Counter-Currents
1,983 words
White Americans should be prepared for a rightward shift coming their way soon. It seems that diaspora Jews are beginning to wake up to the violence of the Left — especially the anti-Jewish Left — and are deciding that the Left is no longer for them. Earlier this month, the Boston City Council rejected millions in grant money from the US Department of Homeland Security, which would have funded anti-terrorism training and operations in and around Boston.
The reason, of course, was racism. It seems black and Hispanic council members were concerned that the money would have further enabled the Boston police to disproportionately target black and Hispanic gang activity, which they find strangely tolerable. They would rather live with crime and terror while maintaining the illusion of racial equality than reduce crime and terror while being forced to admit that black and brown people commit most of the crime and terror. Maintaining such an insidious lie is one of the more revolting aspects of ethnocentrism in a multiracial society such as modern America.
But it gets better — or worse, depending on your perspective. Just days after the rejection, over 30 synagogues in Massachusetts received bomb threats. Yes, they all turned out to be hoaxes. But still — bomb threats. This is making Jews rethink their commitment to the multiracial Left, which, ironically, they more or less brought into being themselves with the Hart-Cellar Act of 1965.
What’s exacerbating all of this right now, of course, is the war in Gaza. Most non-whites cannot get past the superficial optics of “white” Israelis cracking down on “brown” Palestinians. It shatters their illusion of racial equality, thereby offending their sense of social justice. This causes them to lash out at Jews here in America. (And we’re not even talking about Muslims, who are more liable than anyone else to lash out at Jews regardless.) It doesn’t help that one of the black council members, Kendra Lara, has shown open support for the Palestinians and recently encouraged her thousands of followers on social media to join the Global Strike for Gaza.
At around the same time, Rabbi Hirschy Zarchi, a Harvard University chaplain, publicly proclaimed that “Harvard does not have our back.” This came partially as a result of Harvard’s black female president and alleged plagiarist Claudine Gay seeming to take a soft stance against anti-Israel demonstrations on campus. More pertinently, Jews are beginning to feel rather unwelcome there in general.
According to the Daily Wire:
“We heard how Harvard pledges to have our back,” [Zarchi] said recalling what Gay told attendees during that event. “We didn’t feel it last night.”
Zarchi spoke of several instances where he felt he was targeted in recent weeks including during the previous night’s lighting when a woman interrupted and screamed that anti-Semitism is a “hoax.”
The Jewish Harvard Chaplain said he was advised by the Harvard Police to get security to protect his family after hosting a screening of IDF-released footage of Hamas’s atrocities earlier this month.
Not only this, but after the menorah lighting ceremony mentioned above, university officials instructed Zarchi and his group to pack up their candelabra for fear it would be vandalized overnight. Prominent Jews are discovering that the anti-white, multiracial coalition which they so lovingly nurtured over the past several decades is beginning to turn on them over Gaza. They look for support in all the usual places, and they are not getting it:
“When the faculty failed us, when leadership wasn’t speaking in a way that it should have, the chaplains could have made themselves relevant and been the moral voice,” Zarchi said. “This morning I asked where were they to condemn the genocide attack on the Jewish people? Not a word from the Harvard chaplains to this day.”
Zarchi said calls for intifada have been normalized at Harvard.
“They normalized it,” he said. “Completely desensitized and indifferent to the call for murder of Jews.”
Thus, it should come as no surprise that Jewish leaders are now shifting away from racial diversity. Since the Gaza War began in October 2023, Jewish billionaires have been pulling their financial support for Ivy League institutions like Harvard. Former Anti-Defamation League (ADL) leader Abraham Foxman and former World Jewish Congress leader David Harris recently called for something the dissident Right has been wanting for a long time: the dismantling of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) at universities.
According to Foxman, DEI cannot be fixed:
[I]t needs to be scrapped and replaced by a vigorous implementation of our civil rights laws that are color blind, and apply equally to all. If necessary some civil rights laws can be amended and strengthened. DEI was developed to eliminate bias but sadly it created bias.
Harris gets to the heart of the matter even more directly:
DEI today poses a major challenge to liberal understanding of American societal aims, so the goal of rethinking it conceptually is far more urgent than just trying to get along with it.
You can buy Spencer J. Quinn’s young adult novel The No College Club here.
Despite what these men may believe politically, such calls represent a rightward shift among Jews. If we roughly define “the Right” as that which is good for white people, and its opposite, “the Left,” as that which is good for non-white people, then this is certainly what is happening. When Foxman and Harris speak of amending civil rights laws and rethinking DEI, they’re calling for less diversity — that is, fewer brown and black people — at our top universities. They are placing themselves in opposition to affirmative action, which has been a mainstay of the Left since the 1970s. This will open the door for more whites in places such as Harvard.
So how should the dissident Right respond to this?
It would be shortsighted, not to mention spiteful and childish, to be as unwelcoming to the Jews as the Left currently is. When opportunity knocks, you don’t tell it to buzz off, no matter how loudly it bangs on the door. You answer the door and make the most of it. Whites now have some powerful Jewish allies in the fight against racial diversity — which has been an anti-white trope since its inception. Yes, these are fair weather friends who cannot be trusted. But that does not mean we as whites have anything to gain by alienating them the moment they realize they have something in common with us. Further, it’s not as if whites can forge a better alliance with the blacks and browns. These people would never set themselves against DEI.
I understand why some on the dissident Right sympathize with the Palestinians in this current war. But to actively take up their cause simply because their enemies are Jews seems silly, since Palestinians and Muslims in the West are in many ways less friendly to whites than other non-whites are. Islamic terror, no-go zones, and grooming gangs are hard things to get over, after all — to say nothing of the fall of Constantinople, the siege of Vienna, and the Barbary slave trade, which no white should ever forgive without a mass exodus of Muslims from the West.
One can argue for white support for Palestinians by claiming that Jews are worse than Muslims. Okay, fine. This may or may not be true in an absolute sense — although it has certainly been the case since the First World War. But attitudes and stances evolve over time, and this claim is now being challenged by the recent rightward shift of formerly Left-wing Jews. I predict this will continue for as long as the strife in Gaza continues. Because blacks and browns have a weakness for social justice, because they have either too little or too much working knowledge of Islam, and because they on average have lower IQs and poorer impulse control than Jews, they just won’t be able to help themselves when it comes to harassing and attacking the Jewish diaspora. Thus, a considerable number of influential Jews will continue to give the Right — that is, white people — a second look. As this diverse Jew-hatred metastasizes, Jewish powerbrokers such as Foxman and Harris will change from merely opposing affirmative action to opposing non-white immigration in general, and taking other effectively pro-white stances as well.
This is a good thing, and whites should do nothing to hinder it from happening. It reminds me of university basketball programs in the 1960s, which were forced to recruit black players if they wished to remain competitive. You can have your blacks, while we have ours. Well, in the 2020s, the Left can have their Jews, while we on the Right have ours. Things will begin to balance out as the Overton window shifts further right, where it belongs. It also beats the alternative. If the Right proved completely inhospitable to Jews — as I am sure some of us would want — that would facilitate a mass Jewish departure to Israel or somewhere else. A good thing? Well, yes, if 90% of the influential Jews were Left wing and the remaining populace were racially homogeneous. But what if that number were 65%, with whites representing less than half of the remaining population? Would it be so good then? With enough anti-Jewish misbehavior by the Left, these numbers could become a reality in the next five or ten years. Then what?
