When the material about Jewish Nationalism from Miron Fyodorov had first been published a year ago, it met vast criticism. From all opinions the following statements, which can be considered a typical reaction of someone who beholds a traditional left-liberal (sometimes libertarian) point of view attracted most of our attention. Below is Miron's answer to those arguments.
a Kinship "I am opposed to the given interpretation of this slogan, i.e. the necessity to build a nation by singling out a group of people according to their blood kinship. Generally, I don’t think it’s practical to establish a single and everlasting definition of Jewishness separating Jews from non-Jews. In each given historical period, a different definition may reflect the current position of the Jews most fully. The most sensible common denominator for such variation is ‘liberal/cultural’, i.e. a Jew is anyone who is prepared to join the Jewish civilization in any of its traditional/existing or non-traditional/prospective forms. I believe that one can belong to the Jewry at the same time as belonging to other similar national or quasi-national groups. For every person or group sharing the Jewish identity their Jewishness must not necessarily be the only thing they identify with, but one among a whole complex net of national and cultural identities which can, for example, simultaneously include a French or ‘Queer nation’ identity, etc."
A nation, unless it is an ongoing breeding experiment, cannot ever be ethnically “pure”. On the periphery, there will always be ethnically distinct groups associated with the nation through socio-cultural, economic or geographic factors. In the case of the Jewry, these are converts to Judaism (both as individuals and as groups) as well as those whose Jewish blood is either minimal or non-existent, but who see certain benefits in joining the Jewish nation by means of false claims to a Jewish ancestry (e.g. Slavic ‘repatriants’ to Israel).
Both processes are natural and no one should be excluded on the grounds of ‘race-laws’; on the contrary, new blood, if taken up in small amounts, enriches the gene-pool. But these processes take place automatically: if there’s a stable core, there will always be a less stable periphery. There is no need to cater for the needs of the periphery by including it in the definition of the Jewry: our priority is the definition of the core, the periphery will follow.
To be able to join something from the outside that something has to exist first. That is, the core of the Jewish nation must be clearly defined so that the periphery can identify with it – and today, that definition is only effective if based on genetic affilation. What you call the ‘Jewish civilization’ is the periphery; to be called Jewish at all this civilization has to have an ethnic core around which it can evolve. ‘Culture’, ‘civilization’, even ‘nation’ in its current popular usage are all too vague: the ‘French nation’ includes both Arabs and Chinese. This is why JN is ethno-nationalistic, but not racist. Intermarriage: yes, for our blood will prevail; multinationalism: no. This system has worked for other cultures for millennia.
a Democracy and anarchism "I fully support the idea of a horizontal system. Moreover, I reject the idea of a national state, whether Jewish or not, in almost any of its forms. Ex-territorialism must be a most important aspect of how the Jewry organizes itself."
It is important to understand that JN is not opposed to the idea of national states per se: we would gladly have our own state, or states (as Obadiah Shoher suggests in ‘Samson Blinded’, proposing the break-up of the current ‘Jewish’ state into Judea and Israel). What makes us resort to national-anarchism is that in today’s world, no Jewish state will really be Jewish. Wherever Jewish statehood will appear, it will be established by exterior forces using the Jewish desire for self-determination for their own ends: geopolitical, economical, military and occult. We have seen this in the case of Israel’s puppeteers; we are bound to see it elsewhere. Our national-anarchism is not founded on aesthetics, or the love for Bob Black and Hakim Bey: it is a pragmatic, temporary strategy for the coming century. Thus we are not opposed to the states we live in and do not desire their downfall; but we realize the need to prepare for their disintegration by building our own power structures.
