STEVE BRADY & TOM ACTON
AS THE EDITORIAL in the last Vanguard put it, "For forty years it has been taboo to discuss 'The Jewish Question'. It is now time for that taboo to be lifted and for British Nationalists to spell out more clearly than before our policies concerning Judaism, Zionism and the Jewish people."
Why? Surely the mention of 'The Jewish Question' just leaves us open again to the 'Nazi' smear, and erodes our credibility among the British people?
The answer is two-fold. Firstly because the relationship between the Jews and the host countries in which they live is an issue of critical relevance to the world today. Secondly we don't have the option of not having a clearly stated Jewish policy, because our opponents will merely claim that our policies are so appallingly extreme we don't dare mention them.
The core of the Jewish question is this: are Jewish communities in non-Jewish societies loyal components of those societies, differing only in religion but no more alien than Methodists or agnostics? Or do outside loyalties outweigh any feelings of solidarity to the host population? Can a Jewish community ever really be a full part of the Gentile nation it inhabits? Does it, should it, ever really want to be?
The answer, according to most leading Jews is no. Jews must always owe their supreme loyalty to their fellow Jews, and above all to the Jewish motherland Israel. The tremendous effect of this 'Zionist' ideology on relationships with, and loyalties to, the host nation is manifest in the ludicrous subservience of the world's greatest military power, the USA, to the miniscule State of Israel.
The threat to national interests posed by Zionist Jews is not limited to America. In Britain too Jews are heavily over-represented in Parliament and Government in proportion to their share of the total population.
Could Britain rely on the total loyalty of these Jews among her rulers, if, as could happen, the vital interests of Britain and Israel clashed head on? Let's not forget that Israel kept Argentina supplied with weapons to kill our Servicemen throughout the Falklands War.
With Jews of debatable loyalty prominent not just in our government (Lawson, Young, Currie etc) but the media (Hoch, alias Maxwell, Winogradsky, alias Grade etc), commerce (Sieff, Halpem, Wolfson etc), the City (see list of Guinness defendants etc) and so on, it is clear the Jewish Question is of burning relevance to Britain too.
Even where Jews are not primarily loyal to other Jews it's rarely because they are loyal to their host population. As Oxford historian RN Carew-Hunt observed, "It is no accident that so many of the Communist leaders from Marx's day onward have been Jews". Equally it is no accident that today Jews hold less power in the Soviet Union than in many a Capitalist nation.
Perhaps the key is that when Communism was the political force most alienated from the host society of Czarist Russia a disproportionate number of Jews were Communists. Now the dissidents are the political force most alienated from the host society of Communist Russia a disproportionate number of Jews are dissidents. At both times most Jews were Zionists; what they were not is a part of the host nation. Forever 'other', forever outside; alien and alienated - is this the key to the problem?
The answer will not be found in most previous Nationalist analyses of the Jewish Question, which counterpose to the suggestion that the Jews are responsible for no problems, the assertion, Protocols-style, that the Jews are the cause of every problem. Conspiracy theories which range from the unprovable to the incredible do nothing to cast light on the Jewish Question or credibility on the Nationalist movement.
The root of the Jewish Question is surely not conspiracy but alienation. Those who regard themselves as 'Jews' do not, usually, regard themselves as full members of the non-Jewish nation they inhabit. They are culturally alien, and perceive themselves as such. This alienation expresses itself as hostility to the nationalism of the host population, which is perceived as a threat, and identification with Zionism (essentially the nationalism of Jews irrespective of domicile) and with support for other movements alienated from the host population, be it Marxism, Negro 'Civil Rights', Soviet dissidence, anarchism etc.
It follows that since the Jewish community cannot be part of the Nation it will always be apart from it; at best indifferent, at worst hostile, to any national revival, even before the Hitler episode fuelled their worst fears, and fired them with a bitter hatred of host countries' Nationalisms. The problem is exacerbated by the disproportionate power and influence of Jews in many countries, caused mainly by the fact that they are an internally cohesive, mutually supporting, community existing, in Europe and America, in societies that themselves lack cohesion and a sense of identity.
The inescapable conclusion is that the presence of a large and powerful Jewish community in any country, such as we have in Britain today, is, and inherently must always be, a threat to the aspirations and best national interests of the host population. As British Nationalists it is our duty to try to remove all threats to our nation. It is in the long-term interests of everyone, Jews as well as Britons, to honestly face the problems caused by the Jewish presence in Britain and to find answers that are both fair and humane.
There are only two ways that Judaism can be eliminated from British society - assimilation and repatriation. Lunatic 'anti-racists' may whine about 'extermination', but that is merely a reflection of their paranoia and has nothing to do with serious politics.
Assimilation - simply making the Jews into loyal citizens of Britain - seems superficially both humane and reasonable. There are however problems in practice. Globally the adherents of Judaism vary significantly in their ethnic make-up. It goes without saying that the likes of the Falashas, 'Black Jews', could not be acceptable in Britain on racial grounds. Most Jews in Britain however are of the Ashkenazi wing of Judaism, and are ethnically Europid in the broadest sense of the term. Could they not be assimilated en masse? The failure of the limited assimilation advocated by the Reform movement within Judaism, to 'de-alienate' the Jews within the framework of the Jewish religion, has however shown that assimilation would require Jews to renounce their 'Jewishness', their religion and cultural heritage. Few would do so voluntarily; compulsion would be morally unacceptable, and in practice unworkable, as the 'conversion' of the Marrano Jews in Spain illustrates.
A few Jews may genuinely want to assimilate, indeed many British Nationalist organisations over the years have had members who were partly, or wholly, of Jewish descent. In practice however assimilation is unlikely to be the answer for more than a tiny minority of Jews.
The real solution is repatriation, sending Jews to a nation of their own - Israel. This is of course the solution favoured by many Jews themselves, including the Zionist themselves. The cause of the Jew's alienation has always been rootlessness, that he is a stranger in a strange land, and that his people have for millennia been a landless nation existing on other's soil. So give the Jews roots, give them their own native land. There is at least some truth in the Jews belief that Israel is where they came from, and merit in the Zionists belief that it is where they should return to.
Repatriating the Jews to Israel removes the Jewish problem at a stroke as far as every White country that does it is concerned - Jews in Israel harm no White nation. Its what Zionists say they want, what most Jews claim to want. Israel's Law of Return guarantees every Jew citizenship, and Israel would benefit from extra settlers to farm, hold and fight for the land.
The likes of Hoch, Brittan, Lawson and Gewitz, 'anti-racist' Jews to a man, may not jump for joy at being offered instant, involuntary "aliyah". But unless they admit Zionism is a con what can they say against it? How can they condemn an NF policy which will largely consist of quotes from leading Jews as to the Israeli destiny of the Jewish people.
An NF policy that recognises Israel's right to exist may well be condemned as 'kosher' by some. But what do they suggest? Cheering on a 'Victory to Palestine' which, if it came, would mean more Jews in Europe and America?
Repatriation is the real answer to the Jewish problem. It's easy for us to support, difficult for them to oppose - we're only agreeing with them after all. It is humane, principled and will free us from their influences once and for all.
The Jews won't like us any more for agreeing with what they say, but their opposition to us will be less effective, and a barrier to our realisation of our potential support among the public reduced.
And in the end it's as much the best for the Jews as it is for us. In their own land the Jews of the world will at last not be aliens.