By Spencer J. Quinn for Counter Currents
When approaching the Jewish Question, a beginner should keep in mind that the ultimate goal of his investigation should be the normalization of the white and Jewish populations. Normalization, in this case, means a state of affairs in which one population does not take undue advantage of the other. A utopian goal, perhaps, but one that would most likely reap tangible rewards the closer both populations come to achieving it.
How are white-Jewish relations today not normalized? If you ask Jonathan Greenblatt or any other spokesmen of diaspora Jewish interests, they would tell you that relations today are normalized. Diaspora Jews in America (or the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, France, Russia, or anywhere else you may find them) are, by and large, law-abiding, patriotic, and productive citizens whose interests perfectly meld with those of their host nations. The plethora of Jewish talent makes this an even sweeter deal for whites, who benefit tremendously from the dominant Jewish presence in a myriad of fields such as medicine, law, science, business, banking, music, and entertainment.
And there is some truth to this. Yes, it is tempting for many racially-aware whites to boil the Jewish Question down to a simple Manichean dichotomy in which manipulative and tribalistic Jews prey upon innocent and noble-minded whites for reasons ranging from material gain to sexual exploitation to world dominance. The pull of Occam’s Razor is very powerful, but one shouldn’t attempt to wield it with only half the truth. Many Jews do this when they assume that salt-of-the-earth whites are only one passion play away from picking up their pitchforks and initiating pogroms, or that racially-aware whites are only one Reichstag fire away from donning swastikas and setting up gas chambers. By the same token, whites resort to the same iffy logic when they presume that all Jewish doctors who prescribe the COVID vaccine are malicious actors in the Great Replacement or that every Jewish banker who forecloses on a white person’s home after a mortgage default is trying to eradicate the white middle class.
Yet while there are positives that diaspora Jews bring to their host nations, the Jonathan Greenblatts of the world will ignore or downplay the considerable negatives. They do this through a process of what I call “selective clustering.” When a Jew accomplishes something good or great, then his Jewishness is emphasized — as if to justify the Jewish presence in a traditionally white nation. But when a Jew does something bad or heinous, then his individuality is stressed, thereby deflecting blame from Jews as a whole. (Note that today’s Jewish elites apply selective clustering to whites as well — but conversely.) They also do this through a form of crypsis, by which they profess loyalty to their host nation when in reality they are most loyal to their own diaspora.
Such a state of affairs wouldn’t be so bad except for the glaring fact that Jews are extremely overrepresented in government and in all opinion-making fields — the mainstream media, Hollywood, journalism, and academia, mostly. They also weaponize their wealth to ensure that their interests are served, often at the expense of others. Just ask Sam Collington, the white kid who was murdered by a career-criminal black in Philadelphia who the Jewish District Attorney, Larry Krasner, had refused to charge numerous times. Krasner’s election campaign was funded to the tune of $1.7 million by his co-religionist, George Soros.
As a result, quite a few hostile and dishonest Jews wield disproportionate and quite destructive power over their host nations. And if you have any doubts about this, you are free to dive into the JQ rabbit hole at the end of this article. There is a pot of golden carrots at the end of it, I promise.
But this is what I mean by a lack of normalization. Things cannot keep going the way they are going without white people eventually going extinct in the West. This is the White Genocide theory. It may take hundreds of years, but if current trends continue (i.e. rising miscegenation, plummeting white birthrates, mass immigration, transgenderism, anti-white propaganda, and pro-diversity mandates, to name only a few), what other outcome could there be?
This lack of normalization can be seen in the prevalence of three major racial fallacies regarding Jews:
- the Presumption of Innocence
- the Presumption of Equality
- the Presumption of Victimhood
Not only do diaspora Jewish elites push these fallacies, and not only do the majority of whites today accept them, but the majority of whites also claim the inverse of these fallacies for themselves. This part is probably the most problematic. So where the Jewish population presumes its own innocence, equality, and victimhood, the white population concomitantly presumes its own guilt, inferiority, and supremacy — if that makes any sense. Such a relationship between two populations is neither fair nor balanced, and can only lead to war or the subjugation of one over the other.
When addressing the Jewish Question, one must therefore tackle these fallacies from both the pro-white and anti-Jewish sides. Below is a list of resources that can help one do exactly that.
Debunking the Presumption of Jewish Innocence
“Stalin’s Jews,” an article by Sever Plocker of YNet News, states bluntly that “some of the greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish.” This brief article offers an easily digestible rundown of the major Jewish culprits of the early Soviet period. Genrikh Yagoda, Lazar Kaganovich, and Leonid Reichman get mentions, although Plocker states that there were many more. He also holds the reactionary position which underscores the Jewish domination of the early Soviets: Many of the gentiles who were also in charge, like Nikolai Yezhov, had Jewish wives.
This article should be copy-pasted onto every dissident’s hard drive (before it gets removed) and memorized closely.
For three meatier sources along these lines, check out Andrew Joyce’s “Lying about Judeo-Bolshevism,” Igor Shafarevich’s long essay “Russophobia” (my review here), or Kevin MacDonald’s extensive review of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century, entitled “Stalin’s Willing Executioners.”
Slezkine actually quotes Vladimir Lenin on page 224 of his book on the importance of Jews during the October Revolution. Basically, without them it would have failed:
As Lenin put it, “The fact that there were many Jewish intelligentsia members in the Russian cities was of great importance to the revolution. They put an end to the general sabotage that we were confronted with after the October Revolution. . . . The Jewish elements were mobilized . . . and thus saved the revolution at a difficult time. It was only to this pool of a rational and literate labor force that we succeeded in taking over the state apparatus.”
Anyone presuming Jewish innocence in the face of white oppression needs to be confronted with this damning passage from Slezkine.
And for full-length volumes revealing the lack of Jewish innocence during the early Soviet period, a time of unparalleled anti-white atrocity and oppression, one can do no better than Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s famous (and still not officially translated into English) 200 Years Together. I reviewed this thousand-page double volume at Counter-Currents in six parts, and it was compiled into one at The Unz Review. Gaddius Maximus recorded an excellent audio version here.
Other useful volumes include:
Jewish History, Jewish Religion by Israel Shahak (my review here). First published in 1994, this work not only covers the considerable anti-gentile aspects of the Jewish religion, it also airs a good bit of dirty Jewish laundry.
The Jewish Mafia by Hervé Ryssen (my review here and Greg Johnson’s interview with Ryssen here). As its title says, this 2016 book covers the underreported topic of Jewish organized crime, from Murder Incorporated to the Yeltsin-era Russian oligarchs, from Ponzi schemes to porn, from drug smuggling to human trafficking. It’s all there.
How the Jews Defeated Hitler by Benjamin Ginsburg (my review here). Triumphant in tone, yet inadvertently incriminating, this 2013 work underscores how effectively American Jews warmongered against Germany during the 1930s. Anyone who believes that the Third Reich acted without Jewish provocation should read this book.
Debunking the Presumption of White Guilt
This basically amounts to undoing the demonization of the Third Reich. Since any Jewish complaint about white behavior eventually regresses to the tired “Hitler Bad” meme, the best way to undo any guilt by association with the old Aryan Ethnostate is to prove that the Nazis:
- really weren’t as bad as everyone says,
- were a reaction to Bolshevism, which was far worse, and
- had good reasons to invade both Poland and the Soviet Union.
Once this is accomplished, public shaming of whites loses much of its luster.
For Point 1 above, one can start with Beau Albrecht’s illuminating review of Hans Hermann Weichardt’s 1995 memoir Under Two Flags. This is the fascinating story of a half-Jewish German who lived in Germany during the 1930s. He reports that in his several dealings with the Gestapo during this time, the Führer’s agents were at all times professional and courteous, even towards Jews.
“The German Jewish Kulturkampf in the Weimar Republic” by Peter Stuyvesant reports on how the rise of the National Socialists during the 1920s and early 1930s can be seen as a sensible reaction to the degeneracy of the largely Jewish-led Weimar Republic. Further, “How Hitler Tackled Unemployment and Revived Germany’s Economy” by Mark Weber gives us a feel for how effective Hitler’s government was at providing prosperity for its people during the Great Depression, a time when the disproportionately Jewish-controlled United States and Soviet Union were suffering economically.
Sure, there was plenty to criticize about the Nazis before the war, like there is with any people. But in 1935, without being able to predict the future and knowing full well the horrors perpetrated by Bolshevism in the east, what patriotic German wouldn’t want to support — or at least tolerate — National Socialism?
As for Point 2, Michael Kellogg published an excellent book in 2005 entitled The Russian Roots of Nazism (my review here) in which he demonstrates how the early Nazis associated closely with White Russian émigrés and were keenly aware of the atrocities committed by the disproportionately Jewish Soviets in the late 1910s and early 1920s. The Nazi Party was established in large part to prevent what happened in Russia from happening in Germany.
For evidence of how much worse Bolshevism was than Nazism, Robert Conquest’s 1986 work The Harvest of Sorrow, about the terror famines and mass starvation from 1929 to 1937 that came to be known as the Holodomor, and in which over 15 million perished, and his 1990 volume The Great Terror: A Reassessment, about Stalin’s murderous campaign against his own Party, which resulted in the murder of over two million people, are excellent resources.
We should always keep in mind that any large-scale atrocities committed by the Germans — including the ever-lamented Jewish Holocaust — happened during wartime. By contrast, the Soviets’ worst atrocities — namely, the Holodomor, the Great Terror, and the abuses of vast Gulag system — were all committed during peacetime. From these three catastrophes, one can estimate that over 81 million lost their lives during the Soviet Union’s first 42 years. This figure comes from adding Conquest’s 15 million Harvest of Sorrow figure to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s 66 million claim as reported in The Gulag Archipelago, Book Two, Part III, Chapter 1. And since the Jews are not above citing German wartime atrocities as the worst of human sins, then we can do the same with the Soviets, adding the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocents killed by the Red Army during the Russian Civil War and the Second World War.
The National Socialists can be called extremists, and of course they were no strangers to atrocity during the war — but they were nothing compared to the Soviets.
For Point 3, one can go to A. J. P. Taylor’s 1961 book The Origins of the Second World War, which recounts the events and reasoning which led to Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939 — and it had nothing to do with irrational hatred for Jews.
Another 1961 source is David Hoggan’s The Forced War, the text of which was nearly destroyed in 1984 when Jewish terrorists blew up the Institute for Historical Review’s headquarters. Like Taylor’s work above, The Forced War focuses on the lead-up to the Second World War, but places greater emphasis on Polish and British culpability.
A final source is Victor Suvorov’s 2008 work The Chief Culprit, a reassessment of his 1990 work The Icebreaker (National Vanguard review here). These volumes propose that Stalin was preparing to invade Germany at the end of the summer of 1941, two years after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939. Knowing this, Hitler attacked the USSR preemptively, as he had claimed at the time. Mainstream historians have long dismissed Suvorov, but a recent popular work by Sean McMeekin, Stalin’s War, largely vindicates the Icebreaker thesis (reviewed by Laurent Guyénot here).
Many of the ideas expressed above can be found in article form in Mark Weber’s “The ‘Good War’ Myth of World War Two,” Ron Unz’s “Understanding World War II,” and Paul Craig Roberts’ “The Lies about World War II.”
All these sources dispel the notion that Hitler invaded Poland and the Soviet Union because of some lunatic scheme to rule the world or subjugate free peoples. They also explode the myth of Allied moral superiority. They don’t exonerate Hitler and the Nazis of war crimes, and certainly do not serve as evidence that whites are any less guilty of past atrocities than any other group of people. But they do portray Hitler’s decisions leading up to the war as sometimes unwise, but most of the time quite reasonable — a notion that anti-white Jews will do anything to suppress.
Debunking the Presumption of Jewish Equality
In this case, “equality” refers to civic equality, the idea that Jewish citizens are just as loyal to their host nations as the nation’s ethnic majority. Just as we wouldn’t expect a white citizen to act against the state according to their racial interests, nor should we expect a Jew to do so — hence equality.
I’m sure there are plenty of sources which debunk this notion. One in particular is Corneliu Zelea Codreanu’s 1936 memoir For My Legionaries (Ted Sallis’ review here). It was in this book where I first learned of the Kahal, which was a secret fund amassed by Jewish communities in pre-war Europe. The Kahal was used to compensate Jewish merchants so they could artificially undercut gentile ones. The objective, of course, was to run the gentiles out of business. It was a cold-blooded practice, one which the more individualistic whites deplored. Combine this with the Jewish practice of bribing or blackmailing gentile authorities, and many merchant-class whites found themselves impoverished soon after a large number of Jews moved into town.
A pair of recent works published by Antelope Hill also destroy the Jewish civic equality myth, and have taken dissident circles by storm. Scott Howard’s 2020 work The Transgender-Industrial Complex (John Q. Publius’ review here) explores quite thoroughly the distinctly Jewish underbelly of the transgender movement. These are people who masquerade as gender theorists or trans-rights activists, but in reality are trying to acquire power and influence for a movement that is inherently dysgenic. Also by Howard is his 2021 The Open Society Playbook (my review here), which uncovers the distinctly Jewish character of globalism. Much ground is covered, from George Soros and his Open Society Foundations donating large sums to Left-wing causes, to the Israel-first policies of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), to how international Jewish groups financially incentivize Third-World migration to Western nations. Both books distinguish themselves for being thoroughly researched and highly compelling.
No work, however, undercuts the presumption of Jewish civic equality more comprehensively than Kevin MacDonald’s classic 1998 work, The Culture of Critique (Stanley Hornbeck’s review here). Anyone interested in the Jewish Question should have a copy of this book on his bookshelf, with many underlined passages and copious notes scrawled into the margins. I think it is fair to say that no one had ever thought about the Jewish Question from an evolutionary standpoint so thoroughly before Kevin MacDonald.
MacDonald, in essence, describes Jewish behavior in gentile societies as competitive or adaptive — and always with the goal of enriching the Jews. This is often a zero-sum game where what is good for the Jewish diaspora must be bad for the white majority. So, through a process MacDonald calls “crypsis,” many influential Jews will pretend to be honest citizens when really they are up to something quite insidious.
Franz Boas, for example, pretended to be an anthropologist when in reality he was academic guru who preached the lie of racial egalitarianism in order to soften whites’ racial identity. Highly influential science authors Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin followed in his footsteps years later. Sigmund Freud pretended to be a psychologist, when in reality he used his preoccupation with sex and degeneracy to pathologize eugenic behavior such as monogamy and sexual restraint among white people. Wilhelm Reich and Magnus Hirschfeld were later products of this approach.
MacDonald explores the notorious Frankfurt School with a similar critical eye and concludes The Culture of Critique with damning coverage of Jewish complicity in the United States’ 1965 Immigration Act. This Act effectively opened the US up to the Third World. Nearly 60 years later, a rise in crime, corruption, and anti-whitism are the legacies of this devastating and largely Jewish action.
It took mainstream academics 20 years to address The Culture of Critique. In 2018, graduate student Nathan Cofnas waded into this debate with a critical response. MacDonald swiftly replied, and for several weeks the pair engaged a frank and long-overdue discussion of the Jewish Question.
Those interested in a rundown of this discussion can peruse my four-part MacDonald vs. Cofnas series at Counter-Currents. Andrew Joyce also has an excellent three-part series entitled “The Cofnas Problem.”
Debunking the Presumption of White Inferiority
This is more straightforward than much of the above. It seems that the very point of The Occidental Observer is to reveal how hostile Jewish elites enforce their superiority over whites. Counter-Currents and The Unz Review cover this topic as well. In all cases, Jewish clannishness and hypocrisy are on display when they police whites for wanting or needing the same racial safeguards that Jews have in the West and especially in Israel. There is absolutely no reason why whites should accept this inferior position whereby Jews ascribe rights to themselves that they do their best to deny to others. These rights include the right to ethnic nationalism and to be part of an ethnic or racial majority in perpetuity.
Articles exposing this oppressive Jewish double standard are fairly common. Good starting points include “Jews and Immigration: Time for a Change” by Marcus Alethia, “Jewish Activists Urge Aid to Refugees: Is it Good for the Jews?” by Kevin MacDonald, and “No, Dual Loyalty isn’t Okay” by Phillip Giraldi.
Debunking the Presumption of Jewish Victimhood
Here’s where we tackle the Jewish Holocaust — or, if you prefer, don’t tackle it. As we all know, the Jewish Holocaust (which we should never refer to as “The Holocaust,” as if there was only one) has taken on a life of its own. It has become a weapon in the hands of Jewish elites who wish to browbeat whites into submission, or manipulate them through a bitch’s brew of guilt and pity. Perversely, it has become a symbol of strength for diaspora Jews wherever they can erect memorials across America, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and Australia — all countries that sent men to their deaths in order to curtail the Jewish Holocaust to begin with.
Norman Finkelstein’s 2000 work The Holocaust Industry famously made the case that Jewish elites abuse the memory of the Jewish Holocaust in order to reap financial reward or further Jewish or Israeli interests. Tobias Langdon makes similar points in his article “Holy Minority Day,” in which he distinguishes the Jewish Holocaust from “Holocaustianity.”
I understand that opinions on the Dissident Right range from the Jewish Holocaust being an utter hoax to it being exaggerated to its official narrative being more or less correct. I wasn’t there, so I don’t know exactly what happened, but the one source I trust, David Cole, insists that the Germans did perpetrate mass killings of Jewish civilians during the Second World War. Maybe he’s right, maybe he’s wrong, but in either case I don’t have a fraction of the knowledge and haven’t spent a fraction of the hours doing research that he has regarding the Jewish Holocaust, and so would not dare argue with him about it. Cole is no Jewish Holocaust denier; he defended his position fiercely during an exchange with Ron Unz in 2018, which I reported on in “The Great Unz-Cole Holocaust Debate.”
Yet, Cole questions the six million figure, which officially makes him a revisionist and a threat to the Holocaust Industry described by Finkelstein. Cole doesn’t exactly trust much of the scholarship on the Auschwitz concentration camps and so has revised the total number of Jewish Holocaust victims down to around four million. This got him in hot water with the Jewish elite in the 1990s, which culminated in 1998, when the Jewish Defense League basically put out a contract on his head. This raises a question: If the keepers of the mainstream Jewish Holocaust narrative were interested in truth, why did they react so oppressively and violently when Cole challenged them with honest research? It seems they were never interested in truth to begin with, and as a result made threats against an innocent man and sent him into hiding. Cole’s story is a quite fascinating one, and he’ll tell you all about it if you follow his writing at Taki’s Magazine.
What we can learn from Cole and Finkelstein is that Jews can make ostentatious victims. That doesn’t mean they were never victimized throughout history. Like any other people, of course they were. But do they tend to exaggerate things after the fact to their own advantage?
Quite possibly. This is the case that Andrew Joyce makes in his heavily footnoted three-part series on the Russian pogroms of the late nineteenth century. According to his sources, which include John Klier’s 2011 work Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2, much of the anti-Jewish violence was overblown and exaggerated by Jews in the West. These Jews had an axe to grind against Russia and wanted to drum up anti-Russian feelings among the elites in Western Europe. Joyce explores similar themes of exaggeration in his review of William Hagen’s Anti-Jewish Violence in Poland, 1914-1920.
When addressing the issue of Jewish victimhood, a healthy dose of skepticism will go a long way towards the truth.
Debunking the Presumption of White Supremacy
By “white supremacy” in this context, I don’t mean its common meaning — that of racist whites lording it over innocent non-whites because of racism — but rather an uncommon meaning: lacking any sense of racial or ethnic victimhood. White people are strangely naïve in this regard. They are perfectly willing to accede rights to other races that they themselves do not have — and allow themselves to get bullied as a result — and yet have the unshakable and entirely ahistorical belief that they themselves have never been seriously oppressed. Of course, this does not describe all whites, and especially not the Irish, for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, most whites approach the Jewish Question fully believing that whites have never been oppressed the way Jews have — and never by Jews.
While Ralph Raico’s classic 1989 article “The Taboo Against Truth” refutes this outright, no work comes close to cataloging the sheer horror of the Soviet Gulag system better than Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s 1,900-page colossus The Gulag Archipelago. Where 200 Years Together focuses on Jewish guilt, Gulag focuses on the obscene degree of white suffering during the first five decades of Soviet tyranny. Reading these pages becomes close to a harrowing experience. We need to remember that an extremely high proportion of these inmates were not criminals at all; they were either political prisoners, or they were guilty of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. And none of them received anything like what people in the West would consider a fair trial.
As I wrote in my 2021 work Solzhenitsyn and the Right (reviewed by Kevin MacDonald here) regarding the development of the Belomor Canal near Finland, which required slave labor from the gulags:
In The Gulag Archipelago, he [Solzhenitsyn] had included photographs of five men — all Jews — who had received Order of Lenin medals for their leadership in the Belomor’s construction. These men were [Genrikh] Yagoda (head of the NKVD), Matvei Berman (head of the gulag system), Lazar Kogan (head of canal construction), Jacob Rapoport (deputy head of construction), and [Naftaly] Frenkel. Their photographs had been prominently displayed in a book about the Belomor, which was published shortly after its completion in the early 1930s. Many Jews labeled Solzhenitsyn an anti-Semite for this because he had made it seem as if Jews were disproportionately responsible for the tremendous death toll which had occurred along the banks of the Belomor.
But they were.
The savage injustice here should be quite plain. As a soldier in the Red Army during the Second World War, Solzhenitsyn wrote a few politically incorrect things about Stalin in a letter and got arrested for it. He was pulled away from the battlefield, where he had been risking his life to fight the people whose leaders were herding Jews into concentration camps. He was placed in a wretched prison without a fair trial and endured torture, neglect, overwork, sickness, frigid temperatures — you name it. He remained a zek for eight years. After this, and a cancer scare, he wrote a masterpiece of history, one of the greatest literary accomplishments of all time and one that exposed to the entire world the abject, uninhibited evil of the Soviet Union, chronicling quite vividly what is certainly one of the lowest points of civilized history. But because he accurately described and depicted the killers who oversaw the construction of the Belomar Canal in The Gulag Archipelago, he was labeled an anti-Semite.
Am I the only one who sees how insulting this is?
It is extremely difficult to take the charge of anti-Semitism seriously when there are influential Jews who care so little for the suffering of white gentiles. If Left-wing Jewish terrorists and ideologues were instrumental in establishing gulags in Russia a century ago and mostly got away with it, then they can do that anywhere and at any time — if we let them; i.e., if a critical mass of white people forget their history and their very real potential to become victims of atrocity. The Jews have never lost that, and perhaps that helps explain their phenomenal success.
The Gulag Archipelago, if anything, should place a victimhood chip on the shoulder of every white person who reads it. Hopefully it won’t be too big; just big enough to replace the Jewish one that’s already there.
I hope no one will think this is the final word on the Jewish Question. There remain mountains of text I have yet to read and hope to in the next few years. It’s perhaps the greatest conundrum of our times, and so a mere 6,000 words can barely do it justice.
