Maof - Why we must reject Judeo-obsessivism

Some nationalists are so fixated on the enemies of our people that the search for these enemies consumes their energy and becomes a cause in itself, taking precedence over their understanding of nationalism. Craving a well-defined and theatrical concept of the enemy, they buy into elaborate myths designed to set one up as the absolute evil, and then spend their lives battering away at it.

Thus some nationalists have become ‘hooked' on the Jews as all-purpose villains, responsible for everything that's wrong with Britain, and whose destruction is the master key to putting things right. The fact that some Jews really are villains, who have done us harm, makes this very tempting, because there is always real evidence of Jewish wrong-doing available, even if it doesn't prove that all Jews are wrong-doers.

The BNP is not politically correct, and makes no apology for saying that it is strategically useful, and morally legitimate, for us to fight genuinely bad Jews. The idea that no Jews ever do anything bad, contradicts observable fact, and the idea we have no right to fight back is unilateral disarmament. But to generalise this into the assumption that all Jews are like the Marxist, multiculturalist , and globalist ones who are genuine enemies, is neither factually true, morally right, nor useful to our cause.

The master key to a sensible attitude towards the Jews is this: treat them like any other foreign people . They are different from us, and sometimes our friends and sometimes our enemies, at different historical moments, but they are neither intrinsically evil nor always the enemy.

Consider the French, Germans, Russians, Americans, and Japanese. All have done Britain benefit and harm at different points in history. We have been on the same and opposite sides of each in wars. But this doesn't make anti- Frenchism , anti-Germanism, or anti-Russianism sensible: i.e. the assumption these nations are permanent enemies, simply because of who they are, rather than what they may be doing at a given moment.

This we can call ethnorealpolitik . Its essence was famously expressed by Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston in 1848:

‘Britain has no permanent friends or permanent enemies; only permanent interests.'

Any other attitude towards a foreign nation is strategically witless, and we cannot afford strategic witlessness in a dangerous world.

The same logic entails that there is no factual basis for anti-Semitism, i.e. the belief that Jews are intrinsically our enemy. The worst one can truthfully say of the Jews is that they are intrinsically opportunistic. To survive in other people's countries for 2,000 years, they obviously have to be. But this doesn't make them intrinsically bad; only people who will, like anyone else, pursue their self-interest according to the circumstances of the time. We shouldn't surrender to their pursuit of self-interest . We should, naturally, pursue our own, but in a calm and rational way in the same manner as we deal with other foreign societies, without hatred, mythology, or hostile intent.

THE TALMUD

Some Judeo-obsessives use passages in the Talmud to argue that Jews are not like every other nation, but have an intrinsic and eternal hostility to gentiles. But the Talmud is not holy scripture, or the purported word of God, but only commentary by famous rabbis. That it contains nasty passages, resembles the fact that the Summa Theologica of St. Aquinas, and other important works of Christian theology, contain nasty passages. There is nothing intrinsic to the Judaism that requires all Jews to believe in these passages – any more than a good Christian must believe the opinions of medieval theologians in favor of burning heretics at the stake. There is simply no comparison to the Koran, which Islam holds to be the literal words of God Himself, in which He imposes a Divine obligation on every Moslem to wage holy war against non-Moslems, making Islam intrinsically hostile.

Naturally, any Jew who really does believe in the anti-gentile passages, is a genuine enemy of ours, and should be fought. But such people are rare, as these passages are obscure and few Jews read them. Most Jews don't even read the Talmud, which is only of interest to the religiously orthodox, and most enemy Jews of our time have been fanatical secularists like Karl Marx.

Other aspects of Jewish religion sometimes found objectionable mainly concern the desire of the Jews to keep themselves separate, with a distinct ethnic identity, while living in foreign nations. As ethnonationalists ourselves, we accept their right to do so on two conditions: first, that they accept that our right to protect our identity is as valid as their right to protect theirs, and second, that they do not protect their identity in a manner that harms us.

In particular, British Jews must not undermine their status as persons assimilated to our nation, i.e. ethnically different, strictly speaking, but sufficiently similar that this difference is too small to give legitimate grounds for offense. British Jews have a long history of being better assimilated, and more loyal, than Jews in other countries, like Russia and the USA , and it is good for us, and good for them, that they should stay this way.

THE JUDEO-OBSESSIVE

Three things identify a Judeo-obsessive:

1. The idea all Jews are evil.

2. The idea everything Jews do is evil.

3. The idea all our problems come from the Jews.

The idea that all Jews are evil is simply not supported by real evidence, and contradicted by the many Jews who have done us good . Let us take three examples. First, it was Benjamin Disraeli, Britain 's great Victorian Jewish Prime Minister, who made a key issue of race. He wrote:

“No one may treat the principle of race, the racial question, with indifference, for it is the key o world history. History is often confusing for the sole reason hat it is written by people who know neither the racial issue nor the moments connected therewith. All is race, there is no other truth.”

Nationalists will also find much to agree with in the writings of Sir Alfred Sherman, now in his mid-eighties. Born the son of a Jewish immigrant in East London , he was a Communist in early life. It took him a decade ‘before I realised what a cheat and liar Stalin was'. He became a right-wing Conservative, a co-founder of the Centre for Policy Studies, and a force behind Margaret Thatcher. For twenty years, he has consistently strongly opposed the immigration open door policy and has been a critic of the multiculturalism and the Islamic threat.

Also recall the wonderful ‘Peter Simple' (Michael Wharton), the master of satire who exposed the sham of multiculturalism and the Marxist penetration of the establishment for nearly 50 years in his column in the Daily Telegraph until his death at 92 earlier this year. His real name was Michael Bernard Nathan and he was of German-Jewish origin. Nick Griffin and I both had the pleasure of corresponding with him in his latter years.

These examples show that the idea that everything Jews do is evil is where Judeo- obsessives lose touch with reality, because in order to maintain this, they must interpret every Jewish action as part of a grand plan for world domination. They can't admit a Jew would ever do anything good, or there goes their theory, so they have to interpret any contrary evidence as proof of the ability of the Jews to fake contrary evidence in order to cover their tracks! But if that's true, then all history is a giant hologram, projected by the Jews to further their diabolical aims, and no fact can be relied upon. And the Jews must have quasi-magical powers to manipulate people, at which point Judeo- obsessivism slides into outright fairy-tale.

The idea that all our problems come from the Jews is perhaps the most dangerous, because it blinds one to these problems' real origin, making it impossible to fight them effectively. Judeo- obsessives go blind to things like the nation-liquidating propensities of modern capitalism. After all, the capitalists aren't to blame – the Jews are! People who are congenitally na?ve about the treacherousness of capitalism, like American followers of David Duke, are particularly prone to this.

There is no vast Jewish ‘conspiracy' responsible for our nation's predicament. I made this clear in 1999 in my book Many Shades of Black:

‘There was no conspiracy by Jewish international finance to destroy our power and to open the floodgates to Afro-Asian immigration… It's a theory that leaks like a sieve.'

Judeo- obsessivism blinds nationalists to the treachery our own people are capable of. Tony Blair has done this country ten times more harm than every Jewish Marxist who ever lived in Britain , but he is a nice British boy. Similarly with George Bush.

None of this is to deny, of course, that Jews like Paul Wolfowitz , who engineered a war in which British soldiers are dying to prop up a New World Order that plans the liquidation of Britain , are complete bastards. But who gives men like this the power to engineer wars? They obviously couldn't do it on their own, without the cooperation of our gentile rulers. If bad Jews bribe our gentile rulers, who accepts these bribes? If bad Jews bully our gentile rulers, why are they such wimps that they give in to it?

In fact, we can't help noticing that, just as medieval kings used to employ Jews as tax collectors, so they could divert peasant anger into anti-Jewish riots, something similar may be going on here. The anti-Semitic hysteria over the Iraq war certainly has taken quite a bit of heat off of certain higher-ups, hasn't it now? How many people, who ought to be baying for the impeachment of Bush and Blair, are howling instead about how the Jews snookered them into it? The real powers are quite likely laughing their heads off.

THE REAL CONSPIRACY: WORLD GOVERNMENT

Consider the drive for world government, the liquidation of nations, the subordination of societies to faceless global capitalism, the destruction of distinct cultures and peoples, and the end of their democratic self-determination. And suppose that the people behind it really are Bush, Blair, the United Nations, the Trilateral Commission, the Davos gang, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the Council on Foreign Relations, etc. – the usual suspects, in other words.

Wouldn't it be awfully convenient to keep nationalists baying about The International Jew instead?

Thus the true powers behind globalism (which of course includes some Jews) could guarantee that nationalist movements are ghettoised, preach only to the converted, and are thereby doomed to failure.

There's a very simple reason there can't be a giant Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. If there were, do you really imagine all the other greedy and powerful people in the world would just say to its Jewish masters, ‘OK, gents. You can have it. Take over the world. Be our guests.' Of course not . They'd want in. Being powerful, they'd get in. Therefore:

Is there a vast Jewish conspiracy? No, it's much worse. They're all in on it.

It's clear the nexus of global power – call it a conspiracy if you like, so long as you don't get silly about it – has a Jewish faction. But it also has a Catholic faction, an American faction, and British, French, German, Mexican and Arabian factions. This is for the simple reason that there exist Jews, Catholics, Americans, Britons, Frenchmen, Germans, Mexicans and Arabs who think they're going to get money and power out of it.