We on the Right could either match the Left in blind Jew-hate, help send our Hebraic friends off to greener pastures, and then effectively go to war with the remaining rainbow coalition for control of this country. Or, we could take advantage of the enormous influence Jews wield to strengthen white resolve against the modern world while we still have the chance. In other words, if Jews shift rightward in search of safety from the Left, then we on the Right are in a position to get something out of this for ourselves. This is a unique quid-pro-quo opportunity we shouldn’t pass up if we want a peaceful resolution to our troubles. If we can suppress any knee-jerk anti-Jewish reactions, we might actually get the best of both worlds.
Of course, I am not calling for some permanent white-Jewish alliance; nor am I calling for assimilation. Both options would be self-defeating for whites — and we all know that Jews are only in it for themselves. I am, however, considering tactics for both short- and long-term gains for the white race in North America. Our goal should be to carve out a sizeable portion of the continent for an ethnostate of vetted, Right-wing whites (along with whatever tiny percentage of non-whites who have something to contribute). After this, we can execute Greg Johnson’s “slow cleanse.” But the only way to achieve this is through Red-State Secession and the ultimate breakup of the United States into ethnic and racial enclaves, as advocated by Wilmot Robertson in his 1993 book The Ethnostate. Robertson even contemplated a second Jewish homeland on Long Island. If cooperating with Jews who wander rightward can help achieve this future, would it be correct to spurn them?
That said, none of these efforts would be worthwhile if whites repeat their mistakes of the past. The last time Jews wandered in large numbers toward the Right was in the 1960s and ‘70s, when neocons such as Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz split with the Communist Left over Soviet atrocities and the growing anti-Jewish sentiment in the USSR. They eventually took over the Right and purged many of its best people, such as Joe Sobran, Pat Buchanan, and Sam Francis. This ultimately turned conservatism into the joke it has become today. In order for this not to happen again, whites on the Right need to always do three things when dealing with Jews: assert their white identity, emphasize race realism, and be honest about the Jewish Question.
Who knows? If whites have the right attitude, we might net ourselves that ethnostate after all. And all for the low price of telling the truth and not vandalizing menorahs.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
80 comments
The worst part about this decision to side with the Jews or not is White people’s compete lack of agency in the matter.
Whatever happens won’t be our choice, we’re simply a useful tool that the Jews can use for now but will be tossed aside when they achieve their goal.
Maybe we can get something out of a short-term alliance but I doubt it.
I’d sooner trust a black nationalist who hates my white skin than a white-passing Jew who now claims to want to fix the mess he caused. If whites were to ally with Jews to clear out the riffraff, I wonder who gets to do the dirty work, and who will end up with more power.
And give it one hundred years or so and they’ll be back attacking Whites for their role in repatriations setting blacks and browns to murder us once again. Any one who advocates we should ally with Jews has either completely lost their mind or can not be trusted as a thought leader in any pro White movements. I’d even go as far as Jim Goad and treat them as an enemy in the same way he does Christian apologists.
A hundred years? Two years, tops.
…”It would be shortsighted, not to mention spiteful and childish, to be as unwelcoming to the Jews as the Left currently is”
So it’s “spiteful” to unwelcome a subversive desert tribe that’s always sought to enslave and destroy White civilizations and ALWAYS have ulterior motives when ever they come as friends into pro White movements? What have we learned over the centuries?
What have we learned over the centuries?
The burnt fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the fire.
The author seems to have learned nothing yet forgotten everything.
Indeed.
Interesting perspective, thought provoking.
This article presents a terrible idea, a temporary alliance with our greatest enemy. The only solution to dealing with the Jewish Problem is to consistently say “No” and I am not convinced of the threat of non-whites as much as I am sure of threat of Jews to whites. I have been somewhat wary of the author since I read his mediocre novel “White Like Me” but this seals it. Why must we plead that they not commit genocide of our people? Why don’t we just say “No” over and over again. The enemy of our enemy will become our friend.
Hi Claus,
Thank you for reading White Like You. I’m sorry you weren’t terribly impressed with it.
As for this article, I think that not impeding influential Jews when they serve our interests for whatever reason is something we should always consider. But you do raise a good point. I am not advocating an alliance with Jews, although I did say that this right shift could give us powerful Jewish allies. I never said we should be allies with them as in to serve their interests…unless you consider not being completely hostile to them an alliance. Perhaps I should have worded that more clearly.
Please also remember that none of this works without the three pillars of White Nationalism: white identity, race realism, and the JQ. I make this very clear in my essay. I think this important caveat must be considered in any critique.
Finally, please don’t be wary of me. I am just trying to think outside the box about what’s best for whites in North America. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. But that doesn’t mean we should at least consider all possibilities when it comes to establishing an ethnostate.
I might crystallize some of my responses to the critical comments in this thread in an upcoming essay.
THANKS.
Hi Spencer,
I apologize for my overly critical response that included a personal dig at your book. Thanks for your cordial reply to my comment. It’s true that the part of your book that rubbed me the wrong way is the debate about the JQ, which struck me as unrealistic given the circumstances of the story. Such an organized group as presented in the story would have already resolved this issue, in my opinion, but I also realize that the point of the book is to create conversations and it is necessary to include such a debate in order to do so. Even so, it bothered me. However, I understand that fiction needs to address the potential advocates for white people and not just those of us already on board. Aside from that I am tired of revolutionary white nationalist fiction that presumes such an organization will somehow exist at the time when it is needed. But the book has its merits and I think I was unfair in what I said. I donated it to local friends of the library book sale. Hopefully it found its way to fertile ground.
Claus
Hi Claus
I’ll let you in on a little secret. That conversation on the JQ in White Like You was central for my education on the JQ. When I first wrote it, maybe 8-9 years ago, I hadn’t even heard of Counter-Currents. All I read was Amren, and was still a bit of a neocon. When researching Ben Cameron’s conversation with the White Nationalists about the Jews, my original intention was to have Ben present a judeo-friendly perspective. However, as I dug deeper to make the WN’s perspective more realistic and flushed out, I discovered that the counter-Semites were actually correct. This was when I read The Culture of Critique, which sealed the deal for me. The final product takes place in North America many years after all the Jews have fled, and WNs have to focus on combatting Islam and hostile black and browns more or less on the streets. Ben’s point was not that the counter-Semite position is wrong, but out of date given the urgency of the new situation. You may quibble about how realistic a future this is, which is fine. That is the risk one takes when writing dystopian fiction. However, I still find it plausible.
Charity’s Blade, my next novel, however, deals with the JQ head-on in a way you might find more satisfying. The No College Club, my YA novel, deals with it as subtext, as will The No College Club book 2, which I hope will be published late this year.
Thanks.
I see a lot of low impulse control in the comment section.
Hold on to your pearls, sweetie. Maybe Breitbart is more your speed for the comments section.
Loved it Weave! Thanks for your vigilance!
Actually I am now, more than ever, optimistic about our future after reading the comments to this article. We are now more awake to the real enemy as we have ever been and hopefully this will continue. We must be on our guard because as more of the enemy will be turning “Right”, we will see more calls for and alliance which will be utterly detrimental to White people.
Should they shift right, and do so by acknowledging that it is not just anti-semitism that is at issue, but that it is anti-whiteism first and anti-semitism by association, what would the quid-pro-quo things be? What would they do for us and what would we be in a position to do for them? What is our leverage?
I should add that I don’t think being hateful of Jews under any circumstance is healthy or wise. I do think being open about the JQ is another matter. I think getting them to understand it without a paranoid reaction, but to sit at the table and discuss it as a real issue depends upon them not meeting a mindless Jew hatred or invocation of Nazism … … In the end Amy Wax said it best when she said, “Jews have a lot to answer for in regard to the current condition of The West.” Perhaps we start with those like Ms. Wax who acknowledge the JQ and Jewish behavior as a bridge. If they don’t or won’t face up to their role in getting to this point, I don’t think we can get any where. They also need to acknowledge and normalize the use of anti-whiteism. If it is merely anti-semitism at issue there is nothing to work with. I think a good meme to tease out some more Ms. Waxes would be: “Why Does The ADL Not Condemn Anti-White Genocide Talk?” or “Why Does The ADL Call It Is OK To Be White Hate Speech?” We need to put pressure on them.
I once had someone very wise in my life who said to me, “Don’t be right. Be effective.” I think that is what you are saying here, and I agree. Curious to know what the levers are. It seems perfectly reasonable to ally with people like Amy Wax who have shown an ability to self-reflect and acknowledge responsibility.
I want to add to my post. We don’t need to wait for them. They left a crown a sword and a safe stuffed with wealth laying in the gutter for us to pick up. Let’s use Civil Rights and lawfare, especially disparate impact, to sue this brazenly anti-white regime to the ground. That is a tactic to get to a strategic victory on the way to ultimate victory. Force the oligarchy to come to the table and overturn the Civil Rights regime by making it in their interest to do so. Make large sums of money to use for more power along the way. They have handed us everything we need to own this front of the war. There is a time limit on it as the judiciary is being stacked. Time is of the essence to get moving on this.
For us, the friend enemy distinction is if the person is leading with anti-white and has taken the heat for saying it. (Amy Wax and Stephen Miller the only two I know of – maybe Paul Gottfried). If they only come over to fight anti-semitism, and/or spent this time trying to reconcile with their pets and get on the ins with them and only come over when that is untenable, then this is not a friend but an opportunist. We must figure out how to deal with them. I say that is likely a moment of desparation and we should exploit those moments and situations with a calculated ruthlessness that was used to exploit our kindness and weakness over the course of a century.
This is a good topic. No matter what, we must not be hateful. We must focus on the high morality of our cause. We love ourselves, we love our people and we love the civilizations that only we can build. We wish nobody harm, and we, out of love for ourselves and those not compatible with our civilizations who harm us, insist on sovereignty over our homelands. We welcome true friends who demonstrate through action their willingness to aid our cause. Prove through your actions that you are anti anti-white and you have proven your friendship. Now, we have our people and our civilization to prove our love to by saving them.
“No matter what, we must not be hateful.” I totally agree, but the question here is not one of hate but of knowing your eternal enemy. As someone in godfather II said : “Your father did business with Hyman Roth but he never trusted him!”
Mind you Mr. Solozzo , I don’t care what a man does to make a living, but your business is a little dangerous. If we got into the drug and genocide business we would lose all our political (and world) support. Our alliances would run for cover and we would probably fall to the other families a lot faster, even with the extra money.
Well said! Such a great movie with memorable quotes.
I respect what you’re saying here, but it’s a fatal flaw in Spenser’s position that pro-Whites should talk to jews before talking to Whites. Despite the fact that the political expression of White Nationalism being ‘White homelands for White people’, the cultural expression needs to be ‘Whites caring about Whites as Whites’ and that means Whites on the Left and Whites on the Right in dialog with a goal of some kind of comity. This is why I agree with Jim Goad that the whole Left/Right paradigm is, ultimately, anti-White.
Before we try go convince members of an alien and hostile race to ‘be on our side’, shouldn’t we, first, try to invites Whites with whom we have differences of opinion on race to a dialog?
Why are pro-Whites allowing non-Whites and anti-Whites to dominate every ‘conversation about race’?
Frankly, I’ve found the JQ to be distracting when trying to communicate the pro-White position at it’s most basic (Whites caring about Whites as Whites).
Communicating to another White person that – even though you might disagree on important matters about race – that your commitment to White Nationalism means that you still care about their well-being is, to my mind, the essence of being pro-White.
Being opposed to jewish power isn’t the same as being ‘pro-White’.
I think this is spot on HamburgerToday. I can’t disagree. This is the correct priority and posture. We must be for something – ourselves, rather than against external things. Well said.
No thanks, never give the scorpion a ride
I often try to forget the JQ. Just to do a normie reset and escape from all negative energy, go back to basic first principles. But then I find the JQ comes screaming back into the public sphere and takes center stage, as with the recent Gaza thing and it’s domestic sequelae. I think it’s not that we are obsessed with the JQ, but that it is obsessed with itself. It demands center stage.
Whether we like it or not, or even if we try to ignore it, the JQ has been the central question of the last two centuries. It has nothing to do with obsession. It’s like someone telling a victim of domestic abuse, just don’t be obsessed with your abusive spouse.
Being anti-Semitic does not make you pro-White. If a tenth of the energy spend on ‘the jew thing’ has been spent refining our politics and working on helping pro-Whites get elected to local office, the position of Whites would be so much better right now.
The JQ is relevant but it’s not the most important thing. Not even close. What’s important is developing the inner resources to love your fellow White person no matter what and communicating that affection to them in as many different ways as possible in the name of White Nationalism.
I generally like, and agree with most of your comments but we disagree on this very important question.
Name one major political victory that 70 years of anti-jew rabble-rousing has delivered for Whites?
There are plenty of White anti-Semites who hold other Whites in contempt for some reason or another.
I think there is general agreement that jews are a problem, but I believe that the focus on anti-Semitism is largely used as a camouflage for the painful reality that the pro-White movement is full of people who hate Whites…at least some of them, some of the time..
I don’t see how one can be pro-White without addressing the Jewish Question head-on.
The JQ is not about hating Jews, per se, but it will inevitably involve trespassing onto territory that Jews don’t like, because they ultimately see their interests as anti-White.
The spergiest White advocate is almost by definition already deemed an anti-Semite or a Nazi ─ and he will either be effective or not ─ but regardless of how lucrative, if he refuses to transgress clean and Kosher boundries and limitations, then he will always safely fail.
Like it or not, White advocacy must go into hostile territory and to engage. Some people here seem to be confusing legitimate and necessary ideology with pointless LARPing.
This may or may not seem believable, but I really don’t consider myself to be anti-Semitic. That is to say that I don’t have any “irrational fear or hatred of Jews.”
As the host of the RODOH forum which engaged both sides of the Holocaust debate when CODOH got too censorious, I had a reputation amongst both Jews and non-Jewish Believers to always do my best to keep the discussions fair and open to all viewpoints, whether I agreed with them or not, or regardless of who they were.
The bar on the JQ/Holocaust is not really that high. Both sides merely have to be willing to permit an open and genuine exchange of ideas and arguments.
That is exactly what Jewish theologians like Deborah Lipstadt do NOT want.
Her view is that Jews and Israel are sacred cows that cannot ever be questioned or criticized ─ as that is her definition of anti-Semitism and Hate itself.
She conveniently claims to be against anti-Hate laws in principle, but this is a distinction without a difference since she doesn’t want to openly come out against the First Amendment ─ and draconian Thoughtcrimes enforcement in Europe and Canada does serve her ideological interests.
Any discussion in particular about whether Jews were really gassed or not by the Nazis [they weren’t] is, according to Dr. Lipstadt, the definition of the obscene. So dismiss it without a hearing.
These lightning rods of debate and dialog are necessary or inevitable when any honest discussion of Race or White interests comes up. Jews simply do NOT get to unilaterally decide what ideas are heresy and should be outlawed or criminalized. Some Jew-friendly countries already have Orwellian Thoughtcrimes laws. But this cannot be tolerated by White advocates.
White Nationalists cannot ignore this because intellectual integrity itself requires the unfettered ability to engage in authentic and conscientious reflection, with robust review of facts and historical interpretations. Skeptics have to be allowed honest skepticism.
We are not going to win anything by internalizing enemy dogmas and staying safe and “Kosher,” and we absolutely must be able to fully engage our critics.
