IN A discussion about the UCLA student who made a tasteless video about Asian students, Lawrence Auster writes:

White nationalists are material-racial reductionists who, like Nazis, treat race as the single all-determining factor of human existence, so that human beings are in effect automata controlled by their race. I treat race as one very important determining factor in human existence, along with many other factors. And I am not a material reductionist. Material/racial factors can be the controlling factors; for example, if you change a formerly all-white city into a half black city, certain effects will inevitably ensue. At the same time, material/racial factors are not the only factors, especially at the individual level. But the material/racial force of sheer numbers will overwhelm any individual exceptions.

 

                                             — Comments —

Rex writes:

Can you point to a specific source in which White Nationalism is clearly defined in this way (i.e. material/racial reductionism)?

I definitely identify as a White Nationalist, so I feel I should speak up. To me, White Nationalism is just an expression of normal tribalism among those of (especially Northern) European descent. It is a way of giving formal substance to the very same things which are typically taken for granted among other groups of people. It is just a way of being ‘pro-self.’ There are plenty of sound reasons why people have an interest in supporting such an expression in today’s global environment.

I certainly don’t take it to involve a kind of reductionism whereby ‘race’ becomes the centerpiece of existence; but, I do think race is an important enough aspect of tribalism such that it requires, at least for Euro-descended people, a focused incorporation in our tribal identity.

Laura writes:

I cannot say what specific groups or people Mr. Auster had in mind, but I do think there is a problem with the term even if you and many others do not mean it in the reductive, extreme sense  Mr. Auster describes and even if you and others have only honorable intentions in using it. In saying there is a problem with the term, I am not tarring anyone who uses it as an extremist to be compared with the Nazis. The problem is, when you label yourself a white nationalist, other people identify you primarily on the basis of your views of race and tend to believe that you see every issue through that lens. And, that’s only fair as you have identified yourself by your racial views.

I prefer to think of myself as a traditionalist and that being a traditionalist necessarily entails loyalty to my race. I also think identifiying myself as a Christian necessarily implies such loyalty though for many people it does not.

Rex writes:

I don’t think it’s fair. Other groups in our society (and around the world) routinely identify on the basis of race and yet this doesn’t seem to give outsiders a basis for assuming that the single issue of ‘race’ is uppermost in the thinking of these groups. Jews, for instance, have literally hundreds of well-financed, well-organized activist groups which work for their interests as a people; I don’t think that most people take this to mean that ‘Jewishness’ is an all-consuming issue for Jews, nor do I think it would be ‘fair’ if such a thing were to occur.

The same applies for Blacks, Mestizos, etc.

I don’t think people assume that race colors every issue for individual members of such groups simply because they choose to directly identify with their racial groups and raise issues which are pertinent to the group. People understand that this is just essential for their collective well-being.

Besides, shouldn’t Euro-descended folks consider how each issue affects them specifically? What’s wrong with Euros having similar ‘activist’ type groups which basically do the same thing as the groups for other races? In my opinion, if Euros don’t start becoming more explicitly ‘pro-self’ then they are going to go the way of the do-do bird.

Laura writes:

Good points.

Mr. Auster, in his statement above, does make an implicit argument for the “white nationalist” term when he says, “But the material/racial force of sheer numbers will overwhelm any individual exceptions.” If whites are overwhelmed by sheer numbers, isn’t “white nationalist,” which identifies race as of central importance, then necessary?

Also, if more people who are not extremists use the term, doesn’t it lose its association with extremism?

Bob writes:

Mr. Auster’s last sentence is problematic. I read it as saying that race is determining.

Clem writes:

How are we defining ‘white nationalist? I agree with what Rex is saying but I also agree with Mr. Auster that race isn’t everything. It is a part of who I/we are and it affects and influences our choices, worldview and culture. So in that sense it is always part of everything. It is most certainly not just a ‘skin color’ as the bogus saying goes. 

If wanting to live in a nation that is super majority white with some semblance of culture, mores and religion that people up to about the 1950’s would recognize is a “white nationalist” then I too am a white nationalist.

