Luke Ford

Yehuda Kertzer writes:

The second problem with partisanship for American Jews is that it reduces Jewish power. People don’t like talking about Jewish power out loud because, despite good intentions, it either sounds anti-Semitic itself or gives fodder for anti-Semites. But Jewish power in America has been essential to Jewish thriving in America, and it has required instruments of solidarity — and specifically, the technique of presenting to the rest of the world an image, even if a facade, of communal unity.

The theory was that Jews succeeded in America in part by preserving a culture of not “airing our dirty laundry in public” — which is to say, still fighting politically with one another in community and in the ballot box but preserving some modicum of internal communal coherence. This theory tells of a time when American Jews were far more vulnerable, when Jewish collective belonging was obvious, and when Jews were much less likely to be politicians themselves and therefore needed to traffic in influence more than in actual power. This lost past — largely imagined, mostly undesirable — cannot be reclaimed.

Moreover, as my colleague Tal Becker likes to say, not wanting to air one’s dirty laundry in public should not be an excuse for — as it often becomes — not wanting to do the laundry. The dirty laundry metaphor too often becomes an instrument for silencing dissent and silencing activism to correct moral flaws.

Yet even so, the consequence of this loss of collective consciousness is real and must be acknowledged. Jews have traded the security for the collective that comes with consolidated power for the promise of power that can be attained by individual Jews even if it comes at the cost of the collective.

Individual Jews can achieve unprecedented positions of power as Jews in 2018 America, but whether or not the Jewish community can wield collective power anymore is an open question, especially since there are now politically powerful Jews warring against each other on both sides of the aisle.

Here again, Jews are simply Americans: The consensus politics of the mid-20th century in America were a postwar necessity, and so in similar ways — as Noam Pianko argues — American Jews gravitated to the terminology of “peoplehood” as a matter of political convenience. This term helped American Jews hold on to some language of ethnicity, and strengthened their capacity to fight existential threats, while shedding their “otherness” and integrating as Americans. The language of peoplehood helped to establish American Jewish group identity and to form the basis for American Jewish political power.

And while I am not always a fan of the hegemonic power of the term “peoplehood” and the way that some of its users deploy it to suppress individualism and attitudes that they understand to be disloyal, I fear that the foundations of Jewish power in America, which in turn allow individuals to thrive in American politics, depend more heavily on this group identity than its critics like to admit.

It’s not often that people write publicly about Jewish power.

PDF-FOR-RYAN

I argue that the conventional wisdom among WAs [White Advocates] on the “Jewish Question” is mistaken. There is good reason to believe that many purported group differences between European Jews and gentile whites have been exaggerated. I argue that European Jews have a unique ethno-religious identity, but that they still have a white identity, and that Jews have increasingly been assimilating into white culture. I argue that if Jews are more hostile to WA interests than gentiles, this can largely be explained by group differences in religiosity, education, and perceived outgroup hostility. While I concede that Jewish elites have been disproportionately anti-white, I argue that this behavior, for the most part, is characteristic of Jewish elites rather than Jews in general. Finally, I argue that generalized hostility towards Jews is a counter-productive strategy that hurts our movement. I believe white advocacy should be a movement that accepts pro-white European Jews.

Make no mistake, we have every reason to blame antiwhite
Jews for the disproportionate impact they have
had on immigration policy and their efforts to
undermine white racial consciousness. Whites should
defend themselves, and should never be afraid to
confront their critics. However, it is unfair to blame an
entire people for harm done by their elites. Just as
blacks should not blame whites because a small
number of whites owned slaves, gentile whites should
not blame Jews or treat them all with hostility because
of the reprehensible actions of a small Jewish elite.
While we should vigorously oppose all anti-white
statements and actions, I believe it is not helpful to our
cause to oppose Jews as Jews.

I agree that many influential Jews have had a negative
impact on European civilization, and have done great
harm to our people via the ideologies they have
promoted. Nevertheless, I think there are large gaps
between the activities of the Jewish public and Jewish
elites. In other words, it is my contention that Jewish
elites, insofar as they are anti-white, for the most part
act independently of the larger Jewish population.

Kevin MacDonald wrote on page one of The Culture of Critique:

“There is no implication here [in The Culture
of Critique] of a unified Jewish “conspiracy”
to undermine gentile culture, as portrayed in
the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Since the Enlightenment, Judaism has never
been a unified, monolithic movement, and
there has clearly been a great deal of
disagreement among Jews as to how to protect
themselves and attain their interests during
this period. The movements discussed in this
volume (Boasian anthropology, political
radicalism, psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt
School of Social Research, and the New York
Intellectuals) were all advanced by relatively
few individuals whose views may not have
been known or understood by the majority of
the Jewish community. The argument is that
Jews dominated these intellectual movements,
that a strong sense of Jewish identity was
characteristic of the great majority of these
individuals, and these individuals were
pursuing a Jewish agenda in participating in
these movement . . . There is no implication
[in this book] that Judaism constitutes a
unified movement or that all segments of the
Jewish community participated in these
movements. Jews may constitute a
predominant or necessary element in radical
political movements or movements in the
social sciences, and Jewish identification may
be compatible with or even facilitate these
movements without most Jews being involved
in these movements. As a result, the question
of the overall effects of Jewish influence on
gentile culture is independent of the question
of whether most or all Jews supported the
movements to alter gentile culture.”

…When white advocates talk about “Jews,” they almost
always mean Ashkenazi or European Jews. Although
other Jewish subgroups are interesting, they are rarely
relevant to most discussions of the Jewish question.
Therefore, I have deliberately excluded any nonEuropean
Jews from Jewish samples, whenever this
was possible or prudent. [4]

In this essay “Jew” is a synonym (or near synonym) for “European Jew.”
Also, I use “gentile” primarily to describe white
Europeans who aren’t Jewish. Unless otherwise
specified, “gentile” always means “white gentile.”

One of the central assumptions of many white
advocates is that Jews see themselves as a separate,
non-white group. They believe Jews have no white
identity and no sense of kinship with or preference for
Europeans. Some even think that Jews are so highly
predisposed to ethnocentrism that they can never be
assimilated into gentile societies. I call this the
Separatist Theory.

On its face, this theory seems reasonable. Jews have
often kept their distance from gentiles. In particular,
Jews have shown powerful tendencies to live near
other Jews, marry other Jews, pick friends and
acquaintances who are Jews, and hire Jews. Even so,
there is reason to think that Jews are as capable of
integrating with gentiles as other white religious
groups.

In diverse societies, we would expect an alienated,
ethnocentric minority group to: (1) distrust most
people, (2) not expect most outsiders to be helpful, and
(3) not expect fair treatment from most people. This is
because most other people are not part of that minority.
Jews should therefore be less trusting than gentiles,
and should have lower expectations that others will
help them.

The data suggest otherwise. According to the GSS,
Jews were just as likely as most other white ethnic
groups to agree that “most people are trustworthy,”
and Jews were more likely than blacks, Hispanics, and
Asians to agree with that statement. Similarly, Jews
were as likely as most whites to agree that “most
people are fair” and that “most people are helpful;”
again, Jews were more likely than blacks, Hispanics,
and Native Americans to think so. [6] These findings
suggest that Jews do not display the kind of
ethnocentrism we would expect from an alienated,
ethnocentric minority group.

Problem 2: Jewish Intermarriage Rates and
Preferences for White Spouses

Intermarriage rates are one of the best indicators of
integration and assimilation. Although Jews are more
likely to marry within their religion than would be
expected by chance, rates of Jewish intermarriage
have risen more than threefold over the last 40 years.
Between 2005 and 2013, approximately 58 percent of
newly married Jews married a non-Jewish spouse (vs.
only 17 percent before the 1970s). [8] From the 1950s
to 2013, the proportion of Jews in new marriages who
married non-Jews increased at a linear rate of about
7.5 percentage points every decade. If current Jewish
intermarriage trends continue—and they show no sign
of stopping—by the year 2044 (the year the US Census
predicts that whites will become a minority), roughly
84 percent of American Jews who marry in that year
will marry a spouse who isn’t Jewish. Incidentally, the
annual increase in the share of people who marry
outside their religion has been far greater for American
Jews than it has been for Christians.

