Der Stürmer

The official blog of the site "Der Stürmer" – http://der-stuermer.org

Category: Speeches & Lectures

Marriage and White Survival

LISTEN ON BITCHUTE!

More Men and Women Must Form Successful Families

by Dr. William Pierce

Another friend of mine recently went through a very traumatic marital breakup. The breakup was worse than most because my friend and his wife have three small children. When I took an inventory of all of the people I know, well over half of them had had at least one failed marriage. Most of the ones I know who have never had a divorce are those who are over 70. I guess that about 60 per cent of my younger friends have been divorced one or more times. And I guess that the rising national statistics on divorce agree with this personal inventory: as time goes on, it’s getting harder and harder to keep marriages together.

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 byte 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 motivesfor making peace and keeping the union together. Today the tendency is just to announce, „Idon’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.

WW2 The Bad War – Dr. David Duke and Mike King

Dr. David Duke and Historical Writer Mike King have an amazing discussion of the origins of the The Second World War. It’s called a good war. Is it really? If 60 million dead men, women children constitute a good war, pray tell what a bad one is like. Could it have been avoided? The answers and much food for thought in in this video.

How Zionists Divide and Conquer

by Dr. David Duke

This is a fresh look at why the same powerful Jews who support Israel as a “Jewish State” do everything they can to create a fractured society in nations they live in outside of Israel.

Why Zionists preach one thing for Jews and the direct opposite for Gentiles. Mass immigration, multiculturalism and diversity makes any society vulnerable to the most organized, aggressive, ethnic people on earth. Their leaders know that that their team effort gives a huge advantage over a fractured, atomized society. Diversity is a weapon.

In this video, I give direct evidence of the Zionist technique for dominating a society.

The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith

by Dr. William Pierce
10 October 1998

Last week I mentioned a recent attack on me by a Jewish organization, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. I gave this as an example of the way the Jews are able to use the mass media in America to serve their purposes. The specific point I made was that it is not necessary for all of the newspaper owners and editors and all of the local television station owners to be Jews in order for all of them to slavishly follow the Anti-Defamation League’s party line. This is a very important point, a point essential for us to understand if we want to have a free society, and I’ll elaborate on it now.

I mentioned last week that when the Anti-Defamation League – or ADL for short – handed out press releases on September 24 to newspapers and other media in which they said that the organization I head, the National Alliance, is „the single most dangerous organized hate group in America,“ and that we are „linked“ to bank robberies, bombings, and murders all over the country, virtually all of the media simply printed these wild charges without checking them for accuracy. Of all the hundreds of newspapers which printed the ADL’s charges, only one – West Virginia’s Charleston Gazette – even bothered to call me first and ask for my comments. Some of the newspapers, in paraphrasing the ADL’s press release, even managed to exaggerate the ADL’s lies. For example, the Tampa Tribune began its news story on September 25 with the line: „A domestic terrorist group with a following in Tampa poses an ongoing threat of violence, the Anti-Defamation League said in a report issued Thursday.“ The ADL’s words „most dangerous organized hate group“ have been transformed by the Tampa Tribune into „domestic terrorist group.“ That’s a significant change. „Hate group“ is an ill-defined term which you can apply to any organization with whose policies or doctrines you disagree. Groups opposed to abortion, for example, have been called „hate groups“ by feminists and their supporters. „Terrorist group,“ on the other hand, really suggests a group which actually engages in terrorist activity, such as bombings, assassinations, and the like.

Then there’s the Los Angeles Times, which in its September 25 story based on the ADL’s press release stated: „The group’s activities [that is the National Alliance’s activities] – including violent crimes such as robberies and bombings – have been uncovered in at least 26 states.“ I’ll repeat that: „the group’s activities – including violent crimes such as robberies and bombings.“ The Los Angeles Times certainly makes it sound as if I’m the head of an organization which actually commits violent crimes such as robberies and bombings as a matter of course, doesn’t it? That was the Los Angeles Times’ interpretation of the ADL’s list of „criminal incidents linked to the National Alliance and its propaganda.“ What the ADL’s list actually suggests is that the perpetrators of various bombings and murders may be „linked“ to the National Alliance by having read a book or a pamphlet published by the National Alliance or perhaps by having listened to one of my broadcasts. For example, one of the „incidents“ in the ADL’s list of „criminal incidents linked to the National Alliance“ reads: „December 1995, Fayetteville, North Carolina: Two soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg, who were avowed neo-Nazis and reportedly read National Alliance propaganda, murdered an African-American couple.“ As I pointed out last week, neither I nor anyone else in the National Alliance had ever heard of James Burmeister before he shot a convicted Black drug dealer and the dealer’s girlfriend to death in Fayetteville in December 1995. But it certainly is possible that Burmeister listened to an American Dissident Voices broadcast or read some publication of the National Alliance. There are a lot of our publications in circulation. Burmeister also may have read Reader’s Digest or the Bible or Newsweek magazine, for all I know; there’s certainly a lot of criminal activity described in those publications. Anyway, the Los Angeles Times’ interpretation of the ADL’s claim that the National Alliance is linked through its publications to various criminal acts is that we did it: we committed the criminal acts ourselves. The paper said flatly that our activities include „violent crimes such as robberies and bombings.“ And nobody from the Los Angeles Times even bothered to check with me first!

So what am I supposed to do: hire a bunch of lawyers and sue all of these newspapers and perhaps the ADL too? Perhaps I will – but I doubt that anyone who has actually been involved in a libel suit would suggest such a course. The civil litigation system in the United States has been designed for the sole purpose of enriching lawyers, and because of that the system gives an overwhelming advantage to the litigant who has the most money to spend on lawyers. Perhaps some experienced civil-litigation lawyer who believes this is a worthy cause will contact me and offer his services.

But while I’m waiting for that, let me draw a few conclusions from this nasty business. First, I’ll mention that I’m not especially peeved at the ADL about this new report labeling me as the most dangerous man in America. That doesn’t mean I won’t sue them, but at least I know where they’re coming from. The ADL is a professional hate organization. They are hate merchants. That’s the way they earn their living: selling hate. Along with a handful of other Jewish organizations – the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Morris Dees’s Southern Poverty Law Center, for example – the ADL makes its money by persuading Jews and wannabee Jews around the country that they are in great danger from people like me – but if everyone will just send them a nice, fat check today, the ADL will protect these Jews and wannabees from me. And so the ADL – and these other hate merchants – put out deliberately scary press releases to drum up donations. If the newspapers exaggerate things a bit, why so much the better. That’s why the press releases tend to be a little deceptive, why they are written in a way calculated to lead to misinterpretation.

