Liberating Lady Liberty A closer look at Emma Lazarus and her “New Colossus”

/7 Comments/in /by

Editor’s note: Almost a year ago I posted a video by American Krogan titled “On Emma Lazarus.” He now has a Substack (please subscribe) under the name Wilhem Ivorsson and he has made the video into a written version, complete with citations. Enjoy.

WILHEM IVORSSON
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” These lines are now inseparable from the Statue of Liberty. They are part and parcel of the postwar American identity. They speak to our nature as a so-called, “nation of immigrants,” and are wielded as a weapon to silence anyone concerned about endless, unchecked immigration into submission. As far as our modern national mythos goes, the aforementioned words might as well have been uttered by our Founding Fathers, and going against their spirit is almost tantamount to treason against “our democracy.”

In reality, the lines are from a sonnet called The New Colossus, written in 1883 by Emma Lazarus, a Jewish writer and social activist. Unbeknownst to most Americans, the poem had no official association with the statue until 1903, when Georgina Schuyler, one of Emma’s friends, led a civic campaign to have the sonnet cast onto a bronze plaque and mounted inside the lower level of the pedestal, 17 years after the statue was first dedicated. The poem was rarely mentioned in the mainstream press until several decades later.

Emma Lazarus

The New Colossus appears to have gained traction once Slovenian author and socialist immigrant Louis Adamic began quoting it in his writings during the late 1930’s to combat the Johnson-Reed act of 1924, which set restrictive immigration quotas in order to maintain America’s ethnic homogeneity. Adamic was an avid Marxist who advocated for ethnic diversity in the US, and coincidentally, his publisher, Maxim Lieber, was named by the Soviet spy Whittaker Chambers as an accomplice in 1949. Lieber fled to Mexico in 1951 and eventually back to Poland. Louis Adamic committed suicide in 1951 under suspicious circumstances.

Over time, the poem’s association with the statue has grown to the point of absurdity. Again, today, questioning, altering or rejecting the poem and its meaning is a kind of political blasphemy. For example, back in 2019, the press berated the Trump Administration for supposedly “rewriting” Emma Lazarus’s words when Ken Cuccinelli, Trump’s head of Citizenship and Immigration Services, tried to reorient the poem’s meaning.

CBS wrote: Trump’s top immigration official reworks the words on the Statue of Liberty. PBS wrote: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans. The New York Times wrote: What the Trump Administration Gets Wrong About the Statue of Liberty. Vox wrote: Trump official suggests famous Statue of Liberty sonnet is too nice to immigrants. The Jewish Forward wrote: Ken Cuccinelli Isn’t The First Trump Official To Go After Emma Lazarus.

All these accusations of “rewriting” Emma’s poem were ironic, since essentially it was Emma’s poem that was used to rewrite America’s identity and its stance on immigration. Concerning the period of the Johnson Reed Act of 1924, leading up to the Hart Celler act of 1965, Hugh Davis Graham wrote in his book Collision Course:

Most important for the content of immigration reform, the driving force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas. These included the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, and the American Federation of Jews from Eastern Europe. [1]

Curiously, in 1883, when a fundraising committee asked Emma Lazarus to donate an original work to an auction intended to help pay for the pedestal’s construction, Emma declined saying that she would not write about a statue. She only changed her mind after Constance Cary Harrison convinced her that it would be of great significance to immigrants sailing into the harbor. [2]

As Harrison later recalled, her ploy to win over the young writer involved highlighting the plight of immigrants from a very specific ethnic background:

Think of that Goddess standing on her pedestal down yonder in the bay, and holding her torch out to those Russian refugees of yours you are so fond of visiting at Ward’s Island. [3]

These “Russians” were in fact Emma’s fellow Jews fleeing pogroms in Russia after Czar Alexander II’s assassination in which Jewish radicals had been implicated. In any event, It seems that just as the Anglo-Saxon founders of America had a preference for immigrants of a certain ethnic background, Emma had her own preferences too. She didn’t write poems about Irish or Italian gentiles who were immigrating in large numbers at the time. Nor did she write about emancipated slaves in the South or Chinese railroad workers out west. To the extent that she wrote about any people, it was almost exclusively Jews.

Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi

The greatest tragedy in the history of Lady Liberty is that more people know who Emma Lazarus was than the Frenchman who designed it; Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi. The statue was a gift from France to celebrate the nations’ friendship and alliance. It was modeled after Libertas, a roman goddess who was often associated with freed slaves in antiquity. But the monument really had nothing to do with the emancipation of African slaves in the US, and great care was taken in the design to avoid such associations. [4]

A Roman coin with Libertas. Circa 125 BC.

The meaning behind Lady Liberty is no where near as convoluted as popular media makes it out to be. The Roman goddess, Libertas, has been used in various forms by many European peoples for centuries. There’s a version of her on top of the Capitol building that was put in there in 1863. France used her on their seal for the second French Republic in 1848. There’s also the Dutch Maiden, the United Kingdom’s Britannia, and the Italia Turrita.

In the American setting, the figure of Libertas was used as a symbolic reference to the freedom the British colonists had gained from their English monarch, King George. The date written on the statue’s Tabula Ansata is July 4th, 1776, the date of independence from England. This is also the date mentioned numerously in French fundraising pamphlets which, as far as I am aware, never spoke of emancipated slaves or immigrants.

It is true that Édouard Laboulaye, one of the key impetuses behind the statue, was a passionate abolitionist who advocated on behalf of emancipated slaves, but his motivation for building the monument was to further solidify the historic Franco-American alliance.

In 1875, he launched a subscription campaign for France’s half of the funding saying:

This is about erecting in memory, on the glorious anniversary of the United States, an exceptional monument. In the middle of New York’s harbor, on an islet that belongs to the Union, and opposite Long Island, where the first blood for independence was spilt, here will stand a colossal statue, framed on the horizon by the great American cities of New York, Jersey City and Brooklyn. On the threshold of this vast continent full of a new life, where all the ships of the world arrive, it will emerge from the heart of the waves, it will represent: Liberty enlightening the world. At night, a luminous halo emanating from her forehead, will radiate in the distance on the immense sea. [5]

The idea of Liberty enlightening the world was that others could achieve what America had by following in its example as a republic. Laboulaye and others didn’t see Lady Liberty as a call for endless, unqualified immigration, and it was not a statement that anyone could be American regardless of national origin.

To drive home the absurdity of claims to the contrary, four years prior to the the statue’s dedication, America had passed the Chinese Exclusion act thereby barring an entire racial bloc from immigrating.

Shortly before being assassinated in 1865, Lincoln, the great emancipator, had told General Benjamin Butler:

“I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes…I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country…” [6]

In the 1880s, race riots were common. Most Americans continued to share Lincoln’s sentiments and saw ex-slaves as an unresolved problem with many politicians and private citizens continuing to argue for them to be repatriated to Africa.

The Cleveland Gazette, an African American newspaper wrote the following regarding the Statue of Liberty’s dedication:

“Liberty enlightening the world,” indeed! The expression makes us sick. This government is a howling farce. It can not or rather does not protect its citizens within its own borders. [7]

Such language is often highlighted to assert that America was failing to live up to its supposed ideals, but the reality is that America’s first naturalization act in 1790, in no uncertain terms dictated that citizenship was reserved for “free white person[s]…of good character.” When Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal,” he was speaking in a political sense to King George, a monarch, and not a literal sense to mankind as a whole.

Other contemporary state documents remove the ambiguity for the modern reader, such as that of Virginia’s Declaration of Rights in 1776:

“…all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights…”

None of the sentiments outlined in any of our founding documents sought to convey that all men, regardless of racial background or national origin, were equal and interchangeable in a literal sense commensurate with modern notions of “diversity, equity and inclusion.”

Thomas Jefferson, despite being a slave owner himself, did support emancipation, but he qualified this in his Notes on the State of Virginia:

“Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.” [8]

Of note here is that the definition of “Civil Rights” has changed substantially over time. In 1866 when the first Civil Rights Act was passed, John Wilson, a member of the Radical Republicans, described what the legislation was intended to encompass when he presented it before congress:

It provides for the equality of citizens of the United States in the enjoyment of “civil rights and immunities.” What do these terms mean? Do they mean that in all things civil, social, political, all citizens, without distinction of race or color, shall be equal? By no means can they be so construed. Do they mean that all citizens shall vote in the several States? No; for suffrage is a political right which has been left under the control of the several States, subject to the action of Congress only when it becomes necessary to enforce the guarantee of a republican form of government (protection against a monarchy). Nor do they mean that all citizens shall sit on the juries, or that their children shall attend the same schools. [9]

Let’s return to Emma Lazarus’s poem, The New Colossus. It’s quite short so let’s read it:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

In her biography of Emma Lazarus, a fellow Jewess, Esther Schor, considers the meaning that can be gleaned from these lines:

Perhaps, too, these words issue a mild command that a new-world statue must embody a new ideal. But before her vision takes shape, she pauses to smash an idol of the Old World: Helios, the sun god, a figure of imperial conquest, “astride from land to land.” Given that Bartholdi’s statue was intended to ennoble enlightenment, her reference to Helios’s lust for domination is indecorous, to say the least.

In “Progress and Poverty,” she had already impugned the lit lamp of Science for being complicit with exploitation. Now, renaming Liberty Enlightening the World “Mother of Exiles,” she relieves this giant female form of a heavy inheritance of tyranny. At the same time, she places a new burden upon her, asking that she nurture and protect conquest’s victims.

The “imprisoned lightning” of her flame, an emblem of captive, not liberating light, insists that true enlightenment must wait on freedom. Until then, all light glows against a scrim of darkness, the same darkness in which the ignorant slaves of “Progress and Poverty” toiled. [10]

Esther Schor seemingly acknowledges that Emma profaned Bartholdi’s original intent and yet embraces Emma’s view as the more legitimate one anyway. She continues:

Defying the “storied pomp” of antiquity, precedent, and ceremony, the statue speaks not in the new language of reason and light but in the divine language of lovingkindness. To worldly power, she sounds a dire tattoo: “Keep, ancient lands”; “Give me your tired.” To the abject, she offers the silent salute of her lamp. What it illuminates are shapes of human suffering, the “huddled masses,” the wretched refusés on the Old World’s “teeming shore.” Emma Lazarus had finally arrived, from a glimpse of the “undistinguished multitudes” in her elegy to Garfield, at a more radical, embracing vision of American society, and she had been led there by her Jewish commitment to repair a broken world. She knew well that for these homeless throngs, becoming individuals—becoming free Americans—would not be easy. But it was their destiny. In time, the Mother of Exiles assures them, that is what they would grow to become. [11]

Putting aside that the base inspiration of the Statue of Liberty was the Roman goddess Libertas and that Helios wasn’t really associated with conquest, the Colossus of Rhodes, was literally built using the siege equipment left by the Macedonians after their failed attempt to take the city, and, like its modern female counterpart, was a monument to continued independence.

Now, one could make the case that Esther Schor, is anachronistically imbuing Emma with 21st-century interpretations of tikkun olam, but it seems fairly obvious that Emma was driven, at least in part, by a kind of Jewish ethnocentrism, and a resentment of Western society and her place in it as a Jew.

Again, Emma didn’t write about the plight of blacks in the South, nor did she spend her time protesting the Chinese Exclusion act. Before the term Zionism had even been coined, Emma was traveling around Europe advocating for a Jewish ethnostate in Palestine. Her line “keep ancient lands your storied pomp” in defiance of European antiquity, precedent and ceremony is ironic since a great deal of her other literary works focused on exalting Jewish antiquity, precedent and ceremony. In fact, Emma is considered by many to be the archetypical American Zionist. Oddly enough, Esther Schor admits as much in the preface of her book:

These days, Lazarus’s dictum that “Until we are all free, we are none of us free” is widely taken to be a universalist credo; similar statements are attributed to Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. In fact, Lazarus addressed this comment expressly to the privileged, emancipated Jews of the West, taking them to task for “not [being] ‘tribal’ enough”—that is, for failing to recognize the persecuted Jews of Russia as their brothers and sisters. [12]

But in the same preface, she asserts that Emma’s behavior was more or less a proto-universalist movement gearing up to include all of humanity.

For Emma Lazarus, being Jewish meant acknowledging one’s bonds to people distant in both place and time. Being a free Jew, in a world where Jews were being persecuted and expelled by the thousands, sometimes even killed and raped, was to incur the obligation to bring freedom to others. It was Lazarus’s genius to understand that the obligations of freedom pertained not only to Jewish Americans, but to all Americans. [13]

Needless to say, I find this highly disingenuous and self-serving. If we look deeper into Emma’s family history, such notions of her being some proto-archetypal form of modern “diversity, equity, and inclusion” becomes somewhat absurd. Her family was among the original twenty-three Portuguese Jews who moved to New York in 1654 when it was still called New Amsterdam and was controlled by the Dutch. [14]

They were fleeing the return of the Inquisition in their settlement of Recife, Brazil. So yes, her family was fleeing persecution, but Recife, Brazil was one of the most important colonies in the New World in terms of establishing the Transatlantic Slave Trade and the infamous Middle Passage.

According to Jewish author Herbert Bloom:

The Christian inhabitants of Brazil were envious because the Jews owned some of the best plantations in the river valley of Pernambuco and were among the leading slave-holders and slave traders in the colony. [15]

In reference to slave colonies in Brazil and the West Indies, Jewish historian Marc Lee Raphael wrote that:

Jews also took an active part in the Dutch colonial slave trade; indeed, the bylaws of the Recife and Mauricia congregations (1648) included an imposta (Jewish tax) of five soldos for each Negro slave a Brazilian Jew purchased from the West Indies Company. Slave auctions were postponed if they fell on a Jewish holiday. In Curacao in the seventeenth century, as well as in the British colonies of Barbados and Jamaica in the eighteenth century, Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French, British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated. [16]

In 1522, according to Jewish professor, Arnold Wiznitzer, Jews exiled from Portugal established sugar plantations and mills on the island of São Tomé off the West African coast, “employing as many as 3,000 Negro slaves“, thereby allowing the Portuguese to “dominate the world sugar trade.” In reference to the early colonization of Brazil he says that:

It is a historical fact, supported by documentary evidence that a consortium of Jews, headed by Fernnão de Norohna, had obtained in 1502 a three-year lease from the Portuguese Crown for the exploration and settlement of the newly discovered Brazil. The lease, constituting in reality a monopoly, was extended for an additional ten years in 1505. [17]

The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia also states that Jews “monopolized” the sugar industry in the 17th century. [18] In reference to the late 17th century and early 18th century, Seymour Liebman said in his book New World Jewry that:

… The Jews were the largest ship chandlers in the entire Caribbean region, where the shipping business was mainly a Jewish enterprise. The Jews were the principal purveyors to the government, although there never were more than two thousand Jews in Curacao. It is conservatively estimated that the Jews owned about two hundred vessels during the first sixty years of their settlement in Curaçao. [19]

Regarding Jewish slave ownership in the United States during the 1800s, many Jewish historians and advocates point out that most Jewish slave owners only possessed a few domestic slaves whom they employed as house servants. This is likely true but doesn’t warrant any special consideration, in my opinion.

As the Economic History Association points out, this was essentially the standard for slavery in America at the time:

Most Southerners owned no slaves and most slaves lived in small groups rather than on large plantations. Less than one-quarter of white Southerners held slaves, with half of these holding fewer than five and fewer than 1 percent owning more than one hundred. In 1860, the average number of slaves residing together was about ten.

Jewish historian Jacob Rader Marcus asserted in his book United States Jewry 1776-1985 that in 1820, 40% of Jewish households owned slaves. [20] The population of Jews at that time was considerably lower than it is today both in number and in proportion, however, by 1860 Jews in America numbered between 150,000 and 200,000, out of a total population of 27,000,000. Or roughly 0.7% of the population. The total amount of slave owners in 1860 was a little less than 400,000, per the 1860 census. If we assume that the percentage of Jewish slave ownership in 1860 was the same as it was in 1820, then Jews would’ve accounted for between 10-15% of total slave owners at the height of American slavery. 0.7% of the population accounting for up to 15% of slave ownership is a remarkable overrepresentation.

I will offer the caveat here, however, that there was an increasing influx of poor Jewish immigrants between 1820 and 1860, so it may be doubtful that all of them were able to afford slaves. But as a colleague of Jacob Rader Marcus once said:

…Jews who were more firmly established in a business or professional career, as well as in their family relation-ships, had every reason to become slave-owners… [21]

In addition to this, I would highlight that in reference to the early period of the 1700s in America, the Jewish encyclopedia also states that:

The Jews of Georgia found the production of indigo, rice, corn, tobacco, and cotton more profitable. In fact, many of the cotton plantations in the South were wholly in the hands of the Jews, and as a consequence, slavery found its advocates among them. [22]

To be clear, Jews were not the sole instigators or beneficiaries of the slave trade, but they were undoubtedly overrepresented in all facets of it whether directly in the form of ownership, or participation in ancillary industries. With this in mind, it is exceedingly unlikely that Emma Lazarus’s Brazilian ancestors didn’t own slaves, and while her immediate family in 19th century New York did not directly engage in slavery, her father, Moses Lazarus, was in the sugar refining and distillery industry. The raw sugar used in his factories came from slave plantations in the South owned by his business partner whom Esther Schor briefly comments on in her book:

Moses’s unsavory business partner, Bradish Johnson, a slaveholder from Louisiana, had been cited for the abuse of slaves on his plantation. The owner of a combination dairy/distillery in Manhattan, Johnson was also cited in an 1853 New-York Daily Times exposé for selling tainted milk: apparently, his cows had been lapping up alcoholic swill sluiced from the distillery. With such a disreputable partner, it was no wonder Moses gave out that he had retired from Johnston and Lazarus at the close of the Civil War. [23]

What Esther seemingly tries to brush aside here is that the distillery in question was called The Johnson & Lazarus distillery. Emma’s father was Johnson’s equal in their shared business firm and was every bit as responsible for this scandal as was Johnson. Moreover, Moses Lazarus didn’t just retire from The Johnson & Lazarus firm in 1865; he retired outright. Esther seemingly attempts to portray Moses Lazarus’s retirement as some moral epiphany 12 years after the scandal.