Mr. Auster writes:

What I stated in my comment quoted at the beginning of this entry was my conclusion from having looked at various white nationalist sites over a period of years. To prove what I said, I would have to present a number of quotations from these sites, which I can’t do right now, though I guess this is something I need to do at some point. However, for starters, you could check out the entryfrom VFR of January 2009, in which Mark Richardson and I discuss the racial-materialist reductionist outlook of the white nationalists, particularly those at the leading white nationalist site, Majority Rights, for which I coined the phrase, “The Neo-Darwinian/Neo-Nazi Synthesis.” 

Also, some background. For a number of years I never thought about the term white nationalist and never had any particular objection to it. While I never described myself as one, I didn’t mind it when others called me one. But in more recent years I became aware that literally every blogger who identifies as a white nationalist is (a) a material racial reductionist who thinks that race determines everything; and (b) a serious anti-Semite or a fellow traveler with serious anti-Semites. If there are exceptions to this rule, they are too few to change the overall truth of the statement. 

As a relatively mild example of white nationalist thinking, here is the mission statement of Occidental Dissent:

Occidental Dissent is a White Nationalist website. We support the creation of a Jew-free, racially exclusive White ethnostate in North America. We also advocate the ideal of White racial and cultural preservation in Europe and throughout the Western world.

It should also be noted that certain white nationalists who appeared to be backing away from anti-Semitism were doing no such thing, which suggests that anti-Semitism is as organic to white nationalism as sharia is to Islam. For example, Hunter Wallace (a.k.a. Prozium) renouncedand condemned exterminationist anti-Semitism, but in fact remained a hard core anti-Semite. 

Then there was Chechar (a.k.a. Cesar Tort, a.k.a. Caesar Tort), who announcedin his blog’s masthead a “Non-Anti-Semitic White Nationalism,” and then within a two months dramatically reverted to anti-Semitic White Nationalism, as I summed up here. More recently, Chechar has written that I, the Jewish fifth columnist and puppet master par excellence, bamboozled him (though as I remember, whatever brief exchanges we had were initiated by him), but now he sees the light. 

The summary and links I’ve provided in this comment are just a brief introduction, but should be enough to give you a general idea of the issue.

Rex writes:

A few thoughts. Just because there is a tendency for those who identify themselves as white nationalists to promote ‘anti-Semitism’ doesn’t mean that white nationalism is inseparable from anti-Semitism (I don’t think Jared Taylor of Amren is ‘anti-Semitic’; I think there are plenty of other white nationalists who also don’t support anti-Semitism). As I said, I think white nationalism is simply an expression of tribalism among Euros; I suppose it is comparable to the countless forms of non-Euro tribalism which we see in our society everyday.

In my opinion, if Mr. Auster was trying to use the selection from Occidental Dissent to demonstrate an example of ‘anti-Semitism,’ I think he failed. How is that quotation ‘anti-Semitic’ (perhaps you could give a realistic, workable definition)? Just because one wishes to live apart from others doesn’t imply hostility; the Japanese, for instance, have no intention of letting their nation become something non-Japanese — does this make them ‘anti’ everybody else? I don’t think so. I think it makes them separatists, or ‘self-preservationists.’ I think it’s wonderful that they care deeply about their people; I care about Euro-descended people the same way, which is why I advocate for our self-preservation.

By the way, I don’t think that white nationalism must necessarily take the form of geographical separatism, but I fail to see how such separatism would imply anti-Semitism. I know there are plenty of Jews who believe in a form of separatism for themselves: are they necessarily ‘anti-Gentile’? Again, I don’t think so.

There is nothing wrong with explicit tribalism for Euro-descended people; in point of fact, it is vital for our existence. Even if a large number of white nationalists believed that ‘race is everything’ (though I personally have never seen any statements which could be interpreted this way) this doesn’t mean that such a belief is core to white nationalists itself. Euros should not reject the label just because such statements may have been made.

Laura writes:

As for Occidental Dissent, if you don’t see the difference between advocating a “Jew-free” state and a state that is confidently white, as America was in the past, then I think there is no arguing with you on this point because you refuse to see reason. I personally reject such language and disavow any association with it. 

