Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page

Free Speech - February 2002 - Volume VIII, Number 2

The Culture of Lies

by Dr. William Pierce

A time-honored saying is, "All is fair in love and war." Certainly, it seems a reasonable saying and one in accord with Nature. It expresses the fact that when at war even otherwise honorable men resort to trickery, deceit, and outright lying. In a strictly personal conflict a man may feel obliged by his sense of honor to be truthful; at least, it used to be that way before we got so much democracy and multiculturalism, and we still had some understanding of the concept of personal honor. But when a nation or a race is at war, and survival depends upon victory -- or at least, upon avoiding defeat -- a man must think of more than his personal honor; he must put the survival of his people above all else, and he must do whatever is necessary to win.

It's stretching things a bit, however, when we lie in order to make our job of beating up someone much smaller and weaker a little easier for us. When our government lies not because it's a matter of national survival but just for the sake of convenience, that should be troubling for all of us. That's the case of our propaganda war in Afghanistan, for example. We drop leaflets with doctored photographs and lies all over the place, in order to turn the people against their former Taliban leaders and Osama bin Laden. We should be saying simply, "We're coming for you, Osama bin Laden, and we'll get you." Instead, we try to make our job easier by lying outrageously.

Well, lying is the way of democrats and multiculturalists -- and that includes Republicans -- but I question whether or not it really makes our job easier. We air-dropped leaflets on Afghanistan with a phony photograph of Osama bin Laden wearing a Western suit and with his beard shaved and his hair cut short and announced that he had given up the fight so that he could escape to a life of luxury and ease in the West. That really didn't fool anyone, and it was a completely unnecessary lie. Then a little later Mr. Bush produced a video tape that he claimed had been found in an al-Quaida hideout and showed Osama bin Laden confessing, in effect, to the September 11 attack. Should we be surprised when Muslims all over the Middle East don't believe Bush and denounce the video tape as phony?

Actually, I believe it very likely that Osama bin Laden was behind the September 11 attack, and I think most Muslims believe that too. But I and a lot of other people are very skeptical about Mr. Bush's very convenient video tape. Perhaps it's genuine, but I'm not inclined to believe that just because George Bush or Donald Rumsfeld or any other lying politician says it is.

The fact is that politicians are so accustomed to lying about everything that they don't even stop to consider the consequences of their lies. If a lie seems more convenient than the truth at any moment, they lie -- and not just to little people they're beating up at the moment. American politicians will lie just as readily to their fellow Americans as they will to Afghans or Pakistanis. And one can hardly blame them, because the American people have come to expect it of them and don't seem to hold it against them. Teddy Kennedy murdered his girlfriend Mary Jo Kopechne and lied outrageously about it, and yet he's still in the U.S. Senate today. Bill Clinton lied outrageously about nearly everything, and the voters reelected him.

And as I said, it's not just Democratic politicians. George Bush may not be as skillful a liar as Bill Clinton, but he's just as much a liar. That's the democratic way. We live in a culture of lies, a culture shaped for us by the controlled mass media, in which lying not only is acceptable, it is required whenever it helps the cause of Political Correctness. Consider the current twittering in New York about the 19-foot bronze statue being erected in honor of the city's firemen. The statue is based on a news photograph of three New York firemen raising an American flag, Iwo Jima style, on a mound of rubble at the site of the former World Trade Center. The three firemen who raised the flag are all White men, as are 94 per cent of New York City's firemen, and the Whiteness of the firemen raising the flag can be seen quite clearly in the news photograph.

Well, that's a Politically Inconvenient fact, and so the 19-foot statue based on the photograph will show one Negro fireman, one mestizo fireman, and one White fireman raising the flag. Naturally, the White firemen who actually raised the flag on the rubble were not happy when they saw the multicultural model for the statue, and neither were many of their fellow White firemen.

Tough luck. I suspect that the media bosses, the politicians, and the Jewish businessmen who favor the multicultural statue will have their way, and groups of schoolchildren who are shown the statue will be told that it's an actual depiction of the flag-raising. I'm surprised they didn't include a female fireman and an Asian fireman helping to raise the flag and show a couple of gay firemen fondling each other in the background.

Perhaps it's unfair of me to put too much blame on politicians and Jewish businessmen for this sort of lying and distortion of reality for the sake of Political Correctness. Gentile businessmen seem about as willing to lie as Jewish businessmen. Jesse Jackson, the Black rabble rouser, con man, and extortionist whose empire seems to be collapsing now, made a very good living for many years by persuading businessmen -- most of them Gentiles -- to lie about race for him. With the Jewish media backing him, Jackson would threaten White businessmen with Black boycotts unless they multiculturalized their operations to his satisfaction -- and kicked in a nice, big payoff to Jesse himself. Jesse would demand that the White businessmen hire Black executives, picture Blacks in their advertising, and subcontract to Black-owned businesses.

Instead of standing up to Jackson and calling him an extortionist, virtually all of the White businessmen decided it would be cheaper to pay him off, make the changes in personnel and advertising and subcontracting he demanded, and pretend that they liked it. They paid for advertising showing White women cuddling up to Black men in order to please Jesse and pretended that they were doing this of their own free will. They wanted everyone to know that they were on the multicultural bandwagon. To me, this is at least as bad as the sort of lying the politicians do.

And the Gentile academics and publicists are just as crooked these days. There was a bit of nervous twittering among academic historians last month when a supposedly scholarly study of firearms ownership in 18th-century America by an Emory University history professor, Michael Bellesiles, turned out to be fraudulent. Bellesiles claimed to have studied thousands of 18th-century probate records and found that very few American families -- fewer than 10 per cent -- actually owned firearms in the 18th century; therefore, the legislators who wrote the Second Amendment obviously didn't intend to guarantee the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, just militias. Well, that pleased the nutcase feminist gun-control crowd, but as it turned out, Bellesiles had faked it. Professional historians professed embarrassment and outrage over Bellesiles' chicanery, but what Bellesiles did in trying to scuttle the Second Amendment is quite innocuous compared to the fraud committed by thousands of other professional historians, who don't have to worry about being called to account for their deceit.

I'm talking about the historians of the Second World War and related subjects, such as the so-called "Holocaust." Every academic historian worth his salt understands that nearly all the histories of the Second World War are fraudulent through commission, omission, or both, yet almost none of these historians will challenge the fraud in the way Bellesiles' work has been challenged. Why is that?

The reason is that Jews as a whole have a vested interest in the fraudulent version of the war and of the "Holocaust." Anyone who questions even the smallest detail of the fraud is attacked viciously as a "Holocaust denier" or a "Nazi sympathizer." In the case of gun control, nearly all Jews are for it, but they don't have the vested interest in it that they have in the "Holocaust" and a number of other myths about the Second World War. So it is still permissible to be objective in writing about the history of firearms ownership in America -- but it is not permissible to write or teach anything contrary to revealed dogma about the Second World War. Even the historians who aren't partisans of the Jews and who don't want to lie don't have the courage to be truthful.

Imagine that a history professor is teaching his students 20th-century history, and to avoid violating any taboos he teaches the approved, "kosher" version. He teaches that in the years prior to the Second World War the Germans wanted the Jews out of Germany, but he doesn't explain why. He doesn't talk about what the Jewish commissars were doing to Russians and Ukrainians in the Soviet death camps. He doesn't mention the murder of millions of kulaks by the communists, and he doesn't mention the extraordinarily high percentage of Jews in the Soviet bureaucracy and in the Soviet secret police and among the administrators of the Soviet death camps. He doesn't tell his students that while these things were kept quiet by the media in the United States, the media in Germany talked openly about them, and the German people were aware of how the Jews had turned on the helpless Gentiles under communist rule and butchered them by the millions. He leaves his students with the impression that the German desire to get the Jews out of Germany was entirely irrational or was based on jealousy of Jewish wealth and success.

When he talks about the year preceding Pearl Harbor, he is not likely to mention that the Roosevelt government was so hot to get the United States involved in the war against Germany at the behest of the Jews that the United States was waging undeclared war against Germany in the Atlantic, hoping for an "incident" that could be used as a pretext for full-scale hostilities, but that the German Navy was under strict orders not to respond to U.S. provocations, or that when the Pearl Harbor attack came it was more of a surprise to the Germans than it was to the war party in the Roosevelt government, which previously had broken the Japanese naval code. He leaves his students with the impression that the United States wanted only peace, and the Germans wanted only to wage war against us in their mad campaign to conquer the world.

When he talks about the behavior of the various combatants during the war, he is likely to follow the Jewish party line and paint the Germans as barbarians who committed more atrocities than anyone else, and to paint the Jews as the principal victims of the war. He may not feel obliged to repeat all of the more fanciful Jewish lies, such as Jews being skinned by the Germans to make lamp shades and then boiled down to make soap, but he certainly will not describe these lies for what they are, and he will not challenge the central myth of "six million" innocent, blameless Jews killed in "gas ovens" by the wicked Nazis. He will skim lightly over the genocide committed by the Soviets against the Germans, the Poles, the Balts, and other nationalities during and after the war, and he will not even hint at the leading role played by the Jews in this genocide. He is likely to leave his students believing the oft-repeated lie that the so-called "Holocaust" was the greatest crime ever committed.

Is such a history professor less culpable than the most mendacious politician? I think not. And what about the professor of biology or anthropology who, knowing of the profound differences in mentality, in psychology, in inborn behavioral patterns that separate the races, lets his students use a textbook that asserts the sameness of the races and fails to point out this lie? Should he be forgiven for betraying the trust placed in him simply because he wants to keep his job?

As I said, we live in a culture of lies. It's not just the politicians and the businessmen and the teachers and the news reporters who lie to us: it's everyone to whom the Jews have a string tied, and that means most people involved in shaping the popular culture: advertisers and entertainers and editors and publishers and writers and the rest. Here's an example: the February issue of Playboy magazine has been on the newsstands for a couple of weeks now. There's an article in the magazine titled "Virtual Reich," with a subhead that reads:

Fascism is back, featuring a strange cast of Islamic fundamentalists, skinheads, and homegrown terrorists. Here's the sinister part: they're all talking to one another.

It's a trashy article in a trashy magazine, but it mentions me at length, and that was my reason for choosing it as an example. And with a circulation of more than 3 million copies each month and probably half again that many readers, Playboy does have a significant role in the popular culture. The article is almost entirely make-believe. It has a few quotations from things I've written, a few quotations from other people, most of whom I've never met or even corresponded with, and then it throws us all into one pot and stirs us up as if we're part of a giant, worldwide, terrorist conspiracy: me along with Muslim fundamentalists, German and English nationalists, anti-abortionists, Tim McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski, nutcase Christian millennialists, environmental activists, and elderly SS veterans -- just about everyone the Jews don't like. It's not only the basic theme of the article that is wrong -- claiming one giant conspiracy where there is none -- but the details are chock full of errors too. It's clear that no one bothered to check the article for accuracy.

But of course, no one really cared about truthfulness or accuracy in this article: certainly not the publisher or any of Playboy's editors or the author, Mike Reynolds, who used to write for the Southern Poverty Law Center, the ultra-sleazy Jewish propaganda outfit run by direct-mail fund raising huckster Morris Dees. The purpose of the article was to frighten America's Joe Sixpacks and Sally Soccermoms, to send a cold shiver down their spines with the specter of all the bad guys who want to throw a crimp into their mall shopping and ballgame watching, ganging up on them. If you can scare them more easily by lying, then lie.

