White nationalism & Jewish nationalism by Greg Johnson

 

 

Guillaume Faye’s speech at the 2006 American Renaissance conference was quite eventful. Most people have heard of the infamous Michael Hart incident.[1] But to my mind, something far more significant occurred during Faye’s speech, something that later struck me as revelatory.

In Faye’s view, the “Global South,” organized under the banner of Islam, is the mortal enemy of Europe. The United States, which favors the Islamization of Europe, is not the primary enemy of Europe, but merely an adversary. Faye does not, however, classify the Jewish community as an enemy or adversary of Europe at all. Instead, Faye views the Jews as a potential ally in the fight against Islamization.

Thus, at a certain point in his speech, as Faye enumerated the possible negative consequences of the unchecked march of Islam, he said, “The state of Israel may cease to exist.” But, to his obvious astonishment, this statement was met by enthusiastic applause.

Now, to be fair, I admit I joined in the applause too, in a spirit of pure mischief. But later I thought better of it. After all, as a friend pointed out, “If the Jews lose Israel, where do these people who were clapping think the Jews will go? They’ll all be here or Europe. Do they really want that?” I knew that, of course, and I am sure a lot of the other people clapping knew it too.

But some people hate Jews more than they love their own people. They hate Jews so much that they want them to be harmed, even if it harms us too—even if it harms us more. Call it the white version of the “Samson Option.” But if we are going to think rationally about the Jewish problem, we first have to identify and isolate this strand of suicidal spitefulness, which obviously conflicts with cool calculations of how to pursue our long term racial interests.

I would like to offer some notes on White Nationalism and Jewish nationalism in order to clarify my thoughts and provide material for discussion.

(1) As ethnonationalists, we believe in the “Ein Volk, ein Reich” principle: “One people, one state” (at least one state per people, although there could be more than one). This means that we support, at least in principle, the nationalism of all nations, the ethnic self-determination of all peoples. We envision a kind of classical liberalism for all nations, in which each people has a place of its own, whose legitimate rights need not conflict with the legitimate rights of all other nations. If this vision came to pass, we would have a world of perpetual peace. It is an appealing ideal, even though there may be insuperable impediments to its realization.

(2) Zionism is a species of ethnonationalism. It was conceived during the heyday of 19th century European ethnonationalism as a solution to the so-called “Jewish question.” The idea was to address the underlying causes of anti-Semitism by creating a sovereign Jewish homeland and encouraging a Jewish ingathering, a reversal of the diaspora.

(3) As an ethnonationalist, I do not object to Israel or Zionism per se. Yes, I object to our foreign policy toward Israel and its neighbors, which is dictated by Israeli interests rather than US interests. Yes, I object to foreign aid to Israel that does not serve US interests. But let us be perfectly clear here: These are not problems with Israel per se. They are problems with the Jewish diaspora community in the United States.

I do not oppose the existence of Israel. I oppose the Jewish diaspora in the United States and other white societies. I would like to see the white peoples of the world break the power of the Jewish diaspora and send the Jews to Israel, where they will have to learn how to be a normal nation.

(4) But what about the Palestinians? First, let me state unequivocally that I sympathize with the Palestinians, because I too live under Zionist occupation. Second, I must also state that I admire the Palestinians, because unlike Americans and Europeans, they are fully aware that they are an occupied people. Third, and most importantly, the Palestinians are fighting against their oppressors, and I wish my people would do the same.

(5) But ultimately, white interests and Palestinian interests do not coincide. Palestinians, quite naturally, want their country back. They want to send the Jews back whence they came. As a White Nationalist, I want all our Jews to go to Israel, and that means that I want Israel to stay put.

What about Palestinian self-determination? I support a Palestinian homeland, right next to the Jewish homeland, because I want to send the Palestinian diaspora home as well.

In short, I favor a two state solution. I do not favor the destruction of Israel, because I want the Jews to live there, not among my people. I favor a Palestinian state, because I want the Palestinians to live there, not among my people.

(6) Unfortunately, when it comes to the Palestine question, the views of many White Nationalists are clouded by the fact that they hate Jews more than they love their own people, thus they are willing to beat Jews with any stick handy, including the appeal to principles that are deadly to our people as well.

(7) For instance, I think it is self-defeating to oppose Zionism on anti-colonialist grounds, for the simple reason anti-colonialism undermines the legitimacy of the founding of the United States and practically every other white nation if you go far back enough. Some guilt-besotted souls have actually contemplated resurrecting the Neanderthals, presumably so they can apologize to them for the genocide allegedly committed by our Cro-Magnon ancestors. But fretting over past wrongs distracts us from something far more important, namely preventing future ones. And the most pragmatic approach is to give both Palestinians and Jews their own homelands.

(8) It is also self-defeating for White Nationalists to attack Israel on the grounds of multiculturalism. Yes, some of the very same people who complain of the Jewish double standard of promoting multiculturalism in the diaspora and an ethnostate in Israel, lament Jewish-promoted multiculturalism at home while demanding that Jews adopt it in Israel! Of course the Jewish double standard is logical, insofar as it actually advances the interests of the Jews as a diaspora community and the interests of the ethnostate of Israel.

But for White Nationalists, such a double-standard serves no rational purpose at all, since we do not have political power anywhere in the world, and our only hope of gaining such power is first to build a coherent intellectual case for a white ethnostate and then to build a cultural and political movement that will actually be able to take power and create one. But one cannot build a coherent intellectual foundation by appealing to contradictory principles because one’s only concern is venting hate on the internet.

(9) The same argument applies to attacking Zionism because it is a form of nationalism. Since Jews have invested so much in demonizing Hitler, many think it terribly clever to liken Zionism to Nazism and Jews to Hitler. (Most White Nationalists don’t go quite that far, of course.) As a White Nationalist, however, my quarrel is with diaspora Jewry’s promotion of multiculturalism and suppression of healthy nationalism in white nations. I do not oppose Zionism because it is a form of nationalism. If Jews agree with nationalism (or National Socialism, for that matter), that is to their credit.

The same argument applies to the charge that Zionism is a form of racism.

I sincerely believe that a lot of the support for Israel among American and European conservatives is merely a form of sublimated white racial nationalism. That was certainly true of me when I was a conservative. So let’s leave the Jews to their racial nationalism and have our own instead.

(10) It is also self-defeating to attack Israel on grounds of human rights, international law, and opposition to violence. Because everyone except complete pacifists recognizes that there are circumstances in which violence, revolution, and war are justified. Jews, moreover, have invested a great deal in promoting the idea that resisting genocide can justify pretty much any means necessary. That’s convenient, since we wish to resist our own genocide, and our enemies are not likely to give up without a fight. Any measures that Jews justified against Nazis in the past and against Palestinians today can be justified against our enemies tomorrow.

(11) Since people fight more fanatically if their backs are against the wall, Machiavelli argued that it is always prudent to leave an enemy a means of retreat, as it increases the likelihood and reduces the costs of victory. Diaspora Jewry regards Israel as a refuge, an insurance policy in case things go bad. The continued existence of Israel may, therefore, make it easier for whites to combat the power of diaspora Jewish communities in our various homelands.

Part of Jewish psychological intensity is their propensity to treat every issue as a matter of life and death, which produces the absurd spectacle of the leaders of the world’s most powerful ethnic group comporting themselves with the hysteria of cornered rats. The actual destruction of Israel would really give them something to whine about. It would immensely heighten the Jewish siege mentality and toughen Jewish resistance to white interests.

(12) I have argued that White Nationalists have an interest in the continued existence of the state of Israel. Does this mean that European nationalists like Guillaume Faye, Nick Griffin, Geert Wilders, and Anders Breivik are justified in allying themselves with Jews, whether in Israel or the diaspora?

Absolutely not, for a host of reasons.

(13) The foundation of this proposed alliance is an alleged common interest of native Europeans and diaspora Jews in resisting Islam. But does that common cause even exist? After all, the state of Israel, which diaspora Jewry regards as their last line of defense, exists in a sea of Muslims. There are, moreover, millions of Muslims within Israel’s borders. Thus one has to ask: Do Muslims really make Jews feel insecure? Or, if Jews are afraid of Muslims, is there something they fear even more?

Jews in Israel seem willing to exist at close quarters with Muslims to avoid a greater evil. What greater evil? European anti-Semitism, of course. The Zionist project was conceived as a refuge from European anti-Semitism. The state of Israel was founded after the Second World War. The holocaust is upheld as the justification for Israel’s founding and for all of its subsequent wars, annexations, and acts of oppression against the indigenous population. Jews definitely fear and hate Muslims. But they fear and hate white Europeans even more.