Regarding Jared Taylor, you may be interested in one of many pieces at VFR about him, including this one by Mr. Auster in which he praises Mr. Taylor’s work and criticizes him for associating with thugs and anti-Semites.

If many extremists are associated with the term “white nationalist,” and if those who are reasonable and not anti-Semitic do not explicitly disassociate themselves from the extremists, then the label should be rejected.

Rex replies:

Laura wrote: “… As far as Occidental Dissent, if you don’t see the difference between advocating a “Jew-free” state and a state that is confidently white, as America was in the past, then I think there is no arguing with you on this point because you refuse to see reason. I personally reject such language and disavow any association with it. …”

I see the difference, but I was under the impression that Mr. Auster was using said quotation as an example of ‘anti-Semitism.’ I don’t believe that separatism implies hostility. I think separatism means a desire to be separate. [Laura writes: Mr. Auster was using the quote as an example of the type of extremism that exists among those who call themselves white nationalists and it is a very good example. Given how integrated Jews are into American culture, entire separation from Jews does indeed imply hostility. Regardless of whether such separatism comes with hostility to Jews or not, I personally don’t support it or seek to be part of a Jew-free state.]

And as I said, I don’t think such separatism is an inherent part of white nationalism. [You may believe that and assert that it is so, but in order to prove that it is not an inherent part of white nationalism you would have to show influential sites or publications where extremism of the sort that seeks to rid America of the presence of Jews is rejected and where race is not viewed from a materialist perspective and considered the most important aspect of existence.]

As for distancing white nationalism from supposed ‘extremist’ elements, I’m just curious: why is it that the ADL and SPLC are never asked to actively and constantly ‘distance’ themselves from extremist types even though they clearly advocate on behalf of specific groups? Shouldn’t the ADL be constantly trying to distance itself from extremist Jews who believe that Gentiles are worthless ‘goyim’ on the same level as farm animals? Why the double standard as far as so-called ‘extremism’ goes?

Laura writes:

Why are Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Povery Law Center never asked to disassociate themselves from extremists by whom? Do you mean by Mr. Auster? The Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center are extremist by nature, as Mr. Auster has written many times. They would have to become something other than what they are to distance themselves from extremists. See this piece, for example, on the ADL. As far as SPLC, Mr. Auster and his site are listed among those whom it considers “hate” groups.

It is no interest to me whom these groups disassociate themselves from unless they change their entire agendas. In this discussion, we are addressing the meaning of the term “white nationalist” not the meaning of the term “anti-white racist.”

Cesar Tort writes:

I would like to respond to Lawrence Auster’s comment:

 “More recently, Chechar has written that I, the Jewish fifth columnist and puppet master par excellence, bamboozled him (though as I remember, whatever brief exchanges we had were initiated by him), but now he sees the light.” 

 Suffice it to say, that the Jewish Problem is not hallucinatory. See e.g., my latest post about it: scholarly and wise words… by an academic Jew!

 To be more precise (Auster only quoted a random comment from me in a The Occidental Observer thread), it’s not that Auster consciously bamboozled me. No. It’s just that his obvious bias—blindness about the Jewish Problem due to ethnocentric self-deception—blinded me too when I had not read about the Jewish Problem.

Laura writes:

If you were blind to the existence of Jewish radicalism, you were not blinded by Mr. Auster. He is an outspoken critic of Jewish liberalism, repeatedly acknowledging its poisonous nature. Anyone who espouses his beliefs is obviously a paraiah to the majority of Jews in this country. But there is a difference between criticizing Jews for their anti-Christian, open-borders, socialist politics and believing that Jews have no place in Western society. I have only glanced at the post you link above but it seems to be a fairly standard summary of modern Jewish radicalism.

Mr. Auster writes:

If Cesar Tort didn’t think that I had bamboozled him, but merely that I was blind and that my blindness affected him, why did he writeat Occidental Observer that I bamboozled him? Obviously because the evil sneaky Jew always bamboozles the poor innocent Gentile. In fact, the view of myself as a Jewish fifth columnist whose real purpose is to destroy the white race for the sake of Jewish supremacism has been repeatedly expressed in exchanges in which Cesar has taken part, and he has never disputed that view. 

