Cash is going to be trash!

As bad as the fact that a Chinese government agency has likely created the virus, that’s nothing compared to how the US Federal Reserve will destroy cash.

As Milton Friedman sarcastically put it, ‘Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program’. Let’s go back and listen to President Nixon’s hypocritical announcement to ‘temporarily’ cut the link between the dollar and gold in 1971.

Temporarily? That was forty-nine years ago! Mike Maloney observes about Nixon’s announcement: ‘We were supposed to go back to gold some time or another… It might be coming soon’.

Yes: it will come right after American cash becomes trash.

Published in: on April 8, 2020 at 5:01 pm  Comments Off on Cash is going to be trash!  

Auster’s unpublished chapter

Just in case this chapter is removed from View From the Right (VFR) after Lawrence Auster dies (he’s struggling with cancer), I would like to save it here:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

“Any large number of free-thinking Jews” is “undesirable” if one wants to maintain or develop a society in which a Christian tradition can flourish, said T.S. Eliot in 1934. He was right. —David A. Hollinger, Science, Jews and Secular Culture, 1996

When it comes to Jewish enthusiasm for the great egalitarian project I think we may be grateful that we are such a small people. —Ruth Wisse, If I Am Not For Myself

… the great take-over by Jewish-American writers dreaming aloud the dreams of the whole American people. —Leslie Fiedler, Partisan Review, 1967

[W]e have spent most of our history as a vulnerable minority … That is why Jews both value and insist upon multicultural societies where the rule of law prevails, where distinctive identities can flourish, and where tolerance and respect are values equally applicable to all citizens. —Abraham Foxman, Ha’aretz, February 13, 2006

LarryAuster at VFR dinner
The below is a chapter—written in 1998 and not edited or changed since then—from the vast unpublished book on mass non-Western immigration, its consequences, and related topics that I worked on through most of the 1990s. It was tentatively entitled, The Death of America, and its Possible Rebirth. Recently a right-wing publisher has expressed interest in the manuscript and I am in the process of organizing the long-finished chapters for publication. Meanwhile this chapter may be read as a standalone article. (Note: it is very long, over 11,000 words.)

I read the entire chapter last night for the first time in fifteen years and made some fixes in punctuation and spelling. I see one serious flaw in the piece: that there are not enough qualifications showing that the objectionable attitudes I have attributed to “Jews”—i.e., to the Jewish people or the Jewish community as such—are, of course, not shared by all Jews, not by any means. But at this point I lack the will and the physical ability to re-work the chapter. So I hope that readers will understand that when I speak of “Jews” I do not mean all Jews, or even perhaps of a majority of Jews, but of a large and influential part of the Jewish population.

We could look at the problem this way. The great majority of Jews are extremely liberal and will remain so, but a large number of white gentiles (perhaps a majority) are also liberal and will remain so. To put the point differently, a large majority of Jews do not identify with or support the white race, but a large majority of white gentiles also do not identify with or support the white race. A significant number of Jews are conservative and traditional (I am not speaking of most Hasids, who are simply not part of our country and civilization), and I believe that such Jews are a positive part of our body politic and of the prospective growth of a traditionalist movement, and ultimately, perhaps generations hence, of a reborn America, named by me America 3.0, that will have separated from liberal America, America 2.0, which has now definitively destroyed and replaced the original America, America 1.0.

Also, to understand better where I’m coming from, readers may want to jump ahead and read the last section first, “How to oppose the Jewish agenda without anti-Semitism.”

Here is the article:

Jews: The Archetypal Multiculturalists

We’ve looked at the immigrant and nonwhite cultures that are displacing white America from without, and at the nihilist culture eating away at white society from within. But there is one group that lies at the intersection of these phenomena, an ethnically and religiously distinct group that is of relatively recent immigrant origin, yet is also part—though a largely distinct part—of the white race and a major influence in the mainstream culture. I am speaking, of course, of the Jews. Given the extraordinary role that this extraordinary people has played in modern America, no serious discussion of ethic diversity on American life can ignore them. Yet because of the Jews’ tragic history as a persecuted people, and because of their own ability, through their leading role in American intellectual life, to set the terms of permissible discourse, it is impossible in today’s society to have an honest discussion on the subject of Jewish cultural impact. While every other ethnic group can be spoken of in a critical light, if only to a very limited extent, nothing that is even implicitly critical is allowed to be said or inferred about Jews. An opinion poll by the Anti-Defamation League searching for anti-Semitic attitudes in America perfectly captured the prevailing assumptions of what is permissible to say about Jews. If people responding to the poll agreed even with true opinions about Jews, such as that “the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,” the poll considered that to be evidence of anti-Semitism. Using such a broad definition of anti-Semitism, the ADL, unsurprisingly, always finds lots of “anti-Semitism” in America. [ADL National Study, May 1992].

If “anti-Semitism” is to be a meaningful word, and not just a weapon used to frighten people into silence, then its usage must pass the same definitional test we have established for “racism.” Just as behavior must be morally bad if it is to be properly considered racist, so it must be morally bad if it is to be properly considered anti-Semitic. Unless to be impolitic is to be immoral, it is no more anti-Semitic to engage in rational, critical discourse about the role of Jews in American society than it is racist to engage in rational, critical discourse about blacks or Chinese or white Protestants or anyone else.

While this sort of honest discussion may imply a challenge to the political and cultural agendas promoted by Jewish organizations, it does not threaten Jews as individuals or as a community. Notwithstanding the Jews’ own exaggerated fears on this subject, anti-Semitism has steadily declined since World War II. Jews do not face any serious bigotry in this country, except from some black nationalists (who are beyond the reach of Western discourse in any case) and from a tiny, though growing, number of powerless and marginalized whites, some of whom are serious anti-Semites. Indeed, it could be argued that the current increase of anti-Semitism at the margins of white society is to a significant extent driven by the fact that no critical opinions about Jewish influence are ever permitted, even while the role of this tiny minority in American politics and culture keeps waxing spectacularly before everyone’s eyes. To forbid people to remark upon such a remarkable phenomenon does not conduce to mental or social health. It leaves the normal energies of criticism—and even of just plain griping—no outlet except for dark and inarticulate resentment, coded hate messages, conspiracy theories, devil theories, Holocaust denial, and so on.

As sensitive as it is, the subject of Jewish cultural impact is unavoidable in a book that purports to deal with immigration and diversity. The Jews are, and have always been, the archetypal minority. For their entire history since the expulsion of Jewish elites to Babylonia in the early sixth century B.C. (the time when the Israelites first began to be called “Jews”), the Jews have lived as a conspicuous, and intermittently persecuted, minority among non-Jewish majorities. For this reason, many contemporary Jews regard the essence of Jewishness as identification with the Outsider (whoever the Outsider might be), combined with hostility, or at least a deeply questioning attitude, toward the majority culture.

The Eastern European Jews entered America as immigrants whose religion, folkways, and characteristics were alien to those of the historic American population. Although they have made phenomenal contributions to American life in many fields, and assimilated to a far greater extent than some conservatives a hundred years ago could have imagined, the Jews also (as few people recognize, because the subject is forbidden) changed America in some profound and not always positive ways. In terms of national identity, Jews were instrumental in the reformulation of America as a universalist society based strictly on ideology rather than on peoplehood, a change that set the stage for mass Third-World immigration and the much more profound redefinition of America as a multicultural society. In terms of morality, many Jewish intellectuals, writers, and entertainers deliberately undermined the older Anglo-American Victorian ethos, a program of moral/cultural subversion that climaxed in the Sixties counterculture and the dominant nihilist culture of the 1980s and 1990s. In terms of politics, Jews were instrumental in replacing the old American order of Constitutional self-restraint with the statist politics of unrestrained compassion.

Thus, even as Jews more or less successfully adapted to America, America—in redefining itself as universal, in giving up its Anglo-Saxon Christian culture, and in adopting a politics of compassion, adapted to the Jews. The pattern of the Jews’ interaction with the majority culture is a textbook case on the effect of ethnic diversification on a host society.


Jews re-made America

The traditional belief is that all immigrants, regardless of their cultural background and numbers, can be equally well assimilated. But even the Jews, now that they’ve reached a position of unassailable power in American life, admit that this notion is false. As the well-known attorney and law professor Alan Dershowitz writes in his 1991 best-seller Chutzpah:

Jews have been extraordinarily successful in America. We have not melted into anyone else’s pot. Instead, we have reshaped the pot to accommodate our unusual dimensions. In the process we too have reshaped ourselves somewhat to fit into our environment. [Emphasis added.] [pp. 6-7]

In other words, the Jews did not assimilate into America (or, as Dershowitz grudgingly concedes, they only assimilated “somewhat”); rather they “reshaped” America to make it “accommodate our unusual dimensions.”

Dershowitz claims a similar right to redefine Judaism:

I do, therefore, precisely what orthodox religions say you can’t do: I pick and choose—hopefully on some principled basis—among the religious practices and select those with which I wish to comply. It’s my religion, after all, and I don’t see why I can’t be the final arbiter when it comes to its content. [p. 12].

Note the all-consuming narcissism. Judaism is his religion, so he can define it according to his whims—a most convenient philosophy for a man who abandoned his family’s orthodox Judaism but still insists on his total Jewishness. In the same way, America is his country, therefore America is anything he feels like saying it is—a convenient philosophy for a man who is openly hostile to America’s historic civilization. “We need not compromise either our Americanism or our Jewishness,” Dershowitz declares. “Nor can anyone else define our Americanism or our Jewishness for us.” (pp. 4-5.) This, in brief, is chutzpah, which Dershowitz defines as self-assertion and boldness in the face of authority, but which most people regard as unmitigated, brazen arrogance. However defined, it is a quality Dershowitz celebrates in his fellow Jews and urges them to cultivate.

Thus he writes admiringly of David Bazelon, former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, for whom Dershowitz worked as a law clerk:

Judge Bazelon rarely went to synagogue, but he was a Jewish judge in every sense. He saw the world through his Jewish background. His humor was frequently in Yiddish. His speeches referred to the rabbinical literature. He described himself as a secular American with a “Jewish soul.” If a defendant deserved compassion but no writ of habeas corpus—or other formal legal remedy—was technically available to him, Bazelon would wink at me [italics added] and order that I find some ground for issuing a “writ of rachmones.” Rachmones is the Hebrew-Yiddish word for “compassion.”

Bazelon was always an outsider, a questioner, even as one of the most influential jurists of his time. [pp. 58-59].

In this inadvertently devastating portrait, we see the chief judge of America’s second most powerful court busily reshaping Anglo-American Constitutional law according to his Jewish outsider’s sense of compassion, while conspiratorially winking at his young law clerk. Equally revealing is Dershowitz’s tribute to Bazelon and his other mentor, Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg: “[T]heir Jewishness—their rachmones—resonated in me more powerfully than the Jewishness of ritual.” (p. 60). It is clear that these secular Jews, leading architects of the modern omnicompetent state, regard the liberal agenda as an emotionally fulfilling substitute for the religious tradition they have cast aside.

Unfortunately, Dershowitz’s cult of Chutzpah, which we’ve only begun to explore here, cannot be dismissed as an extreme position among American Jews. If anything, the extraordinary popularity of his book and the glowing reviews it received from many quarters of Jewish opinion suggest that his views—particularly his narcissistic claim of a Jewish right to remake America—are representative. Even Ruth Wisse, a harsh critic of Chutzpah, noted with regret that Dershowitz’s outlook seems to resonate deeply among American Jewry. [Ruth Wisse, review, Commentary, September 1991].

Notwithstanding the critical framework of the present discussion, we must always remember that there is a fundamental difference between Jews and other European immigrants, on one hand, and non-Europeans on the other. While the immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe changed American culture in some dramatic ways, America still remained, at bottom, a nation. By contrast, the non-European immigration since 1965 has changed America from a nation into a multiethnic empire. At the same time, we must understand that the cultural changes brought by the turn-of-the-century immigrants and their descendants prepared the ground for the more radical changes that came later.

The Public Schools

The dynamic of diversification, which we’ve discussed at length elsewhere, works as follows. Believing that ethnic differences don’t matter and that discrimination is always wrong, a majority culture that had once excluded a minority begins admitting them. But once the minority group are inside that culture, they proceed to alter its identity. In the case of American Jews, this has applied particularly to the public schools, and to intellectual culture generally. Up to the late nineteenth century, writes historian Naomi W. Cohen, there was broad public consensus that the “United States was a Christian nation whose freedoms rested on Christian precepts.” The public schools were nonsectarian—meaning no distinction was made among Protestant denominations—and included readings from the Protestant Bible and moral Christian teachers along with prayers and holiday exercises. While both Catholics and Jews opposed this religious element in the public schools, the Jewish attitude was more complicated. Jews embraced the public schools because they saw them as the great path to Americanization, yet they also hoped that by entering the public school system they could overturn their Christian customs. The problem was that those Christian customs had always been an organic part of the America that Jews were so eager to join.

Conservative Protestants noticed the contradiction, and resented it. In an 1888 editorial, the New York Tribune said that while it appreciated the value and virtues of “our Hebrew fellow-citizens,”

they should recognize … that the Republic which offers a refuge and the broadest religious freedom to all men, expresses, in so doing, the highest teaching of Christ—the brotherhood of humanity. If it had not done so [the Jews] would have had no foothold here. The United States … is Christian in its foundation, its structure and its development, and none … who have taken refuge here have more reason to thank God for its Christian spirit than the Hebrews. [quoted in Jews in Christian America: The Pursuit of Religious Equality, Naomi W. Cohen (NY: Oxford U. Press, 1992), p. 71].