For example, I don’t care so much what ultimate position one takes on our Uncle and the war ─ but I can hardly see that openly addressing such questions is “wasted effort.”
True integrity of thought is absolutely essential, and our enemies know this.
🙂
You don’t need to drive in the same car to head in the same direction, and if enough Jews think (wisely) that they should distance themselves from the Left, they’re going to do it whatever the Right thinks or wants. Let them, but don’t let them into the white nationalist movement because if you do, they will, as they always do, take effective control via donations and funding and via insinuating themselves into leading roles and then glutting lesser but also critical organizational roles through ethnic nepotism. If they take action to prevent more black and brown and Muslim people from overwhelming the US–or, even better, deporting millions of them out–that’s great. We can applaud from a distance. But hand Amren, Vdare and Counter-Currents over to Ben Shapiro? No.
Draw a line, and hold that line.
“I fear the Greeks even when bearing gifts,” so said the Trojan prophet Laocoon.
The same applies to Jews, at least as a group. They operate on one principle, and one only; is it good for the Jews. To contemplate any alliance with them, on any level, is short sighted in the extreme.
“Quidquid is est, timeo Danais et dona ferentis!” in the original Klingon. Aeneid book 2
No, the point is: just as the Trojan horse was Greek, what you call a Greek tag is, in fact, Latin. It’s obvious, really: The Greeks would never suggest bewaring of themselves, if one can use such a participle, and it’s clearly Latin not because “Timeo” ends in “o”, as the Greek first person also ends in “o”. No, there is a Greek word “Timao” meaning “I honour”, but the “os” ending is a nominative singular termination of a second declension in Greek and an accusative plural in Latin, though actually Danaos is not only the Greek for Greek, it’s also the Latin for Greek.
I get the author’s point of making the best of a temporary situation but the problem is what happens when Jews decide to return to an anti-White position? Will Whites recognise it and change accordingly? Jews have been strongly anti-White on the whole, for a long time but many Whites cannot see that. If we are on the same side for a while, Jews will be able to convince many Whites nothing has changed while they work their own agenda.
I think it would be good for Whites if all Jews (or at least those on the left) went to Israel. The anti-White left coalition would quickly fall apart without the Jewish leadership.
Still, if Jews take an anti anti-White stance I won’t interrupt or criticize them.
[W]hat happens when Jews decide to return to an anti-White position?
They dox everyone they interacted with or blackmail them with doxing.
Does the name ‘Milo Yiannopolis’ mean anything to you?
I will concur with the author. I say we shouldn’t turn down support from any quarter, so long as there are no unreasonable strings attached, and it remains understood that we’re calling the shots in our own movement.
One other thing to note is that there’s a big difference between Jews who comport themselves as decent human beings and fit into society, versus neurotic screwballs who promote Zionism at the expense of everyone else. I have no problem with the first type, and no use for the second type. Unfortunately, the neurotics tend to be highly represented among their “elites” – not too different from us, actually! The decent types need to realize something about their neurotic “elites”. That is, they’re sociopaths who wouldn’t hesitate to throw them under the bus despite their common heritage, and moreover are troublemakers who make things worse for everyone, and therefore aren’t worthy of support.
The price in bad branding for contemporary White Nationalism for an alliance with jewish supremacists is too high a price to pay, ‘strings’ or no.
A temporary alliance with our number one enemy?? And the group of folks who are overwhelmingly responsible for everything that’s happening in North America and Europe??
Thats like Mitt Romney reaching out to the Black Panther Party for help with urban criminality
“[I]t needs to be scrapped and replaced by a vigorous implementation of our civil rights laws that are color blind, and apply equally to all. If necessary some civil rights laws can be amended and strengthened. DEI was developed to eliminate bias but sadly it created bias.”
This isn’t really Jews moving “rightward” or in a “pro-white” direction as much as Jews simply returning to the anti-racist egalitarianism they have always promoted. Pro-Palestinian anti-Zionism is making DEI distasteful for Jews, but they are also growing cautious of it because of the way that overt anti-white hatred of the Noel Ignatiev variety is radicalizing and politicizing an entire generation of whites. Jews disavowing DEI to return to a default 1960s era style of colour blind antiracism does not mean Jews are moving in a pro-white direction. Jews are not our friends, they are our greatest adversaries and have basically orchestrated the decline of white civilization through mass immigration worldwide, and suggesting anything otherwise is unnecessarily complicating basic friend-enemy distinctions.
Well said. A ‘right-wing jew’ is always a jew first. On the other hand, ‘right-wing Whites’ are always right-wing first.
The swarthies are not nearly so capable of White destruction without jewish funding and leadership. If jews abandon them, the swarthies are much more manageable, even if the jews do not join up with the sort-of dissident right.
If we allow jews into Our Thing, they will have more visibility into and influence on Our Thing, and will pervert it toward THEIR ends.
So, no thanks to any jews coing fomr the left. Just keep on walking until you get to Israel.
I partially agree with you. The jews have weaponized the darkies, wound them up and directed them at Whites. But long before the jews became hegemonic in the US, the people of the South viewed the Negro as a threat, free or slave.
When Jews and Christian Zionists collaborate, the Jews get all the tangible benefits (land in Palestine) and the Christian Zionists get all the opprobrium.
The Christian Zionists are used as patsies, scapegoats for the horrific results of US foreign policy.
“US foreign policy isn’t controlled by the Zionist billionaires who finance both political parties and own the media. US foreign policy is controlled by fanatic John Hagee!”
Worse, White Evangelical Christians as a whole get smeared as Christian Zionists, despite the latter being a very small subset of the former.
And so the Jews who “moved right” and collaborated with a subset of White Evangelical Christians reap two benefits – they strengthen their own hold on US foreign policy for the benefit of Israel, and they simultaneously weaken the most right-wing demographic in the USA by (unjustly) saddling them with the blame for the horrors produced by US foreign policy.
Of course, the individual Republican politicians who became rich by selling America to Sheldon Adelson and Paul Singer are certainly happy that some Zionist billionaires “moved right”.
I agree. Christian Zionists are the biggest dupes, easily swindled by the Jews.
Most federal politicians are on the payroll of the big donors, all of whom support Israel first. The US Congress is Israeli-occupied territory.
When he was president, Barack Obama’s foreign policy was less belligerent and more even-handed than that of either Donald Trump or Joe Biden. Obama put America first, not Israel. That might sound hard to believe, but I think it’s true. (His domestic policies were bad, although still better than Joe Biden.)
The Christian Zionists aren’t pro-Christ, they are anti-Palestinian.
The counter-jihadists aren’t pro-White, they are anti-Muslim.
The race-realists aren’t pro-White, they are anti-Black.
The common denominator in each case is, they accepted an alliance with Jews “moving right”, and then they let those Jews shape the direction of their movement.
The Christian Zionists came into being as a reaction to the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, the race realists were allowed to operate freely in the 1990s as a reaction to the alleged Antisemitism of the Million Man March, and the Counter-Jihad movement was a reaction to the Second Intifada.
Instead of being in favor of their own people, each became mere opponents of enemies designated by the Jews.
This is, above all, what I want to avoid – being a golem, a stick in the hands of Jews for beating any Blacks or Muslims who dare criticize Jewish Supremacy.
I don’t want to be a chump like Tommy Robinson or John Hagee.
No Black or Muslim ever called my race the cancer of human history – Susan Sontag did.
No Black or Muslim ever threatened to abolish my race – Noel Ignatiev did.
No Black or Muslim ever said my race has less value than a species of muskrat – Tim Wise did.
“No Black or Muslim ever called my race the cancer of human history – Susan Sontag did.
No Black or Muslim ever threatened to abolish my race – Noel Ignatiev did.
No Black or Muslim ever said my race has less value than a species of muskrat – Tim Wise did.”
Maybe no Black or Muslim ever used those exact words; however, the fact is that with far less literate, and openly violent words — and more importantly, physical acts of violence and brutality against Whites — they DO, as groups, exhibit just as much malice and vitriol towards the White race.
100%!
I will never understand this “Jews are the only enemy” nonsense, as if Negroes and Muslims are peaceful and harmless except for the omnipotent Jews’ stirring them up to hate us. Lol
The desire for a simplistic silver-bullet solution sure is alluring.
Well said, HB.
Being ‘anti-X’ (take your pick for ‘X’) is not the same thing as being ‘pro-White’.
Christians are struggling with Muslims but Christians are not pro-White. So why would a pro-White take the Christian side in the Muslim/Christian conflict?
What does it mean for you to be ‘pro-White’? Does it mean that you hate White liberals but admire pro-White non-Whites? Once you understand the limits of your ‘pro-Whiteness’ you can – if you wish – figure out how our racial enemies will manipulate you to anti-White ends.
Because you’ve already accepted an anti-White stance toward some Whites.
The important difference between blacks and browns on the one hand, and Jews on the other, is that the former are physically dangerous to whites, whereas Jews are dangerous only by virtue of their ability to influence. As demographics shift evermore against us, the danger posed by blacks and browns will increase as their behaviour loses even what little restraint it still has. It is ludicrous to think we could form alliances with them. It is far less ludicrous to imagine that we could form a tactical alliance with Jews, provided we can trust ourselves not to repeat the pattern of self-defeating errors which has characterised white relations with Jews thus far. Can we trust ourselves?
The blacks and browns are a hemotoxin.
The Jews are a neurotoxin.
And, what r we?
White nationalists=antivenom, obviously!
I won’t commit the insanity of reminding the writer of the ‘definition of insanity’. I will commit the insanity of asking the author to reflect on the myriad narratives Europeans have spun up in their heads as they (yet again) ‘signed the writ’ allowing Jews to hold power in their societies. A rich tapestry of thought, propping up motives of practical greed to lofty Enlightenment principles. How many tales could be told about the ways in which Westerners arrived at the notion that it was OK to accept Jewish money? Is there a Counter-Currents article on that topic? If so, put that article side-by-side with this one and open up the comments. Maybe some of that ‘lack of capacity for self-reflection’ that the Jews are duly famous for, will be kept from creeping into nationalist circles.
Whatever short-term gain accrued to the power-holder ‘signing the writ’, the decision never, ever worked out well for the hoi polloi, did it?
It sounds like you’re saying we can’t trust ourselves. You may be right.
No, what he/she is suggesting is to never trust the enemy who has been labeled since time immemorial as “Perfidious” and “cunning and untrustworthy “.
“Can trust ourselves not to repeat the pattern of self-defeating errors which has characterised white relations with Jews thus far?”
I look around me, at my neighbors for instance, see white European people living in a fog of hard-left delirium and hallucinations, serving as fervent acolytes in the “absurd cult of the negro,” and think, in the main, probably not. The usual suspects I have known personally have, down to the last one, been involved in some type of anti-white endeavor. I wouldn’t trust any one of them further than I could throw him.
And what do you propose you could do to help them? Do you think none of them have been adversely affected by DIE or ‘affirmative action’ in some manner or another?
The jews win over their enemies by being incredibly hospitable.
Not every White person who plays the ‘anti-White game’ is a committed partisan of anti-Whiteness. They just don’t see an alternative. And as long as ‘right-wing’ pro-Whites don’t provide them with one, they’ll never come around and the pro-White movement will never be an All-Whites movement that can achieve the kind of cultural and political authority necessary to force concession on our various racial enemies.
Most races in North America are parasites on White talent, creativity and discipline, in short they are parasites on ‘Whiteness’. The White Left knows that an appeal to Whites at the level of love and concern for Whites cannot be deflected by their current version of anti-White identity politics.
Whites caring about Whites as Whites is the Achilles Heel of all of our racial enemies.
By usual suspects, I meant Jews. They’re the ones I don’t trust. There should have been a clearer transition between thoughts.
I do my best to have empathy for fellow whites, and I believe the ones who go along to get along can eventually be brought around to objective reality. The true believers, the ones who actively defend the hallucinations and lies, they’re the ones about whom I have serious doubts.
White Nationalism does not fail because of the institutional power of Jews and nonwhites, it fails because the racially explicit values and narratives we sell are overwhelmingly rejected by every segment of the White population, regardless of ideology or class or religion or anything else.
I respectfully disagree.
White Nationalism has not failed. If anything, it’s hasn’t been more popular since the Indian Wars. The primary difficulty in ‘mainstreaming’ White Identitarian and White Nationalist ideas is their associating with right-wing values like the political suppression of women, anti-democracy, anti-liberalism, anti-modernism. The supposedly high-IQ White Nationalist movement has decided to position itself against virtually every overwhelmingly successful political and social movement for the last 700 years.
If we really believe what we say about how things are in the West, then every White in the West is adversely affected by the anti-White cultural, political and social climate that has emerged over the last 70 years.
I think a thoughtful, caring and serious pro-White movement would start with this realization and move forward from there, speaking to every White as if they needed what White Nationalism has to offer for their survival as Whites. Not ‘liberal Whites’. Not ‘right-wing White’. Not ‘heterosexual Whites’. Not ‘homosexual Whites’.
All. Whites.
A White Nationalism that attempts to impose any other value other than ‘pro-White’ and does not concentrate on promoting a universal White identity, is simply a stalking horse for whatever else it’s promoting.
Promoting anything other than universal White Identity among Whites is bad branding and bad politics.
In the interest of the preservation of Whites, any political arrangement should be acceptable.
I tend to believe that the only sustainable political arrangement for the preservation of the White race involves some kind of territorial control. But that does not mean that – somewhere down the line – this point of view might not prove wrong.
What won’t prove wrong is that ‘Whites caring about Whites as Whites’ – all Whites – isn’t the essence of White Nationalism.
The way the Racial Right has compensated for not having a successful and loving view of Whiteness is to posture that caring about Whites that don’t care about Whiteness are forfiet.
This is amazingly convenient and self-serving as it absolves the supposed White advocate of having to do any actual political work.
A movement that starts out by dismissing the interests of 60% of it’s core demography cannot legitimately call itself a ‘nationalism’.
Somehow my response to someone else got pinned to our exchange. Sorry. My view is that we don’t worry about those sad Whites who are ultimately too afraid to embrace White Nationalism. What we need to promote is a posture that makes it clear that all Whites are welcome to the care of White Nationalism but pro-Whites will receive priority.
“Palestinians and Muslims in the West are in many ways less friendly to whites than other non-whites are. Islamic terror, no-go zones, and grooming gangs are hard things to get over, after all — to say nothing of the fall of Constantinople, the siege of Vienna, and the Barbary slave trade, which no white should ever forgive without a mass exodus of Muslims from the West.”
I am a Muslim so I’d like to comment on this part. First of all, grooming gangs, terror, no-go zones are all examples of breaking covenants, implied or explicit or just innate transgressions(in the case of grooming gangs) in Islamic law. Pakistan has a massive rape problem and to some extent muslims from other countries like Bangladesh do as well.
These are huge crimes done to fellow muslims or nonbelievers and are liable to bring a muslim to roast in the fires of hell. Early Muslims were split on the fate of such unrepentant transgressors-would they be in hell forever with nonbelievers or one day get out? Most agreed with the latter, however it’s common knowledge that after blasphemy, the most likely way to get yourself baked (in hell) is transgressing a covenant or someones rights.
