Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page
I mentioned in a recent broadcast that I saw young Whites like this shuffling along the sidewalks of Philadelphia during one of my rare visits to that urban pesthole last month. The more White males I see garbed and groomed like Blacks, the less surprised I am to see White females leading by the hand the disgusting proof that they have been dabbling in bestiality. It's obvious that this sort of degeneracy is rapidly becoming much more widespread. When I did an interview with Rolling Stone magazine nearly two years ago, they sent along a German photographer who had his blond hair done in dreadlocks. I don't know why I should expect more of Germans than that. After all, they have had 57 years -- two generations -- of Judaeo-American forced education in democracy now. Turn on any TV receiver in Germany, and you will see much of the same poisonous, race-destroying filth from Hollywood that you see here. Young Germans watch Sumner Redstone's MTV just about as much as young Americans do. And in Germany as in America: monkey see, monkey do.
Last year the first-place photojournalism award for the best photograph by a newspaper photographer went to Mike Urban of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, for a photograph he took during the Mardi Gras riot there. I talked about that riot on this program last year. Gangs of Blacks ran through the mostly White crowd of Mardi Gras revelers, snatching purses, punching White women in the face, throwing them to the ground, and kicking them senseless, while Seattle's cops stood on the sidelines and refused to interfere, lest they be accused of "racial profiling." One young White man who tried to help a young White woman who had been knocked down and was being kicked by Blacks, was smashed in the head by a Black wielding a bottle and was killed. I repeatedly watched the newsreel footage of the riot, and it clearly was a Black-on-White riot.
But not entirely. There were some Whites among the rioters: "wiggers" I call them. That means "White niggers." They're the ones with the backward baseball caps. Mike Urban's prize-winning photograph, which the Seattle Post-Intelligencer did not have the courage to publish, is of a young White woman in the crowd who has been stripped naked by a gang of men and is being pawed and sexually abused by some of them while others constrain her. Most of the 20 or so men holding the naked girl down and pawing her are non-Whites: mestizos or Blacks. But in the photograph one can see clearly three or four White males -- wiggers -- grinning as they help the Blacks hold the struggling girl: a shocking and sickening portrait of the reality of multiculturalism.
What should be done with wiggers? In my view they are a thousand times worse than Blacks, and when the time of cleansing for America comes, they certainly will be dealt with first.
And there's another class of White people we can do without. They don't wear hip-hop clothes or have their hair done in cornrows. On the socioeconomic ladder they're a rung or two above wiggers, but they're at least as bad as wiggers. They are the Whites who collaborate with the Jews. With the exception of the German photographer for Rolling Stone, who was a wigger, virtually all the other journalists with whom I've dealt are in the collaborator class. They don't help rioting Blacks tear the clothes off White girls and sexually abuse them, but they help the Jews generate the social climate in which that sort of thing can happen. They help the Jews disseminate their multicultural propaganda. They help the Jews teach young Whites that they shouldn't resist Blacks, that it's all right to mix with them. They help the Jews indoctrinate politicians and police officials with Political Correctness, so that White cops are less likely to intervene to protect Whites from Blacks. Sumner Redstone could not spread his poisonous, racially destructive, hip-hop filth through his MTV channel without the active collaboration of thousands of White helpers.
And its not just the Whites who help Redstone by buying advertising on MTV or working for him as announcers or scriptwriters who are collaborators. Here's an example: a month ago a small, nearly all-White South Dakota college town was turned upside down when it was discovered that a Black basketball player, whom the local college recently had imported from Chicago, was infected with HIV and was having sex with the White girls at the college: with lots of them. Nearly everybody at the college had to have an HIV test, and it turned out that several of the girls there already had become infected by the Black. It's likely that a few of the White boys will be testing positive for HIV pretty soon.
The only reason this story made the news is that the Black basketball player knew he was infected and was having sex with White girls without telling them of his infection. He had found out he was infected after a routine blood test, but he kept the news to himself so as not to interfere with his sex life. Well, there's a law against that sort of thing in South Dakota, and so now the Black is locked up and out of circulation. To me the shocking thing is not that the Black was deliberately infecting his sex partners; the shocking thing is that White college girls were willing to have sex with him, and that White college boys were willing to tolerate that sort of behavior and to have sex themselves with girls they knew had been having sex with a Black. So far as I am concerned, every White woman who has sex with any Black deserves to be infected with HIV and to die a horrible death from AIDS.
