So, what are the reasons for this? Why are men and women having a harder time getting along? I’ve thought about this problem for quite a while, and I believe that I understand the reasons. Some of the reasons for the decline of marital stability are economic, some are social, and some are psychological. Historically, marriage has been based on the bedrock economic fact that a well-defined division of labor results in greater survivability. If a man and a woman worked together as a team, with the woman keeping the home front under control while the man brought home the bacon and chased the wolves away from the door, both gained a competitive advantage over unattached singles and were more likely to survive and prosper — not to mention the fact that their children were far more likely to survive than those engendered by unattached individuals.

This economic basis for marriage survived even the enormous social changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution, but economic developments in this century began undermining it. There was the large-scale recruitment of married women into the non-domestic work force
during the past 60 years, at the same time many men found that their income alone could no longer support a family. Another development was the advent of the welfare state. When employers came to regard their employees simply as interchangeable economic units, they no longer could see any reason why they shouldn’t hire married women, even married women with children, for any sort of work women could handle — especially since doing so increased the size of the labor pool and lowered the price of labor. The transition of America from an industrial economy to a service economy during the past 30 years or so has greatly accelerated this tendency by decreasing the percentage of jobs which require a man’s strength.

At the same time that the percentage of married women employed outside the home was rising from nearly zero 60 years ago to its present level of around 70 per cent, technology was greatly reducing the burden of maintaining a home. Sixty years ago clothes were washed by hand with a washing board and a washtub. Modern fabrics hadn’t been invented, and so everything that was washed then had to be ironed. Homes didn’t have electric or gas refrigerators, and only those in urban areas where there was an icehouse even had iceboxes. Kitchen work took substantially more time and effort, and so did shopping; there was no such thing as popping a frozen dinner into the microwave.

In other words, at the same time new employment opportunities for women meant that they weren’t as economically dependent on their husbands as in the past, men were finding that a woman’s work in the home was less essential than it had been: with all of the modern appliances and shortcuts, a man could get by in reasonable comfort alone. The introduction of the welfare state after the Second World War meant that a woman dissatisfied with married life didn’t even have to worry about finding employment if she left her husband.

A century ago couples had fights just like they do today, but they had strong economic motives for making peace and keeping the union together. Today the tendency is just to announce, “I don’t have to put up with this crap,” and walk out the door.

Paralleling these economic changes were social changes which also worked to the detriment of marriage. A century ago, when most of us lived in a rural environment or small towns, there was strong social pressure on a couple to stay together. A divorce was almost scandalous. In today’s urban environment this social pressure and the accompanying stigma of divorce are entirely absent.

After the Second World War the rise of feminism and so-called “women’s liberation” also took their toll on marital stability. The feminists asserted that women were essentially the same as men, except for a few minor anatomical details, and that women didn’t need men in order to live a complete and fulfilling life. They insisted on being treated just like men. And of course, their cause was taken up by the government and by the Jewish media, which resulted in their doctrines influencing many otherwise sensible women.

Women consequently lost their special status. When they asserted that they no longer needed the protection or the support of men, many men took them at face value. Men responded by deciding that they no longer had a special obligation or responsibility to support or protect a woman.
Deciding to shed a wife became much like deciding to change roommates. Feminism has eroded the traditional complementary relationship between men and women, which was a relationship based on their natural differences, and tried to replace it with equality, which is not in accord with reality. The result of this failed effort has been very traumatic for both men and women. In many cases it has turned natural affection to hostility on both sides. Just as many women have responded by becoming less feminine, many men have become less masculine. It has played havoc with the institution of marriage.

So what’s to be done?
Unfortunately, about all we can do in the short run is try to minimize the trauma for ourselves as individuals. If you’re a man, when you’re looking for a mate steer clear of women who have been tainted by feminism; and if you’re a woman, be on your guard against men who have been “sensitized” by the feminists.

In the long run, we can make the institution of marriage healthy again only after we have cured the social and economic problems in our society. One of the easiest things we can do is simply stop promoting the false and destructive doctrine of feminism. When our government, our schools, and our media recognize that men and women are different and complementary members of our society and have fundamentally different roles to fill, we’ll be a long way ahead. Fixing the economic problems which beset marriage will be more difficult. It is hard to take women out of factories and offices and put them back in the home when most families have become accustomed to a life-style which requires two incomes to maintain. One of the reasons our grandmothers were able to stay at home and raise their children instead of dropping them off at a day-care center on the way to work was that our grandparents managed to do without many things that have come to be thought of as necessities today, so that one income was sufficient for them. Outlawing credit cards and other forms of borrowing certainly would cut consumption and help more people get by on one income, but that probably would cause a revolution all by itself, because our people have forgotten the old way of paying for things first and then having them.

We don’t need to go back to using washing boards and washtubs, but we can look forward to building a new society in which economic policy and employment policy are made subordinate to the primary goal of promoting the racial and spiritual health of our people. One thing we can do is get rid of government welfare programs — no food stamps, no subsidized rents, no welfare checks, nothing. If churches want to set up soup kitchens or flop houses for the homeless, that’s their business, but no one should be forced to pay for the support of those who won’t work, male or female — nor should the dole be an attractive alternative to working or to keeping a marriage together.

And a career should not be quite as attractive or available an alternative to marriage for young women as it is now. Simply doing away with the government-imposed requirements for hiring and promoting women and leaving employers free to hire whom they choose will help a lot in
this direction. And women could just forget about careers as soldiers. We don’t need governmental coercion to make marriage healthy again. We just need an end to the governmental programs which have made it unhealthy. Without feminist propaganda and
without government interference, the instincts of men and women will do most of what needs to be done to get things back on a healthy track again. Their inherently different natures will reassert themselves again. Perhaps we can’t make things quite as sound as they were a century
ago when most of us lived in much smaller communities, but we can make them a lot better than they are now.

Whenever I talk about the things we need to do to make a better future for our people, I hear many people telling me, “Oh, you can’t do that. You can’t just take the welfare class off the dole. They’ll riot. They’ll burn the cities. And you can’t expect women to give up their careers and become housewives. You can’t just take away all of the privileges the government has given them. You’ll lose their support if you try to do that.”
Well, let me assure you, with a healthy government in place, the welfare class will not riot — at least, not more than once. We know how to deal with rioters. All it takes is will power. It will be a good training exercise for our military people. That’s not a hard problem at all.
As for losing the support of women, I’m sure that will be true in some cases, because the enemies of our people have convinced many of them that being a housewife or a mother is a fate worse than death. Many of them believe that they absolutely have to be fighter pilots or corporate executives. And I’m not proposing making a law that they can’t be corporate executives if they want to. I’m just saying that we shouldn’t pump them full of propaganda to convince them that that’s what they should be. And we shouldn’t have laws which give them an artificial advantage in becoming corporate executives. I believe that the institution of marriage can tolerate a few female executives: just not quite so many as we have today.

One thing I must admit: it would be easier not to do anything, just to leave things as they are. If we just keep feeding the welfare class, then we don’t have to machine-gun them when they start demanding what they think they’re entitled to. And if we leave the government quotas alone, many feminists won’t hate us as much for trying to take something away from them.
But, you know, leaving things as they are really isn’t an option. If we do nothing, then our people will die. Our race will become extinct, and the earth will be inherited by the savages and degenerates of the non-White world. The birthrate for White women in America is far below the replacement level. There are fewer White Americans with every passing year. The White birthrate has fallen below the level necessary for replacement for pretty much the same reasons that the divorce rate has gone up. As more women have left the home and joined the work force, they have decided to have fewer children. Children are a hardship on mothers who are obliged to hold down a full-time job outside the home. Children can lower a father’s standard of living. Worse, the women most susceptible to feminist propaganda, the ones most likely to choose a career instead of motherhood, tend to be the brightest and most capable, the ones who most need to have children and pass on their genes to the next generation.

So we really have no choice in the matter. We either start having and raising more healthy White babies, or we die. Our race dies. Our country dies. We will do what we have to do. We don’t want to be unpopular, we don’t want to make anyone hate us, but we will if we must. Those who hate us will be those who hate our people and want our people to die, or who have become so self-centered, so individualistic, so alienated and rootless that they don’t care what happens to our people, so long as it doesn’t inconvenience them personally. Let them hate us. It is a mark of honor, a mark of distinction.

The truly unfortunate fact now is that those who hate our people and want us to die are in control of most of the organs of influence, the media of influence. On our side we have American Dissident Voices and we have a growing presence on the Internet, but those who hate us have nearly everything else. They have the television networks, and they have Hollywood and Madison Avenue, and they have the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post, and Time and Newsweek, and they have all of the slick, trendy, shallow, feminist-oriented magazines available at every magazine rack. Because they control the media, they also control the government. No politician, from Bill Clinton down to the least significant Congressman, dares to contradict them.

If we are ever to have any hope of making the institution of marriage healthy again, any hope of getting the White birthrate up to the replacement level again, any hope of keeping our people from becoming extinct, then we must gain for ourselves a much greater influence: eventually more influence than the enemies of our people have. The only way to do this is to build our own media for communicating with our people: to reach more of our people with American Dissident Voices broadcasts, Free Speech, and our other media.

Our enemies would like for everyone to believe that the only people who are concerned about the things I have talked about today — the decay of our marriage institution and the declining White birthrate — are what they like to call “right wing extremists” or “White supremacists.” Ordinary people, they will tell you, don’t share my concerns, my feeling that we must do something about what is happening to our people.

But our enemies are wrong. I know that a great many thoughtful people share my concerns. I know that a great many decent people are just as distressed as I am about what has happened to our marriage institution. I know that a great many of our most intelligent and perceptive people are as alarmed as I am over the catastrophic decline in the White birthrate. Not all of them have been quite so rude as I have in placing the blame for these things where it belongs. Not all of them are willing to be shrieked at by the controlled media as “anti-Semites” and “racists,” so they keep quiet. But they are concerned; they are distressed.

My task — our task — is to persuade them to speak up, to persuade them to give voice to their concerns, to stop letting themselves be intimidated by those who want to destroy our people. And it also is to make many more of our people think about these things. So many of our people today are so busy, so wrapped up in their own affairs, that they haven’t taken time to look at what is happening to our society and to think about it, to try to understand its long-range implications: its implications for their children and their grandchildren. I believe that when they do understand these implications, they too will share my concerns.

We need to continue talking with them, to talk with more and more of them. We need to get our radio program on more and more stations and our publications read by more and more people. Everything counts on it. You can help. I hope that you will.

These two groups ought to have a certain sympathy for each other, because they’ve experienced certain things, learned at first hand certain things about the society we live in, that most of us haven’t. But I’ve found that for the most part they have very little sympathy for one another, and in fact quite a bit of antipathy. We’ll explore together the reasons for this antipathy. Let’s start with the skinheads. They’re young White people, most of them in their teens and twenties, most of them working class. Many of them have tattoos. They usually have very short haircuts. Many of them wear a distinctive type of work boot. Some also wear suspenders. The tattoos, haircuts, boots, and suspenders are almost like a uniform, a sort of club insignia. Nevertheless, there’s quite a lot of individual variation among them. For some, being a skinhead is a sort of hobby, a part-time recreational activity. For others, it’s a serious, full-time commitment.

The skinhead movement began in Britain more than 20 years ago. It had become a fashion there among some groups of young factory workers to shave their heads, because they had to keep their hair cut short anyway in order to avoid getting it caught in the machinery. As racial, social, and economic conditions in Britain deteriorated, these young, White factory workers were among the hardest hit.

Specifically, because of an open-door immigration policy backed by Jews and liberals, many of Britain’s cities were being flooded by non-White immigrants from Asia and the Caribbean. The government in Britain, just like the government in the United States, was providing subsidized housing for these non-Whites and giving them preference in hiring. This policy caused the unemployment rate among young British workers to go up. The non-Whites also brought crime and a number of other social and cultural problems with them.

Just as in America, there was a code of Political Correctness observed by the controlled media and the government. Under this code, non-Whites could do no wrong. Whenever there was a conflict between Whites and non-Whites, the Whites were blamed. Young Whites felt abandoned by their government. With a high unemployment rate, very limited prospects for improvement, and the breakup and destruction of their ancestral communities, they saw no future for themselves. Banding together and adopting a characteristic manner of dress and grooming was their way of asserting themselves and finding an identity. They were young, White, working class, and alienated. They were the original skinheads.

The skinhead culture spread to the United States, because the same social and racial decay and the same abandonment of young, working-class Whites by the government and other institutions exist here. In our large cities, with their heavy concentrations of non-Whites, many young Whites turn to the skinhead movement for a sense of security. As members of skinhead groups they don’t feel so alone and helpless. Other than their desire to band together and find a sense of identity — and sometimes security — skinheads don’t have as much in common as the controlled media would have us believe. Some skinhead groups spend a lot of their time in mindless drinking and brawling. Others believe in clean living, and fight only when attacked. Some skinheads use drugs, but most don’t. And while many skinheads in the United States have no racial consciousness, no sense of racial identity or loyalty, a growing minority of them are consciously and even outspokenly pro-White. Some of these refer to themselves as White power skinheads.

One attitude common to most skinheads is a strong dislike for government and the police. In part this is the consequence of the police reaction to the lawlessness of many skinheads. The police are not inclined to make distinctions between the clean-living skinheads and those who engage in drunken brawling. When the police see tattoos, short hair, and Doc Marten boots, they see trouble, and they tend therefore to take a very hostile and aggressive attitude toward any skinhead they meet. The skinheads who try to stay out of trouble resent this presumption of guilt. They resent having their rights violated by the police, just because some skinheads are lawbreakers.

Beyond this reaction to police prejudice against them, there is the more fundamental attitude among skinheads that they have been abandoned by the rest of the White society, and so they aren’t as inclined to give blind respect and obedience to that society’s institutions. Skinheads living in America’s minority-ridden cities know what the public schools have become. They also know that the mainstream society insists on pretending that everything is still A-OK. Of course, there’s talk by the controlled media about how standards have fallen in the schools, and about how big the problems of drugs and violence in the schools have become, but there’s no mention at all of the cause of these problems, which is the fact that the schools are no longer White. No one will mention the problem of race in the schools, because he’s afraid of being attacked by the controlled media as a racist.

Wealthy White parents get around the problem by sending their sons and daughters to exclusive private schools. Middle-class parents alleviate the problem by moving to the suburbs, so their children can go to somewhat safer — which is to say, Whiter — schools. White working-class kids are left to fend for themselves. No one else will stand up for them. They see the hypocrisy and the cowardice on the part of their elders, and it does not tend to increase their respect for authority, whether that authority is represented by the police or by school officials, who always blame them rather than the Blacks when there is a clash between Whites and Blacks.

Policemen, on the other hand, tend to respect authority. People who choose to go into police work tend to have a more authoritarian personality than the average person. They instinctively resent people who don’t play by the standard rules. They don’t like boat-rockers. They don’t like non-conformists. They don’t like people with a different life-style. And probably that’s the way it ought to be — within limits. The police, after all, have the job of protecting society. We want them to have their hearts in their job.

The problem is that many of the authorities in America have become corrupt. Some of those authorities have become a much greater threat to our society than the criminals the police are hired to protect us from. I’ll give you an example that pertains directly to skinheads. The Jews, both in this country and in Europe where the skinhead movement originated, have viewed that movement with fear and loathing from the beginning, because it was beyond their control. Young working-class Whites weren’t supposed to fight back against the Jewish policies and programs which were aimed at the destruction of White society and eventually the destruction of the White race. They were supposed to roll over and play dead. They were supposed to become Politically Correct, like so many middle-class kids who went off to college. The Jews fought back against the skinhead movement at two levels. First they tried to subvert it. They sponsored groups such as Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice, which is known by its acronym SHARP. They encouraged drug usage among skinheads. They encouraged rap music and racial mixing. Despite these Jewish efforts at subversion, however, racial consciousness among skinheads has continued to grow.

Then the Jews tried to brainwash the public against skinheads through their controlled media. They produced a number of made-for-TV films in Hollywood which portrayed skinheads as hateful, depraved, and dangerous. You may have seen some of these films. A few titles from the last few years were Skinheads — the Second Coming of Hate — that’s the first one I remember seeing — and then there were Dead Bang, and So Proudly We Hail. These hatemongering films contained the same sort of distortion and deceit as the films the Jews have been turning out for decades to make the Germans of the Second World War era look hateful and depraved.

At the same time a number of Jewish propaganda organizations, such as the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, Klanwatch, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, began offering their services to police departments around the country as experts on what they like to call hate crimes and hate groups. All of these Jewish propaganda organizations are well-connected politically, and so they can approach police departments draped in the false cloak of authority. They offer seminars and training programs to the police, supposedly to teach them about the dangers represented by skinheads and to sensitize them to the needs of minorities.

The result of all of this is that the police get a very prejudiced view of skinheads before they ever meet one. Along with the very real lawlessness and disorder on the part of many skinheads, this prejudice practically guarantees that the police and the skinheads will despise each other. And that’s too bad.

It’s too bad, because the police, like the skinheads, are exposed every day to the filth and degeneracy that are taking over our whole society. Most middle-class folks are able to evade the crime and, more than that, the awful reality of what America has become in this Jewish effort to multiculturalize us. They know that there are certain parts of town where they must not go after dark, other areas where if their cars break down even in the daytime they will be in grave danger. They learn the rules for survival. They move to the suburbs. And they pray that the city won’t follow them there. They pray that the gangs and the drive-by shootings won’t come to their neighborhood. They pray that their children won’t get hooked on drugs. They pray that their daughters won’t get pregnant. And they ignore the filth. They pretend that it doesn’t exist. They don’t want to be considered racists.

And for the most part they survive. And when the filth does catch up with the middle class, it’s usually only individuals who get hurt: a White family which gets pulled down into the filth here, a young woman there, a teenaged boy somewhere else. The rest can go on pretending that it didn’t happen, that everything is still OK — at least, for the time being. But the police know that things are not OK. They have to deal with the filth every day. They can’t pretend that it doesn’t exist. They know that it can be evaded only temporarily. They know that it is growing and that it eventually will follow everyone to the suburbs. They know that it must be fought and destroyed, or it will destroy all of us. The racially conscious skinheads understand this too. That’s what they have in common with the police. And the hour is too late for any of the segments of our people who understand this to be fighting against each other. We need to be standing together, all of us, against the common enemy.

Of course, it’s easy to say this, but very difficult to put it into practice. There remains the problem of the drunkenness and lawlessness of many skinheads. We cannot condone drunkenness or mindless brawling or vandalism or drug use, even if we understand the reasons for this behavior, even if we understand that skinheads are alienated from this society because of what it has become.

What we have to do is encourage in every way we can the growth of the racially conscious portion of the skinhead community. We have to give young people back their sense of identity. We have to give them purpose and direction again. We have to help them value self-discipline and clean living again. This is one of the tasks the National Alliance has set for itself. Of course, it is precisely the racially conscious portion of the skinhead community which the Jews hate and fear. The Jewish propaganda organizations don’t care at all about skinhead drinking and brawling, but they’re scared to death of the skinheads finding a sense of racial identity and a purpose and cleaning themselves up and working for a common goal. And so it is specifically the racially conscious skinheads against whom these Jewish organizations like B’nai B’rith indoctrinate and prejudice the police.

