The Origin of the Myth

I am not Jewish, but I live in a Jewish neighborhood and have done so for much of my life.

What I personally resent most about the holocaust industry is that maybe not all Jews, but the grievance collector Jews and certainly the Jewish community newspapers scattered in front of every starbucks, theater, resteraunt and library in the neighborhood blame the holocaust not on the Germans who did it, but on all non Jewish whites all over the world.

They blame the poles because Auschwitz is located in Poland. Never mind that unlike the other countries occupied by Germany, Poland had no polish government, everything even the post office and city bus system was run by Germans.

The very first mass excution that took place at Auschwitz was the massacre of more than 5,000 polish catholic priests who were collected as the Germans advanced across Poland. This excution occurred in late September 1939. Jews were not sent to Auschwitz until march of 1942.

The mass grave is actually located outside Auschwitz camp proper. Catholics erected a large cross on that mass grave. When Poland became independent from Russia publicity seeking holocaust industry American Rabbis began journeying to Auschwitz and demanding that the cross over the mass grave of catholic priests be removed.

How dare they ask that a religious symbol be removed from the mass grave of catholic priests.

Another myth held by almost all Jews I have ever known is that “The Germans elected Hitler.” The truth is Hitler was not elected. Hindenberg was elected President. The Nazi party came in a poor fifth. The Nazis got only about 2 percent of the vote.

Hindenberg appointed Hitler Chancellor.

I have told this to so many grievance collector Jews. They totally refuse to believe this even when I show them history books, encyclopedias, etc.

I have noticed that basically Jews blame all non Jewish whites for the holocaust because the Germans are non Jewish whites. Although Americans were not even in Europe, it is all our fault.

Then too, so many Jews say “I’m not white, I’m Jewish. The meaning of the word goyim is not christian or gentile or non Jew. It means two legged beast of burden.

Many younger Jews do not even realize that it was the Germans who carried out the holocaust. It has been taught as the European holocaust for the past 30 years. All of Europe was complicit. Germany is never mentioned. The Pope is blamed more than Hitler.

Stalin is still worshipped by the older generation of Jews because “He fought Hitler.” As though Britian and the USA didn’t.

From what I have observed for more than 20 years is that Jews have created the slander and libel that all whites in the world, even whites languishing in Japanese concentration camps in Asia are responsible for the holocaust.

This slander and libel was created partly for the benefit of the holocaust industry and to subsidize Israel. Foxman of the ADL earns about $400,000 in salary and another $600,000 for speeches and articles he writes. Basically he earns an excellent living slandering non Jewish whites, even those who were born in 2007.

There is another reason Jews have created this malicious falsehood, but I don’t want to go into conspiracy theories.

But think about it folks; why shift the blame from the Germans who murdered Jews to all whites in the world.?

By Observer of grievance collectors on 4/25/07 at 2:13 pm

Like I always say, the only thing worse than a German is a German Jew.

By on 4/25/07 at 3:24 pm

To “Observer of grievance collectors”: I’m tempted to say, as Mary McCarthy did to Lillian Hellman on the Dick Cavett Show thirty or so years ago, “Every word you wrote is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the,’” but one of the least consequential of your claims may possibly be true.

May. Possibly. And even then, I’d still have to get triple independent corroboration before I’d credit you with accidentally mixing a fact in with all of your lies.

By on 4/25/07 at 3:35 pm

While some the 1st poster got some of his facts daad wrong, such as the Nazis’ getting 1/5 of the vote, the cross being set over only Catholic graves and the Jews’ not getting killed till September 1942, he makes a sound point that many Jews do blame gentile whites on the Holocaust. I am Jewish, and I don’t even blame Germans in general for what happened, although many Jews would disagree. I never heard a Jew say he isn’t white, but then again, if he said he is white, many posters here would be even more angry than if he said he isn’t. I doubt most Jews worship Stalin, although a few of the far left Jewish kooks condone his actions. Nor do they blame every gentile white in the world for what happened.

I think we can make valid criticisms of how Jews exploited the Holocaust without saying the Holocaust didn’t happen or making emotional attacks.

THis is a great column, and one of the 1st understanding of it by a racially realist perspective without denying it.

By ajo on 4/25/07 at 8:35 pm

What is the point of discussing the “Whites as Cancer” myth when in fact nobody really pays much attention to it anyway? This view is promoted only by idiotic identity politics players and nutcases like Susan Sonntag, to whom nobody really listens anyway. Anyone who puts blame for the Holocaust on anyone but the Nazis and their Fascist allies is simply an idiot who doesn’t deserve attention.

By J. Slavyanski on 4/26/07 at 7:36 am

ajo—

Thanks for your comment. It clarified my motive in writing this column for me. To understand the meaning of the Holocaust for the West, it’s necessary both to recognize that it was an atrocity of the first magnitude, but also that it has been used to stigmatize whites unfairly. It goes back to one of my basic beliefs: in order to convert America to racial sanity, you have to be willing to give the prevailing liberalism its due. That means recognizing that the “whites as cancer” myth does not consist primarily of lies, but of distortions and exaggerations of the truth.

By on 4/26/07 at 7:43 am

J. Slavyanski—

What do you make of the fact that the school textbooks promote the “whites as cancer” myth? http://inverted-world.com/index.php/feature/feature/theinvertedworld/

Are school textbooks only read by nut cases? The myth saturates our culture and lies at the basis of the West’s conception of itself.

By on 4/26/07 at 7:53 am

As far as the grievance collectors’ post goes, while it is true the Nazis never got the votes of a majority of the electorate, they did get 37 percent in 1932, making them the largest party in Germany. A lot more than 2 percent. Probably the rest of grievance collectors’ “facts” are of the same caliber.

By on 4/26/07 at 8:06 am

I graduated from an American public high school and I don’t remember any insinuation that whites are somehow more evil than other races. Besides, all of those things such as slavery, or even the Holocaust, were the machinations of a minority and not the masses of Europeans.

By J. Slavyanski on 4/26/07 at 9:44 am

I would note, while I don’t agree with Kevin MacDonald’s theories, he at least acknowledges the Holocaust happened to the Jews. This is a bigger acknowledgment than some groups on the racial right are willing to give.

Another point that some on the racial right are unable to grasp, is that WWII was to some extent, a war against racial supremacism. The Japanese had racial theories justifying their barbaric control over Asia, and the Germans had their racial theories, justifying their barbaric control over Europe.

Immediately after WWII, the civilized world of the Allies recoiled in horror over what had been done.  The creation of Israel as a safe haven for the Jews emerged very quickly as a response to the Nazi atrocities committed against them.  Decolonialization began because white Europeans felt racial guilt.  How could they say they were, in part, fighting against Axis racial supremacism, while still retaining their overseas colonies along racial lines?  Enormous pressure was brought to bear against the whites in South Africa, Angola, Mozambique, Rhodesia, etc. for the same reasons.  At home in America, desegregation emerged for the same reasons.

Every absurd racial policy the Occidental world is now pursuing, from quotas, to Third World immigration, to turning a blind eye with regard to race, IQ, crime, etc. can be traced back, to some extent, over how the civilized world should respond to Axis racial chauvinism.  To not acknowledge this, as some on the racial right would do, is to be ever stuck in an untenable position and therefore unable to move forward.  

A better approach for white racial realists is to acknowledge all groups have committed atrocities in the name of race -- as well as for other reasons, including class, religion, money, land, power, etc.  This doesn't mean, however, that we should give up concepts like race, religion, class, money, land, power, etc., as the Communists, and latter-day Communists would have us do.  Only with that kind of acknowledgment, and with discussion on how to build a civilized return to racial consciousness, can we succeed.

By Sam on 4/26/07 at 3:06 pm

Seems like at least some Jews realize that their enemy is not 200 “neo-nazi Klu Klux Klan white supremacists” in a nation of nearly 300 million, but another protected politically correct ethnic grievance group.

Daniel Pipes’ Weblog “Muslim Group Targets Jewish Holidays” June 7, 2006

In a 1999 article, “American Muslims vs. American Jews,” I argued that Jews in the United States need to redirect their worries from Christian antisemites to Muslim ones:

The real and present danger is by no means the pro-Israel Christian Coalition but the rabidly anti-Semitic Muslim Arab Youth Association; not Jerry Falwell but Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman; not those who wish, at the very worst, to convert Jews but those who, with every means at their disposal, intend to do them harm, who have already acted on those violent intentions, and who if unchecked will surely do so again.

For a small but vivid example of Muslim animus, note what took place recently concerning the Baltimore County school system and its 2006-07 calendar, as reported by Louis Llovio in the Towson Times under the title that heads this entry, “Muslim Group Targets Jewish Holidays.”

After nearly three years of tension between the school system and the Baltimore County Muslim Council over adding two Islamic holidays, Id al-Fitr and Id al-Adha, the 2007-08 draft calendar again does not include the Islamic holidays. It does, however, list two Jewish holidays, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, meaning that all schools in the district will be closed on those days.

The calendar committee did, however, agree to allow Muslim students and teachers to be excused on their holidays and to monitor the number of absences to determine if the days should be cancelled.

Bash Pharoan, president of the Baltimore County Muslim Council, responded by accusing the school board of “racial profiling” and of not turning over the statistics used to determine the need for Jewish holidays. Further, he demanded that the school board drop the Jewish holidays and would not rule out legal action if the school board rejected his demand.

Arthur Abramson, executive director of the Baltimore Jewish Council, termed Pharoan’s action “an attempt to wage de-facto warfare between Muslims and Jews in Baltimore County. This has nothing to do with the best interests of the school district nor the students.” He called the attempt to eliminate the Jewish holidays “religious discrimination.” Also, he described the closings on Jewish holidays as purely economic, due to the fact that the board found it too costly to hire substitutes to fill in for observant Jewish teachers.

Comment: This is another leading indicator that, as I have argued for some time, the golden age of American Jewry is coming to a close. (June 7, 2006)

By Observer of grievance collectors on 4/26/07 at 5:05 pm

“Another myth held by almost all Jews I have ever known is that “The Germans elected Hitler.” The truth is Hitler was not elected. Hindenberg was elected President. The Nazi party came in a poor fifth. The Nazis got only about 2 percent of the vote. “

The Nazis got 2.8% in 1928, but the party’s fortune then increased dramatically. In the following elections, they got 18%, 37%, 33% and finally 44% of the vote.

Considering how many parties ran, 44% gave him first place. Hiter never got a majority, but he did get elected (with a higher percentage of the vote than Bill Clinton did in 1992). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler

Note that the last election, Hitler was already in power, but it was still regarded as democratic. In the 4 months from Nov 1932 until March of 1933, Nazis rose dramatically from 32% to 44%, showing the nation’s support for it.

Doesn’t mean that today’s Germans are to blame, but let’s keep our statements historically accurate.

By Counter-Observer on 4/26/07 at 5:54 pm

Observer: so many Jews say “I’m not white, I’m Jewish.

No Jew I’ve ever met said this. Mike Wallace made this statement, but only because he presumed that the word “white” under the circumstances meant WASP. I’m sure even Wallace would agree that Jews are white. I just had this conversation yesterday with a group of Jewish lobbyists.

By Counter-Observer on 4/26/07 at 5:57 pm

The 2nd post of the observer of grievances makes infinitely more sense.

I understand that Kevin MacDonald and David Duke blame Jews for the multicultural disaster. Well, 1st, you can never blame on group of people on a problem, the same way that you can’t blame only Germans on the Holocaust, besides which it was only an elite sect of far left Jews (like the AJC) that did the actual damage.

While many Jews, such as Abraham Foxman, fear white Christians more than the real anti-Semites, you shouldn’t hate Jews like myself because a majority of us don’t know what is in our interests. Educate us instead and show us how we’re wrong. I think extremely slowly but surely Jews such as myself are waking up, and I hope so before it is too late.

By ajo on 4/26/07 at 10:16 pm

Communism killed 100 million people in the last century, why isn’t leftism tarred with the same brush? Remember also it was the fact that Germany and the Soviet Union were allies at the time that enabled Hitler to start the Second World War. The two allies then carved up Poland between them.

From May 1940 until the invasion of the Balkans Britain stood alone-but with crucial aid from the US- against Hitler. Bitterly ironic then that the UK is probably suffering more from the plague of PC/Multicultism than any other country.

By on 4/27/07 at 7:10 pm

Note from IW editor: This excellent, thoughtful comment was originally posted on the story “Another Eagle-Eyed White Nationalist Finds Me Out”. I’ve placed it here because it is relevant to this story and because it deserves attention. Sam is an excellent writer, and I hope he will write an article for IW some day.

Jared Taylor’s response raises a serious issue between the two camps within AR, namely the “moderates” (Jews who participate in the movement and non-Jewish whites who wish to include Jewish participation) versus the “extremists” (anti-Jewish whites and/or Neo-Nazis).

  As a "moderate" myself, I think it's important to try and figure out how we got here in the first place.  Without wanting to bash Jared Taylor and the American Renaissance movement too much, it seems to me that a bit of "false advertising" or "bait and switch" was going on within the AR movement from the very beginning.

 Think back to the historic 1994 AR Conference, and compare it to the most recent conferences.  The historic '94 conference featured speakers who were more or less still a part of mainstream conservatism: Lawrence Auster, syndicated columnists Sam Francis and Joe Sobran.  This was a nice olive branch for movement conservatives to get them to consider the racial realist and white nationalist politics of AR.  

Two of the speakers who addressed the biological racial differences between the races were Jewish: Prof. Michael Levin and Prof. Eugene Valberg.  It's notable that this conference not only attracted Ph.D.'s, but even actual academics.

It featured two members of the clergy, a Catholic priest and a Jewish rabbi, representing the Judeo-Christian religions tradition of the West.  This could be seen as a nod to the Religious Right.  Certainly the inclusion of a rabbi at the event signaled to many that this was no KKK/Neo-Nazi gathering.

It’s true that Sam Dickson also spoke, and has spoken at every AR Conference. While Dickson consorts with some of the more unsavory types among the racialist right, he nevertheless conveys a certain wit and charm, as well as some deep insights about the racial situation whites face. While this doesn’t excuse Dickson entirely, it seems to allow him something of a “pass” at these conferences. Just as, I suppose, Pat Buchanan is given a “pass” among the mainstream media, despite their misgivings.

In any event, moderates could be excused for thinking this historic 1994 AR conference was a serious break from the race neutrality of the modern-day Right, and at the same time, a break from the extremists who always mar any serious discussion about biological racial differences and policy. It seemed that AR was going to be the new NR, and that we found a new leader in Jared Taylor, who as going to be our new William F. Buckley, Jr. Like Buckley, Taylor was a very sophisticated, charming speaker and writer. Both attended Yale, and both were fluent in other languages.

The similarities between the two men seem to end there. Buckley, unlike Taylor, was ultimately more up to the task of building a movement and moderating the differences between competing factions — even if this meant stepping on some toes (rightly or wrongly). Whether Buckley made the right decision in all cases is beside the point. The point is that he provided leadership, and drew some lines in the nascent post-war conservative movement, without which, conservatism would never have influenced anyone.

If the editors at AR were serious about cultivating the mainstream conservative movement, the Jews, and the religious right into a serious new racial realist movement, then every conference would have been like the 1994 conference, but even more so.  Instead, things seemed to peter away.  Why?  Perhaps because deep down, the editors at AR were never all that interested or sympathetic in building a movement, in coalition building with moderates, or engaging the mainstream conservatives and religious right.

The 1996 AR Conference was the last one to feature a member of the clergy, and thus, the last serious nod to the religious right.  And Sam Francis and Roger McGrath seemed to be the last bunch with serious ties to the mainstream conservative movement, or at least paleo movement in 2004. Jewish speakers were gone after 2002.

By 2006, a mere 12 years later, the AR Conference consisted largely of non-Jewish, non-religious men without any ties to the mainstream conservative movement. If 2008 remains on the same track; it will be non-Jewish, non-religious, non-mainstream conservative men — exactly the outlook that seems to reflect the AR editorial page. And hence, the “bait and switch” that we moderates got snookered into. If the editors were never that interested in building something of a mainstream movement to begin with, perhaps this was simply inevitable.

At the 2006 Conference, the barriers against having David Duke formally attend were finally broken down.  Remember that Mr. Taylor was evenhanded in his criticism of both Duke and Hart.  Was Hart as equally bad as Duke's grandstanding, Jew-baiting display? 

The 2006 AR Conference brought things to a fever pitch, and it seems the trajectory of AR was away from the mainstream conservatives and religious right, and steadily towards a kind of "Stormfront-lite" approach.  In all likelihood, the 2008 will draw an even larger crowd of neo-Nazis (who have nothing better to go to, and have never been called out editorially by AR), and a dwindling crowd of moderates.  To paraphrase Gresham's Law, the bad racialists will always drive out the good racialists.

There seems to be a troubling pattern here with regard to AR’s editorial views for moderates. Did the Nazi Holocaust happen? And did its happening quickly lead to the creation of Israel? Do the Jews have a right to exist in Israel? The standard AR answer to all these questions would be that they are not relevant to awakening white racial consciousness.

Here, I think those answers are troubling. If you look at Jared Taylor’s articles in the “Last Ditch” — he seems to blame Israel for America’s attacks on 9/11 (which incidentally, was the date the white Christian West defeated the Muslims at the Gates of Vienna in 1683). Maybe if Israel had never existed, we’d be in ever better shape vis-à-vis the Muslim world? Or maybe I’m reading too much into Jared Taylor’s criticism of Israel here. In any event, it seems to me that white nationalist support for the existence of Israel creates greater philosophical consistency, instead of the usual “nationalism for me, but not for thee” exchanges we see among Jews and non-Jews.

Even criticism of the Islamic threat to the West — what would seem an obvious and natural “wedge issue” for us, something which could bring more moderate conservative whites in our camp, is not seen as such by the extremists, or perhaps by AR’s editors. Nick Griffin tried to exhort American nationalists to consider the Muslim threat, but cynical extremists consider any disparagement of Muslims to be part of a Jewish “neoconservative” scheme. Hence their lack of interest in understanding the 1,400 year history of Islam. Hence the extremists desire to fly out to the Middle East and curry favor with Arabs who share their Jew-hatred.

While some news bits appear here and there in AR critical of Islam, it is not a major focus.  No major speaker has addressed the subject of Islam at an AR Conference.  Book reviews and front-page articles on Islam in AR are few and far between.  AR may not be altogether that interested in heeding Griffin's advice.

Finally, we’re left with Jared Taylor’s ambivalence the Holocaust. The moderates realize that if AR acknowledges the Holocaust happened (something even Kevin MacDonald does), it’s not going to turn millions of whites into racially conscious people. What moderates seek are some bright lines between AR and the neo-Nazis. To be ambivalent about the Holocaust is to be morally ambivalent about the exterminationist policies of the Nazis. This will not do.

It’s like saying one should deny that slavery ever existed in America, in the hopes that it will go away as an issue. And, when confronted with mounting evidence that slavery did exist in America, the “revisionist” would then say, “Well, even if I do acknowledge this bad thing happened, why should I? It’s not relevant to building white racial consciousness.”

Oh, but it is! Whites of good will everywhere, are seeking cues that a new batch of white racial realists aren’t going to adopt KKK/Nazi positions when it comes to issues like slavery and exterminationist policies. And yet, for whatever reason, Jared Taylor and AR are — at the end of the day — uncomfortable with the idea of reading extremists and Nazis out of the organization. Why? Do their 3,000 or so activists really add that much to the movement? What if AR could grow the movement ten times that amount by jettisoning the Nazis? Wouldn’t it be worth it? Just a few choice editorials and cues would do the trick. The Neo-Nazis don’t hang around Chronicles, for example. They know they wouldn’t be welcomed there. But they do know they’ve been given a green light to actively participate within AR. Why? I’m not sure we’ll ever know.

Also, part of the white racial dilemma stems back to WWII.  In that war, the Axis powers were justifying their policies on a kind of racial supremacism: Nazi racial ideology in Europe, and Japanese racial supremacism in the Orient.  

It was hard for the white Allies, post-WWII, to say on the one hand they fought against Axis racial supremacism, while on the other hand allowing "racial supremacism" to continue on with their own colonies, with apartheid, with segregation.  It was hard for them to say the Jews shouldn't have a homeland in the face of Nazi atrocities against the Jews, and Israel was very promptly created a mere two years after the war.  And yet for the neo-Nazis, Israel just seemed to appear out of nowhere and without any justification.  Neo-Nazis seem bewildered that they need to explain their racial positions in light of the eugenics and racial policies of the WWII Germans and Japanese.

While the Neo-Nazis stand bewildered, the Occident has gone from one extreme to another.  What Western Man needs is a moral framework, which will stand betwixt and between the Nazi exterminationists on one hand, and the anti-white deracinated Leftists on the other.  This is why it's important to accept and deal with what the Nazis did.  Any non-racially conscious white is going to immediately want to know why a new version of racial theory is any different from the extremist aberrations.  We should be ready to answer them instead of sticking our heads in the sand.

AR probably will not create the kind of moral framework we seek, because of its continued moral ambivalence towards the Nazis and the Holocaust. Indeed, aside from a bright 1994 Conference, it never seemed that interested in continuing on this groundbreaking path, which would have required more leadership, coalition-building, and yes, drawing some clear distinctions between them and the extremists.

AR may continue to do good work, though - just as the Social Contract and the Mankind Quarterly does.  It just may not *lead* us anywhere.  For that, we will need to look elsewhere.  Perhaps, in addition to the Realist and Inverted World, Peter Brimelow, and his work at Vdare, provides a better example instead of AR.  Brimelow is just as savvy and sophisticated as Taylor/AR, but seems more willing to draw some lines and engage in coalition building for the good of the movement.

By Sam on 4/28/07 at 10:31 am

While I might quibble on a couple of points, the comment by “Sam” is overall an excellent summary of the AR problem.  I would expand on one idea that Sam has touched on, namely Jared Taylor’s refusal or inability throughout his career to articulate political views on subjects outside of race and racialism.  Taylor repeatedly declines to address issues such as Israel or the meaning of Nazism or the historical truth of the Holocaust because he says they are irrelevant to the race problem in America.  He has also made it clear that he has no notion of right and wrong, other than that he regards the survival of the white race as good and its destruction as bad.  While it is legitimate for Taylor to make the question of white survival his number one political concern (it is my number one political concern as well, because without white survival, not only the white race, but everything we are, our whole civilization, is lost), no issue exists in isolation, and unless a person has an overall view of society and politics, of truth and morality, he cannot provide leadership even on the issue that is most important to him. 

Further, when Taylor has on rare occasions strayed outside the issue of race, he has made a botch of it, as in his appalling article at The Last Ditch shortly after the 9/11 attack in which he argued that all the problems that America had or might have with Muslims were caused solely by Israel. It’s an interesting question whether in the five years since the 9/11 attack Taylor has bothered to develop any deeper understanding of the doctrines and history of Islam and the threat it poses to the West.  Apparently he has not, since, as Sam points out, discussions of Islam are virtually non-existent in AR. 

Which points again to the ultimate ineffectuality of any one-issue politics.  How can the West defend itself from say, non-white and non-Western immigration, if it ignores the most virulent non-Western movement in the world today, a movement based not on race but on religion?  In order to deal effectively with the racial aspect of the threat to the West, we also need to deal with the religious aspect of the threat to the West.  But because Taylor is uninterested in subjects other than race, he is incompetent to do that. 

In conclusion, a one-issue politics is a contradiction in terms.  It is Taylor’s own narrowness of vision that explains why, despite his impressive talents, he did not, as Sam laments, become a William Buckley-like leader of a new right-wing movement in the wake of the 1994 AR conference.

By on 4/28/07 at 7:05 pm

To The Realist, regarding:

“Adorno justified his blanket condemnation of normal beliefs and behaviors through extravagant and incomprehensible Freudian jargon. The Authoritarian Personality was caused, for example, by ‘retrogression to the anal-sadistic phase of development.’13 Essentially, he believed that Americans identified with groups and powerful personalities in order to compensate for the powerlessness that capitalism forced on them.14”

This was an excellent article, probably your very best to date!

I must admit that the above paragraph, got one heck of a good laugh out of me; it was the mark of the unsophisticated and intellectually dull, to engage in Freudian tirades when they could not otherwise justify an incomprehensible psychological position when I was in graduate school. There was one particularly vapid fellow in my class who was always going on about the “Id,” “Superego,” and whatnot and who subscribed to the psychoanalytic approach as being “fully viable,” if not “downright preferable.” Needless to say, he was the laughingstock of the program and we all wondered ‘who he knew’ or had ‘paid off’ to be in it.

Now to give Adorno his due, the Freudian babble was rather chic in his day so from historic context, it would not be as ridiculous as it is today. However, it remains to be said that all of his allegations and paranoia directed at Americans as a group is fully refutable, as Freudian psychoanalytic constructs are not really valid beyond a historical baseline in the field today. Or put another way, it would be a miracle akin to parting the Red Sea to bill an insurance company for treating an Authoritarian Personality and actually get paid.

By John PM on 4/29/07 at 6:55 pm

“Adorno’s influence is evident in the cultural icons of the coming years: there was Dr. Strangelove, the portrait of the scientist without any loyalties or ethical restraints, and Archie Bunker, whose distrust of blacks, Jews, and his ‘liberated’ son-in-law embodied the Authoritarian Personality.”

Interestingly, Dr. Strangelove is one of my favorite movies of all time; the title character was conceived by merging Wernher von Braun, and the irascible and flamboyant physicist Edmund Teller into one person. If Dr. Michio Kaku (Dr. Teller was his mentor early in his career) is to be believed von Braun’s contribution to the character was a Nazi past and defection to the USA after the war and the personality mostly Dr. Teller’s. With that said, Dr. Strangelove does have the best line in the whole film, when after giving the President a longwinded explanation of why a “Doomsday Machine” would be both feasible and practical in terms of deterrence, he questions the Russian ambassador by noting angrily: “Of course the whole point of deterrence is lost if you keep it a secret, why didn’t you tell the world hey?” It might not sound funny here, but when Peter Sellers says it as Dr. Strangelove after the tension built during his explanation to his Fuhrer (oops, I mean his Mr. President) it is.

Also, the character of Archie Bunker who was designed to stereotype and degrade patriotic blue collar American males, ironically remains a hero of sorts to them. The even greater irony being that they do so while consciously acknowledging his similarity to themselves and his situation. This being while they are reviled for their “bigotry” and “jingoism,” they are expected to pay the way for the Meatheads, Dingbats, and Jeffersons of this world and be made to feel guilty about not liking it too.

Archie Bunker also does have a current (and very popular) television doppelganger in one Mafia Don and family man, Tony Soprano. While in many ways different from Archie (particularly in terms of fidelity to his spouse, grudging willingness to seek out psychiatric interventions, and the way he makes a living,) Tony does represent the conception of the modern American male as “bigoted,” “over nostalgic,” and “hopelessly” devoted to maintaining traditions seen as passé. While he is perfectly willing to deal with blacks in his “business” activities, he most certainly does not want his daughter Meadow (interestingly, who along with his nephew Christopher seems to fill the “liberated” PC Meathead role on the show) dating them.

Oh my how gauche, Mr. Bunker; oops, I mean Mr. Soprano!

By John PM on 4/29/07 at 8:24 pm

To John Pm,

That was a great analysis of Dr. Strangelove and Archie bunker! I really enjoyed reading it…but could you explain the deeper anfractuous political messages that the “24” sends?

By Harlan on 4/30/07 at 2:52 pm

Since the late 1970s “Holocaust Remembrance” has become ever more important in the United States and many other countries. The campaign to remember the Holocaust — often defined as the genocidal killing of six million Jews in Europe during the Second World War – includes numerous commemorative events, education courses in many schools, and a stream of motion pictures, television specials, books and magazine articles.

Across the United States, prominent political and civic leaders participate in annual Holocaust commemoration ceremonies. A number of countries, including Britain, Germany and Italy, officially observe a yearly Holocaust Remembrance Day. In November 2005 the United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution introduced by Israel to designate January 27 as an international Holocaust remembrance day.

Every major American city has at least one Holocaust museum or memorial. Worldwide there are more than 250 Holocaust museums and memorials, most of them in the US and Europe. [1] The largest is the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, which is run by a taxpayer-funded federal government agency, and draws some two million visitors yearly.

The public is continually reminded of Jewish suffering during World War II. Between 1989 and 2003 alone, more than 170 films with Holocaust themes were made. [2] In many American and European schools, and in all Israeli classrooms, a focus on the wartime suffering of Europe’s Jews is obligatory. [3]

Yehuda Bauer, a prominent Holocaust specialist who is a professor at Hebrew University in Israel, observed in 1992: “Whether presented authentically or inauthentically, in accordance with the historical facts or in contradiction to them, with em­pathy and understanding or as monumental kitsch, the Holocaust has become a ruling symbol of our culture… Hardly a month passes without a new TV production, a new film, a number of new books of prose or poetry dealing with the subject, and the flood is increasing rather than abating.” [4]

Tim Cole, a history professor and prominent specialist of Holocaust studies, writes in his book Selling the Holocaust: “From a relatively slow start, we have now come to the point where Jewish culture in particular, and Western culture more generally, are saturated with the ‘Holocaust’. Indeed, the ‘Holocaust’ has saturated Western culture to such an extent that it appears not only centre stage, but also lurks in the background. This can be seen in the remarkable number of contemporary movies which include the ‘Holocaust’ as plot or sub-plot.” [5]

How did the Holocaust come to play such a large role in America? “A good part of the answer,” writes Jewish scholar Peter Novick, “is the fact… that Jews play an important and influential role in Hollywood , the television industry, and the newspaper, magazine and book publishing worlds.” Anyone who denies that this is a major factor behind the “massive attention” given to the Holocaust in the US media, he adds, “is being naïve or disingenuous.” [6]

Exploiting the Holocaust

What’s behind the Holocaust remembrance campaign? Whose interests does it serve?

It is, of course, fitting and proper to remember victims of genocide, war and oppression. But Holocaust remembrance is not, as its supporters claim, a noble effort motivated by sincere concern for humanity. Instead, this relentless campaign is an expression of Jewish-Zionist power, and is designed to further Jewish-Zionist interests.

On the occasion of the opening of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum on the Mall in Washington, noted Jewish author Melvin Jules Bukiet called the Museum a “statement of raw power,” and added: “It’s not Jewish tragedy that’s remembered on the Mall this week; it’s Jewish power to which homage is paid.” [7]

The Holocaust Remembrance campaign encourages sympathy and support for Jews and Israel. It helps to justify America’s massive and on-going support for Israel, and to excuse otherwise inexcusable policies of the Zionist state. Among Jews it strengthens a feeling of group solidarity and promotes a sense of community purpose.

Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish scholar who teaches at DePaul University in Chicago, writes in his bestselling book, The Holocaust Industry, that “invoking The Holocaust” is “a ploy to delegitimize all criticism of Jews.” He adds: “By conferring total blamelessness on Jews, the Holocaust dogma immunizes Israel and American Jewry from legitimate censure… Organized American Jewry has ex­ploited the Nazi holocaust to deflect criticism of Israel’s and its own morally indefensible policies.” [8]

Paula Hyman, a professor of modern Jewish history at Yale University, has observed: “With regard to Israel, the Holocaust may be used to forestall political criticism and suppress debate; it reinforces the sense of Jews as an eternally beleaguered people who can rely for their defense only upon themselves. The invocation of the suffering endured by the Jews under the Nazis often takes the place of rational argument, and is expected to convince doubters of the legitimacy of current Israeli government policy.” [9]

This view is echoed by another Jewish scholar, Tony Judt, who is director of the Remarque Institute at New York University: [10]

“The Shoah [Hebrew term for Holocaust] is frequently exploited in America and Israel to deflect and forbid any criticism of Israel . Indeed, the Holocaust of Europe’s Jews is nowadays exploited thrice over: It gives American Jews in particular a unique, retrospective ‘victim identity’; it allows Israel to trump any other nation’s sufferings (and justify its own excesses) with the claim that the Jewish catastrophe was unique and incompa­rable; and (in contradiction to the first two) it is adduced as an all-purpose metaphor for evil — anywhere, everywhere and always — and taught to schoolchildren all over America and Europe without any reference to context or cause. This modern instrumentalization of the Holocaust for political advantage is ethically disreputable and politically imprudent.”

In Israel, says Tom Segev, a prominent Israeli journalist and author, the Holocaust has become “an object of worship.” Moreover, he writes, “the ‘heritage of the Holocaust,’ as it is taught in [Israel’s] schools and fostered in national memorial ceremonies, often encourages insular chauvinism and a sense that the Nazi extermination of the Jews justifies any act that seems to contribute to Israel’s security, including the oppression of the population in the territories occupied by Israel in the Six-Day War.” [11]

Amira Hass, an award-winning Israeli journalist and author, is even more blunt. Writing in a leading Israeli daily paper, she says: [12]

“… Israel has turned the liquidation of Europe’s Jews into an asset. Our murdered relatives are being enlisted to enable Israel to continue not giving a damn about international decisions against the occupation. The suffering our parents endured in the ghettoes and concentration camps that filled Europe, the physical and mental anguish and torment that our parents were subjected to every single day since the `liberation,’ are used as weapons to thwart any international criticism of the society we are creating here. This is a society with built-in discrimination on the basis of nationality, and the discrimination is spreading on either side of the Green Line. This is a society that is systematically continuing to banish the Palestinian nation from its land and usurp its rights as a nation and its chances for a humane future.”

The great lesson of the Holocaust, says Israel prime minister Ariel Sharon, is that Jews must “always remain vigilant and trust no one but ourselves. Jews can only rely on themselves.” Young Jews, he adds, “have the duty to bequeath the lesson, memories and stories, to underscore the importance of the existence of the Jewish state.” [13]

By Palestinian on 4/30/07 at 5:29 pm

For decades Israel has violated well established precepts of international law and defied numerous United Nations resolutions in its occupation of conquered lands, in extra-judicial killings, and in its repeated acts of military aggression.

Most of the world regards Israel’s policies, and especially its oppression of Palestinians, as outrageous and criminal. This international consensus is reflected, for example, in numerous UN resolutions condemning Israel, which have been approved with overwhelming majorities.

“The whole world,” United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan recently said, “is demanding that Israel withdraw [from occupied Palestinian territories]. I don’t think the whole world … can be wrong.” [1]

Only in the United States do politicians and the media still fervently support Israel and its policies. For decades the US has provided Israel with crucial military, diplomatic and financial backing, including more than $3 billion each year in aid.

Why is the U.S. the only remaining bastion of support for Israel?

Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who was awarded the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize, has candidly identified the reason: “The Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic,” he said. “People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful — very powerful.” [2]

Bishop Tutu spoke the truth. Although Jews make up only about three percent of the US population, they wield immense power and influence — vastly more than any other ethnic or religious group.

By Scott on 4/30/07 at 5:45 pm

I respond to Scott and Palestinian (who are the same person—they both have the same IP address) with the simple facts, which everyone ought to know. Israel has consistently tried to come to a reasonable compromise with the Palestinians over the occupied territories, and all their efforts have been answered by terror. Israel is not in violation of international law: it is not obligated to relinquish the territory it gained in 1967 until a peace treaty between itself and the Palestinians has been ratified.

Israel has also pulled off the remarkable feat of establishing a first-world civilization in a backward region of the world. American support for Israel is an affirmation of its commitment to civilization that shows there is still great good left in this country.

Palestinians in Israel are among the freest and most prosperous in the Arab world. Israel’s administration of the occupied territories was highly benevolent to Palestinians and brought about a level of prosperity not seen before or since in those regions.

Jews do not need to exploit the Holocaust to gain sympathy for Israel, for Israel is clearly in the right.

People who are with the Palestinians are siding with the Third World. They are siding with unreason, resentment, and squalor. It is no better than siding with blacks and Mexicans.

By on 4/30/07 at 9:30 pm

If anyone is looking for sympathy, it’s Muslims like Scott/Palestinian. I keep on hearing about the Muslim “Holocaust”, referring to the horrible oppression of Palestinians. Muslims are always suing in the UK and US in cases of racial discrimination. This game of sympathy by Muslims is what the West has to overcome. Jews earned their land in Israel, even if the Holocaust stimulated the vote by the UN, because they defended the land against many more Arabs repeatedly.

By ajo on 4/30/07 at 9:46 pm

To Harlan, regarding:

“That was a great analysis of Dr. Strangelove and Archie bunker! I really enjoyed reading it…but could you explain the deeper anfractuous political messages that the ‘24’ sends?”

I am very sorry, as that would be impossible for me to do since I have watched but one episode of “24” and only the last half of it at that. In a offhanded attempt at “tealeaf reading” would be that the show is chaotic in its political message, because it is deliberately so? Many films and television programs are such, when attempting to appeal to the broadest of audiences; the Sopranos is a good example, as is South Park. Both tend to be in conflict with PC and Multicultural dogmas mostly, but also embracing of them too at some level. Thus, on South Park an episode such as “The Death Camp of Tolerance” can be made, while Chef also sleeps with every white woman he comes into contact with too. Or Tony Soprano’s daughter does date a mulatto, much to his wrath and Cramela’s semi-tacit approval, but Tony never does the obvious in the situation from his perspective and is later to be even made to feel guilty for ever having protested it in the first place.

In short, we live in an inverted world, a world gone totally mad; particularly, in the media world!

By John PM on 4/30/07 at 10:19 pm

The mainstream conservative movement, let alone the protestant fundamentalists(“the religious right”), want nothing at all to do with white nationalism. Reaching out to them is no use. We have to build our own, self-sufficient movement from the ground up, as nationalists in Europe have. We also have to accept the fact that as in Europe, we won’t get any help or encouragement from others. In fact, we need to recognize that the Republicans, conservatism, libertarianism and fundamentalism are competitors for channeling the discontentment of our poeple.

By Joe on 5/2/07 at 10:41 pm

Realist, nice article.

I just want to tell you what a great service I think you are providing with these articles. I am always particularly interested to read about how liberals came to think the way that they do; that is to say, suicidally, and ridden with guilt. Just always struck me as so bizarre, and counter to human nature to hate one’s own.

Before the advent of the internet, it was difficult enough to find intelligent, conservative thought, let alone anything to do with race realism.

I’m also pleased to note that you condemn the radical elements of the movement (I am speaking mostly of the nonsensical hatred of Jews).

Very thoughtful post by Sam, as well.

By John Galt on 5/5/07 at 3:09 pm

Sub-schismatic Randians have a problem with Jared Taylor. This is not altogether unsurprising, though I shudder to imagine the invective Rand would have lavished on our Realist and the apostate Galt. (Would you be “whim-worshippers”? Or “muscle-mystics”? I think Peikoff could crank out a splendidly incomprehensible academic article making the distinction).

This article is extraordinarily odd. Realist invests indefatiguable energy and heaps vintage objectivist scorn (his adversaries side with “unreason” or are “insane”)on Antisemitic white activists and then proceeds to arm them with polemical nuggets few would have troubled to excavate on their own. You wouldn’t think that a Philosemite would fight Antisemtism (among racially conscious whites no less!) with an article that traces the origins of anti-white activism to a relatively obscure cabal of Jewish academics.

Of course, we are invited to blame Hitler for this. Hitler was, of course, not without flaws. But Jewish intellectuals tilted quite noticeably to the left before 1933. Quite noticeably. Realist is on more solid ground when he suggests that the Holocaust disarmed whites as they faced an ongoing left-wing assault agsinst western (white) values and civilization. Jewish intellectuals were not underrepresented in the ranks of the attackers.

Minor quibble: “reporters” did not expose the Holocaust in 1943. This is an anachronistic formulation as well as counterfactual. Felix Frankfurter’s diary reveals that he was highly skeptical about claims of genocide as late as 1944, and that his sources were (otherwise credible) Zionists. As far as Jewish insiders go, you didn’t get much further inside then Frankfurter. “Reporters” during the war years would have been unlikely to sharply differentiate Jewish victims from other victims of Hitler’s atrocities. Nazi Antisemitism was practically invisible in popular culture until the 1970s. Review “Judgment at Nuremburg” or even “Hogan’s Heroes” for that matter (I will leave it to your taste as to which is funnier). Jews were invisible, not invariably to their distaste, hence the Holocaust would have been invisible, or nearly so, to the typical white consumer of historical calamities pre-1970.

I conclude that Taylor’s attitude is more realistic than “Realist’s”. Jews are, or may be, or should be whites. They are responsible for monumentally impressive contributions to white civilization (though Duke insist they rig the Nobels —he is nothing if not industrious). Consistent with their febrile overachievement, they contribute brilliantly articulate spokesmen for white racial interests (i.e. Levin). But there is a distinctly and unmistakably Jewish opposition to white interests. It is absurd to deny that Jewish intellectuals are overrepresented among the most effective of our adversaries. Levin has too much integrity to deny this. Taylor acknowledges Jewish achievement and Jewish talent; welcomes Jewish allies; demands civility from all; but does not censor those who notice the Jewish adversarial culture even if a few draw conclusions that are ungenerously overinclusive.

On the other hand, Realist’s path is the way to recruit Evangelicals. I think however that articles detailing the machinations of rabidly anti-white Jewish intellectuals will not ordinarily be helpful.

No offense intended. Realist writes well and even confused Randians are wiser than sensible Republicans.

By on 5/5/07 at 10:54 pm

Ironic Jihad,

The article may be odd, but your comment is odder. It is strange to call me a Randian when I have fervently advocated racial collectivism. I’ve read The Fountainhead, and I found a lot to enjoy in it, but I basically think Rand was a nut. As an example, the woman plainly believed rape was the ultimate expression of love. Indeed, rape for her was one of the key marks of superman status. This is totally inexcusable and abhorrent.

The first person to report the Holocaust to the American press was the heroic American anti-Nazi activist Varian Fry, who published the article “The Massacre of the Jews” in the New Republic in 1942. Fry was a journalist, and the term “reporter” generally designates journalists who break news stories. Fry organized the escape of refugees from Nazi Germany and knew many people who had been in the concentration camps. A year later, the New Republic published a supplement devoted to the Holocaust. The editors knew from the testimony of people who had been in Europe that the historic Jewish ghettoes of Europe were now empty and other details about the Holocaust. So, even this early, it was plain what was going on, and it was very definitely known that Hitler was specifically targeting Jews.

I chose Adorno as the subject of this article because I had been previously familiar with his work, and because it is such a perfect example of the effect the Holocaust had on the West. Adorno may not be a household word, but it is absurd to say the Frankfurt school were an obscure cabal. The Students for a Democratic Society certainly read them, and Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man did as much to establish the intellectual counterculture as any book. Even today, Adorno is considered a central figure in 20th century continental philosophy and social theory. When I went to my local Borders bookstore, I found at least three books by him in the philosophy section and a couple of surveys that dealt substantially with his ideas.

Nor am I introducing anti-Semites to Adorno’s work. Kevin MacDonald deals with his work at length in Culture of Critique

It is completely obvious that Jewish intellectuals played a prominent role in formulating and propagating the “whites as cancer” myth, and that one of their motivations for doing so was the sufferings that whites had inflicted on them. But it is absurd to suggest, as MacDonald does, that Jews imposed an alien “culture of critique” on a previously non-critical West. Westerners independently invented the culture of critique in the Enlightenment, and ever since, perfectly non-Jewish intellectuals have been gleefully slashing away at the values, traditions, and institutions that foster racial identity and pride. Far from representing a tradition alien to the West, people like Adorno and Susan Sontag are, in a certain sense, quintessential Westerners. The interesting question is why whites are so receptive to people like Adorno and Sontag, and Tom Hayden and Michael Moore, for that matter.

By on 5/6/07 at 5:17 pm

The Realist,

Benjamin Disraeli wrote well about the importance of the racial question and why the Jews are inherently on the side of conservatism:

“The political equality of a particular race is a matter of municipal arrangement, and depends entirely on political considerations and circumstances; but the natural equality of man now in vogue, and taking the form of cosmopolitan fraternity, is a principle which, were it possible to act on it, would deteriorate the great races and destroy all the genius of the world.

What would be the consequence on the great Anglo-Saxon republic, for example, were its citizens to secede from their sound principle of reserve, and mingle with their negro and coloured populations? In the course of time they would become so deteriorated that their states would probably be reconquered and regained by the aborigines whom they have expelled, and who would then be their superiors. But though nature will never ultimately permit this theory of natural equality to be practised, the preaching of this dogma has already caused much mischief, and may occasion much more.

The native tendency of the Jewish race, who are justly proud of their blood, is against the doctrine of the equality of man. They have also another characteristic, the faculty of acquisition. Although the European laws have endeavoured to prevent their obtaining property, they have nevertheless become remarkable for their accumulated wealth. Thus it will be seen that all the tendencies of the Jewish race are conservative. Their bias is to religion, property, and natural aristocracy: and it should be the interest of statesmen that this bias of a great race should be encouraged, and their energies and creative powers enlisted in the cause of existing society.”

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20007/20007-8.txt

By Thucydides on 5/6/07 at 6:38 pm

Ironic Jihadist wrote:

—->Sub-schismatic Randians have a problem with Jared Taylor. This is not altogether unsurprising, though I shudder to imagine the invective Rand would have lavished on our Realist and the apostate Galt. <—-

You also wrote:

—->Of course, we are invited to blame Hitler for this. Hitler was, of course, not without flaws.<—-

Not without his flaws?  Sort of like Charles Manson was not without his flaws?  Terrific guy, but not without his flaws?  The guy was one of the worst mass murderers in history, and your characterization of him is “not without his flaws”?  Wow.

You are wrong in calling me an apostate.  That means I would have abandoned previously held beliefs.  I never regarded Jews as part of the racial problems plaguing the West now, so there’s been no apostasy involved.

Just because I think Realist is doing a great service with this site doesn’t mean that I don’t also think Taylor is doing an equally great service.  I have tremendous respect for him and his efforts too.  It’s not an either / or for me.

I simply don’t regard Jews as part of the problem.  That there are certain Jews that are problematic is beyond question, but there are a zillion non-Jewish White liberals that are at least as problematic, and I don’t tar the entire white race as problematic because of self-hating whites.

Realist:

I did not realize that Rand “plainly believed rape was the ultimate expression of love. Indeed, rape for her was one of the key marks of superman status.”

I agree with you, that it is abhorrent. Basically, the only Rand book I read was Atlas Shrugged, and of course, I was very sympathetic to the characters that actually built and contributed to society over the leaches of the world who contributed nothing and demanded ever more.  That is what I respected in the character John Galt.

Having read what you said about her views on rape, well, I might have to rethink that screen name.

By John Galt on 5/6/07 at 9:03 pm

To John Galt: have you ever heard of ironic understatement? I did not choose the moniker “blatantly obvious jihad”. Still, I admire your gift for sycophancy. Rand did not advocate the crime of rape. Her heroines were willing. Realist’s thesis would spark controversy among her admirers, to ironically understate the point. You’re coming off a little like the guy in the Monty Python skit whose job it is to work the audience: “he’s right you know…”

To Realist: despite your citation to articles in TNR, the workings of the Holocaust would not have been transparent outside Germany in 1942 or 1943 (this is not conceding the point that it would have been obvious to a casual German observer during the same period). TNR has always - proudly - been a respectable conduit for Zionist polemics rather than mainstream reporting (its circulation is rather modest to this day and I count myself a not dissatisfied subscriber). Frankfurter was an intelligent, informed Zionist and he was skeptical in 1943 and 1944 according to his own diary. You overstate your point wildly. People can be right, even on weak evidence, which was the case at TNR during the war.

Since your idea of civil discourse embraces a range of invective, I am tempted to label your thesis that Jewish leftists are/were motivated by white “crimes” as insane. You don’t even commit the relatively respectable error of post hoc ergo propter hoc, as Jews demonstrably dominated the ranks of the American left and the European left-intelligentsia for at least 2 generations before the Holocaust. Yes, there are non-Jewish leftists. You’re correct: it is possible to be leftist and not Jewish. No one takes the position that all leftists are Jews or that all Jews are leftists. The argument is that Jews have been (and for all intents and purposes remain) at the centre of propagating the whites-as-cancer myth. You document that argument in this article, then somehow seek to muddy the thesis by — blaming whites. Your article represents a triumph of cognitive dissonance.

And it demonstrates the wisdom of Jared Taylor. He chooses not to incite or to countenance virulent Antisemitism. But he remains officially agnostic on the question of a Jewish adversary culture. An aggressive Antisemitic purge of the kind you have attempted to launch will strangle white racial consciousness. Taylor’s is the best course.

I admire many rightist Jews. There were redoubtable anti-Fascist Germans as well, and Germany blended nicely into NATO after the war. But this does not alter the fact that Nazism is a blot on German culture or the German legacy.

Taylor represents the future of white racial consciousness, you are offering a dead end. But I appreciate your motives, your sincerity and your intelligence.

By on 5/7/07 at 8:47 pm

ironic jihad wrote:

>>>To John Galt: have you ever heard of ironic understatement? I did not choose the moniker “blatantly obvious jihad”. <<<

Do you really think that moniker is all that clever? You truly flatter yourself.

—->And it demonstrates the wisdom of Jared Taylor. He chooses not to incite or to countenance virulent Antisemitism. But he remains officially agnostic on the question of a Jewish adversary culture. An aggressive Antisemitic purge of the kind you have attempted to launch will strangle white racial consciousness. Taylor’s is the best course. <—-

Spoken like a true sycophant.

By John Galt on 5/7/07 at 10:36 pm

If I am not mistaken, it’s not that Jews were the only leftists historically, but that they were way overrepresented among leftists and that there was something uniquely Jewish (in the cultural, not religious sense) to the liberalism and socialism. MacDonald documents this aptly. I can testify to this, as I myself am a right leaning Jew. Also, while white self hate is a product of western liberalism, which itself isn’t Jewish, mostly alienated Jews themselves helped make the leftist causes more destructive. For example, socialism existed since the French Revolution, but it was Marx who created communism. In particular, from the late 19th to early 20th centuries, leftist Jews had the greatest effect as they were emancipated in German states, immigrated en masse to the Anglo countries and helped bring about the Russian Revolution. As for the Holocaust, it was the final blow, and a heavy one (although really the 60s all that happened then that brought about the coup detat). What the Nazis did was horrific, and in the name of specifically Germanic and Indo-Aryan, not European, superiority. The psychological effect of the Holocaust, partly promulgated by Jewish activists, made whites want to shun away from ethnic and racial identity groupings and feelings of superiority. That is why so many white nationalists are neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers and why the realist is trying to attack the issue head on. Also, one obvious point, most but not all Jews are leftists, and there is no way there can be a change in the status quo of Jewish political thought to a limited extent. I am an example of an exception, in some ways. Particularly, the most secular Jews are either the most Zionist (Jewish nationalist) or the most liberal/socialist if not both, as the ideology is what replaces their religion.

By ajo on 5/8/07 at 12:56 pm

As for The New Republic, it is very Zionist, but also a socialist or social democratic paper with a liberal/neocon foreign policy view, which is why I don’t read it. There is no great political magazine. The American Enterprise (now The American) comes closest to my views, and The Mankind Quarterly has interesting articles on human history. Commentary was a nominally conservative paper in the 80s and The National Review used to be Old Right before then, but both have gone way down hill.

By ajo on 5/8/07 at 1:00 pm

Well, given that you have chosen the moniker “John Galt” I defer to a superior ironist.

AJO, I think your comments are insightful. (Galt: I guess that makes me a serial sycophant). Jews are capable of many astonishing things; it should not be entirely surprising that they are capable of overachieving at evil. If I believed in God, I might think that the corrupt minority among the Chosen would be especially dangerous. This is helpful as metaphor, in any event.

(If I may dissent on one point: TNR is not really neocon. They hate Republicans too much. They are neoliberals. Admittedly the distinction is a fine one).

I may be entirely alone in this view, but I think Realist dropped the ball with this article. I think he is playing into David Duke’s hands and not, I hope, because David Duke is right. Realist posits a Quelle document for the whites-as-cancer myth and ascribes identifiably Jewish authorship — this might have been avoided as a matter of tactical polemics. But, as Emperor Joseph would say: there it is then. Realist wrote what he wrote. How do we deal with it?

Realist justifies the whites-as-cancer attack as a byproduct of historical post-trauamtic-stress-syndrome. Blame Hitler. The problem, apart from chronological asymmetries is that Realist’s argument implicitly concedes a morally comprehensible basis for hatred of whites. This has a degree of consanguinity to writers who blame Jews for bringing on the Holocaust (though such writers usually generously admit it represented an overreaction). This is a species of white-bashing.

Let me suggest an historical parallel. Millions of Ukranians were murdered in the ’30s by Stalin. Why aren’t Ukranians anti-white? Well, because it’s obvious, presumably even to Mr. Galt, that Russians were not acting for whites or as whites in murdering Ukranians. They were in the thrall of another idealogy altogether. As were the Germans, who were bombed to rubble by other whites.

Why would left-wing Jews hate the United States which destroyed Hitler? Why would left-wing Jews have supported the Soviet Union —? Russians are white enough and they entered into a non-aggression pact with Hitler (the USA never did so).

Realist will persuade no one by documenting the Jewish advesary culture and psycho-analyzing away Jewish enmity or worse, justifying it. Realist is usually fine. This piece is a disaster. I’m sorry to point this out.

By on 5/8/07 at 6:02 pm

ironic jihad wrote:

—->Well, given that you have chosen the moniker “John Galt” I defer to a superior ironist. <—-

Well, there’s the rub, ironic jihad, I chose my name with no irony in mind.  You’re being argumentative for argument’s sake.

ironic jihad wrote:

—->AJO, I think your comments are insightful. (Galt: I guess that makes me a serial sycophant)<—-

What would you expect when you call someone who disagrees with your views an apostate and sycophant. 

I would prefer that you tell me why my views are wrong; provide me with some historical perspective as to why they are wrong.

I make no claims to having any great understanding about why Jews have been hated, and more specifically, why they were hated by Nazis.  Yeah, I admit it, I am coming on here to gain information, and my observations about Jews are more based on what I perceive as (primarily) law abiding behavior, high-IQ, high scholastic achieving members of society.  As one would expect from people with high IQs, they are overrepresented at the top rungs of society, including the political classes and in academia.

However, I would think that increasingly, Jews would regard as a threat to their well being and high standard of living, the tsunami of non-whites entering both America and Europe, and I’d think they’d align themselves with who I perceive as their naturally allies, Whites.  I regard Jews as Whites anyway, with some admixture of Middle-East.

When America had its tradional demographic split of near 90 - 10, whites and blacks (for a couple of hundred years), and having come from ghettos in Europe where they had been persecuted, and particularly after the holocaust, it is easy to see why they would cast a wary eye toward whites in general (given their recent history), notwithstanding the fact that it is other whites who destroyed Germany.  If I were a member of a group who had experienced a pogrom of that sort, I’d be hypervigilant of anything that smacked of racism, even when directed at others (Blacks).  I think I understand why they alligned themselves with Liberals, post WWII.

However, I think that now that we have this massive tsunami of illegals coming in, that they’d allign themselves with Whites, with the hope that the hangover from the holocaust is remote enough that they’d recognize that their own self interest is in aligning with Whites.

I would like to learn about why Jews were historically hated in Europe, and if you, ironicjihad, or anyone else, can shed light on these things, I’d appreciate it.

I do not wish to enter into giant arguments with anyone on here, but you have twice attacked me for expressing a different view than you (I think).  What IS your view as to whether present day Jews will be and/or should be part of a movement to keep America a nation of primarily Western peoples and principles?

I think Jews should be natural allies.

By John Galt on 5/9/07 at 12:58 pm

JG -

You make reasonable points in a genial manner. If you insist on being intelligent & agreeable you will make it very difficult for me to continue to attack you.

Antisemitism is, historically, a creature of superstition, specifically the Christian superstition. Jews were accused of deicide. During my childhood, the Roman Catholic Easter readings had a crowd of Jews chanting: “let his blood be upon us and upon our children”. This nugget has since been edited out of the liturgy, but one can imagine some damage being done over fourteen or fifteen hundred years of chanting.

(To be less unfair to our Christian ancestors, ALL non-Christians fared poorly. It was not a time to be a free-thinker. Indeed, Jews might receive levels of dispensation that would have been unthinkable for a Christian heretic. But the pogroms continued, unpredictably, even under liberal regimes.)

Jews were excluded from owning land or from entry into many professions. Unsurprisingly, they clustered in commerce and money-lending. Money-lending was detested by good Aristotelean-Thomists (Dante put money-lenders in the same circle of hell as perverts, pointing to the “unnatural breeding of metal on metal” which signaled an active if peculiar sexual imagination). The popularity of money-lenders is problematical at any time. Ethnically identifiable, Deicidal money-lenders might be expected to be even more unpopular.

MacDonald has something of a counter-textual take on this traditional view (summary: Jews were indeed predatory). I am skeptical because I don’t think he has the data (statistical incidence of Jewish predation) to back up his admittedly impressive intuitive skills.

Jewish resentment of Christianity would not be unexpected. And your intuition is not incorrect: many Jews saw a direct path from racism to Antisemitism. I am less understanding about what I perceive to be Jewish intellectual antagonism toward distinctly American values and insitutions.

Jews are not monolithic, but Jewish public intellectuals were, until relatively recently, very nearly so. My favourite line was from Murray Rothbard who described the political leanings of New York Jews shortly before WWII (I am paraphrasing slightly, being too lazy to retreive it word for word on google): “for a young man of my generation, the question was whether to dedicate your life to the communist revolution or to quietly support it as a fellow traveler”. Rothbard turned into a libertarian with a sense of humour, bless him. Many Jews are Democrats now only because it is no longer practical to be Communists (and the differences get more academic as time goes by). I repeat an earlier point for emphasis: the affinity of Jewish intellectuals/activists for the hard left predated the Holocaust by generations. But to be fair, it hardly predated Antisemitism.

In short, Jews have been historical victims (but so have blacks). Demography might predict sympathy toward the white mainstream. But it has been long in coming. And it has been barely discernible among Jewish intellectuals, even among Neocons if their pro-American cheerleading is dissected carefully.

I think we should welcome rightist Jews with open arms. But I also think we should be aware of the secular-Jewish adversary culture without getting carried away with sympathy for historical grievances.

By on 5/9/07 at 3:44 pm

ajo,

You are so right! The Jews don’t always invent the ideology but they take it to the forefront and then end up owning it. And that brings them scorn. I hear a lot of how the Jews were the authors of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Immigration Act of 1965 but there were many others involved like the Kennedys. I am of Irish descent and I cringe when I hear the Kennedy name. I don’t understand why so many whites still idolize them in spite of the havoc they have wreaked on this country. There’s been a lot of speculation on the reasons why the Kennedys endorse this type of legislation. I heard it was because of papa Joe Kennedy’s experiences with the English in Boston. I haven’t researched this enough to draw conclusions because, for me, researching the Kennedys would be most unpleasant. I hadn’t realized that the “whites as cancer” myth existed before Susan Sontag.

By MissScarlett on 5/9/07 at 10:05 pm

“I would like to learn about why Jews were historically hated in Europe, and if you, ironicjihad, or anyone else, can shed light on these things, I’d appreciate it.”

By John Galt on 5/9/07 at 10:58 am

Because they weren’t Christians. Race had nothing to do with it.

By on 5/9/07 at 11:50 pm

MissScarlett, others: we should be careful in our language. We can generalize, but we shouldn’t universalize - there are smart blacks, anti-leftist Jews, masculine women, etc. We should also avoid words like “always” and “never” because a single contrary example then destroys our credibility.

What we have to point out is trends, tendencies, likelihoods. While we can employ some shorthand without always slogging through caveats and qualifications, again, we should be careful.

We should be especially wary of sweeping negative statements about Jews, using the phrase “the Jews”, blaming them exclusively or in large part for negative trends or ascribing negative characteristics to them, in toto. A central purpose of this website and community is to rescue racial realism and pro-white advocacy from the fatal trap of anti-Semitic kookery.

Don’t like it? Go back to Stormfront, and permanent irrelevance, and reconcile yourself to disgusting any curious white who comes across you, guaranteeing the extinction or subjugation of your race within the living memory of your grandchildren.