a Defense "Defense must work effectively on all levels, both on the suggested direct level and various others: the ideological, the economical, etc. Limiting oneself to the least effective forms of defense does not seem right. I must also note that the creation and exploitation of various guilt complexes for atrocities against both Jews and non-Jews is currently one of the most effective forms of defense. This is what should determine the attitude towards the Holocaust and the ideology of defending human rights. Sustaining the general level of tolerance in a society by all means necessary, staying in close contact and cooperation with other horizontally organized minorities – all of this is a much more effective than using direct violence. At the same time though, the hyper-concentration of the Jewish consciousness on a single event in Jewish history certainly isn’t a positive thing. At the heart of the Jewish consciousness must lie the Jewish history in all its variety. Finally, the most important (though not exclusive) form of battling anti-Jewish ideologies must not be violent conflict but their integration into the existing social structure as a sort of minor and unimportant element, eclipsed by a broad range of others. Generally speaking, the main form of defense must be an 'International of closely linked minorities working together'."
The ideological measures you are suggesting (indoctrination of non-Jews, creation of guilt complexes, a focus on human rights, positioning ourselves as a vulnerable minority, relying on the goyim state for protection) have been employed for the last 50 years all over the Western world and are the current strategy of the Diaspora. They have failed. 41% of the British population, traditionally one of the most philosemitic in Europe (at least superficially so), have responded to a survey saying that a new holocaust can easily happen in the UK. And they’re right, it can happen among any local host population; my favourite near-anagram is ‘local host – holocaust’.
If anything, creating a guilt-ridden host population through indoctrination naturally fuels anti-Jewish sentiments instead of extinguishing them. Relying on the state for protection gradually erodes the instinct for self-preservation. It is not the goyim who are the real victims of the holocaust industry and Jewish ultra-liberal propaganda in the media, but the Jews themselves. Our non-verbal defense mechanisms have died off. We have no backbone, no self-protection of even the most basic kind; in this respect, we are not even a nation. This is why JN believes in a world-wide anti-Jewish conspiracy: we have been tricked into thinking we are safe, again and again, we have been brainwashed and taught to brainwash ourselves.
Every ‘vertical’ defense mechanism presented to us as the new means of securing our safety, such as large-scale Jewish presence in the media, politics and economics, is fake. However often we repeat the prescribed mantras of tolerance and multiculturalism, they will not protect us. Jews are the world’s village idiots cruelly mocked by being told they run the village. We are the naïve scapegoats employed to cover up the machinations of goyim governments and mafias.
There is only one solution to this sorry state we are in: horizontal structures of grassroots self-protection. At first, these will, no doubt, be pathetic: a tiny class of krav-maga pupils here, a sports summer camp turned nationalists there, an old village barn turned into a shooting range, an underground seminar on anti-Jewish occupation, etc. One will rightly ask how this ridiculous activity can possibly compare with the existing levers of supposedly Jewish power: the world banking system, the US think-tanks, the high-tech State of Israel with its air force and nuclear weapons?
The answer is simple: these measures will actually be Jewish, with no one else pulling the strings. Because none of the above are. It’s great to have a tank division or a nuclear missile for protection, but it’s not really ours. It’s great to control banks and governments as we do in ZOG conspiracy theories and hyper-zionist fantasies, but we never did that nor shall do. In reality, they control us, not vice versa, and there’s no way we can turn the game around. But we can opt out. That they won’t expect or take seriously, and when they will, it will be too late to stop us.
You may be surprised, but we do not want to ‘battle anti-Jewish ideologies’ at all: that is both difficult and futile. What we need are deterrents against potential aggression. I am sorry to say this, but liberal bubbles are there to be pierced: I think your view of the world is somewhat naïve. How are you planning to cooperate with the Arab or Chechen or Muslim minority, being both Jewish and gay (as far as I gathered from your journal)? I don’t think you will be welcomed OR safe if you try that. The state and its safety net will disintegrate, there is no question about that. Which network will be able to protect you then? The ‘Queer nation’? Non-White minorities? White nationalists? Come on, man. If there will be one group to protect you, it will be Jewish nationalists, your own people. And it is in your interest, as it is in the interest of all of us, to ensure that we are as strong as possible when the collapse happens.
- by Miron Fyodorov
No comments:
Post a Comment