Individualism and Alienation

Der Stürmer

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

Anuncios

Media Myths | The Legacy of Dr. William Pierce

Media Myths

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 | The Legacy of Dr. William Pierce

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

Courage & Fatalism

HIDDEN IN PLAIN SITE

Dr. Pierce’s Tribute to Robert Mathews

What It Will Take 
Editorial from National Vanguard magazine #103, January-February 1985

The longest-running national news story of recent months certainly must be the one about the Aryan Resistance Movement (also named in various news accounts as the White American Bastion, the Silent Brotherhood, and the Order). Newspapers have reported, week after week, on multimillion-dollar armored-car robberies and a counterfeiting operation intended to finance a violent overthrow of the U.S. government, fiery shootouts between White revolutionaries and SWAT teams of Federal police agents, an assassination of a Jewish radio commentator and alleged “hit lists” of government officials to be killed, and massive FBI manhunts for surviving members of a group that is said to have involved no more than 40 members. Interest in the Aryan Resistance Movement (ARM) on the part of the television networks and the nationally circulated print media seems still to…

Ver la entrada original 1.893 palabras más

Where Are We Now?

We have come a long way since 1975…

Stand or Die

viking-warriors-berserkers-wallpaper-1

Two Minutes Hate

From Attack! No. 39, 1975:

Two Minutes Hate
 by Dr. William Pierce
Image
    WASHINGTON POST story tells of Nathan Cohen decision compelling Federal workers to submit to sensitivity-training sessions. Applying many of the same techniques which were used to brainwash American POW’s in communist prison camps in Korea and Vietnam, Federal psychologists are able to control attitudes and opinions with a high degree of success. These techniques are also being used in high schools now to “adjust” White students to a multiracial environment.

In 1984, the well-known political horror-fantasy by George Orwell, it was called the Two Minutes Hate. At eleven o’clock each morning the workers in all government offices assembled in front of television screens for a sensitivity-training session in which they released their pent-up hostilities and became, thereby, better-adjusted subjects of Big Brother.

In 1975 they don’t call it the Two Minutes Hate, but it amounts to exactly the…

Ver la entrada original 1.107 palabras más

Miscegenation: The Morality of Death | The Legacy of Dr. William Pierce

Miscegenation: The Morality of Death

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured, portrait by Will Williams)pierce-oil-300x399

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

The “Holocaust” as Gag | The Legacy of Dr. William Pierce

[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”? [1] 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