Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page

Free Speech - February 1999 - Volume V, Number 2

Choosing a Barbie Doll

by Dr. William Pierce

Usually I like to deal with hard news on these programs: demographic statistics which need to be brought to our attention, crime stories which have been suppressed by the controlled media, unreported aspects of the sleazy business of government in Washington, the names and doings of the powerful men responsible for much of what's wrong in the world today. I like to deal with facts -- facts that we can check for ourselves, because credibility is such an important aspect of every program, of everything we talk about. And the reason credibility is so important to us is not that what we talk about is far-fetched or hard to believe -- most of it is commonsense stuff clearly backed up by facts -- but what I tell you also runs directly against the way the public has been conditioned to think these days. Much of what I say is not Politically Correct, and for that reason much of the public is afraid of it, terrified of it, doesn't want to believe it, will look for any excuse not to believe it. So I try to make all of my conclusions very hard for listeners to evade. I try to talk about things in a way that people will be forced to believe them, whether they want to or not.

It took me a long time to accept the fact that there really are people who don't want to know the truth. In fact, that is the case with the majority of the public. Most people want to believe what makes them feel safe and comfortable. Whether it's true or not really isn't important to them. I mean no offense to women when I say this, but that always has seemed to me to be an essentially feminine attitude: being more concerned with the social acceptability of an idea than with its truth or falsity. Yet that's the way most people, men as well as women, are these days. We're living in an emasculated age.

You know, when I told you that people are terrified of Politically Incorrect information, I wasn't exaggerating at all. The sponsor of this program, National Vanguard Books, mails out its book catalogs to thousands of people every month. The catalogs cost money, and so care is taken to send them to people who will be interested in the books and tapes described in them, but occasionally a catalog is received by a person who is allergic to Politically Incorrect ideas. What often happens then is that the recipient, instead of simply flipping through the catalog, noting that it is nothing a Clinton booster would be interested in, dropping it in the trash, and forgetting about it -- instead of this his heart begins racing and he breaks out in a cold sweat. He thinks to himself, "Omigod, suppose the neighbors saw this sticking out of my mailbox! They might think that I don't love our President. They might think that I'm on the wrong side of his popularity polls. They might even think that I'm some sort of racist or anti-Semite, because there are books in here which are not at all Politically Correct." And then, with his heart pounding and barely able to breathe, he calls his lawyer.

I'm not kidding you: we receive certified letters, return receipt requested, from lawyers demanding that we remove so and so's name from our mailing list immediately and never send him anything again. How much do think that cost the poor, frightened slob who received our catalog in the mail? I don't know about your lawyer, but mine would charge a hundred bucks to send out a certified letter like that for me. But there are lots of Americans who are so terrified that other people will think them Politically Incorrect that they're willing to pay. And despite the example I just gave of the reaction of a Clinton booster receiving a book catalog in the mail, there are anti-Clinton people who are just as frightened.

The real significance of this sort of frightened reaction by some people to the National Vanguard Books catalog is not that there are people out there whose ideas and opinions are different from mine. The significance is the fear. I really believe that many -- perhaps even most -- of these frightened people don't really have ideas or opinions at all. Ideas aren't important to them, aren't real to them. What's important is being accepted, fitting in, being approved. I think that's always been important to most people. To women, in particular, it's always been more important to be approved than to have a correct understanding of the world around them. Today more men than ordinarily are behaving like women in this regard. And the fear really is stronger and more widespread than it used to be.

Let me share with you a really disgusting story I read last week. It was published in the January 19 edition of the San Jose Mercury News. That's San Jose, California. The writer, Katherine Corcoran, is a staff member at the newspaper, a White woman, and she relates the soul-wrenching experience she had after her seven-year-old daughter went to a San Jose toy store with her aunt, looking for a Barbie doll. The little girl wanted to take a White Barbie doll off the shelf, but there was a Black Barbie doll in front of the White doll, so she moved the Black doll out of the way to get to the White doll. And then it occurred to the seven-year-old that she had just committed a "hate crime." She went home to her mother in tears, confused and frightened, and asked her mother whether moving the Black doll aside showed that she was "prejudiced." The girl's mother described all of this in the newspaper story she wrote. She quotes her daughter: "In the toy store today, Auntie let me pick out whatever Barbie I wanted. And I moved a Black Barbie on the shelf out of the way to reach the White Barbie behind her. Does that make me prejudiced?" And as I said, this was not a casual question. The little girl was crying, terrified that she might actually have shown herself to be "prejudiced."

And when the mother heard this question she herself froze in terror. She didn't know how to answer the question. She was afraid to answer simply, "No, dear, choosing the White doll instead of the Black doll doesn't mean that you're prejudiced." She couldn't give that answer because it would be dishonest. That answer would comfort her daughter at the moment, but it might lead the little girl into relaxing her vigilance and wandering even further down the path of Political Incorrectness. It might, heaven forbid, reinforce her preference for White over Black.

