that I am not feeling or invoking hostility to Jews as Jews. It is evident to anyone reading him that MacDonald feels and seeks to invoke profound hostility against Jews.
Some people who read MacDonald’s first book of the trilogy believed he admired Jews. As to the last book, to point out that there is a basic socio-biological conflict of interest ought not be presented (to my mind) as irrational anti-Semitism. But yes: becoming aware of the JP arises hostility against Jews as Jews.4. I see the Jewish issue as one issue among many others, and far from the most important. MacDonald literally sees the Jews the source of everything that has gone wrong with the West, to a transcendent degree. For him, the fact that gentiles are destroying their own cultures is purely the result of Jews having gotten control of the gentiles’ minds. This makes Jews not only the sole source of everything that is wrong with gentiles, it makes them demonic beings. The whole insanity of Western suicide that is now happening, it’s all because of the Jews. MacDonald’s “objective,” “scientific” argument leads to a picture of the Jews which equals Nazism in its total demonization of the Jews.
“The source of everything that has gone wrong with the West”. In fact, MacDonald has stated both in writing and in interviews that he disagrees with those who blame everything on the Jews. “...it makes them demonic beings.” Nope! That’s not the feeling I got when reading the very long Preface to his most important book, The Culture of Critique.5. The differences between Jews and Muslims must be remembered. Interspersed with periods of persecution and conflict, Jews have functioned harmoniously and productively as a minority in Western societies for over 2,000 years and can do so again. All needed for this to happen is a self-confident and morally sound majority that firmly stands for its own culture without retreating into resentment and hatred in order to do so. Muslims are inherently alien and hostile to the West and cannot function harmoniously as a minority in Western society.
If I accepted Tanstaafl’s interpretation of Auster’s First Law it’s because of what the Jews did to America: opening the gates for mass immigration. This is far more destructive than the Muslims’ 9/11. (Let us quote three more points, but these ones by someone who writes for Auster’s blogsite:)6. Whites’ suicidal embrace of leftism’s Kool-Aid is present in countries, like Ireland and Scandinavia, where Jews are absent or nearly so.
Yes. And that’s why I still keep the term “liberalism” in the masthead of this blog, a catchword that includes both Gentile and Jewish, instead of blaming the whole thing on the “Jews”. Still, the influence of the axiological revolution prompted by the new Judaized America on these European countries has to be acknowledged (wasn’t America the first to do it with the 1965 Immigration Act?).7. Even if one assumes universal Jewish hostility (which is simply untrue), his theory absolves the large numbers of treasonous whites of moral responsibility on grounds of genetic inferiority. Such people, like George W. Bush, bear more moral responsibility for the disaster that has befallen whites. If MacDonald became dictator and deported every single Jew in America to Israel, we’d still have to deal with the likes of Barry Lynn, the Clintons, the Bushes, the Kennedys, etc., etc.
Again: that’s why I am keeping the Austeresque “a new liberal left” in my blog’s masthead.8. As I’ve mentioned before, Israel suffers from the same disease as the rest of the West. If the Muslims were rational strategists (fortunately they aren’t) they’d abandon the idea of “Palestine” altogether, employ the jihad doctrine of taqiyaah (deception), adopt Israeli citizenship, and breed like rabbits on government largesse until they achieved majority status. The egalitarian impulse already entrenched in Israel would pave the road for eventual conquest.
I doubt that Israelis would permit this hypothetical scenario in the real world.[9.] There are other Jews who will always be hostile to/uncomfortable with the gentile majority. My position is that the way to deal with such Jews is to delegitimize them, which in practical terms means not allowing them places of influence in mainstream society. That’s the way it was in America, prior to, say, 1960. Jews with a fixed animus toward America’s majority culture should either be marginalized in minority sub-cultures, or encouraged to move to Israel. That’s been my consistent position. At the same time, I think a large number of Jews will reform if there is a reawakened, civilized white Christian majority saying that they are offended by and will not tolerate the anti-majoritarianism of liberal Jews. No one has ever said this to them, at least since the mid 20th century. If it were said, I think many of them would get into line. At present they are like children without a parent, because the majority culture has abandoned its role and authority, leaving the kids to run the house.
This last comment came from an Auster email to me.
10 comments:
Auster acts like a child, dictating rules for us while making lame excuses for jews. He can shut up and get out of our way. Move to israel and try telling jews what to do.
Auster said: "Jews have functioned harmoniously and productively as a minority in Western societies for over 2,000 years"
The Jews had lived in many parts of Europe ever since they came here with the Romans. Under Christian rule in the Holy Roman Empire they became very restricted in their freedom and their rights. The problem with the Jews in European countries began the 'Europe of the Empires' was replaced by the present 'Europe of the Nation-States' because they were supposed to give up their national culture in order to become culturally German or French, etc. Which they refused to do!
Auster said also: "If the Muslims were rational strategists (fortunately they aren’t) they’d (...) breed like rabbits."
