The White Conspiracy Peter Myers, January 22, 2001; update January 15, 2006. Write to me at contact.html.

You are at

Nazi-sympathiser Dr William Pierce here articulates the White conspiracy to rule non-Whites. Those who grew up in "White Christian" societies, as I did, are given ample proof here, of the incompatibility between Aryanism (White domination) and the Universal ethic of Christianity. The "Christianity" brought to the New World grew out of Viking (Norman) Aryanism, and was Aryanism in disguise: worst.html.

Just as Christians or ex-Christians are challenged to choose between Particularism and Universalism, so Jews are also challenged to choose between Zionist particularism (the Apartheid of the Jewish state), and Universalism.

(1) Race Suicide, by Dr. William Pierce (2) A Reply to Dr. William Pierce - written Jan 30, 2000, but added here January 15, 2006

(1) Race Suicide, by Dr. William Pierce

I quote the following, not to promote Pierce's views, but to illustrate Aryanism.


Subject: ADV12-23-00: Race Suicide Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 23:27:19 -0800 From: Reply-To: To: "American Dissident Voices" <>

American Dissident Voices Broadcast of December 23, 2000

Race Suicide, by Dr. William Pierce


With the end of the year at hand this seems like a good time to sum things up. Before we sum up the past year, though, let's look at the past century. The salient feature of the 20th century was the collective suicide of the White race. In 1900 we ruled the world. We ruled politically, militarily, culturally, economically, scientifically, and in every other way. No other race even came close. We ruled India and Africa directly, and China was for all practical purposes an economic colony of Europe and America. The Chinese Emperor remained on his throne only so long as he let White men have their way in China. Japan was the only non-White nation of any significance which even had pretensions of autonomy.

We had superior weapons, superior armed forces, superior communications, superior transportation, superior agriculture and industry, superior standards of health, superior organization, superiority in every facet of science and technology. We had the best universities -- really, the only universities worthy of the name -- the best engineers. We built things that other races couldn't even imagine. We explored, we conquered, we ruled.

More important than anything else was our moral superiority -- and please don't misunderstand my use of that term. I don't mean that we were meek and inoffensive and turned the other cheek. I mean that we were proud and self-confident. We knew who we were, and we knew that we were far, far better than anyone else, and we weren't at all embarrassed by the fact that we were better. We recognized racial differences in the same way we recognized that the sun rises in the east, and we felt not the slightest need to apologize to anyone for that. Egalitarianism was a moral and mental disease that afflicted only a few of our people, despite the murderous outburst of egalitarian insanity that was the French Revolution a century earlier. Any sort of racial mixing was abhorrent to us. We looked on miscegenation with the same disgust and disapproval as on bestiality or necrophilia. We didn't tolerate it. And we didn't accept or trust Jews. That was our situation a century ago.

We did have some faults, however: some very serious faults. We were not vigilant. We were so confident in our superiority that we failed to heed the warnings of the few among us who were vigilant. We didn't pay attention when a few warned us, "Hey, we'd better do something about the race problem. We have nine million non-Whites in the United States, according to the 1900 census, and in the future they could become a real problem for us. Let's start getting rid of them now."

We thought, "Well, as long as they stay on their side of town and stay out of sight, how can they be a problem for us? Besides, they're useful for picking cotton and as cleaning women and cooks and gardeners."

And when a few warned us about the Jews we also didn't pay attention. A few warned us about the damage the Jews had done to us in the past, about their malevolence, about their growing wealth, but most of us didn't take the warnings seriously. We saw the Jews as obnoxious and unpleasant people, and we didn't let them into our private clubs and our better hotels, but we didn't consider them really dangerous. We didn't even become alarmed when they began buying up our newspapers and elbowing their way into other propaganda media.

And lack of vigilance wasn't our only fault. We were too ready to quarrel with one another. No other race was seen as a threat to ours, so we felt no need to suppress our internal rivalries and jealousies and hatreds and form a solid front against the non-White world. We let fester old rivalries between the English and the Germans and between the Germans and the French and between the English and the Boers in South Africa and between those of us who spoke Germanic languages and those of us who spoke Slavic or Romance languages. We didn't notice our faults, our weaknesses -- but others did.

The latter half of the 19th century saw not only the beginning of the acquisition of our mass media by the Jews, but also the nearly simultaneous hatching of two long-term, murderous conspiracies designed to exploit our weaknesses and turn them against us. These two conspiracies were Zionism and Marxism, communism. Some Jews went with one, some with the other, but both were deadly for us.

The Marxists issued their Communist Manifesto as far back as the middle of the 19th century, but it was another 50 years before they were able to have much of an impact on the Gentile world. As for the Zionists, they also began propagandizing and organizing at about the middle of the 19th century and only became noticeable at the beginning of the 20th century, when they began having international Zionist congresses and more or less openly laying their plans to foment wars and revolutions, of which they could take advantage to promote Jewish interests.

For example, at the Zionist Congress in 1897, in Basel, Switzerland, the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl told his fellow Jews that they were having trouble persuading the Turks, who at that time controlled Palestine, to turn the country over to them, but that the Jewish leaders had plans for getting around the Turks. And I should mention that Herzl's address to the 1897 Zionist Congress has been published in a number of places, and any diligent researcher can dig up a copy. Herzl said, and I quote: "It may be that Turkey will refuse us or will be unable to understand us. This will not discourage us. We will seek other means to accomplish our end. The Orient question is now a question of the day. Sooner or later it will bring about a conflict among the nations. . . . The great European war must come. With my watch in hand do I await this terrible moment. After the great European war is ended the peace conference will assemble. We must be ready for that time." -- end quote --

Remember, Herzl was talking about the Jews' plans 17 years before the outbreak of the First World War. But the Jews were ready when the time came. In 1916, with the war more or less stalemated, they approached Britain's political leaders and made a deal to bring the United States into the war on the side of Britain in return for a British promise to take Palestine away from Turkey and turn it over to the Jews after the war. The British side of the deal was made public in the so-called Balfour Declaration. And the Zionists kept their end of the bargain by working through Jews close to the Democratic President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson. Wilson had won the election to his second term in the White House in 1916 by promising America's voters that he would keep the United States out of the European war. But as soon as he took office in 1917 he began scheming to get the country into the war on the side of Britain, which, of course, he did two months later. That cost a couple of million additional Gentile lives, but it got Palestine for the Jews -- and it also prolonged the war enough for the Jews in Russia to topple the czar and get their communist revolution off the ground.

When I said that some Jews took the Marxist route and some the Zionist route, I didn't mean that all Jews became active workers in one or the other of those movements. Most Jews remained full-time money-grubbers and provided propaganda and financial support for their conspiratorial brethren, continuing to buy up mass media and to dispense capital to the Zionists or the communists as needed. And they didn't wait for the First World War for that. The first big Gentile bloodletting of the last century in which they had a hand was the Boer War in South Africa, between the British and the Boers. This cruel and murderous war, in which Jewish capitalists were allied with British capitalists against South Africa's Dutch and German and French farmers -- the Boers -- laid the foundations for Jewish control of much of Africa's mineral wealth.

In 1904 the Jewish Wall Street speculator Jacob Schiff, planning ahead for a communist takeover of Russia, helped to finance the Japanese side in the Russian-Japanese war and used his influence to block loans to the Czar's government from America. This was the same Jacob Schiff who a little more than a decade later provided the Jewish-Bolshevik movement with an infusion of $25 million to finish the job in Russia: that's $25 million from capitalist Wall Street to finance the communist butchery of Gentile Russians. In 1917 $25 million was a lot of money; in any case it bought enough bombs and bullets and communist propaganda leaflets to get the job done.

Now, none of this Jewish activity was really secret. The lemmings didn't know about it, because it wasn't in the funny papers or the movies. But Jews weren't even trying to keep their sympathies or their activities secret, and observant Gentiles continued to issue warnings to anyone who would listen. But, as I said a moment ago, we weren't vigilant. White Americans didn't believe that they were in any danger. Things such as the deal to bring America into the First World War in return for the turning of Palestine over to the Jews were too subtle for the American mind.

After the war the mass murder of Ukrainians and Russians by Jewish-Bolshevik commissars might possibly have registered with White Americans except that to the average White American Russians and Ukrainians weren't real people: they spoke a different language and dressed differently from us. And besides, by that time the Jews had gotten a pretty good grip on Hollywood and the broadcasting industry, and so the only side of the story most Americans were allowed to see or hear was the Jewish side.

Europeans were more vigilant than Americans. For one thing Europeans had longer memories: they were more aware of the long history of Jewish scheming and predation than Americans were. For another thing, in Europe the danger was quite a bit closer. Communist parties in a number of European countries besides Russia had taken advantage of the chaos in the wake of the war to make grabs for power, and in a few countries -- Hungary, for example -- they had succeeded temporarily. People noticed the ethnicity of the commissars and were horrified by their behavior toward the Gentile populations. Even in insular Britain no less a public figure than Winston Churchill spoke out clearly about the danger of Jewish communism. In a full-page feature article in the February 8, 1920, issue of London's Illustrated Sunday Herald, Churchill wrote, and I quote:

"This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weisshaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky in Russia, Bela Kun in Hungary, Rosa Luxembourg in Germany, and Emma Goldman in the United States, this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality has been steadily growing. It played . . . a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

"There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky or of Zinovieff . . . or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution [the Cheka] has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing." -- end of quote --

Actually, Churchill said quite a bit more in this article about the dangers of allowing Jewish communism to go unchecked, and if you really want to make a study of the background of our present mess you should read the entire article yourself. That's the February 8, 1920, issue of the Illustrated Sunday Herald. If you can't find it yourself in a large research library, the entire article is photographically reproduced in the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard Tabloid, which is available from National Vanguard Books, the sponsor of this program. And when you do find the article from which I just read -- a major article written by one of the most prominent personalities of the last century and published in a major British newspaper -- you might ask yourself why you had never heard of it before I called it to your attention.

As I said, we lacked vigilance. A few people paid attention -- America's pioneer automaker Henry Ford, for example -- but most White Americans were too busy with their ball games and funny papers. And we didn't really care about what the Jews were doing to White people overseas, since they weren't Americans. About the only people who really paid attention were the Germans, who resolved not to let the Jews do to them what they had done to the Russians and had tried to do to the Hungarians. So they proceeded to get Rosa Luxembourg and her pals off their backs and out of Germany. And when the Germans did that, the Jews in America began screaming bloody murder and calling for another world war to save them from the Germans. And by this time the Jews had almost a monopoly on getting their side of the story to the American public.

Well, our people had one other fault in addition to an inadequate sense of racial solidarity with other Whites around the world and a lack of vigilance: we also lacked responsible leadership. We lacked even a system for giving us responsible leadership. What we had were politicians: skilled liars -- actors, lawyers -- who never asked themselves, "What policy is good for our people?" but only, "How can I get elected? What must I promise the people in order to get their votes? What policy will make me popular?" And as the grip of the Jews on the mass media, on Hollywood and Madison Avenue -- and therefore on the minds of the public -- became more and more nearly complete throughout the last century, the question the politicians asked themselves became, more and more: "What must I do to please the Jews and gain their support?"

And so in 1933, in the same year that a German government took office with a policy of freeing the German people from the grip of the Jews, in America a government took office with a policy of doing whatever the Jews wanted done. Franklin Roosevelt surrounded himself with more Jews than any previous American President. In this regard he was the Bill Clinton of his day.

Using Roosevelt as their willing tool, the Jews pulled the same sort of bait-and-switch trick on the American people to get us into the Second World War that they had pulled using Woodrow Wilson to get us into the First World War. Just as Wilson had done 24 years earlier, Roosevelt ran for re-election in 1940 on a campaign promise to keep the United States out of the war in Europe, and while he was making that promise to the American people he was actively scheming with his Jewish advisors and supporters to get the United States into the war as soon as he could, and meanwhile to keep the war in Europe going by making promises of support to those countries opposed to Germany.

It was fighting on the wrong side of that war, more than anything else, which laid us low. It also destroyed the British Empire and laid Britain low. Throughout the non-White world Whites began abdicating their rule, withdrawing, apologizing. The disease of egalitarianism spread like wildfire. There was a moral collapse throughout the White world. It wasn't just the German people who lost the Second World War; it was all Europeans, all White people, including European-Americans.

The Jews were the only real winners of the war. The First World War resulted in opening up Palestine for their Zionist faction and delivering Russia to their communist faction. The Second World War not only saved them from Hitler, it delivered all of eastern and much of central Europe to their communist faction and finished delivering Palestine to their Zionist faction. The war cost them a million or so of the less-nimble Jews in Europe, but it gave them the basis for their enormously profitable "Holocaust" story, with which they have beaten the White world over the head ever since.

And so today we have George Bush trying to outdo Bill Clinton in multiculturalizing the government of the United States. Conservative Americans, patriotic Americans, put their hope in Bush to pull America back from the insanity of the Clinton era, and the first thing Bush does is try to ingratiate himself with the Clintonistas, with the Jews, by appointing non-Whites to the most important posts in his administration.

Read the man's lips. What he's saying is: "Hey, I'm really not such a bad guy. See, I'm appointing Blacks, I'm appointing Jews, I'm appointing Mexicans. And the Blacks and Mexicans I'm appointing are just as pro-Jewish as I am. My tough-talking Black secretary of state speaks Yiddish and will support Jewish interests around the world just as strongly as Bill Clinton's Jewish secretary of state has done. You can trust me. I'll do whatever you tell me. I'll support Israel. I'll support 'speech crime' laws. I'm your man." And he's not saying that, he's not making these appointments, because that's what Republicans want or even what Americans want. It's what the Jews want. George Bush is a hollow man, an empty man.

And George Bush is a splendid symbol of the state of our race today: a splendid symbol of our moral collapse during the past century. It is entirely fitting that such a man should be our figurehead leader as we continue on the course of racial suicide that we have been on for the past century. It is entirely appropriate that he became our figurehead leader through the comic-opera sort of process we have witnessed during the last two months of the first year of this century -- which certainly will be our last century if we do not make a radical change of course soon and begin regaining our lost moral strength.

{end quote}

(2) A Reply to Dr. William Pierce

Peter Myers Date Jan 30, 2000

In the current crisis of Capitalism, many disaffected victims of the New World Order do not know which way to turn. The Radical Feminists, a spin-off from the Communist organisations, have destroyed our family life; while the Big-Business lobbies have destroyed the nation-state, and thereby deprived ordinary people of any control over the running of the economy. Elections are dominated by the parties of the "Bipartisan Centre", which have formed a consensus around Feminism (the new Moral Order) and Free Trade. Those wanting to change the system fall into two groups: the anti-Capitalist "Far Right", and the anti-Capitalist "Far Left". During the recent referendum in Australia, these two factions combined under a moderate leadership, and in that combination each faction keeps the other in line, and therefore moderate.

Outside such a coalition, the two groups are trending towards the extremes of Trotskyism and Nazism. The Trotskyists are coldly unrepentant, and denying, of the barbarity of the Bolshevik Holocaust; they scapegoat Stalin, and shield Trotsky and Lenin from criticism. I note that Noam Chomsky, although critical of Stalin and Zionism, seems not to have criticised Lenin or Trotsky, or written on the intrigues behind the Balfour Declaration. At the other extreme are people like Dr William Pierce, of the National Alliance in the United States, who proudly identifies himself with the Confederate side in the Civil War, and by implication supports Black Slavery. Chomsky and Price are examples of those brilliant but dangerous leaders of the extremes; the feature of such extremes seems to be an unwillingness to dialogue with political opponents, as if there is no common humanity between them.

As someone who has argued that the Protocols of Zion is proabably genuine, a document which was supposed to stay secret but which was exposed by some courageous dissident, of the likes of Israel Shahak today, I tread a risky tightrope between the extremes of Far Right and Far Left. I believe that our only hope is for a combination of the moderates of these two forces; otherwise, we face a totalitarian and deadly nightmare ahead.

On the question of the Nazi Holocaust, the shameful "Holocaust Industry" is comparable to the corrupt "Indulgence-selling" scam within the Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation; yet I would be loath to go to the other extreme, to deny that there may have been gas chambers. The absence of evidence does not mean that this did not occur, just as the absence of the bodies of the victims of Lenin or Trotsky, does not mean that they did not murder millions of people. What is required is an openness to critical questioning, in line with the exposition of that great Jewish philosopher of Scientic Method, Karl Popper. On that method, one cannot elevate the Nazi Holocaust into an unquestionable absolute; it is comparable to other events in this and recent centuries. All the "great" conquerors of the past - Alexander, Napoleon and many others - committed genocides; they are still remembered as "Great", not because of those genocides, but because of the civilisations that came after, that were built on those ruins. Sadly, so many human endeavours have ended up as rubble, the foundations for some later endeavour. We are a genocidal species: it happened in Rwanda only a few years ago; not a decade goes past without some genocide or other. Even Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, is presented as supporting the genocide of the inhabitants of Palestine, by Moses & Joshua (e.g. see Num 31: 7-19; Deut 2: 33-35, 3:4-7, and 20: 12-14; Josh ch. 6, 8:2, 8:24-25, and 10:33).

The first anti-genocidal philosophy seems to have been Jainism, which has not spread beyond India. It later gave rise to Buddhism; around the same time, this lifestyle was practised by the Pythagoreans of Greece, to which it had probably been introduced either by a missionary from India, or by a Greek philosopher who had journeyed to India. The Essenes show traces of this lifestyle, but mixed with religious fundamentalism (based on fear of the Devil) and separatism (to avoid contamination) and a violent guerilla movement. From this potent mix, Christianity emerged. Its Buddhist side has led Christians towards Pacifism; its Jewish militancy, and its later adoption by the barbarian Nordic tribes, have given Christians their willingness to kill. Today we stand in between: once again we must choose between these paths. Which brings me to Dr William Pierce.

Dr Pierce, I believe, is largely right in his assessment of who is holding the reins, but he fails to delineate between the two major factions of the American Establishment: the Old Anglophile one which seems to run the Republican Party, and the Zionists who seem to have the Democrats in their hands. They don't hold ALL the cards, but they are more single-minded. Nor does Dr Pierce distinguish between the different factions of Jews. Some are quite courageously trying to expose what's going on - they deserve credit and some sort of co-operation. ...


William Pierce calls Blacks "sub-humans", & justifies decimation of the American Indians: pierce.html.

"The Rig Veda is a collection of more than a thousand hymns written between 1200 and 900 B.C. by people known as Aryans, who came to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India from the Eurasian steppes to the north. The Rig Veda is one of the earliest known writings written in any Indo-European language." The Rig Veda & the Aryan invasion of India: rig-veda.html.

The Will of Cecil Rhodes, a "white conspiracy" document: rhodes-will.html.

The Problem with "Whites": whites.html.

Another Conspiracy: Globalization, One World, the Movement for World Government: oneworld.html.

Free Trade causes inequality, which leads to class war. Karl Marx advocated it for this reason: classwar.html.

And today's Trotskyists promote Free Trade (Capitalism) for the same reason: xTrots.html.

Write to me at contact.html.