The Decline of American Renaissance
By • 5/8/07 |
Jared Taylor. |
When he held the first American Renaissance (AR) conference in 1994, Jared Taylor seemed to be on the cusp of bringing into being a major new paradigm in American politics: a race realism that could appeal to moderate conservatives. Taylor and his fellow speakers spoke forthrightly about racial differences in intelligence and criminality, as well the inevitability of racial conflict and the need for whites to defend their interests. However, Taylor’s race realism came with none of the extremist, conspiratorial, anti-Semitic baggage that had previously characterized American racialism. Here, it seemed, was someone who was forging a vision that could appeal to the mass of moderate and sensible Americans, rather than a handful of marginal cranks.
Thirteen years later, Taylor has failed to make good on his original promise. Through his refusal to denounce the blatant anti-Semitism of many of his followers, Taylor has proved that he either never understood what it would take to build a mass movement or never wanted to. Taylor appears at last to have thrown in his lot with the cranks, and the task of building a mass movement must fall to others.
Taylor emerged on the conservative and libertarian intellectual scene in America in the 1990s. He had worked before as editor of PC World, and had authored a book on Japan in the 1980s called Shadows of the Rising Sun (1983). Taylor grew up in Japan, where his father worked as a missionary. He was educated at Yale and the Sorbonne.
 |
| Paved With Good Intentions was a fine start. |
Taylor’s articles on race appeared in various mainstream conservative quarters in the 1990s, including National Review and the paleoconservative Chronicles. In 1992, he published the crucial book Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America. The book was reviewed and praised in such center-right publications as the Wall Street Journal, National Review, and The Washington Times, as well as by syndicated columnist Walter Williams, among others. While remaining neutral on biological differences among the races, Taylor was able to make a convincing argument that poverty and social dysfunction among American blacks were caused by black culture rather than white racism.
While Taylor’s book was receiving critical praise in the mainstream, he was leading a “double life” so to speak, by publishing American Renaissance under the name Samuel Taylor. Samuel is Jared Taylor’s first name, so this wasn’t too much of a stretch. However, it is interesting that Samuel Taylor was outspoken about innate racial differences while Jared Taylor was silent on that subject. This would not be the last time Samuel Jared Taylor would communicate two different messages to different audiences. From the newsletter’s beginnings in 1990, Taylor displayed none of the reticence that characterized his book. He explored the biological basis of racial differences in intelligence and other traits, and called on whites to fight for their own racial interests.
 |
| A man of strong views. |
Taylor seemed the man to crystallize the growing dissatisfaction with liberal views on race into an explicit white racial consciousness that would have mass appeal. However, if he was to achieve this, there was a barrier that he would have to surmount: the association between race realism and Nazism, which had been solidly established in the American mind by the career of David Duke, as well as by lesser white supremacist figures and groups.
It is a truism to point out that Nazism represents the epitome of evil in the American mind. While demonization inevitably involves simplification, there are few people who better fit the bill of demon than Hitler. Of course, there is the Holocaust and the immense destruction that World War II wrought on Europe. Americans also have a tradition of freedom that rightly abhors Hitler’s totalitarian police-state. Moreover, Hitler was a demagogic liar who falsely blamed a minority group for the misery and humiliation of his country. Americans are justly on guard against the stirrings of a movement analogous to Nazism. Since race realism had never fully separated itself from Nazism, it had been easily marginalized.
American Renaissance, however, was susceptible to none of the usual criticisms directed against American racialists. Forthright though the magazine was, Taylor and the other writers published in the newsletter wrote in the crisp, lucid, and objective tone that is the hallmark of intelligence and education. Taylor understood that his views had to succeed by substantive, rational argument, rather than through muscular assertion or demonization of a conspiratorial enemy. Thus, his views on racial differences, racial conflict, and immigration were founded on a solid understanding of the best research available in those fields.
Just as important as what Taylor put into his magazine was what he left out. There was no hint of the demagogic anti-Semitism and the other cant issues that had characterized previous incarnations of racialism. The columnist Samuel Francis, who was closely associated with the magazine from the very beginning, summed up its achievement on the twelfth anniversary of its inception:
For the most part the older rhetoric of “white supremacy” and what was called “hate” never talked about race at all—at least not seriously. It talked about the Constitution, communism, the common cultural framework that most Americans, white and black, Southern and Northern, shared. When it did talk about “race,” the result was often simply a pathetic litany of cliches, racial horror stories, often pseudo-science mixed in with a certain amount of fundamentalist (or pagan) religion, and outright drivel laced with plenty of racial epithets and insults. Not a few racially conscious whites seemed to do and say virtually everything to confirm the claim of their enemies that they really were filled with hatred and engulfed in ignorance. Some—skinheads, “neo-Nazis,” etc.—still do; for them, making themselves as repellent as possible and inciting fear and disgust rather than doing something constructive on behalf of their own race seems to be their chief purpose.
Anyone familiar with American Renaissance knows that … it avoids this kind of rhetoric entirely. Not only does AR avoid it, neither the publication nor Jared Taylor himself nor anyone who has ever written for it that I know of even has any disposition to use such rhetoric. Nor does AR appeal to states’ rights, the Constitution, or traditional segregationist practices. The rhetoric it has developed is the rhetoric of race itself, of what should be called “racial realism.”
American Renaissance attracted both moderate conservatives and old-style white supremacists; however, initially at least, the balance seems to have been slightly in favor of the former. In 1997, AR conducted a poll designed to gauge the views of its readers, which included questions about which foreigners had done the most to advance or damage white interests. Remarkably, the most frequent answer to both questions was Hitler. Whereas 112 readers thought Hitler had damaged white interests, only 75 thought he had advanced them.
The early years of American Renaissance were a time when it seemed race realism had a chance of entering the mainstream. What replaced the Cold War for many on the Right were the newer, messier issues of race and multiculturalism. The era of the “Clash of Civilizations” was just beginning. National and civilizational questions were becoming central: What is it to be a nation? Where do race and civilization intersect in the West? Are the races significantly different from each other in IQ and temperament? If so, what are the consequences for our policies on immigration, crime, bilingualism, multiculturalism, and affirmative action? Conservative and libertarian intellectuals of the 1990s were gingerly beginning to broach these subjects for the first time in a long while.
As Paved With Good Intentions was receiving praise in mainstream conservative media outlets, other important developments were occurring. Under the leadership of John O’Sullivan, then editor of National Review (NR), a brief era of glasnost was allowed on racial issues in their pages. Some articles by Jared Taylor were published there, as were Lawrence Auster’s devastating articles on multiculturalism and Peter Brimelow’s hard-hitting criticisms of American immigration policy. Sam Francis was allowed to write book reviews under O’Sullivan, and Steve Sailer published penetrating articles on race from a sociobiological perspective. NR reviewed favorably not only Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein’s The Bell Curve (1994), but also Prof. J. Phillipe Rushton’s race realist masterpiece Race, Evolution, and Behavior (1995).
 |
| Buy The Clash of Civilizations from Amazon.com |
At the same time, Auster gained notoriety with his groundbreaking book on immigration, The Path to National Suicide (1990), the first serious critique of the disastrous 1965 Immigration Act. Samuel Huntington, a neo-liberal Democrat at Harvard rocked the establishment in the 1990s by publishing “The Clash of Civilizations,” first in the quarterly Foreign Affairs as the “X” article of its day, and then later in full, book-length form. Huntington’s book (far more impressive than his later, plaintive Who Are We?) discussed China and Islam as threats or “challenger civilizations” to the West. Huntington explored the role of unchecked nonwhite immigration to the West and its demographic impact, as well as the corrosive role of multiculturalism advocated by its elites. Brimelow’s landmark book Alien Nation: Common Sense about America’s Immigration Disaster was published in 1995.
American Renaissance’s first conference, held in Atlanta in 1994, occurred at the height of this burgeoning new interest in race and civilization and gave those who hoped for a mainstreaming of race realism great grounds for optimism. It seemed as though Taylor had made a clean break from racialism’s unsavory past. Not only did requiring men to wear coats and ties, the mandatory dress code at AR conferences, probably discourage some skinheads from attending, but AR seemed to be courting a mainstream audience and marginalizing extremists.
The extent of Jewish participation in the conference made clear it was no neo-Nazi event. Four of the ten speakers were Jewish, including the traditional orthodox rabbi Mayer Schiller, who brought many of his rabbinical students with him. Some have estimated that up to a quarter of the 160 attendees were Jewish, and Rabbi Schiller received a Kosher meal at the banquet. Furthermore, Taylor did not allow David Duke to attend. (He came to the hotel that hosted the conference nevertheless, and his acolytes who were attending the conference gave him reports of what was going on inside.)
Two of the speakers who addressed biological differences among the races were Jewish: Prof. Michael Levin of City College of New York and Eugene Valberg, former professor of philosopy at the University of New Orleans. It is notable that this conference not only attracted Ph.D.’s, but even an actual academic. Levin, the author of the monumental Why Race Matters (1997), spoke on “The Policy Consequences of Racial Differences.”
Not only did a rabbi speak at the conference, but so did a Catholic priest, Fr. Robert Tacelli. These clerics were a nod of encouragement to the religious right, the dominant constituency of American conservatism. The conference also featured speakers who were more or less still a part of mainstream conservatism, such as Lawrence Auster and the syndicated columnists Sam Francis and Joe Sobran.
 |
| We thought we might have found a new Buckley. |
Moderates could be excused for thinking this historic conference was a serious break with the race neutrality of the modern-day right, and at the same time, a break with the extremism that had discredited race realism. It seemed that AR was going to be capable of melding the academic study of race with populist nationalism and religious conservatism into a powerful new political force. Some of us dreamed that AR would become the new NR, and that Jared Taylor was going to be the racialist equivalent of William F. Buckley, Jr. Like Buckley, Taylor was a sophisticated, charming speaker and writer. Both had attended Yale, and both were fluent in foreign languages.
However, while the first AR conference was an important step in separating race realism from the old-style white supremacism, the break was not as clear as it initially seemed. While Taylor eschewed the rhetoric of white supremacism, moderates who were waiting for him to denounce it in the pages of AR were continually disappointed. Rather, Taylor adopted the strategy of simply ignoring the conflict between the two camps of his readers. When pressed about the matter in interviews and private conversations, he always said the issue was outside the scope of the newsletter.
Furthermore, while Taylor excluded David Duke from his conferences, he made no attempt to do the same to less notorious figures who held the same views. Requiring suits and ties was not enough to keep neo-Nazis out, and they always formed a large faction at the conferences. Kevin Alfred Strom, Don Black, Jamie Kelso, and Mark Weber were regulars at AR conferences, for the simple reason that AR never gave them any reason not to appear.
Finally, Atlanta attorney Sam Dickson, a close associate and supporter of Duke who has long been prominent in the Holocaust denial movement, spoke at the 1994 conference and at every conference since. Sharp-witted and insightful as his speeches have been, moderates who knew his associations and history could not but be disturbed by his presence. While he was popular among a large contingent of conservatives, Joseph Sobran had recently been fired from National Review for what William Buckley considered anti-Semitic articles. Sobran’s attacks on Israel and Jewish influence in America would become increasingly radical over the coming years; in 2001, he addressed the Institute for Historical Review, the world’s foremost Holocaust denial advocacy group. Sobran’s associations did not keep Taylor from inviting him to be the keynote speaker at the 2004 conference.
As the years passed, the extremist faction at the conferences waxed and the mainstream faction waned, decisive proof that Taylor was either not interested in, or not capable of, creating a mainstream movement. The 1996 AR Conference was the last one to feature a member of the clergy. And Sam Francis and Roger McGrath seemed to be the last two speakers with serious ties to the mainstream conservative movement. Jewish speakers were gone after 2002. The 2004 conference featured Paul Fromm, who had long been associated with the neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial movements, as well as Sam Dickson and Joe Sobran, who spent most of his speech attacking Israel. By 2006, a mere 12 years after the first AR conference, the audience consisted largely of non-Jewish, non-religious men without any ties to the mainstream conservative movement. Moreover, this was the first conference that Jared Taylor allowed David Duke to attend. A large contingent of devotees of Stormfront, the largest neo-Nazi website, were also present.
 |
| Sam Francis, Sam Dickson, James Russell, and Jared Taylor at an AR conference. |
Meanwhile, Taylor himself revealed a radical and disturbing hostility to America’s defense of Israel. Though he never published anything about Israel in AR, he did, as the Realist points out in “Why I Started This Website,” publish three articles at The Last Ditch that were crudely and lopsidedly anti-Israeli. For Taylor, the plain lesson of 9/11 was that America should abandon support for Israel—any other view was “dangerous nonsense”; furthermore, any American action to retaliate for the 9/11 attack would prove that we valued the Israeli national interest more than our own. Such views appealed to anti-Semitic extremists and alienated moderate conservatives.
Conditions were ripe for a showdown, and one duly occurred. David Duke’s presence at the 2006 conference brought the tensions between the moderates and the extremists to a boiling point. As The Realist says in “Why I Started This Website”:
Near the end of the conference, one of the speakers, Guillaume Faye, said, in a talk about the decline of the West, that Israel might soon get wiped off the map. He viewed the prospect of Israel’s destruction as one sign of Western cultural collapse, but that was not how the audience took it. Rather, there was a thunderous round of applause coming from at least half of the audience.
At the end of the talk, David Duke got up during the question and answer period and spun out a long-winded speech on the subject of Jews’ eternal enmity to the white race, accompanied by much sympathetic chuckling and egging on from the audience. Michael Hart, a Jewish AR subscriber, got up and yelled at Duke, “You’re a f*cking Nazi, and you’re a disgrace to this conference!” Then he walked out. He, however, got no support.
Afterwards, in the May 2006 issue of AR, Taylor tried to calm the waters with an article titled “Jews and American Renaissance,” the first article Taylor had ever published on the long-standing tension among his subscribers. The article came after a letter from moderate AR subscribers urged Taylor to distance himself and his magazine from Duke and his ideas. Unfortunately, the column did not do much to clear the air.
While Taylor included welcome statements like, “AR has taken an implicit position on Jews by publishing Jewish authors and inviting Jewish speakers to AR Conferences,” and “Gentile whites—without help from anyone else—have repeatedly shown themselves capable of egalitarian excess,” he avoided an opportunity to speak out once and for all against the neo-Nazis in the AR circle.
In the rest of the article, Taylor was evenhanded in his criticism of both Duke and Hart, raising many disturbing questions: Did Taylor really think Hart’s behavior was comparable to Duke’s grandstanding, Jew-baiting display? Was Taylor afraid of offending Duke and his followers? Is Duke merely a man of “strong views” (as Taylor described him in the article) or is he an anti-Semitic neo-Nazi who drives mainstream whites away from any pro-white, racially conscious position?
Most disturbing of all, while Taylor treated Duke with kid gloves, he wrote angrily of the letter he had received. He called it condescending and said it had not influenced him at all; the subscribers had made a “mistake” by writing it.1
Taylor’s subsequent behavior has confirmed his bias in favor of the extremists. Recently, when a Holocaust denier e-mailed Taylor asking for his views on the Holocaust, Taylor refused to come down on the issue. The Holocaust denier then forwarded the exchange to Lawrence Auster, who published it on his website, “View from the Right.” Auster commented, “For Taylor, it’s equally possible that the Nazis did or did not carry out a program to dispossess, dehumanize, and exterminate the Jews of Europe, and it’s equally possible that the Nazis did or did not actually murder several million Jews.” When White America posted Auster’s commentary, a substantial discussion took place, in which Taylor himself participated. Taylor refused to affirm the occurrence of the Holocaust and ridiculed Auster and the other commenters on the thread for demanding that he take a clear stance on this issue.
This reaction was predictable. Taylor has always justified his failure to take a firm stand against extremism by stating that Jewish issues were irrelevant to American Renaissance. Nothing, however, could be more mistaken. Whites of good will everywhere are held back from joining race realist organizations by the fear that they will be associating themselves with nonsensical and extremist positions. And yet, for whatever reason, Jared Taylor is uncomfortable with the idea of reading extremists and Nazis out of the organization. Why? Do the 3,000 or so Neo-Nazi activists really add that much to the overall movement? What if AR could grow the movement ten times that amount by jettisoning the Nazis? Wouldn’t it be worth it? Just a few choice editorials and cues, as well as a different selection of conference speakers, would do the trick. Neo-Nazis don’t hang around Chronicles, for example, because they know they are not welcome there. But they do know they’ve been given a green light to participate within the AR community. Why? I’m not sure we’ll ever know.
