Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page
We work toward our goal by educating the public and by recruiting from that portion of the public which responds positively to our educational effort. With the new members we gain we are able to enhance our educational effort and reach more people. But we do have problems that make our task very difficult. I'll tell you about one of those problems.
In our recruiting efforts we usually find it easier to recruit people at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder than at the top. A man who used to work in a chicken-plucking plant and has just been replaced by a Mexican willing to work for half as much is fairly easy to recruit. He feels personally injured by the government's immigration policies. He has lost his employment and is concerned about his future. He understands that we really do have a problem in America which needs fixing.
And we do recruit some unemployed White chicken-pluckers, but not as many as you'd think. For one thing we don't direct our recruiting effort primarily toward chicken-pluckers. We try much harder to recruit teachers and engineers and successful businessmen, because they have the skills and the character traits we need to do our work successfully. Furthermore, they already wield much more influence than the average chicken-plucker, and we need all the influence we can get.
Another factor which keeps the percentage of chicken-pluckers fairly low among the members of the National Alliance is that many chicken-pluckers don't have as much inclination to be concerned about long-range problems as the better educated and more successful members of our society do. We aren't able to offer the unemployed chicken-plucker an opportunity to get his job back any time soon, and that's his main concern; we're only able to give him an opportunity to work for the long-term interests of his people.
And for these reasons we have many more teachers and engineers than unemployed chicken-pluckers among our members -- but the unfortunate fact is that we have far fewer than we need. Considering the crisis situation our people are facing, you'd think that all of the best and the brightest would be rushing to join the National Alliance, but we find that only a minority of the most intelligent and successful White Americans are responsive to our recruiting efforts. Why is that?
Well, certainly, part of the problem is moral corruption. Being smart and successful doesn't automatically make our people responsible or altruistic. Many of them are concerned only about themselves. As long as the present system is feeding them well, they don't care about anything else. But there's more to it than moral corruption. Part of our recruiting problem is that even many very bright people are not as rational as we'd hope. Their thinking is limited by certain psychological obstacles.
For example, one of the pieces of recruiting material we've distributed most widely is a little three-inch by five-inch card which has the simple message:
Earth's most endangered species -- the White race: help preserve it.
Many people have responded favorably to this message, but many more haven't, because they can't think of our race as being endangered. They think to themselves, "We don't need preserving. We've always been able to take care of ourselves. We're the most powerful race on earth. We have more wealth and power and prestige than any other race, by far. We are a favored race, a privileged race. We're on top. In America we're the majority race. The richest man in America is White. Most of the big corporation executives are White. Most members of the Congress are White. All of our Presidents have been White. So why are you raising the alarm about the need for us to preserve the White race? We don't need to be concerned about that. It's not a real danger.
Actually, it's not so much that they think that; it's that they feel that. As I said, the problem is more psychological than intellectual. White people -- White Americans, in particular -- have developed a certain habit of thought, a certain psychological attitude based, I believe, in a long tradition of excessive comfort and luxury. They have the feeling that for White people to be concerned today about the growing power of non-White minorities is a bit like a Southern plantation owner 200 years ago being concerned that his Black field slaves were getting too much to eat. A plantation owner should not be so stingy. Raising the alarm about non-Whites flooding across our borders today is like White railroad workers 125 years ago complaining about the railroad bosses importing Chinese coolies to take their jobs because the coolies would work for less. It seems to middle-class Whites today such a petty thing. It's unworthy of us to complain, undignified. We are the bosses, the owners, the lords of the manor. It lowers our status to begrudge non-Whites a better life. It makes us seem less powerful, less lordly -- it makes us seem weak and timid -- to express concern about the threat posed by non-Whites. Aristocrats don't have such concerns; just peasants do. I have a suspicion that many French aristocrats had a similar attitude in 1788 or thereabouts. The rabble want bread? We don't begrudge them their bread; let them eat cake!
That's certainly not a perfect analogy. We aren't concerned primarily about a violent revolution or a violent political uprising by Blacks or Mexicans. Actually, we would welcome that. It would snap middle-class Whites out of their "let them eat cake" attitude. We're concerned about the long-range effects of having non-Whites on our turf. We're concerned much more about the effects they're having on our culture and our morality than the effect they're having on the crime statistics and the employment opportunities for White chicken-pluckers. What we're most concerned about is the effect non-Whites will have on our genes. We don't want them breeding with us. But again, to many middle-class Whites such a concern is infra dig. Their attitude is based more on a fear of losing status than it is on whacky liberal notions about equality.
And as I said, this comes in part from the idea that truly superior people don't need to be afraid of people of lower status; that we should, in fact, be especially benevolent to our lessers: the old idea of noblesse oblige. But there's more to it. The Jews have used their control of the media to create certain images in the public mind, and one of their most effective creations is the image of the White racist. He is portrayed as a Neanderthal whose knuckles drag on the ground, a violent and hateful person who lives in a trailer with a yard full of derelict cars, has no education, does only manual labor, and hates Blacks because that makes him feel better about himself. We've all seen a thousand editorial cartoons portraying White racists just that way.
And, as in many lies, there is a bit of half-truth mixed in there. It is the White chicken-pluckers who are most seriously impacted by Blacks, Mexicans, and other non-Whites. The CPAs and engineers are above it all at the moment -- it hasn't caught up with them yet, though it soon will -- but the White chicken-plucker is out of a job now, and he's angry about it. It's the unskilled working-class White who is most immediately threatened, both economically and socially, when the government pushes Affirmative Action programs and forced housing programs and opens our borders to the Third World.
Back in the 1960s and 1970s, during the most violent phase of the so-called "civil rights" demonstrations, the TV news cameras always focused on the unshaven, pot-bellied White guy in a dirty undershirt with a cigarette dangling from his mouth, his face contorted in anger, standing on the sidewalk and screaming obscenities at the Blacks marching in the street. This was the White chicken-plucker who had just lost his job. He was a real person, even though people in his situation made up only a small minority of those opposed to the forced racial mixing of America in the 1960s and 1970s. The point is that he was a low-class person, a low-status person, and the media chose him as their White racist poster boy. He was the one the cameras always zoomed in on. They crafted their image of the White racist consciously and deliberately, and it worked. This image -- the image of the angry, unemployed White chicken-plucker standing on the sidewalk and screaming obscenities at Black demonstrators -- has been pounded into the public consciousness, and it's a low-class image. Middle-class Whites are frightened to death of being viewed as part of this image. It would be a sure loss of status.
When Bill Gates gives hundreds of millions of dollars to various Black causes, he may be motivated in part by the calculation that he will curry favor with the Clinton government, with the Jews in the Department of Justice who are trying to dismantle his company, and with the Jews in the media. I happen to believe that's a mistaken calculation on his part. I believe that they will continue their effort to break up Microsoft and clip Bill Gates' wings. But the relevant point here is that Gates can give as much money as he wants to specifically Black causes -- even to something as utterly wrongheaded as a project to reduce the Black death rate in Africa by vaccinating Black infants -- without any loss of status. If, however, he were to give any money at all to a specifically White cause -- for example to a project to raise White racial consciousness in order to reduce the rate of interracial marriage -- he definitely would lose status. Not only would any specifically White effort be seen by many of his peers as a violation of noblesse oblige, but the media Jews would paint him into the same frame with the angry, unemployed White chicken-plucker. They would use their image of the White racist against him.
So how should we deal with this? Well, one thing we certainly will do is continue our educational effort. We will continue to reach out to all of our people, rich and poor, middle-class and working-class. We'll continue to keep them aware of the destructive policies of the Clintionistas and the media bosses. We'll continue to raise the alarm about the immigration disaster, about the growing rate of miscegenation, about the darkening of America, about the deliberate subversion of our morality and our culture. We'll continue to try to make everyone think about these things, to be concerned about them, and to accept responsibility for the future of our people.
And a growing minority of our people will continue to respond to us. But as long as our outreach is limited to an essentially intellectual message -- as long as we are asking people to respond to facts and ideas -- we can expect a positive response only from a minority. To move the majority we need to be able to craft and use emotional images the way the Jewish media bosses do. We need to be able to make people feel -- not just to understand, but also to feel -- that the low-class thing is to continue to ignore what the government and the media are doing to our people, that the low-class thing is to continue to shirk responsibility for the future of our people.
Crafting and using emotional images is much easier when you have Hollywood or a major television network at your disposal. We haven't gotten to that point yet but we're working on it. And there's certainly no shortage of opportunities waiting for us. For example, the murders of White people in Rhodesia continue, and the murders are being committed now in the cities as well as on the farms and in the rural areas. On Wednesday of last week a gang of Black supporters of dictator Robert Mugabe attacked a White man on a busy street corner in Bulawayo, Rhodesia's second largest city. While bystanders watched without attempting to interfere, the Blacks beat, kicked, and strangled the White man. When he was dead they danced around his body, and one of them made a call on a cell phone and boasted that they had just killed another White. Incidents of this sort -- the killing of Whites by Black mobs, the trashing and burning of White farmhouses, the torture and killing of the pets of White farm families -- all of these horrible things have been filmed by news crews, because the Blacks are quite proud of what they're doing and are happy to be on film. These films are full of dynamite images: much more emotional stuff than some low-class White guy in a dirty undershirt being used as a negative status symbol for White racists. Let me give saturation TV coverage to these images from Rhodesia on all of the networks here for a few months, and I could put a substantial crimp in the miscegenation rate here.
Here's another example: the commerce in White sex slaves is booming, and the Jewish control of this commerce is more open than ever. I've spoken on my broadcasts about the White slave trade, and there was even a brief report on ABC television a couple of years ago. The television report even had interviews with some of the Jewish slave traders in Israel. There was no attempt by ABC to use images that would make Jews look bad, of course, but the potential certainly is there. After this ABC report the Israelis decided to try to clean up their act by outlawing the buying and selling of slaves in Israel. It was embarrassing to the Jews to have it publicized that the slave trade is protected by law in Israel. Well, the Jews still haven't outlawed the White slave trade in Israel, but they're debating the matter in the Knesset, in the Israeli legislature, now. The fact of the matter is that there's so much money being made by the Jews in kidnapping young Gentile girls from Ukraine and Russia and Poland and forcing them to become sex slaves in Israel that they are reluctant to put any crimp in their business. And the White slave trade has a very long history among the Jews, going back more than 2,000 years. So at the moment it's still legal in Israel to buy and sell slaves -- as long as they're not Jews.
Instead of cleaning this up, the Jews are simply trying to cover it up. There was a big international women's rights conference going on in New York, at Columbia University, this week. The conference addressed itself to such problems as wife-burning in India, genital mutilation of women in Africa, and violence against women elsewhere. I saw the news coverage of this conference on three channels, and none of them mentioned the Jewish slave trade in women from eastern Europe. None of them mentioned the buying and selling of kidnapped women in Israel. None of them mentioned the flourishing business in forced prostitution carried on by Jewish organized-crime gangs from the former Soviet Union. Instead they pointed to three countries they accused of being against women's rights. Those countries were Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Vatican. So what do you think? Is the Vatican really more hostile to the protection of women than Israel? Does the College of Cardinals try to justify the White slave trade the way the Knesset does? I think not, but you'd never guess that from watching this week's news coverage of the women's rights conference, in which the Vatican was named as an enemy of women's rights and Israel wasn't mentioned.
If you'd like to see some emotional images, let me direct a few filmed interviews with some of these White sex slaves who've been kidnapped from a village in eastern Europe, taken to Israel, and forced into prostitution. Some of them are beautiful, young girls still in their teens. Let me do a few interviews with these teenagers choking back tears as they describe what has happened to them: the rapes and the beatings and the Israeli police laughing at them when they sought help. Let me do a few interviews with their Jewish owners and exploiters. Many of these Jews aren't even embarrassed: "Vell, it's a business. Ve are businessmen. Vot do you expect, already?" Let me craft a few images from these interviews and saturate the television screens of America with these images for a while, and I'll guarantee you that not only will the billions of dollars going to Israel every year from the U.S. Treasury come to a halt, but the FBI suddenly will discover the Jewish organized crime gangs in the United States, which during the past decade have become more powerful and dangerous than the Mafia ever was. The FBI suddenly will decide that it no longer has to pretend that these Jewish organized crime gangs aren't really a problem. The FBI will decide that half of these Jewish crime bosses being so-called "Holocaust" survivors is not really an excuse to let them continue to get away with murder.
So here's the point: whoever is able to control the images presented to the public -- whoever is able to design and craft these emotional images that appeal to basic instincts and then is able to hold the images up to public view -- whoever is able to do that can control the public's attitudes -- and the way the public votes. In any country that's a lot of power. In a democracy such as the United States it amounts to virtually total control. And unfortunately it's largely hidden control, behind-the-scenes control. That's why you hear me keep coming back to the subject of Jewish media control in America.
That's why you hear me say over and over again that we must break this Jewish media control. That's why all of my efforts and the efforts of my organization, the National Alliance, have gone into building a multimedia machine for reaching the American public with an independent voice. And that's why the most powerful Jewish pressure group in America, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, held a big press conference this week and once again declared me the most dangerous man in America. I am dangerous to them because I am telling you and many thousands of other Americans about the simple but very important things we talked about today and that we talk about every week.
And listen! You also can be dangerous to these enemies of our people. Just talk with your friends and neighbors about the things I talk about with you. Let's all try to be as dangerous as we can.
Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page