This police prejudice is bad enough, but it is compounded in all too many cases by police corruption, by police who behave in a hostile and aggressive way toward skinheads, even to the point of violating the law themselves, because they know that the skinheads are out of favor with the political power structure and the controlled media, and these policemen want to ingratiate themselves with their superiors. I’m aware of cases where the police have arrested young Whites, then put them in large cells with a number of Black criminals and deliberately incited the Blacks to attack and sodomize them. Perhaps the police believe that they will receive some sort of multiculturalism award from the B’nai B’rith for such atrocious behavior.

So we have an educational job to do on our policemen as well as on skinheads. Ultimately we need to get rid of the corrupt cops just as much as we need to get rid of drunken, tattooed brawlers. Most of all we need to get rid of those who have corrupted the cops and who also have designed — deliberately designed — the social conditions which have robbed so many of our young people of hope for the future and of a pride in their identity, leading them to adopt an antisocial and self-destructive life-style. Unfortunately, the National Alliance lacks the means at this time for cleaning up our police departments or our youth as a whole. We also lack the means to prevent the Jews from continuing their destructive policies for the time being. But we can educate. We can continue reaching at least that portion of our youth who have become racially conscious and are looking for the right direction. And hopefully we can help some of our uncorrupted policemen to understand that not every Politically Incorrect young person is a trouble-maker.

Some people ask me: Why do you bother with skinheads at all? Isn’t it better to try to reach the kids in the universities? After all, it’s the kids in the universities who one day will be in the decision-making positions in the educational establishment, in business, in the military, in industry, and even in government agencies. Those are the ones whose thinking you need to influence now.

And, of course, they’re right — at least, partly right. The kids with the tattoos are pretty well locked out of the decision-making process. It’ll take a revolution to change that. We do need to influence the kids in the universities, and we’re working on that.

But when I compare the average university student of today with the average skinhead, I am troubled by two things. The first thing is that most of the White university students have not had the close contact with racial reality that skinheads have had. The average White university student has not had to fight physically for his survival. He has never been threatened with a knife by a Black thug or been beaten up by a Black gang. He has never been tear-gassed or hit with a nightstick. He has never been thrown in jail. His understanding of the racial problem is only theoretical. His understanding of the corruption of our society and our government is only theoretical. We need people who understand from personal experience just how bad things have become in America, who understand just how dangerous the situation is — people who have learned how to hate evil from the bottom of their guts and who are willing to do whatever is necessary to destroy that evil before it destroys all of us.

The second thing which troubles me is the relatively few White students in our universities who have any real manliness in their characters. We have too many whiners and wimps, too much timidity, too much softness. Certainly not all White university students are wimps, but far too many are, and on the average they do not compare well with the skinheads in this regard. If America is to be saved, if our people are to be saved, we need men and women who are intelligent and educated and disciplined, but we also need men and women who are tough and hard and brave. We need the best of the university students, the best of the university professors, the best of the policemen — and we need the best of the skinheads. We need the best people from every sector of White society, standing together and fighting together, if any of us are to have a future.

When the Loebs returned to their car, the Black male drove back into the parking lot, this time with a Black friend. He got out of his car and approached the Loebs’ car on foot. He had a brick in his hand and was screaming that he intended to smash Mr. Loeb’s head in with the brick. Mr. Loeb snatched a pistol from the glove compartment of his car and shot the Black dead. It was a clear case of self-defense.

A Jewish prosecutor, however, charged Mr. Loeb with murder, and he was put on trial. With the permission of a cooperative judge, the prosecutor read to the jury personal correspondence which had been illegally seized from Mr. Loeb’s home. The correspondence revealed that Mr. Loeb had a strong dislike for Blacks. It revealed that he was a “White racist.” The jury did the Politically Correct thing and found Mr. Loeb guilty of murder. Then the judge did the Politically Correct thing and sentenced him to life in prison.

At the time I told you about the Loeb trial I pointed out that similarly horrifying things happen in our court system all the time, and that the average person never hears about them. I pointed out that the O.J. Simpson trial was unusual only in the amount of publicity it received, but not in its failure to yield a just verdict.

Now let’s talk about another recent trial which illustrates my point. That’s the New York trial of Bernhard Goetz. Perhaps you remember when this case first came to public attention, 12 years ago. Goetz, a 36-year-old electronics engineer, was riding the New York subway when four Black thugs approached him and demanded that he give them money. Goetz responded in a perfectly reasonable way: he pulled out his revolver and shot all four of them. Unfortunately, he didn’t kill them, although he did cripple one of them. The three Blacks who weren’t crippled recovered and continued their lives of crime. And New York being what it is, Goetz was arrested and charged with attempted murder for protecting himself. He was also charged with having a weapon to defend himself. He ended up going to prison for the better part of a year for possessing a gun to defend himself.

And then a couple of Jewish lawyers from the Communist-front National Lawyers Guild, William Kunstler and Ronald Kuby, sued Mr. Goetz on behalf of one of the Blacks who had tried to rob him. The case dragged through the courts, using up all of Mr. Goetz’ savings. Kunstler died during the process, but Kuby persevered. The case finally went to the jury last month: a Bronx, New York, jury of four Blacks and two Puerto Ricans. The jury decided that Mr. Goetz should pay $43 million to the Black who had tried to rob him forty-three million dollars! The Jewish lawyer gloated over the verdict and crowed that it “sends a message to all racists with guns who think young Black lives are worth nothing. They’re worth a lot.” Score another loss for decent folks. Score another win for the Clintonistas. Score another win for the forces of corruption and destruction. Score another win for the Jews.

You know, I don’t want to create the impression that I believe that the destruction of America’s system of justice is entirely the Jews’ doing. They certainly are heavily involved in it. They were heavily involved — decisively involved — in all three cases I’ve cited as examples of what’s happened to our judicial system: the O.J. Simpson trial, the George Loeb trial, and the Bernhard Goetz trial. Jews are heavily involved in the corruption and destruction of every aspect of our civilization. It’s in their nature. But to be frank, our legal system was in serious trouble even before the Jews became involved in it.

Nearly three centuries ago — 270 years ago to be exact — the English writer Jonathan Swift wrote of the lawyers of his day that they are “men . . . bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid.” Swift went on to give a satirical illustration of the way the court system worked in the England of his day. I’ll quote just a few words of what he wrote. It’s from his best-known book, Gulliver’s Travels, and I’m paraphrasing it a bit. Swift explained: My neighbor . . . I will suppose, has a mind to my cow; he hires . . . [a lawyer] to prove that he ought to have my cow from me. I must then hire another of them to defend my right, it being against all rules of law that any man should be allowed to speak for himself. Now in this case, I who am the right owner lie under two great disadvantages. First, my advocate, being as I said before practiced almost from his cradle in defending falsehood, is quite out of his element when he would argue for right, which as an office unnatural he attempts with great awkwardness, if not with an ill will. The second disadvantage is that my advocate must proceed with great caution, for since the maintenance of so many depends on the keeping up of business, should he proceed too summarily, if he does not incur the displeasure of his superiors, he is sure to gain the ill will and hatred of his brethren as being by them esteemed one that would lessen the practice of the law.

This being the case, I have but two methods to preserve my cow. The first is to gain over my adversary’s advocate with a double fee . . . . The second way is for my advocate not to insist on the justice of my cause, by allowing the cow to belong to my adversary; and this if it be dexterously and skillfully done will go a great way toward obtaining a favorable verdict, it having been found from a careful observation of issues and events that the wrong side, under the management of such practitioners, has the fairer chance for success . . . . It is a maxim among these lawyers that whatever hath been done before may legally be done again, and therefore they take special care to record all the decisions formerly made against common justice and the general reason of mankind. These, under the name of precedents, they produce as authorities to justify the most iniquitous opinions….

In pleading they studiously avoid entering into the merits of the cause, but are loud, violent, and tedious in dwelling on all circumstances which are not to the purpose. For instance, in the case already mentioned they never desire to know what claim my adversary hath to my cow, but whether the said cow were red or black, her horns long or short, whether the field I graze her in be round or square, whether she were milked at home or abroad, what diseases she is subject to, and the like. After which, they consult precedents, adjourn the cause from time to time, and in ten, twenty, or thirty years come to an issue.

Now Swift, as I mentioned, was a satirist, but there was much truth in what he wrote about the lawyers and the judicial system of three hundred years ago. It is striking how little that system has changed between Swift’s day and ours. Four hundred years ago, at a time when there were no Jews at all in England, Shakespeare had one of the characters in his play King Henry VI say, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” And that expression of popular sentiment was already widespread in Shakespeare’s day — and not without reason.

The basic problem is that our legal profession never has been a profession devoted to justice, but rather to arguing, as Swift noted, that white is black or black is white, according as its practitioners are paid. The principal aim of the profession is the enrichment of lawyers, and the court system functions accordingly. And the lawyers who become judges and rule over this system tend not to be the most just, but rather the slickest, slyest, and most ambitious men of their profession.

It was a bad system to start with, and that’s our fault. It’s something we really must straighten out by ourselves one of these days. But it has been made much, much worse by the Jewish influx into the system during this century. It has gotten to the point now where Blacks can literally get away with murder, if they have the money to hire a clever lawyer and if they can get a preponderance of Blacks on the jury. And Whites can expect to be crucified by the system, in any case where race is an issue, if they either cannot afford to pay a sufficiently clever and aggressive lawyer, or if they are unfortunate enough to have a preponderance of non-Whites on their jury. Poor Bernhard Goetz suffered both from an incompetent lawyer — Jewish lawyer, incidentally, just like his adversary’s lawyer — and from a non-White jury. The fellow’s life has been ruined because he dared to resist a gang of Black muggers.

Now, all of this does not mean that it is impossible for a White person to get justice in our courts. If one is lucky, one will not have the unfortunate circumstances that George Loeb and Bernhard Goetz had. And of course, it helps a great deal to be rich. Those who are very wealthy can still hope to buy justice in the courts — if they don’t live in a place like New York or Los Angeles, of course. There are still a few honorable and competent lawyers in the profession. I know some of them personally. There may even be an honest judge or two left in the system, who still put the law above Political Correctness.

Nevertheless, those of us who have only modest means must look at an encounter with the legal justice system in America about like a game of Russian roulette, especially where there is any racial issue. We’ve seen over and over again, and not just in the O.J. Simpson trial, the reluctance of Black juries to convict Black criminals for offenses against Whites. And we’ve seen the same sort of racially motivated verdicts when Whites are tried by non-White juries. The fact is that non-White jurors usually have a strong sense of racial consciousness. They vote in accordance with their racial feelings instead of in accordance with the law and the evidence.

And White jurors, unfortunately, lack this sense of racial consciousness. They are far more likely to vote in a Politically Correct manner, as they did in the George Loeb case, or to let themselves be intimidated into going along with the Blacks, as was the case with the two White women on the O.J. Simpson jury. White Americans have been so brainwashed and browbeaten by the controlled media that they are afraid to express even the tiniest bit of racial feeling. There is nothing they fear more than being thought to be “racist.” Some of them have even let their natural racial feelings become inverted: their racial consciousness has become racial self-hatred. They automatically favor the non-White side in any racial issue.

So a judicial system which was bad enough back in the days when America was still a White country has become much, much worse in the racially polarized country we have today. Can you imagine what it will be like in another 50 years, when Whites will be a minority in America? Imagine that you’ve been obliged to shoot a Black or Mexican burglar in your home or to defend your wife against a gang of non-White attackers. Imagine a Jewish prosecutor then forcing you to stand trial before a jury which has a non-White majority. A frightening prospect, isn’t it, regardless of whether or not the prosecutor will introduce any evidence that your opinions on racial matters are not Politically Correct?

One would think that the legal profession itself would have tried to keep matters from becoming as bad as they have, if only from self-interest. They understand as well as anyone that when the public loses its last traces of confidence in the system of justice, the lawyers will be in trouble. But instead of trying to keep the system working, they have let it be corrupted even further by Jewish pressure groups pushing for what they call “hate crime” legislation. We’ve all heard this yammering in the media about the need for new laws to stop “hate crimes.” The Jewish groups doing the pushing — groups such as the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and the so-called Southern Poverty Law Center — are referred to respectfully by the media as “human rights organizations,” but that’s a terrible misnomer. These organizations are working to take away our rights. They want to make it illegal to say anything they don’t like. Anything they don’t like they call “hate speech.” In the past they used to apply behind-the-scenes pressure in order to stifle any views they didn’t like. They would approach publishers and demand that any book they deemed hostile to their own interests be withdrawn from publication. They wrote to librarians and demanded that books they didn’t like be taken off the shelves. They contacted the owners of bookstores with the same demand.

In fact, they’re still engaged in this sort of secret censorship. The Southern Poverty Law Center and other Jewish organizations right now are putting pressure on bookstore chains in an effort to keep one of my books, The Turner Diaries, out of circulation. They like to wave it around on television and quote from it and tell everyone what a dangerous book it is, what a racist book it is, but they don’t want you to be able to read it for yourself.

Fortunately, most bookstore owners are becoming resistant to this sort of un-American censorship effort. So these Jewish groups are lobbying the lawyers and the politicians. They want the legislators in Congress to help them abolish the First Amendment. And they’ve also been lobbying for more laws against what they call “hate crime.” To them George Loeb was a “hate criminal” because he defended himself and his wife against a Black attacker threatening them with a brick. And Bernhard Goetz is a “hate criminal” because he defended himself against four Black muggers on the subway. White people who defend themselves against Blacks are “hate criminals.”

Now, they won’t come right out and state it that plainly, of course. But that’s what they mean when they talk about “hate crime.” They want Whites to be afraid to defend themselves. They want White people to be demoralized and intimidated. They want every White person to feel guilty for even thinking about defending himself or his family or his property from the growing flood of non-Whites all around him. That’s what the Jewish lawyer who first bankrupted Bernhard Goetz with litigation and then got a $43 million judgment against him meant when he gloatingly announced that the verdict of the non-White jury “sends a message to all racists with guns.” “You can’t defend yourselves from us,” Kuby was smirking. In effect, he was saying, “If you don’t let us do whatever we want, you’re a hate criminal, and we’ll use the justice system to destroy you.”

And in fact, that’s what’s happening. The court system in America has become so corrupt that it is being used by the enemies of our people to take away our most fundamental rights. And those who have corrupted the system are working day and night to institutionalize the corruption. They are working with the politicians to ensure that the shocking miscarriages of justice they obtained in the Loeb trial in Florida and the Goetz trial in New York become the rule everywhere. And the White lawyers and judges are putting up very little resistance. They don’t want to rock the boat. They don’t want to endanger their own positions in the system. They know that anything they say against what is happening will be condemned by the controlled media and by many of their own colleagues as À “hate speech.” So they’re permitting the Jews to corrupt the system and in many cases are even helping them.

What can we do about this frightening and depressing situation, besides trying our best to avoid any encounter with courts or lawyers? Shall we promise ourselves that if we ever have to shoot a burglar we’ll just get rid of the body and not call the police? Shall we promise ourselves that if we ever have to defend ourselves against a non-White mugger we’ll leave no witnesses alive to testify against us?

No, that’s really not practical in many cases. The first thing that we can do is stop being frightened and depressed and instead become angry. Our enemies want us to be frightened and depressed. That’s what they intend when they gloat and announce that they’re sending a message to all racists with guns. So instead of being intimidated by this Jewish arrogance, we must become enraged. We must become boiling mad. We must let our anger reinforce our determination to put a final and total end to their corrupt system, no matter what it takes.

And the second thing that we must do is speak up. Don’t remain silent in the face of this Jewish assault on our freedom and on our civilization. When a mostly Black jury frees a Black murderer, as in the O.J. Simpson trial, express your outrage! Don’t be afraid of being called a “racist.” When a White man is punished for defending himself against Black criminals, speak up! Tell people what you think.

That’s what we’re doing with this web page. We’re telling people what we think about the destruction of our justice system. And we’re finding that more and more people agree with us. You speak up too! Don’t be afraid!

Well, I could continue talking week after week about atrocious Black-on-White crimes covered up by the controlled media in order to strengthen my conclusion. Unfortunately, there’s no shortage of such crimes to report. When I report these crimes against our people, or when I give examples of media cover-ups, I have a nagging concern that I will sound as if I’m whining. I complain about the things our enemies are doing to us, but I don’t do anything except complain. Or at least, I know that that is the way some people look at it. In fact, some people take a very negative view of the whole situation. They look at what is being done to us; they look at our almost total lack of resistance; they look at the behavior of the lemmings who collaborate enthusiastically with those who are destroying our race and our civilization; and then these observers throw up their hands and say, “My god, as a race we don’t deserve to survive!” In fact I received a letter a few days ago from a listener who has a strongly Darwinian point of view. He’s on our side, more or less, but he has quite a defeatist attitude. He wrote to me: Isn’t it true that if the European race weren’t so inferior to the Jews, we wouldn’t have ended up in this predicament in the first place? Hasn’t our race proved over and over again that we belong at the bottom of the racial ladder, existing only to serve the Jews? Hasn’t the White race proved over and over again that we deserve the genocide now being inflicted on us?

My correspondent goes on to provide evidence for his conclusion that our race has lost the struggle for survival and must, therefore, in the natural course of events, become extinct, like the saber-toothed tiger and the passenger pigeon before us. He points out that we no longer have a collective intelligence, a tribal feeling, or real leadership, and that without these essentials no race can survive. As things are going now, we can with reasonable certainty forecast a nightmare future: The Jewish propaganda coming from our television receivers will become more and more blatant, promoting multiculturalism, miscegenation, and White guilt and self-hatred ever more stridently. Our young women, in a mindless scramble to be fashionable and imitate what they see on their TV screens, will jerk, gyrate, and rap to an MTV beat with their Negro lovers. Our young men, increasingly soft and unmanly, will watch passively and largely without comprehension and then will turn back to their video games. The White working class and middle class will plunge even more deeply into credit-based consumerism and will hardly notice what the younger generation is doing, as long as the present economic prosperity, based on the technological innovations of fewer and fewer creative members of our race, holds out. The politicians will enact legislation making it a penal offense to speak out against the process of decay or the people behind it.

More and more non-White immigrants will continue flooding into America and into Europe, and nothing will be done to halt the flow, whether the Republicans or the Democrats, the Conservatives or the Laborites, are in office. Republicans and Conservatives will continue talking about such things as “restoring national pride,” “restoring excellence to education,” “getting the government off the backs of productive citizens,” and similar policies that appeal to the ever-hopeful and ever-credulous White citizens who have not yet joined the Clinton coalition or the Blair coalition, but in fact the government’s actual policies will remain nearly the same, regardless of the party in office.

When the economy does take a major downturn, the half of the population that receives a monthly check of one sort or another from the government will be kept in line with promises of an enhanced dole, and the politicized police agencies, armed with new “speech crime” and “hate crime” laws, will be poised to pounce instantly on anyone else who tries to rock the boat. The White birth rate will fall even further below the replacement level, while the number of mongrels of various shades born will continue rising. Finally, the hideously grinning Jew, who before remained behind the scenes rubbing his hands and gloating over his handiwork, will be able to step into the open and rule in his own name. Within a century our race will be gone, and, according to the fellow who wrote to me, there will be a natural justice in that outcome. In the long run, only the fit survive, and we have proved ourselves unfit.

