We apologize for the length of this article. We believe it was necessary to set the parameters and lay out some fundamental issues.
In March of 2006, Jonathan Tilove of the Jewish Daily Forward wrote an article on Jared Taylor of the American Renaissance (AR) saying that Taylor wanted to “de-Nazify [the] white nationalist movement.” Astrophysicist Michael H. Hart, who happens to be Jewish, was obviously jubilant.
Hart seemed to have found solace in the American Renaissance apparently because Taylor ideologically seeks to “spread the message of white consciousness” in the United States and Europe. One of the people Hart was attempting to persuade to join the AR was Herschel Elias, who is also Jewish. Hart assured Elias that the “the speakers [at the AR] aren’t Nazis. Jared isn’t a Nazi.”
Hart moved on to declare that Taylor has done a good job expunging alleged Nazis from the AR because Taylor “can’t expect Jews to come if there are Nazis here.” Tilove declared:
“From the start, he [Taylor] has been trying to de-Nazify the movement and draw the white nationalist circle wider to include Jews of European descent.”
Taylor concurred: “Ultimately, for all the things I care about to happen, Jews must be part of the movement.” Jews, Taylor added, are “the conscience of our society.” At another occasion, Taylor said:
“I don’t think that Jews are by any means our enemy as a group. We have many Jewish friends in this room right here. They have been part of the work of the American Renaissance right from the beginning. I think our eyes should be opened, and I think we should judge individuals one by one.”
Taylor’s worldview here obviously puts him in direct conflict with people like David Duke and Kevin MacDonald, who write prolifically that Jewish ideological and subversive movements have weakened much of the political infrastructure in America and elsewhere. In Fact, MacDonald has an entire section in his widely read book The Culture of Critique entitled, “The Fall of the Anglo-Saxons.” That particular section indicates that whenever “the new avant-garde ‘ethnic” community” perpetuates its agenda, then the WASP ruling class suffers greatly. MacDonald writes,
“This was not an imaginary or quasi-ethnic community but an actual community that had as its background a cohesive group of intellectuals dominated by people who were not only Jewish ethnically but also identified as Jews and were motivated at the psychological level by typically Jewish fear and loathing of Anglo-America as the culture of an outgroup. And, at the end of the day, this assault on Anglo-America furthered Jewish goals in displacing Anglo-Saxons as a dominant elite.”
Citing Eric P. Kaufmann of the University of London, MacDonald writes that this new milieu left the “American dominant ethnicity ‘rudderless. It was now only a question of time before cosmopolitanism would achieve the institutional inertia necessary for it to triumph as a mass phenomenon.’” MacDonald moves on to lament that “The new cosmopolitan culture occupied the high grounds in American society, particularly the mass media and the academic world.”
David Duke would almost certainly agree with MacDonald here. Duke attended an AR conference in February of 2006, and one can arguably say that that was a watershed moment which clearly indicated that the American Renaissance is an ideological organ which resolutely and systemically fails to address the fundamental issues. Duke brought the whole house down that day by saying that “There is a power in the world that dominates our media, influences our government and that has led to the internal destruction of our will and our spirit.”
The audience immediately sensed that Duke was onto something. “Tell us, tell us,” they said. To which Duke responded: “I’m not going to say it.” But Michael Hart, who was at the conference and who was more interested in fighting “Islamofascism” and discussing racial issues in the United States, instantly knew what Duke was referring to. Hart, a grown man, was obviously panicked at that point. He was certainly overcome by fear.
As a racialist who seems comfortable talking about heated topics in America (such as racial separation), one would presume that Hart would be more than happy to welcome the challenge and ask Duke to produce solid evidence to back up his statement. Hart could have even asked Duke to expand on his assertion and to explain what he meant by this “power in the world that dominates the media.”
But since Hart was conspicuously terrified by Duke’s damning statement, he could not think rationally. His reaction proved that he was not prepared to be offended, despite the fact that Hart constantly offends people. For example, he writes that “white racism” has been inculcated to “every young black” in America “every single day.” Sure, there is a vast section in the black community that has been duped by this “white racism” or “white privilege” mentality, but “every young black” has been victimized by this?
One needn’t be a sociologist or cultural historian to realize that the statement is generally preposterous, so preposterous in fact that Hart had to completely ignore history in order to invent it. Moreover, Hart saw no need to produce evidence for his claim, apparently because he is operating under a system which does not allow him to see things the way they really are. We shall see why in a moment.
Historical Facts Are Stubborn Things
What Hart obviously doesn’t want people to know is that Khazarian revolutionaries, as E. Michael Jones historically documents, tried to turn the black population into a subversive cell—from Frederick Douglass and all the way to the founding of the NAACP, which was financially supported by Jewish bankers like Jacob Schiff, Felix Warburg, Isaac Seligman, and James Loeb. The late Communist Harold Cruse of the University of Michigan would later claim that the NAACP itself was founded largely by Jews in order “to fight anti-Semitism by remote control.”
One can say the same thing about the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa, which was largely a Communist cell and an essentially Jewish operation at the time. People like Lionel Bernstein, Bob Hepple, Dennis Goldberg, Arthur Goldreich, Hazel Goldreich, and James Kantor were all part of that subversive movement. Nelson Mandela was one of their puppets. The ANC progressively made an alliance with the South African Communist Party (SACP), a largely “Jewish body”:
“Two rising SACP leaders, Joe Slovo and his wife, Ruth First, had mentored and brought on the young Mandela, enrolled him in the Party, and positioned him as the obvious next leader of the ANC…It was a 100% Communist organization and Mandela, who headed it, was then on the Party’s Central Committee, a fact about which he lied both in court and later in his autobiography.”
A liberal Christian by the name of Albert Luthuli, who headed the African National Congress and “who believed in nonviolence, was brutally shunted aside to allow Mandela to become the new leader.”
