Our cause

and “Playing cards”

 
wlp_bas_relief

by William Pierce

 
I will be trying to add both William Pierce’s transcribed speeches of American Dissident Voices and his Attack! articles chronologically, starting from the earliest. The text of the June 25, 1994 speech “Playing Cards on a Sinking Ship” is still needed but you can listen to Pierce’s sermon: here.

If the visitor doesn’t want to read or listen all speeches or articles by Pierce that I will be adding until the financial accident makes me starve, I would recommend the 1976 speech “Our Cause,” which I also reproduced here four years ago under the title “God and white nationalism”.

The New World Order:

Free trade, and the deindustrialization of America

by William Pierce

wlp_bas_relief
 
Every regular television news watcher has heard the expression “New World Order” often enough now to be familiar with it. George Bush really popularized the expression during the last two years of his administration. Prior to that one heard only occasional veiled references to it, but as Mr. Bush ordered wave after wave of bombers over Iraq to pound Baghdad into rubble and attempted to kill Iraq’s President with “smart” bombs, he spoke repeatedly of the need to punish those who tried to stand in the way of the New World Order.

Bill Clinton has used the expression even more freely: he has referred to the New World Order in connection with his futile efforts to assassinate Somalia’s uppity warlord Mohammed Aidid, with his support of Russia’s current clown prince Boris Yeltsin, and, most recently, with his campaign to push the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) through the Congress. Probably most of you remember Mr Clinton talking on television about NAFTA being essential for the New World Order and for equality in the world.

Most people who have become familiar with the term assume that it is merely an abstraction: a convenient label for referring, in a general, loose sort of way, to the reordering of international power relationships which has been going on ever since the Second World War—and especially since the collapse of the Soviet Empire at the beginning of this decade.

Actually, for the initiated, the New World Order has a much more specific and concrete meaning. In brief, it is a utopian system in which the U.S. economy (along with the economy of every other nation) will be “globalized”; in which the wage levels of U.S. and European workers will be brought down to those of workers in the Third World; in which national boundaries will for all practical purposes cease to exist; in which an increased flow of Third World immigrants into the United States and Europe will have produced a non-White majority everywhere in the formerly White areas of the world; in which an elite consisting of international financiers and the masters of the mass media will call the shots; and in which so-called “peace keeping” forces from the United Nations will be used to keep anyone from opting out of the system.

This particular scheme for world rule has very deep historical roots. Tracing those roots is fascinating, but I won’t have time for that on this program today. If you want to study the historical details, then you should read my article on the New World Order in the current issue of National Vanguard magazine, which is available from the producer of this program.

I’ll simply say today that the New World Order conspiracy had its origins in a series of international Zionist conferences held around the beginning of this century. It picked up steam during the First World War and really began acquiring concrete substance with the formation of a number of organizations in the period immediately after that war, the foremost of which was the Council on Foreign Relations. By the end of the Second World War the New World Order planners formed a virtual ruling class in America with total control of U.S. foreign policy and also a growing power to mold domestic policy to suit their internationalist aims. What these people understood, long before anyone else did, is the potential power of the mass media. They understood what enormous, hidden political power could be wielded in an age of mass democracy by a tiny group of well-organized people who could manipulate public opinion by controlling the mass media.

It should be noted that the New World Order booster club has developed a rather diverse membership as its schemes have matured. There are, of course, the original, power-hungry conspirators, who believe that their god intended for them to rule the world, and there are the cynical politicians of the Bush/Clinton stripe who go along with the conspirators, hoping to receive a few choice scraps from their table.

Then there are the crazies: the homosexuals and feminists, for example, who see in the New World Order the antithesis of the heterosexual, patriarchal world they hate with such insane fervor. Along with these are the lunatic egalitarians, who are hell-bent on “equalizing” everyone.

A substantial portion of the membership consists of a rabble of academics and literati who simply want to be fashionable; they would as enthusiastically support any other intellectual fashion possessing as large and skillful a press claque.

Besides all of these, however, there are many people on the New World Order bandwagon today for more or less benign reasons. The world population really is far too large. The ongoing destruction of the global ecosystem really is unacceptable. Something must be done—and soon. Many of those who recognize these facts are neither power-hungry cynics nor deranged haters nor even fashion-conscious eggheads, but instead are sane, principled men who simply do not have the moral courage to deal in a forthright way with the population explosion in the non-White world and with a number of other pressing demographic and ecological problems. They have opted for what seems to them the only solution for halting the self-destruction of the world which has a sufficiently powerful advocacy group behind it to be feasible. They really believe that under the New World Order Kenyans no longer will be permitted to machine-gun herds of elephants from helicopters in order to collect their tusks, Brazilians no longer will be permitted to destroy the rain forests with chainsaws and flamethrowers, and Haitians will be forced to use condoms. Even White Americans will be forced to curb their wasteful habits.

The New World Order schemers have played a very significant role in bringing about many social and economic changes in America, and I could spend a lot more time than we have today talking about these changes—and why the internationalists wanted them. If you want to understand that part of the scheme you’ll just have to read my article in the current issue of National Vanguard magazine. Today I must limit myself to just one New World Order policy, and that’s so-called “free” trade and what that policy means for America.

Our first really notable experience with “free” trade in the post-Second World War period was with Japan. A few years after the war Japanese cameras began displacing U.S.-made cameras from stores in the United States, until today they totally dominate the market: Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, Olympus, Fuji—they’re all Japanese. The only two American brands left are Polaroid and Kodak. If you’ll go into a camera store and look carefully at the Polaroid and Kodak cameras on display, howeever, you’ll discover that most of them were actually manufactured in Japan or elsewhere, not in the United States.

After succeeding in establishing a virtual camera monopoly the Japanese began moving into the consumer electronics business: portable radios, television receivers, VCRs, pocket calculators, microwave ovens, hi-fi tuners and amplifiers, etc. Within two decades they virtually wiped out domestic production. The few U.S. consumer electronics companies still surviving have their products made in Asia and then put their names on them and bring them into this country to sell them.

The average American saw nothing amiss with this; indeed, he regarded it as a boon. More products were available to him, at lower prices, than there would have been if Japanese products had been kept out by trade barriers. The unhappy voices of the few hundred thousand Americans who had been employed in the camera and consumer electronics industries were drowned out by those of millions of happy consumers. When Japanese automobiles began appearing on American streets in large numbers in the 1970s, there was more of a reaction. The unionized automobile and steel workers were able to make their voices heard. They smashed Japanese cars with sledgehammers in publicity stunts designed to win sympathy for their plight. Even the politicians who had been bought by the internationalists got into the act: worried by the threat of losing union votes, they put on serious faces and talked to the television cameras about limiting the number of Japanese cars which could be brought into the country. The percentage of Hondas, Toyotas, Subarus, Nissans, and other Japanese vehicles sold in America eventually stopped rising. General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler pulled in their belts, fired a few hundred thousand American workers, and announced that they would survive. Although the U.S. steel-making industry was hit hard and was forced to close dozens of plants, it also managed to hang onto life.

All was not quite as it seemed, however. Americans were reassured by the sight of new Fords, Chevrolets, and Dodges on their highways, but in many cases not much more than the name was actually American. The Chrysler corporation sold Dodge Colts which, in fact, were made in Japan by Mitsubishi. Under a Chevrolet label General Motors sold light pickup trucks which were produced entirely in Japan. Ford did the same thing, not only with some of its consumer vehicles, but also with its farm tractors.

Japan is not the only country which has claimed a part of what used to be the American automobile industry. U.S. auto companies have stayed in business only by having more and more of the work which goes into their cars performed outside of the United States, in order to take advantage of vastly cheaper labor. Wiring harnesses from Mexico, electronic ignition modules from Taiwan, seat covers and other upholstery from Korea, alternators from Brazil, speedometers and other dashboard instruments from Hong Kong: more and more of what is sold as “American” is made elsewhere and only assembled in the United States.

The Asian country which has benefited most in recent years from the U.S. policy of “free” trade is China. The Chinese assault on American industry was not widely noticed at first, because the Chinese did not begin with high-profile consumer items, such as cars or television receivers. They began at a more basic level, first with machine tools and then with hand tools. They have virtually destroyed the American machine-tool industry singlehandedly.

In the 1950s the United States was the world leader in the manufacture of machine tools, with more than 50 per cent of the total production. Machine tools—lathes, milling machines, grinders, stamping machines, and the other large, motorized tools used in factories—are the most essential component of a nation’s industrial base. Today we make only six per cent of the world’s machine tools. In the last decade alone our share of the world’s production has declined by a factor of three, down from 19 per cent in 1984. It’s still dropping. In another five years we’ll have only three or four makers of machine tools left, and they’ll be making only highly specialized, computer-controlled tools. All of the general-purpose machine tools used in the United States will come from China or Brazil.

The same thing is happening to the U.S. hand-tool industry. If one examines the plastic-packaged tools and accessories hanging on the display peg-boards in any of the larger automotive parts stores—the spark plug wrenches and screwdriver sets and compression testers—one will find that somewhere between two-thirds and three-quarters of them are imported from Asia, mostly from China. With the larger tools—hydraulic floor jacks, for example—the situation is worse: the chances are about nine out of ten that one will find a “Made in China” label. If there are any U.S.-made jacks still to be found, they will be priced at about three times the price of a Chinese jack of similar quality. American manufacturers, with their much higher labor costs, simply cannot compete with Chinese industry, and they are being driven out of business.

For the past few years the Chinese have been moving into the production of low-priced consumer goods as well: the sort of plastic household goods that housewives buy in K-Marts or Wal-Marts. Because these goods are priced substantially lower than similar American products, consumers welcome them. They do not consider the fact that the well-paid American workers who formerly made such goods in U.S. factories now are scrambling to find service-industry employment at substantially lower wages.

The Chinese (including those in Hong Kong and Taiwan) and the Japanese are not the only Asians who are destroying the U.S. industrial base. The Koreans, for example, have had the U.S. clothing industry under attack for years and have devastated large sections of it. Mr. Clinton has just invited the Vietnamese to join the feeding frenzy.

There is a double significance to this transfer of American industry out of the country. In the first place, it lowers the average wage level of American workers, as they are forced to move from manufacturing into a service industry or into less than full-time employment. And although factory workers are the first to be hit, eventually most other segments of the work force suffer as well, even the yuppies and others who would never think of working with their hands. When people who used to work in factories have less money to spend, there’s less money to earned by everyone.

In the second place, the transfer of industry out of the United States robs us of national self-sufficiency. It may not matter much whether we have factories for producing panytyhose and plastic hair curlers or we import these things from Korea, but it matters very much whether or not we produce our own machine tools. If the Koreans give us an ultimatum: do what we say or no more plastic hair curlers, we can laugh in their faces. If the Chinese decide not to sell us more machine tools, however, we’ll be in trouble.

This, of course, is exactly what the New World Order boys planned. “Interdependence,” they call it. They began selling us on the virtues of interdependence—and the evils of independence—as early as the 1950s. The New World Order is a system in which every country is dependent on many other countries for its necessities of life, and no country is independent enough to opt out of the system and go its own way.

“Free” trade is essential to the whole scheme. The controlled media deliberately have created the impression in the public mind that “protectionism”—the regulation of imports through the imposition of tariffs or quotas—is a corrupt policy which benefits greedy industrialists at the expense of everyone else. Actually, it is a necessity for national survival and progress. Consider just three facts:

Fact Number 1: Merchants always will buy their manufactured goods from the supplier who will give them the best price for goods of a specified quality. If the best price is from a foreign supplier, and if international trade is unregulated, then the merchants will import their goods from abroad. On an individual basis the merchants really have no choice in the matter: a widget merchant who pays two or three times as much for his American-made widgets as other widget merchants do for their Chinese-made widgets soon will be out of the widget business.

