Categories
Categories
The Jewish Problem
by William Pierce
For the last three decades there has been, in this land of free speech and a free press, an almost universally observed taboo on one topic of overwhelming importance: the Jewish question. Until about the last year or two, in fact, it was hardly permissible to even hint at the existence of such an issue, much less to discuss it openly.
Now the subject has been broached, not by our own people—for whom it has the most crucial importance—but, interestingly enough, by the Jews themselves, who successfully imposed the taboo on it in the first place.
One cannot pick up a major newspaper today without reading about “the Jewish vote” in the recent Presidential election, or which candidate got the most “Jewish money,” or which senators are blocking further Russian trade agreements until the Russians make more concessions on “the Jewish issue,” and so on.
Growing anti-Semitism
The Jewish question is phrased in the sharpest terms by the most Jewish of the Jews: the professional Zionists. They talk compulsively, almost hysterically, of rising anti-Jewish feeling in America, of “genocide” in Russia, of growing anti-Semitism in Italy and elsewhere, of the need to protect Jewish interests everywhere. And, contrary to past practice, they talk about these things publicly, where everyone can hear: in newspapers and national magazines, in open campus lectures, with placards in street demonstrations.
Books are in general circulation today, written either by Jews or philo-Semites, which come closer to a frank discussion of the Jewish question than would have been imaginable a few years ago. Even some motion pictures and television programs have ventured onto this formerly forbidden ground.
Deliberate deceit
All this is not to say that the American people are being given an honest treatment of the Jewish question. There remains more deliberate deceit on this topic than perhaps any other except the Black-White racial issue. But what a revolutionary change from the time when the very existence of the issue itself was denied!
Very recently it was not even permissible to speak publicly of Jews as a distinct racial-cultural-national group, a people with peculiar interests and characteristics distinguishing them from other peoples with different interests and characteristics. One could only speak of “Americans of the Jewish faith,” “a person who happens to belong to the Jewish religion,” and similar euphemisms. Americans were so thoroughly brainwashed that the mere use of the word “Jew” in public caused embarrassment and discomfort.
Pressures building
Now that is changing, and it is a good thing. It is not entirely clear why the taboo is being lifted, however. With a little effort the lid probably could have been kept on the subject for another decade, maybe longer, before internal pressures blew it wide open.
One reason may have been that the Blacks simply wouldn’t keep their mouths shut. Less disciplined than the White goyim, they kept spilling the beans.
Negro civil rights militants resented having to be told by their Jewish “advisers” and financiers what their every move was to be. Nor did they fail to gain the impression that they were being “used” by the Jews: that Jewish money and brains were not being poured into the civil rights movement out of any love for Blacks but in order to disrupt White society for the Jews’ own ends.
“Jew Devils”
And if Black slum-dwellers had not already noticed who it was who collected their rents every month and took what money they had left in exorbitant finance charges, there were plenty of Black nationalist leaders ready to point it out to them. In the Black Muslim theology, “Jew devils” roast in a pit noticeably hotter than that reserved for ordinary “White devils.”
White liberals have been conditioned to dismiss as “racism” any criticism of Jews emanating from other Whites. Every four-letter word coming from the mouth of one of the pampered new breed of Negro “intellectuals,” however, is pounced on like a pearl of wisdom.
Conditioning backfires
Gutter-level hate-screeds directed at Whites—trash literature such as Eldridge Cleaver’s Soul on Ice, which has been made required reading for millions of White high school and university students by neo-liberal teachers—are accepted as good, noble, and true by Gentile liberal and Jew alike. So, when the same breed of Blacks began expressing their feelings toward Jews, White liberals were obliged to take them seriously. One might say the Jews are hoist on their own petard.
Jews as a group
It would be unfair to give Black militants all the credit for forcing the Jews to reopen the Jewish question, however. Ever since the Jews so thoroughly trounced the Arabs in the “Six Day War” of 1967 (using American weaponry), they seem to have thrown discretion to the winds. They are so proud of themselves for that bloody bit of banditry that they can’t stop boasting about it. It is a triumph which belongs to all Jews everywhere, they feel: to Jews as a group. And it is as a group that they have been talking of themselves ever since.
“Just a coincidence”
This is a development of some importance. Before, if one violated the taboo by, say, grumbling about the Jewish monopoly control of America’s information media, one would immediately be put down by the nearest liberal with a little lecture about all those Jews in television and the publishing industry being just a coincidence; about the fact that it might just as well have been Baptists controlling the media if they had worked as hard at it and were as good businessmen as the Jews; about the necessity of judging each Jewish TV mogul as an individual rather than as a Jew.
And if one spoke of “organized Jewry” or hinted of a “Jewish conspiracy,” one was instantly consigned to the outer darkness, along with the little old ladies in tennis shoes who see a communist spy under every bed. Nowadays, Golda Meir can talk about “the organized Jewish world” and be quoted by UPI without anyone batting an eyelash.
Something other than Americans
So, however it has come about, we have the Jewish question with us today: the general acceptance (even if only implicit) of the fact that Jews are something other than Americans with a different religion; that they are Jews first and Americans (or Canadians, or what have you) only second or third; that they form a coherent group; that they have group interests, Jewish interests; and that those interests are quite often, if not always, at variance with the interests of just about everyone else.
When we couple this fact with the fact that Jews have worked their way in to positions where they control the vital nerve centers of the Western world: public information, education, finance, domestic politics, foreign policy… the Jewish question becomes a very real Jewish Problem.
Myths about the problem
The way in which the American people solve this problem will depend on their understanding of it. At present that understanding is badly clouded, and all the forces of the System are intent on keeping it that way, through the propagation of a set of myths. A few of these myths are:
- The Jewish problem has its roots in Gentile bigotry. If it were not for anti-Semitism and the threat it poses to the Jewish people, there would be no Jewish problem. Jews would simply be another ethnic element of the population of any country where they live, just as the Pennsylvania “Dutch” (Germans), Minnesota Swedes, or Boston Irish are ethnic elements of the U.S. population, each with its own peculiarities but without any particular “problem” (e.g., a “Swedish problem”).
- Anti-Semitism is always a manifestation of either religious intolerance or economic envy. That is, Christian bigots hate Jews because their religion is different, and bigots in general hate Jews because they are successful.
- Jews are a “persecuted” people with a tragic history. For thousands of years other peoples have bullied them, massacred them, selected them as “scapegoats”—all through no fault of their own. At present Arab terrorists are persecuting them in the Middle East and the Soviet government is persecuting them in Russia. The persecution they most like to talk about, however, is the one they recently underwent at the hands of the Germans: the “holocaust” of World War II. Because of the “holocaust” and other persecutions, the Jews are especially deserving of our sympathy and consideration.
- Jews are a “liberal” people: tolerant, pacifist, equalitarian, open minded, champions of freedom and justice. Their “tragic history” and the suffering they have undergone have given them these liberal traits.
- Jews are a specially gifted, artistic race. This is easily seen to be so by the way Jews dominate virtually all cultural fields in America today. There are more Jewish sculptors, painters, novelists, poets, composers, editors, and directors than those belonging to any other ethnic group, WASPs included. In line with this, Jews tend to be more sensitive and intellectual, on the average, than persons of European race.
A glimpse behind the façade
Many and weighty volumes have already been written debunking or supporting these myths. Here we have no room to explore them all. We can only present the briefest of suggestions to the reader that perhaps there is another way of looking at them than the “official” way presented by the System.
(A book published by Harry Ostrer in 2012 which admits that the Jews are a separate race and that understanding their genetic history is crucial to understanding the Jewish identity.)
Consider the first myth: namely, that Gentile bigotry is the cause of the problem. It is particularly rewarding to explore this myth together with Myth No. 3, that of a tragic history of thousands of years of persecution.
From the time of the ancient Pharaohs, nearly 4,000 years ago, to the present, everyone—Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Medes, Romans, Spaniards, Anglo-Saxons, Cossacks, Poles, Russians, Germans, Arabs—has persecuted and massacred the poor Jews. That’s quite an array of various breeds of bigoted goyim.
