With our “precious” freedom of the press, there is today not a single commentator in the mainstream that will advocate for whites at all. Not one.
I copied this image from an ad on The Occidental Observer. This is the problem with white nationalists. Jack Donovan, who is included in the list of featured speakers in the forthcoming gathering, is homo and they have no problem with it. I wouldn’t mind if Donovan was an in-closet homo. But the guy advertises his sexuality openly, crossing a line that will never be allowed crossing in the ethnostate, where whites will really “become what we are” to quote from the title of the coming gathering.
Yesterday Greg Johnson had the audacity of reposting his “gay marriage” article published exactly two years ago, an homosexualist piece that was elegantly refuted by Hajo Liaucius (Liaucius’ response made its way in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour). And like typical liberals and leftists, in his blog Johnson continues, today, banning dissenters that strongly disagree with his plea to accept homosexual “marriage” and removing 12-paragraph posts.
American Renaissance is not much better. It’s several days now since the Supreme Court approved homo marriage in the US and there’s still no critical article in their site. So it’s not only Counter Currents. These two other blogsites together with Richard Spencer’s, whose name also appears in the above pic, are major sites for white interests and they are unable to recognize that approving such “marriage” is harmful for us. In fact, American Renaissance has also invited Donovan to its conferences, who has been photographed next to Spencer. (I don’t care that Donovan has criticized such pseudo-marriage. The point is that no out-of-the-closet homo should be allowed to address the young.)
The following article, “Look what gay marriage did to freedom of speech in Canada” by Red Dawn, quotes a writer whose last name sounds Jewish. She might be Jewish only in name as she was adopted by two male homos. Whatever she is, isn’t it a shame that a woman raised by fags is now defending our interests while, at the same time, among leading WN sites pieces strongly criticizing homo “marriage” are lacking? The American Red Dawn wrote (abridged):
* * *
There are a couple things we can learn from our neighbors of the North. In an excellent piece in Aleteia, Dawn Stefanowicz, a woman who lives in Canada and was raised by gay parents, pens a warning to the United States: We don’t want to embrace gay marriage, and Canada is proof. Canada federally mandated gay marriage about ten years ago in 2005. Since then, their freedoms have eroded.
Over and over, we are told, “permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights.” That is a lie.
It slowly creeps up, and before you know it, you can’t speak about the traditional family of a man, woman and children without authorities considering it “hate speech.” In fact, you couldn’t even have this kind of debate in Canada, because everyone would start shouting, “OMG you’re so homophobic and bigoted!” But it doesn’t end there.
Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.
With gay marriage totally legal, the traditional family structure is destroyed. Kids can totally be raised by two dads or two moms, and call me discriminatory or hateful, but that’s not nature’s way. With same sex marriage legal, the concerns of kids are shut out. It’s not politically correct to point out, but kids who are raised by parents of the same sex have problems growing up (identifying with their gender, sexuality, and wondering about their “missing” parent of the opposite sex). A dad can’t fundamentally replace a mom, and a mom can’t fundamentally replace a dad. Stefanowicz would know. Two gay men raised her.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that men and women are anatomically, biologically, physiologically, psychologically, hormonally, and neurologically different from each other. These unique differences provide lifelong benefits to children that cannot be duplicated by same-gender “legal” parents acting out different gender roles or attempting to substitute for the missing male or female role model in the home.
Oh, didn’t you hear? They’re called “legal” parents now. Canada basically “erased biological parenthood” and replaced it with this warm and fuzzy gender-neutral term “legal parent.” So once again, the state is overriding parental rights. Because it can.
And this is where it gets even scarier. In Canada, it’s considered discriminatory to say marriage is between a man and a woman. If someone catches and reports you uttering your bigoted, intolerant opinion, prepare to face tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and sensitivity training.
Anyone who is offended by something you have said or written can make a complaint to the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. In Canada, these organizations police speech, penalizing citizens for any expression deemed in opposition to particular sexual behaviors or protected groups identified under “sexual orientation.” It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the defendant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The commissions have the power to enter private residences and remove all items pertinent to their investigations, checking for hate speech.
The plaintiff making the complaint has his legal fees completely paid for by the government. Not so the defendant. Even if the defendant is found innocent, he cannot recover his legal costs. If he is found guilty, he must pay fines to the person(s) who brought forth the complaint.
And it still gets worse. In Canada, the state has a say on what you’re teaching your children. And if they don’t like it, they can be taken from you:
The state has access into your home to supervise you as the parent, to judge your suitability. And if the state doesn’t like what you are teaching your children, the state will attempt to remove them from your home.
So if you’re not teaching your children the state mandated gender-neutral terminology, expect a knock at your door chumps.
Newspeak proclaims that it is discriminatory to assume a human being is male or female, or heterosexual. So, to be inclusive, special non-gender-specific language is being used in media, government, workplaces, and especially schools to avoid appearing ignorant, homophobic, or discriminatory. A special curriculum is being used in many schools to teach students how to use proper gender-neutral language.
Bottom line? Gay marriage is slowly eroding the freedom of speech away in Canada. And everyone’s playing along because they don’t want to be the bad guy. Heck, in order to keep their status as charities, churches even play along! The media’s restricted. Business owners are restricted. Parents are restricted. Everyone’s restricted. Is that what you want America?
Americans need to prepare for the same sort of surveillance-society in America if the Supreme Court rules to ban marriage as a male-female institution. It means that no matter what you believe, the government will be free to regulate your speech, your writing, your associations, and whether or not you may express your conscience. Americans also need to understand that the endgame for some in the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms.
Although “Hate speech” is no longer part of Canada’s Human Rights Act, due to the militant character of homos—and especially because “the ever-greater pursuit of equality results in the ever-greater erosion of liberty”—you’ll see how they will sue, in the US, those American photographers or bakers who decline their services in such “weddings.”
17th July 1942, midday
Radio control in Russia
In the neighbourhood of our “Werwolf” Headquarters we found that almost every house was provided with a wired-wireless.
This shows that the Russians had realised in good time the dangers of a wireless receiving set. For one thing, the wired-wireless has the great advantage that it eliminates all interference, and for another, it permits the State to choose the broadcasts which it considers suitable. In Russia, the Commissar chooses the programmes, and the listeners are therefore completely cut off from the influence of foreign propaganda.
Before the war I myself directed the Minister for Propaganda to introduce wired-wireless in Germany. In this way German listeners would have been able to receive only our own national stations and such foreign broadcasts as we decided to retransmit.
I am very sorry that we were not able to apply these measures before the conflict started. It was a bad piece of work on the part of the Ministry of Propaganda, for although Dr. Goebbels has tried to put the blame on to other services, it is he who is responsible for the failure. When the execution of an order demands the cooperation of several services, he who receives the original order must assume the responsibility for the execution of the whole.
The desirability of introducing wired-wireless is indisputable. No Government can permit its population to be poisoned by enemy propaganda; otherwise one might as well invite a thousand enemy propagandists to come over and do their work openly.
All measures of this nature should be examined in peacetime with an eye to their probable effects in time of war. For war is a life-and-death struggle, which has its own rules and ignores the normalities of peace. A people which is prepared to accept compulsory military service of three or four years as a preparation for a possible war will not mind the slight inconvenience of a change over from wireless to wired-wireless.
by William Pierce
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!”
Woe to you French hypocrites!
According to Robert Chardon, the mayor of a French town, “anyone that practises Islam must be immediately returned to the border”. Chardon posted his statements on May 14 in the internet. Psychiatric hospitalization of the mayor was announced the next day.
The mayor has cancer. A man with nothing to lose is certainly dangerous to the status quo. We must regard him a hero of free speech. But the French are hypocrites: they outrageously lie to themselves when thy claim they believe in free speech.
Apropos the 2015 Ile-de-France attacks I wrote this January that “together with niggers and sand niggers, Frenchmen and Frenchwomen, as a massive reaction against the killed, far-leftist journalists, have been waving the flags of every nation on the streets, chanting the ethno-suicidal slogans Liberté, égalité, fraternité! and Pour la démocratie, l’égalité, les libertés. Combattons tous les fascismes! that mark the modern West. These shocking TV images of the current Zeitgeist that afflicts not only Paris and France but the Western world certainly count for a million words…”
I call the French hypocrites because in those days of street manifestations supposedly championing free speech Brigitte Bardot was fined for “Islamophobic” statements, and who defended her on the streets?
As some of you know, before becoming racialist I spent my time researching child abuse (see e.g., the first long chapter of my Day of Wrath, linked on the sidebar). And since it’s very common that—believe it or not—psychiatry sides the abusive parents, I spent many years of my life researching psychiatry, and published my findings in Spanish (here). My point is that a psychiatry that sides abusive parents is the same psychiatry that recently committed Chardon for political incorrectness.
Daniel Defoe, the author of Robinson Crusoe, was the first major writer to expose institutional psychiatry in an article where he complained that some husbands committed their sane wives. For those unfamiliar with the critique of psychiatry this is our definition of this fraudulent profession:
From viewpoint of science, and specifically on the basis of the litmus test to distinguish between science and pseudoscience, psychiatry, a supposed medical specialty, is not a science. The central concept in psychiatry, the entity called “mental illness” is not defined in biomedical but in political terms, and biological psychiatry has not presented its theories in a refutable way: a sure sign of pseudoscience.
From the viewpoint of politics and law, psychiatry is an organ of society that regulates human behaviour. It is a paralegal system of penalties of the System that uses psychoactive drugs for social control, including dissident individuals who have not broken the law (like Robert Chardon).
12th August 1942, midday
Marriage is a holy act, the binding into one of two human beings of different sex; less moving, perhaps, for a man than for a woman, but still a most solemn occasion.
* * *
The purging of all foreign elements in Germany, introduction of compulsory military service, reconstitution of the German Army, abolition of the freedom of the press, suppression of provincial governments! Good heavens! Such ideas were pure blasphemy! People swore solemn oaths that they had never lent an ear to such things! But old Schröder, that most energetic of men, that uncompromising fanatic, accepted the whole thing without further ado. He was to the Navy what Lützow was to the Army. Hutier, too, was a national figure, and a fine one at that! But he had, I think, a tiny streak of the Catholic in him. When I discover a man like Schröder, I grab him at once.
Turning to Admiral Krancke: I suppose this accounts for the slight inferiority complex which the land forces feel in the presence of the Navy. We had to cut up our greatcoats in order to make puttees, and we looked like a bunch of tatterdemalion balletdancers! They, on the other hand, looked frightfully smart in their belts and gaiters; and we were not sorry when we escaped to the decent obscurity of our trenches once more.
Consider obtaining a copy of the complete notes
published by Ostara Publications.
Tom Sunic wrote:
The thought police in America, with its numerous outlets, are much less visible and much more subtle than in Europe—and therefore more efficient. For example, The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) claims to be a think tank but is essentially an assembly line for smearing those who have “evil thoughts” on topics such as race and Jewish influence. It receives millions of dollars from anonymous sources with its prime goal being the blacklisting of all groups it labels as “extreme rightwing” and of all intellectual nonconformists daring to criticize the System. Indeed, the SPLC resembles a private spy agency whose ideological lines are drawn in the vicinity of cultural Marxism, and which is headed by Morris Dees, Mark Potok and Richard Cohen.
Long ago, it was the SPLC itself that launched the new rules of the language engagement and which continues to employ abusively the expressions such as “hate groups” or “white supremacist” for individuals of European ancestry voicing opinions critical of multiculturalism and opposing the disproportionate role of the Jews in the American media. In the French language, words such as “hate groups” or “white supremacists” have not yet assumed the same inquisitorial significance, in contrast to America, where these terms have a paralyzing effect on any intellectual or a politician daring to touch the modern Holy of Holies—i.e. the Jewish question or the metaphysics of multiculturalism. Although in the Penal Code there is not yet a legal provision referring to “hate speech,” this expression, however, is propagated by the U.S. media on all wavelengths, and has by now become part of the new media jargon, serving as an increasingly powerful deterrent against all free spirits. Indeed, the locution of “hate speech” is so vague that it can easily lend itself to any interpretation; hence the label may strike anybody at any time.
The SPLC or the powerful explicitly Jewish lobby, the Anti-Defamation League, (whose counterpart in France is the CRIF, Conseil représentatif des institutions juives de France—“Council of French Jewish Organizations”) are not just intellectual espionage machines. The SPLC is also an outlet which informs the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security in the United States about White heretics suspected of spreading “hate speech” and who—by the process of guilt by association—are likely to become “terrorists”—a denotation with far more serious implications in America. Worse, the SPLC has also set itself the task of monitoring academic institutions, sniffing out and cataloguing “evil-minded” teachers whose syllabi depart from the Gospel of multiculturalism. Not only are its targets young wacky self-proclaimed Nazis, but also many prominent scholars in the field of sociobiology, as for instance Professor Kevin MacDonald, or even politicians and writers, such as the former presidential candidate and the bestselling author Patrick Buchanan.
Of course, everybody in America is legally entitled to criticize everything on numerous websites and in fringe nationalist papers of the so-called extreme right, but in most cases, the intellectual scope of these papers and sites is limited and can in no way harm the System.
Franklin Ryckaert commented:
The difference between America and Europe with regard to freedom of speech about the two taboos (Jews and race) is that in America the problem is “solved” in a privatized way—in accordance with its ethos of the free enterprise system, while in Europe it is solved by the State (laws), but the result is the same. In America private inquisitions (ADL, SPLC) persecute heretics, in Europe it is the State. In both cases it is the Jews who are behind it.
Then there is of course a secondary class, consisting of whites who have entirely interiorized Jewish thinking and now have undertaken the holy task of persecuting their heretical brethren: the pathetic case of the anti-white whites, variously known as “anti-racists”, “anti-fascists” etc.
The more Jews take power and the more the number of non-whites increases, the more restriction of free speech will increase. There is no other way out of this predicament than through the use of free speech. Here lays the major battlefield. The internet with its numerous websites allows us to wage a kind of guerrilla war in this struggle, but for how long?
My 2 cents:
Greg Johnson wrote today about his recent encounter with the American thought police:
Last week, Caitlin Dewey, a writer at The Washington Post, wrote an article about Heidi’s campaign, giving it a great deal of publicity, and not 48 hours later, Amazon canceled our affiliate account. The SPLC’s purpose, of course, is to put Counter-Currents out of business. (Ask yourself how you would fare with a 20% reduction in income.)
They have to silence us, of course, because they can’t answer us. As more people awaken to the fact that multiculturalism is a marriage made in hell, the SPLC and other organs of Jewish domination and anti-white genocide will only intensify their attempts to suppress freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
Then Greg took the opportunity to request further donations. He now wants $60,000 a year from his sponsors.
If like Linder you are unimpressed by Greg’s “porcelain gun” approach to white preservation, consider donating to this blog instead.
Don’t you find it funny that out of 1,600 dailies in the US not one will report on those who advocate White interests as anything but “haters”? They say the media aren’t controlled. They say that we enjoy a free press. I guess all those 1,600 papers’ editors arrive at exactly the same conclusions independently.
Isn’t it incredible that what George Lincoln Rockwell said at UCLA in 1967, a couple of months before he was assassinated, about the actual perps of the largest genocide in Western history is still censored in the media? Alexander Solzhenitsyn was the author of a two-volume work, Two Hundred Years Together, about the history of Russian-Jewish relations between the years 1795 and 1995. It is the only non-fiction book by Solzhenitsyn besides The Gulag Archipelago.
Alas, the Jews and the Zionist gentiles in the Anglo-Saxon world are so powerful that they have managed to censor the Russian-English translation of Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together for more than a dozen years! The publishing houses in the US, Canada, the UK and Australia, including the universities presses, are such cowards that Solzhenitsyn’s last major work, published since 2001-2002 in Russian, has not been translated to English!
What can we think about the powers that be regarding the fact that the most significant historical datum of the 20th century is still hidden from the masses?:
“You must understand. The leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. The October Revolution was not what you call in America the ‘Russian Revolution.’ It was an invasion and conquest over the Russian people. More of my countrymen suffered horrific crimes at their bloodstained hands than any people or nation ever suffered in the entirety of human history. It cannot be understated. Bolshevism was the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant of this reality is proof that the global media itself is in the hands of the perpetrators.”
—Solzhenitsyn, quoted by David Duke
When I was younger Soviet dissidents had to smuggle copies of Solzhenitsyn’s work into the Soviet Union. Today totalitarianism has been inverted and it is us who are smuggling unauthorized translations of Solzhenitsyn’s last major work from Russia into the West, thanks to the internet.
There’s no question about it: whites have been plugged in a matrix for seventy years now.
Postscript of February 18:
I have now printed and read Roger Devlin’s long review of Two Hundred Years Together, originally published in The Occidental Quarterly (here and here). It looks like, although I do not claim that Solzhenitsyn’s quote in above post is fraudulent, it certainly goes against the grain of what, according to Devlin, Solzhenitsyn opined about Russian Jews in his last book.
Similarly, after watching ISIS’ recent mischief in Libya I retract what I said last month, that “whites have a better chance to survive under Sharia than under the current Judeo-liberal system.” While it is true that the current system is a fast track for Aryan extinction, under Islam extinction would only be postponed a little longer.
One of the advantages of our continuing education through the Internet is that our worldview may be slightly modified as new bits of data are encountered and properly digested. This said, the basics of my catechism in the form of a compilation of many authors in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, which 2015 edition has just been released, are still intact.
Excerpts from Roger Pearse’s review of Joseph Hoffmann’s Porphyry’s Against the Christians: The Literary Remains:
The sixteen-book work by the Neoplatonist Porphyry Against the Christians is lost. Constantine ordered that all copies should be destroyed; a century later Theodosius tacitly acknowledged that this had not occurred by issuing a similar edict.
Constantine burning Arian books
Porphyry adopted an “idiot-boy” literalism as his tool to debunk. Anything that could be made to sound discreditable, anything that did not fit with the tenor of contemporary prejudice, any statement that could be made to sound contradictory, could be presented as a reason to deride the Christians. However, such a approach is unimpressive to anyone except a believer. Such people could have their faith in anti-Christianism bolstered, and be encouraged to sneer and have gibes ready to throw. But the unconvinced reader would see easily that such statements can be made about anything, however worthy.
Instead, the essential argument is an appeal to the irrational herd-instinct of mankind and its need to conform. Many of Porphyry’s arguments consist simply of assertion that something is shameful or embarrassing, rather than rational discussion. This can only work if the flavour of the times is such that the subject is unfashionable. To look for a modern analogy, modern readers will be aware that “anti-racism” has not acquired the power it has in our society by rational argument. Instead it relies on repeated assertion and intimidation, to create a climate in which only certain ideas can be said. In the ancient world, likewise, certain ideas went without saying. The Christian ethos was not part of this; and indeed, as a novelty, was embarrassing. The idea that the poor might be important was disgusting. Porphyry simply harps on the subconscious need to the reader to conform to what he knows society expects, rather than reasoning objectively what is right.
But once the times changed, the approach worked in reverse. It was Porphyry’s ideas that went against the tenor of the times.