Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page
I first read 1984 in 1955 when I was a graduate student and found it so fascinating that I reread it at least three times in subsequent years. What fascinated me about the novel was the feeling that I had, while reading it each time, that it not only was prescient, that it not only was telling me things about the future that I felt were likely to come about, but it also was revealing to me very fundamental things about the nature of people and governments: things that I had not been taught elsewhere because they were Politically Incorrect -- although the term "Politically Incorrect" had not yet been coined.
Here's an example: Orwell talks about the ideological regimentation of the English public by the government. People were punished not only for doing or writing or saying something Politically Incorrect; they were punished for thinking Politically Incorrect thoughts: "thought crime," it was called. The Thought Police were the all-powerful enforcers of Political Correctness. In 1984, there also was another type of crime for which people were punished: it was called "face crime," and a person committed a "face crime" if he had a Politically Incorrect expression on his face at any time. For example, if a person smiled when he should have frowned, or showed distaste or disapproval when he should have shown admiration, then he had committed a "face crime" and could be severely punished.
Well, that's only fiction, but in the real world a little over a decade ago Jewish organizations and the media began their big push to have all sorts of "hate crime" legislation enacted in America. "Hate crime," of course, is essentially "thought crime." "Hate crime" legislation punishes a person for what he supposedly was thinking at the time he committed some act. The politicians predictably put up almost no resistance. The Jews demanded it, so the politicians went along with it and began passing the laws that the Jews wanted. The Sally Soccer Moms and the Joe Sixpacks also thought "hate crime" laws were good things. Who wants to be in favor of hate? Outlaw it, get rid of it.
I've spoken often in these broadcasts about the Orwellian nature of the program to enact more "hate crime" laws. It was largely in connection with the mindless willingness of the public to go along with this trashing of their most fundamental freedoms that I began using the term "lemming" to describe people who believe whatever they are told to believe by their television screens and who then adjust their attitudes and opinions accordingly. Orwell also clearly understood this aspect of human nature. He understood that most people are susceptible to thought control by the media and by the government. He understood that no matter how repressive a government becomes, most people will never think of rebelling or even want to rebel, as long as they believe that most other people approve of the government.
I found this aspect of Orwell's book most interesting and also most profoundly depressing: his portrayal of the ease with which the thinking of the public can be controlled by the government and the media. Prior to absorbing the message of Orwell's 1984, I'd had a rather idealistic view of people -- that is, of my people, my fellow White men and women. I had thought of the White public as being comprised of a mass of individuals, each able to think for himself and make his own decisions about the world around him. I had thought that if it were clear to me that the government is corrupt and is not serving the interests of our people, then all I had to do to persuade other people that the government does not deserve their support is show them the evidence. I thought that most other people could reach rational decisions about such matters. But when I read 1984, I had the nagging conviction that Orwell was right about the nature of most people, and I was wrong. Orwell's portrayal of people had the ring of truth.
For a long time, however, I resisted accepting Orwell's view of the nature of the public because I didn't want to accept it. I wanted to keep my idealistic view of my fellow men. But eventually my own observations and my reason convinced me that Orwell was right, and that most people are, in fact, not individuals at all, but are lemmings.
I thought about the implications of that quite a bit, and I finally decided that it wasn't necessarily a bad thing. If the race had evolved that way, then it must have been for a reason. It must have survival value. And, of course, it does. We are able to have stable societies only because most people are lemmings: only because most people think and act only as members of the mass, not as individuals. In a time of war, for example, it is essential for a community or a nation to be united in its thinking. That's one of the reasons that multiculturalism weakens a nation. That's one of the reasons I've condemned as traitors the people trying to keep America's borders open to the Third World, trying to bring more "diversity" to America. They are weakening America, damaging America.
Anyway, lemminglike behavior was one thing before the age of television; it's something with quite different consequences when the powerful tool of television is in the hands of an alien minority with its own agenda, with its own interests, which in many cases are diametrically opposed to the interests of our people. My own concern, all of my work, has not been to change the nature or the behavior of our people; it has been to liberate them from the destructive influences that take advantage of our people and that manipulate them in ways opposed to their own interests. That's why I've focused so much on the all-important fact of Jewish media control.
Let me go back to Orwell's 1984 and to its all too prophetic descriptions of a government enforcing laws against "thought crime," and the people going along with this sort of ideological regimentation without complaint. Remember Orwell's description of "face crime"? I have on my desk a news report from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch last week. It's about an 11-year-old fifth grader at a St. Louis-area school who was suspended from school last week for smiling inappropriately. The news story is headed, "School suspends boy who drew picture of attack, then grinned while showing it."
The boy's class had been given the assignment of writing about the September 11 attack. The boy drew a sketch of the twin towers of the World Trade Center with flames and smoke coming from the upper floors. The principal of the boy's school asked to see the drawing. The boy, Paul Volz, showed it to the principal and smiled. The principal, Jeff Boyer, suspended Paul form school and sent him home with a note. The principal's note to Paul's father read:
When I asked him why he did this, he just looked at me and smiled. This is totally inappropriate, and Paul's behavior has to change.
