The final solution to the right’s anti-Semitism problem

A VFR reader, who is of Jewish background, writes about the problem of anti-Semitism in the movement to defend the white West in general and in the American Renaissance circle in particular. Her last paragraph is one of the best and most succinct treatments of the “Jewish problem” that I have seen:

My main concern here is to take the burden of Nazism and bigotry off of the right. To remove from ourselves this obsession that an infinitesimally small percentage of the human race is the force behind most or all of mankind’s wrong turns.

The neo-Nazi movement in the US is not a theoretical movement. It has been tried and failed, and it nearly destroyed Western Civilization. The burning memory of that catastrophe has paralyzed Europeans and European-Americans from affirming themselves. This is in fact the greatest damage done to Western Civilization. Not the Jews.

In order for European-Americans to liberate themselves, it is imperative that neo-Nazis be asked leave AR. They should not be welcome, nor given any forum, nor any sort of accommodation. But, most of all, they should be told that they are destructive.

They are what millions of whites falsely believe they would become if they embraced our ideas. European-Americans need to be assured they can affirm themselves and still be decent human beings.

At the same time, Jews should be told that their imagination and intellect are welcome in the white West but not their suicidal morality of empowering the poor and the Other.

Jeff in England (who is also of Jewish background) is not happy with above ideas:

Suicidal morality of empowering the poor and empowering the Other? What exactly does your writer mean? Surely Jesus, a Jew, was an advocate of empowering the poor (one may argue on which plane of reality that empowerment would take place). Surely the standing up for the poor and oppressed by socially conscious Jewish thinkers in their various scriptures and books of ideas (starting from the Hebrew Bible itself) as well as by Jewish “activists” have been a great contribution of the Jews and Judaism to humankind, including European civilisation. That Communist movements (which arguably distorted the views of Marx) went to horrendous extremes in the name of the poor and oppressed in various countries does not invalidate the broad Jewish ideas defending them, just as the historical atrocities of the Church do not invalidate the ideas of Jesus and the New Testament. Of course I agree with most of her article and I have repeatedly said there should be no alliances with Nazi derived groups even if there are some areas of agreement.. Both morally and tactically it is a disaster. But there is an air of condescension and dare I say it anti-Jewishness (I know she is Jewish) in those last sentences of her e-letter. Some parts of the Jews are welcome but others aren’t! Get King Solomon on the case (divide the Jew in half)! At the very least I would like her to elaborate on her last points.

LA replies:

I think it’s evident. Much of today’s Jewish community consciously sides with minorities and outsiders against the majority culture. They openly boast of this as their mission as Jews. For example, the official body of Reform Judaism supports homosexual marriage; Jewish neocons base their support for open borders on previous exclusions of Jewish immigrants; many Jewish intellectuals, even today, continue to devalue Christian Europe and portray a romanticized Islam as “better for the Jews”; and many Jewish rabbis describe Judaism in terms that make it indistinguishable from the left wing of the Democratic party. Such Jews are explicitly anti the majority culture of the West. This is what is not acceptable.

The original commenter, whom I will call “R,” replies:

Here is what I would like to say to Jeff in England. I assume Jeff, if he reads your blog, understands that there are group differences and that they are innate and profound. Given the fact that so many Jews deny this, the policies of so many Jews are destructive because they are based upon a lie. A simple example of that would be the liberation of Africa from the colonialists. Every Jew that I know thought that this would make Africa flourish. Of course this didn’t happen. The convoluted lie that the reason that the Other doesn’t flourish is because Whites oppress them causes the Other to have enormous resentment against whites and prevents Whites from affirming themselves becauses they are wracked (sp?) with guilt.

Because Jews are a great people, their flaws are more magnified and profound than those of other groups. Their intelligence and imagination leads them into powerful and high positions. But because their philosophy essentially is that all groups are equal, they are unable and unwilling to explain their own success. Therefore, they resort to lies, such as the one that says that Jews are successful because they value education. Ultimately, their inability to face the truth is suicidal. If all groups are equal, what explains the uneven success of various groups? The reason Jews are successful must be because they are craven, crafty, crooked, evil, not because they are talented and brilliant. This is what the Nazis believe and what so many of the “Other” believes, as well. Jews, through this philosophy and their unwillingness to face the truth of group differences, empower those who will ultimately destroy them.