The ADL is the oldest and most powerful of these Jewish hate groups in the United States. It was founded in 1913, after a Jewish factory owner in Atlanta, Leo Frank, was convicted of raping and killing a 14-year-old White girl, Mary Phagan, who worked in his factory. The killer was sentenced to death by the court, and there was a great deal of publicity about the case at the time. Powerful Jewish organizations came to Frank’s defense, and in behind-the-scenes maneuvering they were able to persuade Georgia’s governor to commute Frank’s death sentence. This blatantly corrupt act by the governor working in cahoots with his rich Jewish supporters so enraged the populace that a vigilante group of citizens took Frank out of jail and hanged him themselves. The Jews, realizing that they had bungled the Frank affair, organized the ADL for the purpose of handling such matters more skillfully in the future. In the past 85 years the ADL has grown to become the most powerful Jewish pressure group and lobbying organization in America.

Recent ADL lobbying projects have been the promotion of gun control laws and of state laws banning military-style training by patriotic groups. The ADL’s biggest project for this decade, however, has been so-called „hate crime“ legislation. Hate crime laws attempt to punish a person for what he was thinking before or during the commission of an offense against a member or a group of members of an officially favored minority. For example, if you set fire to a synagogue because you don’t like Jews, you’re liable for a much more severe punishment than you would be if you were hired by the rabbi to set fire to a synagogue so the congregation could collect the insurance. Arson is no longer simply arson. Now there’s arson, and there’s „hate arson.“ And to decide which it is, the government may look into your personal taste in reading material, check into the type of music you listen to, investigate your political and religious affiliations, ask your friends about any expressions of Politically Incorrect opinions you may have made – and then present all of this information in court as evidence against you. The whole concept of „hate crime“ is Orwellian. It turns traditional American concepts of law and individual freedom on their heads. But because the noisiest group of people pushing for „hate crime“ legislation are Jews, no politician dares speak against it. Bill Clinton is the Jews’ current point man on Federal „hate crime“ legislation.

One category of „hate crime“ is „hate speech.“ In fact, the outlawing of what the ADL people call „hate speech“ is their ultimate aim. „Hate speech,“ of course, is whatever they find offensive or dangerous to their interests. I find a lot of the films coming out of Hollywood these days offensive, and a lot of television programming, but you can be sure that’s not what the ADL has in mind when it campaigns for laws against „hate speech.“ The ADL is especially concerned about the propagation of what they consider dangerous ideas over the Internet and has been working with software developers to develop censorship programs which can be installed on any computer, so that computer users cannot find any Politically Incorrect material on the Internet.

Lobbying to stamp out the Bill of Rights isn’t the ADL’s only activity. They’re also the largest and most effective private espionage organization in America. They have their spies in every community in America where there are Jews or wannabees. Reports go from their regional offices around the country to massive data banks in New York and in Israel, where the ADL maintains dossiers on hundreds of thousands of Americans. For example, if a state legislator somewhere in America makes a speech which a Jewish listener considers unfriendly to Israel, a report goes into the ADL data bank. If a businessman at a Chamber of Commerce meeting makes a joke which might indicate a less-than-worshipful attitude toward Jews, and a wannabee informs the ADL of the joke, that businessman will henceforth have a dossier in the ADL’s files. Then if that state legislator or that businessman ever runs for Congress, say, the ADL will search its files for his name, find his record, and launch a campaign against him as an „enemy of Israel“ or as an „anti-Semite.“

And the ADL has not hesitated to break the law in its spying activity. In April 1993 police obtained search warrants and raided the offices of the ADL in San Francisco and Los Angeles, where they found hundreds of stolen confidential police files. Some of these police files were on anti-apartheid activists in the United States, and the ADL had passed copies on to the South African government in return for South African police files on pro-Palestinian groups in South Africa. This caused a stink even in liberal circles, which ordinarily are pro-ADL. And this business of the ADL’s stolen police files is still in the courts in California.

So as I said, I understand where the ADL is coming from. I’m not surprised that they consider my broadcasts dangerous. I’m not surprised that they want to shut me up and are trying to do that with their current smear campaign, claiming that I am „linked“ to bombings and murders. I expect that sort of behavior – I expect lies of that sort – from the ADL. What’s really disappointing is the enthusiastic collaboration the ADL receives from the politicians and the media. The two newspapers I cited a minute ago, the Tampa Tribune and the Los Angeles Times, for example, are essentially Gentile newspapers, as far as I have been able to determine. I may be mistaken, but I believe that the editors and publishers of these two newspapers are not Jews. So why do they go out of their way to exaggerate the ADL’s lies about me? Why does the Tampa Tribune call the National Alliance a „domestic terrorist group“? Why does the Los Angeles Times say that the activities of the National Alliance include „violent crimes such as robberies and bombings“? Why did neither of these newspapers contact someone in my office and ask about the ADL’s claims before printing them? Why didn’t any of the newspapers which carried the ADL’s attack on me mention the ADL’s history of illegal activity?

Let me tell you what I think about that. I believe that in general there are two factors at work here. I’ll call them the corruption factor and the lemming factor. Let’s look at the corruption factor first. It’s the factor which motivates virtually all of the non-Jewish politicians, but also many non-Jews in the media. It’s the factor which has led Bill Clinton to pack his cabinet with Jews and to promote every Jewish policy they have presented him with. It’s the factor which has led New York’s Senator Alphonse D’Amato to serve as front man for the Jews’ huge extortion effort against the Swiss. These politicians don’t work for the Jews because they love Jews. Nobody loves Jews. They do it because they’re corrupt, because they’re willing to sacrifice the interests of their own people in order to serve the Jews if they believe that they can advance their careers by doing that. And many businessmen are just as corrupt as the politicians. They will do whatever they think is good for their business, whatever will give them the biggest profit. And some businessmen are in the media business. They understand that Jews buy more advertising than any other group. They understand that Jews own a bigger chunk of the media than any other group. They understand which side their bread is buttered on.

