web analytics

Category: Mainstream media

Categories
American civil war Axiology Blacks Deranged altruism Mainstream media Slavery

It’s Christian ethics, stupid!

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

____________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

toms cabin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Conservatism Mainstream media Women

On Fox News’ bimbo

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

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

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

Categories
Mainstream media Table talks (commercial translation)

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 129

the-real-hitler

6th May 1942

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Free speech / association Justice / revenge Mainstream media Real men Table talks (commercial translation)

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 131

the-real-hitler

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Conservatism Final solution Mainstream media Psychology Table talks (commercial translation)

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 132

the-real-hitler

 

15th May 1942, midday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Egalitarianism Evil Liberalism Mainstream media Psychology William Pierce

Truth before fashion

by William Pierce

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isn’t that amazing?

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

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

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

Now, let me become personal again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m counting on you. Thanks for listening.

January, 1995

Categories
Aryan beauty Beauty Mainstream media Sexual "liberation"

Botched episode

The finale of the 5th season of Game of Thrones

stannis

Had it not been for an accident in my teens, now I would be a consummate film director. My forte has always been the visual arts. Precisely because they are my forte I noticed, since childhood, the beauty of the Aryan race, especially girls. In a sea of mud in Mexico the very few blondes with delicate features seemed to me like lotus flowers floating on the sea.

As message, Game of Thrones (GoT) is quite bad. Like everything we see on television in our times, it makes equal man and woman by showing female warriors or female heads of state. To boot, GoT depicts promiscuity as normal, sometimes with scenes that are disgusting and I mean not only the homosexual, but heterosexual light porn alike. If I were the author of the books or the director I’d put the High Sparrow as the hero of the saga. After a couple of centuries of disbanding the Faith Militant, the military arm of the Faith of the Seven is restored, this time led by the sparrows thus ending the degeneration of royalty in the city King’s Landing.

The screenwriters of GoT will never do something similar in this darkest time of the West. (On the contrary, perhaps in the following season the Frankenstein that created Cersei’s doctor will terminate the sparrows.) But the writers of the ethnostate could do it in tales that retain the enormous beauty of some scenarios we’ve seen in GoT, with the difference that our values would be transvalued (goodbye Jesus—and forever).


Anesthetized spectator

From a strictly cinematic, not axiologic, viewpoint the first forty-nine episodes of GoT were well directed. In the last one, “Mother’s Mercy” released yesterday, the screenwriters blundered badly. Those who really understand film know that a masterpiece never exceeds in raucous scenes. Exceeding and overreaching was exactly what the screenwriters did in the final episode of the GoT season.

In real artistic film there cannot be a scene with very profound implications for the overall plot after another similar scene after another… A well-made film, such as the first Alien—incidentally, the only film by Ridley Scott that I like—maintains the suspense through slow scenes and only by the end it bursts with extreme violence. Instead, in “Mother’s Mercy” the screenwriters committed the fashionable sin in Hollywood and television programs today: they conflated several tremendous events in a single hour:

  • The defeat on the battlefield and apparent death of Stannis (pic above);
  • the Arya girl turned into a sadist of the kind of Tarantino films (Arya stabbed in both eyes a despicable subject);
  • the prolonged degradation of Queen Cersei along the streets of King’s Landing.

In the internet, the feminists today are angrily commenting on yesterday’s episode. Although Cersei is one of the oldest villains of all seasons in GoT, she is a woman, and they are horrified to see her degraded by orders of the High Sparrow in the walk of shame. The truth is that we urgently need this type of action in disciplining all sorts of degenerates in the ethnostate, including white nationalists. The laws of morality should grab them all, including the heads of state. That’s why I so admire the High Sparrow as depicted in the fifth season. “The sign of the times is degeneracy,” said a regular visitor of this blog. “This term—degeneracy—sums up all that is happening to the West.”

The scene of the appropriate punishment of Cersei—adulterous, incestuous, involved in the death of her husband, the king, and countless other misdeeds that ruined the lives of others—is well-achieved if we see that scene strictly in isolation.

But in this final episode, after the military defeat of Stannis and the sadistic transformation of Arya (something one does not expect from a child even if her list of villains to kill is well intentioned), the viewer is completely confused and numbed when this later scene arrives. After such extremely disturbing scenes (we had hoped that Stannis defeated Ramsey, who skins men and women alive), when finally arriving at the walk of shame this late scene has completely lost its momentum. The previous scenes had left us confused and anesthetized before a new brutality. In none of the previous nearly fifty episodes the screenwriters indulged themselves in such excess, and the same could be said of

  • the apparent murder (some fans think that the Red Witch will rise him from the dead in the next season) of Jon Snow in the final minutes of the episode.

A good screenwriter would have spent four episodes for each of these four gruesome themes marked with bullets. But they put them all together, one after another, to the degree of bungling the episode.

Terrible! The adroitness of the creators of GoT completely failed. However, as was clear from my first entry about the series, GoT subscribes a suicidal ideology (see yesterday’s post on egalitarianism). In the real world we are not “equal” on race, gender or sexual orientation; nor should prevail the principle of “non-discrimination” for the inferior races, women or the inverts. Unlike GoT, women should not be warriors (as red-haired Ygritte and some non-white, masculinized female warriors at Dorne) or female knights! (Brienne of Tarth); nor try to make a career of professional assassins (Arya), nor the fans should hope that a blonde bimbo (Daenerys) conquers the Iron Throne…

A frustrated filmmaker as I am I will continue to see the next season but only as visual inspiration of Aryan scenery that could be used if the race is saved from an almost certain fate.

________________

Update of June 24

Now that I watched again episode 48 I realised that it was botched as well. You simply cannot show the most disturbing scene ever seen on TV (burning your child alive) and right after that showing another scene of great action (riding the dragon for the first time in the series): a subject unrelated to the most heinous crime in GoT: offering your child as a sacrifice to the God.

Categories
Democracy Egalitarianism Liberalism Mainstream media William Pierce

The New World Order:

Free trade, and the deindustrialization of America

by William Pierce

wlp_bas_relief
 
Every regular television news watcher has heard the expression “New World Order” often enough now to be familiar with it. George Bush really popularized the expression during the last two years of his administration. Prior to that one heard only occasional veiled references to it, but as Mr. Bush ordered wave after wave of bombers over Iraq to pound Baghdad into rubble and attempted to kill Iraq’s President with “smart” bombs, he spoke repeatedly of the need to punish those who tried to stand in the way of the New World Order.

Bill Clinton has used the expression even more freely: he has referred to the New World Order in connection with his futile efforts to assassinate Somalia’s uppity warlord Mohammed Aidid, with his support of Russia’s current clown prince Boris Yeltsin, and, most recently, with his campaign to push the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) through the Congress. Probably most of you remember Mr Clinton talking on television about NAFTA being essential for the New World Order and for equality in the world.

Most people who have become familiar with the term assume that it is merely an abstraction: a convenient label for referring, in a general, loose sort of way, to the reordering of international power relationships which has been going on ever since the Second World War—and especially since the collapse of the Soviet Empire at the beginning of this decade.

Actually, for the initiated, the New World Order has a much more specific and concrete meaning. In brief, it is a utopian system in which the U.S. economy (along with the economy of every other nation) will be “globalized”; in which the wage levels of U.S. and European workers will be brought down to those of workers in the Third World; in which national boundaries will for all practical purposes cease to exist; in which an increased flow of Third World immigrants into the United States and Europe will have produced a non-White majority everywhere in the formerly White areas of the world; in which an elite consisting of international financiers and the masters of the mass media will call the shots; and in which so-called “peace keeping” forces from the United Nations will be used to keep anyone from opting out of the system.

This particular scheme for world rule has very deep historical roots. Tracing those roots is fascinating, but I won’t have time for that on this program today. If you want to study the historical details, then you should read my article on the New World Order in the current issue of National Vanguard magazine, which is available from the producer of this program.

I’ll simply say today that the New World Order conspiracy had its origins in a series of international Zionist conferences held around the beginning of this century. It picked up steam during the First World War and really began acquiring concrete substance with the formation of a number of organizations in the period immediately after that war, the foremost of which was the Council on Foreign Relations. By the end of the Second World War the New World Order planners formed a virtual ruling class in America with total control of U.S. foreign policy and also a growing power to mold domestic policy to suit their internationalist aims. What these people understood, long before anyone else did, is the potential power of the mass media. They understood what enormous, hidden political power could be wielded in an age of mass democracy by a tiny group of well-organized people who could manipulate public opinion by controlling the mass media.

It should be noted that the New World Order booster club has developed a rather diverse membership as its schemes have matured. There are, of course, the original, power-hungry conspirators, who believe that their god intended for them to rule the world, and there are the cynical politicians of the Bush/Clinton stripe who go along with the conspirators, hoping to receive a few choice scraps from their table.

Then there are the crazies: the homosexuals and feminists, for example, who see in the New World Order the antithesis of the heterosexual, patriarchal world they hate with such insane fervor. Along with these are the lunatic egalitarians, who are hell-bent on “equalizing” everyone.

A substantial portion of the membership consists of a rabble of academics and literati who simply want to be fashionable; they would as enthusiastically support any other intellectual fashion possessing as large and skillful a press claque.

Besides all of these, however, there are many people on the New World Order bandwagon today for more or less benign reasons. The world population really is far too large. The ongoing destruction of the global ecosystem really is unacceptable. Something must be done—and soon. Many of those who recognize these facts are neither power-hungry cynics nor deranged haters nor even fashion-conscious eggheads, but instead are sane, principled men who simply do not have the moral courage to deal in a forthright way with the population explosion in the non-White world and with a number of other pressing demographic and ecological problems. They have opted for what seems to them the only solution for halting the self-destruction of the world which has a sufficiently powerful advocacy group behind it to be feasible. They really believe that under the New World Order Kenyans no longer will be permitted to machine-gun herds of elephants from helicopters in order to collect their tusks, Brazilians no longer will be permitted to destroy the rain forests with chainsaws and flamethrowers, and Haitians will be forced to use condoms. Even White Americans will be forced to curb their wasteful habits.

The New World Order schemers have played a very significant role in bringing about many social and economic changes in America, and I could spend a lot more time than we have today talking about these changes—and why the internationalists wanted them. If you want to understand that part of the scheme you’ll just have to read my article in the current issue of National Vanguard magazine. Today I must limit myself to just one New World Order policy, and that’s so-called “free” trade and what that policy means for America.

Our first really notable experience with “free” trade in the post-Second World War period was with Japan. A few years after the war Japanese cameras began displacing U.S.-made cameras from stores in the United States, until today they totally dominate the market: Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, Olympus, Fuji—they’re all Japanese. The only two American brands left are Polaroid and Kodak. If you’ll go into a camera store and look carefully at the Polaroid and Kodak cameras on display, howeever, you’ll discover that most of them were actually manufactured in Japan or elsewhere, not in the United States.

After succeeding in establishing a virtual camera monopoly the Japanese began moving into the consumer electronics business: portable radios, television receivers, VCRs, pocket calculators, microwave ovens, hi-fi tuners and amplifiers, etc. Within two decades they virtually wiped out domestic production. The few U.S. consumer electronics companies still surviving have their products made in Asia and then put their names on them and bring them into this country to sell them.

The average American saw nothing amiss with this; indeed, he regarded it as a boon. More products were available to him, at lower prices, than there would have been if Japanese products had been kept out by trade barriers. The unhappy voices of the few hundred thousand Americans who had been employed in the camera and consumer electronics industries were drowned out by those of millions of happy consumers. When Japanese automobiles began appearing on American streets in large numbers in the 1970s, there was more of a reaction. The unionized automobile and steel workers were able to make their voices heard. They smashed Japanese cars with sledgehammers in publicity stunts designed to win sympathy for their plight. Even the politicians who had been bought by the internationalists got into the act: worried by the threat of losing union votes, they put on serious faces and talked to the television cameras about limiting the number of Japanese cars which could be brought into the country. The percentage of Hondas, Toyotas, Subarus, Nissans, and other Japanese vehicles sold in America eventually stopped rising. General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler pulled in their belts, fired a few hundred thousand American workers, and announced that they would survive. Although the U.S. steel-making industry was hit hard and was forced to close dozens of plants, it also managed to hang onto life.

All was not quite as it seemed, however. Americans were reassured by the sight of new Fords, Chevrolets, and Dodges on their highways, but in many cases not much more than the name was actually American. The Chrysler corporation sold Dodge Colts which, in fact, were made in Japan by Mitsubishi. Under a Chevrolet label General Motors sold light pickup trucks which were produced entirely in Japan. Ford did the same thing, not only with some of its consumer vehicles, but also with its farm tractors.

Japan is not the only country which has claimed a part of what used to be the American automobile industry. U.S. auto companies have stayed in business only by having more and more of the work which goes into their cars performed outside of the United States, in order to take advantage of vastly cheaper labor. Wiring harnesses from Mexico, electronic ignition modules from Taiwan, seat covers and other upholstery from Korea, alternators from Brazil, speedometers and other dashboard instruments from Hong Kong: more and more of what is sold as “American” is made elsewhere and only assembled in the United States.

The Asian country which has benefited most in recent years from the U.S. policy of “free” trade is China. The Chinese assault on American industry was not widely noticed at first, because the Chinese did not begin with high-profile consumer items, such as cars or television receivers. They began at a more basic level, first with machine tools and then with hand tools. They have virtually destroyed the American machine-tool industry singlehandedly.

In the 1950s the United States was the world leader in the manufacture of machine tools, with more than 50 per cent of the total production. Machine tools—lathes, milling machines, grinders, stamping machines, and the other large, motorized tools used in factories—are the most essential component of a nation’s industrial base. Today we make only six per cent of the world’s machine tools. In the last decade alone our share of the world’s production has declined by a factor of three, down from 19 per cent in 1984. It’s still dropping. In another five years we’ll have only three or four makers of machine tools left, and they’ll be making only highly specialized, computer-controlled tools. All of the general-purpose machine tools used in the United States will come from China or Brazil.

The same thing is happening to the U.S. hand-tool industry. If one examines the plastic-packaged tools and accessories hanging on the display peg-boards in any of the larger automotive parts stores—the spark plug wrenches and screwdriver sets and compression testers—one will find that somewhere between two-thirds and three-quarters of them are imported from Asia, mostly from China. With the larger tools—hydraulic floor jacks, for example—the situation is worse: the chances are about nine out of ten that one will find a “Made in China” label. If there are any U.S.-made jacks still to be found, they will be priced at about three times the price of a Chinese jack of similar quality. American manufacturers, with their much higher labor costs, simply cannot compete with Chinese industry, and they are being driven out of business.

For the past few years the Chinese have been moving into the production of low-priced consumer goods as well: the sort of plastic household goods that housewives buy in K-Marts or Wal-Marts. Because these goods are priced substantially lower than similar American products, consumers welcome them. They do not consider the fact that the well-paid American workers who formerly made such goods in U.S. factories now are scrambling to find service-industry employment at substantially lower wages.

The Chinese (including those in Hong Kong and Taiwan) and the Japanese are not the only Asians who are destroying the U.S. industrial base. The Koreans, for example, have had the U.S. clothing industry under attack for years and have devastated large sections of it. Mr. Clinton has just invited the Vietnamese to join the feeding frenzy.

There is a double significance to this transfer of American industry out of the country. In the first place, it lowers the average wage level of American workers, as they are forced to move from manufacturing into a service industry or into less than full-time employment. And although factory workers are the first to be hit, eventually most other segments of the work force suffer as well, even the yuppies and others who would never think of working with their hands. When people who used to work in factories have less money to spend, there’s less money to earned by everyone.

In the second place, the transfer of industry out of the United States robs us of national self-sufficiency. It may not matter much whether we have factories for producing panytyhose and plastic hair curlers or we import these things from Korea, but it matters very much whether or not we produce our own machine tools. If the Koreans give us an ultimatum: do what we say or no more plastic hair curlers, we can laugh in their faces. If the Chinese decide not to sell us more machine tools, however, we’ll be in trouble.

This, of course, is exactly what the New World Order boys planned. “Interdependence,” they call it. They began selling us on the virtues of interdependence—and the evils of independence—as early as the 1950s. The New World Order is a system in which every country is dependent on many other countries for its necessities of life, and no country is independent enough to opt out of the system and go its own way.

“Free” trade is essential to the whole scheme. The controlled media deliberately have created the impression in the public mind that “protectionism”—the regulation of imports through the imposition of tariffs or quotas—is a corrupt policy which benefits greedy industrialists at the expense of everyone else. Actually, it is a necessity for national survival and progress. Consider just three facts:

Fact Number 1: Merchants always will buy their manufactured goods from the supplier who will give them the best price for goods of a specified quality. If the best price is from a foreign supplier, and if international trade is unregulated, then the merchants will import their goods from abroad. On an individual basis the merchants really have no choice in the matter: a widget merchant who pays two or three times as much for his American-made widgets as other widget merchants do for their Chinese-made widgets soon will be out of the widget business.

Fact Number 2: For most manufactured goods the cost of the labor which went into them is the largest single component of the total production cost. When one country has a much lower wage scale than another country, then it will be able to sell its manufactured goods at a lower price, other things being equal. The other things are labor discipline, organizational skill, and the possession of the necessary machinery and raw materials. Thus, Ghana or Zambia, for example, could not compete with the United States in the production of manufactured goods even if it paid nothing at all for labor, because it lacks labor discipline, organizational ability, and an industrial base. China, on the other hand, has very cheap labor which is better disciplined than that in America, as well as the needed organizational skills for utilizing that labor effectively in large-scale enterprises. Furthermore, China has painstakingly built up its industrial base—with our collaboration—during the past 40 years or so.

Fact Number 3: When industrial production moves from a country with high wages to a country with low wages, the immediate effect will be a reduction in the difference in wages between the two countries. Wages in the country which gains the industry will rise, and wages in the country which loses the industry will fall. This will be true whether the production is in the hands of nationally based companies or a multi-national corporation. Thus, if the North American Free Trade Agreement results in the Ford Motor Company closing a plant in Detroit and building a new one in Tijuana for the production of Fords, wages will rise in Mexico and fall in the United States just as surely as if the production had shifted from Ford to a company owned entirely by Mexicans.

What this means is that if an industrialized country which has built up a high standard of living for its citizens wants to maintain its industrial base and its living standard, it must regulate imports of goods from countries with lower wage scales. If it does not, its industrial base will be eroded, and its living standard will fall. This is a fairly simple economic fact, and most Americans could understand it if the proponents of the New World Order had not thrown up a smoke screen of obfuscation. They claim that there will be “readjustments” to be made when all trade barriers are down, but that in the long run everyone will benefit. We will import more goods, they say, but we also will export more, and everything will even out. That is not true, and they know it. What will “even out” will be wage scales around the world. The rich countries will become less rich, and the poor countries will become less poor, and if the process continues long enough wage scales—and standards of living—will approach equality, which is what the egalitarian ideologues among the globalists really are aiming at. To them the present state of affairs, with White Americans earning 20 times as much as Mexican peons or Chinese coolies, is “unjust.”

Other New World Order ideologues see in the interdependence which will result from wiping out a number of strategically vital industries in the United States (and other industrialized nations) a sure way to prevent international conflict in the future. They have taught two generations of Americans that “cooperation” is a virtue in itself, and we will be a more virtuous nation when we no longer are able to act unilaterally: that is, when we must secure the agreement of the countries which supply our ball bearings and our computer chips before we make a major move in international affairs.

All of this is not to say that international trade is a bad thing in itself. Trade, like many other things, should be an instrument of national policy. A nation’s international trade should be regulated with one aim in mind: to maximize the security and prosperity of the nation. Americans can hardly expect that of a government headed by a man who only two decades ago was demonstrating in the street with other draft-dodgers, gleefully chanting, “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the Viet Cong’s gonna win!”

The only environment in which unregulated trade can be tolerated is within a natural community of interest: i.e., within a group of political entities which have a common sense of identity and a common set of interests, determined by Nature rather than by politics alone. In such an environment unrestricted trade usually is beneficial. For example, we do not want to protect Michigan’s automobile industry from competition by an automobile manufacturer in Indiana or Texas. If Texans can build a better car at a lower price, then we, as Americans, are better off for it. We don’t worry about people in Michigan becoming dependent on Texans, because we’re the same people.

But we damned well better worry about being dependent on Chinese and Mexicans, who are fundamentally different from us in many ways.

Most White Americans, I am sure, even if they have been taken in by the egalitarian propaganda that racial differences really don’t mean anything, are not willing to have their own living standards continue to go down, so that Chinese and Mexican living standards can rise. And very few real Americans are willing to sacrifice our national independence and security to a scheme which will make us dependent on countries like China and Mexico for a lot more than cheap consumer goods.

But that’s exactly what’s happening now. Mr. Clinton and the gang in the White House are pushing as hard as they can to destroy American sovereignty, to boost interdependence at the expense of national independence, and to make us equal to Mexicans and Chinese.

The only way we can stop this is to reach millions of people with our message, to make them understand the consequences of the ongoing destruction of America’s industrial base and the motives of those responsible for it. We must make every American understand what a dangerous and evil scheme the New World Order is and what disastrous consequences it will have for all of us if we fail to derail it while there is still time.

—March 19, 1994

Categories
Free speech / association Joseph Goebbels Mainstream media Table talks (commercial translation)

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 152

the-real-hitler

 

17th July 1942, midday

Radio control in Russia
—Goebbels fails.

 

In the neighbourhood of our “Werwolf” Headquarters we found that almost every house was provided with a wired-wireless.

This shows that the Russians had realised in good time the dangers of a wireless receiving set. For one thing, the wired-wireless has the great advantage that it eliminates all interference, and for another, it permits the State to choose the broadcasts which it considers suitable. In Russia, the Commissar chooses the programmes, and the listeners are therefore completely cut off from the influence of foreign propaganda.

Before the war I myself directed the Minister for Propaganda to introduce wired-wireless in Germany. In this way German listeners would have been able to receive only our own national stations and such foreign broadcasts as we decided to retransmit.

I am very sorry that we were not able to apply these measures before the conflict started. It was a bad piece of work on the part of the Ministry of Propaganda, for although Dr. Goebbels has tried to put the blame on to other services, it is he who is responsible for the failure. When the execution of an order demands the cooperation of several services, he who receives the original order must assume the responsibility for the execution of the whole.

The desirability of introducing wired-wireless is indisputable. No Government can permit its population to be poisoned by enemy propaganda; otherwise one might as well invite a thousand enemy propagandists to come over and do their work openly.

All measures of this nature should be examined in peacetime with an eye to their probable effects in time of war. For war is a life-and-death struggle, which has its own rules and ignores the normalities of peace. A people which is prepared to accept compulsory military service of three or four years as a preparation for a possible war will not mind the slight inconvenience of a change over from wireless to wired-wireless.

Categories
Mainstream media William Pierce

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