Second, regarding Cesar’s now-revised reference to my “blindness” to the Jewish problem (rather than my “bamboozling” him on the Jewish problem), as Laura has indicated, I have in fact written extensively about the Jewish problem (for example here), a fact that Cesar cannot possibly be unaware of. But because my diagnosis and cure are not the same as his, Cesar says, not that I have a different view of the problem from him, but that I am “blind” to the problem. 

Third, and most important, Cesar’s remark that my supposed “blindness about the Jewish Problem” is “due to ethnocentric self-deception” typifies the material reductionist / racial deterministic thinking of the white nationalists which reduces humanity to race-driven automata. It doesn’t occur to Cesar or to any white nationalist to say simply that Auster has a different view of the problem from them. No, my different view must be a function of genetic ethnocentric programming. But then Cesar’s thinking and that of all white nationalists is also a function of genetic ethnocentric programming. So why should we listen to them, or to anyone? There is no human reason, there is no point in talking, and humanity is reduced to a bunch of tribes mechanically killing each other. This is the white nationalist vision.

John McNeil writes:

In the past I have identified myself as a white nationalist, and yes, I’m one of those very rare WNs who actually reject anti-Semitism, and not just excuse it or pretend it’s not a problem. Rex, anti-Semitism is a major problem for white nationalism; there’s no sense in denying it. Yes, Jared Taylor himself doesn’t hate Jews, but his associations with real anti-Semites like Don Black shows a poor taste in judgment and an unwillingness to condemn evil. I believe that in order for any white nationalist movement to succeed,  it needs to show white Americans a sense of moral clarity and fairness. Most whites will not stand for hatred and bigotry.

Regardless, I usually call myself an ethnonationalist, as I feel that it is something that takes into account things besides biological race. An ethnic group, after all, has characteristics that include race, culture, religion, geography, and linguistics. I suppose American white nationalist is also appropriate, but usually when people see me, and hear that I’m an ethnonationalist, they know what I identify as.

I think it’s perfectly fair for people to identify as traditionalists. I do not use the term because I see it being too vague. Whose traditions am I upholding? And often people associate traditionalism with religious/social conservatism. Remember that racial conservatism has been purged from the mainstream for decades, and in a sense, racial/ethnic identity for white Americans is no longer “traditional”. I prefer ethnonationalist as it flat out says what I’m about: the preservation of my ethnic group which is a people that are white Christian English-speakers from America.

Laura writes:

Thank you.

John writes, “I believe that in order for any white nationalist movement to succeed,  it needs to show white Americans a sense of moral clarity and fairness. Most whites will not stand for hatred and bigotry.”

Well said. Similarly, anti-feminism loses its moral authority when misogyny is not actively expelled from its ranks. It’s not enough for onlookers to say, “Oh, I don’t feel that hatred,” and then let others openly express it and feed it. That is a form of complicity. Bigotry, resentment and hatred are contaminating poisons and it takes ongoing resistance to their changing forms.

I understand John’s problem with the word “traditionalist.” However, I think traditionalists themselves identify and clarify the tradition they are upholding. Obviously with all of these terms, their literal meanings are given broader definition by those who use them, as we see with the white nationalist term. I also understand the appeal of “ethnonationalist” and am sympathetic to its use. My objection to it is similar to my objection to “white nationalist” at the beginning of this discussion, before the issue of anti-Semitism was raised. The term doesn’t encompass other cultural issues other than race or ethnicity.  I realize, however, that there is compelling reason to want a term that does just that. Also, on a more trivial level, I find “ethnonationalist” to be a mouthful.

