Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page
In particular, I illustrated the psychological differences between the Chinese and Europeans, and between Jews and Aryans. In the case of the Jews I used the often-remarked Jewish tendency toward scatological humor, which is a much greater tendency than appears in Aryans. I cited as an example of this tendency a new MTV program, Dude, This Sucks. I mentioned that in the filming of a recent episode of this program two men -- the "Shower Rangers" -- who previously had been dosed with a powerful laxative, came onto the stage dressed as Boy Scouts. On cue they turned their backs to the audience, dropped their trousers, bent over, and sprayed a group of unsuspecting teenaged girls on the stage with feces.
The Jews who scripted the Shower Rangers' act apparently thought this feces shower was hilariously funny. This is the sort of thing that Jews usually consider funny. I pointed out that the Jew ultimately responsible for the Shower Rangers is the owner of MTV, billionaire media mogul Sumner Redstone, who also owns CBS and many other mass media. He is one of the most influential Jews in the world, a Jew who, whenever he visits the White House, always gets a big hug from whichever shabbos goy is President at the moment. I also could have blamed the feces-spraying incident on MTV's homosexual Jewish program manager, Brian Graden, who, of course, takes his orders from Redstone.
Some listeners just couldn't believe that an ultra-rich, ultra-influential Jew such as Redstone could be involved in such a low-class act as the Shower Rangers: Howard Stern, maybe, but not Sumner Redstone. One thing I didn't point out in my broadcast three weeks ago is that the Jew Howard Stern also works for Sumner Redstone. Redstone undoubtedly is a very sophisticated and very clever Jew, but the Shower Rangers is indeed the sort of filth he regularly produces for the consumption of Aryan teenagers, whether their parents are paying attention or not. It is indeed the sort of filth he and his fellow Jews who control our media, our advertising, and the conditioning of our children think is very funny. Talk to a swimming pool maintenance man in Hollywood or someone who is responsible for security at one of the New York condos where these rich Jews live and play. You'll get an earful.
Whether Sumner Redstone and Brian Graden believed that the Shower Rangers would be a bold new step toward conditioning Aryan teenagers to laugh at the same things Jews laugh at or whether they naively believed that Aryans and Jews already laugh at the same things, there can be no real dispute about the fact that the Shower Rangers were part of an MTV program and that they performed as I said. The performance I described is the subject of a lawsuit filed against MTV in Los Angeles Superior Court at the beginning of last month by two of the girls who were sprayed.
The people who told me that Sumner Redstone never would condone something like the Shower Rangers, that he is too smart and sophisticated for that, were confirmed in their belief by the fact that they couldn't find any news of the spraying incident in Los Angeles newspapers. Are you surprised that the media bosses cover for each other? But actually, Jews do talk about these things with one another. If it's too much trouble for you to get a copy of the court documents, then scan some of the Hollywood "insider" newsletters, which are chock full of news reports on things such as which media mogul's son was so drunk at his bar mitzvah last Saturday that he barfed all over the Torah scroll, or which queer ad-agency executive has just been diagnosed as having AIDS, or who is rumored to have made an out-of-court settlement with a shikse starlet to avoid a paternity suit. Several of the Hollywood newsletters carried all the details of the Shower Ranger episode last month. Believe me; it happened. And believe me, it is typical of the people who control Hollywood and the television entertainment industry and the conditioning of America's children -- and, incidentally, all three branches of our government.
When I spoke about the psychological differences between Chinese and Europeans, I focused on the eating habits of the Chinese. Specifically, I mentioned their habit of eating aborted human fetuses and also domestic dogs and cats and body parts from various wild animals, including those belonging to endangered species, and I gave tiger penis and rhinoceros horn as examples.
I also remarked that what the Chinese do to cats and dogs is much worse than merely eating them. Some listeners questioned this statement. "What could the Chinese do to cats and dogs that would be worse than eating them?" I was asked. What's worse is the way the cats and dogs are treated before and during being killed for eating -- and also before and during being skinned for their fur. And I should warn you that I'm a bit of an extremist on the subject of cruelty to animals. I abhor cruelty, whether the perpetrator is Chinese or European. I abhor the practices of White men who trap fur-bearing animals. I am horrified especially by the killing of big cats to make fur coats or jackets for rich women, but I am extremely hostile even to the breeding of mink and other small mammals just so that they can be skinned to help the female lemmings who can afford it be more fashionable. The fact that there are White people who are cruel, callous, and indifferent to the suffering of animals and who are unmoved by the killing of such beautiful and magnificent creatures as the big cats, however, doesn't mean that we are just as bad as the Chinese in this regard. There are substantial differences. In general, there seems to be no feeling at all among the Chinese and other Asians for the feelings of animals. There seems to be no understanding, no comprehension, of the White man's sympathy for animals. To the Chinese an animal is simply an object, which may or may not have any economic value. If it does have economic value, then it should be used in any way that is profitable.