So we do not approve of these actions and I wish that westerners would either ban migration or severely punish the perpetrators with vicious deaths instead of giving them such light sentences or preferably do both. It spreads a bad reputation to the ummah at large and we just don’t want that.
Secondly, regarding “the fall of Constantinople, the siege of Vienna, and the Barbary slave trade”, none of which I am personally familiar with, there certainly may have been acts of transgression just like in the crusades, but we have to keep in mind the age of conquest back then was the default of the world. It was the default of romans before the prophet was born, during and after, and it was the natural default of every major army. Muslims were commanded to leave alone ethiopians as long as they left us alone, but we fought romans and persians because they were going to fight us regardless. The anarchic period of before was one where the default was war or a treaty.
Right now we live in a world were the default covenant is peace with war as the exception. So we should recognize that earlier generations of whites and nonwhite muslims were simply living and acting in accordance with the world they were given. I agree all muslim migrants/migrant populations should make plans to leave, (I am hoping to do so one day myself, I was just born in america) and I wish white populations all the best in recovering the damage done to their societies and generating new flourishing lives where family values are respected and celebrated and whites continue their accomplished lineages. You have much creativity and vitality and intelligence and good genes and may Allah bless you in it. I don’t envy it, Alhamdulillah (praise is God’s) for all the blessings He has given you, and any of His creation. I can do so while knowing its not a good thing if they won’t convert to my faith but still wanting my fellow man to enjoy the good of this world for the same reason I would dislike if he was oppressed or going through difficulty.
Now consider this-what the Jews will ask of you in return for their support is that you support Israel. This will put you in the crosshairs of 2 billion (and growing) Muslims. Is it REALLY your best choice to take on that massive burden, have your kids inherit it just for the sake of these people? Consider that if you do, the politically correct thing for activists will be to make opposing Israel all about opposing whites, this will fuel and justify that sentiment as they see “whites” slaughtering Gazan babies en mass, stealing land and essentially aid them in their anti-colonial drive.
They will take your benefit, you will take their burdened. There is little they can do for you. Why not just show patience and refuse their alliance and the temporary benefit you think they will provide you?Perhaps you ought to focus instead on banning immigration and fixing white families.
It’s good to know that grooming gangs etc. are frowned on by Muslims. But the fact remains that Muslim communities tolerate such activity, and do not cooperate with the police and the courts in bringing the perpetrators to justice.
I am not sure that we should be terribly thrilled about Jews altering their dominance strategies in our societies so they can better maintain their control. Because that’s the substance of what you are describing here. Wouldn’t it be better for whites if Jewish control were less rather than more stable? Wouldn’t it be better for Jews to be at odds with non-whites and whites alike?
I think I’ve said this number of times on here, but David Cole’s “Stop With The Golems!” article is ageing well like the finest of French wines. Someone should do a rendition of the “anti-Semitic” Ben Garrison riff with the mad Jew jumping up and down with the comic bubble saying, “why can’t the anti-Semites be white this time!”
As of writing this comment there is an estimated 20k Gazans who have been killed in the war. That’s 1% of the population of Gaza that is now no longer with us. I should preface in saying I’m by no means the biggest fans of Arabs and Muslims, but at what point will this start to be considered ethnic cleansing? I think Jews had some wiggle room if the number was under 1% playing the pilpul game (they attacked first! we’re the most moral army in the world, we drop leaflets and then drop the bombs! etc.), 1-5% is going to be a challenge, but if more than 5% of Gazans are wiped out by the end of this war not even God himself could pilpul his way out of this one. What is interesting is how many leftist Jews are now saying there can’t be peace with the Arabs. Even Haaretz, a very leftist paper, at times after the start of the war sounds like a right wing jignat outlet.
I think the disdain Jews have for whites is a sort of psychological projection that we are seeing manifest in this war. Despite their disdain for whites for killing off the Indians Jews nonetheless see themselves killing of the Palestinians. Jews are becoming the new whites and whites are becoming the new Jews.
The jews have no principle other than ‘Is this good for the jews?’ The jews will fain concern about the ‘genocide’ of the North American Redfolk but that’s only to convince Whites to give away power and assets. It’s all a con. The jew is not White. They don’t believe in anything except themselves and their ‘concerns’. The solution to jewish perfidy is White solidarity.
I share certain ideological affinities with Mr. Quinn – simply put, I am an ex-conservative and Evangelical Christian turned White Nationalist – which means I’m sensitive to the issues and concerns he raises here. Nonetheless, I strongly disagree with the thrust of this article.
Whites as a race have built high trust societies because we have evolved to trust “strangers” of our own kind who would never truly stab us in the back the way Jews repeatedly do. No matter how sociopathic or opportunistic the Elites of our race have been in the past, someone like Mitch McConnell or Gavin Newsome is biologically and psychologically incapable of acting in the kind of calculated, hostile, hive mind like manner that Ben Shapiro, Benjamin Netenyahu, or Abraham Foxman do. The corrupt Elites of our race are willing to strike any deal and sell out as many of their own people in order to make their own lives more secure – this much is known. But Jews as a collective have proven for 3500 years dating back to the age of the Pharaohs that they are irredeemably and unapologetically hostile. They have proven themselves an implaccable Enemy.
There is no need for White Nationalists to publicly embrace colorblind/anti-DEI Jews, nor is there a need to publicly condemn them like a stereotypical “Neo-Nazi.” The response to the likes of Foxman and other Jews who are clever enough to boil the frog more slowly is to continue our mission to save our race by positively promoting our own people and critiquing our enemies and racial competitors (Blacks and Browns most notably) who hate us and wish to destroy us. Simply put, we must stay the course.
Speaking for myself, I don’t consider Love and Hate to be dichotomous contradictions. I consider them to be two sides of the same coin that Evolution and Nature have endowed us with in our for the individual, the family unit, and ultimately, the race to survive. When another race or species has made it clear, over and over again, that they are hostile, the prosper response is to assume hostility and to reject giving them the benefit of the doubt. We as Whites do not have the inate neurotic hatred of outsiders that Jews possess, and I’m not advocating that we adapt it now. But I *am* advocating that we modify our previous unconditional trust in strangers by adding an ingredient of distrust in nonwhites generally and in Jews specifically. Only our own race should ever be given the benefit of the doubt. If we cannot evolve to add that distrust towards hostile outsiders, then we will surely perish.
The “we” of White Nationalism present on the cyberspace has yet to translate into a substantial “we” of White Nationalism in the real world.
Presently, Whites do not have a formidable national political vanguard.
Who is going to take the decision on behalf of White nationalities to have or not to have a tactical alliance with entity X or Y?
Fortunately, there is no one person who could make such a momentous decision one way or another.
Excellent essay that reaches the correct conclusion. An alliance with right-minded, Pale-skinned Jews makes perfect sense. I’ve always believed that one of the things that destroyed the 20th century Klan was its anti-Catholicism that helped create a very large White population that helped bring about the Klan’s destruction. Looking back, the Protestant-Catholic rift between Whites seems silly now. Jews operated smoothly within the old White Southern system and there’s no reason such a system couldn’t be resurrected nowadays. An alliance isn’t taking a knee.
Jews are just a little unsteady in the saddle and are taking a new grip on the reins of power. It might prove advantageous to us. But we’d be fooling ourselves to think that these people are potential allies. Nobody makes alliances with powerless and marginal people.
It is worth looking at why the Jewish / Southern White alliance fell apart.
They wanted us to let Leo Frank get away with the rape and murder of a 13 year old girl.
They wanted us to frame and execute an innocent Black man.