This counsel was not heeded. Far from being grateful for America’s Christian spirit, the Jewish community resented and feared any manifestation of it—particularly the traditional Christmas observances in the public schools.

The conflict came to a head in 1906. During a Christmas assembly at a predominantly Jewish public school in Brooklyn, the principal engaged in what he probably saw as an appeal to America’s religious and ethical foundation, but which Jews saw as a provocation. Basically, the principal’s offense was that he called on his students to “be more like Christ … taking less and giving more.” New York’s Jewish community erupted. Jewish newspapers called for a student strike to protest Christmas observances, with one paper referring to Jesus as the person because of whom “the Jewish people bathed in blood and tears for 2000 years.” The next day, December 24, 1906, tens of thousands of Jewish children stayed home from school. The strike, which was backed by mainstream as well as Jewish newspapers, was successful. The Morgen Journal triumphantly reported that “the principals and teachers were frightened … and removed from their programs everything that pertained to Christendom.” [Italics added.] Ultimately a compromise was reached. Christmas hymns and assemblies were banned, but Christmas trees and pictures of Santa Clause and recitals of the Lord’s Prayer were allowed. [Leonard Bloom, “A Successful Jewish Boycott of the New York City Public Schools—Christmas 1906,” American Jewish History, December 1980, 180-188].

While the principal’s upholding of Jesus as a moral ideal (without any mention of his theological status), does not exactly rise to the level of pogroms and 25-year conscriptions into the Tsar’s army, I do not criticize New York’s Jews for their resistance to Christian preaching in the public schools. What I am saying is that, given the Jews’ religious differences from Christians, given their memories of persecution by Christians, and given their extraordinary activism and intelligence, the mass entry of Jews into America was destined to have the effect it ultimately had—of delegitimizing public expressions of Christendom in what had previously been a Christian country. Mass immigration and integration of a culturally alien group inevitably weakens the historic culture of the host country.

The culturally transforming effect of Jews on the liberal arts universities was more profound. In a groundbreaking study, Science, Jews, and Secular Culture, Professor David A. Hollinger of the University of California at Berkeley, an outspoken liberal, examines the role Jews have played in the de-Christianizing of American universities and intellectual life. At the end of the nineteenth century, he writes, a generic, trans-denominational Protestantism “was taken for granted by nearly all of the Americans in a position to influence the character of the nation’s major institutions, including those controlling public education, politics, the law, literature, the arts, scholarship, and even science.” Over the course of the twentieth century, the view of America as a Christian nation was replaced by the view of America as a universalist, pluralist society, in which Christianity is but one of several legitimate religions. Two principal factors account for this transformation: The first was the loss of Christian belief on the part of old-stock Protestant intellectuals who had embraced the world view of modern science. The second was the demographic diversification brought about by immigration. These two phenomena, though separate, were linked. As Hollinger explains it, prominent Jewish intellectuals “reinforced the most de-Christianized of the perspectives already current among the Anglo-Protestants,” with Protestant and Jewish intellectuals supporting each other in the secularization project. While WASP intellectuals such as Sinclair Lewis and Randolph Bourne lionized Jewish thinkers for leading the Protestants out of their “provincialism,” Jewish intellectuals such as Felix Frankfurter and Harold J. Laski made Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.—who was both an old-stock American and an atheist and relativist—into an American cultural icon, thus building a secular vision of America upon which secular Protestants and Jews could unite.

At the same time there was still much resistance to Jewish influence at conservative institutions. Jewish students in the 1920s and 1930s were systematically discouraged from going into academic fields involving the transmission of culture, such as philosophy, history, and literature, and were urged instead to enter technical and service fields such as business, engineering, economics, medicine, and law. There were also quotas limiting the number of Jewish students at elite universities. Ernest M. Hopkins, the president of Dartmouth, was frank about the reason for this policy: “Dartmouth is a Christian College founded for the Christianization of its students,” he unapologetically told the New York Post in 1945. Hopkins’s straightforward comment suggests that his views, while controversial, were not considered shameful, but at least reasonable. [“Dartmouth Reveals Anti-Semitic Past,” New York Times, November 11, 1997, A16.]

This situation changed dramatically after World War II, when all boundaries to Jews in the liberal arts were dropped. The Yale College faculty, which had no Jews in 1945, became 18 percent Jewish by the 1970s. A 1969 study found that Jews, who then accounted for three percent of the U.S. population, made up 17 percent of the faculties of the 17 top-ranked universities. During the same period, these universities also became aggressively secular, eliminating Christian symbols and practices (such as obligatory chapel) and discouraging any open profession of Christian belief by faculty members. Hollinger suggests that this secularization was not just due to the general trends of the academic culture, but specifically to the presence of Jewish professors. [“Jewish Intellectuals and the De-Christianization of American Public Culture in the Twentieth Century,” in David A. Hollinger, Science, Jews, and Secular Culture, Princeton University Press, 1996].

Thus the American institution that had been the chief defender and transmitter of the older Protestant culture, not only in terms of an official religious identity, but in terms of manners, literature, a cultured way of life, the ideal of the Christian gentleman, and so on, had become—in no small part because of the entry of Jews—the most secularized institution in America. The elite universities had changed from guardian of the old Western order to its subverter. This transformation in the universities then reverberated through the rest of the culture, stripping America’s public institutions, entertainments, symbols, and manners of the Christian and bourgeois values they had once embodied. America’s transition from a Protestant culture whose public institutions, celebrations, and symbols reflected Christian belief, to a pluralist, secular society with no identity at all, was complete. When the next waves of change came—the Sixties radical left, black power, feminism, and multiculturalism—the universities and other institutions had no remaining cultural identity to defend against the onslaught, which explains why the radical movements triumphed so easily.

Hollinger, himself a secular, liberal Protestant, explains the frankness with which he discusses the Jewish role in secularization by pointing out that he approves of it. Indeed, he barely conceals his pleasure at Christianity’s being pushed aside. In what may be a reflection of our thoroughly radicalized times, some Jewish spokesmen are also acknowledging, without embarrassment, their own anti-Christian agenda. In a letter to the Harvard Magazine, Rabbi Abram Goodman, from the Harvard class of 1924, recalls the Harvard of the 1920s when the enrollment of Jews in Harvard College was strictly limited, and adds: “Now I witness a Harvard that has been thoroughly cleansed and Judaized. [Italics added.] My reaction [is] to recite the ancient Hebrew blessing: Blessed art thou, oh Lord, our God, King of the universe, who has kept us in life and sustained us, and caused us to reach this (happy) occasion.” [Abram Vossen Goodman, Harvard Magazine, September/October 1997, p. 6]. Thus an American Jew in 1997 unselfconsciously boasts of eliminating America’s former Christian culture, describing this elimination in terms (“thoroughly cleansed and Judaized”) not unlike those once used by the Nazis about the Jews. Goodman’s apparent lack of fear that his remarks may provoke anti-Semitism—like Hollinger’s lack of fear of being charged with anti-Semitism—is a signal that the long march of ethnic minorities and the cultural left through America’s institutions has triumphed. Now that their enemies have been scattered and silenced, the left and the minorities can admit that their real agenda all along was not simply inclusion, equality, justice, or tolerance toward Jews and other minorities, but the destruction of the Christian culture.

Even worse, Jewish spokesmen have repeatedly attacked Christian evangelism, if it was directed at Jews, as hateful and anti-Semitic. But to say that evangelism is hateful is to say that Christianity is hateful. We must be frank about the fact that a deep animus against Christianity and Christian culture is found among both religious and secular Jews. Here is Philip Rieff, author of the influential book The Triumph of the Therapeutic, writing in 1972:

I am no advocate of some earlier credal organization. In particular, I have not the slightest affection for the dead church civilization of the West. I am a Jew. No Jew in his right mind can long for some variant of that civilization. Its one enduring quality is its transgressive energy against the Jew of culture… [Italics added.] The gospels were not good news; the ungospelled present has its supremely pleasant feature, the death of the church. [Philip Rieff, “Fellow Teachers,” Salmagundi, no. 20 (Summer-Fall 1972), p. 27; quoted in John Murray Cuddihy, The Ordeal of Civility, p. 172.]

Just as black novelist Toni Morrison believes that the defining trait of white Americans is their hatred of blacks, so Philip Rieff believes that the one enduring quality of Christianity is its anti-Jewishness! For Rieff, Christianity seems to have no meaning or value apart from the harm it does to Jews. But this, in effect, is to deny the collective identity and the subjectivity of Christians.

Similarly, as John Murray Cuddihy writes in his classic study The Ordeal of Civility, Freud felt that basically all gentiles were anti-Semitic, and he interpreted Gentile politeness as nothing but a polite form of anti-Semitism:

This is one root … of the ethnic-specific animus of Freud and Eastern European Jewry generally against Gentile civility: they defined it as a (middle-class) mask concealing anti-Semitism. They defined it as refined anti-Semitism … [The Ordeal of Civility, pp. 78-79.]

Just as nonwhites and white multiculturalists see Western ideals (e.g., individuality and truth) as intrinsically oppressive, earlier Jewish intellectuals saw Gentile ideals (e.g., courtesy and self-control) as intrinsically anti-Semitic. In both instances, reform is impossible. The only way the “oppressive” culture can stop being “oppressive” is to be deprived of its being.

The Jewish role in open borders

The majority culture is deprived of its spiritual being through cultural transformation, and of its physical being through demographic diversification. The latter was the ultimate aim of the American Jewish Committee’s 40-year-long campaign to repeal the 1924 National Quota Act and open America’s borders to the world. Significantly, Jewish immigration reformers of the 1950s and 1960s were no longer concerned with augmenting the number of Jews coming into the U.S., but with increasing all immigrants from non-traditional sources. Their purpose was not to help any particular group; their purpose was to eliminate any sort of preferences for immigrants whom the restrictionists thought would be more assimilable to America’s existing culture. To do this, it was necessary to create a sense of resentment among the America ethnic groups whose fellow ethnics in their home countries were being excluded under the National Quota.

This intention was made clear in an article by immigration historian Oscar Handlin in the July 1952 issue of Commentary, the journal of the American Jewish Committee. In the article, titled “The Immigration Fight Has Only Begun.” Handlin repeatedly complained about the “widespread apathy in sectors of the population that ought to be most actively concerned” about the exclusion of their fellow ethnics by the national quota. The problem from Handlin’s point of view was that most Italians, Poles, and other recent immigrant groups accepted the immigration restrictions, did not feel insulted by them, and did not seem to feel that America was obligated to keep admitting large numbers of their own national-origin group. In other words, the problem was that the white ethnics identified more with America than with their own ethnic group and its chances for further immigration. Literary critic Carol Iannone offers an anecdote about her Catholic high school in the 1960s which seems to confirm this impression:

One day in school we were shown a film about all the immigrants and what they had done for America. The next day our teacher Sister Eustacia said: “What did you think of the film? I didn’t like it. Immigrants! Immigrants! You’d think there wasn’t a whole society here before the immigrants came! Nothing but immigrants.” In our class, many of whom were offspring of immigrants, we were not offended because we knew there was a country here before our families came. And that was totally the ethos.

My father, who immigrated to America in 1923, always talked about how he came here to be an American. It wasn’t what we immigrants have done for America, but how great America was for taking us in. That was the ethos then. [Carol Iannone, conversation with author, 1997].

It was precisely such feelings of gratitude, and even more the lack of a sense of grievance or entitlement, that Handlin wanted to uproot. The key to immigration reform, he argued, was to wake up the mass of contented white ethnics to the real injustice of the existing restrictive laws:

The laws are bad because they rest on the racist assumption that mankind is divided into fixed breeds, biologically and culturally separated from each other, and because, within that framework, they assume that Americans are Anglo-Saxons by origin and ought to remain so. To all other peoples, the laws say that the United States ranks them in terms of their racial proximity to our own “superior” stock; and upon the many, many million of Americans not descended from the Anglo-Saxons, the laws cast a distinct imputation of inferiority.

In other words, as long as there are immigration laws designed to preserve a nation’s historic ethnic majority, then all people not related by blood to that majority are, by that very fact, being categorized as inferiors, making a mockery of America’s democratic pretensions. By Handlin’s logic, moreover, it is not just immigration restrictions that are offensive. If an immigration law that is designed to preserve the nation’s ethnic majority is racist (because it implicitly puts down other groups), then the same must be true of any manifestation of the ethnic majority, including its very existence. After all, if a nation still has an ethnic majority, and a culture that reflects that majority, doesn’t that impute inferiority to all people not related by blood to that majority? Therefore the only way to procure real democracy is to turn the ethnic majority into a minority, which is to be accomplished (and since 1965 has largely been accomplished) by immigration.

Question: Why did Handlin bristle at the supposed second class citizenship of white ethnics, including Italians, but the Italians didn’t? A theory: The Jews feel they can never assimilate, that they will always be outsiders. Since they will always be outsiders, they must valorize the outsider status. Italians by contrast don’t feel like outsiders, and do feel that they can assimilate, so they were not disturbed by the majority’s reduction of Italian immigration in the 1921 and 1924 laws.

In 2000, 48 years after Handlin’s article, Ron Unz wrote in Commentary about the coming nonwhite America and said that the main thing to be concerned about was—no, not what all these non-Western immigrant groups would do to America, but that there might be a white backlash. The problem in Commentary’s eyes was still America’s white majority and what it might do.

The 1965 Immigration Act, the culmination of a forty-year, largely Jewish-led campaign, was not simply a piece of “liberal” legislation (i.e., an act aimed at formal equality) which later turned out to have unforeseen, radical consequences. As early as 1952, the liberal idea of equality before the law was already linked in the minds of Jewish immigrationists with the radical project of dispossessing America’s white, Anglo-Saxon, Christian majority.

