LAST MONTH in a dialogue about white nationalism, I made this statement:

If it came down to choosing between citizenship in a white ethnostate which identified itself as proudly “Jew-free” in its constitution and a nation that was suicidally multicultural, I would choose the latter.

I strongly stand by this statement and believe it is important for me to draw attention to it. I would rather live in a place characterized by a dangerous overabundance of tolerance than in a place in which tolerance was so abysmally deficient that a whole class of people such as the Jews, with their many differing characteristics and with non-violent and civil mores, as well as deep roots in Western society and Christian traditions, were purged and in which the government proudly proclaimed them to be purged and celebrated its Judenrein conditions. Of course, I would rather not live in either place, and will have ongoing serious differences with those who think otherwise.

It’s one thing to assert a confident white traditionalist identity and work for its dominant position in Western society. It’s another thing to envision a nation in which all those who are not Christian or who are Jews or who are non-white are removed or permanently banned or unworthy of commercial relationships or friendship. The vision of such a place sets people’s minds on a dangerous track, seeking a simplicity that is not meant to exist in this world. Such a culture would quickly exhaust itself from its own rigidity. Besides, such extreme intolerance is contrary to Christian ethics. Western civilization at its best imposed a hierarchy of values, including a racial hierarchy, but did not crush dissent or differences. At the same time, it did not welcome ideological difference as extreme as that represented by Islam.

I wrote at that time:

I do not seek to live in a Jew-free nation. Period.

I might add, I do not seek to live in a nation purged of blacks or Hispanics or Asians either.

By the way, I have removed a recent post I wrote regarding the Faith and Heritage website because I was uncomfortable in retrospect with some of the statements I made in that post. Perhaps I will revise it and post it again later. The fact is Jews are often major proponents of open borders, multiculturalism and the obliteration of Christian traditions, and can be reasonably criticized as Jews. It is not in any way “anti-Semitic” to assail them for these positions and lament their influence. It is error, however, to trace the growth of liberalism solely to the influence of the Jews.

In the words of Lawrence Auster, this sort of “rational criticism of Jews and Jewish influence is proper and acceptable. This is the sane middle way between the only options that the current society gives us: total suppression of any critical statements about Jews on one side, versus anti-Semitism on the other.”

                                            — Comments —

Lawrence Auster writes:

A further point I make is that when Jewish individuals openly represent a non-assimilated perspective (for example, by defining themselves as a group that is permanently different from the majority culture, or declaring that their mission as a group is to change America from what it has historically been, by diversifying it, Third-Worldizing it, de-Christianizing it, or whatever), then such individuals should not be allowed in positions of mainstream authority and influence. They may remain free to function and express themselves within their ethnic community. But they should not be allowed to occupy mainstream positions of influence or to speak for America’s majority culture, so long as they represent a diverse, non-mainstream perspective and agenda.

This is simply logical. A sane, viable organization does not allow individuals who are not fully a part of the organization to lead it. A church does not allow brand new converts, who don’t yet know the faith well or have not been fully integrated into it, to lead the church. The same goes for a society.

I’m not saying that this exclusion should or could be done through legislation. It should be done by moral persuasion and moral pressure, exerted by representatives of the majority culture. Obviously, for this to happen, the majority culture must come back into existence, as a force that can act and express itself in society.

Subject to qualifications that are appropriate to each case, the same principle applies to other minority groups. It obviously does not apply to Muslims, who, I have said, do not belong in significant numbers in any Western society, period.

Of course, it is inevitable that many Jews and liberals will see my approach to the Jewish problem as anti-Semitic. In reality, it’s a position that can be defended rationally and shown not to be anti-Semitic, a claim that the anti-Semites cannot plausibly make about their position. Most Jews are rational people and members of Western culture. The aggressive anti-majoritarianism of many Jewish intellectuals and activists in recent decades has largely been a function of the passive silence and surrender of the majority culture; it is human nature to move into a vacuum. If the majority culture began to speak up for itself again, in a firm yet civilized way, and declare that certain Jewish attitudes and agendas are wrong, destructive, and unacceptable, many Jews, being rational people, and faced for the first time with real criticism, will recognize the problem and accommodate themselves to the newly assertive majority culture. Those Jews who are not willing to do so can, as I said, henceforth confine their activities to their own ethnic community, or move to Israel, as many Jews have done who identify more with Israel than America.

Paul writes:

Irrational (or overstated) is the idea that societal suicide is better than killing a threatening society. Christians have the God-given right to defend themselves. For thousands of years, societies killed every member of a rival society. Perhaps we would not be here but for that instinct, assuming evolution is a viable theory. Even the Old Testament seems to have recorded justifications for such brutality.

What most(?) white nationalists do not understand about our Jewish brothers is our brothers could not have a major effect on a Christian society unless there were a far, far greater number of Christians that agreed with them. This is an insight Mr. Auster taught me many years ago about how to deal with this unpleasant subject.

But that is not the end of the subject because the insight does not address the fundamental issue. What does one society do about a society that threatens to dominate another society? The most pressing American societal issue today is what a white American society should do about numerous alien societies (non-white Hispanics and Muslims) that are threats. While most(?) white nationalists are ignorant when it comes to their fetish about Jewish people, their instincts are not irrational.

The solution perhaps is a peaceful revolution, which would require a George Washington, at the least. Geographical separatism is another solution. But either solution will require a Washington and citizens willing to sacrifice their lives, liberties, and properties, as our founders and citizen-soldiers did.

Thank you for your great site.

Please follow and like us: