|
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...
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
|