Counter-Currents
1,024 words
Translations: French
Author’s Note:
These somewhat disorganized thoughts were my contribution to a panel discussion of Robertson at a private gathering in October 2013.
Wilmot Robertson was first recommended to my attention by Sam Francis over lunch one day in 2003. The next time I saw him, unwilling to leave the matter to my initiative, he simply thrust a copy of The Dispossessed Majority into my hand. He described the work his own generation’s authoritative statement of racial nationalism, meaning that it was an appropriate starting point for those of us becoming active in the new century, a way of “getting up to speed,” so to speak. And rereading the book for this panel, I was indeed struck by its usefulness in this respect. The author traces minority domination back to the New Deal and, in part, even back to the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, naming names along the way: Louis Brandeis, Henry Morgenthau Sr. and Jr., Harry Dexter White, Felix Frankfurter, Emmanuel Celler. Very few young nationalists know this history, and they need to understand that the white man’s problems did not begin with the so-called civil rights movement or the 1960s.
I would like to draw your attention to Robertson’s strictures on conservatism:
The modern conservative’s net effect on Majority members (he writes) is to anesthetize them into dropping their racial guard at the very moment they need it most. That is why, of all those who consciously or unconsciously oppose the majority cause, the modern conservative is the most dangerous.
How perfectly these words express my own frustration with conservatives who, it seems to me, should be our allies! How many conservatives are content to go on talking about the founding fathers even as Americans are being pushed aside by people whose idea of a founding father is Pancho Villa! This is just the sort of blindness Robertson had in mind when he wrote of those “who stubbornly go on believing that a set of highly sophisticated institutions developed by and for a particular people at a particular point in time and space is operational for all peoples under all circumstances.”
Tom Tancredo, who for years was the principal voice in congress for immigration sanity, cannot give a speech without several times repeating that immigration restriction “has nothing to do with race.” For conservatives (and not only neo-conservatives) nothing ever has anything to do with race. All other subjects are related to one another, but race sits way off in a corner, unrelated to anything else. Robertson is spot-on in describing such behavior as “pussyfooting.” Yet race is everything to our enemies, and a refusal to deal with it is a refusal to fight them. As Robertson puts it, “being attacked as a race, we have no choice but to defend ourselves as a race.”
Here’s another quote from The Dispossessed Majority on the need to recreate community for our people:
If the mind lives alone, if the mind tries to survive on its own waste, it becomes disordered. Sanity is a function of purpose. Remove the spiritual props, the cultural reinforcements, the time-tested morale builders, the four-dimensional insurance of family, race, nation and church, and the delicate balance of the human mentality can easily crack.
Perhaps the foremost task of nationalism at the present time is to provide alternative socialization for European Americans who feel lost in an alienating, disintegrative multicultural society.
This is also essential for the further development of Western culture, as the author recognizes in his remarkable chapter on the dissolution of art. The arts are pre-eminently an expression of culture. Culture, in turn, may be defined as the way a particular people sharing a territory attribute significance to the brute facts of the world around them, typically by means of images and symbolism. In Richard Weaver’s words, culture “is a shared thing, which cannot exist without consensus; the members of a culture are in a manner of speaking communicants of that culture.” This implies a principle of exclusion, or discrimination, against what does not fit into its symbolic system as well as those who stand outside it. The notion of an entirely open multicultural carnival of all possible identities is self-contradictory and destructive of real culture.
The takeover of American literature by hostile minorities, fittingly symbolized by Susan Sontag’s recent reprinting by the Library of America, is an injustice to majority members, serving to alienate majority members from their own culture. It has also made alienation itself—often nothing more than the alienation the minority artist feels amid majority culture—almost the principle subject of twentieth-century literature. The idea of the bard as depositor of folk memory seems hopelessly passé today. If we ever get around to creating our own institutions of learning, as I hope we shall do, this is something we should try to recover.
Robertson is also clear on the “two sets of scales” strategy of our racial competitors, noting, e.g., that while Jews have proportionally far more clubs and organizations than any other population group, they have long waged a campaign to force non-Jewish clubs to admit them. He understands that the liberalism of such groups is not the principled stance of majority “old believers,” but an opportunistic mask dropped as soon as it has outlived its usefulness. Thus, the minority liberals who used to champion free speech (when it was a matter of peddling their own products) are the same people who are now leading the movement to outlaw so-called hate speech.
