Home / Politics / Reframing the Jewish Question

Reframing the Jewish Question


When I first became interested in White Nationalism, I noticed that the basic principle of ethnonationalism was always framed as distinct from the Jewish question. Ethnonationalism is the idea that racial and ethnic diversity within the same political system are sources of strife, and that peace and harmony are best served by establishing homogeneous sovereign homelands for all peoples.

The Jewish question, however, is supposedly something separate from basic ethnonationalism. It includes such topics as the role of Jews in promoting Communism, Zionism, and white decline, and even questions about the holocaust. Some nationalists pursue these questions, but others choose to abstain, merely advocating ethnonationalism but not touching the “J.Q.”

I wish to suggest that this framing of the Jewish question is entirely wrong. The Jewish question is not something distinct from ethnonationalism. It is not a separate, higher-order, entirely optional set of questions from which ethnonationalists can recuse themselves. On the contrary, the Jewish question is a simple, straightforward application of the basic principle of ethnonationalism.

If ethnonationalism calls for the replacement of multicultural societies with monocultural ones, then Jews, as a distinct people, belong in their own homeland and not scattered among other nations. Thus if England is to be English, Sweden to be Swedish, Ireland to be Irish, alien populations need to be repatriated to their own homelands, Jews included. That is the ethnonationalist answer to the Jewish question.

This completely accords with the original historical sense of the Jewish question, which is the question of how Jews, being a distinct nation, can be given legal equality and citizenship within other nations. Our answer is: they shouldn’t. They belong in their own nation-state. The Jewish question is entirely a question about the relationship of ethnicity and nation-states.

The Jewish question long predates such phenomena as Communism, Zionism, and the holocaust, so it certainly has no necessary connection to them. Nor is the Jewish question necessarily connected to the Jewish role in promoting white cultural and demographic decline. Jews could be as venomous as snakes or as innocent as lambs, but there would still be a Jewish question simply because they are a distinct people scattered among other nations.

As far as White ethnonationalists are concerned, the Jewish question is exactly analogous to the black question or the Mexican question or the Gypsy question. Thus the Jewish question is Ethnonationalism 101, not an arcane higher-level elective.

This approach to the Jewish question shifts the burden of proof. It is no longer incumbent on the “anti-Semite” to argue that ethnonationalists need to pay attention to the Jewish question. One does not need to argue that Jews are a “special” people once one observes that they are simply a different people, and, therefore, they belong in their own homeland, not among us.

Instead, it is incumbent on those ethnonationalists who would abstain from the “J.Q.” to explain why Jews, unlike other alien peoples, should have the right to live among us with full rights of citizenship — for this is, in effect, what nationalists who wish to avoid the Jewish question are arguing. When Jared Taylor says Jews “look huwyte to me,” he is saying that they are “us,” not a distinct nation. Of course, claiming Jews are “us” is inconsistent with American Renaissance’s policy of praising Israel as a nation that protects its borders and takes its own side in ethnic conflicts. For if Jews are just generic white people, then what possible justification do they have for creating an ethnostate on Palestinian land? And if Jews are a distinct people, then they belong in their own homeland, not among other nations. (Technically, Jared Taylor is not a White Nationalist or ethnonationalist because he proposes no solutions.)

Of course, it is easier for Taylor to imply that Jews are “us” in the American melting pot. It would be harder to say that Jews “look French” or “look Swedish,” because they don’t, and because French or Swedish ethnicity is not a matter of generic whiteness. Furthermore, despite high rates of intermarriage, the core of the American Jewish community has remained aloof from the melting pot and strongly identifies with the state of Israel. And finally, Jews aren’t generically white to begin with. The racial core of their population is non-European, although some Jews have picked up a lot of European genes in their wanderings.

The Jewish question is not distinct from ethnonationalism. It is ethnonationalism applied to Jews. Thus no ethnonationalist is entitled to abstain from it. Once one recognizes that Jews are a distinct people, the ethnonationalist solution to the Jewish question is Jewish nationalism, i.e., Zionism.

Of course many White Nationalists have a whole lot more to say about Jews than merely observing that they are a different people. I have argued that the fate of White Nationalism does not depend one way or another on the outcome of historical debates about the holocaust. But I do believe that Jews are not just different from whites, but powerful and malevolent enemies who bear significant responsibility for causing white decline and opposing white renewal.

Some White Nationalists don’t want to hear it. But even so, as I have argued here, they still have to face up to the Jewish question. Because if Jews are nothing more than a distinct people, then ethnonationalists must conclude that Jews belong in their own homeland, not in ours. It is as simple as that.

  • hbanker

    « Not all Jews »

    First a few important disclaimers:

    – I have a European perspective where Jews have been a benign inclusion for millennia

    – Moreover, I am more of a paleo conservative than an alt-righter but well understood paleo conservatism is ethnodifferentialist, the difference is more about the place of white nationalism in the political philosophy than about its existence.

    – And finally, I am technically Jew since my maternal grandmother was Ashkenazi.

    While at first look, ethnodifferentialism would imply that the solution to the Jewish question is quite simply Zionism, the Jewish people have a long history of cohabitating with white Christian majorities without either being absorbed nor colonizing them, they have developed traditions and culture over millennia that enables this “otherness” inclusion peacefully and there was no Jewish question at all for millennia in Europe, Jew communities were present, had a defined specific place in society and due to their historical and spiritual relationship with Christianity were both harmless and well tolerated.

    The reasons for that are multiple, primarily that Jewish reproduction rates were never threatening, that the very rare mixed marriages resulted in a clear majority in total assimilation in the host culture of the offspring and that Jewish culture insisted on the fact that Jews were guests in the host and had to respect the harsh rules of hospitality.

    I strongly believe that if otherness is recognized as otherness, that no pretention is made of commonality of nation between the host and the small Jewish community, Jews have a place in occidental white Christian society, a small place, a subordinate place, but a place.

    Zionism is a modern notion, coming from the modern notion of “self-determination” of people, and the equivalence of national and political spheres, while a common basic culture is obviously necessary, -compatible- nations can cohabit in a single political realm peacefully, and the Jewish nation was a special part of that successful civilization.

    Now there -IS- a Jewish question, the overrepresentation of Jewish influence in the cultural and political elites in particular is clearly a threat, but my point is that it is dangerous not because there is a Jewish inclusion inside a white realm, but simply because Jews have kept strong identity while the host pretends that identity does not exist, a very beneficial symbiont can, when the host is badly sick, become a parasite, but is it the fault of the symbiont, or the fault of the self-destructing host ?

    I am convinced that while obviously, the Jewish elites have a short-term interest in keeping the host weak and do participate in its weakness, they are but opportunistic scavengers and no predators.

    The solution to the Jewish question is not necessarily Zionism and its full geographic segregation, history shows that Jews, when surrounded by a strong culture, will self-segregate inside this culture and assume a sane small non-colonial position.

    (((Pseudonymous for obvious reasons)))