The ANC party, which “had made itself the ally of the drug dealers and arms manufacturers,” quickly moved to violent ideology to get things done. When Mandela got out of jail in 1990, “ANC activists thrust into his hand a speech they had prepared, full of Marxism-Leninism, threats of nationalization and so forth. The tone was utterly militant and hard line. Mandela loyally read out the speech…” Soon enough, Mandela and his gangs put their Marxist-Leninist ideology to action. As scholar Timothy J. Williams puts it:
“Mandela was personally involved in the targeting and timing of terrorist bombings that took place during his imprisonment. Even a group as left-leaning as Amnesty International refused to grant Mandela political prisoner status because of the obviously violent character of his ideology and his actions.
“His African National Congress party ran a horrific camp for political prisoners in Angola, with daily torture and murder, often by the “necklacing” technique, whereby a gasoline-filled tire is placed around the neck of a victim and set ablaze. Virtually all the victims of this particular horror were blacks.
“Within South Africa, on direct orders from Winnie and Nelson Mandela, the ANC targeted not only whites, but also black civil servants, teachers, lawyers, and businessmen—essentially anyone who imagined a post-Apartheid South Africa that differed from the one mandated by the Marxist ANC.
“Even simple black peasants who refused to carry out terror attacks were treated as enemies. Thus, just as the terroristic FLN killed far more Algerians than did the French during the Algerian war for independence, the ANC was the leading cause of death, by far, for black South Africans throughout the period of Apartheid.”
The Communist ideology economically, politically and socially wrecked South Africa and the people it superficially intended to help. Under Mandela’s presidency, AIDS grew at an exponential rate, and by the time he got retired, “30 percent of young black mothers were infected with the virus.” The Guardian itself admitted that by 2000,
“South Africa was the worst-affected country on the planet, with an HIV prevalence rate among 15- to 49-year-olds of 24.5%: more than 4 million people, and rising fast. Things had got to this pass on Mandela’s watch.”
Mandela, who was also trained by the Israeli Mossad in “judo, sabotage and weaponry,” would have been lost in the pages of history had it not been for his Jewish Communists. The late historian Stephen Ellis, the Desmond Tutu Professor of the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, meticulously documented in his study External Mission: The ANC in Exile 1960–1990 that there is a direct link between Leninist and Marxist ideology and the ANC itself. In fact by 1961,
“The Communist Party of the Soviet Union began to give enthusiastic backing to radical and revolutionary movements in Africa….In developing a new perspective on African nationalist movements with a view to determining their suitability as allies, Marxist-Leninist theoreticians were able to draw on views expressed by Lenin himself and on ideas about a two-stage revolution that went back to the early days of the Russian Social Democratic Party, the forerunner of the Communist Party. In a series of speeches and articles starting with an address to the second congress of the Communist International, or Comintern, in 1920, Lenin had argued that national liberation movements were potential allies of the CPSU [Communist Party of the Soviet Union].”
Lenin’s fundamental principle “was adopted by the CPSA [Communist Party of South Africa] after the sixth congress of the Comintern had instructed CPSA delegates present in Moscow to campaign for the establishment of an ‘independent native republic’ in conformity with current Soviet thinking.”
Numerous ANC members were sent to the Soviet Union and even to China to be trained by Communist/Leninist regimes. People like Andrew Mlangeni, Joe Gqabi, Wilton Mkwayi, Patrick Abel Mthembu, and Steve Naidoo all went to China to meet Mao Zedong. “Mao met and welcomed us in China,” Mhlaba remembered. “In total,” Ellis writes, “more than 2,000 ANC people were to train in Soviet military institutions” since 1963.
Nadine Gordimer (Jewish South African Nobel laureate, political activist, and writer) helped edit Nelson Mandela’s speech during the Rivonia Trial and dedicated much of her Nobel Prize money to the Congress of South African Writers.
Former South African Jewish judge and prosecutor Richard Goldstone, who regularly kept in touch with Mandela and who opposed Israel’s war crimes but later backed away from his position because of pressure from Jewish organizations, wrote:
“From Mandela’s first days as a young lawyer, individual Jews played a significant role in his career. The first was an attorney, Lazar Sidelsky, who in 1942, flouting the customs of the time, accepted the young Mandela as a law clerk at his Johannesburg firm…
“Not long before Sidelsky’s death, almost 60 years later, at the age of 90, Mandela, in a typically thoughtful gesture, invited his former boss to a lunch at his Johannesburg home… “During the apartheid years, there were nonobservant Jews who assumed leadership roles in the South African Communist Party…
“Among a number of them were Solly Sachs (the father of Justice Albie Sachs); Albie Sachs himself; Joe Slovo, who subsequently became minister of housing in President Mandela’s Cabinet, and Gill Marcus (whose father had been, for many years, the London bookkeeper of the exiled African National Congress), who became a deputy minister of finance in the Mandela Cabinet and is today the governor of the South African Reserve Bank.
“When Mandela faced long ‘treason’ trials in the 1950s and ’60s, two of his leading counsel were Jewish — Israel ‘Issy’ Maisels, then a pre-eminent Jewish leader, and Arthur Chaskalson, whom Mandela appointed in 1994 to head the new Constitutional Court of South Africa. Mandela’s friendship with Helen Suzman, the leading anti-apartheid member of the South African Parliament for many years, was an intimate and affectionate one.
“And then there was his rabbi. Cyril Harris was the revered chief rabbi of South Africa from 1987 to 2004. At the joyous induction of Mandela as president in May 1994, Harris delivered a moving address. A close friendship between them developed, and Mandela frequently referred to Harris as ‘my rabbi.’
“As such, he invited him to give a Hebrew blessing to his marriage, on his 80th birthday, to Graça Machel. At Harris’s funeral in Jerusalem, the South African ambassador was present and spoke warmly of ‘our rabbi.’
“During his presidency of South Africa, Mandela had a warm relationship with the leaders of the Jewish community and spoke regularly at the opening ceremonies of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies. In 2000 he officially opened the South African Jewish Museum, in Cape Town.”