The problem is compounded when the races differ markedly in capacity. Forcing less accomplished races with simple cultures to live and work beside races which have built up a complex set of institutions over many centuries is a perfect recipe for resentment, unhappiness, and friction. There is no justification whatsoever for resigning the moral high ground to integrationists on the basis of their supposed “good intentions.” In the words of Sam Francis, “federal decentralization and territorial separation should be recognized as legitimate and humane means of preventing and resolving divisive ethnic and racial conflicts.” This is, in fact, the way forward proposed by Wilmot Robertson in his later and more programmatic work, The Ethnostate.
37 comments
Great book! My favorite quote is, “In a capitalistic society man preys on his fellow man.”
This book and Robertson’s magazine Instauration both had a big influence on me when I discovered them back in the 1980s. It is interesting to learn that Francis was radical enough to accept the book’s importance. (The privately circulated Instauration was noticeably more radical.)
Of Robertson’s non-DM books, I prefer the somewhat idiosyncratic short essay collection Ventilations to The Ethnostate. In the latter book, a (justifiably) pessimistic Robertson abandoned his earlier vision of a worldwide “Northern European Ingathering” in favor of tiny, Orania-style enclaves.
As a practical matter, these would ultimately prove disastrous. Things are so bad now that thinking big is no more unrealistic than thinking small. So it’s better to think big.
This does not mean that I oppose PLE-, Craig Cobb-, or Northwest-style initiatives, because I don’t, but from a strategic perspective it is better, as William Pierce noted, to think in terms of “taking it back–all back.”
A position, by the way, advocated by Sam Francis against the secessionist idea as well.
In 1993, I asked Dr. Francis what he thought of TDM. He called it a seminal work of rightist thought. Too bad Dr. Francis did not live long enough to publish *his* masterwork on the fundamentals of conservative thought.
Both Instauration, and The Dispossessed Majority are typically worthwhile, with the former highlighting what the work of mostly one man was able to accomplish, while the latter was written in a tightly reasoned, passionate, and literate style.
However, his Ethnostate was not nearly as well written, and showed signs of hasty improvisation to the point that Robertson, an editor, was neither his own best editor, nor proof reader [for instance, he referred to the “Hundred Flowers Campaign” as the “Thousand Flower”]. Also, his championing of materialism after the fashion of human sociobiology was overdone, albeit certainly a precursor to HBD type of thinking.
In many respects, for the conservative movement, The Dispossessed Majority should have been the best seller that was, instead, The Closing of the American Mind. Both cover much of the same cultural ground, but Robertson makes Bloom appear as a piker. Yet inasmuch as Bill Buckley defined mainstream conservatism, whatever could really be expected?
Claes G. Ryn makes some interesting observations on Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind in his article “Allan Bloom and Straussian Alienation,” Epistulae, no. 18, August 14, 2013, which is online at:
http://www.nhinet.org/epistulae18.htm
This article is worth reading, although Ryn can be legitimately accused of using euphemisms or avoiding the real issues. For example, Ryn writes:
“Bloom’s 1987 triumph was not due to his having written a profound analysis of the state of America. He had produced another barely veiled attack on traditional America while at the same time providing a defense of the new American establishment that is replacing the disoriented, decadent WASPs. Like Bloom, parts of the new establishment did not want to yield to even more radical forces, such as members of the New Left and the counterculture. Now that we are on the inside, they seemed to say, it is only necessary to make sure that extremists do not undermine our gains or that the WASPs will not stage a comeback.”
Ryn recognizes that the “new American establishment” does not consist of “WASPs,” and is profoundly hostile to the people and culture of “traditional America” (i.e., White America), but he’s unwilling to address the conflict between Jews and Whites in explicitly racial terms. He discusses the role of Catholics in Straussianism at some length (even though he acknowledges they are “distinctly junior partners”), but says little about the Jewish identity and motives of leading Straussians.
There has really been no open racially based critique of culture within the mainstream since, probably, prior to the Second World War. Bloom’s critique is strictly within the realm of rather abstract ideas, except that he blames “German ideas” (along with Rousseau) for the problem, mostly. By the time Robertson wrote his book, the historical work of folks like Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard had long been suppressed and/or forgotten.
