The Decline of American Renaissance
By • 5/8/07 |
Jared Taylor. |
When he held the first American Renaissance (AR) conference in 1994, Jared Taylor seemed to be on the cusp of bringing into being a major new paradigm in American politics: a race realism that could appeal to moderate conservatives. Taylor and his fellow speakers spoke forthrightly about racial differences in intelligence and criminality, as well the inevitability of racial conflict and the need for whites to defend their interests. However, Taylor’s race realism came with none of the extremist, conspiratorial, anti-Semitic baggage that had previously characterized American racialism. Here, it seemed, was someone who was forging a vision that could appeal to the mass of moderate and sensible Americans, rather than a handful of marginal cranks.
Thirteen years later, Taylor has failed to make good on his original promise. Through his refusal to denounce the blatant anti-Semitism of many of his followers, Taylor has proved that he either never understood what it would take to build a mass movement or never wanted to. Taylor appears at last to have thrown in his lot with the cranks, and the task of building a mass movement must fall to others.
Taylor emerged on the conservative and libertarian intellectual scene in America in the 1990s. He had worked before as editor of PC World, and had authored a book on Japan in the 1980s called Shadows of the Rising Sun (1983). Taylor grew up in Japan, where his father worked as a missionary. He was educated at Yale and the Sorbonne.
 |
| Paved With Good Intentions was a fine start. |
Taylor’s articles on race appeared in various mainstream conservative quarters in the 1990s, including National Review and the paleoconservative Chronicles. In 1992, he published the crucial book Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America. The book was reviewed and praised in such center-right publications as the Wall Street Journal, National Review, and The Washington Times, as well as by syndicated columnist Walter Williams, among others. While remaining neutral on biological differences among the races, Taylor was able to make a convincing argument that poverty and social dysfunction among American blacks were caused by black culture rather than white racism.
While Taylor’s book was receiving critical praise in the mainstream, he was leading a “double life” so to speak, by publishing American Renaissance under the name Samuel Taylor. Samuel is Jared Taylor’s first name, so this wasn’t too much of a stretch. However, it is interesting that Samuel Taylor was outspoken about innate racial differences while Jared Taylor was silent on that subject. This would not be the last time Samuel Jared Taylor would communicate two different messages to different audiences. From the newsletter’s beginnings in 1990, Taylor displayed none of the reticence that characterized his book. He explored the biological basis of racial differences in intelligence and other traits, and called on whites to fight for their own racial interests.
 |
| A man of strong views. |
Taylor seemed the man to crystallize the growing dissatisfaction with liberal views on race into an explicit white racial consciousness that would have mass appeal. However, if he was to achieve this, there was a barrier that he would have to surmount: the association between race realism and Nazism, which had been solidly established in the American mind by the career of David Duke, as well as by lesser white supremacist figures and groups.
It is a truism to point out that Nazism represents the epitome of evil in the American mind. While demonization inevitably involves simplification, there are few people who better fit the bill of demon than Hitler. Of course, there is the Holocaust and the immense destruction that World War II wrought on Europe. Americans also have a tradition of freedom that rightly abhors Hitler’s totalitarian police-state. Moreover, Hitler was a demagogic liar who falsely blamed a minority group for the misery and humiliation of his country. Americans are justly on guard against the stirrings of a movement analogous to Nazism. Since race realism had never fully separated itself from Nazism, it had been easily marginalized.
American Renaissance, however, was susceptible to none of the usual criticisms directed against American racialists. Forthright though the magazine was, Taylor and the other writers published in the newsletter wrote in the crisp, lucid, and objective tone that is the hallmark of intelligence and education. Taylor understood that his views had to succeed by substantive, rational argument, rather than through muscular assertion or demonization of a conspiratorial enemy. Thus, his views on racial differences, racial conflict, and immigration were founded on a solid understanding of the best research available in those fields.
Just as important as what Taylor put into his magazine was what he left out. There was no hint of the demagogic anti-Semitism and the other cant issues that had characterized previous incarnations of racialism. The columnist Samuel Francis, who was closely associated with the magazine from the very beginning, summed up its achievement on the twelfth anniversary of its inception:
For the most part the older rhetoric of “white supremacy” and what was called “hate” never talked about race at all—at least not seriously. It talked about the Constitution, communism, the common cultural framework that most Americans, white and black, Southern and Northern, shared. When it did talk about “race,” the result was often simply a pathetic litany of cliches, racial horror stories, often pseudo-science mixed in with a certain amount of fundamentalist (or pagan) religion, and outright drivel laced with plenty of racial epithets and insults. Not a few racially conscious whites seemed to do and say virtually everything to confirm the claim of their enemies that they really were filled with hatred and engulfed in ignorance. Some—skinheads, “neo-Nazis,” etc.—still do; for them, making themselves as repellent as possible and inciting fear and disgust rather than doing something constructive on behalf of their own race seems to be their chief purpose.
Anyone familiar with American Renaissance knows that … it avoids this kind of rhetoric entirely. Not only does AR avoid it, neither the publication nor Jared Taylor himself nor anyone who has ever written for it that I know of even has any disposition to use such rhetoric. Nor does AR appeal to states’ rights, the Constitution, or traditional segregationist practices. The rhetoric it has developed is the rhetoric of race itself, of what should be called “racial realism.”
American Renaissance attracted both moderate conservatives and old-style white supremacists; however, initially at least, the balance seems to have been slightly in favor of the former. In 1997, AR conducted a poll designed to gauge the views of its readers, which included questions about which foreigners had done the most to advance or damage white interests. Remarkably, the most frequent answer to both questions was Hitler. Whereas 112 readers thought Hitler had damaged white interests, only 75 thought he had advanced them.
The early years of American Renaissance were a time when it seemed race realism had a chance of entering the mainstream. What replaced the Cold War for many on the Right were the newer, messier issues of race and multiculturalism. The era of the “Clash of Civilizations” was just beginning. National and civilizational questions were becoming central: What is it to be a nation? Where do race and civilization intersect in the West? Are the races significantly different from each other in IQ and temperament? If so, what are the consequences for our policies on immigration, crime, bilingualism, multiculturalism, and affirmative action? Conservative and libertarian intellectuals of the 1990s were gingerly beginning to broach these subjects for the first time in a long while.
As Paved With Good Intentions was receiving praise in mainstream conservative media outlets, other important developments were occurring. Under the leadership of John O’Sullivan, then editor of National Review (NR), a brief era of glasnost was allowed on racial issues in their pages. Some articles by Jared Taylor were published there, as were Lawrence Auster’s devastating articles on multiculturalism and Peter Brimelow’s hard-hitting criticisms of American immigration policy. Sam Francis was allowed to write book reviews under O’Sullivan, and Steve Sailer published penetrating articles on race from a sociobiological perspective. NR reviewed favorably not only Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein’s The Bell Curve (1994), but also Prof. J. Phillipe Rushton’s race realist masterpiece Race, Evolution, and Behavior (1995).
 |
| Buy The Clash of Civilizations from Amazon.com |
At the same time, Auster gained notoriety with his groundbreaking book on immigration, The Path to National Suicide (1990), the first serious critique of the disastrous 1965 Immigration Act. Samuel Huntington, a neo-liberal Democrat at Harvard rocked the establishment in the 1990s by publishing “The Clash of Civilizations,” first in the quarterly Foreign Affairs as the “X” article of its day, and then later in full, book-length form. Huntington’s book (far more impressive than his later, plaintive Who Are We?) discussed China and Islam as threats or “challenger civilizations” to the West. Huntington explored the role of unchecked nonwhite immigration to the West and its demographic impact, as well as the corrosive role of multiculturalism advocated by its elites. Brimelow’s landmark book Alien Nation: Common Sense about America’s Immigration Disaster was published in 1995.
American Renaissance’s first conference, held in Atlanta in 1994, occurred at the height of this burgeoning new interest in race and civilization and gave those who hoped for a mainstreaming of race realism great grounds for optimism. It seemed as though Taylor had made a clean break from racialism’s unsavory past. Not only did requiring men to wear coats and ties, the mandatory dress code at AR conferences, probably discourage some skinheads from attending, but AR seemed to be courting a mainstream audience and marginalizing extremists.
The extent of Jewish participation in the conference made clear it was no neo-Nazi event. Four of the ten speakers were Jewish, including the traditional orthodox rabbi Mayer Schiller, who brought many of his rabbinical students with him. Some have estimated that up to a quarter of the 160 attendees were Jewish, and Rabbi Schiller received a Kosher meal at the banquet. Furthermore, Taylor did not allow David Duke to attend. (He came to the hotel that hosted the conference nevertheless, and his acolytes who were attending the conference gave him reports of what was going on inside.)
Two of the speakers who addressed biological differences among the races were Jewish: Prof. Michael Levin of City College of New York and Eugene Valberg, former professor of philosopy at the University of New Orleans. It is notable that this conference not only attracted Ph.D.’s, but even an actual academic. Levin, the author of the monumental Why Race Matters (1997), spoke on “The Policy Consequences of Racial Differences.”
Not only did a rabbi speak at the conference, but so did a Catholic priest, Fr. Robert Tacelli. These clerics were a nod of encouragement to the religious right, the dominant constituency of American conservatism. The conference also featured speakers who were more or less still a part of mainstream conservatism, such as Lawrence Auster and the syndicated columnists Sam Francis and Joe Sobran.
 |
| We thought we might have found a new Buckley. |
Moderates could be excused for thinking this historic conference was a serious break with the race neutrality of the modern-day right, and at the same time, a break with the extremism that had discredited race realism. It seemed that AR was going to be capable of melding the academic study of race with populist nationalism and religious conservatism into a powerful new political force. Some of us dreamed that AR would become the new NR, and that Jared Taylor was going to be the racialist equivalent of William F. Buckley, Jr. Like Buckley, Taylor was a sophisticated, charming speaker and writer. Both had attended Yale, and both were fluent in foreign languages.
However, while the first AR conference was an important step in separating race realism from the old-style white supremacism, the break was not as clear as it initially seemed. While Taylor eschewed the rhetoric of white supremacism, moderates who were waiting for him to denounce it in the pages of AR were continually disappointed. Rather, Taylor adopted the strategy of simply ignoring the conflict between the two camps of his readers. When pressed about the matter in interviews and private conversations, he always said the issue was outside the scope of the newsletter.
Furthermore, while Taylor excluded David Duke from his conferences, he made no attempt to do the same to less notorious figures who held the same views. Requiring suits and ties was not enough to keep neo-Nazis out, and they always formed a large faction at the conferences. Kevin Alfred Strom, Don Black, Jamie Kelso, and Mark Weber were regulars at AR conferences, for the simple reason that AR never gave them any reason not to appear.
Finally, Atlanta attorney Sam Dickson, a close associate and supporter of Duke who has long been prominent in the Holocaust denial movement, spoke at the 1994 conference and at every conference since. Sharp-witted and insightful as his speeches have been, moderates who knew his associations and history could not but be disturbed by his presence. While he was popular among a large contingent of conservatives, Joseph Sobran had recently been fired from National Review for what William Buckley considered anti-Semitic articles. Sobran’s attacks on Israel and Jewish influence in America would become increasingly radical over the coming years; in 2001, he addressed the Institute for Historical Review, the world’s foremost Holocaust denial advocacy group. Sobran’s associations did not keep Taylor from inviting him to be the keynote speaker at the 2004 conference.
As the years passed, the extremist faction at the conferences waxed and the mainstream faction waned, decisive proof that Taylor was either not interested in, or not capable of, creating a mainstream movement. The 1996 AR Conference was the last one to feature a member of the clergy. And Sam Francis and Roger McGrath seemed to be the last two speakers with serious ties to the mainstream conservative movement. Jewish speakers were gone after 2002. The 2004 conference featured Paul Fromm, who had long been associated with the neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial movements, as well as Sam Dickson and Joe Sobran, who spent most of his speech attacking Israel. By 2006, a mere 12 years after the first AR conference, the audience consisted largely of non-Jewish, non-religious men without any ties to the mainstream conservative movement. Moreover, this was the first conference that Jared Taylor allowed David Duke to attend. A large contingent of devotees of Stormfront, the largest neo-Nazi website, were also present.
 |
| Sam Francis, Sam Dickson, James Russell, and Jared Taylor at an AR conference. |
Meanwhile, Taylor himself revealed a radical and disturbing hostility to America’s defense of Israel. Though he never published anything about Israel in AR, he did, as the Realist points out in “Why I Started This Website,” publish three articles at The Last Ditch that were crudely and lopsidedly anti-Israeli. For Taylor, the plain lesson of 9/11 was that America should abandon support for Israel—any other view was “dangerous nonsense”; furthermore, any American action to retaliate for the 9/11 attack would prove that we valued the Israeli national interest more than our own. Such views appealed to anti-Semitic extremists and alienated moderate conservatives.
Conditions were ripe for a showdown, and one duly occurred. David Duke’s presence at the 2006 conference brought the tensions between the moderates and the extremists to a boiling point. As The Realist says in “Why I Started This Website”:
Near the end of the conference, one of the speakers, Guillaume Faye, said, in a talk about the decline of the West, that Israel might soon get wiped off the map. He viewed the prospect of Israel’s destruction as one sign of Western cultural collapse, but that was not how the audience took it. Rather, there was a thunderous round of applause coming from at least half of the audience.
At the end of the talk, David Duke got up during the question and answer period and spun out a long-winded speech on the subject of Jews’ eternal enmity to the white race, accompanied by much sympathetic chuckling and egging on from the audience. Michael Hart, a Jewish AR subscriber, got up and yelled at Duke, “You’re a f*cking Nazi, and you’re a disgrace to this conference!” Then he walked out. He, however, got no support.
Afterwards, in the May 2006 issue of AR, Taylor tried to calm the waters with an article titled “Jews and American Renaissance,” the first article Taylor had ever published on the long-standing tension among his subscribers. The article came after a letter from moderate AR subscribers urged Taylor to distance himself and his magazine from Duke and his ideas. Unfortunately, the column did not do much to clear the air.
While Taylor included welcome statements like, “AR has taken an implicit position on Jews by publishing Jewish authors and inviting Jewish speakers to AR Conferences,” and “Gentile whites—without help from anyone else—have repeatedly shown themselves capable of egalitarian excess,” he avoided an opportunity to speak out once and for all against the neo-Nazis in the AR circle.
In the rest of the article, Taylor was evenhanded in his criticism of both Duke and Hart, raising many disturbing questions: Did Taylor really think Hart’s behavior was comparable to Duke’s grandstanding, Jew-baiting display? Was Taylor afraid of offending Duke and his followers? Is Duke merely a man of “strong views” (as Taylor described him in the article) or is he an anti-Semitic neo-Nazi who drives mainstream whites away from any pro-white, racially conscious position?
Most disturbing of all, while Taylor treated Duke with kid gloves, he wrote angrily of the letter he had received. He called it condescending and said it had not influenced him at all; the subscribers had made a “mistake” by writing it.1
Taylor’s subsequent behavior has confirmed his bias in favor of the extremists. Recently, when a Holocaust denier e-mailed Taylor asking for his views on the Holocaust, Taylor refused to come down on the issue. The Holocaust denier then forwarded the exchange to Lawrence Auster, who published it on his website, “View from the Right.” Auster commented, “For Taylor, it’s equally possible that the Nazis did or did not carry out a program to dispossess, dehumanize, and exterminate the Jews of Europe, and it’s equally possible that the Nazis did or did not actually murder several million Jews.” When The Inverted World posted Auster’s commentary, a substantial discussion took place, in which Taylor himself participated. Taylor refused to affirm the occurrence of the Holocaust and ridiculed Auster and the other commenters on the thread for demanding that he take a clear stance on this issue.
This reaction was predictable. Taylor has always justified his failure to take a firm stand against extremism by stating that Jewish issues were irrelevant to American Renaissance. Nothing, however, could be more mistaken. Whites of good will everywhere are held back from joining race realist organizations by the fear that they will be associating themselves with nonsensical and extremist positions. And yet, for whatever reason, Jared Taylor is uncomfortable with the idea of reading extremists and Nazis out of the organization. Why? Do the 3,000 or so Neo-Nazi activists really add that much to the overall movement? What if AR could grow the movement ten times that amount by jettisoning the Nazis? Wouldn’t it be worth it? Just a few choice editorials and cues, as well as a different selection of conference speakers, would do the trick. Neo-Nazis don’t hang around Chronicles, for example, because they know they are not welcome there. But they do know they’ve been given a green light to participate within the AR community. Why? I’m not sure we’ll ever know.
Taylor’s behavior indicates he doesn’t mind if American Renaissance becomes a kind of “Stormfront-lite.” In all likelihood, the 2008 conference will draw an even larger crowd of neo-Nazis and a dwindling crowd of moderates. To paraphrase Gresham’s Law, the bad racialists will always drive out the good racialists.
 |
| AR still does good work … |
Besides, what Western man needs is a moral framework that will stand between the Nazi exterminationists on one hand and the anti-white deracinated leftists on the other. This is why it’s important to accept and deal with what the Nazis did. Any non-racially conscious white is going to want to know why a new version of racial theory is any different from the extremist aberrations. We should be ready to answer them instead of sticking our heads in the sand.
It is time to recognize that American Renaissance will probably not create the kind of moral framework we seek. Indeed, aside from the encouraging 1994 Conference, it never seemed that interested in continuing on this groundbreaking path, which would have required more leadership, coalition-building, and clear statements about who was welcome, who was not, and, most importantly, why. As a result of Taylor’s inaction, while many mainstream conservatives are aware of, and even sympathetic to AR, they keep it at arms length — just as AR keeps them at arms length.
 |
| …but we think it’s a dead end. |
American Renaissance may continue to do good work, though, just as The Social Contract and The Mankind Quarterly do. AR’s recent report, “Hispanics: A Statistical Portrait,” which documents Hispanic social pathologies, is useful and important. AR’s website and monthly periodical alert readers to events ignored by the rest of the media. The republication of Michael Levin’s long out-of-print Why Race Matters was a great service, as was Taylor’s recent debate against a Canadian multiculturalist.
However, American Renaissance will probably not make good on its promise to create a popular race realist movement. The work of the Realist at The Inverted World and Peter Brimelow at VDARE represent a more productive approach than AR has taken. Both are just as savvy and sophisticated as Taylor, but seem more willing to draw boundaries and engage in coalition building for the good of the cause.
Sam Raymond, a pseudonym, is an attorney and longtime follower of American politics the race realist movement.
If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don't have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click submit to get started. |
- Jared Taylor published two versions of the “Jews and American Renaissance” article, one on his website, and another in the May 2006 issue of American Renaissance. The website version, which is linked to in the body of the article, contained the remarks on the subscribers’ letter that are referred to in the article. However, the newsletter version did not. ↑
Click here to join the Inverted World mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever IW publishes new entries.
I have to say that this article made me angry. I’m extremely appreciative of Jared Taylor and the voice he has given us, so I get defensive when someone criticizes him. As a woman who married and had children with a Jewish man, I’m conflicted about the merit of this article.
I like Michael Hart and agree with his idea of carving out different racial states, yet believe that David Duke does have some valid points as well. Stormfront is obviously not my scene, yet I don’t think that those kinds of people are all evil, while those of Jewish descent are all benevolent and good. Many of the activists behind the civil rights movement and 1965 immigration act were Jewish and you know it.
Also you need to realize that people are becoming more militant and extremist as society deteriorates and as whites become minorities in many parts of the country. This isn’t Mr. Taylor’s fault and he shouldn’t be blamed for the harsher attitudes people are displaying. I know that many of my posts haven’t made it past the censors over at Amren. They (IMO) are trying to delicately balance many different viewpoints without alienating anyone.
By on 5/9/07 at 12:02 am
Raymond: you do well to use a pseudonym since you risk formal discipline or at least professional destruction if you identify yourself. This is not the work of blacks or Hispanics and you know it. You would be driven from your profession by Jews. I have spent the last 2 years steeped in the corporate diversity movement and I can promise you that blacks could not have possibly conceived of the arguments or policies that continue to dispossess whites.
Re: the holocaust—for 30 yrs there was a lively debate about the casualties resulting from the firebombing of Dresden. Indeed, specialists argue about the toll of specific civil war battles. The idea that the toll from the holocaust should be fixed forever at 6 million without the possibility of dissent is theology, not historiography. Jewish organizations have stifled this debate. Realist blathers on about “insanity” and it is all too satisfying to debate straw men. Jews have criminalized rational dissent about an epochal historical event. Without coercion, there would be a range of reasonable opinion about the casualties of the holocaust. Indeed, censorship plays into the hands of neo-Nazis because the idea that 6 million were GASSED is absurdly ahistorical (opening doors for Buchanan & Sobran & Duke to pose technological quddities). Most murdered Jews were shot. It was a messy business and subject to actuarial tweaking. But all this is CRIMINALIZED because of the Jewish activism this site denies.
Would the world come to an end if we determined that 4 million Jews were murdered? I would not be astonished if the actual number were 6 million, but I would prefer ARGUMENTS to edicts.
We do not need more Buckleys. Every reader of this site knows that blacks were a containable nusiance until the adversary left mobilized the United States government to defend/impose their interests (appetites). The same is true of Hispanics. These are not dangerous adversaries for whites. Until the last third of this century, blacks & Hispanics did not pose a threat. Jews boast of their role in empowering blacks. Without Jewish savvy, Jewish investment (primarily of talent) and Jewish idealogy blacks would not now pose a threat. Every reader knows this.
You site Brimelow. VDARE has been quite forthright in identifying Jews as critical supporters of disastrous immigration policies. Jews have been at the forefront of the civil rights catastrophe. Jews strangle NR. Levin is brilliant; Jewish rightists (Gottfried chief among these) are birds of paradise. But to suggest that whites have a stake in supporting Israel is to invite suicide.
“Moderate” conservatives will not be our friends. I am increasingly convinced that the purpose of this site is to emasculate AMREN. You inject neocon poison into our movement.
Nazis are doctrinaire. Like Taylor, I applaud rightist Jews. But I know who our real enemies are. Support Israel, deny the Jewish adversary culture. Like Realist you will spend the rest of your career apologizing for being white. You will accomplish nothing—unless your purpose is to contain white racial consciousness.
By on 5/9/07 at 12:23 am
Whites who fulminate against Muslims for not speaking out against extremists within their midst, who were frustrated throughout the Cold War for the soft line on Soviet aggression taken by many leftists, would do well to consider our own ranks.
It can sometimes be difficult, when vilified by the rest of the world, and constantly accused of being an extremist version of yourself, and being denounced in terms also used against extremists, to not find yourself in sympathy and to feel common cause with them. After all, they espouse many of the same concerns, denounce many of the same apparent errors and enemies, and sometimes share goals that at least sound the same.
Moreover, and perhaps most dangerously, extremism has a seductive power. One seduction is the illusion of greater virtue. The extremists can seem more pure, more courageous, more committed, more willing to endure sacrifice. They can inspire a silent guilt among the non-extreme for not being extreme. There can also be a competition to out-extreme the other, turning into a race off the cliff.
Another seduction is the lure of impatience and self-indulgence. The lure of giving into temptation, of casting aside all restraint, of plunging headlong and heedless into amoral or immoral means, or endorsing them, can be strong.
This is what neo-Nazi-ism and fellow traveling to it represents for us. For every genuine neo-Nazi, there may be many more who are silently complicit. Such men are like the Muslim or non-white activists in the US who reluctantly, if ever, speak out against their own extremist elements, while loudly denouncing outside critics and enemies. They are like the Iraqi who, while not taking up arms or even helping the jihad, decides not to inform his elected government or its American and other allies about the jihadi on his block.
I think that many pro-whites who are soft on neo-Naziism resemble this picture. All of us should remind ourselves if and when we are tempted by it to hit the brakes. Not everything said by the PC anti-white crowd so infuriating to us is false.
I would close by saying that while I am not a mind-reader, I don’t think that that is where Jared Taylor is coming from. He does not lack physical or moral courage, and is a gentleman of discipline and restraint. He simply has some views, and has made some decisions, that are at best wrongheaded and at worst deeply threatening to the health of what little there is of a decent and effective pro-white movement.
By on 5/9/07 at 1:16 am
Jared Taylor has done a tremendous service for whites. I do not take kindly to attacks on him. He stands among a few. A few truly great men.
You can’t talk about race, multiculturalism, and current U.S. society without talking about Jewish involvement. It’s impossible. You can ignore it, but it won’t go away. Any kind of dissent is quickly squashed. I do believe Jews are, many times, solely singled out (not necessarily innocent, but certainly singled out). It is not untrue that they have had a dominant role (compared to their population percentage) in social changes over the past 50+ years. And, many of those changes have been disastrous for the non-Jewish white majority. This has not gone unnoticed. I believe their thinking focuses more on the consequences of their inaction than on the consequences of their action. I also think a lot of Jews are quick to use the anti-Semitic label just as quickly as blacks use the racist label. This prevents real dialogue. And lastly, the Holocaust was not just about Jews. Six millions non-Jews perished as well and that I have never heard a Jew acknowledge. I cannot end this without saying that Jews have contributed greatly to American society as well. Great things with truly great consequences. I just hope that more and more of them will shed their liberal leanings which are helping to destroy this nation and provides ammunition for their detractors and enemies.
I invite rebuttal but please keep it civil.
By on 5/9/07 at 1:27 am
Fine article, Mr. “Raymond.” It helps me to coalesce much of my thinking. I am a race realist, but cannot abide the anti-Semitic bent of the extremists. Group differences must be explained based on biology and genetics, not the almost fundamentalist, anti-scientific mysticism inherent in the anti-Semites’ meta-narrative (sorry for the post-modernist terminology, but in this case it fits). Jews (at least non-Sephardic jews) are part of the same partly inbred extended families as other whites. There is no reason then that they would deterministically seek to thwart the interests of other whites. Rather, it must be, as Steve Sailer has suggested, more akin to a pathological and at times self-defeating response to the various religious-oriented discrimination they have dealt with over the centuries.
The fact that the various races will act differently, based on mean intelligence, propensity toward aggressive behavior, and spontaneity, to name just a few traits, cannot be denied when viewed with the scientific lens. This, then, in my mind is the the future in slicing through the fog of leftist, multiculturalist, politically correct fundamentalism.
By on 5/9/07 at 2:38 am
Diver, I don’t know quite what you mean by “deterministically” in this context. You announce that group differences “must” be explained based on biology & genetics, then proceed to reconstruct a mystical or at least psycho-analytic explanation for salient Jewish behavior. I think you may be conflating group differences with group conflicts. Internecine group conflicts are all too common among whites.
There was no “deterministic” reason for the Germans to seek to thwart the interests of other whites (Poles, Jews). Their excuse was Versailles. There was no genetic reason for the 30 yrs war that laid waste to Europe. Transubstantiation is unscientific but the doctrine fascinated combatants.
MacDonald’s argument from the perspective of evolutionary biology seems more consistent with your positivist approach. Germans & Ashkanazam are both white, but if you will recall the protocol, it is I & my brother against my cousin.
By on 5/9/07 at 12:16 pm
To DiverCity
“Jews (at least non-Sephardic jews) are part of the same partly inbred extended families as other whites. There is no reason then that they would deterministically seek to thwart the interests of other whites.”
Genetically, the Jews belong to the same extended family of the White race as other Whites. They are Whites of the Mediterranean race and an Italian person is genetically closer to a Jew than a Swede. Furthermore, there is no “Jewish race” and virtually all physical attributes found in the White race are found among the Jews.
The right people to blame for this situation are the Gentiles who controlled the Politburo after WWII. The Jews were purged by Stalin.
The anti-colonialist, anti-racialist foreign policy of Soviet Union is responsible for what has happened to our nations. Youth radicalism of the 1960s was a Soviet ploy to destabilize the West. Now the radicals are tenured and have become multiculturalists.
By on 5/9/07 at 12:36 pm
“Whites of good will everywhere are held back from joining race realist organizations by the fear that they will be associating themselves with nonsensical and extremist positions.”
I re-read the article and take issue with the statement above. I believe whites of good will everywhere are held back from joining race realist organizations by the fear that they will lose their jobs. And, their friends & family won’t support them because they fear they will lose their jobs, too! And they most likely will.