Mandela himself declared that Arthur Goldreich helped “fill many gaps in my understanding.” He also declared that Lazer Sidelsky was “my boss.” The Jewish Chronicle tells us that “Mandela even put on a kosher lunch for the zealous prosecutor at his trial in 1963, Percy Yutar, an Orthodox Jew and president of the United Hebrew Congregation in Johannesburg…At the Treason trial in 1956, half the whites arrested were Jews. Defendants in other political trials with names such as Yetta Barenblatt and Hymie Barsel, rekindled the pre-war anti-Jewish sentiment of Afrikaners nationalists.”
Goldreich, who ironically “had been part of a Zionist urban guerrilla group in Israel in the late 1940s,” actually “made trips to Czechoslovakia and East Germany to study munitions and guerrilla warfare; he even visited Moscow and Beijing, where he spent four hours meeting Deng Xiaoping in 1962. Mandela later credited Goldreich with providing the ANC with much crucial military expertise.”
Goldreich, among other revolutionaries such as Joe Slovo, began to meet at a place called Liliesleaf Farm, a few miles north of downtown Johannesburg, and began to turn it into an
“‘incubator for revolution,’ where everyone from SACP head Joe Slovo to ANC leader Walter Sisulu would gather. Having concluded that a purely nonviolent struggle could not succeed in a state where peaceful dissent was viewed as treason, the SACP and ANC began to plot a sabotage campaign targeting government installations and property.
“Mandela and Slovo were put in charge of forming a single armed movement: Umkhonto we Sizwe, or Spear of the Nation. Liliesleaf was their headquarters and Goldreich was seen as an especially valuable adviser given his battlefield experience during Israel’s War of Independence.”
To make a long story short, Gordimer’s contemporaries, such as Joe Slovo, Ruth First, Denis Goldberg, and Albie Sachs, were leading Communists in South Africa. Sachs was appointed to the Constitutional Court of South Africa by Nelson Mandela in 1994.
Slovo, a staunch Marxist, became Minister for housing in Mandela’s government. Gordimer’s entire literary career was designed to create revolution using racism and apartheid as a metaphor—or weapon. Her book, July’s People, envisions a South African revolution in which apartheid are fought through violent and bloody conflicts and wars. In other words, Gordimer was for Mandela what Stanley Levinson and other revolutionaries were for Martin Luther King. Rabbi Marc Schneier, writing for the Jewish Week, admitted:
“The upcoming observance of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day on Jan. 20, juxtaposed against the recent passing of Nelson Mandela, should cause us to reflect with pride on the inspiring role that Jews played in both the civil rights movement in the United States and the struggle for the overthrow of apartheid in South Africa…no segment of society provided as much and as consistent support to Dr. King and Nelson Mandela as did American and South African Jews.”
What the rabbi failed to tell us is that revolutionaries supported King and Mandela because King and Mandela were being used as remote controls. Schneier declared that “Jews mobilized in support” of people like Mandela and King because “Jewish conscience refused to abide oppression.”
This explanation certainly does not follow. How does Schneier explain the fact that Israel has had a long history of torturing Arab prisoners as far back as 1977, sterilizing Ethiopian women, and literally and brutally massacring Palestinians from its inception? How does he explain the brutal history and catastrophic effects of Communism in the twentieth century in places like the Soviet Union and China and even after World War II was over? How does he explain the fact that the Bolshevik movement even created an ideological organ in places like South Korea? Can we honestly talk about King Kong without mentioning the colossal gorilla?
The Dynamics of Silence
Once again we are continuing to see complete dishonesty when people do not want to talk about the real elephant in the room. W. E. B. Dubois, who was just twenty-seven years old when Frederick Douglass died in 1895, was hired by the NAACP largely to destroy the careers of people like Booker T. Washington, who did not think that violence and revolution were the right way:
“At the beginning of 1911, Washington considered W. E. B. Du Bois and the NAACP his mortal enemy in the battle over control of the Negro mind in America….Du Bois’s job at the NAACP was to de-legitimatize any Negro leader whom the New York German Jewish elite found unacceptable.”
One can see the culmination of the civil rights period even to this very day. CNN’s analyst Jeffrey Toobin has astonishingly declared that Antifa “is widely perceived as an African-American organization”! So if you attack Antifa, then you must be a racist or something equally weird. In response to Trump’s critique of Antifa, Toobin declared:
“The theme here is, ‘I’m Donald Trump and I’ll protect you from the scary black people.’ Antifa is widely perceived as an African-American organization, and this is just part of the same story of LeBron James and Don Lemon and Maxine Waters and the NFL players and the UCLA basketball players.”
This is worse than stupid. As the Jewish Daily Forward reported last summer, Antifa was essentially a group of Jewish mobsters and thugs which allegedly attempted to fight Nazis and whose “preferred tools of persuasion were not logic and reason, but baseball bats, brass knuckles, rubber coated pipes and the occasional stink bomb.”
The New York Times itself declares that there is a sizable number of Communists, socialists, and anarchists in the group. So if people like Hart want us to take them seriously, then they would have to deal with subversive movements like Antifa, which by the way has caused massive and bloody insurrections since its inception. Dartmouth Jewish historian Mark Bray, one of Antifa’s leading proponents, has even argued for violent and physical attack on what he perceived as “white power.”
When Bray’s motives were being questioned at Dartmouth, he declared, “It really raises important questions about academic freedom.” At another occasion, Bray said: “The real enemies of free speech are fascists, we’ve seen that historically, we’ve seen that they are the ones that if they had their way they will shut down free speech.”
Complete baloney. Bray, according to the Washington Post, is “a sought-after news commentator,” and “dozens of national news outlets have turned to him to help explain” what “white supremacy” really is. Bray’s “political radicalism has landed him prime-time interviews on NBC and NPR.” Yet no one has ever stopped him from speaking or expressing his controversial views.
Moreover, Bray is advocating that violence is a defensible means to stop perceived enemies. In other words, Bray inexorably ends up giving a political license to Antifa members to break windows and start fire in places like Berkeley, which according to Time, caused “more than $100,000 of property damage.” It is also reported that the Baltimore riots cost nearly $9 million. Bray, the “button-down anarchist,” said that he was going to donate half of the proceeds from his book, Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, to Antifa itself.
Who is Playing with the Remote Control?
Here again we see that people like Hart are not interested in the whole historical backdrop of these issues because it would suggest that a large section of the black population has been manipulated by a powerful ideological and subversive force. Both Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Fyodor Dostoyevsky have already witnessed the magnitude of that ideological force in Russia under a different name. Hart continues, “There is tremendous amount of black resentment out there, and it will not go away by simply pretending it does not exist.”
Of course, there is resentment out there, but one should be eager to ask questions that cry to heaven for answers. What is the fundamental origin of the resentment? Did it pop out of thin air? Who was playing with the remote control? Don’t we have enough historical evidence which points to the conclusion that revolutionaries contributed to the demise of the black family, which led to the disintegration of a large section of the black population itself? Don’t we have enough evidence which shows that the average black family was doing well until the civil rights movement socially wrecked it?
As the Atlanta-City Journal itself pointed out way back in 2005, “More blacks were out of work in 1964 than in 1954.” It can be argued that fatherlessness and the rise of crime which is now characterized as “ghetto behavior” in places like the South Side of Chicago are the logical extension of the civil rights movement.
So why can’t people like Hart ask the right questions and find answers to those questions in a truthful and scholarly way? What we are seeing here is that far from being intellectually honest, Hart is running away from historical scholarship because the ultimate reality seems to give him a heart attack.
Why do I say that? Well, right after Duke made his statement about “the power that controls the media,” Hart immediately stormed out of the AR meeting and told Duke straight to his face: “You fucking Nazi, you’ve disgraced this meeting!” Hart didn’t even wait for an open discussion and dialogue. Later, Hart declared that he supported Duke’s freedom of speech, but “I detest such people as David Duke and Joseph Sobran.”
Is that the way a serious academic should behave? If Duke was propounding falsehood or categorical lies, Hart could have presented counterarguments by dismantling his claims with serious evidence. But Hart apparently did not want to hear any evidence which seems to indicate that there is indeed a powerful force that controls the media. Hart certainly had his chance to deconstruct Duke’s arguments but he failed miserably.
The Awful Truth
The interesting thing is that Hart quotes David Horowitz’s Hating Whitey to support his thesis. Yet Horowitz, who was at one time a member of the NAACP and who “followed the progress of the Montgomery bus boycott and the early sit-ins,” has some damning things to say about the very people who were the vanguard of revolutionary movements in much of the West. In his book The Politics of Bad Faith, Horowitz unequivocally posits:
“For nearly two hundred years, Jews have played a disproportionate role as leaders of the modern revolutionary movements in Europe and the West…By carrying the revolution to its conclusion, socialists would usher in a millennium and fulfill the messianic prophesies of the pre-Enlightenment religions that modern ideas had discredited. Through this revolution, the lost unity of mankind would be restored, social harmony would be reestablished, paradise regained. It would be a tikkun olam, a repair of the world.”
With respect to the civil rights movement, Horowitz moved on to say that “Jews had funded the movement, devised its legal strategies, and provided support for its efforts in the media and in the universities—and wherever else they had power. More than half of the freedom riders who had gone to the southern states were Jews, although Jews constituted only 3 percent of the population.”
Israel Shahak and other Jewish scholars agree that revolutionaries supported those movements because they wanted to fight what they perceived to be anti-Semitism indirectly. So is Hart going to call Horowitz and others “fucking Nazis”?
The Neoconservative movement, as we all know by now, is a continuation of Trotskyism which got its start in subversive ideologies and which has been a total disaster for the United States. If you doubt this, then look at the Iraq War, which will eventually cost America at least six trillion dollars. But what does Horowitz have to say about the debacle? Listen to this:
“This is a war whose aims and purposes make it very hard to understand how anyone who is a supporter of human rights, or who believes in freedom, could be against it. In four years, George Bush has liberated nearly 50 million people in two Islamic countries. He has stopped the filling of mass graves and closed down the torture chambers of an oppressive regime. He has encouraged the Iraqis and the people of Afghanistan to begin a political process that give them rights they have not enjoyed in 5,000 years. How can one not support this war?”
Once again we are seeing that Hart is intellectually dishonest. He just doesn’t have the courage to declare forthrightly that his brethren created a monster. E. Michael Jones writes:
“The Jews who had spent roughly 60 years trying to turn the Negro masses into the avant garde of revolutionary change in America woke up in the mid-‘60s to discover that To Watson had been right all along; like Frankenstein, they had created a monster that was no longer under their control. Now that the revolution was actually breaking out in black ghettoes across the country, the revolution looked as if it were going to devour its own Jews.
“As a result, the Jews who had poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Civil Rights movement tried to use moderates like Martin Luther King to get back at ungrateful shvarztes like Stokeley Carmichael. On July 25, 1966, Martin Luther King attacked black power in a paid ad in the New York Times.
“King’s statement had been written by Stanley Levison. [Murray] Friedman is quick to add that ‘Levison, of course, was only putting into words what King himself felt’ without understanding how this admission lent credence to the SNCC’s claim that Martin Luther King had become a Jewish puppet.”
Hart is obviously a victim of the monster which was created in the 1960s. We must assume that he knows the historical literature on these issues. And the fact that he doesn’t want to talk about the fundamental problems invariably means that he is not interested in the whole truth.
The speakers at the conference were of the same mind. They were more interested about Islamofascism and black crimes than dissecting the real causes of the problems. For example, Robert Weissberg, a political scientist at the University of Illinois, declared in the AR way back in 1999 that “Black-white coexistence is a little like having an incurable medical condition.”
Intellectual Dishonesty Again
In response to Duke’s question, French writer and journalist Guillaume Faye, one of the speakers, said: “We must be very acute in our struggle. The best thing is not to speak about the Jews. They don’t exist. For me, they are like the Eskimos.” In a similar vein, Taylor declared back in 2006:
“Even if it were possible to prove that Jewish influence derailed what used to be a healthy American racial consciousness, that is a historical question not directly relevant to what we must accomplish now.”
Did you get that? Faye, Taylor and Hart find it congenial to talk about virtually everything that relates to “white consciousness,” black crimes and Islamofascism, but they are not interested about any topic that will deal with the fundamental issues.
What is even interesting is that Taylor, according to David Duke himself, “has requested over the last few years that I don’t attend [AR conferences] because I am deemed too controversial…” Here again we are seeing that there is more to “white consciousness” than meets the eye because Duke, according to Taylor’s own worldview, is white. Why is he excluding him from his ideological orbit and entourage? And if Duke is not allowed to attend AR conferences, what is “white consciousness” anyway?
Taylor, according to Duke, refuses to address the main issues. In an open letter to friends attending AR conferences, Duke wrote:
“The reason why African Americans are being incited to violence and hate against our people is because Zio Hollywood and the mainstream Jewish media love it when non-Europeans hate and seek to harm their historic enemy, which of course is you and me.
“It was not African Americans who brought the sick anti-White, violent, bloody hate of Django to the big screen. African Americans are not the ones who teach White people to hate themselves. The Jewish tribalists such as the Weinstein Bros. are the ones who do that.
“African Americans were not responsible for the mass media praise and promotion of this film and it’s [sic] academy awards, Jewish tribalists did that…. African Americans and Mexican Americans are not the ones who tell your kids in countless films that drug and alcohol abuse are cool. Jewish tribalists do it.”
In an explicit statement which drove a dagger into the heart of Taylor’s American Renaissance, Duke said:
“Anyone who purposefully covers up, or facilitates, or supports the Jewish tribalism that dominates America, is an enemy of our people. Any Jew or any Gentile, no matter what he preaches on any individual subject, is an enemy of our people if he defends the Jewish tribalists, and Jewish organizations that control so much of our society. He is an enemy if he minimizes it.”
By 2015, the American Renaissance ended up posting articles which amazingly were written by the Southern Poverty Law Center. One article was entitled: “David Duke Again Takes Advantage of Media Airtime to Lie and Mislead.”
History, Morality, and Ideological Visions
In 2004, two years before the Duke/Hart confrontation at the American Renaissance conference, Jewish scholar Yuri Slezkine of the University of California published The Jewish Century with Princeton University Press. Slezkine messed things up by saying at the very beginning of the book that “The Modern Age is the Jewish Age, and the twentieth century, in particular, is the Jewish Century.” “Modernization,” Slezkine added, “is about everyone becoming Jewish.”
So is it intellectually honest for Taylor and Hart to be silent about the Jewish question when “Modernization” is “about everyone becoming Jewish”? Is Taylor even interested in a deep historical analysis of this important topic? The answer is no. As he puts it, “AR is not that place. We cannot afford dissension that distracts us from our goal.” What Taylor ended up saying was that addressing the central issues is a distraction. What is so interesting is that Taylor risibly invokes “morality” to prove his project! Listen to this:
“We may still be a small minority, but we have history, human nature, and morality on our side. Success for us lies in demonstrating that our views are right, healthy and moral—and that liberal-egalitarianism is wrong and immoral; not in trying to ‘unmask’ it as a Jewish conspiracy.”
Has this man read Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals? If yes, then why is he deceiving his followers by giving them a false sense of moral security and comfort? These people keep invoking “morality” while they imbibe a system which fundamentally is at odds with morality. People like Taylor and Kevin MacDonald are Darwinists, and they must know that Darwinism, at its core, denies objective morality.
Here again we are seeing that philosophical, political or intellectual projects rise or fall on morality or on what Kant calls the categorical imperative, which forbids both internal and external contradictions and which must be universally consistent and coherent. You simply cannot discuss the metaphysics of morality without coming face to face with Kant’s metaphysics of morals. Some social psychologists are realizing this, and people like Jonathan Haidt of New York University denounce Kant and the Western intellectual tradition by saying:
“Western philosophy has been worshipping reason and distrusting passion for thousands of years. There’s a direct line running from Plato through Immanuel Kant to Lawrence Kohlberg. I’ll refer to this worshipful attitude…as the rationalist delusion. I call it a delusion because when a group of people make something sacred, the members of the cult lose the ability to think clearly about it. Morality binds and blinds.”
Right here Haidt was already heralding his own intellectual doom because he is implicitly borrowing from Kant himself in order to make his point. Isn’t he basically attempting to universalize his points in his book? Isn’t he trying to persuade readers everywhere that he is right about Western philosophy? If the answer is yes, then he is indirectly proving that Kant is right all along.
If the answer is no, then isn’t Haidt indirectly in bed with a group of people who are attempting to force their ideology upon us all, i.e., that traditional Western philosophers are delusional because they worship reason and distrust passion? If the answer again is no, then who is Haidt to tell us that Western philosophers are delusional because they “worship” reason and distrust passion?
You see, there is no way to universalize Haidt’s fundamental principle, and Darwin’s intellectual children continue to face the same nagging problem. If “The moral domain varies by culture,” as Haidt claims, then why should anyone from another culture take seriously what he is saying? If “moral reasoning is sometimes a post hoc fabrication,” could the statement itself suffer the same “post hoc fabrication”?
Will the Real Jared Taylor Please Stand Up?
Basing his premise on the struggle for existence which he obviously gleans from evolution or Darwin, Taylor writes, “Groups that did not defend territory against intruders were less likely to survive.” So far, so good. But he moves on to quote approvingly a Finnish scholar by the name of Tatu Vanhanen saying, “Our behavioral predisposition to ethnic nepotism evolved in the struggle for existence because it was rational and useful.”