Robertson, for his part, had to publish his books with his own money, pay to send out review copies (which were never reviewed), and typically gave away copies to libraries (which then proceeded to ignore the book, if they even shelved it), etc. etc. And for what?
I note that Instauration archives were once online, but the URL is no longer working. Who knows what has come of them, or if they will reappear? But who cares? Today one images that it is more productive to go against a natural ally, than it is to seek alliances. Criticism is always welcome, however one ought to show a certain consideration in these matters. That is the decent thing to do, in my opinion.
Mainstream conservatives are pathological. They are too easily manipulated through their dislike for liberals. Conservative pundits tell them that liberals are the real racists and that by supporting their own race they would be helping liberals divide people by race. They are gullible enough to believe this. Despite their faults, they would be on our side without all the brainwashing coming from the mainstream conservative media. We just have to find a way to break through the brainwashing.
Both conservatives and liberals are Jew controlled, and that is why conservatives are being led against their own racial kind. I cringe when I hear these types compare Obama to Hitler. Modern conservativism is just propaganda for Jewish political power.
Insturation is a great magazine, I agree. You can get every copy online for free.
Insturationonline.com
“Both conservatives and liberals are Jew controlled, and that is why conservatives are being led against their own racial kind.”
That’s part of jewish divide and conquer strategy.
“being attacked as a race, we have no choice but to defend ourselves as a race”
So why choose to adopt the jews’ dishonest minority/majority terminology?
Whites are attacked as a race, anywhere and everywhere, regardless of our relative numbers. We have no choice but to defend ourselves as a race, anywhere and everywhere, regardless of our relative numbers.
What’s Jewish and what’s dishonest about the majority/minority distinction?
Maybe it is not dishonest (it probably is not), but it is becoming obsolete. After all, whites are a minority among children being born, and being a majority is not a prerequisite for our right to pursue our racial interests.
The book was published in the United States in 1972.
Euphemizing jews as “minority” and Whites as “majority” is dishonest, especially in light of the insight that “being attacked as a race, we have no choice but to defend ourselves as a race”.
A proper defense begins with the use of forthright language. Compared to the jews we are the minority. Their attack (and its wickedness) and our defense (and its righteousness) are rooted in race, not numbers.
Have you even read The Dispossessed Majority? Robertson does not use “minority” as a euphemism for “Jew.” There is a whole section of the book on the minority problem, where he devotes chapters to “Assimiliable White Minorities,” “Unassimilable White Minorities,” “Nonwhite Minorities,” “The Negroes,” and Jews. Robertson’s chapter on the Jews is called, simply, “The Jews.”
I have read all three of his books, and I think they are brilliant. WR is one of my favorite nationalist thinkers, and I know he had a reason for calling his people the majority. All I am saying is that his terminology is obsolete, since whites are soon minorities in all our countries.
Greg, you imply that I misunderstand (or misrepresent) Robertson. That is exactly the problem with euphemism.
From the article above:
“The author traces minority domination back to the New Deal and, in part, even back to the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, naming names along the way: Louis Brandeis, Henry Morgenthau Sr. and Jr., Harry Dexter White, Felix Frankfurter, Emmanuel Celler.”
“Minority domination” is a euphemism for “jewish domination”. The more precise euphemism used in DM is “unassimilable minority”. On page 14 of my copy Robertson drops even that qualification:
“It is equally of no surprise that in America the opposition to theories of Nordic or Northern European superiority was led by anthropologists, scientists and social scientists who were in most cases members of minority groups.”
Robertson uses “minority” as a euphemism for other ethnies beside the jews, and “majority” as a euphemism for Nordic/Northern European (along with “minorities” who have “assimilated”). From the table on page 64 Robertson’s readers might think he is referring here to Irish, Pole, French Canadian, Greek or Arab opposition. Except, as Devlin notes, Robertson names names. Almost all are jews, though Robertson only identifies the two most notorious, and then only as “Something-Jewish”.
Robertson was referring to opposition he understood was “in most cases” jews, but used language which distorted that understanding.
My point is not that those who euphemize don’t get it. My point is that those who do get it, who understand we’re being attacked as a race, and we have no choice but to defend ourselves as a race, should then speak of it in plain terms.
Clear speech reinforces clear thinking, and vice versa. Speaking in code only ends up fooling Whites. It certainly doesn’t fool the jews.
