VNN takes you between the lines...
American "Jewish," "Kosher" Conservatism: an Argument with the Racial Right
by David Horowitz M.X. Rienzi
[Read the original here.]
On July 16 of this year, my website www.frontpagemagazine.com ran a story about the "Wichita Massacre," the brutal execution of four white youth by two criminal brothers who happened to be black. Note the wording "just happened to be black." Yes, indeed, Mr. Horowitz may want us to believe it could have "been anyone." Just like the scores of Bolshevik commissars who slaughtered tens of millions of Eastern Europeans just "happened to be Jewish." It was our second look at this tragic incident, which took place at Christmas time two years ago. We ran it as a special feature -- this time on the occasion of the trial of the perpetrators -- because it crystallized for us a national hypocrisy on race. This hypocrisy regards the murder of blacks by whites as an indication of the existence of a characteristically American racism and therefore banner news, while the far more prevalent murder of whites by blacks is routinely considered to be without racial overtones and -- as in the Wichita case -- not to be newsworthy at all. Mr. Horowitz, isn't it also a bit hypocritical to talk about media bias without mentioning which group predominantly owns and controls the media in this country? How about mentioning WHY this media bias exists?
The more recent article about the Wichita events originally appeared on the website of American Renaissance, a white racialist group founded by Jared Taylor. Reposting it from this site seemed to require some explanation. In the commentary I wrote to accompany our feature, I described Taylor as "a man who has surrendered to the multicultural miasma that has overtaken this nation and is busily building a movement devoted to white identity and
community," agendas we "did not share." Well, yes, I am not surprised that a Jew is opposed to the notion of "white identity." Can't have those pesky goyim fooling around with the same sort of cohesive ingroup identification that has allowed Jews to survive and prosper for centuries, can we? No, no, that wouldn't do at all. Instead, demonize white ethnoracial identity politics by equating it with "multiculturalism." Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket - that'll scare away all the kosher conservative lemmings. After all, why read AR when you can instead vote for the "conservative" George Bush, the man who'll sell our birthright to illegal alien Mexicans in order to garner a few votes. I further explained:
What I mean by "surrendering" is that Taylor has accepted the idea that the multiculturalists have won. We are all prisoners of identity politics now. If there is going to be Black History Month and Chicano Studies then there should be White History Month and White Studies. If blacks and Mexicans are going to regard each other as brothers and the rest of us as "Anglos," then whites should regard each other as brothers and others as -- well, ... others. What is wrong with that? Why is it, objectively speaking, wrong for whites to have the same sort of racial community that other groups, including and especially Jews, have? What is the REAL reason Horowitz is so fearful of whites regarding each other as brothers, and others as others? Is perhaps Mr. Horowitz afraid that he and his fellow Jews will fall into the category of others? Afraid that white identity politics will not be "good for the Jews?" Afraid that once the ball starts rolling, he and his fellows will not be able to dictate where it rolls and how fast? Within the multicultural framework set by the dominant liberalism in our civic culture, Taylor's claim to a white place at the diversity table certainly makes sense. But there is another option and that is getting rid of the table altogether and going back to the good old
American ideal of E Pluribus Unum-"out of many one." Not just blacks and whites and Chicanos, but Americans. And, what is an American? A child born to illegal alien parents just across the border is -- presto! -- an "American citizen." A veritable heir to George Washington, indeed! Yes, yes, let's all be Americans...but Jews will still be Jews, and Hasidim will still live in their separatist communities, and the demographic tide will sweep white Americans off the pages oh history...but, hey we will be "out of many one." And what does THAT phrase really mean to Horowitz and fellows? Political amalgamation? Cultural? Or...genetic as well?
In the current issue of American Renaissance Jared Taylor replies to these comments and raises the fundamental question of whether America is or should be a multi-ethnic, multi-racial society, or whether it was conceived and should be preserved "as a self-consciously European, majority-white Nation." Among literate conservatives, Jared Taylor is the most blunt in expressing this vision, but it is a theme of others who might be called
"Euro-racialists." (This is a bastardized and somewhat incoherent coinage, but one that adequately describes a bastardized and somewhat incoherent perspective). Here Horowitz exposes his Jewishness and establishment credentials very well. When you cannot adequately refute a position, then use ad hominem attacks. Horowitz asserts that being a "Euro-racialist" (as I indeed am) is a "bastardized and somewhat incoherent perspective." Proof? Examples? None, of course, just Jewish opinion masquerading as pseudo-fact. Why doesn't Horowitz just borrow some stock phrases from the ADL and SPLC and say that "Euro-racialists" are full of "hate," "spewing hate," ad nauseam?
Prominent among the articulators of Euro-racialism are Peter Brimelow who writes for the website Vdare, and Pat Buchanan whose best-selling book The Death of the West articulates its most familiar version. Another typically Jewish distortion. Actually, Mr. Taylor critiqued Buchanan in the pages of AR (after the Ezola Foster selection) - and quite rightfully I might add. If Mr. Horowitz were honest he would acknowledge that very few (if any?) real Euro-racialists consider Mr., Buchanan "one of us." A "paleo-Conservative"? Yes, indeed. A racialist? No. Here we see the Jewish ploy of setting the limits of permissible debate. Granted, Horowitz pushes the limit a bit farther than his other kinsmen, but still, we have the case of a non-racialist conservative being pushed as an example of racialism. Why not cite some real racialists? The late William Pierce? The folks at VNN and the National Alliance? Legion Europa? Frontpage readers may not know this, but very few people in the "movement" take Buchanan seriously, and, for the most part, those who do are not influential. If Buchanan's last electoral run is any indication, Euro-racialism is a still a fringe prejudice among conservatives. Maybe so. But conservatives are useless for white racial survival, so who cares? Let them vote for our "first Hispanic President" Dubya, let them cheer a war on Iraq (fought for Israeli, not American, interests), and let them sit on their hands moaning about tax rates as their nation is lost. We do not need them. We do not need Buchanan. Get it? But if it were to emerge as the view of conservatives themselves, it would in my view mean the death of the conservative movement. Since I consider the conservative movement the last bulwark in the defense of America and the West, it would ironically also fulfill the
prophecy in the title of Buchanan's book. Forgetting for a moment my antipathy toward conservatives, would Mr. Horowitz actually like to explain this "just so" statement? In what way is preserving white America (the only population group that "votes conservative") going to destroy Horowitz' beloved "conservative movement" (movement? when have conservatives moved anything? done anything? really won anything of lasting value?)?
Taylor describes me as a "neo-conservative," but I have no idea what reference this has to my positions or my work. The two most prominent theoreticians of neo-conservatism announced its death some time ago, because it had always defined the defection of a group of New York liberals from liberalism over its failure to stay the course in fighting the anti-Communist battle during the Cold War. Since the end of the Cold War, neo-conservatism -- at least in the view of its founders -- has become indistinguishable from conservatism itself.
Yes, the Jews have won, and "conservatism" is now Republicans telling us to leave the convention hall if we don't embrace "diversity," "conservatism" is now amnesty for illegal aliens, subservience to Israel, and creating a police state "to stop terrorism" instead of stopping Muslim and other non-White immigration.
I have never identified myself as a "neo-conservative" because belonging to a younger political generation I did not share some of the social attitudes of the neo-conservative founders. Since attitude is fundamental to some conservative perspectives, I have preferred to define my own. To be a conservative in America, from my perspective, then, is to defend where possible and restore where necessary, the framework of values and philosophical understandings enshrined in the American Founding. This should not be taken to mean a strict constructionist attitude towards every clause of the documents that constitute the Founding. If the framers of the Constitution had presumed to see the future, or had wanted to rigidly preserve the past, they would not have included an amendment process in their document. " Yes, in this way, the Constitution can be interpreted and amended to suit the needs of a certain minority group, eh, Mr. Horowitz?
My brand of conservatism is based on a belief in the fundamental truth in the idea of individualism; That's the ticket, in the grand Ayn Randian tradition: promote atomized individualism for whites, while Jews continue to practice the collectivist tribal politics that has enabled them to so successfully rise to a position of dominance in America. in the idea of rights that are derived from "Nature's God" and therefore inalienable; Sure, YOUR views come from "Nature's God", and thus, we cannot refute it, eh? I guess "Nature's God" is different from Yahweh, because the Jews have been practicing group-first collectivism from their very beginning. in the conservative view of human nature and the philosophy of limited government that flows therefrom; and in the recognition that property rights are the proven foundation of all human liberties. Then this "limited government" should allow racialist whites to have the "human liberty" to set up separatist racial communities, if they so choose?
Thus, for me, Taylor's challenge goes to the heart of what it means not only to be an American but also to be an American conservative.
Because America is a nation "conceived" -- and not just a nation evolved (although it is that too) -- the meaning of the American Founding is and will always be a contested issue for Americans, Really? How about saying the same about Israel? and the answer to these questions about the meaning of the American idea and therefore of the American nation, will always affect its direction and its future. It is not coincidental, therefore, that the issue of the Founding is the very first to which Taylor turns.
Taylor contends that the national motto "E Pluribus Unum" -- out of many, one -- refers not to many races or ethnicities when it comes to forming an American people but simply to the 13 colonies. But this is a rhetorical argument rather than a comment on reality, since it ignores the actual populations of the 13 colonies, which even at that time were multi-ethnic and multi-racial. In 1776, American citizens included not only ethnic Englishmen, but Dutchmen, Germans, French, Scotch-Irish, Jews, free blacks and others. The first 5 groups are not only all European gentiles, but are all Northwest Europeans, predominantly Protestant (many French Americans were Huguenots). The numbers of Jews and free blacks in America were tiny, and these groups had no political or cultural influence (except for Jewish involvement in the slave trade). The dominant group was by far those of British descent, with the Dutch second. To classify a grouping of closely related European peoples as "multi-ethnic/multiracial" is stretching things a bit, no?
In an attempt to anchor his rhetorical case in the attitudes of the Founders themselves, Taylor quotes John Jay to the effect that Americans were a united and connected people because they had common ancestors. But Jay is obviously mistaken because this was certainly not true in any ethnic or racial sense. Even insofar as Americans were European in origin "European" is not an ethnicity, and the history of Europe is the history of wars between its ethnicities and its racial groups. Here we go: the desperate Jewish need to prevent white Euro-unity by denying biological and cultural similarities amongst European peoples, complemented by the harping on intra-Euro wars (can't get enough of those, right?). Horowitz is WRONG. Genetic data show that the various European peoples are in fact very closely related in a racial sense, and certainly many of the founding groups in America were closely related in an ethnic sense as well. And, yes, European peoples have fought against each other, but this proves what? Horowitz' beloved "America" was torn apart by a bloody civil war, and today, we have racial strife and race riots. If, despite this, we can have an "American identity," then why can't Europeans -- heirs to common genes and a common Western culture -- not have their own identity, here in America and abroad?
An acquaintance of mine, of Scotch-Irish descent, maintains that his forebears came to the New World expressly for the opportunity to fight the English. Completely irrelevant. Whether the memory is accurate or not, it illuminates the error made by both John Jay and Jared Taylor. America was created out of a British Empire that was virtually global in scope, and its various peoples, European and otherwise, far from being a cohesive group with a common ancestry, were the bearers of histories of hostility and war. Right, us pesky Euros are the "bearers of histories of hostility and war." Shouldn't we thankful that the Jews are working to demographically eliminate us throughout the world?
The fundamental mistake of the Euro-racialists is to confuse ethnicity and culture. How is race or ethnicity integral to the American idea or the American culture? Because culture is a creation of ethnoracial groups, as part of their extended phenotypes. Are not Francis Fukuyama, Dinesh D'Souza and Thomas Sowell quintessential Americans despite their Japanese, Indian and African lineage? No, they are not. And why not cite Louis Farrakhan for blacks, and the radical crowd at "Monolid magazine" for Asians? The Jews have remained a people united by culture and -- until recently -- a language for 2,000 years; but as a people they embrace a world of ethnicities and races. This may be the single biggest distortion of Horowitz' entire piece. Fact: the vast majority of Jews are Ashkenazim, Sephardim, or "Oriental" (e.g. Iraqi) Jews. These groups have been shown -- in many different studies -- to be genetically similar, of common ancestry, and much more closely related to each other than to the gentiles amongst which they live. Furthermore, a large majority of all Jews are Ashkenazim, who are so closely inbred that they suffer from a huge number of recessive genetic diseases, a group thought to be descended from a few thousand individuals after a genetic "bottleneck," a group that has been practicing endogamy for centuries. The fact that there are tiny, powerless communities of Ethiopian and Chinese Jews does not alter the fact that the Jews are essentially a distinct ethnoracial group. It is NOT "just a religion," and that has been scientifically proven. Stop the self-serving distortions, Mr. Horowitz.
It is a culture that is crucial in shaping the American identity, not an ethnicity or race. Proof? Where does the culture come from? How come recent European immigrants fit this culture better than blacks whose families have been here for centuries? John Jay's observation that speaking a common English language is a critical element in uniting the American people transmitting this culture is probably correct. Here, there is ground for agreement. An American identity cannot exist outside an American culture. Even though that American culture can and inevitably must evolve and incorporate new elements, Why "inevitably must?" Answer: because it is in the interest of Horowitz's ethnoracial group to have a "pluralistic, diverse America", a nation without a cohesive Euro-gentile majority as a potential threat to Jews. What the Jews want is a fragmented polyglot nation, without a clear majority, a nation where the Jews are "just another group," fitting in and exploiting one minority against another for their own gain. it cannot leave behind its European roots without losing, in some fundamental sense, itself. It is this American culture, not a racial or ethnic heritage that we need to preserve. Hmm...aren't we losing our European roots due to the polices advocated by Horowitz?
Ironically, Taylor and the Euro-racialists have fallen into a trap set by the "multicultural" left. The left's multicultural offensive is an attack on America's national culture, not on its racial or ethnic composition. More ad hominem attacks. Get the conservative goy lemmings to run away from racialism, because it is "equivalent to multiculturalism." "Inclusion" and "diversity" are not the real agendas of the left -- America has always honored both principles, however imperfect their implementation may have been. Sure, we "included" Negro slaves, Chinese coolies, and Indians on reservations. We were so much into "diversity" that we had immigration restrictions, segregation, laws against miscegenation, etc. The idea of the melting pot is an American idea. Actually, it is a Jewish idea. Just like the idea that the Statue of Liberty is there to welcome the world's "wretched masses." The left, however, has never been interested in a "melting pot" that would assimilate diverse ethnicities into an American culture.
The left is hostile to the idea of assimilation. Its agenda is the deconstruction of America's national identity and culture, of the American narrative of inclusion and freedom. Multiculturalism is not about the assimilation of minorities into the crucible of American freedom, their liberation from American oppression. By accepting the left's view of itself as a movement for diversity and inclusion, and responding with a call for Euro-centricity and exclusion, the Euro-racialists simply play into the hands of the left and help them to conceal their anti-American agendas. More of the same. Frighten the lemmings...those nasty racialists are "playing into the hands of the left." What nonsense. Listen: we do NOT want to assimilate genetically and culturally alien peoples. We do NOT want to be demographically, politically, and economically displaced by the Third World. We do NOT want to see our genetic and phenotypic inheritance destroyed by assimilating the unassimilable. We DO want to preserve our OWN identity. Got it?
Under the cloak of ethnic inclusion, the left has injected an anti-American curriculum into the American educational system, in an attempt to alienate America's youth from its heritage. Under the smokescreen of "diversity," it has rewritten America's laws and subverted its Constitution. It has launched a campaign to institutionalize group rights and racial privileges in place of individual rights and laws that are race neutral. Reading this, you would never know many of these leftists were and are Jews.
This is a perfectly diabolical scheme: in the name of diversity and inclusion the left is systematically destroying the framework of individualism and the rule of neutrality that make diversity and inclusion possible. But instead of fighting this sinister attack on the very foundations of the American system, Jared Taylor and the Euro-racialists are eager to validate it. That's right. Because this is the ONLY way we can survive as a people. I am not content to have a mythical, changing "American culture" (what is it now -- rap music and Jewish Hollywood?) survive if MY people -- EuroAmericans -- become diminished and eventually extinct. The Jews would like to lull us to sleep with visions of a "neutral," "color-blind" America as our race becomes extinct. That conservative nonsense has been used as an opium-like anesthetic against white Americans since Reagan (if not before), and is evidence of why conservatism is the deadly enemy of white survival. We need COLLECTIVE ACTION and IDENTITY POLITICS, not "individualism," we need SEPARATISM, not "assimilation." All of Horowitz' obfuscation cannot hide the fact of a declining EuroAmerican population, increased miscegenation, and downward mobility for middle-class white Americans. But, that is not Horowitz' group, and he has a different agenda. They have even embraced the destructive narrative devised by the left whose purpose is to kill the American dream. Taylor's construction of American history in his reply to my commentary directly parallels the maliciously distorted version of the nation's history in works of such anti-American fanatics as Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. More ad hominem attacks, guilt by association, "linking," etc.
In Taylor's telling, America has become the racist nightmare of leftist fantasy. Taylor begins his historical reconstruction with Thomas Jefferson who "thought it had been a terrible mistake to bring blacks to America, and wrote that they should be freed from slavery and then 'removed from beyond the reach of mixture.'" Taylor then describes a pantheon of notable Americans who were officers of the American Colonization Society designed to promote the same "solution," why is "solution" in quotation marks? including Andrew Jackson, Francis Scott Key and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall. He observes that the capital of Liberia, Monrovia, is named after the chief architect of the Constitution, James Monroe "in gratitude for his help in sending blacks to Africa." Naturally Taylor includes the chief icon of the left's deconstruction project, Abraham Lincoln, who "also favored colonization" and invited the first delegation of blacks to visit the White House in order to "ask them to persuade their people to leave."
The purpose of Taylor's pantheon of political leaders is transparent. Just as Horowitz' agenda in fighting against white identity is transparent. It is to establish that white America is racist since politicians "are cautious people who re-circulate the bromides of their times." Racism, in other words, is just the American creed.
This picture of the American mind is no less a caricature coming from Jared Taylor than when it comes from Louis Farrakhan or Howard Zinn. There are obviously many motives that could have prompted 19th Century American statesman to consider "colonization" a reasonable alternative to the problem of assimilating people who had been brought to America against their will and who had suffered grievous injustice at the hands of American citizens. But even granting, for example, Jefferson's racial prejudice, the presumption that this exhausts the complexity of his attitude and let alone of his historic role in shaping the racial question is both vulgar and absurd. This is the man who proclaimed that God had endowed men with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In short it was Jefferson who sowed the ideological seed not only of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution granting emancipation to slaves but also the 14th Amendment guaranteeing all Americans, black as well as white equal citizenship rights under the law. Stretching a bit, no? Isn't it obvious that Jefferson was referring to whites? He was a slave owner, no?
If Jefferson planted the seeds of this liberation, it is the American people who implemented it, through the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of lives in a civil war. The denigrators of Lincoln hate the fact that he resolved the schizophrenia of the American birth in favor of Jefferson's idea that Americans a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all man are created equal. Reactionaries like Taylor may want to take this country back to the pre-American social order that existed before 1776, but there are few Americans alive today who will follow them. First, not all Euro-racialists are "reactionaries." Second, as the racial situation in America gets ever worse, more and more people WILL follow us. After all, if we are not a threat, Mr. Horowitz, why waste so much time attacking us? Moreover, it is a gross historical misrepresentation to call this project "American," as Taylor and his followers do.
Taylor's recounting of the legislative past is equally selective and ahistorical. The fact that the first American naturalization bill made citizenship available only to "free white persons" or that it took more than a hundred years to expand citizenship rights to all races and ethnicities, would have the significance he wants to assign it, only if the weight of American history were not behind the expansion of these rights, and only if the premise of that expansion were not the very principles embedded in the Founding itself. The text of the Constitution does not contain the terms "black" and "white," because it does not recognize racial distinctions in respect to citizens and their rights. Blacks were slaves, and considered 3/5 of a person, according to law at the time. Stop distorting history, Mr. Horowitz, or am I asking of you something that you cannot do due to genetic reasons?
