A number of large companies — Coca-Cola, PepsiCo Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Dish Network Corp. among them — have pulled some of their advertising from Google’s YouTube network because of their ads appearing alongside “hate” videos after a change in Google policy.
Like the rest of the Dot-Com 3.0 boom/bust gang, Google is in trouble. Its ads do not work as well as ads in newspapers, television or magazine at least used to work, and so it can no longer charge the high rates that propelled it into superstardom. People on the internet are not paying attention, or if they are, do not have the money to do anything about it, so are near-useless to advertisers.
As a result, Google is looking for ways to expand the number of ads it shows, and as the world shifts Rightward, more people are watching videos about related ideas — “five YouTube videos peddling racist and anti-Semitic content, according to a review by The Wall Street Journal” — and so Google wants to show ads on those.
Not so fast, says corporate America, which obeys the old bourgeois rule of “criticize no one, accept everyone” because in its view, every person out there has some dollars in their fat little fists. What it forgets is that its mainstay, the upper half of the middle class, has a values system and these are the people who are the “power users” that other consumers emulate.
The problem that corporate America faces is that, while the urban elites are Leftists to the core, the suburban and rural upper half of middle class still tend to be WASP and conservative-leaning. By pandering to an audience outside of this group, corporate America continues to demonstrate its sliding relevance, and the possibility that the new audience it has chosen for itself has not panned out.
Asked about the Journal’s finding that their ads were still appearing with such content on YouTube as of Thursday night, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Dish Network Corp. said Friday they were suspending spending on all Google advertising except targeted search ads. Starbucks Corp. and General Motors Co. said they were pulling their ads from YouTube. FX Networks, part of 21st Century Fox Inc., said it was suspending all advertising spending on Google, including search ads and YouTube.
Wal-Mart said: “The content with which we are being associated is appalling and completely against our company values.”
Other companies whose spots appeared, including Toyota Motor Corp. and Microsoft, said they were monitoring the situation. Procter & Gamble said it was working with Google but declined to say whether it was reducing spending.
Every time a sea change is underway as we see happening currently, the market divides into two groups: those betting on the old way, and those betting on the new. Corporate America has backed the wrong horse on this issue because pluralism has failed. People want strong national identity, and that includes the ability to have some opinions considered “extremist” by the Left.
Sometimes it becomes necessary to merely “unspin” the media from its neurotic circular argument with itself so that we can see the actual context, understand the events in them without the false context of the Leftist Narrative, and get some idea of what they are telling us that is independent of the need of Leftist ideology to generate constant outrage.
When Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro (D) asked him about the recent threats against Jewish facilities, the president responded by condemning the incidents but then “suggested the ‘reverse’ may be true,” Shapiro said.
…When he and other attorneys general discussed it after, Racine said: “We wondered whether that statement in some way questioned the underlying fact of increased anti-Semitic conduct.”
…Trump did mention the anti-Semitic incidents during his speech to Congress on Tuesday night, although he did not elaborate on who he thinks could be responsible.
Of course the Leftist establishment does not know what white America has known for a long time: when you set up a group to be pitied, you give them a superpower, which is the ability to claim victimhood and have everyone take them seriously and give them free stuff. And so we get pity scams from any pitied groups: False rape claims. Fake hate crimes. Bogus Holocaust survivors.
Trump is ushering in a new era of realist common sense. In this case, it means that we do not take any crime at face value. We go through the process of investigation and find out who is actually responsible and why. This stops the false rape claims, for example, dead in their tracks because the scam artist no longer gets the payoff of free publicity, pity and donations.
As Leftism falls after reaching its apex, the normal/healthy people in society — perhaps 40% — are realizing that in fact most people are not scrupulously honest, and lie by omission as much as anything else, and that we have a large number — perhaps 20% of each generation — who are born bad and will do nothing but scam, grift, cheat, lie, steal, rape, assault, vandalize and plagiarize.
This means that where in the credulous 90s we took every hate crime as a literal affirmation of the narrative, assuming that the victim was 100% pure and the attackers 100% evil white male Christian guys who liked death metal, we now are more skeptical, and say we will wait to see if this hate crime is a crime or a scam, because either is possible and often, as with the rest of human activity, a scam is more likely than the truth.
Over at a site that has been on my reading list for years (and on which my writings have appeared) a rather detailed and articulate attack against me has appeared. It makes sense to analyze this in good faith and see what points it makes.
The author argues that I am (1) a mainstream conservative and (2) a world Zionist disinformation agent. Unbounded accusations like this cannot be refuted simply because there are too many inputs; I can show that the Bank Of The Learned Elders Of Zion did not send me any checks, but maybe they used another source, or pay me in Kentucky Burley. Same with the mainstream conservative accusation: perhaps I keep a television in the basement crawl space to covertly watch Fox And Friends late at night.
The first argument takes this form:
dispatched to re-direct WN into American patriotardism
One might also wonder how the GOP jives with the four pillars advocated here for the restoration of Western civilization, the rejection of democracy, the dislike of equality, and other notions that are part of the mainstream conservative lexicon.
He does make a good point about mainstream conservatives however which is that they are the Rightists who were willing to work with the new, post-Revolutionary order as established in France, giving rise to the terms “Right” and “Left.” However, the impulse toward conservatism occurred long before that, and it is this type of “roots conservatism” — found in Plato and Nietzsche — that informs my advocacy of it and understanding of the term.
Moving on to the “Jewish Question” or JQ, which is always a point of conflict:
Of course those in service of the YKW do not feel the need to be especially covert about their advocacy in all places nowadays, particularly with The Alternative Right Tentosphere being what ((it is))), as it is devised to be YKW friendly – markedly so in its charter name site, Alternative Right, which re-published the Brett Stevens article “The Roots of Modern Anti-Semitism.” They feel no need to be ashamed of their defense of Jewish interests, they are free to exercise their chutzpah, as they do by way of Stevens in this article. However, the real points for style in shabbos service come into play as Stevens and committee go to work confounding and re-directing proper ethno-nationalist understanding of the world that the more sophisticated and Jew-wise would otherwise be sorting out.
My point is simple: Western Civilization’s decay is the result of poor decisions made by Western people. We cannot blame anyone else. In addition, we should cheer Jewish nationalism because it ends the diaspora and revitalizes nationalism. Western Civilization rose by being reflective, or intuitively bonded to the best aspects of reality and geared toward qualitative improvement of the experience of life, and breaking away from that by relying on scapegoats is beneath us, inaccurate and will lead to more horrifying stuff like The Holocaust. We are not murderers, nor are other racial groups our concern; our goal is to restore Western Civilization and make it better than ever before. This is the goal of any sane and healthy civilization, and we are not sane and healthy now, nor have we been for a long time, although the French Revolution really formalized our decline.
He wonderfully clarifies my argument here:
blaming our demise solely on our individualism and lack of rectitude
Yes. That is our illness. Everything else is a symptom. We do not achieve victory by fighting symptoms, but by going to the cause. Degeneration — first moral, then mental, and now physical — is the hallmark of the decline of the West. As one observer said, “Civilizations die by suicide, not murder.” We lost our way and have made ourselves miserable, and are now self-destructing.
This is the difficult problem we must solve. If stopping civilization decline were easier, there would be more great civilizations still in existence. Instead, it serves as the means by which every advanced human civilization so far has passed into darkness. This is the challenge before us: to save civilization.
