[Fade the Butcher]

At the outset of my response, I would like to clarify a few points before proceeding. It's usually a good idea to elucidate the common agenda we share (and the areas in which we agree) before moving on to the finer areas of disagreement. This is necessary to avoid misunderstandings before they arise as well as to give the arguments that will ensue a rational direction. The audience will need a measuring stick, some sort of end, to calculate the efficacy of the divergent strategies we are proposing.

1.) I consider myself an American racialist. My singular goal is to rehabilitate and advance racialism in North America. I have various other identities — atheist, rationalist, materialist, hereditarian, eugenicist, collectivist, statist, Darwinist, etc — which are similiarly integral to the progressive worldview I espouse, but racialist is the label I prefer. I'm assuming here you are also a racialist. If that is the case, let us establish the promotion of racialism as the end we share, and work backwards from there.

2.) The Jews, generally speaking, are a pernicious and undesirable influence in the United States. I say generally speaking because I do not deny that individual Jews have made many useful contributions, mostly of a scientific and technological nature, which are a credit to their people. It would be disingenious on my part not to acknowledge this. Still, I agree with you that their negative attributes on balance outweigh their positives ones, and this is mostly because they so often put "what is good for the Jews" above "what is good for America," which I similiarly find intolerable, for the reasons I describe below.

• The Jewish community currently enjoys a disproportionate and undesirable level of influence over our political system and uses this influence to 1.) distort our foreign policy to advance their own selfish interests above the national interest, 2.) to malign, persecute, and defame white racialists, as well as their critics generally, and 3.) to corrupt elected representatives through the artful use of campaign contributions, or to be perfectly honest about it, bribery. I consider these facts well established, and I have confirmed them in the course of my own independent research. Thus, I see no need to revisit them here, as they are not in dispute.

• The Jewish community has an extremely disproportionate level of influence in the mass media which they use to coarsen and vulgarize our culture as well as to promote Jewish interests and causes. I have posted various statistics pulled from Jewish sources confirming this here at The Phora. It's scary to think that these studies (Rothman and Lichter's The Media Elite comes to mind) are mostly decades out of date as well.

• The Jewish community played a decisive role in organizing, funding, and advancing the Civil Rights Movement in the United States during the 1950s and 1960s. This point is noncontroversial. It is well documented in Jewish sources (Goldberg's The Jews and the State, for example) where it has become a source of pride in recent years. Browse the Transcription Archive. I have several relevant excerpts posted in there. Also, I have documented parallel disproportionate Jewish participation in organizing the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, which I am sure will be of some interest to you and other JQ'ers.

• The most intolerable aspect of Jewish influence is largely in the academic world where they have severely retarded the progress of numerous academic disciplines (a short list would include anthropology, psychology, and sociology) by injecting moral and political rhetoric into science that has utterly no place there. The values of the European Enlightenment — truth, openness, tolerance, free inquiry, rational criticism, and progress — have been replaced in many areas by the values of Judaism and Christianity — moral demonization, ingroup/outgroup behavior, ideological fanaticism, denunciation, exclusion, and intolerance.

I hope you now have a better idea of where I stand on the JQ. Let's move on to the points where we disagree. I would like to extrapolate some more upon our previous exchanges before directly responding to your latest arguments.

1.) Substance. First, I think we need to establish exactly what we mean by racialism, as this seems to be a source of some confusion on your end. Racialism is "an emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events; policy or practice based on racial considerations." In other words, a racialist is someone who 1.) accepts the existence of racial differences between human populations (morphological, behavioral, cognitive), 2.) believes those differences are functionally important, and 3.) believes that public policy (immigration, healthcare, law enforcement, education, etc.) should be formulated with such racial considerations in mind. For the record, as we have both racialists and anti-racists browsing this discussion, racism is defined as "the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others." A racist is therefore a racialist who constructs a racial hierarchy in which races are ranked as superior or inferior relative to other races.

Racialism is thus an amoral, factual question about human biodiversity and its relationship to government. The existence (or non-existence) of human races is a mattter of some importance in the fields of evolutionary biology, psychology, physical anthropology, behavioral genetics, and political science. If it were proven that Sub-Saharan Africans suffer from a deficiency in intelligence and have a more aggressive temperment relative to Europeans for largely biological reasons, it would logically follow that this would have a clear impact upon public education and the criminal justice system. In this sense, the investigation of race is no different than allocating public funds to build public highways, as the state has a clear interest in a spillover issue that would affect so many different spheres of public policy.

The JQ, as the gallery can see, has no substantial relationship to racialism. They are two separate issues, yet many White Nationalists continue to insist they are a package deal when this is clearly not the case. If we grant that the organized Jewish community has demonstrated a profound hostility to white racial activism in the United States (honestly, what reasonable person would deny this?), it would still have no logical bearing upon the question of whether or not salient racial differences exist within the human species. It would still be perfectly reasonable for someone to point out: you have convinced me that the Jews persecute, defame, and malign White Nationalists like David Duke, but this doesn't mean race exists, that race is important, or that I should care about my race. Thus, from the standpoint of racialism, the JQ is a red herring. It is a distraction that constantly hijacks discussions of racial differences and redirects them towards other ends. I would rather spend my time discussing the more fundamental issue of race than the peripheral issue that is the JQ.

2.) Strategy. It's generally a good strategy to concentrate your forces at your strongest point against the greatest weakness of your enemy. The strongest case for racialism can be made purely on its own merits: the existence of hereditary racial differences is simply a better explanation (more parsimonious, more reliable, more predictive) for observable group disparities within the human species than racial egalitarianism. The egalitarian case quickly collapses into transparent apologetics and chants of racism under critical examination. There is no evidence whatsoever of racial equality, but mountains of evidence in support of racial differences. The race deniers have nothing going for them aside from popularity, raw power, moral fanaticism, and the terror they have inflicted upon those who dare question their party line.

Also, I would much rather argue for racialism on the basis of the truth, as opposed to the moral ideals, religious dogmas, and political considerations that tend to motivate anti-racists. There is no other position that is scientifically honest. I have always found the existence of human races one of the most interesting facts about the natural world. The formation of races is a critical step in the natural process of speciation. It's the bridge between one species and another, between the past, the present, and the future. The stunning diversity of life on this planet is ultimately the handiwork of race. It is truly bizarre that such a remarkable force in our world could ever become the object of such loathing. If we can undermine racial egalitarianism, and shatter the intellectual credibility of anti-racism, then we can pat ourselves on the back for doing something truly significant. I don't see how piggybacking the JQ onto racialism, dividing our forces, can be anything but irrelevant obstacle in pursuit of this goal.

3.) The Jews and AR. I must admit that I am at a loss trying to understand the back and forth between wintermute and yourself on this issue. Who exactly are the Jews that are destroying AR from within? Michael Levin? Lawrence Auster? Michael Hart? Levin and Auster are no longer affiliated with AR. That's unfortunate. Levin's Why Race Matters is the single most comprehensive and eloquent rebuttal of race nihilism in the English language. If you know of a better defense of racialism, I would like to see it. It should also be noted that there is far more discussion of the JQ at AR today than was the case ten years ago, but the subject is avoided because it is outside the scope of AR's mission, which has always been promoting racial awareness amongst whites. Jared Taylor has been publishing American Renaissance for sixteen years now. How many other racialist organizations have been around for that long? How many other racialist organizations have been able to attract a college educated, middle class, white professional clientele? This brings me to my next point.

When pondering prowhite organizations in the United States, and the weaknesses thereof, AR doesn't come to mind. In fact, AR is without a doubt the organization I would be most comfortable presenting to the general public, and would have the least inhibitions associating myself with. If I were you, I would be much more concerned about the mindblowing stupidity and incompetance that have torpedoed dozens of other prowhite groups and isolated them from the mainstream: the American Nazi Party, National Alliance, White Patriot Party, The Order, National Vanguard, WCOTC, VNN, NSM, and so on, and so on. I suppose you can throw in the various skinhead and KKK groups for good measure. These organizations either were or are all perfectly judenrein and have all named the Jew at various points in time, but they have also been a magnet for all sorts of destructive lowlifes that no decent American would be caught dead associating with in real life. Now, thanks to people like this, scholars like Kevin MacDonald and reasonable people trying to discuss the JQ will forever have The Turner Diaries hung as a noose around their neck. Have any of these organizations done more to restore the respectability of racialism in America than AR? The BNP, Front National, Danish People's Party, and Vlaams Belang are hardly judenrein, but I suspect many racialists would be positively thrilled if their electoral successes in Europe were replicated in North America.

What about the Jews? They don't have the slightest inhibition about forming alliances with non-Jewish groups to advance their own ends. The ADL goes out of its way to present itself as being more than a mere ethnic lobby. As a tiny minority in the United States, the sort of power the organized Jewish community wields would be otherwise impossible were it not for the acquiescence of large sections of the electorate, in particular, the support of American Christians. Thus, I see no reason why prowhite groups should not similiarly dress themselves up with the occasional token Jew, provided that these Jews are excluded from leadership positions, as prudence would dictate. Then again, the argument has been made that whites are too weak and incompetant, too fair to hold down Jews indefinitely.

4.) Bringing Misery Upon Ourselves. Perhaps. If we were to grant the point though, does this not suggest that the real problem, as Jared Taylor and others have suggested, lies more with Europeans than with the Jews? Would it not be fair to say that the Jews are exploiting, taking advantage, of a race of suckers? I think there is a lot of truth in this argument. Europeans have become the victim of their own virtues which have been perverted into vices of excess. It's not a bad thing to want to help the less fortunate, to desire to make the world a better place, to forsake wanton cruelty. These things only become problematic when taken to extremes, and when others don't share these ideals.

There is another side of the story that JQ'ers would much like to gloss over. There are many, many other factors involved in the decline of racial consciousness amongst whites in the second half of the twentieth century: increasing urbanization, expressive individualism, the memory of the slaughter of the Second World War, the imperatives of the Cold War, the self-loathing and world renunciation inculcated by centuries of Christianity, unrestrained material greed, the perversion of the values of the Enlightenment, and so forth. I'm in no way denying the existence of a Jewish role. I could spend hours discussing that, and it is rather well known, so I won't elaborate further on that here. I'm simply pointing out that there was no magic bullet, no single cause, but instead a confluence of factors that pushed us in this direction.

Suppose this model became generally accepted. What would change? I would say it would give us good reason to be more optimistic about the future. An all powerful, all knowing, all seeing ZOG inculcates defeatism and pessimism. If the decline of racialism was in large part the result of several historical coincidences, as was the case in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War, then the eventual rehabilitation of racialism should be much easier. The WW2 generation is dying off, the Cold War ended several years ago, America's imperial position is eroding, the Civil Rights Movement is retreating further into memory, the Jews are intermarrying at an extraordinary rate and diluting their ethnic solidarity in the process, advances in genetics are rendering race denial untenable. There are many opportunities presenting themselves that we should be grasping.

4.) Tradition. If we hope to revive racialism in America, a good place to start would be to take a look at what has worked and what hasn't. The United States can legitimately be called the home of racialism. It was here, in the colonies, that racialism was first pioneered (see Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia and the great nineteenth century American anthropologists), on the frontier where European settlers, North American Indians, and Negro slaves were forced to coexist for centuries. The Anglo-American tradition of racialism which flourished Colonial Times to the Cold War still has deep roots in many parts of America.

The JQ was never an integral aspect of that tradition. This seems to have been a foreign import that got started with George Lincoln Rockwell and the American Nazi Party. It was later carried over into the National Alliance where it was formally married to racialism during the late twentieth century. The numerous comical failed attempts by Americans to ape German National Socialism speak for themselves. That sort of racialism simply doesn't resonate with Americans. I much prefer the more authentic, homegrown variety anyway.

Having run through preliminaries, it is now time to get around to addressing the four arguments you present above.

THE ANTI-FASCISM ARGUMENT

You argue above that we should oppose the U.S. federal government because it is a "Judeo-Fascist regime." I don't like this term. "Judeo-Fascist regime" strikes me as a euphemism for ZOG. That has been done over a million times now without much success. Why not instead oppose the current regime in Washington on the grounds that the Bush administration started a useless war in the Middle East where no clear American interests were at stake?

1.) You could point to the billions of dollars that have been thrown away on a useless war, and all the other things this money could have been spent on at home.
2.) You could point to the erosion of America's strategic position abroad due to rising anti-Americanism and overextension of our limited military resources.
3.) You could point to domestic instability the war has unleashed in Iraq.
4.) You could point to all the American soldiers that have been horribly disfigured or lost their lives.
5.) You could point to the condemnation of the War in Iraq by numerous distinguished scholars of international relations.

These are good reasons why any American, racialist and anti-racialist alike, should oppose the current regime, and I would say they are more compelling than merely taking swipes at the Jews as a group, especially when many Jews also oppose the war. Also, if you must "name the Jew," call them "neocons" or "zionists" instead. They hate that. You can attack the same group of Jews as "neocons" while artfully dodging the minefield of tropes they would much rather have you travel across. A full frontal barbarian assault is not always the best idea. It makes much more sense to flank them. White Nationalists have yet to master the fine political arts of indirection and subtlety. You can name those without power all you want (like whites as a group), for those that do have power, other tactics are called for.

This is the fundamental reason why I am less than impressed with this argument. It strikes me as more of the same. White Nationalists like David Duke, Alex Linder, and William Pierce have spent years "naming the Jew" and decrying ZOG. Has anything of practical significance ever been accomplished by all this bellyaching? In contrast, over the past several years, a sustained assault was mounted against the "neocons" by the antiwar right and left, with the occasional allusion to the larger JQ (see Justin Raimondo's work). The term ultimately caught on and the power of the neocons in Washington, D.C. has been severely diminished as a result in the last two years. Wolfowitz became a lightning rod. Pearle, Feith, Wurmser, and Libby fell from positions of influence. This speaks volumes about what works and what doesn't. An important lesson has gone unlearned by White Nationalists from this experience: Politics is a game. If you want to succeed in politics, you have to play by the rules of the game, otherwise you lose. That's the difference between "doing something" and "doing something effective."

It's a good idea to appeal to the antiwar movement. The same could be said of the immigration reform movement, or almost any source of white discontent. You are not going to win yourself many allies though by taking the Jews as a group head on. Why? Because any fool can see that they are more powerful than you are, and that if you engage them on the field, other things being equal, you will lose handily. What do they have to gain by publically associating themselves with unreconstructed, powerless anti-semites? Nothing. Their power will be diminished, and their response will logically be no. Also, what tactical sense does it make to "name the Jew" as a group? Is it really a good idea to unite your opposition? You might want to give that some further thought.

In response to your point about white racial attitudes, your conclusion that the majority of whites care about their race is not reflected in the polling data. See Racial Attitudes in America: Trends and Interpretations, Revised Edition. A general summary can be found here. Specific information about white respondents can be found here.

THE ANTI-RACISM ARGUMENT

This is confusing. You would have us advertise ourselves as anti-racists for racial nationalism? I don't think many people are going buy that personally. Does anyone else here find this argument convincing? It would also be dishonest for me to present myself as an anti-racist when I am nothing of the sort. It's much more likely you will end up reifying anti-racism and leaving your audience scratching their heads wondering exactly what you just said to them. Better to stick with the truth. Also, where does the JQ come into any of this?

The whole rhetoric of equal rights needs to be jettisoned. This is the problem, not the solution, as we abolish our own claim to an exclusive identity by maintaining that others have the same rights we do in our own territory. How is this any different from JJR's position that groups don't have legitimate biological interests? We oppose affirmative action, multiculturalism, third world immigration, the domination of the mass media by aliens and so on for the same reason: it is not in our interests, as a group, to support any of these things. That's the bottom line. They are "bad for the whites" in the same way quotas at major universities were "bad for the Jews." We're never going to get anywhere until we overcome this tendency to think of ourselves as abstractions as opposed to a people.

What is wrong with discriminating against people on the basis of their ancestry? Isn't that the very essence of racialism: the proposition that valid deductions can be made about individuals from racial typologies? What you are saying is basically this: racialism is morally unjust, therefore, you too can be unjust by becoming a racial nationalist. Again, I don't see how this is any different from the full front assault against the "Judeo-Fascist regime" you have proposed above. By acknowledging the legitimacy of your enemies premises, you have surrendered the tactical high ground to him, and have set yourself up for a stinging defeat in the process.

I would advise a different course of action: deconstruct the deep structure of anti-racism, the fundamental core assumptions that underpin that system of values and political thought (individualism, egalitarianism, romanticism, humanism, etc.) and watch as the house of cards collapses upon itself. A few sticks of intellectual dynamite in the foundation is enough to topple more than a few key minds. As always, I would much rather strike at the root of the beast, the shortest route to killing it.

