Sailer’s line of argument is hopelessly flawed:

The theory behind the dusty old concept of noblesse oblige is that a powerful class that thinks of itself as being in the game for the very long run will tend to behave in a more responsible fashion than one that doesn’t.

How do jews feel about this? We get a hint in “How to Think About: Jewish Bankers” on The Atlantic Wire, where media jew Michael Kinsley discusses finance jews. The attitude, which should be familiar to anyone who has ever opined on jewish influence, can be summed up as, “Yeah, jews are powerful. So what? Oh, and by the way, you’re a nasty jew-hater.”

Sailer presumes the jewish ruling class can be made to care about and behave like Whites. He compounds this error by presuming that they don’t think of themselves as being in the game for the long run. He’s wrong on both counts. Jews have for millennia existed in diaspora as a successful and influential minority. They have infiltrated, outwitted, and outlasted every nation in the Levant and Europe. They know who they are. They know their history. When they feel safe they boast of their success at our expense. When they need sympathy they instead recite a long litany of woe at our hands. They know non-jews tend to underestimate them. They have survived because they make a point of not tying their future to anyone else’s.

The reason jewish rule is so ruinous for Whites is because they are alien to us. They will never care for us or behave like us because they are not us. They know this, but for the most part Whites don’t. My previous post links comments in which political pundit jew Lawrence Auster admits as much, even while defending jewish interests:

James N. writes:

Do you really think that American Jews perceive themselves, and self-identify, as “insiders”? My experience is quite the contrary. In fact, I’ve always observed (and found it curious) that American Jews, from their positions of wealth and achievement, practically cultivate and nourish a sense of outsiderness, which is often wielded as a grievance.

My medical school class had 226 freshmen. Of these, at least 190 were Jewish. At that, an orthodox Jewish professor complained more than once that the admissions committee discriminated against Jews, proving that America truly had it in for the Jews.

I think that a lot of the recent, and public, obsessive anti-Bush and anti-Palin sentiments made by prominent Jews arise from this same sense that ordinary, middle-American virtues and values are alien to them, SO alien, in fact, that sounding off in public, in a borderline-hysterical way, is a way of proving group solidarity AND outsiderness at the same time.

LA replies:

I agree with your observations about Jewish attitudes. But in my comment I did not mean that Jews perceive themselves as insiders. I meant (1) that the white gentile majority perceives the Jews as insiders, and (2) that in key respects the Jews are, in reality, insiders. And therefore that a First Law-type analysis doesn’t fit them.

Sailer at least acknowledges that anyone who challenges jewish power is punished. Auster pretends all our society’s problems are due to “the majority” simply abdicating.

The reality is that America’s jewish ruling class is shameless. They are not embarrassed about lying to, defrauding, and ultimately genociding us. To the extent they or their apologists even respond to objections and resistance it is only to misdirect blame onto powerless “anti-semites”. It will stop only when enough people realize the consequences of jewish misrule and misbehavior and act against it.

For a more thorough review of jewish influence in media, see William Pierce’s “Who Rules America?” For more about what Sailer glibly alludes to as the “Sons of Ellis Island,” see Kevin MacDonald’s “Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review.” More on what Sailer has called the “Diversity Recession” and the jewish role he assiduously underplays can be found in “Minority Disproportions and the Fraud They Produce.” Damning evidence of the anti-White/pro-jew nature of the regime is discussed in “DHS Hypocrites Direct Fear and Hatred Toward Whites.” The graph above is from Yggdrasil’s examination of Diversity in income and education.

Age of Treason, March 10, 2010

Here’s my own two cents:

1. There are White Nationalists who can be clinically diagnosed as psychopaths. They openly proclaim their intention to exterminate the Jews. Unlike Guy White, I am not convinced a majority of White Nationalists (or even a significant minority) share this point of view. In 9 out of 10 cases, it is mere saber rattling and more-radical-than-thou rhetorical posturing. If these people were truly genocidal, they would have the courage to carry out their convictions.

2. It is equally true that a significant number of Jews are batshit crazy. They are unreachable. These people are driven by an animus against Whites and intend to do us harm. Unlike the WNs, these people often have the wealth, power, or influence to act on their resentments. The death of Howard Zinn a few days ago was a small reminder that such malicious Jews (individual fire starters) are out there.

3. Yes, it is true that anti-Semites often say stupid things on the internet. I cited that in my first post as one of the reasons why I started this website. There is a world of difference though between powerless commentators on obscure blogs and the harm done to Whites by Jewish organizations like the ADL, AJC, or HIAS who have the ear of Congress and the President of the United States.

4. There is no valid comparison between radical anti-Semites on fringe right-wing websites and the Jewish political pundits and commentators that dominate mainstream American public discourse. You can’t compare a David Brooks, Paul Krugman, or Jeffrey Goldberg to a WhitePrideWorldWide or HeilHitler 14/88 on VNN Forum.

5. I’m a reasonable man. If Jews changed their behavior, I wouldn’t have a problem with them. I don’t write about Eskimos because they mind their own business and have never attempted to “transform” the culture and racial attitudes of White Americans. We don’t write about the Amish, Navajo, Shakers, Sioux or countless other American minority groups for the same reason.

6. Jews are resented because of their actions. Over the past two months, I have monitored them on this website. We’ve seen Jews try to manhandle the Pope, censor racialists at C-SPAN, push Obamacare through Congress, poison German youth with hip hop music, align with Hispanics to push “comprehensive immigration reform,” peddle anti-racist intrepretations of American history, demonize Whites on MLK day, demonize Sarah Palin, censor comments at The Huff Post, open our borders to a tidal wave of Haitian immigrants, etc.

7. I totally reject the victimization theory. Jews have never been victimized in the United States. I can’t think of a single anti-Jewish federal, state, or local law ever passed in America since the ratification of the Constitution. In theory, we shouldn’t have a Jewish problem. Jews were welcomed to America with open arms and have been wildly successful here. They have absolutely no valid reason to hate this country or wish to displace its people. Yet we still have Jews like Howard Zinn.

8. White Nationalism emerged in the mid-1970s in reaction to the demise of the Jim Crow South. Historically speaking, American racialism hasn’t been anti-Semitic. That changed in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement when the extent of Jewish involvement in pushing anti-racism and integration became unmistakably clear.

9. White Americans are the victims, not Jews. Thousands of Americans lost their lives in the Second World War fighting Hitler’s armies. White Americans liberated the Jews from the Third Reich.

How did they repay us? By marching across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma with MLK, redefining America as a “nation of immigrants,” fomenting Communism, destroying racial theory, opening our borders to a tidal wave of Third World immigration, demonizing White racial consciousness, and so on. We’ve given Israel literally billions of dollars in tribute.

In return for what? Nothing but hatred and contempt for “White racism.” Ever more obscene and radical demands to purge our heritage of anything that smacks of whiteness. American Jews are the most ungrateful people who have ever lived. They have made themselves at home in our house, a nation created by Whites for Whites, and libel us as moral lepers!

10. Why on Earth should White Nationalists like the Jews? No people in the world have done us more harm or loathe us with more malice. This was the case even before White Nationalism existed. Irrational WNs blame the Jews for everything that is wrong with America because of the Jewish omnipresence in almost every degenerate cultural trend.

The worst Jews can say about White Nationalists is that they have been the victims of some unkind comments by anonymous posters on the internet. That is nothing compared to the real harm that Jews inflict upon Whites on a daily basis which we are chronicling here.

Antisemitica, February 2, 2010

Sam Francis (1947 - 2005)

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, it ought to be obvious that the dominant powers and authorities in the United States and other Western countries are either indifferent to the accelerating racial and cultural dispossession of the historic peoples of America and Europe or are actually in favor of it.

–Samuel Francis in Race and the American Prospect

Among the many good things that paleoconservative Sam Francis left to us was his analysis of the “managerial elite.” Francis drew his understanding of this concept from James Burnham, who in the 1930s moved beyond his Marxist views to offer a competing theory known as the theory of the managerial revolution. In this view, as traditional capitalism and its ruling class passed from the scene, managers—or more properly “technocrats”—would replace them (p. 384). More specifically, it would include “administrators, experts, directing engineers, production executives, propaganda specialists, [and] technocrats” (p. 385).

(All numbered quotes are drawn from Francis’s “Why the American Ruling Class Betrays Its Race and Civilization,”in Race and the American Prospect. See here and here for further reading.)

Francis laid out the problem starkly:

. . . the realities of twentieth and twenty-first century power that do in fact explain what must be one of the most significant and astonishing truths of human history—that an entire ruling class has abandoned and in effect declared war upon the very population and civilization from which it is itself drawn. (p.377)

Further, he noted, these assaults on whites “are not the results of democratic majority rule or popular consent” (p.377).

What explains it then? Francis argued that the classical theory of elites, along with James Burnham’s theory of the managerial revolution, do the job (p. 378). “The two essential characteristics of an elite-ruling class are what may be called Unity and Dominance—unity in that it needs to cohere around its interest and to agree on what its interests are and (in general) how to pursue them, and dominance in that it must be able to make its interests prevail over those of rival groups” (p. 382).

As Francis saw it,

The major common interest that unites the managerial class is its need to extend and perpetuate the demand for the skills and functions on which its power and social rewards depend. The managers pursue that interest by seeking to ensure that the mass organizations they control, which require the skills and functions that only the managers can provide, are preserved and extended. Large corporations must displace and dominate small businesses. A large, centralized, bureaucratic state must displace and dominate small, localized, and decentralized government. Mass media and communications conglomerates and mass universities must displace and dominate smaller, local newspapers, publishers, colleges, and schools. Moreover, the elites that controlled these older and smaller institutions must also be displaced as the ruling class of the larger society and their ideology and cultural values discredited and rejected. (p. 386)

Francis clearly advanced the argument that the managers of these larger institutions are responsible for the destruction of the traditional white societies that came before them. Those old elites “championed traditional religious and moral beliefs and institutions, the importance of the patriarchal family and local community, and the value of national, regional, racial, and ethnic identity, as well as the virtues of the capitalist ethnic—hard work, frugality, personal honesty and integrity, individual initiative, postponement of gratification” (p. 388).

If he was right, then we need not search for another primary cause of the collapse of traditional Western societies. In particular, he offered a competing view to that of Kevin MacDonald and his idea that Jews had unleashed a “culture of critique” on white societies. For Francis, the existence of such a withering critique is not in question; rather, for Francis, the source was and is the managerial elite.

“The managerial ideology,” he wrote, “also demonized the old elite and its institutions and values as ‘obsolete,’ ‘backward,’ ‘repressive,’ ‘exploitative,’ and ‘narrow-minded’” (p. 389). Thus, it had no compunction about destroying the traditional family, local community and religion, or traditional cultural and moral codes. Nor did it have a need for ethnic or racial identities (as far as whites were concerned). In fact, the whole nation-state was superfluous (p. 390).