And so when the ADL attacks me these media businessmen are ready to fall on me like a pack of starved Dobermans in order to curry favor with the Jews. But you know, the interesting thing about these corrupt people, whether they’re in politics or in the media business, as soon as they believe that the balance of power is shifting, they’ll jump. They’d as soon tear apart the Jews as they would the enemies of the Jews. That’s something to keep in mind as our struggle proceeds.

Now, the lemmings in the media are more interesting than the corrupt businessmen. I’ve dealt with a lot of media people over the years, and one of the observations I’ve made is that they are the trendiest single occupational group in our society – even trendier than people in police work. I don’t think I’ve ever met a journalist who had an original idea or who didn’t follow the Jewish party line with a truly religious devotion. They all march in ideological lockstep.

I think it wasn’t always this way. Back before the Second World War there were a few journalists in America who could think for themselves. H.L. Mencken is one who comes to mind. Nowadays, of course, the party-line journalists shrink in horror and embarrassment from the mention of Mencken’s name. Mencken – gasp! – didn’t like Jews and occasionally said so.

I can’t say that I really understand why journalists today are such lemmings, but I am sure that it’s more than the fact that Jews are so powerful in the media: I’m sure that it’s more than corruption, as in the case of the politicians and businessmen. I suspect that today’s journalists are people who have been more intensely socialized than most of the rest of the population. They are people who have been subjected to stronger group pressures to conform and have been selected according to how well they adapted to these pressures. Perhaps the journalism departments at our universities don’t accept students who don’t fit the lemming mold. Anyway, journalists certainly do have a very strong tendency to stick close to the herd and to regard with suspicion and hostility anyone who has strayed very far from the herd.

Now, this is an oversimplification, but I believe that the reason so many media people fell in love with Bill Clinton as soon as he appeared on the political scene back in 1991 or so is that they saw him as one of their crowd, their herd. „Bill marched with us for the Viet Cong,“ they thought. „Bill partied and smoked dope with us. He’s one of us.“

And they look at me and they think: „This guy Pierce is from the other side of the tracks. Instead of helping us trash the dean’s office, he joined the John Birch Society. He doesn’t belong to our crowd, so let’s trash him too.“ Anyway, I believe that there’s an element of that sort of thinking in the average journalist’s mentality.

Now, the bright side of this picture is that people who think like lemmings and have been conditioned by group pressure to have certain views can very easily be conditioned to have quite different views by the simple application of group pressure in a new direction. You won’t be able to change an independent thinker’s opinions this way, but if you put 100,000 typical journalists in a labor re-education camp and then select out 1,000 of them with leadership potential, straighten out the thinking of this 1,000 with two-by-fours, then put them in charge of the others, and put all except the 1,000 reoriented commissars on a diet of 300 calories a day, in a year every journalist in the camp will be reoriented: skinny, but sincerely reoriented. You can turn them loose with complete confidence that they’ll follow the new party line just as slavishly as they followed the old party line, even after they’ve regained their former weight. That’s the way lemmings are.

There’s one other aspect of the ADL’s operation which merits scrutiny, and that is its program of corrupting police departments around the country. At the press conferences they held in their regional offices last month when they promoted me to „most dangerous man“ they had a number of local police officials with them. The appearance of these police officials on the platform along with the ADL’s Jews tended to give the press conferences a sort of quasi-official or quasi-governmental atmosphere, and that undoubtedly encouraged the reporters present to accept the ADL’s lies without question.

Some of the police officials were there because they have political ambitions. They’re planning on running for the state legislature some day, and they want the Jews’ backing. Others were there because the ADL has assiduously been cultivating its relationships with police agencies for many years. The ADL offers „anti-terrorist“ seminars to police departments and indoctrinates policemen with its hate propaganda under the guise of teaching them how to recognize and combat „domestic terrorists“ – such as William Pierce. The ADL gets away with this despite its own record of criminal activity. The ADL has been able to persuade the cops to overlook its having been caught with stolen police files. That’s a little frightening. If we had a government with integrity, the ADL would be dangerous enough. But with a government like we have in the United States today, every decent citizen must regard with horror the subversion of our police agencies by the ADL.

Israel: The Promised Land for Organized Crime

By Dr. David Duke

WATCH ON BITCHUTE

The Feminization of America

by Dr. William Pierce

I always have been very fond of women — perhaps too much sometimes. I always have enjoyed their company greatly. I have really worshipped feminine beauty. I have admired and respected women when they have served their purpose in the life of our people, as much as I have admired and respected men who have served their purpose.

Having said this I must tell you now that I believe that a great part of the present pathology of our society can be ascribed properly to its feminization over the past century or two, to its loss of its former masculine spirit and masculine character.

This came to mind most recently when I saw and heard the reaction to Timothy McVeigh’s statement to the court on August 14, at the time he was sentenced to die. What McVeigh said was very relevant, very pertinent. He said that the government teaches its citizens by its example. When the government breaks the law, then its citizens will not respect the law.

But the spectators almost uniformly were disappointed by this statement. They complained that they wanted to hear him say that he was sorry for what he had done, that he was sorry for the innocent victims of the Oklahoma City bombing. They weren’t even interested in hearing about the much larger issue of government lawlessness that Mr. McVeigh raised. They only wanted an apology for the suffering of individual victims. This is a feminine attitude, this focusing on personal and individual feelings rather than on the larger, impersonal context. It is a feminine attitude, despite the fact that it was expressed by grown men.

Many other people besides me have come to similar conclusions, although not all of them have wanted to come right and out and say so, because that would be the height of Political Incorrectness, the height of “insensitivity.” As far back as the 1960s some perceptive commentators were remarking on the generally unmasculine character of the young men they encountered in our universities. Male university students even then tended to be too timid; too soft; too lacking in boldness, pride, and independence; too whiny in adversity; insufficiently willing to endure hardship or to challenge obstacles.

We have always had both soft, dependent men and hard, proud men in our society, but the commentators were comparing the relative numbers of masculine and non-masculine men they saw in our universities in the 1960s with what they had seen in the 1930s and 1940s. The 1960s, of course, were a time when the whinier men were making extraordinary efforts to remain in the universities in order to avoid military service, while many of the more masculine men were off in Vietnam, but this isn’t enough to account for the change these commentators noticed.