The exception to this trend is Orthodox Jews, who
rarely marry out. In several generations many
remaining Jews could be Orthodox, neither marrying
out nor assimilating. However, their effect on the
larger society is minimal—like that of the Amish.
Furthermore, unlike secular Jews, Orthodox Jews are
more likely than white Mainline Protestants,
Catholics, or Orthodox Christians to identify with the
Republican party.
[10] Recent statistics also suggest a
degree of instability to Orthodox Jewish identity.
According to the Pew Research Center, less than half
of those who were raised in an Orthodox Jewish
tradition still adhere to their religious upbringing as
adults.
[11]
According to recent data, married Jews were just as
likely as married gentiles to have a white spouse; in
both cases the figure was approximately 94 percent. [12]
When I combined Pew survey data with Reuters/Ipsos
data, I calculated that 12-16 percent of Jews in Jewgentile
marriages have non-white spouses. While this
is more than twice the out-marriage rate of whites as a
whole, it still means that Jews who marry out have a
clear preference for whites (given that the US is about
39 percent non-white). Put another way, Jews who
marry outside of their religion are roughly three times
less likely to marry a non-white person than would be
expected by chance.

According to the dating website CoffeeMeetsBagle,
white gentiles and Jews have very similar dating
preferences. [13]

Jews of both sexes were more likely
than white gentiles to prefer dating whites, despite the
fact that the website lets users state a preference for
any racial group. What’s more, Jews of both sexes
were more likely than gentiles to express an exclusive
preference for white people. This is not what one
would expect if Jews had no white identity.

Problem 5: Jewish Endogamy Rates Compared to
Other Religious Groups

Proponents of the Separatist Theory assume that Jews
are uniquely ethnocentric and that this reflects
something inherent in Jews. They argue further that
Jewish ethnocentrism is so ingrained that it is an
insurmountable barrier to successfully integrating
Jews into gentile societies.

However, Jews appear less ethnocentric than several
other groups. Using data from the Pew Research
Center, I found that Hindus, Orthodox Christians,
Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Buddhists, and
Mormons are all far more likely than Jews to be
endogamous, or marry within their religion. With the
possible exception of Muslims and Hindu…

The most straightforward way to test whether Jews
have a white identity is to see how they identify
themselves when presented with a wide choice of
racial categories. According to the Pew Research
Center, 90-95 percent of American Jews identify as
Non-Hispanic Whites (Note: “Net Jewish” means “All
Jews”).

The renowned writer, filmmaker, and social critic
Susan Sontag once wrote: “The white race is the
cancer of human history; it is the white race alone––its
ideologies and inventions––which eradicates
autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which
has upset the ecological balance of the planet, and
which now threatens the existence of life itself.” [27]

Gentiles rarely write in such harsh terms. It is therefore
easy to believe that Jews have no sense of kinship
towards whites, and are hostile towards them.
However, survey data suggest that most Jews do not
share these sentiments.

How should one gauge the emotional closeness Jews
feel towards whites? The General Social Survey asked
Jews and gentiles whether they felt “very close” to
whites, “not at all close” to whites, or “neither one nor
the other.”

…When Jews and gentiles were asked if they feel
emotionally close to blacks, supermajorities of both
groups say they have no feelings one way or the other.
Jews were slightly more likely than gentiles to say they
had no feeling towards blacks one way or the other,
and there was little difference in the share of gentiles
and Jews who felt “very close” or “not at all close” to
blacks. All in all, Jews were four to five times more
likely to say they felt “very close” to whites than they
were to have similar feelings towards blacks…

Problem 9: Jewish Tolerance of “Racists”
Some white advocates imagine the typical Jew as
someone like a Marxist sociology professor—
someone who actively opposes any person who
contradicts his anti-white narrative.
However, combining several years of GSS data shows
that Jews are equally (or more) likely than most white
ethnic groups—and more likely than most non-white
groups—to think “racists” should be allowed to make
public speeches, to oppose firing teachers for “racist”
attitudes, and to think “racist” publications should be
allowed in public libraries. [32]

Jews, therefore, appear
to be some of the strongest defenders of individual
expression, even of views they may find distasteful…

Concluding Remarks on the Separatism Hypothesis

Some white advocates argue that Jews lack the white
identity and emotional closeness to gentiles required
to support European civilization. They argue that
Jewish ethnocentrism and zero-sum-game competition
with whites are so strong and constant that Jews have
no place in white societies.

