Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page
Well, I agree in part with these critics. Certainly there are people who are not Jews who are destroying our civilization and our race and taking away our freedom, and there are many Jews who are involved in these things only to the extent that they are members of the Jewish community and thereby are supplying material and moral support to the Jews who are active wreckers and subverters.
You know, the reason I speak so often about Jews is not that Jews are my favorite topic; it is that Jews, through their domination of our news and entertainment media, have a more powerful influence on public opinion and thereby on our government than any other coherent group. Well, there's more to it than that. Jews are not only more powerful than any other group, they are special in other ways as well: cleverer, more deceptive, more malevolent. Anyway, we cannot solve our other problems without first solving our Jewish problem. That is a fact. That's why I talk so much about Jews.
As I said, however, there also are people who are not Jews who deserve the attention of patriots. There are politicians as a class, for example. I always have considered politicians to be a special subset of the much larger set of amoral persons. I don't believe that it's a good idea for me to try to probe too deeply into the psychology of morality on this program. I am not knowledgeable enough about the subject, and besides, radio isn't the best medium for such a discussion. Let's just define an amoral person as someone who believes -- no, someone who feels -- that getting what he wants is so much more important than anything else in life, that he will not permit himself to be swayed by any other considerations. He will make winning everything that he wants for himself personally his only goal, and in choosing his tactics for winning the only thing that will count will be cost effectiveness.
I don't really know, but I suspect that many people -- perhaps most people -- who have this attitude are born with it. Others are taught by their elders or by their peers. And some make the decision all by themselves to become amoral, to strive consciously to shed their inhibitions and to look out for Number One, to the exclusion of everything else.
Of course, we're all like that to a certain extent. We all have personal goals, personal needs, personal desires. We strive for the things that we personally want. But most of us also consider other things when we strive. We consider how our striving will affect other people, how it will affect our community, how it will affect our race. We deliberately impose certain rules of conduct on ourselves. We value more than just our own personal welfare or our own personal wealth or our own personal security. We have a code of morals. Amoral people don't.
Some people believe that morality is only for suckers, for losers -- that the amoral people are the smart guys, who are more likely to get what they want, because they impose no restrictions on themselves. Some people even make a religion of selfishness: the Libertarians, for example, and the followers of the Soviet Jewess Ayn Rand.
Actually, however, most of us are moral because morality has had survival value for us for a very long time. It evolved with us. We developed the tendency to be moral over the course of many thousands of generations because those groups of people, those communities, with a high percentage of moral people in them were more likely to survive and prosper than those groups consisting primarily of amoral people.
We evolved not only as individuals but also as members of groups. A group whose members all had the attitude that it's every man for himself when the group was attacked by another group or experienced some other threat just wasn't likely to survive for a long time. The group and its members and their genes perished together. A group whose members were a bit less selfish had a better chance for survival under natural conditions, under the sort of highly selective conditions that prevailed during most of our evolution. Which is to say, a community whose members really believed -- really felt -- that they had a responsibility to protect each other and to look out for the welfare of the community as a whole was a stronger and more fit community than one composed largely of amoral people.
Inside a community, of course, different considerations applied, and the amoral person who was sufficiently clever might indeed have an advantage. If he were not sufficiently clever, however, his head ended up on a spike above the town gate or on a pole at the community latrine to serve as a warning to others. Our ancestors developed a sixth sense for sniffing out the amoral fellows in their midst, and then they got rid of them.
And here we should remind ourselves of the difference between amorality and immorality. The immoral person has morals, but he just isn't very good at being ruled by them, usually because of insufficient self-discipline, insufficient power of will. Our ancestors didn't approve of immorality either, but they always had a much greater horror of the amoral person than of the person who was merely immoral. The amoral person usually had to be very deceptive in order to survive.
When we began moving from small, rural communities to cities, the amoral individuals among us were better able to avoid being detected, and amorality had more survival value. You could cheat people in one part of the city until there were threats to put your head on a spike and then move to another part of the city, where you weren't known, and cheat new people. I should mention in this regard that Jews, who also need cities in order to flourish, are not necessarily amoral or even immoral people. Jews, in fact, are probably more moral, in the strictest sense of the word, than the average Gentile, because group loyalty and group survival always have been at the top of their agenda. It's just that Jewish morality is quite different from ours. They have an entirely different set of rules for dealing with other Jews than they have for dealing with us.