Fact Number 2: For most manufactured goods the cost of the labor which went into them is the largest single component of the total production cost. When one country has a much lower wage scale than another country, then it will be able to sell its manufactured goods at a lower price, other things being equal. The other things are labor discipline, organizational skill, and the possession of the necessary machinery and raw materials. Thus, Ghana or Zambia, for example, could not compete with the United States in the production of manufactured goods even if it paid nothing at all for labor, because it lacks labor discipline, organizational ability, and an industrial base. China, on the other hand, has very cheap labor which is better disciplined than that in America, as well as the needed organizational skills for utilizing that labor effectively in large-scale enterprises. Furthermore, China has painstakingly built up its industrial base—with our collaboration—during the past 40 years or so.

Fact Number 3: When industrial production moves from a country with high wages to a country with low wages, the immediate effect will be a reduction in the difference in wages between the two countries. Wages in the country which gains the industry will rise, and wages in the country which loses the industry will fall. This will be true whether the production is in the hands of nationally based companies or a multi-national corporation. Thus, if the North American Free Trade Agreement results in the Ford Motor Company closing a plant in Detroit and building a new one in Tijuana for the production of Fords, wages will rise in Mexico and fall in the United States just as surely as if the production had shifted from Ford to a company owned entirely by Mexicans.

What this means is that if an industrialized country which has built up a high standard of living for its citizens wants to maintain its industrial base and its living standard, it must regulate imports of goods from countries with lower wage scales. If it does not, its industrial base will be eroded, and its living standard will fall. This is a fairly simple economic fact, and most Americans could understand it if the proponents of the New World Order had not thrown up a smoke screen of obfuscation. They claim that there will be “readjustments” to be made when all trade barriers are down, but that in the long run everyone will benefit. We will import more goods, they say, but we also will export more, and everything will even out. That is not true, and they know it. What will “even out” will be wage scales around the world. The rich countries will become less rich, and the poor countries will become less poor, and if the process continues long enough wage scales—and standards of living—will approach equality, which is what the egalitarian ideologues among the globalists really are aiming at. To them the present state of affairs, with White Americans earning 20 times as much as Mexican peons or Chinese coolies, is “unjust.”

Other New World Order ideologues see in the interdependence which will result from wiping out a number of strategically vital industries in the United States (and other industrialized nations) a sure way to prevent international conflict in the future. They have taught two generations of Americans that “cooperation” is a virtue in itself, and we will be a more virtuous nation when we no longer are able to act unilaterally: that is, when we must secure the agreement of the countries which supply our ball bearings and our computer chips before we make a major move in international affairs.

All of this is not to say that international trade is a bad thing in itself. Trade, like many other things, should be an instrument of national policy. A nation’s international trade should be regulated with one aim in mind: to maximize the security and prosperity of the nation. Americans can hardly expect that of a government headed by a man who only two decades ago was demonstrating in the street with other draft-dodgers, gleefully chanting, “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the Viet Cong’s gonna win!”

The only environment in which unregulated trade can be tolerated is within a natural community of interest: i.e., within a group of political entities which have a common sense of identity and a common set of interests, determined by Nature rather than by politics alone. In such an environment unrestricted trade usually is beneficial. For example, we do not want to protect Michigan’s automobile industry from competition by an automobile manufacturer in Indiana or Texas. If Texans can build a better car at a lower price, then we, as Americans, are better off for it. We don’t worry about people in Michigan becoming dependent on Texans, because we’re the same people.

But we damned well better worry about being dependent on Chinese and Mexicans, who are fundamentally different from us in many ways.

Most White Americans, I am sure, even if they have been taken in by the egalitarian propaganda that racial differences really don’t mean anything, are not willing to have their own living standards continue to go down, so that Chinese and Mexican living standards can rise. And very few real Americans are willing to sacrifice our national independence and security to a scheme which will make us dependent on countries like China and Mexico for a lot more than cheap consumer goods.

But that’s exactly what’s happening now. Mr. Clinton and the gang in the White House are pushing as hard as they can to destroy American sovereignty, to boost interdependence at the expense of national independence, and to make us equal to Mexicans and Chinese.

The only way we can stop this is to reach millions of people with our message, to make them understand the consequences of the ongoing destruction of America’s industrial base and the motives of those responsible for it. We must make every American understand what a dangerous and evil scheme the New World Order is and what disastrous consequences it will have for all of us if we fail to derail it while there is still time.

—March 19, 1994

Criminals with Badges

by William Pierce

wlp_bas_relief 
Today I want to share with you my very deep concern, my worry about the crime problem in America. I don’t mean the sort of crime we hear about and see every night on the television news: the drive-by shootings by drug gangs, and the muggings and robberies, and the rapes and the burglaries, and the murder of some tourist who made the mistake of stopping her car in the wrong neighborhood. All of that is just part of the price we pay for multiculturalism. It comes with the diversity we’re told we’re so lucky to have.

No, that crime problem is bad enough, but it’s a different crime problem and a different type of criminal I want to talk about today, a much more dangerous type of criminal.

I’m sure that everyone listening today has heard about what happened in Waco, Texas, earlier this year when the government wiped out a bunch of religious cultists. Let me just briefly review the facts of that matter. A group of 140 or so people—men, women, and children—were living a few miles outside Waco in a little community they called Mount Carmel. They were members of a church which had split off from the Seventh Day Adventists back in the 1930s. They called themselves Branch Davidians. The church group had been at Mount Carmel for more than 30 years, on land they owned and in buildings they had built with their own hands. Occasionally they had internal squabbles, but they never caused any trouble for their neighbors. They believed in keeping to themselves.

Sophisticated people might sneer at the beliefs of the Branch Davidians, but their ideas really were no stranger or more irrational than those of many other churches, including some quite large ones, which base their beliefs on literal interpretations of the Bible. The Davidians put an especially heavy emphasis on the Book of Revelation and believed that the collapse of civilization was at hand. They believed that they should separate themselves from society and prepare for Judgment Day. For this reason they had stocked up on food, fuel, and other necessities—including, apparently, a few guns.

Now, there’s no law against stocking up on guns, even if you take the Bible seriously. But the government is pretty nervous these days about anyone who isn’t Politically Correct having the means to protect himself. And certainly the Branch Davidians were a Politically Incorrect group. For one thing they believed in spanking their children when they needed discipline. The government calls that “child abuse.” They also believed in permitting their girls to marry as young as 13 years old, and they let the leader of their church have more than one wife. So when a disgruntled former member told the government that the leader of the group, David Koresh, was a dangerous man and that he had a lot of guns, the government sent an undercover agent, a spy, in to check it out. Apparently the spy found nothing illegal going on at Mount Carmel. At least, if he did, the government hasn’t said what it was. But he did find out enough to lead one of the government’s secret-police agencies, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, to decide to raid the place.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms—ATF for short—is basically a bunch of tax-enforcement cops. Their original job was to make sure that the government got its tax on every bottle of booze and every pack of cigarettes sold in the United States. That accounts for the alcohol and tobacco part of their name. Back in the days of Prohibition and widespread moonshine making they stayed pretty busy, breaking up unlicensed stills and raiding illegal nightclubs. Some of the people they raided used to fight back with tommy guns, and so eventually the ATF also got the job of making sure that anyone who bought a tommy gun paid the required tax on it and filled out all the government forms. These days that’s most of the ATF’s work: checking to make sure that whenever firearms are bought or sold all of the required forms are filled out.

When you give people work like that to do, it’s no wonder that they eventually turn mean. The ATF has the reputation of being the most vicious bunch of armed thugs on the Federal payroll. There have been several efforts in recent years to get rid of them, to phase them out, to cut off their budget. They’ve survived because they’re the darlings of the gun-control nuts in the media. They’ve allied themselves with the people who believe that no one should have the right to self-defense, that all privately owned firearms should be confiscated by the government. The gun-control nuts love the ATF because it locks up gun owners who didn’t fill out all the forms.

It not only locks them up, it terrorizes them: it stages spectacular raids, often inviting the news media to come along and film the ransacking of their homes and the seizing of their guns. The ATF craves publicity, because it’s trying to convince the public that the ATF’s raids are protecting everyone from dangerous people who have guns. So the ATF looks for photo opportunities, for the chance to stage media events.

There’s no better target for one of the ATF’s photo opportunities than a cult. The ATF usually doesn’t raid people in the mainstream. It picks people or groups who aren’t likely to have powerful friends. It picks on people who seem a little strange or different, people who aren’t likely to get much sympathy from the general public. And once a group has been labeled a “cult” it’s not likely to get much public sympathy. To ordinary people cults seem sinister, unnatural, dangerous. And certainly the Branch Davidians had many of the characteristics of a cult. So the ATF decided to raid them. There was no proof that the Davidians had done anything illegal, of course. But they did have guns, and they were a cult. So a raid was organized: a big one, with plenty of newspaper reporters and camera crews from the television networks.

Early on the morning of February 28 this year, a Sunday, the ATF launched its raid, sending a hundred heavily armed agents up ladders and onto the roofs of Mount Carmel’s buildings, with the television reporters recording everything. Then the shooting started. The ATF says the Branch Davidians fired first. The surviving Davidians say the ATF fired first. It’s difficult at this time to know which side is telling the truth. We do know, however, that when the ATF stormed their homes, the people in Mount Carmel called the police for help. They dialed 911, and as with all 911 calls it was recorded. On the recording the group’s leader, David Koresh, can be heard frantically asking the police to send help. “There are armed men outside, and they’re shooting at us!” he cried excitedly into the telephone. And Koresh and his people did shoot back at the armed men swarming over their homes. They shot back and killed four of the attackers and wounded more than a dozen others, forcing the ATF to retreat.

The folks in the Clinton administration back in Washington weren’t happy to hear that. People aren’t supposed to fight back when the secret police attack them. So Clinton sent in the FBI, and the FBI brought along its elite Hostage Rescue Team, although it’s not clear who were the hostages to be rescued.

A long standoff began. The ATF and the FBI were outside with their tanks and machine guns and helicopter gun ships. Inside were David Koresh and his wives and children and the other members of his church, along with the bodies of six church members killed by the ATF during its initial attack. In a recorded telephone conversation between Koresh and an ATF agent during this period, Koresh asks why the ATF hadn’t just given him a telephone call and told him they wanted to check his guns or perhaps stopped him when he was out jogging and asked him about it. He said, quote, “It would have been better if you just called me up or talked to me. Then you could have come in and done your work.” End quote. Koresh also spoke with his attorney by telephone during the standoff, and that conversation also was recorded. Koresh explained why his church members had shot back at the ATF agents during the February 28 raid. He said, quote: “I don’t care who they are. Nobody is going to come to my home, with my babies around, shaking guns around, without getting a gun back in their face. That’s just the American way.” End quote.

Yes, that is the American way, or it used to be, when America was still healthy. Bill and Hillary Clinton wouldn’t understand that, of course. Certainly Attorney General Janet Reno and the people in the ATF and the FBI wouldn’t understand it either. Nor would all of the gun-control nuts in the media who think the ATF is just wonderful.

After what had happened Koresh and his followers didn’t think the ATF people were so wonderful, however, and they weren’t inclined to surrender to them, although Koresh did let the church members who wanted to leave go out, and more than 20 children went out with them. But the rest—more than a hundred—stayed with Koresh and prayed and read their Bibles.

And eventually the secret police got tired of waiting, and so on April 19 they got the OK from the Clinton administration in Washington to move against Mount Carmel with tanks, to knock holes in the buildings with the tanks and pump in gas. And so that’s what the ATF and the FBI and the so-called Hostage Rescue Team did.

During the siege the electricity had been turned off to Mount Carmel, and so the church members had begun using kerosene lanterns for light indoors. And when the ATF had shot out the glass in their windows, they had piled up bales of hay against the windows to keep the cold wind out. When the tanks smashed holes in their walls, a lantern was knocked over and set the hay afire. It was a windy day, and the fire spread quickly. Before it was over 99 church members were dead—or a hundred, if we count one fetus which burned to death with its pregnant mother.

Mountcarmelfire-04-19-93The ATF and the FBI immediately put the blame on the church members. “It was mass suicide,” the ATF and the FBI said. “They set the fire themselves.” And the Clinton administration people in Washington echoed: “Yes, yes, it was mass suicide! They set the fire themselves.”