Something written by the American historian Henry Adams back in 1913 was recently called to my attention. Adams wrote “Our age has lost much of its ear for poetry, as it has its eye for color and line and its taste for war and worship, wine and women.” Now, Henry Adams was a man who had much more than a passing interest in such matters — he was a lifelong student of these things and also was a professor of history at Harvard back in the days when the professors at that university were expected to know what they were talking about — so we ought to pay some attention to his observation of the state of affairs in America in 1913. Incidentally, he was a member of one of America’s most distinguished families. He was a great grandson of the founding father and second President of the country, John Adams, and a grandson of the sixth President, John Quincy Adams.

Henry’s brother, Brooks Adams, had written a book 18 years earlier, in 1895, on the subject commented on by Henry. It was The Law of Civilization and Decay, and in it Brooks made an even more general observation than that stated later by Henry. Brooks saw two types of man: the type he described as spiritual man, typified by the farmer-warrior-poet-priest; and the type he called economic man, typified by the merchant and the bureaucrat. I believe that Brooks must have known a different breed of priests than those I am familiar with. He was thinking of Martin Luther and Giordano Bruno, not Billy Graham and John Paul II.

He saw spiritual man as having the leading role in the building of a civilization, with the economic men coming out of the woodwork and assuming the dominant role after the civilization had peaked and was in the process of decay. Spiritual men are those with vision and daring and a close connection to their roots, their spiritual sources. Economic men are those who know how to calculate the odds and evaluate an opportunity, but who have cut themselves loose from their spiritual roots and become cosmopolitans, to the extent that that offers an economic advantage. The spirit of adventure and the current of idealism run strong in spiritual men; economic men, on the other hand, are materialists. And Brooks was referring only to European men, to White men. He was not even considering the Jews or Chinese.

Most of us are a mixture of the two types, and it’s difficult to find examples of purely spiritual or purely economic men. Michelangelo and Charles Lindbergh tended toward the type of spiritual man. Pick almost any prominent politician today — Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich, say — and you have a good example of economic man. Which is not to say that all economic men are politicians, by any means: just that, since they are not likely to be distinguished in the arts, scholarship, or exploration, politics is where economic men are most likely to find fame.

So what does this have to do with the feminization of our society and the preponderance of whiny young men at our universities today? Actually, these things are very closely interrelated. They also are related to the things which caught the attention of Henry Adams: the loss of our aesthetic sense, our warrior spirit, and our feeling for what is divine, along with our masculinity.

When I say “loss,” I am using this word only in its relative sense. Our society still has masculine elements, masculine characteristics; it’s just that they are weaker now than they were 200 years ago. And 200 years ago there were some effeminate tendencies to be found; tendencies which today have become much more pronounced. It would be an error, I believe, to attribute this shift in balance solely to the machinations of feminists, homosexuals, or even Jews. They are responsible for the condition of our society today primarily in the sense that the pus in a ripe boil is to be blamed for the boil. The feminists, homosexuals and Jews characterize our society in large part today — they are symptoms of the pathology afflicting our society — but we must look deeper for the cause of our decay.

Let me repeat Henry Adams’ observation. He wrote: “Our age has lost much of its ear for poetry, as it has its eye for color and line and its taste for war and worship, wine and women.”

If he were writing today, he might note that the immortal lyrics of his contemporary, Tennyson, have given way in favor to the pretentious drivel of Maya Angelou; that the Western tradition in art, which had culminated in the 19th century in the paintings of Caspar David Friedrich and John Constable, has been shoved aside in the 20th century by the trash-art of Picasso, Chagall, and Pollock; that the profession of arms, which was still a more or less honorable profession in the 19th century, a profession in which gentlemen and even scholars still could be found, has become at the end of the 20th century a vocation for bureaucrats and lickspittles, for men without honor or spirit; that worship, once taken seriously even by many intelligent and sophisticated men, is now the business of Christian democrats, with their egalitarian social gospel, and of vulgarians of the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker stripe, with their television congregations of superstitious, amen-shouting dimwits.

Can we properly describe this change noted by Henry Adams as the feminization of our society? Or should it be thought of as the replacement of aristocratic values by democratic values, a general vulgarization of standards and tastes? Actually, these two ways of looking at the change are related. But let me take Brooks Adams’ position now and say that the change can be attributed most fundamentally to the growing materialism in our society, to the replacement of spiritual values by economic values. What does that have to do with feminism or with democracy?

Actually, a great deal. In a very broad sense, aristocratic values are masculine values, and democratic values — egalitarian values — are feminine values. It is also true that, in a very broad sense, materialism is a feminine way of looking at the world. It is a way which puts emphasis on safety, security, and comfort, and on tangible things at the expense of intangibles. It is not concerned with concepts such as honor, and very little with beauty, tradition, and roots. It is a way with a limited horizon, with the home and hearth very much in sight, but not distant frontiers. Reverence and awe for Nature’s majesty are unknown to the materialist.

As spiritual man gives way to economic man, when one historical era merges into another — as idealism gives way to materialism — society gives a freer play to the feminine spirit while it restricts the masculine spirit. Words gain over deeds; action gives way to talk. Quantity is valued over quality. All of God’s children are loved equally. Pickaninnies are considered “cute” or even “adorable.” The role of the government shifts from that of a father, who maintains an orderly and lawful environment in which men are free to strive for success as little or as much as suits them, to that of a mother, who wants to insure that all of her children will be supplied with whatever they need.

It is not just society which changes, not just government, not just public policy; individual attitudes and behavior also change. The way in which children are raised changes. Girls no longer are raised to be mothers and homemakers but rather to be self-indulgent careerists. Boys no longer are raised to be strong-willed, independent, and resourceful. That requires hardness and self-denial; it requires masculine rule during the formative years. A disciplined environment gives way to a permissive one, and so the child does not learn self-discipline. Spanking becomes a criminal offense. The child is not punished for disobedience, nor is he given the opportunity to fail and to learn from this the penalties that the real world holds for those who are not strong enough to succeed. And so boys grow up to be whiny and ineffective young men, who believe that a plausible excuse is an acceptable substitute for performance and who never can understand why the gratification they seek eludes them.

The move from masculine idealism to feminine materialism leads inevitably to hedonism, egoism, and eventually narcissism. Henry Adams also claimed that we have lost our taste for wine and women. Well, certainly not in the sense that we have become less interested in alcohol or sex. What he meant is that we have lost the keen edge of our appreciation for civilization’s refinements, for the finest and most subtle things in life: that our appetites have become grosser as they have become less disciplined. Our interest now is in alcohol for its ability to give us a momentary buzz, not in fine wine for its inherent artistry.

A similar consideration applies to the way in which our taste for women has changed. And is this not to be expected? It is the masculine spirit which appreciates woman, which appreciates feminine qualities, and as this spirit declines, our taste for women loses its edge and becomes coarser. We move from an age in which women were not only appreciated but also treasured and protected into an age in which homosexuality is open, tolerated, and increasingly common; Madonna is a celebrated symbol of American womanhood; and feminine beauty is a mere commodity, like soybeans or crude oil: an age in which parents dump their daughters into the multiracial cesspool that America’s schools and cities have become to let them fend for themselves. In an age in which materialism and feminism are ascendant, this is the only way it can be. To attempt to make it otherwise — to attempt to decommercialize sex, for example — would be a blow against the economy, against the materialist spirit. And to elevate women again to the protected status they had in a more masculine era would be fought tooth and nail by the feminists as a limitation on women’s freedom.

This subject is a little fuzzy, and I’ve been speaking qualitatively rather than quantitatively. For almost everything I’ve said, an opponent could produce a counterexample. And that’s because I’m talking about very large-scale phenomena, involving many people, many institutions, and many types of interactions. Even during periods of history which I would characterize as masculine or as dominated by the masculine spirit, one can find examples of feminine tendencies and of institutions with a feminine spirit, just as one can find masculine tendencies in our society today. For example, while I claim that our society is becoming more effeminate today, someone can attempt to counter that by noting that masculinized women are more prominent today — female lawyers, female executives, female military officers — and one can attribute that to masculine influences in our society. I would counter that by saying that when men become less masculine, women become less feminine.

Likewise, when I relate materialism and feminism, or when I say that the rise of the economic spirit is associated with a decline in masculinity, someone else can find plenty of men with no shortage of testosterone — strong, aggressive capitalists — who are epitomes of what Brooks Adams called “economic man.”

What it really amounts to is that the masculine character, like the feminine character, has many components. The component I have emphasized today is the spiritual component — and there are other components. It is a complex subject. But I still believe that we can meaningfully describe what has happened to our society and our civilization during the past couple of centuries as a decline in masculinity. I believe that such a description sheds a useful light on one aspect of what has happened to us. And I believe that Henry Adams’ comment on our society’s loss of its artistic sense and of its sense of reverence, along with its warrior spirit, is a generally true statement which has value in helping us to understand our predicament. Adams, to be sure, was a scholar of considerable depth, and he wrote a great deal of carefully reasoned material to support the one-sentence summary which I quoted.

By the way, one subject with which Henry Adams — and his brother Brooks too — were familiar in this regard was the role of the Jew in undermining civilization. Henry made a number of comments about the destructive role of the Jews in the economic and cultural aspects of European civilization. His observations on this subject are perhaps best summed up by something he wrote in a letter to a friend in 1896: “The Jew,” he wrote, “has got into the soul . . . and wherever he . . . [that is, the Jew] goes, there must remain a taint in the blood forever.” How much worse that taint has become during the century since Henry Adams made that observation!

I apologize for being so abstract in my own comments today. But I believe that it’s useful to back off every now and then and try to see the big picture, to try to develop an intuitive sort of understanding of our situation, even if it means talking about things which are by their nature somewhat fuzzy.

Dr. Duke LIVE: Faustian Spirit

Dr. William Pierce – The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

Did you ever wonder why the Jews are such great proponents of democracy? Whether in Indonesia or Pakistan or Serbia or you name it, whenever there is some threat to universal suffrage, the Jews are ready to send the U.S. armed forces in to bomb and kill until everyone is permitted to vote.

Why is that? Why can’t the Indonesians have an Islamic theocracy if they want? Why can’t the Pakistanis have a military dictatorship? Why can’t the Serbs run their own country the way they prefer? What is the appeal in making sure that people whose minds have been wasted by Alzheimer’s Disease vote? Well, let’s not beat around the bush: the appeal of mass democracy lies in the fact that in essentially every country in the world today, the number of persons unable to think for themselves is substantially larger than the number able to make independent decisions. Those unable to think for themselves have their thinking done for them by the people who control the mass media. Which is to say, democracy is the preferred system because it gives the political power to those who own or control the mass media and at the same time allows them to remain behind the scenes and evade responsibility for the way in which they use that power. And the more inclusive the democracy is — that is, the more Alzheimer’s sufferers and Mongoloid cretins and paranoid schizophrenics and people who live in empty packing cases in alleyways and Jamaican immigrants and football fans are able to vote — the more certain is the grip of the media masters on the political process.

Those voters who buy astrology magazines at the checkout stand and spend their time watching soap operas, game shows, and Oprah absorb their general attitudes on things through the television screen. They learn which ideas are fashionable and which are not by noticing the facial expression and tone of voice of Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather when the news is announced each day. Their opinions on specific issues are formed as they view televised sidewalk surveys taken by reporters. The only uncertainty about these people is whether or not they’ll be able to pry themselves loose from their couches long enough to vote for the designated candidates. That’s why it’s important to have lots of them.

And wherever there are lots of them, the men who control the mass media also will control the outcome of elections. It’s a much surer way of controlling governments than bribing corrupt dictators or slipping seductive whores into the king’s bedroom a la Esther and Ahasuerus — or Monica and Bill.

Believe me, one day soon the Jews on both sides of the great water will institute a web-TV voting system that allows the couch potatoes and the ball game fans to vote without having to get up from their couches, just by clicking their remote controls at their TV screens to select the next President or prime minister. That will be real democracy.

You know, back close to the beginning of this century, around 1901 or so, a book first was published containing the text of what became generally known as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. The publisher was a Russian academic, Professor Sergei Nilus. Nilus himself allegedly had obtained The Protocols from a Russian official, who had obtained the text from a patriotic Russian noblewoman, who in turn had purchased the material from a Jew in Paris about 15 years earlier.

The Protocols purports to be a collection of minutes or reports of meetings held by the leaders of the world Jewish community, at which they summarize the progress they had made to that time in their quest for world subversion, world ownership, and world power and outline their plans for continuing the process in the future. They talk about gaining control of the banking systems of various countries, about fomenting wars and revolutions to weaken and destroy Gentile power, about corrupting music and art and education, about subverting various Gentile institutions, about taking over the press everywhere and controlling the flow of information to the masses, about undermining the family and bringing family values into disrepute, and so on. The Elders of Zion really are a satanic bunch of schemers. Reading The Protocols makes one’s flesh crawl.

We should remember that when The Protocols began circulating in Russia in the first decade of this century, that country had not yet fallen victim to Jewish Bolshevism, but that wasn’t for lack of trying on the part of the Jews. The Jews were generally recognized as a dangerously subversive element in Russia, as the schemers and string pullers behind every attempt to damage or upset the established order in Russia, and so Professor Nilus’ publication of The Protocols found a ready market among the Russian public. After the Jewish Bolshevik revolution of 1917 overthrew the Russian government and established a communist dictatorship in Russia, anyone found with a copy of The Protocols was liable to be summarily shot. The text already had been translated into a dozen other languages and distributed far and wide outside Russia, however.

Since then it has been published in virtually every language which has a printed form and has been read by tens of millions of people around the world.

The Jews have been claiming hysterically since The Protocols first appeared that the text is “a forgery.” I guess that’s their way of saying that it’s not what it purports to be: namely, the actual minutes of meetings of Jewish leaders discussing their plans for world domination. The great American industrialist and automaker Henry Ford was very strongly impressed by The Protocols and helped circulate the text in the United States. When told by newspaper reporters in 1921 about the Jews’ claims that The Protocols was “a forgery,” Mr. Ford responded that all he could say about the material was that it fit what was actually happening in the world and had been happening ever since the The Protocols first appeared in print.

Of course, what Mr. Ford had especially in mind when he made that remark were two momentous things which had happened during the previous decade. One was the Jews’ success in taking over Russia and imposing communism on the Russians, and the other was the recently ended First World War: a horribly fratricidal and senseless war, which had destroyed the old order in Europe, had spilled the blood of millions of the best Europeans, and had weakened all of Europe’s long-established institutions, leaving every European country open to all manner of social, political, and cultural ills — in particular, to the further spread of communism.

Well, Henry Ford was a very hard-headed, practical sort of man, and it’s easy to understand his attitude. He had no way of knowing whether or not The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion was actually what it purported to be, but he was quite impressed by the fact that the plan for world subversion and domination by the Jews outlined in the book seemed to be happening pretty much as described.

I’ll go a step further than Henry Ford was willing to go in assessing The Protocols. I think that they very likely are not what they purport to be. In the first place the text of The Protocols doesn’t ring true. It’s too straightforward, too open. It doesn’t use the sort of deceptive, weasel worded, self-justifying language that Jews customarily use in expressing themselves, even to one another. When a group of Jewish leaders get together to discuss their plans for the destruction of a host nation, they don’t use straightforward expressions such as “encouraging miscegenation” and “leading the goyim to the slaughter.” They use weasel-expressions, such as “building tolerance,” “increasing diversity,” and “eliminating inequality.” In the second place, it’s difficult for me to imagine the head Jews laying out such a complete, self-contained, and pat explanation of what they’re up to. It’s just too convenient for those of us who aim at alerting our people as to what the Jews’ intentions are and then putting a monkey wrench in their gears.

I wouldn’t call The Protocols “a forgery,” as the Jews do whenever the book is mentioned. I’m inclined to believe Professor Nilus was an astute observer of the Jews and also was a patriot. He wanted to warn the Russian people of what the Jews were planning to do to them, and so he imagined how the Jews’ plan might look if it were all laid out in straightforward language. I believe that he wrote the text he published, but that he believed it was a reasonably accurate description of what the Jews actually were doing. And the reason that The Protocols ended up being translated into hundreds of languages and read by millions of people is that many people, like Henry Ford, saw that they fitted what was happening.

Sometimes I have tried to imagine what Professor Nilus might have written if he were writing today instead of a century ago — and if he were writing still in the straightforward sort of language he used earlier. A 1999 version of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion might read something like this: Greetings, my fellow Elders of Zion! Today I am happy to report to you that our plan for the destruction of the hated Gentiles and the acquisition of their remaining wealth is practically complete. There remain only a few loose ends to tie up, and then the struggle in which we have been engaged for thousands of years against the filthy goyim against the Nations, against all the non-Jewish peoples of the world, finally will be victorious, and we will be able to devour everything they have created, as Yahweh, the god of our tribe, has commanded us.

Everywhere we already rule behind the scenes, with puppets completely under our control in the offices of power. In Russia, where they resisted us for so long — where the ordinary people always hated us as exploiters, as moneylenders and tax collectors and purveyors of alcohol and merchants in the sweet, white flesh of their daughters and sisters, and where the aristocrats also hated us, as subversives and troublemakers, and kept us confined to only certain areas of the country, so that we could not exploit all of the people — in Russia we used the doctrine of our dear, departed Elder of Zion, Karl Marx, to divide the Russian people against themselves and get the power into our own hands, where it remains to this day. We butchered their Czar and his whole family like the Gentile cattle they were. With the help of the common people we slaughtered all of the Russian aristocrats and took their wealth.

And then we turned on the common people. First we murdered their leaders — their writers and teachers and intellectuals and military officers — so that there would be no one able to turn them against us, and then we began murdering the common people themselves, the farmers and workers, first by the millions and then by the tens of millions in labor camps and death camps all across Russia. And most of them never did understand what was happening to them. One of them, who had been studying to become a Christian priest, we corrupted and made into our ally.

His name was Stalin. Later, like the pharaoh who knew not Joseph, Stalin tried to turn against us, but one of our women was his doctor, and we poisoned him before he could harm us.

When the system based on the theory of our departed Elder Marx had bled the Russian people dry, we launched a “privatization” scheme, which put most of the remaining wealth which had belonged to the government directly into our hands. Their gas and oil, their forests and their lumber industry, their mines and factories — and especially their television broadcasting facilities — are now owned by us acting as capitalists. Today we have a drunken, sick, old Russian clown, Boris Yeltsin, as the nominal leader of the Russians, but one of our people, Boris Abramovich Berezovsky, tells him what to do and keeps him under tight control through bribes.

In England, the country from which all of us were expelled by the king as exploiters and troublemakers just over 700 years ago, we now have another puppet, Tony Blair, in place as the nominal leader of the English, but like Yeltsin he is completely under our control. One of our people, Michael Levy, finances his election campaigns and controls his purse strings. Another of our people, Jack Straw, controls his domestic policies.

America, however, is the prize example of our success. Just as in England and in Russia, also in America we have been able to put a totally corrupt Gentile politician into the position of nominal power and then to surround him with our own people, who wield the real power. Actually running the American government, our people are in charge of America’s State Department, America’s Defense Department, America’s Federal Reserve System, and America’s Treasury Department. When one of our people, Robert Rubin, retired recently as secretary of the treasury, we simply moved another of our people, Lawrence Summers, into that position. Clinton appoints to every high office in the American government, whether the Supreme Court or his own cabinet, only those people we suggest to him, and the totally corrupt politicians of the Senate dare not disapprove anyone we suggest, lest we label them as “anti-Semites.” We have gained nearly complete control of America’s educational system, from kindergarten through the universities. No ideas or facts may be taught unless we have given them the stamp of Political Correctness. We have made it impossible for anyone in an American university to contradict anything we have claimed, no matter how preposterous, about what happened to us during the Second World War. We now have the American government, just like every government in Europe, paying us “reparations,” because not enough was done for us during the war.

We have succeeded in corrupting and then dominating America’s art and music and literature.

We have made degeneracy the touchstone for American culture. We own the art galleries and set the standards for painting and sculpture. We have the Americans lining up and paying admission to see a “work of art” which consists of animal dung smeared onto a crude painting of a Negress, which we tell them is their Virgin Mary. They read the depraved and trashy novels we tell them to read and believe that these novels are “literature.” Their children listen to Negroid rhythms and chant Negroid “rap” ditties, because we control the popular music industry.

Through the immigration policy we have imposed on America we are increasing the percentage of non-White minorities in every part of the country. Within the next few years we will succeed in making White Americans a minority in their own country.

Our success in America has been due to two things: our control of the mass media of news and entertainment, through which we control the ideas and attitudes of the masses; and the system of mass democracy, which ensures that the votes of the masses under our control determine which figurehead politicians actually make up the American government. Since the last part of the 19th century we have been gathering the power of the mass media into our hands. In those days many of us were only rag-pickers and dealers in used merchandise, recently off the boat from Russia or Poland, but whenever a Gentile newspaper got itself into financial difficulties, we were ready instantly to pool our resources and buy it out, so that henceforth it could be in the hands of one of our people.

In the 1920s, when radio was becoming a powerful medium of persuasion, we began buying broadcasting stations and putting together networks. At the same time we saw the potential for motion pictures and began moving into Hollywood. By working together with each other we were able to bankrupt or buy out every Gentile film producer except Walt Disney. We had to wait until he died to take control of his film company, but by then we already dominated the entire motion picture industry.

After the Second World War, when television became the most powerful medium of mass persuasion, we were ready to move in and dominate the TV industry from the beginning. Today no motion picture can be made and no television program can be broadcast in America without our approval. Only a few independent commercial radio stations, a few shortwave radio stations, and a handful of book and magazine publishers remain free of our control. But the American masses, for the most part, never see or hear anything we have not approved. They do not understand shortwave, and they are afraid to read any publication we have not approved, for fear that it might be “hate” material.

There is, of course, that pesky Internet, which is not yet under our control, but we are moving rapidly to deal with that matter. We expect soon to have our puppet politicians enact “hate speech” legislation in America, similar to that which we already have succeeded in having enforced in Europe, so that no one can say anything on the Internet that has not been approved by us. The couch potatoes will not object, because we will tell them that the new laws will make them safe from terrorism. By that time we also should have achieved our goal for the disarmament of the American population. And then, my fellow Elders of Zion, we can do to the American people what we did to the Russian people. With our power of television, we will have them voting for their own slaughter.

Long live our mass media! Long live democracy! Long live the power of triumphant Zion!

Arrogance and the Dreadful Future

Do You Have What It Takes to Survive?

Source: http://www.renegadetribune.com/arrogance-and-the-dreadful-future/

by John Kaminski

A world with no future — only lies, swindles and endless murder. Life is cheap and getting cheaper by the minute. You have no solution to what is going on in the world. Everyone is trapped in economic quicksand. The hideous sound of panic in your brain as you try to calculate what will happen in the days to come prevents coherent thinking. This is what the so-called governments want to happen. As long as people remain blind to the ugly fictions being imposed on us, there’s no way to stop them.

It becomes essential to see behind the scenes, but the government and the media that have merged into the same entity and conspire to keep people blind effectively block that view.

It has become impossible to contemplate a fruitful future. All but the moneyed elite are being shortchanged. Call it the art of the 21st century — taking the bribe and screwing people, participating in the mass deception, burying the actual truth deeper and deeper with each fabricated atrocity, with each totalitarian new law that lessens our realistic chances for survival and contentment.

The power brokers wanted to pass a bill ending free government in the United States, so they staged an apparent mass murder in a South Carolina church to fog the media mirror with smoky emotion, steal the headlines and pass the bill giving corporations the upper hand over duly elected governmental bodies. The bill passed. Only business really counts. Sure they lie, but everybody knows by now there’s no money in the truth. There’s only the cash to pay people to make sure they keep their mouths shut.

Why the families of those South Carolina victims received millions of dollars tells a story we have heard before.

FEAR THE GOVERNMENT! Feed the beast! You will whether you want to or not, for you are its food. And at this late date, nobody can stop the process. You can’t stop it until everybody stops it. But far too many are afraid not to believe the lies, so nobody’s going to stop it until its far too late. It already it far too late. And nobody is stopping the process. Everybody is going along with the unseen plan to radically reduce the population, hoping that somehow they will be included in the rich man’s dream and not the poor man’s dread.

This Jade Helm exercise supposedly being a temporary practice exercise implementing a heavy handed police state in eight states is being put in place for when the banks fail and chaos follows, so the U.S. Army Police Force will already be in place to scoop up the indigent and the hungry.