Aim is to destroy the majority culture

As was the case with the campaign against Christianity in the public schools, there is a vanishingly thin line between the Jewish desire to be protected from the majority culture, and the Jewish desire to destroy the majority culture. For many Jews, white gentile society, in and of itself, is a threat. Earl Raab, of Brandeis University’s Institute for Jewish Advocacy and a columnist for the Jewish Bulletin, welcomes the prospect of whites becoming a minority in the U.S., because it means that “[w]e have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.” [Earl Raab, Jewish Bulletin, February 19, 1993, 23, quoted by Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation, p. 120.]

We should not ignore the implications of this appalling comment. In Raab’s mind, a white majority, by its very existence, poses a never-ending threat of Nazism. White gentiles, left to themselves, are all potential Nazis. When Patrick Buchanan criticized President Clinton for welcoming the end of America’s “dominant European culture,” New York Post reader Joshua Sohn wrote:

The most tragic events in American history have surrounded the attempted entrenchment of the majority European culture at the expense of non-Europeans. If Mr. Buchanan is right and the dominant European culture … is on the way down, I would like to thank Mr. Clinton for his immigration policy and wish it nothing but success. [Italics added]. [Joshua Sohn, letter to editor, New York Post, July (no date), 1997.]

If any effort to preserve a European majority culture is wicked and harmful, it follows that the European majority culture itself is wicked and harmful. Therefore Sohn applauds its coming demise.

For some Jews, the desire to destroy white society is not based on any perceived threat posed by that society, but on pure animus. When Charles Moore of the London Spectator described how his Muslim neighbors prayed loudly next-door during the Gulf War in 1991, and spoke of his worries of what would happen to England if the number of Muslims kept increasing, an enraged Leon Wieseltier, literary editor of The New Republic, fired off this riposte:

Three cheers, I say, for the neighbors. I hope that they pray noisily, and that they pray five times a day, and that the evening prayer comes just as the Moores and the Mellors and turning to the claret … It is amusing to watch the colonizers complain about being colonized. [The New Republic, January 6, 1992.]

Wieseltier is not exactly shy in his hatred. He mocks an Englishmen’s fears about the survival of English culture. He rejoices at the thought of Englishmen being discomforted, disoriented, and displaced in their own country by Muslims. If anyone is driven by an ethnic animus, surely it is Wieseltier and the many Jews who think and feel as he does.

All of which brings us to a disturbing question which, unfortunately, no honest mind can ignore.

As everyone knows, Jews are deeply interested in their collective survival as a people. This is reflected both in fears that the growing Israeli-Arab population may threaten the Jewish state, and in fears that intermarriage is shrinking American Jewry. In his book Fear or Faith: How Jews Can Survive in Christian America, Elliot Abrams has argued that if Jews don’t want to go extinct, then, when it comes to choosing a mate, Jews must care not just about the contents of a person’s character, but about whether that person is Jewish. Most Jews (and most Christians) take it for granted that these are legitimate concerns. The Jews feel that they have a right to homogeneity and collective survival. But, as we have seen, the Jews deny this same right to white gentiles.

Alan Dershowitz, for example, mercilessly blasts gentiles who excluded Jews from historically gentile institutions. As a Yale law student he discovered that many Wall Street law firms deliberately limited the number of Jews they hired, an experience he describes as

my introduction to the world of bigotry, discrimination, racism, and anti-Semitism called the American bar. Its distinguished leaders—who are still honored by law school scholarships, in paintings in law libraries, and in the mastheads of the great firms—were operating an apartheid-like system of law practice, nearly a decade after Brown v. Board of Education and nearly two decades after the Nuremberg trials. [p.52.]

Yet having equated the social selectivity of old-line Anglo law firms with apartheid and Nazism, Dershowitz describes his own lifestyle as a Yale law student during the period when he was applying for a job in those firms:

I ate only kosher food and therefore could not eat lunch with my classmates in the common dining room. My wife packed me a sandwich each morning and I ate with a few married friends who also brown-bagged it… I was an active participant in the class at Yale Law School, and yet as an Orthodox Jew I remained apart from its social fabric. [p. 57.]

He lived a life apart as a Jew, yet at the same time he expected high-society lawyers to staff their firms with people who couldn’t socialize with them. And he calls them bigots for not wanting to do this!

Dershowitz practices a similarly brazen double standard in his attack on past Ivy League administrators for placing ceilings on the number of Jewish students they admitted in the 1920s:

The “great” men who administered this systematic discrimination today have buildings named after them in Harvard Yard. Their names are honored by students who have no idea that these men were a pack of dishonest bigots unworthy of respect or emulation. Whenever I am asked to speak in any of these buildings, I go out of my way to educate the students about the awful men whose names are memorialized by these edifices… [President A. Lawrence Lowell] should be honored by no one other than the Ku Klux Klan. [Emphases added.] [pp. 69-70.]

While he wants is to make Harvard’s past leaders into non-persons for the sin of preserving the predominantly gentile character of a historically Protestant institution. Dershowitz defends the exclusively Jewish character of Israel. In a debate some years ago with the leftist Noam Chomsky, Dershowitz dismissed Chomsky’s proposal that Israel be made into a half-Jewish, half-Arab state:

“[W]hy do not considerations of self-determination and community control favor two separate states: one Jewish and one Arab? Isn’t it better for people of common background to control their own life, culture, and destiny (if they so choose), than to bring together in an artificial way people who have shown no ability to live united in peace? I confess to not understanding the logic of the proposal, even assuming its good will.” [Chutzpah, p. 199.]

Dershowitz regards Jewish homogeneity is natural, normal, necessary, and unquestionable, while he regards gentile homogeneity as the equivalent of absolute evil. Similarly, he presents a nuanced treatment of the Arab refugee problem, arguing that the departure of Arabs from Israel in 1948 was a minor matter compared to the much worse refugee situations that have occurred in the twentieth century. He concludes (entirely correctly in my opinion) that it is better for the Arab refugees to be relocated in Arab countries that to have them return to their old homes in Israel.

But when it comes to Harvard’s past policy of limiting the number of Jewish in order to maintain that institution’s historic cultural character, Dershowitz cries “bigots” and “awful men” and wants A. Lawrence Lowell’s statue removed from Harvard Yard. The deft moral nuance with which he dealt with the Palestinian refugee problem has vanished into air.

All of the above should make it clear that the Jewish double standard as embodied by Dershowitz is no mere ethnocentric bias. It is a blind, unreasonable, unappeasable force.

It is time to face the uncomfortable truth that this double standard has deep roots in Jewish culture, and in the Jews’ long history as a hated and persecuted people. According to the Talmud, which is followed by Orthodox Jews (and until two centuries ago all European Jews were orthodox), there is no common ethical standard for mankind. The Jewish laws regarding fair and humane behavior only apply to dealings with other Jews, not to dealings with gentiles, or “goyim.” A Jew, for example, is required to desecrate the Sabbath in order to save the life of a Jew. But a Jew is forbidden to desecrate the Sabbath to save the life of a gentile, unless there is a likelihood of the event become known by the gentles and thus endangering the Jews themselves. The key point is that the gentile’s life has no value in itself, but only in relation to the welfare of the Jews. [Tractate Yoma, p. 47.]

This deeply tribalistic mode of thought runs through the Talmud. If a Jew finds an item belonging to a gentile, he may keep it. If a gentile accidentally gives a Jew extra change, the Jew is not required to tell him. If a Jew has been near a dead body, he is contaminated and must be ritually cleansed. But he is not contaminated if the dead person is a goy, because the Torah commandment in this instance refers to “adam,” man, and a goy is not “adam.” As shocking as it may be to realize this, the Orthodox Jews, like many ancient or primitive peoples, only regard members of their own tribe as “man.”

In bringing these disturbing facts to light, I am not suggesting that Jews are consciously following a Talmudic program in their relations with gentiles. The Talmud is strictly followed only by traditional Orthodox Jews, a group which comprises about ten percent of American Jewry and which has no influence in the larger culture. Most modern Jews know nothing about the Talmud and the Talmudic double standard, and believe that Judaism is about universal values. What I am suggesting, however, is that this tribalist code, studied assiduously by the Jews for over two thousand years, has been unconsciously internalized in the Jewish psyche and value system, even among modern Jews who may be entirely unfamiliar with Talmudic teaching. Further, I would suggest that what makes this tribalism so enduring—and so effective in subverting other tribes—is that it sees itself as universal. Ancient Israel was never simply a tribe like others, but a tribe that had been chosen by the Creator of the Universe to bring his truth to mankind. In the same way, modern Jews employ “universalist” ideals to justify what is often a tribal agenda. What else can explain the fact that so many secular Jews, who see themselves as the champions of the “Other,” have no regard for the subjectivity of the Other if the Other is a white Christian? What else can explain the fact that Jews demand homogeneity and group survival for themselves, and deny the same to others?

This pervasive double standard is the heart of the “Jewish problem,” and there is nothing anti-Semitic—i.e. there is nothing immoral—about pointing it out. Just as it is not racist to say that a significant part of the black community has wrong and harmful attitudes which blacks need to amend and which whites should no longer accept, it is not anti-Semitic to say that a significant part of the Jewish community has wrong and harmful attitudes that Jews need to amend and that others should no longer accept.

Why Jews fear America

These insights into the tribalism and the (often unconscious) double standard that lie at the core of the Jewish psyche, including their (unconscious) disregard for the subjectivity of the white gentile, help us understand other Jewish attitudes. In advancing their anti-majoritarian and countercultural agendas, Jews of various political stripes have been driven, not just by peculiarly Jewish ideals, but by peculiarly Jewish fears. Their main fear is that if America defines itself as a nation, and not just as a democratic or capitalist ideology, then the Jews will be excluded from that nation, or at least be forced into second-class status within it. While the fear is understandable given the Jews’ history of persecution and exclusion in the Old World, it is totally unjustified in America.

Consider the belief of Alan Dershowitz and his friends that that the Jews are second class citizens in America and will always remain so:

All of my friends have personally experienced the second class status they feel. They have been passed over for jobs that were given to less qualified non-Jews. They have felt the sting of rejection in some social settings. They see the real America in which they live. [And what is the “real” America—a Klan rally?] They point to the fact that we have never had a Jewish president, vice president, speaker of the House, or chief justice… “How many Jews anchor the national, or even local news?” Carl asks. [Dershowitz, p. 324].

In addition to these preposterous “proofs” of second class status, Dershowitz adduces the “shocking” fact that, despite Martin Luther’s anti-Jewish writings (for which the Protestant churches have apologized), “Luther’s ignoble name is still honored rather than forever cursed by mainstream Protestant churches.” [Emphasis added.] [p. 107.] Apparently, unless the Protestant churches abjure the name of their founder, and thus their very identity, they will still be, in Dershowitz’s view, bigoted. Similarly, he attacks Justice Sandra Day O’Connor for having affirmed that past Supreme Court decisions called America a Christian nation: “Justice O’Connor should be ashamed of herself for aiding and abetting religious bigotry.” [p. 323.] Thus to call America a Christian nation, or even to state the historical fact that America was once called a Christian nation, is “bigotry” in Dershowitz’s mind. Meanwhile, Jews can maintain a distinct Jewish peoplehood in the midst of America and can define America any way they like.

When we hesitate to embrace American nationhood out of fear that it would reduce Jews to second-class citizens, we should recall the Jews’ ongoing indictments of American and Christian “bigotry.” We must take cognizance of the amazing fact that many American Jews see themselves as second-class citizens even today. If they can believe such an absurdity, when they are already the most powerful group for their numbers in the country, then it is safe to conclude that they will always complain that they are second-class citizens, that they will always see America as bigoted and anti-Semitic—until, that is, America ceases to exist as a predominantly white, Christian country.

To take the analysis one step further, one reason many Jews have this ungrateful and ungrounded suspicion of America is that Jews, even patriotic Jews, have never truly identified themselves with America. It isn’t so much that gentiles have excluded them, but that many Jews, even after anti-Semitism (as mild as it was) virtually disappeared from this country following World War II, and even after Jewishness became enshrined at the center of American culture in the 1960s, have continued to see themselves as a people apart. The columnist Richard Cohen once remarked that Jews are like “foreign correspondents” in this country. [Silberman, A Certain People.] In his 1967 memoir, Making It, Norman Podhoretz wrote that until he was in his twenties he never thought of himself as an American, but as a New Yorker. In his later years Podhoretz has spoken of his two loyalties—to his nation (America), and to his people (the Jews). [“A History of Commentary,” 1995.] This sounds very uplifting, until the inference sinks in that Podhoretz does not regard non-Jewish Americans as his people. In effect, he sees America as “one nation, many peoples”—which is, of course, the multiculturalist view of America.

Thus Jews distance themselves from America even as they embrace it. In a testimonial in the New York Times paid for by the American Jewish Committee, a West Point cadet named Avraam Isaacson spoke about “What Being Jewish Means to Me”:

I am heir to two great traditions—Jewish and American—which, in my view, stand for the same basic principles: the building of a more just and equitable society; the importance of caring and compassion; the defense of liberty. That’s why Jews have had a love affair with America. And that’s why I’m proud to be an American Jew and to serve my country.

While this seems terribly patriotic at first glance, there is something forced in Isaacson’s notion of having a “love affair” with America. Patriots don’t normally speak of having a “love affair” with their country. They belong to their country, they are linked to it by ties of history and loyalty and devotion. To declare publicly that you have a love affair with America is to place America outside yourself. In Isaacson’s case, it is to see America as the object of an ideological passion, an object one seeks to possess as the fulfillment of (or rather as the instrument of) one’s left-liberal ideals. While this may be an admirable impulse, it is not the same thing as love of country. It also implies that if America did not practice those left-liberal ideals, then Isaacson wouldn’t love it. But then a love affair by its nature is a temporary thing.