Whether or not Jews are a symptom of this problem, they are not its source. Even more, whipping people up in a fury against them fails because it both distracts us from the actual cause, and inspires people to do ignoble things like genocide. We do not need to kill those who might appear to be our enemies; we need to fix ourselves, which includes excluding everyone else.
It is the same way with the African-Americans. Some wish to blame them, but the actual cause is diversity, which in fact gets more deadly if it involves “nice” groups because then your people hybridize with them, erasing the original population. This type of soft genocide leaves behind a civilization capable of none of the great acts of the old.
On this issue, the philosophers have it right: our civilization entered into decline because people became individualistic, or acting for themselves first against the natural ways a civilization structures itself. Individualism is reality-denial, a form of hubris. The only solution is a cultural change reversing this pathology.
Stevens wants us to believe that the Jewish population were probably once European
Much of Jewish genetics originate in Southern Europe, which makes sense given the proximity of that region to Israel, and that we know Israel was a trading hub between West, East and Africa. That would lead to a mixed-race group of Caucasian and Asian roots with some African.
Think about this another way: if you take New York and analyze the people who are successful in business there, most will be Caucasian, followed by Asians, with a few exceptional African-Americans who have made it big in business. If all of these wealthy people go to the same schools, country clubs and the like, they will intermarry, producing an ethnic mix resembling the Judaic mixture.
Jews are not the enemy; they are what is left after a civilization dies in the higher socioeconomic classes. Again, think of New York. The reason pro-Aryanists fear The Eternal Jew is not because the Jew is the threat, but because the Jew is a symbol of our future if we do not end diversity.
we should be able to relate to them as being of common European origin
Race is not binary. Consider the fringes, such as parts of Italy where the population is clearly intermixed with Persian and Phoenician remnants, or parts of Russian where the population despite being blonde/blue has a quarter Asiatic mixed into it. That does not mean we should do more than understand these other groups as being similar but crucially different to us.
The same is true of Spain, for example. Many Spaniards show clear evidence of admixture with Moors or Sephardim. Many Americans have Asiatic (Amerind) heritage, or some like the Melungeons of Appalachia, show African admixture. What does this mean? For starters, that admixture makes a group different, but not so radically different that we cannot understand them.
My hope for the Jewish people is the same as their hope: for the diaspora to end with a prosperous, safe and stable Israel as their ancestral homeland and a place for all Jews. Of course, the White Nationalists would work to prevent this and instead focus their energies on dreams of genocide, which then allows the actual problems of the West to go unchallenged.
Not coincidentally, this is also my hope for Western Europeans — and every other group, including Eastern Europeans, Africans, Southern Europeans, Asians and any other identifiable human group.
Our path lies between cuck and sperg, which means that we are trying to find a path between the cowardly GOP who will never act to save Western Civilization, and the White Nationalists, who will act on one issue obsessively and ignore the rest. The middle path is crucial here.
First of all, deconstruction is a mainstay premise of what modernity does to clear-away “the arbitrary” in its quest after foundational essences. It is NOT so concerned to not subject to arbitrary deconstruction and experimentation the precious inheritance that is. So, we already have a clue that Stevens is going to probably give us not something radically different for our interests at all (certainly not White Post Modernity) but something a lot more like bald modernity and nihilism in the service of the “reality of inequality”, a “reality” that just so happens to serve the ehem, rather unequal position now of Jewish power and interests – who will try to placate us, if we are good sheeple, by sneaking-in some “radically” traditional Noahide consolation.
Deconstruction is also a powerful method for reducing the seeming omnipotence of certain socially-acceptable illusions. For example, “the reality of inequality” applies to the failure of democracy and diversity.
the “irony” is that the notion of necessity that he is alleging as being opposed to fatalism and the humility (as opposed to hubris) to know one’s factual limitations is, in fact, of an appeal to a less socially interactive and agentive kind of cause and effect – it heads toward deterministic cause and effect quite the opposite of the agency that appeals of social critique and social constructionism.
And yet, life is deterministic. People have different innate abilities and inclinations. It sounds almost like he is arguing for Leftist universalism here, or the idea that people are equal and that accurate portrayals of reality are discernible by all people equally. That is clearly not the case, which is why hierarchy is needed.
democracy is put aside as something that doesn’t work because people start worrying too much about what others think
Yes, and for many other reasons too. Democracy is what the cucks defend. Mob rule is the downfall of the West.
Modernity has not only been atop a short list of the most profoundly transformative ways of life, it will remain to feature as an integral capacity of any competent post modern culture.
Modernity, which is the era which begins with the assumption of equality, has created vast degeneration in the West. The sooner we escape this time of illusion the better.
those peasant revolts! they were based in delusional thinking too – they should have just known their place!
His objections are starting to sound very Leftist. We need hierarchy; peasants who pretend to be kings are prone to make terrible decisions. Look at our history since the time when we rejected monarchy.
Stevens reverses this, and says that the unversities are merely responding to what students want. He is disingenuously suggesting that these liberal teachers, cultural Marxist and Jewish academics are innocent, they are merely responding to market demand of students, not indoctrinating them and selling them endless words, endless critique aimed at effecting the teacher’s personal interests along with peer Jewish and liberal interests.
Another way to look at this is that academia aims to sell its product to students who already agree with it, which thanks to the Leftist high schools, is most of them; however, the bigger argument is that Leftism is always more popular because it flatters the ego, and so people flock to it for social reasons.
Because you think that we just hate reality, beauty and happiness, we aren’t dealing with reality, not accepting what “is”, we only care about what we think “ought” to be. Do you really believe that Brett?
Yes. People are not good, and only some can become good through self-discipline and a sense of reverence. The rest are self-interested monkeys who behave like a prole revolt and destroy everything good. We can see this exemplified in Leftism and the associated movements that follow it, including White Nationalism, which attempts to destroy Western Europe through trace admixture and uniformity.
While it was not totally surprising that Alternative Right blog spot would unabashedly re-publish his Jewish advocacy, viz., the article quoted in the post, it was a little surprise to see it republished uncritically (save the capacity for critical comments) at Alt Right.com, and it appears that critical of them as I have been, that I still gave them too much credit. I assumed that it had to be the case that Stevens was not only selling a new podcast but a new website: why, after all, would these sites, supposedly wise to the JQ, be promoting the work of one with a long-standing track record of ardent defense and attempted exoneration of Jewish interests?, and why would AltRight re-post it, allowing for comments, yes, but re-post it un-accompanied by any critical editorialization of its own?
Alternative Right publishes a number of authors with somewhat divergent views. This can help expand dialogue about Right-wing topics instead of turning us into a Right-flavored version of Leftism, which forces conservative thought into a dogma or ideology and thus lessens its actual potency by making it related to symbol and not reality.
You would have to ask the editors there what their intent was, however. So far, I have found no reason to criticize them, even when they publish articles that I personally disagree with in whole or in part.
The points I take away from our dialogue here today are thus: there are no binaries regarding nations; each group acts in self-interest. The groups that succeed will unite individual self-interest with that of the group, which requires people who are not individualistic. Those who argue in favor of individualism are, at their heart, Leftism, or believing in the equality and goodness of humanity, which history shows us is nonsense and drivel. Even white people — especially white people! — are prone to become narcissistic and self-preening instead of focusing on the end results of their actions in reality. Rightism is found in rejecting the preening and focusing on reality, and this is what made the greatness of the West.
