Another Eagle Eyed White Nationalist Finds Me Out

I know Mr Wayne Paul Harris; at least I know of him. I get emails from Jew haters like him from Amren and now from Inverted-World almost on a weekly basis. As a matter of fact I got one from an ostensible Inverted-World reader yesterday.

These Stormfront/neo-Nazi/National Alliance knuckle-dragging cretins troll the internet to bottom feed for nutrients to sustain their obsessive Jew-hatred. By and large they are intellectual dwarfs, midgets who start from the perspective of a twisted, Jew-hating obsession and pick and choose those facts, pseudo facts, and outright insane lies which appear to bolster their fallacious arguments.

As I’ve said before, trying to reason with them is an exercise in futility because they possess no reason.

With regard to Jared Taylor, as near as I can tell (having never met him) he himself is not an anti-Semite. But the problem is he has no compunctions about consorting with same. His tepid repudiation of David Dukes’ co-opting the last Amren conference and the Jew-haters who accompanied him was the nail in the coffin for many prospective Amren supporters who are not anti-Semites.

Not wanting to offend a large portion of his readership, Taylors’ problem is that he is Nazi neutral. That is his greatest flaw. And a big one it is.

As for our Jew-hating friend Mr Harris, I’ve pasted a copy of his pleasant introductory email to me for all to see.

>From: Wayne Paul Harris

>To: Blackarrow99@hotmail.com

>Subject: You are NOT White

>Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 06:20:31 -0700 (PDT)

>

>Hello ‘White’ Jewish and Proud,

>

>Get the fuck out of AMREN you filthy khazar prick. Yeah muslims are scum

>but you and your racial brethren are fucking much worse. You ain’t got a

>place in a white homeland as you are a semitic, khazarian piece of shit.

>

>You make me sick you yiddish slime.

>

>Wayne Paul Harris

>

In the words of Borat: “Veddy Nice.”

>

>—————————————-

By on 4/16/07 at 8:58 pm

Can anyone here tell me how to comment on articles on View From the Right? For the life of me I can’t figure out how to do it.

By on 4/16/07 at 9:27 pm

Just e-mail Larry through the link on the right side of his page.

I don’t think there are too many anti-Semitic commenters on IW. They commented on the first two or three articles I posted, but I haven’t seen much from them since. I don’t moderate most of the comments on this site, but I would have thought that my partner Mike would have filtered those out.

By on 4/16/07 at 10:23 pm

“I don’t think there are too many anti-Semitic commenters on IW. They commented on the first two or three articles I posted, but I haven’t seen much from them since. I don’t moderate most of the comments on this site, but I would have thought that my partner Mike would have filtered those out.”

By The Realist on 4/16/07 at 8:23 pm

Yes, I know there aren’t many anti-Semitic comments on this site. I’ve logged on every single day since this site started, and I agree.

They may not comment here, but they comment to me. But I don’t mind. I really don’t. I can handle them. In a way they’re funny. Tragic but funny.

By the way, Realist, this site has it ten times over Amren. It’s much more visually appealing, the editorial content is more sophisticated, and it’s all inclusive. In the end, quite frankly, it appeals to a better class of people.

By the way, if you ever decide to hold a conference, count me in. Best wishes for continued success.

By on 4/17/07 at 12:08 am

Jared Taylor I believe has “good intentions” (no pun intended) however I believe he is building for the present and not for the future. Yes, in condemning weird behaviors, you will lose membership in the short term, but the idea is that you become more mainstream and then you make it up in the future by replacing these lost people with normal people. Amren is a great magazine dealing with racial reality however David Duke has stirred stuff up now, and the previously repressed hatred between Jews and Nazis has started to emerge not privately but publically. I simply don’t know if Amren can ever recover, I wish it well, but I don’t know if it can.

By on 4/17/07 at 12:55 am

In response to the following exchange:

<< Wayne Harris to Jared Taylor

I applaud your valiant defense of white civilization.

However the myth of the holocaust is a millstone around the neck of any nascent white nationalist movement.

Where do you stand on this? Did the Nazis genocidally wipe out 6 million jews or did they not?

Jared Taylor to Wayne Harris:

I’m not an expert on the subject, and it is not one into which I have looked. >>

Someone—perhaps Lawrence Auster—wrote the following:

<< So, Jared Taylor, a person who is certainly at the right end of the bell curve, maintains the same position on the Nazi war against the Jews that he maintained to me in the mid-’90s when he told me he was an “agnostic” on the issue: 12 years later, he still professes to have no opinion about whether one of the major events in world history actually took place, and to know nothing about it. 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. And he has never “looked into” the subject! >>

Whoever wrote this is maliciously twisting my reply into something it obviously is not. I don’t know even know how many American soldiers died in the First or Second World Wars. Or how many Armenians were massacred. Indeed, these are questions I have not looked into. If, in order to pass muster with whoever wrote this nonsense, I will have to have a considered and specific view on the number of Jews killed by the Nazis, I am perfectly content not to pass muster.

Jared Taylor

By Jared Taylor on 4/17/07 at 12:30 pm

Someone just told me that “Jared Taylor, or someone claiming to be him, just left a response [at Inverted World] to your comments about him yesterday.”

It’s impossible that Taylor wrote that comment. The commenter says he doesn’t know how many Americans were killed in the World Wars—as though Jared Taylor would say that or as though he would confess to being unable to find out such information.

The comment is a clever parody by someone sending up Taylor’s claim that he doesn’t know about and has no opinion about whether the Nazi murder of European Jewry took place.

By on 4/17/07 at 2:58 pm

I’ve e-mailed Taylor asking him if he wrote the comment with his name on it above. It wouldn’t surprise me if he did. It does take a mind at the right end of the bell curve to evade the demands of basic decency so cleverly. “Taylor” answers only the narrow question of whether it was six million Jews who died in the Holocaust and avoids the real question that is implied by his correspondent’s message: Did the Holocaust happen? The first question is a matter of legitimate debate—one legitimate scholar estimated the number was closer to 4.5 million—, but the second question is not. Oh, isn’t he just the sly one!

By on 4/17/07 at 10:54 pm

In my previous comment, I said that the comment in this thread signed by Jared Taylor was obviously a parody written by someone else, making the humorous point that Taylor’s claim to know nothing about the Nazi genocide of the Jews is as ludicrous as if he had said he had no idea of how many Americans died in the First World War and Second World War and had no way of finding out. 

It now appears that what seemed to me an obvious send-up was in fact real.  A person I’ll call JM has just sent me an e-mail exchange he had with Jared Taylor, in which Taylor quotes, as his own position, his two previous statements on this subject, first his reply to Wayne Harris which Harris sent to me and I posted at my site, and then the comment by “Jared Taylor” that was posted here at Inverted World—the second comment being the very one I thought was a parody, but now turns out to be authentic.

Here’s the exchange: 

JM to Taylor:

I followed the Halifax affair and supported your right to freedom of expression. I thought you to be a breath of fresh air. However, today, I read the following opinion piece at “Inverted World”. If they have quoted you accurately, it would seem that your inclination is to disbelieve the Holocaust. As a Jew I find that to be extremely upsetting.

http://inverted-world.com/index.php/news/news/anothereagleeyedwhitenationalistfindsme_out/

I hope you can provide some clarification on this. Thank you.

Taylor to JM::

I stand by my previous answer:

<< Where do you stand on this? Did the Nazis genocidally wipe out 6 million jews or did they not?

Jared Taylor to Wayne Harris:

I’m not an expert on the subject, and it is not one into which I have looked.>>

I don’t know how many Armenians were killed after the First World War. I don’t know how many American soldiers died in the Second or First World Wars. If, in order to pass muster with you, I must have a considered and definite view on the number of Jews killed by the Nazis, I shall have to be satisfied not to pass muster.

Jared Taylor

JM replies:

Your reply and the extent to which you will go to avoid giving a straight answer is absolutely staggering. However you have left no doubt in my mind where you stand on this. It is on the side of the so called ‘revisionists’.

LA here: 

Again, a statement I thought was a parody, a statement I thought so ludicrous that Jared Taylor could not possibly have written it, he did write.  Not only did he write it, but he quoted it, as a sufficient expression of his position on the Holocaust. 

Here’s how I read his behavior. 

Basically, Taylor wants to maintains his good relations with Holocaust deniers, Nazis, and exterminationist anti-Semites, without actually embracing their conspiracy theories and other evil views about the Jews, which would make him fully one of them and thus destroy any remaining appeal he has to non-Nazis. 

In order to keep to this implausible middle ground, he can neither affirm that the Nazi exterminationist war against the Jews took place (since that would alienate his Nazi fan base), nor deny that the Nazi war against the Jews took place (since that would make him a Holocaust denier).  So he professes to be ignorant of the most basic facts about one of the major events of modern history, and, further, he claims to be incapable of knowing anything about those facts.

Thus Taylor’s moral relativism leads him to take his stand on deliberate ignorance.

By on 4/17/07 at 11:09 pm

As I said in my previous comment, Jared Taylor has taken his stand, not only on ignorance, but on the impossibility of knowing.  And this is the reason for his otherwise bizarre reference to his ignorance of American casualties in the World Wars.  His real message is as follows:  “Since it is impossible for me, Jared Taylor, to know the answer to the very easy question of how many Americans were killed in World War One and World War Two, how can any reasonable person expect me to know the answer to the really difficult question of whether the Holocaust took place?

By on 4/18/07 at 12:24 am

I don’t know even know how many American soldiers died in the First or Second World Wars. Or how many Armenians were massacred. Indeed, these are questions I have not looked into. If, in order to pass muster with whoever wrote this nonsense, I will have to have a considered and specific view on the number of Jews killed by the Nazis, I am perfectly content not to pass muster.

But would you concede that Hitler wanted to kill all of the Jews and killed large numbers of them specifically because they were Jewish? (And yes, he killed a lot of other people too, and killed them for their racial identity - Gypsies, Slavs - no one is asking if he killed Jews exclusively, just were the Jews one of the groups on his “ethnic hit list?”)

It seems to me that Taylor is trying to straddle the fence by acting as if the question were “do you believe that the number of Jews killed by Hitler was exactly 6 million?” That way he can “remain agnostic” without technically saying that he is agnostic about the essence of the Holocaust (anti-Jewish mass murder).

By on 4/18/07 at 1:11 am

I have been reading AmRen for about a year and a half. Mr. Taylor always seemed to be an honorable and decent man. But I find his evasions on this matter unsettling.

What I hope he would realize is this:

Much - probably most - of his audience at AmRen are traditionalists. Perhaps we could even be called reactionaries. We want nothing so much as a return to a saner, and more realistic understanding of the world, and a renewed appreciation of, and defence of, the acomplishments and achievements of western civilization.

Naziism was an evil, barbaric movement. And it is not only jews who understand this, nor indeed even gentile judeo-philes. The nazis murdered not only millions of jews, but also millions of christian slavs. They murdered the halt, the lame, and the retarded. They murdered anyone who got in their way.

Under their regime, Germany didn’t even produce any decent art - no music, and only buildings, monuments, and statuary that were cold, bombastic, and inhuman. All they left in their wake was suffering, rubble, and corpses.

This is not a movement which can, nor should, be rehabilitated. Nor is it one to which one should have a neutral “wait-and-see” approach. We’ve already waited. We already saw.

Also, the neo-nazi’s arguments always seem to boil down to saying “The nazis didn’t murder all those jews, and anyway, they had it coming”. The malice in their tone always reveals their actual feelings in the matter.

It also goes without saying that Naziism - with its emphasis on bellicose militarism, conquest, collectivism, and unquestioning obeyance to the fuhrer-principle - is deeply antithetical to the principles and traditions upon which this nation was founded. How anyone who proudly sported a swastika armband, as David Duke once did, can claim to be an american traditionalist is beyond me.

Many of us who have posted on AmRen are the children of World War II veterans. Taking an agnostic stance toward naziism is equivalent to being neutral to those that tried to kill our own fathers. It is in effect siding with our parents enemies. What’s traditional about that?

