Jews Suffer Genocide; Whites Accept Diversity

by Douglas Wright


June 3, 2002

For the racial activist and denier of racial difference alike, the fact of mass racial killing cannot be dismissed. Whether one steadfastly seeks to prevent it as the culmination of all that is immoral or accepts it as an unpleasant but perhaps inevitable part of racial struggle, there it looms, providing a clue to why calm discussions of racial difference or White racial solidarity prompt Jewish, black and Hispanic hysterics.

It has happened countless times throughout history, in varying degrees, since the races first came face to face. The example we're most often presented with -- to the exclusion of all others, naturally -- is the killing of Jews by Hitler's forces during World War II. Not for no reason does "the Holocaust" spring to everyone's lips when asked for an example of genocide, and silence fall when they're asked for a second.

Genocide, as mass racial killing is sometimes called, means "the killing of a people." The concept is held aloft in our society as an unimaginable horror, the darkest propensity of humankind, condemned by the nations of the world in international declarations and likely a fair number of racialists as well. It doesn't sound like a day at the beach to me, either, but no honest racialist can avoid facing the issue, as J.R. Colson explained in a recent VNN piece.

Before collapsing to the ground in anguish or jumping for joy at the thought, however, some words of caution -- beginning with an examination of the word itself -- are in order. Powerful as the images evoked may be, "genocide" is, first and foremost, a word. Like "racist," "bigot," "anti-Semitic," "Nazi" and "hate," it is a word cultivated more carefully than petunias in the Negev desert, used to trigger Pavlovian reactions in the reader or hearer. Women faint, men leap to their feet, and old folks clasp their hands over their mouths. Without fail, the word is deployed to undermine White racial survival. Like any word used in a political context, its use is often selective. Consider the following examples:

  • When Jews are killed, it's genocide all right, and so much more: it's The Holocaust, complete with velvet-pillow article "the" and a big, towering capital H. Mere genocide is reserved for lesser peoples, like, say, the East Timorese. Unlucky for them, they weren't chosen by God.

But...
  • When Palestinians are killed, it's called Israel's Right to Defend Herself.

  • When Red Indians are killed, it's called Making a Home in the New World.

  • When Germans are killed, it's called Making the World Safe for Democracy.

  • When Japanese are killed, it's called Necessary Action to End the War.

  • When Iraqis are killed, it's called Liberating Kuwait.

  • When Afghans are killed, it's called Fighting the War on Terrorism.

Lastly...

  • When Whites are killed, it isn't called anything. That's because Jews have trained the camera away from the slow suffocation of Whites, fixing it instead on their own racial cause.

Which, upon reflection, is its own form of genocide -- genocide by mind control and deft political manipulation. Genocide can take many forms. A race need not be rounded up and shot in the street to be dispensed with, as the Jews have discovered. Its members need not even be physically killed. Jews understand that they don't have the numbers or the guns to battle the White race for dominance in military fashion. But they do have the media, the law, public schools, places of higher learning and the government, all firmly under their control, and it is through these institutions that "genocide" has come to mean the evil actions of Whites against other races -- to the point where "unequal" funding of public schools is Whites' "genocide" of blacks.

It is through these same institutions that Jews further the genocide of Whites, robbing them of community, destiny and heritage and leaving them to wander as dispossessed shells in the land their ancestors founded. The sheer genius of it is that they need not lift a finger to do so. With a mere piece of paper declaring that non-White immigration will be the law of the land, they chisel the crack in the dam keeping the White race safe and dry. With the mere speaking of the words "my client pleads not guilty, your Honor," they set in motion the loosing of a murderous buck nigger onto the White population. With the proposal of a "minorities only" internship program for their companies, they shove promising young Whites aside, leaving them shut out of opportunities for success in the name of diversity. With the gleeful presentation of a black-White coupling, they plant the mind-seed that yields the poison fruit of miscegenation. The pure White baby not born means one less soldier for the White cause and one more mulatto for the Jewish cause. The genius does not end there. For when called upon to name the crime of the Jews, the indictment drawn by Whites looks skimpy indeed. "They showed a black man kissing a White woman" does not elicit the same reaction as "The Einsatzgruppen marched Jews to a ditch and shot them." The Jewish master criminal laughs, knowing he's safe from condemnation. "Who, me?" he cries. "I have done nothing." Show him this article, and he'll say, "the ranting of a lunatic. Pure lies."