Clem writes:

Is there a way to draw a consensus? of some sort? I hope so, because I don’t see a way to accomplish what we need to do without it. I view it as one of our biggest stumbling blocks. Our unity is imperative. Whites in general, Western European culture and Christianity are under attack. Our very survival is at stake. I think it comes down to who will be our allies in trying to reclaim and secure our place. One thing is certain we can never get there by what we have now. Most non-whites are not our allies in this although some realize the importance of what we need to do to survive and actually seek the same for their own. Some, a limited some, a specific number or percent, would even be willing to live among us with laws and barriers put in place to ensure their own and our survival. Needless to say many Jewish organizations, and in turn many Jews, are antithetical to our existence. However the bottom line for me is to ask of the Jew and any others for that matter, do you support a Constitutional Republic that is basically a white ethno state with laws and mores that are overwhelmingly Christian-based?

Tanstaafl writes:

I am a White nationalist and I favor the creation of a jew-free [sic] White ethnostate. This is because I am White and I perceive that jews, as a group, are implacably hostile toward Whites, especially Whites who recognize and oppose jewish aggression against us.

Laura writes:

You have also sent me a lengthy statement as to why Lawrence Auster’s primary and only interest is the preservation of the Jewish people and how he is hostile to whites. But I am not going to go on with the rest of your comment because your statement above provides too much for me to disagree with for us to continue a fruitful debate. (Notice how your hostility to Jews is so intense that you refuse to even capitalize the word “Jew” though you do capitalize the word “White.”)

I do not seek to live in a Jew-free nation. Period.

I might add, I do not seek to live in a nation purged of blacks or Hispanics or Asians either.

Laura adds:

If it came down to choosing between citizenship in a white ethnostate which identified itself as proudly “Jew-free” in its constitution and a nation that was suicidally multicultural, I would choose the latter.

Clem writes:

John McNeil writes, “Most whites will not stand for hatred and bigotry.” 

Just let that hang there for a minute. 

You talk about a problematic statement…Who said that? Al Sharpton? Janet Murguía, Abe Foxman? 

What does that mean exactly? For one thing, most whites DO stand for hatred and bigotry:  that which is directed straight at them all the while being preached to and taught that it is necessary for atonement and even that their destruction is a good thing. Secondly, it gives me pause when the exact same rhetoric used by the likes of the above is being thrown out. Thirdly, as defined by whom? 

Is there irrational hatred? Sure there is, but it is a statistical spectrum.

Matt Parrott writes:

A fixation on Jews can and often does overlap with well-documented mental health issues. Some folks, being over-clocked for pattern recognition and grasping to fulfill the need for a sense of order and design that a pervasive belief in God once satiated, will naturally latch on to Jews as the most likely candidates for this role. With a bit of discretion, one can pretty readily discern who’s suffering from an unhealthy fixation and who’s rightly concerned with the disproportionate and perhaps even dominant role that organized Jewry has played and continues to play in distorting Western culture, promoting globalism, luring us into wars that are neither popular, just, nor in the national interest, and, of course, pushing Third World immigration.

With all due respect, I opt out of playing the word games you and Larry insist upon. A “White Nationalist” in the American context is somebody who favors White Americans coming together as a sovereign people. It doesn’t mean biological reductionism. It doesn’t mean Nazi fetishism. You’re playing along with Larry’s ongoing effort to impose a frame within which there are only two options: (1) abiding his taboo against open criticism of Jewish influence and (2) being a frothing illiterate Jew-hating cretin.

While Jared Taylor’s not an anti-Semite, he got to where he is by following his conscience, refusing to allow the self-appointed enforcers of respectable opinion to intimidate him. In this context, the enforcers of political correctness are you and Larry. The ongoing boycott of Mr. Taylor by the many Jew-friendly and Jewish voices in the movement for failing to maintain a kosher contact list is unfair, tactically inept, and your loss.

Laura writes:

First, let me say that if you consider a discussion about the popular meaning of certain terms to be playing “word games” then you obviously don’t belong in this discussion because it is beneath you.

Second, you might read back to the beginning of this debate and look at some of my comments about the pros and cons of the white nationalist term. I did not issue any edict against it and said that I was sympathetic to its use and to the need for a term that addressed race. If you think the use of the white nationalist term is important, so be it. Defend its use and make it honorable, but don’t accuse others who ponder its meaning of playing silly games or of ridiculing or ostracizing all who use the term.

