1. Our Cause (9) 2. Truth Before Fashion (20) 3. The Letter They Wouldn't Answer (26) 4. FREEDOM Use It or Lose It (29) 5. What Is Racism (34) 6. Skinheads and the Law (39) 7. Brainwashing in America (44) 8. Terror Breeds Terror (50) 9. Non-White Immigration (55) 10. Disney and the Jews (61) 11. The End of Justice in America (67) 12. Hate Speech (73) 13. There's a Conspiracy (79) 14. The Silencing of Hans Schmidt (85) 15. Retribution Is Coming . . . And They Know It (91) 16. Why They Hate Buchanan (97) 17. The Destructive Media (102) 18. Men of Valor (108) 19. Proving White Is Black (114) 20. The Big Picture (120) 21. What Liberals Don’t Understand (126) 22. Feminism The Great Destroyer (132) 23. Understanding Our Enemies (138) 24. The Meaning of Democracy (144) 25. The Texaco Fiasco (150) 26. Get Set for War (155) 27. Thoughts on Discrimination (160) 28. The End of the Millennium (165) 29. The Rule of Law (170) 30. Hope for the Future (175) 31. Shakespeare and Democracy (180) 32. Skating on Thin Ice (185) 33. Thoughts on the Holocaust (190) 34. Time to Stop Listening (195) 35. The Nature of Patriotism (200) 36. The Jewish Problem (205) 37. On Churchgoers (210) 38. How Liberals Think (215) 39. Time To Do What's Right (220) 40. Focusing Our Anger (225) 41. What Terrifies America's Enemies (230) 42. Toward a Healthy Society (235) 43. Allen Ginsberg (240) 44. Remember What Happened to Anwar (245) 45. Marriage and White Survival (250) 46. Slime at the Top (255) 47. Day of Infamy (260) 48. The Clinton White House (265) 49. The Women of Monte Cassino (270) 50. Right and Wrong (275) 51. The Morality of the Immigration Problem (280) 52. Why Our Government Is Corrupt (285) 53. The Campaign Against Hate Crime (290) 54. The Importance of Courage (295) 55. The Meaning of Affirmative Action (300) 56. The Psychology of Political Correctness (305) 57. Who Are the Haters (310) 58. The New World Order (315) 59. The Feminization of America (320) 60. The Giant Gold Robbery (325) 61. Black On White Violence (330) 62. Contrasts (335) 63. The Looting of America (340) 64. The Wages of Liberalism (345) 65. In Your Ear, Mr. Clinton (350) 66. The Tragedy Of Chautauqua County (355) 67. The Promise Keepers (360) 68. The Lesson of Haiti (365) 69. Exposing the Warmongers (370) 70. Brainwashing Our Children (375) 71. What Is a Patriot to Do (380) 72. The White Farmers of Zimbabwe (385) 73. The Criminal in the White House (390) 74. Jews and the White Slave Trade (395) 75. A Question of Sanity (400) 76. Bill and Monica (405) 77. Sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff (410) 78. Bill, Monica, and Saddam (415) 79. Jewish Policy Against Iraq (420) 80. The Wrecking of Our Schools (425) 81. Judicial Insanity and Schoolyard Massacres (430) 82. The Theft of Our Freedom (435) 83. Replacing Shakespeare With Malcolm X (440) 84. Clinton's Legacy (445) 85. The Mexican Menace (450) 86. The Katyn Massacre (455) 87. Nationalism vs. the New World Order (460) 88. Building Understanding (465) 89. The School Problem (470) 90. The Lesson of Africa (475) 91. Cowardice and Individualism (480) 92. Paying the Organizatsiya (485) 93. Democracy (490) 94. Lew, Bill, Tupac, and Mitchell (495) 95. The Jewish Gold Rush (500) 96. The Genocide at Vinnitsa (505) 97. Superman, Volkswagen, and Lazar Kaganovich (511) 98. Thinking about a White Future (516) 99. The Romanovs, Child Porn, and Hate Laws (521) 100. Media Myths (526) 101. The Lesson of Amy Biehl (531) 102. David Geffen, Steven Spielberg, and Bill Clinton (537) 103. The Fayetteville Murders (542) 104. The Russian Economy (548) 105. Fashion for Genocide (554) 106. A Closer Look at the Enemy (560) 107. The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith (566) 108. The Coming of the New Elites (572) 109. The Corruption of America's Police (578) 110. The Millennium Bug and Mainstreaming the News (584) 111. Hate Crimes and the New World Order (590) 112. The Lesson of South Africa (596) 113. Tribes (602) 114. How It Fits Together (608) 115. Aesop's Fables and the Rules of Engagement (614) 116. What We Owe Sam Dash (620) 117. The Holocaust Shakedown (626) 118. The Limits of Toleration (632) 119. Time to Water the Tree of Liberty (638) 120. Clinton's War (644) 121. Choosing a Barbie Doll (650) 122. When the Barriers Come Down (656) 123. AIDS and the Cult of Equality (662) 124. Thoughts on Accepting Responsibility (668) 125. A Trial in Jasper (674) 126. Odysseus' Way (680) 127. Special Treatment (686) 128. Lawyers (692) 129. Hands Off Yugoslavia! (698) 130. Why the Jews Want War (704) 131. What Makes Madeleine Run (710) 132. The New World Order (716) 133. Lies, Murder, and Jews (722) 134. The End of Patriotism (728) 135. The Bigger War (734) 136. What They're Aiming For (740) 137. Stopping the Hijacking of America (746) 138. The Value of Talk (752) 139. Fooling the People (758) 140. State-Sponsored Terrorism (764) 141. How They Rule (770) 142. Smell the Blood (776) 143. Our Revolutionary Right (782) 144. Knowledge and Discipline (788) 145. The Division of America (794) 146. Enemies of Liberty (800) 147. Kennedy, Barak, and Revolution (806) 148. Authoritarianism and Oz (812) 149. Killing Little Children (818) 150. Bosch-Bin Laden (824) 151. Bat Guano and Hate Speech (830) 152. Jewish Democracy (836) 153. Hardheaded Altruism (842) 154. The Jews and the Senators (848) 155. Seeing the Forest (854) 156. Shuffling Toward the Slaughterhouse (860) 157. Individualism and Alienation (866) 158. Hypocrisy and Democracy (872) 159. Clinton's Call for Tolerance (878) 160. The New Protocols (884) 161. Fighting Together for the Future (890) 162. Germany and America (896) 163. Tribal Thinking (902) 164. Books and Freedom (907) 165. Thoughts on Government (913) 166. Deliberate Deception (919) 167. Timothy McVeigh and The Turner Diaries (925) 168. How to Bring Down the House (930) 169. Lies and the History Channel (936) 170. Illusion and Leverage (942) 171. Capitalism and Equality (948) 172. Reality Check (954) 173. The Hurricane (960) 174. The Club (966) 175. Elites vs. Masses (972) 176. Fear of the Smear (977) 177. The Killing of Kayla (983) 178. The Health of the Nation (989) 179. Returning Fire (995) 180. The Wages of Selfishness (1001) 181. Zimbabwe Liberal Consequences (1007) 182. Horror in Rhodesia (1013) 183. To Be, or Not to Be (1019) 184. Storm, Break Loose! (1025) 185. Shielding Evil (1031) 186. Moral AIDS (1037) 187. Our Task (1043) 188. Termites (1049) 189. Images (1055) 190. Music of Rebellion (1061) 191. The Evil Among Us (1067) 192. Basics (1073) 193. Black Is Good; White Is Bad (1079) 194. The Nature of the Beast (1084) 195. The Rubes and the Carnies (1089) 196. The Jewish Mob in America (1095) 197. The Faustian Spirit and Political Correctness (1101) 198. Survival Essentials (1107) 199. The Significance of the Holocaust (1113) 200. Joe Lieberman and Judaism (1119) 201. The Case of Hendrik Möbus (1125) 202. Behind America's Moral Decay (1131) 203. What's Important (1137) 204. Feasting on the Sheep (1143) 205. The Corrupters (1149) 206. There Will Be Hell to Pay (1155) 207. Down the Slippery Slope (1161) 208. Why Do They Do It (1167) 209. Corrupting Our Police (1173) 210. Conditioning for Death (1179) 211. A White World (1185) 212. I Need Your Support (1191) 213. Race Suicide (1197) 214. What We Can Do (1203) 215. Draw Your Own Conclusions (1209) 216. MTV and Hate (1215) 217. Racial Fitness and Survival (1221) 218. Child Porn, Ecstasy, and Pardons (1227) 219. The Peace Process (1233) 220. Sharon, Rape, and the Wizard of Oz (1239) 221. Marc Rich and the Rule of Law (1245) 222. Law and Shamrocks (1251) 223. Seattle's Fat Tuesday Riot (1257) 224. Poisonous Doctrines (1263) 225. Countering the Poison (1269) 226. Diversity Is Our Strength (1275) 227. As Ye Sow . . (1281) 228. Shocking Differences (1287) 229. Riots and Revolution (1293) 230. Patriot's Choice (1299) 231. Feces, Fetuses, Etc (1305) 232. The Morality of Survival (1311) 233. Sharing the Affliction (1317) 234. A Riot in York (1323) 235. Scalp Dance (1329) 236. Behind Liberalism (1335) 237. Murdering Iowa (1341) 238. The Scorpion and the Frog (1347) 239. Mike Wallace's Lesson (1353) 240. Fast and Furious (1359) 241. Why We Deserve Their Contempt (1365) 242. Subverting Freedom (1371) 243. Time to Blast Our Enemies (1377) 244. Demonstrating for Freedom (1383) 245. To Be, or To Be Nice (1389) 246. The Saga of Yahweh ben Yahweh (1395) 247. Self-Discipline and Moral Health (1401) 248. When Unreason Rules (1407) 249. Provocation and Response (1413) 250. Who Is Guilty (1419) 251. Regaining Control (1425) 252. America's Real Enemies (1431) 253. Face Crime and Anthrax (1437) 254. Advice for Patriots (1443) 255. Send Them All Back (1449) 256. Why Revolution Is Necessary (1455) 257. Terrorism and Hate (1461) 258. The Value of Truth and Righteousness (1467) 259. Destroying Order (1473) 260. An Awakening (1479) 261. Great Masters of the Lie (1485) 262. The Club (1491) 263. Labels (1497) 264. The Greatest Betrayal (1503) 265. Journalists and Canadians (1509) 266. What Is Moral (1515) 267. The Culture of Lies (1521) 268. Multicultural Justice (1527) 269. Media-Driven Law (1533) 270. The Martyrdom of Wafa Idris (1539) 271. Enron, Fastow, and the Looting of America (1545) 272. Our Biggest Mistake (1551) 273. Jewish Hate, the Media, and the ADL (1557) 274. The New Patriotism (1563) 275. Espionage and Anthrax (1569) 276. Senator Feinstein and Police Chief Parks (1575) 277. Bad News and Good News (1581) 278. A Fatal Influence (1587) 279. Tiptoeing around Our Problems (1593) 280. The Beginning of the End (1599) 281. Two Crucial Tasks (1605) 282. Democracy and Propaganda (1611) 283. Philadelphia and Kampala (1617) 284. A Third World War (1623) 285. The Big Lie (1629) 286. The Importance of Leadership (1635) 287. The FBI, the ADL, and Christina Long (1641) 288. The New Extremists (1647) 289. The Consequences of Corruption (1653) 290. Mossad and the Jewish Problem (1660) Our Cause
Every day, I receive letters from our members across the country as well as from people here in the Washington area who have attended our meetings in the past. These letters and questions indicate that there is still some uncertainty in people's minds as to what we are, what we believe, and what we intend to do. Questions, in other words, as to what it's all about. I want to try again tonight to answer these questions as clearly as I possibly can.
I'm sure that one of the difficulties people have in trying to understand us is that they can't figure out quite how to categorize us. They're accustomed to putting everything they encounter in life into little, mental pigeonholes labeled right-wing, left-wing, communist, racist, and so on. And once they've done that, they think they understand the thing.
Now the trouble is that we don't quite fit any of the customary pigeonholes. And that is because the doctrine of the National Alliance, the truth for which we stand, is not just a rehash of old and familiar ideas but is really something new to Americans.
Perhaps the best way to approach an understanding of the Alliance is to start by getting rid of some of the most troublesome pigeonholes altogether. That is, by pointing out what we are not. We are not, as many people tend to assume at first, either a conservative or a right-wing group. And I'm not just trying to be cute when I say that. I'm not just trying to emphasize that we are a special right-wing group or a better right-wing group. In fact, our truth has very little in common with most right-wing creeds. We're not interested, for example, in restoring the Constitution. The Constitution, written 200 years ago, served a certain purpose well for a time. But that time is now passed. Nor was its purpose the same as our purpose today. We're not interested in states' rights, in restoring the former sovereignty of the individual states. We do not believe, as our conservative friends do, that a strong and centralized government is an evil in itself. It is, in fact, a necessity in overcoming many of the obstacles which lie ahead of us as a people.
What else is dear to the hearts of right-wingers? Do we want to restore prayer and Bible reading to the public schools? Hardly. Anti-fluoridation? Nonsense. Income tax? Abortion? Pornography? Well, we may sympathize more with the right-wing position on these issues than we do with the left-wing position, but they are still only peripheral issues for us. They are not the reason why we are here. They are not the things we are prepared to die for.
There are, in fact, several issues on which we are closer to what would ordinarily be considered the left-wing or liberal position than we are to the conservative or right-wing position. One of these issues is the ecology issue: the protection of our natural environment, the elimination of pollution, and the protection of wildlife. And there are also other issues in which we are closer to the liberals than to the conservatives, although I doubt that we agree with them completely on any issue; just as we seldom, if ever, agree completely with the right-wing on any issue.
The reason for the lack of complete agreement, when there seems to be approximate agreement, with either the right or the left is that our position on every issue is derived from an underlying view of the world which is fundamentally different from those of either the right or the left. That is, to the extent that they have any underlying philosophy at all. Often there is none, and a great many people who identify themselves as liberals, conservatives, or moderates simply have an assortment of views on various issues which are not related to any common idea, purpose, or philosophy.
Before we turn to a positive look at the Alliance, let me inject just a few more negatives. One thing we are not trying to do is to find any quick or easy solutions to the problems confronting us as a people. We have enormously difficult problems. If we are to solve them at all, we must tackle them with more determination, more tenacity, and more fanaticism than they have ever been tackled before. We must prepare ourselves mentally and spiritually for a very long, bloody, and agonizing struggle.
We mustn't imagine that we are like a squad of soldiers about to assault a cave full of robbers and that the only preparation we need is to be sure our bayonets are fixed and that our powder is dry. This seems to be the attitude of most patriots these days and it is not a realistic one. "Throw out those bums in Washington," they say "and our problems will be over."
No. We must think of ourselves instead as the beginning -- the barest beginning -- of a mighty army whose task is not to clean out a cave full of robbers, but is to conquer an entire hostile world. Before the first shot is fired we must build our invasion fleet with thousands of ships and siege engines. We must lay in massive supplies of cannon balls, powder, and all sorts of other munitions. And we must do a hundred other things.
In other words, we must prepare ourselves for our political struggle before we can count on it yielding anything other than the invariable failure which has rewarded patriots in the past. We must build a foundation which will sustain us for a very long campaign.
Let me give you another analogy. We are like a tribe of hungry, starving people living in a land which, although the soil is fertile, provides relatively little to eat. These people find a few berries growing on bushes and a few edible roots in the ground. All they can think about is that they are hungry and they must fill their bellies. This is their immediate problem. They spend all of their time, day after day, year after year, hunting for those scarce berries on the bushes and pulling an occasional edible root out of the ground. And they never really fill their bellies; they always remain hungry and on the edge of starvation. That is because no one has ever taken a few minutes off from berry hunting and thought further ahead than the immediate problem of filling his belly, now, for this meal. No one has proposed that while some continue to hunt for berries, others in the tribe should tolerate their hunger pains for a while and make themselves a few simple tools, a simple plow from a tree branch perhaps, and a hoe, and then use these tools to plow up some of the most fertile areas of their land and plant a few berries in furrows and keep watch over them so that the birds don't scratch them up. They could weed their furrows and perhaps divert a portion of a nearby stream for irrigation. If they did this, if they thought beyond their immediate problem, and, to the extent possible, tackled a much larger problem, they would eventually, even though it might take years, solve the problem of hunger which they could never solve when that was all they thought about. The solution to the problem of keeping their bellies full would be to develop an agricultural basis for their berry-picking and root-digging. Now we need a philosophical and spiritual basis for our political struggle. A basis, of course, which tells us why we must fight and what we are fighting for. But we also want a basis which will tell us how to build a whole new world after we have won the political struggle. In other words, we are not building a basis to use for a month, or for a few years, but a basis which will last a thousand years and more. We are building a basis which will serve not only us, but also countless future generation of our race. And it is high time that we did this. We have drifted without any sense of direction, without any long-range perspectives, for far too long. It's time that we stopped fixing our sights on next year, or the next election, and fix them instead on eternity.
You know, we Americans are famous for being a practical people, a hard-headed, no nonsense people. We are not great thinkers, perhaps, but we are real problem solvers. We don't fool around; we plow right into things. That's how we settled this country. We didn't agonize about whether we were being fair to the Indians when we took their land; we just walked right over them and kept moving west. That's what we had to do. We just followed our instincts and used our heads and, more often than not, we did the right thing.
But we also made some mistakes, bad mistakes. Because the southern colonies were ideally suited for certain types of crops which required lots of hand labor, there weren't any machines back then of course, we brought Negroes into the country. That seemed to make pretty good economic sense at the time. But we really should have thought harder about the long-range consequences of that move. We wouldn't have had to be real wizards to foresee the future. History provides a number of instructive examples for us to study.
We kept on making mistakes: mistakes based on shortsightedness mostly, mistakes from not being able to give any real weight to anything but the immediate problem, mistakes from not thinking far enough ahead. Analyzing the situation a little more deeply, we can say that we were shortsighted because we had no really firm basis for being longsighted. We had no solid foundation on which to stand in order to evaluate the long-range consequences of our decisions. And, as a result of this, we were suckers for various brands of sentimentality, strictly here and now sentimentality, sentimentality rooted only in the present. It was this sort of fuzzy sentimentality, this Uncle Tom's Cabin sentimentality, which led to the war between the states and to the dumping of some three million Blacks into our free society a hundred years ago. It also led to our failure to properly control immigration into this country, our failure to prevent the flood of Jews which poured in after the Civil War.
These things troubled many good people. Lincoln was troubled over the potential consequences of freeing the Negroes. Later, others were troubled over the dangers of uncontrolled immigration. But the fuzzy sentimentalists prevailed because those who knew in their hearts that the country was making mistakes didn't have a really solid basis from which to oppose the sentimentalists. They didn't have their sights fixed on eternity. They had no all-encompassing worldview to back them up.
And the same problem of shortsightedness is far worse today. A person goes to church and hears his minister tell him that we are all God's children, Black and White. And although his instinct tries to tell him that the minister is leading him astray, he will not challenge the minister because he has no firm convictions rooted in eternity to back up his feelings. The same is true of the whole country, and of our whole race, today. We are like a ship without a compass. Various factions of the crew are arguing about which way to steer, but no one really knows where the ship is headed. We've lost our sense of direction. We no longer have a distant, fixed star to guide us. Actually, it's even worse than that. We have lost our ability to follow a distant star even if we could see one. We are like a nation, like a race, without a soul. And that is a fatal condition.
No purely political program can have any real value for us in the long run unless we get our souls back, unless we learn once again how to be true to our inner nature, unless we learn to heed the divine spark inside us and base all our decisions on a clear and comprehensive philosophy illuminated by that spark.
Let me tell you a little story, which I believe illustrates our problem. Several years ago, I spoke to a class at a private high school in Maryland. It was the Indian Spring Friends' School operated by the Quakers, but with a student body which seemed to be about equally divided between Jews and gentiles, with a few token Blacks thrown in. Throughout my talk to the class, a blond girl and the only Negro in the class were sitting next to each other in the front row and kissing and fondling each other in an obviously planned effort to distract me. The subject of my talk was the importance of White Americans developing a sense of racial identity and racial pride if we are to survive. When I finished, a White student, about 17-years-old, rose to ask the first question. His question was, "What makes you think it's so important for the White race to survive?"
I was flabbergasted and at a loss for words. And while I stood there with my mouth open, a young Jew popped up and gave his own answer. "There is no good reason at all for Whites to survive," the Jew announced, "because they have contributed nothing to the human race except the knowledge of how to kill people. Other races have contributed everything worthwhile, everything which allows people to be happier and more comfortable." And then he rattled off a list of five or six names: Freud, Einstein, Salk, and a few others -- all Jews. I then asked him if he himself were a Jew and he replied with as much arrogance and contempt as he could muster, "Yes I am and proud of it!" At this point the whole class, Whites included, rose and gave the young Jew a standing ovation. The teacher at the back of the room had a big grin on his face.
Needless to say, my talk was pretty well wasted on that class. The White kids in there had been subjected to so much moral intimidation, they had been pumped so full of racial guilt and self- hatred, their minds were so twisted, that it's doubtful whether anyone could straighten them out. Certainly no one could in an hour's time.
But the thing which bothered me even more than the phony collective racial guilt which had been pumped into those boys and girls, was my inability to answer the White kid's question. Why should we survive? That's one of those questions like, why is good better than evil? Or, nowadays, why is heterosexuality any better than homosexuality? If two people want to have sex together, who are we to say that it's better that they be a man and a woman than that they be two men or two women? A related question concerns racial mixing: why shouldn't a Black man and a White woman, or vice versa, live together if they can be happy? These are questions which most White people, even normal healthy White people, cannot answer satisfactorily today. A hundred years ago, before the Jews came flooding into our country and taking over our mass media and our educational system, we might not have really needed answers. We just knew that it was important for our race to survive and to make progress. We knew that homosexuality and interracial sex were wrong. Our intuition told us this. The answers were in our souls even if we couldn't express them in words. But then the Jews -- who are clever people, very clever people -- came along, and they began asking these very questions. And when we couldn't answer them, they began providing their own answers.
Now all of us here tonight know what the Jews' answers are. We read them in our newspapers and hear them on television every day. Some White people, in fact a majority at first, did oppose the Jews' plans. But their reasons for opposing them were all the wrong ones. For example, when asked "Why shouldn't your son or daughter marry a Black?" their answer was "Well, two people with such different backgrounds won't be happy together. They will have children of mixed race who won't be accepted by either Whites or Blacks. There's a better chance for a marriage to work out if both partners are of the same race. The world just isn't ready for inter-marriage yet." Well, of course, the Jews made pretty short work of such shallow and superficial objections. The problem was that our people had already accepted most of the basic Jewish premises. Our criterion for choosing a marriage partner was happiness -- happiness! --either ours or our children's. No one had any really solid answers, answers based on something fundamental. Certainly the churches, whose role should have been to provide the right answers, were of no help. They in fact were, and are, in the forefront of the Jewish assault on all our values and institutions. They are so much in hock to the Jews that they are busy now trying to figure out how they can rewrite the New Testament, removing or changing all the parts that Jews consider offensive, such as the Jewish responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus.
The Jews were able to continue hammering away at White Americans -- probing, prying, asking more questions, raising more doubts -- until we had lost all faith in what we had earlier known intuitively was right. Our ethics, our code of behavior, our values, our feelings, and our aspirations all went down the drain. What they gave us instead was the new "morality" of 'if it feels good, do it.' Our children are taught in school that progress means more happiness for more people. And happiness, of course, means feeling good. The whole thing is summed up in a Coca- Cola commercial. I'm sure you have all seen it on TV: a ring of twenty people or so, of all colors and both sexes, obviously as happy and care-free as they could possibly be, are all holding hands and singing, "I'd like to give the world a Coke." Now who but the meanest and most narrow- minded racist is going to criticize something like that?
The average American -- even one who does not approve of racial mixing -- doesn't know how to respond to a clever appeal like the Coca-Cola commercial, certainly the average White kid in our schools today doesn't. And once he has unconsciously accepted the hidden premises in that commercial -- and the entire attitude toward life from which it is sprung -- the question I was asked at the Indian Spring Friends' School naturally follows. Since people of all races are equal and essentially the same -- Whites, Negroes, Jews, Gypsies, Chinamen, Mulattoes -- and since they can all be happy doing the same sorts of things, why should we worry about what a person's race is, or even about our own? Wouldn't sex be just as pleasurable for us if we were Black instead of White? Wouldn't a Coke taste just as good? What difference does it make if our grandchildren are Mulattoes so long as the economy is still strong and they can all afford nice cars and 25-inch color TV sets?
Now, one can attack this Jewish fantasy world with facts. One can point out that although Jews are clever, they haven't done everything worthwhile in the world. White people have done a few things besides kill other people. And one can point out that racial differences are more than skin deep. One can talk about IQ scores; one can cite historical examples in which civilization after civilization has declined and crumbled when the race that built that civilization began intermarrying with its slaves. But none of that is really going to convince the kid whose main concern is whether the consumers of the world -- whether the happy Coke drinkers -- will be any less happy in a world without Whites.
What we failed to do in the past was to understand the deep inner source from which our feelings and intuition about race and other matters sprang. We had no really sound and healthy worldview to offer that White kid in place of the slick, plastic, Jewish worldview of the Coca-Cola commercial. And so we couldn't really answer his question about the survival of the White race any more than we could give him a really convincing reason about why he shouldn't do just anything that feels good -- whether it is taking dope, or sleeping with Blacks, or experimenting with homosexuality.
You may think of that kid as an extreme liberal case, but he is really no different than the average -- and I mean the average -- businessman in this country. He used to be a segregationist a few years ago, but he became an integrationist when the Blacks started rioting and burning things in the late 1960's. After all, riots are bad for business. Their individual views of the world may be a little different, but the businessman and the kid in Maryland both base their thinking on one and the same thing -- egoistic Jewish materialism. The kid who believes that the purpose of life is happiness, knows that there are not many things on this earth happier than a bunch of pickaninnies splashing in a mud puddle. And the businessman who believes that the purpose of life is to make money knows that a Black customer's money is just as green as a White customer's.
A person who accepts that sort of basis, indeed, cannot see any really convincing reason why the White race should survive. His aim is to live a "good life." And for him that means a life with lots of money, lots to eat and drink, plenty of sex, new cars, big houses, and constant diversions. Entertainment: that is all he lives for, all he cares about, and all he understands. Talk about purpose to him and his eyes go blank. Talk about eternity and he laughs at you. He knows that he won't live forever, although he doesn't like to think about that. He intends to get as much out of life as he can. Anything beyond that means nothing to him. What a difference that is from the attitude toward life that our ancestors in northern Europe had a few hundred years ago. They were greedy for money like we are, of course, and they liked to enjoy themselves when they could, but that was not the meaning of life for them. Their attitude toward life and death was perhaps best summed up in a stanza from one of the old Norse sagas. It goes like this: Kinsmen die and cattle die, And so must one die one's self, But there is one thing I know which never dies And that is the fame of a dead man's deeds.
The German philosopher Arthur Shopenhauer expressed essentially the same idea when he said that the very most any man can hope for is a heroic passage through life. Greatness, in other words, instead of happiness, is the mark of a good life. Now I don't mean to suggest that we must all think in terms of becoming famous or of dying heroically on the battlefield with sword or gun in hand. Some of us may be granted that, but what is important, what all of us can do, even those who think of ourselves as basically unheroic, is to adopt the attitude toward life and toward death which was implicit in the old sagas and in Shopenhauer's statement.
The attitude of living for the sake of eternity, of living with eternity always in mind instead of living only for the moment; the attitude that the individual is not an end in himself, but rather that the individual lives for and through something greater -- in particular, for and through his racial community (which is eternal) -- seems to have eluded most of us today. It is an attitude which is diametrically opposed to the Jewish attitude of egoism and materialism. And yet it is the alien Jewish attitude that has been adopted by most Americans today. We have chosen happiness instead of greatness, the moment instead of eternity. We have become a nation -- a whole race -- of full-time self-seekers, a race concerned with one thing: self-gratification.
The average man, of course, has always been pretty shortsighted and his interests have always pretty much been limited to his own welfare. So the materialism of today that I've been talking about is a matter of degree. It has a somewhat stronger grip on the man in the street than it formerly did. But what is worse is that today it also has a grip on our leaders, on our teachers, on our poets, on our philosophers, and even on our priests. It has so thoroughly saturated the souls of all of us that we have reacted to it by becoming spiritually ill. And this spiritual sickness, this loss of our souls, is why we are in such a mess today. And it is why we will be in a worse and worse mess as time goes on. We will never overcome the problems facing us until it is cured.
And please do not misunderstand me. I am not talking about the "wages of sin" in the sense with which many of us may be familiar. I'm not talking about some anthropomorphic deity, some heavenly father sitting on his throne in the sky punishing us, keeping us from overcoming our enemies because we are not fulfilling his commandments. No, that's nonsense! We are not being punished by any supernatural being. We are in trouble for the same reason that an explorer in a harsh and trackless wilderness is in trouble when he loses his compass and cannot see the sky through the dense foliage. He no longer knows which way to go. That is our most fundamental problem -- we do not know where we are going. We have no sense of direction. We have stumbled off the path.
But that is something I really should not have had to tell you because everyone here today knows this. Even if he doesn't understand yet how or why he knows it. He still knows that the present course our society has taken is wrong. It is unnatural. It is evil. We all know that it is wrong to accept the "I'm all right, Jack" attitude which prevails today. We know that it's wrong to live only for the present, to forget the past and to ignore the future. It is wrong to have instant self- gratification as our only goal. That's why we are here. We know that there is something more, something else, a better way. We know this for the same reason we are attracted to beauty and to nobility and are repelled by the ugly and the base, regardless of the artificial fashions of our day. We know it because deep inside all of us, in our race-soul, there is a source of divine wisdom, of ages-old wisdom, of wisdom as old as the universe. That is the wisdom, the truth, which we in the National Alliance want to make the basis of our national policy. It is a truth of which most of us have been largely unconscious all our lives, but which now we have the opportunity to understand clearly and precisely.
Our truth tells us that no man, no race, not even this planet, exists as an end in itself. The only thing which exists as an end in its self is the whole. The whole of which the things I just named are parts. The universe is the physical manifestation of the whole. The whole is continually changing and always will be. It is evolving. That is, it is moving toward ever more complex, ever higher, states of existence. The development of life on earth from non-living matter was one step in this never-ending evolutionary process. The evolution of man-like creatures from more primitive forms of life was another step. The diversification of these creatures into the various races and sub-races, and the continued evolution of these different races in different parts of the world at different rates, have been continuations of this process. The entire evolution of life on earth from its beginning some three billion years ago, and in a more general sense, the evolution of the universe over a much longer period before the appearance of life, is an evolution not only in the sense of yielding more and more highly developed physical forms, but also an evolution in consciousness. It is an evolution in the self-consciousness of the whole.
From the beginning, the whole, the creator, the self-created, has followed, has in fact embodied, an upward urge -- an urge toward higher and higher degrees of self-consciousness, toward ever more nearly perfect states of self-realization.
In man -- in our race in particular -- this upward urge, this divine spark, has brought us to a new threshold. A threshold as important as that which separated the non-living matter of three billion years ago from the living matter into which it evolved. Today's threshold is a threshold in self- consciousness. We stand now on the verge of a full understanding of the fact that we are a manifestation of the creator, that we are the means and the substance by which the creator, by which the whole of which we are a part, can continue its self-evolution.
When we understand this, when we heed the divine spark within us, then we can once again ascend the upward path that has led us from sub-man to man and can lead us now from man to super-man and beyond. But we cannot do this, we cannot find the path, without this consciousness, without this understanding that the responsibility is ours, that we are not the playthings of God but are ourselves a manifestation of God and can become, must become, now a conscious manifestation. Only in that way can we fulfill our ordained destiny.
Let me emphasize again, in different words, what I told you earlier this evening about building a spiritual basis for our political work. The Alliance's long-range approach is necessary, absolutely necessary, and unavoidable. The short-range approaches that other patriots are trying, and have been trying for many decades now, the thousands of ad hoc solutions of quick and easy one-issue approaches, whether of tax-rebellion or of bomb throwing, cannot solve the ultimate problems with which we are faced. They cannot give us back our souls. It may seem ironical that we should be trying to conquer and transform the whole world, that we should be planning for eternity, when no one else has been able to make a successful plan for achieving very much more limited goals, restoring the constitution, for example, or getting us out of the United Nations, or what have you. But it is the very shortsightedness of those working for these limited goals which has been the cause of their failure. And it is our rooting of our plans in eternity which gives us confidence for their ultimate success no matter how long it may take us.
So I tell you again, our approach is not just a matter of choice; it is necessary. There is no other way but ours. There is only one path. And there is something else we must understand. Our philosophy, our quest for the upward path, is not something that we should accept reluctantly because we see it as necessary to the solution of our race problem, our Jewish problem, and our communist problem. It is not something we accept because we cannot find an easier approach to these problems. No! If we look at it that way then we still haven't rid ourselves of the shortsightedness that has been our curse in the past. We must understand that the truth for which we stand transcends all the problems of the present. Finding our way once again to the one true path transcends all questions of economics, of politics, and ultimately even of race, just as eternity transcends tomorrow. So let's stop putting the cart before the horse mentally and spiritually. Let's take off our mental blinders. Let's realize that the truth has a value in itself and that dedication to the truth is a virtue in itself. This is all the more true in a world in which falsehood seems to rule.
The problems with which we are faced in the world today are serious ones and they must be solved. But the first and most important task, the task on which all our other problems must eventually depend for their solutions, but also the task which would still be just as important for us to accomplish if all our other problems didn't exist, is the task, the one task, assigned to us by the creator. That is the task of achieving full consciousness of our oneness with the whole, achieving full consciousness that we are a part of the creator and that our destiny is to achieve the single purpose for which the universe exists -- the self-realization of the creator.
Our truth is a very simple truth, but its implications are enormous beyond imagining. To the extent that we understand and accept it, it sets us apart from all the people around us. Our acceptance of this truth marks us as the only adults in a world of children. For implicit in what we believe is our recognition and acceptance of our responsibility for the future of the universe. The fate of everything that will ever be rests in our hands now. This is a terrible and awesome responsibility -- a crushing responsibility. If we were only men we could not bear it. We would have to invent some supernatural being to foist our responsibility onto. But we must, and can, bear it when we understand that we ourselves embody the divine spark which is the upward driving urge of the universe.
The acceptance of our truth not only burdens us with the responsibility that other men have shunned throughout history, it bestows on us a mantle of moral authority that goes along with the responsibility, the moral authority to do whatever is necessary in carrying out our responsibility. Furthermore, it is an acceptance of our destiny, an unlimited destiny, a destiny glorious beyond imagination, if we truly have the courage of our convictions. If we truly abide by the demands that our truth places upon us, it means that while other men continue to live only for the day, continue to seek only self-gratification, and continue to live lives which are essentially without meaning and that leave no trace behind them when they are over, we are living and working for the sake of eternity. In so doing, we are becoming a part of that eternity.
For some, our task may seem too great for us, our responsibility too overwhelming. If they are correct, if we choose to remain children instead of accepting our adulthood, if we continue the shortsighted approaches of the past, then in the long run we will fail utterly. The enemies of our race will prevail over us and we and our kind will pass away forever. All our sacrifices, and all the dreams and sacrifices of our ancestors, will have been in vain. Not even a memory of us, or our kind, will be left when the creative spirit of the universe tries, in some other place, in some other time, in some other way, to do what we failed to do. But I do not believe that we will fail. Because in working to achieve our purpose, we are finding our way once again to the right and natural path for our people. We are working once again with the whole. And we have a mighty tradition behind us.
Our purpose is the purpose for which the earth was born out of the gas and the dust of the cosmos, the purpose for which the first primitive amphibian crawled out of the sea three hundred million years ago and learned to live on the land, the purpose for which the first race of men held themselves apart from the races of sub-men around them and bred only with their own kind. It is the purpose for which men first captured lightning from the sky, tamed it, and called it fire; the purpose for which our ancestors built the world's first astronomical observatory on a British plain more than 4,000 years ago. It is the purpose for which Jesus, the Galilean, fought the Jews and died 2,000 years ago; the purpose for which Rembrandt painted; the purpose for which Shakespeare wrote; and the purpose for which Newton pondered. Our purpose, the purpose with which we must become obsessed, is that for which the best, the noblest, men and women of our race down through the ages have struggled and died whether they were fully conscious of it or not. It is the purpose for which they sought beauty and created beauty; the purpose for which they studied the heavens and taught themselves Nature's mysteries; the purpose for which they fought the degenerative, the regressive, and the evil forces all around them; the purpose for which, instead of taking the easy path in life, the downward path; they chose the upward path, regardless of the pain, suffering, and sacrifice that this choice entailed.
Yes! They did these things, largely without having a full understanding of why, just as the first amphibian did not understand his purpose when he crawled onto the land. Our purpose is the creator's purpose, our path is the path of divine consciousness, the path of the creator's self- realization. This is the path which is ordained for us because of what we are, because of the spark of divine consciousness in us, and in no one else. No other race can travel this path, our path, for us. We alone must prove whether we are fit to serve the creator's purpose. And if we are fit, if we once again heed the inner knowledge engraved in our souls by the creator, if we regain faith in the things we once knew were true without fully understanding why and if we now also teach ourselves why, then we will once again be on the upward path ordained for us, and our destiny will be godhood.
Those of you who are with us for the first time have, I hope, gained at least the beginning of an understanding of who we are and of what we want to do. I know that I have left many of your questions unanswered; questions about current political, social, racial, and economic issues; questions about concrete things. We do talk about those things in our meetings. We talk about them in a very concrete and down-to-earth fashion. I've discussed them in past meetings and I'll discuss them again in future ones -- the goals of overcoming the enemies of our people, of safeguarding the future of our race, and of building a new order of beauty sanity, strength, and health on this earth, so that our people can progress and mature until they are capable of fulfilling the role allotted to them by the creator. But now I want to be sure that you understand just one thing. If we ever are to achieve these concrete advances, these physical victories, this material renewal of our nation, of our civilization, of our race, then we must first make the spiritual advances that I've talked about here. Without the spiritual basis, the material victory will not be achieved.
As I said, in our future meetings we will explore many individual issues in much greater detail than we have here. We hope you will join us in these future meetings and further increase your understanding of our work, and we hope that you will begin to share our commitment to this work. And let me say this especially to those who are with us for the first time, we do not care who you are or what you have believed in the past, nor do we require that you agree exactly with us on a hundred different social, political, economic, and racial issues. All we require is that you share with us a commitment to the simple, but great, truth which I have explained to you here, that you understand that you are a part of the whole, which is the creator, that you understand that your purpose, the purpose of mankind and the purpose of every other part of creation, is the creator's purpose, that this purpose is the never-ending ascent of the path of creation, the path of life symbolized by our life rune, that you understand that this path leads ever upward toward the creator's self-realization, and that the destiny of those who follow this path is godhood. If you share this single truth with us, then everything else will follow and we invite you to make a commitment now, today, to join us and work with us.
Truth Before Fashion
Perhaps you'll pardon me if I speak to you today in a more personal vein than I usually do. I want to tell you about some personal perceptions of mine, because I believe that many of you who are listening have had similar perceptions. I believe many of you have something in common with me, something very important.
When I was a little boy, 11 or 12 years old, I used to spend my time taking clocks apart, building radios and model airplanes, and doing experiments in a tiny laboratory that I had in my parents' garage. I used to make little solid-fuel rockets and try them out in the back yard. My ambition was to be a rocket scientist when I grew up. And that's what I became, at least for a while, until I returned to the university to teach.
The point is that, more than anything else, I was interested in learning what made things tick. I was fascinated by knowledge, by discovery, by the truth. I didn't care at all what was fashionable: I wanted to know what was true. I was the kind of fellow who sometimes would wear one brown sock and one blue sock, because it really didn't make any difference to me. And I'm pretty much still that way, except that now my wife makes sure that my socks match.
While I was growing up, of course, I paid some attention to what was happening in the world around me. I knew that there were good people and bad people, smart ones and stupid ones. I knew that the world wasn't perfect, but I believed that it could be made better. I still believe that.
After I was grown I learned one thing, however, which was really depressing to me for quite a long while. I learned that most of the people around me -- not all, but most -- were much more interested in what was fashionable than in what was true. When I was a university student, for example, I was very interested in history, and I wanted to discuss the various topics which came up in class with fellow students. Whenever the topic was an ideologically sensitive one, however -- the Second World War, for example -- I found that it was very difficult to carry on an objective conversation with most people. They would balk whenever the discussion wandered onto unfashionable ground. I would ask the students I was talking with, why is it that almost no member of the general public can tell us how many American GIs died during the war -- or how many Germans or how many Poles -- but nearly everyone thinks he knows that "six million" Jews died? Why is that? Is it that people believe that only Jews are important? Or is it that they have been brainwashed with propaganda by the media, which are controlled by Jews? And if there is propaganda involved, shouldn't we be suspicious of its claims?
Well, whenever I would say things like that, the people I was talking with would become uncomfortable. Some would become emotional. They would refuse to continue the discussion.
I'll give you a more recent example of this sort of thing. A few weeks ago the United States sent a military expedition to Haiti to force the government controlled at that time by General Raoul Cedras to abdicate in favor of Mr. Clinton's good friend, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. General Cedras was a dictator, we were told by the controlled media -- a bad man -- and Aristide was a democrat, a good man, a man much like Bill Clinton. We were sending troops to Haiti, the media said, to restore democracy.
Now, it's true that most Americans weren't as enthusiastic about sending troops to Haiti to install Aristide as the gang around President Clinton was. But we went along with it. And if you watch the television news coverage of the military occupation, you are led to believe that our soldiers are enthusiastic about their assignment. They are doing a noble thing, they believe, giving Haiti back to Aristide and restoring democracy.
Now, the fact is that Mr. Aristide is a Communist, and besides that a much worse thug and terrorist than General Cedras ever was. In 1991, when Aristide was the top dog in Haiti, he ruled by terror and murder. He killed his opponents with burning tires, "necklacing" them, as the Blacks call it, before General Cedras booted him out of the presidential palace. It is difficult to imagine a more despicable criminal than Jean-Bertrand Aristide as the ruler of a country. And our government is backing him. Our troops are keeping him in power and taking guns away from Haitians who oppose him.
Isn't that amazing?
But just try discussing that with the average U.S. voter. He doesn't want to talk about it. It's unfashionable. About as far as the average American will go is admitting that what goes on in Haiti isn't our business, and that we should let the Haitians run their own affairs.
Some Americans will say that we had to intervene in Haiti because economic conditions were so bad there that we had a flood of Haitian "boat people" coming into this country. That, of course, is sheer nonsense: economic conditions were worse than usual in Haiti before our invasion because the Clinton government had imposed an embargo on the country in an attempt to force General Cedras out. That's why the Haitians were starving: it was Mr. Clinton's embargo. But most people don't want to hear that.
And they don't want to hear about the fact that Aristide is a Communist and a bloodthirsty terrorist. They prefer to hear that our troops are in Haiti to "restore democracy." That's what is fashionable. That's what it is comfortable to believe.
Now, let me become personal again.
During the past 30 years I've noticed this sort of failure of reason over and over again. I've seen the government in Washington adopt policies that I was certain were destructive policies, policies that would lead to the loss of our freedom, to the loss of everything that we hold dear. I was appalled, and I would speak out against these policies.
But invariably the controlled media supported the policies, and so the policies were fashionable in the eyes of most people. People who were against the government's policies were called "racists" by the media. They were called "isolationists." They were called "haters." And most people let themselves be bullied by the media. They went along because it was fashionable to go along. And so there I was, time after time, concerned about trends that I could see developing, concerned about subtle shifts in the propaganda of the controlled media, concerned about changes in government policy. I could see all around me the bad effects of such trends. I could see where these new trends were heading. It was clear. It was obvious. But other people seemed not to notice. It was as if they were oblivious to the destruction of their own world which was going on around them. I felt very frustrated that they refused to see what I saw, that they continued to pretend that things were fine when I knew that we were headed for disaster.
Can you picture that situation? Have you ever felt the way I've just described?
I don't mean to say that I always was right, that I always knew better than everybody else. I can make mistakes, I can make errors of judgment, just like anyone. But when I make a mistake it's an honest mistake. I don't deliberately misjudge things in order to be fashionable.
The unfortunate fact is that much more often than not my judgments about the government's policies have been correct. Policies that I instinctively felt to be wrong have turned out to be so. Trends that analysis and reflection convinced me were degenerative trends have turned out to be so. And I have never hesitated to speak out. I have never hesitated to say, for example, "Hey, everybody, the government's immigration policy is a disaster. It's changing the racial character of America. It will destroy everything that's good about our country if we permit it to continue." And the controlled media then would turn their hatred against me. They would shriek at me: Racist! White supremacist! Hater!
Or I would say, "Hey, everybody, the reason the crime problem has become so bad during the past 30 years is that we're subsidizing it. We're using our taxes to help the minorities, who are responsible for most crime, to breed. We've accepted so-called 'civil rights' laws which are empowering and protecting the criminal elements." And the controlled media would shriek at me again: Racist! Hater!
And, of course, I wasn't being a hater at all. I was simply concerned about the destruction of my country, the destruction of the civilization which my ancestors had built at such great cost, and I was giving voice to my concerns. I was speaking the truth as I saw it, even when the truth wasn't fashionable.
And I must admit that sometimes I had the very unsettling impression that I was one of a small minority of sane people, and that the majority of the population had fallen under the influence of a gang of lunatics and were letting the lunatics make all of the policies.
I've been seeing the quality of education in America fall disastrously year after year, and in response the government has formulated new educational policies which I knew could only make things worse, policies which almost seemed calculated to make things worse. Instead of aiming for quality in the schools, the government ever since the Second World War has been pushing for "equality." The quality of the educational system goes down, and so the government forces a big dose of "equality" on it. That makes the quality go down even more, and so the government responds with an even bigger dose of forced "equality." And when I see this I have to pinch myself, I have to say to myself: Are you really the only sane person in this country; are you the only one who can see that this policy of pushing "equality" instead of quality will only make things worse? Are you the only one who still has a grip on reality?
And, of course, I know that I'm not the only one who feels this way. I know that there are many of you who also feel yourselves the only sane people in a world gone mad. I know that there are many of you who still prefer the truth to whatever is fashionable at the moment. Otherwise you wouldn't be listening to this program.
The problem is that we sane people, we rational people, we people who accept the evidence of our eyes and are able to make comparisons of what we see today with what we saw in the past -- we have got to do a better job of sticking together. We have to put up a united front against the lunatics.
And, you know, it can be done. It is possible for the sane minority to get the lunatics back into their cages and then begin repairing the damage they've done. It is possible to take the media away from the destructive psychopaths now in control.
I'm given hope by the fact that even the majority of ordinary Americans, the ones who always prefer to be fashionable, finally have overdosed on insanity. The gang of Clintonistas who've been running the country into the ground for the last two years have scared them so badly that we had a massive repudiation of them and their policies at the polls recently. Even the trendy air- heads who've been tolerating insanity for decades have finally said, "Enough!"
Please don't think that what I've just said means that I'm a Republican. The good thing about the recent elections is not that the Republican Party won; the good thing is that the elections put a party in control of the legislative branch of the government which is different from the party in control of the executive branch. If we're lucky we'll have the two parties fighting each other to a standstill for the next two years. We'll have governmental gridlock, and the government won't be able to do as much damage as otherwise.
This gives us a little breathing space, a little time to organize ourselves and prepare for battle with the lunatics.
Actually, I've used the word "lunatics" loosely in describing those we oppose. The people who control the media and the people in the government who take orders from them aren't really crazy. They're evil. Do you understand that? Evil. They're people committed to the destruction of everything beautiful and noble and decent in the world. We don't want to put them in a lunatic asylum. We want to hunt them down -- every last one of them -- and put a final end to their evil.
One of the most interesting results of the recent elections was the rebellion of White Californians against the growing tide of illegal immigrants from Mexico which was swamping their state. That rebellion expressed itself as Proposition 187. The media people and the Clintonistas -- and also many Christians who have been infected with the egalitarian madness -- are really unhappy about Proposition 187. They're hinting that those who voted for it are "racists," that the only reason they want to make things more difficult for illegal aliens is that most of the aliens aren't White, because they're Mexicans, mestizos. And the White voters are responding, "Oh, no, that's not the reason at all. We're not racists. We just want to keep our schools and other public facilities from being overwhelmed."
But, really, for most of them that's a dishonest response. The whole reason why Proposition 187 was necessary is because the illegal immigrants are non-White. If they were English or Swedish or German they wouldn't be a problem. They wouldn't be a threat. Everyone understands that, but most people are afraid to say it. They are afraid of being unfashionable. So they kept smiling and pretending that everything was all right for 50 years, while their country was being ruined by the media and the government. Finally they had too much, and they rebelled by voting for Proposition 187. But they still won't face the situation squarely and call a spade a spade. They still prefer being fashionable to dealing in the truth.
But, at least -- at least -- they did rebel. That's a very good sign indeed. It shows that there are limits to how much the average citizen will let himself be abused. It's good to know that. I had begun to worry that he would put up with anything rather than risk being called a "racist."
You know, the trouble with most people is not that they're stupid. Most people can figure out as well as you and I can that if you give welfare to Blacks, pretty soon you'll have more Blacks.
They can understand that if you don't control your borders, pretty soon you'll have more Mexicans and Haitians in the country.
They can figure out that if you then pass special laws to protect criminals, you'll have a lot more crime to deal with.
They know that if you begin mixing Blacks and Whites socially, some Whites will begin acting like Blacks, and the average moral tone of White society will decline.
They can understand that if you force White students to go to school with Blacks and then try to maintain the pretense that Blacks are just as capable as Whites, you must lower scholastic standards and thereby keep White students from reaching their full potential.
They know that if you pass so-called "free trade" laws, which allow industries in non-White countries with extremely low wages, countries like China and Mexico, to compete with American industries, pretty soon you'll bankrupt the American industries and put many Americans out of work. And they can understand that if you permit Jews to get control of the mass media of news and entertainment in your country, and along with that a dominating influence on the political process and government policy, you're in big trouble. You leave yourself open to all of the aforementioned ills and a whole Pandora's box of others besides.
They can understand, in other words, that if people permit their government to adopt the policies the American government has adopted during the past 50 years, they will reduce themselves to the condition of the American people today: their civilization in a precipitous decline, their public and private morality in a shambles, their future mortgaged, and an assortment of non- White minorities in the process of foreclosing on that future. This is something that most of our fellow citizens should be capable of understanding. Instead, they've let themselves be persuaded, primarily by the controlled media, that they should ignore their own reason and pretend that everything is A-OK.
Or, if they are so fed up with conditions that they just can't pretend any longer that there's nothing wrong, they still won't face the facts squarely and accept the obvious answers, because they don't want to be racists. And so they pretend that a switch from the Democrats to the Republicans will fix everything.
But, you know, somebody has to be willing to announce the fact that the emperor is naked. Even if it's not polite. Even if it hurts a lot of people's feelings. Even if everyone else is pretending that the emperor's new suit is the very height of fashion, someone has to come right out and say, "Hey, momma, look! The man has no clothes on!"
Not just me. A lot of us have to say that. A lot of us have to bear witness to the plain, unvarnished truth. It's important. Much more than the state of our economy and the quality of our schools and the crime problem depends on it. In the long run, everything depends on our preferring what is true to what is fashionable -- preferring it enough to speak out for it.
I don't expect everyone to do that. I know that most people will continue being the way they always have been. But it doesn't take everyone in order to make a difference. It only takes a few. It only took one small boy to open everyone's eyes to the emperor's foolishness -- one small boy to persuade all the townspeople that they really were seeing what they thought they were seeing.
So I'm counting on those of you who occasionally wear mismatched socks. I'm counting on you to say, "By god, I am right. The government and the media are wrong. And the right thing for me to do is to speak up now, regardless of whose feelings I hurt." You do that -- you keep looking at the world with open eyes and not being afraid to come to your own conclusions about what's good and what's bad -- and you tell people about what you see.
You tell them, and many of them will open their eyes and look too. Don't let the controlled media intimidate you. Don't let the government push you around. We're the ones who are right, not them.
You stand with me, and be honest with me, and speak out with me, and together we'll begin pushing back some of the evil which has been taking over our world. We'll begin building a better world together.
I'm counting on you. Thanks for listening.
The Letter They Wouldn't Answer
There is a neo-Marxist radio network, based in Oregon and Costa Rica, which operates a station calling itself "Radio for Peace International." Recently, they attacked American Dissident Voices, denying among other things our statement that Communism has Jewish roots. An ADV supporter and contributor, William Scott, Jr., wrote this response to their attack. So far, "Radio for Peace" has not seen fit to respond. Here's his letter:
Dear Sirs:
I am writing in regard to your program covering the National Alliance's radio show American Dissident Voices -- specifically, your attempt to discredit the show's discourse on the Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik revolution in Russia.
I have to admit that I am a bit surprised that you chose to attack that subject, since there is substantial documentation that a very disproportionate number of Jews were among the leaders of the original Communist organization.
I would like to give just a small part of the evidence that I have available. It is a fact that numerous journalists were witnesses to the events along with clergymen and politicians who recorded what they had seen in Russia during that unfortunate period.
During the last days of World War I when the Bolsheviks were making their move numerous diplomatic telegrams (available from the National Archives) were exchanged between U.S. diplomatic and military personnel in Russia and Washington, DC. For example, one telegram, State Department document number 861.00/1757, of May 2, 1918, was sent from the U.S. Consul General in Moscow to the State Department, in which he describes the situation in the towns:
"Jews predominate in local government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population which tends to regard the oncoming Germans as deliverers."
Another telegram, State Department document number 861.00/2205, sent from Vladivostok on July 5, 1918, by U.S. Consul Caldwell, clearly verifies the previously cited example. Caldwell states:
"Fifty per cent of Soviet government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type...."
Another telegram, dated March 1, 1919, is also from Vladivostok, this time by Captain Montgomery Schuyler of the Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia, who reported to his Chief of Staff:
"The Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type...." And in another telegram, sent June 9, 1918, Schuyler cites Robert Wilton, correspondent for the London Times in Russia, regarding the ethnic makeup of the Bolshevik government:
"There were 384 commissars including 2 Negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen, 22 Armenians, and more than 300 Jews. Of the latter number 264 had come to Russia from the United States...."
These telegrams are only a few of the dozens that reflect similar sentiments, I would think, that were sent to Washington from our representatives in Russia at the time of both attempts at power by the Communists.
Another journalist who wrote about the Russian Communists in that era was the distinguished London Times foreign correspondent Douglas Reed, who wrote of Soviet censorship from first- hand knowledge in his book Insanity Fair:
"The censorship department, and that means the whole machine for controlling the home and muzzling the foreign press, was entirely staffed by Jews. There seemed not to be a single non- Jewish official in the whole outfit."
I could go on and on citing statements from various sources, but my point is not to convince you of the Jewish domination of the Bolshevik Revolution in one letter. However I would ask that you at least consider why, even with what seems to be creditable evidence, when one tries to discuss this or any other situation where Jews are involved one finds the standard canards and smears directed one's way. Why do they rely on intimidation to suppress discussion of a legitimate historical event?
I think this tactic will eventually backfire, but unfortunately for decent Jews the cynical Jewish power structure will not refrain from using whatever tactic gains them power.
I know that there are some Jews who will honestly admit to what I have just presented. For example, the Jewish author, Marcus Eli Ravage, wrote in the January-February 1928 issue of Century Magazine :
"You have not begun to appreciate the real depth of our guilt. We are intruders. We are disturbers. We are subverters. We have been at the bottom not merely of the latest great war but of all your wars, not only of the Russian but of every other major revolution in your history."
Another well-known Jew who comments similarly is Dr. Oscar Levy. He was a figure of international repute who edited and financed the English edition of Nietzsche's works in sixteen volumes. In the preface to the book The World Significance of the Russian Revolution by Professor George Pitts-Rivers of Oxford University, Levy stated:
"We [Jews] have erred, my friend, we have most grievously erred.... We who have posed as the saviours of the world, we who have boasted of having given it the Saviour, we are today nothing else but the world's seducers, its destroyers, its incendiaries, its executioners..." . And finally, I must give credit to another courageous Jew, Benjamin Freedman, who spent a large portion of his wealth exposing the Jewish power structure (both the Communist and Zionist factions). He stated in a 1963 speech in Washington, DC, concerning the ability of the Jewish power structure to secure the assistance of willing dupes and to utilize the power structure's time- tested obfuscation techniques to further their political goals:
"They have fooled you so many times that you don't know whether you are coming or going."
There are many other such admissions that I have seen in print, and I have actually heard them with my own ears from Jews of my own acquaintance. So why the cover-up and all the apparent shock at such allegations?
The same goes for the so-called "Holocaust." Any Jew can apparently make any claim without contradiction -- since anyone who disputes such claims is automatically attacked and called "anti-Semitic," "hatemonger," "Nazi," etc. Now that even the Jewish "holocaust historians" have recently lowered the death count from 6 million to 3 million (and some even much lower) that should be enough to open the whole thing up to honest historical examination, instead of continuing the old propaganda line. But no, the 6 million figure is still paraded around as gospel and few dare to point out the recent reductions by scholars.
Actually, I think the Jews have put themselves in a precarious position by allowing these wild claims to go on virtually unchallenged. Although you may be surprised to hear that I don't deny that thousands of Jews were killed in WWII, I think that exaggerations are rampant. Keep in mind that some 50 million died in that tragedy. I find it offensive that the emphasis is almost entirely on the "6 million" to the exclusion of everybody else.
There is a powerful form of censorship in this country. Look where the power and money leads and you'll find the source.
When I was growing up we learned to value truth and to condemn hypocrisy. Nowadays we must bypass truth in order to be politically correct and to avoid offending certain groups. I say nobody should be intimidated out of investigating anything. This whole situation rubs me the wrong way and I'll never get used to it. I don't think that any society that accepts blatant lies and suppression of facts in place of the truth can survive. We must tell the truth no matter who doesn't like it.
Yours truly, William Scott, Jr.
FREEDOM: Use It or Lose It
Perhaps you already know this, but this program is broadcast 22 times a week on 15 different stations in the United States. It's also carried around the world by powerful shortwave transmitters. I don't know exactly how many people are listening now, but I believe that altogether there are more than 100,000 of us listening in.
That's a good feeling, to know that there are so many of us together at this moment, hearing the same words, thinking the same thoughts, sharing the same concerns. We're like a big family, a tribe.
People tell me that here in the United States there is no longer any tribal or even any national sense of identity, that it is not possible to evoke any sort of family feeling from as large a group of people as those of us gathered here today. The American people, they tell me, are too heterogeneous, too divided, too selfish, too jaded, and too confused by the propaganda of the mass media to respond as a united whole, the way they could a hundred years ago, when this was still a White country.
And the people who tell me this are partly correct, of course. It's true that the controllers of the mass media want to divide Americans and make them heterogeneous or "diverse," to use the Politically Correct term so that they can be more easily ruled. It's true that this is exactly what was in the minds of Jewish legislators like Emanuel Celler and his accomplices in the Congress and the media when they opened up this country's borders to massive immigration from Asia, Africa, and Latin America back in 1965. It's what's in the minds of those who still oppose controlling our borders, who still oppose every effort to cut off this non-White flood.
It's true that the propaganda of the controlled mass media encourages the most selfish sort of individualism, a sort of "every man for himself+attitude, for the same reason. The aliens who control the media can only work their will on us if they can prevent us from having any sort of feeling of solidarity, any feeling of racial consciousness. That's why they have promoted every sort of "diversity," as they call it -- homosexuals, non-White racial minorities, feminists, their fellow Jews, of course -- everybody except normal, healthy, decent White men and women.
And this propaganda from the controlled media has confused a lot of people. It has made some of them feel guilty for being normal and healthy. It has made some of them feel that they should tolerate every sort of filth and perversion. It has morally disarmed them and made them hesitate to fight back.
But it certainly hasn't confused all of us. There are 100,000 or so of us here today, listening to this program, who aren't confused or ashamed or guilty. If I'm wrong on that, if there are a few of you who do feel that it's your duty to take a homosexual to lunch, to smile when you pass a racially mixed couple on the sidewalk, and to vote Democratic, then please tune to another station. Tune in something with a little more diversity. Tune in a basketball game or a rap concert, where you'll feel right at home. As for all the rest of us, let's minimize the diversity for a few minutes. Let's maximize the solidarity. Let's stand proud and straight, and let's stand together, you and I, when we think about who we are and what we have to do.
We really are a big family, a tribe, with many more things which bind us together than separate us. All of us have ancestors who came over here from Europe, ancestors who evolved in Europe, who over a thousand generations developed the unique characteristics which make us Europeans and which distinguish us sharply from Asians, Africans, Middle Easterners, and other non- Europeans. We share the same blood, the same genes, whether our ancestors came from England or Ireland, Germany or Poland, Sweden or Italy. And in broad outlines we share the same history and the same culture.
The same values too. We are people who have a certain understanding of the meaning of personal honor, for example: an understanding which is not shared by other races -- including the race which controls our television and other mass media.
We also have a feeling for personal privacy and for personal dignity and for personal property rights which is unique to us.
Now the egalitarians, the media controllers, the Jews will disagree with us. They like to talk about "human dignity" as if that were a universal trait. But it isn't. Just compare the way we used to live in America 30 or 40 years ago with the way Africans or Mexicans or Asians lived and still live in their own countries.
We don't like being crowded together like ants in an antheap, having our neighbors breathing down our necks, sharing everything in common, and having almost nothing we can call our own. What is natural for us is having a little space of our own around us, having privacy, having our own property, and letting our neighbors have theirs without interference. We don't like having our lives regulated either by mob pressure or by the government. We need the freedom to have our own ideas, make our own ventures, suffer from our own failures and mistakes, and benefit from our own hard work and our own successes. We don't tolerate enforced Political Correctness very well.
It's not that way in Black Africa and never has been that way in any Black land. It's not that way among the swarming masses of Asia. It wasn't that way among the American Indians when our ancestors first arrived here, and it's not that way among the relatives of those Indians in Mexico today. They are all different people -- different from us -- profoundly different. They are entitled to live the way that is natural for them. They can crowd together in their own filth. They can do whatever they want to -- but not at our expense, not in our land.
Remember, I said that we used to live in a way that was natural for us in this country 30 or 40 years ago. That was before we had such a big dose of diversity crammed down our throats by the government and the media. That was when this was still essentially a White country. Even states like California were still essentially White. We could walk down the street at night without being robbed or raped or shot. There were no drugs in the schools. None. There was still enough respect for other people's privacy and property rights that we didn't have to worry about intruders in our homes. We didn't have to worry about everything being stolen that wasn't nailed down. You know, it's still like that in some parts of America -- mostly in small towns and rural areas, which have not been hit by as much "diversity" as the cities. But wherever the government and the controlled media have succeeded in transforming our country into a Third World slum, we have lost our rights, our dignity, and our honor. We have been forced to accommodate ourselves to non-Whites. We have been forced to tolerate all sorts of unacceptable behavior, all sorts of unacceptable intrusions that we never had to tolerate before. We are expected to observe and tolerate every sort of filth and perversion -- homosexuality, racial mixing, jungle music, crime and crowding, and more taxes from us to pay for it. We are expected to tolerate the destruction of our world, to pay for the destruction of our world, and we're not supposed to complain about it, lest we hurt the feelings of the destroyers.
When I say that they're destroying our world, I don't simply mean that they're making life less pleasant for us, that they're bringing ugliness and nastiness into our lives, that they're corrupting our morals and polluting our culture. They're doing all of that, but they're also doing much more. They're destroying the physical basis for our existence. Every tribe, every race, needs space, needs territory for living and growing and breeding. Only in our own territory can we perpetuate our physical existence by breeding only with our own people. Only in our own territory can we keep alive our traditions, our sense of identity, our own culture. When we lose our territory, we will cease to exist as a tribe or a race within a few generations.
We mustn't fall into the trap of looking at the present situation in America and saying to ourselves: "Well, it's still not too bad. I can make a few adjustments and learn to live with it." What we must do instead is look at our present situation, compare it with the situation we had 30 or 40 years ago, and then look to what the situation will be like in another 40 years. That will not be a situation we can live with.
If we don't reclaim our own territory soon, there will be a proliferation of re-education programs like the one the Clintonistas are pushing now to de-Europeanize the teaching of history in the schools. They've designed American History courses in which Martin Luther King gets more coverage than Columbus, George Washington, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson combined. We'll see laws making it mandatory for all schools to teach these falsified history courses and rob our children and grandchildren of their sense of racial identity. We'll see a continued flood of non-White immigrants into our country, and an even greater eagerness of the politicians in Washington to cater to these minorities as their numbers increase. We'll see television and the other controlled media continue to push more and more "diversity." And the result of it all will be that our great grandchildren will be mongrels that we wouldn't want to claim as our own.
It really shouldn't be necessary to say these things. They're so obvious that I'm a little embarrassed to be telling you about them as if they were a new discovery. All of human history is a record of the struggle of various groups, tribes, and races to gain and hold territory for themselves and to keep aliens out, in order to insure their own continued existence. Even the most primitive people understand that. It's instinctive. And in the internal history of every people we can see the development of ideas and attitudes and values within certain boundaries. We can see the evolution of a culture with distinctive traits. What we do not see in history, however, is the cultural chaos, the abandonment of all values, the moral nihilism which is being promoted by the controlled media and the government today. Because once the chaos and nihilism have taken hold, that's the end of the people's history. They go under, and the historical focus shifts to a healthier people.
We knew all of these things, we understood all of these things just a few years ago. We understood that not only were we not obliged to tolerate homosexual behavior, for example: we understood that we should not tolerate it, that we must not tolerate it. This isn't something we were taught in Sunday school: it was in our blood; it was natural for us to abhor homosexual behavior, just as it's natural for us to react with hostility when we see a racially mixed couple.
Yes, these things I've been talking about are obvious. We all know they're true. But still it's necessary for us to say them. We know that there are powerful forces trying to destroy our race and our civilization. We know that these forces have gone a long way toward reaching their goal. We know that they have corrupted many of our own people. We know that there are many people in America today who are related to us by blood, but who have fallen completely under the spell of those whose aim is to destroy us. We know that the people under the spell of our enemies believe that teachers should be forced to teach that homosexuality is a normal, healthy lifestyle. They believe that history should be falsified in the schools in order to avoid hurting the feelings of those races whose history is less rich than our own. They believe that our wanting to live and work with people of our own tribe, our own race, is wicked. "Racism," they call it. They would like to make it illegal. They would like to see more Mexicans in this country, more Blacks, more racially mixed couples, more rap concerts, more crowding and filth and "diversity." They would like to make it illegal for us to meet like this and talk about these things. They have become spiritually enslaved to the controllers of the media, and they would like to enslave us also.
The only way that we can fight these spiritually corrupted people, the only way we can beat them and take our territory back, and our history back, and our culture back, and our values back, and our future back is to say the things we know are true, and to give other people the courage to say them too. We must defy the Hollywood Jews, we must defy the government, we must defy those of our own people who have been corrupted by them.
And we can do it. Three years ago there was no one willing to say publicly what we are saying now. Everyone was letting himself be intimidated into going along with the controlled media and the government. Then we started broadcasting on one radio station -- just one broadcast a week. A year ago we had grown to seven stations. Now we're broadcasting on 15 stations each week. We have been able to grow like that because the people who listened to us on our first station three years ago told other people about us, and they began listening too, and then they told their friends. And our support grew, so that we could add more stations to our network.
And we can keep growing. The 100,000 of us who now gather each week can grow to a million and then to ten million. All we have to do is keep spreading the word to our friends, our neighbors, our relatives, our co-workers, and to strangers too. We can spread the word by telephone, by letter, by spray-painting the time and frequency of this broadcast on fences and walls, by taking out advertising, by handing out leaflets. We can have 100 stations in our network by the end of this year.
And we really must do that. Not just because it'll feel good to have a million of us together each week instead of only 100,000. We have to do it because we need to be able to speak with a big enough voice to prevent the enemies of America, the enemies of our people, from silencing us. There are people in the Clinton government right now talking about the need to begin doing the same sort of job on the First Amendment that they've already done on the Second Amendment. They would like to make it illegal for us to criticize them. They would like to be able to throw anyone in prison who speaks out against their immigration policy, their education policy, their policy of "diversifying" America out of existence.
The same sort of people already have succeeded in doing that in many countries. It is illegal right now to make a broadcast like this one from a Canadian station, for example. Or from a British station. Or a French station. Or a German station. Or a Swiss station. Wherever there are Jews with their hands on a nation's mass media, and politicians who slavishly follow the ideological fashions set by the media, the people lose their freedom to criticize their destroyers. Everywhere the Jews go, their first goal is to get their hands on a nation's mass media, so that they can not only push their own destructive policies, but so that they can prevent anyone from identifying them publicly or criticizing them.
Most of the people in Canada, Britain, France, and the other countries where the Jews have succeeded in silencing any criticism of themselves believe that they are still free. They can still turn on their television receivers and watch a football game whenever they want to. They can still go into a drugstore and buy a fan magazine. They can even announce publicly that they don't like their government. All they've been forbidden to do is say or publish anything which might threaten the position of the Jews. And let's face it: to most people that's not important; certainly not as important as watching a ball game. But we, you and I, understand that that is everything. To lose the freedom to explain to others what the Jews are doing is to lose the ability to protect our own people. It is to lose our grip on the future.
In America we can still identify them. We can still tell people that the man who controls MTV, for example, and is pushing rap and other forms of Black culture to White boys and girls is the Jew billionaire Sumner Redstone. We can still criticize them. We can still tell people that Redstone and the other Jews who control the mass media are poisoning the souls of our young people, are subverting our nation, and have as their goal the utter destruction of our people. It's not illegal yet to say these things, even if many of our people already have let themselves be intimidated into keeping their mouths shut.
Let's exercise our freedom before it's taken away from us. Let's speak out now. Let's tell everyone about this program. Let's do whatever we have to do to grow from 100,000 to ten million. Because, you know, when there are ten million of us gathered here every week, they won't be able to take our freedom away from us and steal our future. We won't let them. We'll be strong enough to stop them.
What Is Racism?
Today let's talk about racism and related matters. There's hardly a subject the average White person is more uptight about, hardly a subject that makes him more uncomfortable. Fifty or 60 years ago people were really uptight about sex. Very few people could talk about it honestly and openly and comfortably. It embarrassed them. Whenever the subject came up people used all sorts of euphemisms and evasions to avoid having to mention things or use words that made them squirm and blush, things that they just couldn't deal with straightforwardly. In polite conversation one could not even use the word leg in talking about a woman, for example. It was too risqu‰, bordering on the pornographic, because of the mental associations it evoked.
Why was that? Why did talking about sex make us uncomfortable? Well, of course, it was because sex was a taboo subject. There were a lot of social and religious prohibitions and restrictions associated with sex, and these prohibitions conflicted with our natural urges. We were taught that following these natural urges was sinful, and that terrible things would happen to us if we did. The result was that we felt guilty about our natural urges. To avoid the very unpleasant feeling of guilt, we tried to avoid the subject of sex. We swept it under the rug and tried not to think about it.
That's the way it is with the subject of race today. Just as we were conditioned by religious teachings 50 or 60 years ago to feel guilty about our natural sexual inclinations, today we are conditioned--primarily by the controlled mass media--to feel guilty about our natural racial inclinations. We are conditioned to believe that they are sinful.
And what are our natural racial inclinations? We can get a pretty good answer by looking at the way we behaved and wrote and talked back in the era before race became a taboo subject, back in the time when we could still talk about it without feeling any pangs of guilt or embarrassment- -back in the early part of this century, say. At that time we accepted the fact that people of a particular race preferred to live and work and play with other people like themselves. We certainly preferred the company of people of our own race, and that also was true of other races. We were often curious about or interested in the racial characteristics, the behavior, the lifestyles, the culture, and the histories of other races. We admired Japanese samurai swords and Chinese ceramic art, the Eskimo kayak, Hindu mythology, Mexican temples. In youth organizations like the Boy Scouts we studied the lore of the American Indians and tried to emulate their superb skills as stone-age hunters and woodsmen. Wherever another race had some real accomplishment, we were ready to study that accomplishment and to give credit where credit was due.
But at the same time we retained our feeling of separateness and exclusiveness and a pride in our own European culture, our own racial characteristics, our own history. We did not feel it necessary to apologize for teaching the history of our own race in our schools--that is, European history--and for not teaching Japanese history, say, or Tibetan history, except, of course, to those scholars in our universities who were studying exotic cultures. Especially, we did not feel the slightest inclination to invent a false Black history in order to magnify the self-esteem of young Blacks or to persuade young Whites that Blacks were their cultural equals. Did we feel that our race is superior to other races? In general, yes--but we weren't uptight about it, just realistic. That is, we acknowledged without the slightest feeling of envy or resentment that other races could do some things better than we could: Blacks, for example, could do work in a hot, humid environment that would kill a White man. And their peculiar skeletal and muscular structure made them better sprinters and jumpers, on the average, while their relatively thick skulls and long arms gave them an advantage at boxing.
But we knew what we were especially good at, and we tended to value those things most highly. Someone recruiting for a basketball team, of course, would have different standards and might very well look at Blacks as a superior race. That didn't bother us. We were confident in our role as the pacesetters for everyone else, as the planet's preeminent problem solvers and civilization builders, as the best thinkers and doers. And, of course, we liked our poetry, our art, our music, and our literature best. In that sense we believed that we had a superior culture and we were a superior race. Superior by our own standards, of course.
Because of that--because of our feelings about ourselves and our preference for our own kind and our own culture--we were all racists by today's standards, of course. We were all White supremacists. But those terms were never used then. Racism was never an issue. We just thought and behaved in a way that was natural for us. As long as other races didn't get in our way, we felt no hostility toward them. But if they did get in our way, they usually regretted it pretty quickly.
And, of course, other races had pretty much the same attitude we did. They judged things by their standards. The Chinese believed--actually still believe--that they are superior to any foreign devils. Did that offend us in any way? Of course not. We didn't agree with the Chinese, of course, but as long as everyone stayed on his own turf, we were able to get along reasonably well. The only time there was conflict between the races was when they were forced to occupy the same turf. When that happened there always was conflict and hostility.
When greedy businessmen brought shiploads of Chinese coolies to this country to provide cheap labor for building railroads, so they wouldn't have to pay the prevailing wage rate to White workers, there was hostility between Whites and Chinese.
A much greater conflict was caused by importing African slaves to America. Profit-hungry slave merchants brought millions of them into this country and gave plantation owners an offer they couldn't refuse. The economic conditions of the 18th century made the use of slave labor very profitable. But the use of Black slaves by wealthy White landowners left small White farmers and craftsmen in the southern United States at a great disadvantage, with resultant hostility and conflict. After the slaves were freed and turned loose in White society, the conflict between Blacks and Whites became much, much worse, of course.
The conflict between the races eventually was limited by the practices of segregation, which established, in essence, separate societies in the United States for Whites and for Blacks. Whites lived in one part of town; Blacks in another. Whites went to White schools; Blacks to Black schools. There were White recreational areas and Black recreational areas, White restaurants and Black restaurants. The races mixed as little as they could, and each race was able to maintain its own standards and its own culture, more or less. In most cases the institutions of segregation were sanctified by law. Wherever there was a sizable population of Blacks, for example, there were laws against miscegenation.
Segregation was not really an ideal solution for the long term, for either race, but in the short term it was infinitely better than racial mixing. The only good long term solution would have been complete geographical separation, in this case by repatriating freed slaves back to Africa and Chinese coolies back to China. But economic considerations--plus the regrettable shortsightedness which characterizes public policy in a democracy--resulted in repatriation being put on the back burner.
And so we lived with segregation as best we could, despite its shortcomings. We still had our turf and our society, and Blacks had theirs. In our society most of us could still talk about our own race and about other races without becoming embarrassed or feeling guilty. There was, of course, a great difference between the cultural and economic levels of White society and those of Black society. Standards in Black schools were far below those in White schools; Black incomes were lower; Black neighborhoods were poorer, dirtier, and more violent. A few Blacks overcame these conditions and prospered, but most lived rather squalidly.
A few Whites--and others--with extra time on their hands patronized the Blacks, even in those days before racism became a cause c‰lˆbre, and attributed Black ignorance and poverty to White oppression. Of course, it was nothing of the sort. The great majority of Whites did not concern themselves at all with Blacks and certainly wasted no time in trying to oppress them. Most Whites did not care what Blacks did, so long as they did it among themselves and did not threaten Whites. One merely had to look at the vastly greater difference which existed between the levels of civilization in Europe and in Black Africa to understand that the difference between the levels of White and Black society in America was merely a reflection of the difference in racial quality, and that Blacks in America would be living at an even lower level were it not for the benefits bestowed on them by their proximity to White society.
Nevertheless, the do-gooders persisted in blaming White society for the shortcomings of Black society, though without making much of an impact on White society. During the 1920s and 1930s the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People--the NAACP--lobbied for an end to segregation. Interestingly enough, all the presidents of the NAACP during this period were Jews, not Blacks, and the organization also received nearly all its financing from Jews. It was really the Second World War that changed things. The enormous buildup of wartime industry in America changed the composition of the U.S. work force radically. With millions of White males in uniform, women and Blacks were recruited into the factory work force in unprecedented numbers. The war had the net effect of moving large numbers of Blacks from rural areas into the cities and giving them more money than they had ever had before. Much more important was the psychological impact of the war. The war propagandists in America painted the war as a crusade for democracy and equality. We were told that the Germans believed themselves a master race. It was very wicked for any one group of people to believe that they were superior to any other group, we were told, over and over again. Well, after we had killed millions of our fellow Europeans and had lost 300,000 of our own soldiers proving that the Germans were not a master race after all, it was much easier for the propagandists of the controlled media to persuade us that Whites and Blacks were innately equal, and that the lower socioeconomic level of Blacks therefore must be our fault. If Blacks were ignorant and poor, we had made them that way. It was segregation that was holding them down. The result was White guilt: it first began to take hold in the White consciousness in the 1950s.
Television became a powerful, new weapon in the hands of the guilt-mongers. We were treated to television spectacles of inoffensive, well-dressed Blacks sitting quietly in White caf‰s, while White waitresses refused to serve them and White patrons jeered them. We saw Blacks being pulled off buses and beaten with baseball bats by White Klansmen. We saw police dogs and club-swinging White policemen attacking Black so-called freedom marchers in Alabama. I don't mean to say that scenes such as these were typical of the so-called civil rights demonstrations of the 1950s and 1960s. But they did happen occasionally. White working-class people, who were least able to protect themselves from the Black assault on White jobs, White neighborhoods, and White schools during the 1950s and 1960s, sometimes reacted in an intemperate and undignified way. Sometimes they even reacted violently. Whenever they did, the cameras of the controlled media were there to record it. And these few scenes were cleverly edited, put in a context carefully selected to appeal to the innate White sense of propriety and fairness, and then broadcast over and over and over again. The result was more White guilt--as intended.
By skilfully using selected scenes of White resistance to racial integration which were embarrassing to most White viewers, the controllers of the media were gradually able to make the whole idea of resistance to racial integration embarrassing to most White people. And then the media gave a name to White resistance to integration: racism. And by repeatedly invoking this name in conjunction with scenes and actions and ideas which already had been made embarrassing, the name itself, the word itself, acquired the power to cause pangs of embarrassment and guilt--exactly as the sound of the dinner bell by itself caused Pavlov's dogs to salivate. The media had established a conditioned reflexive reaction to the word racism. The very word itself now is sufficient to cause the trendiest among us to turn pale and run for cover, while it makes even fairly rugged individualists uncomfortable.
Now, this brief history of racism really is a gross over-simplification. The actual process was much more complicated and involved many details which we have insufficient time to describe today. The schools, for example, were recruited into the conditioning program. The content of school curricula was falsified in order to prevent White students from understanding the rationale for segregation in America--or more generally, for the separation of races anywhere in the world. At the same time, history courses were de-Europeanized and larded with all sorts of imaginary accomplishments of non-Whites. The aim of all of this was to make it seem to White students that any effort to maintain a White society was not only irrational but also unfair.
The only thing which has helped a few White students resist this teaching has been the actual, physical presence of real Blacks in their schools, so that they could see the glaring contradiction between the theory of racial equality and reality.
One of the consequences of this generally very successful program of conditioning by the controlled media, this program of brainwashing, has been to make it very difficult to discuss racial matters rationally. It's like it must have been trying to discuss sex rationally among Presbyterians a century ago.
When I'm on television talk shows and I talk about race, I receive really hysterical calls from some people, who just can't deal with it. And calls from the haters, too--people who tell me I ought to be killed for being in favor of separation of the races or for being opposed to miscegenation. And these people who scream out hatred and obscenities at me for daring to have Politically Incorrect opinions on race are White people--White people who have been conditioned by the controlled media to react that way.
But ordinary people used to get just as upset about sex a hundred years ago. They used to hate, despise, and even want to kill people who had unconventional ideas about sex--and I'm not talking about child molesters or homosexuals; I'm talking about healthy heterosexuals who simply weren't as rigidly conventional in their ideas or practices as the rest of the population. Margaret Sanger, the pioneer of birth-control education in America, was thrown into prison for her views in 1917. Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon church, scandalized conventional Christians by taking a number of wives, and he was lynched--murdered--by a mob in Illinois in 1844.
Nevertheless, race is something we must think about and talk about rationally and honestly. We must not be embarrassed by it. We must not feel guilty about it. We must understand that wanting to live and work with people of our own kind is a natural, healthy feeling that we are born with. Nature gave us this feeling so that we could evolve as a race, so that we could develop special characteristics and abilities, which set us apart from every other race. This feeling, this preference for our own kind, is essential for our continued survival. What is unnatural and destructive and truly hateful is enforced multiculturalism, as it's called, enforced diversity. I will conclude today by pointing out that our natural feeling about race isn't the only thing the brainwashers of the controlled media have worked hard to develop into a conditioned, reflexive guilt-and-fear mechanism. They've worked nearly as hard to confuse our natural understanding of the differences between men and women. When I say in public, as I often do, that the natural role for a man is that of provider and protector, and the natural role for a woman is that of a nurturer, I am subjected to the same kind of hysterical and hate-filled attacks as when I talk about race.
The media, the Jews, the egalitarians are intent on obscuring all distinctions, all structure in our society, all standards. We must resist their whole campaign of enforced Political Correctness. But most of all we must resist their effort to condition our thinking about race. We can survive feminism, no matter how neurotic and unhappy it may make us. We can survive other forms of egalitarianism, no matter how socially destructive they are.
But we cannot survive much longer unless we return to honesty in dealing with race.
Skinheads and the Law
I'VE BEEN SPEAKING recently with members of two quite distinct segments of our society, and I want to share with you some of the things I've learned. The two segments are policemen and skinheads.
These two groups ought to have a certain sympathy for each other, because they've experienced certain things, learned at first hand certain things about the society we live in, that most of us haven't. But I've found that for the most part they have very little sympathy for one another, and in fact quite a bit of antipathy. We'll explore together the reasons for this antipathy. Let's start with the skinheads. They're young White people, most of them in their teens and twenties, most of them working class. Many of them have tattoos. They usually have very short haircuts. Many of them wear a distinctive type of work boot. Some also wear suspenders. The tattoos, haircuts, boots, and suspenders are almost like a uniform, a sort of club insignia. Nevertheless, there's quite a lot of individual variation among them. For some, being a skinhead is a sort of hobby, a part-time recreational activity. For others, it's a serious, full-time commitment.
The skinhead movement began in Britain more than 20 years ago. It had become a fashion there among some groups of young factory workers to shave their heads, because they had to keep their hair cut short anyway in order to avoid getting it caught in the machinery. As racial, social, and economic conditions in Britain deteriorated, these young, White factory workers were among the hardest hit.
Specifically, because of an open-door immigration policy backed by Jews and liberals, many of Britain's cities were being flooded by non-White immigrants from Asia and the Caribbean. The government in Britain, just like the government in the United States, was providing subsidized housing for these non-Whites and giving them preference in hiring. This policy caused the unemployment rate among young British workers to go up. The non-Whites also brought crime and a number of other social and cultural problems with them.
Just as in America, there was a code of Political Correctness observed by the controlled media and the government. Under this code, non-Whites could do no wrong. Whenever there was a conflict between Whites and non-Whites, the Whites were blamed. Young Whites felt abandoned by their government. With a high unemployment rate, very limited prospects for improvement, and the breakup and destruction of their ancestral communities, they saw no future for themselves. Banding together and adopting a characteristic manner of dress and grooming was their way of asserting themselves and finding an identity. They were young, White, working class, and alienated. They were the original skinheads.
The skinhead culture spread to the United States, because the same social and racial decay and the same abandonment of young, working-class Whites by the government and other institutions exist here. In our large cities, with their heavy concentrations of non-Whites, many young Whites turn to the skinhead movement for a sense of security. As members of skinhead groups they don't feel so alone and helpless. Other than their desire to band together and find a sense of identity -- and sometimes security -- skinheads don't have as much in common as the controlled media would have us believe. Some skinhead groups spend a lot of their time in mindless drinking and brawling. Others believe in clean living, and fight only when attacked. Some skinheads use drugs, but most don't. And while many skinheads in the United States have no racial consciousness, no sense of racial identity or loyalty, a growing minority of them are consciously and even outspokenly pro-White. Some of these refer to themselves as White power skinheads.
One attitude common to most skinheads is a strong dislike for government and the police. In part this is the consequence of the police reaction to the lawlessness of many skinheads. The police are not inclined to make distinctions between the clean-living skinheads and those who engage in drunken brawling. When the police see tattoos, short hair, and Doc Marten boots, they see trouble, and they tend therefore to take a very hostile and aggressive attitude toward any skinhead they meet. The skinheads who try to stay out of trouble resent this presumption of guilt. They resent having their rights violated by the police, just because some skinheads are lawbreakers.
Beyond this reaction to police prejudice against them, there is the more fundamental attitude among skinheads that they have been abandoned by the rest of the White society, and so they aren't as inclined to give blind respect and obedience to that society's institutions. Skinheads living in America's minority-ridden cities know what the public schools have become. They also know that the mainstream society insists on pretending that everything is still A-OK. Of course, there's talk by the controlled media about how standards have fallen in the schools, and about how big the problems of drugs and violence in the schools have become, but there's no mention at all of the cause of these problems, which is the fact that the schools are no longer White. No one will mention the problem of race in the schools, because he's afraid of being attacked by the controlled media as a racist.
Wealthy White parents get around the problem by sending their sons and daughters to exclusive private schools. Middle-class parents alleviate the problem by moving to the suburbs, so their children can go to somewhat safer -- which is to say, Whiter -- schools. White working-class kids are left to fend for themselves. No one else will stand up for them. They see the hypocrisy and the cowardice on the part of their elders, and it does not tend to increase their respect for authority, whether that authority is represented by the police or by school officials, who always blame them rather than the Blacks when there is a clash between Whites and Blacks.
Policemen, on the other hand, tend to respect authority. People who choose to go into police work tend to have a more authoritarian personality than the average person. They instinctively resent people who don't play by the standard rules. They don't like boat-rockers. They don't like non-conformists. They don't like people with a different life-style. And probably that's the way it ought to be -- within limits. The police, after all, have the job of protecting society. We want them to have their hearts in their job.
The problem is that many of the authorities in America have become corrupt. Some of those authorities have become a much greater threat to our society than the criminals the police are hired to protect us from. I'll give you an example that pertains directly to skinheads. The Jews, both in this country and in Europe where the skinhead movement originated, have viewed that movement with fear and loathing from the beginning, because it was beyond their control. Young working-class Whites weren't supposed to fight back against the Jewish policies and programs which were aimed at the destruction of White society and eventually the destruction of the White race. They were supposed to roll over and play dead. They were supposed to become Politically Correct, like so many middle-class kids who went off to college. The Jews fought back against the skinhead movement at two levels. First they tried to subvert it. They sponsored groups such as Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice, which is known by its acronym SHARP. They encouraged drug usage among skinheads. They encouraged rap music and racial mixing. Despite these Jewish efforts at subversion, however, racial consciousness among skinheads has continued to grow.
Then the Jews tried to brainwash the public against skinheads through their controlled media. They produced a number of made-for-TV films in Hollywood which portrayed skinheads as hateful, depraved, and dangerous. You may have seen some of these films. A few titles from the last few years were Skinheads -- the Second Coming of Hate -- that's the first one I remember seeing -- and then there were Dead Bang, and So Proudly We Hail. These hatemongering films contained the same sort of distortion and deceit as the films the Jews have been turning out for decades to make the Germans of the Second World War era look hateful and depraved.
At the same time a number of Jewish propaganda organizations, such as the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, Klanwatch, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, began offering their services to police departments around the country as experts on what they like to call hate crimes and hate groups. All of these Jewish propaganda organizations are well-connected politically, and so they can approach police departments draped in the false cloak of authority. They offer seminars and training programs to the police, supposedly to teach them about the dangers represented by skinheads and to sensitize them to the needs of minorities.
The result of all of this is that the police get a very prejudiced view of skinheads before they ever meet one. Along with the very real lawlessness and disorder on the part of many skinheads, this prejudice practically guarantees that the police and the skinheads will despise each other. And that's too bad.
It's too bad, because the police, like the skinheads, are exposed every day to the filth and degeneracy that are taking over our whole society. Most middle-class folks are able to evade the crime and, more than that, the awful reality of what America has become in this Jewish effort to multiculturalize us. They know that there are certain parts of town where they must not go after dark, other areas where if their cars break down even in the daytime they will be in grave danger. They learn the rules for survival. They move to the suburbs. And they pray that the city won't follow them there. They pray that the gangs and the drive-by shootings won't come to their neighborhood. They pray that their children won't get hooked on drugs. They pray that their daughters won't get pregnant. And they ignore the filth. They pretend that it doesn't exist. They don't want to be considered racists.
And for the most part they survive. And when the filth does catch up with the middle class, it's usually only individuals who get hurt: a White family which gets pulled down into the filth here, a young woman there, a teenaged boy somewhere else. The rest can go on pretending that it didn't happen, that everything is still OK -- at least, for the time being.
But the police know that things are not OK. They have to deal with the filth every day. They can't pretend that it doesn't exist. They know that it can be evaded only temporarily. They know that it is growing and that it eventually will follow everyone to the suburbs. They know that it must be fought and destroyed, or it will destroy all of us.
The racially conscious skinheads understand this too. That's what they have in common with the police. And the hour is too late for any of the segments of our people who understand this to be fighting against each other. We need to be standing together, all of us, against the common enemy.
Of course, it's easy to say this, but very difficult to put it into practice. There remains the problem of the drunkenness and lawlessness of many skinheads. We cannot condone drunkenness or mindless brawling or vandalism or drug use, even if we understand the reasons for this behavior, even if we understand that skinheads are alienated from this society because of what it has become.
What we have to do is encourage in every way we can the growth of the racially conscious portion of the skinhead community. We have to give young people back their sense of identity. We have to give them purpose and direction again. We have to help them value self-discipline and clean living again. This is one of the tasks the National Alliance has set for itself. Of course, it is precisely the racially conscious portion of the skinhead community which the Jews hate and fear. The Jewish propaganda organizations don't care at all about skinhead drinking and brawling, but they're scared to death of the skinheads finding a sense of racial identity and a purpose and cleaning themselves up and working for a common goal. And so it is specifically the racially conscious skinheads against whom these Jewish organizations like B'nai B'rith indoctrinate and prejudice the police.
This police prejudice is bad enough, but it is compounded in all too many cases by police corruption, by police who behave in a hostile and aggressive way toward skinheads, even to the point of violating the law themselves, because they know that the skinheads are out of favor with the political power structure and the controlled media, and these policemen want to ingratiate themselves with their superiors. I'm aware of cases where the police have arrested young Whites, then put them in large cells with a number of Black criminals and deliberately incited the Blacks to attack and sodomize them. Perhaps the police believe that they will receive some sort of multiculturalism award from the B'nai B'rith for such atrocious behavior.
So we have an educational job to do on our policemen as well as on skinheads. Ultimately we need to get rid of the corrupt cops just as much as we need to get rid of drunken, tattooed brawlers. Most of all we need to get rid of those who have corrupted the cops and who also have designed -- deliberately designed -- the social conditions which have robbed so many of our young people of hope for the future and of a pride in their identity, leading them to adopt an anti- social and self-destructive life-style. Unfortunately, the National Alliance lacks the means at this time for cleaning up our police departments or our youth as a whole. We also lack the means to prevent the Jews from continuing their destructive policies for the time being. But we can educate. We can continue reaching at least that portion of our youth who have become racially conscious and are looking for the right direction. And hopefully we can help some of our uncorrupted policemen to understand that not every Politically Incorrect young person is a trouble-maker.
Some people ask me: Why do you bother with skinheads at all? Isn't it better to try to reach the kids in the universities? After all, it's the kids in the universities who one day will be in the decision-making positions in the educational establishment, in business, in the military, in industry, and even in government agencies. Those are the ones whose thinking you need to influence now.
And, of course, they're right -- at least, partly right. The kids with the tattoos are pretty well locked out of the decision-making process. It'll take a revolution to change that. We do need to influence the kids in the universities, and we're working on that.
But when I compare the average university student of today with the average skinhead, I am troubled by two things. The first thing is that most of the White university students have not had the close contact with racial reality that skinheads have had. The average White university student has not had to fight physically for his survival. He has never been threatened with a knife by a Black thug or been beaten up by a Black gang. He has never been tear-gassed or hit with a nightstick. He has never been thrown in jail. His understanding of the racial problem is only theoretical. His understanding of the corruption of our society and our government is only theoretical. We need people who understand from personal experience just how bad things have become in America, who understand just how dangerous the situation is -- people who have learned how to hate evil from the bottom of their guts and who are willing to do whatever is necessary to destroy that evil before it destroys all of us.
The second thing which troubles me is the relatively few White students in our universities who have any real manliness in their characters. We have too many whiners and wimps, too much timidity, too much softness. Certainly not all White university students are wimps, but far too many are, and on the average they do not compare well with the skinheads in this regard. If America is to be saved, if our people are to be saved, we need men and women who are intelligent and educated and disciplined, but we also need men and women who are tough and hard and brave. We need the best of the university students, the best of the university professors, the best of the policemen -- and we need the best of the skinheads. We need the best people from every sector of White society, standing together and fighting together, if any of us are to have a future.
Brainwashing in America
WE'VE TALKED HERE about a number of very important things in recent months: about the damage done to the American standard of living and to American sovereignty by the New World Order planners and their various free trade schemes; about the efforts of the government and the controlled media to disarm American citizens, so that they cannot rebel; about attempts to scuttle the First Amendment and outlaw Politically Incorrect speech.
Most recently we've talked about the ways in which the controlled media use the average American's desire to be fashionable, to be trendy, as a means to manipulate his attitudes and opinions -- in other words, to brainwash him. Today we'll focus on this last topic, because it's really the key to everything else.
How much more pleasant and progressive a world this would be if all of us were rational creatures -- and honest too! Honesty is important. But the fact is that most of us think with our emotions instead of with our reasoning faculty. We will believe the most absurd things, if we have some emotional compulsion to do so. And even when our emotions don't have us entirely convinced, we'll pretend that they do, if there is a compelling reason. We'll be dishonest in telling other people what we believe.
For example, the opinions of many of us on the subject of race are determined not by observation and reason, but by fear of being unfashionable -- and by other emotions besides fear in many cases. And even those of us who do not have fashionable ideas on race -- even those of us whose ideas have been shaped by observation and reason -- often are not honest in expressing our ideas to others. We still fear being thought unfashionable by others, and so we lie about what we believe.
I spoke a few weeks ago about the ways in which the controlled media have used our lack of reason and our lack of honesty -- or lack of courage -- to manipulate our attitudes on racial matters and to manipulate governmental policies on race as well. By presenting us with certain images which have an emotional impact and repeatedly associating those images with certain ideas, the men who control the news and entertainment media establish conditioned reflexes in the public. In other words, they brainwash us. They make us think the way they want us to think, not by showing us evidence and reasoning with us, but by understanding how to push the right emotional buttons on us.
In my last talk with you I gave the example of the way in which the controlled media manipulated public opinion during the time of all the civil disorders connected with the effort to force racial mixing between Whites and Blacks -- the so-called civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 60s. Our television screens showed us scenes calculated by the media controllers to make us sympathize with Black civil rights demonstrators and to make us embarrassed by the Whites who opposed them. They showed us White Klansmen pulling Blacks off buses and beating them with baseball bats. They showed us White policemen siccing their dogs on Black marchers in Alabama. Not typical scenes, certainly, but scenes carefully selected for their emotional impact. Of course, they could have chosen images which would have had exactly the opposite effect. Instead of showing us Black demonstrators being beaten by angry Whites, they could have shown us interviews with the White victims of Black crime -- or with the relatives of White victims. They could have shown us residential neighborhoods which used to be White and decent before the government brought Blacks in, and which then became filthy and crime-ridden afterward. They could have interviewed some of the elderly White people trapped in these neighborhoods because they couldn't afford to move, and let these people tell us on the air how their lives had been turned into a living hell. Instead of showing us polite, neatly dressed Black children being escorted into a newly integrated White school by Federal marshals while White students jeered and cursed them, they could have shown us examples of the decay and degradation which inevitably followed the racial integration of the schools: the graffiti on the walls, the gang fights, the disorder in the classrooms. They could have hardened our will to oppose the destruction of our schools and neighborhoods, made us feel that it was our duty, instead of making us feel guilty for opposing racial mixing.
But the controlled media have their agenda, their goal, and that goal is always to break down the structure of our society, to lower our standards, to destroy our morale, to undermine our solidarity, to corrupt and confuse us. We always can predict the side the controlled media will be on in any social or economic or cultural or racial dispute. It always will be the side which weakens us as a people.
Another example of this process of brainwashing by the media has been their treatment of the campaign to make homosexuality acceptable to the average person. I don't know whether or not you've ever actually been physically present at a public demonstration by homosexuals, but let me tell you, they're pretty disgusting. Among homosexuals there seems to be an unusually high percentage of exhibitionists, of in-your-face types who like to show their contempt for normal people by shocking them. But when these homosexual demonstrations are televised, the viewers don't see the worst of this disgusting behavior. It's covered up by the media, who try to make these sick creatures seem almost normal to us.
I was living in the Washington, DC, area during the latter part of the Vietnam war. I went downtown to observe several of the big demonstrations first hand. The media always called them peace demonstrations. I was more naive at that time than I am now, and I was absolutely flabbergasted when I compared the news coverage of a demonstration with what I had actually seen with my own eyes just a few hours earlier.
These demonstrations always had a big contingent of communists in the lead, with other communist groups scattered among the rest of the marchers. The Communist Party USA was there with its big red banners and its pictures of Marx and Lenin. The Trotskyites were there with their banners. The Young People's Socialist League, the Progressive Labor Party, the Revolutionary Communist Party, and all the rest. They all carried Viet Cong flags as well as their own banners. Most of them were bussed in from New York, and there was a high percentage of really greasy-looking Jews among them, Marx- and Trotsky-type Jews.
The great majority of the demonstrators weren't card-carrying members of any of these communist groups. They were just liberals and leftists of various stripes, many of them students like Bill Clinton at the time, who were there because it was the fashionable thing to do. But these Bill Clinton types were marching arm in arm with genuine Reds who were carrying Viet Cong flags. This was at a time when the Viet Cong were killing an average of 100 American soldiers every day.
Anyway, when I saw the television news coverage of the demonstration that evening and saw the pictures in the Washington Post the next morning, I looked in vain for any of the communist banners which had been so evident when I was there. The people in the controlled media had deliberately sanitized their coverage of the demonstration. They had cropped their pictures so that the communist banners and placards didn't show. They had turned their cameras on the normal-looking demonstrators and on the less- inflammatory placards: the ones that merely called for an end to the war instead of the ones which called for a Viet Cong victory.
The cameras sought out young women marchers carrying children in their arms and focused on them. Or if someone was pushing a baby carriage, she was sure to be seen in the television coverage. When the demonstrators began to chant, Ho, ho, ho Chi Minh, the Viet Cong's gonna win, the audio background would be blanked so television viewers wouldn't hear it, and the commentator would begin speaking.
The controlled media had made these demonstrations look respectable. They had made it look like the people opposed to an American victory were normal, decent folks like you and me, who merely wanted peace, just as they had made it look like the people opposed to forced racial mixing were hooligans.
You see, the people who control television are able to control our society, because they understand how to use this powerful weapon effectively. They understand how to manipulate the attitudes and opinions of the public with it. They don't try to tell us, of course, exactly how we must vote in each election. They just determine which ideas and policies to make fashionable, and which ideas and policies to make unfashionable. Once the media have done that, the politicians -- both Democrats and Republicans -- pretty well fall into line. The media masters are willing to let us decide whether we want Bill Clinton or George Bush in the White House, because they know that neither one of these politicians will dare to be unfashionable on the really important issues.
This ability to dictate what will be fashionable and what will be unfashionable by playing on the emotions of the public is the greatest power wielded in the world today. It is an absolute disaster for us that this power is in the hands of Jews rather than our own people. But that's the way things are at the moment. We have to understand that. And we have to fight it. We have to try to take that power away from those who wield it now and return it to our own people. There are several ways in which we can fight, and we'll talk about them.
I'll tell you one way, though, that we can't fight. We can't fight by trying to make the great majority of our people think with their heads instead of their emotions. We can't fight by trying to get people to substitute reason for fear and guilt and the other emotions on which the media masters play so skillfully. People are constituted the way they are, and we have to accept it. We can't change that. Most people always will be subject to manipulation by whoever has the power to set fashions. What we have to do is take that power away from those who have it now. One thing that we can do, even though it's very difficult, is try to give more people the courage to be honest. I was a physics professor at a university back during the 1960s, when the so-called civil rights turmoil was very much in the news. Blacks were demanding this and demanding that, and they were rioting and marching and burning things and generally raising hell. Well, I observed all of these things, and I thought about them, and I talked with my colleagues at the university about them.
My colleagues could be divided into three groups, based on their responses to my expression of concern about what was happening.
First, there were the trendies, the liberals, the ones who held a moistened forefinger up to the breeze of propaganda coming from their television receivers and adjusted their opinions accordingly. One could argue with them, but there really was no point in it. They were absolutely determined to believe whatever was fashionable, and they weren't going to let facts or reason get in their way.
Second, there were the Jews, who are a lot more numerous on university campuses than they are in the general population. One didn't need to argue with them either. They were all up to their necks in various civil rights activities: organizing committees to hire more non-White faculty members or recruit more non-White students, demanding that the university's trustees get rid of all their investments in South Africa, and so on.
Finally, there were colleagues who were open-minded enough so that I could talk with them about what was going on. They weren't taken in by the TV propaganda, and they formed their own opinions about things. With very few exceptions, however, they were not willing to express their views publicly. They let themselves be intimidated by the Jews and the trendies. Many of them behaved in a dishonest way, telling me one thing in private and behaving in public as if they agreed with the current TV fashion. They were, I believe, unduly timid, unduly afraid of the consequences of opposing the Jews and the trendies.
It is true, of course, that there was a certain amount of physical intimidation: tire slashing, disruptions in class, the threat of violence, which the advocates of Political Correctness have never hesitated to use. But I believe that if those who opposed the politicizing and corruption of our universities had been bolder and had stood together, the way their opponents did, they could have prevailed in many cases. In many of our universities they could have preserved the atmosphere of academic freedom and the academic standards which used to prevail.
Actually the situation was a bit more complex than I have indicated. The government and the media both were leaning on the universities to lower their standards. It would have been necessary to defy the government as well as the Jews and the trendies. Eventually it would have been necessary to weed out the Jews and reestablish the bans on hiring Jewish faculty members which our universities used to have in order to protect themselves from subversion. This would have entailed a real fight, a major disruption at every university: the sort of disruptions which actually occurred on many campuses during the 1960s and 70s, when Blacks and Jews really turned things upside down and established the tyranny of Political Correctness which still rules. Even then the professors who disagreed with what was happening failed to speak out effectively against it or to display any sort of solidarity. The consequence of this failure . . . well, we all know what the consequence was. It was the destruction of our universities. Worse, it was their conversion to enemy assets. We can still go to an American university for a technical education - - to learn engineering or chemistry or mathematics -- but we certainly can no longer acquire there what used to be called a liberal education. We certainly can no longer acquire there the knowledge and feeling for our civilization which in the past prepared us to be defenders and builders of that civilization.
What remains of our universities is really pitiful to behold, really disgusting. The people in charge present the worst possible example to the young people there. They are lickspittles and hypocrites, liars and wimps, without the slightest trace of manliness, honor, or self-respect. They teach doctrines which are fashionable, but which they know are false. They grovel at the feet of the Jews and other minorities in order to keep their jobs.
Just last month the president of Rutgers University, which used to be a fine institution, was desperately trying to hold his job after he made a slip and actually said something which everyone knows is true, but which it is Politically Incorrect to mention. In an address to faculty members he pointed out that Blacks simply don't have the genetic quality to meet the standards set for White students. Well, of course, one of the monitors of Political Correctness recorded his comments and gave the recording to the controlled media, which immediately began howling for his blood.
Instead of defending what he had said and backing it up with evidence, the president began groveling and apologizing. He whined and begged. He said he really hadn't meant what he said -- that it had just slipped out, and it was exactly the opposite of what he really believed. Probably many of you saw the news stories. Truly pathetic!
To have saved our universities from what they have become today would have been worth any sort of disruption, any sort of temporary unpleasantness.
The point is that just a little honesty, a little courage, at the right time could have prevented a great tragedy.
Do you think that I'm being naive in asking for honesty, when so little is evident in our national life?
You should understand that I'm not asking for courage from people who have none in them. But there still are a few individuals who are capable of being honest, even in our universities, even in our government, a few who have the courage to be honest -- if they're given a little encouragement, if someone else will set an example for them.
We're trying to set an example with our radio broadcasts. But many of you who are listening also can set examples.
We should never think: Well, I'm only one person. What I do or don't do isn't important. I can't make a difference by myself. That kind of thinking is wrong. We can make a difference, because courage is contagious. It spreads from person to person.
And it's powerful. One courageous truthteller can back down a thousand cowards and liars and hypocrites. He can send a whole regiment of Jewish media bosses scurrying for cover, like vampires fleeing the light of the rising sun.
There has never been a time in the long history of our race when we were more in need of a few honest men and women, a few people of courage and integrity. There has never been another time when a few good men and women had the opportunity to make such a big difference as they can make now.
Let's do it!
Terror Breeds Terror: Oklahoma City in Perspective
WHEN THE FEDERAL building in Oklahoma City was blown up a few days ago, I was shocked. I didn't know who had done the bombing, of course, but I had a very strong feeling that it was no coincidence that it came on the second anniversary of the Clinton massacre at Waco. I felt an intuition close to certainty that the bombing had not been an attack by foreigners aimed at America but instead was an attack by Americans aimed specifically at Clinton and his kind.
I listened to the expressions of pious outrage by Bill Clinton and Janet Reno and the other government gangsters on television that evening, and I thought, "You hypocrites! What do you expect? You are the real terrorists. When a government engages in terrorism against its own citizens, it should not be surprised when some of those citizens strike back and engage in terrorism against the government. You are the ones responsible for this bombing, for the deaths of these children."
Terrorism is a nasty business. Most of its victims are innocent people. Some of the office workers who died in the Federal Building in Oklahoma City may have been as much against the Clinton government as were those who set off the bomb. But terrorism is a form of warfare, and in war most of the victims are noncombatants. Certainly, none of us can condone the killing of children, but in fact it is the Clinton government which has led the way in the killing of children. About as many children died in the Waco massacre alone as in the Oklahoma City bombing. It really infuriates me to see creatures like Bill Clinton and Janet Reno shedding crocodile tears over slaughtered children. These two are using the bodies of the dead children as a shield for themselves. How many tears did they shed over the children they burned to death in Waco? The hatred one hears in their voices when they talk about the Oklahoma City bombers is not because children were killed; it is because they know that the bombing was aimed at them, at Bill Clinton and company.
Americans haven't had a real war fought on their own soil for 130 years. We haven't experienced any significant domestic terrorism since Bill Clinton and his pro-Viet Cong buddies were burning ROTC buildings and bombing draft offices back during the Vietnam war, and that was relatively tame stuff. I think things are about to change.
The U.S. government has been trashing other people's countries for a long time now and getting away with it. The U.S. government has been sponsoring Israeli terrorism in the Middle East for nearly 50 years, financing and condoning the assassinations and bombings of Arabs by Jews year after year, with remarkable forbearance on the part of the Arabs. The bombing of the World Trade Center in New York by Muslims was a very small reprisal for all of that.
After the U.S. government smashed Iraq four years ago in order to make the Middle East safe for Greater Israel, slaughtering thousands of Iraqi children in the process, there was much government talk about the danger of Iraqi terrorism, but nothing ever came of it. But now something new is about to happen, I believe. A growing number of Americans have such a hatred of the government in Washington that some of them will commit desperate and foolish acts like the Oklahoma City bombing. A growing number will turn to terrorism as their only weapon against a terrorist government. And I suspect that we'll see some real terrorism -- planned, organized terrorism -- before too long. I suspect that a growing number of exasperated, fed-up Americans will begin engaging in terrorism on a scale that the world has never seen before.
As I said a moment ago, my first suspicion was that the Oklahoma City bombing might have been done by persons sympathetic to the victims of the government's Waco massacre. Things have reached the point in America, however, that this bombing could have been done by any of a very large number of angry, desperate people. The FBI has a list of potential terrorists that it checks whenever something like this happens, but in recent years that list has grown so large that it's become practically useless. This may come as a surprise to some citizens, but, believe me, there are many, many Americans who have come to consider the U.S. government their worst enemy. And among those Americans there are some who feel a sense of responsibility to do something about that enemy.
Let's get specific. If you watch a lot of television, you're easily misled into believing that the attitudes and sentiments you see on your screen are those of all Americans. They aren't. They are the attitudes and sentiments of those segments of the population which believe that things have never been better in America and that we have a wonderful government. Foremost among these are the media people themselves -- not just the Jewish media bosses, but all of those who have their snouts in the media trough, including the commentators. And, of course, there are the politicians and the bureaucrats. And the homosexuals and the career women. And the minorities. The Clinton constituency. They just love all of the artificial equality and all of the special privileges which have been bestowed on them. They can't imagine why anyone would want to go back to the bad, old days when this was a White country, and men were men, and women were women, and the freaks stayed in the closet, and everyone worked for his living.
Watching television you'd never know it, but there are some normal people with healthy instincts left in America. And not just heterosexual White males. There are still White women left in this country who believe that being a mother and a homemaker is not a fate worse than death: women who don't want more laws requiring that they be hired as prison guards or furniture movers or making it a "hate crime" to hold a door open for them, but who do want a clean, healthy, White world for their children to grow up in.
Certainly, not all of these normal, healthy White men and women are potential terrorists. But a very substantial portion of them are intensely hostile to the government. That portion can only grow during the next few years. It's not just the Waco massacre or the bombing of Baghdad or this country's criminal policy in the Middle East which makes so many Americans hate their government. It's what the government has done to America.
It's the government's deliberate flooding of our country with non-Whites from the Third World, and the refusal to halt the massive illegal immigration across our border with Mexico and the Caribbean. It's the government's catering to the worst elements in the population, buying their votes with welfare programs paid for by our hard work.
It's the government's theft of our freedom -- with ever more oppressive taxes, with ever more restrictive rules and regulations of one sort or another, with efforts to take away our right to protect ourselves and our families.
It's the more and more obviously corrupt and degenerate politicians who are holding the highest offices in the government: crooks and liars of the sort typified by Bill Clinton.
It's the government's treasonous abdication of the responsibility entrusted to it, its shortsighted quest for votes, its willingness always to be led by the Jewish media rather than by a concern for the good of the country.
It's the government's deliberate turning away from the people who built America and its cynical promotion of "multiculturalism," with the consequent ruin of our schools, the degradation of our popular culture, and the conversion of our cities into crime-infested hell holes. The government and the controlled media are responsible for the spiritual poisoning of our young people: young Whites singing rap ditties and behaving like Blacks.
To yuppies in New York and Washington, none of these things may seem very important. For people who have never had an unfashionable thought in their heads, for people who turn to their television for all of their opinions and attitudes, it may be hard to understand why anyone would be upset about what the government has done to America. But, believe me, there are plenty of people who are very upset.
People used to complain about the government's destructive policies, and they used to write their Congressmen and hope that what was happening was only a temporary aberration. But after decades of writing their Congressmen and watching things become worse and worse, they're just plain mad as hell. The privileged classes I named a minute ago -- the Jews and the politicians and the homosexuals and the minorities and the female executives -- who believe that this is the best of all possible worlds, have no idea how angry, how furious, normal Americans are. And, as I said, they're only going to get madder as time goes on. The ones who aren't mad are the ones who've simply become alienated. They have given up all hope for restoring any sort of sanity or decency to the country and are just looking out for themselves.
When people are pushed as far as they are willing to go, and when they believe that they have nothing left to lose, then they will resort to terrorism. There will be more and more such people in the future. Even if they have no well thought-out plan, even if they belong to no organization and have no real ideology, even if they only are striking out as angry, frustrated individuals, their numbers and their deeds will grow. Such disorganized terrorism, motivated by anger rather than by a plan, will never bring down the government. About all it can accomplish is the weakening of the self-confidence of the government's supporters and the encouragement of the government's enemies. A long enough and intense enough period of terrorism can discourage many people from making long-term career plans and can lead to more of a short-term mind-set in the general population, a "let's get through life one day at a time" outlook. But by itself it can't really accomplish anything positive.
It's really too bad that innocent people will die -- especially innocent children. It's too bad that people will be maimed and injured. It's too bad that people will be made fearful. If people could act in a rational way, all of that could be avoided. But they never do. When a civilization is dying, when the soul of a people is being poisoned, all sorts of irrational behavior takes place. The government does bizarre and destructive things. Individual citizens do bizarre and destructive things. And bloodshed and suffering are inevitable. It will become worse. There is nothing the government can do to stop it -- certainly not a government headed by the likes of Bill Clinton. So what ought people like us to do: people who approve of neither government terrorism, such as the Waco massacre or the bombing of Baghdad, nor private terrorism, such as the Oklahoma City bombing? Should we just sit on our hands and watch the government terrorists and the private terrorists fight it out?
That, unfortunately, is what most of us have been doing until now. We've watched it all on television, but we haven't done anything about it. I believe that it's time for a few of us to begin shouldering a little responsibility for what's going on in the world around us. After all, it's our civilization they're destroying.
Here's what I believe that we can and should do. We should help the more perceptive members of the public to see terrorism in its context, rather than merely as a series of individual acts. Back during the Vietnam war, when Bill Clinton's buddies were bombing ROTC buildings and draft board offices, and when they used a fertilizer bomb of the same sort used in Oklahoma City to blow up a research center at the University of Wisconsin, the context was clear. The terrorism was a protest against U.S. involvement in the war. The whole public understood that.
We need to help people understand that a good bit, if not all, of the private terrorism we'll be seeing in the future will be a protest against the government's destruction of America. And most of the government terrorism will be an effort to frighten the government's critics into silence and inactivity. More and more, the government will lash out at dissidents, at anyone who is not Politically Correct. And the two sides will feed on each other: the more repressive and terroristic the government becomes, the more individuals there'll be who'll engage in terrorism to get back at the government. And the more individual terrorism there is against the government, the more terroristic the government will become in turn. And the rest of us will be caught between them. More important than helping people understand the cause of private terrorism is helping them to understand the role of the government in terrorism. The problem is that when the government commits a terrorist act, it's not called terrorism. It's always called something else. That confuses people. I'll bet that before the Oklahoma City bombing ninety per cent of the general public couldn't have told you what happened in Waco, Texas, two years ago. And most of those who did remember the Waco massacre remembered it the way the controlled media described it: as a justified police raid on a group of dangerous extremists.
"Extremists": that's one of those buzz words the controlled media and the governmemt use when they want to prejudice the public against someone. The public needs to be told that the people killed at Waco were just members of a fundamentalist Christian church that didn't like the government, but they were no threat to anybody. The government had no business interfering in their lives. The people who ordered the raid on the Branch Davidian church which killed nearly a hundred innocent people, mostly women and children, were Bill Clinton and Janet Reno. They did it simply because the Davidians were different. Their religion was odd. They weren't part of the mainstream. They weren't fashionable.
And Bill Clinton and Janet Reno are still sitting in their offices in Washington, condemning other terrorists, telling everyone that they won't tolerate terrorism. And as long as people like them are allowed to hold pubic office and to get away with mass murder, we'll have a growing problem of terrorism to worry about. People need to understand that.
We'll never have peace in America until the general public understands the government's role in provoking and committing terrorism and is ready to call the government to account for it. I don't know who set off the bomb in Oklahoma city or exactly what their motive was, but I have a suspicion that if Bill Clinton and Janet Reno had been put on trial for murdering all those children in Waco two years ago, there wouldn't have been an Oklahoma City bombing a week ago. Violence breeds violence. I wish there were a way we could stop it, but I think that about all we can do now is understand it and try to help other people understand it too. The bond of trust between the U.S. government and its citizens has been broken, and it's far too late to mend it. The rift between normal, healthy Americans and the Clinton constituency will continue to grow. Let's try to keep as many of those normal Americans as we can looking at the big picture and not letting themselves be confused by the controlled media.
The Clinton constituency, the privileged classes who support government terrorism against the rest of us, will be pushing hard for more government repression. They'll be pushing for scrapping what's left of the First Amendment and passing laws against any form of Politically Incorrect expression. They believe that if they can control what normal Americans read and hear and think, they can control what we do. Even before the Oklahoma City bombing, Jewish groups such as the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Southern Poverty Law Center and the B'nai B'rith were lobbying for laws to keep Politically Incorrect ideas off the "information superhighway," off the Internet. Now they'll use each new incident of terrorism as an excuse for censorship, for repression, for controlling what people are permitted to say and hear and read and write. They'll say, "If there had been more laws against `extremists,' against people who don't like the government, against people who don't think the way we tell them to think, this wouldn't have happened." They'll try to stampede a timid, frightened, confused public into allowing the government to take away even more of their rights in return for the false promise of more security.
Our task is to halt that stampede by helping people understand who America's real enemies are, by helping them understand the underlying causes of terrorism, and by encouraging them to stand together in a united front against government terrorism. We must begin laying the groundwork for an America in which there is no terrorism.
Non-White Immigration: Death Sentence for America
TODAY WE'LL TAKE A LOOK into the future -- a look into what the future will be like if we all remain spectators and simply let the present course of events continue.
And we'll also look at what the future could be if we choose to become participants in the historical process instead of merely remaining spectators.
I will tailor these two visions of the future especially for those of us who live in North America - - but in broad outline they will be recognizable by all of us, no matter what part of the White world we live in.
First, let's look at the future we will have if we continue behaving just as we are now: if we continue watching TV, paying our taxes, and letting the politicians and the controlled media run the country.
Consider demographics, for example: the relative numbers of the different types of people in America. During the 50 years since the Second World War, America has been darkening, has been getting less and less White. Immigration from Europe was cut off after the war -- except for Jews, of course -- and the floodgates from the non-White world were opened. Asians and mestizos have been pouring into the country, both legally and illegally.
Most of these non-White races breed much faster than Whites do. The result has been a steady rise in the percentage of non-White minorities in America. If you live on a farm in Kansas or the Dakotas you may not have noticed the change. If you live in Florida or California or New York, however, you certainly have noticed it. In fact, most of our people who live in America's larger cities have had their faces rubbed in it.
If things continue as they are going now, there is no chance at all that this situation will become better. Non-White immigrants will continue pouring into America, because no matter how bad things get here, conditions will be even worse where these immigrants came from. The government will not even try to halt the illegal part of this non-White flood, because the government doesn't really want it halted. And the non-Whites already here will continue to have more children than the Whites. At some time in the next century Whites will become a minority in North America. And the flood will continue.
And the television propaganda telling us that the flood of non-Whites really is a good thing will continue too. The politicians will continue to sing the praises of "diversity" and "multiculturalism," in tune with the television. We will be told that if we object to the flood we are "haters" and "racists." Interracial sex will continue to be presented as fashionable by the media. And what was a White country 50 years ago will gradually become a Brown country. Of course, even a hundred years from now there may be a few super-rich White families who will be able to keep their heads above the flood on their own private islands, with their private security forces, but for the rest of us there will be no White schools, no White neighborhoods, no White clubs or bars or restaurants. We will be submerged: that is, our grandchildren will be submerged. That's the way it has been planned, and that is the way it will happen -- not may happen, but will happen -- if we don't interfere: if we just keep watching TV, paying our taxes, and voting for the Democrats or the Republicans.
Right now I can almost hear the hoots and groans from a million or so Politically Correct idiots. "What difference does it make whether America is White or Brown?" they are saying. "What difference does it make what color our grandchildren are? Color is only skin deep. After all, we're all the same; we're all equal." Or, if they're onto the very latest Politically Correct fad, they are saying, "There really is no such thing as race. Scientists have proved that race is just an illusion created by racists to keep us all apart."
Really, there is no fad too foolish or too perverse, no opinion too contrary to the facts, for these Politically Correct lemmings to adopt, once it has been declared fashionable by the controlled media. But certainly the lemmings will have their way -- if the rest of us do nothing.
Or consider crime. The lemmings would have us believe that crime is the result of "oppression" and "injustice" by heterosexual White males, and that it will disappear as soon as we have a society where no one is "discriminated against" and where all of the officially favored minorities are given everything they want. I don't think that even the lemmings really believe that, but that's what the television has taught them to say, and so that's what they say.
You and I, on the other hand, understand that as we have given the minorities more and more handouts, as we have given them every sort of advantage over ourselves -- all sorts of affirmative action preferences in admissions to universities and professional schools, in the granting of financial aid, in hiring and promotions -- crime has become worse and worse. Passing laws requiring us to favor them and prohibiting us from discriminating against them in any way has made their behavior steadily worse -- not better.
It used to be that nearly all crimes committed by Blacks were against other Blacks. They knew that if they attacked a White person they would be severely punished, and besides, segregation kept them pretty much among themselves and didn't give them many opportunities for mischief. Now we've taught them that they don't have to fear us or respect us. The controlled media have persuaded them that we have oppressed and persecuted them and that whatever they do to us serves us right.
You know and I know that the crime situation can only become worse in the future, if for no other reason than that the number of Blacks and other minorities will continue growing. We have only to look to the continent of Africa in order to see our own future. Before Europeans came to Africa, the Blacks there were eating each other, literally, just like the other animals. We outlawed cannibalism among the Blacks, and for more than 300 years we tried to teach them the ways of civilization. Then after the Second World War, in a spasm of lunatic egalitarianism, we turned our colonies in Africa over to the indigenous Blacks and left them to their own devices: no oppression, no persecution, every advantage for success.
And what happened? The Blacks reverted to their jungle behavior almost as soon as we had left. Even in South Africa, which until very recently was a civilized, White country, the jungle is reasserting itself. The financial capital, Johannesburg, which a couple of years ago was as safe and clean as any city in Europe, has become so crime-ridden since the handing over of the country to Black rule that its streets are now among the most dangerous in the world, with armed Black gangs prowling in search of prey by day as well as by night. It may be another 30 or 40 years before conditions in South Africa resemble those in Rwanda or Uganda, but that's exactly where they're headed.
And it may take more than 100 years for America to get there, but that's where we're headed too. There is a fundamental law of Nature which also applies to the historical process. It is the law of entropy. It tells us that if we have a highly developed civilization in one part of the world and a jungle society in another part of the world, and we place those two societies in contact and let the inhabitants of the jungle society take a hand in the running of things, the civilization which used to be highly developed will soon take on the characteristics of the jungle society. Ordered societies become disordered, except where the genius for order remains in firm control. The tendency is always toward decay, toward dissolution, toward chaos and ruin -- except in those rare instances where the vital spark is able to assert itself. When that spark is quenched or overwhelmed, decay inevitably sets in.
The vital spark I'm talking about, the genius for order, the spirit of progress which built our civilization, is European. Of course, Europeans aren't the only race with a vital spark. Every people has its own variety of organizational genius. The Japanese have theirs, the Chinese have theirs, and so on. Actually, every form of life has a peculiar genius for organizing the non-living matter in its environment into living matter. That's true of worms and viruses, of fish and horses. In each case, however, the genius takes a unique form, the spark burns with a different brightness. In Black Africa the spark of civilization always has been very, very dim. Among our people it has been very bright. Our government now, however, under the influence of the controlled mass media, is pursuing policies which are guaranteed to extinguish our spark, policies which are guaranteed to bring our level of civilization down to that in Rwanda or Haiti -- not next year, or even in the next decade, but eventually.
Haiti is a good example of the law of entropy. In the 18th century Haiti was the jewel among the European colonies in the New World. It was clean and green and prosperous. It was civilized. It had an efficient government, thriving industry and commerce, and law and order. It was a French island, a European island. Then came the egalitarian lunacy, the sheer democratic madness, of the French Revolution, which declared Black slaves and White masters equal. The consequence of this was that the French with foresight left Haiti, and the Blacks, having been persuaded that they were just as capable as Frenchmen, massacred the rest, hoping to have Haiti's riches entirely for themselves. What happened instead, of course, was that Haiti's civilization declined within a few years from the European level to the African level, and it has remained there ever since, despite the fact that the United States Marines went in and rebuilt Haiti's entire physical infrastructure and reorganized its political system earlier in this century. As soon as the White Marines left, in 1934, the Black genius for crime, squalor, and disorder asserted itself again. So that's our future, if we just sit back and watch: more and more non-Whites, more and more crime and filth and disorder, and eventually, a century or two from now, another Haiti on the mainland.
But we don't have to just sit back and watch. We know how to avoid that dismal path of decay and ruin. We know how to solve every problem necessary to get us back onto the upward path again.
Consider illegal immigration, for example, which is responsible for so much of the darkening of America. The government and the controlled media pretend that illegal immigration is an insoluble problem. They show us on television all the holes which Mexicans have cut in the border fence, they show us groups of Mexicans wading across the Rio Grande, they show us Mexicans climbing over the fence and running through the traffic in San Diego to evade our Border Patrol, and they wring their hands and tell us that it's just impossible to stop illegal immigration. The government says it's assigning another 100 Border Patrol agents in one place and it's building a stronger fence in another place, but then the Mexicans just come across some other part of the border. The government acts like it just doesn't know what to do, that it's just too big a problem, that it would take too much money to solve.
But really, that's all just a game calculated to fool the American people. The government knows perfectly well how to stop illegal immigration, but it doesn't want to stop it. The government just wants to make us believe that it's trying its best. But, you know, any of you listeners who've had any military experience understand that illegal immigration can be stopped easily, quickly, and permanently. Even I, who've never been in the Army, can guarantee you that if I were in charge of the border between the United States and Mexico I could completely halt illegal immigration within 24 hours, and I could keep it completely halted with far less expense than that now required to operate our Border Patrol. All I would do is authorize Border Patrol agents to shoot anyone attempting to cross the border illegally. Two or three shootings in the first night, in each sector of the border where crossings are frequent, and the word would be out: "Don't try to cross the border, unless you want to die."After that, I would spend a couple of months erecting a simple fence from San Diego, California, to Brownsville, Texas. I'd erect it in two rows 100 feet apart, with mines and electronic sensors planted between the rows. I'd have jeep patrols along our side of the fence, patrolling at unpredictable times, but with never more than an hour between patrols, and I'd have helicopters patrolling above. I'd do it all with a permanent Border Patrol force along the Mexican border of 5,000 men, and no illegal immigrants would get through. None.
The lemmings, of course, would be screaming that I am bloodthirsty, that I am a murderer, and so on, but really, fewer Mexicans would have to be shot trying to come across the border that first night than law-abiding Americans are now being murdered each year by illegal-alien criminals in California and Texas.
I guess we all tend to be a bit selective in our sympathies. I have sympathy for my own people, for the victims of Mexican criminals, and the lemmings have sympathy for the criminals. They're Politically Correct, and I'm Politically Incorrect. But I would stop illegal immigration, painlessly and cleanly, and they prefer to believe that it can't be done.
The problem of the illegal aliens already in America also can be solved. So can the race problem. These problems are more difficult and will require a much larger effort than the problem of illegal immigration, but the cost of solving them now is infinitesimal compared to the long-term cost of failing to solve them. All we need to solve these problems is the will to survive as a people, the will to build the basis for a progressive future for our kind, the will to avoid ending up like Haiti or Rwanda a couple of centuries hence.
Of course, we all know that one thing couch potatoes don't have is will. People who've been raised on television, who've grown up with a spectator's attitude toward the world around them, certainly aren't going to stir themselves just to ensure a future for their grandchildren. Instead, they're just going to reach for the potato chips and keep on watching. Spectators don't count. The people who do count are in two relatively small groups. In one group are you and I and the others who care enough about the future of our people to do something about it: in fact, to do whatever it takes.
In the other group are the people who control the mass media, plus their collaborators in the government, in the mainstream churches, in the universities, in finance and industry, and in the other institutions of our society.
You know who controls the mass media. Many of you also know why they don't want the problem of illegal immigration and the other problems threatening our future to be solved. They are Jews, and throughout their whole history they have lived by two principles: first, always be loyal to your fellow Jews; and second, always remember that anyone who is not a Jew is your enemy; never forget and never forgive.
Their collaborators in the government and other institutions are individuals who have no sense of loyalty to our people and who have a vested interest in following the lead of the Jews. Some of them are office holders who understand that they hold their offices at the pleasure of those who control the mass media, those who control public opinion, those who control votes. Most of these collaborators have no sense of responsibility to anyone but themselves.
Typical of these is a man who is a friend of an acquaintance of mine; he is an assistant district attorney in New York City, a man who understands what's going on but who doesn't really care. When challenged to take a stand for his own people, he said: "Look. Everyone around here knows that the Jews are running the government. It's too bad, but there's nothing we can do about it. I've got to look out for myself. I have a career and a family to think about. If I want to get ahead, I have to collaborate."
Unfortunately, there are many, many others among our people who have no more sense of personal honor or responsibility than this New York City assistant prosecutor. It is a great shame for us. We really need to purge ourselves of this shame some day. Meanwhile, we can take some comfort in the knowledge that such people, who have no loyalty to anyone but themselves, are always ready to switch sides as soon as they see the tide turning. The tide is not yet turning -- at least, not enough for people like that assistant district attorney in New York to notice. The swarm of Brown immigrants from Mexico is still growing from week to week, and our government is still making only the most transparent pretense of trying to stop them. The couch potatoes are as passive as ever, and the Politically Correct lemmings are as idiotic as ever.
Changes are beginning to take place, however.
Our weekly radio programs are reaching more and more people. People who hear us telling the truth are emboldened to tell the truth themselves.
The ripples of truth are spreading. Soon those ripples will become waves. And one day the storm will break loose over this land.
Disney and the Jews: Eisner and His Kind Must Stop Harming Our Children
We've spoken about the Jewish control of the news and entertainment media before, but it's a matter of such urgency that we need to talk about it again and again. It is absolutely essential for us to understand who controls our mass media and how they use their control to undermine America.
Very recently a major rearrangement in the media world took place when the Walt Disney company paid $19 billion to take control of Capital Cities/ABC, the company that owns the ABC television network. That makes the Disney company the biggest of the media conglomerates. And it makes the man who controls Disney, Michael Eisner, the most powerful media boss in the world.
What does this mean for the future of our people? Should we be concerned that the company which brought us Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and Snow White will in the future be playing a much bigger role in forming the opinions of American television viewers and setting the moral and cultural standards of our nation?
I'll answer that question: Yes, we certainly should be concerned, because the Walt Disney company is not what it used to be. It has been transformed from a wholesome producer of children's entertainment into a malign instrument of subversion, whose purpose is to weaken and destroy our people.
To understand how this happened, let's go back to the beginning. Walt Disney was born in 1901 in a working-class, Midwestern American family. He spent his early years on the family farm in Missouri. As a teenager he helped support his family by delivering newspapers. He later attributed his ability to overcome obstacles and achieve success to the work discipline that he developed as a boy with the newspaper route.
Although young Walt came from a typical American background, with no advantages or privileges, he was a person of exceptional talent and drive. He felt a strong artistic urge while he was still in grade school, and he took a correspondence course in drawing. He continued to develop his drawing skills in high school as a cartoonist for his school paper. He dropped out of school at 16 and served in the First World War. After the war, instead of finishing high school, he and another young artist began experimenting with animated films in a tiny studio of their own in Kansas City. Using very primitive equipment, they made short, animated cartoons based on fairy tales. They tried to market their films through a New York film distributor, but the New Yorker took advantage of the struggling, young filmmakers: he stole their work and left them destitute. In 1922, at the ripe age of 20, Walt Disney decided to make a fresh start in Hollywood. He sold his camera to raise enough money to make the trip to California. There he enlisted the support of his brother Roy as a business manager, and he persuaded his fellow artist in Kansas City to come join him. With Walt's drive and determination, they opened a new film studio. They invented a film character they called Oswald the Rabbit, and a series of animated cartoons featuring Oswald enabled the small studio to gain a foothold in the film business.
Later, when sound films were introduced in 1927, Walt invented Mickey Mouse. Walt himself provided Mickey's voice. Mickey Mouse was an enormous success and helped Walt Disney Productions prosper and grow.
Over the years Walt Disney's fertile imagination gave us Donald Duck, Goofy and Pluto, Dumbo the elephant, and a score of other animal characters which have fascinated children all over the world for more than 60 years. In 1937 Disney produced his great masterpiece, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. This beautifully animated fairy tale appealed to adults as well as to children. Like many fairy tales its roots lie deep in the racial consciousness of our people.
After Snow White came Pinnochio, Fantasia, and Bambi. Walt Disney Productions became a major power in the American film industry. And it was unique, in that it was the only major film producer in Hollywood not owned or controlled by Jews. The fact that Walt Disney was not a Jew caused problems for him, however. He was surrounded by Jews who resented his influence on American culture. A whispering campaign was organized against him. Stories were spread that he was a fascist. He began having labor problems.
The real problem, of course, was that Walt Disney's vision of the world, as reflected in the films he produced, was wholly different from that of the Jewish film producers around him. As long as Walt was making Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck cartoons, this problem could be overlooked. When he began animating feature-length fairy tales like Snow White and Cinderella, the Jews in Hollywood became increasingly nervous. The world of Snow White was an entirely White world, a European world. It stirred racial memories in White Americans, and the aim of the Jewish media bosses then as now was to make White Americans forget their roots. They wanted to begin promoting multiculturalism as soon as the Second World War was over, and Walt was in their way. They couldn't push racial mixing in their films and have someone as popular as Walt Disney refuse to go along: the contrast would be obvious to the public. Even Disney's extremely popular Nature films were resented by the rest of Hollywood. Films which promoted a love for animals and the natural world were viewed with suspicion by men whose view of life was entirely economic and urban.
These may seem like subtle differences, and in fact most people outside of Hollywood were oblivious to the ideological and cultural conflict between Walt Disney and the other film producers. The closest that the conflict came to attracting public attention was during the 1940s and early 1950s, when Walt Disney's total lack of sympathy for Communism and his refusal to let Communist propaganda be introduced into any of his productions set him apart from the rest of Hollywood. While Walt was alive, however, there wasn't much that Hollywood could do about him. He was too popular with the American people. After Walt died in 1966, however, the situation changed. His company had depended on his genius for its prosperity, and without him it had a difficult time keeping up with the competition. After Disney company profits had declined for several years, Jewish corporate raiders Saul Steinberg and Irwin Jacobs moved in for the kill. In 1984, after Steinberg had milked the company of $32 million, Disney family shareholders were too weak to resist a takeover by Michael Eisner, the Jewish boss of Paramount Pictures. Eisner in turn brought in as his second in command another Jew, Jeffrey Katzenberg. The company that Walt Disney built -- the company that gave us Snow White and Fantasia -- has been in Jewish hands ever since.
During his first day as chairman of the Disney company -- his first day, believe it or not -- Eisner ordered the production of an R-rated film, about the kinky sexual misadventures of a typically neurotic Jewish family in the Los Angeles area. This was the first R-rated film ever produced by the Disney company -- but certainly not the last.
Now, no one who knows me considers me a prude. I believe that there's a place for adult films. I also believe that there should be a place for childhood innocence and childhood fantasy and childhood imagination: that is, a place for the sort of films which Walt Disney used to produce. And there ought to be a place in America for a company which produces such films. There ought to be a place for a film maker with an artistic vision and artistic talent instead of merely the craving for profit.
Actually, what Michael Eisner has done to the Disney company is far worse than cutting the soul out of it. He has transformed it into another instrument in the Jewish campaign to multiculturalize America. He has made it into a spiritually destructive propaganda instrument aimed at our children.
There are no better examples of this than a couple of recent children's films produced by the Disney company under Eisner: The Jungle Book and Pocahontas. Actually, in 1967, the year after Walt Disney's death, the original Disney company made an animated film based on Kipling's Jungle Book stories of India. It was a film in the Disney tradition, made to entertain children and not to brainwash them. Last year Mr. Eisner produced a new, Politically Correct version of The Jungle Book. The new version, which uses live characters instead of animation, promotes interracial sex. In Mr. Eisner's version, White males are portrayed as contemptible, cowardly, inept, and disloyal. The White heroine rejects her British-officer fiancee‚, and lets herself be wooed and won by an Indian jungle boy, played by a Chinese actor. And, of course, it bears no resemblance at all to anything written by Rudyard Kipling. I hardly need comment on the film Pocahontas, which has received so much publicity recently, except to say that its message is the same as that of Eisner 's version of The Jungle Book: namely, that racial mixing is A-OK, that there's absolutely no reason why a White man should not marry an Indian woman or why a White woman should not have an affair with a Chinaman.
It took Mr. Eisner ten years to drag the Disney company down to the Pocahontas level. He is a careful man. He knows that there is a lot at stake. He certainly doesn't want to move too fast and cause a negative reaction from the American public. He didn't want to alert the American public to his intentions ten years ago. So he started with R-rated sex films and gradually moved to films which tell White children that miscegenation is fine and noble, and that non-Whites really have much more character than Whites. But I believe that Mr. Eisner had this outcome clearly in his mind from the first day that he took over the Disney company and began degrading it.
And now Mr. Eisner will have the ABC television network under his control too. I don't expect that to change the party line at ABC very much. ABC, like the other TV networks, has been pretty solidly Jewish from the beginning. It was headed by Jewish media boss Leonard Goldenson for more than 30 years. The fact that Capital Cities Communications, whose chairman is Thomas Murphy, a Gentile, merged with Goldenson's ABC ten years ago didn't really have much influence on programming. Goldenson's people remained in the policy-making positions. Eisner's buyout of ABC just consolidates things in Jewish hands a bit. It takes Murphy out of the picture and makes it easier for ABC to become even more Politically Correct than it was. It means that we will be seeing programs on the ABC television network promoting miscegenation and undermining White self-confidence a little more frequently than before. It speeds up the schedule a bit for introducing even more destructive propaganda than before. It means that our children will be subjected to somewhat more intense brainwashing than before.
The situation with the rest of the mass media of news and entertainment isn't really different, of course. Just as Jews took over Hollywood in the 1930s, they also took over the other media, and today they have such an overwhelming influence that even those who are not Jews go along with their policies in order to get along.
Often when I point out this fact of Jewish media control to persons who are Politically Correct, they will respond by saying that it makes no difference who controls the media. Why does it bother me that Jews run Hollywood, they ask in a sneering, condescending tone. I know that people who respond in this way aren't being honest. They would certainly think it made a difference if I controlled the media, for example. And actually I'd be concerned if any group with an agenda of its own had control of the media. I'd be concerned if all of the media were in the hands of Southern Baptists, for example, or radical vegetarians.
I am especially concerned about the Jewish control of the media, however, for two reasons. First, the people who control the media also control the political process in America: they control, in effect, the policies of our government and the course taken by our society. That's because the politicians, whether they're Democrats or Republicans, will not stand up to the Jews. Instead they grovel at the Jews' feet. Every politician knows that he must be portrayed favorably by the media if he is to be elected, and every politician knows who controls the media.
The second reason why Jewish control of the media is such a disaster for us is based in the unique nature of the Jews. If Baptists controlled the media perhaps they'd persuade the government to have a law against making love on Sunday. If radical vegetarians controlled the media, we might have to eat soyburgers instead of hamburgers.
But we can survive those things. We might not be happy, but we could survive: our people could survive. Neither the Baptists nor the vegetarians would be trying to corrupt us spiritually or to destroy our race. But corrupt and destroy are exactly what Mr. Eisner is doing. That's the purpose of films like The Jungle Book and Pocahontas. They are aimed, first, at the spiritual corruption of our children and, ultimately, at the destruction of our people.
I know that statement sounds extreme to some people who are not familiar with the facts of Jewish media control. They think that two recent children's films from the Walt Disney company which promote racial mixing aren't enough evidence to condemn all of the people who control our news and entertainment media. And I must agree. One needs much more evidence than that. But the evidence is there, for anyone who is not afraid to look at it, for anyone who is not so determined to be Politically Correct that he refuses to see it.
For example, consider what has happened to the popular music industry in recent years. It's not just the "gangsta rap" that we've heard a few Republican politicians complaining about because the media people who've been pushing "gangsta rap" moved a little too fast and caused a negative reaction from the American people. It's the whole trend of popular music away from traditional White forms and toward non-White forms. I don't have to tell you who controls the popular music industry in America, but I will anyway. In particular, the biggest music companies promoting Black "rap" music among White children -- companies like Time Warner and MTV -- are solidly Jewish. A Jew named Gerald Levin is to Time Warner what Michael Eisner is to Disney. And MTV is owned by Sumner Redstone, another Jew, through his Viacom Corporation. These three companies that I've just mentioned -- Disney, Viacom, and Time Warner -- are America's three biggest producers of mass entertainment -- they're number one, number two, and number three, respectively -- and they're all controlled by Jews. Is that just a coincidence? Think about it!
I could spend the next hour talking about the genealogy of the biggest media bosses. What you really need to do to be convinced, however, is to study the matter for yourself. I'll be happy to send you enough facts to get you started. Just write to me.
The idea I want to leave you with today is this: In this era in which the mass media have such a powerful influence over our people's ideas and attitudes and values, it is essential that we take the control of those media away from a group which is utterly alien to us. It's a group whose primary aim is to deaden our sense of identity and kill any sense of racial consciousness among us, so that we will not be able to resist the poisonous doctrines which they're promoting. These doctrines are multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism and egalitarianism -- and, of course, "diversity" -- all of the racially destructive "isms" of Political Correctness.
In this era when the single most important influence on the development of a child's self-image is television entertainment, it is essential that people like Michael Eisner and Sumner Redstone not be the ones setting the tone for that entertainment.
We all know that America has lost its sense of purpose and is drifting. We all know that American society is coming apart. We all know that our traditional values, our traditional life- style, our traditional heroes and role models have been disparaged and ridiculed by the controlled media. We all know that the idea of White racial guilt, the idea of deferring to minorities, the idea that we should tolerate perversion and accept it as "normal" -- all of these ideas have been pushed by the mass media. Alienation and delinquency among our young people are increasing. The traditional American family is in serious decline. Racial intermarriage is on the rise. Non- White immigrants are pouring across our borders, and no serious effort is being made to stop them. Our political system has become hopelessly corrupt.
The only way that we can even begin to cure this illness is to regain complete control of our mass media. Our media must be used to give our people a sense of identity; a sense of racial community; a sense of kinship, of belonging; a sense of racial and national purpose. We must take control away from the people who are using the media now to confuse and alienate and mislead us. Only when our own people are setting the standards for the media, only when our own people are deciding what attitudes and values should be taught to our children, can we become strong and healthy again -- and that means breaking the Jewish control of the media. Let me hear from you on this most important of all the issues facing our people.
The End of Justice in America Lessons of the Simpson Trial
SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT, very significant, happened recently in Los Angeles. I didn't want to comment on it right away, when there was a lot of public excitement about it. But I've waited long enough, I believe, for the initial shock of this event to wear off, and so now we should be able to consider the matter calmly and rationally.
To get immediately to the point, the significance of the O.J. Simpson verdict is that the whole nation, from the empty-headed, trendy viewers of soap operas and football games all the way up to the serious, thoughtful men and women who have a deep concern for the future of our people - - all of us have had an impressive demonstration of the fact that our justice system simply does not work. It has broken down. It no longer deserves our respect or our trust.
And what is a country without a system of justice?
A country which is not ruled by a sound system of justice either will be ruled by tyranny, or it will descend into chaos and anarchy. In America we can see both of these tendencies at the same time: more and more chaos and anarchy in our cities and in the conduct of public affairs, and more and more tyranny by a government trying to keep a grip on things.
I do not mean to say that the Simpson acquittal represented any sudden change in the American justice system. It has been true for decades, for example, that in America's courts a defendant got just as much justice as he could afford to buy. It also is true that the decisions of juries have become more and more capricious in recent years, with the obviously guilty turned loose and the obviously innocent convicted. Terrible miscarriages of justice are happening more and more frequently. It is often the case that Political Correctness is more important in determining the outcome of a trial than any considerations of justice.
Let me tell you about just one such case with which I am familiar. In May 1991 a young White man, George Loeb, and his wife drove into a supermarket parking lot in Jacksonville, Florida, to buy groceries. As they entered the parking lot a car driven by a Black male almost struck their car. The two drivers exchanged angry insults, with the Black calling Mr. Loeb a cracker and a honkie. Then the Black drove off, and the Loebs did their shopping. They had bought their groceries, were back in their car, and were ready to go home when the Black returned -- this time with another Black male and a brick. The Black got out of his car and advanced toward the Loebs' car with the brick in his hand. He announced loudly to Loeb, I'm gonna smash your motherf--ing head in.
As the Black approached, Loeb responded by tearing open the glove compartment of his car, seizing a pistol his wife kept there for her protection, and firing two shots at the Black, killing him. Loeb was arrested and put on trial. At the trial both the defense witnesses and the prosecution witnesses recounted nearly the same sequence of events. The prosecution witnesses - - the slain Black's friend and a White woman who had been in the parking lot -- both admitted that the slain Black had threatened to smash Mr. Loeb's head with the brick he carried. They claimed, however, that he had dropped his brick just before he was shot, whereas the defense witnesses said that he still had the brick in his hand when he was struck by the bullets.
The key to the outcome of the trial, however, was the charge made against Mr. Loeb by the Jewish prosecutor that he was a White racist. The prosecutor introduced into evidence books and personal letters seized in the Loebs' residence, indicating that Mr. Loeb strongly disliked Blacks and believed that they should be sent back to Africa. Mr. Loeb was then convicted of premeditated murder and sentenced to life in prison.
Does that sound incredible? A conviction for premeditated murder, when the shooting clearly was neither murder nor premeditated but instead was an act of self-defense? Life in prison for a family man, a university graduate with a stable marriage who had never been in trouble with the law and was merely defending himself and his wife against an armed attacker? Does that sound like American justice?
I must admit that when I first heard the story about George Loeb's conviction, I didn't believe it either. I thought that I was hearing a biased, exaggerated account of what had happened, that surely Mr. Loeb had done something which justified his conviction and the sentence which was imposed on him. So I obtained a videotape of the trial and viewed it for myself. You can do the same if you want. The complete video record of the trial -- which, by the way, lasted only 30 hours, because, unlike O.J. Simpson, that's all the justice Mr. Loeb could afford to buy -- the complete video record is available from the Courtroom Television Network, 600 Third Avenue, in New York City. It is an astounding record -- and horrifying -- and terribly depressing.
Before I saw that video I didn't believe something like that could happen in the United States. I spoke about it with friends who are lawyers, however, and they told me that it happens all the time.
The difference between the George Loeb trial and the O.J. Simpson trial -- besides the fact that the former is a middle-class White man who always has obeyed the law, and the latter is a multimillionaire Black sports star who buys his way out of his criminal problems -- the difference is that nobody knew about the Loeb trial, and so no one could be shocked by it, while everyone knows about the Simpson trial. The corruption of the justice system exemplified by the Loeb trial remained hidden, while the corruption exemplified by the Simpson trial has been seen by the whole world. That's the important difference.
We not only have seen it: we have had our faces rubbed in it for more than a year. We cannot ignore it or pretend that it doesn't exist. And this is very important, not just because it has shocked us: it is important because when people lose their faith in the system of justice, when they realize that they cannot count on that system to function fairly and rationally, when they see innocent people destroyed by that system and guilty people turned loose, when they realize that the system not only is capricious but that it has been corrupted by Political Correctness and is biased against people like themselves, then those people will withdraw their support from the government of which that failed justice system is a part. People will put up with a great deal of inefficiency and mismanagement from a government, so long as they believe that there is a justice system which functions fairly and effectively, a justice system which punishes criminals and protects the innocent from government persecution. But when they no longer believe that, they will turn against the government. That's what our forefathers did 220 years ago, when they realized that they no longer could count on justice from the government of Great Britain.
And this recognition of what has happened to the justice system in America is long overdue, especially on the part of middle-class White conservatives. These conservatives want desperately to have faith in the system. They want to believe that if they continue saving money to send their children off to a good university, then their grandchildren will be able to grow up in an orderly and just world, a world in which there will be a place for them. They want to believe that somehow the growing problems in our society will be repaired, and that everything will work out all right.
But things won't work out all right by themselves. The problems won't get fixed up. Instead, things will continue getting worse. It's not just that the American justice system has developed a few flaws which need to be fixed; the problem is that the system is no longer American. We used to have a justice system rooted in Anglo-Saxon common law, rooted in the traditions of our ancestors in Europe. That was an American system. What we have now is the result of 50 years of forced multiculturalism. It's a system which is completely alien to us.
Just look at the Simpson trial itself, completely aside from the unjust verdict: the trial, up to the time the case went to the jury, certainly wasn't anything that a White American could be proud of. It was hardly even a trial; it was a multicultural circus, a long-running soap opera made for television.
It was a paradigm of multiculturalism and trendiness: We had a Japanese judge married to a White woman who is a police captain. We had a prosecution team consisting of a Black male and a Jewess currently being divorced by a White man. We had a defense team which, with the exception of F. Lee Bailey, was entirely Jewish and Black. We had a Black defendant who likes to run with White women -- and beat them up. We had one Jewish murder victim and one White female victim who had been raised by her liberal parents to couple with Blacks. We had a racially mixed but mostly Black jury. And the whole thing seems to have been run more for the benefit of the television networks than for the sake of justice.
Can any White person seeking justice in the courts or accused of a crime by the government have faith that justice will be done for him in such a circus setting?
I think not.
Can the public realistically hope to be protected from murderers and other criminals -- especially if those criminals are rich and Black -- by such a system?
I think not. Imagine that you have to walk into such a courtroom as a defendant. Imagine that you are charged by the government with being Politically Incorrect -- with, say, failing to rent an apartment to a pair of homosexuals or to hire someone with AIDS -- or, perhaps, daring to defend yourself against an armed Black assailant. Do you believe that you'll get a fair trial?
I think you'll agree with me that you almost certainly will not. How did this happen to our justice system?
The sad truth is that we let it happen. Remember, it didn't happen overnight. The O. J. Simpson verdict may have burst upon the consciousness of the public like a thunderbolt, but the subversion and wrecking of our American justice system have been going on quietly for decades. And we didn't oppose it. Some of us wanted to be trendy and fashionable, and so we went along with the multiculturalism. Some of us were cowards. We knew what was happening was wrong, but we were afraid to say so: we were afraid of being called racists and anti-Semites. And many of us were just indifferent to what was happening: we were too selfish to get involved. And so we let America's enemies destroy our justice system. We let them destroy the only shield we had against governmental tyranny on the one hand and mob rule on the other hand: our only shield -- and now it's gone.
We didn't stand up for our honest, decent White policemen, for our racially conscious White policemen like Detective Mark Fuhrman, who, God bless him, fought the multicultural terror and anarchy in the streets in the only way he knew, without any support from the politicians and the bureaucrats. He may have been a little rough in his methods sometimes, but he knew the nature of the beast he was fighting. He knew that if we don't destroy it, it surely will destroy us.
We let the politicians and the bureaucrats follow the lead of the controlled media and weed out the racially conscious White policemen and replace them with Politically Correct trendies, who collaborate with the multicultural terrorists instead of fighting them. The same thing has happened in the courts that has happened in the police departments around the country. The honest, no-nonsense judges have been replaced by media-conscious trendies like Lance Ito.
During her closing argument the Jewish prosecutor in the Simpson trial, Marcia Clark, said that we all wish that there were no one like Mark Fuhrman on this planet. Do you remember that? When I heard her say that, it really infuriated me. I suspect that many of you who also heard her say that thought at the time, as I did, that, no, we are happy to share this planet with Detective Mark Fuhrman. Instead, we will welcome the day when there are no longer any Marcia Clarks, or people of her type, on this planet.
So how will we reach that day? How will we oppose the multiculturalists who have destroyed our justice system -- and much else in our country? How will we fight them? How will we reclaim this planet for our people? How will we take it away from her people and undo the damage they've done?
Ultimately, we'll have to fight them the same way our forefathers fought King George. But we have much fighting of another kind to do before then. We have to wake up millions of our fellow citizens who have been indifferent to what's been happening in this country for the past 50 years, and we have to pound some sense into their heads. Maybe we can't change the fact of their selfishness, but we can make them understand that it's their country which is being destroyed. It's their heritage and their future. And as for the millions who are too shortsighted to care about their future or their heritage, we must make them realize that the danger to them of a failed justice system is here and now, not just in the future. The O.J. Simpson trial was real. The George Loeb trial was real. I didn't invent them. The government did. The multiculturalists did. But we have to fight them.
It'll be a tough fight against the government and all of those Jewish television networks, but not an impossible fight. They have some fatal weaknesses. You know, they really didn't want O. J. Simpson back out on the street. They didn't want the insane verdict they got in that trial. It makes them look very foolish, very weak. But they couldn't help it. They couldn't control it. They've built a Frankenstein's monster: a destructive, uncontrollable monster. What they've built won't work, because it's unnatural, but they can't admit that, even to themselves. They think that they can take justice away from us, as they did in the George Loeb trial, and give us a big dose of egalitarianism and multiculturalism and diversity instead, and that everything will run smoothly. But without justice there can be no peace, no confidence in government, no social stability -- and ultimately no society at all.
What that means for us is that there will be more and more embarrassing failures for the multiculturalists, failures like the O.J. Simpson trial, which will expose the unnaturalness and the destructiveness of their policies for everyone to see. It's our job to help people see these things and understand their significance and place the blame where it belongs.
The government and the controlled media will fight back by trying to stop us from explaining these things to people. Any criticism of their policies they will call hate, and they will call for outlawing hate, for making any criticism of them or their policies illegal.
As our society continues to come apart because of these policies, they will claim that it is our exposure of the foolishness and destructiveness of their policies which is destroying our society, rather than the policies themselves.
As people become more frustrated and angry because of the destruction of their justice system, the government and the controlled media will claim that if only we could be prevented from talking about what has happened to the justice system, then the people would no longer be angry.
Do you remember that right after the tragedy in Oklahoma City this spring, Bill Clinton went on television and announced that the bombing was the fault of people who criticized the government? He said it wasn't the fault of his own Justice Department, which had murdered nearly 100 innocent people at Waco and then lied about what had happened, but instead it was the fault of people like me, who criticized the government for killing all of those innocent people. Do you remember that? He wanted to get us off the air, to shut us up, so that his so- called Justice Department could escape blame. Let me tell you: the multiculturalists will not shut us up. They can pass all the repressive laws against free speech they want, but we will not be silent.
And you know, even if they could shut us up, even if the government locked us up under the so- called hate speech laws they're trying to get passed, the destructiveness and foolishness of multiculturalism would still be exposed by the government's own failures.
The colossal embarrassment of the Simpson trial may be a first, but it's not a last. The justice system has been thoroughly wrecked, and it will continue to be a threat both to innocent individuals like George Loeb, and to the general public, by turning people like O.J. Simpson loose. That can't be hidden. The Simpson trial gave everyone a nice, long look at the emperor's nakedness, and they will be much more alert than before to further revelations. And believe me, there will be more revelations.
"Hate Speech"
I'VE SPOKEN OFTEN with you about the Jewish monopoly control of our mass media of news and entertainment. Recently I detailed the takeover of the Disney company by Jews and its conversion into an instrument of brainwashing used against young Americans.
In addition to this consolidation of Jewish control over the media, there's another subversive campaign underway in this country which is just as dangerous for our future. It's the campaign to stifle any expression of opinion except those coming from the Jew-controlled mass media: the campaign to outlaw all dissident voices.
When I've mentioned this campaign in the past, some people have thought I was being an alarmist. They believe that freedom of speech is too deeply rooted in American soil to be done away with by a few extremists in the Clinton administration, or any administration. The American people won't tolerate having their freedom of speech taken away, they believe.
I wish that I could share their optimism. What makes it difficult for me to do so is the fact that there is a growing body of opinion in America that no one should have the right to do or say anything which offends someone else. The people who believe this are not only entrenched in the Clinton administration, they're entrenched in the Congress, in the universities, and in many other American institutions. These people will tell you with a straight face that the First Amendment was never meant to protect offensive speech -- or what they more often these days call -- hate speech. The Constitution doesn't give anyone the right to hurt someone else's feelings, they say. It doesn't give anyone the right to offend someone else. It doesn't give anyone the right to say unkind things about someone else, so that other people might be influenced by what is said and then in turn think or say unkind things themselves -- perhaps even do something unkind.
Actually, what these Politically Correct people really mean, although they won't tell you this -- what they really mean is that no one should be permitted to write or say anything which might offend one of the officially favored classes of people: homosexuals, morally or physically defective people, Jews, Blacks or members of other non-White racial groups, and women. They see nothing wrong with offending a White male, for example: they do it themselves all the time. But they do believe that it ought to be illegal to do or say something offensive to almost anyone else.
Let me tell you about something which happened last month in Ottawa. I'm reading from a news article in the August 5 issue of the Toronto Sun. It says:
'A female Ottawa dentist who wore a facemask, gloves, and gown while treating an HIV-positive patient is facing charges of discrimination by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. . . . Medical history revealed that the patient was HIV-positive and had a past drug dependency, according to an Ontario Dental Association report. Before treating the patient in the two and one half hour visit, the dentist discussed with the patient her preference to wear a disposable gown, gloves, facemask, and eye protection while treating the patient. Following completion of the treatment the patient left without any negative comment about the care he received and booked for a six-month checkup.'
That's the first part of the Toronto Sun story. The dentist and the patient talked things over before the treatment began; the dentist then put on her disposable gown, gloves, and so on to protect herself from the blood and saliva of the AIDS-infected patient; and after the treatment the patient left with no complaint.
But then one of the Politically Correct watchdogs of the Human Rights Commission heard about it, and things changed in a hurry. The Toronto Sun article continues:
'Both the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Royal College of Dental Surgeons say in a report that the dentist acted in a discriminatory manner when she wore a paper gown in addition to her barrier protection gear, based solely on the patient's HIV status.'
The news article went on to say that the dentist must not treat a patient with AIDS in any way differently from a healthy patient. If she doesn't wear a paper gown in treating healthy patients, then it is discriminatory to wear one when working on an AIDS-infected patient's teeth.
The article continues:
'The Ontario Human Rights Commission has threatened legal action against the dentist unless she complies with eight conditions, including paying the patient $8,000 to "compensate him for his mental anguish." '
Well, you say, that was Canada, not the United States.
Let me tell you, the people of Canada are not really very different from the people of the United States. What they will let their government get away with now, we'll let our government get away with in five or ten years. America already is swarming with Human Relations Councils and Human Rights Councils, whose business it is to sniff out cases of AIDS carriers who have had their feelings hurt by some insensitive person who refused to treat them as if they were healthy. And believe me, every one of these Human Rights Councils in the United States is just itching to have the judicial power to order people locked up who say or do anything they don't like.
I have another newspaper article in front of me, this one from the Minneapolis-St Paul Star Tribune for July 23. It describes a ruling issued by an official of the Minneapolis city government, warning city workers that henceforth they may be disciplined for what the official calls "visual harassment." By "visual harassment" the official means looking at any female who does not want to be looked at. A woman had complained to the official, he said, that it made her "uncomfortable" that members of city work crews had stared at her as she walked past them. The name of the official who decided that such looking would henceforth result in disciplinary action is, believe it or not, Carl Markus. Not Marx, just Markus.
Now that would just be funny, if it were an isolated case. But things just as ridiculous, just as Orwellian, are happening every day in America. The people who want to get rid of the First Amendment -- and the rest of the Bill of Rights too -- the people who want to make it illegal to say or do anything which might offend an AIDS carrier or a feminist with a chip on her shoulder or whatever -- are probing, pushing, trying to see what they can get away with, trying to see how far they can go, how much the American people will tolerate. The two articles I've quoted from today I chose as examples because of the air of absurdity to them which makes them a little catchy, a little memorable. But I have a hundred more news articles from the past few months which in more prosaic terms describe the same sort of efforts to outlaw offensiveness, or "hate, as it's often called.
Perhaps I should say at this point that I understand what it means to be offended and to have one's feelings hurt. I've worn glasses since I was five years old, and it used to hurt my feelings when some of my school classmates would call me "four eyes." I used to do pretty well in my school work too, and as a result occasionally one of the kids who didn't do so well would refer to me sneeringly as "Einstein." That really made me feel uncomfortable.
And I'm sure it's uncomfortable for a person who's overweight to hear herself called "fatso." I'm sure it makes a retarded person feel bad to be told he's stupid. I'm sure that a person who's not attractive doesn't like to be reminded of that fact.
But, you know, that's life. We all put up with a lot of things we don't like. We try to make the best of it. If we're fat and we don't like being called fatso, we try to lose some weight. If we're nearsighted and have to wear glasses, perhaps we can switch to contact lenses -- or take karate lessons and punch out anybody who calls us "four eyes."
There's really something seriously wrong with the people who believe that it should be illegal to hurt a homosexual's feelings, or to stare at a pretty girl -- or to call a person who wears glasses "four eyes," for that matter. Some of these people clearly believe that it's more important for us all to be able to feel good about ourselves all the time than it is for us to be free.
And some of these people are simply using the "feel good" faction to push their own agenda, which is to make it impossible for the few people who have figured out what they're up to tell the rest of the people. They want to make it illegal to tell people about the Jewish control of the news and entertainment media, for example. They want to make it illegal for this program to be on the air. They call this program "hate radio," because it is offensive to them.
What makes me worry so much is that the "feel good" faction is growing. There's something unhealthy about life in America today, and it's making more and more people really believe that they have a right not to be offended or have their feelings hurt, and that that supposed right is more important than the right to free speech. And the folks who are taking advantage of this sickness by pushing the idea that offensive speech or hate speech ought to be outlawed are becoming more pushy in their efforts.
Back in 1978 I wrote a novel which I called The Turner Diaries. It's a novel about life in the United States as I imagined it might be in the 1990s, if some of the trends I could see in the 1970s continued for another 20 years. I imagined that the government would become more repressive, and it has. I imagined that most of the people would react in a sheeplike way to government repression and would not complain as long as they could still be comfortable and feel good, and that's the way it's turned out. And I imagined that a few people would not react like sheep, but instead would fight back violently -- and a few have. In writing my novel, I really tried to be realistic, and to speak my mind completely. I didn't rewrite any part of my book or leave out any part because I thought it might be offensive to some people -- and, of course, it has been.
I have a clipping here from the July 14 issue of The Jewish Press, which is published in New York City and which describes itself as the world's largest circulation English-language Jewish newspaper. It's a story about what the folks at The Jewish Press see as a need to "close the loopholes in the U. S. Constitution," as they so nicely put it. And it's a story about the novel I wrote. I'll read you a couple of paragraphs from this story in The Jewish Press:
'The radical right is taking advantage of the Republican victory in Congress to push its own agenda in defiance of the principles that have made the United States a haven for persecuted minorities, a beacon of freedom, justice, and liberty to all people. Unfortunately, the man-made laws under which we operate are like a two-edged sword, offering opportunity to all elements of society to achieve their goals but also similar rights for all to speak their minds even when it contravenes the very essence of tolerance and democracy. One glaring example of this attempt to exploit the loopholes in the U.S. Constitution to bring prejudice and racism in their most vicious forms to public attention is the publication in 1978 of a book called The Turner Diaries by Andrew Macdonald, the pseudonym of William L Pierce, a former professor of physics and research scientist . . . . Pierce's book, which surpasses Mein Kampf in its virulent anti-Semitism, has sold more than 187,000 copies. It describes an end-of-the-century scenario in which the Jewish dominated government is overthrown by the Organization, an underground white group which succeeds where Nazism failed. . . . Our first reaction . . . is that even in the United States there must be a limit to such abuse of so-called freedom of speech. We have enough experience with vicious racists to justify some control over their actions. '
Did you note the phrase "so-called freedom of speech"? These folks at The Jewish Press really would like for the government to prohibit the writing and publication of novels with plots they find offensive or hateful.
I have another newspaper clipping, this one from the August 23 edition of the Fulton County Daily Report. It's an editorial written by two radical feminists, one a law professor and the other a law student at Northwestern University. Like The Jewish Press these two women also focus on my novel The Turner Diaries. They urge that the laws of our land be changed so that I and others who write books they find offensive can be prosecuted -- or at least sued for the damage they claim our writing causes. In my case, they allege that the person or persons who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City earlier this year were caused to do so by reading The Turner Diaries, and so therefore I should be sued for all of the deaths and property loss caused by that act. And, of course, the same for other books which they allege caused people to do harmful things or which offend people -- and, believe me, these women and their friends on the Human Rights Councils are easily offended. And they are quick to see a cause-and-effect relationship between written words or an image in a book and criminal acts by people who read those words. They take it for granted that literature which they consider demeaning to women causes men to rape women. I'll read you just a little of their article:
'Even under current constitutional law, all speech is not equally protected regardless of content. The test is whether the harm caused by the speech is so grave that it outweighs the benefits of protecting its authors from liability. Usually the answer is no. This delicate balancing of interests, however, depends upon judgments about the severity of the harm, not on some absolute legal protection for all things written. Wrapping William Pierce in the fabric of the First Amendment ensures that there is a class of harms occasioned by violent and hate-filled images -- insults, threats, beatings, rapes, and killings -- that remain immune from ordinary legal consequence, even when cause and effect are plainly evident. In reality, if not in First Amendment theory, there persists a connection between image, incitement, and violence: cross- burnings and lynchings, yellow stars and deportations, pornography and rape, The Turner Diaries and Oklahoma City. '
Well, it's pretty clear what these two feminists have in mind, even if they don't come right out and say it. They want to make it illegal for you or for me to insult or offend them or someone in solidarity with them -- or, barring that, they want to be able to sue us for saying something which hurts the feelings of an AIDS carrier or a homosexual or a feminist or a member of one of the other officially protected minorities. They say, in effect, "Look, if we let William Pierce get away with writing books like The Turner Diaries just because of this obsolete legal fiction called the First Amendment, then we'll also have to put up with all sorts of other insults and hate- filled images."
I don't know what sort of insults have so rankled these two feminist lawyers, but it's pretty clear that they're rankled. I wouldn't worry about that so much, except that I'm afraid that the number of feel-good trendies who'll fall for their argument to abolish the First Amendment is growing. Worse than that, I worry that too many of the rest of us will just sit on our hands and let the anti- Constitutional lynch mob have its way.
And, you know, politicians keep up with these trends too. They read the newspapers. They take polls. If they believe that the majority of Americans will fight to keep their rights, then the politicians won't mess with them. They'll even make speeches about how much they love the Constitution, and especially the First Amendment. But as soon as they figure that the people won't fight for their rights, they'll be leading the lynch mob and making speeches about the need to protect people from being offended or harmed by hateful speech.
And what I've just said applies to nearly all politicians and their camp followers, not just to the Clintonistas. It applies to Republicans and conservatives at least as much as it applies to Democrats and liberals. I have another newspaper article, with an essay by Robert Bork, the very conservative legal scholar who was hounded out of his Supreme Court nomination a few years ago because of his conservatism. Mr. Bork now says that we need to reinterpret the First Amendment, so that it does not protect hateful speech. I don't know what appointment Mr. Bork has his eye on now, but that's what the man is saying. It all boils down to this: Nobody in this country, or anywhere else, has any inalienable rights: not the right to free speech or freedom of religion or assembly, not the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. There always will be scoundrels who will try to take away your rights if they believe they can get away with it. And there always will be fools who will let them do it. The only rights that we have, the only rights that we can depend on, are those that we are willing and able to fight for, to shed blood for. And that's what it's coming to in this country very soon.
Now you've heard it. Now I want you think about it. And then I want you to start getting ready for what's coming.
There's a Conspiracy There Are Groups in America Today Working to Abolish Our Constitutional Rights
Let's talk today about conspiracy. That's a subject I usually stay away from. The reason I don't like to talk much about conspiracy is that there are a great many right-wing nuts in America who believe that everything is the result of a conspiracy, and I don't want to sound like a right-wing nut.
Actually, there also are many left-wing nuts who believe in conspiracies. Ever since the Oklahoma City bombing last April, the trendy liberals and leftists have been insisting that Timothy McVeigh couldn't have done it with just one or two buddies. It had to have been the result of a giant conspiracy, involving all of the people and groups that the leftists hate and fear.
The right-wing conspiracy mongers believe that the government itself bombed the Federal building, in order to provide a pretext for cracking down on right wingers. And the left-wing conspiracy mongers believe that everyone to the right of Jimmy Carter was involved in the bombing. They don't buy the story that Timothy McVeigh did it simply because he was enraged at a government headed by a criminal like Bill Clinton which would murder its own citizens wholesale, the way the Clinton government did at Waco. They don't buy that story, because they can't imagine anyone not loving Bill Clinton. How could anyone be enraged at our wonderful government, which has promoted all of the Politically Correct policies, from affirmative action to special rights for homosexuals to open borders? Certainly, no one could hold the Waco massacre against the government. Why, those people the government slaughtered at Waco were just a bunch of crazy Christian fundamentalists, just a religious cult! It's a good thing the government got rid of them. No, the Oklahoma City bombing had to have been a giant conspiracy, involving White supremacists, anti-abortionists, the military-industrial complex, male chauvinist pigs - and all the rest of the people the lefties have been taught to hate.
Sounds pretty nutty, doesn't it? That's why I hesitate to talk about conspiracies. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy nut. But, you know, in the real world there are conspiracies. Not as many conspiracies as the conspiracy nuts believe there are, but still there are some. There was a conspiracy a little over 2,000 years ago by Roman republicans and traditionalists to assassinate Julius Caesar, because they saw him as a threat to freedom. Shortly after that, there was a conspiracy by Jewish leaders in Palestine to have Jesus of Nazareth crucified as a heretic and a troublemaker. Today there are conspiracies to fix prices, where the executives of a number of companies will get together and make a secret agreement not to undersell each other. There are conspiracies to cover up criminal activity by committing perjury, as occurred in the Watergate cover-up of the 1970s, in which a number of high government officials, including the President of the United States, were involved.
And there is a conspiracy now to deprive the American people of their most fundamental right: a conspiracy to deprive them of their right to say or write or preach whatever they believe. I'll say that again, because I want it to sink in: there are many people in the United States, some of the wealthiest and most powerful people, including many in the highest government offices, who today are engaged in a criminal conspiracy to deprive you and me, and our children and our grandchildren, of our right of free speech, a right for which our forefathers fought and bled and died.
I'm not using the term conspiracy loosely here. I don't mean merely that there are trendy people who believe that the First Amendment was meant to protect only Politically Correct speech. I don't mean merely that there are people who hate you and me and wish that they could shut us up. It's not against the law for Politically Correct people to hate us. It's not against the law for someone to want to shut someone else up. But it is against the law for a group of people to get together and secretly make a plan to shut us up by depriving us of our Constitutional rights and then to begin carrying out that plan step by step. That's a criminal conspiracy, a conspiracy for which people can be arrested and sent to prison for many years. And I'm telling you that there is a criminal conspiracy involving many rich and powerful people, a criminal conspiracy in progress now to deprive us of our freedom of speech.
Now let's get down to the concrete facts of this criminal conspiracy. Ever since American Dissident Voices, went on the air four years ago, there has been a concerted, conspiratorial effort to silence us, to keep us off the air. Jewish groups have contacted one radio station owner after another and tried to persuade him to cancel his contract with us. When persuasion didn't work, they used threats. Some station owners have been threatened with arson or bombings. But most have simply been warned that they will be boycotted by all the advertisers the Jews are able to influence if they continue to broadcast American Dissident Voices. The Jews approached the owner of station WWVA, in Wheeling, West Virginia, more than a year ago and persuaded him to stop carrying our program. They approached the owner of station KAAY, in Little Rock, Arkansas, recently and persuaded him to stop carrying our program. During the past four years they intimidated many other station owners into breaking their contracts with us and dropping our program.
I know that this is so, because station owners who have not yielded to this Jewish intimidation, station owners who really believe in free speech, have told us about the pressure which has been applied to them. They have told us about delegations of Jews showing up at their offices, sometimes with an ambitious Gentile politician or a Christian clergyman in tow, and warning them to stop broadcasting our programs. We have heard this over and over again from the owners and managers of the stations in the American Dissident Voices network.
And I should add that the station owners who do cave in to this Jewish pressure usually won't talk to us at all afterward, because they understand that by cooperating with the Jews they have themselves become criminals. Again, I'm not talking loosely here: I mean criminals in the strictly legal sense of the word. It is not illegal for a station owner to decide all by himself that he doesn't like us and won't carry our programs any longer. But if he yields to a Jewish demand that he drop our programs, he is becoming a party to the conspiracy to deprive us of our Constitutional rights, and he knows that he must keep his mouth shut in order to protect himself.
I'll give you another concrete fact. Just a few weeks ago I accepted an invitation to speak before a private meeting of a patriotic organization in London - the largest patriotic organization in Britain, in fact. The day before the meeting the British Home Office, which is in charge of immigration, sent me an urgent message warning me that I should not plan on traveling to Britain, because I would not be admitted to that country. The Home Secretary, the message said, was concerned that I might cause a public disorder if I came to Britain.
Now, I have never in my life caused a public disorder anywhere. There have been times when I've been tempted to make a ruckus, times when I felt a disorder was justified, but I'm basically a very peaceable person, and I've never yielded to the temptation to make a public disorder. Furthermore, the meeting at which I was scheduled to speak was a closed, private meeting: hardly an opportunity to make a public disorder. Nevertheless, the Home Secretary in the British government - a Home Secretary who just happens to be a Jew - told me that I would not be permitted to enter Britain because I might make a public disorder.
Now it's bad enough to be told by a Jew, an alien, a Middle Easterner, that I will not be permitted by him to enter the country of my ancestry, the country of my forefathers, for any reason at all. But, more than that, it is quite obvious that this Jewish Home Secretary was attempting to prevent me from speaking. He didn't want to preserve public order in Britain: he wanted to silence me.
I am happy to report to you that he failed in this attempt. I managed to get into Britain, make my speech, and get out again, although not without employing certain precautions in order to avoid being intercepted by the minions of the Home Secretary. But I am not happy at all that this criminal conspiracy to keep me from speaking, to keep me from being heard by those who are interested in what I have to say, reaches all the way across the Atlantic and involves the highest officials in the present British government.
This criminal conspiracy also involves the highest officials in the United States government. Although I cannot yet prove it, I strongly suspect that the Home Secretary in Britain was in collusion with government officials in the United States when he acted against me. He did not decide all on his own that I should be prevented from speaking in Britain. He received information about me and my travel plans from his fellow Jews in the United States government - and also from non-Jewish government officials here, officials like the politically ambitious chief of our secret police in Washington.
There are elected officials in our government, as well as appointed bureaucrats, who have been planning and working for years to torpedo the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, just the way they have torpedoed the Second Amendment, planning and working to prevent anyone from saying or writing anything Politically Incorrect.
Many of the conspirators who have been working to deprive us of our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms have not been bashful about their aim. They have formed organizations publicly stating their intent to disarm law- abiding citizens. The conspirators in the government, people like Senator Dianne Feinstein and Congressman Charles Schumer, have been quite loud in announcing their opposition to the Second Amendment. The bureaucrats in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms have been quite flagrant in their abuse of the Second Amendment rights of Americans. But there has been much more secrecy and double-talk and deception in the campaign against the First Amendment. The same people are involved in the conspiracy against the First Amendment as are involved in the conspiracy against the Second Amendment - people like Senator Feinstein and Congressman Schumer - but they are much less open about it. At the same time that they are campaigning for new laws to limit what Americans can say and write, they are telling us that they believe in freedom of speech.
Ever since the Oklahoma City bombing in April, which the criminal conspirators against free speech have regarded as a godsend, the consistent, unvarying line of the conspirators has been that the bombing was the direct consequence of permitting Americans to say and write Politically Incorrect things. Immediately after the bombing, Mr. Clinton was on television blaming the bombing on radio programs which criticize the government, its policies, or its actions: programs like American Dissident Voices. Since then spokesmen for the controlled media and for various Jewish groups, such as the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, have been unanimous in making the same claim. "Words have consequences," they say. "People who attack the government with words must be held responsible for acts of violence against the government committed by others who are influenced by those words," they say. Their message is that the only way we can be safe from terrorists is to outlaw the sort of speech which may inspire terrorist acts. We are living in increasingly dangerous times, they say, and we must be willing to give up just a little of our freedom in order to be safer. I'm sure you've heard that argument a hundred times during the past few months.
Is it a serious argument? We all understand, of course, that words and ideas do indeed have consequences. All around us, in every city in America, we can see the consequences of the ideas promoted by television and the other Jewish media for the past 50 years. I am quite certain that they wouldn't welcome the suggestion that they be held responsible for what their words and their ideas have done to our society.
The conspirators don't want to outlaw words which have dangerous consequences. They just want to outlaw words which are dangerous to them, words which expose the crimes they have committed and are committing against our people, words which reveal them for what they are. They want to continue spreading their poisonous and destructive ideas. They just want to stop us from talking about what they're doing and from defending ourselves against them.
And they know that Joe and Jill Six-pack always have been willing to give up their freedom in return for the promise of a little more security or a little more comfort. They know that they can persuade Joe and Jill that everyone will be safer if no one is permitted to criticize the government. They know that they can continue to manipulate Joe and Jill with their words if they can stop us from contradicting them and exposing them. And for most of the past 50 years they have been able to manipulate Joe and Jill and most of the rest of our people virtually without opposition, without contradiction. I could speak out against them, but my voice was ineffective. Only a few people could hear me. The mass media were too huge and too expensive for me and my associates to use. Only the Jews and their friends could use them to reach the great masses of people. But in the past few years technological advances have begun to change this situation. First, the advent of desktop publishing made it vastly easier and less expensive to publish books, magazines, and newsletters. Then computer communications through the Internet made it even easier to reach large numbers of people with uncensored ideas. I and my associates in the National Alliance have used the strength we gained from employing these new media to begin building a bridgehead for ourselves in the older mass media, starting with radio broadcasting. In the next year or two we will be ready to move into other mass media.
And the Jews cannot tolerate this. They cannot permit the truth about themselves and their policies to reach the great masses of our people. They know that even Joe and Jill Six-pack will rebel if they fully understand what has been done to them and to their world by Jewish monopoly control of the mass media.
And so, once again, the essence of my message to you today is this: the people in the media and the government, the spokesmen for all of those Jewish organizations calling for bans on what they call "hate speech," are not just misguided individuals who believe that we all will be better off if people like me are silenced. No, they are not misguided, and they are not acting as individuals. They know exactly what they're doing, and they are acting in collusion. They're involved in a criminal conspiracy to deprive all of us of our rights, so that they can maintain their control over our society without opposition. The conspirators are deliberately and consciously manipulating public opinion, pushing the average voter toward giving up the First Amendment, so that no voice can be heard but the voice of the conspirators.
You know, it has been said, even by many of those who would like to silence me, that the book I wrote nearly 20 years ago, The Turner Diaries, is prophetic, that many of the things I predicted in that book are becoming reality. Now I will make another prophecy: very soon, perhaps within the next few months, certainly within the next few years, the conspirators will make a final push to write into law a ban on any speech contradicting them or exposing them. The politicians who are talking now about how much they support free speech will implement this ban for them, in order to keep their jobs. They will tell us it's for our own good. And when this happens, it will not be by accident. It will not be that we blundered away our freedom. It will be the consequence of a deliberate, calculated, cold-blooded, criminal conspiracy by those who hate our people, hate our ways, hate everything about us, and are determined to destroy us.
And I will make one other prophecy: the conspirators will have their way - for a while. As I said, Joe and Jill Six-pack are very gullible, and they always follow the path of least resistance instead of the path of greatest advantage. They will permit their freedom to be taken away, and they will let themselves be persuaded that they are better off without it. But the victory of the conspirators will not last. It will not last, because they have waited too long to silence us. We have reached too many people with our message. Too many people of courage and commitment know about the conspirators now. Even if I am silenced, the truth will continue spreading. The rage will continue to grow. The smoldering fury will burst into flames, and the conspirators will not be able to extinguish it.
Ultimately, the conspirators will be no more successful in keeping the truth from the American people than the Jewish Home Secretary was in keeping my message out of Britain. And the day will come when the conspirators - all of them - will be held accountable for their crimes and will be punished in full measure. I not only prophesy this, I swear it, I promise it.
The Silencing of Hans Schmidt Hans Schmidt Was Thrown into Jail Simply for Displeasing the Wrong People
Perhaps you've noticed recently how pleased the news media have been to inform us that Mr. Clinton's popularity with the electorate is rising. His so-called "approval rating" is higher than it's ever been, largely because he is perceived as taking a decisive and principled stand to bring peace to Bosnia.
It's not that the American people are happy about the possibility of becoming involved in yet another war, but they are pleased to see their draft-dodging, pot- smoking President, who was in the streets with the Reds and the hippies chanting "Ho, ho, ho Chi Minh, the Viet Cong's gonna win" back during the Vietnam war, finally trying to act like a statesman by using American diplomacy and military power to end the butchery in Bosnia: finally trying to walk tall and carry a big stick. Probably that makes many Americans feel a little safer, feel that their President will stick up for them when they need him.
Well, let me tell you something else about Mr. Clinton's supposed principles: about the way he walks tall and sticks up for Americans when they need the support of their government. Five months ago, in August 1995, an American was seized by the German secret police at the airport in Frankfurt as he was preparing to return to the United States after visiting his 93-year-old mother in Germany. He was thrown into a German prison, where he remained until very recently, without trial and without bond. His name is Hans Schmidt. He lives in Pensacola, Florida. He has been a U.S. citizen for 40 years. He committed no crime while he was in Germany. He has never done anything, either in Germany or the United States, which is a crime under U.S. law.
What he had done, however, was publish a newsletter in 1994 in the United States which displeased the Jews. You see, Mr. Schmidt heads the German- American National Political Action Committee, an organization dedicated to the interests of Americans of German descent, like Mr. Schmidt himself - and like 55 million other Americans. One topic which Mr. Schmidt often discusses in his newsletters is the Jews' hate-propaganda campaign against Germany, especially their claim that the Germans gassed 6,000,000 of them to death during the Second World War, and therefore the Germans of today owe the Jews of today a free living. In particular, Mr. Schmidt criticized the anti-German hate film Schindler's List, pointing out a number of Jewish propaganda lies in the film.
Now, in the United States it's still not illegal to criticize a film - even a Jewish propaganda film. But in Germany it's a different story. In Germany to contradict the Jewish party line about the so- called "Holocaust" is illegal. It's what the Jews and their news media call a "hate crime." Many Germans are in prison today simply because they have written or said something the Jews didn't like. That's because the German government today is a continuation of the occupation government imposed on the German people 50 years ago by the communist and democratic Allies who conquered Germany in the Second World War. It is a government in which German patriots were forbidden to participate. It consists of traitors who were willing to serve the conquerors of their people - of ambitious traitors who understood that the way to power and privilege in conquered Germany lay in pleasing the Jews. And these traitors were happy to impose on their own people whatever laws the Jews demanded. They taxed the German people so that the German government could send tens of billions of dollars to Israel in so-called "war reparations" - even though Israel didn't even exist during the war. And they enacted laws making it illegal for Germans to criticize or contradict Jews.
Now, of course, German laws are the business of the Germans. Until the German people rise up, hang their traitors, and form a patriotic government, they'll have to do without freedom of speech and freedom of the press. They'll have to obey the laws imposed on them by a government of traitors or pay the penalty for breaking those laws. But those laws cannot be imposed on Americans for what Americans do on American soil. The German government cannot. take away an American's right to say or write what he wants in America.
Hans Schmidt has been a naturalized American citizen for 40 years. He has committed no crime in Germany. The German government has no jurisdiction over what he has written in America. And yet he has been arrested by the German secret police and imprisoned. How can that be? Why did that happen?
I'll tell you. Hans Schmidt was arrested for two reasons. First, there are Jewish hate organizations in every country, including the United States and Germany, which not only make Jewish hate propaganda for the Jew-controlled media, but which also spy on the people of the country in which they are located. They compile hate lists of people who say or write things which displease them. They distribute these hate lists to their news media, and then the people on the lists are accused of "hate crimes" by the media. And they distribute these hate lists to the governments over which they have influence, and they demand that the governments take repressive action against the people on the lists. Hans Schmidt's name is high on most of these Jewish hate lists. That's one of the reasons he was arrested by the German secret police.
A second reason is that the German secret police knew ahead of time that the United States government would not protest Hans Schmidt's arrest. More important, they knew that the Jew- controlled news media would remain silent-that there would be no headlines in the New York Times or the Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal or any other Jewish newspaper.
They knew that the U.S. government would not protest, because the head of the secret police in the United States, Mr. Clinton's FBI Director Louis Freeh, has pledged to them repeatedly during the past two years that he would do everything he could to help them silence Americans who are saying things the Jews don't like. He has publicly lamented the fact that the United States does not have repressive laws like those in Germany, which prohibit Politically Incorrect speech. He has publicly lamented the fact that the FBI cannot arrest people like Hans Schmidt - and me and many other Americans on the Jews' hate lists - but he has pledged that he would help the German secret police arrest them. And that's exactly what he has done. Mr. Freeh is a politically ambitious little man, and he knows which side his bread is buttered on. He knows whom he must please in order to remain in favor in the Clinton government. And so when Americans on a Jewish hate list travel to another country, Mr. Freeh's secret police in Washington tip off the secret police in the other country. They collaborate in punishing American citizens for exercising their Constitutional rights.
And of course, it's not just Mr. Freeh who is engaged in this subversive, anti- American activity. The whole Clinton government is composed of people who want to abolish the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights, so that they can usher in the New World Order, where no one will be permitted to say or write anything which is not Politically Correct. They want a New World Order governed by "hate laws," where anyone who doesn't toe the line can be thrown into prison for a "hate crime." They take their lead from Jews who already have succeeded in imposing such laws on the people of Germany, of Canada, of Britain, and of many other European countries. The Clinton government could not silence Hans Schmidt while he was in America, but they did collaborate with the German government in silencing him, and they continue to collaborate with the German government by failing to protest its imprisonment of an American citizen.
Contrast this despicable, treasonous behavior of the Clinton government in Hans Schmidt's case with its behavior in the case of the Chinese dissident, Harry Wu. We've all heard about Harry Wu, because the controlled news media in America made a celebrity of him when he was arrested by the Chinese government a few months ago. The Clintonistas became his champions and protectors. Mrs. Clinton wouldn't attend an international feminist conference in China, because the Chinese had Harry Wu in jail. And Harry Wu had quite clearly broken Chinese law in China by illegally sneaking into the country with a forged passport. We may sympathize with Mr. Wu's anti-Communism, but we cannot honestly pretend to be outraged when the Chinese government arrests him for entering China with a forged passport. That's illegal everywhere.
Hans Schmidt, on the other hand, did nothing illegal in either Germany or the United States. He was arrested solely because the Jews demanded it, and because their lackeys in the German government knew that their lackeys in the U.S. government wouldn't protest. That is something to be outraged about.
Now, I've known Hans Schmidt for 15 years. He's a personal friend. At a time when I was even poorer than I am today, he gave me an automobile. It's an automobile which my wife still drives. I've spoken often with him over the years and shared important information with him. So I have a personal reason for being outraged at what has been done to Hans Schmidt. But you should be just as outraged as I am. The attack on Hans Schmidt's rights and freedom is an attack on the rights and freedom of every American. If Hans Schmidt can be silenced, so can I - or you - or anyone. If we don't express our outrage now about what has been done to Hans Schmidt, who will speak up for us when we are silenced?
There's not much point in directing our outrage against the German government. That's something for German patriots to concern themselves with. And I'm sure that one day they will rise up and settle matters over there, if they have enough rope and lampposts for the job. But we have a job to do over here. We Americans should direct our outrage against the subversives and criminals in our own government who have conspired with the German government to silence Hans Schmidt. We should direct our outrage against the Clintonistas and all of the other collaborators. We should direct our outrage at the hate organizations which compile the hate lists and whisper in the ears of the politicians and provide hate propaganda for the controlled media: organizations like the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and the so-called Southern Poverty Law Center. It is these Jewish hate organizations which ultimately are responsible for the imprisonment of Hans Schmidt. It is these hate organizations which are pushing for "hate laws" in the United States, making it illegal to criticize them or their policies. It is these hate organizations which are pushing harder than anyone else to abolish our Constitution and subject us all to the New World Order.
Just being outraged at these hate organizations and at their collaborators in the media and the government isn't enough, of course. If we want to keep our freedom to say and write what we think, just being angry at those who are taking it away from us isn't enough. We have to fight these enemies of freedom with all the means at our disposal.
Look! We cannot do now to this filth, to these haters of our people, what really needs to be done. That will have to wait. But here's what we can do now, what we must do now: first, we must remember that most of the politicians and bureaucrats who collaborate with the haters are men without principle or conviction or scruple. They are simply ambitious opportunists. Most of them are lawyers. They don't care about freedom one way or the other, since they can't eat it or put in the bank. It's just a word to them. They don't care whether Hans Schmidt is in prison or not. All they care about is how much butter is on their bread. We must make these corrupt men understand that a day of reckoning is coming, and that they will be called to account. We must make them understand that on that day we will present them with a bill for all of the butter they have accepted from the haters. We must make them understand that the time for them to begin buying insurance against that day is now.
Remembering these things, let's begin by reminding them that to us freedom is not just a word, that to us it is important whether or not our government sticks up for its citizens' rights - and that until the day comes when we use other means, we will at least make our voices heard in support of freedom, that we will not be silenced, and that if they try to ignore us our voices will only grow louder and stronger.
Let's begin by writing letters and making telephone calls. Write to the State Department in Washington, which is supposed to be responsible for the welfare of American citizens traveling in other countries. Tell them that you are very unhappy that they did nothing to obtain Hans Schmidt's release. Tell them that you are angry. Tell them that you want to know why they haven't even protested to the German government.
Write to the politicians in the Congress who are supposed to be representing your interests. Tell them the same thing. Demand answers.
Listen! You may think that writing letters is wasted effort, that others already have written and that it has done no good, so why should you bother. The politicians and bureaucrats don't care, you may think, so why should you make yourself look foolish by making demands that they'll just ignore. If that's the way you think, you're wrong. I tell you that if everyone listening with us today will write, if those politicians and bureaucrats receive a hundred thousand angry letters, they will remember that a little insurance might be a good thing for them.
And write to the editors of every newspaper and news magazine you read. Tell them what you think about the failure of the Clinton government to protect the rights of its citizens. Some of those letters will be published and will be read by tens of thousands of other people.
Use your telephone. Call every talk show which can be received in your area. Get on the air. Express yourself forcefully. People will listen to you.
The haters at the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center will continue to sneer at us and to snicker among themselves, and they will continue to spread their hatred to the media and to pull the strings on most of the politicians and to tell the Clintonistas what to do. It'll be a while yet before we can wipe the sneer off their faces for good, but even now we can make their hateful work more difficult for them.
The most important thing for us to keep in mind is that we are not powerless, despite what the haters would like for everyone to believe. We don't have to lie down and let them walk on us. If we just have the courage and the energy to use our voices, we can accomplish much. The haters always do their dirty work in secret, behind the scenes. They can only steal freedom from Americans if the public doesn't understand what they're up to. They can only get away with silencing people like Hans Schmidt if the public doesn't know about it. It's our responsibility to tell the public: to tell them loudly and clearly and repeatedly.
Let's think about one more thing. It is terrible, of course, that we have a government composed of criminals and traitors, of despicable politicians like Bill Clinton, who collaborate with the enemies of our people to bring about such crimes as the imprisonment of Hans Schmidt.
Despite this, however, as we move into this new year I am more optimistic than I have ever been. A great sea change is taking place in the consciousness of the American people, a great awakening. Most of them are still far from a full understanding of the evil which afflicts our nation. They are still far from being ready to deal with the haters and their collaborators in the manner they deserve. But there is at least a new openness, a new willingness to listen and to reason. I see a growing impatience with treason, a growing unwillingness to swallow the smooth lies of the Clintonistas, a growing suspicion of the controlled media and of the hate groups behind the media. And it is our responsibility, the responsibility of all of us with some understanding of what has been happening in America, to help the rest of the people develop their own understanding, to help their awareness grow, to speed their awakening.
I can see that awakening on the horizon, in the not too distant future. On the horizon I can see the glow of the cleansing fire with which this nation will be swept: the fire which will restore us to health and sanity and honor, the fire which will consume the filth and the deceit and the hate and leave us with the possibility to shape a new future for our children and our grandchildren. We must endure more treason and injustice as the haters pull out all the stops in their efforts to maintain their power now, and later to save their skins. But the end of them and their evil is in sight, and that is something in which we can all rejoice.
Retribution Is Coming . . . And They Know It
Last month I told you about Hans Schmidt, the chairman of the German-American Political Action Committee, who was imprisoned by the German government for something he wrote in a newsletter which was published in the United States. He was charged by the German government with what the controlled news media call a "hate crime": that is, for writing something which is Politically Incorrect. Specifically, Mr. Schmidt had written that the present government of Germany is infested by Jews and is heavily under their influence. Mr. Schmidt was facing the possibility of a five-year prison term in Germany for having written those forbidden words.
I was very angry about that. My anger was not directed so much at the German government, but rather at the government and the media in this country, which had remained silent about Mr. Schmidt's imprisonment, even though he has been an American citizen for 40 years and his so- called "hate crime" was the exercise of his right of free speech in this country. Bill and Hillary Clinton, with all of their phony concern about human rights, had spoken not one word of protest about the imprisonment of Hans Schmidt.
Do you understand what I said? I said phony concern. I said that the Clintons are liars, that they are crooks, that they are hypocrites, that they don't give the slightest damn about any American's rights except their own, but they posture and pose and pretend in front of the TV cameras, because that's good for votes.
Of course, it's not just the Clintons or the Democrats. No one in the Republican Congress spoke up for Hans Schmidt's rights either. No one in the Republican Congress cares about Hans Schmidt's rights -- or your rights, or mine. They are all afraid of the controlled media; they're all afraid of the Jews.
That's what this country has come to.
Well, I am happy to report to you that, despite the American government, despite Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress, Mr. Schmidt is out of prison now and is recuperating at his home in Florida.
You see, the German government had a problem with Hans Schmidt. They arrested him back in August of last year because the Jews demanded it. The Jews told the German government, "Shut that man up; we don't like what he's saying." And the shameful fact is, when the Jews demand something, the politicians jump, whether they're German politicians or American politicians. So the German government arrested Mr. Schmidt last August when he traveled to Germany to visit his 92-year-old mother, and they charged him with a "hate crime," because he had written in his newsletter back in the United States that the German government is unduly under Jewish influence.
But then they had a problem. Although the controlled media had cooperated by suppressing the news of his arrest, the German government was afraid that if they put Mr. Schmidt on trial that might attract attention. Some American newspaper might report on the trial. Some other radio broadcaster besides me might say something about it on the radio. And the American people might sit up and pay attention. They might say, "Hey, how can this be? How can the German government put an American citizen on trial for something he wrote in the United States?"
And people would realize that this sort of thing happens. They would realize that there is no such thing as freedom of speech or freedom of the press in Germany. They would realize that after the Second World War, 50 years ago, the Jews demanded that Germans not be permitted to say or write anything that the Jews didn't approve of, and that laws were passed in Germany to implement those demands.
People would understand that, despite its economic prosperity, Germany isn't a free country, that it is under Jewish control. And they would also realize that the American government hadn't done anything to protect Hans Schmidt's rights as an American citizen. They would realize that the Jews exercise nearly as much control over the U.S. government as over the German government.
So the German government couldn't really afford to put Hans Schmidt on trial. And they couldn't afford to just dismiss the charge against him and turn him loose, because that would remove the teeth from their "hate crime" laws, and Germans might begin thinking that they were free to say or write whatever they wanted. That would never do. The Jews wouldn't tolerate it. They would begin screaming about "anti-Semitism" and "neo-Nazis" and the "Holocaust" again. They would crank out even more hate-propaganda films and television programs against the Germans.
So after five months of imprisonment the German government released Hans Schmidt last month on his own recognizance and told him that he would have to stand trial on the "hate crime" charge. And then Hans Schmidt did exactly what they expected him to do -- and what most reasonable people would do in his situation: he returned immediately to the United States. The German government feigned surprise and issued another warrant for his arrest. Thus, the German government got around its little problem. It avoided having to put Mr. Schmidt on trial and risk calling international attention to the lack of freedom in Germany. And at the same time it left the charge hanging over Mr. Schmidt's head, so that he could not return to Germany -- which is what the German government really wanted to accomplish.
So in Germany today every knowledgeable person -- every journalist and every historian and every government official and everyone else concerned with public affairs -- understands certain things but is forbidden by law to say or write what he understands. If a teacher tells his students what he knows about some forbidden topic, or if a journalist writes forbidden words for his newspaper, then it's five years in the penitentiary for committing a "hate crime."
Well, that's Germany's problem, you may think. Actually, it's very much America's problem too. The reason the German government threw Hans Schmidt into prison for five months for something he wrote in the United States is that the German government is simply a puppet of the international Jewish power structure. The Jews have been trying for years to silence Hans Schmidt in America. They waited until he made a visit to his mother in Germany, and then they struck. They used the German government to intimidate him. Now they're using the German government in an effort to silence me and others. They're trying to keep me off the Internet, and they're trying to keep this radio program off the air. They've been screaming for new "hate crime" laws in America which would make it illegal for me to talk or write about what they're doing, the same kind of "hate crime" laws they've already imposed on the German people. So far, they've been unsuccessful in America. Not because the politicians here aren't eager to do whatever the Jews tell them to do, but because there are still too many ordinary Americans -- armed Americans -- who won't put up with it. So the Jews are working through the German government again. They've told the German government to get me and other Politically Incorrect people off the Internet.
The German government responded a few weeks ago by testing the waters, using pornography as a pretext. The German government demanded that Internet access providers in the United States which had been providing access to people with pornographic material withdraw that access. The excuse was that Germans were viewing this American pornographic material through their computers in Germany.
Actually, that's a pretty lame excuse, because pornography of the most disgusting sort is freely available in Germany from many sources other than the Internet. But who can defend pornography -- especially child pornography? So the American Internet access providers complied with the German government's demand and cut off access to the pornographers.
Well, it didn't take the German government but a few days after that to make a new demand: Cut off access to everyone who puts Politically Incorrect material on the Internet. Since Germans are not permitted to read any material which deals truthfully with the Second World War or with Jews or with race or with a number of other sensitive topics, and since my organization, the National Alliance, among others, puts documentary material dealing with such topics on the Internet, the German government now claims that Internet access providers in the United States are helping computer users in Germany break the law by giving them access to forbidden facts and ideas. And the German government, prodded from behind by international Jewish groups, is demanding that this access be cut off. Since a German computer user can read anything on the Internet that an American can, and since it is illegal for a German to read anything which is not Politically Correct, the German government is demanding, in effect, that no one, German or American, be permitted to read such material. Isn't that outrageous? Americans should give up their freedom of thought -- and I and others should give up our freedom of speech -- so that the minds of the German people can continue to be controlled by the German government -- and by the Jews behind that government.
So, what does all of this mean? Should Americans really worry that the German government is trying to tell us what we aren't permitted to read or to say on the Internet? Is that a serious threat to Americans' freedom?
You bet it is! It's serious because it's not just the German government which is trying to control our reading and writing habits. The demands for censoring the Internet first came from Jewish groups. The Simon Wiesenthal Center, headquartered in Los Angeles, has been foremost in screaming for laws against free speech on the Internet. The head rabbi at the Wiesenthal Center, Rabbi Abraham Cooper, has sent threatening letters to Internet access providers, trying to pressure them into denying access to any Politically Incorrect person. Rabbi Cooper doesn't say "Politically Incorrect." Instead he uses the buzzwords "hate," "hate speech," "hate crime." But what he means is "Politically Incorrect." And other powerful Jewish groups -- the Anti- Defamation League of B'nai B'rith and the Southern Poverty Law Center, for example -- mean the same thing when they talk about "hate." To them "hate" is anything which threatens powerful Jewish interests; "hate" is anything which they fear. And they fear nothing more than the truth. They fear nothing more than the exposure of their own motives and activities. They fear nothing more than free people armed with the truth about what these groups are up to. They know that they can only continue increasing their wealth and power at the expense of everyone else if they can control our thinking.
That's why Rabbi Cooper and the other Jewish leaders are desperate to censor the Internet, are desperate to get programs like American Dissident Voices off the air, are desperate to impose on Americans the same kind of thought-control laws they've imposed on the German people. For them to be safe they must be able to control the thinking not just of Germans, but also of Americans and Englishmen and Frenchmen and Swedes and all the rest of us.
And these Jewish leaders are very, very powerful. They are able to make the German government do their bidding. They are very close to being able to do the same with the American government. Their new strategy, their new argument, is that individual nations like the United States and France and Germany can no longer have their own separate laws and customs. Everything is international these days, they are telling the politicians, and we must adapt our laws to that fact. Since what Americans do affects Germans and other foreigners, we must have new laws to reflect these international interactions. We must scrap the Bill of Rights, because it is old fashioned. It isn't international.
And, believe me, the politicians are listening. The great majority of these politicians, Democrat and Republican, don't care at all -- not at all -- about things like the Constitution and free speech. They just care about getting re-elected. They will pay lip service to the Constitution, they will tell you what champions of free speech they are, so long as they believe that's what will bring in the most votes. But they would just as soon pay lip service to Satanism or to homosexuality or to the same sort of thought-control laws which have been imposed on the Germans, if they thought they could get away with it.
I'll recap what I've just said, because it's very, very important. There are two reasons why Americans must take very seriously the current effort of the German government to censor Americans on the Internet. The first reason is that international Jewish organizations, which are extremely rich and powerful, are behind this effort. The second reason is that the American government, whose duty it is to resist such efforts, is totally corrupt and totally irresponsible.
And, of course, it's not just the Internet which is at risk here. If they succeed in stifling the Internet, the next thing they'll go after is radio broadcasts. After all, Germans can turn on their radios, tune to this program on short-wave, and commit a crime by listening to ideas and facts that are banned in Germany. I'll guarantee you that if the German government succeeds in imposing thought control on the Internet it will then argue that the same considerations of internationalism apply to radio broadcasts, and that radio stations in the United States must be prohibited by law from carrying any Politically Incorrect programs. They would like to make radio in the United States as Politically Correct as television already is. Their aim is to cut off, one by one, every channel of free expression, every means of communicating facts and ideas which are not under tight Jewish control. And that will be the end of freedom for Americans.
We don't have much freedom left now, but what we do have we'd better fight for. We'd better fight every effort to censor the Internet. We'd better fight every effort to outlaw Politically Incorrect radio programs. We'd better fight every effort to impose new "hate crime" laws on us.
Unfortunately, it is not feasible, at this time, for us to oppose with organized physical force those who are trying to take away our freedom. We must use organized force only as a last resort.
There are two ways that we can fight effectively for our freedom at this time, however. One way is to exercise our freedom, to use it, to say what we know to be true, rather than remaining silent for fear that we will off end some advocate of internationalism or censorship. Speak up! Tell everyone about this radio program. Tell everyone about our World Wide Web site on the Internet at: http://www.natvan.com Share with others the facts and ideas you receive from these sources.
And the second way we can fight is to let the politicians know, in no uncertain terms, that we will not tolerate any more infringements on our liberty. Tell them that we will do whatever it takes to safeguard our freedom. Tell them that we will even resort to force, if we must. And the politicians will listen. They may be crooked, but they're not stupid. They can count. If they know that enough Americans are alert to what's going on and will oppose it, they also will resist Jewish pressure to impose on Americans the kind of thought control which already has been imposed on Germans.
I'll leave you with a final thought today. America's internal enemies may be very powerful. They may control most of our mass media. They may have most of the politicians in their pocket. They already may have corrupted America's institutions terminally. They already may have made bloody civil war and chaos inevitable by opening our borders to the Third World and converting most of our cities to festering centers of anti-American and anti-White turmoil. They already may have killed the America that our forefathers built, and they may have left for us only the possibility of salvaging what we can from the ruins and building a whole new country.
But, despite all these things, they are losing the war, and they know it. That is why they have become so shrill and so insistent in their efforts to silence us. They know that they are losing the war, and they are afraid. If they were confident in their control of the situation, they would not care what a few of us say on the radio or on the Internet.
Everything that they have done has been destructive, and the process of destruction is nearing its end, and they know it. Back in the 1960s they worked to break down our standards, our traditions, our discipline, and our internal cohesion. They worked to corrupt our young people. They introduced alien ideologies, they opened our borders, they encouraged every sort of perversion and every sort of unrest. They changed America from a country in which we were proud and strong into a country which suited them: into a cosmopolitan, multicultural, crime and drug ridden morass. And now the country is dying. And they know it. They know that ultimately they must lose, because everything that they do is unhealthy and destructive and unnatural. But they hope that they can postpone retribution if they can silence us. And their allies, their collaborators, all of the crooked and unnatural people who have benefited temporarily from the destruction, hope the same thing. But I'll tell you this: retribution is coming. They will not avert it. And we will build a new America.
Why They Hate Buchanan
I'm sure that most of our readers have been observing with some interest the Republican primaries these past few months. And I'm sure that you've noticed, as I have, the most interesting feature of these primaries: namely the frantic attacks by the controlled media and by the other Republicans on candidate Patrick Buchanan.
The controlled media keep telling us that their polls show that most voters believe Buchanan is "too extreme." That is simply the media's way of trying to move the herd toward that view. They want people to think, "Pat Buchanan can't win, because he's too extreme. We know he's too extreme, because we heard it on TV." And, of course, the other Republican candidates are echoing the same line: Buchanan is an extremist, they say.
Now, just what is it about Buchanan that's extreme?
Is it his statement that if he becomes President he'll stop the flood of illegal immigration from Mexico? Is it now considered "extreme" for a Presidential candidate to be in favor of enforcing U.S. law and protecting our borders? Some people apparently think so.
Or is it Buchanan's position on foreign trade which makes him an extremist? Is he an extremist because he believes that American workers should not be forced to compete for jobs with Chinese coolies or Mexican mestizos? Is he an extremist for pointing out the simple truth that Washington's present policy of uncontrolled foreign trade is destroying one basic American industry after another and is exporting hundreds of thousands of American jobs overseas? Is that "too extreme"? The people who slant our television news programs say it is. Mr. Dole and the other Republicans say it is.
Well, we know that many wealthy businessmen welcome both the flow of cheap labor across our border with Mexico and also the opportunity to build their factories in Indonesia or elsewhere in the Third World, where labor is so inexpensive. And we know that Republican politicians traditionally receive much of their financial support from wealthy businessmen. Is that why the Republican Party bosses are so worried that Buchanan may become the Republican candidate? Is that why the other Republicans are saying that they'll support any Republican candidate chosen by the voters except Pat Buchanan?
No, that's not the reason. If Robert Dole and the other Republican candidates really believed that Pat Buchanan's views were too extreme for most people, they wouldn't worry about him at all. They'd just let him lose in the primaries, and then they'd have less competition. And as for the Republican Party bosses, don't they understand the purpose of primaries? Primaries are to give the voters a chance to choose the candidate they want. The party bosses should be happy to have the most popular candidate, instead of trying to frighten voters into accepting a less-popular candidate. And as for the wealthy businessmen, Buchanan is running without campaign money from them. If he can win without their money, who cares what they think about his views on immigration and trade? No, Buchanan's policies certainly aren't extreme. The other Republicans aren't worried that the voters will reject those policies. Instead they're afraid that the voters will approve of those policies. They're afraid that Pat Buchanan will be able to build mass support for protecting our borders, for enforcing our immigration laws, for bringing back American jobs and rebuilding American industries which have been exported to the Third World.
The real key to understanding the attacks on Patrick Buchanan by other Republicans and by the controlled media is not extremism at all. It's something else that we're beginning to hear in the attacks on Buchanan, as his attackers become more worried about his popularity. That something else is what they're calling "anti-Semitism." Pat Buchanan is an anti-Semite, they're whispering, and so we must stop him at all costs.
If you look at some of the Jewish community newspapers, the ones we aren't supposed to see, they're not whispering about Buchanan's supposed anti-Semitism, they're screaming about it. They're calling him a "neo-Nazi," a "racist," a "Jew baiter," "hatemonger," and an "anti-Semite."
Now, is any of that true? Is Patrick Buchanan really an anti-Semite?
Let's look at the evidence, at the facts. What is true is that Buchanan is a traditional Roman Catholic, a conservative Roman Catholic, and he takes his religion seriously. A few years ago a mob of homosexual demonstrators, most of them Jews, invaded a Catholic church in New York City and desecrated the church, pouring blood on the altar and performing lewd acts inside the church in order to express their displeasure with the local bishop's opposition to homosexuality. The local media treated the whole affair as if it were a lark, a sort of boyish prank. The local politicians and the police had a similar attitude. Buchanan was enraged. He wrote in his own newspaper column that if it had been a synagogue which had been desecrated instead of a Christian church, and if the invaders had been Gentiles instead of Jews, the media and the authorities would have taken it much more seriously. The desecrators would all be in prison on "hate crime" charges.
Hey, we all know that's true. The Jews do get special treatment from the media and from the authorities and from the courts. They expect special treatment, and they get it -- especially in places like New York. But Buchanan had the guts to actually say it. And when the Jews jumped all over him and accused him of being "insensitive" for saying it and began wailing about the "Holocaust" and "anti-Semitism" in an attempt to make him back down, Buchanan didn't back down. Politicians are supposed to grovel and apologize when the Jews accuse them of being "insensitive." But Buchanan is a fighter. He denied being an anti-Semite, but he didn't grovel and apologize.
And there have been other instances where Buchanan has clashed with the Jews. When he was an adviser to President Ronald Reagan, and the Jews told Reagan that he mustn't lay a wreath at a certain military cemetery in Germany -- the cemetery at Bitburg -- because some of the soldiers buried there were members of the SS, Buchanan advised him to go ahead and lay the wreath anyway. The war had been over for nearly 50 years, and Buchanan thought it was time for reconciliation. But the Jews' motto is "never forget and never forgive," and so again they called Buchanan an "anti-Semite" for not yielding to their pressure. Five years ago, when the Jews decided that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were becoming a danger to Israeli hegemony in the Middle East and had to be crushed, George Bush and the other Republicans were eager to do their bidding, as were the Democrats, and so we launched the Gulf War and bombed Baghdad into submission. But Patrick Buchanan spoke out and said, "Hey, we don't need this war. This war doesn't serve America's interests. The only people who need this war are the Israelis." All of the politicians knew that was true, but Buchanan was the only one who would say it publicly.
And then there was the case of John Demjanjuk. Jewish leaders decided a few years ago that it was time for another crucifixion, and they accused Ukrainian-American John Demjanjuk, a retired Cleveland auto-worker, of war crimes which he supposedly had committed 50 years ago, during the Second World War. This is Ivan the Terrible, the Jews claimed; he killed thousands of Jews during the war. And so they had one of their bought Federal judges strip him of his citizenship and ship him off to Israel for a show trial designed to generate sympathy for Jews and increase foreign aid to Israel.
Pat Buchanan again spoke out against this outrage. The other politicians, Democrat and Republican, politicians like Bob Dole, knew enough to look the other way and keep their mouths shut, but Buchanan said, "Hey, what about the Constitution? What about due process? What about this man's rights?" And Buchanan generated enough public interest in the fate of John Demjanjuk that the Jews' plans for a crucifixion were derailed. They weren't able to cover up the evidence that proved Demjanjuk was innocent, and public opinion eventually forced them to turn him loose. That's something else they've never forgiven Buchanan for.
But does any of these things make Buchanan an "anti-Semite"? Do these things justify the Jews' claims that he is a "hatemonger," a "Jew baiter," and a "neo-Nazi"? I doubt it. What do you think?
Now if I were the candidate instead of Pat Buchanan, the Jews would have something to scream about. Because if I were elected I'd declare a national emergency, and I'd immediately take the control of our news and entertainment media away from them. I'd root them out of Hollywood. I'd weed them out of our universities. I'd remove them from the courts. I'd clean house. But I really don't believe that Buchanan would do that. He's certainly never said or written anything to indicate he'd do that. He's not a revolutionary. He's a conservative. He's a Republican. He's a Christian. He's simply a fellow with old-fashioned values, and he's a fighter. He has no particular grudge against the Jews, but when some of them desecrate his church, he becomes angry and says something about it. When he sees an injustice taking place, as in the persecution of John Demjanjuk, he may or may not speak out, but his decision as to whether or not to speak out isn't based on what the Jews might think about it. He has other considerations.
And basically that's why the Jewish media are attacking him so viciously. They can't tolerate a politician who has any considerations other than what the Jews might think. Basically they can't tolerate a politician who doesn't jump when they whistle. If he won't apologize and grovel now, there's no telling what he might not do if he's in the White House. He might not send all of those billions of dollars from American taxpayers to Israel every year. He might not appoint Jews to half of his cabinet positions and to the head of the CIA and to every Supreme Court vacancy, the way Clinton has. He might not send U.S. troops when and where he's told to send them. He might not base his policies on what's good for the Jews instead of on what's good for America. That's why they hate him. That's why they're trying to convince the voters that he's an extremist.
And that's also the reason that Bob Dole and the other Republicans are attacking him. That's why the Republican Party bosses are saying that they can accept any candidate except Buchanan. Bob Dole has based his career on being a step'n'fetchit for the powerful Jews who control the American political system. He's a boring, lackluster, unimaginative politician, who's never had an original idea, but the media bosses keep backing him for reelection, because he does what he's told. He votes for billions of dollars in aid to Israel every year. He kept his mouth shut when the Jews grabbed John Demjanjuk and put him on trial in Israel on phony charges. He went along with the bombing of women and children in Baghdad. He votes for every so-called "free trade" bill and other piece of New World Order legislation the Jews want enacted. Dole is dependable.
And Dole in turn depends on the system of which he is a part, a system in which everyone jumps when the Jews whistle. Without the system, Dole would have to go out and find himself a job. He would have to work for a living.
And Buchanan is not part of the system. Buchanan is an outsider. A Buchanan win would severely damage the prestige of the system. It would upset the Republican applecart. That's why Dole and the party bosses are afraid of Buchanan. That's why they keep calling him an "extremist," when in fact his views are anything but extreme. God, I wish that he were an extremist! We need more extremists.
What's important for us to remember, though, is that extremism isn't the issue here. Extremism is just a smoke screen. The real issue is refusing to take orders from the Jews, refusing to follow the Jewish party line. That's what the Jews call "anti-Semitism." That's what they call "hate." That's what they call "neo-Nazism." And the really important and interesting thing about these Republican primaries is that they may give the American people a chance to face this fact. The big media bosses, the top Jewish leaders, would like to keep the issue confined to "extremism." They would like for the general public not to know about the charges of "anti-Semitism" and "neo-Nazism" that they're throwing around so freely in their Jewish publications that we're not supposed to see. But if Patrick Buchanan keeps doing even reasonably well in the primaries, the Jewish bosses will have a hard time keeping the lid on. They will have a hard time keeping some of their more excitable brethren from screaming in public that Buchanan is an "anti-Semite" because he won't take orders from the Jews. That will be very illuminating for Buchanan's supporters and for the public generally.
Actually that sort of thing already is happening to a small degree. Some of the really excitable Jews, the really hateful Jews, already are finding it impossible to keep their mouths shut. One of these is Rabbi Avi Weiss, a very intense little Jew who heads a Hebrew outfit called "Amcha." Rabbi Weiss and his followers have made a habit of trying to disrupt Buchanan's election rallies. They jump up on the speaker's platform with signs saying, "Buchanan Is a Jew Hater," and wave them in front of the TV cameras. Of course, they get tossed out of the rallies, and some of the Buchanan supporters who are there tell them what they think about their antics. To Weiss, this is proof that he is right: Buchanan and his supporters are Jew-haters, because they call Weiss and his fellow disrupters nasty names when they toss them out of rallies. Weiss is accustomed to politicians who grovel and apologize. Anyone who doesn't grovel and apologize must be an "anti-Semite" -- especially anyone who dares to say nasty things to one of God's Chosen People. And so Rabbi Weiss, who writes in general circulation newspapers as well as in strictly Jewish papers, is loudly calling Buchanan an "anti-Semite."
And I believe that other Jews will begin doing the same before the campaign is over. That will allow Buchanan supporters to understand who their real enemy is, to understand who's behind the propaganda campaign against Buchanan, to understand who's pulling Bob Dole's strings.
Of course, the trendy liberal elements will follow the Jewish lead, as they always do, and they also will step up the intensity and viciousness of their own attacks on Buchanan. But still, the general public will have a chance to see that the reason the media and the party bosses don't like Buchanan isn't extremism at all. It's what his enemies will call "anti-Semitism" and what is really just a reluctance to let the Jews tell him what to think and what to say and lead him by the nose the way they lead the other politicians. And at least some members of the public will gain a bit of understanding of the nature of the Republican/Democrat political charade in Jew-ridden America. They'll understand that if the Jews don't like you, then the media won't like you. And if the media don't like you, you won't get elected.
That alone will make these ongoing Republican primaries an enormously rewarding experience for America. It'll be a rewarding experience for me too. Sometimes I feel a bit awkward, talking week after week about the Jewish control of the news and entertainment media, the Jewish control of the American political process, the Jewish control of the U.S. government.
People should be able to see these things for themselves. I shouldn't have to tell them the same things over and over again. The evidence is everywhere. It's obvious. But most people don't pay attention to it. They don't want to come to conclusions that might be considered "extremist." So they pretend that everything is all right, even when they know that it isn't. And they hope that someone like Pat Buchanan will come along and fix things.
And now they see Buchanan being attacked, first as an "extremist" and then as an "anti-Semite," for saying that we ought to restore the integrity of our borders, that we ought to enforce our immigration laws, that we ought to protect American workers from competition with Chinese and Mexican workers, that we ought not to start wars unless America's vital interests are threatened. For that he's an "anti-Semite"?
Buchanan supporters should be able to draw their own conclusions. I hope that they will.
The Destructive Media Jewish Control of the American Mass Media Has Real Consequences for the United States and the World One of the subjects we've covered a number of times in this newsletter is the Jewish control of the news and entertainment media and the enormous damage this control is doing to America and to our people. We write about this so much because there's hardly anything in the world more important, hardly anything which demands our attention more urgently.
The evidence of the damage being done is quite obvious, but somehow many people manage to not notice that evidence. I had a newspaper reporter in my office a few weeks ago, and he asked me, "Why do you object to the Jews controlling the media? Aren't they running things about the same way anyone else would?"
I told him, "No, they're running things to fit their Jewish agenda, and that agenda is not good for us."
Then he asked me for specific examples: "What are the Jews doing with their control of the media that's harmful to us?"
Now, I really don't believe that the reporter wanted an answer to that question, because this was a man who knew which side his bread was buttered on. He couldn't afford to be thinking bad thoughts about the people on whom his career depended, but I gave him an answer anyway. I gave him some specific, concrete examples of the way in which the Jewish control of our news and entertainment media was damaging us as a people. Perhaps you'll be interested in hearing some of those examples too, and so I'll share them with you.
The first example I gave the reporter involved the largest media conglomerate in America, the Walt Disney Company. I reminded the reporter that Walt Disney, who was a Gentile -- who was one of us -- had been a pioneer in the motion picture industry. He was one of the men who built Hollywood. He built it by giving us films like Snow White and Fantasia and Cinderella. These were not just healthy, wholesome films: they were films which struck a deeply responsive chord in us, because Walt Disney shared our roots.
While Disney was winning a place in the hearts of people of European descent all over the world, the rest of Hollywood was being taken over by Jews. By the late 1920s it was apparent that not only was there money to be made in motion pictures, but motion pictures could become a very influential medium, and so Jews began taking over.
By the time Disney died he was about the only major non-Jewish film maker left in Hollywood. After his death Jews took control of the Disney company, and today it is controlled by Michael Eisner. Eisner immediately began making propaganda films designed to encourage degeneracy in viewers. I gave to the reporter as an example of Eisner's films one that came out a couple of years ago and received all sorts of acclaim and awards from Jewish reviewers in the New York Times and other Jewish newspapers: it was The Crying Game, which was made by the Miramax division of Disney, a division headed by the Weinstein brothers. The Crying Game was a film about homosexuality and transvestitism and interracial sex. The message of the film was that these things are all right: that homosexuals and transvestites are people just like us, and that we should love them, and that it's all right for us to share their life-style.
Racial and sexual roles deliberately were made ambiguous in the film: a British soldier who just happens to be a Negro, an Irishman's mulatto girl friend who just happens to be a man wearing a dress. I doubt that I've ever seen a film with a sicker, more destructive message. And this film was held up by the Jewish media as wonderfully "sensitive," as wonderfully artistic. Nor was The Crying Game any sort of fluke or exception to the rule. Mr. Eisner has produced many other films with a similarly destructive message.
I also gave the reporter to whom I was speaking examples about the destructive way in which the Jews use their control of the news media. Do you remember the enormous hullabaloo in the news media a few months ago when two White soldiers at Fort Bragg, in North Carolina, got drunk and shot a convicted Black crack dealer and his female companion? It was on the television news and in the big newspapers day after day after day. "Racism in the Army!" the headlines were screaming. News commentators wrung their hands and agonized over "White supremacy" at Fort Bragg. "What can we do about White supremacy in the military?" they moaned. And, of course, the politicians, who certainly know which side their bread is buttered on, had to get into the act. The White House issued statements. The secretary of the Army announced that an investigation would be launched to find out about White racists in the Army and then to boot them out when it found them. We were treated to tearful television interviews with the relatives of the slain Black crack dealer. We're still hearing about the killing of this convicted Black criminal by two drunken White soldiers, as Jewish groups continue to use it as an example in their media campaign for new laws against what they call "hate crimes" and "hate speech." Just two weeks ago there was yet another big article about it headed "Extremism in the Ranks" in Newsweek magazine, which is owned by the Jewish Washington Post. Everybody has heard about this shooting at Fort Bragg.
Now I'll tell you about a shooting you haven't heard about -- unless you happen to live in the immediate vicinity of Camp Pendleton, the big Marine base in southern California. Last month, on March 5, 1996, a 28-year-old Marine sergeant who was stationed at Camp Pendleton hid a .45-caliber pistol under his jacket, walked into the office of the executive officer of his unit, Lt. Colonel Daniel Kidd, and shot Kidd twice in the back, killing him. He then turned his pistol on the commanding officer, Lt. Col. Thomas Heffner, and shot Heffner in the chest, critically wounding him.
Both Lt. Colonel Kidd and Lt. Colonel Heffner are White. The murderer, Sergeant Jessie Quintanilla, is a dark-skinned Pacific Islander from Guam. When Quintanilla ran out of the office after shooting the two White officers, he shouted that he had done it "for the Brown side" and that the killings of Whites would continue until all non-Whites are released from prison. Amazingly, not even the San Diego-area newspapers, which could hardly avoid at least reporting the bare facts of the shootings, suggested that race was a motive or that the killing of Lt. Colonel Kidd was a "hate crime." They ignored the race factor. The national media, so far as I am aware, have scrupulously avoided the whole story. No statements from the White House, no call for investigations of Brown racism in the Marines, no headlines anywhere about "extremism," no calls from Jewish organizations for new laws to control "haters" in the military.
Now, what is the difference between the shootings at Fort Bragg and the shootings at Camp Pendleton which could have justified the glaring difference in the way they were treated by the controlled news media? Was it that the Fort Bragg shootings were a more serious crime than the Camp Pendleton shootings? Was the killing of a convicted Black drug dealer by two drunken White soldiers more newsworthy than the cold-blooded murder of a White Marine Corps officer with an outstanding service record by a non-White sergeant with a hatred of White people? Was the Fort Bragg shooting more cause for concern on the part of ordinary Americans than the Camp Pendleton shooting?
I don't think so.
Let me suggest that the difference in the way in which the shootings were treated by the news media stems from the fact that the Jewish bosses of the media have an agenda of their own, and they slant the news accordingly. They make the news fit their agenda. The Jews who control the news media have a program to "sensitize" White Americans about racial matters, and by that I mean that they want to instill in White Americans a sense of White racial guilt, to make White Americans feel that any sense of White racial solidarity is reprehensible, to persuade them that any White resistance to demands by non-Whites is "racist" and therefore wicked.
And so they deliberately -- I say deliberately, knowingly, calculatingly -- create the impression with their biased and selective reporting of the news that White attacks on non-Whites are a far bigger problem than non-White attacks on Whites, whereas exactly the opposite is true. The shooting at Fort Bragg suited the Jews' purpose, and so they gave it enormous publicity and drummed it into everyone's consciousness. The shooting at Camp Pendleton didn't suit their purpose, and so they gave it minimal coverage in the news media they control. That's the sort of thing I have in mind when I say that the Jewish control of the media is doing enormous damage to our people. It's giving the average American a grossly distorted view of the world.
I'll give you another example, one which most of us probably have heard about. In Chicago earlier this year a White mother and her two young children were murdered by Blacks in an especially horrible manner. The White woman was slashed open with a butcher knife, and an unborn infant was ripped from her womb by Blacks who wanted the baby. The woman's children, a ten-year-old daughter and an eight-year-old son, were stabbed to death. These were racial killings, but because the victims were White and the murderers were Black most of the media would have preferred to ignore them. The unusually atrocious nature of the crime caught the attention of the tabloids, however, and so the rest of the news media were obliged to give it minimal and grudging coverage. But there were no demands from Jewish organizations, like the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center, for new "hate crime" laws because of these hate-inspired murders. There were no hand-wringing editorials about the murders in the New York Times or the Washington Post. The television networks wasted no tears on the victims. The whole attitude of the media was: the less said about these murders the better.
Can you imagine how different the treatment by the media would have been if the races of the victims and the murderers had been interchanged? Imagine that a gang of neo-Nazi skinheads had grabbed a pregnant Black woman and her two Black children, had stabbed the Black children to death and then killed the Black woman by ripping her open with a knife and tearing her unborn child from her body and running off with it. That would have been on the front page and the editorial page of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and every other Jewish newspaper in the country for weeks. Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather would still be telling us about it every evening. Every television screen in the country would still be full of politicians, priests, and rabbis telling us what we must do to eliminate "White racism." They would be telling us what kind of "racist" books and "racist" radio programs and "racist" music the skinheads were exposed to which led them to kill the Black family. And of course, spokesmen for the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League would be given non-stop media coverage as they clamored for laws to make Politically Incorrect speech illegal. You know that's the way it would be handled.
And that sort of slanted news is damaging, because tens of millions of White Americans actually believe what they see on television and read in the newspapers. They cannot distinguish between the real world and the slanted world portrayed by the media masters. They assume that real people behave the way the actors in Mr. Eisner's The Crying Game behaved; moreover, they assume that's approved behavior. They assume that the news stories selected for the evening television news programs are truly representative of what is happening in the world. Their opinions and attitudes are shaped by the slanted world of the media rather than by the real world. In the long run this Jewish media control is not just damaging: it is lethal. It will destroy us. And that, of course, is just what it is intended to do.
Here's another specific example of the way in which the Jewish control of our media is used to damage us as a people. Do you remember the Republic of South Africa? Do you remember what the media did to that country? Let me remind you. For years the mass media in America maintained a solid wall of hostility against South Africa. The Whites there were unspeakably wicked, according to the media, because they practiced a system they called "apartheid," which simply means apartness, or separation of the races.
Now, it is true that we always have had a busybody element among our own people -- egalitarians and other foolish or malicious types who always are looking for an opportunity to force others to conform to their ideas -- but without the support of the Jewish media the busybody element would not have been able to do much damage. It was the controlled media which made "apartheid" a dirty word; it was the controlled media which made the attitude toward South Africa a major political issue in this country; it was the controlled media which made a government enforced boycott of trade with South Africa politically popular; it was the controlled media which viciously attacked anyone who had a good word to say about South Africa; it was the controlled media over here which provided a forum for the handful of South African traitors and terrorists who were trying to destabilize their own society. And ultimately it was the controlled media which destroyed South Africa. As the economic damage to South Africa from the trade boycott mounted, White South Africans found themselves under increasing pressure. Furthermore, they were being subjected to the same anti-White hate propaganda that we were. The films they saw, the television programs they watched in South Africa came from Hollywood and New York. And eventually the South Africans became so demoralized that they foolishly turned their country over to Black rule, hoping that somehow that would make the world love them and their economy would improve.
What actually has happened, of course, is that crime and mismanagement have skyrocketed and standards have fallen, and now the White South Africans who are able to go some place else are leaving. What has happened to every other country in sub-Saharan Africa after the Whites turned the government over to the Blacks is now happening to South Africa. It is slipping back toward the jungle. And the controlled media in America played the largest single role in bringing this result about.
And this result was deliberate. It was calculated. It was planned. It was not because of any fuzzy- minded, do-gooder sentiment on the part of the media bosses. They knew exactly what they were doing. It was cold-blooded. Compare this media concern with equality for Blacks in South Africa with the attitude of the media toward the behavior of the Jewish government in Israel. That government practices what is known as collective punishment. If a Palestinian is suspected of being a freedom fighter -- suspected, not convicted -- the Jewish government punishes his whole family. His wife, his parents, his children will be arrested and tortured. The house they live in will be blown up. Have you ever heard the controlled media criticize this sort of behavior?
Now, patriots have various concerns, various priorities. Some of them believe that we should concern ourselves first and foremost with the way the U.S. government handles its finances, with ruinous taxation and scandalous welfare programs. Some of them believe that our out-of-control immigration situation is our most pressing problem. Others are concerned primarily with the government's failure to deal effectively with street crime. And some have focused on the breakdown of our educational system under the impact of forced equality, or on the decay of our morals.
But I tell you that we can solve none of these problems until we regain control of our news and entertainment media. So long as the Jews control our mass media they will control our politicians, and so long as they control our politicians they will control the policies of the government. We will not be able to shut down the welfare system or control our borders or make our cities safe or restore our standards and values so long as the controlled mass media are able to make a majority of our people feel guilty for wanting to do these things, so long as the media are able to make people believe that keeping Mexicans and Haitians out of the country or shutting off the flow of welfare is racist, and that racism is the worst of all sins.
So long as the Jews control our mass media they will be able to keep enough of our people confused and misled and divided so that we cannot regain control of our government by peaceful, democratic means. If we are to regain control of our destiny and survive as a people, then we have only two choices: violent revolution to take the control of the mass media back by force, or gentle but effective persuasion to lead more and more of our people from confusion into understanding.
I personally believe that violent revolution is not feasible at this time, and as long as the course of gentle persuasion remains open to us, that is the course we must choose. I believe that the only proper thing for us to do now is to continue building our own media and making them more effective -- media like our series of radio broadcasts and our World Wide Web sites on the Internet and the books and magazines published by National Vanguard Books.
Men of Valor We Must Have Such Men if the West Is to Survive
Several weeks ago the actor Marlon Brando was interviewed on a television talk show, and he got a little careless. He blurted out something which everyone in the media and in show business knows, but which no one is supposed to say. Marlon Brando said that Jews own and run Hollywood, and that they run it for their own benefit: they run it to suit themselves and no one else. The films they make portray other ethnic groups unfavorably, but the Jews portray themselves only in the most favorable light.
Well, sir, what else is new? Next someone will be announcing that the earth goes around the sun!
You know, that's a funny thing: the Jews and their allies reacted to Brando's statement about the way the Christian church reacted 400 years ago to Galileo's statement about the relationship between the earth and the sun. They screamed for Brando's blood. And at the same time they tried to obscure the issue and distract people's attention away from the central point: namely, the Jewish control of the media.
They called Brando an "anti-Semite." They began wailing about the so-called "Holocaust." They stepped up their demands for laws against what they like to call "hate speech."
The same sort of thing happened about a year ago, when a British journalist, a reporter for the London Daily Telegraph, wrote an article about Hollywood pointing out that all of the top executives in the motion picture industry are Jews. The Jewish establishment greeted this revelation in exactly the same way, denying what was obviously true and at the same time trying to make people feel guilty for realizing that it was true. They yelled "anti-Semitism" and trotted out their favorite gas-chamber stories. Weren't six million enough? they moaned. So much hate! They acted as if the simple statement of truth about their control of Hollywood were an act of persecution, and that anyone who didn't immediately blot it from his mind were an "anti-Semite."
Now, this sort of behavior -- this pretense of shocked and wounded innocence -- has worked wonderfully for the Jews for the past 50 years. They've been able to intimidate most people into keeping their mouths shut most of the time. They have made the average American so afraid of being labeled a "racist" or an "anti-Semite" that they have been able to enforce their own code of Political Correctness: a code under which one may say nothing about a Jew except an expression of praise or sympathy.
It's a fascinating situation. They've been able to enforce this code, under which no one may say that they control the media, only because they do control the media: it is their control of the media which gives them the power to enforce their code of Political Correctness on the public. And they certainly have most of the public buffaloed.
Or do they? They raised such a fuss about Marlon Brando's comments earlier this month that an Internet poll was taken to find out what the public reaction to the fuss was. One of the major Internet access providers, Prodigy, took the poll, and the results were encouraging. The Prodigy poll found that despite all of the Jewish screaming about Brando's comments being "anti- Semitic," half of those polled didn't think what Brando had said was anti-Semitic at all, but was a simple statement of fact. Jews do give themselves especially favorable treatment in Hollywood films, they said.
Yes, it is encouraging to learn that despite all the media brainwashing 50% of the public hasn't been fooled. That raises my estimate of the public's intelligence and power of perception.
Now, if that 50% would be willing to stand up and say in public what they will say in an anonymous poll, my estimate of the public's character and courage also would be raised -- and so would my hopes for the future of our people.
You know, it is important to be intelligent and perceptive. It is important not to be fooled by our enemies; it is important to be able to see through their lies and deception. But it is more important -- much more important -- to have courage and to be honorable in one's behavior. It is important to have valor. That's something which is sadly lacking in America today, I'm afraid. Despite what Mr. Brando said, I'm not inclined to give him credit for much valor; I'm inclined to believe that he had a few martinis in him when he gave that interview, because the next day he was groveling and apologizing.
What's really unfortunate is that we don't have a valorous ruling class in America to provide leadership and to set standards for others. Without such a class the country cannot long survive.
We do have a ruling class of sorts, of course; there is always a ruling class of some type. But the men who rule America today are certainly not men of valor. They are lawyers, bureaucrats, rich businessmen, scribes and Pharisees.
They are men without ideology, men whose only fixed principle is always to do what is advantageous for themselves. And, in a sense, they are the "best" of their type: that is, they have worked harder, been smarter and meaner, and hewed more closely to the party line -- to the established body of cant -- than those who didn't make it to the top. The "fittest" in any society survive and prosper.
But valor, unfortunately, does not seem to have survival value in 20th-century American society -- at least, not the kind of valor which we remember fondly from bygone centuries. What would an old-fashioned Yankee or a Southern gentleman do in today's America? How would he react upon encountering a Black male swaggering down the sidewalk with a White woman on his arm? Suppose he came face to face on the street with one of the filthy creatures who has made a career in politics, the media, or the pulpit by helping to bring about the state of affairs in which White women dare to be seen in public on the arms of Blacks. How long could a valorous man stay out of prison?
The best men today know that they are living in enemy-occupied territory, and upon such a sidewalk encounter they only grit their teeth and pass in silent rage, while the worst display an ingratiating smile. I'm reminded of something Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote about life in the Soviet Union 70 years ago, when the Jews and their allies were consolidating their grip on the Russian people. In cities like Moscow, Solzhenitsyn wrote, the black vans would go out from secret-police headquarters every night. A van would pull up in front of an apartment building, and four or five secret-police agents would get out and knock on a door. Then they would make an arrest: someone who had been overheard making a Politically Incorrect remark or had been seen reading a Politically Incorrect book. The person would be taken away and never be seen again. This happened hundreds of times every night. The head of the secret police was an especially vicious Jewish thug named Genrikh Yagoda. The arrests and the murders in the basement of secret-police headquarters went on night after night, month after month. And Solzhenitsyn lamented the fact that no one ever put up any resistance.
Even though the Reds had confiscated most privately owned firearms, there were still a few around. Even without firearms, it wouldn't have been especially difficult for a few brave and determined men -- a few men of valor -- to ambush one of these secret-police patrols and kill the secret policemen. After this had happened a few times, the patrols very likely would have found other things to concern themselves with besides arresting Politically Incorrect citizens. The cops could have spent more time with their donuts and coffee, and Yagoda could have spent more time preparing his next Five-Year-Plan.
But there was no resistance. There were no men of valor. The people were like sheep. The murders continued. And I'm afraid that after the Jews have their "hate crime" and "hate speech" laws in place in this country, Americans will put up no more resistance to the FBI than the Russians did to their secret police 70 years ago.
One of my favorite authors is Brooks Adams, the 19th-century American economist and historian. In his book The Law of Civilization and Decay Adams put forth the idea that the spiritual climate of a particular period in history favors the survival and proliferation of men with a particular inner orientation, while driving men with a different orientation out of existence, much in the way the physical environment favors or disfavors a particular somatic trait.
Adams divided men roughly into two classes: spiritual man and economic man. The former are what I would call men of valor. Adams saw their epitome in the English yeomanry of the Middle Ages: freeholding farmer-warriors. They flourish during the period when a new civilization is being established.
The other class, economic man, epitomized by the merchants and bureaucrats who later replaced the yeomen, flourishes during the period of a civilization's decay and collapse. Adams pinpointed democracy as an institution congenial to economic man but especially inimical to the existence of spiritual man.
The entire Western world -- not just America -- has been spiritually dead since the Second World War. Economic man has swarmed over its corpse, fattening himself on its material remains and multiplying mightily. Physical collapse may not yet be imminent, but the decadence is profound and irreversible. Valor, sorely needed to see us through the coming night and hold us to a worthy purpose until the new dawn, is a memory growing fainter by the decade. As the West continues its slide into chaos, strong men, White and non-White, will rise to provide some degree of order and security for their adherents. Some will not be much more than local mafia chiefs; others will carve out regional or even national constituencies based on common economic interests, common ideologies, common ethnicities, or some combination of these.
In each case the leaders of these groups will be distinguished by valor of a sort. They will be men who have proved themselves tougher, more energetic and aggressive, and cleverer than their rivals. They will command respect as well as obedience from the members of their groups -- which is more than can be said for America's present ‘leaders. ‘
We will see more and more a return to leadership based on personal strength rather than institutional sanction -- to natural leadership, the kind which existed among our people thousands of years ago, before we began building cities and writing laws, and which still exists among many non-White populations today. That's also still the way it is in some more-or-less civilized areas just outside the borders of the Western world: in places like Lebanon, for example, and in Latin America.
Now, rule by mafia bosses may be fine for Levantines and Latins, but we need more than a valor based only on toughness, cleverness, and ambition. The West has no shortage of tough, clever, ambitious men. And we still have many who are physically strong and courageous -- although perhaps not so many these days as we would like.
The valor we remember -- and the valor we must have again -- depends at least as much on moral courage as on physical courage. Even more, it depends on the inner sense of direction which must guide the man of valor, if his courage and strength are to be used to a worthy end.
Originally the word valor meant value, worth. A man's worth was a measure not of what he owned or controlled, however -- not of how many shares he could buy in the stock market or how many votes he could collect at the polls -- but of what he was.
The ideal man of valor is guided unerringly by his inner compass. He is imperturbable and implacable. His loyalty to his cause is his honor, and his actions are as unaffected by considerations of personal comfort or safety as by the opinions of lesser men.
How can we have such men to lead us in this age of Jewish television, democracy, and the supremacy of the marketplace?
A man does not acquire valor simply by making a resolution to act valorously; it is the product of a lifetime of right living and right thinking by a man born with the right stuff in him.
Surely, men of our race are still being born with the right stuff. Economic man may be forcing spiritual man out of existence generation by generation, but the process is not complete yet.
Our problem is to provide an environment which does not stunt or warp the spirits of our best men and women. The environment which prevails in America today produces from our best stock merely lawyers tricky enough to out-shyster the trickiest Jew, businessmen hard-driving enough to beat out the most grasping Levantine competitor, professionals in every field willing to jettison scruples and truckle to alien arbiters in order to stay ahead of the pack. Children raised on a steady diet of MTV simply do not become men or women of valor.
When the chaos in America has grown to the point that there is no longer steady work for lawyers and corporation executives, the same stock will yield merely gang leaders meaner and tougher than the meanest and toughest mafioso rival, if the spiritual climate remains unchanged.
What we must do, no matter what it takes, is change that climate. We must devise a way to nurture the best seed that we have and to provide a regimen and a tutoring, an upbringing and an inculcation, for the yield of that seed which will once again give us men of real valor, in the best sense of the word.
It certainly would be easier to do this, easier to create a new atmosphere in which valor can flourish, if we controlled the news and entertainment media which our enemies control. If we, instead of the Jews about whom Mr. Brando complained, owned Hollywood, for example, we could do a lot in that direction.
Well, we don't own Hollywood, and we don't control the television networks, and we don't own the New York Times or the Washington Post, like the enemies of our people do, but we do get American Dissident Voices out every week on shortwave radio and on satellite and on a number of AM radio stations. You also can listen to ADV broadcasts on the Internet, if you have a computer with a fast modem and a sound card. Just check our World Wide Web site at www.natvan.com. At our web site you can listen to the current week's broadcast as well as a collection of our earlier broadcasts. Even if you don't have a sound card, you can download free copies of the transcripts of our programs.
Our work to make ADV programs available to a broad section of the public through a number of different media is possible only with your support. We're working now to extend the reach of our message by adding new broadcasting stations to our network. We're also working to develop new media for our message. We want to reach the public through video and through CDs as well as through radio. We need your help to do this. We can't do it without your help.
And we need your help now, because the people who own Hollywood and their allies in the Clinton government are pushing very hard for new laws which would make our broadcasts illegal. They want to be able to put people like Marlon Brando in prison for telling the truth about the Hollywood Jews. They want to put me and my associates in prison for bringing you the truth through the radio and through the Internet and through the books and magazines which we publish. They want to make telling the truth about them a "hate crime." They want to scrap the First Amendment, so that they can label as "hate speech" any expression of truth they don't like and make it illegal.
They work through Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and the so-called Southern Poverty Law Center. These un-American organizations attempt to frighten the public into giving up their freedom in return for the promise of a little more security. And they work through the government. The people in the Clinton administration are eager to give them the new laws they want. Bill Clinton and Janet Reno would love to round up everyone who is not Politically Correct. The only thing which holds them back is fear of the public reaction. They're afraid of what that 50% of the public who agree with Mr. Brando might do.
Our job is to keep disseminating the truth as widely as we can, so that that 50% will grow to 60% and 70% and 80%. Our job is let the Clintonistas know that when they move to take away our freedom they will have a revolution on their hands. Our job is to build a pipeline for truth and inspiration so big that it cannot be shut off.
And, with your help, one of these days we will take Hollywood away from the Jews and we will use it to build a new climate in America: a climate in which valor can once again flourish.
Proving White Is Black
I have written before about the breakdown of the judicial system in this country. Right after the O.J. Simpson trial last year I pointed out that the courts in America have become terminally corrupt. I gave you an example of this corruption: the 1992 trial of a young White man named George Loeb in a Florida court. That was a case in which Mr. Loeb and his wife had gone to a supermarket to shop and in the parking lot nearly had their car struck by a car driven by a young Black male. Angry words were exchanged. Then the Black male drove away, and the Loebs did their shopping.
When the Loebs returned to their car, the Black male drove back into the parking lot, this time with a Black friend. He got out of his car and approached the Loebs' car on foot. He had a brick in his hand and was screaming that he intended to smash Mr. Loeb's head in with the brick. Mr. Loeb snatched a pistol from the glove compartment of his car and shot the Black dead. It was a clear case of self-defense.
A Jewish prosecutor, however, charged Mr. Loeb with murder, and he was put on trial. With the permission of a cooperative judge, the prosecutor read to the jury personal correspondence which had been illegally seized from Mr. Loeb's home. The correspondence revealed that Mr. Loeb had a strong dislike for Blacks. It revealed that he was a "White racist."
The jury did the Politically Correct thing and found Mr. Loeb guilty of murder. Then the judge did the Politically Correct thing and sentenced him to life in prison.
At the time I told you about the Loeb trial I pointed out that similarly horrifying things happen in our court system all the time, and that the average person never hears about them. I pointed out that the O.J. Simpson trial was unusual only in the amount of publicity it received, but not in its failure to yield a just verdict.
Now let's talk about another recent trial which illustrates my point. That's the New York trial of Bernhard Goetz. Perhaps you remember when this case first came to public attention, 12 years ago. Goetz, a 36-year-old electronics engineer, was riding the New York subway when four Black thugs approached him and demanded that he give them money. Goetz responded in a perfectly reasonable way: he pulled out his revolver and shot all four of them. Unfortunately, he didn't kill them, although he did cripple one of them. The three Blacks who weren't crippled recovered and continued their lives of crime. And New York being what it is, Goetz was arrested and charged with attempted murder for protecting himself. He was also charged with having a weapon to defend himself. He ended up going to prison for the better part of a year for possessing a gun to defend himself.
And then a couple of Jewish lawyers from the Communist-front National Lawyers Guild, William Kunstler and Ronald Kuby, sued Mr. Goetz on behalf of one of the Blacks who had tried to rob him. The case dragged through the courts, using up all of Mr. Goetz' savings. Kunstler died during the process, but Kuby persevered. The case finally went to the jury last month: a Bronx, New York, jury of four Blacks and two Puerto Ricans. The jury decided that Mr. Goetz should pay $43 million to the Black who had tried to rob him forty-three million dollars! The Jewish lawyer gloated over the verdict and crowed that it "sends a message to all racists with guns who think young Black lives are worth nothing. They're worth a lot."
Score another loss for decent folks. Score another win for the Clintonistas. Score another win for the forces of corruption and destruction. Score another win for the Jews.
You know, I don't want to create the impression that I believe that the destruction of America's system of justice is entirely the Jews' doing. They certainly are heavily involved in it. They were heavily involved -- decisively involved -- in all three cases I've cited as examples of what's happened to our judicial system: the O.J. Simpson trial, the George Loeb trial, and the Bernhard Goetz trial. Jews are heavily involved in the corruption and destruction of every aspect of our civilization. It's in their nature. But to be frank, our legal system was in serious trouble even before the Jews became involved in it.
Nearly three centuries ago -- 270 years ago to be exact -- the English writer Jonathan Swift wrote of the lawyers of his day that they are "men . . . bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid." Swift went on to give a satirical illustration of the way the court system worked in the England of his day. I'll quote just a few words of what he wrote. It's from his best-known book, Gulliver's Travels, and I'm paraphrasing it a bit. Swift explained:
My neighbor . . . I will suppose, has a mind to my cow; he hires . . . [a lawyer] to prove that he ought to have my cow from me. I must then hire another of them to defend my right, it being against all rules of law that any man should be allowed to speak for himself. Now in this case, I who am the right owner lie under two great disadvantages. First, my advocate, being as I said before practiced almost from his cradle in defending falsehood, is quite out of his element when he would argue for right, which as an office unnatural he attempts with great awkwardness, if not with an ill will. The second disadvantage is that my advocate must proceed with great caution, for since the maintenance of so many depends on the keeping up of business, should he proceed too summarily, if he does not incur the displeasure of his superiors, he is sure to gain the ill will and hatred of his brethren as being by them esteemed one that would lessen the practice of the law.
This being the case, I have but two methods to preserve my cow. The first is to gain over my adversary's advocate with a double fee . . . . The second way is for my advocate not to insist on the justice of my cause, by allowing the cow to belong to my adversary; and this if it be dexterously and skillfully done will go a great way toward obtaining a favorable verdict, it having been found from a careful observation of issues and events that the wrong side, under the management of such practitioners, has the fairer chance for success . . . .
It is a maxim among these lawyers that whatever hath been done before may legally be done again, and therefore they take special care to record all the decisions formerly made against common justice and the general reason of mankind. These, under the name of precedents, they produce as authorities to justify the most iniquitous opinions.... In pleading they studiously avoid entering into the merits of the cause, but are loud, violent, and tedious in dwelling on all circumstances which are not to the purpose. For instance, in the case already mentioned they never desire to know what claim my adversary hath to my cow, but whether the said cow were red or black, her horns long or short, whether the field I graze her in be round or square, whether she were milked at home or abroad, what diseases she is subject to, and the like. After which, they consult precedents, adjourn the cause from time to time, and in ten, twenty, or thirty years come to an issue.
Now Swift, as I mentioned, was a satirist, but there was much truth in what he wrote about the lawyers and the judicial system of three hundred years ago. It is striking how little that system has changed between Swift's day and ours.
Four hundred years ago, at a time when there were no Jews at all in England, Shakespeare had one of the characters in his play King Henry VI say, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." And that expression of popular sentiment was already widespread in Shakespeare's day -- and not without reason.
The basic problem is that our legal profession never has been a profession devoted to justice, but rather to arguing, as Swift noted, that white is black or black is white, according as its practitioners are paid. The principal aim of the profession is the enrichment of lawyers, and the court system functions accordingly. And the lawyers who become judges and rule over this system tend not to be the most just, but rather the slickest, slyest, and most ambitious men of their profession.
It was a bad system to start with, and that's our fault. It's something we really must straighten out by ourselves one of these days. But it has been made much, much worse by the Jewish influx into the system during this century. It has gotten to the point now where Blacks can literally get away with murder, if they have the money to hire a clever lawyer and if they can get a preponderance of Blacks on the jury. And Whites can expect to be crucified by the system, in any case where race is an issue, if they either cannot afford to pay a sufficiently clever and aggressive lawyer, or if they are unfortunate enough to have a preponderance of non-Whites on their jury. Poor Bernhard Goetz suffered both from an incompetent lawyer -- Jewish lawyer, incidentally, just like his adversary's lawyer -- and from a non-White jury. The fellow's life has been ruined because he dared to resist a gang of Black muggers.
Now, all of this does not mean that it is impossible for a White person to get justice in our courts. If one is lucky, one will not have the unfortunate circumstances that George Loeb and Bernhard Goetz had. And of course, it helps a great deal to be rich. Those who are very wealthy can still hope to buy justice in the courts -- if they don't live in a place like New York or Los Angeles, of course. There are still a few honorable and competent lawyers in the profession. I know some of them personally. There may even be an honest judge or two left in the system, who still put the law above Political Correctness.
Nevertheless, those of us who have only modest means must look at an encounter with the legal justice system in America about like a game of Russian roulette, especially where there is any racial issue. We've seen over and over again, and not just in the O.J. Simpson trial, the reluctance of Black juries to convict Black criminals for offenses against Whites. And we've seen the same sort of racially motivated verdicts when Whites are tried by non-White juries. The fact is that non-White jurors usually have a strong sense of racial consciousness. They vote in accordance with their racial feelings instead of in accordance with the law and the evidence.
And White jurors, unfortunately, lack this sense of racial consciousness. They are far more likely to vote in a Politically Correct manner, as they did in the George Loeb case, or to let themselves be intimidated into going along with the Blacks, as was the case with the two White women on the O.J. Simpson jury. White Americans have been so brainwashed and browbeaten by the controlled media that they are afraid to express even the tiniest bit of racial feeling. There is nothing they fear more than being thought to be "racist." Some of them have even let their natural racial feelings become inverted: their racial consciousness has become racial self-hatred. They automatically favor the non-White side in any racial issue.
So a judicial system which was bad enough back in the days when America was still a White country has become much, much worse in the racially polarized country we have today. Can you imagine what it will be like in another 50 years, when Whites will be a minority in America? Imagine that you've been obliged to shoot a Black or Mexican burglar in your home or to defend your wife against a gang of non-White attackers. Imagine a Jewish prosecutor then forcing you to stand trial before a jury which has a non-White majority. A frightening prospect, isn't it, regardless of whether or not the prosecutor will introduce any evidence that your opinions on racial matters are not Politically Correct?
One would think that the legal profession itself would have tried to keep matters from becoming as bad as they have, if only from self-interest. They understand as well as anyone that when the public loses its last traces of confidence in the system of justice, the lawyers will be in trouble. But instead of trying to keep the system working, they have let it be corrupted even further by Jewish pressure groups pushing for what they call "hate crime" legislation. We've all heard this yammering in the media about the need for new laws to stop "hate crimes." The Jewish groups doing the pushing -- groups such as the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and the so-called Southern Poverty Law Center -- are referred to respectfully by the media as "human rights organizations," but that's a terrible misnomer. These organizations are working to take away our rights. They want to make it illegal to say anything they don't like. Anything they don't like they call "hate speech." In the past they used to apply behind-the-scenes pressure in order to stifle any views they didn't like. They would approach publishers and demand that any book they deemed hostile to their own interests be withdrawn from publication. They wrote to librarians and demanded that books they didn't like be taken off the shelves. They contacted the owners of bookstores with the same demand.
In fact, they're still engaged in this sort of secret censorship. The Southern Poverty Law Center and other Jewish organizations right now are putting pressure on bookstore chains in an effort to keep one of my books, The Turner Diaries, out of circulation. They like to wave it around on television and quote from it and tell everyone what a dangerous book it is, what a racist book it is, but they don't want you to be able to read it for yourself. Fortunately, most bookstore owners are becoming resistant to this sort of un-American censorship effort. So these Jewish groups are lobbying the lawyers and the politicians. They want the legislators in Congress to help them abolish the First Amendment.
And they've also been lobbying for more laws against what they call "hate crime." To them George Loeb was a "hate criminal" because he defended himself and his wife against a Black attacker threatening them with a brick. And Bernhard Goetz is a "hate criminal" because he defended himself against four Black muggers on the subway. White people who defend themselves against Blacks are "hate criminals."
Now, they won't come right out and state it that plainly, of course. But that's what they mean when they talk about "hate crime." They want Whites to be afraid to defend themselves. They want White people to be demoralized and intimidated. They want every White person to feel guilty for even thinking about defending himself or his family or his property from the growing flood of non-Whites all around him. That's what the Jewish lawyer who first bankrupted Bernhard Goetz with litigation and then got a $43 million judgment against him meant when he gloatingly announced that the verdict of the non-White jury "sends a message to all racists with guns." "You can't defend yourselves from us," Kuby was smirking. In effect, he was saying, "If you don't let us do whatever we want, you're a hate criminal, and we'll use the justice system to destroy you."
And in fact, that's what's happening. The court system in America has become so corrupt that it is being used by the enemies of our people to take away our most fundamental rights. And those who have corrupted the system are working day and night to institutionalize the corruption. They are working with the politicians to ensure that the shocking miscarriages of justice they obtained in the Loeb trial in Florida and the Goetz trial in New York become the rule everywhere. And the White lawyers and judges are putting up very little resistance. They don't want to rock the boat. They don't want to endanger their own positions in the system. They know that anything they say against what is happening will be condemned by the controlled media and by many of their own colleagues as À "hate speech." So they're permitting the Jews to corrupt the system and in many cases are even helping them.
What can we do about this frightening and depressing situation, besides trying our best to avoid any encounter with courts or lawyers? Shall we promise ourselves that if we ever have to shoot a burglar we'll just get rid of the body and not call the police? Shall we promise ourselves that if we ever have to defend ourselves against a non-White mugger we'll leave no witnesses alive to testify against us?
No, that's really not practical in many cases.
The first thing that we can do is stop being frightened and depressed and instead become angry. Our enemies want us to be frightened and depressed. That's what they intend when they gloat and announce that they're sending a message to all racists with guns. So instead of being intimidated by this Jewish arrogance, we must become enraged. We must become boiling mad. We must let our anger reinforce our determination to put a final and total end to their corrupt system, no matter what it takes. And the second thing that we must do is speak up. Don't remain silent in the face of this Jewish assault on our freedom and on our civilization. When a mostly Black jury frees a Black murderer, as in the O.J. Simpson trial, express your outrage! Don't be afraid of being called a "racist." When a White man is punished for defending himself against Black criminals, speak up! Tell people what you think.
That's what we're doing with this web page. We're telling people what we think about the destruction of our justice system. And we're finding that more and more people agree with us.
You speak up too! Don't be afraid!
The Big Picture A Bare-Bones Outline of Our Present Predicament
What's the most important thing in your life?
Is it making as much money as possible?
Is it getting along with other people and being popular?
Is it security? Is it happiness?
Well, of course, most of us would like to have financial security, and we would like to be happy. But for some of us there's something more important than security and personal happiness. I'm addressing now the more serious-minded listeners, the ones who are capable of understanding things like duty and responsibility.
Duty and responsibility: those are almost bad words these days -- definitely not fashionable. We've been conditioned by the media to be suspicious of people who talk about such things. This is the feel-good generation, the MTV generation. But really, we know that more important than feeling good is doing good, doing right. The most important thing for us is using our lives in the right way. The most important thing is having the right purpose and serving that purpose effectively.
We need to look beyond our bank accounts and our personal hobbies and our immediate circle of friends in order to find purpose. We need to see ourselves set in a larger context. We need to understand how our own lives are important as a part of the world around us: not just the world of here and now, but also the world of the future and the world of the past. We need to see our own lives as a part of the historical process.
When we do this, when we see ourselves in context, then we begin to understand our responsibility, our purpose. We begin to understand what's really important in our lives. We see that we have a responsibility to the people who came before us and made it possible for us to live, the people whose genius and work and sacrifice built our world for us, built our civilization for us, gave us our culture. We have a responsibility to ensure that their toil and sacrifice were not in vain.
And we have a responsibility to the people who will come after us, a responsibility to all the future generations of our people. We must ensure that what we have inherited from our ancestors will be preserved and enhanced and strengthened by us and passed on to those who will follow us.
This is the most important thing in our lives: understanding this purpose, accepting this responsibility. At least, it is the most important thing for those of us who are serious about our lives, those of us who have not become corrupted and trivialized by watching too much MTV. So we need to be concerned about what's happening to our world today. We need to become involved in it. We need to accept responsibility for it. That's the whole reason for Free Speech and American Dissident Voices. It's to help with understanding what's happening, and it's to provide a little push, a little inspiration, to get you involved.
In past broadcasts I've talked about many specific aspects of what we need to be concerned about. I've talked about specific threats to our world. I've talked about the breakdown of our system of justice, and I've given you specific examples: the acquittal of O.J. Simpson after he murdered two people, and the $43 million verdict against Bernard Goetz for defending himself against Black muggers. I've talked about the lies and the hypocrisy of the government in Washington. I've talked about the government's ruinous trade policy. I've talked about the Jewish monopoly control of the news and entertainment media in America and the destructive way in which that control is used. I've talked to you about the movement to get rid of our Bill of Rights, the movement to scrap the First and Second Amendments, the movement to make it illegal for us to write or say anything which is not Politically Correct, and to take away our means to defend our rights against those who want to abolish them.
And all of these things are important. We must look at details, we must look at specifics, if we are to understand what to do. Today, though, I'd like to look at the big picture. I want to talk to you about what has happened to us, and why, and what we must do about it.
First, let's back off a bit, so that we can see the picture more clearly. Three hundred years ago, when nearly all of our ancestors were still in Europe, we had a pretty good grip on things. We were involved in the historical process. We had a feeling for our past and a sense of responsibility to the future. No one was telling us that it was wicked or racist or anti-Semitic or hateful to want to ensure a better world for our descendants. That was because we still had our wits about us, more or less, and we did not let anyone into our midst whose aim was to weaken us and destroy us. We had no MTV. We were all Whites; we were all Europeans. We had no slaves, no non-Whites among us. We kept the Jews in their ghettos and very tightly circumscribed their activities. It was just us. We had common roots and a common concern for the future.
Now, I'm oversimplifying things a bit to make my point, of course. Europeans did have disagreements among themselves. We did have wars from time to time. We did mistreat each other. But it was just us. It was all in the family. We had no aliens among us exercising influence over us and hating us and planning our destruction. Our books and our journals were written by us and were published by us. There was no Jew-controlled television. Our young people were taught in our schools and our universities by us, not by clever aliens attempting to corrupt and subvert.
And among ourselves -- just us -- we were building a great civilization. In the 18th and 19th centuries we created a world of science and music and literature and painting which greatly surpassed anything which had come before. And we spread our dominion over the earth. Wherever we went we conquered: in the Middle East and India, in the Far East -- and in the West, in the New World. We were proud and self-confident. We knew who we were. We were White. We were European. We did not mix with those who were not European. When we needed land for our people, we took it. If anyone raised his hand against us, we struck him down. And thus we built America. And it was a strong and good and progressive nation, a White nation.
We did make mistakes during the past 300 years, though. In America we brought in Black slaves to work the land in the South, and we brought in Chinese coolies to work as laborers in the West. We kept ourselves separate from these non-White slaves and servants, but bringing them into our living space laid the groundwork for our present disaster.
In France and elsewhere in Europe, we let ourselves be hypnotized by false propaganda about equality. We are all equal, all the same, this propaganda said, and we all should mix and be brothers, and no man should have more than another. So we let the Jews out of their ghettoes and we let them become citizens of European countries. They repaid us by corrupting our music and our literature and by subverting every European institution. One of them, a Jew named Marx, launched Communism, which eventually enslaved half of our world and murdered tens of millions of our people, often the best elements among our people. The brightest and most energetic and most successful of our people were butchered by the tens of millions by the Communists in Europe.
In America they were not able to succeed with Communism, but they infiltrated and took over our mass media of news and entertainment: our films, radio, television, book publishing, and major newspapers. And with these media they pushed the false propaganda of liberalism: We are all equal, they said, Black and White and Chinaman and Jew, all the same -- except that you Whites have the stain of guilt on you for having thought yourselves better than the rest of us, and now you must make it up to us for having mistreated us in the past.
And with this propaganda they wormed their way into our educational establishment, into our government, into all of our institutions. And because they controlled so many of the media, there was hardly a voice of opposition, hardly a voice of sanity and reason to be heard in opposition to their propaganda, and they were able to corrupt the minds of millions of young Americans. They were able to instill feelings of racial guilt and racial self-hatred into two generations of young White people.
And with their growing influence they were able to open America's borders to the non-White world, and they were able to force racial integration on our schools, our work places, our neighborhoods. They replaced our European music with jazz and rock and rap. They introduced what they fondly call "modernism" into art and literature, replacing our culture with a Judaized trash culture. They overturned the laws against miscegenation. They persuaded the leaders of the Christian churches to join their revolution against the White world. They turned our government into a cesspool, occupied by people like Bill and Hillary Clinton.
And so here we are today, at the end of the 20th century, facing the prospect of becoming a minority in our own country before the middle of the next century, and so paralyzed by fear and guilt and self-hatred that while some of us look forward eagerly to our self-extinction most of the rest of us refuse to do anything to avert it.
Quite a mess! Now, I have greatly oversimplified the picture, just so that we could grasp the most important features. I have not mentioned the minority of Jews who never engaged in or supported the subversive activities of the majority of Jews. I have not talked about all of the criminals among our own people, besides the Clintons, who have collaborated with the Jews. Those are details which are important, and I have discussed those details in other broadcasts. But right now we want to grasp just the coarsest features of our predicament. We want to understand, in a very rough simple way, what our situation is and what we must do about it. I'll spell out these rough and simple features:
First, America has been transformed from a White country before the Second World War, a White country in which the 10% non-White portion of the population was strictly segregated from the White population, into a multiracial morass today. The non-White population in America is increasing so rapidly that it will constitute a majority, and we will be a minority, within the next 50 years.
Second, America's government is deliberately and forcefully implementing this racial transformation. The government, an institution which our ancestors created to be the guardian of our welfare, has become the deadliest enemy of our people. It is deliberate government policy which is responsible for the flood of non-White immigrants, both legal and illegal, now pouring across our borders. It is deliberate government policy which feeds and houses and encourages the breeding of the huge and growing non-White underclass in our cities. It is deliberate government policy which mixes the non-White population with the White population and encourages miscegenation.
Third, most of the White population in America is collaborating in its own destruction, partly from ignorance, partly from fear, but mostly from a blind, animalistic urge to conform to perceived norms of public opinion.
Fourth, the mass media of news and entertainment provide the guiding spirit for White America's rush to self-destruction, and those media are largely in the hands of the Jewish minority. The controlled media, with virtual unanimity, push the party line of egalitarianism and multiculturalism and racial mixing. The controlled media, with virtual unanimity, push the party line of feminism and of toleration for homosexuality and of White "guilt" for supposed historic wrongs to non-Whites. The media, by influencing the attitudes and opinions of most voters, wield the power which determines which politicians get elected to public office in America. The media -- especially the media of film and television -- have done more than any other institution to degrade the cultural and moral level of our people. And the people who wield the media as a weapon against us are Jews.
That's our situation today, in very rough outline. And, of course, I've left out a thousand details and refinements and qualifications. I've not talked about the destructive, anti-White doctrines of many of the Christian churches. I've not mentioned the slavishly pro-Jewish and anti-White policies of many powerful White politicians, such as Edward Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Robert Dole. I've ignored economics altogether. I've not said anything about the destructive effects of the government's trade policy. I've not explored the Jews' motivation for what they're doing. I've just pointed out four basic facts: first, America is being transformed very rapidly from a White country to a non-White country; second, the government is deliberately implementing this transformation; third, most of the White population is not resisting the transformation; and fourth, the mass media, controlled by the Jews, are providing the driving force for it all.
What this means to those of us who feel some sense of responsibility to our ancestors and to our posterity is that our people are being faced with the greatest threat ever, with the threat of extinction, and that we must do whatever we can to avert this threat.
And what we must do -- again in the very roughest and crudest terms -- is, first, destroy or neutralize the two hostile forces which are leading us to our destruction – namely, the government and the Jew-controlled media; and second, start our badly corrupted and misled people back on the road to duty and responsibility.
I'm leaving out many important details, of course. I haven't even mentioned how we are to deal with the Blacks in our midst, for example. But that is a detail we know that we can handle, once we have taken care of the government and the Jewish media and begun curing our own people of their present sickness.
So, we know roughly what our problem is and roughly what we must do about it. Now we must get back to the details, because that's the only way we can make plans and execute them. But seeing the big picture is important in making plans, because it sets the boundaries for us. Once we understand the urgency of our situation, once we understand the finality of the fate designed for us by our enemies, we know that we must either conquer or die. If we do not defeat those who intend to destroy us, and defeat them soon, then our people will perish forever. What this means for us is that no matter how small our likelihood for success, we must act. No matter how desperate the gamble, we must take it. We must not fail to act. We must not do nothing, simply because no plan seems certain of success. No loss as a consequence of acting can be greater than the loss from failing to act. If we are responsible adults, if we are honorable adults, then we must act. There is no acceptable excuse for not acting -- not family obligations, not personal security, not career considerations -- no excuse. If we do not act, then everything will be lost, every reason for living, every reason for which our ancestors lived and worked and sacrificed and suffered and died. The deadly filth of Jewish liberalism will spread over our entire race and destroy it -- irrevocably, forever.
I promised you details, and now I'm running out of time. But here's one detail: no matter what else we do, our first move must be to alert all of our people to the situation I have outlined today. That's the first step: education. Education alone is not enough, of course, but it is necessary.
Many people will not want to be educated. They will be afraid to listen to anything which is not Politically Correct. They will hate us when we try to educate them. They will go back to their MTV. But for every fool filled with hate and fear who will not listen, we will find a person who already has an understanding of the things I have said today and who only needs to hear us say them in order to gain enough confidence to know that his understanding is correct. And we will find other people who have not yet achieved understanding but whose hearts and minds are open, and who can accept the truth when it is presented to them. And so that is our immediate task: yours as well as mine. We must reach out to our people. We must alert them. We must educate them. We must encourage them. We must inspire them.
And here's a beautiful, wonderful thing: when you reach out to other people to encourage them and inspire them, you yourself will be encouraged and inspired. When you find out how many other people there are who share our concerns, our feelings, our values, our sense of responsibility, you cannot help but be encouraged.
Even the hatred that you encounter from some people -- especially from people in the controlled media -- will be encouraging. For you will understand that they would not hate us so much if they did not fear us. And the reason that they fear us is that deep inside them they know that what we say is true.
So let's get out there -- all of us -- and start looking for encouragement!
What Liberals Don’t Understand Both Terrorism and Random Violence Will Increase as Alienation Grows
I was watching the television news one evening several weeks ago, and Bill Clinton came on and made a few comments about the rash of burnings of Black churches across the South. Mr. Clinton announced that he knew that White racism was responsible for the burnings. Organized hatred was behind it, he said, and it wouldn't be tolerated.
After that I waited for the newscaster to tell us about the evidence Mr. Clinton had that some sort of White racist conspiracy was involved, but no evidence was presented. The newscaster just moved on to other news. I wondered at the time whether or not Mr. Clinton had some inside information, some secret which he didn't want to share with the public, because I wasn't sure at all that the burnings were an organized effort by White racists. I already had been following the news of the burnings for a few days myself, and I just didn't see anything that suggested a White conspiracy. A boozed-up Ku Kluxer might have torched a Black church here or there, but the multi-state string of burnings just doesn't have the feel of the work of a White racist organization.
Apparently the secret police who were investigating the burnings figured that too. They learned in school that most cases of arson are associated with insurance fraud, and so they began questioning Black parishioners and asking Black preachers to take lie-detector tests.
Well, sir, that caused an outburst of liberal indignation in the controlled media. The racist cops are blaming the victims! Quit investigating Blacks and start arresting White racists, the media were screaming. Don't worry about evidence. It's obvious that White racists are doing this, so start rounding them up. And Mr. Clinton's head secret policeman, Janet Reno, threw a real tantrum. She called in the chief investigators, stamped her feet, and ordered them to stop investigating Blacks. White racists are responsible for the fires, she said. Now, go out and arrest some White racists!
And the media kept up their wailing about White racists burning Black churches. I have dozens of the most outrageous, bigoted, irrational newspaper clippings you can imagine on the subject. I'll read excerpts from a couple of them, just to give you the flavor. A typical case was an editorial in the Charleston Gazette, a raving-liberal West Virginia newspaper which is an embarrassment to an otherwise decent state. On June 18 the Charleston Gazette's editor wrote:
. . . Raw racism seems to be the motive.
. . . As we've said before, Americans generally are decent, compassionate people who don't feel racial hate. But the nation still has a vein of bigotry -- and a few racists are brutal enough to join hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan or the Freemen.
Extreme bigots presumably are starting the fires, even though investigators haven't yet found evidence of an organized conspiracy. Our guess is that a few white rednecks, half drunk in a Southern roadhouse, see a TV report of a black church burning and decide to inflict the same punishment on blacks in their vicinity.
Churches are a natural target for race-haters. . . . Just because they're idiots doesn't mean they aren't disgusting criminals who must be locked in prison. The wave of black church fires has gripped the conscience of America. Leaders and groups at every level are calling for a national crackdown. Decent Americans who feel no hostility should lend their voices to the outcry and exert pressure until all the arsonists are prosecuted. . .
Well, well, well! Racism seems to be the motive. Bigots presumably are starting the fires. What the editor of the Charleston Gazette really means is that he hopes White racists are burning the churches, so that they can be caught and punished -- severely . He's praying that a racist conspiracy will be discovered, so that it can be stamped out, hopefully with a high body count. And as for "Americans who feel no hostility," he clearly is not among them.
Or consider this bit of rabid commentary by Washington Post columnist Carl Rowan. It was in the June 13 edition of the Post and was titled "Church Bombers and The Turner Diaries." Mr. Rowan wrote:
I think that there is a grotesque conspiracy to "save the white race" afoot in America, and that the church bombings [sic] are part of a plot to provoke blacks to react violently, thus giving all the hate groups in the land an excuse to uncover their caches of weapons and use them against blacks and against whites who sympathize with blacks.
I have turned anew to The Turner Diaries, the revolutionary "bible" of the Montana Freemen, the Aryan Supremacists, and the militiamen and others who threaten to "solve the race problem" by killing blacks, Jews, and liberals. This little 210-page book written by West Virginia professor William Pierce under the pseudonym Andrew Macdonald is the most diabolically violent plan for solving America's racial and social problems that I have ever read.
Mr. Rowan follows with a long extract from The Turner Diaries -- a book I wrote, incidentally -- to prove his point, and then he concludes: The bigots who seek to destroy "the system" clearly believe that even if they burned 10,000 black churches, most of "the white race" would side with them if outraged blacks or their Federal protectors took up arms against the arsonists. Federal authorities know this; thus their caution, even timidity, in cracking down on the Freemen, or the rash of new hate groups, or the weird souls who are stockpiling weapons they expect to use against their state and Federal governments.
The church bombings reflect a race madness that is far worse than we want to think it is. A lot more people are in grave danger than those who worship in black churches.
So, what do we have here? Hatred and hostility, stemming from fear, in the Charleston Gazette; galloping paranoia, stemming from fear, in the Washington Post. And these two examples are pretty typical of the liberal response everywhere to the church burnings. The facts are not yet all in, but the arson cases which have been solved to date suggest something quite different from Bill Clinton's or Carl Rowan's assumption of a White racist conspiracy or even the Charleston Gazette's assumption of groups of White rednecks wanting to punish Blacks.
Alabama Fire Marshal John Robison has investigated 38 cases of arson or suspected arson of churches in Alabama since 1991. Of those 38 churches, 15 were Black churches, and 23 were White, and he's found no evidence of racial motives in any of the burnings. In one case, that of the Antioch A.M.E. Church in Fort Deposit, Alabama, the Black female minister was charged with burning her own church. I quote Fire Marshal Robison: "The pastor was upset with the congregation about money; she felt she didn't get paid enough," he said.
Last month, on June 18, four Black children, aged 12 and under, were arrested for setting a fire in a Black church in Florence, South Carolina. Of 27 church fires which have been investigated in South Carolina since 1991, 12 fires were in White churches and 15 of them were in Black churches, and a total of six Whites and six Blacks have been arrested in connection with those 15 burnings of Black churches.
The Georgia Bureau of Investigation has investigated seven church burnings in Georgia during the past 18 months. Six of the seven churches had White congregations. The one Black church which was burned, in February 1995, was torched by a Black juvenile.
On June 19 of this year two Black men were arrested in Columbus County, North Carolina, and charged with burning a building on the grounds of the Black Mount Tabor Baptist Church. The previous week a 12-year-old White girl was arrested for setting a fire which destroyed an abandoned building on the grounds of a Black church in Charlotte, North Carolina. The 12-year- old White girl was said to be emotionally troubled, but I have not heard that she was part of any racist conspiracy.
Now, all of this seems to me to be pretty inconclusive evidence -- certainly not the sort of evidence to suggest a White racist conspiracy -- although I wouldn't bet that Mr. Clinton's BATF goons and his FBI goons can't find some kind of conspiracy, if they try hard enough to please their boss.
The hysterical reaction of the liberals to these church burnings suggests several things to me. First, liberals want there to be a White conspiracy behind it, because that would tend to confirm their theory about race relations generally: namely, whenever things don't work the way liberal theory says they should work, the reason is White racism. That's the only Politically Correct explanation: White racism. Second, they really believe there is a White conspiracy, because so many of their plans have been going wrong lately that they're becoming a little paranoid. Third, they're frightened; it's clear that more and more people are turning against the government these days, or at least losing faith in the government, and the government is the only protection which stands between the liberals and the wrath of the heterosexual White males they have treated so contemptuously for so long. It is this liberal fear, I believe, which explains the increasing level of viciousness and hatred we are seeing in liberal condemnations of the government's enemies. Do you remember the way most of the controlled media treated the standoff between the FBI and the Montana Freemen which ended last month? The Freemen had some really nutty religious ideas -- just as David Koresh's Branch Davidians at Waco did -- and they had some even nuttier ideas about finance and economics. They figured that they had just as much right to issue money and set up banks as the Federal Reserve system had, and so that's what they did -- which, of course, was technically a violation of the law. But they hadn't hurt anyone and had no intention of hurting anyone. They just wanted to be left alone. Yet the controlled media and the liberal commentators were angry that the FBI didn't go storming onto their ranch with tanks, flame- throwers, and helicopter gunships. The liberal media wanted blood. The liberal media hated the Freemen.
Why is that?
I'll tell you why. The liberals hated the Freemen, because the Freemen had challenged the authority of the government. There's hardly anything that frightens a liberal more than the thought of losing the government's backing, the government's muscle for forcing the public to submit to liberal policies and programs. The liberals have built up an unnatural coalition of minorities and abnormal people -- a coalition of Blacks and other racial minorities, of homosexuals, of militant feminists, of perennial welfare recipients of all races -- to keep a grip on government. They have built a coalition of people who depend on the government to guarantee their special privileges and protections. This is the coalition which put Bill Clinton into office.
If normal people -- if White, heterosexual, working men and women -- were allowed to just tell the government to go to hell, the way the Freemen did, the whole liberal house of cards would come tumbling down. People would be free to hire or fire or rent to or not rent to anyone they wanted. Schools could set their own admission policies. People who have come to feel that they are entitled to a handout from the government would suddenly be faced with the prospect of working for a living or starving. Perverts of various sorts would suddenly find themselves shunned by normal, decent people and would have to retreat back into their closets.
And what could the liberals do to save their skins? Where could they hide to escape retribution for what they have done to our society these past 50 years or so? Where could they run that the lynch mobs wouldn't find them?
That's why they hate anyone who threatens the authority of the Federal government. That's why they're terrified by the idea of people just deciding to opt out of the system.
You know, if there is any conspiracy connected to the burnings of Black churches, it is a conspiracy among liberals and Blacks to use the burnings to bludgeon White Americans with more White guilt, with more demands to outlaw racism and make still more concessions to non- Whites. Virtually every news report and every editorial in the controlled media about a church burning has attributed the burning to White racism. Some of them even say something like, "The police haven't caught the White racist who did this yet, but we know it had to be a White racist." And, of course, the news reporting on this subject is very selective. If they catch a White suspect, it's front-page news. If they catch a Black suspect, it's buried in the classified section. And if it's a White church that burns instead of a Black church, it doesn't even make the national news.
And this White guilt campaign seems to be working with some folks. Various White Christian groups have been rending their garments and beating their breasts and crying, "Mea culpa! Mea culpa!" Ralph Reed, the head of the Christian Coalition, one of the largest fundamentalist Christian groups in the country, fell into that trap last month. He went to an association of Black preachers in the South with his hat in his hand and essentially accepted White Christian responsibility for the burnings of Black churches.
This is the same sort of guilt racket the Jews have been working for the past 50 years. They've been saying, in effect, "You could have stopped the Holocaust if you had really cared about us, but you didn't. You let the Germans gas us. And so now you owe us." It worked for the Jews, so why not for the Blacks?
Now, please note that I'm not saying that Blacks or liberals are in an organized conspiracy to burn Black churches. I'm saying that it certainly looks like the liberals are in a conspiracy to use the burnings for their own ends by misrepresenting them in their news coverage and commentary.
My guess is that what we're seeing in these burnings is simply an increase in random violence as our society continues to decay under liberal policies. Today it's churches, because churches, being unoccupied most of the time, are easy targets. Six months from now it could be empty school buildings -- or banks or whatever the fad happens to be at the time. This is something I predicted 20 years ago in my book, The Turner Diaries, just as I predicted a great increase in political terrorism. We're certainly seeing the increase in terrorism: the World Trade Center bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Unabomber, the bombing in Saudi Arabia. And I think we'll see a lot more random violence and destruction like these church burnings -- not because of White racism, but because the policies of the liberals and the mass media and the government are destroying our society, alienating our people, and causing more and more individuals to lash out violently, in one way or another.
The liberals and the minorities and freaks who make up their coalition can't understand this. To a homosexual or a militant feminist or a liberal booster of the New World Order this is the best of times. Things have never been better. We have more of their beloved diversity than ever before; more multiculturalism; more miscegenation; more democracy; more degeneracy in art, literature, and music; more permissiveness and depravity in our social life. Everything is more cosmopolitan, everything is more Jewish than ever before. There has never been another time when one could see so many racially mixed couples on the streets, never another time when homosexuals and their life-style have been held up to such public admiration, never another time when there were two Jews and a Negro on the Supreme Court, never another time when half of the President's cabinet consisted of Jews and other minorities. Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful! How could anyone be against such things? Except, of course, those awful heterosexual White males, those awful White racists! They don't understand why we hate their government, why we hate them, why we hate what they've done to our civilization and to our people. But they do know that we hate them. And they are frightened.
They are mistaken, of course, when they blame us for every blow that is struck against them. They don't understand that a great many ordinary people without any real sense of purpose or any racial feeling one way or another -- even many Blacks -- are frustrated and unhappy and alienated in this unnatural society that the liberals have forced on all of us, and that more and more of these alienated people are striking out randomly at any target they can find.
No, the liberals don't understand that -- but, believe me, they will see more and more of this random, purposeless violence, just as they will see more and more very purposeful terrorism. And in their bigotry and their fear and their lack of understanding they'll continue to blame everything on organized White racism. But one day -- one day before too long -- understanding will come to the liberals. It will come on the day that they have been having nightmares about. It will come on the day when an awakened White public rises up and begins a great cleansing of this land of ours.
Feminism: The Great Destroyer An Interview of Dr. William L. Pierce By Kevin Alfred Strom K.A.S.:There is a continuing public debate about the role of women in our society and the related subjects of sexism and feminism. One example was the hullabaloo that occurred during the confirmation of Clarence Thomas's appointment to the Supreme Court. Feminists and their claque in the media charged that this confirmation was an affirmation of the "sexism" rampant in the U.S. political establishment. The cure for this alleged problem is to get more women into positions of political power, according to many people in the media.
Another example was the uproar about a drunken party several years ago in Las Vegas for Navy fliers at which several women who showed up were manhandled -- in particular, a female flier who later complained to the media about her treatment. The news coverage of the Las Vegas party brought demands from media spokesmen and politicians for rooting out the "sexism" in the armed forces and giving women equal roles in everything from infantry combat to flying fighter jets. Do you see any real or lasting significance in this debate? W.L.P.: Oh, it's certainly a significant debate. The significance is perhaps not exactly what the media spokesmen would have us believe it is, but there is a significance there nevertheless. Getting at the real significance, pulling it out into the light where everyone can see it and examine it, requires a little care, though. There's a lot of misdirection, a lot of deliberate deception in the debate.
Look at the first example you just mentioned. The controlled media would have us believe that the approval of Clarence Thomas by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the face of Anita Hill's complaints about him demonstrates a callous insensitivity to women's welfare. But what were Anita Hill's complaints? They were that when Thomas had been her boss in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission he had asked her several times for a date and that on one occasion he had begun describing to her a pornographic film he had seen the evening before. She never alleged that he had demanded sexual favors from her, threatened her, or put his hands on her. Her complaint was that he had shown a normal, healthy interest in her as a woman. He had asked her for a date.
Talking to her about a pornographic film may have indicated a certain lack of refinement on his part -- at least that would be the case if the two of them were members of a traditional White society, in which gentlemen didn't talk about pornographic films in the presence of ladies, at least not in the office -- but what the hell, the folks who were raising such a fuss about Thomas's behavior are, like both Clarence and Anita themselves, all members of the brave, New World Order society, which is neither White nor traditional. It's a so-called "multicultural" society in which there are no gentlemen and there are no ladies; there are just male and female people, and the female people are no different from the male people: they are just as bawdy, just as vulgar, just as aggressive. K.A.S.:So you believe that the whole thing was just a tempest in a teapot, that it really wasn't significant? W.L.P.: A tempest in a teapot, yes, but still very significant. One aspect of the Clarence and Anita circus was that it was simply seized on and used by people with a certain political agenda, and so of course their tendency was to make as much ado as they could about it. But another aspect is that many of the feminists who were screeching against Thomas and against the Senate's approval of him really were indignant that the man had asked Anita Hill for a date. They really were outraged that he had an interest in her as a woman and did not simply treat her as another lawyer in his office. Men are not supposed to notice women as women, but only as people, and radical feminists really do become angry if one drops this unisex pretense even for a minute. Open a door for one of them and you'll get a nasty glare; call one of them "my dear" or refer to her as a "girl" and you'll be slapped with a civil rights lawsuit.
The fuss about this Tailhook Association party in Las Vegas reveals the same sort of nuttiness. I mean, what do you expect when a bunch of Navy fliers throw a wild, drunken orgy? They had held their party in Las Vegas several years in a row, and the party had gained a bit of a reputation. It was notorious. Everybody in Naval aviation knew all about it. The Navy women who went to the party knew what to expect. They joined the orgy. Any woman who didn't want to be pawed by drunken fliers and have her panties pulled off stayed away. Certainly, if these Navy fliers had shanghaied some unsuspecting woman off the street and forced her to submit to indignities, I would be the first to call for their being put up against a wall. I'll go further and say that I really don't approve of drunkenness under any circumstances -- although I believe it's only realistic to accept drinking as a fact of military life. But I cannot work up much sympathy for a woman who, knowing what the Tailhook parties are like, decides that she will pretend that she really isn't a woman but rather is a genderless Navy flier and so can go to the Tailhook party without worrying about her panties. K.A.S.:That's really irrational isn't it? It doesn't make sense to ignore human nature like that. W.L.P.: Irrationality seems to be the rule rather than the exception in public affairs these days. Feminism, of course, is just another exercise in reality denial, which has become such a common pastime. There are too many people out there who seem to believe that if we pretend that men and women are the same, they really will be; that if we pretend there are no differences between Blacks and Whites except skin color, the differences will disappear; that if we pretend that homosexuality is a normal, healthy condition, it will be.
Feminism is one of the most destructive aberrations being pushed by the media today, because it has an immediate effect on nearly all of us. There are many sectors of the economy, for example, in which racial-quota hiring and promotion – so-called "affirmative action" -- isn't a real problem, and so White people who work in those sectors remain relatively unaffected by the racial aspects of America's breakdown, but feminism is becoming pervasive; there are few relationships between men and women, especially between younger men and women, which will not suffer from the effects of feminism in the near future. K.A.S.:You just referred to feminism as "a destructive aberration" and spoke of the breakdown of America. Are the two things connected? W.L.P.: When homosexuals come out of the closet and women go into politics, empires crumble. Or, to say that a way which more accurately reflects the cause-effect relationship, when empires begin to crumble, then the queers come out of the closet and women go into politics. Which is to say, that in a strong, healthy society, feminism isn't a problem. But when a society begins to decay -- when the men lose their self-confidence -- then feminism raises its head and accelerates the process of decay. K.A.S.:Before we go further, exactly what do you mean by feminism? Can you define the word for us? W.L.P.: Feminism is a system of ideas with several distinguishing characteristics. First, it's a system in which gender is regarded as the primary identifying characteristic, more important even than race. Second, and paradoxically, it's a system in which men and women are regarded as innately identical in all intellectual and psychical traits, and in all physical traits except those most obviously dependent on the configuration of the genitalia. Third, it's a system in which filling a traditionally male role in society is valued above being a wife and mother, a system in which the traditional female roles are denigrated. Finally, it's a system in which men and women are regarded as mutually hostile classes, with men traditionally in the role of oppressors of women; and in which it is regarded as every woman's primary duty to support the interests of her fellow women of all races against the male oppressors.
I should add that not every woman who describes herself as a feminist would go along 100% with that definition. Real feminism is not just an intellectual thing; it's a sickness, with deep emotional roots. Some women just want to be trendy, but are otherwise normal. They just want to be fashionable, and feminism is held up by the media as fashionable these days. It's Politically Correct.
And while we're at it, we should note that there is an analogous malady, usually called male chauvinism, which expresses itself in a range of attitudes toward women ranging from patronizing contempt to outright hatred. Feminists often attribute the growth of feminism to a reaction against male chauvinism. Actually the latter, which never afflicted more than a minority of White men, has been more an excuse for the promoters of feminism than a cause of that disorder. K.A.S.:OK. So that's what feminism is. Now, in what way is it destructive? How is it connected to America's decline? W.L.P.: Feminism is destructive at several different levels. At the racial level it is destructive because it divides the race against itself, robbing us of racial solidarity and weakening us in the struggle for racial survival; and because it reduces the White birthrate, especially among educated women. It also undermines the family by taking women out of the home and leaving the raising of children to television and day-care centers. At a personal or social level feminism does its damage by eroding the traditional relationship between men and women. That traditional relationship is not based on any assumption of equality or sameness. It's not a symmetrical relationship, but rather a complementary one. It's based on a sexual division of labor, with fundamentally different roles for men and women: men are the providers and the protectors, and women are the nurturers. Men bring home the bacon, and they guard the den; women nourish the children and tend the hearth.
Many people today sneer at this traditional relationship. They think that in the New World Order there is no need to protect the den or the condo or whatever, because these days we're all very civilized, and that all one needs to do to bring home the bacon is hop in the car and drive to the nearest shopping mall, and, of course, a woman can do that just as well as a man. Therefore, because the times have changed, roles should change. There's no longer any reason for a division of labor; now we can all be the same, claim the apologists for feminism.
Now, I have a couple of problems with that line of reasoning. First, I'm not as eager to toss million-year-old traditions in the ash-can as the New World Order enthusiasts are, because I'm not as confident in the ability of the government to provide protection for all of us as they are, nor am I as confident that there'll always be bacon at the neighborhood shopping mall and we won't have to revert to earlier ways of getting it. Actually, I'm an optimist by nature, but I'm not so optimistic as to believe that I'll never be called on to use my strength or my fighting instincts to protect my family. In fact, every time I watch the evening news on television, I become more convinced that there's a very good chance we're going to end up having to fight for our bacon within the next few years.
In the second place, Mother Nature made a very big investment in her way of doing things over the past few million years of primate evolution. It's not simply a matter of our deciding that we don't like Mother Nature's plan because it's not fashionable any longer, and so we'll change it. We are what we are. That is, we are what millions of years of evolution have made us. A man is a man in every cell of his body and his brain, not just in his genitalia, and a woman is a woman to the same degree. We were very thoroughly and precisely adapted to our different roles. We can't change reality by passing a civil rights law. When we deceive ourselves into thinking that we can, there's hell to pay. Which is to say that we end up with a lot of very confused, disappointed, and unhappy men and women. We also end up with a lot of very angry men and women, which accounts for the feminists and the male chauvinists.
It's true, of course, that some women might be perfectly happy as corporate raiders or professional knife fighters, just as some men have willingly adapted to the New World Order by becoming less aggressive and more "sensitive." But it doesn't work that way for normal men and women. What the normal man really wants and needs is not just a business partner and roommate of the opposite sex, but a real woman whom he can protect and provide for. And what a normal woman really wants and needs with every fiber of her being, regardless of how much feminist propaganda she's soaked up, is a real man, who can love and protect her and provide for her and their children. If she's watched too much television and has let herself be persuaded that what she wants instead of a strong, masculine man is a sensitive wimp who'll let her wear the trousers in the family half the time, she's headed for a severe collision with the reality of her own nature. She'll end up making herself very neurotic, driving a few men into male chauvinism, and becoming a social liability. Our society just can't afford any more of that sort of foolishness. If feminism were only making individuals unhappy, I wouldn't be very concerned about it. I've always believed that people were entitled to make themselves as unhappy as they wanted to. But unfortunately, it's wrecking our society and weakening our race, and we must put a stop to it soon. K.A.S.:How do you propose to do that? The feminist movement really seems to be snowballing, and as you noted the mass media are all for it. It would seem pretty difficult to stop. Anyone who opposes the feminists is perceived as a male chauvinist who wants to take away women's rights and confine them to the kitchen and the bedroom. W.L.P.: Well, of course, I'm not in favor of taking anything away from women. I'd like to give women the option of being women again in the traditional way, in Nature's way, the option of staying home and taking care of their children and making a home for their husbands. It wasn't the feminists, of course, who changed our economy so that it's no longer possible for many families to survive unless both the man and the woman are employed outside the home. A society which forces women out of the home and into offices and factories is not a healthy society. I'd like for our society to be changed so that it's possible once again for mothers to stay at home with their children, the way they did back before the Second World War, back before the New World Order boys got their hands on our economy and launched their plan to bring the living standard of the average American wage earner down to the average Mexican level. I think many will want to stay home when it's possible to do so. And I am sure that if we provide the right role models for women, most will want to. If we regain control of our television industry, of our news and entertainment and advertising industries, we can hold up quite a different model of the ideal woman from the one being held up today.
Most women, just like most men, want to be fashionable. They try to do and be what's expected of them. We just need to move that model back closer to what Mother Nature had in mind. Then there's no need to take away anybody's rights. A few female lawyers with butch haircuts can easily be tolerated in a healthy society -- a few flagpole sitters, a few glass eaters, a few of all sorts of people -- so long as their particular brand of oddness doesn't begin undermining the health of the whole society. K.A.S.:But what about the people who control the media now -- what about the legislators -- who are on the feminist bandwagon? They are very powerful. What will you do about them? W.L.P.: We'll do whatever is necessary. Now we're helping people understand feminism and the other ills which are afflicting our society. Understanding really must come first. After understanding comes organization. And then, as I said, whatever is necessary.
And I should add this: Whatever flies in the face of reality is inherently self-destructive. But we cannot wait for this disease to burn itself out. The toll will be too great. We have to stand up against it and oppose it now. We have to change people's attitudes about feminism being fashionable. We have to make the politicians who've jumped on the feminist bandwagon understand that there will be a heavy price to pay, some day, for their irresponsibility. K.A.S.:Do you really think that you can change the behavior of the politicians? W.L.P.: Perhaps not, but we must at least give them a chance to change. Unfortunately in the case of the politicians most of them have many crimes besides an advocacy of feminism to answer for, and they know that they can only be hanged once.
Understanding Our Enemies The U.S. Government and News Media Are Waging a Propaganda War Against White Americans I spoke a couple of months ago about the exploitation by the government and the media of Black church burnings. I discussed the way in which the Clinton administration and the controlled news media were claiming these burnings were the work of organized White racists, without a shred of evidence to support their claim.
I pointed out in my earlier broadcast that it was possible that a couple of boozed-up Kluxers might have started one or two of the fires, but that as many Blacks as Whites had been arrested in the burnings, that collecting insurance money was a more likely motive than racism, and that it was very unlikely that any organized White group was involved. As time passes, it becomes clearer that our analysis of the situation was on target, and that of the government and the media was not. Sure enough, the government has arrested a couple of Kluxers for burning two churches, and sure enough they've been unable to find any White racist conspiracy, no matter how hard they've tried. I suspect the issue of burning Black churches will now fade quietly into the background, just like a thousand other phony issues before it.
Another of these phony issues was the painting of swastikas on the barracks doors of several Black soldiers' rooms at the Army's Fort Bragg, in North Carolina, a few weeks ago. The politicians and the media raised another big hullabaloo about "White racism" in the military and called for a new crackdown on what they like to call "hate crimes." The military brass were so panicked by the media fuss that White soldiers were confined to their barracks while the matter was being investigated. When it turned out that two Black soldiers had done the swastika painting, the issue quietly faded away. The people in the media who had been making the biggest fuss about "White racism" before the two Blacks were caught weren't even embarrassed. They just moved on to another phony issue and kept beating the drums about "White racism."
Now, one of the reasons why these media people weren't embarrassed is that many of them belong to a race which is biologically incapable of feeling shame. And the ones who don't belong to that race have trained themselves to think and behave just like their Jewish bosses. That's one of the reasons for the shameless behavior of the controlled media.
A more important reason, however, is one that I mentioned briefly in my earlier talk with you. The criminals in the government and in the media who have been lying to us and taking advantage of us and wrecking our society for so long now are desperate to keep normal, decent, working White men and women morally disarmed, to keep us on the defensive, to keep us feeling guilty and confused, because they know that if we ever begin thinking clearly, if we ever take stock of our situation, if we ever decide to straighten out the mess they've made of things, there will be hell to pay. They know that if White Americans ever wake up and get their act together, most of the media bosses and the politicians won't live more than a day or two before they're hunted down and dealt with. Let's look at the details of what's happening. I talked a little about this earlier, but we need to go over it again and again, until everyone understands it. One of the things we talked about before was that it's not just the media criminals and the politicians who want to keep us morally disarmed. It's also the whole Clinton coalition -- including the ones who vote Republican. It's all of the freaks and the perverts and the minorities who see their own interests tied to the status quo. It's everyone who can't make it on his own in a normal, healthy society and so depends on the government in one way or another.
It's the members of the welfare class, who've come to believe that they really deserve to be supported by the rest of us and who realize that they'll be strictly on their own and will have to either work or starve if the productive people ever reassert themselves.
It's the crazed feminists, who are afraid that they won't be able to be Air Force generals or military school cadets or top corporate executives if the government's drive to ban traditional sex roles is halted.
It's the homosexuals and other degenerates, who depend on a police state to force people to tolerate their behavior.
It's the members of all the non-White minorities -- the Blacks and the mestizos and the Asians and the rest -- who know they'll be sent packing to live among their own kind instead of continuing to drag us down into a multiracial and multicultural and mongrelized chaos.
All of these people have an instinctive understanding that they have to keep us feeling sorry for them, feeling guilty for wanting to be rid of them, feeling too confused to look out for the interests of our own people, our own civilization. They know that if we ever regain our wits, their goose will be cooked.
Finally, there's one other bunch of people who have an interest in keeping normal, working White men and women confused with lies about Black church burnings and swastika-painted barracks doors. Those are the liberal trendies who grew up during the Vietnam era and now are heavily entrenched in the government, the media, and the educational establishment. During the Vietnam conflict the Jewish leaders of Students for a Democratic Society, Americans for Democratic Action, the National Student Association, the Student Mobilization Committee, and a hundred other leftist organizations were using the war as a pretext to turn American society upside down.
These groups had virtually taken over the university campuses in America, because the university administrators were afraid that they would be accused of anti-Semitism if they took a stand against them. And the trendy airheads on the campuses, who had been spoiled rotten by a permissive upbringing, easily fell for the propaganda of these organizations, which essentially told them that they could do whatever they wanted to and had no responsibility to anyone or anything. In particular, they could avoid military service and continue smoking dope, partying, and going to rock concerts. These were the Bill Clinton types: the rotten, selfish, little bastards who got a big kick out of parading around with Viet Cong flags and thumbing their noses at mommy, daddy, and their country. Not all of them grew up to be chosen President of the United States by the media and the political bosses, but they did grow up to have a powerful grip on our schools and other institutions. They are still irresponsible, they are still essentially hedonist in their outlook, they still believe that they should be able to get away with anything, so long as the government -- now in their hands -- won't let mommy and daddy spank them for it.
Of course, that's just a figure of speech. These liberals, now approaching middle age, aren't really worried any longer about being spanked for making mud pies or smoking dope or having Viet Cong flags in their dormitory rooms. But they are worried that if normal, decent, responsible White Americans ever get the upper hand again, the aging liberal trendies will be dragged out of their offices and their condos and their country clubs and beaten to within a quarter-inch of their lives for the mess they've made of things, for what they've done to our world, to the heritage that our ancestors struggled and bled to preserve. They're worried that a lot of them will end up swinging from the end of a rope. And, believe me, that's a well justified worry.
So, all of this is why we keep having our faces rubbed in "White guilt" with phony White racist conspiracies to burn Black churches or intimidate Black soldiers with swastikas. This is why we're lied to by the government and the media. This is why Bill Clinton wants to shut down radio programs which are critical of the government. This is why the media folks become hysterical whenever new signs of popular opposition to the government become visible, whether in the form of a terrorist bombing or a group merely wanting to be left alone, like the Branch Davidians or the Montana Freemen. It's why we have a major assault underway on the First and Second Amendments by left-wing academics, who want to limit what we can say and also take away our means to protect our right to say it. It's why any questioning of even the most far-fetched "Holocaust" claims or any comment about the Jewish control of the mass media or any scientific inquiry into racial differences or any public statement which might offend feminists or homosexuals or non-Whites brings such an intolerant, closed-minded, and spiteful response from the liberal/Jewish/media/government sector. It's an attack on their coalition. It may be a sign that we're waking up. Remember what they did to poor Marge Schott when she made a couple of comments they deemed offensive?
They really are afraid that we'll wake up. They really are desperate to keep us confused, demoralized, and on the defensive. They know that if we ever go on the offensive, they will be finished. Our job, the task of American Dissident Voices, is to wake our people up, to help them straighten out their thinking, to give them moral courage, and to prepare them to take the offensive.
That's a formidable task. The majority of our people have let themselves be convinced that a normal, healthy, instinctive racial attitude -- the desire to live and work and play and mate with one's own kind, what our enemies call "racism" -- is wicked. Our enemies call this healthy, natural racial attitude a "sickness." They have been able to make many of us feel guilty for having such an attitude, much like the prudes of a century ago were able to make many people feel guilty for having a normal, healthy interest in the opposite sex.
So we can understand the motives of the elements who are destroying America and destroying our people, the motives of the filthy creatures who are deliberately sapping the will of our people to resist this destruction by pumping poisonous propaganda into our minds. We can understand their motives. They want to live too, but their way of life is to suck our life blood, to cling like leeches to our society and warp it to fit their needs, and they know that they can only do this by keeping us confused and morally debilitated. They know that if we become morally healthy again, they will die. We can understand that.
We can even understand how they accomplish their destructive work. We can understand both the organizational aspects and the psychological aspects. It's easy enough to understand why the controlled media are so ferociously determined to keep the flood of Third World immigrants pouring across our borders, why they become hysterical whenever anyone suggests restricting immigration, and why the government refuses to do more than make the flimsiest pretext of guarding our borders. Every Mexican and every Haitian and every Vietnamese and every Chinaman who sneaks into the country is a new member of their coalition against White America.
There are other aspects of this numbers problem too. Every sexually confused kid who grows up in one of these "modern," mixed-up families without strong sexual role models and ends up being lured into the homosexual life style is a new recruit for their coalition. That helps us understand the hatred the Clintonistas have for the traditional family and for traditional sex roles.
It's the psychological war our enemies have been waging against us which we must address before we can hope to do much about their efforts to outnumber us and divide us, however. We White people have a fatal compulsion to be "nice": to try very hard not to give offense or hurt the feelings of others. Actually this compulsion wasn't a bad trait in past centuries, when our society was racially and culturally homogeneous. It's a trait which serves as a social lubricant, minimizing conflict and abetting cooperation. But it really has been used against us by Jews and other non-Whites now living among us. There are far too many of our people who are bright enough to understand what's happening to our world, but who just can't bring themselves to say or do anything about it, because they've let themselves be persuaded that would be bad manners. It's rude to talk about racial differences, because if a non-White overheard it his feelings might be hurt. It's not polite to discuss the effects on our society of Jewish media control, because such a discussion is offensive to Jews.
Does it hurt our feelings to be called "honky" or "goy" or "gringo"? Not really. We listen without objection to the most scathing criticism of our people and our ways by aliens, but we're afraid to criticize them for fear of hurting their feelings. Republican Presidential candidate Bob Dole has told us that he won't even use the word "alien" in talking about the immigration problem, because he's afraid that would be offensive to aliens, who don't like to be reminded of their irregular status. It will be a real struggle for some of us to put racial survival ahead of politeness.
In addition to convincing us that any discussion of the real issues we are facing would be bad manners, our enemies have made good use of the psychological trick of pretending to be weak and helpless, because they have discovered that we have a trait, apparently unique among the races of man, of feeling sorry for those who are helpless. When we are confronted with an obviously dangerous and aggressive enemy, who scowls and threatens as he advances toward us with a weapon, we know what to do. But if that same enemy shuffles toward us with his eyes averted and his hat in his hands, begging for a little welfare, we feel guilty for even thinking about chasing him away or killing him, no matter how strongly we would like to avoid his company.
Try that trick in Africa or Asia, and it will get you killed in a hurry, but in Europe and North America it works. Some of us are so overwhelmed with feelings of racial guilt, after being pumped full of propaganda about how our ancestors mistreated the defenseless Brown man, and the helpless Black man, and the poor, inoffensive Jew, that we have become moral basket cases and can't defend ourselves today, even when we can see all around us the depredations that non- Whites are making against our people.
And so now we can understand the reason for all of the headlines in the controlled media about "hate crimes" by White skinheads against poor, inoffensive non-Whites in our cities today and for all of the Hollywood films about the way the wicked White settlers abused the unsuspecting and unresisting Indians a century ago. Now we can understand why they invent White racist conspiracies to burn down Black churches.
They play on our reluctance to give offense, on our inability to resist an aggressor who pretends to be helpless, and on the ease with which we can be morally paralyzed by artificially induced feelings of guilt. These are powerful weapons they use against us. They use them with diabolical skill. All of us have felt the powerful temptation, even when we understood what they were doing to us, just to be nice, not to resist, not to oppose them.
What they are doing to us is almost hypnotic. "It is so easy for you to remain asleep," they tell us. "It is so easy just to let us have our way," their propaganda tells us. "It is so easy just to let your people die, let your civilization fall into ruin, let us have it all. No one will blame you for that," they smile. "That's the polite way. Don't resist us. Just let us have it all. That's the way to soothe your guilt. That's the way to avoid criticism. That's the easy way." Over and over and over again, that's their message for us: "Don't resist." And then more guilt-inducing stories about the Jewish "Holocaust," about burning Black churches, and about White terrorists -- and then heartwarming stories about struggling Third World immigrants working hard to achieve the American dream. Over and over.
Yes, we understand these tactics of our enemies. Understanding them is not the same as overcoming them, of course. But understanding is a necessary first step. What we must do after we have wiped the sleep from our eyes and flushed our enemies' poisonous propaganda from our minds is reestablish contact with our instinct, with our inner wisdom. That wisdom will tell us that the guilt we feel because our ancestors did what they thought was necessary to protect our people, to gain new living space for us, and to build the civilization that we inherited from them - - that is false guilt.
One does not become guilty for doing anything which is necessary or helpful for the survival or progress of one's people in this competitive and unforgiving world. Guilt comes from failing to accept the responsibility we have to our own people. Guilt comes from letting ourselves be deceived by our enemies. Guilt comes from losing the struggle for survival. And our inner wisdom also will tell us that we can be polite once again, we can concern ourselves with not hurting anyone's feelings once again, when we have cleared away the last threat to our people and once more are living only among ourselves.
And with this wisdom guiding us, we will be immune to the deceit of our enemies, and we will overcome them.
The Meaning of Democracy The Controlled Media Have the Most Say in Who Is Elected As November approaches, the controlled news media are focusing the attention of Americans more and more on that quadrennial ritual of our democracy: choosing a new Maximum Leader to occupy the big, white fortress on Washington's Pennsylvania Avenue for the next four years. They're working hard to make us all breathless with excitement trying to guess whether it'll be Bill or Bob, but my guess is that the winner this time will be "none of the above," by a wide margin. Which is to say, I believe that we'll see more qualified voters staying away from the polls than actually voting for either candidate this time. That will be a continuation of an already well established trend, but the characters of the two candidates this time (or rather, the all too evident lack thereof) will give a big boost to that trend.
I should confess right now that I have an essentially bottomless contempt and loathing for Mr. Clinton. I believe that he should be given a speedy trial and then publicly hanged for treason. It is a disgrace to every citizen of our republic that we are governed by a system which permits men like Clinton to hold any sort of public office. I'd as soon see O.J. Simpson in the White House as Bill Clinton.
Clinton is a man who during the Vietnam war counted as his personal friends people who were doing everything they could to aid the Communist enemies of America. He partied and smoked dope with these people while the Communists were killing 58,000 American soldiers. He collaborated with the same people after the war. One of his closest advisers during and after the 1992 presidential election was David Ifshin, a Jewish friend from the Vietnam war days who went to Hanoi and made radio broadcasts for the Communists, urging American soldiers to turn their guns against their own officers. Ifshin was frequently invited to the White House by Clinton and was consulted on matters involving Jewish political support.
Back in Arkansas, before he came to Washington, Clinton partied with and accepted money from drug dealers and other common criminals. Clinton's own brother is a convicted drug dealer who used to run his drug business right out of the governor's mansion in Little Rock when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. While he was governor Clinton used his office to extort sexual favors from female state employees. He used state police officers as procurers.
Clinton is the sort of man who 100 years ago would have been publicly horsewhipped, tarred and feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail if he weren't hanged. We simply didn't tolerate his sort of filth. He is a scoundrel, a cad, a reprobate, a louse, a dastard, a wretch, a poltroon, a lowlife, a degenerate, and a barefaced liar, as well as a traitor to his country.
And what do the voters have as an alternative to this charming piece of filth with the boyish smile? Why, they have Bob Dole! Now, Mr. Dole has quite a different personality from Mr. Clinton. Mr. Dole never dodged the draft or demonstrated on behalf of the Viet Cong, palled around with drug dealers, or sent aides on the government payroll out to scout up whores for him. Does that mean that he would make a better President than Clinton? The answer, unfortunately, is no. The reason is that, despite all their differences in personality, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Dole have one very important thing in common: they both have based their whole political careers on subservience to Jewish interests.
With Clinton this catering to the Jews is especially obvious, because he is in the media spotlight. Clinton has appointed a higher percentage of Jews to important positions in his administration than any other American President, including even Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. Clinton has put a Jew in charge of our Treasury Department, a Jew in charge of our Agriculture Department, a Jew in charge of our Commerce Department, a Jew in charge of our Labor Department. He has put our Central Intelligence Agency entirely in the hands of Jews, with Jews in the top three CIA positions. He is the only President who has ever put two Jews on the nine- judge Supreme Court. And he has appointed literally hundreds of Jews to less visible but still very influential positions in his administration. He has appointed Jews to high public office at a rate more than ten times their percentage in the U.S. population.
Clinton has made all of these Jewish appointments because he, like every other politician in Washington, understands that no one can be elected President if the Jews, with their control of the media, oppose him. However, most politicians, despite their understanding of Jewish media power, exercise some degree of restraint in licking the Jews' feet. They would be embarrassed to overdo it. But not Bill Clinton. He is so accustomed to being a crook and getting away with it just by flashing his smile that he has lost all sense of shame and all caution. He is a man who will do anything to advance his political career, because he is convinced that he can get away with anything.
Should that be surprising in a man who dodged the draft and supported the Viet Cong in the 1960s and 1970s and now pretends to be a patriot who is defending America from Saddam Hussein? Should it be surprising in a man who was immersed in the drug culture while he was working his way up in Arkansas politics, taking big donations from drug racketeers, and now claims to be fighting an all-out war against drugs? Should it be surprising in a man whose friends, family members, and former business associates have been convicted of felonies in record numbers: a man, in other words, who has associated with felons throughout his career, and who now claims to be seriously concerned about America's crime problem?
Now, Bob Dole, on the other hand, is not the sort who believes that he can steal your wallet, seduce your daughter or your wife, and blow marijuana smoke in your face -- and then charm you into voting for him anyway. Bob Dole knows that he couldn't charm his way out of a parking ticket. Bob Dole is one of the most uncharming politicians in Washington. He is dull, dull, dull. It's embarrassing to watch him campaign and pretend to be alive. Bob Dole is a man who serves the Jews not because he's a crook who believes that he can get away with anything, like Clinton, but because he knows that he could never hope to advance his career under his own steam. He has gained the Jews' support by being an errand boy for them throughout his Washington career.
Dole will, just like Clinton, get America involved in another war in the Middle East, if the Jews tell him to. He will no more solve America's immigration problem than Clinton will, because he knows that the Jews don't want it solved. He won't move radically against crime, or drugs, or America's declining educational standards. He won't do anything that he's not told to do. Clinton is the Jews' Tweedledum, a bit to the left of what they define as the center. Dole is their Tweedledee, a bit to the right of what they define as the center.
What I'm saying, in other words, is that despite their big personality differences and despite the fact that Dole talks a more conservative line on economic and social issues than Clinton, there's no real difference between the two men on the most important and fundamental issues, because they both take their orders from the same men behind the scenes.
But the voters don't know that. That's what's really depressing. You see, the average American voter only knows what he sees on television. That's where he learns everything he thinks he knows about politics and the world. Now, the Jews who control television certainly aren't going to tell the voters that Clinton and Dole are both in their pockets. But they have let the voters know that Clinton is a draft dodger, that he is being sued by an Arkansas state employee he tried to force to have sex with him when he was governor of Arkansas, and that many of his friends and business associates have been sent to prison. All of that has been so noticeable that it would have been hard to keep it away from the public's attention. And the average voter also knows that Dole is a war hero who doesn't pal around with convicted felons or extort sex from women. So far as the public is aware, Clinton is a crook and Dole isn't. But that doesn't seem to help Dole. The public prefers Clinton, because he smiles more.
What does that say about democracy?
Now, to be fair, if one polls only White men, then Dole is preferred over Clinton by a few percentage points. But White women prefer Clinton, by a substantial margin, simply because he projects a friendly, boyish image -- and because the media masters clearly prefer him and portray him as a more fashionable candidate than Dole. Women always want to do what is fashionable, which is why normal, decent White people aren't able to outvote the members of the Clinton coalition -- the queers and the feminists and the Jews and the moral cripples and the non-Whites -- despite the fact that we outnumber them. We aren't able to outvote them, because as long as the controlled media are able to portray their candidate as more fashionable, our women will vote for him.
That is tragic; but, as I said, it doesn't really matter in the election that's coming up, because both sides are controlled by the enemies of our people.
What can we do about that situation?
It is clear that most people prefer to do nothing. Even the majority of White men who reject Clinton for what he is still respect the system. They still respect the idea of democracy. They're willing to be governed by a crook, a liar, a filthy degenerate, and a traitor, if that traitor can win a majority of the votes.
But I believe that the only reason most White men still respect the system enough not to rebel against it is that they don't fully understand the situation. They don't understand that the system has been secretly taken over by their enemies. They don't understand the decisive influence of the controlled news and entertainment media in determining the outcome of elections. They aren't aware that the media are, by and large, under the control of Jews. They don't read the Jewish community publications in which the Jews crow about the fact that Dole and Kemp are just as much their men as Clinton and Gore are, and that there's no way the Jews can lose the election, regardless of whether the Democrats or the Republicans win.
Most White men, in fact, haven't really assimilated the publicly known facts about Bill Clinton. Sure, they've heard the rumors about his drug-dealing cronies back in Arkansas, but the facts haven't really sunk in. When his brother went to prison for dealing cocaine right out of the governor's mansion, it made the headlines for a day, but most men have forgotten that, because it didn't stay in the headlines, and the controlled media haven't brought it up recently. Most White men would be surprised if you reminded them of that today.
Twenty-four years ago a small group of Republican zealots burgled the offices of the Democrats in Washington's Watergate Hotel. A couple of those Republicans had connections to the Nixon White House. If the controlled news media had treated that incident the way they treated the conviction of Clinton's brother for selling cocaine from the governor's mansion in Little Rock, Nixon would have served out his second term as President, and the name "Watergate" would have no special significance. On the other hand, if Clinton's drug connections had been publicized the same way the Watergate burglary was, keeping it in the headlines and on the television screens day after day, for months, leaking out a few more titillating tidbits each week, Bill Clinton never would have gotten to the White House in 1992.
Or think about Clinton's activities during the Vietnam war. Most White male voters have heard about that, but just like the drug dealing it hasn't really sunk in. Remember, while 58,000 young Americans were being slaughtered by the Reds, Bill Clinton was demonstrating for those Reds. Now his apologists will tell you that was 25 years ago, and all of the trendy-lefty people on the college campuses were doing the same thing back then. We should forgive him for what he did 25 years ago and let him get on with his present job of being commander-in-chief of the military forces he refused to serve with then and whose enemies he gave aid and comfort to then.
Well, actually it's not that simple. Bill Clinton was still entertaining his good Jewish friend and adviser, David Ifshin, in the White House as late as last year, until Ifshin became too ill from cancer to party. That's the David Ifshin who went to Hanoi during the Vietnam war and made those radio broadcasts urging U.S. servicemen to shoot their own officers and come over to the Communist side. It's David Ifshin's good buddy who is now the commander-in-chief of our armed forces.
Now, even the facts of the relationship between Clinton and Ifshin aren't a secret. When Ifshin died in April of this year there were news articles about his career buried deep inside the New York Times and other publications. But it wasn't on television, and so 50 million Joe Sixpacks never had a clue. Even if it had been on television, they wouldn't have gotten the message -- I mean really absorbed the fact that their President was inviting a Jew to the White House who had made treasonous radio broadcasts for the Communists during the Vietnam war and deliberately tried to incite mutiny and the murder of U.S. military officers -- they wouldn't have absorbed and understood that message, unless it had been repeated every night for at least three months on prime time, Watergate style. If it had been, I am sure that the polls would show heterosexual White males against Clinton about ten to one, although his boyish smile would perhaps still win him the votes of many White women.
The Jews who control our mass media understand mass psychology and the manipulation of public opinion better than anyone else, and they know that they don't really have to run a tight conspiracy in order to maintain their grip on the American political process. They don't have to keep all of their shenanigans a secret. All they have to do is control most of what the boobs see and hear. And, of course, make sure that both candidates are in their pockets, so that it really doesn't matter too much which way the boobs vote. The Jewish media bosses would rather have Clinton than Dole, because Clinton serves them willingly, while Dole serves them because he has to, but it doesn't really matter a great deal to them. It's one of those "heads they win, tails we lose" propositions.
Anyway, as I said, all of this hasn't really sunk in, even among that half of the White males who despise Clinton. If it had sunk in (or, I should say, when it finally does sink in) then they'll be ready to do something about the system itself. They'll be ready to clean out all the filth, and not just the figurehead at the top.
Now, I know that there are pessimists who believe that the average White male never will understand what's going on, never will wake up, never will raise a hand against the system, because he's too stupid, too selfish, too cowardly -- and all too often just as much a slave to fashion as the women.
But I am an optimist. I know that more people are awake today than ever before, and I know that more people are waking up every day. I get letters from them. And I see what's happening to the society around me. I can see the growing rottenness, the growing corruption in every phase of our lives: the divorce statistics, the abortion statistics, the suicide statistics, the drug and alcohol abuse statistics. I can see it on the streets of our cities. I can see it in the sort of television people watch. Things are falling apart. The center isn't holding.
Other people see this too. Even if they don't study the statistics, they can feel what's happening. Our civilization is dying. Our culture is being killed. Honor, morality, nobility: those are all things of the past now. What we have now is Jewish democracy, Jewish equality, Jewish diversity and multiculturalism, Jewish crookedness and deceit and degeneracy in every aspect of our lives.
And people think about the future their children will face in this increasingly Jewish world. And even though they haven't yet figured out who's responsible for what's happening, who's pulling the strings, who's controlling the politicians and the system, rage is beginning to build in them, rage against whoever has destroyed their children's future, rage against anyone who has collaborated with the destroyers, rage against the system which has implemented the destruction.
That rage will continue to grow, because the process of destruction will continue. It will grow until it overcomes timidity. It will grow until it overcomes selfishness. It will grow until it no longer can be restrained, until no amount of television brainwashing can keep it under control. Our job is only to provide some understanding, to provide some direction.
The Texaco Fiasco The Nature of Corporate America Is Clearly Revealed There's a very old saying, often attributed to the fifth-century BC dramatist Euripides, and also to many others over the years, which runs, approximately: Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.
The reason this saying has endured for so long is that it expresses a truth which often has been observed in the lives of men and nations: Death, in the case of an individual, or the loss of physical or political power, in the case of a nation, is preceded by a loss of contact with reality. We might call this loss of contact with reality senility; or, as Euripides said, madness. It is a loss of the ability to observe, reason, and draw hardheaded conclusions in dealing with the world around us.
If Euripides was on target, then the gods have all of their thunderbolts aimed at America today. What could any nation be called, other than mad, which twice in a row would choose a creature like Bill Clinton as its President?
Perhaps you think I say that just because I regard Bill Clinton the way I would the sort of stinking filth I might have to clean off my boots after a careless walk in a dog kennel. So let's look at another sign of America's national madness that has less to do with Presidential politics. Let's look at what might be called the Texaco fiasco.
This particular evidence of national madness first came to my attention while I was watching the NBC Evening News in mid-November. Tom Brokaw, the boyish-looking actor who is paid to mouth the news script for NBC every evening, put on a very stern face and warned parents that what was to follow was "shocking" and "graphic" and might not be suitable for children to hear. Of course, I perked up my ears in the hopes of hearing something really titillating. And what we all got, of course, was a noisy, distorted recording of a couple of Texaco executives talking about "black jelly beans." And, although I couldn't really make it out myself, Brokaw told us in tones of shock and horror that the dread "n" word was spoken.
If it had ended there, this little episode might have been good for a laugh and then been forgotten. But it didn't end there. Brokaw, and the news actors at the other networks as well, went on and on and on about this bit of idle chatter on the part of a couple of Texaco executives. They treated the matter as if the president of Texaco had been caught sexually abusing little boys in his presidential suite.
Well, perhaps that wasn't a good example! Pederasts are becoming one of those officially favored minorities about whom one must say nothing disrespectful. If the president of Texaco had been caught buggering little boys, the networks would have taken the attitude that that wasn't really news and that to report it with a tone of disapproval would have been tantamount to what they call "homophobia." And "homophobia" these days is becoming almost as much a sin as using the "n" word! Brokaw and the other news actors treated the matter as if it were a grave national crisis calling for action of the most drastic sort. They polled people on the street and quoted a few trendy air- heads saying that, yes, they were suitably shocked and horrified, and they intended to sell their stock in Texaco and to buy their gasoline elsewhere in the future. Then, of course, the politicians and the church people began getting into the act. They talked about "racism" and "hatred" and about the need to make everyone understand how "hurtful" the things the Texaco executives said were.
Then Jesse Jackson got into the act. He said it was time for Texaco to pay for using the "n" word -- pay with lots of money. Otherwise he would organize a boycott of Texaco products. This is the sort of extortion racket that Jesse and his so-called "Rainbow Coalition" have worked on dozens of other businesses: Cough up some money, or we'll organize a boycott against you. That would be a felony if you or I tried it, but Jesse has been getting away with it for years. I think it may have something to do with his color.
The most astounding performance of all was put on by the president of Texaco, Peter Bijur. Instead of telling the media that his employees' private conversations were nobody else's business and then denouncing the treacherous former employee who had made the surreptitious recording of what should have been a private conversation, he outdid Tom Brokaw at professing his horror and shock over the discovery that anyone at Texaco had ever had a Politically Incorrect thought. He practically rent his garments and beat his breast in his expression of repentance for the White guilt of Texaco executives. It was embarrassing to watch him. Finally he promised to cough up $176 million to placate Jesse Jackson and Texaco's offended Black employees.
Texaco is a big and very successful company. I can only assume that the people who run the company are not idiots. But if Peter Bijur is not an idiot, then he is a crook: a man without scruples or principles who will do anything, no matter how dishonest or treacherous, in order to keep his job.
I say that, because if he is as smart as I think he is, then he certainly could see through Tom Brokaw's act and understand what is behind it. He must understand that the whole pretense of shock and horror by the controlled media is part of a deliberate conditioning effort aimed at establishing a conditioned reflex against so-called "racism" in the more suggestible and easily manipulated segments of the population and intimidating the more independent-minded segments into going along with the mob.
We're all supposed to be horrified -- or at least pretend to be horrified -- that anyone at Texaco would use the "n" word, even in a private conversation. We're all supposed to side with Jesse Jackson in a crusade to punish Texaco for having executives who joke with each other about "black jelly beans." Those of us who can't simply close our eyes to reality and actually think whatever thoughts are fashionable at the moment, no matter how much at odds with the facts they are, are supposed to be afraid to tell a joke about Blacks or to use the "n" word even in a private conversation, because someone might be secretly recording our remarks, in which case we'll be fired by our employers, have our homes and cars repossessed, and be shunned by all right-thinking members of society. That's the sort of conditioned reflex Tom Brokaw and the other media actors, following the policies of the media bosses, were trying to implant in us with their big hullabaloo about black jelly beans at Texaco. And Texaco's boss made a conscious decision to go along with this attempt to control the minds of his fellow Americans. He decided to collaborate rather than fight, because he figured that if he went up against the Jewish media bosses the fight would become too expensive, even for Texaco.
Actually, Peter Bijur and corporate America generally made this decision to collaborate with the Jews a long time ago. The campaign by the media bosses to control the thinking and behavior of Americans has been going on ever since the Jews began establishing their stranglehold on the mass media, more than 60 years ago. The Texaco hullabaloo was only one small event in that continuing campaign. Over the years a few of the big corporation bosses refused to go along with them, but only a few. Henry Ford, Senior, was one example. Most of the big capitalists put their profits ahead of everything else. They decided that it would not be profitable to get on the wrong side of the Jews, and so they collaborated with them, either actively or passively, regardless of the consequences for America and for our people.
Peter Bijur and the other big corporation bosses are intelligent enough to understand the general sort of damage to a people and a nation that must follow from permitting a small, alien minority to brainwash the public, to control the minds of its more suggestible elements, to shape public opinion, and to exercise a correspondingly powerful influence over governmental policy.
Yes, they have subtle enough minds to understand these things in a general way. For those who need very specific examples in order to grasp the significance of this sort of mind control exercised by the media, I'll give a very specific example.
Think for a moment about the current uproar in the Army as a result of the revelations about the wide-scale rape of female soldiers by drill instructors and officers at Aberdeen Proving Ground and other bases. This is really a shameful and intolerable situation. It is totally different from the drunken party a few years ago in Las Vegas by Navy fliers -- the so-called "Tailhook scandal" -- in which some women who attended the party were fondled and subjected to other indignities. The Tailhook Association parties were well known among Navy people as drunken orgies, and all the women who attended did so voluntarily. The Tailhook behavior was certainly nothing to be proud of, but it did not involve rape or coercion.
In the Army, on the other hand, female soldiers have been subjected to systematic sexual harassment, not at drunken parties they attended voluntarily but in connection with their military training, and many actually have been raped. Drill instructors and officers came into their barracks, grabbed them, dragged them into the bathrooms, and forcibly raped them, then threatened to cut their throats if they told anyone. This sort of thing happened not just once, but many times. It was a systematic thing. It is absolutely intolerable that we should have such a situation in the U.S. Army!
When the news finally broke a couple of weeks ago about what was happening to women recruits in the Army, the question which naturally arose was, why wasn't something done to stop the rapes a long time ago? Why did the Army brass tolerate this behavior for so long? Amazingly, the answer to this question was provided by Time magazine in a November 25 news story on the Army rapes. The Army had been investigating the situation for some time but was moving very slowly and very cautiously, according to the Time story. And why was the Army cautiously sitting on its hands and doing nothing to stop the rapes it knew were happening? The reason, according to Time, was that most of the rapists were Black drill instructors and Black officers, and most of the women being raped were White recruits. The Army brass were afraid that if they moved against the Black rapists they would be accused of racism.
The implication of this Time magazine story was that if the rapists had been White, the Army would have moved against them instantly and stopped the rapes. But because most of them were Black, the Army leaders were afraid to take action. And why were they afraid to take action? Because of the sort of brainwashing campaign that the controlled media have been engaged in for so long, a campaign to make people fear being accused of racism more than anything else, to make them fear that an accusation of racism will cost them their careers and ruin their lives, whether or not there is any substance to the accusation.
It is this campaign by the controlled media to develop a Pavlovian reflex in the American public, so that they will be afraid to criticize Blacks, which kept the Army from moving against its Black rapists. And it is the same campaign which led so many of the White women in the Army to become rape victims. They were easy targets for the Black rapists because they all had been subjected to a brainwashing campaign that conditioned them to be especially receptive to Blacks, a campaign which cleverly insinuated the idea into their minds that there's nothing inherently wrong with interracial sex, that sex with a Black man is somehow more "progressive," more "tolerant," more Politically Correct than sex with a man of their own race; that to reject a Black man might be interpreted as an expression of racism. We've all seen this propaganda a thousand times in the mass media. All of the new films and television shows are full of it.
I'll go a bit further. This same Jewish media brainwashing campaign has been responsible for putting Blacks into positions of authority over Whites in our armed forces. That's something we never had until after the Second World War. And it has been responsible for removing the protections that we once gave to women. This Jewish media campaign is behind the move to mix women with men in every military role, including combat, and to treat them just like men.
It is a campaign to persuade us to ignore reality and to pretend that the world is not what we know it to be but instead to try to make it conform to some lunatic model of Political Correctness, in which everyone is equal, men and women, Blacks and Whites, and we all think and behave the same way. This campaign is destroying our society, destroying our country, destroying our people. And it is this campaign which the chairman of Texaco chose to collaborate with rather than risk a fight with the Jewish media bosses. That is truly shameful.
Twenty years ago I wrote a political novel, The Turner Diaries, in which I predicted situations we are seeing all around us today, but which seemed wildly fantastic to most people at the time I wrote about them in the 1970s. I looked at the policies being pushed by the Jewish media bosses at that time, I looked at the directions in which those policies were leading us, and I extrapolated 20 years ahead. I not only predicted greater governmental intrusions into the lives of our people and governmental efforts to take away our freedom of speech and our freedom to keep and bear arms, I predicted the advent of domestic terrorism in the United States in response to this governmental repression. And I also predicted the fate of White women as the government moved to enforce a Jewish concept of equality on all of us. I predicted a great increase in the incidence of rape, and I specifically forecast the rape of White women by Black soldiers and the unwillingness of the Army brass to deal with this situation. I am horrified to see this scenario I imagined 20 years ago as fiction becoming reality today.
And I believe it goes without saying that I am not horrified at all by talk of black jelly beans or the use of the "n" word by Texaco executives. But I am horrified when men in positions of power and authority, men like Texaco boss Peter Bijur, choose to collaborate with those who are destroying America, choose to collaborate with those whose propaganda campaign has led to the systematic raping of our young women in the Army, rather than take a forthright and honest stand against this destructive campaign and the evil creatures behind it.
You know, there are plenty of idiots in this country who can't figure these things out, idiots who believe that the really big problem we have to solve in this country is learning to be one big, happy family: Blacks and Whites, Jews and Arabs, homosexual activists and normal people, mestizos and Vietnamese immigrants and those of us whose ancestors came from Europe and built a new civilization here. They wring their hands and think, "Oh, if we could just get along peacefully with each other!" They believe that we must be very careful what we say, very careful never to give offense, very careful never to use the "n" word, and then maybe all those people who are so different from us will come to like us, and we will somehow be able to live together without violence and hatred.
The idiots believe that, but the big corporate bosses like Mr. Bijur certainly don't. They have a little better grip on reality than the idiots do. They understand that if they tried to run their corporations that way, they would become snack food for the ones who play by rougher rules. The Army brass understand that too. And both the corporate bosses and the Army's generals understand that when you have something that someone else is determined to take away from you -- in this case, our country, our civilization -- you don't get him to change his mind by trying hard not to offend him, by being careful never to use the "n" word.
Yes, the generals and the bosses understand this -- but they don't really care. What happens to the country is not important to them. What happens to our people is not important. The only thing that's important is their careers. And we tolerate people with these attitudes, with these values, as the leaders of our society!
That too is a part of America's madness.
Get Set for War Will the Next Four Years See Americans Dying for Israel? Mr. Clinton has chosen the members of his government who will have charge of America's national security during his second term. They are Madeleine Albright as secretary of state, William Cohen as secretary of defense, Samuel Berger as chairman of the National Security Council, and Richard Holbrooke as ambassador to the United Nations. That's a lineup which should give nightmares to every American patriot -- and also to everyone who would like to avoid another war for a while.
Why are these four Clinton appointees likely to get us into a war during the next four years? In the first place, all four are Jews. Don't let the Gentile names Albright and Holbrooke fool you. These two appointees are just as Jewish as Cohen and Berger are. Jews make up two and one- half per cent of the U.S. population -- and 100 per cent of Mr. Clinton's national security team. That's quite a striking contrast! Especially for a President who has told us often that he wants his administration to "look like America," to be a reflection of America. I think what he meant is that he wants his administration to be a reflection of the behind-the-scenes power structure in America. It is the most Jewish administration our country has ever had -- by far.
And let us consider, in the second place, Mr. Clinton's reason for appointing these Jews to the top national security positions. Why didn't he appoint his friends and cronies to these positions instead? Why not appoint the drug dealers and pimps and money launderers he used to hang out with in Arkansas? He can't be re-elected President for a third term. He doesn't need the support of the Jews and their mass media any longer. Or does he?
You bet he does! Bill and Hillary Clinton are in a heap of trouble, and the heap is getting deeper by the week. Their Arkansas buddies are being packed off to prison one by one, and the trail is getting closer and closer to the Clintons. And I'm not the only American who would like to see Bill and Hillary led out of the White House in handcuffs and leg irons. The Republicans would love to get even for what the Democrats did to Richard Nixon 23 years ago. They would love to inflict as much damage as they can on Clinton and his party, because they hope to fill any resulting power vacuum.
But the amount of damage inflicted on Clinton depends much more on the controlled media than it does on the Republicans. Everything that happens in Washington is orchestrated by the men who control the mass media. The politicians all dance to the media's tune. They know that the way they are treated by the media determines whether or not they will be re-elected. Everything the politicians do and say is done and said with the media in mind. The media provide the link between the politicians and the voters. Mr. Clinton understands that as well as anyone else. And Mr. Clinton knows exactly who controls the media. He knows that whether or not he goes to prison depends more than anything else on how useful he remains to the Jews.
It was the enormous publicity given to the Watergate burglary by the controlled media 23 years ago which forced President Nixon from office: the intense media focus on this one subject day after day, for months, until it finally sank into the consciousness of Joe and Jill Sixpack. If the media had given Watergate the sort of cursory, ho-hum coverage they gave to the Paula Jones case recently, Nixon would have been able to finish his second term. And on the other hand, if the media had focused on the Paula Jones scandal the way they focused on Watergate, Clinton would not have been re-elected.
You remember Paula Jones, don't you? She's the Arkansas state employee that Clinton dropped his trousers in front of and tried to pressure into having sex with him when he was governor of Arkansas. Her sexual harassment law suit against him will be coming to trial soon.
Bill Clinton has a lot more problems than the Paula Jones law suit to worry about, though. He is facing the likelihood of felony indictments on several charges during the next year or two, as the investigations into various of his criminal activities continue. In each case the attitude of the media bosses will be of critical importance to him. If the media give any case against him the Watergate treatment, with lots of negative coverage, day after day, that will generate a feeding frenzy among the Republicans, and they will be relentless in pushing for his prosecution. On the other hand, if the media ignore the investigations and scandals, that will take most of the steam out of them and discourage the Republicans from pursuing them.
The Jews, in other words, have Mr. Clinton exactly where they want him. He dare not disobey them. He must do everything they tell him, in the way of appointments and otherwise. Which is why Madeleine Albright, William Cohen, Samuel Berger, and Richard Holbrooke are where they are today.
The third thing to consider is the character and personality of these Jewish appointees. They are not just bureaucrats who happen, incidentally, to be Jews. They are a ruthless crew who know exactly where their loyalties lie. When the Jewish media were trying to force Richard Nixon out of office, for example, William Cohen was the first Republican in the Congress to abandon his party and join the media campaign against Nixon.
Madeleine Albright is an even better example of Jewish ruthlessness and Jewish loyalty to her fellow Jews. I remember seeing her interviewed on the CBS program 60 Minutes last May. The program was exploring the suffering of the Iraqi people under the total embargo placed on Iraq at the insistence of the United States -- which means at the insistence of the Jews, who wanted to punish the Iraqi people for being a threat to Israel's domination of the Middle East. 60 Minutes took us on a tour of an Iraqi hospital, where children were dying by the dozens, because there was no medicine to treat them. The interviewer, Lesley Stahl, pointed out to Albright that 500,000 Iraqi children are reported to have died as a result of the embargo. And Stahl was obviously distressed by the plight of the Iraqi people and by all of those Iraqi children who had died as a result of this Jewish policy intended to cripple Iraq. I could see the distress on her face and hear it in her voice when she asked Albright, "Is the price worth it?"
And I'll always remember Albright's harsh, arrogant, and unapologetic answer. Without hesitation, almost with a sneer, she answered, "We think the price is worth it."
In other words, "Certainly, it's worth having 500,000 Iraqi children die in misery in order to safeguard Israel's position. After all, they're only Gentiles, they're only goyim; they're not Jews, so who cares." What a vicious, hardhearted Jewess! And, you know, it was Madeleine Albright, who while she was Mr. Clinton's ambassador to the United Nations during his first term was continually urging that the United States use its armed forces for military intervention around the world, wherever some country needed to be made Politically Correct. And this Jewess will be in charge of the foreign policy of the United States for the next four years. That is really horrifying.
Now, these considerations I've just mentioned are not sufficiently persuasive by themselves for me to be convinced that our country will be led deliberately into another war. That is, I'm not predicting a war just because we have the amazing coincidence that Mr. Clinton chose Jews for all the key positions in his national security team, or because he desperately needs to do something, anything, to head off the investigators who are closing in on him, or because the Jews he appointed happen to be an especially bloodthirsty bunch.
The really frightening thing about these coincidences is that they just happen to have occurred at the precise moment in history when the Jews need another war, when it is essential for the Jews to get the United States involved in another major war.
They need to get us involved in a war for two reasons. The first reason is that, after nearly 50 years of turmoil, bloodshed, and minor wars in the Middle East, they still haven't been able to build a viable country for themselves on the land they stole from the Palestinians. Their neighbors hate them as strongly as ever -- and their neighbors are becoming more sophisticated as time goes on. Without the billions of dollars in military and economic aid the Jews extort from the United States every year, they could not maintain their military superiority over the rest of the Middle East. If U.S. aid to Israel is ever cut off, Israel will be finished in short order.
Furthermore, the growth of Islamic fundamentalism is a real threat to the Israelis. If Islamic fundamentalists gain power in Egypt or Saudi Arabia, then the rest of the Arab world is likely to go the same way soon, and the Islamic fundamentalists are people who do not compromise with what they view as fundamentally evil. They are determined to free the Middle East from Jewish domination. And they are growing in strength every year.
The Jews need a major Middle Eastern war to crush their enemies decisively and to make it impossible for them to wage war against Israel. Now, with Bill Clinton in office, and with Clinton surrounded by Jews, is the time to strike. If they do it now they can use America as their weapon, and it will be Americans rather than Israelis taking all the casualties. If they don't do it in the next four years, they may never have another chance.
The second reason the Jews need a war is to put down the growing dissent against them and their policies in the United States. The natives are becoming restless and have to be put down. The Internet is buzzing with questions the Jews don't want asked, with complaints the Jews don't want heard, with facts the Jews don't want you to know. The Internet is a communications medium unlike any of the others we are accustomed to, such as radio, television, newspapers, and so on, in that the amount of money a communicator has is irrelevant. They can rigidly control the ideas and information that the public has access to through television, because no dissenter has enough money to buy his own television network. To a lesser extent the same thing applies to radio, newspapers, and the other information media. The program on which this publication is based, American Dissident Voices, is on radio, of course, but there are only a few stations from which we can buy time. The rest are afraid to carry our program because of the threat of Jewish boycotts. Most Americans aren't able to listen to American Dissident Voices unless they have a good shortwave receiver or a satellite system.
That is, they weren't able to listen to American Dissident Voices broadcasts until we began making them accessible through our two Internet web sites. Now, if you are able to connect to the Internet, and if you have the proper computer equipment, you can hear this and other American Dissident Voices broadcasts just by going to either of our two web sites, which are http://www.natvan.com and http://www.natall.com. And you can listen to us anywhere in the world at any time of the day or night.
Of course, NBC and ABC and CBS also have their web sites, but we are on an equal footing with them. You can find our sites just as easily as you can find theirs, and you can read or listen to what we have to say just as easily as you can to them. Our voice is just as loud as theirs. That's true only on the Internet. They can control the flow of ideas and information to you through television, but they can't control the Internet, and it's driving them crazy.
All of the big Jewish pressure groups -- the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, the Southern Poverty Law Center -- they're all screaming about the need to stifle Politically Incorrect ideas and inconvenient facts on the Internet. But they're having a hard time convincing the American people. They've tried to establish censorship of the Internet with new laws, but so far it hasn't worked. They've come forward with all sorts of new proposals for Jewish control of the Internet.
For example, they have Internet software which to a certain extent can filter out Politically Incorrect information, and they want to make the use of this software mandatory.
If that sounds like a pretty desperate proposal, believe me, it is. They know that they cannot maintain their control over the minds of Americans unless they can control the flow of information and ideas. And if they lose their control over what Americans think, they eventually will lose their political power as well.
And it's not just the Internet which is a problem for them in this regard. The American people as a whole -- even Joe and Jill Sixpack -- are becoming disillusioned and unhappy. Only 23 % of the electorate voted for Bill Clinton in November. More than half the electorate didn't bother to vote at all. The media have downplayed these facts, but the Jews are concerned about them. The people are being kept in line at the moment, because there are still lots of shiny new things for them to buy. But more and more Americans are beginning to look beyond their immediate material comfort and to worry about the long-term moral slide of their country. If the economy slips badly, there will be hell to pay. More and more people will listen to the dissidents.
A big problem for the Jews is how to silence the dissidents now, how to stifle the people who are asking inconvenient questions and thinking dangerous thoughts, before these thoughts spread to other people. They've tried to do it with legislation, but the country isn't yet in a mood to be told what it can think. What the Jews need is a nice, big war. Then they can crack down on the dissidents. Then they can call us "subversives." Then they can call us "unpatriotic," because we will be against their war. Then the government can pass laws against us, and Joe and Jill Sixpack will go along with it.
Does that still sound pretty farfetched? I guess it does to many of you who haven't been keeping up with what the Jews have been doing and saying during the last few years. If you're a lawyer, though, you will know that the Jews have been sending up trial balloons for years, arguing that the First Amendment needs to be rewritten so that the only speech which is protected is Politically Correct speech. And if you're an Internet person who is knowledgeable about the big debate on Internet censorship, you know how hard the big Jewish pressure groups are pushing for censorship. And if you're just a person who pays attention to what other people are thinking and feeling, you know that the discontent about the course America is on has reached an all-time high. People are worried. People are heartsick. People are asking questions they were afraid to ask a few years ago.
The Jews need to squelch this incipient revolution before it grows. They have a window of opportunity during the next four years. After Bill Clinton leaves office, anything can happen. There undoubtedly will be a wave of popular revulsion against him and a demand for substantial change. The Jews may never again have such a pliant tool in the White House. They may never again have the power over the U.S. government that they have now.
That's why the alarm bells went off in my mind when Mr. Clinton announced who would be in charge of America's national security during the next four years. That's why I am convinced that there will be a strong effort to involve America in another major war during the next four years.
This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. While the warmongers are scheming for war, they will tell us how much they want peace. They're good at that sort of thing. They've had a lot of practice.
But they will be scheming for war, believe me, no matter what they say. And when that war comes, remember what you have read today.
Thoughts on Discrimination A Word that Once Meant "Good Judgment" Now Implies Sinfulness A lot of crazy things are going on these days, some of which strike us as more obviously crazy than others. One of the more obviously crazy things which has come to my attention recently is a fight between two associations of high school wrestling coaches and referees in Texas on the one hand and feminist groups on the other hand. The feminists are insisting that high school girls be permitted to wrestle high school boys. The Texas Wrestling Officials Association and the Texas Interscholastic Wrestling Association are saying, "No way." So the parents of a couple of high school girls in Texas, backed by the feminist groups, have sued the wrestling officials, charging them with bigotry, sexism, and all the usual things. The wrestling officials say that they are willing to sponsor separate wrestling matches for girl wrestlers, but no girl-vs.-boy matches. The feminists claim to be insulted by this offer. They are demanding sexually integrated wrestling. The American Civil Liberties Union, among the groups backing the feminists, has announced that the wrestling officials clearly are guilty of "discrimination."
You know, it used to be that "discrimination" was considered an essential faculty of every adult person. An undiscriminating person is a person without taste or judgment, a person who does not distinguish between the good and the bad, between low quality and high quality, between what is acceptable and what is not. But nowadays, in this Alice in Wonderland world we're living in, "discrimination" has become the ultimate sin, and every Politically Correct person must declare himself free not only of any actual practice of discrimination but also of any tendency or desire to discriminate.
Actually, it's not quite that simple. Politically Correct people do not discriminate between Black and White, between male and female, between homosexual and heterosexual, between crippled and healthy, and a number of other things: the list of categories which are not subject to discrimination seems to grow a bit every year. But Politically Correct people are permitted to be discriminating about some things. They discriminate between "good" people and "bad" people, for example. "Good" people are Politically Correct people. "Bad" people are people who are still discriminating about things which it is no longer Politically Correct to be discriminating about.
Actually, the situation eventually will become much simpler, if the trend of the last 20 years or so continues for a few more years. Eventually everyone will be Politically Correct, and no form of discrimination at all will be tolerated. Already we can see broad, new categories developing which will not be subject to discrimination a few years from now.
Consider, for example, the difference between bright people and not-so-bright people, or between capable people and not-so-capable people, or between industrious people and lazy people. For years the forces of Political Correctness have been waging a campaign in our schools and universities to eliminate such discrimination. They have been arguing that intelligence cannot really be measured and that IQ tests and other tests of intelligence or aptitude should be done away with. Now, part of the reason they don't want anyone to discriminate on the basis of intelligence is tied to their objections to discriminating between Blacks and Whites. But it goes further than that. They really are opposed to making any sort of distinctions between people based on ability: either natural ability or acquired ability. They want to do away with grades in school courses and with examinations. Giving grades makes those who don't get "A"s feel bad, they complain. And, really, they say, all such distinctions are meaningless, because everyone is born with the same abilities, and if some of us don't do as well in our school work as others, it's only because we didn't get the right kind of potty training or something of the sort. Right?
You know, if I'd talked like this ten years ago about discrimination based on intelligence, you would have thought I was going overboard. You would have thought I was being unfair to accuse people who were against discrimination on the basis of race also of being against discrimination on the basis of ability. You would have thought that being against racial discrimination is one thing, but being against discrimination based on ability is something quite different. If we couldn't discriminate on the basis of ability, our country couldn't survive; we'd sink back into savagery, you would have thought. And you would have been right about that last part.
And actually, the reason we are sinking back into savagery, the reason our country already has been half destroyed, is largely because we stopped discriminating on the basis of race and sex and sexual orientation and a number of other things some time ago.
And now the campaign to stop discrimination on the basis of ability has gained enough ground that you realize I'm not exaggerating when I talk about it. If you examine your own feelings, I'll bet that you'll find that the media brainwashing campaign against ability discrimination already has had an effect on you. I'll bet that if you are a teacher you will feel a little squeamish about opposing those who want to do away with grading. You'll flinch at the thought of the torrent of hatred and abuse you know the anti-discrimination types will pour on you. I'll bet that if you are the personnel director for a company, you'll be hesitant to initiate a program of intelligence testing for new job applicants. I mean, after all, doesn't it seem somehow . . . not quite democratic . . . to make distinctions based on ability or intelligence? Isn't that a little like racism?
You wouldn't have believed me if I'd told you ten years ago that the people opposed to the concept of racial discrimination also would oppose the concept of physical beauty. You'd have thought me crazy if I'd told you that the racial equality people eventually would be arguing that it's not fair to judge people on the basis of physical appearance or to deem some people as better looking than others. You would have thought me completely out of touch with reality if I'd told you that beauty contests soon would become Politically Incorrect.
And when the feminists really began to get noisy with their demands for "equality" 20 or 30 years ago, I'll bet you didn't believe that the government and the media ever would go so far as to force military academies to accept women as cadets and integrate women into our armed forces right alongside the men, subjecting them to rape by Black drill instructors. And I'll bet some of you slow learners out there still don't believe that the government will be sending women into combat within the next three or four years. One can see the same sort of progression in the matter of discrimination between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Ten years ago the anti-discrimination people offered a carefully limited view of what they wanted to achieve in ending discrimination involving homosexuals. They just wanted to get rid of the laws making homosexual activity illegal, they said. They just wanted homosexuals to be able to have their gay bars and their gay bath houses and to be able to kiss and fondle each other in public without being harassed by the police.
Then, after that, they wanted laws making it illegal to refuse to hire a homosexual or to refuse to rent an apartment to a homosexual couple. A little later they wanted the armed forces to scrap their rule against homosexuals in military service.
And now they are demanding a total lack of discrimination between homosexuals and heterosexuals -- and also an end to discrimination between homosexuality and heterosexuality as paradigms, as models for life. Now the Politically Correct position is that homosexuality is just as natural and acceptable an orientation and lifestyle as heterosexuality, and that we should not distinguish in any way between the two.
And it wasn't too long ago that the anti-discrimination people began pushing their program for equalizing women and men in sports and athletic activity. At first the demands were only for giving women whatever men had: if a school had a men's football team, then it had to have a women's football team also, with all of the same facilities; just having a women's volleyball team wasn't good enough. Then women journalists had to have access to the locker rooms of male athletes, just the way male journalists did. And now, in Texas, we're seeing the next phase of the program, with the demand that we pretend that there's no difference at all between men and women, and so we must sexually integrate wrestling matches: we must let the girls wrestle the boys.
Now, there are several lessons for us in all of this craziness. First, it's easy to see that this compulsion to be undiscriminating is a progressive disease: it doesn't stop at any point; it just gets worse and worse. It starts off as a mildly wacky denial of reality and progresses to total insanity.
Second, it is a disease to which most normal, otherwise sane people are susceptible. They don't ordinarily develop the disease by themselves, but it can be induced in them by a sufficiently skillful and prolonged brainwashing campaign. What I'm saying is that ordinary, reasonable people can be made to believe the most extraordinary and unreasonable things, if they are subjected to prolonged brainwashing. Of course, it must be done in stages. If you want to convince a group of people that all-male wrestling matches ought to be made illegal, because they discriminate between men and women, you don't start out with that proposition. If you do, you'll be laughed out of town: or better yet, ridden out of town on a rail after being tarred and feathered. You start by persuading the people that it's not fair for schools to spend more money on athletic programs for boys than on athletic programs for girls. After you've done that, you persuade them that equally funded but separate athletic programs for boys and girls are inherently unfair to girls, that the programs ought to be integrated. And so on. You get the picture. And if you want to persuade a whole race that it is unfair and unreasonable for it to use its schools and its universities to pass on its traditions and its history and its myths to the next generation of the race -- if you want to persuade them that it would be wrong to teach young people that their history is more important or relevant than the history of the Tutsis or the Zulus or the Hottentots, and so the schools either should teach no history or they should devote equal time and emphasis to the traditions, history, and myths of every race -- you don't start out with that proposition. You gradually work up to that over a period of 20 years or so, taking the people one step at a time.
And, of course, if you want to persuade a nation's people of something that really goes against their grain, something that is completely at odds with reality and contrary to common sense -- for example, that there's no difference between Blacks and Whites except skin color -- you really need to have a powerful brainwashing tool at your disposal: something like television, say. But if you and your fellow brainwashers own Hollywood and constitute the most powerful single group in the radio and television business and besides that own the three or four biggest and most influential newspapers in the country, and if you are willing to spend 20 or 30 years at it, you can convince people of just about anything, no matter how absurd or outrageous. You can even convince them that discrimination, instead of being a faculty necessary for human survival and progress and the maintenance of a civilization is an evil thing and ought not to be used at all.
It's possible to do this, because most people desperately want to be like other people. They want other people to think well of them, to approve of them. They want to behave in a way they believe is expected of them. This need to conform is so strong in most people that it can override reason. It is a much older and more primitive, more deeply rooted faculty than reason.
This need to conform, this need to believe whatever you think other people believe, is what lies behind the social phenomenon known as "fashion." It is what causes everybody to hum the same popular ditty at the same time, and then to forget it at the same time. It is what makes so many children want exactly the same type of toy, a Tickle Me Elmo or whatever, at the same time. It is what made people cheer the burning of witches 300 years ago. It is what makes people today parrot the idiotic notion that more racial and cultural diversity in a community leads to greater strength.
Now, this need to conform that most people have is not a bad thing in itself. In fact, it is a necessary social trait. Just as the ability to discriminate leads to progress, the need to conform leads to social cohesion and stability.
It poses a great danger to us now, however, because the development of the mass media during this century and the concentration of the control of the mass media in the hands of a small, tightly cohesive, alien group makes it possible for this alien minority to manipulate people, to manipulate their beliefs, in destructive ways.
The Jews who dominate the mass media understand the dynamics of manipulating public opinion. The brainwashers understand that they don't have to convince people that something is right or good; in fact, they don't even try. They just convince people that other people believe it is right or good. They convince people that a new idea is becoming fashionable, and that in itself is enough to make the new idea actually become fashionable, if the campaign is kept up.
Thus, for example, if the aim is to persuade White Americans that the government should not try to halt illegal immigration -- that it would be bad to do anything really effective to halt illegal immigration, such as telling our Border Patrol to shoot anyone seen trying to cross our border illegally -- the brainwashers don't actually argue the pros and cons of illegal immigration. Instead they'll insinuate the idea into people's minds that other people don't approve of using strong measures against illegal immigrants. For instance, they'll focus news coverage on a case where the police chase and catch a truck full of illegal immigrants and are a little rough in arresting them. And then they'll have some politician say that the police were too rough. And then they'll report that the police have been reprimanded by their superiors. And thus the idea will be formed in the public mind that the behavior of the police is disapproved by many people. And then they'll use another incident in a similar way. And then another and another and another. And gradually they will build up the idea in the public mind that most people disapprove of getting tough with illegal immigrants. And so, in order to conform to this artificially manufactured perception, they themselves will disapprove of getting tough with illegal immigrants.
So if you're a person who still has a little contact with reality and you believe that it's crazy to force high school wrestling teams to be sexually integrated, you can understand now that the right thing for you to do is not waste your time arguing that it's not good for boys and girls to fight against each other on the wrestling mat. The right thing to do is help me to continue building alternative media for reaching the public. We cannot win the struggle to save our civilization and our people from the craziness that is overtaking us until we regain control of our mass media. We must take them out of the hands of the Jews and return them to our own people. And a step on the way to doing that is to support this program, to tell your friends about it, to send donations, and to do everything else you can to help us reach more people.
The End of the Millennium What Will the Next Thousand Years Bring?
As we move into the last Presidential administration of this millennium, it may be useful for us to survey our recent past and think about how we can do better in the future. If we are to survive the next millennium, we really must avoid some of the mistakes we made in this one: especially in this last century of the millennium.
The 20th century has not been a good one for us. In the 19th century we were doing pretty well. Our people ruled the planet, and no other race posed a threat to us, either demographically or militarily. The 19th century was a wonderfully creative century for music, for painting, for poetry, for literature, for philosophy, for fundamental science. It was a wonderful century for our race and for our civilization generally.
And in the 19th century we had more freedom than we had experienced in a long time -- and a lot more freedom than we have left at the end of the 20th century. Of course, you won't agree with that if you think of freedom as something which the government gives you: a handout or special protection or a law requiring other people to give you something you couldn't get on your own. In the 19th century our people were much more free than they are now to do what they wanted without government interference. They had more elbow room and fewer taxes, fewer laws, fewer meddling bureaucrats. Ideas flowed more freely. No one had invented Political Correctness. The 19th century was the White man's century.
Of course, the 18th century and the 17th century and all the centuries before that had been White men's centuries too. It had always been a White world -- until the latter half of this century. In the 19th century, however, we made some big mistakes, which paved the way for the disasters of the 20th century. In the United States we freed all of our slaves and then failed to get rid of them by sending them back where they'd come from. We just turned them loose to fend for themselves among us -- and to multiply. In Europe we opened the ghettos and permitted Jews to begin participating in our cultural, political, and economic life: a really big mistake, but one whose consequences didn't hit us until the present century.
In the 20th century we have let ourselves be maneuvered into two disastrous world wars, in which we destroyed much of our best racial stock. We permitted Jewish Bolshevism to rise up and consume half of Europe. In this century we saw the rise of the mass media under Jewish influence. We saw the breakdown of most of our traditions, our morals, our manners -- and the rise of a lunatic egalitarianism which has made a shambles of our civilization. We saw the corruption of our culture by a wave of lunatic modernism in music, in the graphic and plastic arts, and in literature. We saw the rise of "diversity" and "multiculturalism" and miscegenation and the destruction of our cities. We saw the rise of feminism and homosexuality and every other sort of perversion and filth. We saw this filth declared normal, even admirable, by the media and sanctioned by legislation. We saw our political system become an obscenely corrupt circus, culminating in eight years of Bill Clinton.
The disaster of the 20th century has been concealed from us to a certain extent because the scientific advances we made in the 19th century led to enormously powerful technological developments in this century. The flowering of our technology and the overwhelming effect technology has had on our economy and our lifestyles has fooled many of us into believing that our civilization is still making progress. The intellectual developments leading to the automobile, the airplane, radio and television, and even the computer all had been made in the 19th century, but only in this century were these advances translated into large-scale applications affecting the lives of everyone. We have many more shiny toys and appliances and tools today than ever before, but we have practically destroyed the civilization out of which these things grew -- and we are well on the way to destroying the race which created that civilization.
The greatest physical threat our people are facing today is that of what our enemies worship as "diversity." It is the threat of becoming overwhelmed everywhere by hordes of non-Whites. It is the threat of being outnumbered even on our own turf. It is the threat of losing our breeding area and becoming submerged in the rising tide of non-Whites everywhere. It is an urgent, immediate threat. If we do not eliminate it in the next few years, then in the coming century it will destroy us completely.
That is the great physical threat to our existence which we must fight. But before we can hope to eliminate that threat we must eliminate the moral threat to our existence which has caused the physical threat. We must deal with the moral breakdown which has led so many of our own people to look forward eagerly to the physical annihilation of our race. We have an utterly sick moral atmosphere nearly everywhere which makes many of our people feel that it is wicked to be concerned about the survival of our race. It is a moral sickness which makes so-called "racism" the greatest of sins and equates any concern or feeling for our own race with that sin.
It is perfectly all right, of course, to be concerned about the survival of Blacks or Indians or Jews -- but not Whites. White children are being taught by television and by their churches and by their schools that White people are responsible for everything that is bad in the world, and that the world will be a better and happier place when there are no more White people in it -- and that to try to protect or preserve the White race is to commit the unforgivable sin of "racism."
Of course, much of that teaching is still tacit, still implicit, but it is becoming more and more explicit every day. The government is involved in it, the churches are involved in it -- but the driving force behind that teaching is in the mass media, especially the entertainment media. Nearly every film, nearly every new television show pushes the same ideas over and over: racial mixing is good; miscegenation is good; more non-White immigration is good; more "diversity" is good; more multiculturalism is good; more affirmative action is good; and any opposition to these things is bad, bad, bad.
Perhaps you think I exaggerate this situation, but I do not. As I said, much of this poison which is being pumped into the souls of the American people is disguised and indirect and implicit, but believe me, it is there, and it is deliberate; it is calculated by the people who control the mass media.
I'll give you an example of my own experience in this regard. The organization which I head, the National Alliance, distributes a three-inch by five-inch sticker with a simple message, intended to be as inoffensive as possible. The message is: "Earth's most endangered species: the White race. Help preserve it." That's all -- plus our mailing address, so people can write for more information. We've distributed literally millions of these little stickers during the past ten years, and we've made contacts with a lot of good people through these stickers. But we've also been surprised to find out that a great many White people are embarrassed, angered, and offended by the simple message on our stickers. We will receive letters from people who've seen one of our stickers, and they'll say, "Stop putting up your racist stickers in my neighborhood. We don't want any more of your hate. I intend to notify the FBI if I see another of your stickers."
Occasionally I've had a chance to talk to one of these people directly, and I'll say, "What do you find hateful or racist about our stickers?" A typical response will be, "Well, what about Black people? Don't they deserve to survive too?" And I'll say, "This sticker doesn't say anything about Black people one way or another. The survival of Black people is another subject. I'm White, and I'm concerned about the survival of my people. That's what this sticker is about." And this will result in another hostile outburst: "See! That's the trouble! You don't care about Black people or Jewish people or anybody but Whites! You're a racist! You're a hater!"
Now, everyone listening today understands that if our stickers asked people to be concerned about the survival of Black people, say -- just Black people, or just Jews, or just Indians -- these Politically Correct types who are horrified by our stickers now would find nothing objectionable about them at all. They wouldn't have the confused notion that it's somehow illegal to be concerned about the survival of Indians and that they ought to go running to the FBI. They wouldn't see anything hateful in a sticker suggesting that Blacks should be concerned about the future of their people. They are brainwashed. They are conditioned by the controlled media. They are reacting in an irrational way. But there are tens of millions of these authoritarian-type people out there, who absorb every bit of poison from the mass media and take it to heart. There are enough of them to swing elections and determine public policy. And the poison continues to flow, more and more of it in every new batch of television programs and Hollywood films. And as I said, it is calculated poison. It is poison designed by the controllers of the media to have exactly the effect it does.
Of all the evils which have befallen our people in this century, the rise of the mass media in Jewish hands has been the worst. What I am trying to do with these radio broadcasts is counteract this evil, this moral sickness, this moral paralysis being promoted by the controlled media, which keeps our people from taking action against the physical threat of racial annihilation facing us. It is an enormous task, because the resources of the television networks and Hollywood and Madison avenue and the government are so much greater than ours, but it is by no means a hopeless task. We reach new people every day and help them to see the truth and to understand what is happening, and we motivate many of them to join us in fighting the evil which threatens our race. But it is reality itself -- the growing nastiness of life in multicultural America -- which is making people face the facts more than we can hope to with our present resources.
Most ordinary Americans have been trying to ignore what is being done to our country. They want to be nice to everybody if they can. They don't want to offend anyone. They don't want the busybodies in the Clinton government to put their names on a blacklist of Politically Incorrect citizens. They just want to be left alone to live their lives and take care of their families and raise their children in peace. But it's becoming harder and harder to do that. Reality keeps getting in the way. No matter how hard they try to avoid the nastiness, it keeps finding them.
Now more and more of them finally are deciding they can't keep ignoring the assault on our people. If nothing else, the increasingly blatant and obvious and vicious anti-White propaganda on television has forced them to the realization that there will be no future for their children if things keep going along the same course. They're finally beginning to realize that they must do something, that the nightmare won't go away if they just ignore it. And so my voice and other American dissident voices are doing more than just competing against the Jewish media for the attention of the people. We are more like a catalyst now. Conditions themselves are making the people pay attention and are turning them against the poison of the controlled media. My voice and a few others just need to give a hint, make a suggestion, point the direction, help people get started on the way back to freedom and health. Even though the controlled media can speak much more loudly than we can, we still are being heard by more and more people.
And let me tell you, the people who are destroying America, the people who want to destroy our race, the people who are cooking the television poison don't like that a bit. They understand what they're doing. They know that as their destructive efforts become more evident, there will be a growing backlash against them. They are afraid of that backlash. They are desperate to silence every voice in opposition to theirs. They believe that if no one is allowed to contradict them, then our people won't know whom to blame for the destruction and that they'll be able to continue leading us into the slaughterhouse.
That is why they have been pushing so hard in recent years to abolish the First and Second Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. That is why they have been trying to convince us that dissident voices just cause trouble, and that the public would be better off if no one were permitted to criticize their policies or alert the people to what they're doing. The second Clinton administration will be their big chance to silence their opponents, to make dissent illegal, and to keep anyone from exposing what they're doing.
The next four years is their opportunity. There's no telling what will happen after the year 2000. They've been able to control the electoral process so far through their control of the media, but the natives are becoming restless. It's not likely, but it is possible that someone with some principles, someone with some patriotic feeling might win an election after Clinton is out. So now, while they have a totally unprincipled President who is completely under their control and will do absolutely anything they tell him, now is the time for them to push through new laws making it illegal to say or write anything which is Politically Incorrect. If they can count on the FBI and the other secret police agencies to lock up anybody who says anything against them, it will be a lot easier for them to keep a lid on unrest and dissent after the end of the millennium. And now, with the economy still relatively strong, all of the authoritarian types -- the ones who want to call the FBI when they see one of our stickers -- will go along with an abolition of free speech rights. If they wait until the economy collapses and a lot of people are angry and frightened, they will have a much harder time taking away what's left of our rights and keeping us quiet.
I previously predicted that Clinton's new all-Jewish national security team would attempt to lead us into a major war during the next four years. My new prediction is that the Clinton government, with the collaboration of the Republican Congress, will respond to media demands and move to restrict our First Amendment rights. I predict that we'll see a major push during the next four years to criminalize political dissent.
Of course, they won't call it that, just like they won't tell us that they're leading us into a war because a war serves their needs. Instead the media and the government will tell us, "Oh, we've been attacked by Saddam or whomever! Now we must respond to protect our national security."
And they won't say, "We're taking away your freedom of speech because we're afraid of what you may say." Instead they'll say, "We're all in favor of political debate . . . between Republicans and Democrats. We believe in free speech for nearly everyone. It's just those nasty extremists, those haters, who must be silenced. We have to lock them up, because otherwise they'll say things which will get people upset, and the first thing you know we'll have another Oklahoma City bombing or another race riot.
That's what we're facing as this century and this millennium roll to an end. If our enemies have their way, it'll be the last millennium on earth for our race, forever. We haven't got much time. Let's see what we can do to upset their applecart before this millennium is over. Let's do whatever we have to do to get ourselves back on track and make sure that the next millennium belongs to us too.
The Rule of Law When It Is Disobeyed Tyranny and Anarchy Result What are the principal characteristics which distinguish a civilized society from a savage society? What outstanding features have distinguished the societies our people created in Europe from the much more primitive societies formed by other races which we encountered in Africa, America, and Australia?
We might note that our societies were literate, and the others were not. We might note that our societies had a much more highly developed technology, much more complex tools and techniques, than the primitive, non-White societies. We might note that the concepts of the individual, of individual rights and responsibilities, and of private property always were much more characteristic of our societies than of theirs.
All of those are important distinguishing characteristics between civilized societies -- at least, our civilized societies -- and uncivilized societies. But there is one other characteristic of a civilized society which is more fundamental than anything else, and that is the rule of law. A truly civilized society, whether it is organized as a monarchy or a democracy or a dictatorship, must have a generally recognized and a generally respected set of rules or laws, obeyed by everyone, from the king or the president or the dictator down to the humblest peasant or factory worker. The laws may specify certain powers for the king or the president that the peasant or the factory worker does not have, but the king is just as much bound by the law as anyone else in a civilized society. He may no more break the rules with impunity than anyone else.
In our societies the basic body of law, the common law, evolved together with the societies themselves over periods of many generations. The law reflected the nature of our people. It governed the basic structure of our society and the relationships of our people to our society and to each other.
The law, of course, is not a static thing. Even the common law changes. It evolves to meet new needs as the society evolves. And statutes -- written laws crafted by parliaments or king's councils -- change even faster. But as long as the society recognizes and respects the laws and is ruled by them, then it can claim to be a civilized society.
When respect for the law disappears, and powerful people or groups can break the law with impunity, then the society no longer is civilized. Even when the outward form of the law is maintained, but the respect for the law is gone and people feel only the need to make a pretense of being ruled by the law while ignoring its spirit, then their society can only pretend to be civilized. That is the situation we are dangerously close to in America today.
The re-election of Bill Clinton as President is one example of the general lack of respect for law which exists in this country. Clinton is hardly the first President who is a lawbreaker, and he certainly is not the only prominent politician today who is in trouble for breaking the law. But his reelection is still the most blatant example of the widespread lack of respect for the law in this country. Clinton is a man who has been heavily involved in all sorts of illegal activity -- the drug trade, money laundering, racketeering -- illegal activity which was by no means a secret. When he was governor of Arkansas his brother Roger was running a flourishing drug business, selling cocaine right out of the governor's mansion. No one in Arkansas who knows Clinton believes that he didn't know what his brother was doing prior to his arrest and conviction for drug dealing. Many of the people Clinton ran around with and received donations from were gangsters or drug dealers.
Clinton was a draft dodger. He associated closely, intimately, with people like the late David Ifshin, who committed treason against the United States. Ifshin went to Hanoi during the Vietnam war and made radio broadcasts for the Communists, urging American soldiers to turn their guns against their officers and come over to the Communist side. Clinton considered Ifshin a close personal friend and an adviser on Jewish affairs and often had him as a guest in the White House during his first term.
And when Clinton was governor of Arkansas he used the Arkansas state police as his own personal pimp squad, sending them out to scout up women for him. One of these women was Paula Jones, an Arkansas state employee, and her lawsuit against him for sexual harassment is a matter of public record.
And despite all of this, 23 per cent of the American electorate voted for Clinton. They ignored his lack of respect for the law, because they wanted him to continue the government's programs favoring homosexuals, feminists, Blacks, and the other minority groups which make up the Clinton coalition, and thus they demonstrated their own lack of respect for the law. It is true, of course, that Clinton has not yet been convicted of anything and sent to prison like his brother and many of his other former associates, but if there were real respect for the law in our society, a man as tainted by suspicion and association with criminals as Clinton is could not even be considered as a candidate for President.
Of course, we still have the pretense of rule by law, and so the investigations into various of Clinton's illegal activities continue. These investigations, however, are not driven by respect for the law, but only by partisan politics. If the Democratic Party had its way, the investigations would all be halted immediately. And if Clinton were a Republican instead of a Democrat, the Republicans would not have demanded the investigations in the first place.
It is not just electoral politics which becomes corrupted when a society loses its respect for the law. Eventually everything becomes corrupted, and the pretense of respect for the law becomes more and more transparent as the process of decay advances. I'll mention a couple of more examples.
One example is provided by an American named Gerhard Lauck, who is now sitting in a prison in Germany, convicted of violating German law by publishing materials in the United States which the German government finds offensive. Another American, Hans Schmidt, was arrested while visiting Germany and charged with publishing illegal ideas in his newsletter in the United States and mailing copies of his newsletter to subscribers in Germany. Mr. Schmidt was fortunate enough to be able to escape from Germany before the German government could put him on trial. Mr. Lauck, of Lincoln, Nebraska, was not so fortunate. Like Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Lauck has done nothing illegal in Germany. And he has done nothing in the United States which is contrary to U.S. law either. He has simply exercised his freedom to speak and write. But because the ideas he wrote about in the United States are illegal in Germany, where there has been no freedom of speech since 1945, and because he mailed some of his publications to subscribers in Germany, the German government issued a warrant for his arrest. When he visited friends in Denmark in 1995 the German government had him arrested and extradited to Germany, where he was put on trial last August and then sentenced to four years in prison for publishing illegal ideas.
Not only did the U.S. government make no protest against this violation of an American citizen's rights, but the U.S. government actually collaborated with the German government in having Mr. Lauck arrested. Before Lauck was arrested, Louis Freeh, Mr. Clinton's ambitious FBI boss, traveled to Germany for a conference with the secret police boss there and publicly expressed his agreement with Germany's laws restricting speech. He said that it is too bad that we don't have similar laws in the United States, because without such laws he could do nothing to stop Mr. Lauck from publishing the ideas the German government doesn't like. What he did do, however, was furnish the German secret police with information about Lauck's travel plans, so that they could have him arrested in Denmark.
I'm not enough of a lawyer to know whether or not Louis Freeh actually broke any U.S. laws in helping the German government arrest an American citizen for exercising his constitutional rights in the United States. But it is perfectly clear that Mr. Freeh has only contempt for the law and contempt for the rights of American citizens. And what he has done can only lessen respect for the law among everyone else who knows of it, and that includes everyone in the secret police community.
There's more involved in this than Mr. Freeh's contempt for the law. Jews everywhere have been pushing for restrictions on speech, so that people cannot criticize or contradict them. They would like to make it illegal to question their exaggerated claims about the so-called "Holocaust" or their version of events in the Middle East or to talk about their role in the origins of Communism. They have been able to enforce their policies on Germany ever since that country lost the Second World War. They try to silence their critics in the United States by other means. Mr. Freeh, who obviously aims to please the people who control the media, is helping them. But the real point here is that Mr. Freeh and the government of which he is a part have no respect for the law, no respect for the Constitution which prohibits the government from interfering with free speech, and the citizens who elected that government also have no respect for the law. That is a very bad situation, a very dangerous situation for what's left of our civilization.
To better understand the significance of the Lauck case, imagine an alternative incident. Imagine that a Jewish writer in the United States, who has written some unfavorable things about the Islamic religion, say, is visiting Turkey. Imagine that the head of our FBI tips off the secret police in Iran that the Jewish writer is in Turkey, and the Iranians send a police team across the border into Turkey to kidnap the Jew and take him into Iran, where he is put on trial for blasphemy and sentenced to prison. Can you imagine the reaction of the Clinton government? Can you imagine the reaction of the Jewish media? Can you imagine the reaction of our prostitute politicians in the Congress? They all would be screaming for blood. The politicians would be on television every day demanding action. The Clinton administration would be threatening war. Our armed forces would be mobilized for an all-out assault on Iran. The head of the FBI would not only lose his job, he would be facing criminal charges of some sort, you can be sure.
But Mr. Lauck is not a Jew, and Mr. Schmidt was not a Jew. More than that, they both have said and written things that the Jews would like to make it illegal to say or write in America, and so the Clinton government has collaborated with a foreign government in the persecution of these men, while the politicians and the Jewish media have pretended not to notice. That's worse than a lack of respect for the law. That is using the power of the law in a lawless way. That is tyranny.
You know, the problem isn't just that we've got more crime these days, both inside the government and among the citizenry. There always have been lawbreakers, and there always will be. And the crime rate has been going up for a long time. What's different and dangerous today is that such a tolerant attitude toward crime is permeating our society. It used to be that a politician as crooked as Bill Clinton had to be very careful to keep his criminal activity secret. Today a substantial portion of the electorate don't care whether their President is a criminal or not, so long as he keeps their favorite government programs going. And the government in turn feels that it no longer has to hide its contempt for the rights of its citizens. It can do the things Mr. Freeh's FBI did at Waco, and it can conspire in the violation of Mr. Lauck's constitutional rights, and it doesn't have to worry about public opinion, because the public doesn't really care. That is frightening.
This is not just an abstract problem. You may think, "All right, our society is becoming uncivilized because it has lost its respect for the rule of law. Ho hum. Too bad for our society, but that doesn't affect me." If that's what you think, you're wrong. What is happening will have very concrete and immediate and unpleasant consequences for many of us, not just Gerhard Lauck or the children the Clinton Justice Department incinerated at Waco in 1993.
Every society has its quota of amoral, antisocial individuals, who prey on others if they can. In a civilized society, the law keeps these antisocial predators under control. In a savage society, where each man is a law unto himself, the predators are likely to be killed as soon as they make themselves known. But in a society such as we have in the United States today, where the legal establishment itself is becoming lawless, many of the predators are able to prey on society without fear of the law -- in fact, under the protection of the law, with the cooperation of the legal establishment -- yet the citizens are not free to protect themselves from these predators. The form of the law -- the pretense of lawfulness -- protects the predators, but not their victims. What we have developing in the United States today, in fact, is the worst of all possible situations, where a corrupt and lawless legal establishment has formed a partnership with the most predatory and destructive antisocial elements in our society: we have growing collaboration between an increasingly unpopular government, the Jewish mass media, and special interest groups which hope to win gains for themselves at the expense of the general public. The basis for this unholy collaboration is the continuing dispossession of the White majority by the Clinton coalition: the homosexuals and the feminists and the non-Whites -- and, of course, the Jews. Our basic body of law, the law which grew up with our civilization, is inconvenient for them. It is not favorable to the homosexuals and the other perverts. It does not make special provisions and quotas for non-Whites. And it does not give a preferred status and exemption from criticism to Jews. And so the members of the Clinton coalition have been working hard to change and corrupt our body of law and replace it with law more favorable to themselves. And when the process of change and corruption is not fast enough for them, they turn to other methods. That is why the FBI collaborates with the secret police in other countries to punish our citizens for the exercise of their legal rights. That is why the Clinton government and the controlled media collaborate with special-interest groups to harass and vilify law-abiding American citizens who continue to exercise rights that the members of the Clinton coalition find threatening.
The rights that are especially threatening to the Clinton coalition are those specified in the First and Second Amendments to the U.S. Constitution: our rights of free speech and of self-defense. These are the rights they fear most. And these are the rights they will be using extra-legal means -- and sometimes even illegal means -- to combat during the second Clinton administration. It was their fear of the Second Amendment which led them to commit the massacre of the innocents at Waco. It was their fear of the First Amendment which led them to betray Gerhard Lauck to the German secret police. And it will be their fear of the First Amendment also which will lead them to use surrogates in their attacks against me and other critics in the future.
And, you know, their fears really are justified. They don't have much time left. The vigilantes haven't started dealing with them yet, but with only 23 per cent of the electorate behind them during the last election, they must be wondering how long it will be before the other 77 per cent finally loses its patience with them. They still can strike at me and a few others, but eventually the time will come to strike back. And when there is no law left to protect them from retribution, they will have only themselves to blame for destroying that law.
Hope for the Future If Our Enemies Were Secure They Wouldn't Be so Worried When I talk with people in the United States about the problems our country is facing and about the need to organize everyone of good will into an effective force for dealing with these problems, the most common complaint I hear is: "People don't care." Or: "People are afraid to talk about the real problems. They just want to complain, but as soon as you start talking about doing something they become frightened."
In other words, the people I talk with tell me, "White Americans are like ostriches with their heads in the sand, hoping that things won't get much worse if they just pretend not to notice what's happening and don't think too much about it."
Now, that's partly true, but there are many different types of White Americans, and not all are afraid to face the real problems in this country. Let's take a look at some of these different types.
First, let's note that there are a great many White Americans who do care about what's being done to our country and our people. Some of them are afraid to talk about it, but others are not. Some are confused about what's happening, but others have a pretty good understanding.
It's also true, of course, that many Americans don't care. There are millions of couch potatoes, of Joe and Jill Sixpacks, of sports fans, of disco-goers, of trendy air-heads who believe whatever they see and hear on TV and try to learn all of the latest cliches and imitate all of the current fads. As long as their refrigerators are full, their brains will be turned off. But White Americans today are not much worse in this regard than other people at other times. Most people always have been like that: without initiative or imagination or curiosity or independence. Let's not concern ourselves with them now. Later, when their refrigerators are empty, we'll see what can be done with them.
Let's look at the Americans who do care. Let's look at the ones who are observant enough to know that something is wrong and are responsible enough to be concerned. That's probably a good half of the adult White population. The question is, why aren't more of them doing something about their concern?
We know that Bill Clinton was elected to his second term as President with the votes of only 23 per cent of the electorate, fewer than one in four. Of course, some of the other 77 per cent voted for Bob Dole or Ross Perot, but two-thirds of this other 77 per cent said, in effect, "To hell with the whole business. I'm not voting for any of those clowns."
Now, that's something! That's a new record for voter alienation. That's a clear sign that a substantial portion of the population is fed up. It's a real reason for hope, and it's no wonder that the controlled media have not had much to say about the election statistics. But the question remains, why aren't the people who're fed up doing more than simply choosing not to play the game any longer? I know that many of them are too frightened to do anything. They're afraid of the government, which they have come to realize is no longer an institution to serve the people but instead has become a dangerous and powerful enemy of the people.
Do you remember the FBI's response to the terror-bombing at the Atlanta Olympics last year? The FBI didn't have a clue as to who the bomber was, so they fingered the security guard who had found the bomb, Richard Jewell; told the media that he was their prime suspect because he was a heterosexual White male with an interest in firearms; and then during the next few months proceeded to ruin the poor man's life, hoping that some evidence might turn up to implicate him or that he might crack under the pressure. Eventually they had to admit, very grudgingly, that they'd made a mistake.
Perhaps you saw the televised news conference held by Jewell and his lawyers after that. I saw it on the NBC Evening News, and I remember one of Jewell's friends who made a very moving statement at the conference. He said that he realized that living in the sort of country the United States has become is inherently dangerous. He said he realized that he could be killed by a terrorist bomb at any time. But, he said, after seeing what the FBI had done to his friend Jewell and the way they had done it, he was far more afraid of the FBI than he was of terrorists.
I think many people feel that way today. They feel intimidated by the government and the media. They've seen too much abuse of power, and they're afraid that if they open their mouths, if they criticize the government, if they become known as dissidents, the government will retaliate against them. Others are aware of the bias of the controlled news media. They have seen the vicious treatment the media give to anyone who is Politically Incorrect.
Do you remember the way the media hounds tore apart poor Marge Schott, the Cincinnati baseball team owner, after she made a couple of Politically Incorrect remarks last year? People are afraid of being attacked and hounded by the media if they do or say anything the media bosses don't approve of. They are afraid that the media will cause their employers to fire them or will incite minority criminals to attack them or their families. It has happened -- too often -- and people are frightened.
Many people also are discouraged. They see the jungles our cities and our schools have become after decades of destructive immigration and suicidal race policies. They see the terrible condition of our racially integrated armed forces, and they see the decline in the quality of law enforcement in our cities. It seems impossible to them that things can ever be sorted out and cleaned up. They look at the immense power wielded by the media and by the government, and they see no way to overcome that power. They see things getting worse and worse every year, and they conclude that the country cannot be saved, our people cannot be saved. And so they give up on trying to do anything more than looking out for themselves and their families. They don't want to sacrifice themselves in what they view as a hopeless cause. There are really a lot of people who feel this way.
And many of these people are not cowards. They understand the power and the ruthlessness of the government and the media, and they are wary of this power, but they have not let themselves be conquered by unreasonable fears. They just don't believe that anything useful can be done, and so they don't try. If they did believe something could be done, then they might be willing to defy the government and the media and take their chances.
There are millions of people like this. They know that things aren't the way they ought to be, even though they don't completely understand why. They aren't cowards, but they aren't inclined to be heroes or martyrs either. They concern themselves almost exclusively with their own security and comforts, yet they aren't entirely without a spark of idealism and altruism. They're ordinary White men and women: moderately perceptive, moderately brave, and capable of becoming moderately idealistic.
What these millions of ordinary White men and women need is understanding and hope. Understanding, so that they can see what has happened to our country and our people and what needs to be done to set things right; and hope that what needs to be done actually can be done, so that they become willing to take a chance and participate in a struggle for the future that no longer seems hopeless to them.
Giving understanding and hope to our people are our two tasks, the two reasons for these American Dissident Voices programs. Of the two, giving understanding is the easier -- and it is necessarily the first. Each week I use this radio broadcast to explain one facet or another of this confusing world around us, so that our people can have a clearer picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future. And this program's sponsor, National Vanguard Books, publishes many books and periodicals which also provide understanding.
One of the books published by National Vanguard Books is a novel I wrote more than 20 years ago, The Turner Diaries, in which I tried to look into the future and project where the trends I could see around me in the 1970s would take us. One of the things I saw coming was a great increase in terrorism in the United States as resentment against the government and its policies grew. Another thing I saw coming was a great increase in violence against our women: I predicted the rape of our women by Blacks in our minority-pampering Army under a government unwilling to stop it for fear of being charged with "racism." And I have been very gratified by the many people who have written to me and told me that their eyes were first opened when they read The Turner Diaries: that after reading the book they not only could understand what is happening now but also could have some inkling of what will happen next. These people who had read my book weren't surprised by the World Trade Center bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing and the Atlanta Olympics bombing and other acts of terrorism which have occurred recently, and they weren't surprised by the revelation of the widespread sexual harassment of White female recruits in our Army by Black drill instructors and the unwillingness of the Army brass to stop it before it attracted public attention. They had seen these things coming from reading my book.
The difficulties we face in providing understanding are primarily economic difficulties. We should have this radio program on every station in America, but air time is expensive. We would like for every adult White person in America to read The Turner Diaries, but so far only about a quarter of a million have. We need to expand our outreach greatly and reach many more of our people with our message, but that will require many more helpers working with me, and it will require much more money. We are slowly doing what needs to be done, but we could do it much faster with more help. Fortunately, we gradually are getting additional help, but we need much, much more.
The bigger part of our task is giving our people hope. Understanding what has happened and what needs to be done is not enough for most people. Of course, if all of our people were heroes by nature, then understanding would be enough. They would consider only what it is necessary and proper to do, and then they would be willing to die trying to do it, whether it were possible or not. But most of our people are only slightly heroic. Most people not only need to understand what they should do; they also need to believe that it is possible to do it. And so our task is to persuade them that what we are trying to do is not only necessary and proper, but also possible. Then they will join us. Then we will sweep the enemies of our people, who now seem so powerful, into the trashbin of history.
And so how do we give hope to intelligent, perceptive people, who look at the situation around them and see this powerful and corrupt government steamrollering anybody who gets in its way? How do we make them believe that it is possible to successfully oppose such a government?
Well, first we simply focus their attention on some of the things they already know but perhaps haven't thought enough about: things like the utter moral corruption of the government, a corruption which robs it and its supporters of any conviction that their cause is just. A morally crippled enemy is a mortally weakened enemy. A government led by a moral cripple like Bill Clinton may still be able to do a lot of damage, punish a lot of its enemies, and keep many people frightened into silence and inaction -- but it is vastly more vulnerable than it would be if were not corrupt, and its corruption increases every year. Certainly, it would be depressing to see support for such a government remaining strong. We kindle hope in patriots by as simple a thing as reminding them of the recent election results, which show the great withdrawal of support from the government: results which show them that fewer than a quarter of the eligible voters voted for Clinton and his government.
It is important to continue emphasizing these things, because the controlled media deliberately create the false image of great popular support for Clinton and the government. They deliberately create the impression that what is happening is inevitable and unstoppable. The media spokesmen show us great crowds of smiling faces: everyone is happy, they tell us, because we have more minorities than ever before, more feminists, more proud homosexuals, more equality, more "diversity." Sure, we have a few little problems, the media tell us, but people generally are happy with the way things are going, and if those awful patriots, those awful extremists and dissidents would just keep quiet, everything would be wonderful.
I believe that it's important to contradict this lie with the facts, with the real numbers, so that people can have hope, so that they can see that the evil forces destroying our country and our people are not as strong, do not have as much support, as the controlled media would have us believe -- and that the support they do have is declining.
For most people, though, real hope will come not just from realizing that our enemies aren't quite as strong as we'd thought they were: it will come more from having a realistic goal before their eyes instead of a hopeless goal. When they look at the mess our enemies have made of America and they try to figure out how to straighten it out, of course that seems hopeless to them.
Imagine that you are a doctor, and you have two hospital beds before you. In one bed is an old man of mixed race whose health has been ruined from a lifetime of depraved living, an old man riddled with AIDS and a dozen other incurable and infectious diseases. In the other bed is a healthy White infant. You should not waste your time working to make the old man healthy again by trying to undo what cannot be undone. The thing to do is pull the plug on his life- support system before his disease has a chance to sicken the healthy White infant in the other bed, and then to devote all of your energy and skill and resources to ensuring that the infant stays healthy, that he doesn't grow up to lead a life like the old man did and fall prey to the same diseases. That can be done. That is something which is possible.
Now, the choice facing the ordinary American of good will today is not quite that simple, but there are strong similarities. What we need to do is stop worrying about undoing the awful, mixed-up mess our enemies have made. Instead let's let the process of self-destruction proceed as quickly as it will, so that it is finished before it has infected the lives of all of our people. We can't stop it anyway. I mean, what can you do with a city like New York or Washington, except try to keep it from spreading, by whatever means are necessary? What can you do with a political system like the one in Washington, except encourage it to even further excess? Let's not waste our time and energy trying to undo what cannot be undone. Let's pull the plug and focus all of our efforts on salvaging what is still healthy and then ensuring that it stays healthy. That can be done. That is something which is possible.
Let the fire which is coming take care of New York and Washington. Let's try to show as many healthy people as we can how to keep from becoming infected, and then how to avoid being burned when the fire comes. Let's show them how to avoid becoming discouraged by enemy propaganda. While the controlled media gloat over the rising rate of racial intermarriage and over the rising number of White families adopting Black children and over the darkening of America from the non-White immigration flood, let us keep pointing out to people the numbers that show the declining level of support for this rotten system. While the enemy rejoices over the new destruction he is accomplishing, let us rejoice over the new people whose eyes are being opened by this destruction, and let us reach out to these people.
Let us realize that we cannot save everything. We cannot save what has become sick and corrupted. But we can save many of those who are still healthy and who are repelled by the sickness. Let us do a better and better job of that, because in that is our hope for the future.
Shakespeare and Democracy Our Culture Is Not Being Passed on to Future Generations William Shakespeare is out. Maya Angelou, Frantz Fanon, and W.E.B. DuBois are in. I'm talking about fashion at American universities.
There's been some discussion in the mass media recently about the fact that American universities are phasing out Shakespeare and the other creators of our European culture and replacing them with non-Whites of various stripes, such as the three Black writers I just named. The impression is left by the media discussion that this is some sort of fad, which, hopefully, will pass soon. The discussion was sparked by a decision on the part of the faculty at Georgetown University, the prestigious Jesuit school in Washington, to drop the requirement that their English majors study the works of at least two authors from among Chaucer, Milton, and Shakespeare. Now Georgetown's English majors can graduate without ever having read anything by Shakespeare. I'm not talking about Georgetown's basketball players or her business majors. I'm talking about the students who are seeking degrees in English literature. An acquaintance with Shakespeare is no longer necessary. Nor is an acquaintance with the writings of any other dead White European males, or "dwems," as they are referred to contemptuously by the Politically Correct elements at our universities these days.
And this is not a fad, nor is it restricted to Georgetown University. After Georgetown made its move, a survey was conducted among the top 70 universities in America by the National Alumni Forum, and it was found that two-thirds of them have made similar moves. Instead of studying Hamlet or Julius Caesar or Macbeth . . . or Milton's Paradise Lost or Il Penseroso or the works of any other great writers of English literature . . . students of English literature are studying the scribblings of miscellaneous non-White nonentities, or they are taking courses in such pop- culture topics as "The Gangster Film," which is now offered to English majors at Georgetown in lieu of Shakespeare, or "Melodrama and Soap Opera," which Duke University offers to its English majors instead of Milton and Chaucer.
Other universities have courses on comic books or checkout-stand tabloids or rap ditties. The ones with real pretensions to seriousness have scraped together English literature courses which actually require the study of books written in the English language, so long as they were not written by a White male -- at least, not by a White male who has been dead for a long time. Jewish males, of course, are A-OK, and so the students spend plenty of time with the works of J.D. Salinger, Saul Bellow, Bernard Malamud, Herman Wouk, Norman Mailer, Philip Roth, and scores of other Jews. Unfortunately, the students are taught that the books of these Jews constitute serious English literature. It was a little harder to convince students of that when they also studied Shakespeare and Milton and could compare their writing with that of the aforementioned Jews. Now it will be easier.
As I said, this is not just a passing fad, something very trendy and liberal to suit the Clinton era. It is the outcome of a campaign which goes back more than 30 years. In the 1960s, when I was a university professor myself, anyone who had suggested that Shakespeare should be phased out of university teaching would have been thought crazy -- at least, he would have been thought crazy at the university where I was teaching, which was a bit more conservative than some. But even at my university there were faculty and administration people pushing for more democracy and more "diversity." They were promoting the idea that universities were too White and too elitist, that we needed more "diversity" among students and professors and that we should give the students more of a say in the running of the university and not leave it all to the professors.
It was really very subtle. It wasn't until they had established their idea about the need for more democracy and more "diversity" that they moved to the next phase and began suggesting that the traditional courses in history and literature were actually a bit . . . ah . . . racist and needed to be, well . . . cleaned up a bit.
And then a few years ago you had groups of the more trendy students marching around on some campuses and chanting, "Ho, ho, ho, Western culture has got to go." They wanted the traditional courses in Western civilization to be replaced with courses which treated all cultures equally, instead of focusing primarily on European culture. And, of course, all along Shakespeare was gradually being eased out the door. It's just now that a few people have noticed it and raised the alarm.
And even now the anti-alarmists are telling us that it's all much ado about nothing: that English literature students still can study Shakespeare if they want to -- and that some universities still require their English literature majors to study Shakespeare -- so stop worrying. And, of course, that is true: students still can study Shakespeare if they want to -- but there's no denying the trend. There's no denying that Shakespeare actually is being eased out the door, and that the curricula at our universities are being filled with courses which at best are worthless and at worst are destructive of the central purpose of a university, which is the training of an elite to carry on and enhance the cultural traditions of our people. Our universities actually have been subverted. They actually are being turned against us and used as weapons to destroy the civilization of which they used to be a part.
How did that happen, and why did it happen? There still are many bright people, as well as honest and well-meaning people, on the faculties of our universities. How could they let anyone subvert their institutions without noticing what was happening and opposing them?
First, I'll give a very brief answer, and then I'll go back and explain it in detail.
Our universities were subverted without any effective opposition because, first, the subversion was done very gradually, over a period of more than three decades, and it was done by a very clever group of very determined and very well organized people who already had infiltrated our university faculties and administrations. Second, the people who should have opposed the subversion already had been morally and ideologically disarmed, so that they could only fight tactically, but not strategically. They could oppose the details of the subversion, but they could not oppose the overall campaign of subversion -- and in particular, they could not attack the subverters themselves. They were fighting the subversion, in other words, with both hands tied behind their backs. Now I'll explain this answer. Before this century, our universities more or less served their two basic purposes, one of which is to train scholars in a technical sense -- the mathematicians, the chemists, and the physicists -- and the other of which is to instill in a leadership elite of our young people an understanding of and a sense of commitment to our civilization, so that they can maintain that civilization and add to it. The civilization that our universities were a part of was unmistakably and unapologetically Western, which is to say, European -- or if you prefer, White.
This fact did not suit some people. In particular, it did not suit the Jews, a people of Asian origin with quite different traditions and a quite different way of looking at the world. To them our universities were an obstacle which stood in the way of their penetration and domination of our civilization. And so they set about eliminating this obstacle, in their usual very carefully planned way. They were very unobtrusive at first, just infiltrating themselves gradually into university faculties and more or less behaving themselves, trying hard to convince the people at the universities that they were harmless. They worked to get rid of the restrictions the better universities had to limit their numbers, and they very cautiously pushed such ideas as democracy and equality.
It was only after the Second World War that they really came out of the closet and began pushing hard for the changes they wanted in the universities. The Second World War, after all, had been fought for the sake of democracy and equality, we all were told. We had killed millions of people in Europe in the name of democracy and equality and had turned half of Europe over to Bolshevik butchers to kill millions more after the war. After that, how could we oppose democracy and equality in our universities? We needed to open the doors of our universities to everyone, regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, national origin, et cetera. We not only needed to open the doors, we needed to reach out and pull in hundreds of thousands of young people who before never would have thought of attending a university.
Of course, there was some opposition to all of this. Some university people expressed concern about the lowering of standards required to accommodate all of the new students, especially the Black students. And they were assured by the proponents of democracy and equality that standards would not be lowered: that the universities could absorb Black students and all sorts of other students without lowering their standards at all. To suggest that they couldn't was tantamount to racism; it was tantamount to claiming that Black students could not graduate in significant numbers unless standards were lowered. And this was where the people who should have defended our universities against the subverters were stuck. They didn't want to admit to racism, so they really couldn't fight effectively to maintain standards that clearly worked to the disadvantage of Blacks. And they didn't want to admit to anti-Semitism, so they couldn't really take off the gloves against the ringleaders of the subversion. So they retreated, step by step.
Of course, pretty soon many more people than the original Jews were involved in the subversion. As the number of students at the universities increased enormously, many empires were built and many vested interests established. The salaries of many people at the universities have become dependent on how many students they have. Professors who teach courses in basket-weaving or golf or the-comic-book-as-literature become fiercely defensive and can give you all sorts of reasons why their courses are important. And there has been a growing tendency to cater to the desires of the students: not to teach them what the professors know they ought to be taught, but instead to teach them what they think they want to learn. For young people raised on television and permissiveness, what they often choose are fun courses, trendy courses, trivial courses, and what they often neglect are the serious and more demanding courses. Universities, instead of scholarly institutions, have become to a large extent economic enterprises: that is, commercial institutions selling education, and the customers all too often are assumed to be right. Sometimes when a university offers a huge assortment of Mickey Mouse courses, it's hard to separate the economic motive of wanting to keep the customers coming in the door and lining up at the cash register, from the ideological motive of wanting to be democratic by having curricula that will be easy enough for everybody.
But despite the economic factors and other factors which have degraded American universities, the motive to destroy our culture and undermine our civilization continues to provide a powerful driving force for subversion. Political Correctness was born at our universities, and it reigns supreme there. University professors must toe the party line on race, on equality, on history, and on matters relating to sex and sexual orientation. And the party line is anti-White, anti-European, anti-Western. It is strongly influenced by the interests of feminists, homosexuals, and Jews.
One factor which obscures the seriousness of this problem is its uneven effects. It has devastated some academic disciplines and left others relatively undamaged. If one wants to become a mathematician, for example, there are many universities which still offer top-quality mathematics curricula. The Red Guards have not yet gotten around to applying the canons of Political Correctness to mathematics. It helps, of course, that most basketball players don't care much for math.
But if a young person is interested in literature or history, he is likely to be badly shortchanged at most American universities. These are subjects on which the Red Guards have left their mark, and it is easy to understand why.
History is an inherently racist subject, although I can hear the gutless wonders who try to teach it squealing in protest at that verdict. History is racist because, in the first place, it involves the study of what various peoples and individuals actually have done, not what the theorists of democracy and equality would like to have us believe they have done. History gives us a continuing proof of the fact that there is no equality in the world. It is a record of heroic accomplishment and outstanding virtue on the part of some, contrasted with chronic ineptitude and appalling iniquity on the part of others.
In the second place it provides the indispensable basis for a sense of peoplehood, a sense of rootedness, a sense of racial identity. It is not something you want spread around when you are trying to reduce a population to a mass of rootless, cosmopolitan, interchangeable human atoms.
Finally, history gives us some very inconvenient truths, especially about the origins and conduct of the two world wars in which we have participated in this century. Perhaps the undergraduates will sit meekly in their classrooms and soak up whatever lies the professor dishes out, but it's still dangerous because some of the students may develop a real interest in the subject and do some reading or real research on their own, and there's no telling what sort of Politically Incorrect things they may discover. And literature . . . well, that's at least as dangerous as history. Who can read the Iliad without his blood beginning to race and without feeling a connection to those ancient people and events? Who cannot be moved by the same spirit which moved Homer? And that spirit has nothing to do with the sickly spirit of democracy and equality. Dangerous stuff, indeed!
And then there's Shakespeare! There was never a man who observed the human condition with truer eye than he. He stripped away every pretense and showed us as we are, the good and the bad -- but hardly equal! The great danger in literature -- in real literature, in great literature -- for the democrats and the egalitarians is that it helps us to understand ourselves and to place ourselves in the context of our people. It helps us to complete ourselves and to become whole. It expands our horizons, helps us to see the big picture. It gives us ideals, models -- and those ideals, in our literature, are not egalitarian ideals. Nor are the models Politically Correct: in fact, they are much more likely to be heroes than democrats.
And the people who run most of our universities these days are frightened by that prospect. In their view it is much better to feed our young people the sick, Semitic, anti-heroic blather of a Bellow or a Malamud or a Mailer than to let them get carried away with the dangerous, undemocratic ideas of Homer or Shakespeare.
And so our universities have become what they have become. And the people who should have stopped it from happening didn't, because they were afraid to deal with the fundamental issues. They were afraid to deal radically with the problem.
And now, looking at the situation objectively, it is still possible to study hard and to learn at our universities -- at least, in most curricula. That is undeniable. But it also is undeniable that the average graduate of our universities is seriously deficient in the arts of civilization. And that's the way the subverters of our universities want it.
It's a serious problem. We have a job to do at our universities someday which will make Hercules' cleansing of the Augean stables seem like good, clean fun. Let's hope that we can begin that job before Shakespeare has disappeared completely down the Memory Hole.
Skating on Thin Ice Those Who Would Destroy Us Are Getting Worried I've been astounded by all of the public attention focused on the decision of a school board in Oakland, California -- a Black district -- to treat the Black version of English, or "Ebonics" as they call it, as a separate language in the schools. What goes on in their schools is their business, and if they want to learn Swahili or invent a pseudo-grammar for Black English, let them. So far as I'm concerned, the farther they separate themselves from White America, linguistically or otherwise, the better.
But the liberals in the media don't look at it quite that way. They're fascinated by the Ebonics issue, but they don't know quite how to deal with it. On the one hand they hate to see anything which separates Blacks from Whites or calls their ideology of egalitarianism into question. On the other hand, they have long had such a patronizing attitude toward Blacks that they can't quite bring themselves to respond negatively to anything Blacks do, no matter how foolish. The liberals have encouraged the development of "Black studies" programs in the schools and then have smiled patronizingly when Blacks have gone off on wild and nutty "Black history" tangents: for example, their claim that the ancient Egyptians and Carthaginians were Blacks. They even claim that the Greek queen of Egypt, Cleopatra, was Black.
In fact, the latest craze among "Black history" enthusiasts is a curriculum called the "African- American Baseline Essays." Courses based on this curriculum teach students in our public schools that not only were the ancient Egyptians Negroes, but that they were great scientists and inventors, who developed quantum mechanics and the theory of evolution and built airplanes, which they used to fly around the pyramids for business and pleasure . . . until, of course, the evil Europeans appeared on the scene and enslaved them and stole their inventions. They're actually teaching such things to children in the public schools in Milwaukee and a number of other cities, and it's beginning to make the liberals a little uncomfortable. To the liberals, Blacks are above reproach. So how to tell them that they're on a self-destructive course with Ebonics and their Black Egyptian aeronauts?
Well, anyways, bro,' dat' be de way I sees it.
Actually, it's good to have a little comic relief occasionally. What the liberals and their pets are doing to our world usually isn't very funny. Have you seen some of the newer programs on television? If you haven't looked recently at what MTV is offering to our teenagers, make a point to survey their programs. They are pushing as hard as they can the idea that miscegenation -- that sex between Whites and Blacks -- is a natural and good thing, a fashionable thing. They are deliberately and blatantly encouraging teenaged White girls to have sexual relations with Blacks.
Now, I don't mean to imply by what I've just said that the Jewish owner of MTV, Mr. Sumner Redstone, as he calls himself these days, is a fuzzy-minded liberal. Mr. Redstone is no liberal. He is a hardheaded man who knows exactly what he's doing. The liberals are the trendy Gentile idiots who smile approvingly at Mr. Redstone -- and who frown disapprovingly at me when I point out that he is a Jew and that he is doing what he does because he is a Jew. Mr. Redstone and his fellow Jews are far more dangerous and destructive than the liberals, even though they depend on the liberals to make their destructive work possible and to protect them from retribution. Liberals are essentially irrational, and left to themselves can easily wreck a society, but the damage liberals do is usually inadvertent. When they encouraged Blacks to believe themselves equal in ability to Whites, they didn't really anticipate the nutty extremes to which this would lead Blacks. And when liberals cheered the drive by the controlled media for all of those "civil rights" laws of the last few decades, they didn't really anticipate the wrecking of our schools and our cities that would result. Liberals always are wringing their hands, lamenting the mess their programs have made of things, and then pushing for even nuttier programs to try to fix the mess.
Mr. Redstone and the other media bosses are quite different. They know with a satanic certainty what they are doing. When Mr. Redstone encourages teenaged White girls to date Blacks, his motivation is purely satanic. His conscious and deliberate aim is the destruction of our race. But the liberals aren't capable of understanding that. To them Mr. Redstone is a nice man, a progressive man, who just wants us all, Black and White, to love each other.
In addition to the media bosses, who're deliberately destroying America, and the liberals, who're helping them without really understanding what's happening, there's another really big group of people who must take some of the blame. Those are the folks we might call individualists. They don't actively collaborate with people like Mr. Redstone, the way the liberals do. And they generally have only contempt for the liberals. They figure that their job is to look out for themselves, and everyone else can do the same. I run into a lot of these people among White businessmen, but they're really spread through our society, in all occupations. Most of these individualists aren't malicious, like the Jewish media bosses, and they have a much better grip on reality than the liberals do. What they lack is any sense of responsibility. Ask one of these individualists what he thinks about the fact that some public schools are teaching that the ancient Egyptians were Black and were flying airplanes 4,000 years before the White man flew. His one concern will be that his children not be in such a school. If the schools want to teach that to the children of other Whites, that's not his concern. He may agree with you that such teaching is ridiculous, but he knows that anybody who says so publicly risks being branded a "racist," and that's bad for business.
Ask an individualist what he thinks about Mr. Redstone's poisonous race-mixing propaganda on MTV, and he will back away from you in a hurry. His thought will be that he has nothing personal to gain from being involved in that dispute. Mention to him Redstone's Jewishness, and he will turn around and start running. He knows that any criticism of the Jews is very bad for business. If you try to drag him into that, he will become hostile to you, not to Mr. Redstone. And he'll be thinking, "Hey, I can keep my own daughter away from Blacks, and I don't have time to worry about what Mr. Redstone does to other people's daughters." And, unfortunately, all too often he'll be dead wrong about his ability to keep his own daughter safe.
Many individualists have a strong authoritarian streak in them. They respect not only authority, but also money and power. They have a subconscious conviction that anyone with as much money as Mr. Redstone has can't be all bad. They can't help but admire him as a smart and successful businessman, even if his business is genocide. An authoritarian individualist is a person who habitually ignores facts which lead to inconvenient conclusions. He is a person who may despise draft dodgers and drug abusers and men who use the power of a public office to coerce women into having sex with them -- and yet he will jump at the chance to shake hands with a man who is all of those things, if that man happens to be the President of the United States. He'll say, "Yes sir, Mr. President!" with a proud grin on his face, no matter what sort of filth happens to be President.
Now, if you add up all of the people I've mentioned so far: the soft-brain liberals, the no-brain couch potatoes, and the individualists, you've got a majority of the White population. So how can the minority of us who're concerned about what Mr. Redstone is doing and believe that he must be stopped at any cost . . . how can we hope to prevail? How can we stop Mr. Redstone and the other media bosses from completing their program of destroying our people, when the liberals are against us, when the individualists will take orders from whoever has the power at the moment, and when most of the rest of the people neither understand nor care what's going on? How can we prevail?
Perhaps you believe that I make these broadcasts just because it is my moral responsibility to do so, that I expose myself to the hatred of the government and the controlled media and all of their supporters just because it is the right thing to do, whether there is any chance of making a difference or not.
I must tell you that I believe that every man and every woman should do what he or she believes to be right, without regard for the personal consequences. I believe that every White person has a moral obligation to oppose Mr. Redstone, whether he can see a way to defeat him or not -- and I often am disappointed that so few actually accept this responsibility.
But I also must tell you that there is more than a sense of moral obligation which compels me to work for the future of our people and to expose myself to the hatred of our enemies. There is also my conviction that, powerful as our enemies may seem now, ultimately they cannot win. The liberals cannot win, because the world that they want cannot exist. The liberals believe in equality, and there is no equality, there never has been, and there never will be. They want a world which is contrary to Mother Nature and to human nature, and there is no way they can have it. That is why every program the liberals have been able to persuade the government to enforce on us has been a failure.
And Mr. Redstone and his fellow Jews cannot win because they are destroyers, not creators. Throughout history they have destroyed nation after nation, but it is because of their inherently destructive nature that they never have been able to fasten their grip on any nation permanently. Their own account in the Old Testament of what they did to Egypt before they moved on serves as a paradigm for what they have done always and everywhere.
Of course, it is not enough that our enemies eventually should fail. They must fail before they have completely destroyed every prospect for a healthy future for us. We must get rid of them while there is still a possibility for rebuilding, while there still are enough sound White people left to make a new start. I believe we can do that. I believe that the enemies of White America will fail, will become weak enough for us to destroy them, soon enough for us to salvage a future for our people, because I can see the clear signs of their impending failure all around me. I can see the signs that their system is coming unglued, that they are losing their grip on things already.
What most of us are able to see of the world outside our own neighborhoods is only what we see on television, only what the controlled media let us see. And of course, they want to convince us that their grip is still very firm, that they still have everything under control, that their programs are working, that most people are satisfied, and that there is no stopping them, that they are inevitable, the wave of the future.
But if that were so, why would they choose as badly flawed a front man as Bill Clinton? Why not choose someone who could win the respect of a substantial portion of the public? If they really had a grip on things they wouldn't need a President so crippled by scandal and by his own obvious moral inadequacies that he could win the support of only 23 per cent of the electorate. They chose Clinton only because they need someone who will be completely under their control: someone who needs them as much as they need him. They are afraid to have someone in office who might be strong enough to oppose them -- or have enough public support to oppose them -- because they know just how quickly the game would be over for them if any President stood up against them and called on all decent people to stand up with him and rid the country of people like Mr. Redstone. They know just how unstable the country has become, just how much anger and resentment is boiling right under the surface, just how precarious their position really is.
If most Americans felt like the ones they show on television, bubbling about how wonderful all of the "diversity" in our society is, the media bosses and their collaborators wouldn't be so desperate to silence dissent. But they really are desperate. The big Jewish organizations, like the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Morris Dees's Southern Poverty Law Center, and the B'nai B'rith, are constantly agitating for new laws to silence people like me -- and, in fact, to silence everyone who doesn't like Mr. Redstone and his program to mix the races. If they were confident that the public agreed with their programs, they wouldn't need to silence us. They could just laugh at us. But they're not laughing. They're sweating.
There's a new book out by the best-known Black newspaper columnist in America, Carl Rowan. It's called The Coming Race War in America, and it's absolutely nutty. It is completely paranoid. Rowan, as a long-time journalist, has a little better view of what's going on and what people are thinking than most of us. He gets a lot of letters from angry people -- mostly angry White men. And they've scared him out of his wits. He really believes that Newt Gingrich, Patrick Buchanan, Gordon Liddy, and I -- along with many, many other White men -- are engaged in a gigantic conspiracy to overthrow the government and get rid of all the non-Whites.
I wish it were so; I really do. But the fact is that Rowan, like many other liberals, Black and White, is very jumpy, very nervous, very worried, very insecure. They are seeing conspiracies where there are none -- yet. It is because they know how much anger there is out there, how fed up many people are. They know that the house of cards the media bosses and the liberals have built is in danger of getting knocked down. But their fear makes them imagine dangers that don't really exist -- yet. Yes, Carl Rowan has gone around the bend with his paranoia. But where he imagines dangers, I see real prospects for hopeful developments. The biggest hope I have is based on what I have learned about public opinion. There's a huge swing element out there, which right now is supporting the status quo, because the people in this element are to a very large extent the individualists and the authoritarians. These people are not ideologues. They have no commitment to liberalism or to what Mr. Redstone is doing. They give passive support to these destructive policies now, because most of them don't yet feel personally threatened or personally damaged by them -- and they still look to the government and to the mass media as authorities which should be respected and obeyed.
Furthermore, the alternative to the status quo is unacceptable to the individualists. The prospect of chaos and conflict is unacceptable. They know that a strong move against the government at this time would lead to conflict and chaos. They know that a strong move against the minorities would lead to rioting and conflict. They don't want that. The status quo, no matter its problems, seems better -- for now, anyway.
They always respect power, and as long as Mr. Redstone and his fellow media bosses seem powerful, the individualists will go along with them and will not oppose them. But when they no longer seem powerful, the individualists will withdraw their support. They will not fight for Mr. Redstone and his policies like the liberals will. And when the status quo becomes bad enough that conflict and chaos no longer look so bad in comparison, they also will withdraw their support for the status quo.
So to a large extent it's a matter of perception, and that's a rather fragile thing. And it's evident to everyone that perceptions are shifting, that they're not what they used to be even ten years ago. There is much more of a feeling of instability and uncertainty in the air. And that feeling will increase. Perceptions will continue to shift, because the destructive process which has been set in motion by Mr. Redstone and the other enemies of our people will continue. Things which used to be solid and safe will continue to be undermined. And there's not too much our enemies can do about that. It's the price they must pay for carrying on their destructive activity.
The recent Presidential election is an example. They wanted a completely pliable tool in the White House, someone who will do whatever they tell him, someone utterly without principle or scruple. Well, they got their tool, but the price they paid is a lowering of respect for the government. The price they paid is getting their tool in with the support of only 23 per cent of the electorate, a new low. And the process will continue. Carl Rowan and the liberals know it -- or at least sense it -- and that's what makes them paranoid. They sense that the ice they're skating on is getting thinner and thinner.
The ice will break sooner than anyone imagines. Our responsibility is to remain a beacon of truth and of hope for a healthy future, and to become a brighter and brighter beacon, so that when the ice does break, enough people will know which way to turn.
Thoughts on the "Holocaust" The Dishonest Label "Holocaust Denier" Is Used to Prevent Questioning There has been a lot of commotion in the controlled media recently about Swiss bankers who supposedly are hiding the assets of various Jews who perished more than 50 years ago, during the Second World War, in the so-called "Holocaust." The idea is that during the war Jews in Germany, France, and other European countries squirreled their money away in secret Swiss bank accounts so the Germans couldn't get it. Then the Jews were hauled off to concentration camps or otherwise came to an end, and their money still remains in the secret Swiss accounts. The news stories have hinted that the Swiss bankers have been remiss in simply keeping the money in the accounts, rather than searching for heirs or turning it over to Jewish organizations. It has been suggested that billions of dollars of Jewish money is being kept from the Jews to whom it rightfully belongs. Jewish groups are demanding that the Swiss set up a fund immediately to reimburse "Holocaust" survivors.
The Swiss, who are proud of the integrity of their banking system, are naturally indignant about these Jewish allegations that they have behaved improperly. The outgoing president of Switzerland, Jean-Pascal Delamuraz, called the Jewish media campaign "extortion" and "blackmail." The Jews and the media have responded by clamoring even more insistently that the Swiss should pay billions of dollars to the Jews. In fact they now have begun making demands against Sweden as well. The Jews claim that the Germans bought raw materials from Sweden during the war using gold that had been confiscated from Jews, and that now Sweden owes that gold to Jewish "Holocaust" survivors.
It's really an amazing campaign. The Swiss bankers have said repeatedly that they have checked their inactive accounts in the past, and that they are holding at most a few million dollars which may belong to the relatives of Jews who died during the war, that it could not possibly amount to the billions of dollars the Jews are claiming, and that they have treated the accounts of their Jewish depositors just like they treat all of their accounts. Yet the media virtually ignore what the Swiss say and continue to raise a huge hullabaloo about the poor, persecuted Jews and how they are being done wrong by the Swiss and the Swedes. And, of course, the U.S. politicians are jumping into the act, demanding that the Swiss and the Swedes satisfy the Jews. It's really amazing.
You know, I haven't talked much in the past about the so-called "Holocaust," because I've felt that really is a job for the historians, and I'm not a professional historian. Unfortunately, however, the "Holocaust" is one of those politically sensitive subjects which makes professional historians very nervous. Jews -- and apologists for the Jews -- have written literally thousands of "Holocaust" books during the past 50 years, and many of the claims made in these books are patently false. The professional historians know that, but they hesitate to say anything, lest they be branded as "Holocaust deniers" by the powerful Jewish organizations and by the controlled news media.
Because of this timidity on the part of the professionals, perhaps we amateurs really have an obligation to speak out more. This whole "Holocaust" business is a fascinating subject, and there's much to be learned from looking into it, even if one isn't a professional historian. Take, for example, the label of "Holocaust denier," which is pasted on anyone who dares to ask questions about the "Holocaust." If I comment publicly that the official figure for the number of Jews who died in the big concentration and labor camp at Auschwitz, in Poland, has been revised downward recently by the Polish government from an earlier figure of four million to about one million, and I suggest that perhaps that means that the famous figure of "six million" Jews killed by the Germans also needs to be revised downward -- if I make such a suggestion, then I'm immediately denounced as a "Holocaust denier." That's the standard phrasing that's been agreed on by all of the big Jewish outfits, the news media, the bought politicians, and so on: "Holocaust denier." That's what you're called if you question anything about the official myth It's a crooked tactic. It deliberately makes it look like you're denying that there ever was any such thing as a "Holocaust." It's a label that's designed to make any questioner look like some sort of extremist who denies that anything at all happened to the Jews during the Second World War. That's crooked, isn't it?
I know that Jews were killed during the war. I've talked with German soldiers who shot Jews. In the war against the Soviet Union and Communism, the Germans found that virtually all of the Jews they encountered on the Eastern Front were Communist partisans, that Jews were heavily involved in Communist guerrilla activities, in sabotage, and in other hostile actions against the Germans. Often the only way to pacify an area was to round up all of the Jews and ship them off to a concentration camp or to shoot them. Most of the other folks on the Eastern Front -- the Poles, the Ukrainians, often even the Russians -- were happy enough to have the German Army get the Communists off their backs, but the Jews were fanatically pro-Communist. The Soviet Political Commissars who were attached to all Red Army units to spy on ordinary Russian soldiers and look for any signs of Political Incorrectness nearly always were Jews, and the German Army in many cases separated these Jewish Political Commissars from their Russian prisoners of war and shot the commissars.
I also know that Germans didn't like Jews, and Hitler especially didn't like them, and as a consequence the German government tried very hard to encourage Jews to leave Germany, even before the war. Laws were passed limiting Jewish participation in some professions -- such as the law and publishing -- where they were heavily overrepresented.
So I know that something did happen to the Jews in Europe both before and during the Second World War, and if they want to call that something a "Holocaust," that's all right with me. I don't deny that something did happen. I don't deny that there was a "Holocaust." I'm just interested in checking the details, in checking the facts. But as soon as I or anyone else does that, we're called "Holocaust deniers."
That's interesting, because the obvious intent of the people who use that label is to discourage us from asking questions. They don't want the details checked. They don't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts they present to us. And after being called a "Holocaust denier" a hundred times or so, I've come to believe that the reason they don't want their facts checked is that they know that in many cases their facts are false. That's really crooked -- but I believe that to be an accurate assessment of the situation. I first became interested in the "Holocaust" enough to want to check it out when I encountered some especially fanciful accounts by so-called "survivors." I read accounts by Jews who claimed that they saw German soldiers grabbing Jewish babies by their legs and swinging their heads against brick walls to smash out their brains. One Jewess told of witnessing German soldiers carrying Jewish children one at a time up the stairs to the top of a building, throwing them off, and laughing when they hit the pavement below and were killed. Other Jews made the claim that they saw German guards separate Jews out from prisoners arriving at concentration camps, pour gasoline on them, and set them afire, right on the train platform. And there were other stories about Jewish prisoners with colorful tattoos being selected from the camps and then skinned so that their tattooed skin could be made into lampshades. Now, these stories just didn't jibe with what I knew about the German Army and the German government during that period. I knew that the Germans didn't like Jews, but I also knew that the German Army was the best disciplined army in the world. I knew that they had a better record of behavior in the countries they occupied than any other army in the Second World War -- including the U.S. Army. I had until that point believed the stories that the Germans had methodically herded the Jews into gas chambers. But I really doubted that any disciplined army would tolerate its soldiers just killing prisoners for sport.
If you saw the anti-German propaganda film which came out a couple of years ago, Schindler's List, you will remember that it portrayed the German commandant of a labor camp shooting Jewish inmates with a hunting rifle from his balcony. That was the sort of thing I had questioned when I first encountered these stories. And yet, very few other people were questioning these accounts. Newspapers and magazines and books were reporting them as if they were unquestionably true.
I began looking into the matter in detail, and I discovered many interesting things. I discovered that some Jews had been killed, and I discovered the circumstances under which they were killed. I discovered that many more Jews simply died under the conditions that existed toward the end of the war, when malnutrition and disease were rampant in the prison camps. I discovered that the total number of Jews who were killed and who died of disease was substantially less than the six million claimed by the Jewish propagandists. Most important, I discovered that a great many lies had been told about what had happened during the "Holocaust." I discovered that most of the tales about gas chambers -- that is, the ones that could be checked out -- were not true. I discovered that not a single one of the stories about bashing out babies' brains or throwing children off buildings or shooting prisoners with hunting rifles for sport, a la Schindler's List, could be substantiated, and that they were all almost certainly false.
All of this is interesting in itself; at least, it is interesting to me. It is a part of our history. I could talk all day about the details, about the facts that I discovered when I began looking into the "Holocaust," but I don't want to bore you. If you really want to know the details, write to the Institute for Historical Review. They're experts, and they're honest. Their address is:
Institute for Historical Review P O Box 2739 Newport Beach, CA 92659 To me what's even more interesting about the "Holocaust" story than all of the holes in it is the motivation behind it, the way the story is being used today, and the response of various elements of our society to it. Let's go back for a moment to that deliberately misleading label of "Holocaust denier" that I mentioned earlier. If you've spent any time exploring the Internet -- especially some of the political discussion groups on the Internet -- you'll have heard that term "Holocaust denier" often enough. It's not that the "Holocaust" is a hot topic of discussion on the Internet. It isn't. But it is discussed occasionally, along with just about every other topic under the sun, and it's discussed openly, without fear. The Internet is just about the only place left where one can discuss politically sensitive topics openly. And that just drives the big Jewish censorship organizations crazy. They don't want any open discussion of the "Holocaust." They're terrified of it. The Simon Wiesenthal Center has been especially loud in its complaints about the lack of censorship on the Internet. Without censorship, they complain, the "Holocaust deniers" can say anything they want. If we don't censor the Internet, the "Holocaust deniers" can come right into your home and contaminate your child's mind while he's using his computer to do his homework.
They've tried to intimidate people into silence. They'll have one of their own people claim to be a World War II veteran, and his standard line will be, "Hey, don't try to tell me there wasn't a Holocaust. I was there. I saw the bodies. So don't try to tell me there wasn't a Holocaust."
Now, that sort of tactic may work on television, where they control the whole medium and no one can contradict them. But on the Internet people have been contradicting them. People have been saying, "Hey, we're not trying to tell you there were no bodies. We just want to know how many bodies. We want to know how they died." But they will not engage in a rational discussion with you. If one trick won't silence you, they'll try another. They'll say, "What difference does it matter how many? If only one Jew were killed just for being a Jew, that's a terrible crime. That's a Holocaust." That's supposed to embarrass you into shutting up. But on the Internet you can come back and say, "Well, what about the Germans who were killed just because they were Germans. What about the Russians and the Ukrainians and the Hungarians who were killed by some Jewish Commissar just because they were anti-Communists? Don't they count? Wasn't that a crime for which someone should be held accountable?"
They don't like to hear that. They really don't. Try it sometime, if you have a thick skin and don't mind having them shriek insults at you.
Their final line of defense is governmental force, governmental repression. If they can't embarrass you into silence, they turn to the politicians and demand laws to make you shut up. That's what they've already done in Europe and in Canada, where you can be jailed for being a "Holocaust denier" -- which means, for questioning anything at all about what really happened. There are many people in German prisons now who made the mistake of saying, "Hey, I was a guard at such and such a prison camp during the war, and there was no gas chamber there." In Britain, they already have laws against criticizing Jews, but they want the laws toughened, and so they've turned to the politicians. And, I'm sorry to say, the politicians in Britain are just about as crooked a lot as we have here. The chairman of the British Labor Party, Tony Blair, is a real piece of filth, of about the same quality as Bill Clinton. He hopes to be the new prime minister after the parliamentary elections coming up in May. He has announced, with a little prodding from the Labor Party's Jewish backers, that when he is prime minister he will propose a new law making "Holocaust denial" a specific crime, so that anyone who questions whether or not there was a gas chamber in such and such a place can be locked up, just as in Germany.
And that's what they want in America too. The Jewish lawyers and journalists and professors -- and their Gentile collaborators -- already are working hard to persuade people that the First Amendment to our Constitution needs to be scrapped, or at least rewritten. The Founding Fathers never intended to protect all types of speech, they say. They never intended to protect indecent or hurtful speech. And to deny the "Holocaust" is indecent and hurtful. They're working hard on it. The trendier Gentiles already are falling into line. Believe me, they'll be making a strong push to abolish free speech in America soon. They'll tell us that it's for our own good.
But it's for their own good, not ours. That's the most interesting insight I gained from checking out the "Holocaust." I learned why they push it so hard, why they've made so many Hollywood propaganda films like Schindler's List, why they've told so many whoppers about bashing out babies' brains and making lampshades out of skinned Jews, why they talked the politicians into letting them have a Holocaust Museum in Washington, why they've gotten politicians at the state level to pass laws requiring that the public schools carry "Holocaust" indoctrination courses, and why they're so desperate to stop people from asking questions.
It's not just because they're afraid of being exposed as liars if they stop defending their old lies with new lies. It's not just because they hate the Germans and like to beat them over the head with the "Holocaust." And it's not just because they find the "Holocaust" a convenient excuse for the crimes they have committed and still are committing against the Palestinian people. There's a much bigger reason than all of these things -- and a much more dangerous reason for us, for our people. But you are an intelligent person with at least a little bit of open-mindedness, a little bit of mental independence, or you wouldn't be reading this magazine. Why don't you discover for yourselves why the Jews are so defensive about the "Holocaust," why they are so afraid for anyone to ask questions about it? It's an easy thing to do, and I believe it'll be much more convincing if you find out for yourselves, instead of having me tell you. There are thousands of books out there that they've written. Go into any large bookstore or library and you'll find books about the "Holocaust" by the top "Holocaust" promoters, Jews like Elie Wiesel and Simon Wiesenthal. Read these books with an open mind, with a questioning mind. Think about the claims they make. Then get a copy of our book catalog and read a couple of the books we sell -- or read some books from the Institute for Historical Review -- and think about what you read in these books too. Make up your own mind. I believe you'll find it an illuminating and rewarding experience.
Time to Stop Listening
I don't watch much television, but I do try to catch the NBC Evening News every day, so that I can keep up with the party line. Tom Brokaw is an excellent actor, and I can tell from the expression on his face and the degree of enthusiasm in his voice -- or the degree of disapproval -- as he reads the news just what line the media bosses are pushing on each issue which comes up. Of course, I try to find out what really happened from more reliable sources, but I always like to know what the official version is, a la NBC, as well as the true version.
Usually Tom Brokaw is very good at appearing credible. That's what he's paid for more than anything else, of course. The media bosses don't want the lemmings doubting the party line, and so Brokaw tries very hard to give an impression of honesty, of trustworthiness, of folksy credibility. And usually he's pretty good at it. But some things he reports are just too fantastic to believe. One of the most unbelievable things I have ever heard him say was a recent report he gave that our new Jewish secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, had just discovered that she is a Jewess, that she had no inkling of her Jewishness before becoming secretary of state. Brokaw gave us a little hocus pocus about Jewish tombstones in Prague and Jewish grandparents who had disappeared at Auschwitz, and how these things had been revealed very recently to Albright, surprising her greatly and leading her to the conclusion that she is not really the Gentile Episcopalian she formerly had thought she was, but a Jewess. Wow!
Now, I've been telling the world for the last four years that Madeleine Albright is Jewish. I knew, of course, about her pretense to Episcopalianism, but I also knew many other things about her -- including the fact that both her parents were Jews from the former Czechoslovakia. And now she is trying to persuade us peasants, with the help of the media bosses, that she didn't know. That is just not credible, no matter how hard Tom Brokaw tries to keep a straight face when he tells us.
Gee, all Madeleine had to do was look in a mirror at any time during the last 59 years to know what she was. Shades of Golda Meier! Are we supposed to believe that Madeleine's totally pro- Israel policy throughout her public life was based on a belief that she was a Gentile? Are we supposed to believe that her hawkish, bloodthirsty policy toward everyone else in the Middle East besides Israel has had nothing to do with her Jewishness? Are we supposed to believe that all of her Jewish political connections and the fact that she already had surrounded herself with Jewish advisors and assistants at the State Department are just coincidences? Are we supposed to believe the top politicians in Washington didn't know she is Jewish, and the Senate just rubber- stamped her appointment to be secretary of state because they like her looks? Are we supposed to believe that the media bosses have been in love with her for the same reason?
Come on, now! Everybody knew what Madeleine was, except the general public. At the time Clinton nominated her to be secretary of state the Jewish newspapers were ecstatic -- that is, the Jewish newspapers that only Jews are supposed to read, where you usually can get some hint of what they're really thinking, unlike the Jewish newspapers for Gentile consumption, like the New York Times and the Washington Post. These were happy with her too, of course, but they naturally cited reasons more likely to appeal to non-Jews to explain their happiness. The Arab newspapers were very unhappy about her appointment and referred to her Jewishness as a reason for their unhappiness. Now Madeleine and the New York Times want us to believe that the Arabs knew she was a Jew, but she didn't know. And the New York Times also is telling us, "Don't worry. Her being a Jew won't change the way she does her job as secretary of state." In an editorial on February 6 the New York Times also told us that Madeleine has a "strong record of support for . . . human rights." They're talking about the same Madeleine Albright who last year on the interview program 60 Minutes said that causing the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children with an embargo which keeps food and medicine out of Iraq was a reasonable price to pay in order to keep Saddam Hussein from threatening Israel. Some humanitarian!
We've let Madeleine and her kinsmen in the media get away with so much for so long that they believe that they can get away with anything now. They believe that they can tell us any kind of whopper, and we'll believe it.
The thing that I'm wondering about is why did she choose this time to make her Jewishness public? Earlier, when she married one of the few Gentiles with some influence in the mass media, she found it advantageous to pretend to be Episcopalian. Now that she has become secretary of state in the most Jewish government this country has ever had, why did she choose to reveal her true identity? I have some ideas about this, but no proof yet. I hope that I'm wrong, but I'm afraid that within the next year or two we'll all find out why this thoroughly obnoxious, aggressive, and pushy Jewess has come out of the closet at this time. * * *
Another interesting item in the news recently in addition to Madeleine Abright's "outing" is the case of the Army's highest-ranking Black enlisted man, Sergeant Major Gene C. McKinney. Actually, he's not just the highest-ranking Black enlisted man: with the help of a little Affirmative Action he's been boosted above all the White enlisted personnel in the Army too. At the time of his boosting, in June 1995, all of the media were gushing about the fact that he is Black and that he has been selected by the Army brass, with a little urging from the Clinton administration, to serve as a role model for all of the White enlisted personnel in the Army. Clinton was shown on television shaking hands with him, and the trendier Army spokesmen were beaming with pride and making statements about how McKinney's promotion showed that the Army is free of racism and is committed to "equal opportunity," blah, blah, blah.
That was in 1995. Now in 1997, with the details of Sergeant Major McKinney's sexual life in the Army finally leaking out, his name is in all of the media again, but, strangely, one really has to search to find any mention of the fact that he is Black, or that the female soldier he is accused of harassing sexually and threatening with rape is White. I have eight major, in-depth news articles on this matter in front of me now, from the New York Times, the Washington Post, and USA Today, and not one of them mentions that McKinney is Black, or that the woman he molested, former Sergeant Major Brenda Hoster, is White. There is no mention of race at all in the articles.
That's interesting, isn't it? At the time when Sergeant Major McKinney was made a role model for White soldiers, every newspaper and news magazine told us about his Blackness. They rubbed our noses in it. The media bosses really were gloating about it. And now, when he has become just one more Black non-commissioned officer using his position of authority to demand sex from White female soldiers placed under him by an Army establishment desperate to prove its Political Correctness, there is no mention at all of his race.
In fact, except for one slip made in Time magazine last November, the controlled media have been very careful not to talk about the racial dimensions of the Army's sexual harassment problem. The November 25, 1996, issue of Time pointed out that the reason the Army brass hadn't done anything to stop the rapes of female recruits at Aberdeen Proving Ground and other Army bases is that most of the rapists are Black drill instructors and Black officers, and most of the rapees are White recruits, and the Army brass were afraid of being charged with racism if they acted quickly to deal with the problem. But since that one revelation in Time magazine, I haven't seen a single other mention by the controlled media that the Army's sexual harassment problem is actually a race problem. They don't want us to know that.
This seems to be true of the case with Sergeant Major McKinney too. His White victim, Brenda Hoster, complained to her superiors in the Army after McKinney attacked her, but they refused to take action. McKinney was being idolized as a Black role model for White soldiers, and Brenda Hoster's superiors knew that if they did anything to damage his image they would be suspected of racism. So they did nothing.
That, unfortunately, is all too typical of the U.S. Army today. For more than fifty years the Army has been politicized, step by step. Officers with the slightest hint of Politically Incorrect views or with any old-fashioned military values have been weeded out. Unprincipled careerists, willing to pay lip service to the party line, have been promoted. Today the officers' corps of the United States Army consists of politicians in uniform: trendy, rootless, without honor -- as ready to move against Politically Incorrect elements of their own people as against a foreign enemy.
This is the sort of development I foresaw more than 20 years ago, when I wrote The Turner Diaries. In my novel I predicted it, but I am truly sorry to see that it has come to pass. * * *
Another matter much in the media of late has been O.J. Simpson. They can't seem to get enough of him -- and yet, they certainly have mixed feelings about him. On the one hand, he is their own creation: a Black sports star and media idol they created and then held up as a role model for young White Americans. And he's a race-mixer besides: he was married to a beautiful but empty-headed, trendy slut of a White woman. They love him for that. But then he had to go and embarrass them by letting his Black nature get the better of him, and, worse than that, get caught for it.
At that point the media bosses would have been well advised to drop O.J. and give him no more public exposure than they give to any of the thousands of other Black murderers who get caught in this country every year. But they were fascinated by their boy O.J., and so, with the eager collaboration of Judge Lance Ito, they gave us a media spectacle which has done more to wake up White Americans and set back the media's program of racial destruction than anything else in years. That was a big mistake on their part.
When the civil trial finally brought in a guilty verdict recently, there was much foolish talk about how the new verdict shows that our system of justice works after all. What nonsense! Our justice system is broken, and it can't be fixed -- short of a revolution -- and everyone with half a brain understands that. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life in multiracial America. All of the talk about how the burden of proof is different in a civil trial than it is in a criminal trial and that's why he got through the first trial safely but lost the second one is just so much hot air. The only reason there was a different verdict in the civil trial than in the criminal trial is that the civil jury wasn't Black. If the civil jury had had the same racial makeup as the criminal jury, O.J. would have won the civil trial too. That's a fact, and it's utter foolishness to pretend it isn't.
The lesson for us in all of this is, don't get involved in any sort of dispute with a Black in an area where if you end up being tried for defending yourself you'll have a Black majority on the jury.
The corruption of our court system, of our legal system, is one of the most unfortunate things which has happened to America. Before the system was corrupted by "diversity" -- that is, by Blacks being on juries and being unwilling to rule against one of their own -- it was corrupted by money. The amount of justice a man got depended on how much justice he could afford to buy. Rich people were happy with the system because they could manipulate it to their advantage. Perhaps the two O.J. trials have been a good thing for us in more than one way. Perhaps they have awakened rich White people to the fact that their money is no longer enough to keep them safe, whenever there is a racial factor involved.
The whole O.J. saga reminded me of a novel I read more than ten years ago. It was Tom Wolfe's Bonfire of the Vanities. It's a story about what the court system in New York City does to a rich White man who has a racial encounter. Very illuminating. If you haven't read it yet you can order a copy from National Vanguard Books. * * *
It's good to read informative books. It's good for you to listen to American Dissident Voices. In fact, these things are very necessary. But they are not enough. Listening and reading must be a preliminary to participation, or they are meaningless. While you do nothing, the people who are destroying America gloat and smirk. They will keep on gloating and smirking, and they will keep on with their destructive work until we stop them.
In America, unfortunately, we have developed a spectator mentality. We like to watch what's happening around us, but we don't like to participate. We don't like to get involved. That's why I hate spectator sports and have a great contempt for sports fans. Sitting on your couch and watching other people do things isn't healthy, either individually, for you, or collectively, for the country. America is in the mess it's in today because we just sat back and watched it happen. We didn't do anything to stop it. We just let the wreckers have their way, without doing so much as giving them a bloody nose.
I don't like to say this, but I feel obliged to say it: If you just continue to do nothing, you are betraying your country and your people. You are a selfish coward. You are a traitor to your children and your grandchildren. You are shirking your responsibility to them. You know what the media bosses and the politicians have planned for them. You are a disgrace to your country and your ancestors.
Think about that. And if you are a real man or a real woman and not just a spectator, write and ask for information on the National Alliance. Together we can do something. Together we can make a difference. Together we can stop the people who are destroying our country and destroying our children's future.
The Nature of Patriotism What Factors Control Whether People Are Loyal to Their Country?
I have been reading about Aldrich Ames, an employee in our Central Intelligence Agency who was caught spying against the United States. There have been several other Americans caught recently who were spying for foreign governments, including one who was an FBI agent, but Ames was the most important, in terms of the amount of damage he did. A book about Ames, who was arrested three years ago, has been published recently. Its author is Pete Earley, and it's titled Confessions of a Spy. The most interesting thing to me in the book was Ames's explanation of why he decided to sell American secrets to the KGB. He never really thought of himself as a traitor. He needed money, and he didn't think the CIA was paying him enough; he was essentially an alienated person who felt no sense of loyalty to anything.
There are a great many other people in this country who are just as alienated, just as self-oriented and rootless as Aldrich Ames. Most of them, of course, aren't in a position like Ames was where they can do a great deal of damage. They don't have the opportunity he had. And even among those who do have the opportunity, most aren't enterprising enough or bold enough to take the risks involved. And that is the main reason there aren't more spies being caught: there is a certain element of risk involved.
It used to be, 50 or 60 years ago, that people didn't spy against their country because of a sense of loyalty. They felt themselves a part of the United States, and they would no more betray their country than they would betray a family member. During and shortly after the Second World War, for example, most of the American citizens caught spying against this country were Jews who were selling information to the Soviet Union. Part of the reason was because there was much more sympathy for Communism among Jews than among non-Jews, but part of the reason also was that Jews, as a group apart, felt no sense of loyalty to America. Their loyalty was to other Jews and to Jewish interests, but not to the country in which they happened to be living at the moment. Nowadays, Gentile Americans are nearly as lacking in loyalty to America, nearly as lacking in patriotism, as Jews are. People still feel a sense of loyalty to their friends and their families, but not much else.
Why is this? What has changed in America during the past 50 years to erode the sense of patriotism so much?
If you think about it for a minute you'll know the answer. The average White person can no longer look on America as his family. He no longer feels a part of it. It's just the place where he happened to have been born and happens to be living. He no longer feels a sense of kinship with all other Americans. The reason he doesn't is primarily the result of the enormous increase in what liberals and the media fondly call "diversity": that is, the great increase in the number of people with whom we feel nothing in common -- people with different roots, people who look different, think differently, behave differently, and have different values -- people whom we cannot even imagine being part of our family. When we look at America and see a great many people like that, when we see all of this "diversity," then we no longer feel ourselves a part of America. We no longer feel a sense of loyalty to America. We no longer feel like traitors if we do something to hurt America.
To be sure, not everyone is as alienated yet as Aldrich Ames -- but we're getting there. And "diversity" isn't the only thing which is eroding our sense of patriotism. The liberals and the media are working hard at it. The Vietnam war took us a giant step away from patriotism. Some of you may not remember, but 25 years ago there were giant demonstrations in Washington on behalf of the Viet Cong and the Communists, who were killing American soldiers at the rate of 100 a day. Left-wing groups with Jewish leaders organized these demonstrations, and they bused in college students from all over the country, hundreds of thousands of them, for these demonstrations. Most of the kids weren't Communists or even Communist sympathizers: they were just following the people on their campuses who were the loudest and pushiest and going along for the excitement and because it was the trendy thing to do. Some Jew would hand one of them a Viet Cong flag, and he would carry it, because everyone else was. It was very trendy, very fashionable to be anti-American.
And the worst thing about all this uproar during the Vietnam war is that the government did nothing to stop it. The government was sending young men over to Vietnam to be killed by the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese and at the same time was permitting Viet Cong sympathizers to organize huge demonstrations in Washington and even providing police protection for them. The politicians were afraid to do anything, because the Jew-controlled media all sympathized with the demonstrators, and the politicians were afraid of the Jews. The net effect of this was a huge loss of respect for the government on the part of nearly everyone. The kids found that they could burn their draft cards and thumb their noses at the government and get away with it, and so they lost their respect for the government. The Vietnam vets came home and were treated like pariahs and felt unappreciated even by the government which had sent them to Vietnam, and so they lost their respect for the government. And I and many other patriots watched all of this in disgust, and we lost our respect for the government.
Back during the war I used to organize anti-Communist demonstrations to counter the big pro- Viet Cong demonstrations the Jews were organizing, and I used to give speeches against the politicians who were collaborating most openly with the Jews. I said in my speeches that these politicians were guilty of treason and ought to be dealt with summarily: they ought to be shot. And because of this the government sicced the FBI on me: not on them, but on me. I, and many others, developed a very negative feeling for the government during that time. That was 25 years ago, but everyone who went through that experience was changed by it. Much of the contempt for the government remains with them. And the kids who learned that it was fashionable to be anti-American kept some of that attitude even after they graduated from their colleges.
Of course, loss of respect for the government and loss of patriotism are two different things, but they both have been happening at the same time. It is interesting that today the media are trying to coax people into respecting the government again, while their assault on patriotism continues unabated. We have so many new laws and new governmental programs that are to the liking of the Jews in the media, and the politicians are so much more corrupt than they were 25 years ago, that the media now view the government more as an ally than as a rival. But the Jews in the media still hate and fear patriotism as much as ever. They have tried to make patriotism a dirty word. And they have succeeded pretty well among the trendy yuppies and the urban rabble over whom they have the strongest influence. They hold up the militias as the epitome of patriotism, and they try to frighten the lemmings with the specter of the angry, rural, White male with a gun and an American flag who is threatening the government which provides their welfare checks.
It may be that the people in the militias are not very sophisticated and don't have very good public relations programs, but most of them still do have a little sense of patriotism: more patriotism, at least, than the folks who take their cue from the controlled media. The reason the media and the big Jewish pressure groups like Morris Dees's Southern Poverty Law Center and the B'nai B'rith and the Simon Wiesenthal Center hate the militias and their old-fashioned patriotism so much is that they stand in the way of the New World Order. The Jews and their fellow travelers want the American people to transfer their loyalty from America as it used to be -- that is, from the White America built by our ancestors when they came here from Europe, the America we could think of as our extended family -- and give that loyalty instead to their New World Order.
Of course, they understand the idea of loyalty based on blood, on kinship, on common roots. That's the kind of loyalty they have to each other and to Israel, but they don't want us to have that. They know how powerful it is. They hate the idea of us being united by such a sense of patriotism. They hate it and fear it. And that's why they've been working so hard to undermine old-fashioned American patriotism and replace it by allegiance to a faceless, raceless, rootless, cosmopolitan New World Order -- under their control, of course.
And they're succeeding at least half way. They are destroying patriotism in a substantial portion of the American public -- which is why we're seeing more people like Aldrich Ames in the news these days. They are not really succeeding, however, in building much allegiance to the New World Order. Of course, they've made it a fashionable idea among the liberals and the mindless trendies, and all of the politicians are giving lip service to it. But ultimately they cannot succeed in establishing loyalty to the New World Order in the place of old-fashioned, race-based patriotism, because, no matter how fashionable they make their idea of a New World Order among the liberals and the politicians, it is an unnatural idea. Liberals may gush about equality and the "brotherhood of man" and the human race being the only race to which they feel loyalty, but that is empty sophistry. Fools may let themselves be convinced that they have become raceless, cosmopolitan patriots -- patriots of the New World Order -- but one will find very few of them who are willing to die or even make any major sacrifice for this new pseudo-patriotism.
Real patriotism is not some artificial idea dreamed up by Jews: It is something based in our genes, an instinct, an extension of the instinct for self-preservation to include our kin, our nation. One can undermine that patriotism by muddying and confusing the concept of nation, the image of nation, as has been done during the past half-century by promoting "diversity." When the enemies of our people, with the collaboration of the treasonous politicians in Washington -- politicians of the sort I publicly urged should be shot during the Vietnam war -- when these enemies infiltrate tens of millions of non-White immigrants into our country and stifle any effort to halt the flood, when they subsidize the breeding of a non-White underclass in our cities with our own tax money, when they force us to accept these growing non-White masses into our schools and neighborhoods and workplaces, when they saturate all of the news and entertainment media with the alien faces, alien tones, and alien antics of these non-Whites and gloatingly tell us that we'd better get used to the idea of becoming a minority in our own land within the next 50 years, then, of course, the patriotism which came naturally to our people in the past becomes meaningless -- and we hear people like Aldrich Ames telling us that he sold national security information to the KGB because he needed money and he didn't think he was doing anything worse than the politicians in Washington do every day. And I guess it's hard to argue with him about that.
The process of social atomization, of deracination, of separating people from their roots and cutting the bonds to their natural communities so that they can become interchangeable units -- human atoms -- for building the New World Order is being promoted ruthlessly by the Jews and their collaborators, and the rising incidence of treason is only one of the smaller and less important consequences of this genocidal process.
I say that this process is genocidal, because it will certainly destroy us as a people, as a race, as well as destroying us as a nation. People with no sense of patriotism are people unable to defend themselves collectively. They are people who will be victimized by any group which still has a group feeling.
One of the factors which has made it possible for the Jews and their collaborators to undermine our patriotism is that we took it too much for granted in the past. Most of our people didn't really think about it, analyze it, and understand its true basis. We let our idea of patriotism gradually drift from a racial idea to a geographical idea, a political idea. When our ancestors in Europe were defending their people against Huns or Moors or Mongols or Turks, they understood patriotism. Even after the rise of all of Europe's national states, when patriotism began expressing itself as nationalism, it still had a racial -- or at least an ethnic -- basis. The words themselves tell us what their original meanings were. Patriotism, of course, comes from the Roman word for "father." Patriotism is love of the fatherland, love of the land inhabited by all of the people descended from a common father. Nationalism also comes to us from the Romans, from the Latin word for "birth." A nation is a group of people related by birth, by blood, and nationalism is love for that people, loyalty to that people. These feelings of patriotism or nationalism are very powerful feelings, because they are natural feelings. They contributed to our survival over a very long period of evolution.
But when we forget the racial meaning of patriotism and think of it only in geographical or political terms, as loyalty to every person, of whatever race, color, or creed, who happens to be living within a specified geographical area at the moment, then patriotism is no longer a natural feeling, but instead becomes artificial, and consequently much easier to subvert. And that is what has happened to people like Aldrich Ames -- and is happening to more and more White Americans all the time, as the growth of "diversity" proceeds.
The cure for this disease, for this erosion of patriotism, is not difficult to find. It is obvious. It is simply to understand and assimilate our patriotism as it originally was. The cure for what is happening to America begins by returning to the natural, race-based patriotism that our ancestors had when they halted the invading Moors at the Pyrenees nearly 1300 years ago and when, a thousand years later, they defended their settlements in North America against marauding Indians.
The enemies of our people have anticipated this possibility, of course. Just as Morris Dees and his Southern Poverty Law Center rail against the patriotism of the militias today, so have the Jews of the media and their collaborators been stigmatizing natural patriotism for the last 50 years. They call it "racism," and they have intimidated most of our people into running for cover whenever they begin throwing out their accusations of "racism."
So while the cure for what has made White America sick is not difficult to find, it is a little harder to apply. It requires a little courage. It requires a little open-mindedness. It requires a little mental independence. It requires a little moral strength. It requires enough of us with these qualities to make patriotism a vital force in the life of our country again.
I believe that we can find enough such people to do the job. It will not be easy, of course. The media bosses and all of the other people who hate the real America will fight us all the way. The politicians will collaborate with them. Bill Clinton and everyone else who was demonstrating for the Viet Cong during the Vietnam war will try to stop us.
But I believe that ultimately we will prevail. I believe that natural patriotism will prevail over the phony loyalty to the New World Order that the Jews and the trendies are promoting. The only uncertainty I have is how long it will take us and how many must die in overcoming America's disease. Your help will make the victory come sooner and will make our casualties fewer.
The Jewish Problem Jews Work for Their Own Interests: Often to the Detriment of Others I recently discussed the ongoing Jewish extortion effort against Switzerland. Jewish organizations claimed that Swiss banks were holding onto assets deposited by wealthy Jews in the 1930s and 1940s who later perished during the Second World War and so were never able to retrieve their money. Jews demanded that this money be put into a special fund for so-called "Holocaust survivors."
More information has come to light about this Jewish extortion campaign, and I want to share it with you today, because it helps us to understand better the situation all of us are in. In the first place, let us be clear on the point that what we are talking about is not simply an effort by Jews to get back what rightfully belongs to them. It is not a matter of aging "Holocaust survivors" David and Sarah Goldblatt in Miami Beach trying to get their hands on an account their late uncle Abe set up in Switzerland before he was hauled off to Auschwitz in 1943 and never seen again. It is, in fact, a massive campaign of criminal extortion, complete with threats, deception, and fraud on a huge scale and criminal collusion by the Clinton government and the controlled news media.
The initial response of the Swiss to the Jewish demand for money was to state that Jewish depositors always had been treated just like all other depositors, and that Swiss bankers already had investigated their dormant accounts and looked for the rightful owners, and that there was at most a few million dollars in such accounts which might belong to relatives of Jews who had died during the war. All David and Sarah Goldblatt had to do to claim Uncle Abe's money was present evidence that it was rightfully theirs.
This, of course, wasn't what the Jews had in mind at all, and so they began applying pressure and making threats. Switzerland's president at the time, Jean-Pascal Delamuraz, angrily accused the Jews of "blackmail" and "extortion" in trying to pressure Switzerland to turn money over to them without any evidence that they had a legitimate claim. But, unfortunately, Mr. Delamuraz was leaving office at the end of 1996, and his successor was more willing to pay blackmail in order to avoid trouble. Just to make sure that the Swiss got the message the Jews persuaded some of their Christian collaborators to join their campaign. Willing church leaders in Switzerland organized a public demonstration in Zurich by 15,000 churchgoers who demanded that the Swiss government and the Swiss bankers give "God's Chosen People" whatever they wanted and stop accusing the poor, persecuted Jews of blackmail.
The Swiss bankers and the Swiss politicians are a bit more hardheaded than these pale, soft, hymn-singing churchgoers, however. Arguments that God's Chosen People deserve whatever they want because the Bible says so have little effect on them. The real pressure was being applied to them out of the public's eye. On January 10, 1997, billionaire Jewish liquor merchant Edgar Bronfman, head of the World Jewish Congress, met with the Swiss ambassador to the United States and threatened him that unless Switzerland coughed up $250 million immediately, the upcoming Congressional hearings by the House Banking Committee would be made as embarrassing as possible for Switzerland. And other pressure was being applied behind the scenes. A group of New York Jews, claiming to be "Holocaust victims," brought a class-action suit against three of Switzerland's largest banks and petitioned the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to suspend the banking licenses of the defendant banks pending the outcome of the lawsuit. If such a petition were granted it would cause the banks to lose billions of dollars.
Israel got into the campaign when the Jewish Agency, headquartered in Jerusalem, hinted that it would call for a worldwide boycott of Swiss banks if the former Swiss president didn't apologize for characterizing the Jewish campaign as "extortion." The result of this threat was the apology which had been demanded. And Mr. Clinton's State Department has been cooperating with the campaign by releasing a series of World War II documents, one every week or so, purporting to show that the Swiss were cozy with the Germans during the war. The release of these documents at this time is clearly a ploy calculated to embarrass Switzerland and put pressure on that country to bow to Jewish demands for more and more money.
The Swiss already have coughed up the $250 million demanded by Bronfman, and now the Jews are indicating that that is just the first payment. They are suggesting that $7 billion may be a reasonable total amount for Switzerland to pay the Jews. And the Jews claim that they can't understand why so many people hate them!
It is clear in this case that the Jews will go for just as much money as they figure they can extort from the Swiss, and not a shekel less. And it is the shekels which count with them, not how many more people learn to hate them as a consequence of their behavior. That's the way it's always been with them. Of course, in this case it's hard to feel sorry for the Swiss, because they chose to capitulate to the extortion rather than to fight -- which is what the Jews calculated they would do. In this democratic era there just don't seem to be politicians or businessmen anywhere with principles or a sense of honor.
Another interesting example of the Jews' characteristic of pushing ahead arrogantly with whatever they believe is advantageous to them without any concern for the hatred which their behavior generates came to my attention recently. The great fad these days, the great media- promoted craze, is "diversity," and Jews are to be found in every nook and cranny of the "diversity" movement. Jews produce the "diversity" propaganda, they agitate for new "diversity" legislation, and they always are pushing to cram more "diversity" down our throats. If they see any group of White people -- the residents of an apartment building, students in a school classroom, a sports team, a Saturday-night poker club, any all-White group -- they will try to force the group to accept three Zulus, a Chinaman, and a disabled Hispanic lesbian.
The idea, of course, is to exterminate us, to wage genocide against us, to leave us no opportunity to be among our own kind, no opportunity to feel a sense of kinship and belonging among our own people, no opportunity to organize and defend ourselves. They want to be the one and only self-conscious group on this earth able to act intelligently in promoting their group interests, and then the world will belong to them. They've been pretty successful so far in their campaign against us. They've been successful because they've kept their motives moderately well concealed, and they've been able to persuade large segments of our own people to collaborate with them in their "diversity" campaign by convincing them that it's the "moral" thing to do. The hymn-singers are an example.
But sometimes their arrogance just runs away with itself and blows their cover. They put out a newsletter called Managing Diversity, which goes to all of the government agencies in Washington. It tells the bureaucrats how they can increase the amount of "diversity" in their bailiwicks and still keep things under control. It tells them how they can displace more normal, White government workers with Hmong tribesmen, wetbacks, or AIDS-infected alternate life- stylers and still keep the remaining Whites from rebelling.
In addition to this sort of practical advice, Managing Diversity also has a lot of "sensitivity training" articles in its issues: articles which are supposed to be posted for the White workers to read in order to keep them feeling guilty and cowed. An example is a front-page article in a recent issue of Managing Diversity written by Harris Sussman, PhD. Doctor Sussman's article is titled "What Are the Values of White People?" And then this too-clever and too-arrogant Jewish "diversity" promoter turns and bites the very hymn-singers who have collaborated with him and his kind most eagerly. He writes:
It turns out that the white people we are talking about have been primarily Christians, often acting in the name of their Christian values. . . . In the name of Christian values they had the Inquisition. They called native peoples "savages" who did not qualify as human beings. They set up definitions of pagans, heathens, primitives, undeveloped people which left Christians superior and dominant. They killed Jews and Gypsies in the Holocaust.
In our post-modern vocabulary, "whites" or "the white man" is all we need to say to invoke this history and experience of injustice and cruelty. When we say "white people," we mean the people who value things over people, who value money over people. We know exactly what their values are and where they lead. We have all paid a terrible price for those values.
Remember, this is a Jew telling us that we Gentiles are too interested in money. In the same article Doctor Sussman goes on to gloat over what he and his kind already have done to White people with their brainwashing campaign. He gloats over the psychological and spiritual damage his "diversity" campaign already has caused. He crows:
Many white people are uneasy with their own history. They are having a profound identity crisis. . . . This means that many white people do not think of themselves as white people.
He then describes the many ways in which guilt-stricken Whites are trying to escape from their own identity and conform to what Sussman and his fellow Jews want them to be. He writes that many confused White people are trying to "adopt the values of native peoples. Look at ecofeminism, look at holistic health, Earth Day, the Rainbow Gathering."
Copies of Managing Diversity can be found in every government workplace in Washington. Sussman figures that the hymn-singers will let him kick them in the teeth and then will lick his toes and beg for another kick. And, unfortunately, that's exactly what many of them will do. There's a sort of masochistic tendency among many of them. But there are a lot of us White people who aren't masochists, a lot of us unreconstructed White boys who don't react to Doctor Sussman and his kind the way they want us to, a lot of us who read what he has to say and then make a pledge to ourselves that one day we'll rid our society of his poison, no matter what it takes. And, you know, there are some old-fashioned Christians among us too, who will be more than happy to help!
These two examples of Jewish behavior -- the brazen extortion of hundreds of millions of dollars from the Swiss people and the arrogant gloating about the damage they have done to us with their "diversity" campaign -- these two examples lead us to a closely related subject discussed earlier -- the so-called "Holocaust." We've looked at various aspects of "Holocaust" propaganda in the past, and we've uncovered some of their little psychological tricks, such as calling anyone who doesn't swallow the whole myth lock, stock, and barrel a "Holocaust denier." If you question any of their numbers about how many Jews supposedly were put into gas chambers, if you question a single one of their overblown atrocity stories, then you're a "Holocaust denier," implying that you believe that the Germans took no defensive measures at all against the Jews during the Second World War, when, in fact, you know that the Germans did try to rid themselves of Jewish influence.
We've examined some of these tricks of theirs, and we've explored some of their specific lies about the "Holocaust," but the question remains: Why do they do it? Why do they push the "Holocaust" business so hard? Why, 55 years after the fact, do they keep playing the same tune? Why do they demand that the American taxpayers provide free land for "Holocaust" museums for them? Why do they demand that our children in the public schools be subjected to "Holocaust" propaganda courses? They are aware that many other peoples have gone through their own "holocausts": the Armenians, the Germans, the Ukrainians, the Russians. Why is it only the Jews who keep pushing it, only the Jews who make it the focus of their lives, the essential core of their identity?
We know the answer to this question now. We understand that they push the "Holocaust" for two reasons: first, because they make lots and lots of money from it; and second, because it protects them from criticism and enables them to get away with the most outrageous behavior, behavior that would not be tolerated in any other people. They have just collected $250 million in cold, hard cash from the Swiss in blackmail money: money which the Swiss gave to them not because there was the slightest evidence that the Jews were entitled to any of it, but simply to avoid a boycott. Now, the Jews are aiming for $7 billion more from the Swiss the same way. Anybody else who tried a stunt like that would end up in prison for extortion. The Swiss government wouldn't have caved in to anybody else. If, for example, the heirs of Russian aristocrats who were butchered by Jewish Communists in the 1920s had made a similar demand on the Swiss bankers for lost assets, the Swiss would have fought them all the way. But they didn't want to fight the Jews -- they even apologized for frankly telling the Jews what they thought about the whole racket -- because they knew the Jews would wrap themselves in the "Holocaust" and it would look like the Swiss were picking on the poor, innocent, defenseless, persecuted dears. They knew the Jews had them beat at the propaganda game, at the sympathy game. That's just one example of the cash value of the "Holocaust." Another example is the $4 billion in American taxpayers' money which goes to Israel every year. Germany has also given Israel billions of dollars over the past 50 years, paid for by German taxpayers.
Or consider Doctor Sussman's boasting about the damage the Jews' "diversity" propaganda already has done to the self-image of many gullible White people. Who else but a Jew would have the brass for that? And where does that brass come from? It comes from a sure knowledge that he can retreat into his "victim" status if anyone calls him to account. He knows that he can invoke the "Holocaust," that he can wrap himself in the "Holocaust," and his accusers will retreat in embarrassment. At least, the hymn-singers will retreat in embarrassment. And any harder- headed critic of the Jews or their behavior or their influence knows that he will be regarded as a bully by everyone who has been taken in by the "Holocaust" propaganda.
The fact is that we do have a Jewish problem in America. It is by far the biggest and most dangerous problem we have. It is worse than our crime problem, worse than our drug problem, worse than our political corruption problem, worse than our immigration problem, worse even than our race problem. Our Jewish problem, in fact, lies at the root of nearly all of our other problems. If we are to have a future we must solve it. We cannot let ourselves be buffaloed by the "Holocaust." We must face the fact that, regardless of all the nice, inoffensive Jews you may know as individuals, all of the Jews who mind their own business, the Jews as a whole are destroying our society. Their policies are poison to us. And with their control of our news and entertainment media and their corollary control of our political system, they have a death grip on our country. We must have the courage to stand up to them and to do everything necessary to break that death grip. We must free our media and our government from their influence. We must make an example of the Sussmans and all of their collaborators. Otherwise they will destroy us as surely as they have destroyed every other society in which they were given free rein.
On Churchgoers Does Admitting That Most Major Churches Are Anti-White Make One "Anti-Christian"? After last week's broadcast, "The Jewish Problem," in which I made some unflattering comments about churchgoers -- I also referred to them as "hymn-singers" -- several listeners suggested that I am anti-Christian. Others said that even if I'm not anti-Christian I shouldn't criticize Christians, because we Whites need to stick together, and criticizing Christians is divisive.
I would now like to explain myself. First, let me assure you that I am not anti-Christian. I admire and respect many individuals from our people's past who were Christians. And there are some people alive today who call themselves Christians whom I respect. But I must confess that I am not very favorably disposed toward most churchgoers today, because I believe that virtually all of the major Christian churches, the major denominations, have allied themselves with the enemies of our people. In saying this I am not being at all partisan. Although I was raised as a Presbyterian when I was a child, I am talking about the Protestant denominations as well as the Catholic Church when I say that the churches have turned against our people and allied themselves with our enemies.
And remember, I was talking specifically about 15,000 churchgoers in Switzerland who obediently demonstrated in favor of the Jews and against their own people when ordered to do so by their priests and ministers. I am sure that there are many individual Christians, in Switzerland and elsewhere, who are just as disgusted by this behavior as I am. But the fact is that the churches themselves, virtually all of them, have become hostile to the interests of our people; for all practical purposes, they have been taken over by our enemies.
Think for a moment about what happened in South Africa a few years ago. In South Africa the percentage of churchgoers among the Whites is much higher than in the United States. Practically all of the Boers -- the Afrikaners, the Dutch-speaking Whites of South Africa -- are churchgoers. The Dutch Reformed Church is the most important institution in their communities. And as long as their church remained faithful to them they remained strong and were able to deal with all outside forces. The Jews in South Africa, of course, were pushing for them to turn their country over to the Blacks, but they were able to ignore this Jewish pressure as long as their church stood with them.
But when their church turned against them and betrayed them, then they lost everything. When their ministers began saying to them, "Oh, we have looked at our Bibles again and we now realize that we made a mistake earlier, when we told you that it was good to defend yourselves against those who would destroy you. Now we realize that it is a sin for you not to turn your country over to the Blacks" -- when their ministers began saying that, their will to preserve themselves collapsed.
And although the churches, fortunately, do not play as large a role in the lives of White Americans as they do in the lives of White South Africans, it is quite clear that the role they do play here in the United States is a destructive one. Think about almost any major issue involving the survival of our people, and the churches are on the wrong side of that issue: just as in Switzerland, just as in South Africa. Forced racial mixing, including interracial marriage: the churches are for it; cutting off non-White immigration: the churches are against it; the destruction of White Rhodesia and White South Africa: all of the churches were for it; opposing the Jews in any way: the churches are against it.
You know, it didn't used to be that way. The churches in America used to be a bulwark of the community. It used to be that a man or a woman could be a Christian and a churchgoer and a patriot, and a person proud of his people and their heritage and concerned about their future. Why is that no longer true?
My Christian friends tell me that it's because the churches have been subverted, that what the churches teach today is no longer Christianity but instead is a Judaized doctrine which is opposed to real Christianity. And, of course, the ministers and priests today say just the opposite: they say just what the South African ministers said when they betrayed their people. They say, "No, we're preaching the real Christianity today. What used to be taught in our churches wasn't the real Christianity, but today we understand better what real Christianity is. Real Christianity requires us to follow Jewish policies and to mix the races, etc." And both sides will quote the Bible to prove the correctness of their position.
Now, I'm a scientist. I'm not a believer in miracles or in holy scriptures, and so I don't get involved in arguments based on the Bible -- although I do let myself be amused sometimes by the efforts of the new breed of preachers to make the Bible Politically Correct: to make it acceptable to the feminists, for example, by deleting all masculine pronouns, and to make the New Testament acceptable to the Jews by pretending that the account of the crucifixion, in which the Jews clearly are given the blame and in which they say, "His blood be on us and on our children," doesn't say what it seems to say.
As I said, I'm not very interested in what various verses in the Bible "really mean." To me what is significant is that the bulk of our people who called themselves Christians in the past had an essentially healthy outlook. They believed in defending themselves and their race and their way of life. They were self-sufficient, self-reliant. They believed that God looks out for those who look out for themselves. They may have been a little superstitious about some things, but they understood the important things. They understood that there is no such thing under the sun as "equality." They understood the concepts of personal honor and personal responsibility. They understood duty and discipline. They understood racial feeling and racial solidarity. And they understood that the Jews are profoundly different, profoundly alien.
Today the churches don't understand any of those things, nor do the churchgoers, the hymn- singers. So when I criticize the churches and the churchgoers, it doesn't mean that I'm anti- Christian. It just means that I am opposed to what the churches are teaching and opposed to what they are doing today.
And as far as my being divisive goes, well, I'm afraid that most of the hymn-singers are already on the other side, and pointing that fact out to people is probably more useful than divisive. The question of what made the churches change is an interesting one, but I don't want to get too deeply involved in that now, except to say that at least in part it was a matter of deliberate subversion, as my Christian friends claim. Since the Second World War the Jews have made a concentrated effort to gain control of the churches, and in many cases they have been largely successful. They have been able to get the Lutherans to denounce Luther, for example, for telling what he knew about the Jews in various of his writings.
But it's also been a matter of simple human fallibility. Most churches are no longer led by zealots and martyrs and true believers, willing to die for the faith. They are led instead by people who are essentially businessmen, corporation executives: people more concerned with keeping their tax exemption than with doctrine, people more concerned about popularity and public relations than about theology. These people have been willing to yield to pressure, to go with the flow, to do whatever is expedient instead of what is right.
I'll give just one example of this change. The Jews in Hollywood have been turning out a number of films which are very hostile to the Christian churches, their traditions, and doctrines; and the churches, instead of raising hell about these films and counterattacking, have just been grinning and bearing it for the most part. A fairly recent film of this sort is one called Priest, which was produced by the Miramax division of the Disney Company, an entirely Jewish operation. The Miramax division is headed by the Weinstein brothers, and Disney itself is headed by Michael Eisner. The film features two priests, one of them with a mulatto mistress and the other of them an active homosexual, whose activities are depicted quite graphically in the film, and the implication of the film is that these two priests are real Christians, whereas the Church hierarchy, which doesn't approve of their behavior, consists of hypocrites. If the Jews had produced a film like Priest before the Second World War, the Pope would have preached a Crusade against them, and every theater which tried to show the film would have been burned by mobs of enraged Catholics. Today they just grin and bear it. They are much more concerned about pleasing the Jews and getting good press than they are about defending the faith.
But, you know, the real change, the significant change, that has taken place in the Western world, which makes it possible for me to respect many Christians of the past while having only contempt for most of today's churchgoers, is not so much a change in doctrine or in the way some little piece of Holy Writ is interpreted: it's a change in values. Basically what has happened is that the values of the Christian churches have become less aristocratic and more democratic, less masculine and more feminine. These changes actually have taken place in most of our society's institutions, not just in our churches. Back in the days when failure at a major undertaking could and often did mean starvation and death, or at least disgrace, personal values were bound to be different than they are in a time when failure simply means heading down to the welfare office and signing up for a handout. Institutions were bound to be imbued with different values in the days when the men governing those institutions were much more conscious of differences in human quality, and when the institutions themselves -- cultural and educational institutions as well as the churches -- were much more closely geared to the needs and concerns and sensibilities of the most capable and successful elements in society than to the interests of the masses. When failure lost its teeth and survival became less demanding, there was a general slackening in values. And when institutions began catering more to the masses, there was again a shift in values. Nobody really planned this shift in values. It was a consequence of changing life-styles. Not planned, but understood. We understand these things because they have happened to us before. Even the ancient Romans understood them. They understood that ease breeds decadence, that luxury leads to softness and indiscipline, and that indiscipline leads to ruin.
We see these changes in our schools and universities, in our popular culture, and in our churches. Hard, strong men founded these churches. The Catholic Church was for more than 200 years led by men who risked being fed to the lions. Martin Luther was willing to risk being burned at the stake by defying the Pope and the emperor to do what he believed was right. Other Christian leaders actually were burned rather than recant their beliefs. Can you imagine any top church bureaucrat willing to do that today?
And so I say to my Christian friends: Don't try to shush me when I criticize today's churchgoers and hymn-singers. You should be even more concerned about their bad behavior than I. You should strive to regain control of your churches and to give them healthy values once again, to make them once again into bulwarks of the White community, to make them once again worthy of respect from all self-respecting White men. If you cannot do that, no one else will even try.
I say to all of my friends, to all self-respecting White men and women, Christian or not: Let's not concern ourselves with doctrinal quibbles now. Let's not concern ourselves with whether or not our neighbor believes in virgin birth and walking on water; let's concern ourselves with whether or not he cares about the survival of his people and is willing to do something for that survival. If he or she does care, and if he or she is willing, then he is our brother, then she is our sister.
And let us gather our brothers and our sisters to us; we need them all. We will judge our brothers and sisters, we will rank them, not by their belief or lack of belief in supernatural things, but by their character and their values and their ability. We will rank them according to their sense of duty and responsibility, according to their personal strength and self-discipline, according to their willingness to sacrifice for the common good of our people, and according to what they actually do accomplish for our people.
In fighting against the enemies whose aim is to destroy us all, we need to put religious differences and factional differences aside. We need to feel a sense of solidarity based on our common blood and our common purpose. But this solidarity, this common purpose, does not preclude us from speaking out about those things which need to be spoken about. And when 15,000 churchgoers in Switzerland demonstrate obediently against their own people and for the Jewish swindlers and extortionists who are stealing money from the pockets of the Swiss people, then we should speak out against them. We should separate ourselves from these renegades. We should let the world know that they are beyond the pale, that we disown them, not because of their religion, but regardless of their religion.
Speaking of the situation in Switzerland, I have been pleased to note during the past week that at least a few politicians and media people there have begun to show a little courage and a little honesty. While the church leaders and most of the top politicians and most of the mass media have either sided with the Jews, or at least have been afraid to oppose the Jews, a few have stood up for their own people. Last week one member of the Swiss parliament, Christoph Blocher, demanded to know why Swiss taxpayers should pay blackmail money to the Jews.
And it only takes a few honest, courageous men to set the tone for others. Since Christoph Blocher spoke up, others also have expressed their outrage that the Swiss people's money should be given to the Jews in response to the Jewish extortion effort. Even a major Swiss newspaper, Blick, stood up to the Jews last week and reported that the Swiss people are becoming exasperated by the Jewish campaign against their country.
In this country we have no politicians with Christoph Blocher's courage and no major newspapers with Blick's honesty. In this country we still have politicians like New York Senator Alphonse D'Amato, who might as well be the senator from Israel, still beating the drum for the Jews and demanding that the Swiss yield to their blackmail effort. You can be sure that Senator D'Amato is a faithful churchgoer.
I really hope that D'Amato and his Jewish controllers succeed in imposing a boycott on Switzerland. That will do wonders to wake up the Swiss people and persuade them to take a stand. It might even help a few people over here wake up. People need to realize that the Jews are at war against the world, the whole world, and have been for thousands of years. It's about time to start fighting back.
In Switzerland, of course, they've been pushing their self-serving "Holocaust" propaganda for the past 50 years, just like they have over here and everywhere else, and I guess they figured they had the Swiss hypnotized to the point where they could just reach into the Swiss people's pockets and steal $7 billion from them without a protest. Well, we'll see about that. But if the Swiss do wake up and defend themselves, it will be without the help of their churchgoers, and we ought to think about the implications of that for our own fight over here.
How Liberals Think Liberals Tend To Be Childish, Resentful, and Authoritarian
Every few days I get a telephone call from a newspaper or television reporter wanting an interview. The things they want to talk about change from time to time: a couple of years ago they were interested in some of the videos the sponsor of American Dissident Voices, National Vanguard Books, distributes; last summer it was the Montana Freemen; right now it's domestic unrest and terrorism. They want to know why terrorism is on the rise, what do I think about the Oklahoma City bombing, was there a conspiracy behind that bombing, do I believe there will be more such bombings, do I think people should worry that there may be biological or chemical terror attacks in the future, what do I believe is the motivation of most terrorists, etc.
I never have pretended to be an expert on terrorism, and I tell the reporters that -- but I also tell them, although no single act of terrorism is predictable, I am sure that, averaged over periods of two or three years, terrorism will continue to become more common. I tell them I am sure of this because the underlying causes of terrorism are on the rise.
Those underlying causes are growing hostility on the part of the government toward citizens, growing governmental intrusion into the lives of citizens, growing resentment against the government by the citizens, a growing sense of having been betrayed by the government. On top of all this is the growth of a more general sort of alienation, as reflected in the decline in citizen participation in elections, the growth in crime and the use of drugs, and the rise in the divorce and suicide rates.
I tell the reporters that there is no chance at all that the government will make the changes necessary to cure these problems. The government will respond to terrorism with counter- terrorism, which will provoke more terrorism. The government certainly will not take the measures necessary to decrease citizen alienation, because the greatest single cause of citizen alienation is government-promoted "diversity."
Can you imagine the Clinton administration -- or any administration, Republican or Democrat -- saying, "Well, we made a mistake in pushing 'diversity.' We shouldn't have forced racial mixing in the schools, the workplaces, and neighborhoods. We shouldn't have let a flood of non-White immigrants into the country. We'll straighten things out and restore the citizens' faith in the government by separating the races, by sending the non-White immigrants back where they came from, and by taking other steps to clean up the mess we've made of things. And the first thing we'll do is put on trial all of the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, including those responsible for the massacre at Waco."
No, the government is locked into its present course of social and racial destruction. It does not have the will to change its fundamentally destructive policies. Nothing but a total revolution can bring about the changes necessary to minimize alienation, restore the faith of White citizens in the government, and eliminate terrorism. That's why I'm a revolutionary instead of a conservative or a reformer. I tell the reporters all of these things, but it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars as trying to explain to the average newspaper or television reporter the things that are wrong with American society today and why so many people are reacting badly to these things. To me, one of the more interesting aspects of these interviews is the opportunity to study the mentality of journalists. On the whole, they're not really stupid. In fact, they're probably a little brighter, on the average, than the population as a whole. But they really do have an almost identical mentality, as if they all had been cloned from a single ultra-liberal prototype.
They all understand, of course, that their Jewish bosses expect a certain slant on the reporting they do. They understand which side their bread is buttered on. They don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. But their liberal bias goes beyond just trying to please the Jewish media bosses who employ them.
I think it's clear that most journalists really don't understand why American society is coming unraveled. They really don't understand why alienation is growing, why divorce and suicide rates are up, why so many people hate and fear the government. They don't understand, and part of the reason may be a selection process in the journalism profession. It may be that students who major in journalism in college tend to be authoritarian types. It may be that they tend to be those who are only comfortable when they are marching in ideological lockstep with all the rest of their profession. And it may be that the journalism professors tend to weed out any students who show a streak of independence or who aren't trendy enough. That may be part of the explanation for why journalists are so uniformly liberal.
I think, though, that another part of the explanation may be found in the phenomenon of the 1960s. The great bulk of the reporters I talk with today went through their formative period, their period of social imprinting, during the 1960s or 1970s. The 1960s and 1970s were a period of deliberately induced chaos, a period during which American society deliberately was turned upside down, a period during which all of our traditional values and standards were ridiculed relentlessly by Jewish critics and arbiters of fashion. Young people on our college campuses were told that everything which had come before was old-fashioned and outdated and had to be scrapped to make way for a new order. The old way was racist and sexist and homophobic and had to go.
And these young people were the first TV generation, the first generation to be exposed more to artificial social situations and social interactions constructed by television scriptwriters than to natural social situations and interactions in the real world. They were the first generation to be socialized by Jewish television, before we had had any opportunity to develop defense mechanisms against this sort of brainwashing. They also were a generation raised according to Dr. Spock, a generation in which permissiveness ruled. They were kids raised without corrective punishment and with a minimum of discipline, kids raised without any reality checks. They've been called the "me" generation because of their narcissistic tendencies, but there's really more to it than just selfishness and egoism.
You know, when the question of Nature versus nurture is debated, I'm nearly always to be found on the side of Mother Nature. But in trying to understand what has made today's journalists what they are, I believe that we must look very carefully into the way they were nurtured. Our ancestors spent thousands of generations learning how to raise children so that they had a reasonable chance to become valuable and effective adults. This process of learning wasn't done with books. It was a matter of trial and error, of failure and success, of life or death. Communities or tribes which had correct ways of raising their young survived and prospered, on the average. Tribes which had faulty methods stagnated or perished.
Within the past century some very foolish people let themselves be sold on the idea that the old ways of raising children to adulthood no longer have any relevance, because we have made so many changes in our environment. What worked back in tribal days a thousand years ago is no longer any good under modern conditions we were told. Discipline and hardness and self- reliance and courage may have been necessary qualities to instill in young people back in the days when survival was much more difficult. But in the days of the welfare state and day-care centers and working mothers and MTV, permissiveness isn't so bad, we were told. The consequences of that theory are to be seen all around us today. Journalists as a class show the consequences a little more strongly, a little more clearly, than the rest of the "me" generation, because, I believe, those most corrupted by the new nurturing have been attracted to journalism. The corruption, however, has permeated much of our society today. Many others besides journalists have been infected.
I don't want to overemphasize the effects of nurture. It is clear that many of our personality traits are inborn. Even many of the worst traits that we see in journalists and other members of the "me" generation are inborn traits which merely have been strengthened and brought to the fore by the disastrous nurturing environment of the 1960s and 1970s. In a healthier nurturing environment healthier traits are brought to the fore and unhealthy traits are at least partially suppressed.
In trying to understand liberals we also should keep in mind the fact that most people cannot properly be classified as real liberals or real conservatives. Most people have no real ideology of any sort: they simply parrot whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, their ideas will change instantly, like a weathercock. But there are, unfortunately, plenty of real liberals, and I believe that their unwholesome abundance these days can best be explained as I have just outlined. And if we understand what has caused the current plague of liberals, I believe that we can understand better how their minds work -- although that still is not an easy task.
In some ways it is unfortunate that I quit my university teaching when I did, in the mid 1960s. Liberalism was really starting to take hold on the campuses then, and if I had remained a physics professor for another ten years I might have been able to observe some of these psychological phenomena directly and figured things out much more quickly.
First, at the core of the liberal personality is an excessive degree of egoism, which in the worst cases amounts to narcissism. This excessive egoism is an infantile characteristic. Which is to say, it is a normal characteristic in infants, but in the case of healthy growth it recedes as the individual develops and matures. A permissive upbringing retards the normal process of maturing. A second very important element in the liberal personality -- an element closely related to the egoism -- is resentment coupled with envy. That is why in the past liberalism has sometimes been called an ideology based on resentment. The liberal finds very distasteful the notion that some people are brighter than he is, better looking, more industrious, more righteous or moral, more cultured, more artistic, more capable, or more successful. And he regards these people who are better than he is -- and because of being better, more powerful -- as a threat, as an irksome constraint. This envy and resentment is in a way a carryover into adult life of the sort of resentment that a spoiled, self-indulgent child might feel toward a parent who won't let him do exactly what he wants to do, a parent who won't let him eat all the cookies in the cookie jar or torment an animal for his amusement or "play with himself," to use a familiar euphemism. It may express itself in infancy in the form of a tantrum. In adulthood it is expressed as a strong attraction to the ideology of egalitarianism: the idea that no one is better than anyone else.
If you believe that I'm on thin ice in tracing the adult liberal's egalitarianism back to an infantile resentment of parental restraint, let me remind you of a significant refrain in the Jews' indoctrination of young Gentiles during the 1960s and 1970s. The refrain was "kill your parents." In most cases this incitement to parenticide was symbolic. It meant get rid of every restraint, everything which keeps you from spending all of your time doing exactly what you feel like doing, whether that be smoking dope, having sex, or whatever. In one of the more popular books on the campuses in those days, a book published in 1970 and titled Do It! by Jerry Rubin, one of the Jewish leaders of the Youth International Party, or the "Yippies" for short, the incitement is quite literal. Rubin wrote, "When we start playing with our private parts, our parents say, 'Don't do that.' The mother commits a crime against her child when she says, 'Don't do that.'"
The remainder of Rubin's book is a non-stop effort to build resentment in his infantile collegiate readers with a long recitation of the "crimes" their parents, their schools, and the rest of society have committed against them by restraining them in one way or another and of the need to end this parental oppression. And, of course, Rubin manages to bring the racial angle and the Communist angle into this ideology of resentment. Blacks, he tells the kids, are your natural allies against your parents, because they have been oppressed too. They are Black niggers, and we are White niggers, Rubin says. Blacks will help you overthrow society, so that you can have everything you want. And Rubin idolizes Fidel Castro, as someone who succeeded in killing his parents. And he holds up the Communist guerrilla Che Guevara as another idol who was fighting to end parental oppression.
Rubin winds up his book with a description on the last page of how wonderful life will be for everyone after young people have gotten rid of their parents, burned their schools, and killed all of the police. He writes, and I quote: "There will be no more jails, courts, or police. The world will become one big commune with free food and housing, everything shared. There will be no such crime as 'stealing' because everything will be free. People will farm in the morning, make music in the afternoon, and have sex whenever and wherever they want to."
And there's more, but you get the picture. This is the image of the ideal life in an ideal world which the Jews were busy selling to young, White Americans during the 1960s and the 1970s. The ones who bought this image were the most infantile ones: that is the ones who had been raised most permissively and were most narcissistic. And the worst of these went into journalism.
Unfortunately, however, some of this Jewish poison was absorbed by millions of other young people during that period of deliberate chaos and confusion, when the old America was being trashed. That's how the current crop of liberals was created. Most of them are in their 30s and 40s now; a few are in their 50s. Some of them went into business, some into education, some into the churches, some into government work. One couple, a man and wife, are in the White House now. Wherever they went, they continue the destruction, in a thousand ways.
It is in the journalists, though, where the poison has produced the most profound effects, that the phenomenon of liberalism is easiest to study and understand, I believe. When I explain to a reporter that terrorism is the consequence of a loss of a sense of belonging and identity -- when I explain that a person who feels that he is no longer a part of the society around him, that it is no longer his family and he has no responsibility to it, may strike out violently at that society -- when I explain this, the reporter may smile politely and take notes, but I can see the total lack of comprehension in his eyes. He lives in a different world, a different moral universe, where words like "responsibility" and "belonging" and "identity" have no meaning -- or at least, they have a totally different meaning to him than they have to me. He lives in a universe shaped by egoism and resentment, a world in which the individual, the self, is everything, and anyone who tries to impose any constraints at all on the individual is an enemy. He cannot comprehend a world in which the individual is just one part in a complex and interrelated natural order, and that for that order to be healthy the individual needs to be able to find his proper place, the place where he can be useful, and that he has a responsibility to be useful. That's an alien concept to the journalist.
I hope that I haven't bored you with these comments on the way a journalist's mind works. I believe that it's important to try to understand these things. If we're to effectively carry out our responsibilities and make a future for our people, we have to overcome all of those who are now infected by liberalism, and then we have to restructure our society in a way which will prevent the production of a new crop of liberals -- or at least, minimize the size and destructiveness of that crop. The more we know about them the more likely we are to succeed.
Time To Do What's Right Why Does it Matter Who Controls the Media? Well, well, well! Finally even someone in the Clinton gang said something about it: there are far too many Jews in Clinton's government. An unnamed bureaucrat in the State Department, trying to implement the Clinton government's policy of maximizing "diversity" in the bureaucracy, looked around and noticed that nearly all of the people in the key policy positions in the State Department are Jews, and he wrote a memorandum to other bureaucrats saying, "Hey, we have too many Jews. We need to hold off on appointing any more Jews to vacant positions around here and try to get some other ethnicities involved." He pointed out in particular that everyone in the section of the State Department dealing with the Middle East is a Jew.
Of course, the number of Jews in the State Department has become much more noticeable since Clinton's Jewish secretary of state Madeleine Albright was appointed and immediately surrounded herself with a swarm of Jewish assistants and advisors. But it is considered impolite to notice this, and when someone leaked the memo about there being too many Jews to a local newspaper, the Washington Times, things hit the fan. There were screams of outrage from all the usual quarters. Jewish Congressman Benjamin Gilman, a Republican from New York and chairman of the House Internal Affairs Committee, complained angrily about the memo to Mr. Clinton, wailing that any attempt to stop the State Department from becoming entirely Jewish is "religious discrimination." And in Mr. Clinton Congressman Gilman found a sympathetic listener. Mr. Clinton has appointed more Jews to government positions than any other President in history -- by far. In particular he has hardly appointed anyone except Jews to the positions of control over America's foreign policy. His entire national security team is Jewish: the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, the chief of the National Security Council and his deputy -- they're all Jews appointed by Clinton. And so the State Department bureaucrat who wrote that memo is now in very hot water. Predictions are that he will be crucified -- which, come to think of it, is a punishment which has a historical precedent for a similar offense against the Jewish establishment.
The bureaucrat's problem is that he just didn't get it: He just never understood that what the government's policy of "diversity" really means is, get rid of the straight, White males. One heterosexual White male in any department is one too many. But you do not ask whether or not there may be too many homosexuals or too many Blacks or too many Hispanic lesbians or too many Vietnamese immigrants in a particular government agency -- and especially you never, never, never comment about there being too many Jews. There can't be too many Jews in positions of power and influence. "Diversity" doesn't apply to Jews.
The government bureaucracy isn't the only place where it is Politically Incorrect to notice the huge overabundance of Jews; organized crime is another area. When the Los Angeles police announced that they had found out who had killed the son of Black television actor Bill Cosby, they told the world that their suspect is a "Russian" -- and might be a hit man for a "Russian" organized crime gang, suggesting that Cosby may have been involved in some sort of drug deal which went bad. When this announcement hit the news last week, there was much talk on television about how the "Russians" are taking over organized crime in the United States, about how the most vicious and sophisticated organized crime gangs are made up of "Russian" immigrants, and so on. The word "Jew" was never mentioned in connection with any of this, and so the average television viewer would never realize that these crime gangs actually have no Russians in them at all. They consist entirely of Jews from Russia and other parts of the former Soviet Union. They are Jewish organized crime gangs, but that fact is never mentioned by the controlled news media.
The reason America is now plagued by the Jewish organized crime gangs is that our government in Washington has for years treated Jews differently from all other persons in Eastern Europe seeking entry to the United States. If you're a real Russian who wants to come to the United States to get away from the disastrous economic conditions in post-Communist Russia, our government won't let you in. But if you're a Jew who wants to come over here from Russia because your tribe already has picked that country's bones clean, you are welcomed with open arms and given every advantage. You are classified as a "refugee from persecution." Hundreds of thousands of Soviet Jews have poured into the United States during the past 20 years, and many of them were hardened criminals. They ran the rackets in Russia, and now that they've bled Russia dry they've come over here to suck our blood. It is these Jewish so-called "refugees" who have set up the vicious organized crime gangs on the east and west coasts -- especially in the New York and Los Angeles areas -- and are doing far more damage than the Italian mafia ever did. But you would never know that from watching television. And don't expect the Clinton government to change its policy toward those poor, persecuted Soviet Jews still pouring into America.
After the Los Angeles police had investigated their suspect, Mikhail Markhasev, for a day or two, they announced that they believed he was not acting on behalf of any organized crime group when he shot Cosby. He is only 18 years old and came to the United States with his family eight years ago as a "Russian refugee," they said. Still no mention that he is a Jew, but the description of him as a "Russian refugee" is a dead giveaway, because, as I just mentioned, for all practical purposes it is only Jews who are given that status. And it turned out that this particular 18-year- old Jew has an extensive criminal record and is known as a hardened and vicious thug, and may have been undergoing initiation into a gang when he killed Cosby.
The two news items I've mentioned -- the fuss about a bureaucrat's memo on the growing Jewishness of our State Department and the murder of Bill Cosby's son by a Jewish criminal from Russia -- may sound like they're completely unrelated, but they're not. The common link they have is the Jewish control of America's news and entertainment media.
The State Department is supposed to look out for America's interests in our dealings with other countries. It's supposed to exercise diplomacy on our behalf in a way which will solve our problems with other countries without our having to go to war. One of the key problem spots in the world, of course, is the Middle East. Our State Department spends more time dealing with problems in the Middle East than anywhere else in the world. The root of all the problems in the Middle East is the seizure of Arab land by Jews in a series of wars over the past 50 years. And how does our State Department look out for our interests in the Middle East? It staffs the Middle Eastern section entirely with Jews. That's like trying to solve problems in the henhouse by putting a fox in charge. No major politician in Washington, no sophisticated bureaucrat in Washington, believes that the State Department is looking out for American interests in the Middle East. Everyone understands that the real job of the State Department is to look out for Jewish interests. Everyone understands that except the general public. The general public hasn't been let in on the secret, because the news media, which are supposed to keep the public informed, are covering for the Jews. Can you imagine the screams of outrage you would hear if any President or Secretary of State tried to staff the Middle Eastern section of the State Department with Arabs? The media would be screaming that the State Department was biased against Israel, that it wasn't really looking out for America's interests, that it was siding with the Arabs. They would make sure that the public heard about it -- over and over and over. But when the State Department becomes essentially an arm of the government of Israel, the public doesn't hear a peep.
It may be foreign affairs that our Jew-heavy State Department deals with, but foreign affairs have domestic consequences. They can cost American lives. They take money out of the pockets of American taxpayers. The American public may not have found out yet that our State Department doesn't represent American interests, but the rest of the world has found out. That's why the Marine barracks in Lebanon was blown up, killing 237 of our Marines in 1983; that's why the World Trade Center in New York City was bombed a decade later; that's why our military people were bombed in Saudi Arabia last year; that's why there will be other terror bombings in the future which will take American lives. And it's why the Jews in our State Department very well may lead our country into another war in the Middle East in the near future. They will do it because they know that the Jews who control the media will cover for them.
