Can Pro-White Also Mean Pro-Black, Pro-Jewish and Pro-Zionist?

By John "Birdman" Bryant


It is a time-honored smear tactic for liberals and other anti-white elements of our society to equate pro-white with opposition to every other race and ethnicity. There is not, however, any known logical syllogism that can equate pro-white with anything anti; and in fact it is entirely possible for someone who is pro-white to be pro every other race and ethnicity, providing only that there is nothing in the others which is intrinsically opposed to whites. The same logic applies to white supremists; for supremists merely believe that whites are superior to other races or ethnicities in some way or ways, without any implication of hostility toward them. This is not to say, of course, that racial interests of different groups will not sometimes conflict; nor is it to say that common characteristics of a group may not frequently stimulate hostility among those of other groups; but this is not the same as saying that racial differences need imply hostility, or that races -- in spite of their differences -- cannot find a modus vivendi.

My reason for saying the above is the generally-accepted belief that everyone deserves his place in the sun. This is a moral precept which has emerged in only the last century, and which conflicts with the precepts of earlier centuries where extermination of entire peoples often occurred; but I find it compatible with my own philosophy, not merely because I dislike war and the killing of innocents which it inevitably causes, but -- more importantly -- I believe that every people, in being the product of a long evolution, possesses valuable characteristics which have made their survival possible, and which we would lose should they or their culture be destroyed.

This, however, raises the question of what it means to be 'pro-white' or pro anything else. That is, to be 'pro-white', for example, is often regarded as pursuing white interests without consideration of other groups, ie, to echo what Admiral Farragut might have said, 'Damn the other groups; full speed ahead.' But is this 'DOGFuSA' philosophy really persuing white interests? That is, if white behavior makes other groups hostile, this will impact negatively on white interests, and may in the long term be counterproductive. The dogfusa philosophy, then, is not the true pursuit of white interests; rather, its true pursuit is finding a modus vivendi in which hostility of other groups is minimized by a recognition of the right of each group to its place in the sun. But rejecting dogfusa has a profound logical implication: It means that 'pro-white' becomes the equivalent of every other 'pro' -- pro-Jewish, pro-Palestinian, pro-black, an so forth -- because the equilibrium which is sought by dogfusa-rejecting whites is the equilibrium which is sought by all dogfusa-rejecting groups.

The above concepts make it possible to understand much more clearly the nature of 'antisemitism' and other anti-isms. For example, much of what is referred to as 'antisemitism' in the present day does not -- as in earlier years -- stem from religious differences or envy of Jewish success, but is rather a reaction to a combination of Jewish success in a gentile world and the Jewish dogfusa pursuit of Jewish interests, ie, the Jewish pursuit of Jewish interests without adhering to the philosophy that everyone including gentiles deserves a place in the sun -- this latter philosophy, incidentally, being one which Jewish interests have been instrumental in establishing.

And who is guilty of dogfusanism among the Jews? It is what I have frequently referred to as the Jewish Establishment -- the men and women who head the organizations which claim to represent Jews and which wield power in their name. And thus it is the Jewish Establishment who pursue -- not the long-term interests of the Jewish community -- but only a narrow short-term interest which fills their organizations' coffers and makes possible their lavish salaries.

Or to put it another way, the Jewish Establishment long ago departed from the example of Moses who parted the waters of the Red Sea and led his people out of the wilderness: They have created a Red Sea which is drowning Western civilization, and which will not result in the Jews being led out of the wilderness, but rather only in their being led into a gas chamber -- a real one this time.


* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *