Naming the Jew or not?
av Ulf Larsen
At Counter-Currents.com there recently appeared a discussion on the subject of ”naming the Jew”. That is, as I understand the matter, if Jewish involvement in the downfall of the West and the fact that Jews as a group generally act against White ethnic interests – in other words, the ”Jewish Question” – is worth our (the advocates of White interests) attention, or if we should ignore such topics. As most of the arguments against mentioning the JQ are based on common misconceptions that are harmful to White interests, including some straw men that need to be put to death once and for all, I will re-post the main points of the discussion here to help develop philosophical clarity on the matter.
The discussion started with a comment on an article by one Brett Stevens, on why we never will see him ”naming the Jew”, and developed further from there. Probably, to get the point of this discussion, you should at least take a quick look at Stevens’s article, even if what he writes isn’t at all new.
I have my doubts about Brett Stevens. Like Lawrence Auster, a racialist Jew who ‘converted’ to evanglical Christianity, Stevens also acts almost as if he just another gatekeeper for Jewish interests on the racial right. I have no idea whether or not Stevens is a Jew, but I don’t think that matters. What matters to me is that Stevens never dares offend Jewish sensibilities.
Here is a typical piece by Brett Stevens that will not appear on Counter-currents:
These people claim to reject equality and democracy. They allegedly believe in ‘human biodiversity” and and promote eugenics, but they explicitly refuse to assert the interests of whites. Ironically they are quite explicit about claiming that whites and Asians are smarter than blacks.
Their favorite domains are ‘amerika.org’ and ‘anus.com’. Here is a brief purview of the kind of stuff that appears on their sites:
Their content often appears on the ‘New Right’ section of reddit. I used to submit content from James Edwards blog, counter-currents, and TheOccidentalObserver on their ‘New Right’ section of reddit and if the number of upvotes my submissions received is any indication, this material was quite popular with their ‘New Right’ readers. But their moderators, one of whom is Doug Vance and another of whom I believe is Brett Stevens haves asked that I refrain from posting any antisemitic or racist ‘white power’ material from JamesEdwards or The Occidental Observer.
The real irony is that if you took their rhetoric about opposing equality, democracy, and diversity at face value, it follows pretty logically that one would support content from people like Greg Johnson, Kevin MacDonald, & James Edwards. But they dare not even acknowledge the interests of whites, nor speak a critical word about Jews. They purport to be exponents of the European “New Right” and are big followers of Evola, Pettit, Linkola, de Benoist, Kurtagic, and even Tom Sunic.
To me the articles on ANUS & Amerika seem like a meaningless and vapid distraction. They want to appear to be profound, deeply philosophical, and reactionary. But their insights are trivial and their political philosophy is quite opaque. If my experience is any indication, their readers enjoy reading someone who is plain-spoken and direct like James Edwards or William Pierce, but their editors would never countenance such an explicit assertion of white interests.
I don’t know Brett Stevens personally, but I like a lot of his work. Yes, I was disappointed with the piece on the Jewish Question that you cited, so I did not repost it. But Stevens has never objected to having his other works reprinted here.
Gentlemen, if you actually read most of the articles on anus.com or amerika.org, you’ll come to realize that the overall message of their articles is pro-European, pro-tradition, pro-nationalism, pro-conservatism, and anti-immigration. All of these combined leads to a pro-European message. Don’t just pick out a handful of articles and not read the rest.
Stevens and ANUS are right, though. We need to stop blaming others for our problems and start looking in the mirror. Victimhood is backwards thinking and unhealthy.
The “We have nobody to blame but ourselves” school is false and pernicious.
(1) It is false, because “we” did not do this to ourselves. “They” did it to us. The white race is on the path to extinction because traitorous elites and hostile Jews have set us on the path to extinction. We are only responsible for what happens to us if we authorize it, or if we do not fight back, but to fight back we need to know who the enemy is. Saying that “we did it to ourselves” is just blaming the victim and allowing the enemy to hide.
(2) It is pernicious, because it appeals to fuzzy “high-mindedness” which is more often than not a cover for cowardice, sometimes a cover for collaboration.
(3) It is pernicious, because it induces a false sense of guilt, which is merely a form of self-consciousness, and a debilitating one at that. Guilt makes us less likely to act forthrightly in our interests.
(4) If one is a victim, it is surely unhealthy to dwell on that. The healthy thing to do is get angry and strike back at one’s enemies. The “We have nobody to blame but ourselves” meme just channels righteous indignation into the politically ineffectual channel of self-reproach and hides the real enemy from our wrath.
(5) This is politics, not therapy.
Can you explain to me what the jews are doing to you?
Do some reading on the subject, beginning with Kevin MacDonald’s Cultural Insurrections: Essays on Western Civilization, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism, available here: http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/06/cultural-insurrections/
“Gentlemen, if you actually read most of the articles on anus.com or amerika.org, you’ll come to realize that the overall message of their articles is pro-European, pro-tradition, pro-nationalism, pro-conservatism, and anti-immigration. All of these combined leads to a pro-European message.”
And obviously also a pro-Jewish message.
“We need to stop blaming others for our problems and start looking in the mirror. Victimhood is backwards thinking and unhealthy.”
It is not a matter of blaming anyone (that is a straw man created by irrational philo-Semites), it is a matter of identifying a biological and existential enemy of our race. Politics are about power and making a distinction between your enemies (that is, those who have a claim to power that is contrary to your existential interests) and your friends, not moralism and blaming people. As it happens, Jews are very influential and definitely have biological interests that are contrary to ours.
If anything, we are to “blame” for not identifying our enemy and fighting him. That is our weakness. In a boxing match, if you don’t keep an eye on your opponent, you lose the fight. That simple. If you lose the fight anyway, you have yourself to “blame” (for not keeping your eye on the enemy enough).
How can actually fighting be equivalent to “victimhood”? Is not fighting the enemy thus the equvalent of heroism?
Amerika’s and the European New Right’s attempt to be sophisticated by being stupid and not fighting the enemy is just pathetic and a sign of weakness. Either they don’t know what they are talking about or they are cowards, being the lap dogs of our existential enemy.
Nicely put, but I disagree about blame and victimization. Philo-Semites of course love to claim that anti-Semites blame their own failures on Jews. That is just an evasion of responsibility and self-knowledge. The truth is, however, that Jews have done terrible things to our people, and they are the main impediments standing in the way of fixing our most serious problems. They have victimized us, they are victimizing us, and we need to identify them as the enemy, place the blame where it belongs, and fight against them.
Well, it is probably more an issue of attitude than of facts. As far as facts go, MacDonald et al. have shown that Jews have caused or helped cause a lot of the bad things going on in the West, and thus we are in some objective sense their victims. What I am not sure of, though, is how constructive it is for us to see ourselves as victims. Maybe it would be more invigorating for us to see things as a fight and have a “may the best man win”-attitude. That is the more manly approach and more in line with our indo-european heritage as far as religion and culture goes. On the other hand the Jews have always seen themselves as victims and they are winning at the moment, so maybe we should learn a thing or two from them and change our culture. Maybe it is just the aesthetics of it that keep me from accepting that point of view.
Whatever the case may be, we should do what it takes to win. Nothing more and nothing less.
(Det är givetvis fritt fram att kommentera på svenska. Jag skrev inlägget på engelska för att diskussionen det handlar om var på engelska.)