Classic Essays

Civility and Survival

by John Nobull

JOHN MURRAY CUDDIHY’S STUDY of the ‘Ordeal of Civility‘ endured by Jews in a Gentile society highlights, by implication, a considerable weakness in ourselves. The fact is that our tendency to be civil has been systematically exploited to the point where it opens up a gap in our armour.

There is now an overwhelming body of evidence that hordes of aliens, many of them actively hostile, are rapidly replacing us in our own countries. Not even the blind can be ignorant of this, unless they have also lost their senses of hearing and smell. Since this is the most important problem of the century, or indeed of any century, it dictates one of three main attitudes: first, some degree of welcome for the immigrants, leading inevitably to support for miscegenation; second, a determination to resist the intrusion and reverse the tide; and third, an attempt to ignore the problem as far as possible. There is a rightist variant of this last attitude which runs: “Why struggle to maintain a rotten multiracial system? Why not just cultivate our gardens with a few friends?” Up to now, the resistance alternative has been the least effective, although even liberals and Jews are finding it increasingly difficult to ignore the problems associated with the presence of hostile aliens. It is very shocking for Jews to read about Jews being knifed or pushed under subway trains by New York blacks. Such treatment tends to modify their previous assumptions about race. There is no better definition of a conservative than “a liberal who has just been mugged.”

However, my words are addressed to the resisters, not to the conscious temporisers. We know that the alien influx can spell the end of us as a people. We should therefore regard the aliens as an occupying army, to be resisted and expelled. That is what we believe in theory, but what do we do in practice? I will tell you. We behave with more civility towards the aliens than either the liberals or the temporisers. Until recently, if I were asked a question by some coloured immigrant lost in a London street, I would give him exact directions and send him on his way. Only if he showed signs of active hostility would I fail to assist him. It is the same with most of my rightist friends. I notice that, since they are among the very few whites who do not look utterly demoralised, aliens make a beeline for them whenever they need help of any kind, even a handout, and they are seldom disappointed. They know that they can nearly always count on a sense of noblesse oblige which makes discourtesy a crime. So it is that companions of mine who, only a minute or so before, were drawing attention to the degenerate appearance of some biped in the street, would blossom into courtesy the moment they were asked for information by that same biped. I am sorry, but this won’t do. The only proper description of such behaviour is collaboration with the enemy.

Working-class resisters are more likely to be logical. They are not so much burdened with feelings of politeness. For example, parts of the American South have remained white to this day, simply and solely because there is no cooperation with racial outsiders or known liberals. I can also cite the example of a part of the United Kingdom (I would not reveal its whereabouts for the world) where working-class hostility has so far prevented the settlement of a single coloured. Alas, the main advantage of this goes to middle class people who continue to prattle about tolerance while benefiting every day of their lives — in terms of safety, aesthetics and sense of belonging — from the intolerance (or rather, determination to survive) of their working-class neighbours. I am no impassioned admirer of the British working class as a whole, but it still has some merits lacking in the middle classes:

How beastly the bourgeois is, Especially the male of the species.

Never mind the law. It doesn’t matter how many Race Relations Acts they impose on us, provided we can rebuild our sense of community to the point where we automatically reject the resident alien. It is quite impossible to impose such a law in a community where everyone covers for everyone else, in which traitors are ostracised, and the judiciary and the police are themselves under pressure from their fellow citizens. English law is a reflection of contemporary values. Well and good. We can change those values.

What the middle classes can do is learn from the Jews, who have perfected methods of racial survival and domination in multiracial societies. To begin with, they regard the interests of Jews as paramount over those of the host community. They deal with Gentiles, certainly, but they are opaque, letting in the light of information or any other benefit which comes from outside, while at the same time denying us any real glimpse into their attitudes and intentions. They calculate their behaviour towards Gentiles with a view to obtaining a maximum effect. As Shylock puts it: “I will buy with you, sell with you, talk with you, walk with you, and so following, but I will not eat with you, drink with you, nor pray with you. What news on the Rialto?” There is one fundamental difference between us and the Jews, however. They need us, whereas we don’t need them.

My own criterion of behaviour depends entirely upon the status of the individual concerned. For instance, I like to practise my Hindustani occasionally, so when a Hindi or Urdu speaker accosts me, I take the opportunity of practising his language, free, just as they do with us in English. Early in the conversation, I establish whether my interlocutor is a bona fide visitor or an immigrant. If the latter, I always drop him and leave him to draw the obvious inference. I have even gone so far as to point out to Indians that we never colonised India in the sense of settling there in any numbers, whereas they are colonising our overcrowded island in no uncertain manner. Yet several parts of India (Kashmir, Darjeeling, the Nilgiri Hills) would have been quite suitable for British settlement. Similarly, I am far more inclined to tolerate an obvious visitor from West Africa in his colourful native blanket than I am to tolerate some bloody-minded “Black Englishman.” And I would far rather meet an Orthodox Jew, ritually oiled and curled, than a nasty, pushy assimilated Jew. The Orthodox Jew may not be a lovely sight, but at least he is proclaiming his difference from us. He does not threaten our community from within.

(Based on an article in Instauration)

Read more at Jamie Kelso’s online Instauration archive

For Further Reading

Previous post

Jews and Modern Art

Next post

A Lesson from Nature

1 Comment

  1. November 17, 2010 at 3:14 am — Reply

    […] Civility and Survival « National Vanguard […]

Leave a reply

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

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.