A Jew named Marcus Eli Ravage wrote in the January 1928 edition of Century magazine that Jews dismiss the "Communism and Hollywood" charge, chuckling that Whites proud of having discovered Jewish media manipulation and convinced they have uncovered the worst of the conspiracy have fallen for the decoy. What is media control "compared with our staggering influence in your churches, your schools, your laws and government, and the very thoughts you think? ...You have not begun to appreciate the real depth of our guilt. We have taken your natural world, your ideals, your destiny, and played havoc with them. We are at the bottom of not merely the latest war, but nearly all your wars. We have brought discord and confusion and frustration into your personal and public life. We are still doing it. We did it solely with the irresistible might of our spirit, with ideas and propaganda... The gentiles, we see with relief, will never know the real blackness of our crimes. Can you wonder that we Jews have always taken your anti-Semites rather lightly, as long as they did not resort to violence?"

It is that final comment that returns us to our discussion of genocide. However it has come to pass, the fact is that genocide remains an arrow in the White quiver -- actual physical violence against our enemies, from forced deportation to mass racial killing. This need not be cause for alarm. Different races have different defense mechanisms, depending on the circumstances. Where Whites are a majority, they have every right to use physical might to defend themselves. If they have no legal right, they have the natural right. As a lawyer, I argue they have both. International law says that a people have a right to self-determination, although the cobblers of this sentiment probably meant brown, not White, people. Jews, in their never-ending cleverness, have arranged the accepted morality so as to deny Whites physical self-protection. Imagine a slick cheetah explaining to a large lion that because the lion is bigger, it would be "unfair" for him to use his size to his advantage -- but mentions nothing about his own superior speed.

Nor is there anything particularly remarkable about genocide. Certainly, the world finds nothing shocking about wars fought over land, resources or political ideals. What is so shocking about a war fought over race? The preservation of race, as an extension of family, is a nobler motivation to take up arms than oil. And it goes without saying that Jews stand alone in the 21st century in their explicit, no-apologies pursuit of this goal.

The question may be raised by the Talmud-trained Jew: If Jews have never actually raised arms against Whites, who is to blame for their racial dispossession? It was the gentile Lyndon Baines Johnson who sent troops to Arkansas. It was the gentiles Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman who sent White troops overseas. Gentile Dick Armey sings the praises of Israel while gentiles Bill Moyers and Howell Raines feed the public anti-White myths. Hillary Rodham Clinton champions "diversity" as strongly as that most revolting of kikes, Charles Schumer. Haven't Whites consented to their own destruction? If you are the Master Race, how could you have been so stupid as to fall for our clever manipulation? If all's fair in love and war -- including the racial war -- it looks like you've lost, Whites.

To this anticipated reply, I have no satisfying sur-reply. I would not disagree for a second that Whites have slept soundly while their race is threatened from all sides, noticing little because the threats creep gradually and are largely non-violent. Jew Ayn Rand comes to mind here: so long as there is consent, she says, there is no violence, and thus nothing to be concerned about. Just as I have come in recent months to reject the fierce individualism of Objectivism in favor of racial kinship, so have I come to question the absolute cleavage between physical force and other, less tangible but no less effective exercises of power. A domestic legal system has good reason to make the distinction between a strong-armed robber and a fast-talking car salesman, but such a distinction assumes a racially homogenous society. In the United States, we have no such thing. The Jew is here to wage his subtle war on our people, and we must watch for all ways in which he wages this war. The point is this: reject the Jewish moral teachings that put the White race at a disadvantage. If need be, reject Christianity. I wonder whether the Jew Jesus was the first instigator of White genocide, by encouraging the blonde and blue-eyed to turn their cheeks while the Jew followed no such edict.

The question may also be asked: is the Jew conscious of what he does to the White race? And what implication does that have for a White revolution in which he finds himself faced with death? I believe that his consciousness is of limited relevance, just as the malicious intent of a wild animal is of no matter to the hiker. The natural response is self-defense, and if the animal is shot dead, nobody calls that an injustice. A Jew who promotes black-White couplings may be no more conscious of its dangers to our race than the White who marries the black, though it seems unlikely. In any event, the Jew threatens White survival, and that threat must be dealt with.

The cry goes out: Racial killing is against God's will. But what "God" tells you this, White man? The one painted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel who looks like Rebbe Schneerson? The God of the Old Testament, who slaughtered people left and right to pave the way for one tribe? If the Jews of today are this tribe, then we have no business worshipping that God. I don't claim the smarts to wade too deeply into these theological waters, so I cling to this life preserver: the White race exists. I know that because I can see it. When its people come together, they find human fulfillment. I know that, too, because I can see it. The White race has enemies. I know that because I see them at work. The White race is dispossessed and dying. I know that because I see it every day of my life. I am a member of the White race, and I cry out for my people. Is its arch-enemy the Jew? I see much evidence to back this up. It is not the black: keeping his savagery at bay is a matter of brandishing a weapon or putting on a white robe to spook him. It is not the Hispanic: keeping him at bay is a matter of installing barbed wire. The Jew is different. To be sure, he cares nothing for Whites -- not that, like a desperate nigger, I demand he do, but it's important to realize. He often looks and sounds like a White person. He appeals to White weakness. Dressed in Western-style clothing and shorn of a beard, he turns no heads. Yet he lurks where our destruction is sown. Why is it that we can't protect ourselves from black savagery? Because the Jewish-influenced legal system won't let us. Why is it that we can't patrol our borders? Because the Jewish-influenced political system won't let us. Why must we march off to war in the Middle East? Because the Jew demands it. And what the caterwauling Jew wants, he gets. I hesitate to pin all the blame for White racial death on the Jew, as a nigger blames the White man for all his problems. But there is a difference: Whites really do fare better without Jews, while blacks actually fare worse without Whites.

I do not wish for violence. There are other arrows in our quiver, and physical violence ought to be a last resort -- for its deleterious effect on Whites, if nothing else. The Earth is a big planet; I see no reason why vast expanses of clean White living space can't be created, patrolled and preserved, though already, I've conjured physical force. No matter. Nothing important comes easily. Maybe it starts small, in an area the size of a small U.S. state. Dedicated White racialists occupy the land, and outsider Whites tired of Third World filth at their doorsteps gradually begin to wonder whether racial separatism is the evil enterprise portrayed in the Jewish media. They come on board, and before long, the White race is on its way to resurrection. Whites co-exist on the planet with other races in other areas, even trading goods and joining in common endeavors where appropriate, but racial boundaries are respected and enforced with extreme prejudice. Never again do Whites make the mistake of allowing other races to appeal to our sense of pity, only to find ourselves eventually ground into chopped meat while lesser races snarf us down, laughing all the while.

And yet. If the survival of my race means the death of every living Jew, that's just how it will have to be. I do not write that lightly. I know it could one day mean my own death. It is one thing to bluster, quite another to lose your livelihood, friends and family, to have the Mossad attach electro-shockers to your scrotum. There's no escaping it: at this stage of a race war, playtime is over. I tremble at the thought of all this, because I do not want to suffer or die. But I tremble more at the thought that my grandchildren will be among the last Whites on earth.

Today's White man is fooled into bowing his head to await a passive death, all the while hoping he'll get a spot in heaven because he's been peaceful and cooperative. Even as I write this, I struggle to unshackle myself from Jewish brainwashing, groping for that "can't we all get along" smiley-face sentiment that the Jew pushes for everyone but himself. I forget that "can't we all get along" was spoken by a drug-addled nigger who any decent society would long ago have euthanized, but for Jewish interference. The Jew isn't fooled by his own rhetoric, White man. He is quite comfortable with stepping over dead White bodies on his march toward Zion. Just look at the white crosses of Arlington and Normandy, or more recently, the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City. A nationalist Jew interviewed on television recently said that only one tribe could win in Israel. "And I prefer that it be my tribe," he said. Ariel Sharon has said, "He who rises up to kill us, we will pre-empt it and kill him first." And when Jews say "Never Again," I do not understand that to be a conditional vow.

We are, as Dr. William Pierce has noted, a long way from any of this. "I understand that our task is not to kick and shoot and bomb; instead it is to communicate and to teach," he has said. And so it is. White people are barely convinced they exist, and have a right to do so, to say nothing of doing anything about it. Anyone who thinks White revolution will be successful with ten true believers needs to stop fantasizing.

I remain hopeful that a restored White consciousness alone will take us far. But keep that arrow sharp, White man. You may find that its presence in the quiver is enough.

DOUGLAS WRIGHT


Tell a friend about this article:

Back to VNN Main Page