(I might interject here that since Francis was talking about a historical process not driven by particular racial or ethnic concerns, we would expect similar results from non-white regions which have incorporated the techno-bureaucratic system Francis discussed. Japan and other Asian nations would now fit this mold, yet we observe not even the stirring of any desire to dispossess traditional same-race elites. With a combined population of nearly 200 million, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have substantially adopted modern corporate-bureaucratic structures, yet this has affected their racial composition not at all. China, with its one-billion-plus population, remains overwhelming Han Chinese and also shows no signs of changing.)

That Francis does not attribute this powerful attack on traditional society to be the work of Jews does not mean he saw no role for Jews. On the contrary, he had a very idiosyncratic interpretation of the role Jews played.

In his section “The Agenda of Dispossession,” Francis acknowledged the detailed work done by Kevin MacDonald to document the Jewish role in the dispossession of whites. But for Francis, the Jewish aspiration to cultural and political supremacy over whites is merely fortuitous, for “the Jewish agenda and that of the managerial elite are in this respect perfectly congruent with each other.”

Now a man of Francis’s rare intelligence and insight is not about to downplay the vast role played by Jews in America today. Rather than attributing dominance to this group, however, he takes an alternative tack: “Jews within the managerial elite serve as the cultural vanguard of the managerial class. . . . perform[ing] a support function” (p. 397).

So we’ve reached the crux of the issue: Are Jews subordinate to the (implied) white managerial elite, or are they dominant? This very question divides white nationalists to this day.

Here I will argue that Francis’s belief in Jewish subordination was wrong, but it was intentionally wrong. Put another way, in “Why the American Ruling Class Betrays Its Race and Civilization” and in his other writings, he was writing esoterically because he knew the consequences of writing too candidly about Jewish power.

Consider that Francis noted the new role of managerial bureaucrats in government and the political parties in displacing the previous White, non-Jewish power holders. This new governmental domination is mirrored by that occurring in the universities, foundation, think tanks, national newspapers and magazines, as well as visual mass media. But hasn’t Jewish dominance in these spheres has been so massively documented (by MacDonald, for example) that it would seem “managerial elite” is practically synonymous with “Jewish elite”?

When reading the following list proffered by Francis, does not the informed reader perforce construct a mental image of Jewish dominance: “public bureaucracies, mass labor unions, political parties, mass media, financial institutions, universities, foundations, and other organizations that were immense in size, scale, and technical complexity . . .” (p. 385).

Two institutions that might fall outside the immediate ken of Jewish domination are large corporations involved in manufacturing, and the military (although the last time I checked, Norton Schwartz headed the US Air Force, becoming the third Jew in the top ranks of the military, alongside Lieutenant General Steven Blum, head of the National Guard, and General Robert Magnus, the assistant commandant of the Marines. This is according to The Jewish Forward.)

Unless it wasn’t clear before, the recent economic meltdown has largely proven the dominance of Wall St. capital over individual corporations, particularly those in manufacturing (see this blog for a short description). As for the military, the heavily Jewish neoconservatives have successfully made the US military subordinate to their will. Again, both of these claims need not be demonstrated here for they have been demonstrated so well in other familiar and accessible places.

Francis also listed non-white ethnic and racial groups which are encouraged to openly pursue their own interests, such as the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus and so on. In a footnote, he acknowledged the contribution to Race and the American Prospect made by Kevin MacDonald on the Jewish creation and control of the NAACP. As editor of the book, Francis simply cannot plead ignorance. In the same way that MacDonald shows how the NAACP was a front group in the Jewish assault on white society, so too can we show that many of the other managerial groups cited by Francis have been dominated by Jews. Jews were not and are not merely performing a support function.

A good friend who is following these debates sums up the situation well: “Jewish influence is so pervasive and powerful that other factors can hardly be said to be truly independent. It is not now possible to live in a vacuum, a world that is unaffected by their influence.”

He continues:

I’d like to know what force is larger and more menacing than they are? The only even remotely plausible candidates would quite simply have to be secret societies, because there is no force that is possible to detect in the daylight that is bigger, more powerful, or more menacing. And secret societies are of course notoriously difficult to trace or, in some cases (like the Illuminati) even to prove that they exist. So, to the extent that the Jews are not the tool/pawn of some larger force that is very difficult to verify, it is reasonable to conclude that the Jews are the greatest power in the world today (and the world of the past hundred years). I certainly haven’t seen anything in Francis’s work that has convinced me otherwise.

A similarly well-informed friend adds,

Furthermore, Jews socialize to create a certain elite—the “beheading” of the natural elite. [See my own essay on that topic here.] Their ability to control discourse [as in Israel Shamir’s Masters of Discourse], both through media domination and by destroying individuals such as Irving, Rudolf, Zundel, or organizations like the IHR (they firebombed it), completely distorts public discourse.

It is pointless to argue with philo-Semites of any stripe. Even philo-Semites would be different in the absence of Jews: they’d have to identify a different god to worship and center their lives around!

Again, this position is a common one among those who have studied The Jewish Question at length. Such observers—properly, in my view—have little patience with theories that posit Jews as supporting actors or as people who are overtaken by impersonal forces that supposedly ride herd over us humans.

Sam Francis died nearly five years ago, so he missed the continued rise of the Zionists and neocons, and the transparently Jewish-backed elevation of a non-White to the Presidency, and the present econmic tumult, with its famed minority mortgage meltdown, the bankruptcy of General Motors, and the bailouts to Wall St., followed by the obscene bonuses paid to those bankers. Had he lived, he may indeed have begun to write more openly about The Jewish Problem.

Personally, I sympathize greatly with someone in a situation such as his. He played by the rules, earning advanced degrees at good universities, then went quietly to work in the halls of power, all the while honing his writing skills.

When the time came, he moved to an editorial position at The Washington Times, but as Joe Sobran noted, Sam “stayed at the Times for nine years until he was abruptly fired for speaking (on his own time) at an American Renaissance Conference. The comments in his speech were not at issue. The newspaper objected to his having appeared at the gathering.”

Francis knew the line he was walking and did his best to stay honest to himself and to his readers. He also knew the risks—and paid for taking them.

Still, he had critics among white nationalists who felt he should have done more to expose the threat emanating from the Jewish quarter. One of critics was Victor J. Gerhard, Esq. who posted on VNN this exchange with Francis. Chided for not naming Jews, Francis replied, “You simply cannot go much further than I have already gone and expect to be published at all in anything like mainstream media.”

Gerhard upped the ante, however, demanding of Francis:

Join those on the radical right who are not afraid to tell the whole truth. I am not asking you to do ANYTHING I have not done. I lost my job as an Attorney, I have friends going to jail on made up charges, I’ve had my phone tapped, I get the super search at every airport, but I am a FREE MAN! I also write columns — they don’t get published mainstream, but thousands of people read them. You could do a hundred times better.

I realize this is a lot to ask, but screw the money and respectability. What do I want? White Power! Your entire body of work does little to counter an anti-Jewish explanation of American Politics. I believe almost all you have written; yet it contradicts most of MacDonald not at all. Your writings try to explain why and how this managerial elite became so alienated and hostile to traditional America. It partially explains the alienation, but does little to explain the hostility, the outright hatred, that these elites have for people who are basically members of their family. Only a non-White group could have such hatred for Whites, and such an obsession with their destruction. Only by understanding that the most influential part of the managerial elite is Jewish can one finally understand this contradiction in your work. [emphasis added]

Sam shot back:

I don’t deny that Jews have power — certainly in the media and cultural centers generally and in politics through funding, staffing etc. But Jews are not the ruling class in this country (at least not yet). As in many other societies they form a satellite that provides services for the ruling class (tax collecting in Poland, e.g.), but I think they have little interest in becoming the actual ruling class because they have no interest in that as long as their interests are secured.

My entire body of writings over the last 20-25 years is an explanation of how I disagree with and have a somewhat different view of the world than what is frankly a monomaniacal obsession with an omnipotent Jew. [emphasis in the original]

Again, I appreciate that Francis was in a difficult situation. John Derbyshire described it quite well in a remarkable exchange with Joey Kurtzman, a Jewish editor of the website Jewcy.com, asserting:

So far as the consequences of ticking off Jews are concerned: First, I was making particular reference to respectable rightwing journalism, most especially in the U.S. I can absolutely assure you that anyone who made general, mildly negative, remarks about Jews would NOT — not ever again — be published in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages, The Weekly Standard, National Review, The New York Sun, The New York Post, or The Washington Times. I know the actual people, the editors, involved here, and I can assert this confidently.

Note that he never says anything about the truth value of such hypothetical remarks; presumably, even true ones that reflect poorly on the Jews would succeed in getting one banished. That is the point.

The fact is, tactics aimed at the protection and advancement of Whites tried till now have not succeeded. They have failed. Consider again the scope of the problem, outlined here by an incredulous Peter Brimelow:

This is a problem which we see throughout the Western world—an unprecedentedly huge influx of non-traditional immigration. The result of this is that every major Western nation will be a minority in its homeland in the foreseeable future. It takes less time in some places and more time in others, but the calculations can easily be made. . . . What’s so amazing about this transformation is that it has no economic benefit for the traditional people of the Western nations that are voluntarily giving up their identity — and their political power.

As Brimelow phrases it, the question then becomes “Why are these countries doing this to themselves if they are not benefiting their native-born — their own people? . . . How can the founding stock of the country have so completely lost control?”

The answer is that the founding stock—and two hundred million other Euro-Americans—have come under the rule of an alien elite, along with the multitude of non-White minorities which that elite has recruited.

A serious study of this process will reveal that rather than the Managerial Revolution as postulated by Burnham or Francis being responsible, it has been a race-centered progression instituted by organized Jewry and by Jews individually. I think of it as a “promote-punish-purge” process in which perceived Jewish interests are always paramount.

Francis was purged because his writings were pro-white, an unacceptable position to Jews because only THEY among powerful groups may promote group integrity. From the time German Jews arrived in America during the 1800s, they have actively pursued this “promote-punish-purge” campaign, boosting Jewish power and influence, while undermining and destroying that of their current main nemesis, Whites.

The list of those pro-Whites punished and purged is long, and it is hard to reconcile the vehemence of the attacks against them with the desire of the managerial elite to gain and hold power. Ford, Lindbergh, Coughlin, Pound, Eliot, McCarthy, Carto, Pierce, Oliver, Duke, Dickson, Robertson, Buchanan, Sobran, Irving, Gibson, MacDonald. This list goes on.

