- Counter-Currents - https://counter-currents.com -

The Dictates of Survival

georgebellowsstagatsharkeys1909 [1]

George Bellows, “Stag at Sharkey’s,” 1909

1,642 words

To oppose the extermination of the white race is not, objectively speaking, an outlandish position. It is quite conservative, even consistent with the tenets of mainstream conservation biology.

More importantly, it is moral. Those perpetrating genocide stand self-condemned: the purposeful destruction of the white race is a crime against humanity under the Left’s own laws.

But, of course, there is always a huge gulf between what such people say, or even enshrine into law, and what they really believe and do.

What Would Jews Do?

If whites (or anyone else) did to Jews what they and the System are doing to whites, the violence of their reaction would, by now, have been staggering. Jews would have employed weapons of mass destruction, assassinated members of the ruling class, and carried out horrible massacres in retaliation.

In 2008 the Jewish Daily Forward published an opinion piece by Yehezkel Dror entitled “When Survival of the Jewish People Is at Stake, There’s No Place for Morals [2]” that offers whites, the world’s most endangered species, food for thought. It articulates the fundamental values of the globalist ruling class, Jewish and non-Jewish, on the question of ethnic rights for Jews.

The Austrian-born Dror is a retired Israeli professor of political science. He was educated at Harvard University and Hebrew University in Jerusalem, where he subsequently taught. He was a consultant to the Israeli government on policy-making and planning, founded the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, and served as a senior staff member of the RAND Corporation, an Establishment US think tank funded by the US government, corporations, universities, and wealthy individuals.

In 2005 Dror won the Israel Prize, his nation’s highest honor. It is awarded annually to recipients who display excellence in their fields or contribute strongly to Israeli culture or the Jewish state.

In other words, Yehezkel Dror has impeccable Jewish—and therefore Establishment—credentials.

The November 1, 1936 magazine section of The Forward. [3]

The November 1, 1936 magazine section of The Forward.

Dror’s article was published in the Left-wing, equally Establishmentarian, English- and Yiddish-language Jewish Daily Forward of New York City.

The article is significant not only for the psychology it reveals, but for its militant insistence that Jews have a right to exist, and to utilize any means necessary to insure their survival.

There is no reason why this philosophy should not apply equally to a genuinely threatened people—namely, our own.

Unfortunately, Dror mixes unabashedly chauvinist arguments with generous helpings of moral and intellectual dishonesty.

For example, he implies that Jews are presently endangered, which they are not. Jews are far and away the most powerful people on earth, as even the most casual observer of politics and culture knows.

Dror further conflates the state of Israel with Jews. He does this because although Jews are not in danger, Israel in its present form may well be nonviable [4].

Invoking the persecution myth, he claims Jews “have been regularly persecuted for 2,000 years.” This, he thinks, confers the “the moral right and even duty” “in terms of distributive justice” (?), to kill “if this is essential for assuring existence—even at the cost of other values and to other people.”

This “duty to kill” is rendered “all the more compelling” by . . . naturally, the Holocaust . . . which was “supported directly and indirectly, or at least not prevented,” by “large parts of the civilized world.”

“There are, of course, limits,” he purports to believe—”nothing can justify initiating genocide.”

Considering the Jewish role in Communism, and the contemporary demonization, oppression, dispossession, and replacement of the white race, this ruse is beneath contempt. Dror hypocritically says that “being killed and destroyed is better than” transgressing the “absolute and total norm” forbidding genocide.

No one in globalist or Jewish circles believes this; their behavior flatly contradicts it.

Following is the gist of Dror’s beliefs about Jewish survival. The ideas are far more applicable to a truly endangered people than they are to an all-powerful ruling elite, especially when the victims’ oppression and physical annihilation is supported directly and indirectly, or at least not prevented, by large parts of the civilized world.

The Morality of Survival

“There is little disagreement,” Dror informs Forward readers, “that every Jewish leader, organization, community and individual has a duty to help ensure the continuity of the Jewish people.”

Replace “Jewish people” with “white people” and no one in academia, media, or government, least of all Jews, would approve of the statement—including those who are biologically (i.e., nominally) white. Anyone who thought differently would have been prevented from attaining authority in the first place, or removed from power later. This is an iron law of elite socialization.

Physical existence must come first. No matter how moral a society aspires to be, physical existence must take precedent [sic].

