“Europe is the faith and the faith is Europe.
—Hilaire Belloc

Whatever may be the opinions of dissident right types regarding Christianity, I’m fairly confident that virtually all would admit that it in its current form is dying, as is its European heartland, or the region of the earth once called Christendom. Unlike some in the Dissident Right, I feel that there is a strong causal link between those two progressing mortalities, with the former serving as one of the major reasons for the latter; I also believe that revitalizing the one will lead to the recovery of the other.

Rather than spend time running the gauntlet of angry detractors of Christianity talking about the origins of the faith or how it got to its current, mostly effeminized and multicultural (which most often implicitly means antiWhite) forms—be they the ones who argue that it is nothing more than a Jewish theological Trojan horse or the ones who believe it to be a genuine religion, though a genuinely ruinous one, here I intend to show what its reformed manifestation would look like and how that would aid our cause of saving the White West.

To be clear from the get-go: I am not in this essay going to get into the theological weeds of doctrinal minutiae (e.g., the nature of the Trinity or whether Mary was without sin), no matter how important those might be for particular Christian creeds; rather, in the spirit of a work such as C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity, I intend to focus on issues which all true Christians (i.e., not those of too many churches in their current, decadent forms) could find common ground on. With that in mind, let’s get into the main areas of contemporary Christianity that are in desperate need of reformation.

By far the most critical issue is that for Christianity to be restored to its true form, it must forcibly remove and toss into the fire those parts of it which make it a cult rather than a true religion.

What’s the difference?

Well, although this definition is somewhat idiosyncratic, I’m fairly sure that most people, save those who hate religion in general (e.g., the late, ironically named Christopher Hitchens), would agree with it: the difference between a true religion and a cult is that the latter demands that earthly matters which are amenable to the God-given faculty of reason be made matters of unquestioning faith while the former does not; that is, true Christianity requires us to take on faith only those things which go beyond the ability of the mind alone to grasp, those things which are of this world only by the way in which the choices that we make in dealing with them echo, to our everlasting joy or sorrow, beyond the grave. So, the pondering of whether the act of killing a man out of malice rather than self-defense is a grave sin and leads to hell in the afterlife (if the murderer refuses to truly repent and mold his actions for the rest of his life to conform to that resolve) will necessarily lead to the realm of matters of faith, whereas whether any particular act of killing was or was not done in self-defense would most definitely not require an act of faith—and attempting to make it do so would be not stupid but downright sinful, even the point of blasphemy.

How so?

Well, because it runs afoul of the first Commandment: “I am the Lord thy God. . . . thou shalt have no other gods before me. . . . Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. . . . Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.” Graven images or idols, you must understand, are not limited to literal statues, but rather mean anything to which we accord the reverence and worship that is owed to God alone. To God and Christ alone we owe faith . These are one and the same, but like I said I’m not getting into Trinitarian matters here; to make anything earthly that is amenable to reason a matter of faith is to treat it as a de facto god and thus to commit implicit blasphemy. And beyond that, even if one does not make important earthly matters into matters of faith, to refuse to subject them to the acid test of reason is to refuse to make use of that gift from God and thus, like the man in the parable of the talents who refused to use the talents given him, to commit sin.

This is how true Christianity is needed to revive the West. Virtually all the power that our elites hold is held thanks to citizens in general and Whites in particular not embracing the true Christian principle of subjecting all earthly matters to reason’s scrutiny: only evil needs darkness to conceal itself in, while good has no such need; as we call Christ the Light and the Truth, so fidelity to truth is fidelity to God. And beyond the metaphysical, there are very earthly practical reasons (biological and physical ones, in fact) why this is so.

To put it as concisely as possible, our elites are parasites, and like all parasites are reliant on much larger bodies than themselves (national and politic, in their case) for the resources that they desire, entities which could easily crush them were they to suddenly become aware of their nature and intent. So like all parasites, they must rely on stealth and deceit to achieve their goals. An iron law of nature is that the moment the costs of maintaining the deceit exceed the benefits gained from it, the parasite is doomed. Were the host population to give the pursuit of truth the value that true Christianity accords to it, the cost of maintaining their parasitic deceit would make the elites’ efforts utterly unsustainable. To prevent this, evil must attempt to lure men into idolatry: it must make ideology their de facto god.

Ideology is for many men a de facto god, since any facts or issues seen through its twisted lens (in the case of most ideologies) are not truly seen at all but rather put beyond questioning and thus made into articles of faith. The most glaringly obvious examples of this in our time are liberal attitudes toward race and sex: for them race realism and the from-time-immemorial notion that there are two genders are not positions to be debated but heresies to be stamped out. Gregory Hood referred to anti-racism/wokeism as the church of the damned for good reason: for these ideologues, such things really are matters of faith alone—matters by which Whites face damnation by faith alone—to invert Luther’s famous idea, since they have no way of questioning their anti-racist notions that they are the source of all evil in this world.

Although the broader Right is usually better about this than the Left (though that’s not saying much), most of the normiecons have quite a few self-induced, pseudo-religious blind spots: the value of Israel or the evil of Russia being two prominent examples. Even many on the dissident right have a bit of this, particularly with regard to the value of Christianity itself: a few of them take it as a matter of faith that the faith has been nothing but an unmitigated disaster for Europeans and Whites in the lands beyond old Christendom and display an adamant refusal to even debate the matter. Save for the neo-pagans, most of these people are atheists—atheists who, ironically, turn atheism itself into a religion wherein the gravest mortal sin is finding anything worthwhile in religion in general and Christianity in particular; the ultimate irony of this is that their dogmatically held anti-God notions prevent them from using reason to see the very practical uses of upholding true Christian doctrine.

For from a purely practical (even cynical) standpoint, nothing could be more useful to the dissident right than nominal Christians taking true Christian principles to heart. As our side likes to say, we are not afraid to debate race realism and the Jewish question because we know we have truth on our side and would win. So what is stopping that debate from occurring? Ideologies, the Overton window (less so now, but people are still not ready for a full and honest discussion of race, the Jewish question, etc.), etc.—in other words, all those things that would hold no sway over men’s minds were they to live according to true Christian precepts and pursue truth no matter where it leads. True Christianity would smash the intellectual idols and allow race realism to reign supreme. Beyond that even, it would give an absolute advantage to anyone with truth on their side: thus, it’s rather odd for many on the DR, who never tire of proclaiming truth to be on the side of their policy recommendations, not to wish Christianity to spread across the West (though to be fair, most of them are taking the current, degenerate forms of the faith as true ones, not the militaristic faith described by Jim ).

And the very same can be said of scriptural exegesis: while the Word of God is indeed timeless and infallible, human interpretation of it is most certainly not; hence, while the ultimate truth of scripture is a matter of faith, a correct understanding of the specific meaning of any parts requires reason. Just take the example of: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” juxtaposed with “Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee”—at first glance there seems to be a contradiction, one which the atheists are ever wont to point to as proof of the irrationality of scripture; but once we realize that the former was simply a case of Christ using hyperbole to make the point that there is a hierarchy of values with love of God and salvation at the top—since without God’s love, there is nothing to our love of our parents beyond mere genetically encoded biological drive that has no significance that can hold beyond the grave—the seeming contradiction resolves itself.

The very opposite would occur with some of the deadliest heresies and pseudo-religions of our time, since all of them are based on intellectually vacuous interpretations of scripture which are then taken as articles of faith in and of themselves. If this true Christian idea of holding the ultimate truth conveyed in scripture as a matter of faith but correct interpretation of scripture as matter of reason were to take hold in the minds and hearts of nominal Christians, it would sound the death knell for the oxymoron of Christian Zionism: just the line, “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” by itself would be enough to destroy the heresy, let alone a contrasting of it with the Talmud passage described thus: “Whereas pious Muslims consider Jesus as the holy prophet of God and Muhammed’s immediate predecessor, according to the Jewish Talmud, Jesus is perhaps the vilest being who ever lived, condemned to spend eternity in the bottommost pit of Hell, immersed in a boiling vat of excrement” and Martin Luther’s description of the Jews’ treatment of the mother of God when he writes, “Then they also call Jesus a whore’s son, saying that his mother Mary was a whore, who conceived him in adultery with a blacksmith.” And with the death of Christian Zionism, Jewish power in America would be massively reduced—and would be ended entirely if this were paired with an absolute pursuit of the truth that reveals the degree to which Jews are responsible for the degradation of current and formerly White Christian nations.

