"Never blame others when you can blame yourself. By blaming others, you merely guarantee that the problem will remain unsolved, since you have no power to make others act; whereas you DO have power over your own actions, so by assuming the blame, you motivate yourself to find a solution from the only source from which a solution is likely to come, namely, yourself." -- JBR Yant
'Moderation in all things' is a bit of ancient wisdom which should apply not only to the acts of men, but to the criticism of those acts. In my efforts at publicizing the Jewish Question, which have occupied a considerable amount of my time over the last several years, I have seen much good and useful criticism of Jews, but also a fair amount of criticism which is not only wrong, but which impedes the effort to publicize the real and important problems that surround and emanate from this tiny but powerful international nation. What I am getting at is that making a wrong criticism is not merely something which is wrong in itself, but is something which detracts from the impact of the valid criticisms by lowering the credibility of the one making the criticism. In the present essay I wish to discuss the major criticisms I have seen which are mistaken, and to point out why they are wrong or counterproductive in the task of dealing with the Jewish Question.
As a preliminary, let me say that much of the mistaken criticism made of Jews is fueled by a logical fallacy which I call the 'do the opposite of your enemies' fallacy, or DOYE fallacy for short. The reasoning is evidently that, if our enemies are doing it, it must be bad, so we should do exactly the opposite. Basically the fallacy is fueled by a lack of openmindedness which refuses to abide by the wisdom of 'give the Devil her due': Those given to the fallacy evidently hate their enemies so much that they simply cannot acknowledge that those enemies have anything good about them whatsoever. In the present case it is the 'evil Jew' who is said to be unable to do anything right or good, whereas in fact the Jew does a lot of things right, or at least goes in many right directions, even if often going too far.
A good example of the DOYE fallacy involves Christianity: Because the 'evil Jews' are mostly atheists, the assumption made by many white liberationists is that Christianity is good, and therefore we ought to return the Old Time Religion to the place of prominence which it held in Great-Great-Grandfather's time. In particular, these folks want a return of the Ten Commandments to the walls of the court house, the reinstatement of Bible-reading in the schools, the remolding of the Winter Solstice into Christ's Mass, and the abolition of legal abortion. Whether such moves would lead to the institution of a Christian theocracy with George W Bush in charge is left unstated, but because there are so many whose reasoning is infected by the DOYE fallacy, it does make for a bit of frisson.
Perhaps the strongest reinforcement of the DOYE fallacy is the well- documented idea that Jews 'hate Christianity' and are trying to destroy it, and by so doing, to destroy Western civilization whose moral moorings are anchored to it. While I believe there is some truth to this, there is also some justification for it, inasmuch as the Church persecuted Jews in historical times, and thereby left Jews with resentment against Christians and Christianity that has been passed down thru the generations. The problem here is somewhat that of a Hatfield-McCoy-type feud -- once it gets started, the warfare takes on a life of its own, where all actions are but reactions that invite yet more reactions while the original dispute is completely forgotten. In such a case it is not possible to assign blame for the conflict; but even if it were, the real point is to stop the fighting by damping out the attacks on both sides. Christians no longer seem to hold a theological brief against Jews, tho Christian hatred of Jews still comes up for air from time to time, as in the accusations of 'Christ killers' and what Jews call the 'blood libel'. In contrast, however, Jewish hatred of Christians still seems to be alive and well: For example, the Talmud is full of hateful passages; at least some sects of Orthodox Jews are obligated to spit in contempt when passing a Christian church; and there are believable accusations that Jews have infiltrated the Church of Rome in order to neutralize and Judaize it -- but all this may simply be a product of the fact that the Jews are a small population, and hence one that feels itself more vulnerable. In any event, however, the main conflict nowadays is not between Christians and religious Jews, but between secular Jews and non-Jews.
The promotion of the secular world view is yet another largely bogus accusation that has been liberally laid on the Jewish doorstep. There is no doubt, of course, that organized Jewry has attacked Christianity with the view of realizing the Jeffersonian notion of 'separation of church and state', as reflected by Jewish objections to creches and crosses and Ten Commandment postings on government turf -- not a big deal in practical terms, but a sensitive point for those still adhering to the Christian faith in this secular age. But if Jewish objections to such symbolism in both a secular and religiously-tolerant society are fully justified, the opposite claim that Jews have destroyed Christianity is not. Christianity has been undergoing major deconstruction ever since the beginning of the Enlightenment, where the theories of Copernicus, Galileo and Newton gave the Church a body-blow from which it has never recovered. Indeed, the Founders of our nation were largely atheists, a fact which they disguised by calling themselves Deists and using frequent references to 'God' in their documents in order to palliate the still-religious masses who had not yet been brought up to speed in Philosophy & Religion. Today we are still involved in the task of religious deconstruction, but we are at the same time struggling to replace the faith that has carried Western man so far for so long, and in particular we are struggling to separate the genuine wisdom which the Church embraced from the nonsense so aptly characterized by the Red Queen of Alice in Wonderland, who proclaimed that she was able to believe five impossible things before breakfast. I myself have been deeply involved in this struggle, and the progress which I have made on this score will be found in several of my books, including Systems Theory and Scientific Philosophy, The Most Powerful Idea Ever Discovered, and Religion, Science & Superstition. Thus if we are to accuse the Jews of undermining religion, it seems that this may well be interpreted as praise for helping to sweep away two thousand years of superstition; and the fact that whites have not yet replaced their former faith with something that will stand up to scientific scrutiny is not something which can be laid on the doorstep of Jews, who are just as much at loose ends in the religious department as the rest of those who have not read my books.
Returning now to the DOYE fallacy, another important example of this reasoning involves the Arab states and Islam. Here the white liberationist DOYEns embrace the old Arab proverb that 'The enemy of your enemy is your friend', or -- more usually -- simply embrace all of Arabia and Islam as friendly, because they hate the Jews and their 'shitty little country' so much. This, however, is very bad reasoning, because Islam is far worse than the Jews in just about every way you can name -- a repressive society, a crazy all-encompassing religion, a primitive justice system, and indeed, a society in which the only fun a man can have is killing opponents of Allah and raping their women. Jewish tyranny, while real enuf, is a breeze in comparison to this.
Repression is a feature of both the Christian and Islamic mindset, particularly as it involves sex; and this has led to the wrongful blaming of Jews for their sexually-liberal -- ie, 'immoral' -- worldview. Christians, for example, wring their hands unendingly over the unbearable crudity of sex on TV -- a sin which can reasonably be laid at the Jewish doorstep inasmuch as Jews are the dominant force in virtually every area of mediaship -- and insist that it should be censored, but never seem to realize that they could pretty much solve the problem by turning the TV off. Islamics are just as prudish as Christians, except worse -- they make their women wear burlap sacks and veils, thereby telling us inadvertently how important oral sex is in their society; and they have 'morals police' who patrol public places and whip anyone who happens to show too much calf -- or looks at it.
The sexual liberality of Jews has resulted not only in Jews not objecting to pornography, but in their making a very good business out of it. But it is not just Jews behind the cameras or the desks who have made porn into a major industry; for many pornstars are themselves Jews. The attitude of Christians and Islamics, at least when they are not involved in humongous heaps of hypocrisy (Remember Jimmy Swaggart? Jim Bakker? Billy James Hargis? The huge porn collection of King Faisal? Etc. etc, etc?) is of course the same old nattering nabobbery of negativity when it comes to porn; but the fact that porn is everywhere shows that people like it, and like it a lot. And what is more, lest anyone hasn't noticed, society hasn't collapsed because of it. Yes, it is true that marriage is having its problems these days, but the idea that the cause can be assigned to porn is fatuous -- birth control and venereal prophylaxis have a hell of a lot more to do with it than porn could conceivably have, since it is birth control and venereal prophylaxis which remove the immediate bars to casual sex. Porn is merely a reflection of a more sexualized society, not a cause of it; and to claim that ladies and gentlemen are any more willing to go at it today than during the libertinage of the 18th century is a dubious proposition indeed. And what with the orgies of early Christianity that went by the name of agapes, to say nothing of the overt sexuality of all the Very Old Time Religions, ought to make us realize that moral relativity has been around a Hell of a lot longer than Hegelians have been muttering and murmuring about the Absolute, whatever that is.
The point I am trying to make in the above discussion is that people relish porn and therefore do not relish repression of it; and that the accusation against porn that it has caused a fracture in society is at least unproved, and in fact not credible at all. Certainly the two Presidential Commissions on the subject found no problem with it, in spite of the resounding Nixonian denunciations and those of others who did not like the Commissions' reports. In spite of this, however, many white liberationists insist on accusing Jews of using porn to fractionate society, when it is far more likely that the Jews were just trying to make a buck, and their accusers were just jealous of their success. So in making the inherently unbelievable charge that Jews are killing us with porn, we sully our legitimate accusations and make ourselves look like fools.
Another dubious accusation against Jews which is closely related to the porn debate is that over homosexuality. The ugly fact which prudes and numerous white liberationists do not wish to acknowledge is that homosexuality has been around since time immemorial, that it held an honored place in the very cradle of Western civilization, ancient Greece, and that generations of British boys who spread Western civilization to the far corners of the globe were raised on it in the 'public school' (PUBIC school?) system. Jews may be guilty of organizing gay anger and directing it against the institutions of prudery, but if there is any sin in that, there is at least as much sin in the way prudish society has marginalized and repressed homosexuality. Certainly the Law of Unintended Consequences has been fully at work in the process of homosexual repression, inasmuch as such repression, coupled with the ban on priestly marriage, has resulted in ensuring that a large segment of the leadership of one of the ostensible pillars and moral guides of Western society -- the Church of Rome -- is itself as gay as a San Francisco bathhouse -- and not only gay, but lusting after the angelic little boys of their parishioners, as we are reminded with virtually every new day's news. Are Jews to blame for this? I don't think so.
Another bogus accusation against the Jews which is sometimes embraced by white liberationists is the legalization and practice of abortion. This accusation seems to be based on the fact that it is Jewish doctors who are the most frequent practitioners in the abortion business, and it is Christians who are the ones opposed to abortion on the theory that they must 'save the souls' of the little ones. In my view, the Christian position is not merely wrong, but stupid, because (among other things) it ignores the real issues surrounding abortion, including (1) Should we not practice mercy killing of infants who would be a burden to others, (2) Should we not employ eugenics to better the race, (3) Should we not use abortion and birth control to keep the lower classes from swamping the rest of us, and (4) Who is a better judge of whether a fetus/infant should live -- the parents or the State? In short, the Christians and their white liberationist friends are missing the important issues because of stupid Christian theology, while the Jewish doctors are guilty of nothing more than making a buck by doing the work that others are unwilling to do. If this is something to criticize the Jews about, then I will join my Chinese colleagues in helping to orally recycle a fetus.
If there is any one charge which has been made most frequently against Jews, it is that they are 'greedy'. This, however, is a bogus accusation for two reasons: First, 'Being greedy' is really just a nasty name for qualities we admire in speaking of 'entrepreneurship', 'initiative', and 'hard work'. And second, if Jews love money more than they love art or music or women or spelunking, then where is the crime in this? Indeed, money is the staff of life in a very real sense -- so much so, indeed, that another name for money is 'bread', the original 'staff of life'. But here again the Jewish taste for money, if it is bad, must be laid at Christian feet, because the persecution of the Jews by Christians has given the Jews a very hightened sensitivity for survival, and what better way to do this than with money? Beyond this, in historical times, many professions were forbidden to Jews, but the money professions (ie, 'usury') being forbidden to Christians, were a natural primordial soup in which Jews could develop their talents.