The delayed granting of citizenship rights to blacks is the fulfillment of the American promise. It is not to be confused with the seemingly limitless expansion of rights promoted by the left under the doctrine of a "living Constitution." The "rights" the left seeks to create are not rights recognized in the classical liberal doctrines the Founders embraced, but are antithetical to them. They are the redistributionist rights of the radical tradition the Framers despised and that Madison himself described as "wicked." Racial preferences, which have become the "civil rights" cause of left and which have been made constitutional by "liberal" courts are in fact an offense to the Constitution and the values it enshrines. Equality of citizenship for all races and ethnic ancestries, on the other hand, is clearly an expression the principles inscribed in the constitutional foundations, which are the foundations of a free republic. All opinion. And opinion which does not answer the question: what is in the racial interests of white Americans?
To conclude his argument Taylor turns personal, which may be appropriate for a discussion that attempts to address both the universal and the particular:
Mr. Horowitz deplores the idea that "we are all prisoners of identity politics," implying that race and ethnicity are trivial matters we must work to overcome. But if that is so, why does the home page of FrontPagemag carry a perpetual appeal for contributions to "David's Defense of Israel Campaign"? Why Israel rather than, say, Kurdistan or Tibet or Euskadi or Chechnya? Because Mr. Horowitz is Jewish. His commitment to Israel is an expression of precisely the kind of particularist identity he would deny to me and to other racially-conscious whites. He passionately supports a self-consciously Jewish state but calls it "surrendering to the multicultural miasma" when I work to return to a self-consciously white America.
He supports an explicitly ethnic identity for Israel but says American must not be allowed to have one... If he supports a Jewish Israel, he should support a white America.
There is a lot that is wrong with this picture. To be a "prisoner" of identity politics is not the same as regarding race and ethnicity as "trivial matters," and I don't. To portray me as a political Jew, who identifies primarily with Jewish causes, or who would not rally to the defense of Israel if he were of some other ethnicity is very wide of the mark. My political causes are public record and go back more than fifty years, and in my autobiography, Radical Son, I have even recorded my interior thoughts about why I took on these causes. None of them were ethnically motivated, We are supposed to take his word on that? Even if he believes that, it is nothing less than the self-deception common among Jews, described by Kevin MacDonald in "Separation and its Discontents." When working for specifically Jewish interests, Jews delude themselves (and others) that they are working for universalist, moralistic causes. which I believe is true for most people involved in similar ones. If there has been an ethnic group to which I have devoted the major portion of my political energies over
the course of a lifetime, it has been black Americans, not Jews. None are so blind as those who will not see. Isn't it obvious that the Jews who devoted their energies to black interests were doing so to promote a Jewish agenda by:
1) destroying the political and cultural hegemony of white America
2) promoting racial integration and miscegenation to destroy white group identity
3) promoting white guilt and the need for atonement
4) using blacks as a lever to extort concessions from white America
5) promotion of color-blind "tolerance" to make America safer for its Jewish minority
6) a general push to weaken the dominant majority to open niches for Jewish exploitation
As a Marxist, of course, I was a deracinated Jew -- But still A Jew never bar mitzvahed and a stranger in Synagogues. As an editor of the leftwing magazine Ramparts, I did write a cover story called "The Passion of the Jews," and did defend the existence of Israel as a "raft state" for survivors of the Holocaust, rejected everywhere else. But the article itself was a case against Jewish particularism, while recognizing its validity in a world in which Jews had become the objects of a program for their extermination. At the time, however, I still believed in socialist revolution that would dissolve these prejudices and forge an international community free from such atavisms. Typical Jewish self-deception. See the works of MacDonald. Ah, yes, as either a Marxist or a conservative, working for a "color-blind, pluralistic world" - a world of course in which Jews will still exist as a people. Note how Horowitz says that his article both was a case against Jewish particularism AND recognized its validity. That's the key.....
This utopian delusion was killed in me shortly after I wrote the piece in circumstances I have described elsewhere. But to recognize the fact of ethnic particularity is not equivalent to becoming a racialist or a nationalist in the narrow, tribal sense to which Jared Taylor aspires. What's the difference? In essence, if Jews do it, it's OK, if the goyim are particularists, they are dangerous and anti-American.
