The Old Testament was by Jews, about Jews, for Jews. If you are not Jewish the Old Testament has nothing to do with you, never has and never will. (Read Kevin MacDonald’s first book of his trilogy about Judaism.)
Categories
Tag: Jewish Question (JQ)
Categories
Jews
“Separating from Jews made England and Spain.”
—Celtic Patriot
Categories
4th of July
“The alien-minded minority in control of the cinema, the radio, and the newspaper and magazine press has poured out a constant stream of propaganda with the intent of gaining complete spiritual power over the minds of young Americans.” (1939)
“The monstrosity called America can intervene in Europe, can frustrate it, can perhaps destroy it.” (ca. early 1950s)
“The Jewish-American entity is Jewish as respects its head, American as respects its body… [It] will not surrender, since the very existence of Jewry is at stake, and the whole United States and its population is there to secure the existence of Jewry.” (1960)
Francis Parker Yockey (1917-1960)
– probably killed at prison –
Update:
American Renaissance is completely clueless that Murka was the product of bad history (see AmRen’s entry: here)!
Murka’s triple helix—Christianity, capitalism and Enlightenment dogmas (“We hold these truths to be self-evident…”)—are larger factors of white decline than the Jewish problem, even when considered in isolation, as demonstrated in this site and elsewhere.
5th July 1942, evening
Falsification of war communiqués—Switzerland believes the Jewish lies—Britain in the hands of the Jews—Conservation of our racial integrity—Farcical success of Saint Paul.
Commenting on a completely false Soviet war communiqué which had been published in the Swedish and Swiss Press as well as in that of Britain and America, the Fuehrer said: These communiqués are typical Jewish fabrications. Although they do not even give names of places, they are nevertheless published by news agencies all the world over; and the explanation is, of course, that these agencies themselves are for the most part in the hands of Jews.
Unfortunately, this Jewish twaddle is being accepted without question not only in Britain and America, but also in Sweden and Switzerland.
Thanks to the development of National Socialist Germany, I firmly believe, if only on purely biological grounds, we shall succeed in surpassing the British to such an extent that, with one hundred and fifty to two hundred million Germans, we shall become the undisputed masters of the whole of Europe.
A recrudescence of the problem Rome or Carthage in the new guise of Germany or Great Britain is not, in my opinion, possible. For the result of this war will be that, whereas in Britain each additional million of population will be an additional burden on the island itself, the increasing growth of our own races will have open to them horizons of political and ethnological expansion which are limitless.
Further, any alleviation of the overcrowding of towns by a movement back to the land is not possible in Britain, for this would necessitate an immediate revolution of the whole social system of the Kingdom, which, in its turn, would lead to the disintegration of the rest of the Empire.
These very important facts have been largely overlooked in Britain because the country is ruled not by men of intelligence but by Jews, as one must realise when one sees how the intrigues of the Jews in Palestine are accepted in Britain without comment or demur.
One odour most important tasks will be to save future generations from a similar political fate and to maintain for ever watchful in them a knowledge of the menace of Jewry. For this reason alone it is vital that the Passion Play be continued at Oberammergau; for never has the menace of Jewry been so convincingly portrayed as in this presentation of what happened in the times of the Romans. There one sees in Pontius Pilate a Roman racially and intellectually so superior, that he stands out like a firm, clean rock in the middle of the whole muck and mire of Jewry.
The preservation of our racial purity can be assured only by an awareness of the racial issues involved; our laws, therefore, must be framed with the sole object of’ protecting our people not only against Jewish, but also against any and every racial infection.
We must do all we can to foster this racial awareness until it attains the same standard as obtained in Rome in the days of her glory. In those days the Roman protected himself subconsciously against any racial adulteration. The same thing occurred in Greece at the height of her power; according to reports handed down to us, the very market place itself in Athens shook with laughter when St. Paul spoke there in favour of the Jews. If nowadays we do not find the same splendid pride of race which distinguished the Grecian and Roman eras, it is because in the fourth century these Jewish-Christians systematically destroyed all the monuments of these ancient civilisations. It was they, too, who destroyed the library at Alexandria.
Categories
Further reply
Jack Frost responded thus to the feminized white nationalists at The Occidental Observer who are dismayed by Dylann’s actions:
Tell us, please, how you expect to take back the media, the government, and academia without violence. What magic words are you going to utter that your adversaries are just going to shrug and hand over power without a fight? Frankly, I have no idea what you mean by an educational project, when at the same time you claim that hardly anything has been done in that regard up to now.
Over 150 years ago Darwin tried to educate the entire world as to racial inequality, but the white man would have none of it, conflicting as it did with Christian creation myths. Sir Francis Galton, Lothrop Stoddard, and Madison Grant tried to talk to the public about race, but got shouted down or ignored. Charles Lindbergh, a great American hero, tried to tell the semitophilic public about the Jews, and he was ostracized. Ezra Pound, some say America’s greatest poet, likewise fell into disgrace due to his educational efforts regarding Jewish money power.
One could say much the same about one of America’s greatest industrialists, Henry Ford, who documented his case against the Jews meticulously and even gave free copies of his work to all of his customers. He eventually was compelled to issue a retraction and a grovelling apology, perhaps the first of its kind in what is now a long tradition. Even our host, Kevin MacDonald, has expended considerable effort in this regard, and has received the usual recompense.
by Jack Frost
Noel Ignatiev actually does make an effort to be consistent. He states, for example, that the Jewish race also does not exist, and favors its abolition, along with the abolition of the Jewish state of Israel. See, for example, here.
Ignatiev can be a challenge to deal with because, like most sophists, once you accept his premises, his conclusions actually do follow. Those premises are the scientific canard—backed up now by what is considered mainstream science—that race in humans doesn’t exist, along with the usual litany of de-Christed Christian hogswallop, which has sunk so deeply into their culture that most whites will accept it without thinking. To wit:
1. Universal brotherhood, both as a “scientific” fact and as something desirable to bring about.
2. Life viewed fundamentally as a moral struggle, wherein Good does battle with Evil, and it’s incumbent upon human beings to join with the Good to help defeat Evil.
3. That Love is better than Hate, Peace better than War.
4. That Justice requires treating everyone equally.
5. That the moral vision expressed by all of the above is more important than life itself; that even race suicide is not too much to demand in order to bring it about.
Once you reject his premises, Ignatiev’s argument falls apart. Of course, the fly in the ointment is that rejecting these premises in a culture shaped by Christianity is a rhetorical non-starter. This is why it’s imperative that the Christian worldview be defeated.
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.
by William Pierce
A review of the movie The Crying Game, American Dissident
Voices (September 18, 1993). The following text of a radio
address by Pierce is taken from Kevin Strom’s archive.
Today I want to talk with you about morality… about standards… about values.
Most of us have heard it said that the reason America is in such a mess today is that our people have lost the values we used to have, and that we need to regain them—that we need to begin teaching values to our kids in the schools.
And I guess I’ll agree with that… but there’s more to it. It’s certainly true that as a nation, or as a race, we’ve lost our values. Or, more accurately, we had them stolen from us. And now, unfortunately, the values we used to have are being replaced by new values which are worse than no values at all.
America hasn’t so much lost its sense of direction as it’s had all the road signs changed while it wasn’t looking. Values are our problem today… but even more, our problem is the people who have deliberately changed our values, deliberately perverted them.
I don’t want to beat around the bush or keep you guessing what I’m getting at, so I’ll come right out with it: the people who control the mass media in America have deliberately and consciously, with malice aforethought, used their influence over the thinking of the people who see their films, who watch their television programs, who read their newspapers and comic strips and popular magazines… they’ve used their influence to twist our values, to reorient our whole way of looking at the world.
Now, most of us have heard that too. We’ve heard about the destructive effect of television and the other mass media on public morality. We’ve heard that there’s too much violence and too much sex on television and that it isn’t good for us. And I guess that I’ll agree with that too… sort of. Too much television isn’t good for us, but it’s not just because of the sex and violence. It’s because television—and films and magazines and the rest of the controlled media—are used for propaganda aimed at subverting the values of our people, especially our young people. And they’re used with malice aforethought.
A lot of us have more or less realized this. We’ve sort of sensed that something was rotten in the media establishment. We felt that the media bosses who run Hollywood and the media bosses who control the TV networks were slyly twisting the view of the world they presented to us, slyly trying to change our attitudes. But the media bosses are clever and they’re subtle, and, of course, they denied everything. And so it often was difficult for ordinary people who felt they were being manipulated to really put their fingers on what the media bosses were trying to do.
And so people have jumped on the too-much-sex-and-violence bandwagon, but that really isn’t the problem at all. The sex and violence in films and television is simply pandering. It’s simply keeping the viewers distracted, so that they won’t complain about the real propaganda. The real propaganda the media bosses have been trying to slip into our minds is the idea of human sameness, the idea that the differences between Blacks and Whites, between men and women, between homosexuals and heterosexuals aren’t significant, aren’t important, that we ought not to notice these differences, and we certainly ought not to take them into account in choosing friends, associates, or lovers… that we ought not to feel any special affinity for people of our own sort, that, in fact, we ought to feel a little guilty if we still have any sense of racial or ethnic identity left, or if we regard homosexuals any differently than we do normal people.
That’s the basic message. That’s the propaganda. But, as I said, the media bosses are subtle, and the average person usually doesn’t see that whole message in any single film or TV show, and so it’s difficult for him to recognize that he’s being manipulated.
The media bosses are getting bolder, however, and a film came out a few months ago which contains pretty much the whole message, and it contains it in a form that’s not at all subtle, that is in fact blatant enough for many people to see for what it is—at least, they should be able to see it once it’s pointed out to them. The film I’m referring to is The Crying Game. It was made by Miramax Pictures. That’s a film company in England which is owned by two Jewish brothers, Bob and Harvey Weinstein. When the film first came out I wasn’t interested in seeing it, because the reviewers in the NY Times and the other major media were all oohing and ahing over it. They considered it a very “sensitive” film, and so I figured it must be more of the same, old trash.
Well, I was wrong. A friend sent me a video of the film, and I viewed it a couple of days ago.
In case you haven’t seen the film, let me run briefly through the plot. It opens in present-day Northern Ireland. A British soldier is enticed by an Irish girl he meets at a carnival to head off into the bushes for a little sex, where he is immediately kidnapped by members of the Irish Republican Army, to be held as a hostage in retaliation for the arrest of an IRA man by the British Army. Nothing the matter with that as a movie plot, of course—except that the “British” soldier just happens to be Black. No one pays the least attention to that rather startling fact, even as the Black soldier kisses and fondles the blonde Irish girl in the midst of the carnival crowds. The message the filmmakers are sending us here is that the soldier’s race makes no difference, either as a soldier or as a lover. We are being told that we should see nothing amiss in a typical British soldier being Black, or in a Black man romancing a White girl.
While he is being held hostage, a friendship develops between the Black soldier and one of his Irish captors, a man named Fergus. Eventually the time comes to kill the captive, but before that the Black has shown Fergus a photograph of the girl back in London he really loves, a mulatto, and he makes Fergus promise to visit the mulatto girl and tell her that his last thoughts were of her.
Fergus keeps his promise—more or less. But he also falls in love with the mulatto girl. Then, in the course of trying to make love to her he discovers that she’s really a man: a homosexual female impersonator. At first that disconcerts Fergus rather badly, but by the film’s end he’s shed his prejudices, his bigotry, and he’s realized that it really doesn’t make any difference, that he loves the homosexual mulatto after all, just as the Black soldier had done before him.
Now, I’ve skipped a lot of the lurid details, which would get this program thrown off the air if I described them to you, but you get the picture: race doesn’t matter, sex doesn’t matter, sexual orientation doesn’t matter. All that matters is love. Every effort to discriminate—to distinguish—between Blacks and Whites, between men and women, between homosexuals and heterosexuals is bigotry, is prejudice, is hatred. We’re all human beings, the film tells us, and that’s the only thing that’s important. We should ignore everything else and love others, without regard for these superficial differences.
The people who made The Crying Game don’t believe that, of course. That’s just what they want us to believe. They understand that any race which absorbs their message, any nation which absorbs their message, any society which absorbs their message… has been morally disarmed and has been made helpless against its enemies. The race which absorbs and takes their message to heart has lost its ability to discriminate and therefore its ability to survive. It’s a race ripe for exploitation, ready to be plucked and slaughtered, a race unable to defend itself against the predatory tribe to which Bob and Harvey Weinstein belong.
As I said, the media bosses prepare their message for us with malice aforethought.
Now, if you think I overstate my case, if you think I exaggerate, if you think I’m being unfair to the media bosses, I invite you to view The Crying Game yourself. It’s available in video stores everywhere. View it for yourself. See if you don’t agree with me about what the Weinstein brothers are trying to tell us.
Their message, of course, is the same message we get from all of the controlled media these days. The only thing unique about The Crying Game is that it rubs our faces in their filth so much more forcefully than most other films do. Usually they don’t slap us right in the face with the whole message at once. Usually they sugarcoat it and slip in just a bit of it here and there. Usually they don’t let us see so clearly what they’re aiming at. Usually they just teach us to parrot a few of their Politically Correct clichés about the evils of “discrimination” and about how wonderful “multiculturalism” and “diversity” are.
After I viewed The Crying Game I reread the reviews of the film. I want to read you a few short extracts from these reviews. The NYT reviewer, Bernie Weinraub, bubbles about how the film explores “the blurred nature of love, trust, and compassion.”
Blurred, indeed, for Mr Weinraub and the Weinstein brothers!
Weinraub then goes on to quote the film’s director and scriptwriter, who says his film is “a love story, in the broadest possible sense. It’s about the extremes of love and the responsibilities of love, and how two characters find a way to love each other who are divided by many things. It’s also about how one person loses himself to find himself. The central character loses all the different facets of what he thought was his identity. Once he does that he finds the human being in himself.”
Newsweek magazine gushingly calls the film a “study of what constitutes moral virtue.” Newsweek tells us: “If the test of a good movie is how it makes an audience feel when the lights come up, The Crying Game is a very good movie indeed. It leaves one giddy.”
Isn’t that something! Not a mention of the film’s portrayal of homosexuality and miscegenation as normal, healthy behavior we all should feel good about. The film, according to the reviews, is about love, about finding the human being in oneself. It makes audiences feel so good they are giddy.
What are we to think about the people who made this film and the people who reviewed it and the people in Hollywood who awarded it several Oscars? The Weinstein brothers and Bernie Weinraub and the rest of their tribe are so arrogant as to tell us that every standard of quality, every standard of behavior, every standard of beauty and righteousness which has guided our race for thousands of years is bad because it discriminates, and that we have to throw them all out and be undiscriminating.
While laughing up their sleeves and smirking behind their hands they come into our country and tell us that it is wrong for us to discriminate between decent and indecent behavior, between our own race and other races, between what is natural and what is unnatural, between what is wholesome and beautiful and what is filthy and ugly. It’s all the same, they say; that’s the new morality.
How can anyone be so pushy? How do they get away with it? Why do we permit people who so clearly are working to destroy us morally to carry on their destructive activity? Why did we permit them to take over our newspapers and magazines, our film industry, our television?
Part of the answer to that question is, as I said before, that these people usually are not so obvious about their intentions as they were in The Crying Game. Usually they make films which simply entertain people, while slipping in just a little poison unnoticed by most of us.
And part of the answer lies in a peculiarity of human nature, a peculiarity which the great Danish storyteller Hans Christian Andersen commented on more than a century ago in his story titled “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” When the average person sees a film as shocking and evil as The Crying Game, he doesn’t simply say to himself, hey, that was a shocking and evil film, which aims at making us abandon our sense of right and wrong, our sense of discrimination.
And he certainly doesn’t say that to his friends and neighbors. Instead he looks around to see what other people’s reaction to the film is. He listens to what the opinion molders are saying, the film reviewers. And if they say, hey, this was a wonderful, sensitive film about love, then he’ll simply suppress his own reaction to the film, and he’ll tell the people around him, oh, wasn’t that a sensitive film! Even sophisticated, educated, intelligent people will behave that way. Remember, in Hans Christian Andersen’s story it wasn’t a professor or a successful businessman but a child who said, “Mommy, mommy, look, the emperor is naked!” And then, if you remember the story, the other spectators who heard the child also began saying, yes, the child is right, the emperor is naked.
Perhaps Andersen was a little too optimistic about human nature if he really believed that one lone voice of truth and reason could shatter the whole fabric of lies and deceit which the masters of the controlled media have woven around us. But I believe, nevertheless, that individuals must speak out now: we must say to everyone around us, films like The Crying Game are not about love. They are about the abandonment of values and standards. They are about giving up our power to discriminate. They are about surrendering to evil.
We must say these things not just because they are right, but also because some people who hear us will wake up, just like the people in the crowd admiring the emperor’s new clothes woke up when they heard the child saying what should have been obvious to everyone. We must say that it is not love to permit Blacks to fondle and kiss White women or to treat a homosexual female impersonator as if he were a normal woman. It is racial suicide. It is filth and sickness. We must say that loudly and clearly. And we also must say that the people who have been trying to twist our values, the film-makers and the film reviewers and the television network bosses, are evil people, and we should not tolerate their presence in our society. We should rid ourselves of them by whatever means is necessary.
We should understand that those who want to rob us of our values are as dangerous to us as those who want to steal our possessions or our liberty. Those who try to make us believe that anything goes and that it’s wrong of us to discriminate are as much our enemies as any gang of terrorists bent on destroying our society. The Weinsteins and the Weinraubs and their ilk are trying to destroy us morally.
And they’re succeeding. Just look at the filth we elect to public office in this country. Look at what we tolerate in the White House and in the Congress.
You know, a single film and a few deceitful reviews seem like an inconsequential thing. It is, after all, just entertainment, and we might think that we can take it or leave it.
No, no, really—it’s more than that. It’s part of a vast, concerted, ongoing effort, and it does have consequences. We can see those consequences all around us, from the Clintonistas in Washington to the breakdown of order in our cities and the loss of discipline in our kids’ schools.
We don’t have to put up with that any longer. We don’t have to pretend that we don’t notice what’s been happening. We can stand up and speak out. We can make others wake up. We can begin taking this country back. It’s time to start doing it.
(an interview with Pierce)
“And, yes, they [the Jews] deserve a great deal of blame.
But not all the blame. Perhaps not even most of it.”
—William Pierce (see below)
November 7, 1992
Kevin Alfred Strom: With the excitement of the election behind us now, what do you see ahead for Americans during the next four years?
William L. Pierce: More of the same.
KAS: You mean you think the recession will continue?
WLP: Actually, I didn’t mean that. I meant that America will remain on the same downward course she’s been on since the Second World War. I can’t predict the little ups and downs of the economy. But I can predict that, so long as certain very fundamental flaws remain in our society, we will continue going from bad to worse, in the long run. Whether the so-called “economic indicators” that the government publishes go up or down, whether we temporarily pull out of the present recession or not, economic life for the average White American will become bleaker in the years ahead. Worse, his social life will become more sterile, his cultural life more debased. Worst of all, his spiritual life, his view of his own meaning and purpose, will continue to shrivel.
KAS: My, you’re not very positive today, are you? Can you explain your gloomy prediction for us? Can you tell us just what you mean, can you give us the details, when you say that life for White Americans will continue to become worse? In what way will the economy become worse, for example?
WLP: The economy will become worse in that the average White family will work longer and harder for a smaller reward, for fewer of the necessities of life, for less security, for a meaner life style than before. The average standard of living, in other words, will continue to decline, just as it has in during the past few years. And this is something which absolutely did not depend on the outcome of the recent election. Both Clinton and Bush have been supporters of globalizing the US economy. They both have been boosters of the New World Order, in other words. They both support the removal of trade barriers with Mexico, for example, which will accelerate the export of American industry and American jobs to Mexico, simply because wages are much lower there. The effect of this, of course, will be gradually to raise wages in Mexico, while they are pulled down in the United States.
But, then, that’s the whole rationale behind the push for globalization, the push for the New World Order, isn’t it? Equalize living standards around the world. Lift up the poor non-Whites in the Third World and drag down the rich Whites. Give everyone a fair share of industry and the wealth which goes with it. Break down national and racial barriers. Homogenize the world, economically, racially, culturally. That’s the idea which has been pushed inexorably and unceasingly by the controlled media ever since the Second World War. The controlled media have made this idea of globalization fashionable; they’ve made it a Politically Correct idea, and therefore no one in the controlled political establishment in this country, whether Democrat or Republican, dares oppose it.
KAS: So it’s this bipartisan push for a global economy which leads you to predict that the US economy will continue to decline, no matter which party is in the White House?
WLP: That’s one of the reasons, and it’s an important reason, but there are also others. There is the continuing, unchecked flood of non-White immigration into America, for example. There’s the continued policy of favoritism shown to non-Whites in university admissions, in the awarding of scholarships, in hiring, and in promotions. And there’s the growing burden of supporting an unproductive and largely non-White welfare class. All of these reasons for future economic decline are thoroughly entrenched, they’re long-term, and they’re bipartisan reasons.
Which is to say that they’re Politically Correct, and so neither the Democrats nor the Republicans dare do anything about them. Can you imagine either a Democrat or a Republican proposing that we cut off all non-White immigration into the United States and try to restore America as a White country? Can you imagine one of them proposing that the government should no longer provide any support to the millions of inner-city residents now on welfare and should use all necessary force to maintain order if they don’t like it? There’s no more chance of that than there is of either a Democrat or a Republican President announcing that the New World Order is a scheme intended to reduce the White American worker to the same level as the Mexican peon and the Chinese coolie and that we’ll have no part of it.
And because there’s simply no chance that the controlled political establishment in this country, Democrat or Republican, will address or even admit the existence of the fundamental reasons for the declining living standard of Americans, I can predict with complete confidence that the economy will continue to decline, over the long run. There are various paper-shuffling tricks, of course—fiddling with interest rates, changing the tax structure, rearranging the Federal budget—which can make temporary changes in the economy, apparent changes, but they can’t cure this country’s real economic problems.
