[Video subtitulado al español, con un podcast del Dr. William Pierce que habla sobre el control judío de los medios de comunicación, y de lo malo que es para nosotros dicho control…]
by Dr. William Pierce
Most of the comments I receive from listeners are very supportive, but I do get some hate mail as well. Most of the hate mail is either nutcase stuff from people who have some personal problem, which they project onto me, or it’s from lemmings who are very indignant that I’m not in step with everyone else in the mass media. They just need someone to hate, and I think it makes them feel better if they tell me what a rotten person I am.
But I also receive a somewhat more thoughtful type of hate mail from people who curse me because I can’t understand that race really doesn’t count. They tell me that I should never judge another person as a member of the race to which he belongs, but only as an individual. They tell me that many Blacks are law-abiding, hardworking…
Ver la entrada original 3.101 palabras más
by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)
THE SUBJECT I’ve discussed most often is the dominant Jewish influence in the mass media of news and entertainment. I’ve spoken most often about this because it is the most important problem with which we must deal. It’s also a subject on which I receive a lot of flak. One of the most common forms of flak is the objection that it doesn’t matter. Sure, the Jews control the media, but it doesn’t make any difference, critics tell me. They’re just good businessmen, and they know how to run the media profitably. That’s why they’ve gained control, and it’s no worse than it would be if a bunch of Irishmen or Mormons were in their place.
I think that many of the people who tell me this don’t actually believe it themselves. They just want to be Politically Correct, and it’s Politically Correct to absolve the Jews of blame for anything. Even many of the people who are distressed about what Jewish media control is doing to our society don’t want to identify that control as Jewish. The Baptists, for example, who have launched a boycott of the Disney Corporation because of the raunchy movies its Miramax films division has been turning out, refuse to identify either Disney boss Michael Eisner or the Miramax bosses Bob and Harvey Weinstein as Jewish. The Baptist protest is against immorality in films, they insist, not against the Jewish control of the film industry.
That’s a bit like saying you’re against syphilis but you have nothing against spirochetes. And it’s not really honest, this determination to be Politically Correct. Political Correctness is based on a denial of reality, on the substitution of a deliberately falsified picture of the world in the place of reality. And this dishonesty, this refusal to admit Politically Incorrect truths, has very serious consequences for all of us. If we refuse to talk realistically about the Jewish control of the mass media, we may as well give up on trying to do anything about the negative effects this Jewish media control is having on our society.
Let me give you a specific example of refusal to face a Politically Incorrect truth. Steven Spielberg has a new film out, Saving Private Ryan, and it’s been getting a lot of attention by the reviewers. They say that the film is good because it is so realistic, because it gives such an honest portrayal of the Second World War. And of course, the film does show the blood-and-guts aspect of the war a bit more starkly than other films have. But honest it is not. It propagates the same lies about the Second World War that every film — and I mean every film — made by the Jewish film industry in Hollywood for nearly 60 years has propagated. And the reviewers, regardless of what else they say about these films, all repeat these same basic lies…
Read more at: Media Myths
A Closer Look at the Enemy
by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)
YOU KNOW, this world we live in is a complicated place. Behind every phenomenon we observe there are many forces at work, some of
them obvious and some not so obvious. Trying to separate what’s important from what’s not important can be a confusing task. Every week when we discuss on this program what’s happening in the world around us, and I try to explain events so that listeners can have a clear understanding of them, I must simplify the world. Clarity requires simplification. Understanding demands simplification. A useful explanation requires separating the important things from those which are less important and focusing first on the former. If I tried to explain every phenomenon in the world in complete detail, leaving out nothing, I would succeed only in confusing everyone, especially myself.
So if we want to understand the world we must simplify it. But we must be careful not to oversimplify, or our explanations lose their value. Occasionally my listeners accuse me of oversimplifying, or they are aware of some factor which I have not discussed in detail, and they suspect that I have left it out deliberately because it would contradict some theory of mine.
Here’s an old example of the way oversimplification can lead to confusion: After the Bolshevik takeover of Russia early in this century, many anti-communists in America spread the word that a majority of the Bolshevik leaders were not Russians but were Jews, and they warned Americans that there also were many Jewish communists in America who posed a danger of subversion. This was back in the days before the exposure of the Rosenbergs and other communist-Jewish spies and conspirators in America. The Jewish media countered this warning with a deliberate campaign of confusion. They said, “Oh, you used to accuse of us being international bankers and capitalists and of subverting nations with our money. Now you accuse us of being international communists and of being a threat to capitalism. So which is it? Are we capitalists or are we communists? It can’t be both, so make up your mind.” This response was supposed to make their accusers look foolish, and with much of the public the trick worked…
Read more at: A Closer Look at the Enemy
We have come a long way since 1975…
Miscegenation: The Morality of Death
HISTORY HAS TAUGHT us that the most fundamental necessities for the existence of a healthy and progressive White society are the racial quality of its members and a moral code or value system which complements and enhances that quality.
Ultimately, of course, the former is much more fundamental than the latter. Only a sound race can give birth to sound racial ethics. Without the living biological entity, there is and can be nothing. But as long as the race survives — as long as the potential for effective racial sovereignty exists — alien and spiritually damaging values alone will not prove fatal.
The enemies of our race have obviously long understood this truth. That is why, a half-century ago, they waged the most vicious war the world has ever seen in order to destroy an idea based upon that racial truth. That is why they subsequently organized the systematic swamping of White civilization by millions of alien immigrants. And that is why they have used their control of the news and entertainment media, of the government, and of schools and universities to implement a massive propaganda campaign to encourage miscegenation between Whites and non-Whites.
Of course, miscegenation is not a natural occurrence. Evolution would have been impossible if every evolutionary experiment had been short-circuited by cross-breeding. Nature’s urge toward higher and more complex life forms has demanded that subspecies remain genetically isolated until all possibility of genetic admixture has been removed. Even though such isolation of the various human subspecies from one another has not been of sufficient length to ensure the impossibility of genetic admixture, it has ensured the existence of deep-seated psychological barriers which, under natural conditions, prevent miscegenation.
When these natural conditions are disrupted and distorted, however, unnatural sexual activities such as homosexuality and miscegenation have been known to result. Just as bulls have been known to mount mares, and St. Bernard dogs have tried to mate with Chihuahuas when forced into close confinement and deprived of their natural environment, so Whites have copulated with Negroes in similar circumstances. It is the disruption of the White man’s natural environment and the dehumanization of his society and culture, therefore, which the Jews and their collaborators in the news and entertainment media have consistently worked for in order to encourage racial mixing…
Read more at: Miscegenation: The Morality of Death
[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
The New “Patriots” a.k.a patriotards.
by Dr. William Pierce
You know, I think that the word „patriotism“ has a different meaning today than it did when I was growing up. It used to mean a love of one’s native land and one’s people: one’s fatherland, according to the etymology of the word. The fatherland was the land where one’s ancestors had been born and where a large extended family — everyone descended from those ancestors who originally had settled the land — now lived. Patriotism really had a tribal or racial meaning. It was a feeling based on blood. And although our ancestors had come to America from all parts of Europe, they were enough alike that they still could feel the bond of blood. They still felt themselves members of a large family, a family with European roots, and they could stand together as brothers against those who were not part of the…
Ver la entrada original 3.172 palabras más