Everybody bigoted except Jews?
About the only conclusion the official myth allows us to draw from this is that bigotry is a universal characteristic of non-Jewish peoples! Furthermore, this bigotry has remained Jew-specific over an immense period of time and among peoples with widely varying cultures.
From the time when the ancient Egyptians booted Moses and his tribe out of Egypt, to the expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290, Germany in 1298, France in 1306, Austria in 1421, Spain in 1492, Portugal in 1496, and so on, to the present day, no one seems to have been able to get along with the Jews for very long. “Persecution” has been the inevitable result.
Is “persecution” myth a racket?
Of course, history is a continuous record of different peoples not getting along with one another: French vs. English, English vs. Spanish, French vs. Germans, Irish vs. English, Poles vs. Russians, and so on. But the English do not consider themselves “persecuted.” Nor do the French, the Germans, or any of the other peoples mentioned. Only with the Jews is it “persecution.”
Yet, the universal antagonism between the Jews and their various neighbors down through the millennia is undeniable. Could it be—is it remotely possible—that the reason for this lies with the Jews themselves rather than with all their antagonists?
“His blood be on us and on our children”
Certainly the myth that the trouble lies with Christian intolerance of “Christ killers” does not hold water. Moslems, atheists, and pagans have had as little use for Jews as the most retribution-minded Christians.
Tacitus, the pagan historian, wrote of the Jews: “When the Assyrians, and after them the Medes and the Persians, were masters of the oriental world, the Jews were deemed the most contemptible of all the nations then held in subjection.” And Tacitus’ other references to the Jews reveal that he and his fellow Romans shared that contempt, thus giving us four peoples in this one example, with four different religions, unanimous in their verdict on the Jews.
Venom of the Talmud
If that is due to religious bigotry, perhaps the bigotry is the Jews’ rather than all the others. This was the conclusion reached by the great Martin Luther, at any rate, who taught himself to read the Hebrew of the Talmud, the basic religious work of Judaism, and was horrified by the venomous outpouring of hatred against all non-Jewish peoples (goyim) he found there.
That leaves the “envy” myth. It is best considered together with the notion that the Jews are especially gifted and talented, and that these special talents have led to their spectacular degree of success, relative to non-Jews.
Masters of degeneracy
Let us immediately recognize that Jews, as a whole, do possess certain talents to a larger degree than other peoples. No Gentile writer, for example, could have produced a novel quite like Philip Roth’s The Breast or Portnoy’s Complaint. No Gentile composer could have treated a sacred theme with quite the same grandiose vulgarity as Leonard Bernstein did his Mass. No Gentile producer could have churned out such an appalling box-office success as Joseph Papp’s (Papirofsky) Hair.
Kosher culture
Almost as notable as the proliferation of noisy, flashy Jewish cultural “successes” is the absence of first-rate non-Jewish achievement in the artistic-literary-musical-theatrical field. Where are our late 20th century American Shakespeares, Beethovens, Wagners, Miltons, or Brueghels? There are none in sight.
There are a number of competent Gentile artistic and literary technicians still competing with the Jews, as well as a multitude of hacks, but the balance is shifting steadily toward a totally kosher cultural establishment.
Stifled soul
Transcendent artistic genius flowers only under certain favorable conditions. These conditions are those which allow latent genius to freely give expression to some aspect of the racial-cultural soul of a people. These conditions are notably lacking in America today.
Without a lengthy elaboration of why they are lacking, a brief and homely excerpt from a recently published and very illuminating book on the Jewish question, Professor Ernest van den Haag’s The Jewish Mystique, may serve to suggest that Jewish domination of the Gentile cultural establishment is one of the principal reasons.
Different outlook
Van den Haag correctly observes that
Persons whose outlook and sensibility differ radically from what is current, or acceptable, within the establishment are unlikely to be understood by establishment members. They are automatically relegated beyond the pale. For them to be heard, published, read, understood, or appreciated according to their merits becomes very difficult.