However, among the reasons Israel did not integrate the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza into Israel is because Israelis were afraid of a demographic problem. The Israelis feared that if they gave the Palestinians equality, political and civil rights that the Palestinians may one day out number the Israelis and vote Israel out of existence.
In an article on Geert Wilders, Paul Belien wrote: "Wilders regards support for Israel as the litmus test to decide with whom he is willing to cooperate."
Auster's comment: "In the excellent Wilders manner, this is stated so simply and directly. It gets to the heart of the issue and comprehends other, unspoken issues within it."
You see, Lawrence Auster is a radically pro-Zionist.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/015855.html
As their history and destiny has shown, the Jews constantly recreate among the peoples with whom they settle the same pressing and difficult problems. As a peculiar ethnic type, not normally represented to any considerable extent in European countries, and possessed of psychological qualities and of a will to ascendancy which make them conspicuous in any environment not organised on their own lines and peopled by men of their own blood, their influence inevitably attracts notice, not merely by its strangeness but also by the invariable sameness of its effects.
Despite their frequent superficial morphological distinctions, there is a singular uniformity and standardization in the behaviour and activities of the Jewish communities of all countries, and the fact that in the history of the last four thousand years they have provoked remarkably similar reactions among the different peoples with whom they have come into contact is a sufficient demonstration of the regularity of their habits of mind and character, and of the latter's social expression. Possessed by a people less energetic, less ambitious, less determined, it is possible that their peculiar psychological qualities might have been overlooked, and that their influence upon the customs, institutions and policies of the nations among whom they settled might have been negligible. But correlated, as they are, with a will to ascendancy and power, probably unequalled by any other ethnic type, their peculiar psychological qualities naturally became the object of attention and study; and it is for this reason that in ancient Egypt, ancient Rome, mediæval Europe, and modern Europe and America there has always been a "Jewish Question."
http://www.anthonymludovici.com/jews_05.htm
Bruce, you wrote:
@ Auster said also: "If the Muslims were rational strategists, fortunately they aren’t, they’d breed like rabbits."
But Auster didn't say that. Carl Simpson did. As you can see by clicking on the first link at the top of the article (commenters' section).
Auster said: "Jews have functioned harmoniously and productively as a minority in Western societies for over 2,000 years"
Then what the hell is all that nonsense about "classical anti-Semitism?" What is all that bitching and moaning we hear constantly from the judeophiliacs about the constant persecution Jews have suffered at the hands of evil and conspiring Gentiles?
It's called double-talk.
"It's called double-talk."
When, as an alien, as a man of strange blood, the Jew finds himself confronted by a national population in which any vestige of the Conservative spirit remains, and whose national institutions are hedged round by exclusive rights and traditions tending to exclude the foreigner and his influence, his very lust for ascendancy, irrespective of any congenital Liberalism in his being, inevitably inclines him to promote all those Liberal principles which are best calculated to eliminate the rigid barriers about him and to undermine their philosophic justification.
---
Hence the universal association of the Jew with Liberal tendencies! Hence, too, when it comes to fighting European Conservatism or Nationalism, his complete oblivion of his own people's fits of Conservatism in the remote past.
What Ezra did in Jerusalem in 485 B.C., what Nehemiah did in that same city in 445 B.C., is conveniently forgotten, if it is a matter of ridiculing the action of a Tory like the Earl of Malmesbury in opposing the Bill to repeal the civil disabilities of the Jews.
On the other hand, when it is a matter of a Jew trying to get himself accepted as a power by the Conservatives of his time, nobody could speak in a manner more persuasive and eloquent about the fundamental principles now actuating German National Socialism than Benjamin Disraeli himself. Listen to him on the question of the equality of mankind:
"They [the Jews] are a living and most striking evidence of the falsity of that pernicious doctrine of modern times, the equality of man . . . the natural equality of man now in vogue, and taking the form of cosmopolitan fraternity, is a principle which, were it possible to act on it, would deteriorate the great races and destroy all the genius of the world. What would be the consequence on the great Anglo-Saxon republic, for example, were its citizens to secede from their sound principle of reserve, and mingle with their negro and coloured populations? In the course of time they would become so deteriorated that their States would probably be re-conquered and regained by the aborigines whom they expelled and who would then by their superiors. But though nature will never ultimately permit this theory of natural equality to be practised, the preaching of this dogma has already caused much mischief, and may occasion more. The native tendency of the Jewish race, who are justly proud of their blood, is against the doctrine of the equality of man."
How different are the arguments of Jewry to-day! Now, with the Liberal backing of enlightenment in the form of books like "We Europeans", the argument turns in favour of the brotherhood and equality of mankind, and the denigration of race!
---
Mommsen makes in his "History of Rome" the important and very ominous statement that "even in the ancient world Judaism was an effective leaven of cosmopolitanism and of national decomposition".
