Coming with the wind

“Patriarchy is coming back. It’s just a question of whether it will be a White Patriarchy or an Islamic one.”


Watching the hypocritical Fox News these months I’ve seen many times Sean Hannity criticizing what he calls “radical Islam.” He has been saying that the clash of our civilizations consists that Muslims under Sharia don’t allow women to go outside their homes without a male companion. He has also been saying that, unlike us, Sharia Muslims don’t castigate marital rape or the “denigration” of women as second-class citizens; and that in Saudi Arabia women must cover themselves as their husbands want, etcetera.

I am about the age of Hannity and use the word “hypocrite” because the guy is concealing the fact that, in the last decades, sexual mores have shifted almost a hundred and eighty degrees in this continent.

Gone-With-The-Wind-PosterIn a couple of those opera-like theatres, I saw Gone with the Wind as a child and then in my teens. Many scenes of Rhett Butler (Clark Gable) with Scarlett O’Hara (Vivien Leigh) made a deep impression in my juvenile mind:

• Throughout the film, since the opening scenes in Georgia, the costumes of women of society always hid the sexual appeal of their bodies, especially the southern belle dresses; and I am talking not only about Scarlett and the female elements in her family but of Ashley’s fiancée and the other society women (Melanie Hamilton, who eventually married Ashley, is the perfect model of how women should behave in the West)

• At the Twelve Oaks party, before the barbecue is disrupted by the declaration of war all women are taking their mandatory nap (except Scarlett who escapes the upstairs bedroom) while men discuss serious matters. It was unthinkable that a woman had a voice in such matters

• Even after Scarlett is widowed she is called “Mrs. Charles Hamilton” in the sense that her reputation still belonged to the shadow of a man who died in uniform

• Similarly, after the Entr’acte Frank (Scarlett’s second husband), Ashley, Rhett and several other accomplices make a night raid on a shanty town after Scarlett is attacked while driving through it alone, resulting in Frank’s death. It goes without saying that in that night the women of these brave men stayed at home sewing and reading decent literature: what women were expected to do

• Once married with Rhett Butler, “Captain Butler” was always greeted first by street pedestrians while walking with Scarlett. She, faithfully beside her husband in those street walks, was only mentioned after the pedestrians greeted Rhett

• Never forget the marital rape of Scarlett when Rhett carried her up in his arms telling her, “This is one night you’re not turning me out.”

In those fancy theatres of yore when I was young, the film depicted very healthy Occidental mores—before values got corrupted and completely inverted in this darkest hour of ours.

Have Hannity et al lost memory of history by implying that our culture has always subscribed feminism? What is going on in their “conservative” minds? I tell you: they are liberals, phony traditionalists. Racists should treasure Gone with the Wind instead of a thousand movies of this century as every film today, and TV program without exception, contains ethnosuicidal messages. Mention any movie filmed after the 1960s and, if I’ve seen it, in the comments section I’ll tell you the ethnosuicidal message. But of course: this is something that phony traditionalists, like every Fox News host, will never acknowledge.

Pace conservatives and even quite a few white nationalists, patriarchy is coming back throughout the West with or without a great awakening in the white race. Demography is destiny and, with dozens of millions of Muslims in Europe, the wind has already started to change. The only question is if the coming patriarchs will behave like Clark Gable or, more probably, like towelhead decapitators.

Hamlet vs. Harold


Harold Covington’s novel The Hill of the Ravens is dedicated “To those who shall come after: from the time of struggle, we greet you.”

According to the internal narrative of the story, The Hill of the Ravens is the fourth book of the Northwest Quintet, though it’s the first novel of the Quintet that Covington wrote.

The Ten Principles of National Socialist Thought on pages 187-89 are a gem, of which I’ll excerpt just a few lines:

I. National Socialism above all represents living truth in its purest form

III. No one must be allowed to spoil what Nature created down through aeons of racial evolution. Your highest purpose in life is to carry on that evolution toward a stronger, better, more beautiful mankind

VIII. Every aspect of life must be judged in relation to the survival and improvement of your race; anything hindering these attainments must be ruthlessly rooted out and destroyed

X. Where there is a will, there is a way. Everything falls before the man of indomitable will. Suffering and sacrifice are necessary. We are hardening ourselves for the most decisive struggle in all human history.

These noble principles for elemental racial preservation explain a dialogue on page 278: “‘You a Nazi sir?’ ‘I am’.”

As long as we cannot openly say in the West that we are Nazis, the West, and especially the US (“the fount and wellspring of all that is evil in our time”—page 110) will be suicidal.

Consider principle III, “Every aspect of life must be judged in relation to the survival and improvement of your race; anything hindering these attainments must be ruthlessly rooted out and destroyed.” Compare its living truth to what’s happening to whites.

Throughout the West white birthrates have suffered a catastrophic decline. During this same period, ours has become the most sex-obsessed society in history. As Roger Devlin has demonstrated, these two trends are related. This is what The Hill of the Ravens, page 103, says: “The whole history of our race and our culture tells us that when women of child-bearing age remain unmarried and babies aren’t being born, then that is a sign that something is gravely wrong.” Principle III explains why in the novel’s Day of the Rope right after the revolution, mixed couples, mostly white women and their beasts of pleasure are targeted for destruction.

