Lawrence Auster has made a passing reference to this site. As for being a “fifth column” within the American racialist movement (not my usage), I find that to be an apt description of Auster, Jobling, and G.W. These guys are clearly the weakest link. If White Nationalism was ever victorious in the United States, the “moderates” would become the natural constituency for a return to the liberal status quo.
An analogy can be drawn to the Early Republic: if we are the Jeffersonian Republicans, the moderates are the Federalists. Auster is a Lincoln sympathizer, a supporter of federal civil rights legislation, an anti-anti-Semite. Jobling is a fan of liberal democracy. G.W. is a philo-Semite. Just as the American revolutionaries divided into factions in the 1790’s, these tendencies would become more pronounced in an exclusively racialist context.
A persuasive argument can be made that Jewish inclusion was the biggest mistake (from a racialist standpoint) in American history: Boasian anthropology, the New York Intellectuals, the Communist Party USA, Freudianism, the Frankfurt School, the New Left, the Civil Rights Movement, Hollywood, the Neocons, etc. There was already an indigenous strain of liberal radicalism in the United States, but it was vastly magnified in the twentieth century by interaction with cosmopolitan Jews. As David Hollinger notes, Randolph Bourne and John Dewey (two of the earliest Anglo-Protestant defectors) acknowledged their ideological debt to Brandeis, Kallen and Adler.
The “moderates” have no persuasive rebuttal to our legitimate concerns. Instead, they reflexively scream “anti-Semitism,” as if discrimination against Jews were a concern on par with White racial survival. This tells us volumes about their priorities. Naturally, it feeds suspicion, which is why the topic is so frequently raised … much to LA’s annoyance.