Why it’s ‘Racist’ to Call a Jew a Jew

By Nicholas R. Jeelvy for Counter Currents

For a long time, I thought about what sets us, as identitarians, White Nationalists, and dissidents apart from other political groups, both current and historical. It was while thinking about the phenomenon of crypsis that I came to an understanding that our defining feature is our acceptance of the concept of the absolute outsider. Allow me to walk you through my thought process.

I was thinking about the phenomenon of crypsis as alluded to by Kevin MacDonald in The Culture of Critique. Crypsis is a term from biology which describes acts by animals or plants to conceal themselves, but MacDonald uses it in the context of Jews obscuring their foreign nature in host societies. Jewish crypsis is most often mimicry, which is to say Jews will pretend to be gentiles on the individual level in order to gain the trust of individual gentiles who may treat them differently if they knew they were Jewish.

Now, while there are some Jews who could pass for gentiles, the notion of Jews practicing crypsis in any significant numbers is to me unlikely given the fact that they wear their ethnicity on their faces, for the most part. There is such a thing as Jewish physiognomy, and it is very distinctive. I’ve heard some people claim that the Jewish physiognomy is also found in Italians and Greeks, but personally, I’m not convinced. Maybe all Mediterraneans look the same to northwestern Europeans. Regardless, the behavioral profiles of Greeks and Italians is very different from that of Jews, and so through a combination of reading their physiognomy and tracking their behavior, Jews can be effectively identified even in a crowd of Greeks, Italians, and other Mediterranean peoples.

It was when thinking about these and other means of differentiating Jews from a population of Mediterranean white gentiles that I realized that the process includes a prior assumption that I make, but that is lacking in the majority of white people alive today. That is, of course, the assumption that the Jews are outsiders. But let’s not single out the Jews here (I’ve done that elsewhere). The fact of the matter is that even if we weren’t looking for a Jew in a Greekstack, the very idea of there being outsiders, understood as an ethnic category, which can be determined through observing their physiognomy and behavior is revolutionary in the modern world. Without this assumption, which provides the framework for observing the population among which we seek the Jew, the fact is that even though such people would see the exact same things I would, they would not be able to detect the outsider — because they have no conception of the outsider.

This is a bold claim, especially to make in a world where people are routinely drummed out of polite society for holding disapproved views. What do you mean, there are no outsiders? What are we, who deny the Nuremberg Moral Paradigm, then? Didn’t you yourself write an article describing the dissident as the absolute other of the Leftist mainstream not three months ago, Mr. Jeelvy? What gives?

Indeed, I won’t deny that our enemy has no conception of outsideness — a conceptual space where people like us live. In their mental maps, this place may be called Racistan, or simply be marked “here be haters.” The Z Man of the Z blog calls it “the outer darkness.” But here’s the key difference: Racistan has no natives in the liberal worldview. Racistan is populated by exiles from civilized society; people who were expelled from the community of the elect for being “haters” in a process of otherization that I’ve described in my article on what liberals mean when they say hate.

But as liberals — and conservatives — will inform you if you have the ears to hear, they do not believe anyone is born racist. Conservatives believe racism is a personal and irrational failing of man stemming from ignorance, whereas liberals have a more sophisticated — some would say more convoluted — notion of it, both of which are explored here. Both, however, contend that racism is in some way unnatural; an aberration of the human condition. In short, in the enemy worldview one is not born but rather becomes an outsider, and outsideness as a conceptual space is inhabited only by those who choose to live there.

Compare that to our conception of the outsider. When I say someone is a Jew, I don’t mean someone who chose to practice the rabbinical religion, but rather I mean that such a person belongs to the ethnic group we call Jews. I believe this person was born a Jew, is a Jew no matter what he says, and believes as and dies as and will remain a Jew even if he converts to any faith other than Judaism. There is nothing this person can do to cease being a Jew, no more than I can cease being white. He is a permanent outsider to me and all white people in my worldview. That doesn’t necessarily mean he’s an enemy, but between us is a boundary which cannot be crossed. To say that someone has stopped being a Jew and become a gentile is in the same category of nonsense as saying someone has stopped being a man and become a woman. Even if a man cuts off his penis and puts on a wig, he is still a man: a damaged one, but still a man. Analogously, a Jew converting to Christianity or Asatru doesn’t become white, but rather remains a Jew — although the degree to which he can actualize his full potential as a Jew then comes into question.

The notion of scanning a group of gentiles and finding the Jew hiding among them puts us in the frame of mind of a border guard, keeping outsiders from using crypsis in order to deceive us and move into our space, where they will carry out their nefarious work. However, there are many other outsiders, many of whom are not enemies and who are not even hostile — just not part of our group. They live outside our space, and there are many differences between us and them as well as between different groups of outsiders. Some of them are pretty cool and make excellent cartoons. But the general mental map is that of us in our corner of the world and of all the outsiders in the outlands, which form the majority of the world. The enemy’s mental map is inverted, however.

Since the enemy’s contention is that his values are universal — they’re not, but don’t tell them that, as they tend to get very angry –, he necessarily regards the entire universe as being within the perimeter fence and every inhabitant of the universe as his in-group, whether these people like it or not. In other words, even if you have a solid grasp of the concept of the outsider, you do not get to practice it in the face of a universalist creed, since they do not recognize that you may be an outsider and may even prefer to remain outside their creed. Likewise, they may lack the conceptual tools to accept that your own creed, which you understand as particular to your own in-group, is not and isn’t meant to be universalizable, which is to say meant for global adoption. You will not be allowed to remain an outsider for long, and if you resist, you will be deemed a hater and slated for destruction, and automatically declared an enemy of humanity. In our enemy’s mental map, the in-group is all-encompassing, and the outside conceptual space is pure darkness and evil — a place where we dump the haters and racists.

This means that the enemy is by necessity an imperialist entity who respects and indeed can brook no boundaries between nations, between states, between tribes, and even between the sexes. The very idea of boundaries is blasphemy in their worldview, and only a hater would point out that there are unsurmountable boundaries between men. To point out a boundary is to declare that in any situation there are two groups: one inside, one outside. To name that boundary as permanent and fixed, as we do, is to commit the ultimate sin of universalist faiths.

Coming back to crypsis, the idea that Jews try to pass themselves off as gentiles is laughable if we have the conceptual tools to identify the outsider. But what if those conceptual tools, the operational framework arising out of the concept of the outsider, is damaged by notions of universalism and all ability and proclivity for identifying the outsider as such is pathologized as “racism”? This is a far more powerful form of crypsis than simply changing your name from Rothstein to Roth. It strikes at the host society’s ability to distinguish between outsiders and insiders by problematizing the very notion of recognizing outsiders as such. This is the radical critique identified in The Culture of Critique. Jewish crypsis is more advanced than merely pretending to be gentiles, but it consists of poking out the conceptual eye which notices that they are not gentiles.

This is what sets us apart from everyone else: the notion that there are immutable differences between people, that belonging is determined by birth and cannot be changed, and that outsiders exist. Our very idea of the outsider — not as a foreigner, meaning coming from a different place, but someone fundamentally different from us — is a conceptual revolt against the universalist regime and is also the bare minimum for considering yourself fundamentally opposed to it. We are defined by our ability and readiness to point out the outsider no matter how hard he tries to conceal himself and no matter how much he tries to problematize our framework for recognizing the outsider. For this, we are hated and scorned by society, which denies the very possibility of there being such a thing as an outsider.

The way forward is clear. We must press on with reconstructing the framework for recognizing the outsider and reinstitute this notion in the minds of ordinary people. After that is done, we shall begin the far easier task of arguing that political organization should take the distinction between outsider and kin into account

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *