Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page
And I always find that the journalists have a hard time understanding that. To them the Waco massacre is not at all troubling, and it is hardly a reason to be angry at the government. They see all of those people who were killed in the Branch Davidian church at Waco as a bunch of weirdoes, a bunch of crazy religious fanatics, who really deserve no sympathy. I mean they weren't at all trendy and jaded and New Yorkish like the journalists themselves or like the sort of people the journalists meet at cocktail parties in New York or Washington; so they don't count. Besides, they were against the government and they liked guns, so they deserved what they got. The journalists don't come right out and say that, but it's pretty clear that's what they're thinking. They show it in a hundred ways. Typical is a front-page story about anti-government groups in the March 25, 1997, issue of The Village Voice which refers to the government's massacre of the Branch Davidians only as "the government's siege at Waco." Bill Clinton and Janet Reno didn't massacre all of those women and children at Waco; they didn't murder them; they didn't even kill them; they just besieged them.
The journalists always minimize Waco; they always use euphemisms and avoid words like "murder" and "massacre." And it's clear that they regard the Oklahoma City bombing as a far more heinous crime: not because there were more casualties at Oklahoma City than at Waco, but because the Oklahoma City bombing was a blow at their government, a blow at their beloved Clinton administration. In a sense the bombing at Oklahoma City was directed against the journalists too, whereas the Waco massacre wasn't. Which is to say, that any threat to the government these days is taken personally by most journalists.
I tell them that regardless of the beliefs or occupations of the people killed at Waco and the people killed in Oklahoma City, I regard the Waco massacre as a far more serious and worrisome crime than the Oklahoma City bombing, simply because the Federal government committed the Waco massacre, while presumably it was an individual terrorist, or at least a very small group of terrorists having no connection to the government who bombed the Federal building in Oklahoma City. I tell them that having a small number of terrorists running around bombing buildings is one thing, but having the Federal government committing massacres is quite another thing. A criminal government is much more a threat to its citizens than are a few individual criminals not connected to the government. We know how to deal with individual terrorists, but how do you deal with a terrorist government?
But the journalists don't see it that way. They subconsciously identify with the government, especially with the Clinton government. The government's enemies are their enemies.
I remember the time I was writing The Turner Diaries, in 1975. That was a time when the journalists had much less sympathy for the government than now. That was a time when all of those big anti-American demonstrations were going on in Washington. The journalists all were on the side of the demonstrators. They were all on the side of the mobs marching in the streets carrying Viet Cong flags and shouting, "Ho-ho-ho Chi Minh, the Viet Cong's gonna win."
In 1975 I saw trends in American society, and I tried to understand where those trends would take us in the next 20 years. I saw, on the one hand, what the journalists' support of the anti-American demonstrators and, on the other hand, the government's vacillating and ambivalent attitude toward the Vietnam war were doing to American society. I saw everyone losing respect for the government, becoming angry at the government. I saw the kids on the university campuses being led into anti-Americanism by the Jewish-leftist groups. I saw the returning Vietnam vets being treated like dirt by the media and by the government. And I saw how disillusioned all of the traditionalists and patriots who witnessed all of this were becoming. And I predicted that this general and widespread loss of respect for the government would lead to dangerous social instability and pave the way for civil disorder and civil war. But because it was Politically Correct at that time to be against the government, the journalists just sneered at me and called me a "bigot."
I looked at what the feminists were doing, with all of their claims that men and women are basically the same and should be treated exactly alike. I saw the breakdown in the traditional relationship between men and women that feminism was causing, already in 1975. I saw the growing hostility between men and women, and I predicted that this would lead to an increased incidence of violence against women, an increased incidence of rape. I predicted this in The Turner Diaries. The journalists could see the same things I saw in 1975, but the Politically Correct attitude was to regard feminism as a good thing, which could only lead to good consequences. So the journalists sneered at what I predicted and called it "hate."
