Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page
If you saw the 60 Minutes II interview last week this will be easier for you, but I'll try to make things clear even to those who didn't see the interview. Mike Wallace and I talked about various things in last week's interview. We talked about my music company, Resistance Records; we talked about the Oklahoma City bombing and who was responsible for it; we even talked about the role of the Jews in destroying American society; and of course, we agreed on nothing. I tried my best to be civil throughout the interview, however, and I believe that I succeeded in that. Looking at the interview objectively, I was polite, and I expressed myself in a reasonable and calm manner. The principal thing I expressed in last week's interview was my concern about the increasing alienation of our young people, about the alienating influences in our society -- influences such as MTV, which is part of the same Jewish media conglomerate for which Mike Wallace works. I pointed out that my own efforts were aimed at countering these alienating influences and helping our young people find their roots.
Mike Wallace's reaction to me was that I was expressing "hatred" and that my "mouthings" are "vile" to him, as a Jew. To him my concern for my people, for their welfare and their survival, are "hatred" and are "vile." I find it remarkable that he should express himself so forthrightly in front of the huge television audience that we had, that he should make so clear the profound difference between my aims, as a White American, and his aims, as a Jew -- and in the interview last week he explicitly identified himself as a Jew. One might have expected him to say the things he said if the television audience were entirely or even mostly Jewish. But of course, it's not. Jews make up only two and a half per cent of the U.S. population and probably about the same percentage of the people who were tuned to 60 Minutes II last week.
Mike Wallace is a Jew, with the very special biases and viewpoints Jews have, but he also is a very experienced showman. He has been doing 60 Minutes interviews for many years, and he certainly should be aware of the makeup of his audience. During both his interviews with me was assuming that most Americans agree with him: that most Americans believe that to express concern for the alienation of our young people is "hatred." He was assuming that any expression of disagreement with the policies of his boss, Sumner Redstone, who is using MTV to popularize "rap" and other elements of Black culture among young Whites and to encourage young White girls to have sex with Blacks -- he was assuming that my expression of disagreement with these policies is "vile" to the American people, to the television audience. In fact, Mike Wallace went so far as to say that I'm insane for having the views that I have. In the interview five years ago he actually called me a "nut" on the air, and in last week's interview he had one of his cohorts, Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center, come on the air and tell everyone that I'm crazy for believing what I believe.
Now, if I had no contact with the American public besides television, I might be worried that Mike Wallace is right, and that my views are vile to most Americans, and that maybe I am crazy for expressing vile views in public. But I do have other ways of knowing what people are thinking besides watching television. Unfortunately, however, that's not the case with most Americans. Most Americans learn what the public is thinking by watching television. On their TV screens they see reporters stopping people on the sidewalk and asking them what they think about some current event or some government policy, and they believe they're getting a genuine sampling of public opinion, whereas in many cases they're not.
I can go out with a cameraman and do 20 sidewalk interviews. Then when I get back to my studio I can select the three that express the opinion I want the public to believe is the majority opinion and discard the 17 that express contrary opinions. Or if I want to be a bit more subtle in my deception, I can save one of the contrary opinions and put it with the three that say what I want the public to believe, making it look as if 75 per cent of the public have the approved opinion -- that is, three out of four -- instead of the 15 per cent -- that is, the three out of 20 -- which actually expressed that opinion. Most people want to have whatever opinions they believe most other people have. They don't want to have unpopular opinions. They are afraid of being considered odd or different or out of step with everyone else.
That's why skewing the reporting of exit polls can influence the outcome of an election. If the TV reporters tell you early on election day, shortly after the polls have opened, "It looks like Tweedledee is winning by a landslide; nine out of ten voters leaving the polls are saying they voted for Tweedledee" -- if the reporter tells you that, and if you are an average person who hadn't really made up his mind yet, when you go to vote later that day you're more likely to vote for Tweedledee than if you hadn't already been told that most other people are voting for him. Even if you'd been leaning toward Tweedledum, you might change your mind and vote for Tweedledee instead, just to be on the winning side.
Even more effective in deceiving the public as to what other people are thinking is television entertainment. If a leading character -- an alpha character -- in a TV show expresses an opinion, and the other characters agree with him or praise him for his opinion, you are inclined to assign weight to that opinion. You are persuaded at a subconscious level that if you express that opinion yourself, you will gain approval from those around you. And if a character with low esteem expresses an opinion and is then ridiculed or criticized by the other characters for expressing that opinion, you will be persuaded that the opinion is an unpopular one, whether it actually is or not, and you will be less likely to express it yourself.
Is that the sort of thing Mike Wallace was trying to do when he called me a "hater" and a "nut" and said that my views are "vile"?
What do you think?
I think that is exactly what he was trying to do. And I'm sure that he succeeded with some of the people watching 60 Minutes II last week -- though with fewer members of the audience than five years ago, when I had my earlier interview with him. I say that because I have other ways of sampling public opinion than listening to what Mike Wallace says about it. For example, I mentioned last week that I was on Bob Grant's radio talk show in New York recently, and that three quarters of the callers agreed with me. I was surprised at that response myself, especially in New York.
Of course, seven or eight callers to the Bob Grant Show aren't sufficient for convincing statistics, but I've seen a number of other indications that the public is not quite as willing to march in ideological lockstep with Mike Wallace and Morris Dees as it was five years ago. On 60 Minutes II last week Wallace's buddy Dees estimated that perhaps two tenths of one percent of the public is out of step. That may have been true five years ago, but the actual figure today is more than ten times that: somewhere between two and five percent of the adult White population. Actually, White Americans are getting off the bandwagon of Political Correctness in droves.
I receive hundreds of letters every week from listeners, and dozens of those letters come from people who had been Politically Correct, people who had been willing to accept as true whatever lies were told them by Mike Wallace or Morris Dees or any other Politically Correct authority figures. They had believed the television image of the world and had tried to conform themselves to it, but no longer. They no longer believe the television lies; they no longer try to conform their ideas to the false image of public opinion presented by Mike Wallace and the rest. They have seen too many contradictions, too much evidence that the world isn't really the way their television tells them it is.
Of course, they should have seen that five years ago, ten years ago, 20 years ago. Television always has lied to us, presented to us a deliberately falsified image of the world and of public opinion. Television since its beginning in the 1950s has been solidly under Jewish control and has been used to promote a false image designed to benefit Jewish interests. From the beginning the American television audience has been told that all races are equal, that mixing of the races is good, and that anyone who disagrees is a "hater." The public, persuaded by television that everyone except a few despicable "haters" believed these things, tried hard to believe them itself. Most people tried to ignore the contradictions; they tried to ignore the evidence that the policies being promoted by the media and forced on them by the government were destroying their society. They tried to pretend that everything was getting better and better, that all the changes being promoted by the media and the government were "progress."
As the contradictions mounted, however, pretending became more and more difficult for many people. The real lemmings were still able to believe the image of the world they saw on their television screens and to ignore everything that contradicted that image, but the thinking minority gradually began to fall out of step. They saw on the one hand Bill Clinton's disgusting behavior in office, and on the other hand the media still treating him like a national leader and the majority of the public still willing to vote for him, and the thinking minority began to balk.
They had seen the Persian Gulf War on television and had asked themselves, "Is this war really necessary?" But they had been willing to go along with the crowd and not question the assurances they received from their television screens that the war really was necessary and good, and some of them even cheered along with the lemmings when Baghdad was bombed. But then a few years later when Madeleine Albright and Bill Clinton began bombing Belgrade and killing thousands of Serb civilians in order to force Serbia into submission to the New World Order the way Iraq had been forced into submission, and the media assured them that this new war also was necessary and good, they balked. The lemmings continued to cheer, but more and more of the thinking portion of the public fell out of step with them.
They had believed all of the "Holocaust" stories they had seen on their television screens in the 1970s and the 1980s, but in the 1990s, as the Jews more and more blatantly began demanding "reparations" from everyone in sight and the media supported every Jewish demand, they began to ask questions: Does the world really owe the Jews a living? Are the Jews really the only deserving victims of the Second World War? Why is it that the Jews are the only ones to receive reparations? What about all of the victims of the communists before, during, and after the war? Why don't we ever hear about them? Is someone trying to cover something up? Are the Jews really the innocent victims they claim to be?
Even the thinking minority had accepted the television portrayal of race relations. Blacks were basically good people who deserved to be integrated into White society, where they would be able to contribute much to the benefit of everyone, and we all would live happily together forever after. The only people who opposed the multiculturalizing of our society were violent, ignorant, White rednecks -- truly despicable people who spent their time bombing Black churches and dragging Blacks behind their pickup trucks. They overlooked the Black crime rate and the Black rioting and burning of American cities in the 1960s and accepted the media explanation of these things as justified expressions of Black anger provoked by White racism. But as White society bent over backwards further and further to give advantages to Blacks -- Affirmative Action in hiring and promotions; special quotas and lowered standards for admission to universities, and special scholarships and other aid after they were in -- and as it became clear that none of this favoritism was improving Black performance or Black behavior, thinking Whites began to wonder where it was all headed.
It took a while for the thinking minority of the White public to begin figuring things out because the mass media did everything possible to keep them confused, but gradually they began to notice things and put things together. They saw what happened to their neighborhoods when Blacks moved in. They saw what happened to their schools as the Black enrolment went up. They gradually began to see through the deceptive way in which the news media reported interracial crime, minimizing or even ignoring Black crimes against White victims while maximizing any White transgression against non-Whites.
Perceptive Whites noticed the unrelenting, hateful media pressure against White South Africa through the 1970s and 1980s and early 1990s, always painting White South Africans as evil and oppressive, always pushing for boycotts and other punitive measures against South Africa, and always pushing for the Whites who built South Africa to turn the government of their country over to the Blacks there. And they noticed the sudden loss of interest by the media in South Africa after the Whites there foolishly yielded to media pressure and gave their country to the Blacks. The perceptive Whites here found out, despite the sudden loss of media interest, about the surge in Black crime in South Africa: about the rapes of White women, the murder of White farmers, the reign of terror over their fellow Blacks by Black witch doctors. They found out, despite the media, about the sinking of South Africa back into the jungle, into savagery. They noticed, despite minimal media coverage, the seizing of White farms by the Black dictator in neighboring Rhodesia, now called "Zimbabwe." And they remembered how the media had assured them, more than 20 years ago, that everything would be much better in Rhodesia once the Blacks were allowed to rule there.
And much more recently, perceptive Whites in America have noticed the rioting by Blacks and Asians in England, they have noticed the rise in non-White crime and the attacks on Whites by non-Whites in England and the proliferation of Black and Asian gangs there. They have noticed the similarity between non-White behavior in America and South Africa and Rhodesia and England. They have noticed how this non-White behavior always becomes worse, not better, as the non-Whites gain political and economic power. They have noticed that the media always tell the same lies about racial conflict and make the same excuses for non-White behavior, no matter in what country it occurs. And they have wondered whether, perhaps, they are seeing a pattern that tells them something important about racial differences and about the motivations of the controlled media. They are wondering whether, perhaps, there is a lesson for them about what to expect in America if the present demographic trends are permitted to continue and to give us a non-White majority here in another few decades.
And the perceptive minority of White people notice other things too. They notice President Bush's obsequious behavior in the presence of Ariel Sharon, the Butcher of Beirut, during the latter's visit to the White House this week. Sharon, remember, is the Jewish war criminal who deliberately provoked the current violence in Palestine last year in order to improve his chances of becoming Israel's prime minister. Mr. Bush pretends to be very concerned about restoring peace to the Middle East, but it is obvious that he is simply dancing to whatever tune is played by the Jews. Any government that welcomes a creature such as Sharon -- any President who hugs such a creature for the television cameras -- can elicit only disgust from decent people, and there still are a few decent people left in America.
There's one other thing I'm sure is noticed by perceptive Americans. Every time I have been interviewed by the Jewish media during the past six years -- not just by Mike Wallace, but by all of them -- and the subject of the Oklahoma City bombing has come up, the suggestion is made that the reason Timothy McVeigh blew up the Federal building in Oklahoma City is that he read a novel that I wrote 25 years ago, The Turner Diaries, in which there is a fictional bombing of the FBI headquarters in Washington. This happened again last week: Mike Wallace implicitly blamed me for the Oklahoma City bombing because Tim McVeigh had read my book. I had to point out to him what should have been obvious to every perceptive American that what provoked the Oklahoma City bombing was not my book but the attack by the Clinton government -- by Bill Clinton and Janet Reno -- on the Branch Davidian church in Waco, Texas, exactly two years earlier.
McVeigh was outraged that the Clinton government had murdered 90 innocent people, mostly women and children, in the completely unjustified attack on the church. He had traveled to Waco during the FBI siege of the church and expressed his outrage there, he had said in court at the time of his sentencing what his motivation was, and he had explained his motivation in detail to writers who interviewed him later in prison. But the media people, Mike Wallace and all the rest of them, always cover for the Clinton government and try to place the blame on me instead. The lemmings don't notice that, but perceptive people do.
And as perceptive people notice more and more of these things, more and more of them fall out of step with Mike Wallace and Morris Dees and the whole structure of opinion control that the Jews have erected to keep White Americans in line and in step.
And I'll tell you one thing I noticed in watching the broadcast of my 60 Minutes II interview last week. I try to be objective when I view such things -- I try to put myself in the shoes of the average, intelligent member of the audience and see it as he would see it -- and my impression was that Mike Wallace and Morris Dees and CBS and the whole, rotten, Jewish structure of which they are part looked weak. They looked weaker and more vulnerable than I have ever seen them. When at the end of the interview Mike Wallace grinned his very Jewish grin and told me how vile my views are, he was speaking for his fellow Jews and for their liberal fellow travelers -- for the feminists and the homosexuals and the rest -- but he was speaking for fewer ordinary White Americans than ever before. And my impression was that that showed.
Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page