That millions of jews were systematically murdered by the Nazi regime is a cold, hard, historical fact, that was documented in meticulous detail by the Germans own meticulous bureaucrats (The Einsatz Gruppen field reports from the eastern front alone account for a million victims, shot en masse, within the first year after the invasion of the Soviet Union).

Anyone who seeks to reintroduce realism into public debate, should not start by making common cause with fantasists who deny a very undeniable reality.

By CSinAL on 4/18/07 at 3:51 am

As I said the other day, Taylor’s biggest flaw is that he is obviously Nazi neutral. Now he’s gone on to prove it without a doubt.

The ironic thing is that they (the Nazis and the deniers) make up his base of support, and it is those exact same cretins who will forever keep white nationalism a fringe political movement.

You would think that he’s smart enough to know that if he jettisoned the stormtroopers, normal people would be attracted to the cause and thus give it not only legitimacy but real political and social strength.

It’s really too bad that an obviously intelligent man is too blind to see the obvious.

I’ve mentioned before both here and at Amren that I get emails from Jew-haters on average of about one a week. But for every one of those, I get at least two from decent, normal white people who are repulsed by these obsessive, insane Jew-haters. They bemoan the fact that there is no political homeland for them and that they are forever destined to wander the political nether world seeking a place to call home.

By on 4/18/07 at 8:18 am

I do think it’s ridiculous that Taylor didn’t respond by saying the Holocaust happened, but that he wasn’t sure whether 5 or 6 million died. He should speak honestly. That said, Augustus is hitting a nerve that hasn’t been discussed, although I don’t agree with him. True, the Bible says Jewish persecution is the Jews’ fault. The people chiefly to blame for the Holocaust were the Nazis. Tney ordered and carried out the murder. Similarly, the Bible does not cut any slack to those who attack the Jews who deserve punishment. I do not believe a white Christian like Augustus can blame the root cause of the Holocaust on the Jews, and the Hasidim who do so are wrong. What exactly was the Jews’ crime? Liberalism, socialism, Zionism, nationalism, secularism and/or a backwards Judaism? How can we possibly know which one God was angry about? We can’t. Furthermore, my Jewish beliefs tell me it is deeply disrespectful to explain the reason of another person’s suffering, only one’s own. Saying elite, secular Jews were to blame for millions of innocent Jews’ deaths is equivalent to saying whites should be blamed. I do agree that Jews, in Isarel and elsewhere, must return to their Jewish roots and hope for the best. Keeping good relations with gentiles and having a means to defend oneself in extreme cases will is the best path. Jews naturally segregate themselves, and the webmasters of this site would not mind that, the same way it wouldn’t mind blacks and whites choosing to go their separate ways. A return to Judaism would mean abandoning ideologies, most of which have been destructive towards whites anyway. While I enjoy reading Auster’s posts, it does baffle me, although I don’t blame him as a person, that he converted to Christianity which is a blatant violation of Judaism. Conversely, he can blame me for not accepting Jesus, and I am always willing to agree to disagree with those whose religious beliefes differ from mine. The Holocaust, and Holocausts in general, have to be examined in the context of state brutality in the midst of a war, similar to whites’ displacing the Indians and enslaving the blacks except much worse. It can’t be used to blame Christians or whites, but it should be a stark example of the most anti-Christian, non-western forms of brutality done by Europeans against other Europeans (even if you say Jews aren’t European, Slavs were murdered). Only a minority of the material on the Axis powers in World War II should relate to the Holocaust, but it should be taught as a part of history. Wile whites have more or less built today’s civilization, even small groups whites themselves as well as Jews and those of any other race throughout history have sinned. I don’t think the question of whether Jews aer white or not is relevant. Either way, Jews can be of help to white nationalists if white nationalists are willing to open themselves to Jews.

By A Jewish observer on 4/18/07 at 12:07 pm

What is the point of emphasizing the holocaust, and event that took place 60+ years ago, in a movement that exists for the purpose of reasserting the identity of white people today? I would suspect that Jared Taylor would like to de-emphasize the holocaust to the point of it being no longer an issue as on the whole the holocaust is an extremely negative thing and not really a future oriented issue.

On the whole the holocaust saps the will of white people to reassert their identity. The horrible crimes of Germany under the Nazi regime that have been broadcast continuously for years have served to promote an extreme version of “tolerance”, where all kinds of people are tolerated without limit.

Does Jared Taylor want to avoid fights with people on the extreme side of identity politics? Sure! Taylor needs to choose his battles, and he already has plenty of enemies.

Obviously the holocaust is of special interest to people of a Jewish background, but the fact is the holocaust is not of any special interest to me. It would be a different issue if there were a holocaust against Jewish people going on now, but I am not going to waste my energies fighting a holocaust that happened 6 decades ago.

For that reason I can see why Taylor would not want anything to do with the holocaust. Is his answer disingenuous? Absolutely. He obviously does not think the issue of a 6 decade old holocaust is a tool that can be used for the movement. In my mind that decides the amount of attention that should be paid to the issue.

By Saul on 4/18/07 at 1:14 pm

Let me chime in on a point a couple of posters made here.

I unequivocally, completely, and utterly reject the notion that Jews, Jewish nature (whatever that is), Judaism, Jewish politcal beliefs, or anything else specifically Jewish was responsible for the Holocaust. That to me that is the worst kind of neurotic, victim mentality.

That’s what rapists used to use to justify their crimes: She dressed so provocatively that I couldn’t help myself, your honor. She was asking for it. That’s the old “the victim is responsible for the crime excuse.”

I will not in any way, shape, or form accept the notion that the Nazi genocide was brought on by the victims. Maybe some twisted people believe that. Not me, though.

No way, no how, not now, not ever, never.

By on 4/18/07 at 2:10 pm

The Holocaust might not be of special interest to Jared Taylor. Fine. It is not of special interest to me, either, but if someone asks me about “the myth of the Holocaust,” I will reply that it really happened and it was not a myth. The answer is not hard to give. Let’s not waste our time apologizing for Jared Taylor.

By on 4/18/07 at 4:14 pm

I think some posters are touching on a key point. By the way, I am all for legitimate criticisms of Jews by Jews and gentiles alike. Let me demonstrate with a scenario: Taylor, unlike other more extreme WNs such as those that the media wishes to portray, does not, as far as I can tell, believe in partioning the US into white and black territories, in enslaving, murdering or expelling blacks. If Taylor were to have his way, Congress would repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to enable individuals to discriminate if they choose, expel illegal immigrants and prevent future ones from entering, end all government benefits to legal immigrants and selectively allow in immigrants, cut foreign aid including aid to Israel, and ascertain that if the US goes to war, it goes to war for its own interests and not that of a foreign power such as Israel. I am all for these measures. There would also be grass root campaigns to raise racial realism and create new venues of media to undermine the current Jewish and liberal dominated media. Let us say this all happens. And let us say that Jews are still overrepresented on Wall Street, attend the best elementary and secondary schools and live in secluded and elaborate neighborhoods. Would gentile WNs mind? The answer will distinguish between those who are true anti-Semites, who jealously believe that since whites can’t compete with the Jews’ average superior intelligence in the workplace and will want the government to intervene on their behalf, and those who like Taylor are critical of the Jews’ negative multicultural role but consider them white and would not mind having them succeed.

Now, to understand Holocaust denial, denying another person’s or group’s crime’s is condoning that group. One doesn’t need to be a Holocaust denier to be proud of Germany, even if liberal Jews and gentiles blame the Holocaust wrongly on Germnay itself. But it would be hard pressed to be proud of the Nazis without resolving their atrocious crimes, so they deny them. Those who look up to the Nazis look up to statism, socialism and war, not the true paleoconservatism and libertarianism that racialists and white nationalists like Taylor support. The split between anti-Semites and anti-anti-Semites in the WN movement may loosely be a split between libertarians and socialists.

However, the Holocaust should be no more important than any other event in European history, and admitting the Holocaust happened should not deligitimize Europe, even if leftist historians attempt to do that, the same way that admitting the Gulags happened shouldn’t deligitimize Eastern Europe.

Another element of the anti-Semitism in the WN movement has its root in that WNs feel their views will never be accepted until the power of the Jews’ is neutralized. If this means using legitimate propoganda based on solid research and truths, than this is a reasonable fear of Jews, and it can be overcome. If only lies and violence are the answer, it means that the Jews are all powerful. I can assure you that I personally am not all powerful.

Taylor should take the approach to Holocaust denial the way libertarians take to 911 conspiracies. A movement should be able to criticize elements of itself to succeed, but its main focus should not be nuts in its midst that should be ignored but presenting its ideas to the mainstream.

By A Jewish observer on 4/18/07 at 5:03 pm

This debate would be amusing if it did not show such a grim determination to find me in the wrong. In answer to an unsolicited question from an unknown person asking if the Nazis kiled 6 million people in the holocaust, I reply in a single sentence that I have not looked into the matter.

From that single one-line reply, I am taken to be a moral inferior, indifferent to the plight of Jews, and a revisionist. Given this reaction to that single sentence, it is clear that whatever I say here will have no effect on the thiking of people determined to find fault with me.

Therefore, I will limit my further observtions to the following: The Nazis clearly killed a great many Jews during the Second World War because they were Jews. I don’t know if they killed 6 million or more or fewer. If my not having a firm opinion on that number makes me a moral inferior—well, you can’t please everyone.

Jared Taylor

By Jared Taylor on 4/18/07 at 5:50 pm

“The Nazis clearly killed a great many Jews during the Second World War because they were Jews. I don’t know if they killed 6 million or more or fewer. If my not having a firm opinion on that number makes me a moral inferior—well, you can’t please everyone.”

This is the standard Holocaust-denier line. Holocaust deniers are generally willing to admit that some Jews died under the Nazi regime. How many is a “great many,” after all? 6,000? Six million? But Holocaust deniers aren’t willing to say that the Holocaust, with all that word implies, happened. I’m sorry, Mr. Taylor, but to restore our faith in your decency and sanity, you have to say that the Holocaust happened. That is, you have to admit it was a massacre whose horrifying magnitude and senselessness entitles it to its own special name.

Notice, by the way, how long it took him to state that any Jews at all had died under the Nazi regime. He didn’t say that the first time, when Wayne Harris asked him; nor the second time, when JM asked him. It was only after an outcry risked seriously damaging his reputation that he was willing to make even this patronizing little concession.

By on 4/18/07 at 9:04 pm

The Realist’s last comment is very good.

I would make just one quibble. The Nazi campaign of destruction against European Jews should not be described as “senseless.” “Senseless” is the standard liberal description of any horrifying crime, because liberals don’t want to acknowledge that evil exists, that it is intelligible, predictable, and frequently preventable. Thus President Bush and others calls the Virginia Tech mass murder “senseless.” That way they don’t have to take responsibilty for the fact that evil like this has happened before and the signs of it were plainly to be seen in this case, but that our liberal society is unwilling to take decisive action to isolate a dangerous person from society by committing him to a mental institution, as it would have done to this young man, in, say, 1950.  Pre-1960s America did not call evil and homicidal madness “senseless”; it call it a danger to society, a danger that society had to take action to prevent. 

Similarly, there was nothing senseless about the Holocaust, any more than jihad is senseless. In both cases there is an intelligible motive.  The Nazis regarded the Jews as the enemy of Aryan man, they believed the Jews’ very existence was a threat to the being and essence of Aryan man, and so the Jews had to be eliminated.

To call the Nazi campaign against the Jews “senseless” is like President Bush calling the insurgents in Iraq “dead-enders” and “haters of freedom,” instead of what they are: people devoted to a fully formed belief system of world conquest.  Society cannot oppose and effectively protect itself from evil as long as it calls evil “senseless.”

By on 4/18/07 at 10:29 pm

To put in another way, how does “admitting” the holocaust help the movement? I do not care if the people at NIKZOR are right or the revisionists are right. If I thought “admitting” the holocaust would be beneficial in reasserting the identity of white people, then I would admit it openly, and shout it out at the top of my lungs. Unfortunately, “admitting” the holocaust not only gets me nothing, it actually works against the movement as the issue is framed at the moment.

Perhaps it would be better for Jewish people that insist on the importance of the holocaust to explain why “admitting” the holocaust should be central and a litmus test for leadership in the movement.