To their credit, our ancestors said “no”!
No they want us to help them ethnically cleanse millions of Palestinians. I say, “hell no”!
Well said.
If we roughly define “the Right” as that which is good for white people, and its opposite, “the Left,” as that which is good for non-white people, then this is certainly what is happening.
But the only reason do ‘define’ these terms is this way is to make the Right appear to be accomplishing something simply by existing. Which is really sad.
When Foxman and Harris speak of amending civil rights laws and rethinking DEI, they’re calling for less diversity — that is, fewer brown and black people — at our top universities.
No, they’re not. What they’re talking about is jewish supremacism. That’s all they’re ever talking about. If I had to predict, I’d say that the jews are looking at some kind of pro-jewish quasi-ideological vetting that will keep jews in the driver’s seat at the Ivy’s while pushing out Whites even more than they do now.
They are placing themselves in opposition to affirmative action, which has been a mainstay of the Left since the 1970s. This will open the door for more whites in places such as Harvard.
No, they’re not and no it won’t. What they’re saying is that they think the ‘liberal’ brand needs refurbishment and they’re looking at ways to institute increased censorship of all opposition to jewish exceptionalism and supremacism.
It would be shortsighted, not to mention spiteful and childish, to be as unwelcoming to the Jews as the Left currently is.
No, it wouldn’t. The jews are not ‘moving right’, they’re trying to figure out how to ‘de-anti-Semitism’ the Academy so that they can maintain their privileged positions within American society. They jews are offering nothing specific and unique to the interests of Whites. When Whites piggy-back on jew-approved policies the jews always gain more than the Whites. And, eventually, the jews can always take back all the gains that Whites accrued during their detente.
Yes, these are fair weather friends who cannot be trusted. But that does not mean we as whites have anything to gain by alienating them the moment they realize they have something in common with us.
The problem is that you think there’s something to ‘gain’ when there isn’t. The jews are going to do what they’re going to do and if the pro-White movement in any way condones the policies that come out of this pivot, it will be a public-relations failure of the same magnitude as Rockwell’s worship of Hitler.
Thus, a considerable number of influential Jews will continue to give the Right — that is, white people — a second look.
This is just self-comforting nonsense based upon the false equation of ‘the Right’ with the interests of White people. They’re not the same. The real issue is always pro-White versus anti-White. Are these jews pro-White? Are they advocating for reparations for White America who has suffered real losses due to jewish rule and ‘civil rights’? What are these jews offering that goes against their interests that promotes White interests to the same degree that the acceptance of’affirmative action’ by Whites hurt Whites to the benefit of non-Whites?
[J]ewish powerbrokers such as Foxman and Harris will change from merely opposing affirmative action to opposing non-white immigration in general, and taking other effectively pro-white stances as well.
How do you know? And what are these ‘effectively pro-white stances’ you predict they’re going to embrace?
Well, in the 2020s, the Left can have their Jews, while we on the Right have ours.
This is is a succinct summation of a terrible idea. Say it with me: Jews are not White. The first loyalty of the jew is to the jew. The jews will not restore Whites to any kind of prominent cultural, political or economic position in American life. They have no reason to do so. They have all the power and wealth they could possibly want and no intention of ever giving it away.
If the Right proved completely inhospitable to Jews…
If your scenario made sense, then the ‘hospitality’ would be jews inviting Whites to take the reins to their organizations (and vast wealth), not the other way around.
… that would facilitate a mass Jewish departure to Israel or somewhere else.
That’s not going to happen and that’s the point of this pivot. Jews like Whites giving blood and money to Israel, but they have no interest in giving either themselves by putting ‘skin in the game’ in Gaza or elsewhere in Israel. Not at least until they’ve drained Whites dry.
The jews will ‘tack’ the winds of ‘anti-Semitism’ blowing across the West with an eye to maintaining every advantage they now have and, if possible, securing even more. My belief is that they’ll change nothing about anti-White laws and just add increasing censorship and use their economic and media power to crush dissent. Jews are not White. They think very clearly about what their end-goal is – jewish supremacism – and never, ever, ever give up on it. The entire jewish coaliation is based upon anti-White hatred. They cannot give up on that or they’ll lose everything.
[I]f Jews shift rightward in search of safety from the Left, then we on the Right are in a position to get something out of this for ourselves.
No, you’re not. The Right has nothing the jews need or want. The Right isn’t even respectable.
Of course, I am not calling for some permanent white-Jewish alliance….
The fact that you’re even suggesting an ‘alliance’ at all betrays a serious misunderstanding of the power asymmetries between pro-White and pro-jewish political and economic organization.
In order for [jews gutting a non-jewish movement] not to happen again, whites on the Right need to always do three things when dealing with Jews: assert their white identity, emphasize race realism, and be honest about the Jewish Question.
No. What Whites need to do is cultivate their own power centers and use them to leverage that power. No ‘shake-and-bake’ jew/White alliance is going to result in Whites having actual power over their own lives. Only a genuine ‘street level’ pro-White movement with elected officials and the ability to divert tax dollars towards pro-White policies can possibly act as a deterrent to anti-Whiteism in North America.
The jews trust Whites only so long as they can control them. Any ‘alliance’ with jews will be 100% on their terms.
I don’t doubt that jews like Foxman are genuinely concerned about how ‘identity politics’ has started to turn on them and they’d like a return to the ‘race neutral’ politics of that Old Time Liberalism where jews were able to systematically push out Whites and take control of the means of decision across North America (and most of the West).
Whites are a minority in 11 states in the USA and about to become a minority in 1 more.
‘Race neutral’ policies are not going to cut it.
I refuse to accept the political crumbs the jews choose to sweep off their table in the general direction of White people.
Now is not the time to muddy the ‘White Nationalist’ brand with ‘and pro-Jewish Nationalism, too’.
Hi Hamburger. I always find your comments insightful and sincere. I am one of the Right Wing WNs you speak of, and I’d like to offer some food for thought on why White Solidarity has failed to take foothold within White Nationalism and among the White Race at large:
Lets start with the big one: Whites as a race are highly resistant to thinking consciously in terms of racial identity, and this has always been the case. Every other race – Negroes, Hispanics, Asiatics, Indians, Arabs, and above all, Jews – possess an inherent ethnocentrism that is explicit and unchangeable. No amount of propaganda from outside institutions such as the media or the schools could trick a Negro or a Jew into abandoning support for his own kind. No nonwhite would ever take like fish to water a “Civil Rights Movement” that explicitly elevates members of competing races the way Whites did in the 1960s.
With the White Race, our ethnocentrism is both implicit and, in comparison to the nonwhite races, it is weak. We as WNs are thus at an inherent disadvantage in the war for minds and souls, because we act and talk in a racially explicit manner that has always turned off Whites of every time period. Adolf Hitler himself admitted in Mein Kempf that he was turned off by anti-semitism when he first heard it. He thought it was low class and was beneath him as a middle class German. Hitler basically redpilled himself on the JQ by being honest in all his observations and putting explicit words to those observations, thereby deriving the ideology of National Socialism in the process.
And that brings me to my next major point: Whites as a race think explicitly in terms of values and narratives, which express themselves in a myriad of ideologies, most of which can be loosely classified as “liberal” or “conservative.” To reject this dichotomy as “anti-white” is to willingly ignore how our race is constituted at a psychological level. We alone among the races of the world divide ourselves up by how we behave, what we believe is right and wrong, and even just what our basic interests are. White students at all levels of school separate themselves by “cliques.” No other race of students does this. Negroes, for example, all listen to the same rap music and talk the same way to each other. Asiatics are notorious for their conformity. There is effectively no cultural diversity or cliques among the nonwhite races. They are a monolith. Whites are not.
