Friday, April 1, 2016

Birth of a White Negro

Here was one nation promising another nation the land of a third nation, wrote Arthur Koestler, who, dismissing the [Balfour] declaration as an impossible notion, an unnatural graft, called it a “white Negro.”

-          From “One Palestine, Complete,” by Tom Segev

The Baby

What was the Balfour Declaration?

The Balfour Declaration (dated 2 November 1917) was a letter from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. It read:

His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

Arthur Koestler’s "Promise and Fulfillment, Palestine 1917-1949" was published in 1949.  What, specifically, did he mean by “white Negro,” and to what aspect of this declaration did he apply it?

The Balfour Declaration was a statement of poetic inspiration; translated into administrative prose it sounded bewildering and impracticable.  The wording of the document itself already betrayed a considerable uneasiness on the -part of its authors.  Why the curious expression “National Home,” whose vagueness was bound to lead to endless complications and disputes?  The Royal Commission comments:

"We have been permitted to examine the records which bear upon the question and it is clear to us that the words 'the establishment in Palestine of a National Home' were the outcome of a compromise between those Ministers who contemplated the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State and those who did not."

An ambiguous diplomatic phrase based on a compromise of this type is called in French a "negre blanc.”  The concept of a National Home was, from its beginning, a white Negro. It was a logical misfit and an administrative absurdity. It could be made to appear white or black according to the political constellation of the moment, for nobody knew what it really meant. To General Smuts, who had been a member of the Imperial War Cabinet at the time when the Declaration was launched, the national home meant "in generations to come a great Jewish state rising there once more.” To Mr. Winston Churchill it meant something quite different:

"When it is asked, what is meant by the development of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish Community ... in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride."

Koestler offers two other examples to be found in the declaration:

"…an appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country. The Zionist Organization…shall be recognized as such agency."

This stipulation was another white negro. The existence of an independent public body with the function to "advise,” "cooperate,” "assist" and "take part" in the business of government was a permanent headache for the rulers of the country ; it gradually became an obsession and ended in persecution 'mania. For within a few years the Jewish Agency, by force of circumstances, had developed into a shadow Government, a state within the State.


…the [British] Administration, by way of compromise, while refusing to give the Haganah its official sanction, tolerated its existence. This state of affairs continued for thirty years, until the end of the Mandate. The Jewish Defence organization became another white negro, which changed its colour according to the political situation.

The Conception

Returning to Segev:

The British entered Palestine to defeat the Turks; they stayed there to keep it from the French; then they gave it to the Zionists because they loved “the Jews” even as they loathed them, at once admired and despised them, and above all feared them….The declaration was the product of neither military nor diplomatic interests but of prejudice, faith, and sleight of hand.  The men who sired it were Christian and Zionist and, in many cases, anti-Semitic.  They believed Jews controlled the world.

The first British proposal to conquer Palestine and establish a Jewish state was made by the British postmaster general.  His name was Herbert Samuel, a Jew.  He would later become the 1st High Commissioner of Palestine.

Lord Kitchener, the secretary of state for war, did not share an enthusiasm for the proposal.  He was opposed to opening in front in Palestine, preferring to utilize British manpower for Europe.  One year later, he drowned at sea; the circumstances were less than innocent.

Lloyd George supported the idea of a Palestinian homeland for Jews – his support was grounded in the Biblical land of “Canaan.”  He was not alone – there was a long tradition in England of Christian Zionism.  Yet there was more to Lloyd George’s support:

But in his own way he despised the Jews as well – or to put it another way, he feared them.

In his memoirs, written in the 1930s, Lloyd George attempted to convince a now skeptical public that support for a Jewish homeland was the right thing to do:

“The Jewish race,” Lloyd George explained in his memoirs, had worldwide influence and capability, and the Jews had every intention of determining the outcome of the World War – acting, he said, in accordance with their financial instincts.  They could influence the United States to intensify its involvement in the war, and as the real movers behind the Russian Revolution, they also controlled Russia’s attitude toward Germany.

Lloyd George was not alone with such thoughts, for example Lord Robert Cecil, undersecretary at the Foreign Office during the final years of the war:

“I do not think that it is easy to exaggerate the international power of the Jews.”

About the Jews, John Buchan wrote in his classic spy novel, Thirty-nine Steps:

“Away behind all governments and the armies there was a big subterranean movement going on, engineered by very dangerous people.”