Then he quotes for us the complaint of one Gentile writer:
“When I was a screen-writer for one of the major studios,” says a former toiler in the vineyards dominated by another Jewish cultural establishment, “we were talking one day about how a mother would react to finding out her son had cheated in school. When it came my turn to speak, I said what I had to say. The head of the studio looked at me and said, ‘Mr. O’Connor, no mother would react that way.’ I told him that I had cheated in school, and that was exactly how my mother had reacted. There was an embarrassed silence for a moment, and then the studio head went on as if I hadn’t spoken. My mother had slapped me around a little bit, and then sternly told me to go to the priest to ask God’s forgiveness. The response they expected was that the mother would weep a little and take the poor, wounded boy to her breast. That’s how they wrote it, and for a moment there, they made me feel as if my mother wasn’t a member of the human race.”
Alien atmosphere
In other creative fields—science, for example—kosherization has advanced far less than in script-writing, but it is, nevertheless, advancing. No doors are slammed in the faces of talented Gentiles yet, but there is already an alien atmosphere which many sensitive Gentiles find uncongenial.
Perhaps it is in the business-professional world that the pattern is clearest. In most areas—retail trade, banking, dentistry, and law are examples—Gentiles are still in strong contention, although the Jewish element is gaining in influence and degree of domination.
In these areas Gentiles are highly conscious of their Jewish competitors, and whenever this consciousness manifests itself in an anti-Semitic manner the “envy” myth is immediately invoked to explain the anti-Semitism.
Organized takeover
There are other areas, however, where Gentiles are no longer in contention. Whole industries and professions have been literally taken over by the Jews.
The garment industry; the wholesale news distribution industry, which supplies magazines and paperbacks to newsstands; the motion-picture industry; and a score of others are almost totally Jewish in ownership and management. Psychiatry is, for all practical purposes, a Jewish profession.
A Gentile who attempts to trespass on one of these kosher preserves finds practically insurmountable obstacles in his path. He is immediately made to feel that it is he, not the Jews, who is an alien. He does not speak the same language, he does not know the customs, he does not belong.
Perhaps, then, we ought to consider that when a Gentile retail merchant, say, makes an unkind remark about his Jewish competitors he is motivated by something besides envy. Perhaps he has a faint, subliminal premonition of the situation the Gentile garment manufacturer of half a century ago found himself in as his Jewish colleagues slowly but surely forced him to the wall.
And we might also ask ourselves: Is it “talent” which is solely responsible for this burgeoning Jewish success—or is it also something else?
Jews and liberalism
Finally, let us look at Jewish “liberalism.” It is certainly true that Jews have been overwhelmingly prominent in virtually every “liberal” manifestation of the past 200 years, from the great liberal bloodletting of the French Revolution through the bolshevization of the Russian people and the building of the Negro rights movement in America.
Jewish university students were more numerous among the “freedom riders” of a decade ago than any other ethnic group.
Jewish students and Jewish lawyers, in the role of “pacifists,” have been the backbone of the home-front sabotage effort against the U.S. armed forces throughout the war in Vietnam.
Jewesses have been in the van of the crusade for women’s “liberation” since the inception of that rather unnatural movement.
In general, any group, movement, or political organization in America today agitating for “peace,” “equality,” “freedom,” or “justice” can be counted on to have a disproportionately large number of Jews among its adherents.
But are Jews really “liberals”—or is “liberalism” merely a useful mask for them to wear in their dealings with other peoples? For an answer, look at the Jews where they feel no need for a mask: occupied Palestine.
In America, Jews, through their control of the media of mass propaganda, have succeeded in making millions of White people feel guilty because our ancestors dispossessed the Indians and exploited Black slaves. Do the Jewish masters of Palestine, or their fellow Zionists in America, feel guilty because they have massacred, plundered, and dispossessed the Palestinians?
In America, Jews have been among the shrillest critics of our prisons and the staunchest supporters of prison rioters, such as those at Attica. What, then, is their excuse for the ghastly torture chambers and concentration camps they operate in Palestine in order to keep their restless Arab subjects in line?
