[Well, kiddies, this sure sounds as if he just wrote it today…!]
The “Holocaust” as Gag
Suppression of freedom of speech is a long-term goal of the Jewish supremacists, and one that has been achieved in many nations already.
by Dr. William L. Pierce
SOMETIME SOON Americans will lose their freedom of speech. When it happens, most of them won’t even notice.
After an intense and carefully orchestrated lobbying effort by prominent Jewish and Christian leaders, punctuated with veiled threats of violence from spokesmen for major Black and Hispanic organizations if their demands for legislation are not met, a bipartisan group of congressmen will sponsor a bill prohibiting “group libel.” Leaders of both the conservative and the liberal factions in the Congress will speak eloquently in favor of the bill, and debate will be minimal. The bill will pass by an overwhelming majority, the President will sign it immediately, and media commentators will render unanimous verdicts of “well done” and “it’s about time!”
And the American people will not even look up from the sports page or the television schedule. What do they care that henceforth anyone who “publishes, or causes to be published, or conspires with others to publish or to cause to be published, any statement likely to cause mental harm or distress to any group or class of persons identifiable by race, color, religion, or national origin will be liable for a term of imprisonment in a Federal penitentiary not to exceed five years”?  That’s none of their business, and haven’t they been assured that the law will be used only against “extremists”? Why should any decent, law-abiding citizen want to cause mental distress to a racial, religious, or national group, anyway?
Such laws already have been enacted in Canada, Britain, France, West Germany, and a dozen other Western countries, with hardly a murmur of dissent — except from a handful of those troublesome “extremists.” Americans have a reputation for being somewhat more troublesome than their racial kinsmen elsewhere — a reputation which may or may not be deserved — but the people who are pushing for the enactment of group libel laws are taking no chances: they see the United States as still in the softening-up stage, with the actual legislation to silence those citizens who might write or say something unkind about minorities still a year or two away.
The big gun being used in the softening-up process is the “Holocaust” — the alleged extermination of six million Jews in “gas ovens” by the German government during the Second World War. The argument is that since words often lead to deeds — and in Germany criticism in the 1920s and 1930s of Jews and what they were doing to the morals, the institutions, and the economy of that country led to Jews being rounded up and exterminated in the 1940s — then criticism of Jews (or Blacks or Orientals or Hispanics) in America in the 1980s might very well lead to roundups and exterminations in the 1990s. Therefore, in order to avoid future nastiness, let’s outlaw all such criticism — group libel — now.
One might wonder why a more indigenous theme is not used — say, lynching, which is something to which most Americans can relate more easily than to “gas ovens.” Why don’t the silencers argue that uncensored talk about Blacks in the decades after the U.S. Civil War — talk identifying them as the rapists of White women, for example — led to scores of them being snatched from jails and strung up on conveniently located telephone poles; therefore, it ought to be against the law for anyone to identify criminals by race or for anything to be said about the criminal tendencies of an identifiable ethnic, racial, religious, or national group…?
Read more at: The «Holocaust» as Gag
The Organizational Nexus
PROBABLY THE GREATEST piece of foolishness current in America, after the notion that all the country’s citizens are inherently “equal,” is the belief that they are collectively capable of governing themselves wisely.
Wisdom and will are individual, not collective attributes, yet so steeped have we all become in democratic mythology that we personify the crowd, imagining that it possesses both. We seem to believe, along with the late Chairman Mao, that the ultimate repository of civic virtue is “the masses.”
The populist daydream, indulged in by rightists and leftists alike, is of a long-suffering, commonsensical American citizenry which, if left alone by the gangsters in Washington, could manage to keep the country’s wheels turning, maintain the common defense, and restore domestic tranquility, all through a sort of popular consensus.
The daydreamers of the right see the current enthusiasm for tax-reduction referendums as a manifestation of the people’s ability to spontaneously correct the excesses of government, just as those of the left saw a similar manifestation in Richard Nixon’s plunge from favor and consequent resignation after the Watergate revelations. The people, they think, will tolerate only so much foolishness or wickedness on the part of their leaders before rising up in their righteous wrath and homespun wisdom and setting things right again.
I recently read the unpublished manuscript of a piece of revolutionary fiction written by an aide to a conservative legislator. The story described a spontaneous uprising by America’s citizens’-band radio users. One morning the citizens just decided they’d had enough. Using small arms, their automobiles and trucks, and their CB radios, they took the country away from the politicians and the minority pressure groups.
No organization, no leaders, just a revolution. Once started, it just grew; as the word spread over the CB airwaves, more and more citizens joined in. The Jews were hunted down and dispatched by vigilante groups, while the Blacks, seeing the handwriting on the wall, quickly shed their uppityness and shuffled out of harm’s way.
A pleasant enough daydream, to be sure, and typical of those dreamed up by other right wingers. Three essential elements of all such daydreams are: 1) no fundamental changes are wrought, except settling the hash of the bad guys, because right wingers don’t really want any other fundamental changes; 2) the citizens who settle the bad guys’ hash do it spontaneously and anonymously, because that way no one has to stick his neck out; 3) there is a revolutionary consensus among at least a majority of the citizenry, so that the revolutionaries can maintain their good-guy, will-of-the-people self-image…
Read more at: The Organizational Nexus
[Not only he hastened the demise of the British Empire… he aided the demise of the entire White Race as well. Traitorous pig.]
The Buying of Mr. Churchill
by Dr. William Pierce
THE MAN MOST directly responsible for the demise of the British Empire and its replacement as a world power by the Soviet Empire is Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (1874-1965). The policies which he advocated as a member of the British government in the period just before World War II and the policies which he followed as prime minister during that war were diametrically opposed to the interests of the British people and led ultimately to the sad plight in which Britain finds herself today. Churchill acted as he did, because he consciously and deliberately served alien interests from 1938, at the latest, until the end of the war.
Winston Churchill was the descendant of a noble family, the son of Lord Randolph Churchill, who was the third son of the seventh duke of Marlborough. As a young man Winston was a dilettante who early developed a lifelong taste for expensive clothes, imported cigars, old brandy, and the other amenities of “the good life. (ILLUSTRATION: Churchill liked to think of himself as a great warlord, but he came across at the personal level as a petty gangster: theatrical, irresponsible, and immensely vain.)
Although he enjoyed a brief and desultory stint as a newspaper correspondent in his early twenties, he soon decided that he could more readily support the style of life to which he wished to become accustomed by claiming a place for himself at the public trough. At the age of 26 he entered Parliament.
As a politician young Churchill continued his dilettante ways, serving in a number of minor posts and switching from one party to another whenever he thought such a move would further his career. Although he displayed only minimal qualities of statesmanship, his family connections and his sharp eye for the main chance led to his steady advancement, and in 1908 he was promoted to the cabinet. When World War I broke out Churchill became first lord of the admiralty, with the job of supervising the British Navy.
In the latter post Churchill’s lack of a mature sense of responsibility and his ineptness as a military strategist led to disaster. He directed the utterly bungled Gallipoli campaign against the Turks in 1915, which led to a total defeat for the British, with more than 100,000 casualties.
Forced to resign his admiralty post in disgrace, Churchill decided to concentrate his energies on developing his one talent: a gift for theatrical oratory. Spending as much as six weeks preparing for a single speech, he would carefully rehearse every intonation and dramatic pause, carefully practice every gesture and facial expression before a mirror. He became a demagogue of rare ability…
Read more at: The Buying of Mr. Churchill