Interview with Jared Taylor

[Marlaud]

Realism and fairness about race

Derek Turner interviews Jared Taylor, author and editor of American Renaissance

Can you tell us when and why American Renaissance was founded, and the subsequent history of the magazine?

I started AR in 1990 for what many would consider radical or even dangerous purposes: to encourage whites to think of their interests in explicitly racial terms, to recognize that every other race in the United States does so instinctively, and to understand that if whites alone fail to act as a group, they jeopardize their long-term survival as a distinct people with a distinct culture and way of life.

Needless to say, this is not a message welcomed by the establishment. However, ordinary Americans increasingly understand the crisis our country faces. AR has now been publishing monthly for nearly 14 years, and our readership continues to grow. Five years ago, we began distributing an electronic version of AR over the Internet, and this has greatly increased our overseas readership.

My association with the magazine has resulted in a certain notoriety and many radio and television appearances. I believe that the logical and moral force of the AR position is increasingly winning recognition despite ingrained and intense hostility to any form of racial consciousness on the part of whites.

Can you summarise your/AR’s credo?

I would like to think that the AR credo is realism and fairness: realism in the sense that race is a central element in individual and group identity and must not be ignored; fairness in that there must be no double standards in racial or ethnic matters. A number of policy conclusions derive from these positions. A realistic evaluation of race leads to the conclusion that race and culture are inseparable. Some individuals can fully embrace a culture established by people of a different race but most cannot.

This is why race is the most volatile social fault line in any country and why the current dramas of ‘tolerance’, ‘multiculturalism’, ‘inclusion’, etc, are almost always about race.

The United States is a good example of the significance of race. Whites from many countries have largely assimilated – with some friction – to a majority Anglo-Saxon culture, but non-whites have not.

Europe is now going through the same process, with one country after another discovering that when nonwhites arrive in large numbers they congregate in unassimilable enclaves. This raises the question of fairness. Whites are repeatedly told that they must make every effort to accommodate alien newcomers and even, if need be, see their nations redefined if non-white immigration requires this. Whites are told to prepare themselves psychologically to be outnumbered by non-whites, and even though this threatens to wash away the cultures and nationalities we love, anyone who resists dispossession is a moral inferior.

Just imagine the reverse process of whites pouring into Mexico or Pakistan, forcing their practices upon the natives and even demanding special treatment because they are minorities bearing the gift of ‘diversity’. Imagine Mexican and Pakistani leaders telling their people demographic displacement is a good thing, and that new languages, religions, folkways and crime rates may seem alien but are precious sources of enrichment.

It is this one-sided advancement of non-whites into white territories that makes the current dynamic of race and immigration unacceptable and even dangerous to whites.

What else does New Century Foundation do, apart from publish AR every month?

We hold an international conference on race and immigration every two years, and we publish a small number of monographs and books. We also maintain a very active web page at www.amren.com.

What is your own family and political background?

I am the child of missionaries to Japan, where I spent the first 16 years of my life. My parents were conventional liberals and so was I until about the age of 30.

What first drove you to take an interest in racial differences and immigration? Which academics, writers or philosophers have inspired you?

I spent a year travelling in west Africa, where I discovered that my liberal beliefs in racial and cultural equivalence were wrong. I also spent two years in Paris studying history and economics, and gradually came to the conclusion that the basic tenets of liberalism – that government can improve our lives, that environment is much more important than genetics, that all groups have the same potential, that men and women have similar natures – are wrong.
I have been much influenced by the work of James Burnham, Arthur Jensen and Wilmot Robertson, but conversations over the years with other racially aware whites have probably influenced me more.

Do you believe hereditarian ideas are now becoming more widely acceptable?

Yes. The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker is a good example of this [Editor’s Note: See review, RN 41]. The evidence for the influence of genes is now so overwhelming even liberals can no longer ignore it. This book, however, is an almost comical attempt by a liberal to try to reconcile the power of heredity with liberal positions that are fatally undermined by it.

I suspect that the Watson-Skinner conviction that environment controls everything first foundered on sex differences. Many people understand that the failure of liberals and feminists to erase sex differences must mean there is a biological basis for them. It is more difficult for people to accept similar reasons for the clearly different social outcomes for racial and other groups, but that will come.

What policies should be adopted to solve or at least mitigate some of America’s current race problems?

I have always recommended only two policies: an end to mass immigration, and the abolition of antidiscrimination laws. The population of the United States is increasing like that of a Third World country, mostly because of immigration. 90% of immigrants are unassimilable minorities who will bring divisiveness and tension. Population increase will also strain environment and infrastructure. There were 125m Americans in 1945, and no one thought the country under-populated. There are now about 290m of us, with about half a billion expected by 2070 or so. Ending immigration would stop this mad expansion.

As for anti-discrimination laws, private citizens should have the right to choose employees, schoolmates, or neighbours for good reasons, bad reasons or no reason at all – just as they choose their spouses.

There is increasing interest in ‘immigration reform’ within Republican circles. What do you think of these various initiatives? And what do you think of Ralph Nader’s new-found interest in immigration?

Among Republicans, aside from the invaluable efforts of Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado, ‘immigration reform’ amounts to nothing more than common-sense resistance to President Bush’s amnesty plan for illegal immigrants. Ralph Nader seems to oppose immigration mainly because it depresses wages for poor blacks. Indeed it does, and I support all restrictionists, whatever their reasoning.

AR has, inevitably, been denounced by the ultra-Left Southern Poverty Law Center as a "hate group". But what is the attitude of American conservatives – not just towards AR specifically, but also on race differences more generally?

I don’t think it is possible to give a comprehensive answer. Even among ‘conservatives’ (a term sadly in search of a meaning), there is much resistance to a realistic understanding of race. If they were sure their words would never be repeated, I suspect perhaps 50% of the people who vote Republican would either acknowledge racial differences or, though bothered by the thought, accept them as a possibility. Of this number, only a handful are willing to take a public position on race that differs substantially from that of Democrats.

Has there been a discernible change in US conservative attitudes on race in recent decades? What has caused this?

"Recent decades" is a stretchy formulation. If it includes the 1950s, National Review wrote very sensibly on race. Its positions were little different from those of American Renaissance today. During the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s there was a massive retreat from commonsense. Since that time there has been a very slow recovery, but at nothing like the pace of the rout. Egalitarian dogma rules America, just as it does Britain, and dissent is still dangerous and disagreeable.

Does modern genetic science complement traditional conservative or religious thinking about human nature? If so, how?

I think it complements traditional conservatism almost across the board. Both traditional conservatives and (the more outspoken) evolutionary biologists agree on the following: Men and women differ in temperament and ability. People are born with distinctive traits not easily changed by society. Race and race differences are real. People are tribal, and do not easily feel loyalty to humanity at large.

Even more fundamentally, both sides agree that there is such a thing as human nature and it is folly to try to remake man. An acceptance of this premise would have forestalled not just the calamity of communism but virtually every liberal project since the French Revolution. Horror upon horror has been committed in the name of perfecting man. Conservatives – and now students of the power of genetics – accept that many of our faults cannot be corrected, and that societies that accept these faults are far more successful than those that try to wish them away or forcibly extirpate them.
Selfishness is a good example. Capitalism recognizes that self-interest is the most powerful engine of economic progress. Collectivism fails because it pretends self-interest can be overcome. Some day there will be equal acceptance of man’s tribal nature, and governments will stop thinking it somehow a virtue to force citizens to live with people utterly unlike themselves.

When you are not fomenting intergalactic ‘hate’, what are your other interests?

I have two great interests: my family and music. Fatherhood has been more rewarding to me than anything else – and I expected it to be a bother and a pest. European populations are declining, in part because Europeans are self-centred and think children are too much trouble. If only for our own survival, we must once again promote the view that children are one of life’s highest rewards. I might not have believed that until I had children of my own, but it is true.

As for music, I play clarinet in a symphony orchestra and a woodwind quintet, and saxophone in a dance band. Making music is, for me, a joy that purges the mind of all else. Musicians reportedly live longer than non-musicians. If that is true, it must be because immense mental pleasure has physical benefits.

For further information about American Renaissance, including subscription details for both electronic and paper editions of AR, please visit: www.amren.com.

Jared Taylor – a brief CV

Born: 1951.
Education: 1973 - BA, Philosophy, Yale University; 1978 - MA, International Economics, Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris
Employment: 1974 -1975: News Editor, Washington Times;
1978 - 1981: International Lending Officer, Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co;
1983- 1988: Contributing Editor and West Coast Editor, PC Magazine;
1982 - Present: Consultant to American companies doing business in Japan;
1991 -Present: Editor, American Renaissance;
1994 - Present: President, New Century Foundation. Has taught Japanese at Harvard Summer School
Books:
Shadows of the Rising Sun: A Critical View of the Japanese Miracle (1983);
The Tyranny of the New and Other Essays (1992);
Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America (1992);
The Real American Dilemma: Race, Immigration, and the Future of America (1998).
Many articles and essays in Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Baltimore Sun, Washington Star, San Francisco Chronicle, Boston Globe, National Review, Chronicles, Mankind Quarterly, Washington Post, Occidental Quarterly

From Right Now! August-September 2004 http://www.right-now.org/----------

[otto_von_bismarck]

Taylor is the kind of guy I can support. No extremism, leftism, or conspiracy theories. No dumb Hitler fetish and he focuses on real grievances.

[Hakluyt]

Why does extremism matter if you only define it in accordance with your personal views? If being a non-extremist means he's closely aligned with yourself, wouldn't your support for him imply that to begin with? He is considered an extremist in many circles.

[robinder]

Otto's ideal government is a South American military dictatorship. That's probably more "extreme" than anything Taylor proposes. Taylor has never interested me all that much; he strikes me as a good example of the would-be-a-good-Republican-but-I-don't-like-blacks-and-Mexicans crowd with which I haven't much sympathy.

[otto_von_bismarck]

What's wrong with otherwise good conservatives who don't like affirmitive action and mass immigration of unassimiable troublemakers?

[Snouter]

I read Shadows of the Rising Sun and Paved With Good Intentions back in the mid 90's, pre-internet. I got them as a member of Conservative Book Club since they were advertised in their newletter. I have to check out The Real American Dilemma: Race, Immigration, and the Future of America sometime.

Has Jared been on TV since his brief appearances on the defunct Donahue show? The audience was quick to get "unrestful" when he presented some controversial facts.

[otto_von_bismarck]

I listened to those clips on Amren's site. Donahue resorted to outright lies like "hispanics have more scientific nobel prizes then any other ethnic group".

I recall seeing Taylor once while flipping around last year on BET of all places (and the blacks were actually a lot less assisine then Donahue was).

[Snouter]

Donahue is indeed quite the knee jerk, politically correct, ultra-liberal which invariably leads to embarrassing lies as those you indicate he presented. Dopnahue's staff undoubtedly did their best to come up with a plan of attack and "nobel prizes" are somewhat subjective in origin and not to be trusted as a basis for achievement anyway.

[Hunter Wallace]

I will take Jared Taylor over Matt Hale or Commander Schoepp anyday. I can see Weikel's point. Jared Taylor is the kind of guy that upper or middle class white professionals can relate to. David Duke is the only other White Nationalist leader that I pay attention to. What this is all boils down to is New White Nationalism vs. Old White Nationalism.

Targeting a Mainstream Audience

Of utmost importance to understand in this situation is that the new white nationalist movement, while similar in some important ways, also differs very significantly from the older white nativist and white supremacy movementout of which it in some sense has grown. In terms of similarities, contemporary white nationalism, like such older organisations on the racist right as the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazi Party, seeks to foster a sense of white racial pride and European-American group consciousness. To further this end, it is also interested -- again like the older racist right -- in celebrating the great intellectual, artistic, scientific, and political achievements of white people throughout human history. For instance, some of the leaders of the new white nationalist organisations that are quoted extensively in this book, including David Duke of the National Organisation for European American Rights and Don Black of the Stormfront website, got started in the business of white racial advocacy as members of the older Klan movement.

But the new white nationalist movement is very different from the Klan and Nazi movements of an earlier era -- or their contemporary offshoot in the more loosely organised skinhead movement that has received so much sensationalised publicity in recent years on the TV trash-show circuit -- insofar as it is preeminently a movement of discourse, persuasion, and ideas. Rejecting the kind of violence and intimidation once advocated by the older racist right, the new white nationalism seeks to expand its influence mainly through argument and rational discourse aimed at its target audience of white Americans who have become embittered or aggrieved over what they perceive to be a host of racial double standards in the areas of affirmative action policy and crime reporting, as well as the continuance of large-scale immigration from Third World countries. Unlike the Klan and Nazi movements, white nationalism is aggressively seeking a mainstream audience, and in going mainstream it has found it necessary to abandon most of the tactics, postures, and regalia of the older racist right, which no longer resonate in contemporary America.

The leadership of the new white nationalist movement is also different from that of the older racist right. While some of the leaders of newer racial advocacy organisations were once active in the Klan and Nazi movements, many of the key personalities involved in the new white nationalism bear little resemblance to the sorts of people we normally tend to associate with Klansmen and Nazis. Most are better educated, more articulate, and in many ways more appealing to human beings than the sorts of people who ran the older racist organisations. Syracuse University scholar Michael Barkun, who has written the best book on the new racist religious right in America, explains the situation well: The leaders of many of the newer white separatist and white advocacy groups, Barkun writes, are "not simply younger than their predecessors but more educated, more polished, and more adroit in shaping their message to a skeptical audience, having learned from David Duke's example how effectiveness, appearance, and manner can deflect hostility." Sociologists Jeffrey Kaplan and Leonard Weinberg make a similar point in their important recent work, The Emergence of a Euro-American Radical Right. The groups and individuals who make up the radical right movement," Kaplan and Weinberg explain, "may have embarked on a destructive path, but they are often more complicated, considerably more personable, and far more nuanced than is suggested by the caricatures."

Carol M. Swain, The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp.3-4

[seelow heights]

That is the problem in a nutshell. It is hard to imagine Taylor leading a street rally, let alone a mass march on Washington. Polite intellectuals with interesting ideas are no threat to the "permanent regime". Bad as he was AH understood how to reach the masses. What he did in Germany way back when, in its particulars, would be highly inappropriate in the US today, but the general principles are the same since human nature does not change. To make a revolution a descent into the vulgar is unavoidable.

[Hunter Wallace]

White Nationalism will never take power in the United States in some Fascist like March on Rome. No one is ever going to successfully build any Nazi style revolutionary mass movement in the United States either. If there is ever any real racial change in this country, then it will be imposed from the top down by a frightened white middle class. The United States of America is not Nazi Germany either. America is not recovering from a devastating defeat in a World War. America has not lost any of its territory to its neighbours. America is not threatened by any foreign ideology like Communism. America is not a struggling democracy. It has no tradition of militarism comparable to that of Prussia. America is not paying reparations to foreigners. The American conservative elite is satiated, not disgruntled. America is not surrounded by hostile powers. No part of America is occupied by foreign armies. We are in a totally different situation today.

[seelow heights]

Why doesn't Jared Taylor run for Congress? That would be a real test. Would the elites do a smear job on him like they did with PJB? I think the question answers itself.

Is the US really all that stable? How long can such incredibly high budget and trade deficits be sustained? And anyone who is not a free trade purist has to consider outsourcing to cheap labor markets a real threat to the US standard of living. And has anyone convincingly refuted the "peak oil"? crisis theory.