In addition to this general inability to sympathize with animals, the Chinese do have their peculiar culinary habits and their peculiar notions about diet. The consequence is that cats and dogs intended to be eaten or skinned are treated in an almost unbelievably inhumane manner. The cats generally are strangled or drowned before being skinned, so as not to damage the fur. Some dogs, who do not have a cat's ability to inflict damage on their tormentors with their claws, are actually skinned alive. And there is the Chinese gourmet's peculiar notion that the more painful a death the animal suffers, the more tender and tasty is the meat. So, to please the customer, a dog or cat will be selected from a cage in a restaurant, then taken into the kitchen to have all its bones broken before it is slaughtered. The customer, seated at his table, can enjoy the screams of agony coming from the kitchen as he awaits his meal.
There's a great deal of very unpleasant information on this sort of thing available at the Web site of the Humane Society of the United States. That's hsus.org. The Humane Society even has sent undercover investigators with video cameras into China to record some of the horrible things that are done to cats and dogs there.
The subject on which I received the most questions was my report on the eating of human fetuses by Chinese, who believe the practice is healthy, just as they regard powdered rhinoceros horn as an aphrodisiac and tiger penis as a potency enhancer. Some people who wrote to me just didn't believe that the Chinese could be so different from Europeans -- or at least, they didn't want to believe it. Some of them accused me of being untruthful. Others simply requested proof. Actually, there's a great deal of evidence available on the subject, but the language difference, along with the characteristic Chinese suspicion of outsiders, does pose some difficulties in gathering it. For this reason I'll restrict my evidence today to an English-language Chinese source, the Hong Kong newspaper Eastern Express. All the quotes which follow are from a lengthy article which appeared in the April 12, 1995, issue of the Eastern Express. A reporter visited several hospitals in mainland China seeking aborted fetuses for eating and found that they were readily available. I quote from the Eastern Express:
Reports that dead embryos were being used as dietary supplements started to spread early last year with reports that some doctors in Shenzhen hospitals were eating dead fetuses after carrying out abortions. The doctors allegedly defended their actions by saying the embryos were good for their skin and general health.
A trend was set, and soon reports circulated that doctors in the city were promoting fetuses as a human tonic. Hospital cleaning women were seen fighting each other to take the treasured human remains home. Last month reporters from East Week -- a sister publication of Eastern Express -- went to Shenzhen to see if the rumors could be substantiated. On March 7 a reporter entered the state-run Shenzhen Heath Center for Women and Children feigning illness and asked a female doctor for a fetus. The doctor said the department was out of stock but to come again.
The next day the reporter returned at lunch time. The doctor eventually emerged from the operating theatre holding a fist-size glass bottle stuffed with thumb-size fetuses. She said, "There are 10 fetuses here, all aborted this morning. You can take them. We are a state hospital and don't charge anything."...
The reporter learned that the going rate for a fetus was $10, but when the merchandise was in short supply the price could go up to $20. But these prices are pin money compared to those set by private clinics, which are said to make a fortune selling fetuses. One chap on Bong Men Lao Street charges $300 for one fetus. The person in charge of the clinic is a man in his 60s. When he saw the ailing reporter he offered to take an order for fetuses that had reached full term and that, it is claimed, have the best healing properties. When a female doctor named Yang ... of Sin Hua clinic was asked whether fetuses were edible, she said emphatically, "Of course, they are. They are even better than placentas. They can make your skin smoother, your body stronger, and are good for kidneys. When I was in an army hospital in Jiangti province I often brought fetuses home."...
A Mr. Cheng from Hong Kong claims he has been eating fetus soup for more than six months. To begin, the man, in his 40s, would make the trip to Shenzhen frequently for business and was introduced to fetuses by friends. He says he met a number of professors and doctors in government hospitals who helped him buy the fetuses. "At first I felt uncomfortable, but doctors said the substances in fetuses could help cure my asthma. I started taking them, and gradually the asthma disappeared," Cheng said....
Zou Qin, 32, a woman from Hubei with the fine skin of someone several years younger, attributes her well preserved looks to a diet of fetuses. As a doctor at the Lun Hu Clinic, Zou has carried out abortions on several hundred patients. She believes fetuses are highly nutritious and claims to have eaten more than 100 in the past six months. She pulls out a fetus specimen before a reporter and explains the selection criteria. "People normally prefer fetuses of young women, and even better, the first baby and a male. They are wasted if we don't eat them. The women who receive abortions here don't want the fetuses. Also the fetuses are already dead when we eat them. We don't carry out abortions just to eat the fetuses...."
Dr. Warren Lee, president of the Hong Kong Nutrition Association, is aware of the unsavory rumors. "Eating fetuses is a kind of traditional Chinese medicine and is deeply founded in Chinese folklore....,' he says."
Well, there is much more in the April 12, 1995, article from the Eastern Express, an English-language newspaper published in Hong Kong. If that's not enough for you, try digging into Chinese folklore for yourself. As the man said, eating fetuses has deep roots in Chinese tradition.
While I'm on the subject of racial differences, let me mention something I didn't talk about three weeks ago. I spoke only about the differences between Europeans and Chinese and between Aryans and Jews. I didn't mention White-Black differences. They really are in a category by themselves. I am sure that many people really believe that we're not very different from the Chinese. And there also are many people who believe that the only difference between Aryans and Jews is that Jews go to church on Saturday instead of Sunday and are a little better at making money than we are. Those are the people who just couldn't believe what I told them about eating fetuses and about the connection between Sumner Redstone and the Shower Rangers. But no one really needs to be persuaded that there are major differences between Whites and Blacks.
Everyone understands that the Blacks are quite different from us: even the whiny college girls who wring their hands and ask me, "Oh, why can't you understand that we're really all the same, that there is only one human race?" Despite their desperate need to be Politically Correct, they understand that the Blacks are as different from us as night from day. The egalitarians prove by their own behavior that they really don't believe in equality.
I'll give you a current example of that. I'm sure that you remember our recent talks about the race riot in Cincinnati last month. Last week I pointed out that although it was only Blacks who were rioting, and that the rioters targeted Whites, pulling White men and women from their cars and beating them severely, the only person charged with a "hate crime" in Cincinnati in connection with the riot was a White man, 20-year-old Craig Carr, who became enraged by the rioters and threw a brick at a Black. The Blacks rioted and attacked White men and women solely because they were White, but no Black was charged with a "hate crime" on that account. A White man fights back, and he is charged with a "hate crime." This was a clear case of Blacks and Whites being held to quite different standards of behavior.
An even more recent case was that of a Black professor at Northern Kentucky University. And I should tell you right at the start that when any Black is held up as a "professor" at a White university, my upper lip develops an involuntary curl. I instinctively assume that what I am confronted with is not a scholar who is at the academy on his merits, but rather a beneficiary of Political Correctness who is better suited to picking cotton than to teaching White students anything. That certainly seems to be the case with Professor Clinton Hewan, a coal-black native of Jamaica who is a tenured associate professor of political science at Northern Kentucky University. The university is just across the Ohio-Kentucky state line from Cincinnati, and so the riot was a matter of considerable interest on the campus of the mostly White university.
The riot, if you remember, was sparked by Blacks angry over a fatal encounter between a Black street thug with a long arrest record and 14 outstanding arrest warrants, 19-year-old Timothy Thomas, and a White policeman who was attempting to arrest him. The Black was ignoring orders to stop and raise his hands, and when the White policemen saw him reach for his waistband, he shot and killed the Black. Professor Clinton Hewan, of course, cheered the Black rioters. He already was well known on the campus as an agitator for Black causes and an outspoken critic of so-called "White racism," a handy catch-all label for anything Blacks find troublesome. In 1998, for example, when the university failed to give him tenure, he hired a lawyer and loudly and repeatedly announced that tenure was being denied to him because of the efforts of "White racists" on the faculty. The university predictably caved in and granted tenure to Clinton Hewan.
After the riot Professor Hewan called for the assassination of the White policeman who had shot the Black thug, Timothy Thomas. He told the campus newspaper, the Northerner, that Thomas's family should "quietly stalk that S.O.B. and take him out.... The family should go out and get that policeman."
Now, can you imagine the reaction on the Northern Kentucky University campus and in the local media if a White professor had reacted to the riot by telling the campus newspaper that the police should have put it down the same way the Israelis customarily put down demonstrations by Palestinians: namely, by identifying the Black leaders in the crowd and having snipers "take them out." Or suppose that a White professor had told the newspaper that when the Black agitator, Jesse Jackson, came to Cincinnati to take advantage of the publicity, White vigilantes should stalk him and "take him out." Tenure or no tenure, that White professor would be out of a job in a hurry. But what do you think happened to Professor Hewan?
Nothing, of course. The White president of the university, Dr. James Votruba, announced that he found Professor Hewan's call for the assassination of a White policeman "troubling," and that he intended to "look further into the matter." Well, not too much further. After all, three years ago Dr. Votruba had given the university's "Strongest Influence Award" to Professor Hewan.
My point is that liberals, soccer moms, yuppies, newspaper reporters, and university administrators, all of whom will swear on a stack of Bibles that they absolutely and positively believe that Blacks and Whites have the same intelligence, the same ability to solve problems and to innovate, the same degree of self-discipline, the same morality, and the same way of looking at the world, don't believe a word of it, and the proof of that is in the sort of preferential treatment they always give to someone such as Professor Hewan. They don't hold a Black to the same standards to which they hold a White man, because they know -- even though they won't admit it -- that the Black needs an advantage in order to maintain the illusion of equality. They know that the Black doesn't have the same intelligence, the same degree of self-discipline, or the same way of looking at the world that a White man does, and so they always try to compensate in some way for that shortcoming in order to maintain the illusion of equality, of sameness, but in fact what they do is make the differences even more manifest to the perceptive observer.
Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page