KAS: That’s interesting. But you know, the so-called economic “experts” that we hear on the controlled media disagree with you completely. They tell us that this recession is just a little anomaly, a little readjustment, and that over the long run everything is rosy. They say that the globalization of our economy is helping America by allowing us to export more of our products. They say that non-White immigration is boosting our economy by providing us with needed skills and eager workers. Here’s a recent issue of Business Week. The headline on the cover says, “The immigrants: how they’re helping the U.S. economy.” Are the media experts wrong?
WLP: Yes, they’re wrong, and what’s worse they know they’re wrong. They’re deliberately lying to us, deliberately misleading us, just as much as the politicians are. It doesn’t take a genius to see what’s happened to the economy of this country since the Second World War. The experts rave about the benefits the new World Order is bringing to us by allowing us to increase our exports. But the cold, hard reality is that globalization has brought us an enormous trade deficit.
The fact is that it has wiped out whole industries in this country and exported them overseas: the consumer electronics industry, for example, or the machine tool industry. The fact, not the theory, is that millions of Americans are being forced to switch from high-paying jobs in manufacturing and basic industry to low-paying service jobs. The fact is that before the Second World War most American families needed only one wage earner to keep them comfortable and secure; wives and mothers could stay at home and take care of their families. Today, of course, most mothers have to work outside the home. The fact is that our economy isn’t getting better and better; it’s actually getting sicker and sicker.
KAS: You keep referring to the changes which have taken place in the economy since the Second World War. Why is that? What does the war have to do with it?
WLP: The Second World War really has everything to do with it. It was, after all, an ideological war, one could almost say a religious war, a war between two fundamentally different world views.
On one side were the believers in quality over quantity, the elitists, the believers that White people, Europeans, are more progressive, are better able to maintain and advance civilization, and should hold onto their position of world mastery.
On the other side were the believers in quantity over quality, the egalitarians, the believers in racial and cultural equality, the people who thought it was wicked for the United States to remain a White country, wicked for White Britain to have a world empire, wicked for White Germany to be allowed to smash communism, wicked to permit nationalism to triumph over internationalism. And the fact is that the egalitarians won the war. After the Second World War White Americans could no more justify keeping hordes of hungry, non-White immigrants out of their country than Englishmen could justify hanging onto the British Empire. They had cut the moral ground right out from under themselves.
KAS: Of course, that’s not the way it was presented to Americans back in the 1940s. We were all taught that we went to war to keep America free, that we were fighting against tyranny, that we were fighting on the side of decency and justice.
WLP: Nonsense. We were fighting on the side of the folks who marched the entire leadership stratum of the Polish nation into the woods and murdered them. And the people who control our news and entertainment media knew that too. When the German Army discovered those huge pits full of murdered Polish officers and intellectuals, they called in the world press to look at the evidence. But the controlled media kept it quiet, so that we would keep fighting on the side of the murderers.
After the war they blamed it on the Germans. And there was nary a squawk from the controlled media when we turned the surviving Poles, and the Hungarians, and the Balts, and all the rest of the Eastern Europeans over to the same gang of cutthroats who had butchered Poland’s leaders in 1940. Of course, it made sense in a sick sort of way. After all, murdering a nation’s elite is an egalitarian act. After you kill off the most intelligent, the most able members of a nation the ones who’re left will be more nearly equal.
KAS: And easier to control.
WLP: Yes. But the point is that, the reasons given to the American people for getting into the war against Germany were all spurious. It was not a war to keep America free. Americans weren’t in the slightest danger of losing their freedom to the Germans. It was, as I said, an ideological war. It was a war about what kind of ideas would govern the world. It was a war about whether we would be proud and White and strong, or whether we would feel guilty about the fact that Mexican peons aren’t as well off as we are. And we lost the war. That was a real turning point in the fortunes of our race and our nation.
The loss of the Second World War is the real reason for the decline of the U.S. economy—and of our social life, our cultural life, and our spiritual life. Before the war we had a White country, a country determined to stay White. After the war we no longer had that determination. Instead we had the vague feeling that it was wrong of us to want to stay White. After the war when the controlled media began pushing for so-called “civil rights” laws and for opening our borders to the Third World, it was just a continuation of their push to get us into the war on the side of the people who had made Poland a more “equal” country by slaughtering her leaders at the killing pits in the Katyn woods.
We don’t really have time today to trace the whole process of the breakdown of America after the war, but we can look at a few examples which more or less tell the story. We’ve been talking about the economy, but it’s really our whole society which has been corrupted by the war, by the ideology for which the war was fought. Think, for example, about what life is becoming for the millions of White Americans who still live in our cities, especially those cities with a large minority contingent. We are no longer the masters in our own land, and we are paying the price for that decline in status.
Crime has soared enormously in our cities and made life a daily nightmare for millions who cannot move away. Even for those who live in the suburbs and only must work in the cities during the day, crime has become an ever-present constraint, a burden, a limit to their lives. City streets which once were safe for White women and men, by night as well as by day, are now like minefields where we must proceed with caution and be always on guard.
We know who makes our streets unsafe. We know against whom we are obliged to bar our windows. We know whom we must fear if our cars run out of gas or break down at night. And these are the same people whose welfare support imposes such an intolerable burden on our strained economy. And it is interesting that the government cannot solve our crime problem for exactly the same reason that it cannot solve our economic problem: it cannot address the causes; it cannot even admit the existence of the causes, because those causes are Politically Incorrect.
Just as the government economists talk about interest rates and budget adjustments but dare not speak of the effects of globalism on our economy, the sociologists talk about “poverty” as the cause of urban crime, but dare not mention that crime in America today is above all else a racial problem. Or look at what our schools have become, or look at popular entertainment. You know what the purpose of a school should be?
It should be not just to pound facts into the heads of children so they can earn a living; it should be to mold them into good citizens. It should be to teach them about their roots, about their ancestors, about their race. It should be to give them a sense of identity, a feeling of solidarity with their people, a feeling of appreciation for the civilization which their people created. It should be to teach them the values and customs which are peculiar to their people.
But most of the schools in America’s cities cannot do these things. They are not even permitted to try to do these things, because these things are all profoundly racist, the controlled media tell us. The only kind of school which can teach meaningfully about roots and identity is a school which is racially homogeneous, but such schools were outlawed by our government after the Second World War, because they are contrary to the principles for which that war was fought.
When our kids turn to drugs today, when they learn anti-White rap lyrics from the television, when they think Magic Johnson is a hero and say upon meeting a friend, “hey, man, gimme five,” we’re paying the price of the war. I said a few minutes ago that the worst aspect of the breakdown of America was not what’s happened to our economy, but what’s happened to our spiritual life, to our morale, to our idealism, to our character. White Americans haven’t become more stupid in the last fifty years. Most of the people listening to this program understand exactly what I’m saying. They didn’t really need me to point it out to them. They can see it for themselves. It doesn’t take a genius to understand why our schools aren’t working or why the New World Order will hurt Americans as the price of making Mexicans and Chinese more prosperous.
But it does take just a tiny bit of courage to stand up and say these things when we’ve had it drummed into our heads that we always must be Politically Correct. The people listening to this program have for years been watching America being torn down. They have seen the effects of egalitarianism, of liberalism on our society. They have seen one liberal program after another make things worse and worse, and they have listened to the controlled media and the controlled politicians tell them that what’s needed to fix things is more of the same. And they’ve thought to themselves, this is crazy.