Majority Rights will succeed where it offers an alternative to the modern time. Once we assume equality, no amount of racial awareness will stop that from eventually extending to its natural end result, which is inclusion of everyone as equal. For that reason, we need a method of thinking outside of modernity/equality, and this is found in some of the ideas I pursue that are feared by both the underground white nationalist Right and the mainstream cheeseburger cuckservative Right.
I do not expect these ideas to be immediately accepted. No new idea ever is, mainly because it takes on a new form and so is unfamiliar to its audience. However, it seems to me that the greatest threats come to us from failed ideas of the past dressed up as something desired, for example Leftist pro-democracy talk disguised as pro-white or pro-nationalist.
For my ideas, the bottom line is this: we are here to restore Western Civilization. We know that to do that, we need to escape from the house that equality built, because it is the ideology of our enemies. In the interim, there will be those who try to sell us the same old thing in a new form because they know it will be popular. It makes sense to ignore those.
All in all, this seems a productive dialogue. We have gotten to the core of two ideals — my futurist traditionalism versus DanielS’s racialist democracy — and can compare them as they really are. This offers a lot to someone who is looking for an option to the present, and wondering how deep they must cut to get beneath the necrotic flesh and encounter healthy tissue again.
While anti-Semitism makes no sense because it scapegoats one group for the failure of the much larger phenomenon of Western Individualism, it is easy to see how it came about in the modern time because of the unfortunate affinity of a large percentage of Jews for egalitarian ideologies which also reveals the eternal tragedy of the Jewish people in Europe and Eurasia:
In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a “carnival of mass murder,” “fantasy of purges”, and “essianism of evil.” Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history.
When 2% of the population represents nearly 40% of the Communist Party, they will be targeted. Herzl recognized this when he noticed that among national populations, those who do not fit the national profile are attacked whenever things go wrong. But even more, when a stereotype becomes somewhat true, the brutality that follows seems justified or at least forgivable to most people, despite being unrealistic.
Naturally the tragedy of the Jews comes into play here. The Jewish diaspora began before the Jewish people were exiled from Palestine. It lies in the mixed-race nature of the Jewish population, who were probably once European but became merged with Asiatics and Asiatic-African hybrids because of Israel’s place as the center of world commerce at the time.
The Jews are a bourgeois tragedy: successful in business, they accepted everyone, which led to them changing from a European population to a mixed one. This guaranteed them a home on none of the continents and, when their homeland in the middle east was dispossessed from them, a wandering group who could never point to an origin and say “there, alone, we belong.”
Like the good businesspeople of the West today, the original Jews accepted diversity because it made good business sense. Thriving businesses do not turn down customers because of their national origin. But in doing so, the Jewish people invited in the hybridization that ensured they would never have a racial home or continental home except themselves.
This fundamental alienation led to a fascination with anti-majority movements for many Jews, explaining their higher participation in Leftist movements. However, their lack of an identity in one of the four root races — Australid, Caucasian, Asian and African — then turned against them, as even the Communists recognized the power of nationalism.
While this seems like a problem without solution, nationalism solves this problem. A new race was made: the Jewish people. It belongs to no one but itself, and it needs its own homeland, whether in Israel or Madagascar. It will never be European again, but it can be the best of what it is, and this begins with a divorce from the alienation that has led it into so many disasters.
In the meantime, these historical events prove how nonsensical anti-Semitism is. Our problem in the West is that we are following the path that the ancient Jews did because, as individuals, we are willing to “succeed” at the expense of civilization. We cannot blame others for our own moral failing, and indeed, doing so obscures what we must do, which is to change our ways.
Ah, The Jewish Question. Oy gevalt! Should we be mean to the Jews? Are they the noble breed of people that gave us Einstein and Mendelssohn? Are they conspiring with the (((Illuminati))) and the (((Banksters))) to secretly do away with us all? One of life’s sad tragedies is that the answer to this question is both.
If what Bill (((Kristol))) had to say for himself is indicative of the majority of American Jews, then maybe, just maybe Jolly Old Reinhard Heydrich had a point. Heck, if President Donald J. Trump is ¡LITERALLY HITLER! then it’s time for Der Father-Fuhrer to put over-priveleged fat-fvck Bill (((Kristol))) on the Treblinka weight loss plan. The calories don’t just get burned, they get Shoah’d!
Now maybe I’m blessed with merely Upper Middle Class aspirations and have mostly only met Jewish People who are modest, intelligent, patriotic, decent and really hard-working. Like Mr. Rogers… you want guys like this to be your neighbor. They are frequently the sort of people I want my son and daughter to take after more than they ever take after me. My middling academic credentials and simple homespun goals have prevented me from meeting the hyper-yuppie cloaca maximae that really put the motivation into the online anti-Semite.
You’ve known the walking stereotype. It’s described in the off-color joke below.
Q: What does a JAP* do with her @$$-hole every morning?
A: She sends him off to work.
And who could blame Mrs. Kristol? Who in the hell would want to spend more then 10 minutes in a room with Bill (((Kristol)))? It would be about as much fun as a fishin’ trip with Sheriff “Bull” Connor and Senator Bilbo. The only noticeable difference between “Conservatives” like (((Kristol))) and Kevin Williamson and the Old-Fashioned ‘Bama Democrats like Sheriff “Bull” would be the skin color and genetic heritage of the people they’d like to see barbecue in the shiny, efficient, German-engineered crematorium ovens over at the Shoa Shop. Sorry #Cucks; it’s not just Democrats who are the ¡REAL RACISTS!
Of course there’s a major-league difference between genocider bigots like Connor, Bilbo and even the execrable Heydrich and the newer, more-polished genocider bigots such as Williamson and (((Kristol))). Senator Bilbo, is about as dead as his famous namesake the Tolkienesque Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins. Sheriff “Bull” is safely out to pasture. Heydrich has been found condignly guilty. Beelzebubba roasts hot dogs over the smoldering remains of his wretched, bureaucrat soul. Kristol and Williamson still enjoy pulpits within the (((#Cuckservative))) Movement to preach their establishmentarian version of #WhiteGenocide.
Now they’re more subtle and better paid than the previous generation of American Haters. They don’t publicly advocate serving the fair-haired denizens of Gorbutt a heaping dose of Jim Jones Murderade. They just want their communities to die out. That won’t hurt if you smoke enough meth, drink enuff Mountin’ Doo and watch Professional Wrastlin’ to waste the time until it’s done with.
They don’t publically recommend machine-gunning the dumb white trash and burying them for their dirt naps. They just want to bring in the “Hard-working” immigrants who are “natural Conservatives” to hire instead of the Numb-Fvck Whiteys. Now I know what I’ll hear back. Heydrich actually killed people. Lot’s of people. (((Kristol))) and Williamson just stroke the elitist egos to afford their Gay Yuppie Lattes at the coffee shop. Well, where in the hell does a prick genocider like Heydrich ever get the public support to off the Bad People? It takes years of escalating propaganda to achieve such demonization.
I need to offer the tremulous snowflakes who haven’t recoiled from this post in disgust yet a ¡TRIGGER WARNING! My concluding message to Bill (((Kristol))) is coming straight from the ever-lovin’ heart. My family comes from the stock of people that Netflix ridicules in “Dear White People.” And what does suck Redneck Fuggery entail? It entailed seven fvcking combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan for my Master Sergeant Brother-In-Law. He’s lucky his young boy still remembers who daddy is. It entailed fvcking combat tours in Desert Shield and Desert Storm for my Father-In-Law. It entailed being the MP Duty Officer in Munich the night after Kennedy got shot and the Black Horse Cavalry went DefCon 1 and rushed to succor The Fulda Gap.