By Irish on 5/9/07 at 11:57 pm

Irish,

I don’t understand the scolding and I totally disagree with you. I have generalized. In fact my posts have pointed out that Jews get a bad rap sometimes. I speak what I believe to be the truth. I take off the gloves for no one. I am also open to debate. I am willing to learn where I may be wrong if others offer valid information. You shouldn’t silence anyone. Civility is one thing, silence is another. And to use “Stormfront” to get a point across is unfortunate. The worst thing that can happen to this movement is infighting. You appear to attack people you do not agree with. I think most on this site just want to vent, understand, learn, and grow. If someone on this site were to say the Irish are all drunks, I would try to educate him/her. I certainly understand the nature of the question but to attack or silence would prove nothing. There are opinions out there and some are very valid. Did you not like my Kennedy statement?

By MissScarlett on 5/10/07 at 3:15 pm

Much more than the ‘white is a cancer myth’, there is a more dangerous myth -Jews have been detrimental to the white race..European “Christians” have caused more harm to the European Civilization than the European Jews. On the other hand, Jewish people made significant contributions to the culture of Europe, whether it is science, literature, music, art or philosophy . “Then too, so many Jews say “I’m not white, I’m Jewish” I never heard a single Jew saying that. Jews very well know that they are white and areproud of being white. To the Jewish people, being white does mean they have to hate all non-whites. One thing that whites of Europe and America always forgets (perhaps deliberately) is that Israel was the only country in the world which had relations with South Africa after UN imposed sanctions on South Africa. And white Americans and Europeans rewarded Israel for its actions by boycotting Israeli academics in American and European University. These same people now accuse the Jews and Israelis of being “anti-white”.

‘Stalin is still worshipped by the older generation of Jews because “He fought Hitler.”’ I have not heard anything funnier than this .To the Jewish people, Stalin (who was a hardcore anti-Semite) is as evil as Hitler. According to Edward Teller, if there is anything that Jews hate more than Nazis, it is the communists.

“Jews blame the holocaust not on the Germans who did it, but on all non Jewish whites all over the world.” Jews never blamed Germans for the Holocaust. Israel has very good relation with Germany, and Israel Universities have honored many post-WW-II German intellectuals.

And, finally the root cause of all our sufferings and miseries is not the ‘Jews’ or the liberals or the communists, but a mad man named Adolf Hitler .If all Europeans acknowledges this fact we can save our race.

By True White Nationalist on 5/17/07 at 7:35 am

I have not been following this thread, but have been receiving all the posted comments via e-mail, because I had posted a comment earlier.  Though the article was on Adorno and the Frankfurt School, and not about the Jewish issue, it seems that the comments have virtually all been so. I don’t think this was The Realist’s intent. 

Which raises the question, was there not an implied invitation to a discussion of the Jewish question when The Realist said that Marx, Freud and their Jewish disciples of the Frankfurt School were responsible for the origin of the “whites as cancer” myth?

This connects to the problem of seeing the Western crisis as coming from just one particular source, like the radically left Frankfurt School. I find it interesting to learn about the Frankfurt school, but I think that to focus on that is a mistake. The Frankfurt School is not what is killing the West.  It is beliefs that are accepted throughout the West, mainstream beliefs about tolerance and non-discrimination and diversity, that are killing the West. You don’t need this far-left Frankfurt School to explain what’s happening. If there had never been a Frankfurt School the forces leading to Western suicide will still be operative. 

Furthermore, the problem with focusing on the Frankfurt School is that it leads people to think: “Ah hah, all the problems of our society come from this one, tiny source; THEY’RE the problem.” Which of course is analogous to anti-Semitism. And when that one tiny source also just happens to be Jewish, well then …

On another point, I urge The Realist to drop the phrase “whites as cancer.” It is extremely unpleasant in itself, and it’s not what is attacking the West. You don’t see liberals going around saying, “whites are the cancer of history.” The only person using that phrase is The Realist himself. Why should a writer who is concerned about the health and confidence of the white West constantly invoke the sickening phrase, “whites are cancer,” when even the leftist enemies of the West do not do that?

By on 5/17/07 at 2:05 pm

For the last several decades, and at this very moment, the nations of the West have been actively turning themselves into non-white nations.  The policies driving this are supported by all the major institutions of Western society.  The government of Britain considers any limitation of the number of immigrants as “racist.” Jacques Chirac said that the roots of Europe are “Muslim as much as Christian.” Colin Powell called for an increase in the U.S. Muslim population.  The president of the United States constantly invokes the meaninglessness of the U.S.-Mexican border and suggests that the whole world should come to America if they can find a job here.  There is no significant opposition to any of this in mainstream politics, except for opposition to illegal immigration in the U.S. 

In sum, the white West, acting as a whole, and without any significant internal opposition, is very rapidly destroying itself. 

Yet in the midst of this catastrophe that is rushing upon us, this catastrophe that is the result of the mainstream beliefs of the modern West that are accepted or at least acceded to by almost all Westerners, The Realist sees the threat to the white race as emanating from the Frankfurt School, a collection of Marxist German-Jewish intellectuals in the early-to-mid 20th century. 

I respectfully suggest that we need to focus our attention on what the West as a whole is doing to itself, and not seek to blame Western suicide on a tiny group of leftists.

By on 5/17/07 at 3:00 pm

To Mr. Auster, regarding:

“Yet in the midst of this catastrophe that is rushing upon us, this catastrophe that is the result of the mainstream beliefs of the modern West that are accepted or at least acceded to by almost all Westerners, The Realist sees the threat to the white race as emanating from the Frankfurt School, a collection of Marxist German-Jewish intellectuals in the early-to-mid 20th century.

I respectfully suggest that we need to focus our attention on what the West as a whole is doing to itself, and not seek to blame Western suicide on a tiny group of leftists.”

I would respectfully disagree with you that The Realist is fully blaming the Frankfurt School for our predicament in the West and USA in particular, only pointing out its Marxist based contribution to it. I personally found this article fascinating, in that I knew very little about the Frankfurt School other than the fact that it was a pack of anti-Western Reds. That this witless clique of Communist wretches was made up of mostly or totally German Jews, does not make me automatically leap to the conclusion that Jewish people as a group are responsible for or are outright “plotting” the destruction of the West, but only to shake my head in wonder at what undue influence a gaggle of freaks and malcontents can have upon a larger grouping of the same.

This larger grouping I would point to, would be the hippies and other countercultural crazies of the late 1960s and early 1970s that has transmuted into the modern multiculturalism movement. These were and are not uniformly or even by plurality Jewish dominated groupings, but highly heterogeneous racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groupings that had and have: drug abuse, hedonism, and Marxism in common but were and are reflective of society as a whole in makeup (i.e., were and are majority white and “Christian.”)

From that larger grouping of Marxists, we have seen the overpowering of the West from within by their generalizing of the basic principles of such seedlings as the Frankfurt School and others into our national fabrics. This is a process that groups of utopian “thinkers” like the Thule Society in Germany or the anarchists in Russia along with other mystics and revolutionaries had on the totalitarian movements in those countries.

Ironically, that the Frankfurters, hippies, and multiculturalists all miss the process and its genocidal implications is simply put, a breathtaking case of how history unoriginally repeats itself through illogical people like this!

All the best and thoughtfully so Mr. Auster,

John PM!

By John PM on 5/17/07 at 8:48 pm

Larry Auster’s criticism of my article in the comments above and at his website is based on a basic misunderstanding of its thesis. He says: “The Realist sees the threat to the West as emanating from the Frankfurt School, a collection of Marxist German-Jewish intellectuals in the early-to-mid 20th century.”

Nowhere do I say that the Frankfurt school was the sole cause of the “whites as cancer” myth; in fact, my words contradict this idea. I use the work of Adorno as an illustration of a broad cultural tendency in the post-World War II years to see the Holocaust as the result of traditional Western institutions, beliefs, and values. This is why I say: “There is no better illustration of the impact of the Holocaust on the West’s image of itself than the ideas of Theodor W. Adorno.” The article clearly treats the work of Adorno and the rest of the Frankfurt school as an example of the emerging myth, not its sole cause.

The title “The Origin of the Myth” was not meant to designate Adorno or any other person, as Larry states; rather, I meant that the Holocaust was the origin of the “whites as cancer” myth.

I doubt Larry would have misunderstood my article this way if I had not been writing about Jewish intellectuals. The racial right so often attributes the decline of the West exclusively to Jews that he immediately assumed my article must be in this genre.

Another criticism: Larry blames mainstream Western beliefs for whites’ current lack of racial consciousness. Mainstream beliefs always have their roots in the theories of an intellectual class. It was due to the work of Adorno and other intellectuals—and I make clear that I mean both Jewish and non-Jewish intellectuals—that the myth became mainstream.

Finally, Larry says in his blog entry that this website “came into existence in order to oppose anti-Semitism on the white right.” This site came into existence in order to promote race realism and debunk the “whites as cancer” myth. Although some articles on this site have dealt with anti-Semitism, most have nothing to do with it.

By