THE ANTI-IMPERIALISM ARGUMENT

The United States can legitimately be called an imperial power. We are deeply involved in the internal affairs of hundreds of other nations. I also find this an undesirable situation, but I don't see how this is relevant to racialism, as opposition to imperialism similiarly has no substantial relationship to the existence of salient racial differences within the human species. If you were able to successfully convince people that imperialism is bad, it would not logically follow that racialism is good, so this issue is another red herring.

I'm not sure how this relates directly to the JQ either. It's true that U.S. support for Israel is an important part of the American imperial system in the Middle East, and that this is largely a result of domestic political pressures, but our support of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Turkey, in addition to our presence in Iraq, is just as important to our overall national security strategy in the region. The inability of the U.S. to make an effective satellite out of postwar Iraq is likely to increase our dependence upon Israel as a reliable satellite, especially now that native hostility to America is at all time highs. It should also not be forgotten the U.S.-Israel relationship is but one aspect of a much bigger picture. The U.S. is a global power that is just as involved, if not more so, in Western Europe, Latin America, and East Asia, for reasons that are largely outside the scope of the JQ. The ultimate purpose of this empire is to maintain American dominance over the other great powers and to advance U.S. commercial interests in other parts of the world: access to lucrative markets, cheap foreign labor, and strategic raw materials for U.S. based corporations.

If you insist on running up the flag and leading a Pickett's charge against globalism in general, it is important to keep in mind that you are going to be making more than a few powerful enemies for yourself, and Jewish groups like AIPAC will be but one of these. None of this has anything to do with racialism either.

THE EQUAL RIGHTS ARGUMENT

You conceded above that racial discrimination is unjust. It would therefore be entirely legitimate to ask: if you say racial discrimination is immoral, why would whites as a group be justified in forming exclusive associations on the basis of race? How could you justify excluding Jews from these organizations on the basis of their ancestry? A real anti-racist will turn right back around and ask you: why not forget about all these races and identify ourselves simply as human beings? Now, I suspect you will respond by arguing this is what other groups do (Negroes, Asians, Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, etc.), but it is important to keep in mind that this is the status quo, and whites are hardly up in arms about it. They have made the adjustment to living without racial and ethnic identity in the midst of people who have no intention of recriprocating, mostly because their leaders have been tamed.

It's a great idea to point out that whites make this sacrifice whereas other groups do not, but I would not use this situation to make an argument for equal rights. On the contrary, I would argue instead that the whole premise of equal rights have failed for this very reason and whites are therefore justified in reassuming their former racial identity and cutting their ties to other groups which have been taking advantage of them. You are not going to get anywhere by channelling anger into meekness. That makes about as much sense as throwing a torch into a swimming pool. It is the nature of anger to either translate into confrontation . . . or dissipate.

Conclusion

I don't find your argument that hammering away at the JQ is the key to success all that convincing. I find myself wondering: is this not already being done? Are White Nationalists somehow not naming the Jew? Are White Nationalists not complaining about ZOG? Are they supporting the War in Iraq? Are they not opposing affirmative action? Are they not already demanding the right to organize as racial activists? Are they not already on record opposing U.S. imperialism abroad? I don't see how much of this relates directly to racialism either. If you convince people that the War in Iraq is bad, this is still completely irrelevant to whether or not race exists or whether race is important, and the same can be said of the JQ, which has no substantial relationship to race realism.

You close your response with a list of demands. These are reasonable demands, but those who oppose us are unreasonable, and prefer to appeal to force and hate to settle accounts. You also seem to have forgotten that the powerless are in no position to demand anything. Thus, your demands will in all likelihood be ignored. This is why the project of building a base for racialism is so critical. You must learn to accept the fact that A comes before B. Nothing of practical significance can be done about the JQ until the project of rebuilding white racial consciousness has been completed and we are once again in a position of strength. If I were to stumble across a magic lamp and a genie were to grant me three wishes, sending the Jews home to Israel would be my first wish too, but I recognize that I have to work within circumstances I have little control over.

Having said that, I am not of the view that everyone must do the same thing. These are some of the reasons why I personally feel the way that I do about the matter. As always, I prefer to keep an open mind and hold tenative positions, since there is always the possibility that I could be mistaken. I'm simply not persuaded that tying the JQ to racialism is in our best interests at the moment. If you would like me to distribute your flier around campus here at Duke, I would be happy to do so.