Alex wondered a while back why inoffensive canard is so often abused by Jewish organizations.

I think M. Canard's sin is his ambiguity.

A canard can be either false or misleading. If I say "X is a canard," I could mean that X is false, but I could also mean that X is a red herring, an irrelevant fact that confuses an issue. An untruth and a misleading truth are of course significantly different meanings, and a canard can be either. Canard is therefore a useful word for anyone who wants to be vague.

Jews seldom (if ever) call the charge that their ancestors practiced ritual murder a canard. It is instead the "blood libel," because they're confident that it's false. I'm not sure that they're correct, but on this issue I don't doubt their sincerity. They therefore openly declare it untrue, a libel. They're speaking (or think they're speaking) from a position of strength. Jews similarly don't call the Protocols a "canard," but instead a "notorious forgery," as in fact it is.

In the language of Jewish organizations -- amidst all the outbreaks of virulent anti-Semitism and the formulaic outrage at racists spewing hatred -- canard holds a special place as a term denoting an obvious truth that Jews really wish we would never think about. Hence "the canard of Jewish media dominance" or "the canard of Jewish dual loyalty." In each case it sounds as if the canard in question is false, though in fact both these canards are undoubtedly true. And in both cases it is crucial, from a Jewish perspective, that non-Jews never start analyzing the importance of these truths/canards.

Even the average Freeper can easily grasp that if Jews dominate the mass media, then Jews exert a powerful influence on the political process, and if Jews have (speaking generously) dual loyalties, then Jews in the media will exploit their power for their own racial interests. Once the facts of Jewish media power and Jewish loyalties are acknowledged, the practical effects will become apparent to anyone smart enough to read a newspaper.

Jewish media power is therefore not called a "libel" but a "canard" -- a fact that might confuse impressionable goyim, a truth that Jews hope we'll ignore, because widespread recognition of it would threaten their power.

No doubt there are exceptions, but as a general rule a canard is more dangerous to Jews than a libel or even a new outbreak of virulent anti-Semitism. Whenever the ADL calls X a canard, there's a strong likelihood that X is extremely important.

Quote from the right-wing Jewish Task Force:

If the Democrats nominate the self-hating Jew Joseph Lieberman, or the self-hating "half-Jew" John Kerry (whose father was Jewish), or Howard Dean (whose wife is a self-hating Jew), or the self-hating "half-Jew" Wesley Clark (whose father was Jewish), we will have no choice but to support Bush. Placing evil, self-hating Judenrat Jews in control of the United States will bring unprecedented catastrophe to both America and Israel. America is a Christian nation, and its political leaders should be Christians. The Jews do not belong in America. G-d gave the Jewish people a beautiful and magnificent nation in the Land of Israel. Any Jew who lives outside of Israel is committing an atrocious sin.

In other words, talk of a voluntary mass exodus of Jews to Israel is little more than a rhetorical gesture, even among far-right Zionists.

--Irmin

Israel's Grand Design
http://www.rense.com/general35/si.htm

The preceding article, originally published in a 1968 issue of The American Mercury, is probably a bit hyperbolic and exaggerates the extent of Israel's territorial ambitions; but it is significant by way of contrast to current conservative discourse on the mainstream Right, where such critical discussions of Jewish power are prohibited.

Until today I had only heard of the post-Mencken American Mercury from William F. Buckley's self-laudatory tales about his "cleansing" of the conservative movement of its "anti-Semitism" and "nativism," especially as recounted in his NR essay "In Search of Anti-Semitism." Buckley, so his story runs, invented modern conservatism by exiling crackpot anti-Semites from the mainstream Right. No one who wrote for American Mercury could write for NR, a policy that was intended to marginalize all critics of the Jews. If you believed, for example, that support for Israel was injurious to American interests, as it very clearly was and still is, you either had to shut up or accept your new role on the political fringes, where paychecks are small or nonexistent.

And that's what happened. The mainstream Right could no longer talk about Jews, and it doesn't talk about Jews today, other than to celebrate their various remarkable achievements. Buckley was successful, and by definition a mainstream conservative must be a philo-Semite who loves Israel.

In other words, the URL above represents the kind of material that would have appeared in mainstream conservative publications, if not for Buckley's decision about a decade earlier to declare it unprintable.

As a result today, the obvious fact that neoconservative Jews campaigned for a war against Iraq in order to serve their own racial interests is unspeakable by anyone who hopes to retain his mainstream credentials. You can only read about it on the fringes, where its political influence is minimal at best. [Image: An Iraqi father removes his daughter's body from the rubble of Basra.]

Conservatives are now victorious, but their victories mean nothing. They can't defend American borders; they can't end affirmative action; they can't stop the normalization of homosexuality; they can't reduce the size of government; they preside over a popular culture that their predecessors would have found appalling. Etc, etc.

But they can win wars for Israel, while spouting lies about their motives so transparently false that only a cretin would believe them. That's the real extent of Buckley's achievement -- a series of political "victories" that are far worse than defeats.

--Irmin

Very good article by an Israeli journalist on Jewish neocon power, too long to quote in full: The easier the victory, the harder the peace. Here's a telling admission: "America controls the world, we control America. Never before have Jews exerted such an immense influence on the center of world power."

That's a great quote, worth spreading far and wide. But it's a great quote only because a prominent Jewish journalist said it.

VNN linked to a hit-piece on David Duke a few days ago, where Duke's various expressions of exactly the same idea were cited as evidence of his hateful promotion of bizarre conspiracy theories.

I, on the other hand, have just conclusively proven that Duke's beliefs about Jewish power aren't hateful and bizarre, because I've cited evidence that a Jew agrees with him. We can call this strange brand of illogic the "a-Jew-said-it-too proof," whereby we demonstrate the facts of Jewish power and Jewish misbehavior by discovering quotes from Jews saying the same thing as anti-Semites.

Zundel was forced to use the a-Jew-said-it-too defense during one of his kangaroo-court sessions in Canada. His lawyer quoted passages from Finkelstein's Holocaust Industry in order to demonstrate that Zundel's opinions about Jewish Holocaust extortion should be legal as well, since a Jewish writer had said much the same thing, and (so runs the unstated but unmistakable premise) since a Jew had said it, it should also be permissible for a White Gentile. The transcript of this degrading episode is somewhere on the IHR site.

Still, for the present, we're all probably stuck with the a-Jew-said-it-too proof, until Whites start thinking seriously about the world.

On AIPAC and Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (from Ha'aretz, April 8, 2003): AIPAC and the Iraqi opposition.

"The Jewish groups maintain quiet contacts with nearly every Iraqi opposition group, and in the past have even met with the most prominent opposition leader, Ahmed Chalabi. The main objective was an exchange of information, but there was also an attempt to persuade the Iraqis of the need for good relations with Israel and with world Jewry."

Chalabi, favored by the Perle/Wolfowitz cabal to lead their new Arab client state, is wanted for embezzlement in Jordan. If I remember correctly, he absconded with about $70 million. In other words, Jewish neoconservatives are hoping to install an actual criminal as the next leader of Iraq.

--Irmin

It's wrong for everyone here to turn Rachel Corrie into some sort of White heroine. She was an anti-racialist crusader, and in her last e-mail she even alluded to her white skin privilege, the power that whiteness allegedly confers in a "racist" society such as our own. She was no different from Amy Biehl. In 1992, when Amy Biehl was killed by the Blacks she was helping to liberate, the best place to fight "racism" was South Africa; today it is Israel.

That in itself is a positive development: Jews are losing their political control over "anti-racism," and we should all be glad to see it. A Jew who now hears someone agitating against "racism" has good reason to fear that the complaints may very well be turned against unapproved targets, such as Israel and American Zionists. [Image: Third World delegates denounce Zionism at the 2001 UN Anti-Racism Conference in Durban, South Africa.]

I admire anyone who is true to his or her principles, even if I don't share them, and no doubt Rachel (like Amy) was genuinely committed to fighting "racism." But let's not delude ourselves into thinking her principles were ours. Anti-Zionism on the Left is a form of anti-racialism, and that's why Rachel was in Israel.

Lying in front of a bulldozer is a risky form of political protest. It presupposes -- really trespasses on -- the goodness of the people you're protesting against, which in this case obviously turned out to be a fatal mistake, since the operator wasn't an American "racist" but rather an Israeli Jew.

A thorough and well-documented discussion of the Zionist motives behind the war:

The War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel. Also available as a single file at sf.indymedia.org/.

By now all of this has become little more than a poorly kept secret:

"After the war in Iraq, Israel will try to convince the U.S. to direct its war on terror at Iran, Damascus and Beirut. Senior defense establishment officials say that initial contacts in this direction have already been made in recent months, and that there is a good chance that America will be swayed by the Israeli argument." Quoted from Ha'aretz in Raimundo's Iraqi Pandora.

--Irmin

Ed. Note: The point about Corrie is that she was an American citizen who was murdered by the jews of Israel. Not killed, murdered. And not one jew media organization has reported the name of the murderer. Her political beliefs are immaterial: the point is that she was deliberately murdered by the race that controls our media and government. It is completely wrong to advise Whites not to use her murder to illustrate the truth that jewish interests and American interests are diametrically opposed. These jews suck 20 to 30 to 50 to 100 million dollars a day from white Americans just like Corrie, and they can't even be bothered to round up our people, just crush them into the earth like they were nothing. They are using us. And Corrie's attractive face and horrible death perfectly embody our White point.

Tim K wrote:

Rachel Corrie went to help the Pals fighting Jewish Zionist oppression. The other girl [Amy Biehl] went to help schwarters under poor conditions. The girl who went to SA may have opposed apartheid but her particular mission was not political as Rachel Corrie's expressly was.

On Biehl see:

Dr. Pierce's Lesson of Amy Biehl
My own White Liberal on the Dark Continent

In a recent broadcast the Jewish Task Force, a right-wing Kahanist group, described Corrie as a Jewess, and they're usually good at identifying their fellow Jews. Reading between the lines, I would tentatively guess that she was half-Jewish, with an assimilated Jewish mother and a Gentile father. But I may be completely wrong, and her ancestry doesn't really matter.

However, many of the protesters lying in front of bulldozers on the West Bank are left-wing Jews. If you want to claim them as fellow warriors against Zionism and the Eternal Enemy of Mankind, that's your prerogative. Some leftists and even a few leftist Jews are, to give them credit, principled: They oppose "racism" in the United States, and they also oppose "racism" in Israel.

We can admire anyone who consistently acts upon his or her political ideals, but we shouldn't say that Rachel's ideals were our own. She would have been disgusted by the suggestion.

In the 1990s, when Biehl was killed, the best place to fight "racism" was South Africa, because there it was most overt, owing to the unwillingness of White South Africans to subject themselves to Black majority rule. Today it is Israel. If you really want to take a stand against racial injustice, Israel is the place to be. There is, unfortunately, very little "racism" in the United States, so American anti-racists like Rachel have to head off elsewhere. It's no fun protesting "systemic racism" or the shameful shortage of Black physicists at Harvard, and such protests would provide no opportunity for dramatic gestures, like lying in front of bulldozers.

I'm sorry that Rachel was flattened by a bulldozer. But I'm much more sorry that, for example, over half of the rapes in Holland are perpetrated by recent Muslim immigrants. Any attempt to stem the flood of unassimilable non-White criminals into our Western nations will be met by outraged protests by leftist Rachel Corries, and in fact one of Rachel's anti-racist soulmates assassinated the only Dutch politician who proposed doing anything about it. Anti-racism is an even greater problem than Jews, because it turns us against ourselves. If we were (miraculously) to start deporting illegal aliens back to Mexico, you can be certain that more than a few Rachel Corries would be lying in front of the buses hauling them out.

We should complain about the Jewish state because American taxpayers are compelled to fund it, and (above all) because the same Diaspora Jews who demand a racialist state for their fellow Jews in Israel hypocritically campaign to inflict the exact opposite on their various host populations, all the while decrying any opposition to their schemes as the worst form of bigotry. Otherwise Jews should be entitled to their own country, within its legal (pre-1967) borders.

The only reasonable racialist lesson from Corrie's death is that Israeli Jews are willing to kill in order to retain West Bank land that no one in the world, not even the philo-Zionist American government, believes is legally theirs. Everything else is -- with due respect to her fans -- either pardonable ignorance or cynical posturing.

We should all hope that as many anti-racists as possible soon make a pilgrimage to Israel, if only because it's enjoyable to see poetic justice in action. Jews never expected that anti-racism would eventually be turned against themselves. They thought it could only punish us, and they were mistaken.

--Irmin

Thanks to Prometheus for an informative essay [now archived here]. It helps answer a question I've often wondered about: the bizarre religious/tribal beliefs of orthodox Jews. Comparative stupidity provides at least a partial answer.

The high rate of Jewish intermarriage, which is undoubtedly a genuine phenomenon, also poses some interesting issues for White nationalism.

If you're a racial purist, the problem is simple: Jews are contaminating the White gene pool, and by definition a racialist opposes miscegenation. Intermarriage is therefore irredeemably bad.

But if you interpret Jewishness, as I do, principally as a hostile group orientation toward the White majority, expressing itself either as sheer hatred or (much worse) as subversive reforming/deforming activity, then intermarriage becomes more complicated.

Can Gwyneth Paltrow, with (I believe) only a Jewish grandfather, meaningfully be called a Jewess? Or is she simply a normal White American with some culturally immaterial Jewish ancestry? I'd say the latter. She doesn't, as far as I know, behave as a Jew in any political sense. And she certainly doesn't look Jewish. Religious Jews, as well as the Israeli Law of Return, would define her as a Gentile. Even NS Germany accepted some quasi-Jews into the German nation. (If Paltrow turns out to be a poor example, substitute Raimundo.)

The process of Diaspora Jews gradually merging themselves into us through assimilation and intermarriage would, however, be quickly halted by a large White nationalist movement, at least if it were vocally anti-Jewish. Jewish intermarriage, as many perceptive Jews have acknowledged, is occurring in the absence of meaningful levels of anti-Semitism. The American mainstream is thoroughly permeable to Jews, and that has been the case for at least forty years. One result is Jewish intermarriage, which can only occur because most Euro-Americans regard Jewishness as culturally insignificant. (Since organized Jewry is organized lying, the scarcity of anti-Semitism hasn't inhibited Jewish organizations from regularly proclaiming the contrary.)

In the face of any substantial White nationalist movement, Jews without strong Jewish identification, and thus prone to intermarriage, would rediscover their Jewishness. Most of us probably grew up thinking of our whiteness as culturally and politically irrelevant, but multiculturalism, globalism, affirmative action etc. subsequently changed our minds. We now know that we must explicitly identify ourselves as White if we hope to resist the forces that are steadily destroying us. A large anti-Jewish movement would do the same for assimilating Jews. Their Jewishness would subjectively become more important, and they would stop intermarrying.

So if Jewish intermarriage is in fact good for us and bad for Jewry, then a plausible case could be made that we should stop criticizing Jews. If there is more opposition to Jewish power ("anti-Semitism"), there will be less intermarriage and less assimilation, and thus a greater number of racially conscious Jews. A significant White nationalist movement would, paradoxically, prevent the dumbing down that Prometheus described and increase the proportion of smart secular Jews.

Yet at this very historical moment Jewish power is at its most destructive, witness (for example) American Middle East policy and the open calls for our racial/cultural annihilation by tenured Jews like Noel Ignatiev. Destructive Jewish group power and increasing Jewish group dissolution evidently can coexist.

I'd therefore argue that the phenomenon of self-exterminating Jews is sociologically interesting but politically irrelevant. A real White nationalist movement, which must identify the major source of the forces it combats, cannot ignore destructive Jewish power, even at the perhaps inevitable cost of strengthening Jewish group identification.

--Irmin

Most Americans understood next to nothing about Yugoslavia at the time of the Clinton-Blair bombing campaign, and they know even less now, years after Balkan news dropped from the headlines. The Kosovo intervention can therefore be regularly cited as a globalist success story, solid proof that American arms can make the world safer for democracy and human rights.

