Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page

Free Speech - August 1996 - Volume II, Number 8

Betting on Both Horses

American Conservatives and the Jews

By Ian P. McKinney

The conservative movement can basically be divided into two factions: paleo and neo. The paleo-conservatives consider themselves to be the true conservatives. For them, cultural and social issues generally take precedence over economics. And admittedly they hew much closer to what we might think of as traditional conservatism, which was represented in the past by such notables as Senator Robert Taft, and today by persons such as Pat Buchanan and certain leaders of conservative Christianity. They are what might be properly designated as America's right wing.

The neo-conservatives, on the other hand, are regarded by the paleos as the new or "liberal" conservatives. Many of the latter are former liberals interested in preserving the status quo of post-New Deal America, or they are those who abide by liberal doctrines in all fields except economics. Neo-conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and William Bennett are representative of this faction. For anyone who takes the time to listen to these people it is obvious that economics is usually at the forefront of their thinking. It is the filter through which they judge most issues.

The differences between the neos and the paleos become more marked the closer one approaches the touchstone issue of race. Neo-conservatives are for the most part in total agreement with the liberal left on such things as racial differences, race-mixing, and immigration. For them there are no significant intellectual or behavioral differences between Blacks and Whites. And although they sometimes decry multiculturalism, their opposition is based mostly upon the premise that multiculturalism causes dissension among the races. Ideally, to their minds, the greatest social progress will occur when all racial awareness is extinguished. Rush Limbaugh was rubbing our faces in multiracialism when he held his marriage ceremony at the racially mixed household of Black Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his White wife.

The neo-cons have no aversion to interracial marriages or non-White immigration. For them what created America and made it great had nothing whatsoever to do with the race of its founders and majority population. For them, and for Reds and liberals also, the fact that America was founded by White people and based upon White European traditions and culture is just a coincidence and certainly nothing we should waste time dwelling on today. The neocons insist that America's success was due to the "free enterprise system" and the absence of an overt class system.

The paleos, most of whom are scared to death of being called "racists," often stress the idea that culture is the determining force in all societies, but when pushed to the wall they will probably admit that race had something to do with creation of much that was good in America. Occasionally a few paleos are very forthright in their ideas on racial matters. For example, many of them reject the policies that spewed forth from the Warren Supreme Court which invalidated hundreds of long-standing laws protecting White racial integrity, and a few of them will even admit this.

Dr. Samuel Francis is a noted paleo-conservative spokesman and former editor for the conservative Washington Times. In a recent issue of the American Renaissance newsletter Francis wrote:

Whites must correct the political and legal order to end the political power for non-white minorities and their white anti-white allies. This political effort would involve a radical dismantling of all affirmative action and civil rights legislation as well as a good part of the Federal superstructure that entrenches minority power.
Francis is probably one of the most outspoken figures in the paleo-conservative movement when it comes to racial matters. It is significant to note that he has been reported to be a close associate of presidential candidate Pat Buchanan and one of Buchanan's "idea men."

As a consequence of the above article, the Washington Times bowed to the screams of the Politically Correct censors and promptly fired Dr. Francis. But don't think for a minute that those making a din were exclusively the screaming meemies on the liberal left! No, a number of prominent neo-conservatives were in the forefront of the crusade to destroy Francis. Prominent among these neo-cons was Linda Chavez, non-White immigration apologist and president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, who was bitterly outraged that Francis would have the nerve to utter such Politically Incorrect thoughts. Chavez helped spearhead the campaign to destroy him. Now mind you, Francis' essay was not published in the newspaper of which he was an editor, but a small circulation newsletter. Still, Chavez and others like her simply cannot tolerate anyone expressing what she contemptuously referred to as "filth" even in such a relatively obscure venue.