I have heard similar arguments from other people. In some cases it is simply a cop-out, an excuse for giving up the struggle and doing nothing: “The war is already lost,” these people say. “Why should I take a chance on losing my job by speaking out now, when there is no longer any hope of racial survival?” In other cases people who are not really cowards are so discouraged by what they see around them that it’s difficult for them to put much energy or enthusiasm into a struggle they fear is hopeless. Perhaps for the sake of this latter group it is worth our time to look more closely at this matter of fitness and survival.

Fitness, of course, is not an absolute thing. It can be defined only in relation to a specific environment. An organism — or a race — that is superbly fit in one environment may be totally unfit in another. Furthermore, we must be careful in equating ability to survive with superiority. The passenger pigeon was surviving marvelously well in North America, it was flourishing in the environment here, until White men with firearms entered that environment and hunted the species to extinction. But many other species survived the intrusion of the White man into their environment: for example, the bacterium Clostridium tetani, the microorganism that causes tetanus. Is it correct, therefore, to say that Clostridium tetani is superior to the passenger pigeon? Perhaps, but only in a very limited sense: the former is still here, and the latter is extinct. And I have no doubt that if the White man put his mind to it, he could drive Clostridium tetani to extinction as he did with the virus that causes smallpox. In a broader sense, of course, it is meaningless to talk about such dissimilar organisms.

Similar considerations apply to questions about the relative fitness of our own race and the Jews. For a very long time the Jews have lived in a symbiotic relationship with non-Jews — more than 3000 years, if one includes the relationship between the Jews and the ancient Egyptians. During most of the relationships between Jews and non-Jews, the Jews have lived as a marginalized minority, hated and mistrusted by the non-Jews but tolerated because of the Jews’ commercial and financial usefulness.

Relationships of this sort were accompanied by a constant tension between the Jewish minority and the non-Jewish majority. A literary anecdote that illustrates well this tension is provided by the Russian author Nikolai Gogol in his Cossack story Taras Bulba. Every Cossack camp had a contingent of Jews, who were despised by the Cossacks but usually tolerated because the Jews always were ready to sell the Cossacks anything they might want, especially liquor. Selling liquor to the Cossacks was a hazardous occupation for the Jews, however, because every so often the Cossacks’ dislike of the Jews would exceed the limits of their tolerance, and then a general de-Judaizing of the Cossack camp would ensue. In Taras Bulba, the Jewish camp-followers were all thrown into a nearby river and drowned, except for one who hid under a wagon.

And this amusing anecdote was mirrored on a larger scale in every European country throughout the Middle Ages. The Jews would gradually infiltrate a country and then in their inimitable way take over certain facets of the economy: the trade in alcoholic beverages, inn keeping, prostitution, and moneylending were the most common. When they were not prohibited by law from doing so, they monopolized the trade in White slaves. At the same time they were acquiring the wealth of the peasants and the craftsmen and the bourgeoisie in this way, they would buy protection from the aristocracy by financing wars, by serving as tax collectors, by giving financial advice, and so on. This modus vivendi often resulted in the Jews being wealthier, on theaverage, than the Gentiles among whom they lived, but their wealth never bought them acceptance or respectability. They always were despised social outcasts, so different from the host population that comparisons were meaningless, and in most countries, at least prior to the 19th century, they were not even citizens, because citizenship was based on blood, on tribal connections, on race.

Just as with the Cossacks, the citizenry eventually would become exasperated with the Jews and rise up against them. The king or duke or what have you would decide that he didn’t need the services of his Jewish tax collectors enough to put up with rioting, and so in order to quell the public unrest and disorder he would undertake a general expulsion of all the Jews from his realm. This happened in every European country at least once, and in several of them it happened more than once, because a generation or so after being expelled the Jews would come sneaking back in again, and the process would repeat itself.

In any case, I don’t think that it is correct to say that the Jews proved themselves more fit than we or superior to us in any general sense. In only one characteristic were the Jews superior: namely, in their amazing ability to acquire money. Otherwise, our race did an overall better job of surviving. We excelled in every other field of endeavor, in all the arts of war and peace: in literature, in engineering, in painting and sculpture and astronomy, in building cities and roads and exploring new lands. To say that the Jew was superior because he was richer is like saying that the tick on the dog’s back is superior to the dog because the tick is fatter. The dog does many things well; the tick only sucks blood.

Well, I have been talking about the state of affairs prior to the 19th century. This is the 21st century. We are rapidly being driven into extinction while the Jew oversees the process and becomes fatter than ever. What happened to change our fitness relative to that of the Jew? How did our society change from one with a proud and masterful spirit, a masculine spirit, to one with a feminine, submissive spirit? How did we lose our aristocratic pride in being independent and self-sufficient and learn instead the servile ways of the democrat, looking to the government to protect us and provide for us in return for our taxes and our votes? What happened to our tribal consciousness, to our pride of race? Why do so many of us feel that we should apologize for being White? How did we lose control of our women? A century ago we would not have considered for a second permitting our women to consort with Negroes, even if they had had the inclination to do so. What took away our self-confidence and put us on the defensive?

People change over the course of generations. Races change as breeding patterns change, and certainly the welfare state and racial mixing have caused a certain decline in racial quality, but this biological change has been relatively small, and it’s not the principal reason for our present jeopardy. We are essentially the same race we were a century ago, biologically speaking. So how did we lose our pride and our uprightness and become such a disgusting mob of egalitarians, oblivious of the future and willing to tolerate everything?

The basic answer is that the great mass of our people are neither good nor evil, neither greatspirited nor petty, neither heroic nor cowardly and self-indulgent, neither loyal nor disloyal, neither upright nor tolerant of depravity and crookedness; they are neutral. Every quality in them is only latent, waiting to be evoked and made manifest by an external force. Everything is a question of leadership, of guidance, of the example that is set for them. With good leaders, with wise and strong leadership, with honest and racially conscious leadership, the best qualities latent in a people, in a nation, in a race are evoked and made manifest. With heroic leadership, with great leadership, a whole people — lemmings and all — can be called to greatness and heroism, if those qualities are latent in them — and those qualities are still latent in our people, despite present appearances.

We have had a catastrophic failure of leadership. Why? Well, for one thing, democracy is not conducive to great leadership, even under the best of circumstances. A more relevant answer is that democracy in the age of television, with the television under the control of our hereditary enemies, is an unmitigated disaster. I’m using the term “television” to stand for all of the controlled mass media, of course. We are headed for extinction now, not because we have been conquered by a non-White army in the way that some of the White peoples of central and eastern Europe were conquered by Huns and Mongols and Turks during the Middle Ages, before other White peoples brought the conquerors to a halt and then rolled them back. The Black assaults on our people, the invasion by Mexicans and Asians, are not threatening our survival because these non-Whites are superior to us in any sense of the word. These non-Whites are threatening our survival only because we have lost our will to resist, only because we have been morally crippled, only because we have lost our pride and our self-confidence and our tribal consciousness, and ultimately it is television in the hands of the Jews that has morally crippled us.

I suppose that’s a bit of an oversimplification. The public schools and the universities also condition our people morally for extinction, and so do the Christian churches. But ultimately it is the Jewish control of the mass media that has poisoned these institutions and changed the way in which they condition our people. After all, most educators — which is to say, most teachers and most school administrators — are as much lemmings as the rest of the population, as much susceptible to what comes from their television screens as are those Americans who are not educators. And so are the Christian preachers and priests and church administrators; Christian doctrine has proved to be amazingly flexible in adapting itself to changing political fashions. So at this time we are heading toward extinction because we lack leadership, and the Jews are taking advantage of this lack of leadership to pump us full of spiritual poison through their control of the mass media, essentially paralyzing our will to resist their takeover of our society. What does this say about our fitness? Many people believe — and I have said this myself — that White people are especially susceptible to the Jewish spiritual poison. Can Blacks and mestizos and Asians be made to feel racial guilt and self-hatred the way Whites can? Well, probably not in exactly the same way, but I would be surprised if they turned out notto be susceptible to psychological manipulation at all. Every race must have a lemming majority in order to be stable and survive. I suspect that if the people who control the mass media put their minds to it they could condition Blacks or Vietnamese to hate themselves and engage in self-destructive behavior too, just as they have conditioned us, although probably the details of the conditioning would be different.

We were fit three thousand years ago when we lived in an environment that did not include Jews. Even in Europe when Jews were present we eventually developed antibodies against them that allowed us to survive. We forced them to live more like inactive spores than like active pathogens. Unfortunately, the early settlers of North America did not bring enough of those antibodies with them. When the spores began to break open in Europe during the 19th century — and even earlier in England — we were less able to resist the Jews than we were during the Middle Ages. When we had built a new and increasingly prosperous civilization in North America and the Jews began coming in during the last part of the 19th century we had almost no resistance to the infection. Letting Jews into the United States was like giving smallpox-infected blankets to the Indians. They used us to break down the Old Order in Europe with two ruinous, fratricidal world wars. Then the advent of television at the end of the Second World War gave them the genocidal weapon they needed to finish us off.

We are fit when we live in an environment without Jews. We can whip every other race with both hands tied behind our backs. With Jews we are like a dog infested with disease-carrying ticks. If the dog can get rid of the ticks soon enough he will survive. If he doesn’t get rid of the ticks they eventually will cause him to die. Does this mean that the ticks are more fit and more deserving of survival than the dog? I wouldn’t say so, but clearly the dog must do something about the ticks — soon. And we must do something about the Jews — soon. And clearly the key to getting the Jews off our backs is to regain control of our mass media.

Well, we really haven’t decided anything new today. Nevertheless, I think it’s helpful to understand the dynamics of the process that is carrying us to our extinction. It’s helpful to understand that the fact that mestizos are pouring across our southern border without opposition says nothing about our fitness relative to that of mestizos. The fact that Blacks are taking over our cities, terrorizing our schools, and running off with our women says nothing about our fitness relative to that of Blacks. The whole war for survival is between us and the Jews. Once we’ve taken their control of television away from the Jews, we’ve won the war. We’ll sweep the Blacks and the mestizos and the mongrels away in a matter of days. It will be messy, but there’s no doubt as to who will win.

I am fortunate to be able to live and work in a rural, mountainous part of the country where the population has not been affected much by non-White immigration. Perhaps for that reason whenever business takes me to a large city I am struck forcefully by what the immigration of the last couple of decades has done to our country. When I visited Los Angeles recently, I was impressed by my observation that the entire infrastructure of the city is in the hands of nonWhites, nearly all of them recent immigrants. Walk into any hotel or restaurant in Los Angeles, get on any bus, buy something in any store, and you are dealing almost exclusively with nonWhite clerks, waiters, cooks, and drivers. Observe the sanitation workers, the public utilities crews, the road-repair laborers. They are non-White immigrants, nearly all of them. If the nonWhites wanted to, they could immobilize the city, and the Whites would be helpless. Los Angeles, with its Blade Runner ambience, is perhaps an extreme example, but the same process is taking place in other cities all across America. One sees a few White people in suits carrying briefcases, and everyone else on the streets is non-White. The people in the suits and carrying the briefcases don’t seem to be alarmed by this situation. They regard all of the Brown, Yellow, and Black people around them as very useful, because they are doing jobs that White people don’t want to do and thereby are making it possible for the people with the suits and briefcases to live a more comfortable and prosperous life.

What a selfish and short-sighted view of the situation that is! I lived in Los Angeles more than 40 years ago. How different it was then! There were still far too many non-Whites in the area even then, but you could walk into a restaurant and expect to have a White waiter or waitress. You could expect to ride a bus with a White driver. And in the 1950s people who had been living in the Los Angeles area since before the Second World War told me how much the city had gone downhill since the 1930s. In the 1930s it had really been a White city: clean, uncrowded, almost no crime, a very pleasant place to live. Today, of course, between the Blacks and the non-White immigrants, it’s become a hell hole. There are large sections of the city where a White man dare not go, even in the daytime. Mark Fuhrman didn’t develop his views in a vacuum. He learned about non-Whites on the streets of Los Angeles.

We can see the same thing happening all over America. What used to be a White country 60 years ago is very rapidly becoming a non-White country. Mark Fuhrman and I are not the only White Americans who have noticed that, but there are far too many White Americans who pretend not to notice, because pretending is what is Politically Correct these days. I go on many radio and television interview programs, and when I point out the damage that immigration is doing to America, I nearly always am countered by a host who pretends that our government’s immigration policy is a wonderful thing. I run into all of the standard cliches: Don’t you know that we are a nation of immigrants? We all are descended from immigrants.

Immigration is what built this country. Our diversity is what makes us strong, and so on. When I point out that the immigrants who built America were immigrants from Europe, and that the immigrants who are destroying America now are from everywhere but Europe, the host asks me incredulously whether or not I really believe that it makes any difference where the immigrants come from. He pretends to believe that immigrants from Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, or Mexico have the same effect on American life that immigrants from Sweden, Poland, England, Ireland, or Germany have had. He pretends to believe this, because otherwise he would be charged with being a racist, and then he would no longer have a job as a radio or TV host. And I am afraid that there are idiots out there who really do believe that, because that’s what they’re being taught in their schools and their churches, as well as by their TV.

Back in the 1930s Americans had a little more sense about things like race and immigration. Immigration was from Europe, and there were laws to keep it that way. After the Second World War the propagandists in Hollywood and New York started beating the drums for racial integration and for opening America’s borders to the Third World. A huge Jewish propaganda campaign was aimed at changing America’s immigration laws. The Jews and their allies wanted to switch immigration from Europe to the Third World. Of course, they didn’t say that. They just said that they wanted America’s immigration laws to be more “fair.” It was “racist” to keep Asian Indians and Haitians out and let Norwegians and Frenchmen in. They didn’t want too many, just a few to make it clear that Americans weren’t bigots.

New York Jewish Congressman Emanuel Celler led the campaign in the Congress, and he recruited renegade Whites, such as Ted Kennedy, to help him. In 1965 this campaign finally succeeded in making America’s immigration laws “fairer,” and so now we have the situation we can see in Los Angeles and in many other American cities today. If I were an observer from Mars, I might wonder at what sort of collective death wish had infected the minds of White Americans, what sort of suicidal insanity had gripped them to make them put up with this situation. As a Martian observer I might study the matter with detachment. But I’m not from Mars. This is my country which is being destroyed. These are my people who are letting themselves be led with little protest into the slaughterhouse. And that is exactly where we are headed: into the slaughterhouse. All for the sake of Political Correctness; all for the sake of racial equality; all for the sake of “diversity.” It is truly insane.

America becomes darker — racially darker — every year, and that is the direct result of our government’s immigration policy. Sometime around the middle of the next century, about 50 years from now, America will become a majority non-White country. We White people, we descendants of the European immigrants who built America, will be a minority in our own country. And if we don’t like it, why then we can be dealt with the way they deal with ethnic conflicts in places like Rwanda. Or the way they dealt with the racial problem in Haiti, when the Black majority simply butchered the entire White minority 200 years ago. In large parts of the American Southwest, including California, the Mexicans already talk among themselves about what they will do to the gringos as soon as they have the power to do it. It is, of course, a fact that our ancestors took the American Southwest away from their ancestors. We were stronger than they, and we wanted their land. As soon as they become stronger, they intend to take it back again — and in the process do a bit of “ethnic cleansing” to get rid of any remaining gringos. That is the way the world works. That is the way the world always has worked. That is the way it always will work.

Why do we have so many idiots among us today who believe that the lion can be taught to lie down with the lamb? Why do we have so many idiots who believe that the laws of Nature have been suspended simply because these laws are not Politically Correct? Why do we have so many men among us who have lost their manly instincts and believe that we should no longer fight to protect what is ours, that we no longer should defend our borders, our part of the earth, and that we should bare our throats to our enemies?

I’ve answered these questions before, and I’ll answer them again now. Many of our people don’t really think about these things. Many of our people simply accept them because of their selfishness and their shortsightedness. The men with the briefcases and the suits are glad to have someone to mow their lawns and collect their garbage and do the other things that they consider beneath their own dignity and the dignity of their children.

When I was a boy I used to mow lawns and do every other kind of rough and dirty work to earn money for the things I wanted. I even picked cotton and helped bring in other crops. I worked on an egg farm for a while, washing eggs. That was nasty work, and I didn’t like it at all, but I did it anyway. But nowadays this work is considered beneath the dignity of White teenagers as well as adults. Now we hire non-Whites to do it. What a terrible, terrible mistake that is! For the sake of our momentary convenience, our momentary luxury, we give our whole heritage away — and our children’s heritage. We protect them from having to do strenuous or unpleasant work — but at the cost of growing up in a society where they will become a minority during their lifetimes and will be at the mercy of a non-White majority. That is the very worst sort of selfishness and shortsightedness.

In contrast to these people who don’t think about what non-White immigration is doing to America because at the moment they believe that it is benefiting them, there are people who do think about it — after a fashion. These are the ones who believe that the laws of Nature have been repealed. These are the ones who babble about how wonderful “diversity” is because they hear other people babbling about it on television. These are the ones who claim to believe that there is no difference between Haitian immigrants and Norwegian immigrants. These are the ones who claim to look forward eagerly to the time when Whites will be a minority in America, because then we will have an end to racism and everyone finally will be able to get along with everyone else.

When I am on radio or television talk shows I run into lots of these idiots. I run into people who tell me that they wouldn’t want to live in an America which had become White again. There wouldn’t be enough “diversity” to make their jaded lives interesting. They would no longer have their choice of Vietnamese or Mexican restaurants, no longer be able to see such an interesting mix of skin colors and racial types everywhere, no longer be able to listen to Jewish comics and admire Black athletes. They would be very bored if all of their neighbors and co-workers were White, they tell me.

Part of this pathology is related to the breakdown in the sense of community, the sense of family, of belonging, of rootedness, which used to characterize White Americans and its replacement by extreme individualism. Fifty or sixty years ago Americans used to identify very strongly with their community, with their ethnic group, with their race. They felt a sense of responsibility for others of their own kind around them. We were like a large, extended family. Now too many people are retreating into individualism, caring only about their own pleasures and their own interests. They do not even feel any sense of responsibility for their own children. They are not concerned about the type of world their children or their grandchildren will inherit. All that matters is their own gratification — now.

And I run into people who spout the sort of idiot pop-morality promoted by the media. “We took California and Texas away from the Mexicans,” they say, “so why should we complain if they take it back now? We have no right to keep them from crossing the border, because it used to be their land.” If you want to see one of these idiots backtrack in a hurry, tell him you believe that he has hit on an excellent principle, which ought to be applied in the Middle East. We certainly should not help the Jews hang onto land which they have stolen from the Palestinians. Instead, we should be helping the Palestinians take it back. That will shut him up.

Of course, there is nothing rational or consistent about the beliefs or the arguments of the people who want to keep America’s borders open. These people take the positions they do simply because they are the positions which are promoted by the media, positions which are currently fashionable, and these people would rather die than be thought unfashionable.

