On Hillary

At Facebook Todd Ojala asked me: “Do you think that
defeating Hillary Clinton is important?” I replied:

Well yes. I am extremely concerned that the witch will start messing with the Second Amendment (and probably the First too).

After the dollar crashes in this decade white Americans will change from “Happy mode” to “Angry mode”. Unfortunately, Angry mode is not enough for revolutionary action. We will need “Combat mode” and ultimately “Killing mode”. American whites need time to digest the white nationalist literature that will become fashionable after the crash.

But if Hillary introduces hate speech laws and starts confiscating weapons after blacks chimp out while whites defend their property, I’m not sure there will be enough time for the gradual unfoldment of a pro-white revolutionary mindset. It will just be utter chaos.

A Trump presidency on the other hand, with those two Amendments unmolested, would give whites a pause to rethink things over for some years, perhaps enough for a White Awakening in a world where the dollar will lose its international status.

Published in: on August 9, 2016 at 8:28 am  Leave a Comment  

Gun control: not what it seems

by William Pierce

wlp_bas_relief
 
There is hardly an issue which more sharply divides White Americans than “gun control.” There is hardly a more significant difference than that which exists between the people who want gun control and those who don’t. For there is a great temperamental and ideological divide between those who believe in self-defense and those who believe in surrendering and begging for mercy.

Looking at this from the standpoint of temperament: It may seem unfair to women to categorize the tendency to surrender as feminine and the tendency to defend oneself as masculine, but at a very fundamental level this categorization corresponds to real differences between feminine and masculine natures. Every person has some of the feminine nature and some of the masculine nature in his character. What we see today is a much greater than normal manifestation of feminine traits in men. It is not a pretty sight.

And we can look at this divide from the standpoint of ideology: Except for a relatively small minority of very sick persons who actually relish the idea of surrender and fantasize about being victimized, those who choose to give up their arms are hoping to be protected by the government. They trust the government. They believe the government has their best interests at heart. They think of the government as a friend and generally approve of the government’s policies.

This divide becomes deeper and wider by the day. A Black with an uncontrollable hatred of Whites opens fire on a crowded subway train in New York, killing five Whites and injuring 17 more. Gun control advocates see this massacre as support for their position. “A gun killed and wounded those people,” they say. “If we get rid of all the guns, then Blacks and Whites will not be able to kill each other.” And people on their side of the divide believe them and clamor for the confiscation of guns. At the same time people on the other side of the divide rush to gun stores, determined that they will be prepared to defend themselves if any White-hating Black ever threatens them or their families.

Now, this divide certainly didn’t exist a century ago. Then every White man was armed, and every woman expected him to be. In that more civilized age violent crime was a minute fraction of what it is today. People could walk the streets of their cities at night and, in most places, leave their doors unlocked without fear. The government interfered relatively little in people’s lives. Most communities had police, but a man’s right to defend himself, his family, and his property was absolute.


What caused people’s attitudes to change so radically?

Well, there are a number of reasons: A century ago the country was substantially less urban than it is now. People living in small towns and rural areas always are more self-reliant and independent, on the average, than city dwellers. Rural people live a little more naturally, a little closer to Nature. They do not depend on the elaborate infrastructure of the city, which provides garbage collection, public transportation, shelters for the homeless, and a thousand other protections and shields against the natural world. Even little things, like drawing water from one’s own well and chopping one’s own firewood for winter warmth, give one a sense of reality and self-sufficiency that most urbanites and suburbanites lack. As the nation’s population became more urban during the past century it also became less self-reliant.

Another reason is that until 1920 only men voted in the United States. To the extent that politicians and government are responsive to the feelings of the electorate, the government was much less inclined before 1920 to assume the role of a protective mother than it was after women began to vote. Although women voters are by no means uniform in their sentiments or their voting preferences, they are on the average substantially more “wet,” in the ideological sense, than men. At the most basic, instinctive level, self-defense is an alien concept to women, and since 1920 their votes have helped to shift the burden of personal protection from the individual to the government.