Even from a purely practical standpoint, there is no getting around the fact that men have a deep-seated need for faith, “[t]he need of some imperishable bliss,” to quote Wallace Stevens, and so, as Chesterton’s Father Brown says, “It’s the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense, and can’t see things as they are,” which in our case leads to soy boys and single cat ladies wanting to burn you at the stake for believing to be true what Steve Sailer has called “the most settled science in all the social sciences,” i.e., “the White-black intelligence gap.”

There is simply no escaping the need for a faith: banish it, and men begin to believe anything and believe it with all the fervor of a religious zealot; allow it in its degenerate form and it aids rather than defeats the destruction of White nations. By pushing for an embrace of true Christian principles, we can inspire men to fight for their homelands with all the truth of our timeless understanding of race, sex, Jewish malignant influence, etc. (and the fear of sinning by compromising truth), and all the zeal of knowing that our work will echo not only into future ages but even beyond the grave.

This is simply not something that neo-paganism is capable of. To be clear, I have nothing against my Nordic ancestors: I love them and appreciate the struggles they endured to keep their bloodlines alive and well long enough for me to be born; I also love the old pagan tales, having spent long hours in my youth reading them (along with many other mythologies, most of which I felt paled in comparison, as well); but I could never enjoy them as part of a faith, for the simple reason that I know in my heart and mind they aren’t true enough to live and die for. As Harmonica pointed out in a series of articles on Identity Dixie (all of them well worth your time) which argue that neo-paganism is a dead end for the DR and for the White nations they are trying to save:

The political problem with paganism, and why it leads to a dead end for the Right, is that the vast majority of self-described modern “pagans” do not believe Odin exists, either. They may claim to be the “Soldiers of Odin” (or some other nonsense), but when challenged, they will fall back and claim that they do not actually believe in Odin. Instead, modern pagans view Odin as some sort of role model, looking up to him in the same way a young boy admires Bruce Wayne and Superman.

That is one of the biggest flaws of modern paganism, and why embracing it is suicidal for the Right. It is a fringe movement for edgy atheists and, more importantly, it cannot inspire the kind of fanaticism that is needed to save the West. The truly devout will always have a great advantage over the wishy-washy, and that devotion can topple empires.

Although I wish to see the White West return to its true Christian roots for the transcendent truth in them, I do not overlook the fact that from a purely cold and calculating standpoint it makes a lot more sense to try to save our peoples by reforming the now corrupted Christian faith which vast numbers of them at least nominally follow: by the numbers alone, reforming Christianity is a winner, while returning to an older pagan faith that even its modern adherents do not truly believe is not.

Could the DR achieve a neo-Reformation, they could blast apart the oppressive power structures built on lies and sustained by the irrational zealotry of innumerable pseudo-faiths (anti-racism, transgenderism, etc.) without firing a single literal shot, without any violence at all. For the true Christian notion that fidelity to truth is fidelity to God could raise the costs of our parasitic elites’ deceptions to the point at which they become utterly unsustainable. For that reason alone, even the atheists among us have reason to want to see, as Belloc so wished to, Europe (and the lands its children settled and built up into great nations) and the Christian faith become one once again.

Pierre Simon submitted an article on the Jewish desire for  multiculturalism and high levels of immigration. Since it fit well with my material in The Culture of Critique, I decided to combine this material. I hadn’t seen the quotes from Bret Stephens, Elie Wiesel, George Soros, and Anthony Blinken comments on multiculturalism and am grateful to Simon for including them. KM

The attacks on Whites come from every direction, and replacement immigration, multiculturalism, feminism, porno, LGBT+ promotion, discrimination against Whites in education and on the job-market, and hate-speech laws are just some aspects of the endless persecution of the race that created the greatest civilization known to man.[1]

Ethnic and religious pluralism also serves external Jewish interests because Jews become just one of many ethnic groups. This results in the diffusion of political and cultural influence among the various ethnic and religious groups, and it becomes difficult or impossible to develop unified, cohesive groups of gentiles united in their opposition to Judaism. Historically, major anti-Semitic movements have tended to erupt in societies that have been, apart from the Jews, religiously or ethnically homogeneous (see Separation and Its Discontents). Conversely, one reason for the relative lack of anti-Semitism in the United States compared to Europe was that “Jews did not stand out as a solitary group of [religious] non-conformists” (Higham 1984, 156). Although ethnic and cultural pluralism are certainly not guaranteed to satisfy Jewish interests, it is nonetheless the case that ethnically and religiously pluralistic societies have been perceived by Jews as more likely to satisfy Jewish interests than are societies characterized by ethnic and religious homogeneity among gentiles.

Indeed, at a basic level, the motivation for all of the Jewish intellectual and political activity reviewed throughout this volume is intimately linked to fears of anti-Semitism. Svonkin (1997, 8ff) shows that a sense of “uneasiness” and insecurity pervaded American Jewry in the wake of World War II even in the face of evidence that anti-Semitism had declined to the point that it had become a marginal phenomenon. As a direct result, “The primary objective of the Jewish intergroup relations agencies [i.e., the AJCommittee, the AJCongress, and the ADL] after 1945 was . . . to prevent the emergence of an anti-Semitic reactionary mass movement in the United States” (Svonkin 1997, 8).

Writing in the 1970s, Isaacs (1974, 14ff) describes the pervasive insecurity of American Jews and their hypersensitivity to anything that might be deemed anti-Semitic. Interviewing “noted public men” on the subject of anti-Semitism in the early 1970s, Isaacs asked, “Do you think it could happen here?” “Never was it necessary to define ‘it.’ In almost every case, the reply was approximately the same: ‘If you know history at all, you have to presume not that it could happen, but that it probably will,’ or ‘It’s not a matter of if; it’s a matter of when’” (p. 15). Isaacs, correctly in my view, attributes the intensity of Jewish involvement in politics to this fear of anti-Semitism. Jewish activism on immigration is merely one aspect of a multipronged movement directed at preventing the development of a mass movement of anti-Semitism in Western societies. Other aspects of this program are briefly reviewed below.

Explicit statements linking immigration policy to a Jewish interest in cultural pluralism can be found among prominent Jewish social scientists and political activists. In his review of Horace Kallen’s (1956) Cultural Pluralism and the American Idea appearing in Congress Weekly (published by the AJCongress), Joseph L. Blau (1958, 15) noted that “Kallen’s view is needed to serve the cause of minority groups and minority cultures in this nation without a permanent majority”—the implication being that Kallen’s ideology of multiculturalism opposes the interests of any ethnic group in dominating the United States. The well-known author and prominent Zionist Maurice Samuel (1924, 215), writing partly as a negative reaction to the immigration law of 1924, wrote, “If, then, the struggle between us [i.e., Jews and gentiles] is ever to be lifted beyond the physical, your democracies will have to alter their demands for racial, spiritual and cultural homogeneity within the State. But it would be foolish to regard this as a possibility, for the tendency of this civilization is in the opposite direction. There is a steady approach toward the identification of government with race, instead of with the political State.”

Samuel deplored the 1924 legislation as violating his conceptualization of the United States as a purely political entity with no ethnic implications:

We have just witnessed, in America, the repetition, in the peculiar form adapted to this country, of the evil farce to which the experience of many centuries has not yet quite accustomed us. If America had any meaning at all, it lay in the peculiar attempt to rise above the trend of our present civilization—the identification of race with State. . . . America was therefore the New World in this vital respect—that the State was purely an ideal, and nationality was identical only with acceptance of the ideal. But it seems now that the entire point of view was a mistaken one, that America was incapable of rising above her origins, and the semblance of an ideal-nationalism was only a stage in the proper development of the universal gentile spirit. . . . To-day, with race triumphant over ideal, anti-Semitism uncovers its fangs, and to the heartless refusal of the most elementary human right, the right of asylum, is added cowardly insult. We are not only excluded, but we are told, in the unmistakable language of the immigration laws, that we are an “inferior” people. Without the moral courage to stand up squarely to its evil instincts, the country prepared itself, through its journalists, by a long draught of vilification of the Jew, and, when sufficiently inspired by the popular and “scientific” potions, committed the act. (pp. 218–220)