Certainly this essay is not — and could never be — the final word on the Jews themselves, being the marvelously creative and brilliant race of people that they are. Sometimes I wish this could be discussed more in our circles — it is a truth which I think deserves a little more air time among dissidents. Perhaps it’s because so many whites have become acquainted with the positive aspects of Jews in real life — in hospitals, classrooms, laboratories, chess clubs, concert halls, and conservatories, to name a few — that many of our arguments seem to ring hollow these days. Consider: How well will a discussion on the Presumption of Jewish Innocence fallacy go over with a white professional who has never heard of Kevin MacDonald and has worked closely and productively with a highly competent Jewish hospital director for 30 years? Not very well, I would imagine. When poring over and discussing the Jewish Question, this should always remain at the forefront of our minds.
The fact that nearly all of the above text reflects negatively on Jews does not speak to any inherent anti-Jewish bias or emotions on my part, however. It rather speaks to the lack of normalization between whites and diaspora Jews I mentioned in the introduction.
The final question about the Jewish Question is, of course, what we do about it. As Greg Johnson always says, “First, do no harm” — and he’s correct. This means that not only do we respect the human rights of others, but we should keep it classy as well. Oven jokes are about as funny as mocking poor whites for doing some of the same unfortunate things poor whites do. Such behavior might score points with the choir, but it also repels the very people — whites and non-whites alike — whom we should be desperately trying to persuade. Is it too much to ask that we all be of good cheer?
After this, however, what’s next?
Never forget that the greatest and most dangerous enemies of whites as a race — at least since the Mongol and Ottoman threats died down centuries ago — are Left-wing diaspora Jews. Because such Jews factor highly among those who are also either extremely wealthy or extremely fervent, it makes sense for all whites to treat Jews as outgroup members until they can prove their pro-white bona fides beyond a reasonable doubt. If a Jew cannot do this, then we should never trust him and have as little truck with him as possible — and if this includes discrimination, so be it. If this sounds harsh, we should remember that it is no different than how Jews have treated gentiles for centuries, and continue to do so in Israel. It’s called giving as good as we’re getting.
We should also remember that our enemy practices absolute ethnocentrism. Consider the following quote from Abraham Foxman, former director of the anti-white hate group known as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which comes from his Afterword to Edwin Black’s The Transfer Agreement. Foxman can be considered one of the foremost enemies of white people today:
I was born in Poland. I was hidden in Vilna by my Polish Catholic nursemaid, who baptized me, and I was reunited with my parents only after the War. That is why I am alive today.
I have spent all of my adult life in the organized defense of Jewish rights and dignity. That is why I live today.
Thus, for Foxman it doesn’t matter that Jewish Bolsheviks were instrumental in murdering tens of millions of white people decades before his birth. In fact, he implied as much in Yoav Shamir’s great documentary Defamation, in which he told a delegation of Ukrainians that, in effect, their genocide was not as important as his. Watch.
It also does not matter to the Foxmans of the world if white people tell the truth about Jews. He would look at this article, be horrified at my lack of philo-Semitism, declare me anti-Semite, and then crush me, if I were a person worth crushing.
And the fact that I am white has everything to do with it.
Earlier this year, the ADL redefined its definition of “racism” to mean: “[T]he marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people.”
Yes, they changed it back to a slightly less offensive definition a short time later — after considerable backlash, but I see it more as them letting their anti-white mask slip for a moment rather than as a sincere change of heart. They really do hate us — and not as individuals, but as a people, which means of course that my innocent children are on the hook as well.
This is the modern equivalent of a blood libel.
Finally, not only are our enemies anti-white, they are hypocritical about it. In the above definition, replace “white people” with “Jews” and we have a good description of what goes on in Israel. And it is relatively easy not to have to marginalize non-Jews when you declare yourself a Jewish state, establish anti-miscegenation laws, and follow race-based immigration policies to keep non-Jews out to begin with.
If only white people had the right to do the same with non-whites!
I hope this essay demonstrates that today’s enemies of white people have very little truth on their side, and indeed behave like villains. Further, the demographic clock is winding down. Whites have very little time to escape the cruel fate that Left-wing diaspora Jews and their allies, both white and non-white, have prepared for us.
All we can do in the meantime is tell the truth and persevere until enough white people stand up to this injustice, cast these Left-wing diaspora Jews out of their lives, and once again claim nations we can truly call our own.