On the other hand, if the mother answered the girl's question honestly -- if the mother answered, "Yes, you vicious, little White racist, by shoving aside the Black doll you revealed your horrible, racist prejudice in favor of your own race" -- if her mother answered that way, then her daughter might not be able to handle the psychic trauma. The mother's own words in the newspaper were: "If I said yes, I feared I would scar her self-image for life. Her eyes pleaded with me not to confirm the worst." Believe it or not, that's exactly what this silly woman wrote in the newspaper: "If I said yes, I feared I would scar her self-image for life." And yet, the mother was sure that "yes" was the honest answer, because she knew that all of us Whites have the original sin of racism in us, a sin which we are obliged to struggle all our lives to overcome and to pay all our lives in order to atone for.

For the remainder of a long, hand-wringing article, the mother agonized over how to deal with this terrible dilemma. The whole thing is surrealistic, like the sort of dream one might have after falling asleep with a really bad case of heartburn. But, unfortunately, that's the way a great many Americans think these days. They really do get torn up over such things as how to be sure that they are raising their children to be both Politically Correct and self-contented.

The mother writing in the San Jose Mercury News relates the stories of several other parents who encountered problems similar to her own. Not one of these parents expresses anger toward those who brainwashed their children to the point that any realization that they instinctively prefer their own kind frightens them and makes them feel guilty. Not one parent considers grabbing a shotgun and going out to hunt the media bosses who did this to their children. Instead they all cringe and grovel. The mother writing the story finally decides that what her daughter needs is still more brainwashing -- more children's books full of multiculturalism and diversity, more Steven Spielberg films, et cetera. She coaxes her daughter to believe that the only reason she reached for the White doll instead of the Black doll was not that the White doll was the one she could identify with because it looked like her, but that she liked the lipstick on the White doll more than the lipstick on the Black doll. That rationalization made the mother and daughter both feel much better. And then before the daughter could backslide, the mother went out and bought her a Black Barbie doll, a mestizo Barbie doll, an Indian Barbie doll, etc. The mother concludes: "I decided if my daughter was going to play with Barbies . . . they at least would be diverse. Her play world now includes Arab, Native American, Latina, and African-American Barbies." And that mother obviously feels quite proud of the way she dealt with her daughter's problem. I felt sick after reading her story.

It's easy to think ahead eight years or so to the time when this woman's daughter is in a racially integrated high school and begins dating. When she has a choice between dating Black boys or White boys, she will remember her mother's response to the Barbie doll dilemma. Her mother undoubtedly will be proud of her when she brings her first Black boyfriend home for dinner.

You know, there used to be a time when I thought that the only way we could save our race and our civilization was to have a civil war and shoot everyone who thought like that and then start over again with the survivors. Of course, we still need a civil war -- there's no getting around that -- but it won't be necessary to shoot everyone who feels angst and guilt when his or her daughter opts for a White Barbie doll. These people are not ideologically opposed to the survival of White civilization. As I mentioned earlier, they don't have an ideology, except to be Politically Correct, whatever that happens to be at the moment. The people who need to be shot -- who must be shot -- are the current arbiters of Political Correctness, the people who planned for seven-year-old White girls to feel guilty if they revealed a preference for White Barbie dolls. Shoot those, and the rest will adapt. They will assimilate whatever attitudes and opinions are presented to them. That's the way most people are. That's the way they've always been.

And the people who're like that are not just those with double-digit IQs. Many of these people are quite bright and competent. Either they were born feeling guilty about something, or they are susceptible to having a guilt feeling implanted in them, which the arbiters of Political Correctness then can manipulate. This is something which I guess witch doctors and priests have understood since prehistoric times and taken advantage of, which is why the concepts of guilt and redemption play such a large role in many religions. Unfortunately, the people who have wormed their way into our media of mass communication and gotten a deathgrip on them understand this too.

It's really tragic when we see how the media have manipulated people like the mother who writes for the San Jose Mercury News, but sometimes it's almost funny watching some of the academic lemmings in the grip of Political Correctness squirm when they're presented with a similar dilemma. A recent case is that of Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery. He'd always been a hero to the Politically Correct establishment after his World War Two victory over the Germans in North Africa. After the war he toured Britain's colonies in Africa and filed a report with the government which was quite at odds with the aim of the liberals in the government to dismantle the British Empire, and so his report was stamped "secret" and filed away for 50 years.

The statutory 50 years being up a few weeks ago, it was released to the news media by Britain's Public Records Office. Montgomery not only was in favor of strengthening the Empire and opposing the spread of communism in Africa -- both goals anathema to liberals -- but he expressed his frank opinion of Blacks, including the supposedly "civilized" ones, and their capabilities. The Black African, Montgomery wrote, "is a complete savage and is quite incapable of developing the country himself."