A congruent opinion is expressed by prominent Jewish social scientist and ethnic activist Earl Raab, who remarks very positively on the success of American immigration policy in altering the ethnic composition of the United States since 1965.[2] Raab notes that the Jewish community has taken a leadership role in changing the Northwestern European bias of American immigration policy (1993a, 17), and he has also maintained that one factor inhibiting anti-Semitism in the contemporary United States is that “an increasing ethnic heterogeneity, as a result of immigration, has made it even more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop” (1995, 91). Or more colorfully:

The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.

We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible—and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever. (Raab 1993b, 23)

And Boston Globe writer, S. I. Rosenbaum, who claimed in 2019 that the main lesson of “the Holocaust” is “that white supremacy could turn on us at any moment,” and that the strategy of appealing to the White majority “has never worked for us. It didn’t protect us in Spain, or England, or France, or Germany. There’s no reason to think it will work now.” The central question of Jewish political engagement in Western societies, she insisted, is “how we survive as a minority population,” where the one great advantage American Jewry enjoys is that “unlike other places where ethno-nationalism has flourished, the U.S. is fast approaching a plurality of minorities.” Presiding over a coalition of non-Whites groups to actively oppose White interests is the new Jewish ethno-political imperative: “If Jews are going to survive in the future, we will have to stand with people of color for our mutual benefit.”[3]

The “diversity-as-safety” argument was made by Leonard S. Glickman, president and CEO of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, a Jewish group that has advocated open immigration to the United States for over a century. Glickman stated, “The more diverse American society is the safer [Jews] are.”[4] At the present time, the HIAS is deeply involved in recruiting refugees from Africa to emigrate to the US.

Positive attitudes toward cultural diversity have also appeared in other statements on immigration by Jewish authors and leaders. Charles Silberman (1985, 350) notes, “American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief—one firmly rooted in history—that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of U.S. Jews to endorse ‘gay rights’ and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called ‘social’ issues.”[5]

Similarly, in listing the positive benefits of immigration, the director of the Washington Action Office of the Council of Jewish Federations stated that immigration “is about diversity, cultural enrichment and economic opportunity for the immigrants” (in Forward, March 8, 1996, 5). And in summarizing Jewish involvement in the 1996 legislative battles over immigration, a newspaper account stated, “Jewish groups failed to kill a number of provisions that reflect the kind of political expediency that they regard as a direct attack on American pluralism” (Detroit Jewish News, May 10, 1996).

Because liberal immigration policies are a vital Jewish interest, it is not surprising that support for liberal immigration policies spans the Jewish political spectrum. Sidney Hook, who along with the other New York Intellectuals may be viewed as an intellectual precursor of neoconservatism, identified democracy with the equality of differences and with the maximization of cultural diversity (see Ch. 6). Neoconservatives have been strong advocates of liberal immigration policies, and there has been a conflict between predominantly Jewish neoconservatives and predominantly gentile paleoconservatives over the issue of Third World immigration into the United States. Neoconservatives Norman Podhoretz and Richard John Neuhaus reacted very negatively to an article by a paleoconservative concerned that such immigration would eventually lead to the United States being dominated by such immigrants (see Judis 1990, 33). Other examples are neoconservatives Julian Simon (1990) and Ben Wattenberg (1991), both of whom advocate very high levels of immigration from all parts of the world, so that the United States will become what Wattenberg describes as the world’s first “universal nation.” Based on recent data, Fetzer (1996) reports that Jews remain far more favorable to immigration to the United States than any other ethnic group or religion.

As noted by Jewish journalist Charles E. Silberman, American Jews are committed to these types of actions, “because of their historically held belief that Jews are safe only in a society that accepts a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups.”[6]

In the same line of thought, Jewish New York Times columnist and Pulitzer Prize winner, neoconservative Bret Stephens, is convinced that

Jews can only prosper and be safe in the world when liberal values are the dominant values, by liberal I don’t mean Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren, I mean liberal in the classical sense, the respect for pluralism, the accent on tolerance, the emphasis on individual liberties, those canopies of values that are the DNA of what we call liberal democratic society. The Trump administration represents a substantial and dangerous regression from these values. I think the comments, the attitude of this administration towards immigration, Mexican immigration, Latin American immigration, are a scandal. Being anti-immigrant seems to me contrary to the ethos of liberal values that have been so beneficial to us Jews. This reversal of liberalism, not only with regard to immigrants, but also with regard to attitudes towards the media, rudeness and the assault on the fundamental institutions of government, is in the long term, I believe, dangerous for the Jews, because I find it hard to think of illiberal orders in the past that did not revolt against the Jews, and I find it hard to think of populist orders in the past that did not end in a revolt against the Jews […]. [7]

As a Jew, George Soros, one of the staunchest promoters of multiculturalism and sexual diversity, only feels comfortable and free to act as he wishes in multiracial, multiethnic, and pluralistic countries. In countries Balkanized into several sexual, ethnic, and racial enclaves where minorities can live freely according to their particular customs and where the most decadent mores are allowed, Jews in this mess feel like fish in water. “My father,” explains Alex Soros “is convinced that a Jew can only feel safe in a world where all minorities are protected. You fight for an open society because as a Jew you can only live in that kind of society, unless you become a nationalist and fight only for your own rights in your own country,”[8] as in Israel, for example…

Elie Wiesel expressed this idea very well in his Memoirs, notes French writer Hervé Ryssen in his book Le fanatisme juif (Jewish Fanatism):

I spent a Shabbat with a Jewish family in Bombay,” he writes. I went to the synagogue. The Jews proudly told me about their success. The Sassoons and the Kadouris are wealthy families, dynasties, but it would never occur to anyone to hate them because of their origins or their Jewish ties; there are so many ethnic groups, so many languages, so many cultures, so many traditions in this vast country that the Jews do not stand out as a particular group.[9]

This is how you have to interpret Anthony Blinken’s statement on the importance of promoting LGBTQ+ rights globally. In order to prevail and realize its hegemonic goals, the Jewish ethnicity needs to create a Jewish-friendly world. In the following quote, we have introduced in parentheses the real meaning behind this statement. This is double-think at its best. Jews such as Charles E. Silberman, Bret Stephens, George Soros, and Elie Wiesel cited above, are like fish in the water in the kind of countries described below, with my interpolations:

Defending and promoting LGBTQI+ rights globally is the right thing to do, but beyond that, it is the smart and necessary thing to do for our country [for Jews], for our national security [national security of Jews], for our well-being [the well-being of Jews]. And why is that ? It’s pretty basic. If you look around the world and look at countries that respect the rights of the LGBTQI+ community, they are more stable [unstable], they are healthier [morally and physically decayed], they are more prosperous [impoverished, indebted], they are more democratic [they are more vulnerable, weakened, and more philo-Semitic as a result]. Those who don’t are not [those who don’t are too strong and antisemitic]. And that’s a pretty fundamental thing, because a world of stable [unstable], healthy [unhealthy], prosperous [impoverished], democratic countries [more vulnerable, weakened and more philosemitic] is a world that’s good for the United States [the Jews]. A world that presents the opposite [strong and morally healthy] is not [good for the Jews]. And there is a direct correlation—a direct correlation—between countries respecting these rights and the health of their societies [health of the Jewish society], as we see every day.