And I saw the effects that the government's forced mixing of the races in the schools and in residential areas and in the workplace were having. I saw people becoming alienated. I saw the breakdown of traditional community feeling. I saw young people growing up without any sense of rootedness, any sense of identity, any sense of belonging. And I predicted that this alienation would lead to social instability and to a thousand other social ills. And the journalists also could see this growing alienation back in the 1970s, but to all of them forced racial mixing was a wonderful thing. It was Politically Correct. It was one thing on which they agreed with the government. So they called me a "racist" and condemned my predictions.
And now, 22 years later, what the journalists find truly horrifying about The Turner Diaries is not just that the book predicts many unpleasant developments, and those developments are beginning to happen, they're beginning to become apparent to everyone, they no longer can be denied and ignored -- what's really horrifying to the journalists is that I based my predictions of those developments on the trends of the 1960s and 1970s; I based them on things the journalists hold sacred. I predicted that the breakdown of respect for the government that they themselves were causing back in the 1960s and 1970s would lead to terrorism, whereas they would have us believe that terrorism is simply what happens when some people are permitted to have Politically Incorrect opinions. I predicted that feminism would lead to increased rape and other violence against women, whereas they would have us believe that feminism has nothing to do with it, that it's all the result of what they call "sexism." I predicted that forced racial mixing would lead to more hatred between the races, more violence between the races, and to growing alienation and social instability, whereas they would simply blame it all on "White racism."
The journalists are horrified because I spelled out all of these predictions in black and white more than 20 years ago, and now they're coming to pass, and as they come to pass they verify the assignment of causes I made back in 1975. They verify the assignment of blame I made more than 20 years ago, and that blame is against everything which is Politically Correct, everything which is Holy Writ to the journalists. I told the world where feminism and government enforced multiracialism and the government's no-win policy during the Vietnam war and the media's encouragement of anti-American demonstrations would lead. I condemned all of these things and predicted that they would have disastrous consequences for America, while the journalists praised and supported these same things and predicted that only good could come from them.
And now I am being proved right, and they are being proved wrong, and the proof is there for all the world to see, as The Turner Diaries becomes more and more widely read. That horrifies the journalists and fills them with hatred and anger.
Their reaction is not to examine their beliefs and admit that they were wrong. It is not to question their support for feminism and multiracialism and think about changing their ideas. No, their reaction instead is to condemn my book and look for ways to keep people from reading it. It is to blame the predictions I made 22 years ago for causing the developments I predicted. It is to blame the book rather than the destructive social policies I warned against in the book. And it is to try to make people frightened of the book, so they won't read it.
Last year, when a new printing of The Turner Diaries began appearing on the shelves of major bookstores, a left-wing mailing list huckster named Morris Dees, the head of the so-called Southern Poverty Law Center, who is a darling of the journalists and always is described by them as a "human-rights advocate," launched a letter-writing campaign to pressure bookstores into refusing to carry my book. Other Jewish organizations also tried to keep the book out of the mainstream. They don't want the book read, because it explains what is happening now and why it is happening. They are terrified of having people understand what's going on. They realize that if enough people understand why our society is coming apart, why our young women in the Army are being raped by Black drill instructors and officers, why the Federal building in Oklahoma City was bombed, why terrorism is on the rise everywhere, why drug usage is way up among our young people, why the suicide rate and the divorce rate are so high, why there is so much more corruption in the government -- if people understand these things, there will be a terrible and bloody reaction against the journalists and the Jews and everyone else responsible for the policies which have been destroying our society. They are terrified that the people they have deceived and betrayed for so long will take a bloody vengeance on them.
This fear of the people finding out what's going on and then doing something about it is not just an American phenomenon. Jews, leftists, journalists, and politicians in Europe are terrified as well. I have an article from Forbes magazine in front of me, the April 7 issue. It is an article about the Jewish multibillionaire George Soros and his activities around the world. You may have heard of Soros before. He's a darling of the controlled media and is always being praised as a "philanthropist" and a "human-rights activist." He made his billions speculating in currency and commodities, but he spends his money propping up crypto-Communist regimes in Europe and sponsoring leftist causes. He buys newspapers and uses them to push leftist ideas and boost leftist candidates. He literally buys elections in places like Hungary and other eastern European countries. And the candidates he supports in those countries are the same Communist gangsters who plundered and ruined those countries and tyrannized them before the breakup of the Soviet Union. Now the Communists have changed hats and changed the names of their parties -- now they call themselves "socialists" or more often "democrats" -- but they're still the same gangsters, and they all should be put up against a wall and shot. And they're the people George Soros is spending hundreds of millions of dollars every year to keep in power.
And why is Soros doing that? Forbes tells us why. They quote a Jewish banker who is one of Soros' friends. He says, "Soros is terrified of right-wing nationalism." And Soros himself says essentially the same thing. He is willing to go to any expense to keep patriotic feeling from reasserting itself in eastern Europe. He knows that if patriots ever regain control of their destiny, not only will all of his kinsmen who fattened themselves on the blood of the people of these countries under Communist rule be out in the cold, but they may be called to account for their crimes. That thought terrifies Soros, just as it terrifies journalists over here.
And a similar process is at work in central and western Europe as well. The same fear is present among the ruling establishments that were installed by the victorious democratic-Communist Allies at the end of the Second World War. In most of these countries it has become illegal to question the mythology of anti-fascism which these regimes have used to justify their existence and to shield themselves from criticism. In particular, it has become absolutely taboo to question the Jews' claim to a unique and privileged status in Europe because of their "persecution" in the past.
In late March a magazine editor in Strasbourg, France, was fined more than $5000 and given a six-month suspended jail sentence merely for publishing an article in his magazine which mentioned that there were no gas chambers for killing Jews at a concentration camp in Struthof, near Strasbourg. Now there was a concentration camp, a prison camp, at Struthof in France during the war. And it is a fact, generally recognized by persons knowledgeable about the matter, that there were no gas chambers at Struthof for killing Jews. But in France it is illegal to mention this fact, because to mention it may raise doubts about other "Holocaust" claims. To mention this fact may weaken the fabric of the whole "Holocaust" mythology, a mythology upon which the present establishment in France depends for its moral justification. In Europe the "Holocaust" mythology has become a government-backed religion, and one may not question any part of it, any "Holocaust" claim, no matter how extravagant or absurd. To say, for example, "Well, everybody knows that Jews were persecuted during the war, but let's face it, we all know that there were no Jews gassed at Struthof," is like someone in the 15th century announcing in public, "Well, I go along with most of the Bible, but I just can't swallow those parts about walking on water and the virgin birth." The reaction from the authorities would be pretty much the same in the two cases.
And what happened to that magazine editor in Strasbourg -- whose name, by the way, is Gabriel Andres -- has happened to many people recently in Germany and other European countries. The liberal-democrat regimes are feeling more and more insecure, more and more threatened by the specter of a resurgent patriotism which will hold them accountable for their treason. And they are responding with a more desperate effort to protect the official mythology, to prohibit dissent, to keep the people from understanding what is going on, and has been going on for more than 50 years.
Will they be successful? Will the media bosses and the Southern Poverty Law Center and the other powerful Jewish organizations be able to keep dissent suppressed in America by screaming, "Hate, hate, hate!" and waving The Turner Diaries around every time someone questions their policies? Will George Soros be able to keep his crypto-Communist pals in office in Hungary and the other plundered nations of eastern Europe and stifle all patriotic feeling? Will the frightened, crooked, little men who run France and Germany and Britain and the other European countries be able to keep the people of their countries intimidated with threats of imprisonment if they question the official religion of the "Holocaust" or ask other embarrassing questions?
Well, if it depended on the average voter in America or in Europe, they would be successful. The average voter doesn't care what's true and what isn't. He doesn't care about freedom. He's not interested in questioning the official religion. As long as he's well fed, he just doesn't care about anything except the sports page and the comic strips.
So why is George Soros terrified? Why are the bought politicians in France and Germany and Britain feeling so insecure? Why are the journalists and media bosses in America so shrill and so hateful?
It is because of you, my friends. It is because of the growing minority of Americans and Frenchmen and Germans and Hungarians who do care. They are afraid of you. They know that you are fed up. They know that your numbers are growing. They are afraid of what you will do.
Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page