[seelow heights]

If there is a long term severe downturn in the US economy the immigration part of the problem should largely solve itself. After all there was net emigration from the US during the Great Depression.

[seelow heights]

A frightened "middle class" will rise up and save the Republic. Yeah. S Cal and Arizona are in an undeniable crisis over illegal immigration. What is the response? Illegals are denied driver's licenses. Big deal. In AZ a toothless proposition is passed and waits to struck down by the courts. All the traitorous incumbents are reelected. Illegal alien advocate John Mccain is reelected virtually unanimously. If the economy does not fall apart, at some point the population will mestizoized to the point where American exceptionalism no longer applies.

[Hunter Wallace]

I think a racialist third party with the right message is entirely viable in many parts of America. There is no reason why such a party cannot compete in state and local elections throughout many parts of the Southeast right now. David Duke's candidacy several years ago in Louisiana demonstrated that the right man with the right sort of message can achieve some modicum of political success in America. The recent defeat of Bobby Jindal several years ago in Louisiana is another example. And if that were not enough, the failure of the recent amendment to strike segregationist language out of the Alabama State Constitution shows that white voters in Louisiana are not alone. Governor Roy Barnes was defeated in Georgia because of hostility to Georgia's State Flag. The same can be said of the last two governors of South Carolina. There are prowhite voters in all of these states. Even Jim Giles in Mississippi in the recent election received more votes in support of his candidacy than the combined membership of all the major White Nationalist organisations in America.

We might not be able to win the Presidency but there is utterly no reason why we should not be able to at least match or exceed the success the BNP has enjoyed in Great Britain. Its a folly to sit around and expect power to fall into our hands in some inevitable historical catastrophe. That is the same sort of prescription for inaction that Marxism suffers from. Right now we need to get our act together. We need to focus on our contemporary situation and the immediate future. What we don't need right now is idolisation of Nazi Germany and attempts to emulate it. As a practical matter, such a message simply isn't going to work. We don't have to dress up and pretend to be Nazis to make racialism a success in America. Whiteness was the basis of American citizenship for centuries. The Confederacy was the world's first explicitly racialist state.

Racialism fell into disrepute after the Second World War because of Hitler's atrocities. Racialism was discredited for a generation. But that doesn't imply that racialism has been discredited forever. I think racialism is poised to make a comeback. White Americans may give lip service to integration and multiculturalism but they don't believe in such things in their hearts. I don't see whites flocking to multiracial neighbourhoods, going to multiracial churches, or seeking out minority-majority schools. And yes, I do believe that the white middle class will become more and more radical as time goes by. Their first response will be resignation. They will relocate to new states and new neighbourhoods. But that is not something they can do forever. Their second response will be to work for change within the two party system. Yet sooner or later they are going to realise that this is simply not a viable solution to our problems.

[seelow heights]

I don't know who advocates "dressing up like Nazis" outside the NSM. Even Linder attacks that regularly.
A productive thing to do at this time would be to get "instant runoff" and proportional representation propositions on state ballots. These types of laws help non-mainstream parties. Few of the nationalist parties in Europe would have got anywhere without PR. The recent breakthrough by the NPD was accomplished with only nine percent of the vote.

[Nuclear Thoughts]

"I don't know who advocates "dressing up like Nazis" outside the NSM. Even Linder attacks that regularly."
Besides Jeff Schoep's NSM, there's the American Nazi Party:
http://www.americannaziparty.com/

There's also Gary Lauck of NSDAP, who also dresses up like a Nazi:

http://net.unl.edu/%7Eswi/pers/images/nazittl.jpeg

And for every individual who dresses up like a Nazi, there are a hundred more who smear their arms and chests with Nazi swastikas and march with Nazi flags in pro-white rallies. These kinds of individuals belong to such groups as White Revolution, Euro, and the National Alliance.

As far as Jared Taylor is concerned, I am not suggesting he go out into the streets with gangs of skinheads at his sides. No, I think he (and others like him) should rally the middle class in stadiums, and convention halls, and other public places, in order to forge a powerful public voice against Third World immigration, race-mixing, and all the other multicultural ills now killing white America. Because without mass support, all the Billy Ropers and Erich Gliebes we can muster simply don't matter, if our message isn't reaching the broad middle classes of white America. And Nazi tactics, symbols, and public displays are not going to move our Cause forward.

[Hunter Wallace]

Good post, Photon Torpedo.

[seelow heights]

The "American Nazi Party" and Lauck are both one-man operations as far as I can tell. I don't think "lone wolf" operations count for much.

I guess I now know the purpose of this forum, aside from entertainment. It is to urge Jared Taylor towards more resolute action.

[seelow heights]

More thoughts: it easy to attack dysfunctional losers, but what do you propose? I think you know that only a handful of crazies like to dress up in inappropriate or goofy uniforms, but what has that to do with anything of consequence? So you were engaging in Talmudic hair-splitting and avoiding anything important. You guys are apparently less serious than the much-reviled Linder. Good post, my ass.

[robinder]

Originally Posted by otto_von_bismarck
Why do you sympathize with commies? Some hippies are okay but in general "they want to save the earth but then drive around in those vans which get poor gas mileage".

Nobodies gonna lynch the king baby, that'd get me all shook up.


I somehow didn't see this post when it was new. I don't sympathize with communists, I just don't see much reason to fear them.


I still think Frank is 10 times better than Elvis.

[Hunter Wallace]

Two of my previous posts:


I think that there are plenty of well-meaning but confused people out there searching for the proper medium to express their sentiments. They are angry and alienated and want others to see this, so they are attracted by the symbolism and legacy of National Socialism which they come to identify with. There are others who are also motivated by the same sentiments, but they tend to be more pragmatic and realistic in my view.

What should take precedence here: the common good of the community or the freedom of expression of the individual? That's an important question for the racialist movement. The answer to this question depends upon one's perspective. A Ku Klux Klansman might argue that the Ku Klux Klan is a viable organisation for racial change in America and see no conflict of interest between his own self-expression (e.g., his right to wear his costume) and the goals of the larger community. On the other hand, some individuals might point out that most Americans are repulsed by the Ku Klux Klan and the symbols that represent its ideals. If the purpose of symbols is to advertise a product/idea, then logic and simple common sense would seem to dictate that such imagery should be abandoned.

But who decides? There is your problem. There is no commonly recognised organisation with the authority to impose a decision to resolve the issue. There is even less of a willingness to follow the dictates of such an organisation and pool resources to advance common goals. The result? Anarchy. And that is precisely what the enemies of racial change want, because isolated and divided individuals are easy to control. Individualism leads straight to tyranny. Individualism destroys the communities which empower the individual to begin with. If Mike goes south, John goes north, Jack goes east, and Jill goes west then can anybody really say, honestly, that they (as a group) are 'moving' anywhere?

You can't. The lesson: its authority which makes freedom possible. Without authority, one ends up losing his freedom, which just so happens to be our pitiful case today. But back to the point about symbolism. From a practical standpoint, any movement worthy of the name should at the very least decide upon a common set of symbols. What sort of message does a melange of different symbols, from various points in time, a total aesthetic chaos, send to the non-racialist? Confusion. What are these people about? Well. They don't even seem to know themselves. Why bother with these people? They can't even agree to a common doctrine or even a common way to present it.

So what should be done? IMHO:

1.) Some common organisation should be raised up and given the legitimacy it needs to speak for the movement and to make decisions.
2.) This organisation should impose some sort of symbolic orthodoxy.
3.) Those who do not submit to the dictates of this organisation should be shunned to the fringe.

The New Orleans Protocol is a step in the right direction. Its too bad it took twenty something years of The Turner Diaries, RAHOWA, Sieg Heils, costumes and cross burnings to reach this point. But I suppose late is better than never. I have spent the last three years now researching the rise of Jewish power, America's racial decline, and the failure of white resistance movements since I first came to this website. The common thread in all of this, its seems to me, is the individualism of white gentiles, especially of the Anglo-Saxon nations. There is a direct correlation between individualism and racial decline. A few examples. Its the tendency to see the Jew as an individual instead of as a Jew that has blinded White America to its own imminent downfall. Its the tendency of the Jew to think of himself as a Jew instead of an individual that explains his success. Its the tendency of the shabbos goy to think of himself as an individual instead of a European that is the cause of his racial nihilism. Its the individualism of white racialists that prevents them from cooperating and properly organising their resources in order to from an effective coalition for resistance.

A small, organised, determined, wealthy, and cohesive minority can come to dominate a much larger majority of isolated individuals divided against themselves. No ZOG conspiracy or New World Order is necessary to explain this. The Jewish community is simply better able to mobilise their resources to advance their own interests than whites. For such an alien elite to preserve the status quo, it is absolutely fundamental that the exploited majority not become conscious of its own identity and organise themselves politically to advance their own interests. For if that ever happens, they well know it is over. The Jews know that they (to borrow a metaphor here) are living on top of Mount Vesuvius, whereas white racialists often come to believe they are invincible and throw up their arms in defeatism. That is why the slightest peep of antisemitism (even something as ridiculous as a vandalised grave) instantly becomes world news. Paranoia is caused by vulnerability. The most effective strategy to preserve Jewish power, to nullify gentile racial consciousness, is to stress the common humanity of all peoples and the dignity of the isolated individual.

It is imperative that our contemporaries be awakened of Jewish insincerity and treachery in this regard, that such rhetoric is nothing more than a tactic which their enemies use to confuse them. Even a fraction would be enough, as most whites would probably be indifferent or passive. But such a scenario presupposes the creation of an organised, determined, well-financed, and cohesive white racialist movement that is willing to do what it takes for the common good of the white racial community. That, in turn, presupposes the creation of some sort of overarching organisation which must be given the legitimacy it needs to impose an order upon an inchoate mass of disgruntled and alienated individuals.

Says who? Who decides?

That such questions are still asked says a lot about the state of the movement today. It shows there is no commonly accepted authority around to effectively organise the untapped energies and resources of the community as a whole, as small as it is. Real power comes from cooperation and mutual aid. Now its true that there are a lot organisations out there, most with their own wannabe Führers. There are too many chiefs and not enough indians. That's their problem. The logical result of this is chaos, horizontal instead of vertical growth. Each little atomic organisation feeds off its rivals. Perhaps every so often one reaches the level of a molecule before egomaniacs tear it apart over some stupid fetish and the cycle repeats itself. Or better yet, some organisations grow due to dynamic leaders who pass away, only to descend into faction and obscurity thereafter. Some organisations may become very large at the expense of becoming very weak internally, full of factions and unreasonable individuals that make the assertion of effective leadership all but impossible. The fundamental cause of such weakness and atomisation is always the same -- individualism.

Individualism is not what is needed. We need institutions and a readiness of racialists to accept the authority of such institutions. That's what is missing. A classic example, the university. A university is an institution. It also provides certain roles and standards of conduct for those who participate within it. Students and professors come and go but the university and its mission has remained more or less the same for hundreds of years. It performs a function: providing an educated populace. Similiarly, racialists need institutions to provide the vital functions the movement sorely lacks (or is in the rudimentary stages of creating). So if you want to do something, then support the institutions that are out there, or at the very least, those that aspire to become institutions.

And the most important institution needed, of course, is an alternative media for racialists. This has long been pointed out, quite correctly, I might add. But yet even here racialists run into the same constellation of problems: atomisation, individualism, isolation etc. At the moment, the racialist community is not large enough to finance anything on the scale that is so sorely needed. What is even more troubling is that the resources of the community as a whole are grossly underutilized. And these resources are underutilized because of the inchoatic nature of the movement, an absence of any centralized and commonly accepted locus, a general lack of authority and legitimacy which is only magnified by selfishness and individualism.

In the meantime, perhaps it is possible to create a racialist media on the cheap via the internet. The recent humbling of the media lords at CBS News by the conservative blogosphere demonstrates the immense possibilities such a medium has for racialism. Imagine hundreds (if not thousands) of mutually linked and interconnected racialist bloggers pounding away at Jewish hegemony over the mass media and the lie of racial egalitarianism. Even better, imagine the possibilities for racialism if such a resource was coordinated by some sort of overarching organisation, the likes of which I have described.

Its important that such a resource send the right message as well. A common source of authority is needed to provide guidance for such a huge undertaking, lest mixed messages be sent to our audience, the white lemming. In my view, the message that needs to be sent here is rather simple:

1.) We are not interested in secular idols like 'freedom' or 'equality'. Such abstract principles only interest us when we benefit from them. We are interested in maximizing the common good of the white community. We are the only people interested in maximizing the common good of the white community.

2.) The common good of the white community necessitates our separation from Jews and nonwhites (insert links to voluminous sources and debates).

3.) But this does not make us extremists. Far from it. There are two types of extremism: extremism of excess and extremism of deficiency. We are not supremacists or chauvinists. We simply want to be left alone. Likewise, we are not extremists like antiracists, those who have a masochistic hatred of towards their own people or an indifference toward their fate.

[Nuclear Thoughts]

Seelow Heights said: "I think you know that only a handful of crazies like to dress up in inappropriate or goofy uniforms, but what has that to do with anything of consequence?" Consider this, SH: Someone organizes a hundred pro-white activists to march down a city street, to protest illegal immigration. Some of these activists are college students, some are housewives, some are business people, and some are just plain working folks. They all dress in ordinary street clothing. That is, all of them but one , who instead parades along the street wearing a Nazi uniform and holding up a Nazi flag.

Now, from the standpoint of the spectators along the street, the other 99 ordinary white citizens are now irrelevant, along with their message. That's because a costumed Nazi dropped into the middle of an otherwise normal pro-white rally is akin to dropping a single turd into the middle of an otherwise perfect pizza. Even if the outer perimeter of the pizza is still edible, most people won't touch any of it now. Likewise, a pro-white rally with even a single costumed Nazi marching in it, or a single individual waving a Nazi flag, or even a single swastika tattoo in evidence on someone's bare arm, is enough to defeat our entire effort.

Furthermore, it's also been demonstrated time and again that pro-white organizations like White Revolution and the National Alliance DO tolerate Nazi flags and symbols in their marches, even if they forbid costume Nazis from strutting their stuff. Doing so completely ruins every legitimate concern we might have - from Third World immigration to affirmative action to minority crime - because once the turd of Nazism is dropped into our midst, nobody's gonna bite on our message, no matter how appetizing it might have first appeared.

[Sinclair]

I'd say a huge problem is the inability of a lot of these movements to accept that, when it comes to whether or not a person is valuable, there are standards other than "Are they white?" and "Do they support us"?

Skinheads with more ink on them than a sunday New York Times, inbred hillbillies who hate "them nigra's", pencilneck loser members of the Imaginaer-SS who sit in their basements in full regalia acting like they're out there singlehandedly killing hordes of Jews and muds, etc, are not really valuable people.

I am not really a racialist. I recognize that races exist, I recognize that they face off against each other, I accept that whites currently hold to a large extent a bizarre set of beliefs that is harmful to the survival of a lot of the different white ethno-cultural groups.

But I can't align myself with the people mentioned above. All of the attempts to say "We're not anti-non-white, we're pro-white" in the world won't mean jack shit when they're said right before the big Israeli-flag burnathon, followed by the loud playing of crappy hate-core music, while lower-middle-class-at-best trash act like they're somehow members of some sort of master group.