Meanwhile, the enemies of Whites—mainly drawn from the ranks of White liberals—have been assiduously promoted for over a century. Ted Kennedy, the public face of the 1965 immigration law betrayal, is but an example.

Had Sam Francis been given his threescore years and ten, I suspect he would have come over to the side of more white nationalists on the Jewish Question and I think he would have done so publicly.

Is it not our duty, then, to honor Dr. Francis’s memory by addressing forthrightly the chief problem facing us today?

Selling the Cold War: A Racially-Integrated America Menaced by White Russian Communists

“The world is white no longer.”
– James Baldwin

For white nationalists — whose cyber-based “movement” is still in its infancy — simple explanations tend to be the rule.

The reductionist “anti-Semitism” that dominates WN ranks and serves as a catch-all explanation for the predicament white people find themselves in today, to cite the most prominent example, is wont to attribute every assault on white life to Jewish perfidy.

There is, certainly, no disputing the existence of this “perfidy,” for no other group — not the browns or blacks, not the former powers of international Communism, not anyone or anything — is or has been so disposed to breaching the color line, undermining America’s traditional racial hierarchy, or propelling the processes responsible for the present dispossession of the country’s white majority.

To think, however, that Organized Jewry has been the alpha and omega of this dispossession is not just simple-minded, it’s dishonorable.

It’s simple-minded because it understands complex historical processes in Kindergarten terms. It ignores other, no less culpable factors.

More fundamentally, it ignores or conflates the differences between structural imperatives and conspiratorial designs, between concrete objective forces and the subjective influences of interest and conscience.

History, as such, offers few cases where monocausal explanations suffice, for the confluence of fortune, structure, and subject (fortuna, necessita, virtu) undergirding the historical process means that significant historical changes are almost always the consequence of a combination of forces unique to their specific time and place.

By the same reasoning, monocausal explanations focusing exclusively on a demonized “other” are dishonorable because they spare whites all responsibility for their misfortunes, refuse to acknowledge the dysgenic and self-destructive forces indigenous to modern society, and ignore the numerous, inherently Jewish facets of the American project.

In criticizing this, I do so not to absolve the Jews, but to preface the subject of this essay — the anti-white consequences of the Cold War — which offers a somewhat broader explanation of white dispossession (though there are at least a couple of others that can also be made).

***

The Second World War was a watershed event in both American and world history.

It changed not only America’s relationship with the rest of the world, it fundamentally changed America.

Thomas Hart Benton, "Negro Soldier," 1942

The struggle against National Socialist Germany (despite the racial character of the Pacific War against the “Japs”) was ideologically waged as a war against fascism and racism.

As the unadmirable Gunnar Myrdal wrote in 1944, “In fighting fascism and racism, America had to stand before the whole world in favor of racial tolerance and . . . racial equality.”

Its international crusade for liberal ideals stood, though, in obvious contradiction to the exclusion of various colored peoples, blacks particularly, who were denied a place in the country’s political and social firmament — denied because whites wanted a white nation, like other Europeans.

Myrdal called this supposed contradiction between its ideals and practices the “American Dilemma.”

It would become especially conspicuous after 1945, when America’s newly assumed international role left it with numerous, new obligations that drew attention to its so-called “dilemma” (which, in actuality, was a dilemma of American liberalism).

The war, moreover, changed not just the prevailing Zeitgeist.

The colossal undertaking to put 13 million men in uniform, to arm them (and the allies), and to fight on several different fronts in distant parts of the world required a national mobilization of unprecedented scope.

The war, it followed, brought great dislocations, disrupting traditional social relations and forcing the alteration of many traditional attitudes.

America’s democratic crusade against “German racism” also brought millions of blacks north to work in defense plants. This had a major impact on housing and employment. It also heightened black self-confidence, freed them from the older Southern forms of race relations, and emboldened their challenge to white supremacy. This became especially evident in 1943, when 200 race riots flared up in more than forty-five American cities, anticipating the contentious racial battles of the postwar era, especially those of the 1960s and ’70s.

At the same time, a million negroes were drafted into the military.

Though the army remained segregated, it quickly discovered the inefficiency and expense of maintaining separate facilities. It was even forced, whenever the exhausted, ill-supplied, and depleted forces of the Wehrmacht beat back the unheroic GIs, to bypass its segregated practices and throw in blacks troops to support decimated or beleaguered white units.

Black veterans, relatedly, provided many of the shock troops that would assault Jim Crow after 1945.

These developments — combined with the retreat of “scientific racism” in the 1930s, the wartime expansion of the New Deal state, the defeat and demonization of German anti-liberalism, and the Cold War’s ensuing crusade for democracy and equality — would together undermine much of the legitimacy of traditional American racial practices.

As one Alabama governor (Frank Dixon) rather tendentiously put it (and only a Southerner could make this argument with a straight face), “The Huns have wrecked the theory of the master race.”

***

Following the war, American power in the world was supreme, unchallenged, except by the Soviet Union, which, after having lost 27 million Russians in the course of the war (compared to 250,000 US combat deaths), was not actually in a position to defy the new superpower, though its unwillingness to submit to Washington’s tutelage would automatically cast it as a potential rival.

At this pivotal historical moment, when the whole world lay prostrate before them, American leaders felt as if they had been granted the Mandate of Heaven.

Inspired by the biblical Zionism of their Puritan heritage and encouraged by the economic self-interests of the great corporations, these leaders would reshape the international arena to reflect and serve the interests of American democracy and capitalism (each the economic or ideological mirror of the other).

Before even the war’s end, New Deal planners had developed the programs and trained the personnel who would occupy Germany, Italy, and (they thought) France and integrate them into the new American-led Atlantic “coalition”; Britain had earlier been deprived of its sovereignty and integrated. At the same time, a host of American-created international organizations — especially the United Nations, whose 1945 Charter committed its members to opposing racial discrimination — were designed to ensure the American governance of this new international order.

It was left, thought, to the administration of Harry S. Truman, the architect of the Cold War, to mould the exact contours of this order.

***

Russian-Americans relations had soured in the closing phase of the war, as political differences became more important than strategic ones. By 1946 they were engaged in a war of words, with the Soviets countering American claims of tyranny by pointing to lynchings, poll taxes, and other facets of Jim Crow to expose the fraudulence of America’s democratic-egalitarian ideology.

By 1947, with the announcement of the Truman Doctrine to fight the international forces of Communist subversion, a Cold War, which would last until 1989, was implicitly declared.

In many respects, this was a phony war.

A severely exhausted and crippled Soviet Union posed no threat to the US.

But this phony war had become a political necessity for US leaders.

The New Deal, which arose in response to the breakdown of liberal capitalism in 1929, had failed (unlike Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany) to fix the depressed economy. It was only with the advent of “Defense Preparations” in 1939 and the war economy after 1941 that the American economy began to rebound.

The most pressing concern of liberal democrats after 1945 was thus avoiding another economic collapse — which meant on-going defense preparations and continued government intervention in the economy.

To justify this New-Deal created “Pentagon capitalism,” as well as a National Security State to oversee it, it was necessary, however, “to scare the hell out of the American people.”

Hence the ensuing transformation of good old “Uncle Joe” (Stalin) into the great bogeyman bent on enslaving the world.

To be continued . . .

Brass meets Gold

This one flew under the radar when it was first released in 1993.

The plot can be summarized thus. A Jewish-American divorcee—Debra Winger as Joy Gresham—enters the life of an Oxford don—Anthony Hopkins as C. S. Lewis. Lewis wrote the iconic children’s fantasy Narnia. He is shown as the brilliant literary analyst in the role of teacher as well as in social exchanges with colleagues—all middle aged or older Anglo-Saxon males.

Gresham sees through the famous professor’s intellectual mastery to perceive a vulnerable, repressed man. She first matches him intellectually then subjects his emotional life to cutting critique. Lewis first resists this criticism but is drawn to the American’s honesty and intelligence. His resistance crumbles and before long he is breaking out of his cold persona.

The lessons all flow in one direction, from the Bronx to England. Lewis changes his ways, becomes more honest, more humble, more human. Gresham remains unchanged, as oracles do. What needs changing?

The two protagonists’ bond despite pronounced differences. Lewis was deeply religious and belonged to a Christian milieu. Oxford had all the trappings of a Christian institution. The film opens to the angelic harmonies of a hymn sung by the Magdalen College boys’ choir. Dinner is opened with a Latin grace. Lewis was also an anti-communist. He had conservative social views. In 1934 he famously remarked that “Any large number of free-thinking Jews” is incompatible with the flourishing of a Christian tradition. Gresham was a self-declared atheist who announces early in the film that in the 1930s one was either a fascist or a communist. But arguments never develop over these differences, despite her knowing Lewis’s writings by heart. She never ridicules Christianity by word or gesture. Her only differences with Lewis concern his alleged emotional dishonesty.

The story has two climaxes. In the first Gresham delivers a devastating or perhaps merely a vicious critique, seemingly out of the blue. Lewis has married her to circumvent British visa regulations and allow her to remain in London. The marriage remains unconsummated. The relationship is ostensibly one of friendship. Lewis invites Gresham to a social function at his Oxford college, Magdalen, and the two retire to his rooms for tea. As Lewis puts on the kettle, Gresham begins to work herself up to critical pitch:

Gresham: “So what do you do here? Think great thoughts?”

Lewis: “Teach, mainly.”

Gresham: “What do they do, sit at your feat and gaze up at you in awe?

Lewis: “No, not at all.”

Gresham: “I bet they do.”

Lewis: “We have fine old battles here, I can tell you that.”

Gresham: “Which you win. It must be quite a boost for you being older and wiser than all of them. Not to mention your readers [colleagues].”

Lewis: “What?” [from the next room.]

Gresham: “Your readers; that gang of friends of yours. All very well trained not to play out of bounds.”

Lewis: “What are you talking about?”

Gresham: “Of course this morning, not much competition there!”

Lewis: “That’s nonsense. What about Christopher Riley. He never lets me get away with anything. You know that.”

Gresham: “Except doubt, and fear, and pain, and terror.”

Lewis: “Where did all that come from?”

Gresham: “I’ve only now just seen it. How you’ve arranged a life for yourself where no-one can touch you. Everyone that’s close to you is either younger than you, or weaker than you, or under your control.”

Lewis: “Why are you getting at me. I thought we were friends.”

Gresham: “I don’t know that we are friends. Not the way you have friends anyway. Sorry Jack.”

Lewis: “I don’t understand.”

Gresham: “Oh, I think you do. You just don’t like it. Nor do I.” She exits.

As Lewis says, Gresham is getting at him in a decidedly unfriendly manner. But he comes to agree with her, in practice if not in abstract. Surrender is eased by the crisis of her fatal illness and Lewis’s realization of how precious she has become. He loves her honesty.

