Racial Ecologism: An Environmental Position Paper for the Dissident Right
Definition of Terms: Conservationism and environmentalism have somewhat overlapping meanings. The conservation movement seeks the wise use and/or preservation of natural resources. Environmentalism will be defined here as an ideology advocating the protection and improvement of the environment, both natural and manmade. Ecology, a branch of biology, is the scientific basis for both conservationism and environmentalism. It studies the relationship between organisms and between organisms and their environment. Ecologism is an ideology similar to environmentalism, but with broader more holistic applications.[1] Racialism is the belief in the reality of human biodiversity. It acknowledges that inherent racial differences have a profound influence on social/cultural development. An ethny is an ethnic group. The ethnies of concern in this paper are European and European-American groups.
Introduction
It was not by chance that the modern conservation movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was founded and led by men such as Theodore Roosevelt and Madison Grant who possessed a strong sense of ethnic identity.[2]
Although the Left took over the environmental movement by the 1960s, an ecological perspective is inconsistent with the Left’s global universalism whether animated by neo-liberalism or neo-Marxism. Instead, there is a natural congruence between ecology and the particularism of the Dissident Right, an ideology that never loses sight of man as a biological entity belonging to a specific ethny or race requiring certain physical and cultural conditions to survive and thrive.
The Dissident Right emerged in opposition to conventional American conservatism that has failed to conserve much of anything. We want to conserve the genetic heritage of our European-American people, the best of our cultural legacy, and the physical environment that promotes our health and wellbeing.
Our environmental concerns include both natural ecosystems and the manmade physical and social environments. Humans, with their comparative lack of instincts, need the support of cultural institutions such as stable families, communities, and states. In lieu of innate behaviors Homo sapiens requires the guidance from these institutions for beneficial socialization.
The Dissident Right’s environmentalism puts people first while affirming that man is in no way separate, above, or autonomous from nature. We believe there is a biological foundation for human culture, thus human bio-diversity is reflected in cultural diversity. Unlike the establishment Right we put quality of life before profits and increases in GDP. Unlike the Deep Greens we do not see man as an evil intruder upon nature. While Homo sapiens is a unique species it remains part of the natural order and must work within that order to flourish. As outlined in this essay we embrace elements of neo-Malthusianism, localism, conservation, preservation, and the new urbanism.
Philosophical Foundations: Ecologism, Monism, et al.
For the Dissident Right environmentalism is not just another policy issue. Rather, what could be called racial ecologism forms an integral part of our weltanschauung.
Such a world view incorporates two of the West’s most positive elements—science and idealism. Our ecologism is both rational and romantic. It is located at the intersection of reason and emotion, combining scientific naturalism with a spiritual aestheticism and a faith in the destiny of our people.
Racial ecologism places the welfare of our enthy as our central concern while putting its wellbeing within a global context where other races have a right to their own niches.
This ideology is in strong opposition to the post-modern Left and the establishment Right, both of which are disconnected from the reality of the natural world and a holistic view of human societies.
Because Homo sapiens is a social animal, humanism, and other hyper-individualistic views, are wanting. The belief that the individual is the paramount unit of society, that each person must find his own meaning and purpose in life is narrow self-absorption that leads to alienation. It also flies in the face of reality. No person, no matter how intelligent or physically and mentally tough, can thrive outside the confines of a nurturing society.
Spiritual elements of racial ecologism can be found in Ernst Haeckel’s Monism, Raymond Cattell’s Beyondism, and William Pierce’s Cosmotheism.[3] As a nature-based ideology, evolution is central to our ecologism. Our spiritualism leads us to a faith in evolutionary progress. Non-conscious nature has produced a world of increasing variety and complexity. For our species, however, it is time for humane social selection to replace the cruel and wasteful mechanism of natural selection.
We believe Homo sapiens is an animal species. Therefore, human beings should be viewed as part of the natural world. The social sciences need to be informed by the life sciences. Humans are wonderfully creative creatures, but even as science continues to produce marvels of technology and engineering there are limits to our ability to manipulate nature. There are also limits to the ability of human nature to adapt to different social and physical environments. Each ethny has a particular social/cultural arrangement and physical environment suited to its wellbeing.
Population and Migration: Neo-Malthusianism, Carrying Capacity, Climate Change, and the Commons[4]
Two hundred years ago Thomas Robert Malthus wrote An Essay on the Principles of Population noting that, if unchecked, human populations will invariably outrun available food supply.[5] The subsequent increased productivity brought about by the Industrial and Green Revolutions might appear to invalidate Malthus’ thesis. Not so. His main argument was that continuing high rates of population growth are a major impediment for social progress. Would not Nigeria be better off today with twenty million rather than 200 million citizens? Technological developments have merely postponed the inevitable. Clearly, in many places in the world, such as Haiti and the Horn of Africa, the ability to produce children outruns the ability to sustain them.
Currently the limits-to-growth argument is out of favor. It is dismissed across the political spectrum from neo-Marxists and religious fundamentalists to libertarian technocrats. Sustainability, however, remains a cardinal principle of environmentalism, and by this measure our country and globe are already overpopulated. Sustainability is a temporal concept—not just what is possible today, but what is possible in an indefinite future. In 1927 the earth supported two billion persons. In 2011 the population surpassed seven billion and is projected to reach 11 billion by the end of the century.
Carrying capacity, a concept used by both field biologists and demographers, is the estimated number of individuals of a species a particular environment can support. Humans’ capacity for technological innovation makes it difficult to precisely determine the carrying capacity for Homo sapiens. If, however, the natural or social environment of a community or country is being degraded the population has probably exceeded the environment’s carrying capacity.
Another perspective on environmental degradation has been called the “tragedy of the commons,” a term popularized by ecologist Garrett Hardin.[6] The traditional commons was the village pasture or woodlot. The productivity of the commons was maintained by a stable population and communal pressure that prevented anyone from abusing the resource. Today the term often refers to the global resources such as the atmosphere and oceans. The commons can also include infrastructure, public education, and other social services that all residents of a community or country can access. To the extent that persons are permitted to settle where ever they wish, the commons—the commonwealth of the West—is at risk from massive Third World migration.
National and international policies regarding migration have greatly exacerbated the population problem. Evidence shows that mass migration from the Third World to the West increases populations in both the receiving and the sending countries. Most of the population growth in the U.S. over the past 40 years has been due to immigrants and their descendants. While increasing population adds to the GDP, does it add to the quality of life? Will the United States of 2050 with over half a billion people, and without a core majority group, be a more pleasant and prosperous place to live?
Mass immigration tends to maintain high birthrates in many Third World countries as emigration is seen as a safety valve for children, while foreign aid and remitted funds from the West to families back home help to keep fertility rates high. Two things are clear: world population growth must be reduced, and permitting mass migration makes this goal more difficult.
Race is the elephant in the room when discussing population policy. The racial dimension is the main reason why the issue of population growth cannot not be dealt with in a rational and objective matter. White populations are declining, thus all increases come from burgeoning non-White peoples. Under these circumstances to view population increases as a problem is to elicit vituperative smears from the establishment.
Ideological considerations, at times motivated by ethnic animosity, have led environmental organizations to do backflips and handstands on population policy. A case in point is the changing position of the Sierra Club (SC) on immigration and population growth. The SC was founded by John Muir, a European-American with a strong sense of ethnic identity. The organization is one of the oldest and largest environmental groups in the world with a largely White membership. Decades ago, the club opposed mass immigration as leading to unsustainable population growth, resource depletion, and environmental degradation.
Under pressure from the Left, including a donation from David Gelbaum of over $100 million conditioned on supporting a pro-immigration policy, the Sierra Club has betrayed both the environmental cause and the ethnic interests of their membership by supporting amnesty for illegal aliens, continued high levels of “legal” immigration, and opposing border barriers. The club’s position has evolved from advocating population and immigration control to promoting an essentially open-borders policy.
Probably the most widely discussed environmental topic of the day is climate change. This issue also has a population component. First, it needs to be stated that climate change during historic and prehistoric times is an established fact. A bigger story would be that the earth’s climate had achieved stasis. There is evidence that areas of the globe are warming and that an increase in greenhouse gases is a contributing factor. The largest emitters of such pollutants are the industrializing world, especially China and India. International agreements for reducing emissions that disproportionately impact the West miss the mark.