Amoral individuals really gained an advantage over the rest of us with the ascendancy of mass democracy. The 19th and 20th centuries have been the golden age of amorality, the age in which clever scoundrels have been able to rise to the top of the dungheap with ease and without having to worry about losing their heads. All they have had to be able to do is fool large numbers of the least perceptive and least discriminating members of our society -- that is, large numbers of voters -- and that is a lot easier than fooling the most perceptive and most discriminating people -- that is, people of the sort who used to be the leaders of our society in less democratic times.
Every time an election year rolls around, all of the amoral people who also have good acting skills are prancing across our television screens in an effort to persuade the voters to put them into public office. I look at someone like Al Gore, for example, or John McCain trying to act like a normal person, like a person with morals, and I shudder with revulsion. These guys aren't even good actors, but they're plenty good enough for the dumbed-down and feminized American electorate.
What really scares me is a politician who is a good actor. Bill Clinton, for example, is a superb actor, the sort of fellow who could sell refrigerators to Eskimos -- or start a war in order to please some powerful minority among his supporters and then convince the general public that the real purpose of the war was to defend the country. I can think of a few more: Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson. Whenever I see any politician giving a sales pitch, I see that secret, little smile -- that fleeting smirk -- which tells me that he is thinking to himself that he is getting away with it, that he is fooling the suckers again. This is the same sort of fleeting smirk I see on the faces of salesmen and hucksters and manipulative people trying to persuade me to do something against my better judgment.
Actually, perhaps I don't really see anything, but my sixth sense sets off a little alarm inside my brain that tells me that this guy's head needs to be mounted on a pole outside the community latrine. And I'm sure that many other people also have this same sixth sense about politicians. I'm sure that there are many other people in our society who would like to put all their heads on poles. The problem is that the average couch potato, the average ball game fan, the average voter doesn't have this sixth sense. When Bill Clinton gets in front of a television camera and tells the boobs that he feels their pain, they believe him. Instead of getting an itch in their trigger fingers when they hear his oily voice, they get misty-eyed. "Oh, he really cares about me," they think.
When a person like Bill Clinton or Al Gore or George Bush tells a lie, I believe that he doesn't even think of it as a lie. He doesn't think in terms of what's the truth and what's a lie; he thinks only in terms of what is advantageous or disadvantageous for him to say at the moment. Truth or falsity doesn't really matter; what matters is, can I get away with it: will the voters believe me? When a politician agrees to collaborate with the Jews, he doesn't think of it as a betrayal of his people. He thinks of it only as a way to get better press or a bigger campaign contribution. When he sponsors a bill that is harmful to the interests of his race, that's not what concerns him. The only thing that concerns him is, how will it be perceived by his constituents and by the media? Will it gain him votes or cost him votes? That's all that matters.
Anyway, that's democracy. It's a system that practically guarantees rule by amoral people, even if there are no Jews around to make things worse.
What can we do about it, at a time when we don't yet have the means to put all of the politicians' heads on poles? About all we can do at the moment is try to understand the problem as well as we can and then plan ahead for a better system to be implemented at the time when we can begin putting heads on poles.
One of the first things to understand about this problem is that it is not just academic; it really must be dealt with. We can't continue with a system that puts a man like Bill Clinton in the White House and then offers us a man like Al Gore as a suitable replacement. We won't survive.
Another thing to understand is that it's a problem with two components: the politicians and the people who vote for them. If the voters were a lot smarter and a lot more perceptive than they are, then we would at least have a higher grade of amoral person in public office. But making the voters substantially smarter is a job requiring generations. We could start by sterilizing everyone on welfare, and we certainly should do that at least. But in the long run we want more than just a higher grade of politician. We want no politicians. We want a different system.
I know that there are many of my people out there who would like to have no system at all: no government. They just want to be left alone. And I sympathize with them. More than that, I believe that it would be a lot healthier for us in several ways if we could begin living again the way we did 3,000 years ago. We would be rid of most of the liberals and weaklings and other defectives pretty quickly. We wouldn't even have to sterilize them. We could reestablish healthy, natural relationships between men and women. We could have healthy, functional families again.