In the second climax, Lewis finally completes his treatment by sobbing uncontrollably with grief following Gresham’s death. Gone is his reserve. Gone is his stoicism. He is delivered from Englishness.

This is an allegory of ethnic contest and dominance that plays on stereotypes. How different the plot would be if written to reaffirm European confidence in its traditions and culture. The visitor would have striven to conform to high-culture Englishness with its politeness and restraint. She would soon learn that in Britain overt verbal aggression is considered transparent one-upmanship—simply not cricket. She would be offered the example of one or two Anglo-Jewish dons who are assimilated to English ways. She would be taught that true friendship does not admit the relentless subversion of others’ self-confidence; and that tolerance is a form of civility which entails reciprocating others’ suspension of tribalism. And she would quickly learn to judge Bolshevism from the perspective of its victims as well as its beneficiaries.

Such a plot would also be flawed by simplistic ethnic stereotypes, though with Britain on top—a sort of ethnic missionary position that I suppose is also out of date. A balanced story would have shown some give and take. An outgoing, intelligent, and unpretentious lady from the Bronx blows some fresh air into stuffy Oxford and brings companionship to a lonely bachelor. In return she comes to perceive her own aggression and ethnocentrism and learns some social graces.

From The Occidental Observer

At Majority Rights, Friedrich Braun has outlined his new stance on the Jewish Question, which is a 180 degree turn from his old material at The Civic Platform. Needless to say, I disagree with a number of his points:

1. Braun says that only a “Right” friendly to Israel and the Jewish community can succeed in the political arena.

In the United States, the “Right” has been defined by the philo-Semitic conservative movement since the 1960s. It has had a lot of electoral success … but so what? White Americans are worse off in every single way, racially and culturally speaking, than my grandparents’ generation.

Voting for conservatives isn’t an option for the pro-White movement. We get absolutely nothing in return but the scorn of these people and the tireless promotion of Jewish and non-White interests at our expense. It is better to do nothing at all – retreat from the public sphere and enjoy the pleasures of private life – than to support conservatives.

2. Braun claims that anti-Semitism is a political loser.

I’m not so sure. I don’t think the American public cares nearly as much about “anti-Semitism” as the philo-Semites insist they do. David Duke won the majority of the White vote in Louisiana. In Alabama, the race-mixing Holocaust denier Larry Darby won 43% of the vote in the 2006 Democratic Party primary for Attorney General.

In the popular imagination, I live in the heart of the Bible Belt. Everyone around here is supposed to be uber philo-Semitic evangelical Christians. I know my peers fairly well and this couldn’t be more untrue. Most of them are either irreligious or outright atheists. None of them care about the Jews. They don’t have any opinion on the issue.

3. The Right should put Jews in position of authority.

We already have the neocons in control of the conservative movement. A Right that puts Jews in a position of authority will never be anything more than a front group for Jewish interests.

4. There are plenty of racialist and rightwing Jews with whom we can build alliances.

Name them. I don’t think all of them combined could fill more than half of an Applebee’s restaurant. What’s more, these racialist and rightwing Jews are more interested in “fighting anti-Semitism” than any other pro-White cause. Bringing them into White Nationalism is tantamount to creating just another ideological vehicle for the promotion of Jewish interests.

5. White Nationalism hasn’t accomplished anything in the postwar era.

There is a good reason for that. After the demise of segregation, racially conscious Whites flocked into the aracial, philo-Semitic conservative movement where they became steadily deracialized. Braun is advocating more of the same. It will produce exactly the same result.

6. A friendly disposition towards Jewry will get us into the media and political area.

No, it won’t. It will get us about where Jared Taylor and American Renaissance are now. Jews will persist in their hostility to us. They will continue to relentlessly push their interests at our expense. We won’t get anything in return for abandoning our hostility to the Jews.

7. We must counter the Nazi image.

I disagree. We should wait for the “Greatest Generation” to die off and the Boomers to retire. Gen X’ers and Gen Y’ers don’t care nearly as much about the Jews.

8. Jews will bring vast resources into our movement.

No, they won’t.

9. Jews are moving to the Right.

No, they haven’t. See Steve Sailer’s recent column about American Jewry.

10. We should emulate Vlaams Belang, the BNP, the Front National, and Geert Wilders.

Why? They haven’t accomplished anything. Muslims continue to settle to Belgium, the Netherlands, France, and the UK. The only thing they have accomplished is watering down the “Right”; thereby pushing the next generation further to the “Left.”

11. It is time to adopt a winning strategy.

The conservative movement has already adopted the philo-Semitic strategy. Its existence is arguably the single biggest cause of White racial decline since the 1960s.

From Occidental Dissent, November 22, 2009

Three centuries later the German-Jewish poet Heinrich Heine (1797-1856) would envision this epochal Reconquista much differently: “On the tower [in Cordova] where the muezzin called to prayer there is now the melancholy tolling of church bells. On the steps where the [Muslim] faithful sang the words of the Prophet, tonsured monks are acting out their lugubrious charades.” For Heine Islamic Spain — here represented by formerly Muslim Cordova, reconquered in 1236 — had fallen victim to “the dark tricks of history,” and the Reconquista, far from being a righteous European triumph over an alien and expansionist adversary, marked a terrible cultural disaster. The Spain that emerged from her national victories was spiritually impoverished and intellectually desolate, filled with the sterile ceremonies of mindless Catholicism. Spain, in short, was better off Islamic. The wrong side had won.

Heine’s lines are from his poem “Almansor,” which was based on his play of the same title. They are quoted in Martin Kramer’s introduction to Jewish Discovery of Islam, a collection of essays discussing Jewish contributions to the European investigation of the Muslim world. Kramer, the collection’s editor, treats Heine’s poetic lament for Muslim losses as an example of European Jewry’s “heightened empathy and sympathy for Islam,” but another motive is also clear. Heine sympathized with the Muslim invaders of Europe because he disliked Europeans. His enemy’s enemy was his friend. Empathy for Islam was hostility to Christian Europe. Thus at the end of “Almansor” the poem’s Muslim protagonist, though baptized a Christian (a formality that Heine himself would undergo in 1825), feels the growing anger of Cordova’s famous cathedral, once a mosque in the happy days of Islamic occupation, and dreams of seeing the desecrated mosque crash vengefully down upon the Spanish congregants below, “while the Christian Gods shriek and wail.”

Kramer, an expatriate American Jew who works at Tel Aviv University’s Moshe Dayan Center, planned The Jewish Discovery of Islam as a Jewish response to the Palestinian literary critic Edward Said’s poisonously influential Orientalism (New York: Vintage, 1978), easily the most destructive anti-Western book of the past half-century. The object of Said’s attack was the academic discipline of Orientalism, the study of the East and its various cultures, especially Islam. European scholarship, he argued, had defined and essentialized Islam as a hostile and culturally inferior Other, while ignoring the profound interconnections between East and West. Orientalism, an expression of the West’s arrogant Eurocentrism, had created a distorted representation of the East’s inferiority and then proceeded to justify and extend European colonialism on the basis of the self-interested simulacrum it had produced. “Orientalism,” Said wrote, “was ultimately a political vision of reality whose structure promoted the difference between the familiar (Europe, the West, ‘us’) and the strange (the Orient, the East, ‘them’),” and in an oft-quoted pronouncement he alleged that “every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was consequently a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric” (Orientalism, 43, 68). Said’s Orientalism has become the bible of fashionable Third Worldism and the central document of postcolonial studies, which it did much to spawn. As a result of its remarkable influence the term “Orientalism,” which once denoted an arcane discipline specializing in esoteric languages and odd religious practices, has become a powerful slur, not much different from “racism.” And like anti-racialism, Saidian anti-Orientalism denies our right to see the world through our own eyes, to see the Islamic world as indeed Other, substantially different from the West in ways that traditional Orientalism had enumerated. If today we view the burqa-shrouded women of Afghanistan as symptoms of a strange and primitive culture, then we are guilty of Eurocentric Orientalism, because we immorally claim for ourselves the right to judge the Muslim Other by our own standards.

Said, though wrongly labelled an anti-Semite for his criticism of Israel, carefully avoided distinguishing Jewish from non-Jewish Orientalists. All were European and therefore all equally “racist.” Kramer’s book is an attempt to remedy that deficiency. Jewish Orientalists, Kramer explains, did not suffer from the essentialist, polarizing prejudices of their non-Jewish colleagues: “The work of Jewish orientalists — liberals and Marxists, Zionists and assimilationists, believers and atheists — subverted the idea that East and West were polar opposites. Much of Europe debated whether the Jews belonged to one or the other; Jews replied that the question itself lacked validity. The work of Jewish orientalists at every turn challenged the tendency to interpret Islam or Judaism sui generis, and their message was remarkably uniform: Islamic history (like Jewish history) can be subjected to the same analytical tools as Europe’s; Europe’s civilization rests also on Islamic (and Jewish) foundations; Islam (like Judaism) is no anachronism, but undergoes constant adaptation, and would accommodate even European modernity. Jews urged European respect for peoples bearing cultures of extra-European origin, precisely because the Jews were the most vulnerable of these peoples, residing as they did in the very center of Europe.” Jews, in other words, were de facto anti-Orientalists well before Edward Said launched his attack on Eurocentric Orientalism.

All of this will sound familiar to readers of Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique, which documents how ostensibly neutral Jewish scholarship has often served a hidden racial agenda. Jewish scholars wrote sympathetically about Islam in order to attack Europe indirectly. While maintaining the pretense of disinterested objectivity they sought to dismantle categories that helped Europeans to define themselves, and by challenging generalizations about Muslims they hoped to inhibit similar generalizations about Jews. Their principal target was Europe’s confident belief in its cultural superiority, and insofar as Christian Europe defined itself in contrast to Islam, they would attack Europe by elevating its opposite and by challenging the boundaries between East and West and Islam and Christendom that formed parts of Europe’s insufferable self-image. We can think of this, keeping in mind the example of Heine’s sublimated hatred, as restrained aggression expressed through a calculated sanitizing of Islam, with the aim of undermining Europe’s identity and eliminating its suspicion of the Muslim outsider. As Heinrich Heine placed his own racial aggression in the thoughts and experiences of the fictional Muslim Almansor ben Abdullah, so Jewish scholarship concealed its anti-European aggression in the learned pages of sympathetic studies of Islam.

Kramer is bold in assessing the effects of this intellectual subversion: “The respect for Islam that Jews had done so much to disseminate not only survived in Europe but served as the basis for Europe’s tolerance of Muslim minorities after the war. The mosque-like synagogues erected by Jewish communities in the nineteenth century prepared Europe to accept the real mosques which Muslim communities erected across the continent in the twentieth.” Bernard Lewis, the most distinguished of modern Jewish Orientalists, recently predicted in Die Welt that “Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century”; for this demographic catastrophe Kramer claims credit on behalf of Islamophile Jewish scholarship. That may be too great a burden for the musty tomes of half-forgotten Jewish Orientalists to bear, but Jewish promotion of Islam does provide at least a partial explanation for the massive loss of European will that has allowed the growing Muslim invasion once again assailing the continent, this time without (as yet) any significant resistance. And there can be no doubt that the West’s old view of Islam as hostile and alien, a reasonable response to a long history of Muslim invasions, has been almost entirely eradicated. When NATO elected to empower Muslim terrorists in Kosovo by bombing Serbs in Belgrade, that nominally Western decision powerfully signaled the breakdown of our former cultural self-image. Any reflexive assumption that Serbs are Europeans and Muslims alien outsiders had vanished. For this, if Kramer’s analysis is correct, we can blame Jews.

French president Jacques Chirac has spoken of “a Europe whose roots are as much Muslim as Christian.” The idea is bizarre, and traditional scholarship conceptualized French national history in precisely contrary terms. France was spared the Islamic invasion that swept across Spain by Charles (“the Hammer”) Martel’s victory in 732 at the Battle of Poitiers; France could become French only because she had first defeated Islam. Ideas, like people, have a lineage, and we can be certain that Jacques Chirac’s fantastic belief in Europe’s Muslim roots cannot be traced back to the polarizing interpretations of Eurocentric Orientalists. It is a subversive Jewish idea that has made its way into the conventional mind of a politician, much as the widespread myth of Muslim religious tolerance — an idea George Bush is fond of mentioning in his many homilies on Islam the religion of peace — was (to quote Bernard Lewis) “invented by Jews in nineteenth-century Europe as a reproach to Christians….” Both ideas are false, but it was once useful for Jews to circulate them.

We should take note of the philo-Semitic environment in which Jews worked to subvert Europe’s cultural self-understanding. Among the Gentile Orientalists who numerically dominated the discipline in the 1800s, the most prominent White racialist was the brilliant Ernest Renan (1823-92), who believed that Jews were Europeans, which is to say that Renan was not much of a racialist at all. “Jewish scholars,” Kramer writes, “were not to be regarded as Semitic specimens, but as fellow Europeans, who could participate as intellectual equals in Europe’s discovery of Islam.” The subversive, Islamophile Orientalism of Jewish scholars flourished in an academic environment characterized by low levels of anti-Semitism, but clearly this racial tolerance did not emotionally bind these Jews to the West. In the academic history Kramer outlines tolerance was not repaid with gratitude and cultural loyalty; it simply afforded Jews a position of safety from which to pursue their racial interests and launch their campaign against Europe. A scarcity of anti-Semitism is always an open invitation to Jewish misbehavior, because it frees Jews from inspection of their motives.

Kramer himself is no tolerant Islamophile, and he feels none of the “heightened empathy and sympathy for Islam” that he honors. He is an anti-Muslim neoconservative, and like all neoconservatives he advocates a hard American stance against the Muslim world, including the bombing of Iraqi cities and the destruction (“democratization”) of anti-Zionist Muslim nations, all for the betterment of Israel. “The moment America’s commitment to Israel seems diminished in Arab eyes,” he argues elsewhere, “the region is destined to spiral into war.” Kramer praises the tolerant Jewish Orientalists of bygone centuries because they are safely dead, and he has no intention of following their example. In their covert race war against Western civilization Jews once benefited from sanitizing Islam and from making the strange seem familiar, yet retaining the old model of Jewish Orientalism would provide no advantages today. Islam has very few virtues, but anti-Semitism is, luckily, among them. Muslims hate the West, but they hate Jews and Zionism even more. The recent Jewish discovery of deep, apparently ineradicable Muslim anti-Semitism has convinced neoconservative Jews like Martin Kramer that in our era any “heightened empathy and sympathy for Islam” would be a dangerous mistake. Kramer can boast of how, in his opinion, Jewish scholarship helped bring millions of violent Muslims back into Europe, but he knows that today Muslims are a formidable enemy of Jews and the Jewish state, and so he and his fellow neoconservatives have assumed a new role as truth-telling opponents of Islamism and vigilant defenders of the West, a West whose center of gravity is located in Tel Aviv.

From Irminsul’s Racial Nationalist Library.

In this spirit he has developed an “archeofuturist” philosophy that takes its inspiration from the most primordial and Faustian urgings of our people’s spirit; he has incessantly warned of the threat posed by the Third World, specially Islamic, invasion of the former white homelands; he has promoted European collaboration with Russia and made the case for a white imperium stretching from Dublin to Vladivoskov; he privileges biopolitics over cultural or party politics; he’s developed a theory of the interregnum that explains why the existing system of subversion will soon collapse; and he’s successfully promoted anti-liberal ideas and values in a language and style that transcends the often ghettoized discourse of our movement. But despite his incomparable contribution to the forces of white resistance, he has always remained suspiciously silent on certain key issues, particularly regarding the Jews, the so-called Holocaust, and the interwar heritage of revolutionary nationalism — even though he is routinely referred to in the MSM as a fascist, a racist, and a negationist. On those few occasions he has spoken of Israel or the Jews, it has been to say that their cause is not ours and that we need to focus on the dangers bearing down on us. To this degree, his silence was tolerable. Recently, however, he’s broken this silence and taken a stance likely to alienate many of his supporters.

The occasion was an interview granted to the Zionist France-Echos — now posted at subversive.com. When asked in the interview about anti-Semitism in the “identitarian” movement he leads, Faye responded in explicitly philosemitic terms:

Anti-Judaism (a term preferable to anti-Semitism) has melted away like snow in the sun. There are, of course, pockets of resistance . . . . But this tendency is more and more isolated . . . because of the massive problem posed by Islamizaton and Third World immigration. In these circumstance, anti-Judaism has been forgotten, for the Jew no longer appears as a menace. In the milieux I frequent, I never read or hear of anti Jewish invectives. . . . [A]nti-Judaism is a political position that is obsolete, unhelpful, out of date, even when camouflaged as anti-Zionism. This is no longer the era of the Dreyfus Affair. Anti-Jews, moreover, are caught in an inescapable contradiction: they despise Jews, but claim they dominate the world, as if they were a superior race. This makes anti-Judaism a form of political schizophrenia, a sort of inverted philosemitism, an expression of resentment. One can’t, afterall, detest what one aspires to . . . . My position is that of Nietzsche: To run down the Jews serves no purpose, it’s politically stupid and unproductive.

Besides ignoring the fact that Jewish influence has never been more dominant and more destructive of white existence, three questions are raised in this quote:

1) Is it that the problems posed by immigration and Islam have trivialized those once associated with the Jews?

2) Or is it that Islam and immigration reveal that the Jews are not (and never were) a problem, that the anti-Judaism of the Dreyfus era, like other historical expressions of anti-Judaism, was simply a product of a culture whose traditionalism or resentment “stupidly” demonized the Jew as the Other?

3) Or is it that one can’t have two enemies at the same time, that the threat posed by Islamic immigration is greater than whatever threat the Jews might pose, making it strategically necessary to focus on the principal enemy and to relegate the other to a lesser degree of significance?

Faye tends to conflate these questions, leaving unsaid what needs to be said explicitly. He assumes, moreover, that the Islamic or Third World threat (both in the form of the present invasion and internationally) is somehow unrelated to the Jews. He acknowledges, of course, that certain Jews have been instrumental in promoting multiracialism and immigration. But the supposition here is that this is just a tendency on the part of certain Jews and that to think otherwise is to commit the error of seeing them in the way that “old-fashioned” anti-Semites once did. At first glance, his argument seems to be that of Jared Taylor and American Renaissance, being a tactical decision to take the path of least resistance (which many of us don’t support but nevertheless can live with). Faye, though, goes beyond Taylor, making claims about the Jews that will inevitably compromise our movement.

The anti-Islamism and philosemitism that Faye here combines reflect a deep ideological divide in French nationalist ranks. This divide is symptomatic of a larger schism that is rarely discussed by white nationalists, but has had worldwide ramification for our movement. Since 1945, when the anti-white forces of triumphant American liberalism and Russian Communism, in alliance with Zionism, achieved world hegemony, the hounded and tattered ranks of the nationalist right, in Europe and America, split into a number of divergent, if not contradictory tendencies. With the advent of the Cold War and the formation of the Israeli state, these tendencies tended to polarize around two camps. One tendency, including certain ex-Nazis, allied with postwar anti-Communism, viewing the Russian threat as the greater danger to Western Civilization. Given Israel’s strategic place in the Cold War alignment, these anti-Communists treated organized Zionism as an ally and downplayed the “anti-Semitism” that had traditionally been part of their anti-liberal nationalism. This tendency was opposed by another, which also included former Nazis, but it saw Russian Communism in terms of Stalin’s alleged anti-Semitism and nationalism. This led it to assume an anti-American, anti-Zionist, and pro-Third World position.

The legacy of this polarization continues to affect white nationalist ranks, even though elements of it have been jumbled and rearranged in recent years. As ideal types, however, neither tendency is completely supportable nor insupportable. White nationalism, I suspect, will succeed as a movement only in synthesizing the positive, pro-white elements in each tendency. For a long time, I thought Faye represented this synthesis, for he was both pro-Russian without being hysterically anti-American, anti-Third World without supporting the globalist super-structure dominating the “West.” More impressive still, his orientation was to a revolutionary, racially conscious, and archeofuturist concept of the European race that refused any accommodation to the existing regime.

Recently, however, his anti-Islamism seems to have morphed into a Zionism that cannot but trouble our movement. In the France-Echos interview he says in reference to his nationalist critics that it is nonsensical to call him a Zionist since he is not a Jew. But in the same breath he adds:

How could I be anti-Zionist . . . . Unlike Islamism, Communism, Leftism, human rights, and masochistic, post-conciliar Christianity, Zionism neither opposes nor restrains in any significant way the ideals I defend, that is, the preservation of [Europe's biocultural] identity. How would the disappearance of Israel serve my cause? For a European identitarian to think that the Hebrew state is an enemy is geopolitically stupid.

He goes on to argue that those who are viscerally anti-American and anti-Zionist are implicitly pro-Islam, pro-Arab, and immigrationist, allies in effect of the Left’s Third-Worldism. Pointing to Alain de Benoist’s GRECE, Christian Bouchet’s revolutionary nationalist movement, and those “Traditionalist” European converts to Islam, all of whom are fascinated by Iran’s new leadership and by Hezbollah, he claims, with some justice, that these anti-Zionists are in the process of abandoning their commitment to Europe.

