Original Source - John "Birdman" Bryant http://www.thebirdman.org

The unique thing about this war -- what I shall call the Jewish War Against Gentiles, or JWAG for short -- is that it is rarely recognized; and in the few cases where it is recognized, it is rarely spoken of for fear of encountering the 'usual epithets' ('racist', antisemite', 'bigot', etc) and other similar forms of condemnation normally reserved for flat-earthers, conspiracy theorists, pedophiles and other outcasts. This is not really surprising, however -- after all, it is the 'Jewsmedia' which controls what is regarded as true or false, good or bad, hip or halt; and it is not in the Jewish interest that the war be named (much less discussed), because as long as gentiles cannot name it, they cannot fight back.

But there is another reason the gentiles cannot name this war, and that is because its battles are presented to us as morality plays, with white- hatted Jewish-fueled liberalism contending -- not against the white race or Western civilization directly -- but rather indirectly against 'bigotry', 'racism', 'antisemitism', 'sexism', 'discrimination', 'homophobia', 'xenophobia', 'handicappism', 'lookism', 'weightism', and other similar isms, tions, and phobias which represent one of the most amazing collections of alleged evils ever assembled, not merely because no one ever thought of opposing them until recently, but because anyone seriously thinking of championing an opposition to them before the present day would have been regarded as out of his mind.

A third reason the JWAG cannot be named is because people intuitively understand that it makes an unfair generalization about Jews by seeming to hold all Jews responsible for the offenses of the few -- the ADL, the SWC, the AJC and others of a similar bent. This is an important point because so few seem to understand its full implications. To illustrate, consider the fact that Germany and Japan were our "enemies" in WWII, but that, once the hostilities were over, both rapidly became our allies. The reason for this is not because we suddenly changed from hating Germans and Japanese to loving them, but rather that we never hated them in the first place. Instead, what we "hated" -- or at least attempted to destroy -- was not the Germans or Japanese as people, but rather the organizations which determined their behavior, namely, their governments. It is true, of course, that some Germans and Japanese were killed in the process of doing this, but this was only a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

In identifying the JWAG, three questions naturally arise: First, why are the Jews such enthusiastic adherents of liberalism; second, what is the evidence demonstrating Jewish responsibility for a war against gentiles, and third, what motives do Jews have for wishing to destroy the white race and the civilization established by that race? We will attempt in the paragraphs below to answer each of these questions in turn:

Explanation of Jewish liberalism:

The reasons for Jewish liberalism are at least three in number: First, Jews have been outcasts for many centuries in all parts of the world, and this has undoubtedly given Jews a sympathy with minorities who, simply by being minorities, have generally been underdogs. Second, because Jews have generally experienced an outstanding level of financial success -- a likely source of envy among gentiles, and thus a factor in causing Jews to be outcasts -- this success has led to a feeling of guilt, particularly in regards to the minorities whom they champion, thereby leading Jews to support liberal policies. A third reason for Jewish liberalism, at least in the sense of explaining their support for leftist governments, is that the centralization of power which is an intrinsic part of such governments is a means of realizing power for Jews generally and Jewish leaders in particular.

While it could be argued that liberalism is as legitimate as any of a great many other political positions -- conservatism, monarchism, fascism, populism, technocracy, etc -- the fact remains that liberalism is contrary to the most basic principle of the American Constitution -- limited government -- a principle which has been at the root of the Western democratic ideal. In fact, 'limited government' is essentially a synonym for 'political freedom'; for virtually all the freedoms Americans supposedly enjoy under the Constitution -- free speech, freedom of religion, a free market, property rights, freedom of association, equality under the law, the right to keep and bear arms, protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to a speedy trial by a jury of one's peers, and so forth -- are essentially limitations on government power. But almost every liberal program is an attack on political freedom thru an enhancement of government power: Affirmative action and welfare give the government power to suspend the free market and equality before the law by making some groups (minorities and 'the poor') more equal than others; 'hate speech' laws and their ilk give the government power to attack freedom of speech; minimum wage laws, sexual harassment laws, 'workplace safety' regulations and affirmative action give the government power to regulate the (formerly) free market; 'gun control' gives the government power to restrict the right to keep and bear arms; forced bussing and 'anti-discrimination' laws give the government power to violate freedom of association; and in general the pro-tax-and-spend policies of liberals give the government power to spend 40% of our incomes, and in the process to do virtually anything it wants, from scrutinizing our bank accounts and telling us how to use our sexual organs to prescribing what medicines we may use and what substances we can enjoy.

But even if liberalism and its more extreme variants of communism and socialism are in fact contrary to the Western democratic ideal, the question remains as to whether Jewish support of liberalism is not simply a manifestation of Jewish idealism which is innocent of any intent to destroy Western culture or the white race. While virtually anything is possible in this crazy world of ours, the likelihood that liberalism is merely 'innocent Jewish idealism' seems unlikely in the extreme. To begin, according to Prof Kevin Macdonald, Jewish intelligence is significantly above the white, (about 15 IQ points), and in fact is as far above the white as white is above the black. Thus even granting the possibility that the Jewish hoi polloi are idealistic liberals with no intent of trashing whites or Western civilization, the fact that liberalism has been a failure in every instance where it has been tried -- from the numerous communist and socialist regimes around the world (the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, North Korea, and so on) to every particular program where it has been tried in the West (welfare, government health care, social security, farm subsidies, urban renewal, public housing, VA hospitals, plus all the other programs we have already mentioned, plus zillions of others) -- can only mean that Jewish leaders -- the most intelligent men of an outstandingly- intelligent race -- know perfectly well the effects of liberalism, and continue to promote it precisely because they approve of its effects. And while it is true that Israel itself adheres to liberalism in the economic sphere (but not in the racial, ethnic or sexual!), this is not a refutation of our position, but could be explained in various ways, eg, as a need on the part of Jewish leaders to showcase their liberalism to the gentiles in order to be better able to use it against them; or as an experiment in command and control of their own people in order to facilitate using it against the West; or as merely the effect of the Jewish hoi polloi believing in liberalism without their leaders believing in it.

Evidence for Jewish responsibility:

The evidence of Jewish responsibility for the intentional destruction of Western civilization and the white race consists of two parts: (1) the Jewish support of liberalism, which we have already noted is contrary to the basic principles of Western life, and (2) the negative attitudes and motives which Jews hold toward whites and Western culture. The evidence for (1) is summarized in the starred paragraphs below; the evidence for (2) is discussed in Motives for Jewish behavior which follows the starred paragraphs:

• Jews as a people are overwhelmingly liberal politically, and the goals of the major Jewish organizations worldwide reflect this liberalism in their policies and political activism.
• Virtually all of the liberal social movements have been initiated and led by Jews -- communism, civil rights, feminism, open immigration, gun control, 'hate crime' laws, the labor movement, etc.
• The major media -- newspapers, television and movies -- has an overwhelmingly liberal bias (for example, about 90% of the senior media staffers voted for Clinton in 1992), and Jewish influence is dominant in the media, as has been conclusively demonstrated by Dr William Pierce in his essay "Who Rules America", which may be found on the National Vanguard website. The result of this control is that, in only half a century, the people of the West have been persuaded to abandon ideas which they had held for centuries in favor of precisely the opposite ideas -- those of liberalism. And the fact that this abandonment has happened all over the Western world simultaneously is further evidence that the international network of Jews, by their media influence, has brought it about.
• Jewish contributions and fundraising have a major impact on the political process, and with this control goes tremendous political clout. (Popular columnist and presidential candidate Pat Buchanan once characterized Congress as Israeli-occupied territory.) This clout does much to explain the emergence of liberalism as a formidable political force, even tho liberalism is unpopular among the American people (it has been estimated that only 17% of Americans consider themselves liberals.)

Motives for Jewish behavior:

Besides the love of all things liberal, Jews have certain motives and attitudes which make hostility to Western culture and the white race understandable, if not exactly justified:

• The Talmud, central book of the Jewish religion, veritably bristles with hatred for gentiles; and while the majority of Jews are not religious, there is little doubt that this hatred -- nurtured by centuries of persecution and refreshed with memories of Nazism -- is a significant part of the Jewish psyche.
• Their past persecution has given Jews not only a negative attitude toward white gentiles, but a desire to protect themselves from further persecution and -- in conjunction with their 'eye for an eye' and 'never forgive, never forget' mentality -- a taste for revenge. The destruction of the white race and its culture ostensibly serves both these purposes.
• Jews as a people regard themselves as competing with gentiles, at least in the sense of preferring their own people rather than gentiles to succeed and hold power. And since whites are their major competition, what better way to foster the desired success than to literally destroy the white race and its culture?

In view of these observations, it is hardly surprising that Jews have supported integration, intermarriage, immigration, affirmative action, hate crime legislation, gun control, and every other program whose effect is to dilute and destroy the white genome, and the civilization for which it is responsible. In attempting to deal with the JWAG, there are two important questions which must be dealt with: (1) What if Jewish hostility to gentiles is either genetic or so culturally ingrained that destroying Judah's hostile organizations and neutralizing its leaders will only succeed in bringing to the fore new organizations and new leaders with the same intentions and behaviors? (2) Because wars require great effort and sacrifice, they generally require a great hatred of the enemy. But if we reject hatred of 'the Jews' as unfair on the assumption that it is only some Jews who are responsible for the JWAG, how is it possible to prosecute the war?

What I am getting at is that there are basically two approaches to dealing with the JWAG: The hard-line approach of forcible separation of Jews and gentiles (or worse), or the moderate approach of neutralizing hostile Jewish organizations and their leadership while leaving 'the Jew in the street' alone. Those who favor the hard-line approach regard Jewish hatred as likely to be intractable, and are thus eager to encourage hatred of Jews while being likely to hate Jews themselves; while moderates may feel no hostility to Jews, and may indeed like and admire individual Jews, as I do. It is of course easy to imagine that such widely differing viewpoints could spark conflict in spite of shared goals, since hard-liners will see moderates as impotent or worse, while moderates will view hardliners as not only unnecessarily extreme, but as acting to alienate whites' most important ally -- the Jewish people themselves -- who, if they only understood how their leaders were endangering them, would not hesitate to elevate those leaders in the only way they deserve to be elevated -- by hanging from a lamppost.

The argument in favor of the hardliners is historical -- according to the Jewish report card, Jews 'do not get along well with others', as demonstrated by the fact that they have been expelled from almost every Western country at some time or other. The argument against the hardline position -- imperfect, but not without force -- is that religion has been a primary source of hostility to Jews, and that now that the Western world is largely secular, religious antipathies no longer function to divide Jews from gentiles.

The argument in favor of the moderate position -- besides appealing to the view of most people that Jews are 'just folk' rather than 'evil' -- is that no other means of dealing with the 'Jewish question' is really practicable, and should at least be pursued until the point where it shows itself unworkable. Visions of gas chambers may dance in hardliners' heads, and Catonian and Voltarian echoes of Juda delenda est and Ecrasez l'infame! may ring in their ears, but unless there are some really big changes in the world, such fantasies are at best useless, and at least of dubious morality.

A final question which needs to be considered is whether a focus on the evils of liberalism rather than on 'Jews the destroyers' (to use the phrase of the Jewish author Samuels in his book You Gentiles) might not be a more effective 'war strategy', if for no other reason than that it would be more acceptable to the population at large. I admit this possibility, but reject it not only because it is less honest, but because, in the long run, I think it is less effective: We cannot fight a war when we cannot identify the enemy. In this regard it should be noted that the John Birch Society seems to have taken this approach: While their excellent scholarship has given considerable credibility to their conspiracy theory of liberal 'Insiders', they stay an arm's length and a country mile away from anything sounding like Jewish conspiracy, with the result that the JBS, as 'the king of conspiracy theory', may not exactly be parading around naked, but has certainly been caught with its pants down. Indeed, an important deficiency of the 'Insider' theory is that blood is thicker than power hunger, the latter of which is the supposed motive for the 'Insiders' banding together to create a New World Order. That is, an organized effort generally requires individual sacrifice for the 'common good', and men who are bound by blood, like the Jews, are far more likely to make such sacrifices than are men acting from purely selfish motives, as the 'Insiders' supposedly are. Worse than this, however, is that the JBS has apparently been co- opted by establishment Jewry, a fact unearthed by one of the JBS founders, Prof Revilo Oliver, who determined that the principal founder, Robert Welch, was secretly controlled by Jews (and who could therefore be said, no doubt, to have 'Welched' on his supporters). The importance of this in the present context is that, by making no objection to the Birchers' very able promotion of the 'Insider' conspiracy theory, establishment Jewry regards such an attack as sufficiently off-target to be largely harmless to the real enemy -- themselves.

In conclusion, let me state plainly that, in spite of the arguments I have given here, I could be wrong about Jewish intentions. I am not sure, however, that it really matters much; for whether it is the intention of the Jewish establishment to impose a totalitarian New World Order on the rest of us for their own power and profit, or whether they believe that liberalism is just a prescription for a better world, the fact remains that the end result is the same: the abolition of human freedom. The facts of thoroughgoing Jewish liberalism, formidable Jewish political power, and overwhelming Jewish media influence cannot be reasonably disputed; nor can it be disputed that these three things have combined in a successful worldwide effort over the last century to turn the world's thinking topsy- turvy. Thus the only way to save Western civilization and the white race is to stop liberalism, and the only way to stop liberalism is to neutralize Jewish power. The intentions of Jews may be good, or they may be evil; but the only difference is that, if they are good, then Jews will be just that much harder to stop because of their zeal in pursuing a 'righteous cause' in which they provide 'a light unto the nations'. But of course the Jews have already provided 'a light unto the nations'; for their support and encouragement of liberalism from the Bolshevik revolution onward has made it possible for the rest of us to see what horrible and unforgivable things men will do when animated by good intentions.

In sum, now that the Jewish War Against Gentiles has been named, perhaps men will arise who have the courage to fight it. How about you ?