But not only the blood mixers got what they deserved in Covington’s novel. The traitorous media is beautifully handled. Reporters and media personnel were declared enemy combatants and legitimate military targets. Once the traitors understood that they would be held personally responsible for the content of their reportage, all of a sudden they got restrained. “They would either see the Party’s point of view, or else they’d see me.”

This said, The Hill of the Ravens has a fatal flaw.

On page 253 envious Covington depicts William Pierce as a Fed informant (see full article on this subject: here). Since his younger years Covington has built a fame of defaming his comrades, starting with Ben Klassen.

I have read most of Covington’s Quintet about the creation of a White Republic and found most of it inspiring. But Covington’s character flaw strongly reminds me the epigraph that Laurence Oliver chose for the beginning of his 1948 adaptation of Hamlet:

So oft it chances in particular men
That for some vicious mole of nature in them,
By the o’ergrowth of some complexion,
Oft breaking down the pales and forts of reason,
Or by some habit grown too much; that these men–
Carrying, I say, the stamp of one defect,
Their virtues else — be they as pure as grace,
Shall in the general censure take corruption
From that particular fault.

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 92



Night of the 22nd-
23rd February 1942

The principal newspapers of the Party


The organisation of our press has truly been a success. Our law concerning the press is such that divergences of opinion between members of the Government are no longer an occasion for public exhibitions, which are not the newspapers’ business. We’ve eliminated that conception of political freedom according to which everybody has the right to say whatever comes into his head. Amann controls more than half of the German press.

Our illustrated newspapers have greatly improved. But, to compete abroad with the Anglo-Saxon weeklies, the Leipziger Illustrierte should be more eye-catching. The Berliner, the Münchener and the Wiener are well-made illustrated papers—the JB still better. The Kölner gained the limelight some years ago thanks to the documents it published. On the other hand, we could easily do without the Deutsche Illustrierte. Das Reich is a great success.

When peace has returned, we shall need, as a pendant to Das Reich, a Sunday weekly for people in the country. It should be easy to read, should have a serialised novel—so that young girls should likewise get their share—and should be copiously illustrated.

The English newspapers are in a privileged position as regards both the text and the photographic documentation. From all parts of the world, their material reaches them in floods. We ourselves shall be enabled by our new conquests to make progress in that field.

Published in: on September 2, 2015 at 12:41 pm  Leave a Comment  

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 106



4th April 1942, midday

Jewish origin of religious terrorism
—Jewish influence in Britain.


This terrorism in religion is the product, to put it briefly, of a Jewish dogma, which Christianity has universalised and whose effect is to sow trouble and confusion in men’s minds. It’s obvious that, in the realm of belief, terrorist teachings have no other object but to distract men from their natural optimism and to develop in them the instinct of cowardice.

As far as we are concerned, we’ve succeeded in chasing the Jews from our midst and excluding Christianity from our political life. It’s therefore in England and America that one can nowadays observe the effects of such an education upon a people’s conduct.

Our measures against decadent art have enabled us to get rid of the smears of the Jews. But these daubs, which we’ve banned, are at present fetching the highest prices in England and America. And nobody amongst the bourgeois over yonder dares to protest.

One may well exclaim: “Cowardice, thy name is bourgeoisie!” Although the Jew has seized the levers of control in the Anglo-Saxon world (the press, the cinema, the radio, economic life), and although in the United States he is the entire inspiration of the populace, especially of the negroes, the bourgeois of the two countries, with the rope already round their necks, tremble at the idea of rebelling against him, even timidly.

What is happening now in the Anglo-Saxon world is absolutely identical with what we experienced here in 1918. The Jew, in his imprudence, can’t even think where he is to interfere next; the priesthood restricts itself to the shameful exploitation of the people; and, to cap it all, a king who’s an utter nitwit! The King of England is worth no more than William II, who in 1918 was trembling with fear and incapable of taking the slightest decision, his only idea being to put his flag in his pocket. Under such a monarch, the Jew can propagate and spread himself in the way he understands, and instil his poison into the mind of the bourgeois world. The cream of it is that to-day it’s exactly the same in the Anglo-Saxon world as it used to be amongst us: these idiotic petit bourgeois believe that no economic life is possible without the Jew—for, as they put it, “without the Jew, money doesn’t circulate”. As if there hadn’t been flourishing periods in our economic life before the intrusion of the Jews—in the Middle Ages, for example!

I reckon that our future élite must be given a tough upbringing, so that it may be definitely immunised against such cowardice.

It’s Christian axiology, stupid!

Once more, Jack Frost hits the nail in his endeavors to educate pro-whites who ignore that Christian morality has been more a primary causative factor of white decline than Jewish subversion. At The Occidental Observer Frost has responded to a commenter:


“Well, I think that if nothing else, the Jewish infrastructure ensures that there are lots of jobs and financial incentives to going along with their program. Non-Whites will not be immune to that.”

Non-whites don’t need incentives to hate whites. This is the same error that Christian conspiracy theorist Alex Jones makes. Jones’ constant refrain is that, but for the instigation of the globalists (who promote racial antagonism in a sinister “divide and conquer” strategy, of course), the races would naturally exist in a state of harmony and universal brotherhood. Because his almost all white audience has been steeped in Christian BS their whole lives, they already “know” this to be true and so they buy it.

Beyond this though, it seems to me the whole “incentive model” is taken from animal studies and is really an explanation that explains nothing when it comes to human behavior, which is made much more complex by an ability to foresee consequences that is vastly more advanced than in other animals.