Faye’s contention that Islam (the civilization) is a mortal threat to Europe is solidly grounded. While one might appreciate Amadinehjad’s critique of Zionist propaganda, especially as it takes the form of the Holohoax, or Nasrallah’s humbling of the IDF, to go from there to supporting Iran’s Islamic Republic or Islamic insurgents in general (think of the Paris Ramadan riots of November 2005) is, for white nationalists, a betrayal of another sort. Faye here acts as an important bulwark against those in our ranks who would leave it to others to fight our battles — others, if history is any guide, who won’t
hesitate to subjugate us once the opportunity arises.

Where Faye crosses the line in my view is in arguing that Jews ought to be considered part of European civilization, that the defense and reinforcement of the Israeli state is a vital imperative for Europe, and that Israel is the vanguard in the struggle against “our common enemy.” The collapse of Israel, he claims, would “open the door to the total conquest of Europe.” He concludes by declaring that he is no Judeophile. “I consider the Jews allies, as part of European civilization, with a very particular and original status as a people apart.” He rejects anti-Judaism “not because it is immoral, but because it is unuseful, divisive, infantile, politically inconsistent, out dated.” For ostensively strategic reasons, then, he rejects anti-Judaism.

It is not my intention here to critique Faye’s new-found Zionism (which I find insupportable) — that would require a format different from this report. It is also not my intention to put his other ideas in doubt, for I continue to believe that he has made an incomparable intellectual contribution to the cause of white resistance. I do, however, question how Faye can consider a non-European people like the Jews to be part of our biocivilization; how he can ignore the destructive role they have played in European and especially American history; how he can dismiss their role in fostering the anti-white forces of multiculturalism, globalism, and the existing regime; and how he can think that Israel is not a geopolitical liability to Europe and Russia?

Finally, I can’t help but recall an earlier occasion when Faye argued that our survival as a people depends on “ourselves alone” — and not on appeals to those whose interests are inevitably served at our expense.

From VNN, July 31, 2006

I wish I could distill the essence of our attitude towards the Jews into a few choice paragraphs. If I was forced to try, I would describe the Jews as being like a “huge anchor” in American life. They overwhelmingly congregate on the opposite side of the political spectrum. The Jews are massively overrepresented in culturally sensitive areas like the news media, entertainment media, the social sciences and liberal arts departments in our universities. The sheer weight of their numbers in these sectors, combined with their enormous wealth, intelligence, and ethnic networking, allows the Jews to distort our culture and pull our political system in an anti-racist direction.

Here’s another way of putting it: suppose you are having a pool party and 2% of your guests habitually urinate in the pool, changing the mood of the event. That is essentially what the Jews are doing to our racial and cultural discourse in America. They can always be found injecting poisonous memes into our national dialogue on these issues; memes which trickle down from our media and academic elite, and become almost universal over the course of a few generations. These degenerate ideas rot and weaken our social fabric.

A final analogy can be drawn to trying to run on a treadmill while wearing a 70 lb. backpack. The most objectionable aspect of Jewish influence is the fact that they openly and actively try to thwart our efforts to reverse our racial dispossession. Jews fund anti-White disciplinary organizations like the SPLC with millions of dollars. They use their media influence to portray White Nationalism in the most demonic, unfavorable light possible. They manipulate the status system to associate our movement with low status and immorality and its anti-racist counterpart with high social status and righteousness. They use cultural rabies (or political correctness) to control what passes for legitimate political discourse. If that were not enough, Jews harass our employers and pressure our friends and colleagues into engaging in ritual shaming. The cumulative weight of this oppression has kept White Nationalism bottled up on the fringe.

Quite naturally, White Nationalists want to cut loose that “huge anchor” pulling America in an anti-racist direction, eject the people who are “urinating” in our discursive pool, and cast off the “70 lb. backpack” holding down our movement. As Spock would say, it is only logical. I emphasize: this is not to say the Jews should be rounded up in concentration camps and exterminated. Rather, we believe they should seek refuge elsewhere, maybe in Israel where they already have a state of their own.

If the Jews were to disappear tomorrow, I am not naive enough to believe that all of America’s problems would be solved overnight. I’ve clearly said otherwise on multiple occasions. However, I will argue that White America would be indisputably much better off than it is now. I believe our racial immune system would kick into action and we could begin to recover. I don’t see that happening so long as Jews continue to enjoy their present level of wealth, power, and status in the United States.

I don’t expect anyone so new to the White Nationalist movement to grasp this. I struggled with the Jewish Question for a long time. Nothing in my background prepared me for what I discovered. It was the cumulative weight of the “ooh” and “ah” moments over the years (reading a book, watching a movie, interacting with them) that changed my mind on the issue. Once I was familar with the theory (that Jews are a negative influence on racialism and traditional mores), I began to see multiple confirmations and the emergence of patterns.

The dots are not hard to connect. In the Gentile nations, Jews seem to push the radical envelope everywhere they go, whether it be America, Russia, Poland, Germany or South Africa. At home, Jews build a huge wall to keep out all the immigrants they push on the West. Let them carry the banner of anti-racism and multiculturalism in their own environs, I say.

From Occidental Dissent, September 30, 2009

How did I see the light? I’ve written about this before. I don’t remember ever not being racially conscious. I grew up in an area which is roughly 50% negro. It was impossible for me not to notice racial differences. The lies about equality that are constantly being pushed in the media were always contradicted by my proximity to reality.

Racialism came to easy to me because everyone I knew shared my racial views. I never experienced any peer pressure to become an anti-racist while growing up. My grandparents hated Martin Luther King back in the day and still do. Their house was always filled with relics from the Jim Crow South. In my local area, political correctness was a source a ridicule. No one really believed in it. I guess we were like the Eastern Europeans that lived and chafed under Communism, but who never really internalized its values.

It was a small jump from there into nationalism. Back in the late 1990’s, illegal aliens from Mexico and Guatemala began to pour into South Alabama. I grew concerned about immigration and started to follow Pat Buchanan. I read his book Death of the West where I was exposed to the knowledge that Whites would become a racial minority by 2050. Parts of Alabama and Georgia are already like this. The danger lurking in the United States becoming a third world country was simple to grasp: it was already less than 30 miles up US 82.

The Jewish Question wasn’t as clear. Few Jews live in the Deep South. I had no experience with them prior to college. It was there that I was first exposed to theories about Jewish control of the mass media and their involvement in insidious political movements. At first, I wasn’t willing to believe this; it sounded like an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, but I was objective enough to delve into the original sources and check the facts out for myself. I had never been one to shy away from an argument.

It didn’t take long for me to realize that much of what the “anti-Semites” were saying was indisputably true. Jews really are overrepresented in the news media, the entertainment media, the government, the social sciences, the professions, anti-racist organizations, neocon warmongers, etc. They are vastly overrepresented amongst millionaires and billionaires. Jews alone account for more than 50% of the campaign contributions to the Democratic Party. They are the hub of the progressive left. Their influence upon our culture is massive.

I found that to be significant. In the years that followed, I saw my suspicions reconfirmed on countless occasions. Jews always seemed to be the ones “leading the charge” against racialism. It left with me with the unshakeable conviction that Jewish influence, whether in our culture or upon our government, has been a disaster for White Americans. Logically, we should respond by excluding them wherever possible.

So here I am today. What’s your story?

From Occidental Dissent, July 4, 2009

Sir Reginald Goodall

I am linking the following article on Sir Reginald Goodall (1901 – 1990) because not only was he a great conductor, he was also racially and politically aware and paired these convictions with an unusual degree of courage.

In the 1930s, Goodall was a member of Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists. He was an outspoken opponent of the Second World War, and he was briefly arrested for his views. Goodall was also keenly conscious of the Jewish question.

Even more remarkably, Goodall retained these convictions after the Second World War, in spite of almost universal opprobrium. He was, moreover, a very ambitious man and well-aware that his convictions could only harm his career. But he never recanted, never apologized, and endured many years in obscurity before, on the strength of sheer talent and willpower, he finally broke through.

Goodall was one of the great Wagner conductors of the last century, and his recordings of the Ring cycle and The Mastersingers of Nuremberg would surely would rank among the very greatest, were it not for one lovable but very real flaw: they are English-language versions, part of a quite noble attempt to make Wagner more accessible to the English-speaking world.

Unfortunately, as beautiful as these recordings are, I find the English distracting because I know the German texts quite well. But if I’d heard these recordings when I was first listening to Wagner, they really would have made him more accessible.

Goodall’s recording of Tristan and Isolde and his two recordings of Parsifal (on EMI and BBC Legends) are in German.

The chief complaint about Goodall is that his Wagner is slow. His recording of The Rhinegold is the only one that takes three CDs. His The Twilight of the Gods sprawls on to five! (Goodall’s Ring cycle occupies 16 CDs, whereas Pierre Boulez’s takes only 12; most take 14.)

Under the best of circumstances, Wagner puts strains on the attention span, and in the age of MTV, channel surfing, ADD, and the internet, Goodall may be asking too much. For my part, however, I find that Goodall’s performances do not seem slow, because they are utterly spell-binding and open up a world of musical details obscured by other conductors.

Goodall was also a very fine conductor of Britten (The Rape of Lucretia) and Bruckner (Symphony No. 7/Wagner, Meistersinger Prelude, Symphony No. 8/Wagner, Tristan and Isolde, Prelude to Act I, and Symphony No. 9).

Really, his name should have been Allgood.

“Reginald Goodall–The Holy Fool”
On an Overgrown Path, May 8, 2007

Sir Reginald Goodall rehearsing "Parsifal," Act 3, August 1987

Goodall showed that as a Wagner conductor he has no equal. His control of the musical architecture is absolute. The huge span of the score was shaped as if in a single phrase. At the same time the music seemed to move spontaneously, by its own inner force, and with a glowing beauty of sound, an inevitability of rise and fall and a kind of natural momentousness of expression that will remain ideal.

These were the words of David Cairns writing in the Sunday Times in August 1987. The occasion was Reginald Goodall’s last ever conducting engagement, the Proms concert performance of Act 3 of Parsifal shown in the rehearsal photo above. Wagner’s saga of the holy fool somehow sums up Goodall; as David Cairns wrote he was a Wagner conductor without equal, he was also a champion of Britten’s music who conducted the first performance of Peter Grimes, yet he flirted with fascism and alienated himself from many who tried to help him during a career that lasted more than sixty-five years. . . . More

from Spearhead, May 2004

John Tyndall

Editor’s Note: I have decided to reprint John Tyndall’s impressively dignified, rational, and pragmatic discussion of the Jewish Question in British National Party politics because it is an ideal introduction to an issue that remains relevant to all white nationalist parties and organizations.

It keeps coming back to haunt us–the Jewish Question, that is. So it has done for many hundreds of years and so it will continue to do as long as Jewish power is a major factor in the world.

I well remember my own induction into Jewish issues. It occurred when, as a young man in the late 1950s, I first became involved in British Nationalism. Essentially, I wanted to do something to lift up my own country and people; I had no wish whatever to become engaged in fights with Jews. I recall, with some embarrassment today, the rather pompous and precocious lectures I gave to others that they should steer well clear of any mention of Jews in an unflattering context lest this bring down upon us the charge of ‘anti-Semitism’ or, even worse, ‘Nazism’. I once wrote a letter to my then chief and mentor A. K. Chesterton containing some strictures of this kind. His reply stung me a little at the time, though when I think about it now it seems a masterpiece of diplomacy. Here was this upstart–a virtual know-nothing–presuming to tell him what was what on a subject on which he had been a world-acclaimed authority for at least 20 years!

But sobering experiences and enlightenment were not far away. I soon came to realise, in the course of being a keen activist in the patriotic movement, that though we may do everything possible to avoid conflict with Jewry, Jewry–or at least its politically organised elements–was determined on conflict with us. Protesting that one was not ‘anti-Semitic’ was of no avail; the moment one became involved and identified with the struggle for one’s own race and nation–in my case the British race and nation–one became tarred by the Jews with the mark of the Devil. And, as I later learned, one became a name on a file in the offices of various Jewish organisations and a figure on the Jewish ‘hit list’–perhaps not literally in the sense of assassination but most definitely figuratively, as an enemy to be watched, monitored and, when thought necessary, publicly reviled.

Awakening

I described this process of awakening in The Eleventh Hour:

Bit by bit, it started to come home to me, in the form of incontrovertible evidence, that there was present in Britain and around the world a definite Jewish network wielding immense influence and power – through money, through politics and through its strong foothold, in some sectors amounting to virtual monopoly, in the mass media.

And further on:

Then what of the uses of Jewish wealth and power? I set to work studying the political orientation of Jewish writers in the press, Jewish book-publishers, Jewish political leaders, political philosophers and academics. I investigated the various causes to which Jewish money was being donated.

The truth was inescapable. In not one single case could I find any prominent, powerful and influential Jewish personage who identified himself or herself with any cause complementary to the interests of the British Nation… Quite the contrary, every cause inimical to these things seemed to have Jewish participation and backing. Looking back to the political arguments I had had earlier, it now occurred to me, as it had not done at the time, that the most vociferous and aggressive opponents of all I believed in had been Jews.

I became aware of a strange paradox. While Jews were to be found among the most ardent and committed opponents of British Nationalism and British race-loyalty, they were at the same time the most passionate champions of nationalism and race consciousness on the part of their own people . . .

Unavoidable question

This awakening forced me, against all my initial inclinations, to acknowledge that there was, very definitely, a ‘Jewish Question’. It was a question which patriots of all countries seeking the salvation of their peoples were bound to encounter and deal with, whether they wished it or not. Exactly how that question should be dealt with was, and remains, a subject of much greater complexity, and this subject has given rise to a vast myriad of opinions and arguments. But to suppose that the question could just be ignored or wished away was to dwell in cloud-cuckoo-land. The wrath and hatred of organized Jewry is a mountain that stands in the path of every movement of enlightened racial patriotism wherever one cares to look in the world, but in particular among nations of White European pedigree.

Right now this issue is being brought home to us in almost every TV news bulletin as we see scenes of carnage in Iraq–the legacy of the insane war against that country waged by America and Britain and their coalition allies. And why are we in Iraq against all our better interests? Every knowledgeable observer of the international scene knows why we are there, although few–particularly in the ranks of well-paid journalists and broadcasters–dare admit it publicly. We are there because Israel demands that we should be there to serve as its own shield against an insurgent Arab and Muslim world, And how is tiny Israel able to dictate such a policy to nations like the United States and United Kingdom? Again, every knowledgeable observer knows how but few dare to say: the Israeli lobby in Washington virtually owns the US government and President, while its brethren in this country virtually own Tony Blair.

In an article in these pages last month the writer quoted from a statement by Israeli President Ariel Sharon made on radio October 3rd 2001: “We the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.” This quote has had an extensive world wide circulation and, to my knowledge, has never been publicly disavowed by anyone in Sharon’s administration. In any event whether authentic or not, it represents what everyone knows to be the truth.

The tragedy now being enacted in Iraq is but the most recent installment of a whole series of major tragedies convulsing the world extending back to the Russian Revolution in 1917, through World War II, through the fiasco of Suez in 1956, right up to the present–and not excluding the economic rape of post-communist Russia–in which organized Jewry, whether as instigator or perceived victim, has played a central part. Whether we care to admit it or not, there is a ‘Jewish Question’–a phenomenon that has cast the Jews in an absolutely unique role that sets them quite apart from the rest of the nations. Whether this leads to us viewing them sympathetically or in opposition, acceptance of that overriding truth is the essential foundation of all debate. And the Jewish Question simply will not go away.

Attempted sabotage of meetings

Let us come now to the impact which this Jewish Question has on our own movement, the British National Party. That impact was manifest in a very special way back in 1998, when I headed a team of BNP officials whose job it was to organize our then customary Annual Rally. We experienced great difficulty in obtaining premises for the event until one was eventually acquired in the West Midlands. A year previously we had run up against the same problem when a hotel booking in Shepperton, Middlesex, had been canceled at the last moment as a result of threatening telephone calls to the management. In reply to our inquiries about these threats, a management representative had admitted that they had come from “a Jewish organization.” Now, for the 1998 rally, we had booked a large room at the Moat House Hotel in Northampton. Shortly afterwards, this booking was terminated. The manager told us quite openly on the telephone that the cause of the termination was a telephone call threatening demonstrations which he had received from the “Jewish Board of Deputies” (customary shorthand for the Board of Deputies of British Jews).

The BNP subsequently had an exchange of correspondence with the Board on this matter in which the latter made no attempt to deny its role in putting pressure on the hotel (details of this correspondence were given in two reports in the January and February 1999 issues of Spearhead).

To appreciate the significance of these attempts by organized Jewry to prevent the BNP holding meetings, it is necessary for the reader to know that neither up till that time nor since did the party make any statements, written or verbal, that could be reasonably construed as ‘anti-Semitic’ or ‘anti-Jewish’. Some periodicals published independently in support of the BNP had occasionally published articles critical of actions by specific Jews and Jewish organizations, but even in these cases nothing had ever been written calling for Jews to be ill-treated individually merely because they were Jews. In fact these articles were no more ‘anti-Jewish’ than articles attacking the IRA could be called ‘anti-Irish’.

This episode of the canceled meeting-hall bookings was just one of many that have underlined that organized Jewry has been at war with the BNP since the party’s inception 22 years ago. Our crime, quite clearly, has been that we are patriotic and nationalist–something which only the Jews themselves are permitted to be in this modern world.

And here is the vital point: the war by organized Jewry against the BNP is going to continue for as long as it is perceived to be a patriotic and nationalist party and as long as it is regarded as a political ‘threat’, quite regardless of anything the BNP may itself do to convince the world that it is not ‘anti-Semitic’ or ‘anti-Jewish’. Likewise, non-Jewish politicians, journalists and broadcasters who have been opposed to the BNP for all these years are not going to weaken in their opposition as a result of any such declarations.

And here is where it is time to examine the latest ‘gimmick’ employed by the current BNP leadership by its adoption of a Jewish candidate to contest a local government election in the Epping Forest area. I use the word ‘gimmick’ deliberately for that is precisely what it is–just as previous gimmicks have been used, notably the adoption of a candidate in Cumbria who was reported as rejoicing in his black son-in-law and half-black grandchild and the granting of a regular column to a Sikh writer in the party newspaper. These previous gimmicks have achieved nothing other than to cause considerable internal disquiet within the party, leading to some resignations, and so it will be with this latest one involving the Epping Forest candidate.

Doing what is needed to win

Let us at this point clear the decks of confusion as to what this argument is all about. To some people, it may appear as an argument between the ‘purists’ in the nationalist camp, who insist on the maintenance of absolute ideological rectitude, and the ‘pragmatists’, who insist that the party must say and do what is necessary for political success. It may surprise some people when I state that I belong very firmly among the latter. I too believe that the BNP must say and do what is necessary to win, and that where that might involve tactical compromises that are intelligently designed to have some tangible political effect I am prepared to endorse them. In fact, I have no more time than Mr. Griffin professes to have for those perpetual ‘losers’ on the nationalist scene who are more interested in purity than in victory.

And in this regard the ‘purists’ would do well to study the histories of the movements and leaders they claim most to admire, for they would discover that they too were not above tactical compromises when the situation demanded.

My opposition to the adoption of the Jewish candidate is based on the same considerations as those which led me to oppose the previous gimmicks and stunts mentioned. I do not believe that, in terms of practical politics, it will achieve anything useful at all. It will not win the BNP a single vote. It will not make it in the slightest way more popular either with the Jewish community in this country or the broader internationalist establishment of which that community is the driving engine. It will not gain the party any brownie points with the mass media.

The one thing that the adoption will achieve–and has already achieved–is to cause further alarm, dismay and disillusionment in the ranks of the BNP’s most dedicated supporters and activists.

We must never forget that part of what is necessary to win is that we keep our movement together, united in conviction, strong in resolve and high in morale. Tactical maneuvers that have a contrary effect are not politically clever; they are politically self-defeating.

This latest move has been defended on similar grounds to the moves made in the past. It will convince the public that the party is not ‘racist’. It will nail the ‘anti-Semitic’ smear. It will scotch the allegations that the BNP is a ‘Nazi’ party.

Well, so far nobody outside Mr. Griffin’s circle seems to be listening. Immediately the adoption of the candidate, Mrs. Pat Richardson (née Feldman), was announced, the London Jewish News published an article making it clear that the Jews were not fooled, and it quoted a Labour Friends of Israel spokesman, David Mencer, as calling the move “a sick stunt.” Meanwhile top Jew Lord Janner reacted by saying: “The BNP are trying hard to be respectable but we know them for what they are–the direct descendants of Hitler’s Nazis.” Then in a report in The Guardian on the 23rd March it was announced that:

MPs from all parties are hoping to use the horrors of the Nazi holocaust to attack right-wing extremists in Britain.

Amid fears that the BNP could win a seat in the European parliamentary elections in June, MPs from all the main parties used visits to the Auschwitz concentration camp to warn of the dangers of embracing the far right.

And the Board of Deputies, referred to earlier, is still busy in the anti-BNP war. It was announced last month that the Board was urging all Jews to vote in the forthcoming European elections to keep the BNP out.

Not an issue to voters

There will no doubt be some simple souls who will protest that all this underlines the need for the BNP to parade its credentials as a party that is not ‘anti-Semitic’, hence the need for a Jewish candidate or two. But the thinking is fundamentally flawed. The claim, as can be seen, cuts absolutely no ice with the influential and the powerful. What then of the ordinary voters? Well, my own experience when the party’s parliamentary candidate at Dagenham in 1994 was that never once was the issue of Jews raised in any one of the hundreds of calls I made when canvassing (nor, incidentally, was the question of whether repatriation of other ethnic groups should be obligatory or voluntary). What of more recent times? Take Burnley, the area of our greatest successes so far. Steven Smith, who more than any other single person was the architect of those successes, has confirmed to me that neither were Jews ever an issue in the campaigns in which he was involved. Public concern which led to BNP councillors being elected in Burnley was about the impact of other minority groups, particularly Muslims, on the town. Public knowledge there that the party had a Jewish candidate standing somewhere, he says, would have neither increased nor reduced the BNP vote in Burnley one jot. The matter would have been one of supreme indifference to the voters there. In the course of the victorious campaigns in Burnley the local and national media and the active left screamed loudly that we were ‘racists’. This did not in the slightest way spoil our prospects, and may indeed have enhanced them.

Then there is Steve Batkin, the BNP’s victorious council election candidate in Stoke-on-Trent, another area where the party vote has risen enormously. Immediately prior to the local government elections in the city last year, the local newspaper persuaded Steve, against his better judgment, to make a statement denying the so-called ‘Holocaust’. This was plastered across the front page on the eve of the poll. Steve still got elected! He acknowledges now that the statement was a mistake, but it didn’t stop him winning! The issue simply did not impinge one way or the other on the concerns that occupied Stoke voters. Steve Batkin, like Steve Smith in Burnley, has confirmed that Jews simply weren’t an issue on the doorstep in Stoke; asylum-seekers certainly were, and very much so. Knowledge that the BNP had a Jewish candidate, he has confirmed, would not have made the slightest difference either way.

I have spoken to organizers in a number of other areas where the BNP has obtained good election results, and these, without wishing to be named, have said much the same thing. Jews have not been an issue. ‘Anti-Semitism’ or ‘pro-Semitism’ have been far from people’s minds.

But these matters are not far from people’s minds in the BNP. For all the reasons I have given in the earlier part of this article, they are very much in the forefront. To those experienced in party activity and at the higher levels of political understanding, organized Jewry is perceived as an enemy of everything we stand for–not by our choice but by its choice. We would far rather it be otherwise, but that is the way it is in the world we live in. This being so, it is fair and honest to say that there is within the BNP a great deal of very powerful feeling over the fact that Jewry, while insisting on the right of the Jews to be nationalistic and ‘racist’, will not recognize the right of other peoples to be so–but, on the contrary, will not hesitate to sabotage the activities of those who assert this right.

Cynical game

I know nothing of Mrs. Richardson, having never met her. In what I write here there is nothing personal intended against her. She has simply become a pawn in what I believe to be a quite cynical game being played for no real advantage to the BNP but solely in order to further a certain agenda for change in the party of which she probably has no inkling. I believe that in her interest, as well as the party’s interest, she should never have been placed in that position–a position that has already put her under some exceedingly unpleasant pressure, which is likely to increase as the election campaign hots up. The pressure results from the strong feelings within the BNP that her selection has generated and, not least, it has also come from her fellow Jews outside. All this is probably a great deal worse than the lady deserves.

The pressure from people in the BNP is derived from background knowledge of the role of the Jewish community in opposition to our party. Mrs. Richardson is not to blame for this but, as happens in the real world, she is by her Jewish identity inextricably linked with the forces responsible.

In World War II persons of German nationality residing in Britain were interned without trial because our country was engaged in a war with theirs. They probably had nothing to do with that war. They may well have opposed the German leadership of the time. But by the very fact that they were German, in a war situation in which Britain was fighting against Germany, it was considered that they could not enjoy the rights of ordinary citizens but must be placed outside the pale of citizenship–as much for their own protection as from the standpoint of our national security.

And of course this ruling would have had double the force had there ever been any suggestion of a German occupying a position of responsibility in the country at the time. In such a situation that suggestion would have been regarded as quite preposterous.

And this is a question that has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of World War II, only with the existence of the war as a fact.

Likewise, the question of the BNP adopting a Jewish candidate has nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of organized Jewry’s quarrel with our party, only with the recognition of that quarrel as a fact. Jews would not tolerate BNP members joining Jewish organizations, let alone acting as their public representatives, even if those members were in no way anti-Jewish but wanted good relations with the Jewish community. There can be no alternative but for the same rule to operate in reverse.

And the fact of Jewry’s quarrel with the BNP is one of which Mr. Griffin is as aware as anyone. Not only is he on record as having written numerous articles and pamphlets addressing the realities of the Jewish Question–notably in the field of Holocaust denial–but I have in my office a large file of correspondence in which he has expressed his opinions on the subject to me in no uncertain terms. All this makes a complete nonsense of his current Jew-friendly postures. There may be people in the BNP who can with straight faces and complete honesty publicly proclaim their philo-Semitic credentials, but Nick Griffin is not one of them.

Talking about party image…

There is one thing on which I am in complete agreement with Mr. Griffin. This is that, with elections coming up which are of huge importance to the BNP, the party needs to take great care not to present any avoidable propaganda weapons to its enemies, that the public image it puts across to the British voters is–as far as this lies within its control–vitally important.

But a very welcome weapon has in fact been handed to the BNP’s enemies on a plate by the selection as leading candidate for a seat on the Greater London Authority of a man who in his earlier days established for himself a police record of unruly behavior at football grounds–who in the parlance of those enemies would be called a ‘football hooligan’. Now many of us can get up to silly things in our younger days, as I can myself testify; but the idea that this man might be the BNP’s leading (and possibly sole) representative on the GLA sits rather oddly, to say the least, with the claim that a Jewish candidate must be adopted because it is essential to the party’s ‘good image’. So it was also with the selection not long ago of a candidate in the North of England who once was convicted for posting razor blades to a Jewish judge. Again, that candidate would no doubt regret his past behavior and it should not be held against him for ever; but this is a party whose present leaders insist that it has ‘changed’, that it is has smartened up its public image and that they are making it much more ‘acceptable’ than previously. So just what is going on?

The purpose of the stunts?

I suspect that what is going on is something very different from the policy line now being peddled to the membership and the public. I have said earlier that these various stunts–the candidate with the black son-in-law, the Sikh columnist, and now the Jewish lady standing in Epping Forest–make zero difference to the BNP’s appeal to the voters. And this is certainly true in the case of those voters whom the party can conceivably hope to win over in the foreseeable future. But I have also said that the stunts cause a great deal of unrest internally, leading to dissatisfaction and lowered morale in the ranks, and in many cases to people leaving the party.

But perhaps to some in the BNP this is the very purpose of the exercise. Conversations that I have had with some members and conversations with other members that have been relayed on to me, suggest that there is a great deal of exultation in some circles when certain people do leave. It is, in some minds, all part of the necessary process of turning the party from a fighting movement of genuine racial nationalists into one of tame Tories–perhaps so much so that it will place itself in a position to link up with other Tories in a realignment of the so-called political ‘right’ that would become nothing but a toothless safety-valve run by the establishment instead of a serious challenge to it.

Of course, this is not the way the supporters of the stunts would describe it. They would describe it as part of the necessary process of making the BNP ‘electable’. And I would have no doubt that some of them actually believe this.

But they are tragically and dangerously wrong. What has made the BNP more electable is the drastic change in the national political climate that has occurred as the disaster of multi-racialism, predicted by the party’s pioneers so long ago, has started to impact on millions of voters, as our cities and towns have been torn apart by ethnic strife and crime and, not least, as the tabloid press has been forced to face these issues honestly and admit that the entire ghastly experiment is collapsing. That is what has made the BNP more electable.

That and the hard work and dedication of superb teams of activists in the areas where we have had the greatest success–to many of whom I have spoken and many of whom do not share the naive supposition that adopting Jewish candidates is going to help take us into the ‘mainstream’ of politics.

But also tragically and dangerously wrong are the people who imagine that resignations from the BNP are going to solve anything. Those who might decide that burning their membership cards is an appropriate response to the adoption of Jewish candidates and similar gestures are falling obligingly into the very trap set for them by those who want to mold our party to the specifications of an emasculated Toryism rather than a virile nationalism. With the nationalists gone, the Tories will take over. It would be insane to let that happen.

Rules of engagement

To round off this article, I would suggest a few basic ground rules that should govern the BNP’s approach to the unavoidable ‘Jewish Question’.

The first is that the party should not, under whatever perceived provocation, be drawn into crude attacks on Jews as a race–a necessity from the standpoint of avoiding prosecution, quite apart from its obvious moral ramifications.

In our behavior towards individual Jews we should act with absolute correctness, treating them as we would have them treat us.

We should nevertheless recognize their self-imposed separateness and perception of themselves as ‘special’ and ‘chosen’–something which their own leaders have made abundantly clear again and again.

Moreover, we should recognize that organized Jewry constitutes a formidable power in the world with an agenda of its own, dedicated to the pursuit of Jewish interests above and beyond any other interests. This is something for which we should not ‘hate’ Jews but should respect them. We should display the same single-minded dedication to British and white racial interests as the Jews do to Jewish racial interests.

When, and only when, the pursuit by Jews of their own racial interests brings them into conflict with our interests should we do battle with them, and in that event we should make clear what the nature of the battle is: it is not a battle waged by the BNP against Jews because they are Jews; it is one waged only against certain Jews who are threatening us.

We should on no account ill-treat Jews on grounds of their race, and we should make it clear, whenever the subject of Jews and the BNP arises, that in a future BNP-governed Britain Jews who mind their own business and do not attempt to use their power to damage Britain have nothing whatever to fear from us.

At the same time we should not make a taboo of the issue of Zionism and organized Zionist power. Within party circles and in our publications we should permit a frank and free discussion of this power–always provided that it is conducted in moderate language, that it avoids insults and that it excludes the emissions of obvious cranks.

No person or group should be attacked because they are Jewish but neither should any person or group be immune to attack because they are Jewish. If certain individuals or groups give us strong grounds to attack them for their actions, the fact that they may be Jewish should not exempt them from such attacks.

When all this is said, the BNP should, so long as it is legally permissible, exclude Jews from membership, and in any event should not appoint Jews to positions in the party nor select them as candidates for elections. They would not do it for us, and there is no reason why we should do it for them.