Movie critic Michael Medved made a similarly revealing comment when he was asked by an interviewer why he did not follow his father when his father moved to Israel some years ago. Medved answered: “I believe the future of mankind depends to a tremendous extent on what happens in this country.” [Interview on C-SPAN, Dec 27, 1992.] In other words, Medved chose to stay in America, not because it is his country, but because he sees it as an instrument to help mankind.

Over and over, Jewish-American patriotism seems to be based on some factor extrinsic to America itself. According to a history of neoconservatism written by the editors of Commentary, non-Marxist leftist Jews in the 1940s, the ideological forebears of the neocons, abandoned their former hostility to America (which they had seen as a sterile land of Babbitry) when they saw America’s effectiveness in combating Nazism. This strikes me as an unconscious admission that the neoconservatives don’t love America for itself, they love America because it advances global causes that the neoconservatives support. Similarly, the 1960s radical David Ifshin, who had once given an anti-American broadcast over Radio Hanoi, suddenly converted to pro-Americanism when President Nixon’s arms shipments helped save Israel during the 1973 War. As Eric Breindel put it in an admiring column at the time of Ifshin’s death in 1996, Ifshin had “experienced an awakening: The righteous might of the United States of America was a force for good. In fact, Ifshin had concluded, it was the greatest force for good on earth.” [Eric Breindel, “David Ifshin: 1949-96,” New York Post, May 2, 1996]. Thus Ifshin began to like America because it was a force for “good”—and it was a force for “good” (notice the unconscious narcissism) because it helped Israel. While Ifshin’s new-found affection for America was entirely understandable, I would suggest that it was not the same thing as love of country as that phrase is normally understood.

It must also be admitted that a significant number of American Jews don’t seem to regard America as their country at all. After one of the suicide bombing attacks in Israel in 1995, in which an American girl studying in Israel was killed, other young American Jews told the New York Times why they planned to go back to Israel despite the danger. Matthew Binstock of Mamaroneck, New York said: “It’s Israel. I belong there.” Miss Sivan Gottlieb, also of Mamaroneck, said: It’s my home. It’s my country and I love it. I’m not going to leave.” While these young people are to be admired for their courage and devotion to their country, the inevitable question from an American point of view is: If Israel is their country, what are they doing here? Like many immigrants from Latin America and Asia, some American and Israeli Jews regard the United States as a place to stop off, visit friends, go to school, make some money, or enjoy some R&R, while their real life and loyalties remain centered in their ethnic homeland. [Robert Hanley, “Study in Israel: Shaken Youths, Unshaken Resolve,” New York Times, April 15, 1995, A. 21,22.]

An even more pronounced sense of disengagement from America can be seen in Jewish schools. In Hasidic yeshivas in this country, young Jews learn nothing about American history, lore, and literature; indeed, many American-born Hasids barely learn how to speak and write English. Even in modern Orthodox day schools, the pictures, poems, maps, and displays—everything that symbolizes the collective identity and mythopoetic life of a school—is exclusively about Jews and Israel. America—its history and heroes, its wars and tragedies, its great controversies and accomplishments, its geography and political system—is literally not on the chart.

The Jews are not, of course, alone in this shameful neglect of American identity. Even in mainstream, predominately white gentile schools, the stories and songs and observances that used to connect young people with our nation’s past have been replaced by multiculturalism, feminism, minority rights, consumerism and one-worldism. How can Jewish schools be blamed for failing to transmit a sense of American identity when the American majority has done the same?

The answer is that the Jews played a leading role in stripping the altars of American nationhood. Just as nonwhites have forced racial diversity on formerly all-white, mainstream institutions while maintaining their own, ethnically exclusive organizations, Jews have stripped the public schools of their Christian customs and American national traditions, while maintaining exclusive Jewish schools with Jewish traditions.

Subversion through popular culture

In addition to transforming American ideology and national identity, Jews have also, through their extraordinary influence in entertainment and media, changed the style and soul of American popular culture and manners. This is a vast and complicated subject, and all I can do here is try to suggest a few aspects of it.

Here is one glimpse into this phenomenon. Up to the 1950s, school yearbooks and student newspapers were rather serious affairs, without the smiling photographs and self-mocking humor that began to appear in the late 1950s. Over the course of the 1960s and 1970s, this style of self-mockery and put-down, which had originally percolated into the general culture from Jewish comedians and entertainers, became a dominant feature in the general culture. The harm that was done to the culture, at least in the earlier stages of this process, was not deliberate. The Jews could indulge in in-your-face schtick without harming their culture because it was part of their culture. But its effect on WASPs was quietly devastating. The pop Freudianism of Jewish humor, in which each attitude of the self is immediately exposed as a cover-up for some craven or sexual impulse, has fatally weakened the Anglo-Protestant self, undermining virtues of modesty and self-control, respect for authority, and other values of the older American ethos.

Over and over, Jewish attitudes that had first appeared in mainstream entertainment in the form of harmless comic relief evolved into dominant cultural modes. In 1971, Woody Allen’s brilliant romantic comedy Play it Again Sam, with its insecure, fumbling protagonist, made it socially acceptable for a grown man to be a neurotic. Yet the movie was still basically affirmative, since Allen’s protagonist, despite his angst, nobly gives up the woman he loves, successfully imitating his screen hero Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca. The Jewish neurotic becomes a man by modeling himself after an Anglo-Saxon stoic. But by the 1980s, neurotic, hysterical men (who no longer emulate strong men but resent them) had become an accepted norm, not only in innumerable movies and TV shows, but in life. A sign of the times was the man with the pony tail at the 1992 Presidential debate who asked the candidates: “As our symbolic father figure, what are you going to do to meet our needs?” An even grimmer sign was that none of the candidates, including World War II veteran George Bush, rebuffed the fellow for his infantile remark. Woody Allen’s own descent, both artistic and personal, from off-beat humorist to full-blown, self-absorbed nihilist also reflects this decline.

Up to the early 1960s, Jewish comedians pushed the envelope of bourgeois selfhood without trying to destroy it. They remained loyal to, if at the edges of, middle-class normalcy. But by the 1970s, the comic puncturing of the bourgeois had turned into a deliberate program of subversion. In such programs as MASH, the straight, up-tight, pro-authority characters served as contemptible foils for the irreverent, anti-authoritarian, sexually liberated protagonists. In several of television’s most successful sitcoms over the years, the main object of contempt has been a handsome, mentally defective WASP. What John Murray Cuddihy called the “ethnic-specific animus of Freud and Eastern European Jewry generally against Gentile civility” had moved from the esoteric world of the academic literary culture into the world of mass entertainment.

The anti-WASP campaign has been even more pronounced in drama and suspense genres, where it has also intensified over the decades. In every episode of the 1970s detective series Columbo (written by Steven Bochco, later the producer of such flamboyantly decadent programs as L.A. Law and N.Y.P.D. Blue), the slovenly ethnic hero exposed a cool WASP patrician as a murderer. The ethnic-specific animus, partly concealed as a class animus, remained relatively low key, even humorous; the murder was never performed on camera; and Colombo’s prey remained polite if increasingly irritable, even as Columbo zeroed in on him. But by twenty years later, the anti-WASP animus in film and TV had evolved into a formalized demonology. The cold-hearted, inhuman WASP—the WASP as super-Nazi—has been a regular fixture in one suspense/action movie after another, providing second careers for such middle-aged actors as Donald Sutherland and John Voigt. In the 1994 movie Outbreak, Sutherland plays a top U.S. Army general with an inhumanly cold voice and inhumanly sinister features, who turns out to be the leader of a monstrous conspiracy to kill thousands of American civilians with biological weapons. But never fear: Dustin Hoffman—the Jew now cast as action hero—and his brilliant black sidekick heroically foil the plot. A particularly common device in these movies, reflecting the Jewish-liberal obsession with uncovering WASP evil, is to have an apparent good guy revealed as a villain. Thus handsome, courtly John Voigt, as Tom Cruise’s mentor and friend in Mission Impossible, turns out to be a cold-hearted murderer. Then there are the innumerable made-for-TV movies, most of them written by Jewish women, in which a normal-appearing husband becomes a pathological monster. Indeed, if any character in a drama or suspense movie nowadays seems upright and strong, or is an older authority figure, or is tall, regular-featured, and fair, you can be sure that before long he will be revealed as a devil. Yet this ongoing, ethnic-specific, assault on the white or WASP man, like so many other appalling things in our nihilist society, is never even remarked upon, let alone protested, not even by conservatives (conservatives are only offended by entertainments that are patently pornographic or anti-religious). Imagine how Jews or blacks would react if one big-budget movie after another featured an obvious Jewish or black proxy as a caricature of absolute evil.

The pop-kulturkampf against manhood, against authority, and against the Anglo-Protestant ethos, are all part of the same campaign, largely led and inspired by liberal Jews.

The above discussion, brief and unsatisfactory as it has been, illustrates once again our theme of inclusion leading to destruction. Eastern European Jews, with their discontented, irrepressible temperament, were admitted as equals into a culture that had been formed by Anglo-Saxons and other northern European-origin people, with their pacific, self-controlled temperament. The former outsiders then proceeded to make their own sensibility the center of the culture, while diminishing and demonizing the Anglo-Saxon.

Hoist by their own petard

As they work to dismantle America’s majority culture through mass immigration, diversity, the subversion of mainstream values, and the mainstreaming of countercultural values, those Jews who are waging the Kulturkampt have failed to realize that they are cutting off the civilization they are sitting on. Leftist Jews in particular are dumbfounded when the anti-Westernism they have been promoting recoils back upon themselves. Michael Lerner, for example, has repeatedly portrayed America as an evil oppressor nation—a “social system whose current distribution of wealth and power is based on the stealing of land from the American Indians, the enslavement of Blacks, the degradation of women, and the systematic exploitation of many generations of immigrants,” as he put it in a typical diatribe in his journal Tikkun. Yet elsewhere Lerner has expressed horror at the fact that nonwhite multiculturalists see the Jews as part of this oppressive white system. Blinded by his anti-majority passion, Lerner cannot understand that in contemporary America, where Jews (for their numbers) are the most wealthy and powerful group, nonwhites are hardly likely to see the Jews as an “oppressed” minority like themselves. [“Six Days Shalt Thou Work,” Michael Lerner, Tikkun, Nov/Dec 1993, p. 35.]

Similarly, Professor Susannah Heschel, writing in Tikkun, was shocked that among liberal Germans who are friendly to Jews, there is a broad acceptance of anti-Semitic ideas. It seems that these contemporary Germans view the Old Testament as the fulminating source of contemporary injustices, including Nazism, since the Jewish Bible condones authoritarianism, exclusion, racism, and genocide. But Heschel has it all wrong. She assumes that leftist Germans are asserting anti-Jewish ideas, when in fact they are only repeating the generic anti-Westernism that has been disseminated so effectively by progressive Jews such as Heschel herself. Since Germans have been taught to see the West as hegemonic, warlike, and racist, isn’t it only natural that they would also view one of primary sources of the West—the Hebrew Bible—in exactly the same terms?

While the absence of self-awareness among Jewish leftists is only laughable, the blindness of the mainstream Jewish community is a serious matter. In their tireless campaign for mass immigration and cultural diversity—motivated by conscious or unconscious hostility to the white Christian majority—Jews are helping destroy the very way of life that made a happy Jewish existence in this country possible. Despite some anti-Jewish prejudice and social exclusions in the early twentieth century, Jews found in America a stable environment where they were protected, where they prospered, and where they felt fully comfortable for the first time in two thousand years. That environment was a white society with a Christian religion and an Anglo-Saxon code of conduct. As America becomes nonwhite and non-Western, will that code, and those protections, endure? As Alan Mittleman argues,

The breakdown of a common culture and the drift toward multiculturalism, which Jews support, pose real hazards for American Jews, because they weaken the citizenship on which Jewish participation in modern society is based… If people revert to more primordial forms of belonging, civil society will dissolve and American Jews might find themselves in what the prophet Ezekiel called a midbar hammim, a wilderness of the peoples. This would be a nightmarish denouement. [Alan L. Mittleman, “Jews in Multicultural America,” First Things, December 1996, p. 17.]

One notable feature of this coming “wilderness of peoples,” in which Jews will lose all security, is the black racialism that is rising as the dominant white culture declines. In the lawless Third-World America of the coming century, do Jews think they will be able to count on Dominicans and Chinese and Arabs and Mexicans to protect them from black anti-Semites?

Another prospect emerging from the wilderness of peoples will be an upsurge of anti-Semitism among marginalized whites, many of whom will blame the Jews (not without cause) for the ruin of white civilization. Having acted all along on the ludicrous and hostile assumption that the white American majority is a potential neo-Nazi force that must be dispossessed, Jews will hardly be in a position to complain about real anti-Semitism when it appears among whites who have actually been dispossessed.

In failing to consider these possibilities, pro-immigration Jews are as unthinking as pro-immigration blacks. Both blacks and Jews support a policy that is leading to the end of white America, even though that will remove from power the only group that has a cultural bond or moral obligation to them. In the case of both blacks and Jews, a combination of ethnic Ãclan, anti-majority resentment, and old-fashioned will to power are blinding them to their true, long-range interests.


How to oppose the Jewish agenda without anti-Semitism

Even though Jews will ultimately benefit from a politics of white self-defense, such a politics necessarily means opposing the current Jewish agenda and power structure, and therefore will inevitably provoke false charges of anti-Semitism. However, it also involves the possibility of sparking real anti-Semitism. To prevent that from happening, we must provide a moral framework in which to place this issue, a framework that applies not just to Jews but to all groups and all human beings.

The classical philosophers taught the virtue of sophrosyne, or temperance, by which the respective parts of man’s being or of society restrain themselves to their proper tasks and function harmoniously within the whole. In terms of minority-majority relations, this was the situation that obtained in America in the pre-Sixties period, when minorities happily accepted the fact that they were minorities and deferred to the majority culture. But in the post-War period, culminating in the Sixties, American Jews came into their own. Jewish writers and intellectuals were celebrated as exemplary Americans, their ideas and obsessions no longer seen so much as Jewish as simply American. Jewishness lost its otherness and was planted at the center of American politics and culture. Jews became fully “comfortable” in America for the first time, free to “be themselves.” While there were positive aspects to this development, the down side was that the Jews became too comfortable, and fell into the egoism and arrogance to which all human nature is subject. Judge Bazelon’s winking request to his law clerks to come up with a “writ of rachmones” in place of U.S. Constitutional law is an example of such arrogance. Of course, in Allan Dershowitz’s view, not having to worry about what the goyim think is the mark of first-class Jewish citizenship. Yet, as we can see in Bazelon’s case, the practical result of being free of that worry was that the Jews began to treat their own ideas and sensibility—the Jewish sense of righteousness, the extravagant Jewish concern for the underdog, and the age-old Jewish resentment against the white Christian majority—as the model for all society. Thus a tiny minority began to act as though it were the majority, subject to no law outside itself. In this manner, a polity governed by sophrosyne was replaced by a polity governed by chutzpah.

The problem is not the Jewish sensibility. The Jewish sensibility has its own integrity and its own value as a minority perspective within Western civilization. The problem is that the Jews, in the absence of healthy majority resistance, have virtually made their sensibility the ruling sensibility of America. The problem is not Jews or Jewish characteristics or Jewish culture or even “Jewish influence.” The problem is the excess of Jewish influence which has manifested simultaneously with, and has been a principal contributing factor to, the spiritual collapse of America’s former majority culture.

What is needed, then, is not an attack on Jews but rather a counterforce to excessive Jewish influence. Just as a child becomes spoiled if its parents automatically yield to its whims, so a minority group becomes spoiled if it faces no counterforce from the larger society. Jews face no such counterforce, being literally the only group in America about whom nothing critical can be safely said. (Note added in 2013: While this statement was true up to ten or twenty years ago. it no longer is true, because with the ever-increasing abasement of white America before blacks, nothing critical may be safely said anymore of blacks.) When Ben Wattenberg effuses dythrambically about America’s becoming a Universal Nation; when Julian Simon brags about getting tears in his eyes when he tells people about America’s new immigrant groups; when Abe Rosenthal calls for ticker tape parades for illegal aliens and declares his solidarity with illegal aliens against the Border Patrol; or when Allan Dershowitz, after attacking as “awful men” and “bigots” the honorable men who sought to preserve America’s historic Anglo-Protestant culture and identity and insists on the right of Jews to maintain a collective Jewish culture and identity, we need to understand that Wattenberg, Simon, Rosenthal, and Dershowitz are not simply putting forth false and harmful sentiments—they are putting forth prototypical Jewish sentiments, and anointing them as the governing principles of America. To seek to transform America into a Messianic project, to identify with the Other (whoever the Other may be) at the expense of the native majority, to deny to the native majority its ethnic identity while indulging in one’s own ethnic identity—this is not just a bad agenda, it is a Jewish agenda, and it is entirely moral for citizens of a free country to criticize it as such. Just as it is not racist to oppose a Hispanic or black or Asian agenda that weakens America, so it is not anti-Semitic to oppose a Jewish agenda that weakens America.

The moral and civilized solution to the Jewish problem is the same as it is for all minority and immigrant groups. Minorities must realize that they are minorities. Immigrants must realize they are not running things. There used to be a majoritarian force of resistance against immigrants, telling them they had to defer to the rules of the majority culture if they wanted to be accepted as full members in it. But with the advent of mass nonwhite immigration and other cultural upheavals, that opposing force has been taken away. Now even brand-new immigrants are openly contemptuous of America. Their American-raised children are worse. Immigrant college students deny there is such a thing as an American culture to which the owe deference. The same loss of deference is seen among some Catholic immigration advocates, who openly seek to use mass immigration to turn America into a Catholic country. The same has been true of blacks, who instead of having to pay deference to the standards of white majority, now have whites pay endless deference to them—with the resulting unleashing of an exaggerated sense of black entitlement, of immorality, violence, racialist juries, and all the rest of it. And the same is true of Jews, who, no longer facing any resistance from the majority, feel that their sentiments, their extravagant humanitarianism, their contempt for authority, deference, and restraint, and most of all their animus against the white gentile culture, must be the model for all society.

There is no question here of an enforced conformity. People in this country are free to identify with America’s historic culture to whatever degree they like. Jews and other minorities have the right to maintain their ethnic identity and promote their ethnic interests. But if they choose to do so, then they should also accept the proper consequence of that choice—which is that their sentiments and policy preferences will seen as those of a minority, not as authoritative for the country as a whole. If America is to be restored as a nation, we must put to an end the pious fraud we have practiced since the 1960s, of simultaneously granting ethnic minorities the right to assert their distinct identity, and the right to speak for America as a whole, in which capacity they have stripped America of its identity.

Published in: on March 14, 2013 at 3:38 pm  Comments Off on Auster’s unpublished chapter  

Linder’s Weltanschauung

“Why so hard!”—said to the diamond one day the charcoal; “are we then not near relatives?”—

Why so soft? O my brethren; thus do I ask you: are ye then not—my brethren?

Why so soft, so submissive and yielding? Why is there so much negation and abnegation in your hearts? Why is there so little fate in your looks?

And if ye will not be fates and inexorable ones, how can ye one day—conquer with me?

And if your hardness will not glance and cut and chip to pieces, how can ye one day—create with me?

For the creators are hard. And blessedness must it seem to you to press your hand upon millenniums as upon wax,—

—Blessedness to write upon the will of millenniums as upon brass,—harder than brass, nobler than brass. Entirely hard is only the noblest.

This new table, O my brethren, put I up over you: Become hard!—

Thus spake Zarathustra



It is a pity that Alex Linder believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories, the subject of my previous entries, because his brutal honesty is so brilliant… Although he is not a Nazi, Linder is surely right by constantly quoting Hitler that the world is not for cowardly peoples—read: conservatives—. If whites are to survive we must become as hard as diamonds, as Nietzsche put it in his most poetic work.

Below I excerpted to a little more than ten thousand words the substance of what Linder recently said in an extremely long thread at Majority Rights, including a few quotations and full responses from those who didn’t agree with him (no ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs):




The solution is not to mix and mingle with conservatives, as politically naive MacDonald imagines, but to separate from them and attack them. It is an incredible political mistake to tolerate Jared Taylor or any of his mini-mes in the White movement. That’s how the conservatives got coopted.

Having it both ways, which is the real subtitle of the Alt-right crowd, never has worked and never will work. Sam Francis’ career is proof.

The right way to go is define who we are, who’s our enemy, and keep the line indelible. Then attack the conservatives, polarize the nation until White and jews are seen as the only true and real political divide, and then fight it out until we win.

Anything Southern, christian, or conservative is a non-starter. These groups have all proven their utter incompetence to do anything but sit down and go backwards.

Attack the conservatives, don’t fawn after them—that’s the idea that will bear sweet, sweet fruit.

* * *

We must be a jealous cause, and destroy all competitors. And our only competitors are on the right. Once they’re gone, we’re ready for the big time—the jews. Well, in reality we fight both fronts simultaneously, but the fight that matters most first is against the fake opposition on the right—the professional conservatives.

* * *

If you disagree with my political argument that jews should be exterminated, as it is the only way to solve the threat they have presented to the White race for over 2,000 years, then make that case directly rather than attempting to character-assassinate me.

* * *

The spiritual universalism in christ-insanity and the political universalism in the Enlightenment are both examples of hubris.

The last thing we need is more politeness, more gentlemen, more codespeaking male swells with soft hands and gentle words. These are the men who will regain us our White sovereignty? The South isn’t ideological or fanatical?

Quite right. And that lack of impersonal, principled ideological fanaticism is precisely why it loses.

Fanatical ideology requires brains, dedication, perseverance, unwillingness to give up—the sort of thing we see in winners, not Southerners. Southern culture can be called conservative, but another word for conservative is just plain dumb. You believe what you’re told. You go to church. You respect authority. You know your place. The South doesn’t even have the brains to see that eventually demographic decline will insure there are no whites left in the South, and that means no South. Naw, suh, we got ouah niggers under control. The hell you do.

Fanatical dedication and ideological rigor are sine qua non in defeating the jew. And you can’t get those qualities at Piggly Wiggly.

* * *

What if we had a party called the Racist Party? What if every one of us were a member? What if we mass attacked the right, especially the paleoconservatives and the WHINOs? We attacked Buchanan and the rest of these jew-bought or jew-feared clowns with intent to destroy? We attacked Jared Taylor and the others traitors who sold out to the jews? We attacked the conservatives in the Tea Party for being weaklings, and we attacked Ron Paul for cowardly running away from his own words in his newsletter?

What do you think would happen? If we all did. Me. You all here. MacDonald. Johnson. Everybody out there who wanted in.

What if we forced every last excuse-maker to come down finally on side or the other. Are you a racialist or a religionist? A racialist or a regionist? A racialist or a Republican? Which is it. Make a choice?

What if we actually meant what we’re saying, and proved that by our verbal actions (to set the very first, very lowest standard)?

Soon enough we would have a reputation; I think we would run through the weak right like butter. We’d be well on the way to a serious polarization between the judeo-left and the mean-itz whites.

I repeat again: What if we actually meant what we said about race? And didn’t make excuses for people couldn’t / wouldn’t / shouldn’t say wht needed to be said? At some point, there is no more equivocation possible. Look how free you all are with the attempted character-assassination of the tiny minority who aren’t using fake names. Do you honestly believe you aren’t worms—those of you who aren’t veiled antis, head cases or undercover cops?

I have never in my life seen such a collection of excuse-makers as the race crowd. Edwards is a fangirl; Spencer and Taylor are shirtfronts. There is nothing serious there. Serious men would laugh a clown like Buchanan off the stage, not brag about getting him on their radio show.

Racialism is not ready for prime time, and it never will be until it learns to see professional conservatives as the enemy rather than as movie stars.

* * *

The Jews are playing for millennia. They’ve defeated all of their enemies.

Bingo. We have a winner. The jews enemies aren’t defeated, they no longer exist. They’re extinct.

And they’re working on the same for us. But oh no, we must never even hint at the same for them. That’s crazy talk!

You kiddie-clowns, not one of you with the balls to run your lies under real names while yapping about me being abnormal, many of you with more personas than sybil, not a friggin’ clue in the world who you actually are or what you believe, would, if you had any integrity, meet my “death to the jews” head on.

It is my considered intellectual opinion, formed on the basis of close reading (and as deep thought as I can muster) of E. Michael Jones’ two giant tomes about jewish radicalism and 2,000 years of jew-goy relations. I believe it’s the only rational conclusion an honest man studying the material can come to. As such, it simply must be put on the table. Our cause is that serious. The funny thing here is at least two of you jokers actually were literal nazis, or adopted that persona, whereas I myself have never been such. Nowhere is there a picture of me, as there is of Duke, wearing Nazi gear, because I’m not one. I believe in a racial dictatorship combined with a diversity of microstates, and I would prefer to in the most libertarian one that can be devised. And that has been my position from day one: racial dictatorship + decentralization for non-racial matters.

Who is serious here, me or you?

The answer is obvious.

* * *

Linder’s Strategy: Attack the Conservatives.

This is the struggle against the struggle for survival. It’s Jewish. It’s Satanic. It’s spiritual poison. Any race of people who endorse it will die.

All christians are spirit-queers. Homosexuals of the spirit, if not the flesh. Of course, many of them are flesh queers too, especially the priests.

If the Jewish method is to kill us while lying that they love us, wouldn’t the Aryan response be to kill them while admitting we hate them?

Exactly. It’s a little thing called style.

Nothing Is More Moral Than Race War. Nature demands it, and any subspecies that is unfit to acknowledge that demand will rightfully be erased from the pages of history.

I’ve never understood why WN [white nationalists] who remain stupid christians don’t pick up on this and run with it.

An Aryan baby… Naive, naked, defenseless—that is the Christian ideal itself. Lest ye be as children and all that.

That’s why the jews always win.

Christian “love” is a disorder, and our social order today reflects that disorder.

They are System conservatives—our enemy, not our ally, not us. Buchanan, their holy figure, is not us. The idea that I have to tell racialists that a Catholic who believes racialism is immoral and selects a female black for his running partners is in fact not a White nationalists is past irony, isn’t it? But I sure do have to, don’t I?

I’m calling into question here that people traditionally thought to be on our side are not on our side, and that bothers people because they 1) haven’t thought about it; 2) don’t like me; 3) do like the people I say aren’t us. It’s all just personal touchy-feely stuff, with no one seeing any need to be clear and precise and ideological.

Is it not evident after 100 years of failure that conservatism cannot defend our race?

How did Buchanan treat Duke? Just like the jews did at the AmRen conference—he attacked him.

Are we on the same side as Buchanan?

No. We are not.