I’ll give you a position which is rational and consistent. We took this land because we were stronger than our opponents and because we needed the land to raise our families. As long as we remained strong in spirit as well as in body we held onto the land so that our children and their children also would have land to raise their families. But then malicious aliens came into our land and got their hands on our information media and our entertainment media, and these aliens spread spiritual poison among our people, so that our spirits became corrupted and our minds became confused. These aliens were able to make some of us feel guilty for taking this land for ourselves. They were able to make some of us feel guilty for being concerned about our own people, for being race-conscious. And they were able to promote their pop-morality among the fashion-conscious. But those of us who are not confused and whose souls are not corrupted are growing in numbers now. We are becoming stronger.

And we understand that the strong will inherit the earth. We understand that if the aliens are able to keep our people weak and confused, then some other race will take our land away from our children and use it to raise their families instead. We understand that people who are raceconscious are stronger than those who are not. We understand that people who feel a sense of community with others of their kind are stronger than those who are concerned only about themselves.

We understand that it is not moral to be weak or to favor other races over our own. It is not moral to give away what our ancestors struggled and died for. We understand that it is moral to survive, that it is moral to be strong, that it is moral to defend our land, that it is moral to fight against those who would take our land, just as it is moral to fight against those who would corrupt our spirits. We understand that the laws of Nature have not been repealed, that they rule now, just as they always have ruled. We understand that Nature is not immoral, and that we are not immoral when we follow the instincts which Nature has given us. It is moral to act in accord with those instincts and try to build a secure future for our posterity.

It is moral for us to mow our own lawns, drive our own buses, collect our own garbage, cook our own food, wait on our own tables, and pick our own crops. We understand that no honest work is beneath our dignity or the dignity of our children. We understand that it is better for our children to do strenuous work and dirty work and to become physically hard and disciplined than it is for them to grow up soft.

We understand these things, and we accept our responsibility to help all of our people understand them also. The purpose of American Dissident Voices and Free Speech is to spread understanding among our people. Spreading understanding is the purpose of everything we do. And it is a difficult task, because the malicious aliens who control the mainstream media are working overtime to corrupt and confuse, and their resources are greater than ours at this time. But we are growing. We are becoming stronger. More people are beginning to understand. And when we have spread understanding to enough of our people, then we will be able to put an end to the non-White immigration which is destroying America and destroying our heritage, and we will be able to begin undoing the damage. With understanding, with the adherence to a real morality, the morality of Nature, the morality of our ancestors, instead of the pop-morality promoted by the alien masters of the media, we will be able to solve every other problem confronting our people in addition to the immigration problem.
We can do it. Together we can do it.

Why are these four Clinton appointees likely to get us into a war during the next four years? In the first place, all four are Jews. Don’t let the Gentile names Albright and Holbrooke fool you. These two appointees are just as Jewish as Cohen and Berger are. Jews make up two and onehalf per cent of the U.S. population — and 100 per cent of Mr. Clinton’s national security team. That’s quite a striking contrast! Especially for a President who has told us often that he wants his administration to “look like America,” to be a reflection of America. I think what he meant is that he wants his administration to be a reflection of the behind-the-scenes power structure in America. It is the most Jewish administration our country has ever had — by far.

And let us consider, in the second place, Mr. Clinton’s reason for appointing these Jews to the top national security positions. Why didn’t he appoint his friends and cronies to these positions instead? Why not appoint the drug dealers and pimps and money launderers he used to hang out with in Arkansas? He can’t be re-elected President for a third term. He doesn’t need the support of the Jews and their mass media any longer. Or does he?

You bet he does! Bill and Hillary Clinton are in a heap of trouble, and the heap is getting deeper by the week. Their Arkansas buddies are being packed off to prison one by one, and the trail is getting closer and closer to the Clintons. And I’m not the only American who would like to see Bill and Hillary led out of the White House in handcuffs and leg irons. The Republicans would love to get even for what the Democrats did to Richard Nixon 23 years ago. They would love to inflict as much damage as they can on Clinton and his party, because they hope to fill any resulting power vacuum.

But the amount of damage inflicted on Clinton depends much more on the controlled media than it does on the Republicans. Everything that happens in Washington is orchestrated by the men who control the mass media. The politicians all dance to the media’s tune. They know that the way they are treated by the media determines whether or not they will be re-elected. Everything the politicians do and say is done and said with the media in mind. The media provide the link between the politicians and the voters. Mr. Clinton understands that as well as anyone else. And Mr. Clinton knows exactly who controls the media. He knows that whether or not he goes to prison depends more than anything else on how useful he remains to the Jews.

It was the enormous publicity given to the Watergate burglary by the controlled media 23 years ago which forced President Nixon from office: the intense media focus on this one subject day after day, for months, until it finally sank into the consciousness of Joe and Jill Sixpack. If the media had given Watergate the sort of cursory, ho-hum coverage they gave to the Paula Jones case recently, Nixon would have been able to finish his second term. And on the other hand, if the media had focused on the Paula Jones scandal the way they focused on Watergate, Clinton would not have been re-elected.

You remember Paula Jones, don’t you? She’s the Arkansas state employee that Clinton dropped his trousers in front of and tried to pressure into having sex with him when he was governor of Arkansas. Her sexual harassment law suit against him will be coming to trial soon. Bill Clinton has a lot more problems than the Paula Jones law suit to worry about, though. He is facing the likelihood of felony indictments on several charges during the next year or two, as the investigations into various of his criminal activities continue. In each case the attitude of the media bosses will be of critical importance to him. If the media give any case against him the Watergate treatment, with lots of negative coverage, day after day, that will generate a feeding frenzy among the Republicans, and they will be relentless in pushing for his prosecution. On the other hand, if the media ignore the investigations and scandals, that will take most of the steam out of them and discourage the Republicans from pursuing them.

The Jews, in other words, have Mr. Clinton exactly where they want him. He dare not disobey them. He must do everything they tell him, in the way of appointments and otherwise. Which is why Madeleine Albright, William Cohen, Samuel Berger, and Richard Holbrooke are where they are today.

The third thing to consider is the character and personality of these Jewish appointees. They are not just bureaucrats who happen, incidentally, to be Jews. They are a ruthless crew who know exactly where their loyalties lie. When the Jewish media were trying to force Richard Nixon out of office, for example, William Cohen was the first Republican in the Congress to abandon his party and join the media campaign against Nixon.

Madeleine Albright is an even better example of Jewish ruthlessness and Jewish loyalty to her fellow Jews. I remember seeing her interviewed on the CBS program 60 Minutes last May. The program was exploring the suffering of the Iraqi people under the total embargo placed on Iraq at the insistence of the United States — which means at the insistence of the Jews, who wanted to punish the Iraqi people for being a threat to Israel’s domination of the Middle East. 60 Minutes took us on a tour of an Iraqi hospital, where children were dying by the dozens, because there was no medicine to treat them. The interviewer, Lesley Stahl, pointed out to Albright that 500,000 Iraqi children are reported to have died as a result of the embargo. And Stahl was obviously distressed by the plight of the Iraqi people and by all of those Iraqi children who had died as a result of this Jewish policy intended to cripple Iraq. I could see the distress on her face and hear it in her voice when she asked Albright, “Is the price worth it?”

And I’ll always remember Albright’s harsh, arrogant, and unapologetic answer. Without hesitation, almost with a sneer, she answered, “We think the price is worth it.” In other words, “Certainly, it’s worth having 500,000 Iraqi children die in misery in order to safeguard Israel’s position. After all, they’re only Gentiles, they’re only goyim; they’re not Jews, so who cares.” What a vicious, hardhearted Jewess! And, you know, it was Madeleine Albright, who while she was Mr. Clinton’s ambassador to the United Nations during his first term was continually urging that the United States use its armed forces for military intervention around the world, wherever some country needed to be made Politically Correct. And this Jewess will be in charge of the foreign policy of the United States for the next four years. That is really horrifying. Now, these considerations I’ve just mentioned are not sufficiently persuasive by themselves for me to be convinced that our country will be led deliberately into another war. That is, I’m not predicting a war just because we have the amazing coincidence that Mr. Clinton chose Jews for all the key positions in his national security team, or because he desperately needs to do something, anything, to head off the investigators who are closing in on him, or because the Jews he appointed happen to be an especially bloodthirsty bunch.

The really frightening thing about these coincidences is that they just happen to have occurred at the precise moment in history when the Jews need another war, when it is essential for the Jews to get the United States involved in another major war.

They need to get us involved in a war for two reasons. The first reason is that, after nearly 50 years of turmoil, bloodshed, and minor wars in the Middle East, they still haven’t been able to build a viable country for themselves on the land they stole from the Palestinians. Their neighbors hate them as strongly as ever — and their neighbors are becoming more sophisticated as time goes on. Without the billions of dollars in military and economic aid the Jews extort from the United States every year, they could not maintain their military superiority over the rest of the Middle East. If U.S. aid to Israel is ever cut off, Israel will be finished in short order. Furthermore, the growth of Islamic fundamentalism is a real threat to the Israelis. If Islamic fundamentalists gain power in Egypt or Saudi Arabia, then the rest of the Arab world is likely to go the same way soon, and the Islamic fundamentalists are people who do not compromise with what they view as fundamentally evil. They are determined to free the Middle East from Jewish domination. And they are growing in strength every year.

The Jews need a major Middle Eastern war to crush their enemies decisively and to make it impossible for them to wage war against Israel. Now, with Bill Clinton in office, and with Clinton surrounded by Jews, is the time to strike. If they do it now they can use America as their weapon, and it will be Americans rather than Israelis taking all the casualties. If they don’t do it in the next four years, they may never have another chance.

The second reason the Jews need a war is to put down the growing dissent against them and their policies in the United States. The natives are becoming restless and have to be put down. The Internet is buzzing with questions the Jews don’t want asked, with complaints the Jews don’t want heard, with facts the Jews don’t want you to know. The Internet is a communications medium unlike any of the others we are accustomed to, such as radio, television, newspapers, and so on, in that the amount of money a communicator has is irrelevant. They can rigidly control the ideas and information that the public has access to through television, because no dissenter has enough money to buy his own television network. To a lesser extent the same thing applies to radio, newspapers, and the other information media. The program on which this publication is based, American Dissident Voices, is on radio, of course, but there are only a few stations from which we can buy time. The rest are afraid to carry our program because of the threat of Jewish boycotts. Most Americans aren’t able to listen to American Dissident Voices unless they have a good shortwave receiver or a satellite system.

That is, they weren’t able to listen to American Dissident Voices broadcasts until we began making them accessible through our two Internet web sites. Now, if you are able to connect to the Internet, and if you have the proper computer equipment, you can hear this and other American Dissident Voices broadcasts just by going to either of our two web sites, which are http://www.natvan.com and http://www.natall.com. And you can listen to us anywhere in the world at any time of the day or night.

Of course, NBC and ABC and CBS also have their web sites, but we are on an equal footing with them. You can find our sites just as easily as you can find theirs, and you can read or listen to what we have to say just as easily as you can to them. Our voice is just as loud as theirs. That’s true only on the Internet. They can control the flow of ideas and information to you through television, but they can’t control the Internet, and it’s driving them crazy.

All of the big Jewish pressure groups — the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, the Southern Poverty Law Center — they’re all screaming about the need to stifle Politically Incorrect ideas and inconvenient facts on the Internet. But they’re having a hard time convincing the American people. They’ve tried to establish censorship of the Internet with new laws, but so far it hasn’t worked. They’ve come forward with all sorts of new proposals for Jewish control of the Internet.

For example, they have Internet software which to a certain extent can filter out Politically Incorrect information, and they want to make the use of this software mandatory. If that sounds like a pretty desperate proposal, believe me, it is. They know that they cannot maintain their control over the minds of Americans unless they can control the flow of information and ideas. And if they lose their control over what Americans think, they eventually will lose their political power as well.

And it’s not just the Internet which is a problem for them in this regard. The American people as a whole — even Joe and Jill Sixpack — are becoming disillusioned and unhappy. Only 23 % of the electorate voted for Bill Clinton in November. More than half the electorate didn’t bother to vote at all. The media have downplayed these facts, but the Jews are concerned about them. The people are being kept in line at the moment, because there are still lots of shiny new things for them to buy. But more and more Americans are beginning to look beyond their immediate material comfort and to worry about the long-term moral slide of their country. If the economy slips badly, there will be hell to pay. More and more people will listen to the dissidents. A big problem for the Jews is how to silence the dissidents now, how to stifle the people who are asking inconvenient questions and thinking dangerous thoughts, before these thoughts spread to other people. They’ve tried to do it with legislation, but the country isn’t yet in a mood to be told what it can think.

What the Jews need is a nice, big war. Then they can crack down on the dissidents. Then they can call us “subversives.” Then they can call us “unpatriotic,” because we will be against their war. Then the government can pass laws against us, and Joe and Jill Sixpack will go along with it.

Does that still sound pretty farfetched? I guess it does to many of you who haven’t been keeping up with what the Jews have been doing and saying during the last few years. If you’re a lawyer, though, you will know that the Jews have been sending up trial balloons for years, arguing that the First Amendment needs to be rewritten so that the only speech which is protected is Politically Correct speech. And if you’re an Internet person who is knowledgeable about the big debate on Internet censorship, you know how hard the big Jewish pressure groups are pushing for censorship. And if you’re just a person who pays attention to what other people are thinking and feeling, you know that the discontent about the course America is on has reached an all-time high. People are worried. People are heartsick. People are asking questions they were afraid to ask a few years ago.

The Jews need to squelch this incipient revolution before it grows. They have a window of opportunity during the next four years. After Bill Clinton leaves office, anything can happen. There undoubtedly will be a wave of popular revulsion against him and a demand for substantial change. The Jews may never again have such a pliant tool in the White House. They may never again have the power over the U.S. government that they have now.

That’s why the alarm bells went off in my mind when Mr. Clinton announced who would be in charge of America’s national security during the next four years. That’s why I am convinced that there will be a strong effort to involve America in another major war during the next four years. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. While the warmongers are scheming for war, they will tell us how much they want peace. They’re good at that sort of thing. They’ve had a lot of practice. But they will be scheming for war, believe me, no matter what they say. And when that war comes, remember what you have read today.

I would now like to explain myself. First, let me assure you that I am not anti-Christian. I admire and respect many individuals from our people’s past who were Christians. And there are some people alive today who call themselves Christians whom I respect. But I must confess that I am not very favorably disposed toward most churchgoers today, because I believe that virtually all of the major Christian churches, the major denominations, have allied themselves with the enemies of our people. In saying this I am not being at all partisan. Although I was raised as a Presbyterian when I was a child, I am talking about the Protestant denominations as well as the Catholic Church when I say that the churches have turned against our people and allied themselves with our enemies.

And remember, I was talking specifically about 15,000 churchgoers in Switzerland who obediently demonstrated in favor of the Jews and against their own people when ordered to do so by their priests and ministers. I am sure that there are many individual Christians, in Switzerland and elsewhere, who are just as disgusted by this behavior as I am. But the fact is that the churches themselves, virtually all of them, have become hostile to the interests of our people; for all practical purposes, they have been taken over by our enemies.

Think for a moment about what happened in South Africa a few years ago. In South Africa the percentage of churchgoers among the Whites is much higher than in the United States. Practically all of the Boers — the Afrikaners, the Dutch-speaking Whites of South Africa — are churchgoers. The Dutch Reformed Church is the most important institution in their communities. And as long as their church remained faithful to them they remained strong and were able to deal with all outside forces. The Jews in South Africa, of course, were pushing for them to turn their country over to the Blacks, but they were able to ignore this Jewish pressure as long as their church stood with them.

But when their church turned against them and betrayed them, then they lost everything. When their ministers began saying to them, “Oh, we have looked at our Bibles again and we now realize that we made a mistake earlier, when we told you that it was good to defend yourselves against those who would destroy you. Now we realize that it is a sin for you not to turn your country over to the Blacks” — when their ministers began saying that, their will to preserve themselves collapsed.

And although the churches, fortunately, do not play as large a role in the lives of White Americans as they do in the lives of White South Africans, it is quite clear that the role they do play here in the United States is a destructive one. Think about almost any major issue involving the survival of our people, and the churches are on the wrong side of that issue: just as in Switzerland, just as in South Africa. Forced racial mixing, including interracial marriage: the churches are for it; cutting off non-White immigration: the churches are against it; the destruction of White Rhodesia and White South Africa: all of the churches were for it; opposing the Jews in any way: the churches are against it.

You know, it didn’t used to be that way. The churches in America used to be a bulwark of the community. It used to be that a man or a woman could be a Christian and a churchgoer and a patriot, and a person proud of his people and their heritage and concerned about their future. Why is that no longer true?

My Christian friends tell me that it’s because the churches have been subverted, that what the churches teach today is no longer Christianity but instead is a Judaized doctrine which is opposed to real Christianity. And, of course, the ministers and priests today say just the opposite: they say just what the South African ministers said when they betrayed their people. They say, “No, we’re preaching the real Christianity today. What used to be taught in our churches wasn’t the real Christianity, but today we understand better what real Christianity is. Real Christianity requires us to follow Jewish policies and to mix the races, etc.” And both sides will quote the Bible to prove the correctness of their position.

Now, I’m a scientist. I’m not a believer in miracles or in holy scriptures, and so I don’t get involved in arguments based on the Bible — although I do let myself be amused sometimes by the efforts of the new breed of preachers to make the Bible Politically Correct: to make it acceptable to the feminists, for example, by deleting all masculine pronouns, and to make the New Testament acceptable to the Jews by pretending that the account of the crucifixion, in which the Jews clearly are given the blame and in which they say, “His blood be on us and on our children,” doesn’t say what it seems to say.

As I said, I’m not very interested in what various verses in the Bible “really mean.” To me what is significant is that the bulk of our people who called themselves Christians in the past had an essentially healthy outlook. They believed in defending themselves and their race and their way of life. They were self-sufficient, self-reliant. They believed that God looks out for those who look out for themselves. They may have been a little superstitious about some things, but they understood the important things. They understood that there is no such thing under the sun as “equality.” They understood the concepts of personal honor and personal responsibility. They understood duty and discipline. They understood racial feeling and racial solidarity. And they understood that the Jews are profoundly different, profoundly alien.

Today the churches don’t understand any of those things, nor do the churchgoers, the hymnsingers. So when I criticize the churches and the churchgoers, it doesn’t mean that I’m antiChristian. It just means that I am opposed to what thechurches are teaching and opposed to what they are doing today. And as far as my being divisive goes, well, I’m afraid that most of the hymn-singers are already on the other side, and pointing that fact out to people is probably more useful than divisive. The question of what made the churches change is an interesting one, but I don’t want to get too deeply involved in that now, except to say that at least in part it was a matter of deliberate subversion, as my Christian friends claim. Since the Second World War the Jews have made a concentrated effort to gain control of the churches, and in many cases they have been largely successful. They have been able to get the Lutherans to denounce Luther, for example, for telling what he knew about the Jews in various of his writings.

But it’s also been a matter of simple human fallibility. Most churches are no longer led by zealots and martyrs and true believers, willing to die for the faith. They are led instead by people who are essentially businessmen, corporation executives: people more concerned with keeping their tax exemption than with doctrine, people more concerned about popularity and public relations than about theology. These people have been willing to yield to pressure, to go with the flow, to do whatever is expedient instead of what is right.

I’ll give just one example of this change. The Jews in Hollywood have been turning out a number of films which are very hostile to the Christian churches, their traditions, and doctrines; and the churches, instead of raising hell about these films and counterattacking, have just been grinning and bearing it for the most part. A fairly recent film of this sort is one called Priest, which was produced by the Miramax division of the Disney Company, an entirely Jewish operation. The Miramax division is headed by the Weinstein brothers, and Disney itself is headed by Michael Eisner. The film features two priests, one of them with a mulatto mistress and the other of them an active homosexual, whose activities are depicted quite graphically in the film, and the implication of the film is that these two priests are real Christians, whereas the Church hierarchy, which doesn’t approve of their behavior, consists of hypocrites. If the Jews had produced a film like Priest before the Second World War, the Pope would have preached a Crusade against them, and every theater which tried to show the film would have been burned by mobs of enraged Catholics. Today they just grin and bear it. They are much more concerned about pleasing the Jews and getting good press than they are about defending the faith.

But, you know, the real change, the significant change, that has taken place in the Western world, which makes it possible for me to respect many Christians of the past while having only contempt for most of today’s churchgoers, is not so much a change in doctrine or in the way some little piece of Holy Writ is interpreted: it’s a change in values. Basically what has happened is that the values of the Christian churches have become less aristocratic and more democratic, less masculine and more feminine. These changes actually have taken place in most of our society’s institutions, not just in our churches. Back in the days when failure at a major undertaking could and often did mean starvation and death, or at least disgrace, personal values were bound to be different than they are in a time when failure simply means heading down to the welfare office and signing up for a handout. Institutions were bound to be imbued with different values in the days when the men governing those institutions were much more conscious of differences in human quality, and when the institutions themselves — cultural and educational institutions as well as the churches — were much more closely geared to the needs and concerns and sensibilities of the most capable and successful elements in society than to the interests of the masses. When failure lost its teeth and survival became less demanding, there was a general slackening in values. And when institutions began catering more to the masses, there was again a shift in values.

Nobody really planned this shift in values. It was a consequence of changing life-styles. Not planned, but understood. We understand these things because they have happened to us before. Even the ancient Romans understood them. They understood that ease breeds decadence, that luxury leads to softness and indiscipline, and that indiscipline leads to ruin. We see these changes in our schools and universities, in our popular culture, and in our churches. Hard, strong men founded these churches. The Catholic Church was for more than 200 years led by men who risked being fed to the lions. Martin Luther was willing to risk being burned at the stake by defying the Pope and the emperor to do what he believed was right. Other Christian leaders actually were burned rather than recant their beliefs. Can you imagine any top church bureaucrat willing to do that today?

And so I say to my Christian friends: Don’t try to shush me when I criticize today’s churchgoers and hymn-singers. You should be even more concerned about their bad behavior than I. You should strive to regain control of your churches and to give them healthy values once again, to make them once again into bulwarks of the White community, to make them once again worthy of respect from all self-respecting White men. If you cannot do that, no one else will even try.
I say to all of my friends, to all self-respecting White men and women, Christian or not: Let’s not concern ourselves with doctrinal quibbles now. Let’s not concern ourselves with whether or not our neighbor believes in virgin birth and walking on water; let’s concern ourselves with whether or not he cares about the survival of his people and is willing to do something for that survival. If he or she does care, and if he or she is willing, then he is our brother, then she is our sister. And let us gather our brothers and our sisters to us; we need them all. We will judge our brothers and sisters, we will rank them, not by their belief or lack of belief in supernatural things, but by their character and their values and their ability. We will rank them according to their sense of duty and responsibility, according to their personal strength and self-discipline, according to their willingness to sacrifice for the common good of our people, and according to what they actually do accomplish for our people.

In fighting against the enemies whose aim is to destroy us all, we need to put religious differences and factional differences aside. We need to feel a sense of solidarity based on our common blood and our common purpose. But this solidarity, this common purpose, does not preclude us from speaking out about those things which need to be spoken about. And when 15,000 churchgoers in Switzerland demonstrate obediently against their own people and for the Jewish swindlers and extortionists who are stealing money from the pockets of the Swiss people, then we should speak out against them. We should separate ourselves from these renegades. We should let the world know that they are beyond the pale, that we disown them, not because of their religion, but regardless of their religion.

Speaking of the situation in Switzerland, I have been pleased to note during the past week that at least a few politicians and media people there have begun to show a little courage and a little honesty. While the church leaders and most of the top politicians and most of the mass media have either sided with the Jews, or at least have been afraid to oppose the Jews, a few have stood up for their own people. Last week one member of the Swiss parliament, Christoph Blocher, demanded to know why Swiss taxpayers should pay blackmail money to the Jews. And it only takes a few honest, courageous men to set the tone for others. Since Christoph Blocher spoke up, others also have expressed their outrage that the Swiss people’s money should be given to the Jews in response to the Jewish extortion effort. Even a major Swiss newspaper, Blick, stood up to the Jews last week and reported that the Swiss people are becoming exasperated by the Jewish campaign against their country.

In this country we have no politicians with Christoph Blocher’s courage and no major newspapers with Blick’s honesty. In this country we still have politicians like New York Senator Alphonse D’Amato, who might as well be the senator from Israel, still beating the drum for the Jews and demanding that the Swiss yield to their blackmail effort. You can be sure that Senator D’Amato is a faithful churchgoer.

I really hope that D’Amato and his Jewish controllers succeed in imposing a boycott on Switzerland. That will do wonders to wake up the Swiss people and persuade them to take a stand. It might even help a few people over here wake up. People need to realize that the Jews are at war against the world, the whole world, and have been for thousands of years. It’s about time to start fighting back.

In Switzerland, of course, they’ve been pushing their self-serving “Holocaust” propaganda for the past 50 years, just like they have over here and everywhere else, and I guess they figured they had the Swiss hypnotized to the point where they could just reach into the Swiss people’s pockets and steal $7 billion from them without a protest. Well, we’ll see about that. But if the Swiss do wake up and defend themselves, it will be without the help of their churchgoers, and we ought to think about the implications of that for our own fight over here.

Well, I’ve waited three weeks, and although there has been a little news released on this subject, it’s been nowhere near enough. They briefly mentioned the especially shocking case of Larry Lawrence, and now it looks as if they’re going to drop the subject and hope that the public forgets about it. So let me remind you of the details of the Larry Lawrence case. He was a filthyrich Jewish real estate developer, with $300 million in the bank, who died of cancer in January 1996, at the age of 69. During the Second World War Lawrence had dodged the draft, just as Bill Clinton did during the Vietnam war. Much of Lawrence’s real estate was in San Diego, however. And San Diego — at least White, non-Mexican, San Diego — is a military town.

Lawrence was rankled by the fact that he could not break into San Diego’s good society, no matter how much money he accumulated. The reason was undoubtedly Lawrence’s extraordinarily loud and pushy Jewishness. Even his best friends describe him as exceptionally obnoxious. But Lawrence thought that the problem was his lack of military service, so he invented a war record for himself. He claimed he had served in the merchant marine during the Second World War and had been seriously wounded when his ship was torpedoed. He also gave lots of money to the Democratic Party: $10 million altogether. He gave $200,000 specifically to get Bill Clinton elected in 1992.

That got him all the invitations to the White House he wanted. And he reciprocated by inviting the Clintons to lavish parties at his San Diego mansion. He and Bill Clinton became bosom buddies. And when the end began approaching in 1995, Lawrence decided that he deserved to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery, alongside America’s military heroes. His donations to the Clinton campaign entitled him to it. That, he thought, would show those stuffy admirals in San Diego who had never accepted him socially.

Mr. Clinton agreed that his fellow draft-dodger had paid enough to his election campaign to earn himself a place in Arlington National Cemetery. Now, the Army, which has charge of the cemetery, checks the credentials of people who want to be buried there. They checked Lawrence’s claims of World War Two service and found no record of him at all. They told that to the State Department, but the State Department is very heavily staffed with Larry Lawrence’s fellow tribesmen, and they told the Army to try again to find some grounds for burying Lawrence in Arlington National Cemetery. The Army, which just didn’t get it, checked all of Lawrence’s claims again and reported to Lawrence’s kinsmen in the State Department a second time that they could find no record of military service for Lawrence. Exasperated at the Army’s obtuseness and lack of sensitivity in the matter, Lawrence’s Jewish kinsman Richard Holbrooke, who was assistant secretary of state at the time, wrote a letter to the White House praising Lawrence and saying that a burial for him at Arlington National Cemetery would be appropriate. That was what Bill Clinton was waiting to hear, and he presided over Lawrence’s burial at Arlington National Cemetery himself and delivered the eulogy personally. And the matter would have rested there, like so many other pieces of official crookedness, had not a few Republicans in the Congress got wind of the matter, dug up the facts, and begun publicizing them. Since then a few newspapers have reported the Lawrence affair, but they have been quite restrained in their comments. They seem to be a bit embarrassed about it, and one gets the impression that they are hoping that the public interest in it will fade soon. And Lawrence’s family and the government have quietly, but very hastily, yanked his remains and his elaborate tombstone, complete with its Star of David, from the cemetery. The Jews, perhaps realizing the potential for causing themselves real damage, have been uncharacteristically discreet in this matter, carefully avoiding the usual screeching about “anti-Semitism.”

Mr. Clinton, naturally, professes both ignorance and innocence in the matter. He didn’t know his Jewish friend and financial supporter was a draft-dodger who had invented a war record for himself, he says. Mr. Clinton also has professed complete ignorance of the organized crime connections of another of his rich Jewish supporters, Vadim Rabinovich. Rabinovich, who is a member of the Jewish mafia in the former Soviet Union, is supposed to be excluded from entry to the United States because of his criminal connections. Somehow the State Department failed to keep him out, and in 1995 he was photographed shaking hands with Clinton at a Democratic Party fundraiser in Miami. When the matter was brought to the attention of the news media this month, Rabinovich was described by the media as “a Ukrainian businessman.” No mention at all was made of his Jewishness.

Why don’t you ask some of your Ukrainian friends whether or not Rabinovich is a typical Ukrainian name? The same deceit and crookedness are at work here which lead the controlled media always to refer to “the Russian mafia” or “Russian mobsters” and never to mention the word “Jew” in connection with the growing presence of Jewish organized crime both here and in the former Soviet Union.

Anyway, as I said, Mr. Clinton now claims he didn’t know his Jewish supporter Rabinovich is a gangster who wasn’t even supposed to be in the United States. Nobody told him, he says. Mr. Clinton also claims not to have known that his closest friend and biggest supporter in Arkansas, Dan Lasater, was a cocaine dealer, a gangster, and a pimp. He also claims not to have known that his own brother Roger was dealing cocaine right out of the governor’s mansion in Little Rock when Clinton was the governor of Arkansas.

We would not have known about the activities of either Lasater or Clinton’s brother, had they not both been convicted of drug dealing and sent to prison. And we would not have known about Larry Lawrence’s fraud or Mr. Clinton’s support by the Jewish mafia in Ukraine and Russia, had not a few of Clinton’s Republican opponents, with the resources as well as the motive to dig out the facts, exposed them. The media certainly weren’t too eager to tell us about any of these things.

You remember the way the controlled media dealt with the allegations that Bill Clinton had used illegal drugs? They had him laughingly admit that, yes, he had tried marijuana once, back during his reckless youth in the 1960s — but he hadn’t inhaled, he said. That’s the media image of Clinton presented to the public: not quite perfect, not a saint, but a man honest enough to admit to us his essentially harmless, youthful indiscretions. Let me tell you about Bill Clinton and illegal drugs: In the 1980s, when he was the governor of Arkansas, not in the 1960s, but just 10 years ago, Bill Clinton was a regular user of cocaine. Dozens of witnesses have given sworn depositions about Clinton’s cocaine use. But the controlled media have kept this covered up. Furthermore, Clinton, unlike his brother and many of his friends, never has been prosecuted for his illegal use of drugs.

And this Clinton drug usage is not an innocent, recreational sort of thing. It is a criminal activity,it is an immoral activity, it is a socially destructive activity, and it is a profoundly unpatriotic activity. The drug trade corrupts our society and our government, and it destroys people’s lives. The cocaine that Governor Bill Clinton snorted in Little Rock, Arkansas, had been smuggled into this country. Public officials had been bribed. Law enforcement had been corrupted. People had been murdered to protect the profits of the smugglers, and some of these smugglers were Clinton’s personal friends and associates. Bill Clinton knew all of this. And he knew it was illegal; the man is a lawyer. He also understood the moral significance of his participation in the cocaine trade just as he understood that his brother Roger was a cocaine dealer and his good Jewish friend Larry Lawrence was no war hero.

Bill Clinton is a criminal — not in a loose, figurative sort of way, but in a very precise and definite way. He is a man who ought to be in prison. In fact, prison is too good for him. But he’s not in prison. He’s in the White House. He’s running around the country giving speeches about reducing hatred and violence in America, and the controlled news media are treating this activity all very seriously, quoting from his speeches — while keeping very quiet about things like his sale of cemetery plots and his connections with Jewish gangsters. They are helping to maintain the pretense that he deserves respect, as the President of the United States.

How did this happen to us? How did this happen to America? The complete answer to that question is a long, sad story. I’ve answered parts of the question in several of these American Dissident Voices broadcasts, and I’ll answer other parts in future broadcasts. For now I’ll just say that American society has been undergoing a process of decay for a long time. Our ancestors who came over here from England, Scotland, Sweden, Germany, and other European countries and took this continent away from the Indians were serious, upright, self-respecting people. They believed in individual responsibility, the rule of law, and fair play. They believed that the government ought to leave a man alone as much as possible, and that men ought to behave themselves decently and honestly. If they didn’t, they ought to be dealt with quickly and sternly, but fairly. People who went into government service were respected, but they were held to a strict code of conduct.

Lawyers were perhaps never really trusted, but judges were. Judges were expected to be fair and honest. So were policemen. There are a few areas of the United States today where one can still witness these old attitudes, standards, and ways of doing things: perhaps in the Dakotas and the nearby states, where nearly all of the settlers were Scandinavians or Germans and where immigration hasn’t destroyed what the settlers and their descendents have built. But with changing immigration, and with a more numerous population, most of our country has changed. It has developed more of a Latin flavor. Instead of respect for individual sovereignty and the rule of law, there was a shift toward patronage, networking, and “good ol’ boy” personal relationships.

Gradually things moved toward a situation where what a man could get away with depended more on his connections than on the law. Judges, sheriffs, and police commissioners became as corrupt as other politicians. The amount of attention that the police paid to a complaint depended more than anything else on who was making the complaint and against whom it was being made. The outward forms were maintained — the outward appearance of law and justice and propriety remained — but inside things became rotten.

This is pretty much the way things had become in the state of Arkansas when Bill Clinton began his political career. There were still a lot of decent folks in Arkansas, but the political system hadfallen into the hands of a network of good ol’ boys and a few rich Jews. And unfortunately that’s also the way it has become throughout large areas of the United States. And that’s the way it is everywhere in Latin America — and throughout the Third World. American politics and American government had become enough like those of a banana republic by the time Bill Clinton appeared on the scene that there was almost a perfect match between the man and the system.

Bill Clinton is an intelligent man, and he is a consummate actor: very, very slick. If he hadn’t gone into politics, he could have had a successful career in Hollywood. I personally believe that what tilted him toward politics is his fundamental crookedness. In some people there’s a perverse streak which gives them pleasure in deceiving others, in putting something over on other people. Now, one can do that in a sense as an actor, but it’s not real; it’s only make-believe. In politics the deception is real: it has real consequences and is therefore more satisfying to its practitioners. In any event, the good ol’ boys running the system in Arkansas liked what they saw in Clinton, and Clinton liked the drugs, women, partying, and money that the good ol’ boys in Arkansas made available to him. Furthermore, Clinton had learned very early in life about the power of the Jews, and he was determined to turn this power to his advantage. Jews aren’t really noticeable in Arkansas politics like they are in New York politics or California politics, but Clinton noticed them, and from his earliest days in politics he tried to make himself especially useful to Jews, and in turn he began accumulating a circle of Jewish supporters and advisers. Today his administration reflects this support. It is more heavily Jewish than that of any other President in U.S. history.

Despite the exceptionally strong Jewish flavor of the Clinton administration, what has happened to America is not tied uniquely to Bill Clinton or to Arkansas politics or even to the Democratic Party. The whole country is infected, both major parties are infected, and every major politician is infected, to a greater or lesser extent. The infection has spread to the extent that the system canno longer cure itself but will require an outside force. This may sound like a pessimistic analysis, but there are several bright spots in the picture. First, the system is not really monolithic. A lot of individual politicians — and others — are drawing their sustenance from the system, and there is fierce competition for a good spot at the feeding trough. It is the competition between Democrats and Republicans which led to the exposure of the Arlington National Cemetery scandal and to the exposure of Clinton’s ties to the Jewish mafia.

This competition may very well bring down the Clinton government during the next couple of years. That doesn’t mean, of course, that we can expect a fundamentally better government with a Republican in the White House. The one thing which holds the whole system together and plays a big role in giving it its enduring odor, is the Jewish control of the news and entertainment media. It is the role of the media, in fact, which is the key to our whole problem in trying to cure our society and make it healthy again.

Another bright spot is that in order to maintain itself, the system must continue to deceive the public, because there is still a very substantial part of the American public which would not approve of the crookedness if they understood it. This is the one feature which makes our situation better than that of a banana republic. In a banana republic, the general population accepts the crookedness of the system. Everyone understands that what counts is whom you know and how big a bribe you can afford to pay. The crookedness is much more open. In the United States these things still have to be concealed. The difference is in the nature of the populations — which is essentially why the Jews and the other people who want the system to stay crooked are so strongly in favor of maintaining the flow of Third World immigrants into the United States.

Looking at our situation in the light of this banana republic analogy, one can almost appreciate Bill Clinton. We must have a public understanding of the nature of our problem before we can cure it. The crookedness must be exposed to public view. The Jewish media certainly don’t want to do that for us, but with someone like Bill Clinton in the White House they may not be able to help themselves. Clinton is such an extremist in his crookedness, he overreaches himself to such an extent, that it’s pretty hard for even his most Politically Correct admirers to fail to see the basic rottenness of the man. He’s gotten away with so much for so long, with his Jewish friends in the media covering for him, that he’s lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. Really, only a man without any sense of limits could have gotten himself into the Paula Jones mess. And I think it will not be too long before all Americans realize that it is the Paula Jones affair which sets the tone for all of Bill Clinton’s activities, whether selling burial rights in Arlington National Cemetery or soliciting donations from Chinese and Jewish organized crime figures.

In other words, the people I talk with tell me, “White Americans are like ostriches with their heads in the sand, hoping that things won’t get much worse if they just pretend not to notice what’s happening and don’t think too much about it.” Now, that’s partly true, but there are many different types of White Americans, and not all are afraid to face the real problems in this country. Let’s take a look at some of these different types. First, let’s note that there are a great many White Americans who do care about what’s being done to our country and our people. Some of them are afraid to talk about it, but others are not. Some are confused about what’s happening, but others have a pretty good understanding.

It’s also true, of course, that many Americans don’t care. There are millions of couch potatoes, of Joe and Jill Sixpacks, of sports fans, of disco-goers, of trendy air-heads who believe whatever they see and hear on TV and try to learn all of the latest cliches and imitate all of the current fads. As long as their refrigerators are full, their brains will be turned off. But White Americans today are not much worse in this regard than other people at other times. Most people always have been like that: without initiative or imagination or curiosity or independence. Let’s not concern ourselves with them now. Later, when their refrigerators are empty, we’ll see what can be done with them.

Let’s look at the Americans who do care. Let’s look at the ones who are observant enough to know that something is wrong and are responsible enough to be concerned. That’s probably a good half of the adult White population. The question is, why aren’t more of them doing something about their concern? We know that Bill Clinton was elected to his second term as President with the votes of only 23 per cent of the electorate, fewer than one in four. Of course, some of the other 77 per cent voted for Bob Dole or Ross Perot, but two-thirds of this other 77 per cent said, in effect, “To hell with the whole business. I’m not voting for any of those clowns.”

Now, that’s something! That’s a new record for voter alienation. That’s a clear sign that a substantial portion of the population is fed up. It’s a real reason for hope, and it’s no wonder that the controlled media have not had much to say about the election statistics. But the question remains, why aren’t the people who’re fed up doing more than simply choosing not to play the game any longer? I know that many of them are too frightened to do anything. They’re afraid of the government, which they have come to realize is no longer an institution to serve the people but instead has become a dangerous and powerful enemy of the people.

Do you remember the FBI’s response to the terror-bombing at the Atlanta Olympics last year? The FBI didn’t have a clue as to who the bomber was, so they fingered the security guard who had found the bomb, Richard Jewell; told the media that he was their prime suspect because he was a heterosexual White male with an interest in firearms; and then during the next few months proceeded to ruin the poor man’s life, hoping that some evidence might turn up to implicate him or that he might crack under the pressure. Eventually they had to admit, very grudgingly, that they’d made a mistake.

Perhaps you saw the televised news conference held by Jewell and his lawyers after that. I saw it on the NBC Evening News, and I remember one of Jewell’s friends who made a very moving statement at the conference. He said that he realized that living in the sort of country the United States has become is inherently dangerous. He said he realized that he could be killed by a terrorist bomb at any time. But, he said, after seeing what the FBI had done to his friend Jewell and the way they had done it, he was far more afraid of the FBI than he was of terrorists. I think many people feel that way today. They feel intimidated by the government and the media. They’ve seen too much abuse of power, and they’re afraid that if they open their mouths, if they criticize the government, if they become known as dissidents, the government will retaliate against them. Others are aware of the bias of the controlled news media. They have seen the vicious treatment the media give to anyone who is Politically Incorrect.

Do you remember the way the media hounds tore apart poor Marge Schott, the Cincinnati baseball team owner, after she made a couple of Politically Incorrect remarks last year? People are afraid of being attacked and hounded by the media if they do or say anything the media bosses don’t approve of. They are afraid that the media will cause their employers to fire them or will incite minority criminals to attack them or their families. It has happened — too often — and people are frightened.

Many people also are discouraged. They see the jungles our cities and our schools have become after decades of destructive immigration and suicidal race policies. They see the terrible condition of our racially integrated armed forces, and they see the decline in the quality of law enforcement in our cities. It seems impossible to them that things can ever be sorted out and cleaned up. They look at the immense power wielded by the media and by the government, and they see no way to overcome that power. They see things getting worse and worse every year, and they conclude that the country cannot be saved, our people cannot be saved. And so they give up on trying to do anything more than looking out for themselves and their families. They don’t want to sacrifice themselves in what they view as a hopeless cause. There are really a lot of people who feel this way.

And many of these people are not cowards. They understand the power and the ruthlessness of the government and the media, and they are wary of this power, but they have not let themselves be conquered by unreasonable fears. They just don’t believe that anything useful can be done, and so they don’t try. If they did believe something could be done, then they might be willing to defy the government and the media and take their chances.

There are millions of people like this. They know that things aren’t the way they ought to be, even though they don’t completely understand why. They aren’t cowards, but they aren’t inclined to be heroes or martyrs either. They concern themselves almost exclusively with their own security and comforts, yet they aren’t entirely without a spark of idealism and altruism. They’re ordinary White men and women: moderately perceptive, moderately brave, and capable of becoming moderately idealistic.

What these millions of ordinary White men and women need is understanding and hope. Understanding, so that they can see what has happened to our country and our people and what needs to be done to set things right; and hope that what needs to be done actually can be done, so that they become willing to take a chance and participate in a struggle for the future that no longer seems hopeless to them.

Giving understanding and hope to our people are our two tasks, the two reasons for these American Dissident Voices programs. Of the two, giving understanding is the easier — and it is necessarily the first. Each week I use this radio broadcast to explain one facet or another of this confusing world around us, so that our people can have a clearer picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future. And this program’s sponsor, National Vanguard Books, publishes many books and periodicals which also provide understanding.

One of the books published by National Vanguard Books is a novel I wrote more than 20 years ago, The Turner Diaries, in which I tried to look into the future and project where the trends I could see around me in the 1970s would take us. One of the things I saw coming was a great increase in terrorism in the United States as resentment against the government and its policies grew. Another thing I saw coming was a great increase in violence against our women: I predicted the rape of our women by Blacks in our minority-pampering Army under a government unwilling to stop it for fear of being charged with “racism.” And I have been very gratified by the many people who have written to me and told me that their eyes were first opened when they read The Turner Diaries: that after reading the book they not only could understand what is happening now but also could have some inkling of what will happen next. These people who had read my book weren’t surprised by the World Trade Center bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing and the Atlanta Olympics bombing and other acts of terrorism which have occurred recently, and they weren’t surprised by the revelation of the widespread sexual harassment of White female recruits in our Army by Black drill instructors and the unwillingness of the Army brass to stop it before it attracted public attention. They had seen these things coming from reading my book.

The difficulties we face in providing understanding are primarily economic difficulties. We should have this radio program on every station in America, but air time is expensive. We would like for every adult White person in America to read The Turner Diaries, but so far only about a quarter of a million have. We need to expand our outreach greatly and reach many more of our people with our message, but that will require many more helpers working with me, and it will require much more money. We are slowly doing what needs to be done, but we could do it much faster with more help. Fortunately, we gradually are getting additional help, but we need much, much more.

The bigger part of our task is giving our people hope. Understanding what has happened and what needs to be done is not enough for most people. Of course, if all of our people were heroes by nature, then understanding would be enough. They would consider only what it is necessary and proper to do, and then they would be willing to die trying to do it, whether it were possible or not. But most of our people are only slightly heroic. Most people not only need to understand what they should do; they also need to believe that it is possible to do it. And so our task is to persuade them that what we are trying to do is not only necessary and proper, but also possible. Then they will join us. Then we will sweep the enemies of our people, who now seem so powerful, into the trashbin of history.

And so how do we give hope to intelligent, perceptive people, who look at the situation around them and see this powerful and corrupt government steamrollering anybody who gets in its way? How do we make them believe that it is possible to successfully oppose such a government? Well, first we simply focus their attention on some of the things they already know but perhaps haven’t thought enough about: things like the utter moral corruption of the government, a corruption which robs it and its supporters of any conviction that their cause is just. A morally crippled enemy is a mortally weakened enemy. A government led by a moral cripple like Bill Clinton may still be able to do a lot of damage, punish a lot of its enemies, and keep many people frightened into silence and inaction — but it is vastly more vulnerable than it would be if were not corrupt, and its corruption increases every year. Certainly, it would be depressing to see support for such a government remaining strong. We kindle hope in patriots by as simple a thing as reminding them of the recent election results, which show the great withdrawal of support from the government: results which show them that fewer than a quarter of the eligible voters voted for Clinton and his government.

It is important to continue emphasizing these things, because the controlled media deliberately create the false image of great popular support for Clinton and the government. They deliberately create the impression that what is happening is inevitable and unstoppable. The media spokesmen show us great crowds of smiling faces: everyone is happy, they tell us, because we have more minorities than ever before, more feminists, more proud homosexuals, more equality, more “diversity.” Sure, we have a few little problems, the media tell us, but people generally are happy with the way things are going, and if those awful patriots, those awful extremists and dissidents would just keep quiet, everything would be wonderful.

I believe that it’s important to contradict this lie with the facts, with the real numbers, so that people can have hope, so that they can see that the evil forces destroying our country and our people are not as strong, do not have as much support, as the controlled media would have us believe — and that the support they do have is declining. For most people, though, real hope will come not just from realizing that our enemies aren’t quite as strong as we’d thought they were: it will come more from having a realistic goal before their eyes instead of a hopeless goal. When they look at the mess our enemies have made of America and they try to figure out how to straighten it out, of course that seems hopeless to them. Imagine that you are a doctor, and you have two hospital beds before you. In one bed is an old man of mixed race whose health has been ruined from a lifetime of depraved living, an old man riddled with AIDS and a dozen other incurable and infectious diseases. In the other bed is a healthy White infant. You should not waste your time working to make the old man healthy again by trying to undo what cannot be undone. The thing to do is pull the plug on his lifesupport system before his disease has a chance to sicken the healthy White infant in the other bed, and then to devote all of your energy and skill and resources to ensuring that the infant stays healthy, that he doesn’t grow up to lead a life like the old man did and fall prey to the same diseases. That can be done. That is something which is possible.

Now, the choice facing the ordinary American of good will today is not quite that simple, but there are strong similarities. What we need to do is stop worrying about undoing the awful, mixed-up mess our enemies have made. Instead let’s let the process of self-destruction proceed as quickly as it will, so that it is finished before it has infected the lives of all of our people. We can’t stop it anyway. I mean, what can you do with a city like New York or Washington, except try to keep it from spreading, by whatever means are necessary? What can you do with a political system like the one in Washington, except encourage it to even further excess? Let’s not waste our time and energy trying to undo what cannot be undone. Let’s pull the plug and focus all of our efforts on salvaging what is still healthy and then ensuring that it stays healthy. That can be done. That is something which is possible.

Let the fire which is coming take care of New York and Washington. Let’s try to show as many healthy people as we can how to keep from becoming infected, and then how to avoid being burned when the fire comes. Let’s show them how to avoid becoming discouraged by enemy propaganda. While the controlled media gloat over the rising rate of racial intermarriage and over the rising number of White families adopting Black children and over the darkening of America from the non-White immigration flood, let us keep pointing out to people the numbers that show the declining level of support for this rotten system. While the enemy rejoices over the new destruction he is accomplishing, let us rejoice over the new people whose eyes are being opened by this destruction, and let us reach out to these people.

Let us realize that we cannot save everything. We cannot save what has become sick and corrupted. But we can save many of those who are still healthy and who are repelled by the sickness. Let us do a better and better job of that, because in that is our hope for the future.

Actually, it’s not quite that simple. Politically Correct people do not discriminate between Black and White, between male and female, between homosexual and heterosexual, between crippled and healthy, and a number of other things: the list of categories which are not subject to discrimination seems to grow a bit every year. But Politically Correct people are permitted to be discriminating about some things. They discriminate between “good” people and “bad” people, for example. “Good” people are Politically Correct people. “Bad” people are people who are still discriminating about things which it is no longer Politically Correct to be discriminating about. Actually, the situation eventually will become much simpler, if the trend of the last 20 years or so continues for a few more years. Eventually everyone will be Politically Correct, and no form of discrimination at all will be tolerated. Already we can see broad, new categories developing which will not be subject to discrimination a few years from now. Consider, for example, the difference between bright people and not-so-bright people, or between capable people and not-so-capable people, or between industrious people and lazy people. For years the forces of Political Correctness have been waging a campaign in our schools and universities to eliminate such discrimination. They have been arguing that intelligence cannot really be measured and that IQ tests and other tests of intelligence or aptitude should be done away with.

Now, part of the reason they don’t want anyone to discriminate on the basis of intelligence is tied to their objections to discriminating between Blacks and Whites. But it goes further than that. They really are opposed to making any sort of distinctions between people based on ability: either natural ability or acquired ability. They want to do away with grades in school courses and with examinations. Giving grades makes those who don’t get “A”s feel bad, they complain. And, really, they say, all such distinctions are meaningless, because everyone is born with the same abilities, and if some of us don’t do as well in our school work as others, it’s only because we didn’t get the right kind of potty training or something of the sort. Right? You know, if I’d talked like this ten years ago about discrimination based on intelligence, you would have thought I was going overboard. You would have thought I was being unfair to accuse people who were against discrimination on the basis of race also of being against discrimination on the basis of ability. You would have thought that being against racial discrimination is one thing, but being against discrimination based on ability is something quite different. If we couldn’t discriminate on the basis of ability, our country couldn’t survive; we’d sink back into savagery, you would have thought. And you would have been right about that last part.

And actually, the reason we are sinking back into savagery, the reason our country already has been half destroyed, is largely because we stopped discriminating on the basis of race and sex and sexual orientation and a number of other things some time ago. And now the campaign to stop discrimination on the basis of ability has gained enough ground that you realize I’m not exaggerating when I talk about it. If you examine your own feelings, I’ll bet that you’ll find that the media brainwashing campaign against ability discrimination already has had an effect on you. I’ll bet that if you are a teacher you will feel a little squeamish about opposing those who want to do away with grading. You’ll flinch at the thought of the torrent of hatred and abuse you know the anti-discrimination types will pour on you. I’ll bet that if you are the personnel director for a company, you’ll be hesitant to initiate a program of intelligence testing for new job applicants. I mean, after all, doesn’t it seem somehow . . . not quite democratic . . . to make distinctions based on ability or intelligence? Isn’t that a little like racism?

You wouldn’t have believed me if I’d told you ten years ago that the people opposed to the concept of racial discrimination also would oppose the concept of physical beauty. You’d have thought me crazy if I’d told you that the racial equality people eventually would be arguing that it’s not fair to judge people on the basis of physical appearance or to deem some people as better looking than others. You would have thought me completely out of touch with reality if I’d told you that beauty contests soon would become Politically Incorrect.

And when the feminists really began to get noisy with their demands for “equality” 20 or 30 years ago, I’ll bet you didn’t believe that the government and the media ever would go so far as to force military academies to accept women as cadets and integrate women into our armed forces right alongside the men, subjecting them to rape by Black drill instructors. And I’ll bet some of you slow learners out there still don’t believe that the government will be sending women into combat within the next three or four years.

One can see the same sort of progression in the matter of discrimination between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Ten years ago the anti-discrimination people offered a carefully limited view of what they wanted to achieve in ending discrimination involving homosexuals. They just wanted to get rid of the laws making homosexual activity illegal, they said. They just wanted homosexuals to be able to have their gay bars and their gay bath houses and to be able to kiss and fondle each other in public without being harassed by the police. Then, after that, they wanted laws making it illegal to refuse to hire a homosexual or to refuse to rent an apartment to a homosexual couple. A little later they wanted the armed forces to scrap their rule against homosexuals in military service. And now they are demanding a total lack of discrimination between homosexuals and heterosexuals — and also an end to discrimination between homosexuality and heterosexuality as paradigms, as models for life. Now the Politically Correct position is that homosexuality is just as natural and acceptable an orientation and lifestyle as heterosexuality, and that we should not distinguish in any way between the two.

And it wasn’t too long ago that the anti-discrimination people began pushing their program for equalizing women and men in sports and athletic activity. At first the demands were only for giving women whatever men had: if a school had a men’s football team, then it had to have a women’s football team also, with all of the same facilities; just having a women’s volleyball team wasn’t good enough. Then women journalists had to have access to the locker rooms of male athletes, just the way male journalists did. And now, in Texas, we’re seeing the next phase of the program, with the demand that we pretend that there’s no difference at all between men and women, and so we must sexually integrate wrestling matches: we must let the girls wrestle the boys.

Now, there are several lessons for us in all of this craziness. First, it’s easy to see that this compulsion to be undiscriminating is a progressive disease: it doesn’t stop at any point; it just gets worse and worse. It starts off as a mildly wacky denial of reality and progresses to total insanity.

Second, it is a disease to which most normal, otherwise sane people are susceptible. They don’t ordinarily develop the disease by themselves, but it can be induced in them by a sufficiently skillful and prolonged brainwashing campaign. What I’m saying is that ordinary, reasonable people can be made to believe the most extraordinary and unreasonable things, if they are subjected to prolonged brainwashing. Of course, it must be done in stages. If you want to convince a group of people that all-male wrestling matches ought to be made illegal, because they discriminate between men and women, you don’t start out with that proposition. If you do, you’ll be laughed out of town: or better yet, ridden out of town on a rail after being tarred and feathered. You start by persuading the people that it’s not fair for schools to spend more money on athletic programs for boys than on athletic programs for girls. After you’ve done that, you persuade them that equally funded but separate athletic programs for boys and girls are inherently unfair to girls, that the programs ought to be integrated. And so on. You get the picture.

And if you want to persuade a whole race that it is unfair and unreasonable for it to use its schools and its universities to pass on its traditions and its history and its myths to the next generation of the race — if you want to persuade them that it would be wrong to teach young people that their history is more important or relevant than the history of the Tutsis or the Zulus or the Hottentots, and so the schools either should teach no history or they should devote equal time and emphasis to the traditions, history, and myths of every race — you don’t start out with that proposition. You gradually work up to that over a period of 20 years or so, taking the people one step at a time.

And, of course, if you want to persuade a nation’s people of something that really goes against their grain, something that is completely at odds with reality and contrary to common sense — for example, that there’s no difference between Blacks and Whites except skin color — you really need to have a powerful brainwashing tool at your disposal: something like television, say. But if you and your fellow brainwashers own Hollywood and constitute the most powerful single group in the radio and television business and besides that own the three or four biggest and most influential newspapers in the country, and if you are willing to spend 20 or 30 years at it, you can convince people of just about anything, no matter how absurd or outrageous. You can even convince them that discrimination, instead of being a faculty necessary for human survival and progress and the maintenance of a civilization is an evil thing and ought not to be used at all. It’s possible to do this, because most people desperately want to be like other people. They want other people to think well of them, to approve of them. They want to behave in a way they believe is expected of them. This need to conform is so strong in most people that it can override reason. It is a much older and more primitive, more deeply rooted faculty than reason. This need to conform, this need to believe whatever you think other people believe, is what lies behind the social phenomenon known as “fashion.” It is what causes everybody to hum the same popular ditty at the same time, and then to forget it at the same time. It is what makes so many children want exactly the same type of toy, a Tickle Me Elmo or whatever, at the same time. It is what made people cheer the burning of witches 300 years ago. It is what makes people today parrot the idiotic notion that more racial and cultural diversity in a community leads to greater strength.

Now, this need to conform that most people have is not a bad thing in itself. In fact, it is a necessary social trait. Just as the ability to discriminate leads to progress, the need to conform leads to social cohesion and stability. It poses a great danger to us now, however, because the development of the mass media during this century and the concentration of the control of the mass media in the hands of a small, tightly cohesive, alien group makes it possible for this alien minority to manipulate people, to manipulate their beliefs, in destructive ways.

