The One-Man NAACP of the Right

Home » blogging » The One-Man NAACP of the Right

The One-Man NAACP of the Right

Tuesday, July 27th, 2010 | blogging

Over at The Israeli Conservative, our friend Lawrence has blown a gasket, writing that “Mangan surpasses the anti-Semites″, in response to my asking why Auster spends so much time and energy attacking Alternative Right.

So, Auster frankly states that “the paleocon/HBD faction” is dominated by “amoral tribalism”, yet when someone (me) returns the favor and says that his thought can be reduced to what′s good for his tribe, that′s just the most outrageous thing anyone has ever written about him. Something about motes and beams may be appropriate here.

Auster believes that he can call people anti-Semites and that that clinches the argument, just like the NAACP can call people racists and believe that all the right and good should line up on their side. He continually attacks the right with his slurs and defamation, making it clear that any rightist movement to restore the nation must take a backseat to his concerns about his people and his most favored nation. In this he acts like leftists, who never take conservative arguments at face value but always demonize those who hold them as racist or fear-based or whatever. In his response to a reader who agrees with me that he, the reader, doesn’t understand why Auster attacks Alt Right so much, Auster makes it clear that he believes that criticizing Israel or, apparently, himself, amounts to anti-Semitism and is “evil”. Auster thus sets himself up as Judaism personified, so at least we can say that he doesn’t want for self-regard.

Auster writes:

It is of course a mantra on the anti-Semitic right that I am a Jewish fifth columnist secretly seeking Jewish supremacy over white gentiles and the destruction of the white race. However, I′ve never seen one these anti-Semites go as far as Mangan has done and state categorically that I reduce everything to what is good for the Jews.

Notice that the second sentence means something quite different from the first. The “Jewish fifth columnist” is his formulation, not mine, and it doesn’t follow that seeking “what is good for the Jews” means that one also seeks “the destruction of the white race” and “Jewish supremacy”.

This is a total lie. [That "he's defended Polanski in the past".]

No, it’s the truth. That he may have changed his mind after readers strongly objected doesn’t change the fact that he did and that it seems altogether likely that he did so because Polanski is Jewish. Pat Hannagan goes into this in some detail in Purging the Faux White Right.

Auster goes into a lengthy discourse on “drawing lines”, saying that he cannot support a group of American or white patriots some of whose members are anti-Semitic. But it’s easy to see the rhetorical move here: simply declare something you don’t like, say criticism of Israel, to be anti-Semitic and therefore beyond the pale, and then the whole group becomes anathema. This is just what leftists do, only usually racism is the declared reason.

A reader of Auster’s comments:

Either anti-Semitism is wicked, or not. Does Mangan think anti-Semitism wicked? Let him just answer, one way or the other, and leave it at that–and let him leave off challenging your genes.

Again, the rhetorical move is evident. They get to define anti-Semitism, and then I’m supposed to say whether it′s “wicked” or not. Criticism of Israel or Auster is not wicked, but that′s a long, long way from endorsing concentration camps, the latter being what these defenders of the West want to impute to me and to others. As for Auster’s “genes”, I couldn’t care less what they are; I judge him by what he writes, and it′s clear where he stands.