Blacks and Jews: Raus!

by Thomas Dalton, Ph.D.

NOW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP has begun rounding up illegal aliens, it is perhaps a good time to reconsider the larger deportation question regarding undesirables, however defined. Every society in every age has had certain individuals that it wanted removed, from the ostracism of the ancient Greeks to the excommunication of the Catholics to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 to the present-day Israelis who are driving out the Palestinian natives. Sometimes gently, sometimes not, undesirables have gotten the message, time and time again: Get out.

The Germans have a word, raus, which means, roughly, ‘out.’ It is a contraction of the word heraus, which, in phrases like herausbekommen and herausgehen, means, ‘get out’—and usually in an emphatic sense, as in: “Get out of here!” In the good old days of 1930s Germany, it was occasionally used in reference to certain undesirable peoples within the German Reich: gypsies, gays, and especially Jews (Juden). Hence the memorable phrase: Juden raus! And on this count, Hitler succeeded: When he came to power in 1933, there were about 500,000 Jews in Germany, and after the war, the figure was around 40,000. (Some of the displaced were killed, but many died of natural causes and most were simply shipped out to labor camps farther east, where they were eventually absorbed by the Soviet Union.) Surely a large part of the German Wirtschaftswunder—‘economic miracle’—of their postwar recovery was due to the fact that they had relatively few Jews to contend with.

Nor, incidentally, did Germany have many Blacks. Though they did have colonial interests in Africa dating from 1884, primarily in West Africa and around Lake Victoria, not many Africans migrated to Germany; of those that did, they were mostly young males, staying temporarily, and usually without bringing (or starting) a family. Numbers are hard to come by, but according to most estimates, only a few thousand—perhaps as many as 10,000—Blacks lived in Germany around the turn of the century. And with their loss in World War One, Germany surrendered its few colonial interests; this turned out to be a blessing in disguise, as it further restricted Black migration, diverting them instead to England, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands—nations that have had to deal with the adverse consequences ever since.

The Weimar regime that took over following Germany’s defeat in 1918 was heavily Jewish, and the Jews were very favorably disposed toward the Blacks. German culture paid the price. Jews promoted Black jazz bands, Black minstrel shows, and Black entertainers generally. From an American perspective, Henry Ford understood this already back in 1921. He wrote:

Many people have wondered whence come the waves upon waves of musical slush that invade decent parlors and set the young people of this generation imitating the drivel of morons. … Popular music is a Jewish monopoly. Jazz is a Jewish creation. The mush, the slush, the sly suggestion, the abandoned sensuousness of sliding notes, are of Jewish origin.¹

To achieve their ends, Jews worked with Black musicians:

It was worth noting, in view of the organized eagerness of the Jew to make an alliance with the Negro, that it was Jewish “jazz” that rode in upon the wave of Negro “rag-time” popularity, and eventually displaced the “rag-time.” (ibid., p. 191)

One immediately thinks of the extensive Jewish-Black collaboration in today’s highly degenerate ‘rap’ and ‘hip hop’ music. But for Ford, the purpose of all this was truly malevolent:

The diabolical cunning with which an unclean atmosphere is created and sustained through all classes of society and by the same influence, will not be overlooked by any observer. There is something Satanic about it, something calculated with demonic shrewdness. And the stream flows on and on, growing worse and worse, to the degradation of the non-Jewish public and the increase of Jewish fortunes. (ibid., p. 193)

Hitler, too, understood that the Jewish-Black “alliance” not only degraded culture but also led to large-scale miscegenation. In Mein Kampf (1924/2022), he noted:

The [Weimar] Jews were and are responsible for bringing Negroes into the Rhineland, with the ultimate idea of bastardizing the hated White race, and thus lowering its cultural and political level so that he himself might dominate. (vol. 1, 11.20, p. 326)

France, unfortunately, fell victim to a fate largely avoided by Germany:

France is and will remain by far the most terrible enemy. This people, who are becoming more and more niggarized (Vernegerung), represent an enduring danger to the existence of the White race in Europe because they are bound up with the Jewish goal of world domination.² Contamination through Negro blood on the Rhine, in the very heart of Europe, is in accord with the sadistic and perverse lust for vengeance by this hereditary enemy of our people, just as an ice-cold Jewish calculation uses this to begin a bastardization at the center of the European continent, and to deprive the White race of the basis for a sovereign existence by infection with a lower humanity. (vol. 2, 13.11, p. 255)

Hitler reiterates in the subsequent chapter:

Not only is [France] adding to its army’s strength in a constantly increasing measure by recruiting colored people from its gigantic empire, but also racially its niggarization is progressing, such that one can now actually speak of the creation of an African state on European soil. …

If France continues to develop in the present manner for the next 300 years, all traces of French blood will finally be submerged in the growing Euro-African mulatto state. This would be a formidable, self-contained settlement area from the Rhine to the Congo, filled with an inferior race that gradually emerged through a process of continuous bastardization. (vol. 2, 14.3, p. 276)

Clearly, Hitler wanted both Jews and Blacks out of his territory—not dead, simply removed. His goal was to make Germany Judenrein (‘cleansed of Jews’) and thus Judenfrei (‘Jew-free’). And he was willing to take any necessary measures to achieve this end.

Collective Guilt, Collective Punishment

One of the hardest things for Whites to accept is the idea of collective guilt—and correspondingly, of collective punishment. This is the notion that a given group of people can be held jointly responsible for the actions of the worst of their people, and for any systematic offenses committed via the nature or structure of their society. Like any specific instance of guilt and punishment, this may be legitimate or it may be illegitimate. Collective guilt is not inherently different than individual guilt, or collective punishment than individual punishment. Both may be just or unjust; it depends on the circumstances.

On the one hand, White reluctance to accept the idea of collective punishment is quite strange given that they have been the victims of a coordinated policy of collective guilt for centuries, one conducted by Jews anxious to blame them for any and all opposition to Jewish supremacy (i.e. for so-called anti-Semitism); I will elaborate momentarily.

But first, consider the fact that the earliest historical case of justified collective guilt may be laid at the feet of the Jews themselves. For a thousand years prior to the time of Jesus, Jews (back then, “Semites” or “Phoenicians”) were known in the ancient world as belligerent isolationists, as believers in a bizarre Jew-centered religion in which their god “chose” them over all others, and as a people that hated humanity. In 300 BC, Hecateus of Abdera wrote about the Jews, noting that their founder, Moses, “introduced a way of life which was, to a certain extent, misanthropic and hostile to foreigners”.³ This opinion was affirmed by other ancient writers, including Posidonius, Molon, Diodorus Siculus, Lysimachus, and Tacitus. As Nietzsche put it, the Jews were “guilty of hatred for the whole human race,” and thus were subject to collective guilt—and presumably therefore deserved collective punishment.⁴

Certain ancient Jews responded to this charge of collective guilt by turning the tables and concocting a story in which it was the gentiles who were collectively guilty. In the face of the Roman takeover of Judea (Palestine), Paul of Tarsus and a few of his followers came up with the idea that a lone Jewish rabbi named Jesus was executed “for the sins of humanity” and that his death somehow allowed gentiles to escape the omnipresent sin into which all were born. But the sin came first; all humans are sinners, according to Paul and his followers, and all are thus condemned to hell by the Jewish god Yahweh—unless we kneel before the rabbi Jesus: “at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow, those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth” (Phil 2:10).

Indeed, under Christianity, collective guilt is pervasive. All humans are guilty of original sin, thanks to Adam and Eve; the Earth itself is guilty (“cursed is the ground because of you,” Gen 3:17); and the entire temporal world is guilty because it is the realm of sin, suffering, and death, in contrast to the heavenly realm. Arguably, Christianity is nothing but collective guilt—a guilt that can only be redeemed by Jesus/Yahweh, not by man. Or so goes the confabulous tale constructed by the ethnic Jew, “Saint” Paul.

Thus we see that one man, Paul, created and promulgated a story of collective guilt and collective punishment designed for the “benefit” of the gullible Europeans; “I am an apostle to the Gentiles,” after all (Rom 11:13). And thanks to Emperor Constantine, the Europeans bought the whole story: hook, line, and sinker. They have paid the price for two millennia.

Inadvertently, I contend, Paul also introduced a second collective guilt on his own fellow Jews, in the notion that they were the enemies of Jesus, that they were “children of the devil” (Jn 8:44), and that they killed Jesus. In what was surely an internal squabble, Paul demonized his Jewish opponents, built this conflict into the Jesus story, and thus laid a second collective guilt upon the Hebrews. This second guilt was unjustified, of course, because it was a sheer construction; but the first—the hatred of humanity—was grounded in fact and codified in Jewish theology, and hence truly deserving of collective punishment.

Jewish misanthropy since then has been manifested in many ways, including a desire to rule the gentiles (“I will make the nations your heritage” (Ps 2:8); “you shall eat the wealth of nations” (Is 61:6)), viewing all non-Jews as virtual animals,⁵ endorsing slavery (“you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations” (Lev 25:44)), and sanctioning lying, cheating, and stealing from the “goyim.” These attitudes are entrenched in the Jewish soul; they are indelible characteristics of all Jews, whether religious or secular. As a result, these things justify collective punishment against the Jewish people—all of them. The precise nature of this punishment, though, remains to be determined.

Lately, of course, we have perhaps the most blatant and unapologetic example of Jewish misanthropy in history: the wanton killing of at least 50,000 Palestinians in Gaza during the years 2024-2025. If there was ever any doubt about collective Jewish guilt, it has now been vanquished. This barbaric slaughter of the gentile “beasts” was supported by upwards of 80% of American Jews and as many as 90% of Israeli Jews.⁶ As the world can see nightly in their evening news programs, American and Israeli Jews are far more concerned about their 100 or so “hostages” than in the thousands of innocent men, women, and children killed by their military; for most of the first year of the slaughter, in fact, Jews killed around 100 Palestinians per day—and yet,that meant nothing in comparison to the 100 Jewish “hostages.” It could hardly be plainer.

A Little Thought Experiment

“All that may be true,” says the modern leftist liberal, “but we still can’t blame all Jews for the crimes of a few; we have to punish the truly guilty parties and leave the others alone.” This sounds very compassionate and very reasonable on the surface, but it utterly fails in light of history and in face of the facts. Three thousand years of experience tell us, in crystal clear terms, that nothing less than collective action will solve the Jewish Question.

Consider the following hypothetical example—which is not so hypothetical after all. Say we have a small, prosperous European nation of some 100,000 people; think a smaller version of Luxembourg. By some process, a community of 1,000 Jews enter that nation and establish a Jewish village of sorts. At first, there is no problem; the Jews keep to themselves, as usual, and the European Whites leave them alone. All is well, at first, and the Whites congratulate themselves on their magnanimity and kind-heartedness: “see, we took in a community of Jews and can live in harmony with them. No anti-Semitism here!”

Within a few years, though, there arises a young Jewish businessman; let’s call him Cohen. Seemingly out of nowhere, Cohen appears to have considerable wealth; he is seen in expensive cars, wearing expensive clothes, dining out at the best restaurants, and building a large mansion in his village. (Unbeknownst to the Whites, Cohen acquired much of his initial wealth from fellow Jews abroad; whether it was a gift, loan, investment, or something else, they will never know.)

Quickly, though, Cohen starts to show his nasty side. In particular, he begins to employ the longstanding and highly pernicious Jewish tactic that we might call a ‘two-fer’: he undertakes activities that simultaneously (a) enrich himself (and his fellow Jews) and (b) degrade the native Whites. For example, Cohen is found to be expanding business in questionable and morally dubious products like pornography, alcohol, and gambling. Though ‘legal,’ all sensible Whites of our tiny, sensible European nation understand that such things must be limited, restrained, and minimized; and they certainly have to be kept away from children and youth. And yet, Cohen felt unbound by any such constraints. For him, legal is legal—good enough! And the two-fer is perfect here: porn, gin, and dice all bring in hefty profits while damaging the local populace.

In competing with long-established local businesses, Cohen becomes very aggressive. He increases his capacity, drives down costs, and increases volume. To lower his production costs, he imports dozens of dark-skinned “migrants” and “refugees” who will work for half-wages. The leftist-liberals are pleased (“look at how Mr. Cohen is helping those poor, impoverished people!”), and Cohen achieves another two-fer, as his dark-skinned employees mix with, and degrade, the local community—via increased crime, increased social costs, and interracial marriages.

Cohen then branches out; soon he is promoting and manufacturing potent pain-killing drugs (like Oxycontin) and dangerous “recreational drugs” like cannabis. (Another two-fer.) He then generously donates to a local theater group to produce new plays of his liking—all of which seem to focus on the beneficence of Jews, the evil or stupidity of Whites, and the virtuousness of dark-skinned peoples. (Another two-fer.)

To further advance his business interests, Cohen soon becomes the major advertiser in the nation’s dominant newspaper. In due time, the paper becomes reliant on Cohen’s largesse, at which point he starts to make “suggestions” to the chief editor, regarding favorable coverage of his various business activities and negative coverage of his critics (of which there are a growing number). Under pressure, the paper gradually and subtly complies—another two-fer.

Cohen then begins to make forays into politics. He donates heavily to preferred candidates, who magically seem to ‘win’ virtually every election. His politicians reward his generosity by passing favorable laws and by overlooking any misdeeds he committed along the way. Cohen’s dark-skinned employees are given public assistance; his competitors are confronted with new legal hurdles; and his fellow Jews are given a remarkable degree of public “aid”—for no apparent reason at all.

“What a minute!” screams the leftist-liberal. “This has nothing to do with Jews! A non-Jew could have done all those same things!” Could have—but didn’t. Our tiny nation had no such problems before the emergence of Mr. Cohen; or perhaps more realistically, they had rare and minor such problems in the past. Now, though, they have many new issues to contend with. The difference is clear: no previous White had such an attitude of supremacy; an overwhelming contempt for his fellow citizens; or a “god-given” right to dominate others. Cohen has all these things, and absolutely no moral compunction in doing so; in fact, he sees it as his duty.

Finally, Cohen becomes drunk on his accumulated wealth and power. He begins sexually assaulting women; he outright bribes politicians; he hires a team of Jewish accountants to avoid taxes by all means, legal and illegal; and he hires local criminals to do his dirty work, up to and including murder. He becomes, in short, a monster. And for a long time, he gets away with everything. Eventually, though, public outrage grows, and lengthy investigations are initiated. Cohen is tried and found guilty; he appeals; “his” judges rule in his favor; the prosecution then appeals—on and on. Eventually, after some years and millions of dollars, Cohen reaches the end of his rope and is tossed into prison for life. Justice served, say the leftist-liberals.

All well and good, we might suppose. Except for one problem: in those intervening years, our small Jewish community, initially amounting to only 1% of the nation, grows to 2%—partly from outside Jews moving in to take advantage of a “prosperous situation.” And this new, larger community gives rise to ten new, young Jewish businessmen, all in the mold of Cohen. They too follow the successful ‘two-fer’ model, growing rich while degrading the nation. In due time, they too become monsters. They are prosecuted; appeal; counter-appeal; bribe judges…on and on. Years are lost and millions more spent to protect society from these monsters. In the end, they all end up in prison or escape to Israel. Justice served once again, say the leftist-liberals.

In the meantime, though, 20 more monsters arise from that Jewish community. One buys out the major newspaper; one becomes a supreme court justice; one lands a high position in federal government; one becomes a regent of the lone university in the country. Various misdeeds ensue. They are chased; avoid prosecution; wreak havoc; cry “anti-Semitism!”; call upon other nations for defense. Some win, some lose—and our small, once-prosperous nation inevitably falls further into decay. And meanwhile, 50 new monsters graduate from college, eager to begin their work. We can well imagine the end result of this story—just look at modern-day America.

What should our poor White Europeans do about this situation? The liberal-leftists have only one answer: Take each person on a case-by-case basis, prosecute him as necessary, and serve justice. But this takes years of effort and millions (today, billions) of dollars, all while the nation simultaneously endures countless acts of degradation. Half the time, this strategy fails, and the years and money are utterly wasted, and the monsters run free. Clearly, the one-by-one strategy, as fair and rational as it seems, will not work; this is no solution. This is a recipe for disaster, as we have seen time and again around the world. There is only one true solution: the Jews must leave—all of them. Juden, raus! This indeed is collective punishment; but it is justified and it is necessary.⁷

America today has six to seven million Jews, and likely many more if we include crypto-Jews, half-Jews, and related individuals. Perhaps only 1% or so are monsters, but this means we have some 60,000 fanatical anti-White Jews out there, accruing power and wreaking havoc. These are precisely the ones who own media corporations, control Hollywood, run tech companies, become billionaire financiers, “donate” to politicians, run universities, and so on. And even if we could somehow, through some monumental effort, identify, round-up, and expel these 60,000 monsters—then what? Within a short time, the remaining 5+ million Jews would give rise to a new batch of monsters, more malicious than ever. There is no other solution; out they must go.

Eighty years ago, Joseph Goebbels understood the reluctance of the masses to deal firmly with the Jews. In his important 1941 essay “The Jews are Guilty!” (Die Juden sind schuld!), he said this:

How stupid and thoughtless are the arguments of the Jews’ backward friends in the face of a problem that has occupied mankind for millennia! How they would gape if they could ever see their dear Jews in power! …

There are differences between people just as there are differences between animals. Some people are good, others bad. The same is true of animals. The fact that the Jew still lives among us is no proof that he belongs among us, just as a flea is not a household pet simply because it lives in a house.

When [good Germans] Mr. Bramsig or Mrs. Knöterich feel pity for an old woman wearing the Jewish star, they should also remember that a distant nephew of this old woman by the name of Nathan Kaufman sits in New York and has prepared a plan by which all Germans under the age of 60 will be sterilized.⁸ They should recall that a son of her distant uncle is a warmonger named Baruch or Morgenthau or Untermyer who stands behind Mr. Roosevelt, driving him to war, and that if they succeed, a fine but ignorant US soldier may one day shoot dead the only son of Mr. Bramsig or Mrs. Knöterich. It will all be for the benefit of Jewry, to which this old woman also belongs, no matter how fragile and pitiable she may seem. (in Goebbels on the Jews, 2024, p. 118)

As we know, Roosevelt’s Jews did in fact succeed in driving the US into the war, and just three weeks after this essay, upon the Pearl Harbor attack. And many “fine but ignorant US soldiers” did indeed shoot dead many hundreds of thousands of German sons—all at the direction of Roosevelt’s Jews.

Today, millions of American Jews support an out-of-control US military machine that conducts countless illegal and deadly actions around the world and that provides cover for more such crimes by the Israeli military and Mossad. An erudite and self-critical Jewish friend of mine once told me that probably 99% of American Jews are Zionists of some sort; and as I noted above, 80% or more support the ongoing catastrophe in Gaza. American Jews collectively own or control around half of the private wealth in this country, which means that they have access to perhaps $75 trillion in assets—an astounding figure that amounts to functionally unlimited wealth, much of which is put to nefarious purposes.

I’m sorry, but the Jews are indeed collectively guilty, and thus deserving of collective punishment; under the circumstances, expulsion is profoundly generous; the worst of them deserve far more.

Blacks To Follow

There is a parallel but different story for Blacks, most of whom were originally brought into White nations (frequently by Jewish traders) against their will. In reading accounts of the American colonial era, for example, one gets the impression that many people were uneasy about the slave trade, both on moral grounds and for the fact that these African “wild men” were being brought into the country in large numbers and that this was a potential disaster in the making. They were right on both counts.

Already by the early 1800s, there was a concerted movement to repatriate the Blacks. The American Colonization Society (ACS) was created in 1816, with the goal of shipping slaves back to Africa. The 1819 Anti-Slave Trading Act included a nominal $100,000 (around $2.5 million today) to begin the process. In 1822, the colony of Liberia was established by the ACS on the west coast of Africa with the express purpose of serving as a new homeland for repatriated Blacks. But the project never really got off the ground.

The idea did not die, however. Many people will be surprised to learn that Abraham Lincoln frequently and repeatedly advocated returning Blacks to Africa. As a 43-year-old ex-US representative, he spoke of his belief in the idea of “restoring a captive people to their long-lost fatherland.” Two years later, in a speech of 16 October 1854, he said “My first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” In another speech of 1857, Lincoln spoke of his support for “colonization,” adding: “it is morally right and, at the same time, favorable to, or at least, not against our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime…”

After winning the presidency in November 1860, Lincoln continued to defend the idea of repatriation, considering now both Haiti and Panama as additional potential destinations. In his message to Congress on 3 December 1861, he spoke of exporting both slaves and freed Blacks: “steps [should] be taken for colonizing [them] at some place, or places, in a climate congenial to them.” Lincoln further promoted a bill in 1862 that would appropriate money “to aid in the colonization and settlement of such free persons of African descent…as may desire to emigrate to the Republic of Haiti or Liberia, or such other country beyond the limits of the United States…” And in December of that year, he even proposed a Constitutional Amendment (!) to this end; as he told Congress: “I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization.”

“But that was long ago,” says our leftist liberals; “no one in government would talk about such a thing today.” True, but that’s because (a) we unwisely allowed all Blacks to vote—Black men in 1870 and Black women in 1920—which were two monumental errors in our nation’s history. (An entire book needs to be written explaining how this catastrophe came about.) And (b) because powerful Jews today like the fact that the US is overflowing with Blacks and other minorities; they would view any attempts at repatriation, voluntary or otherwise, as the first step in a ladder leading eventually to themselves. And they would be correct.

If we need to make a stronger case now than in Lincoln’s day, we can point to empirical evidence showing that Blacks are disproportionately costly to society. One of the best measures for this is criminality. Even a minimal degree of research shows that Blacks are far more prone to crime, including violent crime, than Whites. One study from 2008 opens with this statement:

Since the beginning of the 20th century, racial and ethnic differences in the rates of serious juvenile and adult offending have been repeatedly observed in the United States. The lifetime risk of being arrested and incarcerated for Black and Hispanic males is much higher than it is for White males, rates of involvement in serious violence are much higher for Blacks than Whites, and Blacks have a higher rate of personal violence and homicide victimization than Whites do.⁹

This admission is immediately followed by a telling observation:

Despite widespread consensus about these disparities, the discussion of race and crime remains “mired in an unproductive mix of controversy and silence”, with many criminologists who “loathe to speak openly on race and crime for fear of being misunderstood or labeled a racist.”

In other words, the facts are plain and clear but we can’t talk about them openly because we will be deemed racist. And the data are truly damning. If we look at the FBI’s “Uniform Crime Report” from November 2003, we find the following disparities between White and non-White rates of arrest:¹⁰

The non-White arrest rates are uniformly two to six times higher than the rate for Whites, on a per-person basis. A comparable table, constructed from more recent 2019 data and focusing explicitly on Blacks, gives a similar story:¹¹

Again, Blacks are between twice and five times as likely to be arrested for the indicated crimes.

Or here’s another measure: Consider the correlation between a given state’s Black population and its general security. For the 48 states, I compared percent-White with a widely-used “safety index” which represents overall safety and security. I get the following chart:

Here we see a clear correlation: the Whiter a state, the safer it is. The two extreme points in the lower-left are Louisiana and Mississippi; the two in the upper-right are Maine and Vermont. As always, correlation is not the same as causation. And there are exceptions to the trend: Montana is a very White state but not very safe, whereas Maryland is one of the least White states but it has at least average security. Still, given the cited differentials in rates of arrest, it is hard to see any other explanation for the overall trend than that the presence of more Blacks, percentage-wise, makes a state less safe.

“Well, the Blacks are disadvantaged,” say the leftist liberals. “They are oppressed, discriminated against, profiled, and generally abused by White societies.” Ok, then; here’s my solution: Let’s advantage them. Let’s relocate them to a place where they will have a fair chance—or even a better-than-fair chance—of succeeding. And this would be in their native homeland of Africa. American (and European) Blacks are, compared to their African brethren, highly educated, wealthy, and skilled. Back in Africa, such imported Blacks would quickly become the elite of their respective societies and could use their education and wealth to truly benefit their fellow Blacks—all without the need for Western aid. Instead of being at the bottom social rung, these relocated Blacks would be at the top; they would flourish and prosper as individuals, and they could make a real difference to the indigenous Blacks. It is a triple win.

Whence the Future?

Obviously, all this is only a beginning—an important beginning, but little more. Much remains to be said. The central issue, of course, is that neither Blacks nor Jews will go willingly. So, they need to be encouraged, using a carrot-and-stick approach: several carrots, in fact, and several sticks.

Jews have the means to relocate and, in Israel, an obvious place to go. (Yes, we still have the Palestinian problem, but that is a topic for another day.) If they are uncomfortable enough here, they will move. Thus, we need to make life very uncomfortable for them—no respite, no hiding, constant stress and struggle. The ongoing ‘war’ against Hamas in Gaza is a convenient starting point, and Jews everywhere are already feeling the strain. The crumbling of the conventional Holocaust story is another weak point, revealing them and their supporters to be either dupes or liars. There is little that we can do from an institutional standpoint, given that all our major institutions have been fully compromised and now work on behalf of Jews. (Advertising this fact alone can be another pressure point on them.) Without institutions, for the time being, it is up to individuals and small groups to protest, expose, and otherwise harass them. In parallel, we need to spread the word to the unthinking White majority, explaining the nature of the Jewish Question and the need for radical solutions.

Blacks are a different story. The mass of Blacks are too poor to go anywhere on their own, so we need to provide assistance. Trump’s evolving model for deporting illegal immigrants will show us what works and what doesn’t. If we have to charter airplanes to fly them back, or use military transports, or put them on ships, all options must be considered.

Given that our White ancestors were implicated in the initial crime of bringing them here in the first place, we should be open to financial inducements as well; for, say, $10,000, we could easily transport a Black family of four to Africa and leave them with a small parting gift of cash. At this rate, $10 billion dollars could remove 1 million families (4 million people). If this seems like a lot, consider that our US military spends well in excess of $1,000 billion ($1 trillion) per year. If our military could get by on, say, $990 billion a year, then we could ship out 4 million Blacks annually. And in ten years, the job is done, forever.

But is all this only to state the obvious? Is it a waste of my time to argue here for a society cleared of Blacks and Jews? Perhaps the reader is thinking: Everyone already agrees with you! Everyone would like a society without Blacks and without Jews!

Perhaps there is something to this point. Who, after all, would be upset if, say, all Blacks suddenly vanished from American soil? Some professional sports team owners, for sure; sweatshop owners; slaughterhouse managers; and most fast-food franchises. But they’ll get over it. Anyone else? Seriously—who would be terribly upset if all Blacks suddenly vanished? Or all Jews? Anyone? Would anyone beg and plead, “Please bring back those wonderful Blacks and Jews! They mean so much to us, and they contribute so much to society!” Really? Wouldn’t, rather, everyone sing the praises of the gods if this happened? Wouldn’t they fall to their knees, sobbing in gratitude and happiness? Wouldn’t a massive burden be suddenly and permanently lifted from the White nations, if this were to happen?

So, as an initial step: (1) Let’s openly admit this fact. (2) Let’s state it as a great social virtue and as a long-term goal for White society. (3) Let’s begin to put in place the mechanisms to make it happen. Even saying this much is a victory of sorts. Obviously, it will be difficult and take years, but such is the case with all great endeavors.

The reader is probably also thinking: Good idea, but it will never happen. This is all pie-in-the-sky. Get real! Ok, so what counts as ‘real’ in this situation? Doing nothing? Hardly. Obviously, the federal government won’t be any help here, and in fact they will resist it or criminalize it. Therefore, action has to begin locally and on a small scale. Individual, isolated people can’t do much, but we can create local groups to discuss these ideas and form plans of action. Towns, villages, or counties can be surveyed, even informally; if they are Black-free or Jew-free, openly declare them as such, declare victory, and declare the intention to keep things that way. If you have Blacks or Jews locally, form a group, state your goals, and gently inform the unwelcome parties: “Sorry, but we’ve declared this a Black- and Jew-free zone; you’ll have to make plans to leave. We’ll be checking back in a month.” That alone will go a long way toward the goal.

Clearly, this is not sending anyone to Africa or Israel; that would require higher-level pressure. But localized clearance sends the same message and prepares the ground for larger-scale action later on.

In Closing

My initial working title for this essay was “Blacks and Jews: The Sh*t Sandwich.” The idea was that American Whites are currently sandwiched between 40 million Blacks ‘below’ and 6 million Jews ‘above.’ (Here, of course, the sh*t is the bun, not the filling.) Under such conditions, it is unsurprising that we suffer a panoply of ills—moral, physical, and psychological. Under such conditions, a flourishing White society is all but impossible. The only remedy is to remove the chief source of the problem: Blacks raus and Jews raus. Given this, I changed my title to reflect not merely a description of the problem but rather a solution.

And who has the courage to talk about this? I don’t claim any special abilities, but I see many in the alternate media and dissident right who merely dance around these issues (I’m thinking here less of podcasters than writers). Many of the more prominent figures, like Tucker Carlson, Jonathan Cook, Pepe Escobar, Alastair Crooke, Michael Hudson, or Patrick Lawrence, scarcely have the nerve to mention Blacks or Jews at all. Others do mention them, but then tiptoe around the topic, neglecting to put forth anything like a vision or solution to the problem. For all the bluster in the dissident media, there is a real lack of courage regarding solutions.

Sometimes there is virtue in simply speaking the truth, bluntly and clearly: White and European societies cannot flourish or survive with large numbers of Blacks or Jews; therefore, they must be removed—all of them. Who else will join this call?

Notes

1 “Jewish Jazz becomes our National Music,” The Dearborn Independent, 6 August 1921; reproduced in The International Jew: The Definitive Edition (H. Ford, 2024; T. Dalton, ed.), vol. 2, p. 187.

2 Accurate numbers are hard to come by, but France clearly has the highest Black population in Europe: as many as 5 million, or around 8% of the population. The next highest are the Netherlands (4.2%) and Belgium (3.6%). The US, by comparison, is about 14% Black (45 million).

3 Cited in Eternal Strangers (Dalton 2020), p. 16.

4 On the Genealogy of Morals, I.16.

5 Talmud, Bava Metzia, 114b, 2.

6 “Jewish voters back Biden in Israel-Hamas war” (USA Today, 17 Nov 2023); “What Israelis think of the war with Hamas” (Time Magazine, 10 Nov 2023). And in fact, American Jews raised an astounding $638 million in support of the mass slaughter within a month of its beginning (“American Jews are giving mightily to Israel,” Jerusalem Post, 19 Nov 2023).

7 This was the actual conclusion of dozens of European nations and city-states in past centuries. There have been at least 30 major Jewish expulsions since the year 1000 AD, and dozens of other minor ones.

8 Theodore Newman (not ‘Nathan’) Kaufman was a Jewish New York businessman who published a notorious small book in March 1941 titled Germany Must Perish!, in which he in fact argued for mass sterilization. Extended excerpts from this booklet are reprinted in Classic Essays on the Jewish Question (T. Dalton, ed. 2022).

9 “Assessing the Race–Crime and Ethnicity–Crime Relationship in a Sample of Serious Adolescent Delinquents,” by A. Piquero and R. Brame; Crime Delinq. 2008; 54(3):390–422.

10 “Age-Specific Arrest Rates and Race-Specific Arrest Rates for Selected Offenses, 1993-2001.”

11 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-43

* * *

Thomas Dalton, Ph.D., has authored or edited numerous books and articles on politics and history, with a special focus on National Socialism. You can support National Vanguard by buying Dr. Dalton’s works through Cosmotheist Books; his personal Web site is thomasdaltonphd.com.

* * *

Source: Author; here are more articles by Thomas Dalton