Goyim not equal
In America, Jews preach “equality” for all peoples, religions, and races. Why, then, are Jews the only first-class citizens in Israel?
In America, Jews have been predominantly “pacifist” and anti-militarist (except during World War II!). How do they reconcile this with their enthusiastic support of military aggression in the Middle East?
In America, Jews have been the most vehement denouncers of “McCarthyism” and other forms of “witch-hunting.” People who made the “mistake” of joining the Communist Party 20 or 30 years ago should not be penalized for that mistake today, they say. Why, then, do they maintain in Tel Aviv massive files of dossiers on former German National Socialists and direct a worldwide effort to harass them, hound them from their jobs, smear them in the press, even kidnap and murder them? That is, why do they preach to us forgiveness of our sworn enemies while they preach vengeance against theirs?
There is no mistaking the reality of liberalism, or, more correctly, neo-liberalism. Millions of Americans are genuinely infected with it. It is a virus which is ravaging our people and destroying our nation.
And there is no mistaking the fact that Jews are bearers of this virus. But a little observation and reflection suggest that the disease itself strikes only men of the West and that Jews have a natural immunity to it.
Executing the solution
As already mentioned, the Jewish problem is one of great complexity and subtlety, and one can hardly hope to explore it, much less present any very confident solution, in a page or two. Nevertheless, it is a problem which must be faced and solved. The future of our race and our nation depend upon our finding—and executing—the correct solution to it in the very near future.
The only way we can hope to find that correct solution is first to clear away the smokescreens and lies which have been propagated solely to hide it from us.
The reader with the independence of mind and strength of character to question the official myths must not stop here. He must take upon himself the responsibility of fully informing himself, so that he can intelligently discharge his obligations as a patriot and a member of his Western racial community.
Information on the Jewish problem is available from a number of sources. Some of them are Professor Parkinson’s East and West, William Walsh’s Isabella the Crusader, and Dietrich Eckart’s fascinating Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin; on the relationship of the problem to communism are Frank Britton’s Behind Communism, Mr. Bacu’s The Anti-Humans, James Burnham’s Web of Subversion, and Louis Marschalko’s The World Conquerors; on its relationship to capitalism are Professor Sombart’s The Jews and Modern Capitalism and A. K. Chesterton’s The New Unhappy Lords; on the relevance of the problem to present-day America are Wilmot Robertson’s excellent The Dispossessed Majority and Hank Messick’s Lansky. And there are many others.
Read them, and then act!
_________________
From Attack! No. 16, 1972 transcribed by Anthony Collins and edited by Vanessa Neubauer, from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom.
Categories
Unbelievable!
I have just watched this unbelievable American Renaissance 2015 debate and still cannot believe my ears! John Derbyshire and Peter Brimelow saying that political reform may save us; that we need a second Reagan—and this is the gem of the debate: that the Jews will “wake up” and be on our side to save the white race?
(Listen what Ann Coulter told Hannity yesterday about her brand new book.) Even the other guys—Sam Dickson, Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor and apparently the audience itself—are far closer to the white conservatives I’ve been watching on Fox News than real Aryan advocates like the Nazis, Rockwell, Pierce and presently neonazis like Linder.
Finally I am starting to comprehend why the best novel that has ever been written in the US, The Turner Diaries, is not the huge bestseller among American racialists it deserves to be: racial conservatives are really retarded beyond repair!
My prediction: All sort of conservative types must die in order that real Aryan advocacy may be born…
Categories
On previous posts
by Jack Frost
In prior posts I’ve covered how even non-believers and anti-religious people see things with Christian eyes. They accept without questioning that universal brotherhood is good, the triviality of race, that who they really are has nothing to do with their bodies (i.e., Christian dualism), free will, etc.
All of this is pre-scientific thinking that has to go if we are ever to make any headway.
Below, six translated
excerpts from the chapter
“Musical betrayal”:
His phobia toward the degenerative aspects of the culture that began to appear in Mexico, especially in music, continued throughout the 1960s and early 70s, when I was already studying in his method. Rock music bothered him and even predicted, more than once, that in a hundred years mankind would continue listening to Beethoven but no one would remember the Beatles.
* * *
At that time [the 1990s] I did translation work. That same year [1993] I quoted something in my diary that I had translated that vindicates what my father said about musical pedagogy. I do not know if the quotes are accurate as the translated text was informal. But the question is to collect what comes in my diary: “Plato and Aristotle discussed the role of music as ‘harmonizing body and soul’. Plato went further: ‘The type of music of a nation cannot be altered without changing the customs and institutions of the state’.”
Very true. The “sexual liberation”—permissiveness of promiscuity and debauchery in plain English—modified the type of music in the West. My father never noticed that music education lies primarily in preventing the child or adolescent of the dissipation forces that became fashionable since the 1960s. A hard ethos as that of the Republican Romans would, I believe, repudiate the degenerate music insofar as the ethos and the musical tastes are two sides of the same coin. My father certainly heard the musical degeneration when it initiated in Mexico; he criticized it and resented much what he heard but eventually he followed the crowd [esp. Hollywood] and his descendants strayed even further. Rephrasing Plato, my brothers and nephews completely disharmonized their souls because of such bad manners. In other words, any pedagogic method that fails to separate the child from the surrounding culture of our time won’t work.
* * *
I must clarify that, although the rhythmic exercises taught in [school X] are indeed silly and childish, they do not reach what my beloved Nazis called “degenerate music.” This leads to the simplistic melodies of “disipacionism” to use the term of Hajo Liaucius in the book that I compiled; the obvious and inane tunes that move us into hedonistic relaxation, so well exemplified in the music that horrified Solzhenitsyn when America sheltered him for a few years and harshly scolded the gringos at Harvard. As unlike Solzhenitsyn almost everyone, including white nationalists, are addicted to degenerate music, they have been unable to realize that the best minds sensed that such “music” would be used by the System to degrade the spirit of the population, and to control it. A passage in 1984, for example, written before the birth of rock, proved prophetic. The music in the totalitarian world, Orwell says: “had a savage, barking rhythm which could not exactly be called music, but resembled the beating of a drum… The proles had taken a fancy to it.”
* * *
In another of my ring-binders (my texts are scattered in many places), in April 18, 2005 I wrote that the methods of Orff and Kodály were also fraudulent “if they don’t produce aversion in the pupils towards the music of Neanderthals, like rap.” In other words, it is impossible to have a double life: say, a traditional marriage with children and maintaining a lasting relationship with a homosexual lover. My brother and his musical colleagues do something similar to this hypothetical bisexual: they studied classical music and go to table dances or dance salsas; they have read the classics but plug their minds to the idiot box called television; they married in the church and get civil divorces before the first conjugal dispute; they teach Bach and in their cars listen disco music.
* * *
One time my nephew visited my parents and confessed to my father that, with his cousins, he was composing music for their rock group. My father did some technical questions and my nephew [who studies music composition] answered. Then, my father delivered a very gentle speech about rock. He said it was a “rhythmic, monotonous and a highly repetitive cry; very simple.” My nephew, incidentally, played the rubbish of progressive rock from his cell phone to show the grandfather the new ringtones. My father continued his criticism of rock concerts: “The volume is so tremendous that equalizes everything; what you hear is a barking rhythm,” just what Orwell said in his best-achieved novel.
Then my father spoke of an old article by a commentator on classical music that had opined about rock. He mentioned the name of the critic (that I failed to annotate), who had written about the “tremendous, crushing phenomenon” which was rock in its origins. My father spoke at length about African rhythms as a preamble to classify the rock. That they play it “to the extent that hypnotize” and the members of the tribe do not dance in dancing couples. Rather, the ritual ends in rapes that surprise the tourists. “I see the same in rock. The volume is so strong and it is so much of it that the affair ends really badly.”
* * *
What I said in my dairies was true: only by cutting off the child from the failed culture that surrounds him it is possible to educate him. We need a Fourth Reich to put things in order.
Categories
Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 153
18th July 1942, at dinner
Once we have secured our grip on the Eastern territories by means of the construction of a network of autobahnen, the problems of distance, which worry us a little today, will cease to exist. Of what importance will the thousand-kilometre stretch to the Crimea be, when we can cover it at eighty kilo- metres an hour along the autobahn and do the whole distance easily in two days!
I am absolutely determined to link up the whole of the Eastern territories behind the East Wall by means of a network of autobahnen radiating from Berlin. When we are able to go from Klagenfurt to Trondhjem and from Hamburg to the Crimea along a Reichs autobahn, we shall have a system of communications which will shorten space to the same degree as the old carriage highways for the conception of their time.
It’s helpful to go back to the contrast between Jesus and Socrates.
The life of Socrates represents the search for truth, and search implies freedom. It isn’t an unlimited freedom, for Socrates eventually transgresses the limit when he threatens the social order by spreading atheism and a spirit of inquiry generally.
But Jesus, by contrast, brings a strain of intolerance to the West that didn’t exist before the advent of Christianity. Jesus doesn’t engage in a search for the truth at all; he doesn’t argue, present facts, and seek to persuade us of anything. No, a search is not needed, for the truth has already been found. He proclaims himself as the truth, and what is more, the only truth. It’s his way or the highway, no argument allowed. This is the truth of the God of Moses and the Oriental despot, outside of the narrow confines of science. This spirit of intolerance is what now dominates the West.
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” (John 14:6)
That’s pretty damned intolerant if you ask me. My point was that this kind of moral zealotry, a forerunner of political correctness, comes from the Jews, and didn’t exist among whites before the contaminant of Christianity entered white civilization.
Whether Jesus engaged in a personal search for truth is also beside the point. Jesus is saying that further search isn’t necessary, since, as he proclaims, with typically Jewish ego, he is the truth…
Freedom of speech is an alien concept to Jewry, including rabbi Jesus, and isn’t found in the Bible at all.
– a comment by Jack Frost on The Occidental Observer –
by William Pierce
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
I’m just saying that the source of the moral justification for the West’s immigration problem is to be found in its Christian past; that the entire worldview of life as some kind of moral contest is a Middle Eastern import that didn’t exist in whites before the coming of Christianity. Saying, as you did, that it has “nothing to do with Christianity” because the elites in Sweden are secular and have turned against the churches just makes me think you don’t see how two thousand years of Christianity have seeped into every atom of the white man’s bones. I’ll be convinced that the Swedish elites have turned against Christianity when you can show me they’ve turned their backs on the Christian ideals of universal brotherhood, peace, love, and charity.
I find it extremely odd, to say the least, that I should be the one to have to point out to someone who is frequently considered to be one of the world’s foremost anti-Semites, that maybe, just maybe, trusting a moral system developed by Jews, and built around the idea that one Jewish rabbi in particular is God, is not the best of strategies for white people concerned about limiting Jewish influence.
Nevertheless, that’s the situation I find myself in. KMD [Kevin MacDonald] and many of his acolytes, who unabashedly here tout Christianity as good for whites, must also then be of the opinion that, in at least this one instance, whites benefited from their association with Jews; that the relationship was symbiotic, not parasitic in kind. How this relates to the central thesis of this site, which as I understand it is that the Jewish race is locked in a struggle with the white race and is attempting to dominate it, is unclear.
KMD appears to think this struggle only commenced in the twentieth century; that there’s no possibility that Christianity itself was developed as a weapon of interracial warfare to subvert whites. I don’t think that reconciles very well with sociobiological theory. If the races are at odds, then haven’t they always been at odds? Aren’t they, according to the principles of Darwin, necessarily at odds, since in a world of finite resources a win for one is a loss for the other? Why should that have only begun in the twentieth century? It would be interesting to see how he deals with that thesis, which is something that Nietzsche appeared to believe, and also Revilo Oliver. If KMD has set this out somewhere, I haven’t seen it.
Then we have these two rather threadbare arguments presented above, which I’ve seen many times before, and I’m sure others are equally familiar with. In the main, they are:
- Christianity was the religion of the West during the period of its expansion, therefore it can’t be something inherently wrong with Christianity that’s the source of the modern problem with whites.
This is supposed to be the strongest argument.
- There’s “real” Christianity (which is smuggled in here as “traditional” Christianity), and subverted Christianity. The former is A-okay for whites, the latter is poison.
The first doesn’t deal with the argument which compares Christianity to a cancer. Cancer, too, doesn’t necessarily kill immediately. You can have cancer for years until it suddenly metastasizes and kills you. You can have it and be apparently strong and have many accomplishments; but nevertheless, you have it, and it will eventually kill you. So this argument in favor of Christianity doesn’t actually come to grips with the charge against it. It’s not a strong argument at all.
The second argument is a confused muddle. “Traditional” Christianity is supposed to be good for whites, yet in the next breath, KMD says that throughout history, Christianity has been on both sides of every issue. So which side is “traditional”? In the American Civil War, was it the South or the North? Were the Puritans traditional, “real” Christians, or not? Since the term is never defined and no examples are ever given, it’s hard to avoid the impression that “traditional” Christianity is whatever the author approves of, and subverted Christianity is whatever the author disapproves of.
Of course, the implication is that “traditional” Christianity is not corrosive to white racial solidarity; that Christianity hasn’t always been universalistic and has at times been racial. But then, in the next breath, he refers to the early Church Fathers, who were anti-Semitic because the Jews weren’t good race mixers like they thought Christians were supposed to be. So it would appear that the early Church Fathers weren’t “traditional” either; and also that the race mixing proclivities of Christianity are of very ancient vintage.
How then can it be argued that there’s nothing inherent in Christianity that subverts race? Is KMD saying that the Christianity of the early Church Fathers had already been subverted? By whom? When? Some details would be nice.
Recently I was asked these questions:
Are there any prospects that White Hispanics in Mexico and other Latin American countries might be willing to participate in a general revival of White interests? Or are they too cramped by the label Latino to identify as White? Or are racial categories in Latin America so imperceptible—due to the subtle gradations of white, near-white, off-white, almost white, mestizo—that forging a White identity is impossible?
I responded thus:
“Latin” America is in a far worse shape than the North. With 500 years of miscegenating experience these guys [“whites”] have lost almost all pride of their white skin (what remains of it). I have some writings about the subject in Spanish.
However, there’s something important missing in my reply. The real trouble I see in this part of the continent lies in the fact that, once you tolerate a few Amerindian genes in your bloodline, the race barrier is gone. The reason of this is not complicated. Due to Mendel laws, if you have an Amerind ancestor, even if you are predominantly white some of your offspring will come up darker that the rest.
This for example is a 1960s photo of my cousins of two different families when they were children. (The blondest one passed away a couple of years ago as a mature adult.) You can see that my cousin at the bottom is darker than the one who had Scandinavian blond hair, his (now deceased) brother. This makes my point. Once you have darker brethren the ethnic barrier collapses within your psyche. You won’t be dismayed when, say, your whitest son starts dating a swarthy girl in Mexico because you already produced a child who, phenotypically, cannot be considered properly white.
This behavior produces a downward spiral of miscegenation due to the fact that most Mexicans are browns. The whitest genes dilute more and more in each generation, insofar as the browns are prolific and phenotypical whites not.
I have lived half a century in Mexico. I know the dynamics of mestization. Several people in white nationalism have criticized my one-drop-rule stance. For example, Andrew Anglin wrote about me: “He gets way into the Nordic stuff in a way that I find basically religious.” That’s only because Anglin et al completely ignore the psychological dynamics of mestization, especially the loyalties with swarthier offspring and cousins and uncles and aunts—and thus with who’s dating your daughter—once your bloodline is not pure.
Earlier this month I said, “Race-wise Americans should consider the sociology down the south of Río Grande.” However, I acknowledge it must be difficult for an American or European to figure out the psychological aspects of blood mixing throughout Latin America, unless he has lived in one of these countries for a long time.