Their influence, therefore, tends to impoverish and weaken all local tradition, national character and national identity where these happen to be at all resistant to alien invasion. And since these factors are integrating forces, it follows that extreme Jewish Liberalism atomizes a population, turns each man into an isolated individual
Excerpted from Cobbett's book, "Jews, and the Jews in England."
If you check up the date and the exact timing, after a minute Taksei said “adieu” to us in this blog he started to talk about the JQ at GoV, here on February 28. It was a very long GoV thread precisely because of Taksei’s intervention.
In a sense it was a continuation of the discussion on the JQ with commenters who would basically agree with him. Of course: after I was banned from further publishing my book at GoV, I didn’t want to post there anymore. But a week later I didn’t resist the temptation to post a single post after Taksei recognized in that GoV thread that he “had just spent five days participating in a discussion thread on another website with a number of people who post here plus some out and out Nazis, all dumping on the Jews in a manner that was revolting.”
After my post other five posts by fellow WNs followed in that thread, including three by fellist. And guess what? We have been shunned. Zero replies to any of our six posts (including mine).
I guess dialogue with my former friends about the JQ will be a little difficult...
Tan: I liked your thorough exposé of Auster in one of your latest AoT articles.
Jews are just as aggressive (and possibly obnoxious?) as the stereotypes portray. Indeed, in his book, "The Jewish Century," Slezkine (a Jewish historian ) credits Jews with creating the main events of the 20th century, including the Russian revolution, European nationalism, communism, Marxism, the creation of Israel, and the Sixties revolution in America.
In the ancient struggle between Islam and West, the Jews were very clearly NOT on our side:
Jews and Muslims fought together to defend Jerusalem.
"In the 7th century, the Jews came to the aid of Persian invaders, and with the aid of the Samaritans were said to have massacred a hundred thousand Christians ( Grant 1973, 288). After the area was retaken by the Byzantines, the Arabs conquered the area with the “warm support” of the Jews ( Grant 1973, 289; see also Jones 1964, 950). At the beginning of the 12th century, the Byzantine Jews “sprang rapidly to [the] assistance” of the invading armies of Seljuk Turks (Shaw 1991, 25). Beginning in the 14th century the Jews supported the invasions of the Ottoman Turks—the final entry into Constantinople in 1453 occurring through a Jewish quarter with the assistance of the Jews ( Shaw 1991, 26). In gratitude for their support, the sultan imposed Jewish economic domination over his Christian subjects, and Jews immigrated into the area from throughout the diaspora (Shaw 1991, 77)."
Kevin MacDonald, "Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism" (1998)
And still another apparent GoV “shunning” just after Tan’s excellent response to Taksei here, that I quote in toto below:
Tanstaafl said...
Takuan Seiyo writes:
There are fair reasons why you should think the way you do, and both Lawrence Auster (not a pal of mine) and I have expressed ourselves in a fair and objective way on this matter, while each acknowledging the bias he and I share along with tens of millions of American who have no Jewish genes: support for Israel. The sort of attacks that Auster and I have been subjected to by “White Christian patriots”, and the vocabulary used, including in this blog, leave one reeling.
The key to turning more Jews toward the causes you care about is not to stop criticizing negative Jewish contributions, as long as well-informed, but to stop doing so in a language ranging from intemperate to hateful/genocidal (the latter two not yours). Also, to stop vilifying such Jews or semi-Jews who are on your side as though they were plants of the Elders of Zion with nefarious plots to co-opt and destroy white people and peoples (not “Christian,” because in the particular case I am citing, both Auster and I are Christian).
[end quote of Taksei’s words. Tan comments:]
I know that the posting policy on this blog requires comments that are civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum, so I'd like to know which "attacks" you refer to.
I think it's clear you're not fair or objective when it comes to jews. On the one hand you find no criticism of jews complete without a thorough rumaging through history that always arrives at the conclusion that they're only reacting to vilification by "nutjobs". On the other are those "nutjobs", "White Power people", "White Cuckoos", "White Christian patriots", etc. (How such pejoratives make it past comment moderation is separate question, but I assume it has to do with you being a regular here, and that you're demonizing some vague group rather than directly addressing whoever last got you reeling.) The point is, you show an obvious deference to jews, and an obvious hate for anyone you think doesn't.
Is it hateful / genocidal to say that? Is it even intemperate? Is this what your mind interprets as "plants of the Elders of Zion with nefarious plots to co-opt and destroy white people and peoples", or did somebody actually accuse you of that?
I ask because "We support Israel" is the explicit stand of this blog. I get the strong impression "We support jews" is too, though I don't see it plainly stated anywhere. Is it hateful / genocidal / intemperate to note this? How about, "I'm not jewish and I can see support for jews sometimes interferes with supporting my own people"? How about, "I'm not jewish and I support my own people, not jews"? I'd like to know where exactly, in your mind, this line of thinking crosses the line into "nutjob".
Post a Comment