But the really reprehensible people in this story are the White college officials who imported this Black basketball player from Chicago. I imagine that before they found out that he was spreading HIV through the whole student body they were quite proud of themselves for having brought some "diversity" to this White college. I have a pretty strong suspicion that these academic idiots wouldn't have been bothered a bit about White girls having sex with the Black if it hadn't been for the HIV. They would be proud that they had taught the girls to be so "tolerant." They would be happy that the White girls aren't "racists."
These South Dakota college officials almost certainly aren't Jews, but they are doing the Jews' work for them. Sumner Redstone and the other media Jews have been working for decades to create the moral and ideological climate where this sort of thing could happen -- they have been making racial mixing fashionable -- but without the active collaboration of White college officials and White journalists and White politicians and White Christian preachers, all of the Jews' racially destructive efforts would have been in vain.
I'm sure that everyone listening is familiar with situations similar to that at the South Dakota college, but without the HIV. There are Christians in small communities all across the Whiter areas of America who feel guilty that their communities are so White, and many of these guilt-stricken Christians have tried to remedy the situation by importing Blacks or other non-Whites into their churches or their communities. Some of them even bring in the Blacks from as far away as Africa. And again, the Jewish media people have been the biggest factor in generating the moral and ideological climate in which being White is something to feel guilty about, but it is local Gentile preachers and teachers and politicians and journalists who actually do the destructive work of making their communities more racially "diverse."
So what's to be done with all of these collaborators if we want one day to have a clean America again?
The reason we're discussing this subject today is that there is a difference of opinion among members in my own organization, the National Alliance, about what attitude we should have toward wiggers and collaborators. Some members believe that we should take the hardest possible line toward them. Whether they are wiggers or White women who consort with Blacks or White journalists who follow the Jewish party line or White politicians who do the Jews' bidding in order to get themselves elected or any other sort of collaborator, they should all be put up against a wall and given traitors' justice.
And some members of the National Alliance believe that we should be more understanding of the conditions, of the environment, that made these wiggers and collaborators opt for treason.
Now, all of this is pretty academic at this time, since we're still a long way from being able to punish anybody for anything. About all we can do now is try to understand what is happening in the world around us and communicate with others, help others understand. But I should tell you that until a few years ago I was pretty much in agreement with the hard liners. I was in favor of getting rid of all of the wiggers and all of the collaborators as a first step toward building a healthy society for our people.
But my views on this have changed as I have learned more about human motivation and human behavior. What I have come to understand about people -- our people, White people -- is that there are very few, probably only a fraction of a per cent, who are consciously evil: a fraction of a per cent who collaborate with the Jews knowing that they are helping the Jews destroy our people but who do it anyway for reasons of personal gain. These collaborators fit the clinical definition of psychopath: people without conscience. I believe that most politicians are in this category.
And there are only a small minority of our people who have an innate moral sense, a minority of two or three or four per cent of the White population who are able to think independently and form their own views about what is good and what is evil, what is right and what is wrong.
And the remaining 95 per cent or so of the population simply don't have minds or consciences of their own. They may be bright or they may be dull, they may have good work habits or they may be lazy and careless, they may be well disciplined and have good character or they may be weak and self-indulgent slobs, but all of them conform their opinions about what is right and what is wrong, about what is proper behavior and what is unacceptable, to their perception of the opinions and behavior of their peers.
No matter how foolish we may think their opinions, no matter how perverse we may consider their behavior, they have no innate compass for judging these things; they can only conform their thinking and their behavior to the thinking and behavior they perceive in their peers. Sometimes -- that is, at most times in the past, prior to the last century -- what they perceived was real. They observed and listened to their neighbors at first hand. And especially they observed and listened to community leaders, to role models, to authority figures, including especially parents. So what we had in the past among this 95 per cent of our people were patterns of thinking and behavior that varied primarily with social class. But the patterns were based on perceptions of real behavior among peers.
Since the rise of the mass media during the past century, however -- and especially since the rise of television during the past half-century -- what has been perceived has been increasingly artificial. What has been perceived has to a large degree not been the thinking and behavior of their flesh-and-blood peers that have evolved naturally over the course of generations, but rather the artificially contrived behavior and pretended thinking of actors and actresses and commentators on movie screens and TV screens and of models in magazine advertising. Scriptwriters and film directors and spin doctors and advertising executives have to a very large degree taken the place of parents and of other natural role models in shaping the thinking and behavior of the masses. And of course, perception gradually becomes reality. Eventually we observe among our peers behavior that is very similar to that we see on our television screens. But the mass media -- especially the mass media of entertainment -- continue to lead and to move and to shape public thinking and public behavior.
That is a fact with profound implications. I'll recapitulate: Most people -- probably 95 per cent of the population -- are neither good nor evil. They are morally neutral. Their attitudes and opinions and aspirations -- their moral judgments and their behavior -- are determined not by any innate sense of right and wrong but rather are conformed to the attitudes and behavior they perceive in their peers, real or artificial, and especially to the attitudes and behavior they perceive in role models and authority figures. When those role models and authority figures incorporate and display what is best in a people, then the attitudes and behavior of the masses will be good and progressive and characteristic of the best tendencies in the race. If the leaders and role models display noble qualities and greatness, then the masses will strive toward nobility and greatness. They won't all get there, of course, but they will strive for those qualities, and many will achieve them.
If their leaders show their racial consciousness and pride and their respect for the best traditions of their people, then the masses also will be racially conscious and will try to behave in a way that displays racial pride and respect for tradition. They will not even consider mixing with non-Whites or imitating their ways, and they will not tolerate such behavior in their peers. The concept of racial treason will be abhorrent to them.
But if their role models and authority figures display the worst and weakest traits in the people, then that behavior will be reflected in the behavior of the masses. And if their role models and authority figures are mere puppets controlled by aliens whose aim is the demoralization and destruction of the people, then the masses will behave in the way we can see them behaving on the streets of Philadelphia or in our airport terminals today. That is the consequence of permitting the Jews to gain a dominant influence over our mass media of news and entertainment.
And so what is the point in shooting wiggers or collaborators, except as an educational measure, to provide an example of behavior that will not be tolerated in a healthy society? Or perhaps, in the case of wiggers, we might consider shooting the most slack-jawed among them as a eugenic measure.
The point is that what we need to aim for is not eliminating the great mass of people who have bad behavior or bad attitudes, but rather changing their role models and authority figures. We should not even think about getting rid of the lemmings, just because they have been behaving badly. They make up the great majority of every society, and it is necessary that they do so. They provide the stability and cohesiveness necessary for a viable society. A society cannot tolerate too many independent thinkers, just as it cannot tolerate too many psychopaths.
Think about these things. I know that it took me a lot of thinking and a lot of observing to become quite sure that what I have just told you is, in fact, correct. Twenty years ago, I believed that people are born with all of the fundamental traits that they will display as adults. And at one level -- a very basic level -- that is true. Intelligence -- various types of intelligence -- is a group of fundamental traits that individuals are born with. And there certainly are inherited tendencies toward certain types of behavior as well. But these are underlying tendencies, and the ways in which these underlying tendencies are expressed in individuals -- the ways in which they manifest themselves as the individuals mature -- are very much subject to external influences.
The 15-year-old, slack-jawed White boy encountered on a Philadelphia sidewalk who wears a backward baseball cap and baggy trousers and collects basketball cards with pictures of Black players could have turned out to be a decent White teenager instead, with pride of race and aspirations to be a policeman or a soldier or a craftsman: perhaps not a brilliant member of White society, but at least a constructive member. The 20-year-old White woman encountered in an airport terminal with needle marks on her arms and three mulatto offspring trailing behind her could have turned out to be that White policeman or soldier or craftsman's wife, living a clean life and proudly bearing and caring for his children.
For the masses, everything depends on the examples that are set for them, on their role models and authority figures. Monkey see; monkey do.
That is why it does not behoove us to think of ourselves at war against wiggers and collaborators. When I see a White kid wearing hip-hop clothing, I still feel a strong urge to kick. And when I see a White woman with mongrel offspring, I wish that I could call in an air strike against New York or Washington or Philadelphia or Los Angeles; I really have an urge to lay waste to the whole society that tolerates such abominations.
But I understand that our task is not to kick and shoot and bomb; instead it is to communicate and to teach. We don't need to try to communicate with the wiggers and the collaborators now. But we do need to communicate with those of our people capable of being positive role models and authority figures, and we do need to continue to build our means -- our media -- for reaching ever larger numbers of ordinary White people: those who have not yet been completely corrupted by the aliens who have subverted our mass media into a weapon for waging genocide against our people.
When the time comes there will be enough punishment for those who need it. But what most of our people, who are behaving badly now, need is not punishment but good leadership, good examples. And that is what we must strive to give them.
Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page