Jeff in England replies to my reply to him. (Note: I told Jeff I thought the arguments and premises in this comment were way too liberal for someone who wants to be taken seriously at VFR, but he insisted on my posting it.)

IN THE FINAL END HE WON THE POSTING AFTER LOSING EVERY ARGUMENT

Many of those minorities (including Jews themselves) needed siding with. For example, many Jews defended blacks from the horrendous racism of 50’s and 60’s mainstream America and that was a good thing. The majority culture often behaves in a disgusting way. Hitler’s German supporters were the majority culture. Would you have wanted Jews to go along with their monstrous behaviour? Of course you wouldn’t. (Also, of course, I’m not comparing America’s majority culture with Nazi Germany’s.) Ironically many Jews had totally integrated with the German majority culture. No matter, they were sent to the gas chambers too. Majorities can act badly. Now, you may have not wanted certain ethnic groups there in such numbers in America and the West. Especially in recent times when they have come in huge numbers in an invasive manner. That’s a seperate issue. Once they are here I am going to support decent treatment of them and the Jews have been at the forefront of that. I’m proud of that. That is not a matter of conservatism or liberalism but just of human decency. The Jews have stood for decency for thousands of years (give or take a Bible story or two!). That is a good thing. They have lived with many” majorities” and on the whole made a very positive contribution. Some ultra-religious Jews have segregated themselves far too much but most Jews have not. Maimonides, Freud, Einstein, Spinoza may have been “anti-majority” in their time but you can’t debate the positive contributions they made to humanity. And the Hannah Arendts and Bob Dylans and Abbie Hoffmans [LA note: Abbie Hoffman! Jeff has got to be kidding.] who arguably were “anti-majority” in their time were on the whole making a positive contribution to that majority in the sense of hoping to make them more decent. Very acceptable to me!

R. comments:

Jeff reminds me of a fellow Jew I knew at work who was very proud that Jews tended to vote against their own interests. Very “decent” of them, actually, but ultimately suicidal. It might not be the best policy to be “decent” to those who want to see you dead. Your enemies might call you weak and pathetic.

My reply:

About Jeff’s last comment, I think he is misconstruing my criticism of anti-majoritiarianism as a criticism of any protest against established injustice. That is of course not what I mean. I am talking about opposition to the majority culture itself. A classic example of this attitude among Jews is Oscar Handlin’s 1952 article in Commentary, where he said that U.S. immigration must be opened up on an equal basis to all nationalities, because as long as Anglo-Saxons were America’s majority group, that implied that all other groups were only second-class citizens. Handlin was annoyed that other white ethnics, such as Italians, were not exercised over this supposed injustice the way the Jews were, and he urged that Italians and others be made to see that the majority was mistreating them. Handlin’s position came down to saying that the American historic majority culture must be destroyed, in order to make Jews feel that there was no American majority culture to which they, the Jews, needed to defer.

Another example is Ron Unz’s article in Commentary in 1999, where he said that the ONLY danger that Third-World immigration presents to America is that America’s white majority might start to resist it. He didn’t see Mexicans and Muslims as a danger to America; he saw white Americans as a danger to America. In the closing paragraph he wrote:

America today stands as one of the very few examples in history of a large and successful multiethnic society. If we are to continue and extend our success—which is hardly foreordained—we can only do so by returning to the core principles of Propositions 209 and 227: ethnic assimilation, and individual equality under the law. Otherwise, we face the very real threat of future movements along the lines of Proposition 187, each worse than the last, and on a national scale. There are few forces that could so easily break America as the coming of white nationalism.

And look at what Unz means by “white nationalism”: Proposition 187! The most minimal effort by Americans to defend their country from the immigrant invasion is going to be denounced by Unz and by Commentary as “white nationalism,” and as the greatest threat to America.

These are the kinds of anti-majoritarian attitudes that are very common among Jews, that are embraced by Jewish institutions, and that are highly blameworthy and destructive. They must be exposed and opposed.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 12, 2006 09:30 PM | Send