We are in complete agreement about euphemism. Indeed, we use practically the same words. Euphemisms never fool Jews, only whites. Time to name who we are and who our enemies are plainly.
But you know, Tan, there’s something about you that makes me want to disagree with you even when you are right. I do not think that an objective, non-jaundiced reading of Robertson entitles you to accuse him of dishonest euphemism.
If the problem is a coalition of minorities who are “in most cases” but not always Jews, then it really is more accurate to refer to them as minorities than as Jews, isn’t it? Thus your desire to find-and-replace “minorities” with “Jews” betrays a certain monomania and lack of scruple.
Sort of like my Baptist cousin who tries to shoehorn Jesus into every conversation. It is very low-churchy to clamp down on “one thing needful,” insist on discussing it even when it is not appropriate, and then to bitterly accuse people of being evil when they draw back from you, or simply exceed your narrow range of interests.
I don’t like that about you.
Cardinal Richelieu is supposed to have remarked, “Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him.” It would seem that Tanstaafl can do this with even fewer words.
“I do not think that an objective, non-jaundiced reading of Robertson entitles you to accuse him of dishonest euphemism.”
I cited Robertson using minority as a euphemism for jew only because you asserted he did not and implied I didn’t know or understand what he meant.
“If the problem is a coalition of minorities who are “in most cases” but not always Jews, then it really is more accurate to refer to them as minorities than as Jews, isn’t it?”
Yes. And in the example I provided it is more accurate to refer to the opposition as jews than “minority groups”, isn’t it?
“Thus your desire to find-and-replace “minorities” with “Jews” betrays a certain monomania and lack of scruple.”
I don’t have any qualms about advocating that races and ethnies and jews be identified as such, not as “minorities”. If Whites are attacked as a race, then let’s identify the attackers as racial enemies, not as “unassimilable minorities”.
I don’t like that you resort to insults. If I cared whether anyone thought I was stupid or crazy I wouldn’t be arguing about any of this.
Again, you might have a point if Robertson referred only to “minorities.” But he goes to great lengths to analyze the minority problem in detail and in specifics.
Is your quarrel based on the fact that Devlin listed only Jews as examples of destructive minorities? If so, then isn’t your quarrel with Devlin, not Robertson?
Again, have you even read Robertson, or did you base your critique on our tiny article?
I don’t “resort” to insults. My arguments stand on their own merits.
The “insults” are purely “gratuitous,” in the sense that they are (1) not necessary to my argument and (2) my gift to you.
It is because you do excellent work that I read Age of Treason, have reprinted your work to give it wider distribution, and have introduced you to people in the movement. I think that you will do better work, and have a greater impact, if you address certain personality flaws, which I have tried to identify, perhaps clumsily, with words like monomania, jaundice, and their inevitable consequence, embitterment.
I do not think you are stupid or crazy. I’m curious, though, why you left out your third category, evil.
Hyperbole is as dishonest as euphemism. The one is being used here to excuse the other.
My point concerns White racialist use of language generally. It is dishonest to use “minority” and “majority” as euphemisms for concepts which are racial in nature.
It was not my intent, but in this particular context, this celebration of Robertson, I can understand why this patently true general point is mistaken as a narrow condemnation of Robertson. All the better to reject it.
Unfortunately, Robertson didn’t just choose to use those terms casually or occasionally. He insisted on using them, most often in understandable and reasonable ways, but in some cases in preference to more accurate, honest terms. Robertson’s DM, Ethnostate and Instauration have been of value to me, and I will continue to recommend him to others. But my point about language stands. The validity of the point doesn’t depend on who it comes from or to whom it applies.
I did not bother acknowledging your implication that I “bitterly accuse people of being evil” because I take it as an especially false piece of personal criticism, which only distracts from the argument.
You persist in accusing Wilmot Robertson, your better, of dishonesty, a position that can only be supported by giving his texts a jaundiced, monomanical, axe-grinding, Witchfinder General treatment. I find this kind of injustice, lack of scruple, and dishonesty disgusting. It makes our movement an ugly and repulsive place.
You persist in strawman and ad hominem. I won’t persist in trying to overcome it.
Ad hominem means attacking the person, not his argument. I did something different. I attacked your argument as an argument. Then, as a bonus, I tried to explain why you come off as a dislikable, dishonest douche, which I think is unfortunate, because you do good work when you focus on Jews. If only you would focus on the enemy rather than smearing people who are on the same side. That sort of behavior just depreciates the already scarce civility and social capital of our movement.
On Counter-Currents.
I suspect that the book’s name was a play on Richard Nixon’s use of the term “silent majority,” from his famous 1969 speech. To criticize Mr. Robertson’s paraphrase, out of context, and now more than 40 years on, is to be guilty of an anachronism. In any case, the term “majority member” was Robertson’s usual way of speaking about European Nordic whites. He was not intellectually dishonest, and to imply such a thing is to sully the legacy of a man who did much great work.
My critique concerns language and tactics, not Robertson’s motives.
The critique is no anachronism. It could just as properly have been made in 1972, and probably was. The dishonest use of “minority” and “majority” continues to this day. Even as time and numbers change, the racial animus is what remains.
How fitting that we can only speculate whether Nixon’s euphemism inspired Robertson’s. That is the problem with euphemism. What we do know now is that Nixon, like Robertson, recognized that the enemy driving his beloved “silent majority” down the drain was in fact the jews.
The most powerful White man in the world remained silent (in public) about that then, and things have only gotten worse since. If being a soft-pedaling “pussyfooter” was deplorable then, it is even more so now.
You accuse him of dishonesty. That goes directly to his motives.
How fitting that we can only speculate whether Nixon’s euphemism inspired Robertson’s.
It is not “fitting” at all, at least in the snarky way that you mean. Robertson is dead, so what else can we do but make reasoned inferences?
So, it seems that there are at least two ways of looking at it. First, Robertson, a man who spent his adult life writing books and pretty much single-handedly publishing an intellectually oriented pro-white magazine at a time when desktop publishing was in its infancy if it existed at all, and a man pretty in-tune with the political times, either titled his book as a play on words taken from a very popular, really at the time an ubiquitous political phrase, in order to call attention to the fundamental existential situation that “majority members” in America faced.
Or, he was inclined to muddled thinking, lacked introspection, was casual with his language, and could be said to be intellectually dishonest.
I think reasonable people can draw their own conclusions. Sometimes I really don’t understand what people can be thinking. And I often believe that some folks simply want to find problems where there are none to begin with. Finally, it is often the case that when folks seriously overstate their case, it is difficult for serious people to take them seriously.
“Perhaps the foremost task of nationalism at the present time is to provide alternative socialization for European Americans who feel lost in an alienating, disintegrative multicultural society.
This is also essential for the further development of Western culture…”
That’s one big reason why I strongly encourage European-Americans (& Europeans) attend nearby European folk dance outfit. By doing so, there are several options one can take – dance with fellow whites, or simply watch them dance and enjoy hearing the European music that comes with the dance or socialize with your fellow dancers or musicians (when they’re not dancing or playing music). You can also bring non-dance (European) friends to the dance event and have European conversations with them.
My basic point here – an European social dance (or a cultural) event is a nice way of bringing white people together.
My experience with European folk dances is – it is nearly 100% white attended events as such dances don’t really attract non-whites, ‘cuz European dances & music is not in their blood.
Jews love folk dancing. And the Whites who do are mostly Liberals. Ordinary conservative White Men see such things as unmanly and European. I’m not denying your experience, but this has been mine. One poor guy had trouble holding my hand during a group dance. He asked me if I was gay.
Posters on Amren raved about Scottish Highland Festivals. I went to my local one and they were talking about their charitable work with youth. They produced the youths – Black kids in a city filled with poor Whites. That was the low point – and it was very low indeed. On the plus side, there were only a few Blacks and Hispanics in kilts.
You might be right with your statement that most dancers tend to be liberals. I generally avoid talking politics with other dancers but a WN friend who went with me to an event and talked with several other dancers and her impressions were they’re mostly liberals.
In some folk dances, there’s more body contact than others. In Scottish & English folk dance, the only contact is hand and eye. In Contra and some Scandinavian dance, you put your arm around person’s waist. Hence I can understand reluctance of some to have this much body contact. For this reason, Scottish & English & perhaps Irish may be more ideal for more conservative ones.
When it is said that “from a strategic perspective it is better to think in terms of “taking it back–all back,” that is making the same deadly mistake the fascists made. Ehnopluralism is the realistic solution, which should at least be mentioned here.
As I wrote in my blog recently, Ethnopluralism speaks the truth about human nature and political philosophy. It counters the lies of political correctness, which is really cultural Marxism. Sociobiology has affirmed the ancient truths of group behavior as the main unit of selection among human beings (E.O. Wilson’s superior revised interpretation). Ethnopluralism harmonizes with the truth about human nature being kin-centered, gender defined, age-grading, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, and religious-making, with group-selection as the primary unit of selection. All groups are included in this worldview—the variety and independence of small states, protected with some sort of light federalism, is the best means of creating civil order, and the best environment for continuing evolution with variety.
Are conservatives gradually crawling out of their selfish hole of radical money-making individualism and centering more on localism and the family? One hopes conservatives soon move on to interest in the larger extended group rather than leaving it to the Left who want to use big government for all things, forcing unworkable equality for all the conditions of human life. But how much of the truths of ethnopluralism will be seen and valued, or even allowed? Are we inevitably subjected and conquered people unable to see or speak the truth? I don’t think so. The truth always rises, especially when our backs are against the wall of survival.
Time to name who we are and who our enemies are plainly.
Okay, plainly as you can, who are you and who are your enemies? Have you really not seen that this is easier said than done? Perhaps it’s one reason why practitioners throughout the ages have operated instead on the basis of “as much truth as a man can handle” or “truth doled out according to need.”
Who we are and who our enemies are is not something that can be defined in a blog comment. Plain speaking is not necessarily brief or categorical. For example, the issues raised recently about racial purism.
But it strikes me as interesting that your objection is to being too frank about these matters. I think this is the difference betwen politics and metapolitics. Politicians lie, shade the truth, and withold vital information.
But it is too soon for White Nationalist politics. For one thing, as Carl Schmitt says, politics depends on the friend-enemy distinction and we have not yet defined who we are and who our enemies are. And we are not going to get to that point by being “politic.”
An initial stab at who we are: the descendants of the original European men: the men who created the cave paintings, the bow and arrow, the domesticated dog, etc. With the understanding that this population has undergone diversification over time, and that these different subracial groups are also worthy of preservation. Also with the understanding that some Caucasians are sufficiently genetically and geographically differentiated from us that they are no longer “us”: e.g., Near Easterners, Middle Easteners, Central and South Asians. These people, however, have their own homelands and are in no danger of extinction. The fact that there has been back-migration and mixing from these populations into the European population in the past is not an issue for me. But preserving out distinctness requires that this be halted in the future.
We are not “Aryans.” We are not “blue-eyed mutants.” We are not the blond race. Those people split off from the main European population, evolved and mutated in geographic isolation, and returned to Europe as invaders who mixed back into the original European population and are just ingredients of who we are today. For instance, I am tall, blonde-haired, and blue-eyed, looks I got from the Anglo-Saxon, Viking, and Norman invaders of the British Isles. But like most people of British descent, most of my DNA is older than that.
I don’t know if there are any unmixed “Aryans” today, even in Scandinavia, where their recessive traits are most common. If so, I hope they can be preserved, for the sake of preserving genetic diversity. But the blonde-haired, blue-eyed type is not definitive of who we Europeans are, and it never was. The sooner White Nationalists drop the erroneous tendency to identify Europeans with us blue-eyed mutants, the better. Most real Europeans are not blonde and blue-eyed, and those traits are also found in non-European populations, including Jews. Three of Atlanta’s black mayors had blue eyes, for example. Apparently, all carriers of the blue-eyed mutation share a common ancestry, so if that is definitive of “who we are,” then we are in big trouble.
As for who we are not: well, that is as complicated as who we are. But the main issue, really, is who our enemies are. The enemy is the present-day political and economic system that is driving whites to extinction. Debating how much of that system is Jewish or indigenously white in origin has long jumped the shark and has devolved into backward-looking, politically ineffectual nerd bait. The Jewish problem comes much more clearly into focus if we ask who, in the present day, are the principal beneficiaries and most zealous guardians of the anti-white system? Who is the hard core of opposition to whites regaining control over our destiny and solving our collective problems? Organized Jewry, without a doubt. There is no way out but through them.
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.