I also believe, for some whites, they feel they are above it all. Oh no, I don’t hate because I am so much better than that. Ladies and gentlemen, being a part of the human race knocks you down a couple of rungs on the ladder. Get off your high horse, wipe the foggy glasses, and take a good look at the society you are leaving your descendants.
By on 5/9/07 at 1:14 pm
“I believe whites of good will everywhere are held back from joining race realist organizations by the fear that they will lose their jobs.”
Why should Whites join such organizations?
By on 5/9/07 at 1:54 pm
Perhaps, ironic jihad, what I said is a psychoanalytic rationale (not that I’m competent to so opine) for certain behavior of Jews, many of whom (as liberal anti-white racists) act against their own interests as whites. What I mean by deterministic is that the reason for this is not be genetic. Blacks, with lower mean intelligence, etc., will act in accordance with their genetic makeup. And yes, that leads to group conflicts. Sailer opines that the moving force behind liberalism is internecine conflict.
Thucydides, we agree.
By on 5/9/07 at 2:57 pm
Thucydides,
To stop their disenfranchisement and displacement. As a group, you yield more power. Everyone knows whites are fragmented. Everyone knows whites don’t vote based on race. Why do you think no candidate ever panders to the white realist agenda? No leadership with race loyalty. We could achieve much through such organizations.
By on 5/9/07 at 3:24 pm
Some of you folks are making my head hurt. Let’s just cut to the chase: The fact is Jew’s are vastly overrepresented of those causing the dispossession and subjugation of whites in white nations.
Many fervently believe that malevolent-spiteful Jew’s are the sole architects of race-replacement. Many Jew’s such as Michael Savage are voicing clear warnings on a regular basis that Gentiles will one day catch onto this fact and history will repeat itself. That’s why he rails constantly about the anti-Christian actions of the ACLU, National Lawyers Guild, etc. He is unambiguously trying to warn liberal Jews—and to a lesser extent liberal gentiles—to cease and desist because a violent backlash is looming.
By on 5/9/07 at 3:38 pm
First, there is nothing biological about Jews or any other people being anti-white, it’s purely psychological. If you raise a light skinned Jew as a white Christian, he will act like one in every which way.
As for what race Jews are, undoubtedly Caucasian. But if that is the case, Arabs and Persians are white also. From what I recall, since Jews, even today’s Ashkenazim, are descended from Israelites, they are Semites with lighter skin, the same way Arabs are Semites with darker skin.
The Semites are more related to the Mediterraneans (Italians, Greeks and Iberians). Among Iberians in particular, a race that to some extented has been diluted by extensive mixing with African peoples. However, the Mediterraneans, Alpines and Nordics are all European peoples, whereas Semites are not. Genetic evidence shows Ashkenazim more related to Sephardim than anyone else and both related to Arabs more than anyone else.
This is not to say that Semites aren’t white. The reasons people consider Arabs and Persians non-white is because of their religion, Islam, but racially they are white.
As for Libyans, Egyptians, Indo-Aryans etc., they were all white but mixed extensively with Negroes.
By on 5/9/07 at 3:52 pm
Miss Scarlett, in response, I can’t disagree with your posts.
The dilemma for non-Jewish whites is that since they are the most westernized, racial identity runs against their western liberal consciousness. I myself still grapple with the philosophy behind white racialism. It’s a never ending conflict between stooping to the level of blacks, Hispanics and Jews versus losing out. That is why I think maybe whites should try to crush all identity politics instead of creating one of their own.
I think I agree with you more than the realist. The reason liberal whites don’t buy racialism is because they are revolted by the concept, not because of some anti-Semites. Every movement has its extremists.
Try proposing your ideas on WABC talk radio. Try posting racialist articles on Free Republic or the Hannity Forum. Do that without the demeaning terminology and anti-Semitism. I am wandering what type of response you will get.
By on 5/9/07 at 3:56 pm
Jared Taylor’s analysis of world events is flawed. He’s important in taking the racialist movement this far, we need to take it farther. Taylor’s group cannot grow in the direction I want. Whether this means starting a new organization or just starting a magazine based on sane principles (denying the Holocaust is not sane). It’s a question of new leadership stepping up to the plate. Certainly, the intellectual manpower is already there.
No one wants to debate what the Nuremburg Trials already proved. Let the Flat Earth Society continue having their cute little meetings, with botax lipped David Duke spouting his nonsense about how many European Jews spent the war years in Aruba not in forced labor camps, and the rest of us can start the important business of restoring Western Civilization.
We are a movement in search of a leader/leadership. The demand is there. I’m sure that any newspaper written with a decent political line will sell hundreds of subscriptions.
Taylor has his political line. No point trying to reform it now.
Prime1918
By on 5/9/07 at 4:17 pm
ajo,
I must disagree with you because I think whites must acknowledge and celebrate their racial being. It not only is detrimental to our existence, it is priceless. I would even encourage ethnic celebration under the umbrella of white racial consciousness. I not only am proud of being white, I am proud of being Irish, and I am proud of my husband’s Italian heritage, too. I wish my parents had been more into their Irishness. We do have cultural differences no doubt, and sometimes those differences can cause conflict. All groups have great assets as well as undesirable traits. We aren’t just a color, we are a glorious melange of customs, culture, and accomplishments. Things that make us “us.” Uniquenesses. I look at Maryann Esposito on PBS and compared to other cooks/chefs, she not only celebrates her Italian heritage, she yearns for it, adoringly embraces it, and relishes the thought of her next encounter with it. And, it comes across to her viewers. She certainly makes me want to be Italian more than my husband does. And the reason for that is that she is proud of her heritage, whereas he barely ackowledges his. These are the things that white Americans lost when they were urged to melt together and ignore their ancestral heritage. Just like ethnic influences in American regional areas such as the Celts in the South, the Spanish in the Southwest, and the Germans in the Midwest. Or influences on cities such as the Irish in Boston, the Jews in New York, and the Polish in Chicago. The things that make things American, are rooted in “our” ancestral heritage. Pride brings content and content prevents conflict. People that are happy with themselves tend to be happy with others.
By on 5/9/07 at 8:38 pm
To Sam Raymond, The Realist, and All regarding:
“The early years of American Renaissance were a time when it seemed race realism had a chance of entering the mainstream. What replaced the Cold War for many on the Right were the newer, messier issues of race and multiculturalism. The era of the “Clash of Civilizations” was just beginning. National and civilizational questions were becoming central: What is it to be a nation? Where do race and civilization intersect in the West? Are the races significantly different from each other in IQ and temperament? If so, what are the consequences for our policies on immigration, crime, bilingualism, multiculturalism, and affirmative action? Conservative and libertarian intellectuals of the 1990s were gingerly beginning to broach these subjects for the first time in a long while.”
I am a longtime frequenter of and poster on the AR website and a subscriber to the magazine for over 2 years. I had fully intended to attended the 2006 conference, but could not for personal/family reasons; that was a seriously regretted misfortune in my mind, until I found out that David Duke had attended it and the current controversy we are discussing to this day sprang up. The first question that erupted into my head when a friend of mine who had attended the conference, noted that he was there and what had happened, was this: ‘Why did Mr. Taylor allow him in and what did he expect from him?’ Also, another friend of mine who attended the conference indicated that many individuals that approached them for discussion, did in fact immediately gravitate toward the Jews are the “root of the problem” arguments and were not very open to alternative arguments that this individual had suggested.
Moreover, I was one of the individuals who signed the letter to Mr. Taylor about the incident involving Mr. Duke and Mr. Hart; I do care about the movement and its growth, so weeding out the Duke contingent not only made sense to me, it felt like a moral responsibility.
At the time, I had found his response to it reasonable; however, as time passes and evidence builds, serious questions begin to form. This is particularly true, as it seems that posters on the website who are of the more “moderate” bent over there have long and thoughtful posts routinely disregarded, while the more radical elements from both the Stormfront “sensibilities” crowd and the multicultural opposition are allowed considerable leeway. One must ask oneself, has Mr. Taylor and the AR organization in general, come to see the Racial Realists and Preservationists in the same light that the Republicans view whites as a group and the Democrats lavish upon blacks as a “hostage” constituency, as well? Are we to be seen as “stuck” with them, since we have “nowhere” else to go?
Jeepers, thanks for inviting me to the party to be a doormat!
I respect and admire Mr. Taylor sincerely; I think he is one of the greatest and most thoughtful speakers and writers, I have been lucky enough to be blessed with having access to. But that does not change a hard fact that, marginalizing the center; allowing the extremists to dominate AR participation; and taking for granted reasonable loyalty and respect from the center, as givens!
The internet and the movement do hold a freewheeling, freethinking, and free-market element, that should never be taken for granted or held in contempt, simply because Nazism and its horrors are as acknowledged by us, as those of the past Marxist genocides, and the current Multi Cult one we are living through. We might be younger, we might be more skeptical, and we might be more reasoned on these issues; here, time will tell?
However, I have made my decision for the time being; I defect to IW from AR for now, as it has ceased to be the island of commonsense and sanity that it once was!
Interesting times are just hell!!!
By on 5/9/07 at 9:55 pm
Several of the replies discuss openly the fact of (what I call) Jewish Liberal Poison and its disastrous effects. This is a welcome development. Until this fact about Jewish liberalism is brought out of the closet and discussed openly and acknowledged not to be in any way shape or form antisemitic, and further, until this truth about Jews is distinguished from genuine antisemitism, it will be difficult to shed any light on what happened at the last AR conference.
I don’t recall the details (and wasn’t there), but if my memory serves me, some of the things Duke said about Jews were substantially true. When these ‘accusations’ are automatically treated as rank antisemitism it is impossible to separate and distinguish them from the aspects of Duke’s views that are genuinely antisemitic.