Closely related to the charge of greediness is the notion that Jews 'exploit' non-Jews. This alleged exploitation is usually said to occur in the capitalist system, where generally-well-off Jews are found in abundance, and particularly involves such occupations as porn, the slave trade -- because Jews were the primary importers of slaves to the Americas -- and today's 'white slavery', which flourishes around the globe, but especially in Israel. But exploitation is a bogus charge for basically the same reason as greediness is, since 'exploitation' is a just a nasty name for what we praise in speaking of 'seizing opportunities'. What is more, in the case of slavery, the accusation against Jews ignores the fact that whites were the primary purchasers of these slaves and the creators of the slave labor plantation system, and that slavery had been traditional in the Western world for centuries. Likewise, in accusing Jews of white slavery, we do not account for the fact that the female participants are poor, disorganized and uninformed -- something not to be blamed on the Jews.
But more to the point about exploitation, the accusation might actually be made in the other direction, because what we call exploitation is often that Jews -- just like Korean-Americans with their shops in the black ghettoes -- exhibit a greater willingness to do the jobs that ordinary folk won't do. Slavery, white slavery, porn, abortion, drugs and loansharking seem to fit comfortably under this rubric; and the fact that the Jews are willing to take on such occupations -- and provide the goods and services that are so eagerly accepted by non-Jews -- may simply show that Jews are made of tougher stuff than the prudes, pecksniffs, Beau Brummels, and all the rest of the folks who are afraid of getting dirt under their fingernails, literally or figuratively. Certainly this impression is reinforced by everything from chutzpah, for which the Jews are famous, to torture (allowed under Israeli law, unlike all other Western countries), to the fact that it is Jewish mobsters -- not Italian -- who have dominated the economic underside of society with -- among other things -- their unflinching brutality (the 'Russian' mafia is known not merely for killing their enemies, but for killing those persons' families). In short, Jews may 'exploit' non-Jews, but non-Jews 'exploit' Jews right back.
Another charge which is closely related to the accusation of greediness is the claim that Jews do not do 'real work', but only act as 'manipulators', 'moneychangers', 'speculators', 'usurers', 'banksters' and the like. A closely related accusation is that Jews are guilty of 'sharp practices' including 'jewing down' bargainers, the latter of which has been of such frequent occurrence as to be enshrined in our vocabulary. At root, however, all these charges are bogus: What they really say is that the Jew is better at matters of money and finance than the goyim are; and while this may not leave much good feeling in those who have been bettered by the Jew, it is hardly a moral crime; and indeed, it may well be said that those who ACCUSE Jews of a moral crime are themselves guilty of a moral crime. Perhaps the knowledge that Jews have much expertise in the area of money should warn gentiles against playing in the Jewish sandbox; but the best advice might just be for gentiles to sharpen up their own wits so they will not get impaled by a long nose or any other kind. More to the point, however, as I have explained in my book Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Jews, such activities are genuinely necessary in a complex society such as ours, because they provide needed services (eg, risk-taking and market-making) for others without which many economic activities would grind to a halt. Jews, it may be noted, end up in these occupations for the simple reason that they are very good at such activities; and any objection to such occupations can only mean that the objector is jealous of Jewish success and most likely incapable of earning his living in such professions.
Closely related to the above accusations is the charge that the 'Jewish banking system' is essentially illegitimate because it 'creates money out of nothing.' Now as I have explained in several places in my writings, including my book Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Economics, this 'accusation', while partly true, is basically a piece of redolent crap. Here is the explanation:
In the beginning of modern banking, which originated in Venice and Florence in the era of the Medicis during the Renaissance (c 1300-1500), goldsmiths began acting in the role of bankers when gold owners began depositing their gold with these goldsmiths and accepting receipts in return. Goldsmiths, then, began loaning out this deposited gold at interest, except that loans were effected by giving the borrowers not gold itself, but receipts which could be exchanged for gold. In short order, goldsmiths discovered that they could 'loan out' much more gold than they possessed, simply because people preferred to hold the receipts rather than the gold itself. This is what is now known as fractional reserve banking: The bank holds only a fraction of the hard currency needed to 'support' or 'back' the paper they have lent out as money.
In the present day, fractional reserve banking has morphed into a slightly different animal. Up until around the time of FDR, US dollars were backed by silver, and so were known as 'silver certificates'. One could take 'silver certificates' to a bank window and receive actual silver coins in exchange. In the present day, however, dollars are no longer 'backed' by silver, and the only way one can obtain silver for them is to go to a coin dealer. For all that, however, it is obviously completely wrong to say -- as the hard-money advocates seem to be saying under their breath -- that dollars are 'worthless', tho it may not be completely clear why dollars continue to be considered worthwhile. The reason for this is not merely that they are 'accepted', but also that they do represent a genuine -- if in some sense insubstantial -- quantity, namely, that of CREDIT, or IOU. To explain, suppose I borrow $100 from Jack, to be paid back next month (for simplicity we will say without interest), and for which I give Jack my IOU. By writing this IOU, then, I have 'created out of thin air' an amount of money consisting of $100, which Jack can 'spend' if he can find someone to accept it. My creation isn't as 'good' (ie, readily acceptable) as $100 cash, but among our mutual friends it would probably be accepted at face value, or at a slight discount. That means that not only can I spend the money Jack lent me, but Jack can 'spend' my IOU, at least among friends. So you see that I have 'created money out of nothing' by giving the IOU to Jack.
The difference between my IOU and dollars (ie, government IOUs) is that the government has a lot more 'friends' than I do -- AND because their IOUs can always be used to buy a very important commodity -- relief from TAXES. Indeed, the fact that dollars can be used to pay taxes is THE most critical thing in getting the dollar accepted as currency. Furthermore, we see that, with the ability to pay taxes, there is no further need for the dollar to be 'backed' by silver, for the ability to pay taxes gives it its essential value. Beyond this, we see why the government -- or ANYONE -- can create money out of thin air, because money is CREDIT, and ANYONE can have credit as long as they can find someone to accept their IOUs. We see this fact illustrated in the credit limits on credit cards: If you have a limit of $1000, then the credit card company has given you a thousand dollars worth of its credit, ie, 'created it out of nothing' just for little old you, in hopes that you will use it and pay them for the privilege (Whether the company has given you ITS credit, or merely acknowledged YOUR credit, is a matter that I shall not attempt to divine here, particularly in view of the ethereal nature of 'credit').
I stated above that fractional reserve banking had morphed into a somewhat different animal than its original form of the banker holding only a fraction of the gold which backs the gold certificates he has issued. The new form of fractional reserve banking is that the banker holds only a fraction of the government IOUs which constitute backing for his own IOUs. To the epopt this may seem bizarre: The backing of bank IOUs are themselves IOUs, albeit of a more substantial quality. This is truly ethereal, and yet it emphasizes my point that banking is about CREDIT, and that the 'accusation' that money is 'created out of nothing' is true in some technical or arcane sense, but is misleading and fundamentally false. All this is not to say that there are not some substantive issues about 'hard money' (gold and silver) which deserve to be discussed, but it is to say that those who wish to see my thinking on the subject ought to read my earlier-mentioned book on economics, or my book Libertarianism: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.
But if it is unfair to call the 'Jewish banking system' illegitimate because it 'creates money out of nothing', it remains to give Jews both praise and blame for their system -- if indeed it is they who are to be credited with it. On the debit side, the abuses that 'the banksters' have perpetrated with their power to create and restrict credit has succeeded in putting enormous wealth into Jewish hands which is now being used in an act of slow genocide on the white race and Western civilization. There is nothing to be minimized about this abuse, and the facts of history -- investigated by Jews themselves, including Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard -- leave no doubt that the denizens of the Federal Reserve and their cronies in Europe ought to be hanged by the balls. However, lest we fail to give credit where credit is due, we must mention that Walter Sombart, in his studies of the monetary system, believed that the Jews were mainly responsible for modern banking and, by that means, for initiating the Industrial Revolution and the modern economic biosphere. If Sombart is right -- and at least some critics have counted him as overwrought on the subject -- then we may nevertheless owe to Jews a considerable debt for the modern world. Let us just hope that they do not destroy it first.