But they’ve been afraid to say that out loud. They’ve been afraid to say, “Hey, look, Joe, the emperor doesn’t have any clothes on.” And it’s my considered opinion that this timidity, this willingness to go along with every new insanity imposed on us by the media and the politicians, even when we know it’s unnatural and immoral and destructive of everything worthwhile—this is a spiritual failure. This spiritual failure, this willingness to tolerate evil, is a more serious matter, in my eyes, than our economic decline. When we are able to heal ourselves spiritually, we’ll be able to heal ourselves economically and socially, but not before.
KAS: Is this spiritual failure entirely the fault of the American people? You’ve repeatedly referred to the controlled media as the principal promoters of the ideology which is at the root of our problems. Aren’t they to blame? Aren’t the people who control the media responsible for what’s happening to America? And, by the way, who are these media controllers?
WLP: Well, I think we all know who wields more control over the news and entertainment media than any other group. It’s the Jews. And, yes, they deserve a great deal of blame. But not all the blame. Perhaps not even most of it. After all, they’re only acting in accord with their nature. They’re doing what they always do when they come into a country.
We shouldn’t have let them do it. We should have stopped them when they were taking over Hollywood 75 years ago. We should have stopped them when they began buying up newspapers back before the Second World War. After the war we shouldn’t have let them get anywhere near a television studio. But we didn’t stop them, and the blame for that really lies with those who have set themselves up as our political leaders. They sold us out. They sold out America. They sold out their race. When our kids are exposed to the godawful, anti-White rap musicals from MTV, should we blame the Jewish owner of MTV, Mr Redstone, or should we blame the politicians in Washington who let him get away with it? Personally, I’d go after the politicians first.
KAS: I see your point. Tell us, Dr Pierce, do you think there’s any hope that White Americans ever will go after the politicians who are betraying them? Do you think they ever will regain enough spiritual strength to stand up and say, “Hey, the emperor is naked”?
WLP: I do. I believe that one day they’ll be shouting it from the housetops. More people are angry today about what their government is doing to America than at any time since the Second World War.
As time passes their numbers and their anger will grow. That is inevitable, because the policies of the controlled media and the government are making America an unlivable place.
The condition of the economy helps too. I would really be worried if I thought that the politicians could patch up the economy enough to lull people back to sleep. But I know that they can’t. I know that conditions can only become worse and worse under the policies which come from Washington, regardless of who’s in the White House. And this is what gives me hope for the future. When the pain becomes great enough, anger and frustration will overcome the fear of being Politically Incorrect, even for the most timid White American.
Thou Shalt Do War
by William Pierce
The motto of Israel’s spy agency, Mossad, is, according to recently defected Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky: “By way of deception thou shalt do war.” That motto describes more than the modus operandi of the world’s most ruthless and feared organization of professional assassins and espionage agents; it really describes the modus vivendi of an entire race. It is necessary to understand that fact before one can hope to understand fully the role of the Jews in national and world affairs.
The concept of a race eternally at war with the rest of the world is alien to us. It is difficult to believe or even to grasp. When we examine such a concept and begin sifting the evidence it is easy to become confused. On the one hand we have the Old Testament injunctions to the Hebrews from their tribal god, speaking through their prophets, to annihilate every Gentile nation over which they gain power:
And thou shalt consume all the peoples which the Lord thy God shall deliver unto thee; thine eye shall not pity them… thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. (Deuteronomy 7:16, 20:16)
Similarly bloodthirsty, explicit injunctions are repeated so often in the Jews’ holy books that we can only assume that they are meant to be taken seriously. The historical evidence suggests that in ancient times the Jews did indeed take their religion seriously: they were notorious everywhere and at all times as implacable haters of humanity who in turn were thoroughly despised by every people among whom they lived.
Then on the other hand we have the modern, American Jew in the role of humanitarian, shunning the instruments of war and urging that all citizens, including himself, be disarmed, in order to make the streets of our cities kinder and gentler. Not only do the Jews provide the principal impetus to America’s gun-control effort, but they are found in the forefront of every other squishy, do-good movement, from those ostensibly aimed at reducing hostility between the races to those designed to increase tolerance of homosexuals and their practices.
How are we to make sense of this apparently conflicting evidence?
Is the Jew in the U.S. Congress who cites the rising murder statistics and then demands that the government confiscate all privately owned firearms trying to deceive us as to his intentions? When he talks peace and disarmament is he really thinking war against the Gentiles?
And what of the carefully cultivated media image of the Jew as a gentle, inoffensive victim of bigotry, always being persecuted but never persecuting others? Is that also deception? And even if it is, does it necessarily mean that beneath the Jew’s mask of benevolence and innocence hides the malevolent visage of a cunning predator? Perhaps for every bloodsucking Jewish swindler like Ivan Boesky or Michael Milken there is a Jewish benefactor of mankind like polio vaccine developer Jonas Salk, and for every bloody-handed Jewish gangster like Ariel Sharon, Meyer Lansky, or Yitzhak Shamir there is a Jewish Nobel Peace Prize winner like Menachem Begin, Henry Kissinger—or the appropriately named Elie Wiesel.
Or are we also being deceived when the Salks and the Kissingers are held up to us as reasons for not condemning all Jews for the transgressions of some?
By way of deception thou shalt do war.
Does that injunction mean: “If you must wage war—if it is impossible to avoid war—then you stand a better chance of winning by being tricky”? Or does it mean: “Thou shalt wage war, and thou shalt deceive”?
The answer to this question is important. If it is the former—if the Jews, as a whole, are not malevolent, if they have broken with their Old Testament tradition and no longer feel that their racial mission is to destroy all other peoples, but they merely feel that when forced to defend themselves they are justified in using all means, including deception, then we may be able to live on the same planet with them, at a distance. We don’t have to like them or agree with their policies, but we can see the possibility, at least, of some sort of peaceful coexistence, once a separation of peoples has been accomplished.
In seeking the answer we should keep in mind that deception is, in itself, hostile. A policy of systematic deception is tantamount to a policy of war. If we discover that the Jews (as a whole, not just a few swindlers among them) have been deceiving us deliberately and systematically over an extended period of time on any matter of substance, then we may infer that they regard the relationship between us as one of war, and we should respond accordingly.
The pursuit of this inference may be the only path to an unmuddied answer. After all, how do we know that someone is waging war against us? If he makes an open declaration of war and then begins shooting and bombing us, the matter is clear enough. But if, because he always follows a policy of deception, he declares that he is not at war with us and only has our best interests at heart, we may have difficulty in deciding whether the injury he causes us is deliberate or inadvertent.
Suppose he undertakes courses of action which damage us in ways somewhat less directly than shooting and bombing—ways such as bringing hordes of non-Whites across our borders, breaking down the barriers to racial mixing in our society, encouraging permissiveness, undermining our institutions, promoting cultural bolshevism—all the while claiming that he does not regard these things as harmful. If we were a more practical people we might pay less attention to what the Jew says and more to what he does; we might stop worrying about his motive, judge him on the basis of the effect his presence has had on us, and then act accordingly.
Unfortunately, there are many who cannot in good conscience take a stand against the Jew without knowing what is in his heart—and the Jew is aware of this. We must catch him deliberately lying to us, deceiving us systematically and massively, in order to infer that his intent is hostile.
That’s one reason why the unraveling of the “Holocaust” myth is so important to us—and why the Jew clings so desperately to every lie in its fabric.
We should draw some sort of conclusion from the consistency of the Jew’s actions. Virtually everything he does is harmful to us. Without much exaggeration we can say that whenever the Jew takes a stand on a new issue, the proper position for us is on the other side.
Everyone who has read any Jewish literature—i.e., literature by Jews about Jews—has encountered the traditional Jewish character who whenever he must make a decision about something the goyim have done asks himself: “Is it good for the Jews?” That’s an admirable trait in any person, Jew or Gentile: always being concerned first about the welfare of his community, of his tribe, of his race. The Jewish author more often than not sprinkles a bit of dissimulation over it, however, suggesting that it may be unfashionably parochial, but it is excusable on the grounds that the Jews have been obliged by bitter experience to be wary of anything the Gentile does.
It goes without saying, of course, that the same author would regard it as totally inexcusable for a Gentile to use a similar criterion: to ask himself about some policy or action of the Jews, “Is it good for the White race, for Gentiles?” Such a character could only be cast in the role of villain.
And what we never encounter in Jewish literature is a Jewish character weighing a Jewish policy by asking himself: “Is it bad for the goyim?” Unspoken though it may be, however, it seems that this criterion plays as large a role as the first in determining Jewish policies. Perhaps to them it is just another way of saying the same thing—although they are very careful not to phrase it that way. At least, they have been since the Second World War; before that they sometimes seemed to think that the goyim couldn’t read, and chutzpah got the better of discretion. In 1924, for example, the prominent Jewish publicist Maurice Samuel, author of a score of serious books on Jewish matters and recipient of numerous awards from Jewish organizations, wrote in his You Gentiles, a book addressed to his hosts:
We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers forever. Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands. We will forever destroy because we need a world of our own, a God-world, which it is not in your nature to build.
Even here, however, there is deception, with the will to destroy masked as piety.
Think of the enormous demographic and social changes which have transformed our world since the Second World War. In 1941 the United States was for all practical purposes a White country. Blacks and other minorities existed, but they were not seen in White residential areas, White schools, White recreational facilities, or most White workplaces. They had a negligible influence on the political process, on public morality, and on the national culture. Racial intermarriage was illegal in most jurisdictions and extremely rare everywhere. America’s city streets were safe by night and by day. There was no drug problem; the use of marijuana, heroin, and other drugs was confined almost entirely to Blacks and mestizos, in their own, separate communities. Teenage pregnancy (among Whites) was as rare as a public display of homosexuality. Schools were orderly, disciplined, and safe.
America had its problems, of course. Whites, even when they are in control of their own destiny, are not angels. Greed, meanness, superstition, and stupidity were reflected in a thousand social and cultural ills. A thoroughly corrupt political system, inevitable in a democracy, provided the country with its top political leaders and public officials. Blacks and other racial minorities, though invisible and powerless, were a festering sore which eventually would have to be dealt with.
The country, however, was still White and gave every indication of staying that way; in the years immediately prior to the war immigration to the United States was predominantly White, with immigrants from Europe outnumbering those from Asia and Latin America combined by five to one. America’s problems were still soluble and Western civilization was still viable, still capable of being cleansed and renewed. Furthermore, in Germany a man was showing the race the way to save itself.
In response to that man’s efforts most of the Western world engaged in an all-out war to destroy him, his works, and his followers. His ideas and teachings became anathema, and the half-century which followed was dedicated to justifying the slaughter and destruction of the war by promoting the antitheses of those ideas and teachings.
He had taught that the White race is the most progressive race and is inherently superior to the non-White races in its civilization-building capacity, and so the elevation of the social and economic levels of non-Whites at the expense of Whites became the premier postwar goal.
He had taught that racial mixing is a crime against Nature, that our race must strive above all else to maintain the integrity of its gene pool, and so racial mixing became the postwar fashion: schoolchildren were bused to achieve mixing in the schools, forced housing laws were passed to achieve residential mixing, laws against miscegenation were struck down everywhere, and the immigration laws were changed to bring a new flood of non-Whites into the country.
He had taught that the building of self-discipline in young people, the strengthening of their will-power and of their ability for self-control, is the most important task of a nation’s educational system, and so in postwar America discipline became a dirty word, and permissiveness became the norm.
He had taught that, just as races differ in their innate abilities, so also do the individuals within a race, and that a healthy and progressive society must conform its institutions to this natural inequality among its members. Consequently, in postwar America egalitarianism became the new religion, and leveling the aim of government. To seek out the best and brightest, in our schools and elsewhere, and give them the recognition and the special training to enable them to move upward to positions of leadership—even to admit the possibility that some were better and brighter than others and could contribute more to civilization—became taboo.
He had taught a healthy, complementary relationship between men and women, with the former as providers and protectors and the latter as nurturers, and the new society he built in Germany was family centered, with laws and institutions aimed at strengthening the family and helping it to provide a sound environment for healthy children. Therefore, after his works were destroyed the victors denounced sexual complementarity as “repressive” and brought women out of the home and into the workforce by the millions, with children relegated to day-care centers. Every sex-role distinction was officially discouraged or outlawed, even to the point of bringing women into the armed forces on an equal footing with men. Feminism and homosexuality flourished with governmental protection.
Today we can see the consequences of these postwar policies all around us, and it is a matter of public record that the Jews have been the primary instigators and propagandists for each of these policies without exception.
They had non-Jewish collaborators in abundance, of course. The legislator primarily responsible for the change in postwar immigration patterns, the late Jewish Congressman from Brooklyn, Emanuel Celler, for many years chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, chose as a co-sponsor for his 1965 immigration bill the Gentile Senator from Massachusetts Edward (Teddy) Kennedy.
The “civil rights” revolutionaries who were organizing “sit-ins” and “freedom rides” during the 1950s and 1960s received their financing, their legal assistance, and their media support from Jews, but without an utterly corrupt and unprincipled Gentile collaborator in the form of Lyndon Johnson, first as Senate majority leader (1955–1961) and later as President (1963–1968), the series of legislative coups which made the agenda of the revolutionaries the law of the land would not have come so easily.
Collaboration has come from Blacks as well as Whites. Many of the organizations pushing for legislated “equality” between Blacks and Whites have been headed by Blacks in recent years. The most venerable of them, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, was given its first Black president as long ago as 1975, after an unbroken succession of Jews (although the separate NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which bills itself as “the legal arm of the civil rights movement,” is still strictly kosher, with a Jewish chief).
In no area of endeavor have the Jews had more willing non-Jewish collaborators than in the postwar promotion of permissiveness. Jews Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin may have been the most flamboyant spokesmen for permissiveness during the 1960s with their “if it feels good, do it” and “kill your parents” maxims for young Americans, but dozens of well-known Gentiles were right on their coattails, from “New Age” guru Timothy Leary with his campaign to popularize LSD and other psychedelic drugs to soft-porn publisher Hugh Hefner and his advocacy of “the Playboy philosophy.”
It is, after all, hardly the case that Jewry forced its way into America with tanks and machine guns and compelled the unwilling Aryans to stand by and watch while their civilization was destroyed and their race corrupted by the Semitic invaders. From the beginning the prey collaborated with the predators at all levels: the primitive Bible-beaters who for generations have been taught by their own kind that the Jews are “God’s Chosen People” and that it’s bad luck to cross them; the jaded, self-indulgent great grandsons and great granddaughters of an earlier generation of hard-headed, hard-working pioneers and entrepreneurs, eager to be amused and titillated by every new fashion in ideology, art, music, or lifestyle dangled before them by wordy, alien hucksters; hungry opportunists in business, in education, and in the cultural establishment, ready to take the part of the obnoxiously pushy but admirably well-organized strangers, once those strangers had established sufficiently strong beachheads to be able to offer favors in return; and, of course, the politicians, democracy’s inevitable maggots, who are ready to ally themselves with the Devil himself if they think they can gain a temporary personal advantage by doing so.
It is clear that when cleanup time comes there’s as much weeding to be done in our own garden as in any other race’s. An inattentive observer might even conclude that the Jews are no more blameworthy for the bad directions taken by our society than our own worst elements are; that as opportunists they merely look for ways to turn the weaknesses they find in us to their own advantage.
Did they push for opening our borders to the Third World because they had a long-range plan to mongrelize us, or were they merely going along with greedy and irresponsible elements of our own race who wanted to keep the cost of labor down?
Have they been the principal promoters behind every destructive fashion in painting and music in order to cut us loose from our cultural moorings, thereby confusing our sense of identity and making us easier prey, or simply because they have recognized the lack of aesthetic discrimination on the part of our consuming masses and are as eager as the confidence men of any race to sell the suckers whatever they’ll buy?
Do they use their control of the entertainment industry to promote the acceptance—and in many cases the approval—of homosexuality, feminism, and interracial sex as a way of softening us up morally and preparing us for slaughter, or are they simply trying to please and thereby win as customers for their commercial sponsors the more degenerate elements of our population?
An inattentive observer might be stumped by such questions. A more attentive observer, however, will note the details, the specifics, as well as the generalities, and he will understand that those details, taken together, are not consistent with simple opportunism but only with war by way of deception.
Forcing the stream of immigration into America after the Second World War to change from White to Brown and Yellow has most notably kept the cost of farm labor down, but Jews are not farmers, and it is difficult to see how they could expect to benefit economically from this change. The influx of non-White immigrants also has kept the cost of certain other types of labor down—restaurant workers, unskilled construction workers—but the connection to any vital Jewish business interest is tenuous at best.
There can be no doubt that culture distortion has been enormously profitable for Jews. With a controlling economic interest in every facet of the popular-culture industry from art galleries to music records, tapes, and compact discs, they make money from nearly every product that the culture-consuming public can be persuaded to buy. And since no one has ever lost a nickel by underestimating the taste of the public, the deliberate Jewish debasement of art and music is understandable on the grounds of greed alone. But the specific directions are not.
In the production and promotion of what might be called “consumer music,” for example, the one great change which has taken place since the Second World War has been the ascendancy of African rhythm over European music. Fifty years ago one could walk into any record store catering to the general public and find 78-rpm phonograph discs with a number of different types of music: classical, hillbilly (a form of White American folk music known today as “bluegrass” and subsumed under the more general heading “country and western”), numerous samples of genuine folk music from Europe, the religious music of the more primitive Christian fundamentalists (“gospel”), and a wide-ranging selection of “popular” music. The last category contained everything from the songs of Stephen Foster to the vacuous, fluffy stuff of the musical comedies which were especially popular then.
Jews already had established a strong beachhead in popular music production—Sigmund Romberg, Richard Rodgers, Oscar Hammerstein, George Gershwin, Jerome Kern, Irving Berlin—but, at least, most popular music, even that composed by Jews, was still based on European forms. Jazz was for all practical purposes the only non-White music being peddled to White consumers, and it constituted a relatively small minority of the wares—although the “swing” and “big band” forms into which jazz evolved took a larger share of the market. Still, much of the available music was White in form and origin, with classical music still prominently represented.
By the end of the Second World War jazz-influenced popular music was evolving away from its Black roots into hybrid forms that most people considered more White than Black. The introduction of the long-playing record, which for the first time permitted people to listen to an entire symphony without changing records, and of high-fidelity sound systems even brought about a renewal of public interest in classical music. At this point the people controlling the music industry could have moved in any of a number of directions. They chose to put their heaviest promotional efforts behind another music form with Black roots: rock ‘n’ roll.
Rock also evolved, of course. Today in its many forms, some of which have moved rather far from their Black origins, it dominates consumer music. And the masters of the industry have begun pushing yet another non-White music form, more blatantly Negroid than anything heretofore: rap.
Today one must look hard to find even a handful of classical cassettes or compact discs in the music section of a K-Mart or other consumer emporium. European folk music can be had only from a few specialty stores. The majority of the music offered to the consuming public is in some significant sense non-White.
Economic democracy might be invoked to explain, at least in part, the displacement of structure by rhythm, as the taste of the average consumer has become more primitive. But it is clear that deliberate promotion has had much to do with this trend. Why have the promoters so consistently chosen directions which weaken and dilute the White cultural heritage?
Certainly, the feminists, homosexuals, and race-mixers are pleased to see themselves depicted on television and cinema screens as people of a morally superior sort, as role models for the younger generation of goyim. Perhaps they even show their appreciation by buying more of the products of the sponsors of Star Trek, True Colors, and other brave, new television productions. But feminists, queers, and interracial couples still make up only a rather small minority of the population, despite the best efforts of the media masters. Wouldn’t it make better economic sense to cater to the majority? There are as many approximately normal consumers who feel at least a twinge of disgust when a television program tries to persuade them that hard-drinking, hard-swearing female soldiers or cops are “normal” as there are bull-dykes who will run out and buy the sponsor’s brand of beer. And there certainly must be more healthy viewers who seethe with suppressed rage when they see a White woman kissing a Black man on the screen than there are avant-garde sickos who applaud such an abomination.
No, opportunism does not explain the Jews’ destructiveness. There is no doubt that they are opportunists. But their opportunism is too consistently destructive. They have too inerrant an instinct for what will be bad for the goyim.
Can their behavior be explained in terms of an alien brand of idealism—an idealism which evolved in the marketplaces and bazaars of the Middle East over the last five thousand years and is natural for them, but which leads to disaster when applied to European society and institutions? Was their support for communism from the middle of the last century up until its recent collapse really based on their sympathy for the oppressed proletariat and their desire for social and economic justice, as they claim? They themselves have been oppressed, they say, and so they have a natural sympathy for the underdog. They will tell you that the reason they promote feminism, argue for the acceptance of homosexuals, and demand the integration of Blacks into every facet of our lives is that their religion requires it of them; the ethics of Judaism is egalitarian, and it specifies that each man be judged only by his or her character.
Undoubtedly there have been naive, starry-eyed idealists among communism’s Gentile propagandists—at least, in those countries which had not yet experienced communism in practice; the great American writer Jack London was one, and there certainly may have been a few Jewish idealists of Marxism as well. But only a person who has no knowledge of communism in practice can believe that those who engineered its revolutionary triumph in Russia or commissared its institutions in Eastern Europe after the Second World War were seekers of justice for the workers.
As for the claim that Jews have an affection for justice and equality greater than that of other races, we only need to look at the ways in which this alleged affection manifests itself in that part of the world where it should be seen in its purest form: namely, Israel and the Israeli-occupied Arab territories. Ask any Palestinian about Jewish justice!
Judaism, of course, is unequivocally opposed to feminism and homosexuality—for Jews. Furthermore, it is a race-based religion, which defines its adherents in terms of their bloodline and declares them inherently superior to all other races. How does their promotion of feminism among the goyim, for instance, square with the well-known Jewish prayer, “I thank you, oh Lord, for not having made me a goy, a slave, or a woman,” which is recited every day by the Orthodox faithful?