Paul's father complained to the newspaper, and a reporter tried to contact the principal, but the principal refused to return his call. The reporter then contacted a spokesman for the school district, Ben Heit. Heit told the reporter that it was Paul's smile, not the drawing itself, that brought the suspension. All of this is in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of October 4.
Think about this story for a minute. I believe that most of us think of the attack on the World Trade Center as a very serious matter. Certainly, 6,000 people being killed is not a laughing matter for most of us. Paul Volz's smiling about the picture he drew may very well have indicated that the 11-year-old boy didn't take the attack seriously. But you know, in America, we used to be free to make up our own minds about what we would take seriously and what we wouldn't. When a neighbor -- or an 11-year-old kid -- didn't agree with us about what should be smiled at and what shouldn't, that was nobody's business but his. We couldn't sic the FBI on him -- or suspend him from school. It's clear that Paul's principal believes that that view of things is old-fashioned. He believes that the time has come when it is appropriate to punish people for "face crimes."
My concern is that many Sally Soccer Moms and Joe Sixpacks feel the same way about it that Principal Jeff Boyer does. In this case, I suspect that the war hysteria being drummed up by the media emboldened the principal to act as he did. I'm concerned that before this war is over, people like Principal Boyer, with an Orwellian Thought Police mentality, will use the war to justify many more 1984-style curtailments of our freedom. The media bosses have been preaching for years that the First Amendment was never meant to protect "offensive speech" or speech that hurts other people's feelings: "hate speech" they call it. And there are literally millions of American voters who have let themselves be persuaded to go along with that view. Who needs "hate speech"? they think. It just hurts people's feelings and stirs them up against other people. Who wants to be in favor of speech that hurts people's feelings? Outlaw it, get rid of it. And what better time for the media bosses and their political lackeys in the government to push for new "speech crime" laws than when America is at war? Americans need to be united now, they say. We need to pull together. We must not have people saying things that divide us. That only serves the purpose of the enemy. So let's outlaw "hate speech" now. And simultaneously with this campaign to destroy our most basic freedoms, they tell us that we need to wage war against the enemies of our "freedom and democracy" in the Middle East. I'll bet they're really laughing up their sleeves about that.
And really, don't they have a right to laugh at us, to feel contempt for us? They use our democracy -- that is, our electoral system, in which the lemmings, whose opinions they control through their television, are used to put their approved politicians into public office -- to take away our freedom, and they use our people to help them do it. And they facilitate the whole process by getting us to fight a war against their enemies in the Middle East, telling us that it's a war to safeguard our "freedom and democracy." Wise men, such as George Orwell, warned us about this sort of thing more than 50 years ago, but if we judge by people like Principal Jeff Boyer and school board official Ben Heit, the warnings haven't helped much.
Clear indications of the contempt they feel for us and of their confidence in their ability to continue manipulating us for their own purposes are visible in many places, but probably nowhere more than in Israel itself. There's been a lot of discussion among the Israeli politicians in the Knesset during recent weeks about how to take the best advantage of the September 11 attack on New York and Washington. The Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, is all in favor of carrying out a massive program of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians while the Americans are preoccupied with annihilating the Jews' other enemies in the Middle East. Simon Perez, a former prime minister and currently Israel's foreign minister, favors a more cautious policy -- at least, in public he favors caution.
The discussion between Sharon and Perez is almost like a bad cop, good cop routine. Sharon is a certified war criminal, a professional terrorist with a record much longer than that of Osama bin Laden, and a mass murderer, who is currently defying the efforts of an international war crimes tribunal in Brussels to put him on trial for organizing the butchery of Palestinian women and children in the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps in Lebanon in 1982. His principal constituency among Israeli Jews is the raving-mad Orthodox element and the Jewish settlers in the so-called "occupied territories." Perez, a member of the Labor Party, appeals more to the rootless, cosmopolitan, pseudo-liberal Jewish element and pretends to be in favor of the badly misnamed "peace process."
Deception characterizes nearly everything that the Israelis do publicly. Privately, the Jews in both the Sharon and the Perez camps are enormously pleased by the September 11 attack on New York and Washington and by the Bush government's declaration of war against Israel's enemies in the Middle East. Sharon, however, pretends to be angry about the American efforts to build a coalition of so-called "moderate" Arab states to help in the war against Afghanistan and Iraq. Sharon blusters that the Bush government is trying to "sell Israel out" by making agreements with Arab states. These agreements may later turn out to be disadvantageous to Israel, Sharon complains.