Linder apparently defines anybody who fails to be anti-Jew as a potential target and anybody who fails to be pro-White as a potential target.

Quite right. You polarize by forcing people to choose. And you make the split one you can win on.

You like fags? jews? multicult? niggers? mexicans? bureaucrats? warmongering? minority welfare? hip-hop? drive-bys? abortions?—then side with the judeo-left.

You like white people? normal sex? self-control? minding our own business internationally? low taxes? —then vote for the White Party.

The media will always back even a Buchanan over the real thing (Duke). The System will sustain itself by protecting itself, and gelded conservatives, to be redundant, are every bit as much a part of the White-oppressive System as nigger welfare recipients and jewish warmongers.

Buchanan is the bushel over our White light. Get the right-wing conservatives out of the way, then suddenly Whites are the option to the hated judeo-left. Then we’re getting somewhere. Because unlike the Buchanans, we actually mean what we say.

The point is, if we think like this, we know exactly who our enemies are, and we know how to attack them (as fakes, liars, opportunists and career girls). We must drive the can’t-say-thats and the don’t-mean-its off the world stage and make way for Whites.

Look Matt, if I may. If there’s one fundamental characteristic of the right, it’s weakness. The way we treat the gelded right is simple: we just bulldoze them.

It is always a mistake to “appeal” to weak people. Rather you overawe them into submission. You “appeal” to their natural gutlessness by bulldozing them. And what the hell? Let their fear lead where our minds have already gone. We’re right. They just need to shut up and get on board. They can figure out why we’re right later, like an abducted bride.

It will move thru the rest like butter. It will attract a hell of a lot to its side, and scare the rest into submission. Strong men and the right strategy will get us what we want. Right now we’re lacking strong men. We have lot of smart men, but most of them, still, are confused. I write to clarify things for these smart, confused men.

This sort of polarization both imperils Race Realism’s utility as a gateway and squanders resources which could be invested in more useful attacks on neocons.

You wouldn’t have to attack neocons if you were an honest White rather than playing around with faggotry like “Alt-right.”

I actually believe if you could get a charismatic veteran with hundreds of troops willing to kill and die for the cause, and you pursued the strategy above, you would attract millions, as the Tea Party has.

Radical separation from conservatism is the only way that can work. We must be jealous. You’re either with us, fully, or you’re our hated enemy.

Isn’t it funny? Even we supposed hard-core “Nazis” are at bottom just a bunch of pussies. We can’t even separate verbally, rhetorically and politically from the limpdick right. If X believes jews are whites, that’s cool man. If Y believes, well, no jews aren’t white, but we can still be friends and party together, that’s cool too, man. In fact the only thing that’s not cool is someone insisting that, yes, it really does matter whom we consider our friend, and whom our enemy. He’s the bad guy, for crissakes. My god. It’s not like we don’t have 100 years of conservative failure and 20 years of Nazi success in Germany staring us right in the face. That doesn’t mean we have to be nazis or call ourselves nazis, just that we ought to copy their techniques in dealing with jews where we can, since the jews used the same techniques yesterday against Germans they use against Americans and Europeans today.

It is pathetic that I need to explain this. But no, no, what and who individuals “like” is all that matters. If it feels good, do it. Bunch of hippies, we are. Where has this brainlessness ever led? Nowhere. Why not try something different from what traditional conservatism has offered, since traditional conservatism has 100% record of failure? Why not step outside the box and try something truly radical? Something principled and ideological, instead of mushy and personal? My god, it might actually work.

And that begins by identifying who we are and who is the enemy, and what we demand. Otherwise the vehicle will be taken over by jews we took in as allies and they will redirect it to their racial destination.

The topic of “why white nationalism has no decent political representatives” is worthy of an entire essay itself. (Short answer—whites are not allowed to organize themselves racially. It is de facto illegal. The recent AmRen conference is yet another example of this.)

You got it, Sam. And then when those who soft-pedal or abandon jew-crit are able to pull off events without problems, it strengthens the “we’re doing it to ourselves” lie—and it strengthens the belief that letting jews into our politics is the right way to go.

But really, party politics is not what to worry about right now—defining ourselves, our vehicle, and attracting support from men with guns willing to use them is where we should begin.

If voting is all that matters, then would have already won. Indeed, we never would have lost. Brown vs Board wasn’t voted in, it was reverse-interpreted. All these votes from Alabama to Indiana to Arizona re illegals are voted exactly the way WN would have them voted. And judges just throw the ruling out.

The enemy doesn’t follow the law. But we Whites are so weak we pretend the enemy’s ignoring the written rules means we just need to work harder appealing to people who already voted for what we want! Get a clue, Leon [Haller]!

Until we have the ability to punch back, we’re just going to keep getting punched. That’s where we are. Voting has almost nothing to do with it. We win more votes than we lose, if you look back over 50 years, yet only the enemy’s agenda is ever enacted—never ours.

Now what does that tell you, bright boys?

We need a Hitler. What we have are Mississippi Leghounds, Virginia jew-fellators. Instead of the veterans of the SA we have Buchanan’s all-male drill team. “Pat! Pat! He’s our man! If he can’t do it, Jared can!”

* * *

I personally find it more thrilling to be part of the line descended from the original creature with blue eyes than the crank all-in-all you find in the bible. The bible is just crappy jewish historical and science fiction; the anthropology stuff, the being part of an eternal physical chain, that to me is the thrill. I get the same christabel matthews thrill up my leg that the japanese do when they see a round blue eye. They could give two shits about our sad and stupid faith in the bible; they want our eyes! And when I look in my relatives’ eyes, which are all blue, I see what they mean.

Only a sicko like a catholic could think that the transient thoughts running through our heads matter more than the blonde hair and blue eyes—by which I mean the heads themselves. It just rasps their vanity that what we are matters more than what we think. (I mean no nordicism, just using what is most physically distinctive about our race, at least in terms of color.)

You all can cry and cavil till the last chili bean is farted back to jebus, but it won’t change the fact that christ-insanity has not a goddam fucking thing to do with our race except give it an upset stomach from too many sleeping pills.

* * *

It was one of the two most instructive moments in US political history in the last 30 years, the other being the reaction to Duke’s senate campaign, with all parties and media joining up to defeat him.

Within one 24-hour cycle the Republicans went from praising Buchanan for his “Culture Wars” speech to blasting him and running away from it. Complete flip. Why?

Because the kikes had the fuck scared out of them by this very, very modest approach on the castle they live in. Buchs ever so barely feigned at lifting the cover on the real thing underneath, because he is so skilled with words, and because there is a hell of a lot of white hot justified racial anger, you could see hear and feel the boil underneath. The forces waiting, just begging, to be tapped. You could just see what a real man like Hitler could have done with it.

That whole speech and reaction is worthy of a book.

But no, little glibster, I have always said Buchanan is not one of us. He is a catholic. Not a racialist.

Treating Buchanan with respect is treating our cause and ourselves with disrespect. He always sides with the more powerful authority.

* * *

No one’s scared of men who are rational and reasonable. They’re scared of Charles Manson.

Reason is for boys; emotion is for men. Academics fear emotion because it’s not part of their world.

Real politics has nothing to do with reason, it’s in the marrow—the fear and the thrill.

Like I said, just imagine what a Hitler would have done in Buchanan’s place. That’s the distance between a man and a Catholic; between a man and a conservative.

A very lean and ideologically rigorous national organization is instantiated with the purpose of providing local workshops with the strategies and resources they need to succeed. These workshops will focus on pursuing two distinct goals: evangelizing potential activists with our undiluted message and engaging the surface area of state and local politics to promote the White agenda. Our message to “the masses” is that we are their most dedicated, reliable, and effective advocates. We do not lie or equivocate on our core ideology, but our interface with the masses and the political process will be one of goal-oriented Plunkittry.

Our historical moment will arrive in the form of a Legitimacy Crisis. WLP [William l. Pierce], GLR [George Lincoln Rockwell], and Metzger weren’t buffoons (though I would quibble about their methods). They were torchbearers who carried our cause through its darkest decades.

At that point, a polarization strategy will be necessary in order to assure that imposters and showmen (like Sarah Palin and Donald Trump) don’t usurp our political capital.

My god. There’s actually some thinking in this, altho I’d like to see exactly what your ideology is. Ok, Parrott. I’m granting you provisional respect (pardon my Haller impression). Christ, you sound like an American national socialist with some Winterhilfe / hamas-type ideas.

Is there a Parrott primer where you’ve expounded all this to the limit? I vaguely know you have some Hoosier thing.

Anyway, thanks for laying that out.

* * *

We need fighters. Lots and lots of fighters. Without physical force on our side, we have nothing real to rely on. What did the man say? The truth is neato, but without a sword it can’t do much.

Hitler: The mass, the people, to me is a woman… Someone who does not understand the intrinsically feminine character of the mass will never be an effective speaker. Ask yourself what does a woman expect from a man? Clearness, decision, power, action…

For when a people is not willing or able to fight for its existence, Providence in its eternal justice has decreed that people’s end.

The world is not for cowardly peoples.

Conservatives are simply cowards. This is the reality of the situation, described by George Lincoln Rockwell:

As long as the right-wing confines its fighting to being “nice”, the great masses of the public will bow down like the sheep they are to the left-wing which is not nice. The force is disguised, of course, in checkbooks, judges’ robes, rigged party conventions, etc., but it is still force or the threat of it which has America down and afraid. No amount of papers and pamphlets, were they all masterpieces of propaganda, and no amount of talk and meetings can stop this growing left-wing force and power, and the fear it inspires—much less drive it back and destroy it.

See the Rockwell quote above. The left wins by intimidation. Not by legal or rational means. And our “best” minds are out there doing what? Trying to influence the Republican Party. This is not leadership. This is not serious politics. It is kibitzing. Womanly, effeminate. Remember what the real leader, Hitler, said: the masses are like women.

How can Hitler be a better analyst of our times than we are if he’s not right? How can a man writing in ’30s Europe be a better analyst of 2011 America than we are unless he has nailed something essential that persists through time and across place?

This guy nailed it. It is clear as a bell. Anyone who has dealt in nationalist and conservative circles for even just a few months can see exactly what he’s talking about.

Isn’t that humiliating? But is it not true? Is he not demonstrably and observably right in what he says about revolutions, jews, bourgeois conservatives, the way to conduct meetings, and the rest? My god, we see it carried out before our eyes every single day of the year.

Conservatism has no solutions because conservatives are self-interested, self-protecting cowards. They are the upper-middle-class bourgeoisie. They provide good writers, and quality entertainment, that’s all. They are respectable, responsible, appropriate—and there it ends. They will never, ever, ever condescend to actually fight over anything because… that’s not what they do. Only crude proles are low enough to actually say what they mean and bust knuckles over it. Not us turtleneck-wearing, hair-fixing better-thans. As a class, these bourgeois conservatives are, in relation to our racial cause, summer patriots. They’ll join the White cause when it’s 99% of the way to victory, and nod to themselves that they were with us all along. It’s just how they are. There is no leadership in them, just fundraising for more of the same kind of political entertainment they prefer—Vdare is a good example.

Trust me, guys. We get a party, a national party, do activism around hush crimes, and attack the conservatives like Buchanan with all our might, in very short order we will become a known force on the national scene; we will attract more support than we can handle, and we will drive the fake right out of the field, leaving us racialists alone speaking for White normalcy, with the cowardservatives either shutting their whineholes or joining us. Normal white people have supported Republicans and conservatives who didn’t mean it for decades. Do you think they’ll be less enthusiastic about supporting Whites who do mean it? You ever see the pictures of people when Hitler came to town… riding open in a car?

“The only thing that gives orders in this world is balls.” —Tony Montana. It’s true. You know it’s true. Our cause has failed because we lack balls.

Just look up and down this thread at all the bitching, whining anonymous faggots, and then ask yourself why the jews are running things. Not hard to see, is it? The jews have balls. Big fucking balls. Lie-about-anything, fuck-anything-up balls. Our “best” men are scared even to mention what’s going even among ourselves, where there’s most need to be serious.

No, no, let’s retreat to the fantasy where we’re going to argue our way to victory… by rational persuasion!

Dreamworld, man. Pure fantasy.

I’ve opened thousands of pieces of mail from people writing into conservative magazines; I know how they think. They will take our leadership, whether we are nazis or white nationalists, just as they now accept the leadership of neoconservative jews. The masses are feminine, they can do nothing but follow. The only question is whether we are masculine enough to lead. Taylor, Spencer, MacDonald and like conservatives are not. Not me saying that, or, not just me saying that, it’s Hitler and Goebbels, men who proved it in the field.

* * *

Why do you think I’m typing here? Because there are smart people here, and I want to influence them to see things the right way. Without a very large number of people all pushing the same way, nothing gets done. Just, as Goebbels said, “piecework” that is easily destroyed by the enemy any time he desires to. But if you have that group of people, all vitally committed, and on the same page ideologically, then you have a real shark pack that can take out the enemy.

It’s good to be a divisive asshole right now. Because it destroys the illusion we’re united. Our cause must be a jealous cause. It must destroy all competitors. Why are we putting eyes on Itz Pat’s pages, and pelf in his pocket? Is he us? Then why are we making excuses for him? He’s our enemy. Our competitor. And all you guys can say, à la Spade in Tommy Boy, is “mmyeh, he seems nice.” Grow up, you fruits. This woman is eating our lunch, and we’re fetching him a beer and asking for an autograph. Christ, I can find garden slugs that understand politics better than 2/3 of you.

We think that liking someone = us being on same side. It’s a female way of understanding the world, and boy is it ineffective.

Consistency is what attracts serious men—it is what made me curl my lip at professional conservatism and drew me to William Pierce. He didn’t change his position to fit the tides.

Let’s get serious… with the agenda written in stone. Let’s take the world and make it our own.

Southern types… They simply aren’t smart or quick enough to do battle with jews. Indeed, it is the hardest thing in the world to teach a Southerner basic facts about anything. It honestly is about one degree easier than teaching math to a nigger. A few of the lawyers can get it; beyond that the South is intellectually inert. But that’s ok. Our problem now is getting physical fighters, not thinkers and yappers. Southerners like the military. We don’t need mouths from the South, we need fighters. The problem in the North is the opposite: you get the bourgeois pantywaists.

So we rile, roil, and rhubarb until one tendency wins out. It’s going to be mine. Not because I advocate it but because it’s right.

But yeah. In our racial state, of course, anyone trying to disrupt the racial basis of the state, or profit by undermining it, will be executed. There will be few jails. There will be only some second chances and no thirds.

I don’t mind if people want to live as Catholic delusionals. We can’t be that liberal on race because other whites’ desire to live with or among muds does affect all of us in ways we, at least, are not willing tolerate. As for me, I’m not even willing to live in a white welfare state, I’d fight over that too. I’m going to live in the most libertarian microstate possible.

* * *

If you read the Patrick Casey article at Alt-right, Casey depicted Sobran as literally sobbing over the death of Irving Kristol. Even though Sobran himself and his family were essentially made homeless and impoverished due to the actions of the Kristols and the other vicious, hate-filled neocon jews who got him fired.

I guess that’s loving your enemy. I guess it’s fair to say Sobran stayed true to his principles. “Some principles” is the only way a rational man would respond. But every christian gets to be a heroic mini-me jesus in one way or another, I guess.

From where I sit, Sobran just looks weak as hell. Is loving your enemies really an improvement on hating and fighting them? I don’t think so. I actually think a fair deal less of Sobran, as a man, after reading the article, which I’m sure was not Casey’s intention at all.

Christ-insanity is not conservative, it is liberalism itself.

How funny is it that the tryhards on the pallid right defend endlessly “what joe calls” the local and traditional, yet when it comes to religion, why, no local and traditional gods for them!, no siree. They go big, when it comes to gods, by god. They go general. Catholic. Universal. And the contradiction never even makes an appearance in their waking consciousness.

Christianity is not conservative, christianity is universal—abstract, liberal, ideological. That makes it intrinsically anti-White, because it forbids the spiritual aspect, as well as the racial aspect, of Whiteness from being identified, which in turn prevents it from being preserved.


Posted by Trainspotter:

Anon/uh: “In other words two impossible conquest scenarios. Expulsion is extermination-lite. (Trainspotter, I am not ‘attacking’ you here.) Some guys just can’t accept that their bargaining terms are too high.”

Equating things as disparate as total world conquest / extermination with the establishment of a White Republic is silly, not to mention harmful. That’s precisely what our enemies do: if you care about white racial preservation, you are a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

Look at a map of the world. How many racial/ethnic groups have successfully established sovereign nations? Plenty. How many have managed global conquest with extermination and total removal of all of their enemies? None.

Regaining sovereign white territory is entirely possible, it’s only a question of how much or how little. World conquest, on the other hand, is not on the table.


Posted by Linder:

Look at a map of the world. How many racial/ethnic groups have successfully established sovereign nations? Plenty. How many have managed global conquest with extermination and total removal of all of their enemies? None.

No. None yet. The powers that be very clearly believe in global political conformity. Once you have executive mechanism to enforce that, you have the technical means of genocide. And if you haven’t noticed, the array of tools for spying and shooting people in 2011 is nothing short of awesome, and will only grow more so over time. Technology is one of things where looking forward helps more than looking backward. We know from ex-Mossadist Ostrovsky our worst has been working on ethnic bio-weapons for decades. Global extermination is completely thinkable to our worst enemy—he studies it daily in his science labs funded with white-taxpayer money, and he celebrates near-genocidal past successes in his holidays.

Regaining sovereign white territory is entirely possible, it’s only a question of how much or how little. World conquest, on the other hand, is not on the table.

World conquest is quite possible. And if regaining White territory is “entirely possible,” feel free to explain how we do it.

* * *

America is, what? 90% christian?

But don’t you be caught praying in public schools! That will not be tolerated!

You know what is tolerated in these public schools? Queers! The creatures the bible says should be shot on sight. Little christ-crank children are taught that homosex is good, not destructive. They’re taught to be promiscuous themselves, if they can’t quite make it all the way to sainted queerdom. They’re encouraged to form “Gay-Straight Alliances” and speak out against bullying.

Yes, all this in a Christian nation. Led by brilliant heroic politician-writers like Patrick by god Buchanan.

I don’t understand? How could this happen?

What a bunch of sad weaklings. Of course, Pat Buchanan doesn’t have any children. He’s married, but he may well be a homosexual, like so many other conservatives, including the weirdo-of-some-sort Sam Francis.

My god. If Pat Buchanan is a “leader,” then black is white and up is down. It sure explains the wormly qualities of his defenders, though.

But no, let’s be fair. Itz Pat! has lots to be proud of. Stuff all racialists can support:

• helped Dick Nixon save Israel—helped institutionalize affirmative action—picked a black woman (no kidding: look it up, he really did) to be his running mate

Boy, it sure is hard to see why things are going so wrong in America, isn’t it? With all these bold, valiant conservatives and christians out there, real men of principle, we must be on the verge of the happiest, healthiest, Whitest society ever.


Posted by Trainspotter:

Linder: “None yet”.

Correct. Which equals none.

Linder: “World conquest is quite possible. And if regaining White territory is ‘entirely possible,’ feel free to explain how we do it.”

World conquest is theoretically possible, but nobody has pulled it off to date. Even granting its possibility in the abstract, if we haven’t even retaken a handful of small countries first, I don’t see how conquering the world is even on the table. First things first, and perhaps last.

An ethnic group grabbing a chunk of real estate, on the other hand, has been achieved time and time again throughout history.

As to how we do it in our particular circumstances, that of course is the rub. You make the point that we have to agree upon who “we” are. We also can’t even agree on what we want, and where we want it, much less how to go about getting it.

Even for those that can agree on an all white nation in North America, where is it going to be? The Northwest? Most of America? All of America? The friggin Yukon?

This is one reason (of many) why white nationalism still flounders around. Out and out suppression is of course the biggest factor, but we can’t even focus the resources that we do have. Many have called for some sort of organizational infrastructure, but what exactly would its goal be? Where are we going with this? What’s the end game? Does it inspire?

I believe white nationalist ideas are spreading, but until it gets some sort of focus, it’s not really going anywhere. At the present time, the only person even trying to provide focus is Covington with the Northwest, and while I’m a fan of his novels, I’m not yet sold on the idea. I will, however, grant that he has breathed some life into it with good old fashioned fiction. And while I have no interest in various movement squabbles of long standing, it would appear that Covington himself is a limiting factor, talented though he may be in certain areas. But hey, at least we know exactly what he wants, and it’s small enough for the human mind to wrap itself around, yet big enough to inspire. He’s onto something there.

In any event, our approach must be two pronged. On the one hand, we must continue to intellectually attack the system, laughing at it, scoffing at it, pissing on it. Fortunately for us and given our meagre resources, the system is doing a lot of the work on its own—but WN have helped it along. You’ve definitely done your bit on this front, and many of your insights and critiques have been devastating. Really great stuff, the sort of thing that doesn’t just change minds, but changes minds… if you get my meaning. Electrifying parts of the brain—I’m sure some know what I mean.

On the other hand, we must decide exactly what it is that we want (it might be nice to actually have a single nation before we indulge in dreams of broader conquest), and start building up a positive vision of that nation to be. Covington has given us a taste of the power of fiction, but we could expand on that so much more. Art, music, and so forth (another drawback with Covington, he’s still too caught up in the 1930’s rut).

Anyway, people gotta feel it.

I doubt we’re going to get the polarization that you seek until we have this strong and positive vision of something we really want, something inspiring but tangible and remotely viable… and then our enemies spit on it. If we can get to the point where we really believe in the coming White Republic, that would be a game changer.

Oh, Ron Paul supports our quest for the White Republic, even though he wouldn’t want to live there himself? Well, maybe that’s o.k. But Ron Paul opposes our White Republic because it would inevitably violate some of his precious libertarian dogma? Fuck him, the piece of shit. Same goes for the more moderate race realists that you attack. Once we’ve actually built up a credible vision of the White Republic, and then Taylor wishes it well, says he might live there himself? Great guy. But he scoffs at it? Fuck him, the piece of shit. Anyone who opposes us is like coming between a dog and his meat. Fuck ’em. Easy.

But we don’t feel that way now. We don’t see the meat. We can’t taste it anymore, we’ve forgotten—or we never tasted it at all. We’ve learned to live on gruel instead.

You get the idea. Once we have something viable to fight for, friend and foe will reveal themselves quite easily, and the passions will be aroused. We just aren’t there yet. We hate what the system is doing to us, but it all seems so hopeless and theoretical to most. People gotta believe too. Why should people box themselves in when nothing seems viable? Can we really blame them for not taking the White Republic all that seriously at present (or insert your litmus test here), when we’ve barely (perhaps) gotten it past the initial silly stage, with plenty more ridicule to come?

Once more… this time with feeling. That’s just the way humans are built.

We’ve got to focus on something great enough to inspire and excite, but small enough to appear at least remotely viable and doable. Otherwise you lose most people, if not for one of those two reasons, then the other.


Posted by Linder:

“It does not matter how clever it is, for the task of propaganda is not to be clever, its task is to lead to success.”

Thanks for digging that, Sam, and that is a fantastic piece of advice and expertise from Goebbels, well worth rereading for all of us. I still think I’m remembering something else. Something specifically contrasting bourgeois cleverness with Nazi seriousness. The point of the part of the piece I’m remembering is that the bourgeois writers are all striking poses to impress each other—the MacDonald milieu in a nutshell; whereas by contrast the Nazis are dead-seriously winning people over—concerned only with the effect their reception has on tuning the message and the form of its delivery.

…which began with him being ignominiously arrested within 5 minutes of his Knoxville rally kicking off [this commenter refers to the arrest of Linder during a street manifestation].

Go vote Republican, you middle-class hair-primping pants-wetter.

Omigod. Did he make a–? Oh. He did, didn’t he? He made a scene. Unfrigging believable. We don’t do that. We don’t make scenes in public. The respectable people will write us off. When the God-created negroes see fit to rape, torture and murder our beautiful life-starting young men and women—fuck them up the ass, light ’em on fire, cut ’em into chunks and throw ’em out in garbage bags—we will remain appropriate, respectable and tasteful in our reaction. We will buy candles. We will march in condign and seemly order down a block or two. We will sing a nice hym, and wipe a tasteful tear. That’s how you do it. That’s how it’s done. What we will not do is raise hell in the streets, and talk to the people with anger in our eyes and strong words from our heart. We will never, ever lynch the niggers who committed the hush crime, nor lynch the jews who produced it with their media-legal structure.

Remember our holy trinity. It must be:

Tasteful
Appropriate
Respectable

Or it cannot work. That is my religious view, and my religious view is reality, because it guarantees my mental equanimity and physical safety, so how could it be wrong?

Let Hitler judge:

“The course of a people’s history can be changed only by a storm of glowing passion, but only he can awaken passion who carries it within himself.”

Oops. Hitler just said MacDonald, the a3P [American Third Position Party], James Edwards, Richard Meh-Spencer, Jared “Polished Turd” Taylor are unqualified to lead us to victory. Not that you couldn’t see that yourself, but it never hurts to ask an expert. But I mean, shit—what does he know? He doesn’t have a Ph.D. Some of his speeches are disturbingly close to be passionate rather than tepid. Never a good sign in a would-be revolutionary. They call it reason fluffing, not rabble-rousing, after all.

* * *

What if everyone at my rally had followed me into the streets? What if instead of ~100 activists we had 5,000? And they all went in the street with me? Can you imagine? What? You’re not willing to risk a misdemeanor charge on your “permanent” record. So then how serious are you? Not at all, right. Can you face that in yourself? That this is all just entertainment?

I went in the street to talk to the public directly. Because I know I can win over the neutral elements. And I can make the antis look more ridiculous than they make themselves (a tall brag considering in this particular instance they dressed as brides). There’s not a doubt about it. See, that’s the difference between a White Nationalist man and a niggling, remonstrating conservative mouse. The mice only speak indoors to people who already agree with them. They pay for a room to hold press conferences that only they attend, and then fly home talking about their great victory. It really is to laugh over. They never get anywhere.

Go read the Hitler stuff at calvin.edu. You purblind English idiots are the most blinkered, bigoted fools on earth. Get over yourselves. Your stinky island is the measure of nothing these days, serious-change politics last of all things. Get over your hatred of Germans and just imagine Hitler and Goebbels as intelligent men writing stuff that fits in perfectly well here at Majority Rights. I mean, if what they say is wrong, reject it. But how can you say that—honestly? Read it—it’s so point-pertinent it stings. They’re describing our exact situation. Look at this:

Some believe that we are using methods in this battle that are too harsh. We reply that our attacks and methods in this battle cannot be determined by our way of thinking, by whether we find them ugly or harsh, but rather we must use methods in our attacks that are appropriate for the opponent that we are attacking. One cannot battle the Jews with the politeness of the noble Aryan soul, for which he as no understanding. We need only think back on the methods that the Jew used against our movement during the period of struggle. No lie or slander was too crude to be used, to be seized and passed on by the Jews and their Jewish lackeys with eagerness, enthusiasm, and Satanic joy. We would have had little success replying then with refined arguments. It is just as impossible today to combat this creeping, subterranean danger with methods that the Jew would only laugh at.