To put the scandal into perspective, during the 1850s between 8,000 to 9,000 children were dying, every year in New York City, due to “impure” or “adulterated milk.” [24] For reference, New York City had a population of about 515,000. So something on the order of 1 to 1.5% of the local population was dying from things like dysentery, cholera infantum, and marasmus.

Swill milk was the milk produced by cows fed a residual byproduct of alcohol production from nearby distilleries. After the extraction of alcohol from the macerated grain, the residual mash still contained nutrients, and it was an economic advantage to keep cows stabled nearby and feed it to them. The milk had a blue tint and was extremely thin, so it was whitened with plaster of Paris, thickened with starch and eggs, and hued with molasses.

Now, to be fair to Bradish Johnson and Moses Lazarus, swill milk was produced and sold all over New York at the time. However, as John Mullaly pointed out in his work The Milk Trade in New York and Vicinity, published in 1853:

The most extensive distillery in the city is that owned by a Mr. Johnson, at the foot of Sixteenth Street, on the North River. It produces more swill than any other in New York, and it is said, even more than any other in the United States. [25]

The truth is that Emma Lazarus’s family profited off human exploitation. It’s what paid for Emma’s fancy tutors, summer homes, and travel to Europe to advocate for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Emma was not an independent woman. She did not disown her family or its businesses. She lived with her family until she died unmarried in 1887 from Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

In fact, had it not been for Emma’s father, she might never have achieved any sort of notoriety. In 1866 Moses Lazarus paid to have Emma’s first works published:

In his accomplished seventeen-year-old daughter, Moses Lazarus had much to crow about, but Emma Lazarus’s debut volume, which he had printed “for private circulation,” took paternal pride to Olympian heights. Poems and Translations, Written Between the Ages of Fourteen and Sixteen ran to more than two hundred pages, comprising nearly thirty “Original Pieces,” two hulking romances each in excess of a thousand lines, and translations of forty-five short lyrics by Heine, Schiller, Dumas, and Hugo. Dedicated, unsurprisingly, “To My Father,” it appeared in November 1866. [26]

It was only after this that she was taken on as a protégé by famous writer, Ralph Waldo Emerson. Interestingly, her relationship with Emmerson appears to have deteriorated over time due to what Esther Schor called “the sense of entitlement her elite, Sephardic parents had instilled in her.” [27]

What motivated Emma in the 1880’s was probably not transcendentalism so much as it was an emerging sense of ethnic solidarity with her Ashkenazic counterparts in Russia. In an 1882 letter to a friend, she wrote:

Indeed, I would love to see you in your own home and visit dear old Concord again… But I may have imperative duties recalling me to New York in connection with work for the Russian Jews… The Jewish Question which I plunged into so wrecklessly and impulsively last Spring has gradually absorbed more and more of my mind and heart—It opens up such enormous vistas in the past and future, and is so palpitatingly alive at the moment…that it has about driven out of my thought all other subjects…. [28]

Author Bette Roth Young explains Emma’s view of Benjamin Disraeli, England’s only Jewish prime minister and founder of the modern conservative party. Using many of Emma’s own words she writes:

Emma continued her adulation telling the reader that no Englishman could ever forget that Disraeli was a Jew; Therefore “he himself would be the first to proclaim it, instead of apologizing for it.” Rather than “knock servilely at the doors of English aristocracy,” he “conquered them with their own weapons, he met arrogance with arrogance, the pride of descent based upon a few centuries of distinction, with the pride of descent supported by hundreds of centuries of intellectual supremacy and even of divine anointment.” [29]

In a New York Times article attributed to Emma Lazarus, after a visit to Ward’s Island, Emma wrote:

Never before were the prayer of gratitude and the impulse of joy more genuine, more appropriate, and more solemn than on this day of March, 1882, when after a new exodus, and a new persecution by the seed of Haman, these stalwart young representatives of the oldest civilization in existence met to sing the songs of Zion in a strange land. [30]

Note that Emma refers to Russian gentiles as the “Seed of Haman,” and by doing so she is imbuing Russians with a deeply rooted, millennia-old animosity that Jews felt toward their biblical enemies. In fact, much of Emma’s work and activism around the 1880’s was squarely centered on arousing sentiments of Jewish Nationalism in the Jewish diaspora. Take for example her poem, The Banner of the Jew. In it, she calls upon the nation of Israel to rise up and refers to the rebellion in 164 BC against the Greeks as a “glorious Maccabean rage.”

The Maccabean revolt lasted from 167 to 160 BC and was fought by Jewish nationalists against the Greeks for their Hellenistic influence on Jewish life in Judea. Hanukkah, the most famous Jewish holiday, is downstream of this revolt.

Chabad.org describes the revolt as follows:

In the second century BCE, the Holy Land was ruled by the Seleucids, who tried to force the people of Israel to accept Greek culture and beliefs instead of mitzvah observance and belief in G‐d. Against all odds, a small band of faithful but poorly armed Jews, led by Judah the Maccabee, defeated one of the mightiest armies on earth, drove the Greeks from the land, reclaimed the Holy Temple in Jerusalem and rededicated it to the service of G‐d.

Honestly, Hanukkah sounds like something the authorities today would normally consider “hate speech,” since it celebrates armed violence against culturally enriching immigrants and seeks to drive them out. It’s easy to imagine how various Jewish interest groups and the European Union might react if native European poets started writing today about a “glorious Hyperborean rage.”

The Maccabean revolt also targeted Hellenized Jews who embraced Greek culture over Jewish laws and customs. (Mattathias ben Johanan famously killed a fellow Jew who had followed the order of a Greek official to offer sacrifice to the Greek gods.) That is to say, these Hellenized Jews thought that the incoming immigrant culture had something better to offer future generations. At least, that seems to be how Adam Kotsko views such situations, if we consider his frame describing the concerns white Americans have about endless non-white immigration and our dying culture. (See the screencap below) If Adam were consistent, he might condemn the Maccabean revolt as having “hitched everything on the empty claim to the superiority of [Jews] with no actual content or value.”

Adam’s tweets are now protected, so there is no link.

With this Jewish revolt against the Greeks in mind, it’s interesting that Emma Lazarus made it a point in The New Colossus to contrast the masculine Greek statue of Rhodes with her proto-feminist interpretation of Libertas. In her mind, Lady Liberty is a welcoming, “mother of exiles,” whereas the Colossus of Rhodes is an imposing male straddling his legs across the bay in a show of dominance.

Perhaps just as the Greeks defiled her peoples’ temple in the Levant, she was now defiling a temple of sorts belonging to the American “Seeds of Haman.” Either way, Emma Lazarus took it upon herself to hijack an otherwise noble gift from one nation to another, and make it about Jewish grievances.

In her weekly column, “An Epistle to the Hebrews” she describes the dilemma facing her Ashkenazic counterparts:

Either these Jews would submit to the inevitable and relinquish that fundamental piety and austerity which even in the degradation of their Russian Ghettos has preserved their moral tone, and given them a certain amount of dignity, or else, true to the traditions of their race, they would bulwark themselves within a citadel of isolation and defiance, and accept martyrdom and death rather than forego that which they consider their divine mission….For the mass of semi-Orientals, Kabalists and Chassidim, who constitute the vast majority of East European Israelites, some more practical measure of reform must be devised than their transportation to a state of society utterly at variance with their time-honored customs and most sacred beliefs. [31]

Naturally Emma’s language poses the question: How does one become assimilated to a state of society utterly at variance with one’s self? But, does Emma really sound like a woman advocating assimilation? What she wrote here is that Jews are a “race,” that is… a biological collective, that needs a nation of its own. But, more curious still, Emma argued another point in her weekly column:

There is not the slightest necessity for an American Jew, the free citizen of a republic, to rest his hopes upon the foundation of any other nationality soever, or to decide whether he individually would or would not be in favor of residing in Palestine. All that would be claimed from him would be a patriotic and unselfish interest in the sufferings of his oppressed brethren of less fortunate countries, sufficient to make him promote by every means in his power the establishment of a secure asylum. [32]

So, in other words, Jews are entitled to a homeland, if they so desire, or they can reside among the gentiles, if they so desire, but, according to Emma, Jews must always put the welfare of their fellow Jews, first and foremost.

Today Chuck Schumer can proudly stand before AIPAC, as a senator of the United States, and proclaim that he is, first and foremost, the guardian of Israel and its people, yet when someone like Jared Taylor proclaims, as little more than a private citizen, that he would like the right to pursue his destiny alongside his ethnic brethren without outside interference, he is immediately branded a hateful “supremacist.”

Israel’s prime minister, Netanyahu, said regarding African migrants in 2012 that:

If we don’t stop their entry, the problem that currently stands at 60,000 could grow to 600,000, and that threatens our existence as a Jewish and democratic state.

In 2018, he said that without a stronger border fence along the Sinai border:

…we would be faced with … severe attacks by Sinai terrorists, and something much worse, a flood of illegal migrants from Africa…

In her efforts to arouse sentiments of Jewish Nationalism, Emma Lazarus sometimes quoted the Talmud saying: “let the fruit pray for the welfare of the leaf.” [33] In a 2001 article entitled The Jewish Stake in America’s Changing Demography, Steven Steinlight expressed an indirect concern over the welfare of the demographic leaf of white American gentiles:

Is the emerging new multicultural American nation good for the Jews? Will a country in which enormous demographic and cultural change, fueled by unceasing large-scale non-European immigration, remain one in which Jewish life will continue to flourish as nowhere else in the history of the Diaspora? In an America in which people of color form the plurality, as has already happened in California, most with little or no historical experience with or knowledge of Jews, will Jewish sensitivities continue to enjoy extraordinarily high levels of deference and will Jewish interests continue to receive special protection?…

…For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Jewish community is thus in a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions that support our agendas. But the day will surely come when an effective Asian-American alliance will actually bring Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Koreans, Vietnamese, and the rest closer together. And the enormously complex and as yet significantly divided Latinos will also eventually achieve a more effective political federation.

While Jews do not monolithically share Steinlight’s sentiments, they do curiously always seem to see things through a strict cost-benefit analysis of “Yes, but is it good for the Jews?” While they have no trouble recognizing the collective interests of their own people, they refuse to acknowledge that white gentiles have legitimate collective racial, ethnic and cultural interests of our own. In fact, they seem to insist on pathologizing the conveyance of any such sentiments or beliefs on our part.

With this in mind, I assert that Esther Schor closes her book on Emma Lazarus in a most frustrating fashion. She states that:

Emma Lazarus did what America’s makers have always had to do, be they the children of religious refugees, slaves, Native Americans, or immigrants: not surrender themselves to America, but leave their mark on it. In works like the cherished “New Colossus” and the neglected “Little Poems in Prose,” in the great poem of her life, she remade America in the image of a Jewish calling—a mission to repair the world. [34]

If it’s venerable that Emma Lazarus “remade” America in the image of a “Jewish calling,” then why are people upset that white Europeans remade North America into our calling? If we are to celebrate “not surrendering to America, but [leaving] their mark on it”, then why are many Jews so upset with Palestinians who refuse to surrender to Israel?

The Jewish concept of repairing the world also known as tikkun olam is described by some as the “idea that Jews bear responsibility not only for their own moral, spiritual, and material welfare, but also for the welfare of society at large.” But why is this mindset praised whereas “The White Man’s Burden” and “La Mission Civilisatrice” are vilified?

I won’t claim that Judaism doesn’t have a wide array of thought and disagreement on a number of topics including tikkun olam and the Noahide laws, but Maimonides, a renowned Jewish philosopher whose teachings on the Talmud are highly regarded, once said that:

Moses our Teacher was commanded by the Almighty to compel the world to accept the Commandments of the Sons of Noah. Anyone who fails to accept them is executed. Anyone who does accept them upon himself is called a Convert Who May Reside Anywhere. He must accept them in front of three wise and learned Jews. However, anyone who agrees to be circumcised and twelve months have elapsed and he was not as yet circumcised is no different than any other member of the nations of the world.

Let’s return to the topic of the so-called “Russian refugees,” of whom Emma was so found. Why were Russian gentiles persecuting the Jews in the 1880s? As it turns out, a young Russian contemporary of Emma’s wrote an article on this very topic. Zénaïde Alexeïevna Ragozin reveals in her 1881 Century Magazine piece, Russian Jews and Gentiles, that the Russian Jews had been abusing the local gentiles via the Qahal, a semi autonomous system of governance for Jews within non-Jewish societies. Technically, Nicholas I of Russia, had it abolished in the 1840’s, but Jewish apostate, Jacob Brafman, who had converted to Russian Orthodox Christianity insisted that the practice continued in secret. Ragozin quotes him in her article which I will now quote in a slightly altered form for clarity to modern readers.

[He writes that Jews view the] Gentile population of its district as ‘its lake’ to fish in, the Kahal proceeds to sell portions of this strange property to individuals on principles as strange. To one uninitiated in Kahal mysteries, such a sale must be unintelligible. Let us take an instance. The Kahal, in accordance with its own rights, sells to [a Jew] a house, which, according to the state laws of the country, is the inalienable property of [a Gentile], without the latter’s knowledge or consent. Of what use, it will be asked, is such a transaction to the purchaser? The deed of sale delivered to him by the Kahal cannot invest him with the position which every owner assumes toward his property. [The Gentile] will not give up his house on account of its having been sold by the Kahal, and the latter has not the power to make him give it up. What, then, has the [Jewish] purchaser acquired for the money paid by him to the Kahal? Simply this: he has acquired khazaka—i.e., right of ownership over the house of the [Gentile], in force whereof he is given the exclusive right, guaranteed from interference or competition from other Jews, to get possession of the said house, as expressly said in the deed of sale, ‘by any means [whatsoever.]’ Until he has finally succeeded in transferring it to his official possession, he alone is entitled to rent that house from its present owner, to trade in it, to lend money to the owner and other Gentiles who may dwell in it—to make profits out of them in any way his ingenuity may suggest. This is what is meant by khazaka. Sometimes the Kahal sells to a Jew even the person of some particular Gentile, without any immovable property attached. This is how the law defines this extraordinary right, which is called meropiè: ‘If a man [meaning a Jew] holds in his power a Gentile, it is in some places forbidden to other Jews to enter into relations with that person to the prejudice of the first; but in other places it is free to every Jew to have business relations with that person, for it is said that the property of a Gentile is hefker [free to all], and whoever first gets possession of it, to him it shall belong. [35]

Rather than blame so-called “antisemitism” entirely on irrational jealousy, hatred, or religious intolerance on the part of gentiles, it seems much more reasonable to entertain the notion that aggregate, or subsets of, Jewish behaviors have played a significant role in periodic “antisemitic” reactions throughout the ages.

Whatever the case, Emma Lazarus certainly was not the woman modern Jewish advocates and others assert she was. Not only did Emma hijack and taint the meaning of the Statute of Liberty, but her modern proponents often misrepresent and reorient her character for modern political aims.

Emma was a staunch Jewish identitarian whose motives were almost wholly particularistic in nature. She drew on a long, rich historical Jewish tradition and in doing so she often saw her American hosts, Russian gentiles, and the ancient Romans and Greeks as analogues for the “Seed of Haman.” She saw America as a strange land, and she sought to reimagine the world around her into one that was more amenable to her Jewish sensitivities and interests.

Citations:

[1] -Hugh Davis Graham. Collision Course. Oxford University Press, USA. 2002. (p. 56-57)

[2] -Deborah G. Felder Fifty Jewish Women Who Changed the World. (p. 45)

[3] -Constance Carry Harrison. American Hebrew, 9 December 1887, p. 69.

[4] Khan, Yasmin Sabina. Enlightening the World: The Creation of the Statue of Liberty. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. 2010. (p. 105-108)

[5] – Souscription pour l’érection d’un monument commémoratif du centième anniversaire de l’indépendance des États-Unis, Union franco-américaine, signé E. Laboulaye, Paris, 1875.

[6] – Charles H. Wesley, “Lincoln’s Plan for Colonizing the Emancipated Negroes,” The Journal of Negro History, Vol. IV, No. 1 (January 1919), p. 20.

[7] – The Cleveland Gazette. Cleveland, Ohio. November 27, 1886. p. 2.

[8] – Thomas Jefferson. Notes on the State of Virginia. Query XIV.

[9] – Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1117 (March 1, 1866).

[10] – Esther Schor. Emma Lazarus (Jewish Encounters Series) (pp. 188-190).

[11] – Esther Schor. Emma Lazarus (Jewish Encounters Series) (p. 189).

[12] – Esther Schor. Emma Lazarus (Jewish Encounters Series) (p. 2)

[13] – Esther Schor. Emma Lazarus (Jewish Encounters Series) (p. 2)

[14] -Neva Goodwin. Encyclopedia of Women in American History (July 17, 2015). (p. 370) and Phyllis Appel. The Jewish Connection. Graystone Enterprises LLC. Retrieved January 7, 2019.

[15] – Herbert Bloom. The Economic Activities of the Jews in Amsterdam in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. (p.133)

[16] – Marc Lee Raphael. Jews and Judaism in the United States: A Documentary History pp. 14, 23-25.

[17] – Arnold Wiznitzer. The Jews in the Sugar Industry of Colonial Brazil,” Jewish Social Studies, vol. 18 (July, 1956), pp. 189-90.

[18] – The Jewish Encyclopedia. Volume One. Funk & Wagnalls. 1901-1906. (p 265-266).

[19] – Seymour Liebman, New World Jewry 1493-1825: Requiem for the Forgotten, (p183)

[20] – Jacob Rader Marcus. United States Jewry, 1776-1985: Volume 1 (p. 585). Wayne State University Press. Kindle Edition.

[21] – Bertram Wallace Korn, Jews and Negro Slavery in the Old South 1789-1865 (p.16)

[22] – The Jewish Encyclopedia. Volume One. Funk & Wagnalls. 1901-1906. (p 265-266).

[23] – Esther Schor. Emma Lazarus (Jewish Encounters Series) (pp. 10-11).

[24] – John Mullaly, 1853, The Milk Trade in New York and Vicinity: Giving an Account of the Sale of Pure and Adulterated Milk. (p 40-41)

[25] – John Mullaly, 1853, The Milk Trade in New York and Vicinity: Giving an Account of the Sale of Pure and Adulterated Milk. (p 40-41)

[26]  – Esther Schor. Emma Lazarus (Jewish Encounters Series) (pp. 20-21) 

[27] – Esther Schor. Emma Lazarus (Jewish Encounters Series) (pp. 26)

[28] – Esther Schor. Emma Lazarus (Jewish Encounters Series) (p. 141).

[29] – Bette Roth Young. Emma Lazarus in Her World: Life and Letters (p. 54)

[30] – New York Times, 26 March 1882, p. 12.

[31] – Emma Lazarus, Epistle to the Hebrews (New York: Jewish Historical Society of New York, 1987), p. 76-77.

[32] – Emma Lazarus, Epistle to the Hebrews (New York: Jewish Historical Society of New York, 1987), p. 41.

[33] – Esther Schor. Emma Lazarus (Jewish Encounters Series) (pp. 159)

[34] – Esther Schor. Emma Lazarus (Jewish Encounters Series) (p. 260).

[35] – Zenaide A. Ragozin. The Century Magazine, April 1882, pp. 905-920

Steyn Sticks to Swine: How Mendacious Mark Steyn Collaborates with the Jews of Clown World

/7 Comments/in /by

War is a great clarifier. First in Ukraine, then in Gaza, war has made it clearer and clearer to more and more Whites that the West is ruled by a hostile elite of Jews and their shabbos goyim. These kings and queens of Clown World are passionately committed to defending the borders of Jew-ruled Ukraine and Israel. And they’re just as passionately committed to erasing the borders of gentile nations like America, Britain, and France.

Fake Americans, real Jews: the vampiric Clown-King Jonathan Greenblatt and the bloodthirsty Clown-Queen Victoria Nuland (image from Wikipedia)

Naturally enough, Clown World has its collaborators, they’re traitors and liars who pretend to side with Whites and the West while secretly working for the Clowns. I think that the worst of these collaborators and traitors is the part-Jewish trickster and fraud Mark Steyn (born 1959). War is a great clarifier, but Steyn is a great obfuscator, someone who has always devoted his high intelligence and literary talent to leading his gentile audience away from the truth. He reminds me of a porcine propagandist in Orwell’s Animal Farm (1945):

The best known among [the swine who ruled the farm] was a small fat pig named Squealer, with very round cheeks, twinkling eyes, nimble movements, and a shrill voice. He was a brilliant talker, and when he was arguing some difficult point he had a way of skipping from side to side and whisking his tail which was somehow very persuasive. The others said of Squealer that he could turn black into white. (Animal Farm, chapter 2)

Pied Piper Mark Steyn ponders his next porky

Steyn isn’t small or fat and doesn’t have a shrill voice. But he is a brilliant writer and, like Squealer’s skipping and tail-whisking, he uses humor and mockery to bypass the critical faculty of his audience. For example, he tried to “turn black into white” when he argued in 2021 that Jonathan Greenblatt, the vampiric Jew who heads the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), was a mere “Obama hack” who had allowed gentile leftism to corrupt a formerly honest organization. As I wrote in “Mark Steyn Lies As Naturally As He Breathes,” Steyn couldn’t admit the truth about Greenblatt’s attack on Tucker Carlson for pointing out the obvious truth of the Great Replacement:

Steyn’s priority is to serve Jewish interests, not the truth. He doesn’t want his goyish fans to recognize the truth about Carlson’s dispute with the ADL, because the ADL’s attack on Carlson was a blatant example of anti-White activism by a strongly ethnocentric Jewish organization. Accordingly, Steyn assumed his well-practised role as the Pied Piper of Zionism and begun piping a seductive tune of falsehoods. He wanted to pretend, first, that Jonathan Greenblatt is a typical leftist, rather than a typical ethnocentric Jew; and second, that the ADL is corrupt in typically leftist fashion, rather than typically Zionist fashion. (“Mark Steyn Lies As Naturally As He Breathes,” The Occidental Observer, 29th April 2021)

In his article, Steyn skipped and whisked his tail in service to the swine of Clown World as he made his way to a truly breathtaking porky (“porky pie” is Cockney rhyming-slang for “lie”). He wrote that “I wouldn’t be surprised to see the likes of Greenblatt abandon Zionism as a practical matter in the years ahead.” That was an obvious lie at the time and in 2024 the great clarifier of war has only made it more obvious. Far from abandoning Zionism after his dispute with Tucker Carlson, Greenblatt has become so rabidly Zionist that even some of his own staff at the ADL think he’s going too far:

The Anti-Defamation League CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, sparked controversy in 2022 when he placed opposition to Israel on a par with white supremacy as a source of antisemitism. “Anti-Zionism is antisemitism,” Greenblatt said in a speech to ADL leaders. He singled out Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace as groups that “epitomize the Radical Left, the photo inverse of the Extreme Right that ADL long has tracked”.

His remarks didn’t only upset grassroots activists and Jewish groups critical of Israeli policy. It also set off a firestorm within the Jewish advocacy group. … Even before the latest Israel-Hamas war, the conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism has increasingly inflected the debate around the bounds of legitimate protest, with the ADL playing a vocal role. … And tensions continue to ignite between Greenblatt and ADL staff. At least two employees who spoke to the Guardian have quit in response to its overt emphasis on pro-Israel advocacy since the Israeli offensive on Gaza began, building on a pattern of departures from the organization. But the ADL has only doubled down on initiatives defending Israel and the policies of the Israeli government. It has welcomed a controversial congressional resolution that defined anti-Zionism as antisemitism, and it has called on law enforcement to investigate student activist groups for providing “material support” to Hamas, which the US government has designated as a terrorist organization. (“Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics,” The Guardian, 5th January 2024)

That article in the Guardian is dishonest too (and badly written), but it gets one thing absolutely right: that Greenblatt is a rabid Zionist and no longer cares to pretend otherwise. Here’s Steyn’s prediction from 2021 again: “I wouldn’t be surprised to see the likes of Greenblatt abandon Zionism as a practical matter in the years ahead.” When Steyn wrote that, he was being either an utter fool or an unashamed liar. Steyn definitely isn’t a fool, so only one option remains: he’s an unashamed liar.

Steyn in the Jewish World Review

Here’s another of his lies: “Unlike the head of the ADL, I have no special interest in or responsibility for the welfare of the Jewish people.” Steyn is part Jewish and definitely has a special interest in the welfare of Jews. He gives the intensely ethnocentric Jew Laura Rosen Cohen regular space on his website to promote Jewish interests. He has spent his entire career deceiving and deflecting on behalf of the Jewish swine of Clown World. As the honest Jew Larry Auster pointed out in 2005, Steyn was once positively gloating at the prospect of non-White Muslims conquering White Europe:

In a selection of my past blog articles on Mark Steyn that I posted yesterday, I just came upon a statement by Steyn about Europe and Islam that may be the most damning thing — about himself — that he’s ever written. In Steyn’s article, written last February [2005], he doesn’t merely express indifference to the prospect of an Islamized Europe (which he has done many times before), and he doesn’t merely express Schadenfreude at the prospect of an Islamized Europe (which he has also done many times before); no, he speaks of an Islamized Europe as a positively good thing for the United States.

As I discuss, this attitude demonstrates the ultimate destructiveness of the neoconservative’s world view. Believing only in the liberal idea of universal freedom (which they don’t really believe in anyway, since they are now supporting sharia rule in Iraq and Hamas rule in the Palestinian territories), the neoconservatives lack any real civilizational consciousness or allegiance, and so, because the Europeans oppose the universal-freedom ideology, the neocons have abandoned our European homeland to the Muslims, even though the Islamic dominance of Europe would obviously mean the greatest possible setback for us in the war on radical Islam, spelling the ultimate defeat of America and of its freedoms as well. But that’s the way it goes. When you have no loyalty to a concrete society and people, you are also incapable of staying loyal to the ideas that you have abstracted from that society and people. (“Steyn calls for the destruction of Europe,” View from the Right, 29th December 2005)

But isn’t just what Steyn said, it’s where he said it. This is what he wrote and what shocked even his harsh critic Larry Auster:

Some of us think an Islamic Europe will be easier for America to deal with than the present Europe of cynical, wily, duplicitous pseudo-allies. But getting there is certain to be messy, and violent.

Until the shape of the new Europe begins to emerge, there’s no point picking fights with the terminally ill. The old Europe is dying, and Mr. Bush did the diplomatic equivalent of the Oscar night lifetime-achievement tribute at which the current stars salute a once glamorous old-timer whose fading aura is no threat to them. The 21st century is being built elsewhere. (“U.S. can sit back and watch Europe implode,” Jewish World Review, 28th February 2005)

Steyn wrote that in the Jewish World Review for a Jewish audience two decades ago. As Larry Auster said, it should have damned Steyn for ever in the eyes of anyone who wants the West to survive and wants the Third-World invaders to be turned back. But it didn’t. In 2024, Steyn is still skipping and whisking his tail and turning “black into white” for his audience of deluded goyim. He’s even offering those goyim a chance to buy a “handsome limited-edition … souvenir … the SteynOnline Liberty Stick.” He goes on: “Every stick is made in the USA and shows both Magna Carta and the US Constitution. They’re exclusively available here — and I sign and number each one.”

Another clown, another lie: Dr Eli David pretends that Western survival depends on sending shekels to Israel

The expurgation of Magna Carta

In 2005, Steyn claimed that “the 21st century is being built elsewhere” than Europe. In 2024, he’s claiming that the 21st century should be built on Magna Carta. You know, Magna Carta, written in Latin, that great European language, centuries before America and Israel even existed. But Steyn is lying when he claims to honor Magna Carta. He’s just skipping and whisking his tail again. Otherwise, he’d sign his “Liberty Sticks” with this highly relevant advice: “Beware the Jews!” As Francis Carr Begbie pointed out at the Occidental Observer in 2013, Magna Carta can be celebrated today only in expurgated form:

If there is one thing our elites enjoy it is giving each other a big pat on the back and the extravagant celebrations planned for the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta will give them lots of opportunities to do just that.

There may still be eighteen months to go before the actual anniversary itself but the commemoration events are well underway to mark the day in 1215 that King John was finally brought to heel by the barons and where limited government and Western constitutional freedom was born.

In Britain the BBC will broadcast TV documentaries, dramas and radio programmes, and the event is to even have its own opera and specially commissioned symphony. The occasion will be marked by commemorative stamps and the Royal Mint will issue a special £2 coin. In America high-powered lawyers and constitutional experts will be chewing over the meaning of it all at banquets, dinners, lectures and exhibitions in Boston, Washington and Philadelphia and 800 U.S. lawyers are expected to make the pilgrimage to Runnymede beside the Thames where the document was sealed.

Across the English-speaking judicial world no single document is probably more venerated than the Great Charter. The Founding Fathers embedded it into the 1791 Bill of Rights in the shape of the Fifth Amendment that says no-one “can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law”. And today it is regularly cited in newspaper editorials, political debates and Supreme Court judgments.

But amidst all the self-congratulation about habeas corpus, the right to trial by jury and how it’s wisdom shines down the through the ages and still has much to teach us, one awkward question should be asked, however churlish it might seem.

Why have clauses 10 and 11 been airbrushed from history? These were the ones inserted in the original charter to protect widows and underage heirs specifically from Jewish moneylenders by restricting the recovery of debt out of the deceased debtor’s estate.

But they are nowhere to be found in the official Magna Carta Trust website nor the US National Archive website which instead features the text of the later — and much shorter — 1297 version. (“Why the Magna Carta anniversary celebrations will be missing two crucial paragraphs,” The Occidental Observer, 19th May 2013)

If Mark Steyn truly believes that Magna Carta is the foundation-stone of British and American liberty, then he must accept that liberty depends on escaping the greed and lies of Jews. But he doesn’t truly believe it and his Steyn Stick should really be called a Swine Stick. It’s just another lie issued by mendacious Mark as part of his long and faithful service to the Jews of Clown World.

Eugen Dühring on the Jewish Question, Part 2 The Jewish Question

/5 Comments/in , /by

Go to Part 1.

Part 2: The Jewish Question

One of the most important contributions of Dühring’s work to the history of anthropology and culture is the distinction he makes between the Jews and the other Semites so that all the features of the so-called “anti-Semitism” are in fact directed only to the Jews as a specific branch of the Semitic race, “the most vicious minting of the entire Semitic race,” and not to all the members of that race in general.

The Jewish question too is not a religious one but of the inherent and unchangeable character of the Jewish people.[1] Thus, as Dühring puts it,

it lies in the interest of a noble mankind, thus of a true humanity and culture, that this obscurantism of religion which has up to now covered and protected the worst characteristics of the Jews with its darkness be fully re­moved so that the Jew may be revealed to us in his natu­ral and inalienable constitution.[2]

In general, Dühring believes that all official religions are en­crusted with superstition and it would be best to substitute religious dogma with something more genuinely spiritual in social institutions. The point of departure for Dühring’s critique of Jewry is thus an entirely moral one. The chief accusation against the Jews is that they are morally corrupt and therefore thrive most in a society where moral corruption has already set in or has begun to set in.

This is the justification of the appellation of the Jewish race as a parasitical one since it feeds on the moral corruption of the host so­ciety, a corruption either created by it or, if already present to some degree, fostered by it. The dangers of moral corruption through the admixture of Jews into European society have increased particularly after the emancipation of Jewry in the sixties and seventies of the nineteenth century. The source of the Jewish corrupt nature is located by Dühring in their basic lack of conscience and cruelty vis-à-vis the other nations. Exploitation of other nations is their major aim and a genuine sense of human rights is utterly lacking in their commercial, essen­tially usurious, dealings. This lack of a moral sense makes true pol­itics impossible among them and their involvement in all sorts of so-called Socialist movements is only conditioned by their desire to extract advantages for themselves from disturbed social and eco­nomic conditions.

The religious constitution of the Jews is evidenced most clearly in their overarching theocratic ideas of society wherein the Jewish people are enslaved to their Lord God but, in turn, must enslave the rest of mankind to please this sole, jealous monarch of the world.[3] Yahweh is indeed nothing but an embodiment of the Jewish self-inter­est and represents the very opposite of the Indo-European natural pantheon.

Germanic mythology is ruled by concepts of fidelity and na­ture-based spirituality which have unfortunately been obscured by the overlaying of the original German moral character by Christian­ity, a religion which is very closely related to the Jewish racial culture in which it arose as a reaction to the evils of the Jewish nature.[4] The Jewish religion has no truly religious character but, instead, a markedly economic-political one. Given their natural proclivity to prof­it-making, it is not surprising that the Jews have, in their extensive wanderings away from their homeland, curried favor with pow­er-holders in all ages through their financial loans. The Alliance Israelite Universelle based in Paris is in fact a modern confirmation of the operation of the political influence of Jews on an international scope under the cover of an apparently religious organization.

The influence of the Jews on society is more evident in the up­per and middle classes than in the lower, since the former are more exposed to the thoroughly Judaized press and literature of modern times.

The Jews themselves lack all creative power in science as well as in art and merely trade in the ideas of others. The Jewish economist, David Ricardo, for example, derived his famous ground-rent theo­ry from the Scot James Anderson, and the Jewish mathematician, Carl Gustav Jacobi, derived his ideas from the Norwegian Niels Abel. Even the sole distinguished philosopher of the Jewish race, Spinoza, has produced a system which is singularly lacking in all ideals above rational calculation. The neglect of compassion in his Ethics as a feeling-based category to be overcome by rational understanding points to the real cult of intellectual power which lies at the base of his system.[5]

The Jewish talent in literature is always of a hybrid sort displaying even amidst occasional attempts at Germanic sublimity an irresisti­ble proclivity to buffoonery, as in the case of Heine, and to polemics, as in the case of Börne. The Jews have also turned Lessing’s sympa­thetic attitude to the Jews (perhaps, as Dühring maintains, because Lessing was himself originally of Jewish descent) into an exaggerat­ed cult of Lessing as the glory of the German Enlightenment when ­ in fact his works are entirely artificial and lacking in genuine emo­tional power.

The Jews lack all heroism of character required to produce epic or dramat­ic literature and can, at best, attain some weak lyricism as revealed in their ancient Psalms. Like Richard Wagner, Dühring also criticiz­es the unpleasant manner of Jewish chanting in the synagogues and goes even farther than Wagner in his anti-Judaism in maintaining that Wagner himself compromised in the end with the Jews in ac­cepting generous donations from the Jews at Bayreuth and in pur­porting to save those Jews who supported his “music of the future,” rather like a dispenser of indulgences. The general unsuitability of the Jews for artistic enterprise is, in fact, located by Dühring in their lack of “that free and unselfish activity of the mind which alone ad­vances to uninterested truth and beauty”.

The Judaized press, however, constantly ridicules the German as having the nature a simpleton, of the “deutschen Michael.” The Jews have, through their involvement with the political parties of the present, corrupted the concepts of socialism and social democracy. Their aim in the realm of economics has been always, whether it be through Marx or through Lassalle, to foster economic dissatis­faction through terms such as “class-warfare” in order ultimately to achieve a “merging of all nations into a Jewish kingdom.”

The German state was in fact founded originally on the moral quality of loyalty, which was the basis of the feudal system which developed therefrom in the Middle Ages. Loyalty should thus be the source of future German politics as well. Jewish politics, on the other hand, is based on betrayal—of Europeans as well as, occa­sionally, of Jews too by other Jews. The intolerant Jewish ethos can operate only in an exploitative manner and under the enforcement of a terrorism learnt from their fear-inspiring Lord God.

True piety is lacking in their politics as much as in their religion. The Jewish infiltration into the legislative activities of the German state after their emancipation has enabled them to herd the Ger­man people under the thrall of individualistic “freedom” into the ex­ploitative hands of the Jews. In this they have been abetted by the university professors and intelligentsia, since the latter depend for the most part on the Jewish press for their reputation. The advance­ment of Jews from an original pariah status to the leading political positions in the European nations is evidenced by the rise of Gam­betta in France and of Disraeli in England. Gambetta rose to power on the basis of a French political fiasco for which his own people were responsible.[6] Disraeli’s opportunism is manifest in his use of the stock-exchange business to acquire foreign lands.[7] But the true manipulative schemes of the Jew are revealed by Disraeli himself in his fictional writings such as Coningsby, Sybil, and Tancred. The very appoint­ment of a Jew like Disraeli as the head of the English aristocracy is a sad sign of the degeneration of the English in recent times.

The solution of the Jewish problem must be an international one if it is to have any lasting effect. One of the major preparatory steps is the elimination of the false idea of tolerance. Tolerance of baseness is a contradiction of the principle of human tolerance itself: “Humane reciprocity will consist in living in peace insofar as the nobler humanity comes together in the good. For the rest, however, precisely battle and destruction will emerge so much more energetically against the inhuman.” Similarly, the principle of equality cannot mean the consideration of that which is unequal as equal. The economic communes and corporations which Dühring suggests in his Socialitarian system thus must reserve the right to exclude harmful economic elements like the Jews.

The political solution of the Jewish problem lies first in the spiritual emancipation of the people from the Jewish mentality and ethos. But individual natures are too weak to carry out this process of reformation of society by themselves and so must be helped by state legislation and administration. The disenfranchisement of the Jews is a sine qua non of all remedial action with regard to the Jewish problem. Their exclusion, internment, and deportation must be encouraged wherever possible.

However, Dühring is too realistic to think that the creation of an independent Israeli state in Palestine and the deportation of the Jews to it would suffice to solve the Jewish problem. For, the Jewish race is an essentially nomadic one and will soon disperse again throughout the world even if it did manage to concentrate itself in Palestine for a while. The nomadic nature of the Jews itself is ex­plained by Dühring as being due to the basically unpleasant nature of the Jews, so that they are repulsive even to themselves when they are alone with themselves and not in the midst of European socie­ty—to whom they are, naturally, far more repugnant.

The specific means to be adopted against the Jews must be un­dertaken in three fields, the political, the economic, and the social. Political representation and occupation of official positions by Jews is to be curtailed immediately in such a way that no Jew can be elect­ed to Parliament any more than any Jew can exercise a right to vote in European elections.

The excess number of Jewish judges must be reduced through forced retirement; the cost of retirement payments incurred hereby would be much less than the damages that are to be anticipated if the Jews continue to distort legislation and justice in the country over a long period of time. The financial measures to be adopted against the Jews should be directed by the knowledge that all Jewish racial economics is based on avarice and the ambition to dominate others. The powerful Jewish financial houses must be nationalized forthwith and placed under official curatorships and state supervision.

This step must be carried out not only in Germany but in every country where the Jews exert such financial power. If we remem­ber Dühring’s identification of the main means by which most of the Jewish finance was acquired by cheating, then we will understand the indispensability of such steps against it. The social means should at first be focused on the chief Jewish agent of social influence, the press, wherewith the Jews turn public opinion into Jewish opinion. Jews must be removed from all ownership as well as editorial positions of newspapers; though, for the cultivation of a public opinion different from the present pre­dominantly Jewish liberal one, radical political changes are neces­sary as well.

Education too should be reoriented in a native Germanic way by the exclusion of Jews from school and university instructorships. If the Jews have succeeded so far in their social endeavours, it is pre­cisely because the university professors have, in their weakness and corruption, encouraged the parasitical activity of the Jews.

Other important social means against the Jews consist in the discouragement of intermarriages between Germans and Jews. He rightly points out that the case where a Jewish woman marries a German man is somewhat better than the reverse since the man is the bearer of the inherited spiritual qualities.

Dühring does not yet[8] think that legislation is necessary for this purpose since the natural aversion that Germans, especially Ger­man women, have to Jews will act as a deterrent. Also, the reduc­tion of the financial power of the Jews and the increasing economic independence of women will make German women less tempted to marry rich Jews for economic reasons. In general, the danger of such mixtures can be successfully reduced only if there is strict legislation regarding the number of Jewish immigrants permitted into a particular territory.

The state’s role in anti-Jewish measures must be supplemented by agitations on the part of the people. The parties themselves are im­potent in their narrow programmes and have too much connection to Jewish agencies to be effective in any way. For example, the meas­ures taken by the German Conservative parties to reduce corrup­tion in society were not specifically limited to the Jews and affected even the better elements engaged in the occupations in question. The Jewish question is first and last a moral question and demands the reestablishment of German loyalty and trust against the frivolity of the Jewish mind and the corruption that creeps under cover of this frivolity.

What is at stake is the very existence, moral and material, of the European peoples, for “if things are not directed, the descendants of traders in old wardrobes, scraps and cattle bones must get to the very bones of the modern peoples after they have pocketed their wealth and lamed their mind through inoculation”. The solution to the Jewish problem must be an international and a continually last­ing one, and Dühring maintains that even the most powerful means cannot be shied away from in the effort to free the better peoples and nations from what he calls their “internal Carthage.”

*   *   *

The social effect of Dühring’s work can be estimated more gener­ally in the anti-Jewish Congresses organized first at Dresden in 1882, and then at Chemnitz in 1883. At the latter, a division occurred on account of the ideological differences between those who favored Dühring’s more uncompromising views and the Christian elements at the meeting. However, a loose confederation of ‘Reformvereine’ sprang up in the 1880s, and by 1890 there were 136 of them. As Pe­ter Pulzer reports,[9] the extreme view, associated with Dühring, pre­dominated in Westphalia, under the leadership of Dr. König.

While the state social legislation of Bismarck served to allay the enthusiasm regarding the Jewish problem somewhat and to disin­tegrate these anti-Jewish organizations, the movement acquired a new impetus from the leadership of Theodor Fritsch in Leipzig who revitalized it according to the extremist point of view. It was Fritsch’s call for an anti-Jewish organization “above the parties”[10] which cre­ated such seminal nationalist societies as the Thule Society and the Germanen Order. It is true that the latter were in fact not so directly influential on the NSDAP itself, which—though created initially by Karl Harrer (along with Anton Drexler) at the suggestion of the Germanen Or­der that several economic ‘Rings’ of the society should be set up all over the country—ultimately proscribed the Germanen Order for its overly Masonic qualities.[11]

However, Alfred Rosenberg, the National Socialist ideologue wrote a work on the Jewish question very similar to Dühring’s called Die Spur des Juden im Wandel der Zeiten (The Track of the Jew Through the Ages) (1920).[12] In it he discusses first the his­torical circumstances of the Jews from their diaspora after the de­struction of Jerusalem to their various interventions in modern Eu­ropean politics. The second section deals with the Jewish mentality as revealed in its religious documents and cultural and economic works. The work ends with a discussion of the Jewish ambition for eco­nomic and political mastery of the world and suggests ways of curb­ing this tendency forthwith in Germany. The points contained in Rosenberg’s anti-Jewish program are in many ways similar to the points of the Nürnberg Laws of 1935.

Thus, even if it may not have had an immediate political con­nection with the programs of the National Socialist regime, the extraordinary value of Dühring’s work on the Jews consists in its prophetic accura­cy. Dühring’s systematic uncovering of the viciousness of the Jewish character and his suggestions for the removal of this evil bear the closest resemblance to the increasing anti-Semitic mood, ideologi­cal as well as popular, and the actual course of anti-Semitic events in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s.

Starting with the measures to exclude Jews from official positions and the prohibition of intermarriages between Jews and Germans promulgated in the Nürnberg Laws of 1935 and ending with in­creasing irritation with the very presence of Jews on German soil, the anti-Judaic programmes of the National Socialists were anticipated almost to the last detail by the blind philosopher of Berlin. Between the first appearance of Dühring’s work and the first major political measures taken against the Jews by the National Socialist re­gime there had elapsed a rather long period of about sixty years; neither Jews nor Jewish sympathisers can blame the Germans for having been too rash in their dealings with a racial group whose social and cultural influence had been philosophically identified as morally criminal. The claims of George Mosse and Donald Niewyk that the brutal­ization of German politics was spurred by the defeat of 1918[13] is only partially accurate, since the sharp turn of anti-Semitic trends in the Weimar Republic was actually propelled by the blatant arroga­tion of power by those very Jewish elements whom intellectual an­ti-Semites from the start had sought to exclude from German society through more rational social discrimination.

The moral corruption associated with Jewish finance and mores showed no signs of improving since the first publication of Dühring’s work but, rather, it achieved a giddy triumph at the end of World War I in the ill-fated Weimar Republic, which was initially es­tablished as a Socialist republic by Karl Liebknecht, the Jewish agita­tor, and conducted in a markedly Jewish social and political climate. It cannot be very surprising to one who is familiar with Dühring’s analysis of the Jewish ethos and its role in modern Germany that the Germans reacted to this ethos with a populist movement such as National Socialism. Those sections of the population which suffered most from the sense of exploitation at the hands of the Jewish economic and so­cial system naturally supported a German nationalist movement which sought in the end to destroy the Jewish evil at its very roots. As Dühring had foretold, “The German, to be sure, moves his limbs mostly only when the usurpation become too malicious; but if he does that once, then he does that which he undertakes, no matter what, also in a fundamental way.”

In retrospect, therefore, we may consider the National Socialist movement as being in no way an aberration but one which was clearly predicted in advance by philosophical under­standing. Historical discussions of Hitler’s regime which puzzle over the extreme measures taken by it against the Jews and Jewish Bolshe­vism and quickly dismiss them as the products of the monstrous psycho­logical complex of one individual are clearly handicapped by their unfamiliarity with the real philosophic impetuses of an ideological political movement such as National Socialism. Peter Pulzer’s suggestion that Hitler was merely relying on the political effectiveness of anti-Semitism,[14] for instance, seems not to understand that anti-Semitism was in its origins, and throughout its career in the early years of the twentieth century, not a mere tool in German politics (except perhaps in the case of Bismarck) but the very aim of it.[15]

The failure of the National Socialist regime was partly due to its rashness both in internal politics and foreign policy. The hasty foreign political moves made by Hitler at a time when neither the German people nor the remainder of the European nations had yet been forged into a political and cultural unity could not but fail. Be­sides, the powerful influence of the Jewish presence in America and Britain was not reckoned with adequately to forestall the defeat at the hands of the Allies.

The real tragedy of World War II, however, is that the failure of the Nazi movement and the discovery of the National Socialist attempts to eliminate Jewry in Germany have only succeeded in handing over the sympathy of the public to the very elements which formed the pivotal issue of the war. The corruption and degeneration that Dühring and the National Socialists at­tempted to check have proceeded with redoubled vigor after the war, and the enslavement of the European peoples to the Jewish baseness and vulgarity has become almost complete.[16] Dühring’s prophetic philosophical work on the Jewish character thus clearly retains its cautionary significance.

[1] This is in fact borne out by the evidence of Josephus regarding the circumstanc­es of the expulsion of Abraham and his tribe from Chaldea, for he states that the Chaldeans drove him out because he forsook the lofty, astronomically oriented, natural philosophy of the Chaldeans for a more mundane ethics (Jewish Antiq­uities, I, 157; cf. Philo the Jew, De mutation nominum, 72–76, and De migratione Abrahami, 184). This first recorded expulsion of the Jewry from a host country is strengthened by the second, dating from Egyptian antiquity, when, according to Dühring himself, the Jews revealed their avaricious worldly nature in their at­tempt to take as much of the Egyptians’ gold and silver with them as possible when they left Egypt.

[2] All quotations from the Judenfrage are from my translation of the sec­ond edition.

[3] Compare Schopenhauer’s contempt for the Jews which was directed by his rec­ognition of their worldly nature and superficial theism, rationalism, and opti­mism. The references to these characteristics of the Jewish mentality are ubiqui­tous in his works. For instance, in his ‘Fragments for the History of Philosophy’ (Parerga and Paralipomena, I), he declares: “[the religion of the Jews] is, therefore, the crudest and poorest of all religions and consists merely in an absurd and re­volting theism—While all other religions endeavour to explain to the people by symbols and parables the metaphysical significance of life, the religion of the Jews is entirely immanent and furnishes nothing but a mere war-cry in the struggle with other nations”, (cf., Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, Ill, Art.48, IV, Art.59; Parerga, I, ‘On Philosophy at the Universities’; and II, ‘On Religion’).

[4] In Sache, Leben und Feinde, Dühring points out that “The belief which Christ demanded was the belief in his person, the blind subjection to the word of the master and prophet, but not that naturally grown fidelity such as it lies in the nature of the better peoples and characters” (p.288) and both in this work and in the Ersatz as well as in the later editions of the Judenfrage, Dühring maintains that the ascetic ordeal of self-crucifixion exemplified by Christ in his life is valid only for the inferior Jewish flesh, embodying the characteristic Jewish self-interest, and should not apply to the healthy peoples.

[5] In his Kritische Geschichte der Philosophie, Dühring declares: “The concept of so-called virtue coincides with that of power. From the logical affirmation of in­dividual power the symbol of all ethical principles is supposed to be ultimately produced by means of the understanding and higher insight” (3rd. ed., Leipzig, -excha1878, p.306f.).

[6] The 16 May 1877 Crisis that brought down the royalist president Patrice MacMahon.

[7] The acquisition of the Suez Canal for Britain with funds derived from the Roth­schilds is a case in point.

[8] That is, at the time of writing the second edition (1881).

[9] Peter Pulzer, The rise of political anti-Semitism, London: Peter Halban, 1988, 99.

[10] Hammer, XI (1912), 153–58, ‘Vom partei-politischen Antisemitismus’.

[11] See Reginald H. Phelps, “’Before Hitler came’: Thule Society and Germanen order’, Journal of Modern History, 35 (1963), 245–61.

[12]  See my English edition of this work, The Track of the Jew through the Ages, London: Ostara Publications, 2016.

[13] See George Mosse, “Der erste Weltkrieg und die Brutalisierung der Politik: Betrachtungen über die politische Rechte, den Rassismus, und den deutschen Sonderweg”, in Manfred Funke et al. (ed.), Demokratie und Diktatur: Geist und Gestalt in Deutschland und Europa, Düsseldorf, 1987, pp. 127–139 and Donald Niewyk, “Solving the ‘Jewish problem’: continuity and change in German anti­semitism, 1871–1945”, Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 35 (1990), p.370.

[14] Peter Pulzer, The rise of political anti-Semitism, London: Peter Halban, 1988, p.202.

[15] Cf., in this context, Roger Griffin, The Nature of Fascism, London: Pinter Publishers, 1991, where he points out that German Fascism can be explained only in terms of a “palingenetic” effort on the part of the German nation to rid itself of all Jewish forms of social and political life.

[16] See for example Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority, Cape Canaveral, FL: Howard Allen Press, 1976, Ch.15, p.178f, where he points out that “what is happening today in the United States today is what has been happening through­out much of Western history. The Jews, finding themselves unrestricted and un­curbed in a land rich in resources and labour, are rapidly monopolizing its wealth. It is almost certainly the same historic process that took place in Visigothic, Ar­abic and Catholic Spain, in medieval England, France and Germany—and most recently in twentieth century Germany. Yet no one cares—or dares—to notice it. Those who are so concerned about labour monopolies or business cartels, about the influence of the Roman Catholic Church or the military-industrial complex, about the WASP domination of the big corporations or the international Com­munist conspiracy, seem strangely silent and utterly unconcerned about the activ­ities of an ever more powerful, ever more dominant, supranational ethnocentrism with almost unlimited financial resources at its command”. The reason for the relative silence regarding the Jewish power in America is of course, as Robertson himself shows, the domination of the press and the media in America by the Jews. Not only does this domination help to curtail criticism of the political and com­mercial manipulations of the Jews but it also, more harmfully, forces the Jewish vulgarity in well-nigh irresistible doses onto the gullible masses through the film, television, music, and sports industries financed and administered in large part by the Jews.

Eugen Dühring on the Jewish Question, Part 1: The German Socialism of Eugen Dühring

/2 Comments/in , /by

Part 1: The German Socialism of Eugen Dühring[1]

Eugen Dühring (1833–1921) was born in Berlin the son of a Prussian bureaucrat. He studied law, philosophy and political econ­omy at the University of Berlin. Although he began his career by practicing law (1856–59), he was forced to give up this profession at the age of twenty eight when he was blinded through a congenital defect.

However, Dühring accepted his fate heroically declaring that “[this catastrophe] did not dampen but increased the enthusiasm with which I had sketched out for myself even previously a human vocation of intellectual scope—my goal was my consolation—of all the thoughts that remained remote from me. In my later life it has been up to now the remotest to complain about my blindness.”

Dühring took his doctorate in 1861 at the University of Berlin with a dissertation entitled De Tempore, Spatio, Causalitate atque de Analysis Infinitesimalis Logica (On Time, Space, Causality and on Infinitesimal Logical Analysis). In 1863 he became university lec­turer in philosophy and national economy. His earliest published works were national economic ones influenced by his reading of the German-American economist Friedrich List (1789–1846) and the American Henry Charles Carey (1793–1879) who were both in fa­vour of organic economics with a strong emphasis on protectionism and national interest.

Dühring’s economic doctrines are detailed in Kapital und Ar­beit (Capital and Labor) (Berlin, 1865), Careys Umwälzung der Volkswirtschaftshehre (München, 1865), Kritische Grundlegung der Volkswirtschaftslehre (Berlin, 1866), and Die Verkleinerer Careys (Breslau, 1867). Already the ethical orientation of his economic studies was revealed in his early publication of a work entitled Der Wert des Lebens (Breslau, 1865). Two further philosophical publications (Natürliche Dialektik, Berlin, 1865, and Kritische Geschichte der Philosophie, Berlin, 1869) were followed by yet other works on national economy, the Kritische Geschichte der Nationalökonomie und des Sozialismus (Berlin, 1871), and the Cursus der National- und Sozialökonomie (Berlin, 1873). A fuller elaboration of his philosophical system was presented in the Cursus der Philosophie (Leipzig, 1875).

While Dühring’s lectures were very successful, he adopted from the start a critical attitude to the university and its institutions, and the improbability of his acquiring a professorship as a result of this conflict only sharpened his attacks. Finally, in 1877, under the pres­sure created by his attacks on German universities and their pro­fessors as well as those on Helmholtz in his Kritische Geschichte der allgemeinen Principien der Mechanik, (Berlin, 1873), Dühring was removed from the university.

This dismissal was later attributed by him to the machination of the Jewish elements in the university and of their influential agents in the press. His later publications as a private scholar — including two works on literature, Die Überschätzung Lessings und dessen Anwaltschaft für die Juden (Karlsruhe, 1881) and Die Grössen der modernen Literatur (Leipzig, 1893), as well as Die Judenfrage (Karls­ruhe, 1881), an intellectual autobiography, Sache, Leben und Feinde (Karlsruhe, 1882), and a work on religion, Der Ersatz der Religion durch Volkommeneres (Karlsruhe, 1883) — represent his comprehen­sive treatment of the problem of Jewish involvement in European society. His major interest in social and political economy however is reinforced in his last works, a second edition of Capital und Arbeit entitled Waffen, Capital, Arbeit (Leipzig, 1906) and Soziale Rettung (Leipzig, 1907), which are consolidations of his economic and phil­osophic positions.

Dühring battled for reform in all fields of life, being exceptionally qualified to comment in an expert way on most of them. And it must be noted that, while the Jewish mentality is emphatically located as the root of the evil of society in his later works, his anti-Judaism was evident long before his dismissal from the university, in his earliest economic and philosophical works. His social ideal was based on a moral cultivation of the individual spirit which would liberate the personality from all external and internal hindrances and permit it to form a vital culture. To this end Dühring founded a journal called Der Personalist und Emanzipator in 1899, designed to strengthen the human-individual spirit in its opposition to the external powers of nature as well as to those of exploitative social groups, especially the Jews.

Unlike most of the other philosophical anti-Semites, such as Fichte and Schopenhauer and Chamberlain, Dühring was not an idealist but a realist. He dismissed metaphysics as being one of the sources of the superstitious errors of mankind and his mathemati­cal denial of infinity was reflected in his stern view of human life as being empirically and socially determined. However, even in this realism, Dühring retained a vestige of metaphysics since he posited behind all temporality a “primordial being” from which the universe evolves. Only, for human beings in their terrestrial condition, the actually present is far more valuable than speculations regarding the ulti­mate source of reality.

What takes the place of metaphysical ques­tions in Dühring’s work is the Socratean imperative of morality. For, all life, while materially manifested, is informed with vitality and activity, categories which cannot be reduced to matter. Man-made institutions like religion are to be removed only because they are invariably encrusted with superstitions and act as a stumbling block to the full realization of the human personality.

In economics, the Marxist view of class-warfare is to be similarly considered as a dangerous superstition which obscures in convolut­ed dialectic the real sympathy that should and could exist between employers and workers and which alone forms the basis of a healthy social ethos. In this, Dühring was one with the other ‘German socialists’, in­cluding Oswald Spengler (Preuβentum und Sozialismus) and Wer­ner Sombart (Deutscher Sozialismus) who paved the way for Na­tional Socialist economic theory.

Like the anti-democratic thinkers of the Weimar Republic, both Conservative and Socialist, Dühring considered parliamentarism as an outmoded and dangerous system. The Eng­lish Parliament he characterised as a “Repräsentation des Raub- und Raffsystems” (representation of the system of robbery and money-grubbing), since the Tory and Whig parties were nothing but the representatives of belligerent and colonial robbery and capitalis­tic-commercial rapacity. The French parliament was even more basely bourgeois in its representation of financial and stock-ex­change interests. In Germany, parliamentarism receives its hateful stamp from the swaggering Junker and Hebrew bourgeois elements of the so-called Social Democracy in which “one cannot speak of a real rejection of slavery, but which on the contrary uses the traditional familiarity of the masses to slavery to subject them to a party despotism and an exploitation by the parties.”[2] Parliamentary legislation too must be effectively curtailed in its attacks on the workers and their living conditions. Rather, he pro­posed free associations between the concerned parties that resemble economic communes and corporations.

Unlike Marx, Dühring did not consider the reformation of social relations as something that will arise through dialectical necessity from the increasing weakness of the working classes in an industrial society, for this is tantamount to expecting a miracle from the ex­ploitative tendencies of the capitalists. On the other hand, the workers themselves must strive to strengthen themselves through coalitions so as to achieve self-suffi­ciency. The coalitions or communes formed by workers will guaran­tee access of all to property and means of production. The focus is thus shifted away from the concept of personal property altogether to the personal use of this property. Thus owners of property can only own their property according to their individual capacity to do so and if they avoid all tendency to exploitation.

The precondition for the success of such workers’ coalitions, however, is the direction of all their efforts on behalf of the interests of the whole, of the public as a totality, and this can be effected perfectly only when the state enters in their support. The state must act as the mediator between the several socio-economic interests of the pop­ulation, especially since the latter cannot be adequately represented by political parties, which are not truly democratic at all but oli­garchic groupings in which “a considerable part of the people has a place only as a ruled and mostly anonymous mass.”[3] The leadership of the state can be accomplished only by the prevalence of another sense than that of profit-making such as is directive in the British political economy and in that of its followers on the continent.

The prime consideration of the state must be the totality of the as­pirations of the people. Dühring’s Socialitarian economics therefore is nation-bound and not an international economic one. Dühring commends the protective tariff economics of List and Carey, which, as opposed to free-trade economics, is an organic one and

more compatible with the logical consequences of the so­cialist instinct. The tariff party is conscious everywhere of a national interest; it is conscious of a genuine po­litical economy; it does not break up into atomism and individualism that benefit only exploiting individuals.[4]

The Socialitarian principle is thus essentially the replacement of the egoistic individualism of force with the harmonious operation of the sovereignty of the individual. The remedy of the present deplorable situation can be accom­plished therefore only when society is first revolutionized on an an­ti-egoistic basis.

In his discussion of the Jewish question, Dühring makes clear that this revolution may be identified with a revolution against the Jews, as the racial embodiment of self-interest, and points out that “In the country of origin of the French Revolution, in Judaized France, one hears the declaration that the next Revolution will be one against the Jews.”[5]

The fact that parliamentarism has increasingly been dominated by the influence of the Jews and the socialistic proletariat, that is, of those racial and social elements which are the most egoistic, leads Dühring to call for the overcoming of the “Jewish progress and Jun­ker reaction” which represent the system of avarice and rapacity. This can be accomplished only by a transitional dictatorship which gives political expression to the anger of the people. Dühring con­ceives of the bearer of such a dictatorship as an intellectually and morally outstanding person whose power is consolidated by armed force and by an elite of like-minded persons filled with the same sense of social justice. The task of this regime would be to create a fertile ground for true justice so that, even after its passing, the society may continue to develop itself in future through its purified spirit and will.

Thus, although Dühring began as a student of socialist doc­trines, he later rejected all forms of collectivism and maintained that true progress proceeds only from individual powerful personalities. Even where groups seem to be the bearers of creative activities, in the final analysis it is individuals at the head of those organisations in whom the entire association achieves its characteristic effect.

The state as an association itself is to be valued only as a check on the various economic associations active in society so that none exploits or damages the other. Dühring’s increasing reliance on the individual personality caused him in his later years to identify the classification of society according to property and interest as a result of the differences of opportunities for development of personal ca­pacity and character which are propagated through the generations by tradition and inheritance.

Unlike the socialists, Dühring considered all property related to personal accomplishment as vigorously to be defended against the acquisitive grasp of socialistic measures. All Marxist denials of social classifications are thus utopian, since a conflict of interests is indivisibly linked to the natural differences between man and man. Only one sort of differenti­ation is to be rejected, that based on violence. The Jewish socialist propaganda of class-warfare is only a result of the introduction of injustice into these natural differences. This injustice is concocted, in the final analysis, not from economic sen­timents but from the original opposition between a powerful warri­or nobility and a powerless slave group such as the Jews themselves have always been.  It is not surprising that the Jewish economy transvalues econom­ics through the subordination of the higher to the lower aspirations of the people.

The vital importance of the self-emancipation of the individual is reinforced in Dühring’s doctrine of morality freed from all superstitious religion. Considering the Judaic concept of Yahweh as that of a God of “transcendental terrorism,” Dühring sought to replace the Judeo-Christian ethos by a new social and economic feeling for justice. This entails the rejection first of all of all sorts of exploitation whereby the individual is exposed to harm from the robber-types of the society. The latter are directed by the desire for increasing indi­vidual profit, that is, by the cultivation of a ruthless egoism.

The true concept of justice therefore depends on the substitution of egoism by a radical antiegoism. Only on the ground of this sort of justice can a healthy society and culture develop, a social order in which “entire members would be bound by legal interests and would not aim at basing their own existence and power on the re­duction and destruction of other lives.”[6]

The reform of social justice, however, does not mean the simplis­tic socialist demand of equality for all, since rewards are always directly related to performance; what is to be avoided at all cost, however, are unjust encroachments on personal freedom and in­tegrity which represent the mastery of the exploitative members of the present society.[7] The reform of the “intellectually motivated will” to a better and nobler personal disposition will, in its anti-egoism, be naturally restrained in its inter-personal dealings and its partici­pation in the nexus of economic interests.

That the major representatives of the exploitative economy are Jews Dühring never once doubted. In the Kritische Geschichte der Nationalökonomie und des Sozialismus, he comments on the commer­cial ethos of the present:

It denies in no way its Semitic relationship and, even though the discernment that we have to bring to the settling of the question of egoism is clear, we cannot attribute an understanding of this to those who, by virtue of their unchangeable egoism, seem to have no organ for scientific reason and for nobler motives in this direction.

This “theoretical obtuseness” of the Jews is an intellectual fortifi­cation “behind which has been entrenched up to now the apotheosis of egoism, the glorification of the art of cheating, and, in general, the entire celebration of the celebration of the fine strategy of cunning exploita­tion.”[8]

In his Cursus der Philosophie, he reiterates the commercial and financial role appropriated everywhere by the Jews after the fall of their own state and their parasitical infiltration into other nations. The historically attested “cruelty and crass egoism” of the Jews has thus seeped into the public through the press and even into legis­lation, which have been increasingly dominated by them. Indeed, “even parts of science which are especially ventured into by the Jews on account of their exclusion from others already reveal in many ways the stamp of the new form of business directed to profit.”[9] At first agreeing to a subordinate position in exchange for the privilege of making money through underhanded means, and then gradually currying favour with the power-holders through their increasing fi­nancial advantages, the Jews have inexorably developed a mastery in their host societies. “To be a slave or to make slaves—that is the alternative of the peoples disposed to lack of freedom.” The “slave-form of religion” is thus the characteristic and influential contribu­tion of the Jews to intellectual history.

At the time of writing this work on philosophy, Dühring still be­lieved that socialism itself would be sufficient to counter the egoistic system of the Jews since it is based on the organic sensibility of the people which itself is radically opposed to the alien character of ex­ploitative Jewry. In fact, Dühring still hoped that, when society removed the sup­ports for the material egoism and exploitative activity of the Jews, the latter would be forced to live on their own work and not para­sitically on that of others. Moreover, he thought that, since his form of socialism, or Socialitarianism, would guarantee the economic in­dependence of women as well as men, the former would not enter into marriages of economic convenience with Jewish men any longer since, according to Dühring’s belief, there could be no “personal in­clination” thereto.[10] This would preclude ‘’the danger that the Jewish elements may exert some hateful influence on the physiology of the national character.” The removal of opportunities for the exploitative activity of the Jews would at the same time make possible in the long run “a grad­ual improvement of the ways of thought and feeling” of the Jews and equip them for “functions freed of egoism.”

This generous optimism of 1875 was, however, soon replaced by a more realistic understanding of the impossibility of the ethical im­provement of the Jews. Dühring’s, increasing concentration on the Jewish problem since the first publication of the Judenfrage in 1881 led to an increasing annoyance with the destructive alien element in European society until, in the final editions of the Judenfrage, he clearly maintained that, since the Jewish character was an un­changeable one, the only means that would be effective against them would have to be of a violent nature.

In the last edition of Judenfrage (1901), Dühring even suggested that all the specific social and political remedies proposed by him against the Jewish evil in the earlier editions were bound to be inadequate in the long run and must necessarily be reinforced by stronger means which do not permit the possibility of Jewish existence within European communities any longer. As he explained in Sache, Leben and Feinde, the Jewish mentality is a criminal one and its effect on the rest of society is that “the corruption of the senses and the spirit comes first and the lowering of the feeling for justice paves the way for the material ravaging and devouring. For this reason the answer to the Jewish question belongs not merely to economics but in general to life and to existence, in all contexts.”[11]

He now considered the Jewish question not merely in racial terms but in terms of the question of estates, especially those bearing arms and those those that are derived of them. This included the Junkers as a target of Dühring’s criticism, since they represented a segment of the exploitative population that would naturally have to be overcome: “Junker and priest, Jew and bourgeois, were to be analysed from different viewpoints but still in a similar way. . . . Crime has no right to existence and must be destroyed in its embodiments—that is the axiom from which I start everywhere, thus even in the questions of race and estate.”[12]

His animus against the Junker ruling class is due to his convic­tion that militarism and exploitation are the characteristics of an exploitative stratum that harms the peaceful occupation of the peas­ant: “the real peasant is directed to peace from his occupation it­self and . . . the unjustified belligerent disturbances throughout the world are based primarily on a weapon-bearing estate which has lived throughout history only by the sword, thus on the robbed or forced work of others.”[13]

He naturally concedes that even the working class could become degenerate and unworthy of consideration: “Even a working class that has degenerated in its estate can have forms which forfeit the right to existence as much as any other section.” Dühring’s final effort was to raise his reformatory idea to the status of a world-historical principle. The case of the Jews, however, was the “most serious”[14] since it revolved on “original natural defects and criminal natural creatures.”[15] The Jewish eman­cipation is meaningless since the Jews will never be free, for a

true emancipation worthy of the name is accomplished only where the personal freedom and integrity is established and secured fundamentally and in all contexts, but especially in the individual. Therefore, the emancipation of the Hebrews is the real and decisive one for man­kind; for, to remain exposed to the powers of lies and exploitation, of intellectual and material deception, indeed to fall victim to them to a certain degree through the laws themselves and for the sake of justice, so to speak, means to be not free. . . . To be free or not to be is our solution in all things and for all.[16]

Go to Part 2.