This means the dumb whiteys Bill (((Kristol))) wouldn’t deign to hire as his groundskeepers stand between him and an entire religion bursting at the seams of absolute blood-thirsty savages who would like nothing more than to permanently attach your Yarmulke to your head with a handful of 10 penny nails. Dumb, replaceable people of the disposable Caucasian Persuasion stand between your sorry, kosher @$$ and this….
In light of the recent doxxing fiasco in which members of the Alt Lite, neo-Nazi fringe and far-Left came together to destroy the life of an internet broadcaster, it is time that we on the Alt Right had a conversation about anti-Semitism and other forms of scapegoating.
It is in human nature to scapegoat. We play tennis and score badly, so the racquet is to blame, or maybe the net, possibly the fuzz on those tennis balls from the new brand that we are not yet sure we like. Dinner turned out badly? Must be the chicken, or the stove. These scapegoats live with us because they are plausible, but only tell part of the story in some cases, which means the wrong thing is being blamed.
For example, it is perfectly possible that the stove is really bad, and that the chicken is not great. However, those things alone do not make a bad meal. We knew of those challenges before we started. Also, maybe the racquet is not so good, and the new balls have less bounce. But these things alone can be compensated for. Failures come from several factors, A + B + C, and to blame any subset of that group is to scapegoat.
Scapegoating screws us in two vital ways: we fail to solve our problem, and we create other problems by chasing after the wrong culprit, including the ugly fact that we deplete our energy and will to solve the problem in the miasma of disappointment and confusion that occurs after a non-solution excites the crowd. Scapegoats doom us to perpetuate problems and create new ones.
How do you determine when you are using a scapegoat? The simple test is to correct for the factor you think is to blame and then run the equation again. If you suspect that A is wrong in A + B + C, fix A, and then re-run the test. If you would still end up with failure, or at least still be most likely to fail, then A is a scapegoat, or a contributory cause misidentified as the whole cause.
For this reason, our test for anti-Semitism is this: If all Jews died tomorrow, would our problems cease to be?
Waking up in a world without a Jew would mean that many prominent Leftist figures would be gone, true; it would also mean that the Democratic party would lose its major group of donors, and that Palestinians would both have zero restriction on their movement and no one to target for terrorist attacks. But look what remains.
The West would still be in decline, because we did it to ourselves by pursuing wealth and power instead of moral goodness. We would still have diversity, tolerance, equality, pluralism, neurosis and Leftism among us. Our civilizations would still be in the grips of an undeclared caste war, with a lack of purpose, ruled over by the democracy that makes every truth into a simplistic emotional symbolism that veers away from reality.
We would still have overpopulation, pollution and civilization collapse to wrestle with. Did Jews cause those things? They did not cause civilization collapse in Athens, nor in Tenochtitlan, nor in Chichen Itza, and probably not in Cahokia either. Civilizations tend to die when they become successful, lose purpose, and substitute with ideology and control to keep the franchise going. All civilizations die this way.
For this reason, anti-Semitism is not an accurate depiction of our problems. Worse, it fits into the form of an ideology, and is as addictive as drugs, over-eating, promiscuity or any of the other human pathologies we see around us daily. If allowed among us in a serious form, anti-Semitism becomes a replacement for realistic thinking and will lead us astray.
On the other hand, there are benefits to anti-Semitism as a conversational trope. First, it smashes a sacred cow that impedes nationalism, namely The Holocaust. Second, like most ethnic humor, it is funny because there is usually some truth to stereotypes. Finally, it widens that “Overton window” by allowing us to be critical of other ethnic groups and diversity again.
And when done by talented guys like the The Right Stuff fellows, it becomes a form of unity. People groove on the anger and mockery of a group that has been given perhaps a bit much focus in the years following World War II because of the attempted genocide that occurred during that war. You can fight over the numbers, details, dates, methods… whatever. Something happened, to our shame.
But The Holocaust has become a kind of scapegoat for Jews, too. It forces them to identify as victims, which puts them in a passive-aggressive mental state which will screw up any otherwise thriving group. It removes their initiative toward their own goals, and makes them fear “hypocrisy” for conducting necessary ethnic relocation, like that of Palestinians. The Holocaust is worse for Jews now than it was in 1945; then, it represented the loss of many people, but not the soul of a people. Now, it seems to have replaced Jewish identity with a type of self-pity that makes Jews hate themselves.
Jewish self-hatred is a widely-known phenomenon that tends to shock us goyish types when we see it. But Jews, as a group, are highly intelligent and tend to be very realistic. They know their position is dubious, since they are the results of a wealthy commercial society collapsing and, through miscegenation, converting itself into an Asiatic and African hybrid that will never again be fully European, despite having roots in what looks like populations from Italy and France. Jews also observe the behavior of fellow Jews and, much like white people, are frequently pained by it.
Perhaps the best description of Jewish identity comes from Alt Zionist, who writes of a practical Jewish identity that does not hit either of the erroneous extremes of denying mixed European heritage, or assuming that a unique and vital ethnic group has not been forged:
Instead, it is obvious that to be White is simply to be part of a certain group of people who share a common set of ancestors in Europe many thousands of years ago, just as to be Jewish is to be a part of a certain group of people who share a common set of ancestors in Judea many thousands of years ago and to be Black is to be part of a certain group of people of people who share a common set of ancestors in West Africa many thousands of years ago. That, at a certain point in the past, various people who had the right sort of ancestry in Europe were not called ‘White’ does not prove that Whiteness is membership in some sort of sinister social club, but only that people used to use the term ‘White’ in a different way than we do now. Analogously, we now consider many more people to be disabled than we once did, and on that basis give many more people disability benefits, but this does not in any way suggest that being disabled just is a matter of receiving disability benefits. Rather, we simply have found that the meaning of the term ‘disabled’ includes many more people than we previously thought it did.
There is much anthropological and philosophical complexity to the question whether racial terms like ‘white’ refer to biological groups or merely social constructs, and it is not my intention to settle the issue here. Rather, I should like to remark only on the disingenuity and hypocrisy of any Jew who adopts Brodkin’s stance on race. For such a Jew, inasmuch as they consider themselves to be White, attains to the privileged position of being able to, just as Brodkin does, decry Whiteness and slander White identity not as a hostile outsider but as an apparently repentant insider. Because Brodkin considers herself White, she must surely feel no compunction in admitting that her Whiteness is something hateful, bigoted and shameful. In other words, Brodkin’s self-identification as White allows her to make attacks on White people and their identity; whether or not these attacks are warranted by historical systems of power and oppression and present-day instutions of privilege is not germane to the issue: what is relevant is that Brodkin takes herself, as a White person, to be in a position to attack other White people.
But unlike the great majority of those White people in attacking whom Brodkin takes herself to be justifed, Brodkin is not truly attacking herself. For Brodkin has a competing identity behind which she can retreat in the face of her own invective: namely, Brodkin identifies also as a Jew. Brodkin’s own fears about anti-Semitism are evidence that she does not see herself as responsible for any history of power, privilege, and oppression, but rather as a precarious minority in the midst of a potentially hostile majority – a minority sometimes accepted as equals, but always separate and in danger of oppression. As such, Brodkin herself does not bear the personal weight of her attacks against White identity, and whatever justification those attacks might have obtained in virtue of her supposed Whiteness is merely disingenuous illusion.