Example 1: One incentivizes a rat to run a maze by rewarding him with a food pellet. Over time, you train the rat to do this, so in a sense, it’s fair to say your incentive is the cause of his maze-running behavior.

Example 2: You are walking down the street, see an attractive woman, and you incentivize her to have sex with you by offering her $50. At this point, she has a choice. She can either take you up on it or slap your face and walk away. Clearly, if she takes the money in exchange for her services, she’s a whore. But she might have done it for free, in which case she’d be only a slut. On the other hand, maybe she’d have done it anyway, but decided to take the $50 just because you offered it and it might come in handy later. In any case, whether she takes the money or not, nothing can really be said from this about questions of causality or morality. Your offer of $50 didn’t cause her to become a whore, if that’s what she is. Conversely, if she slapped your face and walked away, your offer of $50 didn’t in any way cause her virtue. In fact, it’s quite conceivable she might actually be a whore, but thought your offer was too low.

In the same way, Jewish incentives can’t meaningfully be said to cause any white (or even non-white) actions. Unlike in animal studies, with humans there is in fact almost never any way to distinguish between voluntary cooperation and caused (i.e., incentivized) behavior.

“We cannot determine these questions without further information, but what we can determine is that such incentives sway at least some people who would not otherwise have acted in the same manner.”

That seems reasonable, but still, you are assuming what you are setting out to prove. I can reduce it to this: Because human motivations are complex, much more so than with animals, there’s no way to ever be completely sure if something is done for an incentive or for other reasons. With the rat experiment, you can show causality because if you stop giving the reward, eventually the maze-running behavior will be extinguished. With humans, it’s much more complicated. They might, and in fact, in the case of sex, doubtlessly would, find other reasons to continue the behavior even if the incentive were not offered. To tie it in a little better to Kevin MacDonald’s remark, if a white man takes a job working for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is he doing it for the money and prestige (i.e., incentive), or because he actually believes in racial and sexual equality? Or both? Or neither? From the outside, and in fact, even from the inside (one’s insight into even one’s own motivation may not be perfect) I don’t see that there’s any way to say for sure.

“In this case we know how politicians (and others) behaved in the past. We know that since the rise of Jewish power, they have come to act in a dramatically different manner. We know about the control of information and we know about the system of incentives / disincentives. It would take some serious mental gymnastics to deny the causal relationships here.”

The main problem with this narrative isn’t merely that it’s an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning, but that it contradicts history. The biggest boost toward legal and social equality with the white man the negro ever received was during and in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. Whites did this on their own, in the absence of modern mass media and the modern educational techniques, and before Jews even began arriving on these shores in any great numbers. This again points up the importance of worldview, since this first step in the direction of equal “civil rights” for everyone, regardless of race, was framed and justified in terms of Christian morality. A great many of the most prominent Abolitionists were Christian religious fanatics.

“We shouldn’t forget that it is not just the incentives / punishments that are in play here, there is also the power of Jews to control the flow of information upon which individuals rely to form their own world views. This is at least as important as the incentives / punishments in my opinion.”

Worldview is in fact much more important and more powerful than a system of incentives because it is logically prior to any such system. Worldview establishes a system of value that determines what can be used as an incentive and what can’t. For example, it determines whether money or race is considered more important. Someone who truly puts race first can’t be “incentivized” with money.

It’s not clear that Jews control white worldviews though, unless you want to allow that they’ve been in control of whites for two thousand years or more. A difficult position to maintain! In any case, to eliminate Jewish influence you’d have to go all the way back to pre-Christian times.

“In fact, the subject of abolition of slavery is not even relevant to subject here.”

I think the setting of negroes on equal footing with whites by means of a war that cost hundreds of thousands of white lives is extremely relevant. What it shows is that whites are quite willing to impose racial genocide upon themselves without any help from Jews.

“It has been well established that if you can control the information that people are exposed to, you can to a large extent mold their opinions and world view.”

Your argument here is tautological. If you can control people, then you can control them. Yes, that’s true, but so what? Information about Jews is widely available. That’s not the problem. The problem, from the white point of view, is that people overwhelmingly reject both racism and anti-Semitism. They just don’t agree with you. It doesn’t necessarily indicate they’re being “controlled”. If you have ever managed to persuade anyone to see the Jewish question your way does that mean that you’re now controlling them? The question you’re not coming to terms with is, how do you distinguish between someone who simply doesn’t agree with you from someone who is being “controlled”? If the problem is only lack of information, then it should vanish as soon as you supply the missing information. But it doesn’t.

“Clearly using their control of the money and media has been used to transform the culture and the society. It has been used to mold public opinion by altering the worldview of millions of Whites (and non-Whites).”

After the Christian takeover of white civilization, the philo-Semitic, anti-racist worldview of Christianity has never been altered by Jews. There’s been no need. The program it set forth has just been carried out and refined over generations by willing participants.

“It seems a reasonable and logical assumption that if one can control these environmental factors, that one can affect the worldview of an individual or even an entire society. ”

If you can control people, then you can control them? Again, a tautology. But I’m not persuaded that anyone really controls the worldview of a whole society or can dictate a change in it. There’s such a thing as reality, after all, and instinctive drives, such as the will to live, and to procreate. Surely that must count for something. Everyone has immediate and unrestricted access to the world itself through their own senses. They can see what is going on.