Third, while I have linked Mr. Auster’s writings on Jared Taylor here, I have never personally addressed Mr. Taylor’s role and influence. I have never boycotted him. You speak of him “not maintaining a kosher contact list.” But is that so difficult to do? If it would alleviate the uneasiness of supporters, isn’t it worth it?

Fourth, if Lawrence Auster has a taboo against open criticism of Jewish influence, why has he himself not abided by this taboo? As far as imposing frameworks, you seem eager to paint anyone who denounces anti-Semitism as being constitutionally incapable of criticizing Jews. 

Mr. Parrott responds:

In reply to your reply to my original comment,

I wasn’t objecting to discussing the popular meaning of certain terms. I was objecting to Auster’s defining White Nationalists as “…material-racial reductionists who, like Nazis, treat race as the single all-determining factor of human existence, so that human beings are in effect automata controlled by their race.” This attempt to defame everybody under that label is far enough afield to be appropriately characterized as “word games.” If that sort of childish name-calling masquerading as an honest attempt to describe the typical White Nationalist is taken seriously, then I suppose this discussion may well be beneath me.

You ask why it’s so difficult for Mr. Taylor to maintain a kosher contact list after I already explained why: because he refuses to bow to the enforcers of political orthodoxy. There’s no evidence that he has any meaningful association with anybody who’s genuinely disreputable. That should be good enough.

As for Mr. Auster, sure, he’ll infrequently address this or that Jewish influence, but refuses to address it in its complete context and spits venom at those who do.

Laura writes:

If you call yourself a white nationalist and are not a “material-racial reductionist” who sees race as everything, then you are living refutation to the statement that all white nationalists conform to Mr. Auster’s description above. However, I would think you would be naturally concerned as to who else was using the term and desire to make sure the term did not encompass the definition you reject by criticizing its misappropriation.

I do not know who is, and who is not, on Mr. Taylor’s contact list. But you seem to be saying that eliminating open anti-Semites from that contact list is “bowing to political orthodoxy,” i.e., some mindless and rigid controls. I don’t agree, if that is indeed what you are saying. 

I’m not sure what addressing Jewish influence in its “complete context” is. Yes, it’s true, Mr. Auster has not written a book on Jewish liberalism, if that’s what you mean. Certainly, it’s an important subject that could fill many books. He is running a blog, not attempting to exhaust all the subjects he covers. However, the phrase “complete context” suggests some dissatisfaction with stopping short of seeing Jewish liberalism as the be-all and end-all of modern liberalism, period. Perhaps that is not what you mean, but the words suggest it.

As for spitting venom, I personally think that Mr. Auster cares, perhaps to excess, about the integrity of white nationalism. He rightly sees that anti-Semitism could utterly destroy that integrity.  In my opinion, you grossly misread his motivations. Do these vehement objections express loyalty to his own people, the Jews? Of course. That must be a part of it. But, more importantly, they express a higher loyalty to the cause which joins both you and him. 

Michael writes:

I find the “nationalist” part of White Nationalist to be more objectionable than “white,” especially in a nation that is 3,000 miles wide. It is impossible for me, in Illinois, to be loyal to a white person in Oregon or Florida unless they are kin or friends. “Nationalist” means solidarity with a statistic and some stock photos…you can’t identify with theoretical people.

Also, I am half Greek and I don’t think Greeks should be lumped into “white people.” Before WW II, white nationalists would have said the same and would not have been happy about the mixing of races. Yet, I agree that “multiculturalism” is an enticing lie, so perhaps white nationalists should talk less about skin color and more about shared education, religion and priorities — again, shared with people they can actually share something with.

The “Jewish question” is another phrase that should not be spoken. It is the only phrase ordinary people hear and remember when it is encountered in a sentence, and I can’t think of when it is necessary because it is too broad. If there is some specific issue to discuss, it’s better to use the term for that issue. For example, “should we sell weapons to Israel?” lets the conversation progress. Also, “Jewish question” has the same problems as “nationalist,” except now one is prying into the affairs of other continents. My Jewish question is whether I can convince my Russian Jewish friend five streets down to become a Christian.