The writer sees the error in assuming that Jews are “white” because it enables them to criticize whites from behind a protective alternate identity, like dual citizenship, where they can claim to be different from what they criticize. This is a dangerous position, and mirrors Theodor Herzl’s observation that to live among a national group and not be of that group would provoke retaliation, as it has with anti-Jewish pogroms in the past. It is bad to be different because each group needs to feel it is the same, and therefore, can work together as a civilization.
It does not take much of a leap to see that much Jewish self-hatred arises from this dual identity. They are mostly European, mixed with Other no more than your average Southern/Irish or Eastern European, but Jews have an identity of their own, which both makes them not “white” (a troublesome vague definition in itself) and part of a group united by commonality.
This duality confuses Jewish identity, and resentment over The Holocaust being the defining factor of modern Jewish life weaponizes the resulting discontent. For this reason, it is not surprising that many of the most virulent anti-Semites have had Jewish heritage. Witness the troubled past of Frank Collin:
Frank Joseph Collin is most often associated in the public mind as the neo-Nazi who threatened in 1977 to march and rally in Skokie, a predominately Jewish suburb of Chicago.
…The Illinois Corrections Department released Collin after three years, a “minimum time served,” from his 1980 conviction of sexually molesting young boys…For Collin’s role in the Marquette Park rallies in Chicago, the pamphlet distribution in Skokie with its “Death To The Jews” message, the media-manipulation after winning a Supreme Court decision allowing Collin to wear a swastika in any neighborhood of his choosing, Collin was never accused of anything other than being a nuisance, nor has he publicly spoken of those years since. Collin was once quoted as saying, “I used it [the First Amendment] at Skokie. I planned the reaction of the Jews. They are hysterical.”
Frank Collin was born in Chicago, Illinois on November 3, 1944. His father, Max Simon Collin (formerly Cohn or Cohen), a Jew who is said to have spent time in the Dachau concentration camp, may have had a major impact on his life. On Chicago television, one Illinois psychiatrist interviewed Collin during his neo-Nazi period and found him to be consumed with a “hatred for his father,” and thought Collin’s proposed Skokie march was, in effect, “an anti-Collin demonstration.”
Most people do not know that Up to 150,000 Jewish-descended people fought for Hitler and that many were decorated for their contributions. This leads to the obvious question of why someone who is partially or wholly Jewish would fight for a movement that is, to put it mildly, fervently anti-Semitic?
The answer can be found in looking at logical facts through history: Jews prefer the Western Civilization way because it fixes something that they find to be broken in Jewish history. A population ends up being mixed-race only if at some point, it believed in equality, and therefore encouraged admixture between ethnic groups so long as the offspring upheld the politics, culture and ways of the host civilization.
Jews have been bouncing back from that state for thousands of years. Although the diaspora was kicked off by Roman occupation, the attraction of Europe seems more than economic. Jews are in some way trying to rediscover and recapitulate their roots, as if hoping to end the dual mentality created by a mixed-race parentage even hundreds of generations later. In this outlook, strong nationalism is appealing even if it causes conflict with Jewish identity.
For this reason, Jewish people are formalizing their relationship with nationalism despite the dual attack of Holocaust fears and guilt over the Palestinian situation. They know that if left outside of their own communities in an increasingly secularizing world, they will soon cease to exist through outbreeding; if not vigilantly, Hitlerianly nationalistic in Israel, they will be outbred and thus out-voted by Palestinians who seek to destroy them.
The kerfuffle over anti-Semitism is thus temporary for two reasons: first, strong nationalism is about to be normed across the world, which means that resentment of other groups will become normal and through that, find a saner articulation — along the lines of “we want to be with ourselves, with no types of Other among us, no matter how nice they are” — instead of the moribund practice of emotional anti-Semitism. Second, as Jewish nationalism finds a voice, it is going to drive out the suicidal Leftist threads within Judaism and their reliance on multiculturalism.
This leaves us only with another question: what to do about doxxing? The destruction of Millennial Woes’ life by UK media which insisted on revealing his name and the addresses of his family homes showed us that doxxing is a tool of the Left. Only on the Left do people believe that some ideas are so seductive that they must be banned, which is separate from normal taboos that remove “words/images as deeds” activities like child pornography and easy home nuclear bomb kit instructions.
In other words, we need to simply cease destroying people for opinions, period. If we are to purge ourselves of defectives, we should do that on the basis of their behavior, much as we might have done to Frank Collin for his apparent molestation of young children. But we will only be able to get to the bottom of any political issue by allowing it to be aired fully and frequently from all sides.
Our only successful strategy here is to make sure the stigma is removed from all beliefs. Even if we hate anti-Semitism, we must defend anti-Semites, and we must abstain from destroying Leftists no matter what crazy stuff they say, if saying it is all they have done. In this way, we open the political window to its furthest possible extreme, and with it bring the hope of finally articulating the suppressed issues of the last century.
When Jews abandoned Judaism, many of them did not abandon Judaism’s messianic impulse. From Karl Marx – the grandson of two Orthodox rabbis – and onwards, they simply secularized it and created secular substitutes, such as Marxism, humanism, socialism, feminism and environmentalism.
If left-wing Jews want to sit shiva, they should do so for their religion, which, like much of Protestant Christianity and Roman Catholicism, has been so deeply and negatively influenced by leftism.
Herein is an explanation for both the role of Jews in Left-leaning politics and the answer to Nietzsche’s riddle about the role of Christianity in birthing the Enlightenment.™
As Nietzsche guessed, Leftism is a zombie philosophy carrying on from where the religion originally regulated, but the goals had been forgotten as had the essential religious aspect of desiring excellence by a standard outside of humans, and this removal left only the Crowd-friendly individualistic idea which holds that doing good to individuals is the only good.
Whenever a historical shift occurs, zombie philosophies are created as people try to carry on what worked in the past despite lacking a central part of its concept. This could apply to the brain-dead conservatives of the 1980s who blindly applied religion and censorship to try to hold on to an order that gave up in 1968.
This shows us that the answer to our dilemma is not anti-Christianity nor anti-Semitism, but in combining forces to smash egalitarianism through its essential individualism as enforced by a group. Focus on realistic and transcendental goals causes the mind to bypass this zombie philosophy stage.
As my piece went live, new Twitter accounts begun for this purpose began reaching out. “I’m a Jew, and I’ve always felt this way but I’m afraid to say it” was one common refrain. This was followed up by Facebook messages, invitations to shadowy right-wing Jewish forums, and furtive Kahane supporters verifying my right-wing credentials. Was I really a spy? The right wing Jew is such a rare breed in the wild, some simply didn’t believe it.
The comment section of my article attracted a not-so-rare breed: the “get in the oven” trolls, there to let me know they weren’t cutting me any slack and a Jew remains a Jew. Even here there were gems. One insightful commentator noted that I wasn’t a REAL racist like they were, I’d merely made the calculation that the modern right was less dangerous to Jews than the modern left. While this fellow underestimated my genuine support of the West qua West, he wasn’t totally wrong, and his next observation was keen: “Do you realize how incredibly neurotic your people are, including yourself?”
There are those in the alt-right who define their movement entirely in respect to White Nationalism. To them, the alt-right is the political vehicle in the battle for white “ethno-states” which will replace current democracies in Europe and possibly North America/Australia. Many self-consciously model these states on the example of Israel. The least extreme version of an “ethno-state” need not be racially homogeneous, but the political, economic, and cultural power in the state will remain in the hands of the dominant race/ethnicity, who will decide for themselves what will constitute citizenship. As some call this “white supremacy,” the alt-right points out that it’s simply how most of the world works:
So what is an “ethno-state” and why would figures in the Alt-Right look to Israel for an example?
