Guillaume Faye’s speech at the 2006 American Renaissance conference was quite eventful. Most people have heard of the infamous Michael Hart incident. But to my mind, something far more significant occurred during Faye’s speech, something that later struck me as revelatory.
In Faye’s view, the “Global South,” organized under the banner of Islam, is the mortal enemy of Europe. The United States, which favors the Islamization of Europe, is not the primary enemy of Europe, but merely an adversary. Faye does not, however, classify the Jewish community as an enemy or adversary of Europe at all. Instead, Faye views the Jews as a potential ally in the fight against Islamization.
Thus, at a certain point in his speech, as Faye enumerated the possible negative consequences of the unchecked march of Islam, he said, “The state of Israel may cease to exist.” But, to his obvious astonishment, this statement was met by enthusiastic applause.
Now, to be fair, I admit I joined in the applause too, in a spirit of pure mischief. But later I thought better of it. After all, as a friend pointed out, “If the Jews lose Israel, where do these people who were clapping think the Jews will go? They’ll all be here or Europe. Do they really want that?” I knew that, of course, and I am sure a lot of the other people clapping knew it too.
But some people hate Jews more than they love their own people. They hate Jews so much that they want them to be harmed, even if it harms us too—even if it harms us more. Call it the white version of the “Samson Option.” But if we are going to think rationally about the Jewish problem, we first have to identify and isolate this strand of suicidal spitefulness, which obviously conflicts with cool calculations of how to pursue our long term racial interests.
I would like to offer some notes on White Nationalism and Jewish nationalism in order to clarify my thoughts and provide material for discussion.
(1) As ethnonationalists, we believe in the “Ein Volk, ein Reich” principle: “One people, one state” (at least one state per people, although there could be more than one). This means that we support, at least in principle, the nationalism of all nations, the ethnic self-determination of all peoples. We envision a kind of classical liberalism for all nations, in which each people has a place of its own, whose legitimate rights need not conflict with the legitimate rights of all other nations. If this vision came to pass, we would have a world of perpetual peace. It is an appealing ideal, even though there may be insuperable impediments to its realization.
(2) Zionism is a species of ethnonationalism. It was conceived during the heyday of 19th century European ethnonationalism as a solution to the so-called “Jewish question.” The idea was to address the underlying causes of anti-Semitism by creating a sovereign Jewish homeland and encouraging a Jewish ingathering, a reversal of the diaspora.
(3) As an ethnonationalist, I do not object to Israel or Zionism per se. Yes, I object to our foreign policy toward Israel and its neighbors, which is dictated by Israeli interests rather than US interests. Yes, I object to foreign aid to Israel that does not serve US interests. But let us be perfectly clear here: These are not problems with Israel per se. They are problems with the Jewish diaspora community in the United States.
I do not oppose the existence of Israel. I oppose the Jewish diaspora in the United States and other white societies. I would like to see the white peoples of the world break the power of the Jewish diaspora and send the Jews to Israel, where they will have to learn how to be a normal nation.
(4) But what about the Palestinians? First, let me state unequivocally that I sympathize with the Palestinians, because I too live under Zionist occupation. Second, I must also state that I admire the Palestinians, because unlike Americans and Europeans, they are fully aware that they are an occupied people. Third, and most importantly, the Palestinians are fighting against their oppressors, and I wish my people would do the same.
(5) But ultimately, white interests and Palestinian interests do not coincide. Palestinians, quite naturally, want their country back. They want to send the Jews back whence they came. As a White Nationalist, I want all our Jews to go to Israel, and that means that I want Israel to stay put.
What about Palestinian self-determination? I support a Palestinian homeland, right next to the Jewish homeland, because I want to send the Palestinian diaspora home as well.
In short, I favor a two state solution. I do not favor the destruction of Israel, because I want the Jews to live there, not among my people. I favor a Palestinian state, because I want the Palestinians to live there, not among my people.
(6) Unfortunately, when it comes to the Palestine question, the views of many White Nationalists are clouded by the fact that they hate Jews more than they love their own people, thus they are willing to beat Jews with any stick handy, including the appeal to principles that are deadly to our people as well.
(7) For instance, I think it is self-defeating to oppose Zionism on anti-colonialist grounds, for the simple reason anti-colonialism undermines the legitimacy of the founding of the United States and practically every other white nation if you go far back enough. Some guilt-besotted souls have actually contemplated resurrecting the Neanderthals, presumably so they can apologize to them for the genocide allegedly committed by our Cro-Magnon ancestors. But fretting over past wrongs distracts us from something far more important, namely preventing future ones. And the most pragmatic approach is to give both Palestinians and Jews their own homelands.