British aristocrat Anthony M. Ludovici,

[…] there are no reasons, either anthropological or historical for considering the Jews as other than a definite, highly specialized type of humanity. From their Bedouin ancestors they have inherited certain characteristics, of which some have been retained to a notable extent unaltered to this day. Their retention of these ancestral traits has been favoured partly by the circumstances of their history as a people and partly by the original momentum possessed by the traits themselves. Among the more salient of these traits: A latent tendency to a democratic and Liberal outlook, which becomes active and militant when Jews are faced with the problem of establishing themselves among a Conservative people. This democratic and Liberal tendency has two possible roots — the habit of individual freedom and of owing obedience to no man in a nomad state; and the recognition by the Jews, when they find themselves faced by a Conservative people or a people organized on aristocratic lines, of the usefulness of siding with and supporting all those elements in the land which are undermining the Conservative and aristocratic traditions.[10]

 

References

Higham, J. (1984). Send These to Me: Immigrants in Urban America, rev. ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Isaacs, S. D. (1974). Jews and American Politics. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Judis, J. (1990). The conservative crack-up. The American Prospect (Fall):30–42.

Kallen, H. M. (1915). Democracy versus the melting pot. Nation 100 (February 18 & 25):190–194, 217–220.

——— (1924). Culture and Democracy in the United States. New York: Arno Press.

Raab, E. (1993a). Jewish Bulletin (July 23).

——— (1993b). Jewish Bulletin (February 19).

——— (1995). Can antisemitism disappear? In Antisemitism in America Today: Outspoken Experts Explode the Myths, ed. J. A. Chanes. New York: Birch Lane Press.

Samuel, M. (2022). You Gentiles; forward by Kevin MacDonald. Antelope Hill; orig. publ.: Harcourt, Brace, 1924.

Simon, J. (1990). Population Matters: People, Resources, Environment, and Immigration. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.

Svonkin, S. (1997). Jews Against Prejudice: American Jews and the Fight for Civil Liberties. New York: Columbia University Press.

Wattenberg, B. (1991). The First Universal Nation: Leading Indicators and Ideas about the Surge of America in the 1990s. New York: Free Press.

[1] Dr. Ricardo Duchenes, Greatness and Ruin: Self-Reflection and Universalism within European Civilization, Antelope Hill, 2025.

[2] Raab was associated with the ADL and is executive director emeritus of the Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy at Brandeis University. He is also a columnist for the San Francisco Jewish Bulletin. Among other works, he has co-authored, with Seymour Martin Lipset, The Politics of Unreason: Right-Wing Extremism in America, 1790–1970 (Lipset & Raab 1970), a volume in a series of books on anti-Semitism in the United States sponsored by the ADL and discussed in Chapter 6. Lipset is regarded as a member of the New York Intellectuals discussed in Chapter 7.

[3] S. I. Rosenberg, “A Shocking Number of Jews Have Become Willing Collaborators in White Supremacy,” The Boston Globe (March 1, 2019).

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2019/03/01/the-last-temptation-michael-cohen/1d1163vl6NuUpSndJ7wOpO/story.html

[4] Cattan, N. (2002). “Community Questioning ‘Open Door’: Debate Raging on Immigration.” Forward, November 29.

[5] Moreover, a deep concern that an ethnically and culturally homogeneous America would compromise Jewish interests can be seen in Silberman’s (1985, 347–348) comments on the attraction of Jews to “the Democratic party . . . with its traditional hospitality to non-WASP ethnic groups. . . . A distinguished economist who strongly disagreed with Mondale’s economic policies voted for him nonetheless. ‘I watched the conventions on television,’ he explained, ‘and the Republicans did not look like my kind of people.’ That same reaction led many Jews to vote for Carter in 1980 despite their dislike of him; ‘I’d rather live in a country governed by the faces I saw at the Democratic convention than by those I saw at the Republican convention,’ a well-known author told me.”

[6] Charles E. Silberman, A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today, Simon and Schuster, 1985. Cited by Scott Howard in The Transgender-Industrial Complex, Antelope Hill Publishing, p. 116.

[7] Bret Stephens, at the World Values Network, “Jews are Only Safe When Liberal Values are the Dominant Values,” altCensored, December 29, 2018.

[8] Michael Steinberger, “George Soros Bet Big on Liberal Democracy: Now He Fears He Is Losing,” The New York Times Magazine, July 17, 2018.

[9] Elie Wiesel, Mémoires, tome I, Le Seuil, 1994, p. 287.

[10] Anthony M. Ludovici, Jews, and the Jews of England, Boswell Publishing Co. Ltd., 1938, p. 179.