[1] This essay is taken from the Introduction to my edition of Eugen Dühring, The Jewish Question as a racial, moral and cultural question, with a world-historical answer, London: Ostara Publications, 2019.

[2] Waffen, Capital, Arbeit, p. 73.

[3] Kritische Geschichte der Nationalökonomie and des Sozialismus, p.486.

[4] Ibid. p.489.

[5] Die Judenfrage, (posthumous edition, ed. H. Reinhardt), Leipzig: O.R. Reisland, 1930, p.134.

[6] Soziale Rettung, p. 181.

[7] Thus Dühring also occasionally called his Socialitarian system an ‘Antikratic’ one (as opposed to an ‘Anarchic’ system).

[8] Ibid., p. 453.

[9] Ibid., p. 391.

[10] This was of course written a century ago, when the natural sense of the Europe­an peoples was still relatively uncorrupted by liberalistic indoctrination.

[11] Sache, Leben and Feinde, p. 281.

[12] p. 282.

[13] p. 512.

[14] p. 284.

[15] p. 283.

[16] p. 508f.

In response to: “The Way Forward: A New Christianity, Partition, and a General Operational Plan”

/22 Comments/in , /by

Amalric de Droevig’s “The Way Forward: A New Christianity, Partition, and a General Operational Plan” is not the first time that advocates of white interests launch attacks on Christianity. The writers for The Counter Currents and The National Vanguard — to name just two of them — are doing the same. Detractors of Christianity among the ranks of white activists seem not to notice that they are playing into the hands of those — yes, Marxist, leftist, and liberal circles — which hold Christianity in low regard and would like to see it gone or transformed into something Christian in all but name.

When Christianity was at its best and its strongest in Europe, it kept the Jews down, the Muslims out, and the Whites in, to paraphrase the familiar phrase about NATO. It is only when Christianity became weaker and weaker that it stopped performing its role. Until that time Christians — Christian knights and monarchs along with Christian priests and theologians — were never squeamish about waging wars and forcefully converting others or driving other faiths out. They did all those things with their motives rooted in the Scripture! Think of Charlemagne (mentioned in Amalric de Droevig’s text), think of the Crusaders, think of the Teutonic Knights, think of Jeanne d’Arc, think of the Gott mit uns legend on the belt buckles of the German soldiers during the two world wars, think of… — you name it.

Jeanne d’Arc incited the French Christians to fight the English Christians; the (German) Teutonic Knights waged wars against the Christian Polish state, and while the former resorted for spiritual help to Jesus Christ, the latter did the same invoking the Mother of God; the Czech Hussites reciprocated cruelty upon cruelty in their fight against the German Catholics; German Protestant Christians of the 16th and 17th century relished in butchering German Catholic Christians and vice versa; the list is long, and I am only recalling these facts to show that in none of the historical events did it ever occur to Christians to turn the other cheek and to show meekness. Rather, they readily burnt opponents at the stake or dispatched them in thousands with little or no remorse.

This turn-the-other-cheek attitude has been cleverly induced into the minds of theologically and psychologically feeble Christians by the Saul-Alinsky type of Christianity’s opponents. Remember one of his precepts from The Rules for Radicals? If an organization that is opposed to us states that it will answer each and every letter, heap it with thousands of letters! They will neither be capable of processing them, nor — if they try to do so — will they be able to continue their activity. The same has been done with Christianity, and theologically and psychologically feeble Christians. Christians constantly heard this, “Turn the other cheek! Turn the other cheek! Turn the other cheek!,” and you know what? Christians have swallowed it lock, stock, and barrel! The Saul-Alinsky type of opponent of Christianity acted just like the devil tempting Christ, and quoting Scripture. But wait! What did the Saviour do? He paid the devil back in the same coin: quotation against quotation. So easy, and yet … so hard for present-day Christians.

In a thousand-or-so-pages-thick Scripture you can find quotes for anything you please. The Teutonic Knights, mentioned above, would reference all their military actions to the Bible, justifying conquests and the use of specific kinds of weaponry. Try reading Peter von Dusburg’s Chronicon Terrae Prussiae: page after page after page there are long passages justifying war and the use of swords, spears, shields, bows etc., all rooted meticulously in the Bible. Again, did Jeanne d’Arc talk about turning the other cheek? By no means. Instead, she insisted she had been commanded by God — the Christian God! — to militarily drive out the English from France. Somehow — as far as I know — even though she was later tried, no one advanced the argument that she had violated the precepts of Christianity while advocating war, and — mind you! — there were theologians and priests among her accusers. Why didn’t even they roll out such a crushing argument? It somehow did not occur to them.

So once again, alluding to the paraphrase of the strong Christian creed keeping the Jews down, the Muslims out, and the Whites in: why did Muslims not relocate to Europe at the time when Christianity was Christian apart from the military invasion of Spain? Well, they would not have been accepted and certainly they would not have been able to mingle in Christian societies. They would not have been allowed to build mosques, and so on. Were marriages between Christians and Muslims thinkable at that time? God forbid! Not merely because they were formally forbidden, but because it would not have occurred to a deeply believing Christian to commit such a sacrilege. It gets even more interesting at this point. Christians who cared about their faith at that time could hardly imagine marriages across Christian sects. The readers will be familiar with the strongly anti-Catholic sentiment in the United Kingdom; they may not know, though, that Russian tsars and grand dukes of the 18th and 19th century very frequently married German princesses. The point is that none of these princesses was Catholic — though Germany and its the ruling houses were split in this respect among Catholics and Protestants — and before those women became imperial or ducal spouses, they needed to convert to Orthodoxy. Catholics, you see, would have refused to convert (which by the way exposes what a debilitating effect Protestantism had on the White man’s world). One of the Polish kings would have been accepted as the Russian tsar (at the beginning of the 17th century) if only he had converted to Orthodox Christianity. He didn’t. Zero tolerance. Zero understanding or acceptance of the other, even the other Christian. Creed can be a strong vaccine against aliens, a strong immunological system. A non-Christian Rishi Sunak as a head of a Christian state was unthinkable at that time!

Speaking of Russia, the readers will have known about the Pale of Settlement for Jews; perhaps they do not know that there were certain military decorations that could not be granted to Russian Muslim subjects of Russia’s central Asian provinces. Why am I mentioning all this? To show that the problem lies not in the Christian faith, but in the feebleness of the mind and general effeminacy on the part of Christians, and also in the clever doings of its enemies who exploit selected biblical passages and foist their interpretation on the churches that are foolish enough to accommodate them.

Turn the other cheek… Why not, Crescite et multiplicamini (Be fruitful and multiply)? Why not, “I have not brought peace but war?” Why not go and convert all the peoples? Why not, “Who has not believed is already condemned?” Why not the Old Testament’s (the part of Scripture that Protestants are so enamored of), “Stone him to death! Stone him to death!” for almost everything?

I hope you see the point. Feeble-minded, effeminate Christians have been presented with an anti-Christian interpretation of their own belief by anti-Christians and you know what? Christians swallowed it whole with gratitude!

Amalric de Droevig points to ancient Romans and Greeks having prosperous and flourishing societies that operated without Christianity, but they have disappeared. Where’s the advantage? They grew weak without Christianity (though some put the blame on Christians, which is by no means convincing). Why? Because they stopped believing in what they had believed earlier. Take another example: communism. It crashed in the USSR, but has not in China. Yes, I know, China is sort of capitalist, but still the communist party holds the reigns of power and Marxism-cum-Maosim is the national “creed.” The Soviets gradually stopped believing — BELIEVING — in their “religion,” so they ended up enslaved by their enemies who had been programming the Russian minds for decades that McDonald’s and blue jeans — to put it symbolically — are worth giving up Yuri Gagarin or the Motherland Calls (Родина-мать зовёт).

Consider that also the Soviet Union tried hard to eradicate Christianity in the hope of creating a powerful society and it all came to nothing. Rather, Christian revival is being promoted nowadays in Russia, with President Vladimir Putin calling on Russians to crescite et multiplicamini et replete terram (Russicam) or, to quote the original: “Large families must become the norm, a way of life for all Russia’s peoples,” and “Yes, the Church is separate from the state [but] I would like to note in this context that the Church cannot be separated from society or from people.”

Indeed, it cannot. The West is dying because it has given up on its faith. In an effort to do away with Christianity, which is allegedly guilty of the West’s decline, some try to replace it with Christianity under a new guise. I’m thinking for instance of the National Vanguard and its symbol, which is one of the runes that is just a warped Christian cross. I wonder why of all the runes they selected this one. Their website too is full of anti-Christian sentiment, as if Christianity were to blame for the collapse of the Western world. What they level their guns at are Christians in name only, readers of the Bible and followers of Christian gurus. To a cradle Catholic like myself, such Christianity is weird, to say the least. True, today the Roman Catholic Church increasingly resembles Protestant denominations, but that’s precisely what I am trying to draw the reader’s attention to: the Church has been infiltrated and taken over. The latest papal encyclicals are about ecology and immigration rather than morality and salvation. Is it still Christianity?

In Poland, generally thought of as a Catholic country (along with Italy, Spain, Austria and Ireland, maybe less so France) young people — also among intellectuals — have begun to follow the example of their Western counterparts to ceremoniously make an act of apostasy, and to brag about it on social media. Do you think these are the people who would like to preserve the White race? They had parted with Christianity long before they made the act of apostasy and they are all progressivist, leftist, and globalist. They want us to abandon our faith.

My diagnosis of the problem? It is not the religion of the White man that is to be blame, but the religion’s perception and re-interpretation that have been foisted on Christians incapable of true theological reflection. The churches (and all other White institutions, such as universities) have been taken over and turned into their opposites by clever mindsuckers. Rather than going along the wishes of the mindsuckers, i.e., destroying the remnants of what we, as Whites, still possess, we would do better to reclaim those institutions, and become (again) proud and defiant, and stand our ground. It is easy to roll out counterarguments. Turn the other cheek? Look, Christ did not turn the other cheek when he was slapped in the face during the trial. All people are good and deserving blessing? Quite the contrary is true: there are sons of perdition, individuals for whom it would be better not to have been born because — genetically? — they are incapable of doing good, and so on. You get the point. Do not let the Rules for Radicals operate against you.

Christianity has not become one hundred percent Christ and zero percent Charlemagne; rather, Charlemagne was one hundred percent Christian (“I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.”), while the White Man’s World is on its last legs because it is becoming zero percent Christian. That’s what the historical record says, does it not?

Jacek Szela
/yah-tsek shel-lah/

A Two State Solution — For Us

/17 Comments/in /by

Races, like individuals, have interests. Some of those interests are of major importance whereas others are of minor or even trivial importance. The most important interest of all is continued existence, which includes the conditions required for continued existence, which can be properly referred to as existential interests, those necessary for continued life. The next most important interest, for a race as for an individual, is control of its own existence, which is properly described and defined by such terms as freedom, liberty, independence, self-rule and sovereignty.

For races, the condition required for both their continued existence and their control of their own existence is separation and independence from other nations and races. In multiracial conditions, where different races exist in close proximity over enough time, they intermix so that one or more of the different races are genetically submerged into a new blended population and cease to exist. Also, so long as the population remains multiracial the different ethno-racial groups typically have opposing and competing interests. Most importantly, in the current situation, the European populations, whether in their new homelands in North America and Australia or their ancient homelands in Europe, have an existential interest in separation, which means keeping their countries monoracially European. The interests of the non-Europeans in the historically European countries are the exact opposite. They are based on multiracialism and racial integration, thereby justifying, securing and promoting their increasing presence and power, and denying Europeans their existential interest in the separation necessary for their continued existence.

It should be noted that these conflicting racial group interests are not equivalent. The European interests involved are existential, as separation is required both for their continued existence and control of their own existence. The non-European interests involved are not existential as they can continue to exist, and control their own existence, in countries of their own, separate from Europeans as they normally have in the past, which can be regarded as the natural order. Rather than existential, their interests here are racially invasive and a violation of the natural order — an interest in dispossessing and replacing the historical European populations in their homelands.

A major difference between Europeans and non-Europeans in this situation is that the non-Europeans tend to be well aware of what their interests are, whether at a conscious or sub-conscious level, and asserting them with a great vigor and intense subjectivity that has no regard for the adverse effects on the existential interests of the Europeans.

In contrast to this is the phenomenon of Europeans being opposed to their own race and its interests. Indeed, most Europeans seem to be unaware of having racial interests, or what their racial interests are, and to have little or no identification with, or appreciation of, their race and its existence. Obviously, this renders them very passive and ineffective in the defense of their racial interests, causing them to lose the conflict of competing racial interests by default. To the extent that they do engage in this competition, rather than be seen defending the existential interests of their own race, they are much more likely to be seen promoting the non-existential interests of other racial groups against their own as part of the ruling Anti-White Coalition, an alliance of all those who promote the causes of European racial dispossession, replacement and destruction — e.g., multiracialism, non-White immigration and racial intermixture — consistent with the larger program of global homogenization or “globohomo.” Their stance can be regarded as either anti-White or pro-non-White, i.e., as benefitting the non-European races, but either way their stance is blind to the existential interests of their own race while intensely focused on the non-existential interests of the other races, in conformance with the dominant culture. Although the present course leads to their racial oblivion, they are almost universally unaware of any alternative course or choice.

Every racial population has its own unique “gene pool” which contains all the genes in the population. This gene pool is the source of the race from which all members of the race receive their genetic traits. The genes that exist in that pool, their proportions and distribution, combination and recombination, provide the genes for a racial population and all its individual members. All the Europeans who exist today and in the past were the product of a certain gene pool, and without that gene pool they could not exist and could not have existed. All Europeans came from a European gene pool, and if they have children, their genes will return into that pool. If they don’t have children, their genes will continue to exist so long as the gene pool they came from exists, and continues to make people like them. As long as the European gene pools continue to exist in the form of in-breeding populations there will continue to be individuals of the particular European populations and of the European racial group in general. But if these gene pools are destroyed then such people, and their works, will be seen no more. The works of Mark Twain, Herman Melville, Shakespeare, Newton, Bach, Beethoven, Hugo, Tolstoy, Michelangelo, Da Vinci, etc., ad infinitum would not have existed without them, and they in turn would not have existed without the particular gene pools that contained and provided the genetic material, the stuff of life, they were made from.

Multiracialism, by destroying racial gene pools through intermixture, is the destroyer of races, an engine of racial destruction. Those who accept, support or promote multiracialism, in whatever degree and whether knowingly or unknowingly, are accepting European racial destruction. Awareness of this tends to be low because racial dispossession is not publicized, discussed or acknowledged by the dominant Anti-White Coalition that supports and promotes it, whether in the media, schools, entertainment, churches, political parties or any mainstream social, political or cultural institution. Indeed, the subject is among the most forbidden, and there are both strong inculcated inhibitions and disincentives — social, economic, and in many countries legal — against raising it.

But however much the subject is suppressed, the fact remains that multiracialism destroys a people’s existence as a racial population and also, through the intermixture it promotes, surely alters the gene pool by blending it with the genes of other races, and so destroying the source of racial existence. Thus in the long term a race cannot long exist in multiracial conditions. It must have separation from other races to preserve its gene pool and its own existence. Separation preserves races. Multiracialism destroys them. Or, as Lincoln put it, in his June 26, 1857 speech in Springfield, Illinois: “A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation [i.e., intermixture].”

The Black (sub-Saharan African) population that was brought into U.S. territory before 1808 is the only non-European racial group that did not enter the country of its own free will. All other non-European racial groups who migrated to the U.S., the great majority since the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, did so knowing it was historically, and still at least nominally, a European country. The same is true of the huge and racially invasive migration of non-Europeans into Europe since the Second World War, which is projected to make Europeans in Western and Central Europe minorities in their own ancient homelands before the end of this century, replacing and dispossessing the indigenous European populations and transforming the populations from European to non-European: a non-British Britain without the British, a non-French France without the French, a non-German Germany without the Germans, etc.

However, this situation is ignored, censored, and denied by the dominant anti-White culture, so it can be promoted with minimal awareness and resistance. But it should be obvious that it has created an existential problem for the European peoples, meaning a problem that threatens their continued existence. Indeed, in the United States, Canada and the countries of northwestern Europe, the populations can no longer be accurately described as European, but rather as multiracial, as the Europeans no longer exist at the population level, as racial populations, but rather their racial existence has been reduced to the level of small communities and groupings, families, and sometimes only of individuals. But a race that exists only at the individual level cannot exist for long. The continued existence of a race requires that it exist as an essentially separate in-breeding population with its own particular “gene pool” through which its traits are preserved and passed on generation after generation.