(8) It is also self-defeating for White Nationalists to attack Israel on the grounds of multiculturalism. Yes, some of the very same people who complain of the Jewish double standard of promoting multiculturalism in the diaspora and an ethnostate in Israel, lament Jewish-promoted multiculturalism at home while demanding that Jews adopt it in Israel! Of course the Jewish double standard is logical, insofar as it actually advances the interests of the Jews as a diaspora community and the interests of the ethnostate of Israel.
But for White Nationalists, such a double-standard serves no rational purpose at all, since we do not have political power anywhere in the world, and our only hope of gaining such power is first to build a coherent intellectual case for a white ethnostate and then to build a cultural and political movement that will actually be able to take power and create one. But one cannot build a coherent intellectual foundation by appealing to contradictory principles because one’s only concern is venting hate on the internet.
(9) The same argument applies to attacking Zionism because it is a form of nationalism. Since Jews have invested so much in demonizing Hitler, many think it terribly clever to liken Zionism to Nazism and Jews to Hitler. (Most White Nationalists don’t go quite that far, of course.) As a White Nationalist, however, my quarrel is with diaspora Jewry’s promotion of multiculturalism and suppression of healthy nationalism in white nations. I do not oppose Zionism because it is a form of nationalism. If Jews agree with nationalism (or National Socialism, for that matter), that is to their credit.
The same argument applies to the charge that Zionism is a form of racism.
I sincerely believe that a lot of the support for Israel among American and European conservatives is merely a form of sublimated white racial nationalism. That was certainly true of me when I was a conservative. So let’s leave the Jews to their racial nationalism and have our own instead.
(10) It is also self-defeating to attack Israel on grounds of human rights, international law, and opposition to violence. Because everyone except complete pacifists recognizes that there are circumstances in which violence, revolution, and war are justified. Jews, moreover, have invested a great deal in promoting the idea that resisting genocide can justify pretty much any means necessary. That’s convenient, since we wish to resist our own genocide, and our enemies are not likely to give up without a fight. Any measures that Jews justified against Nazis in the past and against Palestinians today can be justified against our enemies tomorrow.
(11) Since people fight more fanatically if their backs are against the wall, Machiavelli argued that it is always prudent to leave an enemy a means of retreat, as it increases the likelihood and reduces the costs of victory. Diaspora Jewry regards Israel as a refuge, an insurance policy in case things go bad. The continued existence of Israel may, therefore, make it easier for whites to combat the power of diaspora Jewish communities in our various homelands.
Part of Jewish psychological intensity is their propensity to treat every issue as a matter of life and death, which produces the absurd spectacle of the leaders of the world’s most powerful ethnic group comporting themselves with the hysteria of cornered rats. The actual destruction of Israel would really give them something to whine about. It would immensely heighten the Jewish siege mentality and toughen Jewish resistance to white interests.
(12) I have argued that White Nationalists have an interest in the continued existence of the state of Israel. Does this mean that European nationalists like Guillaume Faye, Nick Griffin, Geert Wilders, and Anders Breivik are justified in allying themselves with Jews, whether in Israel or the diaspora?
Absolutely not, for a host of reasons.
(13) The foundation of this proposed alliance is an alleged common interest of native Europeans and diaspora Jews in resisting Islam. But does that common cause even exist? After all, the state of Israel, which diaspora Jewry regards as their last line of defense, exists in a sea of Muslims. There are, moreover, millions of Muslims within Israel’s borders. Thus one has to ask: Do Muslims really make Jews feel insecure? Or, if Jews are afraid of Muslims, is there something they fear even more?
Jews in Israel seem willing to exist at close quarters with Muslims to avoid a greater evil. What greater evil? European anti-Semitism, of course. The Zionist project was conceived as a refuge from European anti-Semitism. The state of Israel was founded after the Second World War. The holocaust is upheld as the justification for Israel’s founding and for all of its subsequent wars, annexations, and acts of oppression against the indigenous population. Jews definitely fear and hate Muslims. But they fear and hate white Europeans even more.
Given Jewish fear of European anti-Semitism, it follows, that Jews would actually feel safer in Europe if its indigenous population were diluted with non-Europeans, including Muslims. This hypothesis is, moreover, completely consistent with the policies supported by the leading Jewish organizations, which oppose European nationalism while supporting multiculturalism and Muslim immigration into Europe.
(14) But what about instances in which Jews have been attacked and killed by Muslims in Europe? Is this not a basis for a common interest in resisting Islam? I think not. Jews pursue policies in Israel that virtually guarantee Muslim terrorist reprisals. Yet Jews pursue these policies anyway, because they think they are worthwhile, even figuring in the inevitable Jewish casualties.
The same logic is at work within Jewish diaspora populations. Yes, supporting Muslim immigration into Europe does expose diaspora Jews to Muslim violence. But the Jewish community regards this violence as a small price to pay compared to the benefit of the dilution and ultimate destruction of the indigenous European population.
(15) Jews feel safer around Muslims than around Europeans. Jews do not, therefore, believe it is in their interests to ally themselves with European nationalists to resist Muslim immigration into Europe. But even if it were in their interest, that still might not be enough to alter Jewish policy. After all, it may be the case that Jews hate whites more than they love themselves.
(16) It may be a mistake to ascribe too much rationality to Jews. Jewish power may be less a product of rational calculation than of the irrational and compulsive repetition of a set of evolved strategies for achieving dominance over other groups. If these strategies are applied compulsively rather than rationally, one would expect Jews to continue to apply them even when they are becoming counter-productive. And indeed, this has been the Jewish pattern for centuries. Jews have continually risen to positions of wealth, power, and influence. But they have a tendency to push their host populations too far, leading to sudden backlashes and terrible reversals of fortune. You can’t drive a car without brakes, and Jews have no brakes.
(17) Even if Jews turned against Europe’s Muslims, Muslims aren’t the only problem. There are plenty of other fast-breeding non-white groups that could just as effectively dilute and then destroy European whites. By using “Muslims” as a politically correct proxy for non-whites, European nationalists have painted themselves into a rhetorical corner, in much the same way that American conservatives have by using “illegal” immigration as a proxy for non-white immigration. Muslims, however, can become Christians with a splash of holy water, and illegals can be legalized simply by changing the law.
(18) If Jews wanted to limit Muslim immigration into Europe, they would not need small European nationalist parties to accomplish it. Virtually overnight, they could have the conservative parties opposing Muslims on conservative grounds, the liberal parties opposing Muslims on liberal grounds, the Greens opposing them on Green grounds, the socialists on socialist grounds, etc. That is what intellectual and political hegemony means.
(19) Political alliances are not based merely on common interests, real or perceived. Nobody seeks alliances with powerless parties. And the European nationalist parties have little or no power. Even those parties that have achieved parliamentary representation have been unable to effect real change. European nationalist parties have nothing to offer Jews, who have real wealth and real power.
(20) Why, then, do some Jews seek to join European nationalist groups, as well as White Nationalist groups in America? A variety of motives are possible, including sincere conviction, insanity, hedging, spying, and sabotage. Unfortunately, there is no foolproof way of determining what a given person’s real motives are. I’m betting that most of them are up to no good.
Since we are fighting for nothing less than the biological survival of our race, and since the vast bulk of Jews oppose us, we need to err on the side of caution and have no association with Jews whatsoever. Any genuine Jewish well-wishers will understand, since they know what their people are like better than we ever can.
Saving our race is something that we will have to do ourselves alone.
1. After Faye’s speech, a member of the audience stood up and asked Faye, in a roundabout way, if the organized Jewish community in France played the same role as it played in the US in opening the gates to non-white immigration. It was a fair question, one that had also occurred to me. If I had any objection, it was to the fact that the questioner was unaware of the long line of people behind him and took too much time to get to his point.
But before Faye could answer, a Jew (author Michael Hart), angrily jumped up and denounced the questioner, David Duke, as a “fucking Nazi” and a “disgrace to the Conference.” This rude and foul-mouthed tirade, was, moreover, delivered in front of the children of one conference-goer. “Surely,” I thought, “Jared Taylor needs to be more selective about who comes to his conferences. This Hart guy should be shunned.”
Others felt similarly. Indeed, one group concluded that the incident proved it was high time for Jared Taylor to crack down on anti-Semites, the kind of people who goaded the poor victim Michael Hart until he couldn’t take it anymore. This brazen little cabal, led by Larry Auster, even framed the whole affair as the “David Duke incident,” and a lot of White Nationalists who should have known better went right along with it.
Remembering Martin Heidegger: September 26, 1889–May 26, 1976
Bad to the Spone: Charles Krafft’s An Artist of the Right
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 552 Millennial Woes on Corporations, the Left, & Other Matters
Remembering Charles Krafft: September 19, 1947–June 12, 2020
Remembering Francis Parker Yockey: September 18, 1917–June 16, 1960
Rich Snobs vs. Poor Slobs: The Schism Between “Racist” Whites
Diversity: Our Greatest Strength?
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 551: Ask Me Anything with Matt Parrott