Counter-Currents
2,216 words
German translation here
Whiteness has been most commonly defined in terms of “anti-blackness,” a distinction that remains supremely important to the Left. For liberals, the 1940s and 1950s never ended. Hitler and Joseph McCarthy still stalk the earth, and white supremacy rules the US and the world. Wherever liberals look they see malign white faces!
Structural racism of this sort was most prevalent in the United States and southern Africa.
Until recently it was not meaningful in other European countries. (They, too, now have substantial black populations, however.) Even so, a thorough examination would have to analyze all European colonial experiences in sub-Saharan Africa as well as the Caribbean, Central America, and South America.
The Special Place of Blacks in the White Psyche
Historically, whites could see the difference between themselves and blacks—physically, psychologically, and culturally—more clearly than they could other racial differences.
Whites also consistently displayed a stronger natural antipathy toward blacks than toward other non-whites. In the absence of Jewish control whites were able to erect and maintain effective barriers to mixture between themselves and blacks.
It is a testament to the awful, combined power of the monolithic mass media and comprehensive censorship of marginal speech that Jews have succeeded in erasing in the minds of whites the formerly clear bright line between the two races as quickly and comprehensively as they have.
Whites have been psychologically and culturally unmanned.
Hybridization between white women and black men has been normalized, signifying the sexual conquest of the race’s women by aliens.
Widespread negrification of lifestyles, attitudes, behavior, dress, cultural tastes, speech patterns, and even body language is commonplace.
In the past, whites occupied one end of a racial spectrum, blacks the other. Red, brown, and yellow races were distributed between the two poles.
Steve Sailer has produced a series of brief articles under the heading “Diversity before Diversity” (also individually reprinted on VDare’s blog) consisting of capsule biographies of famous non-whites widely honored by white society.
He states, “One of the points I’m trying to make with this Diversity Before Diversity series is that when thinking about the past, we shouldn’t project how African-Americans were treated to other minorities” and “The color line discrimination against blacks was both quantitatively and qualitatively more severe than the discrimination suffered by other groups.”
Sailer’s point is valid, albeit with an important caveat. Almost all of his minority examples are drawn from post-1933 America, when the country, though still demographically white, was no longer actually run by whites.
A candid and explicit statement of the traditional viewpoint on blacks and race has been articulated by John Derbyshire.
From the Establishment’s and mainstream conservatism’s perspective Derbyshire is an out-and-out racist.
In fact, he is anti-black. He would object to such a characterization, but it captures the strictly circumscribed nature of his racialism. He says,
As you can see from my IAT [Implicit Association Test] results, I bond effortlessly with East Asians & I think always have. I’m more at ease in a room full of Chinese people than I would be in a room full of black American rap artists. And my personal predilections aside, I think the big division in our society is always black-nonblack. The other stuff—Hispanics, Asians—is a bagatelle [unimportant, a trifle] by comparison. This makes sense paleoanthropologically, too: Homo sap. first left Africa, then differentiated into other races. (“‘I May Give Up Writing and Work as a Butler’: Interview with John Derbyshire,” Gawker, April 9, 2012)
Derbyshire is married to a Chinese woman and has hybrid children. He has written, “I am not—obviously not—a racial purist. I’m fine with miscegenation. I don’t even have anything to say to racial purists. I just think they’re wrong.” (“John Derbyshire on Immigration, Liberty, and Mating Choices.”)
On several occasions he has described himself as a “philosemite,” an “anti-antisemite,” and a Zionist (e.g., “The Jews and I: Passover Reflections,” National Review Online, April 10, 2001, available in Google cached format only; “The Marx of the Anti-Semites,” March 10, 2003.)
On the plus side, Derbyshire favors “a rational immigration policy that preserves the historic white-European ethnic core of the American nation, as our immigration laws did until the 1965 Act.”
And his dedication to a society of ordered liberty and basic fairness cause him to be slightly more tolerant of dissent than is ordinarily the case.
Although Derbyshire prides himself on his empiricism, his philo-Semitic assertions are mostly counterfactual. (I am not referring to his critique of evolutionary psychology; Sam Francis also had reservations about the discipline. Such views are severable from Derbyshire’s supposedly factual or historical statements about Jews.)
His hemming and hawing about white miscegenation not being a problem because the numbers involved are inconsequential is also wrong.
Derbyshire grew up in a white world, resides in metropolitan New York, and has witnessed the revolutionary transformation that has taken place during his lifetime. Steve Sailer has independently expressed similarly untenable views about current miscegenation rates.
Derbyshire would greatly strengthen his empirical case if, instead of maintaining objectively indefensible positions he simply said, “Yes, all of that is true. But I just don’t care. I like, admire, and look up to Jews. I hold them in much higher esteem than I do whites, and apply different, in fact no, moral standards to them.”
Because, in truth, that is the gist of every philo-Semite’s position.
Probably the reason white philo-Semites, or philo-Semites of any race, don’t say this is because they know it would make them look monstrous.
Philo-Semitism in the Old South
The combination of anti-black racism and philo-Semitism seen in John Derbyshire and others is not new.
In fact, it was a little-known but central feature of Southern society, as demonstrated by the black authors of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, vol. 2: How Jews Gained Control of the Black American Economy (n.p.: The Historical Research Department of the Nation of Islam, 2010), 509 pp.) previously reviewed by Counter-Currents.
The book reveals that Southern whites from colonial times to WWII were also anti-black and philo-Semitic.
The “tenacious myth of Jewish suffering in the South,” the authors assert, is false.
Popular writing about the Southern Jewish experience is often peppered with the unsupportable assertion that “anti-Semitism” and the fear of it ruled the lives of Southern Jews. This fallacy is most often advanced to imply that “anti-Semitism” was responsible for the complete and total refusal of Jews to take any moral stand on the question of Black slavery and its brutal aftermath. [Jim Crow] (p. 53)
But there is no evidence to support the “widespread but misinformed” belief “that Jews were collateral sufferers of the many injustices endured by Black Americans.” (p. 49)
“The popular assumption is that ‘God’s Chosen People’ could not have survived in a place infamous for its ruthless racial repression.” (p. 26) Yet, “Far from being a center of anti-Jewish discrimination, the Southern white culture enabled a Jewish integration so complete that the region became known as a ‘hotbed of philo-Semitism‘—for its extraordinary love and acceptance of the Jewish people.” (p. 27)
In an argument paralleling familiar White Nationalist critiques of northern Puritans and WASPs that I have never seen made before, a great deal of Southern behavior is ascribed to “strict Christian fundamentalism that cast Jews in a Biblical role as ‘God’s ministers,'” a view that fit nicely with the Jews’ own religious self-perceptions. As a consequence, there was “Christian competition to welcome and honor the ‘People of the Book.'”
Jewish Old Testament traditions “resonated profoundly” with white Southerners, who strongly identified with the Biblical Israelites. Just as the Chosen People of God were persecuted by Pharaoh, so the white South was victimized and oppressed by Lincoln’s Yankee North.
“This ideological intimacy between Jews and Gentiles is reflected most explicitly in the writings of the South’s most ardent exponent of racist culture, the Rev. Thomas Dixon, author of The Clansman [1905], a novel that inspired the profoundly racist film The Birth of a Nation [1915]” (p. 67 n. 171), which in turn gave rise to the second Ku Klux Klan.
Needless to say, although gullible whites eagerly lapped up such myths, Jews were simply engaging in business as usual. The following two quotes from The Secret Relationship are from Jewish scholars, not the book’s authors:
Jews consciously sought to “claim the status of a white religion rather than being relegated to a position as a racial other.” (p. 72)
And, they “‘play[ed] up’ the religious connection of the Jews to ancient biblical times, an image that played so well for them in the bible belt.” (p. 73)
If this portrayal of Southern philo-Semitism is correct, it replicated in many ways the more well-known Old Testament philo-Semitism of the Puritan/WASP North.
Indeed, the social discrimination common against Jews among Northern elites was entirely absent in the South.
It is interesting to note that the white front man for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a powerful Jewish hate group based in Alabama, is a native Southerner named Morris Seligman Dees. Dees began his life as an anti-black racist. His Jewish first and middle names were bestowed upon him by his passionately philo-Semitic father.
The book also counters a view of abolitionism common among white nationalists.
The authors reveal that Jews, Northern as well as Southern, played essentially no role at all in abolitionism, which was a white movement.
Evidence shows that Jewish Americans were publicly and privately hostile to abolitionism and that a substantial number fought vehemently for the rights of slaveholders. Jews owned and traded in Black slaves and were involved in ‘every aspect’ of the Black Holocaust during and after slavery” because it “increased their wealth. (p. 55)
Nevertheless, “white abolitionists who earnestly wanted an end to slavery had no intention of granting the Black man full social, economic, or political citizenship. They decried the horrors of that cruelest of institutions, but most [emphasis added] fundamentally believed in the rightness of white mastery over all affairs of the nation.” (p. 28)
A Revolution in Thought
With the advent of Germany, conservative anti-black racism + philo-Semitism was at last superseded. Under the new dispensation Jews replaced blacks as the group considered most distant from whites on the racial spectrum.
Physical distinctions between Aryans and Jews are much less marked than those between blacks and whites. As a consequence, the new paradigm revolved around psychological, spiritual, cultural, and behavioral differences, and the deadly threat posed by Jews to white racial and cultural survival.
As Clive Webb noted, “[O]f all the accusations leveled against Jews, one in particular threatened their social stability [emphasis added]. That accusation was that Jews were not white.” (A History of Black-Jewish Relations in the American South, 1790–1970, 1997, p. 133)
Historian Charles Bracelen Flood recounted the following exchange during a speech at a 1920 meeting of the NSDAP:
When Hitler said, “We do not deal with Jews at all,” one or more racists shouted, “Negroes!” meaning that blacks, too, should not be dealt with. Without missing a beat, Hitler said, to applause, “I would rather have one hundred Negroes in the hall than one Jew.” (Hitler: The Path to Power, 1989, p. 162)
This outlook turned the old paradigm upside down.
Here, for example, is how National Alliance founder William L. Pierce bluntly described the hero of his novel Hunter (1989): At the start of the book he is a “typical idiot conservative who can see the niggers but cannot see the Jews, because the Jews are much less visible.”
Finally, it is important to note that philo-Semitic racists not only prefer Jews to blacks, but desire Jewish influence, control, and guidance over whites, despite Jews’ continued separate (because that is what they demand), privileged existence within white society.
In contrast, those who reject conservative racism do not desire black influence or leadership over whites, or even their continued presence within white society. Moreover, the differences between continental races are not regarded as a bagatelle.
The Fatal Embrace
Philo-Semitic anti-black racism is old and stodgy and musty, redolent of the Old South and failure. This will remain the case even if it eventually develops, with a little help from its friends as Buckleyism and Thatcherism did, into a “successful” mainstream political movement.
Adherents of the old model will never confront the perpetrators of extermination. They point their fingers at the wrong people while inviting the fox into the chicken coop. They cannot provide a foundation for successful opposition, or a future for white people.
Jews are utterly unique. The first and most significant division of mankind is not black versus white, but Jew versus Gentile—exactly as the Jews say.
Wealthier, more powerful, and more influential by far than any other human group, Jews remain forever separate by choice. Every race is perceived as hostile and alien by them. Temporary accommodations notwithstanding, Jews will always nurse a deadly grudge against all non-Jews.
Contrary to what many believe, or say they believe, Jews do not regard themselves as white, and never will.
Even philo-Semites who have no conscious intention of harming whites by embracing Jews, as was arguably the case with white Southerners and South Africans, may nevertheless contribute directly to our destruction.
Their mistake, intentional or not, is to lovingly embrace what hates and must ultimately kill us. There is no excuse for this since the “Holocaust.”
The Jews of the American South and South Africa did not perish. The white nations that venerated them did.
15 comments
“The first and most significant division of mankind is not black versus white, but Jew versus Gentile—exactly as the Jews say.”
uh, no, it’s White vs. non-White. The rule of history that White civilizations-Greece, Rome, America, etc.- decay only when they are infiltrated by large numbers of non-Whites. And yes, jews are non-Whites.
But hey, if you want to consider yourself merely a “gentile” (non-Jew), go right ahead. You’re actually part of the problem.
Black criminality is a stimulus for the reawakening of white identity. Anti-black racists (Lawrence Auster and Paul Kersey come to mind, as does “unamusement park”) attack black dysfunction with no goal beyond removing that stimulus. Still, the anti-black position is useful as a bridge, since it exposes the irrationality of anti-white ideology (on such points as IQ, relative historical racial accomplishments, or crime statistics), and opens the door for whites to think of themselves as possessing a distinct identity, even if at that first that identity is merely “not like those blacks.”
“Pharisee” means “separated ones.”
Pharisees = modern Jews.
I witnessed a panel discussion on race, and a light skinned yellow mulatto wooly headed woman bragged about her authority on the subject because she was “trained for Diversity”. She insisted that Whiteness was just a social construct and not biological.
A White person asked, “You mean my skin that I see here with my own eyes isn’t really White, but just a social construct?”
The mulatto said very smugly, “That’s right,” with a tone of voice that definitely conveyed the threat that “If you push it, Whitey, I’ll call you a racist and sick the NAACP on your employer.”
The moderator moved things along to other topics, but another black, a “sowpotomus” as IrateIrishman would call her, chimmed in that everyone needs to study White privilege.
Interesting article. The opening remarks on ‘negrofication’ are obviously relevant to my forthcoming book from Counter Currents, The Homo and the Negro.
I’m puzzle though about philo-Semitism in the South. I thought — not that I’m an expert on the period — that the Klan was anti-Semitic as well as anti-Catholic. Am I just a victim of mainstream “documentaries” that assume/insinuate that anti-black must = anti-jew?
The author is quite correct that Prots are vulnerable to philo-Semitism due to their Bible-based thinking. In my book, I locate the futility of the American Right in its embrace of Christianity, which subjects it to self-defeating, judaic-inspired memes.
However, some Prots seem able to concoct theories of various degrees of tin-foiliness to explain how Whites are the Real Jews [from British Israelites to Christian Identity to the various “Aryan Christ” theories], while Catholics until recently embraced a ‘supersession’ theory that the Jews had blown it and were now irrelevant. I believe Occidental Observer recently had some articles on the role of Jew converts in tossing that out and replacing it with an ‘elder brother’ model of Jew-worship, corresponding to Holocaustianity in general.
BTW, interesting isn’t it, that attempts by everyone from Marcion to Rosenberg to expel the Judaic poison and recover an Aryan Christ usually involve jettisoning the “Old” Testament entirely, as well as the Jew agent Paul; in the process, quite unintentionally, they remove all references to homosexuality, thus making their new Bible, like the Koran, free of Judaic homohate. As we argue in our book, homo-hate is the unique and defining feature of Judaism, and any “white” or “christian” or “pagan” movement that indulges in it is compromised from the start. Sort of like the Old South’s “one drop” rule of racial purity.
James, the first KKK was Freemasonic, philo-Semitic, and had Jewish members (e.g., Bernard Baruch’s father and many others).
I had previously believed that the second Klan of the 1920s, formed after Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation, was anti-Jewish, but the authors of SRBBJ 2 persuasively lay that claim to rest.
The third “Klan,” from the 1950s and especially the ’60s on, was very heterogeneous, not monolithic. But even most of that Klan (not discussed in the book), was not anti-Jewish as I understand it. The Jews by that time were anti-Klan, but the hatred was not reciprocated.
There were some exceptions: Sam Bowers’s Mississippi White Knights of the KKK and David Duke’s KKK.
I believe the second Klan of the 1920s was anti-Catholic—or so I’ve read. But then, those same sources claimed (falsely) that it was anti-Jewish. I can’t testify one way or the other about the Klan’s anti-Catholicism, or whether the Catholic Church in the South was pro-Negro. Southern Protestants, of course, were anti-black.
Among Protestants, at least in the past, it was common to publish small-size pocket Bibles you could carry around for easy reading. I still have a couple of them. They invariably consist only of the New Testament (which is very short compared to the Old Testament) plus Psalms and Proverbs. That is a strong indication, I think, that the OT has always in some sense been alien and problematic.
Two themes that dominate the NT are anti-homosexuality and anti-feminism. That is one reason I don’t get exercised over Christianity. Since all mainstream Christian churches embrace both homosexuality and feminism, how can I take them seriously? If you’ve read the NT, it can’t be done.
I don’t see Christianity as anti-homosexual. Look at the Catholic Church. Jesus. The ELCA welcomes homosexual congregants and pastors. Is the MCC “Christian”? Governor Mark Dayton frequently expresses his pious embrace of homosexuality (he’s straight) by saying, “It isn’t Christian to oppose it”!
The Jews likewise. You could compile a long list of homosexual Jews. I believe there are lesbian and homo rabbis, at least in the Reform movement. When the voters of St. Paul (then mostly Irish Catholics) voted down a homosexual ordinance in the 1970s, they were attacked by a Jewish university professor as “bigots” and “haters” who had no right to such views. One of my history professors, a Jewish state senator, was openly homosexual more than 30 years ago. (And I voted for the jackass.)
So, I’ve never understood that aspect of your theory, at least insofar as it applies to the contemporary world.
Also, one of the Jewish neocons’ major reasons for attacking Islam is because it’s (they say) anti-homosexual. Pym Fortuyn’s view, too.
I do agree with your “one drop” view of homosexuality as expressed in the Cram article. (A very good piece, by the way—as you correctly guessed, I knew nothing about him.) Possibly if I studied the issue with reliable information I’d have to change that view. I don’t know.
“I believe the second Klan of the 1920s was anti-Catholic—or so I’ve read. But then, those same sources claimed (falsely) that it was anti-Jewish.”
I had some Klan literature from the 1920s at one time that made a case for the Catholic Church being connected with the Antichrist, the Beast, etc. It was written by a pastor from Indiana. I don’t recall anything anti-Jewish in that small sample of second Klan material.
Interesting article, as always.
Jews of the American South and South Africa did not perish. The white nations that venerated them did.
South Africa is the example that a alliance between WN and jews won’t work.
Very good stuff, especially the evaluation of Derbyshire. This is linked to and riffed on here:
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-bad-old-days.html
Jews, white liberals and white business interests are the problem. A philo-semitic anti-black approach, therefore, strikes me as one that might very well draw Buckleyite money if racialism begins to bubble the next few years. They like dissipating discontent by sending people down blind alleys to flail at symptoms rather than causes. They’re very good at it. First, it was the commies. Then, it was the black welfare queens. Today, it’s the Muslims. Tomorrow, it may the blacks’ turn again.
Another reason I don’t think a pure anti-black approach will work is it’s too negative. Even in the South where I live where racial attitudes are pretty hardened and people have no illusions, there is no mass antipathy toward all blacks. We Southerners get portrayed as if we’re all ready to put on white hoods at any moment, but’s a ridiculous caricature.
The old saying does like this: we Southerners hate them as a race and love them as individuals. There is some truth to this. I don’t want anything to do with blacks, except the ones I know personally.
WNists need to keep in mind that most blacks don’t bother anybody and are just trying to get through the day. The fact that many of them “get through the day” with the help of welfare, government jobs, quotas and other preferences that harm white folks is not their fault. It is the fault of white liberals and Jews.
The true menace in the black community are the young males and to a lesser extent the young females. Young black males can and will beat, rob and kill you for no reason. This is a fact. But it is also a fact that middle-aged and elderly black people generally don’t bother anybody. The middle-aged and the elderly constitute a huge percentage of the black population.
For what it’s worth, I was born and raised a Southern Baptist in the deep South and all branches of my family have been in that area for over 300 years. This begins with my earliest memories.
When I was five we moved into a new house and had Jewish neighbors who had children my age. The day we moved in, the Jewish children came over to investigate, as children do. The first thing they wanted to know was whether I was Jewish. I looked about as Jewish as a five year old Mickey Rooney but not knowing what the word meant, after inquiring with my mother, remember thinking that it would never have occurred to me to ask them if they were Christian, or Baptist, much less Gentile.
Playing one day at our new neighbors’ house we had grown tired of watching the slinky (toy of the time) bounce down the stairs and found that it made a Roman-looking bracelet. A child’s obvious question was who would be Jesus and who would be the Roman. When my mother found out I got a whipping for all I was worth, followed by a history lesson.
My parents never had anything derogatory to say about our nearby Jews and always greeted them with a smile and a wave, as was returned, but the two couples never mixed socially. My parents were very opposed to the racial integration that was being forced on us at the time and I remember the political material my parents received during the “civil rights” era being VERY anti-Jew, much of it dating back into the 50s. I never knew what the Brooklyn-born adults across the street thought of the racial revolution but I can imagine the hallowed halls that my former friends commute to today.
I remember being taught in Sunday School that the Jews, having broken their covenant with God, were no longer “the chosen people” and therefore Christians were not bound by the Old Testament. In other words, the OT was only in our bibles for historical reference. This was considered an uncontroversial matter of fact in Protestant churches at the time (early 60s). It amazes me that this foundational totem of Christianity was almost completely forgotten in one generation.
Years later I saw my mother’s anti-Jewishness diminish with menopause while my father’s anti-Jewishness intensified with age. She was, as most women are, devoted to her faith, whatever it be at the moment. He was a disbeliever.
I hope important generalities (yes, important generalities!) aren’t swept away in these attempts to draw Protestant/Catholic and Anglo/Germanic and Euro/American and even Southern/northern into conflict while anyone with an internet connection and a brain knows what the score is as to “us”, Jews and negroes.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment