The following is an interview I recently conducted with ‘Reactionary Jew’ and ‘The Rebbe,’ two Twitter figures from a small grouping known as the Jewish ‘Alt-Right,’ or ‘Jewish Alternative.’ As someone who has studied Jewish dynamics in White societies for more than a decade, I was interested by recent media attention in The Forward and elsewhere concerning Josh Seidel, an American Jew who claimed to be part of the Alt-Right. I say interested rather than ‘surprised’ or ‘puzzled’ because history is replete with small numbers of Jews who have pursued, what are from their perspective, ostensibly unusual political and ideological paths. In the most extreme cases, Jews have been pioneers of what has been termed ‘anti-Semitism.’ For example, one of the first great exposures of the anti-Gentile content of the Talmud was carried out in Germany by the 16 th century Jewish apostate Johannes Pfefferkorn. Between 1507 and 1521 Pfefferkorn acted like a kind of early modern Andrew Anglin, printing more pamphlets (in both German and Latin) attacking Jewish behavior than any other author. He demanded that Jews cease their practice of usury, and aggressively upbraided them for what may be loosely described as a range of ‘anti-social’ behaviors.
Despite his great zeal in anti-Jewish activity, because of his origins Pfefferkorn was the object of much distrust, derision, and suspicion by his contemporaries. The same responses have been evident in relation to the small collective of Jewish nationalists seeking shade under the Alt-Right umbrella. Hostile non-Jewish responses are, given the sobering weight of grim history between our peoples, predictable, justified, and eminently sensible. The threat of infiltration, co-option, and misdirection is very real. I have composed essays explicitly dealing with this subject from a historical perspective, and I have advocated for the exclusion of Jews from the life of our movement for the sake of its ideological and material integrity. Possessing an eye for historical context, I didn’t like Seidel’s use of the term ‘Alt-Right’ to describe what he is, or what he claims to be. Seidel may well be a reactionary of sorts, and he may well be opposed to much of the agenda of the mainstream Jewish community. However, that does not make him a part of the Alt-Right, a movement which is, in the main, an outgrowth of European ethno-nationalism. He can no more be part of the Alt-Right than I can be a part of the Chabad-Lubavitch sect. The Alt-Right is not a social club. It is the organic expression of national will – the will of the best elements of the European peoples.
One doesn’t need to feel that the proverbial “all Jews” are dedicated to fighting against us in order to see that a blanket exclusion would be useful. Any suggestion of co-operation should be considered moot. A blunt ‘anti-Semitism’ that paints in broad strokes isn’t necessarily intellectually sophisticated, but it is a useful ‘shorthand’ for confronting some of our most pressing social, political, and economic issues. One might consider the analogy that our opposing forces act as a giant knife, cutting into the heart of the nation. The coterie of Leftists, anarchists, degenerates, homosexuals, self-interested elites, and others of our race make up the bulk of the blade. But with what preponderance are Jews found at the razors edge! It is almost always Jewish radicals that are found with the most cutting, most offensive, and most devastating theories and activism; theories and activism that appear designed only to divide, to separate, to tear apart. It is because of what occurs at the ‘razor’s edge’ that ‘anti-Semitism’ finds both its cold logic and shattering power.
That being said, one should be wary of being sucked into a lowly resentment of one’s opponents. One should be aware of socio-political realities without being consumed by them. Nietzsche once astutely observed that the aristocratic mind is capable of shrugging off opposition, and of always finding the means to a respect for one’s opponents. The lower mind, more fearful and shadowy, will recoil from a full confrontation with reality, preferring instead to view his enemy as monolithic, as ‘evil.’ His enemy stalks him everywhere. Like Nietzsche, I reject the concepts of good and evil, as they are popularly understood, and with that I reject the notion that all Jews are ‘evil,’ or even that there is something ‘evil’ about Jews. We have opposing interests and differing approaches and strategies to life. And I believe that these differences also have metaphysical expressions. However, I do not believe that Jews are all-powerful, and I do not believe that, in and of itself, communication with Jews is liable to leave one vulnerable to ideological deviation. Communication and co-operation are entirely different spheres.
Having laid this groundwork, I ask of readers only that the treat the following interview with the aristocratic mind-set I expect them to have. For my part, I have dispensed with soft approaches and have posed questions in a respectful attempt to get to the heart of what these individuals are in relation to us. They are clearly not members of the Alt-Right, but as strongly identified Jews what do they have to say about issues that the Alt-Right is concerned with? About identity? About the Jewish assault on Europeans? About future prospects for both peoples? One might enquire why such answers would matter. Purely on a personal level I would reply by pointing to curiosity; curiosity about truth, but also the truth that can be found even in deception, self-deception, or the sense of self that prevails in an opposing tribe. For the same reasons, I would interview the leadership of both the ADL and the SPLC if they’d dare to let me. I am sure that the answers provided in such interviews would provide food for both thought and discussion. Such interviews would sharpen our indignation, our ideological understanding, and our political senses. This one, I believe, is no different.
AJ: In the last 12 months there have been spasmodic debates surrounding the definition of ‘Alt-Right.’ How do you define it?
RJ: I perceive it as a broad-tent coalition bound together by one thing: explicitly fighting for white European interests, manifested via nationalism, either in one’s own country, or around the world. Within this label, there are many disagreements about peripheral issues (socialism vs. more libertarian economic systems, ethnic nationalism vs. racial nationalism, etc.). Some Alt-Right issues are considered important by the majority of the movement and seem almost inseparable from that core of white interests, such as the Jewish Question, traditionalist revival, etc., but are valued specifically because of how they are tied to white group interests and identity within the context of the movement. While I do think the Jewish question is (very) important, and I do believe in traditional sexual morality, I also consider those who disagree with me on both of those fronts to still be considered Alt-Right if they are fighting for explicitly white European interests. I should note that I do not consider Breitbart/Milo/PJW/etc. to be Alt-Right, since they refuse to talk in explicitly racial terms and will “condemn racism” when it comes down to it.
TR: The traditional “National Review” center-right confronted communism on a global scale and delayed creeping socialism. These two threats were stalking horses for the real enemy of the West: what you call “Cultural Marxism” (Jews would describe as “Frankism”). This Jewish Satanic heresy is the dominant paradigm of the Jewish intelligentsia and the Reformed/Re-constructivist denominations. The Alt-Right is a late-hour counter-reaction to this threat. While much of the Alt-Right doesn’t even fully comprehend this inchoate “POZ,” it has nevertheless mounted a successful intellectual assault and helped bring about the greatest political upset since Truman.
I have some thoughts.
It seems silly to me for any group, including white nationalists, to antagonize potential friends and allies. I’m not saying every group would be wise to immediately confide in everyone who claims to be a friend, but why blow off potential supporters? When there is no way to police who claims to be a member of your group, such as the Alt Right, why proclaim bans against Jews or any group? That’s just virtue signaling and purity spiraling.
Jews on or near the Alt Right will at times have clashing interests with other members of the Alt Right. This is normal and healthy. Any Jew who is not concerned with the welfare of Jews in general is a fringe Jew. You can care about the welfare of groups other than you own, it is just unhealthy to care more about the health of outsiders than your own kind.
Andrew Joyce writes: “…the small collective of Jewish nationalists seeking shade under the Alt-Right umbrella.”
What does Alt-Right mean? If it simply means its denotative meaning, an Alternative Right, then Jews along with anyone can join. If Alt Right means a gateway to a white nationalism that is inherently racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic, then Jews have a less comfortable fit.
However you define it, I don’t know any Jews who are “seeking shade under the Alt Right umbrella.” Jews, as far as I can see, aren’t seeking any material benefit or social benefit from joining the Alt Right. Jews, like non-Jews, who identify with or sympathize with the Alt Right, are usually following their conscience. They are seeking truth. Sometimes truth is painful and is not a comfortable fit with one’s primary identity. All groups have good points and bad points and in different places and in different times, different fits are differently appropriate. There are no permanent allies or enemies in the universe, no objective good guys and bad guys, unless you seeing things through the eyes of faith, which is subjective.
Andrew writes: “Hostile non-Jewish responses are, given the sobering weight of grim history between our peoples, predictable, justified, and eminently sensible.”
The history between Jews and Europeans is complicated. It has its times of comity and of enmity. Even if its history was entirely the grim affair pictured by Andrew Joyce, hostility to all Jews in all circumstances in the current year is probably not rational and helpful to the cause of the Alt Right and nationalism and sanity and the pursuit of truth. I know Kevin MacDonald has said many times that he welcomes Jewish support for white identity and white interests.