This is a basic point too often lost sight of by whites. The physical existence of a people is the first order of business. Ultimately, a healthy, vibrant culture is necessary to insure the survival of future generations. Nevertheless, the inescapable fact is that biological reproduction must occur; like must engender like [5].

“When the requirements of existence conflict with other values, realpolitik should be given priority,” including “the necessity of maintaining distinctions between ‘us’ and ‘others’ in order to limit assimilation, this imperative ought to guide policymakers.”

Regrettably, human history refutes the idealistic claim that in order to exist for long, a state, society or people has to be moral. Given the foreseeable realities of the 21st century and beyond, harsh choices are unavoidable, with requirements of existence often contradicting other important values.

Some might argue that putting existence first may be counter-productive in terms of existence itself, because what may be regarded as immoral action can undermine external and internal support essential for existence. However, the calculus of realpolitik gives primacy to existence, leaving limited room for ethical considerations.

Weigh carefully what he’s saying, and think about it from a white perspective.

The Jewish people ought not be captivated by political correctness and other thinking-repressing fashions. . . . The Jewish people must give primacy to existence.

The overall issue is whether the imperative for the Jewish people to exist is a categorical one overriding nearly all other values, or one among many imperatives of similar standing. I would argue that the imperative to assure existence is of overriding moral weight.

The Jewish people has an inherent right to exist, just as any other people or civilization.

More dishonesty. Globalist elites and Jews do not think whites have a right to exist, and are doing everything in their considerable power to insure that very soon we do not. But collective existence is our right, not something to be bestowed or taken away at the whim of any government, Left-wing ideologue, or Jew.

Dror offers another justification: “There is a good chance that we will continue to make much-needed ethical contributions to humanity. However, in order to do so we require a stable existence.”

I make no comment about the Jews’ alleged “ethical contributions to humanity,” because there are none. Dror might better have said “some scientific, intellectual, financial, or entertainment contributions.” Nevertheless, his argument is appropriate if applied to whites instead.

“The Jewish people should give much more weight to the imperative to assure existence than to other values. Assuring the existence of the Jewish people, including a Jewish State of Israel, should be valued as a top priority.”

Jewish leaders should support harsh measures against terrorists [“terrorists”—this is a propaganda term] who potentially [potentially!] endanger Jews, even at the cost of human rights and humanitarian law [here he advocates law-breaking, disobeying the government]. And if the threat [“threat”—not actions—as defined by Jews] is sufficiently grave, the use of weapons of mass destruction by Israel would be justified if likely to be necessary for assuring the state’s survival, the bitter price of large number [sic] of killed innocent civilians notwithstanding.

That’s quite a statement in view of the fact that Jews really do mean it: “. . . large numbers of killed innocent civilians notwithstanding.”

At the end of the day there is no way around the tough and painful practical implications of prioritizing existence as an overriding moral norm [emphasis added] over being moral in other respects. When important for existence, violating the rights of others should be accepted, with regret but with determination. Support or condemnation of various countries and their policies should be decided upon primarily in light of probable consequences for the existence of the Jewish people.

In short, the imperatives of existence should be given priority over other concerns—however important they may be—including liberal and humanitarian values [and] support for human rights. . . . Given present and foreseeable realities, assuring existence must come first.

Everything Establishment spokesman Yehezkel Dror says in New York City’s Leftist Jewish Daily Forward is far more applicable to whites everywhere on earth than it is to Jews. Dror even concedes that every people or civilization has a right to exist—implicitly on the same terms he outlines for Jews.

Many Jews would no doubt disagree with Dror’s editorial as written.

That is primarily because Dror is really calling for extreme violence and lawlessness on behalf of Israel, not Jews. And Jewish dissidents no longer blindly subscribe to the fraudulent equivalence between the Jewish people and Israel that Dror is unquestionably asserting. Indeed, some members of the tribe are beginning to suspect that present-day Israel may no longer be “good for the Jews.” Israel’s behavior makes it increasingly difficult for many people to successfully lie to themselves or others about the Jews’ true colors.

Even so, if the Jews’ backs really were pushed to the wall the way whites’ are, there is no question they would behave exactly as Dror advocates, no matter how much death and suffering it entailed for others.

Whites, who truly are endangered, should begin thinking more like Dror and the Jews—and soon.