But unfortunately for the ATF and the FBI and the Clinton administration, there were a few survivors, a few church members who managed to escape the flames, and they explained what had happened inside. They explained about the hay and the kerosene lanterns, and they explained that there never was any intention to commit suicide. They explained that when one of the government’s tanks started the blaze, it spread so rapidly that most of the church members were trapped.

One more fact: after the fire had burned itself out and all the charred corpses had been hauled away, the ATF began sifting through the ruins looking for all those illegal weapons it had talked about during the siege. It had claimed, after the failure of its initial assault in February, that the church members had had the ATF “outgunned.” The church members in Mount Carmel had been shooting back with .50 caliber machine guns, the ATF claimed. After the fire the ATF began releasing more stories to the news media about all the dangerous weapons it anticipated recovering from the ruins. It hinted about hand grenades, bombs, rockets and other weapons. But it never did recover anything of the sort, because there was nothing of the sort. The ATF had been practicing what the government calls “damage control”: lying to protect its image, lying to make the Davidians look dangerous and criminal, lying to justify the killing of a hundred or so innocent people.

So today David Koresh and his church members are dead, Mount Carmel has been wiped off the map, and the Clinton administration people in Washington are going about their business as usual. The FBI and the ATF are still carrying guns and looking for new photo opportunities. The FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team, which on April 19 murdered more people in one day than it has rescued in its entire existence is still in business, still drawing paychecks and presumably looking for more people to practice its rescue skills on.

That’s the crime problem in America I’m worried about. I’m worried when the government commits mass murder and gets away with it and doesn’t even seem to be ashamed of itself.

Now, I know that the Clinton administration and the FBI and the ATF and the so-called Hostage Rescue Team say it wasn’t murder at all. They say they didn’t intend to kill all of those people, especially not the women and the children, that it was just an unfortunate accident and let’s stop talking about it and get onto some other subject, like the economy.

An accident! Suppose there’s a church down the street whose beliefs I find offensive and I hear rumors that they’re using the wrong kind of Bible, and besides that some members of the church are said to carry guns. So I take a bunch of heavily armed men and march into that church and demand that they all come out with their hands up. It’s not my intention to kill anyone, just give them a good scare and check out what kind of Bible they’re using. But the people in the church panic, shooting starts, and when it’s all over a hundred people are dead. What does that make me?

A mass murderer, that’s what. And what does that make Bill Clinton and Janet Reno and their secret police bosses? Mass murderers, that’s what. There was absolutely no excuse for the ATF to attack David Koresh and his church in the first place. Absolutely no excuse, even if they hadn’t filled out all the ATF forms for whatever guns they had. For the ATF it was just a publicity stunt. The ATF thought it could get away with it, because it’s been allowed to get away with similar publicity stunts in the past. And when the publicity stunt backfired and people were killed the ATF was guilty of murder, regardless of what its intentions were. No government should tolerate that sort of criminal irresponsibility. A government that does tolerate it is itself criminally irresponsible and deserves to be overthrown by its citizens.

Do my words sound too strong? Do I sound like some sort of extremist? Do you understand what has happened? A hundred people, mostly women and children, who never bothered their neighbors have been murdered by the government. A church, which may have been a little bit nutty, but which had just as much right to practice its religion as any other church in this country, has been wiped out. The government did it. And the government isn’t even apologetic about it. That scares me. I don’t think such a government should be tolerated. I’d rather take my chances with Black street gangs any time than with such a government.

Another thing that scares me is the lack of concern on the part of most Americans. I realize, of course, that Americans see nearly everything that happens through the lens of the controlled mass media, and throughout the entire affair in Waco the television networks were practically a cheering section for the ATF. Every time the ATF or the FBI came out with a new lie about the Davidians or what had happened, the news media repeated it as if it were fact.

If the news media had immediately publicized the recorded telephone conversations with Koresh—his 911 call to the police in which he asked for help and reported that armed men were shooting at his church—if they had publicized his comment to the ATF agent after the February 28 attack, when he said “It would have been better if you’d just called me up or talked to me. Then you could have come in and done your work.” Or his comment to his lawyer that when people came charging into his home waving guns around his babies, they were going to have guns shoved right back into their faces, because that’s the American way—if the news media had publicized these recorded telephone conversations with Koresh when they happened, instead of holding them back until after the April 19 massacre, then the American public certainly would have had quite a different attitude toward the whole affair.

I remember how my own attitude changed as new information became available. When I first saw the story on television on February 28, I took for granted what the news reporter said: the ATF had tried to serve a search warrant on a bunch of heavily armed religious cultists, and the cultists had opened fire on them with .50 caliber machine guns. And then the case was made by the reporters that the cultists were crazy—their leader, we were told, believes he is Jesus Christ. What I learned from the television news that first day almost made me sympathize with the ATF.

It wasn’t until later that the news began slipping out to indicate there was another side to the story. Koresh didn’t really believe he was Jesus. The ATF hadn’t simply walked up and knocked on the front door of the church to deliver their warrant; they had staged a full-scale military assault for the benefit of the news media. They had climbed onto the roof and thrown concussion grenades in through the windows instead of knocking on the front door. And then there were hints that, well, maybe the ATF agents were the also the ones who began shooting first.

And the more I learned the more I wondered: just what had the Branch Davidians done to warrant this sort of military assault on their church? What kind of dangerous terrorists were they? I learned that the local people in Waco didn’t consider them to be terrorists at all, just quiet, polite people who mostly kept to themselves.

After the big fire on April 19, I accepted at first the government’s word—backed up by the news media, of course—that the Davidians had set the fire themselves and committed mass suicide. Only later did I hear the survivors deny this and explain what had happened when the government’s tanks began smashing in the walls of their church and knocked over a kerosene lantern onto a bale of hay.

And I kept waiting to hear about all the dangerous weapons—.50 caliber machine guns, rockets, and so on—that the government would discover in the ruins of the church. And then I learned that there were no weapons. And finally I heard the recordings of telephone conversations with Koresh.

So now I’ve been waiting for more than two months for the rest of America to begin to feel the sense of outrage against the government that I felt when I understood what had happened at Waco. And indeed a few people are outraged. A few people are saying, hey, Bill Clinton, we’re not going to forget about this! We’re angry that our government would do something like this. We want the people responsible put on trial for murder.

A few people are expressing the same concern about government criminality that I feel. But not enough. And that’s really too bad. Because when the government is allowed to get away with a crime as monstrous as the slaughter of the Branch Davidians, it will commit more crimes in the future. Other people will be slaughtered. Probably at first people who, like the Branch Davidians, are Politically Incorrect. With that sort of government in power, though, no one should feel safe, whether he’s Politically Correct or not.

—December, 1993

Freedom for Germany

by William Pierce

wlp_bas_relief

Pierce delivered his third radio speech on American Dissident Voices in November 1993. A text is needed but here you can listen his words.

Update of 7:20 pm: I owe this transcript to Alex!:

A month ago, an American engineer from Massachusetts, Fred Leuchter, was arrested by the German secret police in Cologne, Germany. He had been invited by a German television station to talk about his 1988 investigation of the gas chambers in the former concentration camp at Auschwitz, Poland. Mr. Leuchter, whose profession is designing gas chambers and other lethal devices for prisons, had been hired as an expert witness in a legal case, in which it was alleged that the defendant had lied in saying that 4 million Jewish prisoners weren’t killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz during the Second World War.

Mr. Leuchter had dutifully traveled to Auschwitz with several assistants and made his investigation. He had carefully examined the alleged gas chambers there: the doors and windows; the floors, and walls, and ceilings; the shower fixtures, which show, the official story went, had been used to introduce poison gas into shower rooms full of unsuspecting Jews. He had even collected scrapings from the walls and had them chemically analyzed.

Mr. Leuchter had concluded, back in 1988, that Jews may or may not have been killed at Auschwitz during the war, but that 4 million of them certainly had not been gassed to death in the buildings at Auschwitz, identified in the tourist brochures as “gas chambers.” His investigation had convinced him that these buildings were not used for that purpose, and, indeed, couldn’t have been used for that purpose.

He had testified about his findings during the 1988 trial, and had spoken about them in public several times since then, because what happened during the Second World War remains a matter of considerable interest to many people around the world today. But why, we might ask, should the German secret police arrest an American tourist in order to keep him from talking about such matters on a television program?

Certainly, it isn’t illegal in Germany to talk about the Second World War, or about gas chambers, or about the so-called “Holocaust.” These are frequent topics in the German media and in German classrooms. There’s nothing illegal about them. That is, there’s nothing illegal in talking or writing about these things if one does it in a politically correct way. But it is illegal in Germany to be politically incorrect.

The politically correct position on the Holocaust is that 6 million Jews, for absolutely no fault of their own, were killed in gas chambers by the Germans during the Second World War – 4 million of them at Auschwitz alone. As long as you stick to that line, you can talk about the Holocaust all you want in Germany. But if you say, “Hey, maybe some Jews were killed at Auschwitz during the war, but I really don’t think that 4 million were killed in the gas chambers there, because I’ve been to Auschwitz and examined the facilities,” if you say that in public, the German secret police will grab you, and throw you in prison, and you’ll be facing a five year prison term.

There are a lot of other things one can’t talk about in Germany too. One can be thrown in prison for questioning other aspects of the official version of the Second World War, for talking about the mass murders of German soldiers in Allied prisoner of war camps after the war, for example. It’s illegal to suggest that Germany was not solely responsible for the war. It’s illegal to say that the National Socialist government of Germany was justified in any of its policies or actions before or during the war. One also can get into trouble with the police for campaigning for the return of territory taken away from Germany by the victors after the war, or for complaining about the continued admission of non-White immigrants into Germany today.

The result of these bans on politically incorrect speech is that hundreds of Germans are imprisoned today in Germany, along with Mr. Leuchter, and dozens of patriotic groups and politically parties have been outlawed, all for daring to talk about politically inconvenient facts or to express politically incorrect ideas.

One of the most bizarre aspects of the German government’s outlawing of dissent is that it’s a completely one-sided thing. In Germany today, you are free to tell the most outrageous lies you want, so long as your lies are anti-German. You can state in public that the Germans killed more than 6 million Jews during the war. You can say they killed 100 million Jews, and that, in retribution, the German people should pay reparations to the government of Israel forever. You can say that and the secret police won’t bother you. But if you say, “Hey, it was fewer than 6 million,” you’re in trouble.

And you can insult the Germans. You can falsify their history. You can spit on the graves of their patriots. You can praise their enemies. And the German government will smile at you. This strange behavior by the German government has puzzled some people, and they’ve theorized that the Germans behave that way because of a feeling of guilt for their wickedness during the war 50 years ago. That, of course, is a lot of baloney. The Japanese don’t feel guilty for their role in the war. The Russians don’t feel guilty because of the crimes of their former communist government.

The reason the German government behaves the way it does has a simple historical explanation. At the end of the Second World War, the victorious democratic and communist occupying powers installed a German government of their own choosing. First, they removed every legitimate official from office, unless he could prove that he had secretly worked against his own country during the war. And they did the same thing with the media and the schools. The Allies made treason the criterion for holding public office, or teaching, or publishing a newspaper in Germany.

The only people who could run for public office were Jews, who had miraculously survived the alleged “extermination camps,” or communists, or shirkers, who had fled the country during the war to avoid serving in the German army, much in the way Bill Clinton did over here during the Vietnam War. So one had a post-war government in Germany made up of anti-patriots, of people who had a vested interest in maintaining the official lies that were the party line of the Allied occupying powers.

The present government in Germany is the direct descendent of this anti-patriotic puppet government installed by the conquerors after the war. The last legitimate German government is the one elected in 1933 before the war. So it’s easy to understand why the present government in Germany doesn’t want the German people thinking about that fact, and that’s why the government has made it illegal to criticize the people to whom the present politicians owe their jobs, or to question the whole rationale of the war and its aftermath.

Now, it’s troubling to me, and many others, that the United States government encourages the suppression of human rights in Germany in order to keep the German puppet regime in power there. If an American citizen had been arrested anywhere else in the world merely for agreeing to appear on a television program, the U.S. State Department would protest vigorously, and the matter would be headline material in all our major newspapers. But in the case of Fred Leuchter, there is no protest, and there are no headlines.

This is also troubling because it’s hypocritical. The Clinton government makes a great pretense of supporting human rights around the world. This pretense sometimes serves as the pretext for sending American troops to force some Third World country into line with New World Order. But it is still only a pretense.

The arrest of Fred Leuchter and the lack of response by the Clinton administration to his arrest are most troubling, however, because they are indicative of a trend. Dissent is outlawed in Germany today, and it will be outlawed in America sooner or later, because the same interests in America that approve of stifling German patriots and criminalizing political incorrectness in Germany are pushing for similar governmental policies in America.

There are many people in the Clinton administration who would love to be able to arrest anyone who speaks out against their policy of gun confiscation, for example. They would love to lock up everyone who argues against the continued destruction of U.S. industry through so-called “free-trade agreements” with the Third World. There are people in the government who really believe that it ought to be against the law for anyone to speak out against the flood of non-White immigrants into America, that it ought to be against the law to call for deporting all non-Whites to Africa or Asia.

And there are, of course, the people behind the Clinton administration, the people to whom the Clintonistas look for guidance, people who know that they must make it illegal for anyone to pull the curtain aside and reveal their presence to the public. They understand that they cannot survive if a majority of the American population becomes fully aware of their control of the news and entertainment media, and their manipulation of public opinion and of the political process through that control.

They know that they must limit the spread of information about themselves, about their power, about the crimes they have committed against humanity. And they will try to stifle patriots in America. They will try to silence every dissident voice, just the way they have in Germany, by making it illegal to speak the truth, illegal to challenge their policies.

One might think that in mass-democracies, such as we have in Germany and in the United States, the string-pullers could tolerate a little dissent. After all, probably 70 or 80 percent of the general public really believe the lies they’re told by their TV commentators and by their politicians. Television is a very persuasive medium.

In the United States, we just saw a very substantial portion of the public, perhaps even a majority, let themselves be convinced by television propaganda that the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement would be a good thing for them. They’re in the process now of letting themselves be convinced that they’ll actually be safer when it becomes illegal for law-abiding citizens to have firearms for self-defense.

So, why should the people who control the mass media be afraid of letting a few individuals contradict them with the facts? The answer to that is that the truth can be a very dangerous weapon when used skillfully and aggressively. People who deal principally in lies are afraid of having this weapon used against them.

In Germany, for example, where it is illegal to question the official Holocaust story of 6 million gassed Jews, the dissenters were coming up with too many embarrassing facts, too much evidence that the government and the media had been lying to the public about what had happened during the war. The dissent was spreading. Competent people, including historians and other scholars, were questioning the numbers. Eye witnesses, who had been silent for decades, were speaking out about what had really happened during and immediately after the war, about who had done what to whom, about who were the real war criminals.

And so the German government, whose whole existence really is based on the lie of German guilt, simply made it illegal to question that lie. That’s why an American citizen, Fred Leuchter, is sitting in a German prison now. And the fact that the Clinton administration has not protested his imprisonment is a pretty good indication that the Clinton administration doesn’t really disapprove of locking people up for political incorrectness.

Criminalizing speech and thought, in fact, has become quite fashionable in the crowd of New World Order elitists. They believe that they know what’s best for everyone, and any dissent just confuses people: better to outlaw it, throw the trouble makers into prison, if they won’t adjust their thinking to the New World Order.

One of the consequences of this New World Order intolerance is the plague of so-called “hate legislation,” which has been imposed on the American people in the last decade. It used to be that if you punched someone in the nose, for any reason except self-defense, you could simply be charged with assault and battery. Nowadays, it’s not so simple at all. What you’ll be charged with depends on the color of your skin, the color of the nose you punched, and, most important, what you think about people of the color you punched. Anything you have ever said or written in the past, which may indicate that you punched for a politically incorrect reason, will be held against you.

And it used to be that on university campuses in America, any topic at all was open for debate, and that students and faculty members were free to express any opinion whatsoever on the topic. Freedom of that sort has become very unfashionable today, however. Faculty members are fired and students are expelled for expressing politically incorrect opinions. The atmosphere of intellectual tolerance on American university campuses today is closer to that which prevailed in Spain during The Inquisition than that which was the norm in America before about 1960.

And it will become much worse before it becomes better. The same clever liars, who have managed to persuade a substantial portion of the American people and a majority of the politicians that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution doesn’t really mean what it says, are also working on the First Amendment. Freedom of speech, they want everyone to believe, really means freedom to say fashionable things, freedom to express politically correct ideas, freedom to discuss subjects which aren’t on the forbidden list, freedom to state opinions which don’t offend the government or the members of any officially protected minority.

That’s the way it is in Germany. That’s the way they want it in America. That’s the direction in which the United States government is moving. And it’s moving faster under the Clintonistas than it ever has before.

What can we do about it? How can we restore our right to armed self-defense? How can we preserve our right to speak our minds? What can we do to restore a spirit of free inquiry to our universities? There is no single easy answer to these questions. Part of the answer is vigilance. If we want to preserve our liberty, we must always be vigilant. Part of the answer is the way we live and the way we raise our children. We have become a soft, fearful, feminized people, too willing to surrender our manhood rather than fight, too ready to trade freedom for an imagined security, too eager to look to the politicians and the government for support and protection instead of relying on ourselves.

Part of the answer is a broader, more enlightened view of the world. In the past, we let ourselves be divided against each other by clever enemies. We let ourselves be persuaded that it was all right to take freedom away from Germans so long as Americans kept theirs. We need to understand that unless the healthy, freedom loving elements in America and Europe stand together against our common enemies and against the sick elements among ourselves, who have come under the influence of those enemies, eventually none of us will be free.

Finally, if we want to preserve a right, we must exercise that right. This is especially true of the right of free speech. When the people who control the media begin trying to persuade us that we don’t really need the right to say unfashionable things, just like they persuaded so many people that no one really needs a semi-automatic rifle, then we must speak up loudly and clearly, instead of remaining silent until our right to speak is legislated away, as already has happened in Germany.

All of you listening now, join me in speaking out against those who want to steal our freedom. Speak out against the politicians in Germany who are keeping Fred Leuchter in prison. Speak out against the politicians in America who have refused to protest his arrest. Speak out against the enemies of freedom everywhere, against the Helmut Kohls and the Bill Clintons, against the Feinsteins, and the Metzenbaums, and the Schumers, and the Moynihans in the U.S. Congress.

Use every means at your disposal to make yourself heard. Use call-in radio and television programs. Use letters to the editor of every newspaper and magazine you read. Use bulletin boards. Use graffiti. And use courage and perseverance. Tell everyone, “Freedom for Fred Leuchter. Freedom for Americans and for Germans. Down with the New World Order and the enemies of freedom everywhere!”

With malice aforethought

by William Pierce

wlp_bas_relief

 

A review of the movie The Crying Game, American Dissident
Voices (September 18, 1993). The following text of a radio
address by Pierce is taken from Kevin Strom’s archive.

 

Today I want to talk with you about morality… about standards… about values.

Most of us have heard it said that the reason America is in such a mess today is that our people have lost the values we used to have, and that we need to regain them—that we need to begin teaching values to our kids in the schools.

And I guess I’ll agree with that… but there’s more to it. It’s certainly true that as a nation, or as a race, we’ve lost our values. Or, more accurately, we had them stolen from us. And now, unfortunately, the values we used to have are being replaced by new values which are worse than no values at all.

America hasn’t so much lost its sense of direction as it’s had all the road signs changed while it wasn’t looking. Values are our problem today… but even more, our problem is the people who have deliberately changed our values, deliberately perverted them.

I don’t want to beat around the bush or keep you guessing what I’m getting at, so I’ll come right out with it: the people who control the mass media in America have deliberately and consciously, with malice aforethought, used their influence over the thinking of the people who see their films, who watch their television programs, who read their newspapers and comic strips and popular magazines… they’ve used their influence to twist our values, to reorient our whole way of looking at the world.

Now, most of us have heard that too. We’ve heard about the destructive effect of television and the other mass media on public morality. We’ve heard that there’s too much violence and too much sex on television and that it isn’t good for us. And I guess that I’ll agree with that too… sort of. Too much television isn’t good for us, but it’s not just because of the sex and violence. It’s because television—and films and magazines and the rest of the controlled media—are used for propaganda aimed at subverting the values of our people, especially our young people. And they’re used with malice aforethought.

A lot of us have more or less realized this. We’ve sort of sensed that something was rotten in the media establishment. We felt that the media bosses who run Hollywood and the media bosses who control the TV networks were slyly twisting the view of the world they presented to us, slyly trying to change our attitudes. But the media bosses are clever and they’re subtle, and, of course, they denied everything. And so it often was difficult for ordinary people who felt they were being manipulated to really put their fingers on what the media bosses were trying to do.

And so people have jumped on the too-much-sex-and-violence bandwagon, but that really isn’t the problem at all. The sex and violence in films and television is simply pandering. It’s simply keeping the viewers distracted, so that they won’t complain about the real propaganda. The real propaganda the media bosses have been trying to slip into our minds is the idea of human sameness, the idea that the differences between Blacks and Whites, between men and women, between homosexuals and heterosexuals aren’t significant, aren’t important, that we ought not to notice these differences, and we certainly ought not to take them into account in choosing friends, associates, or lovers… that we ought not to feel any special affinity for people of our own sort, that, in fact, we ought to feel a little guilty if we still have any sense of racial or ethnic identity left, or if we regard homosexuals any differently than we do normal people.

TVThat’s the basic message. That’s the propaganda. But, as I said, the media bosses are subtle, and the average person usually doesn’t see that whole message in any single film or TV show, and so it’s difficult for him to recognize that he’s being manipulated.

The media bosses are getting bolder, however, and a film came out a few months ago which contains pretty much the whole message, and it contains it in a form that’s not at all subtle, that is in fact blatant enough for many people to see for what it is—at least, they should be able to see it once it’s pointed out to them. The film I’m referring to is The Crying Game. It was made by Miramax Pictures. That’s a film company in England which is owned by two Jewish brothers, Bob and Harvey Weinstein. When the film first came out I wasn’t interested in seeing it, because the reviewers in the NY Times and the other major media were all oohing and ahing over it. They considered it a very “sensitive” film, and so I figured it must be more of the same, old trash.

Well, I was wrong. A friend sent me a video of the film, and I viewed it a couple of days ago.

In case you haven’t seen the film, let me run briefly through the plot. It opens in present-day Northern Ireland. A British soldier is enticed by an Irish girl he meets at a carnival to head off into the bushes for a little sex, where he is immediately kidnapped by members of the Irish Republican Army, to be held as a hostage in retaliation for the arrest of an IRA man by the British Army. Nothing the matter with that as a movie plot, of course—except that the “British” soldier just happens to be Black. No one pays the least attention to that rather startling fact, even as the Black soldier kisses and fondles the blonde Irish girl in the midst of the carnival crowds. The message the filmmakers are sending us here is that the soldier’s race makes no difference, either as a soldier or as a lover. We are being told that we should see nothing amiss in a typical British soldier being Black, or in a Black man romancing a White girl.

While he is being held hostage, a friendship develops between the Black soldier and one of his Irish captors, a man named Fergus. Eventually the time comes to kill the captive, but before that the Black has shown Fergus a photograph of the girl back in London he really loves, a mulatto, and he makes Fergus promise to visit the mulatto girl and tell her that his last thoughts were of her.

Fergus keeps his promise—more or less. But he also falls in love with the mulatto girl. Then, in the course of trying to make love to her he discovers that she’s really a man: a homosexual female impersonator. At first that disconcerts Fergus rather badly, but by the film’s end he’s shed his prejudices, his bigotry, and he’s realized that it really doesn’t make any difference, that he loves the homosexual mulatto after all, just as the Black soldier had done before him.

Now, I’ve skipped a lot of the lurid details, which would get this program thrown off the air if I described them to you, but you get the picture: race doesn’t matter, sex doesn’t matter, sexual orientation doesn’t matter. All that matters is love. Every effort to discriminate—to distinguish—between Blacks and Whites, between men and women, between homosexuals and heterosexuals is bigotry, is prejudice, is hatred. We’re all human beings, the film tells us, and that’s the only thing that’s important. We should ignore everything else and love others, without regard for these superficial differences.

The people who made The Crying Game don’t believe that, of course. That’s just what they want us to believe. They understand that any race which absorbs their message, any nation which absorbs their message, any society which absorbs their message… has been morally disarmed and has been made helpless against its enemies. The race which absorbs and takes their message to heart has lost its ability to discriminate and therefore its ability to survive. It’s a race ripe for exploitation, ready to be plucked and slaughtered, a race unable to defend itself against the predatory tribe to which Bob and Harvey Weinstein belong.

As I said, the media bosses prepare their message for us with malice aforethought.

Now, if you think I overstate my case, if you think I exaggerate, if you think I’m being unfair to the media bosses, I invite you to view The Crying Game yourself. It’s available in video stores everywhere. View it for yourself. See if you don’t agree with me about what the Weinstein brothers are trying to tell us.

Their message, of course, is the same message we get from all of the controlled media these days. The only thing unique about The Crying Game is that it rubs our faces in their filth so much more forcefully than most other films do. Usually they don’t slap us right in the face with the whole message at once. Usually they sugarcoat it and slip in just a bit of it here and there. Usually they don’t let us see so clearly what they’re aiming at. Usually they just teach us to parrot a few of their Politically Correct clichés about the evils of “discrimination” and about how wonderful “multiculturalism” and “diversity” are.

After I viewed The Crying Game I reread the reviews of the film. I want to read you a few short extracts from these reviews. The NYT reviewer, Bernie Weinraub, bubbles about how the film explores “the blurred nature of love, trust, and compassion.”

Blurred, indeed, for Mr Weinraub and the Weinstein brothers!

Weinraub then goes on to quote the film’s director and scriptwriter, who says his film is “a love story, in the broadest possible sense. It’s about the extremes of love and the responsibilities of love, and how two characters find a way to love each other who are divided by many things. It’s also about how one person loses himself to find himself. The central character loses all the different facets of what he thought was his identity. Once he does that he finds the human being in himself.”

Newsweek magazine gushingly calls the film a “study of what constitutes moral virtue.” Newsweek tells us: “If the test of a good movie is how it makes an audience feel when the lights come up, The Crying Game is a very good movie indeed. It leaves one giddy.”

Isn’t that something! Not a mention of the film’s portrayal of homosexuality and miscegenation as normal, healthy behavior we all should feel good about. The film, according to the reviews, is about love, about finding the human being in oneself. It makes audiences feel so good they are giddy.

What are we to think about the people who made this film and the people who reviewed it and the people in Hollywood who awarded it several Oscars? The Weinstein brothers and Bernie Weinraub and the rest of their tribe are so arrogant as to tell us that every standard of quality, every standard of behavior, every standard of beauty and righteousness which has guided our race for thousands of years is bad because it discriminates, and that we have to throw them all out and be undiscriminating.

While laughing up their sleeves and smirking behind their hands they come into our country and tell us that it is wrong for us to discriminate between decent and indecent behavior, between our own race and other races, between what is natural and what is unnatural, between what is wholesome and beautiful and what is filthy and ugly. It’s all the same, they say; that’s the new morality.

How can anyone be so pushy? How do they get away with it? Why do we permit people who so clearly are working to destroy us morally to carry on their destructive activity? Why did we permit them to take over our newspapers and magazines, our film industry, our television?

Part of the answer to that question is, as I said before, that these people usually are not so obvious about their intentions as they were in The Crying Game. Usually they make films which simply entertain people, while slipping in just a little poison unnoticed by most of us.

And part of the answer lies in a peculiarity of human nature, a peculiarity which the great Danish storyteller Hans Christian Andersen commented on more than a century ago in his story titled “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” When the average person sees a film as shocking and evil as The Crying Game, he doesn’t simply say to himself, hey, that was a shocking and evil film, which aims at making us abandon our sense of right and wrong, our sense of discrimination.

And he certainly doesn’t say that to his friends and neighbors. Instead he looks around to see what other people’s reaction to the film is. He listens to what the opinion molders are saying, the film reviewers. And if they say, hey, this was a wonderful, sensitive film about love, then he’ll simply suppress his own reaction to the film, and he’ll tell the people around him, oh, wasn’t that a sensitive film! Even sophisticated, educated, intelligent people will behave that way. Remember, in Hans Christian Andersen’s story it wasn’t a professor or a successful businessman but a child who said, “Mommy, mommy, look, the emperor is naked!” And then, if you remember the story, the other spectators who heard the child also began saying, yes, the child is right, the emperor is naked.

Perhaps Andersen was a little too optimistic about human nature if he really believed that one lone voice of truth and reason could shatter the whole fabric of lies and deceit which the masters of the controlled media have woven around us. But I believe, nevertheless, that individuals must speak out now: we must say to everyone around us, films like The Crying Game are not about love. They are about the abandonment of values and standards. They are about giving up our power to discriminate. They are about surrendering to evil.

We must say these things not just because they are right, but also because some people who hear us will wake up, just like the people in the crowd admiring the emperor’s new clothes woke up when they heard the child saying what should have been obvious to everyone. We must say that it is not love to permit Blacks to fondle and kiss White women or to treat a homosexual female impersonator as if he were a normal woman. It is racial suicide. It is filth and sickness. We must say that loudly and clearly. And we also must say that the people who have been trying to twist our values, the film-makers and the film reviewers and the television network bosses, are evil people, and we should not tolerate their presence in our society. We should rid ourselves of them by whatever means is necessary.

We should understand that those who want to rob us of our values are as dangerous to us as those who want to steal our possessions or our liberty. Those who try to make us believe that anything goes and that it’s wrong of us to discriminate are as much our enemies as any gang of terrorists bent on destroying our society. The Weinsteins and the Weinraubs and their ilk are trying to destroy us morally.

And they’re succeeding. Just look at the filth we elect to public office in this country. Look at what we tolerate in the White House and in the Congress.

You know, a single film and a few deceitful reviews seem like an inconsequential thing. It is, after all, just entertainment, and we might think that we can take it or leave it.

No, no, really—it’s more than that. It’s part of a vast, concerted, ongoing effort, and it does have consequences. We can see those consequences all around us, from the Clintonistas in Washington to the breakdown of order in our cities and the loss of discipline in our kids’ schools.

We don’t have to put up with that any longer. We don’t have to pretend that we don’t notice what’s been happening. We can stand up and speak out. We can make others wake up. We can begin taking this country back. It’s time to start doing it.

America since World War 2

(an interview with Pierce)

wlp_bas_relief

“And, yes, they [the Jews] deserve a great deal of blame.
But not all the blame. Perhaps not even most of it.”

—William Pierce (see below)



November 7, 1992

Kevin Alfred Strom: With the excitement of the election behind us now, what do you see ahead for Americans during the next four years?

William L. Pierce: More of the same.

KAS: You mean you think the recession will continue?

WLP: Actually, I didn’t mean that. I meant that America will remain on the same downward course she’s been on since the Second World War. I can’t predict the little ups and downs of the economy. But I can predict that, so long as certain very fundamental flaws remain in our society, we will continue going from bad to worse, in the long run. Whether the so-called “economic indicators” that the government publishes go up or down, whether we temporarily pull out of the present recession or not, economic life for the average White American will become bleaker in the years ahead. Worse, his social life will become more sterile, his cultural life more debased. Worst of all, his spiritual life, his view of his own meaning and purpose, will continue to shrivel.

KAS: My, you’re not very positive today, are you? Can you explain your gloomy prediction for us? Can you tell us just what you mean, can you give us the details, when you say that life for White Americans will continue to become worse? In what way will the economy become worse, for example?

WLP: The economy will become worse in that the average White family will work longer and harder for a smaller reward, for fewer of the necessities of life, for less security, for a meaner life style than before. The average standard of living, in other words, will continue to decline, just as it has in during the past few years. And this is something which absolutely did not depend on the outcome of the recent election. Both Clinton and Bush have been supporters of globalizing the US economy. They both have been boosters of the New World Order, in other words. They both support the removal of trade barriers with Mexico, for example, which will accelerate the export of American industry and American jobs to Mexico, simply because wages are much lower there. The effect of this, of course, will be gradually to raise wages in Mexico, while they are pulled down in the United States.

But, then, that’s the whole rationale behind the push for globalization, the push for the New World Order, isn’t it? Equalize living standards around the world. Lift up the poor non-Whites in the Third World and drag down the rich Whites. Give everyone a fair share of industry and the wealth which goes with it. Break down national and racial barriers. Homogenize the world, economically, racially, culturally. That’s the idea which has been pushed inexorably and unceasingly by the controlled media ever since the Second World War. The controlled media have made this idea of globalization fashionable; they’ve made it a Politically Correct idea, and therefore no one in the controlled political establishment in this country, whether Democrat or Republican, dares oppose it.

KAS: So it’s this bipartisan push for a global economy which leads you to predict that the US economy will continue to decline, no matter which party is in the White House?

WLP: That’s one of the reasons, and it’s an important reason, but there are also others. There is the continuing, unchecked flood of non-White immigration into America, for example. There’s the continued policy of favoritism shown to non-Whites in university admissions, in the awarding of scholarships, in hiring, and in promotions. And there’s the growing burden of supporting an unproductive and largely non-White welfare class. All of these reasons for future economic decline are thoroughly entrenched, they’re long-term, and they’re bipartisan reasons.

Which is to say that they’re Politically Correct, and so neither the Democrats nor the Republicans dare do anything about them. Can you imagine either a Democrat or a Republican proposing that we cut off all non-White immigration into the United States and try to restore America as a White country? Can you imagine one of them proposing that the government should no longer provide any support to the millions of inner-city residents now on welfare and should use all necessary force to maintain order if they don’t like it? There’s no more chance of that than there is of either a Democrat or a Republican President announcing that the New World Order is a scheme intended to reduce the White American worker to the same level as the Mexican peon and the Chinese coolie and that we’ll have no part of it.

And because there’s simply no chance that the controlled political establishment in this country, Democrat or Republican, will address or even admit the existence of the fundamental reasons for the declining living standard of Americans, I can predict with complete confidence that the economy will continue to decline, over the long run. There are various paper-shuffling tricks, of course—fiddling with interest rates, changing the tax structure, rearranging the Federal budget—which can make temporary changes in the economy, apparent changes, but they can’t cure this country’s real economic problems.

KAS: That’s interesting. But you know, the so-called economic “experts” that we hear on the controlled media disagree with you completely. They tell us that this recession is just a little anomaly, a little readjustment, and that over the long run everything is rosy. They say that the globalization of our economy is helping America by allowing us to export more of our products. They say that non-White immigration is boosting our economy by providing us with needed skills and eager workers. Here’s a recent issue of Business Week. The headline on the cover says, “The immigrants: how they’re helping the U.S. economy.” Are the media experts wrong?

WLP: Yes, they’re wrong, and what’s worse they know they’re wrong. They’re deliberately lying to us, deliberately misleading us, just as much as the politicians are. It doesn’t take a genius to see what’s happened to the economy of this country since the Second World War. The experts rave about the benefits the new World Order is bringing to us by allowing us to increase our exports. But the cold, hard reality is that globalization has brought us an enormous trade deficit.

The fact is that it has wiped out whole industries in this country and exported them overseas: the consumer electronics industry, for example, or the machine tool industry. The fact, not the theory, is that millions of Americans are being forced to switch from high-paying jobs in manufacturing and basic industry to low-paying service jobs. The fact is that before the Second World War most American families needed only one wage earner to keep them comfortable and secure; wives and mothers could stay at home and take care of their families. Today, of course, most mothers have to work outside the home. The fact is that our economy isn’t getting better and better; it’s actually getting sicker and sicker.

KAS: You keep referring to the changes which have taken place in the economy since the Second World War. Why is that? What does the war have to do with it?

WLP: The Second World War really has everything to do with it. It was, after all, an ideological war, one could almost say a religious war, a war between two fundamentally different world views.

On one side were the believers in quality over quantity, the elitists, the believers that White people, Europeans, are more progressive, are better able to maintain and advance civilization, and should hold onto their position of world mastery.

On the other side were the believers in quantity over quality, the egalitarians, the believers in racial and cultural equality, the people who thought it was wicked for the United States to remain a White country, wicked for White Britain to have a world empire, wicked for White Germany to be allowed to smash communism, wicked to permit nationalism to triumph over internationalism. And the fact is that the egalitarians won the war. After the Second World War White Americans could no more justify keeping hordes of hungry, non-White immigrants out of their country than Englishmen could justify hanging onto the British Empire. They had cut the moral ground right out from under themselves.

KAS: Of course, that’s not the way it was presented to Americans back in the 1940s. We were all taught that we went to war to keep America free, that we were fighting against tyranny, that we were fighting on the side of decency and justice.

WLP: Nonsense. We were fighting on the side of the folks who marched the entire leadership stratum of the Polish nation into the woods and murdered them. And the people who control our news and entertainment media knew that too. When the German Army discovered those huge pits full of murdered Polish officers and intellectuals, they called in the world press to look at the evidence. But the controlled media kept it quiet, so that we would keep fighting on the side of the murderers.

After the war they blamed it on the Germans. And there was nary a squawk from the controlled media when we turned the surviving Poles, and the Hungarians, and the Balts, and all the rest of the Eastern Europeans over to the same gang of cutthroats who had butchered Poland’s leaders in 1940. Of course, it made sense in a sick sort of way. After all, murdering a nation’s elite is an egalitarian act. After you kill off the most intelligent, the most able members of a nation the ones who’re left will be more nearly equal.

KAS: And easier to control.

WLP: Yes. But the point is that, the reasons given to the American people for getting into the war against Germany were all spurious. It was not a war to keep America free. Americans weren’t in the slightest danger of losing their freedom to the Germans. It was, as I said, an ideological war. It was a war about what kind of ideas would govern the world. It was a war about whether we would be proud and White and strong, or whether we would feel guilty about the fact that Mexican peons aren’t as well off as we are. And we lost the war. That was a real turning point in the fortunes of our race and our nation.

The loss of the Second World War is the real reason for the decline of the U.S. economy—and of our social life, our cultural life, and our spiritual life. Before the war we had a White country, a country determined to stay White. After the war we no longer had that determination. Instead we had the vague feeling that it was wrong of us to want to stay White. After the war when the controlled media began pushing for so-called “civil rights” laws and for opening our borders to the Third World, it was just a continuation of their push to get us into the war on the side of the people who had made Poland a more “equal” country by slaughtering her leaders at the killing pits in the Katyn woods.

We don’t really have time today to trace the whole process of the breakdown of America after the war, but we can look at a few examples which more or less tell the story. We’ve been talking about the economy, but it’s really our whole society which has been corrupted by the war, by the ideology for which the war was fought. Think, for example, about what life is becoming for the millions of White Americans who still live in our cities, especially those cities with a large minority contingent. We are no longer the masters in our own land, and we are paying the price for that decline in status.

Crime has soared enormously in our cities and made life a daily nightmare for millions who cannot move away. Even for those who live in the suburbs and only must work in the cities during the day, crime has become an ever-present constraint, a burden, a limit to their lives. City streets which once were safe for White women and men, by night as well as by day, are now like minefields where we must proceed with caution and be always on guard.

We know who makes our streets unsafe. We know against whom we are obliged to bar our windows. We know whom we must fear if our cars run out of gas or break down at night. And these are the same people whose welfare support imposes such an intolerable burden on our strained economy. And it is interesting that the government cannot solve our crime problem for exactly the same reason that it cannot solve our economic problem: it cannot address the causes; it cannot even admit the existence of the causes, because those causes are Politically Incorrect.

Just as the government economists talk about interest rates and budget adjustments but dare not speak of the effects of globalism on our economy, the sociologists talk about “poverty” as the cause of urban crime, but dare not mention that crime in America today is above all else a racial problem. Or look at what our schools have become, or look at popular entertainment. You know what the purpose of a school should be?

It should be not just to pound facts into the heads of children so they can earn a living; it should be to mold them into good citizens. It should be to teach them about their roots, about their ancestors, about their race. It should be to give them a sense of identity, a feeling of solidarity with their people, a feeling of appreciation for the civilization which their people created. It should be to teach them the values and customs which are peculiar to their people.

But most of the schools in America’s cities cannot do these things. They are not even permitted to try to do these things, because these things are all profoundly racist, the controlled media tell us. The only kind of school which can teach meaningfully about roots and identity is a school which is racially homogeneous, but such schools were outlawed by our government after the Second World War, because they are contrary to the principles for which that war was fought.

When our kids turn to drugs today, when they learn anti-White rap lyrics from the television, when they think Magic Johnson is a hero and say upon meeting a friend, “hey, man, gimme five,” we’re paying the price of the war. I said a few minutes ago that the worst aspect of the breakdown of America was not what’s happened to our economy, but what’s happened to our spiritual life, to our morale, to our idealism, to our character. White Americans haven’t become more stupid in the last fifty years. Most of the people listening to this program understand exactly what I’m saying. They didn’t really need me to point it out to them. They can see it for themselves. It doesn’t take a genius to understand why our schools aren’t working or why the New World Order will hurt Americans as the price of making Mexicans and Chinese more prosperous.

But it does take just a tiny bit of courage to stand up and say these things when we’ve had it drummed into our heads that we always must be Politically Correct. The people listening to this program have for years been watching America being torn down. They have seen the effects of egalitarianism, of liberalism on our society. They have seen one liberal program after another make things worse and worse, and they have listened to the controlled media and the controlled politicians tell them that what’s needed to fix things is more of the same. And they’ve thought to themselves, this is crazy.

But they’ve been afraid to say that out loud. They’ve been afraid to say, “Hey, look, Joe, the emperor doesn’t have any clothes on.” And it’s my considered opinion that this timidity, this willingness to go along with every new insanity imposed on us by the media and the politicians, even when we know it’s unnatural and immoral and destructive of everything worthwhile—this is a spiritual failure. This spiritual failure, this willingness to tolerate evil, is a more serious matter, in my eyes, than our economic decline. When we are able to heal ourselves spiritually, we’ll be able to heal ourselves economically and socially, but not before.

KAS: Is this spiritual failure entirely the fault of the American people? You’ve repeatedly referred to the controlled media as the principal promoters of the ideology which is at the root of our problems. Aren’t they to blame? Aren’t the people who control the media responsible for what’s happening to America? And, by the way, who are these media controllers?

WLP: Well, I think we all know who wields more control over the news and entertainment media than any other group. It’s the Jews. And, yes, they deserve a great deal of blame. But not all the blame. Perhaps not even most of it. After all, they’re only acting in accord with their nature. They’re doing what they always do when they come into a country.

We shouldn’t have let them do it. We should have stopped them when they were taking over Hollywood 75 years ago. We should have stopped them when they began buying up newspapers back before the Second World War. After the war we shouldn’t have let them get anywhere near a television studio. But we didn’t stop them, and the blame for that really lies with those who have set themselves up as our political leaders. They sold us out. They sold out America. They sold out their race. When our kids are exposed to the godawful, anti-White rap musicals from MTV, should we blame the Jewish owner of MTV, Mr Redstone, or should we blame the politicians in Washington who let him get away with it? Personally, I’d go after the politicians first.

KAS: I see your point. Tell us, Dr Pierce, do you think there’s any hope that White Americans ever will go after the politicians who are betraying them? Do you think they ever will regain enough spiritual strength to stand up and say, “Hey, the emperor is naked”?

WLP: I do. I believe that one day they’ll be shouting it from the housetops. More people are angry today about what their government is doing to America than at any time since the Second World War.

As time passes their numbers and their anger will grow. That is inevitable, because the policies of the controlled media and the government are making America an unlivable place.

The condition of the economy helps too. I would really be worried if I thought that the politicians could patch up the economy enough to lull people back to sleep. But I know that they can’t. I know that conditions can only become worse and worse under the policies which come from Washington, regardless of who’s in the White House. And this is what gives me hope for the future. When the pain becomes great enough, anger and frustration will overcome the fear of being Politically Incorrect, even for the most timid White American.

By Way of Deception

Thou Shalt Do War

 

wlp_bas_relief

by William Pierce

The motto of Israel’s spy agency, Mossad, is, according to recently defected Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky: “By way of deception thou shalt do war.” That motto describes more than the modus operandi of the world’s most ruthless and feared organization of professional assassins and espionage agents; it really describes the modus vivendi of an entire race. It is necessary to understand that fact before one can hope to understand fully the role of the Jews in national and world affairs.

The concept of a race eternally at war with the rest of the world is alien to us. It is difficult to believe or even to grasp. When we examine such a concept and begin sifting the evidence it is easy to become confused. On the one hand we have the Old Testament injunctions to the Hebrews from their tribal god, speaking through their prophets, to annihilate every Gentile nation over which they gain power:

And thou shalt consume all the peoples which the Lord thy God shall deliver unto thee; thine eye shall not pity them… thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. (Deuteronomy 7:16, 20:16)

Similarly bloodthirsty, explicit injunctions are repeated so often in the Jews’ holy books that we can only assume that they are meant to be taken seriously. The historical evidence suggests that in ancient times the Jews did indeed take their religion seriously: they were notorious everywhere and at all times as implacable haters of humanity who in turn were thoroughly despised by every people among whom they lived.

Then on the other hand we have the modern, American Jew in the role of humanitarian, shunning the instruments of war and urging that all citizens, including himself, be disarmed, in order to make the streets of our cities kinder and gentler. Not only do the Jews provide the principal impetus to America’s gun-control effort, but they are found in the forefront of every other squishy, do-good movement, from those ostensibly aimed at reducing hostility between the races to those designed to increase tolerance of homosexuals and their practices.

How are we to make sense of this apparently conflicting evidence?

Is the Jew in the U.S. Congress who cites the rising murder statistics and then demands that the government confiscate all privately owned firearms trying to deceive us as to his intentions? When he talks peace and disarmament is he really thinking war against the Gentiles?

And what of the carefully cultivated media image of the Jew as a gentle, inoffensive victim of bigotry, always being persecuted but never persecuting others? Is that also deception? And even if it is, does it necessarily mean that beneath the Jew’s mask of benevolence and innocence hides the malevolent visage of a cunning predator? Perhaps for every bloodsucking Jewish swindler like Ivan Boesky or Michael Milken there is a Jewish benefactor of mankind like polio vaccine developer Jonas Salk, and for every bloody-handed Jewish gangster like Ariel Sharon, Meyer Lansky, or Yitzhak Shamir there is a Jewish Nobel Peace Prize winner like Menachem Begin, Henry Kissinger—or the appropriately named Elie Wiesel.

Or are we also being deceived when the Salks and the Kissingers are held up to us as reasons for not condemning all Jews for the transgressions of some?

By way of deception thou shalt do war.

Does that injunction mean: “If you must wage war—if it is impossible to avoid war—then you stand a better chance of winning by being tricky”? Or does it mean: “Thou shalt wage war, and thou shalt deceive”?

The answer to this question is important. If it is the former—if the Jews, as a whole, are not malevolent, if they have broken with their Old Testament tradition and no longer feel that their racial mission is to destroy all other peoples, but they merely feel that when forced to defend themselves they are justified in using all means, including deception, then we may be able to live on the same planet with them, at a distance. We don’t have to like them or agree with their policies, but we can see the possibility, at least, of some sort of peaceful coexistence, once a separation of peoples has been accomplished.

In seeking the answer we should keep in mind that deception is, in itself, hostile. A policy of systematic deception is tantamount to a policy of war. If we discover that the Jews (as a whole, not just a few swindlers among them) have been deceiving us deliberately and systematically over an extended period of time on any matter of substance, then we may infer that they regard the relationship between us as one of war, and we should respond accordingly.

The pursuit of this inference may be the only path to an unmuddied answer. After all, how do we know that someone is waging war against us? If he makes an open declaration of war and then begins shooting and bombing us, the matter is clear enough. But if, because he always follows a policy of deception, he declares that he is not at war with us and only has our best interests at heart, we may have difficulty in deciding whether the injury he causes us is deliberate or inadvertent.

Suppose he undertakes courses of action which damage us in ways somewhat less directly than shooting and bombing—ways such as bringing hordes of non-Whites across our borders, breaking down the barriers to racial mixing in our society, encouraging permissiveness, undermining our institutions, promoting cultural bolshevism—all the while claiming that he does not regard these things as harmful. If we were a more practical people we might pay less attention to what the Jew says and more to what he does; we might stop worrying about his motive, judge him on the basis of the effect his presence has had on us, and then act accordingly.

Unfortunately, there are many who cannot in good conscience take a stand against the Jew without knowing what is in his heart—and the Jew is aware of this. We must catch him deliberately lying to us, deceiving us systematically and massively, in order to infer that his intent is hostile.

That’s one reason why the unraveling of the “Holocaust” myth is so important to us—and why the Jew clings so desperately to every lie in its fabric.

We should draw some sort of conclusion from the consistency of the Jew’s actions. Virtually everything he does is harmful to us. Without much exaggeration we can say that whenever the Jew takes a stand on a new issue, the proper position for us is on the other side.

Everyone who has read any Jewish literature—i.e., literature by Jews about Jews—has encountered the traditional Jewish character who whenever he must make a decision about something the goyim have done asks himself: “Is it good for the Jews?” That’s an admirable trait in any person, Jew or Gentile: always being concerned first about the welfare of his community, of his tribe, of his race. The Jewish author more often than not sprinkles a bit of dissimulation over it, however, suggesting that it may be unfashionably parochial, but it is excusable on the grounds that the Jews have been obliged by bitter experience to be wary of anything the Gentile does.

It goes without saying, of course, that the same author would regard it as totally inexcusable for a Gentile to use a similar criterion: to ask himself about some policy or action of the Jews, “Is it good for the White race, for Gentiles?” Such a character could only be cast in the role of villain.

And what we never encounter in Jewish literature is a Jewish character weighing a Jewish policy by asking himself: “Is it bad for the goyim?” Unspoken though it may be, however, it seems that this criterion plays as large a role as the first in determining Jewish policies. Perhaps to them it is just another way of saying the same thing—although they are very careful not to phrase it that way. At least, they have been since the Second World War; before that they sometimes seemed to think that the goyim couldn’t read, and chutzpah got the better of discretion. In 1924, for example, the prominent Jewish publicist Maurice Samuel, author of a score of serious books on Jewish matters and recipient of numerous awards from Jewish organizations, wrote in his You Gentiles, a book addressed to his hosts:

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.

Even here, however, there is deception, with the will to destroy masked as piety.

Think of the enormous demographic and social changes which have transformed our world since the Second World War. In 1941 the United States was for all practical purposes a White country. Blacks and other minorities existed, but they were not seen in White residential areas, White schools, White recreational facilities, or most White workplaces. They had a negligible influence on the political process, on public morality, and on the national culture. Racial intermarriage was illegal in most jurisdictions and extremely rare everywhere. America’s city streets were safe by night and by day. There was no drug problem; the use of marijuana, heroin, and other drugs was confined almost entirely to Blacks and mestizos, in their own, separate communities. Teenage pregnancy (among Whites) was as rare as a public display of homosexuality. Schools were orderly, disciplined, and safe.

America had its problems, of course. Whites, even when they are in control of their own destiny, are not angels. Greed, meanness, superstition, and stupidity were reflected in a thousand social and cultural ills. A thoroughly corrupt political system, inevitable in a democracy, provided the country with its top political leaders and public officials. Blacks and other racial minorities, though invisible and powerless, were a festering sore which eventually would have to be dealt with.

The country, however, was still White and gave every indication of staying that way; in the years immediately prior to the war immigration to the United States was predominantly White, with immigrants from Europe outnumbering those from Asia and Latin America combined by five to one. America’s problems were still soluble and Western civilization was still viable, still capable of being cleansed and renewed. Furthermore, in Germany a man was showing the race the way to save itself.

In response to that man’s efforts most of the Western world engaged in an all-out war to destroy him, his works, and his followers. His ideas and teachings became anathema, and the half-century which followed was dedicated to justifying the slaughter and destruction of the war by promoting the antitheses of those ideas and teachings.

He had taught that the White race is the most progressive race and is inherently superior to the non-White races in its civilization-building capacity, and so the elevation of the social and economic levels of non-Whites at the expense of Whites became the premier postwar goal.

He had taught that racial mixing is a crime against Nature, that our race must strive above all else to maintain the integrity of its gene pool, and so racial mixing became the postwar fashion: schoolchildren were bused to achieve mixing in the schools, forced housing laws were passed to achieve residential mixing, laws against miscegenation were struck down everywhere, and the immigration laws were changed to bring a new flood of non-Whites into the country.

He had taught that the building of self-discipline in young people, the strengthening of their will-power and of their ability for self-control, is the most important task of a nation’s educational system, and so in postwar America discipline became a dirty word, and permissiveness became the norm.

He had taught that, just as races differ in their innate abilities, so also do the individuals within a race, and that a healthy and progressive society must conform its institutions to this natural inequality among its members. Consequently, in postwar America egalitarianism became the new religion, and leveling the aim of government. To seek out the best and brightest, in our schools and elsewhere, and give them the recognition and the special training to enable them to move upward to positions of leadership—even to admit the possibility that some were better and brighter than others and could contribute more to civilization—became taboo.

He had taught a healthy, complementary relationship between men and women, with the former as providers and protectors and the latter as nurturers, and the new society he built in Germany was family centered, with laws and institutions aimed at strengthening the family and helping it to provide a sound environment for healthy children. Therefore, after his works were destroyed the victors denounced sexual complementarity as “repressive” and brought women out of the home and into the workforce by the millions, with children relegated to day-care centers. Every sex-role distinction was officially discouraged or outlawed, even to the point of bringing women into the armed forces on an equal footing with men. Feminism and homosexuality flourished with governmental protection.

Today we can see the consequences of these postwar policies all around us, and it is a matter of public record that the Jews have been the primary instigators and propagandists for each of these policies without exception.

They had non-Jewish collaborators in abundance, of course. The legislator primarily responsible for the change in postwar immigration patterns, the late Jewish Congressman from Brooklyn, Emanuel Celler, for many years chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, chose as a co-sponsor for his 1965 immigration bill the Gentile Senator from Massachusetts Edward (Teddy) Kennedy.

The “civil rights” revolutionaries who were organizing “sit-ins” and “freedom rides” during the 1950s and 1960s received their financing, their legal assistance, and their media support from Jews, but without an utterly corrupt and unprincipled Gentile collaborator in the form of Lyndon Johnson, first as Senate majority leader (1955–1961) and later as President (1963–1968), the series of legislative coups which made the agenda of the revolutionaries the law of the land would not have come so easily.

Collaboration has come from Blacks as well as Whites. Many of the organizations pushing for legislated “equality” between Blacks and Whites have been headed by Blacks in recent years. The most venerable of them, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, was given its first Black president as long ago as 1975, after an unbroken succession of Jews (although the separate NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which bills itself as “the legal arm of the civil rights movement,” is still strictly kosher, with a Jewish chief).

In no area of endeavor have the Jews had more willing non-Jewish collaborators than in the postwar promotion of permissiveness. Jews Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin may have been the most flamboyant spokesmen for permissiveness during the 1960s with their “if it feels good, do it” and “kill your parents” maxims for young Americans, but dozens of well-known Gentiles were right on their coattails, from “New Age” guru Timothy Leary with his campaign to popularize LSD and other psychedelic drugs to soft-porn publisher Hugh Hefner and his advocacy of “the Playboy philosophy.”

It is, after all, hardly the case that Jewry forced its way into America with tanks and machine guns and compelled the unwilling Aryans to stand by and watch while their civilization was destroyed and their race corrupted by the Semitic invaders. From the beginning the prey collaborated with the predators at all levels: the primitive Bible-beaters who for generations have been taught by their own kind that the Jews are “God’s Chosen People” and that it’s bad luck to cross them; the jaded, self-indulgent great grandsons and great granddaughters of an earlier generation of hard-headed, hard-working pioneers and entrepreneurs, eager to be amused and titillated by every new fashion in ideology, art, music, or lifestyle dangled before them by wordy, alien hucksters; hungry opportunists in business, in education, and in the cultural establishment, ready to take the part of the obnoxiously pushy but admirably well-organized strangers, once those strangers had established sufficiently strong beachheads to be able to offer favors in return; and, of course, the politicians, democracy’s inevitable maggots, who are ready to ally themselves with the Devil himself if they think they can gain a temporary personal advantage by doing so.

It is clear that when cleanup time comes there’s as much weeding to be done in our own garden as in any other race’s. An inattentive observer might even conclude that the Jews are no more blameworthy for the bad directions taken by our society than our own worst elements are; that as opportunists they merely look for ways to turn the weaknesses they find in us to their own advantage.

Did they push for opening our borders to the Third World because they had a long-range plan to mongrelize us, or were they merely going along with greedy and irresponsible elements of our own race who wanted to keep the cost of labor down?

Have they been the principal promoters behind every destructive fashion in painting and music in order to cut us loose from our cultural moorings, thereby confusing our sense of identity and making us easier prey, or simply because they have recognized the lack of aesthetic discrimination on the part of our consuming masses and are as eager as the confidence men of any race to sell the suckers whatever they’ll buy?

Do they use their control of the entertainment industry to promote the acceptance—and in many cases the approval—of homosexuality, feminism, and interracial sex as a way of softening us up morally and preparing us for slaughter, or are they simply trying to please and thereby win as customers for their commercial sponsors the more degenerate elements of our population?

An inattentive observer might be stumped by such questions. A more attentive observer, however, will note the details, the specifics, as well as the generalities, and he will understand that those details, taken together, are not consistent with simple opportunism but only with war by way of deception.

Forcing the stream of immigration into America after the Second World War to change from White to Brown and Yellow has most notably kept the cost of farm labor down, but Jews are not farmers, and it is difficult to see how they could expect to benefit economically from this change. The influx of non-White immigrants also has kept the cost of certain other types of labor down—restaurant workers, unskilled construction workers—but the connection to any vital Jewish business interest is tenuous at best.

There can be no doubt that culture distortion has been enormously profitable for Jews. With a controlling economic interest in every facet of the popular-culture industry from art galleries to music records, tapes, and compact discs, they make money from nearly every product that the culture-consuming public can be persuaded to buy. And since no one has ever lost a nickel by underestimating the taste of the public, the deliberate Jewish debasement of art and music is understandable on the grounds of greed alone. But the specific directions are not.

In the production and promotion of what might be called “consumer music,” for example, the one great change which has taken place since the Second World War has been the ascendancy of African rhythm over European music. Fifty years ago one could walk into any record store catering to the general public and find 78-rpm phonograph discs with a number of different types of music: classical, hillbilly (a form of White American folk music known today as “bluegrass” and subsumed under the more general heading “country and western”), numerous samples of genuine folk music from Europe, the religious music of the more primitive Christian fundamentalists (“gospel”), and a wide-ranging selection of “popular” music. The last category contained everything from the songs of Stephen Foster to the vacuous, fluffy stuff of the musical comedies which were especially popular then.

Jews already had established a strong beachhead in popular music production—Sigmund Romberg, Richard Rodgers, Oscar Hammerstein, George Gershwin, Jerome Kern, Irving Berlin—but, at least, most popular music, even that composed by Jews, was still based on European forms. Jazz was for all practical purposes the only non-White music being peddled to White consumers, and it constituted a relatively small minority of the wares—although the “swing” and “big band” forms into which jazz evolved took a larger share of the market. Still, much of the available music was White in form and origin, with classical music still prominently represented.

By the end of the Second World War jazz-influenced popular music was evolving away from its Black roots into hybrid forms that most people considered more White than Black. The introduction of the long-playing record, which for the first time permitted people to listen to an entire symphony without changing records, and of high-fidelity sound systems even brought about a renewal of public interest in classical music. At this point the people controlling the music industry could have moved in any of a number of directions. They chose to put their heaviest promotional efforts behind another music form with Black roots: rock ‘n’ roll.

Rock also evolved, of course. Today in its many forms, some of which have moved rather far from their Black origins, it dominates consumer music. And the masters of the industry have begun pushing yet another non-White music form, more blatantly Negroid than anything heretofore: rap.

Today one must look hard to find even a handful of classical cassettes or compact discs in the music section of a K-Mart or other consumer emporium. European folk music can be had only from a few specialty stores. The majority of the music offered to the consuming public is in some significant sense non-White.

Economic democracy might be invoked to explain, at least in part, the displacement of structure by rhythm, as the taste of the average consumer has become more primitive. But it is clear that deliberate promotion has had much to do with this trend. Why have the promoters so consistently chosen directions which weaken and dilute the White cultural heritage?

Certainly, the feminists, homosexuals, and race-mixers are pleased to see themselves depicted on television and cinema screens as people of a morally superior sort, as role models for the younger generation of goyim. Perhaps they even show their appreciation by buying more of the products of the sponsors of Star Trek, True Colors, and other brave, new television productions. But feminists, queers, and interracial couples still make up only a rather small minority of the population, despite the best efforts of the media masters. Wouldn’t it make better economic sense to cater to the majority? There are as many approximately normal consumers who feel at least a twinge of disgust when a television program tries to persuade them that hard-drinking, hard-swearing female soldiers or cops are “normal” as there are bull-dykes who will run out and buy the sponsor’s brand of beer. And there certainly must be more healthy viewers who seethe with suppressed rage when they see a White woman kissing a Black man on the screen than there are avant-garde sickos who applaud such an abomination.

No, opportunism does not explain the Jews’ destructiveness. There is no doubt that they are opportunists. But their opportunism is too consistently destructive. They have too inerrant an instinct for what will be bad for the goyim.

Can their behavior be explained in terms of an alien brand of idealism—an idealism which evolved in the marketplaces and bazaars of the Middle East over the last five thousand years and is natural for them, but which leads to disaster when applied to European society and institutions? Was their support for communism from the middle of the last century up until its recent collapse really based on their sympathy for the oppressed proletariat and their desire for social and economic justice, as they claim? They themselves have been oppressed, they say, and so they have a natural sympathy for the underdog. They will tell you that the reason they promote feminism, argue for the acceptance of homosexuals, and demand the integration of Blacks into every facet of our lives is that their religion requires it of them; the ethics of Judaism is egalitarian, and it specifies that each man be judged only by his or her character.

Undoubtedly there have been naive, starry-eyed idealists among communism’s Gentile propagandists—at least, in those countries which had not yet experienced communism in practice; the great American writer Jack London was one, and there certainly may have been a few Jewish idealists of Marxism as well. But only a person who has no knowledge of communism in practice can believe that those who engineered its revolutionary triumph in Russia or commissared its institutions in Eastern Europe after the Second World War were seekers of justice for the workers.

As for the claim that Jews have an affection for justice and equality greater than that of other races, we only need to look at the ways in which this alleged affection manifests itself in that part of the world where it should be seen in its purest form: namely, Israel and the Israeli-occupied Arab territories. Ask any Palestinian about Jewish justice!

Judaism, of course, is unequivocally opposed to feminism and homosexuality—for Jews. Furthermore, it is a race-based religion, which defines its adherents in terms of their bloodline and declares them inherently superior to all other races. How does their promotion of feminism among the goyim, for instance, square with the well-known Jewish prayer, “I thank you, oh Lord, for not having made me a goy, a slave, or a woman,” which is recited every day by the Orthodox faithful?

In the Talmud, that authoritative compendium of the Jewish oral law, there are a thousand other reminders to the Jew that he is absolutely superior to all other life forms:

Heaven and earth were created only for the sake of the Jews. (Vayikra Rabba 36)

The Jews are human beings, but the goyim are not human beings; they are only beasts. (Baba Mezia 114)

Yahweh created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form and is condemned to serve the Jew day and night. (Midrash Talpioth 225)

So much for Jewish egalitarianism. Jewish solicitude for Blacks in America today is as much a fraud as was the claim of Jewish sympathy for the oppressed proletariat of Russia on the eve of the Bolshevik Revolution.

What truly lies in the Jewish heart was revealed by an exceptional Jew, Baruch Spinoza (like Ostrovsky, a renegade), who wrote in the 17th century:

The love of the Hebrews for their country was not only patriotism but also piety and was cherished and nurtured by daily rites until, like their hatred of other nations, it was absolutely perverse… Such daily reprobation naturally gave rise to a lasting hatred, deeply implanted in the heart: for of all hatred, none is more deep and tenacious than that which springs from extreme devoutness or piety and is itself cherished as pious. (Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Chapter 17)

The Jewish role in the non-Jewish world and the Jewish motivation for the policies pursued by the Jewish community would be much easier to perceive if the Jews acted in a more consistent and straightforward way: if they spoke with a single voice and spoke truly, saying what really was on their minds. But, then, consistency and straightforwardness would violate the cardinal rule: By way of deception thou shalt do war.

Nevertheless, on a somewhat higher plane of subtlety, there is a consistency in the Jews’ inconsistency. On virtually every major issue—political, social, cultural, moral, or what have you—where there are two principal sides or factions, Jews will be found pushing in both directions and serving as spokesmen for both factions—but with a difference.

Consider: For many years prior to Mikhail Gorbachev’s recent dismantling of the Soviet power bloc and the general recognition of Marxism as a fraudulent, unworkable system, communism’s principal apologists and apparatchiks in the West were Jews. So were a number of anti-communist spokesmen.

During the Second World War, of course, the communists could do no wrong in the eyes of the West’s controlled media, because they were helping to destroy the man about whom the Jewish media masters had nightmares. Thus, while Soviet butchers were torturing thousands of patriots to death in the police cellars of the Baltic countries and liquidating the Polish leadership stratum at the killing pits in the Katyn woods, Jewish communists in the United States were stealing the plans and test results from America’s atomic bomb program and sending them to their colleagues in the Soviet Union.

After the war was over, however, and a reaction began to set in among White Americans as they realized that the communist beast they had unleashed against Eastern Europe might end up devouring them too, it was time for Jews to begin hedging their bets: it was time for the media to begin quoting “responsible” anti-communists. (The “responsible” ones were those who failed to mention the Jewishness of the system they were speaking out against.)

While the memory of Jewish atomic spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg was still fresh and Jewish communist sympathizers such as Robert Oppenheimer were being weeded out of America’s atomic weapons program, Jewish scientist Edward Teller became the spokesman for anti-communist Americans who wanted a strong, nuclear-armed America able to stand up to the Soviet Union. Three decades later, after Jews had rooted for the Viet Cong communists throughout the war in Vietnam, Jews began flocking to the neoconservative movement to speak up for an America strong enough to defend Israel’s interests in the Middle East against the Soviet Union’s Arab clients there. Often they were the same Jews who had been cheering for the Reds a year or two earlier. That really confused the goyim.

Consider: Whenever a gaggle of eggheads gets together in some area to sponsor a classical-music FM radio station as a sole outpost of European culture in a sea of African rock-and-rap rhythm or sub-dimwit gospel bleating, there surely will be a Jew or two among them. And when they are interviewed by the local press, it surely will be one of those Jews who is quoted. That helps to spike any nasty rumors as to who’s behind all of the garbage-music programming at the other stations.

Consider: As I have demonstrated elsewhere, the madness of Political Correctness which has infected America’s colleges and universities is Jewish through and through. And many of those who are urging their colleagues to hold the line against Political Correctness also are Jews (at least, the ones appointed by the media to be spokesmen for academic freedom are). This not only ensures that the Jews manning the PC barricades won’t be criticized as Jews for wrecking our universities, but it preempts those who might try to swing things too far back toward academic freedom.

Consider: While Jew Howard Metzenbaum in the U.S. Senate and Jew Charles Schumer in the U.S. House of Representatives spearhead the legislative drive to strip Americans of their right to armed self-defense and are unanimously and vociferously supported in this effort by the Jewish media, a tiny, Milwaukee-based, Jewish pro-gun group calling itself Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) manages to attract far more attention to itself than its size ordinarily would merit. JPFO is not just a group of pro-gun people who coincidentally happen to be Jews; it is a group of people who are shouting to the world: “Hey, look at me; I am a Jew, and I am in favor of gun ownership.” Whenever a JPFO spokesman is quoted in the news media—which is often enough to give the impression that his organization is right up there with the National Rifle Association, fighting for gun owners’ rights—he flaunts his Jewishness.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that in any contest it’s a good strategy to control your principal opposition. That way you can put on a great show of bad guys versus good guys struggling against each other, but you are always in a position to make the contest go in either direction you want and only as far as you want. Not only do you preempt any real opposition, but you keep the goyim fooled and deflect any criticism of your role in the affair.

By way of deception thou shalt do war.

The deception is masterfully done. It suffices to keep most of the people fooled most of the time. Only a careful study of the details of a number of different social phenomena in which Jews are involved parts the veil of lies and trickery sufficiently for us to see a clear pattern.

The pattern is this: Jews come into any homogeneous society—and such was America at the beginning of this century—as outsiders, as strangers. The society is effectively closed to them. They cannot easily penetrate its institutions. They cannot get their hands on the levers of power. If they try they are noticed, suspected, and resisted. And they always must try. In this they apparently cannot restrain themselves.

To make way for themselves, to open up possibilities for penetration and control, they must break down the structure of the society, corrupt its institutions, undermine its solidarity, weaken its sense of identity, obliterate its traditions, destroy its homogeneity. Thus they inevitably will be in favor of democracy, of permissiveness, of every form of self-indulgence and indiscipline. They will be proponents of cosmopolitanism, of egalitarianism, of multiculturalism. They will oppose patriotism (except when they are inciting their hosts to fight a war on behalf of Jewish interests). They will agitate endlessly for change, change, change, and they will call it progress.

And no matter what they are for or against they will have at least some of their number taking the opposite side: If they are promoting the public acceptance of homosexuality, they also will have a few prominent Jewish publicists bemoaning the downfall of traditional morality and warning of the consequences of the confusion of sexual roles. If their aim is to neutralize the universities as institutions for passing on the historical, intellectual, and cultural traditions of our people to a new generation of potential leaders, at the same time that they are organizing Red Guard brigades to enforce Political Correctness they will have a contingent beating the drums for tradition and free inquiry. If they are working feverishly to disarm White Americans in order to prevent the latter from exercising their right of revolution they will go to the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership for a contrary statement now and then.

What does all of this prove? In the strictest sense of the word, nothing; it is only suggestive.

If you watch a person flip a penny five hundred times, and it always comes up tails, you cannot be absolutely certain that the penny has two tails. But you at least ought to suspect that someone has been working on that penny in his machine shop.

If you study the historical record and observe that every matter of importance in which the Jews have been involved turns out badly for us, even though there are usually a few Jews on our side of the matter, you cannot be absolutely certain that the game is rigged. But you at least ought to suspect that the Jews are following their ancient maxim and waging war against us by way of deception.

— February, 1992