Taylor’s behavior indicates he doesn’t mind if American Renaissance becomes a kind of “Stormfront-lite.” In all likelihood, the 2008 conference will draw an even larger crowd of neo-Nazis and a dwindling crowd of moderates. To paraphrase Gresham’s Law, the bad racialists will always drive out the good racialists.
 |
| AR still does good work … |
Besides, what Western man needs is a moral framework that will stand between the Nazi exterminationists on one hand and the anti-white deracinated leftists on the other. This is why it’s important to accept and deal with what the Nazis did. Any non-racially conscious white is going to want to know why a new version of racial theory is any different from the extremist aberrations. We should be ready to answer them instead of sticking our heads in the sand.
It is time to recognize that American Renaissance will probably not create the kind of moral framework we seek. Indeed, aside from the encouraging 1994 Conference, it never seemed that interested in continuing on this groundbreaking path, which would have required more leadership, coalition-building, and clear statements about who was welcome, who was not, and, most importantly, why. As a result of Taylor’s inaction, while many mainstream conservatives are aware of, and even sympathetic to AR, they keep it at arms length — just as AR keeps them at arms length.
 |
| …but we think it’s a dead end. |
American Renaissance may continue to do good work, though, just as The Social Contract and The Mankind Quarterly do. AR’s recent report, “Hispanics: A Statistical Portrait,” which documents Hispanic social pathologies, is useful and important. AR’s website and monthly periodical alert readers to events ignored by the rest of the media. The republication of Michael Levin’s long out-of-print Why Race Matters was a great service, as was Taylor’s recent debate against a Canadian multiculturalist.
However, American Renaissance will probably not make good on its promise to create a popular race realist movement. The work of the Realist at White America and Peter Brimelow at VDARE represent a more productive approach than AR has taken. Both are just as savvy and sophisticated as Taylor, but seem more willing to draw boundaries and engage in coalition building for the good of the cause.
Sam Raymond, a pseudonym, is an attorney and longtime follower of American politics the race realist movement.
- Jared Taylor published two versions of the “Jews and American Renaissance” article, one on his website, and another in the May 2006 issue of American Renaissance. The website version, which is linked to in the body of the article, contained the remarks on the subscribers’ letter that are referred to in the article. However, the newsletter version did not. ↑
If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don't have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click submit to get started. |
Click here to join the White America mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever White America publishes new entries.
I have to say that this article made me angry. I’m extremely appreciative of Jared Taylor and the voice he has given us, so I get defensive when someone criticizes him. As a woman who married and had children with a Jewish man, I’m conflicted about the merit of this article.
I like Michael Hart and agree with his idea of carving out different racial states, yet believe that David Duke does have some valid points as well. Stormfront is obviously not my scene, yet I don’t think that those kinds of people are all evil, while those of Jewish descent are all benevolent and good. Many of the activists behind the civil rights movement and 1965 immigration act were Jewish and you know it.
Also you need to realize that people are becoming more militant and extremist as society deteriorates and as whites become minorities in many parts of the country. This isn’t Mr. Taylor’s fault and he shouldn’t be blamed for the harsher attitudes people are displaying. I know that many of my posts haven’t made it past the censors over at Amren. They (IMO) are trying to delicately balance many different viewpoints without alienating anyone.
Raymond: you do well to use a pseudonym since you risk formal discipline or at least professional destruction if you identify yourself. This is not the work of blacks or Hispanics and you know it. You would be driven from your profession by Jews. I have spent the last 2 years steeped in the corporate diversity movement and I can promise you that blacks could not have possibly conceived of the arguments or policies that continue to dispossess whites.
Re: the holocaust—for 30 yrs there was a lively debate about the casualties resulting from the firebombing of Dresden. Indeed, specialists argue about the toll of specific civil war battles. The idea that the toll from the holocaust should be fixed forever at 6 million without the possibility of dissent is theology, not historiography. Jewish organizations have stifled this debate. Realist blathers on about “insanity” and it is all too satisfying to debate straw men. Jews have criminalized rational dissent about an epochal historical event. Without coercion, there would be a range of reasonable opinion about the casualties of the holocaust. Indeed, censorship plays into the hands of neo-Nazis because the idea that 6 million were GASSED is absurdly ahistorical (opening doors for Buchanan & Sobran & Duke to pose technological quddities). Most murdered Jews were shot. It was a messy business and subject to actuarial tweaking. But all this is CRIMINALIZED because of the Jewish activism this site denies.
Would the world come to an end if we determined that 4 million Jews were murdered? I would not be astonished if the actual number were 6 million, but I would prefer ARGUMENTS to edicts.
We do not need more Buckleys. Every reader of this site knows that blacks were a containable nusiance until the adversary left mobilized the United States government to defend/impose their interests (appetites). The same is true of Hispanics. These are not dangerous adversaries for whites. Until the last third of this century, blacks & Hispanics did not pose a threat. Jews boast of their role in empowering blacks. Without Jewish savvy, Jewish investment (primarily of talent) and Jewish idealogy blacks would not now pose a threat. Every reader knows this.
You site Brimelow. VDARE has been quite forthright in identifying Jews as critical supporters of disastrous immigration policies. Jews have been at the forefront of the civil rights catastrophe. Jews strangle NR. Levin is brilliant; Jewish rightists (Gottfried chief among these) are birds of paradise. But to suggest that whites have a stake in supporting Israel is to invite suicide.
“Moderate” conservatives will not be our friends. I am increasingly convinced that the purpose of this site is to emasculate AMREN. You inject neocon poison into our movement.
Nazis are doctrinaire. Like Taylor, I applaud rightist Jews. But I know who our real enemies are. Support Israel, deny the Jewish adversary culture. Like Realist you will spend the rest of your career apologizing for being white. You will accomplish nothing—unless your purpose is to contain white racial consciousness.
Whites who fulminate against Muslims for not speaking out against extremists within their midst, who were frustrated throughout the Cold War for the soft line on Soviet aggression taken by many leftists, would do well to consider our own ranks.
It can sometimes be difficult, when vilified by the rest of the world, and constantly accused of being an extremist version of yourself, and being denounced in terms also used against extremists, to not find yourself in sympathy and to feel common cause with them. After all, they espouse many of the same concerns, denounce many of the same apparent errors and enemies, and sometimes share goals that at least sound the same.
Moreover, and perhaps most dangerously, extremism has a seductive power. One seduction is the illusion of greater virtue. The extremists can seem more pure, more courageous, more committed, more willing to endure sacrifice. They can inspire a silent guilt among the non-extreme for not being extreme. There can also be a competition to out-extreme the other, turning into a race off the cliff.
Another seduction is the lure of impatience and self-indulgence. The lure of giving into temptation, of casting aside all restraint, of plunging headlong and heedless into amoral or immoral means, or endorsing them, can be strong.
This is what neo-Nazi-ism and fellow traveling to it represents for us. For every genuine neo-Nazi, there may be many more who are silently complicit. Such men are like the Muslim or non-white activists in the US who reluctantly, if ever, speak out against their own extremist elements, while loudly denouncing outside critics and enemies. They are like the Iraqi who, while not taking up arms or even helping the jihad, decides not to inform his elected government or its American and other allies about the jihadi on his block.
I think that many pro-whites who are soft on neo-Naziism resemble this picture. All of us should remind ourselves if and when we are tempted by it to hit the brakes. Not everything said by the PC anti-white crowd so infuriating to us is false.
I would close by saying that while I am not a mind-reader, I don’t think that that is where Jared Taylor is coming from. He does not lack physical or moral courage, and is a gentleman of discipline and restraint. He simply has some views, and has made some decisions, that are at best wrongheaded and at worst deeply threatening to the health of what little there is of a decent and effective pro-white movement.
Jared Taylor has done a tremendous service for whites. I do not take kindly to attacks on him. He stands among a few. A few truly great men.
You can’t talk about race, multiculturalism, and current U.S. society without talking about Jewish involvement. It’s impossible. You can ignore it, but it won’t go away. Any kind of dissent is quickly squashed. I do believe Jews are, many times, solely singled out (not necessarily innocent, but certainly singled out). It is not untrue that they have had a dominant role (compared to their population percentage) in social changes over the past 50+ years. And, many of those changes have been disastrous for the non-Jewish white majority. This has not gone unnoticed. I believe their thinking focuses more on the consequences of their inaction than on the consequences of their action. I also think a lot of Jews are quick to use the anti-Semitic label just as quickly as blacks use the racist label. This prevents real dialogue. And lastly, the Holocaust was not just about Jews. Six millions non-Jews perished as well and that I have never heard a Jew acknowledge. I cannot end this without saying that Jews have contributed greatly to American society as well. Great things with truly great consequences. I just hope that more and more of them will shed their liberal leanings which are helping to destroy this nation and provides ammunition for their detractors and enemies.
I invite rebuttal but please keep it civil.
Fine article, Mr. “Raymond.“ It helps me to coalesce much of my thinking. I am a race realist, but cannot abide the anti-Semitic bent of the extremists. Group differences must be explained based on biology and genetics, not the almost fundamentalist, anti-scientific mysticism inherent in the anti-Semites’ meta-narrative (sorry for the post-modernist terminology, but in this case it fits). Jews (at least non-Sephardic jews) are part of the same partly inbred extended families as other whites. There is no reason then that they would deterministically seek to thwart the interests of other whites. Rather, it must be, as Steve Sailer has suggested, more akin to a pathological and at times self-defeating response to the various religious-oriented discrimination they have dealt with over the centuries.
The fact that the various races will act differently, based on mean intelligence, propensity toward aggressive behavior, and spontaneity, to name just a few traits, cannot be denied when viewed with the scientific lens. This, then, in my mind is the the future in slicing through the fog of leftist, multiculturalist, politically correct fundamentalism.
Diver, I don’t know quite what you mean by “deterministically” in this context. You announce that group differences “must” be explained based on biology & genetics, then proceed to reconstruct a mystical or at least psycho-analytic explanation for salient Jewish behavior. I think you may be conflating group differences with group conflicts. Internecine group conflicts are all too common among whites.
There was no “deterministic” reason for the Germans to seek to thwart the interests of other whites (Poles, Jews). Their excuse was Versailles. There was no genetic reason for the 30 yrs war that laid waste to Europe. Transubstantiation is unscientific but the doctrine fascinated combatants.
MacDonald’s argument from the perspective of evolutionary biology seems more consistent with your positivist approach. Germans & Ashkanazam are both white, but if you will recall the protocol, it is I & my brother against my cousin.
To DiverCity
“Jews (at least non-Sephardic jews) are part of the same partly inbred extended families as other whites. There is no reason then that they would deterministically seek to thwart the interests of other whites.“
Genetically, the Jews belong to the same extended family of the White race as other Whites. They are Whites of the Mediterranean race and an Italian person is genetically closer to a Jew than a Swede. Furthermore, there is no “Jewish race” and virtually all physical attributes found in the White race are found among the Jews.
The right people to blame for this situation are the Gentiles who controlled the Politburo after WWII. The Jews were purged by Stalin.
The anti-colonialist, anti-racialist foreign policy of Soviet Union is responsible for what has happened to our nations. Youth radicalism of the 1960s was a Soviet ploy to destabilize the West. Now the radicals are tenured and have become multiculturalists.
“Whites of good will everywhere are held back from joining race realist organizations by the fear that they will be associating themselves with nonsensical and extremist positions.“
I re-read the article and take issue with the statement above. I believe whites of good will everywhere are held back from joining race realist organizations by the fear that they will lose their jobs. And, their friends & family won’t support them because they fear they will lose their jobs, too! And they most likely will.
I also believe, for some whites, they feel they are above it all. Oh no, I don’t hate because I am so much better than that. Ladies and gentlemen, being a part of the human race knocks you down a couple of rungs on the ladder. Get off your high horse, wipe the foggy glasses, and take a good look at the society you are leaving your descendants.
“I believe whites of good will everywhere are held back from joining race realist organizations by the fear that they will lose their jobs.“
Why should Whites join such organizations?
Perhaps, ironic jihad, what I said is a psychoanalytic rationale (not that I’m competent to so opine) for certain behavior of Jews, many of whom (as liberal anti-white racists) act against their own interests as whites. What I mean by deterministic is that the reason for this is not be genetic. Blacks, with lower mean intelligence, etc., will act in accordance with their genetic makeup. And yes, that leads to group conflicts. Sailer opines that the moving force behind liberalism is internecine conflict.
Thucydides, we agree.
Thucydides,
To stop their disenfranchisement and displacement. As a group, you yield more power. Everyone knows whites are fragmented. Everyone knows whites don’t vote based on race. Why do you think no candidate ever panders to the white realist agenda? No leadership with race loyalty. We could achieve much through such organizations.
Some of you folks are making my head hurt. Let’s just cut to the chase: The fact is Jew’s are vastly overrepresented of those causing the dispossession and subjugation of whites in white nations.
Many fervently believe that malevolent-spiteful Jew’s are the sole architects of race-replacement. Many Jew’s such as Michael Savage are voicing clear warnings on a regular basis that Gentiles will one day catch onto this fact and history will repeat itself. That’s why he rails constantly about the anti-Christian actions of the ACLU, National Lawyers Guild, etc. He is unambiguously trying to warn liberal Jews—and to a lesser extent liberal gentiles—to cease and desist because a violent backlash is looming.
First, there is nothing biological about Jews or any other people being anti-white, it’s purely psychological. If you raise a light skinned Jew as a white Christian, he will act like one in every which way.
As for what race Jews are, undoubtedly Caucasian. But if that is the case, Arabs and Persians are white also. From what I recall, since Jews, even today’s Ashkenazim, are descended from Israelites, they are Semites with lighter skin, the same way Arabs are Semites with darker skin.
The Semites are more related to the Mediterraneans (Italians, Greeks and Iberians). Among Iberians in particular, a race that to some extented has been diluted by extensive mixing with African peoples. However, the Mediterraneans, Alpines and Nordics are all European peoples, whereas Semites are not. Genetic evidence shows Ashkenazim more related to Sephardim than anyone else and both related to Arabs more than anyone else.
This is not to say that Semites aren’t white. The reasons people consider Arabs and Persians non-white is because of their religion, Islam, but racially they are white.
As for Libyans, Egyptians, Indo-Aryans etc., they were all white but mixed extensively with Negroes.
Miss Scarlett, in response, I can’t disagree with your posts.
The dilemma for non-Jewish whites is that since they are the most westernized, racial identity runs against their western liberal consciousness. I myself still grapple with the philosophy behind white racialism. It’s a never ending conflict between stooping to the level of blacks, Hispanics and Jews versus losing out. That is why I think maybe whites should try to crush all identity politics instead of creating one of their own.
I think I agree with you more than the realist. The reason liberal whites don’t buy racialism is because they are revolted by the concept, not because of some anti-Semites. Every movement has its extremists.
Try proposing your ideas on WABC talk radio. Try posting racialist articles on Free Republic or the Hannity Forum. Do that without the demeaning terminology and anti-Semitism. I am wandering what type of response you will get.
Jared Taylor’s analysis of world events is flawed. He’s important in taking the racialist movement this far, we need to take it farther. Taylor’s group cannot grow in the direction I want. Whether this means starting a new organization or just starting a magazine based on sane principles (denying the Holocaust is not sane). It’s a question of new leadership stepping up to the plate. Certainly, the intellectual manpower is already there.
No one wants to debate what the Nuremburg Trials already proved. Let the Flat Earth Society continue having their cute little meetings, with botax lipped David Duke spouting his nonsense about how many European Jews spent the war years in Aruba not in forced labor camps, and the rest of us can start the important business of restoring Western Civilization.
We are a movement in search of a leader/leadership. The demand is there. I’m sure that any newspaper written with a decent political line will sell hundreds of subscriptions.
Taylor has his political line. No point trying to reform it now.
Prime1918
ajo,
I must disagree with you because I think whites must acknowledge and celebrate their racial being. It not only is detrimental to our existence, it is priceless. I would even encourage ethnic celebration under the umbrella of white racial consciousness. I not only am proud of being white, I am proud of being Irish, and I am proud of my husband’s Italian heritage, too. I wish my parents had been more into their Irishness. We do have cultural differences no doubt, and sometimes those differences can cause conflict. All groups have great assets as well as undesirable traits. We aren’t just a color, we are a glorious melange of customs, culture, and accomplishments. Things that make us “us.“ Uniquenesses. I look at Maryann Esposito on PBS and compared to other cooks/chefs, she not only celebrates her Italian heritage, she yearns for it, adoringly embraces it, and relishes the thought of her next encounter with it. And, it comes across to her viewers. She certainly makes me want to be Italian more than my husband does. And the reason for that is that she is proud of her heritage, whereas he barely ackowledges his. These are the things that white Americans lost when they were urged to melt together and ignore their ancestral heritage. Just like ethnic influences in American regional areas such as the Celts in the South, the Spanish in the Southwest, and the Germans in the Midwest. Or influences on cities such as the Irish in Boston, the Jews in New York, and the Polish in Chicago. The things that make things American, are rooted in “our” ancestral heritage. Pride brings content and content prevents conflict. People that are happy with themselves tend to be happy with others.