Given Jewish fear of European anti-Semitism, it follows, that Jews would actually feel safer in Europe if its indigenous population were diluted with non-Europeans, including Muslims. This hypothesis is, moreover, completely consistent with the policies supported by the leading Jewish organizations, which oppose European nationalism while supporting multiculturalism and Muslim immigration into Europe.

(14) But what about instances in which Jews have been attacked and killed by Muslims in Europe? Is this not a basis for a common interest in resisting Islam? I think not. Jews pursue policies in Israel that virtually guarantee Muslim terrorist reprisals. Yet Jews pursue these policies anyway, because they think they are worthwhile, even figuring in the inevitable Jewish casualties.

The same logic is at work within Jewish diaspora populations. Yes, supporting Muslim immigration into Europe does expose diaspora Jews to Muslim violence. But the Jewish community regards this violence as a small price to pay compared to the benefit of the dilution and ultimate destruction of the indigenous European population.

(15) Jews feel safer around Muslims than around Europeans. Jews do not, therefore, believe it is in their interests to ally themselves with European nationalists to resist Muslim immigration into Europe. But even if it were in their interest, that still might not be enough to alter Jewish policy. After all, it may be the case that Jews hate whites more than they love themselves.

(16) It may be a mistake to ascribe too much rationality to Jews. Jewish power may be less a product of rational calculation than of the irrational and compulsive repetition of a set of evolved strategies for achieving dominance over other groups. If these strategies are applied compulsively rather than rationally, one would expect Jews to continue to apply them even when they are becoming counter-productive. And indeed, this has been the Jewish pattern for centuries. Jews have continually risen to positions of wealth, power, and influence. But they have a tendency to push their host populations too far, leading to sudden backlashes and terrible reversals of fortune. You can’t drive a car without brakes, and Jews have no brakes.

(17) Even if Jews turned against Europe’s Muslims, Muslims aren’t the only problem. There are plenty of other fast-breeding non-white groups that could just as effectively dilute and then destroy European whites. By using “Muslims” as a politically correct proxy for non-whites, European nationalists have painted themselves into a rhetorical corner, in much the same way that American conservatives have by using “illegal” immigration as a proxy for non-white immigration. Muslims, however, can become Christians with a splash of holy water, and illegals can be legalized simply by changing the law.

(18) If Jews wanted to limit Muslim immigration into Europe, they would not need small European nationalist parties to accomplish it. Virtually overnight, they could have the conservative parties opposing Muslims on conservative grounds, the liberal parties opposing Muslims on liberal grounds, the Greens opposing them on Green grounds, the socialists on socialist grounds, etc. That is what intellectual and political hegemony means.

(19) Political alliances are not based merely on common interests, real or perceived. Nobody seeks alliances with powerless parties. And the European nationalist parties have little or no power. Even those parties that have achieved parliamentary representation have been unable to effect real change. European nationalist parties have nothing to offer Jews, who have real wealth and real power.

(20) Why, then, do some Jews seek to join European nationalist groups, as well as White Nationalist groups in America? A variety of motives are possible, including sincere conviction, insanity, hedging, spying, and sabotage. Unfortunately, there is no foolproof way of determining what a given person’s real motives are. I’m betting that most of them are up to no good.

Since we are fighting for nothing less than the biological survival of our race, and since the vast bulk of Jews oppose us, we need to err on the side of caution and have no association with Jews whatsoever. Any genuine Jewish well-wishers will understand, since they know what their people are like better than we ever can.

Saving our race is something that we will have to do ourselves alone.


Note


1. After Faye’s speech, a member of the audience stood up and asked Faye, in a roundabout way, if the organized Jewish community in France played the same role as it played in the US in opening the gates to non-white immigration. It was a fair question, one that had also occurred to me. If I had any objection, it was to the fact that the questioner was unaware of the long line of people behind him and took too much time to get to his point.

But before Faye could answer, a Jew (author Michael Hart), angrily jumped up and denounced the questioner, David Duke, as a “fucking Nazi” and a “disgrace to the Conference.” This rude and foul-mouthed tirade, was, moreover, delivered in front of the children of one conference-goer. “Surely,” I thought, “Jared Taylor needs to be more selective about who comes to his conferences. This Hart guy should be shunned.”

Others felt similarly. Indeed, one group concluded that the incident proved it was high time for Jared Taylor to crack down on anti-Semites, the kind of people who goaded the poor victim Michael Hart until he couldn’t take it anymore. This brazen little cabal, led by Larry Auster, even framed the whole affair as the “David Duke incident,” and a lot of White Nationalists who should have known better went right along with it.

New Right vs.Old Right by Greg Johnson

The video is a recording of the author reading his essay.

New Right vs. Old Right

Greg Johnson

What is “new” about the North American New Right, and how does it relate to the “Old Right”?

Before I can answer that, I need to clarify what the Old Right and the New Right have in common
and what differentiates them from today’s phony right: namely the present-day center-right parties and all forms of classical liberalism.

The true Right, in both its Old and New versions, is founded on the rejection of human equality as a fact and as a norm. The true right embraces the idea that mankind is and ought to be unequal, i.e., differentiated. Men are different from women. Adults are different from children. The wise are different from the foolish, the smart from the stupid, the strong from the weak, the beautiful from the ugly. We are differentiated by race, history, language, religion, nation, tribe, and culture. These differences matter, and because they matter, all of life is governed by real hierarchies of fact and value, not by the chimera of equality.

The true right rejects egalitarianism root and branch.

The true right has three species: traditional society, the Old Right, and the New Right.

Every traditional society known to man is inegalitarian. All forms of traditional society have been destroyed—or are in the process of being destroyed—by modern, egalitarian, mass society.

For our purposes, the Old Right means Fascism, National Socialism, and other national-populist movements, which are the pre-eminent attempts to restore traditional hierarchical social forms within the context of modernity. Fascism and National Socialism were not merely reactionary, rear-guard resistances to modern egalitarianism by partisans of corrupt hierarchies. They represented a genuinely revolutionary impetus to restore vital, archaic, hierarchical values within the context of modern science, technology, and mass society.

The New Right and the Old Right share the same goal: a society that is not just hierarchical but also organic, a body politic, a racially and culturally homogeneous people, a people that is one in blood and spirit, a people that is politically organized and sovereign and thus in control of its own destiny.

Our ideal is a hierarchical society free of exploitation and injustice because the sole justification of political inequality is the common good of the body politic, not the factional good of the ruling stratum.

So how does the New Right differ from Fascism and National Socialism? This is a vital question, because of the intense stigmas attached to these movements since the Second World War. The North American New Right, like the European New Right, is founded on the rejection of Fascist and National Socialist party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide.

The North American New Right is a new movement. We do not have any thinkers of the caliber of Alain de Benoist, Guillaume Faye, and many others. We are deeply indebted to the decades of work they have done. But since North American differs from Europe, our approach differs as well, in three important ways.

First, because of the blending of European stocks and breakdown of more compact European national identities in North America, we are forced to stress the deeper roots of common European identity, including racial identity.

Second, because of the leading role of the organized Jewish community in engineering the destruction of European peoples, and because the United States is the citadel of Jewish power in the world today, the North American New Right must deal straightforwardly with the Jewish Question.

Third, the North American New Right cultivates a much more frank and direct critical engagement with Fascism and National Socialism. The European New Right tends to focus on the fringes of the National Socialist and Fascist milieu, which has produced enormous intellectual dividends, particularly with the study of the Conservative Revolutionary movement. The North American New Right, however, takes full advantage of our First Amendment protections. But our willingness to go where there be dragons means that we need to clarify our precise relationship to the Old Right. Indeed, we should have done so a long time ago.

Again: The North American New Right is founded on the rejection of Fascist and National Socialist party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide.

We believe that racial and cultural diversity within the same society inevitably leads to hatred and violence, and that nationalism is the most practical way to ensure peace between peoples.

We believe that all peoples should have sovereign homelands where they can live according to their own lights, free from the interference of other peoples.

We believe that such a world can be achieved through gradual and humane programs of territorial partition and population transfer.

We believe that these aims can come about by changing people’s consciousness, i.e., by persuading enough people in positions of influence that everyone has a stake in ethnonationalism.

The promotion of political change through the transformation of consciousness and culture is what we call metapolitics.

Metapolitics refers to what must come before the foundation of a new political order. Metapolitics breaks down into two basic activities. First, there is education: articulating and communicating forms of white nationalism tailored to the interests and outlooks of the full array of white constituencies. This includes not just ivory tower theorizing but also artistic expression, topical cultural and political commentary, and the whole range of media by which they are communicated. Second, there is community organizing, meaning the cultivation of real-world communities that live according to our vision in the present and may serve as the seeds of a New Order to come.

The primary metapolitical project of the North American New Right is to challenge and replace the hegemony of anti-white ideas throughout our culture and political system. The entire cultural and political mainstream—including every shade of the “respectable” political spectrum—treats white racial consciousness and white self-assertion as evil.

Our goal is to critique and destroy this consensus and make white racial consciousness and self-assertion hegemonic instead, so that no matter what political party wins office, white interests will be secured. Our goal is a pluralistic white society in which there is disagreement and debate about a whole range of issues. But white survival will not be among them.

There are systematic analogies between the Old Right and the Old Left, and between the New Right and the New Left.

The Old Right and Old Left had widely divergent aims, but shared common means: hierarchical, ideological political parties organized for both electioneering and armed struggle; one-party police states led by dictators; the elimination of opposition through censorship, imprisonment, terror, and outright murder, sometimes on a mind-boggling industrial scale.

Yes, in the case of classical National Socialism, revisionists argue that many of these atrocities are exaggerated or made up out of whole cloth. But revisionism about the Second World War is really beside the point, because the terroristic, imperialistic, genocidal impulse exists in National Socialism today. For instance, latter-day National Socialist William Pierce routinely pooh-poohed the Holocaust. But he was willing to countenance real terrorism, imperialism, and genocide on a scale that would dwarf anything in the 20th century. That spirit is what we reject.

Yes, there were degrees of totalitarianism. The Communist abolition of private property entailed a far greater disruption of and intrusion into private life than Fascism or National Socialism, which merely sought to harmonize private property and private enterprise with the common good whenever they conflicted. Fortunately, hard totalitarianism—even the softest version of hard totalitarianism—is neither desirable nor necessary to secure the existence of our people, so we reject it.

It is instructive to look at how the New Left has handled the mind-boggling, heart-rending, stomach-churning atrocities of the Old Left. The best New Leftists do not deny them. They do not minimize them. They do not pin their hopes on “Gulag revisionism” or rehabilitating the reputation of Pol Pot. They simply disown the atrocities. They step over them and keep moving toward their goals.

This is exactly what we propose to do. We are too busy resisting our own genocide to tie ourselves to defending the mistakes and excesses of the Old Right. They are simply not our problem. To borrow a phrase from Jonathan Bowden, “We’ve stepped over that.” Our enemies keep throwing it down in our path, and we just keep stepping over it.

The New Left retained the values and ultimate goals of the Old Left. They also retained elements of their philosophical framework. They then set about spreading their ideas throughout the culture by means of propaganda and institutional subversion. And they won. Aside from Cuba and North Korea, orthodox Communism is dead. Capitalism seems everywhere triumphant. And yet in the realm of culture, leftist values are completely hegemonic. The left lost the Cold War, but they won the peace.

(Since in the West, both the Old and the New Left functioned primarily as a vehicle for Jewish ethnic interests, it would be more precise to say that Jewish values are hegemonic throughout the culture, even on the mainstream right.)

The New Left and New Right have widely divergent aims, but very similar means, namely the pursuit of political change through transforming ideas and culture, aiming at the establishment of intellectual and cultural hegemony.

The New Right rejects the totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide of the Old Right.

But we do not reject their political model: the ethnically and culturally homogeneous, hierarchically organized, organic society. We want a world in which every distinct people has such a homeland, including the Jews.

Nor do we reject the theoretical frameworks of Fascism and National Socialism, which today are more relevant and better-grounded in science and history than ever before.

Nor do we reject such figures as Hitler and Mussolini. Objectivity requires that we recognize their virtues as well as their flaws. We have much to learn from them. We will never repudiate awakened white people just to curry favor with the Bourgeoisie.

I have received some gentle ribbing about including Hitler and Mussolini among the birthdays we commemorate, as it smacks of the totalitarian cult of personality. But as an editor, I find that birthdays are ideal, regularly-occurring occasions to discuss important figures. They also produce spikes in search engine traffic, which we want to capture. Besides, we commemorate many birthdays, and it would be craven to discuss people like Ezra Pound or Knut Hamsun but ignore the people they were imprisoned for following. So we will keep commemorating their birthdays until, eventually, everybody does.

One of the main motives of the New Left’s move from politics to culture was disappointment with the proletariat, which was so effectively mobilized by Fascism and National Socialism, not to mention the centrist regimes of the Cold War era.

The New Left believed they represented the interests of the workers, but their approach was entirely elitist. They focused their attention on influencing the college-educated middle and professional classes, because these people have disproportionate influence on the rest of society, particularly through education, the media, and popular culture.

Likewise, the New Right represents the interests of all whites, but when it comes to social change, we need to adopt a resolutely elitist strategy. We need to recognize that, culturally and politically speaking, some whites matter more than others. History is not made by the masses. It is made out of the masses. It is made by elites molding the masses. Thus we need to direct our message to the educated, urban middle and professional classes and above.

There is no shortage of Old Right-style groups with populist messages targeting working class and rural constituencies. But we need to go beyond them if we are going to win.

Who I am speaking for here? When I say “we,” I am speaking for more than just myself, but not for all or even most of our writers or readers. There is no presumption that every author we publish approves of our agenda, in whole or in essence. (Indeed, many of them are dead.) Nor is there any presumption that any author agrees with any other author published here. Publication here does, however, imply that I, as the Editor-in-Chief, think that a given work advances our agenda directly or indirectly: directly, by articulating a viewpoint that I would endorse as true; indirectly, by helping us build an intellectually exciting movement.

And the North American New Right is an intellectual movement, not a fixed doctrine. The goals are fixed. The basic intellectual strategy is fixed. But everything else is in movement: usually toward our goals, but sometimes just whirling around the dance floor for the sheer joy of it (which, in a subtler way, also moves toward our goals).

There is a wide array of different and often incompatible intellectual traditions within the New Right. We have followers of the Traditionalism of Julius Evola and René Guénon as well as other thinkers who emphasize a metaphysics of eternal form. We have followers of non-Traditionalist, flux and history-oriented philosophers like Nietzsche, Spengler, and Heidegger. We have believers in decline and believers in Promethean progressivism. We have Darwinian biologists and scientific materialists squared off against metaphysical dualists. We have atheists, and we have representatives of all schools of religion, Christian and pagan, Eastern and Western.

We need this kind of diversity, because our goal is to foster versions of white nationalism that appeal to all existing white constituencies. We can speak to multitudes because we contain multitudes.

How does the North American New Right relate to Old Right-style groups in North America and around the globe? And how do we relate to various democratic nationalist parties in America and Europe?

Alex Kurtagic has recently argued that democratic party politics can perform the metapolitical functions of education and community organizing, thus there is no fundamental contradiction between metapolitics and party politics. Of course political campaigning involves education and community organizing, but these are merely the byproducts of pursuing office. And that goal means that all educational and organizing efforts must be dominated by the election cycle and the political issues of the day.

That is fine, if one’s real goal is to win office. But outside of proportional representation systems, seeking office is pretty much futile. So if one’s real goal is education and organizing, then political campaigning is merely a distraction. So why not focus all one’s energy into educational and organizing efforts, and determine the agenda ourselves, rather than let electoral politics determine it for us?

Why not take all the money spent on purely political activities—voter registration drives, campaign travel, campaign literature—and channel it into education and organizing?

David Duke, for example, has been doing enormously important work with his writings, speeches, and videos. Most of that work would come to a stop if he were to make another futile and expensive run for office.

Intellectually, we need to draw a sharp, clear line between New Right metapolitics and all forms of nationalist party politics. We share the same broad aims, but we differ as to the best means of achieving them. We need to acknowledge these differences frankly, then divide our camp and pursue our common aims by the various paths that seem best to us.

I do not wish to spend time criticizing and attacking other sincere white advocates, competing for turf and followers or squabbling over dimes. In the end, the only valid argument for or against an approach is to look at its results. I want to win support by doing good work, not denigrating the work of others.

Even though one can draw a sharp intellectual line between New Right metapolitics and nationalist party politics, no wall separates us in the real world. The North American New Right is not a political party or a party-like intellectual sect. We are an informal network that can overlap and penetrate all social institutions, including parties. I maintain contacts with people all over the globe who are involved in various political parties. They know where I stand. Where we disagree, we agree to disagree.

Speaking personally, however, I wish that a wall could be erected in some cases, for if there are only six degrees of social separation between me and Barack Obama, there are far fewer degrees of separation between me and the next Anders Behring Breivik. And, for me, that is just too close for comfort. I do not want anything to do with gun-toting armies of one. The only gun I want to own is made of porcelain.

You see, I really believe that what I am doing is right and important. Too right and too important to expose to the risk of grown men dressing up as Knights Templar or Stormtroopers and playing with real guns. I have nothing against guns or gun-owners as such. But the Old Right model attracts unstable, violence-prone people, which just makes our job harder.

But since I can’t build a movement—even a metapolitical movement—by being a hermit, the best I can do is draw clear intellectual lines of demarcation: again, the North American New Right is founded on the rejection of Fascist and National Socialist party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide.

(Breivik is a complex case, because he emerged from the Counter-Jihad movement, a Jewish-dominated false opposition to the Islamic colonization of Europe. But we still share his basic concerns and his goal of Europe for Europeans, even though we reject his actions and much of his analytical framework.)

Cynics have accused the New Left of being nothing but a dishonest marketing ploy. Of course, there is no point in trying to convince cynics, who know a priori that the truth is always more sordid than it seems. But the New Left actually delivered on its promises: Marxism without totalitarianism, without terror, without camps.

Of course we all know that the present regime is a form of soft totalitarianism which is enacting the genocide of the white race in slow motion. But the point is that this regime was not imposed upon our people through a violent revolution. They accepted it because of the transformation of their consciousness. They can be saved the same way.

Love your people

Again, I don't know what to make of this video and this article. The Jew in me fills with derision, whilst the also-resident, anti-Jew can see an awful lot of  truth in it.  

Anyway, you can judge for yourself.

Race: The First Principle

Gregory Hood

It’s a common dodge for opponents of white nationalism, even sympathetic opponents, to charge that “race isn’t enough” to build a society. This misses the point. Of course “whiteness” in and of itself doesn’t solve all problems – although a society solely composed of even the most degraded elements of our own people would be far preferable to the current embarrassment we call a country.

Race is superior to any other foundational principle, including religion, ideology, or economics as the basis of a society. A sophisticated understanding of race is in and of itself sufficient to ensure the survival and perpetuation of a society. In the end, this is the only test that really matters.

At the most basic level, the physical existence of the people has to be guaranteed before anything else can be considered. Economic recession, military occupation, disease, and political repression can pass with time – all are temporary if the folk remains intact. As the AWB of South Africa wrote in its founding principles, “As long as the race remains biologically pure, the possibility and probability of rebirth and resistance is always there.”

Race is the key building block of any real community and the farthest meaningful grouping to which we can give our loyalty. We know that genetic similarity and kinship patterns affect our behavior every day, even in ways we don’t expect. We know that children are race conscious as early as nine months. We know that people are mentally healthier in ethnically homogenous societies. We know diversity destroys social trust, eventually, even within members of the same ethnic group. The ancients knew this, and modern science confirms it.

Our society’s frantic efforts to escape these truths gives us the farce that passes for a public debate in a multiethnic democracy, when major magazines can publish breathless cover stories like “Is your baby racist?” without irony. We set up entire social systems and ideologies at odds with our most basic instincts, and wonder why the world seems to have lost its mind.

Race is the hidden foundation of the supposed pillars of society and morality. Religion is the most obvious example. Haitian, French, and Chinese Catholics all submit to the Magisterium, but it would be foolish to speak of them as belong to the same “religion” in any meaningful sense or sharing the same experience of the divine. A people’s understanding of the gods, the relationship between faith and the state, and the practice of worship owe more to traditions ingrained deep within the folk than any defined creed. As James Russell described in The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity, “Conversion is as much a bargaining process as a conquest, with the indigenous people transforming creed even as it changes them.” These expressions may be rooted in the genes themselves, something even more primordial than thousands of years of history.

The problem is that absent race and a folk consciousness, the faith becomes an alienating, even hostile force against its own people.

Witness devout Muslims destroying priceless Islamic shrines on the grounds they are deviations from the “true” Islam, Cromwell’s Puritans banning the “pagan” festival of Christmas, or orthodox Jews refusing to defend Israel, preferring to study Torah all day and sponge off welfare. In the United States at the ground level, there is no force more powerful in the effort to dispossess white Americans through mass nonwhite immigration than the Christian churches, with the possible exception of the government itself. Of course, absent their core population and cultural ties, these same churches (especially the mainline Protestant denominations) shrivel up and die. After all, what real impact does Lutheranism as a creed have on America today, other than inflicting us with more Somalis?

This alienating process is all but inevitable as impulses that enable continued collective existence clash with suicidal moral principles. Insofar as a universalistic religion survives amongst a people, it survives through hypocrisy.

Political ideology is another red herring. A comparison between North and South Korea should be sufficient to prove that ideology matters. However, even in North Korea, it’s an ideology of thinly veiled racial nationalism that serves as the indispensable support for what would otherwise be a doomed system. In multicultural democracies, repeated studies show that voters are unwilling to support social welfare programs if they are perceived as supporting foreign groups. It’s no coincidence that American conservatism is characterized by marshaling white resentment against non-white welfare recipients – though conservatives will hasten to explain it has “nothing to do with race.” As Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore put it, “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”

Of course, the defining characteristic of the modern era is economism, the reduction of all human interaction to the purely monetary. It was Marx who first highlighted this reductionist aspect of capitalism, the destruction of the traditional social order. While Marx sneered that this was simply the stripping away of sentiment, today’s liberals (classical or otherwise) miss entirely the undercurrent of despair and tragedy. Instead, they proclaim they are sui generis, proudly renouncing any unchosen commitments to family, race, religion, nation, or morality. In the new world, only what a person can create in terms of currency matters.

Such a world rebuts itself. The modern consumerist America of drug-addicted depressed denizens frantically rutting and intoxicating themselves to avoid suicide is hardly a Galt’s Gulch of liberated supermen.

A degraded culture, broken families, and a flourishing marketplace that traffics in human misery are not worth defending. It’s a life of consummate meaninglessness.

However, the economist premise fails even on its own terms. Even a casual glance around the Western world reveals the massive financial fraud and manipulation required to keep the system limping along. In real economic terms, quality of life has not been increasing in decades, even in the midst of dramatic technological progress.

A true libertarian could object that all this is because we don’t have “true” capitalism, the unknown ideal. The absence of any “truly” free society in all of human history that meets their standards would seem to suggest that this fantastical ideology doesn’t have much basis in fact. One can’t simply beg the question by positing an abstract utopia and then wishing the real world out of existence.

But even if we dismiss the objection from practicality, libertarianism fails on its own terms. Large-scale investments in infrastructure, conscious efforts to ameliorate class divisions, productivity-based economics, and deliberate maintenance of high wage levels and a tight labor market to spur technological innovation are objectively superior policies from the standpoint of economic productivity.

Even if we dismiss this objection as well, a “perfect” libertarianism still requires preventing the lower classes from obtaining state power, presumably through some sort of hyperactive authoritarianism in the manner of Pinochet. Furthermore, the capitalist desire for short term cheap labor would inevitably lead to the replacement of skilled workers by low intelligence helots that would degrade overall economic performance while increasing social obligations. A society of pure “freedom” inevitably becomes a rigid hierarchy that requires denying vast sections of the population a political outlet in order to maintain the system. It’s no surprise that the open borders faction of the American conservative movement replies to this objection by simply wishing it out of existence, simply positing that low-IQ Hispanic laborers will suddenly transform into WASPs over the course of a generation.

What happens is that race reasserts itself even in nominally economist societies. Even if you cut low-IQ nonwhites off from having a political voice, even if you strip any consideration of race or culture from policy, race will assert itself in housing patterns, business relationships, and consumer behavior below the surface even in a pure libertarianism. Without civil rights laws and the state-run egalitarian bureaucracy, a libertarian society would undoubtedly be a more openly racialist society, despite its individualist principles. The reason is simple – men are not economic inputs. They are not replaceable automatons, each equally capable of a certain level of economic output. Economic theories that do not consider culture, history, tradition, and the biological reality of race simply do not work. Let it be said plainly – even on purely economic terms, socialism in Sweden beats capitalism in Haiti, every single time.

Once any foundational principle relinquishes the explicit identification of race, it contains the seeds of its own destruction. Rootless religion, abstract civic creeds, or arrogant economism devour themselves within generations, actively dispossessing their own constituencies. Collective suicide is hardly an endorsement of any of these theories.

In contrast, race, by itself, provides sufficient guidance. The upward development of the race must be the organizational principle of the state because it contains a non-negotiable core of continuity with the necessary tactical flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. It gives coherence to long term state policy across a whole range of issues.

Take something as seemingly nonracial as transportation. Obviously, American transportation policy is hopelessly muddled because of the need to commute to avoid living in high crime black neighborhoods, the inability of nonwhites to refrain from causing chaos and crime on public transportation systems, and the multicultural requirement to give government jobs to incompetent minorities, resulting in deadly accidents.

However, in a White Republic, race could still guide policy even if we didn’t have to deal with racial aliens. A folkish transportation policies policy would seek to integrate transportation within the framework of an organic society. It would work to reduce stress and conflict between members of the racial community. It would prioritize state investment to reduce costs for workers who need to get to their jobs, thus increasing overall economic productivity for the benefit of everyone. It would incorporate aesthetic, environmental, and even psychological concerns, so that something as mundane as getting from point A to point B wouldn’t be a case for tension and rage, but something that creates white communal unity. Of course, Golden Dawn in Greece took a small step in this direction by occupying privately owned toll booths, forcefully rejecting the idea that the nation’s people are resources to be harvested for private benefit.

Race provides clarity. In health care, policies are intended to ensure quality of life and dignity for the racial community, rather than trying to ration care or protect the medical establishment. In population policy, the goal is to constantly improve the racial stock, creating healthier, more intelligent, more attractive people, creating a cascading series of benefits on a host of other issues. With family law, we break down the policies that set men against women and encourage legalistic arguments about property. Instead, we consciously pursue politics that enable strong, permanent, two-parent families that purposely set about to raise large numbers of legitimate children who are connected to their heritage and traditions. Instead of public policy guided by wishful thinking, irrelevant tangents, or competing claims of imaginary rights, there is utter consistency.

The goal of any policy in any field is the survival and improvement of the Volksgemeinschaft – the organic radical community that transcends class. At different times and under different circumstances the policies may change, and the purpose remains.

Today, public policy discussion, especially on the Right, is characterized by a bizarre helplessness. On immigration for example, even ideological conservatives with values above cheap labor seem resigned that their “principles” force them to approve their own dispossession. The North American New Right has to proclaim that any morality which mandates suicide, individual or collective, is to be destroyed. Morality exists to facilitate our development, not cripple us. Morality is a secondary development, a derivation, not a cause.

It is the upward development and survival that is the highest law, the law from which creeds, codes, and even gods must derive. Our people first – Eigen Volk Eerst as the Vlaams Belang says – is not just a populist political cry. It is a guide of policy, a framework of the state, the first moral commandment.

The Reasons for a Voluntary Death - Dominique Venner



This is the final statement of Dominique Venner, the 'far-right' historian who shot himself a couple of days ago. Below it is a report of the event from the Independent.

As you'll see from the report, the mainstream press prefer to see his motive as being a protest against gay marriage. My guess is that it's a lot more profound than that.

What to make of this kind of thing, I really don't know, but it's certainly worth posting


BTW if like me, you like the picture, it's of the "So-called Ludovisi Gaul and his wife. Marble, Roman copy after an Hellenistic original from a monument built by Attalus I of Pergamon after his victory over Gauls, ca. 220 BC".


Translated by Greg Johnson

I am healthy in body and mind, and I am filled with love for my wife and children. I love life and expect nothing beyond, if not the perpetuation of my race and my mind. However, in the evening of my life, facing immense dangers to my French and European homeland, I feel the duty to act as long as I still have strength. I believe it necessary to sacrifice myself to break the lethargy that plagues us. I give up what life remains to me in order to protest and to found. I chose a highly symbolic place, the Cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris, which I respect and admire: she was built by the genius of my ancestors on the site of cults still more ancient, recalling our immemorial origins.

While many men are slaves of their lives, my gesture embodies an ethic of will. I give myself over to death to awaken slumbering consciences. I rebel against fate. I protest against poisons of the soul and the desires of invasive individuals to destroy the anchors of our identity, including the family, the intimate basis of our multi-millennial civilization. While I defend the identity of all peoples in their homes, I also rebel against the crime of the replacement of our people.

The dominant discourse cannot leave behind its toxic ambiguities, and Europeans must bear the consequences. Lacking an identitarian religion to moor us, we share a common memory going back to Homer, a repository of all the values ​​on which our future rebirth will be founded once we break with the metaphysics of the unlimited, the baleful source of all modern excesses.

I apologize in advance to anyone who will suffer due to my death, first and foremost to my wife, my children, and my grandchildren, as well as my friends and followers. But once the pain and shock fade, I do not doubt that they will understand the meaning of my gesture and transcend their sorrow with pride. I hope that they shall endure together. They will find in my recent writings intimations and explanations of my actions.

Note

For more information, one can go to my publisher, Pierre-Guillaume Roux. He was not informed of my decision, but he has known me a long time.

Source: http://www.ndf.fr/poing-de-vue/21-05-2013/exclusif-les-raisons-dune-mort-volontaire-par-dominique-venner?fb_source=pubv1

Far-right French historian, 78-year-old Dominique Venner, commits suicide in Notre Dame in protest against gay marriage

John Lichfield


Tuesday, 21 May 2013

A far-right French historian shot himself in the head beside the altar of Notre Dame cathedral in Paris today apparently in protest against the legalisation of gay marriage in France.

Dominique Venner, 78, a former member of the nationalist terrorist movement, OAS, placed a pistol in his mouth and shot himself dead in front of scores of tourists inside the most visited building in France.

Mr Venner, a presenter on a Catholic-traditionalist radio station and controversial historian and essayist, posted an essay on his website earlier in the day calling for "new, spectacular and symbolic actions to shake us out of our sleep, to jolt anaesthetised minds and to reawaken memory of our origins".

His long essay was a tirade against gay marriage but also a warning that the "population of France and Europe" was going to be "replaced" and brought under "Islamist control" and "sharia law".

Mr Venner placed a sealed letter on the altar of the cathedral before shooting himself. His choice of the altar - associated with religious marriage ceremonies -appeared to be a symbolic gesture of protest against the law permitting civil gay marriages in France which took effect last weekend.

The cathedral, which is celebrating its 850th anniversary this year, was immediately evacuated and closed to the public for four hours. Efforts were made by a cathedral security guard to revive Mr Venner as he lay beside the altar for almost 20 minutes.

The rector of Notre Dame, Monsigneur Patrick Jacquin, said that, as far as he was aware, this was the first suicide within the cathedral since it was founded in the 12th century. "We will pray for this man as we pray for so many others who are at their wits' end," he said.

Notre Dame is the most visited monument in France with over 13,000,000 visiors a year. The building was, as usual, packed with tourists at the time of Mr Venner's suicide.

Legislation permitting same-sex couples to marry in French town halls was approved by the parliament last month and signed into law by President François Hollande last weekend after approval by France's constitutional watchdog.

The "marriage for all" law has provoked a powerful movement of middle class, conservative, religious and right-wing protest in the last four months. Another large demonstration is planned in Paris on Sunday.

The leaders of the protest movement, including most but not all leading centre-right politicians, have pilloried the law as politically-motivated attack on family and religious values and the imposition of a "new civilisation".

Mr Venner, a prolific author of books and tracts on extreme nationalist themes, has been one of many vociferous critics of the law. Some of his work as a historian has been well-received, incuding a 1981 book on the Red Army which won a prize from the Académie Française. Much of his work has been steeped in the racist ideology of the far-right, apologising for the pro-Hitler regime in Vichy in the Second World war and warning of conspiracies to destroy European civilisation and to swamp the white race.

Mr Venner was also an expert, and the author of several books, on hunting and fire-arms. In the 1960s, he was a member of the Organisation de l'Armée Secrète - the extreme nationalist terrorist movement which opposed the French withdrawal from Algeria and attempted several times to assassinate President Charles de Gaulle.

The Palestine Liberation Movement is not about Anti-Semitism by Paul Larudee

Without regard to the validity of Joseph Massad’s exposition of the historical and dialectic relationship between Zionism and anti-Semitism, why is Massad trying to justify the Palestine liberation movement on the basis that it is a battle against anti-Semitism? Of course, Massad is by no means the only Palestinian to make Jewish issues and anti-Semitism central to the Palestinian struggle. Ali Abunimah has made something of a campaign of assuring the Jewish community that the Palestine liberation movement is free of anti-Semitism. In addition, several large Palestinian solidarity organizations and coalitions have anti-anti-Semitism as one of their core statements.

 Since when are Palestinian rights and liberation about Jews, Jewish issues and anti-Semitism? Why are Palestinians allowing Jews and Jewish issues – including Zionism and anti-Semitism – to set the Palestinian agenda?

The term “Semite” was born of the assumption that all the languages of the world are the result of the sons of Noah – Shem, Ham and Japheth – going to different parts of the globe after the flood and creating different language groups: Semitic, Hamitic and Japhetic. The sons of Noah? Are we seriously entertaining such nonsense?

To make matters worse, this absurdity was extended to fictitious “races,” not just languages. “Anti-Semitic” therefore is descriptive of the Hamitic and Japhetic races turning on the descendents of Shem, the third brother. No one seriously speaks of Hamitic and Japhetic races. Is it not time to recognize the absurdity of the Semitic “race” as well?

Even more absurd is the attempt to use such mythological concepts to measure the virtue of the Palestinian cause. The Palestinian cause has nothing to do with Jews, Semites, anti-Semitism, God, Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, Noah, Jacob, Ishmael, Shem, Ham and Japheth, whether you believe in them or not. It has nothing to do with the Holocaust, colonialism, the Romans, the Byzantines, the Arabs, the Crusaders, the Turks or the British.

It has everything to do with the expulsion of Palestinians from their land and with denial of their right to sovereignty, to self-determination and above all their Right to Return. It does not matter who expelled them. It is their land and they have the right to return. It does not matter who denies their existence. They have a right to return.

It does not even matter if they are nice people or despicable, whether they are racists or humanists, whether they are Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhist or Shinto, whether they are clean or dirty, educated or ignorant, rich or poor, democrats or monarchists. They have the right to return to their homes and to reclaim their country.

Their rights cannot be held hostage to the rights of others. If justice for Palestinians cannot be bought at the price of injustice for others, neither can justice for others be bought at the price of injustice to Palestinians. Justice may be indivisible, but we need not wait for justice to happen everywhere in order for it to happen in Palestine.

Palestinians cannot wait for CO2 levels to drop below 350 parts per million, nor for the population of blue whales to rise, nor for the persecution of Rohingyas to end in Myanmar, nor even for ethnic cleansing to end in Congo, nor for the European victims of World War II and their descendants to be made whole, nor for indigenous peoples everywhere to regain their rights and heritage.

Justice may be indivisible, but the restoration of justice anywhere raises the level of justice everywhere. The restoration of justice in Palestine benefits the entire world and gives hope to justice that is still struggling to restore itself in other places and to other peoples.

Anti-Semitism is no more relevant to Palestinian liberation than anti-Hamitism or Anti-Japhetism or any other attempt to gauge the worthiness of the Palestinian cause by its endorsement or rejection of someone else’s values. Please remove such irrelevance from the discussion of Palestinian rights.

Paul Larudee is one of the founders of the Free Gaza and Free Palestine Movements and an organizer in the International Solidarity Movement.

"And, I might add, it is all to the good,” - Joe Biden

Biden Talks of 'Outsized Influence' of Jews: 'The Influence Is Immense'
May 22, 2013 • By DANIEL HALPER


At a Jewish American Heritage Month reception last night in Washington, D.C., Vice President Joe Biden talked about Jews, power, and influence.

“The truth is that Jewish heritage, Jewish culture, Jewish values are such an essential part of who we are that it’s fair to say that Jewish heritage is American heritage,” Biden said, according to the pool report. “The Jewish people have contributed greatly to America. No group has had such an outsized influence per capita as all of you standing before you and all of those who went before me and all of those who went before you.”

“You make up 11 percent of the seats in the United States Congress. You make up one-third of all Nobel laureates,” he said. “So many notions that are embraced by this nation that particularly emanate from over 5000 years of Jewish history, tradition and culture: independence, individualism, fairness, decency, justice, charity. These are all as you say, as I learned early on as a Catholic being educated by my friends, this tzedakah.”

“The embrace of immigration” is part of that, as is the involvement of Jews in social justice movements.

“You can’t talk about the civil rights movement in this country without talking about Jewish freedom riders and Jack Greenberg,” he said, telling a story about seeing a group of Jewish activists at a segregated movie theater in Delaware. “You can’t talk about the women’s movement without talking about Betty Friedan” or American advances in science and technology without mentioning Einstein and Carl Sagan, or music and Gershwin, Bob Dylan and “so, so, so many other people.”

“I believe what affects the movements in America, what affects our attitudes in America are as much the culture and the arts as anything else,” he said. That’s why he spoke out on gay marriage “apparently a little ahead of time.”

“It wasn’t anything we legislatively did. It was ‘Will and Grace,’ it was the social media. Literally. That’s what changed peoples’ attitudes. That’s why I was so certain that the vast majority of people would embrace and rapidly embrace” gay marriage.

“Think behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense, the influence is immense. And, I might add, it is all to the good,” he said.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-talks-outsized-influence-jews-influence-immense_728765.html

Joseph Massad

This is Joseph Massad. Ali Abunimah's Electronic Intifada says all the Jews/Zionists (choose whichever you like - they're all pretty much the same) are going mad because of the threat this man poses to them.

Relax guys. You've nothing to worry about. Massad spouts the Jewish (anti-Zio division), line perfectly.

  

It is Israel's claims that it represents and speaks for all Jews that are the most anti-Semitic claims of all.

By Joseph Massad

 

Jewish opponents of Zionism understood the movement since its early age as one that shared the precepts of anti-Semitism in its diagnosis of what gentile Europeans called the "Jewish Question". What galled anti-Zionist Jews the most, however, was that Zionism also shared the "solution" to the Jewish Question that anti-Semites had always advocated, namely the expulsion of Jews from Europe.

It was the Protestant Reformation with its revival of the Hebrew Bible that would link the modern Jews of Europe to the ancient Hebrews of Palestine, a link that the philologists of the 18th century would solidify through their discovery of the family of "Semitic" languages, including Hebrew and Arabic. Whereas Millenarian Protestants insisted that contemporary Jews, as descendants of the ancient Hebrews, must leave Europe to Palestine to expedite the second coming of Christ, philological discoveries led to the labelling of contemporary Jews as "Semites". The leap that the biological sciences of race and heredity would make in the 19th century of considering contemporary European Jews racial descendants of the ancient Hebrews would, as a result, not be a giant one.

Basing themselves on the connections made by anti-Jewish Protestant Millenarians, secular European figures saw the political potential of "restoring" Jews to Palestine abounded in the 19th century. Less interested in expediting the second coming of Christ as were the Millenarians, these secular politicians, from Napoleon Bonaparte to British foreign secretary Lord Palmerston (1785-1865) to Ernest Laharanne, the private secretary of Napoleon III in the 1860s, sought to expel the Jews of Europe to Palestine in order to set them up as agents of European imperialism in Asia. Their call would be espoused by many "anti-Semites", a new label chosen by European anti-Jewish racists after its invention in 1879 by a minor Viennese journalist by the name of Wilhelm Marr, who issued a political programme titled The Victory of Judaism over Germanism. Marr was careful to decouple anti-Semitism from the history of Christian hatred of Jews on the basis of religion, emphasising, in line with Semitic philology and racial theories of the 19th century, that the distinction to be made between Jews and Aryans was strictly racial.

 

Assimilating Jews into European culture

Scientific anti-Semitism insisted that the Jews were different from Christian Europeans. Indeed that the Jews were not European at all and that their very presence in Europe is what causes anti-Semitism. The reason why Jews caused so many problems for European Christians had to do with their alleged rootlessness, that they lacked a country, and hence country-based loyalty. In the Romantic age of European nationalisms, anti-Semites argued that Jews did not fit in the new national configurations, and disrupted national and racial purity essential to most European nationalisms. This is why if the Jews remained in Europe, the anti-Semites argued, they could only cause hostility among Christian Europeans. The only solution was for the Jews to exit from Europe and have their own country. Needless to say, religious and secular Jews opposed this horrific anti-Semitic line of thinking. Orthodox and Reform Jews, Socialist and Communist Jews, cosmopolitan and Yiddishkeit cultural Jews, all agreed that this was a dangerous ideology of hostility that sought the expulsion of Jews from their European homelands.

 The Jewish Haskalah, or Enlightenment, which emerged also in the 19th century, sought to assimilate Jews into European secular gentile culture and have them shed their Jewish culture. It was the Haskalah that sought to break the hegemony of Orthodox Jewish rabbis on the "Ostjuden" of the East European shtetl and to shed what it perceived as a "medieval" Jewish culture in favour of the modern secular culture of European Christians. Reform Judaism, as a Christian- and Protestant-like variant of Judaism, would emerge from the bosom of the Haskalah. This assimilationist programme, however, sought to integrate Jews in European modernity, not to expel them outside Europe's geography.

When Zionism started a decade and a half after Marr's anti-Semitic programme was published, it would espouse all these anti-Jewish ideas, including scientific anti-Semitism as valid. For Zionism, Jews were "Semites", who were descendants of the ancient Hebrews. In his foundational pamphlet Der Judenstaat, Herzl explained that it was Jews, not their Christian enemies, who "cause" anti-Semitism and that "where it does not exist, [anti-Semitism] is carried by Jews in the course of their migrations", indeed that "the unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America"; that Jews were a "nation" that should leave Europe to restore their "nationhood" in Palestine or Argentina; that Jews must emulate European Christians culturally and abandon their living languages and traditions in favour of modern European languages or a restored ancient national language. Herzl preferred that all Jews adopt German, while the East European Zionists wanted Hebrew. Zionists after Herzl even agreed and affirmed that Jews were separate racially from Aryans. As for Yiddish, the living language of most European Jews, all Zionists agreed that it should be abandoned.

The majority of Jews continued to resist Zionism and understood its precepts as those of anti-Semitism and as a continuation of the Haskalah quest to shed Jewish culture and assimilate Jews into European secular gentile culture, except that Zionism sought the latter not inside Europe but at a geographical remove following the expulsion of Jews from Europe. The Bund, or the General Jewish Labor Union in Lithuania, Poland, and Russia, which was founded in Vilna in early October 1897, a few weeks after the convening of the first Zionist Congress in Basel in late August 1897, would become Zionism's fiercest enemy. The Bund joined the existing anti-Zionist Jewish coalition of Orthodox and Reform rabbis who had combined forces a few months earlier to prevent Herzl from convening the first Zionist Congress in Munich, which forced him to move it to Basel. Jewish anti-Zionism across Europe and in the United States had the support of the majority of Jews who continued to view Zionism as an anti-Jewish movement well into the 1940s.

 

Anti-Semitic chain of pro-Zionist enthusiasts

Realising that its plan for the future of European Jews was in line with those of anti-Semites, Herzl strategised early on an alliance with the latter. He declared in Der Judenstaat that:

"The Governments of all countries scourged by anti-Semitism will be keenly interested in assisting us to obtain [the] sovereignty we want."

He added that "not only poor Jews" would contribute to an immigration fund for European Jews, "but also Christians who wanted to get rid of them". Herzl unapologetically confided in his Diaries that:

"The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies."

Thus when Herzl began to meet in 1903 with infamous anti-Semites like the Russian minister of the interior Vyacheslav von Plehve, who oversaw anti-Jewish pogroms in Russia, it was an alliance that he sought by design. That it would be the anti-Semitic Lord Balfour, who as Prime Minister of Britain in 1905 oversaw his government's Aliens Act, which prevented East European Jews fleeing Russian pogroms from entering Britain in order, as he put it, to save the country from the "undoubted evils" of "an immigration which was largely Jewish", was hardy coincidental. Balfour's infamous Declaration of 1917 to create in Palestine a "national home" for the "Jewish people", was designed, among other things, to curb Jewish support for the Russian Revolution and to stem the tide of further unwanted Jewish immigrants into Britain.

The Nazis would not be an exception in this anti-Semitic chain of pro-Zionist enthusiasts. Indeed, the Zionists would strike a deal with the Nazis very early in their history. It was in 1933 that the infamous Transfer (Ha'avara) Agreement was signed between the Zionists and the Nazi government to facilitate the transfer of German Jews and their property to Palestine and which broke the international Jewish boycott of Nazi Germany started by American Jews. It was in this spirit that Zionist envoys were dispatched to Palestine to report on the successes of Jewish colonization of the country. Adolf Eichmann returned from his 1937 trip to Palestine full of fantastic stories about the achievements of the racially-separatist Ashkenazi Kibbutz, one of which he visited on Mount Carmel as a guest of the Zionists.

Despite the overwhelming opposition of most German Jews, it was the Zionist Federation of Germany that was the only Jewish group that supported the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, as they agreed with the Nazis that Jews and Aryans were separate and separable races. This was not a tactical support but one based on ideological similitude. The Nazis' Final Solution initially meant the expulsion of Germany's Jews to Madagascar. It is this shared goal of expelling Jews from Europe as a separate unassimilable race that created the affinity between Nazis and Zionists all along.

While the majority of Jews continued to resist the anti-Semitic basis of Zionism and its alliances with anti-Semites, the Nazi genocide not only killed 90 percent of European Jews, but in the process also killed the majority of Jewish enemies of Zionism who died precisely because they refused to heed the Zionist call of abandoning their countries and homes.

After the War, the horror at the Jewish holocaust did not stop European countries from supporting the anti-Semitic programme of Zionism. On the contrary, these countries shared with the Nazis a predilection for Zionism. They only opposed Nazism's genocidal programme. European countries, along with the United States, refused to take in hundreds of thousands of Jewish survivors of the holocaust. In fact, these countries voted against a UN resolution introduced by the Arab states in 1947 calling on them to take in the Jewish survivors, yet these same countries would be the ones who would support the United Nations Partition Plan of November 1947 to create a Jewish State in Palestine to which these unwanted Jewish refugees could be expelled.

The pro-Zionist policies of the Nazis
 

The United States and European countries, including Germany, would continue the pro-Zionist policies of the Nazis. Post-War West German governments that presented themselves as opening a new page in their relationship with Jews in reality did no such thing. Since the establishment of the country after WWII, every West German government (and every German government since unification in1990) has continued the pro-Zionist Nazi policies unabated. There was never a break with Nazi pro-Zionism. The only break was with the genocidal and racial hatred of Jews that Nazism consecrated, but not with the desire to see Jews set up in a country in Asia, away from Europe. Indeed, the Germans would explain that much of the money they were sending to Israel was to help offset the costs of resettling European Jewish refugees in the country.

After World War II, a new consensus emerged in the United States and Europe that Jews had to be integrated posthumously into white Europeanness, and that the horror of the Jewish holocaust was essentially a horror at the murder of white Europeans. Since the 1960s, Hollywood films about the holocaust began to depict Jewish victims of Nazism as white Christian-looking, middle class, educated and talented people not unlike contemporary European and American Christians who should and would identify with them. Presumably if the films were to depict the poor religious Jews of Eastern Europe (and most East European Jews who were killed by the Nazis were poor and many were religious), contemporary white Christians would not find commonality with them. Hence, the post-holocaust European Christian horror at the genocide of European Jews was not based on the horror of slaughtering people in the millions who were different from European Christians, but rather a horror at the murder of millions of people who were the same as European Christians. This explains why in a country like the United States, which had nothing to do with the slaughter of European Jews, there exists upwards of 40 holocaust memorials and a major museum for the murdered Jews of Europe, but not one for the holocaust of Native Americans or African Americans for which the US is responsible.

Aimé Césaire understood this process very well. In his famous speech on colonialism, he affirmed that the retrospective view of European Christians about Nazism is that

it is barbarism, but the supreme barbarism, the crowning barbarism that sums up all the daily barbarisms; that it is Nazism, yes, but that before [Europeans] were its victims, they were its accomplices; and they tolerated that Nazism before it was inflicted on them, that they absolved it, shut their eyes to it, legitimised it, because, until then, it had been applied only to non-European peoples; that they have cultivated that Nazism, that they are responsible for it, and that before engulfing the whole of Western, Christian civilisation in its reddened waters, it oozes, seeps, and trickles from every crack.

That for Césaire the Nazi wars and holocaust were European colonialism turned inwards is true enough. But since the rehabilitation of Nazism's victims as white people, Europe and its American accomplice would continue their Nazi policy of visiting horrors on non-white people around the world, on Korea, on Vietnam and Indochina, on Algeria, on Indonesia, on Central and South America, on Central and Southern Africa, on Palestine, on Iran, and on Iraq and Afghanistan.

The rehabilitation of European Jews after WWII was a crucial part of US Cold War propaganda. As American social scientists and ideologues developed the theory of "totalitarianism", which posited Soviet Communism and Nazism as essentially the same type of regime, European Jews, as victims of one totalitarian regime, became part of the atrocity exhibition that American and West European propaganda claimed was like the atrocities that the Soviet regime was allegedly committing in the pre- and post-War periods. That Israel would jump on the bandwagon by accusing the Soviets of anti-Semitism for their refusal to allow Soviet Jewish citizens to self-expel and leave to Israel was part of the propaganda.

Commitment to white supremacy

It was thus that the European and US commitment to white supremacy was preserved, except that it now included Jews as part of "white" people, and what came to be called "Judeo-Christian" civilisation. European and American policies after World War II, which continued to be inspired and dictated by racism against Native Americans, Africans, Asians, Arabs and Muslims, and continued to support Zionism's anti-Semitic programme of assimilating Jews into whiteness in a colonial settler state away from Europe, were a direct continuation of anti-Semitic policies prevalent before the War. It was just that much of the anti-Semitic racialist venom would now be directed at Arabs and Muslims (both, those who are immigrants and citizens in Europe and the United States and those who live in Asia and Africa) while the erstwhile anti-Semitic support for Zionism would continue unhindered.

West Germany's alliance with Zionism and Israel after WWII, of supplying Israel with huge economic aid in the 1950s and of economic and military aid since the early 1960s, including tanks, which it used to kill Palestinians and other Arabs, is a continuation of the alliance that the Nazi government concluded with the Zionists in the 1930s. In the 1960s, West Germany even provided military training to Israeli soldiers and since the 1970s has provided Israel with nuclear-ready German-made submarines with which Israel hopes to kill more Arabs and Muslims. Israel has in recent years armed the most recent German-supplied submarines with nuclear tipped cruise missiles, a fact that is well known to the current German government. Israel's Defence Minister Ehud Barak told Der SPIEGELin 2012 that Germans should be "proud" that they have secured the existence of the state of Israel "for many years". Berlin financed one-third of the cost of the submarines, around 135 million euros ($168 million) per submarine, and has allowed Israel to defer its payment until 2015. That this makes Germany an accomplice in the dispossession of the Palestinians is of no more concern to current German governments than it was in the 1960s to West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer who affirmed that "the Federal Republic has neither the right nor the responsibility to take a position on the Palestinian refugees".

This is to be added to the massive billions that Germany has paid to the Israeli government as compensation for the holocaust, as if Israel and Zionism were the victims of Nazism, when in reality it was anti-Zionist Jews who were killed by the Nazis. The current German government does not care about the fact that even those German Jews who fled the Nazis and ended up in Palestine hated Zionism and its project and were hated in turn by Zionist colonists in Palestine. As German refugees in 1930s and 1940s Palestine refused to learn Hebrew and published half a dozen German newspapers in the country, they were attacked by the Hebrew press, including by Haartez, which called for the closure of their newspapers in 1939 and again in 1941. Zionist colonists attacked a German-owned café in Tel Aviv because its Jewish owners refused to speak Hebrew, and the Tel Aviv municipality threatened in June 1944 some of its German Jewish residents for holding in their home on 21 Allenby street "parties and balls entirely in the German language, including programmes that are foreign to the spirit of our city" and that this would "not be tolerated in Tel Aviv". German Jews, or Yekkes as they were known in the Yishuv, would even organise a celebration of the Kaiser's birthday in 1941 (for these and more details about German Jewish refugees in Palestine, read Tom Segev's book The Seventh Million).

Add to that Germany's support for Israeli policies against Palestinians at the United Nations, and the picture becomes complete. Even the new holocaust memorial built in Berlin that opened in 2005 maintains Nazi racial apartheid, as this "Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe" is only for Jewish victims of the Nazis who must still today be set apart, as Hitler mandated, from the other millions of non-Jews who also fell victim to Nazism. That a subsidiary of the German company Degussa, which collaborated with the Nazis and which produced the Zyklon B gas that was used to kill people in the gas chambers, was contracted to build the memorial was anything but surprising, as it simply confirms that those who killed Jews in Germany in the late 1930s and in the 1940s now regret what they had done because they now understand Jews to be white Europeans who must be commemorated and who should not have been killed in the first place on account of their whiteness. The German policy of abetting the killing of Arabs by Israel, however, is hardly unrelated to this commitment to anti-Semitism, which continues through the predominant contemporary anti-Muslim German racism that targets Muslim immigrants.

Euro-American anti-Jewish tradition

The Jewish holocaust killed off the majority of Jews who fought and struggled against European anti-Semitism, including Zionism. With their death, the only remaining "Semites" who are fighting against Zionism and its anti-Semitism today are the Palestinian people. Whereas Israel insists that European Jews do not belong in Europe and must come to Palestine, the Palestinians have always insisted that the homelands of European Jews were their European countries and not Palestine, and that Zionist colonialism springs from its very anti-Semitism. Whereas Zionism insists that Jews are a race separate from European Christians, the Palestinians insist that European Jews are nothing if not European and have nothing to do with Palestine, its people, or its culture. What Israel and its American and European allies have sought to do in the last six and a half decades is to convince Palestinians that they too must become anti-Semites and believe as the Nazis, Israel, and its Western anti-Semitic allies do, that Jews are a race that is different from European races, that Palestine is their country, and that Israel speaks for all Jews. That the two largest American pro-Israel voting blocks today are Millenarian Protestants and secular imperialists continues the very same Euro-American anti-Jewish tradition that extends back to the Protestant Reformation and 19th century imperialism. But the Palestinians have remained unconvinced and steadfast in their resistance to anti-Semitism.

Israel and its anti-Semitic allies affirm that Israel is "the Jewish people", that its policies are "Jewish" policies, that its achievements are "Jewish" achievements, that its crimes are "Jewish" crimes, and that therefore anyone who dares to criticise Israel is criticising Jews and must be an anti-Semite. The Palestinian people have mounted a major struggle against this anti-Semitic incitement. They continue to affirm instead that the Israeli government does not speak for all Jews, that it does not represent all Jews, and that its colonial crimes against the Palestinian people are its own crimes and not the crimes of "the Jewish people", and that therefore it must be criticised, condemned and prosecuted for its ongoing war crimes against the Palestinian people. This is not a new Palestinian position, but one that was adopted since the turn of the 20th century and continued throughout the pre-WWII Palestinian struggle against Zionism. Yasser Arafat's speech at the United Nations in 1974 stressed all these points vehemently:

Just as colonialism heedlessly used the wretched, the poor, the exploited as mere inert matter with which to build and to carry out settler colonialism, so too were destitute, oppressed European Jews employed on behalf of world imperialism and of the Zionist leadership. European Jews were transformed into the instruments of aggression; they became the elements of settler colonialism intimately allied to racial discrimination…Zionist theology was utilised against our Palestinian people: the purpose was not only the establishment of Western-style settler colonialism but also the severing of Jews from their various homelands and subsequently their estrangement from their nations. Zionism… is united with anti-Semitism in its retrograde tenets and is, when all is said and done, another side of the same base coin. For when what is proposed is that adherents of the Jewish faith, regardless of their national residence, should neither owe allegiance to their national residence nor live on equal footing with its other, non-Jewish citizens -when that is proposed we hear anti-Semitism being proposed. When it is proposed that the only solution for the Jewish problem is that Jews must alienate themselves from communities or nations of which they have been a historical part, when it is proposed that Jews solve the Jewish problem by immigrating to and forcibly settling the land of another people - when this occurs, exactly the same position is being advocated as the one urged by anti-Semites against Jews.

Israel's claim that its critics must be anti-Semites presupposes that its critics believe its claims that it represents "the Jewish people". But it is Israel's claims that it represents and speaks for all Jews that are the most anti-Semitic claims of all.

Today, Israel and the Western powers want to elevate anti-Semitism to an international principle around which they seek to establish full consensus. They insist that for there to be peace in the Middle East, Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims must become, like the West, anti-Semites by espousing Zionism and recognising Israel's anti-Semitic claims. Except for dictatorial Arab regimes and the Palestinian Authority and its cronies, on this 65th anniversary of the anti-Semitic conquest of Palestine by the Zionists, known to Palestinians as the Nakba, the Palestinian people and the few surviving anti-Zionist Jews continue to refuse to heed this international call and incitement to anti-Semitism. They affirm that they are, as the last of the Semites, the heirs of the pre-WWII Jewish and Palestinian struggles against anti-Semitism and its Zionist colonial manifestation. It is their resistance that stands in the way of a complete victory for European anti-Semitism in the Middle East and the world at large.

Joseph Massad teaches Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University in New York. He is the author of The Persistence of the Palestinian Question: Essays on Zionism and the Palestinians.