The fact is that every group has some bad, and every group has some good. Some groups, be they cultural or ethnic or gender or whatever, have more good than others, some more bad than others. The idea that one group has all the good and no bad, and every other group is vice versa, is understandable, as it doesn't require that many brain cells to process and repeat, but it is intellectually weak and fraudulent.

I want to protect white ethnic groups, but I don't want to do it surrounded by people who are arguments for eugenics, who got into the gene pool when the lifeguard was taking a break.

[seelow heights]

Well then you have to have parade marshals assigned to deal with the problem. They beat them up if necessary and take the consequences. If you have to hiire someone from a martial arts dojo, you do it. What will the Nazis do, sue you? I don't think they will get any sympathy in any court of law. Personally I am still puzzled why Communist emblems draw no particular attention in antiwar marches from Vietnam era to the present. I have read of truly unspeakable atrocities commited by the Reds in Tibet, for example, that rival what you post on NS Gemany. Be that as it may, it is time to stop refighting WW2: for purely practical reasons. The question is: will the jews ever stop fighting WW2?

Just one more thing: I don't think there was any display of NS symbols at Linder's Topeka rally. The NSM pulled out because they couldn't wear their fancy outfits. So apparently it can be done!! I do believe, however, that old Butler gave the roman salute. Does that count?

[Hunter Wallace]

That's because a costumed Nazi dropped into the middle of an otherwise normal pro-white rally is akin to dropping a single turd into the middle of an otherwise perfect pizza. Even if the outer perimeter of the pizza is still edible, most people won't touch any of it now.
LMAO. Very true.

[seelow heights]

OK, how did the vile Linder manage to exclude the WW2 reenactors at Topeka? Apparently he has some magical ability that noone else has. How can an entire "movement" be terrified of a handful of nutcases and ADL/FBI/SPLC agents provocateurs ? Since I am a rational person I know that the swastika is no worse than the hammer-and-sickle. I assume you must know this too. That being the case there is no need for moralizing, just the ability to solve a practical problem.

[Angler]

Pardon me for my lack of familiarity with WN politics, but doesn't Jared Taylor advocate allowing Jews into the pro-White movement? If so, then he is extremely misguided at best and an agent provocateur at worst.

All pro-Whites need to understand something very clearly: Jews (and their Gentile sycophants) are our principle adversaries. Not Muslims. Not Mexicans. Not even Negroes. JEWS. I am not exaggerating the least bit when I say that it would make more sense to invite thousands of Negroes into the pro-White movement than to willingly allow a single Jew to join us.

Having said that, I agree that appearance is everything in politics, and the kind of measured approach used by Taylor is the kind all true WNs should adopt. Regardless of what one thinks of Hitler and the Nazis, the public display of any Nazi-related symbolism should be verboten. Profanity should be kept to a minimum. Spelling and grammar should be checked on all literature that is meant to reach the public eye.

Another thing the misguided Taylor has going for him is a set of clearly-defined goals. He states them in the interview:

I have always recommended only two policies: an end to mass immigration, and the abolition of antidiscrimination laws.

Without realistic and concrete goals, the WN movement is not really a "movement" at all. It's just a bunch of chickens running around with their heads cut off. When are we going to finally start discussing such things, folks?

[Hunter Wallace]

Jared Taylor certainly isn't of the same point of view as William Pierce on the issue. Then again, in light of my own recent quarrel with the Neo-Nazis, I can now understand why he would want to distance himself from such people. I think Kevin MacDonald is of the same point of view. Its quite obvious that all Jews are not out to do harm to Americans of European ancestry. The harm they do inflict tends to be mostly an indirect effect of their efforts to 'fight anti-Semitism', which in reality, is only generating more anti-Semitism than ever before. There is no diabolical Jewish conspiracy to destroy the United States either. The problem is actually a small minority of Jews, most of whom are secular liberals that are just as alienated from the Jewish community as they are from America in general. Most American Jews, like most Americans generally, are not really politically active. There are some Jews who are also entirely aware of racial differences and support white separatism. Michael Levin is a typical example. Then there are other Jews who are highly critical of the damage Organised Jewry has done to Jews, Europeans, and Arabs. Israel Shamir and Noam Chomsky stand out in this respect. I think the demonisation of the Jews has been pushed too far myself. It obscures the actual causes of our decline, which are much more nuanced and complex than most racialists would care to admit. The Jews are a menace. Very true. But the Jews alone are not responsible for our current situation.

[Sinclair]

It sort of looks to me as though some members of the WN/Nazi/whatever community sort of don't want it to become mainstream, they just want a little group all to themselves. This might be why racialist internet forums, organizations, etc, usually fall apart amidst backbiting and subgroup competition.

[Nuclear Thoughts]

Multiple responses forthcoming:

To Sinclair: I agree with your entire post. We need more level-headed people like you.
Quote:
SH said: "Well then you have to have parade marshals assigned to deal with the problem. They beat them up if necessary and take the consequences. If you have to hiire someone from a martial arts dojo, you do it. What will the Nazis do, sue you?"

I agree that actions like the above might help, but only if the sponsoring WN organization is willing to exercise such "quality control" over their public rallies. More often than not, they don't forbid swastika-tattooed skinheads from marching, since they're afraid of losing what little support they have. And in the case of the National Alliance, which draws a lot of its operating income from selling hate-core CDs to swastika-tattooed skinheads, they're not about to bite the hand that feeds them. So, they continue to pollute their rallies with such skinheads.

As for Neo-Nazis sueing in court if they're beat up by other WNs, they just might. Some courts do indeed award cash settlements between WNs, as happened in the case of a former NA staffer known as "White Will", who won a hefty court settlement against another WN, aka Harold Covington. So some beat up Nazis could sue - and win.
Quote:
SH said: "Personally I am still puzzled why Communist emblems draw no particular attention in antiwar marches from Vietnam era to the present. I have read of truly unspeakable atrocities commited by the Reds in Tibet, for example, that rival what you post on NS Gemany.

My theory as to why communist emblems like the sickle & hammer don't draw as much revulsion as the swastika is because those who flew the hammer & sickle (the Soviets) were once our military allies during WW II. On the other hand, those who flew the swastika (the Nazis) never were. And, of course, there are many other reasons as well. But you're right - the communists murdered far more than the Nazis did, according to what I've read, as many as 70 million compared to the Nazis 20 million.
Quote:
FTB replied, in regard to my turd-in-the-pizza analogy: "LMAO. Very true."

A crude analogy I know, but it served to illustrate why Nazi uniforms and symbols aren't helping us. BTW, I've read your responses over on VNN, in regard to "The Fundamental Schism In White Nationalism". You've eloquently presented your case, and it's a good one. But from my own personal experience, the VNN powers-that-be often ban those who dare question the use of Nazi symbols in our rallies, often labeling them "Jews", etc. That's why I'm no longer there.
Quote:
SH said: "OK, how did the vile Linder manage to exclude the WW2 reenactors at Topeka? Apparently he has some magical ability that noone else has. How can an entire "movement" be terrified of a handful of nutcases and ADL/FBI/SPLC agents provocateurs ?"

In all fairness to Mr. Linder, I agree he renounces the use of Nazi symbols in our cause, if he has control over the situation. On the other hand, I don't think he would necessarily refuse to march with those who DO use them. Furthermore, his forum is definitely sympathetic to those who espouse their use.
Quote:
Angler said: "Pardon me for my lack of familiarity with WN politics, but doesn't Jared Taylor advocate allowing Jews into the pro-White movement?"

This is the most complex and incendiary issue facing white nationalism today - the issue of the Jews. Yes, Taylor does indeed have some Jews he accepts into the fold, and this has caused many WNs to reject him. I myself am perplexed as to how to adequately resolve this nettlesome problem, since, on the one hand, Jewish influence in the promotion of race-mixing, affirmative action, Third World immigration, etc. is clearly evident. Our present war in Iraq is being waged, by all accounts, not to defend America - but Israel. In addition to all that, the Jews have an inordinate amount of control in our news media and in Hollywood and use that control to disseminate a lot of poisonous, anti-white ideas.

That said, there are Jews who are anti-liberal, who oppose the flooding of America with illegal aliens, and who - to put it bluntly - hate niggers. In addition to that, the issue is made even more complex by the fact that many Jews appear totally white, lacking semitic hooked-noses, dark, kinky hair, and swarthy complexions. Some look even "whiter" than the typical white, if one uses the blue-eyed, blond-haired Nordic look as the "gold standard" of Aryan whiteness.

For this reason, pointing to such a Nordic-looking Jew and then proclaiming to the average lemming that "he's not white" seems irrational, even if one can prove that such a Jewish individual's DNA bears semitic origins. And that's the biggest problem with the Jewish issue - the fact that many Jews "look" white, whereas niggers, spics, and gooks don't. Jared Taylor has said as much, when asked about Jews. His reply, "They look white to me." Well, many of them DO. And not only look white, but "act white", to paraphrase David Lane's famous essay, "Who Is White?"

Ironically, many WNs are willing to accept whites who have 1/16 or even 1/8 Indian or Negro blood, but will not accept a white with 1/16 or 1/8 Jewish blood - which goes even further to complicate the Jewish issue. Personally, it strikes me as irrational to accept a white with 1/8 negro blood, but not accept a white with 1/8 Jewish blood. In fact, it's downright crazy. But that's my opinion, and I'm probably outnumbered 10 to 1 in the WN movement on that viewpoint, if not 100 to 1.

For the time being, I believe our best tactic is to recognize the widespread Jewish influence in the woes of our country, but instead attack them based upon their beliefs rather than there semitic origins, hooked-noses, etc. That's because it's just too plain confusing to your average white American that he should consider a blond-haired, blue-eyed Jew as being a "non-white".

Finally, it's clear that our "hate all kikes" propaganda tactics simply don't work in winning over more white Americans to our cause. And though I'll probably be labeled "a Jew" for saying that (as I was on VNN) that's how I see it.

[AntiYuppie]

What White Nationalism needs is a dose of realpolitik, which means coming to terms with the fact that none of their standardbearers is going to organize a successful coup d'etat or fight and win a civil war that's right around the corner (in their imaginations, that is). What this means is that the "all or nothing" approach of WN extremists will lead to the "nothing" option during their lifetimes.

The far Left in America and Europe managed to achieve their aims through stealth and incrementalism ("Fabian Socialism"), and they did so by working with moderate liberals and by working their ideas and rhetoric into a framework that was acceptable to anyone who was left of center. Their trick was that while very few people would support a far-left agenda wholesale, piecemeal they could always win on one issue at a time because any one leftist issue may seem "reasonable" enough for moderates to accept and trivial enough for the Right not to fight. Hence the Frankfurt School takeover of most of America's cultural institutions: there was no coup, no revolution, just incremental implementation of their agenda.

Along the same lines, White Nationalists and others on the far-right should begin with goals that are modest and realizable. Don't have a party platform that demands sending the Negro back to Africa, rather, work with the moderate right to end affirmative action and other "anti-discrimination." Don't have a platform that demands all mestizos be shipped back to Mexico, instead work with "mainstream" individuals like Tancredo to close the border with Mexico. Don't tell people that the only way to end Jewish power is to establish Third Reich II, rather, work to end aid to and a de facto alliance with Israel because it is in foreign policy that Jewish power and influence is most pernicious (i.e. I can deal with Jewish attempts to ban Christmas trees from the public square, I can't deal with Jewish attempts to use American blood and money to fight Israel's wars).

Work within these modest goals and you will win many individuals over from the mainstream right. While about half of the Bush voters were idiot Freeper types, the rest were probably conservatives to the right of Reagan who voted for the special-ed President because they had nowhere else to go. They won't jum aboard the "kill the kikes and niggers" bandwagon or attend rallies alongside the brownshirt dressup crowd, but they might agree with the 3 goals outlined above (of which Jared Taylor so far only puts 1 and 2 at center stage).

[AntiYuppie]

I agree that Jared Taylor should run for Congress. Having a visible and viable candidate expressing his views on immigration, affirmative action, and race relations would do wonders for the cause. Furthermore, Taylor is very charismatic and telegenic, and his background makes it impossible for the Leftists to use the "neanderthal bigot" smear to discredit him.

Recall that whatever his flaws (the most serious of which is his recent endorsement of the special ed President), Pat Buchanan did more to make immigration control and foreign policy "isolationism" (i.e. anti-Zionism, opposition to foreign aid to the Third World) mainstream issues. Without visible political candidates and TV pundits expressing these views, racial and ethnic issues have been relegated to the fringe.

Mass psychology is a funny thing. The very same ideas that are unacceptable to the masses when expressed on a "fringe" website suddenly become acceptable when they're spoken by a TV pundit or political candidate. What this means is that Taylor should run for office, and we should hope that a version of Pat Buchanan with somewhat more spine comes along in the next Presidential election.

[Stan]

While I agree with what you say there AY, it has to be noted that it took socialists in Europe a long time to get where they are now. Time we don't have, even if all WN's suddenly say: 'hey, that guy with that bald dude in his avatar on the phøra is right, let's do what he says to the letter' (oversimplification to make my point here), they don't have the time to do it at a similar pace. Especially in America whites already live on borrowed time. You problably know better than me how the ethnic makeover of the USA will be in 2040 or so, and we both know that won't be pretty. Whites may already be a minority there then.

[Sinclair]

I think what's needed is a recognization that just because some groups have more good than others, does not mean that every member of that group is valuable, and just because some groups have more bad, does not mean that every member of that group should be shot or deported or whatever.

Jews, as a group, are successful. This is for various different reasons, one big one being that they have developed strong survival instincts, and periodic oppression has kept them from "sponging out" and losing the "group density" that keeps them successful. Jews are hardly out to get the "white race", it is more that their attempts to benefit and protect themselves have side effects on others. They are hardly the only group that has negative impact on other groups. That's just what Europeans used to do: Colonialism was not fun for the natives.

The belief that Jews are all part of some hive-mind conspiracy is foolish, as they are never completely homogeneous, and in a situation where they do not feel vulnerable, they will start to lose their group-oriented traditions.

Case in point: My school. Heavily, heavily Jewish, as it is a non-religion based private school, perfect for secular-Jewish parents who don't want to send their kids to a nutso Hebrew school, but don't want them to go to a private school with a Christian affiliation.

The Jews at my school do not, by and large, spend their time plotting to brainwash the goyim. They act like any most rich kids: They are ungrateful for what previous generations have provided for them, they barely give a shit about history (one would think that Jews would be very into history!), the guys dress like ghetto thugs (I call them "Hebroes") and the girls (JAP material, I'll tell you that) walk around looking like the sorts of women that spend a lot of time hanging around street corners in the bad part of town. They don't go home and read the Talmud and plot how they're going to destroy the whites, they go home and watch survivor and listen to Fifty Cent and neglect studying for their exams.

I believe that a "better society" would still involve members of different racial and ethnic groups. Proportions would be different, for reasons I have described before, but it would not be some ethnically-cleansed White State. I'd rather have a single McWhorter than a bushel of hate-filled, swastika-toting genetic rejects.

The attempts to blame the problems of society on Jews, blacks, mestizos, whatever, are foolish, and intellectually weak: It requires a bit of spine and an inquiring mind to accept at least some of the blame for one's problems: This is where the current racialist movements fail. They are absolutist, and you can just tell that if they ever do get rid of all non-whites, the problems will still be there, and the white community will fragment: The Nords against the Meds, etc. Then whichever group wins will fragment again.

This is what will happen whenever a movement is not based around trying to improve on what is already there, with a moderate amount of change based on factors other than ethnicity and/or race, but on outright removal of some groups, in the belief that it will make everything better.

But I honestly doubt that a "improvement-centred" movement based around factors other than race or ethnicity can be built out of what exists now, because what exists now consists largely of losers in their basements bitching about how the Jews used microwaves to make them impotent and then their wives left them, and if we get rid of the Jewz, itz, they'll have all the Aryan pussy they want.

[Hunter Wallace]

A crude analogy I know, but it served to illustrate why Nazi uniforms and symbols aren't helping us. BTW, I've read your responses over on VNN, in regard to "The Fundamental Schism In White Nationalism". You've eloquently presented your case, and it's a good one. But from my own personal experience, the VNN powers-that-be often ban those who dare question the use of Nazi symbols in our rallies, often labeling them "Jews", etc. That's why I'm no longer there.


Yeah. I have come to the conclusion that I am pretty much wasting my over there. There is no point in arguing with net nazis. I am only wasting my energy on them when it could be more productively spent here focusing on more contemporary issues relevant to our cause. Nazism is buried underneath entire libraries of scholarship. And rightly so. It has been thoroughly discredited for over a generation now. So there is nothing much left for me to do in that regard. Those poster boys for eugenics impress no one.

[Angler]

Originally Posted by FadeTheButcher
Its quite obvious that all Jews are not out to do harm to Americans of European ancestry.
Agreed.

The harm they do inflict tends to be mostly an indirect effect of their efforts to 'fight anti-Semitism', which in reality, is only generating more anti-Semitism than ever before.
That's certainly part of the picture, but I suspect that much of the damage Jews do our nation is the result of their majority backing of so-called "liberal" issues such as abortion rights, the gay agenda, feminism, affirmative action, and citizen disarmament. As you know well, it is primarily Jews who are spearheading these dangerous and destructive movements. Although I am willing to believe mean that they mean well in some twisted way of their own, they cannot be allowed to succeed. Fortunately, mainstream conservatism already offers something of a barrier -- albeit a weak one -- against excessive progress in these areas.

There is no diabolical Jewish conspiracy to destroy the United States either.
I agree, but there is a contingent of Jews and their allies who seek to use US economic, political, and military power for the sole benefit of Israel. I'm not just referring to the high-level neocons such as Perle, Wolfowitz, Wurmser, Feith, and Abrams, either. I would estimate the percentage of US Jews who fall into the neocon category at roughly 25% (the approximate percentage of Jews who voted for Bush). Some Jews who voted for Kerry probably also vote "Israel first," but since not all Jews who voted for Bush did so because of his foreign policy, the estimate seems like a reasonable compromise.

In any case, it is the "Israel first" Jews and their non-Jewish allies whom I consider the main enemy. What they have done is subverted the US government so that it serves a foreign power, and this is an absolutely intolerable situation.

The problem is actually a small minority of Jews, most of whom are secular liberals that are just as alienated from the Jewish community as they are from America in general. Most American Jews, like most Americans generally, are not really politically active.
I must disagree here. In fact, Jews are probably more politically active than any other ethnic group. On the other hand, they voted for Kerry over Bush by 3-1 margin in the last election, so it would be a mistake to view all Jews as FReeper types.

The thing to keep in mind is that organized Jewry form a very powerful collective that holds tremendous influence in government, media, and business. The members of this collective are all in agreement about the goal of promoting Jewish interests. What they don't agree about in many cases is the means by which Jewish interests should be promoted. That's why you have squabbles between the ADL and the JDL, between Bush and Kerry supporters within the AIPAC, and so on.
There are some Jews who are also entirely aware of racial differences and support white separatism. Michael Levin is a typical example.
True, but let's not forget that Jews are not White, and while Jews who are ostensibly well-disposed to our cause can be tolerated, by NO means can they be trusted.

Then there are other Jews who are highly critical of the damage Organised Jewry has done to Jews, Europeans, and Arabs. Israel Shamir and Noam Chomsky stand out in this respect.
Yes, there's no doubt that there are dissenters in the Jewish community. I have no beef at all with Jews of conscience like those you mentioned and others (e.g., Mordechai Vanunu).

I think the demonisation of the Jews has been pushed too far myself. It obscures the actual causes of our decline, which are much more nuanced and complex than most racialists would care to admit. The Jews are a menace. Very true. But the Jews alone are not responsible for our current situation.
While not all Jews are responsible for the ills of Western society, those who are primarily responsible for such ills are certainly Jewish. C'mon Fade: let's not forget about the AIPAC, WZO, JINSA, ADL, Hollywood, MTV, and all the rest. And then there are the Christian Zionists who aren't Jewish but might as well be. These groups have enormous power in US politics. They truly are a political mafia of great proportions. And that's to say nothing of the Jewish/Zionist plants at all levels of the US government.

[Hunter Wallace]

That's certainly part of the picture, but I suspect that much of the damage Jews do our nation is the result of their majority backing of so-called "liberal" issues such as abortion rights, the gay agenda, feminism, affirmative action, and citizen disarmament One could certainly argue that Organised American Jewry has involved itself in all of these issues in some form or another. Yet it is likewise true that there are all sorts of splits within the Jewish community on these issues. In short, all Jews are not equally disruptive. The most notable split would be the one between Orthodox and Reform congregations with the Conservatives in the middle, or better yet, the distance between Orthodox Jewry and secular Jewry in America. Its the secular Jews (followed by Reform) who are by far the most destructive in this respect. These "liberal" issues also do not resonate with a substantial number of Americans, especially those that live in more conservative areas of the country.


As you know well, it is primarily Jews who are spearheading these dangerous and destructive movements.
I would agree with you that all of the above issues have been destructive to our interests. Yet none of the issues you have listed above has been as deadly as the loss of racial consciousness amongst whites. Its taboo in America for whites to openly affiliate themselves with their race and acknowledge their ethnic and racial interests like other groups. Racial nihilism is the greatest inhibiting factor that we are facing today.


Although I am willing to believe mean that they mean well in some twisted way of their own, they cannot be allowed to succeed.
All of the causes you listed above resonate differently amongst different aspects of the Jewish community. Most Orthodox Jews generally oppose all of the above and even many Conservative Jews would oppose affirmative action simply because of the negative effect it has on Jews. Its the fundamental goal of 'fighting anti-Semitism', however, that unites American Jewry above all else.


Fortunately, mainstream conservatism already offers something of a barrier -- albeit a weak one -- against excessive progress in these areas.
I agree. As I pointed out above, none of these issues have any appeal to a huge number of Americans. Yet even these Americans, along with their more liberal counterparts, would be inhibited from publically and openly identifying themselves with a white racial agenda.


I agree, but there is a contingent of Jews and their allies who seek to use US economic, political, and military power for the sole benefit of Israel. I'm not just referring to the high-level neocons such as Perle, Wolfowitz, Wurmser, Feith, and Abrams, either.
Very true. Yet it should also be pointed out that even Israel does not unite American Jewry. Most American Jews are either secular or Reform Jews. Historically speaking, they have been generally supportive of the peace process. Only a very small minority of American Jews would call themselves neoconservatives, much less hardcore Zionists.


I would estimate the percentage of US Jews who fall into the neocon category at roughly 25% (the approximate percentage of Jews who voted for Bush).
I would say that is a rather generous estimate you have there. If you have any further information about this, then I would of course like to see it. Bush did much better amongst American Jewry this year but the voters he picked up amongst this group are probably swing voters.


Some Jews who voted for Kerry probably also vote "Israel first," but since not all Jews who voted for Bush did so because of his foreign policy, the estimate seems like a reasonable compromise.
Every survey that I have ever seen about American Jewry indicates to me that most American Jews would associate their Jewish identity more with things like 'social justice' than the State of Israel. Israel certainly is important to the majority of American Jews, but its not as important to them as other concerns.


In any case, it is the "Israel first" Jews and their non-Jewish allies whom I consider the main enemy.
Hmm. This is disputable. I would say that the most deadly Jews are those who actively work to deracialise whites. Ignatiev comes to mind here as a typical example.


What they have done is subverted the US government so that it serves a foreign power, and this is an absolutely intolerable situation.
I agree. But I think the damage that is done by our support of Israel simply is not as destructive to our interests as the loss of racial identity amongst whites.


I must disagree here. In fact, Jews are probably more politically active than any other ethnic group.
Jews certainly are more politically active than gentiles. I would with you there. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that majority of American Jews are intensely political, much less are they in a position to do us much harm. Its a secular Jewish elite concentrated in the media and academia that has done the most damage.


On the other hand, they voted for Kerry over Bush by 3-1 margin in the last election, so it would be a mistake to view all Jews as FReeper types.
It should be noted that the Jews who do vote in American elections do not represent American Jewry as a whole. Many white gentiles, much less registered voters, do not bother to vote either. But yeah, the majority of American Jews have much more sympathy with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party.


The thing to keep in mind is that organized Jewry form a very powerful collective that holds tremendous influence in government, media, and business.
I agree. Yet even here one could point out that Organised Jewry is quite often out of sync with American Jewry. Organised Jewry is much pro-Israel than American Jewry in general. This is probably because Organised Jewry is also a business that relies upon donations from individual Jews, so it is much more like to take extremist positions in order scare the old ladies into sending in the checks.


The members of this collective are all in agreement about the goal of promoting Jewish interests. What they don't agree about in many cases is the means by which Jewish interests should be promoted. That's why you have squabbles between the ADL and the JDL, between Bush and Kerry supporters within the AIPAC, and so on.
I agree.


True, but let's not forget that Jews are not White, and while Jews who are ostensibly well-disposed to our cause can be tolerated, by NO means can they be trusted.
I agree. They should be viewed with suspicion. But I don't have any problem cooperating with Jews so long as it serves my interests. Similarly, Jews have skillfully used gentile frontmen to camoflague naked ethnic interests in the past.


Yes, there's no doubt that there are dissenters in the Jewish community. I have no beef at all with Jews of conscience like those you mentioned and others (e.g., Mordechai Vanunu).
Me either. The essential point I am making here is that demonisation of the Jews often inhibits racialists from discerning substantial differences amongst them which are otherwise apparant to rational and disinterested observers.


While not all Jews are responsible for the ills of Western society, those who are primarily responsible for such ills are certainly Jewish.
You have have to break this down and analyse each separate issue. I am convinced that in many areas Jewish influence is only incidental in our decline. The underlying cause is a preexisting social breakdown caused by individualism. The Jews are only taking advantage of this.


C'mon Fade: let's not forget about the AIPAC, WZO, JINSA, ADL, Hollywood, MTV, and all the rest.
I am well aware of the destructive influence of all these organisations. I agree with Sinclair, however, that most American Jews don't wake up in the morning and think to themselves, gee, how can I fuck over white people today. There is no massive conspiracy either. Most of the deleterious influence is indirect. Jews simply have so much power in our society that their individual activities has a negative distorting effect on our culture.


And then there are the Christian Zionists who aren't Jewish but might as well be.
I agree. The evangelicals are more or less a serious menace. We need more racial education in this area to counter the propaganda of the TV preachers.


They truly are a political mafia of great proportions. And that's to say nothing of the Jewish/Zionist plants at all levels of the US government.
You have to see this in perspective though. Its not just the Jews. The Jews alone do not have the power to carry out such a destructive agenda. Take immigration for instance. The sad truth of the matter is that white gentile capitalists are addicted to cheap labour. They sell out their own people for temporary financial gain. The Left wants votes and diversity so they join with the oligarchs against us.

[bentillman]

Jews, as a group, are successful. This is for various different reasons, one big one being that they have developed strong survival instincts
Isn't it a bit fanciful to suggest that Jews have stronger survival instincts than the rest of us? How did the rest of us make it this far? It would be more reasonable to say that the Jewish community's survival instincts result in different behavioral psychological and behavioral tendencies because their survival strategy is so different. For hundreds of generations now, Jews have lived as a minority within a host population.

[Sinclair]

Which takes a bit of doing. They're skating on much thinner ice, as it were. More fragile.

[bentillman]

Which takes a bit of doing. They're skating on much thinner ice, as it were. More fragile.
Of course. But why do they skate on such thin ice? Why do they do differently from the goyim? What's in it for them?

[bentillman]

The attempts to blame the problems of society on Jews ... are foolish, and intellectually weak
It is not a moral issue, so the concept of "blame" is out of place. Nonetheless, the threat to the survival of the European race is indeed due to the actions of the Jewish community. Yes, we can point to a constitutional infirmity that makes relatively individualistic white societies susceptible to invasion by cohesive groups -- especially groups that have many members who look and act white, as is discussed above. But this constitutional infirmity is part of what we are, and -- I would argue -- is the disadvantage associated with what is largely a great advantage: our creativity. You can "blame" white communities for having this weakness all you want, but this weakness cannot be eliminated. If we are to survive, we must expel the cohesive group that causes us such difficulty.

[neoclassical]

Originally Posted by otto_von_bismarck
Taylor is the kinda guy I can support. No extremism, leftism, or fucked up conspiracy theories. No dumb Hitler fetish and he focuses on real grievances.


I agree. Taylor and www.nazi.org (http://www.nazi.org/) are the only stable sources of which I know, outside of Jensen and other academics.

[AntiYuppie]

Originally Posted by seelow heights
That is the problem in a nutshell. It is hard to imagine Taylor leading a street rally, let alone a mass march on Washington. Polite intellectuals with interesting ideas are no threat to the "permanent regime". Bad as he was AH understood how to reach the masses. What he did in Germany way back when, in its particulars, would be highly inappropriate in the US today, but the general principles are the same since human nature does not change. To make a revolution a descent into the vulgar is unavoidable.


True enough, but 21st century America is not early 20th century Germany. We live in a "top down" society where the public at large generally believes whatever the mass media and other powers that be tell them to believe. In order to win the masses over, racialists and nationalists must win some members of the elite over so that the public will be exposed to their ideas in the sanitary "mainstream" form that they are willing to accept. Joe Six Pack will ignore and ridicule an opinion if it is labelled "fringe" but would eagerly support the exact same opinion if it was fed to him by a "mainstream" source. In other words, if it's on a website like this one it will be ridiculed or ignored, if it's said on Prime Time it becomes gospel.

What this means is that it is essential to have "our own" (in whatever sanitized form) in positions of influence, particularly in the mass media. The era of bottom up, populist politics is over, and has been over ever since every Western household acquired a radio and television.

If the far right is to "win," it won't be by a putsch or a march on Washington, but by infiltrating America's elite institutions in the same way that the Frankfurt School "New Left" hijacked this nation.

[Thomas777]

Originally Posted by AntiYuppie

If the far right is to "win," it won't be by a putsch or a march on Washington, but by infiltrating America's elite institutions in the same way that the Frankfurt School "New Left" hijacked this nation.


This is absolutely right. Right thinking people need to follow the enemy's example and become:

-Attorneys/Judges
-Academics
-Doctors
-Engineers

We need to BECOME the elites...not try to wage street battles against the current ones.