← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Stanley
Thread ID: 19423 | Posts: 15 | Started: 2005-08-04
2005-08-04 18:47 | User Profile
The article is a series of e-mail exchanges that Lawrence Auster posted at View From The Right. After Lew Rockwell's latest display of cowardice, I was inclined to agree, until I read this:> P:
I agree with Larry on this point about the paleos entirely. What has happened is that paleos have become so terrified of racial and genetic issues that they run away from them even more dramatically than the NYT. Chronicles, Modern Age, and American Conservative all illustrate this tendency perfectly.
LA:
Why does P. think this has happened? Why should the paleos be terrified of being called racist? They’re not terrified of being called Israel haters. [COLOR=Red]They’re not terrified of taking the side of Islamists and terrorists[/COLOR]. Therefore I suspect that their motive for avoiding racial issues is not terror of being called racist; I suspect the motive is that they hate America. To defend “white America” is to defend a larger American identity that 200 million European Americans would potentially belong to. But paleos are against any larger American identity. A larger American identity would mean an American nation. The paleos are against the American nation. It was the American nation that the “bloodthirsty tyrant” Lincoln defended/created and that the heroic South sought to dismember. The paleocon idea is to undo the work of Lincoln. Belief in a white America—in an American nation—stands in the way of that. I then decided this post belonged in Neo-Con Watch. I was particularly disgusted by the statement I highlighted in red.
[url=http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/003837.html]full article[/url]
2005-08-04 19:22 | User Profile
LA's entire statement there is indeed very neoconnish. The "they hate America" bit is another dead giveaway.
Neocons are always accusing people of "hating America." It's a charge that plays the role of the liberals' "racist" -- a very vague accusation that's intended to stifle the opposition because there aren't many counters to it that pack the same punch.
What does it mean to "hate America"? It could mean a lot of things. I personally have no problem saying that I hate what America has become. And I disdain most Americans. But I strongly believe in the principles America was founded upon -- principles that most flag-waving, self-styled "patriots" have long abandoned. As far as I'm concerned, the latter group doesn't really love America. Those fools love the cheap, vile imitation that's been erected in its place. And they love the sense of camaraderie they get from waving the flag and unquestioning following their leaders like the bleating sheep they are.
2005-08-04 20:13 | User Profile
Angler: Those fools love the cheap, vile imitation that's been erected in its place.
Well stated.
Angler: And they love the sense of camaraderie they get from waving the flag and unquestioning following their leaders like the bleating sheep they are.
A mob mentallity. Many of this same mob are "takers", and join together to vote for those who legally plunder the "givers".
2005-08-04 21:51 | User Profile
I hate our rulers. I hate those who have destroyed our culture. I am a hater, yes I am.
2005-08-04 23:39 | User Profile
Stanley,
I disagree many do such Sam Francis or Jared Taylor. Lawrence Auster is much closer to being a Neocon than a Paleocon. Sam Francis is my idea of what a Paleocon should be. The marxists perverted Conservatism and they will try to do the same thing to PaleoConservatism. We must stop them.
On a related note: [QUOTE]A Review of "White Like Me"
Dennis Wheeler comments on the original article by Dr. Thomas Fleming
[url]http://www.mindspring.com/~dennisw/articles/white.htm[/url]
Jared Taylor on "White Like Me." [url]http://www.mindspring.com/~dennisw/articles/jt.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
2005-08-05 01:55 | User Profile
Lar. Auster: "The paleos are against the American nation. It was the American nation that the ââ¬Åbloodthirsty tyrantââ¬Â Lincoln defended/created and that the heroic South sought to dismember. The paleocon idea is to undo the work of Lincoln. Belief in a white Americaââ¬âin an American nationââ¬âstands in the way of that."
(Reading this forum has introduced me to names like Lawrence Auster.)
I notice even a marxist/neo-con like Auster acknowledges that lincoln "created" a new nation. lincoln overthrew the republican form of gov't as established, and redirected the country away from Constitutional gov't. He talks of it as if it were a great thing.
Auster is also a shill for the historical revisionists when he states the South wanted to "dismember" the nation. The South just wanted to be left alone and not be taxed to death by an empire building centralised gov't (actually a dictatorship). (I wonder if Auster is a Unitarian? He sure does talk like a yankee, too)
"Belief in a white Americaââ¬âin an American nationââ¬âstands in the way of that."
IMO, this is pure red herring meat. lincoln could be played like a juke box. The ones putting the dimes in his pocket were products of the northern culture. The War of Northern Agresson was not pro-white -vs- anti-white. Auster's statement is a nonsence.
2005-08-05 01:55 | User Profile
Faust,
To be fair to Auster, he had some kind remarks for Sam Francis, and he has written for American Renaissance. (See [url=http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/02/the_washington.php]here[/url] for both.) He also is far too outspoken on racial issues to be a true neocon. But his support for Israel and the War on Terror is disturbing. At best, he is a partial ally, like Justin Raimondo.
Edit: Auster did not write that piece for AmRen, but has been a speaker at their conferences.
2005-08-05 04:21 | User Profile
Stanley,
I think I may have been confusing him with someone else. But still he is somewhat lacking I can not remember offhand what he said that I found offensive. I agree that I do find Jared Taylor distasteful at times. That is one more reason why the death Sam Francis was such a great lose there is no one to replace him. But I will take Taylor over Fleming any day.
2005-08-05 19:43 | User Profile
I disagreed with Auster's defense of Lincoln. But however much I may regret Appomattox and the destruction of the Old Republic, I have to agree with Francis, that Southern secessionism now is a bad idea.
[url=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18810&highlight=infantile]An Infantile Disorder[/url]
2005-08-05 19:55 | User Profile
From what I've read and heard of Auster, he pretty much strikes me as a pantywaist elitist "conservative" and we're already full-up on those.
2005-08-13 02:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stanley]I disagreed with Auster's defense of Lincoln. But however much I may regret Appomattox and the destruction of the Old Republic, I have to agree with Francis, that Southern secessionism now is a bad idea.
[url="http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18810&highlight=infantile"]An Infantile Disorder[/url][/QUOTE] Most major Southern cities have a surrounding yuppie suburban population that is at least 50% of Northern origin so the idea of a "Southern people" really doesn't exist beyond the rural areas.
2005-08-13 02:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]LA's entire statement there is indeed very neoconnish. The "they hate America" bit is another dead giveaway.
Neocons are always accusing people of "hating America." It's a charge that plays the role of the liberals' "racist" -- a very vague accusation that's intended to stifle the opposition because there aren't many counters to it that pack the same punch.
What does it mean to "hate America"? It could mean a lot of things. I personally have no problem saying that I hate what America has become. And I disdain most Americans. But I strongly believe in the principles America was founded upon -- principles that most flag-waving, self-styled "patriots" have long abandoned. As far as I'm concerned, the latter group doesn't really love America. Those fools love the cheap, vile imitation that's been erected in its place. And they love the sense of camaraderie they get from waving the flag and unquestioning following their leaders like the bleating sheep they are.[/QUOTE] Excellent point, the "hate America" slogan is very Communistic and satisfies the needs of the sheep for simple buzz-words which are so broad and sweeping. The same thing applies to the "Us" Vs. "Them" stuff. Who is [size=4]"Us"?[/size] The Blacks downtown who will rob and kill me if I attend a night sporting event and let down my guard for a single second? [u][size=5]Are they with me??[/size][/u] They sure have a funny way of showing it..:censored:
2005-08-14 17:42 | User Profile
Lincoln was nothing more than a 19th century Bush. Like begets like. Our problems started long before the first shots were fired at ft sumter or even "bloody kansas". Empires rise and fall and our story is no different. Its good to get into the head of a neocon to learn how they think...if you can stand it.
2005-08-14 18:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]From what I've read and heard of Auster, he pretty much strikes me as a pantywaist elitist "conservative" and we're already full-up on those.[/QUOTE] Actually, to be fair with him, I don't think that's an apt description. As was mentioned, he has spoken at AMREN, racial issues in general fill his blog (formerly Kalb's), and he was a huge supporter of Buchanan's campaigns.
I'll give you one guess what the core of the issue is here? Yes, you got it, he's a Jew. His supposed epiphany of Paleo malfeasance came over some OpEd piece by Buchanan equating Sharon and Arafat. He then snapped and wrote some hatchet job "open letter" for Horowitz's online rag about the bandit state and Pat. Could have come from Kristol's or Frum's pen, really. Now, for all intents and purposes, he's on some vendetta to defend his version of traditionalism, including all of the Talmadic trivialities, of course.
This fellow, more than anyone I can think of, epitomizes the cultural divide between the two camps. I mean, if criticism of organized Jewry didn't exist amongst the populist Right, and they were placed firmly into the Western political, historical and cultural orbit, The Larry Austers of the world would be with us.
Well, kinda...
2005-08-15 01:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Most major Southern cities have a surrounding yuppie suburban population that is at least 50% of Northern origin so the idea of a "Southern people" really doesn't exist beyond the rural areas.[/QUOTE]
I dunno if that's true but I do know that the only white person I knew in Greater NO who spoke with a bonafide Southern drawl was my better half. Everybody else didn't speak 'Northern', exactly - more a kind of unaccented, uninflected Midwestern English that seemed 'ready for prime-time'....the sort of English you hear spoken on countless tv shows and movies that doesn't seem to have any idiosyncracies pointing to some recognizable point of origin. But almost everyone was born and raised in one of the parishes, so they were all locals.
(I knew they weren't talking 'Northern' because even though I couldn't hear any sort of regional accent, they sure heard one when I opened my yap. Somebody once explained to me the litmus-test words that give a Yankee away - "orange" is one, "coffee" is another. Or as I suddenly realized I 'd been sayng all along, [U]aw-ringe[/U] and [u]caw-fee[/u]. I couldn't order breakfast [I]anywhere [/I] without the waitress asking me "you're from New York, huh?".)