The science of climate change is inexact, the damage from climate change is uncertain, and the best strategies for mitigation and adaptation are not clear. The climate movement has also been hurt by histrionic hysteria and hypocrisy of some of its supporters, as well as leftist political agendas not directly related to climate change (e.g., anti-capitalism).
One huge drawback of nuclear power is that it doesn’t dismantle systems of oppression – it only produces clean energy. This makes it unsuitable for solving the climate crisis, which isn’t just about the environment. https://t.co/tkgWSCWbQK pic.twitter.com/Qjw3O9lm8y
— Zack Kanter (@zackkanter) December 1, 2019
That said, it is usually wise to error on the side of caution when protecting our home planet, so reducing greenhouse gases should be an important goal.
It is evident from the above challenges that overpopulation is not just a future concern; it is a present problem. Obviously environmentalists who support stringent controls on population and migration have an uphill fight. Such controls are opposed by those who for theological or political reasons want to increase certain populations, while their strange bedfellows, global capitalists, want continued growth in population to increase consumption and facilitate the free movement of low-cost labor. No lasting environmental protection can be accomplished without population control, yet it is an issue mainstream environmental groups refuse to address in a meaningful way.
Ecological Thinking: Hybridization, Bio-Diversity, and Biota Transfer
While we wish no people ill, our primary concern is our own ethny—European and European-derived peoples. We believe that bringing an ecological perspective to racial problems will help to clarify our people’s perception of social issues.
We have already noted the importance of population-habitat balance. Now consider the irony of U.S. state and federal governments requiring the integration of human racial groups and promoting miscegenation while they also spend millions of dollars to preserve unique genotypes among mammals and fish.
Hybridization can occur in the wild when a new species or subspecies is introduced to an environment, or when environmental changes bring related species into a new relationship. Wildlife managers are concerned about the genetic integrity of a number of valuable species. For example, state fish and game departments, the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as several sportsmen and conservation groups are working to preserve the genomes of the eastern brook trout and the western cutthroat trout in areas where non-native trout have been introduced.
The problem is twofold. The stocked fish drive out and replace the natives, and they can also interbreed with them, destroying valuable genotypes. Fish and wildlife biologists are interested in genetic conservation, believing it is important to protect rare, unique and naturally occurring gene combinations. While the analogy between trout populations and human populations is not perfect, certain principles apply to both. The introduction of new species or subspecies can result in loss of habitat, genetic integrity, and even extinction of native species.
There is a popular myth that different species cannot interbreed, or if they do, they cannot produce fertile offspring. This is often not true on both counts. A case in point is that iconic symbol of the north woods—the Canada lynx. The lynx is a federally designated threatened species, so the Minnesota Department of National Resources was concerned when they discovered that the rare lynxes were interbreeding with the more common bobcats. Thus along with the challenge of habitat loss, these cats now face a new problem: hybridization.
Does it seem odd that while U.S. states and the federal government are forcefully implementing programs to mix human subspecies, these same entities work to protect the unique genotypes of mammals and fish? They worry about the erosion of the ancestral lineage of bighorn sheep and the genetic fitness of bison while at the same time pursuing policies that will dilute or destroy the uniqueness of human races. It requires separating man from nature for such policies make sense. But then again, it seems that there is only one human subspecies that is in need of integration and amalgamation. Why do many environmentalists view the great replacement of the indigenous populations of Sweden and England as a positive good?
The environmental threat posed to native species by the addition of exotic flora and fauna is not a new phenomenon. Plants, animals, and microbes have been migrating since the beginning of life on earth, but the scope of the problem has grown since the advent of globalization. The first large-scale biota transfer was the Columbian Exchange beginning in the late fifteenth century when two ecosystems, Europe and America, having evolved separately after the breakup of the super-continent Pangea millions of years ago, collided with profound consequences for both.
Most of the benefits of the Columbian Exchange accrued to Europeans. However, today’s globalization, as a whole, has not benefited the peoples of the West. Leaving aside the critical problem of mass migration, the West has spent billions of dollars on studying, controlling, and treating the SARS, HIV, West Nile, Ebola, and Zika viruses; not to mention the Asian ash borer and Japanese knotweed. The presence of these pests and pathogens are just a few of the unintended consequences of globalization. The resources devoted to containing these diseases, insects, and weeds, as well as migrant peoples all add to the cost of international integration.
The Environment and the Economy: Materialism, Consumerism, Economic Nationalism
The Dissident Right believes that people come before profits. The national economy should serve the needs of the people rather than vice versa. We support private enterprise and free markets as long as economic activity is not socially or environmentally destructive.
Our present economy is out of balance, with the financial and consumer sectors dominating primary production and infrastructure investment. Perhaps it is an aspirational goal, but a change in values where our people appreciate nature and outdoor activities as well as intellectual pursuits more than accumulating possessions or indulging in passive entertainments is greatly desired.
We reject the Left’s claim to being progressive. Today’s Left is neither liberal nor progressive. Products of the Left such as twenty-first-century Detroit and Gay Pride parades are atavistic. Nor should progress be measured in terms of more material goods, more conveniences, or more novel experiences. Consumerism engenders feelings of never having enough. Whatever one has, it could always be more.
Progress should be measured in improvements to the human mind and body, as well as to the physical environment humans inhabit. Future progress may entail having less. The pioneering psychologist Raymond Cattell, a firm believer in the possibility of human progress, wrote that “the more intelligent and spiritual men become, the less they need in the way of costly amusements and expensive material pleasures to live a full and satisfying life.”[7] It is essential to preserve and promote the productive elements of the race that created Western civilization for any true progress to occur.
One major area where the economy impacts the environment and people’s health is agriculture and food processing. The Dissident Right supports diversified, mid-sized family farms. American agriculture produces a cornucopia of comparatively inexpensive food and fiber, but with hidden social and environmental costs. Global economic forces have compelled farmers to get big or get out. The result has been the widespread development of gigantic operations requiring tremendous inputs of equipment and fuel, as well as inorganic fertilizers and pesticides that could deplete soil and water resources.
Thirty years ago, the food processing industry provided a middle-class income for thousands of American workers living in towns and small cities throughout the South and Midwest. Today the industry relies on low-cost labor from Guatemala to Somalia.
Globalism has distorted American agriculture and food processing industry while diminishing American manufacturing. The single-minded drive for profits and short-term efficiencies has created a system that uses unsustainable amounts of nonrenewable resources while disrupting communities in the American heartland. Although not advocating state socialism or centralized planning, we are fully cognizant of the power of international capitalism to destroy ethnic communities and the physical environment in the name of false progress. Our present economic model requires continuous growth of population and consumption. This is unsustainable. Perpetual growth is a phenomenon that does not occur within our biosphere.
Wild Places & Public Spaces: Conservation, Preservation, New Urbanism[8]
The Dissident Right believes in protecting and adding to existing public lands. From the Adirondacks to Yellowstone the wisdom of protecting open spaces has been demonstrated time and again. Yet the creation of almost every public park and refuge has been fought by those interested in private gain. That said, we also support multiple uses of the public domain where appropriate. Hunting, fishing, grazing, logging, and recreational development can add value to our public lands. Meanwhile, those rare areas of true wilderness should remain inviolable. We reject criticism from the Left that the character of National Parks and wild areas need to be reassessed because they appeal mainly to middle-class White people.
Our ecologism includes concern for manmade as well as natural environments. And while non-Whites exhibit comparatively little concern for wilderness areas, they attach great importance to access and control of public spaces. Prior to World War II, law and custom restricted access of non-Whites to public spaces in America. Public was defined as White.
After the war, often by federal court rulings, barriers separating the races were removed with profound implications for American society. White flight, privatization of popular culture, and law-and-order politics were manifestations of White America coping with the loss of control over public spaces in a postwar, multiracial society.
All species and subspecies require specific habitats to survive and reproduce. White families require secure and relatively homogeneous areas to raise families, and a social environment that encourages domesticity. Once de jure separation of the races was dismantled, White flight provided a generation of de facto separation permitting the largely White Baby Boom to occur. Obviously, White flight proved ineffective in securing White living space. Today’s demographic change has outpaced White flight as non-Whites stream into formerly White suburbs.
There were also some intrinsic problems with suburbanization. At their best, suburbs create small-town environments while still providing access to the cultural and economic opportunities of the city. Too often, however, suburban communities fostered a shallow materialism and provided an unauthentic, alienating social environment that might have contributed to the youth rebellion of the 1960s and 70s. So without time to form organic communities, and without the authority to exclude outgroups, many suburbs have turned into multiracial urban sprawl, becoming liabilities rather than assets.
Accompanying White flight there has been a general retreat of Whites from public spaces they no longer control. From public transportation to private motor vehicles, from shopping on Main Street to shopping online, and from communal entertainment to TV at home, Whites in particular have withdrawn into the private sphere.
White flight and the privatization of culture has been reflected in political developments. The rise of neo-conservatism during the 1970s and 80s can be seen as a result of the setbacks experienced by middle- and working-class Whites beginning with the Civil Rights era. Unable to express their explicit ethnic interests or protect their communal spaces Whites retreated into a defensive conservatism that deemphasized the public sphere and concentrated on protecting individual property and personal security. The election of 2016 and the rise of the Dissident Right are manifestations that the thin gruel of conventional conservatism is no longer sufficient.
The Dissident Right believes in durable, ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods, and safe walkable communities. We want accessible public spaces. Urban planning should be on a human scale. Traditional Western aesthetics should guide architecture and landscape design. We strongly encourage civic engagement. We share many of the objectives of the New Urbanists. Although their movement stresses cultural diversity, in reality their goals are rarely achieved except in relatively homogeneous communities.
Conclusions
The Dissident Right believes that the American political system is ideologically bankrupt. In an age when the significance of race is increasingly apparent, both the Left and the establishment Right make every effort to deny, distort, or ignore the ethno-cultural basis of society.
Humans, as with other animals, have physical manifestations resulting from psychic stress. Many non-domesticated animals, for example, are difficult to breed in captivity. Similarly, human societies are affected by collective problems in morale and self-confidence. For the West today, these psychological problems include narcissism, alienation, gender dysphoria, and racial guilt. The Center for Disease Control has recently reported a decline in life expectancy among White Americans driven largely by self-destructive behaviors. Our people are increasingly alienated from this society. They are even alienated from their own bodies, as the prevalence of substance abuse, obesity, and confused sexual and racial identity can attest.
The Dissident Right considers the health and integrity of our ethny to be the most important part of our nation’s commonwealth. The commonwealth consists of those who contribute to the welfare of society. It excludes parasites and free loaders.
The failure to acknowledge the biological foundations of human existence has divorced mankind from nature. We advocate a new naturalism. A naturalistic view of society has sometimes been portrayed by critics as immoral or amoral. It is seen as advocating for the law of the jungle, a brutal free-for-all where only the strong survive. While nature is at times, “red in tooth and claw,” humans are social animals. Human society benefits greatly from cooperation among its members, and both civic virtue and private morality are required for cooperation.
Humans, of course, are competitive and have a sense of individuality which is a beneficial and necessary part of Western culture. The negatives are greed and selfishness. These faults can be mitigated by feelings of kinship, mutuality, and reciprocity. People help others who have contributed to the community in the past or are likely to contribute in the future. Relations between races and nations should also be governed by enlightened self-interest that includes elements of mutuality and reciprocity.
Most Whites seem unaware of the hostile forces working to destroy our people and culture, oblivious to the tenured professors at prestigious universities advocating White genocide. Many Whites have difficulty comprehending the possibility of White extinction, or why that would even matter. Framing the discussion in ecological terms may clarify these issues. White communities should be cherished as part of the natural order—as worthy of preservation as a pod of orcas or a herd of caribou.
[1] The ideology of mainstream ecologism is explored in: Brian Baxter, Ecologism: An Introduction (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1999.
[2] For more on the link between racialism and environmentalism see: Nelson Rosit, “Racial Ecology, Part I: Early Environmentalists, 1843-1937,” The Occidental Quarterly (Winter 2016-2017) 15 no. 4, 43-61.
[3] For a further discussion of these isms, especially Monism, see: Nelson Rosit, “Ernst Haeckel Reconsidered,” The Occidental Quarterly 15 no. 2 (Summer 2015) 81-96.
[4] Much of the material in this section is based on: Virginia Deane Abernethy, The Vanishing American Dream: Immigration, Population, Debt, Scarcity (New Brunswick, NJ: Transactional Publishers, 2016).
[5] Thomas Robert Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population; or, A view of its past and present effects on human happiness, 9th ed. (London, Reeves & Turner, 1888).
[6] Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Science, 162 no. 3859 (13 Dec. 1968) 1243-1248.
[7] Raymond B. Cattell, A New Morality from Science: Beyondism (New York: Pergamon Press, 1972) 367.
[8] This section is based in part on material from: Nelson Rosit, “Racial Ecology, Part III: Postwar and Contemporary Issues,” The Occidental Quarterly 16 no. 4 (Winter 2016-2017) 3-22.
Suggest you read https://arlenejohnson.livejournal.com/2019/11/16
The monetary regime was placed on a disastrous new footing over a century ago with dramatic implications for economic fairness and coordination.
CO2 is not a pollutant and no ground should be conceded on this point.
Excellent article. It’s as if someone was reading my mind the entire time. I’m pleasantly surprised and impressed that the author touched on third world overpopulation, understanding it correctly as the black swan event that it is, the tragedy of the commons, and Malthus. I thought I was the only nerd still carrying a torch for Malthus. One point to add, if I may, is that technological advancement actually ties into Malthus’ overpopulation and collapse theory perfectly. As more advancements become available, more people are born, needing more technology to sustain them, and so on. It’s the balloon and burst cycle that Malthus tried to warn everyone about.
Personally, I think the goal of humans, and especially whites, is to find a way off this planet. We grow stagnant and stale here. It is long past the time for intrepid explorers to sail that final sea into the stars. The Galactic Reich awaits. Or perhaps Linkola is right and this is the only spaceship we’ll be flying anywhere, in which case, it behooves us to take to heart his words on what to do when someone truly loves life:
“What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and there is only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship’s axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides.”
This site is too american for my taste and I don’t consider americans to be real whites but second hand degenerate versions of us real european people, the west is only Europe get over it american mongrels
Further dividing an already small group of people. That’s “you know who’s” work. Great job. I’m sure all kinds of battles will be won on the premise of, “Only this tiny group is real, the rest of you bugger off.”
@Anders. Even those Europeans who stayed home have multiple tribal origins. In Amerika, we are somewhat more mixed. But white is still white. 🙂
Counter-Currents recently published a similar article headlined “Ecology Viewed from the Right”, by William de Vere. Both he and Nelson Rosit are critical of the Left, even though the Left is now little more than a front for Jewish power. The Left used to be about state-enforced equality, whereas the new Jewish-led Left is mostly an anti-White movement dedicated to race replacement. Jewish control over the media has played a big role in redefining the Left, setting its new agenda, and manipulating people who identify with the Left.
Nelson Rosit: ” the Left took over the environmental movement by the 1960s ”
It wasn’t the Left, but the Jews, disguised as “the Left”. While they were transforming the Left, they managed to subvert all our institutions and add them to the anti-White coalition. That’s what they did to newspapers, environmentalism, Christianity, conservatism, literature, the school system, NATO, the EU, song contests, etc.
It’s said that every organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing. It’s supposed to be a mysterious “leftist drift”… until you learn about the JQ!
Since the Left is no longer the Left, there’s no point in defining oneself as right-wing. If we call ourselves “the Dissident Right”, it gives the impression that “the Left” represents half the population while the Dissident Right is only a fringe movement. The contrary is true. We represent normal White people, while “the Left” has become a Jewish sham.
Most White people who vote for “the Left” are simply conformists. They are intimidated by authority. They lack intellectual clarity and don’t even realize that they are voting for race replacement. But they are much closer in their mentality to the “Dissident Right” than to the anti-White phony Left. They would see themselves as right-wing if the media itself was pro-White and defined itself as right-wing. They have the same ideal of harmony between man and nature as the Dissident Right.
Nelson Rosit: ” There is a natural congruence between ecology and the particularism of the Dissident Right ”
William de Vere: ” The natural home of political ecology lies on the Right ”
I think the natural home of ecology is not in the Dissident Right, but in the hearts and minds of normal White people, whether or not they see themselves as right-wing. It is not only the natural home of ecology, but of decency, justice, truth, and every rightful cause the Jewish dictatorship is trying to destroy.
Everyone who speaks up against the Jews is called far-right. But there is nothing extreme or even right-wing in standing up to them!