To Sam Raymond, The Realist, and All regarding:
“The early years of American Renaissance were a time when it seemed race realism had a chance of entering the mainstream. What replaced the Cold War for many on the Right were the newer, messier issues of race and multiculturalism. The era of the “Clash of Civilizations” was just beginning. National and civilizational questions were becoming central: What is it to be a nation? Where do race and civilization intersect in the West? Are the races significantly different from each other in IQ and temperament? If so, what are the consequences for our policies on immigration, crime, bilingualism, multiculturalism, and affirmative action? Conservative and libertarian intellectuals of the 1990s were gingerly beginning to broach these subjects for the first time in a long while.”
I am a longtime frequenter of and poster on the AR website and a subscriber to the magazine for over 2 years. I had fully intended to attended the 2006 conference, but could not for personal/family reasons; that was a seriously regretted misfortune in my mind, until I found out that David Duke had attended it and the current controversy we are discussing to this day sprang up. The first question that erupted into my head when a friend of mine who had attended the conference, noted that he was there and what had happened, was this: ‘Why did Mr. Taylor allow him in and what did he expect from him?’ Also, another friend of mine who attended the conference indicated that many individuals that approached them for discussion, did in fact immediately gravitate toward the Jews are the “root of the problem” arguments and were not very open to alternative arguments that this individual had suggested.
Moreover, I was one of the individuals who signed the letter to Mr. Taylor about the incident involving Mr. Duke and Mr. Hart; I do care about the movement and its growth, so weeding out the Duke contingent not only made sense to me, it felt like a moral responsibility.
At the time, I had found his response to it reasonable; however, as time passes and evidence builds, serious questions begin to form. This is particularly true, as it seems that posters on the website who are of the more “moderate” bent over there have long and thoughtful posts routinely disregarded, while the more radical elements from both the Stormfront “sensibilities” crowd and the multicultural opposition are allowed considerable leeway. One must ask oneself, has Mr. Taylor and the AR organization in general, come to see the Racial Realists and Preservationists in the same light that the Republicans view whites as a group and the Democrats lavish upon blacks as a “hostage” constituency, as well? Are we to be seen as “stuck” with them, since we have “nowhere” else to go?
Jeepers, thanks for inviting me to the party to be a doormat!
I respect and admire Mr. Taylor sincerely; I think he is one of the greatest and most thoughtful speakers and writers, I have been lucky enough to be blessed with having access to. But that does not change a hard fact that, marginalizing the center; allowing the extremists to dominate AR participation; and taking for granted reasonable loyalty and respect from the center, as givens!
The internet and the movement do hold a freewheeling, freethinking, and free-market element, that should never be taken for granted or held in contempt, simply because Nazism and its horrors are as acknowledged by us, as those of the past Marxist genocides, and the current Multi Cult one we are living through. We might be younger, we might be more skeptical, and we might be more reasoned on these issues; here, time will tell?
However, I have made my decision for the time being; I defect to IW from AR for now, as it has ceased to be the island of commonsense and sanity that it once was!
Interesting times are just hell!!!
Several of the replies discuss openly the fact of (what I call) Jewish Liberal Poison and its disastrous effects. This is a welcome development. Until this fact about Jewish liberalism is brought out of the closet and discussed openly and acknowledged not to be in any way shape or form antisemitic, and further, until this truth about Jews is distinguished from genuine antisemitism, it will be difficult to shed any light on what happened at the last AR conference.
I don’t recall the details (and wasn’t there), but if my memory serves me, some of the things Duke said about Jews were substantially true. When these ‘accusations’ are automatically treated as rank antisemitism it is impossible to separate and distinguish them from the aspects of Duke’s views that are genuinely antisemitic.
It is important, of course, that we recognize that there is genuine antisemitism, just as there is genuine (anti-black) racism, but this cannot be done unless, at the same time, we distinguish the genuine article from all of the things that are so typically assumed to be antisemitic and racist but in fact are not—such as the fact that Jews are so disproportionately responsible for pushing all of the liberal poisons (promoting homosexuality, as just one example), and the fact of black criminality and why this causes whites not to want to live near them or send their children to the same schools, etc.
“At the time, I had found his response to it reasonable; however, as time passes and evidence builds, serious questions begin to form. This is particularly true, as it seems that posters on the website who are of the more “moderate” bent over there have long and thoughtful posts routinely disregarded, while the more radical elements from both the Stormfront “sensibilities” crowd and the multicultural opposition are allowed considerable leeway.“—John PM
I think the problem lies with the moderators at AmRen. I understand Ian Jobling is no longer the moderator and he has been replaced by a mishmash of volunteers and less competent staff. I find my most thoughtful comments rejected, while conversely some of my ignorant knee-jerk reaction comments posted. Go figure!
As for the AR Conference that Duke appeared at, why blame Taylor? Did Taylor sanction Dukes comments? If not then Jared Taylor shouldn’t be blamed for the actions of another.
If you attend an office party and an employee blurts out a statement that is offensive to the company should you blame the owner of the company for the offensive statement or should the blame be placed on the one who made the statement? I’m not an apologist for Jared Taylor but it seems to me he more than made amends for what happened at the conference.
Btw—if anyone thinks AmRen gives leeway to antisemitism, just try posting a comment that even hints at insulting Jew’s and see if it gets posted. I’ll bet a dollar to a doughnut it gets rejected. It’s been that way ever since he issued his statement regarding Jews and AmRen.
One more observation. There definitely is religion bashing that takes place at AmRen, but it isn’t directed at Judaism…it’s directed at Christianity—especially the Catholic Church.
In response to Miss Scarlet,
There is nothing wrong with celebrating Irish, Italian, Spanish, German, French, English, Scottish, Jewish, Welsh etc. heritage. All these groups have a common language and origianl locale.
And there is nothing wrong with having a conscious white identity. Most whites think of their race as being white.
The difference is celebrating white heritage because white culture is not easily defined. Who is white isn’t easily defined either as it could mean just the descendants of those who inhabited the European continent during the most recent ice age or it could mean all Caucasians.
I am very much for arguments that discuss race realism. What I don’t think will ever succeed is an organization such as the ADL or NAACP in the US that advocates on behalf exclusively of white Americans and not other non-white Americans who were here legally. Sailer’s citizenism will work better. He is for advocating on the rights of all legal Americans, 75% of whom are white.
Also, the NAACP had many Jewish and white leaders so I can’t see why American Renaissance or the CCC shouldn’t have non-whites belong.
ajo,
I believe that when it comes to the disenfranchisement and dispossession of whites, there are few non-white sympathizers. There are few Jewish sympathizers as well since they have managed to separate themselves out of the rest of the white majority. Even those minorities that have been treated well by whites, which are most of them, seldom offer support. As Elizabeth Wright stated, everyone has something to lose when this country loses it white majority. She hit the nail on the head. Since it was created by whites and the fundamentals of governance are based in Europe, whites have a connection to its heritage unlike any other race. Do you think the current mayor of Los Angeles, if he were President, would respect the Magna Carter? I don’t believe so. This is part of the breakdown. The government should have demanded that all non-whites assimilate into white society. No excuses and enforce the rule. They did not. We are alienated from each other and most of us despise each other. You can’t correct that. Even bloodshed would not correct it. It is just too late.
I have a couple of days off and find myself irresistibly tempted to make trouble, my apologies.
I must admit that I am bemused by the idea of moderate centrist AR supporters (it has the same resonance as “Missouri Synod Porn”). Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised—recently, I came across the blog of a satanist Republican (which Andrew Greely would undoubtedly regard as a tautological description) so stimulating combinations from the idealogical menu would seem to be the order of the day. (I am not kidding about the satanist Republican, though I would expect skepticism).
To be a race realist is to blaspheme against the zeitgeist. It is unforgivable and irreversible. I think Antisemitism can be fought on principled grounds, but if anyone on this board really thinks that America is ready for Philosemitic racists, that represents a fatal tactical error.
Since the ‘70s, the Republicans have pandered on race—Reagan slowed but did not stop the pandering, Bush-the-lesser has accelerated it. That should give us the score. I think Sam Francis was right: we should steal a page from the Leo Strauss playbook and stick with an esoteric message. Concepts like “merit” and “law & order” will advance our agenda since our adversaries will come down predictably on the wrong side of the ledger. But there is not going to be, in our lifetime, a race realist dialogue - as such - that will drive election results. Once you explicitly concede the probability, indeed, the statistically significant possibility, of material race-based behavorial differences you are banished from the national dialogue. The recent spirited debate on Jewish “liberalism” is not entirely irrelevant to this phenomenon.
Nobody who thinks Jared Taylor has interesting things to say, or ever had interesting things to say, whether in English, French or Japanese is a moderate. The only whites likely to listen to us have already met us halfway—they are surfing dubious places on the internet and entertaining dangerous ideas.
I am proud to be a modified-Philosemitic-race-realist. But I would never imagine calling myself a “moderate”.
To Mr. Moderate, regarding:
“I think the problem lies with the moderators at AmRen. I understand Ian Jobling is no longer the moderator and he has been replaced by a mishmash of volunteers and less competent staff. I find my most thoughtful comments rejected, while conversely some of my ignorant knee-jerk reaction comments posted. Go figure!
As for the AR Conference that Duke appeared at, why blame Taylor? Did Taylor sanction Dukes comments? If not then Jared Taylor shouldn’t be blamed for the actions of another.”
First, I would like to note that your observations about the commenting problem at AR, are very perceptive. Since Dr. Jobling left the website, commenting is governed by mostly the stupid, the vindictive, and the lazy. There are exceptions, as I have a good friend who does moderate there and is top drawer, but most of the fools couldn’t grasp irony or innuendo if their life depended on it. Your insight that the crude and knee-jerk responses do tend to go up, particularly if they are a paragraph or less is dead on, now why might that be?
I would hazard a guess, that the mishmash of volunteers you speak of are more often then not part of the Stormfront sympathizers and brigands; they my not get away with putting up the anti-Semitic screeds, but keeping the debate at a level they can follow, does seem to be the norm. This is the only conclusion I can draw, since on certain nights not a single post will go up and on others only about 25% or less will. Often those are the more basic ones, certainly not anything beyond a paragraph or two, normally.
As you point out above, go figure?
As for Mr. Taylor and the 2006 Duke follies, he had seen fit to ban him in the past from the conferences. Why not this time and what was unexpected, in his absurd and disgusting antics? As I note above, I respect and admire Mr. Taylor on many levels but he has been demonstrating certain lapses in judgment and other inconsistencies that just don’t wash. For example, claiming that he has no opinion on the Holocaust, simply because he cannot give exact numbers of who was killed. I might not know with certainty that 4 million or 14 million people were killed in that genocide, but I do know that it happened and that it was wrong.
What is so hard about acknowledging that and letting it be known, that he wants to not be associated with the weirdoes and freaks who claim otherwise?
Just something to think about and all the best M&M,
John PM!
After all the amazing accomplishments Taylor has achieved, it would be a sad story to have it end up being co-opted and derailed by people others. I would hope that Taylor’s “toleration” of participation of people who openly oppose the very Jews who helped to build Amren does not lead to their equal treatment…to them having any political influence over the organization. Taylor has worked extremely hard to distance himself, but he has chosen not quite to cut the rope, and I hope that he realizes that other people are trying to warp his agenda.
I don’t agree that moderation is key. History isn’t shaped or altered by moderation. Personally, I eat, drink and sleep race. I worry about the preservation and continuity of our people. Whenever I hear or read about coalition building (like in this article)it’s a complete turn off to me. I don’t want to adopt Jesse Jackson’s “get whitey” rhetoric.
I also don’t buy Steve Sailer citizenship theory either (neither did Peter Brimelow). The wave of the future is the collapse of the nation-state altogether. Martin Van Creveld and Robert Kaplan provide some interesting reading related to this topic. The concept of George Washington and American apple pie is dead. It doesn’t please me to write this, but it is true nevertheless. My goal, as a white nationalist, is white living space, away from all other races. This cannot be accomplished by coalition building.
I am an AR subscriber & have attended a few conferences. I think that the 2006 conference was the worst that I have attended. It wasn’t so because of the speakers, but because of the overall anti-Semitic “air” in the room caused by so many of Duke’s persuasion.
I like AR & Jared Taylor, but I would be much happier if he were to cut ties totally with the anti-Semites. They do not add anything to AR’s respectability, but they do definite harm. It’s hard to believe that a man as smart as Taylor can’t see this. He doesn’t need these people. EVERY other outlet for racially conscious whites is rife with them. Can’t we who are NOT anti-Semites have anything of our own?
Thucydides and ajo make some factual errors regarding race.
Perhaps the best source for information about race is found in the writings of Luigi Cavalli-Sforza. His 2000 book, Genes, Peoples, and Languages and his 1994 book The History and Geography of Human Genes tell you more about race than you might have dreamed possible. (Wikipedia has an acceptable summary of his work, though it was clearly written by liberals.) Though Cavalli-Sforza makes mild PC disclaimers, these disclaimers are obviously written for the consumption of the politically-correct who would otherwise reject the clear conclusions of his research: that race is real and that the races are genetically distinct.
For the less technically-inclined, try Steve Sailer. (This article is particularly salient: http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050605_iq.htm)
Ashkenazi Jews were genetically isolated from other groups for a millennium, and during that time developed certain distinctive traits. In addition to the obvious externals, they also developed well-known genetic traits, including high IQ and susceptibility to certain diseases. It appears that the genes that cause these diseases are also responsible for high IQ. So while they are not necessarily a distinct race, they are a distinct group within a race.
As for Africans, North African Caucasians are also recognized as a distinct group, related to, but separate from, European Caucasians. Ashkenazi Jews, having their roots in the Middle East, are perhaps best considered as an outlier of the Middle Eastern people who were also the ultimate source of Europeans and North Africans, as well as the non-Semitic Middle Easterners (such as Persians, who are more similar to Europeans than to their North African neighbors).
There is a huge gap between all Caucasian groups and all African groups (with the understanding that the North African Caucasians are geographically but not genetically African). If there is any group that might be considered a Caucasian-African “mix,” it is the Berbers, though I do not know if that is due to (relatively) recent mixing or an artefact of separate evolution.
Yes, genetics is a convoluted and complex field!
I moderated for Mr. Jobling for a period of time and left when he did.
He had very high and exact standards and stayed on top of the moderation process most all of the time. Without a doubt, he was responsible for the high level of debate and overall quality of the board.
I hadn’t even heard of White Nationalism a few months before I started moderating, so you can imagine the time Ian had to give to instruct me on the various concepts of race and the whole Neo-Nazi movement. To give an example, he had to explain the “14 words” thing to me.
At first, I was notorious for letting “Zionist Conspiracy” theories through since a lot of posts do it very subtly and never name names and reference certain literature in a veiled manner. It took a few months before I properly understood the concept well enough to identify when a poster was blaming the “Learned Elders” for everything. A lot of Ian’s extra time.
Ian is a very intelligent guy and takes whatever he does seriously and performs in an extremely professional manner.
That sentence sums up the difference between AmRen then and AmRen now. Every other article will have some post that with a wink and a nudge basically points to a certain group being responsible for everything. The site has become downright sloppy.
And when did John PM posts start getting deleted? I wondered what was going on. John PM was consistently the best and brightest poster there. The only 2 John PM posts I ever deleted were on the same night and obviously not written by him. A very poor parody. Seeing his posts first was one of the reasons I liked moderating. Frankly, if I was in a hurry, I knew I could let any of his longer posts through and come to read them later because of his track record.
Now he gets regularly deleted?
By the way and one last thing, I think Mr. Taylor deserves better than this article. I’m worried about the lack of loyalty it projects. I don’t know, it just doesn’t seem fair overall. The whole thing seems kinda touchy. Sooner or later we are all judged by our own method of judgment. Please stop bashing him and focus elsewhere. This site wouldn’t exist without him. He’s not the enemy.
A house divided against itself can not stand.
I’d like to respond to John PM and M respectively (and Realist interstitially).
I read Jared’s response to the controversy manufactured on this site. He said the Nazis killed a great number of Jews during the second world war because they are Jews. Inquisitor Realist then berated him aggressively and insultingly for not “accepting the holocaust and all that implies”. What could the “holocaust” possibly “imply” other than the fact that the Nazis killed a great many Jews because they were Jews? Realist could give lessons to the race-reparation hucksters, for whom it is not enough to say: “slavery was bad”. Does he want Taylor to sign a confession of white guilt? Does he argue that this event is somehow theologically unique?
Taylor intelligently declines to offer an uninformed opinion about the probable number of Jews murdered while conceding it to be a large number. Why this answer does not suffice is puzzling. I think it reflects an appreciation of the technical challenges which inhere in the subject. I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that Realist thinks whites need to graduate from reeducation camp before they may be permitted to defend their interests.
M—I suppose that anti-anti-semitic white activits can have their own tree-house. You make it sound like not caring for anchovies on pizza. Given the over-representation of Jews among our most effective adversaries, it would perhaps be most prudent to tolerate a plurality of explanations, from Realist’s inclination to blame whites (excuse me, Hitler) to the existence of an adversarial secular Jewish culture (from which many Jews honourably dissent) steeped in anti-white, or anti-western prejudice. This toleration of divergent views seems to reflect AR policy with a proviso that the preservation of civility is more important in connection with this issue than most others.
On this site, the policy seems to be to balance candour on race with moral posturing on Israel, demonstrating, I suppose that the most attractive internet lepers reside in this colony. That’s only harmlessly funny until Realist starts waiving confessions in front of Jared Taylor, demanding that he acknowledge the implications of the Holocaust—usually meaning that it is the seminal event in history; unique in the eschatological quality of its evil (Nozik thought so, Dershowitz does); distinct from any crimes committed against any lesser victims and; a badge of dishonour to be worn by whites for the remainder of history.
Sorry, I really thought the exchange with Taylor was creepy, in a borderline Stalinist sort of way. White men are sitting in prison in Europe for expressing sincere views on this issue. Some of you are clearly on the wrong side of this fight.
And, by way of postscript, I have given the matter considerable study. I would put a floor of 4 million on the Jewish victims of the holocaust and a ceiling just over six. It is quite literally impossible to rigorously reconstruct the number of Jews murdered in the occupied eastern territories (Soviet & Polish records weren’t that good) and assigning an arbitrarily precise figure is pure politics.
If this is posted, I am going to take my turn playing Inquisitor to Realist.
(1) Do you think David Irving should have gone to prison for his postion on the holocaust? (Irving is not a conventional “denier” but it would be interesting if you thought deniers should serve time as well). Do you acknowledge the role of Jewish organizations in crushing/criminalizing dissent on this issue? Do you support those efforts?
(2) What ARE the “implications” of the Holocaust that you referenced in preparing Jared’s signed confession? You insisted that he acknowledge not merely the fact of the Holocaust, but draw the proper idealogical conclusions. Was the murder of Jews qualitatively different than the genocide directed at gypsies or Armenians or the crimes of Pol Pot, or the horrors of the Gulag (in which Jews were not entirely uninvolved). If you’ve pre-dictated Jared’s confession it would be interesting to see the draft.
(3) Is it your view that leftist Jewish intellectuals are REASONABLY mistaken in blaming whites for the action of Hitler? Are they reasonably mistaken in blaming America which bombed Nazi Germany to rubble? You “blame” Hitler which only makes sense if the view that Hitler’s crimes are attributable to ALL whites is understandable and defensible. Please make that case more clearly for those of us who think it to be disingenuous or psychotic.
(4) Do you acknowledge a leftist, identifiably Jewish adversary culture that predated the Holocaust?
I suspect my life expectency on this board is limited. But, for what it’s worth, Taylor is unmistakably your intellectual superior. Although my views are probably closer to yours than Duke’s (there being a pretty impressive chasm between them) for all your abuse of Duke I think he would annhilate you in any fairly moderated debate. He is well informed, logically consistent, passionate and intelligent. I think he reasons from dubious premises, but he reasons. You sir, are the Vishinsky of the right, which is timely since David Frum was getting a little tired.
“And when did John PM posts start getting deleted? I wondered what was going on. John PM was consistently the best and brightest poster there. The only 2 John PM posts I ever deleted were on the same night and obviously not written by him. A very poor parody. Seeing his posts first was one of the reasons I liked moderating. Frankly, if I was in a hurry, I knew I could let any of his longer posts through and come to read them later because of his track record.
Now he gets regularly deleted?”
Wow, thanks for the compliments Awakened, sincerely!!!
Also thanks for not putting up the imposter(s?) rants, that was a problem on and off over there, for a bit. I caught a few and had Dr. Jobling take them down; again, we go back to his professionalism, as I noticed that problem ceased shortly after I let him know about it.
It is indeed unfortunate, but at AR I have all but been “unpersoned” and sent to the gulag by the posting apparatchiks. And I am not the only one, several of the regular and respectable posters in long term good standing have had similar treatment. Quality doesn’t seem to matter anymore, only a lack of quantity. Heck, even the one moderator I communicate with regularly has had problems and as you know, they are in a position to put stuff up on their own. The whole thing is baffling, but I am not one to stay where I am not welcome and since I have informed the AR staff through a contact about the issue with only minor favorable results for a few weeks, I feel the time has come to say “adios amigos.”
Heck, I write the stuff for free and always gave my best, so why bother with it, if it won’t go up anyway?
All the best Awakened,
John PM!
Ironic Jihad,
I may or may not deem it necessary to respond to criticisms like yours in an article in the future. It depends on whether I decide it’s worth my while to argue against the anti-Semitic extremist viewpoint, which is where your criticisms come from, whether you adopt this viewpoint sincerely or simply as a Devil’s advocate. All the time you spend dealing with extremists, after all, is time that you aren’t spending appealing to the mainstream. You are right to fear that your career on IW may be short-lived; after a certain point, I will just have to judge that I’ve given a fair answer to people like you and quash the endless querulousness of your breed. There’s the Authoritarian Personality for you!
Taylor’s refusal to give an opinion on the Holocaust on the grounds that he had not investigated the matter is a bold-faced avoidance of the demands of moral decency. That the Holocaust happened is part of the common wisdom of our society and is universally affirmed by the relevant expert community. When this is the case, you can judge that the common wisdom is almost certainly correct without investigating the matter for yourself. If Taylor or anyone else lived rigorously according to the principle that he would only believe things he had personally investigated, he would be so alienated from the society around him that it would be impossible for him to survive outside an insane asylum. I personally have never read a book about the American Revolution or the Civil War, yet I am in no doubt at all that they happened. How many people died at the Battle of Gettysburg? Maybe that can’t be known for sure, but I’m prepared to believe the opinion of expert scholars is the best guess, and that’s what I would tell anyone who asked me. And the consensus of the expert community is currently that six million Jews died in the Holocaust, at least so says Michael Shermer in Denying History, a reputable book. This whole philosophy of knowledge is spelled out in my article on David Duke here: http://inverted-world.com/index.php/column/column/the_insanity_of_david_duke/
By refusing to take a position on the Holocaust when the issue is so prominent among his followers, Taylor is complicit with the whitewashing of evil and the surge of anti-Jewish slander the world over. All I want is for him to prove he’s on the right side. To show he’s on the right side, he would have to at least say in AR that six million is a reasonable estimate of the number of Jewish deaths, and that there is no good reason to doubt that the gas chambers existed or that the Holocaust took place on Hitler’s orders.
I’ve made it clear that I think it is wrong to tar the West as a whole with the crimes of Hitler in my article on Adorno: http://inverted-world.com/index.php/column/column/the_origin_of_the_myth/ I think our obsession with the Holocaust is unhealthy. But I think Holocaust denial is much more unhealthy still.
The question of whether there is anything unique about the Holocaust that differentiates it from other mass killings is more interesting. I think there are good grounds for arguing that it was. The main reason was that it took place in the very heart of the civilized world, Western Europe. What made the Holocaust more horrifying than slaughters in places like Turkey, Cambodia, and even Russia is that it challenged the assumption that advanced civilization improves mankind.
I think it likely that David Duke would soundly defeat me in a debate on Holocaust denial, just as a true believer in extra-sensory perception would defeat me in a debate on that. This is because my mind is focused on reality rather than pet obsessions.
I am perfectly prepared to admit that there is a double standard in the West’s perception of Nazi and Soviet atrocities. This double standard is no doubt in part due to the facts that there are more Jews than Ukrainians in positions of power and that Jews have a stronger sense of ethnic solidarity than Ukrainians.
I don’t know what an “identifiably Jewish adversary culture” means. But I have said before that Jews have long been disproportionately likely to be on the Left and to adopt philosophical viewpoints that are antagonistic to traditional Western culture. What I have said in the previous two paragraphs I take to be truisms.
I do have to admit that I do sometimes fell glee at the thought of David Irving’s and Ernst Zundel’s imprisonment. But I recognize that this is not a moral pleasure. First they came for the Communists, and all that.
I’m a volunteer moderator for AmRen and I gladly dispose of anti-Semitic comments. David Duke’s “crashing” of the AmRen Conference was tragic, because it created a great deal of conflict within the White Nationalist and racial realist movement to advance his own agenda of dividing the White race into White Jews and White Gentiles. He made it clear that his first priority is attacking Jews, even if doing so causes severe harm to White Nationalism.
Plenty of Jews have attempted to cooperate with our cause. Many of them realize that the Israeli melting pot will create a society they wouldn’t wish on their progeny. Many of them reject the Zionism and victim politics that anti-Semites find objectionable. If the recent efforts by the Catholic Church to provide safe havens for illegal immigrants doesn’t wake people up to realize that Zionism isn’t the only religion that undermines our interests, then I don’t know what will.
I don’t speak for AmRen. I can only speak for myself. But I believe that an enemy of a White ethnic group is an enemy of White Nationalism.
I am forced to disagree with wikitopian.
1st, as to Zionism, I don’t know what you precisely mean. It’s not necessarily a religion, and I myself am very much against Jewish victim politics.
But white nationalists would want to emulate Israel, not disparage it, because in Israel, only those of Jewish or partial ethnicity can immigrate and everyone is encouraged to speak Hebrew.
As for the Church, while it may pose a problem, many prominent Catholics such as Buchanan have stood up to illegal immigration.
I would think that a traditional western conservative movement would be based supportive of the Christian religion and based on Judeo-Christian principles, not neo-Nazi like neo-paganist, odinist white nationalism.
Ijo,
Being non-Christian does not necessarily imply being neo-paganist. I believe it’s insulting to my ancestors to take their myths and superstitions literally. They tried as they could with their knowledge of the world around them to make sense of it. I believe a pagan time-warped into the present would look at a globe and shrug “Heh, so there is no Hyperborea”. I also believe Jefferson and Franklin would have discarded their deism and became entirely secular had they known how explanatory the theory of evolution could be.
The Ancient Greeks are but one step removed from our Indo-European tribal ancestry, and their passion for deriving the truth through skeptical inquiry is unparalleled by any civilization before, during, or since. I believe I’m following in lock step with my White heritage when I am, after thoroughly studying the world around me, an atheist Nietzschean existentialist.
I associate paganism with flaky middle-aged women in sweatpants who believe infomercials and I associate paganism with White prison culture. The heritage of modern Druidry lies with Jared Taylor, “The Realist”, William Shockley, and good high school teachers. They were forced to become Christian with the persuasion of blunt force and our civilization has awkwardly labored under the Christian “slave morality” ever since.
“I associate paganism with flaky middle-aged women in sweatpants who believe infomercials and I associate paganism with White prison culture….The heritage of modern Druidry lies with Jared Taylor” (—Wikitopian)
Jared Taylor is a modern day pagan? Hmmmm. No wonder why his movement is stuck in neutral. If AR’s version White Nationalism is neo-Paganism…you can have it!
Consider this:
“Let no one imagine that the temptation to idolatry and paganism is a matter of the distant past when primitive peoples offered sacrifice to the sun or prayed to stone outcroppings and golden calves. Remember: false gods always demand innocent blood. The evidence that a culture is descending into paganism is always manifest in the body count. This was true in ancient Babylon and it is true in modern America. Who can deny that everywhere today the false gods of liberal secularism are exacting their toll of carnage?”
Rest of essay—http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0443.html
HH declares “Remember: false gods always demand innocent blood” without bothering to read his Bible, which regularly calls for and describes the extraction of innocent blood. He also didn’t bother to read my post, either, or he would have seen that I define the tradition of Druidism to be in the spirit of honest and skeptical inquiry. I haven’t read all of Jared Taylor’s work, but I have yet to find the part where he demands the extraction of the blood of the innocent. I doubt I would have browsed over that without giving pause.
I will, however, be vigilant that none of the people I admire demand the blood of the innocent. Thanks for the heads-up!
Western civlization is based on the white European race and Christianity. And can’t survive without them. Atheists like Wikitopian and Jews like myself, as well as non-whites, can live and accept minority status and equal rights. While the Greek and Romans were western, “white” and pagan, modern Western civilization is Christian in nature. The secularization has resulted in the problems that made this site necessary.
“I haven’t read all of Jared Taylor’s work, but I have yet to find the part where he demands the extraction of the blood of the innocent.“—Wikitopian
The statement reads: ““Remember: false gods always demand innocent blood”
Unless you believe Jared Taylor is a god, then that statement certainly doesn’t apply to him. YOU defined Mr. Taylor as a modern Druid. That puts him in the category of a pagan, doesn’t it? I somehow get the feeling Mr. Taylor might take offence to you defining him that way…but I could be wrong?
I didn’t make myself clear. Jared Taylor and others that I admire who engage in skeptical inquiry aren’t pagans or neo-pagans. I’m not suggesting that anybody is a God and I’m not suggesting that anybody craves the blood of the innocent.
If Christianity is so integral to the Western experience, then why has it died qiuetly in the most White areas? Are Swedes just not Western enough to be evangelical? Without the threat of force or the presence of minorities, Christianity won’t stick to White communities because a philosophical construct built on guilt, fear, denial, ressentiment, and “being a victim” doesn’t captivate the minds of people who aren’t an underclass.
“Jared Taylor and others that I admire who engage in skeptical inquiry aren’t pagans or neo-pagans.“—Wikitopian
I’m glad you cleared that up. But let me just say: when you mistakenly refer to Zionism as a religion, and state “The heritage of modern Druidry lies with Jared Taylor,” your qualifications to be a moderator at AmRen come into question.
Wikitopian asks: “If Christianity is so integral to the Western experience, then why has it died qiuetly in the most White areas?”
The short answer is that “pop culture” and post-modernism has had greater influence over our culture than the Church in the last fifty or so years.
Question: Is it a coincidence the decline of the West coincides with the implosion of Judeo-Christain moral absolutes and subsequently has been replaced by secular ideologies such as moral-relativism?
ajo, was dead on when he wrote: “While the Greek and Romans were western, “white” and pagan, modern Western civilization is Christian in nature.The secularization has resulted in the problems that made this site necessary.”
Here’s a good essay that I find accurately illustrates the relationship between Christianity and Western civilization’s ascendancy.
HH inquired:
“Is it a coincidence the decline of the West coincides with the implosion of Judeo-Christain moral absolutes and subsequently has been replaced by secular ideologies such as moral-relativism?“
Christianity and Western success have an inverse correlation. The ascent of Christianity to hegemony was called “The Dark Ages”. The relaxation of Christian dogma and control was called “The Renaissance” and then “The Enlightenment”. The most religious Whites are in South Africa, in the American South, and in the Australian Outback. The least religious Whites are those least exposed to diversity.
The abolitionist movement and the “Special Rights” movement were both spearheaded by reverends. The biggest division within the Episcopal Church in the US is whether to cow to their Black African faction or their Homosexual faction. The Catholic Church is little more than a secular gentlemen’s club where it exists in Europe, but is in full force in Latin America, where they’re even being visited by the Virgin Mary in her Amerindian reincarnation.
Given the virtual absence of “decadence” among Scandinavians and White Europeans - I believe the onus is on you to explain why the force that caused Western Civilization to fall the first time (Christianity) is somehow going to be the force to save it this time.
I’m not advocating the replacement of Christianity with moral relativism anymore than I would advocate the replacement of a fork in the eye with a fork in the gut. Please do not assume that Christianity must be replaced by multiculturalism, moral relativism, and other value systems that we both agree are repugnant.
As for the article HH linked to, the fact that Christianity has been henpecked by Greco-Roman and Enlightenment Europe is proof of its vestigial nature, not proof that it somehow belongs as “one of the three”. When you see Enlightenment Europe as a continuation of Greco-Roman Europe, then you’ll see Christianity as something imposed on Europeans by force that has since been gradually giving way to the innate sociocultural predispositions of the European people.
It’s culturally alien to Europe, and deserves no grandfather clause. It’s very easy to do away with and still be European, or Europeans wouldn’t be doing it so easily (without descending into anarchy, as you would imagine).
Ajo suggested that we atheists and Jews just accept minority (dhimmi?) status within Western Civilization. I don’t see why the only White ideological group unfettered by Christian dogma and the only White ethnic group unfettered by the Catholic Church’s dysgenic practices should accept a back seat.
“Given the virtual absence of “decadence” among Scandinavians and White Europeans - I believe the onus is on you to explain why the force that caused Western Civilization to fall the first time (Christianity) is somehow going to be the force to save it this time.“—Wikitopian
First of all, I’m not going to pretend to have a defence for every misdeed or atrocity throughout history committed by some in the name of the Church. Some awful things happened we all know that. And by comparison, I’m not going to condeme the USA in perpetuity for allowing the evil practise slavery. EVERY governing system and organization on the planet is imperfect simply because man himself is an imperfect being. But I do find it more than a bit odd that people on the far left, and people on the far right of the political spectrum have a hatred for conservative traditional Christians and Jew’s.
But in response to Christianity saving Western Civilization. I would rather put it this way: I don’t think Christianity in itself will save it, but I do assert that Western Civilization CAN’T be saved without Judeo-Christian values.
The noted cultural-Marxist, Antonio Gramsci, knew in the early part of the twentieth century that the only way to overthrow Western Civilization was to corrupt it from within. His aim was to “liberate it from Christianity.” He knew he had to break down traditional Judeo-Christian morality and family patterns in order to undermine the established institutions from within. We can see by looking all around us evidence that his strategy is working in full strength today.
http://www.grecoreport.com/gramsci’s_grand_plan.htm
Btw—The people of Scandinavian countries are amongst the most liberal, brainwashed, ethno-masochistic, lowest birth-rate, multicultultural-loving bunch on the planet…all due to secular-liberal indoctrination!
Wikitopian referring to Christianity: “It’s culturally alien to Europe, and deserves no grandfather clause. It’s very easy to do away with and still be European, or Europeans wouldn’t be doing it so easily (without descending into anarchy, as you would imagine).”
How would the government operate if you could have your way? Would be socialist? capitalist? Would it practice eugenics? How would they deal with people that are believers in the Bible, etc.?
HH,
I agree with you that in a dichotomy between reformed Christian piety and multicultural or Marxist decadence, I much prefer Christian piety. I don’t, however, see that a deconstruction of Christianity necessarily means replacing it with multiculturalism, Marxism, or cultural relativism.
There is a biological drive to wish well for oneself, one’s family, one’s community, one’s nation, and one’s race. My love for my child is axiomatic. It’s neither logical nor illogical - it’s unlogical. While persistent and pervasive brainwashing has been able to divorce Whites of love for their race, their nation, and even their community - the tribal affiliation to one’s immediate family is nearly insurmountable.
All of your morality flows from the belief in God as an objective reference point, an omnipotent and omniscient arbiter of right and wrong. All of my morality flows from love of myself, my family, my community, my nation, and my race. Following logically from that ideological cornerstone is a moral framework that encourages honesty, industriousness, courage, diligence, stewardship, and sensitivity.
Richard Dawkins and John Nash could explain the logic behind my behavior through biological analogies or game theory equations, but that would imply that my moral framework is rooted in some sort of reptilian logic exercises. There are empirical and logical reasons why I feel intense love and loyalty for my brothers, my sisters, and myself. The reason I feel this love is tangential. I feel this love as a part of my being.
I beg you to read Friedrich Nietzsche’s “The Anti-Christ” for a comprehensive and spirited deconstruction of Christianity. I beg you to read Friedrich Nietzsche’s “Genealogy of Morals” for a more rigorous understanding of how morality would work outside of a Christian framework.
Out of respect for the moderator of this forum, I ask you to email me with any further correspondance. We haven’t mentioned American Renaissance or Jared Taylor for several posts, so I believe our discussion would qualify as an “off-topic tangent”.
Wikitopian,
I realize your discussion has sort of gone off-topic, but it has been an interesting one… at least to me. I hope you continue it here.
Realist: Have you ever considered having an open forum where people could start topics? I can understand how that could entail some problems, because the moderation part could become beyond what time permits, and absent moderation, I could see how some imprudent comments that slipped in could do the cause more harm than good.
Just wondering, though.
“We haven’t mentioned American Renaissance or Jared Taylor for several posts, so I believe our discussion would qualify as an “off-topic tangent”.”
Being that you are a moderator at AmRen, I believe our conversation IS on topic. You are providing us a window so we can better understand the philosophy that drives Amren. I want to clearly understand where your organization is coming from. I’ve always admired Jared Taylor but I can’t understand why he has alienated his Jewish constituency, and now is alienating Christians too.
Wikitopian wrote: “I agree with you that in a dichotomy between reformed Christian piety and multicultural or Marxist decadence, I much prefer Christian piety. I don’t, however, see that a deconstruction of Christianity necessarily means replacing it with multiculturalism, Marxism, or cultural relativism.”
The deconstruction of Christianity is all but complete in MOST Western European countries. The simple fact of the matter is that it has already been replaced with multiculturalism, quasi-Marxism, and moral relativism. No offence, but your a little behind the curve in recognizing the reality of the situation.
The same pattern of deconstruction of Judao-Christian values is currently taking place within the European-American population here in the USA. Tammy Bruce (a non-Christian former leftist extraordinaire) explores examples of degeneracy that are taking place—here and now—in her book, “The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values”
“All of your morality flows from the belief in God as an objective reference point, an omnipotent and omniscient arbiter of right and wrong.”
I never said that. I believe morality is an innate quality somehow built into our DNA. I, personally, chose to believe “The Creator” provided us a guide (the Bible) from with which to live our lives. It’s worked pretty well as glue to hold societies together for millenia. I have yet to see a society based on Atheism succeed. In fact history proves time and time again that governments based on atheistic philosophies have always devolved into a hideous killing machines. Ie Soviet Union, *Nazi Germany, PRC, Cambodia, Cuba et al. Please explain to us how your atheistic society would work without repeating those types of atrocities.
“I beg you to read Friedrich Nietzsche’s “The Anti-Christ” for a comprehensive and spirited deconstruction of Christianity. I beg you to read Friedrich Nietzsche’s “Genealogy of Morals” for a more rigorous understanding of how morality would work outside of a Christian framework.”
Thanks for the suggested reading list. I will, for sure, read them. I’ve always heard references made to Nietzsche’s works but haven’t yet gotten around to reading any of them.
Here is a good forum that is like stormfrotn without the Nazism and less anti-Semitic. I don’t know if it suffices:
http://www.ourwayoflife.org
There’s a “market” for a White Nationalist content provider that offers a more mainstream forum than Stormfront. There’s a “market” for a White Nationalist content provider that offers a weekly YouTube or podcast news update. There’s an opportunity cost in failing to harness the power of Web 2.0 to spread our message that no amount of salacious comments could offset.
First of all, I can’t emphasize strongly enough that I do not speak for AmRen. It’s a big tent. I’m pretty sure that I am the only Nietzschean Existentialist associated with the organization. I am not really a “paleoconservative”. I don’t share their respect for “Southern heritage”. I gladly delete posts that imply violence, have anti-Semitic undertones, or are illiterate.
I subscribe to AmRen, but I’m not a member of their “New Century Foundation” and don’t sit on any boards or get invited to any cocktail parties (if they have any). I haven’t even communicated directly with Jared. I’m just a guy on the Internet who offered to perform a tedious chore for them for zero dollars.
I apologize for drawing conclusions about your “moral compass”. I believe it’s a stretch to claim that “history proves time and time again that governments based on atheistic philosophies have always devolved into hideous killing machines”. Nazism was an eclectic hodge-podge of theosophy, Germanic mysticism, Catholicism, and a bit of grossly misinterpreted Nietzschean transhumanism. Marxism sucks, but plenty of blood has been spilled by Crusaders, Teutonic Knights, Conquistadors, and witch hunters.
Modern Scandinavians, Japanese, and White Canadians are all atheist and pacifist. I can do more than explain to you how it could hypothetically work. I can merely point at where it’s already working. The Japanese even manage to have a robust sense of national identity and racial pride while being atheist.
The Japanese are atheists, but they’re among the most pacifist and least “decadent” humans on Earth. Funny how bloodthirsty samurai and brutal Vikings have become among the most harmonious and prosperous humans on Earth - all without religious superstition.
I’m going to accuse you of trying to have your cake and eat it too, as you link to articles that describe Christianity as inextricably comingled with Western Civilization and then decry that Western Civilization has almost entirely disposed of Christianity.
Is Christianity vital or vestigial? Is it eternal or ephemeral? If it’s so integral to peace and civility, then how do all these nations manage to be so peaceful and civil without it? If it’s such an agent of peace and prosperity, then why are Latin America and Christian Africa so povertous and decadent?
“Modern Scandinavians, Japanese, and White Canadians are all atheist and pacifist. I can do more than explain to you how it could hypothetically work.”
You make some great points, Wikitopian. I agree that Japan is a good example of how a nation can stay ethnically pure and still maintain a robust economy—but it is entirely due to their restrictive immigration laws. On the other hand, Scandinavian countries and White Canadians fell into a trance by chanting the universalist mantra “we’re all equal…we’re all children of the planet.” They are willingly accepting third world hordes into their midst. I’ve read articles about Sweden as being the MOST accepting of non-white immigrants notwithstanding their women are regularly being raped and gang raped by the non-white newcomers. Their pacifism is causing their cities to degenerate into crime ridden enclaves, but more importantly, their gene pool is being polluted. They have lost their purpose, their reason, to continue to thrive as a separate and unique people. They have bought into the cult of political correctness lock, stock and barrel. They are committing ethnic suicide!
“If it’s such an agent of peace and prosperity, then why are Latin America and Christian Africa so povertous and decadent?”
What I’m saying is it serves to maintain a set of moral absolutes for people to conform to, adhering to those principles in turn manifests into a peaceful and prosperous society. So far,Christianity has only worked in nations where civility and high intellectual abilities are innate in it’s people. IMO, Latin America and Africa are destined to remain poverty ridden hellholes due to their low IQ.
Wikitopian, let me ask you this:
Is Judaism necessary for the State Israel to survive? If so, why? If not, why not?
“Modern Scandinavians, Japanese, and White Canadians are all atheist and pacifist.“—Wikitopian
I forgot to include this in my last post.
The Japanese are mostly Shinto or Buddhists. Scandinavian countries are still predominantly Christians, ditto for White Canadians.
Maybe you were referring to the elite intelligentsia of those countries as being Atheist?
I have mixed feelings on Israel.
On the one hand, the anti-religious people are the most socialist, and a state can’t survive on socialism. Look at Sweden. On the other hand, the religious Jewish people in Israel are the opposite extreme. They think it is one of the worst crimes against the Divine to give up an inch of land between the Nile and Euphrates. Most posters here aren’t part of the so called religious “right” and don’t believe a word of this. Also, many religious Jews refuse to not collect welfare or serve in the army. What it needs is Judaism based on Talmudic ideals and the Old Testament.
Meanwhile, the US needs American Jews to be Jewish. Jews in the US are so left wing and make David Duke’s comments on them partially justified because their liberalism is a substitute for their religion. Look at the ACLU, ADL, SPLC, AJC etc. They are the most anti-Christian anti-white groups, and they also seem alienated from Judaism.
The Jews aren’t a race or religion. They are a nationality not based on blood but on those willing to accept the Torah’s commandments. Since so few born gentiles would be willing to do that, the Jews of today, Ashkenazic and Sephardic, have genes very similar to the Israelites or more precisely Semites of yore.
Ajo,
I have written an article how Jews have been profoundly influential in some patriotic, racially aware, and paleoconservative ways. Because of their greater cognitive ability, they are conspicuously present in most intellectual and ideological movements. David Duke and others play a game of only showing you how Jews have been disproportionately influential in threatening movements.
http://www.truecitizen.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24&Itemid=50
Wikitopian,
The last paragraph of your article “White Nationalism and Jews” is the weakest. You claim that “American Jews find the non-European Jews in Israel to be alien in appearance, behavior, aptitude and ability.“ and “hope that they’ll join those of Irish, French, Nordic, Italian, Russian, Polish, and every other European heritage in a pan-European nationalist movement.“
You cannot divide the Jews that way. Most of those “non-European” Jews of Israel are actually descended from the Sephardic Jews expelled from Iberian Peninsula in 1492. Some of them settled to North Africa. Haym Solomon, Judah Benjamin, Benjamin Disraeli and 1st Marquess of Reading were all Sephardic Jews.
Some Sephardic Jews look different from European Whites but actually just belong to a locally specialized subtype of the Mediterranean race. They are the racial brothers Southern Europeans whereas Whites of the Nordic race are cousins to the Mediterraneans. Anthropologically, it would be nonsense to say that they are not White.
Some people here are under the misconception that Arabs are white.Arabs are not white.They can be never be white. Even a blind man can easily distinguish a Palestinian brown and a white Israeli at the first glance. As far as I am concerned I call a person white when he looks white to me, when a person looks like white, i.e. light colored skin, blue or green eyes, blond hair. So one can easily, why Ehud Olmert is a white and Ahmenijad a brown. Though, there are some, who are blond, there percentage is very less.
Another misconception is that Ashkenazi Jews are Mediterranean people. The fact is that Ashkenazi Jews don’t have a common origin, but most of them are actually Slavic. So, most American Jews look like Eastern European. The anthropological features of most European Jews are same as that of East European, for example European Jews are as blond as Austrians. (20% pure bonds, 55% mixed). So if any considers East Europeans as white, they must consider Ashkenazi Jews as also white.{Even many neo-Nazis today do not deny this. They believe Jews look whites but re not whites. Thanks to Hollywood and Super-Good looking blond, blue-eyed Israelis).Also only European (East, Central and north) Jews have high IQ. Others have IQ less than the general white population.
The findings of physical anthropology show that, contrary to popular view, there is no Jewish race. Anthropometric measurements of Jewish groups in many parts of the world indicate that they differ greatly from one another with respect to all the important physical characteristics - stature, weight, skin color, cephalic index, facial index, blood groups, etc. Moreover, there is general agreement that comparisons of cranial indices, blood types, etc., show a greater similarity between Jews and their Gentile host-nation than between Jews living in different countries. The hardest evidence to date comes from classification by blood groups sensitive indicator. So a German Jew looks mostly like a German gentile, and a French Jew like French.
There are race realist movements in , which are free rabid anti-Semitism common in American Race realist movement. The best example is that of South African race realist movement. There was never any anti-Semitism in White South Africa, and the South African government was staunch supporter of Israel. I think the South African Race Realist movement should be the ideal for all other such movements.
“Another misconception is that Ashkenazi Jews are Mediterranean people. The fact is that Ashkenazi Jews don’t have a common origin, but most of them are actually Slavic. So, most American Jews look like Eastern European.“
Actually, Ashkenazi Jews are predominantly a Mediterranean/Alpine mix. Sephardic Jews are just Mediterranean.
Also, I’d avoid any assertions about the superiority of Ashkenazim as traditionally the Sephardim have been perceived superior. British PM Disraeli wrote a lot about the superiority of his ethnic group, the Sephardic Jews. Even prof. Revilo Oliver, a notorious White Supremacist and an anti-Semite, said that Sephardic Jews formed the “Jewish nobility.“
In the early 1900s there was a distinction in America between the old Sephardic Jews and newly arrived Ashkenazi Jews, derogatory called “kikes.“
“There was never any anti-Semitism in White South Africa, and the South African government was staunch supporter of Israel.“
A lot of people in SA blamed the Jews of the Boer War and accused them of controlling the economy. In the 1930s and 1940s they included future prime ministers Verwoerd and Malan. Verwoerd was educated in Nazi Germany.
As a historical anecdote, Percy Yutar who was the chief prosecutor in the Mandela trial as a young man often cried himself to sleep because of anti-Semitic discrimination.
BTW, I am not Jewish. The name “Ashkenaz” refers to the biblical ancestor of Germanic peoples.
True White Nationalist wrote:
“So if any considers East Europeans as white, they must consider Ashkenazi Jews as also white.“
This is actually wrong. The argument goes: If anybody considers Italians White, he must also accept Ashkenazi Jews as White.
Even the Nazis did not deny that the Jews had a lot of admixture from White European races. However, the Jews are predominantly descended from Biblical Jews who were racially Mediterranean.
The Jews are not a people “whitened” by European admixture but a people of wholly White descent. Virgin Mary was a White woman.
The findings of physical anthropology show that, contrary to popular view, there is no Jewish race. Anthropometric measurements of Jewish groups in many parts of the world indicate that they differ greatly from one another with respect to all the important physical characteristics - stature, weight, skin color, cephalic index, facial index, blood groups, etc. Moreover, there is general agreement that comparisons of cranial indices, blood types, etc., show a greater similarity between Jews and their Gentile host-nation than between Jews living in different countries. The hardest evidence to date comes from classification by blood groups sensitive indicator. So a German Jew looks mostly like a German gentile, and a French Jew like French.
This is wrong. I quote Carleton Coon (professor of anthropology in Harvard).
The Ashkenazim are a reasonably uniform people in a statistical sense; furthermore, many of their metrical characters, as far as we know them, are not markedly different from those of their Mediterranean Jewish ancestors. The facial diameters, for example, relate them closely to the Mediterranean prototype, in strong contrast to the broader faces of the Alpines and Neo-Danubians among whom most of them live. The head form, on the other hand, shows a partial brachycephalization which must be due to the absorption of Gentile blood. At the same time the presence of a strong minority with mixed or light pigmentation makes such an absorption necessary. The Jews are not simply Judaized central Europeans; they are central-Europeanized Jews.
It has been remarked by some anthropologists that the Jews look “Armenoid,“ and that this Armenoid appearance must be due either to Hittite admixture or to a sojourn in Asia Minor before their arrival in Europe. This remark implies a misunderstanding of Jewish history as well as of the nature of the Armenoid race. Many Ashkenazic Jews, it is true, possess the combination of a brachycephalic head with a narrow face and convex nose, but there is not enough Alpine in the Jewish body to make this Dinaricization prevalent or standard. It is found among blond as well as brunet Jews, and is an individual rather than a group phenomenon.
Individual central European Jews vary greatly in facial and cranial appearance. Among them may be picked out without trouble apparently pure Palestinian types; the convex-nosed, long-faced sub-type, which is frequently found among Sephardim, and is especially known to the world through the faces of Disraeli and Lord Reading in England, is on the whole rare among Ashkenazim; the straight-nosed, more typically Mediterranean form, such as is represented by the actors Al Jolson and Eddie Cantor, is much commoner. Leon Trotsky represents a brachycephalic, Dinaricized Jewish type, and Albert Einstein is a good example of another.
Among Russian Jews it is not difficult to select individuals with large malars, broad, snubbed noses, and high alveolar segments of the upper face, who are as nearly mongoloid as many Volga Finns. Among German Jews may be found individuals who are to all purposes Nordic, and others who belong to the Borreby race, which is the most numerous single type among Gentiles in Germany. Alpine Jews are commoner than the incidence of Alpines in central and eastern Europe would perhaps warrant, and some of their Alpinism must have been derived from their sojourn in France and in the Rhinelands before their march eastward across central Europe.
On historical grounds it is very likely that the ancestors of the Ashkenazim mixed more with Gentiles in western Europe, before the time of the first Crusade, than their more recent forebears have in Slavic countries. The heavy beard growth, the abundance of the body hair, and the wavy hair form of many brachycephalic Jews imply a French or German Alpine infusion rather than any racial increment which they could have assimilated in Slavic countries. The racial contribution of the western Jews to the Ashkenazic body seems to have been far greater than that of their Byzantine and Crimean colleagues.
Although all of the racial types enumerated above, and, in fact, every racial type known in Europe, may be picked out of the Jewish body, most of the Jews represent a blend in one way or other of several of them, and most of them, for one reason or another, look Jewish.169 There can be no doubt that the original Mediterranean blend of Palestine is the most important. If one were to hazard a guess, one might suggest that it actually accounted for more than half of the whole; that it is strongest in Poland, and weakest in Germany. As with the Bokharan Jews, its most persistent metrical features in mixture are to be found in the facial dimensions. A careful study of the soft parts of the nose might reveal further persistences, but there are apparently no corresponding peculiarities of the facial skeleton.
(Races of Europe)
http://www.snpa.nordish.net/chapter-XII20.htm
“Some people here are under the misconception that Arabs are white.Arabs are not white.They can be never be white.“
The only reason most Arabs are not White is their Negroid admixture. However, Jordanian royals are also Arabs and definitely racially White.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/NEWS/Images/091505-raniasachs.jpg
Muslims in general are not suitable inhabitants of Western nations because of the Muslim religion which is anti-nationalistic and jihad-imperialist, though.
ajo wrote: “Meanwhile, the US needs American Jews to be Jewish. Jews in the US are so left wing and make David Duke’s comments on them partially justified because their liberalism is a substitute for their religion.”
I think most Christians need to be Christians instead of acting like secular-liberals on steroids. Too many have been captured by leftist ideologies. It’s time for Christians and Jews to be liberated from their cultural captivity.
I considered Jews that had been expelled from the Iberian peninsula to be European Jews. I don’t believe that Whites are necessarily a closely related ethnic group. I believe that European Whites (Haplogroup R), Afro-Asiatic Whites (Haplogroups E, G, I, J, K), East Asian Whites (Ainu), and South American Whites (Chachapuya) are all examples of convergent evolution.
I believe Whiteness is essentially a “syndrome” of characteristics that happens when a human population with Neanderthal introgression spends several millennia in a temperate, populous, and combative region. Today, European Whites of the Haplogroup R and I variety are about all that’s left, not because they’re uniquely White, but because they were uniquely isolated on a European Continent that presented a host of obstacles to invasion and miscegenation.
So, because of that anthropological hypothesis, I put very little weight on who is related to whom. The majority of the world’s population has a profound amount of White admixture. Even Black Africans are a result of a hybrdization event between a White Semitic (Haplogroup E) group and African pygmies that was intelligent enough to be agricultural but also had the environmental adaptations for equatorial survival.
Indians, Latin Americans, Persians, and Arabians all have a White history that was stunted by miscegenation with Congoid, Turkic, and Australoid populations. The best way to decide whether somebody is “White” is to define a appearance and characteristics of a White person, then allow any and all “ethnic groups” to apply. The Irish will all qualify, most European and Sephardic Jews will qualify. A small minority of Indians, Persians, and Latin Americans may qualify. No Ethiopian Jews will qualify.
European Jews are trace survivors of a once expansive White population that spanned from the Canary Islands through North Africa, Arabia, and Persia. They didn’t have the same geographic barriers to protect their genetic homogeneity, so most through the Afro-Asiatic ethnic/cultural/linguistic belt lost it.
I happen to have an article on that, too:
http://www.truecitizen.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=50
How about some facts?:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2006/01/matrilineal-ancestry-of-ashkenazi-jews.html
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/genetics/2006-01-12-ashkenazi-descendants_x.htm
“Ashkenazi Jews are a group with mainly central and eastern European ancestry. Ultimately, though, they can be traced back to Jews who migrated from Israel to Italy in the first and second centuries, Behar said….Behar said the four women he referred to did inherit their genetic signatures from female ancestors who lived in the Near East.”
Harry Ostrer. “A genetic profile of contemporary Jewish populations.” Nature Reviews Genetics 2(11) (November 2001): 891-898. Excerpt: “Studies of Y-chromosomal markers have provided an opportunity to assess gene flow into Jewish populations from non-Jewish males. Contemporary Jews and Middle Eastern Arabs have 13 common Y-chromosomal haplotypes that are shared both within and across groups, indicating that the original Jews might have arisen from local peoples [Canaanites, Sumerians, etc.] and are not the offspring of a single patriarch [Abraham]. The most common Y-chromosomal haplotypes are thought to be of Middle Eastern and North African origin, and the less common haplotypes of Asian origin, indicating that gene flow had a role in the formation of the Jewish people.”
http://www.jewishsf.com/bk010309/sbaychrom.shtml
http://www.sdss.jhu.edu/~ethan/jFAQ.html
containing the following figure:
http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/full/90/7/2654/F4
If you try and “force” Ashkenazi genetics into a European genetic framework, they will cluster into an extreme position; in this graph representing a “more Southeastern” orientation than the Greeks, who are geographically and genetically the most “Southeastern” of European groups:
The Ashkenazim are hardly clustering with Germans or Slavs.
And here, an Ashkenazi sample is most similar to Armenians and Greeks, which, together with everything listed above, is consistent with a recent, historical Near Eastern origin:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y121/fi1/1.jpg
Whether this race or that race is white or not seems moot.
I think Arabs and Jews, at least Sephardic ones, are of the same race, but that Ashkenazic Jews evolved to look lighter. I can’t tell the difference myself between Sephardic Jews and Arabs.
Also, Ashkenazic Jews clearly don’t look Germanic or Slavic.
I am not sure what ones mean by white anyway. Some Arabs are blonde haired and blue eyed, and many Spanish and other Mediterranean peoples are dark skinned.
“The anthropological features of most European Jews are same as that of East European, for example European Jews are as blond as Austrians. (20% pure bonds, 55% mixed). So if any considers East Europeans as white, they must consider Ashkenazi Jews as also white.{Even many neo-Nazis today do not deny this. They believe Jews look whites but re not whites.“
So why do all the Jews I know proudly claim “I’m not white I’m Jewish?“ This includes my natural blonde, blue eyed skin white as paper roommate whose Grandparents came from Russia.
Observer of Grievance Collectors asked why many Jews proudly claim “I’m not White, I’m Jewish”. Both anti-Semites and Zionist have a vested interest in convincing everybody that Jews are not White. If White Jews identified themselves as White and Whites accepted that definition, then David Duke would be exposed for what he is - a conspiracy theorist devoted to the persecution of a White ethnic group. If White Jews quietly coalesced into White American society, then Zionism would be imperiled.
David Duke showed his true colors when he endorsed, supported, and attended a Holocaust Denial conference held by a belligerant non-White ruler of a non-White Islamic regime. He is hip with Ahmadinejad even if Ahmadinejad is against all of Western and White Civilization. As long as he’s against those Jews, too! As long as the nuclear bomb he’s constructing will take out some Jews, Dr. Duke’s all for it.
“So why do all the Jews I know proudly claim “I’m not white I’m Jewish?” This includes my natural blonde, blue eyed skin white as paper roommate whose Grandparents came from Russia.“
My impression is: Since Whites have effectively been labled as being a “cancer on society”, why would Jews want to associate with that if s/he can distance themselves from it? The Realist is right when he asserts that “whites are a cancer on society” myth must be exposed as the vile anti-white propaganda that it is. *I’m not Jewish so please correct me if I’m way off base.
As a Jew with many Jewish friends, I get into these discussions on occasion. I would say that the fact that this is such a hot controversy would suggest that there may be a reason for this.
It seems to me that it is mostly some very liberal and more far-Left Jews who claim to be not white, and that this is a desire to see themselves as an ethnic underdog. It is, of course, convenient to position oneself as such, though for the Jews, a losing battle, as in the end, they are seen as too, well, let’s be honest—white.
I would say Jews are relatively white compared to other Semitic tribes and Middle Eastern peoples. But they are clearly more Middle Eastern than say, the Swedes.
I personally don’t feel comfortable insisting to white whites that Jews are white if they see me as something different than them, but I do disagree with those who feel Jews are closer to any other basic category.
I think that part of the confusion Jews sometimes have is defining themselves in racial terms is that they always saw themselves more in ethnic (and before, tribal) and importantly, also in religious terms, even if relatively non-practicing.
“I’m going to accuse you of trying to have your cake and eat it too, as you link to articles that describe Christianity as inextricably comingled with Western Civilization and then decry that Western Civilization has almost entirely disposed of Christianity.“—Wikitopian
Alexis De Tocqueville believed Judeo-Christian values are necessary to maintain a democracy. Here’s what he has to say:
[“Tocqueville began with a shocker: That the first political institution of American democracy is religion. His thesis went something like this: The premises of secular materialism do not sustain democracy, but undermine it, while the premises of Judaism and Christianity include and by inductive experience lead to democracy, uplift it, carry it over its inherent weaknesses, and sustain it.
By its own inherent tendencies, democracy tends to lower tastes and passions, to devolve into materialistic preoccupations, and to undercut its own principles by a morally indifferent relativism. Further, democracy left to itself tends to surrender liberty to the passion for security and equality, and thus to end in a new soft despotism, tied down with a thousand silken threads by a benign authority.”…..]
Rest of article:
Check out what George Washington had to say in his “Farewell Address” about how religion and Providence are the essential ingredient in maintaining the character of our country.
[“Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it 7 It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?“]
Bottom line: America worked pretty well until secularism began to wield more power than Judeo-Christian based religion. Things are going downhill fast. As Robert Bork puts it “We are slouching towards Gomorrah”.
Ashkenaz,
The article you pointed out is a very old one (Races of Europe).Modern anthropologists have different views. Here is a quotation from the excellent series of booklets on “The Race Question in Modern Science” published by UNESCO. The author, Professor Juan Comas, draws the following conclusion from the statistical material:
“Thus despite the view usually held, the Jewish people is racially heterogeneous; its constant migrations and its relations - voluntary or otherwise - with the widest variety of nations and peoples have brought about such a degree of crossbreeding that the so-called people of Israel can produce examples of traits typical of every people. For proof it will suffice to compare the rubicund, sturdy, heavily-built Rotterdam Jew with his co- religionist, say, in Salonika with gleaming eyes in a sickly face and skinny, high-strung physique. Hence, so far as our knowledge goes, we can assert that Jews as a whole display as great a degree of morphological disparity among themselves as could be found between members of two or more different races.”
In Patai’s word:” With regard to blood type, Jewish groups show considerable differences among themselves and marked similarities to the Gentile environment. The Hirszfeld “biochemical index”
(A+AB)
(B+AB)
can be used most conveniently to express this. A few typical examples are: German Jews 2.74, German Gentiles 2.63; Rumanian Jews 1.54, Rumanian Gentiles 1.55; Polish Jews 1.94, Polish Gentiles 1.55; Moroccan Jews 1.63, Moroccan Gentiles 1.63; Iraqi Jews 1.22, Iraqi Gentiles 1.37; Turkistan Jews 0.97, Turkistan Gentiles 0.99.
One might sum up this situation in two mathematical formulae:
Ga-Ja<Ja-Jb
and:
Ga-Gb~ Ja-Jb
That is to say that, broadly speaking, the difference in respect of anthropological criteria between Gentiles (Ga) and Jews (Ja) in a given country (a) is smaller than the difference between Jews in different countries (a and b); and the difference between Gentiles in countries a and b is similar to the difference between Jews in a and b.”
That’s why I said a German Jew is a German and a French Jew is a French,because the same blood flows through their veins.
“If anybody considers Italians White, he must also accept Ashkenazi Jews as White.”
Ashkenazim are whiter than most Mediterranean people including Italians, if you consider blond hair, blue eyes and light color skin as traits of white race. Only 25% of the total Ashkenazi population is pure brunette (rest are blond or mixed type).Percentage of brunette population is much larger among the Mediterranean people”.
“Also, Ashkenazi Jews clearly don’t look Germanic or Slavic. “
Most actually do. (At least that is my observation and that of many others.).Do you find Sarah Jessica Parker, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Michele Trachtenberg, Caprice, and Bar Rafaeli, and Alexandra Rosenfeld (Miss Europe 2006) (there are more 7 million names but don’t think I have so much time or space) in any way less white than Adolf Hitler or David Duke? Or will call every non-blond European a Jew? But the fact is that European Jews are not very homogenous. Some are very white, some look Mediterraneans.
I do not much about genetics. But the “facts” pointed out by Some Facts are not really facts.(Most scientists do not consider these facts as correct). Data collected in all above in studies were random and the sample was very small. There have been many genetic studies regarding the origin of European Jews, but most of them were inconclusive. Most geneticists believe European Jews were product of interbreeding between males from Israel and females from Europe (Germany and France) and it continued for more than 400 years. The extent of interbreeding is clear from the fact that Ashkenazim constituted 3% of the total Jewish population in 11th century ,but 90% in the 20th century.
“A lot of people in SA blamed the Jews of the Boer War and accused them of controlling the economy. In the 1930s and 1940s they included future prime ministers Verwoerd and Malan. Verwoerd was educated in Nazi Germany.”
By South Africa I mean the South Africa after the World War II.When the Afrikaner-dominated National Party came to power in 1948 it did not adopt an anti-Jewish policy. In fact, during that year, the modern State of Israel won its independence from Britain, and the Afrikaners identified with Israel and admired its resistance to British rule. South Africa’s Prime Minister, D. F. Malan, was reputedly the first foreign head of state to visit Israel. This began a long history of cooperation between Israel and South Africa on many levels. At least South African White Nationalist sites are better than the American ones. Here are few
[url=“http://therightpersceptivepodcastblog.blogspot.com”]
http://therightpersceptivepodcastblog.blogspot.com[/url]
[url=“http://www.africancrisis.co.za/Home.php”]
http://www.africancrisis.co.za/Home.php[/url]
Ajo says “Whether this race or that race is white or not seems moot “
But he believes he is a race realist. How can he be a race realist if he can’t decide who is a white and who is not?
The Realist wrote in one of his article that the Islamic terrorism is actually a manifestation of the violent tribalism which is in the “genes” of people of North Africa, West and South Asia. But many commenters here believe that Arabs are white and are not considered white because of their religion. But religion can’t be the basis of race because race is not just a social construct.(Which is what every race realist believes.)
Also if you believe Jews are Arabs (which sounds very foolish to me), then Jews have nothing to do with white nationalism. And if you include Jews in the movement we must include Arabs because they ear of the same “race”. (This is indeed the argument which many Nazis against entry of Jews in White Nationalist movement)
Are we not contradicting ourselves?
“The article you pointed out is a very old one (Races of Europe).Modern anthropologists have different views. Here is a quotation from the excellent series of booklets on “The Race Question in Modern Science” published by UNESCO. The author, Professor Juan Comas, draws the following conclusion from the statistical material:“
The article is from 1960s, it is not exactly modern.
“If anybody considers Italians White, he must also accept Ashkenazi Jews as White.”
Ashkenazim are whiter than most Mediterranean people including Italians, if you consider blond hair, blue eyes and light color skin as traits of white race.“
This is fallacious as the dark, Mediterranean Spaniards are actually racially more related to the Nordic, blond Swedes than the East-Baltid Swedes living in Sweden (in metrical sense). The color of hair is a very small element in race. Nordids are depigmented Meds according to Coon.
“Only 25% of the total Ashkenazi population is pure brunette (rest are blond or mixed type).Percentage of brunette population is much larger among the Mediterranean people”.
The Jews are still descended from Ancient Israelites and this defines their nation. The character of the Jewish nation is Semitic and the European and non-European Jews share their peoplehood. (The black Falashas as converts are not members of the Jewish people)
You cannot think that the Jews are some kind of originally non-White population whose members are now mostly of White ancestry and should thus be considered White.
You must also consider that while fair features have been an adaptative trait in Europe in North Africa darker features have been advantage. To some degree this might explain the differences in the appearance of the Jews.
“Thus despite the view usually held, the Jewish people is racially heterogeneous; its constant migrations and its relations - voluntary or otherwise - with the widest variety of nations and peoples have brought about such a degree of crossbreeding that the so-called people of Israel can produce examples of traits typical of every people. For proof it will suffice to compare the rubicund, sturdy, heavily-built Rotterdam Jew with his co- religionist, say, in Salonika with gleaming eyes in a sickly face and skinny, high-strung physique. Hence, so far as our knowledge goes, we can assert that Jews as a whole display as great a degree of morphological disparity among themselves as could be found between members of two or more different races.”
Hardly. The Jews have a number of distinguishing characteristics. For example, the incidence of red hair is very high among Ashkenazi Jews. (In fact, they have red hair more often than Irishmen).
“In Patai’s word:” With regard to blood type, Jewish groups show considerable differences among themselves and marked similarities to the Gentile environment. The Hirszfeld “biochemical index”
(A+AB)
(B+AB)
can be used most conveniently to express this. A few typical examples are: German Jews 2.74, German Gentiles 2.63; Rumanian Jews 1.54, Rumanian Gentiles 1.55; Polish Jews 1.94, Polish Gentiles 1.55; Moroccan Jews 1.63, Moroccan Gentiles 1.63; Iraqi Jews 1.22, Iraqi Gentiles 1.37; Turkistan Jews 0.97, Turkistan Gentiles 0.99.
One might sum up this situation in two mathematical formulae:
Ga-Ja<Ja-Jb
and:
Ga-Gb~ Ja-Jb
That is to say that, broadly speaking, the difference in respect of anthropological criteria between Gentiles (Ga) and Jews (Ja) in a given country (a) is smaller than the difference between Jews in different countries (a and b); and the difference between Gentiles in countries a and b is similar to the difference between Jews in a and b.”
That’s why I said a German Jew is a German and a French Jew is a French,because the same blood flows through their veins.“
I’d like to see the study. How do you explain the fact that f.e. those many notable English Jews are men of Mediterranean race with Jewish features. People are able to see features like the Semitic nose with their own eyes.
For example,
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/virtual/portrait/disraeli3.gif
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/f/fe/200px-Rufus_Isaacs.jpg
“If anybody considers Italians White, he must also accept Ashkenazi Jews as White.”
Ashkenazim are whiter than most Mediterranean people including Italians, if you consider blond hair, blue eyes and light color skin as traits of white race. Only 25% of the total Ashkenazi population is pure brunette (rest are blond or mixed type).Percentage of brunette population is much larger among the Mediterranean people”. “
I’d like to see the source of those stats.
“From extensive investigations of the color of the hair and eyes of the school-children in Germany, Virchow has shown that the Jews have not maintained their type in as pure a state as has been generally supposed. Of 75,377 Jewish children examined, only 46.83 per cent were brunettes having both dark hair and dark eyes; 11.17 per cent were blonds having light hair and light-colored eyes; and 42 per cent were of the mixed type having either dark hair with fair eyes, or vice versa. In Austria, according to Schimmer, 32 to 47 per cent (according to the province) of the Jewish children are pure brunettes, and 8 to 14 per cent are pure blonds. In Bulgaria, Wateff has found that only 49.57 per cent of Jewish children are brunettes, while 8.71 are blonds and 41.72 are of mixed type; and even in North Africa, where the dark type predominates among the Jews, 76.40 per cent are brunettes, 4.62 per cent are blonds, and 18.98 per cent are of mixed type.
see Types of Pigmentation in Jews of Various Countries.
Among Jewish adults anthropological investigation has shown that the brunette type is not in the majority. From the accompanying table it will be observed that the percentage of brunettes is only 43 among the Galician Jews, while it reaches as high as 74 per cent among Lithuanian Jewesses. Blonds are very rare among the Jews of Russian Poland; but among other classes they are encountered quite often. Among the Little-Russian Jews the proportion reaches 16 per cent. The mixed types are everywhere found in the proportion of from 30 to 40 per cent of all the individuals examined.
The origin of the blond and mixed types among the Jews has been a favorite topic of discussion for many anthropologists. Some have maintained that they are the product of intermixture with the indigenous peoples of the European countries in which the Jews have lived; others show that even among Jews who do not live among blond races, as, for instance, those of Syria, Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers, many blonds are met with. It is also shown that if intermixture with northern European races were the origin of the blond Jews, the countries whose non-Jewish populations present the largest percentage of blonds, as Prussia, Lithuania, etc., should have the largest proportion of Jewish blonds also. On the other hand, in the south and the east of Europe, where the Gentiles are darker, more Jewish brunettes and fewer blonds should be found. That this is not the case is shown by the following figures, taken from Virchow’s census of the color of the hair and eyes of school-children in Germany:
see table
These figures show in a striking manner that in the provinces of Germany where the percentage of brunettes is smallest among the Christian population—in Prussia, for instance, only 14.05 per cent—the Jews have 42.34 per cent of brunettes; while in Alsace-Lorraine and Bavaria, where the Christians show 25.21 and 21.1 per cent of brunettes respectively, the Jews have only 34.59 and 39.45 per cent respectively of such. This is further confirmed by the following figures (from the works of Virchow and Schimmer) showing the distribution of Jewish pure blond and brunette types in Germany and Austria.“
Source
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=371&letter=T
“I do not much about genetics. But the “facts” pointed out by Some Facts are not really facts.(Most scientists do not consider these facts as correct). Data collected in all above in studies were random and the sample was very small. There have been many genetic studies regarding the origin of European Jews, but most of them were inconclusive. Most geneticists believe European Jews were product of interbreeding between males from Israel and females from Europe (Germany and France) and it continued for more than 400 years. The extent of interbreeding is clear from the fact that Ashkenazim constituted 3% of the total Jewish population in 11th century ,but 90% in the 20th century.
Yes and here is your error. The racial type of Ashkenazi Jews was established very early as interbreeding occurred between the Jews and Germans in Rhineland. The German contribution was mostly Alpine. The Nordic type among the Jews derives from Slavic admixture and is East-Nordid which is different the actual Nordic race (Skando- and Teuto-Nordid).
As the Jews later migrated elsewhere intermarriage mostly stopped and as a result the Jews could be racially different from the surrounding populations. For instance, Bohemian Jews were lighter than Bohemian Gentiles.
“By South Africa I mean the South Africa after the World War II.When the Afrikaner-dominated National Party came to power in 1948 it did not adopt an anti-Jewish policy. In fact, during that year, the modern State of Israel won its independence from Britain, and the Afrikaners identified with Israel and admired its resistance to British rule. South Africa’s Prime Minister, D. F. Malan, was reputedly the first foreign head of state to visit Israel. This began a long history of cooperation between Israel and South Africa on many levels. At least South African White Nationalist sites are better than the American ones.“
I know though the Jews in South Africa were heavily involved in the anti-Apartheid movement. For instance, in the Rivonia trial all five White people who were accused were Jewish. (Dennis Goldberg, Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein, Bob Hepple, Arthur Goldreich
and Harold Wolpe)
“But many commenters here believe that Arabs are white and are not considered white because of their religion.“
Arabs have significant Negroid admixture. “Arab” is an ethnicity but Arabs likely belong to some non-White race.
Frankly, I dont know about the Jewish question just like Taylor - so I cant comment on it.
But in the article this was said…
While Taylor’s book was receiving critical praise in the mainstream, he was leading a “double life” so to speak, by publishing American Renaissance under the name Samuel Taylor. Samuel is Jared Taylor’s first name, so this wasn’t too much of a stretch. However, it is interesting that Samuel Taylor was outspoken about innate racial differences while Jared Taylor was silent on that subject.
The above is misleading. Jared WANTED to write about racial (genetic) differences in intelligence as a casual factor in his book “Paved with Good Intentions” But couldnt find a publisher who would accept the book with such information in it.
To quote him from here
I made a number of compromises in order to have this book published, but the compromises lie mainly in what I did not write. I think most of what I did write stands up well more than a decade later.
Both the quotations in my previous comment was from Arthur Koestler’s The Thirteenth Tribe (Chapter 8 Race and Myth)
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/13trib08.htm
“The true Semite belongs to the white race and is long-headed. Jews in central Europe show about 15 percent blond, 25 percent brunet, the rest being intermediate. Broad headedness is found almost exclusively among brunets (Sayce, 78). Broad- headedness among the Jews is the result of mixed marriages (Ripley, 390, 393). The original Jewish types are long-headed (Pittard, 351).”-The Origin of Our Western Heritage (Chapter 4: A look at racial types)
The Jewish nose is not really Jewish. Most Jews don’t have Jewish nose, but only small minority of them have. The Jewish nose is also found among Red-Indians, and is completely absent in Bedouins (a Semitic Tribe).
Here is a genetic study which shows more than half of Ashkenazi Levites (a paternally inherited Jewish caste) may have a common European origin.
Multiple origins of Ashkenazi Levites
Here is more link which shows blood distribution among different ethnic groups.Similarity between Jews and Gentile population is clar from it
href=“http://www.bloodbook.com/world-abo.html”>http://www.bloodbook.com/world-abo.html</a>
European (Haplogoup R) Whites are unique among exclusively Cro Magnon in having selected out the hawkish nose from their genome. In a nearly unbroken strip from the Berbers of West Africa through the Semites of West Asia, the Turks of North Asia, and the Amerindians through the East Coast of North America, the hawkish nose exists.
My belief is that Cro Magnon man is the result of an introgression event between beachcombing African pygmies (with entirely flat noses) and Neanderthal (with relatively huge and hawkish noses). “True White Nationalist” claims that the Semitic tribe of Bedouins are devoid of the hawkish nose. He obviously didn’t check out the wiki article, which shows a Bedouin with a huge hawkish nose reclining on a rock.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin
Hawkish noses aren’t *uniquely* Jewish or Semitic, but they are a feature commonly found among Jews and Semites. They’re common among all of the (mostly pure) Cro Magnon populations except for European (Haplogroup I&R) Whites - which seem to have stabilized on a more straight and gracile nose (with plenty of exceptions and variations, including the hook, within entirely pure Whites).
I think we should allow Christian Arabs, like the Lebanese Maronites, Aramaeans, and Assyrians in the movement. North African Arabs, Moors and Berbers are the most anti-black people on earth.
The problem with Muslims is their religion, a fundamentalist one. That is why Bosnian and Herzegovinan, Albanian and Croatian Muslims, who are definitely white, are still fighting wars.
I do think Islam is a non-western religion that happened to be started by whites. That is why blacks convert to Islam so frequently.
American Renaissance is destined to remain a small insignificant movement because it appeals mostly to atheists and agnostics. How can a movement be effective when it turns off people who believe in the God of the Bible? How many “Atheist Nietzschean existentialists” like Wikitopian are there in the world (14 maybe?) compared to billions of believers in the Bible? It doesn’t take Einstein to figure out the movement is constrained because it appeals only to a tiny minority who subscribe to esoteric philosophies.
Who is saying Amren is declining? Jared Taylor has been on more TV shows nd it’s membership is growing.
Bud,
I’m not going to try to explain to you again that I am not a member of AmRen, do not reflect their positions, and may very well be the only non-Christian in the room. I’ll just give up and allow you to draw the conclusion that since one of AmRen’s moderators is an atheist, that AmRen is declining because it caters to atheists.
You’ve sold me. I see the light. Please tell me more about how Christianity is explicitly White Nationalist, about all of the White Nationalist activism that Christian organizations and individuals are doing. I’ll go and get the 13 other Nietzschean Existentialists and tell them about all of the reverends that are fighting FOR White people.
“Please tell me more about how Christianity is explicitly White Nationalist,“—Wikitopian
I never said Christianity is explicitly White Nationalist, nor is it anti-White Nationalist. All I’m saying is: if the WN movement is going to grow and be successful, the last thing it needs to do is alienate the largest segment of the White population—which happens to be Christian. Sure, I admit many Whites who profess to be Christians are consciously working against the best intrests of Whites in general, but I would categorize those types as being delusional-brainwashed-racial-egalitarian-liberals.
The way I see it, Wikitopian, it’s radical liberalism that’s causing our demise. It’s liberal Jew’s, liberal Christians, liberal atheists, liberal agnostics, etc. The common denominator of the enemy is anti-white liberalism.
PS, Please don’t take my trivializing your philosophy personally, I was just trying to illustrate a point. My sincere apologies if I offended. We all need to work together if we are going to win this struggle. Peace!
TERRI (Way up at the top!), I agree with you. I don’t get the “Jew Conspiracy” thing at all. But, I am very racist, very pro-white, and I don’t get all offended by the rhetoric of some on our side. In light of the fact that we are becoming EXTINCT, a little violence and hyperbole doesn’t bother me at all.
Politically speaking, to alienate ANYONE who is a race realist is just bad strategy, especially if we share many similar political objectives.
“When he held the first American Renaissance (AR) conference in 1994, Jared Taylor seemed to be on the cusp of bringing into being a major new paradigm in American politics: a race realism that could appeal to moderate conservatives.”
AR has had little to no impact on solving the gradual extinction of the White-race. In the 13 years since it’s inception, practically nothing has improved in the attitudes of the masses of Whites towards embracing White preservation. On the contrary: whites are more self-hating and guilt ridden than ever. I think a radical new direction is absolutely necessary to appeal to the masses. I agree race realism must break from blaming Jews as the source of White demise. That gives WN the image of a bunch of whacked out Nazi kooks. Who wants to be associated in any way with that? We definitely need to market an image that is popular and nonthreatening to every race, religion and ethnic group. We must come to the point where White preservationism is regarded as beneficial, necessary, and tolerant to all. To belong to the White preservation movement should be regarded on the same lines as belonging to a “Save the starving children charity” or a benevolent “Anti-defamation civil rights group.”
If we start to see folks like Bill Gates, Bono, Barbara Streisand and Madonna embracing White preservationism, like they embrace the plight of Africa, we will then know we have won.
As of right now, we’re only banging our heads against the wall.
P.S.
I know the message of this web-site is having impact in WN. I’m beginning to see some of the most strident antiSemitic posters at other WN web-sites beginning to post comment’s that are in accord with what The Realist says about how its counterproductive to lay the blame of Whiteplight on the Jews.
I know the message of this web-site is having impact in WN. I’m beginning to see some of the most strident antiSemitic posters at other WN web-sites beginning to post comment’s that are in accord with what The Realist says about how its counterproductive to lay the blame of Whiteplight on the Jews.
By 1 or 2 on 7/28/07 at 7:21 pm
That is somewhat encouraging news; however, the WN’s I know are (with only 2-3 exceptions) deluded Jew haters.
That is somewhat encouraging news; however, the WN’s I know are (with only 2-3 exceptions) deluded Jew haters.
By M on 7/29/07 at 9:11 am
That’s why we must leave to deluded Jew haters behind and go in our own direction. Our purpose of White preservationism must have widespread appeal that even crosses racial, ethnic and religious lines.
If it’s any consolation to you, those deluded WN Jew haters are so small in number—in my estimation—they hardly pose a threat to Jewish people. They only serve to give an inflated credibility to groups such as the ADL, ACLU, and the SPLC.
Speaking of groups such as the ADL, ACLU, and the SPLC; if we could only get them on our side and speak out for the right for Whites not to be defamed or legally discriminated against, all of the potential threat of Jew haters growing in number would be rendered down to practically nothing. Also, it’s Senators like Arlan Spector that insist on pushing through a Bill making all the illegals legal, that gives Jew haters ammunition to make the case Jews are the main perpetrators causing White dispossession.
What we desperately need is aggressive Jewish support in the White preservationist movement. Groups like the ADL, SPLC, and ACLU clashing with the “Neo-Nazis” in a vicious propaganda war only serve to synthesize needless animosity between White gentiles and Jews. We should be working together on the common goal of White peoples right to thrive and exist in their own countries and communities. After all, Whites ARE the rapidly disappearing minority in the world.
Pardon the name but we need to be “politically correct” right? *grinz*
Living as a white guy in South Africa all my life, I can vouch for one thing. I have tried educating these “others” nudge nudge, you know what I mean? - for many years now, and I’m on the point of giving up completely. You can try to explain pure logic to these darklings in the most simplest way you can possibly think of, but alas. It remains white magic and “must not be trusted”. This has become the equivelant of trying to teach a retarded baby to stop sticking his sucking dummy in his ear because he’s going to go deaf. “Goddamn it! It goes in your mouth! Not in ya ear!”. I just don’t know what to do anymore. They’re raping the continent bare and the few whites that are left have to try to stop the balls from falling off the table. PLEASE! Someone tell me, you have an idea! We’re becoming extinct.
“That is somewhat encouraging news; however, the WN’s I know are (with only 2-3 exceptions) deluded Jew haters.“
By M on 7/29/07 at 9:11 am
M, you might find this interesting:
http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm
Thanks “1 or 2”. That was an interesting article. I dare say that most WN’s that I know are of the type that he mentions. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that cannot be attributed to Jews. No matter the topic of conversation; “the Jews” will ALWAYS be mentioned. If one of these people gets a paper cut, it is because the paper company is owned by (you guessed it) a JEW! 
Johannes Gutenberg’s last name means “Jewish hill”, which makes him a Jew. The first book he printed with his new printing press was written entirely by Jews. Over the last several hundred years, hundreds of millions of men, women, and even toddlers have been lacerated by the dangerous paper corners of his Jewish “books”.
With these diabolical “paper cuts”, the Jews have managed to cause more gentile (which means cow!) bloodshed than was spilled by Jews in the Holocaust (which didn’t even happen). The Bilderbergers have even admitted, at their recent covert Trilateral Commission witchcraft ceremony, that they conspire to deliver their Jew books to toddlers the world over - an integral step in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
If you claim that Gutenberg was not a Jew, then you are probably a Jew. If you deny being Jewish, then you’re a Jew engaging in a sinister “false flag” conspiracy. The World Trade Center fell 600 years, 6 months, and 6 days to the date after Johannes Gutenberg’s Jew birth. Coincident? Hah!
Jared Taylor is debating on Wikipedia. Take a look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jared_Taylor
Jared Taylor’s statement about the Holocaust:
**I do not, in the slightest “question the extent of the Holocaust,“ and find the allegations againt me in that respect not only absurd but malicious.**
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alabamawhiteman
Some idiotic David Duke -bot has also been spreading rumours about an extramarital affair between Taylor and a Japanese woman named “Yumi Akisada”.
Thanks for telling us about this, Ashkenaz. The exchange that provoked this dispute is here:
http://inverted-world.com/index.php/news/news/another_eagle_eyed_white_nationalist_finds_me_out/
So now Taylor is accusing Lawrence Auster and me of being malicious. The man invites Holocaust deniers to speak at his conferences and is close friends with Holocaust deniers. He has never spoken out against Holocaust deniers even though they form a large contingent of his readership, despite the urgings of another contingent. When people ask him whether he thinks the Holocaust happened, he gives evasive replies. Yet he thinks it’s malicious to speculate that he might doubt the Holocaust. Incredible.
Even if he doesn’t doubt the Holocaust, he clearly stands guilty of collaborating with and enabling the people who do. Consequently, he is also guilty of bringing disrepute on the race realist movement.
It doesn’t occur to him that what inspired us was not malice but moral outrage at seeing our legitimate complaints trivialized and ignored. I scarcely need to tell that story again. See here and here.
Now it seems that this episode has become part of his permanent record by being mentioned in the Wikipedia entry on him. He has urged the editor to take it out several times, but the editor has said no deal. And that, I think, is simple justice.
I can’t imagine Taylor’s reply being characterized as evasive. First he said a great many Jews died because they were Jews. Then he offered a numerical range—4 to 6 million—which is close to the (only slightly coerced) consensus of mainstream scholarship on the topic. I don’t know how he could have been more clear.
Realist, people I respect reproach me for even attempting to engage you on this subject because they question your motives or your rationality. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt on both.
I can respect a race realist who repudiates doctrinaire Anti-semitism as being ultimately corrosive, even if we do not always agree on definitions. (Though it is distinctly odd to accuse Taylor of bringing race realism into “disrepute” since it had always been detested by the mainstream media and could not have been MORE disreputable at the time Taylor entered public life. Indeed, Taylor, as an articulate and telegenic representative has done much to rehabilitate the movement). What race realism does not need is a witch-hunt to ferret out not only Antisemites, but their “enablers”.
I would compare this situation to the position of American labour in the 1930s. Most of the leadership tolerated communists, because communists were often the most effective organizers and it seemed exigent to attend to the needs of the starving rank & file. Some anticommunist leftists—Walter Reuther & Hubert Humphrey most prominently—thought labour needed to root out communists. Reuther and kindred spirits worked tirelessly and effectively to do so though they did not take overbroad swipes at non-communists with different priorities. They disagreed with gentlemen like gentlemen.
Manifestly, Taylor does not place as high a priority on purging Antisemites as you would prefer. I have read practically everything he has published over the last 5 years and was even honoured to engage in a short, though informative, private correspondence and to my knowledge he has never written or uttered an Antisemitic remark. I will accept your word that he has personal friends who are Antisemites (though I have no independent knowledge that this is true). For all I know he may have liberal friends or even black friends—he loves the blues after all—and it has been my stimulating experience to maintain friendships in the face of fundamental disagreements over religion, politics, race and even baseball. Realist: I am willing to bet that you have the odd liberal friend. Are you an enabler of our race-enemies?
I think you display questionable judgment in the way in which you attack Taylor. Make your case that his priorities are wrong but please refrain from character assasination.
I think you missed the story here: http://kvetcher.jewschool.com/2007/08/09/jared-taylor-clarifies-holocaust-stance/
Ironic Jihad,
When I was referring to Jared Taylor’s evasive replies on the Holocaust question, I was, of course, referring to the first two replies he gave to people who asked about it, not the patronizing concession that Larry, some other commenters, and I eventually wrung out of him when he realized that this dispute might affect his reputation. See the thread that started this:
http://inverted-world.com/index.php/news/news/another_eagle_eyed_white_nationalist_finds_me_out/
A couple of articles on this site have already explained at length why I think Taylor is to blame for not repudiating his loony followers—see the other links in my comment above. So you’ll just have to decide whether you agree or disagree with me.
When Jews actually work to stop the third-world trend that they, for the most part, have foisted upon America, I will put out my hand in friendship; until then, I’ll keep my middle finger extended.
“When Jews actually work to stop the third-world trend that they, for the most part, have foisted upon America, I will put out my hand in friendship; until then, I’ll keep my middle finger extended.“
By Mark Farrell on 8/25/07 at 3:04 am
I am responsible for no ones’ behavior but my own.
So on that note until the Irish lambast Kennedy and McKain for the same above-mentioned reason, all I can say is right back atcha,‘pal.
“If you claim that Gutenberg was not a Jew, then you are probably a Jew. If you deny being Jewish, then you’re a Jew engaging in a sinister “false flag” conspiracy. The World Trade Center fell 600 years, 6 months, and 6 days to the date after Johannes Gutenberg’s Jew birth. Coincident? Hah!“
By Wikitopian on 8/1/07 at 9:20 am
You’ve got it bad and that ain’t good.
“I think Wikitopian was joking, WJP.“
By The Realist on 8/26/07 at 5:56 pm
If he was I apologize.
“So on that note until the Irish lambast Kennedy and McKain for the same above-mentioned reason, all I can say is right back atcha,’pal.“
I’ve heard it several times by both Jews and Irish: There’s only one thing more nauseating than a liberal Jew…it’s a liberal Irish.
By White, Jewish, and Proud on 8/26/07 at 11:51 am
I think Mike Farrell’s point was not who was working against us (plenty under all ethnicities, Irish included, although I am willing to bet the percentage is higher under the Jewish category) but who was working with us (we ALL would like to see the higher Jewish percentage on this side). I sometimes believe one of the few things Jewish people are not good at is understanding WHY other people dislike, distrust, or despise them. It’s one thing they just don’t seem to get.
Name one powerful, highly-influential, extremely vocal, and very effective Jewish person in government, entertainment, or Corporate America that puts all white folks first. I hope there is at least one…
The Jews aren’t any more traitorous to the White race than all the Gentiles. 90% of non-jewish Whites are completely cowardly and traitorous, too. They work around the clock to promote every damn race in the world but their own.
The ‘jew thing’ is completely irrational. It’s left over from WWII and Hitler, and gets picked up by unknowledgeable young people trying to find their White roots, and the only people who aren’t too cowardly to talk about the White Race in a positive, pro-active way are the ‘nazis’ and such. So it just keeps confusing and clouding each new batch of young people. I wish the older idiots would QUIT WORRYING ABOUT THE JEWS. Look at the Mexican invasion, the muslim invasion, the black supremacy, the Indian invasion, the Carribean invasion, the loss of White sovereignty and territory around the world, etc, etc…the things you can see in front of your face! Not some hidden Jew conspiracy that you can never put your finger on, it’s ridiculous!
(And to any paranoids, not that you’ll believe me, I’M NOT JEWISH! I look like Sean Hannity, I ain’t no freakin jew!)
By the way, I 100% support giving the ax to anti-semites now. Not only are they wrong, and not only do they make racialism look bad, they produce leftists witih their stupid antics.
The only mass movement that I trust to really boot the anti-semites out of the stadium is the [url=http://www.jtf.org/e[Jewish Task Force[/url].
Ian Jobling,
How well did you know Jared Taylor? Are you still in contact with him? Did you attempt to influence his views on this matter, before severing your ties with American Renaissance and creating Inverted World?
JRR,
I worked under JT at New Century Foundation for two and a half years. I most certainly did try to influence him on this issue. In fact, I secretly participated in the composition of the letter from AR subscribers in 2006 alluded to in this article, which was written while I was still working for JT—I left that job soon after, naturally. I also spoke to him individually after the conference. I do not maintain contact with JT, even though I still live only a couple of miles from his house.
The more I think about it, I understand why Jared Taylor does not address the question of Jews and people who hate Jews. It’s simply too controversial. He’s basically doing the best he can for his situation. He is maintaining a top quality magazine about the race question, and he simply can’t afford to address Jews. The more he talks about Jews, taking either side, the more members he loses, because its such a polarizing topic. I salute Taylor for making such a top quality publication.
You on the other hand have the chance to speak out, because you are not burdened by a giant membership base which at any point can decide to stop sending you money. You don’t have the hurdle that Taylor does, and so I applaud you for speaking out, but I understand logically why Taylor can’t. I think its time to get over what happened in 2006 and respect Amren again, even if it isn’t ideal. Nothing is ideal, but Taylor is basically doing what he logically can to publish high quality issues on race. He simply can’t afford, in his position, to address the topics that you can.
“I sometimes believe one of the few things Jewish people are not good at is understanding WHY other people dislike, distrust, or despise them. It’s one thing they just don’t seem to get.”
The hatred/obsession of Jews among racialist conservatives is largely an American-Anglosphere phenomena.
The major Nationalist parties in Continental Europe such as the Italian Northern League and French National Front NEVER talk about Jews in the terms Kevin MacDonald, David Duke, Stormfront and other racialist white Americans do.
In fact, many Euro-Nationalist parties are PRO-Semitic and PRO-Israel, especially the ones in the Benelux countries and the Scandinavian right political parties such as the Norwegian Progress Party and Danish People’s party.
“Name one powerful, highly-influential, extremely vocal, and very effective Jewish person in government, entertainment, or Corporate America that puts all white folks first. I hope there is at least one…”
Jews are not supportive of explicit pro-white positions because of the association with Nazism.
Before WWII and the Holocaust, many Jewish scientists such as AA Roback supported Social Darwinian positions like Eugenics because Darwinian/evolutionary thought reigned so supreme in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. For example, Rabbis talked positively of how Eugenics could improve the Jewish people.
It took the ultra-aggressive racial nationalism of Hitler (whose racial war targeted not only Jews but Eastern Slavs and killed scores of white Europeans) to discredit social Darwinism and make Boasian anthropology and Watson/Skinner behaviorist blank slate “science” become dominant among Jewish and white elites in America and among white elites in Europe.
Without WWII, eugenics and Human Biodiversity would most likely have continued to dominate elite thinking.
So nobody, gentile or Jewish among elites supports explicit pro-white positions.
However, Jews have indirectly helped whites by being very active in the libertarian movement (think Mises, Rothbard, Rand and Friedman), the hard sciences, medicine and have been loyal to American enlightenment ideals - in a way East Asians are not -despite being liberal and Democrat voters.
Here is a good source for information on Jews and the early eugenics movement:
Preaching Eugenics
By Christine Rosen
http://books.google.com/books?id=DrKgIIxCHVIC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=eugenics+rabbis+religion&source=web&ots=ChZkWkvdTE&sig=qhGe-BkieCa7n3lpbGGo3eUz3CI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result
This is an incisive article, although I have several cavils.
First, I hope articles attacking Jared Taylor and David Duke don’t become the main theme of this site that should be about race realism.
The article believes that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are inhibiting the racialist movement from entering the mainstream. I am Jewish and have no love for anti-Semitism. However, it must be noted that many paleocons who have no love for Israel, such as Thomas Fleming, Pat Buchanan, Scott McConnell and Taki are not associated with the racialist movement, despite the fact that all but possibly McConnell have almost the same views on race as does Taylor.
Which brings me to my next point. You mention that the Holocaust causes an association between racialism and Nazism. However, the Gulags don’t bring a similar revulsion to socialism by associating it with Bolshevism. In fact, communist figures such as Ernesto Che Guevra find acceptance, if not admiration, among the mainstream left, while the same certainly cannot be said for Hitler and the right, thankfully.
Why is this the case? Is certainly is possible that there was someting unique about the Nazi Holocaust, such as its distinct flavour to its anti-Semitism, as well as the Nazi imperialism and nationalism versus communist universalism. Also, the Germans were the only western people to commit massive genocide. But it must also be remarked that it may well be that Jewish activists have promulgated the Holocaust’s uniqueness over all other genocides. The Jewish Peter Novick writes about this fact in his book.
So what we have is mainstream society being revolted not specifically by extremists but by right wing or more accurately centrist nationalist extremists over left wing internationalist extremists. So the problem with the racialist movement may not so much be its extremists but the fact that society has shifted so far left. It begs the question asking if anti-Semitism and extremism disappeared entirely if racialism would still be accepted by the mainstream. There must be a clear distinction between the conservatism of Charles Murray and Dinesh D’Souza versus that of Sam Francis and Peter Brimelow to determine the answer.
Furthermore, while David Duke hardly makes a fine scholar or reporter, and while his ethics lack, the reason his anti-Semitism is popular among the right is based on an element of truth, that Jews really were so harmful to the racialist movement. The Jewish question may need to be addressed head on and thoughtfully instead of the usual claim that there are Protestant liberals too. Similarly, under certain circumstances, the Holocaust must be put in context with the racialist movement, given the controversy it has stirreed.
I think this movement will be better served not attacking extremists but on propounding its ideas. Every movement has its extremists, and the left and neocons get away with theirs.
As for Taylor being anti-Israel, while he did go to far about the reasons for the 911 attacks, the fact is that neocons are too sensitive to criticisms of Israel the same way liberals are sensitive to criticisms of blacks. The US is in many ways entangled with Israel, such as its giving $5 billion of aid anually. Israel has spied on the US through AIPAC, a nominally non-foreign lobby. Also, making the mideast safe for Israel was a prominent, but not the only, subconcious motive for Jewish neocons’ support of the Iraq War, even though it ended up harming Israel.
Nevertheless, what the racialist movement needs more is a critical study of Islam, which will put Israel in the proper perspective that Taylor lacks. Realizing the dangers of Islam will round out the movement as one of “clash of the civilizations”. Srdja Trifkovic, while hardly writing about race, has written plenty on the Jihad, and he has been a sensible commenter on Israel and its proper relationship with the US. He noted the obvious, that American and Israeli foreign interests won’t converge forever.
So Islam must enter in the discussions on defending Western civilization, and Israel must be properly criticized while not demonized. While Israel is a flawed but relatively westernized country, both Israelis and Americans, Jews like myself and non-Jews, agree that its relationship with the US must be reevaluated.
Again, thanks for the thoughtful article.