In Dr. Francis' rebuttal to her attacks he describes the mind-set of the crypto-liberal neo-cons. He wrote:

That mentality (neo-conservatism) is so narrowly constricted to its own assumptions, values, and beliefs that it finds it impossible to give any benefit of the doubt to those who dissent from it . . . . Most conservatives are familiar with this mentality, if not from firsthand observation, then at least from the results of its blustering course through history in such windbags as Cromwell, Robespierre, John Brown, and the Abolitionists. Chavez and her brood are well met in their company.
Now as far as he goes, Francis and the publications that support him would appear to be courageous spokesmen for White people, and I suppose in their minds they believe themselves to be just that. They obviously are courageous. However, there is still one topic on which they maintain a "hands off" position -- the Jewish question.

In the article, "Whither the Populist Wave," that appeared in the July 1996 issue of a paleo publication, Chronicles, the Jewish author, Paul Gottfried, revealed a relatively unknown fact concerning presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan. In an ostensible defense of Buchanan he wrote:

Despite his abrasive remarks about AIPAC, (a branch of the powerful Israeli lobby) in 1991, Buchanan is not an anti-Semite. About half of his inner circle, which includes a Hasidic rabbi, is Jewish; and his praise for the present Israeli government is even more extravagant than was his criticism of the former Likud regime.
In 1993, it was disclosed that approximately 57% of Bill Clinton's appointments were Jewish. Considering that Jews make up only about 3% of the total U.S. population, that figure seemed truly astounding. However shocking that might be, it is much more surprising and disturbing when a man like Pat Buchanan, thought by many to be a defender of Western civilization if not the White race, has Jews comprise 50 percent of, not just his occasional advisors, acquaintances, or campaign workers, but of his "inner circle" -- his confidential advisors, speech writers, and political consultants. Now, many aware people might not be surprised if they were told that Buchanan had a Jew or two among his associates. And one might even convince oneself that Buchanan thought such a thing wise so as to deflect charges of anti-Semitism. But we're not talking about one or two Jews. We are talking about the disconcerting discovery that Jews constitute 50 percent of his closest advisors.

First, as much as we may sympathize with Buchanan's independence from the New World Order gang and the Jewish establishment, we must remember that he is not a racial patriot. He was one of the first Republicans to denounce David Duke for his racial opinions when Duke was garnering huge support among White Louisianans. Buchanan was a functionary of the Nixon administration when that administration was bussing little White children into ghetto hells, and we have no evidence that he used his position to do anything about it.

Assuming that Gottfried is not exaggerating, this revelation may actually be good news in a way. For decades the Jews have rarely failed to attack and suppress any candidate that espoused anything remotely resembling nationalism and especially one that was tinged with White racial undertones. What this revelation of Jewish penetration into Buchanan's inner circle really tells us is that these ideas -- political and economic nationalism -- are ideas whose time has come, and the Jews are very concerned. They are concerned enough to infiltrate the staffs of some of the most prominent proponents of these movements.

Now, there are those that will say to me: Can't you accept that there are at least some Jews not engaging in or supporting activities which are detrimental to America and the White race? Yes, I can accept that.

There are Jews who are not anti-White crusaders, destructive media moguls, or Marxist subversives. I know Jews who don't support many of the destructive activities of organized Jewry. Jews, especially non-influential ones, live in many of the same neighborhoods that we do, and they have also become victims of the non-White violence that organized Jewry has unceasingly fostered. I know Jews who deplore non-White immigration and racial mixing. But I am not here to make excuses for the Jews.

But let's not fool ourselves: If a few Jews denounce these things, its not because their goal is to preserve the White race. Perhaps there is a growing awareness among some Jews that an America dominated by non-Whites might not bow in veneration to the "Chosen People." Non-White domination might bring about conditions far worse for the Jews than anything they experienced in Europe or America. Recall especially the numerous anti-Jewish pronouncements made in recent years by some of Louis Farrakhan's lieutenants. Also, I suspect they realize that the growing number of Asians might represent a group more difficult to deal with than Whites. It is interesting to note that Jews have made few significant inroads in Asian nations.

Given these circumstances, should it surprise anyone that a few Jews are making their way into what they see as "safe" nationalist publications such as Chronicles, American Renaissance, and others? But when I see large percentages of Jews prominent in such publications alarm bells start going-off in my head. This indicates that there is more afoot than just a few conservative Jews looking for cover amidst the multi-racial chaos now permeating American society. It makes one suspect there's a concerted effort by certain Jews to prevent any backlash against themselves for all the anti-White activities engaged in by organized Jewry for the past fifty years and more.

If these conservative Jews were really sincere and really wanted to fight for the preservation of America, then their energies would best be spent denouncing the activities of organized Jewry. But, as far as I know, none of these Jews in the paleo-conservative movement has uttered one peep against the anti-White activities of their fellow Jews. Not much is said by them with regard to the Jewish domination of the Marxist movement and the destruction it has wrought. Not one word in exposing the Holocaust myth and the White collective guilt encouraged by its promoters. And most important of all, no condemnation of the filth and anti-White subversion that have been and continue to be rammed into the public's mind by the Jewish-controlled news and entertainment media. No, we haven't heard much of anything from these "Good Jews" on any of these important issues. Nonetheless, I have been recently informed that a Jewish speaker at a past American Renaissance conference, when cornered on this issue during a private conversation when the microphones were turned off, frankly admitted that organized Jewry has been a driving force behind a multitude of anti-White operations for many years. Despite this discrete private admission, the same rabbi has never seen fit to reveal publicly this important fact.

In view of these Jews' recent claims of supporting the White racialist movement, one might certainly be excused for asking, what better work could these Jews engage in than enthusiastically exposing the destructive chicanery of the Jewish power structure? After all, who could attack a Jew as a "Nazi" or anti-Semite? As far as I know, there has only been one Jew to do this with real energy and commitment, and his name was Benjamin H. Freedman. He exposed the activities of organized Jewry for all to see and spent his fortune in the effort; he held nothing back as he exposed their lies and subversion. He depleted his wealth and sacrificed his reputation exposing the anti-Western animus behind both Zionism and Communism, and he equally exposed the Jewish domination of the American media. While I assign considerable credibility to Benjamin Freedman, I hold in extreme suspicion those Jews now making their way into several branches of the "Patriotic" movement. Many of them seem to be devoting their efforts to smearing, threatening, and purging so-called "anti-Semites" from patriotic groups. Jews agitating around the fringes of Second Amendment and militia groups are vehement in their frantic denunciation of all "racists" and openly hope that the gun owners will begin shooting racists when the time is ripe. Beware, beware, beware.

Most of the blame really falls at the feet of Patrick Buchanan and those like him for failing to recognize that Jewish interests do not coincide with our interests, and for allowing themselves to be co-opted while posing as the "Great White Hope." But as I said before, as deplorable as these things may appear, they show that the feeling of nationalism and the pressure of an awakening White people are making themselves felt in American politics. The Jewish power structure is still working feverishly to suppress it but despite their best efforts this racial attitude continues to grow and is resonating in the minds of more and more White Americans. So now it is evidently the time for the Jews to use other measures, namely to corral potential White spokesman or political candidates and render them impotent; let them wail against the Blacks, mestizos, liberalism, affirmative action, etc., etc., just don't allow any criticism of God's Chosen.

Even if such a Kosherized White movement succeeded (very unlikely since the Jewish fifth column would be in a good position to torpedo any impending successes) and re-established White America more or less as our forefathers intended it, the Jewish minority would still be a dangerous incubus on the body politic. Not because Jews espouse this particular creed or that -- creeds can be picked up and discarded with the ease with which one dons or doffs a mask. No, they cannot be allowed to lead us, simply because they are not us, because they regard themselves correctly as a different people, with their own interests.

When Jewish interests conflict with ours, as they surely will, they will sacrifice us in an instant as they have proven time and time again throughout our people's history.

So the next time you hear an ostensibly patriotic radio program or listen to a conservative candidate's message, see if you can detect a Kosher imprimatur. It may well be there.

A cassette recording of this broadcast is available for $12.95 including postage from:
National Vanguard Books
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946

Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page