“I have held positions in the past based upon my exposure to mass media that I have since repudiated when I discovered that the ‘facts’ upon which I had based those opinions were not true.”

Again, the issue you are avoiding is how to tell the difference between someone honestly disagreeing with you and their being “controlled” to disagree. Also, I have to ask, what accounts for your peculiar immunity from this seemingly omnipotent Jewish “control”? Why is such immunity not more widespread? Why doesn’t merely informing the vast majority of people of the “facts” as you see them change their minds on the Jewish question?

“This is precisely what is happening to us. We are being domesticated and if we are to do anything more than allow ourselves to be herded to our fate, we need to understand what is happening, what the processes at work are and who is driving this.”

I agree that people are being modified genetically by civilizational processes; “tamed” if you want to put it that way. But most whites see civilization as a good thing and are willing participants. If they’re wronged or damaged, rather than killing someone in a duel, they sue. If a relative is murdered, rather than starting a clan-based vendetta, they let police and the courts handle it. Just as with the use of birth control to lower the white fertility rate below replacement level, this is not something Jews are doing to white people. They are doing it to themselves.

“If control of the flow of information and a structure of incentives designed to encourage anti-White behavior are not effective, then why all the hand wringing about Jewish control of media and the monetary system?”

I hate to break it to you, but not many white people are actually worried about this, Bob. They approve of the status quo, and in fact it would be impossible to run such a vast and complicated panopticon without the approval and active participation of white people.

“In fact, why are we all wasting our time trying to provide an alternative worldview to our fellow Whites at all if our information is not going to have any effect on their worldview?”

I think you’re confusing worldview with mere political opinions. They’re not the same thing at all. That’s why trying to build a political mass movement through “education” is a waste of time, in my opinion.

All attempts at educating white people out of their Christian worldview of universal brotherhood and racial / sexual equality have failed, and I believe this is because worldviews don’t so much depend on facts as determine what is regarded as a fact. They provide the framework for interpreting reality; for saying both how the world is and how it ought to be. They aren’t political opinions, but lay the groundwork for those opinions by defining what is permissible and what isn’t.

A shared worldview among the citizenry is essential for the smooth functioning of society. That’s why the state puts such emphasis on assimilating elements within it that don’t necessarily accept the standard list of Christian values: non-violence, anti-racism, respect for authority, belief in the value of work, and of the sacredness of human life as opposed to that of animals; belief in a uniquely human free will, a just God and fair dealing, equality, sin, forgiveness, redemption, the importance of being “moral”, etc.

toms cabin

Even a fellow like you, who thinks he is above being “controlled”, has actually accepted it, as your denunciation of slavery showed. In the Civil War you’d have been an abolitionist, fighting against your own race! Yet imagine what chaos would reign if people rejected all of these values, or simply forgot about them! Only at that point could you say they have changed their worldview. Of course, such a change would probably make civilization as we know it today impossible.

Christianity is a very good religion if you want to build a race-neutral technological civilization, but, as history has shown, it is quite inadequate to the task of preserving race.

“It shows nothing of the kind, unless of course you buy into the propaganda that the war was waged to end slavery. This is something that we know to be untrue. We need only look at the contemporary writings of Lincoln and others who were directly involved in the decision to wage that war.”

It’s something that you think you know is untrue, for reasons that are entirely unclear to me. What about the songs the soldiers would sing before marching into battle? Read the lyrics to The Battle Hymn of the Republic some time, replete with Christian religious imagery, and the telling phrase “let us die to make men free.” Or how about that other popular ditty, John Brown’s Body:

Old John Brown’s body lies moldering in the grave,
While weep the sons of bondage
whom he ventured all to save;
But tho he lost his life while struggling for the slave,
His soul is marching on.

John Brown was John the Baptist of the Christ we are to see,
Christ who of the bondmen shall the Liberator be,
And soon thruout the Sunny South the slaves shall all be free,
For his soul is marching on.

Or read Harriet Beecher Stowe’s 1852 book Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which sold more copies in its day than any book except the Bible. These are facts that are very hard to explain unless abolitionism had a great deal to do with the war.

“The truth is that mistrust of Jews and belief in racial separation were the norm just a few generations ago. The average White American in the 1950’s would find nothing controversial about most of the views expressed here on The Occidental Observer. Why have they come to reject ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘racism’?”

Please think about what you are saying. The average white American man of the 1950s had just returned from crushing racist, anti-Semitic Nazi Germany, and he was mighty damn proud of himself for doing so, Bob. If anti-Semitism and racism had not already been so unpopular, there would probably not have been a war at all. Stateside, the races were still segregated compared to today, but much less so compared to slave times. There has been a slow but steady progression in integration and race mixing over time, just as always happens in any society in which two races live together. It has happened throughout history all over the world, even in places with no Jews. It’s part of the civilizational process.

“If the world was populated by philosophers and people with the time and inclination to research these things and sort them out for themselves, then your point would be valid, but it is not. Most people are busy trying to live their lives. They don’t expend extraordinary amounts of time and energy fact checking and researching ideological questions. They form their worldview based upon the culture within which they are immersed, the indoctrination they have been exposed to and the information that is spoon fed to them by the mass media.”

In that case, a well-informed fellow like you should be able to cure their ignorance very quickly, Bob. But the puzzling thing is, you can’t. All such efforts have failed, even by people far more eloquent than either of us, and even by those with far more prestige and power.

“Insofar as the domestication of Whites goes, if you think that the future we are facing is just the evolution of civilization, then you have completely misunderstood what I am saying.”

I think I’ve understood you perfectly. I just disagree with you.

“I do appreciate your contribution and your efforts certainly do cause me to think about things from different points of view. Thanks.”

Likewise, Bob. I appreciate your efforts too. Even when we disagree, they challenge me and help me tighten up my thinking.

On Fox News’ bimbo

Megyn-KellyMegyn Kelly’s ambush on The Donald during the Republican presidential debate only confirms our view that no woman should hold a position of responsibility.

Yesterday night The Donald reacted hilariously telling CNN’s mulatto host: “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her—wherever.”

This alludes to Megyn’s menstruation. The Donald implied that, a couple of days ago, Fox’ bimbo was in such mood because it was her time of the month.

Published in: on August 8, 2015 at 9:13 am  Comments (4)  

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 129


6th May 1942

Infiltration of the Jews into the press and the film world—Their influence on Hugenberg and Rothermere—Independence of the National Socialist press.

According to a communiqué from Ankara, the Turkish Information Agency is stated to have dismissed a considerable number of Jews from its employment. The Fuehrer remarked that public opinion was formed by the Jews in all the countries actually at war with Germany, and that this had been the case in Germany, too, even in the days of the Weimar Republic. He continued:

From time immemorial the Jews have always succeeded in insinuating themselves into positions from which it was possible to influence public opinion; they hold, for example, many key positions both in the press and in the cinema industry.

But they are not content to exercise a direct, open influence; they know that they will attain their ends more expeditiously if they bring their influence to bear through the so-called Agencies and by other devious methods.

The most dangerous weapon is the Jewish advertising agency, for, by cutting off advertising revenue, they can reduce even the greatest newspapers to the verge of ruin. I myself found it singularly significant to see how both Hugenberg and Lord Rothermere were compelled to abandon their attempts to support a reasoned national policy, because the Jews threatened to cut off their advertising revenue.

Lord Rothermere, who at the time had just published two articles in support of the Mosley movement, himself described to me at the Berghof how the Jews went to work, and how it was quite impossible at short notice to take any effective counter-measures. It has been from the beginning one of my most potent sources of strength that I made all the newspapers of the NSDAP, unlike all the other newspapers of similar importance, completely independent of the Jewish advertising agencies and thus impervious to economic pressure of this nature.

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 131



14th May 1942, at dinner
Suppression of the freedom of the press—The National Socialist journalist—The lure of authority.

As a supporter of this viewpoint, I have tried, since I came into power, to bring the whole of the German press into line. Wherever it may be, this fetish of the liberty of the press constitutes a mortal danger par excellence. It is not easy, at the beginning, to explain all this to the journalists and to make them understand that, as members of a corporate entity, they had certain obligations to the community as a whole. And endless repetitions were necessary before I could make them see that, if the press failed to grasp this idea, it would end only in harming itself.

The British press affords so excellent an example that it has become quite impossible to gauge British public opinion by reading the British newspapers. This has been carried to such a pass, that as often as not the press bears no relation whatsoever to the lines of thought of the people.

That is exactly what happened in Vienna before 1914, in the time of Burgomeister Lueger. In spite of the fact that the entire Viennese press was in the hands of Jewry and in the pay of the liberals, Lueger, the leader of the Christian Social Party, regularly obtained a handsome majority—a fact which showed all too clearly the hiatus existing between the press of Vienna and public opinion.

As in the military sphere the aircraft has now become a combat weapon, so the press has become a similar weapon in the sphere of thought. To-day, the journalist knows that he is no mere scribbler, but a man with the sacred mission of defending the highest interests of the State. A people submits thus voluntarily to authority primarily because its instincts are of a feminine rather than a dominant nature. In the married state a woman will sometimes perhaps reconnoitre a bit, to see whether she could impose her will, but deep within her she has no desire at all to wear the trousers.

It is the same thing with the people. Sticking to military simile, a company does not expect its commander to consult it on all points. This explains how the populace came to cut off the head of a being so pusillanimous as Louis XVI—for the attitude of this king towards the people was far less severe than that of Napoleon; but in the latter the people had recognised a leader—and a man worthy of their veneration. Bismarck was perfectly right when he said that any human society which suppressed the death penalty, the ultimate expression of human defence against the a-social, merely from fear of a possible error of justice, was simply destroying itself.

However one lives, whatever one does or undertakes, one is invariably exposed to the danger of making mistakes. And so, what, indeed, would become of the individual and of the community, if those in whom authority was vested were paralysed by fear of a possible error, and refused to take the decisions that were called for?

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 132



15th May 1942, midday

Ludendorff blackmailed by Jewish Press—The narrow-mindedness of the bourgeoisie—Settling accounts with the Jewish thieves.

In 1917 General Ludendorff was compelled to order a new census of available manhood. He had in this connection the misfortune to come up against the Frankfurter Rettung. The state of disintegration was by then such that he was not in a position to overcome the intrigues of that newspaper. The Frankfurter Reifung (or rather the Jews who pulled the strings of the paper) actually threatened to withdraw its support of a new war loan, and even to advise industrial circles not to subscribe to it, if the new census threatened by Ludendorff were in fact made.

And Ludendorff, of course, had not the power to have these Jews brought to Berlin and hanged in public. And it is these same Jews, experts in the stab-in-the-back game, over whom our bourgeoisie now sheds tears when we ship them off somewhere to the east! It is curious, all the same, that our soft-hearted bourgeoisie has never shed any tears over the two or three hundred thousand Germans, who, each year, were compelled to leave their homeland, nor over those among them who elected to go to Australia, and of whom 75 per cent used to die en route.

In the political field there is no stupider a class than the bourgeoisie. It is sufficient for an end to be put to some individual’s activities, on the score that he is a public menace, and, for reasons of security, for him to be arrested, tried, condemned and put to death, and immediately these tender souls set up a howl and denounce us as brutes. But that the Jew, by means of his juridical trickery and sleight-of-hand, makes it impossible for innumerable Germans to earn a living, that he should rob a peasant of his land and hearth, disperse his family and oblige him to leave his country, that these German emigrants should lose their lives attempting to seek their fortune abroad—that, of course, is quite different! And the bourgeois actually regards as legal a State which permits it, simply because these tragedies have as a pretext some measure of juridical justification and are covered by some article or other of some Code!

It does not occur to any of those who howl when we transport a few Jews to the east that the Jew is a parasite and as such is the only human being capable of adapting himself to any climate and of earning a living just as well in Lapland as in the tropics.

Among our petty bourgeois there are not a few who pride themselves on reading their Bible; but they don’t seem to know that, according to the Old Testament, the Jew survives with equal ease a sojourn in the desert and a crossing of the Red Sea.

Frequently during the course of history, the Jew has become too presumptuous and has exploited to excess the country into which he has insinuated himself. And the countries concerned, victims of his plundering, have one after the other borne witness to the damage they have suffered at the hands of Jewry; each country has then tried, in its own way and when the opportunity arose, to solve the problems arising from the presence of the Jews. And the telegram which we have just read shows with what speed the Turks, for their part, are in process of solving the problem.

Truth before fashion

by William Pierce

Perhaps you’ll pardon me if I speak to you today in a more personal vein than I usually do. I want to tell you about some personal perceptions of mine, because I believe that many of you who are listening have had similar perceptions. I believe many of you have something in common with me, something very important.

When I was a little boy, 11 or 12 years old, I used to spend my time taking clocks apart, building radios and model airplanes, and doing experiments in a tiny laboratory that I had in my parents’ garage. I used to make little solid-fuel rockets and try them out in the back yard. My ambition was to be a rocket scientist when I grew up. And that’s what I became, at least for a while, until I returned to the university to teach.

The point is that, more than anything else, I was interested in learning what made things tick. I was fascinated by knowledge, by discovery, by the truth. I didn’t care at all what was fashionable: I wanted to know what was true. I was the kind of fellow who sometimes would wear one brown sock and one blue sock, because it really didn’t make any difference to me. And I’m pretty much still that way, except that now my wife makes sure that my socks match.

While I was growing up, of course, I paid some attention to what was happening in the world around me. I knew that there were good people and bad people, smart ones and stupid ones. I knew that the world wasn’t perfect, but I believed that it could be made better. I still believe that.

After I was grown I learned one thing, however, which was really depressing to me for quite a long while. I learned that most of the people around me—not all, but most—were much more interested in what was fashionable than in what was true. When I was a university student, for example, I was very interested in history, and I wanted to discuss the various topics which came up in class with fellow students. Whenever the topic was an ideologically sensitive one, however—the Second World War, for example—I found that it was very difficult to carry on an objective conversation with most people. They would balk whenever the discussion wandered onto unfashionable ground. I would ask the students I was talking with, why is it that almost no member of the general public can tell us how many American GIs died during the war—or how many Germans or how many Poles—but nearly everyone thinks he knows that “six million” Jews died? Why is that? Is it that people believe that only Jews are important? Or is it that they have been brainwashed with propaganda by the media, which are controlled by Jews? And if there is propaganda involved, shouldn’t we be suspicious of its claims?

Well, whenever I would say things like that, the people I was talking with would become uncomfortable. Some would become emotional. They would refuse to continue the discussion.

I’ll give you a more recent example of this sort of thing. A few weeks ago the United States sent a military expedition to Haiti to force the government controlled at that time by General Raoul Cedras to abdicate in favor of Mr. Clinton’s good friend, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. General Cedras was a dictator, we were told by the controlled media—a bad man—and Aristide was a democrat, a good man, a man much like Bill Clinton. We were sending troops to Haiti, the media said, to restore democracy.

Now, it’s true that most Americans weren’t as enthusiastic about sending troops to Haiti to install Aristide as the gang around President Clinton was. But we went along with it. And if you watch the television news coverage of the military occupation, you are led to believe that our soldiers are enthusiastic about their assignment. They are doing a noble thing, they believe, giving Haiti back to Aristide and restoring democracy.

Now, the fact is that Mr. Aristide is a Communist, and besides that a much worse thug and terrorist than General Cedras ever was. In 1991, when Aristide was the top dog in Haiti, he ruled by terror and murder. He killed his opponents with burning tires, “necklacing” them, as the Blacks call it, before General Cedras booted him out of the presidential palace. It is difficult to imagine a more despicable criminal than Jean-Bertrand Aristide as the ruler of a country. And our government is backing him. Our troops are keeping him in power and taking guns away from Haitians who oppose him.

Isn’t that amazing?

