Joseph Sobran is one of the most honest and engaging columnists who deals regularly with social and political topics. He was fired from his senior editor position at National Review because he wrote an article ("In Our Hands") in which he displayed a degree of concern for America that bothered the Jews. The Jews leaned on Wm. F. Buckley, who fired Joe, thereby conferring on Joe the equivalent of a library full of praise, complete with a statue out front.

But I disagree with Joe about one thing in particular: on the need for national states. He thinks that they can be profitably gotten rid of, and I dispute that point.

Most of the evils that he thinks results purely from statist domination are in fact badly exacerbated by racial mixture within the population and by a strong alien influence on their government. Joe ought to know well enough, at least, about the latter. The human drive for domination is substantially interracial, and it is variously called "racial hate" or "national aspirations," depending on how much political favor the group has with those in power.

Nobody, and no law, can make this drive for domination go away. It's with us as long as we remain primates. The drive demands satisfaction, and it becomes less conducive to hostility and to violence only when satisfaction is granted. A country, therefore, should never have more than one race in it. No government can serve two races: either it will promote the one and abuse the other, or it might end up abusing them both.

That doesn't mean that the drive for domination will disappear once multi-racial states have been resegregated into racially pure states. Not all human competition is interracial. Some of it is less collective and more egotistical—and for that reason is more easily diverted toward non-violent outlets, even into productive outlets. When society's inferiors no longer have "prejudice" to blame their woes on, they tend to accept the idea that some people are simply better than others and that they, themselves, aren't part of the national elite. They settle for being the best that they can be. Their competitive drive becomes restricted to those whom they consider their peers.

If some devil re-introduces foreign elements, then once again the cries of "racial prejudice" will be heard, and once again the blame for the non-competitiveness of the inferior group will be laid at the feet of the supposed "racism" of the superior group. Therefore, national racial purity is a great treasure, hard to build and easy to lose, but an excellent thing if it can be possessed.

When Jews want to disrupt a country that has no handy racial minority to use as cat's paw, they must work harder to create the illusion that class differences are the result of "prejudice." Marxism, however, is a seed that generally needs careful cultivation. At a minimum, it requires an existing resentment among the peasantry against an abusive, arrogant elite which unjustly and unwisely despises the source of its own bread. This elite can be a decadent aristocracy, or it can be a capitalist class grown too big for its britches. Although Marxism can perform horrendous feats of national destruction using class-envy alone, class is an artificial basis for jealousy, while race is a natural (and hence stronger) one.

But, getting back to the question of whether states are blessings, curses, or necessities—mostly, they are the last of those three, with either of the former pair being relative to the actual alternatives, as opposed to wished-for but impossible ones. Joe thinks that states are unnatural because animals don't have them. But that's not an indication of unnaturalness; it's an indication of man's intelligence. States evolved naturally as groups of men invented different organizational models in the hopes of raising their powers to compete with foreign groups of men. The state is the winner out of all the social models ever tried.

Once one group of men had adopted the state, all other groups had to copy the model or be swept away as the eternal losers in the stuggle for existence. At the same time, political intrigue emerged, as men sought to subvert, to corrupt or otherwise to damage the states of other tribes, typically by pitting their enemies' personal interests against their national (ethnic) ones. Making points in this dirty business involves finding traitors and exploiting treason among one's foes.

Political intrigue, in turn, became first an art and then a science. Its practitioners found that many of the mechanisms on which large societies depend could be corrupted. In medieval Europe, for example, the Jews learned that great profit could be made by a kind of fraud in which a goldsmith would exaggerate his deposits and collect interest income on loans "backed" by mostly fictitious supplies of gold. In other words, the goldsmith, who was almost always a Jew, lied in order to induce other men to work partly for his benefit and to assume risks from which the goldsmith took some of the profit in the event of success, but no loss in cases of failure. Indeed, by demanding "security" for these fraudulent loans, these Jews sometimes managed to take more profit from their victims' failures than they did from their successes. It became a matter of calculation, at that point, as to when a borrower should be tricked into debt and then trapped into forfeiture.

Later, the great Jewish banking houses would become experts at tricking and trapping whole nations. Their debt-money fraud grew as a forest fire grows from an untended campfire, until Western civilization itself was unable to escape from the Jewish financial snare. The swindlers' gains were never reversed with fines and seizures. Any nation that might have rebelled was afraid that the bankers would goad neighboring states into war against them: a well-founded fear, indeed, as Germany was destined to learn.

The Jew Amschel Rothschild arrogantly summed it up when he said, "Give me the power to make a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws." The possession of a monopoly on money-creation, in other words, provides the means by which some men can set themselves above the laws that ordinary citizens are compelled to obey, the point being that any separation between the money-creating authority and the law-making one is, ipso facto, corruption. Understanding that, the American Founding Fathers gave to Congress the power to coin money and to regulate its value. Also understanding it, the Jew Paul Warburg corrupted the Congress sufficiently to institute the non-governmental Federal Reserve Board (composed mostly of Jewish bankers) to usurp the money-creating function.

The results of these Jewish moves included price inflation, public distrust, and economic recessions, as the Federal Reserve expanded or contracted the supply of the debt-allowance that has come to masquerade as real money. The aim of that mischief was political: it transferred power, in the form of credit and legal ownership, to the Jews from the groups with whom the Jews were competing. In 1868, partly in anticipation of securing their title to these gains, the Jews used their influence on the United States government to force a semblance of ratification to the 14th Amendment, which, among other things, asserts that the validity of the "public" debt of the United States cannot be legally challenged; i.e., cannot be repudiated.

The only weakness in this gambit is that the 14th Amendment was never actually ratified. It was rejected by the elected legislatures of enough states that its failure may be safely presumed. Further, the illusion of ratification was carried out under military occupation by a chorus line-up of federal government stooges, actors playing their parts, in defiance of the constitution itself. The 14th Amendment is not law, and it never was. The pretense that it is law is another part of the Jews' political intrigue against White Americans.

Other avenues of political intrigue were found in propaganda. In the middle of the 19th century, Moses Montefiore, a Jew holding an English title of nobility (which may be compared with a wolf holding a bloody bone from the body of its kill), met with other influential Jews to discuss Jewish world conquest. Montefiore argued that it was not enough to control the credit of the European nations; the Jews must also gain control of the press, so that the White people could hear no word about events in the world except what had passed Jewish censorship. And so it was done. A hundred years later, the Jews had almost complete control of the mass media, including television and the cinema when they appeared. Once more, the Jews had gained a weapon of political warfare by subverting a necessary function of an opponent's state so that it fell, to quote them as Joe did, "In Our Hands."

But all of this is a side treatment of political intrigue as a means by which men of one tribe can attempt to weaken the state of a racial competitor. I return now to a discussion of the state as a naturally evolved collective enterprise.

If personal freedoms were goods in themselves, as Libertarian thinking usually has it, then there would be no such thing as biological extinction. There would be, in that case, no conflict between group survival and personal freedom, and it would be impossible for a species (or for a race) to come to harm when its individual members behaved with perfect Ayn-Randian selfishness. But the Libertarian view is in conflict with certain facts.

The first fact is that humans, like all other primate species, are tribal animals. We group ourselves according to similarity, chiefly according to biological similarity, and then we further cluster for social or political reasons. Our identification with groups less inclusive than the Totality of All Mankind makes inter-group rivalries inevitable. Tribal competition during prehistoric times led to forms of social organization that, under the pressure of natural (yes, natural) selection, increasingly resembled the modern state. By 3500 BC, a form of the state had definitely appeared, in Egypt and in Sumeria, and the power of this form of organization was soon demonstrated.

Did you ever see a crowd surprised by something terrible? For example, perhaps you watched a film in which a great many people engaged in peaceful commerce were suddenly confronted by a military attack. The people scream and scatter, and a few brave souls might engage the enemy in hopeless combat in order to give their fellows a little more time to get to a hiding place. But you will never in this world see an unprepared, undisciplined, unorganized crowd repel an army. That's the advantage that states have in competition with stateless peoples.

Whatever its drawbacks and costs, the appearance of the first states made its adoption mandatory for every human group that desired to live without being subjected to a foreign master. With a state of their own, a people could at least hope that the whip and the axe would be held by one of their own kind, brought up in their own culture and therefore inclined to be indulgent toward its values. In the strictest sense, this was still slavery: but it was the best (least) kind of slavery that would be possible forevermore. The stateless tribal niche had closed. The days when nations could live without states had come to a permanent end.

The second fact with which Libertarianism is in conflict is the natural priority of values. Unfettered personal freedom has no merit when that condition leads to the death of its practitioners, or even when its exercise gives rise to circumstances in which it cannot be continued. Freedom is a contingent value, not an absolute one: it has value only for living beings wise enough to use it without losing it by death or by slavery.

The degree of personal freedom that is optimal for a given people is the greatest degree consistent with their survival and consistent with their continuing to possess that degree of freedom. It differs among races according to their intelligence, their wisdom, their sociability and other relevant qualities. Crediting any higher degree of personal freedom with greater merit is like spending the principal on which your fortune is based: it reduces the dividends that the remaining principal can yield and it might put your freedom permanently out of business.

Most likely the state has only one possible competitor, and that model is the Jewish model, which involves a state, but Israel is the headquarters of Zionism, not a homeland for the Jews. Zionism operates out of Israel with the aim of subverting every other country to a vassel condition. If the state is compared with an organism, then Zionism may be viewed as a viral infection: indeed, as a sort of political AIDS.

The Mossad has infiltrated the major U.S. law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, to the point where Israel's own agents are able to control ostensibly American investigations on the activities of Jewish spies within the United States. Further, US law enforcement agencies, both federal and state, are being pressured or tricked into entering into "partnerships" with Jewish criminal organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

The situation with the FBI, and likely the entire US government, is hopeless. They have our state, and now we are their slaves, even though they have yet to tell us so officially. Unless we can destroy that state somehow, the Jews will continue using American soldiers to kill Israel's enemies, continue using American lawmen to harrass American patriots, continue invading our privacy and taking away our freedoms. That's what happens when you live at the pleasure of an ALIEN state. If, by some miracle, we were able to destroy the Jewified US government, we would need immediately to institute a state of our own, since otherwise America could be swiftly conquered by more conventional military means.

The point is that the state, the apex of military organization, is still vulnerable to subversion by foreign groups with sufficient guile and possessed of the means to find traitors and to exploit treasons. The experience of the White peoples with the Jews has taught us that the state is necessary, but not sufficient: it must be augmented by racial homogeneity and a conscious racial patriotism. One country may safely have only one race in it.