Unfortunately, we can't get along with no government -- not as long as the Chinese are still around. In an all-White world we might go back to doing whatever we want, but as long as there are more than a billion organized and armed Chinamen on the planet -- Chinamen who now are more dangerous than ever with the new military technology given to them by the Israelis and by Mr. Clinton's campaign fund-raisers -- as long as that situation prevails, we need a government. We need to be organized as long as any of our competitors for ownership of this planet are organized.
The evil is not in government per se. The evil is in the way in which government has been used in the past and is being used now. Just because we have a government in Washington now whose primary functions are to send out the so-called "entitlement" checks on time, to protect homosexual Boy Scout leaders from "hate" criminals who would like to stomp them to a pulp, to ensure that Black drivers aren't pulled over by the highway patrol any more often than White drivers, and to enforce a thousand other unnatural and destructive social and racial programs that could not be maintained without a centralized police state doesn't mean that government is unnatural and destructive per se. We have an unnatural and destructive government now because it is a government run by amoral men who respond to organized pressure groups, who cater to organized voting blocs, who dance to whatever tune is being played by the organized Jewish minority, and who absolutely do not give a damn about what their policies are doing to the country and to our race. They really do not care.
Do you think Bill Clinton lost even one night's sleep over the Serb women and children his bombs and missiles were killing in Belgrade earlier this year? Those were White women and children, members of a European nation that had not harmed or threatened America in any way, but he was ready to begin killing them wholesale as soon as his Jewish advisers told him to. While the bombs fell on Belgrade, back in the White House it was fun and games as usual. And the people in the Congress were no better. In a moral society, with a moral government, someone with access to Clinton would have done whatever it took to stop him. But no politician raised a hand against him. As long as we keep a system that depends upon the votes of the masses to choose the people making the policies, we will have politicians -- amoral men -- running the show, and things will not improve in any substantial way.
Can you imagine a government run by people who aren't amoral? Can you imagine a government with a purpose that extends beyond the next election? Can you imagine a government that sees itself as an instrument of a people, of a nation, a government that exists to protect that nation and to advance its interests? Can you imagine such a government led and staffed by men who are not politicians but who are men selected for their moral qualities as well as for their intelligence and who are trained to perform their official functions and are held to high standards of performance? Can you imagine such a government ruled by a fundamental law, by a constitution, that rectifies the inadequacies in the present U.S. Constitution?
I can imagine all of these things. And again I want to remind you that these questions and these things I imagine are not just academic. We are faced with a crisis. The country is being swamped with non-Whites. Thousands more of them flood into the country every day, and the government has no intention at all of trying to slow the flood. The politicians are afraid that if they try to stop the flood they will be called "racists." And as I said, they really don't care what this Third World flood is doing to America, just as they don't care when the President and his Jewish advisers decide to start another absolutely unnecessary war: a real war, not an imaginary war.
We must do something drastic, and we must do it soon. It's time for us to be thinking about what we need to do, to be thinking about more than just fighting for our bare survival. We should be guided by an ideology. We should be thinking about the details of the sort of society we want to have in the future. That's a contentious thing, of course. Some of my friends think that everything would be fine if we could just go back to the Constitution of 1787 and the first ten amendments, of 1789, the Bill of Rights. They believe that all of our problems today are the consequence of having abandoned that fundamental law. And I agree with them to a certain extent. Certainly, if we had a firm grip today on the Bill of Rights and had not cluttered up the Constitution with a number of ill-advised, additional amendments during the past 200 years, we'd be much better off than we are.
The fact is, however, that conditions have changed a great deal over the past 200 years. For all practical purposes we had no mass media then, and we had no Jews. We were separated from Asia and from Africa by huge oceans. Now we need a Constitution for a new society that is based on race and on a clear recognition of the Jewish problem. In 1787 the people who drew up our Constitution didn't think about race or about the Jews. They believed that these things would never become a problem, that the common sense of the people would prevail. Big mistake!
Beyond this we really do need to put a final end to the flaws in our political thinking that have resulted in a system that brings amoral men to positions of control and influence. The idea that anyone who could shout and wave his arms well enough to persuade the lowest elements in our society that he loved them and was thereby suited for leadership -- this idea really has to go. We really need something sounder for the future, something a little less primitive, or we won't have a future.
I believe that we can build something sounder, that we can have a healthy society and a healthy government, if we put our minds and hearts to the task. That's what we're doing now in the National Alliance. I'd be pleased to have you working with us on this essential task.
Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page