Sharon is a master of what the Jews proudly call "chutzpah," which is a combination of incredible arrogance and spectacular brazenness mixed with a breathtaking degree of bald-faced deceit. American long-term support for Israel's aggression led to the attack of September 11 in which 6,000 Americans were killed; America then launched a war to destroy Israel's enemies in the Middle East under the guise of "fighting terrorism" and protecting America's "freedom and democracy," and Sharon complains that we're doing it at Israel's expense! It's the old Jewish trick of never being satisfied, no matter how much is given to them: of always complaining that they don't have enough and demanding more, as if we owe it to them! If we remind them of how much we already have done for them, of how many sacrifices we already have made for them, the response is an expression of injured innocence and, "Yes, but vot haff you done for us today?"
Really, one hardly can blame them. I don't know who coined the saying, "Never give a sucker an even break," but the Jews certainly have taken it to heart. That is quite evident to anyone monitoring these Knesset discussions. Most of the discussions can be found in Jewish Telegraphic Agency or Reuters news reports, but some of the most lurid discussions are not reported in print. The week before last, the Hebrew-language Jerusalem radio station Kol Yisrael -- that's Hebrew for "all Israel" -- reported one debate that I have not found in print anywhere. According to Kol Yisrael, Sharon and Perez were discussing the Israeli government's actions against the Palestinians. Perez was arguing that the Israelis should at least maintain the pretense of seeking an end to the violence in order to keep the Americans happy. Sharon turned angrily to Perez and shouted:
Every time we do something, you warn me that America will do this or America will do that. I will tell you something very clearly: don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.
This outburst from Sharon was followed by another warning from Perez that Sharon should be careful not to say such things. Clearly, when Sharon said that the Americans know that the Jews control their country, he wasn't talking about the Sally Soccer Moms and the Joe Sixpacks, who don't know anything they aren't told by television. He was talking about the politicians and the bureaucrats: about George Bush and Bill Clinton and the rest of the crowd that always has done Israel's bidding.
I'm reminded of something that happened 25 years ago, when General George Brown was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He was showing an Israeli delegation some new, high-tech American weapons. The Israelis said they wanted them. General Brown told them that they weren't available for export, that the Congress hadn't approved them for use by anyone except the United States. The Israelis replied arrogantly, "Don't you worry about the Congress. We'll take care of the Congress." And, of course, they did. They got the weapons they wanted. And General Brown got in a lot of trouble and was even accused of "anti-Semitism" for telling others about this incident.
You know, we have a big, big problem here in America. The problem is not that people all over the world hate our guts and are willing to sacrifice their own lives in order to inflict damage on us. The problem is not that we are subjected to terrorist attacks with hijacked airliners or with deadly biological warfare agents such as anthrax. We could lose a lot of people to terrorist attacks and still survive as a nation.
The problem is not terrorism. The problem is that we have lost control of our own government. Our government no longer responds to our needs; instead it responds to the demands of an alien minority and has done this for a long time. It's even worse than that. The Jews' control of our mass media of news and entertainment, which has enabled them to gain control of the politicians and the government, has weakened -- really sickened -- our whole people. In order to gain control of the government they first had to subvert our people. They had to change our beliefs and our attitudes. They had to distract our attention from the important things and get us preoccupied with unimportant things. They had to make us forget our values and traditions. They had to break down our pride and independence. They had to change the way we raise our children. They had to subvert our educational system and our churches and other institutions, one at a time. They had to confuse us and make us feel guilty for being what we were. They had to make us ashamed of our forefathers. They had to make us afraid to say in public what we felt about our own people and about others. They had to corrupt our political system, the way we chose our leaders. And then they were able to take control of our government and use us for their own purposes.
I've been preaching about this for more than 30 years -- about the effects of Jewish television on our people. I've been writing about it in books and in pamphlets and in leaflets. It was more than 25 years ago when I wrote my book The Turner Diaries, warning about what would happen to America. I've been warning about it on the Internet. I've been talking about it every week in the American Dissident Voices broadcasts. Many people listened. Many people agreed with me. But they thought that they didn't have to do anything. They thought that they could sit it out. But nobody can sit out what is happening to America now. We are beginning to pay the price for allowing ourselves to be subverted, for giving up control of our government, of our destiny. We are beginning to pay the price for letting ourselves, our nation, be used by an alien minority to advance their own interests at the expense of ours.
We are beginning to pay the price, and before we have finished paying the price we will discover that it is a heavy price indeed. Bombing the whole Middle East flat will not solve our problem. Our problem is here, not in Afghanistan or in Iraq. What Osama bin Laden gave us on September 11 was just a wakeup call. What the people mailing out anthrax-infected letters are giving us is just a reminder that we can have no real security -- in fact, no real future for our children and our grandchildren -- until we regain control of our own government. You must not believe the generals and the politicians who tell you confidently from your television screens that, if we just use enough cruise missiles and smart bombs and kill enough of the Jews' enemies in the Middle East, we'll be safe again. Americans will never again have real security or real peace of mind until they have regained control of their government and their media.
Let's get started!
Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page