When I first became interested in White Nationalism, I noticed that the basic principle of ethnonationalism was always framed as distinct from the Jewish question. Ethnonationalism is the idea that racial and ethnic diversity within the same political system are sources of strife, and that peace and harmony are best served by establishing homogeneous sovereign homelands for all peoples.
The Jewish question, however, is supposedly something separate from basic ethnonationalism. It includes such topics as the role of Jews in promoting Communism, Zionism, and white decline, and even questions about the holocaust. Some nationalists pursue these questions, but others choose to abstain, merely advocating ethnonationalism but not touching the “J.Q.”
I wish to suggest that this framing of the Jewish question is entirely wrong. The Jewish question is not something distinct from ethnonationalism. It is not a separate, higher-order, entirely optional set of questions from which ethnonationalists can recuse themselves. On the contrary, the Jewish question is a simple, straightforward application of the basic principle of ethnonationalism.
If ethnonationalism calls for the replacement of multicultural societies with monocultural ones, then Jews, as a distinct people, belong in their own homeland and not scattered among other nations. Thus if England is to be English, Sweden to be Swedish, Ireland to be Irish, alien populations need to be repatriated to their own homelands, Jews included. That is the ethnonationalist answer to the Jewish question.
This completely accords with the original historical sense of the Jewish question, which is the question of how Jews, being a distinct nation, can be given legal equality and citizenship within other nations. Our answer is: They shouldn’t. They belong in their own nation-state. The Jewish question is entirely a question about the relationship of ethnicity and nation-states.
The Jewish question long predates such phenomena as Communism, Zionism, and the holocaust, so it certainly has no necessary connection to them. Nor is the Jewish question necessarily connected to the Jewish role in promoting white cultural and demographic decline. Jews could be as venomous as snakes or as innocent as lambs, but there would still be a Jewish question simply because they are a distinct people scattered among other nations.
As far as White ethnonationalists are concerned, the Jewish question is exactly analogous to the black question or the Mexican question or the Gypsy question. Thus the Jewish question is Ethnonationalism 101, not an arcane higher-level elective.
This approach to the Jewish question shifts the burden of proof. It is no longer incumbent on the “anti-Semite” to argue that ethnonationalists need to pay attention to the Jewish question. One does not need to argue that Jews are a “special” people once one observes that they are simply a different people, and, therefore, they belong in their own homeland, not among us.
Instead, it is incumbent on those ethnonationalists who would abstain from the “J.Q.” to explain why Jews, unlike other alien peoples, should have the right to live among us with full rights of citizenship — for this is, in effect, what nationalists who wish to avoid the Jewish question are arguing. When Jared Taylor says Jews “look huwyte to me,” he is saying that they are “us,” not a distinct nation. Of course, claiming Jews are “us” is inconsistent with American Renaissance’s policy of praising Israel as a nation that protects its borders and takes its own side in ethnic conflicts. For if Jews are just generic white people, then what possible justification do they have for creating an ethnostate on Palestinian land? And if Jews are a distinct people, then they belong in their own homeland, not among other nations. (Technically, Jared Taylor is not a White Nationalist or ethnonationalist because he proposes no solutions.)
Of course, it is easier for Taylor to imply that Jews are “us” in the American melting pot. It would be harder to say that Jews “look French” or “look Swedish,” because they don’t, and because French or Swedish ethnicity is not a matter of generic whiteness. Furthermore, despite high rates of intermarriage, the core of the American Jewish community has remained aloof from the melting pot and strongly identifies with the state of Israel. And finally, Jews aren’t generically white to begin with. The racial core of their population is non-European, although some Jews have picked up a lot of European genes in their wanderings.
The Jewish question is not distinct from ethnonationalism. It is ethnonationalism applied to Jews. Thus no ethnonationalist is entitled to abstain from it. Once one recognizes that Jews are a distinct people, the ethnonationalist solution to the Jewish question is Jewish nationalism, i.e., Zionism.
Of course many White Nationalists have a whole lot more to say about Jews than merely observing that they are a different people. I have argued that the fate of White Nationalism does not depend one way or another on the outcome of historical debates about the holocaust. But I do believe that Jews are not just different from whites, but powerful and malevolent enemies who bear significant responsibility for causing white decline and opposing white renewal.
Some White Nationalists don’t want to hear it. But even so, as I have argued here, they still have to face up to the Jewish question. Because if Jews are nothing more than a distinct people, then ethnonationalists must conclude that Jews belong in their own homeland, not in ours. It is as simple as that.
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 409 Robert Stark on His New Novel Vaporfornia
La politique identitaire blanche est morale, Partie 2
Audio Versions of Recent Articles
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 407 Gregory Hood on “Their Democracy”
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Resources at Counter-Currents
Remembering Yukio Mishima (January 14, 1925–November 25, 1970)
Politique identitaire blanche : inévitable, nécessaire, morale, Partie 1
Remembering Jack London (January 12, 1876–November 22, 1916)