This all sounds so…anti-Semitic.  Yet at the time, certain Zionists took full advantage of such beliefs.  One such individual was Chaim Weizmann.  Despite holding no office in the Zionist movement, he took charge of the situation in England.  Although initially a man of little import, he was able to secure meetings with high government officers and key British policy makers.

By the beginning of the war, Weizmann had gotten to know quite a few people in the political system, including Winston Churchill.  For much of his access, he had C.P. Scott, editor of the Manchester Guardian, to thank.  It was Scott who had managed his most important introduction – to Arthur James Balfour, a former Liberal prime minister and foreign secretary in David Lloyd George’s cabinet.

Weizmann was able to walk the halls of power with those who lorded over 400 million subjects and eight million soldiers already at the front – they already had plenty to do.  He spoke with Lloyd George during the war at least seven times.

Balfour also held less-than-favorable views about Jews:

In 1905, Balfour had been among the sponsors of the law to restrict immigration to Britain, a largely anti-Jewish measure, which had led to his vilification as an antisemite.

This did not stop Weizmann.  Soon after the two took a late night, two hour walk, Balfour declared in a cabinet meeting, “I am a Zionist.”

“Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad,” Balfour wrote, is “of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.”

Weizmann also could reach Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, born to Jewish immigrant parents from Bohemia.  It was suggested that the declarations should not be promulgated without first consulting Woodrow Wilson.  The president recommended against putting out the declaration.

But Weizmann lobbied his friend Brandeis, who in turn spoke to someone on Wilson’s staff, and the White House reversed its position.

The change in the president’s position was little more than the product of good public relations work by Zionists in Washington, but in London it raised eyebrows.  Lloyd George could hardly construe it as anything other than confirmation of his conviction that the Jews controlled the White House.


I offer none.  I thought it worthwhile to capture the sentiment of the time, the racist history of the Balfour Declaration, the views that Jews controlled the world.

As to Jews controlling the world, I have written before and to now avoid confusion: this is not my view.


  1. Do you disagree with:
    [“The Jewish race,” Lloyd George explained in his memoirs, had worldwide influence and capability, and the Jews had every intention of determining the outcome of the World War – acting, he said, in accordance with their financial instincts. They could influence the United States to intensify its involvement in the war, and as the real movers behind the Russian Revolution, they also controlled Russia’s attitude toward Germany.]


    "I do not think that it is easy to exaggerate the international power of the Jews."

    Seems pretty reasonable to me. You don't have to go full protocols of the learned elders of Zion to recognize Jewish power. Just ask Scott Horton, Phillip Giraldi, or Justin Raimondo (

    The men of the early twentieth century had far more realistic (correct) views on things like race and eugenics. Anti-racism is the tool of the enemy.

    Bionic, I am actually quite curious as to your position on the State of Israel and the Jews. Could you link some of your previous articles discussing it?

    Are you familiar with the work of Kevin MacDonald?

    1. “Do you disagree with: [“The Jewish race,” Lloyd George explained in his memoirs, had worldwide influence and capability, and the Jews….”

      Which Jews? Name names. I have named names here; I have written in the past about Jews involved in the early years of the Soviet Union.

      “You don't have to go full protocols of the learned elders of Zion to recognize Jewish power.”

      I recognize that there are and were powerful individuals that are / were Jews. I also recognize that there are / were many more powerful individuals that were something other than Jews.

      Stalin, Hitler, Mao. Were they Jews? Just checking.

      “Bionic, I am actually quite curious as to your position on the State of Israel and the Jews.”

      The state of Israel is almost as criminal as the State of the US. Almost. As to my position on “the Jews”? Which Jews? Name names.

      Individuals act.

      “Are you familiar with the work of Kevin MacDonald?”


    2. Your methodological individualism is going to prevent you from adequately addressing Jewish power. Many Jews have a strong sense of ethnocentrism and operate in an openly tribal manner. The State of Israel is the apotheosis of this.

      We can see examples of this in other ethnic groups as well: blacks who refuse to condemn Black criminality and are always siding with the criminals against the cops regardless of the facts. The difference between Blacks and Jews are several standard deviations of average IQ, but the point remains valid that there is such a thing as group interests whether or not you would like to admit that into your ultra-liberal framework. For the simple reason that people actually do operate that way, whether or not we would prefer otherwise.

      No Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were not Jews, but Marx was, and the majority of socialist revolutionaries in Germany were, which is one of the main reasons Hitler saw the Jews as an enemy people.

      Also Jews played a major role in Soviet communism in which some estimates put the NKVD at 80% Jewish, and Solzhenitsyn made clear that part of the reason for the excessive sadism and slaughter on behalf of the soviet regime was due to the ethnic hatred that soviet Jews had for Russians, particularly cassocks. (see "200 Years Together").

      As for naming names: Adorno, Marcuse,Horkheimer, Fromm, Benjamin, Lowenthal, Kirchheimer, Grossman,and Lukacks- The Frankfurt School. I could also name all of the big Jews in media, banking, and Hollywood only it would take too long.

      The point is not what is your position on ethnic Jews because that would include people like Rothbard, Mises, Lachmann, etc. who we both admire, but what is your position on organized Jewish power (Zionism and Jewish Marxist Intellectual Cabals)?

      Individuals act. Some individuals act to benefit other individuals that they consider part of their in-group.

      Kevin MacDonald has written a fascinating book on Jewish group evolutionary strategies called Culture of Critique. He deals heavily with the Frankfurt School.

    3. See my reply here:

  2. You left out something important about the Balfour Declaration. The Balfour Declaration was granted for a specific service, that of bringing America into the war, something that the Jewish community there was able to achieve.

    It's not the same as controlling the world but it is placing decisive influence on certain issues. America doesn't send tons of money to Israel and forgive loans to Israel for no reason.

    1. America sends tons of money and forgives loans many other places as well.

      It is reasonable to consider who gains more from the relationship. It is also reasonable to consider that many Jews are pawns, just as many Gentiles are pawns.

    2. It is not even remotely the same. Its like saying that a morbidly obese man should eat junk food and drink coke because there is a thin man somewhere that does that sometimes too.

      Israel gets the bulk of the direct money and loans that are later written off so that doesn't show up as direct assistance. Egypt gets the next largest grant of money entirely to keep Egypt and Israel on good terms, so you can chalk that up for Israel. Next largest after that is the Kingdom of Jordan and the occupied West Bank/Gaza. Chalk them up as a subsidy for Israel too. When you include various wars that don't really make sense unless you view them as also taking place on behalf of Israel, then the costs both financial and human are incalculable.

      I am not interested in going after individual Jews, many of whom agree with me. In the aggregate, however, there seems to be a few common themes shared by the thousands of Jewish organizations. Open borders. Anti-white activism. Taxpayer support for Israel.

      When you consider that Jewish sources provide perhaps have of the funding for political campaigning (supposedly 60% for the Democrats, and 35% for the Republicans), politicians groveling at AIPAC is understandable, if reprehensible. The non-Jews that attend AIPAC certainly believe that Jews hold influence far exceeding their numbers, and AIPAC is also careful to cultivate those thoughts.

      Joe Sobran was a great journalist that had his career damaged by criticizing Israel. He made a great point about Jewish power in the media -

      "Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism. "

      I think that the Jewish influence on US politics on open borders, anti-white activism, and taxpayer support for Israel is real and enduring.

    3. The US declared war on Germany on April 6, 1917. The Balfour Declaration is dated November 2, 1917.

    4. Matt

      See my reply here:

    5. "In the aggregate, however, there seems to be a few common themes shared by the thousands of Jewish organizations. Open borders. Anti-white activism. Taxpayer support for Israel."

      Yup. And foolish whites will continue to just lay their head on the Jewish chopping block because it"s "anti-Semitic" to admit it.

      Have you seen this Matt?

      Why am I not surprised? Only white countries are supposed to be open borders. But everyone else doesn't have to. How convenient. They have WAY too much influence here out of all proportion to their numbers.

    6. I saw the full length video with Molyneux a couple of weeks ago. After listening for over one hour of that caller saying that open borders is an absolute requirement under the NAP, the caller finally said but not for Israel.

      I have seen this a number of times before with Jewish advocates of open borders. Some like Tim Wise are aware that it seems intellectually inconsistent and say that they also support open borders for Israel but it is just a throw away line that they won't actually fight for (because they don't believe it).

      This is commonly thought to be a double standard but it isn't really. To a large proportion of the Jewish community your basic vanilla American is perceived to be an enemy, an idea that is not reciprocated. That is why harmful policies like open borders is promoted for America but not for Israel. It is no more a double standard than is bombing an enemy country.

  3. The NAACP was a Jewish project whose presidents were jews all the way up until 1978. Remember, jews invented communism, (Marx and Engles), and the communists said they would destroy us from within.