Even after I rejected the progressive illusion, Why? Is it because times changed, and conservatism was a better way of herding the cattle? I did not become the prisoner of an ethnic calculus in selecting my (now conservative) causes. self-deception? The American creed is universal, and a conservative will defend it wherever it becomes an inspiration for others. Call this American ethno-centrism if you will, it is a lot more inclusive than the white European nation for which Jared Taylor longs. That is the point -- we reject "inclusion."
I do not fool myself for a moment into thinking that it would not matter to me as a Jew if the Arabs succeeded in their determination to destroy the state of Israel. And I do not fool myself into thinking that I would not care if the Jews succeed in destroying my people. But I also do not expect any American of any national origin to be unaffected by the infliction of great harm to his or her ancestral community. Then what the hell is this all about, then? Despite this concession, I do not think ethnicity defines the way I, or most Americans, measure right and wrong, or decide to commit our political passions. Wishful thinking, or more deception? Do we really believe that Jews, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc., do not vote ethnically? Are only whites to be "neutral" fools?
Israel is under attack by the same enemy that has attacked the United States. Because we support Israel. Israel is point of origin for the culture of the West Hah!!!! A bunch of nomads in the sand? Western culture is the fusion of GrecoRoman and CeltoGermanic influences. Please, please.... and it is under attack for the same reasons that America is regarded by radical Islam as the "Great Satan." Excuse my language, but bullshit. Israel is under attack because two peoples (Jews and Arabs) are claiming the same piece of land. Palestinian terrorists were involved in the first World Trade Center
bombing and the bombing of the Khobar Towers. Because of American support of Israel. In defending Israel, as I have defended other countries -- Afghanistan for example, when it was attacked by the Soviets -- I have no ambivalence about my national identity, which is American. It is not Israeli, and most certainly not "white." We agree there, Horowitz - a Semite - is not white.
If I support an ethnic Jewish state in principle, it is because if Arabs were to become a majority in Israel they would persecute, kill and expel the Jews as they have for a thousand years. No sober person could believe otherwise. What happens to whites as minorities? See Zimbabwe? South Africa? Non-white areas of America? "No go zones" in colored areas of Britain and France? No sober person can believe that whites have a future in a colored America. But I also support an ethnic Jewish state because this is merely the granting of equality to Jews among the family of nations. Why can't white Americans have a nation? Or even Europeans - whose homelands are being over-run by immigrants? Would a Frenchman feel sanguine about a German majority in France? Would a white American feel sanguine about a colored majority in America? And why use Germans in that example? In reality, France is being over-run by AfroAsiatic colored peoples, and the Jews tell them they must not resist, and that Le Pen is a "fascist racist." What about that?
America is different. It is a nation that from the beginning has encompassed many ethnicities and more than one race. Other races lived on the land, but were not members of the nation. Blacks were slaves, and Indians were pushed westward. The different ethnicities were racially similar. Cut the BS, please! It was created as a "new nation" and its creators defined its identity not in categories of blood and soil, but in a document articulating principles that are universal: we hold these truths to be self-evident. And they owned black slaves. Most of the nations of the world are different from America in their essential construction. But all the white nations are suffering the same fate - showing that race trumps "cultural construction."
One could argue, of course, that this very fact of America's uniqueness proves the reactionaries' Name-calling. case -- that human beings are incapable of transcending their ethnic and racial particularities to form a common national bond. But that would require arguing that the two-and-a-quarter centuries of the American experiment have failed. It failed when it became multi-racial - multiracial in actual reality, not fanciful historical distortions. I am not ready to believe this, even if Jared Taylor and the Euro-racialists are. I could very well be mistaken. But I would rather be wrong as an American, than the President of Jared Taylor's Euro-white alternative. Sir, I do not even want you in such a state, never mind as "President." But, exclusion of Jews is part of the problem, no? Moreover, I remain certain of at least one thing. America is such a multi-ethnic and multi-racial experiment, Now it is. and Jared Taylor and the Euro-racialists are wrong in contending that it is not. Of course it is NOW. Our point is that it is a MISTAKE.