Separation is not only required for the continued existence of a race, it is also required for it to have control of its own existence. As stated at the beginning of this essay, all racial groups have interests, of which the most important is its continued life or existence. The next greatest interest, to which its continued existence is very often connected, and on which its well-being is almost always connected, is control of its own existence. Normally racial groups, and certainly healthy ones, act in accord with their group interests, and especially their most fundamental and vital ones.

In the historically normal state of monoracial existence, this did not result in significant conflict between group interests, but in the increasingly prevalent multiracial conditions in the West, and especially since the Second World War, there has been a proportionate increase in competition between conflicting group interests. The countries most afflicted were White — or in the case of the U.S. at least predominantly White — before the war, but within several decades transitioned into multiracial societies in which only non-White group interests were recognized as legitimate matters of concern, and the only interests promoted and served as the culture became increasingly centered around them. White group interests were dismissed as unimportant, discredited as illegitimate or denied as non-existent, and in no case a proper matter of concern, and so either ignored or condemned. Throughout the formerly White countries of the West the White populations submitted to this abrogation of their fundamental group interests with little effective resistance, and were soon largely converted to beliefs and practices that were diametrically opposed to the interests of their own racial group.

It is natural for all groups to want to be in control of their own existence, in fact to have exclusive power and control of their own existence, and to not share this power and controlwith any other group, i.e., to not allow any other group to have any control over them. This is the optimal condition for their existence and so in their best interests. In fact, it is one of the two main conditions, along with the prevention of intermixture, that is required to secure continued racial existence, and why it is best for races to be separated into independent countries. In a system of true monoracial societies or environments the races in each society enjoy uncontested exclusive control of their own existence. When two or more separate peoples, ethnic groups or races with conflicting interests inhabit the same society or environment there will be a contest or struggle for more power and control, with each group seeking dominance or supremacy to have maximum control of their own existence. This contest is necessarily a zero-sum game. The greater the degree of one group’s power and control the less the degree of power and control possessed by the other groups over their own existence.

Jews and Their Racial Interests

In this matter, until relatively recently, Whites (i.e., Europeans) have based their power and control over their environment, and their existence, on living in environments that were either all White or nearly so, with Whites being such a great majority of the population that their control and interests could hardly be challenged. The Jewish experience of the diaspora has been much the opposite, living as a small minority amid a much larger population whose group interests, most importantly control over the environment in which they both existed, conflicted with their own. The Ashkenazi Jews of Europe, being a semi-European Caucasian people genetically about half European and half Middle Eastern Caucasian, and with strong religious and cultural traditions going back to their Middle Eastern heritage, preserved their existence by seeing and maintaining themselves as a separate people from the much larger European populations that surrounded them, with different, competing, and often conflicting group interests.

Control and security tend to go together, so to gain security the Jews had to adapt their methods of obtaining power and control of their environment to the fact that they were a small minority in that environment. Separation into their own segregated semi-autonomous communities or ghettos solved this problem at the lower level but not at higher levels. Gaining power and control at higher levels despite being a small minority required highly mobilized, organized, coordinated and energetic group effort toward this common goal. These methods, tactics and goals continue today, and it is no secret that Jews have a highly developed, and in fact unrivaled, network of interacting and mutually supporting organizations that promote their interests, including their power and control over the larger society:

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (commonly referred to as The Presidents’ Conference or the CoP) is an American non-profit organization that addresses issues of critical concern to the Jewish community, and the state of Israel in particular. It comprises 51 national Jewish organizations. It was founded to develop a consensus voice among Jewish organizations in dealings with the

The Jewish population as a corporate ethnic entity is the most highly organized and networked ethnic group in the world at both the national and international levels, with hundreds of well-funded and coordinated organizations energetically and aggressively promoting Jewish interests. In every country in which Jews are a minority (i.e., all except Israel) multiracialism is regarded as a core Jewish interest or value and intensely promoted as such, creating a fundamental conflict and adversarial relationship between core Jewish interests and the diametrically opposed vital racial interests of the White population.

To repeat, this matter is necessarily a zero-sum game, and as it is played for the highest stakes, it involves an adversarial and even hostile relationship between the players. The greater the degree of Jewish power and control, the less the degree of White (i.e., European) power and control. In a multiracial society when a racial group has control over its own existence it necessarily also exercises power and control over the existence of the other races in the society. So as Jews (and to a lesser extent other non-Whites) increase their share of power and control there is a corresponding decrease in the White share, as the White population is progressively subjugated to the power and control of other races, with the Jews being historically in the forefront, aligning themselves with the non-White races against the White population and presiding at the core of the Anti-White Coalition. Racial separation and independence is the only way to prevent one racial group from exercising power and control over others, and without them the existence of the White race, dispossessed of power and control, is terminal.

Jews tend to be inculcated with a powerful sense of a collective identity and destiny separate from Europeans and other races which gives them a quasi-instinctive sense of their group interests, which often conflict with the interests of other groups. But that should not be regarded as a fault, as it is true of all healthy ethno-racial groups, albeit Jews seem to possess this ethnocentrism to an exceptional and often hyper-subjective degree. For some time, at least since the Second World War, Whites in general have been an exception to this, leaving them powerless in the group competition. Thus even when Jewish populations are very small minorities in a multiracial society, the level of energy, activism, wealth (providing control of corporations, media, academia and politicians), agitation, argument, propaganda, etc., devoted to promoting their interests is greater than that generated by much larger populations, thus centering the society around them and their interests and enabling them to move the society in the direction of their interests.Since the Second World War, and especially since the Civil Rights revolution of the 1960s, racial nihilism has been the dominant mainstream position on racial relations publicly supported by Whites.

Nihil is Latin for nothing, and so racial nihilism literally means the reduction of race to nothing, rejecting it as a matter of no value or importance or even denying its biological reality, asserting it is merely a “social construct,” although it has not yet been credibly denied that race is genetically determined (i.e., transmitted through the genes of parents and ancestors), and anything determined by genes is biologically real, and thus a genetic and biological, not social, construct. Claims to the contrary are more examples of the gaslighting that is so pervasive in the false narratives of the Anti-White Coalition.

Philosophically and hypothetically, racial nihilism would reduce all races to nothing, with no races or racial diversity, just a global uniform human population without any separate group differences. But in practice, and in practical effect, this suicidal view of race is expected only of the White race. Non-Whites who express support for racial nihilist values almost never apply them to their race, only to other races, and often only to Whites. But the only true racial nihilists are those who have no objection of the reduction of their own race to non-existence, and even welcome and support it.Whites are inculcated with the anti-White culture of racial nihilism to minimize their resistance to their own racial dispossession, the opposite of the positive inculcation experienced by Jews. They are socialized from an early age to reject any racial identification, to view their race and its interests — including its continued existence and control of its own existence — as a matter of no importance, value or concern, and to consider contrary views to be evil and hateful.

This is the essence of the anti-White morality that has been dominant since at least the 1960s. Support for the causes of White replacement and destruction is presented as morally good and motivated by love while opposition to them is seen as morally evil and motivated by hate. Consequently, while other racial groups have advocacy organizations to assert their interests, the White race essentially has none, or at least none that are permitted to present their case in the mainstream media or the main social media platform. The advocacy of White interests, and any alternative to White destruction, is effectively censored and suppressed, and removed from the public square.Racial nihilism is essentially the position advocated by the Civil Rights revolution of the 1960s, and most Whites now not only conform to it but are intolerant of and reject those who do not, or their ancestors who did not. The supposedly most “White-friendly” movements that are still officially tolerated, such as civic nationalism and populism, have no racial basis, support multiracialism, and embrace the teachings, values and results of the Civil Rights revolution — which denies Europeans the condition of separation needed for their continued existence and control of their own existence — as gospel.

Movements such as these are not concerned with the continued existence of the White race. By definition, only a movement based on race, such as racial nationalism or racial populism, would address that issue in any meaningful sense. Both Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson, in spite of all the accusations of racial “dog whistling” or supporting White interests (i.e., the actual currently applied definition of “racism”), frequently give public expression of their conformance to the racial nihilist teachings and values of the Civil Rights revolution. But they are still criticized because this is no longer anti-White enough. The Anti-White Coalition has moved beyond the racial nihilist teachings and values of the Civil Rights revolution, in which racial or “color” blindness was the ideal, and has become ever more explicitly anti-White, more strident in its criticism of Whites, and more hostile to White interests as it escalates its advocacy of conflicting non-White interests.

The “Kumbaya” moment heralding the dawning of a “New Age” based on racial nihilism and multiracial harmony, that was promoted following the victory of the Civil Rights revolution, turned out to be just a stage in the progression of anti-Whiteness, which is what the misnamed ideology of “Progressivism” really is. The anti-White animus at the core of that ideology and movement has “progressed” well beyond the teachings of Martin Luther King and the Kumbaya delusion of the 1960s. Now it is much more in line with the explicitly anti-White ideas and spirit of Noel Ignatiev than those associated with MLK Jr. and Kumbaya. By the 1990s Ignatiev’s children had transformed academia with the proliferation of university departments devoted to the teaching of anti-White ideologies such as Critical Race Theory and “Whiteness studies,” of which critic David Horowitz observed, Black studies celebrates blackness, Chicano studies celebrates Chicanos, women’s studies celebrates women, and white studies attacks white people as evil.”

Often times people who come together find that their relationship is not mutually beneficial. However much that is good in the relationship, that which is bad is so harmful, so much greater than the good, to one of the parties, that a separation is needed for that party to fulfill their life, or even to continue their life.

As we have learned from our own historically recent experience, it is often the same with peoples, especially when they come together in the same country where their interests conflict and even existential interests are threatened. There is a scene in the 1956 film The Ten Commandments where Ramesses (played by Yul Brynner) places copper weights on one of the weighing pans of a scale each time an accusation is brought against Moses (played by Charlton Heston). Moses responds to the accusations with a single overriding point, and places a brick that is heavier than all the copper weights on the other weighing pan, causing it to drop to the table.

So it is with our current experience of multiracialism. Most non-Whites are good and productive people, with many doing things of great value and benefit, but all the weights the positives of multiracialism placed on one of the weighing pans of the great scale of White existence are outweighed by the one single brick of the great negative of multiracialism causing our destruction. The same would apply to the interests of the non-White races against separation compared to the interests of Whites for separation, as the White interests are existential and so outweigh the non-White interests which are not.

It is important to provide Whites with an alternative, to show there are other options that would preserve the White race. Unfortunately, many Whites are successfully gaslighted by our adversaries on this point as on so many others, leaving them unable to trust their own mind and disagree with those who are promoting their ruin.

The populations of the European racial group were many thousands of years in the making, yet all that could be undone, and the White race could be unmade, in just a few generations, if the racially destructive process caused by multiracialism is allowed to run its course. Normally, when faced with a choice between preservation and destruction, the default choice is in favor of preservation. Sadly, but I think realistically, I do not expect most non-Whites to make that choice in our favor, as it would require separation which most of them do not consider to be in their interest, which it probably is not. But separation does not threaten their, or anyone’s, existential interests. All races can live and be free separate from other races. This is still the normal state of human existence. It is multiracialism that is the destroyer of races. Separation is the preserver. Still, Whites cannot count on non-Whites for our racial preservation. That choice and task is up to us.

It might help us in making that choice if, rather than taking a leap into the dark, we had a good idea of what an alternative to multiracialism would be, preferably something that can be visualized and clearly delineates both physical and racial boundaries. But first it should be considered that the difficulties of the task involved with separation have grown enormously since the 1960s as the non-White population has grown from about 38.4 million or 19 percent of the 203.2 million total in the 1970 census to about 144.4 million or 43.6 percent of the 331.45 million total in the 2020 census, and this number may have grown by another 10 million or more during the unrestrained illegal immigration of the first three years of the Biden administration. It is often said that every generation blames the previous one for the problems they have inherited. So it could be with the problem of multiracialism from the first importation of Black (i.e., sub-Saharan African) slaves in 1619, to the Civil War and the Reconstruction, to the Civil Rights revolution of the 1960s, to the huge expansion of the non-White population through immigration, to our present terminal situation, with every generation seeing the problem worsen, so that a preservationist solution becomes more difficult. With this problem, we today are the do-nothing (so far) heirs of many generations of do-nothing ancestors, and if we continue to do nothing a possible solution might be removed beyond our grasp and the doomed generations of the future will blame us most of all.

I can still remember my reaction to reading a section of essays on the race question in the November 18, 1963 edition of U.S. News & World Report. The section was entitled “Intermarriage and the Race Problem — As Leading Authorities See It.” Among these “authorities” were such notorious champions of racial intermixture as Ernest van den Haag, Gunnar Myrdal and the ubiquitous Boas disciple Margaret Mead. It seemed to me that their common purpose was to lessen White opposition to the impending Civil Rights revolution with soothing assurances that racial integration would not noticeably increase racial intermixture. Even at the age of fourteen I knew this was false and that these supposed “authorities” were actually either ignorant or were engaging in the form of lying we now call “gaslighting” to mislead the readership. The same could be said for the Kennedy brothers who a couple years later testified before Congress that the proposed Immigration Reform Act would not change the racial balance of the country. As the problems become ever greater, so the falsehoods and gaslighting have ever increased to lessen opposition. Just four years after the publication of the U.S. News & World Report edition, its gaslighting was revealed for what it was by the 1967 film Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, released after the legislative victory of the Civil Rights revolution. After this “progress” of racial nihilism the message in the media Kool-Aid regarding increased intermixture changed from “It’s not something that’s going to happen,” to “It is happening and it’s not something any moral person should be concerned about or object to.” The objections to intermixture that were addressed — however deceptively — as morally respectable and legitimate concerns in 1963 were by 1967 portrayed and categorized as morally reprehensible and worthy only of censure.

Assuming we choose the alternative of racial preservation over the racial destruction and oblivion that will come from multiracialism, the task before us would be a geographic (i.e., physical) and political separation of the European and non-European racial groupings. To address that task and purpose I offer the proposal below.

A Proposal for Racial Separation

In this proposal there would be a partition into two major racial states or nations, one exclusively for those who are racially, genetically and phenotypically European (White), which is here identified as White, and the other would be for those who are racially non-European, but including Europeans who have non-European spouses, children or grandchildren who choose to live in the non-European country with them. It would also include any other Europeans who choose to live there dependent on the approval of the non-European state’s government. A separate autonomous nation reserved for indigenous Amerindians would be associated with the multiracial non-European nation, with Amerindians being free to live in either one. The physical boundary between the two states starting in the east would run from the Gulf of Mexico along the Atchafalaya, Mississippi and Arkansas rivers, and from there westward by the southern state lines of Kansas, Colorado and Utah, and the northern county lines of Lincoln, Nye and Esmeralda counties in Nevada and Inyo, Fresno, San Benito and Monterey counties in California.

  1. A White (European) American nation with a contiguous area of 2,225,841 square miles, 75.1 percent of the “lower 48” area of 2,962,031 square miles, for the racial group that was 81.1 percent of the U.S. population in 1970, i.e., at the beginning of the massive non-White immigration promoted by the Anti-White Coalition. Alaska would be retained by the White nation. Hawaii would be divided, with the White nation retaining the 597 square mile island of Oahu as a White state — to secure the lines of communication across the Pacific to Australia and New Zealand — and the 4,028 square mile “Big Island” of Hawaii as a place for non-Whites that may be born or arrive in the White nation after the partition. The other islands (Maui, Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, etc.) totaling 6,306 square miles would be an autonomous, and possibly independent, state for the native Hawaiians and other Polynesians. The White American nation would be the continuation of the historic American nation with the national capital and all of the original pre-1803 territory, and most of the post-1803 territory, where circa 82 percent of the White population currently lives. Its territory would include about 40 percent of U.S. oil production and 50 percent of natural gas production, although this has the potential to be substantially increased by the expansion of fracking and offshore drilling, etc.
  2. A multiracial non-White (non-European) transcontinental and bicoastal nation with a contiguous area of 669,392 square miles, making it the 17th largest country in the world by area at 3.19 times the size of France. Its territory would include about 60 percent of U.S. oil production and 50 percent of natural gas production. It would be assigned all non-Whites except those Amerindians who choose to live in their separate nation, including all mixed-race or multiracial persons who are part-White but who are outside of the normal European phenotypic range, i.e., those with visible non-European ancestry. White Hispanics who identify as Hispanic rather than White could choose to live with the non-White Hispanics in the non-European nation. White parents and grandparents of non-White children (including part-White mixed-race children, of whom over 14 million were born in the half-century 1970–2020), and White spouses of non-Whites, would be permitted, but not required, to live with their children and spouses in the non-European nation. Other Non-Hispanic Whites who might prefer to live in the non-European nation could make their own arrangements to do so dependent on the nation’s consent.
  3. An autonomous Amerindian (American Indian) nation with an area of 66,798 square miles would be reserved as an exclusive homeland for indigenous Amerindians, but they would have a dual citizenship permitting them to live in the multiracial on-European nation, and move between the two.

The future of the new White American nation would gain by enjoying a close relationship with a White Europe of friendly kith and kin instead of suffering a difficult coexistence with a multiracial Europe dominated by hostile anti-Whites. The opposite situation, with Canada and Europe continuing on the path to become non-European majority regions, would be a very dangerous geopolitical situation for a European America, not to mention the great loss to the larger European racial group from the loss of these populations and territories.

Based on the 2020 census the U.S. non-White (non-European) population was about 144.5 million or 43.6 percent, up from 38.4 million or 19 percent in 1970. (This number could have grown by as much as ten million by the end of the third year of the Biden administration with its unrestrained non-White immigration.) This includes the semi-European Caucasian Jewish population, who organizationally and institutionally regard themselves in word and deed as a population separate from Europeans and closely aligned with non-Europeans, and with interests that are diametrically opposed to the most fundamental and existential racial interests of the European population, most importantly in their energetic promotion of multiracialism, intermixture, and non-White immigration, with Alejandro Mayorkas in the U.S., Barbara Roche in the U.K., Barbara Lerner Spectre in Sweden, and Miriam Faine in Australia being prominent examples. In fact, the multiracial non-European nation created by this partition would, in terms of its racial demographics, be essentially what they have long advocated and worked for as a core Jewish interest.

On the assumption that a racial separation could occur concurrently in one grand common effort with Canada, Europe and Australia it would constitute a comprehensive solution to secure the continued existence and independence of the White racial group as a whole. This would add the 8.2 million non-Whites in Canada (7.7 million “visible”) making a North American non-White population of 152.7 million. This would also add the 49 million non-Whites in Europe (43 million in northwestern Europe, 2.5 million in Italy, 1.5 million in Spain not counting Hispanic non-Whites from Latin America, 2 million elsewhere) and 3.2 million non-indigenous non-Whites in Australia, making at least 204.9 million non-Whites to be geographically and politically separated from Whites for a sufficient solution that would fully secure White racial preservation. The 4.3 million indigenous Amerindians would have their own separate nation, leaving 200.6 million non-Whites for the new non-European nation. Many of the postwar immigrant non-Whites, including many Hispanics and Asians in the U.S. and many Turks, Arabs, Africans and Asians, etc. in Europe, are still citizens of their countries of origin, or dual citizens, and even vote in its elections. Many others still have strong family connections in the “old country.” It might be presumed that many would have the option to return there if they chose to do so. How many have this option, and how many of them would choose to exercise it rather than resettle in a new non-White country? It could be ten million or more among the non-Whites in Europe, and twenty million or more in North America and Australia. If 20 million non-Whites (e.g., 12 million from the U.S., 6 million from Europe and 2 million from Canada and Australia) with the option to return to their original countries chose to do so, 18 million White parents, grandparents and spouses of non-Whites (circa 15 million from the U.S.) chose to live with their relations in the non-White nation, and 3 million White Hispanics chose to live there with the non-White Hispanics, it would have a population of 201.6 million, with about 146.2 million of this total from the United States.

Based on the 2020 census the U.S. White (European) population was about 187 million or 56.4 percent of the 331.45 million total population, including 9 million Hispanic European Whites, up in absolute terms from 164.8 million in 1970 but down proportionally from 81.1 percent in 1970. Per the same scenario as the previous paragraph, if 15 million White parents, grandparents and spouses of non-Whites chose to live with their relations in the non-White nation, and 3 million White Hispanics chose to live there also with the non-Hispanic Whites, the White American nation would have a post-partition population of 169 million.

About 33.6 million European Whites (including Hispanic European Whites), or about 18 percent of the total European White population of circa 187 million (including Hispanic European Whites), and about 39.1 million non-Whites, or about 27.1 percent of the total non-White population of circa 144.5 million, currently reside in the area designated for the non-European and Amerindian nations.

This plan would require the relocation of circa 131.2 million people — 33.6 million or 18 percent of Whites and 105.4 million or 72.9 percent of non-Whites — and their personal property. As large as these numbers are, in a previous essay I calculated that the transportation logistics of relocating 150 million people and their personal property in a time frame as short as a year is feasible, although considering other factors such as the likely need for increased infrastructure in some areas, equivalent exchanges of real property ownership, matching relocated people with new employment, etc., it would be more realistic to expect a humane process proceeding at all reasonable speed to take at least five years.

Except for the aboriginal Amerindian population, for which I propose a separate autonomous country of their own with dual citizenship in the larger non-European nation, the other non-European populations would share the same single large contiguous territory and government. In the current and past context of the United States, or the other White countries suffering multiracialization, the non-White and Jewish groups have always supported, promoted and voted for multiracialism, rightly identifying it with their group interests and themselves as its beneficiaries. It therefore seems more likely they would prefer to be joined into a large multiracial state that was a major country at the world level rather than be separated into smaller states for each racial group. But if in a post-partition context that historical preference were to change in favor of separate racial nations they could accomplish that by a sub-partition of the larger non-European nation.

This proposal aims to attract maximum White support consistent with the goal of racial separation and independence, uniting on this existential issue and avoiding non-existential and potentially divisive non-vital issues. Territorially this means retaining most of the country, and especially the areas that are the more historically and culturally significant and where the great majority of Whites live. Ideologically and politically this means that, other than as required for the purpose of racial preservation, there should be no changes to the American constitutional, institutional and governmental system, or its programs, benefits and policies, until after the completion of the partition, when any proposed changes to their country would be decided by the newly all-White population consistent with its sovereign prerogatives.

Barbara’s Barbarians: How Jews Import Third-Worlders to Harm Whites, Then Play the Innocent Victim

/9 Comments/in , /by

What is CFI? And who is Ehud Sheleg? Those are two very important questions about British politics, but I doubt that even one in fifty voters could answer them. Which is just the way that CFI and Mr Sheleg like it. They don’t want their activities discussed or their influence analysed. Like all sensible criminals, they want to work away from the light and enjoy their booty without scrutiny.

Democracies In Name Only

And what is their booty? Control of British politics, that’s what. CFI are Conservative Friends of Israel and Ehud Sheleg was the Israeli treasurer of the Conservative party from 2019 to 2021. Sheleg has openly admitted that Britain takes “second [place] to my homeland” of Israel, yet he oversaw the finances of Britain’s governing party (the current Tory treasurer is the even more shadowy Graham Edwards, who appears to also be treasurer of the charity Jewish Care). Once you see the control Jews have over British politics, you understand why White voters never get what they want on the all-important issues of mass immigration and border control. The Tories entered government loudly promising to cut the horrifically high levels of immigration bequeathed to them by the Labour party. They then quietly proceeded to increase immigration even further. If you want to know why that happened, you have to understand that Britain is a DINO — a Democracy In Name Only. In harsh reality, it’s a Judeocracy, a state controlled by Jewish money and the Israel lobby.

Hugely powerful and almost unknown: Ehud Sheleg, former Israeli treasurer of Britain’s ruling party (image from Guido Fawkes)

America, France and other Western nations are Judeocratic DINOs too. That’s why the public desire to reduce mass immigration and control the borders never translates into political action. Jews don’t like homogeneous White societies. They don’t like standing out and they’re paranoid about gentile retribution for their financial crimes and cultural subversion. That’s why New Labour opened Britain’s borders to the Third World. Tony Blair was a narcissistic gentile frontman for a Jewish project to alter Britain’s demographics forever. As a New Labour apparatchik called Andrew Neather once put it: Labour “wanted to rub the Right’s nose in diversity.”

The sadism of open borders

That’s an interesting metaphor Neather used there. It’s a reference to a crude old pet-training technique: you rub a dog’s or cat’s nose in its own feces when it fouls the floor. And that’s supposed to teach it not to do it again. In other words, Neather was equating “diversity” — all those wonderfully enriching Black and Brown folk — with feces and foulness. Of course, he supposedly meant that the wicked right regards diversity as foul, but I think he was secretly admitting the sadism of open borders. Rich leftists inflict diversity on others, but make very sure to insulate themselves from the crime and chaos that it inevitably spawns. Do you think Andrew Neather himself lives in an enriched district, surrounded by Somalis, Pakistanis, and Jamaicans?

Barbarian-booster Barbara Roche

To ask the question is to answer it. But I don’t know where to confirm the answer: Andrew Neather is a little-known figure and details of his life and background are not available online. Patrick Cleburne dog-whistled at VDare that Neather may be Jewish. I could easily believe it. His ministerial superior Barbara Roche was certainly Jewish. And not just Jewish, but very happy to confirm that her Jewishness powered her passion for Third-World migration. In 2001, Roche told the Guardian that she “entered politics — she still emphasises this today — to combat anti-semitism and xenophobia in general.” In 2003, while urging her party “to promote the benefits of legal migration,” she told the Independent that “My being Jewish informs me totally, informs my politics.” After all, she’s the “child of a Polish-Russian Ashkenazi father and a Sephardic Spanish-Portuguese mother.” And when she surveyed the fruit of her labors in 2011, she sighed with pleasure:

Friday rush hour. Euston station [in London]. Who’s here? Who isn’t. A kaleidoscope of skin colours. The world in one terminus. Barbara Roche can see it over the rim of her cup of Americano coffee. “I love the diversity of London,” she tells me. “I just feel comfortable.” (Hideously Diverse Britain: The immigration ‘conspiracy’, The Guardian, 2nd March 2011)

Like CFI and Ehud Sheleg, Barbara Roche is nowhere near as famous as she should be in Britain. She was central to the opening of the migration flood-gates under New Labour, but few voters noticed her at the time and even fewer remember her now. That isn’t because she shunned the light the way CFI and Mr Sheleg have always done. On the contrary, she was happy to campaign in public for increased immigration and to promote the ridiculous lie that “Britain is a nation of migrants.” But British goyim didn’t understand the significance of what she was saying or connect her Jewishness with her highly successful efforts to dilute the Whiteness of Britain.

And to harm the White working-class. Too many British voters still take the Labour party at face value and think that its name reflects its purpose. But Labour long ago abandoned its commitment to champion the downtrodden workers against the oppressive bosses. No, for many decades it has championed the downtrodden bosses against the oppressive workers, with their greedy, selfish demands for higher wages and better working conditions. Open borders benefit the capitalist class in all manner of ways, from increasing the supply of labor to inflating demand for housing to boosting the profits of supermarkets and Big Pharma. Open borders also mean more non-White clients for the leftist managerial state. Last but by no means least, they mean that Jews like Barbara Roche can feel “comfortable” in an atomized society. After all, as many Jews have said down the decades, Jews and other minorities are “natural allies.” Against whom? They leave that part unspoken, but the answer is obvious: Jews and other minorities are natural allies against the White Christian majority.

Importing barbarians

That’s why Jews have been so enthusiastic about Muslim immigration. Muslims are both non-White and non-Christian. What’s not to like for a White-hating, Christophobic Jew like Barbara Roche? Third-World migrants are a huge and ever-growing burden in welfare and crime on any Western nation that accepts them, but that’s a feature, not a bug of Jewish enthusiasm for Third-World migration. For example, Roche oversaw the explosive growth in the number of Black Muslim Somalis on British soil. She knew she was importing barbarians, but she thought those barbarians would target Whites, not Jews:

One of Roche’s legacies was hundreds more migrants camped in squalor in Sangatte, outside Calais, where they tried to smuggle themselves onto lorries. News about the new liberalism — and in particular the welfare benefits — now began attracting Somalis who’d previously settled in other EU countries. Although there was no historic or cultural link between Somalia and Britain, more than 200,000 came. Since most were untrained and would be dependent on welfare, the Home Office could have refused them entry. But they were granted ‘exceptional leave to remain’. [Et cetera ad nauseam] (Conman Blair’s cynical conspiracy to deceive the British people and let in 2million migrants against the rules, The Daily Mail, 26th February 2016)

Alas for Barbara’s barbarian-boosterism! Since the Hamas atrocities committed in Israel on 7th October 2023, it has become apparent that Jews and Muslims aren’t natural allies after all. No, they’re natural enemies. Hamas-fans have flooded onto the streets of cities across the Western world, condemning the Israelis and condoling the Palestinians. In Australia, non-White Muslims have chanted “Gas the Jews!” outside the Sydney Opera House, that great White architectural achievement and symbol of White artistic genius. Barbara’s barbarians have turned on the very people that imported them into the West.

Pollock’s bollocks

But have Jews admitted their own responsibility for these horrific outbreaks of “anti-Semitism” and “Israelophobia”? Of course not. Instead, they have once again played the victim. Karen Pollock CBE, the chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust (HET), has lamented her people’s plight like this in the Guardian:

Antisemitism has risen year on year but the events of recent months have shaken many of us to our core. It is unbelievable that today, 90 years after Hitler rose to power and almost 80 years since his antisemitic crimes were exposed to the world, we are seeing antisemitism reach levels that I have never witnessed before in my lifetime. At the same time we have seen a stark rise in Islamophobia, and many people are feeling isolated and frightened. … Anti-Jewish hate is on the march, and this time the world must not turn its back. Let us all make it our new year resolution to finally stamp out antisemitism, Islamophobia and hate. Let’s make 2024 the year when we finally find a cure for this poison.(Antisemitism and Holocaust denial are rife, just look at Stephen Fry’s X trolls, The Guardian, 24th December 2023)

Karen Pollock emits bollocks (image from Vimeo)

I would call that Pollock’s bollocks (British slang for  “testicles” and used to mean “nonsense”). How on earth is it “unbelievable” that importing millions of Muslims into the West has increased hostility to Jews and to Israel? It isn’t “unbelievable”: it’s entirely predictable. And note how Pollock slyly includes references to “Islamophobia,” as though Jews and Muslims are shared victims of the wicked White majority. In fact, the “antisemitism” is overwhelmingly coming from the Muslims whom Jews have imported into the West for so long, fondly imagining that they would be “natural allies” against that wicked White majority.

Pollock also has the chutzpah to claim that “History and facts are being replaced by emotion and a sense of righteousness.” As the late Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks admitted in 2007, that “replacement” took place long ago and was initiated by the group to which Pollock herself belongs:

Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain’s top Jewish official warned in extracts from [a recently published] book. … Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm Britain’s diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in his book, The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society, he said the movement had run its course. “Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation,” Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the Times of London.

“Liberal democracy is in danger,” Sacks said, adding later: “The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear.” Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.” “A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said. In an interview with the Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be “politically incorrect in the highest order.” (Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy, The Jerusalem Post, 20th October 2007; emphasis added)

The subversive sliminess of Stephen Fry

If Karen Pollock really wanted to combat “anti-Jewish hate,” she would look at her own dishonesty and ethnocentrism. And at the sliminess of the “national treasure” she praises in her article: the Jewish comedian Stephen Fry. He has campaigned assiduously throughout his career on behalf of two great causes: homosexuality and atheism. Pollock said how pleased she was that Fry would be “addressing the nation” in the “alternative Christmas message” broadcast by Channel 4. It’s the alternative to the Christmas message traditionally delivered by the British monarch — Queen Elizabeth the Evil began the tradition and it’s now maintained by her son Chuck the Cuck. I didn’t want to watch Fry’s Christmas message, because I can’t abide his appearance or his mannerisms. And I especially can’t abide his voice, which always gives me the impression that my ears are filling with an unpleasantly warm mixture of treacle and pig-slurry.

The Slimy Stephen Fry, attempting to present himself as trustworthy, avuncular, and harmless, addresses the nation (image from Channel 4 and Youtube)

But I forced myself to watch and listen all the way through. And I’m glad that I did, because something highly significant happened right at the end. Before that, Fry had claimed to love Christmas and had echoed Pollock’s bollocks, condemning the shocking rise in antisemitism and “anti-Jewish racism” without admitting that Jews themselves have been directly responsible for it. He appealed to the British values of “fairness” and “decency,” which is a futile exercise given that Muslims aren’t British and don’t believe in British values. And then, to sign off, he mocked the central figure of the festival he was supposedly so fond of:

And so this mad quintessential queer English Jew wishes you, whatever your race or creed, however you identify yourself, all peace, joy and a very Merry X-mas [eks-muss], formerly known as Twittermas. (See Stephen Fry’s Alternative Christmas Message at Youtube)

He couldn’t help himself. After all, he’s Jewish. Once again I’m reminded of the old story about the scorpion and the frog. But Fry’s propaganda-video also revealed that the Jews behind it do not understand the dilemma they have created for themselves. Like so many generals down history, they’re trying to fight a new war with the tactics of the previous war. Fry’s smarmy slogans about British “fairness” and “decency” will not work on Muslims and the other non-Whites who support them. Non-Whites aren’t British, don’t believe in fairness or decency, and don’t see Fry as a “national treasure.” On the contrary, they see him as an elderly white oppressor, physically weak and sexually perverted. They’re repelled by him, not beguiled.

They’re right to be repelled. But they don’t see the fullness of Fry’s foulness. Muslims and other non-Whites have been preying on the White majority ever since Jews and their traitorous gentile allies began importing them into the West. They’ve murdered and raped, robbed and defrauded us decade after decade after decade. Meanwhile, Jews like Fry have condemned all White attempts to resist the Third-World predators as “racism,” “xenophobia,” and “hate.” But now that their natural allies have turned on their importers, Fry and his tribe have begun bewailing barbarism. Yet again Jews have gone too far, carried away by their own arrogance and hatred of Christ, Whites, and Western civilization. They have sown the wind and are about to reap the whirlwind. As Jewish Bible also puts it: “Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it shall return upon him.”