If the statement that behavioral predisposition to ethnic nepotism evolved in the struggle for existence is true, then maybe that explains why Jared Taylor hasn’t said a thing about Israel’s behavior with respect to the Palestinians, particularly when the Israeli army literally liquidated the Palestinians in 1948 and kicked them out of their land. Maybe that explains why Jared Taylor is still silent about the Israeli settlements. If one takes his argument seriously, then no one can say that Israel is doing something wrong because this is part of the “struggle for existence.” Benjamin Netanyahu himself has recently given a lecture at the Dimona nuclear plant during which he declared:
“The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong, for good or for ill, survive. The strong are respected, and alliances are made with the strong, and in the end peace is made with the strong…”
Here again we are confronted with an inescapable conclusion: morality doesn’t have any place in this “struggle for existence.” As Darwin biographers have shown, conquest and extermination were at the center of Darwin’s overarching project. British biographers Adrian Desmond and James R. Moore write:
“‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start—‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society.”
Historian Paul Crook of the University of Queensland has incoherently tried to argue that Darwinism can be used to promote “peace biology,” that is, “a matrix of biological arguments and vocabularies that could be used ideologically to foster peace causes.” Crook agrees that Darwinism “conditioned western attitudes of racial and cultural superiority that translated into imperial and military doctrines…” If that is the case, then people like Crook have to explain to us how they are being intellectually consistent in upholding Darwinism and “peace biology” at the same time. Crook himself admits:
“Later apostles and users of Darwinism—and this includes the school of peace biology—prudently distanced themselves from the harsher implications of natural selection, and ingeniously reworked Darwinian theory to fashion more acceptable and/or progressive epistemes.”
Since Darwin, according to Crook, “freed himself” from a paradigm which cuts off telos from its rightful place in the universe, Darwin had to substitute something else. He therefore began to favor the “astringent concept of natural selection based on chance, struggle and imperfect adaptation.” Thus, it was inevitable that Darwin’s overarching project ended up supporting racism. Crook again agrees:
“From Darwin’s conflict and developmental models of evolution came a number of racist and militaristic extrapolations that justified conquest and repression of subject peoples, that drew up evolutionary ladders which placed at the top of peoples supreme in war and trade, while relegating others to the lower rungs.”
Crook argues that “Darwin raised the alarm, taken up later by eugenists and degenerationists, that advanced societies risked decay because they over-protected the weak and poor, building asylums for the imbecile and sick, keeping alive those with poor constitutions through better medicine and vaccination.”
Ideologically, Darwin was setting the foundation for the eugenic movement, which later had a devastating impact on Europe and America. Yet morally he couldn’t live with his own principle. That’s one reason why he was against slavery. The interesting thing is that Darwin chose to live in contradiction till his dying day. Crook declared that “Sometimes he [Darwin] stressed cultural evolution, at other times he reverted to natural selection.” Darwin wrote to a friend one year before he passed away:
“Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.”
Much of the Darwinian or even neo-Darwinian subculture has deliberately ignored Darwin’s internal contradiction, and Darwin’s intellectual children have made no effort whatsoever to solve that central problem. This is one reason why I couldn’t get anywhere with people like Lasha Darkmoon and even David Duke.
Darwin Crippled his Intellectual Children
Whether Taylor and others like it or not, they are the intellectual children of Charles Darwin, which is to say they are bound to live in intellectual contradiction for the rest of their natural lives. One can say that Immanuel Kant destroys Taylor’s project when Kant says that for an action to be good, “it is not enough that it should conform to the moral law—it must also be done for the sake of the moral law.” Kant obviously ruins the Darwinist hope of reducing human beings into machines or of conflating human behavior with that of animal. Taylor and his Darwinist brethren are guilty of doing exactly that.
As a corollary, this serious topic is detrimental to Taylor’s project. Taylor extensively talks about behavior in the animal kingdom and uses that to draw the conclusion that humans are basically the same. “Higher animals show the same tendencies,” he tells us. “Chimpanzees are our nearest living relatives, and offer hints as to how our distant ancestors may have behaved.” Taylor certainly got this from his intellectual father, Charles Darwin, whose book (the Descent of Man) “broke down the traditional demarcation between humans as persons and animals as things.”
Taylor again doesn’t tell us that animals like ants and bees and lions are not moral agents. When a lion jumps onto a poor deer and slaughters it, do we call that murder? As William Lane Craig rightly puts it,
“When a great white shark forcibly copulates with a female, it forcibly copulates with her but it does not rape her — for there is no moral dimension to these actions. They are neither prohibited nor obligatory.”
Murder and rape only apply to human beings and not animals. Therefore, it is really invalid to compare humans and animals when it comes to moral behavior.
But since Taylor is operating under a system which fundamentally cuts off teleology from its rightful matrix, he has intellectually (and perhaps deliberately) become blind. Darwin, according to Crook, “warned himself not to use terms such as ‘higher’ or ‘lower’, and warned his readers that evolution often led into dead ends.” Obviously Taylor and others haven’t paid heed to what Darwin saw as dead ends.
Moreover, Taylor cannot tell his readers that, according to Darwinism’s fundamental principle, whatever is, is right in the animal kingdom. As Crook again puts it, “Struggle and competition, violence, bloodshed and cruelty were the filtering mechanisms, crude, chancy, wasteful, by which species change and natural progress occurred.”
In other words, according to the Darwinian mechanism, there cannot be “progress” without violence, bloodshed, and struggle. If Darwin is right, then “violence is a constant human potential, war is not aberrant and may even be commended as a biological necessity.” So Darwinists, including Crook, have to do a lot of mental gymnastics in order to avoid Darwin’s fundamental principle.
Taylor doesn’t have the courage to tell us that the Darwinian consensus is that morality, in the words of philosopher of science Michael Ruse, is “flimflam.” Crook agrees that “Darwinism has been widely viewed as one of those potent intellectual forces that helped erode the west’s traditional moral order in the later nineteenth century.” Taylor cites E. O. Wilson of Harvard approvingly throughout his book. Wilson is commonly known as the father of sociobiology. Yet listen to what Wilson has to say on ethics or morality:
“Ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to co-operate. It is without external grounding. Ethics is produced by evolution but not justified by it, because, like Macbeth’s dagger, it serves as a powerful purpose without existing in substance.”
For Wilson and other staunch Darwinists, morality is just a product of sociobiological evolution which has been ingrained in us and which has no serious objectivity. As Ruse again puts it, “Morality is just a matter of emotions, like liking ice cream and sex and hating toothache and marking student papers.” If you think that Ruse is just joking, then think again. He elaborates on these in his work The Darwinian Paradigm:
“Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth . . . . Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love they neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves . . . . Nevertheless such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory . . .”
As we have argued in the past, Darwin saw almost the same thing. He argued in the Descent of Man that “If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters, and no one would think of interfering.”
The Edinburgh Review quickly saw the logical conclusion of Darwin’s point here. It declared then that if Darwin is right, then:
“most earnest-minded men will be compelled to give up these motives by which they have attempted to live noble and virtuous lives, as founded on a mistake; our moral sense will turn out to be a mere developed instinct…If these views to be true, a revolution in thought is imminent, which will shake society to its very foundations by destroying the sanctity of the conscience…”
Science writer Robert Wright agrees that Darwin’s Descent of Man “has indeed sapped the moral strength of Western civilization” and replaced it with something else.
“Sympathy, empathy, compassion, conscience, guilt, remorse, even the very sense of justice, the sense of doers of good deserve reward and doers of bad deserve punishment—all these can now be viewed as vestiges of organic history on a particular planet. What’s more, we can’t take solace, as Darwin did, in the mistaken belief that that these things evolved for the greater good—the ‘good of the group.’ Our ethereal intuitions about what’s right and what’s wrong are weapons designed for daily, hand-to-hand combat among individuals. It isn’t only moral feelings that now fall under suspicion, but all of moral discourse.”
If that is the case, then why in the world is Taylor invoking “morality” to prove his ideological project? Why is he deceiving his readers and followers? Why can’t these people start thinking about the fundamental principles that undergird their own ideology? The issue gets very interesting because a number of evolutionary biologists and psychologists have argued that rape has a biological base!
If rape is biological and that morality is just a figment of our imagination, then why are people like Taylor writing articles and books writhing and moaning about sexual crimes? If Taylor is unprepared to tread on that dangerous path, then why is he trying to have it both ways?
What Nationalist Groups?
This brings us to an essential question: is it possible that white nationalist groups are themselves “becoming Jewish”? “Nick Griffin has been credited with trying to root out antisemitism from the British National Party, which he leads.” It gets even more interesting because Taylor criticized the Iraq war but he never once mentioned that the war itself was essentially a Neoconservative agenda, which we all know is an essentially Jewish project. Flaming Zionist Thomas Friedman of the New York Times told Haaretz in 2003 that the plan for war in Iraq
“was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Elliott Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history. They believe that the right political idea entails a fusion of morality and force, human rights and grit. The philosophical underpinnings of the Washington neoconservatives are the writings of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Edmund Burke.”
White Nationalism and Israel
We have argued in the past that some white nationalist groups are inexorably articulating the Zionist or Israeli narrative. For example, Richard Spencer declared at the end of last month: “I have great admiration for Israel’s nation-state law. Jews are, once again, at the vanguard, rethinking politics and sovereignty for the future, showing a path forward for Europeans.”
Spencer could have hatched that idea from Jared Taylor himself, who said back in 2012 when Israelis were deporting Africans: “We congratulate the Israelis on their vigorous measures to maintain the nation’s character, and look forward to the day when our country can do the same.” Taylor concluded:
“The Israeli version of Operation Wetback is an unqualifiedly good thing for all racially conscious whites. We should support it, publicize it, and demand that our own governments act in the same manner. In this respect, Israel really can be, as it is written in the Book of Isaiah, ‘a light unto the nations.’”
Israel, in other words, is a perfect example “for all racially conscious whites.” It doesn’t matter whether the country liquidated the Palestinians in 1948 in order to get where it is at this present moment. It doesn’t matter whether Israel has a history of assassinating perceived enemies. It doesn’t matter whether Israeli historians like Benny Morris themselves admit that Israel specifically wiped out the indigenous population. Let us cite again Morris in this regard:
“A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.”
Ethnic cleansing has been Israel’s bloody history, and reputable Israeli historians have written extensively on this very issue. This ethnic cleansing continues to this very day. The Israeli settlements are classic examples. Ze’ev Maoz of the University of California, formerly of Tel-Aviv University, notes in Defending the Holy Land:
“Israel has violated the spirit and text of the Oslo Accords by fundamentally changing the status quo through a widespread settlement policy… in 1993 there were about 110,000 settlers in the occupied territories. In 2001 there were 195,000 (Note that the number of settlers increased by 18 percent during the Al Aqsa Intifada). This was an increase of 73 percent under the guise of an agreement wherein Israel committed itself not to change the territorial status quo.”
According to Maoz, the settlements were a stumbling block to peace in the Middle East. In fact, “the settlement policy was self-defeating…By building new settlements and authorizing new construction in the existing ones, the Israeli government effectively engaged in a self-defeating process that would tie their hands in the final status agreements.”
How do white nationalists like Taylor and even Hart deal with these incontrovertible facts? Do they write articles condemning the Israelis for violating the Oslo Accords? Do they appeal to the moral law to challenge Israel? Of course not.
What should be striking to any observer is that Israel, the Neoconservative movement, and Jewish organizations like AIPAC have led America to a suicidal path in the Middle, and now we are being told by Taylor and others that Israel should be a model “for all racially conscious whites” without even challenging the central core of Israel’s diabolical conquest in the Middle East. Taylor hasn’t provided even a microscopic level of criticism of Israel.
Moreover, ancient and modern historians and scholars have much to say about the Jewish question. For example, in Poland during the 1600s, scholarship for the Jews was primarily drawn from two main currents: the Talmud and rabbinical literature. The led them to cheat the system. As Heinrich Graetz, one of the fathers of Jewish historiography, put it:
“A love of twisting, distorting, ingenious quibbling, and a foregone antipathy to what did not lie within their field of vision, constituted the character of the Polish Jews. Prided in their knowledge of the Talmud and a spirit of dogmatism attached even to the best rabbis, and undermined their moral sense…Integrity and right-mindedness they had lost as completely as simplicity and the sense of truth.
“The vulgar acquired the quibbling method of the schools, and employed it to outwit the less cunning. They found pleasure and a sort of triumphant delight in deception and cheating against members of their own race cunning could not well be employed, because they were sharp-witted; but the non-Jewish world with which they came into contact experienced to its disadvantage the superiority of the Talmudical spirit of the Polish Jews.
This of course energized the anti-Jewish spirit among the Poles, for they knew that they were being cheated. This quickly led to an insurrection among the gentiles, who in 1638 “slew 200 Jews, and destroyed several synagogues.” Ten years later, Jews clung to the book of Zohar for Messianic revolution, and this again caused “bloody retribution,” during which both innocent and guilty Jews were slain. Because of this, both Jews and gentiles died by the thousands in the same year.
Within the next three years, anti-Jewish resistance led again to a bloody war that took the lives of thousands of Jews, and many moved to other places like the Netherlands where they were received amicably. Others moved to such places as Bohemia, Austria, Italy, and Hungary. Wherever they went, however, they took the study of the Talmud with them, with almost the exact attitudes towards gentiles and their spirit of superiority.
Graetz writes that “Far from giving up their own method in a foreign country, they demanded that all the world should be regulated by them, and they gained their point.” Moving on the Civil War era in the United States, Ulysses S. Grant charged that “The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department order, are hereby expelled from the department [of the Tennessee] within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.”
These are not isolated cases. If we peel the historical onion, it becomes evidently clear that one of the main causes of conflict in the West is what E. Michael Jones has aptly called “the Jewish revolutionary spirit.” To deliberately ignore or dismiss this body of historical scholarship is to be living in a fantasy world. And this is the world in which Jared Taylor and his devoted followers have chosen to be living.
In any event, Michael Hart, who actually believes the lie that the Nazis used Jewish bodies “for the manufacture of soap” and who incoherently articulates the view that Hitler’s “reputation as the most evil person in history is uncontested,” is not interested in any truth that will hurt his feelings. The irony again is that Hart is the guy who was proposing that the United States be divided into four states: “a black state, a white state, an Hispanic state, and an integrated/mixed-race state.”
In short, people like Jared Taylor are very much interested in what E. Michael Jones has aptly called “uptown racism.” As Jones put it:
“John Sharpe is being demonized by the character assassins at the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-Semite because he attended an American Renaissance conference. Yet, if we log on to the SPLC website and type American Renaissance into their search engine, we find that the SPLC has good things to say about that racist organization.
“In fact, a quick search of the SPLC web site informs us that AR president Jared Taylor is ‘an opponent of anti-Semitism.’ Shawn Mercer, the man in charge of the American Renaissance’s web discussion group, we are told, ‘deletes most postings excoriating the Jews.’ This only confirms what we have learned from other sources.
“In an obit on Sam Francis which appeared in the American Conservative, we were told that Jared Taylor wanted to do for white nationalism what William F. Buckley did for conservatism. And what is that? Well, to subvert it in the interests of the Jews.
“One of the entries at the SPLC site claims that ‘It is well-known that the American Renaissance does not allow anti-Semitism; it is uptown, 100% clean WN [white nationalism]. Call it a first step if you like, but it is a very important first step, and Jared Taylor has had success.’ Success in what? The dirty secret of ‘uptown’ racism is that it offers cover to revolutionaries by claiming that Jews are white… the real armature of the culture wars is ethnic not racial. The American Renaissance is the white man’s version of the NAACP, which is to say, one more organization which manipulates the race issue in the interests of the revolutionary Jews.
“The main purpose of the American Renaissance is to convince deracinated Protestants that Jews are white, and, therefore, no threat to their interests. In obscuring the problem by playing the race card, the American Renaissance engages in cultural mystification every bit as much as the NAACP and the Black Panthers, two Jewish-run operations, did before them.
“In obscuring the real nature of the culture wars, white nationalism becomes a form of political control and a worthy successor to the Jewish-led black operation known as conservatism. No wonder the race crowd was upset with my talk….
“So what I said in my talk about the Jewish subversion of the civil rights movement and the Jewish attempt to turn the Negro into the revolutionary vanguard in the United States is a fortiori true of white racism. The SPLC supports ‘uptown’ racism of the American Renaissance variety, because the SPLC, like the NAACP before it, is an essentially Jewish organization.
“Supporting ‘uptown’ racism absolves the revolutionary Jew of any responsibility in the culture wars by giving them the cover of being ‘white,’ and once they are certified as white, they are certified as ‘good’ because of their DNA. How any one can believe this mumbo jumbo is beyond me. If you want a more detailed explanation, I suggest that you contact Jared Taylor.”
Jones nailed it. Jared Taylor, like Richard Spencer, is trapped in a topsy-turvy world, and this world represents the intellectual and philosophical death of the American Renaissance. Taylor is not intellectually prepared to follow his own ideological foundation to its bitter end, so he deludes his naive followers that he stands on moral grounds. But we all know by now that Taylor’s moral feet are firmly planted in midair. That is why his claims are morally and philosophically tasteless and worthless. Perhaps he needs to thank God that he never met people like Kant.