Can Jews Switch Sides?
In a post entitled "Yggdrasil Can't answer Bowery's Questions" Frey's Friend (anonymously) poses a fundamental question of concern to all white nationalists:
"Yggdrasil makes an _implicit_ assumption that the interest of European-Americans and those of Northern European ancestry are the same. In previous posts, Yggdrasil has stated that Jews should be welcomed as citizens in a "Euro-American" state. Yggdrasil has never to the best of my knowledge stated clear, intelligible reasons on why this _should_ be the case-he just assumes that _it should be_.
"[Who] are the folks who have benefitted most from the political and economic shifts in the last 60 years? Why should those ethnicities that have benefitted _as an ethnicity_ be allowed to switch sides at the last minute and still get all the benefits of changes in policy that are likely to occur?"
One of the gravest dangers of scapegoating is that, when the balloon finally goes up, and the battle is joined, your most dangerous enemies are to your rear.
Bowery and friends need a simple history lesson.
If you attempt to construct a list of influential liberals most responsible for the liberal integrationist mess that exists here in the United States today, such a list will be dominated by names such as Earl Warren, Lyndon Johnson, Hugo Black, William O. Douglas and Hubert Humphrey. The list will be full of family names such as Rockefeller, Dodd, and Percy. The academic and foundation elites they hired would include names such as John Gardner, Milton Eisenhower and Derek Bok.
The point is that while organized Jewish groups may have provided the primary impetus and energy behind creation of the modern integrationist empire, it was created with the active participation of many Euro-Americans who should have known better and with the passive acceptance by Euro-Americans in general. Indeed, as an ethnic group, Jews may have benefitted most, but they did not _create_ the mess all alone.
It was not Jews who decided to plunge the United States into a war resulting in the deaths of 600,000 Anglo-Saxon lives in 1860 and 30 years of economic depression following 1865.
It was not Jews who crafted the League of Nations, the United Nations and all of the other one-world agencies of the twentieth century.
It was not the Jews who decided to craft new ex-post-facto law and apply it to Germans following their defeat in WW-II. Once the decision was made, Jews enthusiastically helped implement these new ex-post-facto laws. But their role was that of subordinate ministers and not prime movers.
Even though Jews disproportionately manned the Hollywood cultural degeneration machine, it was not the Jews who decided to pour untold billions of advertising dollars into that machine to make it grow.
Now in implementing the egalitarian policies and propounding the myths of the multi-racial empire, Jews had a role disproportionate to their numbers in the population.
So then what is the consequence? In cleaning up the multi-cultural mess, do we apply a quota system? Guilty persons are forgiven as long as they are not disproportionate to their ethnic group's share of the population?
Do we allow guilty Anglo-Saxons to switch sides, but expel Jews, guilty or not?
Set aside any considerations of fairness here and focus on the practical. The Puritans (comprised mostly of descendants of the Danish, Saxon, and Jute invaders who settled in Eastern and Northern England circa 800 AD) arrived in North America and defeated the Indians. Shortly thereafter (once it was safe) younger sons of the English gentry (descended mostly from germanic tribes who settled in Southern England circa 400 AD) began to arrive to take advantage of new economic opportunities.
Immediately, these more recent arrivals (mostly Episcopalians) set out to take political power from the descendants of the original Puritan settlers. They fixed upon the witch trials (curious events that sprang up all over Europe, spread to North America, but lasted only a few months) as evidence that these original settlers were unfit to govern and lead the nation.
Much of what passes for 19th century American literature drives home this message. "The Scarlet Letter" is a classic example of an American novel with a political purpose. A wide audience of Anglo-Saxon liberals bought both the novel and its purpose.
"Bigotry" and "intolerance" were code words invented by newly arriving Anglo-Saxons for the purpose of controlling the descendants of earlier Puritan and Celtic (Scotch-Irish) immigrants (many of whom settled in the South). Controlling these lesser "Anglo-Saxons" was a far more important task than maintaining dominance over blacks or Jews.
In fact, one of the major amusements of these Anglo-Saxon liberals was the degradation of the lesser whites by forcing them to submit to minorities of color during the period of Reconstruction and in the quota era (known as the "civil rights" era) that began 100 years later.
Anyone who understood the history of conflict between these different "Anglo Saxon" tribes knew that the Rockefellers, Percys and Dodds had absolutely no interest in a "color-blind" society. Only outright quotas and preferences could disadvantage and enrage the descendants of their age-old tribal enemies, the Puritans and Celts (Scots and Irish), known colloquially as "white trash."
The truth is that Anglo-Saxon white haters are far more dangerous to the survival of Euro-America than are Jewish white haters.
Until we stand up to these Anglo-Saxon liberals and call them to account for the treason they are committing, the rest of the liberals will know that we are dazed, confused and incapable of success.
Further, we will have left our most dangerous enemies free to oppose us, unseen, from the rear.
The equities also seem compelling.
A critical distinction is that the Jews, who played a pivotal role, have the excuse of racial difference. The Anglo-Saxon liberals who played an important but less energetic role in creating this mess had no racial or ethnic excuse whatever. After inhabiting the same island with kindred tribes for nearly 1400 years, they had no individual or personal sense of racial or ethnic difference. But the old tribal differences had evolved into a powerfully destructive set of caste and status perceptions which caused them to gleefully sacrifice the interests of their own kind as a means of reaffirming their "superior" status.
The Jews never pretended to be anything other than a distinct and separate group. While they have attempted to conceal their animus behind the cloak of "tolerance," it is only natural that they should be aggressive towards the majority. Their feelings of aggression are understandable.
Viewed objectively, there is no evidence that the Jews arriving in the late 19th century did anything other than ape the social attitudes of the liberal wasp elites already here. Jews are quick studies. They saw the opportunity to become valuable allies to this firmly entrenched elite and they (naturally) took that opportunity.
Viewed from the perspective of new Jewish immigrants arriving in 1880, it would have been foolish to oppose the ideology of this elite. After all, this elite had just provoked a war more brutal than any in history and slaughtered their own kind with singular ferocity just to protect access to Southern markets and to protect tariffs collected disproportionately from European imports to the South.
These champions of "compassion" and opponents of "bigotry" were very dangerous people indeed.
But over the last 30 years, European-Americans have intermarried to such a degree that most European-Americans younger than age 25 either will not know their European ethnic heritage, or will recite an admixture of some sort. The conflict between different types of Anglo-Saxons that dominated Republican politics as recently as the Taft-Eisenhower struggle in 1952 has disappeared. The "ethnic" Republicans have won. Among these "ethnic" Republicans are the descendants of the original Puritans and Celts, who are so heavily represented within the hated "religious right".
Now whites of Polish, Italian, Irish, German, British and east European descent mix easily and unconsciously. The quotas, crime, illegitimacy, racial aggression and white flight produced by the integrationist welfare state affect them all more or less equally.
To Bowery and to Frey's Friend, I can only state the obvious. Any attempt to create a "northern european" ethnic consciousness within the European-American community is doomed to failure for the simplest of reasons. Very few European-Americans are going to know which side they should take!
Your appeals will be met with blank stares. Such an effort no longer makes sense from the perspective of ethnic reality nor from the perspective of political self-interest.
There is not a single aspect in which the interests of a European -American of Italian ancestry deviates from that of a European- American of German ancestry. A happy consequence is that for the first time, it is very difficult for the liberal manipulators to confuse significant numbers of European-Americans into thinking that they too are "minorities" or "new immigrants" and that they should side with people of color and vote against their own interests.
For the first time in history we have the opportunity to be free from the bondage created by European tribal differences. For the first time in U.S. history the white race is, with the exception of its elites, largely united.
Indeed, as Steven Schrag (a Jew) points out in his book, "The Decline of the WASP," it is hard to identify the old East Coast Anglo-Saxon elite any more. They have disappeared. But all of the mechanisms this elite put in place to disadvantage the descendants of the original Puritan and Celtic settlers now impact more or less uniformly all European-Americans, whether they are Poles, Italians, Englishmen or Cubans.
Our liberal elite will have to be replaced. My guess is that this elite will be replaced with ferocity and violence.
Ferocity in such matters is a sign of sincerity. And nothing will cripple a revolution more quickly than a general perception of softness.
However, like all strategists great and small, when the battle is finally joined, I would prefer to confront the smallest number of enemies possible.
Thus, all sincere conversions before that event are most welcome and will be respected.
To Bowery and to Frey's Friend, I owe thanks for provoking a discussion which is difficult to commence.
But to them, I would urge an end to this curious mix of nostalgia for some bright Northern European past and yearning for a technological rescue into new and more demanding frontiers of the future.
There isn't a frontier anywhere to which manipulators will not repair once it has been made safe and profitable.
We must master the techniques of political self defence here and now, on the battlefield we have before us.
There is no escape. Nor need there be. For it is clear that we can win.
Back to Main Page
(c) 1996 Yggdrasil. All rights reserved. Distribute Freely.