The evidence suggests that while Jews may be
moderately ethnocentric, they are not uniquely so
compared to other white ethnics. Jews are increasingly
integrating with whites, and appear to have a white
identity. Rather than a separatist mentality, Jews
appear to have a sense of loyalty, kinship, and
emotional feeling towards whites that is similar to the
way whites feel about each other…

Canadian Jews were no more likely than
gentiles to report having a left-wing ideology.
Surprisingly, Jews were more likely than gentiles to
identify with the political right. They were also equally
likely to identify as moderate. The evidence suggests
that, contrary to what some may think, gentiles in
Canada are more leftist than Jews. [38]
It is not only in Canada that Jews identify with the
right. During the 2010 British Elections, Jews were
nearly twice as likely as gentiles to vote Conservative,
they were less likely to vote for Labour, and were
equally likely to support the Liberal Democrats. On
the whole, Jews were more likely than any other ethnic
group in Britain to vote for a right-wing party in 2010.

Jewish politics in other English-speaking countries
also fit the British pattern. According to Kenneth
Wald, a professor of political science at the University
of Florida, “From the late 1970s on, Australian Jews
developed and exhibited a strong preference for the
country’s conservative party, the Liberals, giving the
party’s candidates roughly three-fifths of their support
in most elections.” [ 45 ] The somewhat misnamed
Australian Liberal Party has historically offered more
resistance to mass immigration than any other
mainstream Australian party. If Jews in the West were
uniformly bent on promoting open borders, we would
expect Australian Jews to favor the Labor party and its
support for open borders.
Data on French Jews suggests that they, too, are
attracted to right-wing politics…

Finally, a variety of independent studies of Jews in
European countries conducted between the late 1970s
and late 2000s have found that Jews in white countries
haven’t been significantly more leftist than gentiles,
and that European Jews tend to fall to the right or
center of the political spectrum. [52] Thus, contrary to
the stereotype of Jews being liberal everywhere
outside of Israel, Jewish liberalism appears to be more
the exception than the rule.

In recent decades,
American Jews have increasingly identified with the
Republican Party. According to several Gallup polls
conducted between 2008 and 2014, Jewish
identification with the Democratic Party declined from
71 percent in 2008 to 61 percent in 2014. By contrast,
Jewish support for the Republican Party increased
seven points from 22 percent to 29 percent.

Contrary to the
assumptions of many white advocates, a reduction in
the Jewish population of Europe, Canada, and
Australia would entail an immediate shift to the left.

However, even if the evidence shows that a small
number of Jewish elites dominate our media, and even
if there is reason to think that these elites have
promoted anti-white views, these facts alone do not
justify belief in the Fifth Column Theory. This is
because although Jewish media elites may promote
these toxic ideologies, it could also be true that Jewish
elites act independently of the Jewish public.
If there were a Jewish Fifth Column that extended all
the way to the public, we would predict that Jews
should be more likely than any other racial group to
express high levels of confidence in higher education,
television, and the press. There is no question that
American television, media, and universities have
promoted anti-white ideologies. If Jews
disproportionately support those ideologies, they
should have greater faith than gentiles in these
institutions. Moreover, Jews have been highly
overrepresented among college admissions officers
and university faculty for many years. As a result, the
Fifth Column Theory predicts that Jews should have
more confidence than gentiles in higher education.
GSS data show this is not the case.
Dr. Tom Smith’s analysis of the General Social Survey
found that between 1990 and 2002, Jews were no more
or less likely than any other European ethnic group to
have confidence in television, the media, and higher
education. [67]
Jews were also less likely than Blacks,
Hispanics, and Asians to express confidence in
television and higher education, and were less likely
than Hispanics and Asians to express confidence in the
mass media.
I re-aggregated GSS data in order to compare gentiles
to European Jews in two separate time periods, 1973 –
1989 and 1990 – 2014. [68] During the 1970s and 80s, I
found that Jews were just as likely as gentiles to have
confidence in the media, but were slightly less likely
to say they had “hardly any” confidence. On the other
hand, after 1989, Jews were just as likely as gentiles to
express large, moderate, and low levels of confidence
in the American media…

In conclusion, there is little support for the Fifth
Column theory. There is a great deal of international
variation in Jewish voting patterns and political
ideologies. Jews in the West are becoming less liberal,
and Jews have no more trust than gentiles in Jewishdominated
institutions. These results suggest that the
anti-white behavior of certain Jewish elites does not
reflect the views of ordinary Jews. [71]

III. Jews and the Gates of Europe

Perhaps the strongest evidence against Jews involves
the systematic efforts by Jewish elites to promote mass
immigration into white countries. The Culture of
Critique outlines these efforts in striking detail, and
they may lead one to conclude that: (1) the Jewish
public overwhelmingly supports open borders and
massive Third-World immigration, (2) that far more
than any other group, Jews want to open the West’s
immigration floodgates, and (3) that Jews in general
are responsible for opening the West to non-white
immigration. I call this the Floodgate Theory. Here are
four reasons why the theory is probably false.