Then there is the fact that in the early years of North American settlement the flow of immigrants was not only entirely White (not counting the slaves imported from Africa, of course), but it consisted of a tougher, more independent breed than in recent years. People came to America from Europe seeking freedom, adventure, or opportunity; but certainly no one came looking for a handout, because everyone understood that there were no handouts available. As the country became more urban, however, the stream of immigrants began to include more of the wretched refuse of various teeming shores yearning to receive welfare checks, and the politicians began looking to the public treasury as a source of funds for buying votes. The consequence has been the growth of an urban underclass of citizens dependent on the government in one way or another: citizens who always are ready to increase their dependency on the government and to trade freedom for the promise of more security.


The mass media hate guns: here’s why

All three of the factors above have to do with the changing character of the U.S. electorate, and they are important reasons for the declining fortunes of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They are dwarfed to insignificance by a fourth factor, however, and that factor is the growth in the degree of influence on public opinion of the Jews through their control of the mass media of information and entertainment.

Both the Jewish control of the media and the media bias against the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms are generally recognized but seldom discussed publicly, for fear of the charge of “anti-Semitism.” Also manifest but inadequately publicized is the Jewish leadership of the legislative drive to restrict or abolish the private ownership of firearms. The names of the principal anti-Second Amendment legislators—Feinstein, Metzenbaum, Schumer—tell part of the story, and the anti-gun lobbying organizations, of which the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith—the ADL—is the most powerful, tell the rest.

When a “group of concerned citizens” or an association of mayors or chiefs of police issues a statement to the press calling for the banning of firearms as a way of reducing violence in America’s cities, a close examination nearly always will reveal the hidden hand of the ADL. Especially insidious has been the ADL’s use of local, state, and federal police agencies as front groups. For the past two decades the ADL has been lobbying actively for a group of what it calls “model statutes” restricting firearms ownership and penalizing what it deems to be “hate crimes” perpetrated by Whites against members of minority groups. Typically the ADL will have a police official or two in tow when it shows up at a state legislature to lobby for one of these politically oriented laws.

The ADL’s program to subvert police departments was revealed in late 1992 when a San Francisco police inspector, Thomas Gerard, was arrested for illegally selling confidential police investigative files to the ADL. Police searches of ADL offices in San Francisco and Los Angeles in April of last year turned up evidence of widespread corruption of police agencies around the country by the ADL. Brave indeed is the local police chief who will turn away an ADL emissary who visits his office with a couple of the community’s leading Jewish businessmen and requests the chief’s endorsement of a “model statute” banning semiautomatic firearms.

Now, far less obvious than the fact of Jewish leadership of the drive to ban the private ownership of firearms is the reason for this Jewish activity. The reason is the so-called “New World Order,” a subject I’ve spoken about several times before on American Dissident Voices. To put it very briefly, the New World Order is a utopian system in which the U.S. economy will be “globalized,” the wage levels of U.S. workers will be brought down to those of workers in the Third World, national boundaries will for all practical purposes cease to exist, an increased flow of Third World immigrants into the United States will have produced a non-White majority in the country, and United Nations “peace keeping” forces will be used to keep anyone from opting out of the system.

To be sure, Jews are not the only ones behind this scheme for a New World Order. It appeals to egalitarians, many of them Christians, who are tormented by the fact that most of the population of the Third World lives in a state of perpetual squalor and poverty. They really believe that the unfavorable condition of these non-White masses is not due to any innate inferiority. They really believe that these masses can and should be lifted up to a White level, and that it’s worth pulling the White living standard down in order to equalize everyone. And, of course, it appeals to many people in the upper echelons of Big Business, who are entranced by the prospect of paying lower wages and exporting their goods to a bigger market. It was considerations of this sort which gave us the unholy alliance of egalitarian ideologues and international capitalists who backed the recently adopted North American Free Trade Agreement.

Equality and so-called “free trade” aside, one salient feature of the New World Order is a greatly increased degree of centralization of power and of governmental control over the lives of ordinary citizens. This means a greatly increased importance for the mass media of news and entertainment. Whoever controls the mass media and is therefore able to manipulate the attitudes and opinions of the great masses of people will, for all practical purposes, be able to steer the course taken by the New World Order. This helps us to understand the virtually unanimous enthusiasm of the Jews for the New World Order.


New World Order = A disarmed America

There are two prerequisites for safely bringing in the New World Order. First, the people who are not convinced that surrendering national sovereignty and permitting themselves to be “equalized” with China’s coolies and Mexico’s peons are good things must be silenced with “hate” laws designed to criminalize any expression of fact or opinion which can be considered “racist.” Second, the same people must be disarmed, so that they have no recourse but to obey the laws and remain silent.

In the United States the number of people likely to take up arms against an oppressive government is not large at this time. We live in an age when comfort and safety are valued more highly than freedom. If economic conditions worsen substantially, however, those few willing to fight for freedom may persuade many others who are more concerned with their pocketbooks than their honor to take up arms as well, and if that happens the New World Order will be in serious trouble.

What all the foregoing means is that the present drive to disarm American citizens is motivated by a fear of rebellion, not by a fear of crime.

The people in the media and the government beating the drums for the New World Order understand that as the program of “globalization” proceeds, millions of newly dispossessed citizens will be angry and desperate. If these citizens still have firearms in their possession, they may strike at their despoilers.

Patriots need to understand this fact as well as their enemies do, and they must not be bashful about stating it plainly and forcefully. They need to drop the pretense that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the rights of hunters, target shooters, and collectors of antique firearms. When Congressman Schumer or Senator Metzenbaum holds a semiautomatic rifle or pistol up for the television cameras and says that “no legitimate sportsman needs a weapon like this,” he is laughing up his sleeve at the same time.

The needs of sportsmen and hobbyists are utterly without importance or significance when compared with the two serious needs served by the private ownership of firearms: the need of the individual for weapons with which to protect his person, his family, and his property against the growing hordes of criminals in our disintegrating society; and the need of the patriot for weapons with which to keep governmental tyranny in check.


America’s problem: race, not guns

There is another very important dimension to the change which has brought Americans to the point that so many of them are eager to surrender and beg for mercy. That is the racial dimension and its relationship to the enormous increase in crime and violence in America. Those who are able to remember America as it was three or four decades ago remember a life as different from that of today as day is from night. There were no drugs or gang violence in the schools. There were no drive-by shootings. Burglary and armed robbery were so rare that when such a crime did occur it was the talk of the town for months afterward. Listeners who find it difficult to believe that such an America ever existed need only view a few motion pictures from the 1940s or early 1950s: Look at the crowds on the streets that you see in those films. Look at the students on the university campuses. Look at the faces in the offices and factories. It was a White America.

America prior to the 1960s was a vastly gentler and kinder country than it is today. The drugs and violence endemic in the non-White community had not been permitted to spread to the White community. White children still could play in fields or vacant lots near their homes without fear. No one ever was killed or raped on a school playground. But then the planners of the New World Order decided that the time had come to begin transforming America, to begin getting it ready to fit into their scheme of things. Blacks and Whites must be integrated, without regard for the consequences!

It is astonishing how easily White Americans permitted themselves to be dispossessed in their own land. It is disgusting how many of them collaborated in the campaign of genocide against their own people—and still do. Of course, the New World Order boys had an immensely powerful weapon in their hands by the 1960s, and they used it with deadly skill: television. Americans let themselves be persuaded by the puppeteers manipulating the images on their television screens that racial integration was fashionable. And when the changes of the 1960s brought nothing but evil, White Americans let themselves be persuaded that the cure for the evil was more change of the same sort! If there is a just God in heaven, he must laugh in scorn when he hears White Americans whining now about drugs and crime and violence and how they are afraid for the future.

Crime and violence came to America as a direct and immediate consequence of the loss of racial homogeneity in American society. When Blacks and other non-Whites were released from their ghettos and came flooding into the White world they brought their life-style of drugs, crime, and violence with them. And the attitudes and behavior of Whites—especially young Whites—also changed. With the loss of racial and cultural homogeneity went the loss of a sense of community. The world in which White boys and girls were growing up became more alien, more hostile. It was no longer their world. They no longer had a sense of family, of belonging. They no longer had clear standards and models, no longer a clear image of what was expected of them. When young Whites lost their sense of belonging in the chaotic, racially mixed world into which they suddenly were thrust in the 1960s and 1970s, many of them also lost their sense of responsibility to that world. Immorality, crime, and violence increased among young Whites as among Blacks. It was a natural and inevitable consequence of the loss of homogeneity.

So what do we do about this horrible increase in crime and violence which so frightens people? Well, we might think about restoring the homogeneity and the sense of community White Americans used to have. We might think about that, except that if we said anything about it we would be immediately denounced by the controlled media as “racists.” Now to the average TV-bred citizen, to be considered a racist is a fate worse than death. He cannot blame the decline in the quality of American life on a loss of homogeneity. He cannot blame racial mixing. Powerful taboos forbid it. And so he is easily enough persuaded by the manipulators behind his television screen to blame firearms instead.

The manipulators understand this psychology all too well, and they are exploiting it fully in their campaign to disarm Americans. They are using the fear of soaring crime and violence to stampede the frightened, unthinking voters into letting their only means of protection from this crime and violence be taken away from them—into giving up their only means of settling scores with the manipulators of the media and their collaborators in the government who have made such a cesspool of America.

Crime and violence can only increase, of course, because almost no one has the courage and honesty to discuss their real causes, much less to do anything realistic about cleaning up the mess that has been made of America. Therefore, the stampede will continue until White Americans—that is, the ones who obey all the laws—have been completely disarmed. I’ll repeat that: The present campaign to disarm Americans will not abate. Neither the controlled media nor the government will back away from a goal of total disarmament of the civilian population. They won’t reach this goal in a single step, but they’ll continue taking steps until they do reach it. The target now is semiautomatic rifles. Later it will be all semiautomatic pistols. Then it will be other types of handguns. After that it will be all firearms which hold more than three cartridges. “That’s all a sportsman really needs,” they’ll say. Then it will be all firearms except muzzle-loaders. Somewhere along the line, various types of ammunition will be banned. “Only a criminal would want a cartridge like this,” they’ll say. Before too many steps have been taken there will be compulsory registration of all firearms and firearm owners, in order to facilitate confiscation later.

This bleak prospect has a silver lining, and it’s this: a very substantial portion of gun owners will defy the government and become outlaws rather than give up their weapons, if the populations of California and New Jersey are at all representative of the country as a whole. When bans on so-called “assault rifles” were enacted in those two states fewer than 10% of the people owning such weapons turned them in.

Bans of the California and New Jersey sort have a marvelously salutary effect on the attitude of the people who refuse to comply with the bans. Relatively few of these people are militant patriots or committed revolutionaries. The great majority are simply people who have enough character, enough backbone and common sense, to refuse to let themselves be stampeded along with the sheep into giving up their only effective means of self-defense in a time of civil disorder. Most of them have been law-abiding citizens all of their lives, and it is not an easy decision for them to consciously disobey the law—especially a law which could send them to prison for years. They are not happy about being forced to become outlaws. Once they have crossed that bridge, however, they should have a much healthier attitude toward the government. Most will see it thenceforth as their enemy. Many will be ready to fight it when the time comes for fighting.

They have passed the first test of manhood in the new world of repression and revolution we are entering now. The more such armed, angry outlaws the government makes, the better it will be for all of us in the long run.

I’ll leave you with this word: Don’t do anything violent or foolish. Don’t do anything prematurely. We are in a very serious situation, a situation of extreme danger for the future of our race, and we must use the utmost prudence in dealing with it.

Keep your firearms out of sight, but within reach. The day will come for using them. The day for a great cleansing of this land will come. Until that day, keep your powder dry.
 
January 29, 1994

Freedom for Germany

by William Pierce

wlp_bas_relief

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewish-controlled media – Why?

The blogger Armor linked the below article by William Pierce in the previous thread but the question remains: How on Earth could whites handed over no less than their culture-creating medium to an alien tribe?

For goodness sake!: Why? I for one blame the latest phase of Western Christian civilization for such treachery (see The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour).

Pierce said:


JEW-TOP-MANAGEMENT1

There are so many things worthy of comment today that it’s difficult to make a choice.

Certainly, one of the more significant things is the world’s reaction—or lack of reaction—to the election of Ariel Sharon to be Israel’s prime minister, as soon as he can put together a government. Do you remember the reaction of the mass media, the politicians, the leaders of the Christian churches, and all the rest of the big shots when Jörg Haider’s Freedom Party won enough parliamentary seats in the Austrian elections a little over a year ago to have a role in the Austrian government? Some countries recalled their ambassadors. Politicians around the world were shaking their fingers at Austria and announcing that they would not tolerate Haider’s participation in the Austrian government. Trade embargoes against Austria were threatened. And the reason? Haider had broken some taboos by making statements the Jews didn’t like. He had said that there had been many decent people fighting on the German side during the Second World War, including people in the SS. He had said that some of Hitler’s economic policies in the 1930s had made good sense. And he had called for a cutoff of immigration into Austria.

Now, Haider is not made of very stern stuff, and when he was criticized for his statements, he apologized and back-pedaled. But his apologies had not been enough, and the electoral success of his party resulted in a continuous barrage of sensationalistic media attacks against him and the ostracism of Austria by everyone who stepped to the music of a Jewish drummer.

So now Ariel Sharon is set to become the prime minister of Israel. Sharon is the man who, as Israel’s minister of defense in September 1982, during Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, made the arrangements for the slaughter of more than 3,000 Palestinian women and children in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps just outside Beirut. The Palestinian fighters had evacuated the camps, leaving their women and children behind, after being assured by the U.S. government of Ronald Reagan that their families would be safe. As the Jews moved in, radio communications among Israeli military commanders were monitored in which they talked about carrying out “purging operations” in the refugee camps. Then the Jews surrounded the camps with their tanks so no one could escape and sent in the butchers. For two days they kept the camps sealed while the slaughter went on. They kept the camps illuminated with flares at night to assist the murder squads. That was Ariel Sharon’s work: more than 3,000 murdered women and children, murdered in a characteristically Jewish way after tricking the men into leaving their families unarmed and defenseless.

But the massacre of refugees in Sabra and Shatila that gave Sharon the nickname “Butcher of Beirut” wasn’t his only work. Long before 1982, when Sharon was an Israeli army general, he was notorious for the atrocities he and his troops committed. He liked nothing better than to sneak into an undefended Jordanian village at night with his soldiers and go on a throat-cutting rampage. After the reaction to his butchery in Sabra and Shatila in 1982, Sharon was obliged to resign as defense minister and leave politics for a while. But when he decided to run for prime minister last year, he prepared the way by deliberately provoking the violence and killing that have been so much in the news in recent months. At a moment when things were already extremely tense, he marched up to Jerusalem’s TempleMount with a large contingent of armed bodyguards who chased away Moslem worshippers and caused outrage among Palestinians. This outrage predictably erupted into stone throwing by Palestinian children and the shooting of Palestinian civilians by Jewish soldiers. Barak couldn’t restore order, and so Sharon beat him in last week’s election and won the chance to become prime minister in his place.

And where is the outrage among the politicians who were wagging their fingers at Jörg Haider a little over a year ago? Where are the sensational media stories about Sharon’s criminal history? Why are the church leaders who condemned Haider’s “immoral” statements now silent? Who is threatening to recall an ambassador from Israel or to cut off trade with Israel?

This is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about Israel’s atrocious behavior but about the hypocrisy and utter dishonesty that characterize virtually all of those outside Israel who occupy positions of power and influence. And it also is a lesson about the nature of our mass media, a lesson about the motivations of the men who control the media. The conventional wisdom is that the media are liberal, that the men who determine their policies are liberals, leftists. But that isn’t so. The truth of the matter is that the media are not liberal: they are Jewish. The men who control them are not liberals: they are Jews. And that is why the media reacted the way they did to Haider’s electoral success in Austria and to Sharon’s success in Israel. Understand? If you believe that you have any other explanation for their behavior, tell me about it.

Well, I could talk all day about this subject—about the absolutely fundamental problem for the whole world that this Jewish control of the media is—but let’s talk about some other things today. There have been lots of new Black-on-White crimes that the media bosses have decided that you don’t need to hear about. An unfortunately high percentage of these crimes have been against young White women. In Little Rock, Arkansas, for example, a serial rapist has raped at least eight White women at gunpoint during the past five weeks. I say “at least eight” because eight victims so far have come forward and given matching descriptions of the Black rapist to police. I have no idea how many other women have been too afraid or too embarrassed to go to the police or simply are unable to give an adequate description. Anyway, we have a Black rapist on the loose in Little Rock who has brutally raped at gunpoint at least eight White women in the last five weeks, and it’s not news outside of Little Rock.

Three months ago, back in November of last year, I told you about the disappearance of Lucie Blackman in Tokyo. Lucie was an exceptionally attractive 21-year-old English girl—a tall, slender, blue-eyed blonde—who went to Japan as a tourist and ended up working as a “hostess” in an exclusive Japanese businessmen’s club. And then she disappeared. In November I told you that although no trace of her had yet been found, Lucie almost certainly had been drugged, raped, and murdered by a Japanese real estate tycoon, Joji Obara, with whom she had been seen leaving the club. Obara liked tall, blonde girls and already had raped a number of them and gotten away with it. Well, now Lucie has been found. That is, her head, her torso, and her hands have been found embedded in a concrete block a little over 200 yards from Obara’s waterfront luxury apartment. It’s big news in Japan, but I’ll bet you hadn’t heard about it. I mean, what a story! Tall, beautiful English girl, wealthy father, predatory Japanese rapist who is a business tycoon, girl’s dismembered body discovered in concrete block near tycoon’s apartment, and it isn’t news in America!

Listen, this is another subject I could spend all day talking about. I have detailed reports on my desk right now of half a dozen other cases of White women raped or murdered or both by Blacks here in the United States in the past few weeks, and the news has been covered up except in the immediate areas where the crimes took place. I believe that it’s worthwhile continuing to talk about these crimes even after I’ve made my point because there always are new listeners who need to be convinced.

After I reported on the mass rape and murder of Whites in Wichita, Kansas, by two Blacks a few weeks ago, I had a number of new listeners write to tell me that they hadn’t believed me when they heard my broadcast, so they had checked it out themselves and were astounded to find out that it was true. They hadn’t thought it possible that anything so horrendous could be or would be covered up. They hadn’t believed that any responsible person—the news director for any national news medium, for example—would want to cover up such a thing. I believe that every time I talk about something like the Wichita massacre I help a few more people discover just how serious a problem we’re facing.

And certainly it’s a serious problem when the people who control the national media deliberately distort the news, suppressing some news and exaggerating other news, in order to mislead public opinion. That is a serious problem. But I’m afraid that often I am guilty of not probing the nature of the problem deeply enough. I’ll give you an example. Members of my organization, the National Alliance, have been distributing some of our publications in Little Rock recently, calling attention to the rising incidence of Black crime against White people. This is a bit of a sensitive issue in Little Rock at the moment because of the series of Black-on-White rapes there I mentioned a minute ago, and while the consciousness of the White citizens of Little Rock is up a bit, we are seizing the opportunity to provide some information to them to which they otherwise might not be as receptive.

Well, the unfortunate fact of the matter is that a majority of the White citizens of Little Rock—and every other city in the United States—are not receptive to any information or idea that is Politically Incorrect, no matter how atrocious the situation. They will cling to Political Correctness like a drowning man clings to a life preserver. They will think what they are told to think and say what they are told to say by Authority. They are lemmings.

After one of our distributions in Little Rock a couple of days ago I received a letter from a lemming there. He began his letter:

Get out of Little Rock! The last thing this city needs is a bunch of ignorant, shortsighted, ill-bred bigots tainting the rest of us with hate. I was disgusted when I saw hundreds of your organization’s pamphlets littering the driveways of normal, decent people here. Et cetera.

He went on to tell me in a prissy, self-righteous way that he is a White conservative who always votes Republican. He also said, however:

Give up your dream of a White nation. It is not going to happen, and it shouldn’t. The world is a diverse place, and it is the better for it.

That, of course, is the party line of both the Democrats and the Republicans, with perhaps a barely detectable difference in emphasis. “Diversity is good. More diversity is better” is the Politically Correct party line. The lemmings believe it because they have heard it directly from their TV. Their favorite sports stars and Hollywood celebrities say the same thing. Al Gore and George Bush say that they believe it, and, by golly, so does every lemming. And the lemmings never heard either Al Gore or George Bush say a bad word about Black rapists who prey on White women. Their TV never has told them anything about Black rapists.

Undoubtedly they are against rape—at least, the respectable, Republican lemmings are. Presumably, the lemmings who have voted for Bill Clinton in the past can’t be very much against rape. But even the Republican lemmings will suddenly have very mixed feelings when the racial aspect of rape is raised. They know that it’s okay for them to be against rape. But it’s not okay to talk about or even think about Blacks raping White women. That hints of not being sufficiently enthusiastic about the wonderful diversity that has been growing like a rapidly metastasizing cancer in our society for the past 40 years or so. The Correct party line is that diversity is all good; there must be no reservations about that: nothing that questions the goodness of diversity.

I mean, just imagine where talking or even thinking about Blacks raping White women might lead. One might think back to a time where Blacks raping White women was virtually unheard of, because, for one thing, Blacks weren’t permitted to hang around White neighborhoods, and for another thing, for a Black to lay a hand on a White woman meant certain death. One might then begin thinking about how and why such a big change has come about over the past 40 years. One might begin thinking about the relationship between the increase in diversity and the increase in the incidence of Blacks raping White women. Oooh! Very Incorrect thinking!

It’s easy to see why the Republican lemming who wrote to me from Little Rock is upset. He is afraid that if I and other National Alliance members talk about the racial aspects of rape in Little Rock it will, to use his words, “taint the rest of us with hate.” Which is to say, that if National Alliance members in Little Rock make a big enough fuss about Blacks raping White women there, and people in Little Rock start thinking about it and talking about it, people in other parts of the country may suspect that the folks in Little Rock are “tainted with hate.” They will suspect that the Republican lemmings of Little Rock aren’t sufficiently enthusiastic about increasing diversity there. I believe that, unfortunately, the Republican lemming who wrote to me is more concerned about that than he is about stopping the rape of White women by Blacks.

Ten years ago I used to think that the way to straighten out the thinking of Republican lemmings was to hit them up alongside the head with a piece of two-by-four or with a sturdy, oak table leg. Then as I learned more about lemmings I realized that wasn’t really necessary. Trauma and privation certainly aren’t bad things when people need to be reoriented, but what is far more effective is simply to change their authority figures. Lemmings don’t need to have their thinking straightened out with a piece of two-by-four, because in a very important sense of the word they don’t think.

The Republican lemming who wrote to me didn’t look at the evidence, think about it, and then come to the conclusion all by himself that more diversity is better. That’s what his TV told him, and he’s just parroting it back. Lemmings no more think about what they’re saying than talking parrots do. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re stupid. This Little Rock Republican may be able to program his own VCR and figure out his income taxes all by himself, but when it comes to the question of Political Correctness, he does not think. It’s a conditioned reflex.

I’ve talked with you before about this lemming phenomenon, but it’s an extremely important idea, and it leads to some very important practical conclusions, so I want now to run quickly through the idea once again. First, in the struggle for racial survival in which we are now engaged perception is extremely important. It is essential for people to believe that our struggle can be won. Many people who should be working with me or actively supporting me look at all of the people parroting back what they hear on TV, and they compare that 96 or 97 or 98 per cent of the White population with the very small number of people who are willing to speak out against Sumner Redstone’s plan for a more diverse America, and they are discouraged. They conclude that it’s hopeless, that the odds against us are too great, that the forces of lemminghood are too strong. And so they give up. They won’t fight back.

But you know, that’s the wrong way to look at the struggle. It’s not us versus the lemmings. It’s us versus the people who tell the lemmings what to think. And that’s a very important distinction. I’m reminded of something I saw as a small boy. It’s the scene in The Wizard of Oz when Dorothy and her friends discover that the seemingly all-powerful wizard is not so powerful after all without his illusions and special effects. The Jews are primarily illusionists. They work behind their television screen to create the illusion that everyone agrees with their poisonous ideas and is happy with the way Jews are pushing things: the illusion, for example, that every “normal, decent” person is happy with the trend toward more and more “diversity.” But pull the plug on their television, so that the illusions no longer appear on their screen, and one finds them not so formidable a force after all. And the lemmings, without being told what to think, can only mill around in confusion.

Which is not to say that the lemmings in their mindless millions are not dangerous and can be ignored. The point is that we don’t have to convert the lemmings. We don’t have to persuade them. We just need to whip the illusion-masters. Then the lemmings can be turned 180 degrees in a matter of weeks. The same lemmings who now call for more diversity—and really believe what they are saying—will be calling for racial cleansing and a homogeneous White America—and really will believe what they will say, when the mass media have been taken away from the Jews and returned to the control of our own people.

And that is why I emphasize over and over on these broadcasts the importance of being able to communicate with our people, the importance of breaking the Jewish monopoly control on the dissemination of information and ideas and images and illusions. The key to the survival of our people—the key to returning our people to moral and spiritual and racial health, the key to salvaging what is left of our civilization and our culture and restoring them to health and progress—is, first, to be able to compete effectively with the Jews in communicating with the non-lemming two or three or four per cent of the population able to think for themselves; and then to smash the Jews’ grip on the media with which they control the thinking of the lemmings.

That certainly is not an easy task—but it’s a much more feasible task than trying to make the lemmings think for themselves, and it is more feasible than trying to convert the lemmings while the Jews are still in control of their machinery of illusion. So what we do now is continue to build our own media—continue to gain more listeners every week to these broadcasts; continue to build our ability to disseminate leaflets wherever they may reach anyone with an open mind; continue to make books and other printed material and audio material and video material available to people seeking the truth—and to do this faster than the Jews can move forward with their efforts to ban the First and Second Amendments, thereby outlawing their competition and assuring the perpetuation of their monopoly control of the minds of the lemmings.

We’ll talk more about this in later broadcasts, because it is by far the most important task for the survival of our people.

________________________

Originally a broadcast, “Sharon, Rape, and the Wizard of Oz” was eventually published in Free Speech – February 2001 – Volume VII, Number 2.