Personally, I wish the the holocaust issue would just go away. That is a different thing to denying the holocaust. If satisfying a fetish that (some) Jewish people have about the holocaust means “admitting” it, and admitting it means the issue will go away, then I would be fine with that, but do not expect me to fight it out with revisionists.

Really, the coming at people like Taylor and asking “you need to accept the holocaust” is like coming at him saying “you need to accept the flat-tax”. Both add baggage to a movement that cannot afford to be weighed down by minutiae. What other atrocities will Taylor have to accept before her can be Kosher? The “Armenian Holocaust”? Rwanda? None of these things are germane to reasserting white identity.

By Saul on 4/18/07 at 11:29 pm

It’s not that Taylor needs to “admit” to any tragedy. It’s that neo-Nazi foul mouths have been attempting to infiltrate this movement. Remember how this started: a neo-Nazi emailed Taylor saying that the Holocaust was a millstone around his neck. No one brought up the Holocaust before this denier entered the scene who said “the myth of the Holocaust”. It wasn’t as if Jews were pressing beforehand that American Renaissance print articles about the Holocaust. Taylor could simply have responded that the Holocaust happened, the same way the WTC were caused by Arab terrorists or that the earth is round, and that the questioner was a nut, and there would be no story. No Jewish AR member, as far as I know, is asking that the Holocaust rememberance become part of the AR’s goals.

By AJO on 4/19/07 at 3:13 pm

Jared Taylor wrote:

“This debate would be amusing if it did not show such a grim determination to find me in the wrong. In answer to an unsolicited question from an unknown person asking if the Nazis kiled 6 million people in the holocaust, I reply in a single sentence that I have not looked into the matter.”

Taylor’s suggestion that he “not looked into the matter” of the Holocaust not only sounds ludicrous, it is literally impossible.  From his college years up until at least 1996 when I had my last personal communications with him, Taylor’s closest friend was Mark Weber, the editor of the Journal of Historical Review, the leading Holocaust denial publication in the U.S.  To believe that Taylor has “not looked into the matter” we would have to believe that in all those years when his friend Weber was becoming a Holocaust denier and was writing and publishing a magazine filled with articles denying that the Holocaust had happened, Taylor never read any of those articles and never discussed the subject with Weber.

By on 4/19/07 at 5:46 pm

“To put in another way, how does “admitting” the holocaust help the movement?”

By Saul on 4/18/07 at 9:29 pm

I’ll tell you exactly how.

Because the Holocaust was perpetrated in the name of racial supremacy, specifically Aryan supremacy, it will forever be associated with any kind of racial consciousness or racial advocacy politics. Particularly the white brand.

Because the stigma of the most enormous mass murder in history is correctly attached to the Nazis and Nazi ideology is directly attached to the idea of racial supremacy, any thought, act, or discussion of white supremacy is immediately and irrevocably linked to the Holocaust with simple cause and effect reasoning. And anyone who is in any way normal is filled with revulsion at the thought of the savagery of the Holocaust.

That being true, the attempt by neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers (merely Nazis with a different name)to minimize the enormity of the crime or deny its very existence is likewise an attempt to lessen or alleviate altogether the link between the Holocaust, Nazis, and white supremacy. If that link can be broken, then any stigma that is attached to Nazism is thereby removed. If the stigma is removed, then the door is open to profess Nazism as a benign, benevolent, and reasonable political ideology serving the interests of the white race. That way Nazism can be marketed to decent, normal white people. And then Nazis and their fellow travelers can attempt Holocaust II.

Get it?

So asking Jared Taylor, a white nationalist, specific questions about the Holocaust is a method by which one can identify him with one camp or the other. Is he a Nazi (Holocaust denier) or is he not? That is about as legitimate a question as one can ask.

As far as Jews having a “fetish” about the Holocaust, I can say that some people take attempted extermination rather personal.

(And by the way, please use a capital H when talking about it. It is a specific historical event and therefore takes a capital H.)

By on 4/19/07 at 6:01 pm

It should be noted that American Renaissance’s comments section is heavily censored and allows almost no criticism or even mentioning of jews. For example, there may be an article posted about some public figure making anti-white statements who “just happens” to be jewish. If I make a post calling attention to that fact, without any insulting language, it will almost never get through.

However, I have seen posts claiming jewish superiority over European whites and fasley claiming all white accomplishments as jewish.

By Joe on 4/19/07 at 7:55 pm

“Taylor’s closest friend was Mark Weber, the editor of the Journal of Historical Review, the leading Holocaust denial publication in the U.S.”

Jared Taylor was a mainstream liberal right up until the late eighties. I hardly believe that a mainstream liberal would have been consorting with the likes of Mr Weber.

By Mark on 4/19/07 at 8:47 pm

Jared Taylor told me that he met Mark Weber when they were in college or just out of college, travelling in Africa as I remember.  They became fast friends and remained such.  When in the ‘90s Weber was described as Taylor’s closest friend, Taylor never disputed that description.  I believe Taylor was also best man at Weber’s wedding.  It is now 2007.  Taylor has been friends with Weber for almost 35 years.  And Taylor expects us to believe that in all that time he has never taken an interest in his friend Weber’s life work, never read Weber’s magazine, never read Weber’s own writings, never attended one of Weber’s conferences, and never discussed personally with Weber the truth or falsity of the Holocaust.

By on 4/19/07 at 8:57 pm

“It should be noted that American Renaissance’s comments section is heavily censored and allows almost no criticism or even mentioning of jews.”

By Joe on 4/19/07 at 5:55 pm

Are you completely insane or just plain blind?

I don’t know how many minutes you’ve been reading Amren, but from the years I’ve been reading it I can tell you Amren is seething with Jew-haters.

As a matter of fact, that’s specifically why the Realist started this website.

And by the way, I doubt you’ve ever seen a post here or at Amren by a Jew claiming a) Jewish superiority over gentiles, or b) Jews claiming gentiles’ achievements as their own.

Furthermore, I believe the Jewish people can lay claim to enough achievements without stealing any from someone else.

By on 4/19/07 at 9:01 pm

I’m still catching up with this thread, not all of which I’ve read.