As a final point on the matter of exploitation, we observe that from time to time we hear Jews accused of creating 'modern art' and other art forms which depart from the classical Western style, and which give the appearance to many of being junk. The Nazis were big on denouncing 'degenerate' art, and one of their more memorable stunts was having an exhibition of modern art, supposedly to show the people exactly how awful it was. To this I would like to say the following: (a) 'Classical' style is basically what we might call 'photographic art': It seeks to reproduce scenes from the real world, or what appear to be from the real world. This is unobjectionable, but the camera made a real dent in the business of camera artists, whose commissions were often from rich folks who wanted to be immortalized in oil; so artists had to start doing something else to keep bread on the table, or to keep from merely imitating a medium that did something better in an instant than they could do in a month. (b) Since there is no argument about taste, there should be no argument about modern art. I regard some of it as awful, and some of it as beautiful, but I do not presume to tell others what they have to enjoy. As far as I am concerned, it would be just dandy if the Art Nazis turned in their armbands and monocles. (c) Altho it is not usually stated, I believe that one of the main objections to modern art is that -- to put it crudely -- a bunch of Jews have gotten rich by selling junk to rich but stupid goys. It's the old exploitation argument again, but again it is an argument that fails, and indeed leaves goys with paint on their face, since they could presumably not be 'exploited' if they had the brains to see what they were really buying. But what the Art Nazis may be missing here is that the stupid goys actually WANT to be exploited, because they are not so much buying art as they are buying status. If they buy a Picasso, or a Klee, or a Peter Max, they are engaging in a game of one-upmanship with their friends and associates. Perhaps they have been 'hoodwinked', but due to what is generally known as the 'greater fool theory', they may be able to have their dinner party to show off their painting -- equipped with armed guard, of course -- and get their names in the Society Column, and then turn around a few months or years later and sell their expensive piece of crap to yet a greater fool, who may indeed be purchasing on the basis of what he read in the Society Column. In short, the Jews may get rich, but the goys just might get richer. So stop complaining already! Oy!
Now besides the improper accusations against Jews that we have already discussed, there are others that deserve at least a mention, particularly in light of the point made at the beginning of the essay, that we should not blame others when we can blame ourselves. These include the following:
* One does not have to read white liberationist literature on the Jewish Question for very long to find mention one of the most absurd subjects in all Christendom (or whatever passes for it these days) -- Jewish noses! What in the WORLD does the Jewish nose have to do with the serious issues that whites must confront? Do Jewish noses look ugly? Well, maybe or maybe not: The Roman, or aquiline (eagle) nose was considered the mark of a patrician among those whose Aryan civilization lasted for a thousand years, and which was the civilization upon which Hitler modeled the Third Reich (the 'thousand-year Reich'). But ugly or not, the Jewish nose -- which is not actually that common among Jews -- is still irrelevant, and actually much worse than irrelevant because it plays into the hands of what liberated Jew Murray Rothbard used to call the 'anti-anti-semites': When someone talks about the (irrelevant) Jewish nose, that immediately pegs him as being from Redneck Central, ie, to anyone with half a brain, it immediately identifies the person as an ignorant boob. This is not to say, of course, that the Jewish nose is not proper for a cartoon; but that is a different matter entirely from the Julius Streicher types who wish to invest the Jewish nose with moral significance or employ it as a sort of unbiblical Mark of the Beast.