But just try discussing that with the average U.S. voter. He doesn’t want to talk about it. It’s unfashionable. About as far as the average American will go is admitting that what goes on in Haiti isn’t our business, and that we should let the Haitians run their own affairs.

Some Americans will say that we had to intervene in Haiti because economic conditions were so bad there that we had a flood of Haitian “boat people” coming into this country. That, of course, is sheer nonsense: economic conditions were worse than usual in Haiti before our invasion because the Clinton government had imposed an embargo on the country in an attempt to force General Cedras out. That’s why the Haitians were starving: it was Mr. Clinton’s embargo. But most people don’t want to hear that.

And they don’t want to hear about the fact that Aristide is a Communist and a bloodthirsty terrorist. They prefer to hear that our troops are in Haiti to “restore democracy.” That’s what is fashionable. That’s what it is comfortable to believe.

Now, let me become personal again.

During the past 30 years I’ve noticed this sort of failure of reason over and over again. I’ve seen the government in Washington adopt policies that I was certain were destructive policies, policies that would lead to the loss of our freedom, to the loss of everything that we hold dear. I was appalled, and I would speak out against these policies.

But invariably the controlled media supported the policies, and so the policies were fashionable in the eyes of most people. People who were against the government’s policies were called “racists” by the media. They were called “isolationists.” They were called “haters.” And most people let themselves be bullied by the media. They went along because it was fashionable to go along.

And so there I was, time after time, concerned about trends that I could see developing, concerned about subtle shifts in the propaganda of the controlled media, concerned about changes in government policy. I could see all around me the bad effects of such trends. I could see where these new trends were heading. It was clear. It was obvious. But other people seemed not to notice. It was as if they were oblivious to the destruction of their own world which was going on around them. I felt very frustrated that they refused to see what I saw, that they continued to pretend that things were fine when I knew that we were headed for disaster.

Can you picture that situation? Have you ever felt the way I’ve just described?

I don’t mean to say that I always was right, that I always knew better than everybody else. I can make mistakes, I can make errors of judgment, just like anyone. But when I make a mistake it’s an honest mistake. I don’t deliberately misjudge things in order to be fashionable.

The unfortunate fact is that much more often than not my judgments about the government’s policies have been correct. Policies that I instinctively felt to be wrong have turned out to be so. Trends that analysis and reflection convinced me were degenerative trends have turned out to be so. And I have never hesitated to speak out. I have never hesitated to say, for example, “Hey, everybody, the government’s immigration policy is a disaster. It’s changing the racial character of America. It will destroy everything that’s good about our country if we permit it to continue.” And the controlled media then would turn their hatred against me. They would shriek at me: Racist! White supremacist! Hater!

Or I would say, “Hey, everybody, the reason the crime problem has become so bad during the past 30 years is that we’re subsidizing it. We’re using our taxes to help the minorities, who are responsible for most crime, to breed. We’ve accepted so-called ‘civil rights’ laws which are empowering and protecting the criminal elements.” And the controlled media would shriek at me again: Racist! Hater!

And, of course, I wasn’t being a hater at all. I was simply concerned about the destruction of my country, the destruction of the civilization which my ancestors had built at such great cost, and I was giving voice to my concerns. I was speaking the truth as I saw it, even when the truth wasn’t fashionable.

And I must admit that sometimes I had the very unsettling impression that I was one of a small minority of sane people, and that the majority of the population had fallen under the influence of a gang of lunatics and were letting the lunatics make all of the policies.

I’ve been seeing the quality of education in America fall disastrously year after year, and in response the government has formulated new educational policies which I knew could only make things worse, policies which almost seemed calculated to make things worse. Instead of aiming for quality in the schools, the government ever since the Second World War has been pushing for “equality.” The quality of the educational system goes down, and so the government forces a big dose of “equality” on it. That makes the quality go down even more, and so the government responds with an even bigger dose of forced “equality.” And when I see this I have to pinch myself, I have to say to myself: Are you really the only sane person in this country; are you the only one who can see that this policy of pushing “equality” instead of quality will only make things worse? Are you the only one who still has a grip on reality?

And, of course, I know that I’m not the only one who feels this way. I know that there are many of you who also feel yourselves the only sane people in a world gone mad. I know that there are many of you who still prefer the truth to whatever is fashionable at the moment. Otherwise you wouldn’t be listening to this program.

The problem is that we sane people, we rational people, we people who accept the evidence of our eyes and are able to make comparisons of what we see today with what we saw in the past—we have got to do a better job of sticking together. We have to put up a united front against the lunatics.

And, you know, it can be done. It is possible for the sane minority to get the lunatics back into their cages and then begin repairing the damage they’ve done. It is possible to take the media away from the destructive psychopaths now in control.

I’m given hope by the fact that even the majority of ordinary Americans, the ones who always prefer to be fashionable, finally have overdosed on insanity. The gang of Clintonistas who’ve been running the country into the ground for the last two years have scared them so badly that we had a massive repudiation of them and their policies at the polls recently. Even the trendy air-heads who’ve been tolerating insanity for decades have finally said, “Enough!”

Please don’t think that what I’ve just said means that I’m a Republican. The good thing about the recent elections is not that the Republican Party won; the good thing is that the elections put a party in control of the legislative branch of the government which is different from the party in control of the executive branch. If we’re lucky we’ll have the two parties fighting each other to a standstill for the next two years. We’ll have governmental gridlock, and the government won’t be able to do as much damage as otherwise.

This gives us a little breathing space, a little time to organize ourselves and prepare for battle with the lunatics.

Actually, I’ve used the word “lunatics” loosely in describing those we oppose. The people who control the media and the people in the government who take orders from them aren’t really crazy. They’re evil. Do you understand that? Evil. They’re people committed to the destruction of everything beautiful and noble and decent in the world. We don’t want to put them in a lunatic asylum. We want to hunt them down—every last one of them—and put a final end to their evil.

One of the most interesting results of the recent elections was the rebellion of White Californians against the growing tide of illegal immigrants from Mexico which was swamping their state. That rebellion expressed itself as Proposition 187. The media people and the Clintonistas—and also many Christians who have been infected with the egalitarian madness—are really unhappy about Proposition 187. They’re hinting that those who voted for it are “racists,” that the only reason they want to make things more difficult for illegal aliens is that most of the aliens aren’t White, because they’re Mexicans, mestizos.

And the White voters are responding, “Oh, no, that’s not the reason at all. We’re not racists. We just want to keep our schools and other public facilities from being overwhelmed.”

But, really, for most of them that’s a dishonest response. The whole reason why Proposition 187 was necessary is because the illegal immigrants are non-White. If they were English or Swedish or German they wouldn’t be a problem. They wouldn’t be a threat. Everyone understands that, but most people are afraid to say it. They are afraid of being unfashionable. So they kept smiling and pretending that everything was all right for 50 years, while their country was being ruined by the media and the government. Finally they had too much, and they rebelled by voting for Proposition 187. But they still won’t face the situation squarely and call a spade a spade. They still prefer being fashionable to dealing in the truth.

But, at least—at least—they did rebel. That’s a very good sign indeed. It shows that there are limits to how much the average citizen will let himself be abused. It’s good to know that. I had begun to worry that he would put up with anything rather than risk being called a “racist.”

You know, the trouble with most people is not that they’re stupid. Most people can figure out as well as you and I can that if you give welfare to Blacks, pretty soon you’ll have more Blacks.

They can understand that if you don’t control your borders, pretty soon you’ll have more Mexicans and Haitians in the country.

They can figure out that if you then pass special laws to protect criminals, you’ll have a lot more crime to deal with.

They know that if you begin mixing Blacks and Whites socially, some Whites will begin acting like Blacks, and the average moral tone of White society will decline.

They can understand that if you force White students to go to school with Blacks and then try to maintain the pretense that Blacks are just as capable as Whites, you must lower scholastic standards and thereby keep White students from reaching their full potential.

They know that if you pass so-called “free trade” laws, which allow industries in non-White countries with extremely low wages, countries like China and Mexico, to compete with American industries, pretty soon you’ll bankrupt the American industries and put many Americans out of work. And they can understand that if you permit Jews to get control of the mass media of news and entertainment in your country, and along with that a dominating influence on the political process and government policy, you’re in big trouble. You leave yourself open to all of the aforementioned ills and a whole Pandora’s box of others besides.

They can understand, in other words, that if people permit their government to adopt the policies the American government has adopted during the past 50 years, they will reduce themselves to the condition of the American people today: their civilization in a precipitous decline, their public and private morality in a shambles, their future mortgaged, and an assortment of non-White minorities in the process of foreclosing on that future.

This is something that most of our fellow citizens should be capable of understanding. Instead, they’ve let themselves be persuaded, primarily by the controlled media, that they should ignore their own reason and pretend that everything is A-OK.

Or, if they are so fed up with conditions that they just can’t pretend any longer that there’s nothing wrong, they still won’t face the facts squarely and accept the obvious answers, because they don’t want to be racists. And so they pretend that a switch from the Democrats to the Republicans will fix everything.

But, you know, somebody has to be willing to announce the fact that the emperor is naked. Even if it’s not polite. Even if it hurts a lot of people’s feelings. Even if everyone else is pretending that the emperor’s new suit is the very height of fashion, someone has to come right out and say, “Hey, momma, look! The man has no clothes on!”

Not just me. A lot of us have to say that. A lot of us have to bear witness to the plain, unvarnished truth. It’s important. Much more than the state of our economy and the quality of our schools and the crime problem depends on it. In the long run, everything depends on our preferring what is true to what is fashionable—preferring it enough to speak out for it.

I don’t expect everyone to do that. I know that most people will continue being the way they always have been. But it doesn’t take everyone in order to make a difference. It only takes a few. It only took one small boy to open everyone’s eyes to the emperor’s foolishness—one small boy to persuade all the townspeople that they really were seeing what they thought they were seeing.

So I’m counting on those of you who occasionally wear mismatched socks. I’m counting on you to say, “By god, I am right. The government and the media are wrong. And the right thing for me to do is to speak up now, regardless of whose feelings I hurt.” You do that—you keep looking at the world with open eyes and not being afraid to come to your own conclusions about what’s good and what’s bad—and you tell people about what you see.

You tell them, and many of them will open their eyes and look too. Don’t let the controlled media intimidate you. Don’t let the government push you around. We’re the ones who are right, not them.

You stand with me, and be honest with me, and speak out with me, and together we’ll begin pushing back some of the evil which has been taking over our world. We’ll begin building a better world together.

I’m counting on you. Thanks for listening.

January, 1995


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 317 other followers