|
The "Good" Jew
by Rich Brooks
15 November 2003
This topic has been on my mind for quite some time, but it was only after receiving another email from a VNN reader that I was prompted to write about it. The subject of this email was Paul Newman and the allegation that this famous half-jewish actor was the out-of-wedlock father of "Dune" star Alec Newman. This allegation may very well be true, but so what? As I have previously admitted on these pages, I happen to like Paul Newman in spite of his ancestry and his liberalism. And if I'm really honest, there are several other jewish actors and comedians I can't help but like or at least be amused by. Groucho Marx, Jack Benny, George Burns and Gracie Allen are some names which first come to mind. Try as hard as I can, I can't visualize those personalities being in some kind of sinister worldwide conspiracy against us. Nor do I see as malevolent the intentions of, say, my jewish optometrist (I have to go where my HMO sends me) or several of the jewish acquaintances I've actually befriended over the years.
What is our response -- as readers of and writers for a web site which has as its motto, "No Jews. Just Right." -- to the problem of the "nice" jew or the "good" jew? Now you might laugh and blurt out the crude and unoriginal "the only good jew is a dead jew," but I have posed a very serious question and one for which we had better come up with some very strong answers if we are ever going to be able to win over any recruits this side of looneyland. The simple fact of the matter is that most normal white people in the course of their lives have met at least one or two jews with whom they have had a positive experience. "Oh, but my Dr. Goldstein is such a good doctor" or "I knew Sam Cohen in college and he was all right " are common types of demurrals a nationalist recruiter is likely to encounter. "After all, there is good and bad in all nationalities and races" is a very tired cliché, yet it is a sentiment deeply ingrained in a large number of Whites. Individualism is a strong current in White culture, especially American White culture, and "live and let live" is a principle even I still hold to as a general rule.
I suppose this problem is analogous in a way to the distinction between "micro" and "macro" economics. We learn in Economics 101 that the budget-balancing necessary for the individual or family simply isn't applicable to a government endowed with the powers of printing money and manipulating the currency, no matter what pandering politicians piously proclaim. Similarly, individual jews acting apolitically may be completely harmless or even socially beneficial, but become lethal weapons when welded into a cohesive interest group as they are. White Nationalists, including many who have written for VNN, either inherently or explicitly recognize the problem I have raised, but differ significantly in their solutions. I will try to categorize several of the general approaches taken and then offer some personal observations.
1) The American Renaissance/Jared Taylor "see no evil" approach:
This approach simply wishes away the problem by completely ignoring the nation-wrecking conduct of jews as jews. "They look white to me," was the response of JT to a recent Donohue question about jews, although surely this astute writer knows better. I have noticed in recent issues of AR, however, that too many readers are bringing up the subject for the jewish question to be completely swept under the rug. MacDonald's thesis has even been fairly discussed and not entirely dismissed. Jew-naming writers like Michael Rienzi have been published, both in letter and feature article form, so perhaps there's some hope that AR is finally pulling its head out of the sand. As of now, however, this crowd offers no answers because it is unwilling to acknowledge the question.
2) The David Duke/EURO "Jewish Supremacism" approach:
David Duke knows what the jews are up to and has never pulled any punches, except perhaps when he softened some of his rhetoric while campaigning for public office. Softening rhetoric, as Pat Buchanan and others have discovered to their dismay, has never deterred the jews from their nazi-baiting accusations. Duke and his EURO organization, however, still try to draw an overfine distinction between "jews" and what they term "Jewish Supremacists." Ordinary jews, OK; "Jewish Supremacists," bad. This is a simple answer to our problem, but the phrase is clumsy and arcane and better suited to a political science class than the potential White recruit. As most of you know, I'm not particularly fond of glib salesmen and their catch phrases, but sometimes in the interest of trumpeting the message with clarity we do have to trim the excess verbiage. Even I would have no clue as to exactly what Duke is talking about unless I had read his two-page explanation of the term "jewish supremacism." Most folks don't have time for that and "no Jewish Supremacists, just right" just doesn't cut it as a webpage slogan.
3) The "Anti-Zionist" approach:
This solution is very similar to No. 2 above. Just substitute the words "Zionist" and "Zionism" for "Jewish Supremacist" and "Jewish Supremacism" and the same comments apply. This term is much more commonly used than Duke's, however -- sometimes with the added twist of adding certain non-jews (e.g., "Christian Zionists") into the mix. Furthermore, it blurs the critical distinctions we need to make about who and what our enemy is. Does "Zionism" refer to a specific political movement organized by certain jews in the late nineteenth century to create a jewish state in Palestine? Or is it simply a catchall category to describe all those who promote Israeli interests? And is our problem simply "Israel" and not the general social destruction being wrought by our domestic jews? To further complicate matters, the word "Zion" has an entirely different meaning (the closest synonym I can think of is "Utopia") for certain Christians, most notably Latter-day Saints, just as the word "gentile" takes on an entirely different meaning in Utah. And "No Zionists, just right" doesn't quite ring true either.
4) The Dr. William Pierce "jews is jews" approach:
Dr. Pierce was the only White spokesman who has, to my knowledge, addressed my specific problem head-on. No mincing of words for him and no complicated psychological or sociological explanations necessary: "Jews are jews" and act that way because they are jews, just as Pit Bulls are Pit Bulls and not Cocker Spaniels. (Note: I came across an amusing comparison of jews to Pit Bulls recently, but the author incredulously tried to make the philo-semitic but counterfactual point that jews, like Pit Bulls, could be trained to be docile house pets.) He, as I, found most of the jews he had encountered in his life to be extremely distasteful but was willing to concede the fairly obvious point that there are exceptions to the rule. Thus, in one of his ADV broadcasts Dr. Pierce specifically addressed to problem of the "good jew," acknowledging that such creatures exist but explaining why it is still necessary to oppose the entire race.
Unfortunately, the current design of the National Alliance webpage has made it impossible for me to find, much less link to, that specific broadcast text. However, I think I can briefly but fairly summarize his argument. First of all, Dr. Pierce noted, even the seemingly non-political ordinary jew who goes to work and generally minds his own business may very likely be contributing to several of the many anti-White jewish organizations like the ADL. Whether fully conscious of what they are supporting or not, these lemming jews are essential to carrying out the jewish leadership's agenda. It is astoundingly mouth-opening to see a list of the all of the jewish organizations promoting one sociopolitical cause or another, and I often wonder what the public reaction would be if Mormons (with roughly the same two percent of the U.S. population) had the same number of influential lobbying groups. More importantly, however, Dr. Pierce stressed that, as always, we need to look at the big picture and form our policies accordingly. Inevitably certain injustices will occur in so doing, but that should not deter us from taking the necessary steps to ensure our racial survival.
Conclusion:
I think I have indicated that I believe the Pierce approach is the most forthright and honest one, but I remember that I was less than totally satisfied by his arguments when I first heard that broadcast. I'd like, however, to go back and read the text of it again; so if any VNN reader can find a link for me, I'd be very appreciative. As a general observation, I find I still have trouble convincing many of my friends and acquaintances that jews must be opposed as jews and that they are not a "canard." I hammer away giving specific examples of specific media jews and specific acts committed by both jews and Israel, but I know I run the risk of boring a lot of people with my "obsession with jews."
The way I attempt to overcome this resistance is to keep plugging away, realizing that even the most obnoxious TV commercials are made effective by their very repetitiveness. One just has to sense when enough is enough, and use the appropriate discretion, i.e., don't make a pest of yourself like a Jehovah Witness "salesman." I also think my credibility is greatly enhanced if I am able to display knowledge and intelligence about public issues in general.
I think Alex Linder has previously pointed out that we can't base our policy toward Negroes on the one in 10 million Thomas Sowells or Walter Williamses. They'll have to be put on the boat back to Africa, too, and the same policy should apply at least equally for jews. I'm not sure I have offered any definitive answers, but I hope I have laid the groundwork for further discussion. Maybe simple is best when all is said and done, and the only "good jew" truly is a dead one.
RICH BROOKS
|