Also, a considerable number of Jews are primarily European in their genetics (and not just converts such as myself whose gentics is 15/16th European and 1/16th Chinese). If blood is destiny, then many Jews have more in common with the European gene pool than any other.
Andrew: “The threat of infiltration, co-option, and misdirection is very real.” Jews are highly selective about who gets to join the Tribe, so it would make sense for other groups to be equally selective.
Andrew: “I have advocated for the exclusion of Jews from the life of our movement for the sake of its ideological and material integrity.”
Many groups with spirit and ambition are highly selective about who they allow to join. This makes sense. On the other hand, Jews are in whites’ heads whether whites want that or not. Jews are often in whites’ bodies and vice versa. Jews are part and parcel of European history and of the European gene pool. Our histories and our DNA are often mixed. There’s been much interpenetration. There are certainly times and places where it is in Jews interests to radically exclude non-Jews just as it is sometimes in the non-Jews’ interest to exclude Jews. Friends and enemies are a matter of circumstances that change over time and place.
Andrew: “Possessing an eye for historical context, I didn’t like Seidel’s use of the term ‘Alt-Right’ to describe what he is, or what he claims to be.”
Yeah, it may be your keen eye for historical context, or it may just be your emotions or your purity spiral or your virtue signaling. There is no historical context for the “Alt Right” beyond a decade so what exactly is your “eye for historical context” showing you? The term “Alt Right” has only gained common parlance in the past year.
In every consequential movement, there is considerable internal pressure to appear more pure than your peers to gain greater glory. Sometimes this is for the good of the movement and sometimes it is for individual ego and is highly destructive to the movement.
The Mike Enoch fiasco shows how ridiculous it is for white nationalists to try to simultaneously hide their identity and to try to lead a movement and simultaneously berate others for being insufficiently fierce on The Jewish Question. Those who won’t stand behind their words can not lead and it is ridiculous when they make proclamations such as Andrew does above about how he stands for this and that and that you should too.
In this essay, Andrew Joyce reminds me of haredi rabbis in that they have both allowed themselves to be captives of their audience. If a haredi rabbi, for instance, or perhaps an Andrew Joyce, came out in favor of Zionism, they would immediately lose their position because their community would denounce them. To be a haredi gadol or a white nationalist gadol, you have to toe a certain line about Jews and a host of other subjects, and usually the purists will get the acclaim and those more dedicated to truth will have to labor in discomfort and obscurity.
Andrew: “He can no more be part of the Alt-Right than I can be a part of the Chabad-Lubavitch sect.”
Many non-Jews (such as Jon Voight and the other goyim on Chabad telethons) are close with Chabad and are embraced by Chabad and are considered friends of the Chabad movement. I’m not sure why Alt Right Jews can’t have a similar relationship with the Alt Right and white nationalism.
Andrew: “The Alt-Right is not a social club. It is the organic expression of national will – the will of the best elements of the European peoples.”
That’s just propaganda. If it makes the writer feel good, bully for him, but it is hardly logical reasoning. The Alt Right is a term no more than a decade old. There are many and diverse organic expressions of national will going back over millenia. As for what constitutes the best element of any people is subjective. There is no objective standard in the universe outside the realm of faith. THat said, I think ethno-nationalism is the most organic and natural form of political organization and the most conducive to successful adapation to evolutionary pressures.
Andrew: “Any suggestion of co-operation should be considered moot.”
Where does Andrew get this notion he’s the leader of the Alt Right, that he’s the Pope of the Alt Right, and that he can dictate policy and procedure. That’s ludicrous. The guy, I think, writes under a pseudonym. He won’t stand publicly behind his words. That may well be a self-interested position that enables Andrew to have a more comfortable life, but it is hardly the stuff of leadership. When he writes as a fuhrer, he’s LARPing. It’s ridiculous.
Andrew’s essay is frequently silly and pompous.
The coterie of Leftists, anarchists, degenerates, homosexuals, self-interested elites, and others of our race make up the bulk of the blade. But with what preponderance are Jews found at the razors edge! It is almost always Jewish radicals that are found with the most cutting, most offensive, and most devastating theories and activism; theories and activism that appear designed only to divide, to separate, to tear apart. It is because of what occurs at the ‘razor’s edge’ that ‘anti-Semitism’ finds both its cold logic and shattering power.