* White liberationists object to Jewish assault on free speech, but they are not courageous enuf to speak out while they still have a chance. A good example is the Net: Of the few people who do speak out, virtually everyone hides behind a false name like they are scared shitless. How the hell can we have a movement if everybody is hiding behind a false name? Speaking out and putting your name on it sends an important message; and FAILURE to sign your name also sends a message, tho a rather different one. When we speak out and put our name on it, we give other people courage to do so. We are badly in need of courage now.
* White liberationists complain about how the Jews own the political parties, but they are unwilling to give generously to change that. That is not to say that we should start to give money to the Republicrats -- they are totally corrupt and hostile to our cause. Instead, we have to create our own political parties. A core of dedicated and well-funded people will help us to attract others, and the more we attract, the more we WILL attract, until we eventually create a viable movement. More generally, we need to create parallel institutions which bypass censorship and use cable TV, films and other available media to get out our message. If my own experience is any indication, the Movement is not going to go anywhere simply because -- at least at this juncture -- people refuse to fund it. How many people are going to work for two cents an hour like I do?
* We object to Jews as revolutionaries and 'world conquerers' who upset the applecart of civilized society, and yet the major problem Western society is suffering from today is that it is in need of a revolution, or something pretty close. More properly put, the objection which white liberationists have is not so much that Jews have been revolutionaries, but that their revolution is bad for Western civilization -- something certainly true enuf, but also a reason to wish that the white liberationists might have a few Jews on its side to spawn a revolution and shake off the death grip of the New World Order, which Organized Jewry and its friends have largely succeeded in installing. Or to put it another way, we seem to need the energy of the Jews, because we have become passive and somnolent in front of our TVs and are letting Western civilization slip from our hands -- too afraid, even, to protest that it is happening. O Lord, we beseech Thee -- SEND US SOME GOOD JEWS!
In closing, I would like to quote one of the finest, most courageous and most knowledgeable people on the Jewish Question whom I know, James Von Brunn, whose attitude toward the Jew is very like my own (at least in the quote below). This quote is from Jim's book "Kill the Best Gentiles!", which you can sample at his website, www.holywesternempire.org. Here is the quote:
"Aryan instincts regarding race are fundamentally sound - though not popular. Anthropology and Genetics prove that Genomes program the behavior of each race differently. It follows, then, that the U.S. Constitution and code of laws which were created for ONE race are totally inadequate for another. There is NO universal moral law or legal code. Beyond one's racial family the distinction between right and wrong vanishes. Why? Because genes determine racial behavior, and racial behavior determines morals and laws! Ergo, within a diverse society morals and laws cannot be legislated or encoded to categorically satisfy each race within that society. It follows that Western Culture has disintegrated in direct proportion to racial diversity - evidenced in America's moral-ethical collapse. Racial differences cannot be changed through legislation. Nature's Laws prevail! "It is apparent that JEWRY is the only race genetically programmed to subsist upon host races. What law governs that? A PARASITE is one of Nature's many life-forms. It is neither a moral nor immoral animal - it is simply a biological fact. To Aryans parasitism is pathological, therefore immoral. To JEWS parasitism is a biological necessity, therefore moral. What is ethical or moral to one race may be unethical or immoral to another. Nature acknowledges none of this. In her pristine realm there are no morals! There is only the WILL TO SURVIVE. It is absurd, to hate parasites; anymore than one hates termites, Negroes, vipers or bats. You simply don't allow them to eat the foundations of your home or hangout in your bedroom. You excise them - by whatever means is necessary. Darwin, Spencer, Carlyle, Hitler refer to culling the gene-pool as necessary to "survival of the species." The TALMUD teaches survival. Green Berets, Navy Seals teach survival. Mendelism teaches survival. God/Nature teaches survival. CATHOLICISM/LIBERALISM teaches: "Love your enemy" and enter Paradise."
isn't free! To insure the
continuation of this website and the survival of its creator in
these financially-troubled times, please send donations directly to the Birdman at
PO Box 66683, St Pete Beach FL 33736-6683
"The smallest good deed is worth the grandest intention."
contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all
Remember: Your donation = our survival!
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *