A Christian conservative wrote:

Jerry,

I have visited your website several times, and I admire your intelligence and way with words. I am not a racialist, or a White nationalist, or a National Socialist, but while I fundamentally disagree with your philosophy (I am a Christian and a cultural conservative), I nevertheless think that, in addressing much of what goes on today, you make many excellent points.

You are certainly correct to expose the rampant and rank dishonesty of liberals when it comes to racial matters. There is a far greater extent of black-on-white crime than the reverse, but we never hear this from the mainstream media. Instead, they are intent on pointing out the exceptions to this rule, and designating such occurances as "hate crimes," a term with a distinctly Orwellian flavor. The norm, however (black on white crime) they tend to ignore, or if they report it, they never mention the race of the (white) victim or (black) criminal if they can help it.

That so many blacks are violent criminals does not make me conclude, however, that blacks have a genetic predisposition to violence. To say that they do is certainly within the realm of possibility-- but negative cultural factors are undoubtedly at work within the black community today, and I think it is more useful to focus on culture, rather than race. A civilized people will act civil; a barbarous people will act barbaric; therefore, we must strive to establish and maintain civilization.

We racists don't go around asserting racial differences, as opposed to individual ones, just to be mean. We do it because it is the most parsimonious explanation, so far as we know, for phenomena that appear to be racially correlated. If we were talking about atoms in a gas, instead of members of races, then we'd be discussing temperature, pressure, density, mean molecular weight, van der waals forces, and stuff like that. When we discuss race, the corresponding phenomena are average I.Q. test scores, per capita crime rates, historical cultural attainments, and so forth. Just because a characteristic is the collective property of a group, whether it is the air inside a balloon or a race inside a country, does not deprive that characteristic of significance. More on this in a bit.

The main problem I have with racialism is that it ignores the most important demographic out there-- the individual person. Even if it is true, for instance, that blacks are less intelligent than whites, there are exceptions. Have you ever read Thomas Sowell, a brilliant black conservative, author of "The Vision of the Annointed," a blistering attack on liberalism? Even if one such as Sowell is unusual, he cannot be ignored. It would be wrong to lump him together with stupid and/or violent blacks, since he is a bright and decent man. And there are certainly others like him, though it is sadly true that most blacks appear these days to be intellectually enslaved to Jesse Jackson and the Democratic party.

Let me go back to my comparison. Temperature is related to the average speed of the atoms in that gas. It is very important to consider temperature when trying to judge how best to handle something, isn't it? If you judge incorrectly, you might be burned or frostbitten. Temperature doesn't specify the speed of any particular atom. And the average in a racial characteristic, likewise, doesn't nail down the degree to which a member of that race will have it. Like temperature, a racial characteristic is a distribution. Like temperature, racial characteristics are important—and for the same reason. If you judge another race incorrectly, your race might end up getting hurt through a careless association with it.

Certainly, there are good Blacks. Let them be good somewhere else. Let their shining examples inspire their fellow Blacks to do likewise. Blacks shouldn't need to have Whites around in order to be good, yes? And some Blacks seem to think that the presence of Whites "holds them back," so let them be separated! Besides that, Whites have their own inspirational figures; we don't need the Black ones additionally, especially when the price for getting them is having to associate, dangerously, with a race whose per capita crime rates are five to ten times higher than our own.

Similarly with the Jews. It is extremely un-PC to note that much of the mainstream media and the liberal "intelligensia" is of Jewish descent. It is true, yet pointing it out gets you into trouble-- as Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran can attest. Yet distinctions must be made between the liberal, secular Jews whose presence is so strongly felt in the news media and the academy, and religious Jews who observe their faith and for whom secular Judiasm is an abomination. As a case in point, I can find no better example of noble Jew than radio talk show host Dr. Laura Schlesinger, who as you must know, is hated by liberals, many of whom share her Jewish blood. One should not view Dr. Laura, and others like her, in the same way that one views Trotsky, Freud, Marx, Lieberman, et al.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The Jews have not been called the "great masters of the lie" for nothing. When you hear the word "lie," what probably comes to your mind is the simple untruth, a fib, a child telling you that no he didn't play with the matches when you know good and well that he did. Or maybe you think of a salesman who sells you defective merchandise while claiming that it is in perfect working order. Or perhaps it brings to mind the con artist who tries to get you to hand over your money as a down-payment for real estate that he doesn't really have the legal right to sell.

None of that even remotely approaches the Jewish finesse with deception. For one thing, they aren't always lone operators in their lies (though, when they are, they are still the champs). Jews will write lies into encyclopedia articles, then have a few "eminent scholars" cite it as a reference in their "definitive" studies, and these studies will be used as bibliographical material in a serious-sounding book on a related subject. The Jew whom you meet in a chat room will refer you to that book, which will lead you to those studies, which will take you sooner or later to the encyclopedia article. The "information" that this merry chase brings you might be false through and through, but you won't ordinarily have any easy way of knowing that. The Jews actually manufacture pseudofacts, and then they parade a long list of fake "authorities" to dazzle you into believing them. Not only that, they will often camouflage their frauds with surrounding truthful material, leading the careless reader to accord the entire publication with a trust that the occasional false article betrays. When Jewish publishing houses produce encyclopedias, the articles on the different breeds of dogs, birds and horses might be reasonably complete and accurate, whereas those about the different breeds of men will be neither.

They have other tricks as well. For example, they often send some of their number to represent "the other side." By putting on a show of contention, they conceal the fact that everything you are hearing has been orchestrated by a single plan, and that the result of this fake give-and-take will be whatever the Jews wanted it to be from the beginning. The side that is to win will win; the side that is to lose will fuss and rant and bellyache...but lose—by design. This kind of deception has been called the "scripted debate." It's what's usually going on whenever you notice that someone engaging in public argument doesn't use his best arguments, but instead concerns himself with trivia, confuses symptoms with causes, or uses disingenuous rhetoric. When you, starting cold, can think of questions better than the ones being asked, or relevant issues more important than the ones being focused on—when you decide that the position being defended by one side would be better off with you as the defender—the chances are very good that you're watching a scripted debate.

The strong form of the scripted debate involves a direct face-off between "opponents" who are really conspirators. The weak form involves "conflicts among authorities," with it being made clear which side of the conflict carries more weight or where the so-called "consensus" is. These "authorities" are again conspirators, with the losing side being charged with putting on an energetic (but not too convincing) exposition of "unconventional" ideas. The scripted debate is similar to a media propaganda trick that the Jews sometimes use: telling the truth in such a way that it will be disbelieved.

There may be acrimony between the Orthodox Jews and the secular Jews on religious matters, but there is much accord between them on increasing the power of the Jewish people over the wealth and lives of the other peoples of this Earth. The Jews do have their religious squabbles, but this is not one of them. If theological disputes were the only thing that Jews were noted for, there wouldn't need to be Nazis.

Ultimately, what I am writing of here is a matter of faith. The Judeo-Christian Scriptures declare that man was created in the image of God. If one holds to this, as I do, then one has an obligation to see all of mankind as equal; not, mind you, equal in intellectual or physical ability, but equal in being equally beloved of the Creator, equally in bondage to sin and equally in need of grace to obtain salvation.

Today, of course, this equality of souls first established by Christianity has been perverted by modern ideologies such as communism and other harsh, untenable radicalisms. "Equality" has become a rallying cry for destructive social activism that has only served to simultaneously bring about tryanny and chaos. This is a shame and a tragedy. But it needn't make one despair, because God is good and all will be well in the end.

[Name and address omitted by request.]

Well, okay. I've nothing against religious faith as such. I occasionally go to church because you can sometimes find good people there. (Baptist and Adventist are my preferences. Catholic services are pretty, but I'm not into that much formality.) I am, and nearly always have been, an atheist, and so I don't relate to the equality of being equally loved by God. To me, sin is something one does but should not do, and not a state of being ("in bondage to sin").

But the argument that "God is good, therefore all will be well in the end" is one of the main reasons we are in a mess today. Too many White people, for too much time, have been saying that, and while they've been saying it things have seldom done anything but get worse. I can imagine the last White person, if he is a Christian, saying it too—right before a Jew betrays him, a Mexican stabs him to death, and a Black eats his corpse while the Jew imitates a priest and mocks the Eucharistic ceremony.

The way I look at it, it's probably OK for God to love everybody equally, but it's inherently destructive for men to do so. You should love your own children more than you love other people's children. You should love your kin more than you love strangers. You should love your race more than you love other races. And your love should be tangible, expressed as demonstrated preferences for the groups that you belong to. You have this instinct anyway, from Nature (or from God). If God gave you that instinct, then it must be the way He wants you to behave, rather than presume to act as a God would behave.