Or take the Cosby killing. The Soviet Jewish thug who did it was in this country only because our government automatically classifies any Jew in eastern Europe who wants to come to the United States as a "refugee from persecution." It's a racket, and it wouldn't exist if our news media would expose it. But they don't. So the organized Jewish groups put pressure on the politicians, the politicians give them the special laws and handouts for Israel and other things they demand, and the news media just keep quiet about it, so Joe and Jill Sixpack never have a clue as to what's happening.
What we need are honest, responsible, and patriotic news media, which actually keep the public informed about what's going on. As long as the Jews have their death grip on the media, the public will remain ignorant, and every sort of corrupt and destructive activity will be able to proceed without the public's knowledge. Joe and Jill Sixpack will learn only what the Jews want them to learn.
But the public consists of more than Joe and Jill Sixpack. When I say Joe and Jill Sixpack, I'm talking about the great mass of Americans who never have an idea in their heads that they didn't get from television, who turn first to the sports section when they open their newspapers, and who never analyze anything, who never think carefully about anything. Unfortunately, Joe and Jill vote -- in fact, they make up the great mass of voters -- and so it suffices for the Jews' purpose to keep Joe and Jill in the dark. But there are people who do keep up with what's going on in the world. There are lots of people who concern themselves with what's really happening. They read the small print in their newspapers, and they read between the lines. They know how to add two and two and draw the correct conclusion. They have noted what our State Department has been doing during the past 50 years, and they have noted many of the names and faces of the people involved. And so when they spot a small news article reporting Congressman Gilman's outrage over some minor personnel official in the State Department being concerned that there are too many Jews in the department, these people are not surprised or confused. They understand. And they have read and remembered the fine print about the immigration of Soviet Jews into this country, and so they understand what the newspapers really mean when they report about "Russian" gangs of organized criminals.
They understand, so why do they not speak out? Why do they remain silent while the Jews continue to deceive and plunder their fellow citizens? These people who understand more often than not are successful people, people who wield a certain amount of power, a certain amount of influence. They could make a difference. After all, the Jews constitute only 2-1/2 per cent of the population. The people who understand what the Jews are up to make up at least that large a portion of the population. So why do they remain silent?
I have spoken with many of these people, and I have asked them that very question. Some of them have answered me in a very reasonable way. They have told me that while they understand that many Jews are engaged in destructive activities, especially in connection with their control of the news and entertainment media and their influence on governmental policy and the political process, they don't know everything that's going on. They don't want to speak out in ignorance. They don't want to make fools of themselves and perhaps do an injustice to some Jews by making blanket statements when they don't yet have all of the facts.
Well, let's say we have a mutinous faction in a ship's crew which is drilling holes in the bottom of the boat, the ship has taken on a lot of water and already is listing at 45 degrees, but the ship's officers refuse to take any action because they don't yet have all of the facts. What would you say about those ship's officers? Are they just trying to be careful and fair? Or do they have some character flaw: perhaps a deficiency in courage or a defective sense of responsibility?
I understand as well as anyone that there is a cost involved in doing what is right instead of just going with the flow. I understand that the Jews always try to punish those who speak out against them. I understand there is some risk involved in being Politically Incorrect when one is living in a degenerate society under a corrupt government. But look at the cost of remaining silent: the loss of one's self-respect, the loss of one's sense of righteousness -- unless one has a very flexible conscience. Is it worth it?
You know, someone once said, "What does it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and yet lose his soul?" And I say, what degree of security, what amount of material wealth, is great enough to sacrifice one's honor for it? What can the Jews threaten a man with that is more terrible than living with the knowledge that he has shirked his responsibility, that he has failed to do what he knows he should do and could do?
I am attacked continually by the Jews in their newspapers and their television. They shriek that I am a "hater," and they try to frighten ordinary people into staying away from me. And they do more. They sic the government on me, and they try to bankrupt me with harassing lawsuits. I used to have a tax exemption because all of my work is educational, and I'm certainly not in it for the profit. But the B'nai B'rith, one of the powerful Jewish organizations to whose tune the politicians dance, complained to the Internal Revenue Service, and they obediently took away my tax exemption. Morris Dees and his Southern Poverty Law Center tried to bankrupt me with a spurious law suit in an effort to silence me. Morris Dees boasted to the newspapers when he sued me that he would "shut Pierce down." And these things certainly are a nuisance. But the compensation is that I sleep well at night. I live and work constantly with the joy of knowing that I am doing the right thing, that I am doing what I should be doing, to the best of my ability. And despite all of the hatred and all of the attacks the Jews direct against me, the number of my friends and supporters continues to grow.
It is possible to stand up to the Jews. It is possible to do what you know is right without being destroyed. They have much power, but it is power which they are obliged to keep concealed. They understand that they are playing a very risky and tricky game. They know that there are more of us than of them. They know that they can only continue to suck the blood of our people if they can do it without provoking us sufficiently that we wake up and take action against them. And now they see more and more of us waking up. That must be a very unnerving experience for them.
You who are reading this are at least partially awake. You are a cut above Joe and Jill Sixpack. So I say to you: think about what you are doing with your life. Think about the responsibility you have to your children and grandchildren and great grandchildren. Think about the responsibility you have to all of those who came before you and whose sacrifices made your life possible. And think about your responsibility to yourself, your responsibility to be the best person, the most righteous person, that you can be. Think about all of these things, and then let me hear from you.
Focusing Our Anger To Be Effective, Our Anger Must Be Properly Directed Hillary Clinton went to South Africa a few days ago to show the Clinton government's support for Black rule in that country. She met with the new Black ruler of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, and she toured the prison where Mandela was an inmate for 27 years. And she said all of the Politically Correct things during her tour: about White injustice toward Blacks and the victims of apartheid and so on. The average American viewer watching her performance on television and listening to her comments was given the very definite impression that the jailing of Mandela was one of the "injustices" Mrs. Clinton was talking about, that Mandela was a "victim of apartheid," who had been locked up by the wicked South African racists merely because he was a Black man.
The fact of the matter is that Mandela was locked up for being a terrorist and nothing else. In 1963 the police in South Africa broke up a terrorist gang which had been meeting at Rivonia, near Johannesburg. The group consisted of both Blacks, of whom Mandela was one, and Jews -- plus one Indian. The Rivonia gang had detailed plans for a campaign of terror and murder. They already had carried out a number of terrorist killings before they were arrested. Terrorists acting under their direction had murdered a number of White South Africans, including women and children. Some of the Jews involved managed to escape from the country and continued their terrorist activities from abroad. One of these Jews who escaped was Joe Slovo, the Communist Party leader of South Africa. Mandela was not able to escape, however, because he already had been picked up by the police in connection with his illegal Communist Party activities before the raid on the terrorist headquarters at Rivonia. He was put on trial for his role in the terrorist conspiracy, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison. Now, of course, he is a hero of the leftists, including the Clintons and the American news media.
At home the Clintons are very much down on terrorists and always are calling for new laws to fight them and for more severe punishments when they are caught. It wasn't always that way. Back during the 1960s and 1970s Bill Clinton ran around with terrorists who burned ROTC buildings on university campuses and bombed Selective Service offices.
The lesson in all of this is that when the Clintons condemn terrorism, what they mean is that terrorism by White people on behalf of White people is bad and must be stamped out, but terrorism by Jews or Blacks against Whites is commendable.
It is unfortunate that the great mass of White Americans are not able to see this hypocrisy on the part of the Clintonistas. The reason they can't see it is that the controlled news media keep it covered up. How many of you listening today have ever even heard of Rivonia? You've certainly heard plenty about Nelson Mandela and the fact that he was sent to prison by the White South African government, but the implication always is that his only offense was that he was a Black leader, and that his imprisonment was an instance of White injustice against Blacks. You never hear that he was convicted of terrorism, of being an active terrorist in a gang which had murdered White South Africans and had the intent to murder many more of them and overthrow their government. The bosses of the news media know that, and the Clintons know that, but they deliberately conceal that information from you. If you're really interested in the details, go to any large library and look for information about what was happening in South Africa in 1963, 1964, and 1965 in connection with the Rivonia terrorist gang. That's where Nelson Mandela got his start, but you'd never learn that from listening to Hillary Clinton or watching the television news today.
And there are many other things you'd never learn from Hillary or the television news. Mrs. Clinton has been holding a number of press conferences during her South African tour, and she never fails to say how pleased she is by all of the "progress" which has been made since the advent of Black rule there. She smiles and tells the television audience how wonderful everything is in South Africa now that the Whites no longer are running the country. And that is a bare-faced lie, but you won't hear any television newsman contradicting her. The truth is that South Africa has become a much more dangerous and unpleasant place to live, for both Blacks and Whites, since the country was turned over to Black rule three years ago, and Mrs. Clinton and the media bosses know it. The murder rate and the rate for crime of all types have skyrocketed. Johannesburg, which used to be a clean, decent, and safe city under White rule, now has the highest murder rate in the world. Gangs of armed Black criminals roam the streets of Johannesburg and prey on both Blacks and Whites with impunity. In the Black tribal areas of South Africa old superstitions have reasserted themselves, and thousands of Blacks have been burned, hacked, or stoned to death on suspicion of being witches during the past three years. If your neighbor's cow dies, he may accuse you of having caused the death by witchcraft, and then you may have your hands wired behind your back and a gasoline-soaked tire put around your neck and set afire, the same punishment Blacks used to administer to other Blacks suspected of collaborating with Whites. Under White rule, killing Blacks suspected of witchcraft was not tolerated, but now there's no one to stop the practice. White South Africans who live on farms or who drive in rural areas must worry constantly about Black gangs. One of the practices of these gangs is to descend suddenly upon a White farm or to force an automobile with White occupants off the road and then gang-rape any White females they find.
The infrastructure of South Africa is beginning to come apart from neglect and corruption, and Whites who can afford it and have the option are fleeing the country. Even Blacks often will whisper to visitors that they wish Whites were still running the country, because their lives were much better under White rule. South Africa, in other words, is coming unraveled under Black rule, is ceasing to function as a civilized country -- much like our nation's capital, Washington, DC, also is coming unraveled under Black rule. But don't expect to learn this from any television news program.
I talk with many people about things like this deliberate sanctification by the controlled news media of a Black terrorist thug and their lying about conditions in South Africa, and sometimes I become emotional when I talk about such things. It angers me, it makes me furious, that our news media, on which we depend for our knowledge about what's going on in the world, are under the control of a bunch of Jews who deliberately deceive us in order to advance their own interests.
What irritates me at least as much as this deception, however, is the moral paralysis of many of the people to whom I speak. They agree with me that it is bad that the news media deliberately deceive us, but they don't become angry about it, they don't become outraged. They just take it for granted that the media are deceptive, but they don't feel any obligation to try to do something about that. It's as if they consider themselves merely spectators watching the world go by like some sort of drama on a television screen.
I'll give you another example, and that is what is happening to young White women in our armed forces. It is good, of course, that the Army brass finally have made a move against the Black drill instructors and Black officers who have been raping them. Finally. What has not changed, however, is the system which deliberately subjects White women to the authority of Black males and pretends that everything will be all right, a system which pretends that there is no difference between Blacks and Whites or between women and men. That filthy and destructive system is still in place. And it is only a fluke that the rapes and other abuse of our women under that system have been exposed. It's not that no one knew what was happening all along. All of the White enlisted men and the White officers knew what was happening, but they didn't do anything about it because they were afraid of being accused of racism. So now, finally, the dirty little secret about our Army is out because a few women raised hell about it, but the system is still in place. How the filthy creatures who designed that system and support that system must be smirking and gloating now.
More than 20 years ago, in 1975, when I began writing The Turner Diaries, I foresaw this sort of thing, and I predicted it in my book. I saw that, on the one hand, the feminists were generating hostility between men and women and were undermining the special, protected status that women always had had in our society, and on the other hand the race fanatics who demanded the forced social integration of the races were poisoning the minds of our young people with their propaganda and persuading them that it was evil to refuse to give Blacks whatever they wanted because their ancestors had been the slaves of our ancestors and so we owed them something. I saw this, and I predicted that it would lead to both large-scale miscegenation and to a much greater incidence of violence against our women and rape of our women. In fact there is an episode in The Turner Diaries where Black U.S. Army soldiers are gang-raping White girls, and White officers who are aware of what is happening refuse to interfere out of fear of being charged with racism.
And now, just a little over 20 years later, it has come to pass. But I did not make that prediction cold-bloodedly. I looked at the trends I could see in 1975, and I thought about where they would take our society in the next 20 years, but I wasn't cool and detached about it. I was mad as hell, and I'm still mad as hell. Even back in 1975 I wanted to take all of the feminist agitators and propagandists and all of the race-mixing fanatics and all of the media bosses and all of the bureaucrats and politicians who were collaborating with them, and I wanted to put them up against a wall, in batches of a thousand or so at a time, and machine-gun them. And I still want to do that. I am convinced that one day we will have to do that before we can get our civilization back on track, and I look forward to the day.
Of course, I didn't machine-gun any of these destroyers of our civilization, any of these poisoners of the souls of our people, but I didn't just sit on my hands either. I pledged that I would do everything that I could legally do to build the means for one day stamping out the filth that is poisoning our people. And that's what I have been doing, reaching out to our people through every feasible medium -- through books and through the Internet and through these American Dissident Voices broadcasts -- informing our people, awakening them, explaining things to them, and trying to inspire them.
And I know that I've been reaching many people, because I hear from them all the time. They tell me that I have helped them to understand what is happening, that I have helped them to make sense out of things, that I have given them a new sense of direction. I am glad for all of that. But what still is disconcerting to me is the relatively small number of these people who display any passion, any anger. For many of them it is as if they have been watching a confusing television drama, and I have helped them to understand the drama a little better, but it still isn't real to them; it still isn't their responsibility to do something about it. They still are just spectators. Not all of them. The number of people who are angry is growing. But too many are still just dispassionate spectators.
Maybe I shouldn't be irritated about this. Maybe this is just human nature. Maybe most people are inherently incapable of being anything but spectators -- although I'm inclined to believe that the television age has encouraged and exacerbated this passivity in some people who might otherwise be active and responsible citizens. Anyway, I should be thankful that at least understanding is growing among the spectators as well as among the more active people. Even passive support based on understanding is better than nothing.
But our real hope for the future lies with the people who still are capable of feeling moral outrage, still are capable of becoming angry: angry that our news media are being used to deceive us, angry that our entertainment media are being used to poison the minds of our people, angry that our government used our resources to pressure the people of South Africa into turning their country over to Black savages, angry that our Army has become what it is today. We need many more such angry people.
Our anger, of course, must be focused and directed. When someone sees his world being destroyed; when someone sees the future of his children being stolen from them; when someone sees everything around him that is fine and noble and beautiful being trampled into the mud; when someone sees his heritage, which has been created through the work and sacrifice of countless generations of his forebears, falling into the uncaring hands of savages -- it is easy for him to be angry at many things, at many people. It is easy to be angry at liberals, who manage to be on the wrong side of every issue and whose mindless egalitarianism lies at the root of most of the destructive policies which are wrecking our civilization. It is easy to be angry at lawyers -- along with big businessmen and corporation executives -- a privileged class whose members seem to be far more interested in fattening themselves on the various processes of decay in our society, even hastening those processes whenever it seems personally advantageous to them, than in using their positions of influence to oppose the destruction. It is easy to be angry at homosexuals and feminists, those sick creatures whose organized drive to remake the world to suit their own perverse needs has so poisoned our society in recent decades. And it is certainly easy to be angry at Blacks and other non-Whites, whose pestilential presence has done so much damage to our world. And all of that anger would be justified. Certainly we must deal with each of these groups decisively before we can restore our world to health, but to focus on any of them now can only mislead us. There are just two proper targets for our attention and our anger now: they are, first and foremost, the controlled news and entertainment media, which have promoted and orchestrated every destructive and degenerative movement, policy, and tendency which afflicts our society; and second, the government, which for all practical purposes is today a creature of the media.
Without the backing of the mass media, liberalism would still be only a nutcase fringe tendency among a minority of academics and clerics. The whole campaign of racial integration and special rights for Blacks, which has pushed Blacks into every facet of White society since the Second World War, has been directed by the mass media: even the Black violence which has flared up so often in our cities is a direct and deliberate media product, a product designed to intimidate White opposition. None of the rioting, burning, and looting in Los Angeles a couple of years ago following the Rodney King incident, for example, would have occurred if the mass media had not incited it with their endless repetition on television of the arrest scene. Without the media incitement it would have been just one more arrest of a drug-crazed Black criminal by fed-up White policemen.
And just as the controlled news media today portray a Black terrorist and murderer of White women and children in South Africa as a saintly hero, just as they deliberately create the utterly false impression in White Americans that South Africa has become more peaceful and prosperous since the end of White rule, so it was the same sort of media lying and misrepresentation about South Africa in the past which led the U.S. government to boycott South Africa and apply other pressure leading to Black rule. The media, with their lies and propaganda, manipulate public opinion, and the politicians in the government just follow along.
So it is with virtually every other governmental policy. The media push public opinion in the direction the media bosses want it to go, and the politicians, willing to do anything to be elected, go along.
Let us keep in mind who the principal enemies of our people are, and let us keep our anger focused on these enemies. But let us also remember that our anger must not be dissipated in foolish and unproductive violence. Not now. Not yet. Now is the time for hard work, for intelligent work, not for violence.
What Terrifies America's Enemies More and More People are Thinking Politically Incorrect Thoughts I talked with you recently about the mentality of journalists, but I want to say a few more things on that subject today. I've been getting many calls from journalists recently because of the Oklahoma City bombing trial and the fact that the defendant is alleged to have read one of my books, The Turner Diaries. The journalists always ask me whether I think the bombing was inspired by my book, and I always reply that I have no way of knowing what was going on in the mind of the bomber, but that I am reasonably sure of one thing: if Janet Reno and Bill Clinton had not burned all of those women and children to death in Waco in 1993, there would have been no bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City exactly two years later. Even if the perpetrators of the Waco massacre had been put on trial for murder and punished with appropriate severity, there would have been no bombing.
And I always find that the journalists have a hard time understanding that. To them the Waco massacre is not at all troubling, and it is hardly a reason to be angry at the government. They see all of those people who were killed in the Branch Davidian church at Waco as a bunch of weirdoes, a bunch of crazy religious fanatics, who really deserve no sympathy. I mean they weren't at all trendy and jaded and New Yorkish like the journalists themselves or like the sort of people the journalists meet at cocktail parties in New York or Washington; so they don't count. Besides, they were against the government and they liked guns, so they deserved what they got. The journalists don't come right out and say that, but it's pretty clear that's what they're thinking. They show it in a hundred ways. Typical is a front-page story about anti-government groups in the March 25, 1997, issue of The Village Voice which refers to the government's massacre of the Branch Davidians only as "the government's siege at Waco." Bill Clinton and Janet Reno didn't massacre all of those women and children at Waco; they didn't murder them; they didn't even kill them; they just besieged them.
The journalists always minimize Waco; they always use euphemisms and avoid words like "murder" and "massacre." And it's clear that they regard the Oklahoma City bombing as a far more heinous crime: not because there were more casualties at Oklahoma City than at Waco, but because the Oklahoma City bombing was a blow at their government, a blow at their beloved Clinton administration. In a sense the bombing at Oklahoma City was directed against the journalists too, whereas the Waco massacre wasn't. Which is to say, that any threat to the government these days is taken personally by most journalists.
I tell them that regardless of the beliefs or occupations of the people killed at Waco and the people killed in Oklahoma City, I regard the Waco massacre as a far more serious and worrisome crime than the Oklahoma City bombing, simply because the Federal government committed the Waco massacre, while presumably it was an individual terrorist, or at least a very small group of terrorists having no connection to the government who bombed the Federal building in Oklahoma City. I tell them that having a small number of terrorists running around bombing buildings is one thing, but having the Federal government committing massacres is quite another thing. A criminal government is much more a threat to its citizens than are a few individual criminals not connected to the government. We know how to deal with individual terrorists, but how do you deal with a terrorist government?
But the journalists don't see it that way. They subconsciously identify with the government, especially with the Clinton government. The government's enemies are their enemies.
I remember the time I was writing The Turner Diaries, in 1975. That was a time when the journalists had much less sympathy for the government than now. That was a time when all of those big anti-American demonstrations were going on in Washington. The journalists all were on the side of the demonstrators. They were all on the side of the mobs marching in the streets carrying Viet Cong flags and shouting, "Ho-ho-ho Chi Minh, the Viet Cong's gonna win."
In 1975 I saw trends in American society, and I tried to understand where those trends would take us in the next 20 years. I saw, on the one hand, what the journalists' support of the anti- American demonstrators and, on the other hand, the government's vacillating and ambivalent attitude toward the Vietnam war were doing to American society. I saw everyone losing respect for the government, becoming angry at the government. I saw the kids on the university campuses being led into anti-Americanism by the Jewish-leftist groups. I saw the returning Vietnam vets being treated like dirt by the media and by the government. And I saw how disillusioned all of the traditionalists and patriots who witnessed all of this were becoming. And I predicted that this general and widespread loss of respect for the government would lead to dangerous social instability and pave the way for civil disorder and civil war. But because it was Politically Correct at that time to be against the government, the journalists just sneered at me and called me a "bigot."
I looked at what the feminists were doing, with all of their claims that men and women are basically the same and should be treated exactly alike. I saw the breakdown in the traditional relationship between men and women that feminism was causing, already in 1975. I saw the growing hostility between men and women, and I predicted that this would lead to an increased incidence of violence against women, an increased incidence of rape. I predicted this in The Turner Diaries. The journalists could see the same things I saw in 1975, but the Politically Correct attitude was to regard feminism as a good thing, which could only lead to good consequences. So the journalists sneered at what I predicted and called it "hate."
And I saw the effects that the government's forced mixing of the races in the schools and in residential areas and in the workplace were having. I saw people becoming alienated. I saw the breakdown of traditional community feeling. I saw young people growing up without any sense of rootedness, any sense of identity, any sense of belonging. And I predicted that this alienation would lead to social instability and to a thousand other social ills. And the journalists also could see this growing alienation back in the 1970s, but to all of them forced racial mixing was a wonderful thing. It was Politically Correct. It was one thing on which they agreed with the government. So they called me a "racist" and condemned my predictions.
And now, 22 years later, what the journalists find truly horrifying about The Turner Diaries is not just that the book predicts many unpleasant developments, and those developments are beginning to happen, they're beginning to become apparent to everyone, they no longer can be denied and ignored -- what's really horrifying to the journalists is that I based my predictions of those developments on the trends of the 1960s and 1970s; I based them on things the journalists hold sacred. I predicted that the breakdown of respect for the government that they themselves were causing back in the 1960s and 1970s would lead to terrorism, whereas they would have us believe that terrorism is simply what happens when some people are permitted to have Politically Incorrect opinions. I predicted that feminism would lead to increased rape and other violence against women, whereas they would have us believe that feminism has nothing to do with it, that it's all the result of what they call "sexism." I predicted that forced racial mixing would lead to more hatred between the races, more violence between the races, and to growing alienation and social instability, whereas they would simply blame it all on "White racism."
The journalists are horrified because I spelled out all of these predictions in black and white more than 20 years ago, and now they're coming to pass, and as they come to pass they verify the assignment of causes I made back in 1975. They verify the assignment of blame I made more than 20 years ago, and that blame is against everything which is Politically Correct, everything which is Holy Writ to the journalists. I told the world where feminism and government enforced multiracialism and the government's no-win policy during the Vietnam war and the media's encouragement of anti-American demonstrations would lead. I condemned all of these things and predicted that they would have disastrous consequences for America, while the journalists praised and supported these same things and predicted that only good could come from them.
And now I am being proved right, and they are being proved wrong, and the proof is there for all the world to see, as The Turner Diaries becomes more and more widely read. That horrifies the journalists and fills them with hatred and anger.
Their reaction is not to examine their beliefs and admit that they were wrong. It is not to question their support for feminism and multiracialism and think about changing their ideas. No, their reaction instead is to condemn my book and look for ways to keep people from reading it. It is to blame the predictions I made 22 years ago for causing the developments I predicted. It is to blame the book rather than the destructive social policies I warned against in the book. And it is to try to make people frightened of the book, so they won't read it.
Last year, when a new printing of The Turner Diaries began appearing on the shelves of major bookstores, a left-wing mailing list huckster named Morris Dees, the head of the so-called Southern Poverty Law Center, who is a darling of the journalists and always is described by them as a "human-rights advocate," launched a letter-writing campaign to pressure bookstores into refusing to carry my book. Other Jewish organizations also tried to keep the book out of the mainstream. They don't want the book read, because it explains what is happening now and why it is happening. They are terrified of having people understand what's going on. They realize that if enough people understand why our society is coming apart, why our young women in the Army are being raped by Black drill instructors and officers, why the Federal building in Oklahoma City was bombed, why terrorism is on the rise everywhere, why drug usage is way up among our young people, why the suicide rate and the divorce rate are so high, why there is so much more corruption in the government -- if people understand these things, there will be a terrible and bloody reaction against the journalists and the Jews and everyone else responsible for the policies which have been destroying our society. They are terrified that the people they have deceived and betrayed for so long will take a bloody vengeance on them.
This fear of the people finding out what's going on and then doing something about it is not just an American phenomenon. Jews, leftists, journalists, and politicians in Europe are terrified as well. I have an article from Forbes magazine in front of me, the April 7 issue. It is an article about the Jewish multibillionaire George Soros and his activities around the world. You may have heard of Soros before. He's a darling of the controlled media and is always being praised as a "philanthropist" and a "human-rights activist." He made his billions speculating in currency and commodities, but he spends his money propping up crypto-Communist regimes in Europe and sponsoring leftist causes. He buys newspapers and uses them to push leftist ideas and boost leftist candidates. He literally buys elections in places like Hungary and other eastern European countries. And the candidates he supports in those countries are the same Communist gangsters who plundered and ruined those countries and tyrannized them before the breakup of the Soviet Union. Now the Communists have changed hats and changed the names of their parties -- now they call themselves "socialists" or more often "democrats" -- but they're still the same gangsters, and they all should be put up against a wall and shot. And they're the people George Soros is spending hundreds of millions of dollars every year to keep in power.
And why is Soros doing that? Forbes tells us why. They quote a Jewish banker who is one of Soros' friends. He says, "Soros is terrified of right-wing nationalism." And Soros himself says essentially the same thing. He is willing to go to any expense to keep patriotic feeling from reasserting itself in eastern Europe. He knows that if patriots ever regain control of their destiny, not only will all of his kinsmen who fattened themselves on the blood of the people of these countries under Communist rule be out in the cold, but they may be called to account for their crimes. That thought terrifies Soros, just as it terrifies journalists over here.
And a similar process is at work in central and western Europe as well. The same fear is present among the ruling establishments that were installed by the victorious democratic-Communist Allies at the end of the Second World War. In most of these countries it has become illegal to question the mythology of anti-fascism which these regimes have used to justify their existence and to shield themselves from criticism. In particular, it has become absolutely taboo to question the Jews' claim to a unique and privileged status in Europe because of their "persecution" in the past.
In late March a magazine editor in Strasbourg, France, was fined more than $5000 and given a six-month suspended jail sentence merely for publishing an article in his magazine which mentioned that there were no gas chambers for killing Jews at a concentration camp in Struthof, near Strasbourg. Now there was a concentration camp, a prison camp, at Struthof in France during the war. And it is a fact, generally recognized by persons knowledgeable about the matter, that there were no gas chambers at Struthof for killing Jews. But in France it is illegal to mention this fact, because to mention it may raise doubts about other "Holocaust" claims. To mention this fact may weaken the fabric of the whole "Holocaust" mythology, a mythology upon which the present establishment in France depends for its moral justification. In Europe the "Holocaust" mythology has become a government-backed religion, and one may not question any part of it, any "Holocaust" claim, no matter how extravagant or absurd. To say, for example, "Well, everybody knows that Jews were persecuted during the war, but let's face it, we all know that there were no Jews gassed at Struthof," is like someone in the 15th century announcing in public, "Well, I go along with most of the Bible, but I just can't swallow those parts about walking on water and the virgin birth." The reaction from the authorities would be pretty much the same in the two cases.
And what happened to that magazine editor in Strasbourg -- whose name, by the way, is Gabriel Andres -- has happened to many people recently in Germany and other European countries. The liberal-democrat regimes are feeling more and more insecure, more and more threatened by the specter of a resurgent patriotism which will hold them accountable for their treason. And they are responding with a more desperate effort to protect the official mythology, to prohibit dissent, to keep the people from understanding what is going on, and has been going on for more than 50 years.
Will they be successful? Will the media bosses and the Southern Poverty Law Center and the other powerful Jewish organizations be able to keep dissent suppressed in America by screaming, "Hate, hate, hate!" and waving The Turner Diaries around every time someone questions their policies? Will George Soros be able to keep his crypto-Communist pals in office in Hungary and the other plundered nations of eastern Europe and stifle all patriotic feeling? Will the frightened, crooked, little men who run France and Germany and Britain and the other European countries be able to keep the people of their countries intimidated with threats of imprisonment if they question the official religion of the "Holocaust" or ask other embarrassing questions?
Well, if it depended on the average voter in America or in Europe, they would be successful. The average voter doesn't care what's true and what isn't. He doesn't care about freedom. He's not interested in questioning the official religion. As long as he's well fed, he just doesn't care about anything except the sports page and the comic strips.
So why is George Soros terrified? Why are the bought politicians in France and Germany and Britain feeling so insecure? Why are the journalists and media bosses in America so shrill and so hateful?
It is because of you, my friends. It is because of the growing minority of Americans and Frenchmen and Germans and Hungarians who do care. They are afraid of you. They know that you are fed up. They know that your numbers are growing. They are afraid of what you will do.
Toward a Healthy Society We Must Rediscover Our European Roots The recent mass suicide of 39 members of a flaky, New Age religious cult in southern California has generated a great deal of media speculation and discussion of the cult phenomenon. There seems to be a general agreement that as we approach the end of this millennium cult membership and cult activity are on the rise. Perhaps so. One thing on which we have better statistics than cult membership is the suicide rate, and that very definitely is up, especially among young people. So is the rate of drug abuse. So is the divorce rate. So is the incidence of mental illness. So is the percentage of citizens in prison for crime.
Undoubtedly, some of the religious cults are growing now simply because the end of the millennium has a special significance for the less sophisticated elements of our society. But that has nothing to do with all of the other indicators of growing social pathology. The fact is that suicide rates and other indicators are up because more people are pessimistic about the future, unsure of the future, afraid of the future. There is a growing sense of instability and uncertainty and anxiety in our society. It drives some people to drugs or alcohol, some people to religious cults, and some people to suicide. It causes more marriages to break up, more people to have mental breakdowns. And none of this has anything to do with the calendar or with the Hale-Bopp comet. It has everything to do with the social and racial experiments which have been imposed on our society by liberal extremists and Jewish schemers during the past 50 years.
The deliberate destruction of America's schools and cities by people hell bent on equalizing the races is part of it. The flood of Third World immigrants pouring into this country is part of it. The pervasive influence of television in our lives is part of it. The deliberate effort to globalize America's economy, accompanied by downsizing and the conversion to a service economy is part of it. The destructive effects of government-sponsored feminism on the traditional relationship between men and women are part of it. All of these things, these social and racial experiments, have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung.
Now, when the media become interested in one of the consequences of these destructive social experiments, such as the activities of religious cults, they talk about what the cults are doing and how they recruit members and the problems parents have in trying to get their children out of the clutches of cults and so on -- but they never talk about why so many people feel lost in American society today and so turn to a cult in order to be able to cope with life. They never talk about what has caused our society to fail so many people, to alienate so many people, to force so many people to desperate measures. They never talk about these things, because that would expose to public scrutiny the destructive social experiments which have caused the social pathologies I've mentioned: the drug use, the suicides, and so on. And, of course, the media bosses themselves have had a major role in these destructive experiments.
I've spoken before about the deliberately destructive role of the mass media in American society. I've also talked about the psychology of liberalism, about what makes liberals do the crazy and destructive things they do. Today, though, instead of talking about the enemies of our society, the enemies of our people, let's just talk about our people and the sort of society we need.
You know, a society is a very complex thing: it is like a living organism. It responds to selective environmental forces, and it evolves. In past ages it was the struggle of our people to survive, the competition of our people against other peoples, other races, which determined the nature of our society. Societies which functioned well survived. Societies which didn't function well perished. Historically, if some crazy liberal came along and was able to change all of the rules and structures in a society to suit some egalitarian fantasy of his, the society would sink like a rock, and its people would perish. And that's what's happening to our society today, although it may not be apparent to us because of the time scale. After the experimenters finish their deadly work, it may take a society 200 years to disintegrate completely and sink out of sight. That's not long from a historical viewpoint, but it's long enough so that most of the people involved never realize what's happening to them.
The society we had in Europe up until the end of the 18th century -- or one may say, the various societies there, which really were very much alike when compared with any non-European society -- this European society had evolved over a period of many, many generations of our people, and it had fine-tuned itself to our special nature; it had developed its institutions and its ways of doing things which suited us as a people and allowed us to form viable, efficient communities. And when we colonized North America and other parts of the world, we took the essential elements of our society with us.
And what were those essential elements?
The first essential element was order. Everyone had a place in our society, whether he was the village blacksmith or the king, and he knew what that place was. He knew how he fitted in, what his responsibilities were, to whom he owed loyalty and respect, and to whom he in turn was obliged to provide guidance. It was a hierarchical society. There was no pretense that everyone was just as capable or just as creative or just as brave or just as suited for leadership as anyone else. People had social rank and social status and social authority commensurate with their social responsibilities and with their contributions to society. The master craftsman had a higher social rank than a journeyman, who in turn had a higher rank than an apprentice. The landowner with a thousand acres who employed 100 workers on his land had a higher social rank than the man who owned only an acre and worked his land himself, but he also had more social responsibilities. He had a responsibility for the welfare and the discipline of his workers, for example. And the master craftsman had a responsibility to provide proper guidance for his apprentices and to uphold the standards of his craft.
The fact that our society was orderly and people knew their place didn't mean that it was inflexible. The apprentice, through diligence and talent, could become a journeyman; and a journeyman might eventually become a master. And the man with only one acre might buy more land and hire workers, if he used the land he already had in a productive way and accumulated savings. But the shirker or the wastrel or the incompetent could never expect that the government would tax his more successful neighbors in order to reward him for his failure and bring him up to their level. The second essential feature that our society had was homogeneity. Everyone had the same roots, the same history, the same genes, the same sensibilities. Or at least, there was enough genetic similarity, there was a close enough family relationship among the people, so that people understood each other. A village, a province, a nation was like a large, extended family. People felt a sense of kinship, a sense of belonging, a sense of loyalty and responsibility that extended to the whole society. This feeling of belonging, this sense of a common history and a common destiny, this sense of identity, was the glue that held the society together and gave it its strength. And it gave men and women their individual strength too. Just knowing who they were, where they had been, and where they were going made an enormous difference in their sense of personal security, in their ability to plan ahead and be reasonably confident of what the future held for them.
This homogeneity and the consequent sense of family, of identity, was thousands of years in developing, just like the hierarchical order in our society. And we developed, we evolved, along with our society. The type of society we had became imprinted on our genes. Of course, it wasn't a perfect society. It was full of problems and imperfections. We always were developing new technologies, for example, and our society didn't always have time to adjust itself to these innovations before even more innovations came along. But it was a society in which we were strong and confident and more or less spiritually healthy.
The opponents of social order and racial homogeneity will try to confuse the issue by pointing out that we have a longer life span today, that our infant mortality rate is much lower, that we don't have to work as hard to support ourselves, that we can buy all sorts of shiny gadgets that our ancestors couldn't, and so on. They want you to believe that these changes came about as benefits of the breakdown of order and the destruction of homogeneity. But they didn't. They are all the results of technological innovation. Our medical scientists learned how to control the diseases which shortened our lives. Our scientists and engineers learned how we could work more efficiently. And they learned how to make new tools and new toys for us.
Now, to be sure, not all of the degenerative changes in our society which have occurred in the past couple of centuries have been the consequence of the destructive efforts of the Jews and the liberals. The Industrial Revolution really was a huge shock to our traditional form of society. The Industrial Revolution took people off the farms and out of the villages and packed them into factory towns like sardines in a can. This was a great strain on the old order. The new relationship between factory owner and factory workers was not as healthy a one as had existed between landowner and workers on the land, nor was the new, urban life-style as spiritually healthy as the village life-style.
We were learning gradually to cope with some of the changes in our society which accompanied the Industrial Revolution, our social order gradually was beginning to adjust itself, when the liberals and the Jews launched their assault. Unrest and revolution were fomented from the latter part of the 18th century and throughout the 19th and 20th centuries: egalitarianism, Communism, democracy, equal rights, no responsibilities, welfare programs, feminism. The old order was drowned in blood. In France the aristocrats and the landowners were butchered in response to the resentments which the liberals had stirred up among the rabble. Later in Russia the same process took place, when the Jewish Bolsheviks finally gained the upper hand and butchered not just the aristocrats, but everyone who had worked a little harder and been a little more successful than the rabble. The kulaks, the small farmers and landowners, were murdered en masse, by the millions, in order to "equalize" Russian society and destroy the last traces of the old, hierarchical order.
And into the social chaos of the 20th century the enemies of our people were able to introduce their idea of racial equality alongside their idea of social equality. We were told that the descendants of our slaves are just as good as we are -- maybe better -- and so they should become our social equals. We should bring them into our schools and neighborhoods, and we should intermarry with them, and we should buy Food Stamps for them with our taxes, and we should give them preference in hiring and promotions. And we should open our borders to all of the non-White wretched refuse of the Third World's teeming shores. They also are our equals, we are told. The more diversity the better. Diversity is our strength. Et cetera. Et cetera. Blah, blah, blah.
We were too disoriented and confused by the destruction of our social order to resist this poisonous propaganda. And so here we are at the end of the 20th century. There are some people who will try to convince you that things never have been better. We certainly have more equality and less order, more diversity and less homogeneity than ever before. And that obviously suits some people, in addition to the liberals and the Jews who have been pushing for these changes.
Are these changes better for us?
The suicide statistics, the drug statistics, the crime statistics, the divorce statistics, and the mental illness statistics give us part of the answer. The statistics should help us keep our grip on reality when the Jewish media try to persuade us that we need more of the same poison they have been dishing out for so long: more equality, more chaos, more diversity.
And we should be able to look into our own souls for the rest of the answer. We should know that we need again to have an ordered, structured society, in which we all have a place and will be appreciated according to how effectively we fill that place. We should know that we need again to have a homogeneous society, in which we can feel a sense of belonging. We should know that we need a society in which we have a sense of permanence and stability, not chaos and uncertainty. We should know that we need a society in which everyone strives for quality, not for an imaginary equality. We should know that in order to be spiritually healthy again we need a society in which we can feel a sense of rootedness and responsibility, rather than the aimless, wandering, rootless, cosmopolitan, egoism which characterizes American society today.
If we are honest with ourselves we know that we all crave a healthy society again, we need it. But too many of us have let ourselves be persuaded by the enemies of our people that the type of society we need is no longer attainable. Our enemies tell us, "We have destroyed the order in your society. We have made everyone equal, and you dare not try to take that equality away. That would be like trying to take candy away from a child. We have opened the candy store and told all the children that they can have as much as they want, and it's all free. They all will fight you if you try to change that, if you try to tell them that they must earn their candy." And our enemies grin in triumph when they see how that demoralizes and discourages so many of us. And they tell us, "We have destroyed the homogeneity in your society. We have replaced your homogeneity with diversity. We have brought every non-White type on the face of the earth into your midst, we have brought them in by the millions, and we have forced you to mix with them. Now there's nothing you can do to restore your homogeneity." And again they grin and say, "What will you do? Will you try to root out every non-White and every mongrel and send them all away or get rid of them? You don't have the stomach for that. So you'd better just learn to live with all of these non-Whites and mongrels. Pretty soon you'll be a minority in your own land." And they gloat.
And it is true that many of u8s do not yet have the stomach to do what must be done. And so the suicide rate and the divorce rate and the abortion rate will keep rising. The government will continue building more prisons. The cults will continue thriving. And the Jews and the liberals will keep telling us how wonderful everything is, how things have never been better, how we should appreciate all of the equality and diversity.
But all the while the number of us who do have the stomach to do what must be done will be growing. Our numbers are growing, because more and more of our people are coming to understand that the only alternative is death: death for our society, death for our children, death for our kind. What the Jews and liberals have done to our society is lethal. It cannot be sustained.
Order and homogeneity, a sense of identity and belonging, are not just luxuries for us. They are essential. Without them our society sickens and dies. The liberals may not be able to understands that, and the Jews, with their media propaganda, try to keep the rest of us from understanding it, but we can see the proof of it all around us. And we are determined to do whatever we must do to have once again a society for our own kind, a society to which we can really belong and feel a sense of responsibility to, a society in which we have a place and are appreciated if we fill that place well, a society based on order and quality and structure and commonality. We will have it. We will do what is necessary.
Allen Ginsberg Media Model for America's Youth
Three weeks ago a man named Allen Ginsberg died, at the age of 70. If you were a university student in the 1960s or 1970s, his name will be very familiar to you. He was the person chosen by the media to be the number-one guru for America's youth during that period. He's been a sort of secondary guru ever since, and if you studied literature even in the 1980s or 1990s you got a dose of him. He always was treated in a worshipful sort of way by the media, in order to make the more gullible young people believe that he was some sort of genius who was to be taken very seriously. We could see this same worshipful attitude again when the media people reported his death earlier this month. I listened to NBC's Tom Brokaw talk about Ginsberg on the evening television news. Brokaw behaved as if he were reporting the death of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. He spoke of Ginsberg as if he had been a talented and sensitive poet, a great soul who had passed away, leaving us all sadder and poorer for the loss. He even read the first line of one of Ginsberg's so-called "poems," Howl. And he did it all with a straight face. There was no hint in his facial expression or tone of voice that he wasn't completely serious. I didn't see the way the other TV-news anchor-people dealt with Ginsberg's death, but I presume it was similar to the way Brokaw did it. Certainly, the tone of all of the print media that I saw also was worshipful.
Let me tell you about Allen Ginsberg, this great and sensitive soul who contributed so much to America and whose passing we all should mourn. Ginsberg was a drug-crazed, homosexual, Communist Jew. I do not use any of those terms lightly. He was very homosexual, very Communist, and very Jewish, and he was a big promoter of drug use by young people back during the 1950s and 1960s. He was not a guru, if we intend the normal meaning for that word, which is "spiritual teacher." Judging from what he said and wrote during his life, he never had a spiritual impulse. Nor was he a poet, if we have any reasonable definition of what constitutes poetry. Of course, he pretended to be both a guru and a poet, and the media vigorously supported his pretensions. He was simply a degenerate piece of filth. His mind was a sewer. He was a con man, who made a good living from his pretensions.
To realize the full truth of this you need to read -- actually read for yourself -- what Ginsberg wrote, which his media promoters call "poetry" -- in fact, "great poetry." I intended to quote a few samples myself, but I couldn't find anything that I'm willing to repeat. His writing is almost indescribably filthy and perverted. I am not a prude, I am not sexually repressed, and I'm sure that I often say or write things which are offensive to many people. So when I tell you that there's nothing Ginsberg wrote that I'm willing to quote, believe me, it's pretty sick stuff.
The best I can do is to paraphrase a couple of his poems to give you an idea of their content. His best-known poem is Howl. That's the one that attracted the attention of the big media Jews back in 1956 and resulted in their decision to promote him as a "guru" and a cultural icon for young Americans. I repeat, Tom Brokaw read the first line of Howl with a sober expression on the NBC Evening News -- and without mentioning that Ginsberg was a homosexual or a Communist. The poem begins like this: "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed . . . ." That's as far as Brokaw went, giving the average listener a very limited impression of what Ginsberg had in mind when he wrote Howl. A few lines later the poem describes homosexual couplings with motorcyclists and sailors in the most graphic possible language.
Another of Ginsberg's better-known writings is Kaddish, which he wrote in 1961 about his mother, who had died five years earlier. He describes in revolting anatomical detail his fat, aging mother lying naked on a bed while he contemplates having sex with her, thinking maybe that's what she wants. He also describes, in the same revolting detail, his mother vomiting into a toilet and having a bowel movement on the bathroom floor.
In 1995 Ginsberg had a collection of his poems published under the title Cosmopolitan Greetings: Poems 1986-1992. One of the poems in this collection is titled Sphincter. It's a poem about his anus -- that's right, his anus -- and the various uses it's been put to in his homosexual activities. Very graphic. This collection was in the finals for the Pulitzer Prize in 1995.
I won't cite any more of Ginsberg's so-called "poetry." But I want you to understand what it's really like. The examples I've mentioned are by no means exceptional. They are typical of the sort of filthy scribbling that Ginsberg called "poetry." They are representative. They display the infantile, narcissistic attitude that underlies liberalism. They are the barely coherent expressions of a child playing with his own feces and his own genitalia, looking for new ways to gratify himself. And that's all that Ginsberg wrote: nothing serious, nothing except drugs, homosexual activity, degeneracy. If there is any idea that characterizes Ginsberg's writing, it is the liberal idea that everything is relative, nothing is evil, no attitude or life-style or sexual orientation is better than any other, and the purpose of life is self-gratification.
Ginsberg is said to have launched the hippie movement of the 1960s, not to mention the "beat" movement of the preceding decade. I don't know about that, although certainly the hippies shared a similarly infantile outlook. Ginsberg has, however, had a substantial influence on many people who grew up during the 1960s and 1970s -- not as a consequence of his own efforts, but because the Jewish media establishment made the conscious decision to make him influential, to hold him up as a cultural icon. Because of this conscious effort of the Jewish media bosses, books of Ginsberg's scatological, homosexual, drug-induced ravings are found in nearly every public and school library in the country. Ginsberg received all sorts of academic and literary awards. One book of his scribblings was given the National Book Award in 1974. He was nominated to the American Academy and the Institute of Arts and Letters. He was given a faculty position at Brooklyn College, which he still held at the time of his death. He was a favored speaker at hundreds of colleges around the country. And the media were always praising him, always taking him seriously, always holding him up as a model for young, impressionable students. Reviewers in Jewish papers like the New York Times referred to him as "America's greatest living poet" and called his poetry "brilliant." They used the same sort of meaningless double-talk to make fools take him seriously that the art critics use to make other fools take the hideous daubings of modern "artists" seriously. One reviewer wrote of Ginsberg's poetry: "The Judeo-Christian dualism of good versus evil is obliterated by an oriental relativism that neatly does away with the consequences of the spiritual pride that has bloodied the pages of Western ecclesiastical history." Another wrote that Ginsberg's poetry is "in one of the oldest traditions, that of Hosea or the other angry minor prophets of the Bible." Some of the literary critics claimed to see parallels between Ginsberg's literary efforts and the mission of Jesus to redeem the world. This sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately.
Even when Ginsberg bragged in public about his pederasty or his illegal drug use, he continued to be held up as a great, creative genius, and he continued to be given awards. In 1995, just two years ago, he bragged to a newspaper interviewer, "I sleep with young boys," but that didn't discourage Stanford University from setting up a Ginsberg Center and buying all of Ginsberg's personal papers, manuscripts, and so on to preserve them for posterity.
You know, Ginsberg was just a filthy, little, perverted, drug-crazed, Communist Jew. The world would be a lot cleaner place if all of his kind were swept up and buried in a deep hole somewhere. But Ginsberg, by himself, was not especially dangerous. The things he wrote were not likely to influence any healthy person. They were attractive only to sick creatures like himself.
Ginsberg, for all of his depravity, must take second place to the truly evil and destructive creatures who promoted him, who decided to make an icon of him, and who still praise him. Ginsberg became dangerous only after the big Jews, the media bosses, decided to use him as a weapon against White society and began promoting him. But even the Jewish media bosses are what they are. Everything they do is destructive to us. It is in their nature.
The ones we ought to save our anger for are the traitors among our own people who collaborated with the media bosses in promoting Ginsberg. I would sooner shoot the president of Stanford University for going along with the idea of a Ginsberg Center, or shoot Tom Brokaw for collaborating in the postmortem elevation of Ginsberg to sainthood, than I would shoot Ginsberg himself. Every newspaper writer who praised Ginsberg's trash, every newspaper editor who allowed the praise to be published in his paper, every university librarian who eagerly recommended Ginsberg's filth, every literary reviewer who treated Ginsberg seriously -- every one of them has done inestimable damage to our people.
For 40 years university students have been told by Jewish literature professors -- and by trendy, collaborating professors from our own people -- that Ginsberg was a genius, that his poetry was "brilliant" and showed great "sensitivity," that Ginsberg had great literary creativity. The students not only heard this from their professors, they read the same thing from the literary reviewers, and they heard various Hollywood figures refer adoringly to Ginsberg. And you know, a lot of our university students may have high IQs, but they really aren't very smart, if you understand what I mean. They haven't learned to look beneath the surface for truth. They believed their Jewish professors. They believed the reviewers.
So we've had two generations of literature students graduating from our universities who believe that Kaddish and Sphincter and Howl are great poetry, that Ginsberg had a great, creative soul, and that his filth is something to be imitated. And that's what our people have been trying to do: not only to imitate Ginsberg's scribblings, believing them to be art, but also trying to imitate his life-style, believing it to belong to a nobler and more saintly way of life than that of our own people. How many thousands of our young men and women have had their lives destroyed by these false beliefs! This is the way the Jews destroy a culture, destroy a society, destroy a people. I've talked about these things before, and I guess that too often they sounded theoretical, and I'm sure that many of you didn't really take it to heart when I told you that it is in the nature of the Jew to try to destroy any non-Jewish people with whom he is in contact.
Allen Ginsberg is a splendid illustration of the truth of what I have been telling you. Go to any large library and do two things. Sit down and read for yourself what Ginsberg wrote. Read his so-called poetry for yourself, since I do not want to quote it. Then, read what the reviewers have had to say about Ginsberg. There's a lot of that in the periodicals in connection with his death. And every large library has not only books by Ginsberg but also books about him. Read how he has been praised and is still being praised. And think about the fact that this is the image of Ginsberg presented to American university students today.
Ginsberg's filth is what is presented to our young people as a sublime example of literary creativity. Ginsberg is presented as a sensitive genius. Think about it. Perhaps then you will share my view about what ought to be done to Tom Brokaw and the president of Stanford University. Perhaps then you will understand the urgency of our task to take the mass media away from the Jews.
I've also talked before about the nature of liberalism and about the roots of this spiritual disease. I've told you that liberalism is narcissistic and infantile, that it is an arrested state of emotional and spiritual development. And perhaps my words seemed too theoretical, not concrete enough. Allen Ginsberg is a wonderfully concrete example. Read Ginsberg and you will understand the meaning of narcissism. And contemplate the way in which liberals have responded to Ginsberg. A liberal is a person who when he or she was very young was oriented toward making mud-pies with his own feces and playing with his genitalia and never developed emotionally beyond this stage when he grew up. Now, that is a very crude and simplistic statement, and in the case of many individual liberals it may not even be literally true. But there is a sense in which it is generally true for all liberals, a sense in which it expresses the essence of liberalism. Allen Ginsberg and his relationship with the liberal establishment are the proof of that.
Occasionally I've talked about homosexuality on these broadcasts, but I haven't gotten into the subject in depth because it's such an unpleasant one. And more than that, it's difficult to convey my full meaning when I say that homosexuality is something which should be abhorrent to every spiritually healthy person. There is a tendency on the part of many well-meaning persons -- not liberals, but persons who are a bit naive and a bit too trusting -- to be taken in by the campaign of the Jewish media and our current government and the liberal establishment to portray homosexuals as essentially normal people who just happen to have a different sexual orientation. The fact is that homosexuality is a disease of the soul. There is no such thing as a "normal" homosexual. Homosexuality colors a person's entire outlook, his entire attitude toward life, toward himself and the world around him. Many homosexuals are pretty skillful at covering this up, at pretending to be just like everyone else except in the privacy of their bedrooms. But they aren't like healthy people at all, either in the bedroom or out of the bedroom. They are sick and tortured souls. They are truly depraved. If you want to understand what I mean by that, read Ginsberg. Read Ginsberg and you will understand why homosexuals should not be in our armed forces. You will understand why they always have been regarded as security risks -- and, believe me, it's not just because they can be blackmailed. Ginsberg's poetry will help you to understand why homosexuals should not be tolerated in our society, why they should not be permitted to teach or to have any position of influence over others.
I feel a bit sheepish in telling you to read Ginsberg. I don't want to be seen as a promoter of his filth. And I don't tell you to read him because I want to titillate you, as if I were telling you, "Hey, look at this really raunchy inscription I found on the men's room wall." The reason you need to know about Ginsberg and about his promoters is so that you will understand that there is evil in our midst. Too many of us, in our sheltered, middle-class lives, don't understand that. But indeed, there are evil men among us, men who intend to destroy us and everything that we have created. We must not try to hide from these men and hope that they will go away if we don't provoke them. When we send our sons and daughters off to college, we send them into the arms of these evil men. When we let our children watch television, we hand them over to these evil men.
We must not try to hide from them. We must stand up and oppose them. We must understand that if we do not destroy them, they will destroy everything that is noble and decent and beautiful and good on this earth, because that is their nature.
Remember What Happened to Anwar? Discontent With America's Rulers Is Growing I've been asked to appear as a guest on a number of radio talk shows recently because of the public interest in the Denver trial of Oklahoma City bombing suspect Timothy McVeigh and the news report that when McVeigh was arrested he had with him an envelope containing a copy of the Declaration of Independence, a quotation from the writings of the 17th-century English philosopher John Locke, and a photocopy of a page from my book The Turner Diaries.
Callers on these talk shows will ask me, "How dare you write a book that advocates killing innocent women and children?" Most of these people haven't read the book, of course. But they have read what the controlled media have said about it, including perhaps one or two carefully selected little excerpts. I will explain patiently that my book doesn't advocate killing innocent women and children, that it is not a book of advocacy at all, but a novel. It does, however, predict that innocent women and children will die as a consequence of the government's policies. I explain that I observed the very troubling trends that were visible in the early 1970s and then wrote a fictional scenario of what life might be like in the 1990s if those trends continued. In my fictional scenario I saw the continued breakdown of American society growing into increasing civil violence, or terrorism if you prefer, and eventual civil war. I explain all of this on these radio talk shows, but I still encounter talk-show callers who tell me, "If you hadn't written about these things they wouldn't have happened."
I guess the old idea about blaming the bearer of bad news is still valid. Back in the 1970s the hostility I encountered was a little different. Then the hostility was based on the fact that I was predicting a bad outcome for policies that were Politically Correct: I was thinking bad thoughts about what the media said were good policies. Today it's based on the fact that some of those bad thoughts are coming true. The fact is that when a society is coming apart, everybody looks for someone to blame. The folks who generally approve of the government's policies will blame the government's enemies. The folks who don't approve of the government's policies will blame the government.
So today I must expect to be called a baby-killer by the people who support the government and the status quo, not because I approve of the Oklahoma City bombing -- I don't approve of it -- but because I predicted it in a general sort of way: because I said back in 1975 that we're headed toward civil war in America.
The really revealing thing about the mentality of the government's supporters is that the ones who yell the loudest about the government's enemies being baby-killers aren't at all indignant about the babies that Bill Clinton and Janet Reno burned to death in Waco four years ago. They don't call Bill Clinton and Janet Reno "baby-killers." Which leads me to believe that it's not really the killing of innocent women and children they're outraged about; it's opposition to the government which upsets them. And I suppose it's always been that way in war: the only atrocities you really get worked up about are those committed by the other side. One thing that's certain is that there will be many more atrocities committed before this war is over: not because I said there will be, but because that's the nature of war.
The government's supporters -- and in fact, everyone who believes what the media bosses say in their newspapers and on their television -- act outraged every time a bomb goes off outside an abortion clinic or a homosexual club. They call it "terrorism," and they blame it on religious fanatics or on patriots, and they demand that the government punish someone for it. They don't blame the media and the government for telling sexually confused youngsters that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle. They don't blame the media and the government for encouraging abortion as a convenience. It never occurs to them that more and more decent, patriotic Americans are sick and tired of seeing homosexuals arrogantly forcing their way into the mainstream and demanding to be accepted. It never occurs to them that more and more normal, law-abiding citizens are horrified by the enormous number of healthy, White babies being aborted every year. It never occurs to them that more and more good, decent Americans are reaching the point where they simply aren't willing to tolerate these things any longer. Because the government's supporters are people who will accept any immorality, any atrocity on the part of the government, they can't imagine that there are people who won't. So there will be more bombings of abortion clinics and of homosexual clubs and of government offices, and sometimes innocent bystanders will be killed. It is a terrible thing when these innocent people are killed. It's terrible regardless of who kills them. But it will happen, not because I predict it, but because the government and the media will persist with their destructive policies, and because the government's supporters will continue supporting the government -- at least for a while.
Let me tell you about another atrocity in this war, which happened in early April. In Detroit there's a music company, a record company, called Resistance Records. They produce and sell mostly CDs -- compact discs -- of music by skinhead rock bands. Now, I personally can't stand any kind of rock music. I just don't like it. But many young people do, and Resistance Records sells a lot of CDs to them. But Resistance Records specializes in a type of music called "White power rock." In fact, they're the world's biggest producer and distributor of White power rock. It's the music of White, urban youth who have been abandoned by the Clinton government, who have found their racial roots, and who have banded together to protect themselves. The lyrics of their music, the lyrics of this White power rock, are racially conscious lyrics and they're anti- government. It's really revolutionary music. The names of some of the bands whose music is produced by Resistance Records are Bound for Glory, Max Resist, Berserkr, Blue Eyed Devils, and No Remorse. It's militant music. And it's becoming increasingly popular among young people. And it has the Clintonistas worried.
So on the morning of April 9, 1997, a gang of heavily armed, jackbooted thugs ostensibly representing the state of Michigan kicked in the door of Resistance Records' Detroit office and charged in with guns drawn. They put a pistol to the head of the office caretaker, made him lie on the floor, then backed up a truck to the front door and carted off all of the company's stock of CDs, their business records, and their computers and other office equipment.
What had Resistance Records done to warrant this sort of treatment? Were they planning to bomb the White House? Were they involved in a conspiracy to poison Detroit's water supply? No. The thugs said they were investigating whether or not Resistance Records had been turning over all of the sales taxes collected on CDs sold to Michigan residents.
Let me assure you that this is not the way in which sales-tax investigations normally are carried out in the state of Michigan. So when my office received the first telephone call from Resistance Records April 9 telling us what was happening, I was skeptical. I thought that surely Resistance Records had done something worse than keeping sloppy sales-tax records. I began checking into it. I got a copy of the search warrant. I talked to other people at Resistance Records. And the more I checked, the madder I got. Apparently this raid really was based on nothing more than the pretense of a sales-tax investigation. Now, whether Resistance Records owes sales taxes to the state of Michigan or not, I don't know, but this raid quite obviously was conducted in the manner it was simply because the music these people produce and sell is Politically Incorrect. You know and I know that if this record company produced gangsta'-rap CDs or rhythm-and-blues CDs or any other kind of Politically Correct, Clinton administration-approved music, this wouldn't have happened to them. They would have received a notice in the mail from the state tax department that their sales records were going to be audited, and everything would have been done in a polite and civilized manner.
The way this raid was conducted, it almost seems that the government was hoping it would develop into another Waco or Ruby Ridge massacre, that the government was hoping someone at Resistance Records would resist the raid so the government would have an excuse to start shooting. Another chance for the government to flex its muscles and intimidate its opponents. Another chance to prove to that part of the population which still supports it that it still has everything under control. Another chance to get a pat on the head from its masters.
Yes, the government's masters were involved too. The Detroit Free Press story reporting the raid had a comment from the Michigan chapter of B'nai B'rith, the powerful Jewish pressure group. Don Cohen, Michigan commissar of B'nai B'rith's Anti-Defamation League, approved of the raid and told the Detroit Free Press sneeringly, "There will always be these hard-core hate groups. Our job is to expose them for what they are." He might have added, his job also is to show everyone that in the New World Order Political Incorrectness will not be tolerated.
I don't know whether it was Don Cohen who ordered this raid on Resistance Records or someone back in New York or Washington, but I'll tell you what I believe. I believe that the raid was carried out not only to silence Resistance Records, to put them out of business, but also to find out who their customers in Canada are. You see, at exactly the same time the Michigan State Police were kicking in the front door of Resistance Records' Detroit office -- at exactly the same time -- Canadian secret police were raiding the homes of some of the people who work for Resistance Records but who live across the border in Canada. The Canadian secret police don't care about Michigan sales taxes. That's none of their business. They want to charge the Canadians who work for Resistance Records and perhaps the ordinary Canadian citizens who buy CDs from Resistance Records with "hate crimes." You see, in Canada the Jews have succeeded in obtaining the sort of legislation that the Clintonistas want in the United States, legislation outlawing Politically Incorrect speech and Politically Incorrect music. Think about it for a minute. What Resistance Records is doing is constitutionally protected. Whether the Clintonistas and the Jews like their music or not isn't important. Whether I like it or not isn't important. They have a First Amendment right to publish it, and Americans have a First Amendment right to buy it and to listen to it and have their friends listen to it. Unfortunately, Canadians don't have the same rights in their country. The Jews and their collaborators have taken those rights away from them. I believe that the purpose of this raid was to obtain the customer list of Resistance Records and turn it over to the Canadian thought police so that they can prosecute Canadian citizens who have ordered music from Resistance Records. I believe that's the reason the raids in Detroit and in Canada on April 9 were coordinated.
The reason I believe this is that I've seen this sort of thing before. For example, Mr. Clinton's FBI shares information on the international travels of American citizens with the secret police in foreign countries, so that American citizens who have done nothing illegal under the laws of the United States, who have in fact done nothing except exercise their right to free speech in this country, can be arrested in countries where Politically Incorrect speech has been outlawed. I told you in a couple of broadcasts last year about the arrest by the German secret police of American citizens Hans Schmidt and Gerhard Lauck. Mr. Schmidt publishes a newsletter in the United States which often is critical of the current German government and its policies. When he traveled to Germany last year to visit his elderly mother he was seized at the airport by the German secret police. Mr. Lauck was arrested while in Denmark, extradited to Germany, put on trial for publishing Politically Incorrect materials in the United States, and is now serving a four- year sentence in a German prison. In both of these cases not only did the Clinton government assist the German police in arresting these two U.S. citizens, but it made no protest when they were prosecuted for perfectly legal activities which they had carried out entirely in the United States. Now, I believe that what happened to Resistance Records on April 9 is an instance of governmental authorities in the United States helping the Canadian government prosecute its citizens for doing things in Canada which would be constitutionally protected if done in the United States -- and incidentally violating the civil rights of the folks at Resistance Records in the process. That is an atrocity. That is the New World Order in action.
The government and its supporters believe that the only atrocities they have to worry about are the atrocities committed by the other side. They believe that they can commit all the atrocities they want, because they have more muscle, more guns, on their side. And at the moment that's true. If anybody doesn't like it, if anybody gets out of line, why, if the secret police can't handle it, then Mr. Clinton's Jewish secretary of defense William Cohen will sic the Army on him. Mr. Cohen's Army will smash anybody who gets out of line, they believe. They've got their Army and their Air Force and their Navy trained to obey orders, to shoot anybody Mr. Cohen tells them to shoot. They think they can count on their Army and their Air Force to defend their New World Order and kill anybody who gets in their way.
And for the most part they're right. Most military officers these days are just politicians in uniform, lawyers with guns, who don't care about what's right and what's wrong. They do what the people who pay them tell them to do. Most of them, that is. But not all of them. Mr. Cohen's psychologists have a pretty effective program of brainwashing for the troops and a pretty effective program for weeding out any people who still insist on thinking for themselves after the brainwashing, any people who still have any old-fashioned patriotism or morality left. But Mr. Cohen doesn't get all of them. And some of these people who still do have a sense of right and wrong left in them have had about all they're going to take from the Clintonistas. They've had about all they're going to take of having to accept homosexuals into their ranks, of changing their way of fighting so that women can go into combat with them, of seeing the Constitution they've sworn to defend being subverted and trampled on by the politicians who give them their orders, of carrying out the policies of a government which murders its own citizens wholesale.
Hey, Bill! Remember what happened to Anwar? You got away with a lot of treason back during the Vietnam war, supporting America's enemies while those enemies were killing our young men over in Vietnam. You've gotten away with a lot more treason during the last four years. You think your buddy Cohen has the military people under control, don't you, and that you can get away with whatever you want?
Well, believe me, you can't do it. You will find out that not all of the military people you order to back up your atrocious policies are as rotten as you are. One by one they will rebel, and then two by two, and then there will be hell to pay. Not because I predicted it, but because your policies, your treason, your unpunished atrocities made it happen. When it happens, you remember that!
Marriage and White Survival More Men and Women Must Form Successful Families
Another friend of mine recently went through a very traumatic marital breakup. The breakup was worse than most because my friend and his wife have three small children. When I took an inventory of all of the people I know, well over half of them had had at least one failed marriage. Most of the ones I know who have never had a divorce are those who are over 70. I guess that about 60 per cent of my younger friends have been divorced one or more times. And I guess that the rising national statistics on divorce agree with this personal inventory: as time goes on, it's getting harder and harder to keep marriages together.
So, what are the reasons for this? Why are men and women having a harder time getting along? I've thought about this problem for quite a while, and I believe that I understand the reasons. Some of the reasons for the decline of marital stability are economic, some are social, and some are psychological. Historically, marriage has been based on the bedrock economic fact that a well-defined division of labor results in greater survivability. If a man and a woman worked together as a team, with the woman keeping the home front under control while the man brought home the bacon and chased the wolves away from the door, both gained a competitive advantage over unattached singles and were more likely to survive and prosper -- not to mention the fact that their children were far more likely to survive than those engendered by unattached individuals.
This economic basis for marriage survived even the enormous social changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution, but economic developments in this century began undermining it. There was the large-scale recruitment of married women into the non-domestic work force during the past 60 years, at the same time many men found that their income alone could no longer support a family. Another development was the advent of the welfare state.
When employers came to regard their employees simply as interchangeable economic units, they no longer could see any reason why they shouldn't hire married women, even married women with children, for any sort of work women could handle -- especially since doing so increased the size of the labor pool and lowered the price of labor. The transition of America from an industrial economy to a service economy during the past 30 years or so has greatly accelerated this tendency by decreasing the percentage of jobs which require a man's strength.
At the same time that the percentage of married women employed outside the home was rising from nearly zero 60 years ago to its present level of around 70 per cent, technology was greatly reducing the burden of maintaining a home. Sixty years ago clothes were washed by hand with a washing board and a washtub. Modern fabrics hadn't been invented, and so everything that was washed then had to be ironed. Homes didn't have electric or gas refrigerators, and only those in urban areas where there was an icehouse even had iceboxes. Kitchen work took substantially more time and effort, and so did shopping; there was no such thing as popping a frozen dinner into the microwave. In other words, at the same time new employment opportunities for women meant that they weren't as economically dependent on their husbands as in the past, men were finding that a woman's work in the home was less essential than it had been: with all of the modern appliances and shortcuts, a man could get by in reasonable comfort alone. The introduction of the welfare state after the Second World War meant that a woman dissatisfied with married life didn't even have to worry about finding employment if she left her husband.
A century ago couples had fights just like they do today, but they had strong economic motives for making peace and keeping the union together. Today the tendency is just to announce, "I don't have to put up with this crap," and walk out the door.
Paralleling these economic changes were social changes which also worked to the detriment of marriage. A century ago, when most of us lived in a rural environment or small towns, there was strong social pressure on a couple to stay together. A divorce was almost scandalous. In today's urban environment this social pressure and the accompanying stigma of divorce are entirely absent.
After the Second World War the rise of feminism and so-called "women's liberation" also took their toll on marital stability. The feminists asserted that women were essentially the same as men, except for a few minor anatomical details, and that women didn't need men in order to live a complete and fulfilling life. They insisted on being treated just like men. And of course, their cause was taken up by the government and by the Jewish media, which resulted in their doctrines influencing many otherwise sensible women.
Women consequently lost their special status. When they asserted that they no longer needed the protection or the support of men, many men took them at face value. Men responded by deciding that they no longer had a special obligation or responsibility to support or protect a woman. Deciding to shed a wife became much like deciding to change roommates. Feminism has eroded the traditional complementary relationship between men and women, which was a relationship based on their natural differences, and tried to replace it with equality, which is not in accord with reality. The result of this failed effort has been very traumatic for both men and women. In many cases it has turned natural affection to hostility on both sides. Just as many women have responded by becoming less feminine, many men have become less masculine. It has played havoc with the institution of marriage.
So what's to be done?
Unfortunately, about all we can do in the short run is try to minimize the trauma for ourselves as individuals. If you're a man, when you're looking for a mate steer clear of women who have been tainted by feminism; and if you're a woman, be on your guard against men who have been "sensitized" by the feminists.
In the long run, we can make the institution of marriage healthy again only after we have cured the social and economic problems in our society. One of the easiest things we can do is simply stop promoting the false and destructive doctrine of feminism. When our government, our schools, and our media recognize that men and women are different and complementary members of our society and have fundamentally different roles to fill, we'll be a long way ahead.
Fixing the economic problems which beset marriage will be more difficult. It is hard to take women out of factories and offices and put them back in the home when most families have become accustomed to a life-style which requires two incomes to maintain. One of the reasons our grandmothers were able to stay at home and raise their children instead of dropping them off at a day-care center on the way to work was that our grandparents managed to do without many things that have come to be thought of as necessities today, so that one income was sufficient for them. Outlawing credit cards and other forms of borrowing certainly would cut consumption and help more people get by on one income, but that probably would cause a revolution all by itself, because our people have forgotten the old way of paying for things first and then having them.
We don't need to go back to using washing boards and washtubs, but we can look forward to building a new society in which economic policy and employment policy are made subordinate to the primary goal of promoting the racial and spiritual health of our people. One thing we can do is get rid of government welfare programs -- no food stamps, no subsidized rents, no welfare checks, nothing. If churches want to set up soup kitchens or flop houses for the homeless, that's their business, but no one should be forced to pay for the support of those who won't work, male or female -- nor should the dole be an attractive alternative to working or to keeping a marriage together.
And a career should not be quite as attractive or available an alternative to marriage for young women as it is now. Simply doing away with the government-imposed requirements for hiring and promoting women and leaving employers free to hire whom they choose will help a lot in this direction. And women could just forget about careers as soldiers.
We don't need governmental coercion to make marriage healthy again. We just need an end to the governmental programs which have made it unhealthy. Without feminist propaganda and without government interference, the instincts of men and women will do most of what needs to be done to get things back on a healthy track again. Their inherently different natures will reassert themselves again. Perhaps we can't make things quite as sound as they were a century ago when most of us lived in much smaller communities, but we can make them a lot better than they are now.
Whenever I talk about the things we need to do to make a better future for our people, I hear many people telling me, "Oh, you can't do that. You can't just take the welfare class off the dole. They'll riot. They'll burn the cities. And you can't expect women to give up their careers and become housewives. You can't just take away all of the privileges the government has given them. You'll lose their support if you try to do that."
Well, let me assure you, with a healthy government in place, the welfare class will not riot -- at least, not more than once. We know how to deal with rioters. All it takes is will power. It will be a good training exercise for our military people. That's not a hard problem at all. As for losing the support of women, I'm sure that will be true in some cases, because the enemies of our people have convinced many of them that being a housewife or a mother is a fate worse than death. Many of them believe that they absolutely have to be fighter pilots or corporate executives. And I'm not proposing making a law that they can't be corporate executives if they want to. I'm just saying that we shouldn't pump them full of propaganda to convince them that that's what they should be. And we shouldn't have laws which give them an artificial advantage in becoming corporate executives. I believe that the institution of marriage can tolerate a few female executives: just not quite so many as we have today.
One thing I must admit: it would be easier not to do anything, just to leave things as they are. If we just keep feeding the welfare class, then we don't have to machine-gun them when they start demanding what they think they're entitled to. And if we leave the government quotas alone, many feminists won't hate us as much for trying to take something away from them.
But, you know, leaving things as they are really isn't an option. If we do nothing, then our people will die. Our race will become extinct, and the earth will be inherited by the savages and degenerates of the non-White world. The birthrate for White women in America is far below the replacement level. There are fewer White Americans with every passing year. The White birthrate has fallen below the level necessary for replacement for pretty much the same reasons that the divorce rate has gone up. As more women have left the home and joined the work force, they have decided to have fewer children. Children are a hardship on mothers who are obliged to hold down a full-time job outside the home. Children can lower a father's standard of living. Worse, the women most susceptible to feminist propaganda, the ones most likely to choose a career instead of motherhood, tend to be the brightest and most capable, the ones who most need to have children and pass on their genes to the next generation.
So we really have no choice in the matter. We either start having and raising more healthy White babies, or we die. Our race dies. Our country dies.
We will do what we have to do. We don't want to be unpopular, we don't want to make anyone hate us, but we will if we must. Those who hate us will be those who hate our people and want our people to die, or who have become so self-centered, so individualistic, so alienated and rootless that they don't care what happens to our people, so long as it doesn't inconvenience them personally. Let them hate us. It is a mark of honor, a mark of distinction.
The truly unfortunate fact now is that those who hate our people and want us to die are in control of most of the organs of influence, the media of influence. On our side we have American Dissident Voices and we have a growing presence on the Internet, but those who hate us have nearly everything else. They have the television networks, and they have Hollywood and Madison Avenue, and they have the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post, and Time and Newsweek, and they have all of the slick, trendy, shallow, feminist-oriented magazines available at every magazine rack. Because they control the media, they also control the government. No politician, from Bill Clinton down to the least significant Congressman, dares to contradict them. If we are ever to have any hope of making the institution of marriage healthy again, any hope of getting the White birthrate up to the replacement level again, any hope of keeping our people from becoming extinct, then we must gain for ourselves a much greater influence: eventually more influence than the enemies of our people have. The only way to do this is to build our own media for communicating with our people: to reach more of our people with American Dissident Voices broadcasts, Free Speech, and our other media.
Our enemies would like for everyone to believe that the only people who are concerned about the things I have talked about today -- the decay of our marriage institution and the declining White birthrate -- are what they like to call "right wing extremists" or "White supremacists." Ordinary people, they will tell you, don't share my concerns, my feeling that we must do something about what is happening to our people.
But our enemies are wrong. I know that a great many thoughtful people share my concerns. I know that a great many decent people are just as distressed as I am about what has happened to our marriage institution. I know that a great many of our most intelligent and perceptive people are as alarmed as I am over the catastrophic decline in the White birthrate. Not all of them have been quite so rude as I have in placing the blame for these things where it belongs. Not all of them are willing to be shrieked at by the controlled media as "anti-Semites" and "racists," so they keep quiet. But they are concerned; they are distressed.
My task -- our task -- is to persuade them to speak up, to persuade them to give voice to their concerns, to stop letting themselves be intimidated by those who want to destroy our people. And it also is to make many more of our people think about these things. So many of our people today are so busy, so wrapped up in their own affairs, that they haven't taken time to look at what is happening to our society and to think about it, to try to understand its long-range implications: its implications for their children and their grandchildren. I believe that when they do understand these implications, they too will share my concerns.
We need to continue talking with them, to talk with more and more of them. We need to get our radio program on more and more stations and our publications read by more and more people. Everything counts on it. You can help. I hope that you will.
Slime at the Top The United States and the United Kingdom have Similar Problems I've been looking at the results of the May 1st parliamentary elections in Britain. They are gratifying in an odd way: they prove that British voters are just as stupid as American voters. I had thought that choosing Bill Clinton twice in a row gave Americans some sort of world record for stupidity, but now I can see that the Britons are no brighter than we are. They've chosen as their new prime minister, Tony Blair, a man who bears so many resemblances to Bill Clinton that it is uncanny. Blair, like Clinton, is a crooked lawyer with a sly smile who looks like he would be more at home hawking his wares on a used-car lot than making policy for what used to be a truly great White nation. Like Clinton, he's the sort who can look you right in the eye and, with an expression of the utmost sincerity, tell you any kind of whopper that suits his purpose. And like Clinton he is married to a hard-as-nails female lawyer.
Like Clinton, Blair heads the leftist, internationalist, pro-spending, pro-big government faction in his country. Like Clinton, he is the choice of the non-White minorities and the really sappy element among the women. And like Clinton, he was elected with substantially less than a majority of the vote. But the really scary part of the similarity between Blair and Clinton is in the ties which both men have to organized Jewish power. It is fair to say that both men, more than any other U.S. President or British prime minister in recent history, are surrounded by Jews, have had their careers guided by Jews, and have appointed Jews to high governmental posts in unprecedented numbers. They are both creatures of the Jews. They are both utterly -- I mean utterly -- unprincipled men who serve at the pleasure of the Jewish minority in their country and also serve as instruments of that Jewish minority.
Blair, like Clinton, is the darling of the controlled media, but despite this there are a few elements of the media in Britain which are not Blair boosters. One of these, the London Sunday Times, ran an expose of Blair's secret financial backers in November 1996. More than that, the Times identified each of the wealthy men involved as a leading member of Britain's small but very powerful Jewish community. Between them they had donated more than 500,000 pounds to Blair -- not to his election campaign, but to support his private wheeling and dealing: what the British call Blair's "private office."
Blair's response to this expose has been to propose legislation which would make it illegal for a newspaper to provide such ethnic identifications. It would be considered "group libel" to identify as Jewish any malefactor or person involved in shady or illegal activities. Blair also has proposed legislation to make it illegal to express publicly any doubt about the so-called "Holocaust." In addition, he is a great advocate of more laws against what the Jews call "hate crimes" and of stiffer penalties for "hate criminals."
How can men like Blair and Clinton be elected to high public office in countries like Britain and the United States? What has happened to us that we tolerate this?
Please don't think that I'm calling for a return to the Conservative Party in Britain or for a Republican President in the United States. The Conservative Party in Britain is riddled with corruption and treason, as is the Republican Party in the United States. The Jews may be a little less numerous and a little less obvious among the Conservatives and the Republicans than they are in the Labor Party and among the Democrats, but they're still there. The reason that the Jews prefer a man like Blair or Clinton, as opposed to a Conservative or a Republican, is that men like Blair and Clinton are wholly dependent on them, whereas there's more of an old-boy network among the Conservatives and the Republicans. There is more Gentile money for the Conservatives or the Republicans to fall back on. Men like Blair and Clinton, on the other hand, whose votes come much more from the urban rabble, from the welfare class, are much more heavily dependent on Jewish money for their campaigns. They cannot declare their independence from the Jews. Not that there's a very big chance of the Conservatives or the Republicans trying that.
Corruption and treason have riddled the whole system of mass democracy in the television age. It's not just the individual slimeballs like Blair and Clinton who are the problem. It is the system itself. It is the system of television-mediated electoral politics. Even if television and the other mass media were in the hands of decent people, even if they were in the hands of racially conscious Whites, democracy still would be a sham, because the people who control the media would still control the electoral process.
We've just come too far from the days of ancient Athens, where candidates for public office spoke directly and in person to the thousand or so men who were entitled to vote: men of maturity, substance, and responsibility, who could choose a candidate based on their personal knowledge of him. Nowadays what we vote for is the image of the candidate shaped and projected by the media. It is an image designed to appeal to a majority of voters. So we might get good men in office if the media were controlled by good men, but it still would be dishonest to pretend that the masses of voters were the ones making the choices. As it is, with Jews and those beholden to Jews controlling the mass media in both Britain and the United States, we get men like Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. That's the level to which we have sunk.
In the past we could count on the old two-party shell game. When the voters couldn't stand the Democrats -- or in the case of Britain, the Labor Party -- any longer, they could switch to the Republicans -- or the Conservatives -- for a few years, until in desperation they were ready to try the Democrats or the Laborites again. And the Jews always stayed moderately well hidden behind the scenes. They kept a moderately low profile. I have a suspicion that they've gotten tired of having to keep their heads down. I think that they're itching to rule openly. That may account for the sudden huge increase in the number of Jews visibly involved in running the government, both in the United States and in Britain. I believe that it also accounts for the greatly accelerated drive to silence dissenters, to make any expression of Politically Incorrect ideas or any revelation of Politically Incorrect facts illegal. That's why there's a big push on by the forces of Political Correctness to censor the Internet, for example. That's why Blair has proposed making any questioning of the "Holocaust" or any unfavorable mention of Jews a crime. Believe me, the rabble will go for it. The people who voted for Clinton and those who voted for Blair will gladly sign away all their rights in return for the promise of a little more security.
The problem with that is that they will sign away our rights too. What can we do about this terribly depressing and dangerous state of affairs? The first thing we can do is understand it: really pound into our consciousness the fact that mass democracy, with millions of voters, is a fraud. It is not rule by the majority. It is rule by the minority able to control the images of the candidates presented to the public. Let's remember that. As soon as you have more than a few thousand voters, each of whom knows the candidates personally, the concept of democracy becomes meaningless. Let's not let ourselves be fooled by all of the pretense associated with campaigns and elections. What we have today is just a variation on the old, old theme that wealth rules: except that the wealth that really counts today is that which controls the mass media. A penniless candidate can defeat a Rockefeller, if the masters of the media favor the penniless candidate, if they build his image up and make it attractive to the largest faction of voters.
Let's also understand who the masters of the mass media are. Let's understand that they are Jews. In many cases they are Jews who are right out in the open in the top positions of the giant media corporations, Jews like Michael Eisner at the head of the Disney Corporation, which also owns the ABC television network; or Gerald Levin at the head of Time Warner; or Sumner Redstone, who owns MTV and other media as well. And, of course, there are the Jews who own the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. But even in those cases when the men at the top are not Jews -- Rupert Murdoch, for example -- the Jews are still there, just not in such conspicuous positions. Over the last 60 years or so they have burrowed into the mass media at every level. The few Gentiles in the media business would be shut down immediately if they tried to buck the Jews. They could not run their businesses without the cooperation of the Jews. It may seem amazing that a tiny minority, which makes up only 2.5 per cent of the population, could have weaseled its way into virtually total control of such a vital industry as the mass media, but the Jews knew exactly what they were doing. They understood from the beginning that control of the mass media is the key to the control of everything else in a modern society.
The reason the Jews are able to blackmail countries like Switzerland, Sweden, and Argentina into paying them billions of dollars today for supposed wrongs done 60 years ago is not just because the United States has a Jewish secretary of state. It's primarily because the mass media in the United States are controlled by Jews. The Jews can go to some country and say, "Give us $500 million for the property we claim to have lost during the Second World War, or we'll sic the U.S. media on you, and it'll end up costing you a lot more than $500 million." And it works. Every week they dream up something else that the world owes them a billion or two billion dollars for. And they get it, because the politicians understand the power of the media.
Now the Jews are even claiming that American taxpayers owe them millions of dollars in restitution for not doing quite enough for them during the Second World War. And they'll get that too, you can be sure.
So that's why we have people like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair winning elections. Let's understand that as long as the mass media are under Jewish control we'll continue to have election results like that. We can't solve the problem by putting a different candidate forward or by organizing another party so long as we have the bulk of the voters being told what to think by Jews in New York and Hollywood. What we must do now is talk with our people, help our people to understand the situation, help our people to find their roots again -- and to find their lost manhood. We must continue speaking out -- not just me -- you too. We must use every medium we can: American Dissident Voices radio broadcasts, Free Speech, the Internet, books, leaflets -- and person-to-person communication. That's what you can do. You don't have to have your own radio program to make a difference. All you have to do is have the courage to say what you think, the courage to share with other people what you know.
I know that it used to be tough to speak out. As soon as you'd open your mouth the haters and the bigots would be screaming at you because you were saying something Politically Incorrect. And there are still a lot of haters and bigots out there. But we are gaining ground on them. More and more ordinary people are just becoming fed up with Political Correctness. It's not just unemployed rednecks with tattoos living in mobile homes who are unhappy enough with the government to speak out these days. The unhappiness has percolated up through the socioeconomic strata all the way to the top. Today there is a growing number of engineers and doctors, teachers and business executives -- even lawyers -- who have reached such a point of disgust and frustration that they're no longer willing to pretend that everything is going along just fine. They look at a piece of filth like Clinton running the country to which they pledged their allegiance when they were in school, and it makes them sick to their stomachs. They watch the controlled media playing up to him and praising him, and it makes them even sicker. They think about the sort of world their kids will have to live in when they grow up, and they're ready to fight.
So don't worry about the Politically Correct bigots. Don't let the haters intimidate you. Stand up and speak out. Talk to your friends and neighbors. Invite a couple of them over to listen to an American Dissident Voices program. You'll be surprised at how many people will agree with you. They're all around you. Speak to them, and you will give some of them the courage also to speak out.
Just because you see more evil men in positions of power these days, just because you see men like Clinton and Blair in high office and you see Jews swarming around them, just because there's more filth and decay and hatred in our society, just because the bigots of Political Correctness are trying harder than ever to force everyone into ideological conformity, just because you see more hatred of our people and our traditions being expressed on television, just because you see more people doing disgusting things and hear them expressing disgusting ideas - - all of this does not mean that there are fewer decent people, fewer people who will agree with you if you speak up. It just means that our society is becoming more and more sharply divided. When there are more evil men in high places, when there are more foolish people who express agreement with these evil men, then there also are more normal, decent men who will notice this evil and who will turn against it inwardly. The more the Jews come out into the open and flaunt their power and make demands and are obeyed by the politicians, the more people there will be who will notice these things and disapprove of them and be silently opposed to them.
The Jews make their own opposition. Evil makes its own opposition. I do not make opposition to the Jews when I speak out. But I do encourage other people to speak out. I do not make evil men become good men, but I do make at least some good men speak who otherwise would have remained silent.
You know, our enemies like to say that I am divisive. They tell me that I should be silent, because by speaking out I divide Americans against each other. But that is not true. It is they who have divided America by their actions and their policies. I point out their evil. I encourage others to speak. But it is the evil itself, not my words, which turns good men against it.
They have divided America by destroying its homogeneity, by bringing a flood of aliens into our midst, and by forcing their evil and destructive policies on us. Now they would like for us to be silent. Now they would like to censor us. Now they would like to have new laws making it illegal for us to say what we think. Now we have evil men like Morris Dees and his Jewish friends in the Southern Poverty Law Center running around claiming that they will shut Pierce up. They claim that by speaking out I make men hate the government. They claim that by speaking out I cause people to commit terrorist acts against the government. But that is not true. It is the government itself which makes men hate it. And when good men hate someone like Morris Dees, it is not because I tell them that he is an evil man. They can see that for themselves. He himself proves that he is evil by what he does.
The obligation that I have and that you have is not to make good men hate the government or hate Bill Clinton or hate Morris Dees. Our obligation is simply to speak out. Our obligation is not to permit them to silence us. Our obligation is to help our neighbors find the courage to speak out also. If enough good men speak out, we can shed the light of truth on the evil which is taking over our country. We can help other men and women see it for what it is. And by exercising our freedom to speak out now, we can make it much more difficult for those who want to take that freedom away from us.
And someday -- someday -- we can build a united America again.
Day of Infamy
June 8, 1967, is a day which will live in infamy. On this day an American Navy vessel, the U.S.S. Liberty, was deliberately attacked in international waters by the armed forces of Israel in a treacherous attempt to sink the ship and kill everyone aboard it. The Liberty was an electronic intelligence gathering vessel, and it had been sent to the eastern Mediterranean to monitor radio communications. Israel had launched its latest land-grabbing war against its neighbors just four days earlier, and the U.S. government was curious as to what its Jewish "ally" was up to.
The Jews, on the other hand, were quite determined that the United States not learn what they were doing. The Jewish plan was to grab as much Arab land as possible before the United States could figure out what was going on and begin insisting that Israel halt its latest aggression. The Jews did not want the United States, their principal source of military, economic, and diplomatic support to tell them to "cool it" until they had achieved all of their objectives, and so it was important to the Jewish warlords to keep the American military in the dark for a few more days.
Early on the morning of June 8, 1967, the Liberty was just over 12 miles off the Egyptian coast in international waters and in sight of the Egyptian town of El Arish, monitoring radio signals and flying a large American flag. Jewish forces had occupied El Arish two days earlier, and the Israeli Army was involved in killing a large number of Egyptian prisoners of war that very morning. Groups of Egyptian prisoners were marched into the desert, made to dig their graves, and then were shot by their Jewish captors. American personnel on the Liberty would not have been able to see these atrocities from more than 12 miles away, but they were intercepting Israeli radio communications discussing local operations.
Of much more serious concern to the Jews was the interception by the Liberty of radio communications concerning their strategic military intentions: specifically their planned invasion of Syria.
Just after dawn, a twin-engine, propeller-driven Israeli reconnaissance plane flew out from the coast and slowly circled the Liberty three times. A little before 9:00 AM an Israeli jet fighter flew out and circled the Liberty. Throughout the morning and early afternoon, the Jews sent one aircraft after another out to circle the Liberty. Some of these aircraft flew so low that the crew members aboard the Liberty could see the faces of the pilots. The Jews were keeping the Liberty under very close observation and seemed to be concerned about the presence of the eavesdropper.
The Israelis finally decided to get rid of this threat to the secrecy of their military operations. At 2:00 PM several Israeli jet fighters streaked out from the coast and without warning began raking the Liberty from stem to stern with rockets, 30-mm cannon fire, and napalm. A number of Americans on the bridge and deck of the Liberty were killed immediately. The Jewish aircraft made pass after pass over the ship, pouring their fire into the helpless, slow-moving American target, riddling it from stem to stern with explosive ordnance and leaving it looking like a floating piece of Swiss cheese. The hull and superstructure of the Liberty had 821 holes larger than a man's fist from the rocket and cannon fire. Among other things the Jewish air attacks had shot away the Liberty’s radio antennas and wrecked the radio room.
As soon as the Israeli jets had exhausted their munitions and flown off, the crew immediately ran up another American flag to replace the one the Jews had shot away. The new flag was an oversize one, seven feet high and 13 feet long. Then, while the crew was fighting fires started by the aerial napalm attacks and attempting to tend to the wounded and dying men on the deck, three Israeli torpedo boats appeared and began raking the decks of the Liberty with 20-mm and 40-mm automatic cannon fire. The Liberty's life rafts in the water were machine-gunned by the Israelis. Then a torpedo from one of the torpedo boats struck the ship, tearing a large hole in its side below the waterline and killing 22 more crew members.
Just before the torpedo struck, the Liberty's radiomen had managed to rig an emergency antenna and get an auxiliary transmitter working. Throughout the attack the Jews were using radio jamming equipment in an attempt to drown out any radio message from the Liberty. Nevertheless, the Liberty managed to get off one radio message to the U.S. Sixth Fleet reporting the attack and calling for help. The Sixth Fleet, to the west in the Mediterranean, responded with a message that help was being sent. The U.S. aircraft carriers America and Saratoga launched jets which sped toward the Liberty.
As soon as the Jews realized that the Sixth Fleet had received the Liberty's signal, the attacks were halted. The clear intention of the Jews had been to disable the ship's radio communications and then sink it before a radio message could be sent. Any survivors in the water then would have been killed by the Jews. No one would be able to prove the Jews had done it, and it could be blamed on the Egyptians.
As soon as the Jews understood that their scheme had failed, they shifted from the military to the diplomatic mode. The murderous assault on the U.S.S. Liberty had been a "mistake," the Jews claimed. They had thought the ship was Egyptian, they told their media friends and their bought politicians in Washington.
President Lyndon Johnson didn't even wait for this excuse from the Jews. As soon as he was given word that an American Navy vessel had been attacked by the Israelis and that the U.S. Sixth Fleet was sending help, he ordered that the help be recalled. He was terrified that the U.S. aircraft would inflict casualties on the Jews attacking the Liberty, and the Jews would blame him. If the Jewish attack on the Liberty became a public "incident" involving conflict between the United States and Israel, Johnson would be forced to take the American side and might be regarded as "anti-Israel," which would turn America's Jews against him. So he sent an emergency message to the Sixth Fleet, ordering that the American jets flying to the relief of the Liberty be recalled and that no further assistance be given. Perhaps the stricken ship would sink, and the whole matter could be hushed up.
But the U.S.S. Liberty did not sink, much to the embarrassment of the Jews and their collaborators. The survivors among the crew even managed to get the ship's engines running again, and the Liberty limped out to sea, eventually rendezvousing the next day with an American destroyer, the U.S.S. Davis. The wounded crewmen -- 171 of them -- were airlifted off the ship. Many of the dead -- 34 of them --- could not be recovered from the interior of the ship until it had reached port in Malta.
Even while the wounded crewmen were in a Naval hospital, they were given strict orders not to tell anyone, not even members of their families, about the Jewish attack on their ship. The U.S. Navy went through the formalities of holding a court of inquiry, but it was a complete sham. No Israelis were even questioned during the inquiry, and the U.S. government meekly accepted the Jews' explanation that the attack on the Liberty had been a "mistake." The news media were indecently silent about the whole affair. The obvious concern of the Jews and their sympathizers in the United States was not that an American ship had been attacked treacherously and 34 Americans killed; their concern was only to keep Israel from being blamed for the attack. And the politicians were all too eager to go along with the Jews.
The members of the Liberty's crew who had been wounded during the Israeli attack asked for damages from the Israeli government. The Israelis refused to pay, and it was necessary for the wounded crewmen to hire attorneys and file suit. When the Israelis did eventually pay, nearly two years later, attorneys' fees ate up most of the payment.
The commanding officer of the Liberty during the Israeli attack was Captain William McGonagle. Though severely wounded during the attack he remained at his post throughout and behaved in a heroic manner. A year after the attack Captain McGonagle was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his heroism, but so desperate was President Lyndon Johnson to avoid offending the Jews that he refused to present the medal himself, as always has been customary. Instead of receiving his Medal of Honor from the President in the customary White House ceremony, McGonagle was quietly given the medal by the secretary of the Navy at the Washington Navy Yard, so as to attract the least possible public attention. The citation accompanying the medal, which customarily describes in detail the action for which the medal is being awarded, carefully omitted any mention of Israel. The Washington Post did not even report the award.
One of the Liberty's officers, Lieutenant James Ennes, wrote a detailed account of the Jewish attack on his ship and its aftermath, and his account was published in 1979 as a book under the title Assault on the Liberty. The Jews immediately began a campaign to keep the book out of bookstores and to keep reviews of the book out of newspapers. This campaign was much like the one the Jews have been conducting against one of my books, The Turner Diaries. Ennes reports that whenever a bookstore would stock his book, the local Jews would begin complaining to the store owner that the book is "anti-Israel" and is "offensive to Jewish people everywhere." The Jews have been fairly successful in keeping the book out of the hands of the public, and it is now out of print and generally unavailable.
I have been able to obtain a number of copies of the original hardback edition of Assault on the Liberty directly from Lieutenant Ennes, so this book is available from National Vanguard Books, the publisher of Free Speech. If you would like a copy see the National Vanguard Books Catalog section of this web page. The button for the catalog is on our home page. To his credit Lieutenant Ennes has kept the truth about the Jewish attempt to sink the Liberty alive for 30 years, in the face of a concerted effort by the controlled media, the Jewish establishment, and the U.S. government, including the U.S. Navy, to kill this truth. In return for his efforts, the Jews and their collaborators have been calling Ennes an "anti-Semite," a "neo- Nazi," a "professional Jew-hater," and lots of things that are too crude for me to write. Among these collaborators of the Jews attacking Ennes are individuals claiming to be veterans and patriots, but it is clear where their allegiance really lies.
Ennes always has declined to respond in kind to these attacks and has been unfailingly polite. We might fault him for failing to draw some general conclusions about the Jews and for continuing to maintain that he is not anti-Jewish, but let us instead credit him for standing up for the truth in his own way against the almost unbelievably intense barrage of hatred that has been directed against him.
What should be shocking and disgusting to every American, what should outrage us all, is not the lies of the Jews or their attacks on Lieutenant Ennes -- we expect that sort of behavior from the Jews -- but rather we should be outraged by the collaboration of the U.S. government with the Jews. During the attack on the Liberty, when it was calling for help and was in danger of being sunk, President Lyndon Johnson recalled the U.S. aircraft that were rushing to assist the Liberty. He was more concerned about not offending the Jews in the United States than he was about his responsibility as commander-in-chief of America's armed forces.
And Johnson's recall of these American jets cannot be explained away as a mix-up or a misunderstanding in the heat of the moment. This action of Johnson's was deliberate. It was consistent with his behavior in every instance involving the Liberty. Johnson even checked with the Israeli ambassador a year after the attack to see if the government of Israel had any objection to Captain McGonagle's receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor, and then he refused to present the medal himself. That sort of behavior goes beyond outrageous, even for a Democratic politician. It is nothing but the basest treason.
Now do you understand why we have a piece of filth like Bill Clinton in the White House? We had a piece of filth in the White House 30 years ago. It is the system itself which is filthy, and so it should be no surprise when filthy individuals rise to the top of it.
One of these days we have to change the system itself radically, but that will take a full-scale revolution. What we must do until then is make ourselves heard. What we must do is raise our voices. The reason that Israel is able to lead America around by the nose is that the Jews, through their control of the news and entertainment media in America, have the only effective voice, the only voice that the damnable politicians respond to. Lyndon Johnson didn't betray the men of the Liberty because he loved Jews. Nobody loves Jews. They are the most unlovable race on this earth. Johnson behaved as he did because he feared the Jews. And he feared them because he knew that they control the political process in this country through their control of the media.
That is the key fact, the salient fact, the most important fact in the life of our people today: Jewish control of the media. Why do you think the Jews did such a rash thing as attack the Liberty in the first place? That, after all, was a very rash thing to do. If the United States were a nation led by honorable men, a nation in control of its own destiny, such an attack would have meant the end of Israel's existence right then and there. Why did the Jews do it? Are they stupid?
I think not. They did it because they knew they could get away with it. They did it because it might have worked, and they had nothing to lose if it didn't work. They knew they could get away with it. And they knew they could get away with it because they control our news and entertainment media.
And so here we are, 30 years into this shameful episode, 30 years after the treacherous and arrogant attack by Israel on the U.S.S. Liberty which killed 34 Americans and wounded 171 of them -- an attack which was intended to kill everyone aboard our ship. And for 30 years the media have maintained their blanket of silence, and the politicians have maintained their sickening pretense about our "gallant, little Jewish ally" in the Middle East. This is the Jewish ally which continues to moan to the world about how it is "persecuted" by everyone else and continues to make demands on the world for money which it claims the world owes it.
Our politicians make pious speeches about China's abuse of human rights -- and I have no doubt that the charges against China are true -- but then these same politicians vote for more of our money to be given to Israel, a country which murders prisoners of war wholesale and which routinely tortures Palestinians suspected of wanting freedom for their people. These are the same politicians who vote for laws requiring that our children be brainwashed with Jewish propaganda about the so-called "Holocaust" in their schools and who express their abhorrence of "anti - Semitism" whenever any American, such as Lieutenant Ennes, tells the nasty truth about our "gallant, little Jewish ally."
Surely, the citizens of Sodom and Gomorra were paragons of virtue and rectitude compared to the current inhabitants of Congress, the White House, and the Federal courts. And surely, what happened to the citizens of Sodom and Gomorra will happen to them.
But until that cleansing fire comes, let us raise our voices. Let us speak out ever more boldly and ever more loudly. Let us remind all of our fellow citizens about the U.S.S. Liberty. And let us resolve now that we will put an end to the shame that has been brought on us by our government and by the controlled media!
The Clinton White House Even Former Supporters of the Government Are Disgusted I've just finished reading a book called Unlimited Access. It's by an FBI agent, Gary Aldrich, who worked in the Clinton White House. His job was to do background investigations on White House staff members. He had done the same job earlier during the Bush administration and found the work congenial, but he discovered that working in the Clinton White House was an altogether different matter. He was shocked by the character and behavior of the people he was obliged to work with, and finally, in June 1995, he quit in disgust, taking early retirement from the FBI. Now he has written a book about his observations during the first Clinton administration.
There's nothing really startling in Aldrich's book: it's primarily a confirmation of what we've learned from other sources. The Clintonistas are substantially a product of the 1960s. They tend to be slovenly, self-indulgent, egoistic, smart-alecky, ill-mannered, pushy, disrespectful, and very Politically Correct. The women tend to be hard-case feminists, there are many homosexuals among the men, the incidence of illegal drug usage is phenomenal, and all of them are inclined to believe that they have the world by the balls and can get away with anything they want. They are very contemptuous of conservative, conventional people like Aldrich, and this fact irritated him enormously.
I must admit that I myself don't have a lot of rapport with the average FBI agent. They are a bit too authoritarian and a bit too unimaginative for my taste. And when I am talking with one of them, no matter how polite he is, I never can get out of my mind the knowledge that he is one of the enemy's soldiers. Regardless of his personal beliefs and tastes, he is taking orders and his paychecks from the most evil and destructive organization which has ever existed on this earth: namely, the present U.S. government. Nevertheless, if I had to choose between FBI agents like Aldrich and the White House staffers he was assigned to investigate, I'd choose Aldrich in a second. He is not really a bad person: he just happened to be working for the wrong people.
Some of Aldrich's observations in the Clinton White House are more interesting than others. For example, the FBI agents there learned not to be surprised or shocked when they occasionally encountered homosexual staff members going at it in White House offices or showers. And Aldrich's observations of Hillary's autocratic behavior, her loud and vulgar language, and her screaming fits directed at those who displeased her, including her husband, are consistent with the reports of other observers.
Aldrich tells of being asked to help decorate some of the Christmas trees in the various rooms of the White House in December 1994 and being horrified when he discovered that the Christmas- tree decorations supplied by Hillary consisted of condoms, various miniature items of drug paraphernalia, and little sex toys.
The White House staffers described in Unlimited Access are former student radicals. They are the people who back in the 1970s used to organize loud and rowdy campus demonstrations demanding that some professor be fired whom they considered to be a "racist" or a "fascist." They used to occupy the dean's office and trash the place in order to get their way, defecating on the dean's desk and urinating in his files. Now they've graduated, gone on to law school and gotten law degrees, and joined the system they used to demonstrate against. But their manners, their morals, and their ideas haven't changed a bit. This fact hit Aldrich with a jolt when a fellow FBI agent said to him: "Don't you recognize these people, Gary? They're the people we used to arrest."
And now the FBI is working for them! Isn't democracy wonderful?
One section of Aldrich's book really struck me. He recalls his early days in the FBI, and in particular the time in the fall of 1969 when he was assigned to dress like a student radical and mingle with a crowd of nearly 500,000 pro-Viet Cong demonstrators at a march in Washington. He was supposed to keep his eyes and ears open, and if he learned anything about the plans of the demonstrators to do anything especially dangerous he was to report back to FBI headquarters.
The interesting thing to me is that I also was present as an observer in that 1969 demonstration in Washington. I had mingled with a mob of about 5,000 demonstrators who had split off from the main demonstration and converged on the building housing the Department of Justice. I watched as the demonstrators smashed out nearly every window in the ground floor of the building and then began using long poles to poke out the second-floor windows. There were soldiers with machine guns on the roof and in the halls behind the doors, which had been chained shut, but they made no attempt to interfere with the demonstrators who were smashing the windows.
Several hundred policemen had barricaded Constitution Avenue in an attempt to keep the mob contained, and the demonstrators began throwing Coke bottles with lighted firecrackers in them - - primitive fragmentation grenades -- into the ranks of the police. Eventually the police responded with a moving barrage of tear-gas grenades, and the mob stampeded. I was in the middle of that mob, surrounded on every side by tightly packed demonstrators, and as my lungs filled with the burning, choking tear gas, I thought I would die. Within a few seconds the mob began running west along Constitution Avenue, and I ran with them, moving my legs as fast as I could and worrying that if I stumbled I would be trampled to death. Eventually I reached the 12th Street underpass and ran into the tunnel, where I gradually recovered from the tear gas. A few months after that experience I organized the National Youth Alliance, which evolved into the National Alliance.
Aldrich doesn't say whether or not he also got a dose of tear gas that day, but he concludes his comments on the episode with the following, and I quote: "Earlier that day, in another time zone, five hundred protesters from Oxford led by William Jefferson Blythe Clinton marched on the American Embassy. Many carried little red books (by Chairman Mao) and Viet Cong flags, shouting, ‘Down with the United States,’ and, ‘Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh!’ It was a coordinated effort, set up by the Vietnam Moratorium Committee, or VMC, an organization run by Sam Brown, a good friend of Bill Clinton. On this side of the Atlantic, I stood at a police barricade and hoped the officers would be able to return safely to their wives and children that night. On the other side of the Atlantic, the future President of the United States was leading a march against his own country's embassy." The really interesting thing about Aldrich's book is its illustration of the great divide between the Clinton crowd -- the Clintonistas -- and traditional White America. Aldrich is a reasonably typical specimen of traditional White America: basically a decent fellow, who believes in politeness, honesty, obeying the law, saluting the flag, opening doors for women, and going to church on Sunday, but who never quite figured out what has happened to America during the past 50 years and who made it happen. A great many other people besides Gary Aldrich are in a similar situation, and it's not just retired FBI agents. In some cases it's people who end up in gunfights with folks like Gary Aldrich: people like those in some of the many little outfits that have declared themselves out of the system during the past four or five years, outfits like the Montana Freemen or the Republic of Texas. There has been an explosion in the number of such outfits recently. Five years ago you never heard about them. Now there's one in the headlines every few weeks. And these people you read about in the newspapers really are only the tip of the iceberg. Most of the people on Gary Aldrich's side of the divide are law-abiding people. They don't want to be involved in a shootout or get in the newspapers like the Montana Freemen. But make no mistake about it, they are not happy about things. Many of them are quite angry. Some of them are almost angry enough to start shooting. The rest are getting there. The Clintonistas don't really understand that. But they will.
You know, I said that the Clintonistas are creatures of the 1960s. But there's more than just a difference in life-style between them and us. The difference is more than just that they like to smoke marijuana and don't see anything wrong with two men having a sexual relationship, while we don't approve of those things. The divide that I mentioned a minute ago is a very profound divide. It splits White America -- it splits all of America -- into two camps that are moving further and further apart. These two camps aren't homogeneous by any means. I -- and I think nearly all of you who are listening -- are in one camp, along with Gary Aldrich. I know that we're a pretty diverse bunch. There are a lot of things that Gary Aldrich and I would disagree about. But we do agree on some things, some pretty fundamental things: things like discipline and individual responsibility.
On the other side are the urban rabble and the yuppies. They're not homogeneous either, but they do have some things in common. They all look to the government to guarantee them the things they believe they're entitled to -- which are many. And they all have trouble with the concept of individual responsibility. Entitlements they understand, but not responsibility. We have a President who gave aid and comfort to the enemies of his country during the Vietnam war and who runs around with cocaine dealers. Their attitude is, who cares? Just keep those special government programs going.
And there's more. The people in the Clinton constituency are missing something really important. Their orientation is basically materialistic, hedonistic, egoistic. They have no spiritual dimension. They have no roots, no sense of purpose, no feeling of being a part of something more important than themselves.
I don't mean to imply that there's no materialism or egoism or hedonism on our side of the divide. There is. There's just a lot more of it on their side. They don't realize that. And if they did they wouldn't consider it important, because none of the people they meet at cocktail parties in Washington or New York or Hollywood consider it important. They live in a self-contained world of their own, and there's not much communication between their world and ours. These people believe that they are the wave of the future. Everything they see in the media controlled by their Jewish friends convinces them of that. They believe that they are a lot smarter than all of us folks out beyond the beltway who don't like them. They figure that with the media bosses on their side, with their government programs to keep the rabble voting for them, and with their pollsters to keep them informed about what people are thinking, they've got everything under control. They figure that we can dislike them as much as we want, because there's nothing we can do about the situation.
What does it matter to them if a few stodgy, conservative FBI agents disapprove of them? They have one of their types in as FBI director now in the person of Louis Freeh, and most of the newer agents being hired look at things the way they do and will be loyal Clintonistas. They even believe that most of us slow learners out here in the suburbs eventually will wake up and understand that there's nothing to be gained by being against progress.
They just don't get it. They don't understand why we dislike them and why we will never acquiesce in their takeover of the government. They think it's because we're stupid or backward. And let's face it, a lot of the people on our side of the divide are a little stupid or backward. That's why some of us do dumb things like declaring ourselves an independent republic or deciding that the Constitution allows us to print our own money. That's why many of us, like Gary Aldrich, haven't figured out yet that there's much more to America's current sickness than the gang now in the White House.
But, you know, more and more of us are figuring that out. We are understanding that Bill Clinton is not just an isolated phenomenon, but that he is a symptom of a rot which has permeated our government, our schools, our churches, our media -- indeed, our whole society. The Jews could never have gotten away with their "counter-culture" organizing on our university campuses back in the 1960s if they had not already rotted out the soul of our university system with their liberal poison first. They could never have gotten 500,000 students and other young people to Washington for a pro-Viet Cong demonstration in 1969, at the height of the Vietnam war, if they had not already sapped the integrity of our government.
Gary Aldrich and I both saw what happened in Washington during that demonstration. We both saw the government's failure to deal with the situation properly, but we drew quite different conclusions from our observations. Perhaps Gary Aldrich drew no conclusion at all, because he stayed with the FBI and was surprised when things turned out the way they did 23 years later. I did draw some conclusions, and I founded the National Alliance, and I was not surprised that the White House eventually ended up in the hands of the Clinton gang. Back in 1969 I saw us headed this way.
Today more and more people also are beginning to draw conclusions. They are realizing that having a White House full of coke-heads and dykes and former Viet Cong supporters is not just a fluke. They are realizing that it is the culmination of a long process of decay and subversion. They are realizing that it is something which they cannot continue to ignore, that it puts them and their children and their grandchildren in great jeopardy, and that they must take a stand against it. Although Gary Aldrich doesn't say so in his book, I wouldn't be surprised if he is beginning to realize this too. I hope he is. And I hope that a lot of the other people still in the FBI are realizing it too.
One thing that they may not realize, that they may not understand, is the spiritual aspect of what has happened to America. I've already mentioned this briefly, but I'll say it again, because it's important: before the Jews could turn America's university campuses upside down back in the 1960s, they had to prepare the universities spiritually. That meant replacing our spirit at the universities with their spirit. It meant decades of undermining our traditions and of changing our way of looking at the world and at ourselves to their way. It meant replacing our feeling for quality with the worship of equality and democracy. It meant subverting our pride of race and changing it into a sense of guilt. It meant replacing our sense of order, discipline, and responsibility with hedonism. It meant making us forget the spiritual meaning of our existence: it meant making us forget our roots and become their brand of get-it-while-you-can materialists.
I suspect that Gary Aldrich still doesn't understand these things; otherwise he couldn't have stayed with the FBI all those years. Nevertheless, his book is quite interesting, and if you haven't read it yet you will find it worthwhile to do so. National Vanguard Books carries this book. To order it see the National Vanguard Books Catalog section of this web site. The button for the catalog is on our home page.
The Jews are very smart and very powerful. They have all of the politicians dancing to their tune. They control the news and entertainment media. They have their creature in the White House. But they are losing. They are on the way out. Even their trained attack dogs in the FBI are beginning to turn against them. Not much -- not yet -- but it's a beginning. There are tens of thousands of us out here who have gone much further than Gary Aldrich has. And there are hundreds of thousands more who are on their way. The Jews and the Clintonistas don't understand that. They can't understand it. But the opposition to them will continue to grow, simply because more and more of us, on our side of the divide, are sensing that their spirit is profoundly alien to ours.
The Women of Monte Cassino Many War Atrocities Are Utterly Ignored It seems that every time I pick up a newspaper I read about a new claim the Jews are making on someone else's money. It began a few months ago when they claimed that the Swiss hadn't been diligent enough in trying to track down the heirs of Jews who had deposited money in Swiss banks back during the 1930s, before the Second World War, and then never reclaimed it. Seven billion dollars the Jews wanted from the Swiss people -- plus interest, of course. And when the Swiss politicians, instead of telling them to go to hell, started negotiating with them and offering them hundreds of millions of dollars, the Jews realized they had a good thing going, and they decided to push it. Next they accused the Swedes of having some gold left over from the Second World War which should be given to Jews to compensate them for their persecution. Then they went after Argentina and Portugal and France and eventually the United States as well. In France they announced that many buildings in Paris and other French cities had belonged to Jews sixty years ago, back before the Second World War, and now they want the French to pay them for these buildings -- plus interest, of course. Every week there are new demands for more money to be given to the Jews, more gold. Anyone who scoffs at these Jewish claims is likely to be attacked by the media as an "anti-Semite," a "neo-Nazi," or, worst of all, a "Holocaust denier."
The whole racket, you see, is based on the "Holocaust," on the theory that the Jews have suffered uniquely at the hands of all the rest of us, and so now we owe them, and it is terribly wicked of us -- or at least, very "insensitive" -- to refuse their demands.
Now, I have no doubt that the Jews lost some money during the Second World War. Who didn't? It was a terribly destructive and murderous war. Everyone who was involved in it lost a lot. The Jews, however, are the only ones who seem to believe that the world owes them a living because of it. Perhaps they feel that they're entitled to more because they have made such a big investment in reminding everyone. They have used their control of Hollywood and of the television industry to produce hundreds of films and TV episodes to remind us of how they were mistreated by the terrible Germans and the Germans' French, Italian, Polish, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Ukrainian helpers -- all through no fault of their own, of course. They are the only ones who have persuaded the U.S. government to let them set up a "Holocaust" museum on public property in Washington. They are the only ones who have pressured corrupt politicians and education officials in a dozen states to require special classes on the "Holocaust" for all high school students. What these special classes amount to is brainwashing intended to give the Jews a special, privileged status in the minds of the students: the status of the world's premier victims, the status of the world's premier blameless sufferers, the status of people to whom the world owes something. Just Jews. No one else.
This is crooked. This is dishonest. We understand why they do it, of course. They tell us that they do it so that we won't forget what terrible things we did to them, how we failed to rescue them from the Germans, and so on. But they also do it because the "Holocaust" is an immensely profitable racket for them. They suck billions of dollars in guilt money out of the rest of the world every year. But it is dishonest for two reasons. First, it greatly exaggerates the suffering of the Jews. It takes a few basic and indisputable facts -- primarily the fact that the Germans did not like having Jews in control of their society and were determined to break their grip on Germany, and did in fact break that grip, sometimes by drastic measures -- and it embroiders those basic facts with many, many lies: lies about soap made from Jewish corpses, lies about lampshades made from the skin of Jews, lies about gas chambers in many places where there were no gas chambers, and lies about German soldiers swinging Jewish babies by their legs and bashing out their brains. We should not let the Jews compel the teaching of these lies to our children just so that they can continue sending us on a guilt trip and bleeding the world for as much money as they can get.
I was reading a story in the New York Times just a few days ago about a study being conducted at Cambridge University on the fate of part-Jews in Germany, and the story quoted a woman who was living in Germany in the 1930s. Her mother was German and her father was a Jew, and she went to the headquarters of the Gestapo in Berlin in 1938 to complain that the government had ordered her father to leave Germany. She said that the Gestapo officers took her into a back office of the headquarters and raped her.
Now, I know that didn't happen. A White woman might get raped in a police station in New York or Washington or Chicago today, but the Berlin Gestapo did not rape anybody. Berlin in 1938 was not like New York or Washington, DC, today. It was an orderly place. It was a place with rules. It was a place where women did not have to worry about being raped by the police. Such behavior was unthinkable. But it makes a nice lie to embroider the "Holocaust" with.
There's another reason why this claim by the Jews that the world owes them a living because they are the world's premier victims is crooked. It is crooked because it is associated with the deliberate suppression of the truth about what has happened to other people: in particular about what the Jews and their allies have done to other people. If you want to learn about atrocities, take a look at what the Bolsheviks did in Russia and Ukraine. You've probably heard very vague stories about the mass murder of 30 million kulaks, 30 million Ukrainian and Russian and German farmers, by the Communists in the 1920s and 1930s, but very few details, I'm sure. This is not taught in the schools, and Hollywood does not make films about this, because the majority of the Bolshevik commissars who supervised this program of mass murder were Communist Jews, and their victims were Gentiles. What's the point in reminding the world about that? For the same reason you do not hear about what the Communist secret police did in their torture and execution cells in Poland, Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and elsewhere after the Second World War, when they were making eastern Europe safe for Communism. You don't hear about it because not only were the victims not Jews, but the torturers and murderers in many cases were Jews.
Suppose the relatives, the heirs, of all of these non-Jewish victims organized themselves and began demanding that they be paid compensation for what had been done to them and for what had been stolen from them 55 or 60 or 70 years ago? Even if they did you still wouldn't hear about it, because the people who control the media would make sure that their story didn't get told.
Let me tell you about one group of victims -- real victims -- from the Second World War that you've never heard about for this very reason. In May 1944 the Allies -- the forces of democracy and equality, the anti-Nazi and pro-Jewish forces -- finally succeeded in taking Monte Cassino in the Apennines of central Italy away from the German Army, after bombing Monte Cassino's sixth-century abbey into ruins. The Allies had some Moroccan soldiers with them. They wanted "diversity" in their armed forces even then. They wanted to demonstrate their belief in racial equality. The Moroccans were only mediocre as fighters, but they really excelled at cutting the throats of prisoners after the fighting was over. They were pretty good at raping civilians too. The night after the battle for Monte Cassino was over and the Germans had withdrawn in good order, a division of Moroccan soldiers -- 12,000 of them -- left their camp and swarmed over a group of mountain villages around Monte Cassino. They raped every village woman and girl they could get their hands on, an estimated 3,000 women, ranging in age from 11 years to 86. They murdered 800 village men who tried to protect their women. They abused some of the women so badly that more than 100 of them died.
The people of these mountain villages are descended from the ancient Volsci, one of the tribes in pre-Roman Italy, and their women are reputed to be taller and more graceful than other women in that part of Italy. The Moroccan soldiers selected the prettiest girls for gang-raping, with long lines of dark-skinned Moroccans waiting their turn in front of each one, while other Moroccans held the victims down. Two sisters, 15 and 18 years old, were raped by more than 200 Moroccans each. One of them died from the abuse. The other has spent the last 53 years in a mental hospital. The Moroccans even raped some of the young men in the villages. The Moroccans also destroyed most of the buildings in the villages and stole everything of value.
Interestingly enough, there is no mention of this action by our gallant Colored allies from North Africa in most of the histories of the battle for Monte Cassino which have been published since the war. Not even the official history published by the U.S. War Department mentions what the Moroccans did to these Italian mountain villagers. Jewish policy during and since the war has been to ignore any atrocity committed by the people on their side -- unless they could blame it on their enemies. For example, the murder by Jewish execution squads belonging to the Soviet secret police of 15,000 Polish officers and intellectuals in 1940 was blamed on the Germans after the advancing German Army uncovered the bodies of more than 4,000 of the victims in the Katyn forest. Even years after the end of the war many elements of the controlled media continued to parrot this lie about German guilt for the Katyn murders. Jewish control of the news media made this easy.
And of course, reports of the atrocities committed against the Germans by Soviet forces during and after the war also were suppressed. The horrible mass rapes of German women and young girls and the mass murder of German civilians and prisoners of war were deliberately incited by the Jewish-Soviet propaganda commissar Ilya Ehrenburg. This hate-crazed Jewish commissar explicitly urged the Red Army to rape German women and murder German civilians, including children. And they did. But of course, Hollywood has never made a film about these horrible atrocities. And so far as I am aware, none of the heirs of these Polish, German, or Italian victims of the pro-Jewish Allies have made any demands on the various Allied governments for restitution.
Of all the people who suffered losses during the Second World War, it's only the Jews who are demanding to be paid, only the Jews who are trying to capitalize on their losses -- and exaggerating and lying about those losses so that they can inflate their claims for restitution. Of course, it really wouldn't do any of these Poles, Germans, or Italians any good to make claims for restitution, because they don't control the media, and without the media to back them up the politicians would just laugh in their faces.
Imagine a delegation of elderly Italian village women from the Monte Cassino area showing up in Washington and claiming restitution from the U.S. government for their horrible experience of being gang-raped by Moroccans 53 years ago. After all, it was an American, General Dwight Eisenhower, who was in charge of the Allied war effort and who therefore had responsibility for the conduct of the Allied soldiers, including the Moroccans. The Moroccans already had a reputation as a bunch of raping, cutthroat savages, so that even bringing Moroccan soldiers into Europe constituted a war crime and a crime against humanity.
But can you imagine any of our politicians even giving these women the time of day? New York Senator Alphonse D'Amato has been beating the drums for the Jews who are demanding gold from the Swiss, the Swedes, and everyone else. I am sure that he would not be so helpful to his fellow Italians. After all, Italians don't own the New York Times. No, these Italian women would be ignored. To claim victim status like the Jews, thereby stealing part of the spotlight from the Jews, would be considered tantamount to anti-Semitism. And to complain about being raped by Colored soldiers certainly would smack of racism. When the politicians saw these women coming they would run in the other direction, and Senator D'Amato would be running faster than all the rest.
You know, it may be that this business of Jews extorting a few billion dollars from various governments and banks and insurance companies they claim shortchanged them 60 years ago isn't a big deal. After all, it's only money. But it is nevertheless a good illustration, I believe, both of the way the Jews work and of the absolute necessity that we regain control of our mass media. In my view, what was done to those women in the villages around Monte Cassino in May 1944 is a far worse crime than anything the Jews claim happened to them -- even if every one of their claims were true. It is also a crime that the news of this terrible atrocity was suppressed. Our children today are being taught a false version of history and are being led to wrong conclusions as a result. Because of this they are unable effectively to defend their society, their civilization, and their race. They have been given false notions of who their friends are and who their enemies are. And they have been given these false ideas, they have been led to these wrong conclusions, for one reason only, and that is because it benefits the Jews.
This is a terrible crime. It would justify a hundred Nuremberg trials and the hanging of every general, every politician, and every media boss who participated in it.
If our people are to survive we must know what's happening in the world around us. We must know the truth about what has happened to us in the past, not lies designed to benefit the Jews. You know, I harp on this point a lot, but that is because it is of supreme importance. Some people deliberately avoid understanding that. They pretend that it should be of no concern to us who controls our communications media. Someone has to control them, and so it may as well be Jews, they think. How does that hurt us, they ask. We can still get the latest basketball scores. We can still find out what the weather forecast is. We can still watch our favorite game show or situation comedy. Why should we be concerned that it's the Jews providing these things for us instead of someone else?
Let me tell you again why we should be concerned, and I'll say it slowly this time. We were not told by the media about what the Communists were doing in the Soviet Union in the 1920s and the 1930s, because the Jews didn't want us to know. It might turn us against Communism, and in the Communist Soviet Union Jews were riding high. The Jews didn't want us to be against Communism. So there were no Hollywood films showing Russian and Ukrainian farmers dying of starvation while Jewish commissars ate caviar. Instead, what we got from the mid-1930s on was anti-German films and anti-German propaganda in the newspapers and on the radio. The Jews wanted us to be anti-German, because the Germans were kicking the Jews out of Germany. We were lied to so much and for so long that we ended up allying ourselves with the Communists in order to destroy the Germans. And in 1943, when the German Army discovered the bodies of those 15,000 Polish officers and intellectuals who had been murdered by the Communists, the Jewish media over here lied to us again and told us that the Germans had done it. And it was all of these lies which led directly to all of those women in the mountain villages around Monte Cassino being gang-raped by Moroccan soldiers in May 1944. And the same lies led to the gang-rape and the mass murder of millions of Germans in the years after that.
But for these lies we never would have been involved in a war in Europe, even with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. But for these lies, Communism would have been crushed in Europe 50 years sooner. But for these lies, the most horrible crimes in history would have been avoided.
So it does matter who controls the media. It mattered then, and it matters now, because we're still being lied to. It is the worst sort of irresponsibility to imagine that you will be nice by not noticing what the Jews are doing with the media and by politely accepting all of their "Holocaust" claims. That is not nice. That is criminal. People who thought like that are partly responsible for all of the crimes of the Second World War. Until we take the media away from the liars, we will blunder into one crime after another and one catastrophe after another. We can't afford many more.
Right and Wrong "Diversity" Destroys Morality When I was a little boy I was taught that it is bad to lie. I was taught that it is always better to tell the truth, even if that sometimes puts one at a disadvantage. For example, if my mother asked me, "Bill, did you eat all of the cookies in the cookie jar?" and I had done it, I knew that I was supposed to say, "Yes, mother, I did," even though it might mean a whipping for me.
I believe that I was taught this pretty well, because I always felt guilty, I felt very bad, when I lied to avoid some unpleasantness or to gain some advantage. Actually, I usually told the truth, and as I grew up I admired and respected people who had the courage to be truthful when it was disadvantageous to them.
But as I grew up I also learned that life is a complicated business, and that sometimes it isn't easy to decide what is right and what is wrong. For example, suppose one is in a war: is it right to lie to the enemy? In a war there will be situations in which the disadvantage in telling the truth is not just to oneself, but also to one's people. Should one put the obligation to tell the truth above the obligation to protect one's people?
I thought about that one for a while. I decided that while there may have been, in the past, wars between gentlemen, where being truthful even to the enemy was the right thing, being truthful to the sort of enemies one was likely to encounter today could not be justified.
That decision moved me onto the rather slippery terrain of situational ethics. After the Second World War a lot of people skated pretty far out onto the thin ice of that terrain: they decided that what is right and what is wrong has no absolute meaning at all, that it all depends upon the situation one finds oneself in at the moment. They went much further in that direction than I was willing to go. As a practical matter, they abandoned ethics altogether, although they probably wouldn't agree with that assessment. From my point of view, for right and wrong to have any meaning in the moral sense, they must have the same meaning at least most of the time. One might be justified in making occasional rare exceptions -- in time of war, for example -- but most of the time one must have ethical rules which don't change to suit the situation or the crowd one happens to be with at the moment. If one has one set of rules when one is with Christians, a different set when one is with Jews, a third set when one is in the company of homosexuals, different sets of rules for Democrats and Republicans, and so on -- then from my point of view one should be looked on as an unprincipled or unethical person.
This drift away from a generally agreed upon definition of right and wrong to the sort of extreme situational ethics one sees in public and private life today has been a natural consequence of the increasing degree of "diversity," of inhomogeneity and chaos, in American society since the Second World War. That is one more reason why we must return to a homogeneous society if we ever want to have a moral society and a moral government again. People who tell you that we can have both morality and at the same time diversity of the sort the government and the media are pushing just don't know what they're talking about. I don't know whether or not you've been around homosexuals enough to get a feeling for the generally different attitude toward life which prevails among them. It's not just that they have different sexual practices: they are a group which has abandoned completely the absolute ethics that I grew up with, and they have adopted instead the view that whatever feels good at the moment is good. It's a totally hedonistic view of life. Personally I wouldn't care what homosexuals thought or how they behaved, if they lived in a separate society of their own. Unfortunately, they don't, and I see homosexual ethics rubbing off on a lot of otherwise normal people. This has become an especially severe problem since the government and the media have declared homosexuality to be socially acceptable. In cities like Washington, New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, the heterosexual yuppies invite homosexual yuppies to their cocktail parties and vice versa. This explains, I think, why the yuppies around Bill and Hillary Clinton -- and I'm talking now about the heterosexual yuppies -- don't see anything wrong with the fact that the President of the United States exposes himself to female employees and asks for sex, runs around with cocaine dealers, invites Chinese gangsters to sleep in the White House in return for large envelopes full of cash, and lies continuously. That's the sort of world these yuppies live in. It's a pretty degenerate, depraved sort of world, where anything goes.
Most of the time we ordinary people out beyond the beltway don't hear about the degeneracy and the depravity in which these people are immersed. The media cover for them. The Jews in the media understand that many of us still operate by the old rules and that we would be shocked if we learned the details about what goes on in the world of the Clintonistas. So ordinarily they don't tell us about the details.
It used to work this way back during the Vietnam war too. The Jews would organize a big demonstration in Washington, and I'd go downtown to observe, because I was interested in the types of people who were participating, how the demonstrations were organized, and so on. And I'd see the demonstration led by a bunch of New York Jews carrying a big, red banner which stretched clear across the street and had big pictures of Marx and Lenin and the words "Revolutionary Communist Party" on it. And there would be hundreds of people scattered among the demonstrators carrying Communist Viet Cong flags. And then I would watch the television coverage of the demonstration on the evening news, and I would be amazed. I would ask myself, "Is this the same demonstration I saw this afternoon?" The news cameramen would manage to miss completely the big Revolutionary Communist Party banner and the Viet Cong flags. Instead they would focus on some woman pushing a baby carriage with a baby in it. What was clearly a pro-Viet Cong demonstration they called a "peace" demonstration, and the coverage of it was sanitized, so that the folks out in Kansas or Iowa watching on television would get the impression that the demonstrators were mostly just ordinary people like themselves.
And the controlled media do a similar job of sanitizing their coverage of the lives of the rich and powerful -- so long as those being covered are Politically Correct, of course. But sometimes there's a slipup. That's what happened at a big party for the rich and powerful in San Francisco a while back. On May 3 a man named Jack Davis had a birthday party for himself and invited all of the political bigshots. Davis is a well-known political fixer and campaign consultant in San Francisco, and so the mayor came, the sheriff came, and so did all of the other top politicians and media bosses. Davis is a homosexual, and his party reflected this. There was a male striptease show, semi-nude men in leather paraphernalia and tattoos wandered about, and various sex acts took place in full view of the guests. Then a pair of performers put on a sado-masochist act. It would take me far beyond the bounds of decency to describe in detail what they did to each other, but it ended with one of the performers taking off his pants and bending over while the other used the neck of a whisky bottle to perform an indecent act on him.
To homosexuals this sort of thing is all great fun, and the Politically Correct heterosexual yuppies of San Francisco have learned to regard it as "normal" and take it in stride. But someone new to this sort of thing had been invited to the party by mistake and found it so shocking that he risked being considered "homophobic" -- in San Francisco that's as bad as being a "racist" or an "anti-Semite" -- he risked being considered "homophobic" by describing to some media people he knew who weren't at the party what it had been like. So, the story started coming out, and the media people who had been at the party had to say something about it and pretend to be shocked in order to protect their image in the eyes of the not-so-rich and not-so-powerful citizens of San Francisco. Then the sheriff, the mayor, and the other politicians who had been at the party had to pretend to be shocked too, in order to cover their asses, if you'll pardon my expression. Eventually the Sunday Times of London carried a full account of the party in its May 11, 1997, issue.
The whole thing was like the story by Hans Christian Anderson about the emperor's new clothes. If the newcomer hadn't popped the balloon by saying, "This is disgusting and depraved," everyone else would have kept on pretending that everything was fine. As it is, although the San Francisco Chronicle felt obliged to say something -- after the whistle had been blown -- most Americans outside the San Francisco area still haven't heard about this party. The media bosses decided that it wasn't newsworthy. No point in getting the folks in Kansas and Iowa riled up.
Of course, most of the private parties thrown by the rich and degenerate in Hollywood, New York, or Washington don't have a homosexual theme. San Francisco is a special place. But the degeneracy nevertheless has permeated the whole stratum of Politically Correct yuppie society. In particular, the Clintons and the people around them are of the same sort as those at Jack Davis's San Francisco birthday party: the same sort of politicians, the same sort of media people. They are people with hedonist ethics, the ethics of homosexuals.
So what should we old-fashioned people, who still believe in right and wrong, do about this situation? Even though there are more of us than there are of them, we can't afford to do what many of us really are itching to do. The people on our side still are too divided, too disorganized, and too confused for that to be successful. We must not depart from a policy of legality and non- violence at this time.
We know that a society without a soul, a society without a strong moral basis, cannot long survive. Indeed, we can see this society unraveling almost month by month. But we must not just sit and wait for the cleansing fire. There must be something left after the fire in order to build a new society. We have a responsibility to do whatever is necessary to guarantee this. Our morality must not be just a passive morality, which keeps us from doing what is wrong. It also must be an active morality, which leads us to do what is right. It must be a morality which leads us to plan, to prepare, to build, to preserve -- and eventually to fight.
In planning, in preparing, in building, we must understand why we have this problem of moral decay, of moral breakdown, in our society now. Our ancestors in England, in Scotland, in Ireland, in Germany, and in the other parts of Europe from which they came brought to America a common morality which was many centuries old. Why this sudden collapse during the past 50 years or so?
I've already pointed out that as we moved from a homogeneous, essentially European or White society in America before the Second World War to a multiracial, multicultural chaos today we were bound to experience a certain degree of moral confusion, of moral disorientation. But we also must note that during the past 50 years or so the mass media have had an unprecedented degree of influence on manners and morals in America, and during that same period the mass media in America have been almost entirely under the control of people whose ancestors did not share the morality of our ancestors.
The mass influx of Jews into America began toward the end of the last century. By the early part of this century they were buying up American newspapers and magazines as fast as they could. Then they began moving into radio broadcasting. In the 1930s they virtually took over Hollywood. After the Second World War, when television first began having an impact on the thinking of Americans, Jews were in total control of this new medium. The children of the 1960s were raised on television. The television receiver was their baby-sitter, their foster parent, their teacher. And what television taught them was that their ancestors were exploiters, imperialists, and bigots: an obnoxious, pushy, self-righteous, and hateful bunch of people who stole America from the peace-loving, inoffensive Indians. Television taught them to despise their own traditions and folkways. Television began to instill in them a sense of guilt for being White: a sense of guilt for being better off than non-Whites, for being more successful, more creative, and more civilized than the inhabitants of the non-White world. Then gradually, subtly, slyly at first and more and more boldly and arrogantly later, television began teaching them the new morality, the morality of hedonism, the Clinton morality.
We are fortunate in being able to see some of the consequences of this new morality now, to see some of its effects on our society. In a sense we are even fortunate in having this new morality in the highest levels of our government, where it is especially conspicuous. Most of all, we are fortunate that it has infected only a minority of our people, an especially susceptible minority, and that the healthier majority are beginning to react strongly against it.
Very little of this reaction can be credited to those who traditionally have been the guardians of morality in our society: namely the leaders of our churches. They have, almost to a man, sold out to the enemy, sold out to the corrupters of our people. They have eagerly participated in promoting multiculturalism and multiracialism and the acceptance of homosexuality and of moral relativism generally, in the hope of getting a pat on the head from the masters of the media. No, when the healthy elements of our people have rejected this new morality, it has been an instinctive reaction, rather than anything taught them by today's churches. The media really are the key to this problem. It is they which have undermined the old morality, promoted the new morality, and also taken the primary role in destroying the homogeneity in which the old morality was at home and brought about the social and racial chaos which is congenial to the new morality.
If we are to have more than an instinctive and uninformed reaction to what the media have done, if we are to have a rejection of the new morality which is not only instinctive but also is informed and organized, then we must have media of our own. American Dissident Voices broadcasts and Free Speech are just a small start toward what we must build. We must build our media to the point where we are able to talk with all of our people. We must do much more than just inform them about what is going on in the world today. We also must help them to understand that their instincts in rejecting the Clinton morality are healthy. We must teach them to have faith in their instincts. And then we must begin restoring the knowledge of our traditions, the knowledge of our roots, which they were robbed of by the controlled media. We must build again in our people self-confidence and a sense of purpose. Eventually we must be able to bring our people to the point that when they hear what goes on at one of these Politically Correct yuppie parties in Washington or San Francisco or anywhere else, they won't just be shocked and disgusted but also will be determined to put a final end to it: to root these people out of our government and out of our media and to make it impossible for them to exert their evil influence on our children or on our society.
That's a big job, a really big job. But it's a job that must be done. I believe that together we can do it. I believe that more and more people will join our effort to get the job done, because the disgust with the Clinton morality is growing and spreading. More and more people, even though they don't understand all of the things we've talked about today, know that they're fed up with what's going on. What we have to do now is help all of these people understand. I'll do part of that work, but you must do part too. I'm counting on your support.
The Morality of the Immigration Problem
If you live in any large city on the East Coast or the West Coast or in Texas, you know that immigration is a problem which is destroying America. Actually, there are many other parts of the country where the destructive effects of the government's current immigration policies are obvious.
I am fortunate to be able to live and work in a rural, mountainous part of the country where the population has not been affected much by non-White immigration. Perhaps for that reason whenever business takes me to a large city I am struck forcefully by what the immigration of the last couple of decades has done to our country. When I visited Los Angeles recently, I was impressed by my observation that the entire infrastructure of the city is in the hands of non- Whites, nearly all of them recent immigrants. Walk into any hotel or restaurant in Los Angeles, get on any bus, buy something in any store, and you are dealing almost exclusively with non- White clerks, waiters, cooks, and drivers. Observe the sanitation workers, the public utilities crews, the road-repair laborers. They are non-White immigrants, nearly all of them. If the non- Whites wanted to, they could immobilize the city, and the Whites would be helpless.
Los Angeles, with its Blade Runner ambience, is perhaps an extreme example, but the same process is taking place in other cities all across America. One sees a few White people in suits carrying briefcases, and everyone else on the streets is non-White. The people in the suits and carrying the briefcases don't seem to be alarmed by this situation. They regard all of the Brown, Yellow, and Black people around them as very useful, because they are doing jobs that White people don't want to do and thereby are making it possible for the people with the suits and briefcases to live a more comfortable and prosperous life.
What a selfish and short-sighted view of the situation that is!
I lived in Los Angeles more than 40 years ago. How different it was then! There were still far too many non-Whites in the area even then, but you could walk into a restaurant and expect to have a White waiter or waitress. You could expect to ride a bus with a White driver. And in the 1950s people who had been living in the Los Angeles area since before the Second World War told me how much the city had gone downhill since the 1930s. In the 1930s it had really been a White city: clean, uncrowded, almost no crime, a very pleasant place to live. Today, of course, between the Blacks and the non-White immigrants, it's become a hell hole. There are large sections of the city where a White man dare not go, even in the daytime. Mark Fuhrman didn't develop his views in a vacuum. He learned about non-Whites on the streets of Los Angeles.
We can see the same thing happening all over America. What used to be a White country 60 years ago is very rapidly becoming a non-White country. Mark Fuhrman and I are not the only White Americans who have noticed that, but there are far too many White Americans who pretend not to notice, because pretending is what is Politically Correct these days.
I go on many radio and television interview programs, and when I point out the damage that immigration is doing to America, I nearly always am countered by a host who pretends that our government's immigration policy is a wonderful thing. I run into all of the standard cliches: Don't you know that we are a nation of immigrants? We all are descended from immigrants. Immigration is what built this country. Our diversity is what makes us strong, and so on.
When I point out that the immigrants who built America were immigrants from Europe, and that the immigrants who are destroying America now are from everywhere but Europe, the host asks me incredulously whether or not I really believe that it makes any difference where the immigrants come from. He pretends to believe that immigrants from Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, or Mexico have the same effect on American life that immigrants from Sweden, Poland, England, Ireland, or Germany have had. He pretends to believe this, because otherwise he would be charged with being a racist, and then he would no longer have a job as a radio or TV host. And I am afraid that there are idiots out there who really do believe that, because that's what they're being taught in their schools and their churches, as well as by their TV.
Back in the 1930s Americans had a little more sense about things like race and immigration. Immigration was from Europe, and there were laws to keep it that way. After the Second World War the propagandists in Hollywood and New York started beating the drums for racial integration and for opening America's borders to the Third World. A huge Jewish propaganda campaign was aimed at changing America's immigration laws. The Jews and their allies wanted to switch immigration from Europe to the Third World. Of course, they didn’t say that. They just said that they wanted America’s immigration laws to be more "fair." It was "racist" to keep Asian Indians and Haitians out and let Norwegians and Frenchmen in. They didn’t want too many, just a few to make it clear that Americans weren’t bigots.
New York Jewish Congressman Emanuel Celler led the campaign in the Congress, and he recruited renegade Whites, such as Ted Kennedy, to help him. In 1965 this campaign finally succeeded in making America's immigration laws "fairer," and so now we have the situation we can see in Los Angeles and in many other American cities today.
If I were an observer from Mars, I might wonder at what sort of collective death wish had infected the minds of White Americans, what sort of suicidal insanity had gripped them to make them put up with this situation. As a Martian observer I might study the matter with detachment.
But I'm not from Mars. This is my country which is being destroyed. These are my people who are letting themselves be led with little protest into the slaughterhouse. And that is exactly where we are headed: into the slaughterhouse. All for the sake of Political Correctness; all for the sake of racial equality; all for the sake of "diversity." It is truly insane.
America becomes darker -- racially darker -- every year, and that is the direct result of our government's immigration policy. Sometime around the middle of the next century, about 50 years from now, America will become a majority non-White country. We White people, we descendants of the European immigrants who built America, will be a minority in our own country. And if we don't like it, why then we can be dealt with the way they deal with ethnic conflicts in places like Rwanda. Or the way they dealt with the racial problem in Haiti, when the Black majority simply butchered the entire White minority 200 years ago. In large parts of the American Southwest, including California, the Mexicans already talk among themselves about what they will do to the gringos as soon as they have the power to do it. It is, of course, a fact that our ancestors took the American Southwest away from their ancestors. We were stronger than they, and we wanted their land. As soon as they become stronger, they intend to take it back again -- and in the process do a bit of "ethnic cleansing" to get rid of any remaining gringos. That is the way the world works. That is the way the world always has worked. That is the way it always will work.
Why do we have so many idiots among us today who believe that the lion can be taught to lie down with the lamb? Why do we have so many idiots who believe that the laws of Nature have been suspended simply because these laws are not Politically Correct? Why do we have so many men among us who have lost their manly instincts and believe that we should no longer fight to protect what is ours, that we no longer should defend our borders, our part of the earth, and that we should bare our throats to our enemies?
I've answered these questions before, and I'll answer them again now. Many of our people don't really think about these things. Many of our people simply accept them because of their selfishness and their shortsightedness. The men with the briefcases and the suits are glad to have someone to mow their lawns and collect their garbage and do the other things that they consider beneath their own dignity and the dignity of their children.
When I was a boy I used to mow lawns and do every other kind of rough and dirty work to earn money for the things I wanted. I even picked cotton and helped bring in other crops. I worked on an egg farm for a while, washing eggs. That was nasty work, and I didn't like it at all, but I did it anyway. But nowadays this work is considered beneath the dignity of White teenagers as well as adults. Now we hire non-Whites to do it. What a terrible, terrible mistake that is! For the sake of our momentary convenience, our momentary luxury, we give our whole heritage away -- and our children's heritage. We protect them from having to do strenuous or unpleasant work -- but at the cost of growing up in a society where they will become a minority during their lifetimes and will be at the mercy of a non-White majority. That is the very worst sort of selfishness and shortsightedness.
In contrast to these people who don't think about what non-White immigration is doing to America because at the moment they believe that it is benefiting them, there are people who do think about it -- after a fashion. These are the ones who believe that the laws of Nature have been repealed. These are the ones who babble about how wonderful "diversity" is because they hear other people babbling about it on television. These are the ones who claim to believe that there is no difference between Haitian immigrants and Norwegian immigrants. These are the ones who claim to look forward eagerly to the time when Whites will be a minority in America, because then we will have an end to racism and everyone finally will be able to get along with everyone else.
When I am on radio or television talk shows I run into lots of these idiots. I run into people who tell me that they wouldn't want to live in an America which had become White again. There wouldn't be enough "diversity" to make their jaded lives interesting. They would no longer have their choice of Vietnamese or Mexican restaurants, no longer be able to see such an interesting mix of skin colors and racial types everywhere, no longer be able to listen to Jewish comics and admire Black athletes. They would be very bored if all of their neighbors and co-workers were White, they tell me.
Part of this pathology is related to the breakdown in the sense of community, the sense of family, of belonging, of rootedness, which used to characterize White Americans and its replacement by extreme individualism. Fifty or sixty years ago Americans used to identify very strongly with their community, with their ethnic group, with their race. They felt a sense of responsibility for others of their own kind around them. We were like a large, extended family.
Now too many people are retreating into individualism, caring only about their own pleasures and their own interests. They do not even feel any sense of responsibility for their own children. They are not concerned about the type of world their children or their grandchildren will inherit. All that matters is their own gratification -- now.
And I run into people who spout the sort of idiot pop-morality promoted by the media. "We took California and Texas away from the Mexicans," they say, "so why should we complain if they take it back now? We have no right to keep them from crossing the border, because it used to be their land." If you want to see one of these idiots backtrack in a hurry, tell him you believe that he has hit on an excellent principle, which ought to be applied in the Middle East. We certainly should not help the Jews hang onto land which they have stolen from the Palestinians. Instead, we should be helping the Palestinians take it back. That will shut him up.
Of course, there is nothing rational or consistent about the beliefs or the arguments of the people who want to keep America's borders open. These people take the positions they do simply because they are the positions which are promoted by the media, positions which are currently fashionable, and these people would rather die than be thought unfashionable.
I'll give you a position which is rational and consistent. We took this land because we were stronger than our opponents and because we needed the land to raise our families. As long as we remained strong in spirit as well as in body we held onto the land so that our children and their children also would have land to raise their families. But then malicious aliens came into our land and got their hands on our information media and our entertainment media, and these aliens spread spiritual poison among our people, so that our spirits became corrupted and our minds became confused. These aliens were able to make some of us feel guilty for taking this land for ourselves. They were able to make some of us feel guilty for being concerned about our own people, for being race-conscious. And they were able to promote their pop-morality among the fashion-conscious. But those of us who are not confused and whose souls are not corrupted are growing in numbers now. We are becoming stronger.
And we understand that the strong will inherit the earth. We understand that if the aliens are able to keep our people weak and confused, then some other race will take our land away from our children and use it to raise their families instead. We understand that people who are race- conscious are stronger than those who are not. We understand that people who feel a sense of community with others of their kind are stronger than those who are concerned only about themselves. We understand that it is not moral to be weak or to favor other races over our own. It is not moral to give away what our ancestors struggled and died for. We understand that it is moral to survive, that it is moral to be strong, that it is moral to defend our land, that it is moral to fight against those who would take our land, just as it is moral to fight against those who would corrupt our spirits. We understand that the laws of Nature have not been repealed, that they rule now, just as they always have ruled. We understand that Nature is not immoral, and that we are not immoral when we follow the instincts which Nature has given us. It is moral to act in accord with those instincts and try to build a secure future for our posterity.
It is moral for us to mow our own lawns, drive our own buses, collect our own garbage, cook our own food, wait on our own tables, and pick our own crops. We understand that no honest work is beneath our dignity or the dignity of our children. We understand that it is better for our children to do strenuous work and dirty work and to become physically hard and disciplined than it is for them to grow up soft.
We understand these things, and we accept our responsibility to help all of our people understand them also. The purpose of American Dissident Voices and Free Speech is to spread understanding among our people. Spreading understanding is the purpose of everything we do. And it is a difficult task, because the malicious aliens who control the mainstream media are working overtime to corrupt and confuse, and their resources are greater than ours at this time.
But we are growing. We are becoming stronger. More people are beginning to understand. And when we have spread understanding to enough of our people, then we will be able to put an end to the non-White immigration which is destroying America and destroying our heritage, and we will be able to begin undoing the damage. With understanding, with the adherence to a real morality, the morality of Nature, the morality of our ancestors, instead of the pop-morality promoted by the alien masters of the media, we will be able to solve every other problem confronting our people in addition to the immigration problem.
We can do it. Together we can do it.
Why Our Government Is Corrupt
Well, Bill Clinton's handlers have him working on a new program to reduce the amount of racial hatred in America. The theory seems to be that if they can get Mr. Clinton to keep his trousers up long enough, perhaps he can do some things to help Blacks and Whites get along better. I doubt it.
Actually, I'm not interested in having Blacks and Whites get along better together. I want Blacks and Whites separated. In the long run, that's the only way to eliminate racial animosity, racial resentment, racial friction. And it's the only way that either race can survive in the long run. But the people who're behind all of these programs for making Blacks and Whites live with each other and like it aren't really concerned about our survival. They themselves are neither Black nor White, and their only concern is to keep both races under control.
Race relations really aren’t the main thing I want to discuss. I want to talk about government programs for solving problems generally. I wonder if you have become as cynical about such programs as I have. Many people are concerned about the declining educational standards in America, and so the government has had one program after another to improve education. And of course, educational standards have continued to fall.
Look at the programs. Look at the details. Typically they're a hodgepodge of half-hearted, lukewarm semi-measures. One gets the impression that their real purpose is to fool people into thinking that the government is doing something about the problem.
Why is that? Why do things in this country continue to get worse and worse while the government spends more and more of our money on programs which are supposed to make things better
The basic reason is that as the population of the United States has become more and more diverse, the country has become more and more difficult to govern. It has become more and more difficult to devise programs that will make most people happy or that will serve most people’s needs.
Consider, for example, the schools. Fifty years ago, before the schools were racially integrated by government decree, schools were either Black or they were White, for all practical purposes. In the White schools there was a reasonable degree of homogeneity, and the government could make a program for White schools based on reasonable assumptions about the students to which it was to be applied. The same was true for Black schools -- but the assumptions about the needs of Black students were, of course, different from the assumptions about White students, and so the programs for Black schools would be different from those for White schools. Which is to say, the programs were tailored much more closely to the people they were intended to serve and therefore were much more likely to be successful.
Of course, even in schools where the students and teachers all were of the same race, there was a range of abilities, of interests, and of behavioral characteristics. But this range was small enough so that one program still could work reasonably well for everyone in a school system. If the programs could be tailored more closely to individual abilities, interests, or behavior, they generally worked even better. For example, there might be one program for students of high ability and one for students of average ability.
To people with a democratic turn of mind, the very idea that some students might have more ability than others is abhorrent, so even before the racial integration of the schools there was resistance to programs which were tailored to these differences. The Politically Correct idea was that everyone should fit the same mold, and one program should work for all.
After the schools were racially integrated and Political Correctness became the law of the land, we had an impossible situation. The temperaments and behavioral norms for Black students are quite different from those for White students, and the scholastic abilities of Black students are substantially lower than the average for Whites, and so programs intended to apply to integrated schools were almost guaranteed to be ineffective.
That hasn't stopped the government's program-makers from continuing to come out with one new program after another for improving America's schools, but all of real significance that has been done in the schools is a lowering of both the standard of conduct and the academic standard in order to accommodate the much greater diversity in the students.
And what has been true of the schools has been true of just about every other facet of our society. As our society has become less homogeneous and more diverse, it has been harder and harder to devise programs which work well. Programs have necessarily had to become less specific and more general in order to accommodate a more diverse population, and to the extent that programs are less specific they are less effective, as a rule.
It's not just that greater diversity makes it harder to solve problems: the greater diversity is itself the cause of many of the problems. The problem of racial hatred which Mr. Clinton has been pretending to address recently is an excellent example of this. Why do we have so much racial conflict and racial antagonism in our society today? It is because the government has insisted on increasing the racial diversity in every sector of our society, has insisted on bringing more and more non-Whites into the country and then forcing us all together, whether we want to be together or not. It is diversity and forced mixing which cause race hatred, nothing else.
There are a number of organizations in the hate industry in this country: organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith and Morris Dees's Southern Poverty Law Center. These organizations make money from hate. They keep track of what they call "hate crimes," and they tell their supporters that hate in America is increasing, so please send money so they can fight it. The more hate they have to report, the more money they make. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that all of these hate-industry organizations are strongly in favor of more "diversity" in America and more forced mixing. They know what it takes to bring in contributions from their supporters.
Mr. Clinton, who is in the pocket of these organizations, is working on a new program to combat hate, he says, while at the same time he is promoting more "diversity" and more mixing. Why do we have so many of these phony programs, these unrealistic and unworkable programs, which seem to be designed more to fool the public into thinking that the government is doing something than actually to solve the problems they purport to address?
Is it not because the whole system of government in this country has become crooked? Isn't it because the politicians who dream up these programs and administer them are people accustomed to lying to us and pretending to believe what they don't believe and pretending to be what they aren't? Isn't it because the people who give us the programs that are supposed to improve our educational system understand that there's not really much that can be done to improve education without addressing the race issue, without addressing the fact that racial integration is at the root of the failure of our educational system, and as long as they are not allowed to address this issue all they can do is go through the motions and try to fool the public? Isn't it because Bill Clinton, crooked though he is, is smart enough to understand that the racial friction and hatred can only grow as he pushes for more racial "diversity" in American life, because that is what his handlers demand, and so all he can do is pretend to deal with the problem?
And why do we have a crooked and ineffective government, when we desperately need a government that is honest and competent? Why must we put our lives in the hands of crooked politicians, who only pretend to be concerned with solving the problems which beset us, when we desperately need real leadership? Why is the system corrupt?
Is it not because the system is manipulated by the people who control the news and entertainment media in this country? Is it not because the media have gained such a powerful grip on the whole political process in America that they can virtually dictate to the politicians? Every politician who offers himself as a candidate for public office knows that the number of votes he receives will depend on the way in which the media present him to the public. Whether he wins or not will depend almost entirely on the image of him which the media create.
Bill Clinton is a perfect example of this. He has palled around with drug dealers and gangsters throughout his political life. His own brother was convicted and sent to prison for selling cocaine right out of the governor's mansion in Little Rock while Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. His habit of sending Arkansas state troopers to scout up women and bring them to him was well known among his associates long before the Paula Jones case. The media people certainly knew about his drug connections and his use of Arkansas state employees to satisfy his sexual appetite. If they had revealed these things to the American people in 1992, if they really had made an issue of these things, Bill Clinton never would have been selected as the Democrat Party's candidate. If the media had made an issue of the fact that Bill Clinton was leading pro-Viet Cong demonstrations back in the 1960s when 58,000 young Americans were being killed by the Viet Cong, he never could have been elected.
But the media chose not to make an issue of these things, because Bill Clinton is exactly the sort of man they want in public office: a man without principles or morals, a man who will do whatever seems advantageous to him -- and in particular will do whatever the media bosses tell him to do in return for their support. Now some of Clinton's immoral and illegal activities are beginning to come out. The media are beginning to tell us about some of Bill Clinton's activities, although certainly not about all of them, because for one thing he cannot be President for a third term and for another thing it's their way of keeping him under control. By keeping the pressure on him, by keeping him worried about the Paula Jones case and the illegal campaign contributions and a few other things, they keep him constantly aware of his dependence on them. If the media began harping on all of the immoral and illegal activities in which Bill Clinton has been involved they could have him impeached. They could have him out of the White House and in prison. And he knows that. So he is not likely to try to do anything contrary to the wishes of the media bosses during the next two and a half years.
Bill Clinton is an example, but the process of media control is basically the same for all of the politicians. And so the real question for us is, why do the media bosses use their control over the political process in America to damage and weaken America? Why did they push for an immigration policy which is flooding America with non-Whites? Why do they push for more and more racial "diversity," when it is clear that these policies are destroying not only our schools but our whole society?
We know the answer, don't we? I've talked about it many times. The answer is that the people who control our mass media, our media of news and entertainment, are not our people. They are not people who share our interests, our concerns, our values. They are an alien people, with different interests, different concerns, different values. They are a people unto themselves. They are Jews.
Every time I'm on a radio or television interview program and I mention this fact, every time I begin talking about the Jewish control of the media, the host will try to deny it or make light of it or change the subject. They know who signs their paychecks, and they will lie to protect those people. But the facts really are undeniable.
Let's look at some of those facts. The two biggest media conglomerates in the country, the two biggest media empires, are Time-Warner-CNN and the Disney Company. Time-Warner-CNN is controlled by Gerald Levin. Through the Time-Warner-CNN media empire he controls a vast array of news and entertainment media: publishing, films, and television. And Mr. Levin is Jewish.
The Disney Company, which also owns the ABC television network and lots of other things, is controlled by Michael Eisner, who also is Jewish. The Disney Company was built by one of our people, by Walt Disney, and it used to produce healthy and wholesome entertainment. But then Mr. Eisner got control of it, and now it's just part of a Jewish media empire: debased films, television, and publishing.
Or consider newspapers. The big three, the three most politically influential newspapers in the United States, are the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. All are owned by Jews. They were not created by Jews originally, but they were taken over by Jews and they are now owned by Jews. All three of them. Quite a coincidence, isn't it, when you consider that Jews make up just two and a half per cent of the U.S. population? Or consider news magazines. There are really just three news magazines in this country of real significance: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report. They're all under Jewish control. All three of them. Time is part of Mr. Levin's Time-Warner-CNN empire. Newsweek is owned by the Jewish Washington Post Company. And U.S. News and World Report is owned by Mortimer Zuckerman, who also just happens to be a Jew.
If you doubt any of this, if you're not absolutely certain about the Jewish control of the mass media -- and I can understand that some of you may be uncertain about this, because the media lie about it and try to mislead people -- if you have any doubt at all about what I've told you, check it out for yourself. If you think, for example, that maybe Mr. Levin is an Irishman instead of a Jew, or that Mr. Eisner may really be a German or a Scotsman instead of a Jew, check it out. The facts aren't really all that difficult to find. If you think I haven't told you the truth about who owns U.S. News and World Report, check it out for yourself. If you think that the films coming out of Hollywood that promote interracial sex and homosexuality, that tell us that we owe the Jews a living because of the "Holocaust" -- if you think these films are produced by anyone but Jews, check it out. The facts are available for anyone with eyes to see.
The Jews control the media. But why do they use their control of the media to corrupt our government and destroy our society? Why when a Jew like Eisner takes over a non-Jewish film company like Disney, does he immediately change the type of films the company produces? Why does he switch from wholesome films like Snow White and Fantasia to films like The Crying Game and Priest, films which promote homosexuality and racial mixing? Why do these powerful Jews promote things like gangsta' rap in a way deliberately intended to corrupt young White people? Why does MTV (which, incidentally, is owned by the Jew Sumner Redstone, through his media holding company, Viacom) specialize in such degenerate entertainment aimed at our young people?
They do it because that is their nature. They have always done that sort of thing. They always seek control, they always seek power, and then they use that power to corrupt and destroy. That's what they're doing to America now. And if you want to know what you can do about it, what we can do about it together, join the National Alliance.
The Campaign Against "Hate Crime"
Mr. Clinton says he is involved in a campaign to end racial hatred and "pull America together." What this actually means is that Mr. Clinton and his handlers want White Americans to shut up and stop complaining about the government's programs to cram more non-Whites down their throats. White Americans have made it clear that they not only want an end to the Clinton government's program of continuing to bring more non-Whites into the country, but they also want the government to end its programs aimed at forcing Whites and non-Whites together and providing special privileges for non-Whites: programs such as affirmative action, for example.
But the Clinton government needs these programs. Signing up a million immigrants, nearly all of them non-White, so that they could vote in the 1996 Presidential contest, was important to Mr. Clinton's re-election. And to keep them voting Democratic the government needs to reward them with programs like affirmative action. So the Clinton government has denounced White opposition to these programs as "racial hatred" and is hoping that that label will intimidate opponents of the Clinton racial programs into silence.
That's a clever tactic by Mr. Clinton and the media, but it's also a typically crooked tactic. There are very few White Americans who are in favor of racial hatred -- or hatred of any sort. We are not by nature haters. Most of us don't approve of it. Mr. Clinton and the media bosses understand that, and that's why they always begin talking about "hate" when they want to shut up their opponents. They want the public to believe that any opposition to the government's racial programs is "hate."
Now, the truth of the matter is that while most White Americans don't want to be thought of as "haters," most of us also don't want more non-Whites crammed down our throats by the government and the media. That's not because we're "haters"; it's because we know a few things about non-Whites. We know enough to be quite sure that we don't want or need any more of them in our society. We don't want to mix with them -- not because we are a bunch of hateful bigots, as the controlled media and Mr. Clinton would have everyone believe, not because we are full of blind prejudice, but because we know a few things about non-Whites. We know about their proclivity to murder, rape, and steal, for example.
When I say something like that on a radio talk show, I get howls of protest from the Politically Correct host. "You're worried about murderers?" the host screeches. "What about Timothy McVeigh? He murdered 168 people, and he's about as White as they come." This is supposed to embarrass me into silence. It 's the same sort of barroom debating tactic they use when I begin talking about the Jewish control of the news and entertainment media. Then the Politically Correct host will say, "Jewish media control? What about Ted Turner? He's not a Jew."
No, Ted Turner isn't a Jew, but he has a Jewish boss, because Ted Turner's CNN is a subsidiary of Gerald Levin's Time-Warner media empire. And Timothy McVeigh didn't even put a dent in the racial crime statistics. Those racial crime statistics are gathered by Mr. Clinton's FBI, because the FBI believes it they can do its job better if it understands what's happening. The controlled media don't like to talk about those statistics, of course, but they are a matter of public record, and any citizen can get them from the Department of Justice. The latest figures I have are for 1995, and they come from the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Report.
This supplementary report contains data from those states which break down their crime reports into White, Hispanic, Black, Asian, and American Indian categories. This is important, because many states lump Whites and Hispanics together in the "White" category, so that what such states report as "White" crime is actually White and Hispanic crime. I've taken the data just from those states which break down their crime reports into White, Hispanic, Black, Asian, and American Indian in order to be able to make the most accurate and meaningful comparisons between White crime and non-White crime. What these data show is that in 1995 Asians in the United States committed murders at a rate 1.23 times the White rate. Another way of saying this is that if in a group of one million White people 100 of them committed a murder in 1995, then in a group of one million Asians 123 of them committed a murder in 1995. That is, Asians are 23 per cent more likely to commit murder than Whites are.
That's interesting, because the impression deliberately fostered by the media is that Asians are more law-abiding than Whites. That may have been true 50 years ago, when Asians were a very tiny minority in America and tended to be on their best behavior. Now that we have a lot more of them here and they feel more at home, they are showing their true natures.
American Indians also are more murderous than Whites. They commit murders at twice the White rate.
But that's nothing compared to the Hispanics. They commit murders at 4.8 times the White rate. A Hispanic is nearly five times as likely as a White person to be a murderer.
And, as you might have guessed, Blacks take the prize for murderousness. They are 10.1 times as likely as Whites to commit murder. Is it any wonder that most of us don't want Blacks in our schools, our neighborhoods, or our workplaces?
You would hardly guess any of this from listening to Mr. Clinton or reading any of the controlled newspapers. They like to talk about things like the burning of Black churches or other offenses they can attribute to White "haters." They certainly don't like to talk about the fact that Blacks are far more violent and commit far more crimes than Whites. In fact, every non-White group in America is more criminal and more violent than Whites. But when Mr. Clinton talks about "hate crimes" he's talking about crimes committed by Whites against non-Whites. That's the kind of crime he wants you to believe is the big problem in America. That's the kind of crime he hints is keeping Blacks and Whites apart. If we could just keep those White "haters" from committing their "hate crimes," he suggests, then we could "pull America together."
One of the goals Mr. Clinton has announced for his program to "pull America together" is "making sure that the American people have facts, not myths, upon which to base their judgments about people of different colors and backgrounds." But do you really believe that Mr. Clinton is going to give the American people facts about the racial differences in crime rates? I don't believe it. I think Mr. Clinton is just telling us one more lie when he promises us facts. I think that the only things Mr. Clinton will be telling us are tales designed to dampen the resistance of White people to racial mixing.
Mr. Clinton isn't the only one who is lying to us when it comes to racial matters. On June 14 Mr. Clinton gave the commencement speech at the San Diego campus of the University of California, and he used the speech to push his anti-hate campaign. The Associated Press report on that speech stated that Mr. Clinton's governmental appointments "mirror ethnic and racial percentages of the national population."
That is not true. In particular, Mr. Clinton has appointed Jews to government positions at more than ten times their percentage of the national population. That's another fact that we won't be hearing from Mr. Clinton, because he would rather have us believe the myth that his appointments mirror the ethnic and racial percentages of the national population.
In his June 14 speech to students in San Diego, Mr. Clinton made the biggest plea yet to keep the affirmative action programs which bring Blacks into universities in far larger numbers than would be the case if admission were determined by academic performance. Affirmative action has been rejected overwhelmingly by the voters, but Bill Clinton, for obvious reasons, doesn't want to end it. Blacks voted overwhelmingly for him in both of his Presidential campaigns, and he wants to keep them on his side.
Do you want to know what causes racial hostility? Do you want to know what causes Whites to resent Blacks? More than anything else, it has been affirmative action. Whites -- even Whites who never think about crime statistics -- resent programs which give Blacks an advantage over them. They resent having academic standards lowered and work performance standards lowered just to make it easier for Blacks. Bill Clinton is a master of misdirection and deceit. He promotes programs which cause racial hostility, and at the same time, in the same speech, he blames this hostility on White racists.
In his San Diego speech Mr. Clinton looked out over the graduating students, among whom there were a great many Blacks, nearly all of them there through affirmative action programs, and he put on his best used-car salesman's smile, and he said to the White students, "Now, you be honest with yourselves, and you'll know that you learned a lot more here than you would have if all of the students had looked like you." What a line of baloney! Of course, the media people there -- and the Blacks -- loved that line. But if any of the White students had the courage to buck the pressure to conform and were honest with themselves, what could they say they learned by having the campus packed with affirmative action Blacks? How to cope with the threat of rape on the campus? How to minimize the chance of being mugged if they had to go to the library after dark? Well, yes, those are useful things to know in the sort of place America is becoming under the Clintonistas.
Everyone understands that the White students learned a lot less in an affirmative action university than they would have learned in an all-White university, because the standards have been lowered to accommodate the Blacks. Of course, to the trendy, liberal, air-head types who applauded Mr. Clinton's line of baloney, the really important things to be learned at a university aren't chemistry, mathematics, biology, and history. The important things are learning how to get along in a multiracial world: learning how to smile ingratiatingly and step out of the way when Black ball-players on scholarship come swaggering down a campus sidewalk, learning how to be sensitive and never say anything which minorities might find offensive, learning how to apologize for being White.
It would be bad enough if Mr. Clinton's deceitful campaign to "pull America together" were nothing more than the use of his office as President to promote his multiracial agenda through media events like his speech in San Diego, trying to bully and intimidate the opponents of affirmative action and immigration reform into silence. However, Mr. Clinton's speeches are only one facet of a war against White America that the Clintonistas are waging. The Clinton speeches -- and the favorable media publicity they receive -- are intended to persuade the public that what keeps America from being pulled together are the activities of what the Clintonistas call "hate criminals."
Their definition of a "hate criminal" is any White person who acts or speaks in opposition to their program to continue increasing America's racial "diversity" and racial togetherness. When Mr. Clinton is not trying to salvage his affirmative action schemes and prevent immigration reform, he warns of the need for a crackdown on "hate crime." He cites a few examples of what he means by "hate crime": a homosexual beaten up, a swastika daubed on the door of a Jewish university student, vandalism of a house in a White neighborhood after the house is sold to Blacks. All of his examples just happen to involve alleged actions by Whites. In an announcement from the White House just a week before his San Diego speech, Mr. Clinton said: "It is time for us to mount an all-out assault on hate crimes, to punish them swiftly and severely, and to do more to prevent them from happening in the first place."
We will be hearing much stronger calls for new laws against so-called "hate crimes" as Mr. Clinton's campaign to "pull America together" progresses. We will see a new facet of the campaign emerging: a call for criminalizing Politically Incorrect speech -- what the Clintonistas call "hate speech." It's hard to see how new laws against vandalism or beating up homosexuals can accomplish much, since vandalism and assault already are illegal and have been for a long time. It doesn't really help their campaign much to elevate these offenses from the realm of ordinary crimes to the realm of political crimes -- and you know, really, that's exactly what all of these so-called "hate crimes" are: they are political crimes. What the Clintonistas are aiming at is outlawing Politically Incorrect speech. Everything else is window dressing.
This whole campaign to intimidate Politically Incorrect Americans -- so-called "hate criminals" - - began 20 years ago. In states such as New York and New Jersey where Jews exercised a very large degree of political control, Jewish pressure groups were able to have state laws passed against "hate crimes." In parts of the country where the spirit of freedom was stronger, however, the Jews were unable to persuade the local legislatures that a White man should be punished more severely for punching a Jew in the nose than for punching another White man.
Then in 1990 they succeeded in having a new Federal law enacted by the Congress. It was the so-called "Hate Crimes Statistics Reporting Act." This new law seemed innocuous enough at first glance. It merely required the Justice Department to gather statistics on a new category of crimes: namely, those defined by the Jews as "hate crimes." So the FBI was required to gather statistics from the whole country: how many homosexuals had been beaten up, how many Blacks had been chased out of White neighborhoods, how many Jews had had their shop windows smashed, how many lesbians had found offensive graffiti scrawled on their cars. No new punishments: just statistics.
The purpose of this law was to force the government to accept the idea of "hate crimes": the idea of a crime defined by what the offender was thinking when he committed an act rather than by the act itself. This whole notion of "hate crime," of thought crime, is offensive to the White man's sense of justice, to all of our legal traditions, but in 1990 the Jews succeeded in subverting that sense, in subverting that tradition. Once they had forced the country to accept the idea of thought crimes, they found it much easier to have actual legislation passed which set penalties for various acts based on what the offender was assumed to have been thinking at the time. And in order to establish what the offender was thinking, the government could examine his private correspondence. They could examine the ideological content of any books or magazines found in his residence. They could explore his religious, social, and political associations. All of these things could be used as evidence against him in court.
Now Mr. Clinton is explicitly and publicly pushing for a great expansion of these laws against thought crime, against political crime. The next step will be the criminalizing of Politically Incorrect thought itself, not just acts based on Politically Incorrect thought. The Jews long have been calling for laws outlawing books, radio programs, and any other expressions of Politically Incorrect opinion: what they cleverly call "hate speech." Before his term in office is finished, Mr. Clinton also will be calling for the criminalizing of "hate speech." That is what all of his current baloney about "pulling America together" is aimed at. That is what we must prepare ourselves to fight against with all of the means at our disposal.
The Importance of Courage The Fear of Being Politically Incorrect Has Reached Ridiculous Proportions I've never been a boxing fan, and so normally I wouldn't feel qualified to say anything about the sport. However, I have been amused by all of the public commentary by media spokesmen, politicians, and boxing officials about the fact that one boxer of the African persuasion saw fit to bite a sizable chunk out of the ear of another boxer of the same persuasion during a recent match. Rather, I have been amused by the fact that the one thing none of these people has mentioned in the discussions of the ear-biting incident is the racial dimension. They all have carefully avoided saying anything at all about the fact that Mike Tyson is a Negro, lest anyone think that they are suggesting that his race had anything to do with his behavior. Heaven forbid!
The refusal of the media to say anything about race in the Tyson affair doesn't mean they aren't aware of it. For the next six months they'll be scraping up every affirmative-action Black rocket scientist, every affirmative-action Black brain surgeon, every affirmative-action Black university president, and every affirmative-action Black Air Force general they can sign up to interview on TV for one thing or another, in an effort to neutralize the damage Tyson has done to their carefully promoted illusion of racial "equality."
All of this is eerily reminiscent of George Orwell's novel 1984, in which people are able to ignore the evidence of their eyes and ears, are able to shut down their reasoning processes, and are able to interpret everything around them in a Politically Correct manner. The force which makes Orwell's characters subordinate reason to Political Correctness is fear: fear of the Thought Police.
In America today we do not have Thought Police -- not yet. We do have thought crimes and thought criminals. They are called "hate crimes" and "hate criminals" and are defined in terms of what the perpetrator was thinking at the time he committed an act. Our beloved Big Brother -- Bill Clinton, that is -- is campaigning hard for more laws against thought crimes, and so are the Jewish media and the other minions of Political Correctness. I suppose it won't be long before we do have a new secret-police agency to catch thought criminals. Perhaps they will be called the "Hate Police" or the "Equality Police" or something of the sort. Or perhaps thought criminals will continue to be hunted down by the FBI, as at present.
However, it is not fear of being caught by the Thought Police and tortured, a la 1984, which keeps all of the boxing commentators from suggesting that Mike Tyson's race has something to do with his behavior. It is fear of being condemned by all of the other commentators, fear of being ostracized from the ranks of the Politically Correct, fear of not being invited to Washington, New York, and Hollywood cocktail parties. And ostracism can have very real economic consequences. In certain fields, it can result in the loss of employment, for example. To be Politically Correct, one must not only have the Correct thoughts at all times oneself; one also must condemn and shun anyone who manifests Incorrect thoughts. One must drum the Politically Incorrect person out of Correct society. This fear of being Politically Incorrect has reached ridiculous dimensions. Take the widespread phenomenon of "White flight," for example. Millions of White people are fleeing areas which have a high percentage of Blacks, Mexicans, and other non-Whites and are relocating to predominantly White areas. Sometimes this just means a move from city to suburb, or from one suburb to another; sometimes it means moving to another state or another region of the country with fewer non-Whites. But if you ask one of these fleers why he is fleeing, you will hear every sort of answer except the true answer. Hardly anyone will admit that he is moving to get away from non-Whites. He is terrified of being thought a "racist." I am sure that many of these fleers don't even admit their racial motive to themselves. I am sure that many of them feel pangs of guilt whenever they do think about their motives.
This is a deplorable situation, and it is an impressive proof of the enormous power of the mass media to brainwash the population. What George Orwell's "Ministry of Truth" did in the author's imagination, Time-Warner-CNN, Disney-ABC, and the other Jewish media conglomerates are doing in fact.
The more I see things like the reaction to Mike Tyson's cannibalism, the more I am convinced that the reason White Americans have let themselves be backed into the corner they're in now is not because they're stupid: it's because they're lacking in the courage to say what they really believe, if they may be criticized for saying it.
I'm sorry to say that I've seen the same sort of timidity in myself. When interviewers have asked me whether or not I'm a racist, I have responded by asking, "Well, what do you mean by the word ‘racist’?" I've tried to wriggle out of giving a direct answer to the question, because the Jewish media have made such an enormous investment in demonizing the label "racist" that one has to screw up one's courage a bit to come right out and say, "Yes, of course, I'm a racist."
One can quibble over the details of the definition of the word, but it's pretty clear what the interviewers have in mind when they ask me whether or not I'm a racist. These days anyone is a racist who refuses to deny the abundantly clear evidence that there are inherited racial differences in behavior, intelligence, and attitudes. A racist is a person who will not pretend that he sees no differences -- which is why all of the boxing commentators pretend that race is irrelevant and won't mention Tyson's Blackness in connection with his attempt to eat his opponent in the ring.
A racist is any White person who prefers to live among other Whites instead of among non- Whites and prefers to send his children to White schools.
A racist is any White person who feels a sense of identity with, a sense of belonging to, his own tribe, his own people, his own race, and who shows an interest in his race's history, heroes, culture, and folkways -- which is why Western civilization, European history, and other traditional, race-oriented curricula are being phased out at American universities and are being replaced with various "multicultural" offerings designed specifically not to stimulate racial feelings in the students. A White racist is a person who finds the members of his own race more attractive physically than members of other races and who is instinctively repulsed by the idea of racial intermarriage or by the sight of a White person intimately involved with a non-White -- which is why the Jews in Hollywood are turning out so many films which promote racial mixing, films which portray interracial romance as glamorous and fashionable.
A racist is a White person who is disgusted with the multiracial cesspool that America is becoming under the present government and media policies. A racist is so alarmed about the threat to the future of his people that he is willing to derail these policies -- which is why the media and Mr. Clinton have become so shrill recently about the need to combat "hate criminals."
Courage: that is the key to our survival. Courage is more important than money, more important than intelligence, more important than friends or political and business connections. Unless we have the courage of our convictions, neither we nor our convictions will survive.
I don't believe that a coward can change his nature and become a hero, but I do believe that many of us who have let ourselves be intimidated and bullied because we didn't want to give offense, didn't want to be rude, didn't want to seem ungentlemanly, didn't want to be unpopular -- I do believe that we can begin reasserting ourselves. We can begin finding a little bit of courage in ourselves, we can resolve that we will no longer be bullied into going along with the crowd when we know that the crowd is wrong.
In my case, I have resolved not to refrain from speaking out whenever speaking out is the proper thing to do. I've resolved not to try to wriggle away from saying exactly what I believe when someone asks me whether or not I'm a racist. I believe that it would do many other people a lot of good to make a similar resolution. I believe that it would be good for their souls.
This doesn't mean that we have to be deliberately rude or offensive. It means that when an interviewer asks me what I think about Mike Tyson's snacking on his opponent in the ring, I'm not going to waste my time talking about Mike Tyson. I'm going to say that we should not judge the behavior of other races by our standards. I'm going to say that spectator sports in the United States have become a disaster, and that they will remain a disaster until we have swept the whole theory and practice of multiracialism into the trashbin of history, where it belongs.
Professional sports in the United States today have the spirit of the contests staged in the Roman Coliseum during the last phase of the Roman Empire, when slaves from every part of the Empire fought against other slaves for the gratification of a degenerate mob of onlookers. We need to return instead to the spirit of the Greek Olympics, in which only Greeks participated. In the Olympics, as opposed to the contests in the Coliseum -- in the original Olympics -- all of the contestants and the onlookers were of the same race and shared the same values. The Olympics were an expression of the Greeks' striving for excellence. They were a racial expression as well as a spiritual expression. Compare that with what we have in the United States today, where degenerates like O.J. Simpson and Mike Tyson, the recent descendants of our African slaves, put on contests for the amusement of a debased citizenry. Yes, I am a racist, and I believe that we should not make a fuss about the behavior of Black athletes. I believe that their behavior should be none of our business. I also believe that they should not be viewed on our television screens and held up by the Jewish masters of the media as role models for our youth, nor should they be involved in any of our athletic contests. I believe that we should get them out of our country and out of our lives. I believe that we should do away with the system which in this century has changed athletics in America from something at least remotely similar to the Olympics into something very much like what took place in the Coliseum. I also believe that we should get rid of the people behind that system, the people who deliberately conspired to make professional athletics in America what it is.
And as I said, there's no need to be rude about this, no need to use the "n" word or engage in name-calling. But we do need to be completely honest for a change, both with ourselves and with others. We need to have the courage to face the whole truth regarding our situation and what we need to do about it. That doesn't mean that every time I speak with an interviewer I have to tell him that we can't restore America to spiritual health until we restore her to racial health, and that means total, geographical racial separation. I don't have to mention all that, unless he specifically asks for it. But it does mean that I should not equivocate when asked whether or not I'm a racist. I should be as straightforward and direct and clear and honest as I can be.
I'll say just one more thing on the importance of having the courage to tell others what we believe. It's not just a matter of personal pride. It's not just a matter of being able to feel good, of being able to pat ourselves on the back because we weren't afraid to stand up to the media bosses. If we had shown more courage from the beginning, if we had spoken out the first time and every time the Jews and their collaborators had tried to implement their policies for changing America from a White republic into a multiracial garbage dump for the New World Order, I think the Jews would have found themselves some other country to subvert. I think they would have decided to try their poison on the Turks or the Mexicans or the Indonesians instead of on us. If we hadn't let ourselves be bulldozed and manipulated and backed into a corner, but had said what we believed from the start, I don't think we'd be in the mess we're in today. Courage is catching; it's contagious. If a nation's leaders show courage, so will the ordinary citizens. But when the leaders are afraid to be honest, then you can't expect the ordinary citizens to be very courageous.
A concrete example of this is the ongoing scandal of the rape and sexual harassment of White women in our Army by Black officers and Black noncoms. The Jewish media have had very little to say about this scandal. They have preferred to focus on non-racial stories, such as Lt. Kelly Flynn's resignation from the Air Force after being charged with adultery. But the more the Army’s investigators dig into the sexual-harassment scandal, the bigger it becomes and the clearer the racial dimensions are. The highest profile case the Army’s investigators have turned up so far is that of Sergeant Major Gene McKinney, a Black noncom who was appointed to the Army’s highest post for enlisted personnel at the prodding of the Clinton administration. This top Black noncom used his position systematically to extort sex from White women in the Army. The first case came to light in February, when a White female sergeant major went public with the story of what McKinney had done to her. Before her case became public the Army had ignored her complaints. Since then case after case of McKinney’s use of his office to force himself on White female soldiers has come to light. A 25-year-old married White sergeant described under oath to Army investigators how McKinney had raped her last October, when she was nearly eight months pregnant. She is the fourth White female soldier assaulted by McKinney to give evidence in the investigation so far. And the case of Sergeant Major McKinney is only the most prominent of hundreds of cases in the Army in which Blacks used their positions of authority over White women to rape or sexually harass them.
Why was this horrendous situation allowed to develop? It certainly wasn’t because the Army’s leaders wanted it to develop. It may gratify some of the nutcase racial egalitarians in the Clinton White House to read about White women being raped by Blacks, but the Army’s leaders definitely are not gratified. They didn’t want this situation, but they didn’t have the courage to prevent it. They were afraid to take steps to protect White females from Black males. In nearly every case which has come to light so far, the women victims have testified that when they reported what had happened to them to their White superiors they were ignored. The White officers were afraid to get involved. They were afraid that they would be charged with "racism" if they took action against the Black rapists.
And let’s face it, they would have been. That’s the standard Black excuse for everything: "racism." And it’s the excuse of their Jewish promoters in the media too. But that’s no excuse for the cowardice of the Army’s leaders. The horrendous situation we have in our Army today is the result of the failure of courage on the part of the Army’s leaders to deal forthrightly with the racial issue.
And the racial mess we have in American society today is a consequence of the failure of courage on the part of our society’s leaders. When the courage of our leaders fails, our whole society fails, and then we become the victims of the Jewish predators who control our media.
The one thing that all of us can do about this now is to resolve that our own courage will not fail, that we will not be intimidated, but that we will stand up and speak out forthrightly.
The Meaning of Affirmative Action
It has been interesting watching the television commentators and other minions of Political Correctness wring their hands and moan about the falling enrollment of Blacks in some of America's universities and professional schools recently. Black undergraduate enrollment has fallen by one-half in some branches of the University of California. The number of Blacks in the law schools of the University of California and the University of Texas has fallen even more drastically. Until recently these schools had been very proud of themselves for having a higher percentage of Blacks among their students than in the general population, and now they have lost nearly all of their Blacks. The media spokesmen and the Clintonistas are wailing about the loss of "diversity."
And they all know who is to blame for this dreadful turn of events: it is those hateful people who have forced the scuttling of affirmative action programs in some areas. It is "White racism" which is keeping Blacks out of the schools.
The truth of the matter, of course, is that it was affirmative action programs which were keeping Blacks in the schools, and when those programs were ended the Black enrollment plummeted. What the diversity-mongers really are alarmed about is that what has happened where affirmative action programs have been dropped exposes their lie of racial "equality." What we see in California and Texas now is that when the prop of affirmative action is taken away the artificial "equality" it had been supporting collapses. This is something the media bosses and the Clintonistas really don't want us to see, because it exposes the artificiality and the lack of viability of the multiracial society they have been trying to ram down our throats for so long.
We were told many years ago, when affirmative action programs first were imposed on us, that they were necessary to compensate for "White racism" -- that Blacks were being kept out of universities and professional schools by "racist" officials, that Blacks were being denied employment, promotions, and other opportunities by "racist" employers, and so on. We were told that we needed to end this so-called "racial discrimination" and extend a helping hand to Blacks, so that they would have an "equal opportunity" to become lawyers, doctors, and business executives. The tacit assumption was that Blacks are "equal" in ability to Whites, and that if they were given an equal chance they would succeed equally. We were told that affirmative action programs would provide this equal opportunity.
Of course, equal opportunity was never the intention of the media bosses and the other promoters of affirmative action. Their aim was to give Blacks more opportunity than Whites. Their aim was to ensure that Blacks would succeed equally, regardless of what had to be done, regardless of how much extra opportunity had to be given to them in order to achieve this.
There was very little if any "White racism" holding down Black enrollment in American universities even before the government began enforcing affirmative action programs. University officials already were very liberal and were happy to have more Blacks. They didn't get many Blacks because, in the first place, not many Blacks applied, and in the second place, most of those who did apply could not compete effectively with the White students. There is a very substantial average difference in IQ, in problem-solving ability, in intelligence, between Whites and Blacks, and it shows up very significantly on examinations and in success rates.
Affirmative action programs require school officials and employers to ignore these differences in ability between Whites and Blacks and to recruit Blacks at all costs. Affirmative action requires school officials to boost Blacks ahead of Whites, to give them economic rewards not available to Whites, to give Blacks preferential treatment in order to get them into school and to keep them in school.
Affirmative action requires employers to behave similarly by offering Blacks more than they offer Whites, and by hiring and promoting Blacks who are less qualified than Whites. The government wants schools to graduate a certain percentage of Blacks, and it doesn't care how they achieve this result. The government wants employers to have certain percentages of Black employees and Black executives, regardless of how many Whites have to be trampled on in order to achieve this. And so for many years school administrators and business executives have been almost pulling Blacks out of trees and graduating them or putting them in the boardroom in order to keep the government happy.
There's been a great deal of deceit involved in these affirmative action programs from the beginning. The government and the media tell us that they don't involve quotas or racial preferences, when they clearly do. The government and the media tell us that affirmative action does not hurt Whites at all; it merely helps Blacks -- it gives Blacks a little boost without taking anything away from Whites. That is simply a lie, although many Whites have been willing to swallow it rather than seem to be "racist." The media have deliberately insinuated that any White person opposed to affirmative action is a "racist."
Now a few White people in California and Texas have rebelled and have managed to get themselves out from under the yoke of affirmative action. In fact, a few Blacks have rebelled too, because they are unhappy about the resentment against them which is being caused by affirmative action. And the media and the government are screaming about how this very small rebellion is destroying "diversity," about how this is taking us back to the bad, old days of segregation, and so on.
The thing for us to understand is that affirmative action is only one part of a much larger scheme which has been imposed on us. The aim of the media bosses and their hangers-on in the government is a multiracial society: a society in which Black teachers and Black professors teach White students; a society in which Black athletes become heroes and role models for young Whites; a society in which Black brain surgeons, Black rocket scientists, Black astronauts, Black Army generals, and Black political leaders are prominent; a society in which Black drill instructors lord it over White recruits; a society in which Blacks and Whites mix intimately and intermarry with each other at every social level.
The media bosses have been very successful at creating the illusion that we have such a society. The news, entertainment, and advertising we see on television are all designed -- very carefully and skillfully designed -- to support this illusion. The TV world is an artificial world. On television we see Blacks behaving like Whites, speaking like Whites, and showing themselves equal or superior to Whites in every way, including intelligence, creativity, industry, morality, civility, and sense of responsibility. The agencies on Madison Avenue which design advertisements for television carefully cultivate this illusion. Blacks are just like Whites, except for being a little darker --- and perhaps a little smarter, a little more civilized, and a little better dressed. Black families are just like White families, except for being a little warmer and more loving and taking a little better care of their yards.
The scriptwriters in New York and Hollywood who give us our entertainment are engaged in exactly the same sort of deception. If there's a White male Southerner in a film, for example, the chances are about nine out of ten that he'll either be a despicable bigot or he'll be a credit to his race by standing up against the despicable White bigots all around him. If there's a Black in a major role in the film the chances are good that he'll be brighter, more resourceful, braver, and more moral than the Whites around him. The first commandment of casting in Hollywood is, "Thou shalt not portray a person of color in a negative light."
The same racial slant is found in the treatment of the news. Any White-on-Black crime gets star billing and is repeated endlessly, while Black-on-White crime, even of the most atrocious sort, is ignored if the media bosses think they can get away with it and buried as soon as possible if they feel obliged to mention it. The shooting of a convicted Black drug dealer and his girlfriend by a boozed-up White soldier at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, a little over a year ago was hyped and kept in the headlines for months in order to create the impression that murderous White racists were taking a terrible toll among innocent Blacks. I'm sure you've heard about it -- many times. But just three months after the Fort Bragg shooting -- in March of last year -- a non-White sergeant at Camp Pendleton, the big Marine base in southern California, shot his White executive officer to death and tried to kill his White commanding officer while shouting anti-White gibberish, and hardly anyone outside the San Diego area heard of it, because the media bosses decided it wouldn't be good for their racial program to report it.
The unfortunate fact is that today the artificial world of television shapes most people's ideas and attitudes even more than the real world around them does. Nevertheless, the real world won't go away, and so reality has a nasty way of contradicting the fantasy world of television and deflating the multiracial pipe dream constructed by Hollywood's scriptwriters and Washington's spin doctors. The way to make the real world conform to the fantasy is affirmative action. If real- world Blacks aren't quite up to the standard of the television world, then have the government give them a boost with a little affirmative action. Make sure that White university students see plenty of Black students around them. Make sure that the Black students get grades at least as good as those of the White students. Then have an appropriate quota of Blacks in caps and gowns at graduation, even if it means trashing academic standards.
But now a few rebels in California and Texas have forced the schools in their states to deal honestly with students for a change, and reality has reared its ugly head, spoiling the carefully constructed illusion of racial equality. As soon as the prop of affirmative action was removed, the illusion simply collapsed. Black enrollment plummeted. And now there is a real danger that Whites in California and Texas may realize that when Blacks must compete on an equal basis with Whites they lose consistently, except in those areas of physical activity -- basketball, boxing, ear-biting, sprinting, and jumping -- to which they are especially suited. This is the reason that the Clintonistas are so desperate to keep the affirmative action props in place everywhere. This is why Mr. Clinton was so upset about the dropping of affirmative action at the University of California that he made a special trip to California in an effort to keep the illusion propped up.
I'll recapitulate what I've said so far, because it's quite important for us to understand what's happening and to keep it in mind. There are people who desperately want all of us to believe that everyone is born with equal ability, regardless of race, color, creed, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, etc., and that the only reason some people are less successful than others is because they aren't treated fairly: in other words, because of racism, sexism, homophobia, or whatever.
Some of the people who are desperate to have us believe this actually believe it themselves. They have watched so much television that they have fallen under its spell, and they feel guilty for being White. The only way they can escape their guilt is to strive for a world in which there is no inequality, and in which, therefore, no one can be guilty for being more successful, more intelligent, more civilized, or more beautiful than anyone else.
But the people who control television and who want us to believe in equality certainly do not believe in it themselves. They believe that they are a Chosen People, ordained by their tribal god to rule over all the nations of the earth. Their strategy for ruling is to destroy the sense of identity and nationhood of other nations by mixing them all together and convincing them that they are all the same. They use television and the other media they control to create the illusion of equality. They present us with an image of a world in which Blacks are at least as capable as Whites in all the arts of civilization and also at least as foresighted, self-disciplined, and moral as Whites. In fact, they generally overdo it, and present us with a fantasy world in which Blacks are morally superior to Whites if not intellectually superior.
But because what they present us with is a fantasy and is contradicted by reality, they use their influence over the politicians to promote government programs, such as affirmative action, which obscure reality, which conceal it from White Americans. Since most Blacks simply are not capable of succeeding in a White society, the equality-mongers give them an artificial sort of success through affirmative action.
And when the affirmative action is suddenly taken away, reality reasserts itself, and the illusion of equality is shattered. The fakery is exposed. The phony world of successful, affluent, attractive, creative Blacks collapses. That's what has happened at the University of California and at the University of Texas law school. That's why Mr. Clinton is running around the country giving speeches in favor of more affirmative action, while the Hollywood and Madison Avenue Jews crank out more fantasy.
The reason why all of this is so important, the reason why I'm so concerned about it, is not because affirmative action takes away from Whites and gives to Blacks. And it does do that, regardless of the lies of its promoters to the contrary. But if that's all it did I'd be in favor of it, because the resentment it generates among Whites will be very useful in bringing about the restoration of our society some day. But unfortunately that's not all affirmative action does. One of the other things it does is bring about a lowering of the average proficiency in the skills needed to sustain our civilization. The more that we force an artificial equalization of Blacks and Whites in our society, the closer we approach to the sort of skills and standards we can see in Tanzania, Zaire, or Rwanda. Actually, I guess that Zaire is no longer called Zaire, since the latest Black dictator and generalissimo-for-life took over a while back.
The advances in technology we have made in this century tend to obscure the effects of this lowering of standards, because a few very bright people now can carry the problem-solving load for a much larger number of people than in the past, but the effects of affirmative action are still visible and still increasing. They are especially noticeable in such things as growing bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption. In some areas of the United States local government operates on the level of a banana republic. Washington, DC, with its exceptionally high degree of affirmative action, is an outstanding example.
Another effect of affirmative action -- and in the long run it is the most catastrophic effect -- is the social and economic equalizing of Blacks and Whites. In the past the lower success rate of Blacks tended to keep them socially and economically separated from Whites, even without any legal barriers between the races. This social and economic separation resulted in a relatively low rate of miscegenation, of sexual mixing between the races. A few Black athletes -- O.J. Simpson, for example -- became wealthy enough to acquire White wives, but the overall genetic mixing was relatively minor. By artificially boosting Blacks economically and socially, affirmative action has greatly increased the rate of miscegenation. It was planned that way from the beginning by the equality mongers.
This is why we must regard every advocate of affirmative action as an advocate of genocide against our people and why we must hold these advocates accountable for their actions.
The Psychology of Political Correctness
Today I'll discuss something I've discussed earlier, but it's very important and is worth talking about over and over: having the courage to speak up for what we believe. Courage of this sort -- moral courage -- has always been important, but now, with the enemies of our people pushing hard to silence opposition to them and their destructive policies by enacting new legislation against what they call "hate crime" and "hate speech," moral courage is essential for our survival.
We have a President who is running around the country trying to drum up support for a repressive program of legislation he says is necessary to "pull America together" and achieve racial harmony. He is telling the groups to which he speaks that they don't have much longer to wait before there will be a non-White majority in America, and then the White racists -- the "haters" -- won't be able to cause any more trouble. Mr. Clinton is gloating that soon there will be a truly multiracial America: an America without a "dominant European culture." He is gloating about this, and many of his audiences are gloating with him and cheering him when he says this. All we have to do now, he tells them, is keep the racists under control with new laws until we get rid of this "dominant European culture." And many of the audiences cheering him when he says this are White students and faculty members at American universities.
It is the trendy, fashionable thing these days to be anti-White. It is fashionable to let everyone know how much you despise White people and European culture and how much you admire Africans, Indians, Jews, Orientals, and mestizos; how superior you believe their cultures to be; and how much you look forward to seeing them become a majority in the United States.
I remember witnessing the beginning of this fashion when I was a university student myself back in the 1950s and then a professor in the 1960s. What I noticed first, back in the 1950s, was the pressure to make the universities more "democratic" -- that is, to admit a great many more students. The argument was that the universities were too "elitist," that rich kids went to the prestigious private universities and thereby earned a ticket to an easy and prosperous life, while working-class kids were denied these opportunities. This argument was pure baloney. I was a poor kid myself, but I had applied myself and won a scholarship to a prestigious private university, as had many of the other students at my university. That was Rice University, in Texas. There has not been a time, at least during the past 60 years, when a student with real scholastic ability was kept from getting a good university education in America by having no money.
The anti-elitists began prevailing by greatly increasing the number of curricula. Subjects that were more appropriately taught in trade schools, or perhaps as high school electives, became the basis for new university curricula. We used to joke about offering courses in basket-weaving, golf, or fly-tying in order to accommodate students who had no aptitude for mathematics or history. All too soon these jokes became reality. And students who couldn't even pass a course in basket-weaving were brought in on athletic scholarships.
But this dumbing down of the universities wasn't the most important part of the destructive work carried on there. The key was our enemies' gaining control of the socialization process at the universities. This was even before television had become the dominant opinion-control medium that it is today. Teenagers arriving at a university are somewhat disoriented and unsure of themselves. They are on strange turf. A few have the self-confidence and inner strength to find their own way, but most don't. Most look to those around them for guidance. The Jews were the one coherent, self-conscious group at most universities, both among the students and the faculty, and they began dominating the discussions. Always very verbal, very pushy and outspoken, they made themselves heard while others kept their opinions to themselves. With academic standards relaxed, students had more time to spend in socializing activities. By the 1960s these activities were firmly in the grip of the Jews and their leftist collaborators. Incoming students were subjected to intense social pressure to conform their ideas and opinions to those of the Jews and the leftists. Political Correctness became the prerequisite for social acceptance, and social acceptance was an overwhelming need for many students. They could be made to spout any sort of nonsense or wickedness, even to believe it, if that would lead to popularity.
I remember witnessing this phenomenon, but I didn't fully understand its significance at the time, so for the most part I kept my opinions to myself. I didn't have time for a lot of socialization anyway. I feel guilty about that now. I really should have spoken up much more loudly. I should have encouraged others to speak up. I should have organized opposition to the Jews and the leftists. But I didn't. Mostly I just went about my own work. Of course, there were no American Dissident Voices broadcasts for me to listen to and to help me understand what was happening and to encourage me to take a stand. You don't have that excuse.
The Jews have been way ahead of the rest of us in understanding psychology and the way it can be applied to control the thinking and the behavior of the people around them. They used the same techniques of brainwashing in the Soviet Union back in the 1920s and 1930s to control the non-Communist majority around them. They kept everyone immersed in discussion groups, in worker-education groups, in "sensitivity training" seminars, and the like, using a constant barrage of words, first to disorient people and then to bring them into conformity with what was Politically Correct. They had dissidents confessing to their own thought-crimes in group sessions, pledging to think only correct thoughts in the future, and begging to be punished for their past errors. The same mind-control techniques are used in cults today to control the minds of the cult members. People susceptible to this sort of socialization can be made to believe anything and do anything, even commit mass suicide, in order to receive and retain group approval.
It is in the universities where the Jews have used these socialization techniques to do the worst damage. They have White students enthusiastically promoting programs aimed at the extinction of the White race. When we remember the mass suicide of cult members at Jonestown a few years back or more recently the mass suicide of the Heaven's Gate cult members in California, we should not be surprised that Bill Clinton is cheered by groups of White university students when he tells them that the end of the "dominant European culture" in the United States is in sight.
Jews, of course, are not the only ones able to use psychological techniques capable of controlling the minds of cult members or university students. What's needed is a group setting where these socialization techniques can be used, group leaders with verbal skills adequate to use the techniques effectively, and a group of people sufficiently lacking in self-confidence and sense of self-worth that they crave acceptance by the group more than anything else. Intelligence by itself is no protection against this sort of mind control. Even bright people are susceptible, so long as the need for group approval is strong enough. Women are more susceptible than men on the average, and the sort of wimpy, 'sensitive" men we are seeing all too much of these days are more susceptible than those with more normal glands, but even men who seem strong and assertive can be brainwashed by the sort of socialization techniques used at American universities today.
I have in front of me a recent newspaper column by a journalist, Gwynne Dyer, which provides a splendid example of the sort of mind-set which is formed by this socialization process. He is a true Clintonista, and he looks forward in his column with glee and eagerness to a future in which his own race will be extinct. He exults over the soaring rate of miscegenation in America and the increasing influx of non-White immigrants. He is especially pleased by the fact that White women who have served in the armed forces, where they are subjected to a brainwashing program based on the same psychological principles used by the Jews at our universities and are exposed to a high concentration of Blacks in every facet of their daily lives, are seven times as likely to couple with a Black male as are women who have not had military service. His real hero, after Bill Clinton, is Tiger Woods, the hopelessly mixed, part Chinese, part Negro, part White, part Indian golfer. He thinks that it is just wonderful that someone can have such a mixed-up ancestry and still learn how to hit the little, white ball into the hole. If mischlings can win golf tournaments, he believes, why then obviously they can do everything else. He concludes his column with the gloating prediction: "It will take another generation or two, but the old racist games are over -- and the future is light brown."
It is too easy to dismiss this sort of anti-White raving as a "sickness." Certainly, Gwynne Dyer and all who think like him are spiritually sick, ideologically sick, but most of them were more or less normal, healthy people before going through the socialization process I have described. In most people the need to be accepted, the need to be part of the group, the need to be fashionable, is strong enough to overcome reason and instinct. If such people are socialized in a healthy way, if their attitudes are shaped by leaders who have healthy racial and social attitudes themselves, they will develop a healthy spirituality, a healthy racial ideology. But when the socializing influences are Jewish, we end up with desperately sick people like Gwynne Dyer.
I began my comments today by saying that it is essential for our survival as a race that a great many of us have the moral courage to speak the truth, to stand up for what we believe in the face of the sort of sickness exemplified by Gwynne Dyer and Bill Clinton. The Jews have succeeded in subverting our universities, they have succeeded in converting them into factories for turning out moral basket cases like Gwynne Dyer, because we did not stand up to them back in the 1950s and 1960s: I and many others who knew better. I didn't really understand the full significance of what was happening back then Ñ but you don't have that excuse.
It is essential to speak out now because what the Jews are doing to our young people is by no means inevitable. It is by no means irresistible. It depends for its success on there being no effective opposition, no credible opposition. The situation is very much like that described by Hans Christian Anderson in his story about the emperor's new clothes. As long as no one had the courage to speak out, the hoax worked. But when one little boy said aloud, "Look, mama, the emperor is naked," the bubble burst; the illusion was shattered; the hoax collapsed. The Jews are able to persuade people to believe things contrary to reason and instinct because they are able to create the illusion that everyone else in the socialization group already believes these things. This illusion provides a strong pressure to conform. But when someone has the courage to stick a pin in their illusion, they lose this advantage.
I have another newspaper column on my desk. It is from the New Orleans Times-Picayune, which is part of the Jewish Newhouse chain, and it was written by a thoroughly socialized Clintonista, who was formerly an editorial writer for the paper. He now belongs to a group of socialized Christians in St. Petersburg, Florida, who have been meeting regularly for the past two years to keep each other appropriately "sensitized" on racial issues. And they try to bring new members into their group and use socialization techniques on them to bring them into conformity with the party line.
They made the mistake of inviting a man to their group who has the habit of saying what he believes instead of what he thinks others want to hear. It really tore the group up. The columnist's aim in writing this particular column seems to have been to show that there's still a lot of "insensitivity" in the White population which needs to be cured. He quotes the dissident's comments at the meeting. The dissident, Tom, told the others that he didn't see why Whites needed to apologize to Blacks for anything. Whites didn't force Blacks into slavery, Tom said. Blacks were enslaved by their own kind in Africa and then sold to White or Jewish slave dealers and brought to America, he told the group. And Blacks today ought to be grateful for that, Tom said. If their ancestors had not been brought to America, the present generation of Blacks would be in Africa today instead of in America, and their lives would be far worse.
Now, this is just the plain, unvarnished, historical truth, but it's a Politically Incorrect truth, and the others at the meeting couldn't deal with it.
They went through the familiar hooting and loud groaning routine, which is supposed to shame a dissident into changing his views. They rolled their eyes back and threw their hands up in exasperation. They gasped in disbelief that anyone could hold such bigoted views. But none of these techniques worked on Tom. He just kept coming out with more truths. He told them, "I guess it must hurt some people to hear that, but it's the truth." Poor Tom: he just didn't understand that the truth is the last thing these people wanted to hear. What they wanted was more reinforcement for the falsehoods and perverse ideas which already had been imposed on them.
One Politically Correct White man at the meeting told Tom angrily, "I want to throw up! What you say makes me want to vomit." Another member of the group, referring to Tom, remarked with hatred in his voice, "He hasn't learned anything!" A Politically Correct White woman stared bitterly at Tom and said, according to the columnist, "Why is it that we have to take this from him? Why should the people who are hurt always be the ones who answer with kindness? Why do we have to keep opening our hearts up to bigots?" All of this hatred, this disapproval and pressure to conform directed at Tom made him uncomfortable, but he stood his ground. He refused to repent or to retract anything. The others couldn't cope with this unexpected behavior. The meeting broke up with some members wondering aloud whether the races could ever live together in peace.
It's hard to say what effect Tom's courage and honesty had on this group in the long run. Most of the members probably recovered from their shock and began admiring the emperor's new clothes again. They already had been too thoroughly socialized, and Tom was the only dissident among 35 true believers. But Tom may very well have caused one or two waverers to rethink their positions. He may have caused a few of them to make contact with reality again. And if Tom had said what he believes to the whole group from the time the group was formed, he probably could have prevented the flight from reality to Political Correctness for many more of the members.
We have a similar situation at our universities today. Not everyone is equally weak and eager to parrot the party line. Many still have a bit of independence in them, a bit of respect for truth. All these waverers need is to hear one little boy say, "But, mama, the emperor has no clothes on." All they need is one example of courage and honesty, and they will be able to resist the Jewish brainwashing. The lemmings, of course, the people with no internal sense of direction at all, the ones who must have group acceptance at any cost, will still follow the Jewish party line in many cases. But in many other cases the Jews will not be able to create the necessary illusion at all. They will not be able to make even the most impressionable and eager-to-conform young people abandon reason and instinct and begin rooting for the annihilation of their own race.
And that, my friends, will be a real accomplishment. If you can, with a simple demonstration of courage and honesty, keep one other person from being socialized by the Jews -- if you can open the eyes of one young White woman and keep her loyal to her own race, if you can keep one young White man in touch with racial reality -- then your life will have been worthwhile. Your existence will have been justified.
And if you and enough others make a regular habit of standing up for the truth, of standing up for what is right, we will foil the Jews and the Clintonistas and guarantee a future for our people. We will assure that, contrary to what Gwynne Dyer would like, the color of the future will be White.
Who Are the Haters?
My organization, the National Alliance, concerns itself with all things relevant to the welfare and progress of the European peoples, the White people of this earth. We are advocates for all things which could be beneficial to our people, and we are opponents of all the influences and tendencies and groups who are harmful or to our people. As a consequence of this we receive a certain amount of hate mail, and I find it interesting to read these hate letters and try to understand the psychology, the motivations, of the people who write them. I won't read any of these hate letters to you today, because they're all pretty nasty and tend to lean pretty heavily on the use of four-letter words. They also tend to be blindly and irrationally hateful and to be based less on what I actually have said or done than on some misrepresentation about me or the National Alliance which has appeared recently in the controlled media.
In fact, there's a strong correlation between some sensational story appearing on television or in the New York Times or the Village Voice about the National Alliance being a so-called "hate group" and my novel The Turner Diaries being a "blueprint" for various acts of domestic terrorism on the one hand, and on the other hand the arrival of these hate letters at our office a few days thereafter. It is clear to me that these sensational stories in the controlled media, which all purport to be against hate -- in fact, they claim to deplore the growth of hate in our society, to be alarmed about it, and to be seeking ways to ameliorate it -- these stories denouncing hate have the effect of causing the arrival of hate letters at our office. There is a cause-and-effect relationship. And the more I've thought about it, the more I've become convinced that it was planned that way.
Which is to say, all of these media protests about the growth of hate in America are intended for the specific purpose of provoking hate, of inciting hate. If you collect these stories from the New York Times, Time, Newsweek, or other Jewish publications and study them, you'll see a certain pattern. For example, they always use the word "hate" in writing about me or the National Alliance. Even a short story may use the word "hate" or "hater" or the phrase "hate group" a dozen or more times. It's clear that this isn't just a fluke, because it occurs so consistently. What they're deliberately trying to do is create an association in the mind of the average reader or television viewer between any mention of me or my organization and the emotion of hatred. In fact, they not only want the listeners or viewers to reflexively think "hate" when they hear my name or the name of the National Alliance, they want them to feel hate. And it seems to work to a certain extent, judging from this correlation I mentioned between the appearance of these stories and the arrival of hate mail at our office.
It's an irrational, Pavlovian sort of thing, because as I mentioned a minute ago, the National Alliance is not a hate group of any sort but instead is a group dedicated to the welfare and progress of our people. But clearly there are folks out there who feel threatened by any such effort: folks who regard any activity aimed at building a sense of racial solidarity and racial consciousness among Europeans as a threat to themselves. And foremost among these folks are those who control the mass media: those who own the New York Times, the Village Voice, Time, Newsweek, and the rest. They are a deceitful bunch. They don't come right out and say that they are opposed to White people regaining an understanding of our roots and an appreciation for our own unique qualities in a rapidly darkening world and a sense of responsibility for the future of our people. They don't say this. Instead they attempt to generate negative associations in the minds of their mass audience. They attempt to use psychological trickery to keep our people confused and disorganized. They don't want us thinking clearly about what is in our own interest and what is not. They deliberately attempt to incite hatred against me and others who are concerned about the future of our people.
They've had a lot of experience at inciting hatred. If you're a person of German ancestry, you'll certainly understand this. For the past 60 years, ever since the late 1930s, the media bosses have been cranking out films -- hundreds of them -- designed to incite hatred against Germans: crude, heavy-handed films, full of distortions and outright lies, but still effective enough to profoundly affect public opinion and national policy.
You may be better able to understand this media bias if you compare the films they have made about Germans with the films they have made about Japanese. You know, it was Japan who attacked the United States in the Second World War, not Germany. The Germans wanted to avoid a conflict with America and even ignored the deliberate provocations of the Roosevelt government, such as American attacks on German ships. After we were in the war, the Germans treated American prisoners correctly, in contrast to the Japanese, who often behaved brutally toward American prisoners, starving and torturing them. But the films coming out of Hollywood don't reflect this reality. For every anti-Japanese film there are a hundred anti-German films. In fact, Hollywood's tendency has been to generate sympathy toward the Japanese by reminding Americans at every opportunity about our internment of Japanese civilians in concentration camps in this country during the war. By way of contrast, the Germans are portrayed as sadistic automatons, clicking their heels and shouting "Sieg Heil" as they massacre prisoners.
Think about this difference between the Hollywood portrayal of Japanese and Germans. You won't have to think very long to understand that the reason the media bosses want to incite hatred against the Germans but not against the Japanese is based on the fact that the Germans were in the business of freeing their own country of Jewish influence and of fighting against Jewish Communism everywhere in Europe, while the Japanese were blessed by not having a Jewish problem to deal with. The media bosses, in other words, couldn't care less about the fact that the Germans treated American prisoners of war correctly and the Japanese didn't; all they care about is the way their fellow Jews were treated. That ethnic self-centeredness of theirs shows up in almost all of their propaganda.
For the last few years their hate propaganda has been directed not just at Germans, but also at everyone who is not Politically Correct -- especially those groups like the National Alliance whose stand on the Jewish issue or the race issue differs from their own. And they have added a new twist: using a pretended campaign against hate to incite hate.
You know, I didn't think much about hate myself until becoming the target of this Jewish hate campaign. And then I had to ask myself, am I really a hater? Certainly not in the way the people who send those hate letters are. But, yes, I suppose I do hate some people. Whenever I look at what has happened to our cities and our schools during the past 30 or 40 years, I cannot suppress my feeling of hostility toward the Blacks, mestizos, and Asians who have made so much of our country an enemy-occupied wasteland. I feel a surge of anger every time I see a non-White face on television or in an advertisement. Thirty or 40 years ago, before all of the new civil-rights laws gave them a privileged status and when there were 25 or 30 million fewer of them in the country, I didn't feel this hostility. I figured that we could each stay in our own communities and we wouldn't get in each other's way. But now I want them out of our country, out of our living space. But even so, my hostility toward these non-Whites who are overrunning my world is not the nasty sort of hatred embellished with obscenity that I see expressed in the hate letters I receive.
When I see a hate letter I often feel a flash of anger at the hater who wrote it, but I cannot say that I really hate even these hate-letter writers. They are simply the people, most of them White, who are incited by the real hatemongers, the media bosses. My feeling toward these Jewish media bosses -- and all of the clever, little Jewish propagandists who write news stories about so- called "hate groups" in an attempt to make ordinary people hate me -- is much closer to real hatred. Over the years they have done enormous damage to our people with their poisonous propaganda, and they aspire to do even more. One way or another we must stop them and make sure that they can never harm our people again.
But I reserve my most heartfelt hatred for the collaborators among my own people who make it possible for the Jews to do their damage: collaborators who consciously and deliberately betray their own people, lie to their own people, in order to gain advantage for themselves -- the politicians, generals, public officials, clergymen, professors, writers, businessmen, and publicists who are not incited to hatred by the psychological tricks of the Jews, as are the suggestible fools who write hate letters, but who consciously and deliberately choose race treason, believing that they will gain a personal advantage from it. There is no fire in hell hot enough to punish these traitors, and there will be no place for them to hide when the day of retribution comes.
Yes, I hate traitors, I hate liars and deceivers, and I cannot say that I feel at all apologetic about the fact that I hate them. Hate may be an unpleasant sort of emotion, but it can serve a good purpose, and that is why Mother Nature gave us the capability to hate. It is one of the faculties which protects us from traitors and deceivers by ensuring that we will punish them, that we will weed them from our midst when we catch them, instead of forgiving them and giving them a chance to betray us again.
Nevertheless, I reject the label of "hater," with which the real hatemongers have tried to brand me. I spend very little of my time hating and a great deal of my time spreading understanding with the hope that it will benefit my people. One of the things I believe that we must understand, that we must always be aware of, is the motivation of the professional hatemongers, as well as the trickery with which they ply their trade.
Their trick of using the pretense of altruistically fighting hate in order to incite hate against their enemies is relatively new. They invented the terms "hate crime" and "hate speech" only a little over a decade ago -- unless one wants to give the credit for that to George Orwell, who popularized the essentially identical concept of "thought crime" in 1948, with his futuristic novel 1984. In any case, they used their political influence to force the government and the various police agencies around the country to give official recognition to their invention, or Orwell's invention if you prefer, with the passage of the so-called "Hate Crimes Statistics Reporting Act" of 1990. Then almost overnight all of the mass media began using the terms. Now they've got the President of the United States running around the country giving speeches about stamping out "hate crime" and "hate speech." It's their way of demonizing their enemies, of making their enemies seem like irrational, dangerous, and hateful people: the sort of people that it's all right for decent folks to hate.
So the trick is new, but the hate they bear against humanity certainly isn't new. Two thousand years ago the great Roman historian Tacitus noted as the principal distinguishing characteristic of the Jews their hatred for every nation but their own. This hatred they bear against other peoples may serve a useful purpose for the Jews by helping them to remain apart and to retain their own identity while existing as a small but influential minority among much larger host populations, but it certainly isn't helpful to our people. They almost instinctively are hostile to every institution of ours which holds us together and gives us our strength and solidarity. Back during the Vietnam war they were at the forefront of the flag-burners, and they persuaded a whole generation of university students and other young Americans to despise patriotism. Today their deceptive hate campaign is still directed against patriots, whom they portray as terrorists or potential terrorists.
Consider the whole set of ideas and attitudes associated with Political Correctness. Political Correctness really has not been codified in any formal way, so that one can refer to some official proclamation in order to determine what is Politically Correct and what is not. Nevertheless, we all know. We absorb this knowledge from the mass media.
We know, for example, that the United Negro College Fund and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People are Politically Correct. No one flinches or protests at the mention of those very real organizations. But at the same time we all know that if anyone dared to attempt to organize a college fund reserved for White students, he would be met with howls of outrage from the guardians of Political Correctness. We know that any association for the advancement of White interests will be branded immediately a "hate group" by the Jewish media and all of the politicians who dance to their tune, as the National Alliance is. In fact, any club or other organization with an all-White membership is bound to be under suspicion of being a "hate group," although the same suspicion is never directed against an all-Jewish organization, an all- Chinese organization, or an organization all of whose members are American Indians.
We all know that to express revulsion for the practices of homosexuals is the height of Political Incorrectness and will get us branded as "haters" in an instant. Even if we want to give our own children positive examples of heterosexual masculinity or heterosexual femininity in order to guide the development of their own attitudes toward sex, we had better do it quietly if we don't want to be accused of "hate." Likewise, any expression of support for the maintenance of traditional sex roles -- any suggestion that armed combat is not a proper role for women, for example -- is sure to bring one under suspicion as a "hater." We all know that whenever White people, European people, are in conflict with non-Whites, whether in South Africa or America or anywhere else on this increasingly overcrowded planet, it is Politically Correct to be on the non-White side. To be on the White side is to be a "hater." If one expresses agreement with the French people who believe that the French government should cut off the immigration of Africans from the former French colonies in Africa, for example, one is a "hater." If one agrees with the Germans who believe that there are too many Turkish "guest workers" in Germany, one is a "hater." If one agrees with Englishmen that the Pakistanis in England should be sent back to Pakistan, one is a "hater." And if we suggest that the American government should not let wetbacks continue to pour into the United States across the Rio Grande, we are "haters." Indeed, only a "hater" would dare use the term "wetback" these days.
If we are sufficiently sensitive to the message of the controlled media, we understand that any expression of concern for our people, any effort to safeguard the future of our people, any public support for our traditions and our culture and our folkways is hateful. The unspoken message is that we will be hated if we are not Politically Correct. The message is that the sort of trendy fools who send me viciously obscene hate letters will be incited to hate anyone who does not toe the political line of the Jewish media.
It's a shame that it still has to be that way for a while yet. It's a shame that any of our people are incited to hate others of our people. But we have a big mess to clean up in America and elsewhere throughout the White world, and until the mess has been cleaned up there will be hatred.
At least, we can understand who is responsible for this hatred. We can understand who the real haters are.
The New World Order
We have discussed many topics in Free Speech. We have discussed social issues, moral issues, and political issues. We've talked about race, about nationalism, and about the Jewish control of the news and entertainment media. Now, I will discuss "the big picture." I'll talk in broad outline about the salient developments of the past few years and the way in which they affect our people.
There's been much talk in various quarters recently about the New World Order. Until seven or eight years ago the New World Order was a poorly kept secret. It was discussed in private by the people who considered themselves qualified to decide for all the rest us what sort of world we wanted to live in, but they didn't often let us in on their discussions. They were concerned that in our backwardness and ignorance we might not want to go along for the ride if we learned what these elitists had planned for us.
Nowadays, however, with Bill Clinton in the White House and the general public dancing mindlessly to whatever tune is played by the mass media, they are much less concerned that the hoi polloi will be able to upset their applecart, and so the New World Order is discussed within earshot of us commoners as a matter of course. Despite this general familiarity with the term, however, there is very little real understanding on the part of most people of the concept of a New World Order -- and there is even less understanding of the real motivations behind this concept and of their historical development. I will try to remedy this lack of understanding, at least in some small part, during the next few minutes. Let's look at the history of the New World Order concept first.
The idea of a world government certainly isn't new, of course. The Roman Empire achieved a world government to a large extent 2,000 years ago. And during the Middle Ages the Christian Church constituted a universal order of sorts, despite the schism between its western -- or Roman -- branch and its eastern -- or Greek -- branch.
In modern times the idea has appealed to several groups of people. In the first place there are the amoral, super-wealthy elements: cosmopolitan and raceless individuals who already wield a great deal of power through their wealth and like to flatter themselves with the thought that they deserve even more power over the lives of the rest of us. In many cases there's more than self- flattery involved: many of these men are involved in giant, multinational business enterprises, and they see more profit for themselves in the conversion of the world into a sort of global plantation, with themselves in the role of owners and overseers, and the rest of us as their serfs.
These cosmopolitan big-business elements are the elements that most of the unsophisticated opponents of the New World Order think about. Often these unsophisticated opponents simply rail against "the international bankers" and attribute to them the dominant role in New World Order scheming. At least as important as these super-wealthy big-business elements, however -- and vastly more numerous -- are those who support the New World Order for reasons of ideology or fashion. The idea of a world government has had a trendy sort of appeal among leftist academics and clerics, as well as among a number of shallow intellectuals influenced by the former and Christians influenced by the latter. Bill and Hillary Clinton, as well as many of their friends and associates, are among the former: the New World Order has been fashionable among the crowd they have run with since high school, and these people are nothing if not fashion conscious. They are people who would rather be torn apart by wild horses than be caught with an unfashionable idea in their heads.
Many of the Christian supporters of the New World Order are tormented by feelings of White racial guilt or of misplaced compassion for the non-White hordes of the world. They see the New World Order as a way to "equalize" the world racially by redistributing the world's wealth and to punish the Whites by bringing them down to the level of the non-Whites.
Also among the ideological boosters of the New World Order are those who claim to see greater security for everyone under a world government or who are simply attracted by the concept of a more orderly world under centralized control. Since the early part of this century groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations have been working behind the scenes on the political and the academic fronts to promote the idea of a New World Order. These people argue that with weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear bombs, on the loose, the only way for humanity to be safe is under a world government. Only through the establishment of a New World Order, they assert, can we hope to eliminate war and its associated evils. Yet these same intellectuals were hotter than anyone else to unleash the Second World War -- the most destructive and murderous war ever inflicted on the world -- and to develop and use nuclear weapons in that war. Their conspiring and their behind-the-scenes maneuvering succeeded in turning a regional conflict in eastern Europe, primarily between Germany and the Soviet Union, into a global campaign to destroy Germany and save the Soviet Union. Their great disappointment was that the war in Europe ended too soon for them to use nuclear weapons against Germany. Despite their professed abhorrence of war, they are all too ready to resort to it in order to prevent what they consider the wrong sort of New World Order, or even the wrong sort of New European Order.
And this brings us to a third element -- and the most important element -- among the proponents of the New World Order. This is the Jewish element. Anyone who reads the Old Testament with eyes not blinded by Christian piety cannot miss its central message: the Jews are a special people who are morally superior to the other peoples of the earth, "a chosen people": chosen by their tribal deity to inherit the earth and all its riches and to be served by non-Jews. Isaiah, for example, spells out this message clearly and explicitly. Orthodox religious Jews believe it literally. Even atheistic Jews believe it, in a sense. They believe that they are smarter, more resourceful, and better organized than non-Jews and so deserve to exploit them and rule over them.
And, at least as far as being better organized, they certainly are correct. They have ten times as many organizations per capita to represent their interests as any other race or ethnic group. Some of these are strictly internal educational or cultural organizations, aimed at maintaining Jewish cohesiveness and the Jewish sense of identity. Others are aimed at exerting pressure or influence on the Gentile majorities around them. Some of these latter organizations, such as the Anti- Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, are quite powerful and have Gentile politicians dancing to their tune. And in a collective sense the Jews may be justified in thinking that they are smarter. Which is to say that they have developed a collective strategy for survival and self-advancement which so far has been extraordinarily successful. Central to this strategy is the maintenance of a sense of grievance against the non-Jewish world, a sense that Jews not only must stick together, but that they are justified in using deceit and any other tactic in their dealings with the Gentiles, because the Gentiles are out to destroy them. Certainly no other race celebrates its alleged "persecutions" the way the Jews do theirs. In their annual Purim festival, for example, they still nurse a 2,500- year-old grievance against the ancient Persians.
More than anything else, however, it is the Jews' control of the news and entertainment media which gives them their immense power. For more than 50 years they have consistently used their media power to advance the schemes of the New World Order gang.
Clearly the Jews see a dominant role for themselves in a world government because of the power they already wield. Beyond this, with their highly leveraged situation -- that is, their need to maintain their control over numerically much larger Gentile populations everywhere, increasing centralization of governmental power is the only strategy which makes sense for them. They have a tiger by the tail, and they dare not let go. Their great fear is that a strong and genuinely patriotic leader may arise in some nation, another Adolf Hitler, and he will succeed in breaking the Jewish control over his people and ending Jewish power in his nation. If that is permitted to happen in any major nation, it may spread quickly to other nations. That is why they pulled out all the stops to destroy Germany during the Second World War. And, if they were not already convinced, the Second World War redoubled their conviction that they must make every nation subordinate to a world government under their control.
What the Jews and the other New World Order schemers have in mind goes far, far beyond the United Nations Organization that they created at the end of the Second World War. The UN has been moderately successful at bullying small countries into line with the threat of so-called "peace keeping" forces, but it has no power over large nations. The Jews want a final end to the possibility of the resurgence of any nationalism -- except their own, of course. They want to eliminate forever the possibility that the people of Russia, the United States, Germany, Britain, or any other country except Israel will act of their own will.
This total elimination of national sovereignty is in accord with the interests of the non-Jewish New World Order schemers as well. The whole idea of patriotism has been in bad odor with the leftist academics and their semi-intellectual hangers on for a long time. Patriotism is an alien concept to them. They are instinctively hostile to patriots. Bill Clinton, who demonstrated against his own country during the Vietnam war, provides an excellent example of this mind-set. And patriotism is contrary to the universalist ideas of the Christian clerics backing the New World Order.
Finally, the international capitalists also are hostile to national sovereignty. They want a truly global plantation, with a global labor pool for them to exploit and a global market for them to milk. National boundaries and any tendencies toward protecting national interests just get in their way and cut into their profits. So now we can begin to understand some of the things which have been happening to us during the past few decades in terms of these goals of the New World Order schemers. For example, the refusal of the United States government to control our borders. We have millions of illegal aliens in the United States and hundreds of thousands more entering the country every year. Stopping the flow of illegal aliens across our borders and deporting the illegals already here would be a trivially easy thing for the United States government to do.
It would cost far less money than is spent each year in providing various social and medical services to illegal aliens now. Any military or police operations involved could be integrated with training programs and could provide valuable experience for military and police personnel. But the Federal government has consistently refused to take any effective action to halt illegal immigration.
Federal officials have simply play-acted in this regard, spending a tiny amount of money to beef up a border fence along the Mexican border in one area and leaving the border unguarded in another area. In response to public outrage by citizens in border areas who demand action by the government, a few dozen more Border Patrol agents will be hired or some other action will be taken to make it seem that the government wants to control the borders, but every action taken is deliberately ineffective -- and I mean deliberately.
The truth of the matter is that the New World Order people ultimately aim to create a New World Population of serfs for their global plantation, a homogeneous population of coffee-colored serfs --- a population of docile, predictable, and interchangeable serfs -- and they definitely don't want any large reservoir of White people anywhere who might rebel.
So from the point of view of the New World Order planners, the more Mexicans, Haitians, and Vietnamese who pour into the United States, the better. But they are not ready yet to announce publicly that their aim is to destroy the racial character of the U.S. population. So when the citizens squawk too loudly about illegal aliens, the government puts on a pretense of doing something about the problem. What they want to do is keep the illegals coming in while they continue to enforce their racial mixing and their anti-discrimination laws. Their aim is to homogenize the population and destroy its White character gradually, without provoking an uprising.
Or consider Bill Clinton's current campaign to have more legislation enacted against so-called "hate crimes." This may score a few votes from Black, homosexual, and feminist voters for the Democrats, but the Democrats were getting all of those votes anyway. As I have explained before, Mr. Clinton's campaign to outlaw "hate" makes very little sense if it is taken at face value. It is understandable only in the context of a much larger campaign to scrap the Bill of Rights.
In fact, what we see when we look closely at the principal backers of the New World Order and at the people who have been loudest in their demands for curbs on First Amendment rights, in their demands for the elimination of all Second Amendment rights, and in their calls for governmental behavior contrary to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments as well, all in the name of increasing public security -- what we see is that these are the same people. The people who want to outlaw what they call "hate speech," the people who want to confiscate all private firearms, the people who believe that Political Correctness should take precedence over the right to due process and a speedy trial, to freedom from double jeopardy, from being compelled to testify against oneself, and from unlawful search and seizure -- all these people are fervent promoters of the New World Order.
And all of the people who have been scheming for the New World Order understand that the one thing which could upset their applecart is a rebellion by White patriots, and they're determined to have the government tighten its grip on the people in order to prevent a rebellion from taking place.
I apologize for not having enough time to present more details, for not carefully documenting everything with plenty of evidence, but I've done that on other American Dissident Voices broadcasts.
What does all this mean for our future? It means that the government's assault on our freedom will not abate; instead it will become more intense, more vicious, more reckless. The government lawlessness that we saw at Ruby Ridge and at Waco will intensify. The government is irrevocably committed to repressing dissent, to stifling opposition, and to intimidating its critics.
The New World Order schemers are absolutely determined to have their way. They have been able to go a long way toward their goal by using subterfuge and deceit. But ultimately the transformation of a world of independent nations into the global plantation they are aiming at will involve changes so profound and so traumatic that subterfuge and deceit will not be enough to keep the serfs under control. They will need raw police power, applied KGB style. They want to begin developing that power now. They're a pretty bold and arrogant bunch of schemers, but they understand that according to the old way of looking at things -- according to our way -- they are traitors. They understand that if the general public ever gets a real inkling of what they are up to, if they ever lose their grip on the situation, they'll all end up hanging from lampposts. What they are planning is so monstrous, so evil, that the thought of being brought to account for it frightens them. They want to use every means at their disposal to make sure their plan succeeds.
And, my friends, we will resort to every means at our disposal to insure that their scheme does not succeed and that they do indeed end up hanging from lampposts.
The Feminization of America
I always have been very fond of women -- perhaps too much sometimes. I always have enjoyed their company greatly. I have really worshipped feminine beauty. I have admired and respected women when they have served their purpose in the life of our people, as much as I have admired and respected men who have served their purpose.
Having said this I must tell you now that I believe that a great part of the present pathology of our society can be ascribed properly to its feminization over the past century or two, to its loss of its former masculine spirit and masculine character.
This came to mind most recently when I saw and heard the reaction to Timothy McVeigh's statement to the court on August 14, at the time he was sentenced to die. What McVeigh said was very relevant, very pertinent. He said that the government teaches its citizens by its example. When the government breaks the law, then its citizens will not respect the law.
But the spectators almost uniformly were disappointed by this statement. They complained that they wanted to hear him say that he was sorry for what he had done, that he was sorry for the innocent victims of the Oklahoma City bombing. They weren't even interested in hearing about the much larger issue of government lawlessness that Mr. McVeigh raised. They only wanted an apology for the suffering of individual victims. This is a feminine attitude, this focusing on personal and individual feelings rather than on the larger, impersonal context. It is a feminine attitude, despite the fact that it was expressed by grown men.
Many other people besides me have come to similar conclusions, although not all of them have wanted to come right and out and say so, because that would be the height of Political Incorrectness, the height of "insensitivity." As far back as the 1960s some perceptive commentators were remarking on the generally unmasculine character of the young men they encountered in our universities. Male university students even then tended to be too timid; too soft; too lacking in boldness, pride, and independence; too whiny in adversity; insufficiently willing to endure hardship or to challenge obstacles.
We have always had both soft, dependent men and hard, proud men in our society, but the commentators were comparing the relative numbers of masculine and non-masculine men they saw in our universities in the 1960s with what they had seen in the 1930s and 1940s. The 1960s, of course, were a time when the whinier men were making extraordinary efforts to remain in the universities in order to avoid military service, while many of the more masculine men were off in Vietnam, but this isn't enough to account for the change these commentators noticed.
Something written by the American historian Henry Adams back in 1913 was recently called to my attention. Adams wrote "Our age has lost much of its ear for poetry, as it has its eye for color and line and its taste for war and worship, wine and women." Now, Henry Adams was a man who had much more than a passing interest in such matters -- he was a lifelong student of these things and also was a professor of history at Harvard back in the days when the professors at that university were expected to know what they were talking about -- so we ought to pay some attention to his observation of the state of affairs in America in 1913. Incidentally, he was a member of one of America's most distinguished families. He was a great grandson of the founding father and second President of the country, John Adams, and a grandson of the sixth President, John Quincy Adams.
Henry's brother, Brooks Adams, had written a book 18 years earlier, in 1895, on the subject commented on by Henry. It was The Law of Civilization and Decay, and in it Brooks made an even more general observation than that stated later by Henry. Brooks saw two types of man: the type he described as spiritual man, typified by the farmer-warrior-poet-priest; and the type he called economic man, typified by the merchant and the bureaucrat. I believe that Brooks must have known a different breed of priests than those I am familiar with. He was thinking of Martin Luther and Giordano Bruno, not Billy Graham and John Paul II.
He saw spiritual man as having the leading role in the building of a civilization, with the economic men coming out of the woodwork and assuming the dominant role after the civilization had peaked and was in the process of decay. Spiritual men are those with vision and daring and a close connection to their roots, their spiritual sources. Economic men are those who know how to calculate the odds and evaluate an opportunity, but who have cut themselves loose from their spiritual roots and become cosmopolitans, to the extent that that offers an economic advantage. The spirit of adventure and the current of idealism run strong in spiritual men; economic men, on the other hand, are materialists. And Brooks was referring only to European men, to White men. He was not even considering the Jews or Chinese.
Most of us are a mixture of the two types, and it's difficult to find examples of purely spiritual or purely economic men. Michelangelo and Charles Lindbergh tended toward the type of spiritual man. Pick almost any prominent politician today -- Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich, say -- and you have a good example of economic man. Which is not to say that all economic men are politicians, by any means: just that, since they are not likely to be distinguished in the arts, scholarship, or exploration, politics is where economic men are most likely to find fame.
So what does this have to do with the feminization of our society and the preponderance of whiny young men at our universities today? Actually, these things are very closely interrelated. They also are related to the things which caught the attention of Henry Adams: the loss of our aesthetic sense, our warrior spirit, and our feeling for what is divine, along with our masculinity.
When I say "loss," I am using this word only in its relative sense. Our society still has masculine elements, masculine characteristics; it's just that they are weaker now than they were 200 years ago. And 200 years ago there were some effeminate tendencies to be found; tendencies which today have become much more pronounced. It would be an error, I believe, to attribute this shift in balance solely to the machinations of feminists, homosexuals, or even Jews. They are responsible for the condition of our society today primarily in the sense that the pus in a ripe boil is to be blamed for the boil. The feminists, homosexuals and Jews characterize our society in large part today -- they are symptoms of the pathology afflicting our society -- but we must look deeper for the cause of our decay. Let me repeat Henry Adams' observation. He wrote: "Our age has lost much of its ear for poetry, as it has its eye for color and line and its taste for war and worship, wine and women."
If he were writing today, he might note that the immortal lyrics of his contemporary, Tennyson, have given way in favor to the pretentious drivel of Maya Angelou; that the Western tradition in art, which had culminated in the 19th century in the paintings of Caspar David Friedrich and John Constable, has been shoved aside in the 20th century by the trash-art of Picasso, Chagall, and Pollock; that the profession of arms, which was still a more or less honorable profession in the 19th century, a profession in which gentlemen and even scholars still could be found, has become at the end of the 20th century a vocation for bureaucrats and lickspittles, for men without honor or spirit; that worship, once taken seriously even by many intelligent and sophisticated men, is now the business of Christian democrats, with their egalitarian social gospel, and of vulgarians of the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker stripe, with their television congregations of superstitious, amen-shouting dimwits.
Can we properly describe this change noted by Henry Adams as the feminization of our society? Or should it be thought of as the replacement of aristocratic values by democratic values, a general vulgarization of standards and tastes? Actually, these two ways of looking at the change are related. But let me take Brooks Adams' position now and say that the change can be attributed most fundamentally to the growing materialism in our society, to the replacement of spiritual values by economic values. What does that have to do with feminism or with democracy?
Actually, a great deal. In a very broad sense, aristocratic values are masculine values, and democratic values -- egalitarian values -- are feminine values. It is also true that, in a very broad sense, materialism is a feminine way of looking at the world. It is a way which puts emphasis on safety, security, and comfort, and on tangible things at the expense of intangibles. It is not concerned with concepts such as honor, and very little with beauty, tradition, and roots. It is a way with a limited horizon, with the home and hearth very much in sight, but not distant frontiers. Reverence and awe for Nature's majesty are unknown to the materialist.
As spiritual man gives way to economic man, when one historical era merges into another -- as idealism gives way to materialism -- society gives a freer play to the feminine spirit while it restricts the masculine spirit. Words gain over deeds; action gives way to talk. Quantity is valued over quality. All of God's children are loved equally. Pickaninnies are considered "cute" or even "adorable." The role of the government shifts from that of a father, who maintains an orderly and lawful environment in which men are free to strive for success as little or as much as suits them, to that of a mother, who wants to insure that all of her children will be supplied with whatever they need.
It is not just society which changes, not just government, not just public policy; individual attitudes and behavior also change. The way in which children are raised changes. Girls no longer are raised to be mothers and homemakers but rather to be self-indulgent careerists. Boys no longer are raised to be strong-willed, independent, and resourceful. That requires hardness and self-denial; it requires masculine rule during the formative years. A disciplined environment gives way to a permissive one, and so the child does not learn self-discipline. Spanking becomes a criminal offense. The child is not punished for disobedience, nor is he given the opportunity to fail and to learn from this the penalties that the real world holds for those who are not strong enough to succeed. And so boys grow up to be whiny and ineffective young men, who believe that a plausible excuse is an acceptable substitute for performance and who never can understand why the gratification they seek eludes them.
The move from masculine idealism to feminine materialism leads inevitably to hedonism, egoism, and eventually narcissism. Henry Adams also claimed that we have lost our taste for wine and women. Well, certainly not in the sense that we have become less interested in alcohol or sex. What he meant is that we have lost the keen edge of our appreciation for civilization's refinements, for the finest and most subtle things in life: that our appetites have become grosser as they have become less disciplined. Our interest now is in alcohol for its ability to give us a momentary buzz, not in fine wine for its inherent artistry.
A similar consideration applies to the way in which our taste for women has changed. And is this not to be expected? It is the masculine spirit which appreciates woman, which appreciates feminine qualities, and as this spirit declines, our taste for women loses its edge and becomes coarser. We move from an age in which women were not only appreciated but also treasured and protected into an age in which homosexuality is open, tolerated, and increasingly common; Madonna is a celebrated symbol of American womanhood; and feminine beauty is a mere commodity, like soybeans or crude oil: an age in which parents dump their daughters into the multiracial cesspool that America's schools and cities have become to let them fend for themselves. In an age in which materialism and feminism are ascendant, this is the only way it can be. To attempt to make it otherwise -- to attempt to decommercialize sex, for example -- would be a blow against the economy, against the materialist spirit. And to elevate women again to the protected status they had in a more masculine era would be fought tooth and nail by the feminists as a limitation on women's freedom.
This subject is a little fuzzy, and I've been speaking qualitatively rather than quantitatively. For almost everything I've said, an opponent could produce a counterexample. And that's because I'm talking about very large-scale phenomena, involving many people, many institutions, and many types of interactions. Even during periods of history which I would characterize as masculine or as dominated by the masculine spirit, one can find examples of feminine tendencies and of institutions with a feminine spirit, just as one can find masculine tendencies in our society today. For example, while I claim that our society is becoming more effeminate today, someone can attempt to counter that by noting that masculinized women are more prominent today -- female lawyers, female executives, female military officers -- and one can attribute that to masculine influences in our society. I would counter that by saying that when men become less masculine, women become less feminine.
Likewise, when I relate materialism and feminism, or when I say that the rise of the economic spirit is associated with a decline in masculinity, someone else can find plenty of men with no shortage of testosterone -- strong, aggressive capitalists -- who are epitomes of what Brooks Adams called "economic man." What it really amounts to is that the masculine character, like the feminine character, has many components. The component I have emphasized today is the spiritual component -- and there are other components. It is a complex subject. But I still believe that we can meaningfully describe what has happened to our society and our civilization during the past couple of centuries as a decline in masculinity. I believe that such a description sheds a useful light on one aspect of what has happened to us. And I believe that Henry Adams' comment on our society's loss of its artistic sense and of its sense of reverence, along with its warrior spirit, is a generally true statement which has value in helping us to understand our predicament. Adams, to be sure, was a scholar of considerable depth, and he wrote a great deal of carefully reasoned material to support the one- sentence summary which I quoted.
By the way, one subject with which Henry Adams -- and his brother Brooks too -- were familiar in this regard was the role of the Jew in undermining civilization. Henry made a number of comments about the destructive role of the Jews in the economic and cultural aspects of European civilization. His observations on this subject are perhaps best summed up by something he wrote in a letter to a friend in 1896: "The Jew," he wrote, "has got into the soul . . . and wherever he . . . [that is, the Jew] goes, there must remain a taint in the blood forever." How much worse that taint has become during the century since Henry Adams made that observation!
I apologize for being so abstract in my own comments today. But I believe that it's useful to back off every now and then and try to see the big picture, to try to develop an intuitive sort of understanding of our situation, even if it means talking about things which are by their nature somewhat fuzzy.
The Giant Gold Robbery
I've mentioned the Jewish program of extortion against Switzerland before, but this is such a fascinating subject I just can't stay away from it. Almost every day the Jews outreach themselves in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's really breathtaking to watch them.
For the sake of review, the whole thing started last year when a group of Jews, looking around for a new way to milk more money from the "Holocaust," hit on the idea of announcing that Swiss bankers were keeping money that had been deposited by Jews before or during the Second World War who had then died or been killed during the war. Like most clever swindles, this one contained a grain of truth. Among the dormant accounts in Swiss banks there are some which did belong to Jews who died during the war. Every bank in the world accumulates dormant accounts, and some of these accounts undoubtedly were opened by Jews.
Now, the Swiss bankers have standard procedures for dealing with their depositors and for handling dormant accounts, and those procedures have nothing at all to do with the ethnicity of the depositor. Jewish depositors are and always have been treated just like everyone else. The same efforts are made to contact the owners of dormant accounts, regardless of whether those owners are Jews or Gentiles. And regardless of what you think about bankers as a whole, Swiss bankers are generally recognized as especially reputable -- as bankers who are especially careful to play by the rules. That's one of the reasons Swiss banks are so highly regarded around the world.
If a group of Tibetans or Laplanders had begun raising a fuss about dormant accounts their grandfathers had opened in Swiss banks, the Swiss bankers would have dealt with them in the standard manner: the bankers would have said to them, just show us some proof that you are the legitimate heirs of depositors who have died, and we will give you any money in the accounts, and that would have been it. No one would have expected more than that, and no special media attention would have been given to the Tibetans or Laplanders.
In fact, before this particular swindle was launched last year, Jews, along with people of just about every other race and nationality on the planet, had claimed and been awarded dormant accounts in the standard way, without any special difficulty.
But the Jews who launched this scheme weren't interested in having dormant accounts handled in the standard way. They were interested in blackmail and extortion on a grand scale. And they had reason to believe that they could get away it, while the Tibetans and Laplanders obviously couldn't. That reason was the control of the news and entertainment media by their fellow Jews.
The first act in the scheme went like this: The schemers got together with some of their buddies in the media, and front-page articles appeared simultaneously in newspapers all over the world to the effect that Swiss bankers were unscrupulously holding onto as much as $7 billion which belonged to the heirs of so-called "Holocaust" victims. The members of the Jewish group wanted the Swiss bankers to turn this money over to them. The Swiss responded, as one might have expected, with denials and outrage. The president of Switzerland denounced the Jewish demands as an extortion attempt. And had only Tibetans or Laplanders been involved, that's where the affair would have ended. But instead, the Jewish media shifted into second gear and counterattacked, feigning outrage themselves over the charge of extortion. How could a bunch of nice, Jewish boys possibly be involved in extortion -- especially when the magic word "Holocaust" had been invoked to sanctify their claim for money?
Then the Swiss made their first big mistake: they apologized for accusing the Jews of extortion. They explained their procedure for claiming dormant accounts. They hired public relations firms. They said that there couldn't possibly be $7 billion in dormant accounts belonging to "Holocaust" victims, but that there might be some money and that they would make another examination of their dormant accounts. They announced that as a charitable act they would donate $180 million to the Jews, not from dormant accounts but from their own general funds, just for the sake of goodwill.
The Swiss didn't understand the Jewish mentality. They didn't understand that Jews aren't people you can live with. With Jews there's no compromising. The Jews correctly viewed the Swiss apology and the Swiss offer of a charitable donation to "Holocaust" survivors as signs of weakness, and so they stepped up their demands. They got one of their step'n'fetchit Gentile politicians involved, New York Senator Alphonse D'Amato, who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and who has made a career out of doing favors for the Jews. And they began escalating their demands and their threats.
And the Swiss kept making mistakes. They kept apologizing and backtracking and trying to placate the Jews. Aside from their reputation for honesty, the big thing Swiss banks had going for them was their reputation for confidentiality. A person could put his money in a Swiss bank account and reasonably expect that no one would ever learn about it if he didn't announce the fact himself. Last month, in an attempt to prove to the world that they weren't hiding any Jewish money, Swiss bankers compromised their reputation for confidentiality by publishing a list of the names of the account-holders for all 1,756 accounts they could find which had been dormant since the end of the Second World War. These accounts contained a total of approximately $40 million.
Do you think this pleased the Jews a bit? They scrutinized the list, and the first thing they noted was that fewer than ten per cent of the names on it were Jewish. They didn't say much about this, however, except in their own Jewish community newspapers, because it tended to deflate the fable they had concocted of the Swiss bankers hoarding the savings of many thousands of Jewish "Holocaust" victims totaling billions of dollars. Instead they began screaming that, based on a similarity of names, eight of the 1,756 accounts on the list might belong to people who had been connected in one way or another with the German government during the war. There were names on the list which were the same as or similar to a former vice-president of the Reichstag, Hitler's official photographer, the wife of a top SS official, and five others. "Oy, veh! You've been doing business with Nazis!" the Jews shrieked.
The Swiss reminded the Jews that Switzerland had been a neutral country during the war and that Swiss banks had customers from both sides of the conflict. Reminding everyone of that was another mistake for the poor Swiss. The Jews, Senator D'Amato, and the rest of the Jews' camp followers began moaning that the Swiss really had sympathized with the Germans, that they had wanted the Germans to win and had helped the German war effort by trading with Germany.
Now, that's another one of those little grains of truth in this whole fabric of lies the Jews have constructed. A great many Swiss, especially in the German-speaking parts of the country, were pro-German. And of course, they did carry on trade with both the Germans and their allies as well as with the allies of the Jews, such as the United States and the Soviet Union. The Jews seized on the fact of Swiss trade with the Germans and began beating the Swiss on the heads with that. The gold the Germans gave the Swiss in return for manufactured products during the war probably had been confiscated from Jews, they screamed. Some of it probably was gold teeth extracted from Jewish concentration camp victims. "Give it back! Give it back to us!" The Swiss responded by apologizing for having remained neutral during the war and by donating another $100 million to the fund for "Holocaust" victims they already had set up.
That's nowhere enough to satisfy one Jewish leader, Avraham Burg, the head of Israel's Jewish Agency. (That's actually its name: the Jewish Agency.) Burg has demanded for the Jews not only all the gold which had gone to Switzerland from Germany during the war to pay for manufactured goods, but also gold which the victorious Allies confiscated from Germany at the end of the war and have been doling out ever since to various countries occupied by the Germans during the war to compensate these countries for their wartime losses. Burg claims that this gold once belonged to Jews, and he has demanded that all of the vaults holding this gold be sealed until it is officially turned over to Jews. He has demanded -- and I quote him exactly -- "that the corrupt division and distribution of Jewish spoils from World War II to world governments must immediately be ceased, and every last cent must be returned to Jewish hands."
Isn't that interesting wording? "[E]very last cent must be returned to Jewish hands." Not necessarily to the hands of the Jews Burg claims originally owned the gold, since it would be impossible to determine who those Jews were, but just "to Jewish hands." Just get it away from the Gentiles and put it into Jewish hands. The Jews will figure out what to do with it.
Imagine how that demand would sound if, instead of Jews, Lutherans or Baptists were claiming the gold. During the war the Soviet government forced millions of ethnic Germans -- the so- called "Volga Germans" -- off the land they had owned for 150 years, since being invited to Russia by Catherine the Great, and deported them to Siberia. After the war the communist and democratic victors forced millions of other ethnic Germans off their land in eastern Germany in a huge and murderous "ethnic cleansing" program, to which the western Allies consented.
Most of these plundered and dispossessed Germans were Lutherans, and what was stolen from them dwarfs any claim the Jews have made. Imagine the Lutheran church demanding today that it be compensated for everything that had been stolen from those plundered Germans during and after the war. We would laugh at the absurdity of the church's claim. The fact that Avraham Burg and his fellow Jews make such a claim today tells us something about their mentality, about their ethnocentricity and sense of racial solidarity, about their "us against them" attitude toward the world, as well as about their greed for gold. And it tells us about the folly of thinking of Jews as merely people with a different religion, who become anything other than Jews when they change their religion. The reason that Avraham Burg can confidently make such demands, while no Lutheran spokesman dares do the same, is based on the fact of Jewish media control. The Jews have spent 60 years, since before the Second World War, using the media to complain about their mistreatment by the Germans, the Poles, the Ukrainians, the Latvians, the Lithuanians, the Hungarians, the Croatians, and so on. After the war they poured such a deluge of pro-Jewish propaganda out of Hollywood that most Americans today think of Jews as being the principal victims of the Second World War. Almost no one has heard about what Jewish Communism did to the Russians, the Ukrainians, the Poles, and the other European peoples unfortunate enough to be ruled by Communists before, during, or after the Second World War. Almost no one has heard about the mass murder of millions of German civilians after the war. In fact, most Americans can't even give a good estimate of the number of Americans who died in combat during the war. But everybody has heard about the grossly inflated figure of "six million" Jews supposedly killed in gas chambers by the Germans and then converted into soap, lampshades, and gold dental fillings.
This incessant Jewish "Holocaust" propaganda has got most people, including the Swiss, buffaloed. It has given the Jews a special status, a martyr status. Most people are afraid to criticize them or contradict them. But even the Swiss bankers and politicians who aren't fooled by the Jewish "Holocaust" exaggerations are afraid of the power of the Jewish media. They understand that the U.S. government is practically under the Jews' control. They understand that American politicians who are in the Jews' pockets, like Senator D'Amato, can cause them a lot of trouble. They understand that the Jews have enough political power through their media control to persuade the U. S. government to go along with a boycott of Switzerland if they demand one. And so instead of standing up to the Jews the Swiss keep on apologizing and trying to buy the Jewish blackmailers off. And the Jews continue to see this as weakness, and so they keep on pushing. They keep on demanding more.
And, hey, don't think that's because the Jews are greedy! They're not really interested in the gold, but only in the principle of the thing, they assure us. Israel Singer, the secretary of the World Jewish Congress, one of the groups applying pressure to the Swiss, has announced, "This is not about money. It is about justice." Right.
This business of demanding reparations for things which allegedly happened 50 or 60 years ago does bring up some interesting principles. The descendants of our Black slaves in this country are a bit slower at spotting opportunities than the Jews are, but even they can recognize a profitable principle when they see one. They're beginning to talk about the reparations that White people owe them for slavery. They might want to add up all of the man-hours their slave ancestors worked, multiply that by, say, $5 an hour, add interest at six per cent since the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, and present us with the bill. Why not?
And what about the Indians and the real estate they can claim we owe them for? Why should it be only the Jews who can get away with making such claims -- and with collecting on them? They've already extorted $55 billion in reparations from the German people since 1948. Suppose the Germans started figuring up what is owed to them? Or suppose the Scots presented a bill to the English? Or suppose the English presented a bill to the people of Normandy? Why is it only the Jews who are entitled to go back into history and add up their carefully nursed grievances and present a bill to the rest of the world?
The latest concession they've blackmailed the Swiss into is a $5 billion so-called "solidarity fund" to be used to compensate "victims of poverty, war, and genocide." A panel, a majority of whose members are Jews, is to decide how to dole out this money after it is collected from the Swiss people. If the Swiss are prompt in coughing up this money, then the Jews say they will not organize an international boycott of Switzerland.
Fortunately for the Swiss, they have at least one patriot among their politicians. He is a 56-year- old industrialist and member of the Swiss parliament, Christoph Blocher, and he is telling the Swiss people that they ought not to give in to this blackmail. He is telling his people that they owe nothing to the Jews and they ought to pay them nothing. And he is gaining strong support from Swiss voters. We'll see what happens next year, when the Swiss vote on whether or not to let the Jews take them to the cleaners for another $5 billion.
So far the Jews have been so pleased with the way the Swiss are caving in to their demands for gold that they're talking about similar claims against Sweden, Portugal, Spain, and Turkey. Hey, why not? When you've got the whole world buffaloed with "Holocaust" baloney, why not go for everything you can get?
If you really want to get some insight into the Jewish mentality, go to any big library -- or to the Internet -- and start collecting news clippings on these Jewish claims for reparations. Study the details. Try to see the big picture. Make some of the comparisons I've hinted at today: comparisons of the way the Jews look at their history to the way in which other races, other nations, look at their own histories. It will amaze you. It will take your breath away. And it will convince you that it's time for the world to do something about getting this Jewish monkey off its back.
Black On White Violence
Everyone has heard about the three White teenagers in Michigan who hopped a freight train, accidentally got off in a Black neighborhood in the city of Flint, and were attacked by a gang of Blacks while trying to find a telephone so they could call their parents. The Blacks beat and robbed all three White youngsters, stripped and raped the White girl, then shot all three of the young Whites in the head, execution style, leaving them for dead. One of them, a 14-year-old boy, did in fact die from his gunshot wound. The other two, a 15-year-old boy and the 14-year- old girl who had been beaten, stripped, and raped, played dead after being shot, and eventually they escaped.
All of this happened back in July, and at first I had no plans to say anything about it. After all, it's the sort of thing that happens all the time in this wonderful, multicultural America we live in. Everyone understands that and accepts it, so it didn't seem like a very promising topic. In fact, I was surprised by the amount of media coverage the crime received. It was nowhere near as much coverage as there would have been if a group of Whites had attacked three young Blacks, of course, but still it was much more coverage than these Black-on-White racial crimes ordinarily receive from the controlled media. I think what caught the attention of the media in this case was the fact that there were three victims. Just one White girl being gang-raped or one White boy being murdered would have received only momentary and strictly local notice.
More than that, though, was the way in which the crime happened: it's the sort of thing which most White Americans -- certainly those who live in large cities and drive to work every day -- have nightmares about: accidentally taking the wrong freeway exit while coming home at night and ending up in a Black neighborhood. That nightmare scene was the key element in Tom Wolfe's best-selling novel, Bonfire of the Vanities.
I had no plans to comment on this racial crime until someone sent me an account of it from the July 21 issue of Time magazine. The first thing that caught my attention in this Time article was the headline. It said: ". . . three white teens are allegedly assaulted by a group of Black youths." "Allegedly." I think it is reasonable to use that word in talking about a specific suspect who, prior to his trial and conviction, is only "alleged" to be guilty. In the case at hand, however, there was no question at all that an assault had taken place. There were three White teenagers with bullets in their heads, one of them dead and one of them raped, and the shooting and raping had taken place in an all-Black area. There was no question at all about the race of their assailants. The use of the word "allegedly" in the Time story clearly was an indication of unwillingness to accept the Politically Incorrect facts of the Black-on-White assault, and it set the tone for the whole article.
Suppose the attackers had been White and the victims Black. Do you believe that Time would have used the word "allegedly"?
Other things in the Time story also caught my attention. The three White victims are in several ways typical of the worst elements of White society today. They are the type who wear baseball caps backward with baggy shorts and hang around shopping malls with nothing useful to do except swap cards with photos of Black basketball players. Everything they know they have learned from watching television: mostly MTV. And their parents seem to be no better. Their parents certainly did nothing to prepare them for life in multicultural America. The kids had no idea of the danger they were in when they got off the train in a Black neighborhood. Their Politically Correct parents had never warned them.
The most sickening part of the Time story is the revelation that the mother of the murdered White boy has two other children -- by two Black fathers. Time considers this ironic: that this good woman, who has tried so hard to be a true multiculturalist, a true Clintonista, and has kept her son free of any sense of his Whiteness, has lost him to a group of misguided Black youths.
I'm reminded of Nicole Brown Simpson, whose parents never warned her either about Blacks -- who, in fact, seem to be proud that they raised her without any sense of racial identity. If only all of the White victims of Black savagery who are raped and murdered in this country every year could be those who are lost to our race anyway!
Unfortunately, that's not the case. It is depressing contemplating the situation of White Americans today. And it doesn't do any good to rage at their lack of courage or their lack of understanding or even to promise ourselves that when the revolution comes we'll roast everyone connected with Time magazine over a bonfire. We'll never have a chance to build that bonfire and roast any of the deceivers and betrayers of our people unless we are able to help White Americans improve their situation first. And I've always believed that knowing the truth, knowing the facts, is the way for anyone to begin improving his situation. So let's look at some facts: some racial facts.
And let's not begin in some backwoodsy backwater like Flint, Michigan, but instead in the national showplace of Clintonism and multiculturalism, the world center of diversity and affirmative action: Washington, DC. I've never been to Flint, but I lived in Washington for 18 years. I still have the stench of the place in my nostrils. Washington is 70 per cent Black. Some of its inhabitants like to refer to it as "Chocolate City." Some Whites in the suburbs call it "Zoo City." One of the reasons there are so many Blacks in Washington is that it is ground zero for equality and the New World Order. It is a good city for them, with lots of gravy and chitlins. In the first place the Federal government subsidizes the operation of the city to the tune of about a million dollars a day, because it can't afford to let the nation's capital sink back into the jungle and begin looking like Kinshasa or Port-au-Prince. In other words, we taxpayers around the country are paying for the upkeep of the place. The Washington city government is almost entirely Black, with a Black school officials, a Black mayor, and so on. The city's schools are staffed with Black teachers and Black principals: all sorts of role models for young Blacks. Furthermore, the Federal government, which is by far the largest employer in the area, is heavily overloaded with Black employees. There's an abundance of undemanding jobs with high salaries and lots of benefits. And on top of that the welfare is good in Washington. Handouts are easily available for everyone, because the government doesn't want people sleeping in empty shipping cartons on the sidewalk in front of the White House. Makes a bad impression on foreign tourists.
So anyway, with all of this benevolence and special attention from the Great White Father, maybe you'd expect our colored brothers in Washington to be on their best behavior. Maybe you'd be expecting them to want to prove to the world that they really are our equals. Well, the truth of the matter is that they behave in Washington about the same way they behave in Flint -- or in Kinshasa and Port-au-Prince. Fifty per cent of the Black males in the District of Columbia between the ages of 18 and 35 are currently entangled in the criminal justice system. That is, they are in jail, they are out on bond awaiting trial on criminal charges, there is an arrest warrant out for them and the police are trying to find them, or they are on parole or probation after being convicted of a criminal offense. Fifty per cent. One out of every two.
And that does not include those who were formerly entangled in the criminal justice system: that is, those who already have served their sentences for a criminal offense and no longer are on probation -- like the mayor, Marion Barry, for example, who was convicted on a crack cocaine charge and finished serving his time several years ago. The fifty per cent figure I just gave you came from a study of the crime problem in Washington which was published in the Washington Post on August 26, 1997.
I don't have an exact figure for those who, like the mayor, are former offenders without current charges against them. It is reasonable to say, though, that most of the Black males between the ages of 18 and 35 you will meet on the streets of Washington, DC, are felons, with either current charges against them or previous criminal records. You wander into the wrong neighborhood in Washington -- which is just about any neighborhood outside of the heavily policed government area or the White area in the northwestern part of the city -- and you're likely to end up like those clueless White teenagers in Michigan, whose parents never warned them that Blacks really aren't the same as Whites.
Most of the White people who must spend any amount of time in Washington -- and those are mostly White employees of the Federal government -- aren't clueless. They warn each other about the reality of living and working in Washington. Of course, the warnings are usually given in a sneaky sort of way, without actually talking about race. Code words are used, because the Whites in Washington are at least as Politically Correct as Whites in the rest of the country. They feel obliged to maintain the pretense that they believe in equality, that they believe Blacks are no more dangerous or inclined to criminal behavior than anyone else. They want you to know that they believe that if a neighborhood is dangerous, it is only because of poverty. It certainly has nothing to do with race. Crime is an economic problem, not a racial problem, they will tell you.
They feel obliged to maintain this pretense, but they also want to stay alive. So they use code words and code phrases to warn each other. And then every once in a while the truth actually will slip out in one of the principal organs of Political Correctness, such as the Washington Post.
There are other clues as to the fundamental and profound differences between Blacks and Whites besides the vastly greater criminality of Blacks. There are the innate differences in intelligence, in problem-solving ability. I've talked about these intellectual differences on other programs. Again, like criminality, the difference in intelligence is something which is widely recognized by knowledgeable Whites, but very rarely talked about, because it is Politically Incorrect to do so.
Occupational patterns provide another clue. Originally, nearly all of the Blacks in America were engaged in agricultural work -- by necessity rather than choice, of course. They were plantation slaves. After the abolition of slavery, most Blacks initially remained in agricultural work, some as sharecroppers and some with small farms. In any event, the percentage of Blacks engaged in farm work was higher than the percentage of Whites in farm work. Over the past 130 years, however, that situation has changed radically. The change has been especially rapid since the Second World War, but it really began when government welfare programs became generally available. Blacks left the land and moved to the cities in far larger numbers than Whites. Today Blacks constitute 13 per cent of the overall population of the United States, but less than one per cent of the farmers. Less than one per cent!
Both Whites and Blacks have been moving from farms to cities since the Civil War, but proportionately Blacks have flocked to the cities much more than Whites. Why is that? Can it be blamed on White racism? Or does it have something to do with the demands on farmers in general, demands inherent in the nature of the work? I mean, how much crack cocaine can you smoke and still get the crops planted and harvested on time?
I'm certain that if Time magazine ever does an article on the disappearance of Black farmers in the United States they'll blame it on White racism. And I must admit, I haven't spent a lot of time trying to analyze this particular problem myself. I've just been struck by the statistic itself -- fewer than one percent of the farmers in the United States are Black -- without undertaking a big research project to discover why that is so. To me it's just another clue that Blacks and Whites really are different. The statistics on the race of farmers in the United States, by the way, are available from the Department of Agriculture in Washington. If there's one thing our government knows how to do, it is collect statistics: employment statistics as well as crime statistics.
White people ought to pay more attention to these statistics -- to these racial facts -- and less attention to the people at Time magazine and elsewhere who try to persuade us that these statistics don't mean anything, because we're really all the same, all equal. Time would have us believe that we ought not to warn our children to stay away from Blacks and not wander around Black neighborhoods. Time would have us believe that Nicole Brown's parents raised her correctly when they let her date Black football players as a teenager. Time would have us believe that the mother of the 14-year-old White boy who was murdered in Flint has behaved admirably by having two mongrel children by Black fathers, in addition to her now dead White child. That sort of behavior provides the diverse, multicultural home environment that we all need in order to grow up without racial bias, Time hints.
Sometimes I am as angry at these Politically Correct White parents, who send their children out into this jungle world we live in without any of the knowledge they need in order to survive -- as I am at the people at Time magazine who set the ideological tone for the parents. The difference is that the people who own Time magazine and MTV and the New York Times and the Washington Post and the rest of the fashion-setting media, spread their poison deliberately, with malice aforethought. They are mostly Jews, working in concert. Their aim is the total moral disarmament of White Americans. They want to make it impossible for us to defend ourselves racially. There is no question about what needs to be done about them.
I try to be more understanding with the fashion-conscious White parents who follow the Jewish media line. After all, most of our people are born with an innate need to be fashionable and without the sense of discrimination to be able to distinguish healthy fashions from unhealthy fashions. It is not bad that people feel a need to be fashionable. It is a part of the feminine spirit that we are born with. What is unfortunate is that in this era that feminine spirit is not balanced by a masculine spirit which discriminates between what is healthy and what is unhealthy, between what is beneficial to our people and what is hostile. In this era the feminine spirit is ascendant, and it is a spirit which tells us not to resist those who want to destroy us. It is a spirit which in the case of racial conflict tells us to yield, to surrender, to roll over on our backs and bare our throats to our enemies in the hope that they will spare us.
The fashionable, feminine line that these parents have learned from the Jewish media is that we are living in a world which is becoming increasingly less White, that soon White people will be a minority even in the United States, and that instead of doing whatever is necessary to reverse that situation and remain masters in our own land we should try to accommodate ourselves to it; we should try to ingratiate ourselves with non-Whites in the hope that they will tolerate us. Some of these feminized, fashion-conscious parents go so far as to welcome miscegenation: if we are willing to interbreed with the descendants of our slaves, these parents think, then surely they will forgive us for our Whiteness and let us live. And so they fill the minds of their own children with these poisonous ideas and then send them out into the jungle, the way Nicole Brown Simpson's parents did and the way the parents of those three White children in Michigan did.
I try not to be angry at fools and instead to save my anger for those who are consciously evil. In the long run foolishness will be its own punishment, but in the meantime it also will take a lot of innocent young people down with it.
Contrasts
I've been looking again at some of the photographs which have come back from the recent Mars landing. It's really amazing stuff. I used to work at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, where much of this latest Mars mission was planned. Seeing what the folks there have accomplished made me proud to have been associated with the place.
And I've been thinking about some of the contrasts in our society today. In fundamental scientific achievements we've been doing quite well -- perhaps not as well as in the 19th century, but still we've really increased our understanding of the world quite a bit. And in the technological applications of our science we've never done better. From computers to pharmaceuticals to space ships we've made huge progress, progress of which we have every right to be proud. We can do astounding things when we really try.
Now contrast the technological achievements of our society with its political highlights. Contrast the Mars mission with the election of Bill Clinton to the White House -- twice. It's breathtaking, isn't it? Or contrast the abilities and the achievements of the relative handful of people who made our Mars mission possible with the sort of mob mentality we saw in the mass reaction to Princess Diana's death. Diana was a woman without any outstanding qualities at all. She was ordinary to the point of vulgarity. But of course when she was married to the Prince of Wales, and even after they separated, she was the focus of attention of the media fashion-mongers. Undoubtedly it was her ordinariness, combined with the celebrity status bestowed on her by the media, which made so many very ordinary people identify with her. She was what they all dreamed of being: a twit with a vacant smile, lots of money, always dressed in the latest fashion, and invited to all of the most glamorous parties. The response to her death was an example of what I call "the Elvis phenomenon."
Everyone ought to be entitled to choose his own heroes, his own idols, no matter how inane. But this contrast between outstanding intellectual achievement by a few on the one hand and the shocking degree of corruption associated with mass politics and the degree of vulgarity and inanity associated with mass idol worship on the other hand is only one of the really striking contrasts in our society today.
The same educational system which turned out the people who designed the Mars mission is turning out millions of people today who not only haven't a clue about physics, chemistry, or mathematics, but who also haven't a clue about the history of our people -- or even about the proper use of our language. And I'm talking about university graduates. Why bother to take courses in the language of Shakespeare and Milton when one can graduate instead by taking courses in subjects like "California Wines" or "Park Science" or "Black Hair As Culture and History"? Believe it or not, Texas A & M University actually has a "Department of Park Sciences and Rural Sociology." And Stanford University, which used to be a first-class institution before being stricken with a fatal attack of democracy, actually offers a course titled "Black Hair As Culture and History." Distressing as this vulgarization of our educational system is to me, it is something we can live with, for a while, at least, because it still is possible for a few students to get an excellent education in America -- as the team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory who designed the Mars mission have proved. And I don't believe that anyone should be prevented from taking courses in California wines or "park science" or astrology and pyramid power, if he wants to waste his time on those things. But there are other consequences of mass democracy in America that will kill us very soon.
Two years ago I visited Pasadena, where I had been a physics student at Caltech long ago, before I worked in the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The Caltech campus is still a pleasant and civilized place, and students there still have an opportunity to get the best possible education. Democracy has done a lot less damage to Caltech than it has to other schools. But one can drive southwest on the freeway from Pasadena for just a few minutes and find oneself in the truly horrifying Third World jungle that is south-central Los Angeles.
There are similar situations all over the United States. We can build hydrogen bombs, we can send robots to Mars, we can discover the most closely guarded secrets of life or of the atom, but we cannot maintain even a semblance of civilization in our cities. Many of our cities still contain enormously expensive glass-and-steel towers, and all sorts of financial power flows through them, and men in expensive suits, carrying briefcases, eat in their restaurants and ride in taxis, but they are not civilized places. Just look at the swarms of sub-humanity on the sidewalks and in the bus and train stations. If the police presence is removed for a day, the jungle will reassert itself. What a contrast with the Caltech campus in Pasadena!
This problem with our cities isn't just something we haven't quite finished solving yet because we've been too busy with Mars missions and other things. The problem with our cities is something which we created ourselves fairly recently, and it is a problem which we are making worse through our own efforts. We are importing millions more subhumans from the Third World into our cities every year. It's not that we don't know how to solve the problem of our cities, don't have the power to solve the problem, or even that we aren't worried about the problem. Many of us are simply afraid to address this problem in any realistic way. We are afraid to talk about the problem honestly.
We build supercomputers which can simulate the enormously complex phenomena inside a hurricane. We build radiotelescopes which scan our galaxy for signs of extraterrestrial intelligence. But we tolerate a system which installs a creature like Bill Clinton in the White House, a system which gives us the corrupt, treasonous, deceitful gang of criminals we have making our laws! This is a system based on the notion that the subhumans swarming in south- central Los Angeles are the political equals of the people at Caltech. The Princess Di fans and the Elvis fans have as much individual power at the ballot box as do the Mars mission designers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and collectively the former swamp the latter into complete insignificance. What a contrast between our science and our politics!
This is one of those things which will kill us. We have a government which promotes an immigration policy, an education policy, a welfare policy, employment policy, and a housing policy all of which hasten the destruction of our civilization. We have a government which is working as hard as it can to increase the percentage of non-Whites in our society, a government which is promoting policies which will make us a minority in America in the coming century. We stick our heads out of our laboratories, libraries, or offices for a moment, and we see this destructive insanity, this lethal insanity, all around us, and we say nothing; we do nothing. We just go back to work planning the next Mars mission.
There's nobody who's a bigger enthusiast for Mars missions than I am. But we really do need to address this problem of what the government and the media are doing to our world. We really do need to worry about the consequences of the Elvis phenomenon, about the consequences of the fact that the growing masses of mindless, trendy couch potatoes have swamped our political system. If we don't do something about it very soon, there won't be many more Mars missions before the jungle takes over even places like the Caltech campus and forever puts an end to our dreams of exploring the universe.
Let's set aside the pretensions of Political Correctness for a moment. Let's clear our heads of all of this baloney about equality, democracy, and diversity. Let's try to understand what handing our world over to subhumans will really mean. It certainly won't mean that we will be seeing more of the slick, polished Blacks of the sort you see in TV commercials. No, we will be seeing more of the sort of creatures you see on the streets of Los Angeles, New York, or Washington. It will be more like what you see in any Third World country. It will mean witchcraft, beastliness, rape, and murder. It will mean a descent back into the jungle.
I have in front of me a news story from Reuters news agency about riots and lynch mobs in West Africa. There's a witchcraft craze sweeping the area which has resulted in hundreds of Blacks being lynched, being beaten or burned to death, in recent weeks because they were suspected of being sorcerers. In the current craze sorcerers are said to be able to cause a man's penis to shrink or even to disappear just with a handshake. Those suspected of being penis thieves, or penis shrinkers, are being murdered in the most gruesome ways on the streets of the capital cities of Senegal, Ghana, and the Ivory Coast. There's been a similar surge in killings of suspected witches and sorcerers in South Africa since that country was turned over to Black rule.
When I think about what is happening demographically in the United States today, I am reminded of what happened in Haiti a little over 200 years ago. Haiti used to be the most prosperous part of the New World. It was the jewel of the Caribbean and the pride of France's colonial empire. Great mansions dotted the countryside, and the social life in Haiti's towns rivaled that in the cities of France. Then the democracy craze hit France, and the madness also infected many of the Frenchmen in Haiti. Liberty, equality, and brotherhood were to be applied even to the Black plantation workers who had been brought to Haiti from Africa. That was the Politically Correct thing, and Political Correctness had deranged just enough of Haiti's French population so that the population as a whole was not able to put up any sort of solid front against the madness. They sat in their clubs, their drawing rooms, and their libraries, sipped their wine, and observed what was happening around them in Haiti as the Blacks were declared "equals" and "brothers." They discussed the situation, but they couldn't quite bring themselves to do anything about it. Then the massacres started, and it was too late. And so all of the Frenchmen, and the women, and the children were slaughtered, most of them in ways too horrible to describe. And the books from their libraries and the paintings, tapestries, and sculptures from their town houses and their plantation manors became trinkets and baubles for the Black plantation workers. The subhumans had Haiti all to themselves, and that's the way it has been ever since.
Now, I'm sure it won't happen exactly that way in the United States. The details certainly will be different. Maybe we won't all be slaughtered in the streets, as in Haiti. Maybe our scientists won't be dragged from their laboratories and burned as sorcerers. Maybe we won't even become a nation of mulattos right away. Maybe for a while it will only be democracy, equality and a gradually darkening population of Elvis worshippers. But the result in the end will be the same: a return to the jungle. And no more Mars missions, ever.
In the past our people were able to dream of new worlds and to apply their minds to understanding this world without letting themselves become infected by any sort of egalitarian lunacy. They could plot the courses of the planets through the sky or design steam engines without losing their grip on reality. They could understand the difference between civilization and savagery. I think it's because they didn't grow up as soft, as permissively, as far away from their roots as we do today. They stayed a little closer to Nature. They hadn't forgotten all of Nature's hard lessons -- including the lesson that when you are faced with a mortal threat you must do something about it. When you recognize a mortal enemy you must kill him before he kills you.
Today we have some people whose minds are as good as those of our best people 200 or 300 years ago. But we've lost some of our ability to face reality and deal with it. We have a lot of people who have let themselves be convinced that the difference between the Caltech campus and south-central Los Angeles is based only on economics and culture, that genes have nothing to do with it, that race has nothing to do with it. We have people who have let themselves be persuaded that our manned exploration of the universe will be done in a Politically Correct way, as it's portrayed in Star Trek, with explorers of every race, sex, and sexual orientation. We're all the same, really, we're all equal.
But we still have some people with a little better grip on reality than that. We still have some people who not only can design rockets and telemetry systems, but who also can understand that we must do something about the jungle which is encroaching on our civilization. We still have people who can understand that we must keep the Elvis phenomenon from encompassing all of us.
Our situation in America today is a bit like that of the Frenchmen in Haiti toward the end of the 18th century. Some of them were determined to be Politically Correct and go with the policy of liberty, equality, and brotherhood. And some of them were determined to keep their grip on reality.
Unfortunately for everyone, Political Correctness prevailed. I wonder if part of the problem back then was that the realists didn't want to be offensive, they didn't want to be rude. Perhaps they hoped that the Politically Correct faction would regain its sanity at the last moment, and there wouldn't be any necessity for rudeness. I believe that that's what accounts for some of the hesitation we see today, for the failure of the sane faction at places like Caltech to speak out. Because of that belief I'm going to throw politeness and inoffensiveness to the winds. I'm going to be just as rude and crude as I know how, in the hope that some of the people engaged in planning the next Mars mission will snap out of their trance, along with some of the other people who also represent what is creative and progressive in our civilization. The stark truth of the matter is this: Those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who believe that our civilization ought to be preserved, those of us who believe that we ought to do whatever we can do to keep our race from becoming extinct, have an obligation to do more than just observe what's happening from our laboratories and our offices.
We have the obligation to awaken all the others we can awaken. Then we have an obligation to halt the destructive process which is carrying our people and our civilization toward extinction. We have an obligation to change a government which promotes the policies now being promoted in Washington. We have an obligation to put an end to the use of the mass media for our destruction. We have an obligation to combat the lunatic ideology of egalitarianism which has infected the minds of so many of our people. And we have an obligation, if we are successful in overcoming those who are trying to destroy our civilization -- we have an obligation to raise the next generation of our people to be saner, to have a better grip on reality, than this generation.
The Looting of America
One of the more interesting aspects of the ongoing saga of illegal campaign contributions and money-laundering in the Clinton administration is the Asian connection. A temple full of Buddhist nuns who cannot speak English but who have handy checkbooks, Clinton buddy Johnny Huang, and other assorted Chinese and Indonesian gangsters, bankers, and wheeler- dealers seem to have played a major role in getting the Democrats back in the White House. Some of the things that went on in the campaign to raise money for Mr. Clinton's re-election are so outrageous that they're funny, not to mention criminal. All of this would provide the basis for a good comedy film, if the Jews who own Hollywood were interested in that sort of thing.
what's not so funny about the Clinton administration's Asian connection is the payoff to the Asian community in the form of government contracts. From a strictly technical viewpoint, this payoff probably would be considered legal, because it falls under an affirmative-action policy known as the "section 8a minority business set-aside." Under this policy government contracts, instead of being awarded to the lowest bidder in a competitive bidding process, are "set aside" to be awarded to non-White businessmen and to companies owned by non-Whites. The theoretical justification for this program used to be that it would pump money into Black ghettos by giving government contracts to Black entrepreneurs, who in turn would hire Black workers, and the chance of Black rioting would thereby be minimized.
Asians, like other non-Whites, are able to qualify for 8a set-asides, and the numbers doing so have risen spectacularly during the past few years. In New York City, for example, Asians currently are grabbing 64.1 per cent of the minority set-aside contracts. That's up from just 3.5 per cent a decade ago. Imagine that: up by a factor of nearly 20! Isn't it an amazing coincidence that so much Asian money found its way into Mr. Clinton's campaign fund while the amount of government money going to Asian businessmen was rising so rapidly? The figures elsewhere in the country are not all that different from those in New York. In Alabama, for example, in the middle of the Black belt, Asians got 46.3 per cent of the minority set-aside contracts last year. The figure a decade ago was just 2.6 per cent.
Not surprisingly, the Clinton administration is fighting desperately to keep the 8a minority set- aside program alive in the face of opposition from the majority of Americans who want to do away with all affirmative action programs. Actually, the recent Asian takeover of the 8a set-aside program is a good thing for White Americans. Before the Asians made their move, 8a set-asides were just another taxpayer handout to Blacks in order to keep them from making too much trouble. When the Chinese and the Koreans and the Vietnamese got into the racket, though, they applied intelligence to it which the Blacks simply don't have. They figured ways to milk the program for more money than the Blacks had ever dreamed of. The 8a set-aside program has produced a new class of Asian multimillionaires -- who in turn have been generous contributors to Mr. Clinton and the Democratic Party. We, the taxpayers, of course, are paying for the whole, crooked business. But now, thanks to the excessive cleverness of the Asians and the excessive greed of the Clintonistas, it has become such a stinking scandal that we have a reasonable chance of seeing the whole thing exposed in a way which will deal a major setback to all of those who want to keep affirmative action programs alive. That's why it's good that the Asians have elbowed aside the Blacks and taken over the 8a set-aside swindle. The Blacks never would have figured out in a million years how to use an affirmative action program to buy massive political influence the way the Asians have.
Exploiting affirmative action isn't the only thing Asian immigrants have figured out how to do. They've also learned how to cheat government welfare programs in new and creative ways. As younger Chinese immigrants have prospered from 8a set-asides they have brought their parents and their grandparents over from China, put them in government-subsidized apartments (often over 90% Chinese, so they needn't feel too homesick), and then signed them up for every welfare program available, including Supplementary Security Income. Hundreds of thousands of elderly Chinese and other Asians, who have never worked a day in the United States and cannot even speak English, are now living very comfortably off the American taxpayers, while their well-to- do children who brought them over continue to get even richer from various government programs favoring non-Whites.
The latest figures from the U.S. Census Bureau are from 1990, and they show elderly Chinese immigrants in California receiving Supplementary Security Income at more than five times the rate for elderly native-born Americans. And Blacks are included among those elderly native-born Americans! Although we don't have figures later than those for 1990, it is quite certain that the disproportion has become substantially greater since then, because the immigration of elderly Chinese has been booming. The word is out all over Asia that the United States is the land of free money for elderly Asians. Most of this Asian welfare racket is illegal. In order to get their parents and grandparents into the country the children sign papers pledging to be financially responsible for them. But after their parents and grandparents are in, the younger Asians ignore those pledges and put their relatives on welfare. Often the children do continue to support their relatives (in a manner that can't be easily traced, of course) and simply use the welfare money as extra cash.
Don't hold your breath waiting for the Clinton government to crack down on these Asian welfare cheats. The people in the government know what's going on. They know that this racket is costing White taxpayers billions of dollars every year, but there's no chance at all of any of these Asians being called to account. The Democrats and the Republicans have developed a very cozy relationship with Asian immigrants, and they're not about to spoil it.
The really bad thing about all of this is that as Asians have mastered the technique of milking the U.S. Treasury, more and more of them have come flooding into the country. A few years ago we had a very small Japanese minority on the West Coast and a few Chinatowns in major cities, and that was about it. Now Asians have become a fast-growing minority all across the country, and their presence is becoming increasingly intrusive and disruptive. Unfortunately, many of our people, especially those with libertarian or individualist tendencies, have been slow to understand this threat. They see Asians as intelligent, hard working, and much better disciplined than Blacks. They feel that if they must have a non-White neighbor, coworker, or fellow student, it's much better to have an Asian than a Black or a mestizo. This is a very shortsighted and selfish view of the situation. For one thing, as the number of Asians flooding to our shores has grown, more and more of their bad habits have begun coming with them: Asian crime and Asian gangs, for example. As I mentioned on an earlier program, despite what many people may believe, Asians are not especially law abiding. The Asian minority in America commits substantially more murders, on a per capita basis, than the White majority. They are even better represented among white-collar criminals. They have a way with money. It is not for nothing that the Chinese are known as "the Jews of the Orient" wherever they have settled as a significant minority.
For another thing, it is precisely the good traits of the Asian immigrants -- their intelligence, self- discipline, and willingness to work -- which make them an especially dangerous minority for us. I know that there are many White Americans with a Pollyanna outlook on Asian immigration. They believe that Asian immigrants will simply blend in and use their good traits to make this a more prosperous country for all of us. They believe that after Asians have lived here for a while they will become just like White Americans, except that they will keep their lawns neater and their kids will make better grades in school.
Hey, wake up! Just because White Americans have fallen for the line of egalitarian baloney put out by the controlled media and the government that people of all races really are the same doesn't mean that the Chinese and the other Asian immigrants have fallen for it. In fact, one of the really admirable things about the Chinese and the Japanese is their very strong sense of race consciousness. They have pride in their own racial characteristics, in their history and traditions and culture, in their uniqueness, and they understand the value of cooperation with their own kind and of sticking together. And as their numbers grow they will become an increasingly formidable force we will have to deal with. We don't want America to become more like China or any of the other countries Asian immigrants have come from. We want them to take their intelligence, self-discipline, and good work habits back where they came from. we'd much rather deal with these people from a distance.
I've briefly mentioned three things today: political corruption, as manifested in Mr. Clinton's Asian connection; the exploitation of the government's various minority-oriented welfare giveaway and affirmative-action programs by Asians; and the problem of skyrocketing Asian immigration and the effects it is having on American society. I've tried to bring out some of the interconnections of these three problems. Each of these three problems is part of a larger problem. The illegal campaign contributions and money laundering associated with Mr. Clinton's re-election are part of the much larger problem of the growing crookedness of the politicians in this country, the growing corruption of the system generally. The Asian manipulation of the 8a minority set-aside program is just one aspect of the rottenness and inappropriateness of current welfare programs generally. And the recent growth in Asian immigration is just part of the much larger problem of the non-White immigration which is changing the nature of America.
An interesting thing about these three problems is that they are generally recognized by the American people -- not just by "extremists" like me. Most Americans have a general awareness of the growing corruption of the government, even if they haven't tried to figure out the details. Most Americans have a growing distrust of the government, a growing disgust with the political process. We can see this in the growth in the percentage of Americans who decline to vote. they're fed up with the whole business. People are fed up with government welfare programs too -- at least, White people are fed up. You know, welfare used to be a community thing. People used to help each other out. Even the ne'er-do-wells could count on a handout from the churches. Even the village idiot could count on some charity from other villagers. But there was no pretense that the ne'er-do-wells and the village idiot were respectable citizens with the rights and privileges of other citizens or that they were entitled to their handouts. They were tolerated, but not to the point that anyone would be inclined to join their ranks. Welfare was kept to a minimum, and that's the way it should have been.
Today, in the hands of the government, the welfare system has become a socially destructive monster. We have a large and growing class of people in America who believe that they are entitled to a handout. They believe that the rest of us owe it to them. Having to support this welfare class with our taxes is increasingly galling to working Americans. And very few of us are fooled by the government's periodic announcements of so-called "welfare reform."
It has been those aspects of the government's welfare system which are specifically anti-White -- such as affirmative action -- which have generated the most public dissent recently, but the truth of the matter is that the entire welfare system, not just those aspects of it which are aimed at giving non-Whites special advantages, has become a thorn in our side. People are fed up with the whole thing.
And immigration is another issue on which the position of the great majority of the people is far away from the position of the government. The people are very worried about what continued non-White immigration is doing to America. They see more and more Asians, more and more Mexicans, more and more non-Whites of all kinds around them. They see their neighborhoods changing, their cities changing, their schools changing, becoming more alien, more foreign, more non-White, and they don't like it. The government tells us that we should like it, that we're racists if we don't like it, that we need more diversity, and they keep the floodgates open.
You know what all of this amounts to? You know what all of this government corruption and welfare racketeering and non-White immigration means? It means the looting of America by greedy predators. It means the plundering of our heritage and our children's heritage by hungry predators. Our ancestors came over here from Europe with a more or less healthy and realistic attitude toward the world. They were race conscious. They understood that the strong survive and the weak perish, and they didn't favor institutions to promote weakness. They conquered this continent, and it is ours by right of conquest. Our ancestors understood that we had to remain strong and vigilant if we wanted to remain masters in our land.
But we didn't. We became soft and weak. We became inattentive. We let ourselves be confused - - about race, about our heritage, about the nature of the world we live in. We dropped our guard. Then the predators moved in and went to work. They saw that we were soft and vulnerable, but they realized that we still could become dangerous if we realized our danger and began taking steps to regain our strength. So they did everything they could to make us even weaker while they strengthened their own positions. They preached to us against racism, so that we would not unite on the basis of our racial roots. They encouraged immigration from the non-White world in order to dilute our political strength. They bought the support of non-White minorities -- and of the dregs of our own people -- with a growing government welfare program. Now the feeding frenzy has begun.
The word is out around the world: Whitey has become soft. The gringos are ripe for the plucking. The honkies are on the run, too confused to understand what's happening, too stricken by a sense of racial guilt to fight back. In China, in the Philippines, Vietnam, Haiti, El Salvador, and India they watch what's happening in America, and they can hardly believe their eyes. The White man has become crazy. He is giving everything away. They think, "There's free money for us in America, and the White man won't even try to keep us out. And if he does try, his government will be on our side, not his."
And so, as I said, the feeding frenzy has begun. And the renegade Whites have joined the plunderers. People like Bill Clinton -- and, for that matter, practically all of the politicians, Republican as well as Democrat -- instead of trying to defend America from the plunderers have been trying to grab as big a share of the plunder for themselves as they can.
And so where does that leave us, the people who are being plundered? What can we do to protect ourselves? Is there any chance that we can preserve part of our heritage for our children?
Actually, I believe there is a chance. The fact that so many Americans are fed up with the government gives me hope. The fact that so many Americans are willing to oppose the government's policies on affirmative action and open-door immigration, even at the risk of being labeled "racists" by the controlled media, gives me hope.
Of course, it'll be a while yet before we'll be able to do what needs to be done. it'll be a while before we'll be able to drag anyone out of the White House and string him up from a lamppost on Pennsylvania Avenue. it'll be a while yet before we can sow land mines along our border with Mexico and begin rounding up Chinese immigrants in California and putting them aboard ships headed west. But the time for that is coming.
And the more politicians who join Bill Clinton in the Washington feeding frenzy -- the more Democrats and Republicans who begin grabbing for everything they can get while the getting is still good -- the sooner will we be able to do what needs to be done.
The Wages of Liberalism
There was a major article on South Africa in last week's London Sunday Times. The article was written by the Times' Johannesburg correspondent Andrew Malone, and it was titled "Blacks Turn Their Anger on Mandela." The gist of the article was that as the South African infrastructure and economy continue to disintegrate under Black rule, most Blacks in the country, having gotten over their euphoria after having the country handed over to them in 1994, are now looking for somebody to blame for their growing misery.
it's hard for the Blacks to blame the honkies like they used to, because the honkies no longer run things. And it's not as if the Whites left the country in a shambles. When they turned the government over to Nelson Mandela and his Black crew three years ago, things were running well, but conditions have gone downhill rapidly since then. Not only has Mandela failed utterly to deliver the material goodies he promised -- new houses, new schools, new cars, and an easier life for all Blacks -- but Black unemployment has skyrocketed as Black leaders have mismanaged and exploited the economy, and soaring inflation has made life increasingly difficult for those Blacks who still have work.
Just one small reminder of the way in which the infrastructure of South Africa has decayed in three years of Black rule was provided by the mid-air collision of a German and an American aircraft just off the west coast of South Africa two weeks ago, taking the lives of all 33 people on board. The mass media certainly have not had much to say about the cause of this disaster, but knowledgeable airline pilots have put the blame squarely on the incompetence of African air traffic controllers. Since the advent of Black rule, conditions in the air over South Africa have become chaotic, and pilots consider it to be the most dangerous air space in the world.
On top of all this, the horrendous crime situation in South Africa plagues Blacks as well as Whites. When Mandela took over and Blacks began running the police departments, law enforcement simply ground to a halt. Now Black gangs roam the cities and rob, rape, and murder almost with impunity. Johannesburg, which used to be a clean, safe, orderly city under White rule, now has the highest per capita murder rate of any major city in the world. In the countryside, the witchcraft craze is spreading and taking the lives of more and more Blacks. Blacks accused of witchcraft are being stoned to death or "necklaced" in unprecedented numbers.
It is not surprising that many Blacks are turning their anger on Nelson Mandela now -- especially since the corruption and incompetence of his regime are becoming increasingly apparent. He and his Black cronies are living high on the hog, in the traditional manner of Black African potentates, while most ordinary Blacks are living in substantially worse conditions than they did under White rule. News stories about his wife Winnie Mandela's stabbing to death of a 14-year- old Black critic and Nelson's ordering the kidnapping of a witness to the murder have not helped his image.
What really is surprising is the growing number of Blacks willing to openly express their disillusionment with Black rule and their nostalgia for the good, old days of White rule. A 35- year-old Negress interviewed for the Sunday Times article was one of many who said she much preferred White rule. "There were not the problems then," she said." I have got no money now, and my clothes are in rags. At least the police were effective then, and there was no crime. I believed in Mandela, but now I don't."
Not so long ago, such an expression of preference for White rule would have resulted in the "necklacing" of the interviewee: Mandela's followers would have put a gasoline-soaked tire around her neck, wired her hands behind her back, and burned her to death. Nowadays such sentiments are more likely to be condemned by White liberals in the United States or Britain, who would refer to her contemptuously as an "Uncle Tom."
As for the shrinking number of Mandela's followers, they are more likely to blame the declining popularity of their leader on the remaining White minority in South Africa, since there aren't tires enough in the country to punish all of the Blacks who are now disillusioned with his regime. They look enviously at the Whites, who still live in nice homes, now surrounded by walls topped with razor wire and patrolled by armed guards because of the crime problem, and still manage their businesses, or practice their professions as doctors or engineers or writers, or serve as technical consultants for the Black government. And Mandela's people complain that the Whites don't do enough for them, that the Whites spend too much time condemning the government for its corruption and whining about the crime problem, and not enough time praising Mandela and proclaiming their solidarity with his regime. The Whites are too standoffish, the Blacks complain; they keep too much to themselves instead of mixing with the Blacks and demonstrating their belief in equality and brotherhood. And the Whites are too successful, too industrious, too smart, too prosperous, and too rich. Increasingly, the resentful Blacks think about killing the goose which lays South Africa's dwindling supply of golden eggs. The time for that certainly is coming.
Meanwhile, South Africa's Whites concern themselves primarily with coping with the changed conditions in their country -- or what used to be their country, before they voted three years ago to give it away. The most dangerous time for them every day is when they must open their gates and drive out of their guarded enclaves to go to work. Carjacking has become a major industry for Blacks. Sometimes they hide in shrubbery outside a gate, and if a White driver is so careless as to stop his car and get out to close his gate instead of having an armed guard do it for him as he speeds away, they will jump him and take his car. They may kill him. Certainly, if there is a woman in the car, she will be taken away and gang-raped. Raping White women is another major industry for Blacks in the new, "free" South Africa.
When South Africa was under White rule, it was a safe and orderly place, with crime confined almost entirely to the Black townships, and even there it was kept within reasonable bounds by rigorous White policing efforts: efforts which were condemned by liberals in America and Britain as "brutal" and "racist." Every time the White government hanged a Black murderer, the liberal media unleashed a torrent of abuse and complained about the wickedness of apartheid. Now, with apartheid gone, the murder rate in South Africa has risen until it is nearly 100 times the murder rate in Britain. But, of course, the liberal media have very little to say about that. The sort of article I mentioned in the Sunday Times is quite rare, and even in such articles the writers feel obliged to refer to "the horrors of apartheid" in the old days, while lamenting that things haven't worked out in South Africa the way the liberals had planned. Some Whites cope with the way things have worked out by building higher walls around their houses and hiring more armed guards; others cope by emigrating. And every time a White professional or manager leaves South Africa for good, the Black unemployment rate rises and Black desperation grows.
Lest there be some misunderstanding, let me assure you that I am not bothered a bit by Black desperation. I am not bothered by Blacks "necklacing" each other, suspecting each other of witchcraft, or whatever. I think that Blacks ought to be left to do their own thing, as in Rwanda, Uganda, Congo, or Liberia, and Whites ought not to get involved in feeding them, doctoring them, sending them relief supplies, or policing them.
I am not even bothered very much by White desperation in South Africa, because the Whites there voted themselves into their present predicament. Pathetically eager to be fashionable, disgustingly eager to prove to the world that they weren't the racists the liberals were accusing them of being, a majority of them voted to turn their country over to Black rule in 1994. So sometimes I am inclined to say, damn them! Let them reap the reward for their weakness and their folly.
But then I must remind myself that my fellow Whites in America and in Britain have not demonstrated more strength or wisdom than the Whites of South Africa. Wherever there is democracy, and wherever the mass media are in the hands of the enemies of our people, we can expect the same sort of suicidal folly on the part of the majority, the same sort of mindless, self- destructive rush to be fashionable. Really, it is the minority of Whites able to think for themselves but, in a democracy, subject to the foolishness of the majority, with whom I sympathize. I sympathize with the minority of South African Whites who voted against giving their country away in 1994, and who now must suffer the consequences of the majority's folly. I wish that every White South African who is killed during a carjacking and every White South African woman who is gang-raped by Blacks when her car breaks down on a country road could be one of the fashionable twits who voted in 1994 to end apartheid, but I know that that cannot always be so. I know that many of them must be the self-respecting, race-conscious Whites with whom I sympathize, and my heart aches for them.
And, my god, even the twits! Most of them are guilty of no more than the same foolishness and weakness which afflict most of our people everywhere. With good leadership -- with strong, responsible, loyal White leadership -- they can build civilizations and conquer the universe; the best in them can shine. But when they are led by traitors or criminals and misdirected by liberal propaganda, the worst in them shows itself. It is to the liberals we must direct our attention if we want to understand why our fortunes as a race have declined so steeply in this century.
Do you remember the way the liberals were carrying on in America about South Africa before 1994? For two decades, ever since they finished cheering the Viet Cong to victory in Vietnam, the destruction of White South Africa was at the top of their agenda. Do you remember the hatred the liberals directed at South African Whites? It was unremitting. Anyone who spoke up for South Africa was blasted with the same hatred, anyone who did business with South Africa was cursed and vilified, anyone who opposed disinvestment in South Africa or who was not in favor of a boycott against South Africa was hated. Hating White South Africans was absolutely the trendiest thing on university campuses and in fashionable circles everywhere. Organizing demonstrations and picketing and leafleting against South Africa kept the liberal rank and file busy, while the liberal spokesmen poured out their hatred of South Africa in editorial after editorial.
All of this liberal hatred might have been of no account, except the liberals had the mass media at their disposal, so the politicians danced to their tune. An economic boycott of South Africa was enforced by the U.S. government, and diplomatic pressure was used to persuade many other countries to participate in the boycott. Athletic and cultural boycotts also were organized by associations responding to liberal pressure. It became illegal to buy any South African product or to sell or give anything to South Africans which might be useful to them. The only South African sports figures who were permitted to compete internationally were Blacks, and the only South African writers, playwrights, or film-makers who were given an audience outside of South Africa were Jews, such as Nadine Gordimer, with her anti-White novels, or White turncoats who followed the Jewish party line.
Eventually the White South African majority caved in under the weight of the hatred and voted to give away everything that their ancestors had worked, fought, and died to build for them: the only truly progressive country on the African continent. The liberals, having achieved their goal, have moved on to other causes. South Africa, once their obsession, no longer interests them. And, of course, they accept no responsibility for what they did. Liberals never accept responsibility for the disastrous consequences of their policies, their enthusiasms, and their causes. They just move on to another cause.
I blame the destruction of South Africa on liberals, but what is a liberal, other than a person who just happens to wind up on the wrong side of every important issue? I think we ought to recognize the fact that there were at least two distinct types of liberals involved in the hate campaign against South Africa. First, there are the liberals who are really cause driven, liberals whose hatred for White South Africans was based on some deep-rooted personality disorder, some feeling of guilt, self-hatred, or infantile resentment against their betters which fuels their manic egalitarianism. But these cause-driven individuals, these manic liberals, are a minority, even among the liberal spokesmen and editorialists.
Most people associated with liberal causes are not psychologically abnormal. They are simply bigots. They hate whomever it is fashionable to hate at the moment. They have a strong streak of authoritarianism in them. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are supporters of the government. Liberals were very critical of the government during the Vietnam war, for example. Liberal authoritarianism manifests itself as a greater than average tendency to go with the flow, as a greater than average trendiness, a greater than average tendency to condemn or to hate any non-conformist.
Most of the university students who were picketing companies which did business in South Africa, most of the pension-fund trustees who made a public show of refusing to buy stock in such companies, were liberals of this sort. They are feel-good liberals. They like being part of a mob. Most of the people who wrote rabid editorials denouncing apartheid -- the South African system of racial apartness, of racial separateness -- as the most evil system ever conceived and who gave direction with their own hate to the rank-and-file haters on the picket lines were also feel-good liberals.
And that's also true of most of the people who still write such editorials today. I have in front of me an editorial by John Simpson, who is the foreign affairs editor for the BBC, and Mr. Simpson writes: "The election of 1994 which brought Nelson Mandela to power in South Africa was such a triumph of the human spirit, such a success for the kind of virtues which rarely appear in political life, that even now no one really wants to describe what is going on there. We all hope it will get better of its own accord. But, instead of being a fairy tale, South Africa is one of the most violent countries in the world. Its government is riddled with inefficiency and corruption . . . ."
We must shake our heads in disbelief when we hear a man like John Simpson, an educated, well informed man in a very responsible position, a man who is neither a Jew nor a Black, describe the campaign of hatred against South Africa which resulted in a convicted Black terrorist being installed as president and the country being brought to ruin as "a triumph of the human spirit." Mr. Simpson, like all liberals, simply refuses to accept responsibility for the damage he and his kind have caused. He refuses to consider the possibility that the cause of forcing White South Africans to turn their country over to Blacks was a perverse cause. He refuses to consider the possibility that the egalitarian idea which underlies all liberalism is an incorrect idea. He thinks himself quite bold in recognizing the obvious fact that things have worked out rather badly in South Africa. that's certainly more than most liberals will admit.
I Don't know Mr. Simpson personally, but I'm inclined to believe that he is not one of those liberals who has deep-rooted feelings of guilt or inferiority because his potty training went wrong. I suspect he's one of the trendy, authoritarian ones who is simply incapable of entertaining an unorthodox idea. He believes that since his cause was just when he was preaching hatred against White South Africans and apartheid, he cannot be held accountable for what is going on in South Africa today. Something went wrong, but it's certainly not his fault, he believes. It couldn't be. He has always promoted the trendiest causes, the causes that all of the important people were promoting. So it can't be his fault.
Well, Mr. Simpson, we unfashionable people are getting a little tired of you and your kind messing up the world and then refusing to accept responsibility for what you have done. We're fed up. And the day is coming when you and your kind will be held accountable for what you have done. We'll hold you accountable for every White woman raped in South Africa, for every White man killed in South Africa during a carjacking. We'll hold you accountable regardless of what kind of potty training you had.
In Your Ear, Mr. Clinton
Ever since two Israeli terrorists, acting on direct orders from the prime minister of Israel, attempted to murder an Islamic religious leader in Jordan by squirting an especially nasty poison into his ear, I've been waiting to hear what the reaction of the politicians in Washington would be. That was more than two weeks ago, and I'm still waiting.
Imagine what the reaction would have been if Syria's President Assad, say, had sent a team of Arab terrorists into Israel to murder a Jewish religious leader, a prominent rabbi, with an exotic poison they had cooked up in their chemical and biological warfare laboratories, and the terrorists had been caught in the act. There would have been no end to the expressions of pious outrage from Washington's windbags, and Bill and Hillary would have been leading the chorus. The State Department would have announced the immediate breaking off of diplomatic relations with the guilty country. Senator Alphonse D'Amato and the rest of the Jews' Gentile step'n'fetchits in our Senate would have been preaching non-stop for an all-out military crusade against Syria. Mr. Clinton would have conferred with Secretary of Defense Cohen about the best way to knock out Syria's chemical and biological warfare capability with a military strike, and our Navy would have transferred several aircraft carriers to the eastern Mediterranean. The editorial pages of the New York Times would have been filled with the bloodthirsty screeching of Abe Rosenthal day after day, demanding action against Syria. Billy Graham and America's other political churchmen would be telling us all from the pulpit how terrible such an attack on a religious leader was, how the world must not tolerate such anti-religious terrorism, and so on. And even the soberer columnists and commentators would be telling us all about the dangers of permitting a renegade country like Syria to have the capability for making and using exotic chemical and biological warfare agents -- and about the need to make an example of Syria, so that no other country would be tempted to follow in Syria's footsteps. At the very least, after a preemptive military strike on Damascus, chemical and biological warfare specialists from the United Nations would have to be stationed permanently in Syria to ensure that that country never again tried to rebuild its chemical and biological warfare laboratories.
But, as I said, I'm still waiting to hear the first condemnation of Israel's terrorist activity from Washington. I'm still waiting to hear the first warning about the danger to the world in allowing a paranoid, bullying, puffed-up little excuse for a country like Israel to develop chemical and biological warfare capabilities. I'm still waiting to hear any comments about the religious implications of an officially Jewish country setting out to murder Islamic religious leaders in other countries. I'm waiting to hear any expression of disapproval at all. There is only a deafening silence.
Canada, at least, had the decency to recall her ambassador from Tel Aviv. But our government in Washington is so totally under the control of the Jewish minority in this country, the minority which controls our mass media, that it dares not make the faintest squeak of protest.
This sort of government-sponsored assassination is nothing new for Israel. Back in the 1950s the Israelis pioneered the use of letter bombs to kill and maim people they didn't like in other countries. They also have used car bombs to assassinate people -- including innocent bystanders. Sometimes they simply gun their victims down on the street, again with total disregard for the safety of bystanders. Sometimes they shoot the wrong person, but they never apologize for their mistakes. When they want to kill someone clandestinely, they use poisons or infectious agents, and it looks as if the victim died a natural death. The botched assassination of the Islamic leader in Jordan was such a routine operation for Israel's Mossad agents that they simply picked up the special weapon used to squirt poison into the victim's ear at the Israeli embassy in Amman, where it was kept for use as needed.
Yes, That's a routine operation for a government based on a religion which teaches that the lives of non-Jews are worthless and that all enemies of the Jews should be killed. But, the only reason that this particular attempted murder by the government of Israel is of interest to us, the only reason that it should be of special interest to all patriots, is that it is of no interest to our government. Our government, after all, is one that makes a big pretense of caring about such matters as international terrorism and the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons. Our government makes a big thing out of denouncing state-sponsored terrorism -- so long as the state sponsoring the terrorism is not Israel. The non-response of our government to Israel's most recent state-sponsored assassination attempt is a splendid example of the subservience of our government to the Jews.
Do you remember all of the pious statements against terrorism we heard from our government and from the media during the Timothy McVeigh trial? Terrorism is something which must not be tolerated, our government and the media told us. The second Oklahoma City bombing suspect, Terry Nichols, is on trial now, and the government is doing the same sort of preaching about not tolerating terrorism or terrorists. And you also can count on hearing the same sort of anti-terrorist sermonizing from the government during the trial of Ted Kaczynski, the alleged Unabomber.
All of that anti-terrorist posturing is total hypocrisy. The prime minister of Israel is a proven terrorist, a man who ordered the assassination of a religious leader in another country, a man who has ordered other terrorist activities as well. Just a few weeks before his latest murder attempt, he sent another group of terrorists across the border into Lebanon with orders to kill people. Fortunately, that group also was caught before it could complete its murderous mission. And, of course, that murder mission, just like the latest, received zero notice from Washington and almost zero notice from the controlled media in this country. Yet you can be sure that Mr. Netanyahu will be permitted to travel to the United States whenever it pleases him, and that Mr. Clinton will greet him in the White House with a big hug and a smile when he does.
What our government's condoning of terror and assassination by Israel does is pull the moral rug right out from under its stand against terror and assassination by everyone. When the President of the United States bows and scrapes in front of the prime minister of Israel and hugs him and asks him how much more money he needs from American taxpayers to expand his campaign of terror and assassination against his neighbors, how seriously should that President be taken the next time he begins his anti-terrorist posturing against Libya's Moammar Kaddhafi? How seriously should he be taken the next time someone bombs a Federal building in this country, and the President denounces it as an act of cowardice? What causes political terrorism in the United States is the sort of behavior by the government which causes people to lose their respect for the government, behavior which causes them to have contempt for the government. Just as surely as the Government's massacre of the women and children in David Kroch's church in Waco, Texas, in 1993 caused the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, President Clinton's condoning of Benjamin Netanyahu's terrorism in 1997 will cause other Federal buildings to be bombed in the future.
If our government were serious about disapproving of terrorism it would break diplomatic relations with Israel immediately, it would halt all aid to Israel, and it would impose a total economic boycott on Israel. It would make an example of Israel, so that no other country would be tempted to engage in state-sponsored terrorism. That's what the U.S. government would do -- if it were serious about disapproving of terrorism. But of course, it isn't serious. And serious people notice things like that. Not Joe and Jill Sixpack, of course. Not the couch potatoes. They never notice anything. they're too busy watching ball games. But we do still have some serious people in America, people who notice things, people who still are able to think for themselves, no matter how Politically Incorrect thinking for oneself may be these days.
The Government's stand on terrorism today reminds me of the Government's stand on drinking in the 1920s. Prohibition went into effect primarily because the fundamentalist Protestant churches disapproved of drinking, and they controlled a great many votes. And, no doubt, there were many sober, decent citizens in addition to the fundamentalists who also were concerned about alcoholism and the social ills caused by excessive drinking. But the government never took Prohibition seriously. It failed to make a serious and determined effort to enforce its own laws against alcohol. The politicians preached and postured against drinking, but as soon as the speeches were over they headed for their favorite speakeasies. It was all hypocrisy, and as a result drinking went on pretty much as before, but there was an enormous increase in police and political corruption and in organized criminal activity. There also was a big increase in public cynicism and in loss of respect for the government, because then as now there were some serious people who noticed the hypocrisy.
In a democracy it is the couch potatoes who rule, simply because there are so many of them, and the media bosses control what the couch potatoes think and the way they vote -- most of the time. But the serious people, even though there are not enough of them to outvote the couch potatoes, do become frustrated, and when they become frustrated enough they take action. Sometimes they blow up Federal buildings. And sometimes they overthrow governments. And when they do overthrow a government, there won't be any ball games for a while, so even the couch potatoes may pay attention long enough to help the serious people hang the politicians and the media bosses -- and That's something that really needs to be done in the United States soon.
And that is something I really look forward to. I ache for it. And I know that many patriots ache for it. it's not that we are especially indignant about the Jews squirting exotic poisons into the ears of Islamic leaders and getting away with it -- although it does give me the creeps to think about the fact that the Jews keep their embassies around the world stocked with all sorts of nasty equipment for disposing of people they Don't like in ways designed to make murder look like death by natural causes. I wonder how many Americans they've murdered. I wonder how many cases there have been where, as soon as it became clear that the Jews were involved, the FBI told the local police to stop investigating. That's a spooky thought.
But the real reason for our growing anger against the government in Washington is not what the Jews do in other countries. it's what our government does -- and does not do -- in this country. Mr. Netanyahu's latest venture in assassination by poison is not what's important: It's Mr. Clinton's reaction That's important. it's the hypocrisy and corruption in Washington that are important to us, not the religious belief of Jews that their god gave them the right to murder anyone they Don't like. And this latest demonstration of hypocrisy and corruption in Washington is only one in a long series of demonstrations, no more shocking than many others and certainly not as bad as some. But what is nice about this latest demonstration is that it is so clear, so unambiguous. And it also is so timely, in that it comes right in the middle of a series of trials of terrorists in this country, right in the middle of a series of government and media denunciations of terrorism. It doesn't give the media bosses or the politicians a chance to use the excuse that that was then and this is now and their policy toward terrorism has changed with time and circumstances.
There is one thing you can say for the Jews. Their religion leads them to do things which are so outrageous and so striking that the crooked politicians among our own people who collaborate with the Jews in order to advance their careers Aren't left much room to make excuses. About all they can do is keep their mouths shut and hope that the couch potatoes Won't notice -- or will forget before the next election.
For example, there is the case of the Jew from Maryland, Samuel Sheinbein, who took a power saw to one of his teenaged neighbors last month and hacked off the young fellow's arms, legs, and head, and then put what was left of him in a plastic bag and left it in someone else's garage. It seems to have been some sort of disagreement over a drug deal that didn't go according to Mr. Sheinbein's liking. When the police began closing in, Sheinbein hopped a plane for Israel, and once there he just thumbed his nose at the police in Maryland. When the police asked that he be sent back to America to stand trial for murder, the government of Israel announced that it has a policy against extraditing Jews. With a smirk on their faces, the Israelis told the Maryland authorities that if they really want to try Sheinbein they could come to Israel and try him in an Israeli court. That offer, of course, was entirely fraudulent. Aside from the enormous practical difficulties for the Maryland authorities, the fact of the matter is that they would find it impossible to convict Sheinbein in an Israeli court.
Israel's policy of not extraditing Jews is based in the Jewish religion, which prohibits Jews from cooperating with Gentile authorities in the prosecution of a Jew for crimes committed against a Gentile. Even providing information about a Jewish criminal to Gentile authorities is a crime punishable by death under Talmudic law.
What this means in practice is that a Jew can commit just about any crime he wants in the United States or Europe -- murder, rape, embezzlement, importing drugs, White slavery, racketeering -- and if he is able to fly to Israel without being arrested, he will be safe. This sort of behavior by any other country would not be tolerated, but Don't expect the U.S. government to put much pressure on Israel about this. Mr. Clinton just wishes the Maryland state authorities would shut up about the case before the public wakes up and begins asking questions.
The real question here is not why does our government put up with this sort of behavior from Israel; we know the answer to that question. The real question is: Why do we Americans put up with a government like the one we have in Washington?
The government can keep passing more repressive laws, tapping more telephones, hiring more jackbooted thugs, but it cannot survive without the trust and respect of the people -- and I Don't mean just the trust and respect of the couch potatoes; I mean the trust and respect of serious people, who notice things and who are able to think for themselves. The government cannot long survive without their trust and respect, and it has just about used up all of that. The next time there is a major bombing of a government building in this country -- and there will be; Mr. Clinton's behavior guarantees that -- and the government puts on its pretense of outrage and begins weeping crocodile tears for the victims and calls the bombers "cowards," there will be a noticeably more cynical reaction from the serious portion of the public. The couch potatoes may still respond the way the government wants them to, but among the serious people there will be more than ever before who will understand that the bombings will continue until we have a government which is genuinely outraged by terrorism, a government which not only genuinely disapproves of terrorism, state-sponsored or otherwise, but which also is actually our government, not the government of the politicians, the media bosses, and the Jews.
We want a government which is honest, a government which means what it says and says what it means, a government we can trust and respect and which the rest of the world also will be obliged to respect. We want a government which represents our interests and which is totally free of Jewish control, of Jewish influence. And one day we will have such a government.
The Tragedy Of Chautauqua County
A few weeks ago we were treated to yet another case of a Black sexual predator with AIDS infecting as many White girls as possible with his lethal disease by having sex with them. Nushawn Williams, a small-time drug dealer, car thief, armed robber, and would-be "rap artist," liked to take the bus from his Brooklyn, New York, neighborhood to Chautauqua County in the mostly White, western part of New York state and find young White girls to seduce. He had sex with a large number of White schoolgirls in the county, some as young as 13, and infected many of them with the AIDS virus.
When AIDS cases began showing up among schoolgirls in the county, public health officials became alarmed. They didn't tell the police what they knew about the Black AIDS carrier who had been infecting the girls, however, because the homosexual lobby, which is politically very powerful in New York, had persuaded the legislature to pass a law making it illegal to release information about AIDS carriers, even to the police. Finally, as the number of young girls infected by Nushawn Williams continued growing, health officials went to a judge and got permission to inform the police and the public about him. The case finally hit the newspapers in early November, where it made quite a sensation.
One thing that none of the news articles about Nushawn Williams mentioned was the fact that many of his victims were White girls, that he deliberately sought out White girls. The racial angle wasn't mentioned at all, as if it weren't important. One would have to have access to information not available to the general public to know that many of his victims were White, although anyone familiar with the demographics of Chautauqua County, New York, might suspect that he went there because it was a White area. Newsweek magazine finally spilled the beans in its November 10 issue, which carried a lengthy story on Nushawn Williams, mostly trying to generate sympathy for the Black criminal by detailing his "deprived" childhood and the dysfunctional family in which he grew up. Newsweek didn't mention the racial aspects of the case either, but two of the teenaged victims who were pictured in the magazine were White, both blondes.
Williams used to hang around the school playgrounds to pick up White girls. He would treat them to some of his "gangsta' rap" lyrics, flash some of his gold jewelry, and promise them drugs in exchange for sex. He had sex with literally hundreds of young, White girls in this way. Dozens of them were infected with the AIDS virus and will die a horrible death as a result.
It is interesting to study the various reactions of the media to the Nushawn Williams case. Generally there is sympathy for his victims. Sometimes there is sympathy for him. Nearly all of the media suggest that what we need to do in response to such cases is teach young people to use condoms. One or two really bold columnists, willing to risk the wrath of the homosexual lobby, have suggested that the public's health is more important than the privacy of AIDS carriers, and so we ought to consider relaxing the ban on telling the police about AIDS-carrying criminals. But none of the media have mentioned the racial aspects of the case. That is an absolute no-no. So who is to blame for what happened to those White schoolgirls in Chautauqua County? Is it the school officials who didn't impress on them strongly enough the need to use condoms? Is it the politicians in the state legislature who pandered to the homosexuals by making it more difficult for public health officials to warn the public about people like Nushawn Williams? Hardly. One almost suspects that these issues are raised by the media as a smokescreen to keep people from putting the blame where it really belongs.
I'll tell you who is to blame for what happened to those young, White girls in Chautauqua County. It is everyone who made it even thinkable for them to have a sexual relationship with a non-White. Everyone. It is the entire Politically Correct establishment. It is the school officials who distribute sex-education literature urging the use of condoms: literature which has cartoon- type illustrations showing young Whites and Blacks together and subliminally suggesting that one's sexual partner may be of any race. It is the Christian ministers who preach against the so- called "sin of racism," leading young White girls to feel guilty if they reject the advances of a Black male. It is the trendy parents who want their children to be Politically Correct above all else and who therefore fail to train them to have an abhorrence of racial mixing.
Above all others the people responsible for what happened to those girls are the immensely powerful and unspeakably evil men who control the mass media in America. They are the men who promote "gangsta' rap" among young Whites who don't know any better: men like MTV owner Sumner Redstone and Time-Warner boss Gerald Levin.
They are the men who control the television entertainment industry, which has such a powerful influence in shaping the attitudes and behavior of young people today -- and which with increasing boldness promotes the idea of interracial sex, of interracial romance, as being fashionable. They are the owners of the syndicates which distribute comic strips and comic books for children portraying interracial groups as the desirable norm.
Now, nearly all of these powerful and evil men who control the mass media are Jews, and they do what they do knowingly and deliberately. Anyone who has studied them understands that their aim is to encourage racial mixing among Whites and non-Whites. But they are not the only ones to blame. Everyone who collaborates with them, everyone who tolerates them, Jew or Gentile, also is to blame. The advertising agency bosses and the big corporation executives who promote racial mixing, "diversity," and "multiculturalism" because the Jewish media bosses have made these things fashionable and because the advertising agency bosses and corporation executives believe that the more fashionable they appear to be the more money they will make are all to blame. Among these people, many of them Gentiles, who are to blame for what happened to those young girls in Chautauqua County are some of the richest men in the country. They are rich, powerful, intelligent men, understanding the consequences of their actions, but utterly irresponsible, caring only about their own wealth and power -- men like Bill Gates, for example, whose Microsoft Corporation sponsors advertising aimed at making White people feel guilty if they have racial feelings or prefer to be among their own kind.
And there are the politicians and bureaucrats, who hang on every word of the controlled media, cater to every whim of the media bosses, and eagerly dance to whatever tune they play. These are the politicians and bureaucrats who gave us forced racial integration in our schools and an assortment of so-called "fair housing" laws to force the racial integration of our residential neighborhoods, politicians and bureaucrats who have legislated and enforced "civil rights" laws and affirmative action programs and dozens of other programs and laws designed to "multiculturalize" what used to be a White country -- a country in which it would have been unthinkable for a Black criminal to be allowed to hang around White schools trying to pick up White schoolgirls, and it would have been unthinkable for any White girl to respond to him.
These are the politicians and bureaucrats like Bill Clinton and his crew who are currently engaged in a massive governmental program to "pull America together," as they like to say, and further encourage the mixing of Blacks and Whites. They are the politicians and bureaucrats who have followed the Jewish lead and defined any effort by White people to protect themselves from non-Whites as "hate."
Any sort of action taken by a White person against the Nushawn Williamses of this world in an effort to protect young White girls is called a "hate crime." Any effort by a White person even to warn other White people about animals of the Nushawn Williams type is denounced by these politicians and bureaucrats as "hate propaganda."
I'll give you a specific example. The organization I head, the National Alliance, distributes stickers warning of the dangers of sex with Blacks. It warns that sex with a Black is far more likely, on the average, to lead to AIDS than is sex with another White person. It warns that Black males are 14 times as likely to be AIDS carriers as heterosexual White males. We distribute these stickers because the government and the media don't warn the White public of the danger of sex with Blacks. The government and the media don't mention that Blacks are far more likely to be AIDS carriers than Whites. They don't warn people about this because they don't want to discourage sexual contacts between Blacks and Whites -- quite the opposite, in fact.
Because the media and the government do not disseminate this important information about the danger of being sexually involved with Blacks, my organization works hard to provide this information to the public. And as a consequence our stickers are denounced as "hate literature" by the mass media and by the politicians and bureaucrats who take their cue from the media -- and these include police officials, for example, who certainly are aware of the AIDS dangers associated with Blacks, but who also are more interested in being Politically Correct, for the sake of their careers, than they are in protecting the public.
Now, it's one thing to assign blame for this problem -- it's one thing to point out who is responsible for making our young girls victims of Nushawn Williams and other Black sexual predators -- and it's quite another thing to solve this problem, to punish those responsible and ensure that they do no more damage.
And let me assure you, this is a problem we must solve. Not because one Black criminal has destroyed the lives of a few dozen White girls. After all, many of the girls affected were pretty trashy: the most empty-headed and fashion-conscious of MTV fans, the sort that it's better, for eugenic reasons, to have removed from our breeding population anyway. No, the Nushawn Williams case is important because it is symbolic of the moral rot of our people. It's not a Black problem that we must solve; it's a White problem. We don't care how Blacks behave among themselves; that's their problem. Our problem is that we permit Black behavior to affect us. Our problem is that we haven't got our own affairs in order; we haven't got control of our own destiny. We used to have a White country. We used to have our affairs under control. But we permitted the Jews to gain control of our mass media, our news and entertainment media, and we permitted the traitors among us to collaborate with the Jews, and together they led us off the correct path and into the present morass, where the sort of thing that happened in Chautauqua County can happen and will happen with increasing frequency in the future.
They confused and misled our people. They persuaded us that we owed the non-Whites of the world a living, that we had to take them into our midst and let them into our schools and neighborhoods and let our sisters and our daughters run with them. They told us that we were racists and haters if we objected to this.
They persuaded the more impressionable of our young people that Black music and Black manners and Black life-styles were fashionable and ought to be imitated. That's why the White schoolgirls in Chautauqua County let themselves be infected with AIDS by Nushawn Williams. And trashy though those schoolgirls may have been, it's the sort of thing that we must not allow to continue happening. We must cut the moral rot out of our people that permitted it to happen. We must root out of our society those who introduced and cultivated and encouraged that moral rot, and we must destroy them so that they can never do that sort of thing again.
Ultimately, we must separate ourselves from the Blacks and other non-Whites and keep ourselves separate, no matter what it takes to accomplish this. We must do this not because we hate Blacks, but because we cannot survive if we remain mixed with them. And we cannot survive if we permit the Jews and the traitors among us to remain among us and to repeat their treachery. Eventually we must hunt them down and get rid of them. Their presence among us makes us more unclean and more ill than the presence of the Blacks.
All of us understand, of course, that not all Blacks behave like Nushawn Williams. And we don't blame all Blacks for what happened to those White schoolgirls. We don't even blame Nushawn Williams. We blame the fact that the Blacks were brought into our midst. What happened in Chautauqua County couldn't have happened if we hadn't brought Blacks -- the good ones and the bad ones together -- into our midst. They must all go -- the good with the bad -- and work out their own destiny, while we work out ours.
And we understand that not every Jew, not every politician, not every newspaper editor, and not every homosexual approved of what Nushawn Williams did. But we also understand that it was their collective policies, it was the result of all of them working together, which produced the tragedy of Chautauqua County.
Eventually we will solve our problem, eventually we will ensure that there will be no more tragedies of this sort, by dealing with these people collectively. It is enough that all of these people supported the general policies which led to Chautauqua. It is enough that they supported racial integration and they all spoke out against White racism. It is enough that they all kept silent when they should have warned our people. It is enough that not one of them pointed out the racial aspects of the Nushawn Williams case. For that we will hold them all responsible, and we will deal with them all together: the White Christian preacher who preached from his pulpit about the "sin of racism;" the White politician who catered to the minorities and danced to the Jewish tune to get elected; the White school official, police chief, or government bureaucrat who was careful always to pay lip service to the latest trend in race-mixing policy promoted by the Jewish media. We will deal with them all.
You know, when I have said things like this before, a lot of cautious, timid conservatives have responded by saying that I am too extreme, that I should not talk about America's situation in such rough terms. They hope, even if they do not believe, that there is some nice way of arresting America's decline, some safe and easy way of keeping things from getting any worse, some way that will permit them to continue taking their ease and enjoying their comforts and luxuries without stirring themselves, without taking any chances.
Let me remind you that I am a pretty conservative fellow myself. I'm not a wild-eyed bomb thrower at all. But I do like to face facts. I do like to look reality right in the eye and not pretend that it's something else. And the reality of our present situation is this: You won't be allowed to continue enjoying your ease and your comfort much longer. The situation is snowballing. Yesterday it was an empty-headed piece of White trash named Nicole Brown. Today it is a bunch of empty-headed, trendy schoolgirls in Chautauqua County, New York. And tomorrow it will be your daughter or your sister. Too many people do what the Jews persuade them it is fashionable to do. You cannot isolate yourself from what is being done to your people. It will be done to you too. You cannot continue to enjoy yourself indefinitely when the very basis for the society in which you are living already has been destroyed, already has been rotted out.
Fortunately, more and more ordinary White men and women are beginning to realize that. More and more of them are beginning to understand and to accept that the only way that their children and their grandchildren will have a future in America is to have a total revolution. They are beginning to understand that no matter how destructive that revolution will be, just letting things go on as they have been will be much, much worse. Nushawn Williams has helped them to understand that. And when what happened to those White schoolgirls in Chautauqua County happens to your sister or to your daughter, perhaps you will understand it too.
The Promise Keepers
If you watch the news on television regularly, I'm sure you saw the huge get-together of so- called "Promise Keepers" in Washington: hundreds of thousands of mostly White men hugging each other, holding hands, and rocking back and forth with their eyes closed. Some of them were shaking and crying or singing and clapping their hands much like one used to see in an old- fashioned revival tent. I was fascinated by the phenomenon -- and by the reaction of various elements to it.
The most interesting reaction was that of the feminist organizations. They clearly were worried. They did not like the idea of a large number of White males gathered together for any purpose. Some of the feminist commissars made cautious statements to the media. They expressed their concern about the Political Incorrectness of men getting together as men. They saw this as a very dangerous development. What if the all-male Promise Keepers, said to have nearly three million members, decided to use their numbers politically? Suppose they decided to back candidates for public office or to express their collective opinion on some matter of public policy. The very thought gave them the cold shivers.
On such matters as abortion for convenience the Promise Keepers, as a fundamentalist Christian group, do not share the views of the feminists. And the Promise Keepers disagree with the feminists on such matters as lesbianism and homosexuality in general -- although, a lot of male homosexuals must have been looking with considerable interest at all of those men hugging each other.
The concerns of the feminists went beyond specific issues such as abortion for convenience and lesbianism, however. They were profoundly disturbed by the fact that the Promise Keepers were an unapproved group. It's fine for Blacks to organize, or Jews, or homosexuals, or women, certainly, but heterosexual White men are the enemy. They're not supposed to organize. They're supposed to be kept disorganized, confused, and impotent, so that they can't get in the way of "progress" and the march toward a New World Order.
But the more I learn about the Promise Keepers, the more I'm inclined to believe that they really won't be much of an obstacle on the road to a New World Order. On the truly essential issues, they are already there. Consider race, for example. The founder of the group, Bill McCartney, used to be a football coach at the University of Colorado, where I got my doctorate, and his daughter used to love the Black players on his team. He seems to be proud of the fact that he now has two non-White grandchildren sired by different members of the team.
Although there are very few Blacks among the rank and file membership of Promise Keepers, it's not from lack of trying on McCartney's part. He has an affirmative action hiring program for his organization which has resulted in his office staff being fully one-third non-White. He has vigorously recruited non-White directors for the governing board of the group. At Promise Keepers rallies held anywhere near the Mexican border, he literally buses in thousands of mestizos to add "racial diversity" to the audiences. He talks about the meaninglessness of borders. His meetings often feature Jewish, Black and other non-White preachers, and he uses posters and banners picturing Whites and non-Whites together.
And he always plays the White racial guilt card. At a meeting of 30,000 men, nearly all of them White, held in the New Orleans Superdome last summer, McCartney complained about the lack of non-Whites in the audience. "Where are the men of color?" he asked. And then he continued, "I want to tell you why they're not here. There's a spirit of White racial superiority that exists in this nation. It's an insensitivity to the pain of men of color. We have not been washing their feet. We have not been feeling their pain." Whenever the opportunity presents itself, McCartney will get down on his knees, pull off the shoes of any Black within reach, and give a personal demonstration of foot-washing.
Now, it's really not important whether one marches toward the New World Order with a copy of the Bible in one's hand, or a copy of Das Kapital. It doesn't matter whether one's admission pass is signed by Jesus or by Karl Marx. I really hate to say bad things about anyone that the feminists don't like, but the fact of the matter is that the Promise Keepers, on the basis of their racial doctrines alone, are a dangerous and destructive group.
Perhaps patriots should be grateful that the feminists have a new group to worry about and to contend with on social issues, but patriots should not let themselves be fooled into believing that Promise Keepers can be our allies, just because they are saying the right things on some issues: just because they condemn homosexuality, for example, or because they deplore the decay of the institution of family. They are so dead wrong on race that nothing else they say or do can possibly compensate for this.
Racial egalitarianism and the encouragement of racial mixing are not the only problems with the Promise Keepers. There's something basically unhealthy about these people -- I might almost say unmanly. When I watch a group of them doing their thing -- holding hands and rocking back and forth with their eyes closed and praying aloud -- I become distinctly uncomfortable. I mean, these are grown men. Why are they doing this? Is this religion? Or is it some sort of feel-good group therapy?
The whole thrust of the Promise Keepers' doctrine bothers me, with its emphasis on guilt, confession, self-flagellation, submission, and the washing of Black feet. I realize that there are different currents in Christianity which have come to the fore at different periods in history, but there's something distinctly un-White, something essentially Levantine rather than European, about the current in the Promise Keepers' doctrine. I really don't like this soft and weepy "forgive me, oh Lord, for I am a sinner" approach to the problems we are facing as a race when what's needed is the vigorous use of a whip to drive the destructive and unhealthy elements out of our society.
Even if we had to deal only with the problem of trying to repair the damage which has been done to the American family and oppose the feminists who are largely responsible for that damage, and even if we had to deal with this problem in a Christian manner, we wouldn't need the Mother Theresa approach of the Promise Keepers; we would need instead a much firmer approach. I believe the situation we are in calls for the attitude of the 13th-century papal legate who was asked by a military leader attacking a city in southern France -- a city which was a stronghold of heretics -- how his soldiers could tell who was a heretic and who was not. The papal legate answered simply: "Kill them all. God will sort them out."
I don't believe that we need to take a religious approach at all to fixing America. However, when dealing with radical feminists, I do believe that the proper approach is closer to that of the papal legate in 13th-century France than it is to that of Mother Theresa. They are an incurably sick bunch.
There's something else that bothers me about the Promise Keepers. It's the style as well the content of their doctrine. Let me go back to what I mentioned a minute ago about their penchant for holding hands and weeping and confessing their sins to strangers in big meetings. These things are not just incidental or peripheral. The men in Promise Keepers are told that this sort of behavior is not only acceptable, but it is necessary. It is a constant at their meetings. It is the central feature.
What this reminds me of more than anything else is so-called "sensitivity training," a brainwashing technique that is very effective with a certain type of person with a weak sense of personal identity, a low level of self-esteem, and a strong need for group acceptance. It is a technique that can be used very effectively to change many people's ideas and behavior. The Communists mastered the technique back in the 1920s and 1930s and used it on a huge scale. The public confessions they obtained with the method are notorious. Today the U.S. government and many businesses use the technique to force White people to change their attitudes on racial matters. Cults also use the technique to control the thinking of their members. It makes zombies of people: the right sort of people, that is, people who are susceptible to the technique.
I am alarmed by the fact that there are so many of our people who are susceptible. This is a time which demands strength from us. The problems we are facing require every bit of manliness we can muster. Among the attributes of a man are a sense of personal dignity, of self-worth, and of self-reliance. This is true of a White man whether he is a Christian or not. The sort of self- abasement we see at every meeting of Promise Keepers is contrary to our concept of manhood. It is much more in accord with the feminists' idea of what a man should be like: weepy and submissive.
We live in an unnatural environment these days which is confusing to our instincts, whether we are men or women. Most boys, in particular, are not raised in a way which naturally strengthens and develops the manly virtues. Boys raised on a farm a century ago were given work to do from the time they could walk. Everyone was expected to pull his own weight. This helped a boy develop a sense of self-worth and self-reliance. And boys learned from a close working association with their fathers what was expected of a man. This association all too often is absent today and in nearly all cases is greatly attenuated in comparison to what it used to be. In very few families today does a boy have an opportunity to do any meaningful work with his father.
On top of this is a Politically Correct educational system which makes things much worse by de- emphasizing everything which used to contribute to a boy's sense of identity and to help him acquire a strong set of standards and values. Take a close look sometime at the old McGuffey's Readers, which were used 100 years ago to teach young Americans in our elementary schools how to read and to build their vocabulary and sense of style while strengthening their understanding of grammar and the rules of spelling. Nearly every story also taught a moral lesson, beginning with very simple lessons, of the sort found in Aesop's fables, and progressing to stories which illustrated and praised the virtues of courage, truthfulness, courtesy, honesty, diligence, chivalry, loyalty, and industry. Personal dignity too. Many of the stories were based on historical incidents, ranging from Roman times to the American Revolution. By the time a boy had progressed through the whole series of readers and finished elementary school he had been exposed to dozens of historical role models and had developed a strong sense of identity: that is, a historical sense of who his people were and what they were like, what they had gone through during their history, what their values were, and what they believed. And he had acquired at least a rudimentary concept of personal honor. He might still grow up to be a crook or a bum, but at least he knew the difference between honorable and dishonorable behavior.
Now, of course, to modern educators the McGuffey Readers are intolerably racist and sexist. The values they teach are European values, White values, and that just won't do in a multiracial society. The concept of proper behavior is one thing for Europeans and something quite different for Africans or Chinese. The same objection is raised against the historical lessons. Why should boys learn from anecdotes about Romans or Germans instead of Zulus and Ubangis? And to teach boys bravery and chivalry really gets the feminists steamed. So the McGuffey Readers and everything like them were tossed out long ago, our schools have become what they are today, and it is no wonder that a great many of the young men who pass through them are confused and disoriented -- not to mention the young women.
Then, there is the effect of the modern entertainment media, primarily television. I won't even get into that. Let it suffice to say that many of the problems in our society the Promise Keepers talk about are real problems, and they need to be dealt with. But the men who are attracted to the Promise Keepers also have problems -- personal problems -- and those problems need to be dealt with too, but not in the way the Promise Keepers or any of the other cults deal with the personal problems of the people they attract. These personal problems, these personal weaknesses, which have arisen because of flaws which have developed in our society -- in our life-styles, our educational system, our mass media -- are exploited by the cults to win converts. The cults depend on these weaknesses, and they are much more interested in taking advantage of them than in curing them.
Which is to say that when the Promise Keepers encounter a man whose sense of manly propriety and manly dignity has gone so awry that he is attracted, rather than repulsed, by the spectacle of other men hugging each other in public, confessing their "sins" to each other, and looking for Black men whose feet they can wash, the Promise Keepers encourage him to join and do these things himself, rather than trying to help him get a grip on himself and behave the way a man should behave.
This is a fundamental flaw that all cults have. They attract people who have serious personal problems, and in order to do that they encourage and exacerbate these problems rather than trying to cure them. Some cults become quite large and quite strong by this strategy and are even able to achieve certain goals using their flawed members. But I find this whole cult strategy extremely distasteful.
One of the goals of the Promise Keepers is strengthening the American family, but I'm dubious about their prospects for success in the long run. It becomes a case of the blind trying to lead the blind. It becomes a case of the more seriously flawed men in our society setting out to cure the problems which contributed to their flaws. If we are to cure what's wrong with the American family, then we need men with a strong sense of identity and self-worth, men who know who they are and what they want, to tackle the problem. We need self-reliant men, not men who are attracted to a cult like a moth to a candle.
One of the unfortunate things about life in America at the end of the 20th century is that we'll be seeing a lot more of cults in the next few years, cults of all sorts. As American society continues to unravel, more and more men and women will be grasping for straws, grasping for something to hold to, grasping for something which promises to give them the sense of security and certainty which they so desperately need.
But the solution to our problems, the cure for our ailing society, will not come from these cults: certainly not from a cult which encourages White men to wash the feet of Black men and whose leader boasts of his mixed-race grandchildren. We can only have a healthy society again by solving the problems of life-style, education, and mass media.
We can only have a healthy society and healthy families again when we are able to return to the sort of life-style which allows children to work together with their parents and learn from their parents -- boys from their fathers and girls from their mothers -- and when our educational system has shaken off the last trace of Political Correctness, and our entertainment media, as well as our news media, have been taken out of the hands of Jews.
This does not mean that we must return to the past and all grow up on farms like we did a century ago and all read McGuffey's Readers in school. But it does mean that we must restore to our lives the essential elements from our past which allowed us to be healthy then, and we must get rid of the unhealthy elements and influences which have taken their place. And when we have done that we will have many fewer of the sort of people who look for solutions to their personal problems in cults. It will be a long and difficult task, and we'd better get started soon.
The Lesson of Haiti
This month the last of the United Nations "peacekeeping" troops in Haiti will leave, and the Haitians will be given yet another chance to try to govern themselves. The "peacekeepers" occupied Haiti, along with 23,000 U.S. troops, three years ago, in order to force the government of General Raoul Cedras to resign so that a Clinton favorite, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, could be installed as president. The reasons presented to the American public for this interference in Haiti's affairs were that General Cedras was a "dictator" and that he didn't respect the "human rights" of the Haitians. Mr. Clinton's friend Aristide, on the other hand, was said to be a "democrat" and a respecter of human rights.
Actually, Aristide is a former priest turned Marxist whose idea of respecting human rights is to incite mobs of his supporters to murder his political opponents by breaking their arms, wiring a gasoline-soaked tire around their necks, and burning them to death -- a procedure known as "necklacing." Well, that's about par for making a country safe for democracy the United Nations way!
However, the Haitians didn't care much more for Mr. Clinton's Marxist buddy Aristide than they did for General Cedras, and Aristide is out of office again and the Haitians are about to be allowed to run things themselves once more. Well, almost. Five hundred U.S. troops will remain in the country to keep an eye on things. They will call for more help if the need to "make Haiti safe for democracy" arises again.
The Clintonistas aren't bragging very loudly about the success of their latest effort in that direction, because the situation in Haiti is just about as grim today as it was before the United Nations stuck its nose into things three years ago. About the only significant change is that the flood of Haitian "boat people" washing up on Florida's beaches has slowed somewhat, but that flood was caused in the first place by an embargo imposed on Haiti by the U.S. government in an unsuccessful attempt to force General Cedras out, and the consequent damage to Haiti's already pitifully weak economy. When the embargo was removed, many Haitians decided to stay at home and share in the new goodies brought to them by the Clinton administration.
The U.S. troops built roads, schools, and clinics and pumped a few billion U.S. dollars into the Haitian economy, but a survey of the results of all this effort is not encouraging. The streets of Port-au-Prince still reek of garbage and human waste, political corruption is as bad as it ever was, and violent crime is on the rise. The new roads and clinics built by the United States merely add a superficial appearance of improvement, so that the tourist industry is able to begin making a little money again, but the basic situation of Haiti and the lives of most Haitians remain unchanged.
This sort of thing has happened over and over again in Haiti. It seems that we would have learned something from it. In the 18th century Haiti, then called Saint-Domingue and ruled by the French, was the most prosperous colony in the New World. Its enormously fertile soil produced a great abundance of crops and drew thousands of White French settlers. Unfortunately, Black slaves from Africa were imported to help with the work. In the late 1700's the madness of the French Revolution, with its truly nutty doctrine of racial equality, infected many Frenchmen, and the Black plantation workers were encouraged to revolt. When they did they brutally murdered every White man, woman, and child in the colony and declared Haiti a republic. What had been the richest and most productive part of the New World promptly sank back to an African level of squalor, misery, and poverty. The roads and cities built by the French fell into ruin. A peculiarly African mixture of anarchy and despotism took the place of French law and order.
A little over a century later, in 1915, following an especially chaotic and bloody period, U.S. Marines were sent into Haiti to force a semblance of order on the country. The reason for sending them was to safeguard American business interests in Haiti, although President Wilson told Americans that the Marines were being sent to "bring democracy to Haiti." The Marines remained in Haiti for 19 years. They not only enforced governmental stability there, but they also built schools and hospitals, a modern telephone system, and more than 1,000 miles of paved roads with 210 bridges. The U.S. government trained Haitian teachers and doctors. We really gave the Haitians the basis for a fresh start. As soon as the U.S. Marines pulled out in 1934, however, the Haitians returned to their own way of doing things, which is to say, to indolence, corruption, and Voodoo. Everything the Americans had built for them gradually returned to the jungle.
In 1958 the United States sent the Marines to Haiti again, this time with the aim of rebuilding the country's economy and infrastructure so that it would not succumb to Communist influences. We propped up the regime of "Papa Doc" Duvalier, who had been trained in medicine during our first incursion into Haiti, but who was a practitioner of Voodoo as well. He was a brutal and bloody dictator. Again we spent hundreds of millions of dollars rebuilding what the Haitians had wrecked and training thousands of them in the skills needed to keep the country running. But when we pulled out again, the country immediately returned to its old ways: its African ways.
And in 1994 we tried the same foolishness all over again, claiming that we were "restoring democracy" to Haiti.
Why can't we accept the plain and simple truth that it is as impossible to make democrats out of the Haitians as it is to teach them how to maintain their own roads? Why can't we understand that the Haitians are fundamentally different from us, that they are Africans, not Europeans like us: that they are Negroes, and that left to themselves they must do things in the way Negroes always have done them, with indolence, corruption, and Voodoo?
I have in front of me a book on Haiti written by a British scholar, a fellow of the Royal Geographic Society, following his extended travels in Haiti at the beginning of this century. The book was published by Thomas Nelson and Sons, with offices in London, Edinburgh, Dublin, and New York. The author is Hesketh Prichard, and the title of his book is Where Black Rules White: A Journey Across and About Hayti. Prichard chose his title because he was especially interested in the fact that Haiti was a country ruled entirely by its Black population, without the White colonial domination that was present nearly everywhere else in the non-White world at that time. The only Whites in the country were a few hundred businessmen and their agents in the coastal cities. These Whites were not treated well by the government or people of Haiti. Prichard was basically sympathetic to the Blacks and wanted to see how they lived when they had been introduced to civilization by Whites but were then left completely free to do as they wished, without White control. He writes of Haiti in the first chapter of his book: "There the law of the world is reversed, and the Black man rules. It is one of the few spots on earth where his color sets the Negro upon a pedestal and gives him privileges. The full-blooded African is paramount; even the mulattos and half-breeds are disliked and have been barbarously weeded out as time has passed."
One of the first things Prichard notes about Haiti is the pervasive filth. He was not expecting sanitation to be up to European standards, of course, but he was stunned by the degree of filth he actually encountered, not just in the villages but also in the capital city, Port-au-Prince. And he was struck by the caricatures of finery and elegance which thrived in the midst of this filth. For example, he noticed that every Haitian of any importance at all bore the title of "general" and was equipped with a gaudy general's uniform, replete with gold braid and all the other trimmings. When he inquired into the military establishment in Haiti, where the total population at that time was under two million, he discovered that the Haitian Army boasted 6,500 generals, 7,000 regimental officers, and 6,500 privates.
Prichard recounts a conversation he had one evening with three Haitian generals. It is a conversation with a surrealistic quality, as are many other things in Haiti. At one level the Black generals are able to converse with a semblance of knowledge of military matters, but at another level it is clear that they are completely out of touch with reality. One is reminded of the classical stereotype of the African cannibal wearing an opera hat and a loincloth.
Prichard's book is filled with fascinating anecdotes and with detailed descriptions of his personal experiences with various facets of Haitian life. He remarks on the good-natured, open-hearted character of the people, who could nevertheless commit the most blood-curdling atrocities at the least provocation. The extreme degree of corruption of the Haitian bureaucracy elicits special attention from Prichard, as does the utterly capricious way in which it operates. The dispensing of justice, in particular, is a caricature of European systems, in which many of the same outward forms are observed.
Prichard also comments on the religious beliefs and practices of the Haitians. The official religion, which they inherited from their former French masters, is Roman Catholicism, but the true religion of the people is Voodoo, a peculiarly African religion with Catholic touches. In religion as in other aspects of Haitian life there is a bizarre blending of White forms with Black substance.
Later in his book Prichard generalizes from many of his observations to reach a fundamental conclusion about life in Haiti: namely, that in all matters regarding their connections with the White world, with White civilization, the Haitians are more concerned with show than with substance, and their ability to mimic the characteristics of White people, both individually and collectively, persuades many people who observe them only superficially and who want to believe them equal that they really are equal. Prichard writes: "What most astonishes the traveler in Hayti is that they have everything there. Ask for what you please, the answer invariably is, 'Yes, yes, we have it.' They possess everything that a civilized and progressive nation can desire. Electric light? They proudly point to a [power] plant on a hilltop outside the town. Constitutional government? A Chamber of Deputies elected by public vote, a Senate, and all the elaborate paraphernalia of the law: they are to be found here, seemingly all of them. Institutions, churches, schools, roads, railways . . . . On paper their system is flawless. . . . If one puts one's trust in the mirage of hearsay, the Haitians can boast of possessing all desirable things, but on nearer approach these pleasant prospects are apt to take on another complexion.
"For instance, you are standing in what was once a building, but is now a spindle-shanked ghost of its former self. A single man, nursing a broken leg, sprawls on the black, earthen floor; a pile of wooden beds is heaped in the north corner; rain has formed a pool in the middle of the room, crawling and spreading into an ever wider circle as the last shower drips from the roof. Some filthy sheets lie wound into a sticky ball on two beds, one of which is overturned. A large, iron washing tub stands in the open doorway.
"Now where are you? It would be impossible to guess. As a matter of fact, you are in the Military Hospital of the second most important town of Hayti, a state-supported concern in which the soldiers of the Republic are supposed to be cured of all the ills of the flesh. . . .
"It was the same with the electric light. The [power] plant was here, but it did not work. It was the same with the [Army's] cannon. There are cannon, but they won't go off. It was the same with their railways. They were being 'hurried forward,' but they never progressed. It was the same with everything."
There are many more examples. What had dawned on Prichard is that the Haitians really don't care. To them the imitation of civilization is as good as the real thing. They believe that if they are able to dress like White men and speak the White man's language and mimic the White man's institutions, then they are as good as White men. And I believe what Prichard observed of the Haitians applies equally well to Blacks in the United States today.
Prichard ends his book with a chapter titled "Can the Negro Rule Himself?" And he answers his question:
"The present condition of Hayti gives the best possible answer to the question, and, considering the experiment has lasted for a century, perhaps also a conclusive one. For a century the answer has been working itself out there in flesh and blood. The Negro has had his chance, a fair field, and no favor. He has had the most beautiful and fertile of the Caribbees for his own; he has had the advantage of excellent French laws; he inherited a made country, with Cap Haitien for its Paris . . . . Here was a wide land sown with prosperity, a land of wood, water, towns and plantations, and in the midst of it the Black man was turned loose to work out his own salvation. What has he made of the chances that were given to him?" Prichard then summarizes the century of Haiti's independent existence, running through a list of Black rulers and strongmen, of revolutions and massacres and disorders. He winds up his survey with these words:
"Suffice it to say that . . . [Hayti's] best president was Geffrard, a mulatto, and that the dictatorship of her Black heads of state always has been marked by a redder smear than usual upon the page of history. The better, the wiser, the more enlightened and less brutalized class has always been composed of the mulattos, and the Blacks have recognized the fact and hated the mulatto element accordingly. But to pass from the earlier days of independence to more recent times: we had not long ago the savage rule of President Salomon, a notorious sectary of snake worship, beneath whose iron hand the country groaned for years, and public executions, assassinations, and robbery were the order of the day. And at the present time? Today in Hayti we come to the real crux of the question. At the end of a hundred years of trial how does the Black man govern himself? What progress has he made? Absolutely none."
That's the way it was a century ago, when Prichard wrote, and that's essentially the way it is today, despite three large-scale efforts by the United States during this century to improve the lot of the Haitians.
Why is all of this important to us? A century ago Prichard was by no means an unusual man of his class. He went to Haiti, he carefully observed life there in great detail over an extended period, and he drew logical and reasonable conclusions from his observations. Other scholars of his day could have done the same thing. But it is unimaginable that a scholar today, whether from Britain or America, could make observations like Prichard did, draw similar conclusions, and then publish his conclusions in a book by a mainstream publisher. It is simply not possible.
In the first place, one would be hard pressed to find a scholar from any university in America or Britain today who would have the courage to write honestly about Haiti, because he knows that if he did he would be condemned as a "racist" by a numerous and noisy faction of his colleagues and would be drummed out of the academy. And even if someone did write a book with observations and conclusions similar to Prichard's, no mainstream publisher would touch it. That's how far downhill our civilization has slid in a century.
The Haitians have their Voodoo, with all of its disgusting and bizarre beliefs and practices. And we have our cult of Political Correctness, our cult of egalitarianism. It is a cult based as much on superstition and as devoid of reason and logic as the Voodoo of the Haitians. And it exercises as strong a hold on its adherents. A Haitian would as soon offend a Voodoo witch doctor and risk having a curse put on himself as one of our modern scholars would risk being labeled a "racist!"
Exposing the Warmongers
Every evening when I have turned on the television news during the past few weeks, the message has had the same theme: Saddam Hussein must be stopped! Saddam Hussein is a danger to America! We must destroy Saddam Hussein! About the only difference I've noticed in these daily news messages is that they're steadily becoming more strident, more demanding, more imperative: We must destroy Saddam Hussein! And in support of this message the television people are using all of their tricks to stir up public opinion in favor of another war against Iraq. Day after day we hear things like: "Saddam continues to defy the United Nations. Saddam thumbs his nose at America. Saddam challenges us to do something about his illegal actions."
These inflammatory comments are made against a background of old film footage of Saddam in his military uniform, grinning at us. NBC's news anchor Tom Brokaw seems really impatient: "Why don't we take out Saddam now?" he asks. "Why don't we just go in there and kill him? What are we waiting for?" That's pretty much the refrain heard from all of the news commentators.
Now, how exactly is Saddam Hussein defying us? Saddam is saying, "Iraq is our country. It is a sovereign country. It doesn't belong to the United Nations or to the United States. We're tired of you people sticking your noses into our business and telling us how to run our country. Get out! Leave us alone! Go away!" And, of course, he's threatened to shoot down our spy planes if we continue to fly over Iraq without Iraq's permission.
Pretty intolerable behavior, right? A pretty good reason for us to start another war and bomb Iraq back into the Stone Age, right? Complete justification for slaughtering a few hundred thousand more Iraqis, right? What does this guy Saddam think in demanding that we respect the sovereignty of his country? We're bigger than he is, so we don't have to respect him, right?
If these television people who are so hot for a new war against Iraq would just come right out and say that, I would find their warmongering a little easier to take. If they would just say, "Hey, we're bigger and stronger than Iraq, and so we can make the Iraqis do whatever we tell them. We don't have to respect them or treat them the way we expect to be treated. We can push them around as much as we want, and if they don't like it we'll just kill them."
But of course, the last thing we expect from our controlled news media is honesty. They want their war, and they also want to make us believe that the war is Saddam's fault, not ours. And so day after day the television news people tell us about how Saddam is threatening the security of the world and defying America and just begging for us to go in there and "take him out," to use Tom Brokaw's euphemism for political assassination.
If we want to begin justifying high-level political assassination, I can think of a head of state much closer to home than Saddam who ought to be "taken out," someone whose elimination would really do America a lot of good. It was just 11 months ago, on December 21, 1996, when I predicted on this program that the Jewish media bosses would make a major effort to take us into another war during Mr. Clinton's second term in office. I based my prediction on two sets of facts: first, that Mr. Clinton had just appointed an all-Jewish foreign-policy team for his second term; and second, that Clinton's second term was an opportunity the Jews couldn't afford to miss to use American military force to wipe out Israel's rivals in the Middle East once and for all.
And now, I fear, my prediction is coming true. If this current drive to start another war with Iraq is what I'm afraid it is, then it'll involve much more than merely another attempt to assassinate Saddam Hussein. They'll manage to escalate it into something which will wipe out all of their rivals in the Middle East and leave Israel a free hand to continue her policies of expansion. And it will end up costing America a lot more than a few billion dollars worth of military hardware and a few thousand more unexplained cases of veterans suffering from "Gulf War syndrome." A lot more.
You know, there are many people in addition to the Jews pushing for another war to destroy Iraq. There are the trendy New World Order types who are hostile to the idea of national sovereignty and believe that all of the countries of the world ought to be subordinated to the United Nations and forced to obey UN directives, by military means if necessary. That is, they say they believe that, so long as the country in defiance of the United Nations isn't Israel. Israel has been thumbing its nose at the UN for years and defying one UN resolution after another, building new Jewish settlements on land seized by military force from Israel's neighbors and refusing to permit UN inspection teams to look for evidence of illegal weapons in Israel.
And there are even more people who believe that a war against Iraq can be justified if it will destroy Iraq's capability to build so-called "weapons of mass destruction." The controlled media have been full of horror stories recently about the possibility that Iraq may develop and use biological and chemical weapons capable of killing millions of people. And let's face it: that is a possibility. The genie is out of the bottle. Modern technology gives even very small countries the ability to build very destructive weapons. It is a real danger.
But if we want to combat that danger, Iraq is not the place to start. Israel has developed chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons of mass destruction, and that's something that really should worry the world. After all, Saddam may be a dictator, but he's never given any evidence of having the frighteningly dangerous combination of hair-trigger paranoia and delusions of grandeur that afflicts Israeli leaders. He hasn't been caught sending Iraqi agents into other countries to assassinate religious or political leaders with exotic biological or chemical weapons. But Israel's current prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been caught sending Israeli agents to do exactly that.
I don't know whether Mr. Netanyahu is a religious man or not, but all too many of his fellow Israelis are. Orthodox Jews wield the balance of power in Israel, and their religion teaches them explicitly that they are a "chosen people," that their tribal god chose them to rule over all the other peoples of the earth, that all the wealth of the Gentiles really belongs to the Jews, and that anyone who refuses to submit to Jewish rule should be killed. If you never learned that in Sunday School, find yourself a Bible and read the Book of Isaiah. I mean, really read it. Read it carefully. Think about its meaning. And then remind yourself that whacked-out, nutcase religious Jews who believe Isaiah's bloodthirsty, chauvinistic ravings -- believe them literally -- are in control of one of the world's largest arsenals of chemical and biological weapons.
If there's any situation which calls for a massive, preemptive military strike to safeguard the world from a madman using weapons of mass destruction, it's the situation in Israel today.
When was the last time you heard Mr. Clinton insisting that Israel should permit a UN inspection team to check for biological and chemical weapons in that country?
And certainly one cannot fall back on the excuse that it's only little countries which must not be permitted to have such weapons. Iraq has four times the population of Israel.
Let's review this conflict with Iraq objectively for a moment. America has no good reason to pick a fight with Iraq. Iraq poses no threat to us. Iraq wants nothing from us but to be left alone. Unlike Israel, Iraq has never even asked us for a handout.
In 1991 we bombed Baghdad and slaughtered more than 100,000 Iraqis because they had invaded Kuwait -- which in fact used to belong to them before it had been taken away during the colonial period. And then we imposed a crippling economic embargo on the defeated Iraqis -- an embargo which has caused the deaths of an estimated half-million Iraqi infants and children during the past six years and which is maintained because of Israeli insistence. So the Iraqis have plenty of reason to hate us now, but no reason to try to hurt us if we would just leave them alone. Iraqi interests lie in the Middle East and only in the Middle East.
The reason we are headed toward another war with Iraq is solely because of the influence of Jews on the government of the United States. It certainly isn't because we are concerned about Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction. If we were serious about that sort of thing we would have stopped Israel from developing its chemical, biological, and nuclear arsenal. The reason it's all right with our government for the Jews to have weapons of mass destruction but not all right for the Iraqis to have them is that the Jews control the news and entertainment media in the United States -- and thus wield effective control over the political process here -- and the Iraqis don't. And that's the only reason.
So let's cut out the baloney about the "rule of law" in international affairs or about the need to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of dangerous and unpredictable people. Weapons of mass destruction already are in the hands of dangerous and unpredictable people, and a lot more dangerous and unpredictable people will have them in the future.
And why is that? Why is the world faced with the very real threat that truly horrendous chemical or biological weapons will be used in the future?
Well, in the case of the Middle East, the reason is the policy that the United States government has had imposed on it by the Jewish minority here. Israel is the continuing sore point in that part of the world. It is Israel which first introduced weapons of mass destruction into the Middle East. And it is Israel's aggression, supported by the United States, which has put pressure on countries like Iraq to develop their own weapons of mass destruction. Any country which can develop them, any country which has the ability to develop them, will develop them if it feels threatened, because whether or not it's obvious to Americans, it's obvious to the rest of the world that there is no such thing as justice or a rule of law in international affairs. They've seen the way things have worked in the Middle East for the past 50 years. So let's not fool ourselves with the pretense that Saddam Hussein is some sort of crazy, power-mad gangster and we're the good guys working to maintain international security and prevent a catastrophe. We are the ones who brought about the introduction of weapons of mass destruction into the Middle East through our support of Israel. And we are the ones who caused the present crisis in the Middle East, again through our support of Israel.
And the solution to the present crisis is not to bomb Baghdad again or to try again to assassinate Iraq's president or to starve more Iraqi children by maintaining the embargo against Iraq. That's the policy that Mr. Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, is trying to persuade Iraq's neighbors to go along with, but fortunately they're not buying it. They're saying, "Listen, we want peace and stability in this region. We don't want weapons of mass destruction used here by anybody. And we'll support an effort to police Iraq -- if the United Nations at the same time will police Israel and force that country to surrender its weapons of mass destruction and to abide by UN resolutions."
That, of course, is completely unacceptable to the Jews, to the "chosen people," and so Madeleine Albright has been waddling from one Middle Eastern meeting to another during the past two weeks twisting the arms of everyone she can get her hooks into. She and her fellow Jews are determined to get rid of Saddam Hussein and cripple Iraq by any means necessary. As their hope of lining up the United Nations to do the job for them fades, they'll certainly be developing a scheme to get the United States to do it alone.
We can expect some sort of manufactured excuse for a U.S. assault on Iraq. Don't be surprised to hear on the news any day now about some sort of "provocation" by Iraq to justify the United States starting a new war. Perhaps the CIA will stir up some sort of insurrection in a part of Iraq where the U.S. government has told Saddam Hussein he's not permitted to send his troops, and when he moves to put down the insurrection the Clinton government will use that as its pretext for attacking.
As I mentioned, I predicted this 11 months ago. Of course, I didn't know what the details would be, but it was clear that the Jewish power structure was planning a new war. And of course, I don't know just how the present situation will develop. It is even possible that the lack of cooperation they are getting from other countries will persuade the Jews to back off temporarily, until they can apply more diplomatic and economic pressure to other UN members. But I doubt it. I'm expecting the war sooner rather than later, despite Mr. Clinton's big pretense of reluctance, his big pretense of wanting to bully Iraq into line by diplomacy rather than by military force. I don't know when it will come. I don't know how it will come. But I know that it's coming.
I'll make another prediction. We'll see the use of weapons of mass destruction sooner than anyone would like. All of the horror stories about the terrorist use of chemical and biological weapons the Jews have been publishing in the controlled mass media recently in an effort to drum up public support for a preemptive strike against Iraq will start coming true -- especially if the Clinton government does what the Jews are demanding and attacks Iraq.
Put yourself in the position of a patriotic Iraqi, or a religious Muslim, or any non-Jewish patriot in the Middle East. You hesitate to use chemical or biological weapons as long as there is any hope that justice will prevail without their use. But when you have given up all hope for justice, then you will do whatever you can. The suicide bombers who have been blowing themselves up in Israel to protest the lack of justice for Palestinians will be showing up in New York, Washington, Los Angeles, and Chicago. But they won't be using old-fashioned explosives. And the Muslim suicide teams who have been shooting up buses of tourists in Egypt to protest the Egyptian government's collaboration with the Great Satan will move their operations into the Great Satan itself, and they'll be using more than rifles and submachine guns.
It is coming, and many, many innocent people will die. It is coming because our government has let itself be controlled by Jews, because our government's policies have been based on what's good for the Jews and what's good for Israel rather than on what's good for Americans. And the Jews always, throughout history, have overreached themselves. They never have been content to mind their own business and take their own share and leave other people alone. Too may Jews really believe the ravings of Isaiah. They really believe that they can have it all, that they deserve it all, and that whatever they do in their greed to get it all is justified. That's why Mr. Clinton's horrid, little Jewess, Madeleine Albright, is continuing to try to pressure Iraq's neighbors into acquiescing in another war against that country.
In a way, perhaps it's a good thing that all of this is coming to a head now, like a boil that has been festering. We Americans have become far too complacent, far too comfortable, far too credulous, far too tolerant of evil and injustice and of encroachments against us by everyone else. When someone from the Middle East who has given up all hope of justice for his people pops a biological grenade in a New York subway tunnel or on the grounds of the Washington Monument or somewhere else in the United States, and thousands of our people start dying, some of those who have been too complacent and too tolerant will begin to change their attitudes.
Our task -- mine and yours -- is to do everything we can to ensure that our people also become less credulous, that they stop believing the lies of the mass media, that they begin understanding who is responsible for the catastrophe which is looming before them. Because certainly the Jews and their puppets in the Clinton government will try to place the blame elsewhere. Just as they blamed the Oklahoma City bombing on the militias and on patriots generally rather than on the government's atrocious behavior in the Waco massacre two years earlier, so they will blame the coming use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists on the enemies of the Jews instead of on the Jews themselves, whose policies caused the desperation which led to the terrorism.
Brainwashing Our Children
Last week a member of the organization I head, the National Alliance, sent me something his nine-year-old daughter had brought home from school. He lives in Macon, Georgia, and his daughter is a fourth grader at a private school there. Last week her class went on a field trip to visit a Black museum in Macon and learn a bit about Black history. The museum is the federally funded Tubman African American Museum. It's supported by our tax dollars.
It is named after Harriet Tubman, a Black slave who was employed by Abolitionist organizations in the North during the period just before the Civil War to induce other slaves in the South to leave their plantations and head north along the so-called "Underground Railroad." Sometimes she used a revolver to coax those who weren't sure they wanted to go. The White fourth graders visiting the museum got a little sermon about the wickedness of slavery and of White people for having imposed it on Blacks. They also had a lecture on the history and accomplishments of Negroes, and each was handed a sheet headed "African American Inventor's" (sic) listing 120 or so things supposedly invented by Blacks.
Here are the first six items on the list of Black inventions: the pyramids, paper, chess, the alphabet, medicine, and civilization.
After this start the rest of the list is a bit anticlimactic, with such items as the doorknob, the mop, the curtain rod, peanut butter, and the helicopter.
With the exception of peanut butter, which is generally credited to Black agricultural technician George Washington Carver, this list is so fantastic that most of us get a good chuckle when we read it.
But the really tragic part of this story is that, although these wild pipedreams about Blacks designing and architecting the pyramids, inventing the alphabet and the helicopter, and so on may be funny to us, they're not funny to White fourth graders. When a museum guide, even a Black guide, or their teacher tells them that Blacks invented paper, the alphabet, and civilization, they take it all very seriously. They believe it. My member's nine-year-old daughter believed it. She came home from school after the field trip and told her parents quite seriously that she had learned that Blacks had done just about everything worth doing in the development of our civilization, and she wondered why Whites hadn't done anything.
Now, that was not why my member was paying to send his daughter to a private school, and he was pretty steamed about this effort to brainwash her against her own race. And I'm steamed too. We all ought to be mad as hell. We all ought to be in the mood for getting out our rifles and beginning a general cleanup in America. Which, of course, is why the Jews, feminists, and liberals promoting this sort of brainwashing are so hot to get our guns away from us.
Before I talk further about the brainwashing campaign directed at our children, I want to make a few distinctions among the people involved in the campaign. First, it should be noted that the Blacks are as much victims of this campaign as Whites are -- even though many Blacks are involved in it. The childishly naive list of supposed Black inventions distributed by the Tubman African American Museum in Macon, Georgia, for example, is obviously a Black creation. One can understand the fascination this sort of thing has for most Blacks. Since they never developed an alphabet or writing when they were in Africa (contrary to the claims of the Tubman Museum), they had no written history at all before being brought to the White world as slaves. And the history they have acquired since then is a rather inglorious one. Many Blacks feel this shortcoming. Despite all of the assurances of White liberals that they are "equal," they don't really believe it. Deep inside them there is a nagging certainty of their inferiority, and they have clutched at straws in an effort to quell that nagging. Their fictitious Black history, with all its imagined great Black intellectual accomplishments, is one of those straws. Such straws would not be necessary if they were living in a society of their own. It is only when they try to become the "equals" of Whites in a White society that they feel inferior.
Anyone who encourages them to clutch such straws only postpones their coming to grips with the fact that they need their own society as much as we need ours. Thus, these people do them a disservice. And of course, the White schoolteacher of my member's nine-year-old daughter who did nothing to refute the Tubman Museum's claims also is one who does such a disservice. I do not know this schoolteacher myself, but it's a pretty good bet that, like most of her colleagues, she is simply going with the flow of Political Correctness. She understands that Blacks didn't invent writing or the helicopter or even the doorknob, but she feels that it would not be polite to say so. It might even be considered -- heaven forbid -- racist, so she keeps her mouth shut and lets her students be brainwashed.
She is not consciously malevolent. She doesn't really want to misinform her students or rob them of their culture and racial pride. But she is so deficient in her understanding of her responsibility as a teacher that she would be better fitted to cleaning latrines for a living than teaching our children. And unfortunately that is true of most White teachers today. They go with the flow rather than teaching the truth. They fail to speak out against lies whenever the Politically Correct thing to do is keep their mouths shut instead. They are no worse than the average White American -- but also no better.
The people that we really ought to be looking for when we get our guns out are the people who consciously and deliberately promote the brainwashing, the people who want to make White schoolchildren feel guilty because their White ancestors enslaved the wonderfully inventive and creative Black race. These are people who consciously and deliberately aim at making Whites feel that they owe something to Blacks, people who aim at making Whites feel that they are bad if they identify with other Whites and don't want to associate with Blacks, intermarry with Blacks, or have their children go to school with Blacks.
One of the people with such aims is the current President of the United States, who is running around the country holding meetings and telling White people that they must overcome their natural racial instincts and mix more with Blacks and not object to the government giving special advantages to Blacks. I saw this piece of filth at a carefully staged "town meeting" in Akron, Ohio. White members of the audience were being encouraged to confess their racial sins in public. One young White man arose and confessed that he felt uneasy when he encountered a Black on the street who was "poorly dressed." Mr. Clinton congratulated the young White man for having the courage to make this confession and implied that all Whites needed to suppress their feelings of uneasiness around Blacks, that it is sinful of us to have such feelings, and that we ought to regard Blacks just the way we do our fellow Whites.
Another of these people who consciously wish to harm Whites is one of the richest Jews in Hollywood, Steven Spielberg.
Spielberg has just produced a new film, Amistad, which purports to tell the historical story of a group of Black slaves who managed to get the drop on the White crew of a ship which was transporting them from Havana, Cuba, in 1839. After the Blacks had taken over the ship they cut the throats of all but two of their White prisoners. Then they were captured by the U.S. Coast Guard and put on trial. Abolitionist groups hired some high-powered lawyers to defend the Blacks, and eventually they were freed after a New York trial in which North-South politics played a much larger role than law and justice.
Any historical incident, of course, may be a suitable subject for a movie. History, however, is not Mr. Spielberg's interest. His interest is in portraying Blacks as noble and heroic and unjustly treated by Whites. His aim is the same as that of the other media bosses in Hollywood and New York. It is to brainwash White people and undermine their resistance to racial mixing in America. It is to instill a subconscious feeling of guilt in White people who see his film, a feeling that they are evil if they resist giving Blacks whatever they want. Spielberg's Amistad is trying to do, in its glitzy, Jewish, Hollywood way what Mr. Clinton is doing in his phony-folksy way with his interracial town meetings and public confessions.
And while Mr. Spielberg and Mr. Clinton carry on their brainwashing campaign, many of Mr. Spielberg's kinsmen in the media are subtly pushing the idea that White America should issue a collective apology to Blacks and offer them monetary compensation because their ancestors were slaves. Mr. Clinton has said that he hasn't yet made up his mind about an apology. He may want to give the Jewish media bosses a little more time to brainwash his White constituents into going along with the idea.
If any apology is owed, it is an apology to White Americans today from the very small percentage of our ancestors who were in the business of running plantations in the pre-Civil War South and whose desire for slave labor inflicted the Black presence on us. It really is a shame that all of the original North American colonies didn't have the sort of geography and climate which existed in New England, where giant cotton, sugar cane, and tobacco plantations just weren't feasible, and the farms were worked by the families which owned them instead of by Black slaves.
Most of the Southern plantation owners were decent people; they just weren't foresighted enough. They let immediate economic necessities dictate their behavior rather than long-range considerations of what was good for their people and for America. For their plantations to be prosperous, they needed slave labor. But if they could have looked two or three centuries into the future and seen the havoc wreaked on our cities and on American society by the descendants of their slaves, I think many of them would have sent their slaves back to Africa, given up the plantation business, and gone into another line of work.
I've said this before, but I'll say it again now: Whites didn't enslave Blacks -- ever. What Whites did was make the mistake buying Black slaves from other Blacks who had enslaved them and then bringing their merchandise to this country. That was a terrible mistake, and we should rectify it at once by sending back to Africa all of the descendants of those slaves we bought. We shouldn't even charge them for the time they spent here, which was a much more pleasant time than they would have spent in Africa, and which has been a very expensive time indeed for us.
And I think we should send Mr. Clinton and Mr. Spielberg with them. The Blacks voted for Mr. Clinton here; maybe they'd like to vote for him in Africa. He can run around making campaign speeches at the dedication of all sorts of new Harriet Tubman Museums, which will be able to do a lot less damage with their imaginative lists of Black inventions over there than over here.
And maybe they will appreciate Mr. Spielberg making propaganda films in Africa. He can make a film about the African invention of the doorknob, for example. He can depict brilliant Black scientists laboring in their laboratories to develop the doorknob while vicious, scheming Whites plot to steal this invention from them. That film ought to be a big hit in Senegal, Guinea, and the Ivory Coast.
Really, this is no joking matter. The brainwashing of our children is a fighting matter. White children in public and private schools all over America are being indoctrinated and lied to about racial matters. Most of the lies are not as naively concocted as those distributed by the Tubman African American Museum, but they are all the more dangerous for being more sophisticated. The lies come in many forms. Some of them are in the form of Politically Correct textbooks and Politically Correct history lessons. Others are in the form of popular entertainment, such as Steven Spielberg's Amistad, and just about any TV show you can name. Some are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and compassion of the sort the whole country is being subjected to in Mr. Clinton's racial-togetherness program.
This is a fighting matter, because the aim of this brainwashing is nothing less than our physical destruction as a people, nothing less than our annihilation as a race. It is designed to sap our will to resist the racially destructive programs which have been imposed on us during the past 50 years. It is designed to make us feel guilty if we hesitate to go along with our own destruction. It is designed to rob us of our racial consciousness, our culture, our racial roots. It is designed to make racial suicide and racial treason trendy and fashionable.
And it is working. It is having the intended effect. Being anti-White is the Politically Correct attitude in most of our universities today. Welcoming the impending demise of Whites everywhere and the inheritance of the earth by the colored hordes of the Third World is fashionable among White students. Supporting this fashion are the sort of erroneous ideas being promoted in Black history courses and mass entertainment a la Spielberg: ideas that all races are essentially equal intellectually and morally, that they all have equal civilization building potential. The fact that the Blacks have never built a civilization is only proof that they have been held down by White racism. The fact that the Black crime rate is about ten times the White rate and the fact that Blacks do so poorly on IQ tests are also due to White racism. When the Whites are gone -- or at least so outnumbered that they can't run the show -- all the races will get along fine, they all will be able to show their full potential, and everyone will live happily ever after.
This is the kind of muddled thinking that Mr. Clinton is encouraging with his current campaign for racial togetherness. And anyone who raises his voice against this brainwashing campaign or the lethally fashionable attitudes on race it has fostered is routinely denounced by Mr. Spielberg's Jewish media colleagues as a "hater." That's the way they talk about me. Mr. Clinton then calls for new legislation to outlaw hate. And the trendy airheads at our universities applaud.
"Yes, yes, let's outlaw the hate. Let's have love and brotherhood and peace. Peace between the races," they cry. But there is no peace. Look at our cities and our schools today. There is no peace. If there were peace Mr. Clinton would not have an excuse for his present campaign of chicanery and fraud about racial togetherness.
And is it my fault that there is no peace? I did not make the policies which have brought about the present situation. I have not sponsored the policies which have brought us the crime, disorder, fear, and hatred which characterize racial relations in the United States today. Those policies are the work of Mr. Spielberg's kinsmen and of the corrupt politicians like Mr. Clinton who have adopted those policies in return for media support. They are the ones who have brought so much hatred and unhappiness to our society.
The one thing that will quell that hatred and disorder and give people hope again is racial separation. And racial separation is what we will have. We will put an end to the brainwashing and the lies. We will have an America in which no little White girl is ever again taught the destructive lies my member's nine-year-old daughter was taught in Macon, Georgia. And Mr. Clinton and Mr. Spielberg be damned.
What Is a Patriot to Do?
Perhaps you have heard about the decision of the New Orleans school board last month to change the name of one of the city's schools, George Washington Elementary School, to Charles Richard Drew Elementary School: a decision which has been applauded by all the usual suspects.
Charles Drew was a man of mixed race -- slightly mixed anyway, approximately an octoroon, judging by his appearance -- who, working under the direction of a White professor at Columbia University just before the Second World War, helped in the development of new methods for preserving and storing blood and blood components. In 1940 he was appointed the head of a "Blood for Britain" program to ship dried blood from the United States to Britain. Although Drew certainly deserves credit for his work in the blood-bank field, groups searching desperately for non-White achievers to hold up as "proofs" of racial equality have made a bit too much of his accomplishments and a bit too much of his supposed Blackness. They have unabashedly proclaimed him a "Black man," when he actually was seven-eighths or more White.
Changing the name of that elementary school in New Orleans last month wasn't based on a decision that Drew's accomplishments were more deserving of recognition than Washington's, of course. It was based on the fact that Charles Drew has been represented in "Black history" curricula as Black, and George Washington was indisputably White. Actually, the specific reason given for the name change was that George Washington owned Black slaves, and that makes him an unsuitable person to hold up as a role model for elementary school students. You see, the fact that Washington owned Black slaves means that he wasn't an egalitarian; he didn't believe in racial equality. He was, therefore, a -- dare I say it -- a racist. So certainly we don't want schools named after him. That might make the kiddies think that we approve of racism.
Now, people with a democratic turn of mind might try to excuse Washington's racism by pointing out that in his day everyone was a racist. One could be a racist and still belong to the country club. Indeed, one could hardly belong to the country club without being a racist. Everyone of quality, of intelligence, of accomplishment was a racist. So, you see, Washington wasn't such a bad person after all, if he was just going with the flow.
But that democratic excuse doesn't hold any water for today's egalitarian zealots, who otherwise are such great admirers of everything democratic. Their response is: Yes, yes. They all were racists! The memory of all of them should be blotted out!
And that's what they have been doing these past few decades. They have been rewriting the history books and revising the school curricula to put these racist ancestors of ours in their proper place, as the moral inferiors of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, and as the intellectual inferiors of Charles Drew and George Washington Carver, the great Black inventor of peanut butter (despite his parents' lack of sensitivity in choosing his name).
And now the time has come to wipe out the last visible symbols of these wicked ancestors of ours. The time has come to make it perfectly clear to everyone that we definitely do not approve of them, and so they must be stripped of their honors. Their names and images must be removed from public sight. The zealots have been changing the names of boulevards, schools, and buildings during the past few years. And doing it rather quietly for the most part, trying not to rouse any opposition. Patrick Henry Boulevard has become Martin Luther King Boulevard. Robert E. Lee High School has become Frederick Douglass High School. Twenty-two schools in New Orleans alone have had their names changed during the past five years for reasons of Political Correctness. And now George Washington Elementary School has become Charles Richard Drew Elementary School.
And where is the opposition? Where is it? Of course, the mass media have not been making too much noise about this business of changing names, and so the couch potatoes have not even looked up from their ball games and situation comedies. There has been a little twittering among some conservative Americans. One or two newspaper columnists who cater to conservative readers have expressed a whiff of polite indignation: not too much, of course; they don't want anyone to think that they are racists.
That must have been the thinking of the White members of the New Orleans school board. It's true that they were outnumbered by the Black majority on the school board. Blacks are becoming the majorities on the school boards of all too many of our cities. But the vote to scrap the memory of George Washington because he was a racist was unanimous. The White school board members, good democrats all, voted with the Black members. Certainly, they didn't want to vote against the Blacks and let people suspect them of being racists. They remind me of the Whites on the O.J. Simpson jury.
And so now the zealots may proceed with their campaign, considerably emboldened by the lack of resistance. They may proceed with the destruction of our past. We have tacitly given them our permission. And the real aim of their campaign is the destruction of our future. When we no longer honor our great and noble ancestors, when we no longer care about them, when we no longer even remember them, then we have no future. Then our race will become extinct, and other races will inherit the earth.
That is the real aim behind this campaign to rename our schools and other institutions. And how long do you think it will be before most White kids have no idea who George Washington was, or Patrick Henry?
The feminists, the homosexuals, the Jews, and their collaborators can hardly wait. They hate our great and noble ancestors, because those ancestors rejected them and everything that they stand for.
Do you think that George Washington would have smiled politely if he had encountered a couple of homosexuals holding hands and kissing each other in his favorite tavern? Do you think he would have remained politely silent if feminists and Jews were openly pushing the sort of socially destructive programs in his day that they have been pushing in ours? Do you think he would have socialized with someone like Bill Clinton? And of course, on top of all that he was a racist, and so they can enlist the support of the Blacks in their campaign to blot out our past and our future. Do you think that I make too much of this Clintonista program to rename our public schools? Am I justified in seeing a serious plan on the part of our enemies to destroy our children's memory of their ancestors, just because they're renaming all the schools and other public places which now carry the names of White racists? Is this really something we ought to take seriously, something which merits our contemplating serious action in response?
Yes, it is something we must take seriously. It is part of a larger plan to destroy our people. It is a plan which has been going on for decades now, but has been greatly speeded up in the Clinton era. It is a plan with many separate programs, and the changing of the names of schools is only one of those programs. The overall plan is to destroy everything in our society which ties us to our history, to our traditions, to our values, to our racial identity. Our concepts of personal honor, of propriety, of right and wrong also are under attack. And the people who are behind this plan, the Jews and their collaborators, have never had a better opportunity to push it forward than now, when they have a piece of filth in the White House who respects nothing, who honors nothing, who values nothing beyond himself, a true child of the 1960s, a genuine narcissist, a real smart- ass who believes that he can get away with anything and is willing to try anything as long as the media Jews will cover for him.
Clinton's unrelenting attacks on America's armed forces ever since he came into office are based in large part on the tradition of honor associated with the military. That's what makes them so hateful to the Clintonistas. Clinton first tried to force the armed forces to accept homosexuals. He then appointed anti-military bureaucrats to oversee the armed forces and implement every program they could to destroy military morale and spirit.
Just a few days ago one of those bureaucrats, a feminist lawyer he appointed to the post of assistant secretary of the Army, Sara Lister, publicly denounced the U.S. Marines as "extremists," because their concepts of honor and tradition are a bit stronger than those of the other armed forces. She sneeringly referred to the Marines' "checkerboard fancy uniforms and stuff" as one of the things which makes them "extremists," one of the things which has to go in order to make good, Politically Correct democrats out of the Marines.
Pardon my language, but how much of this kind of crap does it take to accomplish what these filthy animals are trying to accomplish? Sara Lister got the boot when her denunciation of the Marines evoked an angry response from too many people, but thousands of people like her remain in the Clinton government and what they are doing is corrosive. It is destructive. Any nation, any people, which puts up with it is on the way out.
Ms. Lister, by the way, was the one Bill Clinton had in charge of doling out burial lots at Arlington National Cemetery to people with the right connections.
What is a patriot to do about this situation? What is a member of the small minority of White Americans who are perceptive and able to think for themselves -- a member of the small minority still able to entertain an undemocratic thought -- what is he to do when he understands what the enemies of his people are up to and when he contemplates the timidity of most of his fellows and the opportunistic collaboration of many others with those enemies? It is a discouraging prospect, indeed. One can sympathize with those who lash out violently against this situation. One can understand and sympathize with their anger and frustration, even if one does not agree with their tactics. One can even understand the Islamic fundamentalists who denounce America as the "Great Satan" and regard this country as a danger to the whole world. We don't have to accept Islam to agree with them that American society has become dangerously pathological. A self-destructive society which has aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons is a danger to everyone.
Many people have written to me and have told me that they agree with my analysis of the situation in America and that they share my values and my concerns. But they also have been much more pessimistic than I am. They tell me, "We have waited too long to take action. It is too late to save this country now. Just look at the numbers. Look at how many Blacks there are in our cities. Look at how many Mexicans and Asians already are in our country, and millions more are coming in every year. If we try to straighten things out it will become a bloody mess, and millions of our own people will be killed. Besides, there's no way we can unite our people for such a struggle, because the Jewish grip on the media is too strong." And so they do nothing.
The people who tell me these things are not stupid. I cannot dispute their facts. I cannot dispute their numbers. I am sure that they are correct about things becoming a bloody mess in America. I agree with them that it will be very difficult to organize our people while the Jews still have almost a total monopoly on the media of communication. I agree with them that the hour is very late indeed. But I do not believe that it is too late to do anything. I do not believe that we must sit on our hands and watch our enemies destroy our future.
Try to look at our situation from a historical perspective. Think of what's at stake here. It's not a question of either preserving the peace or causing bloody chaos. It is a question of existence or non-existence.
Think of the long course of development of our civilization, from the ancient Greeks and Romans up to the present. More than that, think of the uncounted millennia of prehistoric development of our people, the millions of years of separate evolution, through Ice Age after Ice Age, that made us what we are. Think of all of the great and noble souls that have belonged to our people, the great poets and philosophers and leaders that we know about as well as all the ones we can't know about because they lived during the prehistoric era. Think about all of their aspirations through the ages. Think about their struggles and sacrifices, so that their generation could survive and give birth to the next.
Think about the horrors and suffering that they endured over the millennia. Think about the invasions of the Huns, the Avars, the Moors, and the Mongols. Think about the Indian Wars and the scalping parties our American ancestors endured. We owe everything we have to them. It is our responsibility to pass on to the next generation what these earlier generations have given to us, no matter what it takes, not to wring our hands and moan that it is too late.
Certainly, there may be bloody chaos if we resist the Jews and their collaborators. Certainly, millions of our own people may die in the chaos, but it hardly can be worse than what our ancestors already have endured. It hardly can be worse than the bloody chaos our Celtic ancestors endured when Caesar's army, acting for an already decadent Rome, devastated their homeland, destroyed their cities and villages, butchered their men, and carried their women off into slavery. It hardly can be worse than the bloody chaos our Germanic ancestors endured when the Huns invaded Europe more than 1500 years ago. It hardly can be worse than the bloody chaos the Russian and Ukrainian people suffered during the Mongol invasions of the Middle Ages. It hardly can be worse than the bloody chaos that Jewish Bolshevism inflicted on our people in Europe in this century, a chaos in which millions of our best people were murdered or worked to death in forced-labor camps simply because they were the best and therefore the most hated by the enemies of our people.
Yes, the great cleansing which must come may destroy millions of our own people, the innocent along with the guilty, the good along with the bad. And the longer we wait, the more it will destroy. But eventually it must come, because otherwise our whole people will die, and everything that has gone before as well as everything that might come in the future will be lost forever. The great cleansing must come, and we must do whatever it takes to ensure that it does, so that our people will live.
And we should not flinch from this. We should not focus on the fact that it will be horrible and bloody, but on the fact that it is necessary, and because it is necessary it is good. And because it is something which should come soon, it should be looked upon as a great challenge and a great opportunity for those of our people who are in their twenties or their thirties now.
They will have a greater opportunity to serve their people, to serve the future with great and noble deeds, than almost any generation which has come before. There will be many heroes, many who will be remembered as the saviors of their people to the ending of the world.
The White Farmers of Zimbabwe
A year ago, just after Mr. Clinton had rented out the bedrooms in the White House often enough, had sold enough cemetery plots in Arlington National Cemetery, and had raked in enough well- laundered cash from Buddhist nuns and Chinese gangsters to get himself re-elected, he appointed an all-Jewish national security and foreign policy team to his cabinet. One member of this team claimed to have discovered that she is a Jewess only after she had been appointed secretary of state. Perhaps the idea behind that little ploy was to convince the American public that Mr. Clinton hadn't realized he was appointing all Jews to the most important positions in his cabinet. Perhaps it was intended to fool the voters into believing that the President was free to appoint a Gentile to the top foreign policy position if he wanted to, and that he thought he had appointed a Gentile as secretary of state.
Madeleine Albright's Jewishness would have become public knowledge anyway, because everyone but the voters already knew she was a Jewess, so why not make it seem like a big surprise to Mr. Clinton and throw the public off the scent?
Now the Jewish foreign policy of the United States is out in the open for everyone to see. That policy, in brief, is to bully the whole world into line with Jewish interests, to make the whole world subservient to Jewish desires. It is to destroy national sovereignty wherever it exists and subordinate national wills to the United Nations, to the New World Order.
More specifically, the Jewish policy in the Middle East has been to cripple or destroy any country which might stand up to Israel and block that country's continued expansion. That's why Iraqi children continue to die from malnutrition and lack of medicine as the United Nations continues the embargo against Iraq. The policy elsewhere in the world is to force democracy on every country, because democratic governments are more easily manipulated and controlled. They are subject to whoever controls the mass media and thereby the attitudes and opinions of the voters.
Unless Iraq needs her further ministrations, Mrs. Albright will be off to Africa this month to bully and bribe the various Black-ruled countries there into line. She will tell them that unless they want to receive the Iraq treatment they had better become more democratic. She will be taking this message to Ethiopia, Rwanda, Uganda, the Congo, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. There will be much blather about human rights for the sake of the gullible TV-watching public back in the United States.
One group whose human rights Mrs. Albright certainly will not be making much noise about when she is in Zimbabwe, however, will be the White farmers of Zimbabwe. Their land is scheduled to be seized by the government and given to Blacks. If you remember, Zimbabwe used to be Rhodesia, and Rhodesia and South Africa were the only two civilized countries, the only two White countries, in sub-Saharan Africa. When the former British Empire, during its period of crazed self-dismemberment after the Second World War, tried to turn what had been the self- ruling colony of Southern Rhodesia over to Black rule, the White colonists who had built the colony out of the jungle declared their independence and called their new country Rhodesia. That was 32 years ago, in 1965. The United Nations, prompted by Britain and the United States, immediately applied pressure to force the White Rhodesians to submit themselves to Black rule. The White Rhodesians, outnumbered by more than 20 to one by Black savages, held out against Black terrorist attacks and a United Nations embargo and continued to flourish. The Jews in the United States and Britain used their control of the mass media to pour a torrent of unremitting hatred on the White Rhodesians. It became absolutely the trendiest thing on university campuses for students and faculty to express their commitment to feel-good egalitarianism by demonstrating against White Rhodesians and White South Africans and calling for their universities to sell any investments in companies still doing business in those countries.
Christian organizations followed the lead and sent money to Black terrorist groups fighting to overthrow the Rhodesian government. This led to an ironic sort of justice, when the Black terrorists began butchering the White volunteers in the numerous mission schools the churches had set up in Rhodesia earlier, simply because these mission schools were the easiest and safest White targets for the Black terrorists. Eventually, in 1976, a treacherous government in South Africa tried to gain favor with the Jews and take some of the international pressure off itself by throwing Rhodesia to the wolves.
South Africa had been Rhodesia's principal trading partner and her only source of new arms, especially helicopters, since the UN embargo effectively cut her off from the rest of the world. Even after the South African government cut off the supply of arms, Rhodesians kept up the fight to maintain their independence and hold the Black terrorists at bay, however.
What finally destroyed Rhodesia was the same thing which later destroyed South Africa, and that was moral failure on the part of the White population. White Rhodesians were under unremitting attack by the controlled media everywhere, and to a lesser extent by the Christian churches. But the Rhodesians failed to come to grips with this. White Rhodesians needed to make a complete mental and spiritual break with the world of their enemies. They needed to set themselves against everything their enemies stood for.
But they never dealt with the Jews and with the most treacherous elements in the Christian churches as enemies. Instead they kept trying to ingratiate themselves with their enemies. They wanted to be accepted by their enemies. They wanted to be treated as "good people" by the Jewish media instead of as evil White racists. They were desperate to be fashionable again. They wanted to be loved by their enemies. They believed much of their enemies' propaganda against them. They accepted, or felt obligated to pretend to accept, the ideological premises of racial equality and democracy. They denied that they were "racists." And eventually, in 1979, their morale completely undermined by the enemies' propaganda, they voted to turn their country over to the Black terrorists against whom they had been fighting quite successfully.
With the blessings of the United Nations, the Jewish media, and the churches, the rule of the country was taken over by one of the Black terrorist leaders, Robert Mugabe, in 1980. The presidency was formally given to a Black cleric named, believe it or not, Canaan Banana. Later terrorist leader Mugabe decided he could dispense with this formality and had the powers of the presidency vested in himself, after Banana had disgraced himself by his flagrant homosexual behavior, which included the homosexual rape of one of the policemen assigned to guard the presidential palace.
And for the last 17 years the Whites of Rhodesia, which was renamed "Zimbabwe," tried to go on about their business of running their farms and hoping that the promises of the Black government to respect their rights could be trusted. Now they've found out that their hopes were in vain. Mugabe has designated approximately half of all the farmland in Zimbabwe owned by White farmers for seizure by his government without compensation. The White farms then will be divided up and given to former members of his terrorist army in return for their continued political support. The Whites, of course, are quite distressed by this. Most of them have lived in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe all their lives, and everything they have is in their farms. They will be financially ruined by Mugabe's planned "ethnic cleansing" of Zimbabwe's farmland and will have nowhere to go. Their laments have been largely ignored by the rest of the world, because they are members of a Politically Incorrect race. And, of course, the controlled media in Britain and the United States have been conspicuously quiet about this mass confiscation.
About the only concern in the West seems to be over the likelihood that in taking the White farms Mugabe will hurt Black Zimbabweans even more than he is hurting the White farmers. Mugabe's move is very popular among Blacks, of course, who have long resented the fact that Zimbabwe's tiny White minority owns half of all the good farmland in the country. But the White-owned farms have been producing virtually all of Zimbabwe's agricultural output and keeping a substantial portion of the country's Blacks employed as farm workers. The half of the country's farmland currently owned by Blacks is used only for subsistence farming and contributes nothing to the national economy. By taking half of the White farmland and giving it to Blacks, Mugabe will be effectively cutting the gross national product of Zimbabwe in half and putting about 200,000 Black farm workers out of work, amounting to about one out of every eight Blacks currently holding a paying job of any sort in Zimbabwe.
Furthermore, the prospects for foreign investment in Zimbabwe will be considerably dimmed by the confiscation. The prospects for the 1500 or so White farmers allowed to keep their farms (temporarily) are also not good. Many of them will also leave the country. The present confiscation should teach them what they should have understood from the first: namely, that in the long run it is not feasible for Whites to lead a normal, healthy, productive life under Black rule.
The dilemma for the White liberals in Britain and America is that they want very much for countries like Zimbabwe to be successful and prosperous. They want Zimbabwe to be a proof to the world that a Black-ruled country can be stable and viable. They need this to prop up their claims of racial equality. And they understand that if Mugabe kicks out his tiny minority of White farmers, Zimbabwe's economy will collapse. They understand it, but they can't admit it publicly. I mean, how does that look: a country of 11 million Blacks being propped up by the activity of just 3,000 White farmers? The liberals and the Jews know that if the land of those White farmers is given to Blacks, the land no longer will be productive, and the country's economy will collapse. They know that the Blacks simply will not be able to run the farms efficiently and productively. They know it, but they dare not admit it. So this is what Mrs. Albright will do: she will try to persuade Mugabe, quietly and privately, to hold off on his confiscation of White farms. She probably won't succeed in that because Mugabe is already fully committed to the confiscation, and if he changed his mind now he might face a revolution from his disappointed followers. So next Mrs. Albright will promise to bail out the Zimbabwean economy with U.S. foreign aid. The U.S. taxpayers will keep Mugabe propped up after the White farmers of Zimbabwe have been kicked out. But Mugabe will have to promise Mrs. Albright that in return for the U.S. aid he will allow his government to be a little more democratic and a little more responsive to directives from the United Nations.
That's the way things were done back during the Cold War, when American taxpayers supported dozens of non-viable little Third World outfits posing as "countries" in order to keep them from collaborating with the Soviet Union. Now the same racket is being used to bribe into line with the New World Order those countries which can't be bullied into line.
The really clever thing about Mrs. Albright's racket is that it compels us to finance our own destruction. Most of the American taxpayers who will be taxed to keep Mugabe's Zimbabwe afloat with U.S. foreign aid will believe that, much as they dislike paying taxes, foreign aid is a necessary thing, because it makes the world safer and more stable. The United Nations, they believe, is a good thing, because it helps prevent wars. They don't stop to think that it was United Nations policy which caused the present situation in Zimbabwe. It was United Nations pressure and hostility, it was the United Nations embargo, which helped persuade the White Rhodesians to surrender their country to Mugabe and his terrorists in 1979. No matter how much United Nations spokesmen may protest that they didn't intend for things to work out this way, it was United Nations policy which has led to the dispossession of the White farmers of Zimbabwe and the resultant need to prop that country up economically. White Rhodesia never needed a handout from anyone.
Now the Whites of Rhodesia are being destroyed, and we, the White taxpayers of America will pay for the consequences of this. And Mrs. Albright and her devious clan will continue their manipulations, supposedly to make the world a safer place for democracy, but actually to make a basket case out of the world so that it can be more easily controlled.
Let me give you an important hint: When trying to understand what the Jews are up to, you look at what they are doing and what they have done; you don't listen to what they tell you they plan to do. You don't let yourself be distracted by the patter and the hand-waving; you keep your eye on the shell which has the pea under it. You don't let yourself be fooled by all of the blather about "democracy" and "human rights" and "international security." You just keep your mind on the fact that United Nations policies always have resulted in our people being killed or dispossessed, with the Rhodesians being merely one example of this. Also remember that when a country like Iraq ignores United Nations directives, we go to war to make it obey, and to punish it for its independence we enforce embargoes which result in hundreds of thousands of its children dying. But when Israel ignores United Nations directives, nothing happens. Absolutely nothing. Understand?
And I'll give you another hint: the Jews aren't able to get away with leading the world around by the nose because they're better looking than we are, or because they can talk faster. It's not even because they're smarter than we are -- and they are fairly smart, on the average. No, the reason they were able to persuade Mr. Clinton to choose an all-Jewish foreign policy team is because they are better organized than we are; they know how to act as a group. The reason they are able to use the United Nations for their own ends is that they know what those ends are. They know what they want as a people and they are organized as a people for getting it. They are able to use their control of the mass media to promote their interests as a people because they are able to subordinate their private interests as individual businessmen to their group interests as Jews.
Keep that in mind as the news reports come in from Africa about Mrs. Albright's diplomatic mission there.
There is only one way we can beat this racket, and that's for us to begin thinking about our own interests as a people and putting those collective interests, those racial interests, ahead of our private interests. We must learn to be as concerned about the interests of our people in Rhodesia as anywhere else in the world. And we must discipline ourselves as a people, so that when the Jews begin using their media to persuade the trendy airheads among us to demonstrate against any segment of our people, as they organized them against the White Rhodesians and the White South Africans, we have the means to knock some sense into the airheads. We must have the discipline to act as a people and to keep any selfish or foolish segment of our people from collaborating with our enemies with impunity.
And finally, we must use our collective strength to build our own mass media, our own means for communicating with our own people, instead of permitting the Jews to maintain their virtual monopoly of the media and to continue to mislead and confuse our people.
That's what Free Speech is all about. It is a start toward getting our media back into our hands.
The Criminal in the White House
In my broadcast three weeks ago I referred briefly to Mr. Clinton's sale of plots in Arlington National Cemetery to his friends and supporters. I didn't go into detail, because I hoped that the controlled media would cover this particular scandal. I've always considered my job to be covering the subjects that the controlled media refuse to cover.
Well, I've waited three weeks, and although there has been a little news released on this subject, it's been nowhere near enough. They briefly mentioned the especially shocking case of Larry Lawrence, and now it looks as if they're going to drop the subject and hope that the public forgets about it. So let me remind you of the details of the Larry Lawrence case. He was a filthy- rich Jewish real estate developer, with $300 million in the bank, who died of cancer in January 1996, at the age of 69. During the Second World War Lawrence had dodged the draft, just as Bill Clinton did during the Vietnam war. Much of Lawrence's real estate was in San Diego, however. And San Diego -- at least White, non-Mexican, San Diego -- is a military town.
Lawrence was rankled by the fact that he could not break into San Diego's good society, no matter how much money he accumulated. The reason was undoubtedly Lawrence's extraordinarily loud and pushy Jewishness. Even his best friends describe him as exceptionally obnoxious. But Lawrence thought that the problem was his lack of military service, so he invented a war record for himself. He claimed he had served in the merchant marine during the Second World War and had been seriously wounded when his ship was torpedoed. He also gave lots of money to the Democratic Party: $10 million altogether. He gave $200,000 specifically to get Bill Clinton elected in 1992.
That got him all the invitations to the White House he wanted. And he reciprocated by inviting the Clintons to lavish parties at his San Diego mansion. He and Bill Clinton became bosom buddies. And when the end began approaching in 1995, Lawrence decided that he deserved to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery, alongside America's military heroes. His donations to the Clinton campaign entitled him to it. That, he thought, would show those stuffy admirals in San Diego who had never accepted him socially.
Mr. Clinton agreed that his fellow draft-dodger had paid enough to his election campaign to earn himself a place in Arlington National Cemetery. Now, the Army, which has charge of the cemetery, checks the credentials of people who want to be buried there. They checked Lawrence's claims of World War Two service and found no record of him at all. They told that to the State Department, but the State Department is very heavily staffed with Larry Lawrence's fellow tribesmen, and they told the Army to try again to find some grounds for burying Lawrence in Arlington National Cemetery. The Army, which just didn't get it, checked all of Lawrence's claims again and reported to Lawrence's kinsmen in the State Department a second time that they could find no record of military service for Lawrence. Exasperated at the Army's obtuseness and lack of sensitivity in the matter, Lawrence's Jewish kinsman Richard Holbrooke, who was assistant secretary of state at the time, wrote a letter to the White House praising Lawrence and saying that a burial for him at Arlington National Cemetery would be appropriate. That was what Bill Clinton was waiting to hear, and he presided over Lawrence's burial at Arlington National Cemetery himself and delivered the eulogy personally. And the matter would have rested there, like so many other pieces of official crookedness, had not a few Republicans in the Congress got wind of the matter, dug up the facts, and begun publicizing them. Since then a few newspapers have reported the Lawrence affair, but they have been quite restrained in their comments. They seem to be a bit embarrassed about it, and one gets the impression that they are hoping that the public interest in it will fade soon. And Lawrence's family and the government have quietly, but very hastily, yanked his remains and his elaborate tombstone, complete with its Star of David, from the cemetery. The Jews, perhaps realizing the potential for causing themselves real damage, have been uncharacteristically discreet in this matter, carefully avoiding the usual screeching about "anti-Semitism."
Mr. Clinton, naturally, professes both ignorance and innocence in the matter. He didn't know his Jewish friend and financial supporter was a draft-dodger who had invented a war record for himself, he says. Mr. Clinton also has professed complete ignorance of the organized crime connections of another of his rich Jewish supporters, Vadim Rabinovich. Rabinovich, who is a member of the Jewish mafia in the former Soviet Union, is supposed to be excluded from entry to the United States because of his criminal connections. Somehow the State Department failed to keep him out, and in 1995 he was photographed shaking hands with Clinton at a Democratic Party fundraiser in Miami. When the matter was brought to the attention of the news media this month, Rabinovich was described by the media as "a Ukrainian businessman." No mention at all was made of his Jewishness.
Why don't you ask some of your Ukrainian friends whether or not Rabinovich is a typical Ukrainian name? The same deceit and crookedness are at work here which lead the controlled media always to refer to "the Russian mafia" or "Russian mobsters" and never to mention the word "Jew" in connection with the growing presence of Jewish organized crime both here and in the former Soviet Union.
Anyway, as I said, Mr. Clinton now claims he didn't know his Jewish supporter Rabinovich is a gangster who wasn't even supposed to be in the United States. Nobody told him, he says. Mr. Clinton also claims not to have known that his closest friend and biggest supporter in Arkansas, Dan Lasater, was a cocaine dealer, a gangster, and a pimp. He also claims not to have known that his own brother Roger was dealing cocaine right out of the governor's mansion in Little Rock when Clinton was the governor of Arkansas. We would not have known about the activities of either Lasater or Clinton's brother, had they not both been convicted of drug dealing and sent to prison. And we would not have known about Larry Lawrence's fraud or Mr. Clinton's support by the Jewish mafia in Ukraine and Russia, had not a few of Clinton's Republican opponents, with the resources as well as the motive to dig out the facts, exposed them. The media certainly weren't too eager to tell us about any of these things.
You remember the way the controlled media dealt with the allegations that Bill Clinton had used illegal drugs? They had him laughingly admit that, yes, he had tried marijuana once, back during his reckless youth in the 1960s -- but he hadn't inhaled, he said. That's the media image of Clinton presented to the public: not quite perfect, not a saint, but a man honest enough to admit to us his essentially harmless, youthful indiscretions.
Let me tell you about Bill Clinton and illegal drugs: In the 1980s, when he was the governor of Arkansas, not in the 1960s, but just 10 years ago, Bill Clinton was a regular user of cocaine. Dozens of witnesses have given sworn depositions about Clinton's cocaine use. But the controlled media have kept this covered up. Furthermore, Clinton, unlike his brother and many of his friends, never has been prosecuted for his illegal use of drugs.
And this Clinton drug usage is not an innocent, recreational sort of thing. It is a criminal activity, it is an immoral activity, it is a socially destructive activity, and it is a profoundly unpatriotic activity. The drug trade corrupts our society and our government, and it destroys people's lives. The cocaine that Governor Bill Clinton snorted in Little Rock, Arkansas, had been smuggled into this country. Public officials had been bribed. Law enforcement had been corrupted. People had been murdered to protect the profits of the smugglers, and some of these smugglers were Clinton's personal friends and associates. Bill Clinton knew all of this. And he knew it was illegal; the man is a lawyer. He also understood the moral significance of his participation in the cocaine trade just as he understood that his brother Roger was a cocaine dealer and his good Jewish friend Larry Lawrence was no war hero.
Bill Clinton is a criminal -- not in a loose, figurative sort of way, but in a very precise and definite way. He is a man who ought to be in prison.
In fact, prison is too good for him. But he's not in prison. He's in the White House. He's running around the country giving speeches about reducing hatred and violence in America, and the controlled news media are treating this activity all very seriously, quoting from his speeches -- while keeping very quiet about things like his sale of cemetery plots and his connections with Jewish gangsters. They are helping to maintain the pretense that he deserves respect, as the President of the United States.
How did this happen to us? How did this happen to America?
The complete answer to that question is a long, sad story. I've answered parts of the question in several of these American Dissident Voices broadcasts, and I'll answer other parts in future broadcasts. For now I'll just say that American society has been undergoing a process of decay for a long time. Our ancestors who came over here from England, Scotland, Sweden, Germany, and other European countries and took this continent away from the Indians were serious, upright, self-respecting people. They believed in individual responsibility, the rule of law, and fair play. They believed that the government ought to leave a man alone as much as possible, and that men ought to behave themselves decently and honestly. If they didn't, they ought to be dealt with quickly and sternly, but fairly. People who went into government service were respected, but they were held to a strict code of conduct.
Lawyers were perhaps never really trusted, but judges were. Judges were expected to be fair and honest. So were policemen. There are a few areas of the United States today where one can still witness these old attitudes, standards, and ways of doing things: perhaps in the Dakotas and the nearby states, where nearly all of the settlers were Scandinavians or Germans and where immigration hasn't destroyed what the settlers and their descendents have built.
But with changing immigration, and with a more numerous population, most of our country has changed. It has developed more of a Latin flavor. Instead of respect for individual sovereignty and the rule of law, there was a shift toward patronage, networking, and "good ol' boy" personal relationships.
Gradually things moved toward a situation where what a man could get away with depended more on his connections than on the law. Judges, sheriffs, and police commissioners became as corrupt as other politicians. The amount of attention that the police paid to a complaint depended more than anything else on who was making the complaint and against whom it was being made. The outward forms were maintained -- the outward appearance of law and justice and propriety remained -- but inside things became rotten.
This is pretty much the way things had become in the state of Arkansas when Bill Clinton began his political career. There were still a lot of decent folks in Arkansas, but the political system had fallen into the hands of a network of good ol' boys and a few rich Jews. And unfortunately that's also the way it has become throughout large areas of the United States.
And that's the way it is everywhere in Latin America -- and throughout the Third World. American politics and American government had become enough like those of a banana republic by the time Bill Clinton appeared on the scene that there was almost a perfect match between the man and the system.
Bill Clinton is an intelligent man, and he is a consummate actor: very, very slick. If he hadn't gone into politics, he could have had a successful career in Hollywood. I personally believe that what tilted him toward politics is his fundamental crookedness. In some people there's a perverse streak which gives them pleasure in deceiving others, in putting something over on other people. Now, one can do that in a sense as an actor, but it's not real; it's only make-believe.
In politics the deception is real: it has real consequences and is therefore more satisfying to its practitioners. In any event, the good ol' boys running the system in Arkansas liked what they saw in Clinton, and Clinton liked the drugs, women, partying, and money that the good ol' boys in Arkansas made available to him. Furthermore, Clinton had learned very early in life about the power of the Jews, and he was determined to turn this power to his advantage. Jews aren't really noticeable in Arkansas politics like they are in New York politics or California politics, but Clinton noticed them, and from his earliest days in politics he tried to make himself especially useful to Jews, and in turn he began accumulating a circle of Jewish supporters and advisers. Today his administration reflects this support. It is more heavily Jewish than that of any other President in U.S. history.
Despite the exceptionally strong Jewish flavor of the Clinton administration, what has happened to America is not tied uniquely to Bill Clinton or to Arkansas politics or even to the Democratic Party. The whole country is infected, both major parties are infected, and every major politician is infected, to a greater or lesser extent. The infection has spread to the extent that the system can no longer cure itself but will require an outside force.
This may sound like a pessimistic analysis, but there are several bright spots in the picture. First, the system is not really monolithic. A lot of individual politicians -- and others -- are drawing their sustenance from the system, and there is fierce competition for a good spot at the feeding trough. It is the competition between Democrats and Republicans which led to the exposure of the Arlington National Cemetery scandal and to the exposure of Clinton's ties to the Jewish mafia.
This competition may very well bring down the Clinton government during the next couple of years. That doesn't mean, of course, that we can expect a fundamentally better government with a Republican in the White House. The one thing which holds the whole system together and plays a big role in giving it its enduring odor, is the Jewish control of the news and entertainment media. It is the role of the media, in fact, which is the key to our whole problem in trying to cure our society and make it healthy again.
Another bright spot is that in order to maintain itself, the system must continue to deceive the public, because there is still a very substantial part of the American public which would not approve of the crookedness if they understood it. This is the one feature which makes our situation better than that of a banana republic. In a banana republic, the general population accepts the crookedness of the system. Everyone understands that what counts is whom you know and how big a bribe you can afford to pay. The crookedness is much more open. In the United States these things still have to be concealed. The difference is in the nature of the populations -- which is essentially why the Jews and the other people who want the system to stay crooked are so strongly in favor of maintaining the flow of Third World immigrants into the United States.
Looking at our situation in the light of this banana republic analogy, one can almost appreciate Bill Clinton.
We must have a public understanding of the nature of our problem before we can cure it. The crookedness must be exposed to public view. The Jewish media certainly don't want to do that for us, but with someone like Bill Clinton in the White House they may not be able to help themselves. Clinton is such an extremist in his crookedness, he overreaches himself to such an extent, that it's pretty hard for even his most Politically Correct admirers to fail to see the basic rottenness of the man. He's gotten away with so much for so long, with his Jewish friends in the media covering for him, that he's lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. Really, only a man without any sense of limits could have gotten himself into the Paula Jones mess. And I think it will not be too long before all Americans realize that it is the Paula Jones affair which sets the tone for all of Bill Clinton's activities, whether selling burial rights in Arlington National Cemetery or soliciting donations from Chinese and Jewish organized crime figures.
Jews and the White Slave Trade
Steven Spielberg's pseudo-historical film about a 19th-century mutiny and massacre aboard a Spanish slave ship, Amistad, and the subsequent trial of the Black mutineers is being praised by the reviewers. Spielberg, one of the wealthiest and most successful of Hollywood's Jewish film makers, is also being praised by his kinsmen in various so-called "human rights" organizations for using his propaganda skills to sensitize White, Gentile audiences to the horrors of slavery and make them feel just a little more guilty for treating non-Whites so badly in the past. What the film doesn't mention, of course, is that Spielberg's Jewish kinsmen owned many, though not all, of the ships involved in the 18th- and 19th-century Atlantic trade in Black slaves and, in fact, played a very prominent role in bringing Black slaves to America.
The film tends to steer one away from blaming anyone for slavery except White Gentiles. This bit of misdirection is interesting in light of the fact that Jews have been dominant in the slave trade since at least Roman times -- especially the trade in White slaves. Jewish slave dealers followed Caesar's armies everywhere -- into Gaul, into Germany, and into other northern lands -- eager to buy as slaves all of the captives of the Romans -- especially the female captives.
Jews have remained dominant in the White slave trade until the present day -- although during the Middle Ages the Christian Church tried unsuccessfully a number of times to stop them, beginning in the fifth century with an edict by the emperor Theodosius II against Jews owning Christian slaves. After being banned from owning or dealing in slaves by one emperor, the Jews would wait until the next emperor came along, then they would buy a charter giving them a monopoly in the slave trade. Then public outrage against the Jews would grow until another emperor would ban their slave-dealing again. Most of the time, however, the Jews were the undisputed masters of the White slave trade, and that is still the case today.
Interestingly enough, this fact was revealed in a recent news report in the Jewish newspaper the New York Times, of all places. The January 11 issue has a major article titled "Contraband Women" and written by a Jewish reporter in Israel. The article deals specifically with the Jewish trade in Ukrainian and Russian women -- although it doesn't label the trade as "Jewish." What the report does say is this:
Centered in Moscow and the Ukrainian capital Kiev, the networks trafficking women run east to Japan and Thailand, where thousands of young Slavic women now work against their will as prostitutes, and west to the Adriatic coast and beyond. The routes are controlled by Russian crime gangs based in Moscow.
What the reader must understand is that these crime gangs don't have a real Russian in them. They are entirely Jewish, but the agreed-upon subterfuge used by the newspapers in this country is to refer to them as "Russian" rather than as Jewish. Thus one reads in various news organs about the recent takeover of organized crime in many areas of America -- especially the East Coast and Los Angeles -- by "Russian gangs" and of the viciousness and cleverness of these "Russian" gangsters, but there is never any mention of the fact that they are not Russians at all, but Jews from the former Soviet Union: Jews like Mr. Clinton's supporter Vadim Rabinovich, photographed shaking hands with Clinton at a Miami fundraiser when he was illegally in the United States, as I mentioned in my broadcast of December 27, 1997.
The story of the exploitation of eastern Europe by the Jews is a fascinating and infuriating story. Throughout the Middle Ages and into the modern era they focused on profiting from the weaknesses and vices of the Gentile populations of Poles, Russians, Ukrainians and others among whom they lived as a barely tolerated minority. In addition to being the moneylenders, they controlled the liquor business and owned the drinking establishments, the gambling dens, and the brothels. A number of 19th-century Russian writers, among them Dostoievski and Gogol, have described their destructive effects on Slavic peasant society and the perpetual condition of mutual hostility which existed between the Jews and the Slavs.
During the 19th and early 20th centuries the Jewish trade in White slaves from these lands expanded enormously. It has been described by the Jewish historian Edward Bristow in his 1982 book Prostitution and Prejudice, published by Oxford University Press and Schocken Books in New York. Although Bristow's book is written from the viewpoint of one opposed to this Jewish trade in women, it is nevertheless enormously revealing. The Jews recruited peasant girls in Polish and Russian villages, usually under false pretenses, and transported them to brothels in Turkey, Egypt, and other parts of the Middle East; to Vienna, Budapest, and other major cities in the Austro-Hungarian Empire; and as far away as New York, New Orleans, and Buenos Aires. This Jewish trade in Slavic women naturally caused a great deal of hatred against the Jews by the Slavs, and this hatred broke out in pogroms and other popular actions against the Jews over and over again.
One would believe from the works of Mr. Spielberg and other Jewish propagandists that the hatred the Slavs bore against the Jews was based only on religious bigotry and that the Jews were completely innocent and inoffensive. One fascinating fact which Bristow's book reveals is that the center of the Jewish trade in Polish girls was in a little town called Oswiecim. The German name for this town was Auschwitz.
I don't mean to imply that the Jews were the only ones at fault in the White slave trade. Gentile politicians and police officials gladly accepted bribes from the Jews and in return allowed them to carry on their dirty business. And in the United States non-Jewish criminal elements such as the Mafia collaborated with the Jews or ran their own White slave operations. But the trade in White slaves from eastern Europe has been an exclusively Jewish activity for the last 200 years.
It is ironic that another Jewish enterprise, organized Marxism, put a temporary crimp in the Jewish trade in Slavic women. When the Jewish Bolsheviks seized control of Russia and Ukraine after the First World War, and of Poland and other Slavic lands after the Second World War, they clamped down on all capitalist activity, including that of their Jewish brethren in the White slave business. What they did instead was establish a huge empire of slave-labor camps, of which Alexander Solzhenitsyn has written so eloquently. Jewish slave dealers became commissars and slave camp bosses. And of course, they butchered their Gentile opponents by the millions. The time of communism was the Jews' time for getting rid of all of the Russian and Ukrainian patriots, who had hated them for so long. Actually, some capitalist activity did survive throughout the communist years in the form of organized crime. Two excellent books on the subject were published in the United States, both written by Soviet Jews thoroughly familiar with organized crime in the Soviet Union. In fact, one of the authors, Yuri Brokhin, was a former member of a Jewish organized crime gang in Russia, where he worked as a pimp. His book, Hustling on Gorky Street, was published in 1975 by Dial Press.
The other author, Konstantin Simis, was a Jewish defense lawyer for organized Jewish criminals. His book, USSR: The Corrupt Society, was published in 1982 by Simon and Schuster. Both of these Jewish authors write quite frankly about the Jewish domination of organized crime during the communist years. Brokhin brags about it, in fact. He says Russians and other Slavs can only be ordinary criminals, depending on guns and strong-arm tactics, but they aren't smart enough for successful, large-scale organized crime; only Jews are smart enough for that.
A factor neither author mentions which was more important than smartness was the connections Jewish criminals had with Jewish communists in the Soviet bureaucracy. When Abe, who ran a prostitution and drug racket in Moscow, could count on his cousin Hymie in the prosecutor's office to keep him informed about police plans for raids, as well as a little covert assistance if matters ever came to court, he had a distinct advantage over his Russian competitors.
Eventually communism bled eastern Europe dry, and with the economies of the countries under their control on the verge of collapse the communists switched hats, declared themselves "democrats" instead of communists, and announced a return to capitalism. The Jewish slave dealers went back into business, and business was good for them. Other Jewish communists went into business too. As the economies were "privatized" -- that is, as state-owned factories and businesses were sold to private entrepreneurs at bargain-basement prices -- Jews used their connections with their now-"democratic" kinsmen in the bureaucracies to snap them up. Other Jews, who had monopolized organized crime during the communist years, remained as organized crime bosses but greatly expanded the scope of their operations. Often, the new entrepreneurs and the new crime bosses are the same people.
The richest man in Russia today is Boris Berezovsky, who since the collapse of communism has become a multi-billionaire by buying up banks, television networks, and newspapers from the government, with the aid of his fellow Jews still in the bureaucracy. Berezovsky speeds around Moscow in a bulletproof vest and an armored limousine, and anyone who gets in the way of his business interests has a tendency to get shot or simply to disappear. Second only to Berezovsky in wealth is another Jewish media mogul, Vladimir Gusinsky. Between them, Berezovsky and Gusinsky control most of the mass media in Russia. They also exercise pretty thorough control of Boris Yeltsin, Russia's alcoholic president, who is sort of a Slavic version of Bill Clinton, plus vodka. It was only through the support of Berezovsky's and Gusinsky's media that Yeltsin won his last election.
If you remember, Clinton and all of the Jewish media in the United States also were rooting enthusiastically for Yeltsin during that election. They all were afraid that a genuine Russian patriot might beat Yeltsin, in which case the Jewish control of Russia would have been finished. After the election, Yeltsin appointed Berezovsky to Russia's national security council, but when some of the few media in Russia which still are independent publicized Berezovsky's connections to Jewish organized crime gangs, Yeltsin was forced to fire him. Yeltsin has made up for that, however, by appointing another Jew, Boris Nemtsov, to the position of deputy prime minister, one of the most powerful positions in the government. One thing Yeltsin never has done, however, is make any move to curtail the operations of Russia's organized Jewish crime gangs, which are running rampant through the country and displaying their wealth and power, while ordinary Russians struggle to feed themselves and keep their homes warm this winter.
And tens of thousands of pretty but naive young Russian and Ukrainian women are being swept up by the Jewish gangs -- called "Russian" gangs by the New York Times -- and shipped off to a life of misery and degradation in Turkey, Pakistan, Thailand, and Israel, as well as to countries in western Europe, where Jews also control organized crime. The young women, unable to find work in Russia, Ukraine, or Poland and facing a bleak future in countries ravaged by decades of communism, are eager for any chance at a better life. They respond to advertisements that offer them work abroad as receptionists or secretaries and also promise free training and transportation. When the girls arrive at their destinations, however, they find something quite different -- but by then it is too late.
One of these girls, Irina, a 21-year-old, green-eyed Ukrainian blond, was interviewed in Israel. She told how her Israeli employer took her to a brothel soon after her arrival in Israel. He took her passport away from her, burned it before her eyes, and told her that she now was his property and must work in the brothel. When Irina refused, she was beaten and raped. Luckier than most of the Slavic women lured to Israel, Irina eventually was swept up in a police raid and sent to prison as an illegal alien. She was awaiting deportation, along with hundreds of other Russian and Ukrainian women, when she was interviewed. She lamented the fact that the Israeli who had raped her and forced her to work in the brothel was not even arrested. Indeed, according to Jewish law, the rape of a Gentile woman is not illegal. Nor is it illegal in Israel to buy and sell slaves, so long as the slaves are not Jewish. Amazingly, the New York Times article reveals this fact.
The White slave trade is big business in Israel. Ukrainian authorities estimate that as many as 40,000 Ukrainian women under the age of 30 are taken from Ukraine each year. Some of these women respond to advertisements promising employment abroad, like Irina did, and some are simply kidnapped and smuggled out of the country. Those who try to escape from their Jewish captors are treated brutally. Often they are butchered in front of other captive women to keep the others terrified into doing whatever they are told. At slave markets operated by the Jewish gangs in Italy young Slavic women are stripped, put on blocks, and auctioned off to brothel owners.
The most astounding thing about this whole, filthy business is that most people are forced to learn about it from a Jewish newspaper like the New York Times. And really, you should read for yourself the article to which I referred. It was in the January 11, 1998, issue, and the news is not likely to be repeated.
Ask yourself, why doesn't Interpol, the international police agency, do something to put a stop to this White slave trade? Why don't the governments of the countries from which the women are being abducted do something? Why don't the mass media raise a hue and cry? Why don't powerful feminist organizations demand the eradication of White slavery?
And the answer to all of these questions is easy: they dare not do or say anything because it is a Jewish business. In places like Germany, where the Jews have almost total control of organized crime, anyone who announces that fact publicly will be arrested and charged with "inciting racial hatred." Germany and most other European countries have laws against what they call "hate speech." Saying anything negative about Jews, true or not, invokes these laws.
Jewish organizations -- and of course, the Clinton administration -- would like very much to have similar laws in the United States. Interpol, which has plenty of other work to keep it busy, is not eager to be charged with "anti-Semitism" by going after the Jewish White-slave gangs. Even if Interpol did arrest the gangsters, it wouldn't do much good, because the fix is in nearly everywhere. There's a huge amount of money made from selling women: enough money to pay off politicians, bureaucrats, judges, and policemen.
Jews like to say about the so-called "Holocaust" of the Second World War, "Never again." They like to talk about how it is necessary to stamp out anti-Semitism and pass laws against so-called "hate speech," so that there can never be another "Holocaust." But by their own behavior they guarantee that there will be.
While some Jews beat the drums for more reparations payments from Switzerland, Germany, France, and other countries they claim didn't treat them right or took some of their ill-gotten gold from them 55 or 60 years ago, other Jews are still bleeding countries like Poland, Ukraine, Russia, and the Baltic nations of money and of their young women. Countries which suffered for decades under the brutal rule of communist commissars are still being exploited by the same people, now calling themselves "democrats."
The Jews believe that with their deathgrip on the mass media nearly everywhere, with their puppets -- like Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin -- in positions of power in the East and in the West, with the enormous wealth they have at their disposal, and with so many Gentiles buffaloed by "Holocaust" propaganda of the sort cranked out by Steven Spielberg and a hundred others, they can keep getting away with their exploitation of us forever. But they are wrong. They themselves are building up the hatred and the resentment and the rage which will destroy them. It will destroy them all: the gang members, the media bosses, the "advisers" to Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, the professional "Holocaust" wailers, the former commissars, and the rest, even those who are not currently involved in any of these activities. They are guaranteeing that there will be another "Holocaust." And this time it will be a real one.
Thanks for being with me again today -- and do find and read that article on the White slave trade in the January 11, 1998, New York Times.
A Question of Sanity
If you have been reading Free Speech for very long, you know that I nearly always focus on concrete facts, on hard news, on analyzing and interpreting what's happening in the world. I don't often deal with abstractions or with philosophical questions -- but sometimes I do. I hope you'll forgive me if I do so again.
In fact, I will get into some concrete, factual matters, but first I want to pose an abstract question. When a person observes behavior all around him that seems crazy, that seems insane, how does he know that it is not he himself who is insane rather than the people around him? When other people are doing and saying things which seem wholly unreasonable, how does he know that he is not the one who is unreasonable instead of the other people? Do we have any absolute standard by which to judge such matters?
Let me give a specific example of this problem. I have stated, both explicitly and implicitly, on a large number of occasions my belief that Blacks, or Negroes, or Afro-Americans, or whatever you want to call them, are inferior as a race to Whites, or European Americans, in the innate abilities involved in building and maintaining a civilization. That is, I've claimed that Whites are smarter and more creative than Blacks.
Now, in opposition to this the U.S. government, the schools, the churches, and the controlled media claim that there is no such difference in abilities between Blacks and Whites. A difference in skin color, yes, but that's all. There's no difference in problem-solving ability, in creativity, or in temperament between Blacks and Whites that gives Whites an edge at building or maintaining a civilization. That's the official dogma. Any government official, public school teacher, or minister in a mainstream church who contradicts this dogma -- or who even fails to support it with sufficient enthusiasm -- will be hounded by his more orthodox colleagues.
So who's crazy: I or all of those folks in the government, the schools, the churches, and the media? Am I like one of those poor, confused creatures who goes around with his right hand stuck inside his shirt claiming that he's Napoleon?
Or is my case more like that of an Italian teacher who, about 400 years ago, claimed that the earth revolved around the sun, while nearly everyone else in the government, the universities, and the church held the view that the sun revolved around the earth and that to say otherwise was evidence of either craziness or impiety? How do we decide?
If we go by the numbers, there certainly are a lot more crazy people who believe they're Napoleon than there are genuine Galileos. And, let's face it, most people who are totally out of step with everyone else should be suspected of being a little crazy.
Now, I don't mean to compare myself with Galileo. He was truly a great, creative genius, the sort of genius that our race produces perhaps once in a century, and he would be a historical celebrity even if he hadn't had a conflict with the authorities about his astronomical beliefs. But there are some things to be learned from his case which can help us answer the question of how we can judge who is sane.
First, let's note that Galileo was not alone in his beliefs. It was just that most people who believed as he did had the sense to keep their mouths shut -- at least in Italy. Galileo wasn't even the originator of the idea that got him into trouble. He had just looked at Copernicus' idea of the solar system and decided that it made a lot more sense than the Ptolemaic ideas that were Politically Correct at the time. Furthermore, if Copernicus' idea about the solar system hadn't had some important theological implications, Galileo wouldn't have gotten himself into trouble for it.
Galileo already had come up with a lot of new ideas which had amazed people, but they hadn't ridiculed him as being crazy or condemned him as being impious for these other ideas -- because these other ideas had no obvious religious significance. But the Copernican idea did have some religious significance, and that made a lot of difference, even to people who didn't take religion very seriously: people who had a vested interest in the status quo, and that included a great many bureaucrats and academicians.
A difference between the cases of Galileo and the fellows who believe they're Napoleon is that no one else agrees with the would-be Napoleons, either publicly or privately. Many other scholars agreed privately with Galileo but were too timid to say so publicly. A second difference is that there is no religious frenzy or religious bigotry involved when people consider someone's claim to be Napoleon. They laugh and decide he's joking or he's crazy, but they don't become indignant about it. They don't have a sudden attack of piety, the way they did in response to Galileo.
Another thing to note about Galileo's case: The scholars who privately agreed with him and accepted the Copernican idea did not do so for religious reasons. They did so because the Copernican idea made more sense than the Ptolemaic idea. It agreed better with the facts, with the evidence.
Am I crazy for asserting that Blacks and Whites are inherently different and unequal in their civilization-building abilities, or is there something wrong with all of the people in the government, the schools, the churches, and the media who claim that I am either crazy or impious -- that is, a "hater" -- for saying so? As in Galileo's case, my assertions of racial differences are not original: they are not my idea. I have simply looked at the evidence, at the facts, and have based my conclusions on them. So have a great many other people, scholars and otherwise, many of whom, unfortunately, are too timid to say so publicly.
One other very important similarity with the case of Galileo is that the question of racial differences or racial equality has enormous theological implications. The theology involved, of course, is the modern one which has superseded Christianity, even in the churches: the theology of Political Correctness. And just as in Galileo's day, there are many people in the government, the schools, even the churches, who don't take this theology seriously -- who don't really believe it -- but who have a vested interest in maintaining it and therefore will ridicule or condemn anyone who questions it. So again, who's crazy: I or the egalitarians? How do we judge?
Let me tell you how I judge such cases: I look at the evidence, at the facts, and I look at the people involved on each side of the issue, at what I know about their characters and their intelligence, and I look at the context, social and historical. But first and foremost I look at the evidence.
I look at the historical record -- or lack thereof -- in the Black areas of Africa. I look at the performance -- or lack thereof -- of Blacks in the other parts of the world, such as the Americas, the Caribbean, and more recently, Europe. And I look at the records of criminal activity, of illegitimacy, of drug abuse. And I look at intelligence tests and at racial biometric studies which were done back before it became Politically Incorrect to measure brain sizes and morphologies. And I see a consistency in all of these things. They all fit together: the lower intelligence, the thicker skulls and smaller brains, the greater criminal activity, the historical lack of performance. And I conclude that Blacks almost certainly cannot build a civilization if left to themselves, and they almost certainly will destroy any civilization built by others if they are allowed to become a very large presence in it.
And I compare my conclusions with the conclusions of others. I note that before the Second World War virtually everyone -- scholars, bureaucrats, churchmen, even the media -- came to the same conclusion. Certainly, ordinary White people were universal in their opinion about the differences in abilities between Whites and Blacks -- although we always want to be careful about relying on public opinion.
There were a few religious bigots, a few rabid egalitarians, who even back before the war denied all of the evidence of Black inequality and insisted that their lack of performance was the consequence of White oppression and that their lower scores on intelligence tests were due to "cultural bias." But most people considered these bigots, these egalitarian zealots, to be a little crazy.
Then after the war the Jews who control the media launched an all-out campaign to persuade everyone that the bigots were right after all. With the public advent of television in the 1950s, the media bosses gained an enormously powerful tool for changing public opinion, and as they began persuading substantial numbers of the most impressionable segments of the White public with television dramas portraying Blacks as noble, intelligent, and unjustly treated -- and also portraying Whites who objected to mixing with Blacks as primitive, hateful, and repulsive -- the politicians, the churchmen, and the more ambitious academics saw which way the wind was blowing and began to side with the egalitarians too.
The 1960s were the real turning point in this postwar propaganda campaign. That's when the Jews in the media, working closely with the Jews in the universities, managed to turn American society upside down. They encouraged drugs, permissiveness, hedonism, and youthful rebellion. They ridiculed every traditional belief and standard.
The Vietnam war -- or rather the government's vacillating and pusillanimous conduct of that war -- was a great help to them. Organizations such as Students for a Democratic Society and the Youth International Party and a hundred others, nearly all led by Jews, marched in the streets with Viet Cong flags, burned American flags, occupied and trashed university administrative offices, burned campus ROTC buildings, bombed U.S. military installations, encouraged young men to burn their draft cards, and generally raised hell, all with the approval of the mass media. All of this was in the middle of a war, in which 58,000 young Americans were being killed, and the U.S. government did nothing to stop the massive treason that was going on in this country. The consequence of this was to shake the confidence of nearly everyone. Everything that people had believed was called into question.
I don't want to recount the whole history of that period of artificial turmoil and change in American society. The point is that public opinion can be manipulated, and public opinion is not a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. That was the case in Galileo's day, and it's also the case today. It's important to have public opinion on your side for political reasons, but that has little or nothing to do with right or wrong.
What we should examine more carefully are the opinions of the authorities -- the people who formulate the propaganda line for the mass media and for what is taught in our schools. Is the 180-degree change in this propaganda line during the past 60 years based on facts and sound reasoning? I get a lot of hate mail from people under the influence of this propaganda: mail from people who tell me that I am crazy because I do not believe that Blacks and Whites are the same. And very often these people parrot back to me what they have been taught by the authorities. I hear the same propaganda statements parroted over and over again. For example: "You are crazy for wanting to preserve the White race. There is no such thing as a pure race. We all have ancestors of all races if we go back enough generations. So there is no pure White race for you to preserve." The unstated implication of this is that, since we're already mongrelized, there's nothing wrong with more mixing, and we shouldn't try to stop miscegenation. It's too late. There's no point in it.
How's this for an equivalent argument: "There's no point in bathing, because no matter how carefully we bathe there always are still some germs left on us: under our fingernails, perhaps, or in our ears. So let's just stop bathing, since we can't really be clean anyway."
Another of their standard arguments is this: "There's more variation within the races than between the races. The whole concept of separate races makes no sense." In plain language, what this argument says is that it's possible to find two people, both nominally "White," who differ from each other more in intelligence, skin tone, and other mental and physical characteristics than Colin Powell, say, or some other octoroon nominally classified as "Black," differs from some people classified as "White." And because this large range of characteristics among individuals who nominally belong to the same race exceeds the difference between a few selected individuals who nominally belong to different races, we should ignore the average differences between the races as a whole.
I guess this argument sounds especially good in some of our "melting pot" cities like New York, where one can find just about every shade of racial mixture imaginable, some of them classified as "White" and some as "Black," "Asian," or "Hispanic." But what this argument really tells us is that we need to do quite a bit of racial housecleaning to make up for some of the dysgenic practices of the past few centuries. It should not convince us that there's no difference between Swedes and Haitians.
It is also good to look a little more carefully at what genetic variation means. Much of our genetic makeup goes into providing for the basic, bodily functions of life. All mammals have a great deal in common genetically. All warm blooded animals have cells in their body nourished by blood, and they have many of the same biochemical processes going on inside them. A lot of our genetic makeup goes to provide for these basic functions. A human being and a chimpanzee are over 90% identical in genetic makeup. When it comes to genetics small differences mean a lot.
Here's another way to look at it: everyone realizes that all dogs have more in common with each other than they do with horses. However, no one would argue that this means that there is no significant difference between a poodle and a pit bull.
The point is that these propaganda statements of the egalitarians are specious. That may not be apparent to the people who write hate letters to me, but the media bosses and the teachers who preach this line have a better grasp of logic than the public. Perhaps they do have some sound arguments on their side, but if so they're keeping them hidden; all of the ones they use to support their position publicly are full of holes -- and they know it. And this is something else I take into consideration in judging who's sane and who isn't.
Finally, there's the matter of motive. The people who turned America upside down in the 1960s did so by building a coalition of a lot of different types of people with a grievance against the traditional White male establishment: feminists, Jews, homosexuals, Blacks and other non- Whites, along with a lot of permissively raised, thoroughly spoiled young Whites. It is from this 1960s coalition that today's new establishment has come, the establishment that now dominates the government, the churches, the universities -- and especially the mass media. These people have a vested interest in maintaining the myths on which their coalition is built, and their principal myth is that of egalitarianism.
Everything I've said today amounts to this: Don't let yourself be buffaloed. Don't let yourself be persuaded to accept anything that doesn't make sense to you, just because the people trying to buffalo you are loud and well organized. Look at the facts. Analyze the arguments. Think about the motives of the people who are telling you that you're crazy if you don't accept their ideas and their policies. Have confidence in yourself. When you see the government promoting policies which seem crazy to you, and you see the media and the churches and the schools all parroting the same party line, remember Galileo.
We'll get the inmates locked back in their cells yet!
Bill and Monica
What would I do without Bill Clinton in the White House to provide me with a non-stop source of material? Unfortunately, this latest escapade of his, involving not just another bimbo romp but also perjury, suborning of perjury, obstruction of justice, and a number of other felonies, may put my source behind bars for the next few years.
When the Lewinsky story first broke and I saw the grim expressions on the faces of the newscasters, I thought, hey, they're worried that their boy is really in trouble this time. Bill Clinton has had the media covering for him so many times, and has gotten away with so many crimes, that he has fallen into the error of thinking he can get away with anything.
I've talked with a number of people about the significance of Clinton's latest problem, and the opinions fall into two categories. First, there are those who don't want to see him go because they figure there's no one else who could do a better job of discrediting the whole, rotten system of which he's a part. The longer Clinton stays in the White House, they figure, the more citizens there will be who become so sick and tired of him that they'll be ready to blow the whole government to hell.
Then there are those who are happy about the prospect of seeing him packed off to prison in the near future. They were beginning to be afraid that he would continue getting away with everything.
I can only speculate about the feelings of the Clintonistas. Of course, they're embarrassed that their boy got caught. But among the people more closely tied to the Democratic Party and its long-term policies than to this particular administration there seems to be relief that they may not have to make excuses for Bill Clinton much longer. Democratic Party officials aren't rooting for an impeachment like some Republicans, but I'm sure that many of them are praying that Bill Clinton gets run over by a large truck the next time he slips out of the White House for one of his late-night rendezvous -- or barring that, quietly resigns from office. Some Democrats probably believe that even starting a war -- a favorite ploy for distracting attention from domestic problems -- will not save them from injury when the Clinton administration goes down.
One group of Democrats who are especially unhappy about this latest Clinton problem are the Jews who were planning to use Clinton as a club to bludgeon Iraq to death. If Clinton is impeached and the Jews have to wait for Al Gore to start their war, there could be a delay of several months. That might give Saddam Hussein time to load up a few of his rockets with biological warfare agents and get them zeroed in on Israel. Let's hope so! On the other hand, there's a danger that Clinton, in his desperation to direct public attention elsewhere, may launch a premature attack on Iraq.
I have mixed feelings on the Clinton problem. I tend to agree in part with those who would like to see him stay in the White House. Al Gore is not nearly as colorful a politician. He may not do as noticeable a job of discrediting the system. So far as I know, he's learned how to keep his fly closed during working hours. But he will be just as obedient to the Jewish media bosses as Clinton has been.
On the other hand, I made a prediction a year ago that Bill Clinton would be led out of the White House in handcuffs and leg-irons before the end of his second term, and it's usually nice to see one's predictions come true. Of course, if Clinton does go to prison we'll have to endure listening to all of the media apologists telling us, "See, the system works after all. It's a good system. We still have the rule of law. Not even the President of the United States can get away with breaking the law," et cetera, ad nauseam.
The fact is, of course, that politicians and bureaucrats break the law all the time and get away with it. They're just not as flagrant and careless about it as Clinton is. And they're better about keeping their flies closed around the office.
On the whole, I'd prefer to see Clinton drummed out of the White House in disgrace. I remember the Watergate scandal 25 years ago which forced Richard Nixon to resign in disgrace. That did wonders for the public's attitude toward the government. It helped many people snap out of their authoritarian trance, in which they tended to regard the government as sacred, to be obeyed without question. Nevertheless, a lot of Americans made excuses for Nixon, because it was clear that everyone in the media had hated him from the beginning, and they had hounded him from office. It would do the American people good to see a President the media always have loved and shielded go down in flames as a result of his own carelessness and lack of self-discipline.
And I have more faith than most people do in Al Gore's ability to continue discrediting the system. The Jews will force him to go ahead with the war against Iraq and with other destructive policies, and he doesn't have the Clinton charisma, the Clinton ability to keep the public charmed while peeing on their shoes.
My primary consideration in all of this is the need to build the public's distrust and dislike for the government, the public's contempt for the government. That's not because I'm against government in general. I'm no anarchist. America needs a good, strong, patriotic government to clean this country up: a government willing and able to seal our borders, to round up and get rid of illegal aliens, to get Israel permanently off our back, to get the mass media out of the hands of the natural enemies of our people, and to deal decisively with the problem of racial minorities, feminists, homosexuals, and the rest.
But we can't have a patriotic government until this one has been destroyed root and branch, until the whole system has been dismantled and all of the people associated with it have been properly disposed of, so that we can rebuild from the basement up. And we can't do that, we can't destroy the present government and get rid of its supporters, as long as a majority of decent people still believe that this government can be saved, can be reformed. We need to cure them of that false notion.
Nothing can be done with most of the people who voted for Clinton, but I'm not concerned about them. I'm concerned about the decent people, the people who despise Clinton but who still naively believe that he is merely an aberration and that the system itself is basically sound. These people need to be illuminated, and I'm inclined to believe that the shock of seeing the President of the United States in handcuffs will do more to turn on a light in their heads than will the water-drip torture of listening to a continuing stream of stories about shady land deals back in Arkansas, campaign contributions from Chinese gangsters, and romps with bimbos on the carpet in the Oval Office for the next three years. We can't afford to wait another three years for the dead-heads to wake up. We need to get the revolution jump-started soon.
Just seeing Clinton go to jail won't do that, of course. That's just the first step. Ultimately we need for White Americans to understand that with the sort of government we have now, it's not possible to have an honest or patriotic President in the White House. The only sort of person who can get near the Presidency under the present system is someone who is fundamentally crooked, someone who is an unpatriotic criminal. He doesn't have to be as flamboyant about his criminality as Clinton is, but certainly no honest man and no patriot can be President so long as the government is subject to the mass media the way this one is. What we have now, in effect, is a government by the Jewish media bosses, and that's what we'll have if Al Gore ends up in the White House too. It's also what we would have had with Bob Dole as President, or Newt Gingrich, or any of the other major-party politicians. Dole and Gingrich are just as hot to annihilate the Iraqis or anyone else who poses a threat to Israel's ambitions in the Middle East as Clinton is.
And, really, what's more dangerous for America: a President who can't keep his pants up or a President willing to take America into wars that do not serve our country's interests?
Can you imagine Al Gore, if Clinton is impeached and convicted, getting rid of Madeleine Albright, William Cohen, Robert Rubin, and all the other Jews Clinton has put in charge of our government and then announcing that from now on Israel will have to shift for itself, that we are lifting the embargo on Iraq and recalling our Navy ships from the area? It's just not conceivable.
Al Gore would do exactly what the media bosses tell him to do, just like he has done throughout his political career. So the only real question for us is: What course of events will result in the decent segment of the public understanding this soonest? I think that seeing it with their own eyes -- at least, seeing that Al Gore jumps through the same hoops that Bill Clinton jumped through -- will be as quick a way as any.
And I think it's good for the Clinton affair to have some very concrete results now, rather than later. Permitting him to wriggle out of the Monica problem like he's wriggled out of so many other problems will simply make the cynics more cynical -- with is worth something -- but it also will reinforce the atmosphere of unreality that pervades American politics. It will reinforce the feeling that everything is inevitable -- everything has been arranged by the powerful, behind-the- scenes fixers -- and that there's nothing decent people can do to change things. Hauling a two- term President off to jail gives decent people everywhere hope that something can be done to fight evil and make a change for the better. It's the next best thing to assassinating a President.
Clinton's real crimes are not perjury, suborning of perjury, and obstruction of justice. In the sort of banana-republic atmosphere we have in Washington these days, we can almost forgive such things. Everybody does it, and Clinton was just unlucky enough to get caught. Clinton's real crimes, the crimes which cannot be forgiven and which should result in his being strung up outside the White House as an example to others who would betray their race, is his collaboration with the Jews throughout his career. Clinton is the very epitome of the rotten, spoiled, whining, self-indulgent college boy who ran with the Jews in the 1960s. He dodged the draft, smoked dope, and assisted the Jews in turning American society upside down, without a thought for the consequences. Every Jewish slogan and cliche came easily to his lips, whether it was a chant for Ho Chi Minh to win in Vietnam or a demand for more Blacks on the campus or for more homosexuals on the faculty.
And since the 1960s he has been the epitome of the amoral politician, of the unprincipled opportunist, of the crooked lawyer and the sleazy operator -- which would have been bad enough in itself had he remained in the land development business or in state politics in Little Rock, but which was made incomparably worse by the fact that the Jews chose him to be one of their catspaws in their continuing destruction of America.
Since he came to Washington, Bill Clinton has been their obedient tool, their willing tool, their enthusiastic tool. He has promoted everything rotten, everything destructive, everything subversive -- especially everything which is harmful to White Americans and everything which strengthens the hand of the Jews. We have never before had a President who pushed so hard for bringing homosexuals into every institution in our society, or a President who did as much to promote feminism. No President before Clinton ever appointed two Jews to the Supreme Court, giving them nearly ten times the representation on that body as they have in the general population. No President before Clinton has ever appointed even half as many Jews to his cabinet. No President before Clinton has appointed a foreign-policy and national-defense team which is entirely Jewish.
It is indeed ironic that it is his sexual relationship with a Jewess which has brought him down. And I suppose we might also see some irony in the fact that it is a conspiracy he made with a Black confidant, Vernon Jordan, which has helped bring him down. And in the fact that it is another Jew, Mickey Cantor, who has been the one to whom Clinton turned for help and advice as the noose tightened on his neck.
Clinton has been so accustomed to having the Jews cover for him and get him out of scrapes -- especially the Jewish media bosses -- that it must be quite a shock to him now to realize that they could abandon him. He was a useful tool while he lasted, but now that he has become an embarrassment, even to them -- and it takes a lot to embarrass them -- they may simply discard him and use another of their tools, such as Al Gore.
The symbolism of Clinton's fall should be important for us. He symbolizes, more than any other public figure, everything that was rotten, decadent, weak, corrupt, and treasonous about the 1960s. It is fitting that his downfall be more traumatic and more disgraceful than that of any other public figure of this era. That is a symbolism that we should cherish, even though the system of which Clinton was a part still waits to be pulled down.
There is one other symbolic aspect to what has happened to Clinton. It is clear that Clinton was one of the most useful tools the Jews have ever had. They really would prefer to continue using him, but he finally may have gotten himself into such a mess that even they cannot save him. That should be encouraging to every patriot, especially those who tend to overestimate the power of the Jews and to underestimate our ability to whip them and to free ourselves from their control.
I'll close with another observation that should be encouraging, and that is about the enormous number of jokes about Clinton which are now circulating. It is really phenomenal. And these jokes on the Internet are coming from people all over the spectrum. To me they indicate a little of the frustration which has been building up in the so-called "silent majority" during the Clinton regime. You've undoubtedly heard a few of these jokes by now, but I'll risk mentioning a few which to me express the general sentiments of the public. Question:
How did Bill and Hillary Clinton meet? Answer:
They were dating the same girl in high school. Question:
If Bill and Hillary jumped together off the Washington Monument, who'd land first? Answer:
Who cares? Question:
How can you tell when Bill Clinton is telling a lie just by looking at his face? Answer:
If his lips are moving, then he's lying.
And of course, a lot of the jokes are what might be called "Bill and Monica" jokes, but most of them really aren't suitable for repeating on a family program. My favorite, though, is Bill trying to wriggle out of the charge that he encouraged Monica to commit perjury. "I never told that girl to lie," he says. "Actually what I told her was, "Lie down."
I guess this sort of thing isn't very funny to the Clinton coalition. I guess the dregs of American society who combined to put Clinton into office are more chagrined than amused by what has happened. But the rest of us should have a good laugh, and then we should make up our minds to do whatever it takes to get rid of the system that allowed such a coalition of losers, perverts, and anti-American traitors to impose a piece of filth like William Jefferson Clinton on our society and on our country.
Sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff
What's said to be the most expensive motion picture ever made was released a few weeks ago and has been earning record money at the box office. The film, of course, is Titanic, and it's about the sinking of the ocean liner S.S. Titanic on April 15, 1912, with the loss of 1,513 lives, after the ship struck an iceberg in the North Atlantic.
There are many superlatives in the film. The Titanic was the largest ship ever built at the time. It also was the most luxurious ship, intended to provide high-speed trans-Atlantic transportation in comfort for the rich and pampered. The implication of the film is that the sinking of the Titanic is the greatest maritime disaster of all time. I'm sure that the great majority of the American public believes that to be the case, but it isn't. Everyone has heard about the sinking of the Titanic, and very few have heard about the sinking of the S.S. Wilhelm Gustloff, which was the greatest maritime disaster.
It is easy to understand why everyone has heard about the Titanic: it was a very big, very expensive ship, claimed to be virtually "unsinkable," which went down on its maiden voyage with a record number of celebrities and tycoons aboard. The irony of the sinking helped generate public interest and an enormous media coverage. When the Wilhelm Gustloff went down, on the other hand, with the loss of more than 7,000 lives, the controlled media adopted the deliberate policy that it was a non-event, not to be commented on or even reported. The Wilhelm Gustloff, like the Titanic, was a big passenger liner and was reasonably new and luxurious. But it was a German passenger liner. It was sunk in the Baltic Sea on the night of January 30, 1945, by a Soviet submarine. It was packed with nearly 8,000 Germans, most of them women and children escaping from the advancing Soviet Army.
Many of these German refugees lived in East Prussia, a part of Germany that the Communist and democratic Allies had agreed would be taken from Germany and given to the Soviet Union at the end of the Second World War. Others lived in Danzig and the surrounding area, which the democrats and Communists had decided would be taken from Germany and given to Poland. All of these refugees were fleeing in terror from the Reds, who already had demonstrated in East Prussia what was in store for any German unfortunate enough to fall into their hands.
As Soviet military units overtook columns of German civilian refugees fleeing to the west, they behaved in a way which has not been seen in Europe since the Mongol invasions of the Middle Ages. Often the men, most of them farmers or Germans who had been engaged in other essential occupations and thus exempted from military service, were simply murdered on the spot. The women were, almost without exception, gang-raped. This was the fate of girls as young as eight years old and old women in their eighties, as well as women in the advanced stages of pregnancy. Women who resisted rape had their throats cut or were shot. Very often women were murdered after being gang-raped. Many women and girls were raped so often and so brutally that they died from this abuse alone.
Sometimes Soviet tank columns simply rolled right over the fleeing refugees, grinding them into the mud with their tank treads. When Soviet Army units occupied East Prussian villages, they engaged in orgies of torture, rape, and murder so bestial that they cannot be described fully on this program. Sometimes they castrated the men and boys before killing them. Sometimes they gouged their eyes out. Sometimes they burned them alive. Some women after being gang-raped were crucified by being nailed to barn doors while still alive and then used for target practice.
This atrocious behavior on the part of the Communist troops was due in part to the nature of the Communist system, which had succeeded in overthrowing Russian society and the Russian government in the first place by organizing the scum of Russian society -- the losers and ne'er- do-wells, the criminals, the resentful and the envious -- under the Jews and setting them against the successful, the accomplished, the refined, and the prosperous, promising the rabble that if they pulled down their betters then they could take the place of the latter: the first shall be last, and the last shall be first.
It was the members of this rabble, this scum of Russian society, who became the bosses of local soviets and collectives and workers' councils -- when the positions had not already been taken by Jews. The Soviet soldiers of 1945 had grown up under this system of rule by the worst; for 25 years they had lived under commissars chosen from the dregs of Russian society. Any tendency toward nobility or gentility had been weeded out ruthlessly. Stalin had ordered the butchering of 35,000 Red Army officers, half of the old Russian officers' corps, in 1937, just two years before the war, because he did not trust gentlemen. The officers who replaced those shot in the 1937 purge were not much more civilized in their behavior than the commissars.
An even more specific and immediate cause of the atrocities committed against the German population of East Prussia was the Soviet hate propaganda which deliberately incited the Soviet troops to rape and murder -- even to murder German infants. The chief of the Soviet propaganda commissars was a hate-filled Jew named Ilya Ehrenburg. One of his directives to the Soviet troops read:
"Kill! Kill! In the German race there is nothing but evil; not one among the living, not one among the yet unborn but is evil! Follow the precepts of Comrade Stalin. Stamp out the fascist beast once and for all in its lair! Use force and break the racial pride of these German women. Take them as your lawful booty. Kill! As you storm onward, kill, you gallant soldiers of the Red Army."
Not every Russian soldier was a butcher or a rapist, of course: just most of them. A few of them still had a sense of morality and decency which even Jewish Communism had not destroyed. Alexander Solzhenitsyn was one of these. He was a young captain in the Red Army when it entered East Prussia in January 1945. He wrote later in his Gulag Archipelago:
All of us knew very well that if the girls were German they could be raped and then shot. This was almost a combat distinction.
In one of his poems, "Prussian Nights," he describes a scene he witnessed in a house in the East Prussian town of Neidenburg: Twenty-two Hoeringstrasse. It's not been burned, just looted, rifled. A moaning by the walls, half muffled: the mother's wounded, half alive. The little daughter's on the mattress, dead. How many have been on it? A platoon, a company perhaps? A girl's been turned into a woman, a woman turned into a corpse. . . . The mother begs, "Soldier, kill me!"
For his failure to take Comrade Ehrenburg's directive to heart, Solzhenitsyn was reported by the political commissar in his unit as not being Politically Correct and was packed off to the gulag: that is, to a Soviet concentration camp.
And so, German civilians were fleeing in terror from East Prussia, and for many of them the only route of escape was across the icy Baltic Sea. They packed the port of Gotenhafen, near Danzig, hoping to find passage to the west. Hitler ordered all available civilian ships into the rescue effort. The Wilhelm Gustloff was one of these. A 25,000-ton passenger liner, it had been used before the war by the "Strength through Joy" organization to take German workers on low-cost vacation excursions. On January 30, 1945, when it steamed out of Gotenhafen it carried a crew of just under 1,100 officers and men, 73 critically wounded soldiers, 373 young women of the Women's Naval Auxiliary, equivalent to our WAVES, and more than 6,000 desperate refugees, most of them women and children.
Soviet submarines and aircraft were a constant menace to this rescue effort. They regarded the refugee ships in the light of Ehrenburg's genocidal propaganda: the more Germans they could kill the better, and it didn't make any difference to them whether their victims were soldiers or women and children. At just after 9:00 PM, when the Wilhelm Gustloff was 13 miles off the coast of Pomerania, three torpedoes from the Soviet submarine S-13, under the command of Captain A.I. Marinesko, struck the ship. Ninety minutes later it sank beneath the icy waves of the Baltic. Although a heroic effort to pick up survivors was made by other German ships, barely 1,100 were saved. The rest, more than 7,000 Germans, died in the frigid water that night.
A few days later, on February 10, 1945, the same Soviet submarine sank the German hospital ship, the General von Steuben, and 3,500 wounded soldiers aboard the ship, who were being evacuated from East Prussia, drowned. To the Soviets, inflamed by Jewish hate propaganda, the sign of the Red Cross meant nothing. On May 6, 1945, the German freighter Goya, also part of the rescue fleet, was torpedoed by another Soviet submarine, and more than 6,000 refugees fleeing from East Prussia died.
The lack of knowledge in the United States about any of these terrible maritime disasters of 1945 is profound, even among people who consider themselves knowledgeable on naval matters. And this ignorance stems from the deliberate policy of the controlled media, a policy which has relegated these disasters to the category of non-events. The reason for this media policy originally was the same reason which led the Jewish media bosses to blame the slaughter of 15,000 Polish officers and intellectuals in the Katyn woods in 1940 on the Germans. They knew that the Soviets had done it, as part of their effort to "proletarianize" Poland and make the Poles more amenable to Communist rule, but they didn't want to tarnish the image of our "gallant Soviet ally," as the Reds were called by the controlled U.S. media during the war. They wanted Americans to think that the Germans were the bad guys and the Soviets were the good guys, so they simply lied about the Katyn massacre. Likewise, even in the last months of the war, they didn't want Americans alerted to the fact that our "gallant Soviet ally" was butchering and raping the civilian population of East Prussia and deliberately sinking the civilian refugee ships which were helping the East Prussians escape across the Baltic Sea. That might damage America's enthusiasm for continuing the destruction of Germany with the help of our "gallant Soviet ally." So the controlled media simply didn't report these things.
After the triumph of the democratic and Communist Allies and the unconditional surrender of Germany this reason no longer was valid, of course. But by then another motive had taken its place. The Jews were beginning to build their "Holocaust" story and were demanding sympathy from the world -- and reparations money from anyone they could get it from. As they began wailing about the supposed extermination of six million of their kinsmen in "gas ovens" by the wicked Germans and portraying themselves as the innocent and inoffensive victims of the greatest crime in history, they didn't want any facts getting in the way -- and they certainly didn't want Americans to see both sides of the conflict; they didn't want the Germans seen as victims too. All Germans were evil, just like Comrade Ehrenburg had said; all Jews were good; and that was it. The Jews suffered, and the Germans didn't, and so now the world owed the Jews a living for not stopping the "Holocaust."
It really wouldn't help their "Holocaust" propaganda at all to have the American public learn about what had happened in East Prussia or in the Baltic Sea -- or to learn that our "gallant Soviet ally" had deliberately murdered the leadership stratum of the Polish nation in the Katyn woods, and that some of the murderers involved in that horrendous act were Jews. And so there has been a conspiracy of silence in America on the part of the Jewish media bosses. That's why Hollywood was willing to spend $200 million producing the film Titanic but would never consider any film dealing with the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff. It's not that such a film couldn't make money -- I think that a film about East Prussia and the Wilhelm Gustloff could be a real blockbuster -- it's that there must be no sympathy for the Germans. There must be no rethinking of America's reasons for waging war against Germany, no questioning of whether or not we did the right thing in allying ourselves with Communism on behalf of the Jews. And beside these considerations, the truth simply doesn't count -- at least, not to the Jews who control our mass media.
This bit of history -- America's motivations for engaging in the war in Europe, which really was something altogether separate from the war in the Pacific, despite the alliance between Germany and Japan -- this bit of history always has fascinated me. And one of the interesting aspects about it is the unwillingness of so many Americans to examine it. I understand the sentiments of the Clintonista elements. To the kind of people who voted for Clinton, the Soviets were the good guys and the Germans were the bad guys on ideological grounds. Gang-rape, mass murder, and the sinking of refugee ships are not really crimes in the eyes of the Bill-and-Hillary types when they're done by Communists against "Nazis."
But there also were a lot of decent Americans who fought in the war in Europe, anti-Communist Americans, and many of them don't want to think about the fact that they fought on the wrong side. These American Legion and VFW types don't want to hear about who really killed all of those Polish intellectuals and leaders in the Katyn woods. They don't want to know what happened in East Prussia in 1945. They hate it when I ask them, why did we fight Germany in the name of freedom and then turn half of Europe over to Communist slavery at the end of the war? They become angry when I suggest that perhaps Franklin Roosevelt was the same sort of lying, Jew-collaborating traitor that Bill Clinton is, and that in return for media support he lied us into the war on behalf of the Jews, just the way Clinton is lying us into a war in the Middle East on behalf of the Jews.
I was far too young for military service in the Second World War, but I am sure that if I had fought in that war, I'd be even more interested in understanding what was behind it. I believe that knowing the truth about these things is far more important than protecting our carefully nurtured belief that we were on the side of righteousness. I believe that understanding how we were deceived in the past is necessary, if we are to avoid being deceived in the future.
Bill, Monica, and Saddam
As we all watch the U.S. government deliberately move closer day by day to the war I predicted a year ago -- when Clinton appointed his all-Jewish foreign policy, national security, and defense team -- the question must come to many minds: Why do the American people permit this? Why do they vote for a government which clearly doesn't care at all about American interests? Why do they tolerate a government which plunges them into unnecessary wars?
Well, of course, we already know part of the answer. An electorate which will put a creature like Bill Clinton into the White House twice clearly doesn't care much about American interests. All most of them care about is the size of their welfare checks. But there's more to the war mania in Washington than an irresponsible lumpen electorate. There is the conviction on the part of those pushing for war against Iraq that they can get away with it, that no one will call them to account for it, because the controlled media will cover for them. In fact, the controlled media are at the forefront of those insisting on a war. Which is why virtually every political prostitute in Washington, Republican as well as Democrat, is beating the war drums and calling for the bombing of Iraq to begin.
But the American people -- the decent, level-headed, responsible portion of the electorate that didn't vote for Clinton -- what about them? Why are so few of them speaking out against the government's warmongering? I mean, when our government goes in and tears up another country and massacres thousands of its citizens for no good reason, it reflects on all of us. Why do we not at least speak out against it?
For an answer we must examine in more detail the role of the controlled mass media in this affair. They are not just telling the politicians of both parties that if they want media support at the next election they had better rattle their sabers at Saddam Hussein; they also are deceiving the American people about all of the issues involved.
The situation is almost as bad as it was back in the days before the Second World War, when the controlled media were trying to work up a war fever against Germany by telling the American people that Hitler intended to invade and conquer the United States, that our government had discovered a secret plan Hitler had to conquer Brazil first and then to send his Panzers up through Central America and across the Rio Grande. As crazy as that story sounds, I've met American Legion and VFW types who still cite that as a justification for having gone to war against Germany. We had to do it to keep Germany from invading us by way of Brazil.
The media can get away with peddling such whoppers to the public because they have almost no competition. There's almost no one to contradict them and point out their lies to the public, almost no one to challenge their claims of secret plans for invasions by way of Brazil and explain to the public why that doesn't make sense. And in 1940 and 1941 no prominent politician wanted to anger the Jews by pointing out to the public that the idea of a German invasion of the United States by way of Brazil was simply ridiculous. Even then the Jews had a virtual deathgrip on the flow of information to the general public, and with that deathgrip they lied us into the bloodiest and cruelest war in history, in which we not only killed millions of the best people of our own race but then turned half of Europe over to Communist slavery at the end of the war. But of course, it gained for the Jews what they wanted, which was the destruction of the one man in the whole world with both the will and the ability to free Europe from their grip. And if they got what they wanted, nothing else mattered.
Today the official media line is that Saddam Hussein is the new Hitler. He is a menace to the world, they say, because he has chemical and biological weapons and wants to produce nuclear weapons as well, and the United Nations hasn't given him permission to do so.
Actually, Saddam Hussein is no menace at all to the world, but he is a threat to Israel's ambitions in the Middle East, because a strong Iraq under a strong leader could make it too costly for Israel to continue bullying and robbing her Arab neighbors. So the Jews would like to have us get rid of Saddam Hussein and cripple Iraq for them. It's better for us to take the losses involved, they figure, than to risk Jewish casualties. So Saddam Hussein's refusal to take orders from the United Nations is portrayed by the media as an intolerable affront to us. I mean, who does he think he is, refusing to abide by United Nations resolutions and thumbing his nose at Mr. Clinton's all- Jewish defense and foreign policy team? Let's teach him a lesson! Let's punch him in the nose!
Of course, no one in the mass media portrays as intolerable Israel's flaunting of United Nations resolutions. No one in the media urges a military strike against Israel to take out that country's nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons facilities. The United Nations has never given Israel permission to develop any of those weapons, but it went ahead and developed them anyway. Should we condemn Iraq for wanting to develop equivalent weapons when it has a paranoid, megalomaniac neighbor like Israel? Clearly all of the media talk about the need to control weapons of mass destruction and to enforce the rule of law in international affairs is crooked. It is sham and pretense. It is aimed solely at deceiving the American people so that the Jews can get what they want, which is a war to destroy Iraq, with us taking the casualties instead of Israel. The Jewish mass media, with their treatment of the Middle East situation in general and the U.S. government's war plans against Iraq in particular, are doing for the rule of law in international affairs what Bill Clinton is doing for morality in government.
Let me emphasize my point about the utter crookedness and treason of the mass media in America by backing off from the Iraq situation for a minute and talking about a quite different media topic. I spoke in an earlier broadcast about Steven Spielberg's new Hollywood film, Amistad, but since then I've looked into the subject further and learned a few more interesting things about the way in which the American public is being deceived.
Steven Spielberg, everyone must admit, is certainly one of the most influential of the Jewish media bosses. He's not some eccentric taking a course separate from that of the other media bosses, but is a mainstream figure respected and praised by his fellow media tycoons -- and by the whole Jewish community, in fact. He's made two very important propaganda films which have had a large impact on the consciousness of the American public and have been heavily promoted and praised by the other media bosses. Those two films are Schindler's List and Amistad. The first is about how the Jews were mistreated by White people -- specifically by Germans -- and the second is about how Blacks were mistreated by White people -- specifically by 19th-century White Americans who were insufficiently sympathetic to the Abolitionist position. And both films are filled with lies, distortions, and pure invention masquerading as historical truth. They are propaganda films, with no regard for the truth: films which were designed purely as psychological weapons for keeping White people off balance and feeling guilty, so that Jews can manipulate and exploit them more easily. Schindler's List left the theaters long ago, but Amistad is still being shown and reviewed, and it is being treated by the controlled media as almost a historical documentary, just like Schindler's List was. The fact of the matter is that all of the dialogue in Amistad, several of the characters, and much of the plot were invented by Spielberg's scriptwriters and have no basis in fact. Yet Spielberg's Hollywood production company actually has had the brass to produce a so-called "film study guide and learning kit" which has been mailed out to thousands of high school teachers and principals with the suggestion that it be used to bring the so-called "lessons" of Amistad into their school curricula. Nowhere in Spielberg's material for high school students is there any hint that the film is not historically accurate.
What his "learning kit" for students does contain, however, is a statement by one of his associates in the production of the film, Debbie Allen. She condemns the history texts used in American schools as "racist," because they fail to give an account of the achievements of Blacks, and she blames this "racism" on Whites' refusing to acknowledge "the contributions of a culture that was far beyond and centuries ahead."
Spielberg's Amistad associate wants White high school students to be taught that Black African culture is "far beyond and centuries ahead" of European culture, of White culture. Now that is brassy, even for a Jewess. But how many White teachers and principals who receive Spielberg's "learning kit" do you believe will have the courage to point out to students that her statement is sheer nonsense -- and risk being called "racists" for their honesty? How many, in this age of cowardice, official lies, and Political Correctness?
Let me tell you something about the hero of Spielberg's film, the Black leader named Cinqué. He is portrayed as a person of noble character who has been terribly wronged by being enslaved, as a person who is morally offended by the notion of slavery and therefore is morally superior to the Whites who are not offended.
Well, in the 19th century there actually was a mutinous Black slave named Cinqué who instigated a mutiny and the murder of the White captain and crew of a Spanish ship, was captured by the U.S. Navy, was tried and acquitted -- for political rather than legal reasons -- by a U.S. court, and then was sent back to Africa. This all really happened. And here's something else that really happened: when Cinqué got back to Africa, back to Sierra Leone where his home was, he went into business -- as a slave dealer, buying and selling his fellow Blacks.
Oh, did Mr. Spielberg forget to tell you that? Did his colleague Debbie fail to mention that? Did all of those film reviewers writing so learnedly about Cinqué and his adventures in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other Jewish mass media not have enough room for that little detail? Well you can read about it in some of those "racist" history books Debbie was complaining about. For example, there is The Oxford History of the American People by the late Samuel Eliot Morison, a very distinguished author and historian -- probably the most distinguished American historian -- who taught American history for many years at Harvard. The information about Cinqué's slave-dealing will be found on page 520 of the 1965 edition of Morison's book. You'll find it in many college libraries or larger public libraries.
So what does Steven Spielberg's crookedness have to do with Mr. Clinton's campaign to drag America into another war in the Middle East? I'll tell you. The connection is the media. The same Jewish media bosses who gave us Amistad and who reviewed it without telling us about its deceptions and lies and misrepresentations and who now are trying to convince White high school students that African culture was and is centuries ahead of European culture, and we should feel guilty for not having acknowledged that -- these same Jewish media bosses who warned us that Germany was planning to invade the United States by way of Brazil -- more recently have been explaining to us why we must go to war to destroy Saddam Hussein. Should we trust them? Should we believe them when they tell us that Iraq is our enemy and Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States? Well, about as much as we should believe them when they tell us what a high-minded fellow Cinqué was and how much further advanced Black culture is than ours.
What can we believe from the bunch of liars who control our news and entertainment media? I'll tell you what news from them we cannot believe, what news we dare not take at face value, and that is any news that has a bearing on Jewish interests or concerns -- which means that reading a newspaper or listening to a newscast has become a very tricky business these days. You really have to be able to read between the lines, you have to know about hidden motives, you have to understand a lot of things they don't tell you in order to interpret what they do tell you.
Take as an example the Bill and Monica story we've been getting so much of recently. They're really doing a good job of tearing up their former best pal Bill Clinton, of exposing every sordid bit of his thoroughly rotten private life to public scrutiny. The New York Times and other big Jewish newspapers even reported the comments of Clinton's Jewish buddy and former White House adviser Dick Morris, when he suggested during a radio interview a few days ago that the reason Clinton drops his trousers for various female government employees so often is that Hillary "isn't into regular sex with men." Wow! That must have really hurt.
Now, Dick Morris, as a former Clinton intimate and confidant, was in a position to know things like that, but the interesting aspect of this is that the Jewish media are now reporting such details. Why? After all, they've spent years covering for Clinton, protecting him, and suppressing unfavorable news about him. Have they suddenly decided to go straight, to become honest and tell us the truth about Clinton?
No. In fact, they tried at the beginning of the current scandal to cover it up. Newsweek magazine, which is owned by the Jewish Washington Post Company, was sitting on the story and hoping it would go away, but an independent reporter put the story on the Internet, and eventually Newsweek realized that the news about Bill and Monica was just too hot to be suppressed. And then at some point early in this affair the collective decision was made by the Jewish media bosses to stop protecting Clinton, to abandon him to the fate he so richly deserves. He had screwed up so many times that he had become a liability for them. They had enjoyed the luxury of having a totally subservient, totally corrupt President who would do whatever they told him to do -- but the jerk just couldn't keep his zipper up. Why keep embarrassing themselves with Clinton when Al Gore would do what he was told just as eagerly as Clinton would?
Now as one reads the Newsweek stories about Bill and Monica, one can sense the underlying sarcasm and the exasperation of the reporters and editors. The February 16, 1998, issue of Newsweek reported: ". . . there is an unmistakable sense in Washington that the protective wall around Clinton is beginning to crack." Indeed it is. That sentence from the February 16 Newsweek is just an understated way of saying, the insiders have decided that the bum is finished, despite his approval by the rabble.
So, yes, if one is able to distinguish truth from falsehood, one can sometimes find truth in the controlled media -- but not because the media bosses have any honesty in them; it's just because they sometimes change their minds about what suits their interests; they sometimes change their strategy. Sometimes they decide to stop protecting people that they had been protecting earlier, and then you may be able to learn something about a person that you couldn't learn the truth about earlier. And that's where we are with Bill Clinton now.
In this regard, I was in Germany a few days ago, and the Germans were really curious about the Clinton situation. It didn't seem real to them. They thought there must be some trick to it. They just couldn't believe that the most powerful and dangerous country on earth is being led by an irresponsible clown like Clinton. I assured them that it isn't: that the United States is a democracy, and therefore it is led by the people who control the mass media.
Now, this is the sort of thing that's embarrassing to the media bosses. They like to maintain the illusion that the puppets they put up for public office in the United States are the ones who are really in control. Clinton has completely blown their cover -- at least in places like Germany, where the average citizen is a bit more alert than over here. So that's why they've decided to abandon Clinton and let him stew in his own juice.
But the Jewish media bosses still believe that destroying Iraq's ability to wage war against their kinsmen in Israel suits their interests. Forcing America to go to war against Iraq on their behalf is still very much a part of their strategy. Remember that when our military people start killing Iraqi women and children with their "smart" bombs and missiles, and the media bosses try to make you feel heroic about it and tell you that we had to do it, because Saddam was a threat to the American way of life.
Jewish Policy Against Iraq
It used to be that before we would wage war against another country, we had to believe that we had some moral justification for doing so. And it used to be that the only moral justification which we considered sufficient was self-defense.
No matter how much we disliked another country or its policies, we would not attack them with our armed forces -- we would not wage war against them -- unless they attacked us or one of our allies first. We used to put a lot of stock in never being an aggressor, but acting only in self- defense. We had to wait until we were hit before we would hit back.
Even the Second World War, in which all of the media Jews -- and therefore their boy Franklin Roosevelt -- wanted the participation of the United States in the worst way, had to wait until our government could maneuver Japan into attacking us at Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt and his Jews had been trying for more than a year before Pearl Harbor to provoke Germany into doing something which we could use as a pretext for declaring war. Our Navy had been firing on German ships at sea and doing everything else it could to provoke a military response from the Germans, but the last thing Hitler wanted was a war with America, and so the German Navy was under orders not to shoot back. Roosevelt secretly had told Churchill and others that he would bring the United States into the war as soon as he could, but first he needed something which he could hold up to the American public as moral justification for a declaration of war against Germany.
Well, Mr. Clinton went on television about 10 days ago to present to Americans his moral justification for waging war against Iraq. I figured beforehand that he and Mr. Cohen would have cooked up some phony "incident," some Tonkin Gulf affair, they could use to claim that the United States was acting in self-defense. But Mr. Clinton didn't even have such a pretext! His sole excuse for an attack on Iraq was that Iraq wouldn't follow orders. Saddam Hussein wouldn't permit the UN inspection teams to poke around in his palace bedroom and in other places Mr. Clinton said they must be permitted to inspect. For that Mr. Clinton proposed to launch a massive military assault on Iraq, which certainly would kill many Iraqis and would put us into a state of war with a country which has done nothing against us. He proposed to kill Iraqis on a large scale in order to enforce a policy. That's moving warfare onto quite new moral grounds for America, and it's something about which we ought to be quite concerned.
Do you remember when Mr. Clinton was explaining to the American people why we had to wage war against Iraq? He said that if we don't attack Iraq now and bomb the hell out of the Iraqis they'll develop weapons of mass destruction. And then, with that boyish little grin he puts on whenever he wants one of his lies to be especially convincing, he said that if we permit the Iraqis to develop weapons of mass destruction, then someday they'll use them. "You can be sure of that," he said.
That's a justification for a massive military attack on another country? An unsubstantiated assurance by a habitual liar that if we don't attack another country now, then they'll develop weapons we don't want them to have, and then, someday, they'll use them. For something. Maybe for defending themselves from Israel? That, of course, is the key to this whole, sordid business -- Iraq may defend itself from Israel -- but it's something that's never admitted in public by the politicians or the media. Instead Iraq always is held up as a threat to us, to America, to the world: we must get the Iraqis before they get us. And that, of course, is nonsense: total nonsense. But Mr. Clinton is surrounded by people who parrot the same nonsense. The only people he talks with are his Jewish advisers and officials, the media, and other politicians. They all agree with him. Until Saddam Hussein's agreement just a few days ago to let the UN inspection teams into his bedroom whenever they want to come in, all of the people around Clinton agreed we should attack Iraq, and the sooner the better. Now most of them have backed off a bit until they can figure out a new reason for attacking, on which they're working.
Some Republicans are saying that we should ignore the UN agreement and attack anyway. Mr. Clinton thinks that because the Republican politicians as well as the Democrat politicians support his warmongering, he's got a lot of support. Of course, these Republican and Democrat politicians are as corrupt and as totally lacking in genuine patriotism as he is. They are men who fall to the ground and begin groveling whenever they see a Jew. And they know that the Jews are virtually 100 per cent in favor of a war against Iraq -- although they never say this in public.
It was this "bipartisan support" from the corrupt crowd in Washington which led Clinton to make the disastrous mistake of sending his all-Jewish defense and foreign-policy team to Ohio State University last week to stage one of his "town meeting" propaganda stunts that he thought would help persuade ordinary Americans to support his war against Iraq. The Clintonistas were surprised when a substantial portion of the audience rejected Clinton's war. Albright, Cohen, and Berger were expecting the same sort of groveling acquiescence to their policies that they are accustomed to from the Washington crowd, and they really didn't like it when people in Ohio asked them why America supported Israel and proposed to bomb Iraq, when Israel is by far the more flagrant flouter of UN resolutions.
I hate to keep reminding everybody of this, but what the Clinton government was trying to do -- and what some of their people are still trying to figure out an excuse for doing -- is exactly what I predicted more than a year ago. In my broadcast of December 21, 1996, right after Mr. Clinton had appointed his new, all-Jewish foreign policy, national security, and defense team. I said:
"I am convinced that there will be a strong effort to involve America in another major war during the next four years. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. While the warmongers are scheming for war, they will tell us how much they want peace."
I explained my reasons for believing that the Clinton team would try to start a war. I explained in detail why the Jews need a war and why they need it before the end of Clinton's second term. Those reasons still hold. And that's why the Jews around Clinton will push ahead with their war plans despite the obvious reluctance of most non-Jewish Americans to go to war for them and despite the new agreement between Iraq and the UN.
The situation in Washington today is really bizarre. We've never before had anything quite like it. Clinton has a few of his old cronies from Arkansas with him in the White House, people like lawyer Bruce Lindsay, who used to get him out of problems with drugs back in Arkansas and who now helps him with problems like Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, but nearly everyone else is a Jew -- especially everyone who has anything to do with foreign policy or national defense.
One of Clinton's top advisers in the White House is the Jew Rahm Emanuel. During the 1991 war against Iraq Emanuel joined the army: the Israeli army, that is.
He's a dual citizen and one of the key advisers who sets policies for Clinton. Madeleine Albright, the Jewess Clinton chose to handle America's foreign affairs, has had very little foreign policy experience, but she has surrounded herself in the State Department with experienced people, and they're all Jews too. The Jew she chose to head the State Department's Middle Eastern section, Martin Indyk, wasn't even a U.S. citizen when Clinton was first elected President. His whole life has been spent working for Israel in one capacity or another, and now he's the man in charge of "our" policy in the Middle East.
These people aren't concerned about what's good for the United States. They're concerned about what's good for Israel, what's good for the Jews. We might as well have the Israeli Knesset conducting our affairs of state for us. They're all hot to blast Iraq back into the Stone Age, and they want us to do it for them. I don't think it even occurred to them before they staged that town meeting in Ohio that not all Americans are eager to do that for them.
Unfortunately, however, some Americans are -- and not just the Washington politicians, who are always eager to do whatever the Jews want. I saw a television interview with one of our military pilots in the Persian Gulf, and he was obviously eager to begin the war. We have all of these hot, new weapons, he said, and he wants to see what they'll really do. He's been trained to use these weapons, he said, and he's eager to try out the things he's learned. He's eager to try out his new bombs and missiles on live targets. The TV interviewer seemed to think that this was a normal, healthy sentiment: the sentiment of a real patriot.
I remember a time when I was a kid and I had just bought a new rifle, and I was hot to go out in the woods and try it out on live targets. I wanted to see what my bullets would do to live animals. I'm really ashamed now that I ever thought like that: that I was so indifferent to the destruction of wildlife and the suffering of animals. But apparently the Jewish media bosses aren't ashamed to broadcast interviews with our military people who are eager to start blowing Iraqis to bits with their new weapons so they can see how well these weapons work, people who are hot for some live targets.
During the past seven years we've killed five per cent of the population of Iraq with the embargo that Jews like Madeleine Albright are so determined to maintain. Five per cent of the population. What do you call that? Genocide?
I am not a pacifist. I am not against war, when war serves our purposes, rather than someone else's purposes. I'm not even against genocide, if we're killing people who need to be killed, people who are our natural enemies. But I don't like being tricked into going to war or waging genocide against someone else's enemies. We were told -- and I'm convinced that we will be told again -- that we must go to war against Iraq because it's bad for Iraq to have weapons of mass destruction. And what about Israel's weapons of mass destruction? You ask that question of one of Mr. Clinton's Jews and you'll be told that we're more concerned about Iraq than about Israel because Iraq has a record of aggression, a record of attacking her neighbors. As if Israel doesn't attack her neighbors!
Over the past 50 years Israel has attacked her neighbors more often than any other country in the Middle East. Israel has grabbed the territory of her neighbors in one war after another, and every time has been armed and supported by the United States government in this aggression. The United Nations has condemned Israel's aggression and has passed a number of resolutions demanding that Israel give back the land stolen from her neighbors, but those resolutions are ignored with impunity.
If we want to compare the relative aggressiveness of Israel and Iraq, let us not forget that it was Israel who first attacked Iraq. All we hear from the controlled media is that Iraq fired some SCUD missiles at Israel during the Gulf War. What we are never reminded of is Israel's military strike against Iraq in 1981. That Israeli strike, by the way, was a sneak attack. Iraq had done nothing to Israel to provoke it. When Iraq fired its SCUD missiles at Israel in 1991, Iraq was under massive military attack by the United States and its allies, and I think that we cannot blame Saddam Hussein for regarding that as an attack on his country by Israel. Then as now we were being used as an instrument of Jewish policy, and the world understood that, even if few world leaders had the honesty to say so.
I predicted this war effort against Iraq because I understood the underlying forces at work. I cannot predict what the eventual outcome of the war will be after it begins. There are too many variables. But one outcome I think we should be prepared for is the commencement of terrorism on a significant scale in the United States. I know that if I were Saddam Hussein I would have spent the last seven years quietly putting agents into place in the United States: agents equipped with biological and chemical weapons. The U.S. military machine is capable of completely destroying Iraq. There's no way that Iraq can oppose the United States by conventional means. We can, of course, threaten horrible retaliation against Iraq if biological or chemical terrorists strike in the United States. Still, if I were Saddam Hussein, as a last resort I would use my terrorists. I would turn them loose against the Great Satan to do as much damage as possible. I wouldn't go down without a fight. I would teach the world a lesson about the limits of the Great Satan's power.
The Jews, of course, are willing to take that chance with the lives of our people. They've got their borders under a lot tighter control than we have. It may be difficult for Arab terrorists to smuggle biological weapons into Israel, but it's not difficult at all to smuggle them into the United States. Illegal aliens enter the United States by the hundreds every day. And a few may have really potent terrorist weapons. Perhaps we'll find out what some of those weapons are capable of doing to our civilian population.
In fact, I'd not be surprised if Israel is thinking right now about popping an anthrax bomb in some place without many Jews -- some place like Des Moines, say, or Sioux Falls -- if the Israelis think that's the only way they can get their war against Iraq started. Israel can do this knowing that Iraq will be the one blamed by the media and the government and the one that our military will flatten in retaliation. That is the sort of thing Israel has done before. That is what Israel had in mind back during its 1967 war against its neighbors when it tried to sink our electronic intelligence ship the USS Liberty. If the Israeli attack on the Liberty had been successful, the sinking would have been blamed on Egypt.
In any case, if Mr. Clinton's advisers figure out a way to get around the UN agreement with Iraq and proceed with their planned war it will be perceived by the world -- and most especially by the Islamic world -- as an attack carried out for the benefit of, and at the behest of, the Jews. And an attack against Iraq will greatly increase the likelihood of terrorist activity in the United States, whether that activity begins immediately or later. There's one interesting thing about biological and chemical terrorism: they don't require much in the way of resources. Anyone with a little graduate training in microbiology or chemistry can figure out how to produce extremely lethal substances. The equipment required is minimal. One country wanting to wipe out another country with chemical or biological weapons delivered in a military way might need big factories and warehouses for the equipment and materials, but an educated terrorist aiming to build a biological or chemical bomb to kill 100,000 people can do it in his basement. All that's required is the will. Mr. Clinton and the gang of Jews around him are providing that will to a lot of people around the world.
When the first such terrorist attack hits the United States -- not if, but when -- the media and the government will be yapping about "extremism" and "hate" and "anti-Semitism" and all of their familiar devils. But you and I will know whom to blame. We will understand who brought it on.
You know, there are many people, in Washington and out of Washington, who already know everything I've told you today. The Jewishness of the Clinton gang and the Clinton government's policies is just too obvious to miss. Unfortunately, most of these people are too polite, too cautious, or just too timid to talk about the Jewishness of America's affliction. They are afraid that they will be condemned as "racists" or "anti-Semites" if they attribute the Clinton government's policy against Iraq specifically to the Jews. And so they talk all around the problem. They talk about the government's policy being a bad policy, an unwise policy, a policy which is harmful to America, but they refuse to tie that policy to Madeleine Albright's Jewishness, Samuel Berger's Jewishness, William Cohen's Jewishness, Rahm Emanuel's Jewishness, Martin Indyk's Jewishness, or the Jewishness of the whole Clinton gang. They will try to find other explanations for the policy: any explanation except the explanation that those behind the policy are Jews, and the policy was formulated to benefit Jews at the expense of the rest of us.
The Wrecking of Our Schools
In October 1997 the Clintonistas celebrated the 40th anniversary of one of the proudest moments in the history of America's march toward the New World Order, a moment whose memory makes every Clintonista misty-eyed and brings a lump to his throat. That was the moment in 1957 when the Federal government sent troops into Little Rock, Arkansas, to force, at bayonet point, the racial integration of Little Rock's all-White Central High School, and the White citizens of Little Rock did not revolt. The Clintonistas still like to give their clenched-fist salute when they gloat with each other about this easy victory over the hated White racists who wanted to keep Blacks out of Central High School. Bill Clinton made a special trip back to Little Rock a few weeks ago to lead the gloating.
Today the enrollment at Central High School is 60 per cent Black, and conditions there have changed accordingly. Two of the members of my organization, the National Alliance, are high school teachers in Arkansas, and they wrote to me with comments about their own experiences in Arkansas schools today, along with comments by some of their colleagues which had been published in local newspapers. You won't find any of this in the New York Times or the Washington Post, of course, because it's news which doesn't fit. One teacher wrote to me that while the 40th-anniversary hoopla was still going on in Central High there was a gang fight in the school involving approximately 40 Black students. It took six policemen using pepper spray to break it up. That's pretty routine stuff at Central High these days. Other teachers report about school plays being broken up by rowdy Blacks in the audience and about the teachers' frustration over the fact that they're not permitted to do anything to control the Black students. The school administrators are afraid to have records of suspensions and expulsions which show a disproportionately large number of Black troublemakers.
Little Rock schools are still operating under various court orders, and court-appointed Clintonistas monitor very closely everything in the schools regarding race. One teacher writes: "When the deseg monitors come to my classroom, they don't ask me anything about the curriculum or the success of the students. They count the Black and White faces and check to be sure that I have posters of African-Americans on the walls. Never mind that I teach British literature." "Deseg monitors" in the classrooms: doesn't that sound Orwellian, like something right out of George Orwell's novel 1984? Actually, it's Clintonian. It is a real shame that we are permitting it to happen in America.
The real shame for us is not that Black students are having gang fights and otherwise behaving the way they always do; it is that nearly 40 per cent of the students at Central High are still White and are subjected to this environment. The Little Rock school board is able to keep a minority of White students in the formerly all-White Central High by making it a so-called "magnet" school, with many advanced courses that are not available at other high schools. The Clintonistas want to keep the schools racially integrated, and so they are forced to employ such stratagems as magnet schools, but they really don't like the way these things work out in detail. What has happened at Central High is that the students have resegregated themselves: the Whites are 39 per cent of the general enrollment, but make up nearly 90 per cent of the enrollment in the courses for gifted students and 87 per cent of the advanced classes. There was a major article in U.S. News & World Report a few weeks ago lamenting this fact and asking what can be done to achieve complete racial mixing at Central High and other public schools across the country. The Clintonistas always have looked on schools which separate students into different classes on the basis of ability as "undemocratic." In the case of racially mixed schools, ability tracking also has the embarrassing result of exposing the differences in ability between Blacks and Whites.
Now, race, unfortunately, isn't the only problem in America's schools -- although it's a big problem, especially in the cities. It's the racial integration of our schools which has brought drugs, gang fights, schoolroom rapes, assaults on teachers, and a general atmosphere of indiscipline to the education of our children. But the same people who pushed so hard for the racial integration of the schools 40 years ago have been pushing for other changes too, and in the long run these other changes may prove to be at least as destructive.
I'll give you an example based on my own experience. I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the United States, and one of the things which impresses me is the inability of a relatively large percentage of our adult population to use the English language effectively or correctly. Spelling, punctuation, and grammar are very often abysmal. These people who write to me are virtually all high school graduates, and many of them also are university graduates, some with advanced degrees, but they have failed to learn how to use the English language at what used to be a grammar school level.
As a child I attended schools in five different districts from Virginia to Texas, and I believe that the standards in these schools were only average. But the standards were such that a substantial portion of the people from whom I receive letters today would not have been permitted to graduate with the low level of proficiency in English manifested by their letters. And it's not that these people are unintelligent; I've spoken personally with many of them who are quite intelligent. They just didn't learn English, and I've worried for a long time about why this is so.
We all understand, of course, that the schools have been dumbed down in order to make it possible for Blacks to cope with them. But this shouldn't have made it impossible for Whites to learn who really wanted to learn. I was discussing this problem with a professor of education at a major American university just last week, and he explained to me that it's not just the racial integrationists and egalitarians who have been changing the nature of our schools in recent decades. The feminists also have had a major role in the wrecking of our educational system. Feminists are solidly entrenched in the education departments which train our teachers and design our school curricula. They have gained a virtual stranglehold on many facets of our educational system. And let me tell you, if there is any bunch of people in this country with wackier and more destructive ideas than the racial egalitarians, it is the feminists. They have been busy feminizing the education of our children, and it shows up in the inability of an increasing number of Americans to use English effectively. The key to understanding why this is so is the fact that the feminists not only promote the teaching of feminist propaganda in the schools -- denying any essential differences between men and women, among other things -- but they also are changing the way in which children are taught, in order to bring it into conformity with their own ideas. Feminists, for example, always have been against competition. They regard competitiveness as a masculine trait, and they try to discourage it in every way they can. They are in league with the racial egalitarians in pushing for an end to the grading of students. Setting precise standards and then grading students numerically according to their performance relative to those standards is anathema to them. They see it as psychologically damaging to the students -- especially to those who make low scores. They much prefer a warm and fuzzy approach to evaluating students. Their goal for the classroom is cooperation, as opposed to what they like to refer to as "cutthroat" competition. They love committees and work groups and consensus. They want to see the students deal with learning as a group, with the brighter students helping the duller students. They like to see problems talked to death in a group. It's really not stretching their ideas very far to say that whenever the members of a student group disagree about the answer to a question or a problem, the feminists would like to see the students vote on the correct answer. They really do have a different view of the nature of reality.
The feminists also don't like to see a strong emphasis on rules. It destroys creativity, they believe. Rules and details should be relegated to a secondary position, and students should be given the "big picture" instead. They should be able to talk about a subject in broad terms without worrying too much about the details. And the feminists don't much care for an analytical approach to any subject. Analysis is too masculine.
What all of this means when it comes to the teaching of English to students is that the rules of grammar, punctuation, and style are de-emphasized, and the students instead are given a "feeling" for what constitutes standard English.
Here's a specific example of the way in which the feminist influence in education has affected Americans' mastery of their language. When I was a student back in the fifth or sixth grade, one of the most important tools I learned for understanding grammar was the diagramming of sentences. This involved breaking down a sentence into its constituent structural components and analyzing their relationships to each other: subjects, predicates, conjunctions, direct objects, objects of prepositions, modifying phrases and clauses, and so on. I had to fit every word in the sentence into a structural diagram which emphasized the role of the word in relation to the other words. It seems as if every night for a couple of years I was diagramming sentences. And I was called to the blackboard hundreds of times to diagram sentences. I didn't enjoy it, but it taught me to look at language analytically. It gave me the habit of building sentences the way an architect designs buildings: a very useful habit, I believe.
But most high school graduates today -- not all, but most -- have never diagrammed a sentence. The concept is completely unfamiliar to them. Instead, they have been taught to see the "big picture" in English, to get a "feeling" for it. The feminists regard diagramming with distaste: too analytical, too masculine. They have succeeded in having it phased out of most curricula. The consequence is that most high school graduates are not able to use English with a reasonable degree of precision. They have not really mastered the language. Of course, they usually can say approximately what they mean when they write a letter, and that's good enough to get by for most purposes. The decline in the degree of precision with which the average American uses English more or less matches the general decline in the level of civilization in our society. This decline is sufficient that most Americans are no longer bothered by the dropping of the old, sexist rule that a pronoun must agree in number with its antecedent, and so the language can be made more nearly Politically Correct without alarming too many people. For example, in the bad, old days of grammatical rules a teacher might have announced to a class: "Any student who wishes to graduate with his classmates must do all of his homework." Today the Politically Correct teacher would announce instead: "Any student who wishes to graduate with their classmates must do all of their homework." A bit less precise, a bit more open to misunderstanding, you must admit -- although a reasonable person could guess what the teacher probably meant. The important thing, though, is that it keeps the feminists happy.
Perhaps it seems foolish to worry about such matters as the gradual loss of facility with English by the average American at a time when our entire society is under attack by those who are determined to destroy us. Why should we even think about the diagramming of sentences or the agreement of pronouns with their antecedents when we have a growing flood of non-White immigrants pouring into our country, when we have a rising tide of racial intermarriage, and when Bill Clinton is in the White House? Why should we even concern ourselves with the gradual dumbing down of our schools when we have a government of traitors and criminals who are hell-bent on suppressing our freedom as individuals and our sovereignty as a nation and dragging us into the New World Order?
Certainly, if we could in any quick, direct, and simple way halt non-White immigration, halt racial intermarriage, get Bill Clinton out of the White House, get rid of the other traitors and criminals in Washington, and restore our government to health and honesty, that's what we should be doing, instead of worrying about the details of what's been done to our schools. The fact is, however, that it all hangs together. In order to solve the big problems, we must first understand them, and to understand them we must look at the details, at all of the little specifics.
What's been done to our schools is one of those details. Understanding this detail, understanding who did it, what their motivations are, and how they did it is important to us -- really, essential to us -- if we are to understand how to deal with the big problems. It's important to understand that the damage done by feminism in our schools is more than teaching some Politically Correct nonsense about there being no difference between the sexes, because this helps us to understand that the damage done by feminism in our armed forces is more than merely putting women into formerly all-male combat units. We need to understand that wherever feminism gains a dominant influence, it brings with it a different way of looking at the world and of dealing with reality. And this different view of reality has profound consequences -- ultimately lethal consequences -- for our whole society.
Everything hangs together: our schools, our armed forces, our government. Understanding the problems in one area helps us understand the problems everywhere else. For example, thinking about the way in which feminists have de-emphasized competition in our schools and discouraged the competitive spirit of American children gives us insight into the growing softness, the growing wimpishness, that we see in so many young men these days.
And learning about the role of the feminists in the destruction of our society leads us to a better understanding of other destructive influences. We can understand better, for example, why the Jews, whose own traditions are anything but feminist, have so enthusiastically promoted feminism in our society. We can understand better why the media of news and entertainment, which are so largely under Jewish control, have worked so hard and for so long to ram feminist propaganda down our throats.
Understanding is essential. It doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of the New World Order in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must be credible and we must help them understand what's going on and why. We must be specific. We must explain the details as well as the big picture. And we need a lot more people to join forces with us if we are to be able to compete effectively with the Jews and their many allies.
More than that, we need understanding -- a thorough, detailed understanding -- of what has happened to our society if we are to have any reasonable chance of building a sane and healthy society in its place someday, a society in which our children and grandchildren can live and learn and grow strong again, free of the destructive influences which have afflicted this society so grievously. And a sound educational system will be a very important part of that new society. We must know in detail what is wrong with the present educational system if we are to be able to build a better one someday.
And listen: if you'd like to participate with me in learning what we must do to build a better society and in helping other people understand these things too, I'd like to hear from you.
Judicial Insanity and Schoolyard Massacres
Clinton's sexual escapades, his lying about them, and his attempts to get witnesses to lie, show us what sort of person he is. These things help us to understand what a degenerate piece of White trash we have in the White House. But they are not the really important things about the Clinton administration. They are more like a sideshow, more like comic relief from the real damage Clinton and his controllers are doing to us and to our country.
Consider, for example, Mr. Clinton's appointments to the Federal courts. He has done more than any other President in history to increase the number of Jews in the Federal judiciary. His most notable moves in that direction have been his appointments of two Jews to the nine-justice Supreme Court, but nearly all of his judicial appointments have been aimed at increasing so- called "diversity" in the courts. In most cases when his appointees haven't been Jews they've been Blacks or other non-Whites. The rule seems to be, anybody but a heterosexual White male.
One Clinton judicial appointment was in the news in the Philadelphia area in late March when the appointee, Frederica Massiah-Jackson, withdrew her nomination after it became clear during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings that she would not be approved. Now, that's really something, for the Politically Correct U.S. Senate to balk at approving a judge who is not only female but also Black.
Actually, the Senate already had approved her appointment last fall, shortly after Clinton nominated her. In the recent Senate hearings her appointment was being reconsidered. How did that come about? Let me tell you.
For the past 15 years Massiah-Jackson has been a judge on Philadelphia's Court of Common Pleas, and she's made quite a reputation for herself as a Black racist who always sides with Black defendants -- and in Philadelphia that means most criminal defendants. She curses and swears at White prosecutors and lawyers in the courtroom, but that's not the reason they persuaded the Senate to reconsider its approval of her nomination and then showed up at the Senate hearings to testify against her; what motivated them is her habit of refusing to convict or to punish Black career criminals. Philadelphia prosecutors cited case after case in which her behavior in the courtroom was so outrageous as to be almost beyond belief.
For example, there was the 1990 case of the Black homosexual rapist who grabbed a 13-year-old boy walking on the grounds of the Albert Einstein Medical Center in North Philadelphia, dragged him into some bushes, and sodomized him. When the child cried during the ordeal, the rapist slashed his face and head with a razor-knife, the kind with a retractable blade used to open boxes. When the Black rapist had finished with him, the boy crawled out of the bushes and was seen by two hospital employees, who came to his aid. The naked, bleeding child told them that the rapist was still in the bushes. Then they saw a Black man come out of the bushes and rearrange his clothes. They summoned police, who seized the man and found the razor knife and a bloody rag in his belt pouch. When the case came before Judge Massiah-Jackson, she would not admit into evidence the testimony of the two eyewitnesses who saw the rapist coming from the bushes, saying that they had seen him under what she called "unduly suggestive" circumstances. She also threw out the evidence of the razor-knife and the bloody rag, saying that the police hadn't had probable cause to seize the items.
In two other cases where Blacks were charged with assault involving serious injury to the victims, Judge Massiah-Jackson ruled that the two victims, who had been shot in the abdomen, suffered severe internal damage, and subsequently underwent colostomies, had not had "serious injury" inflicted on them. By so ruling she was able to downgrade the seriousness of the charges against the Black assailants.
Now, this doesn't mean that Judge Massiah-Jackson is without feelings, however. When, despite her efforts, a jury returned a guilty verdict against a Black who had raped a 10-year-old child and she was obliged to impose a mandatory minimum five-year sentence on the rapist, she wept in the courtroom. She cried. She told reporters and spectators, "it's not that I think the rape didn't occur, but five years is a lot of time." After serving his sentence, the rapist was freed and promptly raped a nine-year-old child.
Judge Massiah-Jackson is capable of being tough on crime. When a White criminal was unfortunate enough to come before her she imposed an especially harsh sentence on him, explaining that one of the aggravating circumstances in his crime was that he was a "Caucasian." That's what the woman said in her written opinion: the aggravating circumstance which justified a maximum sentence was that the defendant was a "Caucasian."
When the details of her courtroom behavior were presented to the Senate, even that thoroughly corrupt body began backing away from confirming her. Massiah-Jackson wailed that her record was being "distorted." She was being subjected "to an unrelenting campaign of vilification and distortion."
One of the witnesses against her, Pennsylvania's Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli, replied to this charge of distortion: "We don't make up the words that appear in court documents. Those are taken down by stenographers."
Judge Massiah-Jackson has her supporters as well as her critics, of course. President Clinton, who had recommended her to the Senate as a "highly qualified" judge and urged her confirmation, was angry when Morganelli and others opposed her. He sent her a letter, in which he wrote: "Sadly, in recent weeks your nomination became a target for baseless attacks that mischaracterized your record without affording you a reasonable opportunity to respond." Baseless attacks!
And Massiah-Jackson also has other supporters. The Jewish mayor of Philadelphia, Edward Rendell, responded to her withdrawal of her nomination by saying: "I view this result with a great amount of sadness. . . . I'm disappointed because a basically decent individual has been subjected to a level of intensity that I've never seen any other judge subjected to." The Jewish chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association, Mark Aronchik, was bitter when many of his fellow lawyers opposed Massiah-Jackson. He said: "Only weeks before her nomination was to go to the Senate for confirmation . . . we see this tactic of selective distortion of a record . . . ."
The Jewish editorial page editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, Jane Eisner, wrote on March 17, the day after Massiah-Jackson's withdrawal:
"Judge Frederica Massiah-Jackson's lamentable withdrawal yesterday from her quest for a Federal judgeship leaves the nation's judiciary a poorer place. The Federal bench desperately needs qualified candidates from all America's communities, and as the first African-American woman nominated from this district, she would have brought a welcome and necessary diversity to the court."
Massiah-Jackson also had enthusiastic supporters in the Senate. The leader of her Senate support was Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter. Specter, of course, is not only a Republican; he also is a Jew.
Jane Eisner spoke for all of Massiah-Jackson's Jewish supporters when she accused those who testified against her of "McCarthyite tactics." Wrote Eisner with obvious bitterness in her Philadelphia Inquirer editorial: "Once the charge was 'soft on communism.' Now it's 'soft on crime.'"
Well, the diversity-mongers lost this round of the fight. Massiah-Jackson went down in flames. But that was only one round. Make no mistake about it: the bad guys are winning most of the other rounds, and they're winning the war. Most of Clinton's appointees have been approved, and although they're not as obvious in their anti-White malice as Massiah-Jackson is, they're all the more dangerous because of that. The Jews and their collaborators are winning the war against White America on all fronts, and they'll continue to win as long as they retain their control of the mass media and are able to keep the White public hypnotized.
The Massiah-Jackson spectacle only received substantial media coverage in the Philadelphia area, so perhaps the rest of the country should not be blamed for sleeping through it. But there are other signs of what Jewish media control has done to America which are seen by everyone, and I hope that at least a few White Americans are being awakened by these signs.
An especially tragic sign was the killing of four White schoolchildren and a White teacher in Jonesboro, Arkansas, a few days ago. This is the third mass killing of schoolchildren by other children in the past five months. The media bosses put on a pretense of being mystified. "How could this happen?" they ask. And then they supply the answer to their question. The reason for all of the killings is the easy availability of guns, they tell us.
But that explanation is nonsense, and they know it. Fifty years ago, when I was in school, kids had even more access to guns than they do now, but they didn't massacre their classmates. When I was in school there were virtually no gun-control laws or other restrictions, and more of the population was rural than now -- which meant that using guns regularly was a part of the lives of more schoolchildren. So it's certainly not easier access to guns which has made the climate in America's schools murderous. Guns haven't caused the change which has taken place in America.
You know what has caused the change, but let me tell you anyway. Actually, there have been two changes. One is the consequence of the loss of racial and cultural homogeneity in our schools. It used to be that a school was like a big extended family. The teachers were all White, and so were the kids. There was a sense of community. But that sense of community is long gone. Even in areas which are still mostly White, such as Jonesboro, the alienation caused by the diversity-mongers has become a major factor in the antisocial actions of many children. One of the young killers, Mitchell Johnson, idolized Black culture and often pretended to be a member of the Bloods gang.
The other factor is the influence of television on children's lives, on their behavior, on their attitudes. And I'm not talking simply about television violence. I'm talking about the pervasive influence, the pervasive effect of television altogether. It distorts a child's grip on reality. The child exposed to five or six hours of television every day, all of his life -- and that's most American children today -- loses his ability to distinguish between the real world and the imaginary world he sees on the television screen. The connection between the child's actions and the consequences of his actions becomes fuzzy in his mind. The child fails to develop a normal sense of responsibility.
Of course, I'm generalizing. The effect of television is much stronger on some children than on others. Some children do maintain a fairly good grip on reality and do grow up to be more or less responsible adults. But the average effects of television are still there, and they manifest themselves in the sort of tragedy we had in Jonesboro a few days ago. This never happened before we had racial integration and television, but it will happen more and more often in the future as so-called "diversity" and its consequent alienation continue to grow, and the influence of television remains with us.
Probably it already has occurred to you, but the Clinton attempt to make a Federal judge out of this Massiah-Jackson creature in Philadelphia and the tragedy in Jonesboro are not unrelated. Both are things which couldn't have happened when we had a sane country. The corruption of the political system and the judicial system on the one hand and the alienation of our children on the other hand, their loss of their sense of community and their sense of responsibility, go together. We fell victim to both of these afflictions as a consequence of losing control of our society, of letting things get entirely out of hand, of abdicating our responsibility to maintain control over our own destiny. And in order to have a sane and healthy society again we must take charge of our own affairs again.
That is easy to say, "we must take charge of our own affairs," but how do we actually do it?
Well, it's always been my belief that in order to do anything successfully -- especially if it's a difficult or complex thing -- we ought to try to understand it first. And if we want to get ourselves out of a mess, part of what we need to understand is how we got into the mess in the first place: how did we lose control of our affairs? I've explored various aspects of that question in the past. I'll restate briefly one of my most important conclusions.
We failed to understand the absolutely essential role of the mass media, the media of news and entertainment, in the development of our modern society until we had lost control of those media. We failed to understand that as a society grows and becomes more complex and more centralized, the mass media become the principal organs in the society for shaping public opinion; they take the place of the direct person-to-person communication which characterizes simple and non-centralized societies.
By shaping public opinion the media are able to play a decisive role in formulating public policy and in determining the makeup of the government. We didn't understand that -- or at least we didn't understand it fully -- until, during the course of this century, a small and alien minority had insinuated itself into a position of dominance over the media. That small and alien minority, of course, is the Jews.
And in that one fact lies the explanation of why policies which are destructive of everything that we hold dear, policies which are morally abhorrent to us, policies which have brought our whole civilization to the brink of ruin, have been promoted by the mass media and enforced by the government in Washington. In that fact is the reason why so-called "diversity" has become a new government-enforced religion: a religion in which Massiah-Jackson's being a Black female excuses the sort of African tribal "justice" she has been dispensing in Philadelphia and qualifies her for the Federal judiciary.
After we let the control of public policy slip out of the hands of our people and into the hands of the media bosses, we began feeling impotent; we began feeling that we no longer had control over our lives or the lives of our children. And so we just sat back and became spectators. We let events take their course. We let the television raise our children and teach them their values. And then what happened in Jonesboro happened.
What this tells us is that if we really want to regain control of our lives again, regain control of our society and our civilization, we must first regain control of our mass media. As long as the media of news and entertainment remain in the hands of the people who control them now, most White Americans will continue to be confused and misled. When the next schoolyard massacre takes place, Americans will hear another call for gun control from the media, but they will not hear any true explanation of why we are seeing more and more of this sort of tragedy.
And when the next national election takes place, we will get another President who is beholden to the media bosses instead of to the American people and who will appoint more judges of the sort Bill Clinton has been appointing.
My broadcasts, of course, cannot overcome the much greater influence of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the television networks -- but they are a start, and your support in making it possible for our influence to grow is appreciated.
The Theft of Our Freedom
I want to talk with you about freedom. Freedom! That seems simple enough, but it is a word with profoundly different meanings for different people. Some of the people whom I most despise and whom I consider the greatest threat to freedom have, in fact, represented themselves as champions of freedom. I'm talking about liberals. The name "liberal" comes from the Roman word meaning "free." How ironic! -- although I am sure that most liberals don't see the irony. Their concept of freedom is radically different from mine.
For me freedom is a fairly simple thing: it is closely tied to my idea of independence. I am free when no man can claim the right to force me to do his will rather than mine. This definition is a definition relative to society, to government, and to the law. I said, "when no man can claim the right . . . ." Thus, I don't consider myself unfree when a robber points a gun at me and tells me to give him my wallet. He's telling me what to do, but he doesn't claim any right to do so. I consider myself unfree if I am not able to entertain the possibility of drawing my own pistol and contesting his request for my wallet because the government previously has disarmed me with a gun-control law.
I also consider myself unfree when I cannot say whatever I want to say on any subject whatsoever, because the government has forbidden me to speak.
Freedom or lack of freedom is a function of my relationship to society and to the government. It is not a function of how much money I have, how popular I am, or how happy I am with my life. A lot of people talk about things like "freedom from hunger," "freedom from fear," or "freedom from want," but they're not using the word "freedom" the way I use it. Hunger and fear are serious things and unpleasant things, but they don't have anything to do with freedom as I've defined it here.
We all make conscious decisions to impose certain limits on our own freedom. When we marry, for example, we consciously give up some of our freedom. When we choose to be a member of any community or any society, we enter into a social contract: in return for receiving the benefits of being a member of the society, we agree to obey the society's rules. But these things are a matter of choice for us. They are voluntarily accepted limitations. The man with a strong sense of self-worth and independence, the man who loves freedom, will be cautious about accepting such limitations, and he will want to keep them to a minimum. He will be eternally vigilant to prevent other men from changing the terms of his social contract in such a way as to diminish his freedom.
Weaker, more dependent men, on the other hand, may gladly accept more limitations in return for the promise of more social benefits or more security. And that's all right, so long as we don't let their weakness encroach on our freedom.
Liberals have an entirely different concept of freedom. For the liberal the idea of freedom is mixed up with the ideas of happiness and comfort. That's why one always hears liberals talking about things like "freedom from want." To liberals, a hungry man is not a free man. And of course, in a certain sense of the word that is true. A hungry man is encouraged by the pain in his belly to do something to get food. His options are more limited -- at least temporarily -- than those of a man who is not hungry. But that's not the sense in which we use the word "free." Whether a man is hungry or not, whether he is poor or not, he is free as long as he not prevented by the government from seeking food for himself or seeking to alleviate his poverty.
That's where we and the liberals differ. To us a poor man is unfree only if the government prevents him by law from bettering his condition. To us a man can be poor and hungry and still be free. To the liberals a poor man lacks freedom even if he is poor solely because of his own laziness or stupidity. What counts to the liberals is that he is poor, regardless of the reason, and therefore cannot have everything he wants. So the liberals campaign to free him from his wants, not to free him from laws which prevent him from taking care of his own wants. The liberals in their campaign for "freedom from want" very often seek solutions in the form of more laws: laws which take away our freedom in order to satisfy the wants of those who have an entirely different concept of freedom.
A big thing with the liberals these days is "freedom from oppression." By "oppression" the liberals mean anything which makes them feel bad or keeps them from having what they want. To the liberals poverty is a form of oppression. So is feeling bad because they are ugly, stupid, awkward, ill-bred, or unpopular. The liberals consider a person is "oppressed" when he is reminded of his inferiority by something another person writes or says. Feminists, in particular, are fond of complaining about this sort of "oppression." They believe that they are free from oppression only when they are feeling good about themselves, and this "freedom to feel good," as they see it, is threatened by people who say "insensitive" things.
The liberals believe that they are fighting for freedom from oppression when they campaign for laws designed to protect the feelings of people who could be offended by the comments or actions of other people. These laws are often called "hate laws." The liberals sometimes speak of "freedom from hate" and believe that they are achieving that with their "hate laws."
In fact, to hear a liberal or a Jew talk about it, you would believe that "freedom from hate" and "freedom to feel good" were what the Founding Fathers really had in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights. To the liberals the so-called "freedom" of a homosexual not to be offended by the remarks of someone who considers him a freak ranks right up there beside freedom of speech and freedom to keep and bear arms -- in fact, a bit above freedom of speech and way above the freedom to keep and bear arms.
These new "freedoms" that the liberals have invented -- freedom from oppression, freedom from "bad vibes," freedom from hate, freedom from being offended -- have been given an enormous promotion during the past decade or so. Several large and well-funded Jewish organizations -- Morris Dees's Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, the Simon Wiesenthal Center -- have been working together with the controlled media and bought politicians to push so-called "hate laws" through state legislatures.
These laws attempt to protect people -- especially those considered "disadvantaged" by the liberals, and that means non-male, non-White, non-heterosexual, or non-Gentile people -- from being made to feel bad by outlawing "oppressive" thought and "oppressive" expression. Some of the laws aim at punishing a person for having "oppressive" thoughts when he commits a crime. For example, if a homosexual solicits you and you punch him in the nose, it ordinarily would be a misdemeanor assault in most jurisdictions. But if you say, "Take that, you filthy pervert!" when you punch him, it becomes a felony in those areas where a "hate" law is in effect. Instead of being fined a few hundred dollars, you can be sent to prison for five years.
Other laws, based on the same "freedom from oppression" theory, criminalize any speech or other expression which might "oppress" a "disadvantaged" person -- that is, it criminalizes so- called "hate speech." Jewish and liberal groups have succeeded in pushing such speech-limitation laws through several state legislatures. They also have succeeded in convincing a substantial portion of the public that "hate," "racism," and "discrimination" are illegal, even in those states where they have not yet succeeded in enacting "hate" laws. Thus, they have intimidated many people into limiting their own speech, in the belief that to say something Politically Incorrect might result in a prosecution. I am sorry to say, in many cases they have gotten away with these infringements on the freedom of other Americans: infringements committed in the name of "freedom from oppression." It is infuriating, but it is also ironic.
Florida is a state with lots of liberals and even more Jews, and in order to protect "disadvantaged" people in the state from "oppression" they have enacted several "hate crime" and "hate speech" laws. These laws are unconstitutional, and they are intended primarily to intimidate the citizens of Florida to conform their speech and behavior to liberal norms -- although the liberal and Jewish elements in the state certainly would like to see the Constitution actually changed to favor their concept of "freedom" over ours.
In late February, nine students at Killian High School, in the Miami suburb of Kendall, Florida, were arrested and hauled off to jail after they published a pamphlet satirizing their school's administration. They were charged under two of Florida's "hate" laws, because the principal of Killian High School is Black, and he was treated unkindly in the pamphlet, which even included cartoons depicting the Black principal engaged in sexual intercourse. The principal called the police and requested that the students be arrested. One of the charges against the students carries a penalty of five years imprisonment.
The Jewish Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith joined the Black principal, feminists, eager- beaver politicians and bureaucrats, and others in praising the action against the students, who range in age from 16 to 18 years. One of the more eager members of the lynch mob who praised the arrests was Henry Fraind, deputy superintendent of schools. He told reporters, "Free speech doesn't give anyone the right to use a word that would inflame. They do not have the right to incite the feelings of outward racism."
Unfortunately, Henry Fraind is all too typical of the sort of vicious, Politically Correct bigots we have put in charge of the education of America's children. I don't know whether or not he really believes that Americans don't have the right to use words which inflame or which incite feelings of racism, but it's clear that he would like for the use of such words to be illegal -- and I'll bet he also would like to see people go to prison for using words which incite Politically Incorrect feelings about sex, sexual orientation, religion, and a number of other things. Even if Mr. Fraind understands that the Bill of Rights is still a bar to the type of "hate speech" laws he favors, he seems pleased that the laws, unconstitutional though they are, are on the books and serve to stifle the ignorant and the timid. And there are, I'm afraid, far too many other people, who are not activist bigots like Fraind and not even especially liberal, who would vaguely go along with him.
These people have gradually been persuaded by two generations of television propaganda that people are entitled to "freedom from oppression" and that there should be some sort of penalty for saying or writing things that "disadvantaged" people find "oppressive." They believe that the government has -- or should have -- the authority to compel us all to write or say only "nice" things. That shouldn't be surprising in this feminized age. The feminine spirit gives priority to niceness and getting along with everybody and not hurting anyone's feelings. The masculine spirit gives priority to freedom and to truth and to saying what needs to be said, offensive or not - - but masculine priorities have become Politically Incorrect in this age.
It is interesting to note that of the nine students thrown into jail for producing and distributing their "insensitive" and "oppressive" pamphlet, five are girls. One of the students is Asian, and three of them have Hispanic surnames. Most of them are honors students. This "diversity" didn't stop the prosecutor from charging them, and it didn't stop the police from leaving them locked up overnight in the Dade County jail with murderers and rapists. Four days after they were charged and arrested the state reluctantly dropped the charges against them. The feminist prosecutor who was responsible for the arrests, Katherine Fernandez Rundle, told the Associated Press that dropping the charges against the students was "a difficult decision" for her, even though she knew the laws were unconstitutional and unenforceable. One gets the distinct impression that she and other authorities involved were sorry that they couldn't prosecute the students and felt that keeping them in jail for a night was letting them off too easy -- for exercising their constitutional freedom of speech.
The parents of the arrested students have talked about the possibility of suing, but I personally feel that a good, old-fashioned necktie party, with the Black principal, deputy superintendent of schools Henry Fraind, and Kathleen Fernandez Rundle as the guests of honor would be more appropriate! Too much of the blood of our forefathers was spilled securing the freedom which these Politically Correct bigots would like to take away from us -- too much to permit them to continue trampling on our Bill of Rights with impunity.
These arrests last month in Florida are a pretty clear-cut case of our freedom -- freedom of speech -- coming into conflict with freedom as defined by the liberals and Jews: namely "freedom from oppression," freedom to feel good. But it is by no means the only such case. This sort of thing is happening more and more frequently these days, and our freedom all too often is subordinated to theirs. Believe me, they really would like to re-write the Bill of Rights, taking away all of our freedoms and substituting theirs instead. And that's what they actually are doing, step by step.
There are three categories of people responsible for the gradually increasing loss of freedom in America. First, there are the Jews, as represented by groups such as the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center -- and of course, by the masters of the mass media. These are cold-blooded, hard-headed people who know exactly what they are doing in trying to take away our freedom. I've talked at length about their activities and their motivations on earlier programs, and I'll talk more about them in the future.
In the second category are the hard-core liberals, the people who grew up in the 1960s and 1970s believing that they were "oppressed" if mommy or daddy reprimanded them for not picking up their dirty socks and underwear or if the kid next door was better looking or had more toys than they had. They built their ideas about "freedom from oppression" and "freedom from want" into a sort of nut-case religion, which has been adopted by a lot of really wacky people, people with serious problems of retarded personality development: the feminists, for example. This religion also has been adopted by a lot of amoral opportunists who don't care about freedom one way or another, but who find it profitable to go with the flow: who find that it helps them get a good press and more votes.
But it's the third category of people that we really have to worry about. Those are the people who have been too passive, too selfish, or too cowardly to stop the Jews, the retards, and the opportunists: the people who have let them get away with it and have put up virtually no opposition to the theft of our liberty.
I'm talking about us. I'm talking about those who really believe in freedom of speech and freedom of self-defense, but who are so afraid of being called an "anti-Semite" or a "racist" that they remain only silent spectators when our freedom is raped the way it was in Florida last month. Too many of us have let ourselves be buffaloed by the very clever Jewish tactic of calling their campaign against our freedom a campaign against "hate." Too many of us who see through this tactic are still afraid to stand up and denounce their "hate laws" -- and them -- because we are afraid of being thought "haters."
Let me leave you with this thought. Cowardice and freedom are not and never have been compatible. If we want to be free again, then we must find the courage to deal properly with those who are stealing our freedom.
Replacing Shakespeare With Malcolm X
Just when you thought that the people running this country already had inflicted every sick and degenerate program imaginable on us, they come up with yet another program wackier and more destructive than anything which has gone before. This time it's a program by the San Francisco Board of Education to step up the rate of "multiculturalizing" of the curriculum for San Francisco's public schools by phasing out most White influences.
For a long time, of course, the more "progressive" elements -- that is, the nuttier elements -- in America's educational establishment have been fretting about exposing young people to all of the racist, sexist, homophobic, and elitist influences inherent in the writings of White authors from generations less Politically Correct than our own. These include all of the writers whose works American schoolchildren traditionally have read: Homer, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Dickens, Tennyson, and Kipling. They are hateful people when viewed from a Politically Correct perspective. I mean, Homer and Chaucer completely ignored Blacks, as if they didn't even exist! And Shakespeare made a number of very insensitive references to Jews. Kipling was an unabashed White supremacist. And they were all elitists: not an egalitarian among them. "Progressive" educators have skirted this problem by censoring the works of White writers before presenting them to students, keeping the more objectionable works out of sight.
Now the educators have a much better plan. Instead of censoring the White writers, they will replace them with non-Whites. In the new curriculum for San Francisco's public schools 70 per cent of the reading assignments for students will consist of works by non-White writers -- or "authors of color," to use the trendy language of the new policy statement. For every three books written by White authors which students read, they must read seven books written by non-White authors. Actually, most of the school-board members would like to get rid of all of the White authors, because all of their writings are contaminated by racism, even if it isn't explicit. But they're willing to accept paring the Whites down to 30 per cent as a first step.
There have been a few protests against the San Francisco curriculum from conservative teachers around the country, but they didn't challenge the policy at its core. Rather, the critics said things like, "of course everyone supports more diversity, but quotas aren't the way to achieve it." After all, who wants to be condemned as a "racist" for speaking in favor of a mostly White curriculum? Who has the courage to go on record as saying that multiculturalizing the curriculum inevitably will debase it? Isn't that equivalent to saying that non-Whites haven't written works whose quality matches those of Shakespeare and Dickens? And so most of the more conservative educators are side-stepping the issue, while the real nut-cases proceed with their multicultural programs.
Now, lest you jump to the conclusion that this is a Black-versus-White issue, I assure you that many of the proponents of the new San Francisco curriculum are neither Blacks nor Hispanics. To be sure, most Black and Hispanic educators support the new curriculum. So do the Jews, although they're being more discreet about it. And for the sake of appearances, a few Jews are even going on record as being against the new program. But the really interesting thing about this program for "multiculturalizing" the school curriculum is that it also is supported by many White educators. I suppose that shouldn't surprise us when we consider how many White people voted for Bill Clinton. There really are a great many very sick White folks running around these days. This is the Clinton era!
I find it difficult trying to understand what goes on inside the minds of these sick people. I'm inclined to believe that many of them simply have been exposed to too much Jewish hate propaganda: they've seen too many hate films, such as Roots, Schindler's List, or Amistad, and they've taken them to heart. They've been filled with an artificial sense of guilt and turned against their own people. They've let themselves be persuaded that White people are inherently evil, destructive, and brutal, and that our main role in history has been exploiting, dominating, and harming non-White peoples, who are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive.
They believe that non-Whites can do a gentler and fairer job of running the world, that non- White intellects can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality and can build a more sublime civilization for us. Many of these sick Whites really believe this nonsense! It has become a religion for them, this idea of the noble, gifted savage held down by the wicked White man. They can read some crock of pretentious, angst-filled, drivel written by a non-White and believe that they've read something really profound. If it had been written by a White man, they would recognize it as drivel and laugh at it, but their religion prohibits them from laughing at non-Whites, so they take it seriously. They really believe that a non-White curriculum will be better for all students, including White students. They really believe that Whites will benefit from being "multiculturalized."
And I think that there are others among the White supporters of the non-White reading program for San Francisco's schools who are not religious, but they simply have a feminine tendency to go with the flow. They look at the changing demographic statistics for the United States, California, and San Francisco, where White children now make up only 12 per cent of the public school enrollment, and they figure that there's no point in fighting the growing non-White majority. They simply can't face the prospect of possible bloodshed and destruction which may be needed to reverse current demographic trends. Above all else they want a peaceful solution to non-White unrest, non-White crime, and non-White failure, and they figure that the easiest thing to do is give the public schools a non-White curriculum. Perhaps that will make the non-Whites happy, and the Whites will get along somehow.
You may wonder why I care what sort of curriculum there is in a school system which is only 12 per cent White. Well, I care in the first place because it is still 12 per cent White. I don't want those White children subjected to any more of an anti-White brainwashing program than they already are. Second, I care because the sort of rot that is taking over the San Francisco school system is spreading, and the sooner we stamp it out the better. If we simply acquiesce to what is happening now in San Francisco, then it will happen all the sooner in other cities. San Francisco used to be a White city, and it used to have White schools. The same process that destroyed San Francisco's schools is destroying the schools in every city in America. Everywhere we are seeing the same sickness among the educators and bureaucrats, and everywhere we are seeing the same changing demographics. The sickness must be stamped out. The demographic trends must be reversed. I understand, of course, that it may take a civil war to reverse America's demographic trends. But this war does not seem to be in the immediate future. This shouldn't excuse us from doing what we can do now. We must fight the sickness which has infected our people, and that sickness is not just in education. We should fight Clintonism wherever it has raised its ugly head. We should fight the sort of Jewish hate propaganda which has poisoned nearly every aspect of our public life in America. We should expose the lies and the malevolent motivations on which this hatred of everything White is based, and we should help our people to develop a healthier attitude toward their own kind, their own race.
We can help even the least idealistic of our people -- we can help even the most selfish and least altruistic of our people -- understand that we are headed for certain disaster if we accept the nonsensical doctrine that non-Whites have as much to contribute to our civilization as Whites do and that White children can benefit by being raised on a diet of non-White literature. We can help them to understand that "multiculturalizing" our schools and our curricula already has lowered our educational standards drastically, and that if we continue along the same path we will end up with a less literate, less well informed, and less capable population than we have now.
And we can help the more idealistic of our people -- the ones who care about things besides the gross national product -- understand that the most important thing in a child's education is the sense of identity and rootedness that he receives, his sense of peoplehood and racial belonging. That does not come from a multicultural education. It comes only from immersing him in the culture, in the ideas, in the history, in the spirituality of his own people. What I'm saying is that even if the 70 per cent non-White literature that the San Francisco board of education intends to impose on schoolchildren weren't mostly anti-White drivel, it would still be bad for White children because it is non-White.
What I just said is a very important point, but I am afraid that of lot of my patriotic friends miss this point, so I'll say a few more words about it. Most White Americans will agree with us that what the San Francisco board of education is doing is not a good idea. They will be cautious about condemning it because they don't want to be perceived as racists, but even many of the morally and intellectually challenged White Americans who voted for Bill Clinton would vote against throwing out Homer and Shakespeare and Dickens to make way for Eldridge Cleaver and Malcolm X -- if they could cast their votes secretly, so their liberal friends couldn't see how they voted. But their reasons for voting against the San Francisco program would have a lot more to do with the gross national product than with racial identity and rootedness.
The most common objection one would hear from White opponents to the San Francisco program would be that it is not helpful to anyone -- Black, Chicano-mestizo, or White -- to teach them in such a way that it will be more difficult for them to be assimilated into the majority culture. If Blacks want to get ahead in a predominantly White country, it will be more helpful for them to study Shakespeare than Eldridge Cleaver or Malcolm X. And of course, exactly the same argument applies to White students. Nothing racist about that. The only White people who would disagree are the hard-core, nut-case Clintonistas -- and of course, those pitiable souls I mentioned a few minutes ago who are tormented by the religion of White guilt. Even conservatives -- even patriots -- seem to believe that the principal reasons why the San Francisco program is bad are that it substitutes inferior writers for superior ones, and it focuses on minority culture rather than on the majority culture. But to think that way is to miss the most important point. That point is that our children must be given strong roots in our culture, and what the Blacks, mestizos, and Asians do with their children is their business, so long as they don't do it on our turf.
I hardly need to mention that my view of this matter is a racist view. The point I am making is a racist point. My patriotic and conservative friends who have not grasped this point have been trained to look at the world as individuals rather than as White men and women. Individualism is the new conservative religion, and it is really as disastrously wrong-headed a religion, as lethal a religion, as the religion of White guilt which motivates the White supporters of the San Francisco program. The individualist is as concerned about what sort of education Black, mestizo, and Asian children receive as he is about the sort of education White children receive.
In my religion the first commandment is, survive. Be fruitful and multiply. Grow strong, and safeguard the future of your children.
And the second commandment is, seek the future among your own kind. Know that each race of man, each species of animal, must develop according to its own laws, according to its own nature. Understand the nature of your own people, and base your plans for the future, your plans for growing strong, your plans for a strong and healthy posterity, on that nature. Preserve your kind.
My religion is a racist religion. It does not require me to hate anyone of another race or to harm anyone of another race, so long as he does not threaten or impede my own race. But it does require me always to put the interests of my own people ahead of any other race's interests or any individual's interest, including my own.
My religion is based on doing what comes naturally, on doing what my kind always have done -- at least, what they did prior to the mass insanity which seems to have taken hold during this century. When we did what was natural for our people we grew strong, and no other people could stand against us. But when we let the religion of White guilt begin setting our policies for us, we began getting the sort of lunacy we have in San Francisco -- and everywhere else, in different forms. The religion of White guilt gave us Bill Clinton in the White House. It gave us affirmative action, racial integration in our schools, and the immigration policy which is flooding our country with non-Whites.
I think that my conservative and patriotic friends agree with me on this. Having Bill Clinton in the White House is a disaster. It is not only a national embarrassment, but it is a grave national danger: it threatens the whole future of our country. And they agree with me that open borders, affirmative action, the new San Francisco curriculum, and the rest of the Clinton program are disasters for America, whether Clinton remains in the White House or not.
But I part company with many of my conservative and patriotic friends when it comes to understanding why these disasters have been inflicted on us and what we should do about them. I hope that as our situation in this country worsens, some of them will come to understand that their religion of individualism cannot save us, cannot even slow the pace at which disaster is overwhelming our people on all fronts. I hope that they will understand that a religion based only on individual interests, based only on selfishness, not only cannot save our people, but it cannot even protect their own, personal interests in the face of the disaster which is overtaking all of us.
The Blacks, Asians, and mestizos who want to base the education of children in San Francisco on Malcolm X instead of on Shakespeare understand what the individualists don't understand. They understand that together they are strong. They understand that as long as the White man remains befuddled by his religion of White guilt or disengaged because of his belief in individualism, they will continue having their way. They understand that the country as a whole is moving toward a non-White majority in the next century, and that if the White man remains unable to look out for the interests of his own people, we actually will have that non-White majority, and then the non-Whites will be able to do whatever they want to do -- and there will be hell to pay for us, liberal as well as conservative.
So think about it, all of you patriotic listeners who still believe in individualism, who believe that it is wrong to judge others by their race, who believe that racism is wicked: think about the direction in which our country is headed now and how you will act to change that direction as an individualist. And if you don't come up with any really good ideas, perhaps you will consider the possibility that we ought to work together for a better future on the only realistic basis, and that basis is our common race, our common roots, and our common culture. You might consider the possibility that doing what comes naturally, doing what our ancestors for the last ten thousand generations have done may not be such a bad idea after all.
Perhaps you are still terrified of being thought a racist. So don't call yourself a racist, if you prefer. But do understand that we must do whatever is required of us to survive first, to survive as a people. Understand that if we permit the sort of madness we can see in San Francisco and in Washington to continue spreading -- as it is spreading now -- we have no future as a people. Our children have no future. The Clintonistas will win. Our country will sink into barbarism. Our culture will be replaced by the culture of the Black African, the Mexican mestizo, and the slave- like Chinese. Our race will become extinct.
And all it takes to avoid that end and to have a healthy future is to work together for our people. Together we can put an end to the sort of rabble who have taken over our government. We can clean up the country and get it back on course again. Think about it. And write to me about it.
Clinton's Legacy
Bill Clinton is a psychologically defective person. He's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath, or a sociopath. He is not only amoral, but he also lacks the judgment and self-control necessary to conform his behavior to reasonable norms. Amorality, lack of any inherent morality, is not an uncommon condition among lawyers and politicians, of course, but most of them manage to curb their greed and their lust enough to conform to accepted standards of behavior. A person who wants to get ahead in politics should be a person who looks ahead and tries to understand the long-range consequences of current decisions and policies. Bill Clinton has never had that faculty. For him it's always been doing what he wants to do at the moment and figuring that later he'll be able to lie himself out of any problems which arise. He behaves as if he's been lobotomized or as if he has a substantial non-White component in his genetic makeup. He displays the type of mentality especially characteristic of Blacks: a profound lack of foresight.
When Bill Clinton was a university student during the late 1960s he organized pro-Viet Cong demonstrations. That may have been a very trendy thing to do in the pot-smoking, coke-snorting crowd to which Clinton belonged, but it wasn't a very farsighted thing to do for someone who even then had strong political ambitions. Even the most amoral and opportunistic person should have understood that publicly taking the side of your country's enemies during a war could become a serious liability for a political career in the future. Clinton figured he'd do what was trendy at the moment and lie about it later, if he figured at all.
When he was governor of Arkansas there were enough available women to satisfy any sexual appetite. All that was called for was a reasonable degree of discretion, but Bill Clinton lacked even that. His womanizing exceeded all reasonable bounds. Like a Third World potentate making the rounds of his subjects, he would spot a woman in a crowd who appealed to him and point her out to a member of his state police bodyguard, who then would approach the woman and escort her to Clinton's bedroom for a "quickie." The technique used with Paula Jones was standard operating procedure in Bill Clinton's Little Rock, as several of his former bodyguards have testified. Any prudent man, no matter how lustful, could have guessed that this sort of behavior eventually would lead to serious problems. But not Bill Clinton.
And Clinton was as reckless in his financial dealings and in his use of illegal drugs while he was in Arkansas as he was in his bimbo hunting. A number of witnesses have testified to his use of cocaine at Little Rock parties while he was governor of Arkansas. For the governor of a state to behave in such a manner, regardless of his lack of respect for the law, indicates a shocking deficit of judgment.
As for finances, let me remind you that one of his Arkansas friends, Susan McDougal, a former officer of the failed Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, has been sitting in prison for more than six months now on a contempt charge because she refuses to tell a grand jury what she knows about Bill Clinton's involvement in Madison Guaranty's illegal operations. She has been granted immunity from prosecution in return for her testimony, but she refuses to talk. One can only suspect that someone in the Clinton crowd is making it worth her while to keep her mouth shut and stay in prison.
And there is the matter of the box of old bank records which turned up in the back of a former bank employee's car: a box of records everyone thought had been destroyed. Among the records was a $27,000 check from Madison Guaranty to Bill Clinton, which Clinton claims he doesn't remember receiving.
As with Susan McDougal, suspicions of "hush money" payments are associated with several other former Clinton associates: Webster Hubbell, an old Arkansas pal appointed associate attorney general by Clinton during his first term as President, later was indicted on felony fraud charges. He promised prosecutors to tell what he knew about Clinton's illegal activity in Arkansas in return for lenient treatment. But various Clinton associates, including Vernon Jordan, stepped in and arranged for Hubbell to receive $500,000 in so-called "consulting fees." After the payoff, Hubbell kept his mouth shut about Clinton and went to prison.
And there's the case of Monica Lewinsky, who traded her promise of silence in return for a high- paying job in New York, arranged by Vernon Jordan.
Well, the list goes on and on and on. It's really astounding that one man has gotten away with so much and managed to stay out of prison -- let alone to stay in the White House! As I said, Clinton's personality matches that of what the psychiatrists call a "constitutional psychopath": a person who not only lacks all moral scruples but also lacks the judgment and self-control necessary for normal social functioning.
Clinton, of course, grew up during the 1960s, a period of artificial social upheaval when the Jews were using the mass media to encourage young people to break all the rules, cut themselves loose from their roots, and adopt a hedonistic life-style. One of the Jewish instigators of this upheaval of the 1960s was Jerry Rubin, a leader of the Youth International Party. In his book titled Do It!, published in 1970 by the big New York Jewish company Simon and Schuster, Rubin explicitly urged the sort of behavior manifested by Clinton. He advocated free money, free drugs, sex whenever and wherever one felt the urge, no rules, and no responsibility.
Bill Clinton, however, wasn't the only American who grew up during the 1960s, and he really can't use the so-called "counter-culture" revolution promoted by Rubin and other Jews as an excuse for himself. Constitutional psychopaths are born, not made. What the 1960s did for Bill Clinton was provide him with a milieu in which he could operate without the social disapproval that ordinarily would be directed at a person like himself. It provided him with a constituency of people who had grown up with the notion that responsibility and discipline are "fascist" concepts. These are the sort of people he has surrounded himself with in Washington.
Gary Aldrich, the FBI agent who was assigned to the Clinton White House to do security checks on Clinton's staffers, has described these people in detail in his 1996 book, Unlimited Access. Aldrich tells of drug usage and semi-public homosexual activity encountered in the corridors and restrooms of the Clinton White House and of the shocking information uncovered in his background investigations of Clinton staffers. Not a 1960s person himself, Aldrich was distressed by the absence of moral and behavioral standards he observed among Clinton's associates. In Unlimited Access he relates a conversation he had with two other FBI agents. One of them asks him, "What the hell is going on at the White House, Gary?"
Aldrich replies that he has never seen anything like it. The third agent says: "Are you sure you haven't seen these people before? Think about it. 'Kill the pigs. Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the Viet Cong are gonna win.' That's who they are, Gary. They're the people we used to arrest." So you see that my conclusions about Bill Clinton are shared by others who have acquainted themselves with him. Many rank-and-file people in the news media also understand Clinton's nature, but many of these media people are 1960s-style people themselves, and they were inclined not to be critical of his recklessly self-indulgent behavior, until it exceeded even their limits of tolerance.
The interesting thing about all of this is not that Bill Clinton is a constitutional psychopath. There are lots of constitutional psychopaths running loose in our society these days. The interesting thing is that a constitutional psychopath has become President of the United States through the democratic process, and he enjoys a high degree of popularity among the electorate even after his nature has been revealed by the recent scandals. That's what's interesting.
I draw two important conclusions from this: one about the role of the mass media in the political process today, and one about the nature of the electorate and what that means for mass democracy.
How did a constitutional psychopath become President? To answer this we need to understand that Bill Clinton is not only a psychopath: he is a psychopath with charisma. He is a very manipulative psychopath. He is an intelligent psychopath. With his boyish smile and his "aw, shucks" manner, he has not only been able to charm countless women out of their panties, he also has been able to charm their husbands, fathers, and brothers into voting for him. It was perhaps forgivable for the local Democratic Party machine in Arkansas to adopt him as a candidate for governor. They saw in him a natural vote-getter. The trouble with this, of course, is that they also should have seen the constitutional psychopath in him and rejected him on that basis. Clinton's charm and his ability to win votes should not have been the only considerations.
Politics always has been a crooked business. But I believe that the people involved in it used to be a little more careful, a little more mindful of the consequences of their actions. This wasn't really indicative of any morality or patriotism on their part: just normal prudence. The standards seem to be down everywhere these days. The professional politicians always try to remain closely aware of public feeling, public attitudes, public tolerances. When they see that public standards are down, that the public will tolerate behavior today that it wouldn't have tolerated 20 or 30 years ago, then they are more likely to put forward someone like Clinton as a candidate. They won't be quite as discriminating in choosing a candidate as they were earlier.
They usually get away with this lack of discrimination. But they didn't get away with it in Clinton's case. Certainly the more prudent Democratic leaders are wishing now that they hadn't chosen Clinton as their candidate. They can see that he is still popular, but they also can see that he endangers the continued existence of the system from which all the politicians draw their sustenance. They can see that a system of constitutional democracy, of democracy with rules and standards, has been degraded to a mobocracy. The mob doesn't care about rules and standards. The mob cares only about its hero of the moment.
Did Clinton steal money from the public in his dealings with Madison Guaranty? "Who cares?" roars the mob. Did he use cocaine while he was governor of Arkansas? Has he broken laws in accepting money from Chinese gangsters? "Leave the poor man alone. We like him!" screams the mob. Has he committed perjury and obstructed justice by arranging payoffs to Susan McDougal, Webster Hubbell, and Monica Lewinsky? "That's not important!" shouts the mob. "Let him do his job!"
Now, the mob may not understand the danger in this sort of situation, but others do understand. There are many thoughtful and responsible Americans who accepted democracy only because of the safeguards designed to keep it from becoming a mobocracy: safeguards which obviously have failed. Until now democracy has been sort of a secular religion in the United States, but the intelligent and independent-minded segment of the public is becoming cynical about that religion. They are losing their faith in it. They will withdraw their consent to be governed by it. That may not worry the mob, because the mob is drunk with its own power, with its numbers. But mobs never rule for long, regardless of their numbers. There will be a revolution, and the mob will lose its power -- which is a good thing, of course, but we want to be very careful about who gets the power.
There's one more extremely important element in our situation, and that element is the power of the mass media. Before the rise of the mass media, candidates for office had more or less direct contact with the voters. The public's evaluation of candidates was guided by community standards and by local community leaders. Community leaders were usually a cut above the village idiots and the food-stamp recipients and the trendy airheads who always went chasing after the latest fad, and because they were a cut above the rabble in terms of judgment and sense of responsibility these local community leaders gave a degree of stability to democracy. As long as the voters took their lead from people in the community who were respected, democracy was not likely to become mobocracy.
During this century, however, American society has undergone profound changes. For all practical purposes, there no longer are communities or respected community leaders in most parts of America. During this century the mass media have risen to take the place of community contact and community guidance in the lives of most Americans. This has been especially the case since the Second World War and the advent of television. Now candidates for public office are presented directly to the voters through the mass media. The image of a candidate that a voter sees is the image shaped by the media, and the media are far from neutral. Of course, charisma and personal charm and likability are still important for a candidate's vote-getting ability, but the media make a big difference in the way these characteristics are perceived by the public. The types of questions that reporters ask during press conferences and interviews, the manner in which they ask questions, and the way in which the interviews are edited before being presented to the public make an enormous difference in the way the public perceives a candidate. There always are things in a candidate's background, in his past life, which are capable of influencing the public's attitude toward a candidate. The people who control the media scrutinize these things and decide which ones to present to the public and which ones to keep quiet about. Did the candidate demonstrate on behalf of America's enemies during the Vietnam war, as Bill Clinton did? Not important, the media bosses decide. No need to remind the public of that. Did the candidate ever make a remark about limiting immigration or cutting back on welfare or eliminating affirmative action programs? Well, now, that's something the media bosses certainly will want to tell the public about; they'll want to tell the public that the candidate is a "racist," and they'll figure out the most damaging way to do it.
On top of this control of candidates' images by the mass media, there also is the more general effect that the media have on public attitudes. Two generations of Americans have been raised on television now. Television has been the baby-sitter and the teacher for two generations. And during these two generations Jews have had a vastly -- an enormously -- disproportionate role in controlling what television has taught to Americans. Jews, whether as scriptwriters, as producers, or as network bosses, have shaped much of the public's attitudes and values. And that fact is the key to understanding why Bill Clinton still has a very high public approval rating even after being exposed for what he is.
In summary: Bill Clinton did not make the political system in America what it is today. He did not change a constitutional democracy into a mobocracy. That change took place without his help, over a period of decades. Bill Clinton has simply made that change manifest -- and by making it manifest he has undermined the whole system. He has destroyed any remaining respect and support the system had among thoughtful and responsible and moral Americans. That is what history will remember Bill Clinton for.
The Mexican Menace
Around Easter thousands of young men and women from America's colleges and universities take their spring break and spend a week partying and drinking. For most of them it's also a time for romance and for socializing, and so they want to go where everyone else is going.
A few years ago the trendiest place to go was Fort Lauderdale, Florida, but now it's Cancun, Mexico. This year everyone who could afford it headed there. There were network news segments during the spring break season showing scantily clad college girls on the beaches at Cancun. The bars and discos of Mexican resorts were shown packed with American students drinking and carousing. The travel agencies do a lot of advertising aimed at luring more students to Cancun, and they make a fortune on hotel reservations and airline tickets.
One aspect of Cancun and other Mexican tourist resorts which the news media have not been featuring is the danger of assault, rape, and robbery for young Americans who go to these places. I'll tell you a few horror stories that you certainly didn't hear about in the controlled media. In late March, ten students from Salisbury State University in Maryland went to Cancun for their spring break. They had bought a package deal from one of the travel agencies promoting trips to Cancun. On their third night in Cancun, as they headed back to their hotel on foot after an evening of partying with other students, they were accosted by a group of Mexican policemen. The policemen slapped them around a bit and then robbed them at gunpoint. That's right, the policemen robbed them.
They should have learned something from that, but apparently one robbery wasn't enough to overcome the liberal brainwashing they had received back home, to the effect that Mexicans are the same as White Americans, except that they speak a different language. The next night they were riding a bus through downtown Cancun. They thought that would be safer than walking, after their experience the night before. Mexicans on the bus began taunting the gringos, then an off-duty policemen kicked one of them in the back. Two of the Americans were dragged off the bus, and a group of about 20 Mexicans, including several policemen, began beating and kicking them. Finally, the policemen in the gang of assailants handcuffed one of the Americans, 20-year- old Peter Best, and hauled him off to the city jail. There he was beaten more, until he was sure that they intended to beat him to death.
And perhaps that is what would have happened to him, except that his friends went to the police station looking for him, where the police chief agreed to release Best if his friends would pay a $500 bribe to the chief. They paid, and the police allowed Best, who by this time was suffering from a concussion, to be led away. The students complained to the U.S. Embassy, which seemed quite unconcerned. More than 1,000 American students have had similar problems in Cancun so far this year, the embassy officer told them, indicating that there was very little which could be done.
Actually, the students from Salisbury State University were very fortunate: they were robbed only twice, beaten a couple of times, and forced to pay one bribe. The week after their ordeal Carol Schlossberg, an American woman who was an art instructor at Yale on vacation at the Mexican resort of Puerto Escondido, was grabbed by two Mexicans while walking on a nearby beach, raped repeatedly, and then drowned for sport. Her naked body was found on the beach by other American tourists. The Mexican police say they know who did it, but so far no one has been arrested. A suspicion has been expressed that the police are waiting to see who will offer them the larger bribe: the killers, or those who want the killers arrested.
A favorite tactic used against American tourists in Mexico and nearby areas of Central America is bus hijacking -- a tactic in which police and soldiers often are involved. One such hijacking which, as an exception to the rule, actually made the news in the United States involved a busload of students and teachers from St. Mary's College, also in Maryland. In January a gang armed with military rifles halted their bus on the Pacific Highway in Guatemala. They were robbed, and then five of the girls were led into the adjacent cane fields and raped repeatedly. The girls testified that they were sure that the men who raped them were either soldiers or policemen, because they were wearing military boots and parts of uniforms.
As I said, this particular robbery and gang rape of American students made the news in the United States, but five other tourist bus hijackings and gang rapes in the same area during the previous six months -- that is, since July 1997 -- didn't make the news: which is why the St. Mary's College students weren't expecting what happened to them. And a tourist bus hijacking a year earlier near Acapulco, Mexico, didn't make the headlines in the United States either. In that hijacking a bus with 27 tourists was forced off the road at night by a gang of Mexicans flashing police badges. Eight of the female passengers, including a 14-year-old girl and a Norwegian woman as well as the American women, were gang-raped over a three-hour period. As in the case of the girls from St. Mary's College, these women didn't find out until afterward, when they complained to embassy officials, that such gang rapes of White passengers aboard tourist buses have become quite common in the area around Acapulco.
Even more common are the robbery and rape of White taxicab passengers in Mexico. Vacationing college girls who have heard about the dangers of Mexican taxis believe that they will be safe if three or four of them ride together in a taxi. What often happens is that the driver takes them to an area where some of his Mexican friends are waiting, and then all of the girls are robbed and raped. Sometimes they are able to walk back to their hotel afterward. And sometimes they simply disappear and end up being forced to work as prostitutes under indescribably horrible conditions.
One of the reasons for the growing danger young Americans face in visiting Mexico is the deteriorating economy and the endemic political corruption there. Despite repeated "bailouts" by U.S. taxpayers, the Mexican economy remains in chaos. Unemployment is high, and civil servants -- especially the police -- are notoriously underpaid. They make up for this by extortion, accepting bribes, and simple thuggery. Politics in Mexico always has been completely corrupt at every level. With enough money anything can be done, and one can easily buy exemption from punishment for any crime. Judges, politicians, and police officials are all for sale -- or at least, for rent. Without money, however, one can expect no mercy and no justice in Mexico -- especially if one is a gringo. Racial hatred has become an increasingly important motivation in Mexican and other Central American attacks against Whites. The population of Mexico today is about 30 per cent more or less pure-blooded Indians; about 60 per cent mestizos, or European-Indian mongrels; and less than 10 per cent Whites, most of Spanish origin. Social caste in Mexico is based largely on the percentage of White -- that is, Spanish -- blood a person has, with Indians at the bottom of the social hierarchy, Whites at the top, and mestizos distributed in between roughly on the basis of their degree of Whiteness. At least, that's the way it used to be. These days the mestizos are feeling their oats and flexing their muscles more than in the past.
The red-bearded Spanish conquistador, Hernan Cortes, taught the Indians of Mexico to respect the White man. With 500 Spanish soldiers and 16 horses he landed in 1519 at what later became Veracruz, burned his ships behind him to discourage desertions, and during the next two years conquered all of Mexico, which at that time had a population of more than two million Indians, and utterly destroyed the empire of the Aztecs, who were renowned as fierce and bloodthirsty warriors. All of that, however, was nearly 500 years ago, and things have gone downhill since.
In contrast to the English settlers to the north, who came seeking land and brought their own women with them from England, the Spanish came seeking gold and brought no women. Instead they mated with the Indian women -- a practice encouraged by the priests accompanying them, who were eager to convert the Indians to Christianity. Thus began the growth of the mestizo element in Central America.
This process of racial mixture did not bring about the peaceful amalgamation of the races that the priests claimed it would. Instead, the history of Mexico has been a series of bloody revolutions and racial warfare, mostly of mestizos and Indians against Whites, but also of Indians against mestizos, as in the case of the recent civil war in Mexico's southernmost province of Chiapas.
Since the Second World War there has been a very noticeable growth in Mexican nationalist sentiment among the mestizo element in the southwestern United States, and a similar sentiment is found throughout Mexico. It expresses itself in a smoldering hatred of gringos: a hatred which often bursts into open flame.
The freely expressed rationale for this hatred is simple revanchism: the gringos took the American Southwest away from the Mexicans by force of arms, and now the Mexicans will take it back, through immigration and by outbreeding and outvoting the gringos. During some of the debate over curbing illegal immigration which led to California's Proposition 187, which would have taken some welfare benefits away from illegal immigrants, Mexican activists screamed at White proponents of the proposition: "If anybody is going to be deported, it's you!"
Illegal Mexican immigrants in the U.S. Southwest regard themselves as legally in territory that belongs to them, and many members of the Clinton government encourage this attitude, which helps to explain the Clinton Justice Department's opposition to Proposition 187 and a Federal judge's recent ruling that it cannot be enforced. Clinton's point man in California, Art Torres, is chairman of the California Democratic Party. He told his fellow Democrats: "Remember, 187 is the last gasp of White America in California." Yes, that's what a leader of the party which is in power in Washington now told his cheering Mexican followers in California. Underneath this Mexican nationalism is genuine racial hatred and racial resentment. The mestizo compensates for his deeply felt racial inferiority by raping a blonde gringa and forcing her to submit to every indignity he can inflict on her, or by beating and robbing a gringo.
Actually, the rape of gringas has been a mestizo sport in the Mexican border towns for a number of years. Groups of college girls go into these border towns as tourists, naively believing that they can walk into a bar and drink with as much impunity as they can in a White bar in the United States. The common practice is for the bartender to slip a "mickey" into a girl's drink, and then when she becomes confused and disoriented, a group of mestizos will escort her into a back room and gang-rape her. The favorite "mickey" used today is a powerful sedative with the trade name Rohypnol. Illegal in the United States, it is readily available across the border. Complaining to the Mexican police after one of these drug-assisted rapes is fruitless, as hundreds of White college girls and their parents have discovered.
The revanchist sentiment of Mexicans is so strong that Mexican officials routinely refuse to punish Mexican criminals for offenses against White Americans in Mexico or to extradite Mexican criminals who are sought for crimes committed in the United States. A Mexican can rape, rob, or murder a White American, flee across the border, and not worry about being extradited. Even Mexican officials of essentially pure Spanish blood dare not openly oppose the widespread prejudice against gringos. Among mestizos, both in Mexico and in the United States, criminals who prey on gringos or flout gringo laws, are viewed as Latin Robin Hoods. Mexican drug lords, in particular, are glorified by the mestizos, and one of the most popular types of music among young mestizos in California and Texas today is the narcocorrido, a folk song in ballad form about the exploits of one or another drug boss.
So why do White college students flock to Mexico for their spring breaks? Mostly it's because they are kept completely in the dark about the danger until something happens to them personally. In the most expensive resort hotels, of course, they are relatively safe, as long as they stay in the hotels or on the beach immediately adjacent to the hotels. That's because there's big money involved in the tourist business, and the wealthy owners of the luxury hotels make it worth the while of the local police to maintain a reasonably safe environment for their patrons. For college kids who buy bargain excursion packages from travel agencies and are booked into second-class hotels -- as was the case of the ten students from Salisbury State University -- it's a different story. And for the White kids who believe that they can hitchhike around Mexico with a backpack or hang out in Mexican bars, it's pure suicide.
The biggest reason for this ignorance of the danger is that the controlled media are very reluctant to report crimes by mestizos against Whites -- and I'm talking about the controlled media in the United States. The Politically Correct view of the media people is that in any conflict between a White and a non-White, the White must be the aggressor, the bad guy, the "hate criminal;" and the non-White must be the inoffensive victim. To report an interracial crime which doesn't fit this view is tantamount to racism.
If one seeks information about the dangers for American tourists in Mexico from the U.S. State Department, one must look for it in the travel-advisory information made available to diplomats and embassy personnel. In this travel-advisory information the State Department warns that it is very dangerous to use taxicabs in Mexico except when special precautions are exercised, that it's very dangerous to travel by bus through certain provinces, and so on. But this information is not published for the benefit of tourists or the general public. Not only would it be racist to publicize it, but it might discourage American tourists from going to Mexico and thereby hurt NAFTA and the Clinton government's program of promoting free trade with Mexico.
One thing which encourages attacks on American tourists and vacationing college kids is their all-too-obvious vulnerability. They head for Mexico chock full of notions about democracy, equality, and interracial brotherhood, and they expect the little, brown people of Mexico to be full of similar nonsense. Mexicans view White Americans as weak, foolish, and easy prey. Any respect for Whites that Cortes taught them has long since been dissipated by their experience with more recent and much softer generations of gringos. Whereas Cortes and his 500 Spanish soldiers cheerfully took on an army of Mexican Indians more than 100 times their size and sent them running for their lives, many American males today cannot protect either themselves or their women in a one-on-one physical confrontation with a Mexican -- and the Mexicans seldom give him such favorable odds.
An optimist might think that the misfortunes which befall many vacationing White college students in Mexico will be good educational experiences for them. Being raped, beaten up, or robbed by grinning mestizos who obviously hate their guts might cause the brainwashed students to reexamine the foolishness about racial equality which has been pumped into their heads by Politically Correct professors and textbooks. Seeing at first hand the corruption of the Mexican bureaucracy will make them question the wisdom of rushing headlong into Mr. Clinton's glorious New World Order, in which the United States will surrender its sovereignty and submit itself to the will of a non-White world majority not too different in character from that of the mestizo majority in Mexico.
An optimist might think that -- and if the media in this country would widely publicize these misfortunes, so that the lucky students could learn from the experiences of the unlucky ones, perhaps some good would come of it. But of course, the media are in the hands of people who hate our people as much as the mestizos do, and so every rape of a blond gringa on a tourist bus and every robbery and beating of a spring-breaking gringo who can't afford the luxury hotels in Cancun will continue to be just another individual tragedy for one of our people -- until we get our act together and straighten the whole mess out, Cortes style.
The Katyn Massacre
A background noise that seems never to go away is the constant whining and yammering of the Jews about how the world owes them a living because of their losses during the so-called "Holocaust." They do it, of course, because they make such a big profit on it. The latest flare-up of this Jewish play for a handout came more than a year ago when they began demanding that the Swiss pay them $7 billion, which "Holocaust" victims allegedly had stashed in numbered Swiss accounts before being hauled off to gas chambers during the Second World War.
With a few "bought" Gentile politicians fronting for them, the foremost among these being New York's Senator Alphonse D'Amato, the Jews threatened Switzerland with a boycott by the U.S. government if their demands were not met. Instead of laughing in their faces, telling the Jews to go to hell, and gearing up for countermeasures against Israel and other Jewish interests if the Jews tried to proceed with a boycott, the Swiss politicians tried to placate the Jews by offering to buy them off. The Jews took the Swiss response as a sign of weakness and escalated their demands.
The average Swiss citizen seems to have a little more pride than Switzerland's elected officials, however, and resentment against the Jews' extortion efforts is building in Switzerland now to the point that some of that country's richest Jews are wearing bulletproof vests whenever they must go out in public.
In general, however, this "Holocaust"-based extortion racket works quite well for the Jews, and they have expanded their demands for World War Two reparations to include a number of other countries besides Switzerland. They are even whining that the Vatican owes them because Pope Pius XII didn't do enough to save them from the Germans during the war. The Jews' brazenness in this whole business is quite breathtaking.
Their brazenness is justified, because by and large they have been getting away with it. They have been getting away with it because with their media control they have been able to distort the general public's perception of what happened during the Second World War. They have been able to portray themselves as innocent victims and everyone else as persecutors and aggressors, even the people who were fighting on the Jewish side against the Germans during the war. They have done quite a bit of whining that after the Red Army drove the Germans from Poland, the Poles took the opportunity to lynch hundreds of Jews in 1945 and 1946: Jews whom the Germans somehow had failed to get rid of during their wartime occupation of Poland.
Why would the Poles do something like that? Why would they lynch the poor Jews, who had been on their side during the war? If you learned about the war from watching Steven Spielberg propaganda films and other mass-media sources, you probably believe that it was because of religious anti-Semitism on the part of the Catholic Poles. Let me tell you the real reason why so many Poles hated Jews after the war. It's something the Jew-controlled media in America haven't said much about. Let me tell you about what happened in the Katyn Forest in 1940. In September 1939 Poland was invaded from the west by Germany and from the east by the Soviet Union. The Germans wanted back the territory in western Poland, including the city of Danzig, which had been taken from them at the end of the First World War. The Soviets wanted eastern Poland. The Germans and the Soviets divided Poland between them, with the boundary running roughly along the River Bug.
Britain and France, both under strong Jewish pressure, declared war on Germany in September 1939, ostensibly because of Germany's invasion of Poland. They did not declare war on the Soviet Union, which also had invaded Poland. In the United States and in western Europe, where the Jews held a deathgrip on the mass media, a great deal of anti-German propaganda was based on the German grab for Polish territory -- much of which, of course, actually was historically German territory -- and nothing was said of the Soviet occupation and annexation of eastern Poland.
The reason for this anti-German and pro-Soviet bias by the Jewish media was that the Jews were riding high in the Soviet Union as commissars and communist party bosses under Stalin, while in Germany Hitler had undertaken a program since 1933 of freeing Germany from all Jewish influence. Jews had been weeded out of the media, the law, the schools, and other areas of economic and cultural life in Germany. Before Hitler became chancellor in 1933 the Jews had done in Germany what they do in every country where they gain a foothold: they had monopolized large sections of the mass media and certain professions and were doing their best to distort German culture, German society, and the German economy to suit themselves. Hitler put a stop to that, and two-thirds of the 1933 Jewish population of Germany had emigrated by the invasion of Poland in September 1939. So the Jews hated Germany and were determined to do whatever they could to destroy her.
For his part, Hitler hoped to avoid war with Britain and France. He hoped that after his quick victory in western Poland he could make peace with both countries. He was determined, however, to stamp out communism wherever he encountered it. Not only did he hate communism on ideological grounds, but he had sworn to fight communism when the communists in Germany betrayed his country at the end of the First World War. Hitler also saw the Soviet Union as a threat to all of Europe, and he was determined to break the power of that country when he could, even though there was an uneasy non-aggression pact between Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939, at the time of their partition of Poland.
In the spring of 1941 massive troop movements and other developments inside the Soviet Union convinced Hitler that Stalin was preparing to invade the west with the Red Army, and so in June 1941 Hitler made a preemptive strike. German forces smashed through the Red Army and made rapid advances, first through Soviet-occupied eastern Poland and then through Ukraine and into Russia.
A year and a half later, in February 1943, German forces near Smolensk, in western Russia, investigated reports they heard from Russian civilians to the effect that a large number of prisoners had been murdered by the Soviet secret police in the area nearly three years earlier. The German investigators were led by local Russians to a series of mounds in a wooded area known locally as Katyn Forest, about 10 miles west of Smolensk. The forest is named for a village, Katyn, which it surrounds. The forest had been privately owned prior to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, but after the communist takeover of Russia the area had been confiscated by the government and part of the forest had been turned over to the NKVD, the Soviet equivalent of the American FBI.
The Germans began digging in the mounds in the Katyn Forest and made a horrible discovery. They found corpse after corpse, each with its hands bound behind its back and a bullet hole in the base of its skull. They continued their excavations for more than a month, and eventually uncovered more than 4,000 corpses. Other bodies may have remained buried in other mounds, but the Germans had no time to dig up the whole forest. Instead they called in the International Red Cross and representatives of various neutral countries to examine their findings. They also brought in groups of Allied prisoners of war, including Americans, from prison camps in Germany to view the graves in the Katyn Forest. They gave these international inspectors complete freedom to examine the exhumed bodies, permitted doctors among them to conduct autopsies, even allowed them to dig up other bodies from one of the mounds which had not been completely excavated. The Germans asked only that the inspectors report back truthfully to their own governments about their observations. And in fact, most of them did.
What they reported was that the bodies were those of Polish military officers, along with a number of civilian cultural leaders, business leaders, and intellectuals -- scientists, writers, and poets -- who had been in the portion of Poland occupied by the Soviet Union in September 1939. Altogether the Soviet secret police had rounded up some 15,000 Polish leaders in 1939 -- including nearly half of the entire Polish officer's corps, the half that had the misfortune of being in eastern Poland at the time -- and put them in three concentration camps in Russia: at Starobelsk, Kozelsk, and Ostashkov. All of the bodies unearthed in the Katyn Forest were of Polish leaders who had been confined at one of these camps: Starobelsk.
Rounding up a country's leaders and killing them was standard practice for the communists. The theory was that the leaders were bourgeois oppressors of the working class and deserved to die. As egalitarians the communists did not regard the Polish officers and intellectuals as inherently better or more valuable human material than the average Polish criminal or bum; the officers had simply used their class advantage to gain a better life-style for themselves. Of course, no one really believed that theory except the criminals, bums, and other resentful losers and ne'er-do- wells who made up the natural communist constituency. As a practical matter, however, killing all the leaders and potential leaders of a conquered people made them easier to govern. That's what the Marxists had done in Russia, Ukraine, and the Baltic countries.
In the case of the Poles there was a bit of a diplomatic problem, though. The Poles supported the war Britain and France had declared against Germany, purportedly on their behalf, because they viewed that as their one hope for getting back at least the western part of their country. They were not happy about the Russians taking the eastern part of Poland, but the Russians at least were fellow Slavs. The thing to do was get rid of the Germans first and then worry about the Russians. This Polish strategy suited Stalin fine. But it made it desirable for him to avoid alienating the Poles any more than necessary. When Polish exiles asked about their imprisoned leaders in late 1939 and early 1940, the Soviet government promised that they would be released shortly. Meanwhile, the decision had been made to kill all of them. And so in April 1940 the Polish leaders were taken from the three camps where they had been imprisoned, trucked off to various liquidation sites, and murdered. The ones who had been imprisoned at Starobelsk all went to the NKVD area of the Katyn Forest. After the war some of the NKVD executioners were interviewed in Israel and described how they had carried out the killings.
The Poles were driven up to the burial pits in long NKVD prison trucks known as "black ravens." They were pulled from the trucks one at a time by NKVD guards. Each Polish prisoner had his hands bound behind his back and then was dragged to the edge of a pit. There he was held by two NKVD men while a third fired a pistol bullet into the back of his head. Some of the officers had their coats pulled over their heads to keep them from seeing what was happening before they were shot. Some struggled and were bayoneted by NKVD guards before being shot and thrown into the pit. When all of the officers from Starobelsk had been killed, some 4,400 of them, the Katyn Forest burial pits were covered with dirt and pine trees were planted on them. The locations of the mass graves of the prisoners from the camps at Kozelsk and Ostashkov remain unknown, but none of the 15,000 Polish officers and intellectuals rounded up by the NKVD in September 1939 was seen alive after April 1940.
The Red Cross representatives and the Allied prisoners the Germans brought in to examine the mass graves in the Katyn Forest understood after their examination not only who had been killed; they also understood who had killed them. This was apparent not only from the medical estimates of the length of time the bodies had been buried, but also from documentary evidence on the bodies. Diaries, news clippings, letters, and other personal papers removed from the clothing of the victims all told the same story: the latest dates on any of these papers were from mid-April 1940. The Polish leaders had been killed in April 1940, when they were prisoners of the Soviet Union and when the Katyn region was under Soviet control. And this is what they reported back to their governments.
So what do you think happened? Were the British and American governments horrified to discover that their "gallant Soviet ally," as the Soviet Union was referred to by the mass media, was a mass murderer? Did the British government, which had gone to war against Germany under the pretext of defending Poland, decide that it had made a mistake? Did anyone condemn the Soviet Union for this act of genocide against the Poles?
Of course not! The Allied governments ordered their people who had inspected the Katyn site to keep their mouths shut, and the Jewish media immediately began announcing that the Germans had done it. A mass murder of Polish officers and intellectuals by the Nazis had been discovered in the Katyn Forest, the New York Times and the rest of the Jewish media shrieked. Poor Poles! Wicked Germans! The war must go on to free the poor Poles and punish the wicked Germans. And the war did go on, killing millions of more Germans, Britons, Americans, and other Europeans. And the Germans were indeed punished. The Poles, of course, were not freed. Instead they were turned over to the Reds, who had butchered their leaders in the Katyn Forest, and made to suffer under communist rule for half a century.
The war went on after the German discovery of the mass graves in the Katyn Forest, because its purpose from the beginning was not to free Poland but to destroy Germany, which had dared to free itself from the Jews. Roosevelt understood this. Churchill understood this. But the American and British people didn't understand it, of course, because they were lied to by the Jewish media and by their own governments, who in 1943, as in 1998, did whatever was politically expedient. And what is politically expedient has been what the Jewish media bosses have decided.
The lies about Katyn were maintained by the media for some years after the end of the war, because these lies meshed nicely with the "Holocaust" story which was making so much money for the Jews. Nowadays, of course, the truth about the Katyn murders is generally accepted by historians everywhere. You can go into almost any large library and read about it and even see the gruesome photographs that the Germans took of the Polish bodies they dug up. One of several authoritative books on the subject is J.K. Zawodny's Death in the Forest: the Story of the Katyn Forest Massacre, published in 1962 by the University of Notre Dame Press. None of this is publicized a la Steven Spielberg for the illumination of American television audiences, of course. It still might undermine the Jews' "Holocaust" racket.
In 1945 and 1946, although the deceived citizens of the Western world didn't know the truth about Katyn, Polish patriots did. The word had gotten back to the Polish prisoners in German camps from the Poles the Germans had taken to examine the graves. After the war, when these Polish prisoners were freed, the word spread to other Poles. They knew that it was the communists, not the Nazis, who had murdered their leaders, who had beheaded their nation. And they knew who was behind communism -- from the Jew, Karl Marx, who started the whole business, to the Jewish commissars in Soviet-occupied Poland. They knew who had welcomed their Soviet conquerors and then collaborated with those conquerors. And so it is hardly surprising that in 1945 and 1946 a few Polish patriots organized lynchings of Jews in Poland, before the Reds had a chance to clamp down and suppress any further expressions of anti- communist or anti-Jewish feeling.
The Polish dislike of Jews isn't surprising. What is surprising is that so few patriots in America and Britain have expressed their outrage against the Jews, not only for what they did to the Poles during and after the war, but for what they have done to us: lying to us and using us to wage their wars for them. If patriots study the Katyn story and take its lesson to heart, they will understand why they cannot trust either the mass media or any government which dances to the tune played by the media. Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill were as much liars and traitors as Bill Clinton and Tony Blair.
You might remember Katyn the next time you hear the Jews or some of their bought politicians whining about how much gold was stolen from them by the Swiss or how badly the Poles and the Germans treated them during the Second World War.
Nationalism vs. the New World Order
An interesting thing happened recently. The government of India detonated five nuclear warheads in underground tests, and the establishment in the United States reacted with shock and dismay.
This is good news for at least six reasons. I'll name them, one reason at a time.
First, the nuclear tests were a complete surprise to the Clinton government. That's a wonderful proof of the fallibility of government. Too many people believe you can't fight the government because the government has the secret police working on its side, and the secret police know everything. Our Central Intelligence Agency spends $27 billion a year to be aware of what's happening around the world, including the building of facilities for making nuclear warheads and other weapons of mass destruction, and the CIA didn't have a clue! An even better scenario would be that the CIA knew but kept it a secret from the Clinton administration. But that is unlikely since the head spook himself is a Clintonista, and the Indian episode could cost him his job.
The Indian tests prove that for all of the government's repressiveness, all of its money, all of its jackbooted Federal thugs, all of its wiretaps, subpoenas, and paid informers, it still can be outsmarted by intelligent and determined patriots. Certainly not by a bunch of boozed-up yahoos who make their plans in the local bar, but by intelligent, disciplined, and determined patriots.
The second reason India's nuclear tests are good news is that they let a lot of air out of the principal excuse given by the Clinton government for its campaign against Iraq, which nearly led us into another war in the Persian Gulf a while back and which will still lead us into a war, if the Jews and the Clintonistas have their way. The excuse for the campaign against Iraq was that we must keep weapons of mass destruction under tight control. We must keep Iraq from developing such weapons.
India has demonstrated that we have already lost control. Of course, this won't stop the Clintonistas from arguing that Iraq can't be allowed to develop weapons of mass destruction, but that argument will seem a bit flat now. Some people accepted this argument only because they believed that the genie of "weapons of mass destruction" was tightly corked up in his bottle. It is now clear even to these deluded people that the genie is out, and bombing Iraq into the stone age won't put him back in again.
The third reason India's nuclear tests are good news is that all of the hullabaloo about countries developing nuclear weapons without permission from the United Nations should remind everyone that the most egregious example of such outlaw nuclear development is that of Israel. The controlled media, of course, have been covering for Israel, but the more fuss they make about India, the more questions thoughtful people will have about Israel. The hypocrisy of the treatment by the Washington government and the media of the whole topic of controlling weapons of mass destruction should become more apparent. Obviously the policy of preventing unstable countries from acquiring nuclear or biological weapons is a sham. The failure to apply the policy in the case of Israel -- the deliberate failure to halt Israel's development of a nuclear arsenal, when the U.S. government knew that development was occurring -- undermined the moral basis for the policy long ago, and we should not be surprised that no one takes it seriously today.
The fourth reason we should be glad for India's nuclear tests is that they are a big psychological setback for the New World Order crowd. The liberals, the Jews, and the other New World Order boosters have worked hard to create the impression that the coming of the New World Order is irresistible. It is a steamroller, and you'd better not get in its way, or you'll be squashed. The impressionable masses have let themselves be persuaded to go along for the ride, even if they aren't especially enthusiastic. One of the consolations, in their eyes, is the promise of security and certainty: once the New World Order is solidly in place, no one anywhere will be able to do anything without permission from the people pulling the strings at the United Nations, and so there will be no more wars or other nasty surprises, and the masses can get on with being obedient consumers and television viewers without having to worry about making any difficult decisions.
Now India has demonstrated that the New World Order is quite resistible after all. India has thumbed its nose at all of the people who've been assuring us that national sovereignty is passé and that in the future everyone must do whatever the UN bosses say.
What are the Clintonistas and the Jews going to do about this little rebuff India has given them? Send a few aircraft carriers to the Indian Ocean and threaten New Delhi with cruise missiles? Not likely. It's a bit easier to push Iraq around than India, with its population of one billion and a continent to itself. The head New World Order gangster in the United States, Bill Clinton, says that India will be punished economically for daring to stand in the way of his gang. And undoubtedly that's what will happen. Even if the head gangster changes his mind, the economic sanctions already have been written into law. And these attempts to punish India by cutting off trade, blocking loans, and other economic measures are the fifth reason why India's nuclear tests are good news.
The Jews can get away with their starvation embargo against Iraq, but that sort of thing just won't work against India. On the contrary, it will have several good effects on the Indian people. It will teach them the virtue of self-sufficiency and strengthen their sense of nationalism and their determination to be masters in their own house. In fact, as soon as the threat of economic punishment was raised last week, the Indians expressed their defiance and their contempt for any American efforts to make them conform to UN policy.
The Hindus have always been wary of the Jews. Back during the Second World War, when they were under the colonial thumb of the British Empire, Hindu nationalists were sympathetic toward Germany, and they learned from the Germans many lessons about the Jews -- lessons which have not been entirely forgotten. Economic sanctions against them now by the Jews' American lapdog will confirm the Hindus' antipathy toward the people who believe that their god chose them to rule the world. The more economic pressure Bill Clinton tries to bring against India, the more determined Indians will be to cut any dependence on the United Nations and become self-sufficient. All of that is very good.
Furthermore, because many American consumer goods are now imported from India, there might be some substantial economic dislocations in the United States if Mr. Clinton starts a trade war with India, and this should help everyone to see better just how uncertain and shaky the whole concept of a global economy is.
This is a good time to remember one of the most important and fundamental rules of historical development: Decisive historical events always catch many people by surprise, and the people most likely to be caught by surprise are the smart-asses who thought they had everything under control. Many decent people today are discouraged and pessimistic about the future, because they believe that the enemies of our people have an unbreakable grip on the course of events. Decent people see the media almost completely under the control of the Jews; they see the Jews all around Clinton, Jews running most of the important branches of the U.S. government -- the State Department, the Treasury Department, and the Defense Department. They see similar situations in the governments in Britain, Russia, Germany, and France. Everyone bows and scrapes to the Jews, every important politician is in their pockets, everyone is afraid to call them to account for their crimes.
They see the destruction wrought among our own people by the Jews' policies -- White kids hooked on MTV and behaving like Blacks, non-White immigrants pouring into America, and the threat of a non-White majority in America in the next few decades. They see the continuing implementation of the master plan: a global plantation with Jews as God's Chosen Overseers, and the rest of the world's population as obedient serfs. They see the United Nations "peacekeeping" forces always ready to put down any insurrection by the disarmed serfs. Decent people see these things, and they believe the Jews have everything under control. Many of them become discouraged and give up.
So the sixth reason why the Indian nuclear tests are good news for decent people everywhere is that they serve as an encouraging reminder of the fundamental rule of historical development: nothing about the future is certain, except that the smart-asses will be caught by surprise, no matter how tightly they think they have things under control. And it is a major upset of the kosher applecart when India, with its one billion people and its own strategically located subcontinent, tells the Jews to take their New World Order and stuff it.
Even more kosher apples are likely to be rolling in the gutter before the Jews have time to pick up the ones spilled by the Indians. India has had ongoing border disputes with both Pakistan and China for some time. Both of these countries will have a strong incentive now to tell the arms control people from the United Nations to go to hell and to resume the development of their own nuclear arsenals. This is an especially promising prospect in the case of Pakistan, which as an Islamic country has close bonds of sympathy with the Palestinians, the Iraqis, the Iranians, and the other Islamic peoples opposed to Israel's aggression in the Middle East. Every development which thwarts Washington's role as the Jews' global bully-boy and enforcer is a good development. There are just two components of the Jews' power: one is money, and the other is their control of public opinion through their control of the news and entertainment media. In the West they are able to use both their money and their media control to retain their power. They use their money to buy politicians, and they use their media control to keep the general public more or less hypnotized and aimed in the direction they want.
In the East the Jews don't control the mass media and are not able to keep the Asian masses hypnotized. But they nevertheless have been able to use their money to corrupt Asian governments. That is, they have been able to use our money for that purpose. They have been able to use American foreign-aid money, loans from various international banks, and the giveaway or sale of military hardware to keep the politicians of the Third World more or less under control. If Saudi Arabia wants to buy American jets for its air force, then it must promise not to make any problems for Israel. If some Black potentate in Africa is encroaching on an Oppenheimer mining operation, then a few million dollars in foreign aid from the U.S. Treasury will make him mend his ways and keep his Black hands off the Chosen Ones' diamond mines. That's the way it always has worked.
There's just one thing in the Third World -- or anywhere -- which can beat the Jews' money power, and that thing is nationalism. That's why the Jews have such a hatred for every nationalism but their own. They hate every nationalism except Zionism. When India was ruled by the thoroughly corrupt Congress Party, the Jews were able to keep the Indians more or less under control. But in March of this year the Hindu nationalists won control of the Indian government, and for the nationalists independence is more important than all the comforts money can buy. That's why India's new nationalist prime minister is willing to defy the Jews and do without American money.
The Jews, of course, still will try to use their money power -- that is, their control over our public funds -- to bribe the Indians and others back into line. The first thing which the Clinton government announced after the Indian nuclear tests was that it was reconsidering its hold on Pakistan's purchase of American military aircraft. The sale had been held up because of Jewish objections to letting an Islamic country buy modern military aircraft. Now, says the Clinton government, if the Pakistanis will forego any nuclear tests of their own, maybe they can have the aircraft after all. And similar bribes will be offered to India and China. The Chinese will be told that if they don't react the wrong way to the Indian nuclear tests, then their exports of machine tools and shoes to the United States won't be jeopardized because of piddling little things like human rights violations.
These bribes have worked for the Jews in the past, and their money power is what they're counting on to keep the world moving toward their goal of a kosher global plantation. Nationalism is the one force which can thwart them, the one political ideology active on a large scale in the world today in which money is not the primary concern. That is why any success by nationalists anywhere in the world today, any declaration of independence from the global plantation, is good news for decent, freedom-loving people everywhere. It is good news when it happens in Germany, Hungary, or France, but it is especially good news when it happens in a place like India, which is big enough and sufficiently free from Jewish influence to be able to put a significant monkey wrench into the gears of the New World Order's machinery of global enslavement.
We in the National Alliance are not nationalists in the old-fashioned sense, in the sense of geographical nationalism. We don't belong to the "USA, right or wrong" crowd, which considers any featherless biped claiming U.S. citizenship, regardless of race, color, or creed, as a compatriot. Our nationalism is really racial nationalism. Our compatriots are our fellow White men and women, our fellow Europeans, everywhere: in America, in Europe, in South Africa. Nationalism in our sense -- racial nationalism -- is still a relatively new thing as a political ideology, although it is based on instincts much older than any ideology.
A lot of people, conservatives especially, are still much more comfortable with the old-fashioned sort of nationalism -- or with an ethnic nationalism which is much more limited in scope than our racial nationalism. Conservatives are more comfortable with Scottish nationalism or German nationalism or Polish nationalism. And that's all right. We encourage these more limited ethnic nationalisms. We encourage any nationalism which is not anti-European or anti-White. We even welcome Black nationalism, Hindu nationalism, or Chinese nationalism, because nationalists of every variety are facing a much bigger threat today than any rival nationalism. Intelligent Hindu nationalists understand that Irish nationalists, Ukrainian nationalists, and Swedish nationalists need not be hostile to them, and we understand that too.
Every national group which is concerned with preserving itself, with preserving its unique racial characteristics, its unique language, its unique culture, traditions, and life-styles, is the natural ally of every other nationally conscious group at a time when all of us are faced with the threat of the Jews' New World Order. Once the Jews have realized their global plantation -- a plantation without national boundaries, with a homogenized population, a homogenized culture, and a uniform standard of living for the serfs -- every nationality will be lost permanently in the mass. Now is the time to derail this nightmare scheme for global subjugation, and any nationality, Hindu or other, which helps in derailing it, by whatever means, deserves our praise. The prospect of a nuclear arms race between India, China, and Pakistan may not seem very encouraging, but it is a far brighter prospect than a continuation of the process of globalization being promoted by the Jews and their allies, whether international capitalists or deranged liberals.
So for all of the reasons I have mentioned, India's detonation of nuclear warheads is very good news indeed for decent, freedom-loving patriots everywhere.
Building Understanding
We recently took a survey of just under a thousand regular listeners to American Dissident Voices who also subscribe to the texts of the broadcasts by e-mail. We wanted to know what listeners especially like or dislike about these broadcasts. We wanted ideas which will help us do a better job of reaching and moving as many people as possible. We were gratified by the many compliments and expressions of appreciation we received from listeners. It's nice to know that our efforts are being well received by so many thoughtful people.
We also appreciated the criticisms and suggestions for improvement made by listeners. The most frequent criticism we had was that I talk too much about Bill Clinton. One listener told me that everyone already knows that all politicians are lower than scum, and it doesn't do a bit of good to prove that to them over and over again by using Bill Clinton as an example. Another listener said it makes him depressed and sick to his stomach every time he hears Clinton's name, and he'd appreciate my talking about more positive things, such as the AIDS epidemic or the "Holocaust." A third listener said that he doesn't want to hear any more about Clinton's zipper problem; he wants to know what can be done about Clinton's breathing problem.
Well, I can sympathize with the people who are tired of hearing about Clinton, but I don't agree that it does no good to continue talking about him. I believe that we would be overly optimistic to assume that everyone already understands what dirtballs politicians are. I'm afraid that many people haven't figured that out yet, although probably those same people also don't have a long enough attention span to listen to an American Dissident Voices broadcast from beginning to end or to read an entire issue of Free Speech -- so perhaps detailing Clinton's problems doesn't really help them.
But I don't really talk about Clinton's problems to persuade people that he, personally, is a nogoodnik. I do believe that practically everyone who listens to this program already understands that. I believe that we have among our listeners very few people who give Clinton a high approval rating. But I also believe that Clinton can provide us with many very persuasive lessons about the system which put him into the White House. There are many people of reasonable intelligence and good will -- even many patriots -- who despise Clinton personally and despise Clinton's policies, but who still have faith in the system which made Clinton President. I think that an exposition of the Clinton phenomenon can help to illuminate these people. Clinton provides for us, after all, such a wonderfully extreme example of what can go wrong with a society and with a system of government.
If in 1982 I had described a man like Clinton to you and told you that in ten years he'd be in the White House and have an approval rating higher than any other President, you'd have thought I was crazy. You'd have laughed at me and told me it couldn't happen. So it is useful for us, to note that it has happened, and to try to understand how it happened, to try to understand what has gone wrong with us and with the system of government under which we live.
We need to convince a lot of Americans who already despise Clinton that we must do much more than simply get rid of him and his crowd of Jews, feminists, and 1960s-style whiners and liberals. We need to convince Americans that the system itself is profoundly flawed and needs to be fixed in a radical way, in a fundamental way.
I am sorry, but I just cannot avoid talking more about Clinton. He is like the Rosetta Stone to an understanding of what's wrong with democracy; he's a gold mine for anyone looking for ammunition to use against this system. Just before a Federal court in Arkansas blocked Paula Jones's lawsuit, two more rapees had surfaced from Clinton's days as attorney general of Arkansas, one of whom apparently was paid to sign a statement saying she hadn't been raped, and the other of whom was trying to dodge a subpoena by staying out of the country. But I will promise to focus less on the sordid details of the Clinton life-style and more on the lessons about democracy these things teach us. I really don't need to rehash what everyone can now read in the New York Times about Clinton's zipper problem.
Another criticism of my broadcasts by some listeners is that occasionally I become a little bloody-minded. Sometimes when I'm talking about America's internal enemies I let my anger get the better of me and I express a "let's hang them all" attitude toward these enemies. I've thought about this, and I'm inclined to agree with my critics. There's no point in talking about vengeance or punishment at this point in our struggle. It's counterproductive, and it's a sign of weakness on my part when I let my anger influence what I say. I'll try harder to overcome this weakness in the future.
At the same time I should mention that I'm a little disappointed when I'm talking with another person about what's been done to our people and I don't see any sign of anger or passion in that person. Anger is an appropriate response to our situation. It only becomes inappropriate when it clouds our reason and hinders the effectiveness of our response to our enemies. We need to remain level-headed and calm; we need to let reason rather than anger control our tongues and guide our planning; but deep inside there should be a white-hot anger driving us.
So I cannot promise not to be angry, but I do promise to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me to say foolish things. And it is foolish to talk about hanging America's internal enemies at a time when we are in no position to punish anyone. I'll not speak of punishment or vengeance again, until that position changes.
But there's another aspect of this criticism of my bloody-mindedness. Sometimes I look ahead a bit to where the government's policies are taking us, and I see some horrible and bloody things coming, and I have a feeling that some listeners would prefer not to hear about these things. They become uncomfortable or frightened when I speak of domestic terrorism or the breakdown of civil order in the United States and the death and suffering of many White Americans. I suspect that 200 years ago, just after the French Revolution, the French population of Haiti didn't want to hear what some of their more realistic members warned them was coming as a result of extending liberty, equality, and fraternity to their Black plantation workers.
It's not really bloody-mindedness that compels me to talk about these unpleasant prospects. It is my sense of responsibility. Americans who believe that they can elect or even tolerate governments like the one we have in Washington now and continue to be safe and secure indefinitely are not living in the real world. People who believe that eternal vigilance is too high a price to pay for their liberty inevitably will end up paying a much higher price, and they very well may pay it in vain. People need to be told this, whether they want to hear it or not.
The real world is not like it appears on television, where everything somehow works out all right in the end. In the real world when people abdicate their responsibilities, they pay the price, very often in blood. When governments fall into the hands of criminals, the citizens ultimately will suffer. When the owners of a country become soft and lazy and open their borders to hungry aliens, they will be eaten alive. A lot of listeners might prefer not to think about it, but they really should. And I will continue to remind them of that.
One of the questions on our survey asked listeners which program they found most interesting. There were a number of favorites, but the easy winner was the program I did in February on the sinking of the German passenger liner Wilhelm Gustloff. Often I've heard from people that I shouldn't talk about the Second World War. It makes people uncomfortable to be told that we fought on the wrong side in the war. A lot of older veterans, in particular, don't like to hear that. But I talk about subjects like the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff and the rape of the women of Monte Cassino even if they make some people uncomfortable, because it is necessary for us to understand the history of the Second World War. It was a watershed era. It was the time when our enemies established their deathgrip on America. It was the time when we were tricked into committing -- and assisting in the commission of -- the most horrible atrocities of the modern era, atrocities against our own race. Our participation in the Second World War was an act of national and racial suicide. The policies that are destroying America today grew directly out of that war.
The popularity of the program on the Wilhelm Gustloff is good because it suggests that the prejudice against talking frankly about the Second World War may be dying, and that in the future more Americans may be willing to listen to the truth about that war. I intend to have more programs dealing with various aspects of that war.
There are some very important subjects which I've discussed from a viewpoint which is considered taboo in polite society, even by people who are not liberals and who agree with me on less "sensitive" matters. My viewpoint on the Second World War is an example. So is my viewpoint on racial matters. Both viewpoints are taboo, socially forbidden. People who agree with me about who committed the mass murders of Polish leaders in the Katyn Forest, who agree with me about the horrible atrocities committed by the communists, and who agree with me on nearly every other material and moral issue of the war will gasp and turn pale when I conclude that we fought on the wrong side. Our enemies have invested so much effort in blackening that point of view, in brainwashing our people against it, that people who are taboo-conscious simply cannot overcome it. People who are able to take small steps which are Politically Incorrect simply cannot take such a large step. They think, often wrongly, that their friends would shun them if they did, and they wouldn't be invited to the "right" parties again.
Likewise, many people who will agree with me on most details of the racial problem run into a similar taboo when it comes to drawing conclusions as to what we must do about the racial problem. If what I propose to do in order to safeguard the future of our race seems "unfair" to other races, these taboo-bound people can't deal with it. At a polite dinner party they will discuss the wrongness of affirmative action, racial differences in intelligence, and the damage that racial integration has done to our society. But if I point out that the only way to deal with the racial problem is total, geographical racial separation by whatever means are necessary, they will strangle on their hors d'oeuvres! Too big a taboo.
Some listeners have advised me to be a bit more cautious about running afoul of these taboos: if otherwise sympathetic listeners can't deal with it, then I shouldn't say it, they advise. Perhaps that makes sense in some cases. But I've got a pretty stubborn streak in me when it comes to dealing with the truth. It's seldom that I'm willing to suppress a truth or to leave an important truth unstated because of a taboo. I am by nature just not much of a politician, diplomat, or lawyer. I don't want to alienate good people, of course, but I'm inclined to believe that the time is getting a bit late to do anything other than deal forthrightly with the urgent matters facing us. Many people prefer to remain polite, but I'm inclined to get down and dirty. And ultimately I believe that's the only way we can win.
After the criticism that I spend too much time talking about Clinton, the next most frequent criticism is that I don't provide solutions to the problems I present. "You tell us what's wrong with the system," many listeners complained, "but you don't tell us how to fix it. You don't tell us what to do about it."
Well, actually, on a number of broadcasts I have said that what we must do now is build understanding. Ultimately, in order to fix things we need a total revolution. We need to weed out the people who have deceived, betrayed, and exploited us, and we need to completely redesign and rebuild the system and the institutions which have been corrupted. We need to build a new system which will not so easily fall prey to the abuses which have taken over the present system.
Before we can have a successful revolution, however, we must build understanding among our people. We must have a substantial portion of our people in agreement with us that the continuation of the present system is intolerable and will lead to chaos and disaster. We must have agreement that a revolution is necessary -- then there will be a revolution. But understanding and agreement must come first. We must not act blindly or foolishly or prematurely.
Therefore, my own efforts have been directed toward building understanding, and I suggest that you help with these efforts. I've said that often, but perhaps I haven't been concrete enough or specific enough. So now I'll try to be more specific and concrete.
What can we do about the lunacy which is wrecking our country, derailing our civilization, and threatening our race with extinction? What can we do to get the inmates back into their cages and put the keepers in control of the asylum again? The general answer is "build understanding." But specifically, what I am doing in that direction is broadcasting 12 times each week, on 10 different radio stations in the United States. One of these stations reaches the whole world via shortwave twice each week. The other stations reach local audiences in about a dozen states through the AM and FM broadcast bands. That's not much compared with what it could be and what it should be, but it's a beginning. I'm reaching a growing audience, both directly by radio and also through the Internet, where my programs can be heard too. So specifically, that is one of the things I am doing to build understanding. I know that it is having some effect in that direction, just because the listenership is growing, and so are the responses.
I have said that you can help with this effort. There are several ways in which you can help. You can send money. It costs a lot of money to put this program on the air. The more money listeners send, the more stations we can get and the more people we can reach. If you can send money, then you should do it. You shouldn't assume that you don't have to because other people will.
There also are other things you can do to help build understanding. Instead of listening to these programs by yourself and keeping them a secret, you can tell other people about them. You can get other people to listen with you. Use every medium you can to help new listeners find us. Mention this program, with the time and frequency, on radio talk shows. Mention it in letters to the editor of your local newspaper. Buy extra copies of Free Speech and give them to people you think might be interested. The prices are below the masthead on the first page. Or get a tape of each week's show sent to you for $300 a year; then you can give copies of the tapes to people who you think are open to our ideas. Many people chip in with their friends for a tape subscription and then share the tapes.
And if you really want to help on a continuing and regular basis -- if you want to be involved in a program of very specific things you can do to help me build understanding -- then you can become a member of the National Alliance. Write to the address at the bottom of the page and ask for an application form, and we will send one to you.
The School Problem
The education of America's children is a matter of continuing controversy and anguish for many Americans, including a majority of White parents with school-age children. Americans are unhappy about the level of violence in the schools, which keeps going up, and the educational standards, which keep going down. Parents are increasingly concerned that their children are not safe in public schools, and just about every responsible White adult is concerned about the failure of America's schools to educate young Americans well enough to keep America technologically and economically competitive in an increasingly competitive world.
Now the politicians are arguing with one another about how to solve these problems -- well, not so much about how to solve the problems as how to convince the public that they care, that they feel the parents' pain, and that they want to help. Bill Clinton wants to demonstrate that he cares by spending $25 billion to build "better" schools and add more facilities. His proposal gives him an opportunity to attack Republicans who don't support his spending proposal as being uncaring.
For their part, the Republicans are enthusiastic about various schemes which permit students to opt out of the public schools and attend either private schools or so-called charter schools, which are an increasingly trendy variation of the traditional public schools. These Republican programs generally involve tax credits, vouchers, or other financial assistance to encourage private schools or charter schools and make it feasible for more parents to choose them for their children. Mr. Clinton and many Democrats attack the Republican programs as providing more help to middle- class Whites than to working-class Blacks and as undermining the viability of the public schools by draining off the brighter and better motivated White students, leaving only the non-White and the less-educable White students in the public schools.
Actually, the question of what to do about America's school problem becomes very complicated if one looks at it from the viewpoint of a reformer and considers the pros and cons of the various programs that are being debated today. In this discussion I will simplify the question quite a bit by looking at it from the viewpoint of a revolutionary rather than a reformer. Despite this simplification, perhaps you will find some new and worthwhile insights in what I have to say. And the first thing I will say is that the question of educational quality in America is much more than a question of economics, national prestige, or children's safety. It is a question of national survival -- and much more important, of racial survival. Our failure to understand this last point fully and to make it the basis of America's educational policy is at the root of our problems today.
To get back to basics, let's remind ourselves of the three fundamental purposes schools have had in traditional European societies. First, schools pass on a people's cultural, intellectual, and spiritual heritage from one generation to the next. By teaching to children the language, literature, history, and traditions of a people -- by teaching children about their people's heroes and legends and achievements and mores -- the schools help to assure cultural continuity, among other things. And they provide a sense of racial and cultural identity. They enable a child to define himself relative to his people and to the rest of the world. Second, schools teach technique: they help children acquire the knowledge and skills needed for them to become productive and self-supporting members of their society, whether those skills are welding, computer programming, accounting, or household management. They teach the child or the young adult techniques which will be useful to him or to society: how to play a musical instrument, how to type, how to repair a motor vehicle, how to fight with and without weapons, how to draw, how to swim, how to raise children, how to grow food, how to build a house.
And third, schools train and develop character in children, so that they will grow up to be the strongest and most valuable citizens that their genetic inheritance allows. The schools challenge, test, and condition children; they force the child to exercise his will, to discipline himself, to endure discomfort, to make plans and carry them out, to overcome fears, to accept responsibility, to learn the consequences of failure, to be truthful, to act honorably, and generally to develop and strengthen those traits of character valued by his society.
So, cultural continuity, the teaching of techniques, and building character: those are the three fundamental purposes of our schools -- or rather those ought to be the purposes of our schools.
Unfortunately, the American educational system today completely neglects the third purpose and does rather poorly with the first two. Take cultural continuity, for example. How can the schools serve this purpose well when they cannot even answer the question as to whose culture is to be passed on to the next generation? In a society trying very hard to be multicultural the question is really not Politically Correct.
I must say that some of the new charter schools set up for Black students are serving this purpose much better than any White schools. Some of these Black charter schools are thoroughly Afrocentric, and they at least give the young Blacks a strong sense of identity, if nothing else. In the April 27, 1998, issue of U.S. News & World Report there's a picture of a classroom in one of these schools, the Black children all dressed in traditional African garb and pledging their allegiance to their fellow Africans with a clenched-fist salute. If a White school tried with equal fervor to instill a sense of European racial consciousness in its students, the Clinton government would be all over the school with subpoenas in a minute. But really, only a school which is racially and culturally homogeneous can serve the purpose of insuring cultural continuity. Furthermore, there must be the conscious will to serve that purpose, along with pride and a lack of fear.
The current multicultural curriculum of America's mainstream public schools, which treats all cultures as equally relevant and tries to teach every student a little of each, results in all of the students learning virtually nothing, since they cannot relate strongly to what is being taught, and only superficialities are covered.
Teaching techniques is probably the thing that American schools do best, but even there we've slipped badly. It used to be that we weren't afraid to recognize the differences in people. We understood that some people would grow up to be welders, construction workers, or farmers; and some would be mathematicians, poets, or rocket scientists. We also understood that shop courses made more sense for boys than for girls, and that girls needed home economics courses more than boys did. Today, it is not Politically Correct to recognize such differences; everyone must fit the same egalitarian mold. Consequently, we don't teach anything as well as we used to.
I've brushed on two of the causes of the declining quality of America's schools: multiculturalism and egalitarianism. There's more to both of these causes. Multiculturalism is not just an educational theory which assigns equal value and relevance to every culture and thereby makes it impossible to teach any culture effectively; it also is a policy of mixing people of all cultures and races together for the sake of "diversity." This is by far the single greatest cause of violence and disorder in our schools. While the politicians launch one program after another to keep guns, drugs, and gangs out of the schools, they will not face the real problem of which guns, drugs, and gangs are only symptoms, because it is a racial problem, and they are more terrified of being accused of being racists since they feel this will threaten their careers.
When America's schools were racially segregated, the White schools had no problem with drugs, gangs, or schoolyard shootings. When Blacks, with their much lower capacity for self-control and their traditionally more disorderly and violent behavior, were integrated into our schools they brought the problems of their own community with them. Now even White kids are shooting each other in the schools, just as they are now using drugs and adopting other elements of non-White behavior.
I'll say that again because most White people have been so "sensitized," so brainwashed, by the controlled media that they have a hard time dealing with racial realities. They know that Blacks, mestizos, and other non-Whites are a big part of what's wrong with America's schools, and when they look for safer schools for their children they instinctively look for Whiter schools -- but they're afraid even to admit that to themselves.
So I'll say it: Behavior patterns are different for young Blacks than they are for young Whites, and in part these differences in behavior are rooted in heredity, so they don't disappear when Blacks and Whites are mixed together. Blacks may change their behavior slightly toward White norms, but White behavior also shifts toward Black norms, and the result is more violent, more dangerous, and less orderly schools. That's a fact of life, and White parents need to recognize it and deal with it without fear.
Black students also are substantially less capable, on the average, than White students at dealing with traditional school curricula. This has been a source of great anguish to the egalitarians, and they have tried to cope with it by changing the curricula and lowering the standards. These changes haven't brought Black performance much closer to White performance, but they have lowered the performance for Whites. This again is something that most White parents understand but are afraid to admit.
There's one other important cause for what's wrong with America's schools, and it's not related directly to race. This other cause is the growing influence of feminism on educational theory and practice. I believe we all understand that men and women have different ways of seeing the world and dealing with it. Evolution has made the sexes different. For millions of years men have had the task of hunting and killing the supper, bringing it home, and driving the wolf from the door. The woman has had the task of making the cave into a home and taking care of the children. The traditional difference in responsibilities of the two sexes are the results of real differences: differences in the way man and women see things and the way they do things.
And ever since we have had schools, men have made the decisions about how the schools were to be organized and how the children in them were to be taught. Even though women were teachers, educational policy was made by men -- until this century, that is: really, until after the Second World War. For the past 50 years or so, however, feminists have been gaining influence in the educational establishment and changing educational policy to suit themselves. To the feminists, male educational policy is bad policy. To many of them, in fact, it is bad simply because it is male, and they have set out to change that. They have been working to bring educational policy into line with the female way of looking at the world and dealing with it.
To feminists, discipline and competition are male and bad. They should be replaced by permissiveness and cooperation, which are female. Strict rules are not good, nor are absolutes of any sort. Students should be permitted to study whatever they want to study rather than being required to learn a certain standard body of facts and techniques decided on by educators. When problems or difficulties arise, they should be dealt with by talking, not by the application of rules. Giving students numerical grades is bad, because it encourages competition and it hurts the self-esteem of those who don't do well. Being able to talk about something is more important than being able to analyze it. Analysis is too masculine.
Now, this feminist view of things is a bit over-simplified. Not all women are anti-analytical or opposed to discipline. But the feminists have seized on the very real differences between the male and the female approaches to education, they have magnified these differences, and they have worked hard and effectively to substitute their approach for the traditional male approach. To a large extent the feminists have succeeded in this, and that helps to explain why America's schools are what they are today.
The multiculturalism of the schools prevents their passing on our European culture and identity to the next generation. Egalitarianism and feminist influence have wrecked our standards, undermined discipline, and corrupted our curricula, so that we do not even teach techniques well. And feminism, in particular, has totally nullified the schools' traditional task of character building.
In view of these things, Bill Clinton's program of spending $25 billion for new schools and facilities is worthless: new school buildings are nice, but they have very little to do with the quality of education. Good education doesn't need a lot of glass and marble, a new gymnasium, or even a lot of computers. It needs good teachers and a good learning environment and discipline and a sound educational policy. One can learn as well in an unused warehouse or a tent as in the shiniest new multimillion-dollar school, if one has a disciplined environment, a good curriculum, and good teachers.
The Republican programs which aim at letting parents send their children to charter schools or private schools have the advantage of providing a safer environment -- and in some cases also a more disciplined environment with higher standards and better curricula -- than the public schools, but they all dodge the important questions. We ought to fix what's wrong with our public schools instead of simply abandoning them. But of course, we can't fix the public schools until we are willing to face the real issues and deal with them. And we will not face these real issues and deal with them short of a total revolution -- because it is clear, I believe, that the majority of the White population have no stomach for it. They have been so strongly conditioned by the controlled mass media -- so brainwashed -- that they simply are no longer capable of challenging the Politically Correct policies on race, equality, and feminism. They are not only confused about these issues, they are terrified of them. Their fear makes cowards of them, and it makes them dishonest.
I'll give you an example of this by citing something which happened in one of our state universities recently. Our colleges and universities are experiencing exactly the same problems which have wrecked our public schools, and the causes of the problems are the same. Last month, at Southwest Texas State University, in San Marcos, Texas, three Black football players were arrested for raping two White female students in one of the dormitories. This sort of thing happens at our multicultural universities all too often these days, and the usual reaction of the media and the university administration is to hush it up. Their excuse for this is that they don't want to increase "racial tensions." In the Southwest Texas State University rapes there was a slip-up, however, and somehow the mug shots of the accused Black rapists were printed in the newspaper. The local NAACP was offended by this revelation and issued a statement to the effect that the White girls who were raped had brought it on themselves. The NAACP then raised the usual smokescreen with a lot of blather about "racist" policies against Blacks at the university.
Members of my organization, the National Alliance, who are students at the neighboring University of Texas campus in Austin, responded to this outrageous NAACP statement by distributing an e-mail message to students and faculty at Southwest Texas State University in which the attitude of the NAACP was condemned and in which it was pointed out that the rape of White women by Blacks is a growing problem on our campuses. This started a growing campus discussion about the rapes, about the NAACP's blaming the girls instead of the rapists, about our response to the NAACP, and about race generally. Black groups organized a public demonstration on the campus to protest what they saw as an unfriendly atmosphere for Blacks, and many White liberals attended the demonstration. The university administration and the local media could only wring their hands, reaffirm their full commitment to Political Correctness, and wish the "racial tensions" would go away.
In healthier times the whole issue would have been settled very quickly with the lynching of three Black rapists. Of course, in healthier times there would have been no rapes, because there would have been no Black football players on the campus. It's clear that we have a long way to go to restore health to our schools.
The Lesson of Africa
Another White farmer in South Africa was murdered a few days ago. He was 65-year-old Daniel Marais. His wife Maria managed to escape from their farm near Bloemfontein and run three miles with their grandchild to a neighboring farm, after she had been assaulted by a Black. Mr. Marais however was too badly wounded by the Black attacker to escape, and he died on his farm.
Two weeks ago Blacks invaded the Van Niekerk farm near Witbank. They beat 71-year-old Gerhardus Van Niekerk on the face and head with a metal rod until they thought he was dead, then shot him in the face. Van Niekirk lost a lot of blood, but he survived the attack. He was one of a lucky few. Most don't survive.
A few days before the Van Niekerk attack, a gang of Blacks descended on the farm of 65-year- old Don Delafield and his 52-year-old wife Verina, 80 miles from Johannesburg. The White farmer and his wife were tied up, tortured savagely, and then butchered by the Blacks. A note left at the scene identified the murderers as members of the Azanian Peoples Liberation Army, the military wing of the Pan-Africanist Congress.
Twenty White farmers and members of their families have been murdered in South Africa in the past six weeks. That's about the same rate at which White farmers and their families were murdered by Blacks in South Africa during 1997. If that were happening to White farm families in the United States at a proportional rate, it would be 100 farm families a week being murdered -- a major problem indeed.
White farmers in South Africa are very alarmed about the murders, of course, so they've sent several delegations to Nelson Mandela and other government officials to demand that something be done. They're not getting much satisfaction from the government, however. The government says that its hands already are full trying to deal with the crime situation in South Africa, and that it can't spare any additional policemen to investigate the attacks on White farms. Robbery, rape, and murder have soared since the Whites of South Africa voted to turn their country over to Black rule four years ago.
White farmers are convinced that the attacks on them are more than a simple matter of crime. If the Blacks attacking their farms merely had robbery in mind, it would not be necessary to torture and kill their White victims. The Whites believe that the aim of the Black gangs is terrorism, and the note left at the scene of the Delafield murders supports their belief. The White farmers also note that the farmers who have been murdered were in many cases those who had been well known for their generosity to their Black workers. They suspect that the aim of the murderers is to drive the White farmers out of South Africa, and so the terrorists are striking preferentially at the Whites who have good relations with Blacks.
Mandela's government doesn't want the White farmers driven out, because it would be an economic catastrophe for South Africa. The White farmers produce nearly all of South Africa's food and much of its foreign exchange. But many Blacks are more concerned with grabbing White wealth now than they are with the prosperity of the country later. In addition, the idea of forcing the Whites out appeals to many Blacks at an emotional level. Being dependent on the productivity of White farmers is galling to Blacks, and they are more inclined to kill the goose now than to continue collecting the golden eggs.
If the murder of White farm families continues at the rate of the past 18 months, the terrorists undoubtedly will succeed. And there is little chance that the Mandela government or any Black successor government will be able to stop the killings; the government of South Africa becomes more chaotic, corrupt, and inefficient by the month. If it can do nothing to control the crime in Johannesburg, it is unlikely to have much influence on terrorism in the countryside.
The really disappointing aspect to all of this is that it should have been foreseen. The Whites of South Africa voted themselves into their present situation, when they agreed to let Blacks participate in their elections in 1994. They folded up under the pressure of being called bad names by the Jewish media and being told by their preachers that Jesus was angry at them because of apartheid. They were so eager to be in the good graces of Jesus, the Jews, and the "international community" that they took leave of their senses and handed their government over to Nelson Mandela and his fellow Black terrorists on a silver platter. They believed the assurances of the media and the bought politicians that everything would work out for the best if they let the Blacks run South Africa.
That's really incredible, considering what they knew about Black behavior in the rest of Africa. Consider Kolwezi, for example. Whites in America won't have heard of Kolwezi, of course, because the Jewish media kept pretty quiet about it over here. It's the sort of thing the Jews thought it better for us not to hear about, and so after a few sketchy news reports they blacked it out and never mentioned it again. But they couldn't keep it from the South Africans, who were much more attuned to what was happening in Africa than we were.
Kolwezi was a mining town in the Shaba province of what was known 20 years ago as Zaire. Before that it was known as the Belgian Congo, and today, under the rule of its latest African strongman it is known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Belgians had turned their colony over to Black rule in 1960, as part of the general decolonization process which accompanied the egalitarian craze following the Second World War. A deranged Black Marxist ideologue, Patrice Lumumba, presided over the transition to Black rule of the Congo, and the killing and rape of Whites began almost immediately.
Most of the Whites in the Congo weren't natives, as in South Africa. They were Belgian administrators and technicians and mining engineers, along with a few Christian missionaries, doctors, and nurses. Many of the longer-term White residents had their families with them. In 1964, when one of the Black factions struggling for control of the Congo captured Stanleyville, an administrative center with a population of about 25,000 where more than 2,000 Whites were living, the rapes and murders of Whites flared up again. Belgian paratroopers had to capture Stanleyville in order to rescue the terrified White survivors. Most Americans heard briefly about that at the time, but the news certainly wasn't emphasized, and so we quickly forgot about it. The South Africans didn't forget, though. Then in May 1978, while the Congo was temporarily going by the name Zaire, a Black tribal faction that was at odds with the central government moved into Kolwezi. Kolwezi, a town of about 20,000 inhabitants at the time in the southeastern part of the country, was a local center for the copper and cobalt mining in the area, and a number of White engineers and technicians were there, some with their wives and children. The Blacks who were opposed to the central government saw the White minority in Kolwezi as supporters of the central government, because it was the Whites who were keeping the mines running. Actually, the Whites were on neither side of the conflict. They were there simply to do a job, and they didn't concern themselves much with Black politics, but the fact that their activity in operating the mines was keeping the central government afloat was all the excuse the Black rebels needed to kill them. And of course, the Blacks went about killing the Whites in a typically Black fashion, with lots of gang-raping and mutilation. White women had their breasts hacked off with machetes. Little White girls were literally raped to death by long lines of grinning Blacks, while their parents were forced at gunpoint to watch. Little White boys had their bellies slit open and their entrails pulled out. Altogether 160 Whites were butchered in Kolwezi. Even though that was in 1978, it made enough of an impression on White South Africans that they shouldn't have forgotten it by 1994.
And if Stanleyville and Kolwezi weren't enough, there were plenty of other instructive examples for the White South Africans. There was what happened in Angola in 1961, when Portuguese colonists were butchered in a terror campaign so terrible that I cannot discuss the details on this program. It is perhaps more difficult to sympathize with the Portuguese than with the Belgians, because many of the Portuguese had, as we say, "gone native." They didn't keep themselves separate enough from the Blacks around them. Some had even taken Black wives and had mulatto children. Race-mixing wasn't as abhorrent to the Portuguese as to other Europeans in Africa. Nevertheless, what the Blacks did to the Portuguese, even those with non-White family members, was as bloody and cruel as anything done to other Europeans in Africa.
The Whites of Rhodesia, South Africa's neighbor, certainly didn't mix with the Blacks in their country. The Whites of Rhodesia not only maintained their dignity and pride as Europeans, but they did a very creditable job of keeping their Blacks under control. Even the Rhodesian farmers, whose farms often were isolated and many miles from their nearest neighbors, were quite successful at dealing with Black terrorists. In Rhodesia the Blacks struck at the easiest White targets, and these were the Christian missionary stations. Various Christian churches had set up missionary stations throughout Rhodesia for the purpose of converting the Blacks to Christianity, and these stations usually had schools and clinics associated with them. They were unarmed. When Black terrorists would descend on one of these missionary stations they would rape and butcher all of the Whites they could get their hands on. This happened over and over again, and the South Africans heard all of the grisly details every time.
Nevertheless, the White South African government betrayed the White Rhodesians in 1976 by joining the United Nations embargo against Rhodesia and cutting off Rhodesia's supply of helicopters and other weapons. This move forced the Rhodesians to capitulate to the Blacks, and their country, now called Zimbabwe, is ruled by one of the former Black terrorist leaders, who is now a de facto "president for life" and has announced a plan to seize the land of the White farmers who remain in the country. The South Africans betrayed the Rhodesians in 1976 in part because the Jews of South Africa always have had a strong influence on the South African government through their media control and their money. Harry Oppenheimer, with his vast holdings in diamonds, gold, and other minerals, had more money with which to corrupt politicians than anyone else in South Africa. And the Jews, of course, were as implacably hostile to the Whites of Rhodesia as they have been to other Whites everywhere and at all times.
And in part the White South Africans betrayed the Rhodesians because they thought that by throwing their White neighbors to the wolves they could buy time for themselves. As it turned out it wasn't much time: just 18 years. During those 18 years they really should have been paying more attention to what was happening in other parts of Africa. The fact that they learned nothing from the examples of Angola, Stanleyville, Kolwezi, and the Christian missions in Rhodesia should be instructive to us.
I talked with several South Africans before 1994. None were in favor of surrendering their country to the Blacks, but they had some very strange notions about what Black rule would mean. They thought that because the Blacks of South Africa had a standard of living so much higher than Blacks anywhere else in Africa they wouldn't do anything to jeopardize that. Blacks might engage in terrorism in Angola and Zaire -- those are very primitive countries, and the Blacks there are savages -- but the Blacks in South Africa are better educated and better treated than elsewhere. Blacks, these White South Africans told me, are like children. They can't run a modern country like South Africa by themselves. They need the Whites to keep things going for them, and the Whites will be able to control them, just as they have for the past 400 years.
These White South Africans that I spoke with were very civilized, very comfortable people. They all had Black servants back home. I think that they just couldn't deal with the idea of a South Africa without Blacks: a South Africa in which Whites would take care of their own children, clean their own toilets, cook their own meals, cut their own grass, take out their own garbage, and take in their belts enough to cope with any economic pressure applied to them by the rest of the world. It's too bad they weren't a little less civilized and a little less comfortable. Perhaps they'd still have their own country today. Perhaps they wouldn't be reading in their newspapers every week about three or four more White farm families butchered by Black terrorists. Perhaps they wouldn't have to be wondering if there is anywhere to immigrate to.
Perhaps I shouldn't be so hard on them. Certainly, they did an enormously foolish and shameful thing in giving up their country without a fight -- but are we Americans any less foolish? Think how many White Americans there are who believe that we'll all continue to live together as happy consumers and television viewers, regardless of race, color, or creed, when America has a non-White majority around the middle of the next century. Our Blacks, they believe, are much more civilized than those Blacks who are butchering White farm families in South Africa.
Or rather, that's what they'd believe if the controlled news media told them about what's happening in South Africa. White Americans have never given any evidence of being more intelligent, more independent minded, more courageous, or more morally upright than South Africans, so why should we expect Americans to make better use than the South Africans did of the knowledge of what to expect under non-White rule, if the Jewish media let them have that knowledge?
But three White farmers a week -- or 100 a week -- being murdered by Black terrorists in South Africa isn't news that fits. Much better to restrict the news from Africa to scenes of Mr. Clinton hugging happy Blacks.
Perhaps we can learn from the example of the South Africans. Of course, when I say "we" I don't mean White Americans as a whole. Since White South Africans as a whole didn't learn a thing from the example of the Portuguese, the Belgians, and the Rhodesians, I don't expect Americans to do any better. But perhaps some of us can learn a few things.
One of those things is that we really need to find a better way than mass democracy for governing ourselves. We've been fed a lot of egalitarian baloney about people all being pretty much the same, and so we tend to assume that since we can look at facts and make rational decisions, everyone else can. But most people cannot. Most people are not rational and can be manipulated by playing on their fears and desires, the way the majority of South African Whites were manipulated by the media and the churches in their country in 1994. The South Africans didn't want the situation they have today, but they let themselves be bullied, lied, and tricked into it. If only hard-headed and rational South African Whites had been permitted to vote in 1994, South Africa still would be a White-ruled country today: perhaps even an all-White country.
The second thing we should learn from the South African experience is that we cannot permit our mass media to remain in the hands of the Jews or in the hands of those under the influence of Jews. The foolish South Africans were manipulated, and it was the mass media more than anything else which manipulated them.
The Jewish media in South Africa could not keep the news of Black behavior in other parts of Africa away from White South Africans, but they could and did play down that news. They could and did berate South Africans non-stop about the wickedness of apartheid and about how awful it was to be unpopular among liberals in other countries, and they could and did play on the feminine nature of the White masses by telling them over and over, as seductively as possible, how nice it would be to be loved by the international community instead of being hated.
And the third thing we must learn from the experience of Whites in Africa is that the only way for our people to survive and flourish is to live among our own kind. Multiracial societies do not work and cannot work. If we permit Whites to become a minority in America in the next century as the Clintonistas are planning, then we will suffer a fate similar to that of Whites everywhere else that they have let themselves become a minority. What we must do to avoid becoming a minority may be extraordinarily hard, but we must do it to survive. The extinction of our people is the alternative.
Cowardice and Individualism
In various Free Speech articles I've spoken about our problems with Blacks, with Asian immigrants, with mestizos, and of course, with Jews -- especially about our problems with Jews, in deference to their demand always to be at the head of the line. Now, I'd like to talk about our problems with ourselves, with European-Americans: about what's wrong with White people.
Actually, this is such a huge subject that I can deal with only a tiny part of it. In the organization which I head, the National Alliance, I've been talking with members about two aspects of the White problem: White cowardice and White selfishness. Here are some of our thoughts.
If most White people weren't such terrible cowards, we wouldn't have problems with Blacks, mestizos, Jews, or anyone else today. We would have solved all of those problems long ago. There are plenty of people who agree with us about the type of society we want, the type of future we want for our people. There are many people who are disgusted with the rotten politicians and the rotten political system we have in Washington, people who are angry about what non-White minorities have done to our schools and our cities, people who are sick and tired of seeing television and the other mass media promote everything which is sick, perverse, and destructive. Many people don't feel guilty when the media tell them to feel guilty. There are plenty of people who want a clean, decent, White society for their children to grow up in. But these people are afraid to say or do anything. Many are terrified even to have other people know what they are thinking. Why is that? What are White people afraid of?
I understand the difference between prudence or reasonable caution on the one hand and cowardice or unreasoning fear on the other hand. Prudence is no vice. Cowardice is. Imagine, for example, that you work in an office under a Jewish supervisor. You are close to retirement, and you can't afford to lose your employment. Your Jewish boss is a big supporter of Clinton, affirmative action, "diversity," homosexuality, feminism, racial mixing, and every other thing which is bad for our people. And the boss always is pushing these things, is making favorable comments about these things, around you and your fellow employees. He's always saying that Bill Clinton is a wonderful man and that all of the people who are attacking him are just a bunch of bigots who hate him because he has been so good to Israel. Every time your Jewish boss says something like that you bite your tongue and keep your mouth shut, even though you want to tell him what you really think. You consider the consequences to yourself and to your family if you speak out, and you decide that it's not worth it. So you grit your teeth and remain silent. What does that make you? Well, certainly you are no hero, but under the circumstances I don't think it would be fair to call you a coward either. You are just a prudent person.
The times we are living in tend to make cowards of us all. We are pressed to make moral compromises every day, and it becomes a habit. Certainly, if a man today tried to act honorably in all things according to the standards for honorable behavior 100 years ago he would very likely find himself in prison in short order. For all practical purposes we are living like a conquered people under an enemy occupation government. We adjust our behavior in order to get by without a lot of trouble. We do not act heroically, because heroism is out of fashion. We try to do what is prudent rather than what is heroic. But some people go too far in this direction, and they must be judged as cowards even by today's lax standards. There are people, for example, who whisper to me that they agree with everything I say, and ask me for information about the National Alliance. I will offer to mail the information to them, and they will turn pale and tell me that I must not do that: the postman or a neighbor might see their mail. "So what?" I respond, and they will just look frightened and scurry away. There are other people who are afraid to talk with me on the telephone, because they are certain that the FBI is recording all of my calls.
I won't bore you with all of the details, but over a period of years I have been made aware repeatedly of the fact that there are many people in America -- White adults of reasonably sound mind -- who are so afraid of the government in Washington that their fear controls them; it dominates them. They are afraid that the government will find out if they send a letter to anyone who is critical of the government, such as me. They are terrified of being on the mailing list of a Politically Incorrect organization. They are terrified of having their telephone records show that they have made calls to or received calls from anyone who is on the government's blacklist. And these are people who themselves hate the government! But they are terribly afraid that the government will find out what they feel, what they think. There are, I am sorry to say, millions of such people in this country.
When I have spoken with some of these people in an effort to find out just what it is they are afraid of, what they believe will happen to them if the government discovers that they are thinking Politically Incorrect thoughts, I usually get a defensive reaction. Most of them don't have any precise idea of how the government might punish them. Some of them will express vague fears about economic retaliation -- an IRS audit or the loss of a pension -- and others worry that all constitutional rights will be suspended under some Presidential declaration of a national emergency, and all dissidents will be rounded up and put in concentration camps. In most cases their fear is irrational.
I think it likely that there always have been people who were dominated by irrational fears, people who were afraid of their own shadow, but I am sure that there are many more of them today than there were in the past. I believe that the type of life-style we have today is partly responsible for this prevalence of unreasonable fear. Men who have been sheltered from danger all their lives, who have grown up in a welfare state, and who have never faced physical danger or seen another man die a violent death may not be able to cope with the idea of risk or be able to overcome even the minor fears which beset all of us every day of our lives.
Another part of the reason for this fear is that the controlled mass media encourage it and exacerbate it. The media bosses all will tell you that they support the First Amendment, that they believe in free speech and the rest of the Bill of Rights, but they don't. They want the same sort of laws in this country they have lobbied for and gotten in other countries, such as Canada, France, Switzerland, Germany, and a dozen others, where one can be imprisoned for Politically Incorrect speech. It's what they like to call "hate speech," and they've been lobbying quietly for laws against it for years.
Part of their campaign has involved persuading the more impressionable elements of the public that it's already illegal to say anything which is "racist" or "anti-Semitic." I'm sure that all of you have seen newspaper stories to the effect that someone was arrested for distributing "racist" leaflets, or that the police found "anti-Semitic" literature in the home of someone who was charged with a "hate crime." The way these things are reported they create the impression in the public's mind that distributing Politically Incorrect leaflets or having Politically Incorrect books in one's home is illegal in itself. And they report things that way deliberately. They deliberately deceive us. They want people who read these news reports to believe that having the wrong type of reading material on one's bookshelf -- or the wrong type of ideas in one's head -- can get one into trouble. They want the people who think Politically Incorrect thoughts to be fearful.
They are masters of psychological manipulation. I reported to you about the nine schoolchildren in Florida who were thrown into jail for producing a Politically Incorrect pamphlet which lampooned a Black principal at their school. The children had done nothing illegal. The purpose of putting them in jail and making a big thing of it in the newspapers was to intimidate the children -- and everyone who read about what happened to them. And unfortunately, this sort of intimidation all too often works. It works because many of our people already are too timid, too cowed, to fight back.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn is one of my favorite authors. In one of his books, the first volume of Gulag Archipelago, he wrote about how the communists in Russia, who consisted of only the Jews and a tiny minority of Russian criminals, amoral opportunists, and welfare rabble -- the sort of people who support Bill Clinton in America today -- were able to maintain their grip on all of Russia by keeping the Russian majority, which hated them, too frightened to resist.
Solzhenitsyn writes of the period in 1934 and 1935, when the Jewish commissar Genrikh Yagoda headed the Soviet secret police, and Yagoda's black vans went out every night in St. Petersburg, known then as Leningrad, to round up "class enemies": former members of the aristocracy, former civil servants, former businessmen, former teachers, professors, and professional people, any Russian -- any real Russian -- who had graduated from a university. A quarter of the population of the city was arrested and liquidated by Yagoda during this two-year period.
Solzhenitsyn laments that the citizens of St. Petersburg cowered behind their doors when the black vans pulled up at their apartment houses night after night to arrest their neighbors. If only the decent Russians had fought back, Solzhenitsyn says, if only they had ambushed some of these secret police thugs in the hallways of their apartments with knives, pickaxes, or hammers, if only they had spiked the tires of the police vans while the thugs were in the apartments dragging out their victims, they could easily have overwhelmed Yagoda's forces and forced an end to the mass arrests. But they didn't fight back, and the arrests and liquidations continued. And so, Solzhenitsyn concludes, because of their cowardice and their selfishness the Russians deserved what the communists did to them. Do we deserve better?
The other problem White people have that I want to talk about is selfishness or individualism. Every week I receive letters accusing me of being a "collectivist." The people who write the letters are indignant because I suggest that all of us have a responsibility for the future of our race, that we should put the welfare and security of our people, of our race, ahead of personal considerations. What happens to our people is more important than what happens to any individual.
This kind of talk irritates the individualist, and he tells me that although he agrees with my criticisms of the government, he doesn't agree with my racism. Racism is a form of collectivism, which in his mind is akin to communism, and so I am just as bad as the communists. His only concern is for himself, and he believes that everyone else should feel the same. He resents being told that he has a responsibility to his race. He tells me that he knows some Blacks, Jews, or Asians who make better neighbors or better employees than some White people, and he is just as resentful of White welfare bums as he is of Black welfare bums, and so he rejects my call for him to think of himself as a White person or as a European-American. He makes all of his decisions on the basis of what is good for him, and he thinks everyone else should do the same.
The individualist responds to my warnings about the overwhelming Jewish influence in the mass media by saying, "So what? The Jews are smart businessmen. That's why they control the media. If you don't like it, buy yourself a television station and compete with them."
If I complain about the media promoting interracial sex or homosexuality, the individualist doesn't understand what I'm concerned about. To him the choice of a sexual orientation or the race of one's sexual partner is strictly an individual matter, and no one has any right to say that one type of relationship is inherently better than another. If a White person wants to marry a Black and have mixed-race children, that's okay with the individualist. The more extreme individualists also believe that the government has no business making laws against abused drugs. He believes that it should be up to the individual to decide whether or not he wants to use drugs, and he doesn't care about the consequences to society of the widespread use of harmful drugs. That's not his responsibility.
You know, if we were living in a White world I wouldn't worry much about individualists. I still would deplore their selfishness and their refusal to accept responsibility for anyone or anything but themselves, but I wouldn't consider them a major threat. As it is, with our people under assault by organized minorities on every front, I consider individualists to be worse than communists. Their way of thinking is really a mental illness: an illness which can infect others. And like cowardice it has been deliberately encouraged by the controlled media, because it weakens our people, it destroys our solidarity and makes it easier for the media bosses and their allies to keep us under control.
I doubt that there's anything we can do to make a man out of a coward. However, at least some individualists may overcome their illness and change their ways as our social and political situation continues to deteriorate.
Perhaps some of them will read Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, and they will understand that the reason the Russian people fell victim to the tiny communist minority was not just their cowardice but also their unwillingness to take responsibility for the welfare of their people and to stand together as decent Russians against the Jews and the rabble. And perhaps they will see the parallel between what happened in Russia in the 1930s and what is happening in America now. Perhaps some of them will come to understand that the reason our race is in peril now is because we are the only race which has tolerated individualism. The Jews certainly have not achieved their position of dominance by being individualists: they have achieved it by supporting each other against the rest of the world, by putting the welfare of their race first. Any Jew who collaborated openly with non-Jews against Jewish interests -- the way White politicians habitually collaborate with minorities against White interests -- would be ostracized and condemned by his fellow Jews. He would become an outcast.
Blacks have achieved their own measure of political power because they think and act as a group: they think of themselves as Blacks first, and they use their organized strength to demand special treatment and special favors from the government.
Perhaps some of our individualists will realize that their own lives can have no lasting value or meaning, no matter how rich or famous they become, unless they are part of something larger and more enduring than themselves. Perhaps some of them will realize that the limb they've been sawing off by supporting Jewish policies at the expense of their own people is the limb they're sitting on. Perhaps when they contemplate the extinction of their own race they will realize that, despite all of its faults, it's all they have. Perhaps we can help them realize that.
Paying the Organizatsiya
Illegal immigration is a huge and growing problem for this country. So is legal immigration, to the extent that the immigrants are nearly all members of minority groups these days. Immigration is changing the complexion and the character of America. We are becoming less European and more Middle Eastern, Asian, African, and mestizo. I have discussed what this non-White immigration is doing to our schools, our cities, and our tax burden. Let's look today at some of the other costs involved.
Before the Second World War we had immigration laws which insured that most immigrants to the United States were Europeans. It was extremely difficult for Asians or Africans or other non- Whites to enter the country. Then in the rush of feel-good egalitarianism and yankee-doodle democracy which were promoted by the media after the war, the members of the liberal elite let themselves be persuaded by the media bosses that our immigration policies were "racist." What we needed in America was more "diversity," they decided. A Jewish congressman from New York, Emanuel Celler, headed the drive in the Congress for a new immigration law which would favor the Third World instead of Europe, and in 1965 such a law was passed, with the co- sponsorship of Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy.
Of course, at the time the Jews and the liberals were campaigning for their new immigration law they didn't advertise it as a law which would change America's complexion. They didn't talk of it as a diversity-enhancing law. Quite the opposite, in fact, because in 1965 the masters of the controlled media hadn't had time yet to make diversity fashionable among ordinary Americans. Television was still relatively new and hadn't worked its magic yet.
People who wanted to maintain America's European racial character foresaw the effect the new law would have and argued against it on that basis, but its proponents deceitfully claimed that it wouldn't change America's racial character at all, knowing full well that it would. And so the law was passed, and since it went into effect in 1965 most of the legal immigrants to the United States have been non-European, non-White. So have nearly all of the illegal immigrants. And America's racial complexion has changed drastically as a result. In the last census taken before Emanuel Celler's new immigration law -- the census of 1960 -- the population of the United States was 89 per cent White. In the 1990 census, after 25 years with the new law, the White percentage of the population had fallen to 76 per cent. Actually, the situation was worse than that, because illegal immigrants, nearly all of whom are non-White, tend to avoid the census- takers. And the percentage of Whites in the United States has continued to plunge since 1990. Today the country is somewhere between 70 and 75 per cent White.
Occasionally Congress has made special modifications to the 1965 immigration law to admit favored groups of immigrants. The largest such group is from Europe but actually is not racially European. It consists of Jews from the former Soviet Union claiming "refugee" status. A Jewish legislator, New Jersey's Senator Frank Lautenberg, succeeded in 1989 in having Soviet Jews officially designated as a "persecuted minority" in the Soviet Union and therefore eligible for admission to the United States without regard to regular immigration quotas. It has been reapproved every year since then. As a matter of fact Jews in the Soviet Union, far from being persecuted, have been a favored race ever since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 -- a revolution which they in large part engineered. While communism ruled in Russia, Jews were far more often persecutors of Russians than the other way around. But in 1989, with Russia bled dry and communism on the brink of collapse, Soviet Jews decided to find a new host. And so for the past nine years, whereas it has been nearly impossible for a real Russian or Ukrainian to become a U.S. immigrant, Jews from the former Soviet Union have been pouring into the United States at a rate of about 50,000 a year. Furthermore, as "refugees from persecution," Soviet Jews are given a cash handout from the U.S. Treasury and various other Federal subsidies as soon as they arrive.
Whenever anyone has dared to question why Soviet Jews continue to be exempt from the immigration laws which apply to everyone else, he was likely to be charged with "anti- Semitism." And the claim will be made that these Soviet Jews are a very clever and skilful bunch of people who contribute greatly to America's economy, and we're fortunate to have them in the country.
Not really. They are clever, all right, but the only economy they contribute to is their own, and it's at the expense of the rest of us. Soviet Jewish immigrants in the United States have been a far larger per capita burden on White Americans than any other immigrant group. A substantial part of this burden is due to the fact that a great many of these Soviet Jews are gangsters: members of a global organized crime network, which they call the Organizatsiya: the "Organization." Under communism, Jews controlled organized crime in the Soviet Union, and when communism collapsed at the beginning of this decade Soviet Jewish gangsters not only branched out into various new money-making enterprises in Russia and Ukraine, including the White slave trade, they also began building their criminal operations in the United States and in Western Europe. Today they virtually control organized crime in Germany, Poland, and several other European countries. And the Organizatsiya has replaced the Italian and Sicilian Mafia as the principal organized crime element in the United States. And these Jews from the former Soviet Union are far more predatory than the Mafia ever was. They suck far more blood from law-abiding Americans.
Three or four years ago they made the headlines with their gasoline-tax rackets in New Jersey and New York, where a handful of Jewish gangsters from Russia were stealing an estimated $1.5 billion a year from these two states alone. More recently they've come into the news in connection with automobile insurance fraud in California. They hire people, hundreds of people every week, to participate in staged automobile accidents, and then, using their own lawyers and their own clinics for treating the alleged injuries in the accidents, they collect from the insurance companies.
Now, anyone can do this sort of thing, and as a matter of fact Chinese, Vietnamese, and Mexican gangs had been engaging in automobile insurance fraud before the Organizatsiya became involved, just as the Mafia had been stealing gasoline taxes in New York and New Jersey before the Soviet Jews made a multi-billion-dollar racket out of it. When the Jews moved into insurance fraud recently, however, they did so on a massive scale, converting what had been a minor irritation to a huge drain on the pocketbook of nearly every American. Automobile insurance fraud is currently sucking nearly $20 billion a year from the American economy and is costing the average American household an estimated $300 per year in additional insurance payments -- because, of course, every dollar paid to a Jewish gangster as a result of a fraudulent automobile accident comes from the pockets of all the people who are obliged to buy automobile insurance. This is an enormous racket, and it dwarfs anything that the Mafia used to do.
And gasoline-tax fraud and automobile insurance fraud are by no means the only rackets that Soviet Jewish immigrants have moved into. In New York, Los Angeles, and other port cities their presence has substantially increased the likelihood that your car will be stolen, for example. They control gangs of thieves who steal expensive cars off the street, and then the Jews arrange for the cars to be shipped in freight containers to other Jewish gangsters in the Middle East, where they can be sold for much higher prices than in the United States -- and where they will never be recovered by the police. As with the other rackets, the Jews aren't the only organized criminals who steal cars, but they do it on such a large scale that they run insurance rates up much higher than all of the non-Jewish auto thieves together.
There are perhaps 400,000 Soviet Jewish immigrants in the United States, most of them in the New York and Los Angeles areas, and only about 4,000 of these Jews belong to organized crime gangs, or about one per cent. But the infrastructure for these Jewish gangs is the entire Soviet Jewish community. They could not function without all of the other Jews who make up the community within which they live.
Don't let yourself be misled by the argument that 99 per cent of Soviet Jewish immigrants to the United States are not gangsters. The bottom line is that these Soviet Jewish immigrants, gangsters or not, are draining about $50,000 per capita per year from the American economy as a result of Jewish organized crime activities in the United States. It may be only one per cent of them who are actively engaged in the rackets, but we wouldn't have Jewish organized crime gangs in the United States sucking money from all of us if we didn't have Soviet Jews in the United States. And we wouldn't have Soviet Jews in the United States if we had a sane immigration policy.
The United States is still nearly three-quarters White, but most of the crime in the United States is committed by non-Whites. In some cases we may overlook this non-White crime because it doesn't impact on us directly. For example I have a news story in front of me now about a Mexican gang which operates a sex-slave racket in the southeastern United States. The gang members force Mexican girls, some as young as 14, to work as prostitutes in a chain of brothels they own in Florida and South Carolina, which cater mostly to illegal Mexican aliens doing farm work. This may be dismissed as a case of non-Whites committing crimes against non-Whites which doesn't cost us anything, but as long as it is happening on our turf we should be concerned about it. If we permit non-White moralities, non-White attitudes toward women, non-White concepts of propriety and proper behavior to flourish here, they eventually will take root here and will infect White Americans, just the way Black life-styles began influencing young Whites after our schools were racially integrated. We cannot have growing communities of Chinese, Vietnamese, Haitians, Mexicans, Soviet Jews, and a hundred other alien races springing up all across the United States, taking over our cities, spreading into our suburbs, and still have any realistic hope of maintaining White values and a White morality as the basis of our own community life. The poison eventually will infect us, sicken us, and destroy us. This is in no case more true than with the Soviet Jewish gangs which have established themselves here during the past decade. When the Organizatsiya decides to move into an area of criminal activity, whether it be gasoline-tax fraud, insurance fraud, or exporting stolen cars, they do it efficiently and in an organized way which dwarfs the activity of other criminal gangs and typically brings them billions of dollars in loot and makes it possible for them to engage in bribery and political corruption on a massive scale. Bill Clinton accepts political donations from them, and you can be certain that police chiefs, mayors, and other politicians and public officials do too. No government, even one which initially is honest, can remain uncorrupted by the sort of money these organized Jewish criminals have at their disposal.
And the controlled media cover for them. When, occasionally, the newspapers are forced to report on some Organizatsiya racket, the criminals are never referred to as Jews. Instead they are called "Russians." The media customarily refer to the Organizatsiya as the "Russian mafia."
One other reason why the activities of the Organizatsiya ought to be of special concern to us is that we are their chosen victims. Mexican gangs often confine their activities to their own people, as in the case of the sex-slave gang I mentioned. Vietnamese and Chinese gangs also tend to focus on extortion and other rackets which victimize their own people. Of course, when these non-White immigrant gangs engage in the drug business, many White Americans end up as victims. But the Jewish gangs deliberately choose us as their victims from the beginning. Part of the reason is that they want money on a much larger scale than they can extract from their fellow immigrants. They're not interested in a paltry few million dollars. They want -- and they get -- billions, and it's from the American majority they get it, whether they're fleecing the stock market a la Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky or running our auto insurance premiums up through organized fraud.
And part of the reason they choose White Americans as their victims is that they believe they have a God-given right to plunder us. Whenever they immigrate into a non-Jewish country, whether it is ancient Egypt 3500 years ago or America today, their imperative is the same: "Ye shall eat the fat of the land," their Torah commands them: "Thou shalt suck the milk of the Gentiles."
It is a difficult thing, a painful thing, for most Americans to face this problem of non-European immigration into America. Most Americans want to be nice, they want to be polite, they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness we have, we let ourselves be buffaloed by those clamoring for more "diversity." If there's one thing America doesn't need, one thing which is pure poison to America, it's more "diversity." But the Jews of Hollywood and Madison Avenue have done a very effective job of selling the notion to an impressionable and easily manipulated public that it's "nicer" and more "tolerant," "open-minded," and "fairer" to be in favor of letting non-Europeans -- including Soviet Jews -- continue pouring into America. A great many of us understand that we don't want any more non-Whites or any more Jews in America -- in fact, we don't want the ones that already are here -- but we feel an enormous pressure to smile, to be nice, and not to object to what is happening to our country. We are afraid to stand up against the propaganda of Jewish television, Jewish magazine advertisements, and Jewish films: propaganda that tells us more "diversity" is good for us, even when we know that it isn't. Their propaganda, their pressure, is pervasive; it is everywhere. I just finished viewing a Jewish film about the history of the Hollywood film industry. The name of the film is Hollywoodism. It openly discusses what everyone knew but was afraid to speak of openly for fear of being denounced as an "anti-Semite": namely, that Hollywood and the motion-picture industry are almost completely Jewish. The film talks about the Jews who came to America from Russia and other areas of eastern Europe early in this century and took over the fledgling motion-picture industry in Hollywood, elbowing most of the non-Jews out. The film claims that these immigrant Jews reinvented America for us. They cooked up an image of what they wanted America to be like -- more diverse, more democratic and proletarian, more vulgar, with lots of Black music and other elements of Black culture mixed into our culture -- and then they sold that image to the American people, first through cinemas and later through television. They persuaded White Americans that this Jewish image of America was a better image than our own. The Jews boast of this transformation of America they made through their control of the motion-picture and television industries.
If you haven't seen this film, you still can read the book it is based on. The book is Neal Gabler's An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood, and it is available from National Vanguard Books, the publisher of Free Speech.
It is very difficult for the average American to stand up against this flood of Jewish propaganda which clamors for ever more "diversity" and intimidates most of those who would like to stop the flow of Haitians, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Soviet Jews into America. As long as White Americans still have the option of moving to a Whiter neighborhood or sending their children to a Whiter school, they'll choose that option rather than make a fuss and be considered rude by speaking out against the insane immigration policies of the government in Washington. It's too bad we're that way. It just means that our future will be much bloodier and more painful than necessary.
Meanwhile, it will be good for us to remember every time we pay our automobile insurance that one consequence of non-White immigration into America is the size of our premiums. It will be good to remember that a third of every premium pays just for insurance fraud, and that virtually all automobile insurance fraud is perpetrated by gangs of non-White immigrants, a growing number of whom belong to the Organizatsiya. If you are paying, say, $800 a year in automobile insurance, then between $250 and $300 of your hard-earned money is going directly into the pockets of grinning Soviet Jewish gangsters, courtesy of the U.S. Congress. Think about it, sucker!
Democracy
Let's talk about democracy: about democracy as a system of government and its implications for our future. Democracy is a system where a country's legislators and its top executives are chosen by a direct vote of the citizenry, more or less; I'm not concerned at the moment with such details as the electoral college. The basic fact is that nearly every citizen over 18 years of age has an equal vote, and the politician with the most votes is elected to office.
We also have a Constitution, of course, and the Constitution is supposed to constrain to a certain extent what these politicians can do after they're elected. Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't. We also have a system of Federal courts which are supposed to make sure that the politicians don't deviate too far from the Constitution. But the judges on these courts are appointed by the politicians they're supposed to keep an eye on.
Very roughly that's the system we've had for the last 210 years or so. During that time America has grown and prospered enormously, and many people believe that it's because of our system of government. They believe that if we had had some other system of government -- monarchy, say, or a dictatorship -- we wouldn't have become so rich and powerful. Other people like to equate our system of government with freedom. If we didn't have democracy we wouldn't be free, they believe. In fact, the belief in the efficacy of democracy as a guarantor of wealth and freedom has become a religion in the United States. Politicians and preachers alike fear to question it. It is assumed not only to be the best possible system of government, but the only conceivable form of government for decent folk. No one in public life is permitted to doubt that dogma. The United States has gone to war and slaughtered millions of people in order to impose this religion on them. We have bombed our European cultural treasures into ruins and rained fire and high explosives from the sky onto White women and children in order to "make the world safe for democracy," and we've done all of this with the same sort of self-righteousness and intolerant zeal with which we used to burn heretics 500 years ago -- except that we've butchered a lot more White people for the sake of democracy than we ever did for the sake of Jesus or some particular brand of Christianity.
And so questioning democracy is not something that a prudent person does lightly. Nevertheless, many people have begun to have their doubts about democracy these days. Every time Mr. Clinton's smiling mug appears on the TV screen, and people are reminded that it was the democratic process which put him at the head of our government, they are assailed by doubts about democracy. How could this have happened? they think. We always had faith in democracy, but now it has made a laughingstock of our government around the world. And there are other reasons for doubts as well -- at least, on the part of the more observant and thoughtful portion of the population.
Take, for example, the media and government hullabaloo about the lynching of a Black ex- convict in Texas by three boozed-up White ex-convicts in June. Lynching, of course, is a nasty business, and one can't tolerate that sort of lawless, undisciplined behavior in a civilized society, even when it's only a Black ex-convict who gets lynched. But watching the Clinton government and the controlled news media carry on about this particular lynching, one could not help but wonder, when was the last time the government or the media made such a fuss about a Black-on- White crime?
I remember something which happened just seven months ago in New Jersey. A pretty, little, ten-year-old White girl, Lauren Relyea, was dragged into a vacant lot near her home in Piscataway, raped repeatedly, and then beaten and stabbed to death and her body mutilated: a truly horrible crime. The rapist and killer was a 24-year-old Black, and the affair was in the papers in New Jersey and New York for a day. Of course, national television ignored it, and so did Mr. Clinton, because the victim was only a little White girl, not a Black ex-convict.
Another crime which is in the news in Hawaii but nowhere else is the rape and murder of a White tourist in Hawaii by three native Hawaiians. The tourist was 23-year-old Dana Ireland, a lovely blonde girl, who was vacationing after graduating from college. The three Hawaiians were driving in a rural area near Kapoho, on the eastern edge of the island of Hawaii, when they saw Dana riding a bicycle. They swung their car around and deliberately struck her with it, knocking her off her bicycle and breaking her pelvis. They stuffed the badly injured girl into the trunk of their car, drove around for several hours smoking cocaine, then pulled off the road, dragged the girl out of the trunk, gang-raped her, and sexually tortured her. Finally, they beat her in the head with a tire-iron and left her to slowly bleed to death. An ambulance, called by a White neighbor, but manned by native Hawaiians took nearly an hour to reach her. Police found deep bite marks on her body, as well as numerous other injuries. One of the most shocking aspects of this atrocity is that it happened nearly seven years ago, on Christmas Eve 1991. The Hawaiians who raped and killed Dana were only arrested by the Hawaiian police and charged, after years of procrastination, as a result of the insistence by Dana's parents that something be done. The trials of the Hawaiian killers are still being delayed. Prosecuting native Hawaiians for crimes against Whites is not politically popular in Hawaii. And it's not politically popular in the White House either. In any event, Mr. Clinton has not been on television about the horrible crime against Dana Ireland the way he was about the recent lynching of a black ex-convict in Texas.
You know, I could go on and on about this sort of thing. We all know that nearly all interracial crimes are committed by non-Whites against Whites, but the only interracial crimes our democratically elected government is interested in are the rare White-on-Black crimes. Whites are still a pretty substantial majority in America, but it is clear that the government they elected cares much more about its favored minorities than it does about the White majority. And it is clear that the government seizes on the rare White-on-Black crimes and uses them as excuses for pushing a program of racial mixing and racial brainwashing which is opposed by most Whites.
An even starker example of democracy gone haywire is provided by South Africa. In the June Free Speech, I spoke about the systematic murder of White farm families in South Africa by Black gangs, and I mentioned that the Black South African government is unable or unwilling to cope with the situation. This is a government which the Whites of South Africa voted for, for all practical purposes, when they agreed in 1994 to let the Black majority vote. Prior to that only Whites could vote in South Africa, and they had a government which was able to keep Black crime under control and provide a high degree of security for White South Africans. But the Jewish media, the Christian churches, and the racial democrats in the United States howled about how unfair and undemocratic it was not to let the Blacks in South Africa vote. And so finally the White South Africans proved to the world what good democrats they are by voting to let the Black majority vote in all future elections. And now they're paying the price. You wouldn't know that by reading the newspapers or watching television in the United States, of course. What we see here is Mr. and Mrs. Clinton talking on television about how much better things have gotten in South Africa since the country became more democratic in 1994.
I'll tell you about another benefit of democracy in South Africa. It's a popular sport among the Blacks of South Africa called "jack rolling." A Black gang will cordon off a whole block in a suburb of Johannesburg, so that no one can go either in or out, and then they will systematically gang-rape every woman and girl inside the cordon. They do this sort of thing in the Black townships all the time, but now that the situation is much more democratic they've extended their sport to White areas. Since 1994 the rape of White women by Blacks in South Africa has soared from almost nothing to the point where no White woman feels safe. A woman is raped by Blacks in South Africa every 83 seconds on the average -- the highest per capita rate in the world -- and the proportion of White women among those raped is continuing to increase.
All too typical is what happened in the home of Leon and Gina Erasmus in early June. While they were sitting at dinner, armed Blacks burst into the house. They tied up Leon and made him watch while they gang-raped 18-year-old Gina, who was nine months pregnant. Also watching was Gina's three-year-old niece. One of the Black rapists shouted to his friends, "Look, every time we do this it gets easier. These Whites are too scared to move." The police in newly democratic South Africa have for all practical purposes given up trying to stop these rapes or catch the rapists. Sometimes Black policemen themselves are rapists.
The really unfortunate thing about what's happening in South Africa is that Whites who voted against turning their country over to Blacks are just as likely to become rape or murder victims as are the trendy, democratic idiots who voted for it. But certainly all Whites in South Africa must have considerably less faith in democracy now than they did four years ago. They must be asking themselves, just as Americans do when we think about Bill Clinton in the White House: How did this happen to us? We have a democracy.
And America and South Africa are not the only places where White people are feeling that their faith in democracy was misplaced. When the communist system in the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, the Russian people were told that henceforth they would have democracy, and things would be much better for them. Well, with democracy things have gotten a great deal worse for the real Russians -- although not for everyone living in Russia. There is genuine democracy in Russia today, just like we have in the United States. During the Russian presidential election in 1996 the Jews and Clintonistas in the United States, all of them rooting for Boris Yeltsin, really were worried that Yeltsin might not win. But Yeltsin did win, because the controlled media in Russia were backing him heavily, just as the controlled media in this country were backing Mr. Clinton. And, needless to say, the same tribe controls the media in Russia that controls the media in the United States -- and in South Africa too, for that matter. One Jew in Russia, Boris Berezovsky, has boasted publicly that he and six other businessmen, all of them Jews, own or control half of the Russian economy. A good bit of their holdings are in the mass media. After Yeltsin won his democratic election in 1996 he promptly appointed his principal media backer and financier, Boris Berezovsky, to the post of deputy head of the National Security Council, which sets policy for Russia's police and military. Berezovsky, incidentally, is the biggest of the organized crime bosses in Russia. When Russia made the switch from communism to democracy in 1991, most of what previously had belonged to the government -- and that was nearly everything in Russia, including collective farms, factories, and the mass media -- was "privatized": that is, it was sold piece by piece to private citizens. The rationale was that this would enable Russian entrepreneurs instead of the Kremlin to run the economy. Actually, very few Russians were involved in this transformation of the economy. Instead Soviet Jews inside the government arranged "sweetheart" deals with Soviet Jews in the private sector, and most of the choice properties ended up in Jewish hands at nominal prices. The Jews didn't race to become private farmers, but they did race to become factory owners, store owners, and television network owners.
Not surprisingly, many of the Jews who got in on this theft of the Russian economy already were involved in organized crime. The result is that today while Boris Yeltsin surveys Russia from an alcoholic haze in the Kremlin, surrounded by his Jewish cabinet ministers and his claque of Jewish media bosses, Russia continues to be plundered under its new democracy by the same people who plundered the country for more than 70 years under its old communism. Filthy-rich Jewish crime bosses and Jewish factory owners are driven in their chauffeured limousines to glitzy nightclubs in Moscow, while the Russian people try desperately to make ends meet. And more and more Russians, like Americans and South Africans, are asking themselves, how could this happen to us? We have a democracy!
And all that Americans hear about this is that anti-Semitism is on the rise in Russia, as if that phenomenon has nothing to do with the nature and behavior of the Jews in Russia themselves.
So what do these accounts of what is happening in America, South Africa, and Russia tell us about democracy? How is it that the United States, which became so strong and prosperous under democracy, is now undergoing a process of self-destruction under democracy? How is it that our fellow Whites in South Africa and in Russia are having such catastrophic experiences with democracy?
A complete answer to these questions would take too long, so I'll give you a simplified answer. The two principal reasons that democracy has turned against our people are, first, that the results a people obtains from a democracy depend on the quality of the electorate; and second, that the influence of the mass media on the democratic process has been overwhelming.
That first reason simply tells us that we should expect a democracy to work better when we have a responsible, intelligent, moral, and racially conscious electorate than when we have an electorate of overweight couch potatoes, basketball fans, trendy airheads, and hymn-singing bigots. And certainly, the average quality of White voters in America has declined sharply from the time of the Founding Fathers to the present. Today we have a less manly and a much softer, more impressionable, vulgar, and irresponsible electorate than we had in the 19th century. And I'm talking only about White voters. And the influence of the mass media on this more feminine and impressionable and irresponsible electorate -- an influence which has become overwhelming in this century with the development first of radio and then of motion pictures and television -- has made a mockery of the whole concept of democracy as a system of government by the mass of the people, who make their choices on the basis of their own innate values and attitudes. The masters of the mass media can and do manipulate the emotions and the opinions of the public on every issue of importance to themselves. They can and do set the political fashions of the day. They can and do form the image in the mind of the public of every candidate for public office.
Democracy in America today is no longer rule by the mass of the people; that is only the outward appearance of our system today. What we really have is an oligarchy, and the oligarchs are the people who own and control our mass media: the mass media, which by manipulating public opinion and the images of candidates, constrain the flow of public policy within boundaries chosen by their masters. And the really disastrous thing about this oligarchy is that the oligarchs are for the most part not even of our people but are of a people wholly alien to us.
The consequences of rule by this alien oligarchy, which hides behind the pretense of democracy, is that we have amoral and irresponsible political leaders, whose only concern is pleasing the oligarchs and thereby advancing their own careers. These are leaders like Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin, and Frederick de Klerk, the last White president of South Africa, who deliberately betrayed his people into Black rule. They are politicians -- really, more actors, more showmen, than statesmen -- who are addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people and nations, but who have no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people they pretend to lead. With democratic politicians of this sort, obedient to the will of the hidden oligarchs of the media, White people have been led into two horribly destructive and fratricidal world wars in this century: wars which killed millions of the best people of our race, wars which led to the rise of communism and to its flourishing for more than 70 years, wars which weakened our race to the point that the oligarchs are now in the final stages of consolidating their domination of us in what they gloatingly refer to as their "New World Order."
You know, if the modern world has become such that real democracy no longer is feasible, if we must be ruled by oligarchs, then let us do whatever we must do to insure, first, that those oligarchs are of our own people and not of an alien race; and second, that they are moral, responsible, and racially conscious men whose primary concern is the destiny of our race. We can have that.
Lew, Bill, Tupac, and Mitchell
I was surprised to receive a number of letters from irate citizens who were angry and frightened about what Bill Clinton said in a speech to graduating seniors at Portland State University in Oregon on June 13. The Fastest Zipper in the West told his audience -- and that included television viewers all over America -- that we must not do anything to slow the flow of immigrants from the Third World into the United States. He denounced as "wrongheaded" those White Americans who fear that "the America they know and love is becoming a foreign land." That is a wrongheaded view of Third World immigration, Clinton said. Instead we must welcome more "diversity." More "diversity" will be good for us, he said. Anyway, he gloated, there's nothing you can do to stop it. The White majority in America will become a minority within the next 50 years, so get used to it, you wrongheaded bigots. The White America you knew and loved will become non-White. And to try to oppose this transformation of America is "more than wrong. It is un-American."
That's right. Monica Lewinsky's boyfriend, the czar of Whitewater, the mad groper of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the principal American benefactor of the Chinese missile industry, is telling us that we are un-American for not wanting to become a minority in our own land.
Now, I was surprised that a number of people contacted me after Clinton gave this speech at Portland State University, and they were angry and agitated about what he had said. I was surprised at this reaction because I have been telling everyone for the past five years that Clinton is doing everything he can to make the United States a non-White country. And the people who contacted me after the Portland State University speech acted as if they'd heard this for the first time. I believe many people think that I exaggerate the seriousness of our situation, and so they discount about half of the things I say. I guess that this is because the economy in the United States is still relatively strong, and as long as most people have a full refrigerator and can make the monthly payments on their credit cards, they can't believe that things really are catastrophically bad. They think I'm just being colorful when I say that Bill Clinton is a constitutional psychopath, an indictable criminal, and a piece of filth, and that the fact that he was elected President of the United States twice is justification for an armed rising by every patriot. They think I'm exaggerating, but I'm not exaggerating at all. If anything, I understate things.
All that's new is that Clinton was feeling his oats when he spoke at Portland State two weeks ago and blurted out his hatred for White America and his intention to destroy us a little more forthrightly than he usually does. It was this openness on Clinton's part which alarmed people. They'd heard me telling them what Clinton was up to, but they only half believed me. When they heard Clinton admit it himself they believed it. Well, thank you for that, Mr. Clinton!
One of the things which galled me most about Clinton's speech was his dragging the Irish into it. He said that our objections to having more Haitians, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Mexicans in our country is akin to the unwillingness of some of the early English immigrants to America to accept the later Irish immigrants. Baloney! My Irish ancestors may not always have gotten along with my Scottish and English ancestors, either in this country or back in Europe -- just as the Scots and the English didn't always get along either -- but that has nothing to do with the united opposition of all sane and healthy White Americans to turning their country over to a non-White majority.
I'll tell you something else that Clinton did the same day he gave that speech at Portland State. He went to the high school in Springfield, Oregon, where one of the recent school killing sprees took place, and he spoke piously to the survivors about how he "felt their pain" and about his determination to bring an end to the epidemic of school violence which has been plaguing the country. He put on a show of real concern for the two students who had been killed and the 22 who had been wounded at Springfield's Thurston High School. He bemoaned the "culture of violence" which incites young students to kill.
Then, right after his talk to the students, teachers, and parents at Thurston High School -- right after his pious moaning about the "culture of violence" which causes school shootings -- Clinton hopped onto Air Force One and flew to Los Angeles, where he was the guest of honor at a lavish party in the mansion of Hollywood record mogul Lew Wasserman. All of the other big Hollywood Jewish media bosses were there too. The purpose of the party was to raise donations for the Democratic Party, and the Clintonistas were expecting close to a million dollars in donations from Wasserman and the other media bosses at the party. Now, remember, Mr. Clinton arrived at this party and gave Mr. Wasserman a big hug just a few hours after his teary speech at Thurston High School, where a 15-year-old student had blown away 24 of his schoolmates.
Lew Wasserman, Mr. Clinton's host, is the chairman emeritus of MCA, the giant record company which is the world's principal promoter and distributor of the musical genre known as "gangsta' rap." For those of you who don't already know this, gangsta' rap has lyrics glorifying the life-style of Black gangsters and drug bosses. It glorifies street shootings and other aspects of Black criminality. Its rap lyrics are very graphic about murder and rape, which it promotes as being very "cool" and fashionable. Gangsta' rap has been pushed hard by Wasserman and other big media Jews in an effort to get White kids hooked on Black culture and Black life-styles. It fits right in with Mr. Clinton's efforts to eliminate White racism by getting Whites to accept Blacks and other aspects of "diversity."
To be more specific, Lew Wasserman's MCA owns Interscope Records and a number of other record labels. One of Interscope's featured performers, until he was himself killed in a drive-by shooting in Las Vegas last year, was the Black gangsta' rapper Tupac Shakur.
Do you remember the school-yard shooting in Jonesboro, Arkansas, in March, when two young gunmen killed four of their schoolmates and a teacher? One of the killers was 13-year-old Mitchell Johnson. Thirteen years old, and he murdered five people in cold blood! How could it happen? everybody was asking.
Well, Mitchell Johnson's English teacher, Debbie Pelley, told the world how she thought it happened, but apparently not many people were listening, because her answer was politically inconvenient, if not Politically Incorrect. The Jonesboro English teacher had noted that Mitchell Johnson's behavior began changing in the months before the shootings, when he began listening to gangsta' rap. He became addicted to the music, his teacher said, when she told a U.S. Senate committee in Washington about it: "Mitchell brought this music to school with him, listened to it on the bus, tried listening to it in classes. . . . He was far more into this music than anyone else his friends knew." Young Mitchell Johnson's favorite rapper was Tupac Shakur. The CDs that Mitchell brought to school and listened to on the school bus were sold to him by Lew Wasserman's company.
Mitchell's teacher told the U.S. Senate that the 13-year-old White boy would sing along to the lyrics as he listened to the Black rapper, lyrics about "coming to school and killing all the kids." To Debbie Pelley, who saw the transformation of Mitchell Johnson with her own eyes -- and who was lucky not to have been shot when the 13-year-old did, in fact, come to school and begin killing all the kids, it's perfectly clear what made the impressionable boy think it would be "cool" to shoot his schoolmates.
Did Bill Clinton not know what Debbie Pelley knew? Did Bill Clinton not know that she placed the blame for the massacre squarely on the influence that "gangsta' rap" had on Mitchell Johnson? Had Bill Clinton's advisors not told him that the boy's favorite rapper was Tupac Shakur? Was Bill Clinton unaware that Lew Wasserman's company produced and distributed Tupac Shakur's music about "coming to school and killing all the kids"?
I think not. I think he was aware of it, but he figured that the general public wasn't, and so he could get away with going to Lew Wasserman's party and hugging Lew Wasserman and accepting money from Lew Wasserman just a few hours after telling the parents at Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon, that he "felt their pain" over the shootings there and that he was determined to do everything he could to end the "culture of violence" which led to such shootings. He figured he could get away with it because Lew Wasserman's fellow Jewish media bosses wouldn't call him to account for it. I guess he figured right, didn't he?
Now do you understand why I say that I am not exaggerating at all when I refer to Bill Clinton as an unspeakable piece of filth and describe his presence in the White House as clear evidence that we need an armed revolution in America? Do you understand what a dangerous situation our country and our children are in as long as the system that put Bill Clinton in the White House remains in place?
I've said this before, and I'll say it again: The reason we need a revolution in America is not that Bill Clinton is a liar and a hypocrite; that's true of every politician in Washington and has been for a long time. We don't need to be especially concerned that Bill Clinton is a groper and a fondler, and that he solicits oral sex from 21-year-old White House interns and then lies about it and tells others to lie about it. We don't even need to be especially concerned that Bill Clinton is a thief, a swindler, and a solicitor of bribes. We can live with a perjurer in the White House, and a suborner of perjury, and an obstructor of justice. We can survive these things; the country can survive them. We can even survive having in the White House a politician so rotten, so crooked, and so cynical that he can put on a big pretense of sympathizing with the parents of children wounded or slain in a school-yard shooting and denounce the "culture of violence" which led to the shooting, while knowing that in a few hours he will be embracing one of the principal promoters of that "culture of violence" and accepting money from him. No, Bill Clinton's real crimes, his unforgivable crimes are none of those things. Bill Clinton's real crimes, the crimes that justify a revolution, are the things he confessed to in his speech at Portland State University. Bill Clinton admits to having policies intended to make America less White. He admits to working for a non-White majority in America. He admits to combating any effort by Whites to protect their culture and race or to keep America from becoming a Third World country. He boasts about these things, and he encourages impressionable young people to accept these things, to cheer him for these things, to join him in promoting these things.
Bill Clinton's real crime is not perjury: it's genocide. The reason he is a disaster for America is not that he takes bribes or that he stole money in his Whitewater escapade; it's that he is stealing our children's future. If Bill Clinton has his way, America will become a non-White country within the next 50 years -- that is, during your children's lifetime -- racial mixing and miscegenation will continue increasing, and our race eventually will become extinct. That's what Bill Clinton is planning. That's what he's working toward. That's what he's trying to sell to impressionable young Americans. That's what he's trying to make seem fashionable and "cool": genocide -- racial suicide. While his good buddy and financial backer Lew Wasserman promotes school-yard massacres by selling gangsta' rap to children, Bill Clinton promotes the annihilation of our race.
So that's the situation we're facing: genocide, the annihilation of our race. I will explain a little about the background of this situation, about how and why we got into it, in the future, but now let us talk about what we ought to do about it. I said that Bill Clinton's presence in the White House is justification for an armed rising. That does not mean that I want individual patriots to begin shooting at the White House now. No, it's too soon for that. That wouldn't accomplish what we want. It would just play into our enemies' hands by frightening the couch potatoes into accepting even more limitations on their freedom. An armed revolution is morally justified, but it is not yet strategically justified. We still have a big educational job to do first. And we need to do this job at several levels: we need to educate the couch potatoes as well as people with broader horizons, people who care about the future as well as the present.
The couch potatoes may not be capable of becoming indignant about Mr. Clinton's plan to make America non-White. That's too big and too distant for them to get their minds around. But even the Joe and Jill Six-packs ought to be able to understand and be angry about his cynicism in weeping publicly about school-yard shootings in the afternoon and then hugging the principal promoter of school-yard shootings in the evening. School-yard shootings they can understand. Tupac Shakur's lyrics they can understand. The influence of those lyrics on Mitchell Johnson in Jonesboro they can understand just as well as Mitchell Johnson's English teacher could. And Bill Clinton's cozy relationship with Lew Wasserman they can understand. It's all tied together into a very pretty package.
Of course, the controlled media won't tie it together so the couch potatoes can see the whole picture, but I've just done that. You can do the same thing in talking to people you know. You can paint the same picture in letters to the editor of your local newspaper. You can explain it in detail on your favorite radio call-in show. People can understand that. And when they do understand it, many of them will be angry. As for the people with broader horizons, the bright and perceptive people in our universities, in our professions, among our business leaders -- and you know, there are some of these people who still do have a moral sense, a sense of racial responsibility -- you should reach out to these people too. Many of them are just as concerned and angry as you are about Bill Clinton's plans for the destruction of our race and culture. What they need is encouragement. They need to know that they aren't alone. They need to know that there are many other bright, capable, and idealistic people willing to work together to derail Bill Clinton's nightmare program for a mulatto America. They need to see and hear other people who are not afraid to speak out. These people have never been more ready than now to accept your hand if you reach out to them. They understand the urgency of our situation as well as you do. When Bill Clinton goes public with his plans, the way he did at Portland State University, in his effort to recruit the trendier airheads for his program of genocide, he also alerts decent and thoughtful people. He helps them snap out of their fog and understand the reality and the urgency of what we must deal with. That's why I got a lot of agitated letters after Clinton's speech at Portland State.
In the future I'll explain more about what's behind Bill Clinton's nightmare program for the continued darkening of America, but you don't have to wait for that. What you can do now is talk to everyone you know about the things I've just told you. Use every medium available to you. Use the Internet. Use your telephone. Use radio and newspapers. More and more people are ready to respond. So don't be afraid. Speak out. Explain. Recruit.
The Jewish Gold Rush
A subject we've discussed often enough for many of you to be tired of hearing about it is the continuing -- make that the escalating -- Jewish effort to extort reparations from the rest of the world for claimed injuries done to Jews of past generations by Gentiles of past generations. I would drop the subject, except that every week Jewish leaders make new demands which surpass all previous bounds for greed and arrogance. You wouldn't believe the arrogance and pushiness of these Jews when they smell gold -- except that it's all documented, all in your daily newspaper for you to read. Therefore, this Great Jewish Gold Hunt makes a wonderful educational tool for helping others to understand the nature of the Jews, and I cannot resist using it.
You remember, this current gold hunt began early last year, when Jewish leaders came up with the idea of expanding their claim for reparations from the 1930s and 1940s to include countries besides Germany. They already had bled Germany for $60 billion since 1948, most of which went to Israel. That averages out to about $60,000 for every Jewish family of four now in Israel. Getting that money from Germany was relatively easy, because the Allied governments had an occupation army in Germany that was ready to squeeze the Germans whenever the Jews gave the word. All they had to do to keep the Germans from complaining about these massive extortion payments was step up their whining about gas chambers and about the soap and lampshades supposedly manufactured from the corpses of gassed Jews. When they really wanted to shut up the doubters and the questioners, they would have Steven Spielberg crank out a new Hollywood dramatization of the so-called "Holocaust," which would have the effect of making anyone so "insensitive" as to think of denying the poor, persecuted Jews anything they demanded seem like a real heel to the public.
A few years ago they added a new twist to their racket by implying that it was not just the Germans who owed them reparations for having run Aunt Sarah and Uncle Abe through a crematorium at Auschwitz: everybody owed them for permitting the wicked Germans to "Holocaust" Sarah and Abe. The United States and the other Western countries who fought against Germany during the Second World War could have stopped the "Holocaust" if they really had wanted to, the Jews complained. The Allies could have bombed the rail lines leading to the German concentration camps, but they didn't, the Jews complained. The Allies could have taken in many Jewish refugees fleeing from Germany before the war, but they didn't: they turned the refugee ships back, and the Jews aboard them consequently perished in the "Holocaust," the Jews complained. "You could haff saved millions of us if you really had vanted to, but you didn't vant to. It vass your anti-Semitism which made you insensitive to our needs back in the 1930s and 1940s. So now you owe us."
After a good, long whine along this line intended to soften up and "sensitize" the Gentile world, and after a law prohibiting negative comments about identifiable ethnic groups was passed in Switzerland, the Jews became much more specific in their complaints. They claimed that many Jews who had stashed their money in secret, numbered Swiss bank accounts during the 1930s and early 1940s in anticipation of difficulties with the German authorities, subsequently died during the war, and their money still remained in the secret accounts. The Swiss had not done all they could to try to locate heirs of the depositors. They owed all of that money in dormant accounts to the Jews -- plus interest, of course. The head of the World Jewish Congress, Edgar Bronfman, who also belongs to the family who owns the world's biggest liquor company, Seagram, took charge of the effort to force the Swiss to pay up. Bronfman estimated that the amount owed to the Jews by the Swiss is $7 billion. Later the Jews expanded their claims to include insurance policies held by Jews who disappeared during the war and also gold used by the Germans to pay the Swiss for various commodities imported by Germany during the war. The Swiss should have known, claim the Jews, that some of that gold had come from confiscated Jewish assets. "Giff it back to us," the Jews now demand.
Of course, every large bank does have some dormant accounts, and in the case of Swiss banks, which always have taken pride in the confidentiality they offer to their customers, it is understandable that today Izzy and Rebecca may not have been able to get their hands on or even find the money that they believe Uncle Abe may have stashed in a secret account 60 years ago. The Swiss bankers pointed out that they always have treated their Jewish customers just like everyone else, and that any heirs who establish their claims in the normal manner would receive whatever was in Abe's account. The Jews feigned outrage at this response and accused the Swiss of being "insensitive" for failing to take into account the fact that there were no death certificates or other documents for many of the Jews who disappeared during the war. Of course, with the widespread destruction that occurred during the war, the same is true for non-Jews.
A few Swiss officials recognized these Jewish claims for the shameless extortion effort that they are and publicly denounced them as such. Most Swiss politicians and bankers, however, were more concerned with not jeopardizing their public image by having the Jews unleash their media weapon, and so they took a conciliatory approach to the Jews. They made a special search of their accounts and then took the unprecedented step of publishing the names of all their depositors whose accounts had been dormant since the Second World War, so that Jews could more easily file claims. It turned out that only a very tiny percentage of these dormant accounts belonged to Jews. Of course, this was largely ignored by the media. And of course the Jews continued to whine about how the Swiss had wronged them. They added to their list of grievances the fact that the Swiss had interned Jews who came across the Swiss border during the war in their effort to avoid being arrested by the Germans. The Swiss put them into work camps for the duration of the war. One might think that the Jews would be grateful to the Swiss for this, but if you thought that then you don't understand the Jewish mentality. Instead of being grateful to the Swiss for saving them from the Germans the Jews publicly lamented the fact that the Swiss made them work for their room and board. The media only occasionally mention that all able-bodied Swiss citizens were also forced to work during the war.
The Swiss are a bit naive when it comes to dealing with Jews, and so they have continued to try to appease them, even as the Jewish demands have escalated. The Swiss bankers and politicians got together recently, estimated the most the Jewish assets they might be holding could amount to is in the neighborhood of $150 million, multiplied that figure by four, and then offered to pay the Jews $600 million to settle all of their claims.
Now, if you understand the Jewish mentality, then you don't have to be told how Bronfman and the other Jewish leaders responded to this offer. The Jews simply escalated their demands again. They feigned shock and outrage that the Swiss offered them only $600 million. Liquor czar and World Jewish Congress boss Edgar Bronfman scoffed at the $600 million offer and said that the Swiss owe his people billions of dollars, not millions. Israeli spokesman Yoram Dori called the Swiss offer "offensive" and said: "If we were not dealing with such a tragic story, this would be laughable." Bronfman's colleague in the World Jewish Congress, Israel Singer, claimed to be "pained" by the Swiss offer and said that the offer had been made in a "shabby" manner. Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles said of the Swiss offer: "We consider it a lack of seriousness on their part." He added that the offer "will be unanimously refused." New York Jewish lawyer Edward Fagan, who is representing more than 30,000 Jews claiming to be heirs to dormant accounts, called the Swiss offer "insulting" and said, "My 31,000 clients will not stand for this. . . . A billion dollars is not enough."
Behind all of this pretended outrage and these claims of feeling insulted by the Swiss offer of $600 million is a lot of very cold-blooded calculation by the Jews. They simply believe that by using their media power and their virtually total control of the Clinton administration, the U.S. Congress, and several state legislatures they can squeeze substantially more than $600 million out of the Swiss. The Jews' number-one step'n'fetchit in the Congress is New York Republican Senator Alphonse D'Amato, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. He is running for re- election in November and is counting heavily on Jewish support. After the Jews let their displeasure with the latest Swiss offer be known, D'Amato threatened to use the Senate Banking Committee for reprisals against Swiss banks operating in the United States. He said: "If they continue to proceed in this manner, whereby they are ducking their responsibilities, we have no other course in the Congress of the United States than to go forward."
New Jersey state Assemblyman Joel Weingarten has introduced legislation to bar New Jersey from investing state funds in Swiss banks, and similar measures are moving forward in New York City and in the New York state legislature. In California, the Chinese State Treasurer, Matt Fong, also is eager to prove his loyalty to the Jews.
So confident are the Jews that ultimately they can pressure the Swiss into yielding to their demands that World Jewish Congress boss Edgar Bronfman already is talking publicly about other countries on the Jews' hit list. "It's not just the Swiss banks," he said in a published telephone interview with the New York Jewish newspaper Forward. "We still have problems with the Poles, with the French, the Dutch, the Belgians, the other neutrals." It's pretty clear that after the Jews have sucked the Swiss dry they will be looking for blood from a long line of other countries they believe haven't done enough for them recently.
A new line of attack which the Jews are using is that the European countries which claimed neutrality during the Second World War and refused to join the Jewish-American-Soviet crusade against Germany weren't really neutral: they provided aid to the Germans, and so now they owe reparations to the Jews. Switzerland also had business dealings with the Allies, but this is ignored. A Jewish official in the Clinton administration, Stuart Eizenstat, has been especially active in pushing the idea that the neutral countries were guilty of not doing enough for the Jews. He has prepared a report for the U.S. State Department in which he strongly criticizes Sweden, Spain, and other neutral countries. Eizenstat concludes: "It is clear that these countries were committing unneutral acts, even by the standards of the times." The arrogance of Eizenstat's complaint is really breathtaking, considering the fact that under Jewish pressure the Roosevelt administration, in 1939, 1940, and 1941, at a time when the United States was officially "neutral," was committing unneutral acts against Germany which dwarfed into insignificance anything the Swedes and the Spaniards might have been doing to help Germany. Not only was the Roosevelt government supplying first Britain, and later the Soviet Union, with vast supplies of war materiel, but Roosevelt was trying everything he could to provoke the Germans into some action that would give him an excuse to enter the war on the Jewish side. In September 1941, three months before the official entry of the United States into the war, he went so far as to order the U.S. Navy to shoot on sight at any German naval vessel encountered in the Atlantic.
Unfortunately, the historical facts of the behavior of all the parties involved in the Second World War are not presented to the American public by the mass media, but just the facts the Jews want the public to know about. The average citizen listens to the complaints of the Jews about the unneutral behavior of Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain and believes that there may be some justification to the Jewish demands for reparations. It never occurs to the average couch potato to ask, "Hey, what about reparations for all of the other peoples who were looted during the war? Why are the Jews the only ones entitled to reparations? And if the Jews are entitled to reparations for losses that occurred 60 years ago, why shouldn't the Palestinians be entitled to reparations for what the Jews stole from them much more recently?"
No, unfortunately, it doesn't occur to the average American to ask such questions. He just accepts at face value whatever he reads in his newspaper or sees on his television screen. And as long as his newspaper and his television screen are controlled by the Jews, he's not likely to see anything which would cause him to question the current Jewish demands for gold from the rest of the world.
You might wonder how anyone could possibly be as arrogant as the Jews are in their quest for reparations. I think that the best explanation for that is to be found in the Jews' view of themselves and their relationship to the non-Jewish peoples of the world. This view is best expressed in documents the Jews themselves have written: documents such as their Talmud and their Old Testament. I understand, of course, that most Jews today are entirely secular and do not regard such documents with any special reverence or awe. Nevertheless, they provide wonderful insight into the Jewish mentality.
More than 3,000 years ago, when the immigrant Jew Joseph managed to become the most powerful bureaucrat in the Egyptian government by claiming to be able to interpret dreams for the superstitious pharaoh, according to the Old Testament book of Genesis, he acquired a monopoly control over the Egyptian grain market and doled out grain to the hungry Egyptian people or withheld it, according to his policy -- although he invoked the name of the pharaoh in exercising his policy. He then invited his fellow Jews to come into Egypt and to "eat the fat of the land." Not surprisingly, this policy caused resentment toward the Jews by the Egyptians, and eventually the Egyptians, under a new pharaoh, threw the Jews out.
Now, it's not really important whether or not this account in Genesis is historically accurate. What's important is the Jews' attitude toward this account, and their attitude is that it was right and proper for them to exploit the Egyptians, and that the Egyptians were persecuting them in expelling them. It was the Jews' right to exploit the Egyptians, because whatever the Egyptians had really belonged to the Jews as God's Chosen People.
One sees this attitude of "what's yours is really mine, because I am a member of the Chosen People" expressed over and over again in the Old Testament. In the book of Isaiah it is perhaps most explicit. Isaiah presents to his fellow Jews a vision of the future in which the Gentiles of the world will deliver all of their wealth to the Jews and will become the servants of the Jews. And anyone who refuses to pay reparations to the Jews will be punished severely: "The nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish." This is spelled out in detail in the sixtieth and sixty-first chapters of Isaiah.
Observant Jews focus their consciousness of their Jewishness on this assumed obligation of the Gentile world to turn its wealth over to them. They have a custom of attaching a little box to one of their doorposts, with a piece of parchment, called a mezuzah, in the little box. The parchment is inscribed in Hebrew characters with 22 lines from the Old Testament which epitomize to them what it means to be a Jew: that is, with the 22 lines they regard as the most important in all of their religious writings. These 22 lines are from the fifth book of Moses, also known as Deuteronomy. They stress the importance of Jews adhering to the contract they have with their tribal god. The interesting thing is that immediately following these 22 lines in Deuteronomy is spelled out what their god will give to them as his obligation under the contract. And what is promised to the Jews is essentially all the wealth of the world: specifically, all the wealth now in the hands of non-Jews. "Thy god shall . . . give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not, and houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged which thou diggedst not, and vineyards and olive trees which thou plantedst not. . . . Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours." Remember, religious Jews regard this promise, this contract, as the core of their religion.
As you know, it is not my custom to bring religion into these broadcasts. I certainly don't want to start any religious arguments among my readers. But I do think that a consideration of the nature of Jewish religious belief, as expressed in their religious writings, can shed some useful light on their attitudes today. Whether they are religious Jews or non-religious Jews they all seem to have the attitude that they have some god-given right to exploit the rest of us. If there are Jews who dissent from this policy of collecting reparations from the rest of the world, I would like to hear them speak up. So far they seem to be rather unanimous in their support of the notion that the Swiss owe them billions of dollars -- and the Swedes and the Spaniards and, in fact, all the rest of us.
The Genocide at Vinnitsa
In the May issue of Free Speech, I discussed he mass murder of the leadership stratum of the Polish nation by the Soviet secret police in the Katyn Forest in April 1940. We discussed that genocidal atrocity in the light of the ongoing Jewish campaign to portray Jews as the principal victims of the Second World War. A good deal of interest in that article was expressed by readers, many of whom had not been acquainted previously with the facts of the Katyn atrocity. I will now explore this general subject further. Here is some information about the fate of the Ukrainian nation at the hands of the Soviet secret police.
In 1943 Germany was at war against the Soviet Union. Twenty-five years earlier, at the end of the First World War, when communist revolutionaries were attempting to take over Germany, Adolf Hitler had sworn to devote his life to fighting communism. He was only a corporal at the time, recuperating from his war wounds in a military hospital, but 15 years later, in 1933, he became chancellor of Germany, and in 1941 his army invaded the Soviet Union with the aim of destroying Soviet communism. The German Army pushed far into the Soviet empire and liberated all of Ukraine from the communists.
In May 1943 units of the German Army were stationed in the Ukrainian city of Vinnitsa, a community of 100,000 persons in a primarily agricultural district. Ukrainian officials in Vinnitsa told the Germans that five years earlier the NKVD -- the Soviet secret police, very similar to our FBI -- had buried the bodies of a number of executed political prisoners in a city park. The Germans investigated, and within a month they had dug up 9,439 corpses from a number of mass graves in the park and a nearby orchard.
Unlike the Poles murdered in the Katyn Forest, all of these bodies found at Vinnitsa were those of civilians, most of them Ukrainian farmers or workers. The bodies of the men all had their hands tied behind their backs, like the Polish officers at Katyn. Although the men's bodies were clothed, the bodies of a number of young women were naked. All of the victims had been shot in the back of the neck with a .22 caliber pistol, the trademark of the NKVD executioners.
The Germans called in an international team of forensic pathologists to examine the bodies and the mass graves. The international team, which included pathologists from Belgium, France, Netherlands, and Sweden, as well as from several countries allied with Germany, examined 95 mass graves and conducted a number of autopsies.
Including the autopsies already performed by Ukrainian medical personnel in Vinnitsa, 1,670 of the corpses were examined in detail. The identities of 679 of them were established either through documents found in their clothes or through recognition by relatives, who flocked to Vinnitsa from the surrounding countryside when they heard that the graves had been uncovered.
The authorities estimated that in addition to the 9,439 bodies exhumed, there were another 3,000 still in unopened mass graves in the same area. The international team concluded that all of the victims had been killed about five years earlier -- that is, in 1938. Relatives of the victims who were identified all testified that the victims had been arrested by the NKVD in 1937 and 1938. The relatives had been told that those arrested were "enemies of the people" and would be sent to Siberia for 10 years. None of the relatives had any idea what the reason was for the arrests and testified that those arrested had committed no crimes and were engaged in no political activity. As I said earlier, nearly all of the victims were farmers or workers, although there were a few priests and civil servants among them.
By interviewing a large number of people who had some knowledge of what had happened in Vinnitsa and the surrounding region in 1938, the Germans were able to piece together the following picture. In 1937 and 1938 gangs of the NKVD's jackbooted thugs roamed the villages and towns of Ukraine, arresting people in a pattern that seemed almost random to observers. One victim's wife reported that as the NKVD goons dragged her husband away they said only, "Hey, you dog! You've lived too long." Other observers thought they saw a pattern. A Ukrainian who was renting a part of his house to a Jewish lawyer refused to sell the whole house to the Jew when he offered to buy it at an unreasonably low price. A few weeks later the Ukrainian homeowner was arrested by the NKVD. Another Ukrainian who had threatened to beat up a minor communist functionary who made a crude pass at his sister was arrested shortly thereafter. It seemed that many of the arrests were the settling of personal scores and that anyone who had crossed a Jew was especially likely to be arrested.
All of this was nothing new for Ukrainians. They had borne the brunt of the communization of the Soviet Union for nearly two decades. Ukraine was primarily an agricultural nation, a nation of farmers and villagers, and as such was regarded with suspicion by the Jews and the urban rabble who filled the ranks of the Communist Party. The communists championed the urban workers, but they wasted no love on farmers and villagers, who tended to be too independent and self-sufficient for communist tastes.
During the civil war which followed the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the Ukrainians wanted to opt out. Ukrainian nationalists wanted no part of the Soviet Union. In 1921 and 1922 the Red Army occupied Vinnitsa, and Ukrainians were butchered wholesale by the Reds in order to kill the Ukrainian nationalist spirit. The craving for Ukrainian independence nevertheless kept flaring up, and further massacres followed, notably in 1928.
Ukraine was the stronghold of the kulaks, the independent farmers and small landowners, always regarded with special hatred by the communist bosses. Stalin gave the job of exterminating the kulaks to his right-hand man in the Kremlin, Lazar Moiseivich Kaganovich, known later as the "Butcher of Ukraine." Kaganovich, the most powerful Jew in the Soviet Union, supervised the collectivization of Ukrainian farms, beginning in 1929. To break the spirit of the kulaks, Ukraine was subjected to an artificial famine. The NKVD and Red Army troops went from farm to farm, confiscating crops and livestock. The farmers were told that the food was needed for the workers in the cities. None was left for the farmers. And in 1933 and 1934 seven million Ukrainians died of starvation, while Kaganovich watched and gloated from the Kremlin.
Perhaps in 1937 and 1938 the bosses in the Kremlin simply thought that it was time to apply the lash to the Ukrainians again. In any event, the NKVD was given the task this time. The NKVD was even more Jewish than the rest of the Soviet communist apparatus. The commissar of the NKVD until September 1936 had been the Jew Genrikh Yagoda, and he had staffed his instrument of terror and repression with Jews at every level. And those who were not Jews were the worst sort of Russian and Ukrainian rabble, the resentful louts and ne'er-do-wells who saw in communism a way to get even with their betters. In any event, the Ukrainians were fully aware of the preponderance of Jews in the secret police, and they suspected that there was a Jewish angle to the pattern of arrests in 1937 and 1938. And indeed, it did seem as if the Talmudic injunction to "kill the best of the Gentiles" were being followed, for those who were arrested seemed to be the most solid, steadiest, reliable, and irreproachable of the Ukrainians.
Thirty thousand were arrested in the Vinnitsa region alone, and most of these eventually were sent to the NKVD prison in the city of Vinnitsa. This prison had a normal capacity of 2,000 prisoners, but during 1937 and 1938 it was packed most of the time with more than 18,000 prisoners. Throughout much of 1938 a few dozen prisoners were taken from the prison each night and driven to a nearby NKVD motor pool area. There their hands were tied behind their backs and they were led, one at a time, a few hundred feet to a concrete slab in front of a garage. The slab was used for washing vehicles, and it had a drain at one side with an iron grating over it. Just as the prisoners reached the edge of the slab they were shot in the back of the neck, so that when they fell onto the concrete their blood would run into the drain. This was what the NKVD men jokingly called "mokrii rabota" -- "wet work" -- and they had had plenty of experience at "wet work." A truck parked next to the slab kept its engine racing so that the noise of the engine would cover the sound of the shots. While the next prisoner was being led up, a couple of NKVD men would throw the corpse of the previous prisoner into the truck. When the night's quota of victims had been murdered the truck would drive off with its load of corpses to the fenced-in park or to the nearby orchard, where new graves already were waiting. And this "wet work" went on night after night, month after month.
So why is this gruesome story important to us now? After all, this massacre of Ukrainians in Vinnitsa took place 60 years ago. I'll tell you why it's still important to us, aside from the fact that these Ukrainians were our people, our kinfolk, part of our race.
First, you might ask yourself why you have never before heard about Vinnitsa, and I'm sure that's the case for about 99 per cent of you. Of course, Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote about what happened at Vinnitsa, in the third volume of his Gulag Archipelago, but you're not likely to find that in the rack at the checkout counter. And Ukrainians and Germans have written about it, although for the most part their writings have never been published in English, because publishers in this country understand that it would be Politically Incorrect to publish anything about Vinnitsa. Much better that people just forget about it.
Isn't that odd, though, when we continually hear so much about Auschwitz? Isn't it odd that when Jewish groups are using their political influence to have laws passed in a number of states requiring high school students to take courses about the so-called "Holocaust," what happened at Katyn or at Vinnitsa is never mentioned in high school? The excuse given for requiring students to study the so-called "Holocaust" is that it was the greatest crime in history, and we should know about it so that we won't repeat it. But then why shouldn't we learn about Katyn, Vinnitsa, Dresden, and a thousand other atrocities where our people were the victims, and so the lesson should be even more pertinent for us? We all know the answers to these questions, but I just want you to think about their significance. To Jews, Auschwitz is important because Jews died there, and Vinnitsa is not important, because only Gentiles were killed there. And the media bosses are, of course, mostly Jews. They keep rubbing our noses in Auschwitz, because they want us to feel guilty, they want us to feel that we owe the Jews something for letting it happen. The Jewish media bosses never mention Vinnitsa because Jews were the guilty ones there. Besides, they make a lot of money by promoting the "Holocaust." It's certainly not going to help their profits to divide the attention and the sympathy of the American public between Auschwitz and Vinnitsa. And it's certainly not going to help their effort to extort billions of dollars in "Holocaust" reparations from the Swiss and from everyone else to admit their own guilt at Katyn and Vinnitsa.
If Poles controlled the news and entertainment media in America, we'd hear a great deal more about Katyn, I suspect. If Germans controlled our media we'd hear much more about the terror bombing of Dresden. And if Ukrainians controlled our media, every high school student would know about Vinnitsa. But it's the Jews who control our media, and so all we hear about is Auschwitz: never even a whisper about Vinnitsa. That's important. We ought to be concerned about that. We ought to be concerned whenever any part of our history is suppressed, is hidden from us. We ought to find out why. It might help us to make sure that what happened to us at Vinnitsa never happens to us again.
I'm sure that you've all heard the maxim that the best defense is a strong offense. Do you remember the persecution all through the 1980s of John Demjanjuk, the retired Cleveland auto worker whom the Jews accused of being "Ivan the Terrible"? John Demjanjuk is a Ukrainian who came to America after the Second World War. In 1978 the Jews made a big hullabaloo about Demjanjuk being a guard in a German prison camp during the war, and the U.S. government obediently hauled him to court and stripped him of his citizenship. Then he was handed over to the Jews for crucifixion and deported to Israel. The mass media in America were full of sensational stories for 15 years about Ivan the Terrible and how the Ukrainians had helped the Germans persecute the poor, innocent Jews.
This strategy worked for the Jews. The Ukrainians kept their heads down instead of raising the issue of Vinnitsa. Of course, even if they had begun trying to tell Americans about Vinnitsa or about what Kaganovich had done to the Ukrainian kulaks, who would have heard them? Ukrainians don't own the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Time magazine, Newsweek magazine, or U.S. News & World Report. The Jews own all of those media. And the Ukrainians don't own Hollywood, so they can't make movie dramas about Vinnitsa either, like Steven Spielberg does about the so-called "Holocaust."
The Jews have been getting away with presenting a grossly distorted version of history to us, a version in which they are the completely innocent victims, and our people -- the Ukrainians and Poles and Germans -- are the bad guys who have been persecuting the poor Jews for no reason at all. They've been pumping out this propaganda in concert, consciously and deliberately, without a single major medium under their control deviating from their party line. People try to tell me Jews may control the media, but they don't conspire with each other. Baloney! And because they've been getting away with giving us a falsified version of history, they've been able to change America's foreign and domestic policies in directions to suit themselves, to our enormous disadvantage. Everything which has happened in the Middle East, for example, since the Second World War is based on this false history.
More than that, everything that has happened in Europe since the murder of 12,000 Ukrainians at Vinnitsa in 1938 has been based on the Jews' power to control what we learn about our history, about what is happening and has happened in the world around us. The U.S. government allied itself with the Soviet government in 1941 for the purpose of destroying Germany. The communists were presented to the American public as the good guys, as worthy allies, and the Germans were presented as the bad guys. And the American public bought that lie because they didn't know about Vinnitsa or about a thousand other atrocities committed against our people by the communists.
When the Germans brought in the international commission to examine the graves in Vinnitsa in 1943, the controlled media kept the news from the American people, just the way they kept the news about the Katyn Forest genocide away from the American people. And because of this, there was no real opposition to turning half of Europe over to the communists at the end of the Second World War. If Katyn and Vinnitsa had been publicized, so that every American voter knew in detail what the NKVD had done at Katyn and at Vinnitsa, the politicians in Washington never would have been able to get away with turning the Poles, Hungarians, Rumanians, Bulgarians, Croats, Serbs, Czechs, Slovaks, Balts, and all of the Germans in the eastern part of Germany over to these communist butchers. The politicians in Washington got away with this not just because they were in the pockets of the Jews, but because the American people weren't given the truth. And because we weren't given the truth millions more of our people died at the hands of the NKVD after the war, all of eastern Europe was plundered by the communists for 50 years, and there was a Korean War and a Vietnam War -- which there wouldn't have been if we hadn't kept the communist empire alive. Because of our own ignorance, because of the lies we'd been told about what happened in Europe, we lost more than 100,000 of our best young men in the Korean and Vietnam wars alone.
So you see, it is important what the public is told. It is important that our people know the truth about our history, even about things which happened 60 years ago. And I intend to do everything I can to give them the truth.
Now, I believe that you can understand why the Jews try so hard to keep me off the air, why they bring pressure against every radio station which carries American Dissident Voices. They are desperate to keep the American people in the dark about Vinnitsa, Katyn, and their other crimes. And I am determined to tear down the curtain of silence and darkness and give truth and light to our people.
There is some urgency about this, because the Jews are continuing to push for laws against what they call "hate speech" -- which means any speech which contradicts their lies. They have succeeded in getting such laws passed in other countries. If I tried to make this broadcast in Canada or Britain, for example, the police would arrest me and shut down the station before I could finish. Let's not let that happen in America. Superman, Volkswagen, and Lazar Kaganovich
I have a number of news reports on my desk which have come to me from around the world during the past couple of weeks. These reports deal with various events in a half-dozen countries, but they all have one element in common: organized Jewish groups with their hands out, demanding money, demanding sympathy, demanding the punishment of their critics. Some of these reports reveal an arrogance, greed, and pushiness so extreme as to be almost comical. For example, a couple of recent issues of "Superman" comics -- issues 81 and 82, to be specific -- had Superman fighting the Germans in the Warsaw ghetto back in the 1940s. The Germans were the bad guys, and the residents of the ghetto, who had names like "Baruch" and "Moishe" and were shown wearing yarmulkes, were the good guys. Superman was saving Moishe and Baruch from being shipped off to a concentration camp by the Germans. Pretty standard pro-Jewish, anti-German "Holocaust" propaganda, of the sort we've been seeing for the past 60 years, right?
Well, organized Jewish groups weren't happy with it, because the good guys weren't identified explicitly as Jews. "Moishe" and "Baruch" and the yarmulkes weren't explicit enough. The word "Jew" wasn't used. The Jews are concerned that a child reading the comic books who had never seen a yarmulke and who didn't know that the names "Moishe" and "Baruch" are strictly kosher might think that the people Superman was saving were Poles instead of Jews. The Poles might get some undeserved sympathy from the reader as victims of the Germans. And the Jews always have demanded that they be given all of the sympathy connected with the so-called "Holocaust." They don't want anyone else horning in on their "victim" status. Kenneth Jacobson, of the ADL, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, the largest and most powerful Jewish pressure group in America, called the Superman comics depiction of the "Holocaust" outrageous. That's the word he used: "outrageous." He complained that it is an "insult" to the "six million Jews" who died in the "Holocaust" because it didn't use the word "Jew."
Another ADL official, Myrna Shinbaum, said: "We found it extremely offensive that in what was to have been a positive teaching lesson Jews were not mentioned. You can't be general when you talk about victims of the Holocaust." One might think that she and Jacobson were lecturing an anti-Semite for his "insensitivity." Actually, however, DC Comics, the company which publishes Superman comics, is a completely Jewish outfit, like most of the other major publishers of children's magazines in America. The president and editor in chief of DC Comics is a Jewess, Jenette Kahn.
So what we were seeing in this particular tempest in a teapot was the Jews grabbing yet another chance to remind all of us once again about how much they have suffered, poor dears, and about how we must never forget it.
And why this victim status is so jealously guarded by the Jews was brought out in another news report which came in a few days ago. This was a report that the Volkswagen company, Germany's largest automaker, has caved in to Jewish demands and now will pay compensation to Jews who worked involuntarily for Volkswagen during the Second World War. That's the war during which every Jew the Germans could get their hands on was supposedly gassed and cremated. Volkswagen employed 15,000 non-German workers during the war, and they often are referred to by the media as "slave laborers." Only a small fraction of these workers were Jews, all of them were fed and housed, and many of them had relative freedom of movement during their non-working hours. But they had been dragooned from other countries to help the Germans deal with their severe labor shortage during the war, and they certainly weren't paid union scale. So a few months ago the Jews among those wartime Volkswagen workers demanded that they be paid for their work -- plus interest, of course. Volkswagen initially told them to shove off. It was not Volkswagen which had forced them to work, it was the German government, Volkswagen officials said. Besides, that was more than 53 years ago. If they had a valid claim they should have presented it sooner.
The Jews, all of whom now live in Israel, threatened to sue and to make other difficulties for Volkswagen if their demands weren't met. "You vant to sell cars in the United States, then you pay us," the Jews threatened. Two weeks ago Volkswagen, seeing how government officials in the United states were dancing to the Jews' tune in applying pressure to Switzerland in connection with Jewish claims against that country, caved in and agreed to pay. It seems cheaper to Volkswagen than having the Jews mount the same sort of worldwide propaganda campaign against the company that it has mounted against Swiss banks.
I've talked before about the Jewish extortion effort against the Swiss. Now one can begin to see how all of these demands for money hang together. When the Swiss had made an offer of $600 million to the Jews and the Jews had pretended to be insulted by such a paltry offer, the Jews figured that they could turn up the pressure and get a lot more than $600 million out of the Swiss. And that's what they've done. They've got all of their bought politicians in the United States starting boycott legislation of one sort or another against the Swiss. Not only will Swiss banks be barred from doing business in various parts of the United States, but other Swiss companies will be punished as well until the Swiss cough up every cent the Jews are demanding. We are being used -- that is our public institutions are being used -- by the Jews to get what they want as if our institutions belonged to the Jews and were theirs to use and abuse for their purposes.
It's important for the Jews to make an example of the Swiss. That's what made Volkswagen decide to cough up. That's what the Jews figure will make the Swedes, the French, the Portuguese, the Spanish, and everyone else cough up. They are demonstrating their ability to use the power of government in the United States to coerce anyone who doesn't yield voluntarily to their demands for money. And they're able to use the U.S. government like this because they've kept the American public feeling sorry for them as "Holocaust" victims. That's why they raised such a stink when Superman failed to state explicitly that Moishe and Baruch are Jews. It all hangs together.
This notion that the world owes the Jews for what they claim happened to them more than half a century ago has interesting implications. I've just finished reading a book which really casts a lot of light on the whole concept of reparations -- and on the question of who owes whom. The book is a biography of Lazar Kaganovich, one of the bloodiest of the communist butchers during the 1930s and 1940s and the number-two man in the Kremlin for many years. The book is The Wolf of the Kremlin, and it was written by Stuart Kahan, an American Jew who is Kaganovich's nephew. Kahan went to the Soviet Union in 1981 and interviewed his uncle extensively -- in Yiddish -- to write this biography, and it is a goldmine of revelations.
To sum it up, Lazar Kaganovich was a Jew raised in the Jewish tradition, a yeshiva boy taught to guide himself on the basis of doing always what is best for the Jews, and this precept actually is cited explicitly several times in the book. He attended his first Communist Party meeting in 1911, when he was 18, to hear the Jewish communist Trotsky give a speech in a synagogue in Kiev; that's right: in a synagogue. He rose rapidly in the inner circle of the Communist Party, which contained many more Jews than Gentiles. His success was due primarily to his aggressiveness and his ruthlessness. In his communist activity he held back from nothing, no matter how brutal or bloody. He even killed his fellow Jews when they got in his way. He was a gangster among gangsters.
In 1930 Kaganovich organized a special department of the Soviet secret police, with himself as the head. It was referred to as the department of "wet affairs," with "wet" meaning "bloody." It handled clandestine mass executions, of the sort carried out later at Vinnitsa in Ukraine and at Katyn in Russia and at a thousand other places throughout the Soviet Union over the next two decades. Kaganovich became the commissar in charge of mass murder. When the German Army invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, however, it was Kaganovich who was the savior of the Jews: he arranged for the evacuation of all Jews from the frontier areas and their resettlement far to the east, where they would be safe from the Germans. Let the Ukrainians and the Russians bear the brunt of the German invasion, but protect the Jews from hardship and danger at any cost.
And Kaganovich boasts that he saved the Jews once again, in 1953, when Stalin was planning to rid Russia of them, by arranging for Stalin to be poisoned. He and his sister Rosa, who was a doctor, devised a scheme to switch pills in Stalin's medicine cabinet so that he would have a fatal stroke, which he did.
When the Gentile communist Nikita Khruschev accused Kaganovich in 1957 at a Soviet Party Congress of having murdered 20 million Russians during his career, Kaganovich didn't even deny it. He only accused Khruschev of being a murderer too. "Your hands are blood-stained too," Kaganovich told him. Khruschev pointed out that the difference was that he, Khruschev, had merely followed Kaganovich's orders, while it had been Kaganovich who had formulated the policies of mass murder and had given the orders for carrying out those policies.
It's a fascinating book and if you really want to gain some insight into the Jewish mentality, into the way they justify themselves, into the way they view the non-Jewish world, you should read it for yourself. Kaganovich wants to boast about the power he once held, and at the same time he wants to evade responsibility for his crimes, and one can see this ambivalent attitude throughout the book.
Kaganovich did manage to evade responsibility. He was permitted to retire and to live out his life in comfort in Moscow. He was expelled from the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1957, when he lost a power struggle with Khruschev, and he was kicked out of the Communist Party itself in 1962. So Kaganovich simply retired from the business of mass murder and then lived in peace and relative luxury for nearly 30 more years, until his death in 1991 at the age of 98. Not even the publication of his nephew's biography of him in 1987, with all of its revelations of his crimes, brought a demand that he be punished. Not even after the collapse of communism did anyone call him to account for his genocide against the Russian and Ukrainian people.
Suppose that instead of being a Jew who murdered 20 million Gentiles he had been a German accused of killing just 100 Jews. Can't you imagine the screams from the media around the world that he be put on trial and punished? Can't you imagine the hysterical demands for revenge from the Jews, the non-stop demonstrations in front of German embassies everywhere? Such a wonderful opportunity to remind everyone about the "Holocaust" and how the poor, innocent Jews had suffered, and how the world now owed them reparations -- such an opportunity certainly would not go unexploited. But in the case of Lazar Kaganovich only silence, only disinterest by the media. Interesting, isn't it?
Now, you and I understand the reason for this difference, don't we? We understand that the "Holocaust" story is important to the Jews because they are able to milk the Gentile world for billions of dollars every year by keeping the Gentiles feeling guilty for letting it happen. And we understand why the Jews don't feel guilty for having unleashed communism on the world, just as they don't feel guilty for having spawned monsters like Lazar Kaganovich. They really believe that only their lives count, not ours.
And we understand why the Germans back before the Second World War really wanted to get the Jews out of their country and off their backs. We understand why Stalin decided in 1953 that he would leave as his gift to the Russian people something that they would be eternally grateful for by getting rid of every Jew in the Soviet Union.
So, the question now is, what can we do to free ourselves from the Jews? What can we do to break their deathgrip on our mass media of news and entertainment and on our political system? How can we bring about an end to their racket of using us to extort money from the rest of the world for them?
One thing that wouldn't be effective is an appeal to our elected leaders in Washington. Most of the politicians understand quite well what's going on, but they don't care unless it's an issue in the mass media or they can figure out a way to get donations or votes from it.
About the only difference between Bill Clinton and the rest of the gang in Washington, Republicans as well as Democrats, is that Bill Clinton has more charisma. If we had an honest, patriotic government they'd all be gallows bait.
Another bunch we can't count on are businessmen, like the people who run Volkswagen or the Swiss banks. Generally these are pretty smart people, and they understand the same things we understand. But just as the politicians don't care about anything except votes, these big businessmen don't care about anything except profits. The Volkswagen people understand that if anyone owes something, the Jews who worked in their plant during the war owe Volkswagen for keeping them alive and permitting them to survive the war in one piece. But they won't say that publicly, because as long as the Jews control the media and the government in America there's no profit in that. And the same for the Swiss bankers.
In fact, there's more than a possible loss of profit involved. There are hundreds of people sitting in prisons in Germany and Switzerland now, because they dared to speak the truth about the Jews and thus violated so-called "hate" laws the Jews had their bought politicians in those countries enact for the specific purpose of silencing those who would expose them. An example is Rudolf Keller, a member of the nationalist Swiss Democratic Party, who was arrested earlier this month in Zurich and charged with being a "hate criminal." Mr. Keller's "crime" was announcing publicly that if the Jews proceed with their anti-Swiss boycotts in America, then the Swiss people should in reprisal refuse to buy any American-made goods, shop in stores or eat in restaurants owned by Jews, or take vacations in America or Israel. The politicians who had him arrested claimed that Keller's announcement might incite "race hatred" against the Jews -- and in Switzerland, Germany, and many other countries the Jews already have arranged for that to be illegal. They're working hard to have similar laws enacted in America.
So what can we do? Well, not everyone in America is a politician or a businessman. And not everyone is a couch potato, who is incapable of understanding anything which doesn't come to him directly from his television screen. There still are decent, honest, and rational people in America: people who are capable of understanding if one makes information available to them and who will care once they understand. You and I aren't the only ones. There are enough good people left to upset the Jews' applecart -- if we do our part.
And our part is to reach these decent people and help them understand. And we can do that. I can keep on presenting facts -- facts which will help people understand who is persecuting whom, who owes whom. And this is important, because most of these decent, rational Americans have never heard about Lazar Kaganovich. Most of these decent people are too busy with their own lives to pay attention to the current Jewish campaign to silence their critics with new laws against what they call "hate speech." They need to be told. They need to be made to pay attention.
You can help make them pay attention. I'll keep presenting the facts; you get other people to listen. I'll bet you know at least five decent people who have never listened to American Dissident Voices or have never seen a copy of Free Speech. Get them to start listening or start reading. Get them to start paying attention.
Thinking about a White Future
I nearly always discuss the problems our people are facing: a corrupt, treasonous, and degenerate government which seems hell-bent on destroying what's left of our civilization; our mass media of news and entertainment in the hands of an alien people who use their control over the media to bring about the election of such governments; the mass insanity which, under various names -- egalitarianism, feminism, liberalism -- leads large segments of our people into unnatural and self-destructive behavior.
Sometimes I've talked about historical events, but that's been pretty negative too: the atrocities committed against our people by the communists before and during the Second World War and the atrocities we committed against ourselves during and after that war.
It's necessary for us to talk about these negative things, because we need to understand our problems before we can hope to solve them. But in this article I will try to be more positive. I will discuss what we want our future to be like. Of course, we can't discuss all of this in one short article, but we can explore a few aspects of the future we'd like to build for our people after we've solved the problems we're facing.
One of these problems I've talked about which we are facing is non-White immigration, which is changing America's racial complexion. This changing racial complexion is something which Bill Clinton not only recognizes but welcomes. In the July Free Speech I discussed his speech on this subject at Portland State University. The Clinton government -- and Democrats generally -- are pushing hard to increase non-White immigration and to avoid any effective measures to stop illegal immigration, which is almost completely non-White, because non-Whites nearly all vote Democratic. The Republicans aren't much better: some of them welcome non-White immigrants as cheap laborers for Republican factory owners and big farmers, and others are afraid to do anything about immigration from fear of being labeled "racists" by the media.
Now, I must admit that I share one thing with Bill Clinton: he wants to change America's racial complexion, and so do I. He wants America's complexion to be darker, or more "diverse," to use the Politically Correct term. And I want America's complexion to be lighter: much lighter. Bill Clinton said in his Portland State University speech that anyone who doesn't want America to become darker is "un-American." Isn't that something? This jerk who used to organize anti- American demonstrations during the Vietnam war and chant, "Ho, Ho, Ho Chih Minh, the Viet Cong's gonna win," is now telling us that we're "un-American"! I'd like to have that un-American piece of filth tell me that, one on one, without any of his jackbooted Secret Service thugs around! Then there would be one less piece of filth to deal with in this country.
Bill Clinton thinks a White America would be "un-American." The Jews who control the mass media certainly agree with him, because they know there would be no room for them in a White America. We made the terrible mistake of letting them in when we had what for most practical purposes was a White America in the past, and they immediately set to work to take over our mass media, to corrupt our political system, to corrupt our culture, and to corrupt our educational system. After they gained control of the media they began brainwashing the public with the notion that the worst of all possible sins is to want to keep America White. "That is racism, a very, very bad thing," they whispered to us in a thousand subtle ways. And now, to want to make America White again is even worse, they and their collaborators, like Bill Clinton, tell us. "It is too late," they tell us. "America will become non-White. It is inevitable. You cannot stop it. But a non-White America will not be so bad; there will be much more diversity, and diversity is a wonderful thing. So don't try to resist us. Just relax and enjoy it."
So why do we resist the Jewish plan for America? Why do we refuse to go quietly, the way the Clintonistas want us to? Wouldn't it be so much easier just not to struggle, just to relax and let them push our race into oblivion?
But you know, us White people have always struggled. We have always resisted alien domination. We are a race of conquerors, of inventors, of builders, not slaves or couch potatoes. We have always fought for a better future, instead of just relaxing and letting other people tell us what was good for us. A very troublesome trait, this determination to be masters of our own destiny, this determination to live in accord with our innate values instead of someone else's, this determination to hang onto our traditions and our life-style and to do things our way. This troublesome trait of ours is really a big obstacle to the planners of the New World Order, who want us just to relax and not struggle while they mix us with Haitians and mestizos and Vietnamese to produce the nice, coffee-colored blend preferred by Mr. Clinton, a blend without racist traditions or racist habits or racist ambitions to shape our own destiny.
So why do we not want to be blended? Why do we insist on remaining a race of conquerors, inventors, and builders; a race of explorers; a race of poets, philosophers, and dreamers; a proud race, an independent race, a race with our own traditions, instead of the agreeable, placid race of coffee-colored consumers and couch potatoes those nice Jews in the media and those nice politicians in Washington want us to be? And I guess that the best answer to that question is that that's just the way we are. That's our God-given nature, and we want to keep it. In fact, we are determined to keep it!
The White future that I dream about, the White America that I want for my people, is not an America of brainwashed couch potatoes and trendy consumers, not an America of feminists, homosexuals, democrats, and hymn-singing boobs who take their theology from their television receivers; my White America is an America of proud, masculine men and proud, feminine women. It is an America based on our history and our traditions and our ways: history and traditions and ways we brought here from Europe. It will be an America governed by our values and our standards: our standards of behavior, our standards of performance, our standards of quality, our standards of beauty. It will be an America where little White girls and little White boys go to White schools and learn how to be independent and productive White men and women. It will be an America where there are no advertisers trying to push racial mixing by putting a few Black, mestizo, and Asian faces into every group illustration, advertisers who like to pair off White girls with Black boys in their ads. It will be an America without drugs, without rap music, and without the dark faces and alien sounds which pervade our cities today.
Can you imagine such an America? We used to have a White America back before the Second World War. Ask your parents or your grandparents about it. Go to the library and look at some of the old magazines published back in the 1920s and 1930s. Look at the advertisements in these old magazines and compare them with the advertisements produced today. I have a painting from about 1890 of ice skaters in Central Park, New York: men, women, and children gliding across the ice in a wintry landscape. Some of the faces are smiling or laughing; some are sober -- but they're all White. Yes, even New York City was once White. Los Angeles was White, except for its Chinatown. Look at the 19th-century paintings. Look at the photographs taken before the Second World War of scenes on university campuses, of street scenes in American cities, of sports events, of outdoor recreation. The people are all White. That's hard to imagine today, isn't it, but 75 years ago one could walk through downtown Los Angeles or New York and hardly ever see a non-White face.
Of course, in a White America we will still have problems to overcome; that's what life is all about: overcoming problems. We still will have a certain amount of crime, even without non- Whites, who commit the majority of the crimes of violence and vice in America today. Although our streets and homes will be much, much safer than they are today, we will still have criminals - - but we will know how to deal with our criminals. In this regard, let me reprint a little poem written by one of the truly great English poets, Rudyard Kipling. It is a poem you won't find in any of the Politically Correct anthologies approved for use in our schools today. It was written in a saner, prouder, Whiter, less Jewish time, a much less hypocritical time. THE STRANGER The Stranger within my gate, He may be true or kind, But he does not talk my talk -- I cannot feel his mind. I see the face and the eyes and the mouth, But not the soul behind. The men of my own stock They may do ill or well, But they tell the lies I am wonted to, They are used to the lies I tell. And we do not need interpreters When we go to buy and sell. The Stranger within my gates, He may be evil or good, But I cannot tell what powers control -- What reasons sway his mood; Nor when the Gods of his far-off land Shall repossess his blood. The men of my own stock, Bitter bad they may be, But, at least, they hear the things I hear, And see the things I see; And whatever I think of them and their likes They think of the likes of me. This was my father's belief And this is also mine: Let the corn be all one sheaf -- And the grapes be all one vine, Ere our children's teeth are set on edge By bitter bread and wine.
That was Rudyard Kipling's view of things a century ago, and it also was the view of most of our people in a time before they had been deceived and led astray by the alien masters of the mass media.
A feeling of community, a feeling of family, a feeling of common blood, common soul, common history, and common destiny: that is what it takes to make a viable nation, and that is what we must have again if America is to survive. A White future for America is much more than a material thing; it is much more than safe and orderly schools with higher performance standards; it is much more than safe streets, clean cities, and a lower crime rate; it is much more than a huge reduction in taxes for the support of welfare queens and their swarms of pickaninnies; it is much more than a more efficient, productive work force and an end to the injustice of affirmative action. It is more than all of these things: it is a spiritual thing, this feeling that one's neighbors are one's kin; this looking on White faces and feeling a genuine sense of brotherhood that rises from the heart -- not the strained sense that one ought to feel brotherly when one looks on alien faces; this feeling of sharing in their joy when one looks on a young White couple in love -- not the sense of obligation to give a Politically Correct smile when one passes a racially mixed couple and tries unsuccessfully to suppress the rage in one's heart.
There are young people growing up today who have never known what it means to live in a White country, who have never known the feeling of racial community which one can feel in a White environment and which Americans used to take for granted. They have been robbed of this knowledge by the people who for their own selfish purposes have taken over our mass media and swamped us with their poisonous propaganda of rootlessness and cosmopolitanism and the wonders of the "melting pot" -- and by the politicians who have implemented their destructive racial policies: policies which have darkened America so noticeably during the past 50 years.
My dream of a White America is not nostalgia. I know that we can never return to the past. But I also know that if we are ever to move forward again we have to get rid of this racial mess which has engulfed America. I know that no multi-racial society can be a healthy or stable society. Some people who agree with me that the present racial situation is untenable and can only become worse under the government's present policies nevertheless cannot conceive of rectifying the situation. They believe that once a country has been integrated racially it cannot be un- integrated. But it can be -- although the process of un-integration is likely to be a very painful and bloody process. It is likely to require a civil war much worse than the one we went through in the last century. It certainly will disrupt the lives of everyone involved. The soft couch potatoes and the trendy consumers would much prefer to avoid the disruption, so that they can continue their TV-viewing and their consuming. Even people made of somewhat sterner stuff are horrified by the prospect of straightening out our racial situation. But we must do it. We must plan for it. We must not refuse to think about it just because it will be difficult and unpleasant. We are in our present mess because we failed to act when action would have been far less painful.
In these uncertain times in which we live there is one thing of which we can be certain: and that is, the Jews and their collaborators in the government, the media, the schools, and the churches will cling to the death to their plan for the destruction of our people through miscegenation. They have a tiger by the tail, and they know that they must not let go. And so conditions in America will continue to grow worse and worse, as the enemies of our people continue desperately to push us to the point of no return. Our schools and our cities will become more jungle-like; our popular culture will become more alien, more debased, more Negroid, more Mexican, and more Asian; the behavior of our politicians and our sports and entertainment stars will become more animalistic; our government will become even more corrupt. And White Americans will run out of suburbs to which they can flee. And when they no longer can evade the situation, when they no longer can ignore it, when they no longer can parrot the Politically Correct lies about race without any danger of being contradicted by reality -- then more and more White Americans finally must make decisions about the future they don't want to think about now.
And we know that many of them will just wring their hands and cry in womanish despair, "Oh, why can't the races get along with each other? Why can't there be peace and cooperation between the races, so that I can continue to consume in comfort and safety and Political Correctness? Oh, why must I deal with this difficult and unpleasant problem of race?" And we know that more of the weakest and most degraded of our people, the most corrupt and selfish of our people, will join our enemies in the hope of temporarily improving their own personal situations. But we also know that many others, when there no longer is a safe suburb to which they can flee, finally will be ready to stand and fight.
And my message to these last is this: Don't wait until the last minute to make your decision; much better to make it sooner than later. My message is: Don't fall for the defeatist lie that we cannot un-integrate America because it will be too difficult, too violent, and too painful. Don't refuse to think about the grim remedy of a civil war -- because the alternative is far grimmer and far bloodier. The fate that Mr. Clinton and the Jewish media bosses have planned for us is infinitely worse than any civil war could possibly be. Civil war is thinkable, civil war is plannable -- when the alternative is extinction. Be a man and face reality and steel yourself to do whatever must be done to undo the damage that our enemies have done to us, so that our people will have a future.
The Romanovs, Child Porn, and "Hate" Laws
I'm very pleased by the really big increase in the number of responses to American Dissident Voices during the past few months. That's what we want: to get people to respond, to pay attention, to begin thinking, and to begin speaking out.
One of the things I often hear is that it's interesting to listen to American Dissident Voices and learn new things, but how does that help us solve the problems we're facing as a people? When will we begin putting up candidates for office so that we can begin making some changes in the way our society is headed? They say we must begin making changes very soon because the Jews and their collaborators are getting closer every day to their goal of a multiracial global plantation, where no one will be able to rebel. And they cite the things they can see happening around them: more and more non-Whites in the population everywhere; more and more Whites involved sexually with; and tighter and tighter government control on our lives, with the threat of an end to our Bill of Rights looming ever larger.
I answer by telling them that what is happening is not so much a shift of the general public in the direction the Jews are pushing as it is a growing schism in our society between the Jewish party and the party of those able to think for themselves. It is a growing division between the lemmings obediently stampeding toward the precipice and the people who are beginning to dig in their heels and say "Whoa! I don't want to go over that cliff!" And more and more people are aligning themselves with this second party. Furthermore, not all of them are White racists. There are non-White groups who are no more attracted to the idea of becoming serfs on the global plantation than we are. There are homosexuals who are not looking forward to living in a society which has a non-White majority. There are even people who call themselves "liberals" who are not in favor of replacing William Shakespeare with Jerry Springer and Beethoven with MTV. People of every stripe are aghast at the level to which public life in America has sunk in the Clinton era.
Of course, we shouldn't draw too much comfort from that observation, because the Jews are continuing to push their programs forward with the aid of their step'n'fetchits in the Congress and the White House. And as long as real power continues to be measured by the standards of electoral politics, we won't have any, because the lemmings will always outnumber the independent thinkers. But there may come a day when real power will be measured by other standards, and when the most feasible way of bringing about change won't involve putting up candidates for public office. But let's not get too far ahead of ourselves now.
The most important thing for us to do now is what we have been doing, and that is to help people understand what is happening to America, to the world, to our civilization, and to our people. I'm not talking about helping the lemmings understand. Lemmings never have understood anything and don't want to understand anything. Lemmings just want to do what they believe they're expected to do: whatever the other lemmings are doing. If you strapped a lemming in a chair and explained to him 14 times in the simplest possible language that if he keeps going in the same direction he'll go over a cliff, he still won't understand, and he won't care. To change the direction of a lemming you must persuade him that all the other lemmings are changing direction, and the only feasible way of doing that is to change the flavor of what he sees on television. There's not much chance of our acquiring control of the television networks any time soon, so we just have to accept the fact that the lemmings will continue happily toward the precipice for the time being.
But there are people who can understand and who want to understand, people who care about our civilization and about our people. Those are the ones we are having increasing success in reaching out to, in explaining things to, in helping develop their understanding. We need to continue doing that. Although we're getting a much larger response now than when we started, it needs to grow a lot more. So far we've reached only a relatively small portion of these independent-minded people. And we must do more than help them understand. We must persuade them to accept some responsibility. We must persuade them to be more than mere spectators. And if we can do these things -- if we can continue reaching more and more thoughtful people and help them to understand what is happening, and if we can persuade them to act on their understanding -- then we are coming closer to solving our problems. We are coming closer to having the power to change the course of events.
Understanding and a sense of responsibility are prerequisites for any other sort of activity, electoral or otherwise. We need to build a lot more understanding and a lot more sense of responsibility before we can have any reasonable expectation of winning an election.
There's one really good thing about the work we're doing now, and that is you can participate in it. You don't have to become a candidate for public office. You don't have to have your own radio program. You just have to be willing to help. You have to be willing to talk with your friends, with your relatives, with your co-workers, with the people you already know. I'm sure that not all of them are lemmings. I'm sure that some of them are reasonable and responsible people.
I can explain things in my radio show and this magazine, but you probably have friends who think they're too busy to listen to American Dissident Voices or read Free Speech. Or perhaps they just need the personal approach that you can give. Perhaps they need to know that someone they trust is concerned enough to try to help them understand. Or they may need to know that they are not alone in their Political Incorrectness.
Let me tell you something that can be really helpful in leading a friend to understanding: approach him with something very specific that you have reason to believe he will respond to with interest. Perhaps he's someone who has told you that he's not interested in politics and doesn't want to hear anything about the corruption in the government or about the Jewish control of the media. But there will still be something he is interested in. Start with that.
For example, some people -- women especially -- are interested in celebrities, in people that have an aura of glamour. You might approach such a friend with a comment about the Russian imperial family, whose remains finally were reburied in St. Petersburg in late July, 80 years after their murder by the communists. The czar's daughters, who were murdered with him, were beautiful, glamorous young women: Anastasia, Olga, Tatiana, and Maria -- all lovely girls. Legends about one of these girls -- the beautiful 17-year-old Princess Anastasia -- have been widely circulated ever since her murder. And their reburial a couple of weeks ago has sparked a number of new news stories and reminiscences about them.
One interesting thing about the butchering of the Russian imperial family that you're not likely to see in any of these news stories, however, is the fact that the head butcher was a Jew. His name was Jacob Yurovsky, and he carried out the murder of the czar and his family in an especially brutal and sadistic manner. You might bring that fact up in a conversation about the imperial family. And that fact then can lead the conversation into either of two very interesting areas. One of these areas centers on the fact that in a vast country like Russia with such a small Jewish minority, so many of the butchers of the Russian people just happened to be Jews, Lazar Kaganovich being a prime example.
The other conversational area that Jacob Yurovsky can lead you to is the control of our news and entertainment media. Why is it that your friend has never heard about Yurovsky's Jewishness or Kaganovich's Jewishness? Why are the Jews always portrayed as the innocent victims of Russian anti-Semitism, instead of the other way around? Could it have anything to do with the Jewish control of our news and entertainment media?
Does your friend need to have the atrocities committed against the Russian people by Jews like Yurovsky and Kaganovich tied in to something closer to home? How about the continuing flood of Jewish gangsters into America from the former Soviet Union? They circumvent our immigration laws and get in as "refugees from persecution," because the media, by keeping quiet about Jews such as Yurovsky and Kaganovich and about the Jewishness of organized crime in Russia, are able to maintain the popular delusion that Jews are persecuted in Russia. And because these Jewish gangsters get in they are better able to run their international trade in White sex slaves and sexually exploited children. Although the White slave trade and the child pornography business are headquartered in Israel, they depend heavily for their profitability on the Jews' ability to move freely from one country to another.
Does your friend know anything about the child pornography business? If he's capable of being shocked by anything, he'll be shocked by hearing a few of the facts about this horrible business. The same Jewish gangsters who trap poor, unemployed women from Russia and Ukraine into becoming sex slaves also procure children, film them being sexually abused, and sell the films to perverts around the world. Some of these films show babies as young as two years old being raped by adults. It's a big business, and though not all of the perverts who are the customers for child pornography are Jews, the people who run the child pornography racket are Jews. And that is why this racket is allowed to flourish with virtually no exposure from the mass media.
There have been a few hints about the child pornography business in the media very recently, however, in connection with other news events. For example, there was a United Press International story out of Amsterdam on July 17 about a distributor of child pornography who was murdered recently and about the thousands of photographs the police found in his home. The article also mentioned the distributor's connections to other distributors in Israel, Russia, Ukraine, and the United States. No mention of Jews, of course -- but believe me, the people who run this business are just as Jewish as the people who run the White slave trade.
Perhaps your friend has an interest in civil liberties: in things like freedom of speech. Then begin by talking with him about two men who were sent to prison in Switzerland just last week because one of them wrote a book the Jews don't like and the other one published the book. It sounds almost incredible that this could happen in a modern, civilized nation like Switzerland, but it did, because the Swiss people let themselves be tricked into accepting a law in 1995 -- just three years ago -- making it illegal to criticize Jews or to say anything the Jews find offensive. The Jews had mounted a big propaganda campaign to get this law passed, claiming that it would put an end to "hate" in Switzerland. They got all of their bought politicians and their bought Christian church leaders to speak in favor of the law. And in Switzerland, just as in the United States, the Jews have most of the politicians and the leading church spokesmen in their pockets. So they got their law passed in 1995, calling it an "anti-hate speech" law, and the Swiss felt very proud of themselves for being against "hate."
Then, having made it illegal to criticize them, the Jews launched their campaign to extort $7 billion in World War Two reparations from the Swiss. Pretty neat, wasn't it?
Swiss who understood that the Jewish demand for gold was extortion were afraid to say so publicly from fear of being prosecuted under the new "hate speech" law. And so the Jews have been able to move ahead with their extortion campaign against the Swiss without fear of having their wild claims for gold be contradicted by the muzzled Swiss. In late July, Swiss author Jügen Graf and his 78-year-old publisher Gerhard Förster were ordered to prison by a judge in Baden, Switzerland, under this new "hate speech" law because Graf wrote a book in which he stated that fewer than six million Jews were killed in the so-called "Holocaust." Graf didn't deny that the Germans killed some Jews; he just wrote that all the evidence indicates that fewer than six million were killed. And so the Jews complained that Graf was in effect calling them liars by refusing to accept their figure of six million killed, and by calling them liars was inciting hatred against them. So the judge ordered Graf and his publisher to prison.
Isn't that clever? You plan an extortion campaign against someone, but then before you make your extortion demands you persuade your intended victim to muzzle himself with a "hate speech" law, so that he can't defend himself against your extortion. That's what the Jews have done to the Swiss -- and that's what they're trying very hard now to do to Americans. They're campaigning for the same sort of "hate speech" laws to muzzle Americans that they're already using to muzzle the Swiss. And Bill Clinton is one of the biggest advocates of the new "hate" laws the Jews want for silencing American dissidents.
When three White ex-convicts killed a Black ex-convict in Texas by chaining him to the back of a truck and dragging him, Clinton seized on this bit of drunken hooliganism as a reason why America needs a Federal "hate" law similar to Switzerland's. If you noticed the details of the way the media handled the news of the Texas killing, you can see the collaboration between Clinton and the media Jews in pushing for a Federal "hate" law. For example, the Black who was killed was, like the three men who killed him, a criminal, an ex-convict. But most news reports carefully avoided mentioning that fact. Instead they described the Black as "disabled," almost creating the impression that he was confined to a wheelchair or at least on crutches, when as a matter of fact he was walking along a road with no apparent disability when he accepted a ride from the men who later killed him. It's clear that the media were trying as hard as they could to make this Black ex-con into a sympathetic figure, so that they and Mr. Clinton could use his death as an argument for a Federal "hate" law. One might think they would have picked a better example of a racially motivated crime to use as an argument. After all, racially motivated assaults, murders, and rapes happen every day in America's cities. However, they needed a crime with White criminals and a Black victim, and those don't happen very often, so they had to take what they could get. It gives you a pretty clear indication of who it is that they are so eager to silence with their new Federal "hate" law. It isn't the Blacks.
It may seem incredible to reasonable people that the government could hope to end hatred in our society by passing a law. But it's not reasonable people who really count in this matter: it's the lemmings, and they're ready to believe whatever the government or the mass media tell them. And of course, it's not really hatred that the government and the media Jews hope to end with a Federal "hate" law. It's dissent. They want to muzzle reasonable people in America the way they've muzzled them in Switzerland.
To help your friend understand what's happening, don't try to explain everything to him at once. Start with a specific thing you believe he'll be interested in: the murder of the Romanovs by a Jewish Bolshevik; the growing power of Jewish organized crime in America and its control of the international trade in child pornography; the threat to Americans' freedom of speech by the Clinton government's push for a Federal "hate" law in this country like the one in Switzerland. Give him specific facts. Tell him where he can check it out for himself. For example, National Vanguard Books carries The Last Days of the Romanovs on the murder of the Czar's family and The New Ethnic Mobs on modern organized crime. The conviction and sentencing of the Swiss author and publisher were reported by the Associated Press on July 21. You can go to any large public library and find the Associated Press story for yourself. Then show it to your friend, if that's what he's interested in.
I'll keep telling you about things like these, but you do your part too.
Media Myths
The subject I've discussed most often is the dominant Jewish influence in the mass media of news and entertainment. I've spoken most often about this because it is the most important problem with which we must deal. It's also a subject on which I receive a lot of flak. One of the most common forms of flak is the objection that it doesn't matter. Sure, the Jews control the media, but it doesn't make any difference, critics tell me. They're just good businessmen, and they know how to run the media profitably. That's why they've gained control, and it's no worse than it would be if a bunch of Irishmen or Mormons were in their place.
I think that many of the people who tell me this don't actually believe it themselves. They just want to be Politically Correct, and it's Politically Correct to absolve the Jews of blame for anything. Even many of the people who are distressed about what Jewish media control is doing to our society don't want to identify that control as Jewish. The Baptists, for example, who have launched a boycott of the Disney Corporation because of the raunchy movies its Miramax films division has been turning out, refuse to identify either Disney boss Michael Eisner or the Miramax bosses Bob and Harvey Weinstein as Jewish. The Baptist protest is against immorality in films, they insist, not against the Jewish control of the film industry.
That's a bit like saying you're against syphilis but you have nothing against spirochetes. And it's not really honest, this determination to be Politically Correct. Political Correctness is based on a denial of reality, on the substitution of a deliberately falsified picture of the world in the place of reality. And this dishonesty, this refusal to admit Politically Incorrect truths, has very serious consequences for all of us. If we refuse to talk realistically about the Jewish control of the mass media, we may as well give up on trying to do anything about the negative effects this Jewish media control is having on our society.
Let me give you a specific example of refusal to face a Politically Incorrect truth. Steven Spielberg has a new film out, Saving Private Ryan, and it's been getting a lot of attention by the reviewers. They say that the film is good because it is so realistic, because it gives such an honest portrayal of the Second World War. And of course, the film does show the blood-and-guts aspect of the war a bit more starkly than other films have. But honest it is not. It propagates the same lies about the Second World War that every film -- and I mean every film -- made by the Jewish film industry in Hollywood for nearly 60 years has propagated. And the reviewers, regardless of what else they say about these films, all repeat these same basic lies.
These lies are that the Second World War was a "necessary" war -- that is, that there was no way we could have avoided it -- and that it was a "good" war -- that is, a morally justified war. We were forced to fight Germany in order to protect America. We could not have stayed out of the war or fought on the other side, because that would have been immoral. The other side was evil. We fought against evil. By destroying Germany and Hitler we saved the world, Hollywood tells us. We saved freedom. We saved the world from slavery and tyranny. Hitler was an evil man, the most evil man who has ever lived, and with his evil SS troops he intended to enslave the world and destroy everything beautiful and good. But we stopped him. We saved America. We saved the world. That's Hollywood's unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely dangerous and destructive lie. Unfortunately, it is a lie which is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by almost everyone, and not just by the lemmings. We hear that lie today in connection with Spielberg's new movie; and in fact, we hear it from television news anchormen and from politicians and from other authority figures every time the war is mentioned. No dissent is permitted. But that's the case only for the Second World War. One can have dissenting views about the Spanish-American War, the First World War, or about the Korean War. One can question the morality or the necessity of those wars without being considered an evil person. And as for the war in Vietnam, one can even take the position of America's enemies, as film actress Jane Fonda and a student activist named Bill Clinton did.
But it has not been the government's hard line against dissenters which has kept people parroting the dogma that the Second World War was a war which was both necessary and good. And it hasn't been any reluctance to offend the veterans of the Second World War, because we have more living veterans of the Vietnam war in our society, and those opposed to the Vietnam war have never worried about offending them.
No, the dogma that the Second World War was necessary and good, that it saved the world or that it preserved our freedom, is entirely the creation of Jewish propagandists. Of course, the Second World War didn't preserve America's freedom. America's freedom was never threatened by Germany. Hitler could not even have imagined taking away America's freedom. His war against America was entirely defensive. We were the aggressors. The U.S. Army invaded Germany and took away Germany's freedom, not the other way around. There was never the slightest danger that Hitler would invade America.
And we certainly didn't save the world; what we did was turn half of the world over to rule by communist butchers for nearly 50 years. We didn't even defend America's vital economic interests by destroying Germany. The only people whose vital interests were defended by America's participation in the Second World War were the Jews.
And these facts really aren't even disputed by serious and knowledgeable people today. No reputable historian or military leader would make the claim today that the United States was in danger of being invaded by Germany or that our vital interests were threatened by Germany. In other words the war was not necessary. Every knowledgeable person understands that, but very few will say it.
As for the claim that Hitler and his SS were evil monsters, and that America was on the side of righteousness in destroying them, we can simply look at the facts again: look at what the two sides actually did during and after the war. It is generally conceded that the Germans treated American prisoners of war about as well as they could under the circumstances. And it also is generally conceded that Hitler's troops, SS or otherwise, behaved themselves better toward the civilian populations of the countries they occupied than did the armed forces of any of the other combatants, including the Americans. Hitler's SS troopers did not rape civilians, for example. Contrast this behavior with that of the Americans and our allies, such as the Red Army. The Red Army, our comrade in arms, was notorious for raping and murdering civilians; in fact, Red Army men were encouraged to engage in atrocious behavior by their own government, our ally. And the U.S. Army itself engaged in several massacres of German prisoners of war: for example, the massacre of more than 500 disarmed SS prisoners at Dachau by members of the U.S. Army's 45th Division on April 29, 1945. And then there was the mass starvation of German POWs in prison camps after the war. And there was the massive ethnic cleansing, in which more than 2 million German civilians were murdered after the war. The U.S. government approved of this mass murder, of this ethnic cleansing -- we gave the OK -- and our allies carried it out.
If we consider the mass rape and murder of civilians to be evil, if we consider the mass execution of prisoners of war to be evil, and if one of our motives for going to war was to fight evil, then clearly we were fighting on the wrong side. And it's not as if we didn't know how our gallant Soviet ally would behave before we began our effort to destroy Hitler and his forces. We had plenty of evidence of massive Soviet atrocities even before the war began. Our government knew what the communists had done in Ukraine. Our government knew about the mass arrests and executions in the Soviet Union. And before we crossed the English Channel to invade Europe we knew about the mass executions of Polish officers by the Reds at Katyn and elsewhere. And yet we allied ourselves with the mass murderers. We helped the mass murderers and mass rapists murder and rape millions of more Europeans. And so the claim that we were going to war to fight evil is simply a lie. The Second World War was not a good war. It was not a moral war. It was the most atrocious war of modern times. And we were on the side of those committing nearly all of the atrocities during that war: we were deliberately on the side of evil.
And there is just one reason that we fought on the side of evil. It was because that was the Jewish side. In the years before the war Hitler wasn't rounding up people by the thousands and shooting them the way the communists were. Hitler wasn't shooting anybody. His SS troops weren't raping or terrorizing anyone either. Hitler was doing one thing which resulted in a huge, lying hate-propaganda effort against him from Hollywood. That one thing was Hitler's campaign to break the grip of the Jews on Germany. In Germany Hitler took the news and entertainment media away from the Jews. He kicked them out of the legal profession, which they had monopolized. He kicked them out of the teaching profession, where they had been pumping their ideas into the heads of German children. And Hitler did all of this peacefully, non-violently. He didn't round Jews up and shoot them. He simply made it illegal for them to own German newspapers and German radio stations. He made it illegal for them to practice law or to teach in German schools. And so the Jews were leaving Germany. Between 1933 and 1939 two-thirds of the Jews in Germany emigrated. At the same time Jewish commissars in the Soviet Union were butchering millions of people. But the hate propaganda coming out of Hollywood was entirely anti-German, not anti-Soviet. The Jews' only concern was the welfare of their fellow Jews. They didn't care how many Russians or Ukrainians were murdered. But they screeched at the top of their lungs when Hitler took the German media away from them.
And they lied to the American people about what was happening in Europe. They lied in order to try to make us hate the Germans the way they did. When a Jew assassinated a German diplomat in Paris in 1938 and the German people reacted by smashing up Jewish department stores and synagogues in several German cities, the Jewish news media in the United States reported the incident as if Jews were being massacred wholesale in Germany. That was the famous "Crystal Night," which the Jews still continue to remind us of every year in order to milk a little more sympathy from us. The picture of Germany painted by Jewish hate-propaganda in the United States during the years preceding the Second World War was a complete distortion of reality. Americans were told that Germans lived in constant fear of the Gestapo and the SS, that Hitler was a madman who terrorized the German people and who fell to the floor and chewed the edge of his carpet when he became angry. Americans were told that Germany was a land of concentration camps and barbed wire and police dogs. Our invasion of Germany was to be a "liberation" of the German people from the tyrannical rule of Hitler and the SS. That's actually the word the Jewish propagandists used to describe the American and Soviet terror bombing, rape, and dismemberment of Germany: "liberation." The American and Soviet invaders were to be the "liberators."
Of course, the Jews didn't control all of the mass media before the Second World War. They didn't control the National Geographic Magazine, for example, and this magazine, with its articles and photographs on life in Germany flatly contradicted the hate-propaganda coming from Hollywood. A good example, if you have access to old National Geographics, is the February 1937 issue. But the National Geographic Magazine really wasn't a mass medium, and Jewish Hollywood had a much stronger grip on the average American's mind. And so the image of Germany most Americans had was the Jewish image of a land of terror, fear, brutality, and repression controlled by Hitler's SS automatons, a land which needed to be "liberated" and which was a deadly menace to America. The hate-propagandists of Hollywood lied us into the most murderous and destructive war of all time solely because they hated the Germans, and they wanted us to destroy the Germans for them.
And they have maintained their pre-war lies even to this day, their portrayal of Hitler as a crazed carpet chewer and the SS as a gang of sadistic thugs, and they have added to this their postwar hate-propaganda of gas chambers and of lampshades and soap supposedly made from the bodies of murdered Jews. Most Americans still believe that their fathers or grandfathers "liberated" Germany and "saved" the world. They still believe that the Second World War was a "necessary" war and a "good" war. And the reason they believe it is that they have seen hundreds of Hollywood films and television shows which have repeated these same lies to them over and over and over again, and no public figure has ever had the courage or honesty to contradict them. We're still hearing the same lies in films like Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan and in the reviews of that film in the controlled media: Americans as "liberators."
The fact is that Hollywood's lies about Germany led to millions of White Americans and Europeans being slaughtered solely for the sake of punishing the Germans for throwing the Jews out of Germany. And we are put at a great disadvantage even today by those same lies, because they prevent so many of us from examining the past honestly. And if we cannot understand what happened in the past, we are much less likely to choose a wise course into the future. But the real point of my example of Hollywood hate-propaganda about Germany before and during the Second World War is that the Jews, with their control of so much of the mass media today, are able to sway the attitudes of the whole country to suit themselves. They are able to persuade us to give precedence to their interests and concerns instead of ours. They are able to change the course of history to their advantage and to our disadvantage by changing the way the American masses see the world. They were able to do that in the 1930s and 1940s, even before television. Today, with television, they are even more able to change American attitudes and opinions to gain advantages for themselves.
And today there are plenty of other examples of the Jews' misuse of their media power to manipulate the opinions and attitudes of our people to our disadvantage. There is the current prospect of another war in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein and Iraq are being held up as a threat to America, a threat to the world, just as Germany was represented as a threat to the world before the Second World War, when in fact Iraq is a threat only to the Jews' plans for the Middle East, and Germany was a threat only to the Jews' plans for controlling Europe. But the prospect of another war is very real, and it will remain real as long as the Jews retain their control of the media and of U.S. government policy. Iraq certainly is no threat to America and never has been, but if the Jews become worried about Saddam Hussein's ability to thwart Israel's further expansion, you can be sure that we will be called on again to save America, to save freedom, and to save the world by "liberating" Iraq. And unfortunately, most Americans will respond to the call. They will believe that they are being patriotic by responding, just as most of the veterans of the Second World War still believe that they were being patriotic in responding to the call to save America from Hitler.
That's not the way it should be. Our people's patriotism shouldn't be abused like that. Our mass media shouldn't be used to manipulate our people to our disadvantage. Of course, most people being what they are, they will be manipulated one way or another. Most people will believe what they're told to believe by their television. Which means that it is essential that the people who control the mass media, the people who decide what the masses should be told -- these must be our people, people with our interests -- not people with an entirely different agenda of their own. The mass media could be a powerful force for good, a powerful force for enlightening and uplifting and guiding our people rather than for exploiting them.
A lot of people understand that; they understand the power of the mass media. Our political leaders certainly understand that. Many academics understand it. But they won't buck the Jews. They prefer to go with the flow, to get what advantage they can for themselves, but not to speak out against the way the media have been and are being misused to exploit our people. They are afraid of becoming targets of Jewish hate-propaganda themselves. And they understand the difficulty of convincing the public of the truth after the public already has been convinced of a lie. The public is fond of its myths, especially its patriotic myths, and hardly any patriotic myth is more cherished than that of the Second World War being a necessary and a moral war.
And so the politicians and the academics won't point out the lies inherent in Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan. And that means that we'll have to do it ourselves, the hard way. We'll have to continue building our own media: media like American Dissident Voices and Free Speech. That's a long and difficult job. And while we're doing that we'll be hearing and seeing a lot more romanticized propaganda from Steven Spielberg and the Weinstein brothers and the rest of the Jewish media establishment. But at least we are reaching more people with the truth this month than we did last month, and we'll reach more still next month.
The Lesson of Amy Biehl
People have told me that I talk too much about the Jews. They have told me that I should focus more on America's race problem, that I should talk more about how Black crime and Black welfare and Black -- may I call it "culture"? -- are degrading our civilization. White people don't have their homes burglarized by Jews, these critics tell me. Jews don't sell heroin to our children on school playgrounds. It's the Blacks and Mexicans who are the problem. And Jews don't throw their trash in their yards and get on welfare. So get off the Jews' case and tell us how we can solve the race problem before it destroys America.
Now, when I hear comments like this I feel that I have failed in my main purpose, which is to get people to understand what's happening. I try to keep my message very simple, and I try to present it as clearly as I can, but when I hear people telling me that the Blacks and the Mexicans are the real problem and not the Jews I realize that I just haven't been getting through.
Of course, I understand that in some parts of the country Blacks or Mexicans are a much more immediate threat than they are where I live, and that White people who have been heavily impacted by non-Whites in their schools, neighborhoods, or workplaces feel so hard pressed that they can't really worry about less visible threats. Here in the mountains of West Virginia what little crime there is -- and that's very little -- is committed by my fellow Whites, and it's mostly drunken driving or domestic fights.
I do sympathize with the people who live in our cities and are forced to mix with non-Whites. But we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems. We need to look at what is behind these problems, at what has caused them. And when we look for the causes of problems we can look either inside our own house or outside. That is, we can either look for weaknesses and faults in the nature of our own people and our own society which have left us vulnerable to external enemies, or we can focus on those external enemies. And sometimes it's not an altogether clear distinction. Some of our traits are not really faults in themselves, but they have nevertheless been turned against us by external enemies.
For example, there's our combination of objectivity, altruism, and universalism, which has so often been used by our external enemies to manipulate us for their advantage and to our great disadvantage. Our enemies have discovered that it is very easy to make us feel sorry for them or feel guilty because they are inferior to us in some way, or to convince us that we must bend over backward to be nice to them because we owe them compensation for some past wrong we have done them.
Some of us are made to feel guilty because our ancestors took North America away from the Indians or because we brought Black slaves here from Africa. This is apparently a unique racial trait we have. Indians certainly don't feel sheepish about the fact that their ancestors, whenever they managed to capture a few of ours, had the habit of torturing them to death in ways so horrible that they are almost beyond our ability to imagine. Torture was a habitual public recreation of the Indians long before Whites arrived in the New World, and many of the tribes had permanent torture facilities set up in their villages for the specific purpose of putting prisoners to death publicly in the most painful ways possible. They found the screams of their victims amusing. I'm sure you weren't taught this in your American History course in high school because these days it's Politically Incorrect, but many knowledgeable historians -- President Theodore Roosevelt, for example -- wrote in detail about these things. The Indians don't feel guilty or apologetic about this behavior today, but many of us feel guilty because our ancestors responded to this nasty habit of theirs by slaughtering them and taking their land.
And there are those of us who believe that we shouldn't begrudge Blacks their welfare payments, because their ancestors worked as slaves for ours. How many Blacks have you met who can look at the matter objectively and tell us how grateful they are to Whites because our ancestors brought them from the African jungle to a life that was infinitely more pleasant and secure in America? I mean, they already were slaves in Africa, and working and living conditions were a great deal better under White masters in America than under Black masters in Africa.
As I said, we have traits which are used against us, but that doesn't mean that they are bad traits in themselves. They are a strength for us when we are left to ourselves, and they only become a weakness when we come in contact with those who use them to manipulate us. And certainly the masters of manipulation of these traits are the Jews. The best example of this is the way in which they have used their "Holocaust" story to keep us on the defensive while they exploit us in every way they can. Among themselves they boast about the self-hatred they have managed to generate in the Germans just by harping on how the Germans supposedly wronged them during the Second World War. They have gotten the Germans to the point, they boast, where it is unfashionable to be patriotic or even to show any interest in German culture or German traditions. It is much more fashionable today for Germans to show interest in Zulu traditions, in Turkish art, in Chinese music, or in anything Jewish than in anything German. To express affection for anything German is tantamount to shoving more Jews into the gas chambers. This artificial self-hatred which the Jews have induced in the Germans has had the effect of pushing the German birthrate below the replacement level. It is more fashionable for a young German couple who really follow the party line of the controlled media to adopt a Turkish baby than to have one of their own.
War guilt: this was a war, remember, which began as a local conflict between Germany and Poland over historically German territory which had been taken from Germany at the end of the First World War, and it developed into a war between Germany and the Soviet Union because of Hitler's hatred for communism and his determination to break the power of communism in Europe before the Soviet Union's expansionist tendencies led to the further spread of communism. But it only became a world war which the Germans could not win because of the Jews' influence over Franklin Roosevelt in the United States and Winston Churchill in Britain and the ability of the Jews to manipulate public feelings in both countries.
Certainly Hitler did not want a war with America, and the American people didn't want a war with Germany. But surrounded by Jews the way Bill Clinton is, Franklin Roosevelt connived and finagled America into the war in Europe on the side of the Jews -- with the aid of Hollywood, the New York Times and the Washington Post. This was a war which the Jews had declared publicly against Germany in 1933 and had begun by organizing a world-wide economic boycott of Germany and by mobilizing Hollywood for a full- scale, non-stop vilification of everything German. Viewed from a historical perspective, it was a war between Germans and Jews, and the Jews won. The Germans lost many more of their people in this war than the Jews did. And yet today the Germans still feel guilty about their role in the war. Do you believe that the Jews feel guilty about the German losses in the war? Do you believe that they feel guilty about driving the Palestinians from Palestine, killing many of them, and taking their land?
It's a good thing the Indians didn't have this knack for manipulating us psychologically the way the Jews do. If they did, America would still be the land of the Iroquois, the Cherokees, and the Apaches -- of the Sioux and the Comanches and the Shawnees -- and they'd still be raiding each other and torturing their prisoners to death for amusement.
The point of everything I've said so far is this: the Jews are a far bigger threat to our survival as a people than are the Blacks or the Mexicans or any other alien group because the Jews not only are masters of psychological manipulation but because they have gathered the means for manipulating us into their hands. Those aren't the only reasons, but I'll get to the other reasons later.
I said that we're lucky that the Indians weren't able to manipulate our ancestors psychologically. Really, we're even luckier that there were for all practical purposes no Jews in North America at that time, or they would have had us feeling guilty about fighting the Indians. The Jews waited to come until the fighting was pretty much finished, and they could concentrate on accumulating money without worrying about being scalped. The Indians -- and the Blacks and the Mexicans -- still don't know how to manipulate any but the most soft-brained hymn-singers among us. We are letting the Mexicans and the Blacks wreck our country today not because the Blacks or the Mexicans are able to brainwash us, but because the Jews are.
Mexicans are not a menace to us because they breed fast and carry switchblades. Blacks are not a menace because there are a lot of them and they have a tendency toward violence. We know how to deal with people who breed fast and carry switchblades. We know how to deal with violent Blacks, no matter how many of them there are. Cleaning up America might be a bit messy, but there's absolutely no question about our ability to do it, if we had the will to do it: if we hadn't been brainwashed into feeling guilty for wanting to safeguard America for future generations of our own people. And you know who has brainwashed us.
It may seem really complicated when we look at all of the details: brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements to us by all of the most ambitious politicians and all of the most glamorous entertainers and sports stars and all of the spokesmen for the mainstream churches, brainwashing by the big advertisers who want us to buy their products -- and brainwashing by all of the controlled news and entertainment media. They are virtually unanimous: more diversity is good, they all tell us; multiracialism and multiculturalism are wonderful things; Blacks, Mexicans, Asians, and Jews are all very nice people, and you mustn't resist them. You soon will be a minority in your own land, but that's as it should be. Don't resist it. Your ancestors stole this land from the Indians, and so now it is only right that it should be stolen from you. You have oppressed minorities, and so it is only fair that minorities will oppress your children and your grandchildren. Don't resist. It is un-American to resist. Just let it happen.
We hear this message of surrender and death from many people, many institutions, but behind all of them stand the master manipulators: the Jews. It is a Jewish message, whether it comes to us from Bill Clinton's lips or the lips of a Hollywood actor in a Steven Spielberg film or directly from a column or editorial in the New York Times.
And it is a lethal message. Those who absorb it are as good as dead already.
Do you remember Amy Biehl, the blonde American girl who went to South Africa in 1993 to help the Blacks there in their fight against apartheid? She was full of this message and was just dying to do whatever she could to take power away from the awful, terrible, racist White South Africans, who were her kinsmen, and give it to the wonderful, kind, noble, and deserving Blacks.
Well, Blacks will be Blacks, and so when a gang of them spotted her going about her do-good business in a Black area they stabbed, beat, kicked, and stoned her to death. There was still a White government in South Africa in 1993, and the killing of Whites -- even brainwashed, do- good Whites -- by Blacks wasn't tolerated, and so the Black murderers were caught and locked up.
Now, of course, there's a Black government in South Africa, and so in late July the Black murderers of Amy Biehl were set free again. Amy's parents in California, who are just as much under the influence of the Jewish message as she was, greeted the release of her killers with the statement: "We hope they will receive the support necessary to live productive lives in a non- violent atmosphere. In fact, we hope the spirits of Amy and of those like her will be a force in their new lives." This was the reaction of Amy's parents to the pardoning and release of the gang of Black murderers who had danced and chanted around the body of a dying White girl as they kicked and slashed the life out of her. Were Amy's parents concerned about the danger posed to other White women in South Africa by turning these sadistic Black murderers loose? Not at all. Their only concern was for the Black murderers -- because they have taken to heart the message: Blacks are good; Whites are evil.
And so now I ask you: Who is the real threat to our people: the Blacks who murdered Amy -- or the people who taught her and her parents the message of self-hate which led Amy to go to Africa to work against her own people? Which is the real threat? Which do we need to concern ourselves with first: the Blacks and the Mexicans -- or the people who have taught us the same message of self-hate and racial suicide which was taught to Amy Biehl and her parents?
Now you should understand why I am much more concerned about Jews than I am about Blacks and Mexicans. Eventually we will have to deal with Blacks and Mexicans, of course, and the sooner the better. But we can't hope to do that successfully when so many of our people have fallen victim to the same sort of psychological manipulation that Amy Biehl and her parents have. Bill Clinton has been running around the country giving speeches to university students and to various civic groups, and he's been preaching the same message to all of them. He's been gloating about the coming non-White majority in America, and he's been telling his audiences that we must not try to stop it. It would be un-American to try to stop it, he tells them. Don't resist. And they've been cheering him. They've been applauding this message, because they've already had it preached to them in church, and they've read it in the New York Times, and they've heard it on television.
Unfortunately, not all of these trendy air-heads -- not all of these lemmings -- have had an opportunity to prove their commitment to the cause of White racial suicide the way Amy did. But they believe it. They believe it because the Jews have taught them well. The Jews have manipulated them psychologically. And that is the primary threat to the continued existence of our people, beside which every other threat is insignificant.
And so our task today -- the task of every White man and woman who has not fallen victim to this psychological manipulation, this spiritual poison of the sort which killed Amy Biehl -- is to fight the poisoners, to fight the manipulators, not worry about Black crime or Mexican fecundity. Sometimes, of course, I do speak about Black problems or Mexican problems, but that really is only to illuminate the primary problem, which is the Jews' control of our media of news and entertainment, the media through which they inject their spiritual poison into our people.
And we don't fight the poisoners by wringing our hands and moaning that it's too late, that the Jews are too powerful, that there's no way we can compete against the television networks, Hollywood, the New York Times, and Bill Clinton for the hearts and minds of our people.
It is late, but not yet too late; the Jews are powerful, but not so powerful that they cannot be beaten. Our people are brainwashed, but many of them can be un-brainwashed. The story of Amy Biehl and her parents is enough to make some of the lemmings wake up, if we use it effectively as a lesson. Because many of the trendy idiots who cheer the message of White racial suicide do so only because they think it is not only trendy but safe. They think that they personally won't have to suffer the implications of that message the way Amy Biehl did. We should be able to convince some of them that if we all continue in the direction we're headed now, there will in fact be many more Amy Biehls, and they personally may be among those victims. Let's help them to understand that.
What is happening to Bill Clinton now, as he sinks further and further into the cesspool of his own making, will wake up a few lemmings. Bill Clinton's prestige as President is tied to the Jewish message of White racial suicide, and as the DNA experts do their analysis of the semen stains on Monica Lewinsky's dress and Clinton's prestige continues to sink, so will the appeal of the message to the lemmings. Let's you and I continue to rub their noses in the connection between Bill Clinton and his message.
Let's not be only spectators. Let's continue to build the listenership of American Dissident Voices and the readership of Free Speech. Let's continue to spread our message of hope and life and a White future in opposition to the message which killed Amy Biehl. David Geffen, Steven Spielberg, and Bill Clinton
I referred to Steven Spielberg's new film, Saving Private Ryan, in the August issue of Free Speech. We talked about the way in which that film -- and every other film about the Second World war which has come out of Hollywood -- have perpetuated the myth -- the deliberate lie - - that the Second World War was a necessary war and a good war. I mentioned that the Jews have elaborated on this basic lie with their postwar lies about lampshades and soap supposedly manufactured from the corpses of millions of gassed Jews: poor, innocent, inoffensive, sensitive, blameless, high-minded, talented, violin-playing Jews murdered by the brutal, vicious, sadistic, Neanderthal Germans. That's the standard Hollywood lie perpetuated by Jews like Steven Spielberg. And the Jews use this lie to extort billions and billions and billions of dollars from the rest of the world. Switzerland is their current target, but believe me, they intend to suck the last drop of blood from all the rest of us too.
I've spoken with you on several earlier programs about this extortion racket and about the lies on which it is based. One subject we haven't talked much about is the liars themselves, the extortionists, the individual Jews behind the myth. Actually, quite a bit has been written about these people. On a program a couple of months ago I mentioned one book which gives an overview of the Jews' takeover of Hollywood and their transformation of the motion-picture industry into a propaganda tool for manipulating Americans. That book is Neil Gabler's An Empire of their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. It's available from National Vanguard Books, the publisher of Free Speech. Just write to the address at the bottom of the page and ask for a copy of our catalog.
I just finished reading another book on the same general subject which was published last year. It's Stephen Singular's biography of David Geffen, and it's also available from National Vanguard Books. Have you ever heard of David Geffen? He's the "G" in DreamWorks SKG. The "S" is Steven Spielberg, and the "K" is Jeffrey Katzenberg. Geffen is a Hollywood Jew who became a billionaire in the music business: records, tapes, and CDs of rock, rap, and the other things which pass for "music" these days. With his billions he formed a new film production company -- DreamWorks SKG -- in 1994 with his good Jewish friends Spielberg and Katzenberg, and now we're beginning to see some of their products.
Stephen Singular's biography of Geffen is sympathetic. Singular writes sympathetically about rich and powerful Jews generally. What makes his biography of Geffen interesting for us is the view it gives us of the world in which these rich Jews live. It is a world quite alien to ours. Did you ever hear of Sammy Glick? He's the protagonist in a 1941 novel, What Makes Sammy Run?, by the Jewish Hollywood scriptwriter Budd Schulberg. I read What Makes Sammy Run? when I was a freshman, and the image of Sammy Glick has stuck in my mind ever since. Sammy Glick is the prototypical Jewish hustler; the prototypical hungry, young Jew on the way up; the prototypical Hollywood Jew: crude, crass, grasping, manipulative, vulgar, unscrupulous, very verbal, willing to do absolutely anything to advance his career and get his hands on more money. It's amazing that this Jewish prototype was described so starkly for us by a Jew, Budd Schulberg. Probably only a Jew could have given us such an insightful portrait. David Geffen is Sammy Glick. The only difference is that Sammy Glick was a fictional character, and David Geffen is real. And Sammy Glick was a heterosexual who liked shikses -- that is, Gentile girls -- while David Geffen is a flaming homosexual.
And in fact, an amazingly large percentage of the Jews who control the American cultural, fashion, and entertainment establishment are homosexuals -- or at least, they were: AIDS has taken quite a toll of them during the past decade. New York composer and conductor Leonard Bernstein, for example. In 1992, when he publicly announced his homosexuality after donating a million dollars to a homosexual charity, Geffen said he kept a card file of 341 of his friends and colleagues who had died of AIDS recently. Unfortunately, there still are a lot of them left.
The Jewish crowd that Geffen runs around with -- people like fashion mogul Calvin Klein and media mogul Barry Diller -- are referred to as the "Velvet Mafia." One of the favorite hangouts for the Velvet Mafia used to be a disco called Studio 54 in New York City. Studio 54 was run by one of Geffen's homosexual Jewish friends, Steve Rubell, until AIDS caught up with Rubell. The goings on at Studio 54 were really too raunchy for me to describe on this program, but if you have a strong stomach you can read about them in the Geffen biography or in another book published last year titled The Last Party: Studio 54, Disco, and the Culture of the Night, by Anthony Haden-Guest.
Not everyone who went to Studio 54 was Jewish or homosexual. Some of the clientele were non- Jewish homosexuals, like Elton John, Truman Capote, and Andy Warhol. Some were heterosexual Jews. And many were wealthy heterosexual Gentiles in the fields of entertainment or politics. The reason I suggest that you might be interested in looking into the world of Studio 54 is that it provides a good sample of the sort of morality and mind-set that prevail among rich Jews and their rich Gentile hangers-on in Hollywood, Washington, and New York. It is an utterly depraved world, a world where anything at all goes, so long as it provides kicks.
No one who knows me would accuse me of being a prude or being old-fashioned. I am sure, however, that my conviction that every healthy society must have boundaries of decent behavior comes much closer to the beliefs of most of my fellow citizens than does the completely hedonistic, amoral, anything-goes attitude of these self-appointed Jewish arbiters of American culture, as epitomized by David Geffen, Steven Spielberg, and Jeffrey Katzenberg. In reading of the goings on among Geffen and his friends at Studio 54 -- totally nude men mingling with the clientele, public masturbation over piles of money, and the like; really, I cannot describe for you on the air the sort of depraved, degenerate behavior these people find amusing -- I am reminded of Rome in the first century, under Caligula and Nero, and of Berlin during the Weimar Republic.
If these Jews kept strictly to themselves it would be bad enough, but they have been able to corrupt a whole stratum of all-too-easily corruptible Gentiles in entertainment and politics who have found the Jews' money and power an irresistible attraction. Without any inner moral compass to guide them, actors and actresses and politicians have followed the lead of super-rich entertainment-industry Jews like David Geffen. They form a sort of goyische entourage, attending the Jews' parties, going to their clubs and discos, fascinated by the conspicuous consumption and the outrageous excesses of their Jewish hosts.
Currently the best example of this is the relationship between David Geffen and Bill and Hillary Clinton. The Clintons have been in Geffen's orbit since 1992, when the latter began contributing heavily to Bill's campaign fund. Geffen became Hollywood's single largest financial supporter of the Democratic Party, followed closely by his partners Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg. Another big supporter is Lew Wasserman, chairman emeritus of media giant MCA. Geffen, incidentally, sold his own music company, Geffen Records, which specializes in Black music for White kids, to Wasserman's company in 1990 for $600 million. In addition to his personal donations to the two Clinton Presidential campaigns, Geffen has organized fund-raising events among his fellow Hollywood Jews which have poured many millions of dollars into the Democratic coffers.
And the relationship has been social as well as financial. Often when the Clintons have been in southern California Geffen has thrown parties for them, and they have stayed in one of his mansions. And when Geffen is in Washington, he often sleeps in the White House. And Geffen is never shy about expressing his opinion on policy matters or about giving advice to Clinton -- which helps us to understand why Clinton has made the promotion of special rights for homosexuals such a prominent part of his policy agenda.
Bill Clinton had adopted the morality of "if it feels good, do it" and "anything goes" long before he met David Geffen, of course. Clinton is a product of the 1960s cultural and moral revolution, and his behavior in the White House has been pretty much the same as his earlier behavior in the Arkansas statehouse. His association with David Geffen and the latter's circle of rich Jewish media bosses has merely served to confirm his conviction that his behavior really is smart and fashionable.
In the July issue of Free Speech I gave an example of this amoral attitude and the behavior it leads to. It's worth repeating that example in connection with the Clinton-Geffen relationship. As I'm sure you remember, Clinton gave a speech at Portland State University in Oregon on June 13, in which he virtually gloated over the fact that the immigration and welfare policies of the Federal government will result in a non-White majority in America within the next 50 years. He said that any opposition, any resistance, to this darkening of America would be "un-American."
Right after his speech at Portland State University Clinton went to Springfield, Oregon, and gave a speech at Thurston High School. This is the school where a 15-year-old student had blown away 24 of his classmates with a .22-calibre rifle a few days earlier. Clinton told the parents, students, and teachers at Thurston High that he "felt their pain," and he preached against the so- called "culture of violence" which he said had led to so many schoolyard killings in recent months. We must do whatever it takes to end this "culture of violence" which leads kids to shoot each other, Clinton said.
Then, right after that speech, he hopped onto Air Force One for a flight to Los Angeles, where he attended a big fund-raising party being thrown for him that evening by one of Geffen's pals, Lew Wasserman. He accepted almost a million dollars in donations from Wasserman, Geffen, and the other Hollywood Jews at the party that evening. Now, Wasserman's company, MCA, owns Interscope Records, among a number of other record labels, and Interscope is the world's foremost promoter and distributor of the Black musical genre known as "gangsta' rap." Gangsta' rap lyrics customarily glorify criminal violence, including rape and murder. Tupac Shakur, a gangsta' rapper who was himself killed in a drive-by shooting in Las Vegas in 1997, was one of Interscope's star performers.
So what's the connection? It's this: many observers of children's behavior believe that gangsta' rap, with its glorification of violence, has incited children to commit criminal acts. Because of this there have been a number of protests against the companies, such as Interscope, which promote gangsta' rap. Congressional hearings have even been held, and pressure has been applied to the record companies to stop producing gangsta' rap. In other words, there's no way Clinton could have been unaware that the music being sold by Lew Wasserman's company is considered by many knowledgeable people to play a major role in creating the "culture of violence" that Clinton had decried in his speech at Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon, just hours before arriving at Wasserman's house and greeting his host with a big hug.
Now, let me emphasize this point. In March two young boys in Jonesboro, Arkansas, 11 and 13 years old, had shot four of their girl classmates and a female teacher to death in what seemed to be a totally senseless killing spree. The whole nation heard about this. Certainly, Mr. Clinton did, because he made televised speeches about it, decrying the "culture of violence" that he said was responsible for the Jonesboro killings, just as he would later blame the same "culture of violence" for the Springfield, Oregon, killings. And you know, this appears to be one of the few times Mr. Clinton has been right about something, because the English teacher of one of the Jonesboro killers, 13-year-old Mitchell Johnson, testified before a U.S. Senate committee in Washington about the influence gangsta' rap had had on the boy. Mitchell's English teacher, Debbie Pelley, told the senators that she had noticed Mitchell's behavior begin changing in the months before the shootings, when he began listening to gangsta' rap recordings. His teacher told the Senate committee: "Mitchell brought this music to school with him, listened to it on the bus, tried listening to it in classes. . . . He was far more into this music than anyone else his friends knew."
Young Mitchell's favorite rapper was Tupac Shakur, according to his teacher. The CDs that 13- year-old Mitchell Johnson brought to school and listened to on the school bus, CDs that glorify rape and murder and are a big part of the "culture of violence" to which young Americans are exposed and which Mr. Clinton has blamed for the plague of schoolyard killings in America -- these gangsta' rap CDs were sold to Mitchell by Lew Wasserman's company, Interscope Records.
Debbie Pelley told the U.S. Senate in her testimony in Washington that the 13-year-old White boy would sing along with the lyrics as he listened to Black rapper Tupac Shakur sing about "coming to school and killing all the kids." Debbie Pelley saw the transformation of Mitchell Johnson with her own eyes; she witnessed the effect of gangsta' rap on him; and she was lucky not to have been killed herself when the 13-year-old did, in fact, come to school and begin killing all the kids. And she testified to all of this in Washington. And yet Mr. Clinton is not ashamed to party with Lew Wasserman and to accept money from him. And the reason he's not ashamed is that he knows he won't be called to account for it. He knows that the Jews who control the news media won't even tell the public about the connection between Bill Clinton, Lew Wasserman, and Tupac Shakur. They may occasionally criticize him for taking campaign contributions from Chinese gangsters and Indonesian bankers, but they will never criticize him for taking money from Jewish promoters of gangsta' rap. Never, never, never. And so the lemmings, who are willing to forgive Bill Clinton no matter what they find out about how his semen got on Monica Lewinsky's dress -- the lemmings will never even hear about the significance of his taking money from Lew Wasserman and David Geffen.
Part of what's interesting about all of this is what it tells us about America's political elite, which has become thoroughly acclimated to operating in this Jewish environment, this environment of Jewish money and Jewish media control. Well over half of all the money the Democratic Party raises for its candidates comes from the tiny Jewish minority in America: a minority which has accumulated a vastly disproportionate share of America's wealth. And a substantial part of the donations from Jews comes from a relatively few extremely rich Jews associated with the entertainment industry in Los Angeles and New York. And of course, there are strings attached to all of this money. It buys not only sleepovers in the White House: it buys access and influence. It buys appointments to government office. That's one of the reasons that two-thirds of the advisors, speechwriters, legislative assistants, lawyers, press secretaries, and so forth around Bill Clinton in the White House are Jews. Our government, our politicians, accept this situation as normal. It doesn't bother them -- just so long as they get their share of Jewish money.
And even more interesting is the fact that America's popular culture has been shaped to a very large extent by Jews for the past 60 years or so. Today these Jews are men like David Geffen, Lew Wasserman, Steven Spielberg, and the Weinstein brothers: Geffen and Wasserman in popular music and Spielberg and the Weinsteins in films. Not all of the music is gangsta' rap, of course, and not all the films are the sort of obvious filth the Weinstein brothers produce for Michael Eisner's Disney Company -- but it's all poison. Everything that these Jews touch is poisoned by them in one way or another. The whole movement in popular music which has replaced White music with Black music -- which has promoted and popularized Black music among young Whites -- has been orchestrated by Jews. The use of films to condition White Americans to accept racial mixing and interracial sex and homosexuality has been almost entirely a Jewish operation, just as the use of films earlier to incite hatred against Germany and to portray Jews as the world's most deserving victims was a Jewish operation.
Do you think that the type of music David Geffen promotes isn't influenced by the fact that he is a homosexual and a Jew? Do you think that the sort of people who are accustomed to hanging around places like Studio 54 and applauding the grossest sort of degeneracy can still make healthy decisions about the directions American popular culture and American fashion should take?
It's considerations of this sort which make it worth our while to learn about what the David Geffens in our society are doing.
The Fayetteville Murders
It's really too bad Bill Clinton put on such a weak performance in his televised apology to the nation a couple of weeks ago. He could have done much better if he hadn't worn himself out trying to appear cooperative while waffling and dodging questions from the grand jury the whole afternoon before his speech. As it was, I believe his poor performance left a lot of his supporters feeling uneasy.
He certainly left a lot of people who aren't his supporters feeling a bit uneasy about the country's future. Knowledgeable people in other countries already were pretty cynical about the U.S. government. They understand the extent to which it is under the control of the Jews, simply from observing its unquestioning backing of Israeli policy in the Middle East, when that policy is clearly detrimental to American interests. And they certainly haven't failed to notice Washington's obedient support of the Jews' current extortion efforts against Switzerland and other countries from which the Jews are in the process of successfully gouging billions of dollars in World War Two reparations.
Now the cynicism of foreign observers is turning to contempt. Clinton has become a laughingstock around the world. People are amazed that the United States has a President who says he believes that oral sex doesn't really count and who has so little control over his urges that he lets himself get into such an embarrassing mess.
What all of this means is that when Mr. Clinton goes on television, puts on a serious face, and tells the world that his government will not tolerate having its embassies blown up, people are less inclined to take him seriously. Actually, it shouldn't matter, since it's not Clinton but the FBI and other police and military agencies which are supposed to counter terrorism, but in fact, it does matter. Certainly, if I were a terrorist leader wanting to strike at the United States I'd be greatly encouraged to see the U.S. government headed by a clown like Clinton. I wouldn't worry half so much about all of America's Tomahawk cruise missiles if I knew that the man in charge of those missiles is a fool and a self-indulgent weakling.
I believe that we will see an increase in terrorism against the United States during the next two years, and I believe that most reasonable people will agree with me that the weaker image of America caused by Clinton's deplorable behavior will be a contributing factor.
It's really amazing, isn't it? We can put people on the Moon and send robot explorers to Mars, but our political system is a basket case, which seems to permit only moral cripples to rise to positions of leadership. It's the sort of political system you might expect to find in a banana republic or in Africa or the Middle East. Because it's not just Bill Clinton. If the system were sound, someone like Bill Clinton could never have gotten near the White House. Look at the situation we have now, in which all of the media people seem to be in agreement that Bill Clinton's fate depends not on the specific evidence of criminal behavior Kenneth Starr produces in his report to the Congress but rather on how the opinion polls go. It's not the law which really counts here, but public opinion. If the man's approval rating drops significantly, then the Congress will fall on him like a pack of wolves. But if his approval rating stays high, then the politicians won't try to touch him. It reminds me of the Coliseum in ancient Rome, where the fate of a gladiator was determined by whether he got a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down sign from the emperor, and the emperor made his decision based on the shouts of the mob. It's not just foreign terrorists who've lost their respect for the U.S. government; it's everybody.
Is this an organic development -- which is to say, a natural development -- or is it artificial? There are political theorists who believe that a civilization -- and that includes its government -- has a life cycle which is analogous to that of a living organism: it goes through a youthful period of vigorous and healthy growth, reaches maturity, and then gradually becomes senile and dies. They would attribute the Clinton phenomenon to the senility of American civilization.
Then on the other hand there are the conspiracy theorists, who attribute the decline of American prestige to deliberate sabotage. I take a middle position, about halfway between the Spenglerians and the conspiracy theorists. That is, there certainly is some truth in the Spenglerian -- or organic -- view. This country started off with a much higher quality electorate than it has now. Through the processes of non-selective immigration, dysgenic breeding, and an irresponsible and reckless extension of the franchise to broader and broader classes of the population, an electorate has devolved in the United States which would make the Roman mob in the Coliseum seem like a gathering of distinguished, upright, and responsible citizens. Democracies tend to become senile faster than other forms of government through the process of extending the vote. This process, like giving candy to a baby, goes in only one direction, and that's down. But I believe that it's been a natural process in the United States, for the most part, based on intrinsic weaknesses in the democratic system rather than on deliberate sabotage.
But there has also been plenty of sabotage. Look at the crew around Clinton, for example. What a collection of camel faces! You'd think he was in the Knesset instead of the White House. In particular, every time Clinton blows up a pharmaceutical factory in some other country in order to divert the attention of the public from his zipper problems, the advisers and functionaries around him -- his secretary of state and all of her assistant secretaries; his secretary of defense; his national security adviser and his deputy national security adviser; his new ambassador to the United Nations; his policy advisers, headed by the Israeli agent Emanuel Rahm; his speechwriters; even his soon-to-be new press secretary -- these people could more naturally carry on their deliberations in Yiddish than in English. There's hardly a Gentile among them. Actually, Clinton's former Gentile press secretary, Mike McCurry, will still be around for a few more weeks, but with his Jewish girlfriend Monica Lewinsky so much in the news these days, I guess he decided he needed to replace McCurry with a Jewish press secretary to explain the details of the relationship to the media. I mean, the environment around Clinton is so kosher that if someone from Mars landed on the White House lawn he would conclude that the U.S. population is 90 per cent Jews instead of just over two per cent.
And this all-too-visible domination of our government by Jews isn't even necessary from the Jews' point of view. They have a deathgrip on the country which they can maintain just as effectively from behind the scenes. They don't need all of those Jews out in plain sight, where someone other than a Martian might notice them and begin thinking. The politicians in Washington express varying views on many different subjects. Some are in favor of unlimited abortion, and some are not. Some are in favor of bigger welfare checks for the drones, and some are not. Some are tree-cutters and polluters, while others will occasionally speak in favor of protecting the environment. Some are for so-called "gay rights," and some are not. But there is not one of them who will oppose the Jews on anything at all; not one of them who will say out loud, "Hey, we have too many Jews in this government."
And that's not a natural development. That's the result of a carefully planned and well organized campaign of subversion. We have a gang of politicians who always dance to the Jews' tune, no matter what tune the Jews choose to play, because the system has been subverted so that only such politicians can succeed in it. The Jews' tools for subversion have been the mass media of news and entertainment.
I talk about the Jewish control of the media often, but I'm sure that many people still don't believe what I say on that subject. They can't bring themselves to believe that in a country with so many newspapers, news magazines, radio stations, and television stations, all trying to make money by reporting the news, any small group of people can keep all these media under control; they can't believe that a minority making up only a little over two per cent of the population can censor the news tightly enough to control what Joe and Jill Sixpack think; they can't believe that the Jews are able to use the media in such a disciplined way that they can change the outcome of any election.
Let me give you a very forceful example of Jewish media control which shows just how tight and how vicious that control is. On Monday, the 17th of August, two young, White women were murdered in Fayetteville, North Carolina, near Fort Bragg, the big Army base which is home to the 82nd Airborne Division. The murdered women were 18-year-old Tracy Lambert and 25- year-old Susan Moore, both of them remarkably pretty blondes. Tracy and Susan were driving home after work, late at night. On their way home they were abducted by a group of seven Blacks and mixed-race Hispanics, all members and prospective members of a non-White gang known as the Crips. The prospective members had been assigned to murder one or more innocent persons as a gang initiation rite. If they wanted to be full-fledged members of the Crips, they had to find and murder someone.
They found Tracy and Susan driving home in Susan's car. They abducted the girls by stopping the car and forcing their way in -- what's known these days as a "car-jacking." They locked the two White girls in the trunk of the car, drove them to a vacant field just outside Fort Bragg, made them kneel on the ground, and then, a little after three o'clock Monday morning, shot them in the head. The bullets which killed the girls and which were removed from their heads by the medical examiner had been painted with blue fingernail polish. Blue is the Crips' identifying color. The bodies were found by a farmer early in the morning, just four hours after they had been murdered.
Two of the gang members were arrested the next day in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, driving Susan's car and using Susan's cellular phone. The other five were arrested in the next two days. Two of the arrested gang members immediately confessed. All seven were arraigned on Thursday. This means the news media had the whole story of these sensational, racially motivated gang murders, with all of the lurid details, by Thursday, August 20. Stories began appearing in the Observer-Times, the local newspaper, and in a few other local papers near Fayetteville on Friday. And the story also was reported on the local television news program.
But that's all. The murders were not reported at all outside North Carolina. I've talked with people all around the country and asked them if they've heard anything about the murders, and none have. I'll wager that this broadcast is the first you've heard of these murders. Now, isn't that remarkable? That is disciplined censorship. No one in the mainstream media has broken ranks, even on such a sensational story. And it's not that they didn't know. The information was available on the Internet, to anyone who knew how to look for it, from the Fayetteville Observer- Times and other Fayetteville sources. But the word went out that these murders were not to be reported outside North Carolina, and by God, they weren't.
Do you remember another racial killing which occurred in Fayetteville, a little over two and a half years ago? I'm sure you do. A White soldier from Fort Bragg, James Burmeister, got tanked up on beer one night in December 1995, along with a couple of his buddies from the base. While in a mood of drunken belligerency Burmeister ran into a convicted Black drug dealer and the drug dealer's Black girlfriend in Fayetteville, and he shot them to death. He was arrested shortly afterward, and the case immediately -- immediately -- became a cause celebre. It was a headlined story in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, and every other newspaper and newsmagazine in the country. It was on all of the national television news programs -- all of them. The controlled media spread the story around the world with breathless haste. And they didn't drop it. They reported on it over and over and over again for months. Every little detail of the case which came out made new headlines all across America.
They found what they called "racist literature" in Burmeister's room, and that was big news too. No organization. No gang. No gang initiation. Just "racist literature." But that was enough for Janet Reno to come onto television and announce that she was sending in the FBI. Bill Clinton was on television talking about the case and holding it up as a terrible example of "White racism." And the professional hate merchants like Morris Dees and his Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and all of the other Jewish groups commented on the case endlessly. A race killing: how terrible! That's what we heard over and over again for more than a year. The Jewish organizations which are behind Clinton's plan for a non-White America in the coming decades -- the Jews who scripted that plan for him -- used the Burmeister shooting in Fayetteville as a propaganda club to make White Americans feel sheepish and keep their heads down. "See how awful White racism is?" they screamed at us; "see where it leads?"
But Tracy Lambert and Susan Moore? Forget them. They weren't convicted drug dealers, and they weren't Black. They were just two pretty, young White women trying to get home from work. And their killers weren't White. So they're not news. Actually, it's more than the fact that the murder of Tracy and Susan don't fit the pattern that the Jews have been promoting with the media for so long: the pattern of White racists and non-White victims. What has caused news of this case to be stifled is that it fits so perfectly the opposite pattern: non-White murderers consistently hunting down and killing White victims. Janet Reno won't be sending the FBI to Fayetteville for this hate crime. Bill Clinton won't be on television about it either. And except for those Americans who listen to American Dissident Voices or read Free Speech, people outside North Carolina won't even hear about it.
And this is not an oversight. This is deliberate. This is planned. The last thing in the world the Jewish media bosses want is for White Americans to hear about these murders, because it'll dawn on some of those White Americans that this is the sort of thing they can look forward to when America has a non-White majority a few decades hence. The Crips, after all, are spread all across the country. They are the biggest criminal gang in America. They are a lethal threat to unsuspecting White people everywhere. They will be an even bigger threat in the future. But that's all right. The Democrats need their votes.
Even in Fayetteville, where the media could hardly have kept quiet about these murders, there has been no mention at all of the Burmeister shooting in connection with them, no drawing of parallels. That's such an obvious thing, contrasting these racial murders with Burmeister's shooting of the Black drug dealer and his girlfriend in 1995 in the same place, but it's clear that even the Fayetteville media are deliberately steering clear of making that connection. They don't want anybody thinking of these murders in racial terms. The image they have established in the minds of the lemmings is one of White racists, White haters, attacking poor, defenseless non- White victims, and they don't want reality to intrude on that image.
I don't want to overwork the story of these August 17 Fayetteville murders. But I think that you'll agree with me that it's not an ordinary news story. It's not the sort of story that the media bosses decided wouldn't be interesting to the American people. It's not just another one of those ho- hum stories about Black criminality of the sort we have every day. It's an extraordinarily important story, a significant story, a story which provides the opportunity for all sorts of commentary and drawing all sorts of parallels, the sort of story which makes people think.
The media bosses understood that instantly. And with a nationwide criminal gang like the Crips behind these race murders in Fayetteville, it's the sort of story that the media have a responsibility to get to the people, in order to warn them of a very real and growing danger. And that's why the media bosses deliberately suppressed the story. They don't want to mess up the false image of White racists and Black victims they have worked so long and hard to plant in the heads of the lemmings, of the couch potatoes, of the Joe and Jill Sixpacks who vote in elections. They don't want the voters to think. They don't want them to know what's really happening in America. They don't want them to form their own opinions about things. The Jewish media bosses want to continue controlling public opinion and controlling the outcome of elections. They do that by suppressing stories like the Fayetteville murders.
So you see, a big part of America's decline is the consequence of deliberate Jewish subversion, deliberate Jewish sabotage. Through their media control the Jews do change the way Americans see the world. The Jews do change public opinion. The Jews use their media control effectively enough to determine the outcome of elections. If they can hammer the story of James Burmeister's drunken shooting of a couple of Black low-lifes into the consciousness of every American and then successfully suppress the story of the cold-blooded, initiation murder of Tracy and Susan by a Black gang, they can change the way Americans respond to the Jews' racial programs. They can persuade the lemmings to go along willingly with their plan for a non- White America: an America which they can control and exploit even more easily.
The total suppression of the news of the murder of Tracy and Susan is an exceptionally convincing illustration of the power wielded by the Jewish media bosses and of the destructive way in which they use that power. And it should help us to understand not only why we have a clown at the head of our government -- a clown completely surrounded by Jews -- but also why we must have a full-scale revolution in America to clean things up.
The Russian Economy
Every few months for the past several years I have used this program to warn against the policy of economic globalization, which has been one of the Clinton administration's favorite policies. I pointed out the dangers for America in so-called "free trade." In my past discussions of the subject I focused on America's loss of autonomy, which is an inevitable consequence of unrestricted international trade. That is, when one country is able to produce a class of products and sell them to another country cheaper than that other country can produce them for itself, the industry which produces that class of products will be driven out of existence in the second country. If that class of products is plastic hair curlers, for example, it doesn't matter. But if it's machine tools or some other product essential to an independent economy, the second country loses its autonomy.
In view of what's been happening around the world recently, and the repercussions of those happenings on Wall Street, this is probably a good time to point out that when we allow our economy to become closely linked to the economies of less stable countries, then we lose not only our autonomy but also our own economic stability.
It's absolutely crazy for the United States to develop strong economic linkages to countries in Asia or Latin America. Or perhaps I should say, it's treasonous. It's not even good policy to become economically dependent on countries like Russia.
The only situation in which any sort of close economic linkage with another country -- such as "free trade" on any significant scale -- makes sense is when there is a real community of interests. That is a fundamental and obvious truth, but it is completely ignored by the people pushing for globalization. In order for there to be a community of interests between two countries, in the first place their populations must be of the same race. Thus, it has been the sheerest folly to tie the U.S. economy to those of Asia and Latin America. The basic industries which have been driven out of the United States because of competition from these non-White areas of the world, where wage scales are so different -- our machine-tool industry, for example, and our consumer electronics industry -- were essential to our autonomy. And now, with the collapsing economies in Asia and Mexico pulling our economy down with them, we can't simply disengage, because we no longer have autonomy.
With Russia we at least have racial similarity, but there are other reasons why too close an economic involvement with Russia is not good for us now. The most important of those reasons is the men who are now running Russia. The man out front, of course, is President Boris Yeltsin. But Yeltsin is, like Bill Clinton, a seriously flawed man: he's an alcoholic and a skirt-chaser. In fact, he is primarily a clown who also is a good actor, someone who can posture effectively for the television cameras and pull in the votes from the Russian masses. And because of his acting ability he has been strongly supported by the hard, sober men who for all practical purposes own Russia and tell Yeltsin what to do. Unfortunately, the majority of these men are Jews, and many also are gangsters, organized crime bosses. A few days ago MSNBC posted on the Internet a list of what it called "Russia's Robber Barons: the Twelve Men Who Own Russia's Economy," along with brief biographical sketches of each of these newly made billionaires. It is interesting to note that none of these billionaires had as much as $10,000 to his name ten years ago. They all became enormously wealthy during the so-called "privatization" of the Russian economy after the collapse of communism at the beginning of this decade.
Of these 12 robber barons listed by MSNBC eight are Jews. Eight out of twelve. That is indeed remarkable in a country with only about one-half of one per cent Jews in its population. Not only that, but the Jews are constantly whining in their media about how they're being "persecuted" in Russia. They own the country, and they whine to us about Russian "anti-Semitism."
Of course, MSNBC won't tell you about the Jewishness of any of these robber barons. MSNBC calls them all "Russians." But in fact, Boris Berezovsky, Vladimir Gusinsky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Vitali Malkin, Mikhail Fridman, Alexander Smolensky, Vladimir Vinogradov, and Anatoly Chubais are Jews, self-acknowledged Jews, bragged about as Jews in the Jewish community publications that we aren't supposed to see. One of the twelve, Vladimir Potanin, is actually a Russian, one is probably an Azerbaijani, and I haven't yet been able to determine the ethnicity of the remaining two. And I should add that although Anatoly Chubais considers himself a Jew, he's actually only half-Jewish.
Before MSNBC's list of twelve "robber barons" was posted, the Russians had their own list: the Seven Oligarchs they call them, all of them new billionaires who have backed Boris Yeltsin with money and media support. The seven are the aforenamed Boris Berezovsky, Vladimir Gusinsky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Mikhail Fridman, Alexander Smolensky, and Pyotr Aven, who is also a Jew, and the Russian Vladimir Potanin. That's six Jewish oligarchs and one Russian.
Let me tell you how this bizarre and very dangerous situation came about. When the Bolsheviks overthrew the Russian government in 1917, murdered the Czar and his family, and formed the Soviet Union, there was an extraordinarily high quota of Jews among the communist revolutionaries who formed the Soviet government. Lenin, who was himself only a quarter Russian, had surrounded himself with Jews from the beginning. Lenin's chief financier during the revolutionary period was the Jew Israel Lazarevich Helphand, who used the pseudonym "Parvus." Lenin's right-hand man was the Jew Grigory Apfelbaum, who used the name "Zinoviev." After the revolution the Jew Lev Bronstein, who used the name "Trotsky," became the commissar of the Red Army. The Jew Maxim Litvinov became the best-known Soviet diplomat and the ambassador to Britain. Jews were very thick in Lenin's secret police and in every other branch of his communist government. After Lenin's stroke incapacitated him in 1922, the government was run by a coalition of three communists: Stalin, Zinoviev, and Leo Rosenfelt, who used the Russian-sounding name "Kamenev." Although Stalin, who was a Georgian, was surrounded by Jews almost to the extent Lenin had been, he managed to play the Jews off against each other. He outmaneuvered Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky, and all the rest and eventually came out on top. It undoubtedly was to his advantage during this power struggle that the Russian people detested the Jews, from centuries of bitter experience with them. Before Stalin became the undisputed boss of the Kremlin, the Jews had pretty well monopolized the entire Soviet bureaucracy, and even though Stalin began thinning them out a bit in the late 1930s, the Second World War came along before he had time to do much. And before he got around to continuing his program of de-Judaizing the Soviet bureaucracy after the war, he died -- with a little help from his right-hand Jew, Lazar Kaganovich, who later bragged that he had saved the Jews by poisoning Stalin. So the Soviet bureaucracy remained heavily loaded with Jews right up until the collapse of communism -- although they tried not to be too conspicuous -- usually occupying the second-rank positions, where they wouldn't be so visible.
During the communist period Jews monopolized not only the Soviet government but also organized crime: black market operations, illegal currency transactions, large-scale theft of public property. Undoubtedly the Jewish organized-crime bosses had intelligence, organizational skills, and perhaps more of a nose for money than their Russian counterparts, but what gave them their real advantage over the Russians was collaboration from their fellow Jews inside the government. Knowing what the secret police knew and what the secret police planned to do provided a real edge for the Jewish gang bosses.
Several very informative books on Jewish organized crime in the Soviet Union during the communist period are available. Two that I've read are Hustling on Gorky Street by Yuri Brokhin and USSR: the Corrupt Society by Konstantin Simis. Both authors, by the way, are Soviet Jews.
Communism collapsed when the communists had bled dry the countries they were ruling and there was no more blood to suck. What would have been most beneficial then would have been the violent overthrow of the various communist regimes by the exploited Russians, Poles, Hungarians, Bulgarians, and so on, with a general massacre of the communists and their collaborators by the people. This also would have amounted to an ethnic cleansing of eastern Europe, putting a final end to Jewish mischief there. But instead, what happened nearly everywhere was that the communists realized the game was up, and they simply switched hats, declaring themselves "democrats" instead of communists. In many cases the same people continued to hold the same jobs in the government that they'd held before -- and they continued to collaborate with the same people outside the government that they'd collaborated with as communists.
So when the "privatization" of the communist economies took place -- that is, the sale of factories, mines, refineries, and other government-run enterprises to private entrepreneurs -- much of the wealth of each country suddenly appeared in Jewish hands. In Russia, for example, instead of giving groups of Russian workers an opportunity to buy shares in the factories where they worked, bureaucrats in many cases arranged "sweetheart" deals with people outside the government they already had been collaborating with. These collaborators got to buy big chunks of the Russian economy at bargain-basement prices. That's how virtually all of Russia's new billionaires -- and many of Russia's new millionaires as well -- got their start in this decade. And that's why at least two-thirds of these new billionaires are Jews -- at least two-thirds -- in a country where the Jews make up only half a per cent of the population. Jews are smart and often are clever businessmen, but in Russia it has been crookedness rather than business efficiency which has led to their sudden success in the post-communist era. They virtually stole Russia from the Russians. And because organized crime already was in the hands of the Jews, many of Russia's new Jewish businessmen also are gangsters. Jewish billionaire Boris Berezovsky has been described by Forbes magazine as the godfather of Jewish organized crime in Russia. He speeds around Moscow in an armored limousine accompanied by an army of bodyguards. He has survived several assassination attempts and is said to be responsible for the "disappearance" of several of his business rivals. Berezovsky certainly seems to be the Jew who has the strongest grip on Boris Yeltsin. He likes to boast that he's the man who got Yeltsin elected to the presidency. Actually all of the Jews in Russia supported Yeltsin. The Jews in the United States did too. Yeltsin plays a role in Russia similar to the role played in America by Clinton.
After Yeltsin's second election in 1996 he appointed Berezovsky to the National Security Council, which supervises Russia's military and police organizations. When it became public knowledge that Berezovsky is an Israeli citizen, however, Yeltsin was obliged to dismiss him. Russian patriots were outraged that an Israeli citizen should be in charge of Russia's national security. Jews, of course, complained that "Russian anti-Semitism" was responsible for Berezovsky's dismissal.
One might ask, how do the Jews get away with it? Why do the Russian people tolerate them? And the answer is that they get away with it in Russia the same way they get away with it in America: they control the news and entertainment media, and with this media control they not only swing elections to whichever candidate best suits them, but they also keep most of the ordinary citizens distracted, confused, and hypnotized. Berezovsky, for example, controls Russia's biggest television network, ORT, as well as a number of newspapers and magazines. Vladimir Gusinsky, who also is the president of the Russian Jewish Congress -- and like Berezovsky an Israeli citizen -- owns Russia's second-largest television network and a number of newspapers and magazines, as well as one of Russia's largest banks. When Jews buy control of the mass media, they always have more than just making money in mind.
I don't mean to lead you to believe that the Jews control everything in Russia. In addition to the Jews there are many Russian criminals in organized crime in Russia, for example. The thug who comes by your shop to collect the weekly "protection" payment from you -- and to smash your shop window if you don't have it -- is more likely to be a Russian than a Jew. But the man who pays the thug to come by your shop is more likely to be a Jew than a Russian. Jews control the rackets, and it is Jewish influence which prevents the Russian government from cracking down on organized crime.
Organized crime by itself takes a huge toll on the Russian economy. Crime is an unproductive activity, and it operates on an enormous scale in Russia. And because so many of Russia's new Jewish businessmen also are involved in organized crime, business in Russia tends to be even more predatory than it is in the West. The concept of serving the community or serving the nation with their business activity is completely alien to these Jewish businessmen. Their only aim is to acquire as much money and power as they possibly can as quickly as they can. Not only do they have no patriotic feeling at all toward Russia, but they are positively hostile to any expression of patriotism by the real Russians. This sort of business attitude, the sort of business climate associated with this attitude, does not result in a really stable economy, of course. The irresponsible and unpatriotic attitudes and business practices of Russia's Jewish tycoons are the main reason for Russia's present economic collapse.
Unlike the situation in the United States, where every major politician is Politically Correct and every element of the mass media toes the party line, in Russia there are political leaders who do speak out against the Jews, and there are general circulation publications which do criticize them. Some journalists, for instance, like to refer to Boris Berezovsky using his patronymic -- that is, his middle name -- which is Abramovich. They call him Boris Abramovich. They do this not only to embarrass and irritate Berezovsky, but to remind the Russian people that he is a Jew, a zhid, not a Russian.
In one way Russia has an advantage over the United States, and that is that the Russian people are much less comfortable. While Jewish billionaires and millionaires buzz around Moscow in their armored limousines flashing their diamonds and furs, most ordinary Russians have a hard time putting enough on the table to eat. The recent devaluation of the ruble and the run on Russia's banks is making things even harder on the Russians, and it may be that not even the Jews' control of the television networks will suffice to save them from the well-deserved wrath of the Russian people.
And that's the whole reason behind Mr. Clinton's recent trip to the Kremlin to hold Mr. Yeltsin's hand. The people who sent Clinton to Moscow don't care at all about the welfare of the Russian people. But they are worried that if the Russian economy gets much worse, the Russian people may take it out on Berezovsky, Gusinsky, and the rest.
And that, of course, is exactly why it is not in our interest to bail out the Russian economy. What Russia needs is a cure for its long-term problem, not another Band-Aid. And the only thing which will cure Russia is a thorough program of ethnic cleansing, which leaves Boris Abramovich and all of his fellow tribesmen hanging from lampposts all over Russia: an ethnic cleansing which is sudden and sharp and absolutely thorough. That is what is in our long-term interest: a Russia under the control of the Russian people again -- our people -- after more than 80 years of alien domination.
The Russian people are, like the American people, quite passive by nature. It takes a lot to rouse them to do the difficult things they need to do -- but the more uncomfortable they become, the more likely they are to take action. Let's not help the thieves who have stolen Russia stay in power by propping up the Russian economy.
You know, some people who want us to keep Berezovsky and his pals in power warn us that if we don't prop up Boris Yeltsin and the Russian economy, the communists will take over again. That may be so. And you know what I think about communists. I believe that they all should be shot. But it will be better for the Russian people -- and for us -- for the Communist Party to regain power in Russia than for the crowd around Yeltsin to keep power.
Communism is based on two fundamental errors: it assumes that people are all born basically the same -- that is, communism is egalitarian -- and it stifles the great driving force of every healthy economy, which is the quest for private gain. And because it is based on error it certainly is not a system that we want to impose on any of our people, in Russia or elsewhere. But the people around Yeltsin -- the robber barons, the oligarchs -- are eating Russia alive, and even communism, so long as it is Russian communism and not Jewish communism, is better than continued rule by Jewish plutocrats.
It is interesting to note that even the Russian patriots, the Russian nationalists, agree with me on this matter. They are willing to make an alliance -- at least a temporary alliance -- with the communists in order to get the bloodsucking, culture-destroying Jews off Russia's back. Ultimately, of course, we want to see genuine nationalists guiding our people everywhere. If the Russians become hungry enough and exasperated enough to break the grip of the Abramoviches, perhaps similar developments will follow in Bulgaria, Hungary, and the other countries where Jewish Bolsheviks were permitted to simply change hats and declare themselves "democrats" a few years ago when it became unsafe for them to continue wearing their communist hats.
But it really will take a nationalist revolution in Russia to bring that about, and we don't want to do anything to discourage that. Meanwhile, I hope my comments today have helped you understand a little better what is behind Mr. Clinton's recent trip to the Kremlin.
Fashion for Genocide
A month ago I told you about the murder of two White girls, Tracy Lambert and Susan Moore, in Fayetteville, North Carolina, as part of the initiation of new members into the Black and Hispanic Crips gang. I'm still receiving comments about that program. Apparently many listeners -- especially those with Internet access -- checked out the facts as reported in the Fayetteville newspaper, and they were shocked that, just as I said, there was no media coverage of these terrible murders outside the Fayetteville area. They were shocked that virtually all of the mainstream media around the country would deliberately hide the news of these racially motivated murders from the White public -- and these were the same media which had made such a sensation about the killing of a convicted Black drug dealer and his girlfriend in Fayetteville by a White soldier, James Burmeister, in December 1995.
But really, no one who has been listening to my broadcasts should have been shocked. I have commented over and over again about the virtual control of all of America's mass media by the Jews, and I have pointed out many times that the Jews' policy is to disarm the White population morally as well as physically by deliberately creating the false impression that Whites are oppressors and victimizers, and non-Whites are our innocent victims. They want us to feel guilty. They want us to feel that it would be immoral for us to resist any of their schemes for more non- White immigration, for more so-called "diversity" and "multiculturalism," for more racial mixing and racial intermarriage.
That is what the Jewish media bosses are deliberately pushing: the destruction of our people through racial mixing, and they don't want us to put up any resistance. And I am sorry to say, their program is succeeding. When they send their step'n'fetchit Bill Clinton around the country making speeches about how much he is looking forward to an America with a non-White majority, about how any resistance to the government's programs for the darkening of America would be un-American, he is applauded by brainwashed young Whites who have been deceived by this deliberately falsified media impression of Whites as oppressors.
Now you know, I am making a pretty serious accusation. I am accusing the Jewish population as a whole -- and the Jewish media bosses in particular -- of planning our annihilation as a race, of planning to commit genocide against us. And I don't want anyone to think that I am basing my accusation on only the few instances of racially motivated killings I already have cited: their suppression of the news of the Fayetteville murders of two White girls by the Crips and their sensationalizing of the news of the Fayetteville shooting of a Black drug dealer and his girlfriend by a White soldier and of the dragging death of another convicted Black criminal in Texas by three Whites. And so today I'll talk a bit more about anti-White crimes which the Jewish media have deliberately covered up. The details aren't pleasant -- in fact, they are shocking -- but I believe that many listeners need to be shocked.
Let's begin with another crime which occurred in Fayetteville. This is timely because the trial of the criminals began just last week. Here's what happened: Donald Lange, a 25-year-old White soldier at Fort Bragg was leaving an International House of Pancakes in Fayetteville. He accidentally bumped into a group of seven Black soldiers who were going in. The Blacks began punching Lange while shouting racial insults at him. They dragged him into the adjacent parking lot and stomped and kicked him while continuing to shout racial epithets.
A witness in the trial of the Blacks, Tracye Cochran, was in the parking lot where the assault took place. She told the court last week, "The Black person who threw the first punch was the one who knocked him down. . . . It dropped him down to his knees. He got back up and got hit again. . . . I was walking toward the fight screaming and hollering for them to leave him alone. . . . By then he was just getting hit by people left and right." Another witness, Gina Perez, testified that she saw eight or ten Blacks kicking and stomping Lange as he lay on the pavement. She told of seeing one Black kicking Lange in the face, causing his head to slam into the pavement and bounce back. The Black would then kick him again, over and over. Perez said, "They just kicked him to death. I remember him being on his side, being kicked over and over again."
Actually they didn't quite kick Lange to death. They just destroyed his brain. He has neither moved nor spoken since the beating. His brain was so badly damaged that doctors say that he will never again be more than a vegetable.
Now, if you live outside the Fayetteville area, I'll wager that you've heard not a word about what happened to Donald Lange before this broadcast. Imagine what you would have heard if Donald had been Black and the soldiers who destroyed his life had been White. The networks would have shown Mr. Clinton denouncing the attack on television and calling for new laws against "hate crime." In fact, that's exactly what they had Clinton doing last year when a White teenager beat up a Black teen-ager who had come into his White Chicago neighborhood. Clinton referred to the incident in his weekly radio address and used it as an example of why we must do something about "race hate." But Mr. Clinton has responded to the stomping of Donald Lange with silence.
If Donald Lange had been Black and his attackers White, the media bosses would have had Janet Reno on television announcing that she was sending in the FBI. The media would have been interviewing every professional hate merchant: the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Anti- Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, Morris Dees and his Southern Poverty Law Center, and all the rest. The media would have made a real circus of it, and the whole world would have had it drummed into their consciousness: another hate crime against a poor, innocent Black by White racists in Fayetteville.
In order to convince the media bosses that he was doing something to "end hate" after the Burmeister shooting of the Black drug dealer, the commanding general of Fort Bragg ordered a witch hunt among the White soldiers on the base. Every White soldier was checked for tattoos that might suggest a skinhead affiliation. As the media frenzy continued, the witch hunt for White racists in the Army eventually spread to other bases. Now, don't hold your breath waiting for the general at Fort Bragg to start questioning Black soldiers about their racial beliefs and their gang affiliations because of what Blacks from the base did to White soldier Donald Lange. The media pressure just isn't there, and the general has better things to do with his time.
Last month a Black mob in Alton, Illinois, which is a suburb of St. Louis, beat a White man to death who had made the mistake of coming into their neighborhood looking for his stolen television set. As they were beating and kicking 48-year-old Richard Skelton to death on August 10, the Blacks hooted, laughed, and shouted racial insults, according to a number of eye- witnesses.
Now, it's possible that you may have read a few words about this racially motivated murder -- if you're a careful reader of the small news items in the back pages of your newspaper. But you certainly didn't see anything about it on television or read any detailed news accounts, unless you live in the immediate vicinity of Alton. Even the news accounts in Alton tried to excuse the Black murderers by suggesting that Skelton may have precipitated the attack on himself by using racially insensitive language in asking about his stolen television set. But there is no dispute about the facts. Blacks began beating the unarmed White man. Black bystanders watched and shouted encouragement to the attackers. Others joined in the attack, and soon as many as 25 Blacks were beating and kicking Skelton. They continued kicking him until he was dead.
Again, imagine the response of the controlled mass media if the races of the victim and the killers had been reversed: a Black wanders into a White neighborhood and is beaten to death by a mob of 25 Whites who laugh and shout racial insults as the Black dies. My god, the media would be apoplectic! They would be calling for martial law and a roundup of all heterosexual White males who weren't registered Democrats. Everybody in the world would be hearing about the killing over and over and over again, along with sermons against White racism. But as it is, most of my listeners are now hearing about last month's racially motivated mob murder of Richard Skelton for the first time.
Here's another one that you may have read a few words about if you're a news hound or if you live in eastern New York state. Earlier this month in Poughkeepsie, New York, a town on the Hudson River about 70 miles north of New York City, police discovered the decomposing corpses of seven White women and one Black woman in the house of Kendall Francois. The women had been murdered over a two-year period, with the latest being killed just a month ago. Francois is a 27-year-old Black man who works as a hall monitor in a nearby high school. Affirmative action got him the school job even though he had a previous arrest record. Francois was living with his mother and father and younger sister -- and eight decaying corpses. Police found the dead women lying on beds and in the midst of piles of rotting garbage in various rooms of his house. Francois's parents and his sister, who is employed as a nurse at a nearby hospital, said that they hadn't worried about the stench from the dead women because they thought it was the odor of the garbage which had been allowed to accumulate in the house. Francois had picked up the women, one at a time, taken them to his house, had sex with them, and then strangled them.
Now, in a sense the murders of these women may not have been race crimes. The women were all prostitutes, and aside from the fact that Francois had a preference for killing White prostitutes, we don't really know what his motive was for killing them. And I should add that I believe that any White woman, prostitute or not, who consents to sexual relations with a Black deserves death, so I cannot really condemn Francois for killing them.
The real racial angle to these killings is the media response -- or lack thereof. Do you remember John Wayne Gacy or Jeffrey Dahmer? I'm sure you do, even though Gacy was arrested 20 years ago and Dahmer more than seven years ago. Both of them also were serial killers who stashed the bodies of their victims in or under their houses. Both received enormous publicity when police caught them -- so much that we still remember them many years later. But they were both White.
Gacy and Dahmer, of course, received extraordinarily heavy media coverage not because they were White, but because their shocking crimes were extraordinarily newsworthy. Francois has received almost no media coverage outside the Poughkeepsie area, not because his shocking crimes were not extraordinarily newsworthy, but because he is Black and most of his victims were White.
Earlier this month a court in Colorado convicted Francisco Martinez of participating in the abduction, gang rape, torture, and murder of a 14-year-old White girl, Brandy Duvall. Martinez and six other members of the Black and Hispanic Bloods gang grabbed Brandy from a bus stop in Denver on the night of May 30, last year. They took the young White girl to the house of one of the gang members and spent several hours raping her and then sexually torturing her with a knife and a broomstick. During the trial one of the gang members told the court how Martinez laughed as he repeatedly rammed a broomstick into the body of the bleeding girl while she screamed and pleaded for her life. Later they stabbed the 14-year-old girl 28 times and dumped her body in a ditch. Then they went home and disposed of the bloody mattress on which she had been raped and tortured.
Four of the Bloods gang members have pleaded guilty, one other besides Martinez has been tried and convicted, and one is still awaiting trial. This case is reminiscent of the Fayetteville murders last month of two White girls by members of the Crips. The Crips and the Bloods are the two largest non-White gangs in the United States. Like the Fayetteville murders, Brandy Duvall's murder and the subsequent trials have received virtually no national news coverage, although Denver-area newspapers did report them.
Once again, imagine the reaction of the television networks and all of the other national media if instead of the Bloods raping, sexually torturing, and murdering a 14-year-old White girl, seven Ku Klux Klan members had done that to a Black girl or a Mexican girl. The gruesome details would be on every television screen in America night after night after night, and there would be no end to the parade of politicians and preachers and professional hate merchants telling us about the evils of White racism. We know that's what would happen, because we have seen it before in far less egregious cases, most recently in the dragging death of the Black convict in Jasper, Texas, this summer.
Now, all of the Black-on-White crimes I've just mentioned -- the stomping of Donald Lange by Black soldiers in Fayetteville until he became a mindless vegetable; the kicking of Richard Skelton to death by a Black mob in Alton, Illinois, when he tried to retrieve his stolen television set; the murder of seven White prostitutes by a Black school monitor in Poughkeepsie, New York; the horrible rape, torture, and murder of 14-year-old Brandy Duvall by members of the Bloods gang in the Denver area after they had snatched her from a bus stop -- all of these either occurred during the past month or came to trial during the past month. And I could have given you twenty more recent examples of horrible race crimes committed by non-Whites against Whites which have received the silent treatment by the media, except in the areas where they occurred. And these are all crimes which would have received extensive national publicity if they had been White-on-Black crimes.
Anyway, I hope that I've made my point. And my point is that the controlled media are far more likely to publicize White-on-Black crimes than Black-on-White crimes. And this is not just a fluke. It's not that I have carefully selected a few Black-on-White crimes which somehow escaped the attention of the media. No, their way of dealing with interracial crime is systematic. It is consistent. We all understand that. If the Ku Klux Klan does something, the Jewish media act as if the sky is falling. If the Bloods or the Crips do something, they ignore it. There is no denying that. We know it's true.
So why do they do it? If I ask a non-Jewish newspaper writer or television reporter or magazine editor: "Why do you and your colleagues minimize the news of Black-on-White crime? Why are you protective of non-White organizations such as the Bloods and the Crips? Don't you believe that you have a responsibility to warn the White public about the dangers posed for us by non- White crime in general and by non-White gangs such as the Bloods and the Crips in particular?
"And why do your colleagues maximize the news of any White-on-Black crime? Why do you go ballistic if there's any possibility of a White organizational connection, even if some racially oriented literature is found in the White offender's possession? Don't you understand that the Bloods and the Crips are essentially anti-White criminal organizations, while the Klan can only be accused of having members who sometimes do stupid things? Why do you deliberately create the false impression in the public mind that White-on-Black crime -- that's what you call 'hate crime' -- is a big problem in our society, and at the same time you hide from the public the truly horrendous and dangerous problem of Black-on-White crime? Why do you do it?"
I've never gotten really clear and honest answers to these questions. But what is clear is that they all know how they're expected to report the news. They know what the party line is. They know which side their bread is buttered on. It's clear that the top media bosses have set the fashion for reporting interracial crime, and no one who works for them is willing to depart from the fashion.
That fashion, which is almost never stated explicitly, which is only implied, is this: "White people are evil -- especially heterosexual White males. They have persecuted non-Whites for hundreds of years. White people really shouldn't complain if non-Whites sometimes strike back at them. That's only justice. When Blacks and Mexicans organize in gangs, it's only to protect themselves from Whites. But when Whites organize, it's to oppress non-Whites. Whites need to be reminded that they are oppressors. That's why White crimes against non-Whites should be emphasized. And if we're to have a happy and prosperous multicultural society with lots of diversity, which is of course a wonderful thing, then Whites need to mix more with non-Whites . . . so we shouldn't give them any news which might make them reluctant to mix. We shouldn't tell them about Black crimes against Whites, because that might frighten White women away from Black men. It might even lead Whites to organize against non-Whites. In the long run the only sure way to have a peaceful society, in which everyone gets along with everyone else, is to get rid of the White majority: to replace the present White majority with a non-White majority. A lot of racial mixing and racial intermarriage will help to achieve that, and we should report the news with that aim in mind."
That is the prevailing fashion in the controlled mass media today, whether the media people will admit it or not. That fashion has been set deliberately by the media bosses. And I, curious and inquisitive person that I am, have looked at where that fashion is taking us, and when I have done that I have looked into the face of death: racial death, racial extinction. And I, hardheaded cynic that I am, have decided that the Jewish media bosses who designed the current fashion in reporting the news have in fact designed it with that aim in mind. And I also have decided that it is our responsibility to ourselves, to our posterity, to our ancestors, and to the God of Nature which made us what we are to use any and all means -- any and all means -- to combat these Jewish media bosses and their collaborators in the government, in the schools, in the churches, and wherever else we find them.
A Closer Look at the Enemy
You know, this world we live in is a complicated place. Behind every phenomenon we observe there are many forces at work, some of them obvious and some not so obvious. Trying to separate what's important from what's not important can be a confusing task. Every week when we discuss on this program what's happening in the world around us, and I try to explain events so that listeners can have a clear understanding of them, I must simplify the world. Clarity requires simplification. Understanding demands simplification. A useful explanation requires separating the important things from those which are less important and focusing first on the former. If I tried to explain every phenomenon in the world in complete detail, leaving out nothing, I would succeed only in confusing everyone, especially myself.
So if we want to understand the world we must simplify it. But we must be careful not to oversimplify, or our explanations lose their value. Occasionally my listeners accuse me of oversimplifying, or they are aware of some factor which I have not discussed in detail, and they suspect that I have left it out deliberately because it would contradict some theory of mine.
Here's an old example of the way oversimplification can lead to confusion: After the Bolshevik takeover of Russia early in this century, many anti-communists in America spread the word that a majority of the Bolshevik leaders were not Russians but were Jews, and they warned Americans that there also were many Jewish communists in America who posed a danger of subversion. This was back in the days before the exposure of the Rosenbergs and other communist-Jewish spies and conspirators in America. The Jewish media countered this warning with a deliberate campaign of confusion. They said, "Oh, you used to accuse of us being international bankers and capitalists and of subverting nations with our money. Now you accuse us of being international communists and of being a threat to capitalism. So which is it? Are we capitalists or are we communists? It can't be both, so make up your mind." This response was supposed to make their accusers look foolish, and with much of the public the trick worked.
Of course, the truth of the matter is that Jews are both capitalists and communists -- and neither. They are, first and last, Jews, and that really says it all, if one understands what a Jew is. The average Gentile thinks that a communist must be someone who is a believer in communist ideology, and a capitalist must be someone who is a believer in the ideology of free enterprise. It doesn't occur to him that for many Jews ideology is not something that one actually believes; it is simply a tool which one uses for deceiving non-Jews. The aim always is to acquire wealth and power, and whether one uses capitalist methods and ideology or communist methods and ideology for this purpose depends upon the situation. Regardless of the methods one uses, one remains a Jew. That's what is important.
And of course, most of the people who were trying to warn their fellow Americans about the dangers represented by the Jews in their midst didn't try to explain that, because most Americans simply wouldn't have understood; it would have been too complicated for them. So the anti- communists simply said: "Watch out! The Jews are communists or are sympathetic to the communists." And that was an oversimplification of the truth. Here's a more recent example: I have warned Americans that Bill Clinton is a puppet of the Jews, an obedient tool of the Jews, and I have pointed out the fact that most of the important appointments he has made as President have gone to Jews: two Supreme Court justices, his entire foreign policy and national security team, and so on. And I have stated that the Jewish media got him elected in 1992 and then reelected in 1996.
And so now some people have asked me, "Well, if Clinton is an obedient tool of the Jews, why are they now trying to destroy him? Why are some of the people who are in the forefront of those now pulling Clinton down Jews? Why would a Jewess, Monica Lewinsky, turn on him? Don't you know that some of Ken Starr's associates are Jews? Didn't you notice that one of Clinton's most important attackers is Connecticut's Jewish Senator Joseph Lieberman? It has been the Jewish media, like the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post, which have exposed Clinton's lies and other crimes. So how can you say that he is a puppet of the Jews? It doesn't make sense."
But of course, it does make sense -- if one doesn't try to oversimplify. I don't want to spend too much time on this because I've already covered much of the ground in earlier broadcasts, but I'll try to add a few more details, so that the picture is still simple, still clear, but not overly simple. The basic facts are these: First, the Jews control the mass media -- or more accurately, they are the most powerful of the conscious elites in the media world; they wield more control over the media than any other coherent and self-conscious group. And because of this media control they are able to exercise a determining influence on the electoral process: in other words, through their media control they are able to control the politics of a mass democracy, where everyone, even the most easily manipulated elements of the population, has an equal vote.
Second, Bill Clinton is a talented but utterly corrupt man. He is a typical child of the 1960s. He grew up believing that the world owed him something. He grew up believing that he was entitled to whatever he could grab. And he grew up cynical. He grew up during a period when the Jews were turning American society on its head, when Jews were breaking all of the rules and getting away with it. Bill Clinton noticed this and learned from it. And Bill Clinton grew up with a talent for manipulating people, a talent for lying to people and getting them to believe him. This suited him perfectly for a career in politics.
And the Jews noticed Bill Clinton. They saw him as potentially very useful to them. He is exactly the sort of man they always are on the lookout for: corrupt but charming; someone who can attract votes but who understands which side his bread is buttered on. They supported him with their media and with their money. Without their support he wouldn't have gotten into the White House. And Bill Clinton reciprocated. He gave them whatever they wanted. He appointed them to every high position in the government, and he pushed their policies and programs. On all of this the record is clear. So why are they abandoning, even attacking, their good friend Bill Clinton now?
Well of course, he never really was their friend: he was their useful tool. And he has become a badly damaged tool as a consequence of his own personal weaknesses. The Jews did not set out to destroy him. He did that himself. Remember, Ken Starr was ready to throw in the towel and give up on investigating Clinton three years ago. If anyone besides Clinton deserves credit for his downfall it is Paula Jones. When Paula Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment she opened the Pandora's box from which the affair with Monica Lewinsky eventually came to light. Remember, the Jewish media tried hard not to notice Paula Jones. That Paula eventually was noticed by the public resulted from several factors beyond the control of the Jewish media bosses.
And that's one of those little complications we must deal with in the real world. Despite all their media power and all their money, the Jews are not able to control everything all the time. Sometimes the Jews are compelled by circumstances just like the rest of us. They also have their vulnerabilities.
Paula Jones opened a Pandora's box that the Jews would have preferred to keep closed. But once the box was open, they had to decide what to do about Clinton. On the one hand, they have Al Gore waiting in the wings, and Al Gore is just as corrupt as Bill Clinton, just as willing a tool. But on the other hand, Gore simply doesn't have Clinton's talents. He'll do what the Jews tell him, but he won't be able to charm the voters as effectively as Clinton could. They'd like to keep Clinton, but he's become a bit of a tar baby. And so we have had an opportunity to see another of the world's little complications, and that is that not even the Jews are always in complete agreement about the best way to proceed.
The Jews don't want to become too closely identified with Clinton's corrupt image. Looking a little further ahead than the mass of Gentile voters who still think Clinton should stay in the White House, the Jews understand that it will not be helpful for them to have a very close historical association with the Clinton administration. They don't want Clinton to be thought of as their man, because they have a suspicion that despite his present popularity his historical image will be very bad indeed. For some of them that is the primary consideration, and they'd like to see Clinton go quickly and then muddle through with Al Gore as best they can. Other Jews are still fascinated by Clinton's approval ratings and his ability to charm the lemmings. They don't want to trade him in for Al Gore no matter how much tar rubs off on them. And of course, they also have the consideration that if they all abandon him simultaneously and all begin attacking him, he conceivably could turn on them and lash out at them. Better to keep him mindful that despite the fact that some of them are pulling him down, if he wants to stay out of prison he'd better keep obeying orders. So there are complications in life even for the Jews.
I'll give you one more example of the subtleties that one must deal with in trying to understand the role of the Jews in our society. Last week one of the most powerful Jewish organizations, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith -- the ADL -- held a huge press conference at the National Press Club in Washington and simultaneous press conferences in a number of cities around the country, and they announced that I am the most dangerous man in America. Really: I am the most dangerous man in America! And the organization I head, the National Alliance, is the most dangerous organization in America. Really: not the Mafia, not what's left of the Communist Party, not some violent and well armed militia group, not Louis Farrakhan and the Black Muslims, but the National Alliance.
Well, I long ago decided that any insult from the Devil is a compliment, but still there are some troubling aspects to what the Anti-Defamation League has done, and I'll share them with you, because they can help us understand better the way the Jews operate. When the ADL held its press conferences last week it handed out press releases to the reporters and politicians. The press release began with a statement by the top ADL commissar, Abraham Foxman, saying, "The National Alliance is an alliance of bigots and bombers thriving on hate," and then it listed a long series of violent crimes and terrorist acts the ADL claims are "linked to the National Alliance and its propaganda." The list begins:
• 1992-1995, Midwest: Authorities say the Aryan Republican Army, a white supremacist
gang that required members to read The Turner Diaries, committed 22 bank robberies and bombings.
• April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City: The bombing of the Murrah Federal Building is eerily
reminiscent of a fictional bombing scene in The Turner Diaries, of which Timothy McVeigh was a devotee.
• December 1995, Fayetteville, NC: Two soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg, who were
avowed neo-Nazis and reportedly read National Alliance propaganda, murdered an African-American couple.
Et cetera. There's a lot more to the ADL's press release, but you get the idea: I and the other members of the National Alliance are bomb-throwers and bank robbers "linked" to 22 bank robberies and bombings in the Midwest, to the Oklahoma City bombing, to the shooting of a Black drug dealer and his girlfriend in North Carolina, and to lots of other things. Now, as a matter of fact, neither I nor anyone else in the National Alliance had ever heard of the Aryan Republican Army and its 22 bank robberies and bombings, or of Timothy McVeigh, or of the soldiers at Fort Bragg who shot the Black drug dealer, until we saw these people on television news programs, like everyone else.
But we are "linked" to them, says the ADL. How? Did some of these folks listen to one of my American Dissident Voices broadcasts? Probably. At least, I wouldn't be surprised. Did some of them read my 1978 novel, The Turner Diaries? Probably. At least, I've seen evidence to indicate that Timothy McVeigh did, although I don't know about any of the others. There are a quarter of a million copies of the book in circulation, and probably a half-million readers altogether -- including, no doubt, Abraham Foxman and a number of his associates in the ADL.
So that's how I and the National Alliance are "linked" to bombings, bank robberies, and murders. Very clever. So then, it's fair to say that the Catholic Church is "linked" to Mafia operations, and that the Automobile Association of America -- the AAA -- is "linked" to drunk driving, and that the folks who publish various editions of the Bible are "linked" to the crimes committed by people who quote the Bible as they take an ax to their wives or blow away a neighbor with a shotgun.
"The National Alliance is an alliance of bombers and bigots," says Abraham Foxman. I am not aware of a single instance of a bombing committed by a National Alliance member -- although a couple of years ago a former member in Florida had a pipe bomb he was trying to build blow up in his face. He wasn't a member of the National Alliance at the time, and he didn't actually bomb anything except himself -- but that's enough for Abraham Foxman and the ADL to describe the National Alliance as an organization of "bombers and bigots." You know, every organization which recruits from the public will occasionally recruit a member who has had or will have a problem with the law, but here's something to remember: the Democratic Party has a much higher percentage of lawbreakers among its members than does the National Alliance. We don't tolerate criminal activity, but the head of the Democratic Party seems to thrive on it -- at least he did before Ken Starr got on his case.
Abe Foxman and the ADL seem to thrive on criminal activity too. Five years ago, in April 1993, search warrants were executed on the Los Angeles and San Francisco offices of the ADL, and police seized hundreds of confidential police files which had been stolen by the ADL. Some of these police files were from investigations of anti-apartheid groups in the United States, and the ADL had given copies to the South African government in return for access to confidential South African police files on anti-Israel groups in South Africa. A lot of the people whose names were in those confidential police files the ADL had stolen sued the ADL for invasion of privacy, and that's still working its way through the courts.
But here's the really interesting part of all this: newspapers and other media took the ADL's press release last week as gospel, and they printed big excerpts from it. It's been in newspapers all over the country. You've probably seen some of these stories yourself. With one exception none of these newspapers even bothered to check with me first; they didn't call me up and ask me if the ADL's allegations were true or if I had any comment on them; they just ran sensational stories with headlines like "National Alliance linked to bombings and murders." And of course, they said nothing about the ADL's criminal activities or its links to the government of Israel. And many of these newspapers aren't even owned or edited by Jews. But they all follow the party line. They know that the ADL is an official Jewish organization, and therefore it cannot be criticized, and nothing it says can be questioned. That would be like questioning the "Holocaust," heaven forbid!
That's a little frightening, don't you think? So here's one of those complications about the way the Jews wield their power. They don't have to own everything in order to have things go their way. A newspaper editor or a television station owner doesn't have to be Jewish in order to slavishly follow the Jewish party line. The Jews own enough of the media -- they hold enough of the policy-making positions -- so that no one, or almost no one, wants to cross them. When an institution becomes corrupt -- and that, unfortunately, is the case with our mass media, just as with our political system -- the Jews can count on using their power to make things go their way. They thrive on corruption. The ADL thrives on corruption. The ADL could not exist in an uncorrupted society.
Finally, here's one other little complication in understanding the role of the Jews. I know and you know individual Jews who are not involved in any political or media activity, individual Jews who simply earn a living and go about their business and don't pay much attention to what the ADL is doing. And so I often have people write to me and ask me why I am so hard on the Jews. They remind me that there are lots of evil people in our society, even in the media, who are not Jews. They remind me that Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner aren't Jews, that Stalin wasn't a Jew, and that Lenin was only part Jewish. And that's true enough. And that's why we won't be able to dispense with the gallows even when we have no more Jews. But the people who are focusing on the complications that many of the world's evildoers aren't Jews and that many Jews are not involved in sinister activities -- these people are failing to see the forest because of the trees. When I speak about the role of the Jews in the world today or in the past I do simplify the world. I do simplify the facts, because my aim is for people to see the forest, to understand the forest, at least in rough outline, before they spend too much time studying the individual trees.
And the forest I want people to see, the big picture I want them to understand, even though it is a simplified picture, is this: Without Jews there would have been no Bolshevik Revolution and subsequent selective murder of two generations of the best and brightest of the Russians. Without Jews as an organized community pushing "multiculturalism" and "diversity" and open borders and racial mixing in the United States, White Americans would not now be facing the prospect of becoming a minority in their own country in the near future. It is the Jewish presence as a whole and its effect on our society that we must understand first, before we start trying to understand all of the complicating details.
The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith
Last week I mentioned a recent attack on me by a Jewish organization, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. I gave this as an example of the way the Jews are able to use the mass media in America to serve their purposes. The specific point I made was that it is not necessary for all of the newspaper owners and editors and all of the local television station owners to be Jews in order for all of them to slavishly follow the Anti-Defamation League's party line. This is a very important point, a point essential for us to understand if we want to have a free society, and I'll elaborate on it now.
I mentioned last week that when the Anti-Defamation League -- or ADL for short -- handed out press releases on September 24 to newspapers and other media in which they said that the organization I head, the National Alliance, is "the single most dangerous organized hate group in America," and that we are "linked" to bank robberies, bombings, and murders all over the country, virtually all of the media simply printed these wild charges without checking them for accuracy. Of all the hundreds of newspapers which printed the ADL's charges, only one -- West Virginia's Charleston Gazette -- even bothered to call me first and ask for my comments. Some of the newspapers, in paraphrasing the ADL's press release, even managed to exaggerate the ADL's lies. For example, the Tampa Tribune began its news story on September 25 with the line: "A domestic terrorist group with a following in Tampa poses an ongoing threat of violence, the Anti-Defamation League said in a report issued Thursday." The ADL's words "most dangerous organized hate group" have been transformed by the Tampa Tribune into "domestic terrorist group." That's a significant change. "Hate group" is an ill-defined term which you can apply to any organization with whose policies or doctrines you disagree. Groups opposed to abortion, for example, have been called "hate groups" by feminists and their supporters. "Terrorist group," on the other hand, really suggests a group which actually engages in terrorist activity, such as bombings, assassinations, and the like.
Then there's the Los Angeles Times, which in its September 25 story based on the ADL's press release stated: "The group's activities [that is the National Alliance's activities] -- including violent crimes such as robberies and bombings -- have been uncovered in at least 26 states." I'll repeat that: "the group's activities -- including violent crimes such as robberies and bombings." The Los Angeles Times certainly makes it sound as if I'm the head of an organization which actually commits violent crimes such as robberies and bombings as a matter of course, doesn't it? That was the Los Angeles Times' interpretation of the ADL's list of "criminal incidents linked to the National Alliance and its propaganda." What the ADL's list actually suggests is that the perpetrators of various bombings and murders may be "linked" to the National Alliance by having read a book or a pamphlet published by the National Alliance or perhaps by having listened to one of my broadcasts. For example, one of the "incidents" in the ADL's list of "criminal incidents linked to the National Alliance" reads: "December 1995, Fayetteville, North Carolina: Two soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg, who were avowed neo-Nazis and reportedly read National Alliance propaganda, murdered an African-American couple." As I pointed out last week, neither I nor anyone else in the National Alliance had ever heard of James Burmeister before he shot a convicted Black drug dealer and the dealer's girlfriend to death in Fayetteville in December 1995. But it certainly is possible that Burmeister listened to an American Dissident Voices broadcast or read some publication of the National Alliance. There are a lot of our publications in circulation. Burmeister also may have read Reader's Digest or the Bible or Newsweek magazine, for all I know; there's certainly a lot of criminal activity described in those publications. Anyway, the Los Angeles Times' interpretation of the ADL's claim that the National Alliance is linked through its publications to various criminal acts is that we did it: we committed the criminal acts ourselves. The paper said flatly that our activities include "violent crimes such as robberies and bombings." And nobody from the Los Angeles Times even bothered to check with me first!
So what am I supposed to do: hire a bunch of lawyers and sue all of these newspapers and perhaps the ADL too? Perhaps I will -- but I doubt that anyone who has actually been involved in a libel suit would suggest such a course. The civil litigation system in the United States has been designed for the sole purpose of enriching lawyers, and because of that the system gives an overwhelming advantage to the litigant who has the most money to spend on lawyers. Perhaps some experienced civil-litigation lawyer who believes this is a worthy cause will contact me and offer his services.
But while I'm waiting for that, let me draw a few conclusions from this nasty business. First, I'll mention that I'm not especially peeved at the ADL about this new report labeling me as the most dangerous man in America. That doesn't mean I won't sue them, but at least I know where they're coming from. The ADL is a professional hate organization. They are hate merchants. That's the way they earn their living: selling hate. Along with a handful of other Jewish organizations -- the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Morris Dees's Southern Poverty Law Center, for example -- the ADL makes its money by persuading Jews and wannabee Jews around the country that they are in great danger from people like me -- but if everyone will just send them a nice, fat check today, the ADL will protect these Jews and wannabees from me. And so the ADL -- and these other hate merchants -- put out deliberately scary press releases to drum up donations. If the newspapers exaggerate things a bit, why so much the better. That's why the press releases tend to be a little deceptive, why they are written in a way calculated to lead to misinterpretation.
The ADL is the oldest and most powerful of these Jewish hate groups in the United States. It was founded in 1913, after a Jewish factory owner in Atlanta, Leo Frank, was convicted of raping and killing a 14-year-old White girl, Mary Phagan, who worked in his factory. The killer was sentenced to death by the court, and there was a great deal of publicity about the case at the time. Powerful Jewish organizations came to Frank's defense, and in behind-the-scenes maneuvering they were able to persuade Georgia's governor to commute Frank's death sentence. This blatantly corrupt act by the governor working in cahoots with his rich Jewish supporters so enraged the populace that a vigilante group of citizens took Frank out of jail and hanged him themselves. The Jews, realizing that they had bungled the Frank affair, organized the ADL for the purpose of handling such matters more skillfully in the future. In the past 85 years the ADL has grown to become the most powerful Jewish pressure group and lobbying organization in America.
Recent ADL lobbying projects have been the promotion of gun control laws and of state laws banning military-style training by patriotic groups. The ADL's biggest project for this decade, however, has been so-called "hate crime" legislation. Hate crime laws attempt to punish a person for what he was thinking before or during the commission of an offense against a member or a group of members of an officially favored minority. For example, if you set fire to a synagogue because you don't like Jews, you're liable for a much more severe punishment than you would be if you were hired by the rabbi to set fire to a synagogue so the congregation could collect the insurance. Arson is no longer simply arson. Now there's arson, and there's "hate arson." And to decide which it is, the government may look into your personal taste in reading material, check into the type of music you listen to, investigate your political and religious affiliations, ask your friends about any expressions of Politically Incorrect opinions you may have made -- and then present all of this information in court as evidence against you. The whole concept of "hate crime" is Orwellian. It turns traditional American concepts of law and individual freedom on their heads. But because the noisiest group of people pushing for "hate crime" legislation are Jews, no politician dares speak against it. Bill Clinton is the Jews' current point man on Federal "hate crime" legislation.
One category of "hate crime" is "hate speech." In fact, the outlawing of what the ADL people call "hate speech" is their ultimate aim. "Hate speech," of course, is whatever they find offensive or dangerous to their interests. I find a lot of the films coming out of Hollywood these days offensive, and a lot of television programming, but you can be sure that's not what the ADL has in mind when it campaigns for laws against "hate speech." The ADL is especially concerned about the propagation of what they consider dangerous ideas over the Internet and has been working with software developers to develop censorship programs which can be installed on any computer, so that computer users cannot find any Politically Incorrect material on the Internet.
Lobbying to stamp out the Bill of Rights isn't the ADL's only activity. They're also the largest and most effective private espionage organization in America. They have their spies in every community in America where there are Jews or wannabees. Reports go from their regional offices around the country to massive data banks in New York and in Israel, where the ADL maintains dossiers on hundreds of thousands of Americans. For example, if a state legislator somewhere in America makes a speech which a Jewish listener considers unfriendly to Israel, a report goes into the ADL data bank. If a businessman at a Chamber of Commerce meeting makes a joke which might indicate a less-than-worshipful attitude toward Jews, and a wannabee informs the ADL of the joke, that businessman will henceforth have a dossier in the ADL's files. Then if that state legislator or that businessman ever runs for Congress, say, the ADL will search its files for his name, find his record, and launch a campaign against him as an "enemy of Israel" or as an "anti-Semite."
And the ADL has not hesitated to break the law in its spying activity. In April 1993 police obtained search warrants and raided the offices of the ADL in San Francisco and Los Angeles, where they found hundreds of stolen confidential police files. Some of these police files were on anti-apartheid activists in the United States, and the ADL had passed copies on to the South African government in return for South African police files on pro-Palestinian groups in South Africa. This caused a stink even in liberal circles, which ordinarily are pro-ADL. And this business of the ADL's stolen police files is still in the courts in California.
So as I said, I understand where the ADL is coming from. I'm not surprised that they consider my broadcasts dangerous. I'm not surprised that they want to shut me up and are trying to do that with their current smear campaign, claiming that I am "linked" to bombings and murders. I expect that sort of behavior -- I expect lies of that sort -- from the ADL. What's really disappointing is the enthusiastic collaboration the ADL receives from the politicians and the media. The two newspapers I cited a minute ago, the Tampa Tribune and the Los Angeles Times, for example, are essentially Gentile newspapers, as far as I have been able to determine. I may be mistaken, but I believe that the editors and publishers of these two newspapers are not Jews. So why do they go out of their way to exaggerate the ADL's lies about me? Why does the Tampa Tribune call the National Alliance a "domestic terrorist group"? Why does the Los Angeles Times say that the activities of the National Alliance include "violent crimes such as robberies and bombings"? Why did neither of these newspapers contact someone in my office and ask about the ADL's claims before printing them? Why didn't any of the newspapers which carried the ADL's attack on me mention the ADL's history of illegal activity?
Let me tell you what I think about that. I believe that in general there are two factors at work here. I'll call them the corruption factor and the lemming factor. Let's look at the corruption factor first. It's the factor which motivates virtually all of the non-Jewish politicians, but also many non-Jews in the media. It's the factor which has led Bill Clinton to pack his cabinet with Jews and to promote every Jewish policy they have presented him with. It's the factor which has led New York's Senator Alphonse D'Amato to serve as front man for the Jews' huge extortion effort against the Swiss. These politicians don't work for the Jews because they love Jews. Nobody loves Jews. They do it because they're corrupt, because they're willing to sacrifice the interests of their own people in order to serve the Jews if they believe that they can advance their careers by doing that. And many businessmen are just as corrupt as the politicians. They will do whatever they think is good for their business, whatever will give them the biggest profit. And some businessmen are in the media business. They understand that Jews buy more advertising than any other group. They understand that Jews own a bigger chunk of the media than any other group. They understand which side their bread is buttered on.
And so when the ADL attacks me these media businessmen are ready to fall on me like a pack of starved Dobermans in order to curry favor with the Jews. But you know, the interesting thing about these corrupt people, whether they're in politics or in the media business, as soon as they believe that the balance of power is shifting, they'll jump. They'd as soon tear apart the Jews as they would the enemies of the Jews. That's something to keep in mind as our struggle proceeds.
Now, the lemmings in the media are more interesting than the corrupt businessmen. I've dealt with a lot of media people over the years, and one of the observations I've made is that they are the trendiest single occupational group in our society -- even trendier than people in police work. I don't think I've ever met a journalist who had an original idea or who didn't follow the Jewish party line with a truly religious devotion. They all march in ideological lockstep.
I think it wasn't always this way. Back before the Second World War there were a few journalists in America who could think for themselves. H.L. Mencken is one who comes to mind. Nowadays, of course, the party-line journalists shrink in horror and embarrassment from the mention of Mencken's name. Mencken -- gasp! -- didn't like Jews and occasionally said so.
I can't say that I really understand why journalists today are such lemmings, but I am sure that it's more than the fact that Jews are so powerful in the media: I'm sure that it's more than corruption, as in the case of the politicians and businessmen. I suspect that today's journalists are people who have been more intensely socialized than most of the rest of the population. They are people who have been subjected to stronger group pressures to conform and have been selected according to how well they adapted to these pressures. Perhaps the journalism departments at our universities don't accept students who don't fit the lemming mold. Anyway, journalists certainly do have a very strong tendency to stick close to the herd and to regard with suspicion and hostility anyone who has strayed very far from the herd.
Now, this is an oversimplification, but I believe that the reason so many media people fell in love with Bill Clinton as soon as he appeared on the political scene back in 1991 or so is that they saw him as one of their crowd, their herd. "Bill marched with us for the Viet Cong," they thought. "Bill partied and smoked dope with us. He's one of us."
And they look at me and they think: "This guy Pierce is from the other side of the tracks. Instead of helping us trash the dean's office, he joined the John Birch Society. He doesn't belong to our crowd, so let's trash him too." Anyway, I believe that there's an element of that sort of thinking in the average journalist's mentality.
Now, the bright side of this picture is that people who think like lemmings and have been conditioned by group pressure to have certain views can very easily be conditioned to have quite different views by the simple application of group pressure in a new direction. You won't be able to change an independent thinker's opinions this way, but if you put 100,000 typical journalists in a labor re-education camp and then select out 1,000 of them with leadership potential, straighten out the thinking of this 1,000 with two-by-fours, then put them in charge of the others, and put all except the 1,000 reoriented commissars on a diet of 300 calories a day, in a year every journalist in the camp will be reoriented: skinny, but sincerely reoriented. You can turn them loose with complete confidence that they'll follow the new party line just as slavishly as they followed the old party line, even after they've regained their former weight. That's the way lemmings are.
There's one other aspect of the ADL's operation which merits scrutiny, and that is its program of corrupting police departments around the country. At the press conferences they held in their regional offices last month when they promoted me to "most dangerous man" they had a number of local police officials with them. The appearance of these police officials on the platform along with the ADL's Jews tended to give the press conferences a sort of quasi-official or quasi- governmental atmosphere, and that undoubtedly encouraged the reporters present to accept the ADL's lies without question.
Some of the police officials were there because they have political ambitions. They're planning on running for the state legislature some day, and they want the Jews' backing. Others were there because the ADL has assiduously been cultivating its relationships with police agencies for many years. The ADL offers "anti-terrorist" seminars to police departments and indoctrinates policemen with its hate propaganda under the guise of teaching them how to recognize and combat "domestic terrorists" -- such as William Pierce. The ADL gets away with this despite its own record of criminal activity. The ADL has been able to persuade the cops to overlook its having been caught with stolen police files. That's a little frightening. If we had a government with integrity, the ADL would be dangerous enough. But with a government like we have in the United States today, every decent citizen must regard with horror the subversion of our police agencies by the ADL.
The Coming of the New Elites
I really appreciate the letters I've been receiving from listeners. Since we don't have anything like Nielsen ratings to judge how many people are listening to our broadcasts, I judge our popularity by the volume of mail that comes in. As long as that volume continues to grow, I'm happy in the knowledge that the number of people listening to our broadcasts is growing. More than that, I'm happy to know that people are not just listening, but they are responding. Because the consistent theme of all of my programs has been that people must stop being mere spectators and must become participants. They must begin speaking out.
Although most of my mail is very positive, I also receive a few hate letters, but I also appreciate these. They tell me things about the mentality of America's enemies. I'm not talking about the occasional letter from a spiteful Jew, in which he tells me how much he hates me, or from a Black nationalist, in which his message is essentially, "Die, White dog! We people of color will destroy you, and then we will inherit the earth." The really interesting hate mail is from the self- hating Whites, who tell me that I am evil for speaking up on behalf of my own race. In particular, I received several letters from these sick, pitiful people after my broadcast two weeks ago on the murders of those two White girls in Fayetteville, North Carolina, by members of a Black gang, the Crips, in an initiation ritual.
You know, I'm not a psychiatrist, although there are times when I wish I were, so that I could better understand people like those who send me these hate letters. I think it's important to understand them because there are many more of our people out there suffering from the same sickness. I mentioned in an earlier broadcast that when Bill Clinton has traveled around the country speaking to groups of students and faculty about his vision of a non-White America in the next century, he has been applauded. Audiences which are mostly White have cheered Clinton when he boasted that the government's immigration policies are leading to a deliberate darkening of America. Sometimes I have been tempted to explain this reaction as simply another manifestation of the lemming phenomenon -- which is to say, most people have no real opinions of their own and will applaud whatever other people are applauding: whatever they think they're expected to applaud. And in fact, I am sure that in most cases that's what it is: simply a mindless reflex by people whose primary concern is to be fashionable.
But some of the letters which I have received in response to my broadcast on the Fayetteville murders indicate something darker and more twisted in the minds of the writers. What I detect is a sort of anguish, a sort of, "Oh, no, you shouldn't tell anybody about that! It's terrible for you to report on things like that!" And they think it's terrible not because two young White women were brutally murdered, but because news of their murders may make some people more hesitant to associate with Blacks, more hesitant to tolerate the growing presence of Black gangs in their communities. It is terrible to them because it is news which doesn't fit the party line that Blacks are always the innocent victims of White oppression and injustice. And it is terrible because it may hinder the great plan to elevate the Blacks and the other downtrodden and oppressed races and make everyone truly equal. And of course, the only way to do that is to get rid of the White majority, because Whites have a tendency to oppress others, and they will oppress others as long as it is physically possible for them to do so. As I said, I'm not a psychiatrist, and so I don't really know why some people think like that. Probably in some cases it's the consequence of Christian teaching: the lion will lie down with the lamb, the last will be first and the first will be last, and so on. Sometimes these notions are pumped into the heads of small children, and even when they grow up and have a chance to experience the real world, even when they no longer think of themselves as religious, they are unable to shed these early notions. Even though they can see that equality does not exist in the world, they still believe that it should.
And probably there are others who have even darker and more twisted motives for not wanting the news of the Fayetteville murders to get out. For them personally it is gratifying to learn that Blacks have murdered White girls. They see it as a just punishment for our racial guilt. But, as I said, they don't want such news to get out and alarm other White people and perhaps lead Whites generally to take protective measures which will avert further well deserved punishment.
These are the same type of people who believe that I am a high school dropout, have bad teeth, and live in a trailer park with discarded mattresses and appliances in my front yard. In fact, I hear these comments about bad teeth and trailer parks so often that I suspect that the kids are being taught such things in high school these days. They're being taught that Politically Incorrect dissidents are low-class people who are chronic failures and want to keep Blacks down so that we'll have someone to look down on. They believe that when I criticize the role of Jews in our society I do so because I am envious of the Jews' financial success. And while some of the people who make these remarks to me about my bad teeth and my trailer home and my general failure as a human being seem to be pretty uptight -- that is, it seems to me that they have some sort of emotional need to believe these things of me -- others really are quite smug in their ignorance. I suspect that the smug ones are mostly just lemmings mindlessly parroting what they've been taught, and the uptight ones are those with some sort of religious motivation for their hatred.
I never argue with these people, because it's clear that they're not susceptible to reason. They believe what they do because they have a need to believe it. I think I could straighten out the thinking of most of them with a piece of two by four or an oak table leg applied smartly about the head and shoulders twice a day for a month or so while keeping them on a diet of a couple of hundred calories a day -- you know, the way we straightened out the thinking of the conquered Germans after the Second World War -- but not by debating them.
Really, it's only a small minority of the American population that is capable of any sort of independent thinking at all. Most people are so tightly bound by either the need to conform or by religious or quasi-religious hang-ups that they just aren't able to accept any idea or even any fact which is contrary to what they see on television. And that's too bad for them, because only those individuals who are able to accept evidence and to think clearly about it can prepare themselves for the enormous changes which are coming in our society. Only this thinking minority will be survivors; the rest will be victims.
And indeed, great changes are coming. The twentieth century has been the democratic century, the era of egalitarianism, the age of the mass man. The next century -- indeed, the next millennium -- will be the era of the self-conscious elites. Which is not to say that everyone will be self-conscious or that everyone will belong to an elite. But the people who determine the course of events will. Of course, in a sense that has been the case in this century too. The Jews certainly are a self-conscious elite, and they certainly have had a dominant influence in this century, primarily through their control of the mass media. But they have had to keep their dominance concealed from most people. They have had to rule through deceit and subversion. In the next century the rule of the elites will be much more open. The pretense of democracy and equality will be dropped.
The pretense already has become so transparent that even some of the lemmings are beginning to be disturbed by what is being revealed. America, the greatest champion of democracy, the great powerhouse which has gone about the horribly bloody and destructive business of making the world safe for democracy during most of this century, has a government which currently is the laughingstock of the world. And this is not solely because of Mr. Clinton's inability to keep his zipper up. Clinton, after all, did not get into the White House despite the system. He got into the White House because of the system. He got in because the system is designed for people like him: for clever liars, for skillful actors. It is designed so that the smoothest liars, the liars who can act most convincingly for the television cameras, are the ones who succeed in it. It is designed to weed out anyone with principles or patriotism and keep such people away from public office. Clinton -- or someone else with an equally embarrassing problem -- was inevitable.
And as every other politician scrambles now to distance himself from Clinton and to persuade the public that everything will be A-OK if the public will just vote for him instead in the next election -- as the politicians assure the public that Clinton is simply a terrible mistake, a fluke, who somehow slipped through the system and that the system itself is still in good shape, even some of the slow thinkers in the electorate are becoming a bit disillusioned about the system itself. Even the slow thinkers are beginning to suspect that all of the politicians who now, finally, are claiming to be shocked by Clinton's deceit, by Clinton's bald-faced lies, and are distancing themselves from him, really understood what sort of liar Clinton was all along and only stopped supporting him when it became obvious that there was no chance at all for him to wriggle out of the mess he has gotten himself into -- and of course, after they were given the go-ahead last week by Clinton's former number-one Jewish booster, Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman. Even the slow thinkers are beginning to understand that even the politicians who themselves have managed to remain untainted by personal scandal, even the politicians who never have been caught with their drawers down or their hands in the cash drawer, are perfectly willing to tolerate a Clinton, so long as the voters don't find out what's going on. And the brightest observers of the Clinton spectacle have understood that the system itself will not endure much longer. The most sophisticated observers have understood that a system so seriously flawed -- a system whose flaws have been so glaringly exposed -- will be replaced by something different before much more time has passed.
The situation in Russia now presents a striking and persuasive lesson for us in this regard. While the Russian people starve, while Russian workers go unpaid and the shelves of Russian stores remain bare, Jewish billionaires who have sucked the last drop of blood out of Russia scurry to stash their billions in Swiss bank accounts, and at the same time their Jewish brethren in the West tighten the screws on the same Swiss banks in the most arrogant extortion racket the world has ever seen. Even the slow thinkers in the West who are observing these developments must suspect that the system in Russia will not last much longer. They must suspect that it will be replaced by something different very soon.
More sophisticated observers of the Russian situation see a bit more. They see the likelihood that more than 80 years of exploitation of the Russian people by the Jews will come to an end soon. This exploitation endured while it was concealed from the public, first under the pretense of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" and then under the pretense of a democracy. But it was, in fact, exploitation of the Russian people first by Jewish commissars under a Marxist system and then exploitation by Jewish capitalists under a media-controlled democratic system. The facts of this exploitation were obscured by the Jewish media bosses in the West for a long time, but -- like Mr. Clinton's lies -- the facts have become too obvious to conceal any longer. Boris Abramovich Berezovsky and Vladimir Gusinsky and all the rest of the Jewish billionaires controlling Boris Yeltsin simply have become too obvious, too visible. The fact that they literally stole Russia and that they stole Russia with the connivance of other Jews inside the communist system as that system was being dismantled, simply cannot be concealed any longer.
Berezovsky seems to enjoy the spotlight at the moment, and he is publicly throwing his weight around now and announcing his willingness to back certain Russian politicians, while the Russian people themselves are becoming increasingly exasperated by the spectacle of a handful of rich Jewish gangsters deciding how Russia is to be run while the Russians starve. I cannot predict in detail how the Russian situation will develop, of course, but I think it quite likely that we will see an end to Jewish power in Russia before we achieve that goal in the United States, and I also think it likely that the new rulers of Russia, the new self-conscious elite which comes to the fore there as the present crisis plays itself out, actually will be Russians for a change, and they will rule without the pretense of democracy.
And if Russia succeeds in liberating itself from Jewish control, there may be similar developments in the rest of eastern Europe, where just a few years ago communist butchers were permitted to switch hats, declare themselves democrats, and continue ruling. Pressure from Washington played a big role in preventing the people of these other countries from taking vengeance on their former communist bosses. By substantially diminishing the prestige of the U.S. government, inadvertent though that was, Bill Clinton may have done the people of Russia and perhaps also the other countries of eastern Europe a big favor. Vengeance may yet be taken. This possibility has not escaped the attention of the Jews themselves, and their publications in this country already are full of yammering and whining about how they're being "scapegoated" again, poor dears.
Be that as it may, this era of sham and deceit and pretense, this era of democracy and politicians and rule by the Jewish media, is drawing to a close. The politicians don't understand that; they think that we're just seeing another blip on the graph. The couch potatoes certainly don't understand it. Even the "wise guys," most of the media commentators and the academics and the business tycoons, don't understand that it won't be just business as usual during the next century, with the Jewish media bosses molding public opinion to suit themselves, and the same old political shell game presenting clever liars and skillful actors to the voters to choose from. That racket has been too thoroughly exposed. It takes more than a mass of credulous couch potatoes and a few clever Jewish media bosses to keep the present system going. It also takes a great many thoughtful and semi-thoughtful people who are willing to let themselves be governed by the system. In the past most of these people had pretty fuzzy notions of what was going on. They accepted the concept of democracy because that was fashionable. It was easier to accept it than to make a real effort to analyze its dynamics. But Bill Clinton, with his Jewish bimbo and his cigar tricks, has given us such a stark illustration of the way the system really works, that it will be very difficult for everyone to go back to swallowing the same old platitudes and clichés again. Of course, the people who believe that all dissidents have bad teeth and live in trailer parks will continue to believe whatever they're told. And the academics and commentators who are slaves to fashion will continue to try their best to be fashionable.
But the number of those who have been permanently disillusioned has reached a point, I believe, where they will begin to have a growing influence on the course of events. They will have a growing influence on the thinking of those able to think for themselves. And from these people eventually will come a new elite of men who are idealistic and yet hardheaded, of men who will understand that the ground is shifting under the feet of the old elite and that something new and different must emerge from the changes now taking place around the world. And they will understand that now is the time, not later, to begin positioning themselves to be survivors rather than victims.
The second-raters will continue mouthing the old clichés and may even still believe the old baloney about democracy and equality, but the select few -- the precursors of the elite of the 21st century -- will free their minds from all of the old cobwebs and will see the future with much clearer eyes than the second-raters. They will see the Jews for what they are, and they will choose not to serve them or even to tolerate them. They will think thoughts that the second-raters are afraid to think. They will, for the sake of example, be able to compare Bill Clinton and his works, on the one hand, with Timothy McVeigh and the slaughter of 168 innocents in Oklahoma City, on the other hand, and they will understand whose deeds have in reality caused the greater amount of death and destruction; they will understand which of the two is the greater criminal, which of these two opponents has acted from worse motives.
And they will understand many other things. While rejecting the lie of egalitarianism and the pretense of democracy, they will understand that the new elite cannot stand on nothing, that it must stand on a strong base, and that base will be their racial community. Only the bonds of blood, of race, will be strong enough to hold in the chaos which is coming. In the struggle ahead only those who struggle for something beyond their own enrichment or personal power will have lasting success. They must be part of a strong group, and they must struggle for group interests as well as their own. The new age will be an age of nationalism, and only those who speak and act for their people will be able to lead in the coming age. But it will be an age in which the actors, in which the clever liars, will have short shrift, because it will no longer be masses of couch potatoes who will be asked to believe the liars, but instead hardheaded men who will not be so easily deceived and who will not feel the need to wear a mask of pretense themselves. They will rule because they are strong and able and have clear minds and actually work to advance the interests of their people. Perhaps my way of stating that sounds naive and excessively idealistic in this age of lies and corruption and rule by deceit, but that's really the way it will be. Things really are beginning to change. The age of the Jew is coming to an end. And the clear thinkers will be the first to begin acting on that.
The Corruption of America's Police by the ADL
Two weeks ago I began telling you about the corruption of American police officials by the Anti- Defamation League of B'nai B'rith: the ADL. Because this is such an important matter, such an urgent matter, I promised I'd tell you more about it. It is a shocking thing, and I needed time to present the details to you -- details which you can check for yourselves, so that you will have no doubt that I am telling you the truth. It's easy to doubt this truth. It's easy to believe that the ADL is the so-called "human rights" organization that the mass media say it is. It's especially easy to believe this when you see ADL officials palling around with prominent politicians and policemen, when you see police chiefs and U.S. senators receiving awards at ADL banquets.
I'm telling you that the ADL is an anti-American gang of racketeers who break our laws with impunity because they have succeeded in corrupting our politicians and many of our law- enforcement people as well. And now I will prove that charge.
First, however, just as an aside, let's note that the parent organization of which the ADL is a branch is named B'nai B'rith. That name may sound strange to your ears because it is a Hebrew name. B'nai means "sons," and b'rith -- which is often pronounced "briss" by American Jews -- means "circumcision." B'rith -- or briss -- refers to the ritual circumcision of Jewish males which according to Jewish tradition is a sign of their "chosenness" or their special covenant with the Hebrew tribal deity Yahweh. You probably won't find "b'rith" in your dictionary with the apostrophe the way it's spelled by the ADL, but you should be able to find "briss." So in English B'nai B'rith means the Circumcised Brotherhood. But really, it's a criminal brotherhood, whose members are marked by circumcision much in the way many Japanese criminals who belong to the yakuza are marked by a missing fingertip, or members of many drug gangs are marked by a distinctive tattoo.
As I told you two weeks ago the ADL was founded in 1913 after a wealthy Jewish factory owner, Leo Frank, was convicted of raping and murdering a 14-year-old girl who worked in his Atlanta pencil factory. The trial of Frank was accompanied by a great deal of very embarrassing publicity for the Jews, and the ADL was organized primarily as a propaganda organization to neutralize such bad publicity: thus its name, Anti-Defamation League. But since 1913 the ADL has been involved in much more than pro-Jewish propaganda. As an arm of B'nai B'rith, which is an international organization with its tentacles in nearly every country on earth, the ADL has expanded its scope of interests and activities to include virtually everything concerning Jews anywhere.
For example, after the success of the Bolshevik Revolution, which resulted in the Jews riding high in Russia, the ADL concerned itself with countering the charge that the Jews had anything to do with communism, which never was popular in mainstream America. After the Second World War, when hundreds of communist spies -- virtually all of whom turned out to be Jews -- were being rooted out of the U.S. government during the so-called McCarthy era, the ADL worked overtime to discredit anti-communists. To the ADL, anyone who was anti-communist was "anti-Semitic." Arnold Forster, who changed his name from Fastenberg and who was the ADL's general counsel for 46 years, wrote in his 1988 memoirs, Square One, about the case of the atomic spies, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg: "Like so many others, Jew and non-Jew alike, I suffered deep pain when the Rosenbergs were executed."
The ADL had a significant role in the Jewish propaganda effort to portray the flushing out of Soviet agents from U.S. institutions as a "witch hunt." Today most educated Americans who were born too late to experience the late 1940s and early 1950s as adults actually believe the Jewish propaganda myth that it was a dark period in American history, when everyone was looking over his shoulder, afraid of being denounced as a spy by a government informant. The Jews, of course, who had been almost to a man partisans of the Soviet Union, were looking over their shoulders. But ordinary Americans certainly didn't feel intimidated by the government's efforts to rid itself of the Soviet influences which had gained a strong foothold during the war.
In 1948, when the Jews made their first big land-grab in the Middle East after the war, forming the state of Israel with land stolen from the Palestinians, the ADL saw its principal new role as a defender of Israel. The label "anti-Semite" henceforth was applied by the ADL to anyone who was pro-Arab or who did not approve of American support for Israel. Being seen as a champion of Israel rather than as a champion of communism helped enormously with the ADL's fund- raising efforts. Among others giving large sums of money to the ADL after 1948 were a number of Jewish organized crime figures, who felt a strong sympathy for Israel. These gangsters, including Jews such as Meyer Lansky, Longy Zwillman, and Moe Dalitz, were engaged in the White slave trade, in illegal drug trafficking, and in nearly every other kind of criminal activity imaginable. The ADL's relationship with Moe Dalitz, one of the most notorious gangsters in America, may suffice to indicate the pattern.
Morris -- or "Moe" -- Dalitz, like many other organized crime figures before the Second World War, got his start in the illegal booze business during Prohibition. Dalitz was the boss of a criminal organization in Detroit known as the "Purple Gang," whose principal activity was smuggling whisky across the Detroit River from Canada into the United States.
The controlled media, through popular fiction and films like The Godfather, have given most Americans the erroneous idea that organized crime in America has been almost entirely an Italian affair. Although Sicilians and Italians made up most of the lower ranks of the Mafia and other gangster organizations in the 1920s and 1930s, at the top there were at least as many Jews as Italians. And some of the most notorious and bloodthirsty criminal organizations were entirely Jewish, or nearly so. Murder, Incorporated, is an example of a Jewish criminal gang. Moe Dalitz's Purple Gang is another example.
Dalitz eventually moved his whisky-smuggling operation from Detroit to Cleveland and joined forces with another group of Jewish gangsters there. They moved so much illegal booze across Lake Erie that it become known popularly as the "Jewish lake." It's good to remember that gangsters like Dalitz did much more than smuggle whisky. They corrupted American society and American government. They bribed judges and politicians and police officials on a huge scale. They murdered people: hundreds of people. And when Prohibition ended in 1933 the gangsters simply switched from smuggling to extortion, loan-sharking, and White slavery. After the war they moved into the drug trade.
Toward the end of the war Dalitz and several other Jewish gangsters, including Bugsy Siegel and Meyer Lansky, began investing their ill-gotten wealth in Las Vegas. Soon they were all casino owners. Dalitz was one of the original owners of the Flamingo, which opened in 1946. Dalitz later took over the Desert Inn and became a part owner of the Stardust Hotel. His gang became known as the "Desert Syndicate." Dalitz and Lansky eventually decided that Bugsy Siegel was cheating them, and in June 1947 they ordered him killed in one of the most spectacular "rubouts" of the postwar period. After that Moe Dalitz was the undisputed "Godfather" of Las Vegas.
Over the years a great deal of Moe Dalitz's criminal income found its way into the coffers of the ADL -- so much so that in 1985 the ADL gave its so-called "Torch of Liberty" award to Dalitz. The award ceremony was a black-tie affair featured on the front page of the ADL Bulletin, in which Dalitz was praised as a "philanthropist" and "deep appreciation" was expressed for his financial contributions to the ADL. And of course, the controlled media were discreet about the relationship between Dalitz and the ADL. There were never any headlines in the New York Times or the Washington Post about the ADL's ties to the mob, but anyone who has the time to dig back through the issues of the ADL Bulletin at a major library, will find Dalitz on the front page in 1985. Moe Dalitz himself was killed four years later, in 1989, in a gang shootout which also left seven other people dead. But the ADL had plenty of other Jewish gangsters contributing money by then.
The ADL was able to flaunt its relationship with Moe Dalitz and accept tainted money from him and other gangsters -- money which was the product of criminal activity -- without fear of legal repercussions, because at the same time it had been cultivating its relationships with Jewish organized crime bosses, it also had been cultivating its relationships with law-enforcement officials, especially in the FBI. During the post-war period the Jews spearheaded the effort to force racial integration on America, and they were bitterly resented by segregationist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan struck out at the Jews almost as much as at Blacks. The most newsworthy Klan effort in that regard was the killing of two Jewish agitators, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, in Mississippi in June 1964. The Hollywood propaganda film, Mississippi Burning, was based on this incident.
To get revenge against the Klan for the Goodman and Schwerner killings -- and also to put the Klan in its place -- the ADL arranged a trap. Working in collusion with the FBI, the New Orleans office of the ADL, headed at that time by Adolph Botnick, paid two leaders of the Klan in Mississippi, brothers Alton Roberts and Raymond Roberts, to initiate a Klan project to bomb the home of Meyer Davidson, the ADL leader in Meridian, Mississippi. On June 30, 1968, two unsuspecting Klan members drove up to Davidson's home, intending to put a bomb on his front porch. They were Kathy Ainsworth, a young school teacher, and Thomas Tarrants. The FBI was hiding in the bushes, waiting for them, and opened fire on them as soon as they got out of their car. Kathy Ainsworth was killed instantly in the hail of bullets, and Thomas Tarrants lay near death after being shot 70 times by the trigger-happy FBI agents. Clearly the plan was to kill both Ainsworth and Tarrants, execution style, as a warning to the Klan not to mess with the Jews. And as I said, the ADL and the FBI together set up this murder trap: the ADL supplied the cash for the informants and provocateurs, and the FBI supplied the executioners. The killing of Kathy Ainsworth was nothing less than a planned murder by the ADL.
This sort of criminal collaboration between the FBI and the ADL has continued to the present day. The ADL always has been an espionage organization, with much of its activity consisting in the gathering of personal information and the building of dossiers on everyone perceived as hostile to Jewish interests -- and also on tens of thousands of other Americans as well, that the ADL might want to apply pressure to at some time in the future.
The FBI is prohibited by law from investigating people unless it has some evidence that they are involved in criminal activity, but the ADL operates under no such restrictions. The ADL hires people to steal the trash from the curbs in front of the homes of people it is interested in, and it engages in many even less savory practices. And the ADL is generally happy to swap information with the FBI, providing the FBI with confidential personal information on people the FBI is interested in but has no legal basis for investigating. The ADL and the FBI do favors for each other.
Occasionally, however, the ADL's espionage work has gotten it into trouble. In addition to stealing the trash from in front of people's homes, the ADL has illegally obtained confidential information on thousands of Americans by bribing employees in departments of motor vehicles or in police departments, including the San Francisco Police Department. When the San Francisco police realized that some of their confidential files had been stolen by the ADL, they obtained search warrants. The Los Angeles and San Francisco offices of the ADL were raided by the police twice, first on December 10, 1992 and then again on April 8, 1993. In these raids thousands of stolen police files were recovered. The police also raided the homes of an ADL undercover agent, Roy Bullock; and a sergeant in the San Francisco Police Department, Thomas Gerard. Gerard, who had been stealing the police records for the ADL, subsequently fled to the Philippines to avoid prosecution.
Just prior to the April 1993 raids San Francisco Assistant District Attorney John Dwyer told news reporters: "The ADL is the target. Their involvement is just so great. People have called this the Gerard case. Now it's the ADL case. Gerard is just their guy in San Francisco. The ADL is doing the same thing all over the country. There is evidence that the ADL had police agents in other cities. The case just gets bigger every day. The more we look, the more we find people involved."
Although the Politically Correct media in America don't like to publicize news which doesn't "fit," the ADL story was too big to suppress, and you can find extensive news coverage of the ADL raids in the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle in December 1992 and April 1993, including the statement I just quoted by the San Francisco assistant district attorney.
Among the 12,000 files on individuals and 950 files on organizations the police recovered in their raids, were files on the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee -- the AADC -- and many of its members. ADL employee Roy Bullock had been assigned the task of infiltrating the Arab group, and he had even gone so far as stealing a key to their Santa Ana, California, office. The ADL had an especially strong hatred for the AADC, because it countered the ADL's pro- Israel propaganda with news reports on Israeli atrocities against Palestinians. On October 11, 1985, the chairman of the AADC, Alex Odeh, was killed by a booby-trap bomb when he opened the door of his office in Santa Ana, California.
It didn't take the FBI very long to figure out who the bombers were, but the three Jewish suspects fled to Israel before they could be arrested. Even though Bullock had the stolen key of the AADC office in his possession at the time of the bombing, neither he nor any of his employers in the ADL were ever charged in connection with Odeh's murder. Also in 1985 Jewish activists used a bomb to kill another target of ADL spying and hate propaganda. He was Tscherim Soobzokov, accused by the ADL of having worked with the Germans in the Caucasus during the Second World War. On August 15, 1985, a bomb exploded on Soobzokov's front porch in Paterson, New Jersey, mortally wounding him.
The ADL used its illegally obtained files in other ways as well, passing some of them to foreign governments. At a court hearing in February 1993, the San Francisco assistant district attorney testified that the file of one American citizen which had been stolen by the ADL had been passed on to the government of Israel. That citizen was Mohammed Jarad, a man of Palestinian ancestry who owned a grocery store in Chicago. When Jarad visited his relatives in Israeli-occupied Palestine in January 1993, he was seized by the Israeli secret police as a result of information supplied to them by the ADL about Jarad's pro-Palestine activity in the United States.
Now the really disturbing thing about all of this ADL activity is not that the organization accepts money from known crime bosses or that it spies on American citizens and turns some of the information over to foreign governments or even that it sets up assassinations or incites terrorist bombings against its enemies. There are other criminal organizations in the United States even more heavily involved in violent criminal activity than the ADL. What makes the ADL more dangerous than any of these others is its ongoing corruption of police officials. In public ceremonies very much like the one honoring gangster Moe Dalitz, the ADL presents awards to police officials and politicians -- including the same "Torch of Liberty" award they gave to Dalitz. The ADL regularly persuades local, state, and national police officials to appear on the speaker's platform when the ADL is denouncing some new enemy of the Jews, just as they had police officials around the country at their press conferences a month ago when they declared me the most dangerous man in America.
The ADL also offers training seminars to police departments to teach them how to recognize and deal with "right-wing terrorists," believe it or not. And the police departments take them up on it; they have their officers sit and listen to the ADL, with its history of un-American and criminal activity, tell them about how to deal with people like me.
Why would any American police official accept an award from the same organization which had given an award to Moe Dalitz and praised him on the front page of its monthly publication? Why would any police official be seen in public with members of an organization caught red-handed with stolen police files? Why would the FBI collaborate with such an organization?
I think that in part it is naivete. Policemen tend to be respecters of authority, even more so than the average citizen. If the media praise the ADL as a "respected civil-rights organization," and if ADL officials are obviously wealthy and well-connected men, with big offices and lots of secretaries, the police tend to feel that they must be all right. The feeling is that nobody who is rich and powerful and gets good press can be bad. The cops either haven't seen the few media reports where the ADL got caught red-handed or they've conveniently forgotten.
But more often than naivete, I'm afraid that corruption is the reason for the collaboration. Certainly that is the case with the FBI. The FBI hasn't forgotten about Moe Dalitz or the stolen police files or the bombing of Alex Odeh's office. They certainly haven't forgotten about the arranged murder of Kathy Ainsworth. And that's frightening. The ADL alone is bad enough. The ADL teamed up with corrupt policemen all across the country should be a nightmare for every decent American.
The Millennium Bug and "Mainstreaming" the News
Today I want to talk with you first about the so-called "millennium bug." It's also sometimes called the "Y2K phenomenon," which is sort of a shorthand way of saying the "year 2000 phenomenon." Ordinarily I wouldn't waste time on such a topic, when we have so many truly urgent problems to discuss -- but I've received a number of inquiries about the "millennium bug" from listeners, and this indicates to me that there is some real concern, some real worry about it. So I'll begin by saying, don't worry -- or at least, don't worry very much about it.
The "millennium bug" is a bug of the computer sort: that is, it's a software problem -- and to a lesser extent a hardware problem. Back in the distant past when the computer revolution began, computer memory -- what we call RAM -- was scarce and expensive. So was program and data storage space. In 1980, when I decided to take the National Alliance out of the typewriter and index-card age and into the computer age, I bought a TRS-80, Model II, computer with the maximum amount of memory its Z80A processor could handle: all of 64 kilobytes. That's kilobytes, not megabytes. It had no hard drive, of course. All data and programs, including the operating system, resided on an eight-inch floppy diskette -- except for the startup program, which was hardwired on a computer chip known as a ROM, or read-only memory chip. And this was all top-of-the-line equipment, the best you could buy in those days. I paid about $8,000 for the computer, an extra eight-inch floppy drive to give me more data storage space, and a painfully slow dot-matrix printer which I had to wire to the computer myself, since there were no ready-made cables available and the pins on the printer didn't match the pins on the back of the computer.
Under these primitive conditions every byte of memory and every byte of program code was precious. I wrote my own programs back then in BASIC, and I was careful to put no unnecessary bytes into my program code. I used every shortcut and abbreviation I could. The professionals who wrote operating systems and the big applications programs for the so-called "mainframe" computers used by the government and big corporations also had to be careful not to waste memory or storage space. One of the shortcuts I used which they also used in writing dates was to write only the last two digits of the year. The programs were written so that they understood that the first two -- unwritten -- digits were "19." Thus 1981 was written as "81."
Of course, everyone understood that when the year 2000 arrived this shortcut would cause problems. We didn't worry much about that back in 1980, because 2000 was still a long way off and saving memory was more important. Meanwhile, our whole society was undergoing a profound transformation as everything became computerized. Cash registers at checkout counters and elevators and traffic signals and the billing systems and keeping of medical records at doctors' offices -- everything was controlled by computers, and many of the programs in these computers used the old shortcuts. So did the ROM chips, which stored date and time information for the computers and which regulated many electrical devices other than computers. Well, a few years ago the computer professionals began worrying about what would happen when the year 2000 dawned, and all of the computers and ROM chips in the world thought the date was January 1, 1900. Of course, by then computer memory and storage space were much larger, and so were the programs which controlled computers. It was quite easy to begin using four digits for the year in all of the new programs -- and in the new ROM chips. The problem was that there were literally millions of older computers and older programs in use around the world, and the task of upgrading all of them . . . well, that was a problem!
Then the journalists heard about this problem, and they sensationalized it. Then the right-wing cranks -- and maybe a few left-wing cranks also -- got into the act, and the first thing we knew, everyone was predicting that the sky will fall on New Year's Day 2000. According to the crank scenario, at the stroke of midnight on December 31, 1999, the world of government, finance, and commerce will come to an end, for all practical purposes. Computers all over the world will either shut down or begin giving spurious results, and then gradually the lights everywhere will go off because electrical power stations are all controlled by computers these days. Airliners will begin falling from the sky, as their onboard computers and the ground-based air traffic control computers cease functioning simultaneously. Vehicular traffic on the ground won't fare much better. Trains will stop running, and city streets will be blocked by wrecks at major intersections, because the computer-controlled traffic lights will have gone haywire. Telephones won't work, and the food in refrigerators will begin spoiling.
The government, of course, won't be able to function, because without its computers the IRS won't know who owes the government money or how much. Welfare and Social Security checks no longer will go out, and without their welfare checks the Blacks in the cities will begin to riot, kill, burn, and loot almost immediately. Within a few days roving bands of hungry people will be stripping the countryside bare.
The government will respond by calling in United Nations "peacekeeping" troops, declaring martial law, confiscating all privately owned firearms, and packing all White males -- except registered Democrats and homosexuals -- into concentration camps for eventual liquidation. Remember, Bill Clinton still will be in the White House, and this will be his chance to get even with all those people who humiliated him.
Even folks who haven't swallowed this entire crank scenario are worried that something drastic will happen, and the more cautious ones are stocking up on bottled water, canned food, candles, and ammunition. I guess that there always has been a pretty strong streak of superstition and credulity in our people. There's always been a substantial element of the population ready to be deceived by improbable rumors, taken in by popular delusions, or swept away altogether by a general panic. People who believe that in this scientific age we're less superstitious than were our ancestors a thousand years ago are just plain wrong. The White public today may not be quite as ready to believe that the appearance of a comet indicates that the end of the world is at hand or that touching a piece of the True Cross will cure warts or constipation, but that's not because they're less superstitious. Today the superstitions are different, but they're just as irrational and have a grip on at least as many people as did the old ones. Today the credulous believe in equality or in the miraculous powers of democracy -- or in the end of the world as we know it on New Year's Day 2000. Part of the fascination the "millennium bug" has for many people, I'm sure, is that it does involve the end of a millennium, and much of the old superstition about miraculous happenings at that time lies just beneath the surface for them. Some of these millennialists, of course, believe explicitly in the Second Coming of Jesus. Others may not have such explicit beliefs, but they still have forebodings of some sort of supernatural events connected with the beginning of the next millennium, and these forebodings make them readier to believe the crank predictions of a global disaster when all the computers get the date wrong.
So I'll make my own prediction. The main thing to watch out for on New Year's Day 2000 is crazed millennialists going berserk when the Second Coming fails to occur. Also a few right- wing nuts may launch a premature attack on the government, figuring that without its computers the government won't be able to fight back. But the lights will stay on, and airliners will not fall from the sky. And unfortunately the welfare checks will continue going out.
I'm able to make this prediction with some degree of confidence because, contrary to what some journalists and cranks would have you believe, the computer professionals and the government have been working hard on the "Y2K" phenomenon for some time. The IRS and the Social Security Administration have brought out of retirement a lot of programmers who are familiar with the older programs the government is still using and have been paying them premium wages to check these programs and repair any problems associated with the way they handle dates. The big banks and other corporations who handle their own computer programming have been doing the same thing. And because they understand that their survival depends on it, they will have the problems essentially fixed in time.
Most smaller businesses depend on computer service companies for all of their hardware and software, and most of these service companies also will have the problem fixed for their customers. The people who will have difficulties when the year 2000 dawns are the proprietors of small businesses who switched over to computers themselves more than five or six years ago, much in the way I computerized the National Alliance, and who have been too busy recently to change to newer software. And if they have trouble with their accounting or billing programs in the year 2000, a few of them may go bankrupt, but that won't cause the traffic lights to stop working or the food in your refrigerator to spoil.
All of the newer operating systems and ROM chips which have come out recently are free of the Y2K problem. Windows 95 or any later operating system will be OK, as will just about any hardware or software produced since 1997 -- and much which was produced earlier. So go ahead and stock up on bottled water and ammunition if you want. Being prepared for social disorder is a good idea these days. But there are much more serious things than the "millennium bug" for you to worry about during the next 14 months.
In general those things are the things I've been talking about fairly regularly on these programs: things like the Jewish domination of our mass media of news and entertainment, the corruption of our political system, the decline of the quality of education in America, the breakdown of our judicial system, the problem of non-White immigration, the likelihood of getting America into another war in the Middle East for the benefit of Israel, the continued globalization of America's economy, the efforts of the "hate speech" crowd to stamp out free speech. Those are all real problems.
Let's use the remaining time today to talk about the media. I mentioned in my broadcast last week that the fact that the Jews make up a dominant group in the media is not the only problem we have with the mass media in America. One problem is the lemming-like behavior of most journalists, their inability to take an independent position on anything. And another problem is that there are some real nut-case liberals in positions of authority in the media, some people who are absolutely crazed by their obsession with using the media under their control to promote truly lunatic ideas of equality, for example.
I've known for a long time that there are certain rules and taboos that all journalists are expected to obey strictly, even though in the past the media bosses usually have been careful not to have these rules actually written down so that they can be scrutinized and perhaps criticized by an outsider. It is forbidden, for example, to portray Blacks in a bad light. If one is casting for a drama which has a villain, one must not choose a Black for the role of villain. Blacks must not be portrayed as stupid or vicious or immoral. The only exception is for productions which are all- Black or nearly so: the sort of films that Spike Lee makes, for example, where the hero and the heroine and everyone else are Black. The same protection from being portrayed negatively also applies to Jews, but even more so. If you need a villain in your production, the safest thing to do is make him blonde, preferably with a German accent.
And in any film or television drama which is set in the 1930s or 1940s and touches in any way on the Second World War or on National Socialist Germany, the Germans have to be the bad guys. It is absolutely forbidden to portray Hitler or any of his followers or his policies positively. One can portray Stalin positively. One certainly can portray Trotsky or Kaganovich or any of the other Jewish-communist mass murderers positively. But not the Germans who were fighting against those Jewish-communist mass murderers. One can't make a pro-German film and then leave it up to viewers to decide whether or not they like it. It will never get to the viewers. They will never have the option of expressing their approval or disapproval. One of the rules is, you must not portray Hitler positively. Period.
Now the rules finally are coming out of the closet -- at least, where newspapers are concerned. Socially conscious editors and publishers are doing their bit for diversity and affirmative action and equality by spelling out the rules for those benighted journalists who aren't bright enough to figure it out for themselves. The old rule that racial minorities, homosexuals, et cetera always must be portrayed positively is on paper now and is being elaborated on in detail. The Los Angeles Times has been a pioneer in this regard, but the rules are being enforced at many other newspapers as well.
Among other things, reporters are required to "mainstream" their stories, both in content and in their use of sources. To "mainstream" a story means to make it "fit" the ideological paradigm of the multiculturalists. If you're doing a story on global warming, say, you don't focus on the climatic changes in North America or Europe: instead you tell readers how global warming will affect the lives of people in Bangladesh or Zambia. And you don't go to a White male meteorologist at an American university for your information: instead you get a quote from someone at the University of Kenya, preferably a Black lesbian meteorologist with AIDS. You score extra points if you can figure a way to let the readers understand that your source is not only Black and female but also is a lesbian with AIDS without being too obvious about it.
One trendy aspect of reporting the news these days, both in print and electronic media, is to poll people: a television crew stops people on the street and asks, "Do you believe Bill Clinton should go to jail for lying to the grand jury?" This is supposed to tell viewers what the average person is thinking. Now, if you want your career to go places, you don't bother to ask White males what they're thinking. You go for "diversity" in choosing the people whose opinions you ask.
The problem with that is that some people will give answers that make them look stupid. So reporters are asked to complete a checklist which includes the two questions: "Am I furthering stereotypes as I seek diversity?" and "Am I battling stereotypes?" And of course, what that means in plain English is that the reporter had better be sure that all of the Blacks he polls come across as brain surgeons or rocket scientists. They'd better not look like or sound like typical Blacks, because that would be "furthering stereotypes." If you're a television reporter, when you do your editing you weed out the Black interviewees who fit the stereotype and keep the ones who don't. If you're a newspaper reporter it's easier: you just clean up the grammar of your Black interviewees. The rules also apply to the selection of illustrations for newspaper stories. You get the most points if you can use a photograph of a racially mixed couple.
And as I said, this is no longer just an unwritten rule that the media must make Blacks and other minorities look good. More and more it's in print, and reporters and editors know they are being graded on the degree to which they distort reality to make it "fit" the crazed vision of the egalitarians, a vision of a just and peaceful society dominated by wise and benevolent Blacks, homosexuals, and feminists and in which White males are kept in their place. Media people actually are given questionnaires to fill out which remind them that their responsibility is not to report the world as it really is but rather as the nutcase egalitarians see it and as they want it to be.
So now we can understand the situation I have pointed out in several recent broadcasts: the refusal of the media to report news of racial crimes against Whites, except locally, and their frenzied enthusiasm in reporting racial crimes by Whites. It's not inadvertent at all. It's not even an unconscious bias. It is a deliberate effort to present the public with a distorted view of the world, a deliberate effort to make the public see the world the way the lunatic egalitarians see it, and that is a world in which Blacks and other non-Whites are the peaceful and inoffensive victims of vicious, oppressive, racist, heterosexual White males. That's their view of the world. It's completely unreal, but it's the view they want the general public to accept.
These people used to be sneakier about their motives, but in the Clinton era they seem to believe that they can let it all hang out. One of them is Mark Willes, the publisher of the Los Angeles Times. Earlier this year -- in May -- Willes boasted to the Wall Street Journal about having written rules at the Los Angeles Times for "mainstreaming" all of the news printed by his paper. He insisted, he told the Wall Street Journal, that all of his reporters meet strict quotas for non- Whites and women in quoting people in news stories. And Willes, so far as I have been able to determine, isn't a Jew. He was, however, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania during the 1960s, when there was a great deal of turmoil on American university campuses. Jews were organizing pro-Viet Cong demonstrations, Blacks were occupying deans' offices and making all sorts of demands, and most university administrators didn't have the guts or the will to deal firmly with the disruptions. I was a professor too at the time, and I remember the reactions of my colleagues. Some, like William Shockley and Arthur Jensen, stuck to their guns and had their classes disrupted and their tires slashed. I left the university, so that I could begin writing about what was happening. But most, including Willes, just went with the flow. They were intimidated, and they adapted. They surrendered morally. And now our whole society is paying the price for this moral failure.
>From my point of view, there are no more despicable criminals in our society than these people like Willes, who went with the flow. These people who suppress and distort the news today because of their own moral failure back in the 1960s are more deserving of punishment even than the Black criminals they cover for.
Additional Reading: John Leo, "Quoting by Quota," U.S. News & World Report, June 29, 1998
"Hate Crimes" and the New World Order
There have been a few items in the news during the past few days which have caught my attention, and I want to share my thoughts on these things with you.
One of these items was the reaction to the robbing and killing of a homosexual man in Laramie, Wyoming, earlier this month. I'm sure you've heard about that a number of times by now: the controlled media really have been raising a fuss about it everywhere. Mr. Clinton, of course, commented solemnly to the nation on it and held it up as another reason for enacting the Federal "hate crime" law that the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith and other Jewish groups have been clamoring for.
Just to refresh your memory, on October 6 a 21-year-old homosexual, Matthew Shepard, went into a bar in Laramie, picked up two other young men he thought were homosexuals but who were not, and left with them. Shepard's intention was to have sex with his two new-found acquaintances; their intention was to rob him. And that's what they did. They also gave him a vicious beating and left him tied him to a fence. He died six days later.
Let me assure you that I do not approve of such incidents. Prior to the Clinton era -- way back before homosexuality became a government- favored lifestyle -- when I was in military school, some of my classmates occasionally amused themselves by going into bars known to be homosexual hangouts, letting themselves be picked up by a homosexual, then beating him up and robbing him. They called it "rolling a queer." I considered it an especially lowlife sort of criminal activity. And today I believe that, just as our society should not tolerate homosexuals or public homosexual behavior, neither should it tolerate the lowlife criminals who prey on them.
Shepard, of course, knew that he was taking a big chance when he left the bar with two strangers -- especially in a town like Laramie, which is not San Francisco. Media people have been complaining that if two homosexuals hold hands or kiss in public in Laramie, they are liable to be insulted by other residents. Imagine that! Anyway, a homosexual anywhere who goes into a bar which is not an exclusive homosexual hangout and tries to pick up a "date" is asking for trouble, and Shepard found it.
But you know, the only reason this Shepard case is of interest to us is that the media bosses decided that it could be made to serve their purpose, and so they brought their television cameras to Laramie. And when the television cameras arrived, all of the eager-beaver local politicians and the oh-so-righteous preachers hastened to express their shock and horror about the awful "hate crime." And then various hysterical women grabbed their chance to become emotional in front of the cameras as they affirmed their Political Correctness. And then, as I mentioned, Bill Clinton got into the act too.
Now, you know and I know that if Matthew Shepard had been killed by two of his fellow homosexuals in an argument over the affection of another homosexual, we never would have heard of it. Or if his killers had been Black instead of White we never would have heard of it. Let me tell you about another brutal and sadistic killing which occurred just a few days before the Shepard killing. This one took place in the Madison County, Alabama, jail. A 19-year-old retarded man, Robert Sevigny, was arrested on the charge that he had said some sexually suggestive things to a girl under 16 years old. He hadn't done anything, just used "suggestive" language. He was, after all, retarded, and he was heterosexual. And he had never hurt anyone. He was a gentle and friendly person. While he was in jail the other inmates tortured him and beat him to death. Why? They told police that they had done it because Sevigny was weak and naive, because he didn't know how to defend himself, and it amused them to kill him.
Now, I'll wager that this is the first you've heard of Sevigny's murder, which occurred last month. The reason you haven't heard of it is that Sevigny was White, and the inmates who tortured and beat him to death are Black. I'll guarantee you that you would have heard of it if Sevigny had been Black and the other inmates had been White. Mr. Clinton would have told you about it. Hysterical women would have wrung their hands and cried in front of the television cameras as they proclaimed their shock and horror over the "hate crime."
I'll tell you about something else which happened a few days ago that you haven't heard about. A Black man, Arthur Bomar, was convicted early this month of rape, first-degree murder, and sexual abuse of a corpse. Bomar had driven up behind a car driven by a 22-year-old White university student, Aimee Willard. Aimee was home on summer vacation from George Mason University, which is in Fairfax, Virginia. She was visiting her parents in Philadelphia, when Bomar deliberately bumped her car. She got out to check for damage; he grabbed her, beat her savagely with a tire iron, tore her clothes off, raped her, and then dumped her corpse in a vacant lot.
Now, I don't have to tell you why you didn't hear about that vicious, depraved crime, unless you live in Philadelphia and caught a brief mention of it on the local news, but have heard about the killing of Matthew Shepard over and over again regardless of where you live. But I'll tell you anyway. The reason is that Matthew Shepard is one of them, as is Arthur Bomar, as are the Black inmates in the Madison County Jail, and as also are the hysterical, hymn-singing women demonstrating against "hate" in Laramie. They're all part of the Clinton coalition, all part of the "diverse" crowd which can be counted on to get on whatever bandwagon the media bosses are driving.
Something else, entirely different, which has really been in the news a lot recently is the situation in the Yugoslav province of Kosovo. The ethnic Albanians in Kosovo would like for the province to be detached from Yugoslavia and become part of Albania. The Serbs, who are the ethnic majority in Yugoslavia, are not willing to give Kosovo to the Albanians. So there's been a civil war going on in Kosovo -- and, this being the Balkans, it's been an especially cruel and bloody civil war. The Serbs have been massacring Albanians of all ages and both sexes. And the Albanians are not above castrating the Serbian soldiers they capture and then gouging out their eyes. That's the way wars always have been fought in the Balkans -- at least, since the Turks brought their Oriental methods of warfare to the area during the Middle Ages. Fighting against the Turks for a few hundred years and surviving makes a people hard. So now the Clinton administration wants to send an international "peacekeeping" force into Kosovo to keep the Serbs from killing any more Albanians -- at least, that's what he says -- and the U.S. government is threatening to bomb and rocket the Serbs if they refuse to cooperate. Of course, it's all being done under the guise of a NATO operation, although it's really the gang of Jews around Clinton who're pulling the strings: Holbrook, Albright, Berger, and the rest.
I don't like it. This business of forcing the Serbs to be nice to the Albanians really is worse than the sending of U.S. and NATO troops into Bosnia in 1995 to stop the fighting between Bosnian Serbs, Muslims, and Croats. Bosnia, after all, is an independent country, and a substantial portion of the people invited the U.S. forces in, more or less. In Kosovo we're proposing to force our way into a sovereign country which doesn't want us in order to make the people there behave the way we think they should. Suppose the rapidly growing Hispanic-mestizo minority in Texas or California decided to start a civil war aimed at returning one of those states to Mexico, and we got rough with the mestizo rebels. Perhaps we should permit the United Nations to come into Texas or California and force us to be nice. Actually, to the Clintonista gang, that's not an unreasonable proposition.
You know, I am not against this meddling in Kosovo because I am on the side of the Serbs. I had an older friend, now deceased, who was an American bomber pilot during the Second World War. He was shot down over the Balkans and managed to make contact with Serbian communist partisans who hid him from the Germans and eventually smuggled him through the German lines to a part of Yugoslavia which was not under German control. Before he left they had a celebration for him, and to entertain him they killed, in an especially sadistic way, some German prisoners they had captured. My friend was horrified, and the Serbs didn't understand why. And just as I did not approve of the torture and murder of German prisoners 55 years ago, I didn't approve of the Serbs raping and then cutting the throats of Muslim Bosnian women five years ago, and I don't approve of their slaughtering of Albanian children today. But, as I said a minute ago, this seems to be the way things are done in the Balkans, and the Serbs also get tortured and slaughtered when their enemies get the upper hand over them.
But you know, we Americans are responsible at least in part for the current hatred and bloodshed in the Balkans. We had this idiotic idea after the First World War that we could erase centuries- old ethnic boundaries, mix people of various ethnicities together in artificial countries such as Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, and make them like it. The same sort of thing was reinforced by the communists after the Second World War, after we made it possible for the communists to impose their will on much of Europe. And so when these people begin unmixing themselves through the process of ethnic cleansing, we bear a substantial part of the responsibility.
And so now we are forcing ourselves on these people again, just as we did after the last two world wars, telling them how to behave. Let's just be sure that we really understand what we're doing. The media bosses and the Hebraic gang around Mr. Clinton would have us believe that we're threatening the Serbs with air strikes and an occupation force in order to save the lives of Albanian children. Baloney! Do you believe that Madeleine Albright really cares about children - - that is, non-Jewish children? She's the one who in arguing for maintaining the embargo against Iraq said that she thought that the lives of half a million Iraqi children who had died because of the embargo was not an unreasonable price to pay for keeping Saddam Hussein uncomfortable.
No, for the Clinton gang the only motivation for imposing its will on Kosovo is to set another precedent for the New World Order. They want the people of the world to become accustomed to the idea of "peacekeeping" forces and punitive air strikes whenever a country fails to obey orders or to conduct its internal affairs in an "approved" way. Murdered Albanian children simply provide the sort of excuse needed to fool the shortsighted American public into going along for the ride.
What does the American public think about starved Iraqi children? Not much, because the public doesn't have much chance to see starved Iraqi children on television, and when the public does occasionally see them their plight is blamed on Saddam Hussein, not on Madeleine Albright and her crew.
As I said, as much as I disapprove of some of the things the Serbs do, I am opposed to using American pilots or American ground forces to compel them to change their ways. I don't like the precedents being set. We may very well see those precedents applied to California or Texas in the not-too-distant future.
You know, if we are going to be the world's bully -- if we are going to take the position that we have the right to tell everyone else what to do, but no one has the right to tell us what to do because we're bigger than the rest -- then let's be honest about it. Let's just let everyone know that we can push the Serbs around if they mistreat the Albanians, but nobody can push us around if we forcefully put down a mestizo revolution in the southwestern United States.
The most important advantage of honesty is not that it gains us the respect of the rest of the world; it is that it helps us understand what's really going on. The deceit our government has been practicing serves more to keep the American people confused about motives and interests than anything else. It's clear that we can have a proper policy and make proper decisions only when we know what our motives are and understand whose interests are being served by our actions. I'm not really opposed to being a bully, if we do it honestly: if we have as our motive doing what is best for our people, for our European race.
But of course, we can't do that as long as the Clintonistas are in place and as long as most of our mass media are in the hands of the Jews. And as long as that deplorable and dangerous situation lasts, then every patriot must be opposed to the sort of policy the Clinton gang is pushing in Yugoslavia: this policy of telling other countries how they must handle their internal affairs and then bombing them if they don't obey. It is a policy which pretends to offer humanitarian relief to the Albanians but which in fact just strengthens the tyrannical hand of the New World Order crowd.
It is the same sort of bullying policy which led to our blowing up a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan a few weeks ago: a deceitful, bullying policy. We claimed the pharmaceutical factory was a facility for making nerve gas. That claim increasingly appears to be unsupportable. It looks like we destroyed that pharmaceutical factory primarily because we knew we could get away with it - - we knew that the Sudanese weren't strong enough to hit back -- and the Clinton gang believes it's smart to slap the Muslims in that part of the world around every now and then so they won't think about making trouble for Israel. If we were serious about controlling the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, then Sudan certainly is not the country that needs to be slapped around. You know and I know that there is only one country in that part of the world which is a threat to world peace or to our interests and which also has a huge stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.
Iran and Iraq can drop anthrax bombs on each other, or Jordan can nuke Damascus with a stolen warhead, or the Syrians can rocket Cairo with nerve gas -- and it will be worrisome if that happens -- but there's really no way we can prevent it, short of depopulating the entire area ourselves. Iran and Iraq already have used poison gas against each other during their war in the 1980s. The bright side of the situation is that most of these Middle Eastern countries have only local interests, and they have very limited capability for making trouble beyond their immediate neighbors.
The one country which serves as a constant irritant in that part of the world, the one country which provides an incentive for all the rest to acquire weapons of mass destruction, is Israel. Israel is the only country there which has been engaged in military conflict against all of her neighbors at one time or another during the past 25 years. Israel is the only country there which we know has been engaged in the development and manufacture of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons on a large scale and which has major stockpiles of all of these weapons now. And really more significant than these other observations is the fact that Israel is the only country there with global ambitions, the only country there with megalomaniac delusions of grandeur and galloping paranoia, a combination which makes dealing with Israel like trying to negotiate with a certified lunatic who has his finger on the trigger of a doomsday device.
If you're a careful reader of newspapers, you may have noted the dispute between Israel and the government of the Netherlands which has been raging this month. Six years ago an Israeli 747 cargo jet on its way from New York to Tel Aviv crashed into an Amsterdam neighborhood, killing 39 people on the ground. It was the worst air disaster the Netherlands has experienced. If you don't remember reading about it, it's because news agencies in America decided that it was a piece of news you really didn't need to know. Ordinarily such things are kept hushed up permanently, but what has caused this story to flare up recently is that a lot of people in the Amsterdam neighborhood where the crash occurred have been coming down with strange and serious ailments.
The Israeli aircraft had among its cargo 50 gallons of dimethyl methylphosphonate -- DMMP for short -- which is an exotic chemical the only known manufacturing use for which is the production of the nerve gas sarin. Also on board were quantities of the other chemicals which are required, along with DMMP, to produce sarin. The Jews, of course, are angrily insisting that their aircraft was carrying no "dangerous goods" over the Netherlands, that the DMMP on board was intended only for testing and research purposes, and that they aren't responsible for the sickness of the people who live near the crash site.
Now, everyone in the Netherlands involved in the investigation of this crash, as well as everyone in the United States concerned with controlling the spread of weapons of mass destruction, understands that the Jews are lying. They understand that the DMMP and the other chemicals on the Israeli 747 were for the manufacture of nerve gas. They understand that the United States never should have permitted the export of the DMMP -- and in fact, would not have permitted its export to any country other than Israel. It is the one precursor chemical involved in the manufacture of sarin that is a little tricky to make. Once you have the DMMP, a high school chemistry student can make sarin with it and a few other easily available chemicals. In other words, exporting DMMP to Israel is tantamount to supplying Israel with nerve gas for use against her neighbors or anyone else. Let's remember that Israel is a country which sends its agents into other countries to squirt exotic poisons into the ears of religious leaders it believes are hostile to the Jews.
So let's not put on quite such a big pretense of being worried about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction when we blow up pharmaceutical factories in Sudan or threaten Saddam Hussein with another war. It may be that one of these days we will want to take drastic measures against people who are building stockpiles of nerve gas. It may be that we will want to interfere in the internal affairs of Yugoslavia or some other country. It may be that we will decide that it is proper for us to dictate to all the governments of the world how they should behave. But until we get our own affairs in order and become masters in our own country, we'd better just butt out of everyone else's business.
The Lesson of South Africa
We've spoken several times about the situation in South Africa -- in particular, about the systematic murder of White farmers there by Blacks and the failure of the new Black government to stop the murders.
The slaughter continues. Since I spoke with you about this in June, another 67 White farmers or members of White farm families have been murdered in South Africa. Many of the murders have been accompanied by torture, rape, and mutilation. Altogether nearly six hundred White farmers have been murdered by Blacks in South Africa since the Whites agreed in 1993 to let the Blacks run the country. That's one per cent of South Africa's 58,000 White farmers. Imagine the uproar in America if one percent of any occupational group -- say, White school teachers or White policemen -- were brutally murdered, with racial motivations, by Blacks in a four-year period. Of course, South Africa's White farmers are in an uproar too, but they're receiving virtually no help from South Africa's Black government in dealing with the problem. The government says it has too many other problems to deal with.
And indeed it does. The per capita murder rate in South Africa is now more than ten times the rate in the United States. The HIV infection rate has continued to climb, and now one in every five Black women of child-bearing age in South Africa is infected with the AIDS-causing virus. Car-jackings are up sharply. Burglaries are up. Rapes have sky rocketed. It's a mess.
And of course, the controlled mass media in America, the mass media which were beating the drums for an end to apartheid a few years ago, the news and entertainment media here which were pushing so hard for Black rule in South Africa and telling everyone that we must bring the injustice of White rule in South Africa to an end -- these media which were telling us every day before 1993 how bad things in South Africa under White rule were -- these controlled mass media in America are now strangely silent about South Africa. Now they have other fish to fry.
Last week I spoke at an international conference of nationalists in Thessaloniki, Greece. One of the other speakers at the conference was the foreign secretary of the most important White nationalist group in South Africa, the Herstigte National Party. I spoke with this man, Leon Strydom, about the killing of South African farmers, and the soaring crime rate in South Africa's cities, and the many other problems which are overwhelming White South Africans. I asked him, "What do the White South Africans who voted in 1993 to turn their country over to Black rule think about their suicidal foolishness now?"
His reply was, "But we never voted for Black rule! We never even voted to permit the Blacks to participate in elections. We only voted to continue the process of reform in which the government of F W. DeKlerk already was engaged, the process of modernization and relaxation of some of the stricter apartheid practices. We believed that this would help our relations with the rest of the world and still allow us to remain masters in our own country."
I responded to this explanation by asking him, "But surely the voters must have understood that if they gave DeKlerk the OK to continue along his path of appeasement of the Blacks and the New World Order crowd, that would lead very soon to Black rule. They understood that, didn't they?" And he told me that most of the voters didn't understand that. They had believed their politicians' promise to maintain White rule. They had not expected DeKlerk and the others to betray them.
I was at first incredulous. How could White people be so foolish? But after I had thought about it for a few minutes, I realized that the average White person, whether in South Africa or the United States, is indeed that foolish. I believe that I tend to idealize White people in other countries, I tend to give them a little more credit for intelligence and moral rectitude than I give to Americans, and that's a mistake. The fact is that the majority of White Americans are quite capable of unwittingly voting for their own destruction, and so I should not be surprised that the Whites of South Africa did exactly that. The majority of White Americans believe the lies of their politicians and preachers, and so it shouldn't surprise us that the Whites of South Africa did the same thing.
In South Africa there were of course the nutcase liberals and the trendy airheads who were happy to see Black rule come and who now can't quite figure out what went wrong when the earthly paradise of equality and interracial brotherhood didn't arrive as promised. But we have exactly the same types in the United States. They're the ones who applaud Clinton when he gives his speech about how it will be a good thing when there is no longer a White majority in the United States in another 30 years or so, and then we can have real "diversity" and real "brotherhood." Our job, of course, is to do whatever it takes to ensure that our airheads never have to ask themselves what went wrong here. Our job is to disempower the trendies and the liberals before they have a chance to take us beyond the point of no return and say, "oops, we made a mistake."
As for the great mass of the people here who are unwittingly headed in the direction of White minority status, the great mass of Americans who don't really want America to become a non- White country but who trust their politicians and their preachers and therefore are headed toward extinction anyway -- as for the great mass of our people, education is the only course for us at this time. Our task is to give our people knowledge, to give them truth, and help at least some of them gather their wits and understand what is happening.
And you know, there is no more illuminating example, no better lesson for White Americans than what has happened and is happening in South Africa. That, of course, is exactly why the controlled mass media here remain silent when White South African farmers are slaughtered, when White South African women are gang-raped, and when many other very educational things happen in South Africa. So today let's briefly talk about some more of these South African things which it would be good for White Americans to know about, to think about, to ponder.
Perhaps the most instructive aspect of the South African tragedy is the betrayal of the people by those in whom they had placed their trust: principally their church leaders and their business/military/political establishment. Let's talk about the church first.
For the Anglo element in South Africa, the church -- that would be primarily the Episcopal Church -- wasn't of fundamental importance. Most of the English-speaking population didn't take their church very seriously, and everyone already understood that the Episcopal Church establishment was thoroughly rotten, was completely sold out. But for the Boer element, the Dutch-speaking element of the population, it was different. They really believed in their church: that's the Dutch Reformed Church. There was what might be called a compact, a covenant, between the Dutch Reformed Church and the Boer people, and the Boers took their religion very seriously. Like most other Protestant sects, it was based heavily on the Old Testament. The Boers saw many parallels between the Old Testament pseudo-history of the Jews and their own history. They saw themselves as a Chosen People in the Promised Land and the Dutch Reformed Church as their protector and guide. And the Church to a certain degree did fill that role. The Church gave the Boers a scriptural basis for their lives, for their institutions -- including the institution of apartheid -- at least, up until the early 1980s.
I, of course, always have been very leery of churches in general, and I could see, as an outsider, some things in the teachings of the Dutch Reformed Church in particular which worried me: their tendency to identify with the Jews, for example. But whenever I would try to talk about my worries with South African visitors, I would be told that their church was absolutely solid. They had complete faith in their church. And of course, I didn't want to attack their faith, so I would drop the subject.
Well of course, when the crucial time came the Dutch Reformed Church did betray the Boers. Their church sold them out. Their church held them back from putting up any real resistance to the theft of their country. Why was that?
I don't believe that the Dutch Reformed Church in its earlier days was anything but what it pretended to be, and that was a Boer institution. I don't believe there was any long-running conspiracy in the Church to betray the Boers. But as the Boers prospered, so did the Church. The Church's leaders became prominent men, wealthy men. Many of the Boers' political leaders were ordained ministers in the Dutch Reformed Church. They were comfortable men, soft around the waist. They ate well and dressed well and lived well. And when the time came to make a hard choice: a choice between their people or their own comfortable positions . . . well, they made the kind of choice that comfortable people tend to make.
The situation in South Africa at the beginning of this decade was one in which White South Africans were still quite well off, despite the efforts of the New World Order crowd everywhere else to starve them into submission with a trade embargo. The country was big enough and rich enough and with a strong enough farming and industrial base so that it was able to take care of its own needs fairly well. There was no danger at all of the African National Congress or any other Black terrorist group causing any really major problems. Dealing with Black terrorists was hardly more than an ongoing training exercise for the South African military and counter- terrorist forces. What the White South Africans should have done at that time was simply expel all Blacks, terrorists or not, from South Africa -- or otherwise get rid of them -- reorganize themselves as an all-White country, and tell the New World Order crowd in the United States to go to hell.
They didn't do that, for several reasons. One reason was that South Africans had let themselves become dependent on Black labor. Urban Whites couldn't imagine life without their Black gardeners and cooks and housemaids and their Black garbage collectors and so on. They weren't willing to do their own dirty work. On top of that, White businessmen weren't willing to give up their cheap Black laborers and pay White wages to White workers instead. In many cases it would have meant shutting down mines or factories, at least temporarily.
And the Dutch Reformed Church had sapped the moral strength of the Boers to the point that they just couldn't bring themselves to do what needed to be done. For at least 11 years before 1993 the Church had been back-pedaling on its racial doctrine. The Church would have made the Boers feel guilty if they had taken the hard measures against the Blacks that were called for to ensure the future of their own people. It was easy for the Blacks to contemplate massacring the Whites -- the African National Congress had the slogan "one settler, one bullet" -- but the Whites could no longer contemplate massacring the Blacks without feeling guilty.
The Jews, of course, were pumping their own spiritual poison into the White population through the mass media, urging them in a thousand subtle ways to surrender rather than fight. But it was betrayal by the Boer establishment -- the Boer politicians and Church leaders and big businessmen -- which sealed the fate of South Africa. The comfortable people wanted to stay comfortable. They didn't want to remain cut off from the rest of the world. They didn't want to have to tighten their belts and give up their profits and face a prolonged lean period as the New World Order tightened its sanctions on South Africa even more.
Many of them believed the lies of the Jews that things actually would get better in South Africa if the Blacks ruled and the sanctions were lifted. And so they lied to their own people and told them that if they would just go along with DeKlerk's plan of moderating apartheid, of reforming apartheid, then White rule would be maintained in South Africa. The Boer establishment -- including the Boers' church -- put its own short-term interests above the welfare, even the survival, of the Boer people. Greed prevailed over racial loyalty and racial responsibility.
In this regard it's interesting to note what the Dutch Reformed Church has been up to since 1993. If the Church's leaders expected South Africa's new Black rulers to be grateful to them for pushing their Boer constituents toward surrender, they badly miscalculated. So the Church has continued to try to accommodate itself to its new situation and somehow hold onto whatever it can. Actually, even before 1993 the Church had reversed its former doctrine and had told Boers that apartheid was a sin. The Boers at least had the gumption in 1994 to shoot the preacher, to shoot the former leader of their church, who was responsible for that change, but shooting just one traitor wasn't enough, and the Church kept back-pedaling anyway. Last month, the Dutch Reformed Church tried to merge with a Black and mixed-race church in South Africa and open its membership to all races. The opposition of one of its provincial branches stopped the merger temporarily, but next month, or next year it will happen. And then the Dutch Reformed Church will have Black deacons and Black elders, just the way the Episcopal Church has Black bishops today.
And what about the other traitors? Well, F.W. DeKlerk was rewarded with a Nobel Peace Prize and joined the illustrious ranks of such Peace Prize winners as Henry Kissinger, Menachem Begin, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Elie Wiesel, and Yitzhak Rabin. Other Boer politicians also received their 30 pieces of silver and are holding down sinecures in the new government. For the big businessmen things haven't gone so well. The horrific crime rate, together with the government's increasingly obvious corruption and growing inefficiency, has taken a toll. White urban professionals, no longer confident that they can protect their families, have been leaving the country in droves. This brain drain has created a critical shortage of management and other key personnel in many businesses and persuaded business owners to look for opportunities elsewhere. South Africa's Jews, in particular, after playing a key role in scuttling the country, are clearing out. Not all of them, of course. There still are some business opportunities in South Africa. Jewish organized crime groups from the former Soviet Union have been moving part of their White slave trade to South Africa. They first bring their White slaves from eastern Europe to South Africa, and then ship them off to brothels in other countries. The new South African government looks the other way.
But in general, businessmen are leaving, and last month the largest business in South Africa, the Anglo American Corporation, announced its plans to move from Johannesburg to London early next year. The Anglo American Corporation, which used to be run by Harry Oppenheimer and is still very much under the influence of the Oppenheimer family and other wealthy Jews, was the company which more than any other pushed South Africa toward Black rule. Even the Boer businessmen in the Anglo American Corporation were in favor of Black rule. All they could think about was getting the trade sanctions against South Africa lifted so they could improve their profits. They pushed other businesses into working to dismantle apartheid also. The bosses of the Anglo American Corporation told the Boer people that apartheid was old-fashioned and unprofitable and that it had to go, that everything would be much better for the Boer people without apartheid.
And now that it hasn't worked out that way, the Anglo American Corporation is pulling out, moving to London, where the big businessmen can remain comfortable and safe, where there is no danger of their suffering the fate of the Boer farmers whom they betrayed.
So that's what has happened in South Africa. In America the rich and the comfortable, those who are part of the religious establishment or the business establishment or the political establishment, also have shown their false colors. The politicians in America, of course, always have been the rottenest of the rotten -- at least, they have been that way since the mass media fell into the hands of the Jews.
And the Christian churches here, which even 60 or 70 years ago were still bulwarks of White American society, have fallen over each other since the Second World War in their scramble to adapt their doctrines and their practices to the Jewish party line. In the 1970s and the 1980s the churches in America were at the forefront of the institutions here pushing for Black rule in South Africa.
And, although they were a little slower than the rest to come around, America's big businessmen -- and I'm talking about White businessmen, not Jews -- clearly have decided that it will be more profitable for them -- at least in the short run -- to join the Jews instead of fighting them. There is hardly a major corporation in America which has not decided to base its business plans on a future non-White majority in America and to adjust all of its policies accordingly. The corporate bosses may vote Republican, and they may not personally relish the idea of their grandchildren living in a non-White America -- but when it comes to choosing between profits now by going with the flow, or fighting for principles in the long run, the principles come second.
So what's the lesson for White Americans in all of this? Well, the lesson is that those who prosper from treason, or who believe that they will prosper from treason, will be traitors. There will be occasional exceptions to this rule, rare exceptions, but we'd better keep the rule itself in mind and not place our hope on the rare exceptions. If we want to survive as a people, as a race, then we must make treason unprofitable. We must make the preachers and the politicians and the corporate bosses believe that there will be no profit for them in treason. There is no other way.
Well, I'll not carry that thought any further at this time, but you think about it -- and thanks for being with me again today.
Tribes
Today let's talk again about an all-too-familiar subject: the murder of our people by the racial enemies we have taken into our midst. I don't really like to spend time talking about individual murders when matters so much more important and so much more tragic need our attention. But when I have talked about this subject in the past -- when I told you in August about the gang- initiation murder of two young White women by the Black and mestizo Crips gang in Fayetteville, North Carolina, for example -- the enormous response I received showed me that most Americans weren't aware of what is happening in this country.
They were shocked by what I told them. Or at least, they were shocked by the fact that they had to hear about these murders from me instead of from Tom Brokaw or Dan Rather or Peter Jennings. They were shocked that the news of these horrendous crimes against our people was suppressed by the national media. And I was shocked that my listeners were shocked. I had thought that everyone knew about this suppression of the news which doesn't fit. But apparently they didn't, and I suspect that many still don't.
So: two months ago, on October 2, Gary Trzaska, a 41-year-old apartment building owner, was jumped on by three Black teenagers as he walked along the sidewalk in front of one of his buildings in Buffalo, New York. Laughing and gesticulating like a troop of baboons, the three young Blacks knocked Trzaska down and then took turns kicking him as hard as they could. Several bystanders witnessed the attack but were afraid to come to Trzaska's aid. You know how the media would have dealt with that: "White adults assault Black children on Buffalo sidewalk. Janet Reno sends in FBI. Hate crime charges to be filed against White adults. Bill Clinton denounces White racism in special television appearance." Well, the bystanders didn't want to take a chance with that sort of thing. So they played it safe and just watched while the Black teenagers enjoyed themselves enormously as they kicked Gary Trzaska to death, and then ran off down the street, hooting and yelling.
A neighbor, George Boos, told the Buffalo News, "I've never seen someone so beat up in all my life. The doctor told me his insides were split open." Members of Trzaska's family told the Buffalo News that they couldn't understand why he was beaten so viciously, and they couldn't understand the motive for the killing, since $200 in cash in Trzaska's pockets was not taken by the young Blacks.
Well, the Buffalo News did report all of this. The story is in the paper's October 4 edition. Good for them! The problem is that papers outside Buffalo didn't report it. The national media didn't report it. People outside the Buffalo area weren't allowed to hear about it. It is news that just doesn't fit. You see, if a Black convict is dragged behind a truck in Texas by three White convicts, that is news that fits. It's big news. It's news that can be used to make Whites everywhere feel guilty about White racism.
Oh, incidentally, Trzaska was a homosexual. I imagine that because of that the media bosses really hated to have to pass up this story. It could have supplemented so nicely their story about the killing of the homosexual Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming, at just about the same time and could have been used to prove once again to everybody how beastly people are who don't like homosexuals. But it just didn't fit -- the murderers were Black teenagers -- so the story was killed.
On October 16 three different Black teenagers, in Burlington, North Carolina -- 13-year-old Joseph Jones, 16-year-old Harold Jones, and a 17-year-old Black girl, Dorthia Bynum -- grabbed a 10-year-old White girl, Tiffany Nicole Long, from the sidewalk just a few doors from her home, dragged her behind a garage, and beat her and sexually tortured her until she was dead. One of the young Blacks twisted a piece of television cable around Tiffany's neck to stifle her screams while the other Blacks were torturing her. Police used bloodhounds to find Tiffany's mutilated corpse in a pool of blood behind the garage at 4:30 the next morning. Burlington police who viewed the little girl's body said the murder was the most vicious crime they had ever seen.
When the three Black teenagers who killed Tiffany were brought into court, dozens of the teenagers' relatives and the local NAACP showed up to protest. It's a racist county, the NAACP chairman protested, and the young Blacks wouldn't get a fair trial. The three Black teenagers are retarded, the relatives protested, and shouldn't be held accountable. The police were brutal to them in questioning them about the murder. They're just children, the Black relatives said, and they should be allowed to go home to their parents. With all that fuss one would think that Mike Wallace or Time or Newsweek magazine would have taken notice. One would think that the whole country would have heard about it, like they did about that Black convict in Texas who was dragged behind a truck. Did you hear about Tiffany's murder? Even one word?
Now, of course, many people around Burlington, North Carolina, did hear about it. Even people as far away as Greensboro and Raleigh read about it in their newspapers. Of course, they were told repeatedly by the local media that what happened to Tiffany was not a "hate crime." There was nothing racial about Tiffany's murder. I mean, how could there be? There were no White racists involved. The last thing the media wanted to do was get all of those North Carolina crackers stirred up. Anyway, news of Tiffany's murder, just like news of the murder of Gary Trzaska, just didn't fit. And of course, there are a lot of other things you haven't heard about in the last couple of months, because they don't fit. But as I said at the beginning of this broadcast, I really don't like to waste time talking about all of these crime details, because I'm afraid we'll end up studying the trees and failing to see the forest.
And I'm a lot more concerned about the forest than I am about the trees. That doesn't mean I'm not sickened when I read about the sort of thing which happened to little Tiffany Long, but the fact is that we are engaged in a war in which hundreds of millions of our people will die, and it's that war on which we need to focus our attention.
You know, the problem is not that Blacks do the sorts of things they did in Fayetteville or in Buffalo or in Burlington. That's the way Blacks are. Rape and murder are their thing. Most of the violent crimes in America are committed by non-Whites. We can't change their nature. We took them out of the African jungle and brought them into our midst, and we'll have to suffer the consequences of that terrible mistake until we remove them from our midst, one way or another. Unfortunately, there is no peaceful way remaining for us to do that. All that remains to us now is violence and bloodshed and much, much suffering. There will be many more Crips gang- initiation murders, many more White people being kicked and stomped to death on the sidewalks of our cities, many more little White girls being dragged behind garages and sexually tortured to death by Black animals for whom such behavior is natural and normal. As I said, we're in a war, and there's no peaceful way out. It's simply win or lose.
One hundred thirty years ago, right after the Civil War, we could have ended this problem peacefully. We could have sent them all back to Africa. But we put it off, and now we've lost the opportunity for any peaceful resolution. In fact, we've lost the opportunity for a peaceful resolution to a lot of other problems. We let things slide to the point that we no longer can vote our way out. The two-thirds of the population which approves of Bill Clinton and thinks that he shouldn't be impeached just for lying about a few cigar tricks he did in the White House has got the decent, hardheaded people outnumbered now. The feminists and the queers and the welfare rabble and the non-Whites, together with the part of the White population which will vote for anybody who promises them more ball games on TV, can outvote the rest of us. And that's exactly what they'll do, shepherded by the Jewish media bosses. They'll destroy what's left of our civilization. They'll take us straight to hell, because all they care about is hanging onto the perks they're getting from the system. That's really all they care about.
I don't want to sound simple-minded about this. I understand that the next President of the United States may be a Republican instead of a Democrat. But he will be a man who will be elected only if he caters to the same coalition of system dependents, the same bread-and-circuses crowd -- feminists, homosexuals, recipients of monthly checks from the government, and non-Whites -- whose approval of Bill Clinton is currently scaring the Republicans in the Congress away from prosecuting him. And of course, whoever is elected must cater above all else to the Jews. This fundamental political situation becomes worse every year, as the country becomes less White through immigration and differential breeding rates and as the continued decay, the continued destruction, of traditional social institutions and structures yields more and more feminists, homosexuals, and confused, aimless people looking to the government for support.
Of course, if the media reported what's going on: if the White couch potatoes and fashion- conscious yuppies and trendy, liberal airheads had their noses rubbed in what's really happening in America, if the Jewish media began reporting things like the Black gang murders of White women in Fayetteville and the stomping of Gary Trzaska in Buffalo and the torture-murder of Tiffany Long -- if they began giving the same sort of coverage to all of these atrocities committed by non-Whites against Whites that they gave to the killing of a Black convict in Texas last summer and the killing of a homosexual in Laramie this fall, then enough White voters might get their act together to outvote the Clinton coalition. They might get some race- conscious politicians in office who could begin reversing some trends. They could begin by sealing the borders and launching a mass roundup and deportation of aliens. Then they could cut off the vote to everyone who's getting any kind of check from the government. That would be a good start.
But of course, the Jews who control the media understand all of that, which is why they will continue suppressing the news that doesn't fit. The last thing in the world they want is for the White couch potatoes and sports fans to wake up and pay attention to what's happening. The last thing they want is for the present demographic trends to be reversed. They have the White, heterosexual male on the run, and they intend to keep him running. They intend to run him right into the ground. Then there won't even be any potential opposition to their rule; there will be nobody at all to challenge them.
You know, whenever I say something like that I get a storm of protest from people who tell me that I am wrong to attribute such a scheme to the Jews. They will tell me, "Sure, there are some pretty nasty and destructive Jews running the Disney Company and the New York Times, but they are only a small minority of Jews. There are six million Jews in the United States, more than two per cent of the population, and most of them have no connection to the mass media. I know a nice Jewish dentist," these protesters will tell me. "He does good work on my teeth and doesn't charge too much. You can't condemn all Jews just because a few of them are bad."
Well, of course, my real aim is not to condemn all Jews. My real aim is to secure the future for my people, to overcome the dangers that threaten that future. And you know, I cannot do that unless I address the problem of the Jews as a whole. I'll give you an example. Imagine that you are living in a nice, peaceful, clean, safe, White neighborhood somewhere in America where the diversity mongers haven't had a chance to do their wrecking job yet. It's a neighborhood where your wife can walk down the street to visit a neighbor, even after dark, without having to worry about being grabbed by a carload of Crips who need a White victim for an initiation killing, a neighborhood where your children can play outside without your having to worry that they'll end up like Tiffany Long, in a pool of blood behind some garage.
Then the house next door to yours is sold to a Gypsy family, say, and they move in: all 27 of them. Of course, the local Christian minister organizes a welcome party for the Gypsies, just to show that there's no bigotry, no racism, in your neighborhood, and all the airheads and trendy do- gooders in the neighborhood go to the party. You go too, just to find out what you're in for, and you meet all the Gypsies at the party.
And you discover that on the whole they're not an unfriendly bunch. Of course, the men all carry knives, and about two-thirds of them have criminal records, but two of them actually have steady jobs selling used cars. Their kids are dirtier and noisier than yours, but they don't seem really dangerous. One of the older Gypsies is a quiet, dignified sort, and you strike up a conversation with him. He has a good sense of humor, seems to be intelligent and civilized, and you think that perhaps he won't be such a bad neighbor after all.
Within a few days, however, reality begins setting in. Your kids' bicycles disappear from your yard and are never seen again. Someone breaks into your garage, steals all of your tools, siphons the gas from your car, and takes the battery. Trash from the Gypsies' yard blows over into your yard. The noise, especially late at night, is a real problem. You spot the older Gypsy you had spoken with at the church party on his front porch and decide to mention some of these things to him. He sympathizes with you, asks you to describe the tools that were stolen from your garage, and tells you that he will see what he can do. And sure enough, the next evening when you come home from work he knocks on your door and hands you your set of socket wrenches which had disappeared from your garage. He tells you that he found them in his basement and suspects one of his nephews stole them from you, although he isn't sure. Of your electric drill and your other tools he found no trace, however. And for the next three nights there are no loud parties next door, and you are able to get some sleep. Your children have even made friends with two of the Gypsy children, and one of their little girls seems really nice. Of course, your children have to be treated for head lice regularly as a result of playing with their new friends.
A few problems with your neighbors remain, however. A couple of the young Gypsy women are "in business," with customers coming and going at all hours, and one of the Gypsy men stands out on the sidewalk every night until quite late, selling drugs to people who pull up to the curb. These activities bring some pretty unsavory people cruising through your neighborhood, and one night your wife is knocked to the ground and her purse is snatched as she is walking back from a friend's home in the next block. And then the loud parties start again.
You speak again with the older Gypsy, and again he sympathizes with you, but not quite as much as before. You tell him that he should kick out of his house the two prostitutes and the drug dealer, so that the neighborhood can live in peace with the rest of his clan. Well, no, he can't do that, he tells you. The two prostitutes are the daughters of his favorite son, and the drug dealer is his favorite nephew. Besides, they all need the revenue the activities of these three bring in. Their government welfare checks aren't enough to cover all of their expenses. He is really sorry about the situation, and he wishes he could do something for you, but . . . .
And what you finally understand is that your Gypsy problem cannot be solved by thinking about your Gypsy neighbors as individuals. As individuals some of them are not really bad people. But as a whole they have ruined your neighborhood, taken away your happiness and peace of mind, put your family in jeopardy, and cut the value of your property in half. If you want to solve this problem, it has to be solved as a whole. You begin to wish that you had listened to one of your neighbors who had suggested to you as soon as the Gypsies bought the house next to you that you should burn it down before the Gypsies moved in.
Now, the analogy is not perfect, but it's good enough. Our problem is not just a few bad Jews who own the New York Times and make propaganda films, while most Jews are good citizens who must not be lumped together with the bad ones. Our problem is the Jews as a whole. In the first place, they have a lot tighter grip on the news and entertainment media than just the New York Times and the Disney Company. If you make a detailed study of the mass media, as I have, you'll find that the Jews effectively control or own most of them: Hollywood films, newspapers, news magazines, television, the music industry. That's how they're able to suppress news of the Fayetteville murders and what happened to little Tiffany Long and to publicize the few White- on-Black crimes so heavily that they've got most voters believing that these White-on-Black crimes are typical of the criminal activity in America.
And as for the majority of the Jews, the ones who're not actually involved in the ownership or management of the mass media, you'll find more of them than you ever imagined possible infesting all of the lower reaches of the media, so that if you get rid of the Jews at the top, more will simply pop up from below to take their places.
And you'll also find that on all questions pertaining to the welfare of Jews, they stick together as tightly as any Gypsy clan. If you want to, you go to that nice Jewish dentist you know and start talking with him about why the United States should cut off its huge annual subsidy to Israel and start supporting the Palestinians instead -- but after that you'd be well advised not to let him anywhere near your teeth.
One final thing to keep in mind: the media bosses who made the decision to keep the news of those Crips gang-initiation murders of the White girls in Fayetteville quiet and also the news of the torture-murder of little Tiffany Long did these things for a reason. It's not just a whimsical thing; it's systematic. They're doing it for the Jewish tribe, not just for themselves. They're doing it because they understand that we're in a war, their tribe against our tribe, and they don't want us to understand that.
How It Fits Together
We've talked about many subjects on these American Dissident Voices programs, but one theme which has appeared in nearly every program has been the role of the Jews, either in our history or in our lives today. To a certain extent that's been unavoidable, because of the influence they have over current events through their control of the mass media and because of their historical role in communism. But it's more than that.
What I've said, in one way or another on several programs, is that the Jewish role in our lives goes far beyond the fact that their control of the news and entertainment media gives them a big influence on popular culture and on the political process. Today I want to talk again about this Jewish role. I want to try to give you an overview of it first. There are about 14 million Jews in the world today, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica Yearbook for 1997. Nearly half of those -- about six million -- are now in North America, where they make up just over two per cent of the population but wield far more influence than any other group.
The world's 14 million Jews think and act like one big family -- even though, like most families, they do a lot of arguing and squabbling among themselves. They go to different synagogues -- Orthodox and Conservative and Reform -- or to no synagogue at all. There are atheist Jews, and there are Jews who have converted to Christianity. There are capitalist Jews and communist Jews, homosexual Jews and heterosexual Jews. There are rich Jews and middle-class Jews and even a few poor Jews, but despite this apparent diversity they do a better job of cooperating with each other and looking out for their common interests than any other ethnic group in the world.
Why is this? Why are Jews more racially conscious than anyone else? Why are they so much more ready to collaborate with each other than members of other groups? Part of the reason is in their religion. It is an ethnocentric religion, a racist religion. Whereas Christianity and Islam, for example, are universalist religions, religions for anyone who chooses to believe in them, Judaism is not. Judaism is a religion only for the Chosen People, only for the circumcised sons of Abraham. Jews are defined in terms of their bloodline, not in terms of their faith, which is why non-religious Jews like Freud or Trotsky or even Marx, the father of atheistic communism, are considered just as much Jews as the most pious synagogue-goer, with sidelocks and yarmulke. The non-religious Jews don't believe the hocus-pocus in their Torah, or Old Testament, but they nevertheless are steeped in the folklore and traditions of Judaism. They are as familiar as their religious cousins are with the claims that Jews are a Chosen People, destined to own all of the world's wealth and be waited on hand and foot by non-Jews. And they are familiar with the tales of persecution, from the time of the pharaohs until the time of Hitler: with the tradition of being universally hated by all the other peoples of the world -- which is why they believe they are justified in avenging themselves on non-Jews whenever they have the opportunity.
I'll not spend any time quoting Bible verses to you today, but if you doubt what I've just told you about the religious basis for Jewish ethnocentrism, just read the Old Testament: especially the five books of Moses and the book of Isaiah. Study them carefully. Even the bowdlerized King James translation is pretty clear. If you really want to rub your nose in this subject, do some browsing in the Talmud -- or for a solid scientific treatment, read the books recently written by a real expert on the subject, California State University psychology professor Dr. Kevin MacDonald. All three of his books are available from National Vanguard Books, the sponsor of this program. Those books are subtitled Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, and An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements. Pretty heavy reading, but very convincing, very thorough.
This tendency of the Jews to stick together, always to favor their fellow Jews over non-Jews, and to work for the interests of their tribe instead of just for their individual interests is a fact: a very enviable fact. It is the primary reason for their extraordinary level of wealth and power through the ages.
You know, there are clubby little groups of White men who cooperate with each other to advance their interests. But those interests are personal and individual, not racial or even tribal. And virtually all of the really influential groups of this sort -- the Council on Foreign Relations, for example, or groups of very rich and powerful men, corporate bosses or bankers, are in fact heavily larded with Jews. They're not racial groups at all, even if they don't have any Blacks or Chinamen in them. They're simply special-interest groups, whereas the 14 million Jews of the world form a huge, self-conscious racial-interest group. They really are unique in this regard.
I wish that our people had the same degree of racial consciousness the Jews do. The Jews understand the power of togetherness. Most of our people don't. And this is largely the reason why we're in the mess we're in today. I'll come back to this point in a few minutes.
The second thing for us to understand about the Jews is their very unusual mode of existence, living nearly everywhere as a small minority among other peoples. If one looks at their history in the Biblical period, they were at most times a people on the move, living as strangers and aliens among other peoples, getting kicked out of one place after another, always on terms of enmity with the Gentile host population. Only for a little over 400 years, from approximately the time of King David until the Babylonian conquest, did they really have a national existence in the ordinary sense of the word, with geographical borders. When the Babylonians dispersed the Jews throughout the Middle Eastern and the Mediterranean world in the middle of the sixth century BC, the Jews adapted amazingly well to being a minority everywhere and a majority nowhere. Five hundred years later, in the first century BC, the Greek writer Strabo commented: "The Jews have penetrated every country, so that it is difficult to find any place in the world where their tribe has not entered and become dominant." Note those words: "There is no place where they have not become dominant." The great geographer and historian Strabo was not the only scholar of the ancient world to make that observation about the Jews. The Jews became dominant by accumulating a substantial portion of the wealth of every country that they infiltrated. And they accumulated their wealth by collaborating with each other and preying on the host population. Their collaboration was based on their racial consciousness, on their conviction that they were a distinct and unique people, superior to the people among whom they lived and deserving of whatever they could take away from their hosts. The Jews in Rome did not think of themselves as Romans who happened to believe in Judaism, but as Jews who happened to live in Rome. And the same for every other country where they lived. With the sort of attitude and behavior the Jews had they were bound to be hated by everyone -- and they reciprocated. The Jews regarded the hatred they had for their hosts as justified, just as they considered deceiving and exploiting their hosts to be justified; but their hosts' hatred of the Jews they regarded as "bigotry" and "persecution." Their history is a chronicle of one "persecution" after another, right down to modern times. During the Middle Ages they were kicked en masse out of every country in Europe, repeatedly. They pretend today that this supposed "persecution" was the result of religious bigotry on the part of their hosts, but in fact it was simply self-defense on the part of their hosts, the same sort of reaction to their presence that the Egyptians and the Greeks and the Romans and everyone else in pre-Christian times had had. And it was this barrier of hatred between the Jews and the rest of the world which made it possible for them to maintain their identity and their sense of racial self-consciousness. If you want to study some of these details of Jewish history for yourself, there are many good books available. One I have read and found valuable is A History of the Jews by Abram Sachar. Sachar was the president of Brandeis University, and of course, he looks at history very subjectively and from a very Jewish point of view. But his history is revealing, and you can find it in most large libraries.
Now, this peculiar mode of existence of the Jews I have described changed to a certain extent shortly after the Second World War, with the theft of Palestine and the establishment of the new state of Israel on Palestinian territory. Today one-third of the world's Jews live in Israel, but this is only made possible because the other two-thirds are continuing their existence as parasitic minorities among Gentile hosts. Without a constant supply of money extorted from Germany, the United States, and other countries, Israel could not continue to exist. Israel would have gone under half-a-dozen times in its warfare with its neighbors during the past 50 years if the United States had not provided massive military and diplomatic support. If all of the Jews in America and Europe sold their television networks and newspapers and film studios and moved to Israel, that flow of blood from their hosts would be cut off, and Israel soon would cease to exist.
The third thing we must understand about the Jews is the way in which they maintain their status as the dominant minority among us today. In Strabo's day it was through their accumulated wealth. They were able to buy influence and special privileges for themselves. It remained that way pretty much for the next 1900 years. Throughout the Middle Ages they made themselves useful as sources of money to kings and popes and emperors. They would suck the wealth from the host population, and then give or lend some of it to the rulers in return for being allowed to keep their privileges. Although they usually were tolerated for their usefulness by the rulers, they were hated intensely by the general population. The Jews bought the tolerance of the rulers, but of course, they couldn't afford to buy the tolerance of the people.
And so until quite recently the Jews maintained a separate existence among the host population, often living in ghettos, not mixing socially with their hosts, generally not engaging in the same occupations, and regarded with disdain if not revulsion by everyone. The great advantage for our people of this mode of existence was that the damage done by the Jews was mostly economic, although they also caused political mischief when it suited their needs. But they had almost no cultural influence on our people. They didn't write books or plays, they didn't paint or compose music, they didn't clog up our universities, they didn't run for public office, and of course, they didn't have television studios or newspapers or advertising agencies. And so to a large extent they lived their lives, and we lived ours.
That began changing drastically approximately 200 years ago, with the advent of the mass media and mass democracy, and the change accelerated greatly during this century. Jews understood immediately the potential that newspapers and other media gave them for extending their influence from the rulers to the whole population, and democracy made this extension of their influence relevant; democracy provided the tool for transforming influence into power. I've described on other programs the way in which the Jews acquired control of our mass media and, through the media, control of the political process, and I won't repeat that story today. There's an up-to-date summary of Jewish media control in the National Vanguard Books catalog, which is available from the sponsor of this program.
But I do want to emphasize this very important point: the way in which the Jews maintain their position as the dominant minority in our society has changed. It used to be moneylending and bribes, and the pressure was exerted only at the top, on the political leaders of our society; today it's control of the mass media of news and entertainment, and the pressure is exerted at every level of society. Some people still talk darkly about international Jewish bankers -- and of course, there are such animals today, just as there also are international bankers who are not Jews -- but the control of the media is the key to Jewish power today, not control of banking. The most important Jews today no longer are the Rothschilds and Warburgs and Hambros and Sassoons, but instead are the Eisners and Levins and Newhouses and Redstones and Bronfmans and Sulzbergers: the Jewish media bosses.
So now let's look at the details of the Jewish application of influence through media control. Most people have a very limited range of real life experiences. Television and films and glossy magazine advertisements provide an enormous expansion of experience for the average person, by substituting artificial experiences for real experiences. On the television screen viewers experience artificial social relationships, artificial romances, artificial conflicts, artificial life. In advertisements they are given artificial ideals of beauty and fashion, artificial life-styles to which they can aspire. And in their newspapers and newsmagazines they are given a carefully filtered, a carefully slanted, view of what is happening in the world.
And unfortunately most people do not have sufficient powers of discrimination to distinguish the artificial world of the media from the real world of everyday experience. The two worlds merge in their minds, and they can't tell them apart. What people see on the television screen is not just entertainment; it is a collection of artificial experiences which merges with their collection of real experiences and gives them a new and largely artificial basis for evaluating things and making decisions. Cleverly designed advertisements don't just show potential customers what is available and give them the information they need to choose what they want; clever advertising actually creates new wants, new desires, that didn't exist before. The advertisements manipulate people's desires and motivations. In a similar way television entertainment manipulates viewers psychologically. It changes their values and attitudes. It strongly affects the way they see things - - including political issues and political candidates. Well, I hardly have to tell you that the modern mass media give enormous power, unprecedented power, to whoever controls them -- especially in a democracy. And really, no knowledgeable person who is honest will dispute my conclusion here. There are many people, who are not knowledgeable, who believe that they can watch television without being affected by it, who believe that they make up their minds independently without relying on the artificial reality supplied by television, but most of these people are mistaken, and the experts will agree with me on this. The mass media do shape public opinion, and in a democracy they do control the political process.
So now the only question which remains is this: To what end do the Jews who control the media use their control? What is their aim? What do they want? Now, the Politically Correct answer is that all the Jewish media bosses want is what any other businessman wants. The media bosses are simply businessmen, and their aim is simply to run their businesses at a profit.
Well, I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true. It simply is not a coincidence that everywhere you look in the mass media you see Jews in control. It's not a coincidence that a group making up only a little over two per cent of the population has virtually complete control over the mass media. The unanimity of the mass media on virtually every major issue of our time simply is not a coincidence. It is simply not a coincidence that the media bosses all just happen to have adopted the policy of hushing up Black-on-White crime and publicizing as widely as possible any White- on-Black crime. All of these things are planned and deliberate. They are the consequence of conscious collaboration. Only a fool can believe that it's all just coincidence.
The Jewish media bosses know what they want. It is control -- not just of the media, but of us: of everything. They want to own us and, to the extent that they cannot own us, to destroy us. Unfortunately, I cannot play for you a secret recording of one of their summit meetings, where they discuss their goals and their strategy, a la the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I can only offer you the historical record and common sense. The record, for those who have eyes to see and an open mind, is pretty clear, beginning with the account in the book of Genesis of the takeover of Egypt by Joseph and his brothers so that they could all "eat the fat of the land," on through the ages to the Marxist takeover of Russia early in this century and the attempted takeover in many other countries.
You know, the Germans didn't begin throwing the Jews out of Germany in the 1930s because of Christian bigotry. It was because they wanted their country back. The Germans wanted to run their own universities and schools, their own newspapers and films, their own legal and medical professions.
If you want to understand the historical record, you must study it. I can't go through all of that for you in a half-hour program. I can only point the way. And as for the common-sense aspect of understanding what the Jewish media bosses are up to, we just need to clear the cobwebs out of our heads and realize that every racially conscious group strives for mastery, for domination, not just the Jews. That's Nature's way. That's the way it is in every barnyard and every schoolyard.
And that is why the media propaganda takes the deliberate slant it does: trying to make us feel guilty, trying to kill our sense of racial consciousness while the Jews keep theirs, trying to persuade us to give up our arms, trying to silence all our dissident voices. Their aim is for us to be racially unconscious, for us to be ashamed of our nature and our traditions, for us to be afraid to organize for our common good, afraid of being thought racists. The deliberate aim of the Jewish media propaganda is to disarm us morally, to make us rootless and defenseless, and then to destroy us. That is what is happening now.
Think about it, and you'll see how it all fits together.
Aesop's Fables and the Rules of Engagement
Last week I gave an interview to a news reporter from a television station in Charlotte, North Carolina. That's station WSOC, channel nine, Michael Eisner's ABC affiliate in Charlotte. The reporter and his cameraman drove up to my broadcast studio in West Virginia. My organization, the National Alliance, has been doing some recruiting in Charlotte, and someone had given a copy of one of our recruiting leaflets to the reporter at a Charlotte gun show. The reporter apparently had checked with his superiors at his television station and been told that the National Alliance is a "hate group," so he had come up to check us out and interview me.
The reporter was an enthusiastic young man of apparently normal intelligence, although clearly a bit trendy, as virtually all media people are. While we were talking off-camera, he told me that he is a recent graduate of Auburn University in Alabama. During the interview we toured our book department, where we stock the books sold by the National Alliance. He noted that we advertise many children's books, and he asked me why.
I told him that decent children's books are becoming increasingly difficult for parents to find in bookstores or libraries, because the multiculturalists have had a devastating effect on the publishing of children's books, insisting that every illustration in children's literature show a racially mixed group, that homosexuals be portrayed positively, that little girls be shown doing typically "boy" things and vice versa. In fact, I said, there has been a real effort afoot to keep traditional children's books away from children. The multiculturalists don't want White children to learn about their own history and traditions. They don't want White children to learn the values and attitudes that are inherent in the sorts of books that White children used to read in America before the Second World War. So the National Alliance searches for good children's books which the multiculturalists haven't gotten to yet and makes them available to parents who want their children to learn these traditional values.
The reporter asked me for an example. I picked from our shelves a copy of a large, colorfully illustrated edition of Aesop's Fables which we sell and handed the book to him. The reporter flipped through the pages and asked me, "What's this all about?"
I was surprised by the question, but I answered, "You know, it's the collection of little stories, each with a moral, which have been attributed to the Greek writer Aesop, who lived about 600 BC, although some of his fables are much older than that."
Well, he didn't know. He had never heard of Aesop or his fables, he told me. And I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised. There undoubtedly are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of recent White university graduates in America who have gone through school during the multicultural era and have learned everything they needed to know in order to graduate just by watching MTV regularly. Their trendy parents, who also had a multicultural education, saw no need to introduce them to Aesop or to the Brothers Grimm or to any of those other "hateful" people who wrote children's stories without Black or "gay" heroes and who always portrayed little boys doing "boy" things and little girls doing "girl" things. When I was a kid one of the special charms that Aesop's Fables held for me was the knowledge that Alexander the Great, for example, had read exactly these same stories when he was a child, more than 2,300 years ago. When I read the fable about the dog in the manger or the one about the shepherd boy who cried, "wolf," and thought about the lessons these fables taught, it thrilled me to think that every great man in our history, for thousands of years, had read these same stories when he was a child and had learned the same lessons.
Hey! But not any longer. These fables are what the multiculturalists call "Eurocentric," not to mention "sexist" and "homophobic." So are the morals the fables teach. And so today they are all "no, nos" for White children -- which is why we have a White population in America which is increasingly rootless, cosmopolitan, alienated, and atomized -- a White population which is unable to defend its heritage or to oppose those whose aim is to destroy that heritage, because they have no knowledge of their heritage, and who believe that anyone who values that heritage must be a "hater," a "racist." The professors at Auburn University must be really proud of themselves -- and the professors at nearly every other university in America too. They all are educating citizens for the New World Order -- rootless wonders all -- and certainly the last things these New World Order citizens need to know are the little lessons Aesop was teaching to Greek children 2,600 years ago.
Now do you understand why Bill Clinton is the way he is -- and why a majority of American voters still think he's an OK guy?
Speaking of politicians and voters, I got a big laugh out of what happened to New York's Republican Senator Alphonse D'Amato a few days ago. The poor guy had been counting on holding onto his job as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee by serving as an errand boy for his substantially Jewish constituency. Whatever the Jews wanted, Senator D'Amato fell all over himself in his eagerness to please them. He was the Jews' principal front man in their huge extortion racket for extracting Second World War reparations from the Swiss people. It was D'Amato, as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, who twisted the arms of the Swiss and told them that if they didn't cough up all of the money the Jews were demanding, he would introduce legislation cutting off the ability of Swiss banks to do business in the United States. D'Amato would do anything the Jews demanded of him. In order to keep his position in the Senate he would gladly throw his Italian grandmother to the wolves, if it would please the Jews. But in the elections this month the Jews chose one of their own, Charles Schumer, to take D'Amato's job. So now D'Amato is out of the Senate, out in the cold without a job.
I can imagine him the day after the election going to his biggest Jewish supporters with tears in his eyes and asking, "But why did you desert me? Haven't I always done everything you asked of me, no matter how distasteful or dishonorable it was?" And I can imagine his top Jewish supporter looking coldly down his long nose at D'Amato and answering with a sneer. "Yes, but vot haff you done for us today?"
So Alphonse D'Amato learned a good lesson about Jewish gratitude. I hope that many others of his type learn similar lessons in the future. I really enjoy seeing the expressions on their faces. You know, I haven't received a letter from Alphonse D'Amato yet, but I have received letters from many other Americans asking me what I have against the Jews. There are many Americans who agree with me on almost every subject except the Jews. They agree with me that the political system which allowed Bill Clinton to be elected is rotten to the core. They agree with me that the quality of the electorate in the United States has declined to the point that democracy has become a threat to our civilization, not to mention a threat to our race. They agree with me on the pernicious influence of the mass media. They agree with me on the disastrous effect multiculturalism has had on our schools and universities. They agree with me that America's present immigration policy, which favors immigrants from the non-White parts of the world, is ruining the country. But when I tell them that the Jews play a key role in each of these problem areas -- that the Jews are in large measure responsible for what is wrong with our government, for what is wrong with the mass media, for what is wrong with our schools, for what is wrong with our immigration policy -- they run like frightened rabbits.
If I corner one of these people who agrees with me on everything except the role of the Jews, I'll hear from him how each of the evils I attribute to the Jews also can be attributed to non-Jews -- and I'll also hear from him that there are individual Jews who are opposed to each of these evils. And of course, all of that is true.
The Jewish program of extortion against the Swiss and the Germans has depended heavily on corrupt Gentiles like Alphonse D'Amato, for example. And I am sure that one can find individual Jews who believe this extortion racket is excessively pushy and could backfire on the Jews. But the fact remains that it is a Jewish racket. Despite D'Amato's role as front man, it is not an Italian racket; it is Jewish. And the same general considerations apply to all of the other problem areas I mentioned.
In the mass media, for example, there are bad actors who are not Jews. Rupert Murdoch is the most conspicuous of these. And there are a few Jewish columnists and editors and even publishers who are opposed to most of the destructive policies being promoted by their fellow Jews. Nevertheless, no reasonable person can deny that the influence of the Jews in the media outweighs that of any other ethnic group, and the dissent among media Jews is far outweighed by their agreement on virtually every major issue.
Or consider immigration policy. It's not just that the Clinton administration has a Jewess, Doris Meissner, in charge of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which is in line with the extraordinarily high percentage of Jews in other positions in the Clinton administration. The key to our present ruinous immigration policy is that Jews as a whole, not just Doris Meissner as an individual Jew, are in favor of it. There are non-Jews who also favor it, and there are a few Jews who oppose it, but in essence it is a Jewish policy, and it is the Jewish support for this policy which keeps it in place, despite widespread public opposition to it.
Or consider the White slave trade, which I have commented on in earlier broadcasts. Corrupt government officials, who are not Jews, in places like Ukraine, make it possible for Jewish slave traders to operate, and in addition to this there are a few Jews who oppose the White slave trade - - not to mention the fact that most Jews are not engaged in the slave trade. But without Jews there would be no White slave trade. That's the most important point -- not that the Jews have Gentile collaborators or that most Jews aren't in that particular business or even that a few Jews oppose the trade, but that it is a Jewish business, and without Jews we wouldn't have it.
And without Jews we wouldn't have a lot of other problems too. That doesn't mean that we would have a problem-free society, but at least we would have manageable problems, and we could go to work on them without having to simultaneously fight the media and the government. Above all our other problems today looms the problem of Jewish control of our mass media, with the disastrous influence the media have on all our public institutions, from government to schools, and on private attitudes, opinions, and behavior.
To me that seems self-evident, and I really become impatient with people who refuse to recognize the key role the Jews are playing in the destruction of our civilization or who pretend to be confused by the fact that not every single Jew is involved or that non-Jews also are involved. This is a case where too much sophistication simply is not helpful: a case where trying too hard to be reasonable and fair will get us all killed and bring about the end of our civilization.
Can you imagine being involved in a war in which the primary rule of engagement was that you were not permitted to shoot at an enemy soldier, regardless of the fact that he was wearing an enemy uniform, until you had personally observed him shooting at you or had personally questioned him and determined his hostile intent -- a war in which you were required to assume that a soldier in an enemy uniform really was friendly until you had concrete evidence to the contrary -- a war in which your general explained to you that this rule of engagement was justified because most of the enemy soldiers were only support troops, not combat troops, and besides, there were a few soldiers on the other side who weren't really hostile -- a war in which you were liable to be court-martialed for anti-Semitism if you actually began shooting enemy soldiers? Can you imagine being in such a war? Clearly, the only way for your side to win would be for you to shoot your subversive general first and then adopt a new rule of engagement, under which the simple fact that a soldier was wearing the enemy uniform was sufficient evidence of his hostile intent and sufficient grounds for you to fire on him without further ado.
Now, the fact is that we are engaged in just such a war today. It is a war for survival, a war of extinction, of annihilation, a race war to the death. It is a war in which White Americans are being pushed to the wall, are being crowded out of their own land by non-Whites of every sort -- by Blacks, by Hispanics, by Asians, by Middle Easterners -- crowded out of their employment, crowded out of their schools, crowded out of their neighborhoods. It is a war in which there can be no truce, no peaceful resolution, only victory or extinction, because the populations of those who covet our living space continue to grow, while that space does not.
And in this war our generals -- which is to say, our government and our mass media -- are telling us that we must not judge our enemies by the uniforms they are wearing -- which is to say, by the color of their skin or the tribe to which they belong -- but we must ignore their uniforms and judge each of them individually, and we must keep in mind that some of them are pleasant and inoffensive individuals, while there are many very destructive and undesirable individuals among our own people. And especially, we must not judge our generals by the particular Middle Eastern tribe to which so many of them just happen to belong. And of course, we are losing this war. It is time to shoot some generals and change the rules of engagement. It is time to be a little less confused by sophistries and to call a spade a spade -- and to call a Jew a Jew. And it is time to begin considering as traitors those who wring their hands and assert that there's enough space for everyone, and please, can't we all just learn to share and to get along with each other? It is time, as is proper during a war, to begin dealing with them as traitors.
Before we can do anything else, however, we need first to be able to think clearly about our situation, and then we need to find the courage to deal with it in a reasonable way. Many of our people do understand our situation -- many more, I am sorry to say -- than have the courage to deal with it properly or even to speak publicly about it. Lack of courage is a bigger problem for us than lack of understanding. The fact is that too many of our people are willing only to take public positions which will not subject them to too much criticism, positions which are not too dangerous and won't get them kicked out of the country club.
Of course, what's dangerous depends upon one's station in our society. In many social settings, for example, one can complain about the government's immigration policy, if one doesn't become too specific about the racial aspects of that policy. But almost nowhere can one openly talk about the Jewish aspects of immigration policy without risking reprisals. So that leaves on just a few of us now the burden of continuing to speak out, of continuing to explain our situation, of continuing to build understanding in our people.
So I'll finish today with a recapitulation: There are many of our people -- including educated people, successful people -- who, like the television reporter from Charlotte, North Carolina, who interviewed me last week, have never heard of Aesop and who believe that whatever he wrote wasn't really important. They are ignorant and rootless because they had trendy, airhead parents and went to multiculturalized schools where they were taught by Politically Correct teachers and professors. And of course, these people will raise their own children in a similar way and send them to schools where they will receive similar educations. So in a sense it is correct to say that a great many people are responsible for this deplorable situation, for this increasing rootlessness of each succeeding generation of our people; in a sense the whole society is responsible.
There is more to it, however: this rootlessness, whether manifested as ignorance of the oldest traditions of our people or in some other way, is not a natural or accidental development. It has been planned and orchestrated. It is deliberate. The people who planned it -- the people who continue to orchestrate it -- are Jews. In every society they enter, the Jews immediately begin gnawing on the roots. They understand that only after they have destroyed the people's roots -- only after they have made the society rootless and cosmopolitan -- will they have free rein and be able to manipulate and exploit the people without resistance. They understand this at an instinctive level. That is why wherever you look in a society which has been infested by Jews, into whichever festering sore you peer, you will find the Jews at work destroying roots.
They have many collaborators among our own people, but the plan to cut our people loose from their roots, so we will have no basis for defending our civilization, is a Jewish plan -- just as the racket to extort billions of dollars from the Swiss and the Germans and other European peoples for wrongs allegedly inflicted during the Second World War is a Jewish racket, despite the collaboration of non-Jews such as Alphonse D'Amato.
The program to weed all traditional books for White children out of libraries and out of school curricula is a Jewish program, despite the fact that one can find individual Jews who claim to support traditional education and traditional culture. One can find organizations run by Jews which support performances of Shakespeare's plays. One can find Jewish Mozart societies and Jewish Beethoven societies. Perhaps one can even find a Jewish Aesop society if one looks hard enough. But as surely as Aesop is being removed from our culture, so are Shakespeare and Mozart and Beethoven. The Jews appropriate our culture and our traditions before they destroy them. But destruction always is their ultimate aim, and the Jewish mass media are the principal agents of destruction. That is what we must remember. That is why we must change the rules of engagement.
What We Owe Sam Dash
Something very interesting happened on Friday of last week. Samuel Dash, a high-profile Jew lawyer that Special Prosecutor Ken Starr has employed for the past four years as a high-priced consultant during his investigation of Clinton's illegal behavior, suddenly torpedoed his employer in a sneak attack that severely damaged the effort to impeach Clinton and remove him from office.
Let's look at the details. Samuel Dash gained his high profile 25 years ago, when he was the chief counsel of the Senate committee investigating the Watergate scandal. He had close ties to people at the Washington Post, and it has been widely assumed that he orchestrated the torrent of leaks from his investigating staff to the media. It was these leaks to the media day after day, for month after month, virtually all of them damaging to Nixon and his allies, which unraveled the Nixon presidency. In any case, Dash played a key role in the process which eventually forced Nixon to resign from office in 1974.
When Ken Starr hired Dash in 1994 as a member of his staff to investigate Clinton's criminal activity, the reasoning seemed to be that as a well-known Jewish Democrat, Dash would give "balance" to Starr's team and deflect charges from Clinton supporters that the investigation was a partisan effort by Republicans and Christian conservatives out to "get" Clinton. And Dash was not the only Jew working for Ken Starr. Starr, a naive, straitlaced preacher's son, really seems to have a blind spot where Jews are concerned -- as in fact, a great many other Christian conservatives do. In Starr's case, perhaps the fact that he is married to a Jewess has had something to do with his leaving himself open to Jewish sabotage.
Starr was paying Dash $3200 a week for four or five hours of work -- until Friday of last week. On Friday, the day after the opening of impeachment hearings by the House Judiciary Committee, Samuel Dash announced that he was resigning from Ken Starr's staff because Starr wasn't being fair to Mr. Clinton and had acted unethically in giving his opening statement to the Judiciary Committee on the previous day. Dash had given Starr no warning of what he intended to do, and it caught the special prosecutor completely by surprise. It didn't catch the media people by surprise, however, because rumors already had been buzzing among them that Dash was involved in secret meetings with Clinton's people in the days before his resignation last week, and so they were expecting some interesting developments. Other members of Starr's staff had exactly the same suspicions. One of them was quoted by Newsweek magazine this week saying that Dash had become a "traitor" who "willfully aligned himself with the other side." Starr was especially surprised, because he had showed to Dash the report he intended to give to the Congress, and Dash had agreed with all of Starr's conclusions.
What was really interesting was to see the Republicans backpedaling and the Clintonistas gloating after Dash sandbagged Starr. The Republicans already were nervous about continuing with the impeachment process against Clinton after the lemmings had shown in the election results earlier this month that they were more interested in getting back to their ball games and funny papers than in having the law enforced. When Dash denounced the prosecution of Bill Clinton as "unethical," many Republicans ran for cover. It's clear that they're looking for a quick and easy way out now, rather than giving Clinton the punishment he deserves.
Now, the really interesting question is, why did Dash do it? Why at this time torpedo the investigation that he had been a part of for four years? Why was he so eager to let Clinton off the hook that he would betray the man who had hired him as counsel and risk charges of unethical behavior himself?
Now I'll tell you what I think. I can't prove it, but if I am correct events soon will prove me right. I think that the bigshot Jew lawyer Samuel Dash made a secret deal with Bill Clinton on a matter of great importance to Dash's fellow Jews. Dash would launch a treacherous, surprise attack on his employer, Kenneth Starr, and take much of the steam out of the impeachment process if Bill Clinton would make a firm commitment to find any convenient excuse for getting the war against Iraq started quickly: any plausible excuse. As I prepare this broadcast, the war still hasn't started. It may have begun before I'm actually on the air. But if it hasn't I have a strong suspicion that Mr. Clinton soon will seize any pretext, no matter how flimsy -- he will invent a pretext -- for claiming that Saddam Hussein is defying the United Nations again. The Jewish media will back him up, of course, and the slaughter will begin.
Now, that's just my hunch, my suspicion, as to Samuel Dash's motive for doing something which is otherwise inexplicable. The Jews really do want this war. They desperately need this war. And they certainly don't want to have to fight it themselves. Well, we'll see. Meanwhile, we get to see that grinning piece of filth in the White House become cocky again in the knowledge that he's beat yet another rap -- probably.
You know, it's my belief that it behooves us always to try to find something good in our situation, no matter how bad it seems. We ought to look for an advantageous aspect in every disaster that befalls us and see what we can do to make it more advantageous. That's the only way for us to keep our courage up; it's our only hope for improving things. And certainly, if we assess our situation objectively today, it is a full-fledged disaster. We Americans -- we White Americans, we European Americans -- are largely a population of mindless, spineless lemmings with a government consisting entirely of criminals, and we are all -- people and government -- under the control of a tribe of alien, bloodsucking parasites who use us and abuse us at their pleasure.
Perhaps that summary of our situation sounds too harsh, too extreme -- but I believe that it's pretty accurate. Just back off for a minute and look at what already has happened to us. At the beginning of this century we were the undisputed masters of all we surveyed. There was no possibility of Black thugs terrorizing White children in our public schools, no possibility of mestizos pouring across our southern border and taking over the southwestern United States while we did nothing to stop them, no possibility of Jews using our popular media to blatantly persuade our trendy young women that it's fashionable to go to bed with Negroes, no possibility of having someone like Bill Clinton in the White House. And today we have all of these things.
That's a very crude summary of the transformation in our situation which has occurred in this century, but it's accurate. Every one of these changes actually has occurred. I've spoken with you on many broadcasts about how these changes occurred. I've spoken with you about the gradual takeover of our mass media by Jews, about the way in which they consolidated their control of Hollywood and of Madison Avenue and of our most influential newspapers and magazines. I've spoken with you about the way in which this Jewish control of our media has been used to change our attitudes and values, to weaken us, to make us more tolerant of every sort of evil; I've spoken with you about the effects of the media, the effects of propaganda on our people. I've spoken with you about how the American electorate has been degraded as it was extended to broader and broader segments of the population during this century. I've spoken with you about the fundamental flaws in democracy itself. And it's important to understand all of these things, to understand this disaster. But, hey, I promised you a bright spot we could focus on.
So how's this for a bright spot: Clinton, after being exposed for what he is, after having the incontrovertible proof of his criminality displayed for all to see, gets to remain President. This lying draft dodger gets to become a war hero by being our fearless commander-in-chief while we use our cruise missiles and smart bombs to wipe out all of those camel jockeys and towel-heads in the Middle East -- and their women and children too, of course: little towel-heads will grow up to be big towel-heads who will then be a new problem for those nice, democratic, Jewish allies of ours in Israel. Clinton gets to stay in the White House for two more years, begins getting good press again, and then gets honorably discharged with all of the perquisites the system provides for ex-presidents.
That ought to knock some wind out of those who think the system is still basically sound and we ought to give it a chance to work. That ought to wake up some of the wishful thinkers who still believe we can vote our way out of this disaster. Seeing Clinton get away with everything he's done and watching his popularity rating with the lemmings shoot back up ought to help us straighten out our thinking about political matters.
Those Americans who still think of themselves as patriots -- those who still think -- ought to learn something valuable from this obscene circus we have been witnessing in Washington. They ought to stop believing that the Republicans or any other political party can rescue them from the Democrats. So if we can't vote our way out of our current disaster, what can we do?
Well, one thing that we cannot do at this time is shoot our way out. I just don't believe that any scheme based on illegal activity or on a violent confrontation with the government can succeed at this time or in the near future. The Pentagon's cruise missiles and smart bombs can be used against us just as easily as against Iraqi women and children. I know that there are some Christian patriots who believe that their faith will give them an advantage over Washington's forces of godless democracy, but that'll work about as well as the faith that many Blacks in Africa have that their witch doctors can make them immune to bullets. And there are some militia people who are looking forward to a major disruption of Washington's forces in the year 2000, when, they believe, the government's computers will stop working. But that's also wishful thinking. Any disruption of government capabilities in 2000 will be very minor and ultimately inconsequential.
The best thing that one can hope for in that direction is that there may be a few leaders in our armed forces who have some sense of honor left and who will decide that they cannot simultaneously obey Bill Clinton as their commander-in-chief and also satisfy their obligations to their country. In fact, a few lower-ranking officers already have said as much in public statements recently. But you know, the Jews and the democrats began worrying about that sort of thing a long time ago, and they've pretty well done the same sort of wrecking job on our military leadership that they've done on our universities. Ever since the end of the Second World War the only way one could rise in the leadership ranks of our armed forces was to be a paragon of Political Correctness. If we had a few top generals today of the George Patton stripe -- and 60 years younger, of course -- Clinton and his whole crew of Jews, lesbians, and sniveling, 1960s- style trendies would have been dragged out of the White House, put up against a wall, and shot long before now. And then a similar cleansing operation would have been repeated at the Capitol and then at the Justice Department and at a dozen other government buildings. As it is, I'm not confident that there's a general left on active duty who still has a sense of honor. They're all politicians these days: all Eisenhower types. When a country decays, all of its institutions decay.
I'll repeat what I've already said: the biggest benefit to America to come out of the Clinton affair is the clear and forceful demonstration that it is not just Clinton but the system itself which is rotten and which must be replaced. That demonstration has had no effect on the lemmings, of course, other than persuading a few more of them that there's no point in voting, but in the long run the lemmings don't really count anyway. What the patriots should have learned -- what the independent thinkers should have learned -- is that we must stop wasting our time on various reform schemes and instead prepare for revolution.
And how does one prepare for revolution in our situation? I have been told by people who should know, by trained psychologists, professors of psychology, that everyone acts in accord with his perceived self-interest. Perceived self-interest is what motivates people, whether they are professors or generals or businessmen or office workers or housewives.
And for a long time I resisted believing that. I wanted to believe that there was something else in our people, something finer, something nobler. I wanted to believe that a patriot, for example, is a person who is motivated by a sense of history and tradition and a deep love for his people and for what is right. But I now accept the view of the psychologists that patriots are pretty much like the rest of the population, just with different opinions. They say patriotic things, but when decisions must be made about what to do, they act in accord with their perceived self-interest -- in most cases. Undoubtedly there still are a few zealots among us, a few Eric Rudolphs and Timothy McVeighs, who will do what they believe is right rather than what seems advantageous. But one cannot make a revolution with a handful of zealots. What we must do is persuade a substantial number of patriots -- and more generally, a substantial number of thinking people -- that their self-interest will be better served by revolution than by supporting the system or by sitting on their hands.
I'm not talking about persuading a majority. We're not looking for votes. But we must persuade a few hundred thousand thinking people -- a few hundred thousand people who now are involved in keeping the system going in one way or another -- we must help them understand that their interests really lie in getting rid of the present system and building something new and fundamentally different. How does one persuade a general who is receiving a salary of $120,000 a year plus really a lot of very nice perks from this system that it will be to his advantage to do away with it? How does one persuade a university professor who has a secure and comfortable position in a system that demands only Political Correctness from him that he should turn against that system? How does one persuade a businessman who has learned how to turn the system to his advantage, despite its corruption, and to make a good profit from it that he should begin rocking the boat? How does one persuade the office worker or factory worker, who despite everything is still living pretty comfortably, that he should bite the hand that is feeding him?
We have observed over and over again in history that strong governments are not overthrown from within, no matter how immoral and oppressive they are. Only weak governments are overthrown from within; only weak governments are susceptible to revolution. Unfortunately, there's not much that you or I can do to weaken this government at this time. Bill Clinton is doing a much better job of that than we can. Our job now is simply to help people see the system's weakness, to help them understand that continuing to put their faith in a weak system will not serve their interests well. That job is more difficult when people are feeling comfortable and secure, easier when they are uncomfortable or frightened.
This is a difficult time, despite all of the help Bill Clinton is giving us. This is a time when it is very difficult to persuade people who have a short-range perception of where their interests lie. This is a time when we are able to persuade only those who have a fairly long-range view of things, those who include in their own self-interest the interests of their children and their grandchildren: those who really care what sort of world their children must live in. And you know, there still are a fair number of our people out there who do care about things like that, people who do think beyond what's in the refrigerator and how much they can charge on their credit card this month.
Even among our political generals, there are those who deeply resent having to take orders from a slimeball like Bill Clinton -- of that I am certain -- and I suspect that among these there are a few who do think ahead to the long-range implications of our situation. Among our most Politically Correct professors, who with their careers in mind always remember to genuflect to the campus feminists and homosexuals and diversity-mongers, there is a great deal of cynicism -- of that I am certain, because I speak privately with some of them -- and I also am certain that some of these cynical professors do understand where this society is headed in the long run and are not happy with that prospect. And I could make a similar comment about even the most profit-hungry of our businessmen, who are now going along in order to get along.
And so we don't want to write these people off, no matter how disappointing their performance may be to us today. Perceptions change as conditions change, and we should be doing whatever we can to help these people extend their perceptions and understand what the future holds. More than that, however, we can reach out even now to the people in our society who already have a broader sense of self-interest, a sense of self-interest which already comprehends the interests of their grandchildren and which considers more than credit-card balances. There are people now who still judge their self-interest in aesthetic terms and spiritual terms as well as financial terms. The lemmings may be able to listen with equanimity to Bill Clinton pontificate from the White House or to look at his smiling face on television for two more years as he tells us even more lies, but that prospect really grates on people who have any sort of aesthetic sense. The world these more sensitive people live in is diminished, their lives are diminished, by having to share their world with Bill Clinton. And that's good, because that puts them in a more receptive frame of mind when we try to persuade them that we need to organize the best of our people and do something fundamental about the system of which Bill Clinton is a part. Perhaps we ought to be grateful to the Jew lawyer Samuel Dash for that.
The Holocaust Shakedown
Imagine that a robber walks into a bank, points a pistol at a teller, hands her a bag, and demands that she put all the money from her cash drawer in it. At first she protests, but then, after he threatens to shoot, she fills the robber's bag with cash. And then imagine that, as the robber walks out of the bank with his bag of loot, the bank guard opens the door for him, smiles at him, offers to hail a cab for him, and tells him to come again soon. After that it's not difficult to imagine that he probably will.
That's about the way it's been with the Jews recently. Two years ago they put a gun to the head of the Swiss people collectively and demanded billions of dollars in reparations for Swiss bank accounts they claimed had been owned by Jews who disappeared during the Second World War. The Swiss initially protested that unclaimed Jewish bank accounts from the 1930s and 1940s amounted at most to a few million dollars, not to billions, and besides the war ended more than 50 years ago and claims should have been filed long ago. The Jews threatened to shoot, figuratively speaking, by having their bought politicians in the United States prevent Swiss banks from doing business in America. Eventually they walked away with $1.25 billion in loot, with the Swiss apologizing for not having coughed it up sooner.
After that sort of success with the Swiss one could hardly expect the Jews to give up extortion and go straight. So anyway, they were back again soon, with demands against the Volkswagen Company for having used Jewish workers during the Second World War and providing them only with room and board but not paying them union-scale wages. One might think that these Jewish workers would be grateful to Volkswagen for keeping them alive during the war, feeding them, and giving them a roof over their heads, when so many German civilians had only bombed-out ruins to live in. Well, if you thought that, you just don't understand Jews. The Jews told the Volkswagen Company that if it ever wanted to sell any more cars in America, it had better cough up -- soon. And the bought politicians and the media bosses in America began rattling their sabers and talking loudly about sanctions of various sorts against Volkswagen. And so, like the Swiss banks, Volkswagen coughed up the money.
Then the feeding frenzy started, just as I told you it would two years ago, when I predicted that after the Jews had cleaned out the Swiss they would go after other victims in a long list. Volkswagen wasn't the only company which had used involuntary labor during the war. The Jews went after Daimler-Benz and BMW and Siemens.
And Switzerland wasn't the only country where Jews could claim that Uncle Abe had stashed some of his loot sixty years ago, before the war. So they sued banks in France and in Britain and began moaning and whining in the media that the banks were being "insensitive" to poor, deserving "Holocaust survivors," who suddenly had remembered Uncle Abe's millions and needed it -- now. And then they remembered the insurance companies in Italy and Switzerland and Britain and elsewhere from whom they could claim that Uncle Abe once had had a life- insurance policy. Then they remembered that the Swedes owed them gold, and the Danes and the Norwegians. Even the Poles, whom the Jews had ruled as Bolshevik commissars for nearly 50 years after the war, owed them, they claimed. The racket has worked the same in every case: pay us, or we will have our bought Gentile politicians pass laws making it impossible for you to continue doing business, and our people in the media will paint you as monsters who want to hang onto the profit you made when poor Uncle Abe and Aunt Sara were crammed into gas chambers, and then the gullible Gentile lemmings won't buy your products. If you give us any trouble or resist our demands we'll make an example of you, the way we did with the Swiss banks. Just pay us the few hundred million dollars we're demanding now, and we'll leave you alone. Otherwise, it'll end up costing you a lot more.
And it has worked every time. Not one banker or businessman has stood up to them and flatly refused to pay. Not one president or prime minister has said to them, "All right, Jew boys! You try a boycott against my country, and we'll organize a boycott against Israel. We'll round up all the Jews in our country and send them packing." Not one has called the Jews' bluff. They've all calculated that it is cheaper to pay the gangsters than to fight them, and so they pay. Honor means nothing to these businessmen and politicians. Principles mean nothing to them. All they care about is continuing to make money, continuing to stay in office.
With this sort of attitude predominant among the Gentiles, one can hardly blame the Jews for turning to extortion on a larger scale than ever before. They are successful at it; therefore they continue to do it. And they don't limit themselves to Europe or to those who allegedly cooperated with the Germans in their demand for reparations. A few months ago they filed a claim against Britain for $600 million they claim the British government confiscated from Jews between 1940 and 1942 when the British governed Palestine. Remember, the Jews were waging a guerrilla war against the British prior to 1948, when the British finally gave up and pulled out, letting the Jews slaughter the Palestinians and establish the Jewish state of Israel on Palestinian land. The Jews were kidnapping and murdering British soldiers in Palestine and assassinating diplomats. In 1946 the Jews used a terrorist bomb to blow up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which was the British government headquarters. This Jewish forerunner of the Oklahoma City bombing killed a large number of British civilians and military people. And now the Jews are demanding $600 million in reparations from the British!
And of course, the Jews also are expecting payoffs from American companies. Both Ford and General Motors had subsidiaries working in Germany when the Second World War began. The Ford plant in Germany made military vehicles for the Germans throughout the war, and the General Motors subsidiary, Opel, did the same. And so now the Jews are claiming that both Ford and General Motors owe them a great deal of money because of that. The Jews already have filed a class-action suit against Ford in a Federal court in New Jersey, seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in wages plus interest for Jews who worked in Ford's German plant during the war. And because the businessmen who run Ford and General Motors today are the same sort as those who run the Volkswagen Company, they undoubtedly will pay off the Jews rather than risk having the media portray them as "insensitive" types who profited from the so-called "Holocaust" and now refuse to share their loot with the poor, deserving Jewish "survivors." Two hundred years ago the American motto was, "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." But in those days Americans were made of sterner stuff -- and I assume that our people in Europe were too. Cash isn't the only thing the Jews are going after. They have decided that a substantial portion of the art treasures of Europe really belonged to Uncle Abe too 60 years ago and ought to be returned to the Jews now. It is true, of course, that during the war the German government had a keen interest in bringing as much Germanic art as possible back under German protection. They bought all the Vermeers and Rembrandts and Holbeins and Dürers and Halses and other Germanic art works as they could from owners in the conquered countries and brought them back to Germany. And when the works the Germans were interested in were in the hands of Jews, they often brought pressure to bear and obtained the works at low prices. The Germans, however, generally weren't interested in modern art -- certainly not in Jewish paintings by Chagall or Modigliani, for example -- and a great many such modern paintings ended up in the hands of Jewish art dealers. In fact, the Germans often had agreements with Jewish art dealers, swapping the modern paintings they weren't interested in for the Germanic paintings they were interested in. The biggest of these Jewish dealers, Georges Wildenstein, was in Paris, and he acquired an enormous number of modern paintings during the war. After the war he brought them to New York and later sold hundreds of them to museums and private collectors around the world. The Jews currently are engaged in a huge treasure hunt for those paintings now in Gentile hands which formerly belonged to Jews. The facts that most of these paintings were acquired by their present owners from Jewish dealers such as the Wildensteins and that many of them were legally purchased from their Jewish owners during the war are glossed over. All of these paintings are characterized by the Jews as "art stolen from victims of the Holocaust by the Nazis," and they want it all back now.
There's an interesting double standard here. A messy divorce in the Wildenstein family attracted public attention last year to the Jewish family's business dealings in Paris during the war, and another Jewish family claimed that the Wildensteins have artworks that actually should be returned to them, because they were forced to sell them at fire-sale prices during the war. The Wildensteins told them to buzz off: the statute of limitations for such claims expired long ago, the Wildensteins asserted. Of course, no Gentile owner dares make such an assertion. But in fact, there are statutes of limitations for most claims. Dormant bank accounts typically become the property of the government after being unclaimed for 20 years or so, but when the Swiss brought up that legality two years ago, the Jews went into their "persecuted victim" act, feigning outrage that the Swiss should try to let a mere law stand between the Jews and what they were claiming in reparations.
Whenever the Jews, in order to remind the world for the six-millionth time of their "victim" status, have accused some elderly German or Pole or Ukrainian or Lithuanian of having mistreated Jews 55 years ago during the war, there is no question of a statute of limitations. If anyone mentions that legality, Jewish shrieking in all of their media quickly drowns him out. For an injury, real or imaginary, done to a Jew by a Gentile there is no statute of limitations, no matter how much time has passed. The Jews still celebrate every year in their Purim festival the revenge their ancestors took on the ancient Persians 2,500 years ago through their control of a corrupt king.
Yet when the Polish government asked the government of Israel a few months ago to extradite a Jewish mass murderer, Solomon Morel, so that he could be tried in Poland for genocide, the Jews refused. "There's a statute of limitations for extradition," the Israelis told the Poles, "and you're too late." Morel was the Jew-communist commissar of a concentration camp in Poland after the war, and he had tortured hundreds of Poles and Germans to death. When he saw the possibility of retribution looming, Morel, like thousands of other Jewish criminals before him, fled to Israel. The horrifying atrocities committed by Solomon Morel have been described in the 1993 book An Eye for an Eye by John Sack.
This same double standard applies to every sort of interaction between Jews and non-Jews. It is a fact that in wars people suffer losses. Usually, within a few years after the wars are over, people try to get on with their lives, and they consider what is past to be past. If other people behaved the way the Jews behave, then every Englishman whose family residence got hit by a bomb during the "blitz" of the Second World War would be clamoring now for the German government to reimburse him for the repairs that his grandparents had to make 55 years ago -- plus interest, of course. And if it's all right to go back 55 years for claims, why not go back 135 years and let all of the Americans whose ancestors' homes and farms in Georgia were burned by General Sherman collect damages from the U.S. government now -- plus interest, of course? Or why not go back 220 years and demand that Tony Blair's government pay reparations to all of those Americans whose ancestors suffered property loss from the Redcoats during the First American Revolution -- plus interest, of course? I mean, if the Jews are allowed to keep score, without regard for time, why shouldn't everyone else? Why not set up some sort of World Court for Reparations? I imagine that there are a lot of Palestinians who would like to file claims against the state of Israel.
The fact is that we would have international chaos if everybody behaved the way the Jews do. So this raises two interesting questions: Why do the Jews behave the way they do? And why do we let them get away with it?
Well, I've already given an answer of a sort to the first question: the Jews behave the way they do because we let them behave that way; it's just like the case of the bank robber, who will keep coming back until the bank guard stops being nice and shoots the robber. But there's really more to it than that. No one else is even inclined to make the sort of demands on the rest of the world that the Jews do. The Jews really are different. Their religion provides a few clues in this regard. It is a religion which tells them that all the property of the Gentiles really should belong to Jews, that the Jews are entitled to it. It's as blatant as anywhere in the 60th chapter of the book attributed to their prophet Isaiah, where they are told to keep their gates open all the time, so that all the wealth of the Gentiles can be brought to them. "Thou shalt suck the milk of the Gentiles," the Jews are told. And if you think that doesn't really mean what it sounds like it means, you should look into the Talmud, where the Jewish sages, the Jewish interpreters of the Bible, explain to the rest of the Jews what it means. The Talmud tells the Jews that only Jews are human beings, that the Gentiles are just animals created by the Jewish tribal god Yahweh to be used by the Jews, like other animals are used. Because Gentiles are merely animals, they can't really own anything, and it is the duty of the Jews to make sure they don't.
Now all of this Biblical stuff and Talmudic stuff is very old and quaint and might seem irrelevant to a lawsuit against the Ford Motor Company by the Jews today. But this old and quaint stuff is the basis of the Jews' religion today. The religious Jews really believe it. And the non-religious Jews, the atheist Jews, behave as if they believe it. And I think that in a certain sense they do. I think this belief is in their blood. I think that this is what accounts for their almost incredible arrogance in their dealings with non-Jews.
And of course, there's not just belief: there's also calculation. They understand that the success of their current effort to swindle the rest of the world out of every cent they can depends on three factors: it depends on their control of the mass media; it depends on the unprecedented degree of political corruption which exists almost everywhere in the Western world, on the unprecedented degree of democracy; and it depends on the confused and demoralized state of Gentiles everywhere.
There never before has been a time when the Jews have wielded as much open power as they do today. No previous government in the United States has had as many Jews in positions of power as the present Clinton government. And that's pretty much the way it is everywhere in Europe too. The Jews around Clinton are mirrored by high-ranking Jews around Tony Blair in Britain. In Russia, the Jews not only hold most of the key posts around the alcoholic and ailing Boris Yeltsin, they have one of their own as prime minister. And nearly everywhere except in the United States the Jews have succeeded in having laws passed making it illegal for a patriot to tell his countrymen what the Jews are up to. In Britain, in France, and in Germany hundreds of patriots are rotting in prisons today because they dared to speak the truth about the Jews. In Switzerland the Jews succeeded in having similar laws passed before they began extorting money from the Swiss. Only in Russia today are any significant number of patriots speaking out against the Jews and daring the government to try to silence them.
And I suppose it seems reasonable to the Jews that when they have so much power they should use it to their advantage. They should go for everything they can get. The opportunity may pass. And they are going for it, everywhere and in every way. It's interesting to note that this display of unbridled greed and arrogance has made even some of their fellow Jews a little nervous. Charles Krauthammer, a Jewish writer for the Washington Post, the second most powerful Jewish newspaper in the United States, wrote a column last month which begins with the words, "The pursuit of billions in Holocaust guilt money has gone from the unseemly to the disgraceful." Krauthammer refers to the whole racket as a "Holocaust shakedown." It's not that Krauthammer doesn't think the Jews should have all the money they can get from the Gentiles. It's just that he's appalled by the reckless display of naked, unprincipled greed as more and more Jewish shysters -- that's what Krauthammer calls them -- trample each other in their current feeding frenzy. What if the Gentiles notice? What will the Gentiles think?
Now, the unfortunate fact is that no non-Jewish writer for a major newspaper would dare to write what Krauthammer wrote -- not even in the United States, where it's still legal to write such things. They're all afraid. For two generations the Jewish media have conditioned them by instantly and loudly accusing anyone who opens his mouth of being a "racist" or a "hater" or an "anti-Semite." They've been conditioned to run for cover whenever they hear one of those accusations. And that is the answer to our second question, why do we let them get away with it?
Their media control keeps the couch potatoes confused and unaware; the corrupt politicians who have come to characterize our democracy are always ready to front for them and betray the people whose interests they are supposed to be representing; and those among us who are perceptive enough and independent-minded enough to understand what is happening are nearly all too cowardly to speak out. So it is easy enough for me to predict that the Jews will keep coming back for more -- and more -- and more -- until they either have it all, as in Russia today, or what Charles Krauthammer is concerned about happens, and the Gentiles notice. But really, the former outcome is much more likely.
The Limits of Toleration
There are several interesting things in the news that we could spend half an hour talking about on today's program. There is the story of the bribery of African officials on the International Olympic Committee by businessmen in Salt Lake City in order to have their city chosen as the site of the Winter Olympics in 2002. We might look into the question of why it was specifically the African members who were bribed, why it was generally known in Olympic circles that the African members had their hands out for bribes, but no one in the controlled media would discuss this fact before the scandal broke recently. And in fact, the controlled media still are very reluctant to tell us which members of the International Olympic Committee were asking for bribes or to show us their faces. But, you know, I've found it difficult to become very excited about the Olympics -- or surprised about any hypocrisy or crookedness associated with the games -- ever since basketball became one of the official Olympic sports.
We could talk about the recent revelations that the United Nations Special Commission's weapons inspection teams in Iraq were, in fact, being used for espionage purposes and were funneling information to Israel and the United States which had nothing to do with the search for weapons of mass destruction and everything to do with the attempt by Clinton and his controllers in Israel to undermine Saddam Hussein's government. When Saddam Hussein complained that the weapons inspectors were engaged in spying before he threw them out of Iraq last year, all of the controlled media laughed at him and dismissed his charges. After weapons inspector Scott Ritter, a former member of the United Nations team in Iraq, admitted recently that, yes, his weapons inspection team had been secretly passing information gathered in Iraq to the government of Israel, the plot began coming unraveled. But it looks like all that'll change as a result of this exposure of the corruption of the United Nations by Israel and the United States is that the very oily head of the Special Commission, Richard Butler, will lose his job, and it will go to some other oily crook in the pay of Israel and the United States. But you know, just like the case of bribing the International Olympic Committee, I can't get very excited about any revelation of hypocrisy or crookedness in the United Nations. It's what I have come to expect of that crew.
Unfortunately, it's what I've come to expect of everyone in public office these days. I am especially conscious of that expectation as I watch the U.S. Senate proceeding with the trial of Bill Clinton. What a bunch of nervous nellies these senators are, all scared half to death by Clinton's popularity polls! Some of them clearly are hoping to grab a few minutes of the spotlight during this historic process and then to capitalize on the exposure in the next election, but they're still afraid to stick their necks out very far, because of those polls. Others are wheeling and dealing behind the scenes, trading their agreement on various details of the conduct of the trial for promises of future advantages: advantages for themselves, that is, not for America -- no, certainly not for America, judging from the evident satisfaction in the Clinton camp with the way things are going.
Perhaps that sounds a little cynical, but I believe that it is only realistic these days. Corruption, lying, and hypocrisy are the fundaments of public life in America. The way to the top is not through personal integrity and patriotism and the ability to serve effectively; it is through a candidate's skill in charming voters and in lying without getting caught. And although Bill Clinton's extraordinary recklessness in lying has resulted in his present problems, he cannot be blamed for the general lack of integrity in public life today.
Bill Clinton is only one turd floating in the moral cesspool which our society has become. The fault is ours for bathing in this cesspool, for not minding the stink, for tolerating every sort of corruption so long as we can still charge whatever we want on our credit cards.
I was a guest on a syndicated radio talk show last week, and I was reminded once again of the extent to which morality in America has been changed, has been subverted, over the past 50 years or so. I was discussing multiculturalism with the host, a man named Mike Gallagher, and I pointed out that multiculturalism inevitably leads to alienation, to the loss of a sense of community responsibility, and eventually to the destruction of the society. The host, of course, resisted coming to this Politically Incorrect conclusion.
Then we began receiving calls from listeners. One of them was a man who gave a prissy, little lecture about how race isn't the problem today -- that is, multiculturalism isn't the problem -- it's bad behavior by some people in all races. Weed out the bad-behaving people in all races, and then we can all live together as happy consumers in a multicultural society, he said.
Gosh, I've heard that argument a lot from people who are scared to death of being called "racists," and so they resist thinking about any explanation for the breakdown of our society which involves race. Of course, we always had some bad-behaving people among us even when we had a White society. But at least we had a society, a community, a nation, with a commonly accepted system of values and standards. In the sort of multicultural chaos which the media and the government are promoting today, almost nothing is commonly accepted.
Another caller, a woman, inadvertently brought this out. She expressed the opinion that the best way to avoid conflict and violence in our society is for everyone to be "less judgmental." This is a code phrase for the moral relativists. The essence of moral relativism is that everybody's ideas, everybody's life-style, everybody's sexual orientation, is just as good as everyone else's. There are no absolute standards, no fixed values. Therefore, we should not judge other people whose standards or values at the moment are different from ours. We should not judge Bill Clinton. We should not judge homosexuals. And so on. And this relativistic way of looking at the world applies not only to behavior: it also applies to art, to music, to literature, and to everything else.
This do-your-own-thing ethic has been pushed hard by the controlled media since the 1960s, and it has had a profoundly destructive effect on our society. It's a soft, fuzzy, feminine sort of ethic which is easy to push to absurdity, but logic isn't a strong point for the moral relativists, and they don't let that discourage them. They just drift morally with it and feel quite comfortable. It's an ethic which relieves them and everyone else of responsibility. No guilt, no tension. It's like a drug. And it fits in perfectly with the push by the media and the government toward multiculturalism, toward more diversity.
For the non-judgmental crowd the society that exists in Haiti, for example, is not inherently inferior to our society. The Haitians, to be sure, have a different life-style, a different way of behaving, but that doesn't mean that our way is better, the non-judgmentalists will tell you. Oh, my goodness, no! Therefore, there's no moral or cultural or social reason why we should object to the presence of the growing number of Haitians in the United States -- or Jamaicans or Vietnamese or what have you.
You know, the moral relativists are right about one thing. Everything is judged relative to a set of standards. And in the bad, old days before multiculturalism became Politically Correct, the standards by which we judged everything were our standards: which is to say, they were White standards, they were European standards, they were the standards which evolved with our people over thousands of years, standards which developed and changed and adapted themselves to make us a more fit race and allowed us to survive and prosper and to become the masters of the whole world.
But, hey, that's racist, isn't it? I mean, how dare we assume that our values and our standards of behavior are superior to those of the Haitians or the Vietnamese? That's the message the multiculturalists, the diversity-mongers, the egalitarians, the non-judgmentalists, threw at us after the Second World War. It's an easy enough message to refute, of course. Our values and our standards are better -- for us. Fifty years ago we didn't care what values and standards the Haitians and Vietnamese had -- at least, most of us didn't care. The Christian missionaries and a few others felt that they had to meddle in the affairs of the Haitians and Vietnamese and get them to exchange their values, their politics, their religion, their life-style for ours. Which just goes to show that our values and standards aren't perfect; otherwise none of us would have felt the need to try to persuade the Haitians and the Vietnamese to change their ways. We would simply have kept them off our turf, out of our society, and not worried about their behavior or their art or their music or whatever.
But, as I said, that's a racist attitude. And so while the Christian missionaries were meddling with the morals of the Haitians and the Vietnamese, the media bosses in America -- which is to say, the Jewish missionaries -- were meddling with our morals, using television to persuade us that racism is wrong and that, therefore, it is wrong for us to assume that our traditional, European values and standards are the best values and standards -- even for us. They used soap operas and comedy shows to persuade us not to be judgmental, to persuade us that our homogeneous, White society ought to be replaced by a multicultural society, to persuade us that we needed more racial and cultural diversity, to persuade us that everyone's values and ideas and life-style and behavior and sexual orientation were as good as everyone else's. And they also persuaded us that our standards in art and literature were no better than anyone else's, and so the trash-art and trash- literature they and their hangers-on were producing were as good as anything we ever had produced. With music they went further and persuaded us that other races' styles in music were better than our own.
And it's not that the Jewish media bosses were trying to do the same thing with us that the Christian missionaries were trying to do with the Vietnamese and the Haitians. The Jews weren't teaching us their values and their standards. They were just teaching us to abandon ours. The aim was to confuse us, to disconnect us from our roots, to leave us morally disarmed. If we protested their program of persuasion, they began wailing about the so-called "Holocaust." "Oi, veh," they cried. "See where your European morality led: to the gas ovens; to soap and lampshades made from the corpses of murdered Jews. Aren't you ashamed of yourselves for wanting to keep such a morality?" And you know, many Americans were ashamed. They were ignorant of what had really happened in Europe and why it had happened, and so they didn't know how to respond to the Jewish version of events. The Jews, with their control of the media, had a monopoly on information. And many Americans already were so confused, so disconnected from their own traditions and values, that they let themselves be buffaloed by the Jews. They let themselves be persuaded that it was better to be non-judgmental.
And so here we are, and what a mess it is! The majority of Americans believe that Bill Clinton is an OK guy. They believe that everybody's culture is as good as everyone else's, and that a multicultural society "enriches" our lives by exposing us to Haitian and Vietnamese values and life-styles. They think that the Blade Runner environment which is developing in many of our larger cities is normal and healthy. They believe that there's nothing really wrong with homosexuality. And they're not bothered by the political corruption all around them: that's just lawyers and politicians and businessmen "doing their thing."
So I guess that what I'm about to say will sound very old-fashioned to many people, but I'll say it anyway. The values and standards that we had back before the Second World War, our White values and standards, our European values and standards, were infinitely better for us than the absence of any common set of values today, infinitely better than today's do-your-own-thing ethic. There were many flaws and weaknesses in our old set of standards for judging things and in our old way of behaving; I've already mentioned the activities of the missionaries, our regrettable proclivity for trying to change other people's values to suit ours rather than simply keeping our distance from people who are fundamentally different. And there were many other flaws as well. We were far too tolerant of people in our midst whose values were wholly alien to ours, and I'm thinking especially of the people who were busy taking over all of our media of mass communications, all of our news and entertainment media. But the so-called "Holocaust," the effort on the part of some of our people in Europe to protect themselves from the Jews, was not the result of any flaw in our system; rather, it was the consequence of a basically healthy tendency in our system.
The real weakness of our value system is that it was not able to cope well with alien influences. It was too fragile, too susceptible to damage. What we needed was another thousand years or so by ourselves, without outside influence, to strengthen and fine-tune our system, to adapt it more nearly perfectly to our own nature and to our environment. The problem is that with our technology we changed our environment too quickly for our values and standards to adapt themselves in a healthy way. We made the world in which we lived shrink too rapidly. When our ancestors all lived in Europe, essentially by themselves, holding an eastern frontier against the Mongols and the Turks and keeping the Jews confined to ghettos, our values could cope.
When we developed new modes of travel and navigation and began exploring and conquering the non-White world, we left ourselves open to all sorts of problems, because we hadn't had to deal with so many alien influences before. And then we let the Jews out of their ghettos, which was a big mistake. And so, once again, here we are, everyone doing his own thing and being non-judgmental. You know, the reason we used to have a common set of values, the reason we used to be judgmental, is that these things were necessary for our survival. Every time in our daily lives that a decision had to be made, we didn't have to spend all day thinking about it; we didn't have to keep reinventing the wheel over and over. We made judgments based on our common set of values and standards. These values and standards were developed through trial and error over thousands of years. They didn't work all the time -- they weren't perfect -- but they worked a lot more often than not. They gave us an enormous advantage over any group of people without common values or with values not so well suited to the environment, to the living conditions. They made it possible for us to survive.
If you think that we're surviving just fine now without values -- or with the utterly unnatural Politically Correct values which have replaced our natural values -- then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on your current credit card spending limit and failing to see many other things of much greater importance. While our values were giving way to Political Correctness and we were learning not to be judgmental, our people -- White people -- in the United States declined from more than 90 per cent of the population to just over 70 per cent today. And as Mr. Clinton is so fond of telling us, we'll become a minority within the next few decades. That is, we will if we remain non-judgmental and continue sitting on our hands.
And if you're one of those non-judgmental types who is not worried by that prospect because, really, the civilization the Haitians and Vietnamese will give us after they've finished wrecking ours will be just as good as ours ever was, then you're obviously a person who thinks Clinton is an OK guy, and you're tuned to the wrong station. I'm not talking to you.
I'm talking only to the people who are so Politically Incorrect that they still think that we ought to do everything we can to preserve our civilization, our values and standards, because they're better for us than anyone else's possibly could be. More than that I'm talking to the people who want us to survive as a people, as a race, because they understand that our civilization is superior for us because we built it; our ancestors built it, not someone else's ancestors. And I want to tell all of you Politically Incorrect listeners, all of you judgmental listeners, that we need to bring our judgmentalism out of the closet again. We need to stand up for the values and standards that served us in the past.
We understand that our system wasn't perfect. We understand that we need to improve it. We need to get rid of the weaknesses that allowed the promoters of Political Correctness to confuse us and morally disarm us. We need to understand that back in the 1960s, when the enemies of our civilization turned our moral world upside down and produced monsters like Bill Clinton, our toleration for these people was a mistake.
Toleration -- in moderation -- may be a virtue when we have our own civilization and our own world, because it permits our values to evolve and adapt to changes in our environment. It permits us to fine-tune our system. And it allows us to have both individual freedom and a society able to protect itself from its own sociopaths as well as its external enemies. But there must be no toleration for the things we permitted to happen in the 1960s. There must be no toleration for the likes of Bill Clinton. There must be no toleration for multiculturalism or its proponents.
Time to Water the Tree of Liberty
Today we'll talk about a subject we've spoken about often in the past, and that is freedom, especially its prospects for the future. Unfortunately those prospects are quite dim at the moment. I'm afraid that most people wouldn't agree with me on that, and I think that's because most people equate freedom with comfort, with having plenty of money to spend. As long as they can go to the mall and charge whatever they want on their credit card, as long as they can watch whatever ball game they want on TV, they believe they're free. More than that, if their TV tells them they're free, they believe it.
Not everyone, of course. But for most people what is real is what they see on TV. If they don't see it on TV, then it doesn't exist -- or at least, it certainly isn't important. If it were anything to be concerned about, then certainly Tom Brokaw or Dan Rather or Peter Jennings would tell them all about it, with the proper expression of concern on his face and a serious tone of voice, so that everyone would know it was important.
Take the people of Canada, for example. They really are not very different from the people of the United States -- except perhaps just a shade more authoritarian in personality on the average. When our ancestors down here told King George III to go to hell, that we weren't going to pay his taxes any longer, the ancestors of the Canadians kept their mouths shut and continued paying their taxes. As a result they never really had the sort of iron-bound guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press that people in the United States have had. But they always assumed that they had those freedoms anyway. If you ask the average Canadian today whether or not he is free to say what he wants and read what he wants, he'll tell you, "Of course!" And he'll believe it.
As a matter of fact, Canadians do not have those freedoms. Canadian publishers may not publish any book deemed Politically Incorrect by Canada's Jewish minority, and no Canadian bookstore may display or sell such a book. When the Canadian police find such books, they seize them and burn them.
Did you ever see the film Fahrenheit 451 or read the 1951 novel by science-fiction writer Ray Bradbury on which the film is based? In 1951 our freedom was in much less immediate jeopardy than it is now, but Bradbury saw the ominous trends even then, and he wrote about a future in which books were illegal because many of them contained facts and ideas which upset people, facts and ideas which caused people to worry and to think, facts and ideas which made people uncomfortable. So the government outlawed all books, and people received all of their information and entertainment through television, and then no one was uncomfortable. Squads of thought police sped around the cities on trucks which looked a lot like fire engines, looking for concealed books. Whenever they found any, the books were doused with kerosene and burned on the spot, and the owners of the books were arrested.
Now, the Canadian thought police are not as obvious about their mission as Ray Bradbury's thought police in Fahrenheit 451 were, but their mission is, in fact, exactly the same. I'll tell you about a recent run-in I had with the Canadian thought police. The sponsor of this broadcast, National Vanguard Books, is in the business of publishing and selling books, among other things. We sell books to people all over the world, including people in Canada. But whenever a Canadian orders a book from us we have to sneak it into Canada, so the thought police won't grab it at the border. Sometimes we are successful, and sometimes we aren't.
A couple of years ago the problem wasn't so bad, and the thought police mostly seized copies of my novels: novels which make some people uncomfortable. But children's books and history books and scientific books usually got through. But their list of banned books -- books the Jewish minority in Canada don't want the Canadian people to read -- has been growing. Now the thought police will seize almost any book which has anything in it that might be considered Politically Incorrect. In September we sent a package of books to a customer in British Columbia. The thought police in Vancouver opened the package and seized two items, which, according to the Jewish list of illegal books they go by, are classified as "hate propaganda." The two items seized were a copy of a magazine published by National Vanguard Books called Free Speech -- a magazine dedicated to the preservation of that precious commodity; and a scientific book titled Heredity and Humanity by Roger Pearson.
Dr. Pearson is a well-known anthropologist who has taught at several American universities. He was the chairman of the anthropology and sociology department at Queens College and then chairman of the anthropology department at the University of Southern Mississippi. He currently edits several scientific journals. He is the author of a well-known anthropology textbook. But anthropology is one of those fields of study which has been subjected to the scrutiny of the enforcers of Political Correctness. Like history, anthropology deals with various types of people, their characteristics, and their relationships, and these days in order for a history book or an anthropology book to be deemed Politically Correct the author must be very careful what he writes. He must be very careful never to suggest that all types of people are not equal in every way. Dr. Pearson wasn't sufficiently careful. He was more interested in the truth, more interested in accuracy and factuality, when he wrote Heredity and Humanity than in being Politically Correct. And so the Jews have put his book on their Index Librorum Prohibitorum, along with our journal Free Speech and thousands of other books which they believe might make some people uncomfortable or make them think. When the secret police in Canada find such a book, they seize it and burn it. Usually they're very secretive about this sort of thing, in contrast to the book-burners in Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, but in the case of our customer in British Columbia we were able to obtain the police documents listing the seized items and classifying them as "hate propaganda."
You know, when the Jews in Canada got their book-burning legislation enacted, they did it under the pretense that it was to protect children from pornography. They got a whole regiment of publicity-hungry Christian preachers to beat the drums for this legislation under the pretense that it would keep sexual material out of the hands of children. So the report form the thought police use in listing and classifying the books they seize has nine separate classifications for the police to check, nine little boxes to check at the bottom of the form, indicating the type of book. Those classifications are: sex with violence, sex with degradation, sexual assault, sex with bondage, sex with juveniles, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, and -- the last category -- hate propaganda. But, you know, it's only that last little box that really counts. That's what this Canadian legislation was all about. It wasn't to keep books on necrophilia out of the country. The Jews don't care whether or not you read books on necrophilia or bestiality. The entire purpose of the law they got their ever- obedient Christian servants to push through the Canadian parliament for them was to allow the thought police to classify Politically Incorrect scientific books by anthropology professors as "hate propaganda" and keep them out of the hands of Canadians who might be made to think if they read the books.
This is by no means the first time our books have been seized by the Canadian thought police, and National Vanguard Books is by no means the only publisher whose books have been seized. These book burnings take place every day in Canada. It's just that this time we were able to get our hands on the thought police's documents, where they actually claim that Professor Pearson's anthropology book Heredity and Humanity and our journal Free Speech are "hate propaganda." Truly the situation in Canada today is much worse than it was in Europe in the Middle Ages, when the Church maintained its Index of prohibited books. The books the priests and bishops burned were virtually all books dealing with religion in some way, books they felt threatened their monopoly on that subject. The books the Jews burn today are almost any books which might cause some of the couch potatoes to think -- and then, perhaps, to rebel. And of course, the Church didn't try to make a secret of its book burning.
As I mentioned earlier, most Canadians have no idea that this book burning is going on in their country. They are too busy with their ball games and funny papers. But even if it were explained to them in detail -- even if the Canadian thought police roared around in fire engines looking for Politically Incorrect books to burn in public the way they did in Fahrenheit 451 -- would the sports fans and mall shoppers of Canada really care? No more, I suspect, than the contented and comfortable television viewers in Ray Bradbury's 1951 vision of the future, a future in which book-burning was a respectable profession. By the way, if you have any doubt that what I have told you is actually happening in Canada today, send me a stamped, self-addressed envelope, and I'll send you a photocopy of the Canadian thought police document I obtained after their latest seizure of our books. If you're a Canadian, you may want to show this document to any friends you may have who're interested in such things as freedom. Who knows? Maybe I'm wrong in assuming that Canadians are all sheep. Perhaps there are a few Canadians still willing to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants.
And what about the slightly more rebellious population of the United States? Would they care? The Jews in the United States are proceeding on the assumption that they will not -- that is, that a majority of the voters will not, even if a few dissidents kick up a fuss. Certainly, the voters who make up the Clinton coalition -- the Democrats who elected Bill Clinton twice and who still think he shouldn't be impeached -- couldn't care less about preserving freedom of speech. Some of them, in fact, are positively hostile to free speech and are collaborating actively with the Jews in an effort to stamp it out.
Feminists, for example, are prominent in the Jews' campaign for "hate speech" legislation in the United States. Part of their zeal may be the touchy-feely feminine notion that people in general ought to be protected from "offensive" speech, which is any speech which hurts their feelings. A more important reason, however, is that feminists, like homosexuals and members of other government-favored groups in the population, want to hang on to the special status which 35 years of so-called "civil rights" legislation has given them, and they are afraid that any criticism might endanger that status. They understand that their present favored position in society is entirely artificial, entirely dependent on government support and government enforcement, and they are afraid that if dissenters are allowed to speak and influence public opinion, the government might be persuaded to stop enforcing feminist demands for special privileges. Blacks and welfare recipients are not as alert to these issues as the feminists and homosexuals are, but most of them have at least a dim understanding that they do have a community of interests tied to government support and government enforcement, and they would agree that free speech poses a threat to those interests.
And, alas, among the non-Jewish, non-feminist, non-homosexual, non-minority part of the population there are far too few Patrick Henrys these days. Two generations of watching Jewish television not only has softened the spines and the minds of heterosexual White males but, in fact, has convinced a substantial portion of them that it is more important for people to be comfortable than to be free. Many Americans have a vague notion that there's some sort of Constitutional right to feel good, to not be offended, and that when this Constitutional right to not be offended conflicts with the right to free speech and a free press, then some sort of compromise ought to be made. Really! That's what a lot of White American males believe!
They believe that, because that's what television has been teaching them subliminally for two generations. And added to that during the past five or six years, since domestic terrorism has gained more relevance, is the notion that free speech is really a little dangerous: everyone will be safer if we accept some limitations on free speech. That unspeakable piece of filth we have in the White House has explicitly encouraged that notion. After the Oklahoma City bombing Bill Clinton was on television telling everyone that people who criticize the government are to blame for such acts of terrorism. And a lot of White males who these days think and act like old maids took his warnings to heart.
So with the American population thus softened up, thus prepared to give up their freedom, the Jews are pushing their Fahrenheit 451 program forward. All of the big Jewish organizations are involved. The Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith have been most noticeable in their campaign to censor the Internet, for example. The Jews of the Anti- Defamation League have just gotten a big pat on the back from the media Jews for developing what they call a "hate" filter for computers. Parents, they say, can install the filter program on their children's computers so the kiddies can't read "harmful" or "offensive" material on the Internet. And down here, just as in Canada, the Jews have a rabble of braindead Christians running interference for them, under the delusion that they are helping to protect children from exposure to sex.
Of course, parents are entitled to censor their own children's use of the Internet as much as they want. But with the Jews that's just a toe in the door. They also are peddling their filter to public libraries and to school officials, so that they can censor the Internet reading of all library users and school students. And the Anti-Defamation League is persuading some big software manufacturers to bundle its new "hate" filter with other software that is pre-installed on computers before the customers buy them. Of course, it's easy enough to deactivate such censorship software -- unless you're one of those millions of technically illiterate Americans who has never been able to figure out how to program your VCR. Of course, the Jews, including the Anti-Defamation League, protest loudly that they're all in favor of freedom. They don't want to stop anybody from reading anything he wants. They're 100 per cent in favor of the First Amendment, they'll tell you. They're horrified by the very idea of burning books. They just want to protect children. But it's not true. This sudden and uncharacteristic interest of the Jews in protecting children from pornography is phony. What the Jews want for the United States is exactly what they already have imposed on Canada, on Britain, on France, on Germany, and on a dozen other White nations. That's why they have their number-one step'n'fetchit, Bill Clinton, making speeches about the need for "hate speech" legislation.
Now, to be sure, the Jews have other allies in their censorship plans besides corrupt politicians like Bill Clinton and the feminist-homosexual-minority special privilege groups and the couch potatoes who always are ready to trade freedom for the promise of more comfort or more security. There are White gentiles who have been sold on the idea that multiculturalism is here to stay. Some of them who are in business actually have a vested interest in multiculturalism and growing diversity in the population. They are happy with these trends because they profit from them. Others may have no vested interest in multiculturalism, but they are too soft-minded to think about the hard decision which will be required to reverse these trends. And they realize that a multicultural society is a fragile and unnatural thing, like a house of cards. Any breeze of dissent can cause it to collapse. And so they believe that it is necessary to protect it from dissent, from any speech which may offend any component of the multicultural society and result in destabilization. Perhaps they are not by nature enthusiastic enemies of freedom, but they nevertheless are willing to sacrifice freedom in order to avoid the bloody disintegration of this malignantly multicultural monstrosity of a society which is supplanting the White society we had in America prior to the Second World War.
You know, there are interesting and occasionally even amusing developments in the Jews' program to take away our freedom. Some of their feminist and homosexual allies, whose motivation is to protect their privileged status from criticism, have targeted Christian groups for censorship, because of the Christian opposition to abortion and homosexuality. Some of these Christian groups are perfectly willing to censor other people and, in fact, already have let themselves be used as dupes in the Jews' phony drive to protect children from pornography on the Internet, but they are not happy about being censored themselves. A current instance of this infighting involves The Learning Company, a large manufacturer of computer software, on one side, and on the other side the American Family Association, a Christian group which emphasizes so-called "family values" and disapproves of homosexual behavior.
The Learning Company has a program called CyberPatrol, which it developed at the behest of and in collaboration with the Anti-Defamation League. Installed on a school or library computer, it prevents students or library users from accessing any Internet site which the Jews of the Anti- Defamation League consider Politically Incorrect. Of course, the Jews have blocked both of the Internet sites at which you can access this American Dissident Voices program or see the books distributed by the sponsor of this program, such as those seized and burned by the Canadian thought police. But in order to keep their feminist and homosexual allies happy they also have blocked Internet access to the American Family Association. Many Christians are unhappy about this Jewish censorship of the American Family Association and are currently organizing a boycott of all software, children's books, and other materials published by The Learning Company but are being very careful not to mention the word "Jew" in their boycott efforts.
I believe that a boycott of The Learning Company -- and every other company which collaborates in any way with the Anti-Defamation League or other Jewish enemies of free speech is a worthy endeavor, but it's nowhere near enough. To protect our freedom, to keep the United States from following the same path that Canada is on, we need to water the tree of liberty with a great deal of blood. The time for that watering is close at hand.
Clinton's War
Today let's talk about Bill Clinton's new role as war hero and commander in chief. You know, when I told you a little over two weeks before Clinton launched his new war against Iraq that war was imminent -- that I was sure he had made a deal with the Jews to use any pretext at all for starting a war, in return for Jewish lawyer Sam Dash's effort to sabotage Ken Starr and derail the impeachment process -- I couldn't imagine that Clinton would choose such disastrous timing for his attack. I knew the man had catastrophically poor judgment -- I mean, he's the jerk who when he was governor of Arkansas used to send out Arkansas state troopers to scout up women and bring them to his hotel room, who used to let his brother Roger deal cocaine out of the office next to his in the governor's mansion in Little Rock, and who after he became President used to unzip for action right in the Oval Office -- but even I am surprised by the recklessness and foolishness of his timing in attacking Iraq.
Five weeks ago, when Sam Dash sandbagged Ken Starr, the pollsters and vote-counters were all predicting that even if the House Judiciary Committee voted for impeachment, it would never pass the full House. Clinton might have attacked Iraq then and gotten away with it. But he thought maybe he would wait until he could manufacture a good pretext for a war. And as he waited, the so-called "moderate" Republicans on whom he had placed his hopes, declared one by one that they would vote for impeachment. By the beginning of last week, even his strongest supporters conceded that he would be impeached and would be tried by the Senate. And so with only hours to go before the impeachment vote, he starts a war.
Well, I guess that's sort of a Democratic tradition, but still nearly everyone was surprised when he did it. I mean, that's such breathtaking chutzpah that even some Jews were embarrassed. They were not happy that the war against Iraq that they had been scheming for and urging for so long would be seen as merely a cheap trick to save Bill Clinton from impeachment.
But of course, that's exactly what it is, and that's obvious to everyone with an IQ above 70. That doesn't include the yahoos of the American Legion and similar groups, who like to put on all their medals, salute the flag, and proclaim their loyalty to the commander in chief. But the politicians and media people are not that stupid: crooked, but not stupid. Nevertheless, I was worried right after the attack on Iraq last Wednesday that they would be afraid to say anything against Mr. Clinton's new war. Some of them, of course, were publicly expressing their support for the attack immediately, saying things like, "We should have attacked Saddam a long time ago." And no one wanted to be denounced as an "anti-Semite" for saying anything against the Jews' crusade to destroy Saddam Hussein.
On the other hand, it was easy to see that the brighter ones had figured out that there was no way they could support commander-in-chief Clinton without the stink rubbing off on them. The Jews might be grateful to them at the moment, but in the long run it would look so bad that they didn't want to be associated with it, and so they began a tortured routine of praising the war without mentioning Mr. Clinton. And the impeachment process, which had been derailed for a few hours, was put back on track. Right after the attack the Republican politicians all were saying darkly that they hoped Clinton had a good excuse for what Congressman Bob Livingston called his "unique" timing. And all Clinton could come up with is that he had to attack before the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, which began on December 20, four days after he started the war. He said it would be very offensive to Muslims everywhere if he started the war during Ramadan. When two or three leading Republicans -- Mississippi's Trent Lott, for example -- suggested that he had started the war in an attempt to postpone impeachment, he pretended to be offended. He said, with a phony tone of wounded dignity, "I don't think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." Of course, that's exactly what every serious person did believe. But as I had feared, the politicians didn't have the courage or the honesty to stand on that position, and Lott and the others who had questioned the timing quickly backed down.
One Congressman, who was afraid to let his name be used, told the Washington Times that he had found a great deal of cynicism among senior military leaders in the Pentagon about their commander in chief. They were in daily contact with the White House in the weeks before the war began, and the generals and admirals had noticed that the White House's eagerness to begin bombing Iraq grew in intensity as one undecided Republican after another declared that he would vote to impeach. When the Congressman discussed the timing of the war with the military leaders, they laughed with contempt. They all had the same question: "Why now?" They all considered Clinton's stated excuse to be a pathetic lie.
Clinton hadn't built a coalition against Iraq, he didn't have a clear war plan and hadn't given the Pentagon time to develop one. There was no strategic objective for the attack. Furthermore, on Sunday, December 13, Clinton had told the Pentagon to prepare to launch an assault against Iraq that week. That was two days before the U.N. report claiming that Iraq was not cooperating with weapons inspectors was sent to the White House, late Tuesday night. Clinton waited until receiving the UN report to actually start the bombing, but it was clear to everyone in the Pentagon that that was phony, that he already had made up his mind on Sunday, three days earlier. They were all convinced that they had been ordered to go to war solely to postpone Clinton's impeachment. That's what the top military leaders of our nation believed when they began firing cruise missiles into Iraq on Clinton's orders.
One person in the know who spoke out was former chief U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter. He's certainly no friend of Iraq, and he resigned last August in protest against what he believed was an insufficiently aggressive effort to discover Iraq's weapons facilities. But hours before Clinton attacked Iraq last week, when Ritter knew the attack was coming, he told the New York Post that Richard Butler, the U.N. official in charge of weapons inspection, is collaborating with Clinton and his Jewish advisers rather than doing his U.N. job honestly and correctly. Ritter said, "What Richard Butler did last week with the inspections was a set-up. This was designed to generate a conflict that would justify a bombing." Ritter said that officials in the U.S. government told him that when the weapons inspectors were sent back into Iraq on November 19, after Saddam had capitulated on November 14 to head off an imminent U.S. attack and said he would not interfere with the inspections, the inspectors were secretly instructed to provoke a crisis that could be used as a pretext to begin the war. Which, of course, is exactly what I told you would happen, in my broadcasts of November 21 and November 28. Richard Butler went along with the scheme and produced a phony report saying that Iraq was not cooperating, but Clinton, seeing impeachment looming, couldn't even wait for that report. And the International Atomic Energy Agency, also monitoring the situation in Iraq, reported that the Iraqis were doing everything they could to comply with the weapons inspectors.
Ritter told the New York Post, "You have no choice but to interpret this as Wag the Dog. You have no choice." You know, I'm not the one who said that. It was our former chief weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, who personally knows all of the people involved and knows exactly how the system works. His statements are in the December 17 edition of the New York Post, but you'll have to have sharp eyes to find them anywhere else. Most of the media chose to ignore him.
And in case you don't already know, Wag the Dog is a recent Hollywood film in which a fictional President of the United States deliberately starts a war to divert attention from a scandal which arises when he has sex with a teen-aged girl in the White House.
This war against Iraq doesn't reveal anything new about Bill Clinton. We already knew that he was a man without a trace of honor or patriotism, a man who would do anything at all to protect himself from impeachment, a man who would start a war without a moment's hesitation if he thought it might be advantageous to himself personally. We also knew that he was a man with extremely poor judgment. Perhaps he really believed that no one would question the timing of his attack on Iraq and that he could brazen it out. The frightening thing is that he might have succeeded if he'd attacked earlier -- or even invented a better excuse for attacking when he did.
What this new war does is cast a little more light on the character of the system of which Bill Clinton is a part. You know, there's not a politician in Washington who doesn't understand exactly why Clinton unleashed the cruise missiles and smart bombs on Iraq. That was the time for every public official -- especially the members of Congress -- to speak out loudly against this criminal use of America's armed forces against another country to serve Mr. Clinton's personal and private needs. Every member of the Congress should have denounced Clinton's attack on Iraq instantly. The impeachment process should have moved ahead on an emergency, around- the-clock basis, followed by an immediate trial in the Senate, even during the Christmas holidays, to remove a criminal President from office before he could do any more damage and further dishonor the United States.
And you know, a great deal of damage has been done -- and I'm not talking about the bombing damage in Baghdad. The rioters who have been smashing up American embassies in half-a- dozen countries represent the feelings of most of the world's people about the United States -- certainly the feelings of young people, of university students, everywhere. When one 20-year-old protestor last week called America "the spawn of all evil," he was speaking for all the rest. Of course, the American Legion, the Rotary Club, the idiots in the Junior Chamber of Commerce don't understand this, but when Saddam Hussein or someone else somewhere finally is provoked into unleashing real weapons of mass destruction on Israel or the United States, the cheering will be heard around the world, not just in the Middle East.
You know, I watched the first part of the impeachment proceedings on television last Saturday, and the image which sticks in my mind is all the Democratic Congressmen walking out of the Capitol in protest during the voting and holding a little pep rally in support of Clinton in the Capitol parking lot. They were all spouting the familiar baloney, expressing fake outrage that the Republicans weren't supporting the commander in chief when the country was at war, shouting that everyone should stop picking on poor Mr. Clinton and let him get back to work on the job he was elected to do, and so on.
Now, as I said earlier, these Democrat politicians aren't that stupid. They understood just as well as the Republicans did why Clinton was bombing Iraq. But they had their eyes on the latest polls, which showed that 60 per cent of the voters were opposed to impeachment and three-quarters of them supported Clinton's war against Iraq. And it is clear that that's all that was important to these Democrat Congressmen. These representatives of the American people certainly weren't going to take an unpopular position and risk losing votes. Whatever the rabble wanted they would try to give the rabble -- anything except real leadership.
And I don't mean to imply that the Republican politicians are basically different. It's just that they had their eyes on slightly different polls: they were more interested in what Republican voters wanted rather than what the electorate as a whole wanted. They knew that a majority of Republicans supported impeachment. But they wouldn't speak out against Clinton's war, because they also knew that a majority of Republicans were of the same mind-set as the American Legion and the Rotary Club. And failing to speak out against Clinton's bombing of Iraq, refusing to condemn him for it, is seen as condoning it -- and rightly so.
Perhaps I'm being too stuffy about this business of bombing other countries as a way of dealing with sex scandals. Perhaps I should take the attitude of the generals and admirals in the Pentagon and regard it all as a game, good for a laugh now and then, and just go along with it. Perhaps I should applaud the bombing of Iraqis, simply because they're a pretty greasy bunch. Saddam Hussein certainly is a greasy-looking fellow. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. Perhaps it would be a good thing just to declare open season on greasy-looking people everywhere. I'm inclined to believe that the world would be better off without them. But I also believe that when we start getting rid of greasy types, we should begin with that greasy bunch around Mr. Clinton. We should tie Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger and William Cohen and the rest of the bunch to the next batch of bombs we drop on Baghdad.
Well, that's just wishful thinking, of course -- and the fact is, it's not really a game we're involved in: it's the most serious possible business, and every serious person, every person with any shred of a sense of responsibility, must concern himself with it. Just think: we have a system which allows a politician with nothing more going for him than charm and acting ability to become President -- and commander in chief of the world's most powerful military force wielding an awesomely destructive arsenal. We have a system which puts a constitutional psychopath in a position to push the doomsday button. What happened last week is not some science-fiction scenario. It's not something scripted in Hollywood. It was real. Clinton ordered the generals and admirals to start a war, and they did. They knew what Mr. Clinton's motives were, they laughed up their sleeves at him, they understood that they would be putting our military people at risk and using our forces to kill Iraqis for no better reason than taking the impeachment heat off Clinton for a while. And the Congress understood this too. But no general or admiral resigned in protest, and no Congressman made a big issue of it. When the bombing was over, the officers in the Pentagon didn't even act embarrassed. All they talked about is what percentage of their targets they succeeded in destroying.
You know, this business of bombing Iraq is a lot more than killing a few dozen Arabs and destroying some Iraqi real estate. It may not seem serious to the American Legion types, because Iraq isn't big enough to hit back -- at least, not in a conventional way. But we did wage unprovoked war on Iraq. And it's getting to be a habit. We also attacked Sudan and Afghanistan a few months ago. Those countries, like Iraq, are sovereign nations. People around the world notice these things. They draw conclusions from these things. Corrupt leaders at the top of other countries will continue to collaborate with the United States as long as the United States remains militarily and economically powerful, but even these corrupt leaders are appalled at the behavior of the U.S. government. There is no respect at all left. Clinton and the U.S. government as a whole are a laughingstock everywhere. The leaders may not laugh in our faces yet, but they all laugh behind our backs.
And younger people everywhere despise us intensely. A few years ago we were considered to be a dangerous bully. Now we are considered a dangerous bully who is completely out of control and unpredictable, an utterly irresponsible bully. The moral imperative to put us down, to protect the rest of the world from us, becomes stronger every time Clinton does something like he did last week. That sort of criminal irresponsibility may not seem important to the Clinton supporters whose primary interest is keeping their welfare checks coming, but there are a few serious, thoughtful people left in the world, and they understand that it cannot be tolerated.
The problem that serious Americans have is not so much that their President is willing to start a war to delay his impeachment, but that doing so doesn't hurt his popularity. Clinton can be replaced. Replacing the electorate will be a more difficult task, a much more fundamental task -- but nevertheless a necessary task for America's long-term survival. When the rabble -- the welfare class and the perverts and the racial minorities -- make up only a small minority of the electorate, many people are inclined to tolerate them. When they become a majority, they no longer can be tolerated. I've spoken before about the shortcomings of a democratic system of government, but Bill Clinton has made a more striking demonstration of those shortcomings than I ever could.
You know what I'd like to happen now? I'd like a long and bitter trial of Clinton in the Senate, with the Democrats and Republicans tearing each other to pieces for the next three or four months. At least, that should keep the politicians out of trouble and off our backs for a while. And then I'd like to see Clinton acquitted by one or two votes, so that for the next two years he can provide further demonstrations of the unsuitability of democracy as a system of government in the 21st century. What I'm afraid of is that the Democrats and Republicans, understanding that they all feed from the same trough and that it is not to their advantage to make any more of a public spectacle of the system of which each of them is a part, will try to get the trial over as quickly as possible. And of course, the polls will encourage them to do just that, not so much because the voters want to save the system from further embarrassment, but because they want to get back to their ball games. I hope that some of the generals and admirals in the Pentagon who laughed at Clinton's excuse for bombing Iraq will become serious now and begin thinking about their responsibilities to their country and will understand that they cannot be faithful to those responsibilities and continue to serve the system at the same time.
Choosing a Barbie Doll
Usually I like to deal with hard news on these programs: demographic statistics which need to be brought to our attention, crime stories which have been suppressed by the controlled media, unreported aspects of the sleazy business of government in Washington, the names and doings of the powerful men responsible for much of what's wrong in the world today. I like to deal with facts -- facts that we can check for ourselves, because credibility is such an important aspect of every program, of everything we talk about. And the reason credibility is so important to us is not that what we talk about is far-fetched or hard to believe -- most of it is commonsense stuff clearly backed up by facts -- but what I tell you also runs directly against the way the public has been conditioned to think these days. Much of what I say is not Politically Correct, and for that reason much of the public is afraid of it, terrified of it, doesn't want to believe it, will look for any excuse not to believe it. So I try to make all of my conclusions very hard for listeners to evade. I try to talk about things in a way that people will be forced to believe them, whether they want to or not.
It took me a long time to accept the fact that there really are people who don't want to know the truth. In fact, that is the case with the majority of the public. Most people want to believe what makes them feel safe and comfortable. Whether it's true or not really isn't important to them. I mean no offense to women when I say this, but that always has seemed to me to be an essentially feminine attitude: being more concerned with the social acceptability of an idea than with its truth or falsity. Yet that's the way most people, men as well as women, are these days. We're living in an emasculated age.
You know, when I told you that people are terrified of Politically Incorrect information, I wasn't exaggerating at all. The sponsor of this program, National Vanguard Books, mails out its book catalogs to thousands of people every month. The catalogs cost money, and so care is taken to send them to people who will be interested in the books and tapes described in them, but occasionally a catalog is received by a person who is allergic to Politically Incorrect ideas. What often happens then is that the recipient, instead of simply flipping through the catalog, noting that it is nothing a Clinton booster would be interested in, dropping it in the trash, and forgetting about it -- instead of this his heart begins racing and he breaks out in a cold sweat. He thinks to himself, "Omigod, suppose the neighbors saw this sticking out of my mailbox! They might think that I don't love our President. They might think that I'm on the wrong side of his popularity polls. They might even think that I'm some sort of racist or anti-Semite, because there are books in here which are not at all Politically Correct." And then, with his heart pounding and barely able to breathe, he calls his lawyer.
I'm not kidding you: we receive certified letters, return receipt requested, from lawyers demanding that we remove so and so's name from our mailing list immediately and never send him anything again. How much do think that cost the poor, frightened slob who received our catalog in the mail? I don't know about your lawyer, but mine would charge a hundred bucks to send out a certified letter like that for me. But there are lots of Americans who are so terrified that other people will think them Politically Incorrect that they're willing to pay. And despite the example I just gave of the reaction of a Clinton booster receiving a book catalog in the mail, there are anti-Clinton people who are just as frightened.
The real significance of this sort of frightened reaction by some people to the National Vanguard Books catalog is not that there are people out there whose ideas and opinions are different from mine. The significance is the fear. I really believe that many -- perhaps even most -- of these frightened people don't really have ideas or opinions at all. Ideas aren't important to them, aren't real to them. What's important is being accepted, fitting in, being approved. I think that's always been important to most people. To women, in particular, it's always been more important to be approved than to have a correct understanding of the world around them. Today more men than ordinarily are behaving like women in this regard. And the fear really is stronger and more widespread than it used to be.
Let me share with you a really disgusting story I read last week. It was published in the January 19 edition of the San Jose Mercury News. That's San Jose, California. The writer, Katherine Corcoran, is a staff member at the newspaper, a White woman, and she relates the soul- wrenching experience she had after her seven-year-old daughter went to a San Jose toy store with her aunt, looking for a Barbie doll. The little girl wanted to take a White Barbie doll off the shelf, but there was a Black Barbie doll in front of the White doll, so she moved the Black doll out of the way to get to the White doll. And then it occurred to the seven-year-old that she had just committed a "hate crime." She went home to her mother in tears, confused and frightened, and asked her mother whether moving the Black doll aside showed that she was "prejudiced." The girl's mother described all of this in the newspaper story she wrote. She quotes her daughter: "In the toy store today, Auntie let me pick out whatever Barbie I wanted. And I moved a Black Barbie on the shelf out of the way to reach the White Barbie behind her. Does that make me prejudiced?" And as I said, this was not a casual question. The little girl was crying, terrified that she might actually have shown herself to be "prejudiced."
And when the mother heard this question she herself froze in terror. She didn't know how to answer the question. She was afraid to answer simply, "No, dear, choosing the White doll instead of the Black doll doesn't mean that you're prejudiced." She couldn't give that answer because it would be dishonest. That answer would comfort her daughter at the moment, but it might lead the little girl into relaxing her vigilance and wandering even further down the path of Political Incorrectness. It might, heaven forbid, reinforce her preference for White over Black.
On the other hand, if the mother answered the girl's question honestly -- if the mother answered, "Yes, you vicious, little White racist, by shoving aside the Black doll you revealed your horrible, racist prejudice in favor of your own race" -- if her mother answered that way, then her daughter might not be able to handle the psychic trauma. The mother's own words in the newspaper were: "If I said yes, I feared I would scar her self-image for life. Her eyes pleaded with me not to confirm the worst." Believe it or not, that's exactly what this silly woman wrote in the newspaper: "If I said yes, I feared I would scar her self-image for life." And yet, the mother was sure that "yes" was the honest answer, because she knew that all of us Whites have the original sin of racism in us, a sin which we are obliged to struggle all our lives to overcome and to pay all our lives in order to atone for. For the remainder of a long, hand-wringing article, the mother agonized over how to deal with this terrible dilemma. The whole thing is surrealistic, like the sort of dream one might have after falling asleep with a really bad case of heartburn. But, unfortunately, that's the way a great many Americans think these days. They really do get torn up over such things as how to be sure that they are raising their children to be both Politically Correct and self-contented.
The mother writing in the San Jose Mercury News relates the stories of several other parents who encountered problems similar to her own. Not one of these parents expresses anger toward those who brainwashed their children to the point that any realization that they instinctively prefer their own kind frightens them and makes them feel guilty. Not one parent considers grabbing a shotgun and going out to hunt the media bosses who did this to their children. Instead they all cringe and grovel. The mother writing the story finally decides that what her daughter needs is still more brainwashing -- more children's books full of multiculturalism and diversity, more Steven Spielberg films, et cetera. She coaxes her daughter to believe that the only reason she reached for the White doll instead of the Black doll was not that the White doll was the one she could identify with because it looked like her, but that she liked the lipstick on the White doll more than the lipstick on the Black doll. That rationalization made the mother and daughter both feel much better. And then before the daughter could backslide, the mother went out and bought her a Black Barbie doll, a mestizo Barbie doll, an Indian Barbie doll, etc. The mother concludes: "I decided if my daughter was going to play with Barbies . . . they at least would be diverse. Her play world now includes Arab, Native American, Latina, and African-American Barbies." And that mother obviously feels quite proud of the way she dealt with her daughter's problem. I felt sick after reading her story.
It's easy to think ahead eight years or so to the time when this woman's daughter is in a racially integrated high school and begins dating. When she has a choice between dating Black boys or White boys, she will remember her mother's response to the Barbie doll dilemma. Her mother undoubtedly will be proud of her when she brings her first Black boyfriend home for dinner.
You know, there used to be a time when I thought that the only way we could save our race and our civilization was to have a civil war and shoot everyone who thought like that and then start over again with the survivors. Of course, we still need a civil war -- there's no getting around that -- but it won't be necessary to shoot everyone who feels angst and guilt when his or her daughter opts for a White Barbie doll. These people are not ideologically opposed to the survival of White civilization. As I mentioned earlier, they don't have an ideology, except to be Politically Correct, whatever that happens to be at the moment. The people who need to be shot -- who must be shot -- are the current arbiters of Political Correctness, the people who planned for seven-year-old White girls to feel guilty if they revealed a preference for White Barbie dolls. Shoot those, and the rest will adapt. They will assimilate whatever attitudes and opinions are presented to them. That's the way most people are. That's the way they've always been.
And the people who're like that are not just those with double-digit IQs. Many of these people are quite bright and competent. Either they were born feeling guilty about something, or they are susceptible to having a guilt feeling implanted in them, which the arbiters of Political Correctness then can manipulate. This is something which I guess witch doctors and priests have understood since prehistoric times and taken advantage of, which is why the concepts of guilt and redemption play such a large role in many religions. Unfortunately, the people who have wormed their way into our media of mass communication and gotten a deathgrip on them understand this too.
It's really tragic when we see how the media have manipulated people like the mother who writes for the San Jose Mercury News, but sometimes it's almost funny watching some of the academic lemmings in the grip of Political Correctness squirm when they're presented with a similar dilemma. A recent case is that of Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery. He'd always been a hero to the Politically Correct establishment after his World War Two victory over the Germans in North Africa. After the war he toured Britain's colonies in Africa and filed a report with the government which was quite at odds with the aim of the liberals in the government to dismantle the British Empire, and so his report was stamped "secret" and filed away for 50 years.
The statutory 50 years being up a few weeks ago, it was released to the news media by Britain's Public Records Office. Montgomery not only was in favor of strengthening the Empire and opposing the spread of communism in Africa -- both goals anathema to liberals -- but he expressed his frank opinion of Blacks, including the supposedly "civilized" ones, and their capabilities. The Black African, Montgomery wrote, "is a complete savage and is quite incapable of developing the country himself."
Now, Montgomery's opinion of Blacks was not at all uncommon in the 1940s, when he wrote his report, and people were not afraid to state this opinion in polite society. In fact, it was the majority opinion among Britons who had had any experience at all in the British colonies in Africa. During the past 50 years, however, the controlled media, the churches, and other boosters of Political Correctness succeeded in making that opinion Politically Incorrect, and so when Montgomery's comments on Blacks were made public recently, everyone still alive who had had any contact with him tried desperately to put as much distance as possible between himself and Montgomery. His surviving relatives expressed their shame and embarrassment. One of Montgomery's biographers interviewed by The Guardian this month sniffed that "his reputation is irredeemably damaged." Montgomery's entire reputation, of course, is as a military leader and strategist, but to the Politically Correct zealot it is quite inconceivable that one can be a "racist" and also a person with superior qualities of any kind.
And this sort of thing has happened over and over again. When H.L. Mencken's private papers were published a few years ago, there was the same sort of ducking and running for cover on the part of everyone who ever had said anything nice about Mencken or his work. They were scared to death that Mencken's frank views on race and on the Jews would cause people to think that they were themselves Politically Incorrect. They were terrified of guilt by association.
Almost every public figure or writer of note before about 1950, except communists or clerics, who had anything to say about race would scare the pants off today's Politically Correct lemmings. Read what the humanitarian doctor Albert Schweitzer had to say about the Blacks in Africa that he lived among and spent his life trying to help. Read what President Teddy Roosevelt wrote on race. Or Abe Lincoln. Or any of a hundred others I could name without even having to do any real digging in my library. This has made history a political minefield for Politically Correct writers and teachers -- and it is the principal reason why history is being phased out of high school and university curricula, except for bowdlerized -- really falsified -- versions which have been carefully cleared of mines. I mean, how is a Politically Correct teacher to explain to students that nearly everyone they had thought of as a great inventor -- Thomas Edison, for example -- or a great industrialist -- Henry Ford, for example -- or a great pioneer of aviation -- Charles Lindbergh, for example -- or a great military leader -- George Patton, for example -- or you name it was really a terrible racist? How is this to be concealed from the students when they read the details of these historical figures' private lives, when they read what these people actually thought on racial matters? Hey, a history professor could get himself into real trouble in a hurry. Better just not to study anything that happened before about 1960. Who needs to know all of that old stuff, anyway? Most of it is terribly Incorrect, Politically speaking.
The most popular radio show ever broadcast in America, which started in 1929, eventually became a TV series, and ran until 1960 -- 31 years altogether -- was Amos 'n' Andy. It was a show with White scriptwriters and White actors playing the roles of Blacks and using Black dialect. It was not in any sense an anti-Black show; in fact, it treated its Black characters with affection; but it was a comedy show, and it did not portray Blacks as dignified statesmen or brain surgeons or rocket scientists, so by the 1960s it had been condemned as "racist" and taken off the air. If the Amos 'n' Andy show were revived today, any company which signed on as a sponsor would be hit immediately with boycotts and demonstrations. Politicians and church leaders would be giving outraged speeches on television about how "hateful" and "racist" it was. And all over America tens of thousands of Katherine Corcorans -- remember, she's the silly woman who wrote in the San Jose Mercury News last week about her seven-year-old daughter's traumatic experience with Barbie dolls -- tens of thousands of Katherine Corcorans and their fully "sensitized" husbands would be wringing their hands and agonizing over how to explain to their kids why they couldn't watch Amos 'n' Andy on TV, why it would be "prejudiced" of them to laugh at the characters.
It's interesting to note that although Amos 'n' Andy spent its last days as a TV show, it was primarily TV which brought about the great sea change in America in the 1960s which made it impossible for Amos 'n' Andy or any other Politically Incorrect programming to remain on the air. Television as a brainwashing medium first became significant around 1950 -- or perhaps a year or two earlier. In 1950 there already were ten million black-and-white television receivers in the United States. Even in the early 1950s every self-respecting lemming family which wanted to keep up with the Joneses believed that it had to have a television receiver in the house, so that every evening the little lemmings and their parents could gather around the tiny, flickering, monochrome screen to have their attitudes and opinions adjusted. But it was the advent of color television at the beginning of the 1960s which made television the powerful and universal medium of mind control that it quickly became.
Without television Katherine Corcoran's little girl could have reached for the White Barbie doll without a trace of angst. Without television Field Marshall Montgomery's admirers wouldn't have to be apologizing for him. Without television Bill Clinton would be simply another crooked lawyer in Little Rock, defending small-time drug dealers.
Of course, it's really misleading to blame television as a medium for Political Correctness. That's like blaming Smith and Wesson or Colt for drive-by shootings. The ones to be blamed are the members of that Hollywood tribe who got their dirty hands on television right from the beginning, elbowed everyone else aside, and with an unfailing tribal instinct began using the new medium to inject their spiritual poison into our people. But, you know, that's a subject we've talked about often enough already on American Dissident Voices.
We ought to conclude our talk today by resolving that we will not continue sitting on our hands while that filthy tribe poisons the souls of seven-year-old girls: that we will do whatever we must do to end their control of the minds and souls of our people.
When the Barriers Come Down
During the ongoing impeachment and trial of Bill Clinton one of the things we hear most often from the media is that this is a historic event. If Clinton is convicted by the Senate and removed from office, it will be the first time such a thing has happened -- something for the Guiness Book of Records. This led me to think about other records which are being set these days.
For example, if Clinton is removed from office and then is tried and convicted in a Federal court for perjury or obstruction of justice, he could become a member of a record-breaking U.S. prison population. I looked at some of the figures provided by the U.S. Census and published in various almanacs. I don't have the very latest figures, but in 1996 there were 1,185,000 persons confined to state and Federal prisons in the United States. With a total U.S. population in 1996 of 265 million, that's just under half a percent of the population in prison, which is a record. And that's not even counting another half-million inmates currently in local and county jails.
In 1930, at the beginning of the Great Depression, the total population of the United States was 123 million people, and 117,000 of those people were in state and Federal prisons. That works out to less than one-tenth of one percent of the population. In other words, in the bad, old days of chain gangs and lynchings and poverty and Al Capone and so on, we had only one-fifth as many people in prison, on a per capita basis, as we have today.
Now that is about as stark a demographic statistic as you'll find anywhere, and it's a very interesting statistic as well. The total population of the United States slightly more than doubled during the 66 years between 1930 and 1996, while the prison population increased by more than a factor of ten. Why? How could that have happened in this kinder and gentler age? Isn't that contradictory to everything we've been taught about the country becoming more and more enlightened and with a hundred times as many so-called "entitlement" programs and job-training programs and rehabilitation programs and Head Start programs and so forth now as then? How does that square with the government's recent claims that crime of all sorts is falling these days? Murders are down, they tell us. Robberies are down. Then why does the prison population keep increasing?
You know, a lot of scholars have studied this phenomenon and written books about it, but their aim seems to be to obscure the Politically Inconvenient facts rather than to get at a real understanding. I mean, how is an academician trying to write a book about crime and punishment to explain this amazing statistic in a Politically Correct way? In 1930 the head of the country was that arch-capitalist and enemy of the workers Herbert Hoover, who believed in locking them up and throwing away the key. Today it's that fellow who "feels the pain" of every Black rapist, crack dealer, and welfare thug who votes Democratic. In 1930 we had mostly White juries, who did not look kindly on criminals of any sort. Today we have the O.J. Simpson trend in judicial affairs. In 1930 we had racism and apartheid. We didn't believe in coddling criminals. We made them serve their time. So how could there possibly be more than ten times as many people behind bars today as then? Now, I know what some of you're thinking. You're thinking that we have more Blacks in America now, and they make up most of the prison population. But you know, Blacks only increased from 9.7 per cent of the U.S. population in 1930 to 13 per cent today. That by itself can't account for the 400 per cent per capita increase in the prison population.
So, I'll explain it for you. There has been an enormous increase in the percentage of lawbreakers in America primarily because the social institutions which used to keep antisocial activity in check have been destroyed: deliberately destroyed. And this has gone hand in hand with the growth of liberal attitudes and liberal public policies. An example: In 1930 there was a very strict policy of racial segregation almost everywhere in the United States, in the North as well as in the South. Blacks did not live in the same neighborhoods as Whites, they did not eat in the same restaurants, they did not go to the same schools, and for the most part they did not work in the same offices and shops as Whites. Blacks found loitering in White neighborhoods, even in the daytime, were subject to arrest. Blacks and Whites, in other words, did not mix socially, and so Blacks did not have much opportunity to commit crimes against Whites. Furthermore, Blacks understood that if they did commit crimes against Whites and got caught, there would be no mercy and no leniency. Punishment would be sure, swift, and severe.
Furthermore, there was no social familiarity between Blacks and Whites. Blacks of any age customarily addressed Whites as "sir" or "ma'am." Blacks may not have loved Whites in 1930, and Whites for the most part made no pretense of loving Blacks, but Blacks did respect Whites, and Whites expected to be respected by Blacks. The net result was that far fewer crimes against Whites were committed by Blacks, and so far fewer Blacks were in prison for offenses against Whites.
Now, the really interesting thing is that under these racially segregated conditions Blacks also committed far fewer crimes against other Blacks. Why was that? Well, it was because Blacks had much more of a Black community, much more of a Black society of their own in America in 1930 than they do today. They had their own schools, with their own teachers and principals. They had their own colleges. They were not flattered or pampered or given all sorts of unrealistic expectations with the resulting frustrations. They understood their limits, what they were permitted to do and what they were not permitted to do, what was expected of them and what was not expected. And they adapted to their condition moderately well. Individual Blacks didn't compare their condition to that of Whites and become resentful and frustrated; instead they compared their condition to that of other Blacks. Their crime rate still was far higher than the White crime rate, but it was much lower than it is today.
Then the liberals, the egalitarians, set about removing all of the limits, setting aside all of the firm rules, abolishing the barriers between the Black society and the separate White society. They told the Blacks that they didn't have to respect or obey Whites any longer, that they were just as good as Whites, just as capable, and that they could enter White society and have everything the Whites had. I don't have time to go into this whole process in detail, but you know much of it already. The Roosevelt administration really began the process in earnest in 1933, and then the Second World War gave the liberals a wonderful opportunity to push it much faster. Blacks were hired by the millions by defense industries during the war, uprooted from rural areas and concentrated in cities. And they were put to work in defense plants right alongside Whites and paid far more money than they ever had seen before.
There was, of course, White resistance. In February 1942, just a few weeks after the war began, White residents in Detroit responded to the government's program of moving thousands of Blacks into the city and providing special housing for them by organizing a posse of 1,200 armed men to block the entrance to one of these Black housing projects. In June 1943 26,000 White workers at Detroit's Packard Motor Plant went on strike to protest the hiring of Blacks for factory jobs that had belonged exclusively to Whites. The strike turned into a riot, in which 29 Blacks and 6 Whites were killed. The government sent in Federal troops to protect the Blacks. And of course, Detroit was not the only American city where the Roosevelt government's program to break down the barriers between the Black and White societies met resistance from Whites.
The problem everywhere was that the Whites had very little effective leadership. The working- class Whites, who were most immediately threatened socially and economically by the government's programs to integrate their neighborhoods and workplaces, were abandoned by the middle-class and upper-class Whites, conservatives as well as liberals, because the latter didn't feel immediately threatened. Then as now, these educated and well-to-do Whites had only contempt for working-class Whites. Socioeconomic class consciousness was much stronger among them than race consciousness. It never occurred to them that one day the government would do to them what it was doing then to White workers. They were astoundingly short- sighted in this regard.
After the war, under Truman and Eisenhower and Johnson and Kennedy, the government continued breaking down the barriers, continued forcibly integrating the Black and White societies. Despite the 14th and 15th Amendments, Blacks in many parts of the South were not permitted to vote until after Lyndon Johnson's Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the energetic use of Federal police power to enforce it. This led to a huge increase in the number of Black elected officials in the South. And of course, there was the forced racial integration of the public schools everywhere, often accompanied by bizarre programs such as forced busing for racial balance. And then there were various forced housing schemes intended to break up racially segregated neighborhoods. And there was "equal employment opportunity" -- which, in fact, often was racially biased hiring and promotion in favor of Blacks, under the guise of "affirmative action." Et cetera. As I said, I don't have time to go into a detailed record of the way in which the government broke down the separate Black and White societies and forced them together into a single multicultural society.
There was intermittent White resistance to this forced integration program -- rioting in South Boston over forced school integration, rioting in Oxford, Mississippi, in 1962 when the government forced the University of Mississippi to begin admitting Black students, and so on -- but remarkably less resistance than might have been expected. Again, this was due to a lack of White organization, a lack of White leadership: the affluent and educated Whites, the Whites who might have provided effective leadership, opted out of the struggle, because they did not feel threatened by the government's integration program, and they were intimidated by the very effective Jewish television propaganda of the day, which tarred any racially conscious White person as "trailer trash." Blacks also rioted during the 1960s -- not in opposition to the government's programs of forced racial mixing, but because their expectations of equality were not satisfied. The government and the Jewish media and the liberals had been telling them for decades that they were just as good and just as capable and just as deserving as White people, and that they could have everything that Whites had. And when they found that most Blacks couldn't have everything Whites had, when they discovered that a White life-style was not automatically forthcoming for them, they rioted and burned and looted on a huge scale. They burned Detroit and Newark and Los Angles and Washington and 20 other American cities in the 1960s.
The response of the government, the media, and the liberals to Black lawlessness was more of the same. The media and the liberals blamed both the Blacks' frustration and their explosions of rage on "White racism," and the government devised still more programs to force Blacks and Whites together. But the old social constraints on Blacks were gone. They no longer had to address White people as "sir" or "ma'am." They no longer feared or respected White people. And, most important, they no longer compared their own attainments with those of other Blacks but with those of Whites, and the comparison infuriated them. And so Black behavior took a drastic downturn, and Blacks began filling up the prisons.
Another excellent example of the change in Black behavior which results when the constraints imposed on Blacks by Whites are removed and at the same time all the barriers between a Black society and a White society coexisting side by side are taken away, is provided by South Africa. The two principal differences between South Africa and the United States in this regard are, first, that in South Africa the Blacks are the majority race; and second, that the removal of the White constraints and of the barriers between the two societies occurred much more quickly. The results, however, have been almost exactly the same. The Black crime rate in South Africa always was much higher than the White crime rate, of course, but prior to 1994 the victims of Black criminals were nearly all Black. The White government simply didn't tolerate Black crime against Whites, and Blacks who attacked Whites knew that they almost certainly would be caught, and that when caught their punishment would be swift and very severe.
Just as in America the liberals blamed Black criminality in South Africa on White racism. It was the effect of apartheid on Blacks which frustrated them and made them strike out at their fellow Blacks, the liberals explained. It was the White man holding the Black man down; it was the White man forcing the Black man to live in crowded, dirty, and violent slums; it was the White man refusing to share his schools and his neighborhoods and his White women with the Black man which made the Black man behave in a criminal way. Take your foot off the Black man's neck and treat him like a fellow human being, the liberals said to the White South Africans, and his behavior will improve greatly.
Well, White people are nothing if not gullible, and White South Africans are if anything even more gullible than White Americans. They listened to the liberals. They said to themselves, yes, we're being terrible to the Blacks by making them have their own, separate society and by policing them so strictly and by not letting them go to school with us or marry our women. They felt guilty about apartheid. And so in 1994 they turned their country over to the Black majority in South Africa. They let the Blacks elect a Black government for the country. There no longer were any restrictions on where the Blacks could live. They could go to White schools and marry White women. They had Black judges and Black police officials. Apartheid was history. The White man's foot was off the Black man's neck.
And the Black man's behavior suddenly became much worse than it had been before. Not only did he begin raping, robbing, and murdering Whites on an unprecedented scale, but he also began committing more crimes against his fellow Blacks than ever before. Life in the Black townships has become much more violent and dangerous than it was prior to Black rule. And Blacks in rural areas are being burned and stoned to death by their fellow Blacks on charges of witchcraft and sorcery. When the Whites were in charge they didn't tolerate that sort of thing. But now the Blacks are in charge, and many of them are wishing the Whites were running the country again. Crime is so bad that they long for apartheid again, when they felt much safer. And they're actually saying this in public. They're telling this to White television reporters.
You see, the same two things changed suddenly for Blacks in South Africa in 1994 as changed for Blacks in America over a period of several decades. White control was relaxed, and Black society lost its boundaries as it was told to merge with White society. And the results were very similar: an explosion of Black criminal behavior. The liberals, of course, have an explanation for Black behavior in South Africa just as they do in the United States. It's payback time, they say. The Blacks are still angry about having their human rights violated under apartheid, and that's why they're murdering White farmers and raping White women and stealing cars from White men, the liberals explain. It's a little more difficult for them to explain why the Blacks also are killing and robbing and raping more of their own people now.
But we know the explanation, don't we? First, without the White man's foot on his neck, the Black man will behave in his accustomed way. Without the White man forcibly restraining him and making him fear the consequences, the Black man will do what comes naturally to him. And second, the Black man's society, as squalid as it may seem to us, does at least serve the purpose of providing a frame of reference for Blacks. Take that frame of reference away, and there will be trouble. When Blacks are able to compare their condition, their attainments, their status with those of other Blacks, they can deal with it. When they begin comparing themselves with Whites, the result is frustration, resentment, anger, and criminal behavior.
And I also should mention that the government's attempt to force a multicultural society in America has resulted in an increase in criminal behavior on the part of Whites also. At the same time that the Black incarceration rate has been rising, so has the White rate. I don't have a racial breakdown for 1930, but in the decade between 1985 and 1995 the percentage of White Americans in state and Federal prisons rose from 0.12 to .23: that is, from about an eighth of a per cent to a little under a quarter of a per cent. In the same decade the percentage of Blacks incarcerated increased from .74 to 1.5: from three-quarters of a per cent to one and one-half per cent. Although the percentage of Blacks in prison increased slightly faster, both the White and Black imprisonment rates nearly doubled during that one decade, with Blacks somewhat more than six times as likely as Whites to be in prison.
And I also should point out that most of the five-fold increase since 1930 in the percentage of Americans in prison has taken place since the great social and racial revolution of the 1960s which the liberals remember so fondly: the decade of pot smoking and freedom marches and sit- ins and draft card burning and trashing the dean's office. The rise in the rate of incarceration was quite moderate between 1930 and 1970. It was in 1972 that the percentage of the American population in prison really began to skyrocket.
Today there are far more Americans in prison per capita than in any other industrialized country except Russia, and we're neck and neck with Russia. We have nearly 11 times the incarceration rate of the Netherlands, for example.
The lesson of all this is that liberal theories about the wonders of multiculturalism and racial diversity and the horrors of segregation are one thing, but the hard, cold reality of the prison statistics is something quite different. You can force the races to mix only if you're prepared to lock them up at more than five times the rate for separate, racially homogeneous societies.
AIDS and the Cult of Equality
The organization which I head, the National Alliance, has for the past five years or so been publishing warnings about the dangers of contracting AIDS through sexual contact with non- Whites. We have warned, for example, that heterosexual Black males are 14 times as likely as heterosexual White males of being carriers of HIV, the AIDS-causing virus. Our data came from the U.S. government's Centers for Disease Control and were entirely accurate at the time. Of course, we were lambasted by the Jewish media and by a great many Politically Correct White people as well -- "racially sensitive" Gentiles who take their lead from the Jewish media -- for providing these warnings. We were denounced as "haters," and horror was expressed that we would publish such information.
Some of these Politically Correct Whites are so steeped in the lie of equality that they don't believe such a startling difference between the races could exist. After all, they have been told all their lives by the public schools and the government and the controlled media that Blacks and Whites are just alike except for skin color. So how could Black men be 14 times as likely as White men to transmit AIDS to a sexual partner? I mean, I receive hand-wringing letters literally every day from anguished egalitarians who whine to me that "we are all the same inside, Black and White. We all bleed red." Well, of course, snakes and rats bleed red too. But there are differences.
Other White people who like to think of themselves as "racially sensitive" understand that this enormous racial disparity in HIV infection rates is real -- they do not believe that the Centers for Disease Control is faking the data -- but they believe that it is "racist" to mention it. They deplore anything which might offend Blacks by reminding them of racial differences or -- even worse -- which might reduce the incidence of interracial sex. Better for White women to die from AIDS, they believe, than to avoid sex with Black men.
Well, just last week new AIDS data were published based on a study of 1.7 million blood donors in the United States. Each donor was tested for the presence of HIV using a new method which distinguishes between recent infections by the virus and infections which have been in the donor's blood for more than a few months. The study revealed a new infection rate among Blacks which is more than 25 times the new infection rate for Whites. I'll repeat that: the per capita number of new HIV infections among Blacks is between 25 and 26 times the number for Whites, indicating that the disparity between Blacks and Whites in the infection rate is increasing rapidly. While five years ago heterosexual Black males were 14 times more likely to be HIV carriers than Whites, the latest figures for new infections indicate that that ratio now is somewhere between 14 and 25: probably around 20.
AIDS began as a Black disease in Africa; it spread to White homosexuals through sexual contact with Blacks, and for a few years White homosexuals made up the principal reservoir for AIDS outside of Africa; now, among heterosexuals, AIDS is on the way to becoming an almost exclusively Black disease again. In addition to the obvious behavioral reasons for this, there also are more direct genetic reasons: Blacks are genetically predisposed to infection by the AIDS- causing virus. This is an inherited, racial difference. The main reason why AIDS remains a concern for White Americans is that heterosexual Whites can and do become infected by the virus, even if not as easily as Blacks do, and when we are infected the virus is just as lethal for us. There was a time when the main infection channels for Whites were intravenous drug usage and bisexual White males, who spread the disease from their homosexual male partners to their heterosexual female partners. These days the greatly increased incidence of interracial sex, primarily between Black males and White women, is the principal channel the disease has into the heterosexual White population. Were it not for this interracial sex, we might be able to look forward to seeing the disease confined almost entirely to Blacks and homosexuals.
It might seem no real loss to us if White women who have sex with Blacks are lumped in with Blacks and homosexuals as part of the AIDS reservoir; certainly, we can do without them. Unfortunately, however, these trendy/trashy White women also have sex with White men. And the media bosses are doing everything they can to push the trend toward even more interracial sex by producing more racially mixed television entertainment and advertising. Mainly because of this, it looks like AIDS will continue to be a threat to normal White men and women even as it becomes more and more a Black disease.
The most interesting aspect of this to me is the continuing refusal of a large segment of the White public to recognize the racial aspects of the AIDS epidemic. Even people who're not zealots for Political Correctness are embarrassed by any discussion of the subject. To warn White women that sexual contact with a Black male these days is about 20 times as likely to result in an HIV infection as contact with a White male seems very offensive to these overly sensitive souls. To them it's like yelling "nigger" in public. It's just so embarrassing that they can't deal with it.
You know, I'm as much in favor of politeness and decorum in race relations as anyone. I've never been in favor of being gratuitously offensive. But I've also never been in favor of sticking my head in the sand or refusing to deal with relevant facts: especially facts relevant to the ever- growing and ever-more-threatening racial problem in America. On these broadcasts I've talked about the much greater tendency of Blacks toward criminal behavior. I've talked about the prison statistics and the murder statistics and the armed robbery statistics and the rape statistics. These statistics come from the U.S. Department of Justice and the Census Bureau and the FBI, and they show really radical differences in Black and White behavior. These behavioral differences are based on race, on genes -- not on income. One can see this radical difference in criminal behavior between Blacks and Whites in the same income brackets. And these crime statistics, just like the AIDS statistics, are relevant. White people need to be aware of these racial differences. Actually, it wouldn't hurt Blacks to be aware of them too. Anyway, I don't talk about crime statistics in order to offend anyone or to hurt anyone's feelings. Yet whenever I do talk about them, I receive the same whining letters from White idiots who ask me why I can't understand that "we're all the same inside."
And it's the same when I talk about IQ differences between the races. These racial intelligence differences are large, they are real, and they are relevant. Our schools are in the mess they are in today largely because we ignore these racial differences in intelligence, these differences in problem-solving ability. It embarrasses otherwise intelligent White people to talk about them. They don't want to be reminded of them. And so they ignore them and pretend that they don't exist. And they hate me when I won't let these relevant truths be ignored; they hate me when I rub their noses in the truth.
My organization, the National Alliance, publishes material on racial demographics. For several years we've distributed stickers which have the words on them in large print, "Earth's most endangered species: the White race -- help preserve it." Millions of those stickers have been stuck on fences or power poles or tacked to bulletin boards all over America.
You may have seen one. If you haven't, send me a self-addressed, stamped envelope, and I'll send you a free sample. And of course, that sticker, just like everything else we publish, is based on hard facts. It's based on the fact that White Americans are fast becoming a minority in their own country, just as people of European race already are a minority in the world and are becoming a smaller minority with each passing year. In 1950 the population of the United States was 90 per cent White. Today it's just over 70 per cent White, and Bill Clinton has been boasting to his supporters that Whites will be a minority in the United States within the next few decades. In the world the White population already is down close to 10 per cent -- and that's because Whites, with their medical science and their agricultural science, have reduced the death rate in the non-White areas of the world and caused the populations there to explode during the 20th century.
Anyway, the message on our sticker is about as innocuous and inoffensive as a message can be. Not a word about Blacks on the sticker, not a word about hurting anyone or about anyone being superior or inferior to anyone else. Yet that simple message -- "help preserve the White race" -- brings us more hate mail than anything else we publish. And I mean hate mail from White people, who really become uptight when they see our stickers.
Of course, I don't mean that all White people become uptight when they see our publications or hear my message. Actually, our favorable mail -- letters from people who tell us how pleased they were to see one of our stickers or to hear one of my broadcasts, people who tell me how much they agree with my message: our love mail -- is running more than three to one over our hate mail. But that may be simply due to the fact that the people who like what I have to say are a more literate bunch than the haters; they are better able to cope with the task of writing a letter.
I say that because I'm aware of Bill Clinton's popularity polls, and I know that anyone who likes Bill Clinton must hate what I say. Of course, I know that much of Bill Clinton's constituency isn't White. The Democrats have put together a coalition of non-Whites and seriously defective Whites -- homosexuals, feminists, welfare recipients, and so on: people who have a grievance against society and think they're entitled to special treatment -- and this coalition makes up a majority of the Clinton constituency. And I'm not talking to these people. I don't care what they think. The only people in the Clinton constituency I care about are the more or less normal, productive White people.
I say more or less normal, because it's difficult for me to regard anyone who supports Bill Clinton as being entirely normal. I think these people need to have their heads worked on -- seriously. I think that if we could understand what's wrong with these White Clinton supporters we could understand what makes people send me hate letters when I publish AIDS statistics or race-and-crime statistics or other facts which are contrary to what they've been told by their television.
At first I thought that these people were afraid that the material I publish might offend Blacks and might provoke a riot and that was why they objected to it. Of course, I wouldn't be offended if a Black organization published statistics, for example, proving that White people are much more likely to get skin cancer from exposure to the sun than Blacks are. It wouldn't bother me a bit. For one thing, I know that it's true. For another thing, I believe that it's good for White people to be reminded of that: it might make them a little more careful not to get sunburned. And if the Blacks want to believe that their relative immunity to sun-induced skin cancer makes them a superior race, well that's all right with me too. I'm not offended.
But really, I think that the White people who get upset with me when I say that we ought to preserve the White race aren't worried that this will hurt the feelings of Blacks. They aren't worried about being offensive to Blacks. It is they who are offended, because it is an assault on their religion. One of the things that led me to this conclusion was my noticing that the people who send me hate letters have a tendency to say very similar things, as if they're quoting from scripture. I've already mentioned one of the scriptural quotes I often hear from these people: "we're all the same inside," which is just another way of saying that the only difference between the races is skin color. And then there's the reminder that we all bleed red. I guess I've heard that a thousand times. And it's such a stupid thing to say, that they must be quoting scripture. It's like saying that people have white bones, and rattlesnakes have white bones, therefore there's really no difference between people and rattlesnakes. When they say, "We all bleed red," that's supposed to end the argument. It's like they believe they have said something very profound.
And there are other really stupid things they all have in their litany. For example, I've heard them say at least a thousand times, "There's no such thing as a White race. There's only the human race." And if you meet one of these idiots face to face, he'll prove to you that there's no such thing as a White race. He'll put his hand down on a sheet of white paper and triumphantly point out that his skin tone -- and mine -- aren't really white, like the paper. End of argument.
You know, I called these people idiots because they say such stupid things. But really, most of them are not idiots. Most of them can figure out how to operate their VCRs, and some of them can even fill out their own income tax forms, which is more than I can do. They all say the same stupid things because these things come from a catechism. They are statements of religious orthodoxy. They don't really believe that when I say, "I am a White man," they can refute me by showing me that my skin tone is not the same as a sheet of white paper. They only believe that in their make-believe world of egalitarianism. And the reason they become angry when they see my stickers about preserving the White race is that I am challenging their religion, which tells them that there is no White race. I am telling them that what they believe isn't real; it's only make- believe. And that makes them angry. It makes them hateful. That's why they write me hate letters which are full of angst and passion and venom, instead of just ignoring me or laughing at me as a benighted infidel. They feel threatened. At some level of their consciousness they understand that their religion is just make-believe. They can be Religiously Correct -- they can be pious -- when they are with other egalitarians. But in the presence of a heretic they feel threatened, because, as I said, at some level they understand that their Religious Correctness is only make- believe. It cannot stand up to examination in the real world. It will collapse like a house of cards. That's why they hate any dissident, any heretic.
I'll say it again: when I see a lot of otherwise intelligent people saying the same stupid things as if they were reciting scripture or reading from a catechism, and when they respond with angst and hatred when contradicted, then I suspect that I am dealing with the members of a religious cult -- and in this case it's the cult of egalitarianism. These are people for whom the statement that there is no difference between Whites and Blacks except skin color is not a scientific statement: it's a religious statement. They're horrified when I advise White women that sexual contact with a Black male is about 20 times as likely to give them AIDS as is sex with a White male, not because they believe that I'm saying something which is scientifically incorrect, but because I'm saying something Religiously Incorrect; I am saying something heretical, which threatens their whole belief structure. They are responding to me in the same emotional way that a devout Christian in the 15th century might have responded to someone who announced publicly that he didn't believe in the virgin birth. And in fact, the people that I offend by stating truths which contradict their egalitarian beliefs, just like their 15th-century Christian counterparts, would like to see me burned at the stake.
You know, this business of making a religion out of egalitarianism isn't just a curious psychological phenomenon, suitable only for investigation by students of abnormal psychology: it's an extraordinarily dangerous phenomenon that every patriot -- and in fact, every rational person -- ought to be very concerned about. In the first place, the prophets and the priests and the bishops of the cult of egalitarianism have at their disposal the most powerful machinery of persuasion and mind control which has ever existed: they are the masters of Hollywood and Madison avenue, of television and films, of all of the most influential newspapers and news magazines. Using their machinery of mind control, they have persuaded the most impressionable segments of our people that certain concepts are sacred and undebatable: concepts such as democracy, equality, diversity, multiculturalism. These are holy concepts, which must never be questioned by cult members. And other concepts are undebatably evil: racism, patriotism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism -- ah, yes, above all else, anti-Semitism must be opposed by the cult members.
The cult has appeared under different guises at different times and places. Sometimes it has been called communism, sometimes democracy, but the underlying idea always has been equality, and the prophets and bishops always have been the same people -- that is, people from the same tribe, the tribe of Karl Marx and Michael Eisner and Steven Spielberg. And they have preached their poison, their hatred for heretics, for all who questioned their doctrine of equality. They have murdered more people in the name of equality than have been killed for the sake of any other religion. As the great Russian patriot Alexander Solzhenitsyn noted just a few months ago, two generations of the best of his people were selectively murdered in the name of equality -- everyone who excelled, everyone who stood out from the crowd, everyone whose excellence showed up the lie of human equality, was murdered by the egalitarians who had a deathgrip on Russia. And really, if they could, they'd do the same thing in America.
That is something to remember every time you hear a cult member whine that "we're all the same inside." It's something to remember when the simple warning that contact with Blacks is the way most White women are becoming infected with the AIDS virus elicits the sneering response from a cult member that "their blood is just as red as yours." These cult members really don't care how many White women catch AIDS from Blacks or how many White people are the victims of Black criminals. Their only concern is that people not be reminded of these things.
Thoughts on Accepting Responsibility
I receive many letters from listeners, and usually they are gratifying to me. Some people tell me that I have opened their eyes or that I have helped them make sense out of what's been happening to their world, that my explanations have really helped them understand what's going on, have helped them see the big picture. And some people tell me that they already had figured out by themselves what's happening, and that they are very happy to have discovered my broadcasts, because now they know that they aren't the only ones to have figured it out: that they aren't alone in the world, that there are others who have come to the same conclusions they have.
I especially sympathize with these people who tell me how glad they are to discover that they're not the only ones who understand what's happening, because there was a time when I also wondered whether I was the only sane person in the universe. I was running around telling anyone who would listen, "My god, don't you understand where this policy of racial integration of the schools will lead? It will lead to the drugs and crime that are endemic among Blacks spreading to White boys and girls. It will lead to a lowering of scholastic standards to accommodate the Blacks. It will lead to a greatly increased rate of racial intermarriage."
And people would look at me as if I were crazy, and they'd tell me I was an alarmist. They'd say to me, "Just having a few Blacks in school won't hurt anything. Surely everything will go on pretty much as it always has."
Then, after I'd looked into the ownership and management of the news and entertainment media which were pushing every destructive racial and social and political policy and I discovered that most of them were Jews, I figured I had the key to what was happening to America, and I tried to tell people about that. I'd say, "Listen, did you know that every major studio in Hollywood is run by Jews? Did you know that all three television networks are run by Jews?" In those days there were just three television networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC. And I'd start naming the Jews who were running the big film companies in Hollywood, the Jews who ran the networks, the Jews who owned the New York Times and the Washington Post and the three weekly news magazines. I'd say, "Hey, listen, the Jews make up less than three per cent of the population in the United States, and yet they control nearly every medium of mass communication. That's no coincidence." And people would tell me, "Well, so what? They're just good businessmen, that's all. They're clever at that sort of thing. That's how they got control. Don't worry about it."
And I'd say, "But don't you see, with their monopoly control of the media they're able to have an enormous influence on public opinion. Look at what they're doing with these television serials of theirs, All in the Family, and M*A*S*H, and the rest. They're all slanted the same way -- all of them. That's no coincidence. And by controlling the ideas and opinions of such a large segment of the public, they can control votes, they can control political candidates. That's why our government is pushing the same policies the media are pushing. It's no coincidence. Don't you understand?" And people would say to me, "Don't talk like that. That sounds like anti-Semitism. You can't say anything that's anti-Semitic, because if you do the media will destroy you, they'll smear you, they'll cause you to lose your job. Go away; don't talk to me."
And I'd reply to them, "Look, I don't care what you call it -- anti-Semitism or patriotism or alarmism or what -- the point is that it's the truth; it's what's happening to us. And it's our responsibility to stop it." But my listeners already would be running away as fast as they could go. And I would really feel lonely. And so I can sympathize with the listeners who write me today and tell me how glad they are to have found out that they're not alone in their concern for what's being done to our country, to our civilization, to our people.
But let me tell you, it's a lot easier today to find people who agree with us than it was 25 years ago. There are a lot more concerned people out there today than there were then. There are a lot more people who understand what's happening. And if my efforts have had anything to do with that, if I have been able to increase the number of those who understand, then I am very happy for that. That is my reward for everything I do: knowing that I am building the number of people who understand what's happening in the world today.
But you know, there's more to our task than just helping people to understand what's happening. The bigger job is to get people to accept responsibility -- personal responsibility -- for straightening things out. Even back in those days when I felt very lonely, I realized that getting people to accept responsibility was a more difficult job than getting them to understand. When people told me, "You can't talk about the Jews; they'll destroy you," -- when they said that and then ran away from me, it was clear that they already had at least some understanding of the Jewish problem. They understood that the Jews are extremely powerful and are organized and don't want anybody explaining to the public what they're up to. These people already understood that much without my telling them about it. They just didn't want to do anything about it. They were afraid. They didn't want to accept personal responsibility.
It took a while for that fact to sink in. I couldn't understand this unwillingness to accept responsibility. I mean, when our ancestors came over here from England and Scotland and Scandinavia and Germany and took this land away from the Indians and built a country, they weren't a bunch of softies or cowards or people who ran away from a challenge. They were strong people. They were fighters. How did their great-great-great-great-great grandsons become such a bunch of wimps, such a bunch of couch potatoes and lemmings? I couldn't understand that.
Well, since then I have gradually come to understand how that happened, how America lost its spine. America isn't the only country that's happened to. And of course, not every American has lost his spine. There still are many Americans who are not afraid of the truth. There still are Americans who are willing to accept personal responsibility: Americans who when they understand what's going on, either because I explained it to them or they figured it out for themselves, don't run away. Instead they say, "What can I do? How can I help?" There still are Americans like that. The problem is that there aren't enough of them. So I want to share with you my thoughts on this concept of personal responsibility, in the hope that it will help you be willing to accept your responsibility also. You know, we live in an age of shirkers, of deadbeats, of people who actually think they're being smart by never being responsible for anything. It seems like the first rule a lot of our soldiers in Vietnam learned 25 years ago was "never volunteer for anything." That's what I hear from a lot of Vietnam vets. But this attitude also has permeated our whole society and has affected many Americans who are too young to have been in Vietnam. People who spend a lot of time on the Internet discussing political and social issues with other people tell me that the word there too is "never join anything; if you do the government may cause you trouble or you may be asked to do something; so the smart thing to do -- the safe thing to do -- is never join anything."
Well, of course, the thing about the Internet is that it is anonymous. People can express their opinions about anything they want without anybody knowing who they are. They all use pseudonyms or nicknames. It's the perfect environment for cowards, for shirkers. They can shoot their mouths off and act like real men without being called to account. And like shirkers everywhere, they would like for everyone else to be a shirker too, so they are not shown up for what they are. They would like for their cowardice and irresponsibility to be regarded as prudence. They want to thought of as smart guys instead of as shirkers.
But really, how smart is it never to accept any personal responsibility? What that amounts to is opting to be a spectator in life instead of a participant. Life is interesting. Life can be fun. There are many fascinating things to observe, to talk about. And I guess these smart guys figure that they will watch it all first. They will talk about it all with their friends first. Then when they know everything they can go back and make smart choices about what to become involved in. They won't make any mistakes.
But you know, it doesn't work that way. You don't get to go back and start over after you've watched it all and got it all figured out. You only get one shot at life, and you've got to make the most of it. You've got to figure it out as you go, even if that means accepting some risk and making some mistakes. There's no going back. If you just watch it all the way to the end, telling everyone how smart you are because you're not making any commitments or taking any chances, you've missed your chance to live. And that chance never will come again. The people who live are the people who participate in life, not the spectators who just watch it go by.
I guess that in this television age, when kids grow up spending much more time watching things happen on the TV screen than actually doing things, people who are naturally weak and passive will slip into the spectator mode and stay there all their lives. And at this point there's not much we can do for them. They've just missed it. But I know that there are many men and women out there who still are capable of reaching out and taking hold of life and living. Those are the ones I'm talking to. And I apologize if what I'm saying sounds painfully obvious, painfully self- evident -- but it is so extremely important that I must say it.
This wonderful gift of life that we have, what does it mean? What is its real value? Is it simply a collection of sensations, of feelings, that we get as spectators? I'm sure that for many people that's what life is. The more pleasurable their collection of sensations, the more pleasant their feelings, the more enjoyable the things they see as spectators, the better their life is. And that's understandable. That's what life always has been for animals -- and we are animals. We are creatures of instinct, and our instincts tell us to survive, to find food, to seek shelter, to reproduce, to avoid danger. In a prosperous, civilized society the drive to satisfy these basic needs expresses itself as a quest for wealth, for enjoyment, for comfort.
A thousand years ago our ancestors also sought wealth, enjoyment, and comfort. But they didn't believe that these things were quite as important as most people today think they are. In that age before television people were perhaps a little closer to the earth, and they were a little more aware of just how temporary an individual's life is, and they reached out for things with a little more permanence, things beyond wealth and comfort and pleasure, things which to them seemed to have more real meaning. I remember a few lines of poetry which expressed this feeling among our ancestors in Scandinavia -- and more generally in the Germanic parts of Europe -- back during the Viking age. Those lines are:
Cattle die, and kinsmen die, and so must one die oneself. But there is one thing I know which never dies, and that is the fame of a dead man's deeds.
For our ancestors a thousand years ago, of course, cattle were wealth, and kinsmen were power, and though they sought these things just as we do today, they understood that they were transitory; the value of these things was not permanent. The only thing that is permanent is the mark that one makes on the world with one's deeds. Everyone wants to live well, of course, but it is better to live effectively: to live so that one is remembered for what one has accomplished.
And to put a little finer edge on the concept, it is not just fame in itself which is important. What counts also is the type of fame, the type of renown. The goal was to be remembered not just for being able to throw a spear farther than others or to swing a battle-ax harder or to use a sword more skillfully; it was to be remembered for having lived a meaningful life, a significant life. For some that meant a life of accomplishment, of changing the world; for others it meant a life lived as closely as possible in accord with the ideals of personal honor and of service to one's people, so that one's life could be held up as a model and remembered as such.
In any case the life that had lasting value was a life of participation; never a life of sitting on one's hands and playing it safe. Perhaps too much television and too much comfort have caused us to lose sight of this very important thing which our ancestors understood. I think that they saw their individual lives more clearly in the larger context of the ongoing life of the race than we do. They were on more familiar terms with birth and with death than we are and were not as likely as we are to slip into the folly of believing that they would live forever. And so being constantly aware of the reality and inevitability of death they were more concerned than we are to use their lives effectively and to give lasting meaning to them.
For those of us today who do want to participate in life, who want to live significant lives, there is no more significant activity in which to participate than working to assure a healthy future for our people, for our European race. And there is almost no limit to the ways in which you can participate in this activity. Whether you're a housewife or a computer scientist or a machinist or a secretary or a bulldozer operator or a law-enforcement officer or a teacher or a writer or an artist, you can participate. The only reason that a rabble of feminists and queers and Jews and Blacks and mestizos and liberals and Clinton supporters are running America into the ground today is that decent people are sitting on their hands. If the decent people in America would get off their hands and accept personal responsibility for what is being done to their world, and if they would make a commitment and begin working together, we could sweep the whole Clinton coalition into the dustbin of history. It doesn't matter that the Clinton rabble outnumber us. We will whip them in a minute. We will have the media bosses jumping into the ocean all along the East Coast and swimming toward Israel as fast as they can go. But first we must be willing to accept personal responsibility.
And so my message today to every decent person who is listening is this: Don't be a shirker. Don't try to be a smart guy by continuing to cheer from the sidelines but refusing to join the team and get out on the field. Stand up and become a participant in life. Make of your life a model that people will remember and talk about long after you're gone. And sure, the bureaucrats in the Clinton government may try to put your name on some sort of "enemies" list of Politically Incorrect people, but you should regard that as a badge of honor.
And let me tell you something else -- and this is directed not only toward the decent men and women in my audience, but also toward those who now think of themselves as "smart guys" -- let me tell you: don't worry if the Clinton government hates you for standing up and accepting your personal responsibility. Don't worry if Hillary Clinton denounces you as part of some "right wing conspiracy." Don't worry if Janet Reno tells her jackbooted thugs that you should be watched. Don't worry about any of these people. Don't be afraid of them, because they aren't going to last. Their ship is taking on water fast, and they are going down sooner than they expect, believe me.
Listen, I'm not one of these old-fashioned moralists who'll tell you that because every major city in America has become the sort of place that would make the folks in Sodom and Gomorrah blush, we're going to be punished with fire and brimstone. I don't believe that wickedness is automatically punished. I do believe that evil can thrive and prosper for quite a while. My god, look, at how successful the Jews have been.
But I also believe that when a society loses its manliness, when its leaders lose all sense of direction and no longer are guided by any principle or any ideal and are concerned only with looking out for themselves, when a country loses its backbone and its citizens withdraw from the public arena and refuse to be anything but spectators -- then that society, that country, will not remain afloat for long. It's going under.
I mean, how can anyone be afraid of a government headed by Bill Clinton? How can anyone take seriously a Congress whose members are so frightened by the opinion polls that they won't throw the bum out? Janet Reno may still have a lot of jackbooted thugs at her disposal, but by being a part of the Clinton government she has forfeited the respect, the serious consideration, of decent citizens. Really, the time has come for us to understand that this government of clowns and criminals in Washington may still be dangerous, but it won't be around forever. And I'm not talking about just the Clinton administration; I'm talking about the whole structure, the whole system. In planning our strategies, in deciding how we should live, what the government thinks about us just shouldn't be as fundamental a consideration as it would be if we lived in a healthy society with a government of principled men. Even the smart guys should be thinking ahead to the time when this rotten system and all its supporters, all its collaborators, are with the maggots, and people who don't know how to accept personal responsibility because they have never done it, people who don't know how to participate in events because they always have been only spectators, may find the going a lot rougher. The non-participants may find it much harder to survive.
Anyway, it's always better to be a participant than a spectator, and never more than now. It is time, my fellow White men and women, for us to stop worrying about anything except doing what is right. It is time for us to accept our responsibilities.
Thanks for being with me again today. And by the way, if you missed my radio broadcast last week, you still can listen to it through the Internet. The current program and a few recent programs -- both text and audio -- always are accessible on the Internet.
A Trial in Jasper
Last week they had a trial in Jasper, Texas, of 24-year-old John King, one of three White men accused of killing a Black by dragging him behind their pickup truck. The media made a real circus of the trial. Every night on the television news programs Tom Brokaw and the other network news announcers reminded us with a grim face and a sober tone about the gruesome nature of the killing. Over and over again they showed us the chain which had been used to drag the Black. They showed us the asphalt road along which he was dragged, with painted circles on the road wherever the police had found blood. And they told us what an awful White racist John King was. They showed us his tattoos. They told us that he was a petty criminal who had been in prison. They read us some of the letters he had written expressing his dislike for Blacks. And the media people really rubbed all of this in hard -- "White racist, gruesome killing, Black victim, hate crime, evil Whites, good Blacks" -- it was like a ritual chant, over and over again, until they even had a hardened cynic like me flinching. That's the power of television.
And now they've got the trials of the other two White men accused in the killing to look forward to: more circus, more ritual. And I hardly need to tell you what the purpose of the circus is. The media bosses are pushing hard to have new "hate crime" legislation enacted, and their step'n'fetchit in the White House is eager to oblige. These circus trials are intended to make the White couch potatoes, the White lemmings, feel just a little guiltier for being White and soften them up so they won't object to having their freedom taken away. And really, that's where all of this is headed: the goal is "hate speech" legislation of the sort they've already gotten enacted in Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland, and a dozen other countries, where it is now illegal to say or write or publish anything Politically Incorrect.
You know, there are many conservative Americans who sneer at that prognosis. They believe that I am just a doom-sayer. They believe that Americans are too smart and too independent to surrender their freedom. Well, sir, I wish that they were right, but I'm sure they aren't. These days, whenever there's an argument about the good common sense or the rugged independence of the American people, about their devotion to principles and to freedom, all we have to do is look at what they elected President -- twice. That should settle the argument. That raping, lying, draft-dodging, coke-snorting piece of filth in the White House, who is still overwhelmingly popular with the American people, is not a figment of my imagination. He is, unfortunately, all too real. And believe me, anyone who would choose Clinton to be his President will not put up even the slightest objection to having his freedom taken away in return for the promise of more security. That is how far America has fallen.
Let's look at the details. During the television coverage of the trial in Jasper I did not once hear it mentioned that the Black who was killed was himself a convicted criminal. Instead he was held up to the television audience as a devoted family man, a choir boy, a Black man loved by all who knew him, almost a saint -- brutally murdered by three low-life White thugs who were racists. And to be sure, there hardly can be any doubt that the three young Whites who killed him were low-lifes. All three of them were convicted criminals, just like their Black victim. And the killing itself was a pretty good indicator that they were low-class people, certainly not the sort anyone would want for neighbors. The killing was an act of drunken hooliganism, done on the spur of the moment without a thought for the consequences. It was done stupidly, in a way that was certain to result in the perpetrators getting caught.
The media suggested that they believed they were engaged in a race war, Whites against Blacks, and that their killing of the Black was part of that war. If that was so -- and I really doubt that they had any coherent reason for their actions that night -- but if they thought that they were part of some White army, they should have understood that in any White army worth its salt such drunken foolishness would not be tolerated. Such an act of indiscipline and hooliganism would have resulted in a court martial and a firing squad for the three low-lifes who did it.
The media also made much of John King's racial beliefs. He was a nice boy before he went to prison and was exposed to White racist gangs, they said. After he came out of prison he hated Blacks, they said, and they implied that it was because he had been indoctrinated with racial hatred by these racist gangs while in prison. Another good reason for a "hate crime" law: keep these White racist gangs from poisoning the minds of nice, non-racist boys like John King used to be. Actually, what happened to John King while he was in prison was not indoctrination by White gangs. It was direct contact with the reality of the Black nature. It was direct exposure to the wonders of life with the colored brother.
Let me tell you, I've lived in East Texas. I graduated from a military school in a small East Texas town only about 100 miles from Jasper, and I have a pretty good feeling for what it's like in that part of the country. There are, of course, too many Blacks there, just as in most other parts of the country. But in the small towns like Jasper the Blacks are moderately well behaved. The police don't coddle them like they do in the big cities. The White people in East Texas aren't terrorized by them. And so John King didn't think much about Blacks or about the racial situation in this country -- until he was sent to prison for burglary and was exposed to a majority prison population consisting of Black criminals like James Byrd, the Black ex-convict he was convicted of killing.
I don't want to get into all of the gory details about what young White men are exposed to in prisons these days, where the majority of the inmates very often are Black. It is a hell almost beyond imagining for White Americans brought up in a genteel environment. For Blacks homosexual rape is accepted behavior. It is not a rare occurrence; it is routine. It's the way they establish their barnyard pecking order. They rape each other when they must, but they much prefer to rape Whites. They get away with it because the government's official position is that it doesn't happen, or at worst is only a very minor problem. And of course, the media don't like to talk about such things. It doesn't fit.
And even if a young White man doesn't get raped, it is something he is constantly aware of, something which he must constantly be on guard against. He is surrounded by Blacks who no longer feel that they must ape the White man in their behavior. Instead they behave in prison in the way that is natural for them, the way they behaved in the jungles of Africa. And you know, everyone in the government understands this racial situation in the prisons. They make jokes about it at their cocktail parties in Washington. Most of them know some fellow bureaucrat or politician who has been sent to prison for taking bribes or committing perjury or the like, and the reality of being thrown into a cage with a mob of unrestrained Blacks is something which is never too far below the surface of their consciousness. But of course, in their public statements they pretend that they believe that Blacks and Whites are the same and that there's nothing in particular to worry about if one is locked up with Blacks.
Well, John King was exposed to the brutal truth when he was sent to prison for burglary, and he learned to hate Blacks in a hurry. He turned to White gangs in prison in order to survive, and when he came out he was indeed a changed man. If there's anything good that can be said about America's prisons today it is that they provide a strong dose of racial reality to those Whites unfortunate enough to be forced to spend some time in them.
John King was sentenced on Thursday of last week, and NBC anchorman Tom Brokaw announced the news of the sentencing on the NBC Evening News with these words: "And in Jasper, Texas, today the racist got the death penalty." That's the way Brokaw introduced the news: not "John King got the death penalty" or "the man who was convicted in a dragging death got the death penalty," but "the racist got the death penalty."
Do you believe that was a slip of the tongue? Listen, Tom Brokaw is paid seven million dollars a year to read his news scripts. He is paid seven million dollars a year because he is a very good actor and says -- convincingly -- exactly what the Jews who formulate his news program want him to say. He is paid seven million dollars a year for his half-hour appearance every evening because he uses his words, his facial expressions, his tone of voice to convey exactly the message that his bosses want conveyed. And that message in this case was, "racism is a crime, and racists deserve the death penalty." That was Tom Brokaw's subliminal message to us, and it was a calculated message.
Of course, media people do sometimes make slips of the tongue. On Wednesday of last week, with the Jasper trial on everyone's mind, a well-known White disk jockey, Doug Tracht, at Washington, DC, radio station WARW-FM, played part of a song by Grammy-winning Black hip-hop performer Lauryn Hill. Well, Doug Tracht, who is best known by his nickname, "the Greaseman," didn't like the Black woman's song, and so he commented as he stopped it, "No wonder people drag them behind trucks."
Now, that was a slip. Within hours the CBS-owned station had fired Tracht. Before the day was over he also had lost his job as part-time deputy sheriff in suburban Falls Church, Virginia. And you can bet your bottom dollar that he never will be allowed to work again in the controlled media. He made the mistake of saying what was on his mind.
But Tom Brokaw didn't make a slip when he introduced the news the following day about John King's sentencing with the words, "And in Jasper, Texas, today the racist got the death penalty." Tom Brokaw was delivering a subliminal message calculated by Neal Shapiro, the Jewish executive producer of the NBC Evening News, and Brokaw's other Jewish bosses. The message again was: "Racism is a crime. Not liking Blacks or Jews or mestizos or Asians is a crime. Racism deserves the death penalty. We need a law against racism." Tom Brokaw is paid seven million dollars a year by his Jewish bosses because he delivers subliminal messages like that very skillfully, very convincingly. Tom Brokaw is paid to be a Judas goat, to lead the sheep to the slaughter. Now, perhaps you think that I am imagining things. Perhaps you think that I am way off target, first, in imagining that the media coverage of the news has the effect of making White people feel guilty and of conditioning them to give up their freedom without protest, and second, in imagining that this is the result of a deliberate plan by the Jews who control the media.
Well, I wish that it were just my imagination. But you know, the panicked reaction to the Greaseman's casual comment, "No wonder they drag them behind trucks," -- his immediate firing by his radio station, where he was by far their highest rated announcer, and his firing by the sheriff's department for his Politically Incorrect slip of the tongue -- that wasn't my imagination. White people do feel intimidated by the media propaganda. In Jasper, Texas, the White people are falling all over themselves in their efforts to apologize for being White. The effect of all of the media publicity has been guilt, guilt, guilt. White men, as well as women, in Jasper have been wringing their hands in anguish and begging not to be judged as racists, just because of John King and his two companions. One of the first things the White people of Jasper did was tear down a fence which had divided the White and Black sections of their cemetery. And the 11 White people on John King's jury chose the one Black man on that jury to be the foreman, so that they could show the world that they aren't racists. Now they've built themselves a new city park and named it James Byrd Junior Park. How many other towns in America have named city parks after local ex-convicts? Indeed, James Byrd was an ex-convict who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and got himself killed in an especially messy way -- but he's still only an ex-convict, a petty criminal and ne'er do well. And it's quite clear that if he'd been White instead of Black, no city park would have been built in his honor, no matter how messily and painfully he died. And so the effect of the media coverage of his killing has been to create a sense of White racial guilt in the lemmings.
What about the motivation behind the media coverage? Why did this trial in Jasper get such enormous media coverage all over the country? Was it just because the defendant had committed an especially gruesome crime? The more gruesome the crime, the more coverage the trial will get -- is that it?
No, not really. You know, another murder trial opened the same day that John King's trial did. While John King was being tried in Jasper, Texas, last week for killing James Byrd, Danny Martinez was being tried in Denver, Colorado, for the rape, torture, and murder of 14-year-old Brandy Duvall. But of course, unless you live in Denver, you haven't heard a word about the Martinez trial. Tom Brokaw didn't even mention it. All you've heard about is the King trial. Is it because the murder Martinez committed wasn't as gruesome or newsworthy as the murder King committed? Well, I'll let you be the judge.
Martinez and six other members of the mestizo gang to which he belongs, the Bloods, grabbed 14-year-old Brandy Duvall from a Denver bus stop, where she was waiting for a bus. They took her to a house where one of the gang members lives, and they held the 14-year-old White girl down on a mattress while she was gang-raped for several hours. The gang members then took turns sexually torturing the White junior high school student. They repeatedly rammed a broomstick into her vagina while she screamed and begged for her life. Then, after they had finished amusing themselves, Martinez and the other mestizos handcuffed the bleeding White girl, put a hood over her head, and drove her to a drainage ditch. There they stabbed Brandy Duvall 28 times with a butcher knife and then dumped her body into the ditch, where she bled to death. After that the gang members went back to the house and disposed of the bloody mattress on which she had been gang-raped and sexually tortured.
And as I just told you, Danny Martinez was being tried for this horrible crime last week at exactly the same time John King was being tried. So why do you think the media focused so heavily on Jasper, Texas, and didn't have a word to say about the trial in Denver? Could it be that the Jasper trial served their propaganda purpose and the Denver trial didn't? Could it be that the Jewish media bosses wanted to make White people feel guilty and intimidated, and the Jasper trial served that purpose, while the Denver trial didn't? Could that be the only reason why they covered up the horrible rape, torture, and murder of 14-year-old Brandy Duvall while they beat us over the head with the dragging death of a Black ex-convict in Texas? Could it be that they kept quiet about Brandy Duvall because she was White and her murderers were mestizos? Did they make a circus out of the Jasper trial just because the victim was Black and the murderers were White? That's what I think. What do you think?
Let me just recap this for you, because it really is extraordinarily important. What happened in Jasper, Texas, to a Black ex-convict shouldn't have happened in a civilized society. It was an especially gruesome murder. And there is no doubt that John King hated Blacks as a consequence of his own experiences with them in prison. All of that is a legitimate subject for news coverage.
But what happened to 14-year-old Brandy Duvall in Denver is even more terrible than what happened to James Byrd. It is more newsworthy, something which the White citizens of this country should be more concerned about, because it was an organized, gang attack by non-White racists, by mestizo racists, on a White person. An innocent White child was killed in Denver, while the victim in Jasper was a Black criminal, an ex-convict.
The news media have gone all-out on the Jasper trial and have been completely silent on the Denver trial, not because the killing of James Byrd was more gruesome than that of Brandy Duvall or more newsworthy or more interesting to television viewers, but solely because in Jasper the victim was Black and the perpetrators were White, while in Denver the victim was White and the perpetrators were mestizos. That is the only reason for the enormous disparity in the news coverage of the two trials: the only reason. The Jasper trial suited their purpose and the Denver trial didn't.
And that purpose -- the purpose of the Jewish media bosses -- is to make White people feel guilty, so that they won't oppose the Jews' campaign for so-called "hate crime" legislation, the same sort of legislation which the Jews have succeeded in having imposed on the people of Canada and Britain and France and Germany and Switzerland and much of the rest of Europe. It is legislation whose real aim is to keep White people from defending themselves against the Jews, to keep White people from criticizing the Jews or speaking out against their activities.
And this White guilt campaign by the media is working; it is having the desired effect. Many White people are feeling guilty as a result. Many White people are feeling ashamed of their natural dislike of Blacks. That's why Doug Tracht, the Greaseman, lost both his jobs so quickly when he made a Politically Incorrect remark about the Jasper trial. That's why the White citizens of Jasper have named a new city park after a convicted Black criminal. That's why there will never be a park in Denver named after Brandy Duvall.
Yes, the media bosses planned this propaganda campaign, and Tom Brokaw is doing a very effective job as a Judas goat. But you know, if this campaign doesn't work for the Jews -- if it backfires in the long run and White Americans reject the effort of the media bosses to take away their freedom, Tom Brokaw may decide that seven million dollars a year was nowhere near enough payment for his treachery. Let's aim for that.
Odysseus' Way
Sometimes after I finish speaking with you in one or another of my programs, I have a bad feeling. I feel that I have let you down by not really leveling with you and telling you everything. I feel as if I have walked into the courtyard of the temple and politely reprimanded one or two of the moneychangers there for his dishonest practices, when I should have overturned all of the tables and then taken a whip to everyone in sight.
I feel that way after I have focused heavily on a very specific problem in our society -- on our immigration problem, on our embarrassment in the White House, on the decline of our schools, on the correlation between AIDS and race, even on such an urgent matter as the Jewish control of our news and entertainment media -- because I feel that I may have led some of you to believe that if we solve the particular problem I have talked about, or even many of the problems I talk about on these programs, then we will be well on the way to having things straightened out the way they ought to be. And that just isn't so.
The problem with the moneychangers in the courtyard wasn't in the details of the way they conducted their business. The problem was that they shouldn't have been there at all, and the fact that they were there, and nobody really cared that they were there, indicated a far more pervasive and fatal problem in the society than the mere shortchanging of the moneychangers' customers. Punishing the moneychangers -- even making them all conduct their business honestly -- could not solve the underlying problem. It could not do anything at all even to ameliorate that problem.
Let's think of a story a thousand years older than the one about the moneychangers in the courtyard. Let's recall the story of the return of Odysseus, king of Ithaca, to his palace after being away for 20 years during the Trojan War and subsequent adventures. He finds his palace overrun with strangers lusting after his wife and his kingdom, feasting on his food, and corrupting his household with their bad manners. Odysseus doesn't think about dealing with this problem by correcting the manners of his unwanted guests. He simply makes a plan and kills the whole bunch of them, and then he goes about straightening things out.
And we might liken our situation in America today to being at a banquet thrown by a gang of unwelcome guests in our palace: a palace that we and our forefathers built with our own hands. These unwelcome guests have set out a whole array of dishes that they have concocted for us, and they invite us to join them at the table and eat and be merry. And what a splendid array of dishes there is to choose from! Try a nice casserole of very assertive female business executives, female Army officers, and female fighter pilots garnished with homosexual television entertainers. Yum, yum, yum!
How about a tasty salad of subsidized housing for non-White welfare recipients in White neighborhoods, with a dressing of affirmative action and equal opportunity? Surely you will enjoy the delicious sensitivity soup: that will just whet your appetite for a wonderful broiled filet of Political Correctness. And there are appetizing side dishes of permissively raised, smart-aleck 10-year-olds who have been taught to address all adults by their first names; of racially integrated, coed university dormitories; and of fast-talking, loudmouthed Jewish comedians with all the latest jokes about your various bodily functions.
And you can wash everything down with your choice of beverages. There's hearty multicultural ale; there's fine diversity wine; there are as many delicious anti-discrimination cocktails as you want. And for dessert there's "Holocaust" remembrance cake with a nice icing of Black basketball players, Black football players, and Black talk-show hosts. And while you're eating and drinking and yukking it up with our guests, you'll be entertained by the Bill and Monica dance team performing the hora and accompanied by Hillary's village rappers. Isn't it all just too, too wonderful?
What? None of that appeals to you, you say? All you want is a simple dish of Aryan dignity and Aryan discipline and Aryan honor?
Well! What are you, some kind of racist? Don't you appreciate anything our very, very clever guests have done for you, even if you didn't ask for it? Are you inclined to reprimand some of the pushier and more obnoxious guests? Are you inclined to explain to them exactly what it is about diversity wine which makes you sick to your stomach? Do you want to tell them why you gag at the sight of Black basketball players on cereal boxes, and why you're sure you'll vomit if you're forced to choke down even one more slice of "Holocaust" remembrance cake? Do you believe that you should try to persuade our guests to let us have a small corner of the banquet table for ourselves, set with food and drink the way we like it?
Well, I'm not really inclined to do any of those things. I'm inclined to deal with our unwelcome guests the way Odysseus dealt with his. I'm inclined to turn the whole banquet table over onto the floor and then begin splitting skulls, right and left. I'm inclined to lay waste to the whole multicultural feast, to spill the blood and brains of the cooks and caterers and waiters, along with those of our unwelcome guests, onto the floor and into every filthy, alien dish they have prepared for us, and then to take a firehose and wash the whole mess out the door and into the gutter.
I apologize for such a distasteful analogy with our present situation, but I want to explain to you today why I believe that it is essential for us to take a radical rather than a conservative approach to dealing with our unwelcome guests. I want you to understand why reform cannot cure our society's present sickness and why revolution will be necessary. Of course, on these programs we talk mostly about very specific problems -- we talk about the danger of AIDS from interracial sex, about the corruption of our legal system, about the declining standards in our schools, about the reluctance of the controlled mass media to report Black-on-White crime, about the lies and distortions of history on the part of an educational establishment which is more concerned with Political Correctness than with truth, and about many other things. And all of these things are extremely important. They're important because they are details in the overall picture, and we must understand the details if we're really to understand what has happened to us and if we are to make an intelligent plan for the future.
But what we don't want to do is become so absorbed by any one detail that we forget the big picture. We don't want to slip into the error of believing that we can become healthy again by dealing with just a few specific problems. We don't want to make the mistake of believing that a proper way to behave at the banquet thrown by our unwanted guests is to avoid the most distasteful dishes they have prepared for us and nibble at the ones which are a little less obnoxious to us.
The problem is that every dish our uninvited guests have prepared for us is poisonous to us in one way or another. They have taken over our pantry and our kitchen, they have substituted their recipe books for ours, and they have very largely remodeled our palace to suit themselves. Whenever they have come across something in the palace which suits our tastes instead of theirs, they have done their best to destroy it. They really have done a thorough wrecking job on our society, a thorough job of making it a society which suits their nature but is deadly to ours. We cannot live in the same world with them: certainly not in the same palace. It's not just this particular banquet of alien dishes which is a problem we must deal with: it is their continuing presence in our palace, waiting for their next opportunity to poison and subvert -- which is why the method of Odysseus is the proper method for us to use in dealing with them.
I want to read something to you which was written 75 years ago by one of our uninvited guests during a rare lapse into frankness. The guest's name was Maurice Samuel, and he was a very prominent and influential man among our guests. He was an active member of the Zionist Organization of America and the recipient of many awards from other Jewish organizations. He wrote 20 books, all of them dealing with Jewish topics. He was a Jew's Jew, a guest at the forefront of those hell-bent on remodeling our palace.
In 1924 Maurice Samuel wrote a book titled You Gentiles, and it was addressed to us. It is an amazing book, because in it Samuel explains to us in detail why the Jews are remodeling our palace for us. He explains that the natures of his people and our people are so different that nothing we do can be pleasing to Jews, and so they are changing everything to suit themselves. Of course, he explains all of this to us in a typically deceptive way. He tells us that all of the changes the Jews are making in our society are really good for us. And then he invites us to come to the banquet his fellow Jews are preparing for us in our own palace.
Now I'll read you just two brief passages from a chapter of You Gentiles which is titled "We, the Destroyers." And remember, this was written 75 years ago, in 1924, and when Samuel refers to the instruments of destruction which the Jews are using against our society, he's talking primarily about communism, in which so many Jews were playing a leading role at the time. Maurice Samuel writes:
"In everything we are destroyers - even in the instruments of destruction to which we turn for relief. The very socialism and internationalism through which our choked spirit seeks utterance, which seem to threaten your way of life, are alien to our spirit's demands and needs. Your socialists and internationalists are not serious."
That was written before the Jews had proved that their socialists were indeed serious by butchering 50 million of our people. Samuel concludes the chapter: "We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers forever. Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands. We will forever destroy because we need a world of our own, a God-world, which it is not in your nature to build."
Fascinating, isn't it? I'll bet you'd never heard that before. But Maurice Samuel was, in fact, one of the most widely read Jewish authors from the 1920s through the 1950s. By the 1950s, of course, the remodeling job on our world that Samuel and other Jews were demanding in the 1920s already was well underway.
An interesting historical fluke in the 1950s that I believe wasn't foreseen by anyone, including our unwelcome guests, was the Cold War. The Jews had been riding high in the Soviet Union prior to the Second World War, and Jewish publicists in the United States had been solidly pro- Soviet. Stalin, of course, had started an ethnic cleansing program in the Soviet bureaucracy just before the war began, cleaning out many of the entrenched Jews and replacing them with Russians. But the Jewish propaganda in the United States had so much momentum that it couldn't switch directions very fast. And then the war halted Stalin's cleansing program before many Jews in the West understood that their fortunes were changing in the Soviet Union. The Soviet espionage network in the United States, which was almost entirely Jewish in its personnel, remained intact throughout the war and provided the Soviet Union with plans for America's nuclear weapons, among many other things. I was in elementary school at the end of the war, and I still remember my teachers parroting the official party line about our gallant Soviet ally, good old "Uncle Joe."
After the U.S. participation in the war had made it possible for Stalin to beat back the Germans and achieve a Soviet victory, however, Stalin returned to his program of de-Judaizing the Soviet bureaucracy, and the Jews' pro-Soviet and anti-fascist propaganda machine in the United States finally did an about-face and began warning us of the Soviet menace. By the middle of the 1950s "fascism" in its various forms no longer was the principal threat to the American way of life, and communism took its place as the number-one enemy in the propaganda coming from Hollywood and New York. The Jews' remodeling program had to develop new techniques and new slogans, and their whole propaganda machine didn't shift gears at the same time, resulting in a bit of confusion for a while. The Cold War probably put the remodeling program a decade or more behind its original schedule.
I have an old, yellowed editorial from the July 1955 issue of the magazine The Point. It is titled "Should Hate Be Outlawed?" In it an unusually bold Gentile editor, Leonard Feeney, is still taking issue with the Jews' campaign at that time to stamp out fascism by outlawing "hate" -- a campaign, he notes, which has been pushed hard by them since 1940. At least, 1940 is when the "anti-fascist" campaign became noticeable to Feeney. He writes:
On billboards, on bus and subway posters, in newspapers and magazines, through radio and television broadcasts, Americans are being assured and reassured, both subtly and boldly, that "Bigotry is fascism . . . Only Brotherhood can save our nation . . . We must be tolerant of all!"
The editor continues -- and remember, this was written 44 years ago: The long-range effects of this [anti-fascist propaganda] campaign are even now evident. It is producing the "spineless citizen": the man who has no cultural sensibilities; who is incapable of indignation; whose sole mental activity is merely an extension of what he reads in the newspaper or sees on the television screen; who faces moral disaster in his neighborhood, political disaster in his country, and an impending world catastrophe with a blank and smiling countenance. He has only understanding for the enemies of his country. He has nothing but kind sentiments for those who would destroy his home and family. He has an earnest sympathy for anyone who would obliterate his faith. He is universally tolerant. He is totally unprejudiced. If he has any principles, he keeps them well concealed, lest in advertising them he should seem to indicate that contrary principles might be inferior. He is, to the extent of his abilities, exactly like the next citizen, who, he trusts, is trying to be exactly like him: a faceless, characterless putty-man.
Between 1955 and the Clinton era the Jews' "anti-fascist" campaign didn't stop. It just changed its slogans a bit. With Clinton in office the campaign is once again expressing itself openly as a campaign to outlaw what it calls "hate." And unfortunately, the tendency of the American people to be without spine or principles, lest they offend someone and be considered "haters," has proceeded to a terminal state.
And this business of making the Gentiles more "tolerant" -- more puttylike -- has been only one part of the Jews' remodeling program on our palace. Virtually all of the dishes set before us now are dishes of their preparation: prepared in our kitchen with our resources, but according to their recipes, so as to suit themselves. They have gotten their filthy hands on everything that used to be ours and changed it until it is unfit for us. Our art, our music, our literature, our history, our morals, our cinema, our sports, our life-styles, our ideals, our schools, our family life, our child- raising practices, the relations between our sexes, our government: you name it; they've changed it.
Such a tolerant government they have given us; such a wonderful and sensitive President, who feels our pain; such marvelous sports heroes -- Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson and Mike Tyson -- to be idols for our kids; such brilliant men running our news and entertainment media -- Disney's Michael Eisner and Time Warner's Gerald Levin and Universal's Edgar Bronfman and MTV's Sumner Redstone -- all busy keeping us entertained and informed.
Of course, our history and our literature and our art and our music all still exist -- in some locked basement storeroom of our palace. What has really been destroyed is our people's sense of identity -- and with it their morale and their values. Putty-men: more than half of them think Bill Clinton is an OK guy. I'll bet more than half of them also haven't the faintest idea who Odysseus was: "Hey, what band is he in, man? Which team does he play for?"
Probably three-quarters of them think that our guests have done a good job of remodeling, that we're better off for it. They've learned to like the new dishes our guests have prepared for us. They've been taught new tastes: Tupac Shakur and Ice Cube instead of Beethoven. They have new heroes: Malcolm X instead of Leif Ericsson, Michael Jordan instead of Neil Armstrong. They would thoroughly disapprove of taking a whip to the moneychangers. They wouldn't understand the reason for that. They would consider that very intolerant, very bigoted. And besides that, too masculine, too violent. Ugh! Much better to talk things out with the moneychangers. And as for Odysseus' way of dealing with the uninvited guests in his palace: why, they would consider that a "hate crime," something for Janet Reno to have the FBI deal with.
It is this change in the sensibilities of our people wrought by 75 years of remodeling which makes any program of reform impractical. Most of our people simply have no understanding of the need for reform. They believe that things are pretty much OK the way they are. And if there still are a few flaws in our society, they are nothing that a few more slices of "Holocaust" remembrance cake washed down with another bottle of diversity wine can't fix. We can wage a temperance campaign against the diversity wine, but we'll be outcampaigned by the wine merchants, I'm afraid. No, I really believe that what we need to do is string the old bow and bring an end to the whole banquet the way Odysseus did.
Special Treatment
St. Martins Press has just published a fascinating new book. It's by journalist Gordon Thomas and is titled Gideon's Spies: the Secret History of the Mossad. Mossad is the name of Israel's official espionage and assassination agency. The history of the Mossad is an interesting enough subject in itself: all of the gory details about how our gallant, little, democratic ally in the Middle East carries out state-sponsored assassinations, terrorist bombings, and other hanky-panky, with nary a word of protest from that great enemy of terrorism we have in the White House. Bill Clinton likes to wax indignant about the terrorism of Osama bin Laden and Colombian rebels and Hutus in Uganda and others -- that is, about the terrorism of everyone except our gallant, little, democratic ally in the Middle East.
What makes Thomas's book especially interesting and relevant at the moment, however, is that he details some Mossad espionage inside the Clinton White House. Specifically, he reveals that Clinton knew that his steamy telephone-sex sessions with his Jewish bimbo/intern Monica Lewinsky were being tapped by the Mossad. We know that Clinton knew, because he told Monica about it after an oral-sex session in the Oval Office, and she told Special Prosecutor Ken Starr, in sworn testimony, what Clinton had told her. Clinton knew, because the FBI's counter- espionage people knew and had warned him.
Now, this is not really new, because it was in the published Starr report. The Congress knew all about it during the impeachment process and the Senate trial. What is new is that it's finally beginning to get a little press coverage, the result of the publication of Thomas's book. It was all over the front page of the New York Post ten days ago. Why didn't it get a lot of press coverage earlier? Well, the obvious answer is because the telephone tapping was being done by our gallant, little, democratic ally in the Middle East, and neither the media people nor the politicians in the Congress want to say anything bad about Israel; it's not good for one's career.
Why is it important? Well, just think what it tells us about Mr. Clinton's character. He knew that his telephone-sex sessions with Monica were being recorded by the Israelis, because the FBI told him, but he didn't care. And he also didn't care that the FBI was tapping Monica's telephone too. He warned Monica about it so that they could prepare a cover story in case the press learned about it, but he kept right on having telephone-sex with Monica. Such irresponsibility is hard to fathom. To Clinton being President is a game. The idea of the game is to have as much fun as possible while pretending to be a serious world leader. If you're a skillful enough liar and a good enough actor you can get away with it, especially if your friends in the media cover for you -- and if the people who like you because you feel their pain keep giving you a "thumbs up" on the popularity polls. Well, as I told you a long time ago, Clinton is a constitutional psychopath, and this is just one more indication of that fact.
More important than what this telephone-tapping tells us about Clinton's character and attitude is what it tells us about our relationship with our gallant, little, democratic ally in the Middle East. The Israelis, of course, always have waged an espionage war against America. Every time they get caught -- as, for example, in the Jonathan Pollard case -- they promise they will never do it again, and their apologists in the media and in the Congress explain that they really shouldn't be blamed, because they're only spying on us so that Israel will be secure. They're surrounded by enemies in the Middle East, and they need every bit of national security information they can get. They can't trust anyone but themselves with their security, because during the "Holocaust" everyone else let them down, we're told.
Well, actually, we know from past experience that the Israelis not only steal our secrets, they sell these secrets to our enemies. Selling U.S. military and diplomatic secrets to the Soviet Union back during the Cold War was standard operating procedure for the Israelis. These days they have a willing buyer for stolen secrets in the form of China. Beyond selling secrets, Israeli spying has a much more sinister purpose, as former Central Intelligence Agency Director William Casey indicated to Thomas in an interview. Most countries spy for security purposes. Israel spies in order to control the country on which she is spying, primarily through the blackmail of politicians. In the case of the Lewinsky telephone taps there are strong indications that the Israelis used the information they collected to blackmail Clinton. They wanted him to halt an FBI search for an Israeli agent on the White House staff, otherwise they would leak their recordings of his telephone-sex with Monica to the press.
The White House denies there was any blackmail, and of course the Israelis deny it. Gordon Thomas says that he has no evidence of direct Israeli blackmail and suggests that it probably was more subtle and indirect than that. All he can be sure of is that the Mossad was recording Bill and Monica's telephone-sex sessions, and that the FBI was looking for an Israeli spy in the White House. Beyond that it's just speculation. But the search for the Israeli spy in the White House was halted, and then Mr. Clinton went right on having telephone-sex with Monica, knowing that it was being recorded and in addition suspecting that some Jew on his staff was working secretly for the Mossad -- but he didn't care. Can you imagine how frustrating that sort of thing must be for the FBI and other counter-espionage agencies?
Well, that's life in the Clinton era. And of course, when the Senate voted on Clinton's articles of impeachment last month, every Jew in the Senate, Republican as well as Democrat, voted for acquittal. There are 11 Jews in the U.S. Senate -- which, incidentally, is more than four times their quota of the U.S. population. During the impeachment hearings and the trial some of these Jews said they were for Clinton, and some said they were against him. New York's Jewish Democrat Senator Charles Schumer loudly supported Clinton throughout the process. Connecticut's Jewish Democrat Senator Joseph Lieberman and Pennsylvania's Jewish Republican Senator Arlen Specter publicly denounced Clinton. But when the final showdown came all 11 Jews quietly voted to keep Clinton in office. It makes one wonder about the genuineness of their denunciations of Clinton during the trial. What counted in the end was that Bill Clinton cannot say "no" to Israel, and he has appointed more Jews to his administration than any three other Presidents, and all the Jews in the Senate and in the media appreciate that. That is what counts with them.
The FBI is not the only American law-enforcement agency which is frustrated by the unwillingness of Bill Clinton to say "no" to the Israelis. Israel continues to be the hideout of choice for Jewish criminals of all sorts fleeing from justice. A Jew commits a murder or a rape or some other serious crime in the United States, and if he's worried about being caught and punished he simply catches the next flight to Israel. That country has a custom of refusing to extradite any Jewish criminal wanted for an offense against non-Jews in another country. Once a Jewish criminal reaches Israel, he is safe from prosecution and can thumb his nose at the world, no matter how heinous his crime.
A recent example of this is the case of Maryland Jew Samuel Sheinbein. In September 1997 Sheinbein and another Jew, Aaron Needle, killed a non-Jewish teenaged neighbor, Alfredo Tello, in an argument over drugs. After the two Jews had bludgeoned, stabbed, and strangled Tello, they slashed his throat. Then they cut Tello's body up with a power saw, and burned some of the parts. When the Maryland police came looking for him, Sheinbein got some money from his wealthy parents and hopped the next flight to Israel. He's been there ever since. The Israelis consider it immoral to turn a Jew over to Gentiles to be punished, and they have refused all requests by Maryland authorities for his extradition. Just over two weeks ago, on February 25, the Supreme Court of Israel handed down a final ruling against efforts to extradite Sheinbein. The Israelis say they will put Sheinbein on trial in Israel for the murder of Alfredo Tello. So far they haven't gotten around to it. And if they ever do, don't bet on a conviction.
Another recent case of this sort of thing is that of Dror Goldberg, a Jew who committed an especially vicious murder in Houston, Texas. On November 27 of last year the 20-year-old Goldberg walked into a wig shop near his Houston apartment, pulled out a knife, and began stabbing and slashing the two owners and a clerk. The owners survived the attack, but the 54- year-old clerk died of her wounds. Police familiar with Goldberg's past activities suspect that it was a thrill killing: he simply wanted to kill someone with a knife to see what it felt like. Goldberg was arrested, but, like Sheinbein, he has wealthy parents. His parents put up bail to get him out of jail, and now Houston police say they have reason to believe that Goldberg has fled to Israel to escape prosecution.
Now, let me tell you, if it were any country but Israel the U.S. government wouldn't tolerate this sheltering of criminals who have murdered U.S. citizens. At the very least diplomatic relations would be cut off and economic sanctions would be imposed. But of course, Israel gets special treatment. Israel can do no wrong, not only in the eyes of the Clinton government, but in the eyes of virtually every government the United States has had in the last 50 years. When Jews in the United States collaborated in the theft of nuclear materials from a U.S. nuclear fuel processing plant and the smuggling of the material to Israel in 1962, President John Kennedy and the media here were interested only in covering it up, not in holding Israel and its collaborators to account.
When the Israelis deliberately attacked and tried to sink a U.S. Navy vessel, the U.S.S. Liberty, in the Mediterranean in 1967, killing 35 U.S. citizens in the process, President Lyndon Johnson and the controlled news media in the United States didn't give a thought to punishing or even criticizing Israel for the murderous attack. Their entire concern was to keep the affair covered up, to keep the American public in the dark about it, and to protect Israel from any blame. The Liberty sent out an emergency call for assistance while it was under attack by the Israelis, and the U.S. Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean sent jet aircraft speeding to the rescue. As soon as Lyndon Johnson learned that it was the Israelis who were trying to sink the Liberty, however, he ordered the U.S. jets recalled and left the Liberty on its own. He was terrified of the potential political reprisals against him if Israelis were killed by U.S. jets. Better to let the Israelis sink the Liberty and kill her entire crew. Even today the government's official story is that the attack on the Liberty was a "mistake," and beyond that, "no comment."
And as it was with Lyndon Johnson in 1967 and with other U.S. Presidents both before and since then, so it is with Bill Clinton today. U.S. government policy is that Jews can do no wrong; Israel can do no wrong. This policy is excused on the basis that Israel is our gallant, little, democratic ally in the Middle East, and that's why we give her special consideration in all things. But really, that's no excuse. Israel is no ally; Israel is and always has been nothing but an enormous liability for America.
And it's not just Israel which gets special treatment. It's Jews generally, whether they run to Israel for protection or not. I'll give you an example of the special treatment reserved for Jews which has gotten a very slight coverage in the news recently, and has been noticed by those of us who notice such things: that's the case of Ira Einhorn. Einhorn was a Philadelphia-area leader of the so-called "counter-culture revolution" of the 1960s and 1970s, a revolution which Jews like to brag turned America upside down and changed young people's values. Bill Clinton was part of that revolution as a cheerleader for the Viet Cong and Ho Chi Minh and as an enthusiastic user of illegal drugs.
Ira Einhorn was a smart, fast-talking Jewish con man, who moved in the same circles as other Jews of his ilk in that era: Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman, Allen Ginsberg. Einhorn was much more than just a cheerleader for the Viet Cong. He was a full-fledged New Age guru. He managed to promote himself successfully as a spokesman for everything that was trendy: the marvelous effects of LSD and other psychedelic drugs, pyramid power, various oriental religious cults, transcendental meditation, UFOs and extraterrestrials, CIA conspiracies: you name it; Einhorn was able to pass himself off as an authority on it. He also was a drug dealer.
But mostly he was a very wordy and very self-confident Jew-boy, who was able to mesmerize Gentiles young and old and bring them under his sway -- especially Gentile women. He managed to convince them that whatever nonsense he spewed on any subject was profound wisdom. This was the case despite the fact that he was fat, hairy, greasy looking, and otherwise singularly unattractive: almost a stereotype of the Jew for whom the name "kike" was coined. Of course, the Jewish media and Jews in the Philadelphia establishment helped Einhorn maintain his "guru" image by taking him seriously and giving him good press.
One of the young Gentile women Einhorn mesmerized was a beautiful, blonde girl from the little East Texas town of Tyler, Holly Maddux. Holly was not only beautiful, she was very bright and personable. She was a cheerleader in her high school and graduated as salutatorian. Then in 1965 she went off to Bryn Mawr University in Philadelphia. Bryn Mawr had been founded by Quakers, and in the 1960s it was a hotbed of everything liberal, trendy, and destructive of the old-fashioned values Holly had learned in Texas. Holly began sleeping with Jews while she was at Bryn Mawr. She was fascinated by their wordiness and their self-assurance, which she mistook for genuine intellectual qualities, as many another naive Gentile girl has done.
Eventually she met Ira Einhorn, who had risen to become the head Jewish hippie of Philadelphia, and she fell under his spell. Einhorn persuaded Holly to move into his apartment, and she lived with him for five years, cooking and cleaning for him and sexually "servicing" him and letting herself be humiliated as he showed off his blonde shiksa slave to his Jewish friends. Then Einhorn murdered Holly and stuffed her corpse into a trunk on an enclosed back porch attached to his apartment. The odor finally attracted the police, who obtained a search warrant and discovered the girl's decomposing body. Einhorn was arrested and charged with Holly's murder in March 1979. Einhorn hired Philadelphia Jewish lawyer Arlen Specter, now a Republican U.S. senator, to get his bail reduced from $500,000 to $40,000. Einhorn put up the required $4000 cash and split. He went to Canada and then to Europe in order to avoid prosecution for the murder of Holly Maddux. In Europe he continued his role of New Age guru, and he continued attracting and using Gentile women. Well . . . Jewish women too: his biggest financial supporter has been Barbara Bronfman, of the infamous Bronfman liquor-merchant and media family, which has been much in the news recently with demands for billions of dollars in reparations from the rest of the world because we haven't been treating Jews right. And for 20 years, this Jewish hippie guru has been living high in Europe, being supported by various women, and no one seems willing to hold him accountable for the murder of Holly Maddux. The French government finally decided a few weeks ago that he should be deported, but they have given him two years to appeal their decision. I have a suspicion that two years from now Ira Einhorn will be in Israel.
Well, these are just a few miscellaneous examples of the sort of special treatment Jews routinely get. Part of the reason they get it is the consequence of Jewish media control, which leads politicians and bureaucrats to handle Jewish criminals with kid gloves, lest anyone think they are being "anti-Semitic." Part of it undoubtedly is the consequence of Israeli espionage and blackmail of the sort we have seen in the Clinton administration. But part of it also is that too many ordinary Americans let themselves be buffaloed by Jews. We let ourselves be flummoxed by the Jews' fast talk and air of self-confidence. When an Aryan meets a Jew it is like a slow- talking country bumpkin meeting a slick, fast-talking carnival huckster.
Our ancestors evolved in forest and field and on farms, fighting and working; their ancestors have spent the past 10,000 years in the market-places and bazaars of the Middle East, buying and selling, wheeling and dealing, haggling and swindling. To us words are for communication, for exchanging information; to the Jews words are to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, to deceive.
Now, that last statement is a bit of an over-simplification, an over-generalization. But it is nevertheless substantially true. Despite all of the individual exceptions each of us can think of, despite all of the individual Jews we have met who are not especially tricky and all of the Gentiles we have met who are, the general truth remains that as a race we have let ourselves be taken advantage of by a tribe of very tricky con men. We are letting the Jews as a whole do to us, to our society, and to our civilization what Holly Maddux let Ira Einhorn do to her. And we must put an end to this situation very soon. We must put an end to the special treatment we have been giving Jews, or we certainly will end up the way Holly Maddux did.
And for those Americans who really want to get Israel off our backs and get Jewish influence out of our lives, we're going to have to change our ways. We're going to have to forget about the exceptions. We're going to have to look at everything in black and white, with no shades of gray. Our situation is like that of Perseus in attempting to cut off the head of Medusa: one look for Perseus and the game would have been lost. If our people listen to the reasonable Jews, to the supposedly patriotic Jews, the honest Jews, we fall under their spell again. If we let them give us advice on how to deal with their tricky tribesmen, it's like the country bumpkin meeting the carnival huckster all over again. So it's going to be a rough and unpleasant future for us for a while yet.
Lawyers
I should begin today by telling you that I know from personal experience that there are some decent men who are lawyers. In fact, some of my best friends are lawyers. I also know that the legal profession as a whole has become so corrupt that it is a threat to our race and our civilization. The judicial system in America has become one of the most destructive weapons in the hands of our enemies. And it didn't begin with the O.J. Simpson trial. Two hundred seventy- three years ago the English writer Jonathan Swift described lawyers as: "...men bred up from their youth in the art of proving, by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black and black is white, according as they are paid."
And it was not for nothing that 400 years ago William Shakespeare had one of his characters -- Dick the butcher in King Henry VI -- say: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Dick was expressing a very popular sentiment in those days.
In fact, that has been a popular sentiment as long as there have been lawyers. Some 2200 years ago serious and tradition-minded Romans were sufficiently troubled by the behavior of lawyers and by their negative effect on public morale that they made a serious effort to rein them in. In 204 BC the Roman Senate passed a law prohibiting lawyers from plying their trade for money. A man skilled in the law might volunteer to defend a friend or a cause in the law courts, but he was forbidden to accept a fee for his services. That would have been one of the best ideas the Romans ever had, if there had been some way to enforce that law effectively. Of course, as the Roman Republic declined and became more and more democratic, it became increasingly difficult to keep lawyers in check and prevent them from accepting fees under the table, and young men with more ambition than scruples flocked to the practice of law.
For a successful Roman lawyer the essential skill was rhetoric. The Greeks had reduced rhetoric to a science -- the science of persuasion -- and a number of Greek rhetoricians set up schools of rhetoric in Rome. Tradition-minded Romans saw these rhetoric schools as a subversive influence: as an assault on Roman morals and customs. Cato the Censor commented early in the 2nd century BC that after listening to some of these clever Greeks it was impossible to know what was true and what was not. Some Greeks themselves shared Cato's view of the rhetoricians, and already two centuries before Cato, Plato had referred to them as notorious for "making the worse appear the better cause." In 161 BC the Roman Senate ordered all of these Greek schools of rhetoric closed and their teachers expelled from Rome.
Alas, that provided only a momentary halt to the problem, and the rhetoricians and the lawyers were soon back in greater force than ever. The rhetoric schools were shut down again in 92 BC by the censors, who were Rome's official guardians of public morality, but again the cure was insufficient for the sickness. Trying to keep lawyers out of the Republic in its last days was like trying to keep maggots away from a dead horse.
And of course, the fact that there always has been an overabundance of men with more ambition than scruples wasn't the only reason for this; there also was the fact that there was a real need for lawyers. As long as we live in a society based on law, we need men to formulate laws, to administer laws, to interpret laws, and to help ordinary citizens cope with the laws. We also need safeguards to prevent laws and lawyers from swamping our society. We need safeguards to keep laws as simple as they can be while still serving their purpose, and to keep them from proliferating unnecessarily. We need safeguards to prevent lawyers from abusing the system. And unfortunately, these safeguards do not exist in our society. Lawyers are out of control. The legal system is out of control. The Romans at least tried to provide safeguards against the lawyers. We haven't even tried.
The reason we haven't tried is that we have in effect put the foxes in charge of the henhouse. The people we have put in charge of our legislative system and our judicial system are all lawyers themselves, and they are as a class not inclined to do anything to curtail their bread and butter or to limit their power and influence. The result is the sorry spectacle we witnessed in the U.S. Senate last week, when a bunch of crooked lawyers was called on to deal with another crooked lawyer who had been caught in flagrante delicto. The senators didn't really care that Clinton had broken the law. What they cared about was his popularity polls. They weren't concerned about having a felon and a reprobate in the White House; they were concerned about votes, about their own popularity polls. That's why we saw the Republican lawyers dancing all around the real issues and failing to come to grips with them. That's why we saw Charles Schumer and other Democrat lawyers dancing the hora in the halls outside the Senate chamber after the head lawyer of their party was acquitted. What a disgusting scene!
Well, it's easy enough to hate lawyers any day of the week on general principles, but I'll tell you about some very specific things the lawyers are up to now which ought to make a real lawyer- hater out of every patriot. What sparked today's comments was the jury verdict earlier this month against an anti-abortion group which has a site on the Internet. Probably you've already heard something about the case. A group of abortionists and their lawyers went to Federal court with a lawsuit against anti-abortion activists who used the Internet to publish "wanted" posters with photographs, names, and descriptions of abortionists. Rewards were offered for personal information on some of the abortionists. The anti-abortionists did not actually threaten the abortionists or urge anyone to harm them, but they did describe them as "baby butchers." During the past five years four abortion doctors have been shot to death, and three other abortion-clinic workers have been killed by anti-abortionists, and whenever one of the abortionists was assassinated his name would have a line drawn through it on the Internet "wanted" list.
A Federal jury in Portland, Oregon, agreed with the lawyers for the abortionists that the public stand of the anti-abortionists might have encouraged the assassins to take action against the abortionists, and the jury ordered the anti-abortionists to pay more than $107 million to the abortionists and their lawyers.
Now, I should tell you that I am not opposed to all abortions on religious grounds, as most anti- abortionists are. I am opposed on racial grounds to the large-scale abortion for mere convenience that we have in the United States and much of Europe today. I am opposed to the large-scale killing of healthy, White babies, just because the mothers decide that it would be inconvenient for their careers or their life-styles to give birth. I believe that the fact that the U.S. government and much of American society, with the vigorous encouragement of the mass media, approve of the large-scale abortion of healthy, White babies for the sake of convenience is a sign of the moral collapse of our society. I see a sign of moral collapse whenever the convenience of the individual is given precedence over the health and welfare of the race. And in line with this racial view, I approve of abortion whenever it serves a eugenic purpose.
My views on abortion, of course, are not the issue here. The issue is the use of the courts, the use of the judicial system, to punish Political Incorrectness at the expense of everyone's freedom. And if you think that your freedom of speech is not jeopardized when a bunch of Jews and feminists can use the courts to silence their critics, as they did in Portland this month, then you aren't thinking very clearly.
I should point out that this $107 million verdict in Portland against anti-abortionists is only one case in a growing trend of using the courts to take away our freedom. In New York just last week another Federal jury ordered gun manufacturers to pay nearly $4 million in a lawsuit brought by gun-control advocates, even though none of the defendants had done anything unlawful, and no firearm they had manufactured could be tied to any specific wrongful action. They were found guilty on general grounds of being negligent by manufacturing guns which might be used by criminals to harm other people. This verdict is a direct threat to every American's right to self- defense. It is a threat to all of us because the people who would like to keep anyone except the Clinton government's jackbooted thugs from having a firearm have decided to use civil litigation against gun manufacturers and gun dealers to achieve their aim.
Even before last week's New York verdict lawyers representing the cities of Chicago, New Orleans, Miami, and Bridgeport, Connecticut, had filed separate but similar lawsuits against gun manufacturers, claiming that the manufacturers have been negligent by failing to take effective steps to ensure that their guns do not end up in the hands of criminals. Lawyers for Atlanta, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Baltimore are eager to follow with their own lawsuits. Some of these plaintiffs have been frank enough to admit that their aim is not so much to recover money from the gun-makers as it is to bankrupt them and force them out of business.
Many of the people associated with these lawsuits are prominent in the movement to repeal the Second Amendment. Philadelphia Mayor Edward Rendell heads a committee on gun control in the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which has been behind all of the lawsuits filed -- or soon to be filed -- against gun manufacturers by various cities. Rendell's committee works closely with a group of Democratic senators on the formulation of strategy for gun control -- specifically with California Senator Diane Feinstein, New York Senator Charles Schumer, and New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg. All three senators are leaders of the gun-banning faction in the U.S. Senate -- and all three are Jews, as is Mayor Edward Rendell himself.
The lawyers behind these class-action lawsuits against firearms manufacturers are following the example set by a series of successful class-action lawsuits against tobacco companies during the past couple of years. Let me tell you, I believe that smoking is an extremely harmful vice our society needs to rid itself of. The companies which sell tobacco products are in my view more morally reprehensible than the drug cartels which bring cocaine and heroin into America. Certainly tobacco kills far more addicts every year than die from their addiction to cocaine, heroin, and all other addictive drugs combined. If it is illegal to import, sell, or possess heroin, then tobacco products also should be illegal. The politicians, of course, are afraid to tackle the problem of nicotine addiction head-on. There are too many tobacco farmers and too many smokers in the United States. The politicians would lose too many votes. So instead of dealing with the tobacco problem in an honest and direct way they have misused the courts by filing class-action lawsuits against the tobacco companies.
The fact is that the tobacco companies are acting in a legal manner. Every package of cigarettes has a warning on it. No one who gets lung cancer or throat cancer from smoking can claim that he wasn't warned of the danger. That simple fact had been sufficient to protect the tobacco companies from lawsuits in the past -- but not in the Clinton era. Things have become more democratic just in the last decade. Now just obeying the law isn't good enough. Now juries are buying the argument by plaintiffs' lawyers that tobacco companies should pay damages to people who didn't have the self-discipline to avoid becoming nicotine addicts; that anti-abortion groups are responsible if someone is motivated by their anti-abortion message to shoot an abortionist or blow up an abortion clinic; that firearms manufacturers must pay if their guns fall into the hands of criminals or of people who are not intelligent enough to use them properly, even though they are manufactured and sold legally and are safe and effective when used properly. This is really a feminine argument -- the argument that people should be protected from their own weakness or foolishness, that it's unfair -- perhaps even racist -- to put all the blame on criminals for criminal actions, and that no one should be permitted to say really harsh or unkind things against others, abortionists or otherwise. Juries have become more feminine in their attitudes, and lawyers are taking advantage of it.
The tobacco companies may be wealthy enough to withstand class-action lawsuits, but most firearms makers aren't, and certainly no anti-abortion group is. The result is that the courts in America are being used in a way that they never were intended to be used. They are being used by special-interest groups to silence their critics and to impose their social or political agendas on the rest of us against our wills. And the lawyers, instead of opposing this misuse of the judicial system, are in a feeding frenzy. Hundreds of lawyers have become wealthy from these class- action lawsuits, and thousands of others are hoping to do the same.
Of course, it's not just the greed and irresponsibility of lawyers as a class which should be blamed for this misuse of the courts. As is the case with most of the ills afflicting our society today, the Jews -- and not just Jewish lawyers -- have a role in it. Jewish groups have been screaming for months that the wave of killings of abortionists is motivated by anti-Semitism, since a majority of the abortionists who have been shot have been Jews. Jewish groups have been especially shrill about this since the shooting of the Jewish abortionist Dr. Barnett Slepian near Buffalo, New York, last October 23. The fact is that Jews are greatly overrepresented among abortionists, just as they are among those pushing for gun control; if you shoot into a crowd of abortion doctors you're likely to kill a Jew. Jewish groups, however, are convinced that most anti-abortionists are also at least latently anti-Semitic. And so Jews generally have encouraged these lawsuits and cheered the recent verdicts.
And of course, the most notorious use of class-action lawsuits has been their use by Jewish organizations who currently are extorting billions of dollars from banks, insurance companies, governments, and manufacturers around the world in the form of Second World War reparations. Considering everything, to speak out against class-action lawsuits almost could be interpreted as anti-Semitic.
A similar misuse of the courts -- which need not involve a whole class of plaintiffs -- is that engaged in most notoriously by a lawyer named Morris Dees and the so-called Southern Poverty Law Center. Morris Dees uses the courts as a prop to assist him in raising money from a large mailing list of feminists, Jews, leftists, and other supporters of the Clinton agenda. He looks for a group which is unpopular with his supporters -- a group of anti-abortionists, for example, or a religious group with a doctrine his Jewish supporters consider anti-Semitic -- then he looks for a plaintiff he can use as a straw man for filing a lawsuit against the target group. Then he sends out fund appeals to his list of feminists, Jews, and leftists, in which he says:
"I am suing such-and-such a group, and I intend to bankrupt them and put them out of business, but I need your help. This lawsuit is very expensive. Send me your largest possible donation today, and I will shut this group down for you."
And he has built up a bank account of more than $70 million in this fashion during the past few years, because he always brings in far more money with his fund appeals than he actually spends on litigation against the target groups.
Using the courts in this fashion is called barratry, and lawyers who engaged in barratry used to be disbarred -- but not in the Clinton era. In the Clinton era Morris Dees is a darling of the legal establishment. He is invited to speak to groups of lawyers. He is given awards by bar associations. Other lawyers admire him for his success at barratry. They envy him for the amount of money he has made at it. And Dees, unlike the group of abortionists who won the lawsuit in Portland recently and unlike most of the gun-control advocates filing lawsuits against gun manufacturers, doesn't even pretend to be anything but a barrator. He brags publicly about it. When he sued me, on a legal theory so far-fetched you wouldn't believe it, because I had purchased some real estate from a church that was one of his targets, he bragged to the newspapers and to his list of supporters: "I'm going to shut Pierce down."
Well, he didn't shut me down, but he got his lawsuit against me tried in a court where the judge was a Clinton appointee, and it ended up costing me nearly $150,000, while Dees raked in nearly $10 million in donations from his supporters. At the moment he is suing another unpopular church in Idaho and soliciting donations from his list of leftists, feminists, and Jews to support the suit. And other lawyers will not condemn him. They just envy him.
Morris Dees, more than any other lawyer, epitomizes what is wrong with our legal system in America today. He helps us to understand why there has been a general feeling among our people, from the time of Plato to the present -- a feeling expressed over and over by our writers down through the millennia -- that there is something fundamentally unclean about men whose profession it is to make the worse cause seem the better, to use Plato's words, or to prove that white is black and black is white, according as they are paid, to use Swift's words. The noble Romans considered such a profession to be un-Roman, and today we consider it to be un-Aryan. Our legal system has become a system of lawyers, run entirely by lawyers, solely for the enrichment of lawyers. It is a malignant system which threatens the freedom of us all and which does not have the will to cure itself. It is because of this that the cure will have to come from outside the legal system and will have to be a very painful cure indeed. Someday, in a new society, we will have to build a new legal system. Let us not make the same mistakes we made -- and that the Romans made before us. Let us build a system with adequate safeguards: a system to serve the race, not the lawyers.
Hands Off Yugoslavia!
I suppose I have a weird sense of humor, but I often laugh at things which really are more grotesque than funny. That certainly is the case when Mr. Clinton holds a press conference, puts on a stern face, and begins wagging his finger and talking about morality. For the past couple of weeks the target of Clinton's finger-wagging has been Yugoslavia and its President Slobodan Milosevic. President Milosevic is an immoral man, Clinton says, because he won't agree to the White House's resident warmonger, Madeleine Albright, sending 28,000 NATO soldiers into Yugoslavia to run things there. President Milosevic believes that he is capable of running his own country without the help of a foreign occupying army. President Milosevic says that he and his fellow Serbs will fight to the death to defend their country from foreign aggression. Mr. Clinton says that is an "immoral" attitude, and he will bomb Yugoslavia back into the Stone Age if Milosevic doesn't let Ms. Albright and Mr. Cohen and Mr. Berger and Mr. Holbrooke and the rest of the glatt-kosher crew in Washington send their troops in to run his country for him.
What makes this situation even more grotesque is the attitude of the media people. They're all taking Mr. Clinton very seriously, not even cracking a smile when he begins lecturing Mr. Milosevic about "morality." It is pretty clear that the media bosses are solidly in cahoots with the Jewish gang around Clinton in this latest war effort. So I laughed the first couple of times I saw Clinton wagging his finger and talking about morality, with all of the media commentators looking appropriately serious. But really, deliberately starting a war with another country is a serious business -- even if, in this case, it also is grotesque.
I mean, American armed forces kill Serbian women and children with missiles and so-called "smart" bombs, and Clinton and his media boosters tell us that we're doing it to save lives. Really, that's what those thugs are telling us: We must bomb Belgrade in order to save lives. If we don't kill these Serbs now, the Clintonistas are telling us, it'll cost a lot more lives later. We have to do it to keep Europe stable, so that we'll have a market for American products there later. The bombing is necessary to safeguard America's economy, and preserve American jobs, Mr. Clinton announced on TV. Really! That inexcusable piece of filth in the White House, who is as ready to start a war as he is to drop his trousers for a female intern -- and with as little thought for the consequences -- has tried to justify bombing Belgrade by saying it is necessary to save American jobs. And those yahoos at the American Legion and the VFW clubs are watching that piece of filth on their television screens and nodding in agreement with him: "Yep, yep. He's our commander in chief. He's right, by golly. We have to support our boys over there and save our economy." And that gang of Jews around Clinton are grinning up their sleeves at how easily they're getting away with it, at how easy it is to use White Americans to kill White Europeans in order to advance the Jews' schemes.
My god! If ever there was a country asking to be struck dead by lightning, it's America today.
Let's look at the background of this thing. Serbia has been around for a long time. Serbs were settled in the area where they are now as early as the 7th century, and they adopted Christianity toward the end of the ninth century. And for five centuries after that they built their nation, a great and proud nation, bounded on the east by Bulgaria, on the south by Greece, on the west by the Adriatic Sea, and on the north by Hungary. Serbia's greatest city, Belgrade -- the White City, the White Fortress, is the meaning of the name in Slavic -- was founded more than 2,300 years ago by the Celts.
Serbia, like the rest of the Balkan area, has had a turbulent history, with many invasions and wars. But the Serbs are a tough and independent people, and they held their own most of the time. Then in 1389 a great catastrophe befell Serbia. The Ottoman Turks, pushing into Europe from Asia, were met at Kosovo Polje by the Serbian army. The Serbs fought with great bravery against the Turks. One Serb nobleman, Milosh Obelic, rode alone into the Turkish camp, fought his way into the sultan's tent, and single-handedly killed the leader of the Turks with a dagger. Despite their courage, however, the Serbs suffered a crushing defeat at Kosovo. This left the Balkans at the mercy of the Turks, and 64 years later, in 1453, Constantinople also fell to them.
After more than 400 years of Turkish rule, the Serbs finally regained their freedom -- at least, from the Turks -- in the 1860s. In the Treaty of Berlin, in 1878, the Serbian situation was essentially legitimized, though not entirely to the liking of Serb patriots: although the Turks were off their backs, the Austro-Hungarian Empire claimed rights in the area, and this claim eventually sparked the First World War. On June 28, 1914, the 525th anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo Polje -- an anniversary which the Serbs still celebrate with great fervor in memory of their national hero Milosh Obelic, who had assassinated the Turkish sultan on the day of the battle -- on this anniversary day in 1914 the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand made the mistake of visiting Sarajevo, where he and his wife were assassinated by a Serb patriot.
After the First World War the New World Order gang in Washington and London were on the winning side and had an opportunity to try some of their social experiments, one of which was to ignore centuries-old ethnic boundaries and cobble together an artificial "multicultural" entity which they called Yugoslavia. In Yugoslavia everyone was supposed to ignore history and tradition and religion and other ethnic realities and pledge allegiance to the new, artificial entity. Well, of course, it didn't work, although after the Second World War the gang in Washington and London turned Yugoslavia over to the rule of bloodthirsty communist dictators in a vain effort to force it to work. As soon as communism collapsed the people in the area set about trying to sort things out in their familiar way and reestablish ethnic boundaries.
I suppose this is difficult for the New World Order gang to understand -- at least, for the Gentiles in the gang. The Jews understand racial nationalism, of course; they take it in with their mothers' milk, and they understand that it is the source of their strength. But the Gentiles have been essentially deracinated. They have grown up in the multicultural morasses which our cities have become. They've been weaned on Jewish television and the destructive ideals it propagates. They think of themselves as individual citizens of the multicultural New World Order, and they can't imagine people motivated by a race-based patriotism of the sort the Serbs feel.
This is one of the reasons the Clintonistas hate the Serbs. If you read the columns and editorials in the New York Times and their other publications, you'll find them literally dripping with hatred for the Serbs even years before Mr. Clinton's current war began. They regularly call the Serbs "fascists": one of their favorite pejoratives. And the hatred continues today: I have the March 29 issue of their Newsweek magazine in front of me now, with two major articles attempting to justify a war against the Serbs -- which at the time the magazine went to press hadn't started yet. In both articles there are a number of references to Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, but not once is he referred to as "President" Milosevic. He is called "dictator" Milosevic and "strongman" Milosevic, but never "President" Milosevic. Do you think this is just a coincidence? I don't. I think that the editors of Newsweek are trying to de-legitimize Milosevic in the eyes of the American public.
The New World Order gang, Jews and Gentiles alike, hate the Serbs for two reasons, and neither reason is that the Serbs treat the Albanians in Kosovo province roughly. The Clintonistas hate the Serbs because, first, the Serbs want a Serbian nation of their own again. The Serbs don't believe in multiculturalism and power-sharing and all of the other liberal-feminist-Jewish claptrap so beloved by the New World Order enthusiasts. And the Clintonistas are afraid that if the Serbs can have a Serb country, then other ethnic groups elsewhere also may want to opt out of the grand multicultural design.
The second reason the New World Order types hate the Serbs is that the Serbs are refusing to obey orders, refusing to recognize the supremacy of the New World Order. The Serbs believe that they can manage their own affairs, without any help from the New World Order or NATO or the United Nations or Madeleine Albright. They don't want to become a batch of happy serfs on the global plantation, holding hands and singing "We Are the World" along with everyone else. They just want to be left alone. And to the Clintonistas that is intolerable.
And I should point out here that these two reasons for hating the Serbs ultimately boil down to one reason. The aim of the New World Order gang is domination. It is total control. To some of the Gentiles in the gang this aim may be all tied up with the ideology of egalitarianism and multiculturalism and making fighter pilots out of women, but for the Jews it is simply domination. They want to run the world, and they will attempt to destroy anyone who gets in their way.
One of the essential elements in the Jewish plan for domination is multiculturalism; it is to kill everyone's sense of rootedness, everyone's sense of nationhood -- except their own, of course. They control a country by insuring that there is no single, dominant ethnic group which has the potential for resisting them. That's why they're so hot for keeping the flow of Third World immigrants coming into the United States, for example, so that the White majority here will become a minority within the next few years.
And that's why they are hostile to the Serbs' desire to exclude non-Serbs from their living area. The Jews and the other elements of the New World Order gang hate the Serbs because the Serbs won't obey orders and won't let themselves be multiculturalized and deracinated. So the Serbs must be punished. An example must be made of them. Every country in the world must understand that it must obey orders from the United Nations -- or else the smart bombs will start falling and the cruise missiles will start exploding.
Of course, the Clinton gang can't explain to the American people -- not even to the yahoos and lemmings drinking their beer around the television sets in the VFW clubs -- that we have to kill Serbian women and children to enforce the will of the New World Order. Even the yahoos might not find that a satisfactory reason to cheer their degenerate commander in chief. So we're told that we're doing it for humanitarian reasons, that we're doing it to save lives -- and American jobs. And as I said before, god help us if that's the level we've descended to as a nation. We're overdue for divine retribution, a la Sodom and Gomorrah.
One thing to keep in mind when you see our brave commander in chief on television explaining why this new war is necessary, is that he is lying just as much as when he went on television last year and told us that he had never had sex with a certain female intern in the White House. Not only does Clinton have no morality, but he also has no ideology and no national policy. He is simply telling the lies that he's ordered to tell by the kosher gang around him: by his greasy national security adviser Sandy Berger and by that horrid, little Jewish troll Madeleine Albright.
If he really believed that America is justified in dropping smart bombs on any country which mistreats its minorities, then why are we not bombing Tel Aviv instead of Belgrade? Israel, perhaps you are aware, is a country which has an official policy of using torture to extract information from Palestinian prisoners. Israel also is the foremost practitioner of ethnic cleansing in the Middle East. Israel is in an ongoing process of expropriation of Palestinian land as it continues to create new settlement after new settlement for Jews. When a Palestinian home is in the way, it is dynamited. When a Palestinian village is in the way, the Jews simply call in the bulldozers.
I want to make something clear: I do not approve of rape, torture, and throat-cutting as a means of settling ethnic conflicts in the Balkans, whether it is the Serbs or the Albanians or some other group committing the atrocities. I believe that ethnic cleansing can be done without atrocities. I am sure that some atrocities have occurred in Kosovo province, because that's the way things always have been done in the Balkans. I'm also sure that the media bosses in America have exaggerated atrocities committed by Serbs and ignored atrocities committed against Serbs. The Jewish media bosses deal with conflict in the Balkans the same way they deal with interracial crime in America: they report what it serves their interests to report. A group of Whites kill a Black, and it's national headline news for weeks; a group of Blacks kill a White, and no one outside the community where the killing occurred ever hears about it. But I'll say it again: I don't approve of the sort of brutality that the Serbs have been accused of inflicting on Albanians or Croats or Bosnian Moslems. If there are atrocities going on in Kosovo now, however, a substantial portion of the blame must go to the Clintonistas in Washington. When American armed forces are killing Serbs, ostensibly on behalf of Albanians, one shouldn't be surprised if the Serbs take out their anger on the Albanians.
But really, it's not the conflict between Serbs and Albanians that should be our principal concern here. What we should be concerned with is America's policy of killing people who refuse to obey the New World Order gang. We should not let our armed forces be used as a private death squad by Madeleine Albright.
We should be concerned about the Clinton government's policy of ignoring the sovereignty of other countries and calling in missile strikes whenever we don't like the way they're conducting their internal affairs. And the disagreement between Albanians and Serbs in Yugoslavia's Kosovo province is strictly an internal affair in the sovereign country of Yugoslavia. When we attacked Yugoslavia last week we were committing raw, naked aggression against a sovereign country. Running around the world doing that sort of thing is not conducive to stability or to world peace, regardless of Mr. Clinton's attempts to justify it. America is clearly in the wrong in the present war against Yugoslavia.
And we also should be concerned about our government's policy of hypocrisy and lying. We should not pretend to have principles when we don't. As much as some mush-brained liberals would like to believe that we're operating in accord with some sort of higher morality, where we go charging in to punish any government which mistreats some minority inside its country, it's clear that that's not the case. I've already mentioned the Jews' mistreatment of the Palestinians in Israel, but I also could mention a number of other countries. Turkey, for example, is a lot rougher on the Kurdish minority in Turkey than the Serbs are on the Albanians in Kosovo. Turkish persecution of the Kurds is going on now, and it has been going on for decades, but we've never seen the need to drop smart bombs on Istanbul and demand that the Turks let us send in troops to run their country for them.
And speaking of hypocrisy and lying, let's not be taken in by the lie that when we send in so- called "peacekeeping" troops their purpose is to keep the peace, safeguard democracy, and the like. It is simply to enforce the will of the New World Order. A good example of this was provided in Bosnia just last month, when the New World Order gang supposedly in charge of "peacekeeping" there simply fired the democratically elected president of the Serbian part of Bosnia, Nikola Poplasen. Albright's thugs in Bosnia expressed their unhappiness with Poplasen as soon as he was elected, six months ago, beating Albright's candidate. The news media have been referring ever since the election to Poplasen as a "fascist," and finally they decided to simply fire him. What the New World Order folks mean by "democracy" is a system where their candidate gets the most votes. They usually are able to arrange this through their control of the mass media and doling out bread and circuses. But when something goes wrong and their candidate doesn't win, then they shoot out the lights and grab for the money.
Now, this sort of thing apparently doesn't bother the yahoos in the VFW clubs -- primarily because they aren't capable of thinking beyond the clichés about "supporting our boys" and "safeguarding freedom" and "standing behind our commander in chief" that they have been taught by the media. But it does bother me, and it does bother a lot of other Americans. What we're doing to Yugoslavia is simply not an acceptable way to conduct America's relations with the rest of the world, even if we do have more cruise missiles than anyone else.
And I don't say that because I'm some sort of leftist-feminist opponent of the use of military force when it's needed. I'm not even opposed to military aggression, when it serves America's national interest. But I am opposed to the unprincipled, lawless policy of the Clinton administration of using America's armed forces to enforce the will of the New World Order on other countries. Let's cut out the cant about "supporting our boys," when "our boys" are not being used to advance America's interests but simply to murder people that the New World Order wants murdered. America is still militarily and economically stronger than any other country. We're still big enough to kick sand in a lot of people's faces and get away with it -- at least for the time being. But we're not so big and so strong that we don't have to have a sensible national policy and that we don't have to think about where our national interests will lie in the future. We're not so powerful that we never have to be think about being morally right in our relations with other countries. In the long run, permitting ourselves to be used as the world's bully will do us at least as much damage as we're doing to Yugoslavia now.
Why the Jews Want War
Last week we talked about the motivation for the Clinton government's murderous attack on Yugoslavia. Mr. Clinton had two excuses for his war: it is to save lives, and it is to save American jobs, Clinton said. It is to save lives, because if we don't whip the Serbs into line now, they'll continue doing things that we don't approve of, and so later we'll have to kill a lot more of them to make them run their country the way we want them to. It is to save American jobs, because we must keep Europe stable and prosperous so that Europeans will buy our products.
I said that the real reason for the war against Yugoslavia is that the Serbs refuse to let the New World Order and the United States tell them how to run their country. The New World Order wants the countries of the world, wherever possible, to be multi-ethnic -- except for Israel, of course. Multi-ethnic countries are easier to control, less likely to put up a solid front against the New World Order. But the Serbs don't want to be part of a multi-ethnic social experiment. They want to live among other Serbs. So, in the view of the New World Order, the Serbs must be punished. An example must be made of the Serbs so that other countries won't be tempted to disobey the New World Order. We discussed all of that last week.
Now we'll discuss it some more. We'll look at some of the details. But first let's orient ourselves, so that we can understand how the details fit together. Here's Orientation Rule Number One: If the Jews are all on one side of any issue, then the chances are very good that it behooves us to be on the other side. A corollary to Orientation Rule Number One is that if the media are in general agreement that a certain policy or program is a good thing, then we ought to be suspicious that it is in fact bad for us.
And it is a fact that the Jews are solidly on the side of Madeleine Albright and her murderous policy in Yugoslavia. I have in front of me an April 3 report from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. It says: "The organized Jewish community has . . . declared unwavering support for U.S. intervention in Kosovo." And if you read the whole Jewish Telegraphic Agency report you understand that by "intervention" the Jews mean all means necessary for a Jewish victory over the Serbs, all means necessary to insure that the New World Order beats the Serbs into submission, even if that means bombing the 2300-year-old Belgrade, one of the most beautiful and historic cities in Europe, into rubble and then sending in U.S. ground forces to kill the last Serb. Another Jewish Telegraphic Agency report from April 3 tells of Jews with Yugoslav citizenship running from Belgrade, where nearly all of them were concentrated, like rats leaving a sinking ship. Draft-age Jewish males, in particular, are clearing out and heading for Israel, so that they won't be drafted into the Serbian army. That sounds familiar, doesn't it?
So let's keep that detail in mind as we look at all the other details: the Jews are solidly in favor of this war, and they've let everyone in Washington know it -- which is why the Republicans are just sitting on their hands and not raising a whisper of protest against Clinton's war. They're not afraid to oppose Clinton, but they're all scared to death of displeasing the Jews.
One doesn't even have to go to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency to learn of the solid backing of the Jews for this war; they're saying the same thing in various ways in the newspapers that they publish for us to read, and the Jews in the Congress are saying it too. And of course, they've got their man in the White House justifying the war in Jewish terms. Clinton has been saying that we're doing now what we should have done back before the Second World War. We should have attacked Germany sooner, Clinton has been saying, and we would have saved many lives.
Now, that's an interesting way of looking at it: You see someone in another country whose policies or ideas you don't approve of, and so you kill him before he has a chance to become stronger and actually do something with his ideas. The notion is that if we had declared war on Germany in 1933, as soon as Hitler told the Jews that they no longer were welcome in Germany -- that they no longer could own German newspapers, German radio stations, or German film studios -- we could have saved many Jewish lives. So why didn't we attack the Soviet Union in 1920, when the communists started butchering Russian and Ukrainian farmers? Why didn't we kill the communists before they had a chance to kill 60 million of the best Europeans?
You will never hear Mr. Clinton making that argument, of course, and you will never read that argument in the New York Times or the Washington Post. And the reason you won't is that in the Soviet Union Jews weren't being killed, just our people -- and our people don't count. So let's not just listen quietly and let them get away with their phony argument that we learned our lesson when we didn't attack Germany in 1933 and many people died as a result, so that's why we're attacking Yugoslavia now. Just tell them, "Hey, we should have attacked the Soviet Union in 1920, before Kaganovich and all of the other Jewish commissars had a chance to kill millions of Ukrainian and Russian farmers. That's why we should attack Israel now, before Netanyahu has a chance to acquire more weapons of mass destruction, kill more Palestinians, and do anything else to destabilize the Middle East."
You see, life becomes a lot trickier when you decide to worry about everyone else's business in the world instead of just your own. And if you are going into the business of other people's business, then you ought to be sure that you really know what you're getting into: you need to be well informed. And if you're getting your news only from the Jewish media, then you'd better be very careful how you interpret it. News about Yugoslavia's Kosovo province, for example, which comes to us from the controlled media over here would have us believe that Albanians are innocent victims and Serbs are murderous aggressors, and that's all there is to it, and so we're morally justified in going over there to kill Serbs.
That's the news today, when the Jews are solidly in favor of a war against the Serbs. Now I'll read you an article from the New York Times of November 1, 1987. That was nearly 12 years ago, before the Jews had decided that the destruction of Serbia suited their interests. Here's what the New York Times said in 1987:
"Portions of southern Yugoslavia have reached such a state of ethnic friction that Yugoslavs have begun to talk of the horrifying possibility of civil war . . . . The current hostilities pit ethnic- minded Albanians against the various Slavic populations of Yugoslavia and occur at all levels of society, from the highest officials to the humblest peasants. A young Army conscript of ethnic Albanian origin shot up his barracks, killing four sleeping Slavic bunkmates and wounding six others. The Army has uncovered hundreds of subversive ethnic Albanian cells in its ranks. Some arsenals have been raided. Ethnic Albanians in the government have manipulated public funds and regulations to take over land belonging to Serbs. . . . Slavic Orthodox churches have been attacked, and flags have been torn down. Wells have been poisoned and crops burned. Slavic boys have been knifed, and some young ethnic Albanians have been told by their elders to rape Serbian girls.
"Ethnic Albanians comprise the fastest growing nationality in Yugoslavia and are expected soon to become its third largest, after the Serbs and Croats. The goal of the radical nationalists among them, one said in an interview, is an ethnic Albania that includes western Macedonia, southern Montenegro, part of southern Serbia, Kosovo, and Albania itself. That includes large chunks of the republics that make up the southern half of Yugoslavia.
"The principal battleground is the region called Kosovo, a high plateau ringed by mountains that is somewhat smaller than New Jersey. Ethnic Albanians make up 85 per cent of the population of 1.7 million. The rest are Serbs and Montenegrins. As Slavs flee the protracted violence Kosovo is becoming what ethnic Albanian nationalists have been demanding for years, and especially strongly since the bloody rioting by ethnic Albanians in Pristina in 1981: an ethnically pure Albanian region . . . . The violence, a journalist in Kosovo said, is escalating to the worst in the last seven years."
Remember, I have been reading from the November 1, 1987, issue of the New York Times, and the violence I'm reading about has been Albanian violence directed against Serbs. Now I'll continue reading from the New York Times news story:
"Last summer the authorities in Kosovo said they documented 40 ethnic Albanian attacks on Slavs in two months. . . . In one incident, Fadil Hoxha, once the leading politician of ethnic Albanian origin in Yugoslavia, joked at an official dinner in Prizren last year that Serbian women should be used to satisfy potential ethnic Albanian rapists. . . . While 200,000 Serbs and Montenegrins still live in the province, they are scattered and lack cohesion. In the last seven years 20,000 of them have fled the province, often leaving behind farmsteads and houses for the safety of the Slavic north."
Well, that's the end of the 1987 New York Times article, and you can see that it puts quite a different light on things than the current news coverage. Twelve years ago the Albanians in Kosovo were terrorizing the Serbs and threatening a civil war not only to ethnically cleanse Kosovo by driving out all the Serbs, but also to take large chunks of land away from the Serbs in other provinces. That's when Slobodan Milosevic entered the picture. In the last 12 years he's turned the situation in Kosovo around. He's made Kosovo safe for Serbs again and broken the back of an Albanian rebel army of 25,000 armed terrorists and guerrillas. What Milosevic did was hardly the one-sided Serb aggression against defenceless, peace-loving Albanians that the Jewish gang around Clinton and the New York Times today would have you believe.
The April 5 issue of Newsweek magazine calls Milosevic "the Balkans bully," but a more accurate name would be "the savior of Yugoslavia." His aim is to protect his people, not to persecute Albanians -- although he's willing to persecute Albanians if that's necessary to keep Kosovo safe for Serbs. The huge masses of cold and hungry Albanian refugees we have been seeing on television are real enough, but the primary blame for their misery is Mr. Clinton's war, not Mr. Milosevic's policy. The mopping up of the last of the Albanian terrorists by the Serbian army was causing relatively few Albanian refugees until Mr. Clinton began bombing nearly three weeks ago.
And when the New World Order gang around Clinton discovered that the Serbs are a tougher bunch than the other people they're accustomed to pushing around and aren't going to be intimidated by a few cruise missiles and smart bombs, the Clintonistas began blowing up historic buildings in Belgrade. They've deliberately switched from military to civilian targets; they've been bombing the bridges across the Danube. And now they're hinting that the United States will send ground troops into Serbia after all. The head Jew in the Senate, Joseph Lieberman, has been calling for U.S. ground troops to go into Kosovo, and the Gentile politicians who always follow the Jewish party line have been echoing Lieberman. They really do not care how many Americans they cause to be killed, and certainly not how many Serbs. All they care about is enforcing Jewish policy on the Serbs.
In all of their party publications, all of their New World Order house organs, we see the same hatred of the Serbs for defying them, the same determination to either make the Serbs submit or to kill them. In the April 5 issue of the New York Observer, for example, we can read:
"Even if the United States had no humanitarian interest in stopping the destruction of the Kosovar Albanians; even if the NATO alliance were not in jeopardy; and even if the flow of refugees did not create the peril of a wider war, we would still have a compelling reason to defeat the Serbian dictatorship. That reason is to discourage potential Milosevic imitators who could pose a far greater threat in the future. . . . The nature of that peril is most obvious in Russia, where foreign policy is influenced by ultranationalists and ex-Communists with an increasingly fascistic tinge. Should those forces ever come to power, they must not think that NATO would countenance atrocities like those committed repeatedly in the Balkans."
Well, really, that's what it's all about: making an example of the Serbs, so as to intimidate everyone else into line -- and to prepare NATO for a really big project: attacking Russia if the Russians ever get around to trying to get even with the Jewish minority there which has caused the Russians so much grief throughout this century.
Those of you who have been listening to my broadcasts for the last couple of years may remember my prediction in my broadcast of December 21, 1996, that the batch of Jews who had just taken over all of the key military and foreign policy posts in the Clinton government, right after Clinton's re-election, were planning to take us into a war before the end of Clinton's second term. I was wrong on just one thing: I figured they would start their war in the Middle East. I thought that it would be Iraq. But it was the Balkans instead. I knew it would be somewhere. There had to be some reason for all of those Jews coming out of the closet and taking over the reigns of power from a soon-to-be-crippled President. And of course, the Balkans will serve their purpose just as well as the Middle East -- if we let them get away with it.
And we really must focus on this one fact -- that this is a Jewish war to strengthen the grip of the New World Order -- because the Jews are throwing up a lot of smoke to confuse people who might not be ready to get on their New World Order bandwagon yet. And I am indeed gratified by the evidence that there are a great many such people who are refusing to let the Jews take them for a ride, even here in America, the land of the lemming. I never have had a stronger or more positive response to any of my radio broadcasts than I did to last week's broadcast on Yugoslavia. Hundreds of people I had never before heard from wrote to express their agreement. I'll read you just one letter from a listener, who is a military man:
"Your 'Hands Off Yugoslavia' broadcast was well done and, as usual, right on the mark. However, although there is some truth in stereotypes, I think your constant reference to VFW and American Legion types as 'yahoos' is just a bit off the mark. Take it from this American Legionnaire and current member of our glorious imperial military forces, in my American Legion post there is not a great wave of support for Mr. Clinton's current example of international thuggery. Far from it.
"In fact, when I awoke on the day after the bombing started I felt ashamed to put my uniform on and report for duty. What has this nation become? All those who gave their lives and blood for our ideals must be turning in their graves over this. History teaches us the following: America shall not remain the dominant economic and military power forever. And when we fall they will come and slaughter us, and we will have deserved it. I don't want this for my country. I don't want it in any other country. I want peace in my nation and in theirs."
Well, perhaps I have been unfair to the VFW and the American Legion. I certainly hope I have. I certainly hope there are many, many more active-duty military people who agree with the soldier whose letter I just read. The April 5 issue of Newsweek magazine says that its latest poll shows 53 per cent of the American people support Clinton's undeclared war against Yugoslavia and 47 per cent support using U.S. ground troops to invade Yugoslavia. I suppose that's not really out of line with Mr. Clinton's popularity polls during the recent Bill and Monica show. About half of the American public will support mindlessly anything their government does -- so long as the ball games and the "entitlement" checks keep coming and Mr. Clinton keeps telling them he feels their pain.
The encouraging part of the Newsweek poll is that 36 per cent of the people said they don't approve of bombing Yugoslavia. Newsweek and the other Jewish media will be showing us lots of suffering Albanian refugees in the next few days in an effort to bring that last figure down. Meanwhile, what should those of us who are part of that 36 per cent do? What can we do?
You know, we are in a rather extreme situation. We have a totally irresponsible, criminal head of state, a Jewish cabinet hell-bent on pursuing a Jewish rather than an American agenda, Jewish media to back them up, and an electorate consisting largely of yahoos who never should have been permitted to vote on anything, including the local dogcatcher, and who can be counted on to approve anything the Clinton government does. And this criminal coalition has the world's most powerful armed force at its disposal. It's a situation which calls for an armed revolution and a thorough cleansing of the population. I mean, the situation is not theoretical: the criminals in Washington are murdering our people in Europe. Every day that the Clinton government remains intact the criminals will murder hundreds more of our people. Well, of course, we are not able to mount an armed revolution. About all we can do at this time is express our moral outrage at what the criminals are doing. Expressing moral outrage may sound like a pretty anemic response to cruise missiles and B2 bombers, but it can have an effect. Thirty-six per cent of the U.S. population is a lot of people. So let's express ourselves. Call in to every radio talk show you can hear. Call in repeatedly. Write letters to every publication that has a letters section. Write five or six letters every day, and keep writing them. Let's make ourselves heard. Now!
What Makes Madeleine Run
Sometimes I feel at a loss for words: for example, when I see something which is manifestly very evil or very dangerous or very foolish being done by the American government -- something which is done in plain sight where everyone else can see it just as well as I can -- and nearly everyone else acts as if everything is normal, that there's nothing to worry about. It's like a house is on fire on a busy street, burning brightly in the middle of the day, and hundreds of people are walking by, paying no attention at all to the fire, and I begin yelling, "Fire! Fire! Look, there's a fire!" People would look at me as if I were a fool.
This is the way I feel about the war against Serbia. Bill Clinton and the manifestly evil group of Jewish advisors and assistants around him are murdering Serbian men, women, and children in Yugoslavia every day. They are murdering our fellow Europeans. They are murdering our fellow Whites, and they are doing it in our name. Madeleine Albright and James Rubin, William Cohen, Sandy Berger, Richard Holbrooke -- Jews all -- are appearing on television every night and telling us that we must continue killing Serbs until they surrender. We must stop Slobodan Milosevic's aggression against Kosovo, they tell us. We must bomb the Serbs until Milosevic surrenders. And hardly anyone questions this nonsense. That is, hardly anyone in Washington questions it. Certainly no one in the media questions it. Demonstrators around the world throw bricks and firebombs at American embassies, but the politicians in Washington and the media treat these protestors as a sort of irrelevant sideshow, and the murder of Serbs continues.
And most of the American public goes on about its business as if nothing is happening. They continue watching their ball games on TV and shopping in the malls, while the government they elected murders their kinsmen in Europe. It doesn't really bother them. Now, perhaps they don't understand that the people around Clinton who are waging this undeclared war are evil. Perhaps that's too deep a moral issue for them to get into. Perhaps they don't even know that the Clinton gang are all Jews. Perhaps they've been too busy watching their ball games to notice that. But we have to assume that a substantial portion of them are bright enough to understand that the government's whole rationale for this war is a pack of lies; it's nonsense. Slobodan Milosevic is called a "fascist dictator." Actually, Milosevic is a socialist. He used to be a communist. And he is the democratically elected president of Yugoslavia. He is accused of "aggression" for putting down an Albanian rebel army of terrorists and guerrillas in Serbia's Kosovo province. If a Mexican rebel army tried to take Texas or Arizona or California away from the United States, and the U.S. government sent in the Army to put down the rebellion, should that be called "aggression"?
I've said this before, but I'll say it again: the only aggression taking place in Yugoslavia now is the unprovoked bombing of that sovereign nation by an outside force, namely, the United States and its collaborators. What the United States is doing to Yugoslavia fits exactly what the word "aggression" means and always has meant, both in common usage and in international law. And the effort of the Yugoslav government to put down a revolt by Albanian rebels is not aggression. Now, maybe the couch potatoes can't figure that out, but there are hundreds of thousands of Americans who can, and that includes every politician in Washington and every media boss, and it also includes thousands of business leaders, academic leaders, and cultural leaders. Why are they not speaking out against the aggression against Yugoslavia? Why aren't they displaying their outrage, their horror, their disagreement with what the Clinton government is doing? Why aren't the politicians in the Congress speaking out? They impeached Clinton for his perjury, but what he is doing now against Yugoslavia is a thousand times more criminal, and they do nothing.
You know, this is not a question of whether you sympathize more with Albanians or with Serbs. This is not a question of whether you believe that Kosovo should remain a part of Serbia or should become a part of Albania instead. This is a matter of your government in Washington being out of control and doing atrocious and illegal things that neither the Constitution of the United States nor the historically expressed will of the American people gives it the right to do. The Clinton gang is murdering people wholesale, destroying European cultural treasures, giving patently spurious excuses for what it is doing, and the politicians and the media bosses have expressed their virtually unanimous approval, while most of the American people -- including those bright enough and knowledgeable enough to understand clearly what's happening -- remain silent or even express their approval. So why should I make myself look foolish by shouting, "Fire!"?
Well, the reason that I'm willing to risk looking foolish is that there are some people besides myself who do care: the people who are demonstrating with the Serbs in American cities, the people who are throwing bricks at American embassies around the world. And there are a lot of other people who are not blind supporters of whatever Clinton and his Jews do, people who at least are troubled by the murder being committed in their name by their government, people who would like to understand. I hope that by speaking out I can help some of them understand and take a position. And besides, even if no one else cared, even if no one wanted to understand, speaking out against evil is the right thing to do. It is what every moral man is obliged to do, regardless of whether or not it accomplishes anything.
Let's go back and look again at some of the issues involved here. This business of labeling as "aggression" the internal policies of another country that our government doesn't like and then using that as an excuse to wage undeclared war against the other country really ought to be troubling to every patriotic American, regardless of his religion or his politics. The example I gave a minute ago of the Mexicans in Texas or California outnumbering the White people a few years hence and declaring that henceforth the state in question will be a part of Mexico -- or "Aztlan," as they call it -- is not really very farfetched. Mexican organizations in the United States already are making plans to do exactly that. Will we approve of the U.S. government putting down such an attempt to secede, or will we condemn any effort to preserve the Union as "aggression"?
You know, it really is important to be consistent. It really is important for the people of a nation to feel that they are right and just in their actions. And how can we call the effort of the Yugoslav government to put down a rebellion by Albanians in Kosovo "aggression" without condemning our own government when it acts similarly in the future? The couch potatoes -- the people who voted for Clinton -- may not care about such things, but the rest of us should.
One of the most hypocritical aspects of Clinton's war against Yugoslavia is the pretense that Belgrade is being bombed for "humanitarian" reasons, that Americans are killing Serbs to save the lives of Albanians. You know, what started the conflict in Kosovo a year ago between Albanian rebels and the Yugoslav government was the covert arming of the Albanians by the U.S. government. The KLA, or Kosovo Liberation Army, is really a "contra" army which was financed and supplied by the Clinton government. Perhaps the Serbs would eventually have ethnically cleansed Kosovo, or large parts of it, anyway, but what actually brought the conflict in Kosovo to a head last year was the buildup of the KLA. This KLA buildup to an armed force of 25,000 guerrillas and terrorists forced Milosevic to move against them. It was when the Serbs began beating the KLA -- and perhaps committing some atrocities at the same time -- that the Clinton gang began bombing. And since the bombing began, the Serbs greatly stepped up their efforts against the KLA -- an entirely reasonable response on the part of the Serbs -- and at the same time forced Albanians believed to be sympathetic to the KLA to become refugees. Now the Serbs have destroyed the KLA, and so the Clinton gang wants to send in U.S. troops to take the place of the KLA.
Why did the Clinton government provoke trouble in Kosovo in the first place by arming the KLA? Could it have something to do with Kosovo's enormous mineral wealth? I don't know the full answer to that yet, but I do know that the lead, cadmium, zinc, gold, and silver mines in the northern part of Kosovo make it one of the most valuable pieces of real estate in the world. And I do know that there wouldn't have been any major conflict in Kosovo last year if it hadn't been for the arming and financing of the KLA. And there wouldn't be half a million or so cold and hungry Albanian refugees today if the Clinton gang hadn't started a war. So let's cut out the baloney about "humanitarian" bombing.
The one aspect of Clinton's war against Yugoslavia that cannot be overemphasized is the Jewish aspect. I know that many people don't like to hear about that aspect. It frightens them. Even some Serbs don't want that aspect of the war mentioned. They believe that it is not helpful to bring "anti-Semitism" into the issue. That's like a team of medical researchers looking for a cure for syphilis and afraid to mention spirochetes because they don't want to seem prejudiced against that particular type of pathogen.
The facts are simple. It's not just that all the members of Clinton's foreign policy and national defense team happen to be Jews. That's not a coincidence. As I told you on the air and in print, loudly and repeatedly, at the time this bunch took their posts, back in December 1996, they took over for the specific purpose of leading America into another war. And it's no coincidence that every major Jewish organization is in favor of this war. The Jews talk openly about this in their own publications. Half the reports coming from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency during the past three weeks have talked about the solid Jewish support for the war against Serbia. And that is why all of the Republican politicians have fallen in line with the Democrats in backing the war. It's not that they believe in "supporting our boys." The best way to "support our boys" is to bring them home now and don't send them out to fight a war unless it is to defend America. No, the politicians are behind the war because the Jews are, and the politicians are afraid to buck the Jews. When the Clintonistas began the bombing more than three weeks ago some of the Republicans in the Congress were saying, "Whoa! Wait a minute! What have the Serbs done to us? I don't think we ought to start a war with them." But as soon as they saw that all of the powerful Jewish organizations were for the war, the Republicans shut up in a hurry. And the Jews are behind the war because it does serve their interests: not our interests, not America's interests, but Jewish interests. The Jews are all behind a concept they call "the New World Order." They're in favor of a New World Order in which all power is vested in a shadowy super-government which everyone in the world must obey -- a super-government which supersedes all national sovereignties and all individual rights everywhere -- and which is controlled by . . . guess whom?
By dominating the mass media in the United States at this critical time, a time when the United States still has the most powerful and destructive military force in the world as well as the most powerful economy -- and is nominally headed by a totally corrupt and irresponsible puppet under their control, a crippled chief executive who is wholly dependent on his Jewish cabinet and the Jewish media bosses and will do whatever they tell him without the least concern for the damage to America -- by dominating the mass media at this time, the Jews have a window of opportunity. With Clinton as their puppet they can impose just about any policy they want on the government, and a majority of the couch potato voters will approve it.
The Jews are wielding unprecedented power now, and not just in the United States. Only in Russia is there any significant degree of conscious opposition to them. They are understandably concerned not to let that Russian opposition get out of control and not to let opposition to them develop elsewhere, as in Yugoslavia, for example. Their chief method for preventing opposition is to kill any sense of national or ethnic consciousness through programs of multiculturalization, through mixing together of diverse ethnic groups, through preventing any sizable country from having a homogeneous population. Serbia is resisting becoming multiculturalized, and so an example is being made of Serbia. If Serbia can be crushed by the Clinton gang, who else will dare to oppose them?
Now, that's not the way Madeleine Albright or William Cohen or Sandy Berger or Richard Holbrooke explains the Clinton government's current war against Yugoslavia. They will give you more baloney about "saving lives" and "fighting aggression" and "defending America's interests," and "this is what we should have done before Hitler started the Second World War," et cetera. But that is just a smokescreen to conceal their own real interests in promoting this war. They are a tricky and deceitful bunch.
I'll give you an example of just how tricky they can be, just how brazenly they can lie. Everyone has heard -- over and over and over again -- how the poor, innocent, defenseless Jews were plundered during the Second World War: how their bank accounts and their insurance policies and their art treasures were stolen from them by the wicked Swiss and the wicked Germans and the wicked French and so on. And they've been mounting a huge extortion campaign to force Switzerland and Germany and France and the United States and everyone else to give them reparations, to compensate them for their lost bank accounts, to give them back their stolen art works, and so on.
One of these poor, innocent, dispossessed Jews, forced to flee from Czechoslovakia in 1939 when the Germans took over, is the chief warmonger in the Clinton government, Madeleine Albright. We all have read sympathetic accounts in the controlled media of how her family was forced to flee from Prague when she was a child because they were Jews. And she has been at the forefront of those demanding reparations for the Jews. She is always ready to use the power of her office as secretary of state to pressure the Swiss government or a bank in France or an insurance company in Italy to cough up whatever the Jews are demanding in reparations.
Madeleine Albright also is the most bloodthirsty and aggressive Jew on the Jewish team running America's foreign policy and military forces. She is the vicious Jewess who has publicly justified the deaths of more than half a million Iraqi children caused by the Clinton government's bombing and embargo against Iraq. Before the bombing of Yugoslavia started last month she was frothing at the mouth in her eagerness to begin killing Serbs because they would not obey orders. She says that she is doing it for humanitarian reasons and to halt Serb aggression against Kosovo: aggression against one of their own provinces. And as for humanitarianism, this Jewess hasn't a humanitarian bone in her body. She cares no more for Albanians than she does for Iraqis. But she does like to start wars. She is the one who, more than anyone else in the Clinton government, has been itching to send ground troops into Serbia to kill Serbs more effectively than the cruise missiles can.
Now let me tell you about this great humanitarian and victim of the Nazis, this great Jewish heroine demanding reparations for her fellow Jews. Her family fled from Prague in 1939, but they came back in 1945, when she was eight years old. They took over the home in Prague of a German family who had been forced to flee from the Reds at the end of the war. Madeleine Albright's family moved into the home at 11 Hradsanke Street in Prague of Karl Nebrich, a wealthy German industrialist. The Nebrich family had been obliged to leave behind all of their works of art, expensive furniture, and other wealth. Albright's family simply appropriated it, and when they later left Czechoslovakia for greener pastures, they took all of the Nebrich family's belongings with them. They took the antique furniture; they took the linens and the tapestries and the chandeliers; they took the silverware; they took the paintings off the walls, including a Tintoretto and other priceless works by Old Masters -- millions of dollars worth of the Nebrich family's personal property altogether. A daughter of Karl Nebrich, Doris Renner, complained to the Sunday Times in London last month that Albright's family stole "even the nails from the wall."
It took the descendants of Karl Nebrich half a century to track down the thieves and begin seeking the return of their property. Finally, in 1996, they discovered that the American secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, had their family's stolen property. Nebrich's heirs have been trying to get it back ever since, but Albright has been stonewalling them. In February 1997 Philip Harmer, Karl Nebrich's great grandson, sent Albright a list of his family's stolen paintings and asked for their return. In a letter to Albright, Harmer wrote:
"You lived in our flat as an eight-year-old child, and I am sure you will remember some of the paintings on the attached list."
Albright had a State Department lawyer brush him off and tell him to seek restitution from the Czech government. Harmer told the Sunday Times last month: "I cannot believe the American secretary of state enjoys eating with my family's silver. These things must be handed over to my family." Well, Mr. Harmer, don't count on it. Not as long as it can be kept out of the American media. Although London's Sunday Times carried the whole story in its March 28 edition, the controlled media in the United States have shown a singular lack of interest in the matter.
Anyway, that's Madeleine Albright, the head of Clinton's Jewish assault team against Serbia. She is the type of person running Clinton's government, while he drops his trousers for female interns and secretaries. She is just one of the reasons why no American can believe what this government tells us about its war against Yugoslavia or any other important matter.
The New World Order
Today let's talk about the New World Order. We've talked about it before, and we'll be talking a lot more about it in the future. I always used to feel a little funny about using that term. It sounds like the sort of terminology right-wing cranks use. And I think many people don't believe it's real. They think it's a concept invented by right-wing cranks who are paranoid about the United Nations. Even when I was being interviewed by the Voice of Iran last week, and I mentioned the New World Order, the interviewer in Teheran asked me what that is, as if it were something he had never heard of before.
Well, during the past few days it has become much easier to talk about the New World Order without having to worry about being considered a right-wing crank. That's because the whole Clinton gang has begun talking openly about it. Which is to say, the whole New World Order gang has come out of the closet.
Earlier this month Susan Estrich spoke her mind on Clinton's war against Serbia. Susan Estrich, remember, is the militant radical feminist lawyer -- a Jewess, of course -- who is a bosom pal of the Clintons and was under consideration for a cabinet post not so long ago. She's now a law professor at the University of Southern California and a big-shot Democratic Party activist. Estrich is ecstatic about the war. She just loves it. It is, she said:
". . . the first war of the 21st century: a conflict not about communism, but about race and ethnicity, being waged by committee, against a madman who is not himself a direct threat to the countries waging war against him. . . . [T]he President is committed, and the country is behind him. The number of Americans willing to take the war to the next step - committing ground forces - has in fact been increasing steadily. It speaks well for the future."
You know, that's really breathtaking. This radical-feminist Jewess loves this war because, first, it isn't against communists but is against people who are concerned about ethnicity; second, it is being waged by a committee -- feminists believe that everything should be done by a committee; and third, it is a war being waged by countries who have not been threatened in any way by the country they are attacking. In other words, it is not a war to defend America but solely to force a sovereign nation to change its internal policy to suit the tastes of Susan Estrich and company: to force Serbia to stop trying to establish ethnic homogeneity but instead to embrace multiculturalism. One gets the impression that this Jewess also would approve of a war against, say, Saudi Arabia to force that country to establish coed bathrooms in all public buildings.
She says that American public support for escalating the war against Serbia by sending in ground forces has been increasing steadily, and that makes her feel good about the future. This Jewess also felt good about Clinton's popularity polls during his impeachment. Basically, what she feels good about is the fact that her kinsmen in the media now have a majority of the American electorate whom they are able to manipulate in any way they choose. Just keep the ball games on TV -- and the "entitlement" checks in the mail -- and they'll cheer for the folks signing the checks and broadcasting the ball games. Just keep their refrigerators full of beer and they will give thumbs up to a President who has been publicly exposed as a perjuror, a rapist, a degenerate, a draft-dodger, a traitor, a money-launderer, and a cokehead. They really don't care. Start a war somewhere which they can watch on TV, and they'll support that too, if Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather and Peter Jennings and the rest tell them to. When they get bored with watching the smart bombs blow up apartment houses and passenger trains and our fighter planes shoot up refugee columns, they'll cheer the sending in of ground troops so they'll have something more exciting to watch on their television screens.
Despite the fact that Miss Estrich is not a public official, her views are worth noting. First, she is a member of the Clinton crowd; she shares their values and opinions. Second, she is typical of the arrogant, noisy campus Jews who during the 1960s were trashing deans' offices and demanding all sorts of Politically Correct changes at American universities. They also were burning ROTC buildings in protest against the Vietnam war. That was a war against communists; remember? A bad war. These Jews have grown up and taken over most of our influential public institutions.
But what Estrich is saying is echoed by all the rest of the Jews and their collaborators. America's highest paid professional "Holocaust survivor," Elie Wiesel, showed up at the White House on April 12 to cheer the bombing of Serbia and announce his support for sending in ground troops. Ironically, Wiesel is the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize -- but then so were Henry Kissinger and the late Israeli warlord Menachem Begin. That's what Nobel Peace Prizes are all about these days.
Probably the most important public figure to declare for the New World Order is Britain's Tony Blair, the tag-along, wannabee Clintonista that British patriots sneeringly refer to as "Bambi." In an essay in the April 19 issue of Newsweek magazine Blair declares:
"This is a conflict we are fighting not for territory but for values, for a new internationalism where the brutal repression of whole ethnic groups will no longer be tolerated, for a world where those responsible for such crimes have nowhere to hide."
That's interesting. The key words here are: "We are not fighting for territory" -- and he might also have added, "We are not fighting to defend ourselves or our national interests" -- "but we are fighting for a new internationalism," Blair said.
And of course, "a new internationalism" is simply his way of saying "a New World Order." And that really is a radical departure from the past, when America and Britain went to war to defend what they considered their national interests, not to impose "a new internationalism" on some other country which just wanted to be left alone. It's good for America's soldiers to understand that the reason they're deliberately bombing civilian targets in Belgrade, shooting up passenger trains, and so on -- and occasionally even risking their own lives -- is to impose "a new internationalism" on the Serbs. To people like Estrich and Blair and Clinton, having armed forces for the purpose of national defense is old fashioned, an outmoded, 20th-century concept. The really trendy thing now -- the 21st-century thing -- is to use your armed forces to impose the will of the New World Order on countries too small to hit back. "Bambi" also said in the April 19 Newsweek that the Serb policy of ethnic cleansing must not only be stopped but also "reversed." Which really ties in with the insistence of the whole New World Order crowd that no ethnically clean countries will be tolerated in the 21st century. Only "multicultural" countries will be permitted.
General Wesley Clark, the Clinton gang's political general in charge of NATO and of the current effort to impose "a new internationalism" on the Serbs using cruise missiles, said it as plainly as anyone. Just a few days ago General Clark enunciated the general philosophy of the New World Order and the specific motivation for the assault on Yugoslavia when he told a CNN reporter:
"There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That's a 19th-century idea, and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states."
You know, the specific phrasing may be new, but the attitude, the mindset, behind it is quite old. We could subtract a thousand years from General Clark's statement, taking us back to the time just before the Crusades, and it would read something like this: "There is no place in modern Europe for pagans or heretics. Paganism is a ninth-century idea, and we are trying to transition into the 11th century, and we are going to do it with Christian states." A little later one could simply replace "pagan" and "Christian" with "Protestant" and "Catholic," respectively -- or vice versa. That mindset prevailed during Europe's numerous religious wars up until the middle of the 17th century, a cruel and bloody 650 years during which Europeans slaughtered not only Turks and Arabs but also each other in their "conflicts for values," as Bambi would have put it.
You know, my main theme is that this change in the reason for which we fight wars is not a good thing. It is not good to attack another country which has not harmed or threatened us in any way and begin killing its people in order to force them to run their country in accord with our beliefs - - assuming that the beliefs professed by the Clinton gang actually were our beliefs. That sort of ideological bigotry really smacks of the religious bigotry of the Middle Ages. But before we get into that, let us note that not even the Susan Estriches and Tony Blairs and Wesley Clarks really believe the ideological snake oil they're trying to sell to the public.
In his justification for the bombing of Belgrade and the killing of Serbs Tony Blair wrote in Newsweek:
"We need to enter a new millennium where dictators know that they cannot get away with ethnic cleansing or repress their peoples with impunity."
That's a crooked statement. Blair understands perfectly well that Slobodan Milosevic is no dictator repressing his people; he is the democratically elected leader of his people and has their strong support. And Blair also understands that the conflict between the government of Yugoslavia and the Albanians in Yugoslavia's Kosovo province arose in the first place because his good buddy Bill Clinton approved the covert arming and financing of the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army -- the KLA -- which aimed at driving out the Serbs and establishing an ethnically cleansed Albanian Kosovo. But even if Bambi has conveniently forgotten these facts, he is not opposed to ethnic cleansing on principle. You can safely bet your bottom dollar that if Milosevic had not moved decisively and crushed the KLA, and the KLA were now doing to the Serbs what the Serbs are doing to the Albanians, Bambi would not be writing indignant essays about it for Newsweek magazine, and Madleine Albright would not be sending her cruise missiles against Tirana instead of against Belgrade. This New World Order gang, which makes such a pretense of being opposed to ethnic cleansing, has not lifted a finger to stop it in a dozen other parts of the world in the last few years. Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is the prime example of this, but many other examples also can be cited: Turkey's treatment of the Kurds, for example.
All of these New World Order "humanitarians" speak with forked tongues. The simple fact is that they have a plan for Yugoslavia, and for Serbia's mineral-rich Kosovo province in particular, and the Serbs don't want to go along. The New World Order gang want Kosovo under Albanian control, because Albanians will take orders from them, while the Serbs won't. That's what this war boils down to: making an example out of the Serbs because they're too independent and are in the way of a plan the New World Order gangsters have for rearranging Europe.
Now let's look, from a strictly American point of view, at what these gangsters are doing and what they are planning for the future. America's wars in the 21st century, they are telling us -- beginning, actually, with the war against Serbia now -- will not be wars to defend our territory or our vital interests but to force other countries to handle their internal affairs in accord with our ideas -- or more correctly, in accord with the ideas professed by people like Susan Estrich, General Wesley Clark, and Tony Blair.
Bill Clinton is a bit less forthright about this than the aforementioned gangsters: one of the reasons he has been giving us for the war against Serbia is that it is to protect American jobs by keeping Europe stable and prosperous so that it will remain a good market for American products. That explanation is, of course, sheer nonsense. The war against Yugoslavia is hardly doing anything to stabilize Europe, and Mr. Clinton, with his enthusiasm for Chinese imports, certainly isn't concerned about saving the jobs of American workers.
What the gangsters are doing is transforming America's armed forces from a national defense force to an enforcer for the New World Order. They are transforming American soldiers from defenders of the American people and the American nation to mercenaries in the service of the New World Order. And they're actually sending our armed forces out to bomb and kill under these new auspices. The Jewish radicals like Susan Estrich are all for it. The Jewish media bosses are all for it. The 1960s style leftists like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair who grew up chanting for Ho Chi Minh and trashing the dean's office are all for it. And the political careerists in the military, like General Wesley Clark, are willing to go along with it. The politicians in the Congress are willing to go along too, just as they are willing to go along with anything else the media bosses want.
But what about the American people? What about our Constitution? What about our traditions and our national interests? I realize that the Susan Estriches and Wesley Clarks and Bill Clintons of this world have only contempt for these 19th-century and even older things, but not all of us share their feelings. There are a lot of us who still believe that the affairs of our nation ought to be governed by law, not by whatever the Jewish media bosses and the aging campus radicals left over from the 1960s decide is fashionable for the 21st century.
The men who wrote our Constitution certainly understood that we might have to fight wars in order to defend our territory or our national interests. They had just come through a war against Britain themselves for the sake of securing our freedom and independence. And in the Constitution they provided for such possibilities in the future. But they certainly did not condone the United States sending its armed forces off to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries which were not harming or threatening us. Nor did they intend for our armed forces to be the plaything of the President or anyone else in our government, to be used for furthering some pet project of his overseas. They specifically reserved to the elected representatives of the people the power to wage war against another country.
Now, Mr. Clinton may want to quibble over the meaning of the word "war," just as he quibbled over the meaning of the word "is" during the great national embarrassment that he visited upon us so recently, but not one of America's Founding Fathers would call what we are doing in Yugoslavia now anything but "war." And they would consider it war waged in violation of the Constitution, since the House of Representatives has not authorized it.
I hope you don't mind my quibbling about these details, about these old-fashioned legalities. I mean, I realize that the same rabble which didn't want Clinton impeached are happy enough with his war now. And the way the Clinton crowd looks at it, whenever a majority is in favor of something, then it's all right to do it. It makes no difference how debased and irresponsible that majority is; as long as you're ahead in the polls, you're OK. And of course, this Clinton-favoring, bread-and-circuses majority couldn't care less about old-fashioned legalities. And I'm sorry to say, the gang in the Congress isn't much more responsible than the majority which still approves of Clinton and his war. Congressmen can count heads as well as the pollsters, and they aren't going to make much of a fuss about not having actually voted for war against Yugoslavia as long as the media bosses are for it and the rabble don't care.
I suppose the real question here is not whether Clinton's war is illegal or not. I mean, we've pretty well established the principle now that it's OK for the President to do illegal things, so long as his polls are up. The real question is, what are we old-fashioned, 19th- and 20th-century- style Americans going to do about the misappropriation of our country and our future by the New World Order gang? These people, these Estriches and Clarks and Clintons, have agreed among themselves that from now on they'll run the world and tell everybody else what to do, committee style, because we're moving into the 21st century and the rabble will back them. We're supposed to go along meekly and not make any trouble for them.
Well, I'll tell you right now, I'm not going to do that. I've always been a law-abiding person, but I'm not inclined to let this gang interpret our laws in their way and tell me that from now on everything is going to be different because the polls say it's OK for them to do whatever they want. From my viewpoint it's the Clinton gang who are the outlaws, the violators of our Constitution and of all of our old-fashioned legal and moral principles, and anything that we do to oppose them is legal and is morally justified. Anyone who goes along with them is a traitor, in the strict, old-fashioned sense of the word, and anyone who sits on his hands now and refuses to oppose the Clinton gang is not much better.
This trendy, new crowd, which likes to do everything with committees, really believes that all it takes to make anything legal and OK is a majority. I guess they call that democracy. When the majority is what it has become in the United States today, a better name is mobocracy. But really, it's much worse than mob rule. It is rule by a self-appointed elite of utterly evil and destructive people who have in their hands the tools for controlling and guiding the mob. They're pretty cocky now -- so cocky, in fact, that they're making statements of the sort I've quoted today. They're cocky because they believe that no one can take away from them their tools for controlling the mob, and that as time passes and America becomes darker and more degenerate, their grip on the mob will only become firmer. Our job is to prove them wrong. It's a big job, and we'd better get started.
Lies, Murder, and Jews
Today, before we begin talking about the murders being committed by our government overseas, let's note a few things about some murders committed recently in America. I'm thinking of the murders at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, last week, in which two students killed 12 other students and a teacher and then committed suicide. Right after the shootings rumors of all sorts were flying. The students who did the shooting were homosexuals who wore black trenchcoats and belonged to a homosexual gang called "the trenchcoat mafia," according to one rumor. Another rumor had it that the killers sought out Blacks and athletes as their victims, and that most of the victims were Blacks. And it also was said that they were fans of the "shock rock" musician who uses the name "Marilyn Manson," and that they were acting out some morbid Marilyn Manson performance. It also was rumored that as many as 25 students had been murdered.
I get most of the raw news that goes into these American Dissident Voices broadcasts from the Internet, but I also watch the NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw every evening that I can. I watch Brokaw not so much to learn what's happened in the world during the past 24 hours, but to learn what the Jewish spin is on what's happened. I'm interested in knowing what the Jewish party line is. By watching Tom Brokaw mouth his lines every evening I get some idea of what Brokaw's Jewish boss, Neal Shapiro, the executive producer of the NBC Nightly News, wants us to think about the news.
Well, I was out of town on business on the day of the Colorado shootings and didn't have a chance to see the NBC Nightly News, but on the day after the shootings, April 21, I watched the news with special interest to see what spin Shapiro would put on the previous day's high school murders in Colorado. Tom Brokaw reported directly from Columbine High School, where he had been busy all day checking out the rumors and interviewing everyone in sight. So by the time of the evening news broadcast he knew how many victims there were, who they were, and just about all the other facts.
Brokaw began his report with the rumors -- or rather, with one rumor: the rumor that the killers were neo-Nazis who had chosen April 20 for the shooting because it was Adolf Hitler's 110th birthday, and that they were targeting Blacks and athletes -- especially Blacks. Then Brokaw interviewed a parent of one of the victims -- exactly one parent from among all those of the 12 students and one teacher who had been murdered. He was the father of a Black student, and he sobbed out the statement: "My son had two strikes against him from the beginning [sob]. He was Black, and he was an athlete." It really sounded as if he'd been coached. And the television screen filled with a snapshot of the Black student who had been killed. No portraits of other victims; no interviews with other parents; no mention of the homosexual rumors; no mention of the Marilyn Manson rumors; just neo-Nazis targeting Blacks. And especially no mention of the fact that only one of the 13 victims was Black. There were 12 White victims and one Black victim; Tom Brokaw and his boss knew this; and yet Brokaw's instructions were to make the viewers of the NBC Nightly News believe the rumor that the shootings were White-on-Black "hate crimes" by "neo-Nazis." Oh, yes, and also no mention that one of the killers was a Jew. Although his father was a Gentile, 17-year-old Dylan Klebold's mother, Susan Yassenoff, was a synagogue-going, shul-trained Jewess. She attended Temple Israel. That makes her son a Jew according to Jewish law, although we would consider him only a half-Jew. But Brokaw and the other TV reporters never mentioned this. All we heard was that the two killers were neo-Nazis who liked German music and German insignia.
Now, this sort of deliberate deception happens all the time, unfortunately. Most Americans believe that the media are biased, but they don't understand how blatant the bias is. They don't understand how arrogantly and deliberately they are lied to by the media bosses. The NBC Nightly News program of April 21 is a good example. Perhaps you saw it yourself and remember the details I have just described for you. If you didn't see it, you can order a video cassette of the program and view it. An outfit called Burrelle's in New Jersey, which is in the business of recording and selling television news programs, will sell you a copy of the April 21 edition of NBC Nightly News for a reasonable price.
Now, it's clear enough why they engage in this sort of deception. They want to make Whites feel guilty. They want to paralyze our will to resist their "multicultural" policies. They want to morally disarm us. I talked about the details of this on a number of other programs, and I bring up the Littleton, Colorado, shootings simply because it is such a blatant example of this Jewish psychological war against White Americans.
And you know, it's a war they're winning. If you listened to any talk-radio programs after the shootings, you certainly heard Jewish callers pushing exactly the same party line as Neal Shapiro was pushing through his mouthpiece Tom Brokaw. "We have to do whatever it takes to stop these White racist gangs," they were saying. And guilt-stricken White women were falling into their trap right and left, agreeing hysterically with them about the big danger from White racist gangs and how we have to do something drastic soon to stop the racist slaughter, and, oh, isn't White racism just awful? Outlaw racism. Outlaw guns. Outlaw free speech.
Yes, the Jews know exactly what they're doing. But one really can't blame them. That's the sort of thing Jews always have done. It's in their genes. What's really disappointing and disturbing is the feminine response of our people to these Jewish lies. What's disappointing is our gullibility.
Anyway, while we're on the subject, let me remind you what the real reason is for this latest school massacre. You remember, we discussed this phenomenon of schoolyard killings more than a year ago. I predicted that we would see many more of them, because the social pathology that causes them is becoming worse. In a word, that pathology is alienation. Multiculturalism results in alienation. Always. You destroy a kid's sense of rootedness, his sense of belonging to a natural community; you rob him of his sense of identity, his sense of kinship with the people around him, and you'll have a frustrated kid. That's true even of Jewish kids, such as Dylan Klebold. You take away a kid's sense of responsibility to his biological community, and you're likely to have trouble. You're likely to have anti-social behavior.
If on top of that you destroy his respect for authority, you're practically guaranteed trouble. And so let me ask you: who in recent memory has done more than anyone else, by his own behavior, to destroy the respect of young Americans for authority? I'll give you a clue: he lives in Washington, at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Finally, we should note the effect of television on young people. Without going into a long- winded explanation, I'll simply point out that it blurs their sense of reality. You watch television four or five hours a day from the time you're able to talk, and by the time you're 17 you've seen at least 10,000 people shot to death or otherwise killed. In the real world, before television, you might see three or four real deaths while growing up, and you would have a much better appreciation for the reality of death -- and of life -- than the kid raised on television does. You wouldn't be quite so likely to confuse game-playing for real life.
Of course, multiculturalism is a religion these days: it is the Politically Correct religion. And its adherents tend to like Mr. Clinton and also to see television as a benign influence. So no one in public life is likely to place the blame for the growing plague of school massacres the way I did. They look only for Politically Correct explanations -- or at least, for explanations which are not Politically Incorrect.
Actually, most people are that way, to a greater or lesser extent. They don't want to have unpopular opinions. They don't want to be subjected to criticism or ridicule. They want to go with the flow. They want to be popular. They want to be like everyone else and think like everyone else.
That's the lemming factor. That's the way people are, and there's not much we can do about that. But the problem of schoolyard killings is real, and as I predicted quite a while ago, it's becoming worse. So it is important for at least some of us to understand what is causing the problem. So I'll say it again: the fundamental causes of schoolyard shootings are alienation, resulting primarily from the multiculturalization of our society; loss of respect for authority; and an altered sense of reality which is the consequence of being raised on television.
That doesn't mean that everyone who is alienated will become a killer or that everyone who watches television four hours a day will lose his ability to distinguish between reality and make believe. But it does mean that as alienation and the influence of television increase in the population, schoolyard killings and other destructive behavior will continue to become more common.
This also means that there is no quick and simple solution to the problem of school violence. In the long run, alienation can be reduced only by a radical restructuring of our society. As our society is going now, alienation will only become worse. Just because the problem is difficult doesn't mean that we have to ignore it, however; it doesn't mean that there's nothing we can do. One of the most important things for us to do now is to be aware of the lies that are being told about school violence and to help others become aware. I told you about the lies Tom Brokaw told on the NBC Nightly News the day after the shooting in Littleton, Colorado.
What it's especially important to understand is that this isn't just a case of media bias, of Tom Brokaw giving a bit of a slant to the news because of his own political ideas. This is a case of cold-blooded, planned deception. When Tom Brokaw reported the news on April 21, he and his bosses at NBC knew who the victims were, yet they decided to tell us the lie that the killings were based on hatred for non-Whites. They deliberately created the false impression for their viewers that most of the victims were Black, when in fact only one was. They knew that one of the killers was a Jew, yet they deliberately told us that the killers were "neo-Nazis" and "White supremacists."
Since April 21, of course, most of the facts have leaked out to the public. Perceptive people already have learned the things I've just told you: the race of the victims, the Jewishness of one of the killers. But many elements in the mass media are continuing to talk about the shootings as being racially motivated and about the shooters as being "neo-Nazis" -- and that's what the lemmings still are absorbing. It's hard to overcome first impressions, and the media bosses, clever propagandists that they are, understand that quite well.
The killers apparently were Marilyn Manson fans and also liked to use some of the jargon of the Third Reich. So of course, Tom Brokaw and the rest of the media spokesmen have been saturating us with the claim that the two teenagers were "neo-Nazis," when in fact one of them was a Jew, and there is no evidence at all to indicate that they had the least interest in the ideology or politics of National Socialism. On the other hand, after the first wave of rumors subsided there has been almost no further mention of Marilyn Manson. Could that be because Marilyn Manson is under contract to Jewish media boss Gerald Levin, who runs Warner Brothers, among other things?
I'm reminded of the schoolyard killings in Jonesboro, Arkansas, last year, in which four students and a teacher were murdered -- all of them White, incidentally. One of the killers, 13-year-old Mitchell Johnson, had recently succumbed to the multicultural influence of gangsta' rap, a type of Black music which glorifies pimping and drug dealing and drive-by shootings and other forms of Black criminality. His English teacher, Debbie Pelley, testified before a Congressional committee in Washington after the killings that a few months before the massacre young Johnson had become obsessed with gangsta' rap. He would play the music on the school bus and even try to listen to it in class, his teacher said. His favorite rapper was Tupac Shakur, who himself was killed in a drive-by shooting in Las Vegas. His English teacher told the Congressional committee that she had seen Mitchell Johnson's behavior change after he began listening to the gangsta' rap. And yet Debbie Pelley's testimony was never mentioned by the mainstream Jewish media. Instead we heard the same sort of Politically Correct explanations for the Jonesboro murders that we are hearing for the Littleton, Colorado, murders. Again, perhaps the reason the media chose not to mention the testimony of Mitchell Johnson's English teacher about the effect of gangsta' rap on him was that the boy's favorite rapper, Tupac Shakur, was under contract to Interscope Records, a label owned by the Jewish media conglomerate MCA, which had been headed by Lew Wasserman, one of Bill Clinton's biggest financial supporters.
Anyway, that's the way it goes. The mass media bosses give us the news which fits, and they ignore the news which doesn't fit. More than that, they consciously and deliberately lie, when it suits their purpose, as in the case of the NBC Nightly News broadcast I cited a minute ago.
And you know, this cold-blooded, calculated, deliberate lying by the news media isn't restricted to schoolyard shootings. We're being lied to massively and deliberately by the Jewish media about the war against Yugoslavia, for example. The Jewish media deliberately concocted the story that Serb soldiers were engaging in the mass rape of Muslim women and then cutting their throats. The media have portrayed the Albanians as harmless, inoffensive, peace-loving people and the Serbs as bloodthirsty monsters. The media bosses have sat down, made a deliberate plan for the lies they would tell, and now they're telling them. They want to turn American public opinion against the Serbs and Slobodan Milosevic, and they're lying in order to do that.
The facts are leaking out, of course. The perceptive observer can learn that the Albanians were committing atrocities against the Serbs long before this current crisis in Kosovo developed. The perceptive observer can learn that the Kosovo Liberation Army is more like a mafia organization than an army of patriotic freedom fighters, but Tom Brokaw and the rest of the controlled media will never tell you that. They tell us only what suits their purpose. And that's all that the mass of the American voters, the lemmings, ever will know.
The cover of Newsweek magazine two weeks ago had a picture of Slobodan Milosevic on it with the legend in big letters: "The Face of Evil." Really. They could more honestly have put Madeleine Albright's face on the cover with that legend. But that wouldn't suit their purpose, which is to demonize Milosevic, demonize the Serbs, portray the Albanians as innocent victims, and build public support for Albright's murderous war to beat Serbia into submission to the New World Order.
You know, it often has been said that in war, the first casualty is truth. Governments justify their lies in wartime in terms of the need to mislead the enemy and build patriotic fervor for an all-out effort to win the war. In the war against Yugoslavia the Clinton government certainly can't claim patriotism as an excuse for its lies, because it already has abjured patriotism as a motive; it already has told us that this is not a war to defend American national interests. And in this war the enemy the government and the media are trying to deceive with their lies is us, the American people. We are the enemy. They certainly aren't fooling the Serbs.
This does make a problem for those of us who are more interested in knowing the truth than in being Politically Correct. I mean, we know that the Jewish media over here lie to us massively on just about everything. But it's probably safe to assume that the Russian media and the Serb media also lie. The Russians are claiming now that more than 40 U.S. warplanes have been shot down over Serbia. The Jewish media over here are claiming that only one U.S. warplane, an F- 117, has been shot down. How do we determine the truth? I've been a little suspicious about the Jewish claim of only one U.S. plane downed by the Serbs, because the A-10s the Americans are using now for attacking Serb armor are a lot easier to shoot down than an F-117; they fly lower and slower. But Tom Brokaw and the other spokesmen for the Jewish media over here are claiming no losses. I simply don't believe it. But I really don't know what the truth is. When I find out, I certainly will tell you.
Meanwhile, don't count on learning the truth from Tom Brokaw or any other spokesmen for the Jewish media bosses. As long as Madeleine Albright is able to keep running around from one country to another with her big checkbook in hand, writing out bribes to keep the politicians in the little NATO countries in line, promising her kinsman Primakov that if he keeps the Russians out of it the IMF loans will keep coming, the killing in Europe will go on, and the lying about it over here will continue.
About all that decent people everywhere can hope for is that the Serbs will make good use of one of their submarines and take out a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Adriatic, or that they will get enough modern anti-aircraft missiles from somewhere to make the continued bombing of Belgrade prohibitively expensive for Albright and her Jewish crew.
And you know, that's a terrible thing for me to have to say. If this war were being fought to defend America, I could never say that. But when America's armed forces are being used by the enemies of the American people as a mercenary force to commit mass murder in Europe, that is how I and many other patriotic Americans feel.
The End of Patriotism
You know, what Madeleine Albright and the rest of the Clinton gang are doing in Yugoslavia is really something new, and it's taking me a while to become accustomed to it. This is the first time I've ever hoped that American bombers would be shot down or American ships sunk. It's a strange feeling, and I don't really like it.
I remember back during the Vietnam war how I despised people like Jane Fonda and Bill Clinton, who carried Viet Cong flags and demonstrated in favor of America's enemies, at a time when the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese were killing an average of 100 young Americans every day. I never was enthusiastic about American involvement in Vietnam, but since we were involved I thought that we ought to win as quickly as possible and then get out. And of course, our opponents then were communists and they were non-White; I had no objections at all to killing them. And there was still the pretense that the war was a patriotic effort, an effort to protect America's national interests. Certainly, that's the way most of our troops felt about it. They felt that they were fighting on America's behalf, they felt patriotic, and they certainly resented the scorn directed at them by the pro-Viet Cong demonstrators over here.
How different Madeleine Albright's war against Serbia is! There's not even a pretense that killing Serbs is serving America's interests. The war against Serbia is the first war of the 21st century, the New World Order crowd is proclaiming. Defending national interests is out of fashion now. The fashionable thing now is to use multinational mercenary forces to compel other countries to conform their internal policies to the wishes of the New World Order folks or to rearrange boundaries to suit New World Order schemes. The people who are running this war -- nominally Clinton, but actually the gaggle of Jews he appointed to be in charge of America's foreign policy and national security after his re-election in 1996 -- never approved of patriotism, anyway. They always sneered at it. They were the crowd cheering for the Viet Cong back in the 1960s and 1970s. Now they're cheering for NATO.
They were never patriotic Americans themselves, even after they had been here five or six generations, but in the past they at least tried to use our patriotic feelings to get us to do their killing for them: in the Second World War, for example. Now they've decided that they can drop any pretense of patriotism. Now they believe that we'll simply fight whomever they pay us to fight. As I said, that's something I'm having a hard time becoming accustomed to.
The yahoos at the VFW clubs certainly will not understand this, but in fact Madeleine Albright's war against Yugoslavia has profound implications for the relationship between the citizens of a modern state and their government, and for the relationship between civilians and soldiers. Prior to the 20th century the concept of patriotism was generally understood to be the "family" feeling -- a blend of affection and loyalty -- one had for one's fatherland, the land of one's ancestors. A related concept was that of nationalism, the family feeling that one had for one's nation: which is to say, for one's people. The etymology of the word implied that one's nation was one's extended biological family: everyone in the nation was related by birth. If a nation had occupied a given geographical territory for a long time, then the two concepts were practically interchangeable. Patriotism was much more than an intellectual construct; it was closer to an instinct. It was bred into a people because it had survival value. A tribe which could depend on the loyalty of its members was much more likely to survive than one which could not. Thus also the strong taboo against treason.
When North America was settled by Europeans in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, the meanings of patriotism and nationalism were strained a bit. Fairly soon, however, the descendants of immigrants from Germany, Ireland, Scotland, England, Norway, Poland, Italy, and other European countries developed a new sense of patriotism. There was enough similarity among the European immigrants to North America that one might even say that a new nation came into being, and with it a feeling of affection and loyalty for America and the American people.
There were exceptions, of course. While most Swedish, French, and other European immigrants soon transferred their loyalty from the land of their ancestors in Europe to the new land in America, non-European groups as a rule did not. Gypsies still thought of themselves first and foremost as Gypsies. And Jews remained Jews, with a loyalty only to the Jewish people, wherever they might live.
This transfer of loyalty on the part of European immigrants gave America the cohesion it needed to grow and prosper. Unfortunately, it also provided a handle for the Jews and their collaborators to use in manipulating public opinion in America and setting America against Europe in two fratricidal and horribly destructive world wars in this century. Patriotism is a powerful force even when it is misguided. Governments can use it for purposes which are not in the interests of the people. Even when the Jews don't have a hand in things, there still can be bad governments and unnecessary wars, but no government is likely to deliberately and consistently work against the interests of its own people over an extended period. The Jewish presence in America in the 20th century, however, has resulted in patriotism being used against the interests of the American people in a systematic way, at least through the Vietnam war.
Incidentally, recently published statistics from the Vietnam war provide powerful support for the suspicion which always has existed that, though Jews may manipulate the patriotic feelings of the rest of us, they themselves retain their own Jewish patriotism and do not share our patriotism. If one counts Stars of David in military cemeteries from the Second World War, one finds them conspicuously underrepresented in the fields of crosses.
In a book published just last year, Stolen Valor, a study of the Vietnam war and its veterans, B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley cite a 1992 study of Department of Defense records by Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Arnold Barnett and West Point's Captain Timothy Stanley which provided much more precise data on the matter of Jewish patriotism. Draft-age Jews in America, it turns out, suffered losses in Vietnam at a rate less than one-fifth their proportion of the population. This was not simply a matter of rich boys avoiding service while poor boys got killed: young White men -- that is, White Gentiles -- from high-income families suffered approximately the same overall casualty rate as low-income Whites. Although some high-income Whites avoided the draft as university students, Whites from high-income families made up most of the officer corps, which suffered a disproportionately high casualty rate, and the average death rate for high-income Whites was nearly the same as for low-income Whites.
For Jews, however, the difference is striking: making up slightly over 2.5 per cent of the population, Jews accounted for only 0.46 per cent of the GIs killed in Vietnam. This remarkable difference reflects a remarkable difference in attitudes between Jews and Whites.
Even as late as the Vietnam war, with Bill Clinton and his Jewish and leftist friends demonstrating for the Viet Cong, traditional American patriotism remained a powerful force. Most young White men still looked on military service in time of war as a patriotic duty. Phrases such as "serving your country" were still taken seriously. There was great respect for military heroism and military sacrifice. And although many Vietnam veterans were offended by being called "baby killers" and the like by leftist demonstrators in the United States, the general feeling in the White population remained that men in military "service" deserved the support of everyone on the home front. There still was the feeling that America's armed forces were "defending America."
Now we have a quite different situation, even though the yahoos won't realize that for a while yet. In Madeleine Albright's war against Serbia there's not even a pretense that America's armed forces are "defending America" or performing some sort of "service" for the American people which deserves moral support from the home front. The politicians may still mouth hypocritical slogans about "supporting our boys" in order to keep the votes of the yahoos, but no one with a brain takes such slogans seriously any longer. It is clear that America's armed forces have become a purely mercenary operation. Joining the armed forces these days is an equal- opportunity employment choice, not a patriotic act. Soldiers are paid to enforce the will of the New World Order crowd, not to defend the American people, and they deserve no more support or respect from civilians than the members of any other occupational group: bus drivers or construction workers, say. If an F-117 is shot down, its replacement cost comes out of our tax dollars, but that's also true of the government's spending for highway maintenance or new prisons. There just isn't any emotional dimension to it.
And when it comes to a conflict between American military personnel fighting under NATO or United Nations command on one side and Serbian military personnel on the other side, there no longer is a moral obligation to cheer for the Americans. They are not defending us; we don't have to support them. They're not even on "our" side any more than the Serbs are. And at least the Serbs have an all-White army.
As I said, this is really a big and important change in the nature of things. The Jews always were impatient with our old-fashioned sense of patriotism. It gave them a handle for manipulating us, but they always were a little afraid of it, always a little worried that it might turn against them someday. So now they've changed the equation of patriotism. Now they've dropped the pretense. That's one more step in the remaking of America in the Jewish image, and judging from what some of the more reckless Jews have been saying recently, they feel pretty good about it. At least, they don't have to apologize any longer for the sort of statistics I just cited on Vietnam casualties. Now they can simply cite their success in evading service as proof that they're smarter than we are. My view of the matter is that they have moved a little prematurely on this and eventually will come to regret it bitterly. Based in instinct as it is, patriotism cannot be gotten rid of so easily. They have succeeded in invalidating the moral contract which used to exist between America's soldiers and her civilians, just as they invalidated the concept of popular democracy when they put together a majority coalition of welfare rabble, non-Whites, homosexuals, feminists, and ball-game fans under their control which could elect something like Bill Clinton to the White House twice in a row, even though everything about the man offended decent and responsible Americans.
You know, not everyone is adaptable enough to accept this new situation. There is a strong conservative tendency in most people which resists change. Just because something like democracy has become institutionalized in our society, they will continue to accept it and respect it even after it has been subverted and turned against them. They will continue to salute the concept of democracy reflexively, even when our deadliest enemies are using that concept to destroy us. When the Jews have put together a coalition of voters they can count on to elect public officials under Jewish control, many decent Americans will simply permit themselves to be voted into slavery or voted into the slaughterhouse rather than abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy.
I believe that the true patriot is one who puts the survival and freedom and progress of his people ahead of any theory of government, institutionalized or not. The true patriot is one who, when confronted with the reality of the Clinton coalition, will not simply bow his head and accept the will of the majority but will plan instead to do whatever is necessary to make the will of the patriotic minority prevail over the Clinton majority. If that means turning that majority into a minority by thinning out some of its components, then so be it. And if it means abandoning the concept of democracy itself, at least temporarily, then so be it.
And, just as many conservatives will let institutionalized democracy destroy our people rather than oppose it, so also will many conservatives not be willing to come to grips with the subversion of America's armed forces which has taken place. Because respect and support for the armed forces have been institutionalized, any recognition that respect and support no longer are appropriate will be resisted by conservatives. For example, at the end of my broadcast last week I said that decent people everywhere can hope that the Serbs will use one of their submarines to sink a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Adriatic, and I received some shocked and indignant responses to this statement -- as I expected I would. One or two listeners suggested I "got carried away" by my hatred for the Clinton government. For these listeners the old taboo is still in effect. We still must "support our boys," even when they are taking orders from Madeleine Albright.
Well, let me assure you, I never get carried away. I meant what I said -- but it was hard for me to say it. I always have had a stronger than average admiration and respect for military traditions and virtues. I always have been very conscious of the moral contract between the armed forces and the civilian population, which is why I was so outraged during the Vietnam war by the behavior of people like Bill Clinton and Jane Fonda. And so I understand that it is very difficult for conservatives to accept what I said. Nevertheless, let me carry my thoughts on this subject a bit further. The U.S armed forces have been brainwashed and trained for some time now to be used against rebellious U.S. citizens. Don't worry about the legalities of the matter; they will be used by the Jews and their allies against Americans whenever the Jews feel threatened. They are being used now to kill people who are a lot like us, people whose thinking is a lot healthier, a lot closer to that of the average White American of 50 years ago than to the thinking of the people who voted for Clinton three years ago. They really are a mercenary force, and their leaders would just as soon use them against White Americans or Europeans as against Haitians or Somalis.
More so, in fact. Perhaps you will remember that in my broadcast two weeks ago I quoted for you what General Wesley Clark had told reporters about his own motivation for killing Serbs. General Clark, remember, is the military boss of NATO, the man directing the New World Order's murderous bombing campaign against Serbia. Clark said:
There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That's a 19th-century idea, and we're trying to transition into the 21st century, and we're going to do it with multi-ethnic states.
I commented in that same broadcast about the politicization of America's armed forces, with General Clark as an example of the new breed of political generals, military leaders who mouth the political slogans of the New World Order and are as ready to sacrifice the interests of America in the service of what British Prime Minister Tony Blair calls "the new internationalism" as are Albright, Cohen, Berger, and the rest of the Jewish gang around Clinton.
Well, two weeks ago, I didn't realize just how close General Clark's ties to that gang are. I didn't realize that he is a blood-member of the gang himself. You know, Jews are so scarce in our armed forces that I just assumed that none of our top military leaders are Jews. I just assumed that they are politicians, amoral careerists who will do whatever they are told to do by the Jews around Clinton. But I have just found out that Clark is more than a politician mouthing Jewish slogans in order to advance his career. Clark's biological father was a Russian Jew named Benjamin Jacob Kanne. Clark's grandfather had left Russia with the name Jacob Nemerovsky and sneaked into the United States with a forged passport, using the name "Kanne." Clark's father died when the boy was five years old, and his mother married a Gentile, Victor Clark. His mother and stepfather raised him as a Christian in Little Rock, Arkansas.
His Jewish blood relatives kept in touch, however, and more than 30 years ago began bringing him into the Jewish network. That was when Clark was at Oxford as a Rhodes scholar, about the same time Clinton was. Rhodes scholarships seem to be almost a membership initiation requirement for the New World Order gang, like certain types of tattoos for prison gangs or the chopping off of part of a finger for the Japanese mafia, the yakuza.
Clark welcomed his new Jewish contacts, and they may have helped him up the political ladder to his present position. Otherwise, it just seems too much of a coincidence. I have a suspicion that when Clark has finished his NATO duties he will have a leading role to play in the military in the United States. He would be the ideal choice for using the Army to politically cleanse the United States, rounding up any remaining patriots and putting them away so that they can never pose a threat to the Clinton coalition. And really, that's coming. I don't know what methods or what pretense they will use. I don't know what the timetable will be. But I know that it's coming. That's what the New World Order gang has spent 50 years getting our armed forces ready for. That's what General Wesley Kanne Clark is being groomed for.
You know, despite what you might think from listening to the politicians in Washington, despite what you might think from looking at what our armed forces have become, despite everything the Jews have done to brainwash Americans, there still are a great many patriots left here. The patriotic instinct is still here, waiting for a new way to express itself. But if it is to express itself effectively -- if patriots are to prevail over those who believe that only multi-ethnic states should be permitted to exist in the 21st century -- then one of the first things we must do is understand clearly that the old contract between soldiers and civilians is broken. We must understand that the people now killing Serbs in our name, the people who later will be used in an effort to kill us -- these military people are no longer "our boys."
The Bigger War
Perhaps by now you are tired of hearing me talk about Madeleine Albright's genocide against the Serbs. There certainly are plenty of other interesting things we could discuss: more horrifying Black-on-White crimes that the Jewish media have hushed up, more shocking details of Clinton's treasonous sale of American security to China, more of the fallout from that school shooting in Colorado last month and what it reveals about the corruption of public life in America. All of these things are important -- but none is quite as important as Madeleine Albright's war against Serbia.
And it's not just that Albright murders more people in Serbia every day than are killed in a year of schoolyard shootings in America. It is the fundamental lessons for us, the fundamental warnings, which are spelled out so clearly by the NATO murder campaign against the Serbs. An advantage which sometimes comes from studying foreign events instead of domestic affairs is that the distance lends clarity to the lesson. Looking at events happening seven thousand miles away in Serbia, we can see the whole forest without the trees getting in our way.
Actually, I'm sticking my neck out a bit in talking about the war in the Balkans at this time. The war may be over by the time I'm on the air. Today, as I prepare my commentary, there's talk that a Russian delegation may soon be on its way to Belgrade to pressure the Serbs into surrendering to NATO. The Albright gang in America are smirking and rubbing their hands and laughing among themselves as they tell each other that it's an offer Milosevic won't be able to refuse.
Here's the idea: Russia is supposed to be Serbia's only ally. It's not that the Russian government has given the Serbs any tangible assistance, but among the Russian people there is almost unanimous support for the Serbs, so Russia is said to be Serbia's "ally." The nominal head of the Russian government, of course, is a chronically sick, alcoholic clown, Boris Yeltsin, who serves much the same role in Russia that Bill Clinton serves here: he is simply a Russian front man for the Jewish billionaires and the Jewish mafia bosses who are bleeding Russia dry.
And alongside Yeltsin, as the prime minister of Russia, until last Wednesday, was Yevgeny Primakov -- who was born with the name Pinchas Finklestein. So heading the Russian government at the time it agreed with NATO last week on the demands to be made on Serbia we had a front man for the Jews and a Jew -- which meant that any support, diplomatic or otherwise, the Serbs might receive from Russia was likely to be purely illusory.
With Primakov/Finklestein's departure a few days ago things are a bit up in the air at the moment, but if the Kremlin delegation does go ahead and present Albright's demands to Milosevic, he will be under a great deal of pressure to surrender. If he doesn't surrender, then the Russian government -- which is no more a truly Russian government than the Clinton government is an American government -- can wash its hands of Serbia, saying, "We tried to help, but he rejected us." That will leave Serbia all alone, and Albright and her crew can continue their campaign of genocide against the Serbs, pretending that they tried to negotiate, but the Serbs wouldn't listen to reason. And if Milosevic does accept the Kremlin offer, it will be equivalent to surrendering to NATO. It will amount to yielding his country's rights to its own territory and turning it over to the international criminals who have been bombing and killing his people.
Now, why is this important to Americans? Why should we care whether Albanians or Serbs or NATO runs Serbia's Kosovo province? Certainly, we don't really care when some bunch of Blacks in Africa fights with another bunch over who will run some bantustan. What difference will some little theft of territory in the Balkans make to us?
I've explained this before, and I'll explain it again: the outcome of this war to take Kosovo away from Serbia is important because it is a new kind of war, which will help to establish a new principle if it is successful. That new principle is that the New World Order, as embodied in NATO or the United Nations or whatever other supranational body the board of directors of the New World Order chooses, can tell any country in the world how to govern itself and then destroy anyone who doesn't obey. It will mean an end to national sovereignty. It will mean an end to national independence. It will mean an end to freedom.
Now, I know that there are a lot of liberal nitwits out there who think that will be just wonderful. Sovereignty and independence are bad words to liberals. They believe that interdependence is much better than independence. They believe that everything will be much nicer when there are no more sovereign nations and the whole world is ruled by a committee: no more rich and powerful nations, no more poor and weak nations, everyone equal. And no one will be mistreated; governments will be forced to be nice to their citizens. Of course, we may have to break a few eggs -- Serbia, for example -- in order to make this wonderful omelet, but it will be well worth it in the end, the liberals believe. In the end we will have true democracy and equality everywhere.
You know, the liberal mind is a strange thing. I am sure that they really do want their omelet, and they really are willing to break as many eggs as it takes, to commit as much genocide as they have to. But they certainly don't believe in democracy or equality. No one with any sense at all believes in equality. And as for democracy, look at what's been going on in some of the countries they've got signed up for their current egg-breaking foray in the Balkans. This is not a war that the people of the NATO countries voted for or that they wish to continue. It is enormously unpopular in most of them, but the politicians at the top are sure that they know better than the voters what's good for them -- that is, what's good for the politicians that Madeleine Albright has been bribing to stay in her war against Serbia. Even the voters in the world's prime boob hatchery, the United States of America, are beginning to have second thoughts about the wisdom of running around the world kicking sand in everyone's face, just because we're big enough to get away with it. Not even Mr. Clinton's coalition of brain-dead rabble, who in the past have given him his high poll ratings, are solidly behind his genocide against Serbia any longer. Last Saturday U.S. voter support for continuing the bombing was down to 43 per cent and falling. Even the flag-waving yahoos at the American Legion are sick of the senseless slaughter. Last week the Legion's national executive committee unanimously called on the Clinton government to stop the bombing and withdraw all U.S. forces from the region immediately. But that's all right: the Jews and their ever-worshipful liberal-elite followers know what's best and are determined to continue their murder campaign down to the last Serb if Milosevic doesn't surrender, regardless of what the voters think about it.
They already have gotten away with so much that they really believe that they can do whatever they want with impunity. Did you hear the news last week when the Clinton government in effect admitted in court that it had no credible evidence to justify blowing up a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan last year? I told you at the time that Clinton had no justification for firing his cruise missiles last August 20 at a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, Sudan, which he claimed was a nerve-gas factory. I told you that he destroyed this factory just because he felt he needed to do something to prove that the United States isn't powerless against terrorists of the sort who blew up two U.S. embassies in Africa. What he actually did was prove that the United States has itself become a terrorist country, which will fire its missiles wherever it damned well pleases, without worrying about any sort of legal or moral justification. Mr. Clinton proved that the United States will kick sand in the face of anyone it wants to. Sudan just happens to have the misfortune of being in Osama bin Laden's part of the world. Well, the owners of the bombed pharmaceutical factory sued the U.S. government, and the government caved in last week, declining to provide any evidence to support its claim that the pharmaceutical factory was anything but a pharmaceutical factory. The owners will win their case, and the Clinton government will hope that everyone forgets about it as soon as possible.
Letting a government get away with that sort of lawless activity is not a good policy. The attitude which was behind the attack on the pharmaceutical factory is the same attitude which is behind the attack on Serbia. The Clinton government got away with it in Sudan. No one was even sent to prison for that totally irresponsible act of terrorism. If the Clinton government wins in Serbia, then the people who do this sort of thing will believe that nothing can stop them. They will believe that whenever they want to change some country's borders or force some country to change its internal policies, all they have to do is fire off a few cruise missiles.
That is why I fervently hope that Slobodan Milosevic will not surrender to Madeleine Albright. That is why I hope that he will tell Yeltsin and whoever takes Primakov's place, "Thanks for your help, but no thanks. We will continue to defend our country against aggression, even if we must do it alone. We will not permit foreign troops on our soil." I hope that is what he will say, even though the murderous thugs running NATO certainly will continue their bombing and will kill more Serbs -- for a while.
I don't want more Serbs killed, but even less do I want Albright and her gang to get away with their aggression. I believe that if Milosevic and his Serbs can hold out against the NATO gangsters for a few weeks longer, international pressure against NATO will continue to build, and eventually they will slink away with their tails between their legs. We need for NATO to have that setback. The world needs it. The world will be greatly indebted to Serbia if the Serbs hold out against NATO now.
You know, last week when I reaffirmed a statement that I'd made the week before to the effect that it would be good if the Serbs were to sink an American warship in the Adriatic, some listeners disagreed with me. One listener told me that he has a nephew on the aircraft carrier USS Roosevelt in the Adriatic, and he is distressed that I should want any harm to befall his nephew. After all, he says, most servicemen haven't any idea about the real issues here. All they know is the official propaganda line taught to them by their bosses in the Pentagon. They aren't to blame for what's happening, and they shouldn't be punished. The hatred against American servicemen is building up everywhere in the world, and I shouldn't add to that hatred, he says.
Well, of course, I don't want this listener's nephew to drown in the Adriatic if the USS Roosevelt is sunk -- or anyone else's nephew. But the fact is that our people -- that is, Europeans, White people -- are being killed every day by Madeleine Albright's rockets and bombs because the USS Roosevelt and other U.S. warships are in the Adriatic. I'm willing to accept that this listener's nephew doesn't understand the issues and isn't really an evil person. I'm willing to accept that he's just an unwitting pawn in Albright's murder machine, and I wish him no harm. But the machine is being used to kill our people in Serbia. And undoubtedly many of these Serbs that Albright's murder machine is killing are no more valuable members of our race than this listener's nephew. Undoubtedly there are some criminals and some drunkards and some lawyers and some welfare cases among the Serbs being killed in Belgrade and in Kosovo. And certainly, there are many Serbs who have no more a clue to the real issues here than the sailors on the USS Roosevelt. But the Serbs aren't part of Madeleine Albright's murder machine, and my listener's nephew is. That is the key difference here.
The fact is that we are in a bad position now -- all of us are in a bad position: I and the Serbs and my listener and his nephew, our whole race -- because we have let Madeleine and her murderous tribe get the upper hand over us. That is the problem we have to deal with. Until we get Madeleine and all the rest of her tribe off our backs, our people will be lied to, our people will be exploited, and our people will be killed. So we need to focus on getting Madeleine and her tribe off our backs. Anything which takes us closer to that goal is good, and anything which diverts us from that goal is bad. Let's keep our eyes on the forest, not just on the trees.
I hope I have made myself clear. What we want to see come out of this war specifically is a defeat for NATO, regardless of how that comes about. We would like to see that defeat come about without any more losses for our people, whether Americans or Serbs. But there almost certainly will be more losses, at least among the Serbs, because the gangsters running this war won't give up easily. They will continue killing as long as they can. As public disapproval of this war grows, both in America and elsewhere; as more U.S. embassies around the world are burned; as more organizations such as the American Legion, God bless those yahoos, raise their voices against the war; and as more politicians over here follow the polls and become more concerned about the desires of their constituents than about pleasing the Jews, a defeat for NATO -- and for Madeleine Albright and for the New World Order -- will become more likely. But the Serbs must hold out until that happens, and if the sinking of the USS Roosevelt will help them keep up their morale, then so be it.
But you know, if we want to get Madeleine and her tribe off our backs -- if we want, someday, to make an end to them and their scheme for a New World Order, with us as their serfs -- we need to do more than hope for a NATO defeat in Serbia. We need to do everything we can. We need to speak out. If we belong to an organization, we need to do what we can to make the organization follow the example of the American Legion. We need to write letters to every newspaper which has a public opinion page. We need to get on the telephone and make ourselves heard on every radio talk show. And when there are demonstrations against the war we need to participate in them, even if we don't agree with everyone else in the demonstration on every issue.
And I should say this also: In responding to this current war, it will behoove us to think about it in its larger context. Making NATO back down this one time will not stop Madeleine and her crew from trying something else just as bloody and destructive the next time they see a chance. To them it's not just NATO against Serbia. They always think about the struggle in its larger context. And as I said, we need to do the same.
To Madeleine Albright and James Rubin and William Cohen and Sandy Berger and General Wesley Kanne Clark, this isn't a war of America versus Serbia or of NATO versus Serbia; it's a war of their people against our people. NATO versus Serbia is only one little episode in a bigger war they have been waging against us for thousands of years and which they believe that they are now on the verge of winning, once and for all. They have totally corrupt Gentiles as their front men in the United States, in Britain, and in Russia. They have a death grip on the mass media. They have the wealth and military might of the United States at their disposal. They have bribed and intimidated the politicians of 20 nations into going along with their war against Serbia. It may seem like a rather precarious house of cards they have built, but if they can keep it together long enough to prevail over Serbia, they will have greatly strengthened their position and will be much more likely to prevail over their next victim.
They may beat us in this NATO versus Serbia battle, or they may not, but if we are to have any hope of beating them in the long run -- if we are to have any hope of winning the bigger war and not just this battle -- then we must understand the war the way they do. We must learn to think in the bigger context the way they do. We must think in terms of what is good for our people, for our race, in the long run -- not what will help the Democrats or the Republicans win the next election, not what will give the Protestants an advantage over the Catholics or vice versa, not what will give our people who speak French an edge over our people who speak English, not what will allow Americans to show Serbs that we have more cruise missiles and B-2 bombers than they do, not what will allow any part of our people defined only by geography or language or religion or politics to prevail over any other part of our people. We must think in terms of blood, of family, of race first and foremost. We must understand that we and the Serbs are of the same family, the same blood, the same race -- and that Madeleine Albright and James Rubin and William Cohen and Sandy Berger and Richard Holbrooke and General Wesley Kanne Clark and all of the big media bosses who are behind this war against Serbia belong to a different family, a different race, a race which always has been hostile to ours.
For too long we have allowed them to manipulate us, to set one part of us against another part in wars they cooked up for their own advantage. That has never been truer than in this war against Serbia. It is a Jewish war, and only Jews can benefit from it. We should not be involved in it. We should do everything we can to ensure that the Jews lose it. But regardless of what happens in the Balkans in the next few months, we need to continue building our new way of looking at the world and judging things, our way based on family and blood and race. That's the only way we can beat these New World Order thugs in the long run. That's the only way we can keep the Jews from using their age-old trick of setting one part of our people against another part.
And you know, for those of us who just like to fight, those who enjoy a family squabble, we can go back to fighting among ourselves in the future if we really must -- but only after we have beaten the enemy of us all, the world enemy.
What They're Aiming For
When I spoke with you a couple of weeks ago I mentioned the recent firing of a White radio disk jockey in Washington, DC, who made a Politically Incorrect remark on the air. Doug Tracht, who is known as the Greaseman, was by far the most "popular personality" on Washington radio station WARW-FM. His listeners were nearly all Whites, and they not only liked the music he played for them, but they also enjoyed his sometimes risqué or Politically Incorrect remarks on the air. For example, back in 1986, when the subject of making a holiday out of the birthday of Martin Luther King came up, the Greaseman, who was very popular in Washington even then, had said, "Hey, kill four more, and we can take a whole week off." That's the sort of thing which endeared him to his White listeners, if not to station owners.
Well, last month the Grammy awards had just been handed out by the folks in Hollywood who decide what sort of music we should listen to, and one of the winners was a Negress, Lauryn Hill, who had won a Grammy for a hip-hop record. That's not the sort of thing the Greaseman ordinarily played for his White listeners, but in light of the Grammy award he decided to play her record. Well, he stopped the record in disgust about halfway through and commented, "No wonder people drag them behind trucks."
It didn't take but a few minutes for the Hollywood bosses to hear about that, and the word came back quickly. The Greaseman was out of a job within hours. The same day he was fired from his part-time job as a deputy sheriff in suburban Falls Church, Virginia. It's not just that the Greaseman had made a Politically Incorrect reference to the trial which was taking place in Jasper, Texas, at the time; he had in effect contradicted the Hollywood media bosses as to what type of music White people should listen to. The media bosses have been pushing a program for years to popularize Black music among Whites. It's not only a way to disconnect young Whites from their own European roots, but it encourages more racial mixing. And the Greaseman had bucked the program. He had told his White audience that they didn't have to like hip-hop. It was okay not to listen to the trendy sort of non-White music the Hollywood media bosses wanted them to listen to. Perhaps the Greaseman could have gotten away with that back in 1986, but not in 1999. Things have gotten a lot more Politically Correct in the last 13 years.
I'll give you another example of this trend. Three weeks ago the superintendent of New Jersey's state police, Carl Williams, was fired by New Jersey's very trendy and ambitious female governor, Christine Whitman. Why? Because Williams, in an interview with a reporter for the Newark Star-Ledger had said that non-Whites are more likely to be involved in importing and dealing some types of illegal drugs than Whites are. The state police superintendent, in talking about New Jersey's drug problem, had told the reporter:
If you're looking at the methamphetamine market, that seems to be controlled by the motorcycle gangs, which are basically . . . White.
Now, that much was okay. Nothing wrong with saying that the methamphetamine trade is controlled by White motorcycle gangs. But then State Police Superintendent Williams continued: If you're looking at heroin and stuff like that, your involvement is more or less Jamaicans.
Oooh! He really shouldn't have said that. Very Politically Incorrect! And Williams also told the reporter:
Today . . . the drug problem is cocaine or marijuana. It's most likely a minority group that's involved with that. They aren't going to ask some Irishman to be a part of their . . . [gang] because they don't trust him.
Well, sir, as soon as Governor Whitman heard that, she fired Williams, ending his 35-year career in law enforcement. His comments to the reporter, she said, were "insensitive." And today, you know, in the Clinton era, that's what really counts: not being an effective law enforcement officer, but being sensitive; not telling the truth, but being Politically Correct; not locking up the criminals, but feeling their pain.
Now, the enforcers of Political Correctness these days are mostly Whites. They may get their orders from the Middle Eastern clique in Hollywood or New York, but the station manager who fired the Greaseman and the governor who fired Superintendent Williams are trendy Whites. The non-Whites, however, have been quick to see the trend and to hop on the bandwagon. Just as they were screaming for the Greaseman's blood in Washington a few weeks ago, they also were baying and yelping in New Jersey when Williams went down. New Jersey State Assemblyman LeRoy Jones pompously said of Williams:
His views are dastardly; his thoughts are ill . . . and he's unfit to hold such a critical, important office . . . . He's a racist of the worst kind, because he doesn't even know it.
Did you hear that? The worst racists are those who don't even know they're racists. They're those White males who try to be Politically Correct, but they just aren't sensitive enough to keep up with the very latest trends in Political Correctness. They just don't feel the pain of all of those underprivileged and persecuted minority drug gangs and feminists and homosexuals the way a truly sensitive man like Bill Clinton does. And so, of course, those who aren't like Bill Clinton will just have to go. Making an example of them will help all the rest of us become more sensitive, more responsive to minority needs.
You know, I find the sort of thing that happened to New Jersey State Police Superintendent Carl Williams really funny. Here's this poor jerk trying as hard as he can to be sensitive, trying as hard as he can to jump through the hoop, and he just can't make it, so he's thrown to the dogs. Wonderful!
The only people I really feel sympathy for are the ones who don't even try, the ones who are too honorable and too dignified -- too White -- to try to be Politically Correct. I still have a warm spot in my heart for Dan White. Remember him? That was 20 years ago. Dan White was the conservative San Francisco supervisor who had been a policeman himself and who was supported by the San Francisco police department at a time when the minions of Political Correctness were attempting to force a gay agenda on the cops. In 1978 the mayor there, a fellow named George Moscone, thought White wasn't sensitive enough to the needs of San Francisco's homosexual population, who had wormed their way quite thoroughly into the political power structure there. The mayor and the homosexuals were attempting to ease White out of his supervisor's position, so that he could be replaced by someone who would feel the pain of the gay community. Well, on November 27, 1978, old Dan White just walked into the mayor's office with his service pistol and blew away the mayor and his head homosexual, a fellow named Harvey Milk. Of course, that didn't go very far toward solving San Francisco's homosexual problem, and it did cost Dan White five years in the state penitentiary, but it was a nice symbolic gesture. It's really too bad that Police Superintendent Carl Williams didn't handle his problem with New Jersey's oh-so-Correct governess the same way -- and with Assemblyman LeRoy Jones at the same time. That would have been another nice gesture. You can understand now why these Politically Correct types are so eager to replace straight, White cops everywhere with non-Whites, lesbians, and so on.
What Dan White did 20 years ago is much less likely these days, of course. These days going quietly, like Carl Williams did, is more likely, unfortunately. The country has been substantially sensitized. This is the Clinton era. Anyway, one of the points I want to make today is that there is a very unhealthy trend in America: a trend toward punishing Politically Incorrect speech, the way the Greaseman and Police Superintendent Williams were punished. And there's also a trend toward passivity, toward non-resistance, in much of the population. Ordinary people are more likely to let themselves be pushed around now than they were 20 years ago and also to discipline themselves, to be careful not to say anything Politically Incorrect, regardless of what they're thinking.
But really, meekness and self-discipline on our part are not enough for the zealots of Political Correctness. They want to be able to put us in prison for making Politically Incorrect statements or thinking Politically Incorrect thoughts. That's why the media bosses and the Clinton government are pushing hard for so-called "hate crime" laws now. If they had had a "hate crime" law in place when Dan White dispatched Harvey Milk and the mayor of San Francisco, they could have put him away for a lot longer than five years. They could have used the fact that he didn't approve of homosexuals to give him a much stiffer sentence for shooting Milk. Perhaps they could have had someone testify that he didn't like Jews either, and then they could have sent him to the gas chamber.
They will deny this, but you had better believe me when I tell you that the media bosses and the Clinton government are aiming not only for new laws against what they like to call "bias- motivated" acts, which punish people for what they were thinking when they did something; they're also aiming for laws against Politically Incorrect speech that's not associated with any act. Of course, they will tell you now that they're 100 per cent in favor of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but in fact, they fully intend to do away with those freedoms.
I know that this is what they intend to do, because I've seen their counterparts do it in a dozen other countries, and they always tell the same lies. They always say that they're in favor of freedom, but that new laws are necessary to put an end to "hate." They will have their cheerleader squads chanting, "Freedom doesn't mean freedom to hate." And of course, hate means whatever they say it means. Just as they have the kiddies learning in school now that the Second Amendment only guarantees the right of state militias to keep and bear arms, not the right of individual citizens to defend themselves, they will have the kiddies learning that the First Amendment only guarantees the right to say non-hateful things. I mean, who would want to say hateful things anyway? Who needs that kind of freedom? And really, as long as the lemmings still can buy their horoscope magazines at the checkout stand and watch their ball games on television and keep their fiberglass speedboats in their driveways, they will believe they are free.
I know that this is the way it will be because, as I said, I've seen it happen in many other countries. In Canada the lemmings believe they are free, but any Canadian who publishes the text of this broadcast is liable to arrest and prosecution by the secret police. The same is true in Britain and in France and in Germany and in Switzerland and in a dozen other European countries. In Germany hundreds of patriots are rotting in prisons now because they dared to say Politically Incorrect things. But the average German -- the German lemming -- isn't bothered by this; he thinks that anyone who would want to say something which is Politically Incorrect must be a very strange person who probably is dangerous and probably should be locked up.
And the trend in America is plain enough: the lemmings already have been prepared to relinquish their freedom. They are ready and willing to give it up. And the non-lemmings are being conditioned. They are being taught to hold their tongues. They are being taught that it is dangerous to say Politically Incorrect things or even to have Politically Incorrect ideas.
Yes, it is dangerous even to have Politically Incorrect ideas or to read Politically Incorrect books. Imagine: you wake up one night to find a Black or mestizo burglar in your bedroom. You shoot him. When the police come to make a report, they notice racist books and magazines in your house. Aha! Now your shooting of a burglar has taken on the character of a "hate crime." You shot the burglar because he wasn't White! At least, that's the way it will go in court. That's the way Tom Brokaw will explain it on the NBC Nightly Evening News. How lucky those Canadians and Germans are to have had their Politically Incorrect books outlawed, so that they can't get themselves into that sort of mess.
Anyway, in America the trend toward enforced Political Correctness is here. The fear already is present. The laws will be here shortly. And now the most interesting question for us is, "Why?" Why is it so important for the media bosses and the Clintonistas to silence Politically Incorrect Americans? Why not leave us free to hate them and their policies and programs? The lemmings have been conditioned. Mr. Clinton's popularity polls are still up. Why do they care what we say?
Well, they care because silencing their critics will be important later. Stifling dissent will be essential as they continue implementing their programs. You know, they are trying to build a very complex house of cards. It may seem relatively stable now, when the economy is good and the lemmings are happy. But when the economy no longer is so good, their house of cards will be much less stable, and it may not be able to withstand much dissent. What the Jewish media bosses -- and in fact, the Jewish establishment generally -- are aiming for is total control, total ownership. For many years they were able to work behind the scenes, quietly acquiring control of the media, corrupting politicians, implementing their government programs very cautiously. Observant individuals tried to warn the people what they were up to, but it really sounded very far-fetched. People didn't believe it, because everything was still pretty much under cover. Now things are approaching a climax. It's no longer possible to work just behind the scenes. Now things are becoming more visible. Look at the crew controlling the Clinton government. The United States has never before had such a Jew-ridden government. There have never before been anywhere near as many Jews out in the open, in visible control of the powerful posts.
And look what they are doing. Consider foreign affairs, for example. It's not just their genocidal policy against Iraq, in order to make the Middle East safer for continued Israeli expansion. It's their policy in the Balkans too. It's unfortunate that the Albanians and the Serbs can't get along and seem to enjoy cutting each other's throats and gouging out each other's eyes. But that's not the reason that Madeleine Albright and her kosher crew are so hot to send U.S. troops into Kosovo. Their reason is control. It is to set an example. It is to demonstrate that no country is any longer truly independent. It is to show the world that any country which doesn't obey orders will have so-called "peacekeeping" troops rolling through its streets in tanks in short order.
And you know, that's a very risky business. As clever as the Jews are, they do make mistakes. An attack on Serbia could backfire. The Clinton government's policy of intervention could suddenly become very unpopular. And they don't want dissidents like me to be free to say, "I told you so," and to explain to the public what the real reason is behind Madeleine Albright's policy.
Or consider domestic policy. If there's one thing I've been harping on that even the lemmings agree with me on, it's the necessity for the United States to halt the flood of Third World immigrants into this country. But it's quite clear that the Jewish establishment intends to keep the floodgates open. For years they have been pretending to be concerned about illegal immigrants and have pretended to be making plans to beef up border security, but it's really obvious now that they have no intention of stopping the flood. They want more and more "diversity," as they like to call it. They and the trendy Clinton supporters are looking forward to a non-White majority in America, and the sooner the better.
The Jewish leaders are aiming for a totally diverse, totally fragmented country, in which there will be no group able to challenge their control. But as this flood of Mexicans and Haitians and Nigerians and Chinese and God only knows what else continues pouring into the country and taking over our schools and our neighborhoods and our jobs, there will be many unhappy White people: White people who may not be upset yet, because they haven't felt a personal impact yet. But they will, and then a lot more of them will be paying attention to what I and others have been saying. And so it's important to shut us up before the pinch comes. It's important to shut us up now, because by God we will tell the people who has wrecked their country and why. And the people will listen.
That is, the people will listen if I and other dissidents have not been outlawed and silenced. What the media bosses and their collaborators do now is fire people who say anything Politically Incorrect. They apply pressure behind the scenes to force radio stations to stop carrying American Dissident Voices. And they generate a huge amount of propaganda -- as, for example, in the case of the recent trial in Jasper, Texas -- to persuade the thoughtless that "hate" is something that needs to be dealt with by more laws. The next step will be the enactment of such laws, and then we'll have a legal situation in America similar to that in Canada and Germany and elsewhere. Of course, ultimately their plan for world domination, for world ownership by Jews, will fail. Ultimately something will go wrong, and the house of cards will come tumbling down. But it is better -- far better -- for us to bring down their house sooner rather than later: far better for us to be able to do it simply by speaking the truth instead of having to use other means.
Stopping the Hijacking of America
Today I want to simply state a few facts -- and make a few simple statements about what I believe. First, I want to tell you why I make these broadcasts every week. I make these broadcasts because America is being hijacked, and I want to stop the hijacking. America used to belong to me and to people like me, people whose ancestors came over here from Europe, settled the land, fought the Indians, and built a civilization here: a civilization based on the values and ideals that they brought here with them from Europe, values and ideals which have belonged to my people for thousands of years.
But America is being hijacked. It is being taken away from my people, so that it can become the property of an alien people instead. It is being changed, perverted, to suit their tastes and their needs instead of the tastes and needs of my people. I want to stop this hijacking. I want to take America back and make it the heritage of my people again.
Now I will tell you how America is being hijacked and how I believe we must oppose the hijackers. This is a little longer, a little more complicated, but I will try to keep it as short and simple as I can. My people who came to America from Europe had much in common. They were of one blood and one set of ideals. They came from many nations -- from England and Scotland and Ireland and Norway and Sweden and Poland and Germany and Ukraine and Italy and France -- but they had a common history, when viewed from a perspective of thousands of years.
There were bad people, weak people, corrupt people among my ancestors -- and many very stupid and credulous people -- but among my people there also were many very good people, strong people, honorable people, and many wonderfully wise and creative people. All together, the good and the bad, the strong and the weak, our people formed a society with common values and a common heritage, and this society, this community of common blood and common traditions and common interests, overcame every obstacle and built a new country here in the Western Hemisphere. We knew how to cope with adversity and with our own bad elements. When someone like Bill Clinton popped up, we would give him a public flogging and put him in the stocks on a platform in the village square for a few days. If that didn't make him behave himself, we would drag him off to gallows hill, hang him in public, and be done with him.
We had conflicts among our people of course. We had struggle and injustice and pain in our lives. That's the way it always had been in Europe, and that's the way it was here too. That's what had made us strong: the conflict and the struggle. It had made us strong, because on the whole the better and the stronger of our people prevailed over the rest. Despite the pain and the injustice, we had joy in our lives because it was our world. It was the type of world we had lived in for countless thousands of generations, and we were adapted to it.
But in America we became careless -- as we often had been careless in Europe too. After we had whipped the Indians and tamed the frontier and built cities and railroads in America, we admitted into our midst a different and very dangerous sort of person, who did not share our blood or our history or our values. We admitted the Jews, who in many cases looked physically similar to our own people, but whose souls were the product of quite a different evolution: they were the product of the marketplaces of the Middle East, where they had been bred for hundreds of generations. They came to us with false faces and false tongues, and we didn't know how to deal with them. They presented themselves as persecuted victims seeking freedom and justice, when in fact they were persecutors and victimizers seeking new victims. They spoke to us of the virtues of tolerance and diversity and openness and acceptance, when in fact they were the most exclusive and intolerant people on earth. They thought of themselves as a select race, a Chosen People, superior to all other peoples and the rightful owners of all the wealth of every nation.
In Europe they had fomented revolutions and wars. One of them, Karl Marx, began a movement which eventually murdered 60 million of our people -- and that's much worse than it sounds, because the murdering was done selectively, targeting the best of our people to be killed. Marx's movement never really caught on in America, as a movement, but its basic ideas did: principally egalitarianism. In America the Jews focused from the start on acquiring control of public opinion, control of the dissemination of information and ideas, control of the images of reality presented to our people. That really began in the 19th century, but for most practical purposes it was in the 20th century that it became effective. The 20th century has been the Jewish century. It has been a century during which Jewish control of the mass media of news and entertainment has been used not just to consolidate Jewish political power and ownership of a vastly disproportionate share of America's wealth, but also to promote Jewish ideology, a Jewish vision of America. And when I say Jewish ideology and a Jewish vision of America, I don't mean the ideology and the vision that the Jews have among themselves; I mean the ideology and the vision that they want us to have in order to facilitate their hijacking of America.
Part of the ideology they have promoted among us, as I just mentioned, is egalitarianism. That is the notion that all human beings are born essentially equal in their capabilities, whether male or female, whether Black or White, whether from a family of achievers and creators or a family of chronic losers. Jews did not invent this notion and introduce it to America all by themselves in the 20th century, of course. It is a notion which has been around a long time among certain elements of our own people. The Jews took it away from the cranks and crackpots, exaggerated it a hundred-fold, and popularized it, mainstreamed it.
And throughout this century it has been the Jews who have been the foremost promoters of the doctrine that tells us that if Whites are more successful than Blacks, it is only because White racism has held the Blacks down. If more men are top corporate executives than women, it is only because of sexism. If one White person achieves more in his life than another, it is only because he was given advantages that the other did not receive. The egalitarian ideology also carries with it the notion that equality is not only a scientific fact but also a moral fact. If people are not equal then they should be. It is our moral obligation to try to make them equal. It is our moral obligation to fight against racism and sexism and homophobia and every other tendency to make people unequal or to consider them as different in some way. It is our moral obligation not to discriminate among people in any way: not to prefer women over men for certain roles in our society or men over women for other roles, or to prefer Whites over Blacks for neighbors or schoolmates, or to think of heterosexuals as being healthier or more wholesome in general than homosexuals. That's part of the ideology the Jews have promoted among us. And another part is the ideology of individualism. That is the notion that each us is an island entire of itself and should think of himself as such. We should not think of ourselves or of others as members of a race or a sex or any other collectivity, but only as isolated individuals. When we see a Gypsy or a Black or a Jew, we mustn't think, "Oh, there's a Gypsy," or, "Oh, there's a Black," or, "Oh, there's a Jew." We're supposed to think, "Oh, there's an individual," and we're supposed to shut out of our minds everything that experience has taught us about the general nature of Gypsies or Blacks or Jews.
Individualism also carries with it the notion that each individual has a responsibility only to himself. A pregnant woman has no responsibility to the unborn child inside herself. A man has no responsibility to either his ancestors or to his posterity -- and certainly no responsibility to his race.
But ideology is only part of what the Jews have been promoting among us. They also promote feelings and emotions: the feeling of White racial guilt, for example, and White self-hatred. That is done on a huge scale and very skillfully, very successfully. It is especially effective with women, but also with men who are overly socialized, men who look to the crowd around them, rather than within themselves, for their opinions and attitudes. The entertainment media -- especially Hollywood and television -- do this indirectly, almost subliminally, in their screenwriting and in their casting of heroes and villains. They also do it quite directly in their contrived coverage of the news -- and I have given you some very cogent examples of that in recent programs.
The result is that it has become fashionable among the most highly socialized Whites to cheer the news that there soon will be a non-White majority in America. It has become fashionable to cheer for the Indians instead of the cowboys, just as it is fashionable to cheer for the Jews in any conflict with Gentiles, to cheer for the homosexuals in any conflict with heterosexuals, to cheer for non-Whites in any conflict with Whites. They have made Political Correctness fashionable.
And even those Whites who believe that they successfully have resisted becoming Politically Correct have for the most part been intimidated to such an extent by the atmosphere of coercive conformity generated by the media that they are terrified of breaking the most fundamental taboos: of saying or doing anything which may be thought racist or sexist or homophobic. They feel compelled to pay lip service to diversity and democracy and feminism and egalitarianism and individualism.
This is what the Jews have done with their control of America's mass media in this century -- mostly in the past 50 years. They have morally disarmed White Americans. They have disconnected us from our roots. They have alienated us from our own race, from our own heritage. They have made a substantial portion of us ashamed of our own race, consciously hostile to our own people, and they're working on the rest of us. That's what they've done with propaganda alone.
But they haven't left it at propaganda. They are intent on destroying us physically as well as morally. That's why we have the ruinous immigration policy we do, which is flooding America with non-Whites from the Third World. That's why they are behind feminism: why most of the leaders of the feminist movement during this century have been Jewesses. That's why they're promoters of large-scale abortion, why so many abortionists are Jews. That's why they are virtually all in favor of gun control and of so-called "hate crime" laws. That's why so many of them have come out from behind the scenes in just the last decade and assumed formal posts of power in what used to be our government. And that's why they love Bill Clinton so much -- not because he can't control his zipper, but because he lets them control the government: our Treasury Department, our Defense Department, our State Department, our National Security Council, our relations with the United Nations; they control them all.
If the Jews are able to continue their programs of moral and physical destruction for another 50 years -- if we simply let them continue doing what they are doing now -- they will pretty well have finished their hijacking of America. There will be no single group in America with the numbers and the will to oppose them. The country will be simply a conglomeration of mutually hostile and disorganized minorities, controlled by the one truly organized minority. The Jews will control everything and own everything. And we will continue breeding ourselves into extinction, voting ourselves into extinction, hating ourselves into extinction.
That is how America is being hijacked.
What can we do about it? How can we stop the hijacking? You know, I've answered this question in a dozen different ways on earlier programs. Today I'll try to answer it in yet one more way. But first I'll take this opportunity to respond to two types of letters which I've been receiving from listeners.
There are some listeners who tell me that all is lost, that it's too late to stop the hijacking, that we should have started 50 years ago, that all we're doing now is talking, while the Jews continue consolidating their position. And occasionally one of these listeners will run out and do something premature and foolish, commit some act of desperation, because he is convinced that all is lost, and it doesn't matter what he does. These listeners believe that unless we are on the barricades actually shooting at the hijackers and their collaborators we aren't accomplishing anything.
And on the other hand there are listeners who tell me that they agree with everything I say, except my occasional hints that violence may lie in our future. They tell me I should never say anything which indicates that we will have to do anything other than vote our way out of our present predicament.
I will answer listeners in both of these groups in this way: We must not bind ourselves with the notion that there is only one tactic which can lead to success. We must not believe that violence is the only tactic which can accomplish anything. If we believe that, then certainly all will be lost. But we also must not believe that voting is the only path to success, because that belief also will lead us to failure and extinction.
We must understand that there are certain fixed principles which always must guide us, but that our tactics always must change to suit our present conditions and our present needs. We must be bound only by our vision of our ultimate goal and by our principles, but never by an inflexible commitment to one tactic or another.
But you know, I promised to keep my comments today simple. So I'll not talk too much about ultimate goals. I'll just say that we want our country back. We want our world back. We want to live among our own kind and in accordance with our own ways, our own traditions. We want to stop the hijacking and begin repairing the damage caused by the hijackers. That's what we're aiming for.
And our most basic principle is that we will do whatever we must do in order to achieve this. Life is the most important thing for us: the life of our people. We will do what we must, sacrifice what we must, in order to safeguard and further that life, just as our ancestors did what they had to do to preserve and protect the life of our people, the life of our race.
And as for our tactics, let us remember that they are not based on principle, but only on intelligence, only on a careful calculation of what is needed at the moment. And at this moment talking is needed, much more talking, because that is our way of reaching out to others, of helping others to understand, of motivating others. If our talk were not important and also effective, our people's enemies would not be trying so hard to silence us.
Did you know that for every radio station now broadcasting this program, the Jews have succeeded in forcing the owners of ten other stations to cancel their contracts with us? The Jews apply pressure to a station's advertisers, they threaten the owner, sometimes they even organize demonstrations outside the station in order to intimidate the people who work at the station. In the last few weeks we have lost stations in Cleveland, in Houston, in St. Louis, in Austin, and in Monterey, California, as a result of these Jewish tactics. But we continue to find new stations, and the number of our listeners continues to grow.
Talking is needed when it is directed toward a purpose, when it is not just idle chatter with those who already understand but is directed toward those who need to understand. And I am doing more than talking. I am reaching out to people through other media besides radio. I am reaching out with the printed word and with music, and I will be reaching out through video and through every other medium. Outreach at this time is essential. Building understanding is essential. Building our numbers and our resources is essential. Organizing the people we reach -- or at least some of them -- also is essential.
The truth is that despite what the Jewish media would have you believe -- despite their television image of an America consisting of a mindless, multicultural mass of happy lemmings; despite Bill Clinton's popularity polls -- there are millions of serious and concerned Americans out there who are appalled at what the Jews are doing to their country, to their civilization, and to their race. There are millions of them who see the grinning, bloodthirsty predators behind the masks worn by our enemies, millions who are horrified that our nation's armed forces are in the hands of the Jewish gangsters in Washington: gangsters who are ready and willing to use their control over Bill Clinton to start a war whenever they think it suits their purpose, a war against Iraq or against Serbia or against anyone else who refuses to obey their orders and who stands in the way of their greedy, megalomaniac dream of total world domination. There are millions of people who perhaps have been intimidated into silence at the moment, but who still have eyes to see and minds to understand and hearts to hate what is being done to us. And they will hate what is being done even more as the Jews proceed with their filthy business.
And so once again, how will we stop the hijacking of our world? We will do it by reaching out to the millions of our people who care about the future, who care about their race, who care about the sort of world their children and their grandchildren will inherit and who have not joined the degraded mass of lemmings who dance mindlessly to every tune played by the Jews and think only of conforming and consuming. We will reach out to them, we will help them to understand, we will try to help them find courage, and we will organize the best of them to reach out to others.
That's what we are doing now. And when conditions change, we will do whatever else is called for. And you can be -- you should be -- a part of what we're doing. If you understand, if you have a sense of responsibility and a sense of honor, then you must join forces with me.
The Value of Talk
If there is any good thing to come out of the Clinton gang's murderous expedition against the Serbs it is the stark demonstration it provides of the total corruption of the political system which governs America. I'm talking about the whole system, not just the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party proved what it is made of back during the impeachment and trial of Clinton. Its members kept their eyes on the polls and continued to support a leader they knew to be a liar and a rapist and had good reason to suspect of treason as well, in his dealings with China.
The Democrats traditionally have been the war party: Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton. Starting a war and killing a bunch of people in some other country seems to be the Democrats' favorite ploy for getting the voters' minds off of domestic problems -- or for paying off some of their behind-the-scenes supporters. Now we have the spectacle of Republican politicians trying to outdo the Democrats in warmongering, calling for an invasion and military occupation of Serbia by U.S. ground forces. It's almost as if they're afraid of being considered wimps by the voters if they're not even bloodthirstier than the Democrats in their statements about Serbia.
Actually, it's not the voters they're concerned about: it's the Jews. Pick up any publication by a Jewish organization -- the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith; the American Jewish Committee; the Simon Wiesenthal Center; the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, which is an umbrella group including hundreds of other Jewish organizations; you name it -- and you'll see the Jews howling for Serb blood. You remember last week I reported to you that the American Legion, America's largest veterans' organization, had issued a resolution calling for an immediate halt to the war against Serbia and the removal of all U.S. military forces from the Balkans. Contrast that with a statement issued by the Jewish War Veterans of America. This all-Jewish group has taken a stand opposite to that of the American Legion and urged an intensification of the bombing.
Now, so far as I'm aware, Slobodan Milosevic has never said or done anything against the Jews. He just happens to be in their way. His country is in the way of their program for a New World Order. They've made it quite clear to every politician in Washington that they want Serbia gotten out of their way, and the politicians are scrambling to oblige, Republicans as well as Democrats. Arizona's Republican Senator John McCain is a good example of the type of Republican politician who's hot to kill as many Serbs as will please the Jews, and to do it in the name of the American people while patting himself on the back and pretending to be a "patriot." Senator McCain seems to believe that because he was a POW during the Vietnam war no one will question his motives. If Senator McCain says that we ought to kill as many Serbs as possible, then it must be because that will be good for America. Right?
Wrong. It's because whenever the Jews whisper in his ear, "Jump," Senator McCain whispers back, "How high?" All it would take now to make him a pacifist on Yugoslavia is for the Jews to decide that they really don't need to get rid of Milosevic after all. But that isn't likely. It's pretty clear that their long-range strategy is to cripple Serbia as a prelude to doing the same to anyone else who gets in their way. Eventually, they want to put Russia in a position where it won't be able to resist their plans for that country.
You know, it's possible for patriots to disagree on policy matters. It's possible for one patriotic legislator to believe that more money ought to be spent on missiles and aircraft carriers, and for another to believe that the money ought to be spent on education, say, or on public health measures instead of on the military, and for both men to have America's best interests at heart. That's possible -- if you can find two patriotic legislators in the U.S. Congress these days. But no legislator who will let his country be led into a foolish and unnecessary war which does not serve America's interests is a patriot by any standard. No politician who will watch this happening without protest is a patriot.
But really, what can you expect in a country where the top politician will sell America's most sensitive military secrets to China for a sufficiently large cash donation to his reelection fund? With a President like that in the White House -- a President that the politicians are afraid to throw out because his polls are up -- we shouldn't be surprised to see America's armed forces being used to advance the private interests of a small minority at the expense of everyone else.
There is a saying to the effect that every country will have the government that its people deserve, and I guess that's as true of the United States as any other country. We can blame it on the controlled media, but the fact is that we have an electorate which thinks Bill Clinton is an OK guy. Sure, that's what the media bosses taught them, but anybody who can be made to believe that Bill Clinton shouldn't simply be dragged out of the White House and hanged has serious problems that can't be blamed only on the controlled media. These are the 400-pound housewives with plastic hair curlers that you see in the supermarkets with their slack-jawed, beer-bellied husbands stocking up on enough beer every Friday evening to get them through a whole weekend of TV ball games. And these are the air-headed twits who buy the celebrity tabloids at the checkout stands.
Fifty years ago, when only ten per cent of the White population were like that, we didn't worry about it. But when 20 per cent have become like that, and the Jews have organized them into a majority voting coalition with the non-Whites, we have a lethal problem. To state it in stark and simple terms, America will not survive: certainly not America as we have known it. About all we can realistically strive for now is the survival of some White Americans -- and much more important, for the survival of our race on this planet.
If we still had an electorate consisting of a White majority with normal intelligence, normal judgment, decent standards, and some sense of responsibility, we might hope that this White majority could elect some patriotic leadership which would strip the Jews of their media control and get the country back on a proper course. But that simply will not happen now. It is only self- delusion to plan on getting ourselves out of this mess through the electoral process, as long as the Jews retain control of our mass media, and the bulk of our electorate remains what it is. And the bulk of the electorate certainly will not improve of its own accord; it will only become more degraded with each passing year. On the other hand, if responsible Americans controlled the media, we could work out a long- term plan for dealing with a degraded electorate, and meanwhile patriotic media could control the slobs as well as the Jewish media do now. But imagining that we can take television away from the Jews is as much self-delusion as imagining that we can elect leaders not under their control. The Jews fully understand the power of the media, and they certainly will not relinquish control voluntarily. Only a revolution can free the mass media from their death grip.
These are important conclusions, and I believe it's worth our time to restate them. We have two very fundamental problems in the United States: Jewish control of the mass media and a degenerate and irresponsible electorate which can be manipulated totally by the mass media. Both of these problems have crept up on us during this century, but they are real, and they are decisive. There is no easy way around them.
I've been warning about the danger of Jewish media control for 30 years. When I began my warnings we still had a majority White electorate, which may have left much to be desired, but at least it would not have tolerated the sort of shenanigans Bill Clinton has inflicted on us. The signal that the electorate had passed the point of no return came from Clinton's popularity polls during his impeachment and trial, when a majority of the voters told us that they still liked Clinton, even after his lies had been exposed, and they wanted him to remain as President. They liked his smile, and he felt their pain, and that's all that was really important.
So we will not vote our way out of our mess, and as long as we keep trying to, our situation will continue becoming worse. I know that there are many decent people who still are not ready to accept this conclusion. They will say, "Oh, yes, we know the situation is bad, but not all the politicians are crooks. Not every politician is in the Jews' pockets. Senator So-and-so is a good man, and Congressman Such-and-such actually has spoken out against Clinton's war. We will vote for Senator So-and-so and Congressman Such-and-such, and they will get us out of this mess."
Well, I'm sorry, but they won't. Voting won't do the job. Of course, you could say to me that talking won't do the job either. You could remind me that I've been talking for 30 years, and the situation has just continued to get worse. And you're right: talking won't get the job done either. But there's one difference between the effects of voting and talking. While you've been voting, the crop of politicians has been getting worse and worse. There may still be one or two who say some of the right things, but 30 years ago there were more of them. Thirty years ago the Senate would have convicted Clinton and removed him from office.
On the other hand, when I began talking 30 years ago almost no one was listening. My message was too radical for nearly everyone. My talking hasn't changed the government or the facts of Jewish media control or the declining quality of the U.S. population -- but at least, many more people are listening today than were listening 30 years ago. Thirty years ago I wasn't on the radio. Thirty years ago I didn't have a worldwide audience on the Internet. And today, although the essence of my message hasn't changed, it no longer seems too radical to a lot of people. Today many more people are listening, and many more people are agreeing. And although my talking alone won't get the job done, talking is one essential part of what's needed to get the job done. Another essential part, unfortunately, is the sort of thing the Jews are doing to the Serbs now. I can talk until I'm blue in the face about the Jews' plans for a New World Order and the dangers of Jewish media control and the corruption of our political system, and hundreds of thousands of people can listen and agree with me, and it's still just talk. Even to the people who understand and believe what I'm telling them, it's not quite real. But every time Madeleine Albright shoots up another passenger train in Serbia and kills 30 or 40 women and children -- every time she drops another load of cluster bombs on a hospital in Kosovo, while the politicians keep sitting on their hands, afraid to say anything because the Jews are still beating the war drums -- the reality of what I have been saying is brought home.
Every time General Wesley Kanne Clark, NATO's Jewish military commander, bombs another village and slaughters another 100 or so civilians, then tries to lie his way out of it and blame it on Slobodan Milosevic, people remember my predictions of this war more than two years ago, at the time Madeleine Albright became secretary of state; they remember what I have been telling them about Jewish war plans and the lies of the Jewish media and the corruption of the politicians in Washington. My words may not have seemed quite real at first, but the blood and the bombs and the torn bodies of our White brothers and sisters in Serbia seem real enough, and these things lend reality and cogency to my words.
And as I said, it's unfortunate that it has to be that way, but an element of human nature seems to be that people's understanding doesn't become fully engaged -- people won't take action on their understanding -- until they actually begin feeling the pain and realize that disaster is upon them: not around the corner or down the road, but on top of them. The things that I was warning about all during the 1970s -- non-White immigration, changing demographics, declining school standards, racial trends -- have hit enough people over the head now and drawn blood, have caused real pain, so that their understanding finally is becoming fully engaged. And what is happening in Yugoslavia now also ought to be causing a little pain among Americans who understand the things I've been talking about for so long. It ought to be causing a lot of Americans real distress to know that what is being inflicted on the Serbs is being done in our name. Jews like General Clark and Madeleine Albright are butchering our people and making self-righteous statements about it, but in the eyes of the world it is all of America which is being blamed and all of America which eventually will pay the penalty for the butchery.
If you think about it for a minute, I believe that you'll agree with me that my talking has left us a lot better off in this situation than would be the case if I hadn't been talking. The disaster would still be upon us, but there would be a lot less understanding than there is. People still haven't acted on any significant scale as a result of my warnings, but at least there is much more understanding, and that understanding provides the necessary basis for effective action in the future. It provides a direction for us, so that when we do act we will act correctly and effectively.
Some of you may remember another prediction I made, at the time the Jews launched their war against Serbia two months ago. I predicted that this war would turn out to be a big mistake for them. Specifically, in the March issue of the membership bulletin of the National Alliance, I wrote: ". . . [T]he Jews and the Clintonistas . . . misjudged badly both the character of the Serbs and the reaction of the rest of the world. At the very least they will emerge from this foolish and bloody adventure with a drastic loss of prestige and credibility."
And in my radio broadcast two weeks ago I again suggested that the Jews' enthusiasm for the New World Order had caused them to act prematurely in launching their latest war. Old- fashioned American patriotism of the sort Bill Clinton and Jane Fonda were so contemptuous of when they were marching for Ho Chi Minh during the Vietnam war may be almost dead, but it's not yet completely dead, and it may still bite the Jews as a result of their latest murder spree.
More than that, our new patriotism, based on race instead of on geography or language or religion, is gaining ground. What is happening in Yugoslavia now gives our new patriotism a powerful boost. I've been talking for years about the need to broaden our sense of patriotism to include all of our brothers and sisters in Europe, and when the Jews actually kill our people some of what I've been saying begins to take hold. Again, the importance of my talking is that it permits more people to understand these things when they happen than otherwise would be the case.
The Jews thought that this business of bombing Serbia into line with their plans would be an easy and successful enterprise for them. They thought they had all the angles covered. After the sheeplike behavior of the Congress during the trial of Clinton they figured they wouldn't have any opposition from the politicians. They already had gotten Clinton to promote one of their own creatures, General Wesley Kanne Clark, ahead of the other generals and put him in charge of NATO. They already had gotten their own creatures in as secretary of state and national security adviser and secretary of defense. They already had been using their mass media for the past couple of years to demonize the Serbs and prejudice the American people against them in their news reporting on the conflict in Bosnia.
Well, they figured correctly that the politicians wouldn't oppose them, but it's clear that they were hoping for more support from the yahoos than they're getting now. They figured they could bomb Belgrade into rubble, and the yahoos wouldn't notice, as long as it didn't interfere with their ball games. They figured they could drop cluster bombs on Serb hospitals and shoot up Serb passenger trains, and the American voters wouldn't care. After all, it's not Jews being killed, so what difference does it make? Isn't that the lesson we were supposed to learn from 50 years of "Holocaust" propaganda?
Well, Hymie, one of these days you'll find out what difference it makes. You and Abe will be surprised when you find out how many of us haven't been spending all our time watching ball games. I'm sure you're already complaining among yourselves about how many Americans aren't supporting your effort to destroy Serbia. I'm sure that among yourselves you're attributing this lack of support to "anti-Semitism." Well, let me tell you, Abe and Hymie and Madeleine and Wesley, mixed in with the anti-Semitism there's also a little bit of understanding of what you're up to. Before you've finished in Serbia there'll be even more understanding. I intend to do everything I can to increase that understanding. As for us, let us remember that the Jews will continue doing the sorts of things they always have done. They will continue pushing and pushing and pushing. They will continue their efforts to destroy our world, to remake our world in their image and to control it. And they will continue making mistakes, and the understanding among our people must continue growing. I will continue to talk, and the Jews will continue to provide the pain which makes my talk real and effective. Talk and pain together lead to understanding. When the Jews make a mistake like they did in starting this war against Serbia, our people must understand what is happening and why. They must not be confused. They must be enraged, and their rage must have a direction. And then, one day soon, there will be meaningful action, cleansing action. That's the value of talk.
Fooling the People
One of President Abe Lincoln's most memorable statements about the government of the United States was to the effect that it is able to fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but that it can't hope to fool all of the people all of the time. He made this statement as an argument for honesty in government: since the government can't fool all of the people all of the time, it is bound to lose its credibility if it tries.
Well, that was about 140 years ago, and things really were quite different in the United States at that time. For one thing, there was no television. For another thing, there were virtually no Jews. Even without Jews we had plenty of liars, of course: plenty of men who aspired to fool as many people as they could for as long as necessary. These men who aspired to deceive others tended to go into the business of selling used horses or into the ministry or journalism or the practice of law or to run for public office, but for the most part Lincoln's observation about the pitfalls of trying to fool all the people all the time held true, and the amount of damage done by these deceptive men remained within reasonable bounds.
As I said, that was 140 years ago, and things have changed in America. One of the most depressing aspects of the situation in America today is the extent to which the government and the controlled media, collaborating with one another, are able to deceive most of the people all the time. In fact, if Lincoln were making his observation about deceiving people today, it would sound something like this: "The government can't fool all of the people all the time, but in a democracy that's not necessary. In a democracy all the government has to do is fool most of the people most of the time, and if the controlled media and the government are working together that's easy." Since Bill Clinton became President, the government and the mass media have been collaborating to an unprecedented degree.
In past programs I've given you a number of examples of this government and media deceit, especially with regard to race. Actually, where the media are concerned, the deceit works at two levels. First there is the false portrayal of reality and the pushing of certain destructive ideas by the entertainment media.
Consider the casting in films, for example, of heroes and villains. The Jews who own Hollywood and the television industry have some very strong notions about what a villain should look like. He definitely should be blond. Blue or gray or green eyes are a definite plus. The more he fits the "Aryan ideal" the Germans were fond of 60 years ago, the better. And come to think of it, it will be good if he also has just a trace of a German accent -- or if a German accent doesn't fit the story, a Southern accent will do. Think about all of the films you've seen with villains who fit that casting model. Amazing, isn't it?
And as for heroes, the Jews in Hollywood have never met a Black film character they didn't admire. Compare the number of Black directors of the Central Intelligence Agency, Black generals, Black Presidents of the United States, Black rocket scientists or Black brain surgeons or brilliant Black computer hackers you've seen in Hollywood films with the number you've seen in real life. Is there a discrepancy there? Then obviously it's because our racist society has held Blacks back. At least, that's what the Jews would like the viewers of their films to believe.
By chance I happened to view a film last night called Kiss the Girls: a very forgettable, very unexceptional 1997 film produced by Paramount, which is owned by Sumner Redstone's Viacom Corporation. The screenplay, written by David Klass, is about serial killers and sexual deviants who kidnap girls and keep them locked up in their basements. Although there are several weirdoes in the film, the principal weirdo -- the one who kidnaps the heroine and keeps her locked in his basement with several other women -- is a blond.
The hero is a Black detective who also has a doctorate in psychology and has published widely read research papers in psychology. He also just happens to be an expert in pharmacology, who is able to recognize certain obscure drug effects which trained White doctors can't. When he introduces himself to one White female doctor, her immediate response is, "Yes, I've read your work." This Black savant detective thinks circles around all of the White cops in the film, of course, most of whom have a sort of Southern cracker attitude. And of course, the White heroine in the film -- a real feminist, naturally -- just can't keep her hands off the Black hero. As I said, this is a very forgettable, very unremarkable film -- but it is typical of thousands of others with the same distortion of racial reality. And really, this sort of racial casting is deliberate. It is carefully planned. It is intended to implant certain ideas in the subconscious minds of White viewers. It is intended to change their self-image and their opinion of Blacks and their attitudes toward racial mixing and interracial sex. Jews Sumner Redstone and David Klass know exactly what they're doing. And they fool most of their viewers most of the time.
But the deception doesn't stop with entertainment. It extends to the news. On earlier programs I've discussed the way in which the news media deliberately misrepresent interracial crime. I devoted a program to a detailed examination of the way the news media deliberately emphasized and exaggerated the egregiousness of the killing of a Black ex-convict in Jasper, Texas, who was dragged behind a pickup truck by three White ex-convicts. I pointed out that the news media carefully avoided mentioning the fact that the Black victim was a convicted criminal who had spent time in prison. I pointed out that the White man who was being tried, John King, had acquired his intense hatred of Blacks when he was himself imprisoned with Blacks and exposed to sexual attacks by them. The news media portrayed the Black victim as a choir boy, and they implied that John King was born with his completely baseless hatred of Blacks because that's just the way Southern, rural Whites are. White racism is sort of an "original sin" that we all must do penance for.
Most of all in that program I contrasted the enormous news coverage given to the trial of John King for the Jasper killing, making it the number-one national news story for weeks, with a trial taking place at exactly the same time in a Denver courtroom. In Denver a mestizo was being tried for his part in the abduction, brutal gang rape, unspeakable sexual torture, and murder of a 14-year-old White girl, Brandy Duvall, by members of a mestizo gang, the Bloods, and it was totally blacked out; it was not mentioned even once in the national news.
In another program I contrasted the news coverage of the shooting of a convicted Black drug dealer and his girl friend by a White soldier, James Burmeister, in Fayetteville, North Carolina, in December 1995, with the gang-initiation murder last August of two pretty, young White women, Tracy Lambert and Susan Moore, in Fayetteville by members of the Black-and-mestizo Crips gang. The shooting of the Black drug dealer and his girl friend was spotlighted and given national news coverage for weeks, while the gang-initiation murder of the two White girls was totally blacked out.
Please note the two distinct ways in which the public is fooled by this deceptive coverage. In the first way there is the emphasis on news which fits the propaganda themes of the Jewish media bosses, and the blackout or at least de-emphasis of news which doesn't fit. For the news which fits, they trot out the politicians and the Christian ministers and put them in front of the television cameras to lecture us on the evils of White racism and the need to silence the "haters" like me and to enact new "hate crime" legislation. And you never hear the news which doesn't fit, such as the murder of Brandy Duvall or Tracy Lambert or Susan Moore.
The second way in which they fool the public is to distort the news they do report: for example, not mentioning that one of the Blacks shot by James Burmeister in Fayetteville was a drug dealer just out of prison on a drug conviction, and not mentioning that the Black, James Bird, dragged behind a truck in Jasper last summer was also an ex-convict. They want to present the slain Blacks to the public as paragons of virtue -- bright and useful citizens whose lives were brutally snuffed out by hateful, racist Whites.
They're doing the same sort of distortion of the news to make it fit in the case of the recent school shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. Perhaps you remember that when I first spoke about the Colorado shootings a little over a month ago I pointed out that the media deliberately were trying to create the impression in the minds of the public that the two boys who did the shooting were "racists" deliberately targeting Blacks and that they were "neo- Nazis" who spoke German to each other and chose Adolf Hitler's birthday for the shooting.
I reported that the day after the shooting, newscaster Tom Brokaw interviewed for the NBC Nightly News exactly one parent of the 13 slain students, and that was the father of the one Black who was shot. Brokaw didn't tell us that only one Black was shot, of course, but he spoke only of this one Black victim. He spoke of none of the 12 White victims. He deliberately prolonged the false impression that most of the victims were Black. He and other media spokesmen also continued to hint that the boys were "neo-Nazis," even though they knew that one of the boys, Dylan Klebold, was a Jew. They didn't say anything about Klebold's Jewishness to the public, of course.
Once the media bosses had planted the idea in the minds of the public that the two killers were "racists" and "neo-Nazis," the subsequent revelation that all except one of the victims were White didn't change this impression. Preachers and politicians were still giving us tearful little sermons about "ending the hate" in connection with what happened at Columbine High School. Guilt-stricken White women were still becoming hysterical for the television cameras and babbling about how "hate" and "racism" were responsible. Jewish organizations such as the ADL used the confusion as an opportunity to push for their pet project, which is censoring the Internet to halt the propagation of what they define as "hate." Well, one bit of news which Tom Brokaw and the other network spokesmen forgot to mention was what the Columbine killers talked about on the Internet. One would think that it would be wonderful grist for the Jewish media mill, showing the public the "racist" ravings on the Internet of the two "neo-Nazi" killers. But Brokaw and the others were silent on the subject. A little digging, however -- actually, just scanning the New York Times web site -- was enough to turn up the following material from Eric Harris's web site. "You know what I hate?," Harris wrote, "Racism! . . . Don't let me catch you making fun of someone just because they are a different color." Harris also wrote that people who don't like, "blacks, Asians, Mexicans or people from any other country or race besides white-American" should "have their arms ripped off" and be burned. All the indications are that the killers, far from being the Politically Incorrect independent thinkers the Jewish media would have us believe they were, actually were strict conformists to the Jewish party line on racial matters.
Despite this reality, of a Jewish killer and a partner who raved on the Internet about wanting to "rip the arms off" racists, the Jewish media bosses were able to use the Columbine High School tragedy to fool a substantial part of the public into believing that the two killers were White racists and "neo-Nazis." They were able to fool the public because they already had fooled the public so often in the past that they had the public conditioned to accept anything which fit the notion that White racists and "neo-Nazis" are dangerous and are likely to kill their neighbors, and that when someone does kill his neighbors, the chances are that he is a White racist or a "neo- Nazi." That's why we need more laws to keep guns out of the hands of White racists and to keep "neo-Nazis" off the Internet.
One can imagine the Jews in the Anti-Defamation League rubbing their hands and laughing among themselves at how easy it has been to fool most of the people in this matter. And they're still busy keeping the people fooled about the Colorado shootings. Dozens of Jewish publications still are commenting about these shootings, and every one of them is deliberately deceptive. An example that I have in front of me now is the May 24 issue of The Jerusalem Report, which attempts to use the shootings to build public support for censoring the Internet. Without ever mentioning Klebold's Jewishness or the Politically Correct tone of Harris's anti-racist web site, The Jerusalem Report refers to "the racist and Nazi undertones" of the shootings, and suggests that they may have been inspired by "extremist" Internet sites such as that of my organization, the National Alliance. That sort of breathtakingly brazen lying is what the Jews proudly call "chutzpah."
If one reads more of the ravings on Eric Harris's web site, it becomes clear that he had a badly impaired grip on reality. He apparently had watched so much television that he really couldn't distinguish between normal social behavior in the real world and the sort of sociopathic behavior portrayed by the Jews on television in thousands of films. Harris babbles on narcissistically about killing anybody who won't let him do whatever he likes:
"My belief is that if I say something, it goes. I am the law. If you don't like it you die. If I don't like you or I don't like what you want me to do, you die."
Another area where most of the American people have been fooled deliberately and massively by the media is the nature and character of Bill Clinton. I think that I already have made my opinion of the man clear in earlier broadcasts, but my opinion doesn't jibe with the image of Clinton presented to the public by the Jewish media. Recently, however, a ray of light was cast on the subject by the publication of the book All Too Human by George Stephanopoulos, a former senior White House adviser and one of Clinton's closest personal confidants.
Stephanopoulos himself is a pretty sick puppy, not unlike the other liberal nutcases Clinton is surrounded by in the White House, but Clinton's behavior during the Monica Lewinsky scandal was too much even for Stephanopoulos, and he quit. Now he's written a book about what Clinton is really like at a personal level, and it makes interesting reading. In fact, Clinton, as described by Stephanopoulos, sounds a lot like Columbine High School killer Eric Harris. One of my favorite Clinton quotes from All Too Human is: "I believe in killing people who try to hurt you." There are many more of the sayings of Chairman Bill in the book, but that one really sums it up.
And since Stephanopoulos spilled the beans, other present and former "insiders" and "friends of Bill" are coming out of the closet. One of them, newspaper reporter Walter Erricson, is now retired, but he used to cover Clinton when the latter was the governor of Arkansas. He says:
"Only an idiot would buy the public persona of Bill Clinton. He is an incredibly profane individual. He is now and always has been an angry man, who wants to inflict as much pain as possible on his enemies."
"Only an idiot . . . ": well, I guess that includes a great many Americans. When the Jews realized, many years ago, that Bill Clinton could become a useful tool for them, they decided to fool the American people as to what sort of man he is, and they have succeeded in keeping most of them fooled most of the time. Clinton, of course, has made this deception easy for them, because he himself is an extraordinarily skillful liar and actor. He is very manipulative, and he is very careful to put on his false face whenever he is on camera.
The American public saw only a few brief glimpses of his real personality when he gave a video- recorded deposition to Ken Starr's prosecution team last year, but those who know him personally have seen everything. They all report that Clinton habitually curses like a sailor, has temper tantrums when he doesn't get his way, and raves about wanting to kill people. One White House staffer reports that during the impeachment investigation by Ken Starr Clinton demanded at a White House staff meeting that the IRS should audit everyone on Starr's team. Several staff members told Clinton that wasn't a good idea. Clinton became enraged. The staff member reports, "He slammed his fist down on the table and said:
'I can do any goddamned thing I want. I'm President of the United States. I take care of my friends, and I fuck with my enemies. That's the way it is. Anybody who doesn't like it can take a hike.'"
Pardon my language, but I wanted to give you an exact quote.
The principal difference between Bill Clinton and Eric Harris, it seems, is that Harris only had a shotgun, while Clinton has cruise missiles and cluster bombs -- which brings us to another area where the Jewish media have been successful in keeping most of the American people fooled, and that's Mr. Clinton's murderous war against the Serbs. The media have lied about every aspect of the war: about the reasons for beginning the war, about what the Serbs were doing to the Albanians and why, about the American conduct of the bombing campaign, about the effects of the war on the Serb people, and just about everything else. And again they have succeeded in fooling most of the people.
The facts about the war are leaking out, but they're not getting to most of the people. Most of the people don't get any national or international news which doesn't come from a network television program, and that means that the Jews are able to keep most of them fooled all the time. In a democracy that's more than good enough. I want to share with you some of these facts about the war against Serbia which are not getting to most of the American people, but I'll have to postpone that until next week. Why don't you get a few friends who are interested in learning what's really going on in this war to listen with you. I'll try to make it interesting for them.
State-Sponsored Terrorism
The people who are trying so desperately to destroy Serbia now are a pretty weird bunch. The latest tactic they've come up with is to have computer hackers and cryptography experts in the "dirty tricks" division of our Central Intelligence Agency break into the computers of various banks around the world where Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic is rumored to have his personal bank accounts, so that they can steal his money from him. It makes me think that the word "Intelligence" needs to be removed from the name of the agency.
I mean, what a dumb stunt! But it's about what one would expect of these Viet Cong enthusiasts left over from the 1960s who are trying to be movers and shakers on the world scene today by bullying little countries into doing what they say. Milosevic won't take orders from Tony Blair and Bill Clinton and the rest of these aging adolescents who haven't a clue about the effective use of real power, so they will punish him by stealing his personal bank accounts. There must have been a lot of giggling going on among them when they came up with this scheme.
You know, I really hope they go ahead with this idiotic plan to hack into the bank computers and steal Milosevic's savings, and I hope the plan is successful. It's not that I wish Milosevic ill, but such a stunt will go a long way toward sawing off the branch all these birds are sitting on. It will do wonders for people's confidence in the security of banks and will push this whole, rotten structure just a little closer to the brink.
They also arranged to have Milosevic indicted as a war criminal and have an international warrant issued for his arrest. That doesn't do much to persuade Milosevic to surrender to NATO, but it does set an interesting precedent. I like it on both grounds. I was becoming a little worried that Milosevic would make some sort of compromise settlement with NATO; now he has another strong reason not to. And I look forward to the day when a bunch of real war criminals, including one at 10 Downing Street and another at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, can be put on public trial, convicted, and hanged, along with all of their willing accomplices in the government and the media. The criminals themselves are in charge of the International War Crimes Tribunal at the moment, but fortunes change, and it's good to have this precedent. I mean, compare what Milosevic is alleged to have done -- killing 340 Albanians, according to the indictment -- compare that with what the Clinton gang clearly has done. What could be more criminal than engaging in the systematic bombing of another country which has not in any way harmed or threatened us; a systematic bombing intended to destroy the country's infrastructure and which already has killed more than 2,000 civilians? Ted Kaczynski and Jack the Ripper were pikers compared to Bill Clinton and Tony Blair.
Milosevic undoubtedly has treated the Albanians roughly, but let us remember that there was a large, well-armed terrorist army of Albanians -- the KLA -- operating in Serbia's Kosovo province. Milosevic crushed them last year, and his police dealt harshly with Albanians they suspected of aiding the terrorists. But that was nothing compared to what is happening now. When Madeleine Albright began dropping her bombs on Kosovo in March of this year, real suffering was inflicted on the Albanians. Virtually all of the Albanian refugees who have fled Kosovo or who still are in Kosovo became refugees after the bombing started. Many of them are fleeing the bombs, and for good reason: about as many Albanians as Serbs have been killed in Kosovo by Madeleine's bombs, rockets, and missiles. Whether a bomb lands on your village by accident or on purpose, the consequences are the same for you, and so the villagers head for the border to get away from the bombing. And some of the Albanians are fleeing the stepped up anti-terrorist efforts of Milosevic's police. These efforts have been stepped up because of the bombing, not despite it. One may tolerate a certain degree of disaffection in time of peace, but in time of war one cannot afford to be so tolerant. The Serbs are cracking down on Albanians inside Serbia now for exactly the same reason Americans cracked down on Japanese inside the United States after Pearl Harbor. I am sure that this crackdown on the Albanians is rough and in some cases atrocious, but the Serbs are fighting for the preservation of their country and their people. Most Americans cannot even imagine what that is like because they never have experienced it -- yet. They just sit on their couches and watch the war on TV, then switch channels to the ball game. The Serbs have to worry about being killed at any second, and so they sometimes act in a way that may seem rough or intolerant to American couch potatoes.
Clinton and his Jews, of course, are blaming the suffering of both the Serbs and the Albanian refugees entirely on Milosevic. Their reasoning is that if Milosevic would just surrender to NATO, then the bombing could stop, and no more people would be killed or injured. "As long as you refuse to surrender, then you have only yourself to blame for the bombing." That's like blaming a robbery victim who is shot during a holdup: "If you had just given him your wallet like he demanded, then he wouldn't have shot you. You have only yourself to blame, because you resisted." I guess a lot of Americans see nothing wrong with that sort of reasoning. We've really been feminized. American men have been conditioned to think and react like women.
But even Americans should be able to understand that stealing the money from Milosevic's personal bank accounts and then issuing an international warrant for his arrest so that he can be tried as a war criminal doesn't make sense in the context of the stated war aims of the Clinton gang, which is to force Milosevic to sign the agreement they have prepared. If Milosevic has a few million dollars stashed in a foreign bank account and can retire to a life of ease somewhere, and if he really is just a typical politician like those in Washington, with no real patriotism in him, then he might be persuaded to surrender and let the Clinton gang have its way with his country. But with no money and nowhere to go where he and his family can be safe, he'll fight to the bitter end, patriot or not. Wouldn't you? So either these thugs in the Clinton government are really stupid, or they've been lying to us all along about their intentions in Yugoslavia, just like everything else.
Well, I promised you last week that I'd tell you about some of the lies the government and the media have been using to fool us about the war, and this question of just why the Clinton gang started the war is a good place to begin. The Clinton gang all tell us that their reason for starting an unprovoked war against Yugoslavia was to protect the Albanian ethnic minority in the country from the Serb majority. The war is strictly a humanitarian effort to keep Albanians from being brutalized and massacred by the Serbs. Madeleine Albright figured that the best way to show our humanitarian concern for the Albanian minority was to drop cluster bombs on Serb hospitals and schools and use F-16s to shoot up Serb passenger trains. Now, let me tell you, these people do some dumb things, but they really aren't quite as stupid as this lamebrain excuse for starting a war would indicate. Madeleine Albright is no "humanitarian," I'll guarantee you. Just look at that cold, cruel, predatory, Jewish face on her.
In the Clinton gang, of course, the abolition of national sovereignty everywhere, establishing the supremacy of the New World Order, and making sure that there is a proper "racial balance" in every country -- a proper amount of ethnic and racial "diversity" -- are cocktail party clichés. The twittering Gentile air-heads in the gang are as enthusiastic for these goals as are the Jewish heavyweights who have been writing the script. But forcing the Serbs to be good multiculturalists is not really the ultimate reason for the current bombing of Serb schools and hospitals. In the long run the New World Order enthusiasts plan to "multiculturalize" everyone -- except themselves, of course. But multiculturalism is really only a means to an end, and that end is world domination, world ownership. The principal threat to that goal is nationalism. Multiculturalism is their antidote against nationalism.
And Serbia makes a good choice for their first victim for several reasons. For one thing the Serbs are strongly nationalistic; they are a nut that sooner or later would have to be cracked. For another they are in a part of the world that the New World Order gang are interested in for other reasons, a principal one of which is Russia. When the Soviet Union self-destructed at the beginning of this decade, the New World Order gang saw an opportunity not for peace, stability, and coexistence, but for aggressive expansion into the power vacuum left by the defunct Soviet Union. They've been working hard in recent years to cement relationships with a number of former Soviet republics, to integrate them into the New World Order in a preliminary way. In recent months NATO and U.S. delegations have been to Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan -- all formerly parts of the Soviet Union -- promising them aid and encouraging them to distance themselves from Russia politically, economically, and militarily.
The governments of Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan already have formed an alliance with three other former Soviet republics -- Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldavia -- all of whom also are being pulled into a NATO orbit. Only Romania separates Moldavia from Serbia. The Serbs certainly are more pro-Russian than any other country in the region. In the conflict between Muslim Albanians and Christian Serbs, the New World Order gang certainly have taken into consideration the fact that the three former Soviet republics they have been wooing most intensely during the past year -- Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan -- are all Muslim. In addition, the latter are the key to acquiring control over the enormously rich Caspian petroleum resources. Why not cripple Serbia now, take her mineral-rich Kosovo province away from her, and acquire the image of a friend and protector of Muslims? I doubt that that will impress Osama bin Laden and other Muslims who have a major grievance against America, but it might help a bit with the Azerbaijanis.
There's more than oil and other minerals involved here. Russia is still big enough and well armed enough to defend itself. As in Serbia, there's much nationalist sentiment in Russia, and the New World Order gang are quite concerned about what may happen if Russia ever acquires patriotic leadership. They have tried hard to prevent that. They worked hard behind the scenes to get Boris Yeltsin elected, and they have propped him up with loans and promises. Yeltsin is a front man for the Jewish billionaires and mafia bosses who are bleeding Russia dry. But there are genuine nationalists among the Russian leaders who may replace Yeltsin, and there is a great deal of public hostility to the Jewish despoilers of Russia. With a strong nationalist leader enjoying popular support, it is entirely possible there could be a crackdown which would leave Jewish plutocrats and mafia bosses alike swinging from lampposts all over Moscow and Saint Petersburg. A rebuilt Russia under nationalist leadership could derail the entire New World Order.
This is a good time to deal with one other deception about this war. That is the effort to persuade people -- including the American public and the Serbs -- that this isn't a Jewish war. Go to just about any antiwar demonstration in the United States today, and among the speakers there will be a Jew on the platform who will proclaim the friendship of the Jews for the Serbs. "You were on our side against Hitler during the Second World War," the Jewish speaker will announce, "and we never will forget that. Now we are on your side." And the foolish Serbs will clap and cheer. Perhaps they forget that it was the Americans who really pulled the Jews' chestnuts out of the fire in the Second World War. Do the Serbs see any evidence of gratitude for that in what the Jews have done to America in the last 50 years?
And I also have had listeners to my broadcasts write to me that they have found several Jewish groups on the Internet or have heard Jewish callers to talk radio programs saying that Jews support the Serbs and are against the NATO bombing. And in response to that I will tell you that this business of confusing and disarming the opposition by pretending to be on both sides of an issue is one of the oldest tricks in the Jews' book.
Consider the effort to take guns away from Americans. Jews are overwhelmingly in favor of just about every gun control move that has come along. The Jewish media are hysterically opposed to the private ownership of firearms by American citizens. Furthermore, most of the leaders of the gun control effort in the Congress are and have been Jews. At this time the noisiest and pushiest of these is New York's Senator Charles Schumer.
This doesn't mean, of course, that there aren't plenty of feminized, feather-brained Gentiles who believe we'd all be better off if we had no means to defend ourselves. And, with six million Jews living in the United States, I am sure that there are a few individual Jews among them who do not favor gun control. But the fact remains that the Jew-controlled mass media and Jewish legislators and powerful Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith are the primary moving force behind the effort to abolish the Second Amendment, and knowledgeable patriots always have recognized this fact.
So a few years ago a handful of Jews set up an organization called Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and their principal activity has been to proclaim loudly that gun control is not a Jewish but a "Nazi" scheme. They run around the country announcing, "We're Jews, and we're against gun control." They also buy advertisements in gun magazines which assert that Hitler's first move after he became chancellor of Germany was to round up all privately owned firearms, so that the German people could not rebel.
That is the opposite of the truth. Actually, Hitler's government abolished many restrictions on buying and carrying firearms which had been established by the preceding, liberal government. The Nazis believed in self-defense and encouraged firearms ownership and proficiency among German civilians. Hitler was the most popular leader the Germans have had in this century, and he was not afraid of his fellow citizens. He rode slowly through crowds of cheering Germans in an open car. No bulletproof glass, no police screening of the people who were allowed to shake his hand, no metal detectors. Quite a difference from Bill Clinton!
When I first encountered the lies of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, I went to the trouble of digging up the original German law digests from the 1920s and 1930s which contained the exact texts of the German firearms laws, published at the time the laws were enacted, and I translated them into English and published my English translations along with photo-facsimile copies of the original German laws. And yet the Jews have succeeded in confusing many patriots -- an all too easy task, unfortunately -- and convincing them that Hitler was the father of all gun-grabbers, that Jews in America are divided on the issue of gun control, and that people who propose new gun control laws are likely to be admirers of Hitler.
The Jews who confuse the issue of the war against Serbia by claiming to be on the side of the Serbs today are like the Jews who confuse the issue of gun control by claiming to be against it. The fact is that every major Jewish organization in the United States has publicly declared its support for the war against Serbia. In fact, they were behind this war even before it started. Anyway, I have in front of me dozens of press releases, news interviews, and advertisements in the New York Times by Jewish organizations supporting the war. On March 29 -- that's five days after the bombing started -- B'nai B'rith International put out a press release headed "B'nai B'rith Supports U.S.-NATO Action in Yugoslavia." B'nai B'rith, which is the parent organization of the Anti-Defamation League, claims branches in 57 countries and bills itself as the world's largest Jewish organization. On April 3 a reporter for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency interviewed a number of prominent Jewish leaders and summed it up with the statement:
The organized Jewish community has . . . declared unwavering support for U.S. intervention in Kosovo.
And what the organized Jewish community is supporting now is nothing less than state- sponsored terrorism and genocide against Serbs for the purpose of advancing Jewish schemes for a New World Order. The Jew-serving politicians in Washington and in NATO are talking now about re-arming the KLA and sending that gang of drug smugglers, cutthroats, and professional terrorists into Kosovo against the Serbs ahead of NATO troops, sort of a human shield.
Do you know what terrorism is? Jadranka Djordjevic, a 64-year-old Serb woman who lives in Belgrade, does. She worked in the U.S. Embassy there for 30 years. She's dodging missiles and bombs now and worrying about how to stay alive. When a newspaper reporter told her recently that Hillary Clinton had said that the flight of the Albanian refugees from Kosovo reminded her of "Holocaust" scenes in the Steven Spielberg film Schindler's List, Ms. Djordjevic replied, "People who learn history from Spielberg movies should not tell us how to live our lives." When told that one of the aims of the NATO bombing is to demoralize the Serbs and make them rise against the government of Slobodan Milosevic, she noted that that exactly fits the internationally recognized definition of terrorism: violence against a civilian population intended to destabilize a government. She said that the people responsible for the terror-bombing campaign against Serbia should be put on trial by the International Court of Justice. "You cannot terrorize civilians in this way," she said. "We are talking about millions of people who are deprived of basic necessities."
Well, Jadranka Djordjevic, you are wrong. You can terrorize millions of people, if B'nai B'rith and all of the other New World Order boosters are behind you.
How They Rule
You know, it's a frustrating and infuriating thing watching Clinton and his crew of nation- wreckers gloating over their successful bullying of Serbia. Madeleine has been screeching and squawking like the Wicked Witch of the West, and Bill has been wagging his finger at the Serbs, looking serious, and telling them that they will not get a cent to help them repair the damage done by NATO until they get rid of Slobodan Milosevic and choose an "approved" president.
You know, I was pretty disappointed in Milosevic for caving in to the NATO gangsters, and I was about to write him off. I mean, what can you expect from a former communist? But if Clinton and his Jews hate Milosevic so much, then maybe there's something good about him after all. I remember how the Clinton gang a few years ago was applying pressure to Russia in every way it could to get Boris Yeltsin elected and then reelected. The message was essentially, "No loans from the West unless Boris is your president."
I've said this before, but it's a pretty good rule to remember, a rule which has been confirmed over and over again by events: If the Jews hate someone, then he can't be all bad, and anyone they praise in public needs to be shot as quickly as possible.
Anyway, it's pretty much out in the open now how the New World Order gang intend to get control of things: they wreck a country with bombs and missiles -- or they simply steal its wealth without using bombs and missiles; then when the country's people are sufficiently miserable and desperate, they hold out the offer of money for rebuilding if the people will elect the leaders chosen by the gangsters. That's what they call democracy: the will of the people -- the will of the Chosen People, that is. And of course, it's our money, our hard-earned tax money, that's used for the bribes to subvert the democratic process in other people's countries. In Russia they used communism and corruption -- stealing -- to bankrupt the country, and then when it was bled dry they began clearing out for Israel and the United States. In Serbia there were very few of the Chosen People to start with, so they used bombs and missiles to wreck the country: faster that way.
They're even collecting subsidiary benefits from Russia and Ukraine now: an estimated 2,000 attractive young Russian and Ukrainian women every year are taken to Israel by the Chosen People and forced into prostitution.
That's not my estimate, by the way; the figure of 2,000 Russian and Ukrainian women a year comes from the Jerusalem Post. I'm reading now from a copy of the December 28, 1998, issue of the Jerusalem Post:
"Women are sold into the sex business in Israel for between $5,000 and $15,000, while the pimps who buy them can earn between $10,000 and $50,000 a year per woman. . . . According to the Israel Women's Network, 2,000 women are brought to Israel a year from the CIS and forced to work as prostitutes." "CIS" is an abbreviation for Commonwealth of Independent States, primarily Russia and Ukraine.
You know, the Clinton government is full of "humanitarians" who justified their destruction of Serbia on the grounds that the Serbs were persecuting the Albanians in Serbia. When do you think these "humanitarians" will get around to doing something about the persecution of Russian and Ukrainian women in Israel? Did you know that it is legal to buy and sell human beings in Israel today? Non-Jewish human beings, that is.
If the New World Order bribery is successful in Serbia -- "we'll lend you money for repairing the damage we did with our bombs and missiles if you get rid of Milosevic and choose the right president for your country," was the way Mr. Clinton so subtly put it on television the other day - - if the New World Order gang get one of their creatures in to run Yugoslavia like they got Boris Yeltsin in to run Russia, then I expect that we'll see a steady stream of attractive, young Serb women being smuggled out of Serbia while corrupt Serb officials look the other way, being taken to Israel, and providing even more $50,000-a-year-per-woman business opportunities for enterprising young Jewish businessmen that the Jerusalem Post can write about.
You know, the wrecking crew did their job on America back in the 1960s -- actually from the late 1950s through the mid-1970s -- not with missiles and bombs, but just as effectively with television and the music industry and their influence in our universities. Among young people they promoted marijuana and LSD and beads and long hair and the idea that the world owes us all a living, and we owe respect to nothing. They gave us all sorts of new "civil rights" laws and "affirmative action" and wide-open borders, so that the wretched refuse of the Third World's teeming shores could come flooding into America and shift our electoral demographics in a democratic direction. They taught us that "gay" is good, and the cause of all the world's problems is White racism. They began the feminization and multiculturalization of America.
Older listeners may remember how they screamed and moaned about "McCarthyism" back at that time: "witch hunt!" they whined; "anti-Semitism!" In fact, they still moan about it every time they have a chance: "Hollywood blacklist! Oy, veh!" You know, if it hadn't been for McCarthyism making them keep their heads down a bit, they would have done an even worse wrecking job on America.
God, how I wish we'd killed the whole bunch of them back in the 1960s, instead of spending all our time trying to figure out what they were up to. Think how many of our own people could have avoided having their lives ruined. Think how much better off America and the world would be today. But of course, we didn't kill them. Even if we had figured out exactly what they were up to in the 1960s, we didn't have the means to oppose them effectively. They had the mass media just as much in their hands then as now; they had half the government secretly helping them with their wrecking job; and the other half was too afraid of being tarred as "anti-Semitic" to oppose them.
So here we are today: The United States is still rich and prosperous primarily because the groundwork for our prosperity was laid before 1960 -- the building of an enormously productive agricultural enterprise, for one thing, and the beginning of the microelectronics revolution based on the work of the late William Shockley and his colleagues, for another thing. With our wealth and our technological head start, we were able to equip our armed forces with high-tech weaponry that permits us today to destroy any country which lacks such weapons, even if man for man their soldiers are better fighters than ours. Of course, there's more to a military operation such as our destruction of Serbia than the fact that we have high-tech weapons and the Serbs don't. There's the fact that the Jews could count on their man Boris Yeltsin not to provide any Russian assistance to the Serbs -- not even to let them have any modern air-defense missiles while we were bombing Serbia.
Well . . . at least they can count on Yeltsin when he's sober and has Boris Abramovich Berezovsky at his side to whisper instructions in his ear. Admittedly, that's not a perfect system, and it becomes a bit shaky at times, as when those Russian troops showed up unexpectedly at the airport in Pristina ahead of NATO last week and refused to budge. I think that we can attribute that to Yeltsin's need to bolster his image with the Russian people. He doesn't want it to be too obvious that he's the Jews' lapdog, so he throws a tantrum now and then and pretends to be refusing to cooperate. That sort of little-league defiance goes over well with the Russian public, but on really substantive matters he does what he's told. Even the Russian troops at the Pristina airport, however, caused his masters to reveal their hand a bit. They had to reprimand Yeltsin and tell him to behave himself, or there would be no more handouts from the West. Last Sunday Tony Blair's defense secretary, George Robertson, said on BBC television that if Yeltsin continued to act up then the world's financial bosses might decide to withhold his allowance when they meet in Cologne next week.
And of course, they're already dangling the promise of loans in front of the Serbs in an effort to gain the same sort of control through corruption over Serbia that they have over Russia. To a large degree, it's a similar sort of corruption which holds NATO together and allows people like Madeleine Albright to manipulate it. In some cases they have arranged to have a Gentile member of their New World Order gang running things: Tony Blair, for example, is a corrupt, trendy, ambitious little jack-in-the-box who is sort of a British version of Bill Clinton and really is counting on being allowed to be one of the owners of the New World Order's global plantation after the rest of the pieces are in place.
In other cases, they have simply managed to keep genuine patriots away from the centers of power and keep men -- or women -- they can deal with in charge. Whenever a nationalist anywhere begins attracting enough votes to be considered dangerous, they unleash all of their trained media hounds on him and begin supporting his rivals. So far that has been sufficient. That's why they love democracy so much and insist on it as the form of government everywhere. It's so easy to manipulate most voters with the mass media.
In summary, the enemies of our people base their power on three things: First and by far the most important is their control of the mass media. Even in countries where they don't actually own the major newspapers and the television stations and control the content and slant of news programs, the Jews are able to extend their influence through the entertainment media. Most of the countries in the world -- certainly, every country in Europe -- receives much of its entertainment from Hollywood. And everything which comes from Hollywood contains the Jews' spiritual poison: their sometimes subtle and sometimes not at all subtle propaganda for equality and multiculturalism and racial mixing and feminism and passivity and White guilt and surrender.
It was Jewish entertainment from Hollywood as much as anything else which destroyed South Africa. Until 1977 there was no television entertainment in South Africa, because the White apartheid government there, fearing its subversive influence, would not permit it. The government finally gave in to the pressure in 1977 and permitted commercial television broadcasting, and it took just 17 years of television viewing, much of the material coming from Hollywood, for White South Africans to have enough Jewish spiritual poison pumped into them so that they could be persuaded to vote for mass White suicide in 1994. Most of them still haven't figured out what happened to them.
The second element in the Jews' power base is money. They have an uncanny drive and ability to acquire money -- an inherited drive and ability, I believe -- and, what is at least as important, an understanding of how to use money to buy power and a willingness to do it. There are many very wealthy Gentiles, of course, men whose wealth in the past was based in land and these days is based primarily in enterprise: Carnegie, Ford, Gates. But there still is a special relationship between Jews and money. Whenever you see a breakdown of wealth according to ethnicity or religion, you will see the Jews at the top of the list. Why is it that Jews never go into farming, for example? Did you ever in your life meet a Jewish farmer or even hear of one? Why do they all want to be lawyers or merchants? Or lacking that, cosmetic surgeons or psychiatrists? They do have an instinct for money. You begin reading a news story about some huge Medicare swindle broken up by the FBI that has bilked the government of hundreds of millions of dollars, or some crooked telemarketing scheme that has robbed thousands of retirees of their life savings, or some Wall Street insider-trading racket that has raked in billions of illicit dollars, and even before you get to the names of those who were arrested, you can guess what those names will be: Boesky, Levine, Goldblatt, Kaplan, Milken, Cohen, and the like.
The third element in their power base is organization. Lock any three Jews in a room together, and within a week they will have formed six different Jewish organizations. Look in the Yellow Pages or in the Encyclopedia of Associations, which you can find in nearly every library, count the number of specifically Jewish organizations listed, and compare that with the number of, say, Lutheran or Baptist organizations and with the percentages of these groups in the population. You'll find that the Jews have a far larger number of organizations per capita than any other ethnic or religious group. Some of these organizations focus on the Jewish community itself -- on maintaining a high level of Jewish self-consciousness, a high level of ethnic identity -- and others focus on applying organized pressure to the Gentile community. These organizations allow the Jews to use their small numbers much more effectively. And the Jews support these organizations. They understand that in organization lies strength -- which is something it would behoove our people to learn.
Jews not only put their money into Jewish organizations, they use it, in conjunction with their mass media, to determine the outcome of the electoral process. A dirty, little secret which every politician in Washington knows, but which no one is supposed to talk about is that Jewish money is the key to winning elections. Approximately a quarter of all the money donated to Republican political candidates comes from the two and a half per cent of the U.S. population which is Jewish. For Democratic candidates, approximately sixty per cent of the money comes from Jews. Amazing, isn't it? Anyway, it helps us to understand why the majority of Bill Clinton's appointments to ambassadorships, to Cabinet posts, to the Supreme Court, and to other high government positions have gone to the Jewish minority.
And of course, it's not just individual bribery or just political campaigns that the Jews' money is used for -- and it's not just their money. When Madeleine Albright was running around from one country to another during the bombing of Serbia, bribing the various political leaders to keep them from responding to public demand and pulling out of NATO, it wasn't her personal money she was promising them. It was our money, our taxes.
So that's the essence: media, money, and organization. That's what makes up the apparatus of power. That's what allows a tiny minority to control the majority -- and to wreck nations and to commit genocide and get away with it and to aspire to total world domination under the aegis of the New World Order.
There's more to it, of course. There's the unique inner nature of the Jews. I've just described for you the external apparatus. It's the apparatus they use to control the Clinton administration -- and more generally, to control America.
And with a few modifications it's the apparatus they plan to use to acquire total world domination. It is adapted especially to the control of democracies, but whenever they encounter a country which is insufficiently democratic to be controlled by propaganda and bribery, then they use bombs to soften things up to the point that their style of controlled democracy can prevail. What has happened -- and is happening -- to Serbia is a perfect example. "Get rid of Milosevic and choose a politician acceptable to us as your leader, or you'll freeze in the dark this winter."
As I said before, this system of the Jews, although it has been successful so far to a large extent, is a bit shaky, like any highly leveraged system. There are several things which can go wrong with it: several things which provide hope for us. In some of the countries where the habit of democracy has not sapped the strength of the people as much as it has in the West -- in Serbia, say, or even more hopefully in Russia -- there remains the possibility of nationalist resurgence. Perhaps Slobodan Milosevic is a nationalist, but there are other political leaders in Serbia who are far more nationalist than he. Two weeks ago the Serb Radical Party, under Serbian Deputy Prime Minister Vojislav Seselj, resigned their parliamentary positions and vowed to carry on the fight for Serb freedom by other means when Milosevic caved in. Let's hope that they do -- and do so effectively. And within the next year we may see a really dramatic move toward nationalism in Russia, and what the Jews have done to Serbia may make a nationalist victory in Russia more likely.
Everywhere there will be a much greater incentive than before to acquire or produce weapons of mass destruction. Little countries certainly understand now, if they didn't before, that if they want to retain their freedom they must have some way of fighting back against NATO or whatever other guise the New World Order may appear in when it tells them how to run their internal affairs. Since they can't hope to match America's high-tech conventional weapons they will turn to unconventional weapons. The threat of massive retaliation by the United States eventually will cease to be an effective deterrent. When a small country with a genuine nationalist leader has its back to the wall and is threatened with conquest, it may do whatever it must to punish the aggressor. And as the number of small countries which have learned to hate and fear America grows, it may be difficult for the folks in the CIA to figure out which one of them has unleashed an unconventional weapon of mass destruction on the United States.
And believe me, that's coming. What Madeleine Albright and her pals have done to Serbia guarantees it. The bright side of that is that it will do Americans good to freeze in the dark a bit themselves. It will weed out a lot of those who voted for Clinton, and it will strengthen the spines of the rest.
Anyway, while we're waiting for that just retribution to strike, what we must do is continue building our means to reach all our people. We must continue building our media of communication, building our organizational strength, building our financial strength. As things are now, it will take a long time -- too long -- for us to build our media or our organizational strength or our financial strength to the point where we can compete effectively with the Jews. But you know, things are not likely to remain as they are -- certainly not as likely as before the Clinton government's recent campaign of mass murder against the Serbs.
Smell the Blood
During the past few weeks we've been talking mostly about the Clinton government's war against Serbia, and I've sometimes gotten a little hot under the collar. Some listeners have accused me of becoming intemperate.
Well, perhaps so. But let me assure you, I do bite my tongue pretty hard to avoid saying what I really feel sometimes, because the FBI certainly would lock me up if said everything I felt like saying, and Janet Reno would file all sorts of charges against me. But I must tell you, I do not believe that it is intemperate of me to say that this monstrosity of a government we have in Washington is an evil thing which must be destroyed, by any means necessary. I believe that everyone who serves this government, of whatever party, is a traitor to our country and an enemy to our people, and should be dealt with accordingly.
You see, that's the sort of statement which some listeners believe is intemperate, but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement which needs to be made, because people need to think about it. I really have a hard time trying to reason with people who can remain calm when their government is murdering our kinsmen in another country wholesale. People get excited when a couple of nutcase teenagers in Colorado kill 13 of their classmates; they wring their hands and say, "Oh, isn't it just awful! What will we do about violence in our society?" But they remain calm when their government deliberately murders 7,000 or so -- that's seven thousand -- of our kinsmen in Europe in order to make them obey the orders of a bunch of nutcase, would-be commissars for the New World Order.
It's big news for weeks when Timothy McVeigh blows up one building in Oklahoma City, but when our government, using our armed forces and our tax money, blows up dozens of buildings and kills hundreds of people every day in Serbia, the news is just ho-hum stuff; it's likely to be pre-empted by a basketball game. Maybe part of this lackadaisical attitude about the government's mass murder in Serbia is due to the feminization of American society and of the American male that I've complained about. Men's mental horizons have been contracted to the point where murder is real only when it happens next door; if it happens in another country it isn't real. It's just something one sees on television.
Or maybe some people just play too many video games. I guess that's the case with our military people. They don't seem to have any problem with killing people wholesale for no good reason when it's all done with "smart" weapons and video screens. You press a button, use a joystick to guide the bomb to its target, then "boom!" just like in a video arcade. That's not like having to get up close and stick a knife in your victim and listen to him scream or shoot him in the head and get splattered with his blood and brains.
But you know, the latter way is really much better -- at least, from a moral standpoint -- because when a normal person, a moral person, has to kill another person up close, he needs a good reason for doing it: a better reason anyway than that's what he's being paid to do. Too many of our military people have the attitude that they're just being paid to play an exciting video game when they guide their "smart" bombs to their targets, but in fact they're being paid to murder the men, women, and children who are blown to bits by those bombs.
And you know, it's not just the murder of Serbs that people should be concerned about. They should be concerned that it's their government committing the murders, not someone else's government that's none of their concern. We have a gang of homicidal maniacs running our country. People should be concerned about that.
Do you think I'm misusing the word "murder"? Listen, I understand that sometimes people need to be killed. I can think of a lot of people in Washington and New York and Hollywood that need to be killed, and the sooner the better. I have no problem with killing people who are trying to kill us; I have no problem with self-defense. I don't consider that murder. In this era of total government corruption I don't consider the assassination of a politician or a bureaucrat to be murder. I don't consider the killing of a domestic enemy of our people to be murder, or of a foreign enemy, when the killing is in defense of our people in time of war.
But when a gang of Jews and wannabee commissars for the New World Order deliberately kill people who are not our enemies, who have not harmed or threatened us, and with whom we are not at war; and when the people being killed are our fellow Europeans; and whether the excuse for killing them is that we need to stabilize Europe so that it will remain a good market for American products, as Mr. Clinton claimed, or that we're doing it for humanitarian reasons because the Serbs were being too rough in putting down a KLA insurrection, as Madeleine Albright claimed, or that we need to force the Serbs to choose a different president and learn to like multiculturalism, as General Wesley Kanne Clark claimed -- regardless of the excuse -- it is murder. The people who ordered the killing are murderers. The people who did the killing are murderers, even if they were being paid to do it. The people who helped in any way in the killing or who gave aid and encouragement to the killers are accessories to murder.
It is murder whether the people being killed are soldiers or civilians. It is murder even if the bomb accidentally missed the target and hit something else instead. When anyone is killed, accidentally or not, during the commission of a felony, it is murder. You don't get off by saying, "Judge, I didn't mean to kill the man. I intended just to part his hair and scare him so that he would hand over his wallet, but my aim was bad and the bullet accidentally hit him between the eyes." That excuse doesn't work when you accidentally kill one man on the street trying to persuade him to give up his wallet, and it doesn't work when you accidentally kill a couple of thousand civilians trying to persuade a nation to surrender its territory to you.
The fact that you are a high-ranking government official -- a president, say, or a secretary of state or a secretary of defense or a general -- does not excuse murder. It does not give you a warrant to commit murder. A lot of Americans seem to think that it's all right for a government to do whatever it wants to do -- including killing people. But you know, the conditions under which our government is permitted to kill people are very tightly circumscribed. A government official can't legally kill people just because he wants to persuade them to change their ways, even if those people happen to live in another country -- unless that country is at war against us. Indeed, the fact that the killings in Serbia were ordered by a gang of high-ranking government officials in Washington makes these killings far more reprehensible than if they had been done by a gang of international jewel thieves or some deranged Muslim sect. The fact that they were done by a government -- our government, in fact -- makes them far more worrisome for us. I would sleep a lot better at night if the murderers in Washington simply liked to slip out of the side door of the White House at night with an axe or a ice pick and kill some hapless citizen on the sidewalk for the thrill of it. That would be far less dangerous for America than having a government which plans mass murder as an act of state and claims the right to do so.
And really, it's even worse than that. The mass murder of Serbs by the official gangsters in Washington is only one act in a program that ultimately will involve the mass murder of lots of other people.
These gangsters have been planning for many years their move to replace the governments of sovereign nations everywhere with their New World Order. The Gentile liberals in the gang are adherents to the very trendy idea that nation-states are passé and ought to be abolished. These deracinated liberals find abhorrent the idea of a tribe, a nation, a group of people with common blood and a common culture, common roots, a common religion, having their own territory where they can do things their way without asking anyone else's permission and can keep other people out if they choose. To these liberals that's very bad, very backward. It's exclusive rather than inclusive. It doesn't leave much room for diversity and multiculturalism and the other things liberals are so fond of.
Worst of all, it doesn't allow the liberals to meddle. It doesn't allow the liberals to choose what sort of government the people should have. It doesn't allow the liberals to impose their own social ideas on the society. And so these Gentile liberals in the New World Order gang are quite certain everything will be much better, much more modern and progressive, when all national governments have been abolished and replaced by a single world government -- under their control, of course. With a world government they can meddle to their heart's content. They can plan the economy. They can make sure that everyone has the most progressive form of government. They can make sure that there is a proper racial balance everywhere. They can make sure that everyone is equal. They can decide what the kiddies everywhere will learn in school. No more sexism, no more racism, no more homophobia, no more inequality, no more bigotry or intolerance: everything controlled completely by liberals who know what's best for all of us. Won't that be wonderful?
I mean, this one-world-government idea, this New World Order idea, really does appeal to these nutcase liberals. Of course, it will mean the end of freedom, but to the liberals that's not really important. What's much more important than freedom, they are quite sure, is security and comfort. We won't even have to worry about making any big decisions in the future. They all will be made for us.
There won't be any more war, they believe, because wars are between nation-states, and when nation states are abolished, how can there be war? Well, as for civil wars, they plan to mix everyone up enough, homogenize the population everywhere to the point where civil wars won't be possible either: no possibility that one part of the world society will be different enough from another part that they will want to fight each other. And as for rebellions, well, they plan to keep a close eye on everyone who looks like he might think any unapproved thoughts, everyone who refuses to go with the flow. If we have to double or triple or quadruple the size of the secret police, well, that will be a small price to pay for the security of knowing that the FBI is keeping the loners and the independent thinkers under control.
This whole concept of abolishing freedom so that everyone can be more secure and comfortable, this idea of making everyone's decisions for him, is very feminine, and it has gained more adherents as our whole society has lost its masculinity and become more feminized. And of course, the idea won't work. But the liberals like to pretend that they believe it will, and they have been very fond of this pretense for a long time. Most of the time they have been fairly discreet about it, because they have realized that if the hoi polloi realized what they were planning they might be lynched. So they disguised their plans. They led the public everywhere to believe that they really didn't intend to go much beyond the United Nations, sort of an international mutual-aid organization -- but no interference with national sovereignty. But they got tired of these half-measures, tired of the limitations, tired of holding themselves back. They decided to go for it.
So they told the government of Yugoslavia that it couldn't put down the Albanian rebellion in Kosovo. It told the Serbs that they could not suppress the KLA terrorists and rearrange the demographics of their Kosovo province to suit themselves. It wouldn't be permitted. The Serbs, of course, told them to go to hell, to mind their own business. And so the New World Order gang began killing Serbs with bombs and missiles. The liberals have begun their grand program to eliminate national sovereignty everywhere and make everyone subject to the New World Order. They've come out of the closet.
Of course, they didn't bother to ask for our approval of their project. They knew we wouldn't approve. We're too backward and old-fashioned and racist for their grand idea of a New World Order. So they just did it. They just murdered 7,000 or so Serbs and forced the Serbs to submit. And so far they've gotten away with it.
One of the reasons they've gotten away with it so far is that they planned it very carefully and chose the right moment. The right moment was when they succeeded in getting Bill Clinton elected to a second term. If the American people would accept Bill Clinton for a second term as their President, knowing what a piece of filth he was from their experience with him during his first term -- if the American people would accept Bill Clinton again, they would accept anything. And the right moment was when they had their own pliable tool, Boris Yeltsin, as head of the government of Russia, the only country in Europe which might put up any serious obstacle to their plans. And as a bonus they also had their own man, Tony Blair, in as head of the British government. So when Clinton was reelected in 1996, they decided the time was right to make their move, to come out of the closet.
So immediately after Clinton's reelection they had him put Jews into every key post in the U.S. government that would be involved in the implementation of their move to begin enforcing the will of the New World Order. They had him choose a Jewish secretary of state and staff all of the top posts in the State Department with Jews. They had him choose a Jewish secretary of defense and a Jewish national security chief. Those Jewish appointments were what tipped me off that they intended to start a major war at some time before the end of Clinton's second term, and I predicted this war in my broadcast of December 21, 1996, right after Clinton's new cabinet appointments were announced.
The reason I was convinced at that time that this rash of top-level Jewish appointments signaled that a major war was being planned is that Jews always have been at the core of the conspiracy to suppress national sovereignty and establish a New World Order dictatorship. The trendy, liberal, jet-setter Gentiles, who have become thoroughly deracinated and have no trace of patriotism or any sense of racial consciousness or racial obligation, make ideal collaborators for the Jews -- but they are only collaborators. The Jews always have been the leaders and the planners of the New World Order conspiracy. They have been at it for 3,000 years, while the Gentile liberals have been helping them only for the last century or so.
The idea of a world owned and dominated by Jews has been the cornerstone of the Jews' religion since Old Testament days. I've quoted from the book of their so-called "prophet" Isaiah before in this regard, but it's worth at least paraphrasing again now. Isaiah, supposedly speaking for the Jews' tribal god Yahweh, tells his fellow Jews that at some time in the future all the wealth of the Gentiles will be delivered to the Jews, and all of the Gentiles will become the Jews' servants, and any nation which refuses to hand over all its wealth to the Jews and become their servants will be destroyed. Every religious Jew for the past 2,700 years has read this and considered it holy writ. And, of course, this prophecy of Isaiah fits right in with the Jews' even older claim, as set down in the books of their number-one prophet, Moses, to be divinely "chosen" to rule the world, to be a "holy people" above all the other peoples of the earth.
Now, that, of course, is the Bible, which is pretty old and primitive stuff. You may believe that it's simply not relevant today and that it proves nothing.
But it is relevant to understanding the thinking and the motivations of the Jews. The Jews would have us believe they are simply a religious group, like the Methodists, say, who go to their own church but are otherwise pretty much like everyone else: a little smarter, perhaps, a little more moral and trustworthy, a little more admirable, a little more picked on and persecuted than anyone else -- but just normal people, no more conspiratorial or greedy or lusting after power than any other group. That's the way they portray themselves to us in the media they control. But they themselves certainly don't believe that they're pretty much like everyone else. They believe that they are special, that they are "chosen," and whether they are religious or not, Isaiah's 2,700- year-old prophecy is one of the things which hold them together, one of the things which define their identity. They're all familiar with it, and in one sense or another they believe it.
That's why it's relevant to the problems our own people are facing today. That's why every one of my listeners who is really concerned about what's happening in the world today, who is really concerned about what the New World Order gang is up to, and who wants to understand the Jews' role in the gang must read what's in the Jews' Bible. Really: read at least the five books of Moses and the book of Isaiah. That's only 300 or so pages. Read it. Think about it. It is important. It will help you understand. And remember, it applies to non-religious Jews, it applies to the Jewish media bosses and the Clinton cabinet members and the White-slave traders in Israel and the billionaire Jewish gangsters around Boris Yeltsin just as much as it does to the funny- looking religious Jews you see in New York wearing long sideburns and black suits and yarmulkes. It applies to everyone who considers himself a member of the "chosen" people.
You know, the biggest problem our people have with understanding these things is not lack of intelligence, and it's not that the information is hard to find. The problem is that our people are too credulous, too easily deceived. And deception is what the Jews are really good at. In the Soviet Union they set up the bloodiest, the most murderous apparatus of repression the world has ever seen, based on the scheme of the Jew Karl Marx, with Jewish commissars like Lazar Kaganovich murdering millions of Ukrainians and Russians, and now they have us feeling sorry for them because the Russians and Ukrainians don't like them.
Well, perhaps the crimes of the communists in the Soviet Union seem too far in the past to be real, but the blood we shed in Serbia in order to advance another Jewish scheme . . . that blood is still fresh. They have made murderers of us the way they made murderers of the Russians. It's time for us to smell the blood and stop being fooled by their lies.
Our Revolutionary Right
Usually in these American Dissident Voices broadcasts I address myself to all interested people of European ancestry, regardless of their ideology or personal inclinations. Today I want to speak only to people who consider themselves racial nationalists, White nationalists, and who understand the concept of personal responsibility. If you don't already have a strong sense of European racial identity and a conviction that every adult man and woman of our race has an unavoidable responsibility for the survival and welfare of the race, then you should tune to another station now.
If you're a libertarian or an egalitarian or a liberal, or if you're some sort of right-wing intellectual dilettante who likes to observe what's happening but feels no sense of obligation to participate personally, to make any personal sacrifice or take any personal risk, then you won't be interested in what I have to say today, and you probably will find it offensive. So just tune out, because I won't be speaking to you anyway.
You know, it's not enough for patriots to shake their heads in disapproval over this shameful thing which their government has done to Serbia. It's not enough to say, "Well, I was against the war from the beginning. I didn't vote for Clinton." If you are an adult citizen of the United States -- or of the United Kingdom -- you are responsible for what your government does, whether you approve or not. Even our enemies understand that. It was in accord with that principle of a citizen's responsibility for the actions of his government that Serb schools and hospitals have been pounded into rubble. Serb women and children were murdered wholesale because Bill Clinton and Tony Blair didn't approve of the policies of their government. When the bombs and missiles came, it didn't help them to proclaim that they were in favor of multiculturalism all along and that they were against ethnic cleansing. Their government refused to take orders from the New World Order gang, and so they were killed by NATO's mercenaries.
If you're an Englishman or a Scot or a Welshman, you can say that you're against NATO's genocide in Serbia, you can say that you don't believe in waging war against another country except in self-defense, you can say that you never voted for Tony Blair or his party, but you still are morally responsible for what that mincing, prancing, smirking little piece of filth who heads your government does.
And if you're a White American, you can't blame Bill Clinton and his policies on the 400-pound welfare moms who voted for him. You can't even blame the murder of our fellow White men and women in Serbia on Madeleine Albright and Jamie Rubin and Sandy Berger and William Cohen and Richard Holbrooke and the other Jews who give Clinton his orders. This was our country. It was our government. And if we sat on our hands while the Jews took it away from us, it is our fault. It is our responsibility to take this government down and to establish a decent one in its place. It is our responsibility to take the franchise away from the welfare moms and to take the media away from the Jews and to cleanse our society of them.
In his first inaugural address, on March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln said: "Whenever . . . [the people who inhabit this country] shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."
You know, rights never stand alone; they always entail responsibilities, and in particular that last right mentioned by Lincoln is accompanied by the inescapable responsibility to exercise it when it becomes appropriate to do so. And when our constitutional right of amending the government has in effect been taken away from us by the subversion of the democratic process in the Clinton era, the appropriate time has arrived. When a mass of slobs, instructed and guided by Jewish media bosses, are able to determine the outcome of elections, then it is time to stop voting and turn to other means.
People tell me, "Oh, you must not advocate doing anything illegal." My answer to them is that I have been a law-abiding man all my life. I believe in law and order. I believe that we must have a society governed strictly by laws, not by mobs or by any tyrant's whims of the moment -- or by any clever tribe of alien manipulators who have gained control of our mass media. But does anyone really believe that we have a society governed by laws today? Let us remember that we are living now in the era of O.J. Simpson and Bill Clinton. We have laws on the books, and we have police and courts which have the theoretical responsibility for enforcing those laws. And when it is Politically Correct to do so, they will.
In reality, what we have today is the illusion of a lawful society, the pretense of justice and accountability under the law -- and not much of a pretense at that. We have a government which commits mass murder at home without so much as an apology, as when the Clinton administration slaughtered nearly 100 members of the Branch Davidian Church in Waco in 1993 because they refused to surrender, and which bombs hospitals and schools in Serbia without apology today because the Serbs also refused to surrender. In each case the only justification has been force: "We're bigger than you, and so you must do what we say or we'll kill you." The Clinton government launches an unprovoked and undeclared war against another country and demands that the president of the country it has attacked be tried as a war criminal, while the attackers run free.
We obey the laws of the U.S. government today not because of any moral obligation to do so, but because the government is stronger than we are, and we are not yet ready to take up arms against it.
Other people tell me that whatever solution we seek to the problems our people are facing today must be a solution without violence. And my response to that is that I am a peaceful man. All my adult life I have been a scholar and a teacher, never a man of violence. But look at the behavior of our opponents! All they know is violence and coercion and murder. I do not want violence, and I am determined to avoid it as long as I can. I certainly do not want to provoke violence when we are not strong enough to match the violence of our enemies. But let us not make the avoidance of violence any sort of moral principle, because in the long run it cannot be avoided. Our guiding principle is that our people must live and must be free, and in the long run we will do whatever we must do to ensure that. It is clear that more than talk will be required. And I must tell you that I am disappointed and worried by the tendency I see in our people today to do nothing but talk -- and many are unwilling even to do that. I see too much passivity in our people, too much willingness to tolerate evil, too much reluctance to take action where action is justified.
There has hardly been a situation which called for action more than the Clinton government's murderous attack against Serbia. Why did American patriots offer so little protest to this? Clinton and the Jewish gang around him not only have murdered thousands of our fellow Europeans in Serbia while we sat on our hands, they dishonored America in doing so.
This was not just an attack on Serbia, it was an attack on America as well. This was a case of the common enemies of Serbia and America using American military and economic resources against Serbia now, with the plan to use them against America in the future. If the New World Order gang successfully compels everyone to toe the line, it will be American freedom which will be sacrificed as well as Serb freedom. Clinton and his Jewish gang are the enemies of every person on this earth who loves freedom. So don't tell me that you believe in freedom if you failed to take a stand against the Clinton government's war.
I am sure that if Americans were more manly in their behavior and their thinking, we would not have gotten ourselves into this situation where we must contemplate revolutionary action against the government. If we had only the courage to speak out in a straightforward way against evil and injustice and corruption, to stand up as a matter of course for what we believe in, we could have avoided much of the need for violence in the future. I hear often from university graduates - - and others -- who explain to me that they are forced to be Politically Correct, that they cannot say what they believe, because it might jeopardize their careers. They tell me that later, after they have acquired a greater degree of financial independence, when their careers are more secure, then they will speak out, then they will not be afraid to tell people what they believe, then they will be ready for action. My opinion is that grown men who lack the courage to stand up for what they believe in now, when the Clinton government through its policies and its actions makes the distinction between good and evil so sharp and clear -- these men never will have the courage that a man ought to have.
This willful destruction of Serbia, the murder of her citizens, by the New World Order gang, acting in our name and using our armed forces as their mercenaries, when the Serbs have not threatened or harmed us in any way, is something so evil, so alarming, so provocative that it is difficult for me to understand how any intelligent, perceptive, and morally responsible adult American or Briton can just go on about his daily affairs as if nothing is happening. This is not a theoretical discussion. This is armed aggression against our kinsmen. This is the mass murder of our kinsmen. This willful shedding of the blood of the Serbs calls for the shedding of the blood of the aggressors. This willful killing of Serb women and children calls for the killing of those who planned and ordered this war. If ever there was justification for the overthrow of a government, this is it. If ever there was a moral imperative to act, this is it.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not calling for any blind, impulsive action for the sake of action, for the sake of making the actor feel good. I don't want anyone to go out and blow something up just to show his dislike of the Clinton government. I am calling for a deliberate, clear-headed decision now on the part of every American patriot to begin a course of careful, planned, and coordinated action aimed at destroying America's domestic enemies and regaining complete and permanent control of our own country, so that the New World Order gang cannot do to Americans what they have done to the Serbs. If we do that in America, then I have confidence that patriotic Britons can deal appropriately with "Bambi" and his cabinet of Jews and homosexuals, that patriotic Russians can send Boris Yeltsin and Boris Abramovich Berezovsky and the rest of that crew to their just reward, and that the remaining members of the New World Order gang and their willing collaborators can be hunted down and dealt with, wherever they may try to hide.
I'll be more specific: I'm calling for patriots to join forces with me in the National Alliance, to help me reach out to others, to continue building our strength until we can do what must be done.
You know, I said a minute ago that it's hard for me to understand how any intelligent and perceptive patriot can remain uninvolved when the U.S. government is doing something as criminal as the deliberate and unprovoked destruction of a sovereign nation which in no way is our enemy. Let me back off a bit from that statement. I believe that part of the problem is that many patriots, despite their intelligence, are too credulous. They let themselves be hypnotized -- or at least, confused -- by the controlled news media, and the confusion results in moral paralysis and inaction, which is what is intended.
When the television cameras focus on some little Albanian girl who finally has been reunited with her family after becoming separated and lost when the family fled to a refugee camp in Macedonia two months ago, one cannot help but feel sympathy for the plight of the refugees. One cannot help but want to see an end to their misery and discomfort. But the television cameras do not show us the bleeding body of the little Serb girl killed by a NATO bomb. And of course, the news commentators do not tell us that the family of the little Albanian girl who was lost for two months, fled from their home and became refugees because of the NATO bombing. The commentator implies that it was Slobodan Milosevic rather than Madeleine Albright who made refugees of the family, whereas in fact well over 90 per cent of the refugees were caused by Albright's bombing, not by Milosevic's ethnic cleansing. The news coverage, in other words, has been slanted so as to generate sympathy for the Albanians and hostility toward the Serbs, and to undermine the average American viewer's opposition to the war. This slanting is calculated and deliberate.
Another example, and a prediction: The so-called "Kosovo Liberation Army," the KLA, started the conflict in Kosovo in the first place by attempting to drive the Serbs out of the province, take it away from Serbia, and make it a part of Albania. It was because of KLA terrorism against Serbs that Milosevic was forced to take strong measures last year against the KLA and its Albanian sympathizers in Kosovo. He had whipped the KLA and was bringing the situation under control when Albright and other members of the Clinton gang used the Serb police action against the KLA as an excuse for starting their war, claiming that the war was to protect Albanians from ethnic cleansing by the Serbs. Now a rearmed KLA, supported by NATO troops, is preparing to move back into Kosovo and resume an even more brutal terror campaign against the Serbs. The official NATO spokesman, Jamie Shea, whose sneering and viciously biased commentary we've been hearing throughout the war, said at the beginning of this week:
"As the Serb forces pull out and the NATO forces move into Kosovo, we expect the Kosovo Liberation Army . . . not to try to take advantage of the situation. . . . More specifically, we hope the Kosovo Liberation Army will renounce violence."
That's exactly what the NATO spokesman said: he hopes that the KLA, which is largely a gang of cutthroats and gangsters, will renounce violence and not try to take advantage of the situation.
It's clear that a lot of Serbs are going to get their throats cut during the next few days, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the controlled news media in the United States will not be showing you any heart-rending views of the victims, and Madeleine Albright won't be making any statements about the need to protect the Serbs from ethnic cleansing by the Albanians. During the next few weeks, in fact, the media will manage to make many of our more thoughtless fellow citizens proud that we whipped the Serbs. We won the war. We showed them. The Serbs lost, and now they will pay the price of defeat. Vae victis. In America we have come a long way from the time when our third President, Thomas Jefferson, wrote:
"If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest."
And those two great humanitarians, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, will be grinning and posturing for the TV cameras while the Serbs are being butchered behind the scenes. And you know, it will be our fault, because it will have been our government which made it possible for the KLA to butcher the Serbs. KLA terrorists will be doing the raping and wielding the knives, but because we tolerated the monstrosity of a government which we have in Washington -- we obeyed the monster, we served it, we did not pull it down soon enough -- because of this we are responsible.
I'll give you one more example, much closer to home, of the way in which the media bosses keep Americans confused about what is happening in the world and thereby paralyze their will to take appropriate action. I am sure that you remember the killing of a Black ex-convict in Jasper, Texas, last summer. Three White ex-convicts had been drinking one night. They gave a ride to a Black ex-convict they knew. And then they killed him by dragging him behind their pickup truck. We have hardly had any bigger media circus than the one the controlled news media organized for us in connection with that killing. They painted it as a uniquely horrible crime. It was a wonderful opportunity for them to make the more impressionable elements of the White population feel guilty for being White and to beat the drums for a Federal "hate crime" law.
So rather than spoil the effect of the Jasper killing, the media bosses completely suppressed the news of another dragging murder. This other murder happened just two months after the Jasper murder. Last August 1, a 26-year-old Black ex-convict, Christopher Coleman, dragged a 46- year-old White woman, Patricia Stansfield, to her death near the little Illinois town of Streator. The Black stole a car belonging to a friend of Patricia Stansfield and dragged the White woman two miles along Illinois State Road 18 from Streator into the countryside while she screamed and pleaded for her life as her body bounced and scraped along the pavement. I would have told you about this sooner, but the media bosses blacked out the news of this murder so completely that there wasn't even anything about it on the Internet. I had to have a friend get the details from a small-town newspaper, The Pantagraph, in nearby Bloomington, Illinois. The murder trial of the Black has been set for July 12, but -- hey! -- don't count on seeing anything about it in your newspaper or on your television screen next month. Just as the murder of Serbs by KLA terrorists doesn't fit, this dragging murder of a White woman by a Black doesn't fit either.
So again I appeal to every man and woman of honor, every man and woman of principle, every man and woman with a sense of responsibility and patriotism: let us not permit this to continue! Let us take down this government; let us take back our news and entertainment media; let us wage war on America's domestic enemies until we have prevailed; let us drive the New World Order gang out of our country. Join me in speaking out; join me in reaching out to other patriots; join me in building a revolution which can cleanse America.
Knowledge and Discipline
As I was preparing this week's broadcast, the news story causing the most excitement in the controlled media was a series of drive-by shootings last weekend in Illinois and Indiana by a 21- year-old student at the University of Indiana, Benjamin Smith, who killed himself as police were trying to arrest him. In addition to himself Smith killed only two other people -- not much to get excited about by today's standards, when drive-by shootings are a nightly occurrence in a number of our larger cities. What really had the media people stirred up about Smith, however, was the fact that he was a member of a pro-White church, and his targets were all non-Whites: Blacks, Jews, and Asians. A Black and an Asian died.
I don't know anything about Smith except what was on the television news and the Internet, but I cannot help but feel some sympathy for him. Smith, according to those who knew him, was intelligent, quiet, and serious. He was a student of criminal justice at the University of Indiana. Most notable, however, he was racially conscious. He was unhappy about the destruction of our White society in America and the perversion of our European culture by the program of multiculturalization promoted by the government and the media. He distributed leaflets on the University of Indiana campus in Bloomington expressing his views, and the university administration harassed him for it. He distributed leaflets off the campus in Bloomington and in the Chicago suburb of Wilmette, Illinois, where he grew up. Leftists, feminists, and Jews organized a public demonstration against him in Bloomington in an effort to stop his leaflet distribution, and the police in Wilmette arrested him. Blacks repeatedly smashed the windows of his apartment in Bloomington to show their disagreement with Smith's "racist" views. It must have been very stressful for Smith, trying to exercise his freedom of speech in a society which pays lip service to our Bill of Rights but which actually tries its best to make life difficult for anyone who doesn't toe the party line.
Finally something snapped, and Smith began shooting at Jews, Blacks, and Asians. He apparently had given up completely at trying to make a difference with his leaflets, and his shooting was an expression of his frustration. He obviously didn't intend to survive. He didn't try to conceal his identity. He simply drove up to groups of non-Whites in his car in broad daylight and began shooting, then drove off until he saw another group of non-Whites and began shooting again.
Now the media people are wringing their hands and asking the question: "How did this man's talk about hate lead to a racist killing spree?" And the media are trotting out all their Jewish experts to ask similar questions. I saw Rabbi Marvin Hier, one of the head Jews at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and Mark Potok, a Jewish expert at the Southern Poverty Law Center, both on television asking, "How can we stop hateful talk like that in Benjamin Smith's leaflets from leading to hateful acts like this series of shootings?" And from the leers on their Jewish faces when they ask this question you can see what they're thinking; you can guess what they want the television viewers to think. They want to plant the suggestion that the way to stop racial violence and hostility is to stop what they call "hate speech." If no one is permitted to say hateful things, they suggest, then people will be less inclined to do hateful things. That's the sort of feminine reasoning which seems to be agreeable to America's couch potatoes. You know, I haven't seen any of Benjamin Smith's leaflets, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was nothing hateful at all in them. What the Jews call "hate speech" these days, what they want to have outlawed, is any Politically Incorrect speech. They don't care about crude or vulgar expressions of hatred, because they don't see that as very persuasive or effective. The speech they want outlawed is any speech which might be dangerous to them, any speech which exposes their schemes or interferes with their plans.
As I said, I cannot help but feel some sympathy for Benjamin Smith. When I lived in Washington, DC, I was almost constantly enraged by what I saw all around me. In Washington it wasn't just the presence of the Blacks and the Jews and what they were doing; it was at least as much the behavior of the Whites which enraged me. It was the effeminate and pusillanimous behavior of the members of the White majority, who really didn't like Blacks and Jews much more than I did but who were terrified of being thought "racist" or Politically Incorrect if anyone found out what they were thinking.
It was the trendy, liberal airheads, mindlessly parroting every cliché they learned from television and eagerly embracing every fad which came along, no matter how degenerate or destructive. It was the homosexuals and the pushy, obnoxiously assertive feminists, who knew they were on a roll and were determined to make the most of it.
And it was the utterly corrupt and deceitful behavior of the politicians and the bureaucrats and the media people in Washington which enraged me. If anybody in this country really needs to be put to death, it's not the convicted serial killers sitting on death row in the various state prisons: it's the people sitting in public offices in Washington -- all of them. And it's the lying, treacherous minions of the controlled media, panting and wagging their tails frantically in the hope of receiving a pat on the head from their Jewish masters every time they slant the news in the required direction or put the proper "spin" on a story.
Washington is really the armpit of the universe, where nothing is too corrupt or treacherous or destructive, and I did find it frustrating being there and watching all of the degenerates and criminals doing their filthy work and not being able to stop them. There were times when I had some pretty violent thoughts. But I am not suicidal, and perhaps I have a little more self- discipline than Benjamin Smith had. Perhaps I am a little better able to postpone my gratification. And so I wrote books instead of going on shooting sprees. But I still sympathize with Benjamin Smith. It's just a shame that he didn't have a little more self-control.
The media circus resulting from Smith's activity last weekend is what we have come to expect from the Jews who control the media. It was another excuse for them to harp on the dangers of permitting Whites to think "racist" thoughts and express "racist" sentiments. And this time they even had the titillating twist of a White "racist" church to work into the story.
It's really too bad that they had virtually nothing to say about a Black church which has been involved in the racially motivated murder of Whites. The charges recently brought against one of the members of this Black church for the murder of a White man would have given them an opportunity to tell us about some far more interesting things than the two killings by Benjamin Smith. The Black church to which I'm referring is the Black Hebrew Israelites, led by Yahweh ben Yahweh. The murderer I mentioned is Robert Rozier, a Black former National Football League player. On March 23 of this year -- that's just three and a half months ago -- Rozier was charged with the ritual murder of a White man outside one of his church's meeting places in Newark, New Jersey. Rozier and another Black member of the church, John Armstrong, stabbed 52-year-old Attilio Cicala to death as a ritual sacrifice of a White man to their Black leader, Yahweh ben Yahweh, who was born with the name Hulon Mitchell.
The murder charge against the Black football player Rozier was reported by the Associated Press in March, but I'll bet you never heard about it. The news was even printed in the New York Times, but no one I've spoken to remembers seeing it. People tend not to notice little two- paragraph news items which appear just once on page 126, tucked in among the ads for hemorrhoid relief and telephone sex. You still can dig it up from the New York Times site on the Internet, however, if you're interested.
The point is that the way in which the news is reported makes all the difference. Most people in this feminized age simply don't relate to bare facts. They relate only to other people. They aren't able to assimilate evidence that doesn't appear in a personal context. It just doesn't mean anything to them unless Tom Brokaw or Bill Clinton or someone else they can relate to explains it to them and tells them how they should respond to it. They really do need to be told whether or not a news item is interesting and what attitude they should have toward it. I'm sorry, but that is the level to which the television-viewing American public has sunk.
And that's why the news about the ritual murder of Attilio Cicala outside the so-called Black Hebrew Israelite temple in Newark has made virtually no impression on the consciousness of the public. And that's too bad, because it's really an interesting story: much more interesting than the story of Benjamin Smith's shooting of a Black and a Korean last weekend. The Jewish media bosses hoped that you wouldn't pay any attention to the news about the murder of Attilio Cicala, but I'm going to tell you about it now, because I think it's something you ought to know.
The story goes back 25 years to a horrendous series of racial murders in California, many of them in the San Francisco area. Over a period of six months in 1973 and 1974 members of an offshoot of the Black Muslims called "Death Angels" murdered several hundred White men, women, and children. The exact number will never be known, because many of the victims were so-called "street people": runaway teenaged girls on drugs, hippies, and the like -- people who weren't missed. There were many of these pitiful lost souls on the streets of San Francisco in the 1960s and 1970s. Their corpses often were hacked up and dumped in the ocean or buried. But the San Francisco police who tracked the Death Angels counted 15 very tangible victims from all walks of life, not just street people: 15 murdered White people, and eight others who were seriously injured during attempts to murder them. While they were looking for the killers the police referred to the series of murders as the "Zebra" killings: all Black on White.
Eventually the Death Angels were broken up when San Francisco police arrested eight of them. Four of them were put on trial, and after the longest trial in California history -- a year and six days -- were convicted on all counts. The transcript for the trial filled nearly 14 thousand pages and was bound in 141 volumes. You say you never heard of any of this? Could that be because the Jewish media bosses -- the ones who have been making such a circus of Benjamin Smith's killing of one Black and one Korean -- didn't want you to hear about it? Could it be that the news of the Zebra murders didn't fit the pattern of White aggressors and non-White victims that the media bosses wanted to imprint on the consciousness of the White public?
During the trial of the four Death Angels between March 3, 1975, and March 9, 1976, a great deal of interesting information came out that the White public should have been told about. One of the Death Angels who had been involved in many of the murders, Anthony Harris, obtained immunity from prosecution by testifying against the other Death Angels. Harris was on the witness stand for 12 days, and the chilling details of his testimony make very interesting reading. He told the court that the Nation of Islam -- the so-called "Black Muslims" -- taught that the murder of a White person -- a "blue-eyed devil" -- was pleasing to Allah. There was an elite organization in the Nation of Islam whose members had especially pleased Allah. That was the Death Angels. To become a Death Angel one had to murder nine White men or five White women or four White children. In 1974 the San Francisco chapter of the Death Angels had fifteen accredited members.
Harris related the horrifying details of some of the murders. There were the young White couple, Richard and Quita Hague, who were grabbed off a San Francisco street at gunpoint, taken to a rail yard, and butchered with a machete. Richard, a mining engineer, was 30 years old. His wife Quita, a reporter, was 28. They were out for an after-dinner stroll when three Black Muslims forced them into a van. Two of the Muslims were in the process of raping Quita when the third grabbed her by the hair, dragged her over to the railroad tracks, and slashed her throat.
Some of the White victims were taken to a loft used by the Death Angels, where they were tied to chairs and tortured to death. Harris testified that he was given the butchered remnants of one of these kidnapped torture victims, all trussed up in a plastic sheet like a turkey, and told to drive the package to a bluff overlooking San Francisco Bay and throw it into the water. Other victims, more fortunate, were simply gunned down on the street. And the killing wasn't confined to San Francisco or even to California. Other groups of Death Angels murdered Whites in other states: in New York, in Georgia, in Florida. The word spread among Black Muslims everywhere. The only people who didn't hear about what was happening were ordinary White citizens, like Richard and Quita Hague. They didn't hear about it because the Jewish media bosses didn't want the White population to become alarmed. They didn't want Whites to take measures to protect themselves. They didn't want Whites to stop feeling guilty about how badly they had treated minorities.
One Black Muslim in Atlanta who learned that the murder of blue-eyed devils was pleasing to Allah was Hulon Mitchell, known at the time as Hulon X. Hulon was given control of a Muslim mosque in Atlanta, but his career in the Nation of Islam was cut short when he was caught dipping into the collection plate and having sex with underage Muslim girls. Hulon moved to Florida. In 1978 he founded his own Black church in Miami. He called it the Nation of Yahweh, called its members Black Hebrew Israelites, and took for himself the name of Yahweh ben Yahweh. Hulon's new church flourished, and he soon formed an elite group in it, which he called the Circle of Ten. He also branched out to several other cities, including Newark. He taught his followers that the killing of blue-eyed devils was pleasing to Yahweh, rather than to Allah. Soon one of the members of his church, NFL player Robert Rozier, brought him the ear of a White man he had just murdered: his first victim. A number of other victims followed during the next few years. One of these victims was Attilio Cicala, the 52-year-old Italian man murdered in Newark.
As with the Death Angels in California, many of the ritual murder victims chosen by Yahweh's followers were the easiest White victims: people who wouldn't be missed -- young runaways, street people, Whites who lived in Black neighborhoods or who associated with Blacks. It wasn't until November 1990 that the police finally wound up Yahweh's murder spree, charging him and sixteen of his followers with a number of felonies, including 14 murders. Actually, the murder of Attilio Cicala was not one of the 14 murders the Black Hebrew Israelites were charged with. That murder remained unsolved until last year, when Black Israelite John Armstrong, also known as Yokonon Israel, was charged. And finally Rozier also was charged in the murder of Cicala this March. He will be tried later this year.
Well, Blacks will be Blacks, and they, at least, understand that we're engaged in a race war. But that's our fault, really. We shouldn't have brought them here. As soon as we rectify that mistake a big part of the war will be over. Meanwhile, there's not much point in our being angry at Blacks or shooting one or two of them here and there, a la Benjamin Smith. That's just foolishness. What we need to win this war is self-discipline: iron self-discipline, and Benjamin Smith didn't have it.
We also need knowledge of the sort I try to disseminate with these broadcasts. If we are to make intelligent decisions about the world around us and about our future, we need to know that hundreds of White Americans have been ritually murdered by members of Black religious groups during the past 25 years. Even more do we need to know that news of these murders has been suppressed by the Jewish news media, and we need to understand why this news has been suppressed. We need to know what the Jews and their political, ideological, and religious allies are aiming for when they deliberately suppress the news of the mass murders of Whites by the Death Angels of the Nation of Islam and the Black Hebrew Israelite followers of Yahweh ben Yahweh, while filling our television screens day after day with the details of Benjamin Smith's killing of one Black and one Asian. We need to know these things if we are not simply to be led like lambs to the slaughter.
Knowledge and discipline, those are the keys to our survival as a people: knowledge of what is really happening in the world and why, and the self-discipline to deal collectively and effectively with the very real threats to the future of our people, rather than expressing our frustration in foolish and undisciplined acts of premature violence. And if our knowledge leads us to anger, to rage of the sort that I felt while living in Washington and of the sort that Benjamin Smith presumably felt while attending the very Politically Correct University of Indiana, let us direct that rage not at the random Black or Asian on the street, but rather at the evil creatures who planned the government policies which are putting more and more Blacks and Asians on our streets, policies which are leading America into becoming a non-White country in the next few decades. Let us direct our rage at the evil creatures who conspire to keep our people ignorant of the real dangers around them by suppressing the news of the Zebra murders and the Black Hebrew Israelite murders.
And if we sometimes feel ourselves frustrated by the willful ignorance of the lemmings and by the malice of those among our people who have cast their lot with our people's enemies, let us remember that it is we who are becoming stronger, not they; let us remember that more and more of our people are understanding what is happening and are drawing the correct conclusions. Let us remember that with growing knowledge and growing self-discipline among our people, we -- not they -- will prevail.
The Division of America
An interesting thing is happening in America: the country is moving in two directions at the same time.
On the one hand there's the Clinton coalition, moving ever more boldly into the feel-good realm of greater and greater permissiveness, of homosexuality, of feminine values and attitudes, of multiculturalism and "diversity." This is the part of America which cheered the bombing of Serbia and which supports the concept of a New World Order telling everyone everywhere how to run his life. This is the part of America which is looking forward happily to the continued darkening of America, the part that believes things will be much better when there no longer is a White majority. This is the part of America which believes in equality and democracy and brotherhood; it is the trendy, fashionable, materialistic, consumption-oriented part of America, the narcissistic and individualist part, the "me generation" of all ages.
And on the other hand there's the rest of White America. It's the part of White America that not only didn't vote for Clinton and doesn't approve of the way he's running the country, but which is appalled -- which is horrified -- that such a person could have become their President. It's the part of White America which has not accepted that America should be a policeman for the world, waging war on countries whose internal policies the New World Order trendies don't like. It's the part of White America which has not accepted the notion that homosexuality is okay, that same- sex marriages are okay, that homosexuals should be able to adopt children and raise them in accord with their own perversity. It's the part of White America which does not believe in sending women into combat or in keeping our borders open to the Third World. It's the part of White America which does not believe that it's more important to have more diversity and multiculturalism in our schools than it is to maintain rigorous performance standards. It's the part of White America which has resisted the notion that everything White, male, and heterosexual is suspect; the part which is beginning to become a little cynical about the use of the word "hate" by the controlled media to label everything which is not Politically Correct.
Now, this part of America isn't moving as a whole anywhere. Most of the people in this part of America are in a state of culture shock; they're still trying to figure out what happened to the America they used to know and love. To the extent that this part of America is going anywhere, it is supplying a growing trickle of recruits to a resistance movement which is in part an underground army and in part a forum for dissidents.
This growing separation of two parts of America may not look the same from everyone's point of view, and to some it may not be apparent at all. What I see, however, is two simultaneous movements away from the center, away from the old status quo. I see on the one hand the part which for the sake of simplicity I'll just call the "Clinton coalition" -- and please understand that I'm using the terms "Clinton coalition" and "Clintonistas" in a generic sense now, not just to refer to the current gang but also to their predecessors of the same ilk -- I see the Clinton coalition becoming ever more outrageous, ever more arrogant and audacious, ever more self-confident and unrestrained; and on the other hand I see the accelerating growth of the organization I head, the National Alliance, and I see a growing response to these American Dissident Voices broadcasts. Now, the way I've described this phenomenon, in a sense I've cast myself and the part of America to which I belong in the role of reactionaries: the Clinton coalition has been pushing policies we don't like, and we have reacted to them. I guess I'd rather be able to think of myself as a revolutionary than as a reactionary, but the truth of the matter is that if the Clinton gang hadn't been pushing policies 30 years ago which I saw as policies which would destroy my race and the civilization we built, I would have remained a physics professor. I became a dissident, I became an activist, in reaction to these destructive policies which were being promoted by the Clinton gang back in the 1960s. They were the revolutionaries; I was the reactionary.
Having become a dissident, however, I eventually went quite far beyond merely resisting the policies of the Clinton gang. I thought about the underlying flaws in our society and in our system of government and in our prevailing ideology and lifestyle which had allowed the Clinton gang to get into a position where it could do us so much damage. Instead of defending the center, I became a revolutionary myself, determined that we must not only defeat the Clintonistas and take power away from them, but that we must restructure our society, restructure our government, restructure our way of thinking and of living so that the enemies of our people could not gain power over us again. So while the Clinton gang continued to move away from the center in one direction, I began moving away from the center in another direction -- and now many more people than in previous years also have stopped trying merely to defend the center and are moving away from it with me. Many more people have stopped being reactionaries and are becoming revolutionaries instead. This is the phenomenon which I want to talk about today, this accelerating moving away from the center, this accelerating separation of two parts of America.
There are many different viewpoints from which one can look at this phenomenon. Let me describe for you a film I saw last week which casts light on it from one viewpoint. The film was made in 1995, but it took me four years to get around to seeing it. It's called Pure Race, and it's a more or less standard hate-propaganda film of the sort Hollywood has been churning out for the past 15 years or so in an effort to persuade the couch potatoes that anyone who doesn't have Politically Correct ideas on racial matters is a dangerous psychopath. It steals a number of ideas from other propaganda films in the same genre, such as Betrayal and Into the Heartland, both of which came out a few years ago. In fact, Pure Race is chock full of the standard liberal clichés. The film looks at America from the Clintonista viewpoint, and what it says, essentially, is that you can't trust anyone who isn't a Politically Correct urban liberal. White people in small towns and rural areas are likely to be dangerous, racist thugs.
The two co-protagonists in the film, a White university student and a Black university student, are driving together through the Pacific Northwest, heading back to school, and they have a flat tire in rural Idaho, where Blacks are not welcome. The two are kidnapped by a neo-Nazi gang, the leader of which is the mayor of the nearest town, and a prominent member of which is a local sheriff's deputy, and they are turned loose in the woods to be hunted down and killed by the heavily armed neo-Nazis for sport.
Well, that's part of what the film Pure Race says. It also tells viewers that Blacks really are superior to Whites in every way, especially in their attractiveness to pretty White girls, and that we certainly shouldn't be resentful about that. One young White man who objects to the Black co-protagonist making a pass at his girlfriend gets a well-deserved beating from the Black. The White co-protagonist, of the liberal-wimp variety, slavishly admires the Black both for his successful pass at the White girl and for beating up her White boyfriend.
Now, the Jews and their allies make films like Pure Race because the films serve their purpose. They do make Politically Correct urban liberal viewers suspicious of White people who live in small towns in places like Idaho or West Virginia. They do convince White university students of the liberal-wimp variety that it's okay for Blacks to date White girls, and that anyone who objects ought to get beaten up. If the films didn't serve this purpose the Jews wouldn't keep making them.
My reaction to the film was that one of the first things to be done when America is restored to health is to hunt down everyone who ever has had anything to do with making one of these anti- White hate propaganda films and deal with him appropriately. And I know that a great many other White Americans would at the very least be angered by this film. The portrayals in these Jewish hate propaganda films aimed at the urban couch potatoes are starker than they used to be a few years ago. The propaganda is more blatant. The films are less subtle. And that's because the gap between the two Americas is widening. The films don't have to be as subtle as they used to be in order to be effective with their intended audience.
Well, that's one viewpoint. Last night I saw another hate propaganda film: a much, much more subtle propaganda film than Pure Race. The film I saw last night was a fairly new one. The name was American History X. When this film first appeared a few months ago there was quite a bit of soul-searching and hand-wringing among the Jews and their allies. Many of them thought that it was too subtle, that it might send the wrong message to many viewers. They were afraid that by pretending to be objective, by pretending to be evenhanded in its portrayal of Whites and Blacks, it might confirm some Whites in their prejudices.
Well, in case you haven't seen the film yet, I'll describe it for you. The protagonist in American History X is a skinhead in a working-class family in California: a bright and articulate skinhead named Derek, who is a natural leader. Derek's father is a fireman who is murdered by Blacks while trying to put out a fire in a crack house in a Black neighborhood. And I must say for this film, that it does a better job than any other film I have seen recently of portraying the grim realities of life for young people growing up in the multicultural cesspool that the Clintonistas have made of California.
Anyway, the Black gangs and the intimidation of White kids by Blacks in the schools are portrayed with stark realism in American History X. Watching the film helps one understand why many White kids from working-class families who are forced to attend the multiculturalized schools in our cities become skinheads. They do it in order to survive. The White kids have been abandoned by the adult establishment, which in order to be Politically Correct must pretend that going to school with Blacks is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience. So the White kids join skinhead gangs so that they can protect themselves from the Blacks.
Early in the film a gang of armed Blacks come by Derek's house at night to steal his truck from his driveway. Derek surprises them and engages in a shootout with them which leaves two of the Blacks dead. Derek is sent off to prison for three years under the theory that he used excessive force in preventing the theft of his truck. While in prison he finds protection from the Black prison gangs by hanging out with a White gang. But when Derek criticizes the White gang's drug dealing, he is savagely brutalized and raped by them to teach him a lesson. After that, without the protection of his fellow Whites he is afraid that the Black gangs will kill him, but a Black prisoner he has been assigned to work with in the prison laundry saves his life by putting out the word to the other Blacks that Derek is not to be hurt.
To make a long story short, when Derek finishes his three years in prison he is a changed man. He has learned from his experience in prison that not all of his fellow Whites are good, and not all Blacks are bad: not all of them are against him. He is determined to get his younger brother, whom he loves dearly, out of the skinhead scene. But it's too late. His younger brother has made the mistake earlier of standing up to a Black thug who was stomping a smaller White boy in the school bathroom, and at the end of the film the Black thug comes back to school with a pistol and murders Derek's brother.
So the message of American History X is not that Blacks are superior and Politically Incorrect Whites are psychopathic thugs, which is the message of Pure Race. The message of American History X is that some Whites are bad and some Blacks are good: that it's not simply a matter of good Whites and bad Blacks. We see the effect of this message on Derek. It confuses him to the point that he decides to opt out of the very real war going on between Blacks and Whites. He fought in the war and it cost him dearly. He won't fight any longer. He just wants his own family to be safe. He wouldn't have gone to prison, and his brother would still be alive if they hadn't resisted. The message of American History X is that we should not resist.
And undoubtedly in this feminized society in which we live today that message will be effective with some people. What the hate propagandists are telling us with American History X is, yes, it's a rough, dangerous world out there, but you mustn't try to resist it on the basis of race. Because, you see, there are some very bad White people, and there are some decent Black people. So don't resist. It won't do any good. You'll just get hurt. Just let the process of multiculturalization continue. Just go with the flow and try to make the best of it. Don't resist.
Well, well, well! As if we needed Hollywood to tell us that some White people are bad, and some Blacks are not! Now, for those who are not hopelessly confused by this revelation like Derek was and therefore are not inclined to throw up your hands and surrender, let me carry the message of American History X a step further than its producers intended. Yes, it's a war zone out there, and perhaps you will be more likely to be hurt if you don't surrender. But you know, America wasn't always such a multicultural cesspool. The schools in our cities weren't always infested with Black gangs. Even places like Los Angeles used to be decent, safe, wholesome communities for White families to live. It used to be that White kids didn't get stomped by Black thugs in the school bathrooms. It used to be that one didn't have to worry about Blacks stealing one's truck from the driveway at night -- not even in Los Angeles. In fact there didn't even used to be White drug gangs like the one in the prison Derek was sent to -- there didn't use to be such gangs before our whole society became the cesspool that it is today. I mean, there was a time when not even the Mafia would deal in drugs, because drug dealing was considered a "dirty" business. And the situation is getting worse. The non-Whites are continuing to flood in. California is becoming darker and darker, a less and less tenable place for young Whites to grow up. All of America is becoming darker. White people are losing ground everywhere: in our cities, in our suburbs, in our schools, in our armed forces. Non-White immigrants are continuing to pour into the country. The handouts and the favoritism toward non-Whites continues. The governments in Washington and in every statehouse in the country and in the larger city halls are becoming more and more corrupt.
Throughout our history our ancestors responded to situations like this by fighting, the way Derek and his brother did in the beginning of the film American History X. We fought our way up from barbarism. We built a civilization. We established a system of justice for our people. We brought order out of chaos. And we fought every step of the way. We fought the Huns and the Moors and the Mongols and the Turks. We built a civilization in Europe in which we knew how to deal with White thugs like those who brutalized Derek in prison. We didn't pamper them or send a social worker out to talk to them. We hanged them. We got rid of them.
We came to America and we fought the Indians. The White settlers here did not submit to the Indians' atrocities against our women and children. And we did not throw up our hands and surrender when we realized that some of the Indians were friendly -- that not every Indian was in the habit of kidnapping White settlers and torturing them to death in horrible ways. We didn't quit when it dawned on us that we would have a hard fight ahead of us to civilize North America. We fought! We civilized the continent. We built a country where we could live and work, where we could go to school and raise our families in a decent and safe environment: no Black gangs, no Asian gangs, no Hispanic gangs, no drugs, no drive-by shootings, no flood of non-Whites pouring into the country, no Bill Clintons in the White House. It was our America. We fought for it, and we built it.
And then perhaps we let down our guard. We relaxed too much. And so here we are in 1999, with our civilization under attack and losing ground on all fronts. The interesting thing about American History X is that the skinhead hero, Derek, understood and enunciated all of these things at the beginning of the film. He fought, in the only way he knew how to fight in his environment and with his background, and that was right and good. Of course, we can't win this war with an army of drunken, undisciplined, carousing skinheads. But at least, the message of the film -- its moral -- was good up to this point. But then the film revealed its true nature as a hate-propaganda film when it had the hero discover that there are bad Whites and good Blacks and decide, therefore, that he no longer could fight for White civilization, that it was bad to resist those who are destroying America.
And I guess that propaganda message will be effective with some people -- but not as many, I believe, as the producers hoped. I believe that many viewers will go the next step, without my having to explain it to them, and will say to themselves, yes, life is not so simple, but the fact is that we are in a war, and we are losing; conditions are becoming worse. And it is not in our nature to surrender. The only way that we can have a better future for our people is to fight, not give up like Derek did. And that's the division of America that I see now. I see more people than before understanding that we must fight, even as others are persuaded to surrender. And I do hope that most of you in my audience today will understand that we must fight and will choose to fight with me for a better future.
Enemies of Liberty
It has been said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. That makes sense to me. I believe it's true. But it certainly isn't good news for America. It's not good news because eternal vigilance is simply too high a price for most Americans today. They're not willing to pay that much for liberty.
I mean, think about it. Vigilance means paying attention to what's happening in the world. It means trying to understand what's happening. One might even have to get up off the couch, turn off the TV for a few minutes, and think. It might even mean missing the Sunday game! Really, that's asking too much of the average American voter. I mean, why should he trouble himself to be vigilant when he's got his buddy Bill up there in Washington to keep an eye on things for him? Surely, if anything important comes up, someone he can trust, like Tom Brokaw or Dan Rather or Peter Jennings will warn him about it and tell him exactly what opinion he should have on it. The fact is, he has put off his own responsibility for vigilance onto the mass media. He expects them to be vigilant for him.
You may detect a hint of sarcasm in my voice, but indeed, I am not exaggerating the situation. The average White American hasn't an idea in his head that didn't come from his television receiver. The notion of the average American being vigilant is simply ridiculous. But you know, that really doesn't worry him a bit. He's not interested in liberty, so why should he care about being vigilant? What he's interested in is, when does the next ball game come on? Is there any more beer in the refrigerator? When's supper?
And in America we let these people vote! We put our liberty in their hands. So perhaps we have no right to complain when someone else takes our liberty from the uncaring hands of America's White majority. But if you don't mind, I'll complain a bit anyway. Perhaps some members of the minority of White Americans who are vigilant and who do care about liberty will find some interest in what I have to say.
For a long time there has been a very close relationship between the mass news media and various specifically Jewish propaganda organizations. I've spoken about the dominant Jewish role in America's mass media many times in my broadcasts, and I won't bore you with a repetition of that again today: the names of the people who own the major Hollywood film studios, the New York Times, and so on. But you know, it goes beyond Jewish ownership of much of the mass media. There are, for example, still many newspapers in America which are not owned by Jews. There are independent radio and television stations. But the special relationship between the Jews and the media applies to most of these nominally "independent" media as well as to the media actually owned by Jews. Let me give you a very specific and very current example of the way this Jewish relationship works. What have you been seeing on television and reading in the newspapers about Serbia since the NATO invasion of that country about six weeks ago? You've been seeing NATO soldiers giving candy bars to smiling Albanian children. You've seen NATO soldiers presiding over the reopening of the Pristina city hall. You've seen NATO soldiers bringing law and order -- bringing peace -- to Serbia's Kosovo province, now that those nasty Serb soldiers and policemen who had been terrorizing everyone and committing all sorts of atrocities have been chased out of the province. That, in fact, is what virtually all of the news media have been telling Americans. There were a few shootings and burnings after NATO first moved in, but NATO pretty quickly got things under control and has kept the KLA from making trouble.
Now I will read you a news release put out by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency a couple of weeks ago. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, identified by the abbreviation JTA, is a news agency which operates much like the Associated Press or Reuters or other news agencies, except that it is an all-Jewish agency and it gathers news of special interest to Jews. The news gathered and reported by the JTA is not secret. Other news agencies or newspapers or news magazines can subscribe to JTA's news and publish it. And many of them do. But they do so selectively. They use only the news which fits, and I'm sure that you understand what I mean by that. Anyway, here's a JTA report written by Ruth Gruber and datelined Rome, July 5. It's headlined: "Albanian Leader Promises to Prevent Revenge Attacks on Jews." It reads:
The leader of Kosovar Albanians issued a written promise to safeguard Kosovo's Jews and their property. Hashim Thaci met twice in recent days with a special envoy of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, Eli Eliezri, to whom he issued a letter ordering "the entire Kosovo Liberation Army under my control to respect and protect all the Jews of Kosovo." The KLA, the letter said, "will also protect and preserve the property of the Jews of Kosovo whether they are present at the moment in Kosovo or are absent and intend to return." It also guaranteed safety to representatives of the [Jewish] Joint Distribution Committee. Despite the assurances, members of Kosovo's tiny Jewish community, commonly identified as Serbs, remain under threat of revenge attacks from Kosovar Albanians. Speaking to JTA from Tel Aviv, Eliezri said that the situation in Kosovo remained chaotic and dangerous for anyone not of Albanian ethnicity and not speaking Albanian. Heavily armed paramilitary vigilantes target and threaten such people, including Jews, as Serbs or Serb sympathizers.... The average Kosovar Albanian, Eliezri said, identifies Kosovar Jews, who do not speak Albanian, as Serbs.... "The government wants to control people, but they haven't succeeded yet," he said, adding that Kosovo's Jews are being threatened and ordered to leave their homes "all the time."
Well, this JTA report goes on to describe a few specific instances of Jews in Kosovo being threatened and ordered to leave their homes by gangs of armed Albanians. And of course, you haven't heard a word of the news in this JTA report. You haven't seen any of it in the mainstream news media. One of the reasons is that it doesn't fit. It doesn't fit the picture of smiling Albanian children accepting candy bars from NATO soldiers. It informs us that while everything in Kosovo may be all smiles for Albanians and NATO troops on camera, off camera life is hell for the Serbs, with gangs of armed Albanians threatening them and ordering them out of their homes as the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo proceeds under NATO jurisdiction.
Beyond that, let's just think for a moment about what this JTA report tells us. Let's think about what it reveals to us about the Jews. In the first place, note that the Jews are complaining that the Albanians mistake them for Serbs because, like the Serbs among whom they live, most of the Jews don't speak Albanian -- which, incidentally, is a language quite distinct from any other spoken in Europe; the only people who speak it are the Albanians themselves. Many of these Jews have lived in Serbia for generations; they speak the language of the Serbs; they are mistaken for Serbs; but they are not Serbs; they are Jews. And this is not a religious distinction. Most of these Jews have no religion. Under Tito they were virtually all communists and were riding relatively high.
There's nothing startling about any of this. It is a fact that the Jews live for generations among another people -- the Serbs, for example -- speak the language of the other people, are mistaken for the other people, but remain entirely distinct. They are Jews, period. They feel absolutely no sense of loyalty or belonging to the country in which they were born or to the people among whom they live. They aren't concerned with the fact that the Albanians are terrorizing their Serb neighbors. The Jews of the Joint Distribution Committee in the United States and in Israel aren't concerned about the Serbs either. They are concerned only about protecting Jews and their property. And reminding the head KLA thug of the Jews' worldwide connections and of their control over the media in the United States is enough to convince him that the Jews in Kosovo should get favored treatment, that the Jews should be respected and protected while their Serb neighbors are raped, looted, and killed.
So one can imagine how things go now in Serbia's NATO-occupied Kosovo province. A gang of armed thugs kicks in your apartment door at four o'clock in the morning and begins ripping off your wife's nightclothes and grabbing the silverware. You inform them that you are a Jew, not a Serb and perhaps show them some unspecified proof of that fact, and they turn your wife loose, give your silverware back to you, and apologize for their mistake. You point out to them that the family living next door are genuine Serbs, and so they kick in your neighbor's door while you tidy up your apartment and smile at the screams coming from the next apartment. And some people still wonder why the Jews are so hated!
Why is this significant? Because in America we are taught that the only difference between us and the Jews is that the Jews have a different religion. We are taught that, aside from this religious difference, they are just like us, just as American, just as loyal, just as patriotic. So draw your own conclusions. It's clear enough that one of the reasons the mass media in America didn't print the JTA report I read to you is that the media bosses are afraid that you might draw some conclusions from it.
And remember, that is true of virtually all of the mainstream media bosses in America, including those who are not Jews. This special deal between the Jews and the KLA reported by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency is relevant news, it was available to all of the mainstream media, but none of them would touch it because it tells people things about the Jews that the Jews prefer they not know. That in itself ought to be enough to worry a vigilant American. But before we try to decide what this means, let's consider some more evidence. Let's look at the special relationship which exists between various Jewish organizations in this country and virtually all of the mainstream media.
The Jewish organizations I'm referring to now are those which serve primarily as openly recognized Jewish propaganda and lobbying organizations: organizations such as the Anti- Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. All of the mainstream media routinely refer to these groups as "respected human rights organizations" and take an uncritical -- almost a worshipful -- attitude toward them. Any press release issued by one of these outfits is regarded as gospel and is quoted without question or reservation.
Shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing the Southern Poverty Law Center sent out a fund- raising letter to its supporters and a press release to the media claiming that it was keeping an eye on "over 200" armed and dangerous militia groups in the United States and implied that these militias were somehow responsible for the bombing. The media all quoted this figure of "over 200" militia groups without question and suggested that the Southern Poverty Law Center and its chairman, Morris Dees, were doing America a favor by warning peace-loving Americans of the militia danger. As a matter of fact there have never been more than a dozen genuine militia groups operating in the United States at any one time -- if one specifies that a genuine militia is one with at least 10 active members and some sort of military organizational structure which actually holds meetings and engages in military practice of some sort. Not one of these groups poses any conceivable threat to the public, although occasionally a militia member who likes to collect weapons may get himself in trouble by being caught with an unregistered machine gun or the like. Militias don't even pose a real threat to crooks like Morris Dees, but the media nevertheless collaborate enthusiastically with the Southern Poverty Law Center and other Jewish propaganda groups in raising money from a befuddled public by helping these groups portray militias as a public menace.
The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith -- ADL for short -- is a group similar to the Southern Poverty Law Center, and it also makes its money by peddling hate and fear to the public with the eager and uncritical assistance of the mainstream news media. Like the Southern Poverty Law Center, the ADL fabricates bogeymen, concocts phoney "hate crimes," and distorts facts to suit its fundraising needs. It has repeatedly fed information to the news media it knew to be false: information which the media easily could have checked and found to be false, but instead has published without question. Whenever something happens which can be useful to the hatemongering and fearmongering of these Jewish propaganda groups -- the drive-by shooting of a Black and a Korean by a young White man in Chicago earlier this month, arson committed against three synagogues in California last month -- all of these groups are ready with self- serving statements to the media, and the media always are ready to be of service to them.
It would be bad enough if these Jewish groups the media so eagerly front for were merely in the direct-mail fundraising business, but many of them also are involved in far more sinister activity. Police agencies are familiar with the ADL's ties to organized crime, for example, but the American public isn't, because the mainstream media carefully avoid mentioning these ties. In 1985 the ADL gave its annual "Torch of Liberty" award to Jewish organized-crime boss Moe Dalitz at a banquet honoring him for the millions of dollars in gang loot he has poured into the ADL. Moe Dalitz was at that time the gang boss of Las Vegas and made his money in gambling, loansharking, prostitution, and contract murder. Later the ADL was involved in the corruption of police departments and the theft of thousands of confidential police files on people the ADL was interested in. Search warrants were obtained, and the ADL's offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco were raided by police to recover the stolen files, but the average American never had a chance to learn about these criminal activities, because most of the media suppressed the news and continued referring to the ADL as a "respected human rights organization." I mean really, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith is engaged in large-scale criminal activities, including the corruption of police agencies around the country, it gives awards to notorious organized-crime bosses in return for donations of criminal loot, and the mainstream media continue to tell the public that the ADL is a "respected human rights" organization and continue to parrot whatever the ADL has to say about someone like the Chicago shooter Benjamin Smith and the church to which he belonged. It's surreal.
And the gangsterism of the ADL is by no means exceptional in the ranks of these "respected human rights" organizations. Morris Dees's Southern Poverty Law Center is hardly better. With the adoring support of the mass media, Dees has combined barratry with fraudulent fundraising to build up a fortune estimated at $100 million. Despite his media support, it hasn't been an entirely smooth ride for Dees, however. He orchestrated a courtroom circus when he was defending a Black female communist who had stabbed a White jailer to death in North Carolina, and he was charged by the judge with attempting to suborn the perjury of a key witness in the case.
Some of his former associates are especially strong in their condemnation of Morris Dees. One lawyer, Courtney Mullin, who has worked with Dees says that Dees is not just immoral, he's amoral. He says that the Southern Poverty Law Center under Dees is an "evil" institution. Another former Dees associate, Atlanta lawyer Millard Farmer, calls Dees and his Southern Poverty Law Center "a Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker operation." The problem is that while Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker got caught and sent to prison, Dees is still being quoted by the mass media as a "respected human rights activist." Really.
Dees is perhaps best characterized by the depositions filed in the Alabama Court of Appeals in connection with his divorce from his second wife, Maureen Bass. These sworn depositions describe Dees's bisexual activity and his sexual molesting of his young stepdaughter and leave the reader convinced that his associate Courtney Mullin's description of him as "amoral" is right on target. Despite all of this, statements put out by Dees's Southern Poverty Law Center in connection with the drive-by shootings in Chicago have been quoted by virtually all of the major news media in recent weeks, of course giving Dees's self-serving spin to the news.
So now I've just discussed two aspects of the way the mass media in America inform the American people about what's going on in the world. I quoted a Jewish Telegraphic Agency report containing news with very interesting implications about the Jewish role in our affairs -- a report which was avoided by all of the mass media because of those implications. And I've described the slavish dependence of the media on the biased and falsified reports issued by Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith and the Southern Poverty Law Center. These are just two illustrations. Next week I'll provide more illustrations.
But today's illustrations are enough, I believe, to persuade most thoughtful people that we have a serious problem with our mass media. And as I indicated earlier, that problem goes beyond the mere fact of Jewish ownership or control of a vastly disproportionate share of the mass media. What we have is a lockstep ideological orthodoxy which has permeated all of the media. They all follow the Jewish party line, whether they are owned by Jews or not. They all suppress Politically Incorrect news, and they all willingly propagate the lies of Jewish propaganda organizations, such as the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center. In a free society the most important single function of the mass media is not to bring ball games to the masses, and it should not be simply to make money for the media bosses: the essential function of the mass media is to be diligent and responsible bearers of the vigilance which the masses themselves are incapable of bearing. In America the mass media not only do not serve that function, they consciously and deliberately misinform the people. By so doing they all have become enemies of liberty.
Kennedy, Barak, and Revolution
As much as possible I try to base my commentary on current events -- on things which people presumably are thinking about because they have been covered recently by the mainstream news media. Last week, unfortunately, there was hardly anything on the television screens besides scenes of the public lamentation, breast-beating, and garment-rending associated with the latest death in America's rottenest family -- well, second rottenest. I am sure that something newsworthy must have happened during the week, but it was crowded out by the Kennedy circus.
I was amazed at the extent of the spectacle: the expressions of grief from all the major politicians and media celebrities, the sidewalk interviews with the lemmings and couch potatoes of various hues who had come out to gawk at the empty Kennedy apartment in New York. It was as if the emperor had died, when in fact it was only an arrogant, puffed-up rich boy who published a slick, shallow, yuppie magazine as a hobby. It reminded me a bit of the public and media reaction to the death of Princess Di last year. She also was a bird-brained non-entity, but she was rich and glamorous, and the rabble identified with her -- as apparently also with John Kennedy, and so the media and the politicians played along. Or maybe it was the other way around. Some media spokesmen even gushed that the Kennedys are "America's royal family." This reaction to Kennedy's death is an interesting phenomenon which may merit some commentary later.
All I could think about at the time, however, was that taking a ride with a Kennedy has been bad luck for a number of young women. I guess some people still remember Mary Jo Kopechne and Chappaquiddick, but one never hears about the 17-year-old girl whose back was broken when a car driven by another drunken Kennedy overturned. Well, having enough money to pay off the families of drowned and crippled girls has been important to the Kennedys, I guess. At least, this time the responsible party didn't survive to kill or cripple again.
The big news immediately before the Kennedy circus was the triumphal visit of Ehud Barak to the United States. All of the politicians in Washington were scrambling to do homage. There was one state dinner or diplomatic banquet after another for the visiting potentate from Israel. Bill Clinton followed him around like an obedient puppy. This toad-like little Hebrew with his barely intelligible English was being presented by the media as the great hope for peace in the Middle East: a wonderful improvement, we were told, over the previous top Hebrew, Benyamin Netanyahu. How many times before have we heard this line?
Well, there's no need for me to go into the details of Barak's grand tour over here. I'm sure that all of you saw that on television until you were sick of it. The Barak visit does serve to remind us of the absolute and total corruption of the gang running our country, however. On July 18 Barak was interviewed on NBC's program "Meet the Press." During that interview he announced that none of the Palestinian refugees who had fled from their homes during Israeli ethnic cleansing programs would be permitted to return. That announcement received nothing but smiles from the interviewers, and later it received nothing but smiles from Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, and other members of the Clinton gang, who still were patting themselves on the back for having bombed Serbia into submission, ostensibly so that Albanian refugees could return to their homes in Serbia's Kosovo province.
The Clinton gang would like for everyone to believe that its war against Serbia was based on its opposition to ethnic cleansing and its determination not to let the Serbs get away with chasing Albanians back to Albania. But when the Jews in Israel do exactly what the Serbs are accused of doing -- only more so, because whereas the Serbs chased Albanians out of Serbia and back to Albania, the Jews had chased Palestinians out of Palestine in order to seize Palestinian land -- when the Jews engage in ethnic cleansing the Clinton gang has not even a reprimand for them. Instead Mr. Clinton told Barak during his visit that he would give him $1.2 billion from the U.S. Treasury to compensate Israel for the expenses involved in administering conquered Palestinian territory. Mr. Clinton didn't announce this to the American taxpayers who'll get the bill for this latest handout to Israel. Instead he whispered it to Barak, who told the Israeli media, which trumpeted the news triumphantly to the Jews of Israel in the Hebrew-language press over there. The $1.2 billion from the American taxpayers will be used to build roads linking illegal Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory and to provide additional military security for those illegal settlements, according to the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot. Finally the news appeared in a few newspapers in this country, quoting Yediot Ahronot.
There's other news relative to the Clinton-Barak relationship which never has appeared in the controlled media over here. For example, there's the growing status in Israel of the tomb of mass- murderer Baruch Goldstein. It has become an Israeli national shrine, a sort of second Wailing Wall, with thousands of religious Jews flocking there to worship and pay their respects. Baruch Goldstein, remember, is the Jew from Brooklyn who went to Israel so obsessed with Jewish racial hatred against the Palestinians that he slaughtered 29 of them in February 1994 while they were praying at the Ibrahimi mosque in Hebron. Goldstein sneaked up behind the Palestinians while they were kneeling in prayer and opened fire with an assault rifle, killing 29 of them and wounding another 60. The armed Jewish guards outside the mosque did not try to stop him nor did they think it odd for a Jew to carry an assault rifle into a mosque. In Israel many Jews carry assault rifles in public; it is only in America that the Jews want to ban assault rifles. Goldstein was killed by the surviving, unarmed Palestinians in the mosque while he was attempting to reload his rifle.
Goldstein became an instant national hero to the Jews, and many Jewish tourists from America make a pilgrimage to his tomb near Hebron. The tomb bears an inscription in Hebrew which in English reads: "He gave his life for the people of Israel, its Torah, and its land." The growing number of tourists and religious Jews attracted to Goldstein's tomb has caused a public debate in Israel: on the one hand there are the Israelis who are worried that the public worship of a mass- murderer might not be good for Israel's image in the United States if the goyim -- the Gentiles -- who are financing Israel through their foreign aid payments ever find out what's going on, and on the other hand there are those Israelis who want to see the Goldstein cult continue to grow because they are certain that the goyim are too stupid ever to find out what's going on.
This debate has been reported by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency from time to time during the past five years, but the controlled mass media in the United States have carefully avoided the issue. Mr. Clinton, of course, was fully aware of this debate during Barak's visit -- he is briefed daily on such matters by the National Security Agency and the CIA -- but he certainly did not raise the issue with Barak during the latter's visit. Instead Clinton was very busy urging the Congress to enact an expanded "hate crimes" law that every Jewish group in the United States has been demanding. I suppose that it would have been insensitive of Clinton to raise the Baruch Goldstein issue at a time when the Jews were all beating the drums for more severe punishments for Gentiles who commit so-called "hate crimes." Anyway, he didn't.
Another Israeli issue which has been kept out of the mass media in America and out of the public consciousness here is what the Israelis are doing in Lebanon these days. Israel, of course, still maintains an occupation army inside southern Lebanon which has been there since Israel's murderous invasion of that country in 1982. The Israelis also finance, arm, and give orders to a gang of Christian Lebanese cut-throats called the Southern Lebanese Army, or SLA. The SLA does much of Israel's dirty work of terror and assassination in southern Lebanon. One of the regular tasks the Jews have assigned to the SLA is the kidnapping of hostages, who are held in a concentration camp in southern Lebanon until such time as the Jews may want to engage in a prisoner exchange with one or another group of Palestinian or Islamic freedom fighters. The Jews refer to these kidnap victims as "bargaining chips." The camp where the SLA keeps the hostages for the Israelis is notorious in Lebanon for the torture which takes place there. Occasionally hostages escape or are exchanged for Mossad agents who have been caught in any Middle Eastern country, and these former hostages have told their stories to journalists in other countries. They also have told their stories to American journalists, but these stories are never permitted to appear in print in America. Most Americans don't even realize that the Israelis still have an occupation army on Lebanese territory. But we all heard Ehud Barak congratulate Bill Clinton for his role in stamping out what Barak referred to as "Serb aggression." That "aggression," of course, was the Serb effort to restore order inside their own country after an insurrection by the so-called "Kosovo Liberation Army." It's nice to see that Mr. Barak has plenty of what the Jews proudly call "chutzpah."
None of these things I've just mentioned in relation to Ehud Barak's visit to the United States are ancient history. They are all things which are happening now: Barak's statement that the Palestinian refugees the Jews ethnically cleansed when they seized Palestinian land will not be permitted to return to their homes is a statement about current Israeli policy; the statement was made just a few days ago, while Mr. Clinton was fawning over Mr. Barak and throwing a state banquet for him on the White House lawn. The debate in Israel about whether the growing cult associated with the tomb of mass-murderer Baruch Goldstein is a good thing or not is going on right now and was going on while Barak was making his triumphal tour of the United States. And Palestinian hostages kidnapped by the Southern Lebanon Army at the behest of Israel are being tortured now, today, and Ehud Barak is the man in charge of the kidnapping and torture.
So perhaps you believe I'm reminding you of these things because I like to beat up on Israel. Really, that isn't my principal reason. I don't especially need to beat up on Israel because Israel already is despised by decent and knowledgeable people almost everywhere. Of course, that doesn't include the people in the media and the government in this country, or America's couch potatoes, who don't listen to American Dissident Voices broadcasts anyway. The reason these things I've mentioned today are interesting to us is not because of what they tell us about Israel or Ehud Barak, but because of what they tell us about the mass media and the government here. With the exception of the question about Palestinian refugees which was asked Barak in his July 18 interview on Meet the Press, the controlled news media in the United States have kept quiet about all these things. And even Barak's breathtakingly arrogant statement on Meet the Press that Palestinian refugees who had been ethnically cleansed by the Israelis would not be permitted to return to their homes -- even this really didn't hurt the Jews appreciably.
To get even the simplest message into the consciousness of the average American voter, it has to be repeated at least 14 times. He needs to have Tom Brokaw explain to him, every night for at least two weeks, that Ehud Barak has the same policy toward refugees that Slobodan Milosevic had, ostensibly the policy for which we bombed Serb schools and Serb hospitals mercilessly before invading Serbia so that we could force the Serbs to permit the return of refugees to their homes. He has to see the disapproving expression on Brokaw's face and hear the disapproving tone in Brokaw's voice to understand that Ehud Barak's policy of ethnic cleansing in Palestine makes Barak a bad man, like it made Milosevic a bad man. He has to see a TV reporter interviewing passersby on the sidewalk and hearing their disapproving opinions before he feels it safe to have a disapproving opinion of Barak's policy himself. And after all of this preparation he then needs to be led by the hand to the conclusion that the sauce which is good for the goose is also good for the gander. He needs to be told explicitly that his government should not be giving billions of dollars every year to Israel for doing the same thing we bombed and invaded Serbia for; that the Clinton administration should not be hosting White House banquets for Ehud Barak while pursuing Slobodan Milosevic as a war criminal. If he's not told these things explicitly and repeatedly the average American voter won't get it.
But Mr. Clinton certainly gets it. Everyone in a policymaking position in the Clinton government gets it. Everyone in an editorial position in the news media gets it. These people are crooked, but they're not stupid. They are criminals, but they do understand what they're doing. And it's important for us to understand that they understand what they're doing.
I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you this 14 times, but I'll tell you just one more time now, because it is important. The government we have in Washington now -- this monstrous thing which has mutated and devolved from the government set up by the Founding Fathers of this country -- cannot and should not be reformed or repaired or salvaged. It should be pulled down and have a stake driven through its heart. Everyone who is a part of it should be dealt with in the same way. You don't reason with people like Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright. You don't explain to a Senator Kennedy or an Al Gore or to a judge of the Supreme Court or to any other Washington politician or bureaucrat that his policies are harmful to America. He will simply think that you are crazy. I mean, who cares about what's harmful to America? That's completely irrelevant to the people in Washington. If you want to make an impression on anyone in Washington today, you must convince him that you are willing and able either to hurt him or to help him.
That's the way the government works now. Lobbyists attempt to persuade politicians and bureaucrats that it will be to their advantage to adopt the policy favored by the lobbyist -- or to their disadvantage not to adopt it. Politicians bargain with their fellow politicians: you vote for this, and I'll vote for that. And looming above everything else is the power of the controlled mass media to make or break any career.
Even patriots have played this game, with letter-writing campaigns to the Congress, with donations to lobbying organizations, with rallies for one candidate or another. But to play the game is simply to feed the beast, when what we need to do is kill the beast. And you know, this is not a theoretical discussion. The beast -- the government in Washington -- kills people. It kills our people every day. It starts wars to enforce its will. It fires cruise missiles at those who defy it. And it makes policies which kill us and our kinsmen as surely as one of their bombs or missiles does. The 14 Serb farmers who were slaughtered in their field while trying to bring in their wheat last week were just as surely murdered by the government in Washington which chased the Serb police and the Serb army out of Kosovo province and left the Serbs there at the mercy of KLA gangsters as were the Serb women and children in Belgrade on whom our warplanes dropped cluster bombs a few weeks earlier. The women who are raped by non-Whites in our cities every day, the people who are murdered by non-White criminals every day, are just as much the victims of the Washington government as are the murdered wife and child of Randy Weaver or the murdered church members in Waco. They are victims of the immigration policies and the "diversity" policies and the so-called "civil rights" policies of the government.
The government kills people. And when we play the government's game we become accomplices. We become accessories to murder -- just as surely as the members of the Clinton administration and the members of both parties in the Congress become accessories to the murders committed by Baruch Goldstein when they support the policies of the government of Israel or vote to give money to Israel.
Everybody is familiar with the cliche about politics being a dirty business. Everyone expects politicians to lie and bureaucrats to be hypocrites. And people believe that we just have to put up with this, that this is just something inherent in all government, that there's nothing we can do about it. But that attitude is dangerously wrong. The situation in Washington has gone far beyond the point where we merely get our hands a little dirty when we collaborate with the government. This government is pushing us to the brink. This government is not just corrupt; it is terminally rotten. It is pathological. It is like a mad dog that must be put down -- and soon.
And perhaps it seems that I simply accentuate our impotence as citizens when I say things like that, because none of us individually has the power, the means, to put down this sick and destructive beast in Washington. And I know that some people believe that there's nothing we can do about the government, so we shouldn't waste time talking about it.
Well, even though no one of us can single-handedly drive the stake through its heart, we still can fight the beast, and by fighting it we can bring closer the day when many of us working together finally will be able to drive the stake home. It is useful even now to speak out strongly against the Washington government, to force people to recognize its crookedness and its destructiveness by holding up examples of the sort I have held up today.
Too many people are afraid of the government, afraid that the FBI will get their names on some sort of "enemies list," afraid that the government will retaliate against them the way it did against Randy Weaver's family. But that is a coward's excuse. We should not be thinking about the ways the government may hurt us; we should be thinking about the ways we can hurt the government and those who collaborate with it. We should make the government fear us. And if enough of us speak out, if enough of us talk just about the things I have touched on today, the government and its collaborators will fear us.
Authoritarianism and Oz
Three weeks ago we talked about the fact that America is divided into two camps that are moving in opposite directions ideologically. I pointed out that on one side is the Clinton coalition, which believes in democracy and equality and "diversity" at any cost and is stampeding happily and mindlessly toward the precipice of a non-White majority in America, and on the other side are the folks who are saying, "Whoa! Going over that precipice is not a good idea!"
All of us can see where the Clinton coalition is headed. Just turn on your television set. The Jewish propaganda is becoming more and more extreme. What the Jews are presenting as the norm today is much, much closer to the precipice than the norm they were presenting 10 years ago, or even five years ago. There is no doubt that they are moving, that they are stampeding the lemmings.
The movement of the people on the other side -- on our side -- away from the center is not as visible to most Americans, because we don't control television. But I see the unmistakable movement, as people who five years ago thought I was too extreme are today joining my organization, the National Alliance. I certainly haven't compromised or softened my position, but more and more perceptive and responsible Americans are realizing that the government in Washington is indeed out of control and is pushing us toward racial annihilation, and they realize that they must take a stand, that they no longer can ignore what's happening. And as I said, I am in a position where I can see this movement in my direction, as more and more of the most perceptive members of our society respond positively to my message.
The Jews, of course, also see this movement in my direction. That's why they make such a media circus out of a trifle like the case of the University of Indiana student Benjamin Smith shooting a Black and a Korean a few weeks ago, while their media ignore much more atrocious crimes which happen every day. That's why they're pushing so hard for firearms confiscation and for laws against what they call "hate speech." If the whole herd were stampeding in the direction the Jews want them to go, the Jews wouldn't get so excited about such matters. But the Jews understand that not everyone is going their way. They understand that more and more people are dropping out of their herd and coming my way, and it worries them; it worries them even though there still are far more people moving their way than my way.
Well, today let's not talk about people who're moving in our direction. Let's talk instead about the people who're the problem. Let's take a closer look at the people who're moving the way the Jews want them to go. And I don't mean the Blacks or the swarms of wetbacks coming across our southern border. I don't mean the growing portion of the population which consists of raceless mongrels, the consequence of the Jews' propaganda for miscegenation during the past generation. I don't even want to consider the portion of the White population which is on the dole and whose only real concern is the size of the checks or the other perks they receive from the government. Let's just look at the able-bodied White men and women who are earning their own keep but who have turned against their own people, their own race, and are going with the Jews. Some of us have an opportunity to come in contact with such folks on a regular basis at work or in school; we have an opportunity to talk with them and to listen to them talking among themselves, and so we may be able to gain some insight into the way they think, into their values. We may be able to understand what's wrong with them. All of us can watch television, and from that we can see which direction the Jews are pushing these people. And of course, what we see when we watch television is not some big-nosed Hollywood studio boss preaching to us and telling us that we ought to behave in a certain way and think in a certain way. What we see are actors and actresses that the viewers can identify with behaving in the prescribed way and saying the prescribed things.
My own situation does not bring me into close personal contact with many people who follow the Jews, and most of the television that I watch, other than the news, is something that a friend or a listener has recorded and sent to me because he believes that it contains something significant that I should see. But I do have a special window into the enemy camp. I receive a great deal of mail from listeners of every persuasion. Perhaps as much as a quarter of this mail is hostile, and I find it very interesting to read this mail and to try to understand what motivates the writers. Today I'll share with you a few of the tentative conclusions I've reached in this regard. And I stress the word "tentative," because this subject of human motivation is tricky and complex, and I'm not at all sure that what I'll tell you today will be the final word on the matter. And I should caution you that with all complex subjects my approach is to attempt to simplify the subject as much as I can, to try to get my mind around one or two key ideas before I start adding the refinements and complications.
Roughly half of all the hate mail I receive is explicitly Christian in some way. And if we look only at the mail from White haters, and don't even consider the letters from Jews, the Christian hate mail may run as high as 60 per cent. So what does that mean? Does that mean that there is something inherent in Christian doctrine which is responsible?
I don't think so, because 50 or 60 years ago most people who considered themselves Christians were not advocates of the policies the Jews are pushing today. One of my tentative conclusions, after studying a large number of these hate letters with Biblical references or some other Christian slant to them, is that what the writers have in common is a compulsion to think, speak, and behave in an approved manner. Most of these Christian hate letters come from people who are not very sophisticated and not well educated, judging from the ways in which they use the English language.
Of course, that doesn't mean that the people who hate us are all uneducated and unsophisticated. I also receive some hate letters from people who at least think that they are quite sophisticated. Whereas the Christians will tell me that I am going to hell because God hates people who criticize the Jews and then will cite some Bible verse to prove it, the sophisticates -- really, pseudo-sophisticates -- will sneer at me and tell me how stupid I am because I can't get it through my thick skull that all people are equal, that the color of a person's skin has nothing to do with his intelligence or creativity or anything else. And they also will cite some authority to prove their point -- not the Bible, but something they have seen on television or learned in class. And of course, there are other sorts of hate letters. There are hate letters from the Birch Society types, who tell me that I am a communist because I am a racist and racism is a form of collectivism, just like communism. And these folks also will quote some authority to prove their point.
When I back away from all of these individual hate letters, when I don't think about their individual differences but instead look for common elements, what I see is authoritarianism. I see haters who are angry at me because I'm not marching in lockstep with them toward the precipice. Perhaps I'm misusing the word "authoritarianism." Perhaps other people have a different meaning in mind for the word than I do. I remember that back during the 1960s and 1970s the Jews used the term "authoritarian" as a pejorative. They used it to refer to people who stood in the way of their remaking of America.
The Jews called the people who objected to their pro-Viet Cong demonstrations "authoritarians." They called people who were not in sympathy with their so-called "civil rights" revolution "authoritarians." They called people who refused to adjust their moral standards to the new standards the Jews were pushing "authoritarians." In the 1960s and 1970s an authoritarian was an old-fashioned, not-very-bright person who frowned on the use of LSD and marijuana by high school kids. An authoritarian was a flag-waving Bible-thumper who deplored the changes in sexual mores the Jews were pushing and thought people who burned their draft cards ought to be sent to jail. An authoritarian was an inflexible, humorless, narrow-minded person: a bigot, a hater, a racist, an anti-Semite. He was an Archie Bunker. He was the sort of person who told a hippie to get a haircut and find a job. The Jews made hundreds of Hollywood films during that period in which the villain was an authoritarian.
Now, back during the 1960s I was trying to figure out what was going on. I didn't pay much attention to the psychology of it at that time, but I did notice the type of people the Jews were complaining about and denouncing as "authoritarians," the Archie Bunker type. I certainly wasn't on the Jews' side of what was happening then, but I can't say that I was on the authoritarian side either. I thought that the authoritarians were a little too uptight in their sexual attitudes, for example. I didn't have much sympathy with their Biblical arguments or their Constitutional arguments for opposing the changes the Jews were pushing. My impression was that their resistance to the Jews wasn't guided by much in the way of reason.
The Jews don't complain much about authoritarians these days. They don't bother to ridicule them the way they used to. Archie Bunker did his job and is now in retirement. But as I have been trying to understand the motivations of the people who send me hate letters today, I keep having flashbacks to the 1960s and 1970s, when I saw White Americans standing on street corners and yelling at college students of the Bill Clinton stripe who were marching down the street carrying Viet Cong flags. They would shout things like, "Go to Hanoi, you commie bastard!" The idea that keeps coming to my mind is that the people who were shouting that in the 1960s are the same sort of people who are sending me hate mail today.
I was a lot closer to agreeing with the 1960s-style authoritarians than I am to agreeing with those of the 1990s style. The 1960s authoritarians may not have been very bright, and they were wrong about some things. For example, most of the American college students marching for the Viet Cong in the 1960s weren't really communists; they were just shallow, spoiled, irresponsible, trendy brats doing what had been made fashionable on their campuses by the Jews. But those 1960s-style authoritarians were not basically destructive. They were not dangerous to our civilization or to our race. They were just pretty much thoughtless defenders of the status quo, defenders of what they had been taught was right and proper.
Today's authoritarians are a different matter. Their psychology may be the same as that of the 1960s authoritarians -- and like the authoritarians of 30 years ago they also aren't very bright -- but their cause is deadly. The 1990s authoritarians are out to destroy our civilization and our race, because they have been taught that that's the right and proper thing to do.
What's really interesting to me about all of this is what it tells us about the nature of our struggle, about what will work for us and what won't work. What won't work is trying to change the ideas or the ideology of most of the White men and women who are dancing to the Jews' tune and heading for the precipice now. We can't change their ideology because they really don't have an ideology. We can't reason with them because their behavior isn't based on reason. They are not defenders of equality and democracy and diversity because they really believe in those things. What they believe in is defending the status quo, defending what they have been persuaded all right-thinking people support and believe in, defending the Great God of the Tube. And of course, they believe in hating anyone who speaks against the Great God of the Tube, anyone who ridicules what the Great God of the Tube teaches, anyone who criticizes those authority figures who speak to them so convincingly from the tube every day.
One cannot change the allegiance of an authoritarian with any sort of reasoned argument. One can, of course, change the authority that he worships. One can change an authoritarian's direction by changing the status quo. Christians write me today and damn me to hell because I refuse to accept the fact that Jesus wants all the races to be mixed together. Christians with the same sort of mentality were writing hate letters 50 or 60 years ago to interracial couples and explaining to them that racial mixing is contrary to God's plan. The Bible hasn't changed. Christianity hasn't changed. But the sold-out preachers and sect leaders -- the authority figures for these Christians - - have changed the way in which they interpret Christianity for their flocks.
Authoritarians are not bad people just because they are authoritarians. In the Middle Ages they burned witches, but in the 1960s they would happily have burned communists. Today they would like to burn White racists. Authoritarians always are defenders of the status quo; they always are worshippers of authority. Whether their role in society is constructive or destructive depends on who the authority figures are. In trying to change authoritarians, one does not argue ideas with them; one changes their authority figures, if one can.
We should note that there also are White people moving in the Jews' direction today who are not authoritarians. There are people who are motivated by what they perceive as their self-interest. There are some businessmen, for example, who believe that non-White immigration and so- called "free" trade bring them more profit. There are some people -- White men -- who can justify anything which brings them a profit or helps their careers. There's not much point in arguing ideas with these people either. The only argument that they will understand is one which is to the effect that they will lose a lot more than profit or a career if they persist in their present ways. And one should not try to make that argument until it can be made convincingly.
And there are many White people who are neither amoral businessmen nor authoritarians -- at least, not authoritarians in the religious sense, not in the sense of worshipping authority -- but who do tend to go with the flow, who do tend to do whatever is fashionable or trendy at the moment. We don't get many hate letters from these people, because they don't have strong convictions, one way or the other. But there are lots of them, and it may be worthwhile to argue with some of them.
A conclusion we might draw from what I've said today is that we won't win many of our benighted White brethren away from the Clinton coalition with ideas or reasoned argument: some, but not many. They certainly can be won over, but we don't have the means to do that at this time. Most of what we can hope to accomplish at this time is to help decent and reasonable men and women of good will -- men and women who never have been part of the Clinton coalition -- understand better the situation we all are in and the process which is carrying all of us to disaster; and then to motivate those with understanding to quit being spectators and to join us in an organized effort to take back our world. It is only through organization that we can acquire the means to begin making an impression on the trendies and the authoritarians and the careerists.
One final thought today, just in case some of you believe that I have exaggerated in talking about the urgency of our situation or the animalistic and mechanical nature of many of our fellow citizens. There's a television series called Oz which you ought to watch. It's on Home Box Office, HBO, which is a subsidiary of Time-Warner, headed by that nice Jewish boy Gerald Levin. The executive producer of the Oz series itself is another nice Jewish boy, Barry Levinson. I don't have access to HBO myself, but a friend recorded a few episodes and sent them to me. Like much of Jewish television, Oz is not very realistic, but it does provide a stark and graphic picture of where the Jews are pushing America, where they are pushing the lemmings. It is not at all subtle in telling us that homosexuals are sensitive and caring people; that Blacks are strong and intelligent; that Jews are noble, inoffensive, and long-suffering; that interracial sex is good and natural; and that racially conscious Whites are despicable and beastly.
This is a Jewish message aimed at the lemmings. It speaks to the lemmings directly from Mr. Levinson's black heart. And there is no doubt that the message has the desired effect on its White-trash viewers. If it didn't have good ratings, Gerald Levin wouldn't bother to poison the airwaves with it. The Jews, of course, always have been pushing in the same direction. But Oz shows us how far they have moved in that direction. Such a television series would have been inconceivable 10 years ago -- even five years ago. But today, with millions of mindless, trendy White kids in their backward baseball caps, singing the rap ditties they have been taught by other Jewish media bosses, trading basketball cards with their favorite Black sports heroes on them, Mr. Levin and Mr. Levinson have figured that they can get away with pushing a little further. And they are getting away with it.
So tune in to Oz. View a segment of it. Don't let yourself be offended by the language or the gutter-level imagery. Study it. Think about its message. Think about what is in the Jewish minds of the people producing this filth. Think about what these Jews are aiming for. And remember, this is not some obscure, underground production viewed by only a few warped fans. This is mainstream America. This is Home Box Office. This is Time-Warner. The people who produce this filth are the biggest financial contributors to the Democratic Party. They are the Jews who got Bill Clinton elected twice. And the people who watch it and like it are the people who kept Bill Clinton's popularity polls up during his impeachment. This is not some bad dream. This is real. This is what is happening today.
So now, what are you going to do about it? Why don't you write to me? Why don't you join the National Alliance and work together with me?
Killing Little Children
The shooting at the Jewish community center in Los Angeles happened a couple of days before I prepared my broadcast last week, and I thought that I would just skip it, that I would not comment on it, either in that broadcast or in the future. But I have had many calls from reporters asking for comments on the shooting, and I have watched some of the news coverage of the shooting, and I have changed my mind. I believe that the thing which prompted me most strongly to make a comment was listening to a televised statement by Janet Reno on the shooting. What a woman! A fitting colleague for Madeleine Albright! The only thing wrong with Janet Reno is that she's not a Jewess. That's a shame, because she certainly would qualify on the grounds of mendacity and overall crookedness.
Several things our Attorney General said brought me to the boiling point, but probably the statement which made the strongest impression on me was to the effect that we must learn how to resolve our disputes without violence, that we all must respect each other as fellow human beings and learn to live together in peace. She said that with a straight face, without even cracking a smile or suppressing a giggle. She said it as if she really meant it, this business about resolving our disputes without violence and about learning to live together in peace. I mean this was coming from a member of the inner circle of the Clinton administration. This was coming from a high official of the government which a few short weeks ago was dropping cluster bombs on Serb schools and hospitals in order to force the Serb government to conduct Serbia's internal affairs in accord with the demands of the New World Order gang.
And you don't have to remind me of the Clinton government's excuse that the bombing of Serb schools and hospitals was a "mistake." That was the same excuse the Los Angeles shooter, Buford Furrow, used. He said that he didn't intend to shoot Jewish children; he merely wanted to shoot up the community center, and the children just happened to get in the way. Every time the Clinton gang killed a bunch of Serb civilians they said they hadn't done it on purpose, but that the civilians just got in the way and were hit accidentally.
Now, I am sure that often the pilots accidentally hit the wrong target with their bombs and missiles, but the fact is that when the planes were loaded with cluster bombs and then sent over Belgrade, somebody in the Clinton administration was planning to kill Serb civilians. If you drop cluster bombs on any populated area, the result will be maimed and killed children. The cluster bombs were not a "mistake." They were deliberately chosen as a part of the munitions used against the Serbs to destroy their will to defend themselves against the Clinton administration's aggression: violent, armed aggression, on a far bigger scale than anything Buford Furrow could even dream of doing.
One other thing to remember now is that the war against Serbia was essentially a Jewish war. Every major Jewish organization in America -- the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, the American Jewish Congress, you name it -- they all advocated the war; nearly every high official of the Clinton government engaged in the conduct of the war -- Madeleine Albright, William Cohen, Sandy Berger, General Wesley Kanne Clark -- is a Jew; and the Jewish mass media did their damnedest to build public support for the war and hatred against the Serbs. But I do not remember any apologies or expressions of regret from the Jews when American cluster bombs killed Serb children. The attitude was, "Well, that's too bad, we didn't deliberately target Serb children, but that's what you get when you don't do what we tell you to do. If you don't like it, just surrender to us now."
That was Janet Reno's attitude a few weeks ago. And if we want to remember a little further back, Janet Reno was the Clinton administration's chief thug in charge of the murderous attack on the Branch Davidian church in Waco, Texas, in 1993 which resulted in burning to death nearly 100 church members, including 17 children and led to the Oklahoma City bombing two years later, in which another 15 or so children were killed. Janet Reno thought her burning of the Branch Davidian church was OK. Her murder of all those people, including 17 children, was OK, because, first, they were oddballs, social outcasts, people who weren't in favor with the media, just a nutty little cult which wanted to be left alone; and second, they refused to obey the Clinton government's orders. So there were no apologies. There was no admission of wrongdoing for her leading role in that violent and murderous assault on the Branch Davidian church.
But when some nutcase Christian Identity kook shoots up a Jewish community center without even killing anyone -- hey, that's suddenly an opportunity for this cold-blooded "butch" of an excuse for a woman to begin preaching about how we all must learn to live together without violence. That sort of hypocrisy really irritates me.
Do you remember what Timothy McVeigh, the convicted Oklahoma City bomber, said when the Clinton government sentenced him to die? He said, in essence, that the government sets the example for the people. The government teaches the people by its actions. When the government is lawless and shows its contempt for life, then this will provoke lawless behavior and contempt for life on the part of the citizens.
And you know, that's true. We have a violent, aggressive, murderous government. The government taught everyone by its example in Waco and at Ruby Ridge and in Serbia and in a hundred other places. And so we should not be surprised when some citizens react in a violent and lawless way to the government's example rather than taking Janet Reno's hypocritically pious mouthings to heart.
Janet Reno, of course, wasn't the only hypocrite interviewed by the media in connection with the Los Angeles shooting. They trotted out all of their familiar "experts" -- most of them Jews -- to discuss the question of why we're experiencing so much more violent behavior these days. Why are so many heterosexual White males acting up, causing trouble, and doing violent things? Why can't these awful heterosexual White males be nice, like everyone else in the wonderful multicultural salad the Clintonistas are blending?
And we heard every explanation except the correct one, and that is that as alienation grows, so does violent, antisocial behavior. As more and more heterosexual White males feel that they're being dispossessed, being edged out, being marginalized so that homosexuals, feminists, and other minorities can have a bigger slice of the pie, some of them react violently. How do you reduce the amount of antisocial behavior? You reduce the degree of alienation. You try to rebuild the spirit of community, of solidarity, of belonging that we used to have in American society 50 years ago: the spirit of community and solidarity and belonging which has been destroyed by the policies of these same "experts." Every one of these Jewish "experts" on violence is in favor of continued non-White immigration, more "diversity," more racial mixing, more multiculturalism, and all the other policies which have broken down the ordered, homogeneous White society we used to have in America, a society in which most White people felt they had a place, whether it was at the top of the social ladder or at the bottom or somewhere in between. They had roots in the society. They felt a part of it. But that is much less the case today than it was 50 years ago, because of the government policies which Janet Reno as attorney general is enforcing, and the consequences are showing up.
One other thing about the Janet Reno statement which irked me was her use of the Los Angeles shooting as one more reason why we need to scrap the Second Amendment. Too many people have guns, she said. We have to stop the proliferation of guns, et cetera. This is the woman who presides over the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is the government's strong arm of compulsion. Janet Reno sics the FBI on landlords who show reluctance to rent apartments to homosexual couples. She sends the FBI around to put the handcuffs on employers who have failed to hire enough Haitians or mestizos. The FBI, which 50 years ago used to spend its time chasing bank robbers, solving kidnappings, and catching foreign espionage agents, is used these days to spy on people who have been overheard expressing Politically Incorrect thoughts. It is the agency which will be used to haul these people off to jail after the Jews succeed in having a Federal "hate speech" law enacted.
And the FBI has been growing rapidly recently. Janet Reno lobbies the Congress for bigger and bigger appropriations for the FBI, and each year she has more hired guns on the government payroll for use against the citizenry. It is not surprising that the citizenry is stocking up on guns in response: at least, that part of the citizenry which has the same feeling about firearms the Founding Fathers did, namely, that one of their principal functions is to keep the government from getting out of hand.
Of course, astute observers understand that the government has been out of hand for a long time and that it'll take much more than a few thousand citizens with assault rifles to get it back in hand again. But the word hasn't yet trickled down to a lot of patriots, and so they keep on stocking up on assault rifles and ammunition, and Janet Reno keeps putting more armed thugs on the government payroll, while the Jews in the Congress and the media work on getting guns away from the citizens so that Janet's thugs will have a monopoly on firepower. Meanwhile, all of this talk about making America a safer and more peaceful place by disarming everyone is the sheerest hypocrisy. Janet's thugs certainly have no intention of handing in their guns and halting their efforts to intimidate White citizens.
Perhaps this is a good time for me to mention that people who are angry at Janet Reno or Bill Clinton or the Jewish media bosses or at the growing hordes of non-Whites in America ought to think of a more constructive outlet for their anger than simply shooting at targets of opportunity, a la Benjamin Smith or Buford Furrow. I will go so far as to say that there are even more useful things for an angry patriot to do than building a truck bomb and blowing up the nearest Federal office building. At this particular moment in the breakdown of our society, these occasional, random acts of violence are not especially helpful. They are not part of a sound strategy. In fact, they are not part of any strategy: they are simply individual acts of indiscipline, and they do not serve the purposes of our people.
You know, I can understand the anger that results in these acts. When my office was in Washington, DC, I was ready to explode and do something violent every day. I wanted to blow up government buildings and kill the politicians and bureaucrats who were destroying America; I wanted to use a machine gun and sweep the streets clean of all the non-Whites; I wanted to walk into the offices of the Washington Post with a semiautomatic shotgun and lots of ammunition and begin cleaning house. I was filled with rage at the things I saw going on around me. I wanted to strike back at the liberals and the Jews and at their creatures.
And I know -- I am quite certain -- that the rage I felt every day when I was in Washington is in many, many other heterosexual White males as well. Rage is, I believe, a natural and healthy reaction, a normal reaction in a healthy man to what is being done to America and to our people. I can understand that women don't feel this rage and perhaps homosexuals don't feel it and certainly all the people who're on the other side, all the people who believe things are going their way, don't feel it, but I'm much more concerned about any White man who isn't enraged today than about those who are. I can only assume that any White man who isn't angry today, either doesn't understand the situation, or he needs to take hormone supplements.
Anyway, the conditions in every major city in America are conducive to the rage I felt in Washington. And the rage is growing, and it will continue to grow as a consequence of the policies of America's internal enemies. Those who feel, as I do, that random acts of violence are not especially helpful at this time, should not be thinking of ways to keep men from being angry, but rather should think of ways to help men control and direct their anger: to master their anger rather than being mastered by it. We all should be angry, but we should not express our anger in temper tantrums, which is essentially what these random acts of violence are.
Can you imagine our enemies acting in such an immature and undisciplined way? When the Jews want to hurt a country -- Iraq, for example -- they don't express their hatred for Iraqis by setting off a truck bomb in front of the Iraqi embassy. They very carefully make a long-range plan to get one of their creatures elected President, and then they use the powers controlled by the President to inflict really serious damage on Iraq. If the Clinton administration became angry at China, say, the government would not send a squad of U.S. Marines to shoot up a Chinese restaurant in Washington. And Janet Reno wouldn't show her opposition to letting Americans purchase firearms by ordering FBI agents to throw bricks through the windows of gun stores or to spray-paint hateful graffiti on the headquarters of the National Rifle Association.
The reason America's internal enemies are winning now is because they not only use their heads to make plans, but they also exercise self-discipline. They keep their feelings under control. When Madeleine Albright began her murderous bombing of Serbia this spring, every Jewish organization in America came out with strong statements of support for the bombing. It obviously was something the Jews had been thinking about for a while. But they did not act prematurely and foolishly by doing something like shooting up the Serb community center in Chicago. They understood that such an action would not cripple the Serbs or even weaken them; it would only put them on the alert, make them angry, and generate public sympathy for them.
I'll recap what I just said. Random acts of violence don't make sense now. Temper tantrums are not helpful. What we need now is self-discipline, not self-indulgence. It's good for us to remember now the old, old rule for people who want to get rid of a king. The rule is: kill the king with your first stroke; don't merely wound the king, because if you do he surely will kill you.
Again, if you are angry at America's internal enemies, do not indulge yourself with a foolish, premature, and ineffective act of violence. Control yourself. Don't break laws. Don't even talk about breaking laws. In America today many people are serving long prison terms for simply talking about committing illegal acts without having actually done anything. They are prosecuted under the government's conspiracy laws.
So if you don't like what Janet Reno and Bill Clinton and the Jewish media bosses are doing to America, think in terms of a long-range, effective plan, not some foolish act of self-gratification. And if you want to talk about long-range, effective plans, contact my organization, the National Alliance.
You know, some people who are angry at the government actually applaud acts such as Buford Furrow's shooting up the Jewish community center in Los Angeles. They believe that other people will do similar things, independently, and the government won't know how to deal with it. I mean, if many angry men, who don't even know one another, all do their shootings and bombings independently and unpredictably, what can the government do to stop them?
Listen, don't kid yourself! The government is perfectly capable of countering illegal violence with illegal violence, and if there's one thing the government is good at it's violence. People who advocate this sort of independent violence against America's internal enemies seem to believe that the government won't be able to counter it because the government is bound by laws: we still have a Constitution, et cetera. Believe me, the government will do whatever it thinks it can get away with, legal or illegal. Look what the government did at Ruby Ridge and at Waco. Look what it did to Serbia. We have a monster in Washington, and the mere fact that the monster has respected some laws so far is no guarantee that it will continue to do so in the future.
Both the Jews and the government, in fact, are using the recent Los Angeles shooting now as ammunition to chip away at the Constitution. Janet Reno is using it as an argument for a national gun registration law. The Jews are using it as an argument not only for more restrictive firearms laws but also for laws against what they call "hate speech." Jews want to abolish both the First and the Second Amendment. Since the shooting there have been polls of the couch potatoes, and the media already have persuaded nearly half of the American public that so-called "hate speech" is primarily responsible for so-called "hate crimes," such as the Los Angeles shooting. How much longer do you think it will take the Jews to persuade a majority of the couch potatoes that they will be safer and we all will have a more peaceful and loving society if the government is allowed to lock up anyone who says unkind things about Jews? If you believe that can't happen in America, then you have a lot more faith in the couch potatoes and their representatives in Washington than I do. A final word: I'm not trying to say that we must be careful not to provoke the monster, that if we don't provoke it maybe it won't eat us. The monster fully intends to eat us as soon as it can: as soon as it has proceeded a bit further in its program of persuading the couch potatoes that if they will just give up the First and Second Amendments -- and perhaps one or two others -- they all will be safer and happier. Ultimately the only way we can prevent that is by killing the monster. The monster is at war against America, against our people, against our freedom, against our traditions, against our children's future, and it is a war to the death. So far the monster is winning that war. If we want to change that, if we want to begin winning instead of losing, then we must fight the monster with intelligence and self-discipline, not with childish daydreams of victory through drive-by shootings.
Bosch/Bin Laden
I was looking last night at some paintings by the 15th-century Flemish painter, Hieronymous Bosch. Interesting, but pretty weird stuff. Bosch was sort of a godfather to the Surrealist school of painters, who came along 450 years later: Salvador Dali and his limp clocks, for example.
I don't know much about Bosch's life, but he was a moralist, and his paintings, with their nightmare quality, reflected his concern for the moral condition of Dutch society in his time. I thought to myself as I studied his paintings, "My God, what would Bosch be painting if he were alive today in America?" I shuddered when I thought about it. This is indeed an age which lends itself to surrealist treatment. Public life today lacks some important elements of reality.
I was looking at Bosch's paintings right after having seen Bill Clinton on television preaching about his opposition to a tax-cut bill which the Republican Congress had just passed, and that's what made me think about what Bosch might have painted in the Clinton era. I mean, there was this unspeakable piece of filth up there at his lectern, this reprobate, this criminal, wagging his finger and moralizing about doing what's good for the American people, and no one was hooting him down or even laughing at him. All of the media people were taking him seriously and showing him respect: not even an expression of distaste on the news commentator's face or a hint of contempt in his voice. I could imagine millions of other television viewers around the country soberly watching this same newscast and seeing nothing amiss. I believe that Howdy Doody or Fred Flintstone could have been up there on the speaker's podium with the Presidential seal, saying the same things Clinton said, and as long as the media people treated it seriously the viewers would see nothing amiss.
I don't know what the moral condition of Dutch society was like in the 15th century, but it certainly couldn't have been worse than that of American society today. Actually, I guess it's not really the moral condition of the American public I'm complaining about. It's the surreal nature of public life in America today.
I'll give you an example of what I mean when I say that there's something which isn't real about our society. When Israel's new prime minister, Ehud Barak, was visiting the United States recently, he was treated with great respect by the media people. He was described as an Israeli "war hero" and as the man who might be able to bring peace to the Middle East. Now, to the Jews the term "hero" has a different meaning than it does to us. Let me tell you about one of Ehud Barak's "heroic" exploits. In 1973 Barak headed an Israeli assassination squad which was landed on a Lebanese beach near Beirut late at night by an Israeli submarine -- supplied, of course, by the United States. Israel and Lebanon were at peace at the time, but Israel always has had a policy of assassinating troublesome Gentiles, whether they are Islamic religious leaders or Egyptian rocket scientists or Palestinians who write patriotic poetry or anyone else the Jews don't like. The excuse usually is that the victim was a threat to Israel. The threats which Barak's murder squad dealt with that night in 1973 when they landed on the beach near Beirut were two Palestinian political writers and a poet, living in exile in Lebanon after having been "ethnically cleansed" by the Israelis. Barak and two other members of his squad quietly picked the lock and let themselves into the house of Palestinian writer Kamal Edwan and his family in the Beirut suburb of Verdun at one o'clock in the morning. Using silenced submachine guns they slaughtered Edwan, his wife, and his daughter while they slept in their beds. Other members of Barak's murder squad killed the other two victims and their families. Escaping from Lebanon and returning to Israel as a "hero," Barak explained to journalists that it had been necessary to shoot all three members of the Edwan family because the women attempted to shield Kamal from the Jews' bullets. Well, the facts are that although the bullet-riddled body of Kamal's wife was found on the bed beside him, his daughter's bullet-riddled body was found alone in her own bedroom.
Now, all of the major media in the United States knew about this at the time of Barak's visit to the United States last month. These 1973 murders made headlines around the world at the time, and, as I said, Barak was treated as a hero when he returned to Israel from this murder mission. This sort of information is kept on file at the New York Times, the Associated Press, the Washington Post, and every major news agency. You can dig it up yourself from any major library. But there wasn't a word about any of this in the U.S. news media last month. Why not? Was it irrelevant after 26 years?
Imagine that it had been a senior statesman from Germany who was being entertained at the White House last month instead of the prime minister of Israel. Imagine that during the Second World War, in 1943, say -- that's 56 years ago instead of 26 -- the German statesman had been the head of an SS team which killed Jews, and the news media here knew it. Do you believe that they would have remained silent about the events of 56 years ago in order to avoid embarrassing our visitor or Mr. Clinton, or because they believed that the events of 56 years ago had become irrelevant after the passage of so much time? I mean, really, what do you think?
Let me help you: the Jews always get special treatment. They own the media, they control the Clinton government, they believe they're entitled to special treatment, and they get it. You know as well as I that it is inconceivable that any foreign official who had killed Jews, and the media knew about it, could be entertained at the White House while the media kept quiet about the official's past. But a Jewish official who has murdered Gentiles -- hey, that's different: no need to remind the public about that.
And of course, the murders of Palestinian families that Ehud Barak carried out under the cover of darkness in 1973 were not the end of his career as a cold-blooded murderer of women and children. The 1973 murders were among the few that made headlines around the world, but he kept on doing the same sort of thing. Nowadays, of course, he doesn't actually go out and shoot people himself; he just gives the orders to have people shot.
This year, the day after Barak took office as prime minister of Israel, his Mossad agents murdered a 27-year-old Lebanese nuclear physicist in his Paris apartment. The Jews believe that people who are likely to sympathize with their enemies, with people from whom they have stolen land -- with the Palestinians, for example -- should not be permitted to become nuclear physicists, because their enemies may benefit from the knowledge, from the expertise. And so the Jews arrange to have these people murdered whenever they can. They count on the media under the control of their kinsmen to cover for them and on crooked politicians who are in their pocket not to make a fuss. And the politicians who run France these days are approximately as corrupt as those who run the United States -- which means totally corrupt. So the Jews get away with this sort of behavior.
Well, that's Jews for you. And I really wouldn't waste much time worrying about the type of people they are or what they do if they were doing all of their dirty work over in the Middle East somewhere among their fellow Semites. But they're doing their dirty work over here, among us, and it concerns all of us. At least, it ought to be a matter of concern to all of us, because it certainly affects all of us.
I'll just recap what I've said so far: the mass media in the United States -- all of them, the TV network news programs, the national newspapers and news magazines such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News and World Report -- all of them knew about Barak's background when he was in this country recently, and they all covered for him. They all concealed his bloody past from the American people -- deliberately and knowingly concealed it and portrayed Barak as a "man of peace" -- so that Bill Clinton and the other politicians could suck up to him and promise him billions of dollars more from the U.S. Treasury -- our money -- without any protest from us. And the media did that because Barak is a Jew, because he is the head of the Jewish state, and they -- the media bosses -- also are Jews or are completely tied up in collaboration with the Jews.
Now that's a serious business, and it ought to concern all of us. It's not just that ordinary Americans, who depend on the mass media for everything they know -- or think they know -- about what's happening in the world are being deceived. One could argue that that's not important, because most ordinary Americans never understand anything anyway, whether they're being deliberately deceived or not, so what difference does it make whether it's the Jews or someone else who's deceiving them; they're just sheep; they don't count.
Now, that's not my position. I believe that we must have honest, accurate, and responsible mass media in the hands of our own people. I believe that ordinary Americans at least ought to have the information needed to understand what's happening in the world, whether they have the desire or the intelligence to take advantage of that information or not. But as I just said the problem is bigger than the fact that the public is being deceived. You know, there are a great many Americans who are not sheep and who are not so easily deceived: smart, wide-awake Americans who have the same access to information that I do, Americans who understand that their personal success and welfare depend on their knowing about what's happening in the world.
People like Bill Gates don't simply take at face value everything they see on their television screens. But Bill Gates doesn't speak out. He does nothing to counter the deception and plundering of his own people. Instead he knowingly collaborates with the Jews in the deception. His Microsoft Corporation is involved in a joint media venture with NBC.
And of course it's not just Bill Gates. No one who understands what's happening and who also has the resources to oppose it effectively is willing to do so. Everyone is looking out only for himself. Everyone is willing to collaborate with the Jews or with Bill Clinton or with any other evil and destructive group or person or policy so long as there's some personal advantage to doing so. No one is willing to stand up for what is true and right if there is no personal advantage for himself in doing so. There are not even ten righteous men of wealth and power in America to justify the continued existence of this nation, of this society. That is the nightmare quality of American society today which Hieronymous Bosch would be truly challenged to symbolize in his painting if he were here today.
Before I move on I want to state once more the point I've made here. First, Ehud Barak, the current prime minister of Israel, the man who was entertained in the White House by Bill Clinton last month and was promised billions of dollars more of our money, is a man who used to murder people that the Jews wanted murdered. He used to murder intellectuals whose ideas the Jews considered dangerous -- and their wives and children. He used to murder them personally and close-up, so that he got spattered with their blood and brains as they begged for mercy. He is a cold-blooded murderer. He is a terrorist. The 1973 murders in Beirut I described are a matter of public record, and you can check them out for yourself in any large library. Check using the key words Kamal Edwan.
Second, the mass media here all knew this, but they covered up for Barak. They would not have done that except that he is a Jew and it is in the interest of Jews to conceal his background from the American taxpayers who are supporting Israel. The Jewish media bosses do not want American Gentiles to know that the leading Jew in the world today, the Jew who is looked up to and admired by Jews in America as well as in Israel, is an assassin, a cold-blooded murderer of women and children. The media bosses do not want Americans to understand that that's the sort of man most admired by their Jewish neighbors.
Third, other knowledgeable people in America, knowledgeable Gentiles, rich and influential Gentiles, who should have been providing leadership and guidance to other Americans, also knew about Barak, but they remained silent rather than offend the Jews.
You know, you don't have to agree with me about what we ought to do about the Jews. You may believe that it's possible to live in the same country with Jews. You may even believe in equality or democracy or -- heaven forbid! -- diversity, but you cannot call yourself an honest man or a patriot if you were one of those who knew about Barak and remained silent. And of course, the concealing of Barak's murderous background from the public is only one of hundreds of similar moral failures I could cite, failures to speak out and provide the truth to the public on important issues when the Jewish media are deliberately concealing the truth. I've spoken myself about dozens of these issues on these American Dissident Voices programs: about the deliberate effort by the Jewish media to make the White public believe that most so-called "hate crimes" involve Whites attacking non-Whites, for example, by providing enormously inflated news coverage of the tiny minority of interracial crimes in which that is the case and completely suppressing the news of the majority of interracial crimes in which Whites are the victims. The public doesn't know about this deception, but many wealthy and influential White people do -- and yet they remain silent. You cannot call yourself a responsible American if you ignore the deceptions of the mass media, if you fail to speak out about these deceptions for fear of jeopardizing your career or your wealth or some business relationship you have with Jews -- but who is speaking out? I am listening. I hear no political leader, no religious leader, no business leader speaking out. So what will become of a country in which there no longer are any men of wealth and power and influence who care about the country, who feel responsible for it? What will happen to a society in which the masses care only about their ball games and their welfare "entitlements," as they're called these days, and the rich care only about their personal wealth and power?
Well, let me tell you, it doesn't take a Hieronymous Bosch to look at this society and notice that it is profoundly ill. Ordinary men and women all around the world can see that. And while Hieronymous Bosch isn't here today to chastise us for our lack of morality, other men who care about morality are: men like Osama bin Laden, for example. And the fact that men like Bin Laden can look at America and see that it no longer has a soul, makes them infinitely more dangerous as our moral instructors. Bin Laden knows that the next time he blows something up a great many people will applaud him, both around the world and in America.
The people you see on the television screen won't be applauding, of course. Madeleine Albright and Bill Clinton will be looking very grim and will be wagging their fingers and making threats about retaliation. The cameras will focus on the bodies being pulled from the rubble, and the TV commentators will be very serious and will have the couch potatoes everywhere feeling indignant toward Bin Laden and regarding him as a bloodthirsty terrorist who kills people without reason. But there will be tens of thousands of Americans who understand the situation and who will applaud Bin Laden in the privacy of their living rooms, and there will be tens of millions of people around the world who will applaud.
Let me reiterate: people like Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright would have you believe that a country doesn't need a soul in order to be healthy. Certainly, the couch potatoes, the lemmings, are not concerned about such things as the nation's soul. As long as the bread and circuses continue, as long as the ball games and the "entitlements" keep coming, they will believe that everything is all right. They really don't see anything amiss. They don't have any sort of moral compass inside themselves to tell them that things are very wrong in our national life. They simply believe what the media tell them, without even a twinge of misgiving. That's one of the surreal features of life in America today. The great bulk of the population -- the White population -- is marching happily toward national and racial extinction. That isn't natural. It doesn't seem real -- but it is happening.
And even though the couch potatoes can't understand this, there are people around the world who can and do. There are people who still are able to make moral judgments and who have the will to act on their judgments, in one way or another. Hieronymous Bosch is no longer with us, but Osama bin Laden is. And so are plenty of others who make manifest their moral judgments with weapons of mass destruction instead of with paint and canvas.
And of course, moral chastisement from without isn't the only consequence of our situation that we should anticipate. There will be a lot more craziness of one sort or another as people without moral guidance react in various ways to the stresses imposed by a disintegrating society: mass shootings, cult suicides, scandals and outrages of every sort, from the Oval Office to every corner of American life. When a society no longer has any righteous men, men for whom righteousness counts more than profit or comfort or personal security -- righteous men who will stand up and make themselves heard in America -- then every member of our society will pay a price. No one will escape the craziness. Some Americans will applaud when they see evildoers struck down; other Americans will become fearful and call for more security from the government. But the craziness will continue, it will become worse as our society descends into chaos, and it will not become better until we once again have a society headed by righteous men.
Bat Guano and "Hate Speech"
Today I want to talk with you about something which gravely concerns me, and that is the corruption of our government and our police by Jewish pressure groups. I've spoken with you about this before two or three times, but the threat to our liberty is becoming more serious by the day, and we all need to be aware of what is happening currently.
In brief, the Jews make up only two and one-half per cent of the U.S. population, but they are smart, they are aggressive, they are extraordinarily well organized and cooperate with each other at all levels in order to advance their own ethnic interests, and by cooperating have acquired a vastly disproportionate share of the power and the wealth in the United States. But that is not enough for them. They want everything, they believe they're entitled to everything -- at least, the religious Jews believe that -- and they're all trying their damnedest to get it. In the present Clinton administration they have for all practical purposes seized control of the Federal government. I can't remember when Clinton made a top-level appointment, in either the executive or judicial branch, that didn't go to a Jew. The latest Clinton appointment to go through was Richard Holbrooke, who even before he became the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was part of the Clinton team in the war against Serbia. Just like practically everyone else on that team, Holbrooke is a Jew. Now the Clinton government, which has been using the CIA in an effort to destabilize the Milosevic government, has put forward its candidate to replace Milosevic as the president of Yugoslavia. He is the former head of the central bank there, his name is Abramovic, and he is not a Serb but a Jew! There seems to be no end to it nor any limit to their brazenness.
Despite their control of the Clinton administration, the Jews do have some worries. They understand that they're not home free yet. There may not be many other people who speak out openly about the Jews the way I do, but there are a great many White Americans who nevertheless can see what is happening to America and who don't like it. Not every American is a brainless couch potato, who cares only about ball games on TV and his "entitlement" check. There are many Americans who have both brains and a sense of personal responsibility, even a sense of patriotism, although they haven't found the courage yet to speak out. If anything happened to really upset this "silent majority" -- well, anyway, this fairly large silent minority -- if anything happened to take away their comfort or their sense of security, they could really become a problem for the Jews to worry about. Some of them might begin speaking out themselves -- especially if I am still speaking out to set an example for the others. Things could snowball. The Jews could lose it all, the way they did in Germany in 1933, after they had gotten what they thought was a pretty good grip on that country.
And they understand that -- and they're taking steps to prevent that happening. The Jewish mass media, working in tandem with Jewish pressure groups such as the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, have been lobbying intensely for years to disarm Americans and to silence them. This is a concerted effort, a very tightly organized effort. Can you think of a single mass medium -- a single big-city newspaper, a single television network, a single national news magazine -- which isn't in favor of more gun control laws and more so-called "hate crime" laws? Individual Americans are divided on the issue of firearms. Some are staunch defenders of the Second Amendment, while others have let themselves be persuaded by the media that citizens shouldn't have weapons to defend themselves. But the Jewish mass media are unanimously in favor of more gun control.
The same goes for so-called "hate crime" legislation. Whereas the couch potatoes have mostly been convinced that "haters" ought to be locked up -- many of them, in fact, already believe that "racism" is illegal, that anyone who uses the "n" word, for example, has broken a law and can be locked up -- whereas the couch potatoes and the lemmings have been pretty well brought into line by the Jews, many thoughtful Americans disagree with the Politically Correct sort of law enforcement the Jews are lobbying for, where an offender is punished more for what he was thinking than for what he did. But the Jews, their media, and their pressure groups are 100 per cent in favor of more "hate crime" legislation.
And when it comes to taking the next step -- that is, scrapping the First Amendment altogether and actually enacting "hate speech" legislation of the sort that the Jews already have succeeded in having enacted in Canada, Britain, and many other countries and which many couch potatoes assume already has been enacted in the United States -- again there is a major division among White Americans. The feminists, the homosexuals, the liberals believe that we need such laws in order to maintain domestic tranquility, that it is more important to keep people from having their feelings hurt by "offensive" speech than it is to preserve the freedom to say whatever we believe. But that's still a minority opinion. A majority of White Americans have not yet been convinced that they ought to give up their First Amendment rights for the sake of tranquility -- but that's not for a lack of the Jews' trying to convince them.
On this issue the Jews are still being cautious. Whereas most major Jewish organizations still are proclaiming their support for the First Amendment, they are in fact solidly in favor of abolishing it. The Jewish media are using the same deceptions: they tell us that they are for freedom of the press, freedom of speech, but what they really are for is freedom of their press, freedom of their speech, not ours. They are for their freedom to continue promoting gangsta' rap music and producing films which propagandize racial mixing, but they are against our freedom to speak out against this propaganda and especially against our freedom to identify the producers of this propaganda and to talk about their motives.
Read carefully the way in which the controlled press deals with specific instances of what they like to call "hate speech." My organization, the National Alliance, publishes leaflets and pamphlets and stickers for mass distribution. Some of our members distribute these materials to the public. None of these materials would have been considered "hateful" just a few years ago. They do not use pejoratives or insulting language, and they do not urge violence or illegality of any sort. They provide facts and express opinions about matters of importance to White Americans. They have information about gun-control efforts and the people behind these efforts, for example. They have information about AIDS and its much greater incidence among non- Whites than among Whites, with the consequently greater danger of contracting the disease if one has sex with a non-White. They have information about the immigration crisis in the United States. One of the pamphlets we have distributed most widely is a documentary report on the control of the news and entertainment media in America. It's a report with the names and holdings of the top media bosses. We write, publish, and distribute these materials because we believe that the information and ideas in them are vitally important and need to be seen and thought about by all White Americans. But the controlled mass media routinely refer to these publications as "hate" literature: not just sometimes, but always. You cannot read a news story in any mainstream newspaper about our publications without seeing the word "hate" at least a dozen times.
Another item we distribute widely is the catalog of books offered by National Vanguard Books, the sponsor of this program. This 80-page catalog offers some 700 books and tapes, ranging from Aesop's Fables and Virgil's Aeneid to Friedrich Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra. It also offers a number of very hard-to-find books, such as the Protocols of Zion, which is certainly of historical interest, regardless of what one's personal opinion is of its contents. And yet this entire book catalog also is routinely denounced by the Jewish media and by Jewish organizations as "hate" literature.
And the controlled media always use the word "hate" in referring to our publications, not just because they don't like or agree with our books and other materials, but because they are trying deliberately to condition the public -- really to brainwash the public -- by forming the association in the public's mind between any officially disapproved or Politically Incorrect publication and the ideas of hate and violence and illegality. They attempt to frighten the public -- deliberately. And with a substantial portion of the public it works. We will, for example, distribute a number of copies of our documentary pamphlet on the ownership and control of the news and entertainment media in the United States; we'll hand them out to shoppers in a mall, or we'll mail a few thousand of them to the residents of a community, or we may even place them on the windshields of parked cars. The controlled media invariably will report such a distribution of our material in the following way:
"Residents of Centerville have been alarmed by finding hate pamphlets in their mail. Mrs. Alvin Jones of 100 Main Street reported to the police that she had received in the mail a hate pamphlet published by the National Alliance which claims that Jews exercise a disproportionate control of the news and entertainment media in the United States. The police are investigating the matter. Because the hate pamphlets were distributed by mail, the FBI also has been notified. An FBI spokesman told this newspaper that, unfortunately, there is nothing the FBI can do to stop such distributions under existing laws."
Often the newspaper will then put a little more spin on the story by printing a statement from one of the Jewish pressure groups I mentioned earlier, and that statement will describe our documentation of Jewish media control as a "myth" and will suggest that pamphlets like ours are responsible for violent and illegal activity. If you read newspapers at all, I'm sure you've read a dozen such stories.
Now probably Mrs. Jones was alarmed, and probably she did call the police. That's what she's been conditioned to do by reading such stories herself. She believes that that's what any good citizen should do when he or she spots a pamphlet which seems to be Politically Incorrect: report it to the police. She probably has a fuzzy notion in her mind that distributing such pamphlets is illegal. The media certainly do nothing to discourage that notion except to suggest that existing laws are inadequate: that if we had adequate laws, then the FBI could arrest anyone who distributes such pamphlets, and the local police could lock up anyone caught alarming citizens with such material.
I mean, really, think about it. If in the past you haven't noticed the sort of calculated fear- mongering I've just described, then pay close attention to the wording and the tone of the next news report you see about the distribution of National Alliance materials. Analyze the story, and I'm sure you'll understand what the newspaper is trying to do.
Well, that's only part of the threat to our liberty which I mentioned at the beginning of this program. In addition to persuading the couch potatoes that Politically Incorrect speech either is illegal or ought to be illegal, the Jewish media and the Jewish pressure groups also are conditioning police and other local authorities in the same way.
Did you ever see the Stanley Kubrick film Dr. Strangelove? If you didn't, you should. It's an old film, a satirical film made in 1964, but it's also the funniest film I've ever seen, and I guess I've watched it a dozen times. Stanley Kubrick really was cut from quite different cloth; he was unlike any other Jewish film director in Hollywood. Anyway, if you've seen Dr. Strangelove you'll certainly remember a delightful character in the film named Colonel Bat Guano. Toward the end of the film, when Peter Sellers, in his role as a Canadian Air Force officer, is desperately trying to telephone Washington with the information needed to head off an imminent doomsday nuclear war, Colonel Bat Guano, as a stereotypically pigheaded authoritarian, refuses to let the Canadian officer make his telephone call. To Colonel Guano, the Canadian is not to be trusted, because he wears a funny uniform and has a British accent. Furthermore, the Canadian wants to break a few rules in the emergency situation, such as taking coins from a Coke machine in order to get his call through to the Pentagon war room. Colonel Guano is outraged by such irregularities and never does understand the situation. The Canadian officer finally makes his telephone call, but by then it is too late to avert doomsday.
Anyway, the reason I bring Colonel Guano into the program now is that he is a wonderful embodiment of traits all too often found in military and police officials. Cops look up to authority figures and to institutions with an aura of authority. They believe what they see on television. They don't question it. They are likely to be indignant and hostile toward anyone who does question it. They don't like people who rock the boat or have a different view of things. They are strong on conformity and a bit weak on basic principles and on logical consistency. Certainly, this isn't true of all cops or all military officers, but the tendency is definitely there. The subliminal propaganda messages in the media find a receptive audience among cops.
And then Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith -- the ADL -- come along and offer to help the cops decide who are the good guys and who are the bad guys in this dangerous and confusing new age of multiculturalism and terrorism we are entering. Most local cops are a bit confused about this whole new category of so-called "hate crimes" the Jews have pushed through various legislative bodies in this country. Twenty years ago the whole concept of "hate crime" was unknown. The Jews invented it, and they are the self-appointed "experts" on it. Domestic terrorism also was virtually unknown in America 20 years ago, and the Jews also have appointed themselves experts on that. The Anti-Defamation League -- the ADL -- and similar Jewish organizations always are described by the mainstream media as "respected human rights organizations," and so they have an air of authority when they approach the police with offers of "help." What this means is that when an ADL official shows up at the local police chief's office in an expensive suit, accompanied by the Gentile mayor and a couple of other local politicians who are in the Jews' pocket, and offers to provide training seminars for the local cops on dealing with "hate crimes" and domestic terrorism, the Colonel Bat Guano element in the chief's personality kicks in. He doesn't question the ADL's motives. He just learns to despise the people the ADL tells him to despise, the people who aren't marching in lockstep with the lemmings. He learns to turn to the ADL for advice whenever any question comes up about dealing with dissidents. A sort of quasi- official relationship between the police and the ADL develops.
And this is really horrifying when you think about what the ADL is. It is an organization which has been involved in large-scale criminal activity of a sort which ought to put everyone concerned about our freedom on red alert. The ADL has been caught red-handed in the theft of confidential police files on a huge scale: files on more than 12,000 persons in California alone. The ADL has had its offices raided in California by police teams armed with search warrants to recover these stolen files. The ADL has bribed police and other public officials to gain illegal access to confidential information -- driver's license information, credit card information, and so on -- on tens of thousands of American citizens. It has passed on some of this information to foreign governments, and this has resulted in Americans being arrested and imprisoned by foreign governments when they travel abroad.
The ADL also has close ties to other Jewish criminal organizations. In 1985 the ADL gave its annual so-called "Torch of Liberty" award to the notorious Jewish organized crime boss Moe Dalitz, who at that time was the underworld "godfather" of Las Vegas. The ADL gave its award to Moe Dalitz at a black-tie banquet because he had funneled millions of dollars in criminal loot into the ADL's treasury. And it's not that the ADL didn't know what Dalitz did for a living or where the money came from that he gave to the ADL. Before Dalitz moved to Las Vegas he was the boss of the notorious "Purple Gang" in Detroit, an all-Jewish gang involved in smuggling, White slavery, and contract murder.
Although Moe Dalitz was killed in a gang shootout with rivals in 1989, the ADL has cozy relations with plenty of other Jewish gangsters. The fastest-growing organized-crime operation in the United States today is the Organizatsiya, which consists entirely of Jews from the former Soviet Union. The Jewish media, of course, never mention that it is a Jewish organization -- they call it the "Russian Mafia" -- but it is, in fact, the biggest, the best-organized, the most ruthless and violent criminal organization in operation today. And it is the most dangerous criminal organization to ordinary Americans. It steals such huge sums of money that it could even pose a threat to the American economy. It has ties to the Clinton administration, and to the Democratic Party, and now it is trying to gain ties, through the ADL, to the American law-enforcement agencies which are charged with fighting against it. The Organizatsiya is positioning itself to be the criminal organization of the New World Order. It intends to suck the blood out of the U.S. economy the same way it has sucked the blood out of Russia. Police agencies everywhere should understand what and who the real threats to law and order are. But they are being conditioned now not to understand these things. They are being conditioned to regard anyone who publicizes the Jewishness of Jewish organized crime -- me, for example -- as the threat, rather than Jewish organized crime itself. It was bad enough having the ADL, the media, and the Washington politicians in cahoots. When police agencies and Jewish organized crime enter the coalition, we're in real trouble -- all of us. And that's what's happening now under the guise of fighting so-called "hate crime."
Jewish Democracy
Well, there's been another dragging, this one just last week in Martin, South Dakota. Three Indians from a reservation there severely beat a White man, 21-year-old Brad Young, tied a rope around his neck and to the back of their truck, and dragged the White man until they thought he was dead. Then they cut the rope loose from their truck and drove off, leaving their unconscious and badly injured victim lying in a field, where he was later found. His ears had been torn off, and his face and neck were so badly lacerated that his family couldn't recognize him. The sheriff, noting the viciousness of the attack and that the victim was White and his attackers were Indians, told reporters that it was clearly a "hate crime."
The fascinating thing about this particular incident is that it is practically a mirror image of the dragging of a Black by three White men in Jasper, Texas, last year: three White men and a Black victim in the first case; three Indians and a White victim in the second case. In both cases the victims had known and been drinking with their assailants. Both draggings were unplanned and simply grew out of drunken fights. In both cases a beating preceded the dragging. The really interesting difference between the Jasper, Texas, case and the Martin, South Dakota, case is the way in which the controlled news media have responded to them. The Jasper, Texas, case was immediately on television screens around the world and remained on the screens for months. It periodically comes back on the TV screens as the deliberately spaced trials of the three perpetrators come up. Bill Clinton addressed the nation about it. Every Jewish propaganda organization and every Politically Correct columnist and commentator had something to say about it. But unless you're an Internet news junkie or a very careful newspaper reader you haven't even heard about the Martin, South Dakota, case. You certainly will never see it on television or hear Bill Clinton comment on it.
In the South Dakota case the media people have been trying to pressure the sheriff into backing down from his initial assertion that the dragging was a "hate crime." Since the victim knew his assailants and was voluntarily drinking with them before they beat and dragged him, it wasn't really a "hate crime," the media people have been saying; it was simply a bit of drunken hooliganism that got out of hand. You know, they could have said exactly the same thing about the Texas case, but they didn't, did they? In Texas their motivation was to exaggerate the atrociousness and malice involved, not to minimize it as they have done in the South Dakota case.
And for real media minimalization, consider the dragging murder of Patricia Stansfield by a Black near Streator, Illinois, on August 1 last year. I first reported this dragging to you nearly three months ago, in my broadcast of June 12. The 46-year-old White woman, a registered nurse, was deliberately dragged three miles to her death along a country road. Police found blood spots, body tissue, and bits of her clothing along the road. Sounds a bit like the dragging of James Byrd in Jasper, doesn't it, with all of those little painted circles on the road which we saw a hundred times on television? Patricia Stansfield's Black murderer was 26-year-old Christopher Coleman. But you haven't heard even the slightest peep from the Jewish media about the Stansfield dragging, have you? You might ask, why couldn't the media simply have presented the facts in each case, giving them approximately equal coverage and let the public make up their own minds and form their own opinions about them?
Well, we all know the answer to that question, don't we? The controlled media are not interested in presenting facts; they are interested in shaping public opinion, so they present the facts which serve their purpose, but not those facts which don't. We have three atrocious interracial draggings in the past 15 months, one with a Black victim and two with White victims. Even if you didn't already know, you wouldn't have to puzzle very long trying to figure out which one the controlled media would choose to report.
You know, even when the facts don't fit, the Jews sometimes will try to use them anyway. The media liars still refer to the two killers at Columbine High School this summer as "neo-Nazis" and "racists." They know that one of the killers, Dylan Klebold, was a Jew, and that both were not racists, but rather were anti-racists. They know that Eric Harris had an Internet web site in which he talked about how much he hated White racists. Now, those facts don't fit the image the Jews have been forging in the public mind of people who go on shooting sprees as being White racists or neo-Nazis. But they couldn't really suppress the story of the Columbine High murders, like they did the story of the dragging murder of Patricia Stansfield. The Columbine High story was too big to kill, so they just twisted it a bit. They repeated over and over the rumor that the two killers had targeted Blacks, even though only one of the 13 people they killed was a Black. They parlayed this false rumor about targeting Blacks into the characterization of the two killers as "neo-Nazis." And the general public, never too difficult to fool, has swallowed it.
At least, much of the general public has swallowed it. And most of the rest are such lemmings that even if they don't literally believe the Jewish party line on racial matters they pretend that they do. They are afraid of being out of step with everyone else. They are the ones who understand the danger and the unpleasantness of living with non-Whites, but who won't admit that they understand. They flee to White suburbs or to Whiter parts of the country to get away from non-Whites, but they'll never give you a straight answer about why they fled. Maybe it's a good thing that we're running out of places to flee to and soon will be obliged to stand and fight. At least, some of us will stand and fight. Many will just grovel and beg for mercy. That's the kind of White people we've been raising in America for the past 50 years.
I have a story on my desk about a murder in Salt Lake City last month. I suspect that this is a story you haven't heard before, because like so many others it doesn't fit. Early on the morning of August 3 a Black male slipped into a condominium where three young White women were sleeping. He stabbed one of the young women, 22-year-old Amy Quinton, to death, and tried to kill 19-year-old Erin Warren by stabbing her in the stomach. Erin was taken to a hospital in critical condition. The third woman, in a separate bedroom, was able to telephone police and escaped injury. You know, this sort of thing happens all the time; you just don't hear about it.
What I found especially poignant about this story was the reaction of one of the girls' neighbors. Bill McDade lives in the apartment just above the one in which the girls were attacked. He's 41 years old, and he moved from southern California to Salt Lake City with his elderly father several years ago to escape the non-White crime in California. He told reporters: "We moved up here from L.A. to escape this kind of thing. When I moved here it was very peaceful, very quiet, and very serene, but now it has gotten worse." He sighed and said that maybe now he would have to move again.
Well, here we are, the descendants of the pioneers who fought the Indians, conquered America, and built a White civilization on this continent -- here we are at the end of the millennium, just running, running, running, afraid to fight, afraid even to name our enemies. It certainly looks as if both the moral and physical quality of White Americans has declined during the last couple of hundred years. We really need to think seriously about the ways in which we can improve the breed when we move into the next millennium. But of course, our plight today is the consequence of more than bad breeding. It is to a very large degree the consequence of psychological manipulation.
I've said this to you 100 times, but I'll say it again now, because it is the single most salient fact of our present situation: Whoever controls the mass media of news and entertainment is able to control most of the public's perception of what is fashionable -- in ideas, in policy, in behavior. And for most of the public, their perception of what is fashionable determines what they say and do -- and to a large extent what they think. And in a democracy, where people who are easily manipulated by the media are permitted to vote, whoever controls the mass media also controls the government, for all practical purposes.
I'll give you a very specific example of the way in which this works: Every listener certainly remembers Buford Furrow's shooting spree in Los Angeles on August 10. The way the controlled media have harped on his non-lethal foray into the Jewish community center there, it'll be a long time before anyone forgets Buford Furrow. Well, of course, all of the publicity attracted politicians, the way a candle attracts other types of insects. They smelled votes. And one of these vote-sniffing politicians was California's governor, Gray Davis. He noted the publicity. He noted the hysterical reaction of various minority groups and women's groups and lemming groups. He saw an opportunity to win votes and a pat on the head from the media masters at the same time. He focused on the fact that Buford Furrow was characterized by the media as a "hater," that Furrow had belonged to a Politically Incorrect church in Idaho which the Jews have labeled a "hate group." Last week Governor Davis called a press conference and announced that California needs new laws "to fight hate groups." He said that he was appointing a panel to study ways in which California's laws might be used to impose civil or criminal penalties on so-called "hate groups," their leaders, and their members. He wants, he said, to "curtail the unlawful acts of these dangerous bigots."
That's worrisome talk. I believe that the police, the courts, and everyone else concerned already have figured out how to impose civil or criminal penalties on people who shoot other people, whether the shooters have been labeled by the media as "dangerous bigots" or not. Laws covering that sort of thing have been on the books for a long time. What Governor Davis's talk suggests to me is that he would like to punish people not so much for committing a crime as for having the wrong beliefs, going to the wrong church, having the wrong friends -- that is, for falling into the "dangerous bigot" category. His comments suggest that he believes that the laws should be applied differently to so-called "dangerous bigots" than they are to Politically Correct people. He wants his panel to study ways of getting around the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of speech. He sniffs a willingness of the lemmings to give up these freedoms in response to the media-generated hysteria, and he's eager to show that he's willing too.
I suppose that the most worrisome thing of all about this talk by Governor Davis of finding ways to impose penalties on "dangerous bigots" is the question of who decides who's a "dangerous bigot" and who's not. And I suspect that most of you already know who it is that makes decisions of that sort. Governor Davis doesn't make those decisions. The police don't make them. The courts don't make them. Jewish so-called "human rights" organizations, such as the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the mob-affiliated Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, working together with the Jewish media bosses, decide who's a "dangerous bigot." And whatever the Jews decide, that is A-OK with Governor Davis, who understands which side his bread is buttered on.
But you know, this is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they made a revolution against King George's government and fought the Redcoats in order to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. Our ancestors did not fight in the American Revolution and give us a Constitution so that Bill Clinton wannabees like Gray Davis can trash it in order to garner the votes of lemmings and please their Jewish paymasters.
I know that there are lots of ordinary folks out there who don't really want to abolish the Constitution, but they have let themselves be stampeded by the media into the belief that we really do need to accept some new limitations on our liberty in order to protect little children from crazed haters like Buford Furrow. These folks are not deep thinkers, and they're easily distracted by media sleight-of-hand. They are convinced now that people like Buford Furrow are the principal threat to little children and others, because that's all they hear about. They're also convinced that all of the outrage about Furrow they're hearing from media spokesmen is genuine. They don't have a clue as to what the true agenda of the media bosses is. But let me tell you: it isn't to protect little children from crazed killers.
Consider this: On May 3, three months before Buford Furrow shot up the Jewish community center, killing no one, a man named Steven Abrams deliberately rammed his Cadillac into a crowd of children on the playground of a preschool in Costa Mesa, California, just a few miles from the Jewish community center visited by Buford Furrow. Abrams spotted the children on the playground of the Southcoast Early Childhood Learning Center as he drove past in his Cadillac. He made a U-turn, aimed his Cadillac at the children, and accelerated toward them. He jumped the curb, tore through a chain-link fence, knocked a jungle gym aside, and plowed into the kids. Two of the children, a four-year-old girl and a three-year-old boy, were mangled to death under Abrams' car when it roared onto the playground. Five others were hurt, two of them with serious head injuries.
When the police arrived Abrams told them: "I was going to execute these children because they were innocent." I'll repeat Abrams' statement to the police: "I was going to execute these children because they were innocent." Does that sound like Abrams is dangerous or not? You know, Abrams' murderous assault on the Southcoast Early Childhood Learning Center did make the newspapers -- for about a day, and then it was quietly dropped. No breathless coverage on national television; no interviews with spokesmen from the Anti-Defamation League; no televised comments from Mr. Clinton. I'll bet you don't even remember reading about it. The Jewish media bosses weren't really interested in it. Governor Davis didn't interrupt his golf to comment on it. I mean, the school wasn't a Jewish school or a Black school, and a firearm wasn't used, so what's the point in making a big fuss about it? How's that going to help us get rid of the First and Second Amendments? And besides, when the murderer has a name like Abrams, the less said about it the better.
I'm sure that you get my point here. All of the outrage we're hearing from the media and the politicians about Buford Furrow isn't genuine. These people aren't really interested in protecting little children from dangerous nuts. The media bosses don't care about little children. They do care about disarming and silencing the public. They don't want dissent, and they don't want firearms in the hands of dissidents. And they are able to keep the couch potatoes and the lemmings hypnotized. Which is why the politicians, like Governor Gray Davis, dance to their tune.
What all of this amounts to is a disgusting caricature of civilized government. It's a preview of democracy in the 21st century, as the Jews would like it to be: at the top a Jewish elite of string- pullers and media bosses and money men; at the bottom a degraded and easily manipulated electorate of sports fans and hereditary lemmings; and in between a class of thoroughly corrupt and amoral politicians and bureaucrats to front for the Jewish elite and help keep the electorate in line.
One of the most interesting aspects of our situation is that a number of White Americans who don't fall into any of these classes more or less understand these things, but they don't do anything about them. They keep up with what's happening, even when it doesn't appear on network television. They think about these things, but only in a personal context. They don't worry about what these things are doing to the country or to the race, but only about how they themselves are affected. They try to adapt to this Jewish democracy in a way that will be beneficial to themselves. They are not corrupt in the same sense, or at least not to the same degree, as the politicians and the bureaucrats, but they have abdicated their responsibilities as White Americans. And they are dangerously short-sighted if they believe that they can separate their own fate, their own destiny, their own well-being, from that of their people.
My reason for saying that this abdication of responsibility is short-sighted is this: It's not just that here in America we have a disgusting caricature of a civilized society. America's sickness is spreading out and affecting much of the rest of the world. And much of the rest of the world is quite concerned and quite unhappy about that. In the remaining time today I'll mention only the example of Serbia's Kosovo province. Unfortunately, exactly what I predicted back during Madeleine Albright's bombing of Serbia has come true. The ethnic cleansing of Serb civilians in Kosovo began as soon as the Clinton gang forced the Serb military and police to leave the province. The NATO occupation forces are not keeping the peace in Kosovo at all. They are simply providing cover for the KLA to run the remaining Serbs out of the province and to murder those who don't run fast enough. The one atrocity committed by the KLA against Serb civilians which received enough publicity over here to gain the notice of the couch potatoes was the massacre of 14 Serb farmers six weeks ago, on July 23. That sort of thing or worse has been happening every week. Mass graves of Serbs murdered by the KLA since the bombing stopped in mid-June are uncovered every few days. More than 90 per cent of the Serbs who lived in Kosovo in June have now been driven out in terror or have been murdered: more than 90 per cent. Most of the American electorate -- most of the lemmings -- don't know that; most of them believe the fairy tales the Clinton administration tells them about "peacekeeping" in Kosovo.
The world, however, doesn't believe those fairy tales. The world can see what is happening. The world understands what America has become. America is seen not only as sick and irrational, but as dangerously sick and irrational. It is not a question of if but only of when patriots elsewhere will strike in order to safeguard their own nations. Responsible patriots here really shouldn't just sit around and wait for that to happen.
Hardheaded Altruism
Yesterday I received a letter from a National Alliance member who works in a hospital in Phoenix, Arizona. Most of his patients come to him through the emergency room, and he was lamenting to me the fact that the majority of them are non-White and most of them don't pay for their treatment. Furthermore, a large percentage of the non-Whites are illegal aliens. He kept score for a week and reported that approximately 45 per cent of his patients were Hispanic mestizos, 9 per cent were Blacks, 11 per cent were American Indians, 5 per cent were Asians, and only 30 per cent were Whites.
He wrote to me:
"The Hispanics, Blacks, Indians, and welfare Whites get everything free, through ACCESS and other socialist programs. The Hispanics flood the emergency room and take valuable resources away from patients who really need them. They bring their whole families to the hospital and have to be chased away by the security guards. They fill the waiting rooms at night and sleep anywhere they can. They ignore the trash cans and leave their trash on the floor. They try to invade the staff lounges for `free' coffee and whatever else they can pilfer. They think nothing of grabbing fresh sheets, pillows, and blankets from the linen stacks and making themselves beds on the floor. They smoke in the elevators and are generally a filthy, ungrateful lot. Even the Blacks resent them."
My correspondent describes a number of other details of his hospital work and winds up his description with the remark that the major complaint he hears from his freeloading patients is that the hospital needs to hire more Spanish-speaking staff members, the better to take care of their unpaid needs. Well, anyway, all of this helps to explain why hospital bills have become astronomical for that portion of the population which does pay for the services it receives. Each working White person who goes to a hospital for treatment is carrying about four drones on his back, three of them non-White. And the letter also led me to think about a number of related problems in our society.
You know, the reason each productive White American is able to carry four drones on his back is that our people, White people, have something that Black and Brown people don't have and never will have because we cannot give it to them, and that is our ability to create, to innovate, to invent. The technological revolution we have wrought during the past 50 years, a revolution based on our advances in science during the past 300 years, is what enables us to carry so much dead weight. But of course, the fact that we are able to carry dead weight is no excuse for doing so. Imagine the quality of life our people could have for themselves now if we were not carrying dead weight, if all of our productive work went toward the betterment of our own people.
Actually, the economic consequence of having our country flooded with non-Whites is the least of the evils this non-White horde has brought to us. My correspondent in Phoenix has described for us the way in which the environment has been degraded for White medical staff and hospital patients in Phoenix. Hospital conditions have become so bad there -- so much like conditions in the Third World -- that my correspondent finds himself hating an occupation that he used to love. But as a matter of fact, the living and working environment for our people nearly everywhere has been degraded in one way or another. Some American cities have not been hit as hard as Phoenix, while conditions in other cities have become even worse.
And it's not just our hospitals, of course. It's our public schools, our neighborhoods, our suburban shopping malls and the centers of our cities, our factories and stores and offices and recreational facilities, our colleges and universities. I'm really sick about the multicultural environment in our universities today, which used to be civilized enclaves of European culture. Before the stifling regime of Political Correctness took hold -- a regime which everywhere is a concomitant of multiculturalism -- before that, our universities were places where new ideas could be developed and freely expressed and where excellence was the goal and the standard for every endeavor. Today it's hard even to imagine the sort of stimulating and intellectually exciting environment we used to have at our universities -- and in addition to that the feeling of tradition and community and of being a part of something with very deep roots.
Well, that's all gone now. Of course, there still are many White Americans -- especially those living in smaller towns and away from the most heavily impacted areas on the east and west coasts, who have not felt the degradation of our living environment as much as my National Alliance correspondent in Phoenix has. Many White people have fled to less affected parts of the country. For others the decline has been so gradual that they have hardly noticed. But things are speeding up now. It is becoming more and more difficult not to notice what is happening. There are fewer and fewer places for White Americans to flee to. Within the next year or two many, many more White people will be reacting with the same degree of exasperation expressed by our medical worker in Phoenix.
And that is a good and necessary development. It is necessary for this degradation of our country to be speeded up, so that our people have a harder time ignoring it. If it proceeds too slowly most people will manage to ignore it, and that will be the death of everything. If this continued invasion of our living area by the Third World continues we will be completely swamped. We already have the Clintonistas counting down in eager anticipation of the day sometime around the middle of the next century when we will be a minority in our own land and a non-White majority will be lording it over us. And of course, it will be not only the drowning of America in a non-White tide, it will be the destruction of the last of the rain forests and the last of the wild animals everywhere, as the Brown and Black population explosions continue in their own parts of the world. It will be terminal pollution everywhere on our overcrowded planet.
How did this happen? What were we thinking of when we took our medical science to Africa and Asia and the jungles of Central and South America and reduced the death rates in those places so that their non-White populations could explode?
If we had just left them swinging through the trees and sacrificing each other wholesale to their various gods, instead of trying to get them to wear clothes and learn English or Spanish or French and wash their hands after going to the bathroom, they still would be happily making mud pies with their own filth and dying like flies, and their population density still would be what it was ten thousand years ago; the tropical rain forests still would be thriving, and the lions still would be eating as many of them as vice versa. Most important, we wouldn't be carrying them on our backs now whenever we go to a hospital; we wouldn't be subjecting our kids to them in our schools; we wouldn't have them shoved in our faces whenever we turn on a television receiver; we wouldn't be looking for parts of the country to which we can flee where there are fewer of them; we wouldn't be watching our whole civilization being pulled back down into barbarism by their dead weight. We could be masters in our own world, a cleaner and greener and healthier world.
So why did we do it? Well, there are historical reasons, and there are current reasons. Historically, we always have had a surfeit of shortsightedness -- or at least, the farsighted people among us were not in the policy-making positions. To a large extent, of course, we didn't have any policy when we settled the New World. We just let entrepreneurs do their own thing, and that thing nearly always was based on individual profit rather than on the general welfare of the race. We let a bunch of greedy businessmen plan things for their own benefit: cheaper labor, bigger markets, more profits -- those were their considerations.
And among the greediest of these businessmen seeking a bigger market for their wares were the Christian priests, hell bent on converting savages and saving Black or Brown souls. Christian universalism certainly played a major role in the destruction of our world. We should have lynched every missionary who had the crazy notion that Blacks needed Jesus instead of their own voodoo gods or that Mexicans needed the Catholic Church instead of their jungle temples, where they liked to cut the hearts out of their prisoners and eat them.
Completely aside from Christianity, we let the altruism which seems to be unique to our people run wild. It is wonderful that we care about one another, that more than in any other race there are among us individuals who really do feel the pain of others. It is wonderful that many of us want to preserve the rain forests of South America and the great wild beasts of Africa for their own sake. Whenever one of these United Nations commissions is organized to protect some part of our natural environment on this planet, I have a strong suspicion that all of the non-White members on the commission are there strictly for window dressing and for the stipend they receive for lending their non-White faces to the commission. Certainly, were it not for specifically White sensibilities, there would be no one combating the fur trade or trying to save the whales or the redwoods or anything else.
All of that is wonderful, but it is not wonderful that so many of us who are able to feel the pain of others do not seem to have the farsighted understanding which should go along with that empathy. We seem to have achieved that understanding when it comes to things such as forest and wildlife management. We understand that it often is good to permit Nature to take its course in the case of forest fires, or in maintaining the natural balance between predator and prey, and so on. But we need to apply the same considerations to the non-White races. We never should have permitted medical intervention in the non-White world. We should not be trying now to halt the spread of AIDS in Africa. We should not even consider famine relief for Ethiopia. We should not interfere in the mutual genocide between Hutus and Tutsis. Unless we temper our altruism with intelligence -- and especially, unless we limit it to our own race -- it will destroy us rather than help us achieve a higher civilization and a higher grade of humanity on this planet. What rules us now is a soft-headed, mushy, egalitarian, feminine sort of altruism, where we are more inclined to feed the starving picaninnies of Africa than to take account of the fact that every picaninny who doesn't starve to death now will grow up to breed more picaninnies. We feel sorry for the disease-ridden Blacks and Browns of the world, and instead of keeping them and their diseases strictly confined to their part of the world, we bring them into our part of the world so that we can share their diseases -- as in the case of New York's current outbreak of West Nile encephalitis imported from Africa.
What we need is a hard-headed, masculine sort of altruism, which makes us as concerned for the preservation of our own racial quality as for the stamping out of the fur trade, the sort of altruism which leads us to sterilize our own defectives rather than permitting them to breed a White welfare class, just as it leads us to thin out the two-legged population of Africa rather than permitting it to continue encroaching on the four-legged populations.
And you know, whenever I say something like that I can hear the screams of protest in the background. I can hear the softheaded altruists screaming that I am advocating genocide, and oh, isn't that awful. But as a matter of fact, it is their policies which are leading to a far more terrible genocide, with our race as the victim.
When one has a world overcrowded with races competing for a limited living area and limited resources, there will be genocide. The feminine altruists cannot face that hard fact, and their activities simply guarantee a bloodier and more destructive genocide in the end. The masculine altruists, on the other hand, should be capable of imposing a necessary discipline in order to preserve the health of a beleaguered planet and permit its most valuable life forms to continue developing, instead of being dragged down by the least valuable.
Of course, this whole discussion is academic at this point. The masculine altruists are outgunned now by those who, for one reason or another, oppose the imposition of any discipline. Certainly, many more White people, and not just in New York, will die from West Nile encephalitis, from drug-resistant strains of tuberculosis, and from a hundred other exotic diseases which the shortsighted, feminine altruists have inflicted on us. Instead of banning the carriers of these diseases from our continent, we will continue wringing our hands over the fact that so many Africans are dying from AIDS, and we'll continue trying to find a cure. And many, many more of our people, like the National Alliance medical worker in Phoenix will come to hate their jobs, hate the neighborhoods in which they live, hate the schools they attend.
I have mentioned some of the historical causes of our problem: causes for which we ourselves are largely to blame. But there also are more recent causes. Within ourselves we have both regressive and progressive tendencies -- both softheaded, feminine tendencies and hardheaded, masculine tendencies. Sometimes the softheaded tendencies prevail, and sometimes the hardheaded tendencies. And as I indicated earlier, sometimes we simply drift without guidance or policy.
During the past century our situation has been complicated greatly by the fact that we have had an alien element in our midst which has strenuously opposed our hardheaded tendencies and kept them from coming to the fore, and at the same time has encouraged our regressive tendencies or tried to prevent us from having any policy. We have seen this especially during the past 50 years, with softheaded policies on immigration, on education, on welfare, on law enforcement, on the relations between the sexes, on race relations, on the citizen's right to self-defense, and on a number of other issues vital to our survival and progress. This alien element, of course, is the Jewish element, and it has gained virtually a monopoly control over the opinion-forming media in America.
Just this week we have had another striking example of the way in which the Jewish media are able to manipulate public opinion and public policy. The former president of Chile, ailing 83- year-old Augusto Pinochet, went to England last year for medical treatment. In response to a complaint by a group of Marxists in Spain, last October the British government arrested Pinochet, and since then the lawyers have wrangled over whether or not he should be extradited to Spain to be tried on a charge of so-called "crimes against humanity." Specifically, the Marxists claim that when Pinochet was president of Chile between 1973 and 1990, his government tortured a number of communist prisoners during interrogation. Marxists everywhere have had a special hatred for Pinochet because he successfully crushed communism in Chile, and the Jews have had a special hatred for him because a strikingly high percentage of the communists he crushed were Jews.
No one really denies that in Pinochet's Chile some communist prisoners were dealt with roughly. That was the only effective way to deal with communist subversives, who were attempting to undermine Chilean society and take over the country. Whatever was done to the communists by Pinochet's police, however, was quite mild compared to what the communists did to prisoners whenever they got the upper hand. So today the leftists and the Jews are demonstrating noisily in London for Pinochet to be extradited to Spain so that he can be tried and punished because his government tortured communist prisoners during the time Pinochet was the president of Chile. The Jews are arguing that the normal immunity from arrest held by heads of state and former heads of state doesn't apply in Pinochet's case, because of the special nature of his crimes: namely, "crimes against humanity."
The fascinating thing about this affair is that all the while the Left and the Right have been arguing the pros and cons of Pinochet's case, another political leader whose government has routinely tortured prisoners since 1948 comes and goes freely wherever he pleases, including Britain, and there's never a yap about him in the controlled media, never a suggestion that he should be arrested and tried for "crimes against humanity." That political leader is Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Barak. At the same time that there has been a big stir almost every day in the media in Britain about the legal wrangling over Pinochet's pending extradition, there has a been a debate in the Hebrew press in Israel over whether or not the Israeli secret police should continue to torture their Palestinian prisoners during interrogation. Which is to say, there is a general recognition in Israel that the government there has had a policy of torturing non-Jewish prisoners.
Does this worry Ehud Barak? Is he concerned that he might be arrested and held for "crimes against humanity" if he travels to Britain or any other country? Is he worried that the arrest and extradition of Augusto Pinochet may set a precedent which could be used against him and other Israelis? No, of course not. He is not worried, because he knows that the controlled media will never raise the issue. He knows that if some group somewhere demands his arrest for "crimes against humanity," the media will simply ignore the demand, and nothing will come of it.
The average citizen hasn't a clue. He sees and hears the television reporters talking about what a cruel and violent government Pinochet headed in Chile, and so it seems to him reasonable that Pinochet should be arrested and turned over to a gang of Reds for a legal lynching. And the same citizen sees and hears Barak being greeted with a smile and hugged by heads of state wherever he goes, and so it never occurs to him that Barak should be punished for anything. Public attitudes toward either Pinochet or Barak could be turned instantly by the media if they chose to do so. But of course, they won't, because the controlled media take their positions on every issue on the basis of Jewish policy.
So this problem of Jewish control of the mass media is something that we must overcome before we can even begin to do anything about our Phoenix medical worker's problems -- or any other problem.
The Jews and the Senators
Sometimes the most important things occur virtually unnoticed, while people's attention is focused on things of no consequence. Last week, while everyone was glued to his television screen, oohing and ahing over Hurricane Floyd and watching the huge traffic jams of lemmings fleeing the southeastern coastal areas lest they be obliged to do a little wading, much more dangerous and sinister doings than wind, rain, and high tides were afoot, but hardly anyone noticed. The Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington was holding a public hearing and listening to suggestions from various pressure groups on ways to eliminate free speech on the Internet.
That's not what they called it, of course; they said they were trying to devise ways of keeping "hate" off the Internet. They want to protect children from being exposed to "hate," they say. They want to reduce the amount of violence in the country, they say; many people learn from the Internet to hate, and then having learned to hate, they run out and commit acts of violence. Keep "hate" off the Internet, and then there will be less violence. That's what they claim to believe.
Well, whether their theory about the Internet provoking people to violence is correct or not, it sounds as if the Senate Judiciary Committee really means well, doesn't it? I mean, who could be against reducing the amount of "hate" in America? That's really a Mom and apple pie issue, isn't it?
Of course, if you're a skeptical sort of person, as I am, you might want to know exactly what this "hate" consists of that the senators and the witnesses testifying for them are so eager to keep off the Internet. "Hate," it seems to me, could be a tricky thing to define. Would you call any expression of dislike or contempt "hate"? Maybe only a strong expression of dislike? How strong? Maybe whether an expression of dislike or contempt is "hate" depends on who is making the expression and who is the target of the dislike. I mean, really, how do you decide what is "hate" and what isn't?
Well, listen, you will be pleased and relieved to learn that we don't have to bother our little heads about that at all. We don't have to decide what is "hate" and what isn't. We have some very public-spirited people who have volunteered to do that for us. Lucky us! These are the very same public-spirited people who persuaded the senators to hold the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in the first place and then appeared as witnesses before the committee. They are Howard P. Berkowitz, national chairman of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith; Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center; and several other like-minded citizens of the Jewish persuasion. Morris Dees's Southern Poverty Law Center sent a witness to testify, for example.
These public-spirited citizens are referred to uniformly by the controlled media as "civil rights experts" or "human rights advocates." Isn't that reassuring to know that these people who want to protect us from "hate" on the Internet also are concerned about our civil rights?
Reading the testimony of these Jewish witnesses and the comments of the eager-to-please politicians on the committee is a surreal experience. Their language is Orwellian. Nothing really means what it sounds like it means. Rabbi Abraham Cooper referred to the Internet as a "terrorism tutor" and implied that a substantial part of the violence in American life is the consequence of permitting "hate" on the Internet. The truth, of course, is that most of the violent criminals in America never have had their hands on a computer keyboard. There is no evidence that even one act of real terrorism in the United States had anything at all to do with the Internet.
If, in fact, terrorists learn their trade from the media or are provoked to commit violent acts by the media, I would suspect Hollywood long before I would suspect the Internet. But I guess that Rabbi Cooper and Mr. Berkowitz and Mr. Dees would want to change the subject in a hurry if you began talking to them about violence inspired by television or by Hollywood films, however. After all, it's their tribe which is in control of the television and film business.
The witnesses at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing spoke of Internet sites where one can learn to make a bomb. Perhaps there are such sites, although I've never seen one. But I cannot think of a single terrorist bombing in the United States in which the bomber could have learned from the Internet how to build his bomb. Neither Timothy McVeigh nor the people accused of bombing the World Trade Center in New York were ever on the Internet, so far as I am aware. Certainly, no evidence was presented by the government at their trials to indicate they were.
Really, the whole notion that people commit violent crimes or terrorist acts as a consequence of "hate" on the Internet is simply ridiculous. Do you know what these anti-hate crusaders presented as evidence of terrorism inspired or facilitated by the Internet? I'll quote directly from the transcript of the hearing. The committee chairman, Utah's Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, said that he was pleased to have as a witness the assistant U.S. attorney from Los Angeles, Michael Gennaco, who had gained "the first conviction against a hate-crime assailant for acts taken on the Internet." Assistant U.S. Attorney Gennaco then related his achievement to the committee:
"On the morning of March 5, 1998, 42 Latino faculty members turned on their computers at Cal State Los Angeles to read their e-mails. They read a mean-spirited derogatory statement against Latinos. Using the most demeaning racial slurs, the sender told the faculty members that he hated their race, that he wanted them to die, that the only reason the professors were hired was because of Affirmative Action, that their race was stupid, greedy, and ugly, and that the sender was going to personally come down and kill each of them."
The student who sent this message to the Latino faculty members was tracked down, arrested, tried, and convicted. Of course, the name of the offending student wasn't mentioned in the hearing -- just for your information, his name is Kwon -- and it also wasn't mentioned in the hearing that Kwon is Chinese, because that inconvenient fact doesn't fit the general theme the committee wanted to develop. Before we get into that theme, however, let us remember that what this Chinese student did -- essentially sending a death threat by wire -- certainly was nothing new, and it required no new laws for its prosecution.
The fact that this was the best example the committee could come up with of a genuine Internet- related "hate crime" ought to tell us that this whole pretense of being concerned about the connection between "hate" on the Internet and violence is phony. These Jewish "human rights advocates" like Berkowitz and Cooper understand that there simply are no convincing cases of violence or terrorism stemming from the Internet, so after giving us the pitiful example of Kwon and his derogatory e-mail to the Mexican faculty members -- and giving it to us in such a way that many of us would assume that Kwon was a heterosexual White male, their stereotypical "hater" -- after this they try to bolster their case with all sorts of innuendo and misdirection.
For example, much was made in the hearing of the facts that Benjamin Smith, the University of Indiana student who shot a Korean and a Black this summer, belonged to the World Church of the Creator, and the World Church of the Creator has an Internet web site. The not so subtle implication was that if the World Church of the Creator had been kept off the Internet in some way, then the Black and the Korean shot by Benjamin Smith still would be alive. But that's really a false implication. Benjamin Smith wasn't incited by the Internet to shoot anyone. He knew personally the man who heads the World Church of the Creator; he was his close associate and helper. That man is an atto