Saul writes:

“Obviously the holocaust is of special interest to people of a Jewish background, but the fact is the holocaust is not of any special interest to me. It would be a different issue if there were a holocaust against Jewish people going on now, but I am not going to waste my energies fighting a holocaust that happened 6 decades ago.

“For that reason I can see why Taylor would not want anything to do with the holocaust. Is his answer disingenuous? Absolutely. He obviously does not think the issue of a 6 decade old holocaust is a tool that can be used for the movement. In my mind that decides the amount of attention that should be paid to the issue.”

Saul is under the wild misimpression that Taylor’s critics have brought the Holocaust issue to the fore. He does not seem to realize that it is Taylor’s own Nazi fan base who make Holocaust denial central to their world view, and that the current discussion began when an anti-Semite wrote to Taylor saying that the “the myth of the holocaust is a millstone around the neck of any nascent white nationalist movement,” and asking Taylor if he thought this myth was true or not.” It was Taylor’s neutral, evasive reply that spurred me to write the blog entry at my site that The Realist then posted at this site.

Saul then continues his obtuseness with this:

“… the coming at people like Taylor and asking ‘you need to accept the holocaust’ is like coming at him saying ‘you need to accept the flat-tax’. Both add baggage to a movement that cannot afford to be weighed down by minutiae. What other atrocities will Taylor have to accept before her can be Kosher? The ‘Armenian Holocaust’? Rwanda? None of these things are germane to reasserting white identity.”

Saul seems to have no awareness that Taylor is closely associated with Holocaust-denying anti-Semites who see the existence of the Jews and the belief in the truth of the Holocaust as the major factors standing in the way of the survival and revival of the white race. Since Holocaust denial and exterminationist anti-Semitism are rightly seen by society as highly objectionable, Taylor, through his close association with Holocaust deniers and serious anti-Semites, has put himself in a position where he needs to make clear his own stand on these issues. And, as I and others have pointed out over and over again, his way of articulating his stand on Holocaust denial is to pretend to either an ignorance which is unbelievable, or an indifference which is tantamount to moral approval.

By on 4/19/07 at 10:47 pm

I’ve been reading AR since the mid 90’s. I was on the AR list serve in the 90’s(where the same thing happened) and have been reading the comments section on Amren.com since it went up.

If you think AR is “seething with Jew-haters,” as it is, you would be shocked if it weren’t censored. I have noticed that sometimes vague innuendo about jews gets through. However, well reasoned posts that cite evidence and use moderate language to critique jewish involvement in Western societies almost never get through. AR wants to avoid discussing the issue as much as possible.

If you look on some other pro-white sites, you can find long discussions of AR’s censorship and examples of what posts were and weren’t allowed, as well some exchanges with the moderators about the matter.

There have been many posts on AR to effect that white societies in general or some specific white society owes its success primarily to jews. One example: There was an article posted about an international computer programming competition for universtiy students. A team from Russia won first place. The names of the three students indicated that one was jewish and two were gentile russians. A picture of them supported that theory: the student with the jewish sounding name appeared armenoid and the two students with christian names appeared slavic. Here’s what “race realist” had to say about it:

“The best thing that ever happened to the American economy was the tidal wave of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe caused by Nazism and Communism. This programming contest seems to unfortunately indicate that we missed a couple.

Jewish intellectuals are to Eastern Europe what white farmers are to Southern Africa.”

Are you capable of understanding how outrageously false and insulting this statment is? No one with attitudes like that can be considered pro-white or a white nationalist. This is anti-white jewish supremecism. How are we supposed to take the interest in WN by jews as sincere if they think we are dumb animals that will starve to death if we don’t have a jewish elite ruling over us?

Attempts to correct or object to this outrageous post by many individuals were blocked by AR’s censors.

By Joe on 4/20/07 at 9:03 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Sam on 4/28/07 at 4:51 am

Sam,

Thanks for your excellent, thoughtful comment. I posted it on the current column because it was relevant and so it would get the attention it deserves. You could easily work this comment up into a good article for publication on IW. If you want to do this, or if you’re interested in writing another article, contact me here.

By on 4/28/07 at 10:36 am

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

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

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

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

By on 4/28/07 at 2:17 pm

Readers with a taste for the sick and the weird should look at this response to Lawrence Auster’s post on David Duke’s website:

http://www.davidduke.com/general/david-duke-replies-to-the-lawrence-auster-website_2285.html

Duke ought to respond to this: http://inverted-world.com/index.php/column/column/theinsanityofdavidduke/

By on 6/7/07 at 9:10 pm

“Really, the coming at people like Taylor and asking “you need to accept the holocaust” is like coming at him saying “you need to accept the flat-tax”. Both add baggage to a movement that cannot afford to be weighed down by minutiae. What other atrocities will Taylor have to accept before he can be Kosher? The “Armenian Holocaust”? Rwanda? None of these things are germane to reasserting white identity.” By Saul on 4/18/07 at 9:29 pm

Exactly right, Saul. The first post I made on this site had to do, basically, with what you pointed out, and it was rejected, even though I have always unequivocally indicated my preference for Jewish involvement in the white nationalist movement.

But, I added that Taylor was doing about the best he could with trying to maintain Amren without making partisan statements that somebody is always going to find fault with, so I guess that’s probably what the moderator felt couldn’t be condoned.

So, after that experience I have no reason to believe this post won’t meet the same fate, but I’m going to have my say anyway.

I’m not Jewish, so I don’t have any experience with receiving hateful emails from Neo-Nazis, but, believe me, I’ve received more than my share of hate mail from both blacks and whites, because of my posts on Amren. I know why the black hate mail was sent, but I can’t say for certain that the white hate mail came from Neo-Nazis. I only know the messages raised senseless issues just in order to offer something critical to say to me, and whether or not it was due to my written support of Jewish participation or not I don’t know, but I suspect their contact had to do with issues other than what I raised in my posts, which prompted their emails. But I handled each one with a vicious response that contained more than what was appropriate for the tone of their message, but it shut them up, and they rarely came back. If they did, they got it again.

This entire affair of splitting hairs over minute details of the Holocaust should be laid aside, and if anyone is having problems with hateful neo-Nazi emails, they should be answered in a way the sender would be reluctant to send another, then forgotten in order to get on with more pressing issues that threaten our very survival. We must have white unity at all costs, because without it, concentrating on these problems of requiring 100% adherence to a particular line of thinking is going to find us counting beans, when we should have been better prepared to confront the real threat of hatred against all whites, and, believe me, the ones that hate us, don’t care what ethnicity or religion we might have, unless, of course, they’re muslim.

The Cultural Marxists have had considerable influence on this country and still do, of course. There is much work to be done to nullify their influence in the universities, but we’re degenerating to the point where political ideology and social engineering are going to be swept away by the violence from the squabbling tribes of mal-contents, from the Muslims and their jihads to the Hispanics and their Reconquistas, to the ever-growing bitterness and armed clashes and racial riots between Hispanics and blacks. And all the militant ones either resent or hate whites, and their numbers are too great to be ignored.

We won’t have to worry about whether denunciations against our enemies are sounded loudly enough, because we’ll be knee deep in fighting for our very survival, right along with the politically correct, not long after a thrashing or two brings them to their senses.

We might go through a Brazil phase first, but if the economic situation plummets before then we could well bypass that point of degeneration and get right into the real thing.

By on 6/8/07 at 2:34 am

Robert Kelly,

Sam Raymond has stated the reasons why an explicit rejection of Nazism and Holocaust denial is essential for the growth of the race realist movement: http://inverted-world.com/index.php/feature/feature/thedeclineofamericanrenaissance/

By on 6/8/07 at 7:39 am

To: Robert Kelly,

“Sam Raymond has stated the reasons why an explicit rejection of Nazism and Holocaust denial is essential for the growth of the race realist movement: http://inverted-world.com/index.php/feature/feature/thedeclineofamericanrenaissance/” By The Realist on 6/8/07 at 5:39 am

RK: I’m well aware of what Raymond wrote. In fact it was my critique of Raymond’s article that was rejected. I do not agree with everything he wrote.

It is as I said in my first post. Too much concentration on this site is fixated on purging the last vestige of Neo-Nazism that might be lurking here and there, when it really is of little consequence, in the overall picture of the race realist movement, and concentrating so heavily on what amounts to be a secondary issue acts as a diversion to the larger problems at hand.

I can well understand the outrage a Jewish person might have in attending an Amren conference and listening to a non-stop litany by David Duke denouncing Jews for every problem white gentiles are having right now, and I think it’s appalling myself. That won’t occur in the future, I’m certain.

But Jared Taylor made it clear that these denigrations of people over wrongs, alleged or otherwise, were mostly in the past and should be set aside, because, as he mentioned, we would like to have Jewish participation, and, besides, fixating on such things were not in the best interests of what Amren was all about.

My own view is that it’s the height of stupidity to denigrate a specific group of people who are working together with everone else towards a like-minded goal. And those who do should go to another group that is more in line with their views.

The resultant chaos from Taylor’s statements initiated more comments from people in the comments section cancelling their affiliation with Amren than I’ve ever seen, and I’ve been on the site for two years now. Amren took a pretty good hit on membership on account of it, I’m sure.

So, all I’m doing here is raising the question as to whether or not too much attention is directed toward minutae, as Saul has pointed out, rather than concentrating on the larger issues, which are swiftly reaching a point of crises which will impact all of us far greater than a handful of Neo-Nazis.

By on 6/8/07 at 9:30 am

Robert Kelly,

Neo-Nazis made up a large contingent at the last AR conference; they probably formed half of the audience. These are people who believe that the most intensely studied event of 20th century history, the Holocaust, was a hoax perpetrated by Jews to bring down the white race. If you do not think that it is incumbent on Taylor to explicitly counter these people when they make up such a large part of his followers, you suffer from a serious lack of moral perspective.

By on 6/8/07 at 8:52 pm

OK, I am back a little late, and have read the responses of others, including the detailed response of Lawrence Auster.

Very well then. How about some specific points, some examples, of what Taylor should do. Let me know if you agree with this.

1. Denounce David Duke. Perhaps by describing him as a racist, or anti-semite.

2. Say that the holocaust definitely happened, and six million were killed because of it.

3. Tell white nationalists of the anti-semitic variety that they cannot come to conferences.

Would these things be the main things, or does he need to toe the line more substantially, like this -

1. Announce his political support of Israel, and the Jewish people that live there.

Is there anything else? A donation to the ADL? A visit to the holocaust museum? Does he also have to embrace the Jewish people that are not white Jews?

What specifically should he do, and if he does something, when does it end? And what should he do about people like me, someone that is so utterly uninterested in Jewish controversies except in as far as it steals away oxygen from core issues, like this post is doing.

Am I also to be an ‘anti-semite’ because I do not know or particularly care if the number of Jewish deaths during world war 2 was more or less than 6 million, or because I do not particularly care to give it special consideration among the 50 million or so European deaths during that war? A horrible event indeed, and one of particular concern to Jewish people and for that I am prepared to pay the issue lip service, but I do not think it should be the central issue, or the defining issue, nor should vocality on Jewish issues be the litmus test.

There is always going to be a gulf of opinion between white non-Jews and white Jews in the movement if white Jewish people think that Jewish issues should come first and foremost, whether the issue is Israel, the holocaust, or any other issue of particular interest to Jewish people.

Anyway, use this as an opportunity to lay out your specific demands for Taylor.

By Saul on 3/2/08 at 11:10 am

My specific demands would be for Taylor to:

• denounce anti-Semitism, including Holocaust Denial, on the racial right in an extended article in AR;
• speak out against displays of anti-Semitism at AR conferences, including the applause that greeted the prospect of Israel’s destruction at the 2006 AR conference;
• apologize for insulting the people who wrote to him in 2006 asking him to take action against anti-Semitism among his followers.

See this article for background.

By on 3/2/08 at 2:42 pm

Hello Ian, thank you for your reply.

How about denouncing Judeo-centrism in general, including Judeo-phobia and philo-semitism? The problem with the ‘holocaust deniers’ and anti-semites is that they place Jewish people at the center of things, which is the same as what Jewish people also do. Realistically, Jews that are white are merely a white tribe no more deserving of attention than any other white tribe.

I don’t really see why you would be surprised to see racism and prejudice by ‘race realists’. Many, lets face it, are predujiced and racist towards blacks, hispanics and others, so it shouldn’t be surprising that many hold negative attitudes towards Jewish people. “Race realism” attracts people that are more ethnocentric than the norm. Many in the ‘race realist’ movement, even the part that is not anti-semetic, willingly label other races as ‘Improvident Races’, something they would not do with Jewish people. The message seems to be anti-whatever is OK, as long as it isn’t anti-semitism.

Race realism on the other hand makes me more careful about possible prejudices I could have of other people. I mainly care about the issue because I think that cultures function best when they are able to follow their unique patterns of development, and that goes for all people of all races.

Thanks for reading.

By Saul on 3/2/08 at 9:09 pm

Saul,

The difference is that what race realists say about blacks and Hispanics is usually supported by real evidence, but what anti-Semites say about Jews is not.

By on 3/2/08 at 9:17 pm

What do pro-white activists have to gain from being anti-antisemitic, rather than being either neutral on the Jewish question or critical of Jewish influence?

If anti-antisemitism was necessary to mainstream white racialism, then Ian Jobling and Inverted World would be mainstream by now. Needless to say, this has yet to happen. And it is proof that your approach won’t work. The fact that Lawrence Auster and Ian Jobling, who are opposed to antisemitism, are not mainstream writers, but still marginalized, is proof that anti-antisemitism is not the correct path to mainstreaming racialism.

Clearly, we need a different approach. Yours hasn’t work. Lawrence Auster is not a success story. Inverted-World is not a mass movement.

I will consider changing my mind, though, if you can perhaps explain to us why non-antisemitic racialism has not become a mass movement.

Thank you, Albert Hibbert

By Alfred Hibbert on 3/4/08 at 6:38 am

Auster did write for front page Magazine. That is not small time stuff.

There may be a few people who oppose antisemitism for strategic reasons. They have some success. It is true that some people oppose even realistic racial thought, but you will get more support the more sane your viewpoints you have. Which brings me to my next point, many people are not opposing antisemitism for purely strategic reasons, but because they don’t agree with you. Some people genuinely don’t see the world through your world view. While there are benefits to rejecting those viewpoints, that isn’t always the entire motive. Just because people do not live up to your expectations of what you think they should believe does not mean they are holding back their true viewpoints.

By on 3/5/08 at 5:31 am

“The fact that Lawrence Auster and Ian Jobling, who are opposed to antisemitism, are not mainstream writers, but still marginalized, is proof that anti-antisemitism is not the correct path to racialism.”

Albert Hibbert

I wholeheartedly disagree with the above conclusion, which I believe is based on a fallacious assumption: the assumption that it is anti-Semitism and anti-Semitism alone that is the primary reason for the poor reception of White racial consciousness by the masses. It is part of the mix for sure, but not the only ingredient in the recipe.

One of the primary reasons that Whites — and I’m talking about normal, everyday Whites — eschew the cause of White racial politics is because of the lingering revulsion at the atrocities committed by the Third Reich. For a hundred years and beyond people will assume — erroneously — that mass murder and genocide are the necessary and natural end result of racial consciousness.

Of course, this is not so.

No one here or at Amrem (well, almost no one) is advocating violence much less genocide against non Whites. Along with racial consciousness everyday Whites associate the angry, authoritative, Fascist/Nazi personality type. This type is crudely and embarrassingly demonstrated by the emails I receive all the time. I gave an excellent example of this mentality in my comment which opens this thread.

That example represents the apotheosis of racial consciousness in the minds of normal people, particularly White people. It is not necessarily anti, anti-Semitism which turns people off. It is the crude, mindless, reactionary, paranoiac and unsophisticated type of specious reasoning associated with it, as evidenced by the email I pasted to my comment.

People are instantaneously and justifiably turned off by that kind of thinking and the personality type that goes with it. And with good reason. Would you want a man like that as a neighbor, as a husband to your daughter? Would you want a man like that as a spokesman for the cause of White racial consciousness. Would you want that man running a country? Of course you wouldn’t. Neither would I. And neither would anyone else who wasn’t insane.

That is one reason — and a good one it is.

Two other reasons are both time and brain washing. The brain washing, I don’t have to tell you, is both endemic and epidemic. You can hardly nowadays turn on a TV show, newscast, read a magazine article or book, or even watch a movie where the message of diversity, multiculturalism, and the Whites-as-cancer myth isn’t shoved down your gagging throat. Go to any school from kindergarten up to and through post graduate school where the cause of diversity is given its intellectual legitimacy. That I believe constitutes nothing less than brainwashing. Most cannot resist it.

And then there’s the time element. Social change takes time, often years, decades, and even centuries and sometimes millenia. My take on the time factor is this.

There are tens of millions of people who live in remote, low populated areas and small towns all over this vast country. To most of these people I would surmise the only Black person they know or have ever known is old smiling Willie, who drives around town in a dented pick-up hauling trash and doing odd jobs for the locals. For them, he represents Blacks. Plus there are perhaps millions more who never even seen, much less have dealt with, Blacks on a regular basis or in substantial numbers. The only Blacks they see are on sitcoms or sports programs.

When they happen upon websites such as this, they can’t help be befuddled by what they see. Some of the anecdotes they read are completely foreign to their experience and alien to them.

For others, it is only years and years of exposure to the Black man and his ways before the racial reality sets in. And this despite the fact that many of these people truly believe that all men are created equal and look upon Blacks and others with benevolence and magnanimity.

Then, they get hit in the face with the hard rock or reality. And after much time and thinking and soul searching, they come to realize that the differences among the races are profound and irrevocable.

It is for these reasons in addition to anti-Semitism, I believe, which keeps the idea of White racial consciousness both distasteful and marginalized to the masses.

By on 3/5/08 at 4:25 pm

Correction.

The following sentence from my recent post should read: It is not necessarily anti-Semitism (not anti- anti-Semitism) which turns people off. It is the crude, mindless, reactionary, paranoiac and unsophisticated type of specious reasoning associated with it, as evidenced by the email I pasted to my comment.

By on 3/5/08 at 11:30 pm