The puzzle we as WNs have to figure out is how to “convince” our race to stand up for itself and defend itself from the predatory behavior of Jews and nonwhites without making it racially explicit. White Nationalism does not fail because of the institutional power of Jews and nonwhites, it fails because the racially explicit values and narratives we sell are overwhelmingly rejected by every segment of the White population, regardless of ideology or class or religion or anything else.
It is thus not a matter of loving all Whites. It’s a matter of working with, and not against, how our race is biologically and psychologically constituted. If the White Race wanted Pro-Whiteness, in any of its manifestations, it’d have found a way to get it, despite all Jewish institutional opposition to the contrary. And that brings me to my final point: We as WNs should not unconditionally love all members of our race, for there is too much weakness in too many members of our race. We should only love those who love and defend themselves. We should actively protect those who display an explicit proclivity for protecting themselves. Nature is unforgiving, and frankly, unconditional forgiveness of destructive behavior and attitudes – whether its anti-racism, transsxualism, or primitive superstitions about the reality of the world – is exactly the kind of sentiment that the Jews and their Abrahamic religions have desperately tried to inculcate us with for these last 1700 years.
What needs to happen is that a critical mass of Elites among our race – whatever “Honorable Men” are left, as opposed to unreliable “Economic Men” such as Donald Trump and Elon Musk – need to basically wake up and decide to burn the whole thing down. Or, alternatively, powerless Whites such as myself and you figure out how to spark the world’s first ever truly successful Peasants Rebellion. Its basically one of those two options. And since I’ve never put much stock in the Elite theory because the Elites themselves have no reason to change how things currently are, that leaves us with the usual project of “Waking People Up.”
You make a cogent argument for the impossibility of success of White Identity and White Nationalism.
I don’t concur because I’m not ‘on the right’, therefore I’m not saddled with the idea that ‘the past’ determines everything and that nothing can change except the rate of decline in the return to barbarism.
So, for me, nothing you’ve said changes the fact that an ‘All Whites, One Love’ approach is what is required to move the ball down the field for Whites.
Creativity not pessimism is what is required for Whites.
And you don’t have your fact straight. Even in the US, there was for a very long time a White racial consciousness brought about by the century-long struggle against the Redfolk. But the White ruling class preferred to promote an ‘Americanism’ that was race-neutral and deferential toward capital as a way of end-running the consciousness of the White laboring classes. ‘America’ could be manipulated in ways ‘White’ could not and so ‘America’ superseded ‘White’.
A race-neutral ‘America’ was a bargaining tactic by the White ruling class, not something inherent to American Whites (or any Whites anywhere).
Ordinary Whites would prefer a caring society instead of a capitalist dog-eat-dog society that favors non-Whites over them.
I feel like you think ‘White Nationalism’ is problem rather than a solution.
I think White Nationalism is a solution that just has to be creatively and diligently implemented.
And it starts by making the ethical/emotional core of White Nationalism ‘Whites caring about Whites as Whites’. Not ‘leftist Whites’ or ‘conservative Whites’ or ‘homosexual Whites’ or ‘heterosexual Whites’ but Whites.
My framework for formulating a successful strategy is not the Spenglerien approach of “the past determines the future, therefore, we’re all doomed.” I agree with you that many RWs believe in that, and well, they are wrong. I honestly don’t put much stock in historical cycles at all. I strongly prefer the linear view of history over the cyclical view, which is Eastern and Asiatic in its origins, whereas the linear/progressive view is Aryan and Faustian.
That all being said, my framework for success is this: What works is right, and what’s “right” doesn’t necessarily work. Love may be desirable in an ontological sense, but I’m convinced that if WNs were to approach normie Whites – which is to say, all Whites who are not explicitly racially conscious – with the pitch of “this is all about love of our fellow Whites like you,” they’d reject it out of hand because they would smell the “rat” of “hate and genocide” that all of them suspect we are trying to push – our own actual sentiments on the matter be damned. Normie Whites, to this day, think we are the Bad Guys, and it isn’t because we don’t show them enough love, it’s because they have explicitly chosen to believe the Narratives about us, even as they reject other Narratives from the System that they don’t like, for one reason or another.
A successful approach to changing things will not bang its head against a wall in the delusional hope that it will work this time. A successful strategy will incorporate what we know about reality and work with it, not against it. If the goal is to convince the White Race to defend itself, then we all need to continue to strive towards a strategy that will make that outcome a reality, hence the creativity you mentioned. This creativity will fail if it ignores or dismisses basic observable facts about how our race acts and what it feels and believes.
In regards to your point about capital and its pivot towards colorblindness, what I’ll say is this: Capital is not active, it is reactive. Capital will adapt itself like a chameleon to whatever population forms its marketplace and whatever the sentiments and values of that population are. Capital is not the driver of history and events like Marx claimed. Capital was once racist, then values changed, which caused market demand to change, which caused Capital to become anti-racist. I strongly encourage you to disabuse yourself of the notion that Capital is active as opposed to reactive. The theory that Capital caused anti-whiteness is based on an incorrect interpretation of what motivates people and how they behave in the real world. Dialectical Materialism is, like the Abrahamic Religions, another Jewish deception.
First of all, I hope you will look me up over on Gab at @hamburgertoday to continue this conversation because it’s starting to be come elaborate than the C-C comment section can contain. Also, I never know exactly when a thread will just ‘run out’.
I think we’re more on the same page than on different pages and I think we both want mostly the same things.
Consequently, I’d rather maintain comity than attempt to ‘win’ any argument.
That being said, I respectfully disagree with this:
I’m convinced that if WNs were to approach normie Whites – which is to say, all Whites who are not explicitly racially conscious – with the pitch of “this is all about love of our fellow Whites like you,” they’d reject it out of hand because they would smell the “rat” of “hate and genocide” that all of them suspect we are trying to push – our own actual sentiments on the matter be damned. Normie Whites, to this day, think we are the Bad Guys, and it isn’t because we don’t show them enough love, it’s because they have explicitly chosen to believe the Narratives about us, even as they reject other Narratives from the System that they don’t like, for one reason or another.
There is almost no White who imbibes of the System’s media who has explicity made a choice about The Narrative. That’s the whole point of a system of propaganda: To make sure the population is not aware of the choices that are being imposed upon them.
I think White Nationalism is a transformative politics for Whites I think a transformative politics requires a ethos. I think transformative ethos is some for of ‘All Whites One Love’ or ‘Whites unconditionally caring about Whites because they are White’.
As for ‘sentiment’, I don’t consider this to be mere sentiment and I don’t think that ‘sentiment’ consumes the entirety of what I’m proposing because, as the Man is supposed to have said, ‘Faith without works is dead’. We have to ‘walk the walk’ in our interaction with other Whites. We have to set aside the impulse to dominate and escalate a conflict.
Our people deserve to be saved. Even the ones who think our people don’t. So I see our mission is to bring as many people as close to ‘Whites unconditionally caring about Whites because they are White’ as possible and to live that ethos as much as humanly possible.
I’m not a Christian, but I see how the early Christian desire to live a fundamentally unpragmatic ethos created the conditions where that ethos became pragmatic.
This article is perfect for today. That Claudine Gay resigned for “plagiarism,” which was detected by some local newspaper by looking through her eleven publications (in 26 years). I don’t know how clear it has to be to see America is run by Jews. Gay would never have been fired for any other controversy. But if you don’t support Israel, and I mean enthusiastically, you are done. Although it is in an interesting strategy, there will be no carefully controlled white-Jew alliance. You don’t out-Jew the Jew. I will say this article certainly livened up the comments section!
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber 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
Lost your password?Edit your comment