The ethnic cleansing of the Serbs from Kosovo was entirely predictable, and because it was so predictable, there cannot be any real doubt that Madeleine Albright intended it. For decades the Kosovo Albanians had been gradually ejecting Serbs from the heartland of their nation, and by becoming the Albanian air force in the Kosovo civil war, NATO simply accelerated the process, leaving the Serbs largely defenseless.

Jews were the main agitators for NATO's bombing campaign, since in Jewish eyes any white ethnic nationalism represents an enemy.

--Irmin

Tim K wrote:

If there are JRR Tolkien lovers out there, and want a consideration of him from our angle, here is a good essay at that website.

In the late 1930s a German publisher wanted to bring out a German edition of The Hobbit and wrote asking whether Tolkien was an Aryan and hence publishable in Germany. Tolkien replied that the publisher was really asking if he was a Jew, and although the answer was no, he regarded the suspicion that he might be Jewish as a compliment, since Jews are such a talented people. He also thought that Hitler was destroying the Nordic spirit.

Six decades later, there can be no doubt that all of Tolkien's fiction is deeply racialist, and there was some spluttering to that effect in the liberal British press after the LOTR films came out. The normal, apolitical assumptions about race and culture of an anti-nazi conservative in the 1930s have become racial thought-crimes in the intervening years, so that today the non-PC elements in Tolkien's fiction jump off almost every page.

There's a nice VNN promo that makes a similar point: "We're all nazis now." It would be hard (and likely impossible) to find a single major Western thinker or writer who wouldn't, in the current climate, be judged a dangerous hater and a subject for SPLC reports. Jefferson is the obvious example, but even Karl Marx would not have approved of multiracialism.

--Irmin

martin <xxx@my-deja.com> wrote:

How would you feel if you heard that the Japanese were going to be a minority in Japan in 100 years time? I would be rather upset. Japanese culture and traditions are interesting and important, they represent a unique way of experiencing the world, and they would be unlikely to be perpetuated by non-Japanese immigrants. I would hate to think that their special contribution to humanity should be lost forever, with its artefacts merely consigned to museums.

Many on the political Left have, to their credit, opposed the Chinese government's policy of importing ethnic Chinese into Tibet in order to eradicate Tibetan nationalism: "A massive influx of Chinese colonists into Tibet is overwhelming the indigenous population. The best estimates indicate that there are 7.5 million Chinese to 6 million Tibetans living in Tibet today."

Critics of the Chinese occupation of Tibet often describe this demographic assault on the Tibetan nation as an act of "cultural genocide" -- an attempt to destroy a distinct people, with a long and unique cultural history, by importing a different people into their homeland.

Prior to 1959 Tibet was an ethnically homogenous theocracy; it has now (in the language of multiculturalism) been "enriched," as the result of an immigration policy, by much greater ethnic "diversity" -- so much diversity, in fact, that Tibetans are now a minority in Tibet.

The multiracialist Left, if it were consistent, should be complimenting the Communists in Peking for their enlightened anti-nationalism. They've already accomplished in Tibet exactly the same demographic transformation that multiracialists propose for the majority-White Western democracies.

But, of course, somehow it's different when the targets of demographic assault are non-White. Only White nation-states are in desperate need of racial "diversity"; in all other cases, a policy of supplanting one people by other peoples is called by its real name.

--Irmin

A Paris appeals court has upheld the conviction of Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of France's pro-White National Front, for warning of the danger of further Muslim immigration into his nation. There are now, according to conservative estimates, five million Muslims in France, and Le Pen, in an interview that appeared in Le Monde, warned his countrymen to beware "the day in France when we have twenty-five million Muslims, not five million." That comment, the appeals court confirmed, was an incitement to "racial hatred," and Le Pen has been fined $13,260. Bizarre judicial decisions of this sort are increasingly common throughout Europe. They are the intended consequence of so-called hate-speech laws, which prohibit Whites from speaking critically of Third World immigration.