WE HAVEN'T SOLD OUT, WE'VE GOT SMART

Lest anyone misunderstand, the BNP has not ‘embraced Zionism', ‘sold out to the Jews', or anything like it. We remain well-aware that subversive Jews exist, that Jews have a characteristic style of (materialistic and scheming, like Karl Marx and George Soros) subversion, and we remain committed to fighting them, when this is really the case . But it is an entirely different matter to say that some Jews make themselves, by their behaviour , the enemies of our people, and to say that all Jews, simply because they are Jews, are the enemy.

We do believe it is the morally right thing, but our reformed Jewish policy has mainly been adopted for our own benefit. We gain nothing by attacking Jews who are not actually our enemies – and there are key drawbacks to doing so. If Jews know they'll be attacked by the BNP whether they misbehave or not, they will have no incentive to behave. They will feel they have no choice, for their own survival, but to fight tooth-and-nail against our party. Even if, minus the anti-Semitism, they like much of what we have to say. The mere fact of our opposition to the Moslem threat , which lusts to wipe them off the face off the earth, guarantees some do.

If we attacked all Jews, this would give people the wrong idea of what the BNP is about. Because we have had some anti-Semitic extremism in our past, attacking all Jews would make the public think this is what we stand for today. It would give the upper hand to hidden dinosaurs in the party, who don't understand our new ideological model, and sabotage our necessary project of either converting or expelling them.

If we attacked all Jews, this would waste our finite energies attacking imaginary enemies when we have very real ones to worry about. The war we are engaged in is a matter of national survival. If it were not, Judeo- obsessivism would still be a mistake, but perhaps one we could afford. As things are, it is not. Our energies must be devoted to real enemies only.

STAY OUT OF MIDEAST TROUBLE

The BNP's position on the Middle East is very simple:

Britain is not a party to other people's wars.

This does not mean that Britain ought to have absolutely nothing to do with Middle Eastern countries. A BNP government would continue normal commercial relations, air travel routes, counter-terrorist cooperation, etc. But it would not let Britain become party to the political conflicts between nations in the Middle East – any more than we are to the conflicts between China and Taiwan , or India and Pakistan . We would not take sides.

This does not mean we believe that the two sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict (or Arab-Persian, Arab-Kurd, or intra-Arab conflicts) are morally equivalent. We simply do not take a position on who is right. ‘Moral equivalence' is the least advantageous position for us to take, in terms of the friends and enemies it makes us, because both sides would be annoyed at being told their position was morally equivalent to that of their enemies. The purpose of foreign policy is not to render moral judgments about foreign countries: it is to protect our nation's interests, and our interests are best protected by staying out of other people's wars. So we will not take ideological stands that could be used to construct a case for our involvement – on either side.

In regard to the question of Israel 's right to exist, we are well-aware that Israel was founded at the point of a gun, on land formerly inhabited by other people. But so were the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, South Africa, and many other countries – even, if you go back far enough in history, countries you wouldn't expect, like Japan and the Arab states outside Arabia. So there is no basis for singling out Israel . It is an internationally- recognised state, a member of the UN, and to deny its right to exist is a bizarre and ultra-Arab position.

Would such recognition violate our policy of not taking sides? No, because a future BNP government would either have to recognise Israel, as all normal countries do, or join Syria, Saudi Arabia and a few other Moslem fanatic states in refusing. It is not possible to be neutral concerning recognition: one either does or doesn't, the default position is to recognise , and Britain has no imaginable reason to side with Moslem fanatics. ‘Not taking sides in other people's conflicts' means treating the parties to such conflicts like other normal countries.

Concerning recognition of a possible ‘Palestinian' state: the BNP has absolutely no desire to take the Arab side by actually pushing for the creation of such a state. It is not Britain 's business to draw the borders of the Middle East , and we oppose the current attempts of the EU to drag Britain into the conflict on the Arab side by funding the Palestinian Authority and its government of admitted Islamists and terrorists. But if such a state comes about, and ends up being recognised by most other nations in the world, given a seat in the UN, and acquiring the other attributes of a normal country, then we will accept this as fait accompli . Just as we – and most of the rest of the world – will accept whatever is the outcome of the Taiwan-China conflict, or the Indo-Pakistani conflict over Kashmir .

The left-wing canard that ‘Zionism is racism' – or even quasi-Nazi – is false. ( Having been ideological extremists of similar stripe ourselves at one time, we know whereof we speak here.) Zionism is just another ethnonationalism , of which there are as many in the world as there are ethnic groups to espouse them. Nobody considers it illegitimate when the Japanese, Zulus, or Costa Ricans do it. Considered as pure ideology, Zionism is no more or less objectionable than anyone else's ethnonationalism . Considered as applied ideology, this gets into all the rights and wrongs of the Middle East , and as we said, it is neither our responsibility, nor in our national interest, to take a position on these questions. Our only concern is whether Zionism harms Britain , so if Zionists will accept we won't fight their wars for them, and don't start claiming God gave them Shropshire, the rest does not concern us.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/articles/judeo_obsession.htm

Russian version