The idea has been around for some time, in different names and reiterations. For Alt-Right leaders such as Richard Spencer, (head of the National Policy Institute, a “pro white think tank”) defining European and North American states using racial criteria is necessary. Spencer, called the “Karl Marx of the Alt-Right” by Glenn Beck, has written at length about the situation facing American and European Whites. What situation? Minority status, loss of culture, and loss of identity in a multi-ethnic state where the standard of living has fallen for everyone. The solution? Make race or ethnic identity the core organizing principle of the state. Germany for the Germans, France for the French, Japan for the Japanese, etc. The policies of these states can vary, but the bedrock principle would be the maintenance of a majority for the dominant ethnic group.
Israel has chosen to extend certain rights to non-Jewish citizens, including the right to vote; there are Arabs in the Knesset. This is all true, yet between ethno-states, policies can differ greatly.
To the Alt-Right, this solves many problems at once. In his book The Ethnostate, Wilmot Robertson (deceased, 2005) talks about what such a state would look like and what policies it would have. The specifics are less important than the idea that race is a “shortcut” to fix other issues. Problems with Wall Street? Less of a problem in a White ethno-state, where high trust and cultural/ethnic pride lead to better behavior from executives. There’s less of a need for regulation in the first place. Where to put educational resources? Easier question when we aren’t dealing with issues of race and immigration, isn’t it? In an ethno-state, the focus of the government will be a more efficient affair. The time and effort put into bridging ethnic and racial divides in our public institutions will evaporate, leaving societies’ energy focused on more productive issues. The well-being of such a country could be more objectively measured. What’s the standard of living? What’s the pay gap? How’s inequality? These questions are easier to answer without issues of race.
Does any of this sound familiar? Do any states exist with policies intended to keep one ethnic/racial group as a majority? Policies that favor this group? The example given by many Alt-Right figures is Israel. Spencer claims to “respect Israel” as a “homogenous ethno-state.” Israeli policies discouraging non-Jewish immigration and encouraging Palestinians to move away from disputed areas are cited by alt-right leaders as examples for their own ethno-state.
Immigration/emigration are part of the story for Israel, but its commitment to the Jewish population is deeper than that. A good description comes from author Sammy Smooha, in the Journal “Nations and Nationalism”. Smooha writes:
Contrary to its self–image and international reputation as a Western liberal democracy, Israel is an ethnic democracy in which the Jews appropriate the state and make it a tool for advancing their national security, demography, public space, culture and interests.
This is what the Alt-Right theoretically wants. A state in which White people, however defined, have control over the public spaces, the culture, the politics, and the demographic future of their country.
What’s that you say? Israel’s not really an ethno-state? They have minorities? Well, of course. Israel has chosen to extend certain rights to non-Jewish citizens, including the right to vote; there are Arabs in the Knesset. This is all true, yet between ethno-states, policies can differ greatly. There’s no need for such a state to be free of minorities, as long as the state itself is defined around the majority. Israel, which encourages (and pays for) large orthodox Jewish families, and calls itself the “Jewish State” is certainly such a country.
So why isn’t the alt-right thrilled to have more Jews among its ranks? Surely we could provide the guidance they need to set up their ethno-states. If they are impressed with Israel, why not more engagement with sympathetic diaspora Jews?
Many in the Alt-Right fear Jewish influence on their movement, citing the Neoconservative “takeover” of traditional Conservatism, and the change in the movement’s character as a result. They fear that Jews may “dilute” the ethno-state they ultimately want to build.
Kevin McDonald, ex Cal State professor and Alt-Right theorist, has written a piece on Jews and the Alt-Right that mentions nineteenth century Austrian-Jewish politician Victor Adler. Adler’s Austria was the seat of the multinational Austro-Hungarian Empire, and was under strain from the repeated influx of “Slavic” immigrants and refugees.
Merely preserving German language and administrative customs wasn’t enough. Actual German people needed protection as well.
Difficult questions of identity revolved around German-speaking Austrians. Should “German” policies, German language, German culture, predominate? Should loyalty to the Emperor and the state trump ethnic loyalty? Adler was a “cultural” nationalist, part of the Linz Program of 1882, explicitly calling for the primacy of German culture, language, and policies in the Austrian State. One of Adler’s co-signers to the Linz Program was Georg Schönerer, who advocated for the inclusion of an “Aryan Paragraph” which would make explicit the connection between German culture and people of German ethnicity.
So what does this have to do with the ethno-state? Schönerer’s concerns are a model for the concerns of the Alt-Right today. As Austria took in more and more refugees from the east, the relative power of the German-speaking population was reduced. To Schönerer and even Adler, the Slavic “Hungarian” side of the Empire was distinctly inferior to the “German” side. To allow more Slavic influence at court, and to allow more Slavic people into the intuitions of the state would invariably weaken and degrade Austro-Hungary. The Linz Program signers made their feelings explicit:
We protest against all attempts to convert Austria into a Slavic state. We shall continue to agitate for the maintenance of German as the official language and to oppose the extension of federalism…[W]e are steadfast supporters of the alliance with Germany and the foreign policy now being followed by the empire.
Adler agreed with Schönerer regarding the “inferiority” of Slavic culture to German culture, but Schönerer took things a step further. Merely preserving German language and administrative customs wasn’t enough. Actual German people needed protection as well. His “Aryan Paragraph” provided that Germans would receive privileges in the empire including more access to government positions.
Schönerer also advocated for a breakup on the Empire along ethnic lines, and his ideas are said to have motivated Polish and Hungarian Nationalists, as well as providing a model for Zionism. Today’s Alt-Right also feels the need to go beyond “cultural nationalism” as well — which means that their ethno-state will not be welcome to any but those who are genetically of its founding ethnic group. To them, race and ethnicity are biological facts.
There’s something genetically distinct, for example, about a German person, and this genetic distinctiveness expresses itself in German culture, which then influences what will be the German state. A majority Black country in Africa could attempt to become a German “culturally nationalist” state, but in the eyes of the Alt-Right, this would end in failure. Only Jews can make a Jewish state, only Zulus a Zulu State. We can speak each other’s languages, eat each other’s food, but there will always be a deep distinction between us.
There’s something genetically distinct, for example, about a German person, and this genetic distinctiveness expresses itself in German culture, which then influences what will be the German state.
Adler broke with Schönerer over the Aryan Paragraph and soon ended up leading the Austrian Labour Movement and publishing an influential Marxist journal. MacDonald and other Alt-Eight commentators fear that Jews in the Alt-Right would exert a similar influence to that of Adler. It’s not the disagreement between cultural/ethnic nationalism in and of itself that bothers them, but the possibility that Jews will push the former and vilify the latter, all while taking on the mantle of the alt-right. Seems a bit farfetched? Perhaps, but who would have thought that Neoconservatives would take the mantle of American Conservatism from John Birch?
The Alt-Right is mixed on Jewish help, but nuanced. MacDonald is still open to the idea of Jews “allied” to the alt-right, assuming they are “vocal critics of the Jewish community and its role in the dispossession of European-Americans.” More nuance comes from a recent press conference given by top alt-right luminaries including Spencer and Jared Taylor. In Taylor’s own words:
“I tend to believe that European Jews are part of our movement,” Taylor said. “I think it is unquestionable there has been an overrepresentation by Jews [among] individuals that have tried to undermine white legitimacy.”
But, he said, the same is true of Episcopalians.
“Does that mean all Jews are enemies of the white race? I reject that,” Taylor said.
Taylor has long been a “white nationalist” writer, well known for being one of the “moderates” in the movement. His views were well-expressed in a recent NPR interview. What he wants is fairly simple: freedom of association on private property. If (non-Jewish) whites wish to have an all-white club, private school, or neighborhood, government shouldn’t intrude. Is this, in and of itself, anti-Semitic? Will I be on my way to the oven? Not sure, but I managed to avoid oppressing the Goyim on my way to Jewish Summer Camp, so who’s to say Whites couldn’t exhibit similar restraint? This really isn’t terribly different than current American policies. Taylor’s “ethno-state” would be far milder than Israel!
Israel has chosen to extend certain rights to non-Jewish citizens, including the right to vote; there are Arabs in the Knesset. This is all true, yet between ethno-states, policies can differ greatly.
Regardless of individual feelings on the Alt-Right, White People, or ethno-states, there is more nuance here than most will give credit for. Media accounts (Betsy Woodruff in Daily Beast) of the NPI Press Conference claim the participants “hate Jews”, despite Taylor’s clear stance to the contrary:
Covering the NPI Press Conference for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Ron Kampeas writes:
“I want my grandchildren to look like my grandparents,” Taylor said, “not like Fu Manchu or Whoopi Goldberg or Anwar Sadat.”
There were nods of agreement and more pledges to continue the conversation in the Willard bar.
As the room emptied, I prayed silently that Taylor would enjoy good health long enough to behold a grandchild with a pointed goatee, thick braids, foot-long fingernails and a prayer bump, and I recalled his opening remarks, and his overarching predicate for the existence of racial differences.
Most Jewish people would have a similar reaction to Woodruff and Kampeas. Hostility, referring to the Alt-Right leaders as “racist”, mocking their desire for racial and ethnic purity. But why? Are figures like Spencer racist for wanting a White ethno-state? Is Taylor to be condemned for wanting his grandchildren to look like him? (and, it could be assumed, wanting the same or better standard of living for them?) Why can’t we turn the lens around for a moment? What are we really quibbling over? Is it the location of Spencer’s hypothetical ethno-state? What if it was Norway? Is it a problem that White people want to be around other White people? Want their grandchildren to be like them?
I want my grandchildren to be Jewish, I want the Jewish state of Israel to retain its majority Jewish population and character. I want Israel to be there for me and my grandchildren. I want Judaism and the Jewish people to survive. Am I any different than Spencer? Are you?
The Alt Right struggles to define itself in the wake of being given massive media exposure by ill-advised candidate Hillary Clinton. As part of this, it returns to the “Jewish Question” or JQ which has troubled underground rightist movements for centuries.
Amerika has consistently taken the position that, whatever Jewish injuries to the European civilizations exist, the real problem is degeneracy within those European civilizations. We did this to ourselves, and we pursue it through ideas like equality, individualism, democracy and pluralism which are perennially popular human illusions.
I don’t know for sure whether or not the Jewish people are spawn of Satan, or black people are Uruk-Hai, but I know this for certain: the root of our problem in the West is white liberalism and its corrupting influence on all issues.
Rather than try to fight out a highly polarizing issue by blaming the Other, I’d like to point out that our problems are all ideologies of the left: diversity, egalitarianism, tolerance, and pacifism.
This position has led to some fairly entertaining statements from the underground right, including ones of this nature:
Like Guillaume Faye and Jared Taylor, Stevens has a history of being coy on the Jewish issue and has even made pro-Israeli statements: this agenda is slyly pushed by members of the bourgeoise and WASPs in general within the alternative right and needs to be watched closely when considering who is suitable for leadership roles within the movement. Along with Scott McConnell of The American Conservative, he went full Zionist during the 2014 Gaza crisis, rushing to the defense of the Jews to kill Palestinian babies in the Gaza Holocaust.
What seems universal: the position that I have taken is not taken seriously enough to be analyzed for what is being said.
On the Alt Right, we face a number of existential threats. The biggest is assimilation by what is popular, which is always an illusion. There is a mainstream version of this, including the usual stuff Republican neocon cuckservatives pursue, and an underground version, which is the Hollywood neo-Nazi approach. If either becomes accepted, it will dominate the Alt Right and convert it into yet another variety of Leftism.
Why is anti-Semitism Leftism? Because it exonerates Leftism and individualism — the root of Leftism, when collectivized, since egalitarianism is individualism converted into policy — while simultaneously bashing a scapegoat whose demise will do nothing but strengthen Leftism.
In addition, it is appalling to our people, and morally appalling to me. White people dislike cruelty and pointless savagery. Many of us realize that too much “naming the Jew” is going to create a chain reaction that will rage out of control, as it allegedly did in Eastern Europe and Nazi Germany, and end in dead Jewish families.
We are however excited by the prospect of nationalism: Us, and only Us.
That means that all other groups exit. However, this is achieved through indirect means at first, and then outright deportation, usually with reparations to make the disunion a happy one for all parties. Indirect means include the ill-named “freedom of association,” at which point country clubs and law firms will go back to not hiring anyone but WASPs. Direct means include revocation of citizenship and arrest and deportation.
When we signal a (((coincidence))) we are missing the point, and doubly dangerous, focusing on the wrong thing. Take a look at a highly erudite and accurate criticism of Jews in America:
Neoconservatives have been staunch supporters of arguably the most destructive force associated with the left in the twentieth century — massive non-European immigration. Support for massive non-European immigration has spanned the Jewish political spectrum throughout the twentieth century to the present and, as noted below, Jewish organizations and activism were responsible for the sea change in immigration policy resulting from the 1965 immigration law. A principal motivation of the organized Jewish community for encouraging such immigration has involved a deeply felt animosity toward the people and culture responsible for the immigration restriction of 1924–1965 — “this notion of a Christian civilization” as Samuel Francis characterized it. The comment of neoconservative Ben Wattenberg indicates the emotional commitment that many Jews have to the ethnic transformation of America: “The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.”
We have to look at this logically: many Jews have been involved in Leftist politics; all of those Jews were Leftists. While that is not all Jews, it is something close to the majority. However, what we are most likely seeing is a clash of cultures, and the effects of diversity itself. Any group that feels an outsider acts against the majority; this is why all minority groups exclusively vote Leftist.
The solution to that is to recognize that diversity, not Jews, is the problem. That does not detract at all from Dr. MacDonald’s excellent research, or from the Walt and Mearshimer writings on the influence of the Israeli lobby, or even the criticisms by Hemingway, Eliot, Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Heidegger and other great writers on the character of Jews and the culture, religion and ethnicities of Judaism.
The real question is how relevant it is, and if there is something more relevant, which is reversing decay.
In a decay-reversed West, Jews would not want to be here. The place would be ragingly European and invested in its own agenda and image to the point that outsiders would feel alien and isolated. Any Jews who did want to come, then, would not be the mental health success stories of Judaism, but its failures, and on that basis alone would be turned away, in addition of course to the iron rule of Nationalism, which is “This land is for Us; if you are not Us, go away or face the sword.”
Naming the Jew puts us in the Leftist camp where scapegoating, guillotines, gulags and mass executions are the new normal. White Nationalism misses the point and drives itself insane by chasing Jews instead of looking at the obvious problem, Leftism. This absolves our people of responsibility when they should be looking at what caused our decline, specifically, underclass rebellion by white people. We have to solve that problem, and any scapegoating avoids mentioning this actual problem in order to chase symbolic/emotional issues instead.
Even the Nazis understood that anti-Semitism was a quest to remove a materialistic and impulsive spirit from within us, more as symbolism than literal execution. Our problem is intangible, and we cannot beat it by attacking groups; we must attack policies such as democracy, diversity, civil rights, pluralism, welfare and human rights instead, because these are the root of the ethnic problem.
Unfortunately, most people — even in the underground far-right — are afraid to do this. They support Leftist policies for the same reason nearly everyone else does: they want equality, freedom and a “safety net.” The price of being free of the racial problem is that we must give these up because they are destructive, in addition to being false framing of a more vital question, which is civilization health. This is why people desire to crush the Jews: because then the rest of the system can keep on keeping on and no one needs be inconvenienced.
Truth however is inconvenient by nature, which is why it is also elusive. Socialism makes people lazy and dependent; welfare states make them entitled; democracy makes them careless and inert; freedom makes them passive; equality destroys the best and promotes the mediocre. These are the true enemies. Everything else is a symptom of the infection with these horrible ideas that make even worse policy.
Equality equals human pretense that the individual is the supreme being who decides what is true and real. This forms a mental virus which eats away at sanity and individuality, leaving only a robotic person who pursues what will make them popular with others, therefore affirming the equality they assert but cannot truly believe. This is what eats our people, and is consuming our civilization.
If outsiders have a way of subverting us, it is through this vector and it alone. Until we fix it, we go down in flames. When we target intermediates, like the Jews or any other minority group, we miss the point: the error is ours, the solution is in our hands, and all we must do is start acting against these illusory assumptions and we can restore the greatness of Western Civilization.
This knowledge dovetails with the JQ in that a healthy society, for Jews or Gentiles, will involve only one ethnic group. Germany for Germans, Israel for Jews. As the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, wrote:
The Jewish question persists wherever Jews live in appreciable numbers. Wherever it does not exist, it is brought in together with Jewish immigrants. We are naturally drawn into those places where we are not persecuted, and our appearance there gives rise to persecution. This is the case, and will inevitably be so, everywhere, even in highly civilised countries—see, for instance, France—so long as the Jewish question is not solved on the political level. The unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America.
Jews cannot assimilate because no group can assimilate, at least without genetically destroying the host group. The sane solution is separation, not enmity, and definitely not the kind of morally bankrupt and sadistic behavior that has happened when Eastern European and possibly German populations took revenge on Jewish people who were over-represented in the Communist Party and in industry. This type of “lashing out” does nothing but perpetuate our problem and turn us into monsters.
As a wise man wrote:
Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster… for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.
Whatever monstrosities we see in other groups, we do not want to adopt for ourselves. The abyss — sadism, small-mindedness, vengefulness, rage — will make us into a mirror image of everything we (rightfully) hate and fear. If we want to defeat materialistic thinking, we must destroy equality as an assumption. ((( = ))) has brought the downfall of the West, and no amount of killing will save us from it until we defeat the thing itself, and not merely destroy its proxies.
Liddell takes a sensible “middle path”: we need extremists to push the Overton Window further to the right, but cannot afford to be swayed by emotion derived from the appearance of effective action, as it supplants the real thing.
Only a fool would deny the seductive power of Nazism and Hollywood-style neo-Nazism. Like the Left, these folks have a simple idea and provide us, most importantly, with some target that we can visualize destroying. This appeals to the same human mental trope as squeezing zits or taking purges, which is of excising the evil and leaving the good.
Our enemy however is intangible: civilization decline, most recently through its handmaidens liberalism, equality, individualism and pluralism.
It is tempting to desire murder for those who are the symptoms of this decline. Rage at other ethnic groups, including powerful ones, finally gives us a clear task: just wipe these guys out, and all will be well. But this ignores that the problem we face is of our own making, arises from our individual desires, and will not go away even if we slaughter every Other on earth.
In addition, our people — Western Europeans — dislike emotional outbursts, cruelty and instability. The Neo-Nazi and White Nationalist vision promises all of these. Witness for example a recent outburst from Frazier Glenn Miller, a man with whom many of us have interacted, and who I respect, when he shot up a Jewish Community Center:
Miller was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder in the April 2014 deaths of Reat Underwood, 14, and his grandfather, William Corporon, 69, outside the Jewish Community Center of Kansas City in Overland Park, as well as Terri LaManno, 53, outside the Village Shalom assisted-living facility. None of the victims was Jewish, but Miller assumed they were when he shot them.
He also was found guilty of aggravated assault for pointing a shotgun at a woman and asking if she was Jewish, and of firing into the JCC.
A former Ku Klux Klan grand dragon, Miller has been unapologetic about the shooting, in which he said he was trying to kill as many Jews as possible. During his trial, he waived the right to an attorney and argued the jury should find him not guilty because his shooting spree was a “patriotic attempt” to “defend my people against genocide.”
These events drive our people away from us and into the arms of the Left, who promise pacifism through universal inclusion and therefore, in theory at least, a path away from such horrifying stuff.
In Europe, the far-right parties that are rising are the ones who reflect sober, logical and realistic directions. Germany has seen the AFD replace the more neo-Nazi-themed NPD, and in France, Marine Le Pen and the Front National have advanced by discarding her father’s more Nazi-friendly attitude. In Hungary and Poland, far-right parties have taken power by focusing on practical concerns instead of ideological and emotional appearance.
We have one massively powerful ally on our side: our vision is realistic. We cannot lose sight of the goal, which is to have a thriving civilization, by limiting our thinking to the methods that are emotionally satisfying to us. If this quest were as simple as murdering a few million people, it would have been done already.
Witness the failure of Hitler. Instead of displacing Bolshevism from Europe, as his followers wanted him to do, he ended up entrenched in ideological wars and being more efficient at removing Jewry than fighting the conditions that brought them, gypsies and degenerates to Europe.
The rejection of anti-Semitism and other extremist methods is based in both practicality and morality. Our people are not murderers and we hate injustice. We do not want to be associated with such things. But even more, those things will not solve our problem — they will remove a symptom or two, but leave the cause and the rot intact.
The Alt Right has risen to power because people want an escape from globalism, a Leftist project that has revealed itself to be a nightmare. They also recognize that for us to have gotten to our current state, something very fundamental in our society must be broken. These are the two mandates of the Alt Right: end globalism/Leftism and restore the greatness of Western Civilization.
Focus on methods can confuse our pursuit of this goal. While it makes no sense to exclude the extremists from among us, and while we benefit from their hyper-masculine approach, it also makes sense to ensure that all of our activities exist in service to the goal. If we go too much into the world of appearance as Hollywood Nazism demands, we will forget our goal, and settle for a short-term fix instead of solving the problem, at which point it will begin rising again and bring us right back to our current position.
The Alt Right has a chance to Make Western Civilization Great Again. To that end, we need to strike at the root of the problem and the neck of the Hydra, not swat at flies or slash at serpentine heads. Hollywood Nazism takes us off-track and drives away sensible people that we need on our side.
At the end of the day, the question presents itself: do we care more about results, or feelings? Coming from a Leftist time, most are inculcated in preferring feelings, but the only way for us to solve this problem is to reject feelings and emotions and focus instead on hard logic and historically-proven results.
After all, if we kill all the Other, we are still left with a dying civilization and the parasitic mental state spawned by equality. But if we kill equality, and the root of our civilization decline, we can then peacefully repatriate all of the Other and move forward with our honor and sanity intact.