Large sections of many French cities are now dominated by North African criminals and have become no-go areas for Whites, who are perceived as racial enemies by France's burgeoning Muslim population. The burning of cars for entertainment is a common pastime. France also has a strong Muslim fundamentalist movement and has suffered savage acts of Islamist terror on its soil. No reasonable person would want to see a five-fold increase in France's Muslim population, but under a regime of hate-speech regulation rational objections to a clearly destructive immigration policy have been criminalized. Le Pen's conviction is one proof, among many, that liberty and multiracial demographics are incompatible. [Image: Less than a year after the appeals court upheld Le Pen's conviction, Muslim rioters set much of France ablaze. A post-insurrection account of the National Front's electoral prospects is here.]

--Irmin

About a year ago National Vanguard reported on an ADL program of diversity training that targeted young White children, ages three to five. In their latest attack on White racial cohesion the ADL have gone a step further: There is now ADL diversity training for babies.

In a pilot project in Florida, which the ADL plan eventually to implement elsewhere, an ADL-authored picture book filled with non-White faces is given to new parents on the day their children are born. By viewing these examples of racial diversity, White babies will, the program's advocates believe, learn tolerance of racial differences before any preference for their own kind can corrupt them. "If we could reach children before they developed biases and prejudices, while they were still young, then we're ahead of the game," says the ADL's Frances Tropp. The intent of this ambitious exercise in diversity education is obvious. It is to teach White children, from the earliest age possible, that multiracialism is their destiny, an inevitable part of the texture of modern life rather than a matter of political or personal choice. The ultimate target is racial feeling among Whites, which activist Jews aim to extirpate in the cradle. Most Jews believe that weakening us strengthens them.

It is unlikely that the educational practice of acclimatizing White infants to non-White faces will have the destructive effect the ADL hope for. But although this brand of diversity training may seem innocuous, we should take note of the underlying idea, which is genuinely sinister. Even newborns, according to the ADL, require training in racial diversity. Whites are so infected with "racism" that anti-racialist programs directed against us should literally begin at birth. It would be wrong to label this idea Stalinist, but only because Stalin lacked the totalitarian imagination to contemplate a regimen of cradle-to-grave indoctrination. The Jewish campaign against Euro-Americans is indeed breaking new ground.

It is a campaign that Jews are morally unqualified to conduct. In the new preface to his Culture of Critique Kevin MacDonald summarizes, as evidence that the hyper-ethnocentrism of the Jews may be biologically based, some illuminating studies of stranger anxiety among infants. "Individualist European cultures," Prof. MacDonald writes, "tend to be more open to strangers than collectivist cultures such as Judaism. In this regard, it is interesting that developmental psychologists have found unusually intense fear reactions among Israeli infants in response to strangers, while the opposite pattern is found for infants from North Germany. The Israeli infants were much more likely to become 'inconsolably upset' in reaction to strangers, whereas the North German infants had relatively minor reactions to strangers. The Israeli babies therefore tended to have an unusual degree of stranger anxiety, while the North German babies were the opposite -- findings that fit with the hypothesis that Europeans and Jews are on opposite ends of scales of xenophobia and ethnocentrism." This marked stranger anxiety among Jewish babies is consistent with the findings of academic studies of adult ethnocentrism. Jews rank highest in ethnocentrism and Whites lowest, with other racial groups clustered in the middle. If ethnocentrism is a sin, then we are the least guilty of it, and if our Jewish instructors took their professed principles seriously, they would be crafting programs to reduce the uniquely high levels of xenophobia and group solidarity within their own community.

Jewish organizations will never undertake that task, because they are acutely aware that ethnocentrism is a source of group strength and the lack of ethnocentrism a source of group weakness. In a multiracial society the group with the least developed sense of racial solidarity -- namely us -- has the least power. We have a latent power in our numbers, a power that Jews fear, but no real power in our political behavior. Low levels of White ethnocentrism translate concretely into open borders and state-mandated programs of anti-White discrimination. Whites have, at this moment in history, lost the political will to act altruistically on behalf of our race, so we allow such assaults against us to continue, and Jewish organizations work diligently to ensure that our racial passivity persists. A group that acts in its own interests is more powerful than a group that doesn't, and Jews want to ensure that we remain weak while they remain strong. That is the real purpose of the ADL's latest effort in anti-White diversity training.

Return to Main Index

Return to Racialist Texts