The Jews who dominate the mass media understand the dynamics of manipulating public opinion. The brainwashers understand that they don’t have to convince people that something is right or good; in fact, they don’t even try. They just convince people that other people believe it is right or good. They convince people that a new idea is becoming fashionable, and that in itself is enough to make the new idea actually become fashionable, if the campaign is kept up. Thus, for example, if the aim is to persuade White Americans that the government should not try to halt illegal immigration — that it would be bad to do anything really effective to halt illegal immigration, such as telling our Border Patrol to shoot anyone seen trying to cross our border illegally — the brainwashers don’t actually argue the pros and cons of illegal immigration. Instead they’ll insinuate the idea into people’s minds that other people don’t approve of using strong measures against illegal immigrants. For instance, they’ll focus news coverage on a case where the police chase and catch a truck full of illegal immigrants and are a little rough in arresting them. And then they’ll have some politician say that the police were too rough. And then they’ll report that the police have been reprimanded by their superiors. And thus the idea will be formed in the public mind that the behavior of the police is disapproved by many people. And then they’ll use another incident in a similar way. And then another and another and another. And gradually they will build up the idea in the public mind that most people disapprove of getting tough with illegal immigrants. And so, in order to conform to this artificially manufactured perception, they themselves will disapprove of getting tough with illegal immigrants.

So if you’re a person who still has a little contact with reality and you believe that it’s crazy to force high school wrestling teams to be sexually integrated, you can understand now that the right thing for you to do is not waste your time arguing that it’s not good for boys and girls to fight against each other on the wrestling mat. The right thing to do is help me to continue building alternative media for reaching the public. We cannot win the struggle to save our civilization and our people from the craziness that is overtaking us until we regain control of our mass media. We must take them out of the hands of the Jews and return them to our own people. And a step on the way to doing that is to support this program, to tell your friends about it, to send donations, and to do everything else you can to help us reach more people.

All of this happened back in July, and at first I had no plans to say anything about it. After all, it’s the sort of thing that happens all the time in this wonderful, multicultural America we live in. Everyone understands that and accepts it, so it didn’t seem like a very promising topic. In fact, I was surprised by the amount of media coverage the crime received. It was nowhere near as much coverage as there would have been if a group of Whites had attacked three young Blacks, of course, but still it was much more coverage than these Black-on-White racial crimes ordinarily receive from the controlled media. I think what caught the attention of the media in this case was the fact that there were three victims. Just one White girl being gang-raped or one White boy being murdered would have received only momentary and strictly local notice.

More than that, though, was the way in which the crime happened: it’s the sort of thing which most White Americans — certainly those who live in large cities and drive to work every day — have nightmares about: accidentally taking the wrong freeway exit while coming home at night and ending up in a Black neighborhood. That nightmare scene was the key element in Tom Wolfe’s best-selling novel, Bonfire of the Vanities.

I had no plans to comment on this racial crime until someone sent me an account of it from the July 21 issue of Time magazine. The first thing that caught my attention in this Time article was the headline. It said: “. . . three white teens are allegedly assaulted by a group of Black youths.” “Allegedly.” I think it is reasonable to use that word in talking about a specific suspect who, prior to his trial and conviction, is only “alleged” to be guilty. In the case at hand, however, therewas no question at all that an assault had taken place. There were three White teenagers with bullets in their heads, one of them dead and one of them raped, and the shooting and raping had taken place in an all-Black area. There was no question at all about the race of their assailants. The use of the word “allegedly” in the Time story clearly was an indication of unwillingness toaccept the Politically Incorrect facts of the Black-on-White assault, and it set the tone for the whole article.

Suppose the attackers had been White and the victims Black. Do you believe that Time would have used the word “allegedly”? Other things in the Time story also caught my attention. The three White victims are in several ways typical of the worst elements of White society today. They are the type who wear baseball caps backward with baggy shorts and hang around shopping malls with nothing useful to do except swap cards with photos of Black basketball players. Everything they know they have learned from watching television: mostly MTV. And their parents seem to be no better. Their parents certainly did nothing to prepare them for life in multicultural America. The kids had no idea of the danger they were in when they got off the train in a Black neighborhood. Their Politically Correct parents had never warned them.

The most sickening part of the Time story is the revelation that the mother of the murdered White boy has two other children — by two Black fathers. Time considers this ironic: that this good woman, who has tried so hard to be a true multiculturalist, a true Clintonista, and has kept her son free of any sense of his Whiteness, has lost him to a group of misguided Black youths. I’m reminded of Nicole Brown Simpson, whose parents never warned her either about Blacks — who, in fact, seem to be proud that they raised her without any sense of racial identity. If only all of the White victims of Black savagery who are raped and murdered in this country every year could be those who are lost to our race anyway!

Unfortunately, that’s not the case. It is depressing contemplating the situation of White Americans today. And it doesn’t do any good to rage at their lack of courage or their lack of understanding or even to promise ourselves that when the revolution comes we’ll roast everyone connected with Time magazine over a bonfire. We’ll never have a chance to build that bonfire and roast any of the deceivers and betrayers of our people unless we are able to help White Americans improve their situation first. And I’ve always believed that knowing the truth, knowing the facts, is the way for anyone to begin improving his situation. So let’s look at some facts: some racial facts.

And let’s not begin in some backwoodsy backwater like Flint, Michigan, but instead in the national showplace of Clintonism and multiculturalism, the world center of diversity and affirmative action: Washington, DC. I’ve never been to Flint, but I lived in Washington for 18 years. I still have the stench of the place in my nostrils. Washington is 70 per cent Black. Some of its inhabitants like to refer to it as “Chocolate City.” Some Whites in the suburbs call it “Zoo City.” One of the reasons there are so many Blacks in Washington is that it is ground zero for equality and the New World Order. It is a good city for them, with lots of gravy and chitlins. In the first place the Federal government subsidizes the operation of the city to the tune of about a million dollars a day, because it can’t afford to let the nation’s capital sink back into the jungle and begin looking like Kinshasa or Port-au-Prince. In other words, we taxpayers around the country are paying for the upkeep of the place. The Washington city government is almost entirely Black, with a Black school officials, a Black mayor, and so on. The city’s schools are staffed with Black teachers and Black principals: all sorts of role models for young Blacks. Furthermore, the Federal government, which is by far the largest employer in the area, is heavily overloaded with Black employees. There’s an abundance of undemanding jobs with high salaries and lots of benefits. And on top of that the welfare is good in Washington. Handouts are easily available for everyone, because the government doesn’t want people sleeping in empty shipping cartons on the sidewalk in front of the White House. Makes a bad impression on foreign tourists.

So anyway, with all of this benevolence and special attention from the Great White Father, maybe you’d expect our colored brothers in Washington to be on their best behavior. Maybe you’d be expecting them to want to prove to the world that they really are our equals. Well, the truth of the matter is that they behave in Washington about the same way they behave in Flint — or in Kinshasa and Port-au-Prince. Fifty per cent of the Black males in the District of Columbia between the ages of 18 and 35 are currently entangled in the criminal justice system. That is, they are in jail, they are out on bond awaiting trial on criminal charges, there is an arrest warrant out for them and the police are trying to find them, or they are on parole or probation after being convicted of a criminal offense. Fifty per cent. One out of every two.

And that does not include those who were formerly entangled in the criminal justice system: that is, those who already have served their sentences for a criminal offense and no longer are on probation — like the mayor, Marion Barry, for example, who was convicted on a crack cocaine charge and finished serving his time several years ago. The fifty per cent figure I just gave you came from a study of the crime problem in Washington which was published in the Washington Post on August 26, 1997.

I don’t have an exact figure for those who, like the mayor, are former offenders without current charges against them. It is reasonable to say, though, that most of the Black males between the ages of 18 and 35 you will meet on the streets of Washington, DC, are felons, with either current charges against them or previous criminal records. You wander into the wrong neighborhood in Washington — which is just about any neighborhood outside of the heavily policed government area or the White area in the northwestern part of the city — and you’re likely to end up like those clueless White teenagers in Michigan, whose parents never warned them that Blacks really aren’t the same as Whites.

Most of the White people who must spend any amount of time in Washington — and those are mostly White employees of the Federal government — aren’t clueless. They warn each other about the reality of living and working in Washington. Of course, the warnings are usually given in a sneaky sort of way, without actually talking about race. Code words are used, because the Whites in Washington are at least as Politically Correct as Whites in the rest of the country. They feel obliged to maintain the pretense that they believe in equality, that they believe Blacks are no more dangerous or inclined to criminal behavior than anyone else. They want you to know that they believe that if a neighborhood is dangerous, it is only because of poverty. It certainly has nothing to do with race. Crime is an economic problem, not a racial problem, they will tell you. They feel obliged to maintain this pretense, but they also want to stay alive. So they use code words and code phrases to warn each other. And then every once in a while the truth actually will slip out in one of the principal organs of Political Correctness, such as the Washington Post.

There are other clues as to the fundamental and profound differences between Blacks and Whites besides the vastly greater criminality of Blacks. There are the innate differences in intelligence, in problem-solving ability. I’ve talked about these intellectual differences on other programs. Again, like criminality, the difference in intelligence is something which is widely recognized by knowledgeable Whites, but very rarely talked about, because it is Politically Incorrect to do so. Occupational patterns provide another clue. Originally, nearly all of the Blacks in America were engaged in agricultural work — by necessity rather than choice, of course. They were plantation slaves. After the abolition of slavery, most Blacks initially remained in agricultural work, some as sharecroppers and some with small farms. In any event, the percentage of Blacks engaged in farm work was higher than the percentage of Whites in farm work. Over the past 130 years, however, that situation has changed radically. The change has been especially rapid since the Second World War, but it really began when government welfare programs became generally available. Blacks left the land and moved to the cities in far larger numbers than Whites. Today Blacks constitute 13 per cent of the overall population of the United States, but less than one per cent of the farmers. Less than one per cent!

Both Whites and Blacks have been moving from farms to cities since the Civil War, but proportionately Blacks have flocked to the cities much more than Whites. Why is that? Can it be blamed on White racism? Or does it have something to do with the demands on farmers in general, demands inherent in the nature of the work? I mean, how much crack cocaine can you smoke and still get the crops planted and harvested on time?

I’m certain that if Time magazine ever does an article on the disappearance of Black farmers in the United States they’ll blame it on White racism. And I must admit, I haven’t spent a lot of time trying to analyze this particular problem myself. I’ve just been struck by the statistic itself — fewer than one percent of the farmers in the United States are Black — without undertaking a big research project to discover why that is so. To me it’s just another clue that Blacks and Whites really are different. The statistics on the race of farmers in the United States, by the way, are available from the Department of Agriculture in Washington. If there’s one thing our government knows how to do, it is collect statistics: employment statistics as well as crime statistics. White people ought to pay more attention to these statistics — to these racial facts — and less attention to the people at Time magazine and elsewhere who try to persuade us that these statistics don’t mean anything, because we’re really all the same, all equal. Time would have us believe that we ought not to warn our children to stay away from Blacks and not wander around Black neighborhoods. Time would have us believe that Nicole Brown’s parents raised her correctly when they let her date Black football players as a teenager. Time would have us believe that the mother of the 14-year-old White boy who was murdered in Flint has behaved admirably by having two mongrel children by Black fathers, in addition to her now dead White child. That sort of behavior provides the diverse, multicultural home environment that we all need in order to grow up without racial bias, Time hints.

Sometimes I am as angry at these Politically Correct White parents, who send their children out into this jungle world we live in without any of the knowledge they need in order to survive — as I am at the people at Time magazine who set the ideological tone for the parents. The difference is that the people who own Time magazine and MTV and the New York Times and the Washington Post and the rest of the fashion-setting media, spread their poison deliberately, with malice aforethought. They are mostly Jews, working in concert. Their aim is the total moral disarmament of White Americans. They want to make it impossible for us to defend ourselves racially. There is no question about what needs to be done about them.

I try to be more understanding with the fashion-conscious White parents who follow the Jewish media line. After all, most of our people are born with an innate need to be fashionable and without the sense of discrimination to be able to distinguish healthy fashions from unhealthy fashions. It is not bad that people feel a need to be fashionable. It is a part of the feminine spiritthat we are born with. What is unfortunate is that in this era that feminine spirit is not balanced by a masculine spirit which discriminates between what is healthy and what is unhealthy, between what is beneficial to our people and what is hostile. In this era the feminine spirit is ascendant, and it is a spirit which tells us not to resist those who want to destroy us. It is a spirit which in the case of racial conflict tells us to yield, to surrender, to roll over on our backs and bare our throats to our enemies in the hope that they will spare us.

The fashionable, feminine line that these parents have learned from the Jewish media is that we are living in a world which is becoming increasingly less White, that soon White people will be a minority even in the United States, and that instead of doing whatever is necessary to reverse that situation and remain masters in our own land we should try to accommodate ourselves to it; we should try to ingratiate ourselves with non-Whites in the hope that they will tolerate us. Some of these feminized, fashion-conscious parents go so far as to welcome miscegenation: if we are willing to interbreed with the descendants of our slaves, these parents think, then surely they will forgive us for our Whiteness and let us live. And so they fill the minds of their own children with these poisonous ideas and then send them out into the jungle, the way Nicole Brown Simpson’s parents did and the way the parents of those three White children in Michigan did. I try not to be angry at fools and instead to save my anger for those who are consciously evil. In the long run foolishness will be its own punishment, but in the meantime it also will take a lot of innocent young people down with it.

I should confess right now that I have an essentially bottomless contempt and loathing for Mr. Clinton. I believe that he should be given a speedy trial and then publicly hanged for treason. It is a disgrace to every citizen of our republic that we are governed by a system which permits men like Clinton to hold any sort of public office. I’d as soon see O.J. Simpson in the White House as Bill Clinton.

Clinton is a man who during the Vietnam war counted as his personal friends people who were doing everything they could to aid the Communist enemies of America. He partied and smoked dope with these people while the Communists were killing 58,000 American soldiers. He collaborated with the same people after the war. One of his closest advisers during and after the 1992 presidential election was David Ifshin, a Jewish friend from the Vietnam war days who went to Hanoi and made radio broadcasts for the Communists, urging American soldiers to turn their guns against their own officers. Ifshin was frequently invited to the White House by Clinton and was consulted on matters involving Jewish political support.

Back in Arkansas, before he came to Washington, Clinton partied with and accepted money from drug dealers and other common criminals. Clinton’s own brother is a convicted drug dealer who used to run his drug business right out of the governor’s mansion in Little Rock when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. While he was governor Clinton used his office to extort sexual favors from female state employees. He used state police officers as procurers. Clinton is the sort of man who 100 years ago would have been publicly horsewhipped, tarred and feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail if he weren’t hanged. We simply didn’t tolerate his sort of filth. He is a scoundrel, a cad, a reprobate, a louse, a dastard, a wretch, a poltroon, a lowlife, a degenerate, and a barefaced liar, as well as a traitor to his country.

And what do the voters have as an alternative to this charming piece of filth with the boyish smile? Why, they have Bob Dole! Now, Mr. Dole has quite a different personality from Mr. Clinton. Mr. Dole never dodged the draft or demonstrated on behalf of the Viet Cong, palled around with drug dealers, or sent aides on the government payroll out to scout up whores for him. Does that mean that he would make a better President than Clinton?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. The reason is that, despite all their differences in personality, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Dole have one very important thing in common: they both have based their whole political careers on subservience to Jewish interests.

With Clinton this catering to the Jews is especially obvious, because he is in the media spotlight. Clinton has appointed a higher percentage of Jews to important positions in his administration than any other American President, including even Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. Clinton has put a Jew in charge of our Treasury Department, a Jew in charge of our Agriculture Department, a Jew in charge of our Commerce Department, a Jew in charge of our Labor Department. He has put our Central Intelligence Agency entirely in the hands of Jews, with Jews in the top three CIA positions. He is the only President who has ever put two Jews on the ninejudge Supreme Court. And he has appointed literally hundreds of Jews to less visible but still very influential positions in his administration. He has appointed Jews to high public office at a rate more than ten times their percentage in the U.S. population.

Clinton has made all of these Jewish appointments because he, like every other politician in Washington, understands that no one can be elected President if the Jews, with their control of the media, oppose him. However, most politicians, despite their understanding of Jewish media power, exercise some degree of restraint in licking the Jews’ feet. They would be embarrassed to overdo it. But not Bill Clinton. He is so accustomed to being a crook and getting away with it just by flashing his smile that he has lost all sense of shame and all caution. He is a man who will do anything to advance his political career, because he is convinced that he can get away with anything.

Should that be surprising in a man who dodged the draft and supported the Viet Cong in the 1960s and 1970s and now pretends to be a patriot who is defending America from Saddam Hussein? Should it be surprising in a man who was immersed in the drug culture while he was working his way up in Arkansas politics, taking big donations from drug racketeers, and now claims to be fighting an all-out war against drugs? Should it be surprising in a man whose friends, family members, and former business associates have been convicted of felonies in record numbers: a man, in other words, who has associated with felons throughout his career, and who now claims to be seriously concerned about America’s crime problem?

Now, Bob Dole, on the other hand, is not the sort who believes that he can steal your wallet, seduce your daughter or your wife, and blow marijuana smoke in your face — and then charm you into voting for him anyway. Bob Dole knows that he couldn’t charm his way out of a parking ticket. Bob Dole is one of the most uncharming politicians in Washington. He is dull, dull, dull. It’s embarrassing to watch him campaign and pretend to be alive. Bob Dole is a man who serves the Jews not because he’s a crook who believes that he can get away with anything, like Clinton, but because he knows that he could never hope to advance his career under his own steam. He has gained the Jews’ support by being an errand boy for them throughout his Washington career. Dole will, just like Clinton, get America involved in another war in the Middle East, if the Jews tell him to. He will no more solve America’s immigration problem than Clinton will, because he knows that the Jews don’t want it solved. He won’t move radically against crime, or drugs, or America’s declining educational standards. He won’t do anything that he’s not told to do. Clinton is the Jews’ Tweedledum, a bit to the left of what they define as the center. Dole is their Tweedledee, a bit to the right of what they define as the center.

What I’m saying, in other words, is that despite their big personality differences and despite the fact that Dole talks a more conservative line on economic and social issues than Clinton, there’s no real difference between the two men on the most important and fundamental issues, because they both take their orders from the same men behind the scenes.

But the voters don’t know that. That’s what’s really depressing. You see, the average American voter only knows what he sees on television. That’s where he learns everything he thinks he knows about politics and the world. Now, the Jews who control television certainly aren’t going to tell the voters that Clinton and Dole are both in their pockets. But they have let the voters know that Clinton is a draft dodger, that he is being sued by an Arkansas state employee he tried to force to have sex with him when he was governor of Arkansas, and that many of his friends and business associates have been sent to prison. All of that has been so noticeable that it would have been hard to keep it away from the public’s attention. And the average voter also knows that Dole is a war hero who doesn’t pal around with convicted felons or extort sex from women. So far as the public is aware, Clinton is a crook and Dole isn’t. But that doesn’t seem to help Dole. The public prefers Clinton, because he smiles more.

What does that say about democracy?
Now, to be fair, if one polls only White men, then Dole is preferred over Clinton by a few percentage points. But White women prefer Clinton, by a substantial margin, simply because he projects a friendly, boyish image — and because the media masters clearly prefer him and portray him as a more fashionable candidate than Dole. Women always want to do what is fashionable, which is why normal, decent White people aren’t able to outvote the members of the Clinton coalition– the queers and the feminists and the Jews and the moral cripples and the non-Whites — despite the fact that we outnumber them. We aren’t able to outvote them, because as long as the controlled media are able to portray their candidate as more fashionable, our women will vote for him.

That is tragic; but, as I said, it doesn’t really matter in the election that’s coming up, because both sides are controlled by the enemies of our people. What can we do about that situation? It is clear that most people prefer to do nothing. Even the majority of White men who reject Clinton for what he is still respect the system. They still respect the idea of democracy. They’re willing to be governed by a crook, a liar, a filthy degenerate, and a traitor, if that traitor can win a majority of the votes.

But I believe that the only reason most White men still respect the system enough not to rebel against it is that they don’t fully understand the situation. They don’t understand that the system has been secretly taken over by their enemies. They don’t understand the decisive influence of the controlled news and entertainment media in determining the outcome of elections. They aren’t aware that the media are, by and large, under the control of Jews. They don’t read the Jewish community publications in which the Jews crow about the fact that Dole and Kemp are just as much their men as Clinton and Gore are, and that there’s no way the Jews can lose the election, regardless of whether the Democrats or the Republicans win.

Most White men, in fact, haven’t really assimilated the publicly known facts about Bill Clinton. Sure, they’ve heard the rumors about his drug-dealing cronies back in Arkansas, but the facts haven’t really sunk in. When his brother went to prison for dealing cocaine right out of the governor’s mansion, it made the headlines for a day, but most men have forgotten that, because it didn’t stay in the headlines, and the controlled media haven’t brought it up recently. Most White men would be surprised if you reminded them of that today.

Twenty-four years ago a small group of Republican zealots burgled the offices of the Democrats in Washington’s Watergate Hotel. A couple of those Republicans had connections to the Nixon White House. If the controlled news media had treated that incident the way they treated the conviction of Clinton’s brother for selling cocaine from the governor’s mansion in Little Rock, Nixon would have served out his second term as President, and the name “Watergate” would have no special significance. On the other hand, if Clinton’s drug connections had been publicized the same way the Watergate burglary was, keeping it in the headlines and on the television screens day after day, for months, leaking out a few more titillating tidbits each week, Bill Clinton never would have gotten to the White House in 1992.

Or think about Clinton’s activities during the Vietnam war. Most White male voters have heard about that, but just like the drug dealing it hasn’t really sunk in. Remember, while 58,000 young Americans were being slaughtered by the Reds, Bill Clinton was demonstrating for those Reds. Now his apologists will tell you that was 25 years ago, and all of the trendy-lefty people on the college campuses were doing the same thing back then. We should forgive him for what he did 25 years ago and let him get on with his present job of being commander-in-chief of the military forces he refused to serve with then and whose enemies he gave aid and comfort to then.

Well, actually it’s not that simple. Bill Clinton was still entertaining his good Jewish friend and adviser, David Ifshin, in the White House as late as last year, until Ifshin became too ill from cancer to party. That’s the David Ifshin who went to Hanoi during the Vietnam war and made those radio broadcasts urging U.S. servicemen to shoot their own officers and come over to the Communist side. It’s David Ifshin’s good buddy who is now the commander-in-chief of our armed forces.

Now, even the facts of the relationship between Clinton and Ifshin aren’t a secret. When Ifshin died in April of this year there were news articles about his career buried deep inside the New York Times and other publications. But it wasn’t on television, and so 50 million Joe Sixpacks never had a clue. Even if it had been on television, they wouldn’t have gotten the message — I mean really absorbed the fact that their President was inviting a Jew to the White House who had made treasonous radio broadcasts for the Communists during the Vietnam war and deliberately tried to incite mutiny and the murder of U.S. military officers — they wouldn’t have absorbed and understood that message, unless it had been repeated every night for at least three months on prime time, Watergate style. If it had been, I am sure that the polls would show heterosexual White males against Clinton about ten to one, although his boyish smile would perhaps still win him the votes of many White women.

The Jews who control our mass media understand mass psychology and the manipulation of public opinion better than anyone else, and they know that they don’t really have to run a tight conspiracy in order to maintain their grip on the American political process. They don’t have to keep all of their shenanigans a secret. All they have to do is control most of what the boobs see and hear. And, of course, make sure that both candidates are in their pockets, so that it really doesn’t matter too much which way the boobs vote. The Jewish media bosses would rather have Clinton than Dole, because Clinton serves them willingly, while Dole serves them because he has to, but it doesn’t really matter a great deal to them. It’s one of those “heads they win, tails welose” propositions.

Anyway, as I said, all of this hasn’t really sunk in, even among that half of the White males who despise Clinton. If it had sunk in (or, I should say, when it finally does sink in) then they’ll be ready to do something about the system itself. They’ll be ready to clean out all the filth, and not just the figurehead at the top.

Now, I know that there are pessimists who believe that the average White male never will understand what’s going on, never will wake up, never will raise a hand against the system, because he’s too stupid, too selfish, too cowardly — and all too often just as much a slave to fashion as the women.

But I am an optimist. I know that more people are awake today than ever before, and I know that more people are waking up every day. I get letters from them. And I see what’s happening to the society around me. I can see the growing rottenness, the growing corruption in every phase of our lives: the divorce statistics, the abortion statistics, the suicide statistics, the drug and alcohol abuse statistics. I can see it on the streets of our cities. I can see it in the sort of television people watch. Things are falling apart. The center isn’t holding.

Other people see this too. Even if they don’t study the statistics, they can feel what’s happening. Our civilization is dying. Our culture is being killed. Honor, morality, nobility: those are all things of the past now. What we have now is Jewish democracy, Jewish equality, Jewish diversity and multiculturalism, Jewish crookedness and deceit and degeneracy in every aspect of our lives.

And people think about the future their children will face in this increasingly Jewish world. And even though they haven’t yet figured out who’s responsible for what’s happening, who’s pulling the strings, who’s controlling the politicians and the system, rage is beginning to build in them, rage against whoever has destroyed their children’s future, rage against anyone who has collaborated with the destroyers, rage against the system which has implemented the destruction. That rage will continue to grow, because the process of destruction will continue. It will grow until it overcomes timidity. It will grow until it overcomes selfishness. It will grow until it no longer can be restrained, until no amount of television brainwashing can keep it under control. Our job is only to provide some understanding, to provide some direction.

Actually, there also are many left-wing nuts who believe in conspiracies. Ever since the Oklahoma City bombing last April, the trendy liberals and leftists have been insisting that Timothy McVeigh couldn’t have done it with just one or two buddies. It had to have been the result of a giant conspiracy, involving all of the people and groups that the leftists hate and fear. The right-wing conspiracy mongers believe that the government itself bombed the Federal building, in order to provide a pretext for cracking down on right wingers. And the left-wing conspiracy mongers believe that everyone to the right of Jimmy Carter was involved in the bombing. They don’t buy the story that Timothy McVeigh did it simply because he was enraged at a government headed by a criminal like Bill Clinton which would murder its own citizens wholesale, the way the Clinton government did at Waco. They don’t buy that story, because they can’t imagine anyone not loving Bill Clinton. How could anyone be enraged at our wonderful government, which has promoted all of the Politically Correct policies, from affirmative action to special rights for homosexuals to open borders? Certainly, no one could hold the Waco massacre against the government. Why, those people the government slaughtered at Waco were just a bunch of crazy Christian fundamentalists, just a religious cult!

It’s a good thing the government got rid of them. No, the Oklahoma City bombing had to have been a giant conspiracy, involving White supremacists, anti-abortionists, the military-industrial complex, male chauvinist pigs – and all the rest of the people the lefties have been taught to hate. Sounds pretty nutty, doesn’t it? That’s why I hesitate to talk about conspiracies. I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy nut. But, you know, in the real world there are conspiracies. Not as many conspiracies as the conspiracy nuts believe there are, but still there are some. There was a conspiracy a little over 2,000 years ago by Roman republicans and traditionalists to assassinate Julius Caesar, because they saw him as a threat to freedom. Shortly after that, there was a conspiracy by Jewish leaders in Palestine to have Jesus of Nazareth crucified as a heretic and a troublemaker. Today there are conspiracies to fix prices, where the executives of a number of companies will get together and make a secret agreement not to undersell each other. There are conspiracies to cover up criminal activity by committing perjury, as occurred in the Watergate cover-up of the 1970s, in which a number of high government officials, including the President of the United States, were involved.

And there is a conspiracy now to deprive the American people of their most fundamental right: a conspiracy to deprive them of their right to say or write or preach whatever they believe. I’ll say that again, because I want it to sink in: there are many people in the United States, some of the wealthiest and most powerful people, including many in the highest government offices, who today are engaged in a criminal conspiracy to deprive you and me, and our children and our grandchildren, of our right of free speech, a right for which our forefathers fought and bled and died.

I’m not using the term conspiracy loosely here. I don’t mean merely that there are trendy people who believe that the First Amendment was meant to protect only Politically Correct speech. I don’t mean merely that there are people who hate you and me and wish that they could shut us up. It’s not against the law for Politically Correct people to hate us. It’s not against the law for someone to want to shut someone else up. But it is against the law for a group of people to get together and secretly make a plan to shut us up by depriving us of our Constitutional rights and then to begin carrying out that plan step by step. That’s a criminal conspiracy, a conspiracy for which people can be arrested and sent to prison for many years. And I’m telling you that there is a criminal conspiracy involving many rich and powerful people, a criminal conspiracy in progress now to deprive us of our freedom of speech.

Now let’s get down to the concrete facts of this criminal conspiracy. Ever since American Dissident Voices, went on the air four years ago, there has been a concerted, conspiratorial effort to silence us, to keep us off the air. Jewish groups have contacted one radio station owner after another and tried to persuade him to cancel his contract with us. When persuasion didn’t work, they used threats. Some station owners have been threatened with arson or bombings. But most have simply been warned that they will be boycotted by all the advertisers the Jews are able to influence if they continue to broadcast American Dissident Voices. The Jews approached the owner of station WWVA, in Wheeling, West Virginia, more than a year ago and persuaded him to stop carrying our program. They approached the owner of station KAAY, in Little Rock, Arkansas, recently and persuaded him to stop carrying our program. During the past four years they intimidated many other station owners into breaking their contracts with us and dropping our program.

I know that this is so, because station owners who have not yielded to this Jewish intimidation, station owners who really believe in free speech, have told us about the pressure which has been applied to them. They have told us about delegations of Jews showing up at their offices, sometimes with an ambitious Gentile politician or a Christian clergyman in tow, and warning them to stop broadcasting our programs. We have heard this over and over again from the owners and managers of the stations in the American Dissident Voices network.

And I should add that the station owners who do cave in to this Jewish pressure usually won’t talk to us at all afterward, because they understand that by cooperating with the Jews they have themselves become criminals. Again, I’m not talking loosely here: I mean criminals in the strictly legal sense of the word. It is not illegal for a station owner to decide all by himself that he doesn’t like us and won’t carry our programs any longer. But if he yields to a Jewish demand that he drop our programs, he is becoming a party to the conspiracy to deprive us of our Constitutional rights, and he knows that he must keep his mouth shut in order to protect himself.

I’ll give you another concrete fact. Just a few weeks ago I accepted an invitation to speak before a private meeting of a patriotic organization in London – the largest patriotic organization in Britain, in fact. The day before the meeting the British Home Office, which is in charge of immigration, sent me an urgent message warning me that I should not plan on traveling to Britain, because I would not be admitted to that country. The Home Secretary, the message said, was concerned that I might cause a public disorder if I came to Britain.

Now, I have never in my life caused a public disorder anywhere. There have been times when I’ve been tempted to make a ruckus, times when I felt a disorder was justified, but I’m basically a very peaceable person, and I’ve never yielded to the temptation to make a public disorder. Furthermore, the meeting at which I was scheduled to speak was a closed, private meeting: hardly an opportunity to make a public disorder. Nevertheless, the Home Secretary in the British government – a Home Secretary who just happens to be a Jew – told me that I would not be permitted to enter Britain because I might make a public disorder.

Now it’s bad enough to be told by a Jew, an alien, a Middle Easterner, that I will not be permitted by him to enter the country of my ancestry, the country of my forefathers, for any reason at all. But, more than that, it is quite obvious that this Jewish Home Secretary was attempting to prevent me from speaking. He didn’t want to preserve public order in Britain: he wanted to silence me.

I am happy to report to you that he failed in this attempt. I managed to get into Britain, make my speech, and get out again, although not without employing certain precautions in order to avoid being intercepted by the minions of the Home Secretary. But I am not happy at all that this criminal conspiracy to keep me from speaking, to keep me from being heard by those who are interested in what I have to say, reaches all the way across the Atlantic and involves the highest officials in the present British government.

This criminal conspiracy also involves the highest officials in the United States government. Although I cannot yet prove it, I strongly suspect that the Home Secretary in Britain was in collusion with government officials in the United States when he acted against me. He did not decide all on his own that I should be prevented from speaking in Britain. He received information about me and my travel plans from his fellow Jews in the United States government – and also from non-Jewish government officials here, officials like the politically ambitious chief of our secret police in Washington.

There are elected officials in our government, as well as appointed bureaucrats, who have been planning and working for years to torpedo the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, just the way they have torpedoed the Second Amendment, planning and working to prevent anyone from saying or writing anything Politically Incorrect. Many of the conspirators who have been working to deprive us of our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms have not been bashful about their aim. They have formed organizations publicly stating their intent to disarm law- abiding citizens. The conspirators in the government, people like Senator Dianne Feinstein and Congressman Charles Schumer, have been quite loud in announcing their opposition to the Second Amendment. The bureaucrats in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms have been quite flagrant in their abuse of the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

But there has been much more secrecy and double-talk and deception in the campaign against the First Amendment. The same people are involved in the conspiracy against the First Amendment as are involved in the conspiracy against the Second Amendment – people like Senator Feinstein and Congressman Schumer – but they are much less open about it. At the same time that they are campaigning for new laws to limit what Americans can say and write, they are telling us that they believe in freedom of speech.

Ever since the Oklahoma City bombing in April, which the criminal conspirators against free speech have regarded as a godsend, the consistent, unvarying line of the conspirators has been that the bombing was the direct consequence of permitting Americans to say and write Politically Incorrect things. Immediately after the bombing, Mr. Clinton was on television blaming the bombing on radio programs which criticize the government, its policies, or its actions: programs
like American Dissident Voices. Since then spokesmen for the controlled media and for various Jewish groups, such as the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, have been unanimous in making the same claim. “Words have consequences,” they say. “People who attack the government with words must be held responsible for acts of violence against the government committed by others who are influenced by those words,” they say. Their message is that the only way we can be safe from terrorists is to outlaw the sort of speech which may inspire terrorist acts. We are living in increasingly
dangerous times, they say, and we must be willing to give up just a little of our freedom in order to be safer. I’m sure you’ve heard that argument a hundred times during the past few months. Is it a serious argument? We all understand, of course, that words and ideas do indeed have consequences. All around us, in every city in America, we can see the consequences of the ideas promoted by television and the other Jewish media for the past 50 years. I am quite certain that they wouldn’t welcome the suggestion that they be held responsible for what their words and their ideas have done to our society.

The conspirators don’t want to outlaw words which have dangerous consequences. They just want to outlaw words which are dangerous to them, words which expose the crimes they have committed and are committing against our people, words which reveal them for what they are. They want to continue spreading their poisonous and destructive ideas. They just want to stop us from talking about what they’re doing and from defending ourselves against them. And they know that Joe and Jill Six-pack always have been willing to give up their freedom in return for the promise of a little more security or a little more comfort. They know that they can persuade Joe and Jill that everyone will be safer if no one is permitted to criticize the government. They know that they can continue to manipulate Joe and Jill with their words if they can stop us from contradicting them and exposing them. And for most of the past 50 years they have been able to manipulate Joe and Jill and most of the rest of our people virtually without opposition, without contradiction.

I could speak out against them, but my voice was ineffective. Only a few people could hear me. The mass media were too huge and too expensive for me and my associates to use. Only the Jews and their friends could use them to reach the great masses of people. But in the past few years technological advances have begun to change this situation. First, the advent of desktop publishing made it vastly easier and less expensive to publish books, magazines, and newsletters. Then computer communications through the Internet made it even easier to reach large numbers of people with uncensored ideas. I and my associates in the National Alliance have used the strength we gained from employing these new media to begin building a bridgehead for ourselves in the older mass media, starting with radio broadcasting. In the next year or two we will be ready to move into other mass media. And the Jews cannot tolerate this. They cannot permit the truth about themselves and their policies to reach the great masses of our people. They know that even Joe and Jill Six-pack will rebel if they fully understand what has been done to them and to their world by Jewish monopoly control of the mass media.

And so, once again, the essence of my message to you today is this: the people in the media and the government, the spokesmen for all of those Jewish organizations calling for bans on what they call “hate speech,” are not just misguided individuals who believe that we all will be better off if people like me are silenced. No, they are not misguided, and they are not acting as individuals. They know exactly what they’re doing, and they are acting in collusion. They’re involved in a criminal conspiracy to deprive all of us of our rights, so that they can maintain their control over our society without opposition. The conspirators are deliberately and consciously manipulating public opinion, pushing the average voter toward giving up the First Amendment, so that no voice can be heard but the voice of the conspirators.

You know, it has been said, even by many of those who would like to silence me, that the book I wrote nearly 20 years ago, The Turner Diaries, is prophetic, that many of the things I predicted in that book are becoming reality. Now I will make another prophecy: very soon, perhaps within the next few months, certainly within the next few years, the conspirators will make a final push to write into law a ban on any speech contradicting them or exposing them. The politicians who are talking now about how much they support free speech will implement this ban for them, in order to keep their jobs. They will tell us it’s for our own good. And when this happens, it will not be by accident. It will not be that we blundered away our freedom. It will be the consequence of a deliberate, calculated, cold-blooded, criminal conspiracy by those who hate our people, hate our ways, hate everything about us, and are determined to destroy us.

And I will make one other prophecy: the conspirators will have their way – for a while. As I said, Joe and Jill Six-pack are very gullible, and they always follow the path of least resistance instead of the path of greatest advantage. They will permit their freedom to be taken away, and they will let themselves be persuaded that they are better off without it. But the victory of the conspirators will not last. It will not last, because they have waited too long to silence us. We have reached too many people with our message. Too many people of courage and commitment know about the conspirators now. Even if I am silenced, the truth will continue spreading. The rage will continue to grow. The smoldering fury will burst into flames, and the conspirators will not be able to extinguish it.

Ultimately, the conspirators will be no more successful in keeping the truth from the American people than the Jewish Home Secretary was in keeping my message out of Britain. And the day will come when the conspirators – all of them – will be held accountable for their crimes and will be punished in full measure. I not only prophesy this, I swear it, I promise it.