It is important, of course, that we recognize that there is genuine antisemitism, just as there is genuine (anti-black) racism, but this cannot be done unless, at the same time, we distinguish the genuine article from all of the things that are so typically assumed to be antisemitic and racist but in fact are not—such as the fact that Jews are so disproportionately responsible for pushing all of the liberal poisons (promoting homosexuality, as just one example), and the fact of black criminality and why this causes whites not to want to live near them or send their children to the same schools, etc.
By on 5/10/07 at 6:51 am
“At the time, I had found his response to it reasonable; however, as time passes and evidence builds, serious questions begin to form. This is particularly true, as it seems that posters on the website who are of the more “moderate” bent over there have long and thoughtful posts routinely disregarded, while the more radical elements from both the Stormfront “sensibilities” crowd and the multicultural opposition are allowed considerable leeway.”—John PM
I think the problem lies with the moderators at AmRen. I understand Ian Jobling is no longer the moderator and he has been replaced by a mishmash of volunteers and less competent staff. I find my most thoughtful comments rejected, while conversely some of my ignorant knee-jerk reaction comments posted. Go figure!
As for the AR Conference that Duke appeared at, why blame Taylor? Did Taylor sanction Dukes comments? If not then Jared Taylor shouldn’t be blamed for the actions of another.
If you attend an office party and an employee blurts out a statement that is offensive to the company should you blame the owner of the company for the offensive statement or should the blame be placed on the one who made the statement? I’m not an apologist for Jared Taylor but it seems to me he more than made amends for what happened at the conference.
Btw— if anyone thinks AmRen gives leeway to antisemitism, just try posting a comment that even hints at insulting Jew’s and see if it gets posted. I’ll bet a dollar to a doughnut it gets rejected. It’s been that way ever since he issued his statement regarding Jews and AmRen.
By on 5/10/07 at 11:37 am
One more observation. There definitely is religion bashing that takes place at AmRen, but it isn’t directed at Judaism…it’s directed at Christianity—especially the Catholic Church.
By on 5/10/07 at 11:41 am
In response to Miss Scarlet,
There is nothing wrong with celebrating Irish, Italian, Spanish, German, French, English, Scottish, Jewish, Welsh etc. heritage. All these groups have a common language and origianl locale.
And there is nothing wrong with having a conscious white identity. Most whites think of their race as being white.
The difference is celebrating white heritage because white culture is not easily defined. Who is white isn’t easily defined either as it could mean just the descendants of those who inhabited the European continent during the most recent ice age or it could mean all Caucasians.
I am very much for arguments that discuss race realism. What I don’t think will ever succeed is an organization such as the ADL or NAACP in the US that advocates on behalf exclusively of white Americans and not other non-white Americans who were here legally. Sailer’s citizenism will work better. He is for advocating on the rights of all legal Americans, 75% of whom are white.
Also, the NAACP had many Jewish and white leaders so I can’t see why American Renaissance or the CCC shouldn’t have non-whites belong.
By on 5/10/07 at 12:57 pm
ajo,
I believe that when it comes to the disenfranchisement and dispossession of whites, there are few non-white sympathizers. There are few Jewish sympathizers as well since they have managed to separate themselves out of the rest of the white majority. Even those minorities that have been treated well by whites, which are most of them, seldom offer support. As Elizabeth Wright stated, everyone has something to lose when this country loses it white majority. She hit the nail on the head. Since it was created by whites and the fundamentals of governance are based in Europe, whites have a connection to its heritage unlike any other race. Do you think the current mayor of Los Angeles, if he were President, would respect the Magna Carter? I don’t believe so. This is part of the breakdown. The government should have demanded that all non-whites assimilate into white society. No excuses and enforce the rule. They did not. We are alienated from each other and most of us despise each other. You can’t correct that. Even bloodshed would not correct it. It is just too late.
By on 5/10/07 at 2:56 pm
I have a couple of days off and find myself irresistibly tempted to make trouble, my apologies.
I must admit that I am bemused by the idea of moderate centrist AR supporters (it has the same resonance as “Missouri Synod Porn”). Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised—recently, I came across the blog of a satanist Republican (which Andrew Greely would undoubtedly regard as a tautological description) so stimulating combinations from the idealogical menu would seem to be the order of the day. (I am not kidding about the satanist Republican, though I would expect skepticism).
To be a race realist is to blaspheme against the zeitgeist. It is unforgivable and irreversible. I think Antisemitism can be fought on principled grounds, but if anyone on this board really thinks that America is ready for Philosemitic racists, that represents a fatal tactical error.
Since the ‘70s, the Republicans have pandered on race—Reagan slowed but did not stop the pandering, Bush-the-lesser has accelerated it. That should give us the score. I think Sam Francis was right: we should steal a page from the Leo Strauss playbook and stick with an esoteric message. Concepts like “merit” and “law & order” will advance our agenda since our adversaries will come down predictably on the wrong side of the ledger. But there is not going to be, in our lifetime, a race realist dialogue - as such - that will drive election results. Once you explicitly concede the probability, indeed, the statistically significant possibility, of material race-based behavorial differences you are banished from the national dialogue. The recent spirited debate on Jewish “liberalism” is not entirely irrelevant to this phenomenon.
Nobody who thinks Jared Taylor has interesting things to say, or ever had interesting things to say, whether in English, French or Japanese is a moderate. The only whites likely to listen to us have already met us halfway—they are surfing dubious places on the internet and entertaining dangerous ideas.
I am proud to be a modified-Philosemitic-race-realist. But I would never imagine calling myself a “moderate”.
By on 5/10/07 at 8:12 pm
To Mr. Moderate, regarding:
“I think the problem lies with the moderators at AmRen. I understand Ian Jobling is no longer the moderator and he has been replaced by a mishmash of volunteers and less competent staff. I find my most thoughtful comments rejected, while conversely some of my ignorant knee-jerk reaction comments posted. Go figure!
As for the AR Conference that Duke appeared at, why blame Taylor? Did Taylor sanction Dukes comments? If not then Jared Taylor shouldn’t be blamed for the actions of another.”
First, I would like to note that your observations about the commenting problem at AR, are very perceptive. Since Dr. Jobling left the website, commenting is governed by mostly the stupid, the vindictive, and the lazy. There are exceptions, as I have a good friend who does moderate there and is top drawer, but most of the fools couldn’t grasp irony or innuendo if their life depended on it. Your insight that the crude and knee-jerk responses do tend to go up, particularly if they are a paragraph or less is dead on, now why might that be?
I would hazard a guess, that the mishmash of volunteers you speak of are more often then not part of the Stormfront sympathizers and brigands; they my not get away with putting up the anti-Semitic screeds, but keeping the debate at a level they can follow, does seem to be the norm. This is the only conclusion I can draw, since on certain nights not a single post will go up and on others only about 25% or less will. Often those are the more basic ones, certainly not anything beyond a paragraph or two, normally.
As you point out above, go figure?
As for Mr. Taylor and the 2006 Duke follies, he had seen fit to ban him in the past from the conferences. Why not this time and what was unexpected, in his absurd and disgusting antics? As I note above, I respect and admire Mr. Taylor on many levels but he has been demonstrating certain lapses in judgment and other inconsistencies that just don’t wash. For example, claiming that he has no opinion on the Holocaust, simply because he cannot give exact numbers of who was killed. I might not know with certainty that 4 million or 14 million people were killed in that genocide, but I do know that it happened and that it was wrong.
What is so hard about acknowledging that and letting it be known, that he wants to not be associated with the weirdoes and freaks who claim otherwise?
Just something to think about and all the best M&M;,
John PM!
By on 5/10/07 at 10:49 pm
After all the amazing accomplishments Taylor has achieved, it would be a sad story to have it end up being co-opted and derailed by people others. I would hope that Taylor’s “toleration” of participation of people who openly oppose the very Jews who helped to build Amren does not lead to their equal treatment…to them having any political influence over the organization. Taylor has worked extremely hard to distance himself, but he has chosen not quite to cut the rope, and I hope that he realizes that other people are trying to warp his agenda.
By on 5/11/07 at 2:35 am
I don’t agree that moderation is key. History isn’t shaped or altered by moderation. Personally, I eat, drink and sleep race. I worry about the preservation and continuity of our people. Whenever I hear or read about coalition building (like in this article)it’s a complete turn off to me. I don’t want to adopt Jesse Jackson’s “get whitey” rhetoric.
I also don’t buy Steve Sailer citizenship theory either (neither did Peter Brimelow). The wave of the future is the collapse of the nation-state altogether. Martin Van Creveld and Robert Kaplan provide some interesting reading related to this topic. The concept of George Washington and American apple pie is dead. It doesn’t please me to write this, but it is true nevertheless. My goal, as a white nationalist, is white living space, away from all other races. This cannot be accomplished by coalition building.
By on 5/11/07 at 4:37 am
I am an AR subscriber & have attended a few conferences. I think that the 2006 conference was the worst that I have attended. It wasn’t so because of the speakers, but because of the overall anti-Semitic “air” in the room caused by so many of Duke’s persuasion.
I like AR & Jared Taylor, but I would be much happier if he were to cut ties totally with the anti-Semites. They do not add anything to AR’s respectability, but they do definite harm. It’s hard to believe that a man as smart as Taylor can’t see this. He doesn’t need these people. EVERY other outlet for racially conscious whites is rife with them. Can’t we who are NOT anti-Semites have anything of our own?
By on 5/11/07 at 5:15 am
Thucydides and ajo make some factual errors regarding race.
Perhaps the best source for information about race is found in the writings of Luigi Cavalli-Sforza. His 2000 book, Genes, Peoples, and Languages and his 1994 book The History and Geography of Human Genes tell you more about race than you might have dreamed possible. (Wikipedia has an acceptable summary of his work, though it was clearly written by liberals.) Though Cavalli-Sforza makes mild PC disclaimers, these disclaimers are obviously written for the consumption of the politically-correct who would otherwise reject the clear conclusions of his research: that race is real and that the races are genetically distinct.
For the less technically-inclined, try Steve Sailer. (This article is particularly salient: http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050605_iq.htm)
Ashkenazi Jews were genetically isolated from other groups for a millennium, and during that time developed certain distinctive traits. In addition to the obvious externals, they also developed well-known genetic traits, including high IQ and susceptibility to certain diseases. It appears that the genes that cause these diseases are also responsible for high IQ. So while they are not necessarily a distinct race, they are a distinct group within a race.
As for Africans, North African Caucasians are also recognized as a distinct group, related to, but separate from, European Caucasians. Ashkenazi Jews, having their roots in the Middle East, are perhaps best considered as an outlier of the Middle Eastern people who were also the ultimate source of Europeans and North Africans, as well as the non-Semitic Middle Easterners (such as Persians, who are more similar to Europeans than to their North African neighbors).
There is a huge gap between all Caucasian groups and all African groups (with the understanding that the North African Caucasians are geographically but not genetically African). If there is any group that might be considered a Caucasian-African “mix,” it is the Berbers, though I do not know if that is due to (relatively) recent mixing or an artefact of separate evolution.
Yes, genetics is a convoluted and complex field!
By on 5/11/07 at 5:16 am
I moderated for Mr. Jobling for a period of time and left when he did.
He had very high and exact standards and stayed on top of the moderation process most all of the time. Without a doubt, he was responsible for the high level of debate and overall quality of the board.
I hadn’t even heard of White Nationalism a few months before I started moderating, so you can imagine the time Ian had to give to instruct me on the various concepts of race and the whole Neo-Nazi movement. To give an example, he had to explain the “14 words” thing to me.
At first, I was notorious for letting “Zionist Conspiracy” theories through since a lot of posts do it very subtly and never name names and reference certain literature in a veiled manner. It took a few months before I properly understood the concept well enough to identify when a poster was blaming the “Learned Elders” for everything. A lot of Ian’s extra time.
Ian is a very intelligent guy and takes whatever he does seriously and performs in an extremely professional manner.
That sentence sums up the difference between AmRen then and AmRen now. Every other article will have some post that with a wink and a nudge basically points to a certain group being responsible for everything. The site has become downright sloppy.
And when did John PM posts start getting deleted? I wondered what was going on. John PM was consistently the best and brightest poster there. The only 2 John PM posts I ever deleted were on the same night and obviously not written by him. A very poor parody. Seeing his posts first was one of the reasons I liked moderating. Frankly, if I was in a hurry, I knew I could let any of his longer posts through and come to read them later because of his track record.
Now he gets regularly deleted?
By the way and one last thing, I think Mr. Taylor deserves better than this article. I’m worried about the lack of loyalty it projects. I don’t know, it just doesn’t seem fair overall. The whole thing seems kinda touchy. Sooner or later we are all judged by our own method of judgment. Please stop bashing him and focus elsewhere. This site wouldn’t exist without him. He’s not the enemy.
A house divided against itself can not stand.
By on 5/11/07 at 3:21 pm
I’d like to respond to John PM and M respectively (and Realist interstitially).
I read Jared’s response to the controversy manufactured on this site. He said the Nazis killed a great number of Jews during the second world war because they are Jews. Inquisitor Realist then berated him aggressively and insultingly for not “accepting the holocaust and all that implies”. What could the “holocaust” possibly “imply” other than the fact that the Nazis killed a great many Jews because they were Jews? Realist could give lessons to the race-reparation hucksters, for whom it is not enough to say: “slavery was bad”. Does he want Taylor to sign a confession of white guilt? Does he argue that this event is somehow theologically unique?
Taylor intelligently declines to offer an uninformed opinion about the probable number of Jews murdered while conceding it to be a large number. Why this answer does not suffice is puzzling. I think it reflects an appreciation of the technical challenges which inhere in the subject. I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that Realist thinks whites need to graduate from reeducation camp before they may be permitted to defend their interests.
M—I suppose that anti-anti-semitic white activits can have their own tree-house. You make it sound like not caring for anchovies on pizza. Given the over-representation of Jews among our most effective adversaries, it would perhaps be most prudent to tolerate a plurality of explanations, from Realist’s inclination to blame whites (excuse me, Hitler) to the existence of an adversarial secular Jewish culture (from which many Jews honourably dissent) steeped in anti-white, or anti-western prejudice. This toleration of divergent views seems to reflect AR policy with a proviso that the preservation of civility is more important in connection with this issue than most others.
On this site, the policy seems to be to balance candour on race with moral posturing on Israel, demonstrating, I suppose that the most attractive internet lepers reside in this colony. That’s only harmlessly funny until Realist starts waiving confessions in front of Jared Taylor, demanding that he acknowledge the implications of the Holocaust—usually meaning that it is the seminal event in history; unique in the eschatological quality of its evil (Nozik thought so, Dershowitz does); distinct from any crimes committed against any lesser victims and; a badge of dishonour to be worn by whites for the remainder of history.
Sorry, I really thought the exchange with Taylor was creepy, in a borderline Stalinist sort of way. White men are sitting in prison in Europe for expressing sincere views on this issue. Some of you are clearly on the wrong side of this fight.
And, by way of postscript, I have given the matter considerable study. I would put a floor of 4 million on the Jewish victims of the holocaust and a ceiling just over six. It is quite literally impossible to rigorously reconstruct the number of Jews murdered in the occupied eastern territories (Soviet & Polish records weren’t that good) and assigning an arbitrarily precise figure is pure politics.
By on 5/11/07 at 3:59 pm
If this is posted, I am going to take my turn playing Inquisitor to Realist.
(1) Do you think David Irving should have gone to prison for his postion on the holocaust? (Irving is not a conventional “denier” but it would be interesting if you thought deniers should serve time as well). Do you acknowledge the role of Jewish organizations in crushing/criminalizing dissent on this issue? Do you support those efforts?
(2) What ARE the “implications” of the Holocaust that you referenced in preparing Jared’s signed confession? You insisted that he acknowledge not merely the fact of the Holocaust, but draw the proper idealogical conclusions. Was the murder of Jews qualitatively different than the genocide directed at gypsies or Armenians or the crimes of Pol Pot, or the horrors of the Gulag (in which Jews were not entirely uninvolved). If you’ve pre-dictated Jared’s confession it would be interesting to see the draft.
(3) Is it your view that leftist Jewish intellectuals are REASONABLY mistaken in blaming whites for the action of Hitler? Are they reasonably mistaken in blaming America which bombed Nazi Germany to rubble? You “blame” Hitler which only makes sense if the view that Hitler’s crimes are attributable to ALL whites is understandable and defensible. Please make that case more clearly for those of us who think it to be disingenuous or psychotic.
(4) Do you acknowledge a leftist, identifiably Jewish adversary culture that predated the Holocaust?
I suspect my life expectency on this board is limited. But, for what it’s worth, Taylor is unmistakably your intellectual superior. Although my views are probably closer to yours than Duke’s (there being a pretty impressive chasm between them) for all your abuse of Duke I think he would annhilate you in any fairly moderated debate. He is well informed, logically consistent, passionate and intelligent. I think he reasons from dubious premises, but he reasons. You sir, are the Vishinsky of the right, which is timely since David Frum was getting a little tired.
By on 5/11/07 at 5:31 pm
“And when did John PM posts start getting deleted? I wondered what was going on. John PM was consistently the best and brightest poster there. The only 2 John PM posts I ever deleted were on the same night and obviously not written by him. A very poor parody. Seeing his posts first was one of the reasons I liked moderating. Frankly, if I was in a hurry, I knew I could let any of his longer posts through and come to read them later because of his track record.
Now he gets regularly deleted?”
Wow, thanks for the compliments Awakened, sincerely!!!
Also thanks for not putting up the imposter(s?) rants, that was a problem on and off over there, for a bit. I caught a few and had Dr. Jobling take them down; again, we go back to his professionalism, as I noticed that problem ceased shortly after I let him know about it.
It is indeed unfortunate, but at AR I have all but been “unpersoned” and sent to the gulag by the posting apparatchiks. And I am not the only one, several of the regular and respectable posters in long term good standing have had similar treatment. Quality doesn’t seem to matter anymore, only a lack of quantity. Heck, even the one moderator I communicate with regularly has had problems and as you know, they are in a position to put stuff up on their own. The whole thing is baffling, but I am not one to stay where I am not welcome and since I have informed the AR staff through a contact about the issue with only minor favorable results for a few weeks, I feel the time has come to say “adios amigos.”
Heck, I write the stuff for free and always gave my best, so why bother with it, if it won’t go up anyway?
All the best Awakened,
John PM!
By on 5/11/07 at 8:44 pm
Ironic Jihad,
I may or may not deem it necessary to respond to criticisms like yours in an article in the future. It depends on whether I decide it’s worth my while to argue against the anti-Semitic extremist viewpoint, which is where your criticisms come from, whether you adopt this viewpoint sincerely or simply as a Devil’s advocate. All the time you spend dealing with extremists, after all, is time that you aren’t spending appealing to the mainstream. You are right to fear that your career on IW may be short-lived; after a certain point, I will just have to judge that I’ve given a fair answer to people like you and quash the endless querulousness of your breed. There’s the Authoritarian Personality for you!
Taylor’s refusal to give an opinion on the Holocaust on the grounds that he had not investigated the matter is a bold-faced avoidance of the demands of moral decency. That the Holocaust happened is part of the common wisdom of our society and is universally affirmed by the relevant expert community. When this is the case, you can judge that the common wisdom is almost certainly correct without investigating the matter for yourself. If Taylor or anyone else lived rigorously according to the principle that he would only believe things he had personally investigated, he would be so alienated from the society around him that it would be impossible for him to survive outside an insane asylum. I personally have never read a book about the American Revolution or the Civil War, yet I am in no doubt at all that they happened. How many people died at the Battle of Gettysburg? Maybe that can’t be known for sure, but I’m prepared to believe the opinion of expert scholars is the best guess, and that’s what I would tell anyone who asked me. And the consensus of the expert community is currently that six million Jews died in the Holocaust, at least so says Michael Shermer in Denying History, a reputable book. This whole philosophy of knowledge is spelled out in my article on David Duke here: http://inverted-world.com/index.php/column/column/the_insanity_of_david_duke/
By refusing to take a position on the Holocaust when the issue is so prominent among his followers, Taylor is complicit with the whitewashing of evil and the surge of anti-Jewish slander the world over. All I want is for him to prove he’s on the right side. To show he’s on the right side, he would have to at least say in AR that six million is a reasonable estimate of the number of Jewish deaths, and that there is no good reason to doubt that the gas chambers existed or that the Holocaust took place on Hitler’s orders.
I’ve made it clear that I think it is wrong to tar the West as a whole with the crimes of Hitler in my article on Adorno: http://inverted-world.com/index.php/column/column/the_origin_of_the_myth/ I think our obsession with the Holocaust is unhealthy. But I think Holocaust denial is much more unhealthy still.
The question of whether there is anything unique about the Holocaust that differentiates it from other mass killings is more interesting. I think there are good grounds for arguing that it was. The main reason was that it took place in the very heart of the civilized world, Western Europe. What made the Holocaust more horrifying than slaughters in places like Turkey, Cambodia, and even Russia is that it challenged the assumption that advanced civilization improves mankind.
I think it likely that David Duke would soundly defeat me in a debate on Holocaust denial, just as a true believer in extra-sensory perception would defeat me in a debate on that. This is because my mind is focused on reality rather than pet obsessions.
I am perfectly prepared to admit that there is a double standard in the West’s perception of Nazi and Soviet atrocities. This double standard is no doubt in part due to the facts that there are more Jews than Ukrainians in positions of power and that Jews have a stronger sense of ethnic solidarity than Ukrainians.
I don’t know what an “identifiably Jewish adversary culture” means. But I have said before that Jews have long been disproportionately likely to be on the Left and to adopt philosophical viewpoints that are antagonistic to traditional Western culture. What I have said in the previous two paragraphs I take to be truisms.
I do have to admit that I do sometimes fell glee at the thought of David Irving’s and Ernst Zundel’s imprisonment. But I recognize that this is not a moral pleasure. First they came for the Communists, and all that.
By on 5/11/07 at 10:49 pm
I’m a volunteer moderator for AmRen and I gladly dispose of anti-Semitic comments. David Duke’s “crashing” of the AmRen Conference was tragic, because it created a great deal of conflict within the White Nationalist and racial realist movement to advance his own agenda of dividing the White race into White Jews and White Gentiles. He made it clear that his first priority is attacking Jews, even if doing so causes severe harm to White Nationalism.
Plenty of Jews have attempted to cooperate with our cause. Many of them realize that the Israeli melting pot will create a society they wouldn’t wish on their progeny. Many of them reject the Zionism and victim politics that anti-Semites find objectionable. If the recent efforts by the Catholic Church to provide safe havens for illegal immigrants doesn’t wake people up to realize that Zionism isn’t the only religion that undermines our interests, then I don’t know what will.
I don’t speak for AmRen. I can only speak for myself. But I believe that an enemy of a White ethnic group is an enemy of White Nationalism.
By on 5/14/07 at 7:29 pm
I am forced to disagree with wikitopian.
1st, as to Zionism, I don’t know what you precisely mean. It’s not necessarily a religion, and I myself am very much against Jewish victim politics.
But white nationalists would want to emulate Israel, not disparage it, because in Israel, only those of Jewish or partial ethnicity can immigrate and everyone is encouraged to speak Hebrew.
As for the Church, while it may pose a problem, many prominent Catholics such as Buchanan have stood up to illegal immigration.
I would think that a traditional western conservative movement would be based supportive of the Christian religion and based on Judeo-Christian principles, not neo-Nazi like neo-paganist, odinist white nationalism.
By on 5/15/07 at 3:52 am
Ijo,
Being non-Christian does not necessarily imply being neo-paganist. I believe it’s insulting to my ancestors to take their myths and superstitions literally. They tried as they could with their knowledge of the world around them to make sense of it. I believe a pagan time-warped into the present would look at a globe and shrug “Heh, so there is no Hyperborea”. I also believe Jefferson and Franklin would have discarded their deism and became entirely secular had they known how explanatory the theory of evolution could be.
The Ancient Greeks are but one step removed from our Indo-European tribal ancestry, and their passion for deriving the truth through skeptical inquiry is unparalleled by any civilization before, during, or since. I believe I’m following in lock step with my White heritage when I am, after thoroughly studying the world around me, an atheist Nietzschean existentialist.
I associate paganism with flaky middle-aged women in sweatpants who believe infomercials and I associate paganism with White prison culture. The heritage of modern Druidry lies with Jared Taylor, “The Realist”, William Shockley, and good high school teachers. They were forced to become Christian with the persuasion of blunt force and our civilization has awkwardly labored under the Christian “slave morality” ever since.
By on 5/15/07 at 10:03 am
“I associate paganism with flaky middle-aged women in sweatpants who believe infomercials and I associate paganism with White prison culture….The heritage of modern Druidry lies with Jared Taylor” (—Wikitopian)
Jared Taylor is a modern day pagan? Hmmmm. No wonder why his movement is stuck in neutral. If AR’s version White Nationalism is neo-Paganism…you can have it!
Consider this:
“Let no one imagine that the temptation to idolatry and paganism is a matter of the distant past when primitive peoples offered sacrifice to the sun or prayed to stone outcroppings and golden calves. Remember: false gods always demand innocent blood. The evidence that a culture is descending into paganism is always manifest in the body count. This was true in ancient Babylon and it is true in modern America. Who can deny that everywhere today the false gods of liberal secularism are exacting their toll of carnage?”
Rest of essay—http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0443.html
By on 5/15/07 at 2:48 pm
HH declares “Remember: false gods always demand innocent blood” without bothering to read his Bible, which regularly calls for and describes the extraction of innocent blood. He also didn’t bother to read my post, either, or he would have seen that I define the tradition of Druidism to be in the spirit of honest and skeptical inquiry. I haven’t read all of Jared Taylor’s work, but I have yet to find the part where he demands the extraction of the blood of the innocent. I doubt I would have browsed over that without giving pause.
I will, however, be vigilant that none of the people I admire demand the blood of the innocent. Thanks for the heads-up!
By on 5/15/07 at 3:39 pm
Western civlization is based on the white European race and Christianity. And can’t survive without them. Atheists like Wikitopian and Jews like myself, as well as non-whites, can live and accept minority status and equal rights. While the Greek and Romans were western, “white” and pagan, modern Western civilization is Christian in nature. The secularization has resulted in the problems that made this site necessary.
By on 5/15/07 at 7:07 pm
“I haven’t read all of Jared Taylor’s work, but I have yet to find the part where he demands the extraction of the blood of the innocent.”—Wikitopian
The statement reads: ““Remember: false gods always demand innocent blood”
Unless you believe Jared Taylor is a god, then that statement certainly doesn’t apply to him. YOU defined Mr. Taylor as a modern Druid. That puts him in the category of a pagan, doesn’t it? I somehow get the feeling Mr. Taylor might take offence to you defining him that way…but I could be wrong?
By on 5/15/07 at 7:09 pm
I didn’t make myself clear. Jared Taylor and others that I admire who engage in skeptical inquiry aren’t pagans or neo-pagans. I’m not suggesting that anybody is a God and I’m not suggesting that anybody craves the blood of the innocent.
If Christianity is so integral to the Western experience, then why has it died qiuetly in the most White areas? Are Swedes just not Western enough to be evangelical? Without the threat of force or the presence of minorities, Christianity won’t stick to White communities because a philosophical construct built on guilt, fear, denial, ressentiment, and “being a victim” doesn’t captivate the minds of people who aren’t an underclass.
By on 5/16/07 at 12:47 am
“Jared Taylor and others that I admire who engage in skeptical inquiry aren’t pagans or neo-pagans.”—Wikitopian
I’m glad you cleared that up. But let me just say: when you mistakenly refer to Zionism as a religion, and state “The heritage of modern Druidry lies with Jared Taylor,” your qualifications to be a moderator at AmRen come into question.
Wikitopian asks: “If Christianity is so integral to the Western experience, then why has it died qiuetly in the most White areas?”
The short answer is that “pop culture” and post-modernism has had greater influence over our culture than the Church in the last fifty or so years.
Question: Is it a coincidence the decline of the West coincides with the implosion of Judeo-Christain moral absolutes and subsequently has been replaced by secular ideologies such as moral-relativism?
ajo, was dead on when he wrote: “While the Greek and Romans were western, “white” and pagan, modern Western civilization is Christian in nature.The secularization has resulted in the problems that made this site necessary.”
Here’s a good essay that I find accurately illustrates the relationship between Christianity and Western civilization’s ascendancy.
By on 5/16/07 at 11:05 am
HH inquired:
“Is it a coincidence the decline of the West coincides with the implosion of Judeo-Christain moral absolutes and subsequently has been replaced by secular ideologies such as moral-relativism?”
Christianity and Western success have an inverse correlation. The ascent of Christianity to hegemony was called “The Dark Ages”. The relaxation of Christian dogma and control was called “The Renaissance” and then “The Enlightenment”. The most religious Whites are in South Africa, in the American South, and in the Australian Outback. The least religious Whites are those least exposed to diversity.
The abolitionist movement and the “Special Rights” movement were both spearheaded by reverends. The biggest division within the Episcopal Church in the US is whether to cow to their Black African faction or their Homosexual faction. The Catholic Church is little more than a secular gentlemen’s club where it exists in Europe, but is in full force in Latin America, where they’re even being visited by the Virgin Mary in her Amerindian reincarnation.
Given the virtual absence of “decadence” among Scandinavians and White Europeans - I believe the onus is on you to explain why the force that caused Western Civilization to fall the first time (Christianity) is somehow going to be the force to save it this time.
I’m not advocating the replacement of Christianity with moral relativism anymore than I would advocate the replacement of a fork in the eye with a fork in the gut. Please do not assume that Christianity must be replaced by multiculturalism, moral relativism, and other value systems that we both agree are repugnant.
As for the article HH linked to, the fact that Christianity has been henpecked by Greco-Roman and Enlightenment Europe is proof of its vestigial nature, not proof that it somehow belongs as “one of the three”. When you see Enlightenment Europe as a continuation of Greco-Roman Europe, then you’ll see Christianity as something imposed on Europeans by force that has since been gradually giving way to the innate sociocultural predispositions of the European people.
It’s culturally alien to Europe, and deserves no grandfather clause. It’s very easy to do away with and still be European, or Europeans wouldn’t be doing it so easily (without descending into anarchy, as you would imagine).
Ajo suggested that we atheists and Jews just accept minority (dhimmi?) status within Western Civilization. I don’t see why the only White ideological group unfettered by Christian dogma and the only White ethnic group unfettered by the Catholic Church’s dysgenic practices should accept a back seat.
By on 5/16/07 at 12:52 pm
“Given the virtual absence of “decadence” among Scandinavians and White Europeans - I believe the onus is on you to explain why the force that caused Western Civilization to fall the first time (Christianity) is somehow going to be the force to save it this time.”—Wikitopian
First of all, I’m not going to pretend to have a defence for every misdeed or atrocity throughout history committed by some in the name of the Church. Some awful things happened we all know that. And by comparison, I’m not going to condeme the USA in perpetuity for allowing the evil practise slavery. EVERY governing system and organization on the planet is imperfect simply because man himself is an imperfect being. But I do find it more than a bit odd that people on the far left, and people on the far right of the political spectrum have a hatred for conservative traditional Christians and Jew’s.
But in response to Christianity saving Western Civilization. I would rather put it this way: I don’t think Christianity in itself will save it, but I do assert that Western Civilization CAN’T be saved without Judeo-Christian values.
The noted cultural-Marxist, Antonio Gramsci, knew in the early part of the twentieth century that the only way to overthrow Western Civilization was to corrupt it from within. His aim was to “liberate it from Christianity.” He knew he had to break down traditional Judeo-Christian morality and family patterns in order to undermine the established institutions from within. We can see by looking all around us evidence that his strategy is working in full strength today.
http://www.grecoreport.com/gramsci’s_grand_plan.htm
Btw— The people of Scandinavian countries are amongst the most liberal, brainwashed, ethno-masochistic, lowest birth-rate, multicultultural-loving bunch on the planet…all due to secular-liberal indoctrination!
Wikitopian referring to Christianity: “It’s culturally alien to Europe, and deserves no grandfather clause. It’s very easy to do away with and still be European, or Europeans wouldn’t be doing it so easily (without descending into anarchy, as you would imagine).”
How would the government operate if you could have your way? Would be socialist? capitalist? Would it practice eugenics? How would they deal with people that are believers in the Bible, etc.?
By on 5/16/07 at 4:37 pm
HH,
I agree with you that in a dichotomy between reformed Christian piety and multicultural or Marxist decadence, I much prefer Christian piety. I don’t, however, see that a deconstruction of Christianity necessarily means replacing it with multiculturalism, Marxism, or cultural relativism.
There is a biological drive to wish well for oneself, one’s family, one’s community, one’s nation, and one’s race. My love for my child is axiomatic. It’s neither logical nor illogical - it’s unlogical. While persistent and pervasive brainwashing has been able to divorce Whites of love for their race, their nation, and even their community - the tribal affiliation to one’s immediate family is nearly insurmountable.
All of your morality flows from the belief in God as an objective reference point, an omnipotent and omniscient arbiter of right and wrong. All of my morality flows from love of myself, my family, my community, my nation, and my race. Following logically from that ideological cornerstone is a moral framework that encourages honesty, industriousness, courage, diligence, stewardship, and sensitivity.
Richard Dawkins and John Nash could explain the logic behind my behavior through biological analogies or game theory equations, but that would imply that my moral framework is rooted in some sort of reptilian logic exercises. There are empirical and logical reasons why I feel intense love and loyalty for my brothers, my sisters, and myself. The reason I feel this love is tangential. I feel this love as a part of my being.
I beg you to read Friedrich Nietzsche’s “The Anti-Christ” for a comprehensive and spirited deconstruction of Christianity. I beg you to read Friedrich Nietzsche’s “Genealogy of Morals” for a more rigorous understanding of how morality would work outside of a Christian framework.
Out of respect for the moderator of this forum, I ask you to email me with any further correspondance. We haven’t mentioned American Renaissance or Jared Taylor for several posts, so I believe our discussion would qualify as an “off-topic tangent”.
By on 5/16/07 at 6:12 pm
This is an incisive article, although I have several cavils.
First, I hope articles attacking Jared Taylor and David Duke don’t become the main theme of this site that should be about race realism.
The article believes that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are inhibiting the racialist movement from entering the mainstream. I am Jewish and have no love for anti-Semitism. However, it must be noted that many paleocons who have no love for Israel, such as Thomas Fleming, Pat Buchanan, Scott McConnell and Taki are not associated with the racialist movement, despite the fact that all but possibly McConnell have almost the same views on race as does Taylor.
Which brings me to my next point. You mention that the Holocaust causes an association between racialism and Nazism. However, the Gulags don’t bring a similar revulsion to socialism by associating it with Bolshevism. In fact, communist figures such as Ernesto Che Guevra find acceptance, if not admiration, among the mainstream left, while the same certainly cannot be said for Hitler and the right, thankfully.
Why is this the case? Is certainly is possible that there was someting unique about the Nazi Holocaust, such as its distinct flavour to its anti-Semitism, as well as the Nazi imperialism and nationalism versus communist universalism. Also, the Germans were the only western people to commit massive genocide. But it must also be remarked that it may well be that Jewish activists have promulgated the Holocaust’s uniqueness over all other genocides. The Jewish Peter Novick writes about this fact in his book.
So what we have is mainstream society being revolted not specifically by extremists but by right wing or more accurately centrist nationalist extremists over left wing internationalist extremists. So the problem with the racialist movement may not so much be its extremists but the fact that society has shifted so far left. It begs the question asking if anti-Semitism and extremism disappeared entirely if racialism would still be accepted by the mainstream. There must be a clear distinction between the conservatism of Charles Murray and Dinesh D’Souza versus that of Sam Francis and Peter Brimelow to determine the answer.
Furthermore, while David Duke hardly makes a fine scholar or reporter, and while his ethics lack, the reason his anti-Semitism is popular among the right is based on an element of truth, that Jews really were so harmful to the racialist movement. The Jewish question may need to be addressed head on and thoughtfully instead of the usual claim that there are Protestant liberals too. Similarly, under certain circumstances, the Holocaust must be put in context with the racialist movement, given the controversy it has stirreed.
I think this movement will be better served not attacking extremists but on propounding its ideas. Every movement has its extremists, and the left and neocons get away with theirs.
As for Taylor being anti-Israel, while he did go to far about the reasons for the 911 attacks, the fact is that neocons are too sensitive to criticisms of Israel the same way liberals are sensitive to criticisms of blacks. The US is in many ways entangled with Israel, such as its giving $5 billion of aid anually. Israel has spied on the US through AIPAC, a nominally non-foreign lobby. Also, making the mideast safe for Israel was a prominent, but not the only, subconcious motive for Jewish neocons’ support of the Iraq War, even though it ended up harming Israel.
Nevertheless, what the racialist movement needs more is a critical study of Islam, which will put Israel in the proper perspective that Taylor lacks. Realizing the dangers of Islam will round out the movement as one of “clash of the civilizations”. Srdja Trifkovic, while hardly writing about race, has written plenty on the Jihad, and he has been a sensible commenter on Israel and its proper relationship with the US. He noted the obvious, that American and Israeli foreign interests won’t converge forever.
So Islam must enter in the discussions on defending Western civilization, and Israel must be properly criticized while not demonized. While Israel is a flawed but relatively westernized country, both Israelis and Americans, Jews like myself and non-Jews, agree that its relationship with the US must be reevaluated.
Again, thanks for the thoughtful article.
By ajo on 5/8/07 at 11:54 pm