There is on the right of the Alt-Right a group of white nationalists, who I’ll call the browns, who blame all the problems of Europeans, and whites generally, on the Jews. Certainly there’s a lot of blame to go around, but these critics routinely forget to make the distinction between Zionists and Cosmopolitan Jews. I believe this is a big mistake because it lumps our friends in with our enemies.
Israeli border fence with Egypt. This is what ethnic nationalism looks like in practice.
Sometimes I wish critics of the Jews would read a little Jewish history. Specifically they should take a look at the dispute in the Jewish community after publication of the book Der Judenstaat by Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern political Zionism. He argued Jews would always be discriminated against until they founded a Jewish state of their own.
Herzl was witness to mass rallies in Paris following the Dreyfus trial, where many chanted “Death to the Jews!” Herzl came to reject his early ideas regarding Jewish emancipation and assimilation and to believe that the Jews must remove themselves from Europe and create their own state
His appeal in 1896 was by no means universally accepted. Many Reform and Orthodox Jews rejected Zionism’s basic premise of creating a Jewish state in Palestine and having Jews either emigrate to it or, at the very least, view it as “central” to their Jewish identity.
The reason Orthodox Jews rejected Zionism was they felt Israel should be created by Divine intervention. Because it required human effort, they considered Zionism a false messianic movement. Reform Jews, especially in the United States, rejected Zionism for an entirely different reason; because they believed in the principles of the Enlightenment and universal human rights. For example, writing in the Washington Report, Allan C. Brownfeld, notes:
On March 4, 1919 Julius Kahn, a Jewish congressman from San Fransisco, delivered to President Woodrow Wilson a statement endorsed by 299 prominent Jewish Americans denouncing the Zionists for attempting to segregate Jews and reverse the historic trend toward emancipation. It objected to the creation of a distinctly Jewish state in Palestine because such a political entity would be contrary “to the principles of democracy.”
On April 20, 1922, Rabbi David Philipson, testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, rejected the characterization of Palestine “as the national home of the Jewish people.” He insisted that, “No land can be spoken of as the national home of the Jewish people, as Jews are nationals of many lands.”
So, to be clear, Zionists believed that Jews were essentially a racial grouping while Reform Jews believed Jews were a religious community. In truth, both were correct. Because members of Jewish religious communities in Europe married within their group, they became racially distinct from the Europeans they lived amongst. This also made discrimination easier for outsiders because they developed language, dress and racial features that set them apart. They were also, annoyingly to their neighbours, very successful businessmen.
Fast forward to 1948 when the Zionists were successful at creating the state of Israel at much cost in lives and effort. The book Exodus by Leon Uris puts this history in fictional but highly readable form. Two years later, Israel passed the Law of Return, giving Jews anywhere in the world, the right to live in Israel and gain Israeli citizenship. Fifteen years after that, in 1965, the Johnson administration passed the Immigration and Nationality Act, sponsored by Philip Hart, the grandson of Irish immigrants and Emanuel Celler, whose paternal grandparents and maternal grandmother were Jewish. Celler had been a passionate advocate for eliminating the national origin quotas as a basis for immigration restriction since 1924. The 1965 act did exactly that; opening America’s doors to a flood of third world immigrants which has increased ever since.
So we see a profound difference. Jewish nationalists created a Jewish state and told Jews everywhere they could come and live there. Meanwhile in America, a Jewish descendant managed to overthrow the national origins provisions of the immigration act, doing the exact opposite for the United States.
This is the profound, fundamental and total difference between Zionists and what I call Cosmopolitan Jews. Zionists, true Zionists, not only believe in the idea of an ethnic state, they actually live there, in Israel. They walk the walk. Cosmos, on the other hand, believe in globalism, free trade, open borders and universal human rights. They may talk the talk, but they don’t live it. Their form of Jewishness is to deny there is any racial component to being Jewish.
Here is where the problem lies. Because they oppose the idea of the nation state, and especially ethnic nation states, they also oppose any move by white Americans and Canadians to restrict third world immigration. Cosmopolitan Jews like billionaire Georg Soros spend millions trying to discredit ethnic and nationalist parties in Europe and America. He is currently trying to discredit Donald Trump.
To many on the Alt Right, pressure from Jewish owned newspapers, film studios and television networks against Trump is reason enough to tar all Jews with the brush of conspiracy and duplicity. Clearly, I believe this is wrongheaded, politically and morally. To win the gigantic social struggle for white sovereignty we need to be able to distinguish our friends from our enemies. Israelis like Caroline Glick and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are Jewish nationalists who not only agree with white ethnic nationalists, but they put their agreements with people like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Mihály Orbán into practice.
Have a look at what Glick has to say about Soros in a column called “Soros’ Campaign of Global Chaos.”
Then there are Soros’s actions on behalf of illegal immigration. From the US to Europe to Israel, Soros has implemented a worldwide push to use immigration to undermine the national identity and demographic composition of Western democracies. The leaked emails show that his groups have interfered in European elections to get politicians elected who support open border policies for immigrants from the Arab world and to financially and otherwise support journalists who report sympathetically on immigrants.
Soros’s groups are on the ground enabling illegal immigrants to enter the US and Europe. They have sought to influence US Supreme Court rulings on illegal immigration from Mexico. They have worked with Muslim and other groups to demonize Americans and Europeans who oppose open borders.
In Israel as well, Soros opposes government efforts to end the flow of illegal immigration from Africa through the border with Egypt.
The notion at the heart of the push for the legalization of unfettered immigration is that states should not be able to protect their national identities. If it is racist for Greeks to protect their national identity by seeking to block the entrance of millions of Syrians to their territory, then it is racist for Greece – or France, Germany, Hungary, Sweden the US or Poland – to exist.
Of course, this is what we on the Alt-Right say as well, if only we could write as well as Glick. The key is the phrase, “national identity and demographic composition.” That is the exact definition of ethnicity and the ethnic nation state. This is what I mean when I say Zionists are our allies.
The photo at the top of this post shows what ethnic nationalism looks like. Pictures of Mexicans crawling across the U.S. southern border is what universal internationalism looks like. Or to put it another way, Jewish political differences are now reflected in the real world in a way that would have amazed those early debaters in the 19th Century. We need, as Canadians and Americans, to honour Zionists for their foresight and castigate those Cosmopolitans for their failure to grasp the reality that race creates society, not the other way round.
We need, in short, to start criticizing the one group and applauding the other. They’re both Jewish, but they sure as Hell aren’t the same.