I am attacked for not being an anti-Semite
(Note: this entry quotes
Tanstaafl’s recent account of his anti-Semitic program.)
I am sorry to bring up an unpleasant matter like this on the day before Christmas, but this is something that I want to get out of the way now. There is a big article by the blogger “Tanstaafl” at the Age of Treason website in which the main subject is myself and the main point is that I am an inconsistent and hypocritical thinker because I’m not an anti-Semite. That sounds simplistic, but that’s really what it’s all about. Tanstaafl himself is an open anti-Semite who recently wrote:
Jews are not the only enemy, and not all Jews are enemies. I’m not going to sugar coat what I have to say any more than that…. I’m not being coy. I’ve just realized and said flat out Jews are my enemy.
In the current article he writes:
I also plainly say that Jews have played and continue to play a major role in causing [White European Extinction] to happen, smears of anti-semitism or racism be damned.
Now, a person who is not an anti-Semite and who disapproves of anti-Semitism would want to explain clearly that he is not an anti-Semite. A person who declares that he’s indifferent
to whether people call him an anti-Semite is announcing either that he is an anti-Semite, or that he has no problem with anti-Semitism.
Before I had realized—as I have over the last day—that Tanstaafl is a flat-out anti-Semite, I had replied at John Savage’s website to Tanstaafl’s complaint that I was not applying “Auster’s First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society” to the Jews. Tanstaafl quotes in their entirety this and other previous discussions from Savage’s site, Brave New World Watch, and from Vanishing American, all centered on me and my supposed contradictions and my supposed refusal to deal with hard issues, in his current article (which by the way is unreadable since his site has a black background with almost invisible text—I had to copy and paste it into Word in order to read it).
In any case, Tanstaafl is the sort of anti-Semite who openly talks about how Jews are the “enemy,” and then, anticipating that people will call him anti-Semitic, complains that this is “PC” and a “smear.” He’s the sort of ignoramus and self-proclaimed victim who, after he has endlessly attacked the Jews in Kevin MacDonald fashion, and after someone merely says that his, Tanstaafl’s comments are uninformed or wrong, replies that that’s an “ad hominem attack.” He’s someone who thinks that if I fail to join him in his anti-Semitism, that shows a troubling inconsistency in my thought.
Indeed, Tanstaafl starts off the article talking about how his whole world view has changed from his previous mainstream conservatism in the last few months, even the last few weeks, in large part as a result of reading me, and then he condemns me for not being true to my own principles and being an anti-Semite. It didn’t occur to him, “Maybe, since Auster has had good reasons for his positions that I like, maybe he has good reasons for his positions that I don’t like, and I haven’t seen them yet. So maybe I should do some more reading before spreading my half-formed, ignorant, anti-Semitic thoughts all over the Web.”
And it didn’t occur to him that if his world view has been changing so fast, maybe it might keep changing, and maybe he should have thought and read a bit more before leaping into the terminal rat-hole of anti-Semitism, that harbinger of hell where all hope is lost. But no. It’s the Jews, the Jews, the Jews.
Finally, I’m sorry to see that John Savage, a blogger who has often discussed me approvingly and whom I respect, has joined with Tanstaafl against me:
Tanstaafl, I think you are being very fair here. I myself am losing patience with Auster’s refusal to respond to points of view that he perceives as being to the Right of himself…. Nice post!
- end of initial entry -
Tom M. writes:
Regarding the “I am attacked for not being an anti-Semite” thread, hasn’t the term “anti-Semite” become an all-inclusive, imprecisely defined word, used for effect the way “racist” is being used? Whether one has good reasons for making racial distinctions or not, the label “racist” is used to undercut any rational discussion of race. Likewise hasn’t the label “anti-Semite” become a description to stop at any cost a rational consideration of the effects of influential Jewish persons and their thought processes on society?
Thus the two labels “racist” and “anti-Semite” have become self-justifying terms, words that have their own absolute weight without any further consideration. Simply launching those words in an accusatory manner puts a stop to any reasonable discourse that involves the roles of the black race or the Jewish person in America.
Finally, what is wrong with being a racist or an anti-Semite? Most of the reasons given for the immorality of being either one (or both) are cultural, psychological or emotional. I haven’t come across a set of reasons grounded in transcendent logic that condemn either position. Let’s take Christianity for example. Where in the New Testament does it actually say that one cannot make racial distinctions? One can infer that from certain statements such as “treat one’s neighbor as oneself” but that statement in and of itself describes a personal relationship between individuals. It says nothing about considerations of race as a whole in terms of social grouping, intelligence factors, cultural customs and historical progress.
An evaluation of race through a profile that brings in elements of culture, sociology, law, civilization, intelligence, etc. does not impinge on morality. Perhaps there should be less emotional heat associated with the terms “racist” or “anti-Semite.”
If the word anti-Semitism or racism is not sufficiently defined, then define it. That’s what I do. I distinguish between rational and legitimate criticism of Jews as Jews, and anti-Semitism.
This is something that neither liberals and Jews nor anti-Semites do.
On one side, the liberals and Jews say that all criticism of Jews as Jews is anti-Semitic. This drives all legitimate criticism of Jews into the corners of society where it soon descends into the rat-hole of anti-Semitism.
On the other side, the anti-Semites claim that the demonization of Jews, speaking of Jews as the enemy, advocating the destruction of Israel, is only “criticism,” and then they whine that their mere “criticism” of Jews is being attacked as anti-Semitism.
From this deadly impasse, the approach I have suggested is the only way out. But in order to take that path, one must renounce anti-Semitism and be willing to distinguish between statements about Jews that are legitimate and those that are illegitimate. Anti-Semites are not willing to make that distinction. Your own comment that there is nothing wrong with being an racist and an anti-Semite suggests that you yourself are an anti-Semite and are thus unwilling to identity any anti-Jewish behaviors as wrong.
However, I acknowledge that you would disagree with the view I’ve just stated about you, since you seem to want “anti-Semite” to mean something other than what it normally means.
Thus you write:
Perhaps there should be less emotional heat associated with the terms “racist” or “anti-Semite.” The reason so much heat is associated with the terms “racist” and “anti-Semitic” is the these terms denote attitudes and behaviors that are morally wrong. Nothing can be done to change that. It is fatuous to say, gosh, can’t these words mean something other than what the whole world takes them to mean?
Since “racism” and “anti-Semitism” have the meaning of morally wrong, all we can do (as Gedalhia Braun argues in Racism, Guilt, and Self-Deceit) is insist that when those words are used, they are used for attitudes and behaviors that are demonstrably morally wrong. Which further means that if an attitude or behavior is not demonstrably morally wrong, it cannot be racist or anti-Semitic.
But, once again, taking this logical and moral approach to the Jewish problem requires that we ourselves believe that there are behaviors against Jews that are morally wrong. Anti-Semites are unwilling and unable to take that position.
Alan Levine writes:
I must say that I do not understand why you waste time dealing with lower lifeforms such as Tanstaafl It is useless to argue with such types.
You’re missing something very basic: one does not argue with Tanstaafl for Tanstaafl’s sake, but for others’ sake.
If I followed your prescription and only had debates with people whom I thought I had a chance of persuading, four fifths of VFR wouldn’t have been written.
By the way, I’ve twice mentioned in my previous exchanges with Tastaaflf that the name “Tanstaafl,” especially when combined with its possessor’s anti-Jewish agenda, has Nazi reverberations, to which he objected and said this was an ad hominem attack. I couldn’t quite locate the word that “Tanstaafl” reminded me of. Then I got this comment from Gintas:
I read through the threads you linked. My impression is that the likes of Tanstaafl primarily find energy in poking and prodding the “Jewish Question.” It’s the same old thing, you could script your computer to post the standard screed every so often.
Schutzstaffel is, of course, also known as the SS.
Somehow it seems that “Tanstaafl” was just hoping that someone would notice that “Tanstaafl” rhymes with “Schutzstaffel.” Then he can go into a justified high dudgeon.
As for scripting one’s computer, yes, it’s as if there’s this software program called Anti-Semitism, and every so often another person discovers it and begins to run it and it takes him over completely, and every time it’s the exact same script. At the core of the program is the false epiphany: “Now I see it! The Jews are responsible for everything that has gone wrong with the West, the Jews are the enemy, and everyone is covering this up, and I alone have the courage to reveal this truth and call the Jews to account.”
James N. writes:
The name Tanstaafl comes from the libertarian fiction Future History Series by Robert Anson Heinlein, specifically his novella “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.” It’s an acronym for “There’s No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.”
Heinlein used the term a lot, I’m quite sure the anti-Semite Tanstaafl gets it from there.
As far as I know, Heinlein never wrote one word about Jews, and if HE was an anti-Semite, he sure kept it to himself.
Have a blessed Christmas.
Dennis Mangan writes:
It’s an acronym for “There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch,” a common expression among fiscal conservatives.
Paul T. writes:
Not that Tanstaafl deserves more attention, but as a matter of interest, he has now come out (in the same thread) in favor of deporting Diaspora Jews to Israel and says that Nazi intentions towards Jews have been misunderstood. So your view of him stands entirely vindicated.
First, it seems unlikely to me that Tanstaafl chose that name solely because of it’s “no free lunch” message, and not because it also sounds warlike and Germanic.
Second, here are the key passages in Tanstaafl’s comments at his blog that Paul was referring to:
Schopenhauer and Adam ask a valid question: what do I propose to do about Jews?
Now let’s go back to the first time (as far as I remember) that I came across Tanstaafl. It was in mid November at Brave New World Watch where John Savage was discussing Auster’s First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society. Tanstaaflt said, why didn’t Auster apply the First Law to the Jews? Tanstaafl said to Savage:
To answer in the proper depth requires more thought and words than I want to spend right now. In a word I would prefer separation over the lie we live now. I want all the squabbling racist, ethnic, nationalities other than White Westerners to leave (or be ejected from) the West and live amongst the race, ethnicity, or nation they love so much that they try to bring it with them to the West. I wish to restore the White nations, where Whites rule for the benefit of Whites. Let’s start there.