British Jews were just as likely as British whites to vote for Brexit.

In the United States, however, there is no denying that
Jews display a tendency towards liberalism on
immigration. Yet how large a group difference must
be in order to be thought of as “substantial” is a
subjective question.
If whites and Jews are as likely to share the same
attitudes on nearly 70 percent of immigration-related
issues, it does not seem fair to single out ordinary Jews
for their role in supposedly opening the floodgates.

On foreign policy, Jewish Republicans have views
analogous to their gentile counterparts and generally
agree on how to pursue US interests abroad.

Jewish Republicans do not appear to be markedly prowar,
and their views on appropriate levels of military
spending are identical to those of gentile Republicans.

In sum, while there appear to be a few Jewish
Republicans who support a hawkish US foreign policy
out of a desire to help Israel, Jews in the GOP largely
see eye to eye with gentiles.

Reason 3: No Correlation Between Mass
Immigration and the Size of the Jewish Population

If the Jewish public were responsible for opening the
immigration floodgates, we would expect countries
with more Jews to have larger shares of immigrants. If
we look at data on 39 white countries in which there
was information on the size of the country’s immigrant
and Jewish populations, we see a positive (but
statistically insignificant) correlation between the
number of Jews per 100,000 people, and immigrants
as a percentage of the population.

In layman’s terms, so long as white countries are
equally wealthy, they are just as likely to have high or
low levels of immigrants (on average), no matter how
many Jews live in them. Prosperity rather than Jewish
influence appears to be the main reason why the Third
World immigrates to Europe.

Furthermore, there was no correlation between the
number of Jews per 100,000 people within a white
nation, and percentage changes in the number of
immigrants (as a percentage of a country’s population)
between 1990 and 2013. Put simply, white countries
with large Jewish populations are no more or less
likely to gain more immigrants over time compared to
countries with small Jewish populations. By the same
token, there was no association between increases or
decreases in a white country’s Jewish population, and
changes in its immigrant population.

Moreover, since
the overall size of the Jewish population is a proxy for
the number of Jewish elites within a nation, these
findings suggest that reducing the number of Jewish
elites (or Jews generally) within a nation would not
decrease its level of support for open borders.

So far I have found one survey on whites and Jews that
could be used to estimate the proportion of race realists
within each group. From 1988 to 2014, the General
Social Survey asked its respondents “Are Black/White
differences in income, housing, and jobs partly due to
the fact that most Blacks have less of an inborn ability
to learn?” During the 1988-1998 and 2000-2014
periods, Jews were just as likely as the general white
population to agree with this statement (unfortunately
only about one in 10 people in both groups agreed). [90]
As such, GSS data suggests that, proportionately, there
are as many Jewish race realists as gentile race realists.
Still, the extent to which Jews are represented in the
WA movement remains an interesting question. When
it still published a monthly magazine, American
Renaissance conducted a survey of its readership. It
found that approximately 3.3 percent of readers were
Jewish. [91] Since Jews are roughly 2 percent of the
population, this suggests that Jews are slightly
overrepresented among supporters of pro-white
identity politics.

Additionally, after researching the backgrounds of 75
of the most prominent race realists, several colleagues
and I discovered that about 13 percent could be shown
to have Jewish ancestry. [93]This means that Jews were
roughly seven times more likely to be prominent race
realists than would be expected by chance alone.

Furthermore, although one of the basic assumptions of
WAs—myself included—is that Jews have certainly
been pioneers in promoting anti-white thinking, are
elite Jews today really that much more anti-white than
elite gentiles? There may be some way to answer this
question empirically, but until that research is done, it
is worth pointing out that it has become almost as easy
to find sick, anti-white statements from elite gentiles
as from Jews.
Bill Clinton looks forward to the day when the United
States has no majority race. [201] The Army’s chief of
staff, General George Casey, says he believes that “the
strength of our Army comes from our diversity.” [202]
Joschka Fischer, the former foreign minister and vice
chancellor of Germany says his country should be
“contained from outside and heterogenized from the
inside by influx, ‘diluted’ so to speak.” [ 203 ]
John
Gorton, the former Prime Minister of Australia says
“if we build up gradually inside Australia, a proportion
of people without white skins, then there will be a
complete lack of consciousness that it is being built up
. . . . [W]e will [then] . . . have a multi-racial country
without racial tensions, perhaps the first in the world.”
[ 204 ] Thomas Eriksen, a professor of social
anthropology at the University of Oslo says, “The
most important blank spot exists now in
deconstructing the majority so thoroughly that it can
never be called the majority again . . . . Something like
this could contribute to both understanding and
liberation.” [205]
Syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher says, “I hate
the idea of being white. I never think of myself as
belonging to the ‘white race.’ Those who do, in my
experience, are invariably second-raters, seeking
solace for their own failures. I can think of few things
more degrading than being proud to be white.” [206]
Peter Sutherland is a former attorney general of
Ireland, and the UN’s Special Representative for
International Migration. He says: “The United States,
or Australia and New Zealand, are migrant societies
and therefore they accommodate more readily those
from other backgrounds than we do ourselves, who
still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference
from others. And that’s precisely what the European
Union, in my view, should be doing its best to
undermine.” [207]
This list could be much longer. It is increasingly less
defensible to single out Jews for special criticism
because of their anti-white vitriol.
Another reason I can imagine for promoting BANs
would be to protect any future white institution,
community, or ethnostate that we might establish.
BANs would build up support for excluding Jews
early so there will already be political support for
excluding them from whatever was established.
Purveyors of BANs fear that if Jews remain in an
ethnostate, for example, they will subvert it from
within. Jewish elites have historically been good at
promoting dissent and exerting negative influences on
popular culture. Elite Jews have also been able to
accomplish these things far out of proportion to their
numbers. The risk of permitting a Jewish fifth column
to remain within an ethnostate would therefore be too
great.
In my view, this view errs on two fronts. As I have
argued above, there is good reason to think that the
general Jewish public is not a fifth column within
white societies. Also, setting aside the moral issue of
excluding Jews, such a policy makes sense only if one
makes two assumptions: First, that Jews cannot be
successfully brought into a white consciousness
movement, and second, that Jews would want to stay
in a white community or ethnostate.
I think the first assumption is wrong given the wealth
of evidence presented above. However, if Jews
remained extremely anti-white uber-leftists, and even
if they couldn’t be brought into our movement, they
would surely leave an ethnostate or community once it
was established.
From this point of view, trying to influence people
with broadly anti-Jewish narratives is not a productive
use of time. After all, if the “anti-Semites” are wrong,
they’re wrong, and if they’re right (and if they win),
they gain nothing by peddling BANs given that what
they want is something that would happen anyway.
Finally, some WAs may think the real benefit of BANs
is not to build support for excluding Jews, but that they
are an effective tactic for persuading more people of
Race Realism, the ills of diversity, and the need to
defend white interests.

Moreover, there are several prominent Jews who have tirelessly
promoted our cause, often at great personal expense.
These include people such as Byron Roth, Mayer
Schiller, Michael Levin, Paul Gottfried, and Robert
Weissberg. These men have all spoken at American
Renaissance conferences. What do we gain by
alienating them and the community they represent?
More recently, other Jews have helped promote racerealist,
anti-orthodox thinking. Steven Miller, Donald
Trump’s senior policy advisor and warm-up speaker at
his rallies, is Jewish. [208] Although he is certainly not
an open race realist, many of his statements seem to
reflect a level of understanding of race that is more
advanced and sophisticated than that of Mr. Trump,
and more closely aligned with WA views. Whether he
would see himself in that role or not, he is doing more
practical good for whites today than any of the
presumed “leaders” of our movement.
Milo Yiannopoulos, the flamboyant Breitbart writer
and campus speaker, is Jewish on his mother’s side.
[209] Although his goal often seems to be to provoke
outrage any way he can, his open assault on taboos is
very helpful in breaking down resistance to WA ideas.
We hurt our own cause if we refuse to cooperate with
such people or create an aura around our ideas that
scares away other Jews who might play similar roles.
At the same time, I have never seen a WA point out a
Jewish angle on some issue in a way that persuaded a
normal person of anything he was not already inclined
to believe. I fully agree with Jared Taylor when he
says, “I don’t think that in the United States you gain
any points if you’re in a debate with someone, and you
point out the Jewish element.” [210]
I would go further.
Pointing out the Jewish element to the unconvinced is
counterproductive. Most people see any mention of
Jews as a crackpot conspiracy theory that is unworthy
of consideration. Although I have seen exceptions, the
pattern seems to be that bringing up the Jewish
Question in the manner WAs do reduces our
credibility.
Finally, attacking Jews plays into the hands of people
who accuse us of being “Neo-Nazis.” Any accusation
of “Nazism” that a reasonable person would find
plausible marks someone as an unhinged fanatic
whose opinions can be ignored. Nothing is better
calculated to drive away potential comrades than siegheiling
and swastikas, and anyone who doesn’t realize
this has such bad judgment he probably cannot be
trusted to get much of anything right.

Remember: Our goal is to advance our own interests.
We need not work against the interests of others unless
doing so advances our own. Some anti-Jewish WAs
become so fixated on “the enemy” that they act as if
thwarting the interest of Jews were more important
than advancing our own. For example, they are
pleased by any setback for Israel; they are pleased
because Jews support Israel and they oppose anything
Jews support.
WAs should support Israel insofar as it is a shining
example of an ethnostate, of the kind of ethnic selfdetermination
we want for ourselves and for all
people. This is one of the reasons the successful
European nationalist parties such as the Danish
Peoples Party, the Sweden Democrats, and the French
National Front support Israel. There may well be
grounds to criticize the behavior of the government of
Israel and there may be legitimate reasons to oppose
American policies as they relate to Israel, but these are
different questions.
There may also be reasons to notice and criticize
American Jewish support for pro-Israel foreign policy
measures that may harm our relations with other
countries or may not be in American interests. The
same standards would apply to efforts by Americans
of Irish or Pakistani origin, for example, to influence
American foreign policy in narrowly partisan
directions. The concept of a Jewish state, however, is
one that all WAs should support.
BANs lead to another danger. To paraphrase a friend,
“It’s always more fun for delinquents to hate the
people above them than it is to hate those below them.”
If we keep advancing BANs, we will attract unsavory
whites. They will not be people with a carefully
considered view of Jews, but dimwits who think in
simple slogans. Hate, intemperance, and passion will
drive many of them, and, when they inevitably make
bad decisions, this will confirm the negative
stereotypes our enemies peddle about us.

While we should never fail to criticize anyone who is
anti-white, we should focus on those specific antiwhite
things the offender said or did, not who he is.
Unless there is a very good reason to do otherwise, we
should ignore the fact that an opponent may be a Jew.
If we bring up the Jewish question, ordinary white
people will find it at least distracting and probably
distasteful. They will not think this is a legitimate
attack on anti-white behavior. Instead, they will see it
as an attack on Jews in general, which means our
message gets bogged down and loses focus. Also,
anyone who is attacked in this way can turn the tables
by portraying himself as a victimized Jew rather than
an anti-white.

Oswald Mosely: “I am not an anti-Semite. Anti-Semitism is hatred of
Jews on account of their race. I attack some Jews on
account of what they do, but I never attack any Jew on
account of his birth. I never attack a man on account
of his race or religion. If a Jew does something against
the interests of Britain or of Europe, he should be
attacked like anyone else. He should not be attacked
because he is a Jew, but equally he should not be
immune from criticism because he is a Jew.”

Suggestion 2: Meet Prof. MacDonald’s standards or
keep your ideas of Jews to yourself
Regardless of your views on the Jewish question, all
of us should be able to agree that some people in our
movement needlessly alienate normal people by using
extreme language about Jews. Prof. MacDonald
himself has said the following: “I agree with the point
that a lot of people who don’t like Jews express their
views poorly. I have often thought that anyone who
hasn’t read a lot in the area and has an IQ of less than
120 should not be allowed to discuss Jewish issues.”
[215]
I do not wish to interpret Prof. MacDonald’s statement
unfairly, but 91 percent of the white population has an
IQ of less than 120. Of the remaining 9 percent,
probably fewer than one in five has “read a lot about
Jewish issues.” This means that very few people are
qualified, by Prof. MacDonald’s standards, to discuss
Jewish issues.