Mr. Parrott writes:

Mr. Auster believes that excessive criticism of Jewish influence is holding us back. I believe, in contrast, that it has less to do with the topic than the tone. He’s as guilty as anybody in indulging in hatefulness, which I believe to be the real problem. He does stuff like picking on Michelle Obama for being ugly and looking too masculine in her dresses. While Auster’s a skilled polemicist with a sharp mind, his approach to race is often implicitly supremacist and outright mean-spirited toward other races. In contrast, I write extensively on race and on the negative effect of Jewish power and influence, but avoid dehumanizing blacks and Jewish folks, regularly corresponding with several Jews, and even recently enjoyed some pro-White street activism with one.

Cesar Tort writes:

See a long entryin my blog about Auster, Tanstaafl and the Jews. In other blogs, the Auster debate has also been discussed extensively. Mangan’s for one has quite a few entries on this subject (see e.g., “Auster Calls Alternative Right a ‘Moral Swamp’, Wants It to Fail”). I wish you all had the interest and patience to read at least one of these threads. Whatever has to be discussed here perhaps has already been said. 

As to what Auster wrote about me today, let me say that I am notorious in white nationalist blogs for the use of hyperbole and sometimes even inflammatory rhetoric. It’s nothing personal about Auster (that he “bamboozled me” etc). If I believed that he’s a wicked person, how would you explain that my blog advertizes one of his pieces (search “featured article #2” in my blog and you will hit it). 

As to the Jews, Auster wrote: “…and humanity is reduced to a bunch of tribes mechanically killing each other.” 

Well, if Auster were honest about researching the issue he would purchase the book of the “academic Jew” I cited way above. And to be fair Auster would read a Gentile too: he would study copies of Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy. In a nutshell, MacDonald explains—this is my own metaphor, not MacDonald’s—that ethnic groups do collide against each other, just like plate tectonics collide between themselves. In that clash of civilizations—which ultimately analyzed are clashes of ethnic groups—a plate often subductesthe other plate down into the magma. Presently the Jewish plate is subducting our plate into the magma. Yes: our culture is being destroyed, but that doesn’t mean that MacDonald believes that the Jews are “demonic,” as Auster has written when interpreting him. No: it’s an ethnic conflict like any other. The only difference is that the Jews score highest in IQ tests, and there’s the rub…

Laura writes:

Racial or ethnic groups are not impersonal forces, similar to geologic plates.

Jewish intelligence is a reality, with the potential for good and evil. Jewish feminists have worshipped rationality and a masculine drive for mastery at the expense of feminine moral intuition and nurturing. They have done much damage. That is but one example of the negative ends to which superior Jewish intelligence have been directed. In a confidently Christian society, Jews do not successfully undermine and destroy Christian mores and traditions. This is a complex problem. I do not wish to resolve it in this discussion.

Laura adds:

As far as the hatefulness of Mr. Auster is concerned, he has never called for hateful acts against other races. Yes, he has not been nice. It’s not pretty breaking through the glass pane of our taboos and toppling our idols. I am grateful he has had the courage to do it, so that the rest of us can be more civil and nice.

Buck writes:

This contest of opinions is interesting in that it makes it’s own overarching point – simply by it’s existence and context. The subject, which is about survival and/or domination has a beginning, but no end. Contestants will come and go, but the contest will forever go on. Everyone, but the weakest and least conscious among us, will eventually choose a side – when they must. Most of us will choose our own. Humans are motivated by self-interest in all matters – certainly in their will-to-power and will to survive. No one is going to settle this. 

Here’s an odd, but interesting short video on “racism”. It’s less than two minutes long. An Anthropologist takes us back to the very beginning to establish a point of reference. If she’s correct, perhaps joined to Aristotle’s Law of Identity.

Laura writes:

Human beings have a will to power and a will to community. They are both strong drives. We are “motivated by self-interest in all matters” only if you include immaterial objectives, such as the desire for God and truth, as expressions of self-interest.

The contest will never end. But there can be the sort of accord that makes functioning society possible.