Now, Montgomery's opinion of Blacks was not at all uncommon in the 1940s, when he wrote his report, and people were not afraid to state this opinion in polite society. In fact, it was the majority opinion among Britons who had had any experience at all in the British colonies in Africa. During the past 50 years, however, the controlled media, the churches, and other boosters of Political Correctness succeeded in making that opinion Politically Incorrect, and so when Montgomery's comments on Blacks were made public recently, everyone still alive who had had any contact with him tried desperately to put as much distance as possible between himself and Montgomery. His surviving relatives expressed their shame and embarrassment. One of Montgomery's biographers interviewed by The Guardian this month sniffed that "his reputation is irredeemably damaged." Montgomery's entire reputation, of course, is as a military leader and strategist, but to the Politically Correct zealot it is quite inconceivable that one can be a "racist" and also a person with superior qualities of any kind.

And this sort of thing has happened over and over again. When H.L. Mencken's private papers were published a few years ago, there was the same sort of ducking and running for cover on the part of everyone who ever had said anything nice about Mencken or his work. They were scared to death that Mencken's frank views on race and on the Jews would cause people to think that they were themselves Politically Incorrect. They were terrified of guilt by association.

Almost every public figure or writer of note before about 1950, except communists or clerics, who had anything to say about race would scare the pants off today's Politically Correct lemmings. Read what the humanitarian doctor Albert Schweitzer had to say about the Blacks in Africa that he lived among and spent his life trying to help. Read what President Teddy Roosevelt wrote on race. Or Abe Lincoln. Or any of a hundred others I could name without even having to do any real digging in my library. This has made history a political minefield for Politically Correct writers and teachers -- and it is the principal reason why history is being phased out of high school and university curricula, except for bowdlerized -- really falsified -- versions which have been carefully cleared of mines. I mean, how is a Politically Correct teacher to explain to students that nearly everyone they had thought of as a great inventor -- Thomas Edison, for example -- or a great industrialist -- Henry Ford, for example -- or a great pioneer of aviation -- Charles Lindbergh, for example -- or a great military leader -- George Patton, for example -- or you name it was really a terrible racist? How is this to be concealed from the students when they read the details of these historical figures' private lives, when they read what these people actually thought on racial matters? Hey, a history professor could get himself into real trouble in a hurry. Better just not to study anything that happened before about 1960. Who needs to know all of that old stuff, anyway? Most of it is terribly Incorrect, Politically speaking.

The most popular radio show ever broadcast in America, which started in 1929, eventually became a TV series, and ran until 1960 -- 31 years altogether -- was Amos 'n' Andy. It was a show with White scriptwriters and White actors playing the roles of Blacks and using Black dialect. It was not in any sense an anti-Black show; in fact, it treated its Black characters with affection; but it was a comedy show, and it did not portray Blacks as dignified statesmen or brain surgeons or rocket scientists, so by the 1960s it had been condemned as "racist" and taken off the air. If the Amos 'n' Andy show were revived today, any company which signed on as a sponsor would be hit immediately with boycotts and demonstrations. Politicians and church leaders would be giving outraged speeches on television about how "hateful" and "racist" it was. And all over America tens of thousands of Katherine Corcorans -- remember, she's the silly woman who wrote in the San Jose Mercury News last week about her seven-year-old daughter's traumatic experience with Barbie dolls -- tens of thousands of Katherine Corcorans and their fully "sensitized" husbands would be wringing their hands and agonizing over how to explain to their kids why they couldn't watch Amos 'n' Andy on TV, why it would be "prejudiced" of them to laugh at the characters.

It's interesting to note that although Amos 'n' Andy spent its last days as a TV show, it was primarily TV which brought about the great sea change in America in the 1960s which made it impossible for Amos 'n' Andy or any other Politically Incorrect programming to remain on the air. Television as a brainwashing medium first became significant around 1950 -- or perhaps a year or two earlier. In 1950 there already were ten million black-and-white television receivers in the United States. Even in the early 1950s every self-respecting lemming family which wanted to keep up with the Joneses believed that it had to have a television receiver in the house, so that every evening the little lemmings and their parents could gather around the tiny, flickering, monochrome screen to have their attitudes and opinions adjusted. But it was the advent of color television at the beginning of the 1960s which made television the powerful and universal medium of mind control that it quickly became.

Without television Katherine Corcoran's little girl could have reached for the White Barbie doll without a trace of angst. Without television Field Marshall Montgomery's admirers wouldn't have to be apologizing for him. Without television Bill Clinton would be simply another crooked lawyer in Little Rock, defending small-time drug dealers.

Of course, it's really misleading to blame television as a medium for Political Correctness. That's like blaming Smith and Wesson or Colt for drive-by shootings. The ones to be blamed are the members of that Hollywood tribe who got their dirty hands on television right from the beginning, elbowed everyone else aside, and with an unfailing tribal instinct began using the new medium to inject their spiritual poison into our people. But, you know, that's a subject we've talked about often enough already on American Dissident Voices.

We ought to conclude our talk today by resolving that we will not continue sitting on our hands while that filthy tribe poisons the souls of seven-year-old girls: that we will do whatever we must do to end their control of the minds and souls of our people.

© 1999 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