When you adjust for verbal IQ, education and social position, are Jews that disproportionate? They’re just acting on their self-interest like everyone else, directing the Coalition of the Fringe. You think low IQ types would naturally rise to leadership?
I would agree with Andrew that you are not red-pilled unless you are red-pilled about Jews (that in the diaspora, we often side with the Coalition of the Fringe and the organized Jewish community typically advocate the opposite policies for gentile nations that we pursue for our own people).
Andrew: “Having laid this groundwork, I ask of readers only that the treat the following interview with the aristocratic mind-set I expect them to have.”
In one sentence, Andrew combines the arrogance of youth with the pomposity of old age.
Nevertheless, I want to provide my own answers to Andrew’s questions.
AJ: In the last 12 months there have been spasmodic debates surrounding the definition of ‘Alt-Right.’ How do you define it?
Luke: “Answered above.”
AJ: I regard the work of Kevin MacDonald as one of the primary ideological foundations for the Alt-Right. Have you read MacDonald, and do you view the critical analysis of Jewish behavior as a necessary and appropriate facet of Alt-Right activity?
Luke: “I have read Kevin MacDonald. He deserves a serious scholarly response, and we haven’t seen that yet. Critical analysis of all things is appropriate for the Alt Right, including the actions of Jews as well as those of Muslims, Chinese, the various religions, etc.”
AJ: To what extent, if any, do you see yourself as White, or a part of Western culture?
Luke: “I identify as male, white, American, Australian, California, Jewish and many other things. I consider myself part of Western culture. My genetic heritage is primarily European.”
AJ: The Alt-Right is undoubtedly driven by the desire of Europeans to assert their own story and fulfil their destiny as a people. In such a context, do you think that Europeans need Jewish assistance in this effort, and what practical assistance do you believe Jews can offer Europeans?
Luke: “I’ll side with Kevin MacDonald on this one. He says that he would welcome Jewish support. I think Jews have much to contribute to Western civilization. We’re a smart energetic people. A smart white man will learn from Jews, the Chinese, the Japanese and other proud high-achievers.”
AJ: European history is replete with instances of Jews using and abusing their host populations, facilitated primarily through alliances with native corrupt elites. In response, many European populations have abused their Jewish communities when opportunities to do so have arisen. Given this long, sordid, and extremely vicious history, would you agree that a total separation of our peoples is the best path to avoiding future bloodshed?
Luke: “Human history is replete with instances of all peoples using and abusing others, including their hosts. Jews are not unique in this regard. European history is also replete with Jews getting along well with their host population and contributing to society and been valued by their gentile host nation. I don’t think a total separation of our peoples is the best path to avoiding future bloodshed. This extreme thinking seems like a purity spiral by a young man eager to impress his movement. In some times and places, it would be best for Jews to have no non-Jews present and in some times and places, it would be best for non-Jews to have no Jews present. Time and place determines these things.”
AJ: To what extent would you agree that most Jews who look to the Right are motivated mainly by an aversion to Leftist positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Luke: “Political opinions are largely determined by one’s genes in combination with environment. This applies equally to Jews and non-Jews.”
AJ: Many in the Alt-Right perceive highly ethnocentric Jews, in positions of influence, to be their most concerning opponent. Who is yours?
Luke: “That part of organized Jewry pushing a destructive left-wing agenda (not all left-wing agendas are destructive).”
AJ: As a step toward European self-assertion, I would love to see the dismantling of organizations like the Anti-Defamation League and an overall decline in Jewish influence in our societies. How would you feel about the decline of Jewish power in the West?
Luke: “If that Jewish power is doing good, I would regret that reduction in power. If that Jewish power is doing bad, I am glad to see that reduced. I feel the same about any group power. I want Jews and all peoples to feel safe. I would like to see the ADL stop pushing a left-wing agenda. The dismantling of Jewish organizations won’t create European self-assertion. Europeans will have to do that on their own.”
The Rebbe comments: “My mother converted from Anglicanism. I am bar-mitzvah’d Jew. My grandfather was an Irgun supporter and has a garden dedicated to him in Israel. Unlike virtually all American Jews, my family has been in the Anglosphere for hundreds of years. Very few Jews I’d consider as Western. I’m one of them. I’ve studied Christianity for years.”