That's the American spirit these days. The politicians lie, the teachers and professors lie, the media people lie, the businessmen lie, the magazine writers lie, and for the most part the American people don't care. Just keep those shopping malls well stocked and keep plenty of ball games on TV, and they don't care. It's the acquiescence of the American people in all of this lying, rather than the liars themselves, that convinces me that the end times are near. At least, I hope so.

You know, a few minutes ago I mentioned that before the Second World War the Germans wanted to get the Jews out of their country, and I told you part of the reason for that. The Germans saw what the Jews were doing to the Russians and the Ukrainians, and they didn't want to give the Jews a chance to do the same thing to them. From the end of the First World War in 1918 until 1933, there was combat in the streets of Germany's cities between the communists, whose leadership was heavily Jewish, and the Nazis. There was a real danger that the communists would win and take over Germany the way they had taken over Russia. And the German people also knew the role the Jews had had in bringing the United States into the First World War, causing Germany's defeat, and leaving the country open to the possibility of a communist takeover.

But these weren't the only reasons the Germans wanted to be rid of the Jews. The Jews were very influential in Germany after the First World War. They were strongly entrenched in the legal profession, in banking, in advertising and merchandising, in show business, in organized vice, in publishing and other media. They were trying hard to change the spirit of Germany. They were pushing modernism in art, music, and literature. They were pushing for "diversity" and "tolerance." They were ridiculing German tradition and culture and morality and the German sense of personal honor, trying hard to make young Germans believe that it was "cool" to be rootless and cosmopolitan. They were promoting the same culture of lies that they have been promoting here.

That was the so-called "Weimar" period, because right after the First World War some important government business, including the ratification of a new German constitution, took place in the city of Weimar. The Jews loved the Weimar period, but it was, in fact, the most degenerate period in Germany's history. The Jews, of course, didn't think of it as degenerate. They thought of it as "modern" and "progressive" and "cool." Really, it was a very Jewish period, where lying was considered a virtue. The Jews were riding high. Many books have been written by Jews in America about Weimar Germany, all praising it to the skies and looking back on it with nostalgia. Even without the so-called "Holocaust," they never have forgiven the Nazis for bringing an end to the Weimar period.

There was a Hollywood film made 30 years ago, in 1972, about Weimar Germany. The film was called Cabaret, and it starred Liza Minelli. It depicted Berlin nightlife, with all its degeneracy, including the flourishing of homosexuality, and also depicted the fight between the communists and the Jews and the other proponents of modernism on the one hand and the Nazis on the other hand. The Hollywood filmmakers, of course, were solidly on the side of the degenerates and portrayed the Nazis as the bad guys, but this film is another example of the Jews outsmarting themselves. The Jews who made the film saw everything from their viewpoint, through their own eyes, and the degenerate Gentiles under their spell also saw things from the Jewish viewpoint, but the Jews apparently didn't stop to think -- or didn't care -- that a normal, healthy White person would view things differently. Check it out for yourself. Cabaret is still available in video stores.

The point I am making is this: In the 1920s, after the First World War, the Jews were trying to do to Germany what they began doing to America after the Second World War, in the 1960s. Many Germans, the healthiest elements in Germany, resisted the Jews' efforts, just as many Americans have resisted the Jews' efforts in America. In Germany the Jews were a bit premature. Although they had much of the media under their control, they didn't control all of the media. They tried to move too fast. The healthiest Germans resisted and beat them.

In America, in the 1960s, the Jews had almost total media control before they began their big push, and they proceeded more carefully. In America they are winning. The culture of lies has prevailed in America. It's still possible for Americans to win, but it's going to be a lot tougher this time. We'd better get started. The first step is to regain at least partial control of our media, so that we can begin contradicting the lies. This American Dissident Voices broadcast is a part of that first step.

© 2002 National Vanguard Books · Box 330 · Hillsboro ·WV 24946 · USA

A cassette recording of this broadcast is available for $12.95 including postage from:
National Vanguard Books
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946

Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page