We’re in a fight. Not a debate. Not a game. A fight. Why aren’t we fighting? Where are our fighters? We try to turn our potential fighting men into middle-class ineffectuals like our thought-leaders. This is wrong. This is pathetic. We need fiery leaders who can orate and organize. And we need ass-kickers who can stomp all who get between our speakers and the ears and eyes of our people. We get that, we will win.

Quit acting like our cause is silly. Or this is just entertainment. Or we can’t win.

Our “appeal” is Shackleton’s: Because it is hard. Because it is awesome. Because it is glorious.

“Mmmyeh, he seems like a nice guy.” That is my Spadey sneer at your utterly, utterly more foolish than you can imagine stupid puppy eyes at butt-asses like girl Taylor and toodlesome Meh-Spencer. To hell with your conservatism, your excuse-making faggotry. If you’re not White in public, and you don’t despise the jews as our worst enemy, you’re a big old nasty queer with political Q-RID, and should fuck off and die.

Our cause is a jealous cause, not a tolerant cause. We want fighters; high-spirited men, not abject catholic catacomb-crawlers / cabalists of sodom.


Posted by Wandrin:

Hitler just said MacDonald, the A3P, James Edwards, Richard Meh-Spencer, Jared “Polished Turd” Taylor are unqualified to lead us to victory.

Hitler wasn’t in the same situation. He was operating in an environment where most of the necessary meta-political foundation was already in place: anti-Jewish, anti-capitalist, anti-ruling elite, anti-communist, anti-banks etc. He had millions of people to work with who were already proto-radical looking for a flag to follow. His tactics revolve around how to make an impact in that context not how to create that context from scratch.

The context he was operating in may come about automatically in America after the banking collapse—if it gets that far—or it could conceivably (hopefully) come about through cultural warfare but what any budding Hitler needs to get started is a context where there’s millions of proto-radicals.

It’s a two-step.

So the question is are the people you list suitable for the first step—meta politics aimed at creating the right conditions. They may or may not fit the second step if and when the conditions are right but we’re not there yet.


Posted by Linder:

Graham Lister: “Whatever you all have been up to really hasn’t worked has it?”

No, it hasn’t. The important thing is to understand precisely why that is. And the right answer is that white organizing is forbidden by the System. Not legally, of course. But the System always manages to cut it down, sometimes by hook but usually by crook.

And it’s not just White organizing, it’s any organizing that threatens the jewish interests that determine the underlying agenda of the System they refit to their purposes. Catholic Coughlin and black nationalist Garvey got the same treatment too—all the way back 100 years ago! So although in the deepest sense we whites are of course responsible for any failure, in the ordinary sense, our failure is not our failure to organize but our failure to prevent the System from preventing us from organizing, which is a huge difference. It is enemy propaganda repeated, dare I say parroted, by too many on our side that “we are doing it to ourselves.” Oh nonono. We are not. It is most assuredly being done to us, and the real challenge we face is how to overcome that Systemic undermining. Because once we do that, we’re on the road to victory. Because our views are the mass-majority views among whites. That’s the reason the jews have to lie-cheat-murder in the first place, the reason they have to seize all the System choke and control points.

The way that hasn’t been tried, in America, is to use the thinking, approaches and tactics the NS used, which I’ve quoted samples of above. Instead we’ve gone with the polite approach, which does not work. Let’s call it the conservative failure pattern. Our enemies are the biggest liars, cheaters and mass murderers in history. Yet our common assumption seems to be that staying safe, legal, mannerly and polite will defeat them. It will not. I always feel like I’m saying the sky is blue, but there sure seem to be a lot on our side who think it red.

See the thing is, as one of your emotional spasms above shows—the emotional inability to handle something outside the conventional democratic-electoral box—we are psychologically in two camps: thinking in the normal democratic, electoral vein, while speculating in the radical-violent vein. We are loathe to part with the illusion that the normal democratic change channels are open to us. They appear to be open. That’s a crucial part of the System—maintaining the illusion that the processes are neutral machinery open to all. But in fact they are closed.

Look at the votes, in America. If votes mattered, we wouldn’t have forced race-mixing, anti-White job discrimination or open borders. No white majority has ever supported these things. Yet we have them—everywhere. So we kidding ourselves that voting matters. We are playing along with a genocidal lie when we pretend it’s true. The truth we are trying not to see, or reacting emotionally too when it’s stated to us is that voting will only work for the White man when he is physically able to threaten the judge or official or police who try to steal, blunt, queer, reinterpret or reverse the outcome.

Free association, which is the practical legal basis of communal self-defense was lost as a result of a judge reversing settled law. Law that had been in place for decades, duly voted in and adjudged back in the 19th century. Yet a bunch of judges simply reversed it because it thwarted the jewish anti-white agenda of race-mixing. Another 100 examples of legal illegality like that could be cited. But from that point on, the jews were simply big-dogging us. Daring us to do something about their brazen cheating.

That’s where it stands today. We’ve ignored their challenge. And we have seen our societies destroyed due to our lack of intellectual integrity and physical courage.

* * *

Like the other conservatives you see yourself as the servant of the public, the public as some sort of queen, and you the waiter with the silver salver in waiting to bring it some cat food or caviar. Think of yourself and our cause rather as the master of the public. Its leader. But needing the public. Just as Hitler would play it: the future of your (nation) (race) is tied up in whether you personally join us. Look in their eyes. Mean it. No bullshit about “appealing to women” or likesuch horsecrap. We aren’t pandering. We aren’t procuring. We’re fucking leading. That petty political Rep-Dem lying money-shuffle is 100 miles away from this stuff.

It’s the meta-message that matters. Yeah, those cheap weakling cads like Buchanan used and abused you for your money, but we mean it. We will stick by you thick and thin (Parrott hit on this the other day). You can trust us. We won’t run at the first sign of trouble like other conservative cads who sorta sound like us do. They are cowards. We are real men. Trust us and work with us, because we need you to join us so together we can all solve these common problem we all recognize.

The old style guy, the well meaning but hapless Southern conservative, focuses on the nigger that committed the crime. Not the people who created the System that facilitated it. We have to be much smarter than that, and go after the jews (and sellouts) who keep this foul thing running. There is no other example in history more applicable than the NS taking on jews in Germany yesterday. That doesn’t mean every particular has a parallel, but it means in general the jews today follow the same practices in suppressing the natives they did back then, so whatever the Nazis did that worked in Germany then will probably work for us today. Or we could keep on with the conservative failure patterns that have literally never worked a single time in history.

Can you imagine Hitler using terms like Christ-insanity in public, for example?

No, Hitler would not have used it in that time, but times have changed, like you all are always saying. Christ-insanity is weaker than it’s ever been, and many of the white men we can attract, on the left, openly mock and despise it just the way I do, altho for different reasons.

Consider this commentary culled from a poster off some blog:

What I was trying to communicate is the woefully deluded “mindset” of the lovely Pennsty rural White Christian. I am surrounded by this type of benighted, and doomed, creature.

They have not ever lived around non-Whites in their entire lives. They interact with Nons in carefully controlled settings. Workplaces. Churches. Darkies are showing up in Uber Alabaster churches now. The corrupted Marxist shill, serinv as a “minister” is really pimping for the delights of We Are All One Multi Culti lunacy, in even the teeniest little churches. The woefully deluded flocks are nodding their heads, and doing what their Beloved Sheperds are telling them to do. No questions asked. Adopt non-Whites kids. Make best friends with the polite, nicely dressed Darky that has shown up. The Whites couldn’t be friendlier, or more accommodating. Because Being a Racist is now the Cardinal Sin.

I know of a Catholic family, that produced two amazing little White boys. Their Priest told the congregation to Go Forth and Multiply with Guatemalan orphans. So they did. They adopted a Guatemalan female toddler Orc in. The mother can’t stand this child. The kid is not terribly bright—but extremely aggressive.

So—Haughty Blonde ran into this family a few months ago. What have they done now? Why—they adopted a Somalian!

This is not merely crazy – it’s evil.

Yet this is going on all over PA. You can see little Darky kids amidst the most dazzling White families.

And what I was trying to communicate is the steadfast refusal of these Good White Christians to acknowledge that racial differences exist at all. That the Black kid, that is always wreaking havoc, and committing escalating levels of violence, and can never seem to finish the simplest homework task, let alone make passing grades in a very dumbed down curricula—well—it’s always passed off as “Just that one. You cannot judge everybody that way”.

It’s not about White self-loathing, or “White guilt”. It’s about White arrogance, and egoism. These “Liberal/Conservative” Yankee Christian-baptised Whites really truly believe that if they try hard enough, and they give enough—they can “crack the code” —and get Blacks and other non-Whites to be just like them. White. Want the same things, think the same way, do the same things.

They refuse to believe that there are any intractable differences. It’s all wrapped up in false morality—and the source is Pride, and Vanity.

It’s now Revealed Wisdom with my fellow PA Whites that the very worst, deepest Sin is to consider the possibility that racial differences exist and are real. They are perfectly virtuous because they refuse to admit, or even consider, for a single second, that racial differences even exist.

And that God knows, in their hearts, that they really really really don’t mind when that kind-of trashy fast-mouthed Black Boy paws heir pretty blonde daughter—scause that would be wrong. That would be racist.

Capiche?

Yeah, no, this kind of creature we must walk on eggshells around. It would be crazy to treat them as the open enemy they are, we must pretend they’re on our side and suck up to them.

It’s later than some of you think.

The cultural degradation the jews have inflicted on White society has been for the worst in most ways, but not insofar as the jews have degraded the christ cult.

Show us how after ten years the polarization strategy has worked out for you. List your accomplishments.

Yeah… this has got to be trolling. You’re not a dumb enough guy to ask such a dumb question. I’ll indulge you once.

The polarization strategy is not something an individual can do, or a state or local thing, it’s a strategy for a national group operating at the national level. Because, as you know, as a lawyer, that’s where the meaningful political decisions are made.

The point of the strategy is to set up a credible oppositional power to the ruling jews. Right now, the oppositional power is a fake opposition, actually controlled by the ruling jews, after Lenin’s advice (create and lead the opposition yourself).

What WN has always done up until now is work with the conservatives like we’re all part of the same team. All this does is make conservatives rich. The White cause continues to go backward.

So the answer is that the polarization strategy has not been tested in North America. It can’t be until there is a party, or some kind of vehicle, that is both national in scope and willing to adopt it. The unbroken record of failure that is mixing racialism with conservatism suggests to anyone who can think that just maybe we ought to go the other way for once.

Trying to nudge the Republicans into doing the White thing is sad effeminacy unworthy of intelligent men. Fuck them. Start something new and better and take their pie from them and eat it. But you can’t do that when all you offer is a poorer, less respectable version of what they’re doing because you look like pathetic me-tooers—which they do the A3P. You need to go wholly the opposite direction. Come up with swagger, the looks, the bearing, the symbols, the agenda platform—purely White and jealous as all hell. Willing and soon able to vanquish all pretenders. That’s how you do it. It’s not a thing that can be done online, nor is it a thing that can be done alone. It takes a group.

Silver: “Sure, if you ignore the racial conservative whites who won themselves entire continents by virtue of their racial conservative disposition.”

I’m not going to make a big thing of this, Silver, but I don’t believe you’re who you say you are. I don’t believe your tale about your own background.

Your point above is the same fallacy we hear from the christ lunatics claiming their cult is pro white because whites lived along in harmony for centuries under christian dominion. If those whites conquered the continent for racial reasons, then, those racial principles would have preserved the conquest. Instead, those racists forgot everything Silver lies they knew, and quickly lost the continent back to jew-led savages. So clearly the original Americans were not racialists in any other than a direct, immediate sense—i.e., fight off the scalping indians next door. There was never enough thinking put into race in any section of the country, and that, combined with christian lunatical universalism, and the later influx of anti-white communist jews, sealed the deal for anti-Whiteism.

And now we get the desperate claim that, oh, don’t worry, the Republican party and normal voting and Pat Buchanan, and the whole normal regular lineup of trusties is going to save us.

Why hasn’t it then? Where has it been for fifty years? Why has anything changed now?

Rounder, so feared by the feds he is literally forbidden from living in the South, is to be mocked, but Pat Buchanan who has presided over 50 years of dramatic decline while gorgeously pressing a scented handkerchief to his womanly throat is to be respected? On what basis?

Conservatism can’t get the job done. That’s what history shows. There is no second opinion.

The internet has shown up the Patsy Declines for what they are. A lounge act for tired race.

No future in Republicans. No future in conservatism.

Make this your mantra: If it’s christian, conservative or Southern, it’s a non-starter.

That’s the truth.

*   *   *

[Apparently responding to Hunter Wallace:]

The ’50s and ’60s anti-White movement succeeded for one reason: jewish control of the media. Pointing out individual, anecdotal non jews here and there is always an attempt to draw attention away from the jewish root of the anti-White movement. Always.

This jew control of the mass media is the reason that no White strategy based on mirroring the “civil rights” approach of the jew-organized niggers can succeed. The media will never treat the White cause as just. Therefore it will always look bad in the eyes of the tv-macerated majority. There is no solution but taking power, and that means, more than almost anything else, taking the mass media back from our racial enemy.

Just as Churchill wrote as a journalist about communists back in 1919, jews were the driving power. Investigate whichever radical movement you like and you’ll find the same thing.

Only one policy cures jews and the trouble they cause: NO JEWS. JUST RIGHT.

__________

There’s a follow-up to this article here.