Jews have a nation where Jews rule and Jews can argue with each other about what is best for Jews. Other groups have theirs. Those who have made it compulsory for everyone to fund [the extinction of whites] via government policy should be disclosed, tried, and executed for their treason.
But let’s not put the cart before the horse. The first and foremost problem we have to deal with is the subject of this post: disclosure. Whites have a large problem right now because they are thoroughly infiltrated by Jews, a truly separate group which pretends to be exactly like Whites but works towards their own separate interests. This is complicated by the fact that most Whites and many Jews do not even recognize that the two groups are not identical—it is a thoughtcrime forbidden by PC.
In fact everything I’ve just said is forbidden by PC. White interests are not served by PC. Whites are public enemy #1 according to PC. Whites, to survive, must recognize this and reject PC. They have every right to root out and punish those who promote or defend PC. That’s what I’d like to see happen.
From the revisionist history I’ve read I think 6 million is an exaggeration. I think the Nazi intent to exterminate Jews has been distorted and misrepresented. The Madagascar Plan is not well known and contradicts popular perception of the Holocaust…. Certainly relative to all the other people who were killed during the war (and in its wake) the singular focus on Jews is odd.
And the corollary: Jews are the most favorably treated minority of all, therefore they are the most difficult and dangerous.
The question Tanstaafl had posed to me about the First Law was a serious and legitimate one, and when I came upon the discussion at Savage’s site, I answered it seriously. At the same time, I saw that Tanstaafl was an anti-Semite, and I indicated as such. Not that it took any great insight. Someone who calls Jews “the most dangerous” minority has already made himself pretty clear.
Or shall we just label such an observation anti-semitic and discard it?
My reply began like this:
I just came upon this exchange and want to reply to the points made by Tanstaafl (which frankly sounds like a neo-Nazi moniker).
I then launched into my discussion of why I think the First Law does not apply to Jews, and I closed with this:
To try to make the First Law be about Jews—and especially, in Tanstaafl’s treatment, be primarily about the Jews—hopelessly confuses the issue. It is but another illustration of how anti-Semites, because they see all issues through the filter of the Jewish issue, cannot see any issue truly. Their lunatic obsesssion with Jews as the source of all evil makes them intellectual cripples who are incapable of defending the civilization they supposedly want to defend.
Tanstaafl’s recent comments spelling out what he wants to do to the Jews confirms that last point that I made in mid-November. As a result of nonwhite immigration, the white population of the U.S. has declined from 89 percent in 1960 to 67 percent today. America is currently being invaded by the Mexican people and other Latin American peoples. Whites are steadily fleeing California while Hispanics pour in, and Spanish is rapidly being established as an official language in this country. Muslims are rapidly gaining numbers and power in America, and our institutions are increasingly accommodating themselves to Islamic sharia law, with everything that that implies. In Western Europe the Muslim situation is far worse, with the Islamic population much bigger, with the Muslims much more radical, with Muslims controlling entire cities, with Muslim verbal and physical attacks on Jews increasing, with the Europeans siding with the Islamic world against Israel, and with the totalitarian EU government making any criticism of Islam a crime. And, in the midst of this civilizational catastrophe for America and the West, what is the highest priority of the budding anti-Semite Tanstaafl? To expel all Jews from America and the West, because Jews are the “most dangerous” minority group.
Some of Tanstaafl’s allies have written messages to me in his support. Below is one of them. If you believe that I absurdly exaggerate when I say that anti-Semites blame literally all the cultural problems of the West on the Jews, and that they see all Jews as their mortal enemies who must be expelled or killed, then read this e-mail. Some readers will be offended that I have posted such a thing. But how can we know what is actually there unless we look at it?
Timothy Huber writes:
Tanstaafl is 100 percent correct. If you would examine the Jewish question in an intellectually honest manner, as you do the racial one, it should soon become all apparent that all the Left initiated problems currently afflicting the West, feminism, anti-racism, atheism etc have but one originator.
You are not ignorant. You understand the JQ as well as I do, probably even better than I do.
However your instinct is to, quite naturally, protect your extended family and advance the interests of your extended family.
Just because Jews often resemble white folk somewhat, does not make them white folk. South Pacific Negritos resemble black Africans, but these two groups are about as genetically distinct from each other as any two human groups can be. I believe it is called convergent evolution. Similarly, while some Jews may look like whites, genetically they are quite distinct from whites. And this genetic difference means that in terms of group personality, behaviour and intelligence, Jews differ from whites almost as much as blacks differ from whites.
Thus any society created by Jews will be far different from one created by free Whites. American society today reflects much of the nature of Jews. And whites are not free. We read news censored by Jews, watch entertainment provided by Jews, accept non-white immigration agitated for by Jews. We accept white Gentile guilt and demonization over the fictitious holocaust thus impelling us to participate in wars against America’s interests in order to protect the Jewish state.
If only whites had the same dedication to their own group interests as you do Mr Auster. When whites really awaken to all the atrocities committed by Jews against whites throughout history, I will feel very sorry for your kind. If you had some foresight, maybe you should buy some land in Israel now.
Terry Morris writes:
Re Timothy Huber’s remarks: Wow!
Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 24, 2007 10:08 AM | Send