It is not a temporary measure. It is the new configuration of U.S. police, eager to treat American citizens like Arab terrorists, an attitude they were taught in Israel. Most people will give thanks for their captivity. It will seem like they’re being rescued, but they will not be returning to the lives they previously had. Those lives will be gone. And their lives will be gone, if they are sick, or have committed a crime, or have been too free with their criticisms of the government.

They will not be going on to their new lives, as citizens of the new nation. There will only be room for those on the same page as the tyrants, who don’t have much to say about the larger issues. This process will enable a significant population reduction. As you scurry through the woods like escaped convicts, there will be no way to avoid the great dragnet. Eventually, your stomach will turn you in.

Of course, there is even a deeper reason for Jade Helm. Beyond the collapse of the economic system and the supply system which will lead to mass starvation, is the actual collapse of the biosphere, in which firestorms sweep the planet and the air becomes impossible to breathe. All plant life will die off followed eventually by most animal life, many informed scientists insist.

Only the special rich people living underground will survive for awhile. Needless to say, some kind of authority will be necessary to attempt to bring some organization to a collapsing society and a disintegrating species. Maybe that’s why the cops are killing everyone in sight now.

Whine as you might, dear American, you don’t really know either genuine horror or despair. Not yet, anyway. Nor do you realize you are responsible for the horror and despair that by your ignorance and indifference you have inflicted on people you never knew. Although we as a species own the collective blame for a planet murdered by delusions and misperceptions, we as individuals can’t be blamed for every individual tragedy on the face of the Earth. But these incomprehensible events give us a stunning preview of what our future very likely will be like.

In an impoverished province of southwestern China on the evening of June 9, four young children were found dead, apparent suicides from drinking pesticide, having been left to fend for themselves, possibly for more than a year, by their migrant parents who had gone elsewhere to look for work.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/06/22/chin-j22.html?view=mobilearticle

According to China Youth Daily, the eldest child, the 13-year-old boy named Zhang Qigang, was found sprawled outside the family home by a passerby at 11 p.m., having drunk a substantial quantity of pesticide. The three younger girls were found inside the house. They were taken to hospital and subsequently pronounced dead.

The abandoned children had been subsisting on ground corn flour from the previous year’s crop. According to official census figures, at least 61 million children have been “left behind” by parents who had to migrate to larger cities in search of work. The figure represents some 22 percent of children nationwide in China. In rural areas, it is estimated at around one in three.

You could call these kids victims of the bottom line. Children committing suicide is the future we face, not only in China, but throughout the world, as the wall-to-wall horror and despair in our faces may not be hidden from our children. The thing parents always forget that their children are not only smarter than they are, but more perceptive as well.

Rue the day when our children must become ruthless savages to survive.

We whine about the deprivations we endure, but they are nothing compared to the agonies of the majority of people on the planet. In some faraway places such as China, we may disclaim responsibility for the horror, but in other places with the same kind of events, we may not. Exactly a year ago, singer/record producer Brian Eno, speaking at the National Demonstration for Gaza in London, read his letter to America, titled “WHY? I just don’t get it.”

Dear All of You,

I sense I’m breaking an unspoken rule with this letter, but I can’t keep quiet any more.

Today I saw a picture of a weeping Palestinian man holding a plastic carrier bag of meat. It was his son. He’d been shredded (the hospital’s word) by an Israeli missile attack – apparently using their fab new weapon, flechette bombs. You probably know what those are – hundreds of small steel darts packed around explosive which tear the flesh off humans. The boy was Mohammed Khalaf al-Nawasra. He was 4 years old.

I suddenly found myself thinking that it could have been one of my kids in that bag, and that thought upset me more than anything has for a long time.

Then I read that the UN had said that Israel might be guilty of war crimes in Gaza, and they wanted to launch a commission into that. America won’t sign up to it.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/today-i-saw-a-weeping-palestinian-man-holding-a-plastic-bag-of-meat-it-was-his-son/5457872

Would you say that America, if it ever had one, had long ago lost its conscience?

All our modern technological advancements have done nothing but bring us misery and heartlessness. All of our contemporary social theories have left us amputated from our families, isolated from everyone and at the cruel mercy of the state.

Consensual reality keeps being bombarded by the contrived rhythms of history. These fictions, written by the victors, make it harder and harder to discern the true forces of control, and with each new fiction imposed upon the public — say, the Charleston church massacre — it becomes more difficult to return focus to the hidden hand behind all these public events, which is what we must do if we are ever to escape the sadistic plans that those with more money than we can even imagine have for us.

* * *

Reminiscent of the societal divide of H.G. Wells’s futuristic novel The Time Machine, today’s society has broken down into two groups — those with money and power and those who do not. There is no morality in this divide, only the ruthlessness of those keeping the books and the frustrated terror of those with no access to affluence.

Those who riot play right into the hands of those who control the guns, enabling them to more easily reduce the population.

Our government pretends now to be elevating the have-nots, but as with the previous programs of affirmative action and hire the handicapped, this is not the case. Obama’s opening the gates for an avalanche of immigration merely dilutes the personal power of existing American citizens, lowering the level of independence of everyone to be efficiently controlled by a government solely interested in regimentation and control and not at all concerned with independence, liberation or personal freedom.

Under the guise of assisting the public during its coming time of duress, the Jade Helm exercise is clearly about weeding out those deemed undesirable by a government that seeks a population of politically correct robots willing to assist in the lies that are told. There is no shortage of greedy lackeys willing to take the apparent short term bribes and rewards in exchange for their freedom, which is why we have a corrupt field of candidates for president eager to enforce this artificial reality and get paid obscene amounts of money to endorse the lies.

And that shrinking segment of the population who seek freedom and liberty, who refuse to go to sleep and instead examine the scary secrets behind world events, are in deep, deep trouble.

In these diminishing fateful hours before a crash that will dwarf all previous social disasters, we still have a chance to replace the criminals who plan on exterminating us. Will we dislodge these vermin who regard us cattle, or like so many inept defectives before us, will we sleep the sleep of the ages?

The only rational solution to this all-out slide into totalitarianism is for all public officials and elected representatives to resign immediately. As that will not happen, the slide will continue, the free country will pass into history, and most of us will not survive.

Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question (2003) – David Duke

Audio Book