In the Talmud, that authoritative compendium of the Jewish oral law, there are a thousand other reminders to the Jew that he is absolutely superior to all other life forms:
Heaven and earth were created only for the sake of the Jews. (Vayikra Rabba 36)
The Jews are human beings, but the goyim are not human beings; they are only beasts. (Baba Mezia 114)
Yahweh created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form and is condemned to serve the Jew day and night. (Midrash Talpioth 225)
So much for Jewish egalitarianism. Jewish solicitude for Blacks in America today is as much a fraud as was the claim of Jewish sympathy for the oppressed proletariat of Russia on the eve of the Bolshevik Revolution.
What truly lies in the Jewish heart was revealed by an exceptional Jew, Baruch Spinoza (like Ostrovsky, a renegade), who wrote in the 17th century:
The love of the Hebrews for their country was not only patriotism but also piety and was cherished and nurtured by daily rites until, like their hatred of other nations, it was absolutely perverse… Such daily reprobation naturally gave rise to a lasting hatred, deeply implanted in the heart: for of all hatred, none is more deep and tenacious than that which springs from extreme devoutness or piety and is itself cherished as pious. (Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Chapter 17)
The Jewish role in the non-Jewish world and the Jewish motivation for the policies pursued by the Jewish community would be much easier to perceive if the Jews acted in a more consistent and straightforward way: if they spoke with a single voice and spoke truly, saying what really was on their minds. But, then, consistency and straightforwardness would violate the cardinal rule: By way of deception thou shalt do war.
Nevertheless, on a somewhat higher plane of subtlety, there is a consistency in the Jews’ inconsistency. On virtually every major issue—political, social, cultural, moral, or what have you—where there are two principal sides or factions, Jews will be found pushing in both directions and serving as spokesmen for both factions—but with a difference.
Consider: For many years prior to Mikhail Gorbachev’s recent dismantling of the Soviet power bloc and the general recognition of Marxism as a fraudulent, unworkable system, communism’s principal apologists and apparatchiks in the West were Jews. So were a number of anti-communist spokesmen.
During the Second World War, of course, the communists could do no wrong in the eyes of the West’s controlled media, because they were helping to destroy the man about whom the Jewish media masters had nightmares. Thus, while Soviet butchers were torturing thousands of patriots to death in the police cellars of the Baltic countries and liquidating the Polish leadership stratum at the killing pits in the Katyn woods, Jewish communists in the United States were stealing the plans and test results from America’s atomic bomb program and sending them to their colleagues in the Soviet Union.
After the war was over, however, and a reaction began to set in among White Americans as they realized that the communist beast they had unleashed against Eastern Europe might end up devouring them too, it was time for Jews to begin hedging their bets: it was time for the media to begin quoting “responsible” anti-communists. (The “responsible” ones were those who failed to mention the Jewishness of the system they were speaking out against.)
While the memory of Jewish atomic spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg was still fresh and Jewish communist sympathizers such as Robert Oppenheimer were being weeded out of America’s atomic weapons program, Jewish scientist Edward Teller became the spokesman for anti-communist Americans who wanted a strong, nuclear-armed America able to stand up to the Soviet Union. Three decades later, after Jews had rooted for the Viet Cong communists throughout the war in Vietnam, Jews began flocking to the neoconservative movement to speak up for an America strong enough to defend Israel’s interests in the Middle East against the Soviet Union’s Arab clients there. Often they were the same Jews who had been cheering for the Reds a year or two earlier. That really confused the goyim.
Consider: Whenever a gaggle of eggheads gets together in some area to sponsor a classical-music FM radio station as a sole outpost of European culture in a sea of African rock-and-rap rhythm or sub-dimwit gospel bleating, there surely will be a Jew or two among them. And when they are interviewed by the local press, it surely will be one of those Jews who is quoted. That helps to spike any nasty rumors as to who’s behind all of the garbage-music programming at the other stations.
Consider: As I have demonstrated elsewhere, the madness of Political Correctness which has infected America’s colleges and universities is Jewish through and through. And many of those who are urging their colleagues to hold the line against Political Correctness also are Jews (at least, the ones appointed by the media to be spokesmen for academic freedom are). This not only ensures that the Jews manning the PC barricades won’t be criticized as Jews for wrecking our universities, but it preempts those who might try to swing things too far back toward academic freedom.
Consider: While Jew Howard Metzenbaum in the U.S. Senate and Jew Charles Schumer in the U.S. House of Representatives spearhead the legislative drive to strip Americans of their right to armed self-defense and are unanimously and vociferously supported in this effort by the Jewish media, a tiny, Milwaukee-based, Jewish pro-gun group calling itself Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) manages to attract far more attention to itself than its size ordinarily would merit. JPFO is not just a group of pro-gun people who coincidentally happen to be Jews; it is a group of people who are shouting to the world: “Hey, look at me; I am a Jew, and I am in favor of gun ownership.” Whenever a JPFO spokesman is quoted in the news media—which is often enough to give the impression that his organization is right up there with the National Rifle Association, fighting for gun owners’ rights—he flaunts his Jewishness.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that in any contest it’s a good strategy to control your principal opposition. That way you can put on a great show of bad guys versus good guys struggling against each other, but you are always in a position to make the contest go in either direction you want and only as far as you want. Not only do you preempt any real opposition, but you keep the goyim fooled and deflect any criticism of your role in the affair.
By way of deception thou shalt do war.
The deception is masterfully done. It suffices to keep most of the people fooled most of the time. Only a careful study of the details of a number of different social phenomena in which Jews are involved parts the veil of lies and trickery sufficiently for us to see a clear pattern.
The pattern is this: Jews come into any homogeneous society—and such was America at the beginning of this century—as outsiders, as strangers. The society is effectively closed to them. They cannot easily penetrate its institutions. They cannot get their hands on the levers of power. If they try they are noticed, suspected, and resisted. And they always must try. In this they apparently cannot restrain themselves.
To make way for themselves, to open up possibilities for penetration and control, they must break down the structure of the society, corrupt its institutions, undermine its solidarity, weaken its sense of identity, obliterate its traditions, destroy its homogeneity. Thus they inevitably will be in favor of democracy, of permissiveness, of every form of self-indulgence and indiscipline. They will be proponents of cosmopolitanism, of egalitarianism, of multiculturalism. They will oppose patriotism (except when they are inciting their hosts to fight a war on behalf of Jewish interests). They will agitate endlessly for change, change, change, and they will call it progress.
And no matter what they are for or against they will have at least some of their number taking the opposite side: If they are promoting the public acceptance of homosexuality, they also will have a few prominent Jewish publicists bemoaning the downfall of traditional morality and warning of the consequences of the confusion of sexual roles. If their aim is to neutralize the universities as institutions for passing on the historical, intellectual, and cultural traditions of our people to a new generation of potential leaders, at the same time that they are organizing Red Guard brigades to enforce Political Correctness they will have a contingent beating the drums for tradition and free inquiry. If they are working feverishly to disarm White Americans in order to prevent the latter from exercising their right of revolution they will go to the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership for a contrary statement now and then.
What does all of this prove? In the strictest sense of the word, nothing; it is only suggestive.
If you watch a person flip a penny five hundred times, and it always comes up tails, you cannot be absolutely certain that the penny has two tails. But you at least ought to suspect that someone has been working on that penny in his machine shop.
If you study the historical record and observe that every matter of importance in which the Jews have been involved turns out badly for us, even though there are usually a few Jews on our side of the matter, you cannot be absolutely certain that the game is rigged. But you at least ought to suspect that the Jews are following their ancient maxim and waging war against us by way of deception.
— February, 1992